IS BUSH DEPARTURE GOOD NEWS FOR TERRORISTS?

A valid question with, as yet, an unknown answer.

The article that follows is an important reminder that even as late as this month, the global War on Terrorism proceeds unabated under the direction of George W. Bush. The elimination of two top Al Qaeda leaders hiding in Pakistan only serves to further protect us all.

The fact that this was a CIA operation carries special significance in light of the current controversy surrounding the Obama appointment of Leon Panetta as the new head of the CIA, pending Senate confirmation as well as the Obama inauguration. Because the CIA conducts top secret, clandestine ops in all parts of the world, it may be that none of us will know, in our lifetimes, how many successful actions have been carried out over the past seven years that directly led to increased security here at home.

Panetta is by all accounts an intelligent man, wise to the ways of Washington. Although that cannot hurt, it may not help. People in a position to know have long insisted that our intelligence agencies are best managed by those among us with practical, on the ground experience and expertise in the secretive world of dark ops. Panetta has none, zero, zilch, nada.

That lack of understanding raises red flags and causes serious concern within the intelligence community itself. This Obama appointment sends signals that are, in fact, counterproductive to the stability of our intelligence community in general, and the CIA in particular.

Bush has been a staunch supporter of the wide range of American counter-terrorism efforts. Everyone, friend and foe alike, knows where Bush is on this issue. Judging by this appointment however, it appears Obama stands elsewhere but exactly where is unknown. That lack of clarity causes doubt and instability. Remember as well that liberals like Obama and Penetta do not, as a matter of political doctrine, support our intelligence agencies. As is the case within the military, intelligence professionals are unsure, if not flat worried, about the President-Elect.

Terrorists and jihadists like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas, to name but a few, have stated their goals and are fully committed to take as much time as necessary, centuries if required, to destroy America and the West. They do not value life, ours or their own, and they believe it is an honor for them to die for their cause, taking as many others with them as possible. They do not even care how many Palestinians, Shites, Sunnis or other Muslims they take with them. It matters not in the cause of jihad.

There are very few options available to us in dealing with these radical jihadists. It is not possible to negotiate, for they are sworn to lie, cheat, steal, debauch themselves, murder innocents, torture (that is real, cruel torture and not just simply sleep deprivation), behead, rape and carry out a host of other depraved activities, all in the name of Allah. They will promise whatever is required to be allowed to gain their stated ends and thereafter they will do what is necessary to make them happen.

So what to do about those already committed to terrorism and jihad? There seems to be only two ways to respond that have a chance to work.

One is to capture and incarcerate these monsters for the remainder of their lives. On the one hand that would be a very expensive proposition. On the other hand, jailed jihadists would become the darlings of the far left, particularly leftist lawyers. The attention and litigation this option would generate make it the less workable of the two.

The other way to proceed is to follow the example of the CIA as explained in the accompanying article. Degrade the numbers of committed jihadists to the point of elimination. The fewer terrorists there are on the street, the less terrorism occurs. At some point the law of diminishing returns sets in and those considering the short career in jihad will go on to do something more productive for themselves and the rest of the world. Cold and cruel to be sure, but this route is far more likely to generate results.

The key in all of this is time. Those of us in the West must understand that this will take decades and must be done in conjunction with a host of other efforts to discourage people from the practice of terrorism. It will require patience. It will require more commitment than that of even the jihadists themselves. It will require the courage necessary to not flinch in the face of challenges and setbacks.

Most notably, it will require a strong intelligence community, led by the CIA. Which brings us back to where we started: Is the departure of Bush good news for terrorists or not? Stay tuned to find out.


Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post

A New Year's Day CIA strike in northern Pakistan killed two top al-Qaeda members long sought by the United States, including the man believed to be behind September's deadly suicide bombing at a Marriott hotel in the Pakistani capital, U.S. counter terrorism officials confirmed yesterday.

Agency officials ascertained this week that Usama al-Kini, a Kenyan national who was described as al-Qaeda's chief of operations in Pakistan, was killed in the Jan. 1 missile strike, along with his lieutenant, identified as Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan, the sources said. Both men were associated with a string of suicide attacks in Pakistan in recent months and also allegedly helped plan the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa.

Kini, who had been pursued by U.S. law enforcement agencies on two continents for a decade, was the eighth senior al-Qaeda leader killed in clandestine CIA strikes since July, the officials said. He and Swedan were ranked among the 23 most-wanted terrorists by the FBI, with a bounty offering of $5 million for their capture.

The CIA declined to comment on the strike, citing the extreme secrecy of its operations along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, where al-Qaeda is believed to be based. However, a U.S. counter terrorism official confirmed that the two died in a CIA strike on a building that was being used for explosives training.

"They died preparing new acts of terror," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the agency's actions are secret.
A second counter terrorism official said that Kini is among the 10 highest-ranking terrorists the CIA has ever killed or captured.

Terrorism experts have cautioned that al-Qaeda has shown surprising resilience, quickly replacing leaders who are killed or captured. Still, there have been few occasions since 2001 when the group lost so many top operatives so quickly. Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert and Georgetown University professor, said the agency's tactics appear to be cutting dramatically into al-Qaeda's top ranks with strikes deep into a lawless border region that insurgents long regarded as a sanctuary.

"It is a stunning testament of the accuracy of intelligence that the United States is obtaining," Hoffman said. "Either we have built up an impressive network of sources that facilitates such precision targeting, or the Pakistani authorities are cooperating big-time."

Added the U.S. counter terrorism official: "The continuous loss of senior talent has to have a pretty serious effect."

Details of the attack were sketchy, but counter terrorism officials privy to classified reports said the men were killed by a 100-pound Hellfire missile fired by an unmanned aircraft operated by the CIA.

The strike took place at a site variously described as a safe house or former girls' school near the town of Karikot in South Waziristan, a region in the rugged autonomous tribal areas of northern Pakistan that has long been a haven for al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

South Waziristan has been targeted frequently by Predator drones in recent months as part of a controversial and increasingly lethal campaign to destabilize the terrorist group and kill key operatives. The attacks, occurring about once every three days, have drawn protests from Pakistan's government but praise from top intelligence officials who say the strategy is forcing al-Qaeda into the open. CIA Director Michael V. Hayden, alluding to the strategy in a November speech, said the United States had "taken the fight to the enemy."

The counter terrorism official who described the Jan. 1 attack said, "Clearly, al-Qaeda's safe haven in Pakistan isn't nearly as safe as it used to be."

There was no immediate reaction from Pakistan, which in recent months has indicated a willingness to tolerate such attacks within its borders, as long as they target foreign operatives and do not involve the use of ground troops.

Kini, whose given name was Fahid Mohammed Ally Msalam, had trained terrorists in Africa in the 1990s and served as a central planner of the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, U.S. officials said. He was indicted by a federal grand jury in connection with those attacks and has been on the FBI's list of the most-wanted terrorists ever since.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, he became al-Qaeda's emir of Afghanistan's Zabul province, and he later shifted among Afghanistan, Pakistan and East Africa, planning suicide missions, training operatives and raising money, U.S. officials said.

He became al-Qaeda's operations director for Pakistan in 2007 and was responsible for at least seven suicide attacks, the sources said. These included a failed assassination attempt in October 2007 on Benazir Bhutto, the former Pakistani prime minister who was later killed, and the Sept. 16 car-bombing of Islamabad's Marriott Hotel. That attack killed 53 people.

Among other notable al-Qaeda officials killed in similar fashion in recent months were Rashid Rauf, the mastermind of the foiled 2006 trans-Atlantic airline plot, and Abu Khabab al-Masri, al-Qaeda's premier explosives expert and leading figure in the terrorist group's efforts to create biological and chemical weapons.

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report

Sphere: Related Content

AMERICA'S URBAN ANARCHISTS

"This whole damn system is guilty!" The entire article follows. Considering it is from the San Francisco Chronicle, mouthpiece to the left by the bay, it's content is revealing and illustrates that even the left rejects far left radicals here in the Bay Area, anarchy's longtime domestic headquarters.

The rioting mob moving through the streets of Oakland, CA last night is a clear illustration of the rule of lawless punks and thugs that has deep roots here in the People's Republic of Northern California. This area is not just referred to as the "Left Coast" simply because of it's geographical location. It is a liberals shangri-la: nuclear free zones, sanctuary cities, anti-perfume laws, Styrofoam bans, bankrupt municipalities, failed government schools and government budgets that are fully upside down for as far as the eye can see.

Because the late great State of California and most all municipal governments in the Bay Area have long been controlled by liberal Democrat politicians, radical and anarchist movements have always flourished.

The problem is, of course, that anarchists are not interested in engaging in thoughtful debate on the issues. Nor are they committed to the basic tenant of Democracy: the will of the people. For them, convincing others of the validity of their perspective is a waste of time. Their accepted and exercised practice is burn, break, destroy, smash and wreck anything and everything that happens to be at hand, regardless of who might unjustifiably suffer.

Thus in the case described in the accompanying article, claimed but as yet unknown and unproved racial victimization is the excuse used to rain havoc on innocents. It is reminiscent of the recent violence against religious organizations following the November vote about same sex marriage.

The same was the case last summer in San Francisco where anarchists had gathered to wreck and riot on the occasion of the passing of the Beijing Olympic Torch through the city. To avoid chaos, city officials announced the torch route in advance and than took it in a totally different direction. All in an highly successful but widely criticized effort to avoid another display of urban anarchy.

It is important, however, to call what occurred in Oakland, as well in other instances, exactly what they are in fact. Anarchy! There is no common cause other than to, as the opening quote attests, destroy the "system". And what is that? It is living in a society organized around the rule of law. Without law, there is only chaos, which is the outcome that anarchists seek. Any opportunity will do to gain their goal. Any means to the desired end is their modus operandi.

Thoughtful, intelligent people must consider why anarchy most often rears it's chaotic head in our major urban centers. In that process it is reasonable to examine the politics and governance in those same locations. What politics dominates? What type of governance is practiced? What is the relationship between that and the development of open and aggressive anarchy? Is that in the best interests of the majority of our urban populations?

If not, it is time to change politics and governance, thereby returning to the rule of law and the will of the people. If so, it is time to burn baby, burn. This article makes that clear.


Protests over BART shooting turn violent
Demian Bulwa, Charles Burress, Matthew B. Stannard,Matthai Kuruvila, Chronicle Staff Writers

A protest over the fatal shooting by a BART police officer of an unarmed black man mushroomed into several hours of violence Wednesday night as demonstrators smashed storefronts and cars, set several cars ablaze and blocked streets in downtown Oakland.

The roving mob expressed fury at police and frustration over society's racial injustice. Yet the demonstrators were often indiscriminate, frequently targeting the businesses and prized possessions of people of color.

They smashed a hair salon, a pharmacy and several restaurants. Police in riot gear tried to control the crowd, but some people retreated along 14th Street and bashed cars along the way.

The mob smashed the windows at Creative African Braids on 14th Street, and a woman walked out of the shop holding a baby in her arms.

"This is our business," shouted Leemu Topka, the black owner of the salon she started four years ago. "This is our shop. This is what you call a protest?"

Wednesday night's vandalism victims had nothing to do with the shooting death by a BART police officer of Oscar Grant on New Year's Day - but that did little to sway the mob.

"I feel like the night is going great," said Nia Sykes, 24, of San Francisco, one of the demonstrators. "I feel like Oakland should make some noise. This is how we need to fight back. It's for the murder of a black male."

Sykes, who is black, had little sympathy for the owner of Creative African Braids.

"She should be glad she just lost her business and not her life," Sykes said. She added that she did have one worry for the night: "I just hope nobody gets shot or killed."

The protest had started calmly shortly after 3 p.m. at the Fruitvale Station in Oakland, where BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle shot 22-year-old Grant of Hayward a week ago. BART shut down the station well into the evening commute, although the demonstration there was peaceful.

However, shortly after nightfall, a group of roughly 200 protesters split off and headed toward downtown Oakland, prompting the transit agency to close the Lake Merritt and 12th Street stations. The group wreaked havoc through much of downtown, drawing hundreds of police in riot gear. It wasn't until roughly 10:40 p.m that police clamped down on the mob, arresting dozens who were cornered near the Paramount Theatre, and bringing an end to the mayhem.

Earlier in the evening, Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums met the mob on 14th Street, urging calm and leading them on a walk to City Hall, where he gave a speech.

"I sense your frustration," he told the crowd. "I understand that you've lost confidence in a process because you've seen what you believe is a homicide ... But listen to me, we are a community of people. We are civilized people. We are a nation of laws.

Dellums told protesters that he had asked the Oakland Police Department to investigate the shooting. "I have asked Oakland police to engage in a fair, parallel investigation, the way you'd investigate any homicide in Oakland," he said. "If that leads to an arrest, that's what it would lead to."

"I'm asking people to disperse," the mayor said to the couple hundred people in the crowd. "Let's leave in a spirit of peace."

But soon after, a man shouted "that's the modern day lynching" and the mob quickly continued its rampage, smashing at least seven storefronts on 17th street between Franklin and Webster streets. They also smashed eight cars, including four belonging to the City of Oakland.

Near 14th and Alice streets, Myron Bell was taking dance lessons in "step," a form of dance popular among African Americans, when he looked out the window and saw people jumping on his Lexus sedan.

Bell, 42, came out to find that almost all of the car's windows, including the front and back had been smashed and it appeared that someone had tried to set the car on fire.

"I'm for the cause," said Bell, who is black. "But I'm against the violence and destruction."

Nearby, Godhuli Bose stood near her smashed Toyota Corolla as a man walked by, repeatedly called her a misogynist slur and then added, "F- your car."

Bose, a high school teacher, said: "I can't afford this."

Earlier in the evening, when the mob first appeared downtown, Oakland Police Officer Michael Cardoza parked his car across the intersection of Eighth and Madison streets, to prevent traffic from flowing toward Broadway and into the protest. But he told The Chronicle that a group of 30 to 40 protesters quickly surrounded his car and started smashing it with bottles and rocks.

Cardoza jumped out of the car and said some protesters tried to set the car on fire, while others jumped on top of the hood - incidents repeatedly shown on television. Cardoza said the protesters "were trying to entice us into doing something." A Chronicle reporter saw a fist-sized rock in the back seat.

A group of protesters also set a trash bin aflame, moving it adjacent to the police car.

Police threw tear gas into the group to disperse it, said BART Sgt. Mark MacAulay. After 8 p.m., there were numerous arrests.

"When you get that mob mentality, it can be dangerous," MacAulay said.

Other protesters marched on BART's 12th Street Station about 7 p.m., prompting the transit agency to close the downtown hub station even as it was reopening the Lake Merritt and Fruitvale stations.

The mob blocked the intersection of 14th and Broadway, near the downtown BART station entrance. As police put on helmets and gas masks and stood in a line formation, some demonstrators held signs that read, "Your idea of justice?" and "Jail Killer Cops."

One man lay in the intersection with his face down and his hands behind his back - intentionally evoking the position that Grant was in when he was shot.

Some in the mob wore masks over their faces as they yelled at police. Roughly a dozen stood just a few feet away from police as they screamed at them. Chants included "pigs go home," "the fascist police, no justice, no peace" and "we are all Oscar Grant."

Mandingo Hayes, who is black, said he participated in the protest because "we're tired of all these police agencies getting away with shooting unarmed black and Latino males."

Hayes, 36, downplayed the attack on the police car.

"For a police car to get abused, and for a person to get shot and killed, which would you rather be?" said Hayes, a construction worker from San Pablo.

As the night wore on, Hayes tried calming people down, asking for peace.

The core group of the mob appeared to be about 40 people, several of whom were with Revolution Books, a Berkeley bookstore. A man distributed the "Revolution" newspaper - whose tagline is "voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, U.S.A." - as he shouted "This whole damn system is guilty!"
Soo Jung Sung, an Asian American, didn't understand why she was to blame. She wept as she looked at the shattered front windshield of her Nissan Montero.
"Emotionally, I totally understand them," she said of the upset over Grant's shooting. "But it's not nice."

E-mail the writers at dbulwa@sfchronicle.com, cburress@sfchronicle.com, mstannard@sfchronicle.com and mkuruvila@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/08/MN2N155CN1.DTL

Sphere: Related Content

PRESIDENTS-ELECT RESUMES: WHAT'S YOUR PRIORITY?

Three living ex-Presidents, the current President and the current President-elect met over lunch today at the White House. If photos speak a thousand words, than the one above would tell us that Jimmy Carter is a bit off on his own from the others. That would seem accurate and appropriate.

Four out of five of these men have served in the office, for a combined total of 24 years. One will become the 44th POTUS later this month. This little get together provides an opportunity to consider the nature of the qualifications of each of these men when they were on the eve of their inaugurations. The following summary is instructive.

Draw your own conclusions.

PRESIDENT-ELECT JAMES EARL CARTER, JR.
1. Graduate of the United States Naval Academy
2. Veteran: served in the United States Navy
3. Businessman: got wealthy running a successful family farming business
4. State Senate: served two terms in the Georgia State Senate
5. Governor: one term Governor of Georgia

PRESIDENT-ELECT GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH
1. Graduate of Yale University after only 2.5 years in school
2. Veteran: World War II, decorated, Naval Aviator
3. Businessman: earned millions in the Texas oil business
4. US House of Representatives: twice elected to the House from Texas
5. US Ambassador to the United Nations: served two years
6. Charmian, Republican National Committee
7. Chief of US Liaison Office to the Peoples Republic of China
8. Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
9. Vice President of the United States: served two terms

PRESIDENT-ELECT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
1. Graduate of Georgetown University
2. Received a Rhodes Scholarship to University College, Oxford
3. Graduate of Yale Law School: Attorney
4. Professor, University of Arkansas
5. Attorney General, State of Arkansas
6. Governor of Arkansas: served a total of 12 years

PRESIDENT-ELECT GEORGE WALKER BUSH
1. Graduate of Yale University
2. Graduate of Harvard University Business School
3. Veteran: Texas Air National Guard & Air Force Reserve
4. Businessman: executive in the Texas oil business
5. Businessman: made millions as part owner of the Texas Rangers professional baseball franchise
6. Governor: two term Governor of Texas

PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
1. Graduate of Columbia University
2. Graduate of Harvard Law School: Attorney
3. Community Organizer: New York and Chicago
4. Senior Lecturer: University of Chicago Law School
5. State Senate: served eight years in the Illinois State Senate
6. US Senator: served three years in the United States Senate from Illinois

SUMMARY
-Three military veterans
-Three Ivy League graduates
-One Rhodes Scholar
-Three businessmen
-Two law school teachers
-Two attorneys
-Two State Senators
-One state Attorney General
-Three Governors
-One US Senator
-One: Vice President, CIA Director, US Representative to China, National party Chair, Ambassador to the UN, Member of the US House of Representatives

Setting all other considerations aside, what would be your priority ordering of these five resumes?

Sphere: Related Content

SURREAL: NBC DENIES FREE SPEECH

UPDATE: Read the comments as well!

NBC has gone into full retreat since it came out yesterday that they had dropped Ann Coulter from their morning interview line-up and banned her for life from the network. Not being an Ann Coulter defender or fan, it was still a shocking and stunning development to have a network media giant openly denying the right of free speech, something they should cherish and hold dear given their profession, because it was someone that they disliked and disagreed with politically. It was shades of the Soviet Union.

Today they have announced that they will, in fact, interview Coulter on their morning show tomorrow. In the process of stepping all over themselves in the past 24 hours, they have managed to promote Coulter and her new book beyond what even Coulter herself could have hoped for from the initial booking. Compared to what it routinely would have been otherwise, tomorrow the number of viewers will be huge and the benefit to Coulter greatly enhanced.

But the larger point looms. A longtime American media company did not stand up for freedom of speech but rather made a ham handed attempt to block speech they do not like. That is clearly anti-First Amendment, obviously un-American and blatantly dictatorial. It is loathsome and it reveals a fear of counter opinions. It is an attempt to manipulate and control what the audience is allowed to hear, think or consider. Bottom line: it is as dangerously threatening as things can get in a free society.

Worse yet, it appears to go hand in hand with Democrat party led efforts to impose the "fairness doctrine" to the medium of talk radio. As proposed, that doctrine also attempts to squelch free speech in the sense that it forces equal time requirements on broadcasters relative to opposing views. In the end, as everyone knows, it would shut down talk radio because it would require stations to devote half their broadcast time to a perspective that would drive away their audience and thus their sponsors. Not long thereafter, talk radio programs would go out of business, which is the whole intent of the "fairness doctrine".

Note this sword can cut both ways. It has been the case at the conservative web site Townhall that censors will eliminate any reader's ability to comment if those same Townhall censors do not agree with or like the nature of posted comments, even though those comments are not in violation of Townhall posting policy. No warnings are given. No reasons are provided. The right to comment, in other words the First Amendment right of free speech, is just summarily and dictatorially shut down. Townhall is thus as guilty as NBC or the Democrat party in Congress when it comes to unjustified and arbitrary censorship.

Such a trend on either side of the political divide will lead, should it continue, to the end of the inalienable right of liberty for the American people. Debate, disagreement and discussion are fundamental to a free society like ours. There is no business, political or personal excuse for denying the right of free speech when it simply represents a position different from those in charge. That is our heritage. That is part of what has made this country great.

Shame on NBC. Shame on Townhall. Shame on the Democrat party members in Congress who are striving to silence talk radio. In this country, the people are free to speak their minds and promote their views. In turn, audiences are free to agree or turn away.

The First Amendment is good for all of us and good for this nation. Tread lightly.


Coulter booked for 'Today' show

Conservative author Ann Coulter will appear on Wednesday’s “Today” show, according to an NBC spokesperson. Coulter has been talking up being bumped by NBC for the past two days, both on other networks and the radio. A controversy erupted when Drudge splashed that she’d been “banned for life,” leading NBC to deny that she was banned, and later offering her a new segment.
On her website, Coulter writes that "Drudge gets results: Today show changes mind." She'll be appearing during both the 7 a.m. and 10 a.m. hours.

So in the end, NBC will probably get more viewers and Coulter will sell more books—or at least further convince those in her camp that the MSM isn’t on her side. Either way, it should be entertaining.

By Michael Calderone

Sphere: Related Content

THE FAR LEFT LOVES HAMAS TERRORISTS

This photo captures the essence of the dedication that the far left has for the terrorist cause of Hamas. For the most part, there is no intellectual honesty in that support. The majority of the reaction on the far left, both here at home and around the world, is motivated by hatred for the United States, hatred for Israel or, unfortunately in a few cases, anti-Semitism.

A good place to begin considering the lefty position is to look at the facts. Here are a few:

1. Hamas is a terrorist organization that was founded on the principle of destroying the legitimate State of Israel, a country created under the direction of the United Nations, all the while killing as many Jews as possible.

2. Destroying a nation is illegal under international law as is the willful and indiscriminate slaughter of innocent civilians.

3. Under the United Nations Charter and international law, every country in the world is entitled to the right of self-defense.

4. Israel has exercised immense patience and restraint as, over time, Hamas shot over 6,000 missiles pell mell into the Israeli civilian population, killing innocent non-combatants including children. In many instances, Israel cooperated with a variety of efforts by the international community to mediate that problem. None of it did any good.

5. Hamas is widely disliked by most all Arab governments.

6. Arab nations throughout the Middle East routinely refuse to take on Palestinian refugees, leaving them trapped in Gaza and at the mercy of Hamas.

7. Hamas is a brutal, murderous, terrorist organization that has no mercy and cares little for the welfare of everyday Palestinians. To Hamas, the civilian population in Gaza is only valued as human shields, to be manipulated as a propaganda tool to gain international sympathy, especially from the far left and their media mouthpieces. In fact, the more innocent Palestinians die, the better it is for Hamas. They have no problem with that.

Yet it cannot be concluded that far left logic is limited to such obviously flawed reasons for supporting Hamas. There is more to their rabid protests against Israel than meets the eye of the casual observer. It has more to do with what is and always will be their 'big bad wolf'.

Setting anti-Semitic sentiment aside, the left most certainly has no use for Israel. They claim that it is an illegal state, a wholly false assertion, that has no right to exist. Thus for them, supporting an organization dedicated to the elimination of Israel, like Hamas, fits their false reality. It is important to note that one consistent characteristic of the far left has always been the ability to ignore the facts and proclaim the lie whenever it is convenient to do so for the good of their cause. Appropriately, their sycophant media allies obediently promote the same fiction. In their world of anything goes, the ends justify the means.

But there is an even larger force at work here. Our domestic far left, as well as the far left throughout the world, hates the United States of America. Since we are the most staunch and committed ally of Israel, the far left must, by deduction, be in favor of Hamas. After all, the more Hamas succeeds and the more Israel fails, the more damage is done to us and our standing.

The truth is that the left hearts Hamas because of it's visceral hatred of America. It fits their greater agenda to do so. The link below to the web site of the Workers Party of New Zealand is provided as an example of the left in action. Communists, terrorists, dictators, tyrants, theocratic tyrannies like Iran and other thugs worldwide support Hamas. That makes anti-American sense and is consistent with far left doctrine.

Free peoples, on the other hand, deplore the fighting and mourn the innocent victims on both sides. They long to see a permanent end to the fighting in the region and they literally as well as figuratively pray for peace amongst the peoples of the Middle East. Most importantly, they do not support terrorists or their organizations.

We all know from history that there are no easy answers to the conflicts in that part of the globe. Well intended people have worked tirelessly for decades to bring peace and harmony there. It has not worked.

Hamas, and the far left, will not allow it.

THE WORKERS PARTY OF NEW ZEALAND

Sphere: Related Content