Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : WAR on Terror. Will it engulf the Entire Middle East? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lorne who wrote (9754)	8/20/2005 12:47:19 AM
From: paret	Respond to of 32591

Anti-Terror Plans Counter-Productive, Warns London Mayor Az Conservative ^ \| Aug 19, 2005 \| John Semmens The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, expressed serious reservations about the British government's new anti-terror plans. “Terrorism is ill-defined,” said Livingstone. “Is bombing trains terrorism? We bombed plenty of German trains during the Second World War. Some consider the American Revolutionaries terrorists. They dumped tea into Boston Harbor some 200 years ago. That was mighty irksome.” The Home Office is holding consultations, including with British Muslims, over plans to exclude and deport people for preaching, fermenting or provoking terrorism. This is seen as directed at Muslim “extremism,” which Prime Minister Tony Blair is blaming for July's London bombings. Livingstone says he is opposed to the introduction of legislation or any extension of powers which could result in the exclusion or criminalization of individuals who merely preach, ferment or provoke attacks.

To: lorne who wrote (9754)	8/22/2005 10:19:40 AM
From: paret	Respond to of 32591

San Francisco No Longer Supports the U.S. Military : Liberals First, Americans Second by Mac Johnson HUMAN EVENTS Aug 22, 2005 Liberals often lamented, during the election of 2004, that the presence of war gave a natural advantage to Republicans. For some unknown reason, most Americans do not trust Liberals to run a war, or treat the military well, or even put America’s international interests above pet social causes. The anti-war left responded to this belief with a set of standard talking points: Liberals oppose the war, but they support the troops. They hate the President’s policies, but they respect and honor the military and their sacrifice. Somebody, however, forgot to send the memo to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which last month stunned veterans groups, local businesses and even Diane Feinstein when it voted 8-3 to banish the USS Iowa from San Francisco Bay. The historic World War II battleship, namesake of the Iowa class, carried President Roosevelt home from the 1943 Tehran meeting with Stalin and Churchill, fought in the Pacific (including at Truk, the Marshall Islands, and the Battle of the Philippine Sea), was Admiral Halsey’s flagship at the Japanese surrender, and later fought in the Korean War. It was destined to become a floating museum at Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco –a memorial and tribute to the men that served, fought and died on her in World War II, Korea and afterward. California Senator Diane Feinstein, a former mayor of San Francisco, had secured the Iowa to add to the tourism revenue of her hometown and had already spent $3,000,000 in Federal funding to have the grand old ship towed from the mothball fleet in Rhode Island, through the Panama Canal, to California. But the anti-military Government of San Francisco will not accept the ship, because the Supervisors oppose the Iraq war, do not wish to glorify the military and its “machinery of war,” and the manic gay rights movement is mad about the Clinton “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy on homosexuals serving in the military, a policy once hailed as a major gay rights victory. Also, San Francisco wishes to only build “Peace” monuments –you know, like Ho Chi Minh Park. Because of the radical anti-military politics of eight of San Francisco’s Board Members, the city will be denied an attraction, veterans will be denied their memorial, and the men and women serving our country all over the world have been told that San Francisco no longer wishes to support them or their dreaded machines at all. Apparently, “anti-war” now includes World War II as well. What’s next? Does the Board plan on officially removing the sailor from the “Village People?” Can San Franciscans still sing "In The Navy" without fear of being labeled fascists? In case anyone might not get the message that the Board does not like America very much, Supervisor Chris Daly clarified things after the vote: “I am sad to say I am not proud of the history of the United States of America since the 1940s,” he remarked. This statement is, of course, patently dishonest, in that it implies that Daly is proud of America’s History before the 1940’s. And if the 1940’s are so great, why vote down what was, essentially, a monument to WWII sailors? San Francisco has made it clear that it no longer desires an association with America’s military. Would the Board of Supervisors now like to carry this to the next logical step and announce to terrorists and others that they no longer desire the protection of our military? Can it, in good conscience ask Coast Guard and Navy crews to respond to any potential disaster in the city? Would the city like to ask that the Federal Base Closure and Realignment Commission spare naval bases in places like Portsmouth, NH (where folks actually like our military and are proud of our history both before and since the 1940’s), and instead close bases in Northern California? And if the Board’s motivation is tolerance for gays, why refuse to honor the men that defeated the Axis in World War II –and don’t play ignorant, Supervisor Duffy, because I know you’ve seen Cabaret. Likewise, in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are fighting against men who, should they achieve their stated goal of an Islamist world state, will not simply question the right of homosexuals to celebrate their sexuality in public, or have gay unions declared as equivalent to traditional marriage by government, they will kill gays… in public, in front of children and explain to all that this is what God has in mind for homosexuals. This is what Al-Qaeda believes. This is what the Taliban did. One of the anti-Iowa Supervisors, Ross Mirkarimi, himself an Iranian-American, recently introduced a measure condemning the scheduled hanging in Iran of two teenage boys –to be executed by the Islamist state simply for being gay. Well, guess who is keeping such executions from becoming the norm in Iraq and a dozen other countries right now? Could it be the U.S. military? Do you really wish to demoralize it or encourage the Islamists with your petty anti-military grandstanding? If, God forbid, San Francisco is ever attacked, the men of the military that rush in will not deny to the city the patriotic loyalty and respect that has been denied to them. They will save liberal, moderate and conservative alike. Unlike the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, they will be bigger than their politics. They will be Americans first. How little some people deserve their sacrifice. After hearing of the vote, liberal Senator Feinstein called it a ''very petty decision.” Adding, ‘‘this isn't the San Francisco that I've known and loved and grew up in and was born in.” For once Diane Feinstein and I agree. But the question now is: What are you going to do about it, Sen. Feinstein? You have immeasurable power in the Democratic Party of San Francisco and could likely unseat these people in the primaries if you tried. But you won’t. There is a reason why the earnestness of the left’s patriotism is openly questioned: it is because you tolerate and support blatantly anti-American nuts in your midst. The USS Iowa will likely end up now in the Town of Stockton, California, a small agricultural port that is overjoyed to host her. Veterans and other Americans vacationing in Northern California may wish to leave their hearts in Stockton for a while. Mr. Johnson is a freelance writer and medical researcher living in Cambridge, MA. His published commentaries can be viewed at www.macjohnson.com.

To: lorne who wrote (9754)	8/22/2005 10:22:46 AM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck	Respond to of 32591

Al-Qaeda eyes a 9/11 for satellites canada.com quite a few pages so I just posted the link

To: lorne who wrote (9754)	8/22/2005 10:56:44 AM
From: paret	Respond to of 32591

It’s Official: Leftist-Islamist Alliance against the West THE AMERICAN THINKER August 22nd, 2005 So the hard left and the Islamists have established a coordinating committee, according to Douglas Davis of the London Spectator. In Britain the steering committee of the Marxist–Islamist alliance consists of 33 members — 18 from myriad hard-Left groups, three from the radical wing of the Labour party, eight from the ranks of the radical Islamists and four leftist ecologists (also known as ‘Watermelons’ —green outside, red inside). The chairman is Andrew Murray, a leading light in the British Communist party; co-chair is Muhammad Aslam Ijaz, of the London Council of Mosques. In other words, the war on terror is to be a continuation of the old war, the war between capitalism and its various discontents that was waged throughout most of the twentieth century. Norman Podhoretz is right. This is World War IV. But few people want to admit it. Ever since the Enlightenment people have believed that war would soon become the aberration and peaceful cooperation the norm. Even though the Enlightenment culminated in the warlike and unpeaceful French Revolution, this idea seems to be dying a very slow death. And it is not just utopian socialists that believe in it. Conservatives, ancient and modern, believe in the power of the rule of law and right reason to corral the Bull of Heaven, and the left still believes in the revolution that will end all oppression and usher in an age of peace and justice. Surely, war is going out and peace is coming in. That was what people thought at the turn of the twentieth century in the run-up to World War I, and again in the 1930s during the appeasement of Hitler’s Germany. They believed it even as the titanic struggle between capitalism and communism that we call the Cold War raged around them. And they believed it during the Islamist raids of the 1990s: the first World Trade Center bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing, the USS Cole bombing, the East African embassy bombings, and, for the conspiracy-minded, the Oklahoma City bombing and Flight 800. The “why do they hate us” crowd are still at it. We all need to believe in a rosy future purged of struggle and strife. When Lee Harris interpreted the war against terror as a moment in the confict between the western “team” and the “eternal gang of ruthless men” in Civilization and its Enemies his argument seemed overdrawn, for it scorned the idea of perpetual peace and interpreted the human condition as an eternal conflict. But events support his analysis. The punctuations of the terrorists in exhibitionist bombings, the bombastic declarations of the Daily Kos that “we will be ruthless” against George W. Bush, the now formalized coalition between the hard left and the Islamicist raiders are sending us a message. The war against the western team continues. The team concept goes all the way back to the Greek farmers, the hoplites who first fought as disciplined heavy infantry in shock battle. When combined with Alexander’s Companion heavy cavalry the team army routed the Persian Empire, and it has been just about unbeatable ever since. From time to time the eternal gang of ruthless men has succeeded in harnessing the western team to assist their ganglike predations, most notably when the Nazis used the German army, the team built up by Scharnhorst, Moltke, and Seekt, to lay waste to Europe. Fortunately the ruthless men fail to understand that the team army is but a part of the integrated western team concept. It is the relentless power of citified western teams measured against tribal gangs—in economic, political, religious, and cultural affairs—that provides the motive power for the world-beating western team army. Our western media do not understand the importance of the team concept either. They have been raised to a faith in creativity and a belief in the transforming power of the creative artist to break the constricting bonds of narrow middle-class conformity. They love the rebellious outrages of the terrorist gangs because they are directed against the same object as their own rage, the western middle-class team. Still, the formal coalition between the hard left and the Islamists is a shock. It is difficult to believe that the secular left could really find common cause with religious fundamentalists of any stripe. But we should remember our history. In World War I, progressive souls sympathized with the German effort to humble the capitalist nation of shopkeepers. In World War II, progressives were indifferent to the fate of the European democracies until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. In World War III they actively cheered for the Soviets although they denied the right of anyone to complain about it. It makes complete sense that the left’s first act in the twenty-first century should be to form a coalition with a new anti-western force. The war against democratic capitalism continues. Christopher Chantrill (mailto:chrischantrill@msn.com) blogs at www.roadtothemiddleclass.com. Read about his forthcoming Road to the Middle Class here.

To: lorne who wrote (9754)	8/22/2005 11:07:17 AM
From: paret	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32591

The tragedy of Islam The following commentary is what led to talk-show host Michael Graham recently being fired from ABC Radio station WMAL in Washington, D.C., after pressure was applied by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. By Michael Graham © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com worldnetdaily.com I take no pleasure in saying it. It pains me to think it. I could very well lose my job in talk radio over admitting it. But it is the plain truth: Islam is a terror organization. For years, I've been trying to give the world's Muslim community the benefit of the doubt, along with the benefit of my typical-American's complete disinterest in their faith. Before 9-11, I knew nothing about Islam except the greeting "asalaam alaikum," taught to me by a Pakistani friend in Chicago. Immediately after 9-11, I nodded in ignorant agreement as President Bush assured me that "Islam is a religion of peace." But nearly four years later, nobody can defend that statement. And I mean "nobody." Certainly not the group of "moderate" Muslim clerics and imams who gathered in London last week to issue a statement on terrorism and their faith. When asked the question "Are suicide bombings always a violation of Islam," they could not answer "Yes. Always." Instead, these "moderate British Muslims" had to answer "It depends." Precisely what it depends on, news reports did not say. Sadly, given our new knowledge of Islam from the past four years, it probably depends on whether or not you're killing Jews. That is part of the state of modern Islam. Another fact about the state of Islam is that a majority of Muslims in countries like Jordan continue to believe that suicide bombings are legitimate. Still another is the poll reported by a left-leaning British paper than only 73 percent of British Muslims would tell police if they knew about a planned terrorist attack. The other 27 percent? They are a part of modern Islam, too. The Council on American-Islamic Relations is outraged that I would dare to connect the worldwide epidemic of terrorism with Islam. They put it down to bigotry, asserting that a lifetime of disinterest in Islam has suddenly become blind hatred. They couldn't be more wrong. Not to be mean to the folks at CAIR, but I don't – care, that is. I simply don't care about Islam, its theology, its history – I have no interest in it at all. All I care about is not getting blown to smithereens when I board a bus or ride a plane. I care about living in a world where terrorism and murder-suicide bombings are rejected by all. And the reason Islam has itself become a terrorist organization is that it cannot address its own role in this violence. It cannot cast out the murderers from its members. I know it can't, because "moderate" Muslim imams keep telling me they can't. "We have no control over these radical young men," one London imam moaned to the local papers. Can't kick 'em out of your faith? Can't excommunicate them? Apparently Islam does not allow it. Islam cannot say that terrorism is forbidden to Muslims. I know this because when the world's Muslim nations gathered after 9-11 to state their position on terrorism, they couldn't even agree on what it was. How could they, when the world's largest terror sponsors at the time were Iran and Saudi Arabia – both governed by Islamic law? If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization. If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the "Boy Scout Handbook" and found language that justified and defended murder – and the scoutmasters in charge simply said "Could be" – the Boy Scouts would have driven out of America long ago. Today, Islam has entire sects and grand mosques that preach terror. Its theology is used as a source of inspiration by terrorist murderers. Millions of Islam's members give these killers support and comfort. The question isn't how dare I call Islam a terrorist organization, but rather why more people do not. As I've said many times, I have great sympathy for those Muslims of good will who want their faith to be a true "religion of peace." I believe that terrorism and murder do violate the sensibilities and inherent decency of the vast majority of the world's Muslims. I believe they want peace. Sadly, the organization and fundamental theology of Islam as it is constituted today allows for hatreds most Muslims do not share to thrive, and for criminals they oppose to operate in thename of their faith. know this to be true and some are acting on it. Not the members of CAIR, unfortunately: As Middle East analyst and expert Daniel Pipes has reported, "two of CAIR's associates (Ghassan Elashi, Randall Royer) have been convicted on terrorism-related charges, one (Bassem Khafegi) convicted on fraud charges, two (Rabih Haddad, Bassem Khafegi) have been deported, and one (Siraj Wahhaj) remains at large." But Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf admits what CAIR will not. He's called for a jihad against the jihadists. He's putting his life on the line (Islamists have tried to assassinate him three times) in the battle to reclaim Islam and its fundamental decency. He remembers, I'm sure, that at a time when Western, Christian civilization was on the verge of collapse, the Muslim world was a bastion of rationalism and tolerance. That was a great moment in the history of Islam, a moment that helped save the West. Let's hope Islam can now find the strength to save itself. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Related story: Talk-show host fired for linking Islam, terror worldnetdaily.com

To: lorne who wrote (9754)	8/22/2005 11:49:24 AM
From: paret	Respond to of 32591

Talk-show host fired for linking Islam, terror Michael Graham refused retract demand by CAIR, ABC's WMAL in Washington August 21, 2005 By Joseph Farah © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com WASHINGTON – Michael Graham, the Washington, D.C., talk-show host suspended for linking Islam and terrorism, has been fired by ABC Radio following weeks of pressure applied by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a group with its own well-documented connections to terrorism. Graham was the popular mid-morning host on WMAL in the nation's capital until three weeks ago when CAIR demanded he be punished for his on-air statements about Islam. After initially backing the host, WMAL suspended him without pay July 28. "CAIR immediately announced that my punishment was insufficient and demanded I be fired," Graham said in a statement to WND. "ABC Radio and 630 WMAL have now complied. I have now been fired for making the specific comments CAIR deemed 'offensive,' and for refusing to retract those statements in a management-mandated, on-air apology. ABC Radio further demanded that I agree to perform what they described as 'additional outreach efforts' to those people or groups who felt offended. I refused. And for that refusal, I have been fired." CAIR is a spin-off of a group described by two former FBI counterterrorism chiefs as a "front group" for the terrorist group Hamas in the U.S. Several CAIR leaders have been convicted on terror-related charges. Graham's suspension stems come from characterizing Islam a "terrorist organization." Graham explained that when a significant minority of a group conducts terrorism and the general population of that group does not denounce it, it is safe to conclude that the group promotes it. He drew an analogy between Islam and the Boy Scouts. "If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization," he said. "If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the Boy Scout handbook and found language that justified and defended murder – and the scoutmasters in charge simply said 'Could be' – the Boy Scouts would have driven out of America long ago." Graham is furious that CAIR is now able to exert this kind of influence in the U.S. media. "It appears that ABC Radio has caved to an organization that condemns talk radio hosts like me, but has never condemned Hamas, Hezbollah, and one that wouldn't specifically condemn al-Qaida for three months after 9-11," he said. "As a fan of talk radio, I find it absolutely outrageous that pressure from a special interest group like CAIR can result in the abandonment of free speech and open discourse on a talk radio show. As a conservative talk host whose job is to have an open, honest conversation each day with my listeners, I believe caving to this pressure is a disaster." Graham said he couldn't accept the idea of apologizing "for the truth and I cannot agree to some community-service style 'outreach effort' to appease the opponents of free speech." "If I had made a racist or bigoted comment – which my regular listeners know goes against everything I believe in – I would apologize immediately, and without coercion," he said. "When I have made inadvertent fact errors in the past, I apologized promptly and without hesitation. But we have now gone far beyond that, with demands that I apologize for the ideas my listeners and I believe in." Though Graham's characterization of Islam was blunt, it was also tactful. "I have great sympathy for those Muslims of good will who want their faith to be a true 'religion of peace,'" he said and wrote at the time of the controversy. "I believe that terrorism and murder do violate the sensibilities and inherent decency of the vast majority of the world's Muslims. I believe they want peace." Graham was backed by supporters from coast to coast after his suspension. "It is not a coincidence that, after my suspension July 28, WMAL received more than 15,000 phone calls and emails protesting my removal from the airwaves," he said. "Why such a huge response? It wasn't about me. The listeners I spoke to said they felt betrayed by my suspension because the vast majority of them agree with me on the subject of Islam. By labeling my statements as unacceptable, these listeners felt that WMAL management was insulting them, too." Graham said he could not dishonors his listeners and other Americans who agree with him by apologizing or retracting the truth. "The whole point of the Michael Graham show is what my listeners and I call the 'natural truth,' those obvious facts about modern life that the PC police and mainstream media believe should never be discussed," he said. "That includes the tragic, but undeniable relationship between terrorism and Islam as it is constituted today." Graham reiterated that the conversations of the controversial subject matter on his program were not designed to be offensive or bigoted. "In fact, Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR (who has appeared on my show several times) credited 'criticism from talk radio' in part for the recent fatwa against terrorism issued by a group of U.S. Muslim scholars. Ironically, it was issued the day before I was suspended. That's the real tragedy here. The people who most need free speech and open dialogue on the issues facing Islam today are America's moderate Muslims. These are people of good will who have the difficult job ahead of reforming and rescuing their religion. They need all the help they can get." But it is the capitulation to what he perceives to be an extremist group by ABC that bothers Graham most. "The decision to give CAIR what it wants – a group with well-publicized ties to terrorists and terror-related organizations -- will make it harder for the reformers to successfully face Islam's challenges," said Graham. "Still worse, silencing people like me will make it easier for Islamist extremists to dismiss all sincere calls for reform as mere 'bigotry.'" In April, the founder of the Texas chapter of CAIR, Ghassan Elashi was found guilty of supporting terrorism. Elashi, along with two brothers, was convicted in Dallas of channeling funds to a high-ranking official of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, Mousa Abu Marzook. Elashi was the third CAIR figure to be convicted on federal terrorism charges since 9-11. CAIR is a spin-off of the Richardson, Texas-based Islamic Association For Palestine, or IAP, which was founded by Marzook. Former FBI counterterrorism chief Oliver Revell has called the IAF "a front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants." Marzook, deputy chief of Hamas' political bureau in Syria, founded the IAP in 1991. At its conferences in the U.S., the IAP hosted leaders of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Marzook was deported in 1997. It was not the first conviction for Elashi. As chairman of the Holy Land Foundation charity in Dallas, Elashi was convicted last year of making illegal technology shipments to two countries on the U.S. list of terrorist-sponsoring states, Libya and Syria. Four brothers, including Bayan and Basman, also were convicted. Other CAIR figures convicted since 9-11 are Randall Todd "Ismail" Royer, a former communications specialist and civil rights coordinator, and Bassem Khafagi, former director of community relations. Royer was sentenced to 20 years in prison on charges he trained in Virginia for holy war against the United States and sent several members to Pakistan to join Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Kashmiri terrorist group with reported ties to al-Qaida. In a plea bargain, Royer claimed he never intended to hurt anyone but admitted he organized the holy warriors after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S. After his arrest, Royer sought legal counsel from Hamas lawyer Stanley Cohen, who said after 9-11 he would consider serving as a defense lawyer for Osama bin Laden if the al-Qaida leader were captured. Khafagi, was arrested in January 2003 while serving with CAIR and convicted on fraud and terrorism charges. Current CAIR leaders also have made statements in support of Hamas and the domination of the U.S. by Islam. As WorldNetDaily reported, CAIR's chairman of the board, Omar Ahmad, was cited by a California newspaper in 1998 declaring the Quran should be America's highest authority. He also was reported to have said Islam is not in America to be equal to any other religion but to be dominant. "When CAIR is able to quell dissent and label every critic a 'bigot,' the chilling effect is felt far beyond ABC Radio and 630 WMAL," said Graham. "If anyone is owed an apology, it is the moderate, Muslim community who have been failed once again by the mainstream media."

To: lorne who wrote (9754)	8/23/2005 2:14:53 PM
From: paret	Respond to of 32591

Nina Totenberg wishes death on Gen. Boykin: “I Hope He’s Not Long for This World” Eight years after NPR’s Nina Totenberg, on Inside Washington, wished death upon Senator Jesse Helms (“If there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it"), on the same show over the weekend she seemingly desired to hasten the death of Army General Jerry Boykin for having supposedly expressed the view that the war on terrorism “is a Christian crusade against Muslims.” Totenberg hatefully advocated: “I hope he’s not long for this world.”<?B> mediaresearch.org