Groundhog Day in the Middle East

For those unfamiliar with the term Groundhog Day, watch this first:


---

British MP Daniel Hannan made a point today on the Sean Hannity show. During the Cold War, the US supported dictators who opposed communism. Hannan explained that the argument during the Cold War was "He's may be a son of a b*tch, but he's our son of a b*tch. But now the cold war is over, so we can say 'he may be our son of a b*tch, but he's a son of a b*tch."

The first thought is basically why we were supporting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak's dictatorship provided some degree of stability, especially for US ally Israel. Mubarak's Egypt provided security for the Suez Canal, through which some 8% of the world's shipping flows.

The old logic was that the enemy of your enemy is your friend, provided he's not worse than your actual enemy. Ultimately compromising and supporting a very bad guy against an evil evil empire supported one's good principles. Makes sense. The new logic is that since the evil empire is gone, it's time to drop support for the very bad guy. Sorta makes sense.

The only failing is that without a transitional structure, there isn't just a smooth handoff from "very bad guy" to "good new guy". The people who almost invariably takeover in these situations are those that are prepared for it and have been working towards it. Very bad guy is replaced with different evil guy. If you don't want a son of a b*tch, you replace him on your terms to make sure you get a better guy, or you apply pressure to reform him. You don't go along with a mob that is at least in part incited by the evil guys - because that mob and those evil guys are often only kept in check because your guy is a son of a b*tch.

In the past, there are several examples of the people who take over after a nation collapses. The Leninist victory in Russia was a result of a fractured nation in a period of transition. The interim government of Kerensky may have promised a republic, but it lasted just long enough for Lenin to take over - which was his goal - Lenin was a professional revolutionary. The breakdown of China during WWII led to the Chinese Nationalists under Chiang Kai-Shek - a US ally, though with many faults - ultimately losing control of China to Mao, who was ready and working towards seizing power. Recently, this is the entire Beckian argument with regards to George Soros and his shadow government.

But it's Groundhog Day in the very easy, and very apt, comparison of the Shah of Iran to Mubarak. The Iranian Islamic Revolution was the result of a lot of factors, but not the least of which was Jimmy Carter not doing much of anything to shore up US interests in Iran by supporting the Shah.

Probably not the best leader in Iran's history, but far from the worst.

The loss of the Shah brought us the Iranian Hostage Crisis and a nuclear Iran that seeks out the ability to obliterate its neighbors. The loss of Mubarak is most likely going to bring us the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of Egypt, as they are the most powerful opposition group, and stand the most to gain. The Muslim Brotherhood has been referred to as "Al Qaeda before Al Qaeda was cool". They've also got a bit of history, going back to some other evil guys.

From the Council on Foreign Relations:
http://www.cfr.org/egypt/does-muslim-brotherhood-have-ties-terrorism/p9248

One reason the Brotherhood’s commitment to nonviolence is unclear: The original Egyptian organization has spawned branches in 70 countries. These organizations bear the Brotherhood name, but their connections to the founding group vary and some of them may provide financial, logistical, or other support to terrorist organizations. Some terrorist groups—including Hamas, Jamaat al-Islamiyya, and al-Qaeda—have historic and ideological affiliations with the Egyptian Brotherhood. In addition, some of the world’s most dangerous terrorists were once Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members, including Osama bin Laden’s top deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Zawahiri went more hardcore after Sayyid Qutb was hanged by Egyptian authorities. Who was Qutb? Just the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. And what is Qutbism? Just good old-fashioned infidel-killing Jihad.

From a story on the Muslim Brotherhood in CanadaFreePress, 2006:

Here's how the story began. In the 1920s there was a young Egyptian named al Bana. And al Bana formed this nationalist group called the Muslim Brotherhood. Al Bana was a devout admirer of Adolph Hitler and wrote to him frequently. So persistent was he in his admiration of the new Nazi Party that in the 1930s, al-Bana and the Muslim Brotherhood became a secret arm of Nazi intelligence.

The Arab Nazis had much in common with the new Nazi doctrines. They hated Jews; they hated democracy; and they hated the Western culture. It became the official policy of the Third Reich to secretly develop the Muslim Brotherhood as the fifth Parliament, an army inside Egypt.

More on Al Banna here:
http://www.mideastweb.org/Middle-East-Encyclopedia/hassan_al-banna.htm
And from Horowitz here:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1368
Even CNN can't spin them into a good thing, though they try:
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2011/02/01/exp.am.intv.cruickshank.brother.cnn.html

Considering Hitler and the Muslim Brotherhood liked each other, making Mubarak into Hitler really makes no sense, other than to support Orwell's claim that "fascist" just means "anything bad".

Weak, naiive democrat president with no foreign policy experience or understanding in charge of the US. An islamist group seizing power from a US ally. The US ally is a strongarm leader that the democrat's touchy-feely side rejects, rather than figure out why we'd ever support the guy - and what the repercussions of not supporting him will be... Yup. It's GROUNDHOG DAY!

But this time when we drive off the cliff, it'll be different!

Modern Liberal Thought - In Light of 9/11

Evan Sayet tells this parable about the modern liberal:
...
I call myself a "9/13 Republican"...

I tell a story. It's not a true story, but I think it kind of clarifies what happened to me.
I say: imagine being in a restaurant with an old friend, and your catching up. And suddenly, he blurts out "I hate my wife." And you kind of chuckle to yourself because he says it every time you're together and you know he doesn't hate his wife. They've been together for 35 years. He loves his daughters and they're just like her. Naw, he doesn't hate his wife.

You're having some dinner and you look out the window and you spot his wife out the window. And she's being beaten up. And you grab your friend and you say: "C'mon, let's help her! Let's help your wife!" And he says, "Nah, I'm sure she deserves it."

At that moment it dawns on you that he really does hate his wife.

Well that's what 9/11 was for me. I would hear my friends from the left say how evil and horrible and racist and imperialistic and oppressive America is and I'd laugh to myself and say "They always say that. They love America."

And then on 9/11 we were beaten up. And I grabbed them by the collar, I said: "C'mon let's help her! Let's help America!" And they said: "No, she deserves it."

At that moment I realized they really do hate America.

...
Evan Sayet tells this parable here at the beginning of "How Modern Liberals Think" - what's been termed the "Grand Unified Theory Of Liberalism":




For all the benevolent talk of the 9/12ers - about how we all got along on 9/12, the 12ers do have good intentions, but they forget that liberals really do hate America.

There was a story in the paper on 9/11 in the New York Times that a lot of people missed. They were too busy watching a terrorist attack to read it. It starts with this line:

''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.''

And was originally accompanied by this picture of the terrorist Bill Ayers who bombed the Pentagon, and who helped kill 3 police officers* and planned to bomb an NCO dance at Ft. Dix:

The reason he didn't go to jail is because his dad owned Com Edison. He's a super rich boy who wanted to be the king of the commies, and was going to murder 25 million people if he got his way.

Yuri Bezmenov defected to the West and spent a lot of time trying to explain how the KGB would tear down liberal (classical liberal, not leftist) and democratic societies by poisoning them from within. He explains exactly how modern Liberals came to the point that they really do hate America.




*The third policeman.

Never Forget

...

No Mosque at Ground Zero

The Jawa Report links to Brit Pat Condell when he puts up really good videos like this one, and I feel that their statement that "more folks should see it" is quite correct. Thus:



It's also a quick primer in case you're not up to speed on the story - basically, an Islamic group wants to build a mosque at Ground Zero in NYC. Pat Condell points out that Cordoba is also the location of the major mosque built in Spain when the Muslims invaded and conquered Spain. They built the mosque because they conquered. Here in the US, they plan on doing the same.

Now, if they wanted to build it at the Trinity Ground Zero, I wouldn't have a problem.

Manbearpig Terrorists

Via Pajamas Media:
Spain’s Dr. Gabriel Calzada — the author of a damning study concluding that Spain’s “green jobs” energy program has been a catastrophic economic failure — was mailed a dismantled bomb on Tuesday by solar energy company Thermotechnic.

Says Calzada:

Before opening it, I called [Thermotechnic] to know what was inside … they answered, it was their answer to my energy pieces.

Dr. Calzada contacted a terrorism expert to handle the package. The expert first performed a scan of the package, then opened it in front of a journalist, Dr. Calzada, and a private security expert.

The terrorism consultant said he had seen this before:

This time you receive unconnected pieces. Next time it can explode in your hands.

Dr. Calzada added:

[The terrorism expert] told me that this was a warning.

--
For those who think of Spain as a land of bullfighters and beaches at Ibiza, remember they were a fascist dictatorship for decades under Franco, and have their own home-grown terrorists with which to contend. So Spain knows a thing or two about terrorism and tyranny. The security expert consulted was one who fought against the ETA.

Pictured: Ibiza's beautiful beaches and an inhabitant.
Not pictured: Global warming zealot terrorists.

--
From Expansion.com:
Un colaborador de EXPANSIÓN, amenazado por sus artículos sobre la energía solar
Gabriel Calzada, colaborador habitual de EXPANSIÓN, recibió una bomba simulada, enviada por una empresa fotovoltaica que pretendía así intimidarle por sus artículos críticos sobre la energía solar.
...
El agente de seguridad privada recomendó no abrirlo tras comprobar que se trataba de dos objetos metálicos difíciles de interpretar. Pidió ayuda a una persona con más experiencia quien tras un breve visionado de la pantalla del escáner creyó saber de qué se trataba y procedió a abrirlo con cuidado ante la atenta mirada del guarda de seguridad, Lorenzo Ramírez (antiguo redactor de Expansión) y el propio Gabriel Calzada. De la caja salieron un filtro de gasoil y una pieza con rosca que podía adaptarse al filtro.
--
For those who don't read Spanish, it's pretty much what PJ media relates to us.
The title is "A Contributor of Expansion was Threatened for his Articles on Solar Energy". You can go use babelfish for a robot translation that isn't perfect.

...an employee of the company immediately knew about what package she treated and she answered without doubting a second that " it is our answer to articles on energy of Mr. Calzada in Expansión".
(via babelfish)

De la caja salieron un filtro de gasoil y una pieza con rosca que podía adaptarse al filtro.
"In the box was left a diesel filter and a piece with a spiral that could adapt to the filter."
(with help from babelfish)

"Ten cuidado Gabriel, esta vez lo mandan como aviso, la próxima vez te puedes encontrar con un paquete que estalle al abrirlo".
Be careful, Gabriel. This time it came as a warning, the next time it could explode when you open it.
(via ShortTimer & my Langenscheidt English-Spanish dictionary)

Bad things going on in Spain.
--

But Spain has some nice things going on at the World Cup.

Global warming zealot terrorists have probably gone there to protest the carbon footprint of futbol stadiums and acquire vuvuzelas as WMDs.

A Study In Contrasts

The Jawa Report has brought up the comparison in motives and apologies made for Islamic terrorist scumbags and those apologies hypothetically being given to the suicidal scumbag who flew into the IRS building in Austin:

The IRS out of the US NOW!!1!1!11!eleventy!!

It's worth noting that while it's heavy sarcasm, the ludicrousness of the arguments are well illustrated by the contrast.

When jihadis in New York or Washington or Mumbai or any number of other places around the globe are killing innocent people, the same idiotic arguments are used. When reapplied, the arguments are seen as flimsy excuses for terrorism that are only given by those who ideologically support terrorism.

---

Michelle Malkin points out the contrast between the Austin nutjob and the University of Alabama killer, and their coverage in the media.

Very telling contrasts all around.

It's War, not a Crime Spree

It's War, not a Crime Spree

Read it, folks.

Jihad is war, jihad is real.

Sand isn't there for you to stick your head in it. It's there for you to draw a line in it.

A Quick Note On Airline Safety - Part 2

I mentioned yesterday that there was a simple solution to preventing exploding terrorists from getting onto airplanes. Dogs.

Janet Napolitano famously said "the system worked" and then began backpedaling furiously. Apparently someone pointed out to her that the terrorist was not in fact stopped by Sky Marshal Chuck Norris, and instead was stopped by a his own inability to set his crotch-bomb on fire and some Dutch guy.

Perhaps, if we aren't going to get dogs to search passengers, and if we aren't going to coordinate intelligence between agencies who are fervently waving red flags, we should try another approach.

I suggest TSA hire these guys:
It would've prevented this attack.

A Quick Note On Airline Safety

The Terrorists' Secret Weapon
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-30/the-terrorists-secret-weapon/full/

The article mostly laments the TSA's inability to deploy some magical supertechnology that searches for airborne particles that indicate the presence of the explose compound PETN.

The article discusses the tech solution and at one point hints at the simple solution, but doesn't ask why it isn't used.

Let me make this as simple as possible:

From the article, where the writer doesn't seem to see what he just wrote:

Bomb-sniffing dogs can also detect PETN. Well-trained dogs can also sniff out particles left on a bomber’s clothing or body from having handled the powder.

Dogs and handlers work. Searches on people in the US are forbidden by the Supreme Court as government intruding into an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy.

The same does not hold true for people entering the United States. Nor do the airlines, who are allowing people access to their services, have to abide by the same rules as govt. If an individual voluntarily enters a service contract with the airline where the airline states "we reserve the right to sniff you with a dog", the problem is solved. Why? It's not the government (the dog and handler as extensions thereof) doing the sniffing. It's the private entity and the private individual entering the contract.

TSA, as a government institution, is by its very nature incapable of using dogs inside the US in such a fashion. TSA also doesn't check passengers and planes coming from Nigeria, Holland, or anywhere else outside the US.

The problem with this is that airlines will face the same nonsense that they did with the Flying Imams, a bunch of islamic agitators out to test airline security and sue anyone who said "yeah, those guys shouting "Allahu akbar!" are kinda suspicious". They were terrorists attacking us with legal means as well as physical means. They hoped to terrify us by accusing us of prejudice.

They hoped to make us feel shame for singling them out when they attack us. I'll liken it to having a toddler steal a cookie, and when the parent corrects the child (time-out, spanking, etc.), the child then accuses the parent of being mean. Any parent worth their salt will be an authority figure and not put up with that. A parent completely devoid of self-assurance will bend to their child's opinion of them and the child will have run of the house while the parent is devoid of will.

Note that these aren't statesmen, diplomats, negotiators, businessmen, or anything other civilized men (I'd say "and women", but Islam demeans and subjugates women). These aren't representatives of a state or a people asking for redress of greivances. These are fucking terrorists who want to kill people who've done them no harm. They're the toddler lashing out at their younger sibling because they know that hurts the parent.

But seeing as how dogs, like dancing, music, women, beer, short-sleeved shirts, men without beards, gays, lesbians, bacon, images of people (especially the rapist of Aisha), and pretty much everything offends muslims, there'll be some kind of outcry, and maybe a lawsuit terrorist (like the libel tourists) who come to sue with their multi-bazillions stolen from their people by being hereditary sheiks and princes.

If we ditch the "what will the terrorists think of us?" whimpering and just do what works, this problem would be dealt with.

Dogs are superb at detecting explosives, and especially with good handlers, provide for a very dynamic response to terrorism.

Even with all the other failures of the system - despite Janet Napolitano saying "it worked" when a terrorist failed to detonate his explosives because he was jumped by a Dutch guy - the addition of another line of defense would help to make it work - a dog would've found this. If everyone's so afraid of making a judgement call that they won't say "this dude's a terrorist" - even when the terrorist's father says "my son's a terrorist", then we need another line of defense.

Dogs work. Dogs aren't bigoted, dogs don't mistake a peaceful Sikh for a terrorist Muslim, dogs don't discriminate between humans - they won't overlook a white British convert to Islam and they won't harass any little old ladies. Their nose works just the same if it's Irshad Manji or Wafa Sultan they're walking past or if it's John Walker Lindh or David Hicks. They discriminate based on who's a terrorist carrying bombs and who's not.