Thursday, July 16, 2009

A Note From Radarsite

This newest Radarsite blog is in response to a suggestion from my dear friend and Radarsite supporter, Molly H. As Radarsite approaches one thousand articles, it seems appropriate to come up with some sort of a "Best Of List". Here then are my personal choices for the 50 best articles written by myself, for Radarsite. Such a list is of course purely subjective and may or may not reflect the opinions of my readers. As you all know, Radarsite is blessed to have some great contributors, many of whom have generously taken up the slack since the onset of my illness. For this I am deeply grateful. However, there is no way that I could presume to create such a list from their wonderful contributions.

It is my hope that this "Best Of" blog will prove useful to some of my loyal readers, and perhaps serve as an introduction to Radarsite for any new readers. All comments and suggestions are of course welcome - rg

A post-election update:

There may come a time in the life of an individual, or in the life of an entire people when they are offered a great choice. Fundamentally, this choice may be relatively simple: either to honestly accept responsibility for their own lives and their own actions, and seek to improve their lives through hard work and disciplined endeavor; or to make a different (and often the easier choice), one which avoids responsibility for their own lives and their own actions and seeks to improve their lives through viewing themselves as victims, victims of an evil and omnipotent oppressor, the prima facie cause of their suffering. From Black America: The Great Choice

On November 4, 2008 America made its choice and now we must live with the consequences of this fateful choice. It is Radarsite's opinion that this was a horrific mistake and that we will suffer greatly because of it. Our mission will stay the same, with this one major readjustment. We can no longer attempt to influence our readers against voting for BHO, it's a done deal. But we can and will watch his every move like a hawk. And we will accord him that same measure of respect that the liberals accorded to President George W. Bush: we will not refer to him as President Obama, but just Obama, and sometimes, just BHO. After suffering through 8 years of vitriolic anti-Bush rhetoric that's the very least we can do. - rg 11/6/08


Radarsite's Mission Statement

Radarsite is a conservative pro-American, pro-Western, pro-Israel, pro-military website. Radarsite was developed as an attempt to counter the self-loathing, self-destructive leftist anti-Americanism rampant in today's Western culture. Our skewed MSM is overflowing with it. To be considered knowledgeable in today's ungrateful topsy-turvy world one must be loudly and proudly anti-American. Patriotism is now to be considered some lower form of life, a weakness demonstrating a lack of intellectual capacity or historical awareness. In this current environment it takes more courage to be patriot than to be a dissenter. In fact, if one is unabashedly patriotic, one automatically becomes a dissenter.
America and the democratic West are presently at war-- and not just in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Western world is in the midst of great cultural upheavals, virtual civil wars that will ultimately determine the nature of our civilizations for decades to come. Our traditional democratic Judeo/Christian values are arguably in more peril at this particular moment in history than ever before. We are even more imperiled because half of our Western societies refuse to acknowledge this imminent peril and hide under a blanket of lies and euphemisms.
Daily we are besieged by enemies from both without and within. We are battling against ruthless fanatics who seek to dominate or destroy us, and against delusional multiculturalists who would gladly give our great societies away. We are fighting against terrorists, collaborationists, propagandists, appeasers, apologists and deniers. Our enemies have innumerable resources at their disposal and innumerable venues from which to expound their negativities. They find themselves warmly welcomed at our most prestigious universities, in the hallowed halls of Congress, and at trendy Beverly Hills cocktail parties.
But not here.
Here we still believe in the American dream. Here we fight back against those who would destroy that dream. Many of our readers are veterans, all are patriots. We do not come together here to debate the merits of America, but to protect her. We have studied the issues and have worked hard to understand just what is at risk. Our opinions are not borrowed, but are the results of our studies. We defend our opinions only so long as we believe them to be true. The moment we begin to doubt them, we will abandon them.
I am so immensely proud of our readership. I believe we have accumulated some of the most intelligent, knowledgeable and most honest writers and thinkers on the web. We believe in America and we believe in each other. And we will not give in to negativity and despair, no matter how popular it becomes.

I humbly thank you all for your loyal encouragement and support. - rg


What a great explosive word!
Think about it. What other proper name for a people contains its own epithet?
For every other people and nation we have had to create a special, derogatory slang word to express our disdain or contempt. For the Italians we created Dagos and Whoops, for Blacks we came up with Niggers (yes, Al Sharpton, I'm actually saying the N-word. Why should you be an exception?), for the fickle French we've got Frogs and for the Spanish, Spics.

But the Jews are a special case, aren't they? So special are they that we don't even need to create a new word to insult them. Their name alone does the trick. We're still having trouble saying the word aloud. We prefer to ask, Are you Jewish? We simply can't bring ourselves to ask, Are you a Jew? It sounds like an insult, doesn't it? But why should the name itself sound like an insult? Is it that loaded with ulterior meaning? Is the word itself that dangerous?
Evidently the answer is Yes.

For more than two thousand years this world's been trying to come to grips with that powder keg of a word. And it seems to me that we're no closer now than ever to comprehending its vast impenetrable mystery.
Just one little word.
Just one little people.
Yet, such power, and such agony...

Today, January 25, 2008, in the latest edition of the Chesler Chronicles posted at Pajamas Media, the inimitable Phyllis Chesler details, with characteristic incisiveness, the latest evidence of the ongoing "Hate Israel follies". With unassailable authority, Dr. Chesler delineates the undeniable growth of these great disturbing truths. These great old disturbing truths.

But why? That's the seemingly eternal question that still haunts our Twenty-first Century Western World.
Why now?
Why the Jews?
Why the Jews again?

And why, for heaven's sake, Israel? Can anyone in the West in their right mind justify denying support to our only reliable ally in this whole bloody hate-filled region? How is it possible -- after the horrors perpetrated on us on September 11, 2001 by those nineteen unrepentant Arab Muslims -- that we can still embrace these moral monsters and side with them in their never-ending onslaught against the tiny democratic Fortress Israel?

How the hell can we continually ask our imperiled and vastly outnumbered ally to give up yet more land for yet more cynical empty Arab lies? More land for more rocket-launchers? Yet we do ask, don't we? Every day we ask Israel for more. Endure, we say, endure and give up more.

And why should you give up more? You should give up more, we say, because you're in the wrong. You're in the wrong by existing, and as long as you continue to exist we can not in good conscience defend you.

Am I wrong in thinking that the only possible answers to these troubling questions are the obvious ones: oil and anti-semitism? Are there perhaps other more abstruse and complicated reasons of statecraft that are simply beyond my limited comprehension? Can it be that this ancient evil presence is still slithering amongst us after all these years? After all these bloody pogroms and endless persecutions? After the unspeakable horrors of the holocaust? And the unspeakable shame of our despicable present-day holocaust deniers?

It seems to this particular student of Western history that the descent of decent civilized societies into chaos then anarchy or fascism is almost invariably attended by a disturbing rise in that society's gradual but unmistakable acceptance of anti-semitism. It is an almost perfect bellwether.

Take note. Look around you now and what do you see?

With the undeniable and alarming rise of militant Islam throughout all of Europe and Scandinavia and Britain, and the growing empowerment of the secular left, we can plainly read those same old unmistakable signs of a resurgent anti-semitism -- the hastily-scrawled Swastikas and the over-turned tombstones, the hate-filled rhetoric, the crude propaganda and the relentless demonizing.

Wake up everyone! It's here right now. It's all around us. It's undeniable and it's evil and it's growing.

Get ready World, here we go again!

Saturday, January 31, 2009

Rethinking the GWOT: Maximalists versus Minimalists

The terms "maximalism" and "minimalism" are used with great regularity in biblical studies [primarily by Middle Eastern Archaeologists to refer to the degree of their acceptance of the biblical narrative as historical truth. Those who believe that the Bible is mostly figurative and contains very few reliable historical references refer to themselves as Minimalists. Whereas those researchers who believe that the Bible is actually an archaeologically-substantiated historical record describe themselves as Maximalists]. To the best of my knowledge, these terms were coined by William W. Hallo in his 1989 Presidential Address to the American Oriental Society, published as "The Limits of Skepticism" in the Journal of the American Oriental Society 110 (1990): 187-199.

A note from Radarsite: For the purposes of the following article I have borrowed the terms Minimalism and Maximalism from the biblical archaeologists. It is my hope that by reframing the concept of this Global War On Terror (GWOT), we can gain a more meaningful appreciation of what we are actually up against: that is, whether or not we are actually in a war, and if we are in a war, what this war actually is and is not. I believe that these two terms more accurately define the true nature of our national differences than do our present inadequate and often confusing labels of Democrats or Republicans, Liberals or Conservatives, Pacifists or Warmongerers. Here then is a new paradigm. We begin with the Minimalists. - rg

The Minimalists

There are two diametrically opposed views on our current "War on Terror", what it is, and how it should be prosecuted. The minimalists hold the view that the problems issuing from Islam are not representative of Islam as a whole, but are rather discreet and episodic criminal actions, perpetrated by a fanatical few. Therefore, they believe, that the proper response to these provocations should likewise be discreet and contained. By no means should we reproach, hold responsible, or punish all Muslims for the actions of a few. It is the minimalists' fundamental belief in the inherent goodness of all humankind that drives them and sustains their worldview. With a few rather negligible exceptions, for the past four decades American foreign policy has been directed by the minimalists. Beginning with the Islamic Revolution in Iran of 1979 (and, arguably, even some centuries before this event) we have treated these ongoing and escalating Muslim attacks against the West in general and Americans in particular as isolated criminal activities -- as opposed to what many believe are clearly acts of war. Our responses have therefore been -- to be somewhat kind and euphemistic -- 'measured'. Our national response to the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979, for example, was one failed and pathetically ill-advised helicopter attack. And that was it. And since 1979? Here is a partial list of what followed, together with our subsequent responses.

1993 World Trade Center bombing, New York. Truck bomb set off in basement of 110 story tower blocks holding up to 50,000 people. 6 killed, 1,000 injured but tens of thousands of civilians escape down stairs.
Law enforcement and Intelligence Response: tracks down and convicts some members of Osama Bin Laden's gang on US soil, including 'blind Sheik' Omar.

1995 Operation Bojinka (Airliner hijack, bomb) plots foiled by US intelligence, Bin Laden believed responsible.
multiple airliners intended hijacked over Pacific.
Arrest of Ramzi Youssef yields his computer with good intelligence.

1996 Khobar towers barracks bombed in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 US troops.
Protective response: since intelligence was hard to come by, the US moved and secured its barracks more carefully.

1998 US Embassy bombings in Kenya, Tanzania: 224 killed, many civilians wounded outside. Intelligence believed Bin Laden was responsible.
Military Response: Clinton administration ordered bombings of a pure drugs factory in Sudan and a bunker headquarters in Afghanistan. Neither holding any terrorists, the retaliation was unsatisfactory.

2000 USS Cole, guided missile destroyer, bombed in Aden harbor by small boat with suicidal crew; 17 killed but ship is saved; intelligence indicates Bin Laden responsible. Owing to military target, probably not to be defined as terrorism.

2000 millennial bombings plotted but foiled by US intelligence. Several major incidents are found in captured plans. Plotters have links to Al Qaeda.
Law enforcement: 2000-2001 some plotters from previous Al Qaeda bombings tried and convicted in US courts.

The Clinton Administration offers us a perfect example of the minimalist response to Islamist terrorist attacks against Americans. Here is an excerpt from National Review's excellent Q&A by Kathryn Jean Lopez with Richard Miniter, "Clinton's Loss?". Richard Miniter is a Brussels-based investigative journalist. His new book, Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror has just been released by Regnery.

How [did] the previous [Clinton] administration fumble on bin Laden?
1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.
2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.
3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.
4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.
6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.
7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.
8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.
9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.
10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.
11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.
12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.
15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.
16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.

Minimalists base their threat assessments on mostly secondary sources, i.e., their stable of policy experts, popular pundits, authors, and MSM reports. These appreciations tend to align with their pre-disposed, all-encompassing liberal worldview: All people are basically good, and want the same things. It is only a matter of dealing with the few 'bad apples' amongst them. To the minimalists, the threat itself is suspect, often the product of the maximalist's overactive imagination, or, more menacingly, a total fabrication contrived by the maximalists in order to achieve more power. For the minimalists, the less we do the better.

The Maximalists

How do the maximalists perceive the threat of Islamic terror? Unlike their ideological opponents, the maximalists base their appreciation of the Muslim world threat on primary sources: the Koran, the Hadiths and the Sura; the writings of the terrorists and their mentors themselves; the clearly-stated objectives of the various Islamist terror organizations, such as Hamas, Hezbullah, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. The maximalists believe that the problem begins and ends with Islam itself; that the lure of victimization is bringing more and more Muslims to answer the call for Jihad. The maximalists believe that Muslim aggression against the Infidel, rather than being a logical reaction to some recent Western outrage, is an historical core precept of Islam. By its very nature, the free and democratic West is, was, and always will be the sworn enemy of Islam. This latest incarnation of Muslim holy war against the West is a continuation of this age-old war of pre-ordained conquest. Here is a relatively concise example of the maximalist's view of our Islamic enemies:

Ideology and Goals
The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.

According to bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious decree), it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews. Muslims who do not heed this call are declared apostates (people who have forsaken their faith).
Al-Qaeda's ideology, often referred to as "jihadism," is marked by a willingness to kill "apostate" —and Shiite—Muslims and an emphasis on jihad. Although "jihadism" is at odds with nearly all Islamic religious thought, it has its roots in the work of two modern Sunni Islamic thinkers: Mohammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Sayyid Qutb.

Al-Wahhab was an 18th-century reformer who claimed that Islam had been corrupted a generation or so after the death of Mohammed. He denounced any theology or customs developed after that as non-Islamic, including more than 1,000 years of religious scholarship. He and his supporters took over what is now Saudi Arabia, where Wahhabism remains the dominant school of religious thought.

Sayyid Qutb, a radical Egyptian scholar of the mid-20th century, declared Western civilization the enemy of Islam, denounced leaders of Muslim nations for not following Islam closely enough, and taught that jihad should be undertaken not just to defend Islam, but to purify it.

Here is more from the eminent Brigitte Gabriel.

During this first month of the New Year 2009, we have seen some stunning
developments that, considered together, should leave absolutely no doubt about the rising radical Islamic threat on our doorsteps in America.
I have been warning Americans since 2002 about this threat, and that the threat is not just confined to terrorism. This is not a "war on terror." Terror is a tactic, one of many in the arsenal of radical Islamists.
I have been declaring, to anyone who would listen, that Islamists are well on their way to subverting and transforming Europe, and they are riding that wave here to America.

I have told my personal story, of how Islamists, step by step, took over my country of Lebanon. How they used our freedoms and commitment to tolerance and multiculturalism against us to further their ultimate ends. And how they are using the same strategies and tactics against us in the West. In just the past three weeks we have seen:. A violent Islamic protest in Britain, where an angry mob shouting "Allahu Akbar" chased - yes, chased - dozens of British policemen for blocks. You must see this video to believe it! (Please be warned - there is offensive language and profanity). Click here<> to see this shocking video.

Pro-Hamas, anti-Israel Muslims conducting demonstrations here in America, shouting praises to Hitler for what he did to the Jews, yelling "go back to the ovens," and at times physically attacking counter-protestors. The Amsterdam Court of Appeals ordering the prosecution of Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders because he has made statements
deemed "insulting" and harmful to "the religious esteem" of Muslims. Austrian parliamentarian Susanne Winter convicted of "incitement," <> because of public statements she has made, including the claim that the prophet Mohammed was a pedophile.

Muslim protest marches in Italy that ended with the protestors, in an obvious act of intimidation, conducting mass prayer vigils directly in front of Catholic places of worship.. The release of an official U.S. government report<> stating that Hezbollah is forming terrorist cells here in the U.S.that could
become operational.

The UN continuing to move ahead with the "Durban II" conference and its document that is little more than an anti-Israel rant that calls for suppressing public "defamation" of religion - notably Islam. This has
run parallel to an effort by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to get the UN Human Rights Commission to pass a resolution condemning public"defamation" of Islam.

My friends, the handwriting is clearly on the wall. Radical Islam is on the march, and it is growing stronger and bolder with every passing day. What elected official in Europe or the UK will now have the courage to speak out against this threat? Certainly the actions against parliamentarians Wilders and Winter will ultimately have a chilling effect on American elected officials as well. How many more "no-go zones," Muslim enclaves here non-Muslims and even police officers fear to go, will appear in Europe? We're already seeing such enclaves develop here in America right now. There's a reason why Dearborn, Michigan, is frequently referred to as "Dearbornistan."

What will happen in America when 50,000 ranting, chanting Islamist
demonstrators attempt to aggressively back down and chase police officers trying to maintain order? Will the police use the force necessary? If they do, we can expect howls from groups like CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations).
How will government officials respond? And if the police back down and run, as they recently did in Britain, what message is being sent to radical Islamists?
With the recent announcements by the Obama administration regarding ending the use of certain coercive interrogation practices, will this administration have the courage and use the tools necessary to protect us from Hezbollah, Hamas and al Qaeda terrorist cells in our midst?It is becoming crystal clear that 2009 is going to be a critical year in our effort to roll back the rising tide of Islamofascism.

Obviously, Brigitte Gabriel is a maximalist.

While, as we have seen, for the minimalists, less is better, the maximalists see the present GWOT in a much larger frame of reference. The combat in which we are presently engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, is perceived to be just battles in this monumental Clash of Civilizations, this existential war of barbarism against civilization. The repercussions of this great clash are truly global. Our enemies, and our allies alike, are watching this great contest unfold and shaping their future foreign policy on how they perceive our strengths and weaknesses. It is no accident, that by our wavering on our military commitment in Iraq, we are showing these watchers our weaknesses, our adolescent impatience, and our lack of will, and consequently the Russians, the Chinese, and even the puny potentates of the world, like Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong Ill are beginning to rattle their sabers. Thus, we maximalists view this GWOT as an immense struggle with huge stakes involved. In our view, this great struggle has just begun, and our collective future will be formed by the efficacy of our response.

A few final thoughts.

Unfortunately, the line between the maximalists' worldview and that of the minimalists is often blurred and indistinct. It cannot be neatly delineated by party affiliation. There are maximalists and minimalists on both sides of the aisle. Immediately following 9/11, President Bush himself described Islam as a "religion of peace", hijacked by a few fanatics -- a perfect expression of minimalism. Thus, even this brave president who brought the GWOT to the terrorists ( and paid a huge political price for doing so) has, by his often inscrutable statements, helped to muddy the waters, and drain our collective will to fight.

Is it any wonder then that the American public is so torn apart and confused? When our own leaders have so often shown an astonishing ignorance of the true nature of our enemies, how can we expect more from a grossly-misinformed, or purposely-manipulated public?

Finally, however, there is such a thing as personal responsibility. It is no longer feasible to claim ignorance; there is just too much information out there. It is no longer a valid excuse to say that you are too busy to study the issues involved. It is no longer morally conscionable to walk the fence between these two diametrically opposed views of our world. We must understand the differences between the two and we must choose. Our future will be determined by which path we take.

Ominously, by our choice this past November, we have, it seems, embraced the dangerous delusions of the minimalists. Is it too late to change course? Is it too late for the Western World?

God only knows - rg

The Handwriting on the Wall
By Brigitte Gabriel
Courtesy of Naomi Ragen

Comment to this article transposted from StopThe ACLU:
AirborneVet on January 29th, 2009 6:16 pm
As a person with a degree in Middle East Studies, and over 10 years experience teaching and dealing with this subject and with Islam, I very much enjoyed your assessment here concerning minimalists and maximalists. It fits the GWOT concept very well. Only in the end, will we find out which approach was best. Personally, I agree with the Maximalist point of view.

For more see:
And this latest from Iran

And so it begins...

From ABC News: Obama Moves toward Shuttering Gitmo

Last night, just hours after he took the oath of office, Obama ordered Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to direct the chief prosecutor of the Office of Military Commissions to seek a continuance of 120 days for any case that has been referred to the office of military commissions and to cease referring any new cases for prosecution.

This morning, military judges hearing the cases of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of 9/11, and his co-conspirators, as well as a different judge hearing the case of Canadian detainee Omar Khadr, granted the prosecution's motion. According to the motion filed by the prosecutors, the continuance was requested "in order to provide the administration sufficient time to conduct a review of detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to evaluate the cases of detainees not approved for release or transfer to determine whether prosecution may be warranted for any offenses those detainees may have committed, and to determine which forum best suits any future prosecution."
Is it even possible to grasp the enormity of these fateful decisions? to understand the dire implications for our future? Let's just focus our attention for a moment on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Just who is he and how important is he in our attempts to prosecute this Global War on Terror?

According to the 9/11 Commission Report he was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks". He is also thought to have had, or has confessed to, a role in many of the most significant terrorist plots over the last twenty years, including the World Trade Center 1993 bombings, the Operation Bojinka
plot, an aborted 2002 attack on Los Angeles' U.S. Bank Tower, the Bali nightclub bombings, the failed bombing of American Airlines Flight 63, the Millennium Plot, and the murder of Daniel Pearl.

Think you already know all about Sheikh Khalid's terrorist activities? You might just be surprised. Here is what he has confessed to (so far):

The February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City
A failed "shoe bomber" operation
The October 2002 attack in Kuwait
The nightclub bombing in Bali, Indonesia
A plan for a "second wave" of attacks on major U.S. landmarks to be set in the spring or summer of 2002 after the 9/11 attacks, which includes more hijackings of commercial airlines and having them flown into various buildings in the U.S. including the Library Tower in Los Angeles , the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Columbia Center in Seattle and the Empire State Building in New York
Plots to attack oil tankers and U.S. naval ships in
the Straits of Hormuz, the Straits of Gibraltar and in Singapore
A plan to blow up the Panama Canal
Plans to assassinate Jimmy Carter [Yes, that's right, even Jimmy Carter]
A plot to blow up suspension bridges in New York City
A plan to destroy the Sears Tower in Chicago with burning fuel trucks
Plans to "destroy" Heathrow Airport, Canary Wharf and Big Ben in London
A planned attack on "many" nightclubs in Thailand
A plot targeting the New York Stock Exchange and other U.S. financial targets

A plan to destroy buildings in Eilat, Israel
Plans to destroy U.S. embassies in Indonesia, Australia and Japan in 2002.
Plots to destroy Israeli embassies in India, Azerbaijan, the Philippines and Australia
Surveying and financing an attack on an Israeli El-Al flight from Bangkok Sending several "mujahideen" into Israel to survey "strategic targets" with the intention of attacking them
The November 2002 suicide bombing of a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya
The failed attempt to shoot down an Israeli passenger jet leaving Mombasa airport in Kenya Plans to attack U.S. targets in South Korea
Providing financial support for a plan to attack U.S., British and Jewish targets in Turkey
Surveillance of U.S. nuclear power plants in order to attack them
A plot to attack NATO's headquarters in Europe
Planning and surveillance in a 1995 plan (the "Bojinka Operation") tobomb 12 American passenger jets
The planned assassination attempt against then-U.S. President Bill Clinton during a mid-1990s trip to the Philippines. [Sorry Bill, no pass for Democrats]
"Shared responsibility" for a plot to kill Pope John Paul II
Plans to assassinate Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf
An attempt to attack a U.S. oil company in Sumatra, Indonesia, "owned by the Jewish former [U.S.] Secretary of State Henry Kissinger"
The beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl

Of course, not everyone is pleased with the circumstances of poor Khalid's incarceration.

Human rights groups, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Center for Constitutional Rights, and US military defense lawyers have criticised the military commissions for lacking necessary rights for a fair trial. Critics generally argue for a trial either in a civilian federal court as a common criminal suspect, or by court martial as a prisoner under the Geneva Conventions.
And so it begins... Our beloved new leader has spoken, and the good Khalid will find his way into that labyrinth of the American criminal justice system. And if our new president and his followers have their way, he will be tried in a NYC courtroom, with all, or almost all, of the benefits of an American citizen. High-profile trial lawyers will trip all over themselves to represent him. O. J. Simpson look out, your days of enjoying the dubious distinction of having the most watched criminal trial in the twentieth century are about to be eclipsed. Of course, the old media will be thrilled. I can almost hear Nancy Grace and Geraldo Rivera licking their chops in anticipation.

Is this how it's going to be? Is this how it will all end? Have we just voted ourselves into the dustbin of history? If the Sword of Justice does not fall upon this monster's head, is there any hope, any hope at all for a just and righteous world? Have we just bartered away justice for the appearance of justice? Have we sold our precious souls to please a jaded world? - rg

For more on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed see: href="">

Who is a Patriot?

Originally Posted 9/22/08

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel", said Samuel Johnson to Mr. Boswell, and Mr. Boswell and the world took note and remembered. Yet those who most often and most lovingly remind us of this famous aphorism are almost invariably those of a particular breed of skeptic who consider all national loyalties of any kind to be automatically suspect. However they seldom if ever repeat the second part of that renowned quotation, and by this slippery sin of omission they completely distort the true intent of the original phrase.
"But let it be considered," Mr. Boswell continues, "that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self-interest."

Boswell Life of Samuel Johnson

How then are we to determine what is or is not a "real and generous love of our country", and what is merely "pretended patriotism" and just a "cloak of self-interest."? Who then is a patriot? And who is not? Who is our true friend? And who is our true foe?

The people whom we are fighting against are often some of the nicest people in the world. But they are nonetheless wrong. Very wrong. And they do hurt us. And they don’t even see it. These people, often our friends and relatives and neighbors, often suffer from the worst sort of hubris. The pride of sanctified opinion. The firm belief that their opinions, no matter how grossly uninformed or ill-founded have value just because they are their opinions. They see themselves as superior patriots, honorable but objective physicians who are willing to tell their patient the truth about their serious condition, no matter how distasteful it may be. Telling their patients the awful truth has in point of fact become their sacred role, their primary function. Only in this way do they have a chance of saving their suffering charges. And if the truth is a bitter pill to swallow, then so be it. It must be done. It is to be seen as a painful but necessary catharsis.

However, just beneath the surface of this high-minded rhetoric, one can smell that familiar and unmistakable odor of unbounded pride and self-importance. Above all else, our dubiously sincere critics wish to appear profound and well-informed. The concept of actually becoming profound and well-informed through hard work and diligent study is evidently beyond the scope of their apprehension. They remain utterly content and unmoved by the force of reality. They have learned all that they need to know. And that is all that they need to learn.

How often have we seen some well thought-out essay, an obvious product of a great expenditure of effort and research, casually dismissed out of hand by a one sentence insult, or buy some oh-so-clever quip by one of these self-appointed Guardians of Truth. Yet, remarkably, and invariably, these very same people will without the slightest hesitation describe themselves unabashedly as patriots, true patriots who love their country and only wish to help her through her absolutely essential catharsis. In short, they say, the truth hurts. And their truth is of course the only unquestioned version.

God save us from these 'true patriots'. With patriots like these who needs enemies? If these are, as I propose, our false patriots, who then are our true patriots? What after all is said and done, is a true patriot?

First and foremost a patriot is loyal. He has made an oath and he intends to keep it. A patriot is steadfast, he does not waver in the ever-changing winds of opinion. A patriot loves his country and is supportive of her. He does not look for ways to undermine the moral integrity of his country during a time of her utmost peril, during a time of war.

A patriot’s primary concern is in defending his country against any and all assaults upon her character, whether they come from enemies within or from enemies abroad. A patriot does not exercise his right to free speech in order to slander his own home and nation. He does not hold the delusional conceit that by publicly admonishing his country for her purported past and present blunders and atrocities he is thereby somehow helping her. He will not expend his energies seeking to find some new flaws in the character of his country, but rather does whatever he can do to defend her from the attacks of those who would happily bring her down. A patriot is not ashamed to be a trustworthy and loyal champion of his country. Rather, he is her proud protector and her shield. A patriot is unconcerned that his patriotism may be called simplistic and shallow by those false patriots. A patriot who is willing to sacrifice his very life for his honest love of country is not that easily cowed by these petty and effete naysayers.

A patriot does not mindlessly parrot the borrowed opinions of others merely based upon their current popularity. He is totally unconcerned about whether his patriotism is or is not in fashion this year. A patriot does his own independent research and thinks before he speaks. He will not allow his careless words to be used by his country's enemies as weapons to wound her. Rather, a patriot will use his well-chosen words and his deeds to lift his country up even higher.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, patriots are deeply aware of their value to their community and their country. Patriots love life and they love their families, but are nonetheless willing to sacrifice themselves for their community and their country, not with that blind unthinking obedience of a totalitarian slave or a religious fanatic, but with an open-hearted generosity and love. With that 'real and generous love of country' of which our good Mister Boswell spoke so long ago.

Another Shameful Victory of the Universal Gutless Left

Amsterdam's Court of Appeal has ordered the prosecution of outspoken Dutch politician Geert Wilders for hate-speech, related to his anti-Islamic film, Fitna.

In a decision posted on Wednesday, the court called on public prosecutors to begin a case against the right-wing, anti-immigration politician over statements he made in interviews, in editorials and in his 15-minute film, released last March on the internet.

The court singled out Wilders for insulting comments likening elements of the Muslim faith to Nazism and calling the Qur'an "a fascist book."

"The court considers this so insulting for Muslims that it is in the public interest to prosecute Wilders," a summary of the court's decision said.

Commenting to Dutch media, Wilders called it a "black day for myself and for freedom of speech."

Wilders' short film, which drew widespread condemnation and protests in Muslim countries, intersperses violent, graphic imagery — including from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States and the beheading of a Caucasian man – with quotations from the Qur'an, Islam's holy book.

It ends with text saying Islam "seeks to destroy our Western civilization" and a caricature of Muhammad, his head drawn in the shape of a bomb that explodes into a crack of thunder and lightning.

The title, Fitna, refers to a Qur'anic term for "strife."

Wednesday's decision overturns the one made by the Dutch public prosecutor's office last year. After a six-month investigation, the office had decided not to pursue a case against Wilders, saying his remarks did not amount to a punishable offence.


This from earlier Radarsite articles:

Here it was: Fitna

1/21/09: You can still see it here: This site was taken down under threats by Islam.

Special thanks to Ben and Dean for this heads up.

The new url for Fitna. Thanks to Daily Motion

There will be follow up articles from Radarsite and from Other Sites on the Line beginning immediately. rg


I'm overcome with emotion. How can I possibly put it all into words? All this outrage and anger and pent-up hatred -- and yes, it is hatred, hatred of Islam -- that's been building up in me over these past months and years? How can I possibly write some thoughtful analysis of this devastating blood-soaked film? I shouldn't even be writing about it now; I'm still too close to the fire. But I must write about it. We all must write about it and talk about it and vote about it.

A heroic man has put himself in lifelong jeopardy in order to bring us this small precious gift of white-hot fire. And now it's up to us. We can do nothing -- as we've been doing all these shameful years -- and this precious flame will slowly fade away and die. Or we can use it to ignite a cataclysmic firestorm of rebellion. This, then, is his gift to us, what he sacrificed himself to bring us, the one thing we've been unable to discover within our over civilized souls, yet the one thing that's absolutely essential to our survival. The fire, the passion --the WILL TO SURVIVE.

Absent this essential element we are rendered impotent. All of our vast wealth, all of that accumulated knowledge and scientific experience, that cutting-edge weaponry, all that goes into making us a superior civilization is utterly useless to us now without this one crucial ingredient: the WILL TO SURVIVE.

The WILL TO SURVIVE must now take absolute precedence over all other considerations and rationalizations and legalistic abstractions. It's too late for all that now. The WILL TO SURVIVE must now be predominant and constant and unassailable. The only alternative for us now is death. Death.

This, then, has been our Achilles Heel, our congenital flaw. The raw unquestioned power of the Will is determinate. And the enemy knows this; they've found our weakness and have exploited it mercilessly. And we, God help us, have let them -- are still letting them.

Geert Wilders has had the courage to unmask the face of the enemy. Now, do we have the WILL TO SURVIVE?

Well, do we have the will to survive? It certainly doesn't seem like it from here. - rg

More here

Mahdi, Mahdi, who's got the Mahdi?

In a speech on November 16th, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke of his belief in the return of the Twelfth Imam. One of the differences between Sunni and Shiite Islam is that the latter, who dominate Iran and form the majority in Iraq, believe that Allah shielded or hid Muhammad al-Mahdi as the Twelfth Imam until the end of time. Shiites expect the Twelfth Imam, which Jews and Christians would recognize as a messianic figure, to return to save the world when it had descended into chaos.

This then is the nature of the enemy we face. This is the basis of their belief system. The inevitable and apocalyptic Return of the Mahdi. This is the mindset of the world class leader whom our new liberal government expects to sit down and negotiate with. A soon-to-be nuclear armed nation waiting for the end of time and the promised reappearance of the Mahdi.
It is, however, important to remember that there have been several such divinely-inspired Mahdis throughout the violent history of Islam. Here are some of them.

Eighth century
Salih ibn Tarif
Ninth century
Muhammad ibn Hasan ibn Ali
Tenth century
Said ibn Husayn
Twelfth century
Muhammad ibn Abdallah ibn Tumart
Fifteenth century
Syed Muhammad Jaunpuri
Nineteenth century
1 Siyyid 'Alí-Muhammad (the Báb)
2 Muhammad Ahmad
3 Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
Twentieth century
1 Sayyid Mohammed Abdullah Hassan
2 Juhayman ibn-Muhammad ibn-Sayf al-Otaibi

Till now, the most famous of these occulutions was perhaps Muhammad Ahmad, the "Khartoum Mahdi".

Muhammad Ahmad ibn (August 12, 1844 – June 22, 1885) was a religious leader, in Sudan, who proclaimed himself the Mahdi — the prophesied redeemer of Islam who will appear at end times. Under his religious authority the divided clans...into an alliance dedicated [surprise, surprise] to establishing an "Islamic" state as the first step in a universal Islamic state. In 1881, he declared a jihad against the British-backed Egyptian authority in Sudan. Ahmad raised an army and led a successful religious war to topple the Egyptian occupation of Sudan. His most successful and final battle was the siege of Khartoum in Sudan, an effort to totally obliterate Egyptian (and Sudanese) resistance. The only thing that stood in his way was the legendary British General Charles "Chinese" Gordon.

In 1873, General Charles Gordon had been appointed Governor of the Equatorial Provinces of Sudan. For the next three years, General Gordon fought against a native chieftain of Darfur, Zobeir, who had erected, on the basis of slave-traffic, a dangerous military power. Zobeir's organisation was eventually dismantled. Although unsuccessful at total pacification, Gordon was successful in limiting the power of the slave traders. Thus, he was made Governor-General of the Sudan in 1877. Soon after he arrived at his new post he started to end the slave trade, which at that point dominated the economy and was controlled by the tiny minority of Arabs. Before his arrival some 7 out of 8 blacks in the Sudan were enslaved by the tiny minority of Arabs; the native Africans formed well over 80% of the overall population. Gordon's policies were effective, but the effects on the economy were disastrous, and soon the Arab Social Ascendancy came to see this not a liberation from slavery, but a modern-day European Christian crusade and a threat to Muslim and Arab social dominance.

The Siege of Khartoum lasted from March 12, 1884 to January 26, 1885. Khartoum was besieged by the Mahdists and defended by a garrison of 7,000 Egyptian and loyal Sudanese troops. After a ten-month siege, the Mahdists finally broke into the city and the entire garrison was slaughtered.

What lessons can we learn from all this? What insight into our present circumstances can this look back in time afford us? Can we perhaps begin to understand the real nature of this so-called War on Terror we are presently engaged in?

What was the single biggest grievance that the Arab world had against the West in the Nineteenth Century? The West -- in the person of General Charles "Chinese" Gordon -- had the temerity, the arrogance, to interfere with, and eventually bring to an end, the lucrative slave trade in Sudanese blacks which had been the very foundation of their economy. This Christian Crusade against slavery was the unforgivable affront against the Arab world, the spark that lit the Jihadist flame.

Thus, long before the hegemony of oil, long before the birth of George W. Bush, long before the dark machinations of Dick Cheney's fearsome Blackwater crusaders, the stage was set for battle. The inevitable clash between the dark, backward-looking vision of Islam and the enlightened West began with the birth of the Prophet. This great battle is indeed a classic Clash of Civilizations, civilizations which are diametrically opposed to one another, which cannot, by their very nature, co-exist in peace. All of the calls from our newly-sanctified left for love not hate, all of the diplomatic missions, all of the ecumenical conferences in the world will not ameliorate the danger of the crisis we face. Today, just as it was in 1881, Islam is "dedicated to establishing an "Islamic" state as the first step in a universal Islamic state." To refuse to accept this historical truth, to attempt to avoid the moral implications of these fundamental and unchanging Islamic precepts, to somehow justify our political or military inaction by convincing ourselves that we are the cause of this monumental schism, that it is we who have to change, is to completely misunderstand the significance of this existential threat.

Today, January 20, 2009, the world is cheering, it is cheering because those who embrace this disastrous geopolitical misconception have legally assumed the reins of power. Where will their fatally flawed delusions take us? Will we be able to survive their willful ignorance?

God bless America. - rg

Interesting visitors:
Host: Adsl Customer
Entry Page Time: 21st January 2009 12:28:50
Location: Saudi Arabia
Entry Page: Page: URL: