AL-QAIDA CALLS FOR HOLY WAR AGAINST ISRAEL- AND THE REST OF THE WORLD, TOO...

AP reports: “Al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader issued a worldwide call Thursday for Muslims to rise up in a holy war against Israel and join the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza until Islam reigns from “Spain to Iraq.”

In the message broadcast by Al-Jazeera television, Ayman al-Zawahri, second in command to Osama bin Laden, said that al-Qaida now views “all the world as a battlefield open in front of us.”

The Egyptian-born physician said that the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah and Palestinian militants would not be ended with “cease-fires or agreements.”

Do you hear that, liberal protesters?

“It is a jihad (holy war) for the sake of God and will last until (our) religion prevails … from Spain to Iraq,” al-Zawahri said. “We will attack everywhere.”

Well, there you have it. That’s the plan.

Diplomacy? Anyone?

He said Arab regimes were accomplices to Israel. “My fellow Muslims, it is obvious that Arab and Islamic governments are not only impotent but also complicit … and you are alone on the battlefield. Rely on God and fight your enemies … make yourselves martyrs.”

Appeasement and negotiation are not options.

He also called for the “downtrodden” throughout the world, not just Muslims, to join the battle against “tyrannical Western civilization and its leader, America.”

Sounds like Cesar Chavez and his pal, Cindy Sheehan. Is he also blogging on the DailyLostKos?

“Stand with Muslims in confronting this unprecedented oppression and tyranny. Stand with us as we stand with you against this injustice that was forbidden by God in his book (the Quran),” al-Zawahri said.

Y’know, maybe we should rethink our strategy and forget about military might. Instead, simply send armed liberals and the ACLU to the Middle East. Just like the successful battle they’ve been waging in U.S., in no time they would have all references to religion driven from politics and the public square.

Only problem is, unlike Christians today, who allow themselves to be mocked and persecuted by remaining nonviolent, the Islamists would respond to the ACLU much differently.

Terrorism is a plague upon the earth. And that’s no joke.

UPDATE:
Austin Bay: “What About The Next Hezbollah?”
Michelle Malkin: “Israeli Soldier Release?”
CounterTerrorism Blog has more.

SURPRISED? MAYBE WE HAD BETTER WAKE UP HERE

I don't know if you've noticed, but the Israeli army is having a rather tough time with Hezbollah. In story after story you read that the Israeli army doesn't seem to be the awesome, feared fighting machine it once was, and that Hezbollah is showing no fear of the Israelis and putting up a stalwart fight. Some reports I've read even say that Hezbollah is winning this confrontation - this war - and that it will soon be the Israelis who are looking for a cease fire; a cease fire they can use to regroup and consider their options.

Israel, at the urging of the world community, sowed the seeds for this current situation when they withdrew from Southern Lebanon years ago. The Israelis responded to world opinion (usually a mistake) by pulling back without any agreement from either the terrorists in Hezbollah or in Lebanon. The idea behind the pullback was that maybe, just maybe, Hezbollah and Lebanon would be content to honor the international border between the two countries and leave Israel in peace.

Fat chance.

Instead, Hezbollah remained loyal to the Islamic dream of a Middle East with no Israel. They used the time to build its fortifications in Southern Lebanon, moving the bulk of them underground. They used this time to build their military capability and to stash rockets and arms -- most of which were supplied by Iran with no small amount of help from Syria.

When Iran and Hezbollah felt that the military buildup and the entrenchment was sufficient, they launched their provocations against Israel, knowing that Israel would respond.

Muslims around the world are cheering Hezbollah on. Not only Muslims, but a goodly number of anti-Semitics in this country who suffer from that strange form of dementia that causes one to blame every evil in their personal life and in the world on "those Jews."

I hope the rest of us are paying attention here, and I fear we are not. This is much more than a battle between Israel and Hezbollah. This is one front, one battle in World War III, the war between the West and radical Islam.

Israel tried to do the right thing. They withdrew. They sought peace. They asked nothing more to be left alone. The Islamists in Hezbollah and their supporters and enablers in Lebanon, Syria and Iran saw this as a sign of weakness. Israel is tired. Israel doesn't want to fight any more. Israel is weak. Israel can be defeated.

These Islamic murderers see the same weakness in the United States. Oh, to be sure, for a while they feared George Bush. In George Bush they saw an American leader who understood their intentions and who was bent on their destruction. Soon after Bush showed his resolve by invading Afghanistan you saw Muslim leaders starting to backtrack. They were starting to retreat back into their holes ... until, that is, the American left stepped forward.

For American liberals, for the Nancy Pelosis, Ted Kennedys and Howard Deans of this world, the hatred of George Bush and the bitterness of the 2000 election just couldn't be overcome. It mattered not that the president understood the danger presented by Islam, and was prepared to fight. It only mattered that George Bush defeated their Damien, their precious Al Gore, and that Democratic honor had to be assuaged. Bush had to be demonized.

As the Democrats intensified their attacks on George Bush over the war in Iraq, the Muslims started to see the weakness they were looking for. Another Western weakness ripe for exploitation.

Right now Israel is paying the price for appeasement. Some in Israel thought that there might be a better way .. .a way to live in peace with radical Islam. They now know better.

Do we?

Now ... before you move on, read this Ann Coulter column. Once you have you'll realize that we are, indeed, in a world war against radical Islam. It's time for some folks to decide which side they want to support.

LIBERALISM AND NATIONAL SECURITY- THE ULTIMATE DICHOTOMY

The evidence is continuing to mount but it seems clear that modern liberalism is at odds with national security. Whether they sit on the Supreme Court, occupy a seat in Congress, or publish some of our nation’s largest newspapers, several high profile liberals have significantly impeded our ability to wage the War on Terror, and we may be less safe as a result.

In a breathtaking decision, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a liberal majority on the Supreme Court held that the president does not have authority to order that terrorists be tried before military commissions. In a case where the court should not have had jurisdiction if the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 were to be taken seriously, liberal judicial activism has once again reared its ugly head. Justice Clarence Thomas offered a stinging dissent regarding the court’s willingness “to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous.” Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and National Review contributor, anticipated such a ruling offering this prescient thought: “Make no mistake: if this happens, the Supreme Court will have dictated that we now have a treaty with al Qaeda—which no president, no senate, and no vote of the American people would ever countenance.”

Applying the Geneva Conventions to barbarians who recognize no international laws of war would be laughable if it wasn’t so reckless. Perhaps Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote for the majority, would allow the Pentagon to take his home via eminent domain (see: disastrous Kelo decision) in order to house Guantanamo guests if the prison were to close. After all, shutting down Gitmo is a high priority in the left’s War on Terror strategy. And if Stevens is looking for a driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan can list Osama bin Laden as a reference.

Cheers undoubtedly rang out at the New York Times when the Hamdan case was adjudicated. After all, any effort to rebuff or expose the efforts of the Bush administration in the War on Terror will be encouraged by the old gray lady. The top of the fold Times story (“Bank Data is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror,” 6/23/06) revealing the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program was the latest in a series of damaging exposes dealing a hard blow to our clandestine capabilities. Coupled with the leak involving the NSA’s Terrorist Surveillance Program, the Times has made it abundantly clear that American national security will take a back seat to Pulitzer Prize nominations. It’s unclear, however, if those awards can withstand a dirty bomb attack. It might be best to keep them locked in an underground vault.

The New York Times has no left-wing agenda and is only interested in exposing matters of “public interest” its editors and defenders assert. But a closer look can be quite revealing. Take, for instance, Pinch Sulzberger’s recent commencement address at a New York State University: “You weren’t supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land,” bemoans Sulzberger. He continues, “You weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, be it the rights of immigrants to start a new life; the rights of gays to marry; or the rights of women to choose. You weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where oil still drives policy and environmentalists have to relentlessly fight for every gain. You weren’t. But you are. And for that I’m sorry.” Sulzberger doesn’t write for the Times—he publishes it.

While criticizing the efforts of the Bush Administration and at the same time besmirching our military service people is nothing new to those occupying power on the left. Although he later attempted to “clarify” his statement, the damage was already done when Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) spoke about his interpretation of U.S. policy regarding treatment of prisoners. Referring to a report describing prisoners being subjected to rap music and isolation, Durbin said, “If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings.” Our kidnapped soldiers are brutalized and beheaded while Gitmo terrorists are subjected to lyrics from the likes of Snoop Dogg. Something tells me that Snoop and his cohorts may be getting a bad rap.

When Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) told a civic group that our Army was “broken, worn out” and “living hand to mouth,” did he not consider that his statement would be read by our enemies? Even if he was right—which he isn’t—it is, at best, an irresponsible comment.

Here’s an inconvenient truth that many liberals fail to grasp: the biggest threat facing civilization isn’t carbon dioxide emissions; it’s climate warming via a nuclear detonation. And our enemies will stop at nothing to achieve this objective on American soil.

—

Michael Nevin, Jr. is a contributor to several Internet websites and a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He receives e-mail at nevin166@comcast.net.

STOP THE PEACE EFFORTS

Do I like the idea of peace? Absolutely! But I like the idea of freedom and economic liberty more. Many of the so-called "peace activists" you hear from today will accept any existence, as long as it is an existence without fighting. Living under a despot with no freedom of thought, speech or worship, and certainly no economic liberty, is preferable to some of these people than fighting -- and dying -- to be free.

The Communists had a rather interesting definition of peace back when the Soviet Union was in full bloom. They said that peace would exist when there was an absence of opposition to communism. Nice twist.

You want peace? Let me tell you of one of the most peaceful places in the world. A solitary confinement cell in a prison. There you will find no conflict. You can sleep at night without any fear of someone coming in through the window to harm you or steal your stuff. You can spend every day secure in the knowledge that there will be no rockets raining down on you, no fights, no threats, no violence. Oh .. .there's no freedom, to be sure. But these peace "activists" don't seem to be concerned about freedom. It's just peace -- an end to the violence -- that drives them. The want to make sure that women and children don't die. Fine! Rob them of all freedom, of all human dignity, of all liberty -- and move them into concentration camps where they're guarded day and night by armed soldiers ready to turn away any threat. Peace will reign! Women and children won't die! Freedom will.

I'm also sick to death of the attempts by the peace-at-any-price crowd to draw a moral equivalence between Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel.

Hezbollah and Hamas Islamic murderers hide among their own civilian civilizations and lob rockets into the civilian areas of Israel. The goal? To kill civilians and spread terror. The Israelis fire back to kill those who are attacking them. Civilians die. Why? Because the Islamic cowards are hiding behind their women and children. Yeah ... tell me about your moral equivalence.

Hezbollah has fired more than 2000 rockets into the civilian areas of Israel. The goal is not to kill Israeli soldiers. The goal is to kill women and children --- innocent civilians. This is the nature of radical Islam. How could you expect anything else from the Islamic monsters who shot school children in the back in Beslan?

You know, of course, that Hezbollah wants Israel to release some Islamic prisoners. But did you know that one of the prisoners Hezbollah wants released killed a four-year-old girl by slamming a rifle butt into her skull? This Islamic goon crushed the skull of a small Israeli girl with a rifle butt, and the radical Muslims want him released. I suppose there is a grand celebration awaiting him in his hometown if, and when he returns.

Radical Islamists have watched the left in America and in Europe condemn the removal of Saddam Hussein. They have reveled in the criticism leveled against Bush for his efforts to bring a democratically elected government to Iraq. The vilification of Bush has encouraged the Islamic radicals and made them stronger. They now feel that their jihadist goal of bringing the entire world under Islamic rule can be realized. If those who fight them are condemned, and those who appease them are praised, how can you blame them for feeling emboldened?

Israel understands what so many Americans do not. There is a war going on. Islamic terrorists and militants are feeding on the weakness of the West. They're feeding on the weakness shown by the American left that has condemned our president for daring to strike back at Islamofascism.

We gain nothing by asking Israel to hold back.

IDF: HEZBOLLAH RUNNING OUT OF MISSLES

Hezbollah has started to run low on munitions and morale, according to the IDF. Without secure lines of communication to Syria, the terrorists have been unable to resupply, and this has led jihadis in northern Lebanon to avoid joining the fight against Israel:

IDF Military Intelligence (MI) believes the army has 10 days left before diplomatic pressure puts an end to Operation Change of Direction against Hizbullah, The Jerusalem Post learned on Sunday.

In addition, MI - reflecting its latest strategic assessment - believes that the Islamist group has already been dealt a severe blow by the IDF operation launched 12 days ago, and that within a month it will run out of Katyusha rockets to fire at Israel. ...

The unit has been able to recruit reserves, but MI has noticed that it has run into difficulty convincing members of the terror group who reside in northern Lebanon to travel south to participate in the fighting.

Once the unit exhausts the missiles currently in its possession, it will, MI believes, have difficulty acquiring more, since most of the roads and supply routes have been destroyed by the IDF. Several Syrian and Iranian attempts to send supplies to Hizbullah have been thwarted by the IDF.

This shows why asymmetrical warfare cannot beat a true military response. Terrorists thrive on the reluctance of Western nations to actually respond militarily to their attacks. Tactics and strategy that force responses in civilian areas usually lead to law-enforcement tactics in order for nations to avoid the kind of televised images we have seen from Lebanon. In that kind of low-level approach, however, the terrorists can resupply at will and continue with intermittent attacks -- and know that they will get away with them.

Hezbollah got surprised by Israel's military response and by the lack of support they received in the Arab world as a result. IDF operations have forced Hezbollah to fire many more rockets into Israel, trying desperately to hold Israeli cities hostage in order to put an end to the IDF invasion of southern Lebanon and the bombing of the infrastructure. They have fired thousands of missiles and rockets into Israel in less than two weeks, a number that might have taken them five years to reach in the normal asymmetrical mode.

And this shows why Israel has reacted with overwhelming force, and why cries about Lebanon's infrastructure make no sense. Critics have excoriated Israel for setting Lebanon back twenty years by bombings roads, bridges, and communications assets. Some have called it "collective punishment", an odd term to use for the response when at least a portion of a government commits an act of war against its neighbor. It has been clear from the start of the IDF operation that Israel targeted these assets because they consider themselves at war, not as some police force on steroids, and that the first assets one attacks in war are command, control, and communications of the enemy.

The roads and bridges, as well as the airports, would have allowed Syria to resupply Hezbollah.

Now, it appears that Syria cannot effectively rearm their proxy in southern Lebanon. Israel has even attacked convoys coming out of Syria attempting to do just that, destroying the munitions and sending a message to Syria of air supremacy, a lesson Syria has learned over and over again against the Israelis. Starved of missiles and rockets, the Hezbollah terrorists will lose their one weapon of deterrence against Israel and start to collapse.

According to the IDF, that process has already begun. Jihadis in the north have not come to the aid of their brethren, and Sheikh Nasrallah will run out of bodies to throw at Israeli tanks very quickly. Israel may only need a couple more weeks before crippling Hezbollah not only as a military threat but also as a political movement in Lebanon. Nasrallah needs a rescue, but no one will send their cavalry over the hills to effect one -- not even their brothers in terrorism.

KERRY 'BLASTS' RUSH ON ISRAEL

Jean Francois Kerry got out his pack of spitballs and attacked Rush Limbaugh for Rush’s statement that President Bush is the best friend that the Israelis have ever had. Here’s Kerry’s official statement from his website:

“Rush Limbaugh’s ignorance and willingness to divide Americans knows no bounds. His latest statement about Israel is beyond offensive to all of us who have fought to protect Israel in the face of enemies committed to its destruction.”

Kerry’s got a French definition of fighting for Israel. Here’s Kerry’s statement to the Arab American Institute in Michigan:

“I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government’s decision to build the barrier off of the Green Line, cutting deep into Palestinian areas. We don’t need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis’ security over the long term, increase the hardships to the Palestinian people, and make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder.”

That doesn’t sound like he’s being supportive of Israel. I’d doubt that Israel is looking for that type of ’support’. Here’s what Kerry told a Jewish group right before the NY primary:

“Israel’s security fence is a legitimate act of self defense. No nation can stand by while its children are blown up at pizza parlors and on buses. While President Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians, Israel has a right and a duty to defend its citizens. The fence only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel.”

I think we could call that Kerry’s ‘I supported Israel after I supported the Palestinians’ moment.

“Rush Limbaugh needs to pick up a history book instead of a donut.”

Another shining example of Democratic graciousness in the face of GOP meanspiritedness? Thankfully, most Democrats aren’t into personal attacks. Oh wait….

“It was a Democratic president who first recognized the State of Israel. It was a Democratic President who first sold Israel defensive weapons. And it was a Democratic President who first sold Israel offensive weapons.”

True enough, Mr. Kerry. I wonder if he’d recognize today’s version of his party? I’d doubt it.

“The people of Israel and the Jewish community don’t need Rush Limbaugh to tell them who stands with them, and no one has time for right wing trying to score cheap political points while Israel fights to defend its very existence.”

Wasn’t Mr. Kerry happy with the notion of badgering Ehud Barak into surrendering large chunks of land to Yassir Arafat in the 90’s? Israel doesn’t need that type of support. They need a president that won’t cave to the ‘international community’ just to keep his popularity ratings up.

That’s why President Bush is seen by Israel as the best friend Israel’s ever had in the White House. That isn’t just Rush’s opinion. It’s part of the official record since at least 2002:

Who says that there are no more miracles today? US President George W. Bush’s long-awaited speech on the Middle East, in which he upset the entire applecart of cherished assumptions upon which Middle East diplomacy has been based for more than a decade, certainly qualifies. At least if you believe the pundits, not one of whom came close to predicting what the president would say.

If a speech can be judged by those it ticks off, then Bush’s was a smasheroo. Foreign Minister Shimon Peres was reportedly so revolted that he could not bear to listen to the end. No doubt he was indignant at the snub the president administered to his erstwhile “peace partner” and co-Nobel Laureate. In calling for a new Palestinian leadership, Bush did not even deign to mention Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat by name.

That was written by Jerusalem Post columnist Jonathan Rosenblum in July, 2002. That isn’t the only person saying it. Many is the time that Ed Koch has said that President Bush has been Israel’s best friend.

Instead of Kerry telling Rush to pick up a history book, I’d suggest that he pick up a newspaper. Better yet, he should start reading the Right Blogosphere so he finally gets a clue.