Archive for the ‘Geopolitics’ Category
Iranian nuke program stalled by computer virus?
DEBKAfile reports that thousands of Iranian industrial computers have been disabled by a virus.
Mahmoud Alyaee, secretary-general of Iran’s industrial computer servers – which includes those involved in nuclear facilities – states that 30,000 computers have been infected and disabled.
Since August, American and UN nuclear watchdog sources have been reporting a slowdown in Iran’s enrichment processing due to technical problems which have knocked out a large number of centrifuges and which its nuclear technicians have been unable to repair. It is estimated that at Natanz alone, 3,000 centrifuges have been idled.
Alyaee states that the virus began attacking their computers two months ago.
Not only has it taken control of automatic industrial systems, but has raided them for classified information and transferred the date abroad.
In that case, perhaps we could use the acquired intel to build a few new nuclear plants ourselves. Cheap, clean, and putting Americans back to work.
Why Muslims must build a mosque at Ground Zero
William J. Federer has published a list of occurences throughout history of Muslims conquering land and subsequently turning synagogues and churches into mosques. I am quite pleased with this as I had planned on compiling this very list, and can now move on to other projects.
From Stand Up America US:
In 630, Muhammad led 10,000 Muslim soldiers into Mecca and turned the pagans’ most prominent spot, the Ka’aba, into the Masjid al-Haram Mosque.
In 634, Rightly Guided Caliph Umar conquered Syria and turned the Christians’ most prominent spot, the Church of Job, famous for being visited by Saint Silva in the fourth century, into the Mosque of Job.
In 637, Caliph Umar conquered Hebron and turned the second-most prominent spot in Judaism, the Cave of the Patriarchs, into the Ibrahimi Mosque. (This was repeated by Saladin in 1188.)
In 638, Muslim generals Amr ibn al-As and Khalid ibn al-Walid conquered Gaza and turned the prominent fifth-century Byzantine church into the Great Mosque of Gaza.
In 638, Caliph Umar conquered Jerusalem.
In 691, Caliph Al-Malik ordered the Dome of the Rock built on the most prominent spot in Judaism, the Temple Mount, followed by Caliph Al-Walid building the Al-Aqsa Mosque there in 705.
In 651, Muslims conquered Persia and turned Zoroastrian temples in Bukhara and Istakhr into mosques.
In 706, after Muslims took Damascus from the Byzantine Empire, Caliph Al-Walid turned the prominent Orthodox Church of St. John the Baptist into the Umayyad Mosque.
In 710, Gen. Muhammad bin Qasim conquered Pakistan, defiled the prominent Sun Temple in Multan, which house the great idol “sanam,” and erected a mosque.
In 784, after the conquest of Spain, Emir Abd ar-Rahman turned the prominent Visigothic Christian Church of Saint Vincent into the Great Aljama Mosque of Cordoba. After the conquest of Egypt, Caliphs al-Mamun (813-833) and al-Hakim (996-1021) turned prominent Coptic Christian churches and Jewish synagogues in Cairo into mosques.
In 831, Muslims conquered Palermo, Sicily, and Asad ibn al-Furat turned the prominent Church of Saint Mary of the Assumption into the Great Mosque of Bal’harm. In 1193, Muslims conquered Delhi, India, and Qutbuddin Aibak turned the Red Citadel in Dhillika, the most prominent spot of the last Hindu rulers, into the Qutb Minar Mosque.
From 1250-1517, Mamluk Muslims controlled the Golan Heights and used the ancient Synagogue of Katzrin as a mosque.
In 1387, Turkish Muslims conquered Thessaloniki and turned the Katholikon Monastery and the Church of Aghia Sophia, which housed the relics of Saint Gregorios Palamas, into mosques, as Symeon of Thessaloniki recorded: “The greatest number of the buildings of the churches fell to them, of which the first was the Holy Church of the Savior. … These were trampled underfoot and the infidels rejoiced in them. … Most of thhe religious buildings in the city were despoiled, while altars were demolished and sacred things profaned.”
On May 29, 1453, Sultan Mehmet II conquered Constantinople and turned the great Byzantine church, Hagia Sophia, into the Ayasofya Mosque. The largest church in Christendom for a thousand years, the church’s four acres of gold mosaics were covered with whitewash and Quran verses.
In 1458, Sultan Mehmet II conquered Athens and turned the Greeks’ most prominent spot, the Parthenon on Acropolis hill, into a mosque. When Venetian Gen. Francesco Morosini drove the Muslims out in 1687, a cannonball hit the gunpowder stored in the mosque, blowing it up. In the 15th century, Ottoman invaders turned Saint Clement’s Macedonian Orthodox Monastery in Plaosnik, Balkans, into the Imater Mosque.
From 1519-1858, Muslim Mughal rulers gained control of India and turned over 2,000 Hindu temples into mosques, including demolishing the Temple of Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya, the birthplace of Rama, and replacing it with the Babri Mosque. India’s Mughal Muslim ruler, Jahangir (1605-1627), wrote in Tujuk-i-Jahangiri: “At the city of Banaras [was] a temple. … I made it my plea for thhrowing down the temple … and on the spot, with the very same materials,, I erected the great mosque.”
In 1543, Hayreddin Barbarossa’s 30,000 Muslim troops wintered in Toulon, France, and turned the prominent Toulon Cathedral into a mosque.
In 1570, under Sultan Selim II Khan, Muslims conquered Paphos, Cyprus, and Gov. Mehmet Bey Ebubkir turned the prominent Christian church into the Great Mosque of Paphos.
In 1571, Muslims invaded Famagusta, Cyprus, and turned Saint Nicolas Cathedral, a rare Gothic church, into the Lala Mustafa Pasha Mosque, and Saint Sophia Cathedral in Nicosia, constructed in 1228, into the Selimiye Mosque.
In 1588, Sultan Murat III turned the Eastern Orthodox Church of Saint John the Forerunner in Constantinople into the Hirami Ahmet Pasha Mosque.
In 1781, after having conquered the Old City of Acre, Ottoman Muslims turned the Roman Catholic church built by Crusaders into the Jezzar Ahmet Pasha Mosque, where a hair from Muhammad’s beard is preserved.
In 1923, Muslims expelled Greeks from Turkey and turned Orthodox churches into mosques. In World War II, Nazis allied with Bosnians and turned the prominent Artists’ Gallery Museum in Zagreb, Croatia, into a mosque.
In the 1950s, Muslims expelled Jews from Arab lands and turned synagogues into mosques. Algerian Muslims warred against French colonial rule till France pulled out in 1962, after which the Cathedral of St. Philippe was turned into the Ketchaoua Mosque. Violence against Jews caused 30,000 to flee and the Great Synagogue of Oran was turned into the Mosque Abdellah Ben Salem.
In 1974, Turkish Muslims invaded northern Cyprus, and prominent Greek Orthodox churches were turned into mosques. In 1981, Muslim immigrants to the Netherlands converted Amsterdam’s historic Catholic Sint-Ignatiuskerk into the Fatih Mosque, and a synagogue in The Hague into the Aksa Mosque.
Once you understand what the Muslims have done, it becomes clear what they are doing in New York.
In: Geopolitics, Religion · Tagged with: Ground Zero mosque, Islam
Obama admin just doesn’t like fences
But notice there is a rather large fence around the White House.
Debka reports that U.S. Army engineers have been recalled from a $500 million project constructing anti-smuggling fencing between Egypt and Gaza.
After eight months of back-breaking work, the American military engineers helping Egypt build a steel anti-smuggling wall along the strategic Philadelphi Route dividing Gaza from Sinai were suddenly recalled, debkafile’s military sources report – signaling the collapse of Egypt’s blockade of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. Washington thus abandoned its half-a-billion dollar investment in the joint Egyptian-Israeli siege project.
Of note: While our nation is going bankrupt, Obama gave a $400 million “down payment” to Gaza and West Bank.
In: Geopolitics · Tagged with: Egypt, Gaza, Israel
Video may prove that Gaza flotilla was carrying weapons for Hamas
http://www.flix.co.il/tapuz/showVideo.asp?m=3423928
In: Geopolitics · Tagged with: Gaza, Israel
Obama’s warning comes true: ‘extreme elements’ incited to violence
In the Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web Today article, James Taranto writes that the “extreme elements” President Obama warned us about have indeed been incited to violence. Just not the ones Obama may have had in mind:
“In a blunt caution to political friend and foe, President Barack Obama said Saturday that partisan rants and name-calling under the guise of legitimate discourse pose a serious danger to America’s democracy, and may incite ‘extreme elements’ to violence,” the Associated Press reports from Ann Arbor, Mich.
Two thousand miles away, another AP dispatch reports, there occurred an example of exactly what the president was warning about:
Close to 20 businesses were damaged after what started as a peaceful immigrants’ rights march in downtown Santa Cruz [Calif.] turned violent, requiring police to call other agencies for help, authorities said.
Police spokesman Zach Friend said an estimated 250 people started marching through the city around 10:30 p.m. Saturday.
It was a harmonious but “unpermitted and unsanctioned event,” he said, until some in the crowd started breaking windows and spraying paint on retail shops that line the downtown corridor.
Friend said he wasn’t sure if the damage was caused by people marching in support of immigrants’ rights, or if the group was “infiltrated by anarchists.”
Anarchy signs were spray-painted on some of the buildings.
“They’re a group of people who seem to fancy themselves as revolutionaries, but what they really are are a group of morons,” Friend said.
You’ve got to love the way the AP describes this: It started as a peaceful march but “turned violent.” It was totally harmonious “until some in the crowd started breaking windows.” And the window breakers might have just been infiltrators!
Compare this with the lead paragraph of the AP’s March 20 dispatch on the anti-ObamaCare tea-party protests:
House Democrats heard it all Saturday–words of inspiration from President Barack Obama and raucous chants of protests from demonstrators. And at times it was flat-out ugly, including some racial epithets aimed at black members of Congress.
The claims of racial epithets have since been disputed and were never substantiated, but let’s give the AP the benefit of the doubt and assume that at the time, the reporter knew of no reason to doubt the word of the congressmen making the claims.
Even so, had the tea-party protesters gotten the Santa Cruz treatment, the AP would have noted that the rally was completely nonviolent, even if it featured some ugly words; that there was no ugliness at all until the protest “turned ugly”; and that the people who (allegedly) shouted the ugly words might well have been infiltrators.
If the Santa Cruz protesters had gotten the tea-party treatment, by contrast, the AP would have described the event simply as a riot and would not have distinguished between the peaceful protesters and the violent few who might be infiltrators anyway. What’s more, conservative politicians and commentators would be sounding a constant refrain–echoed by the mainstream media–that politicians are inciting the violence with “antigovernment” statements like this one, reported April 23 by CBS News:
President Obama suggested today that the immigration bill expected to be signed into law in Arizona is a “misguided” piece of legislation that “threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”
We don’t think that journalists should give the Santa Cruz protesters the tea-party treatment or the tea partiers the Santa Cruz treatment. Both sides ought to get the same treatment–fair treatment–from those whose job is to cover the news impartially.
As for Obama, his efforts to demonize the opposition are unseemly and unpresidential. Given the breadth of his policies’ unpopularity, they amount to an attack on the majority of Americans. That seems likely they will prove politically unwise as well.
In: Geopolitics · Tagged with: Barack Obama, illegal immigration
Statistics don’t look good for COIN
Things are going from bad to worse in Afghanistan. How is it possible to conduct a successful counterinsurgency campaign in a country that 1.) doesn’t support it’s own government; 2.) despises foreigners – especially non-Muslims; and 3.) in many cases, prefers the Taliban?
From a post by Juan Cole highlighting the recent Pentagon study on the war in Afghanistan:
NATO is operating in about 100 districts of the country (the vague equivalent of counties).
Number of Afghans in 92 districts (assessed for their relationship to the Federal government) that actively support the government of Hamid Karzai: 0
Number of districts out of 92 that are neutral toward the government: 44
Number of districts sympathetic to the insurgency in March 2010: 48
Number of districts that had been sympathetic to the insurgency in June, 2009: 33
Increase in violent incidents from Feb. 2009 to March 2010: 87 percent.
I support our military – which means I want our troops to have the best equipment, training, leaders, and strategy possible. When we have been fighting in Afghanistan for nearly nine years, and as we see above, our “won-loss record” (regarding the districts referenced above) is 0-48-44, it is past time to consider changing game plans. And by changing plans, I do NOT mean leaving Afghanistan. We have no choice but to fight.
This would never fly in sports, and it sure as hell shouldn’t be the case when lives are being lost.
In: Geopolitics · Tagged with: Afghanistan, counterinsurgency
COIN: Know when to say when
To conduct an effective counterinsurgency (COIN) campaign, it is my understanding that one must also have a legitimate government that has the support of the people.
But Afghan president Hamid Karzai recently told members of parliament that he would join the Taliban if outside governments continued to pressure him.
Regardless of whether or not Karzai was serious, his remark effectively legitimized the Taliban. Has Karzai forgotten that tens of thousands of foreign troops are currently fighting the very terrorists he threatened to join? And the billions of dollars being spent to improve his country while the Taliban is busy destroying said improvements?
At this point, I don’t see how a COIN campaign can possibly achieve victory in Afghanistan. But then again, perhaps it never was since our leaders refuse to even use the word victory.
Maybe it is time to ask ourselves what George S. Patton would do. Old Blood and Guts was unceremoniously dumped by a military that was far less PC than what we have today (I doubt Patton would be promoted past Corporal in today’s Army). But he knew how to fight. And isn’t that the point of our armed forces anyways?
Given the chance, Patton would have today’s military run through Afghanistan like s–t through a goose (and don’t tell me our troops couldn’t do it if they had the support). The Taliban would learn the hard way that hiding behind women and children and fighting from mosques isn’t such a good idea. Real quick-like, the Taliban’s supporters – tacit or otherwise – would either change their minds or die in battle. Knowing that certain death awaits those who care to join the jihad would have a chilling effect on recruitment as well.
Then the Afghan people might realize that it’s the Taliban – not the U.S. – that’s making life bad for them. Rather than complain of – or fabricate – collateral damage from coalition air strikes, Afghans would turn on their Taliban for the IEDs that just so happen to kill or maim far more Afghans than they do foreign troops, or for any of the group’s innumerable atrocities committed against their own people.
There is no perfect solution, as fighting the Taliban without nation building would result in an environment where the Taliban can keep popping back up – although they would be significantly weakened each time. In that case, effective use of intelligence and special operations would strike them as soon as they threatened the U.S. again. In war, the most dedicated wins. And when we fight to the best of our ability, no terrorist group can outlast us.
If there was a compromise that could have been reached without resorting to war, we would have done so. But the Taliban will not compromise. Therefore, war is unavoidable – it’s basic human nature. And this war was declared on us. That being said, it would behoove us to begin fighting. Cutting the Taliban a $500 million stimulus check will not change their minds. Announcing to our enemies where we will attack next, or encouraging them to further exploit the rules of war by emasculating our rules of engagement will not change their minds. Neither will building schools, roads, or painting their picket fences. We can’t change their minds. And since we can’t compromise on our security, then war is the only choice.
We have been in Afghanistan for nearly ten years. I am not even sure why our troops are there now to be quite honest. After 9/11, I was under the impression that we sent troops in order to deny al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other terrorist groups the ability to operate training camps to conduct further terrorist attacks against the U.S. or our interests.
When Karzai legitimizes the very terrorists we are fighting, it’s high time to let the military be the military, and stop using them like public works employees and politicians.
In: Geopolitics, Military · Tagged with: Afghanistan, counterinsurgency, General George S. Patton, Jr., Taliban
Nigel Farage for President
I mean, if Obama can be president without producing a birth certificate, then why can’t we have a foreigner that SUPPORTS – rather than UNDERMINES – our founding principles?
Supreme Court justice Sam Alito and Rep. Joe Wilson have NOTHING on Britain’s Euro MP Nigel Farage, who co-chairs the Europe of Freedom and Democracy (oxymoron, I know) group. Recently Farage attacked Herman von Rumpoy, who is the first “President” of “Europe,” in this tirade. And he didn’t even need a teleprompter!
Below is a brief sampling of political brilliance from Farage:
In: Geopolitics · Tagged with: Europe, Herman von Rumpoy, Nigel Farage
Just how evil is the Taliban?
This account is from Meena, a 13 year-old Pakistani girl who grew up around the Taliban. While you read this (and it would behoove you to read the entire piece), remember that Barack Obama seeks to pay off the same Taliban with your tax dollars.
From a BBC interview (emphasis mine):
My brother used to tell me that the place for a woman is either at home or in the grave. I was always restricted to home.
He said: “If you leave the house I’ll cut off your head and put it on your chest.”
My brother had been to the local school and beaten the girls and the teachers.
Taliban commanders used to come to our house. There was an underground bunker beside the house, with electricity.
It was concrete and very strong. Cars would drive on top but no-one would realise what was underneath. In that hideout they used to train suicide bombers.
Most were children of my age or younger than me. They were used for these activities because they were too young to know any better.
If U.S. Marines were training Afghani children to be suicide bombers, then I would join with other countries in portraying us as war criminals. But these barbarians get a pass? What kind of no-load, puss-nut asshole uses children to fight for them?
I used to see these children getting on a vehicle to go for their missions. They used loud Islamic CDs to motivate them.
And I would think, “My God, more Muslims are going to be buried”. Then the news would come that more Muslims were wiped out.
The vast majority of Taliban and al Qaeda victims are Muslims, not Westerners.
My brother used to prepare bombs and my sister-in-law did too. He told me that he would teach me this. I told him no. I would not even look at what they were doing.
My father and brother told me to carry out a suicide attack. They were pressuring me to do this.
They told me: “If you do it you will go to paradise long before us.” I replied: “Why don’t you tell me I will go to hell long before you?”
Every day they used to tell me this. Every day. I was very young when they started telling me this. I said to them: “What about all the people I will kill? They are all Muslims.”
They started beating me when I refused. They beat me non-stop. They made my life hell. I never had a single moment of happiness. They did everything other than kill me.
And if she dishonored her family by becoming pregnant (from her father and brother’s ‘punishment’), they could restore their family’s honor by killing her – nonpunishable according to Islamic Shariah law.
They said: “The bomb will be connected with a button, or something like the remote control of a TV. We will give you this kind of remote, and you will go to the place.
“We will also give you a mobile, and we will ring that phone, and press the remote, and you will be blown up with this bomb.”
They told me they would use such a large amount of explosives that no-one would even know if it was a man or a woman.
They told me that I had to do it.
There was a kind of medicine they used to give to the bombers that made them go around smiling, in a trance.
They said they would give me that medicine, and then I would go running to die – with a smile. I was so scared I decided to prepare my own tea, and my own food.
I was afraid they would mix that medicine with my food.
Sister’s story
They attached a bomb to my sister Nahida. They tied rectangular pieces to both her arms, and a black strip was wrapped around both her legs.
Then they connected the whole thing. She told my brother the bomb was heavy and she could not walk.
He said she would be comfortable once she was sitting down in the car.
They gave her medicine. But she was crying very loud for my mother. She kept going to her and hugging her. When my sister looked down at the bomb, she shivered.
Then my brother and my father started beating my mother, and they were shouting: “Why you are distracting the girl from her mission?”
I heard my sister saying: “Where is Meena? I want to see her.” But I didn’t have the strength. My heart couldn’t take it.
My mother fainted when they put her in the car. My brother said my sister’s attack was in Afghanistan.
I always think about my sister. She was healthy and a very nice girl. She was younger than me, but she was wiser. My mother used to tell me that I was an idiot, but she was very wise.
How does one put bombs on their children, and beat them for not wanting to go off to die? What kind of sick f— does something like that?
The Taliban slaughter other people’s children. They turn women into widows. They should be made to suffer too.
I want these Taliban to be burned alive.
In: Geopolitics, Religion · Tagged with: Afghanistan, Islam, Pakistan, Shariah law, Taliban
Afghan interpreter kills 2 US soldiers, US gov’t makes excuses
Last Friday an Afghan interpreter shot and killed two U.S. soldiers before being killed himself.
“Initial indications are this was a case of a disgruntled employee,” a military said according to Reuters.
An Afghan provincial official, who also asked not to be named, said the interpreter had quarrelled with the soldiers over pay and treatment, before opening fire.
Circumstances surrounding the incident are strange: Little to no information on the shooting is available – ISAF only issued a two-sentence statement, only a handful of publications (mostly foreign) have picked up the story, and the names of the fallen soldiers are still not listed a week after the incident.
With that in mind, can we trust this unnamed “Afghan provincial official” (perhaps he is disgruntled, too)? But if what he says is true, why was the interpreter disgruntled? Are we about to witness a string of disgruntled interpreter attacks? Could the 13 year-old Afghan boy who was injured the following day when the IED he was placing prematurely detonated have done so because he too was disgruntled? Were we attacked on 9/11 by disgruntled individuals?
Perhaps our government thinks that this whole war is being fought against enemy who is simply disgruntled, which would make more sense as to why Obama thinks that the Taliban can simply be paid off (with our tax dollars). Disgruntled employees can be placated with money, but uncompromising ideologues can not.
It is plain to see that the U.S. government covers for Islamic jihad at every opportunity. But why?
And while they tell us not to jump to conclusions, they are jumping from conclusions. Which is worse? The truth is what counts, not perceptions.
In: Geopolitics, Military · Tagged with: Afghanistan, jihad
