by Techniguy 07-10-2005

Since the turn of the century five and a half years ago, first there was the attack on New York, then Madrid, and now London, yet liberals still think the focus of the War on Terror should be exclusively on Osama bin Ladden, and still can't understand why we are in Iraq. The war on terror is not about Osama Bin Ladden, or 911, that was just the wake up call. The war is about stopping radical Islamic terrorists from continuing with their attacks on western culture, citizens, and property as we know they intend to do. Never mind, liberals, you can just ignore it and go back to sleep. We'll take care of it without your help, just please stay out of the way and let us do what has to be done, that which you can't even seem to comprehend the need for.

I find it most amusing to see liberals today making the statement that we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq, since we found no WMD there. Let’s just back up about two and half years and consider what was the mindset of the world at that time. 911 had happened, and we were at war to stop further terrorists attacks. Here we have Iraq where, according to world wide intelligence reports, was fully stocked with weapons of terror and mass destruction. Terrorists have a hard time attacking without weapons so where would they have gone to get them? Why, to Iraq and their old friend Saddam Hussein, of course.

Saddam had been violating the cease fire agreement of 1991 and every one of 17 UN Security Council resolutions for the past twelve years and refused to account for tons and tons of chemical, biological, and explosive weapons. Even the terrorists believed he had them. The free world could not afford to let those weapons fall into the hands of the terrorists and so we invaded Iraq for that, and several other just reasons. We had every legal right to do so with Saddam’s violations of the cease fire agreement and a long list of UN resolutions warning of serious consequences for noncompliance. Saddam set the stage, Saddam made the choices. We had no choice but to protect ourselves with preemptive action.

Consider the following language from a joint resolution of Congress, passed 296 to 133 in the House and 77 to 23 in the Senate on Oct. 10 and 11, 2002. "Whereas members of al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; "Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens; "Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations...." The resolution goes on to grant the president the authority to use force, without the help of other nations, if necessary, to eliminate the threat posed by Iraq and end Saddam Hussein's obfuscation.

Among those voting in favor, senators Clinton, Edwards, Feinstein, Kerry and Reid. Members of Congress can't say “Bush lied” and they simply took the president's word for everything in the resolution with any credibility. They had access to much of the same intelligence that he had. It has still not yet been proven that Saddam’s weapons did not exist prior to our invasion, we have yet to look for them in Syria where intelligence reports say they were moved to.

I now laugh when I see Democrat leaders and spokesmen on tv criticize our involvement in Iraq and making the claim that we should be concentrating on Osama Bin Ladden who is now virtually powerless to even mount a horse, let alone a terrorist attack. The “Jihad” against western culture is much bigger than Osama and it couldn’t care less about him. The Madrid, and now London bombings, prove that as it is being reported by intelligence officials that the groups involved in those attacks had no direct connection to Osama or his al Qaeda organization. Yet Democrats still insist we should find Bin Ladden and ignore all other terrorist threats in the world while that huge pink elephant is sitting in the room with them. It’s laughable to say the least.

A statement appeared right after the London bombings on the jihadist website Al-Qal'ah (Fortress), purportedly posted by the group claiming responsibility for the bomb attacks in London today. The following is a translated text of the statement:

It’s easy to understand these fanatics wanting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but we didn’t start this war, nor did it start with Iraq and Afghanistan. It started with their terrorism and ruthless attacks on innocent civilians many years before. It is only recently that we have had the resolve to put a stop to it. If they want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, the best way to accomplish that is for them to become peaceful and stop their unprovoked attacks on westerners both inside and outside of the Middle East. Then we will have no reason to be there.

When Kamikaze pilots in Japan made their intentions quite clear – that they would fight to the death – the United States simply took them at their word and dropped the bomb. Many civilians died. It was tragic. But it was better than prolonging the war and possibly subjecting our civilian population to further devastation. The Japanese realized that their aggression would be met with an even more powerful force against them and they simply gave up the fight.

If Islamic terrorists were confronted with an even more powerful force of retaliation against them and knew it would destroy them, then wouldn’t they be more likely to think twice before planting anymore bombs? It is only force, not liberal understanding and appeasement that will win this war. Liberals would have us end the war and convert to Islam to stop the attacks, that’s their answer. They want terrorists arrested and tried in civilian court like common criminals. Trouble is, the criminal is usually dead after the attack. Liberals fail to understand the difference between a crime and an act of war against a nation. Terrorist do not belong in court, they belong at Club Gitmo, or even better, dead after giving up all intelligence information they have. If we weren’t so compassionate with them, they would have been left dead on the battlefield where we found them. They’re living now on borrowed time and at our expense.

During the cold war, no shots were fired. The Russians didn’t attack us and we didn’t attack them. Why? Because we both knew that such an attack would result in devastating results for both countries. If current terrorists had a country of their own, the same tactic could be applied. They could expect the same consequences that Japan experienced and that would make them less likely to think they could attack and get away with it as they know they can today. But instead, terrorist hide within civilian populations were they have no known particular geographic location for retaliation so they don‘t fear it. They need to if we are going to put a stop to their barbarous attacks and win this war.

We keep hearing that Islam is a peaceful religion and that all Islamics are not radical terrorists. This may be true, but then why are not the “good Muslims” more concerned with stopping the “bad Muslims” who are giving their religion a black eye? What have the “good Muslims” done for us lately while living in our country and reaping the benefits of our society other than giving us a few proctologists who can‘t even pronounce the word “asshole”? Why are Muslim clerics still preaching hate for the west in their mosques, not only in the Middle East, but in Europe, in the United States, and around the world? When Americans misbehave we punish them. Why aren’t Muslims punishing and stopping their countrymen from committing these atrocities? When do they even condemn them for it? Could it just be that perhaps in private, they really support their terrorist brothers? What if we gave them a reason to rain in their terrorist brothers and stop the Wahhabism and jihad that has spawned from their soil?

What is it that Muslims and terrorists alike claim is most important to them, that they would defend with their lives, and kill anyone who does not conform? It’s their Islamic religion, of course. And what is at the center of their Islamic faith? The city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia, the home of the jihad. Mecca with it’s Ka'ba, the center of Islam, and the great mosque, al-Haram where millions of Islamics make their pilgrimage each year to become confirmed Muslims. Would Islamics still want to attack and kill innocent men, women and children if they believed that their precious Mecca would be destroyed as a consequence? Possibly not. Would the so called “good Muslims” continue to appease and condone terrorism from their Islamic jihad brothers if they believed it would cost them their precious Mecca? Chances are they would start doing everything in their power to call off the jihad in their Mosques around the world and arrest all know jihadists involved in terrorism while there was still time. We do have a geographic target to use against terrorism. Put Islamics on notice around the world that any further terrorist attacks on westerners will be met with devastating attacks on Mecca and then see just how long it takes for this war to end.

Techniguy