The Cool Blue Blog

Spinning the Mahdi's

The recent fighting in Basrah and Baghdad's Sadr City is the result of the Iraqi government finally taking action against Shi'ite militias the way they did against the Sunni militias. That Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army has been a tool for Iranian interests in Iraq for years is no secret. And the fact that al-Sadr has been in Iran for the past year is also a clue.

But to the Los Angeles Times, the current battle is a political war with the US "caught" in the middle

The biggest surprise about the raging battles that erupted last week in southern Iraq was not that the combatants were fellow Shiites, but that it took this long.

Enmity has long festered between the two sides: one a ruling party that has struggled against the widespread perception that it gained power on the back of the U.S. occupation, the other a populist movement that has positioned itself as a critic of the U.S.-backed new order.

As they vie for power before October provincial elections that will determine who controls the oil-rich south, the stakes are high not only for the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the largest Shiite faction in the Iraqi coalition government, and the Mahdi Army, the militia loyal to cleric Muqtada Sadr.

The conflict also poses great difficulties for the Americans, who are widely seen as siding with the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's Islamic Dawa Party against Sadr.

Um, how many ways could the LAT be wrong, disingenuous, or just outright lying?

Let's look first at how they characterize the two "sides"

one a ruling party that has struggled against the widespread perception that it gained power on the back of the U.S. occupation, the other a populist movement that has positioned itself as a critic of the U.S.-backed new order

The ruling Party, aka the Government and a "populist" movement aka Iranian proxies.

Now let me ask you if some group of armed force in the US started taking over cities by force of arms and they were armed and supported by a foreign government, would they be called a "populist" movement?

Would the fight between the Police, National Guard or the Army and this "populist" movement be characterized as a "political" struggle?

How ridiculous would that be?

Then they say

The conflict also poses great difficulties for the Americans, who are widely seen as siding with the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's Islamic Dawa Party against Party against Sadr.

So the US is siding with the elected government of Iraq against armed militants who have a political wing. Need I say, "Of course?"

The IRA had a political wing, and a militia wing. Was the actions of the armed militants, you know, blowing up Catholics and all, just a political dispute?

The fact is, the Iraqi Government whose Prime Minister is Nouri al Maliki, is using Government forces to put down armed militants. And they are doing this with US and British support.

They are not going after un-armed political rivals.

Is this so hard for the professional reporters of the LA Times to comprehend?

Now, as he has done in the past whenever is "Army" starts taking heavy casualties, al-Sadr is calling for a cease-fire. This after

358 Mahdi Army fighters were killed, 531 were wounded, 343 were captured, and 30 surrendered. The US and Iraqi security forces have killed 125 Mahdi Army fighters in Baghdad alone, while Iraqi security forces have killed 140 Mahdi fighters in Basrah...

From March 25-29 the Mahdi Army had an average of 71 of its fighters killed per day. Sixty-nine fighters have been captured per day, and another 160 have been reported wounded per day during the fighting. The US and Iraqi military never came close to inflicting casualties at such a high rate during the height of major combat operations against al Qaeda in Iraq during the summer and fall of 2007.

But as with the Tet Offensive, the Mahdi Army and what they represent must be spun and defeats turned into victories if the Press, and Iran, are ever going to hope to force the US to abandon Iraq.

And thereby assure that a Democrat takes the Oval Office in the Fall.

UPDATE: Austin Bay writes:

The Iraqi way often appears to be indecisive, until you learn to look at its counter-insurgency methods in the frame of achieving political success, instead of the frame of American presidential elections.

In southern Iraq and east Baghdad, Sadr once again lost street face. Despite the predictable media umbrage, this translates into political deterioration.

Think of the Iraqi anti-Sadr method as a form of suffocation, a political war waged with the blessing of Ayatollah Sistani that requires daily economic and political action, persistent police efforts and occasional military thrusts.

Al Qaida's Islamic enemy

Last week, the major new facility for Higher Learning opened in Khost Afghanistan

Located in Khost province, 200km away from the capital Kabul, the Zayed University was built at the cost of $4.8 million. It will offer courses in medicine, engineering, agriculture, technology, Islamic studies, arts, literature and education.

And it wasn't built by the Western countries; it was built by the United Arab Emirates

The university was built thanks to a generous grant by the late UAE President His Highness Shaikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan...

In remarks after the inauguration ceremony, Al Mazroui reiterated the UAE's commitment to help the Afghan people in health, education, reconstruction, and humanitarian spheres. He said the opening of the university underscored the commitment of Shaikh Khalifa to fulfil the vision of the late Shaikh Zayed.

But it turns out, that the UAE is doing much more than going around offering humanitarian aid. According to the BBC

The BBC's security correspondent, Frank Gardner, can reveal that Arab soldiers have been taking part in dangerous missions alongside US troops in Afghanistan.

Troops from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have been delivering humanitarian aid to their fellow Muslims and, on occasion, fighting their way out of Taleban ambushes. Though Jordanian forces have been carrying out some base security duties, the UAE's troops are the only Arab soldiers undertaking full-scale operations in the country.

Until now, their deployment has been kept so secret that not even their own countrymen knew they were here....

...these are not the only coalition troops giving out aid to Afghans. But what is really winning hearts and minds is the Islamic connection....

"We make a contract with the US Army to help the people down here, not to fight".

But I put it to him that in fact his troops have been fighting insurgents as well as handing out aid.

"If we have any types of personal attacks we react with fire. And after that we go to the elders in this area: 'Why are you shooting us? We came here to help you.

"'If you have the same picture of all coalition forces, we are different. We came here to help you.'

"And we try to convince the people about the US, about British. They came here to give you peace."

The same type of Counter-Insurgency (COIN) strategy operating in Iraq is the model here.

The Emirati approach is to meet their fellow Muslims' religious needs first, then build schools and clinics later.

But for this to have a wider, lasting, and national effect, the blueprint would need to be repeated and expanded by others, many times over and throughout Afghanistan.

And that is not likely to happen in the near future.

But the efforts put forth by the UAE is a great start and perhaps other Muslim nations will feel encouraged to help.

And there is no better advertisement for success than, well, success.

 

1st Lt. W. Bryan Jackson

Lt Jackson is only the seventh Soldier since the Vietnam War ended in 1975 to receive the Distinguished Service Cross for extraordinary heroism in action.

Called a hero by his former Task Force commander and later awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, 1st Lt. W. Bryan Jackson’s utter disregard for his own well-being likely saved the life of a fellow soldier, while jeopardizing his own.

Deeply involved in combat operations on September 27, 2006 in Anbar province, Iraq, Jackson attempted to recover a disabled vehicle when his unit was attacked by a hail of enemy machine gun fire, wounding several. Instead of seeking cover, he rushed to the aid of his injured first sergeant and began life-saving first aid.

An insurgent’s bullet ripped through his thigh, but did not take Jackson out of the fight. Regaining consciousness after the initial shock of the injury, Jackson’s first thought was about his severely wounded comrade. He alternated between returning fire on the suspected enemy position and administering first aid to his compatriot with life-threatening wounds. Ignoring his own severe injuries and relying on his tenacity and strength, Jackson carried his first sergeant to a Bradley Fighting Vehicle 30 feet away for evacuation. Even as he was hit a second time by enemy fire, Jackson never faltered in his aid. Once clear of the engagement and despite the severity of his own injuries, Jackson still refused medical aid until the man he helped save was treated.

The first words from Jackson after undergoing emergency medical evacuation and the first of several surgeries to come were of concern for the man he saved. For his injuries, his selfless courage under extreme enemy fire and extraordinary heroism in action, Jackson was awarded both the Purple Heart and the Distinguished Service Cross, becoming only the seventh soldier since 1975 to receive the later award.

Humbly, Jackson reflected: "I believe I just had to do what I had to do in that situation… I think many soldiers would have done the same thing."

His citation reads as follows

For extraordinary heroism in action while serving as a Company Fire Support Officer with Company A, Task Force 1-36 (1st Battalion, 36th Infantry Regiment), Multi-National Corps-Iraq, on 27 September 2006, while engaged in combat operations against an armed insurgent force in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, during Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. While recovering a disabled vehicle, Second Lieutenant Jackson's unit came under heavy enemy machine gun fire. Despite the danger, he applied first aid to a severely wounded comrade and was then hit in his thigh with a bullet. Upon regaining consciousness after being shot, Second Lieutenant Jackson alternated between returning fire and administering first aid to the Soldier. Second Lieutenant Jackson was hit again with machine gun fire as he helped carry his wounded comrade to safety, but he never faltered in his aid. Although his own severe wounds required immediate evacuation and surgical care, Second Lieutenant Jackson refused medical assistance until his wounded comrade could be treated. Second Lieutenant Jackson's selfless courage under extreme enemy fire were essential to saving another Soldier's life and are in keeping with the finest traditions of military service, reflecting great credit upon himself, Company A, Task Force 1-36 Infantry, and the United States Army.

Sgt Bellavia brings down the House

What else can I say? David Bellavia says it all.

SCOTUS v The World

The Supreme Court handed down a decision today in Medellin v Texas and the headlines are astonishing

USA Today: Court backs Texas in dispute with Bush

International Herald Tribune: High court overrules Bush on death penalty case

BBC: Bush overruled in death row case

Now one would think that even if the International Herald Tribune couldn't get the headline right, that at least the BBC would, because what the headlines should have said was "High Court overrules International Court of Justice on death penalty case".

Because that's what happened. Bush was incidental.

To recap

José Ernesto Medellín, a Mexican national, was convicted and sentenced to death by a Texas court for participating in the gang rape and murder of two girls in 1993.  After an unsuccessful appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he filed for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court, claiming for the first time that Texas officials had failed to notify him of his right to communicate with the Mexican consulate after his arrest, as required by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (the Consular Convention).  The Texas courts rejected his claim.  He then filed a federal habeas corpus petition, again raising the Consular Convention claim.

In 2004 the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in his case, to decide (a) whether a federal court is bound by the International Court of Justice’s ruling in the Avena case that courts in the United States must reconsider his claim for relief arising from the U.S. violation of the Consular Convention, or (b) whether a federal court should in any event give effect to the ICJ ruling as a matter of comity and uniform treaty interpretation.

Regarding this n February 28, 2005, President George W. Bush made the following determination

I have determined, pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States, that the United States will discharge its international obligations under the decision of the International Court of Justice in the Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), 2004 I.C.J. 128 (Mar. 31), by having state courts give effect to the decision in accordance with general principles of comity in cases filed by the 51 Mexican nationals addressed in that decision.

While at the same time pointing out that

"The president does not agree with the ICJ's interpretation of the Vienna Convention," the administration said in arguments filed with the court. This time, though, the U.S. agreed to abide by the international court's decision because ignoring it would harm American interests abroad, the government said.

Regardless of why Bush felt he had to defend the ICJ even though he disagreed with it, the Court had two things to consider.

a) Did Bush overstep his authority in telling Texas they had to adhere to the International Court of Justice's decision and

b) Does the ICJ ruling have jurisdiction over Texas (or anywhere in the US).

More precisely:

1. Did the President of the United States act within his constitutional and statutory   foreign affairs authority when he determined that the states must comply with the   United States’ treaty obligation to give effect to the Avena judgment in the cases of   the 51 Mexican nationals named in the judgment?

2. Are state courts bound by the Constitution to honor the undisputed international   obligation of the United States, under treaties duly ratified by the President with the    advice and consent of the Senate, to give effect to the Avena judgment in the cases   that the judgment addressed?

The Court, in a 6-3 Majority, decided Yes and No respectively; dealing a glancing blow to Bush but a significant blow to the authority of the ICJ.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the 6-3 majority, ruled that the ICJ finding was not binding because the Vienna Convention is an understanding between governments, a diplomatic compact. It was never intended to automatically create new individual rights enforceable domestically by international bodies. Texas's violation was of diplomatic protocols, and calls for a diplomatic remedy.

Treaty obligations, in other words, do not necessarily take on the force of law domestically. Rather, Congress must enact legislation for whatever provisions -- such as consular notification -- that it wants to make the formal law of the land. This distinction matters because it establishes a fire wall between international and domestic law. It also protects the core American Constitutional principles of federalism and the separation of powers. As Justice Roberts points out, the courts must leave to the political branches "the primary role in deciding when and how international agreements will be enforced."

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Supremacy of the US Constitution over "International" Law.

As a result, we all win.

Standing up

Michael Yon reports from Western Nineveh Province, Iraq

An Iraqi officer near Sinjar told me that recently a group of perhaps twenty “jihadists,” many of them foreign, descended on a Nineveh village. The Iraqi officer said the terrorists killed some adults and two babies. One baby they murdered was 15 days old.

Until recently, such terror attacks inside Iraq could have coerced the village into sheltering Al Qaeda. Yet this time, the “jihadists” got an unexpected reception. Local men grabbed their rifles and poured fire on the demons, slaughtering them. Nineteen terrorists were destroyed. Times have changed for al Qaeda here. Too many Iraqis have decided they are not going to take it anymore. Al Qaeda in Iraq is still fighting, and they are tough and wily, but al Qaeda Central seems to realize there are easier targets elsewhere, perhaps in Europe, where many people demonstrate weakness in the face of terror.

Al Qaeda was apparently not in Iraq before this war, and at the current rate they will not be here when it’s over. The Iraqi Army and Police are doing most of the work these days, but their own operations are significantly augmented by what we bring to the fight.

AFP reports from Basrah

Iraqi security forces fought raging battles with gunmen from radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Shiite militia in Basra on Tuesday amid a crackdown on armed groups in the southern oil city.

At least four people were killed and 18 wounded in the clashes, said police Major Abbas Youssef, as ambulances raced through the streets ferrying the wounded.

British military officials said Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was in Basra to personally oversee the major security force sweep in Iraq's second largest city, but that British troops were not taking part.

An AFP correspondent said fighting involving mortars, machine guns and assault weapons erupted soon after the security forces entered the Al-Tamiyah neighbourhood, a bastion of Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, at around 5:00 am (0200 GMT). The fighting quickly spread to five other Mahdi Army neighbourhoods.

Television pictures showed Iraqi troops running through the streets firing weapons and taking cover as ambulances raced past. Thick palls of smoke were seen rising above the city's skyline...

Police confirmed the start of the operation, dubbed Saulat al-Fursan (Charge of the Knights) which came after a 10:00 pm to 6:00 am curfew was slapped on the entire Basra province late on Monday.

"We began operations at 5:00 am. There is fighting between security forces and the Mahdi Army," said police spokesman Major Karim al-Zubaidi.

A spokesman for Sadr's office in Basra, Harith al-Athari, told AFP that the Sadrists wanted to end the stand-off.

"The situation is bad and we regret the fighting. We are ready for negotiations and want to calm things," he said...

After touring Basra on Monday, Maliki vowed his governmment would restore order, saying the city was experiencing a "brutal campaign" by internal and external groups targeting members of the scientific and religious communities "and other innocent men and women."

"This is accompanied by the smuggling of oil, weapons and drugs. The outlaws are finding support from within the state and outside. This is why Basra has become a city where civilians cannot even secure their lives and property," Maliki said in a statement.

"That has affected negatively the economic development. The federal Iraqi government... will restore security, stability and enforce law in this city."

Bill Roggio reports from Mosul

In Mosul, the Iraqi Army also lives a dual existence. As the Iraqi Army conducts operations to dismantle the terror networks in the city, it also builds for the future. The 4th Brigade, 2nd Iraqi Army Division seeks to expand its ranks while developing its noncommissioned officers, the backbone of any modern military. This is a difficult task to manage while fighting a brutal insurgency, but a necessary one as a professional army is required to successfully fight an insurgency.

To achieve these goals, the 4th Brigade has recruited its own soldiers, started an in-house training program, and plans to conduct its own training course for its noncommissioned officers.

From the Awakening movement, to the Concerned Local Citizens, to the Iraqi Army and police, Iraqi's are standing up for Iraq and and their own future.

Sgt Benjamin Marshall

Separated from his platoon and nearly surrounded by eight al Qaeda fighters, Sergeant Benjamin Marshall had a decision to make: run for cover, stranding his two pinned comrades; or sprint across enemy fire and assume a position to shoot back. Marshall chose the latter, in what he would later call the defining moment of his life.

July 7, 2006, during a mission in Tharthar, Iraq, Marshall, two fellow soldiers and an Iraqi interpreter entered a farmhouse; one of several they had been searching all day after receiving intelligence on a possible al Qaeda training camp in the area. After Marshall and one of his comrades, Staff Sergeant Christopher Schroeder, cleared the first room, an unknown man darted into another room, pointed his rifle out the doorway and blindly sprayed 7.62 rounds at the soldiers from his AK-47. Schroeder was hit twice. The two men on point, the wounded Schroeder and Sergeant Williams Wills, quickly sought cover in an adjacent room as a tremendous wall of automatic weapons fire began coming down on all three soldiers.

The interpreter got out of the house but Marshall knew his soldiers could not get out unless he was able to take up a firing position outside. Looking back, he said "I don't know how, but they never saw me." Marshall remembers he had to run right by the terrorists in an effort to get outside, only to find a position in a dilapidated chicken coop. The terrorists attempted to close in on Wills and Schroder's position, but Marshall's expertly aimed shots stopped them.

As the battle wore on, it became apparent to Marshall that these were well-trained and determined fighters. As the gunfire continued inside the house, Marshall could hear the fervent chanting of the al Qaeda fighters, but the fate of his men remained a mystery. After hearing a volley of grenades near his soldiers' last location, Marshall feared the worst. When he heard the thunderous clap of a flash bang grenade exploding near the insurgents’ position, only then did he breathe a sigh of relief.

As the platoon leader’s Humvee approached, Marshall shouted out the status of his injured brothers-in-arms to the vehicle’s gunner. His communication was critical, but it alerted the insurgents and drew fire onto his position. Round after round of machine gun fire ripped apart his thin cover, nearly taking his life. Yet becoming the insurgent's target was exactly the diversion Marshall had hoped for to take the pressure off his fellow soldiers. This maneuver enabled the injured soldiers to signal to the four U.S. gun trucks. A Humvee, now at Marshall’s position, provided him with cover to then pull up alongside the building to evacuate the other two American soldiers.

Not a day goes by when Marshall does not think of that life-changing experience in Tharthar. In a split second he made the decision to save the lives of his fellow soldiers rather than run for cover. He picked "the hard right over the easy left," and because of that was awarded the Bronze Star with "V" device for exceptionally meritorious heroism in July of 2007.                    

Fleeing Iraq

In yet another message from the Caveman Osama bin Laden, the Master of Misogyny, is heard condemning any talks of peace between Israel and "Palestine". What's more, he tells those who aspire to freeing Palestine to go to Iraq

Such a Palestinian fight in Iraq should be "concentrated on and supported by all Muslims, specially from neighboring countries," bin Laden added and also called on people of Syria, Lebanon Jordan and Saudi Arabia to "help in support of their mujahedeen brothers in Iraq, which is the greatest opportunity and the biggest task."

"The nearest field of jihad today to support our people in Palestine is the Iraqi field," bin Laden said.

"We tell our brothers in Palestine who could not join the jihad in the land of Al-Quds, to get rid of illusions of political parties and groups which are mired in trickery of the blasphemous democracy and to take their positions among the ranks of the mujahideen in Iraq," he said.

The US elections are coming and an Iraq equivalent of a Tet Offesive is in dire need if the Jihadists are going to win.

The biggest problem with this is that all the potential suicide bombers are fleeing Iraq

A growing number of foreign fighters are leaving or attempting to flee Iraq as U.S. and Iraqi forces have weakened al-Qaeda and forced its members from former strongholds, U.S. military officials say.

The trend reflects a broad disenchantment among foreign fighters, particularly since al-Qaeda has lost sanctuaries in parts of Baghdad and Anbar, a Sunni province west of the capital, U.S. military intelligence officials say.

"They're being told in their countries of origin by facilitators that, 'Hey, we're basically winning the war against the apostates,' " said Brig. Gen. Michael Flynn, intelligence director for Central Command, which oversees U.S. forces in the Middle East. "They go there and find out it's not quite the case."

What's more, word is getting back and al Qaeda recruiting stations throughout Africa are feeling the pinch

No one there wants to admit that al Qaeda has been beaten in Iraq, but the more first-hand accounts that show up, the more convincing the stories are. The truth is this. The al Qaeda volunteers have long been enticed by the prospect of killing American soldiers. That rarely happens, and survivor accounts always make that point, and the fact that al Qaeda is mostly killing Iraqis. Last year, most of the Sunni Arabs turned on al Qaeda, and this has been most difficult for the al Qaeda recruiters to deal with....

For most of the last four years, the al Qaeda volunteers would go to Iraq and "die a glorious death." Now the trip tends to end in despair and humiliation. The word is getting around, and the recruiters don't like it.

Regardless, the headlines in the news today is that the 4000th American soldier has died in Iraq.

The grim milestone comes less than a week after the fifth anniversary of the start of the war.

But where are all the Jihadists whose only martial skill is to blow themselves up going? Hard so say, but this might be a clue

Pakistan is not only among the countries with the highest incidence of terrorism but it also tops the list of suicide bombings, leaving Afghanistan and Iraq behind during the first three months of 2008.

During this period, Pakistan experienced eighteen suicide attacks in which more than 250 people died. Whereas in both war-ridden countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, had a fewer number of suicide attacks.

Iraq experienced thirteen suicide bombings which claimed 274 lives while 15 people died in three suicide attacks in Afghanistan during the first three months of 2008.

In 2007, Iraq topped the list of bombings and fatalities among these three countries with more than 150 suicide attacks. Afghanistan had more than 100 suicide attacks and Pakistan came third with 56 attacks but had more fatalities than that of Afghanistan.

Let's not forget, Pakistan actually possesses nuclear weapons...

Blasphemy

"When ye hear the signs of Allah held in defiance and ridicule, ye are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme." [Qur'an 4:140]

"Have patience with what they say, and leaves them with noble (dignity)." [Qur'an 73:10]

""If you offered to let me off this time on condition I am not any longer to speak my mind... I should say to you, "Men of Athens, I shall obey the Gods rather than you." Socrates at his trial.

Since the idea of Democracy was first proposed, the idea of Freedom of Speech was recognized to be an essential component. Unless there is free and open political debate, Democracy dies.

But free speech was never unrestrained, not even in the United State. There are restrictions. Clearly you can not defame someone and claim protection on the grounds of freedom of speech. You can not lie in Court or to official investigators.

But one thing that is sacrosanct in true Democracies is that no limits should be placed upon political speech

Pretenders to Democracy have used Treason to limit political speech. Consider Zimbabwe

"The government is trying to silence the opposition. If you publicly criticise the state leader, there’s a good likelihood that you will be charged with treason. That’s a threat to be feared. Treason carries the death penalty," [Edson] Chiota [the national coordinator of the Zimbabwe Association for Crime prevention and Rehabilitation of Offenders (ZACRO)] said.

Islamists have multiple methods for limiting political speech, but they are not pretenders to Democracy; they are opponents of Democracy.

“We have declared a bitter war against the principle of democracy and all those who seek to enact it.” - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh made and released a film critical of how women were treated by Islamists. It was a political statement. And he was killed.

Theo Van Gogh was shot eight times then his throat was cut until he was nearly decapitated. Two knives were left impaled in his chest, and a five page letter was attached. That letter was addressed to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch politician and a Somali immigrant. They threatened her for what they considered attacks on Islam

Since your appearence in the Dutch political arena you have been constantly busy criticising Muslims and terrorising Islam with your statements. You are hereby not the first and not the last and also won't be the last to have joined the crusade against Islam.

With your attacks you have not only turned your back on the Truth, but you are also marching along the ranks of the soldiers of evil. U are not putting your hostility towards Islam under chairs and benches and therefore your masters have rewarded you with a seat in parliament. They have found in you an ally who gives them all the "powder" so that they dont have to dirty their own hands. It appears that you are blinded by your burning unbelief and in your rage you are not able to see that your are just an instrument of the real enemies of Islam....

This letter is Insha Allah (God willing) an attempt to stop your evil and silence you forever.These writings will Inshallah cause your mask to fall off....

Death, Mrs. Hirshi Ali , is a shared theme of everything that exists. You, I and the rest of creation cannot get loose from this truth.

There will come a Day when one soul will not be able to help another soul. A Day of horrible tortures and painful tribulations which will go together with with the terrible cries being pressed out of the lungs of the unjust .Cries. Mrs. Hirshi Ali, which will cause chills to run up someones spine, and cause the hair on their head to stand straight up....

So will we use the same names and send this out ahead of us, so that the heavens and the stars will receive this news and this will be spread as a tidal wave throughout all the corners of the universe.

"I surely know that you, O America, will be destroyed ".

"I surely know that you O Europe, will be destroyed"

"I surely know that you O Holland will be destroyed"

"I surely know that you, O Hirshi Ali will be destroyed"

Her response was to write a book

The Caged Virgin, which is subtitled An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam. The three themes of the story are: first, her own gradual emancipation from tribalism and superstition; second, her work as a parliamentarian to call attention to the crimes being committed every day by Islamist thugs in mainland Europe; and third, the dismal silence, or worse, from many feminists and multiculturalists about this state of affairs.

But she had to quit the Dutch Paliament because

After being forced into hiding by fascist killers, Ayaan Hirsi Ali found that the Dutch government and people were slightly embarrassed to have such a prominent "Third World" spokeswoman in their midst. She was first kept as a virtual prisoner, which made it almost impossible for her to do her job as an elected representative. When she complained in the press, she was eventually found an apartment in a protected building. Then the other residents of the block filed suit and complained that her presence exposed them to risk. In spite of testimony from the Dutch police, who assured the court that the building was now one of the safest in all Holland, a court has upheld the demand from her neighbors and fellow citizens that she be evicted from her home. In these circumstances, she is considering resigning from parliament and perhaps leaving her adopted country altogether.

In other words, the Islamists won this round and forced a Democracy to limit political speech: the greatest sin of a Democracy

The murder of Theo Van Gough occurred in November of 2004. In September 2005, the Danish newspaper  Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons critical of the Islamists. One of which follows

(See them all here)

The result was more threats and intimidation

Islam is no laughing matter. The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten is being protected by security guards and several cartoonists have gone into hiding after the newspaper published a series of twelve cartoons (see  them all here, halfway the article) about the prophet Muhammad. According to the Islam it is blasphemous to make images of the prophet. Muslim fundamentalists have threatened to bomb the paper’s offices and kill the cartoonists...

The publication led to outrage among the Muslim immigrants living in Denmark. 5,000 of them took to the streets to protest. Muslim organisations have demanded an apology, but Juste rejects this idea: “We live in a democracy. That’s why we can use all the journalistic methods we want to. Satire is accepted in this country, and you can make caricatures,” he said. The Danish imam Raed Hlayhel reacted with the statement: “This type of democracy is worthless for Muslims. Muslims will never accept this kind of humiliation. The article has insulted every Muslim in the world.”

The Danes stood up, not just to the Islamists, but to Europe as well

For four months the imams and their radical Muslim organizations have unsuccesfully demanded government censorship. However, despite immense pressure (also from international organizations such as the UN and the EU) the Danish government refused to call the newspaper to account. Last week a couple of Norwegian papers decided to publish the cartoons in support of the Danish paper while in Denmark moderate Muslims, encouraged by the government’s refusal to be intimidated by the radicals, have distanced themselves from the imams. The latter announced on Friday that they no longer demand apologies from Jyllands-Posten for the publication. Instead they said they just want two things: a guarantee from the Danish authorities that Muslims can freely practice their religion without being “provoked and discriminated.” And a declaration from Jyllands-Posten that the cartoons were not published with the intention of mocking the Muslim faith.

Well that's easy since it is clear that the cartoons don't make fun of Islam, but they make fun of Islamist Jihadists.

Asked if wider publication will not lead to unnecessary confrontations between Christians and Muslims Sæle said the intention was not to provoke just for the sake of provoking, but rather to confront radical Islam in Norway.

In Norway and every other place where people want to control their government's rather than the other way around.

Last Thursday, Osama bin Laden again brought up the incursion of the cartoons

Although our tragedy in your killing of our women and children is a very great one, it paled when you went overboard in your unbelief and freed yourselves of the etiquettes of dispute and fighting and went to the extent of publishing these insulting drawings. This is the greater and more serious tragedy, and reckoning for it will be more severe.

Evil can take a lot, but it hates being laughed at.

"If any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.."[from 'On Liberty by John Stuart Mill]

"The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.."[Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes]

Neither free thought nor free speech is what the Islamists fight for.

Free thought and free speech is what the Islamists fight against.

And that is why we fight them.

UPDATE: Dan Moran links to this post and, now, I to his. He and I disagree on a number of issues. But at the core, we don't disagree on much. Approaches maybe, but not principles. And principles are what really matter.

And on the principle of freedom of political speech and the threat that the Islamists pose to it, we are in solid and violent agreement.

Committment

Five years have gone by and public opinion regarding the War in Iraq is ambivalent. The Washington Post is using a new poll to advocate for withdrawal

Five years after the start of the Iraq war, American public opinion has solidified around the notion that the war was not worth fighting and that the United States is not making significant progress toward restoring civil order there.

For more than three years, majorities in Washington Post-ABC News polling have called the war's benefits not worth the costs. And the percentages calling the war a mistake have been higher than those saying it has been worth it since before the 2004 presidential election. Two-thirds in the latest poll said the war was not worth fighting, including 51 percent who felt so "strongly."

Addressing a Gallup poll, Frank Newport concludes

President Bush has not convinced the majority of Americans to agree with his apparently deeply-held conviction that invading Iraq was the right decision.

But here's the problem: Back when the War began, 72% of Americans, and 70% of Congress were all for it. So close to three-quarters of America thought it was the right decision at the time.

But the problem with such a monumental decision is that you can not take it back so easily. Once you have taken that step, you have to go forward, you have to remain committed.

American's have to remember that it was we who decided to go this route and pulling out now, especially at a time when we have gained a strong foothold, would be a disaster.

Fortunately, many may have buyers remorse, but they are not willing to abandon Iraq either.

In the Gallup poll, when asked "Do you think the United States has an obligation to establish a reasonable level of stability in Iraq before withdrawing all of it's troops?" 65 percent said yes while only 20% said no

When asked "Do you think al Qaeda would more likely use Iraq as a base for its terrorist operations if the US keeps it troops in Iraq or withdraws its troops from Iraq?" 63% answered Withdraws while only 20% answered Keeps

When asked "Do you think a greater number of Iraqis would die from violence in that country if the US keeps its troops in Iraq or withdraws it troops from Iraq?" 50% answered Withdraws while only 27% answered Keeps

So it is pretty clear that while Americans may want to shift the blame for getting us in Iraq to the President, most people understand the need to remain until it's fixed.

Most people understand commitment.

Some don't

So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on Day One: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden– as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer.

In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq.

Barack Obama March 19, 2008

But most people don't believe that would be the right thing to do.

And Hillary Clinton's plan is the same

Referring to Clinton's plan to withdraw one to two combat brigades per month, Dobbs then asked directly: "She is going to stick to this plan, whatever the realities on the ground?"

"She has said that this is her plan. She has said what her goals are and those are the direction," Feinstein said.

"The answer is yes!" Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson jumped in.

"My question is … whether this is her plan and she is going to stick to it regardless?" Dobbs asked again.

"You're asking a question.  I'm giving you a one-word answer so we can be clear about it.  The answer is 'Yes'," Wolfson said.

But there are unanswered reservations that people have

"The soldiers need to be home," says Tally, calling herself "torn" on the question of how quickly to pull out. "There's a lot of destruction, a lot of death, and it needs to stop. At the same time, I'm concerned about the people there, the families there. … Those people are just going to be left vulnerable."

..."You cannot go into a country and destroy everything and leave it in chaos without helping them rebuild some kind of infrastructure," says Jennifer Curry, 59, one of the Delaware residents who joined the roundtable discussion. She supports withdrawing U.S. troops but only when Iraq is reasonably stable.

As do the majority of Americans

It's a matter of following through on your promise.

It's a matter of keeping your word.

It's a matter of commitment.