From the Right

Observing my upside down America

Archive for the ‘Islamic Fascism’ Category

Brussels Attacked by Islamic Fascists – Day 2

leave a comment »

head_up_ass2
So guess what Fox News is reporting this morning.

I’ll tell ya.

They reported that ‘they’ are suggesting that to cope with the effects of future airport bombings that airports should be redesigned to better handle the effects of multiple bomb blasts.

That’s right. We’re doing it all wrong. Our airports are the problem.

Nothing was said about our unwillingness to eradicate, to annihilate ISIS and Islamic fascists forever.

I think it should be clear by now. Our “big thinkers” are saying that ISIS/Islamic Fascism isn’t the real problem. They are saying that our civil defenses are too soft in addition to our need for programs to condition civilians to conduct themselves accordingly (see something, say something) and expect these bombing inconveniences now and then.

Americans need to understand that it is much easier for our representatives and senators to adopt this approach compared to a military campaign to eradicate Islamic Fascism once and for all.

The reason is simple.

We don’t complain as loudly about travel inconveniences as we do about military operations.

The question is now this: Who has their head up their ass? The “big thinkers”, congress or the American people?

While you ponder that, ponder what’s coming next.

ISIS has now promised a larger attack on Belgium.
ISISStatement

Advertisements

Written by Ben

March 23, 2016 at 8:25 am

Posted in Islamic Fascism

Brussels Attacked by Islamic Fascists

leave a comment »

Islamic terrorists attacked Brussels Airport today in a series of blasts that have killed at least 34 people and injured 170 across the city. The attacks occurred blocks away from the headquarters of the European Union.

This is just one more in a long series of attacks that are now striking the soft underbelly of Europe

After following terrorism since the 1970 Palestinian hijackings of five commercial airliners to Jordan where they were eventually blown up, my observations to date follow.

Our politicians believe terrorism is a law enforcement problem. Some are still in denial about terrorism being a direct threat to their country, even after letting hordes of them in unchecked.

Our politicians will seize upon the “Let no crisis go to waste” policy and use it to militarize local LE. It’s already happening.

Policy makers will go into isolationist mode and draw down military forces in the battle zone.

We are heading toward a day when nations will cede sovereignty and security to a world security apparatus.

Why? Because it’s much easier for the politicians to do so.

With our current attitudes and policies, terrorists will eventually win.

Without a sea change in the way Americans view what we are up against, my advice is simple. Buy a rug, because eventually, you’ll be forced to face Mecca 4 to 5 times a day while giving praise to Allah.

In the meantime, ponder the following.

The talking heads and retired military are calling out the fact that our political and military leadership do not understand thd nature of Islam.

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters said, “It’s not about winning their hearts and minds, its about splattering their hearts and brains across the battlefield.”

suicideOfWest

Written by Ben

March 22, 2016 at 7:01 pm

Obama’s Afghanistan

leave a comment »

Obama is a politician. As such he should keep an eye on political goals. He should also be listening to General McChrystal more and talking less.

If Obama’s political goal is to defeat the Taliban and deny Al Qaeda a safe haven then Obama should have decided last week to give what McChrystal requests.

If Obama’s political goal is to cut and run then he needs to be talking to America to explain to us why the next attack on America won’t be coming from the same place which gave us 9/11 i.e. Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The fate of Pakistan is with Afghanistan

As with the rest of the Western world, Pakistan has a stake in the Taliban problem. If Pakistan aids and harbors the terrorists in her country then that makes her an enemy of just about every civilized country on this rock. If not, then her responsibility is to destroy the Taliban for her own sake – if she has the political will. That is yet to be seen.

Both Afghanistan and Pakistan are up against an ideology which threatens to overthrow their respective government. If Afghanistan should fall to the Taliban which gives Al Qaeda a safe haven of operations, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is at risk of falling into their hands. To then allow Pakistan to fall to the Taliban and Al Qaeda is insane. Aside from the U.S., India would be getting extremely nervous. Now it has escalated.

Under this scenario, the U.S. policy is to move in to secure the nukes. Whether or not we can secure them, the world (actually the U.S. because the world does not really seem to want to get involved with this) still has a problem with a country governed by the Taliban who now possibly possess a warhead. It is a condition which is not acceptable.

So tell me, what do we do with this problem? Do we stick our heads in the sand and hope these bastards forget their idea of Islamic domination at any cost? Do we cut and run away from the problem and allow it to escalate ? Remember their agenda includes the destruction if Israel.

A world vision

In a region of dictatorships, monarchies and theocracies with a foot in tribal law maybe a having a few democracies in the region is overdue.

At the end of the argument it boils down to knowing what kind of world we want. If we want a world with rogue states such as Syria, N.Korea and Iran who threaten the world nations who threaten nations with being “wiped off the map” then fear, uncertainty and doubt will rule the day. If we want a world with a stable future then we must get involved.

I agree, it’s ugly. But we cannot afford to sit on our hands and hope for the best.

No amount of law enforcement on the ground will prevent a freighter from quietly slipping into Boston harbor with a nuke on board.

Obama is too inexperienced in foreign affairs

Obama is dangerously over his head on this issue. He seems to be more comfortable dealing with controversial domestic issues than listening to the expert advice of General McChrystal.

At the end of the president’s Denmark trip to make his pitch for the Chicago Olympics Obama met with Gen. McChrystal. Our commander in Afghanistan was summoned from London and got 25 minutes of face time with the commander-in-chief.

That’s it — 25 minutes on the plane for the man Obama picked to lead 68,000 troops and rescue a war he calls one of “necessity.” Compare that to the 14 hours or so Obama wasted flying and speaking about the Olympics, and you get a snapshot of a president off course.

To date, Obama has given more time considering what kind of dog to buy.

If he continues to drag his feet on this issue the problem will evolve into the failure McChrystal is trying to prevent. I’d wager then Obama will blame McChrystal for it.

Meanwhile, Israel is getting nervous over Iran’s pursuit of nukes. What do yo want to bet that after Israel attacks those facilities, Obama throws Israel under the bus?

Newt Gingrich “gets it”:

“I think those of you who care about civil liberties had better be thinking through how we win this war before the (civilian) casualties get so great that the American people voluntarily give up a lot of those liberties.” – Speech at the National Press Club, Aug. 7, 2007

Written by Ben

October 5, 2009 at 10:59 am

Counter-Hmm

leave a comment »

Rather than post a comment to “Hmm” I decided instead to post a counter response here which is based upon the following quote from the National Review

The price of defending our nation cannot be spending years — at a cost of precious lives and hundreds of billions of dollars — in a vain attempt to give people who despise us a way of life they don’t want.

Aside from implying there is a limit to defending the United States, the above analysis of the war in Iraq reflects a myopic viewpoint which focuses on a red herring. Furthermore, it serves to demonstrate an inability to fathom the broader issues in the region and dismisses the strategic importance of installing an island of democracy after the removal of an oppressive and ruthless dictator.

The democracy now sits surrounded by Iran’s Islamic theocracy, Syria’s military controlled government where its people must elect the leader of the Baath Party with a constitution which requires the president to be a Muslim and Saudi Arabia’s and Kuwait’s monarchy. Representing a departure from the norm, in the north is Turkey with its presidential-parliamentary democracy.

It should be clear most are governments representing extreme positions on the political spectrum. A little democracy would serve to moderate this extremism in a region that has been influenced by Islam for centuries.

Islam is fomenting an intolerable and dangerous form of extremism of its own. While Iraq’s new democratic form of government may be a lightning rod for terrorism it also reveals the dangers we are facing.

Regardless of its current success, Iraq’s struggle is far from over. If it’s government fails, falling to the Islamic fascists, it should serve as a wake-up call for the rest of the sleeping Americans including those at National Review.

Written by Ben

September 9, 2009 at 9:18 am