This On-going War! ... by Frimet and Arnold Roth of Jerusalem

"THIS ONGOING WAR is not part of the activity of the Malki Foundation which was founded by us, Frimet and Arnold Roth of Jerusalem. But it is inspired by the same tragic circumstances.

Keren Malki, the Malki Foundation, is a memorial to the life of Malki Roth, our daughter, murdered at the age of 15 in a terrorist massacre in the centre of Jerusalem executed by terrorists in the service of Hamas. Beyond its function as a remembrance of a life lost, Keren Malki has provided and continues daily to provide tangible, concrete, invaluable support to more than two thousand Israeli families of every background - Christian, Moslem, Jewish, Druze and others - caring at home for a seriously disabled child."                                                         THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2011

Enough already: A first-person reminder for those who think we objected to the release of a mere "driver" 

Repeatedly over the years and especially during this past very difficult week, reporters, analysts, political figures and even friends, having noted our call to have the name of our daughter's murderer removed from the list of terrorists to be (and now) freed by Israel, have referred to the woman as "the driver" of the human bomb.

She was not the driver. She was sentenced to sixteen life terms in prison because she played the most central of roles in the Sbarro Jerusalem massacre. She murdered 15 people on the day, eight of them children, and a sixteenth - a young mother - remains in a vegetative state until today. And here, in the video below (hat tip to vladtepesblog.com) , she says it. So please - enough already with calling this murderer a mere "driver".

As for the convicted murderer's total absence of regret for the deaths she engineered, she continues to take full credit, no regrets, now that she is free as a bird in Jordan. See this report ["Tamimi: I have never regretted what I have done"] from a Jordanian publication, today. It includes original video with Arabic dialogue that we hope someone authoritative will translate into English. Here is how the editors atAmmon News in Jordan rendered her appalling message in their English:

‘I have never regretted what I have done, and if given another chance I’ll do it again’ she added. Tamimi expressed her believes in the rightness of what she has done. Tamimi said in an interview with Ammon News Tuesday that the hostility and aggression is the basic character of the Israeli officials, unless the are forced to negotiate. Ahlam Tamimi, 31, was serving 16 life sentences for her role in a suicide bombing, including taking the assailant to the Sbarro franchise in Jerusalem where he killed 16 people in 2001. deported to Jordan last Wednesday early morning. She thanked Jordan and stated that Jordan people are the heart beat of the Palestinians. [More]

While still inside an Israeli prison, the murderer was interviewed for a film that we saw some years ago.To understand the meaning of evil incarnate, watch her face in the video below as she hears for the first time the actual number of children who were murdered in the Sbarro massacre.



(Hat tip to Vlad Tepes from Canada. The source - under the title "Palestinian terrorist delights in the knowledge that it was eight children who died by her hand" - is here.)

Tamimi is the only one of the terrorists released on Tuesday to have been sent into so-called 'exile' in the Kingdom of Jordan. That happens to be where she was born and where her family resides. Some exile.

She was feted there in an official and well-publicized reception yesterday. We choked when we noted thatthe location was the Family Court of Amman. It's covered here.

and, 
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2011

16-Oct-11: "Do not free my daughter's murderer" (Haaretz today)

Malki was a talented classical flautist

This went up just a few minutes ago on the Haaretz site... 

Mother of Israeli suicide bombing victim: Do not free my daughter's murderer 

Frimet Roth's 15-year-old daughter was killed in the attack on Jerusalem's Sbarro pizza restaurant in 2001; Ahlam Tamimi was sentenced to 16 life terms following the attack, and is set for release as part of the Shalit deal.

I am writing these words moments after belatedly watching a recorded video that went to air on Israel’s Channel 2 News on Friday night. It shows the Hamas terrorist, Ahlam Tamimi, being asked: “Do you feel sorry for what you did?”

She answers her interviewer without a trace of hesitation:. “No. Why should I feel sorry?” 

The interviewer persists: “Would you do it again if you had the chance?” Her unwavering response: “Yes.” 

Tamimi was reaffirming the declaration she made originally in 2006: “I do not regret what I did”, is the way she put it then. 

One summer vacation day in August, 2001, Tamimi murdered my fifteen year old, daughter along with 14 other innocent men, women and children who were having lunch at the Jerusalem Sbarro pizza restaurant. 

I wonder whether PM Netanyahu has heard Tamimi’s statements. Could he possibly have agreed to free an unrepentant, cold-blooded murderer, sentenced to 16 life terms after she publicly committed to murder again?

Perhaps he simply hasn’t seen the interview. Or perhaps the Prime Minister did see it and wasn’t moved.

After all, several months ago my husband and I sent him a letter detailing the crimes of which Tamimi was convicted and pleading with him to refuse to release her. In that letter, we reminded him that she is generally described mistakenly as the “driver” or “helper”. We noted that she was actually the planner and engineer of the attack. She personally transported the 10 kg bomb concealed in a guitar case in a taxi from Ramallah to Jerusalem, met up with Al Masri, the suicide bomber, and handed him the case. The two then walked together, disguised as tourists, to the center of the city. They stopped at the target Tamimi had selected. She instructed Al Masri to wait fifteen minutes before detonating the explosives. She wanted him to give her enough time to escape the scene safely, she explained later. 

Prime Minister Netanyahu never responded to our written plea. He did not attempt to explain to us why he decided to include Tamimi in this horrific deal despite her uniquely demonic credentials: a mass murderer who has served nine years and has publicly proclaimed her lack of remorse and intention to murder again. 

Now the day nears when we fear Tamimi will board the bus to a free life in Jordan, when her own prediction of 2006 - “I will be free again” - is realized. 

We feel desperate. We beg Mr Netanyahu to grant us a few minutes of his time and hear us out.

In any sane country with a fair judicial system, even paroled murderers are not released without granting the victims’ loved ones a chance to address the parole board. I thought Israel is such a state. I pray that I was not wrong. 

Frimet Roth - Jerusalem 

Click here to read Haaretz's interview with the Roth family, immediately following Malka Chana's death in 2001.

A reminder to our visitors and readers that we created a petition in the past 24 hours calling for the deletion of Tamimi's name from the list of terrorists to be released from Israeli prisons. We need your support. Please go the petition site and sign - and please encourage your friends to do the same.

A Story That Continues to Scare Millions: And Can't Wait for the Ending!

Posted by Diogenes Sarcastica™ on 10/21/2011 12:22:00 PM

Note:
see more ... Diogenes Sarcastica

Obama Administrations Ever-Changing Position on the Class Act

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2011

POLITICAL PISTACHO

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The CLASS Act is a provision in Obama's Health Care Law that addresses long term care. It stands for “Community Living Assistance Services and Supports.” The provision is a voluntary insurance program that would cover home health-care options for adults who become disabled. It was Senator Ted Kennedy’s baby. The White House has been supportive of it in public, but not so in private.

The problems with the CLASS Act include the fact that it is frontloaded in its claim of savings, and backloaded in its costs. It is that way on purpose, so that you won't know how much it hurts until America is addicted to it.

Senator Chris Dodd was chairing the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in Kennedy’s absence, and was working to get the support the provision needed to be a part of Obamacare. Dodd allowed a Republican, Senator Judd Gregg, to add an amendment, which was designed to weaken the program, but it was that amendment that garnered enough support for the provision to be included in the Health Care Bill at the time.

Now, the CLASS Act has been yanked by the Obama administration. But, after yanking it, they now say they want it back in. President Obama has decided that after yanking the provision, he is against repealing the health law's long-term-care CLASS Act and might veto Republican efforts to do so.

The common belief is the provision is dead, but never underestimate the audacity of the Left.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced in a blog post on the Huffington Post website that the administration did not see a way to make the program sustainable. Sebelius said her agency could not ensure the program providing long-term care paid for itself as required by law.

Remember, these are the same dirt bags that told us the CLASS Act would save a bundle of money.

Hmmm, could it be that was a lie?

Now, as Congressional Republicans call for the immediate repeal of the CLASS Act, an unworkable long-term care benefit as far as Obama and his cronies are concerned, the democrats have decided to defend it.

The Obama administration has announced that though the CLASS Act can't pay for itself, they don't want it repealed.

What is wrong with these people? The funding mechanism doesn't exist, they don't have a way to implement the provision, yet, Obama opposes repeal. He wants to continue to fight for the CLASS Act.

Why defend it after announcing the death of the CLASS Act aspect of Obamacare?

Obamacare, as a whole, has not been subjected to the kind of scrutiny the CLASS Act was. When they were considering killing the program, the actuary announced that he was being laid off and that the regime was gonna kill the program - a way news of their plans was not supposed to get out. So, to try to fix how it was all being viewed, they decided to deny that closure of the program was imminent. They insisted they were still working on the problem of funding, and tried to bury the actuary's announcement to avoid embarrassment.

Then again, I wonder if the Obama Team is hoping that the Supreme Court's opinion will be that Obamacare is unconstitutional. Think about it. If that was to happen, the unpopular law would not be a hindrance to Obama's campaign, and at the same time he could use it as a tool to accuse the GOP of taking away the people's health care (because, after all, he really thinks the people support it).

They know the health care law is a piece of crap, anyway. It was put into place to move America towards more government control, not because it is anything better than the existing system. That's why they issued waivers.

Of course, now, they've canceled the waivers.

The waivers were offered to conceal the bad aspects of this from people before the election. That, and the waivers gave the Obama administration a way of playing preference politics with businesses. . . you know, like the mercantilist that Obama truly is.

As for the CLASS Act, it turns out they got caught with a bad law, and they know it, and they can't seem to find a way to cover it up. They want to secretly get rid of it, but it didn't happen that way. In a sense, it is actually pretty funny watching the democrats squirm like this.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

• The Hill: Obama Opposes Repeal of Healthcare Program Suspended Last Week - Julian Pecquet
• The Hill: New Healthcare Fight is Joined as 2010 Law Implodes - Julian Pecquet

What the CLASS Act says about health-care reform - Washington Post

CLASS Act is just the tip of the Obamacare iceberg - Washington Examiner

Iran's war to win - by Caroline Glick

October 19, 2011
Caroline Glick

The Obama administration's response to Iran's plan to bring its 32-year-old war against the United States to the US capital is the newest confirmation that President Barack Obama has no intention in taking action to remove or diminish the threat Iran poses to the US, its allies and interests.

Last week, the Justice Department revealed that law enforcement officials foiled an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US and to blow up the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington.

They arrested an Iranian-American dual national who is a relative of a senior terror mastermind serving in Iran's Revolutionary Guards. The dual national, Mansoor Arbabsiar, contacted an American undercover agent whom he believed worked for one of Mexico's drug cartels and asked for the cartel to assist Iran in carrying out the plot.

Iran declared war on the US in 1979. Since then, it has used its terrorist arms in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the region to murder Americans. It has used its terror arms in Latin American to target US interests and allies. And now it has been caught in the act of recruiting agents to assist it in carrying out acts of terror in Washington, DC.

Following the Justice Department's announcement, the Obama administration proclaimed it intends to "isolate" Iran in the international community. While it sounds like a serious plan, particularly when it is stated assertively by Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the fact is that this is not a serious policy at all.

Indeed, upon reflection, it is clear that the announced aim of isolating Iran involves doing nothing to retaliate against Iran for its aggression.

There are three reasons that this is the case. First, by placing the burden for punishing Iran on the nebulous "international community," Obama is signaling that under his leadership, America does not view operational plans to attack US interests on American soil as something that America should deal with.

In Iran's case, the "international community" means Russia and China. The two UN Security Council-veto-wielding regimes have collaborated with Iran on its illicit activities generally and its development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles specifically. Russia and China have blocked all serious sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council. Their active defense of Iran at the Security Council renders it a foregone conclusion that the UN will never authorize military force to be used against Iran's nuclear installations.

Since Russia and China prefer to see Iran acquire nuclear weapons than authorize any UN measure that could prevent or slow down this development, it is hard to imagine either government suddenly agreeing to isolate Iran just because it planned to kill the Saudi ambassador and blow up a couple of foreign embassies in Washington.

THE SECOND reason it is reasonable to conclude that the administration is being disingenuous in its tough talk about Iran is because the administration tells us it is being disingenuous. Speaking to The New York Times over the weekend, several senior White House officials said they were considering options to steeply escalate the US's sanctions against Iran.

Specifically, they said the administration is mulling the prospect of barring financial transactions with Iran's central bank. They also said that the White House is thinking about barring contact with Iran's Revolutionary Guards-owned company that controls the sale of Iranian oil and natural gas to foreign countries.

Then again, administration sources also told the Times that they aren't certain that the sanctions are such a good idea. If the US blocks the only viable path toward purchasing Iranian gas and oil and otherwise makes it impossible for Iran to sell its natural resources, they warned, the US would cause the market price of both commodities to rise sharply, thus harming its own economy.So probably the US won't ratchet up sanctions on the regime after all.

Then there is the notion of military retaliation. After the news broke of the foiled terror plot, Obama let it be known that the "military option is on the table." But then, he didn't specify the goal of the military option or its target. Is the US developing an option for attacking Iran's nuclear weapons facilities? Is it preparing to attack Iranian regime targets in an effort to topple the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world? Is it planning a military strike against IRGC targets in Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan? 

It is highly unlikely that the US is planning to undertake any of these missions. Over the weekend, the US announced that its troops would be fully removed from Iraq in January. Obama has insisted on withdrawing his surge troops from Afghanistan despite the Taliban resurgence in the country.

As for attacking regime targets, it is hard to imagine that after siding with the mullahs against democracy protesters in the aftermath of the stolen 2009 presidential elections, Obama would decide to call suddenly for the regime to be replaced - let alone take military action to advance that goal.

THEN THERE is the nuclear issue. Since Russia's and China's support for Iran at the Security Council rules out any option of a Security Council-sanctioned attack in Iran's nuclear installations, it is fairly obvious that the administration will take no military action whatsoever against Iran's nuclear program. This is, after all, the administration that believes the US must receive UN approval for any military operation.

Obama's effectively pro-ayatollah policies have caused him to treat the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran as essentially identical to the threat posed to the US by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. As nuclear proliferation scholar Avner Cohen explained in an interview with The Jerusalem Post earlier this month, the administration is committed to a policy of containing a nuclear-armed Iran rather than preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Cohen explained, "The US wants itself, and also Israel, to be engaged in a thorough effort to contain Iran - like the way the Soviet Union was contained during the Cold War - meaning that for all practical purposes and short of extreme circumstances, both the US and Israel would have to put aside the military option and instead work to contain Iran."

According to Olli Heinonen, the former deputy director of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, the US will have an opportunity to put its nuclear containment policy toward Iran into action in the near future. In an interview two weeks ago with Der Spiegel, Heinonen asserted that within two years, the Iranians will have sufficient quantities of plutonium to produce atomic bombs. Within a year, they will have enough highly enriched uranium to have what is referred to as "break-out capacity," meaning they can produce nuclear bombs at will.

The problem with Obama's non-response to Iran's nuclear weapons program and its terror plot to attack Washington is that the Iranian regime is nothing like the Soviet Union. The regime whose first foray into international diplomacy involved taking a knife to the nation-state system by attacking the US embassy and holding its personnel hostage is not a strategic equivalent of the Soviet Union. A regime that sent 100,000 of its children to their deaths during the Iran-Iraq War by dispatching them to the battlefields as human mine sweepers is not a regime that can be contained through mutual assured destruction as the Soviets were.

Iran's war against the US is a war that only Iran is fighting. And if something doesn't change very quickly, it is clear that since Iran is the only side fighting the war, Iran is the only side that will win the war.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post. 

Posted on October 19, 2011 at 6:01 PM

Obama's New Economy - Creeping Socialism

Obama's New Economy - Creeping Socialism

By Nicholas Contompasis 

THE LEFT - WATCH WHAT THEY DO, NOT WHAT THEY SAY!

"Make people dependent on government and they will embrace Socialism" 
- N.P. Contompasis 

Have you noticed that the Obama Administration is attempting to create a new economy within our existing economy. A new economy that is funded by your tax dollars and controlled by friends of Obama.  
Friends of Obama include union leaders, many non-profit organizations, campaign contributors and many foreign interests that want harm to come to our great economy. 

After reviewing most of these new Obama led companies and their handling of your tax dollars, I predict they will continue to lose money. This will put added pressure to raise even more taxes to keep the failing companies going. General Motors, Chrysler, Solyndra, Tefla and many more are companies invented or propped up by the far Left. They would never survive in a normal capitalist environment. 

Now, envision a cancerous tumor spreading throughout a host body as it slowly takes over, with an ultimate outcome of complete domination of the host. You would then have a new economy funded purely by your tax dollars. The majority of what you earn would be sent to the government to be redistributed, not to the poor, but the new industrial leaders of the country's new economy - friends of Obama. 

Our current private sector companies get little to no help from government. As a matter of fact, our government, led by Obama, is doing everything possible to overburden our existing private sector with regulations that are killing its efficiencies. This policy works in favor of Obama's new economy, pushing down the traditional while funding and promoting his new Obama led companies that will suck the country dry due to their inefficiencies.

You can then deduce that these companies exist for only one reason. That reason is to enrich the friends of Obama and, of course, Obama himself. 

You would think that Obama would've learned from the failed socialist states now crumbling around the world!  

Under Socialism, sharing the wealth equitably is fine, but it never seems to work out that way, now does it?

Khaddaffi Dead, NATO Protects Next Dictator-in-Waiting...

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2011

The Lunatic's Asylum

While the news of the gruesome and all-too-late death of Colonel Moammar Khadaffi is welcome, it should not be greeted with all the expressions of hope that many in the Obama Administration, particularly President Frequent-Flyer-Miles, himself, have attached to the event.

Despite the evocation of a belief that, with this brutal jerkoff now pushing up the daisies, Libya is on the path to democracy, exasperating experience (and history) has often shown that no such thing will happen, nor should it be expected to happen, without continued sacrifices in blood, treasure and political capital by the West. Particularly, by the United States.

Democracy, you see, is not native to the culture of either North Africa or Islam. In fact, there is no functioning (in the sense that we Westerners would understand the term) democracy anywhere in the Middle East or in the Islamic Lands. There simply can't be, and while some might point to the examples of Iraq and Afghanistan, I would ask that you consider what I have to say before you get all smug about it: Democracy is not, as some would suggest, simply a system of government -- it is a cultural phenomenon.

And it is a uniquely western cultural phenomenon, at that, with a 4,000 year old pedigree that has gone through several periods of transformation, acclimatization, compromise, social and religious turmoil, legal wrangling, and historical review. It depends upon institutions that fall outside of the realm of the purely legislative and political. Democracy is, for the most part, the still-evolving result of a continuous experiment in which compromise upon a broad range of issues are daily debated, examined, tested by experience, assimilated, folded, spindled and mutilated, and subjected to the often-harsh process of trial-and-error. That which works, or which can be accommodated, is kept; that which is not, is thrown upon the dustheap of history.

Such a process could only occur within a dynamic culture with values dissimilar to those found within the tribal and sectarian world of superstition which is the Middle East and Islamic World. These Western, democratic values can be summed up as:

1. A belief in individual rights, primary amongst them are the rights to life, property, self-defense, and a belief in the ability of every Man to rise or fall upon his own talents and merits.

2. A cultural atmosphere in which experimentation, scientific or otherwise, has been divorced from the practices and dogmas of religion, and is not subject to the whims, tastes or requirements of the ruling elite.

3. A respect for legalism and legal systems which aren't simply the playthings of the rulership class, and which are intended to promote the general exercise of individual liberties rather to safeguard the prerogatives of the ruling authority.

4. Democratic systems promote the primacy of the intellectual and practical above the concerns of tribe, sect, and superstition.

In other words, Purple fingers, dead dictators, and State Department press releases do not a democracy make. In the Islamic World of today, even in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, the principle building blocks of true democratic institutions do not exist. It is one thing to be able to vote in a former dictatorship, it is quite another to have that vote actually count for anything.

Democracy is not like an iPhone app that one can download and run; it is born of a culture that is amenable to it, and which welcomes it. This has been the greatest misapprehension within American Middle Eastern policy for the last century, a mistaken belief that inside every _________ is an American just dying to get out, if only we could 'give' them 'freedom'.

This extraordinarily naive belief was the primary factor in American defeat in Vietnam, and it may still prove to be the underlying reason for potential failure in democratizing the Middle East and Islam. Words like 'freedom', 'democracy', sovereignty', 'consensual government' and 'legality' haven't the same cachet in those lands that they do here. So far as your typical Islamic douchebag is concerned, 'freedom' means the ability to continue doing that which he has always done -- raping his livestock, beating his wives, plotting the destruction of foreigners with the blessings and encouragement of his religious authorities, bullying his neighbors, stealing whatever isn't nailed down, killing or enslaving his enemies -- for as long as his religion can justify it, and his supply of ammo holds out.

continue reading ...

Music video: Shabbat Shalom Israel

Uploaded by Yodel83IL on Sep 24, 2011

A Music Video Tribute to Israel ... to God

Video Produced by Edward F. Villa
Blog: http://jewishmiracles.insightonthenews.net

Journalism? No, cruelty and propaganda

18 October 2011 11:22 PM

MAIL ONLINE

MELANIE PHILLIPS BLOG

Associated Press

It appears that before Egypt passed Gilad Shalit over to the Israelis today, it subjected him to ten minutes of cruel and inhuman treatment of its own. Further details have emerged of the interview with Shalit carried out by Egyptian TV interviewer Shahira Amin. Many have commented on how ill at ease Shalit appeared during that interview. Now it turns out that standing behind Shalit’s chair as he answered the questions was a man in fatigues and wearing a black face mask and the green headband of the Qassam brigades – Hamas’s military wing – and with a video camera in his hand.

As for the interview itself, it was clearly designed as a propaganda exercise for the Arab masses. To ask such exploitative questions of someone who had just been released from five years’ captivity, who was clearly in a fragile state (he said so, and he subsequently fainted in the helicopter on the way to the Israeli air force base) and thus to delay his transfer to the Israelis and the reunion with his family, was itself a kind of torture. But as this report in the Jerusalem Post reveals, some of Amin’s questions amounted in addition to bullying which in the circumstances was as cruel and inhuman as it was, quite simply, totally detached from the reality of Shalit’s hermetically sealed captivity:

'“During all that time of captivity, you did just one video to tell the world and your family that you're alive,” she tells the soldier. “Why just once? Why didn't it happen again?”  Rather than letting him answer, however, Schalit’s Hamas minder-cum-interpreter scolds Amin for asking the same question twice (a peculiar accusation, given the footage shows the question hadn’t been asked before). 

‘The resulting argument between interviewer and minder is one of the interview's more regrettable scenes. Amin says Schalit appears unwell, and “that's why I'm asking the question again” - as if drilling him repeatedly will have a salutary effect. The question is itself absurd, roughly tantamount to asking a hostage victim why he or she didn't escape sooner.

‘... Amin proceeds to ask Schalit what “lessons” he learned in captivity. After asking for the question to be repeated, he says he believes a deal could have been reached sooner. Here the Hamas minder renders his response as praise for reaching a deal “in such short time”- a mistranslation repeated by the BBC’s own interpreter.

‘”Gilad, you know what it’s like to be in captivity," Amin continues as the painful charade drags on. “There are more than 4,000 Palestinians still languishing in Israeli jails. Will you help campaign for their release?”

‘Schalit's answer, after a few seconds’ stunned silence, is superior: “I'd be very happy if they were released,"”he says, then adds the caveat, “provided they don't return to fighting Israel.”’

‘Again, the Egyptian interpreter fails to translate the sentence's second clause, and again the omission is repeated by the BBC's translator, though he too was apparently translating from Hebrew in real-time. ‘I will be very happy for the prisoners to go free, so that they can be able to go back to their families, loved ones and territory. It will give me great happiness if this happens,’ the BBC’s interpreter relays.’

Ah, the BBC. In the video clip on this BBC News web page, Jon Donnison interviews one of the freed Hamas terrorists, Ahmad Abu Taha, and says to him:

 ‘You are 31 years old, ten years in prison, serving a life sentence for being a member of Hamas. I mean, how do you feel today?”

But in 2002, Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote brief descriptions of terrorist detainees it had captured including Ahmad Abu Taha. This is what the MFA said about him:

‘Ahmed Abd Al Karim Ali Abu Taha was born in 1980 and resides in Ramallah. Abu Taha was involved in preparing explosives for Hamas terrorists in Ramallah, including the car bomb that exploded in Giva’at Ze’ev in Jerusalem on 29 July 2001. A member of the Ibrahim Abu Rub and Ballal Baraguti organizations, he transported the suicide bomber Ra’ad Baraguti from Ramallah to Jerusalem, where he exploded on Hanevi’im Street on 4 September 2001 and injured 14 people.’

So it seems he was jailed for rather more than merely being a member of Hamas. But hey, what’s a little thing like the facts when you’re interviewing a Hamas celebrity? And why spoil the story of the party atmosphere in Gaza with the disobliging news that the happy and smiling Hamas celebrity in question had been instrumental in terrorist attacks against Israelis?

At a meeting in Washington DC today the BBC’s Chief Operating Officer, Caroline Thomson, was hymning the BBC’s values and boasting that 54 per cent of people in the UK think the BBC is trustworthy and 58 per cent that it is accurate. This was, she said, an ‘awesome responsibility’ to live up to. It would be interesting to know whether the Donnison interview meets her exacting standards.

Still, it could be worse: the BBC might have employed Shahira Amin.

October 18, 2011

Terrorism: "Blackmail for Peace" ....

Terrorism and the New American Republic

US GOVERNMENT RECOMMENDS NEGOTIATING WITH SOMALI PIRATES!

In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with Arab diplomats from Tunis, who were conducting terror raids and piracy against American ships.

History records them as the Barbary Pirates. In fact, they were blackmailing terrorists, hiding behind a self-serving interpretation of their Islamic faith by embracing select tracts and ignoring others.  Borrowing from the Christian Crusades of centuries past, they used history as a mandate for doing the western world one better.  The quisling European powers had been buying them off for years.

On March 28, 1786 Jefferson and Adams detailed what they saw as the main issue:

 “We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.  The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Thomas Jefferson wanted a military solution, but decades of blackmailing the American Republic and enslaving its citizens would continue until the new American nation realized that the only answer to terrorism was force.

"There's a temptation to view all of our problems as unprecedented and all of our threats as new and novel," says George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. Shortly after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, Turley advised some members of Congress who were considering a formal declaration of war against the suspected perpetrators. He invoked the precedent of the Barbary pirates, saying America had every right to attack and destroy the terrorist leadership without declaring war.

"Congress did not actually declare war on the pirates," Turley wrote in a memo, "but 'authorized' the use of force against the regencies after our bribes and ransoms were having no effect. This may have been due to an appreciation that a declaration of war on such petty tyrants would have elevated their status. Accordingly, they were treated as pirates and, after a disgraceful period of accommodation, we hunted them down as pirates."

Because of their outlaw conduct, pirates -- and modern-day terrorists -- put themselves outside protection of the law, according to military strategy expert Dave McIntyre, a former dean at the National War College. "On the high seas if you saw a pirate, you sank the bastard," he says. "You assault pirates, you don't arrest pirates."

Shoot first, ask questions later. Wanted: Dead or alive. Such is our official policy regarding Osama bin Laden, the most infamous outlaw of the era.

One of the enduring lessons of the Barbary campaigns was to never give in to outlaws, whether you call them pirates or terrorists. In the late 1700s, America paid significant blackmail for peace -- shelling out $990,000 to the Algerians alone at a time when national revenues totaled just $7 million.

"Too many concessions have been made to Algiers," U.S. consul William Eaton wrote to the Secretary of State in 1799. "There is but one language which can be held to these people, and this is terror."

Michael G. Leventhal

Editor & Publisher DOJgov.net

NOTE:

And how much money has the United States paid terrorist organizations and nations that allow dictators and tyrants to rule, burn flags representing democracy, crash into buildings, teach their children to hate and live for the day they can become "suicide" bombers?  No matter how many pleas from American citizens to stop the cash flow into Gaza and the Palestinians, Pakistan, Egypt, (until we know if what we give in cash and military weapons) will not one day be used to murder our own citizens and troops, our "leaders" insist on gifting to America's enemies monies that have added up to the TRILLIONS!

 Whether we are speaking of Somalia pirates, the nation of Iran on the brink of obtaining nuclear weapons aimed at Israel and pointed, by threats, towards the West, (hear talk about "dirty" bombs), or Hamas terrorists ... negotiations and bribes do not endear Islamic nations or separate terrorist organizations to America.  Israel must be on HIGH ALERT at all times and Americans are also on constant alert (been to an airport recently?).

 If America's leaders do not change its foreign polices SOON, understand the nature of terrorism, study and learn how Israel survives terrorism (since Israel has been in the business of defending itself from terrorism longer than the US), the United States will soon become a nation with more to be concerned about than its economy and mobs on Wall Street.  As noted in the article above, "Too many concessions have already been made".

Gadhafi Dead, Obama Takes Credit

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2011

Politico Pistaschio

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Moammar Gadhafi ruled for 42 years in Libya. His own people ensured his demise. He was a socialist and a Muslim revolutionary. Dictator, nationalist, and terrorist.

The world will be a better place with him gone, and as expected, the media and the democrats are praising the great Obama for putting out an assassination order against Gadhafi, striking Libya with American military personnel regardless of the opinion of the general public, or Congress, and for Obama starting yet another military conflict that we are involved in.

If he had been a Republican, they would have been screaming for impeachment.

Dead at age 69, the Libyan dictator died at the hand of a revolution. The people danced with joy as word of Gadhafi's death spread. Now, oil rich Libya is open for a new leader, but the fear is that as in Egypt, a terrorist organization like The Muslim Brotherhood, may be waiting to gain the reins.

The Associated Press is touting this as an achievement by Barack Obama, calling this another victory for the Obama Doctrine, of which they tack on includes the death of Osama bin Laden.

The AP also indicated that this is Obama's "own style of dealing with enemies without immersing the United States in war."

Are they saying that if George W. Bush had just put out a hit order against Hussein, made sure he got it in the end, and created civil war in Iraq with only a few military maneuvers the liberals would have been good with that?

I thought not.

Obama thinks this will give him a boost in his election chances. Killing bad guys even though it wasn't him or his plans that did it seems to be his strategy.

Who's the next bad guy you are going to put an assassination order out of, Barry?

Obama is a disgusting individual.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama to Libya: ‘You Have Won Your Revolution’ - CNS News

Gadhafi Death Another Victory for Obama Doctrine - Associated Press/Yahoo News

Hillary on Qaddafi: “We came, we saw, he died” - Hot Air

Gadhafi, dead at 69, was one of world’s most eccentric dictators, downed by his own people - Washington Post