NO!!!!!! Not the UN!!!

Bert Raphael, in the Globe and Mail, praises Lewis MacKenzie for an insane idea:

Finally a voice of reason and logic from someone who has been there and knows the facts on the ground: I refer to the article by retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie suggesting that a solution to the Israeli-Hamas war is the deployment of a strong and armed UN force in Gaza (What Is The UN Waiting For? Deploy A Strong Force To Gaza - Jan. 6). If the United Nations gave the force the power to disarm Hamas and ensure that only humanitarian goods and not guns entered Gaza, the current problems would be solved.

I'm not sure what is more dizzyingly ludricous: suggesting that the UN would pass a resolution to protect Israel against Hamas when their man on the ground is Richard Falk , or anyone with a memory longer than a week would suggest that the son of Oil-for-food would be a good idea.

MacKenzie notes that:

Hamas makes no secret that, aided and abetted by Iran, it is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Any idea of a ceasefire in the current fighting leading to a change in Hamas's dedication to Israel's elimination is naive to the extreme.

and he is right but what is also extremely naive that an organization that would put 17 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to the 47 Member Hunam Rights Council has no true mandate to represent any solution leading to peace in the Middle East and will certainly not make any effort to guarantee the continued existance of Israel. MacKenzie is right on one point and his article would have been adequate if he had left it at:

"The UN Security Council and member states should be ashamed."

Proportional Response

I have just decided that I need to change my position on "Proportional Response". I have, until now believed that Proportional Response would be a totally irresponsible policy for Israel that would be equivalent to trading death for death until only one side is still standing. I realized today that proportional response is nothing like that and it is reasonable with the following guidelines:

• Base "proportional" on the inverse of Article 7 of the Hamas Charter (related by al-Bukhari and Muslem): "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (the Cedar tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
• End the "proportional response" when the inverse of the Hamas goal (expressed by Hamas leader Fathi Hammad in Gaza on 2 January  2009) is met: "We will not rest until we destroy the Zionist entity"
  

This was expressed well by (nom de plume) Higgs Boson at Daniel Pipes site (responding to Pipes "Israel's War on Hamas: A Dozen Thoughts" as:

Proportional Response --

• Hamas' stated goal : Total destruction of Israel and death of all Jews.
• Israel's stated goal : Total destruction of Hamas

/ Q.E.D.

Canada's Role in Afghanistan

Captain's Quarters lauds the French entry to the NATO Combat Mission in Afghanistan and it is nice to see that the French finally have a leader with a soul but the story is more complicated on the Canadian side with the need to have some Opposition support to do the right thing - something that the opposition Liberals and NDP are loath to do. After a comprehensive study by a Liberal Privy Councilor who is now in private life both parties feel it is best to ignore the recommendations and stick to their old rhetoric.

"After touring NATO headquarters, Afghanistan and receiving hundreds of submissions, the independent commission (headed by former Liberal Foreign Minister John Manley) created by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to advise his government on the way forward is not expected to recommend any significant scaling back of Canada's commitment of 2,500 soldiers in the Kandahar region, or any profound change in their current marching orders." (National Post)

It seems that the way should be clear to maintain the mission until the job is finished, except that the current Liberals have a solution based on their polls and an ideology whose goal is to regain power rather than to do an important job right. They are stuck in a fictional paradigm that Canada's military are not war fighters but peacekeepers. They are happy to screw the people of Afghanistan and make a mockery out of the sacrifices of countless service people and their families including 78 soldiers killed in action in order to be seen to be upholding a nonsense notion of Canada's role in the world.

Happily disregarding the report, not prepared by some Conservative hack but by one of their own acting in his capacity as a lifetime Privy Councilor, the Liberal Leader Stephane Dion writes to the Prime Minister:

"The Liberal plan is consistent with our long-standing position that Canada's mission in Kandahar must change in February, 2009. It brings clarity to our goals in Afghanistan by placing a greater emphasis on stronger and more disciplined diplomatic efforts, and striking a better balance with respect to the reconstruction and development efforts that will be essential to creating a stable Afghanistan."

Manley's report recommended that the government get tough on the parts of NATO who have not been carrying their weight against the greatest threat to the Alliance since the fall of the Iron Curtain. It did, however, recommend that Canada continue to fight to maintain their gains. The Liberals feel that the "mission must be about more than the military: There is no
exclusively military solution to the conflict in Afghanistan so our
efforts must be balanced between defence, diplomacy and development." Clearly we have missed all our opportunities to negotiate a peaceful solution with the nihilist Taliban who, despite their every attempt to destroy all that has been built for the people of Afghanistan, really want to see the development succeed.

The NDP under Taliban Jack Layton want to withdraw all Canadian Troops immediately regardless of the disaster that would result for the people of Afghanistan. After all, there can't be a war if we don't fight, right. Jack is the fellow who has consistently cooperated with the Taliban by insisting on surrender and withdrawal every time a Canadian soldier is killed - ensuring the next attack will occur. Without Jack's participation, the IEDs would be worthless. This is, of course, the party that (as the CCF) insisted until 1942 that we pull out of WWII.

Why is all this important? Because, without the support or abstinence of one of the Opposition Parties the Government cannot pass a resolution on the future of the mission. The NDP will not play grown-up and the Liberals would rather play politics. The Manley Report brought the French in but the Liberals want us just to switch places with them in the Coward's Section.

South Korea "Submits"

I heard the term "root cause" on the radio today with regards to the Taliban abduction and murder of South Korean Christian aid workers and I had to look into what the "root cause" for the situation was. I found the source of the story through Michelle Malkin's August 2, 2007 post.

Sure enough, as reported in the English version of The Chosun Ilbo, it was the US's fault again:

At a meeting of the Uri Party on Wednesday, Rep. Park Chan-suk said, "The root cause of the hostage crisis lies in our dispatch of troops to Afghanistan. While the Koreans are suffering, the U.S. stands firm on the principles. It's irresponsible and it's a betrayal of one of its allies." Uri Chairman Chung Se-kyun said, "The U.S. should not remain a mere bystander."

Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea a quotable pacifist group has labeled "the Bush administration the "main party" responsible for the abduction of 23 Koreans by the Taliban." I think that their reasoning for this was the irresistable pressure that President Bush applied to Bae Hyung-kyu and his group to risk their lives and to go into Afghanistan without telling them:

• that the Taliban don't want the conditions of normal Afghans between Kandahar and Kabul to improve,
• that the road between Kandahar and Kabul is so dangerous that it makes the DMZ between North and South Korea look like the Epcot Centre, and
• that anyone travelling in an Islamist controlled region under the banner of Christianity is considered to be a proselytizer and is subject to death.

Wait a minute...the Bush Administration didn't send these people there any more than than they sent the Christian Peacekeeper Teams there. They are just expected to pull their asses out of the fire when everything goes pearshaped on them. I'm not just ranting about this! The same group said, "On Wednesday, the group in a press conference threatened a "massive" candlelight rally unless the U.S. starts negotiations with the Taliban immediately."Fortunately, the families of the captured Aid Workers have not bought into the rhetoric:

Lee Jeong-hoon, a representative of the families, said on Thursday, "Since an anti-American demonstration could have a negative influence on the negotiations for the release of the hostages, we have made efforts to avoid being involved in any such demonstrations." "An anti-American movement could be what the Taliban want," Lee said. "We rejected suggestions by some anti-American groups to hold a candlelight vigil and march to the U.S. Embassy in Korea."

Yes!! That is exactly what the protests for disengagement from Afghanistan are doing. Dealing with them as real people legitimizes them and makes them stronger. It emboldens them to go into schools and kill little girls for being out of their homes and it ensures that this "hostage crisis" will happen again. Meanwhile the Korean government has engaged in a remarkable round of moral equivalence:

Korean hostage negotiators have agreed to direct talks with Taliban kidnappers in Afghanistan, a purported spokesman for the Islamists militants told DPA Thursday. The news agency quoted Qari Yousuf Ahmadi as saying Korean Ambassador to Afghanistan Kang Sung-ju spoke directly by phone with his Taliban counterpart.

His Taliban counterpart??!! Is Kang Sung-ju a murderous terrorist? That is the only counterpart that the Taliban have in the real world. How can they even say that? This is what Lee Jeong-hoon was talking about. Every inch that these people are given emboldens them to take the next. Their stated goal is to bring their version of Sharia law to the world and they use every concession received as a launching pad to the next while treating every concession given as a temporary tactical retreat. It is an eternal struggle for them to force the Submission of everyone to the authority of Islam.

Every time an atrocity is not met with overwhelming force it rewards them with another inch. Al Quaeda has already taken over foreign policy for Spain when they were elected to that office as a result of the 2004 Madrid train bombings. They now seem poised to take over that position in South Korea. How is it that countries can rail on about the evil USA dictating foreign policy to them and then jump onto the Islamist bandwagon as soon as they say "Boo"? Once they cede their foreign policy to Islamofacsists it is a short hop to total "Submission". For Spain this will simply be a re-reconqista but for South Korea it will be something new.

Negotiation with Animals

Jack Layton and the NDP want to start peace-oriented discussions with the Taliban in Afghanistan. These are the same people who murder adolescent girls for the crime of going to school. How do you negotiate with that??!! Do you tell them that this is wrong??!! If you have to then there is not basis for discussion.

The NDP and thier advisors advocate an unconditional rejection of violence that makes them smugly think of themselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, and defense of people like these Afghan girls, because they think it's a supposed surrender to violence, leaves no resort but to beg for mercy or offer appeasement.

Evil grants no mercy, and these animals are evil, and to attempt to appease it is nothing more than a piecemeal surrender to it. Surrender to evil is slavery at best, death at worst. Thus, the unconditional rejection of violence is really nothing more than embracing death as preferable to life.

Those who embrace this path of death will achieve what they embrace, if not for themselves then for their children. The right, the absolute necessity, of overwhelming response against anyone who initiates force against you is fundamental to survival. The morality of a people's self-defense is in its defense of each individual's right to life. It's an intolerance of violence, made real by an unwavering willingness to crush any who would launch violence against you. The unconditional determination to destroy any who would initiate force against you is an exaltation of the value of life. Refusing to surrender your life to any thug or tyrant who lays claim to it is in fact embracing life itself.

If you are unwilling to defend your right to your own life, then you are merely like a mouse trying to argue with owls. You think their ways are wrong. They think you are dinner.

Layton's predecessor, Alexa McDonough, said much the same a week after the WTC attack on 11 September 2001. She felt that an international court should mete out the punishment. Current advisors of the NDP want the same courts to mete out punishment to our own soldiers in Afghanistan rather than to the Taliban and al Quaeda. (more on that later) You can't wag your tongue at such people and offer it the justice of a civilized court. They don't acknowledge our concept of justice.

Even as the Taliban as killing off one Korean teacher after another people are calling for negotiation and talks with the captors. This was the tack that was taken by Karzai in March to secure the release of Daniele Mastrogiacomo, an Italian journalist who had been captured by Taliban forces, a tactic that significantly encouraged this abduction. However, Cheong Wa Dae (S Korean Office of the President) also ruled out the possibility of military action against the kidnappers. "There is no change in the stance that without our government's consent, there will not be any military strategy to solve the issue," Cheon Ho-seon told reporters. Nothing can be more misguided. This event is the direct result of Karzai's capitulation and that of the Spanish left wing government's after their last election.

If, hoping to appease it, you willingly compromise with unrepentant evil, you only allow such evil to sink its fangs into you; from that day on its venom will course through your veins until it finally kills you.

Compromising with murderers, which is precisely what these people are suggesting, grants them moral equivalence where none can rightfully exist. Moral equivalence says that you are no better than they; therefore, their belief - that they should be able to abduct, torture, rape, or murder you - is just as morally valid as your view - that you have the right to live free of their violence. Moral compromise rejects the concept of right and wrong. It says that everyone is equal, all desires are equally valid, all action is equally valid, so everyone should compromise and get along.

Where could you compromise with those who abdut, torture, rape, and murder people? In the number of days a week you will be tortured? In the number of men to be allowed to rape your loved ones? In how many of your family are to be murdered?

No moral equivalence exists in that situation, nor can it exist, so there can be no compromise, only suicide. To even suggest compromise can exist with such men is to sanction murder.

Some comments on negotiation with murders was paraphrased from Terry Goodkind's "Naked Empire".