September 06, 2003
Abbas' Resignation
Yahoo reports that Abbas has resigned as prime minister and Arafat is once again in charge of the terrorist support organization known as the PLO. Has the “peace process” failed? Are more attacks on Israel forthcoming?
I think that the “resignation” is a positive turn of events in Israel's war against terrorism. Despite the pretence of change in the Palestinian leadership, Abbas was never in charge of the PLO. He has been Arafat’s close confederate for many years and is just as responsible for the terrorism the PLO has carried out as Arafat. When Bush made it clear to Arafat that he would refuse to deal with him, Arafat chose his right-hand man as a puppet through whom he expected to prolong his hold on power. My guess is that Abbas was so impressed with the respect he got from Bush and Sharon, that he let his position go to his head and crossed Arafat. In an attempt to gain legitimacy, he supported a truce between Israel and the three main terrorist organizations (Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades) that was doomed from the start. In retaliation, Arafat used his control over the terrorist groups intensify the attacks on Israel, ending the "truce," and dispelling any pretense that Abbas was in charge of the PLO or able to control the terrorist groups under Arafat’s leadership.
Abbas’ ouster benefits Israel because Bush cannot pressure Israel to negotiate with any more terrorists, at least not until Arafat chooses another collaborator to present as his "successor." With Abbas out of the picture, Israel can resume its badly-needed hunt for terrorist leaders. If its attacks are to be successful however, they must not be tainted with the same timid uncertainty and moral compromising as America’s attack on Iraq. As Mike pointed out, during the latest failed attack on the head of Hamas, “the attack failed because Israel used a smaller bomb to avoid harming civilians.” Israel may have saved a civilian life or two, but by failing to kill the leader of Hamas, it has virtually guaranteed that dozens of innocent Israeli civilians will die. If he wants to win the war, (and that’s what it is) Sharon must learn to stop apologizing for civilian casualties and defend Israel with the same uncompromising and unrelenting attitude as those who wish to destroy it.
July 31, 2003
Where are the lefties now?
LFG has created an interesting gallery of PLO child abuse. Looking at pictures like this makes me wonder one thing -- where are all the outraged leftists? Oh that's right, protecting the Palestinians' "right" to teach their kids to be good little suicidal terrorists.
July 28, 2003
More Killers Released
Someone should knock on Sharon's head and say "What the hell are you thinking!?" Ah well, nothing like some random thoughts to calm me down.
June 24, 2003
Where are the liberals now?
Hotinan asks a good question -- does teaching your children to be bloodthirsty suicidal killers qualify as child abuse? Oh, that's right, it's Sharon's fault that these kids are being raised as homicidal maniacs...(just ignore the adults cheering them on in the back)
Anyone still holding any delusions about the nature of PLO/Hamas should read Mike's latest editorial on the "peace process" and this dated by still very relevant essay: "Do the Palestinians Deserve a State?"
June 16, 2003
June 12, 2003
My mom and sister are
My mom and sister are currently on vacation in Israel, visiting my grandmother and many other relatives. With that in mind, I found the following post from James Lileks to be an eloquent summary of my current thoughts on the "peace process":
The top-of-the-hour radio news played today's news just as you'd expect - everything shoved through the tit-for-tat template. Israel attempts to take out a terror leader; Hamas "responds" with a bombing. As if they're equal. As if targeting the car that ferries around some murderous SOB is the same as sending a blissed-out teenager to blow nails and screws through the flesh of afternoon commuters so he can bury himself in the heaving bosom of the heavenly whorehouse. Cycle of violence, don't you know.
They don't have helicopters, we're told, so they use suicide bombers. If they had helicopters, they would have strafed the bus and everyone waiting at the corner. Give them a nation where Hamas runs unchecked, and they'll have helicopters. They won't be Apaches. The bill of sale will be calculated in Euros and the manual written in French. By then the excuse for the terror won't be oppression; it'll be "the legacy of oppression." Sometimes I swear the mainstream media won't take a look at the Palestinian's horrid death-cult subculture until we learn that a suicide bomber played "Doom" at an Internet cafe for five minutes. And then they'll blame Intel.
Also, check out today's Cox and Forkum
June 11, 2003
JIHAD IN THE PRESENT TIME
Take a look at "JIHAD IN THE PRESENT TIME," an "essay" found on a mainstream Pakistani Islamic website. The writer asks:
Has jihad now become binding on every Muslim?
...and provides the answer:
Until Islam as a Way of Life dominates the whole of the world and until Allah's Law is enforced everywhere in the world, it is binding and incumbent upon the Muslims to fight on against the disbelievers
Every Muslim is bound to continue fighting against the disbelievers as long as they in any part of the world have power and strength enough to persecute the Muslims and as long as a person desiring to accept Islam is reluctant to do so jut because he fears to be persecuted and tortured by the disbelieves and it he somehow enters the fold of Islam, he becomes a target of their (i.e. the disbelievers') oppression.
The object of Jihad in this case is the Indian army in Kashmir, but the essay provides a large number of quotes and commentary from the Qur'an which you may judge for yourself. The writer is a leader within the Hizbul Mujahideen, a quasi-military outfit sanctioned by the Pakistani government. (Thanks to BOL for the link.)
June 10, 2003
New Saddam's in Circulation
A brief lesson in central banking: after a number of sources reported that the Saddam's dinar is gaining against the dollar, the new Iraqi government is printing new dinars -- complete with a photo of the deposed dictator on the front. Why? The dinar gained value against the dollar after the fall of the old regime becuase people thought no more would be printed. Printing massive amounts of currency is a favorite means of goverments to finance their Statist schemes, and an end to the old currency meant that the amount of dinars in the economy would be more or less fixed, increasing it's utility as a currency. However, Iraqi bureaucrats wouldn't let the demise of the dinar's namesake stop such an easy and tempting source of revenue, so it looks like the printing presses will keep on rolling. Even if a new currency replaces the old Saddam dinar, it may still prove to be more popular (and valuable) if the people have reason to mistrust the soundness of the currency, just as the pre-1991 "Swiss dinar" is much more valuable than the Saddam dinar now.
June 06, 2003
"The two faces of Arab terror"
The following post by David Horowitz is a great summary of the "peace process" in the Middle East:
As the Road Map continues, it is every day evident that for Arabs, peace is war continued by other means. Thus it was with the Oslo "Peace Process" which demanded words from the Palestinians and deeds from the Israelis, and led to land for the Arabs and suicide bombers for the Jews. Thus it is with the current charade in Sharm El-Sheikh. "Five Arab Leaders Denounce Violence" is the Washington Post headline on the peace summit that took place. And, to be fair, it is accurate since that is exactly what the world class liars who head the Arab states that were present did. The Jews, of course, were once again expected to respond to the hot air with actual deeds, which they once again did. In particular, they met an Arab request which was to release 100 Arab murderers of Jews. The most notable was a killer named Ahmad Jubarah who was whisked to the presence of his patron Arafat, for a ceremonial kiss. Jubarah had blown up 14 Israeli civilians in a terrorist attack 27 years ago. Meeting with reporters, he had the only honest words of the peace process to date. He was asked if he regretted his terrorist act. No, actually, he didn't. "We were in war and still we are in war," he said. Quite. The Arabs declared war on Israel the day it was created in 1948. The Arab agenda then as now was to destroy the Jewish state. Until they renounce that aim, which would mean jailing and executing the terrorists among them -- Arafat included -- the peace talk is talk, and the Jews better not forget it.
I saw Horowitz speak at my school two years ago, and he is a great speaker who's conversion experience (liberal Jew who learned from experience how repulsive the left is) reminded me of my own.
May 15, 2003
March 29, 2003
Finger pointed at Iraq over missiles
Turns out that those missiles the Iraqi's are blaming for the civilian deaths are actually failed Iraq air-defense missiles. The question I have is, are the peaceniks going to aknowledge that this is just another (perhaps intentional) play by Saddam to tug at the world's heartstrings? I sure as hell know the Arab media wouldn't admit it if the Iraq military itself admitted to it..
March 26, 2003
Morocco offers US monkeys to detonate mine
UPI: A Moroccan publication accused the government Monday of providing unusual assistance to U.S. troops fighting in Iraq by offering them 2,000 monkeys trained in detonating land mines.
The weekly al-Usbu' al-Siyassi reported that Morocco offered the U.S. forces a large number of monkeys, some from Morocco's Atlas Mountains and others imported, to use them for detonating land mines planted by the Iraqis.
The publication quoted a highly-informed source as saying, "that is not a scientific illusion but a well-known military tactic."
March 25, 2003
Support our troops!
Check out the shirts I designed for the pro-war rally Sunday: http://www.cafeshops.com/defendamerica
this is kinda cute: MSNBC:
this is kinda cute: 
MSNBC: "K-Dog, a bottle-nose dolphin belonging to Commander Task Unit trains with Sgt. Andrew Garrett in the Arabian Gulf. These units are working to ensure shipping lanes are clear of mines for humanitarian relief."
March 19, 2003
February 10, 2003
"Open letter to Brother Kelly Boggs, Pastor"
(This is in reply to Circumstantial evidence.)
Greetings,
Far be it from me to attack an argument for a war with Iraq, but your piece did not use the terms "theory," "evidence," and most importantly, "belief" properly. The proper approach to determining facts, whether it is the theory of evolution or Saddam's possession of WMD's is to apply the scientific process in order to reach conclusions -- not relying on "faith" or "refusing to believe" something.
In general, the proper method of reaching conclusions is by induction -- making observations about a large number of instances (concrete examples) and then forming a hypothesis (abstract idea) based on those observations. Based on the hypothesis, we make predictions about what the concretes should be, and once again apply that hypothesis to numerous concretes. If the predictions hold, one formulates a theory, if not, one tries another hypothesis. Given enough correct hypotheses, one forms a scientific model, and if the model is supported by a significant body of evidence, one forms a scientific theory.
Why do I bring this up? Well, the fact is that the great majority of people do not understand how this process works, and do not apply it to the various junk-science out there today. Take the common phrase regarding evolution: "it's only a theory." Well, so are the facts that the earth is round, revolves around the sun, and that volcanoes are not caused by angry gods. Like all knowledge, these facts are conclusions reached by forming conclusions (theories) based on observations. The distinction between facts and theories is important to recognize. As Stephen J. Gould explains: "facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them."
This fact has important implications for some of the "pseudo-sciences" out there, like creationism and environmentalism. The difference between these pseudo-scientists and real scientists is that they pervert the scientific method by rejecting the need for evidence. No argument will sway their position because their beliefs rest on faith, not evidence. For creationists, the Bible is the absolute authority, and all scientific evidence to contrary is rejected or ignored. For environmentalists, their interpretation of what is bad for man (technology) is an absolute -- ignoring that it is in fact often the lack thereof that causes more suffering. Because no amount of evidence will convince someone who holds his beliefs on faith, we can reject their claims as soundly (and on the same basis) as the flat-earthers.
Please consider this next time you say "It's only a theory!"
Sincerely,
--David Veksler
October 25, 2002
Iraq kicks out foreign journalists...
From MSNBC: "The Iraqi government is upset about foreign reporting of an anti-government demonstration outside the Iraqi Information Ministry in Baghdad earlier this week, said Eason Jordan, CNN president of newsgathering."
Demonstrations??? But I thought the vote was 100% Mr Hussein? Why would anyone want to protest?? Oh well, the've probably been shot by the time I write this. I'll be waiting for any liberals who care about about "human rights" to bring this up next time they talk about Iraq....
Meanwhile: "Iraqi officials claimed CNN fabricated a report that government authorities had fired one or more guns into the air to disperse demonstrators earlier this week. Jordan said CNN had footage of the gunplay."
Anybody seen this footage (or any other protests) in the news? It's nice to hear so much about how the citizens of Iraq love their leader, but even this was mentioned only in passing in another article...