Terrorism:Media and Funding

On 05.10.10, In Get Dialed In With Nick Dial, By dialn

280508tapeBy Nick Dial

Terrorism and the media have had a long-running relationship. In an imperfect world, they are, in fact, the perfect couple. The media needs terrorism to boost ratings, make money, and drive headlines. Terrorism needs the media to project fear, destruction, promote their message, and provide the ability to effect the globe through 24/7 news cycles that broadcast their horrific acts free of charge.

When it comes to terrorism, the media acts as a “force multiplier.”  A force multiplier is something that increases a group’s ability to become more powerful without increasing the size of the group. For example, if you have a squad of 4 men armed with rifles, they are a formidable force against that of fellow men. Give these same men rocket launchers and grenades on top of the rifles they possess and they have now become 3 times more powerful with the ability to engage vehicles and targets that before would have been out of their ability. The media serves a similar purpose with terrorism. The media acts as a force multiplier by taking a single act and magnifying its effects by broadcasting it for all to see.

The media, in the past 10 years especially, has allowed terror cells to use our living rooms as a stage to act out their agendas. The shocking broadcast of Daniel Pearl and his beheading laid the foundation for more gruesome acts to be carried out, filmed, and televised. A terrorist once made the comment, “I would rather kill one man on camera, then a hundred men off camera”-Unknown. This statement pretty-well sums up the relationship between terrorism and the media. To carry out an act on camera provides the group to “capture” a horrific moment forever, and save it for later use, as if it were a weapon that can be used over and over again. John R. White, author of the book Terrorism and Homeland security, States the following, “terrorism becomes more horrific to create better drama. News film is constantly replayed, giving the illusion that attacks are repeated time and time again,” (2008).  The media is considered by many terror groups a weapon, and will use it to the best of their abilities. Constantly, the media will be placed in the middle between the two as opposing forces use the media as a battleground of rhetoric and accusations. For example, in 2001 a U.S. Army helicopter crashed, and immediately the Taliban tried to claim responsibility for the event. The U.S. military however, publically denied that the Taliban played any role what so ever in the loss. An example of such action is shown below:

“An exchange of claim and counter-claim took place between Washington and the Taliban after the regime said it had recovered wreckage from a downed US helicopter inside Afghanistan.

Taliban fighters posed for television pictures next to aircraft wheels which the Taliban regime claimed had been taken from the wreckage in Helmand province, close to the southern city of Kandahar. The Al-Jazeera network showed the pieces of wreckage that the Taliban said were stenciled with words written in English.

But the Pentagon dismissed the claims, saying that none of its helicopters had been lost inside Afghanistan. The only helicopter crash, it said, was the accident in the early hours of Saturday when a Black Hawk, on standby for search and rescue for a Special Forces operation, came down inside Pakistan. Two US personnel were killed in the crash, which officials say may have been caused by a storm of dust created by the helicopter’s blades” (Buncombe, A, 2001.

This paragraph serves as a perfect example of how the media, becomes a virtual battle ground to sway public opinion and perception, as the old saying goes “those who control the media, control the war”-unknown.

Media is a central factor in any war, especially terrorism. Another factor that plays a critical role in war and terrorism as well is funding. Funding is the blood line that makes waging such actions possible, after all money makes the world go round, and funding is exactly what provides terrorism with the logistical capabilities needed to continue its agenda.

Funding for terrorism comes from several areas. Perhaps one of the largest areas of controversy is that of Islamic charities in the United States. According to the Washington post, The U.S. Government has linked many charities to supporting and funding terror groups and their activities.

“Charities based in Northern Virginia and sponsored by the government of Saudi Arabia invested millions of dollars in a company suspected of funding al Qaeda and the Islamic Resistance Movement, the government alleged for the first time yesterday.

An affidavit made public in federal court in Virginia contends that the Muslim charities gave $3.7 million to BMI Inc., a private Islamic investment company in New Jersey that may have passed the money to terrorist Islamic groups. The money was part of a $10 million endowment from unnamed donors in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, according to the affidavit filed by David Kane of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement”(Farah, D, 2003).

Many of these charities have been shut down and their accounts frozen as a result. This continues to be an ongoing problem with terrorism and its funding.

The other major funder of terrorism is that of state sponsorship. For example, Iran fights a proxy war with both Israel and the United States through funding terror via an umbrella base organization. By terror groups being satellite attachments to Iran, they can receive funding through non direct means. For example groups may meet in a mosque for a sermon, but while there they are in reality conducting business for terrorism backed by Iran. This allows Iran what is known as “plausible deniability”. In the public eye they can play the game of not being involved, but the back scenes show a different story.  An example of how an umbrella organization functions can be seen below.

diagram(Diagram from “Terrorism: An Inconvenient Truth” By Nick Dial)

Terrorism has been, is, and will continue to be an ongoing battle. The media and funding are both key factors and critical for it to sustain its survival. While in a free society the media cannot be controlled, the largest thing that can and must be targeted is that of terrorism funding and its bloodline. The United States needs to continue to expand efforts to stop the flow of American currency into the coffers of terrorists. Whether people want to acknowledge the fact or not, every time we fill our gas tanks we fund terrorism. Terror sponsoring states continue to sell the United States oil, and gas being a essential element to modern  living, forces us to indirectly fund terror every time we purchase gasoline. One major step in the right direction choke off such proxy funding of terror is to break ground here, on our own soil, here in the U.S. By utilizing all of our resources, natural gas and most importantly, OUR OIL, we would not only strengthen our national security, we will make money doing it.

References

Buncombe, A. (2001). Us denies taliban shot down helicopter in afghanistan. Retrieved from

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/us-denies-taliban-shot-down-helicopter-in-afghanistan-632369.html

Farah, D. (2003). U.s. links islamic charities, terrorist funding. Retrieved from           http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A17354-2003Aug19&notFound=true

White, J. (2008). Terrorism and homeland security (sixth edition). Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth cengage learning.

Tagged with: • • • •
 
13 Comments
Leave A Response

Terrorism: Why Profile?

On 02.28.10, In Get Dialed In With Nick Dial, By dialn

6a00e55188bf7a883400e55371dd558833-800wiBy Nick Dial

The debates people have over airport security consist of profiling, invasion of privacy, and check- in time. 

“Profiling” has become a buzzword in today’s media with such a derogatory connotation it has become something of a dirty word. Today, profiling immediately gets related to abuse of power and unjust treatment. The fact is that profiling is necessary to effectively perform any real security and determent of crime.

On January 28, 2008 a covert tester for the Transportation Security Administration was able to sneak a mock bomb past airport security checkpoints undetected. According to CNN:

“ Jason – that’s the name CNN was asked to call him – slides a simulated explosive into an elastic back support. The mock bomb is as slim as a wallet; its fuse, the size of a cigarette. He wraps the support around his torso, and the bomb fits comfortably into the small of his back” (Meserve, Jeanne, Ahlers, Mike, 2008).

What is a “mock bomb?”  It is a small, concealable device with a fuse that is replicated to look and feel as its real counterpart. The scary part is that this stealthy act of terrorism can be executed at any time.

In the days following 9/11 people were willing to sacrifice small inconveniences in the exchange for added security and peace of mind. People are starting to forget the issues that surrounded 9/11 and the reason added security was necessary. Since there has not been another successful attack since 9/11, awareness has dropped and complaints have come in earnest about the added security. George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. In this case, the complacency beginning to be displayed only invites another attack – and once again, history repeats itself.

Racial profiling is a touchy topic, but one that should be examined thoroughly and honestly. The problem with discussions of profiling today is that people are not applying critical thinking to the topic. For example, police officers must profile when they patrol. They are, in fact, paid professional profilers. Every time they patrol they are observing their surroundings for activity that is suspicious. There are many factors that come into play that must be addressed, and yes, race is one of them. For example, let’s say an officer is patrolling in the middle of the night in a known predominately black neighborhood. The officer knows the history and surroundings of the area. He may also know that there is a rift between a white gang and black gang in that area. The white guy is wearing dark baggy clothing. At this point the officer must ask them self the following questions:

  1. Are white people commonly in the area?
  2. Are people normally in the area in the middle of the night?
  3. Do members of the rival gang wear baggy dark clothing, or clothing of similar appearance?
  4. Are the chances of this person being in this area going to lead to a confrontation?

These questions need to be examined critically and analytically. If most or all of these questions can be answered “yes”, would the officer be unjustly racially profiling for stopping the person to speak with them?  The answer is no. There is a difference between profiling strictly based off of race, and profiling based on multiple factors. Race may be a contributing factor, but it is not the only factor. In this example, there is more than reasonable probable cause for the officer to suspect an issue may be at hand. The suspect is not breaking any laws by being there, however it is not unreasonable to engage the person in conversation in order to investigate. If nothing else the officer may offer to give the man a ride or notify him of the dangers of being in an unsafe part of town. The job of the officer is to protect all of the public, even if the man is a gang member.

With the previous example in mind let’s shift the situation to an airport. We must use what we currently know to combat the threats to the air traveler – in this case terrorism. We place a lot of responsibility on TSA, and they are charged with keeping hundreds of thousands of travelers safe as they go through these ports. To realistically combat the threat of terror, we must have guidelines in place to narrow down the search for the best results. If TSA treated an eighty year old grandmother as a suspect, we would be wasting valuable resources unless there was reasonable suspicion ahead of time to investigate such a person. With the issue of terrorism, here is what we know. There have been many terror attacks worldwide in the past 20 years. Of those, several have been directed toward the United States. The U.S.S. Cole was bombed by young Middle Eastern men. The First World Trade Center bombing was carried out by young Middle Eastern men. 9/11 was perpetrated by young Middle Eastern men, Arabs to be specific, and the recent plot of 2006 in England, where British authorities prevented the bombing of several U.S. bound planes, was being attempted by young Middle Eastern men. According to the Washington Post “Three of the four suicide attackers who killed 52 passengers in London’s transit system last summer were British citizens of Pakistani origin, investigators concluded. The fourth was identified as a Jamaican-born convert to Islam” (Ward, John, 2006).  Based off this information, the ongoing perception of terror plots being carried by young Middle Eastern men or of Middle East decent is a correct one. They clearly state that three of the four men were of Pakistani decent, and the fourth was of Jamaican decent.

We know terror is real, and we know its threat continues to push our security to the limit. History shows a clear correlation between young men recruited by terror cells, especially men of Middle Eastern decent.  Is it unreasonable for their age and ethnicity to be a red flag?  Some may say yes, some may say, no. It could be argued that history shows it’s not illogical to place this at the top of many considerations when investigating a suspect. To disregard this fact would be foolish and naive. There is a clear history of bank robbers wearing ski mask, and if you walk into a bank with a mask on, it’s almost a guarantee you will be profiled and treated with apprehension from the moment you walk in the door. This is only logical- and what we know from history supports this apprehension.

When it comes to security and expectations of the public, we must remember we do not live in a perfect world. While “political correctness” works on paper, it rarely applies in real world security situations. If we want our safety guaranteed, or at the very least have our safety a top priority, then we must be willing to make certain compromises. We can’t have it both ways and expect an effective outcome.

References

Meserve, Jeanne, and Mike Ahlers. “TSA tester slips mock bomb past airport security.” CNN (2008): n. pag. Web. 24 Sep 2009.

Ward John, . “Plot to bomb U.S. bound jets is foiled.” Washington Pots (2006): n. pag. Web. 24 Sep 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081000152.html

Tagged with: • • • • •
 
2 Comments
Leave A Response

Origins of Modern Terrorism and Legislation to Combat It

On 02.20.10, In Get Dialed In With Nick Dial, By dialn

MaskedTerrorist3By Nick Dial

Many people may not be aware that terrorism has a long history. While there has been a steady history of atrocities committed, it is the advent of modern day technologies that brings terrorism to our living rooms for all to see. It can no longer be ignored or neglected as much as it was before. To better understand modern terrorism, you must first take a look at the history behind it.

Terrorism has a long history, getting its roots during the French Revolution. The term terrorism was coined by Edmund Burke in the 18th century. He was referring to the brutal reform that had taken place by the revolutionist. They had decapitated thousands in public with little trial or justice of any kind. Since then, the term terrorism has taken many different meanings. Napoleon referenced resistance fighters during his world conquest as “terrorist”. The Germans did the same during WWII referring to any resistance, which was not recognized by an official military or government as “terrorist”. Today the meaning is drastically different. The FBI defines terrorism as the following: “The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (White, 2008, P. 7). Depending on where you live in the world may bring different definition of terrorism. The popular saying “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” may ring true in some cases, however I would argue Islamic jihad terrorism does not fall into this category. A freedom fighter must fight for true freedom, such as the French Resistance did against the Nazi occupation. Militant Islamic Jihad fights for the spread of Islamic purity law and Jihad (struggle or effort, now referred to as holy war). This law allows the oppression, abuse, and murder of women. Women cannot vote, drive, or move freely in public. This law even goes to extremes such as not allowing someone to carry tomatoes and cucumbers in the same basket, for this is a “sexual innuendo”. This law has no tolerance for people of diverse faith. All who oppose this ideology, Muslim included are regarded as enemy and therefore need to be eliminated, only then will true Islam be restored. The most who suffer from this ideology are Muslims themselves.

Modern day terrorism is dominated by Islamic Jihad. This wasn’t always the case. During the 60’s and 70’s, Latin American terrorism was very active. Its structure was founded from Marxist and socialistic values. The organization of those groups is mimicked today by Islamic Jihadist groups. Many may not be aware of the roots of Militant Islam, so to better understand the roots of this ideology, an over view will be provided. Ibn Taymiyyah was an Islamic scholar in the 13th century. He sought to find a solution to the carnage during the crusade wars. He felt through prayer, he was enlightened to bring about Jihad. He felt that Muslims had lost their way, and need to seek purification from the inside out. He referred to this as the sixth pillar of Islam and called for the destruction of all opposition.  Most Muslim scholars view Jihad as a struggle against evil. Taymiyyah took this and expanded it into more militant terms. Jonathan R. White, an expert in terrorism states the following: “Ibn Taymiyyah expanded the meaning of jihad by advocating attacks on none believers and impure Muslims” (White p. 193, 2008). The only tolerance he provided was for Muslims who conformed to this ideology. Since him, there have been various philosophers such as Abdul Wahhab, and Sayyid Qutb. Influenced by Taymiyyah, these philosophers have expanded on Taymiyyah’s militant theology and have had great influence on modern day terrorism. Osama Bin Laden is a devote follower of Qutb. Qutb teaches that all Islamic nations should impose Islamic purity law. When this is achieved, they should confront the world. Islamic terrorist leaders and organizations worldwide use these philosophers and their views as justification for their action.

Since the world trade center attacks of September 11th 2001, new legislation was passed known as the patriot act. This legislation opened the door for various agencies’s to go after terrorism and take an aggressive offensive role. According to www.whitehouse.gov, the official website for the white house, the patriot act accomplishes the following: “The Patriot Act Eliminates Double Standards By Allowing Agents To Pursue Terrorists With The Same Tools They Use Against Other Criminals. Before the Patriot Act, it was easier to track a drug dealer’s phone contacts than a terrorist’s phone contacts, and it was easier to obtain a tax cheat’s credit card receipts than to trace the financial support of an al-Qaida fundraiser. The Patriot Act corrected these double standards – and America is safer as a result” (The white house, 2008).

Basically the patriot act has allowed such things as expediting the process of intelligence gathering. Before, the judicial process took so long to obtain warrants, that the risk of losing the information or evidence was too great. By the time they would get approval, the evidence was long gone. This allows Agency’s to get started on the Intel gathering while the warrant is being obtained. This way they don’t lose the evidence. There still needs to be an approval for the warrant at however, and any evidence gathered with failure to obtain a legal warrant will result in invalid evidence. This is referred to as “sneak and peaks”. This has become an issue of controversy in the country. Many people feel that it violates civil rights. The problem is that people are forgetting one key thing. Agencies are going after enemy combatants in this country, in the past, they would have been called SPIES! When you have national security threats from an enemy combatant, domestic civil law is often not applicable or insufficient. There is a whole new range of federal anti-espionage and foreign threat laws that come into play.

Recently the Supreme Court decided that enemy combatants on foreign battlefields will be afforded the same rights as criminals within the United States borders.  This is the first time in history this has been decided. The problem with this is the enemy will use our legal system, (which is in place to protects citizens) to exploit our media and judicial system. They don’t play by the rules, but will use the rules to work against the United States. Sometimes common sense needs to take over. This is our Achilles heel, and they will cut it every chance they get. Many argue that the patriot act does nothing to secure our safety, and that we are more vulnerable than before. According to the Heritage foundation (2007), 19 terrorist attacks have been thwarted since 9/11, some even “homegrown” right here in the United States (James J. 2007). With the rise in terror attacks all through 2009, we should be more perseverant now than ever.  Fort Hood, the Christmas bomb attempt, the shooting of military recruiters, and several more plots foiled, should serve as a clear testimony that the fight is far from over. Only through strong will and a desire to succeed will we as a nation rise above this radical ideology.

References

Carafano, James J. (2007). U.s. thwarts 19 terrorist attacks against america since 9/11. Retrieved 12/01/2008, from

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm

The white house. Retrieved December 7, 2008, from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/patriotact/

White, J. (2008). Terrorism and homeland security (sixth edition). Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth cengage learning.

Tagged with: • • • • •
 
24 Comments
Leave A Response

Terrorism Wake Up Call: Man Caused Disaster Strikes On Christmas Day 2009

On 12.27.09, In Get Dialed In With Nick Dial, By dialn

time_bombOn March 17th 2009, Janet Napolitano stated terrorism is a man caused disaster. On August 7th 2009, the Obama administration officially announced that the U.S. is no longer at war with terrorism. They stated the U.S. is no longer at war with Jihadist as well. On December 25th 2009, the Nigerian man on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 must have not received the memo. As the plane descended, passengers began to smell smoke and noticed an odd glow.  “It sounded like a firecracker in a pillowcase,” said Peter Smith, a passenger from the Netherlands. “First there was a pop, and then (there) was smoke.” Smith said one passenger, sitting opposite the man, climbed over passengers, went across the aisle and tried to restrain the man. The heroic passenger appeared to have been burned. (Irwin, J, 2009).

The Nigerian man claimed he had been sent to destroy the plane on orders of Al-Qaeda. What could have been a very terrible disaster during “the most wonderful time of the year” ended in success as the passengers of flight 253 swarmed the terrorist as the explosives failed. Christmas miracles do exist after all. The plane was able to land with no life- threatening injuries.

The reason this event is one of massive significance is due to the fact that the world and even the U.S. is increasingly falling into a state of malaise and denial. A pre-9/11 mentality is taking hold and rhetoric such as “man caused disaster” is taking the place of common sense. Is it really going to take the periodical terror attack to remind the world that there are people with a violent agenda? The World Allies need to step up to the plate, and quit acting as if this is a law enforcement issue. This issue is one of massive scale, and the perpetrators have made it very clear they are at war.

One issue that seems to confuse people is the concept of terrorism itself. People must realize that after 9/11 the world changed. It will never go back to a pr-9/11 state. While you would think this was clear, many just seem not to comprehend this. They speak about “winning” the War on Terror as if there is one leader who is going to sign terms of surrender. This is false, and the sooner people wake up to this the better. This is not a war in the traditional sense. In terms of terrorism, it never will be.

When many think of the War on Terror, they often think of roadside bombs, air strikes and the engagement of military powers. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, war is defined as follows: “a: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>” (Merriam-webster online dictionary, 2008). Much like The War on Drugs, or The War on Disease, The War on Terror is a fight against an ideology. Fighting does take place, but it is a class war in the true sense. You have opposing philosophies squaring off to do battle. In this case the United States and her allies believe in human rights, the freedom of religion, happiness, and a world free of oppressing theology. The other fights for an Islamic world- wide government that will rid the world of all non believers, Muslims included.

Obama and his administration must wake up before harsh lessons of the past are repeated. The War on Terror is very complicated, which requires much research to accurately comprehend.. There are mass amounts of disinformation, mainstream “talking points”, and popular clichés that all fail to accurately bring the situation to the table. Iraq clearly had much ambition to further its threat to the West. When 9/11 took place, a great game of chess was unleashed on the world and threats needed to be prioritized. With the Intel that had been provided, and the Intel that has been found since, it is safe to say that Iraq is a logical military action determined to provide arms into the hands of Islamic Jihadists. Before 2001, history shows that the United States suffered from constant terrorist attacks. Since going on the offensive, there have been minor attacks throughout the world, and none on United States soil. This fact cannot be ignored. The War on Terror is effective, working, and necessary to secure the safety of this nation and her Allies. This is a world issue, not just a United States one. While the world continues to turn a blind eye, rogue nations of the world continue to arm themselves. History should serve as the ultimate guide when dealing with such issues. Hitler was ignored and not taken seriously at face value. His intentions were not hidden, and yet nations continued to ignore the warnings. That ignorance was paid by the blood of fifty million people whose lives were lost during WWII; all of which could have been avoided with proper intervention and action. Action is the key word in that statement. Sometimes it is not enough to sit back and talk; at times action must be taken and someone will have to do the heavy lifting. People must wake up. It should not take the occasional man on a plane trying to blow us up, or a terrible car bomb to remind us that these people are real and are bent on doing us harm. Ignorance and complacency may be comfortable and convenient, but it comes with a price and it is a luxury we can no longer afford.

References

Irwin, J. (Photographer). (2009). passengers help foil attack on detroit-bound plane. [Web]. Retrieved from

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091226/D9CR18JO0.html

Merriam-webster online dictionary. (2008). . Retrieved from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/WAR

Tagged with: • • • • •
 
64 Comments
Leave A Response

Obama to pledge 900 million to Hamas: The Iran Connection and The Revolving Door

On 09.10.09, In Get Dialed In With Nick Dial, By dialn

by Nick Dial

The connection between Israel and Palestine concerning terrorism in the Middle East is a long bloody road. Since 1947 ,with the introducton of Israel by the United Nations, the countries of the Middle East have been more inflamed then a serious case of hemorrhoids. In the end, the British felt like good chaps with the Balfour Declaration, while the Muslims felt betrayed. Israel  became immediately  under attack as  a bastard nation of the west. Soon Israel had to earn their right to exist in blood. From Black September to the Six Day War, Israel was pushed into a sink or swim situation. The result of this has led to a nation that requires every citizen to serve in the military, an open carry policy for weapons, and an ever aggressive military constantly training. The difference of life or death literally relies on Israel’s ability to react quickly and powerfully. The tensions between  Jews and Muslims are nothing new. however. They go back to biblical time and now where a saber was once used, F-16 fighting falcons  and hellfire missiles take its place. The weapons may have changed with the times, but ,unfortunately, the ideology and inability to show tolerance for others has not. The rhetoric of  the past has stayed the present and continues  to shed blood on the very same sand that was repeatedly stained red  centuries before. If the land was not so engulfed with bigotry and fertilized with the blood of the innocent, perhaps more would grow in the region then palm trees.

Today, Iran is the undisputed champion of funding terror. In the name of God this nation provides training, money, weapons, and good old fashioned propaganda for one purpose and one purpose only -  to wipe Israel off the earth, kill infidels and all who support Israel’s existence, and to take a global grasp in the name of Islam so Mohammed can one day return and rule in all his glory. Iran’s cleric leadership looks at this as their divine duty, and will stop at nothing. Hamas, which comes from Egypt, and Hezbollah which comes from Iran, have something in common. They are both  located in Gaza, they both hate Israel, they both receive funding, training and men from Iran, and Hamas is the “elected” government of Palestine. Asia Times stated the following:

“Although Hamas was a Sunni party and the Tehran government wanted to spread a Shi’ite Islamic revolution, the two parties were working together, each for personal reasons. Hamas wanted a regional heavyweight to supply it with arms. Iran wanted a military group to lean on in Palestine, just like it had Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Badr Brigade in Iran.” (Moubayed, Sami 2008).

If anyone wishes to understand Middle Eastern culture and survive, they must comprehend one thing above all. This part of the world does not respond to talk. It only responds to force and knows such. Talk has been attempted for centuries, but always comes down to a fight. Talking is perceived as a sign of weak ness and projecting such a weakness in this region leads to increased aggression by the other party. When the bull is staring you down, most times you have to smack him on the nose to get the point across. Recently, our new president and administration has been pushing for what history shows to be a big mistake. They wish to kiss the cobra on the nose and expect not to get bit in return. Despite warnings from Israel, President Obama attempted to talk to Iran with negations. According to News Vrine, Israel stated the following:

“President Obama’s policy of direct diplomacy with Iran may buy Tehran enough time to produce nuclear weapons, Shabtai Shavit, former chief of the Mossad intelligence agency, warned in an exclusive WND interview today.
“I don’t believe there is a political solution which can be achieved through negotiations with Iran,” he said.
“My concern is that until Obama finishes his learning curve of the subject, the Iranians are going to have maybe the first or even more nuclear bombs” (2009) .

“Learning curve” is the key word in this citation. Despite warnings from the older and wiser, our nation has foolishly elected a president who ran on rhetoric equivalent of high school student body speeches of chocolate milk for all and apparently learning on- the -job is ok. Obama sent Iran a letter, requesting talks with the nation. What was their response to Obama? Iran stated the following televised to the masses. “This means western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed” (Shepherd, Noel, 2009). If this was not enough to raise an eyebrow, the following will certainly ruffle a feather or two. President Obama and his administration are pledging to give nine hundred million dollars to Hamas. ( That’s right, as in the terrorist organization. ) The logic for such an action is to buy off loyalty. By providing money, they expect to have Hamas rely less on Iran  and hopefully earn a soft spot in Hamas’s fluffy rocket shooting heart. Obama defends this action by stating that the money will not be given to “militants”. He declares the funds instead will be transferred to the United Nations Relief and Work Agency, also known as UNRWA. Therefore ,the money will be used for legitimate purposes, right? Unfortunately, like many Americans, Obama should have taken a history class or two. UNRWA has very friendly and close ties with Hamas. According to WorldNet Daily,

“On July 6, 2001, Hamas convened a conference in the UNRWA school in the Jabalya refugee camp in Gaza, with students, teachers, and school administrators in attendance. Yassin presented his ideology and then an official named Saheil Alhinadi, who represented the teaching sector of UNRWA, praised students who had recently carried out suicide attacks against Israel, declaring “the road to Palestine passes through the blood of the fallen and these fallen have written history with parts of their flesh and their bodies” (2009)

I’m sure given the mild language of the UNRWA, they would be more then ethical in the disbursement of these funds. A rocket, ….a hum,…I mean shovel for every man. The article goes on to state about intelligence reports that indicate weapons storage and firing of rockets from various UNRWA camps.

Let’s pretend for one minute that all the nine hundred million dollars were to go to honest use. There is one big loop hole that people have not addressed. Hamas is the elected government  and much of its budget has to go toward community services such as school, medical, construction, etc. The money in their budget they would have spent for repair and rebuilding is now free. They get to take all their funds and simply shift it to militant use. Thanks to the United States taxpayers and their generous President, they will be killing more Jewish men, women, and children in no time. Courtesy of the red, white, and blue. The phrase “the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air” will take on a whole new meaning as rockets explode in Israeli neighborhoods once again.

References
(2009). Hamas happy with obamas 900 million dollar pledge. Worldnet Daily, Retrieved 03/07/2009, from
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89949
(2009). Israeli warning to obama: Your talk gives iran nukes. Newsvine, Retrieved 03/07/2009, from
http://calbarran.newsvine.com/_news/2009/02/19/2454507-israeli-warning-to-obama-your-talk-gives-iran-nukes
(2008). Who are hezbollah?. BBC, Retrieved 03/07/2009, from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/43

14423.stm
Eberthart, Dave (2008). Terror expert: Wmd attack on u.s. inevitable. Newsmax, Retrieved 03/07/2009, from
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/cetron_terror_attack/2008/09/10/129636.html

Tagged with: • • • • • • • •
 
40 Comments
Leave A Response

U.S. Soldiers Killed By Man Caused Disasters AKA “TERRORISM”

On 09.10.09, In Get Dialed In With Nick Dial, By dialn

By Nick Dial

some gave all

You know what really irks me about this administration?  They have been spending absurd amounts of money on domestic pet projects  turning everything into an “emergency” to push the agenda. The fact is, there is a real emergency going on right now. I heard on the news today that 4 soldiers died in Afghanistan. This really infuriates me. I haven’t heard one thing in the past three months about Iraq or Afghanistan by president Obama. He’s too busy engaging his “enemies” like Rush Limbaugh, when the nations REAL enemies are continuing to conspire and kill American troops. They re-label terror as a contingency and terror as “man made disaster”, but have the audacity to call dissenting Americans “political terrorists”, and “extremists”. They say now we are not at war with “Jihadists”, but isn’t Al-Qaeda Jihadists? There are four dead Americans coming home in the next week that may disagree with that statement. They are spending billions on failed social programs, all while cutting funds for the military and failing to dedicate the funds and resources necessary for the troops. I would rather see our troops come home then be subjected to a political game putting them at a disadvantage in the the field. Of course, we can’t do that and it would be very irresponsible.

Gee…Where did we see this before? Ah yes…Vietnam, where the Democrats, JFK and Linden B Johnson, put our troops in a war and then slapped ridiculous and arbitrary restrictions on them such as no fly or bombing zones in the north where all their factories and logistics were located. It was like expecting a boxer to win in the ring on your behalf, but then you tie his hands and say,” Dodge and weave until your opponent tires out –  you can win that way.” It wasn’t until Nixon, a republican, was voted into office that the Vietnam war was finally fought as it should have been from the get go. He launched operation Line Backer, and unleashed our full potential on the enemy. Our hands were no longer tied and we were free to give them that much needed uppercut and left hook. Finally, the north was feeling the wrath of the United States and our B-52’s were breaking the backs of the North Vietnamese so badly that Ho Che Min came to the table to have peace talks. Foolishly, we took the deal and millions more died. One North Vietnamese Officer stated ,”the Americans will never know how close they were to crushing us”. In the end, the liberal left had their way and when we left, the killing fields began. Where were the the lefties outcry over that? I thought they were humanitarians?

Now in Afghanistan, the same game is being played. We have nuclear armed Pakistan, a supposed ally, and like Cambodia in the Vietnam conflict, we have these  same restrictive rules. The enemy has free reign in Pakistan and continues to attack our troops from their country, yet Pakistan states we cannot pursue the enemy and must respect their sovereignty.It’s time to get serious.Iif we had fought like this during WWII, the Germans and Japanese would have mopped the floor with us –  and then some. We need to get our priorities straight. We need to dedicate the funds to the war effort, mass our troops, and go into Pakistan and knock the hell out of the enemy. War is dirty and bloody. When you sit here and play footsie like we did in Vietnam and continue to operate in a box, nothing will be achieved. It only prolongs the fighting and people continue to die in vein. You want health care reform? You want stimulus bills in the trillions with pork attached? Do right by the troops and give them the pork! Give them the “reform”! Finish the job in that region and then we’ll talk about all the other stuff. This is like buying new furniture when your house is burning down.

Tagged with: • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response
Go To Top »