Iraq Study Report & Troop Reduction Not Recommended

Star Tribune: http://www.startribune.com/587/story/859263.html

Experts advise (President) Bush not to reduce troops despite what the Iraq Study Report says. This story comes out by the Washington Post (And MSNBC also mentions that the ARMY Also wants more troops). This fly’s in the face of the Iraq Study Report, and I doubt you will see this in the Star Tribune. Let me show you why I feel that following the Iraq Study report is... Dumb.

To quote the Associated Press, with a completely non-bias, center leaning, middle of the road, objective article titled "Panel: Bush's Iraq Policies have failed:"

Nearly four years, $400 billion and more than 2,900 U.S. deaths into a deeply unpopular war, violence is bad and getting worse, there is no guarantee of success and the consequences of failure are great

Wow, this sounds familure. World War II... Lots of US Soldiers died for a war with violence that escalated the further the war went on with no guarantee of success and huge huge consequences of failure. The only thing that’s not the same between the two (the way the Associated Press writer words it) is that Iraq has gotten very unpopular, where World War II was very popular? Oh yea, Never mind that last part, The US Didn't want to get into World War II either.

An intrestering side note that also bothers me: People Anti-War folks try to say "why attack Iraq when they didn't attack us?" Well, in world war II, why attack Germany when they didn't attack us? Wasn't it Japan that attacked us, which pushed us into war on the otherside of the planet with Germany? Iraq is the same. And why do you think terrorists are trying so hard to keep Iraq? Because, oh, I don't know, It must be important to them...

It said the United States should find ways to pull back most of its combat forces by early 2008 and focus U.S. troops on training and supporting Iraqi units. The U.S. should also begin a "diplomatic offensive" by the end of the month and engage adversaries Iran and Syria in an effort to quell sectarian violence and shore up the fragile Iraqi government, the report said.

Okay, I have a question. What the crap is a "Diplomatic Offensive?" Have the ones we're fighting (terrorists and extremists) ever asked to sit down and talk? Would you believe the word of a group that has said that they want all us "infidels" dead? Do you think a group that has made statements to that effect could be trusted with diplomacy?

"I feel encouraged, and I feel the stay-the-course strategy is officially dead."
— Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif.

Well, I think you, Jane Harman, are an Idiot. To illustrate this point, Let me call upon the views of those who agree with her: ThinkProgress.org. This is quite interesting... watch how I spin this. To Quote Think Progress.org:

A newly translated letter from al-Qaeda’s leadership to their Iraq organization shows the Bush administration’s “stay the course” Iraq strategy is exactly what al Qaeda wants:

The most important thing is that you continue in your jihad in Iraq, and that you be patient and forbearing, even in weakness, and even with fewer operations; even if each day had half of the number of current daily operations, that is not a problem, or even less than that. So, do not be hasty. The most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness and firm rooting, and that it grows in terms of supporters, strength, clarity of justification, and visible proof each day. Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest, with God’s permission.

This summer, Bush administration officials repeatedly justified their Iraq policy by pointing to al Qaeda propaganda. One example of many:

DAN BARTLETT: So, it doesn’t matter what we say. We should be taking the - the words of the enemy seriously. They think [Iraq is] the fight of the war on terror, so, we must as well. [8/31/06]

Will the White House change its tune now that al Qaeda has endorsed “stay the course”?

For one, this letter is from Al Qaeda is directed to members of Al Qaeda telling them to stay in Iraq, and to fight us, no matter what, or as they say:

even if each day had half of the number of current daily operations, that is not a problem, or even less than that.

So, ThinkProgress.org... Al Qaeda didn't say anywhere in there that they want the US to stay in Iraq, but that they want to keep fighting for Iraq. I can't believe that you (ThinkProgress.org) are so willing to put forth your own propaganda as to distort clear facts in that manor.

Secondaly, apparently ThinkProgress.org does not remember in 2004 when Al Qaeda's Osama Bin Laden him self told us not to vote for President Bush.

We agreed with the general commander Muhammad Atta, may Allah have mercy on him, that all operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration would become aware. We never imagined that the Commander in Chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face this great horror alone when they needed him most. It seemed to him that a girl's story about her goat and its butting was more important than dealing with planes and their 'butting' into skyscrapers. This allowed us three times the amount of time needed for the operations, Allah be praised.

Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al-Qa'ida. Your security is in your own hands, and any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security.

So, with that said, since you (ThinkProgress.org) feel in your own misguided opinion that because Al Qaeda wants us to stay the course (using your own words), that now, thanks to me pointing it out to you again, You feel that Bush is a correct choice because Al Qaeda did not want him as president?

This isn't about partisan politics, people. Its about Logic. Don't let your partisan hatred for President Bush get in the way of the safety of the United States. It is illogical to think that because Al Qaeda wants Iraq, we should let them have it... Because Al Qaeda wants to fight for it, we should back down. So, now that I'm done poking a morinic group with the stick of Justice, back to this "report." (What exactly is "Progressive" about running away, anyway?)

We CAN NOT be diplomatic with Al Qaeda, no matter how much this report wants us to be, or how much the public want us to end a war. To alter the plan to include one of diplomacy with a group that wants to kill us is suscide.

"We will not accomplish victory by setting arbitrary deadlines or negotiating with hostile governments." — Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio.

And that brings me into the second point about this report. The Withdraw by 2008. If we told Germany in World War II (and by tell Germany, I mean, our media and news papers, because our enemy can read the Star Tribune just as easily as I can) that we are going to take our troops out in 1945, do you think we would have won World War II? No, because the enemy would have just held out until that time, and they would have won. I know war sucks, people, but so does spanking your child. And if you tell your child that you will only spank him 5 times in his life, you may as well tell him you will never punish him.

So, your witty comment to take away from this is:

War is like spanking a child. It sucks, but sometimes you have no choice.

The Iraq Study Report is doing nothing but appealing to what the public wants (thanks to the bombardment of the Media Agenda). This report was nothing but a political gesture to try to tell people that the government is thinking about what people are whining about.

To Quote Chuck Norris:

America: Don't stick your head in the sand!
This is one of my greatest concerns for our newly elected Democratic-majority House and Senate: that they not stick their heads in the sand regarding the war on terror.
With anti-American extremist cells loose and growing in the world, now is not the time to drop our guard and funding on intelligence, national security and the global spread of anti-American sentiment.
Regardless of whether our troops stay or are withdrawn from Iraq, America's enemies will remain relentlessly in pursuit of our downfall and destruction, in and outside our country.
Of course our enemies are not the Japanese or the Germans like they were back then, but a network of nebulous extremists. And our battlefield is not any specific location, but anywhere our adversaries can lie in foxholes of fear.

Make no mistake about it: If we don't fight them abroad, we'll fight them at home.

I will leave you with this. It is pathetic when someone takes a quote that says "there is no guarantee of success" and uses that as their proof that we should leave. There is never a guarantee of success in any situation, but if we used that as a reason not to fight, or push on, or advance ourselves... we would probably still be building premeds out of sand... unless there is no guarantee of succeeding at that either. If we listen to the people who want us out of Iraq, before you know it, Iraqi Ambassador Osama will hang out at the UN Headquarters in New York telling us how unfortunate it was that we forced them to cause 9/11, and we'll be apologizing to him.

********** Update 12/27/06 9:35am **********

See, I'm not crazy. To quote CNN:

Biden said he opposes adding troops in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group recommended adding troops to the 140,000 U.S. in the country. And there have been signs that the administration favors putting more troops in Baghdad as a way to curb the escalating violence there.

Biden said a "troop surge" will not work.
"We should be drawing down troops gradually, forcing the Iraqis to meet their own
needs to end this civil war by a political agreement," Biden said Tuesday on CNN's "American Morning."

Biden has said he favors partitioning Iraq, something the Iraq Study Group and military leaders oppose.

Amazing. While I don't agree with the Iraq Study Report saying we need to withdraw by 2008 (that decision should be made based on the assessment of the situation there), which Biden DOES agree with, I do agree with the Iraq Study Report's assessment that more troops would be good (to stomp out the fires), which Biden DOES NOT agree with.

The battleground is here

"The line must be drawn here. This far, no further! And I will make them pay for what they have done"
Like the Borg, our enemy keeps on making advances. We may resist at first but then we fall back. Well, if we draw the line where the enemy is at then it is HERE in the United States. A very captivating story.

Daily protests occur in Dearborn. At one recent demonstration, organized by the Congress of Arab-Americans, about 1,000 people attended. College-age men asked, in call and response fashion, "Who is your army?" Protestors responded: "Hezbollah." "Who is your leader?" they were asked. "Nasrallah," the chanters responded. Many carried placards of the Hezbollah leader. A few days earlier at an even larger demonstration, more than 15,000 turned out, about half of Dearborn's Arab community.

Those who regularly attend the demonstrations tend to be the most strident.

"Oh, Jews, remember Khaibar," the marchers chant. "The army of the Prophet will return."

The line is a reference to Khaibar, a Jewish town north of Medina that, according to Islamic tradition, was overtaken by the Prophet Muhammad in the seventh century. Once defeated, the surviving Jews of Khaibar were forced into serfdom. Two decades later, they were expelled from the Arabian peninsula.

And just a little reminder of how propagandized they are...

Abed Hammoud came to Dearborn from southern Lebanon in 1990. His hometown is just a few miles from the Israeli border. His day job is assistant county prosecutor, but his passion is advocating on behalf of the Congress of Arab-American organizations.

Hammoud regards Israeli airstrikes as "war crimes and atrocities" -- attacks he does not hesitate to compare with Nazi Germany.

"The Nazis used to kill, especially Jewish people, using the ovens and the concentration camps," he says. "The Israelis use F-16s and burning bombs and smart bombs. I'm sorry. A death of a child is a death of a child."

Did you see THAT? Assistant county prosecutor...deep within our own judicial system, our own government. And yet, is too ignorant of nuance to understand one of many major differences between the Nazis and Israelis. In this case the difference is the Nazis were the instigators of violence. The Israelis are in a war, and responding to people who have sworn to destroy them, wipe them off of the map, and are in a very real kill-or-be-killed situation.

But the point is...The enemy is on this land. The enemy is within our government. We must not be afraid to call out those who support Hezbollah or Iran...and kick them out of their positions! Quickly.

UK thwarts mass murder plot

You have already heard the news, I'm sure. A plot to blow up at least 6 planes while flying over the Atlantic in a 'mass murder' plot. Some are saying that this may have been another 9/11 and there are ties to al Qaeda. The UK arrested 21 people so far but there may be as many as 50 involved. They are reported to be of Pakistani descent. Thank you to Drudge for reminding us that a few days ago a London to Boston flight was turned away because it was discovered that passengers on the no-fly list had actually boarded. Britain is on high alert as a whole while the US has only air related areas on high alert.

That story is going to be played for a while, now. But people are missing the bigger picture. I have been saying for almost 7 weeks that Iran is behind a ton of this stuff...all for various reasons.

First, they want everyone's attention to be divided. Have you noticed no that Iran's nuclear program (and its pending completion) is in a position to not be higher than 3rd headline? Third biggest story...that is below the fold on print papers, scroll far down on webpages and non-bold face in the headline boxes in the sidebars.

Second, divided attention means divided resources. 'Nuff said on that.

What I want you to understand in this is what the danger WILL be domestically. The people in politics who ARE a danger to this country (both on the Left and Right) will turn this in to "advantage talking points" and tie this to the elections. This has nothing to do with the elections...hate to burst the bubbles of partisans out there.

While the partisans tell each other that the other side is "evil", "dangerous" and on the Right they say the Left will lose the War (intentionally, in some of their minds) I do not believe either side is actively trying to lose the war. Everyone sees it in a different lens. Some see the War on Terror as, well, a war and a military campaign. Others see it as criminal elements that need to be dealt with in a criminal justice frame of mind. Frankly, the former view is mostly right. Mostly, because they actually miss the point that we are dealing with rational people...radical, yes, but their thought process is not unflowing like North Korea's. You can easily connect the dots from their premise to their conclusion...even though you disagree with them. The "War on Terror is a War" crowd (which I will call the Right on Terror only to acknowledge that most of them are on the Right) misses that our enemies are rational. The "War on Teror is Criminal" crowd (which I will call the Left on Terror only to acknowledge that most of them are on the Left) misses the point that they are (a) the enemy of a war they declared, (b) are willing to die as long as they take others out with them, (c) are not working in a psychological mindset of criminality, but of wardom, and (d) are proven to understand our systems, our weaknesses because of those systems and exploit those weaknesses.

Both the Left of Terror and the Right of Terror are getting distracted (if paying attention to at all) by each individual occurance...Israel vs Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, Russia's involement, al Qaeda, these latest plots...and failing to step back with a wider lens. These are all connected.

Why should WE, here in Minnesota really care? Because more experts are coming out connecting a few of these dots (e.g. Iran's nuclear programs near completion with Hezbollah)...and all of the dots together lead to WWIII in some manner. I have explained the different scenarios of WWIII (see the section of the post titled "Why World War III is More than the GOP 2006 Campaign Slogan" if you don't want to read the whole thing). To give you an idea of the location of battlefields think of WWII. In relation to the extent of 'action' and casualties within the borders I think the following analogies help to demonstrate. We are the Russia of WWII...lots of action within our borders and heavy casualties (our civilian casualties will be higher the longer it takes for non-political American citizens to acknowledge the scale of what's coming), Britain (and Europe eventually) is like, well, Britain. They will be 'host' to a lot of carnage as well. They may see more destruction than casualties, mostly because I think in the end they are more willing to sacrifice more freedoms for more security. Their economy will be harder to recover from than ours...though we will seem some really tough times. Iran, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Israel are going to be the Germany of all of this. Nearly completely leveled...likely more complete devastation than in WWII...and a lot of casualties.

It will not get better and will not end until all of the leadership from one side or the other are killed, captured or otherwise permanently neutralized and the government destroyed. That is what I see as a fact of what is building.

Don't like it? Sorry, you have to understand that the enemy is looking for that reality, they are striving for that major battle, they have accepted that road. With each passing day of "negotiations" and "diplomatic" efforts instead of battle hardening we draw closer to both losing advantage in the pending battle and allowing the enemy to set the course of action.

Both the Right of Terror and the Left of Terror try to keep us off the grand battlefield. We are reluctant to deal with Iran (and their tentacles) in combat or with actual military force. Yes, we are thinly spread...but survival is at stake. Find a way to make the disadvantage of thin into an advantage of stationed in many fronts. The politicos (politicians and their supporters) want Terror to be a campaign issue, but don't want to have us step on the battlefield now that the time is near. Shutup with "November" and focus on "Iran".

The timeframe for prevention is drawing to a close. Get ready. Get busy. Most of all open your eyes to the bigger picture...the enemy is not the American on the other side of the aisle. The enemy is on the other side of the battlefield we refuse to actually step on.

And to understand the real danger of making this issue a political topic listen to the FIRST CALL on Glenn Beck's show when it airs tonight on KTLK at 7PM. Understand that BOTH sides are guilty of that caller's ignorance for what is going on.

Please, for the sake of our survival...watch Iran more broadly and understand the difference between "enemy" and "political adversary".

Missing foreign students and WWIII

I'm sure this is nothing...I mean the government authorities say so.

[FBI Special Agent Richard] Kolko said there is no reason to believe the missing students, all men around 20 years old, represent a threat.

What missing 20-year old male students?

Eleven Egyptian students who were supposed to travel to a Montana university after flying to JFK airport late last month disappeared in New York, spurring federal authorities to issue a nationwide alert, officials said yesterday.

The students - who were traveling with six classmates from Mansoura University in Egypt - had their student visas revoked for failing to show up at Montana State University in Bozeman, the officials said.

The other six students made it to the college.

"The FBI and ICE [Immigration and Custom Enforcement] would like to locate these 11 students in order to speak with them," said FBI Special Agent Richard Kolko after the "be-on-the-lookout" alert was issued to all police in the United States.

Now, that is nothing to worry about? Really? At what point do we worry?

"At this point, all they have done is not show up for a scheduled academic program, and their visas have been revoked," Kolko said.

"We do not know of any association with any terrorist or criminal groups. There is no threat associated with these men. We have simply asked law enforcement's assistance in locating them so that the FBI and ICE may interview them."

Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, said the situation "has to be taken very seriously."

"Having a number of students from an Arab country arriving on student visas and disappearing is cause for concern," he said.

Montana State University Provost David Dooley said 17 Mansoura University students signed up for a 32-day cultural-exchange program to intensively study English, learn about Montana history and go on several field trips.

They arrived at JFK on a flight from Egypt on July 29, but only one managed to clear immigration in time to make a connecting flight, Dooley said.

By July 31, five others had arrived in Bozeman, but the rest were unaccounted for.

I remember the outrage at various colleges and from the Left when the Student Visa programs were beginning to clamp down on their requirements. Again, it is proven that compromise on the issue was compromising our security. In all seriousness there is nothing preventing this from happening with scores upon scores of foreign students. Perhaps some more national-background profiling is necessary to help diminish the risk of this happening.

Why is this posting also listed under the WWIII category? Because this story is fishy AND it ties very nicely with my unease since the beginning of the Israeli defensive that August is going to be a very troublesome month at best.

This from Yahoo News (no link--it will be dead in a few days anyway)

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has renewed calls on Muslims to rally to the defence of the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah in its war against
Israel, state television reported.

"Today it is the entire Muslim community's duty to defend Hezbollah," Khamenei told a meeting Tuesday to mark the anniversary of the birth of the Shiites' first Imam, Ali.

I have no doubt that Iran is behind the whole mess right now.

Iran helped to create and arm Hezbollah in 1982 in response to Israel's invasion of Lebanon, and Tehran stands accused by the United States and Israel of fomenting chaos in the region by channelling weapons to the guerrillas.

Iran denies the allegation, saying it provides only moral support to the movement.

Nevermind the fact that each rocket fired from Hezbollah right now must have the express approval from Iran...we are simply jumping to conclusions that Iran has an active hand in this offensive against Israel.

Wait, there's more.

The all-powerful Iranian leader lashed out at the
United Nations for what he called its "incompetence", and also attacked some Arab countries for "looking on in silence".

"Some Arabic states that have kept quiet should know that the United States will never consider their interests," Khamenei said.

More than 1,000 Lebanese civilians have been killed in the Israeli offensive unleashed after the capture of two of its soldiers by Hezbollah in a cross-border raid from Lebanon on July 12.

Khamenei also accused the US and Britain on Tuesday of encouraging the "Zionists' crimes" and "seeking to eradicate Islam in this region".

Let me explain how this works. These guys believe that it is OK to have a stated goal of the "extermination" or "annhilation" of Israel, and any resistance to that is "seeking to eradicate Islam". Quite honestly, if these guys are the representatives of Islam in that region then the world will be a better, more tolerant, more peaceful place after their eradication. The ONLY question is if these angels-of-satan are representative of Islam.

And further proof that the end of the world is near...I agree with a Princeton professor (Bernard Lewis to be exact). Some of you have been critical of me for (1) calling this WWIII...and maybe it is not YET WWIII, but I think the liklihood of it is stronger than the liklihood it is not/will not be WWIII, and (2) of having the heebie-jeebies about August.

According to a Flash Report from Drudge I am not too far off.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "and his followers clearly believe that [the time of Armegeddon] is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the US about nuclear development by Aug. 22," which this year corresponds "to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to 'the farthest mosque,' usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1).

"This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind."

Now some smaller minded people have decided to use this as political fodder. Essentially, the end of the world may be beginning this month so 'vote for my party' in November. Logic...they don't need no stinkin' logic. Rationality...won't find that from them either.

Domestically what is important in all of this is that the USA is not going to do much in all of this and it is the fault of the partisans...all of them. Two general groups are to blame.

First, the Left for weakening the resolve of the nation to fight evil which threatens us. Also the Left for putting very short-sighted lenses on the whole issue of terrorism, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. Rather than look at these issues as a "what is best for the survival of the United States against evil" they turned it into a "how can we dennigrate Bush on this topic?" The Democrats turned it into a "what do we need to do to make this a political chip in our favor?" Health of the country be damned. Survival of the country be damned...because the party comes first.

Second, the Right for many reasons. They (Bush in the forefront) failed to make the brazenly honest case about Iraq...it has always been primarily about Iran. Failing to make the ABSOLUTELY HONEST case allowed the partisan Left to turn the survival of America into a political gambit. Next they failed by getting weak in the spine on national security. Yes, many of them will come back and say they were strong...but when they failed on so many fronts that are equally tied to security (border security, immigration reform, illegal immigration lockdown, etc) they hold the blame ticket as well. By having so many of the Right and the Republicans start wavering on Iraq specifically it perpetuated the domestic reality that America's survival is just another campaign issue again in yet another campaign year. Being strong on national security is more than just supporting Bush in fighting "terrorism" and "on Iraq"...it is more than repeating the talking points on those narrow topics.

Shame on 100% of the party members and partisans on both sides. And I guarantee they will continue to do it through November.

Most importantly is this: Keep your eyes firmly planted on Iran. They are the root of all that is going on right now...they are on the verge of nuclear weapons, and all the negotiations in the UN is playing into Iran's advantage.

********** UPDATE **********
You can comment on the blog...and you can comment on Race to the Right's new Discussion Board.

Worldwide News Sources...not a good source

While reading the news about the conflict in the Middle East, which I believe has the very real potential to become WWIII, keep in mind something that conservatives have known. You cannot trust worldwide "news" service.

Case #1
Reuters is forced to admit they were disseminating doctored photos to make the plight of Beirut as victim seem larger.

A Reuters photograph of smoke rising from buildings in Beirut has been withdrawn after coming under attack by American web logs. The blogs accused Reuters of distorting the photograph to include more smoke and damage.

The photograph showed two very heavy plumes of black smoke billowing from buildings in Beirut after an Air Force attack on the Lebanese capital. Reuters has since withdrawn the photograph from its website, along a message admitting that the image was distorted, and an apology to editors.
...
In the message, Reuters said that "photo editing software was improperly used on this image. A corrected version will immediately follow this advisory. We are sorry for any inconvience."

Reuters' head of PR Moira Whittle said in response: "Reuters has suspended a photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to a photograph showing smoke billowing from buildings following an air strike on Beirut. Reuters takes such matters extremely seriously as it is strictly against company editorial policy to alter pictures."

No big surprise, but it is evidence of Reuters lack of credibility.

Case #2
Have you noticed all of the stories about every single death on the Palestinian side of the war? And, by following the news stories, you would think that the Israelis are untouched in the conflict for the most part...especially the civilians. Well, you would be wrong if you believed the proportion of civilian casualties from the worldwide media.

Hours after mother and two daughters are killed in Hizbullah rocket attack, media outlets around world fail to report deaths; meanwhile, British press continues anti-Israel tirade

Media bias? Hours after 60-year-old Fadia Jumaa and her two daughters, Samira, 31, and Sultana, 33, were killed by a Hizbullah rocket attack on their home in the Israeli-Bedouin village of Arab al-Aramshe, the international media has so far largely ignored their deaths.

Reuters was alone among non-Israeli media outlets to report the deaths, according to a Google news search, a number of hours after the first reports of the attack surfaced.

The lack of coverage of the Israeli civilian war casualties stands in marked contrast to the swift response by many sections of the international media to reported Lebanese casualties.

Meanwhile, the British press, which has produced some of the most venomous anti-Israel coverage during the war, has continued its tirade against Israel.

No surprise there. The media, most of the EU and half of the United States are anti-Semitic. They don't have the "pair" on them to admit it, but they are. Look at how so many on the Left are rooting against Israel, condemning Israel and skewing sympathy towards the terrorist arms of Iran (aka Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine).

Case #3:
I have received death threats from "pacifists" while attending the University. I have received threats from "pro-peace" people. So it is of no surprise that pro-Israel websites are subject to death threats from the anti-Semitic wing of the Left. The interesting part is that it is from the so-called "objective" reporter clan.

Worker suspended after telling American blogger: 'I look forward to day when you pigs get your throats cut'

A Reuters employee has been suspended after sending a death threat to an American blogger.

The message, sent from a Reuters internet account, read: "I look forward to the day when you pigs get your throats cut."

It was sent to Charles Johnson, owner of the Little Green Footballs (LGF) weblog, a popular site which often backs Israel and highlights jihadist terrorist activities.

In the threat, the Reuters staff member, who has not been named, left his email address as "zionistpig" at hotmail.com.

Reporting the message to his readers, Johnson wrote on his website: "This particular death threat is a bit different from the run of the mill hate mail we get around here, because an IP lookup on the sender reveals that he/she/it was using an account at none other than Reuters News."

The examples grow and grow showing that (a) the EU and UN are anti-Semitic, (b) the media are anti-Semitic and (c) the Left condones and embraces the anti-Semites, their rhetoric, their tactics and their organizations. It is not unfair to conclude that these coupled with the Left's constant drive to protect the Muslim terrorists and their nations that the Left is strongly (1) anti-Semitic, (2) pro-Muslim terrorists, and (3) an enemy, in mind at minimum, of the United States and its allies.

Updating the WW III sides

The running post showing which countries are on which side of the possible WW III needs to be updated.

It seems that Spain has chosen the dark side.

Israel's envoy to Spain said on Thursday the two countries' relations had been damaged after the Spanish prime minister accused Israel of using "abusive force" during an event at which he also wore a Palestinian scarf.

Spain's ability to use its influence to help defuse the growing Middle East conflict could suffer following the speech by Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to a meeting of young Socialists on Wednesday, Ambassador Victor Harel said.
...
Zapatero, who took power in a surprise election victory following Islamist train bombings in Madrid in 2004 and immediately pulled Spanish troops out of Iraq, had told the young Socialists: "No one should defend themselves with abusive force which does not protect innocent human beings."

Really, no surprise as Spain is being "led" by the party of cowards at the moment.

At least the Jewish community there is able to call a spade a spade.

During the question-and-answer session at the breakfast, Mauricio Hatchwell, a member of Spain's small Jewish community, accused Zapatero of being antisemitic.

And of course, heaven forbid one calls it like they see it when dealing with a sitting politician.

[Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel] Moratinos reacted sternly, saying one could be a loyal ally of Israel and still criticize it without being antisemitic. He addressed Hatchwell personally and told him not to repeat such criticism of the government.

"Let this be the last time you publicly denounce and condemn and express yourself saying a Spanish government is antisemitic," Moratinos said.

He said he was not worried by the diplomatic effect of photographs in Spanish newspapers on Thursday of a grinning Zapatero wearing a black-and-white Palestinian scarf passed to him by a student at Wednesday's meeting.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that part...the Spanish PM was wearing Palestinian garb. That speaks volumes.

Whose on which side Updated

This story forced me to update the list of countries who have stated a side of WWIII.

The Lebanese Hezbollah's weeklong artillery attack on Israel has been condemned by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and several Persian Gulf states.

At an emergency Arab League summit meeting in Cairo on Saturday, the countries issued a joint statement denouncing the "unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts," the New York Times reported Monday.

"These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we cannot simply accept them," said Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal.

The meeting concluded with the league requesting help from the United Nations Security Council.

Hanna Seniora, a Palestinian analyst with the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, praised the league's opposition to Hezbollah on Sunday.

"It became clear and beyond doubt that the most important Arab countries did not allow their emotions to rule their judgment," Seniora told the Times.

Ah, yes, now they go to the United Nations. One of two things will come from this. They will realize the UN is worthless and cannot help OR they know the UN is inept and are going there just to make it appear they are against the violence as a sham. "We showed outrage, we appealed to the UN Security Council. Give us some credit."

Regardless, while I question Saudi Arabia's motives I put them on the list according to their stated position.

They won't stop but a few get it

(H/T: Cajun Tiger)

This letter shows that a few people really get what is possible in fighting with Israel...very little.

Highlights

The war with Israel is over.

You have lost. Surrender and negotiate to secure a future for your children.

We, your Arab brothers, may say until we are blue in the face that we stand by you, but the wise among you and most of us know that we are moving on, away from the tired old idea of the Palestinian Arab cause and the "eternal struggle" with Israel.

Dear friends, you and your leaders have wasted three generations trying to fight for Palestine, but the truth is the Palestine you could have had in 1948 is much bigger than the one you could have had in 1967, which in turn is much bigger than what you may have to settle for now or in another 10 years. Struggle means less land and more misery and utter loneliness.

Well, except for their friends in the incredibly inept and corrupt United Nations.

Only Syria continues to feed your fantasies that someday it will join you in liberating Palestine, even though a huge chunk of its territory, the entire Golan Heights, was taken by Israel in 1967 and annexed. The Syrians, my friends, will gladly fight down to the last Palestinian Arab.

Before you got stuck with this Hamas crowd, another cheating, conniving, leader of yours,Yasser Arafat, sold you a rotten bill of goods — more pain, greater corruption, and millions stolen by his relatives — while your children played in the sewers of Gaza.

The terrorists organizations...they are poverty pimps. They know that peace with Israel will end their own power and that, in their eyes, cannot be allowed. To have their own 'state' would require peace with Israel and thus their own 'state' would leave these thugs out of power. They know that.

The solution ultimately is the destruction of one side or the other...and we won't let Israel be destroyed...Iran won't let Palestine be destroyed. So where does that lead us?

WW III watch

Quick poll...is the Middle East going to be a big enough story where I should create a WW III category/icon? If so I am open to icon suggestions.

This is a breaking story from Drudge:

Israeli warplanes destroyed the building housing the headquarters of Hezbollah guerrillas in south Beirut Friday, the group's TV station reported.

In an urgent flash, the station said the building housing Hezbollah's leadership was destroyed.

It did not elaborate, nor say whether there were any casualties.

Hezbollah says the residence and office of its leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, have been destroyed in an Israeli airstrike, but he and his family are safe.

May as well know whose on which side

Israel has a right to defend itself
Israel (of course)
Italy
Canada
United States
Saudi Arabia
Egypt
Jordan

Anti Semite...Israel has no right to self-defense
Germany
Britain
Lebanon
France
Palestine
Iran
Russia
Vatican City
Syria
Indonesia
European Union
Spain

********** UPDATE **********
Welcome to the readers of Truth Laid Bear. I don't think this post is really what you were searching for ("Vatican City") but hopefully you will find something the written posts.

Also welcome to the readers of Psycmeistr. Also...feel free to browse, bookmark and participate in the discussions!

********** UPDATE 2 ********** 7/18/06
Updated the list to include Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt.

********** UPDATE 2 ********** 7/20/06
Updated the list to include Spain.