Taliban seize major city; Barack Can-we-leave-yet? Obama shrugs shoulders

Kunduz

The world is seeing what happens when a U.S. commander in chief decides the only thing he wants to be transparent about is his desire to leave fragile Middle Eastern countries alone with a rogues’ gallery of Islamic radical groups and nation states.

President Obama failed to renew a status of forces agreement with Iraq and pulled all U.S. troops out of the country in Dec. 2011, despite the risk of losing everything Americans fought and died for over the course of a decade. Al Qaeda in Iraq essentially mutated into the Islamic State group, and the country is a mess. (We won’t even talk about the president’s “red lines” in Syria, which turned into “red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet.)

CNN reported Monday on a preview of what is to come if Mr. Obama exits too quickly in Afghanistan:

The loss of the major city of Kunduz to the Taliban is a stunning reversal for the Afghan government, deepening worries about the ability of its security forces to take the fight to the Islamic militants. …

It’s the biggest Taliban victory since 2001. …

The loss of Kunduz, even if the Afghan government manages to take it back soon, is an ominous sign. It’s Afghanistan’s fifth largest city and the capital of the province of the same name.

“This is the biggest town they’ve been able to take since 2001,” said Nic Robertson, CNN’s international diplomatic editor. “This is a significant target and prize for the Taliban.” …

The Taliban’s intent to try to take Kunduz was well flagged, and yet Afghan forces were unable to hold the city despite outnumbering the attackers. “Since about April this year, the Taliban increased their strength in the countryside to the north of Kunduz and have essentially had it in their sights since then,” Robertson said.

The militant group hasn’t had the easiest year. ISIS has been reported to be eating into its recruitment efforts in Afghanistan, and internal divisions in the Taliban were laid bare after the admission that longtime leader Mullah Omar had died more than two years ago.

But despite initial questions over whether the group would fall apart, new leader Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour appears to have overcome the bumpy start and can now point to big blow against the Afghan government in Kunduz.

Mr. Obama does not get animated about very much, but conversations on leaving Afghanistan as soon as possible always seemed to perk him up. The White House was forced to delay its plan to have roughly 5,500 troops in country by the end of 2015 at the behest of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, but he still insisted the U.S. basically reach “embassy center presence” by the end of his term in office. How convenient.

Do you notice a trend with the president when it comes to Iraq, Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, and Afghanistan? He rushes to meet political objectives despite overwhelming evidence that keeping promises made on the campaign trail prior to his 2008 election will create national security nightmares in the long run.

A leader — a true leader — is willing to make decisions that will gut him politically if the alternative is a substantially more dangerous world. Look at Yemen, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan and then compare where they are today with where they were in 2008. There is no way to objectively look at those countries — and the millions of refugees fleeing the Middle East and northern Africa — and conclude the Obama administration’s foreign policy has been a success.

President Obama expresses frustration March 24, 2015 that his attempts to run from Afghanistan with a come-what-may attitude are being thwarted by harsh reality. (Image: CNN screenshot)
President Obama expresses frustration March 24, 2015 that his attempts to run from Afghanistan with a come-what-may attitude are being thwarted by harsh reality. (Image: CNN screenshot)

Obama: Oopsie doodle, Taliban terrorist I released for Bergdahl wants back in the jihad game

Taliban 5 CNNI wrote a post in late December titled “Obama: If I can’t close Gitmo, then I’ll just make sure it’s empty before I leave office.” The main point was that playing politics with national security will literally blow up in our faces. Even if President Obama closes the detention facility, the function it serves is still necessary. Jihadis around the globe are determined to attack Americans and our interests. A rational man would not try to empty out a facility filled with terrorists just to keep a quixotic campaign promise. Mr. Obama, however, is not a rational man.

CNN reported Jan. 29:

Washington (CNN)The U.S. military and intelligence community now suspect that one of the five Taliban detainees released from Guantanamo Bay in return for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in May of last year has attempted to return to militant activity from his current location in Qatar by making contact with suspected Taliban associates in Afghanistan, multiple officials tell CNN.

The development has led to an ongoing debate inside the administration about whether there is a new threat from this man, and potentially the other four.

This is the first known suggestion that any of the detainees involved in the exchange may be trying to engage again in militant activity. It comes at a politically sensitive time as the administration has quickened the pace of prisoner release in an effort to encourage the closure of the Guantanamo, and the Army must decide in the coming weeks whether and how to punish Bergdahl for leaving his post.

In case you forgot who we’re dealing with, CBS gave a nice overview May 31, 2014 (emphasis added):

Khairullah Khairkhwa is the most senior ex-Guantanamo prisoner who comes from “the fraternity of original Taliban who launched the movement in 1994,” according the Afghanistan Analysts Network. He surrendered to President Hamid Karzai’s brother just before he was captured in January 2002. His most prominent position was as governor of Herat Province from 1999 to 2001. He served in various Taliban positions including interior minister and had direct ties to Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden.

Mullah Norullah Noori served as governor of Balkh Province in the Taliban regime and played some role in coordinating the fight against the Northern Alliance. He was a senior Taliban commander in the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif when the Taliban fought U.S. forces in late 2001.

Mohammad Fazl commanded the main force fighting the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance in 2001 and served as chief of army staff under the Taliban regime. Human Rights Watch says he could be prosecuted for war crimes for presiding over the mass killing of Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001 as the Taliban sought to consolidate their control over the country. Fazl joined the Taliban early, never held a civilian post, and rose through the ranks because of his fighting ability, ending up up as one of their most important and feared military commanders, according to the Afghanistan Analysts Network.

Abdul Haq Wasiq was the deputy chief of the Taliban regime’s intelligence service and the cousin of the head of the service, Qari Ahmadullah, who was among the Taliban’s founding members, according to the Afghanistan Analysts Network.

Mohammed Nabi was a Taliban official in Khost Province. He served as chief of security for the Taliban in Qalat, Afghanistan, and later worked as a radio operator for the Taliban’s communications office in Kabul.

Mr. Obama can hem and haw all day long about closing Gitmo, but the fact remains: members of al Qaeda, the Islamic State group, the Taliban, and a whole host of other Islamic radicals are keen to find a way to kill Americans. The president seems to think that dropping giant bombs on a man is more humane than holding him in a detention facility and interrogating him for information in between prayer time, three square meals, and the afternoon soccer game in the quad. Some of us think that’s rather strange, but so be it. The fact also remains that without human intelligence, it is mighty difficult to glean information that can save lives; dead men tell no tales.

The president’s all-out rush to empty Guantanamo Bay detention center, Cuba before he leaves office is jaw-dropping, and it will put American lives needlessly at risk. The sad thing is, by the time the real damage is done, he’ll be long out of office, working on his fourth autobiography, and pulling in $100,000 on the Democratic Party speaking circuit. A future president will be too big of a man to single out Mr. Obama, and as a result the architect of disaster will escape the appropriate scorn and ridicule that he is due.

Lesson from the Sgt. Bergdahl terrorist swap: Obama, Harry Reid are dangerously stupid on defense

Obama Reid

It’s official: Gitmo terrorists Mullah Mohammad Fazl, Mullah Norullah Noori, Abdul Haq Wasiq, Khairullah Khairkhwa and Mohammed Nabi Omari — who were all deemed in 2008 to be at “high risk” for returning to the battlefield if released — are now free, and the U.S. obtained Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for the release. There are many lessons here, but perhaps the most glaring is: President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are scary-stupid on national defense.

Let us address President Obama and his administration first. The White House listened to wary military officials who said the Taliban Five were incredibly dangerous men who were likely stay in the terrorist game for the rest of their lives, and it responded: Release the terrorists and “suck it up and salute.”

Time magazine reported Tuesday:

Officials in the Pentagon and intelligence communities had successfully fought off release of the five men in the past, officials tell TIME. “This was out of the norm,” says one official familiar with the debate over the dangers of releasing the five Taliban officials. “There was never the conversation.” Obama’s move was an ultimate victory for those at the White House and the State Department who had previously argued the military should “suck it up and salute,” says the official familiar with the debate.

How do you close Gitmo if you can’t close Gitmo? Empty it! How do you stop the bleeding from a VA scandal when the “blame Bush” strategy isn’t an option? Trade a bunch of terrorists for an American POW who seemingly deserted his post in the middle of the night.

Which brings us to Sen. Harry Reid, who is “glad” that the Obama administration just gave five terrorists a “Get out of Gitmo Free” card.

“I’m glad to get rid of these five people,” Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on the release of the Taliban Five. June 3, 2014.

Someone needs to inform Sen. Reid that the terrorists in question are not dead or reformed — they’re free. That means that while he pats himself on the back for having five new empty beds at Gitmo there are five guys who would love to kill Americans who are occupying beds as free men in the Middle East.

What planet are we living on where Chris Matthews realizes that if the Taliban was so obsessed with securing release of these five individuals then perhaps they might not be the type of men the U.S. wants roaming freely about the Middle East.

The Washington Free Beacon reported Tuesday:

Chris Matthews: Do you think the war against the United States from the Taliban point of view is going to be over when we check out of there? Do you honestly believe they’re going to stop attacking us and our interests?

Col. Morris Davis: I don’t think we measure our behavior by what the Taliban thinks. Legally the war is coming to an end, and that’s what we’ve cited to the courts for a decade now.

Chris Matthews: You’re making these legal points which I question, because I don’t think they cease to be hostiles. But my question is this, if those guys get back in there and start killing American GIs who are stationed at our embassy or anywhere else, whose head is that on? Yours or the president’s? But it’s somebody’s, because the person who lets them go is responsible for them now! Right now.

Perhaps most bizarre of all is that President Obama claims to have rightfully acted when he did not notify members of Congress — not even those on intelligence committees — of his prisoner release by invoking the very same authority that Democrats called President George W. Bush a “war criminal” for using. The difference between George W. Bush and President Obama is that Bush was putting members of the Taliban behind bars — not letting them loose.

The Washington Post reported Monday:

Current law, signed by Obama in December, stipulates that the defense secretary must notify relevant congressional committees at least 30 days before transferring anyone from Guantanamo Bay and provide assurances that those released would not be in a position to again threaten the United States or its interests.

Obama did not send such a notice to Capitol Hill until Monday — two days after the detainees were sent to Qatar, where they will live for at least the next year, in circumstances that neither the administration nor the emirate has explained publicly.

The Obama administration’s excuse for not notifying Congress: it was an “oversight.”

The National Journal reported Wednesday:

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein took at shot at the Obama administration on Tuesday for failing to give lawmakers 30 days’ notice about a deal to release five Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the only POW from America’s war in Afghanistan.

“It’s very disappointing that there was not a level of trust sufficient to justify alerting us,” Feinstein told reporters in the Capitol.

A defense bill that President Obama signed into law in December 2013 requires that Congress be notified 30 days ahead of releasing prisoners from Guantanamo Bay.

Feinstein said that National Deputy Security Adviser Tony Blinken called her Monday night “apologizing” for failing to notify lawmakers sooner.

“He apologized for it and said it was an oversight,” Feinstein said. When asked whether he used the word “oversight,” Feinstein clarified: “In so many words, I can’t say. That was my impression.”

So either Mr. Obama is a liar or completely inept, according to Sen. Feinstein. How do you release five “high risk” terrorists from Gitmo without notifying the appropriate members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees? You don’t — unless you were in the middle of a Veterans Affairs scandal and you wanted to change the headlines.

The only problem for the White House is that the new headlines are not what it expected to see.

Hotair reported Tuesday:

Chuck Todd: What does this mean for the future of Gitmo? What does this mean for the future of the rest of those detainees that are sitting there? … Does this mean this is this part of winding down the war and is this how Gitmo is essentially going to get shut down? … What’s caught the White House off guard here — they were expecting criticisms of Gitmo, criticisms of the detainees that were choose —  they did not expect this criticism of the attempt to go get Bergdahl and the way that it was done. And that appears to be what caught them off guard and that’s why I think they look like they’re on their back feet on this one.

Again: How do you close a detention center you don’t want open? Answer according to the Obama administration: Let the inmates free.

Instead of focusing on Sgt. Bergdahl — before the Army has even had a chance to try him in a military court — Americans would be wise to turn their attention to Mr. Obama and the dangerous stupidity he displays as America’s Commander-in-Chief.

Note to Harry Reid: You’re “glad” to get rid of these Gitmo terrorists? When their handwork boomerangs back on American civilians, servicemen and allies, then the blood of innocents will be on your hands.

 

 

In Bush’s absence, elected losers silent on Afghanistan’s importance

For many of us, we'll always remember 'W' on the rubble of the World Trade Center, telling Taliban scum and their terrorist brethren that the United States would be coming for their asses. He did, and he never wavered throughout roller coaster poll numbers. On national defense he had enough spine to straighten out shaky Republicans. In his absence, the GOP's losers have gone silent on the security threats posed by radical Islam.

Years ago, smarmy journalists asked Bush about public opinion fading on the war effort (take your pick, Afghanistan or Iraq, it doesn’t matter), and his response was telling. In short, he tactfully told them to shove it because a leader’s job is to do the hard right, even if doing the easy wrong is in his political best interest. And that is why I will always have a soft spot in my heart for ‘W’.

Years ago I went down to Fort Benning, Georgia to catch up with an old Army buddy, and the infantry guys I talked to at the bar loved him. The reason: besides his obvious love for the troops, when it came to safeguarding the country there was no shaking him. Besides my own regret and the second-guessing that comes from leaving the service before 9/11, I will also always carry a certain sadness that I didn’t get to serve under a Commander-in-Chief like Bush.

But I digress… The CNN poll:

Support for the war in Afghanistan has fallen to an all-time low with the majority of Americans saying the U.S. should withdraw all of its troops from Afghanistan before the 2014 deadline set by the Obama administration, according to a new poll.

The CNN/ORC International survey released Friday indicated only 25% of Americans favored the war in the Asian country. A majority of Republicans voiced opposition to it, for the first time since the war began in 2001.

The responsibility of our elected officials is to articulate our war efforts in a way that resonates with the American people and prepares them for costs of war. It is their job to articulate exactly who are enemy is and what it will take to defeat him. They have failed, just as they have failed with the coming debt bomb and just about every other matter of import to the nation.

If we return to the pre-9/11 mindset in order to combat Islamic terrorism, then we will have 9/11-type results. It’s really that simple. The delivery vehicle for their terrorism may very well be different, but the body count and subsequent effect on the economy will be the same or worse.

Many Republicans wobbled on the war effort under George Bush, and it was his sheer force of will that kept many of them in line. In his absence the weak-kneed losers have been freed to go soft. Our elected officials give floor speeches on NFL football bounty hunter controversies while $16 trillion in debt works its way up, up, up. Honest debates on our nation’s security get shelved for side-show antics involving hooded sweatshirts. Our nation is wandering in a sh*t storm of our own making, and there doesn’t seem to be a stable of leaders who can help guide us out.

Prepare yourself, because things are going to get messy.

The UCMJ works. The Uniform Code of Mujahideen Justice Doesn’t Exist.

Remember Fallujah? The people screaming the loudest about urinating Marines don't. The Uniform Code of Military Justice has worked for over half a century. The Taliban operate outside the rule of law. Case closed.

The world collectively yawned when Momar Gaddafi was sodomized with a crude instrument in his last bloody moments. Egypt’s Hussein Tantawi has a military whose first major objective after the fall of Hosni Mubarak was to strip down female protestors, drag them by the hair, and stomp on their chests. North Korea runs modern-day gulags, and it’s somehow fodder for late night comics. By and large American liberals are tight lipped about the barbaric nature of the enemies we face around the globe, so it’s rather peculiar that the video apparently depicting U.S. Marines urinating on dead Taliban has got them talking.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has put out a statement calling for those found guilty to have the book thrown at them:

“We trust that this disturbing incident will be promptly investigated in a transparent manner and that appropriate actions will be taken based on the results of that investigation. Any guilty parties must be punished to the full extent allowed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and by relevant American laws.”

Missing from CAIR’s website is a condemnation of the tactics used by the Taliban, or the call for their members to be tried by an Islamic equivalent of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The fact remains: The Uniformed Code of Mujahideen Justice doesn’t exist. In 2004, a judicial system also wasn’t set up by al-Qaeda in Iraq when they charred American civilians in Fallujah, hung them from a bridge, and danced around their desecrated remains.

Also missing from the current debate are calls for Secretary of Leon Panetta to step down, as was the demand de rigueur for Donald Rumsfeld when details surrounding Abu Ghraib came to light. Those looking for intellectual consistency from the left will not find it, but the broader point is not missed by fair-minded folks: the Uniform Code of Military Justice works. When American troops lose their military manner they are held accountable for their actions. Liberalism’s self-flagellation brigades don’t understand that, but most Americans do.

Lynndie England and those responsible for Abu Ghraib were court-martialed and convicted. For every rare instance where an Army Specialist violates the UCMJ, there are countless others who never deviate from the Seven Army Values: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage. For the outlier Marines that falter, there are battalions defined by the Marine Corps Values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment.

American soldiers deployed overseas are facing an enemy that uses women and children as shields, hide in hospitals and mosques, and don’t wear a standard uniform. Terrorists take advantage of Rules of Engagement crafted more for scoring points with the United Nations cocktail circuit than winning a war and securing the peace. Then, the politically correct chattering class wrings its hands over the blow back they’re largely responsible for.

The last thing the Pentagon wants is this generation’s John Kerry testifying before Congress that American war fighters are “reminiscent of Genghis Khan.” The top brass will see to it that Uniform Code of Military Justice does its job, as it has for over half a century. Liberals attempt to put the entire military on trial in the court of public opinion every time they see an opening. Once again, it’s up to conservatives to provide the proper defense.

Radical Islam Puts Women In Real Crosshairs Every Day: Left Yells Over Palin’s Metaphors.

Liberals go crazy over "crosshair" metaphors mentioned months ago by Sarah Palin, but Taliban-style executions (women put in the crosshairs by radical Islam every day) get a collective yawn.

It’s more frequent in Somalia to see a woman get a beating than it is to see someone shake her hand.  I’m writing on this today because in the wake of the Congresswoman Giffords tragedy it seems that a whole lot of people have lost their perspective:

MOGADISHU, Somalia – Somalis say Islamist insurgents have banned unrelated men and women from shaking hands, speaking or walking together.

Residents of the southern Somali town of Jowhar said Saturday that the al-Shabab insurgents threatened to whip, imprison or execute anyone found breaking the recent edicts.
Resident Hussein Ali says he will no longer greet women he knows for fear of punishment.

Student Hamdi Osman says gunmen are searching buses for improperly dressed women or women traveling alone. She says she was once beaten for wearing Somali traditional dress instead of the long, shapeless black robes favored by the fighters.

The insurgents have already banned women from working in public, leaving many families completely destitute.

The differences between Americans who disagree over public policy are nothing compared to the differences we have with backwards civilizations that bring women to soccer fields to put a bullet through their head for…wearing makeup, shaking hands, being seen in public, having a job, or begging for money because it’s illegal to have a job.

And yet, the hate and anger and vitriol aimed (pardon the “rhetoric”) at Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement is rather astonishing. A nut ball kid who is apparently obsessed with “mind control” and the Communist Manifesto goes on a rampage and we’re supposed to believe putting the clues together from his insane ramblings will lead us back to the Tea Party movement?

I’m scared for Western Civilization because there are very real, very serious forces at play that want to tear it down and replace it with a culture that in almost every respect treats women, gays, Jews, and anyone who doesn’t agree as sub-humans living on borrowed time.  Instead of concentrating on tyrannical regimes around the globe we’re busy ripping each other apart!

The pundits and politicos and many of the movement leaders across the country have let you down.  Personally, I almost never watch Cable News or Sunday roundtables; I see no benefit in watching a bunch of people scream and talk over each other. Awhile ago I decided I was going to read the work of respected magazines, newspapers, and blogs. Only occasionally would I delve into cable news if it was called upon for my job or if I knew I’d only be getting a small dose. Since then, I’ve been a much happier person. I suggest you do the same.

My point is, the great thing about technology is that it affords us the opportunity to stay informed without ever having to turn to our least favorite talking heads. The same people who are lecturing the Tea Party about volatile rhetoric are the most egregious practitioners of it, and so I’ll ignore them.  Instead of listening to elitist boors yell at each other just read a few op-eds.  And instead of engaging idiots online in the comments section of your favorite websites or blogs, use that time to start your own blog!

If you spend time arguing with professional nincompoops you’re going to lose because they generally have more experience in nincompoopery.  There’s a battle for Western Civilization to be won.  Tune out the Keith Olbermanns of the world, roll up your sleeves, and win it.

Obama Adopts Foreign Policy From 90’s Band Live: I Alone.

President Obama dances with 90's band Live to "I Alone." Fitting, since he's about the last one left who believes in his foreign policy. How's that outreach with dictators and despots and theocratic thug states around the globe going? Not well, huh. Didn't think so.

It’s been awhile since I’ve blogged on President Obama’s foreign policy.  When I last seriously touched on him, I believe his Youtube diplomacy had scored big wins…with the “throw a shoe at Obama booth’s” ticket takers in Indonesia.  Since then, other jihadi carnival clowns have operated as well; the Taliban and Iran have apparently teamed up for an interesting game, whereas target practice on American troops can get you $1000, or a few Seth MacFarlane-Family Guy Stuffed Stewies, (whichever one suits your fancy):

Iran is paying Taliban fighters $1,000 for each U.S. soldier they kill in Afghanistan, according to a report in a British newspaper.

The Sunday Times described how a man it said was a “Taliban treasurer” had gone to collect $18,000 from an Iranian firm in Kabul, a reward it said was for an attack in July which killed several Afghan government troops and destroyed an American armored vehicle.

If this keeps up the President will have to abandon the Youtube Diplomacy for one inspired by the 90’s band, Live. We’ll call it “I Alone Diplomacy.”

I alone love you
I alone tempt you
Fear is not the end of this
I alone love you
I alone tempt you
I alone love you
It’s easier not to be great.

Because I’m sure there are some livid Live fans that right now (considering this song’s religious metaphors), l’ll clarify what I’m trying to say:

I don’t think President Obama loves Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or fanatical Shia or Sunni Muslims around the world. What I’m trying to say is that his foreign policy seemed to be centered around getting despotic thugs around the globe to warm up to the United States by, in essence, apologizing for the greatness of America while pumping up their self esteem with silly platitudes. The thought process seemed to be: Tell (fill in the blank with whatever run-of-the-mill anti-American country U.S. diplomats or the President was visiting here) about how great they are, while apologizing for real and imagined slights, and we’ll make headway.

And that was flat out wrong. And independent voters are finally starting to get it. And pretty soon, the President is going to be all alone if he doesn’t wake up.

During his first year in office the world’s worst actors sized him up. Think what you will about George Bush, but the man struck fear into the hearts of bad apples around the globe. Until President Obama at least creates the possibility in their head that he’ll do more than use drones to redecorate hut walls Taliban blood-red from time to time, he’ll won’t be able to keep them in check.

With that said, I’m off to Home Depot to see if they can mix up some paint for me, preferably Taliban Blood Red.

Medal of Honor Controversy? Not if Taliban Watermelons Explode.

Ask yourself this question: Does the new Medal of Honor game allow you to lock and load your M249 SAW and put 5.56mm rounds in Taliban Watermelons (i.e., heads)? If the answer is "yes", then move along to the pernicious politicians and Hollywood actors who hinder success in Afghanistan.

The most interesting aspect of the upcoming Medal of Honor game, in which your friendly neighborhood jiahdist (or jihadi sympathizer) can now enter into virtual battles with Americans before launching real attacks, isn’t that XBOX competitions are going to get very interesting in the coming months—it’s that there will undoubtedly be someone watching it all behind the scenes. If liberals thought the big bad Bush administration was interested in using the Patriot Act to determine how many times you checked out Green Eggs and Ham for your kids, one would think that they would be concerned that the Feds are going to be interested in online gamers who spend inordinate amounts of time as a virtual terrorist. If I’m sitting at home eating chips and salsa and the guy on the other end of the game is in serious “Allah Akbar” screaming mode, I hope Homeland security has a bead on him…

I’ve already covered how the Obama administration thinks the XBOX is a “distraction” (unless it’s promoting his campaign efforts), but I’d like to know what this story qualifies as. I very rarely play games online (I soured on the idea years ago after a slew of random pre-teens cursed me out in cracking falsetto voices during a game of Halo). However, I’d consider taking part again if the guys on the other side where the kind who threaten to kill the creators and fans of South Park. Perhaps my online Medal of Honor supremacy and smack-talking skills could then instigate the kind of response that would result in Youtube gold…

I feel incredibly bad for this Gold Star mom, but at the same time I think she’s expending time and resources on a company that should be low on the priority list:

“This game is going to be released in October, so families who are burying their children are going to be seeing this and playing this game,” (Karen Meredith).

One of the most honorable men I ever met, Sgt. Hector Leija, was shot by a sniper in Iraq a few years ago. The New York Times posted video and graphic details of his death before his family was ever notified. Hollywood celebrities routinely use their bully pulpits to undermine U.S. foreign policy efforts. Guys like Harry Reid outright surrender when the going gets tough. To me, those are much more pernicious actions that Gold Star Mothers should be addressing. If Medal of Honor’s game play actually portrays the troops as the honorable men and women they are, as well as their mission, there really isn’t any need to complain about specific gameplay options. If millions of Americans are exposed to a platform that accurately defines our enemy as the dregs of the modern world (while allowing a small percentage of sick individuals to actually enjoy the option to become them), conservatives should move on.

In a time and place where Captain America courts jihadi film clubs, we should be glad that the Medal of Honor games exist. Any video game company that allows me to put a few 5.56mm rounds into facsimiles of Taliban cavemen is ahead of the power curve in my book. Next.

Pakistan’s ISI Drinking Jihad Slurpees? You Be the Judge.

I thought I was going to go to bed early tonight, but right when I was going to turn in for the night I found out that another “ISI not-so-secretly smitten with the Taliban” story has popped up:

Insurgent commanders confirmed that the ISI are even represented, as participants or observers, on the Taliban supreme leadership council, known as the Quetta Shura, and the Haqqani command council.

Commanders also described how they received training and medical care in Pakistan. Some said border guards had turned a blind eye to fighters as they crossed back and forth.

Here’s all you really need to know about Pakistan: these are the same guys

Pakistan's ungovernable tribal region: teeming with jihad-friendly clowns that resemble Dawn of the Dead zombies when worked up into a frenzy over Facebook groups, infidel cartoons, and a little thing called...freedom of speech.

who just went bonkers over inconsequential Facebook groups, going so far as to call for holy war against websites… They can’t control their borders, which are teeming with jihadi nut cases that eerily remind me of Dawn of the Dead remake zombies when they get worked up into a frenzy (or if you listen to them talk about how they favor death more than life…), and yet they regularly complain about respecting their “sovereignty.”  Newsflash: If you have zero control over ideological moon-bats with Ottoman Empire-at-any-cost machinations (e.g., blowing up women, children, and anyone else who gets in their way), then you have no sovereignty.

I almost feel bad for the Obama administration. They’re between a rock and a jihadi place.  The United States needs Pakistan’s cooperation, and yet significant portions of the population—and by extension the government and its intelligence apparatus—drinks intellectual Slurpees laced with jihad juice on the way home from work.  However, as I said before, liberals didn’t cut George Bush much slack for the bizarro world he had to deal with, so muted criticism is the best I muster for the current administration.

Before I fall asleep tonight I’m sure I’ll ruminate a bit on what the kids are thinking about all of this.  Those same moral relativist MGMT fans I talked about in an earlier post must find themselves in a conundrum: How can you be non-judgemental about a culture that is openly hostile toward your socialistpeacelove circle of happiness? How do you “live fast and die young” when Pakistani madrassas are churning out jihadi warriors who want to kill you before you pump yourself up with hallucinogens? If alQaeda and Co. at least waited until after the kids dropped some quality acid, their heads would feel as though they were floating away painlessly instead of being chopped off Daniel Pearl dull-knife style (i.e., bringing the hurt).

Moral Relativism mixed with a multi-culturalism, a horrid education system that churns out Sean Penn ignorance, and the me-me-me “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” mindset is going to kill Western Civilization if we don’t wake up—NOW.

While I have little in common with the Rubik’s Cube headed liberal kids of this generation…I’d still like them to have a head.  Let’s try and reach them before it’s too late.

This kid might be a liberal with a Rubik's Cube head...but I still want him to have a head. Wake up, Western Civilization!

ICRC becomes Mr. Fix-it for Taliban. Victims? They’re Dead.

A friend of mine pointed out that the International Committee of the Red Cross has become a Mr. Fix-it conveyor belt for jihad clowns in Afghanistan:

The International Committee of the Red Cross in Afghanistan has been teaching the Taliban basic first aid and giving insurgents medical equipment so that fighters wounded during battles with Nato and Afghan government forces can be treated in the field, it was revealed today.

You just healed a sucking chest wound on Joehammad Taliban.

Would you teach this man how to treat his battlefield wounds? I wouldn't. Unless you count "apply a tourniquet to your neck" as sound advice.

Congratulations! Now go collect the basket of heads he chops off next week, or perhaps the bits left behind from that IED roadside blast he’ll take credit for.

The Taliban are not a conventional force. They do not wear uniforms. They do not belong to a nation state. They attack women, children, the elderly, and the disabled. They do not abide by any “laws of war” recognized by most of the civilized world. And they mock our silly rules of engagement that encourage them to hide behind civilians (even more so than they usually do).

The Red Cross, which aims to remain neutral in the conflict, has trained more than 100 Afghan soldiers and policemen, as well as a network of taxi drivers who operate an unofficial ambulance service in Helmand and Kandahar provinces.

I have no problem treating civilians for wounds suffered because they got caught up in the jihadi quest to keep people steeped in the stone age–literally and figuratively. I have no problem teaching civilians how to save the lives of their friends and relatives. However, I have a BIG problem with teaching Sharia Law seeking psycho-paths how to return their comrades to the battlefield (the modern one they created with no borders).

The ICRC has the best of intentions. But like all endeavors coated with a creamy helping of liberalism, the consequences produced as a result are diametrically opposed to the stated goals. The very same guys who turn villages into minefields, prolong war, cause the former farmer with the blown off arms to feel phantom limbs, and leave blood baths wherever they go…are the ones who benefit most from such a program (as it’s currently implemented). For every life the ICRC “saves” through training Taliban fighters, they probably ensure a handful of painful, shrapnel-speckled screaming deaths.

Neutral? How’s that wind in your hair feel up on that mighty high moral pedestal, guys? How moral is it to be “neutral” in a clash between civilizations, whereas one side seeks a world where “neutral” kinds of guys are turned into second-class citizens, jailed, or put to death? Answer: It’s not.

Is all life precious? Sure. Unfortunately, there are people in this world who have shown such an utter disregard for the rights of others that they have in essence absolved themselves from the following: civilized society’s interest in protecting the life of said offending party.

A Taliban member’s right to life does not trump the right to life of the countless others he seeks to take. The civilized world does not owe the jihadi psychopath anything, and is under no obligation to provide him the skills necessary to keep him alive and ticking—like the same bomb he dreams of detonating in a crowded market place.

The Red Cross should most definitely help innocent civilians in need of medical attention. The Taliban? My answer (and as of now I believe there would be nothing better) to all of their medical needs: Apply a tourniquet to the neck.