Monday, January 01, 2007

Iranian Sci-Fi TV Series Stars Mega-Evil Jewish Queen

The following are excerpts from an Iranian sci-fi film titled "The Land of Wishes," part of a series, which aired on Iranian Channel 1 on October 20, 2006. In it, an evil queen, adorned with a large Star of David and sitting on a throne in the "Black House" (which is also marked with a Star of David) engages in a battle of "virtual warriors" with a young girl who seeks to free the masses the queen has enslaved. When the queen is defeated, her technicians die struggling to rescue a "medal" - also a Star of David.

Evil Jewish Queen: "Raise the degree of self-awareness of the agent. It's not enough."

Technician: "Yes, Ma'am."

Queen: "He responded. Order him to remove his helmet."

Kashki: "Oh, where did that come from? I hope he doesn't respond."

Fahimeh: "Father!"

Kashki: "Oh dear. That girl got us into trouble in the end. Couldn't you control your tongue, girl?"

Queen: "It's her, she probably heard the word 'father.' Identify her code."

Technician: "Yes, Ma'am."

Queen: "Faster! Faster!"

Technician: "It's very strange. This code does not appear among the codes in the system. S-U-N 0057."

Second technician: "That's right, it is totally unknown."

Computer: "Warning! Warning! Temperature in the fuel reactor of time is unauthorized."

Queen: "The fuel reactor of time?"

Technician: "It looks like there is an overload."

Second technician: "Five seconds left until transfer begins."

Technician: "Four, three, two, one..."

Crowd: "Greetings to our Great Lady!"

Enjoy it for yourself here.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Iranian Mullahs Have A Sense Of Humor Too

Iranian Supreme Leader Sayyid Ali Khameini has his own website ( better brush up on your Farsi if you don't like the fuzzy-wuzzy 'religion of peace' English version) and he answers your most pressing questions about Ramadan.

First question:

"If somebody masturbates during the month of Ramadan but without any discharge, is his fasting invalidated?"

First, Ramadan is only sun-up to sun-down ... I guess these Iranian guys are pretty virile if they can't keep their wicks dry for 12 hours of daylight one month out of the year.

The official Ayatollah response is:

"If he do not intend masturbation and discharging semen and nothing is discharged, his fasting is correct even though he has done a h?ar?m (forbidden) act. But, if he intends masturbation or he knows that he usually discharges semen by this process and semen really comes out, it is a h?aram intentional breaking fasting."

Okay, I am an infidel and I probably deserve to be put to the sword for asking this, but how in the name of Allah is it masturbation if I don't intend it? In fact, how is it masturbation unless, you know, you actually masturbate?

Next question:

"Once in the holy month of Ramadan, I forgot to brush my teeth, and some tiny bits of food remained in my mouth. I swallowed the bits unintentionally. Do I have to perform the qad?a (repent) for that day's fast?"

The official Ayatollah response:

"If you did not know that some bits of food remained between the teeth, or you did not know that they would reach the throat, and they were swallowed unknowingly and unintentionally, then you are not liable to make (repent) of the fast."

In other words, as long as you did not intentionally store that food in your teeth, like some squirrel squirrelling away squirrel nuts for that 12 hours per day, it is okay. And brush your teeth people. After we take you over, we don't want to have to spend a lot of on your dental hygiene.


"Can a man conclude a marriage contract for a year with a European girl after getting her agreement with the purpose of going to her country?"

In other words, you are marrying her for no other reason than to set up a splinter cell and make Europeans even more afraid to take a moral stand against terrorism.

The official Ayatollah response is not anything silly about being in love or respecting marriage or not secretly invading European countries to set up terrorist splinter cells. It is:

"There is no problem in that if they are serious in contracting marriage and it is done with her father's permission if she is virgin."

Ha ha ha. Virgins. In Europe.

Friday, September 29, 2006

Stone: Bush Has Set Us Back 10 Years

Oliver Stone blasted President Bush Thursday, saying he has "set America back 10 years."

I assume he means because of things in Iraq. But 10 years ago Clinton was President and Oliver Stone still had some chance of making a decent movie. Is he sure that's such a bad thing?

Nothing makes me giggle more than aging Hipsters who stop inhaling long enough to say really funny things.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Don't Want It Known You Have Sex With Animals? Go To Canada

Canadians can say almost anything about Americans - and I think they get some kind of tax rebate if they say insulting things about President Bush - but they'd better not make jokes about people in the mid-east.

The chairman of the publicly funded Canadian Broadcasting Corp., Guy Fournier, found himself in deep doo-doo when he talked about bowel movements and Lebanese law. Forget the bowel movements. I wrote a whole book on mine so there's nothing new he has to say, but his take on Lebanese law is interesting.

According to Guy, Lebanese laws allow men to have sexual relations with female animals, but reserves the death penalty for those who did so with male animals. Sounds reasonable, right? Muslims have sex with animals all the time but homosexuality is a no-no.

Why are Canadians up in arms about that? Because it was wrong for a public figure to say something so silly? Because it will enrage the many radical Muslims allowed into that country in order to feed its over-burdened Socialist economy?

No, because it was discrimination. Male and female sheep aren't treated differently and for him to allege they are was a big mistake.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

World's Dumbest Terrorists

Generally speaking, if you want to look like you are 'cooperating' in the war on terror, you have two basic options.

If you are Hezbollah, for example, you agree to a cease-fire with Israel and then immediately create a splinter group with a different name that continues to bomb Jews. This is not any surprise to people but it makes the U.N. feel like they accomplished something.

If you are a government it is a little trickier. Witness Syria, which has been running guns to anyone who will buy them. They are in a panic because Israelis actually insisted, and the UN agreed, that the pesky border with Syria should be patrolled as well - since that is how Hesbollah gets all of its rockets and bullets from Iran. That was unacceptable. To Syrians. Though they were fine with the border to Israel being closed. It's hard to run guns and bombs if you might have to shoot the French people on the UN Security Council who are protecting you from retaliation.

So it is no coincidence that a small band of terrorists that no one ever heard of before launched a ridiculous suicide attack against the US Embassy in Damascus ... the only other casualty besides the terrorists? We'll see, but I am betting it was a Syrian guard no one liked either.

The Syrian government has pledged full security cooperation. But I am betting in order to provide it they will need to have UN troops away from their borders.

Saturday, September 09, 2006

Be A Good Muslim; Get Rid Of Your Cat

Or the Muttawa will come after you.

Why do such a thing? Because it will prevent the spread of western ideas, like not strapping bombs to your chest and blowing up people of other religions. Will it work? Probably not. For as much griping in Saudi Arabia as there is about 'western' ideas the audiences for western movies go around the block.

Didn't Mohammed LOVE cats? Sure he did.

“One bad habit spreading among our youths is the acquisition of dogs and showing them off in the streets and malls,” wrote Aleetha al-Jihani in a letter to al-Madina newspaper.

“There's no doubt that such a matter makes one shudder.”

“Then what's the point of dragging a dog behind you? This is blind emulation of the infidels."

Infidels? But you're a big happy religion of peace. When she says 'infidel' like that it sounds a little insulting.

Imagine if the Muttawa had something to do besides abusing women and arresting cat owners - you know, like stopping the terrorism Muslim countries say has nothing to do with Islam. It would be a pretty happy place to live, would it not? Well, no, Mecca can be called a lot of things but not happy. But at least Paris Hilton could visit. Then they would have a reason to complain.

Friday, September 08, 2006

Saddam Didn't Really Like al-Qaida

Democrat Senators decide Saddam viewed al-Qaida as a threat. Which means he couldn't possibly have accepted help, planning or strategies from him. I know, I know, a big revelation that someone chose to believe a dictator's statements rather than the evidence.

In other news, Saddam also stated that everyone loved him ( after all, he did get over 99% of the vote ) and that he never killed anyone. Oh, and he gave every child a balloon and a pony for their birthdays.

It gets a little old after a while. I can't count how many people have said to me, "But Saddam is secular so he couldn't possibly have allowed terrorists to be based in Iraq." And yet he did.

It's politics as usual but completely understandable. Democrat politicians smell blood in the water and they would like to avoid being called out as in favor of high gas prices if it comes from taxes but against high gas prices if it means high cost of oil. Likewise they would prefer to insist there was no reason to be in Iraq at all or that Bush lied and that they really aren't soft on national defense.

This report adds nothing we didn't already know but they might be hoping this rather soft accounting takes away from the upcoming miniseries which shows former President Clinton being too distracted by a sex scandal to deal with Bin Laden well before 9/11.

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Iranian Nuclear Chief Mohammad Sa'idi Explains Why Iran Produces Heavy Water: Drinking It Helps Fight Cancer and AIDS

Why have heavy water production in Iran?

It cures AIDS and cancer.

Interviewer: "You just said that in some cases, heavy water can even be used for drinking."

Mohammad Sa'idi: "Yes."

Interviewer: "Could you elaborate on this?"

Mohammad Sa'idi: "One of the products of heavy water is depleted deuterium. As you know, in an environment with depleted deuterium, the reception of cancer cells and of the AIDS viruses is disrupted. Since this reception is disrupted, the cells are gradually expelled from the body. Obviously, one glass of depleted deuterium will not expel or cure the cancer or eliminate the AIDS. We are talking about a certain period of time. In many countries that deal with these diseases, patients use this kind of water instead of regular water, and consume it daily in order to heal their diseases.

"In other words, the issue of heavy water has to do with matters of life and death, in many cases. One of the reasons that led us to produce heavy water was to use it for agricultural... medical purposes, and especially for industrial purposes in our country."

Whew. That's a relief. We thought for a minute they might want to build bombs.

Friday, August 25, 2006

Wait ... Hezbollah WON???

Why am I just getting this message? I thought when you were overwhelmed militarily and you're only saved by UN interference and Israeli leadership being a little confused about what they wanted to accomplish it didn't really count as a win ... but I left out my handy MID-EAST TO WEST translator.

The folks at Reason aren't misled so easily but you may not want to read that whole article so I will use my MID-EAST TO WEST translator and help you out.

Hezbollah, 2006 - a million refugees, 1,000 dead, Lebanon's economy bombed back to the stone age = VICTORY.

PLO, 1964-2004 - claims that Israelis poisoned chewing gum to make Arab women promiscious and used radioactive bullets while having a GDP worse than Cuba = VICTORY.

Iraq, 1991 - bounced from Kuwait in minutes, humiliated on the world stage but still in power = VICTORY

Lebanon, 1982 - terrorists bounced from West Beirut = VICTORY

Yom Kippur War, 1973 - Arabs almost take back some occupied land but call in the UN before they can be bounced back out = VICTORY

I guess we can keep going back to pretty much every engagement that the Arabs have been in since 1500 but I don't want to bore you. It's no secret that culture and language prevents westerners from fully understanding some concepts in Arab nations but I think just this once Arabs can bend a little and start using a different word. I just don't think 'victory' applies.

The BBC Handbook On Bomb-Site Prioritization

If you find a 1000 lb. bomb in the remains of a destroyed home ...

1) Make sure you are out of harm's way.
2) Place a child in harm's way.
3) Capitalize on the ensuing photo opportunity.

The BCC made the world safe for satire though slightly more dangerous for children with this rather ridiculous story about their efforts to get a good picture of some destruction.

There's a good reason journalists are taught to keep ego - and themselves - out of stories. Otherwise they get debacles like this:

"When Um Ali Mihdi returned to her home in the southern Lebanese city of Bint Jbeil two days ago, she found a 1,000lb (450kg) Israeli bomb lying unexploded in her living room.

"The shell is huge, bigger than the young boy pushed forward to stand reluctantly next to it while we get our cameras out and record the scene for posterity."

The italics are mine. The insanity is theirs.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

France Reads My Blog Too

I guess they didn't like me making fun of them for insisting that there be a UN-enforced cease-fire, bleating about their strong ties to Lebanon ( though they let Syria make it a vassal and Iran funnel money and bombs in )and then adding only 200 troops to the cause.

Now they have increased it to 2000 total. Still well below Italy's contribution but at least France looks slightly less ridiculous.

Hezbollah Reads My Blog

No sooner do I make fun of the Germans for only being willing to patrol the coast of Lebanon after insisting the UN be allowed to put troops between Israelis and Hezbollah, then pictures appear of Hezbollah sinking boats.

I can imagine the conversation:

German Ambassador: "Durka, durka. Mid-East Watch is making fun of Germany for only being willing to patrol the coast of Lebanon. They say that, as an Iranian-terrorist organization, you have no Navy. You need to blow something up."

Hezbollah: "Durka, durka. We actually don't have a Navy and we're still trying to figure out how to make good on our promise to spend billions to re-build the homes that were destroyed by the Israelis. You know, since we don't have any money of our own. Can you send some?"

German ambassador: "Of course not. That almost blew up on us in Iraq. And don't pull the 'we have a nuke' strategy either. With Clinton, that would have sent them running for the hills but that crazy Bush guy used it as a reason to attack. You can try it again in 2008. Americans are pissed because Democrats told them it was all about cheap oil and then oil got more expensive so they will take it out on the party that said it wasn't about cheap oil."

Hezbollah: "You lost me."

German ambassador: "It doesn't matter. If you can't blow up a German boat to make it look like we are in harm's way too - and you can't, because we can't be in harm's way - then what can you do?"

Hezbollah: "Ummmm, well, I have these pictures of someone scuttling an Australian boat. Australia sounds kind of like Austria, which is German, right? We could say it was an Israeli boat. Reuters will publish anything."

German Ambassador: "Perfect! Then it looks like we are taking a hard line on you and defending Israelis. Durka durka ... errrr .... wiedersehn."

And there we have it, one Israeli warship destroyed ... maybe even twice, since the first time it in was the Australian navy and they sank it themselves. I can't speak for any of you but I have newfound respect for the Germans' willingness to bring peace to the mid-east. Thanks to Germany for taking one for the team!!

Image Hosted by

Image Hosted by

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Summing Up Where UK Muslims Go Astray

From Europhobia:

The Muslim Public Affairs Committee, who I don't think I've ever heard of before but who have orchestrated this little witch hunt, apparently aims to

"open an avenue for rational dialogue and re-education of the individual on the street regarding Islam and Muslims. The aim is make the all-too-common misrepresentation of Islam a thing of the past."

All very well and good - but considering that one of the most common representations of Islam is that it is intolerant of nonbelievers and far too quick to over-react when criticised, you'd think that they'd realise that by going to Wilson's employers (who, lest we forget, have nothing to do with his article or with the Conservative Home blog on which it appeared) rather than to Wilson himself or his online publishers, they've just stirred up a wonderful bit of negative PR that makes them out to be just as intolerant and quick to take offence as the "Islamophobes" they want to "re-educate" always make them out to be.

Monday, August 21, 2006

Europe Wants To Stop The Fighting ...

... unless it means someone besides Arabs and Israelis might die.

"All the countries are saying what Germany is saying: We need the right rules for the deployment" and the approval of the Lebanese government, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said.

Except the Lebanese government is not bombing Israel. It would be best to remain skeptical about European offers. They may want the fighting to stop but they aren't willing to stop Hezbollah from terrorist attacks and they would be out of their minds to try and prevent Israel from going after Hezbollah.

So Germany won't send any troops - but they will patrol the coastline. You know, to contain that dreaded Hezbollah Navy we hear so much about.

Italy, at least, is willing to sack up and put people on the line. "The Middle East is close to us, and a great nation like Italy cannot shirk its duties," Piero Fassino, who leads the largest party in Premier Romano Prodi's center-left coalition was quoted as saying. "You cannot only invoke peace and security, you have to build them."

Indeed you do. It's time for the UN to stop thinking that harshly-worded letters will keep people apart. They created the mess in the mid-east with their 'splitting the difference' solution and have balked at responsibility ever since.

"Europe has an aversion to sending troops to places where long-term stability is not ensured," said Jana Hybaskova, the European Parliament's main expert on the Middle East.

Let me see if I understand this correctly; you only want to send troops where it's already peaceful? This explains all of the French troops garrisoned in Monaco. Oops, my bad. They did offer to double their contingent of 200 troops because they have such close ties with Lebanon.

Saturday, August 19, 2006

Mufti of Egypt: The True Face of the Blood-Sucking Hebrew Entity has Been Exposed

In an article in the Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram, Egyptian Mufti Sheikh Dr. 'Ali Gum'a expressed his support of the resistance in Lebanon and stated that the lies of the "Hebrew entity" expose "the true and hideous face of the blood-suckers... who prepare [Passover] matzos from human blood." [1]

The following are excerpts from the article:

"Greetings to the Lebanese people, to the Lebanese government, and to the Lebanese resistance - to the small and beautiful country that has proved to the world that the ideals of determination, bravery and self-dignity still exist in this era that has been taken over by the blood-sucking murderers.

"Anyone who follows the news will discover that the Hebrew entity has turned into a [source] of [empty] talk, while the Arab discourse, which was characterized in the sixties [as empty talk], has developed significantly. [The Arabs] have learned a lesson and have moved from talk to action, and from the fostering of illusions to honesty, transparency, realistic goal-setting and ability to change. The Israeli discourse, [on the other hand], has turned to false declarations based on illusions, with wishful thinking taking precedence over facts."

Read the rest here.

Monday, August 14, 2006

Baby Bombers Are Nothing New

Some in Britain are surprised that suicide bombers were going to use children to hide them but this isn't anything new. No terrorist leader has walked in public without being surrounded by children in decades. To some it might look like public relations - especially because there's always a Reuters reporter around to take ( or Photoshop ) a picture that looks positive to terrorists. But it's also practical ... terrorists know that Israelis won't shoot children to get to a terrorist ( and terrorists regard that kind of thinking as weakness ) and if they do shoot children, the helpful Reuters photographer would be there to capture it all.

Saturday, August 12, 2006

UN Passes A Resolution To End Fighting In Lebanon

Whew ... that was a close one. As long as the UN agrees they should stop fighting, everything will be okay.

Sunday, August 06, 2006

Reuters Admits To Publishing Doctored Photo

Enhanced damage of Lebanon courtest of a Reuters photographer ( now suspended ) here.

Sunday, May 07, 2006

Is the U.S. better off with the Middle East as it is now than as it was before 2001?

After September 11, there were only seven sovereign countries in the Middle East that posed a real danger to the policies and, in some cases, the security of the United States—Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Ignoring the hysteria about the Sunni Triangle in Iraq, if we look at these states empirically, have they become more or less a threat in the last five years?

The Taliban in Afghanistan was actively harboring bin Laden and al Qaeda. Without their support, the mass murder on September 11 would have been difficult to pull off.

Iran was the chief sponsor of Hezbollah, which had killed more Americans than any other Islamist terror organization and was rumored to be at work on obtaining nuclear weapons.

In Iraq, Saddam Hussein’s agents were involved in the first World Trade Center bombing. They were also meeting with al Qaeda operatives throughout the 1990s and offering sanctuary both to al Qaeda offshoots in Kurdistan and, later, to veterans from Afghanistan. As the U.S. Senate observed in 2002, this was in addition to the general problems of no-fly zones, oil-for-food, violations of U.N. and 1991-armistice accords, and periodic retaliatory American bombing.

Libya was a de facto belligerent of the United States, provoking past U.S. air strikes on Tripolis. Among other things, it was involved in the Pan Am Lockerbie bombing and had a clandestine WMD program.

Pakistan had violated both U.N. and U.S. non-proliferation protocols. Its intelligence services were infiltrated by radical Islamists who were responsible for killing American diplomatic personnel and supplying the Taliban with support, as well as directly aiding al Qaeda operatives along the border.

Saudi Arabia, whose 15 subjects comprised the majority of the killers on 9/11, was stealthily giving blackmail money to Islamic terrorists to deflect their anti-Royal Family anger toward the United States. The kingdom’s vast financial clout subsidized radical “charities” and madrassas that offered at a global level the religious and ideological underpinnings for radical and violent Islamic extremism.

Syria had long swallowed most of Lebanon, and was a haven for anti-Western terrorists from Hamas to Hezbollah.

Four-and-a-half years after September 11, how has the United States fared in neutralizing these seven threats?

The Taliban is gone. In its place is the unthinkable—a parliamentary democracy that welcomes an open economy and foreign investment. Afghanistan is plagued still by drug-lords and resurgent terrorists, but after a successful war that removed the Taliban, the country hardly resembles the nightmare that existed before September 11.

Iran is closer to the bomb than ever, but there is at least worldwide scrutiny of its machinations, in a manner lacking in the past. Tehran is in a death struggle with the new Iraqi government, trying to undermine the democracy by transplanting its radical Shiite ganglia before a constitutional, diverse Iraqi culture energizes its own restive population that supposedly tires of the theocracy.

The thousands who died yearly under Saddam’s killing apparatus in Iraq have been followed by thousands killed in sectarian strife. Yet Saddam and his Baathist nightmare are gone from Iraq, offering hope where there was none. After three elections, a democratic government has emerged. Despite a terrible cost in American lives and wealth, so far elections have not been derailed, open civil war has not followed from the daily terror, and Americans are looking to reduce, not enlarge, their presence.

Libya is perhaps the strangest development of all. The United States is slowly exploring reestablishing diplomatic relations. Moammar Khadafy is giving up his WMD arsenal. And the country is suddenly open to cell phones, the Internet, satellite television, and is no longer a global financial conduit for international terrorism.

Pakistan is still run by a military dictator. But as a result of American bullying and financial enticement, it is slowly weeding out al Qaeda sympathizers from its government, which on rare occasions attacks terrorists residing in its borderlands. Indeed, al Qaeda seems to hate the present Pakistani government as much as it does the United States.

Saudi Arabia has gained enormous leverage as oil skyrocketed from $30 to over $70 a barrel. Yet under American pressure it has cracked down on al Qaeda terrorists and has cleaned up (somewhat) its overseas financial offices—perhaps evidenced by a wave of reactive terrorist attacks against the Riyadh government. American efforts to urge liberalization have met a tepid response—given Saudi reliance on the oil card, and its sophistic argument that for the present an autocratic monarchy is the only alternative to a terrorist-supporting theocracy.

Syria is out of Lebanon by popular pressure. It still supports terrorists against Israel—and now Iraq too—but judging from its rhetoric it must be feeling squeezed by a democratic Turkey, Iraq, and Israel on its borders, and a new tough stance from the United States.

So where does all this leave us? In every case, I think, far messier—but far better—than before September 11. Few argue that Afghanistan or Iraq is worse off than when under the Taliban or Saddam. Nor is Syria in a stronger position. Despite their respective nuclear and petroleum deterrence, both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are ever more sensitive to the dangers of Islamic radicalism. Libya no longer poses the threat of using WMD against its neighbors and is less likely to fund international terror. Iran is the wild card—closer to success in obtaining the bomb, but closer as well to becoming isolated by international pressure and the events that it cannot quite control across the border in Iraq.

Where do we go from here? The United States has its own paradoxes. These positive developments—themselves the result of a radical departure from the old appeasement that either used the cruise missile as an impotent gesture of retaliation or accepted realpolitik as a means of playing odious dictators against each other—have proved as controversial as they are costly.

A new strain of what we might call punitive isolationism is back (“more rubble, less trouble”), in which we should simply unleash bombers when evidence is produced of complicity in attacks against Americans, but under no circumstance put a single soldier on the ground to “help” such people who are “incapable” of liberal civilized society.

The hard Right is candid in its pessimistic dismissal of American idealism and worries that a new muscular Wilsonianism will lose the ascendant Republican majority and betray conservative values.

The Left buys into the neo-isolationism since it means less of an “imperial” footprint abroad and more funds released for entitlements at home—as well as a way of tarring George Bush and regaining Congress.

What is lacking has been a consistently spirited defense, both unapologetic and humble at the same time, of our efforts since September 11.

First, the United States was not cynical in its efforts: no oil was stolen; no hegemony was established; and democrats, not dictators, were promoted. We were appealing directly to the people of the Middle East, not negotiating with Mullah Omar or Saddam Hussein about their futures. No other oil-importing country in the world would have tried to pressure the Saudis to reform at a time of global petroleum shortages—not France, not China, not India.

Second, there were never good choices after September 11. The old appeasement had only emboldened the terrorists, from 1993 in Manhattan to the bombing in Yemen of the U.S.S. Cole. Saddam’s Iraq was unstable. It was only a matter of time before Saddam, energized with fresh petroleum profits, would renew his ambitions, once 12 years of no-fly-zones and controversial, but leaky, embargoes wore the West out. Given the premise that dictators promoted terrorists in an unholy alliance of convenience, and themselves often had oil and access to weapons, there were no good choices, whether we let them be or removed the worst.

Three, by the standard of Grenada, Panama, and the Balkans, our losses were costly. But the Middle East is a struggle of a different sort; it is an existential one in which defeat means more attacks on the United States homeland, while victory in changing the landscape of the region presages an end to the nexus of Islamic terror. In that regard, so far we have been fortunate, four-and-a-half years later, in avoiding the level of costs incurred on the first day of the war that took 3,000 American lives and resulted in a trillion dollars in economic damage.

Four, the strategy was not wholly military or political, much less characterized by preemption or unilateralism. Iraq was not the blueprint for endless military action to come, but the high-stakes gambit that offered real hope of bringing about associated change from Pakistan to Tripolis once Saddam was gone and a constitutional government established in its place.

Five, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. As we approach year five, there has been no subsequent attack on the United States. An entire intellectual industry has emerged to educate the West about radical Islamic fascism, something mostly lacking prior to September 11. Our enemies in al Qaeda are either dead, arrested, in hiding, or losing in Iraq, and the embrace of radical Islam through the Middle East at least now carries the consequence of fear of an unpredictable reaction on the part of the United States.

We are still in a race of sorts, hoping that Afghanistan and Iraq will enter a period of democratic stability and the violence halts before the American public tires of the daily visuals to the point of demanding a premature end to our efforts at birthing democracy. And while we do the unpopular work of trying to restore hope to the Middle East, the aloof Europeans pose as the moderate alternative, the Chinese make ever more trade, the Russians ever more trouble, and the Arab sheikdoms ever more money.

—Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author, most recently, of A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.

Article Here.

Sunday, April 30, 2006

Intelligence Files In the War On Terror

After years of delay, the intelligence community has begun sharing with the public the millions of files from the intelligence haul amassed in the War on Terror. These include files from Saddam Hussein's regime. With scholars and analysts now poring over just the small portion thus far released, the yield is already corroborating an underemphasized justification for the removal of Saddam: his longtime facilitation of Islamist terror groups, including al-Qaeda and its affiliates. The Iraq files demonstrate a close relationship between Saddam's intelligence service and the Phillipines-based Abu Sayyaf organization, whose terrorist activities were bankrolled by bin Laden's brother-in-law, Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, beginning in the mid-1990s. They show that the regime was in personal contact with bin Laden himself, meeting with him, for example, in Sudan in 1995 for talks about collaboration, and seeking "to invigorate this relationship" after bin Laden settled in Afghanistan thereafter. Other files, meanwhile, indicate Iraqi involvement in terror training, financing, and operational planning--including preparations for a wave of bombings and assassinations against Western targets under the direction of Saddam's son, Uday, before Coalition forces invaded in March 2003. Inexplicably, the administration has done a poor job of making the case that Iraq was a logical extension of the War on Terror. The intelligence files, however, may yet solidify that case.

Sunday, March 26, 2006

Terrorist 007 Caught

Naturally, he's British.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Iraq Archive Document Describes Bin Laden Meeting

Friday, March 17, 2006

Saddam Documents Discuss Bin Laden and WMDs

Your Ad Here