Reflections From a Murky Pond

Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-born naturalized American citizen decided to turn jihadi and join the ranks of Muslim terrorists who plague the Civilized World.  On Saturday, May 1, 2010 Shahzad drove a SUV loaded with improvised explosives into Times Square in NYC and tried to explode it amid the crowd of New Yorkers and tourists, which would have resulted in mass civilian casualties.

Fortunately Shahzad’s training by the Taliban in his home nation of Pakistan didn’t seem to include adequate training in such improvised munitions. The car bomb failed to detonate and within hours the FBI apprehended Faisal Shahzad.

Federal prosecutors have filed a five (5) count indictment against charges against Shahzad on Tuesday, May 4, 2010  in U.S. District Court of Southern New York: attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction, acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, use of a destructive device in connection with criminal violence, transporting and receiving explosives, and damaging and destroying property by means of fire.

These are five very serious federal crimes. When – there’s no point in bothering with the fantasy of saying “if” – the filthy, failed jihadi terrorist is convicted he will face life in prison, mostly likely effectively without any possibility of parole.

Yet the single most applicable and important federal charge against Faisal Shahzad is sadly and conspicuously missing from the indictment. That is the charge of treason under Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, § 2381 of the US Code.

Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, § 2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

The 30 year-old Faisal Shahzad moved from Pakistan to America 12 years ago, studied for and recieved his MBA here in America and, became a naturalized U.S. citizen in April 2009. Shahzad certainly owed allegiance to the US – in the truest sense of that word; he had a debt to America that he should have spent his life trying to pay off.

That’s apparently not how Shahzad saw things. He was seemingly more than happy to enjoy the freedoms and comforts of America but felt know loyalty to the people and nation who were gracious enough to allow him to join them. He chose instead to levy war against them, adhere to their enemies, and give those enemies aid. He chose the path of Muslim jihad.

So why hasn’t US Attorney General Eric Holder instructed the federal prosecutors in this case: Brendan McGuire, John Cronan, and Randall Jackson to include the charge of treason in the indictment? Why hasn’t President Obama instructed his boy, Holder to do so?

Both were quick to defend offering Faisal the protections under the law that even Shahzad deserved as a American citizen, but neither seems willing actually fully apply the law to him.

Trying, convicting, and executing the jihadi, Faisal Shahzad for treason would send a clear and strong message to America’s enemies, both within and without the borders of our country. I just hope that fact is not the reason why neither President Obama nor his Attorney General, Eric Holder want to do so.

Tags: America | Crime | Holder | Islam | Islamists | Jihad | Law | Muslims | New York | NYC | Obama | Pakistan | Politics | Shahzad | Taliban | Terrorism | Terrorists | Treason | War On Terror

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 6th, 2010 at 10:36 am and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

President Obama, after months months of vacillating while his campaign committee analyzed his strategy, finally allowed US and NATO military forces forces to move ahead with the much-needed and long overdue extermination of the Taliban.

Obama Hopes He Won’t Be “Goldstoned”

Of course that means he now has to personally face the Muslim terrorists’ most dangerous weapons, filth like Richard Goldstone and other vermin like him who are the true weapons of jihad wielded by the Islamists and their neo-Janissaries, the UN.

Personally, I’m not too worried about President Obama being “Goldstoned” by the Muslim-loving terrorist sympathizers. He and the White House press corps – MSNBC, ABC, NY Times, CNN, etc… – can easily handle such paper terrorism. It would be obvious, after all, that any such complaints would actually be just examples of racism and the UN’s deep-seated problem with a Black man being POTUS. 😉

Tags: Afghanistan | Antisemitism | Goldstone | Humor | Muslims | Obama | Pakistan | Paper Terrorism | Politics | Prejudice | Racism | Terrorism | Terrorists | UN | War On Terror

This entry was posted on Monday, February 15th, 2010 at 7:08 am and is filed under Humor, Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Back in October, 2002, when Barack Obama was a neophyte Senator from Illinois and attacking then President Bush’s attack upon the brutal and despotic regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Obama said that  he wasn’t against all wars; he was just opposed to dumb wars.

Now, truth be told, Obama’s outburst had more to do with scoring political points by attacking President Bush then with any firmly held convictions Obama might have possessed, but his point about “dumb wars” had a certain validity.

War is a dirty, bloody, horrific enterprise that should be undertaken, when possible, only after careful planning and with a clear goal and a exit strategy kept firmly in mind.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.

— Sen. Barack H. Obama (D-IL)
October 2, 2002

It’s easy to argue that going into Iraq the second time was unneeded at that time, but harder to describe it as “dumb.” The operation was well-planned and we had clear objectives – though our exit strategy and the preconditions for such involved a time-frame that is largely unpalatable to the modern, “half-hour sitcom” format populace. It is also largely immaterial at this time; we’re pulling out of Iraq close to on schedule and the Administration that launched the war are no longer in power.

What About Afghanistan?

There’s a “dumb” war, if ever I saw one, and one that is growing more and more reminiscent of our protracted and ultimately failed engagement in Vietnam. What started out as a reasonably clear-cut punitive expedition by the US and NATO has become a quagmire.

General Stanley A. McChrystal, Commander of US & Allied Forces in Afghanistan, has pleaded for 40,000 more troops in order to prosecute the war there. President Obama and his administration seem very reluctant to provide those troops. The resulting schism between the US Military and the White House has become fodder for the media and various pundits.

For myself, I find this argument between the troops on the ground and the politicians in Washington D.C. to be ridiculous and a lethally stupid case of “putting the cart before the horse.” How can any decisions be made about the disposition of personnel and materiel before we have decided what the objective is?

What War Are We Fighting?

It’s rally a simple question and one that should have a relatively simple, if not necessarily easy, answer. I haven’t heard anyone – President Obama or Congress – provide that answer though.

• What are our strategic goals?
• What is the scope of our military’s mission?
• What constitutes the victory conditions?
• What is our exit strategy?

President Obama, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armies of the United States of America, is required to answer those questions; that is his job. So far he hasn’t done so and every day our soldiers, allied Afghan militiamen, and even those who we’re currently fighting against are dying for no defined purpose whatsoever.

On one lone point I agree with what Obama said before he was elected President; I’m opposed to dumb war as well.

Tags: Afghanistan | Al-Qaeda | Iraq | McChrystal | Obama | Pakistan | Politics | Taliban | Terrorism | War | War On Terror

This entry was posted on Saturday, October 10th, 2009 at 9:36 am and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Very recently President Obama approved sending approximately 17,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, his first significant move to change the course of the war against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda – a war that his closest military advisers have warned him that the United States is not winning with the current tactics and force levels. About 8,000 Marines are expected to go in first, followed by about 9,000 Army troops. This represents a 50% increase in our force levels in Afghanistan, which was 34,000 troops.

A surge by any other name is still a surge. Strange, that President Obama no longer has a problem with such things when he’s not running for office against a Republican.

The Liberal Media (MSM) has been largely conciliatory in their reporting of Obama’s war in Asia Minor – when they haven’t been utterly silent on the topic. There’s little signs of outrage on their part over this escalation of violence by Obama, unlike their near constant ranting about the same topic under the Bush administration.

Why are we not being inundated by anti-war coverage from the MSM outlets? Why aren’t we seeing one contrived interview after another with protesters demanding that President Obama “bring the troops home?” Is the media – in love with- and well-controlled by Obama – effectively silencing dissent, or is there no actual significant dissent for them to silence? Are the Liberals finally tacitly admitting that they have no real objection to America’s efforts against terrorism and that their only issue was with President Bush?

Perhaps Obama has certain advantages. Perhaps a Black President can kill Brown people with greater social impunity than a White President can.

No matter what the reasons are for this disparate coverage and level of outrage over Bush’s and Obama’s prosecution of the War on Terror it’s still disgusting. It starkly points out the prejudice, ethical failings, and utter lack of patriotism of the Left in America. If – and that’s a very big “if” – this was wrong when President Bush did it, then it’s wrong when President Obama does it. If it is right when President Obama does it, then it was right when Presient Bush did it.

A surge by any other name is still a surge.

Tags: Afghanistan | Al-Qaeda | Bush | Liberals | Media Bias | Obama | Pakistan | Politics | Taliban | US Military | War On Terror

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 18th, 2009 at 7:45 am and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Finally, after years of NATO forces waging a running war against the Taliban and other terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere across the globe, the military commanders involved are finally ready to prosecute the war in an efficient and proven manner. NATO’s senior military commander, General Bantz John Craddock, has proposed that the alliance’s soldiers in Afghanistan shoot drug traffickers as enemy combatants.

NATO is finally fighting to win this war.

General Craddock understands that, in order to win the war against the Islamists and their jihadi terrorist cells, NATO has to do a lot more than just fight a long war of attrition against their forces.

BERLIN — NATO’s senior military commander has proposed that the alliance’s soldiers in Afghanistan shoot drug traffickers without waiting for proof of their involvement with the Taliban insurgency, according to a report in the online edition of Der Spiegel magazine.

The commander, Gen. John Craddock of the United States, floated the idea in a confidential letter on Jan. 5 to Gen. Egon Ramms, a German officer who heads the NATO command center responsible for Afghanistan, Spiegel Online reported Thursday.

General Craddock wrote that “it was no longer necessary to produce intelligence or other evidence that each particular drug trafficker or narcotics facility in Afghanistan meets the criteria of being a military objective,” the news magazine reported. A NATO official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the wording of the letter, and several NATO officials said publicly on Friday that no such orders had ever been given to NATO troops.

— Judy Dempsey
NY Times article, January 30, 2009

Yes! Finally! At least General Craddock knows that NATO has to destroy the infrastructure that the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and the other terrorists use to fund and arm their organizations. A protracted engagement that attacks only the terrorists’ and insurgents’ – all too disposable – fighter will not win this war.

We didn’t win WW2 by just fighting troops in the field. We leveled the Nazis’ and Japan’s manufacturing capabilities. Allied bombing raids destroyed the factory districts – at a minimum – of dozens and dozens of Axis cities. That is to a large extent what gave the Allies their victory; we denied Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo the ability to effectively supply and arm their militaries.

The only functional difference between WW2 and the War on Terror, in this respect, is the nature of the enemies infrastructure. In WW2 the enemy were nations with heavy industry capabilities. In the War on Terror the enemy are bands of jihadis with little or no manufacturing capability but with access to large amounts of money from the international drug trade. In both cases, however, the enemy is dependent upon static resources and extended supply lines.

If NATO starts launching operations against the drug traffickers, we’ll break the Taliban and Al-Qaeda’s supply lines. If NATO starts – finally – destroying the opium poppy fields in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we’ll destroy what passes for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda’s manufacturing capabilities. It will be a lot harder for these terrorists and insurgents to wage war or launch terror attacks against the civilians of the Civilized World if they can’t afford ammunition for their Kalashnikovs, grenades for the RPG-7s, and sundry other munitions and explosives.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Afghanistan | Al-Qaeda | Islamists | NATO | Pakistan | Politics | Taliban | Terrorism | War On Terror

This entry was posted on Sunday, February 15th, 2009 at 11:48 am and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.