Naive Belief Government Will Care for Us

As usual, liberals use any shooting as an excuse to thump for gun control.  They accuse anyone who believes they have the right to armed self-defense of being corporate shills for the gun lobby, who want this entire country to arm up so you/they can turn dead bodies into profits.  They carry on like this even if the shooting was terrorists in France and California, both with very strict gun control.  It seems obvious to me that liberals have a hammer of a solution in gun control, and the whole world is a nail.

By liberal reasoning, liberals are just shills for a government that wants total power over our lives.  We are supposed to believe that the government will take care of us if we give up our own ability to take care of ourselves.

To believe government will take good care of us, you have to ignore how politics really works.  In Chicago, everyone knows if your neighborhood didn't vote right, Mayor Richard J. Daley wouldn't repair your streets and sidewalks.  This is still the rule in politics today.  The government seizes guns because then it can decide who gets police protection and who doesn't.  The government takes over health care so it can decide who gets treatment and who doesn't.  The government controls carbon dioxide emissions so it can decide who gets electricity and who does not.  The government already decides that left wing nonprofit groups get tax exemptions and right wing Tea Party groups do not. 

Imagine how many fewer people would have been hurt if two or three of the people in the room had been armed.  The Jihadi couple would have been shot dead before they could do much damage.  Gun free zones are target rich environments for terrorists and the insane.  They are a guarantee of no resistance.  Leftist gun control laws make sure all potential targets are totally defenseless.  This guarantees happy hunting for ISIS.

In Israel, terrorists are using knives or cars as weapons.  It's the hate, not the weapons.  

An Obvious Answer and the Hard Truth of Charlie Hebdo

There is one obvious answer to terrorism in support of censorship. We have to deny the terrorists what they want. The terrorists wanted to limit the distribution of cartoons that make fun of Jihadists. We can deny the terrorists their goal by distributing the cartoons to as wide an audience as possible. I think Charlie Hebdo should put out a collection of translated anti Jihad cartoons in electronic editions in various languages and sell them on a web site. I would buy one in English. I am sure many other customers would buy them in their languages as well. I apologize that my French is too rusty to be useful anymore. Charlie Hebdo can raise funds to help the families of the victims and make a statement about freedom of the press at the same time.  If every time terrorists attack to limit cartoon distribution, the cartoons just go viral on the web, it will tend to discourage them.

The only real solution to Jihadist terrorism is to kill the Jihadists wherever they are until there are none.  Jihadists are rabid dogs and there is no other solution.  They have declared total war on everybody who does not worship exactly the way they do, including Muslims who are not sufficiently strict in their observances.  Jihadists have claimed a divine license to kill every man, woman and child who does not meet their requirements.  Jihadists have repeatedly engaged in mass slaughter, demonstrating that they really mean exactly what they say about killing anyone who doesn't measure up.  Hash tags and "Je suis Charlie" signs are not going to stop these killers.  Only rigor mortis is an effective cure for what's wrong with Jihadists.  That's the hard truth.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/show-the-cartoons-charlie-hebdo-sony-attack/384304/

Terrorists are NOT Covered by the Geneva Conventions

Captured terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. They are war criminals. They attack innocent civilians instead of military targets and intentionally kill them. They do not wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from innocent civilians. In fact, they hold civilians near their military activity as shields. They torture and even behead prisoners. They commit ethnic cleansing and genocide. The enslave women. All of these actions are war crimes.  Terrorists are outlaws in the Medieval sense of the word, which means they get no protection from the law and can be shot (or attacked by drones) on sight. The laws of war do not apply to them. They are not in the same class as soldiers captured in uniform on a battlefield and do not have the same rights to fair treatment. The closest comparable status would be spies. Anybody who says we never used enhanced interrogation techniques on spies during WWII or the Cold War is either exceedingly naive or willfully ignorant. 

This report is an attempt to rewrite history. At the time, Democrats were informed of the interrogation techniques but the fear of Al Qaeda was paramount then. Now, Democrats desperately need issues that work against Republicans, so they want to erase their past consent to enhanced interrogation techniques. If their past consent goes down the memory hole, then they can be "shocked, shocked" that "torture" was going on. Feinstein is so corrupt, she does not care that pursuing this strategy means no foreign intelligence service will ever cooperate with us again. The needs of the Democratic Party and the cause of Liberalism come first.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/12/11/democrats-cia-gambit-backfires/

Chutzpah from a Terrorist's Family

A recent article Nasser al-Awlaki shows a lot of chutzpah, asking why a drone killed his 16 year old grandson.  Drone strikes are much more targeted than flying airliners into buildings, or bombing subways and busses full of civilians.  Even so, sometimes innocent people are going to get hurt.  That said, the author says nothing about who else was in the restaurant with his grandson.  Why should we assume the grandson and all the other patrons of the restaurant were innocent?  The restaurant was in the middle of an area in South Yemen under the control of Al Qaeda.  It was not a sidewalk cafe in Manhattan.  By the way, if it was a sidewalk cafe in Manhattan, Al Qaeda would have considered it a good target for a bombing.

 The senior al-Alwlaki also glosses over the fact that his son, Anwar al-Awlaki, was the main English speaking recruiter for Al Qaeda on the internet.  One of al-Awlaki's recruits, Major Nidal Hasan, shot and killed 13 unarmed people in the Fort Hood shooting.  Hasan wounded over 30 more in this one incident.  Another al-Awlaki recruit was the underwear bomber.  Anwar al Awlaki was justifiably targeted in a drone strike.  As a result, he is no longer around to find more suicidal jihadis to commit acts of terror. 

Nasser al-Awlaki doesn't seem to see the most likely reason for the death of the grandson.  Is it possible that Anwar al-Awlaki may have influenced his son to take up jihad like his daddy?  The fact is that Islamist terrorists have declared war on the United States, the entity they refer to as the "Great Satan."  They kill without regard to the combatant status of their victims, even unarmed women and children.  They are also known to use civilians as human shields in an effort to deter drone strikes.  Since this is a war, at least according to Anwar al-Awlaki, the author's son, it is ludicrous for the author to expect that all the protections of the civilian criminal courts will be followed before the US counterattacks.  After Pearl Harbor, nobody thought we needed a civilian court's permission to counterattack the Japanese.  I fail to see why unlawful combatants who are at least technically war criminals because they wear no uniforms, hide in the civilian population and kill indiscriminately, deserve any civilian court protections.  In order to understand this, the author should consider how Al Qaeda would have treated his grandson if he was Jewish or Christian or Hindu.  His grandson might have been beheaded after begging for his life, like Daniel Pearl.  The author, and all Muslims involved with Al Qaeda, should understand that when Al Qaeda attacks us, we are going to fight back until we put them out of business permanently.

I can't sympathize with the senior al-Awlaki at all. In order to understand why, the author should consider how Al Qaeda would have treated his grandson if he was Jewish or Christian or Hindu. His grandson might have been beheaded after begging for his life, like Daniel Pearl.   Al Qaeda has no mercy at all for anyone, including Muslims who differ in their beliefs from Al Qaeda.   People who associate with Al Qaeda should not expect more than ordinary care from us when it comes to retaliatory drone strikes.   They're lucky we are not quite as uncivilized or uncaring as Al Qaeda.  If we were, we would be carpet bombing Al Qaeda areas in Yemen, not sending in very targeted drone strikes.

According to liberals, drone strikes merely antagonize Islamists and make more terrorists.  For liberals, the solution to Al Qaeda terrorism is to permit indiscriminate slaughter of innocents to avoid antagonizing the terrorists further.   Perhaps we should have tolerated Hitler's atrocities in order to avoid offending the Nazis?   Sounds like a great plan.   Liberals should please visit South Yemen as soon as possible to explain it to Al Qaeda.   They would love to hear from you in person.

Original Article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-killed-my-grandson.html?ref=opinion&_r=0