17 May 2007

Islam, Democrats, and the ties that bind.

I'm beginning to like Raymond Ibrahim, especially his latest. He's a research librarian and author of the 'al-Qaeda Reader', a collection of translated religious and propaganda (how do you tell the difference, with Islam?) materials. His latest essay up on VDH's website is a sort of Islam 101, the basic dissection of why folks associate Islam with violence.

That being that Islam is, in and of itself, a fundamentally violent religion. I mean, there are all sorts of progressive Muslims trying to disassociate themselves and their religion from the ancient cycle of violence that began when the pseudo-prophet Mohammad first ordered the murder of poets and pregnant women. Some of them are nice guys, even. But pretending that there is a Koranic commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself even if thy neighbor happens to be a Jew or a Christian. . . That's an outright lie.

The latest point of contention is, of course, the three Soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division who were captured by enemy forces a few days ago. Given al-Qaeda's track record, it is safe to say that those Soldiers were tortured and murdered. The search continues, using every means available.

May God have mercy on the souls of those Soldiers, and may he grant peace to their comrades and families.

Of course, sez Nancy Pelosi, this is all a dirty, underhanded trick by the Administration. There is no al-Qaeda in Iraq. It's all lies, lies I tell you!

"My thoughts on the president's representations are well-known," Pelosi said. "The 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the president is resorting to it again."

Oh, wait. That was in November of last year. I'm sorry folks. It's so hard keeping up with the lies spewed by the Democratic Party leadership.

Meanwhile, in the interests of supporting the troops, Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton were engaging in public grandstanding by voting to cut off all funding for US forces. You can read about here, but what I think is even more surreal is the video clip of Hillary debating with herself about the Iraq campaign. That's one of the beautiful things about modern data storage and video search capabilities. It used to be that a politician could not be shown in color lying through his or her teeth. You had the stance of the week, and like good mindless subjects, we were supposed to forget that last week's official stance was totally different.

The elites in Washington are so used to lying without accountability that they no longer have the decency to admit to actually having changed their mind, without an excuse (George Bush lied to me!!). VDH takes them to task for this lack of integrity. A Second Hand Conjecture posits an explanation for the change in the Democratic Party stance.

Now, some folks have accused the Democratic Party of being treasonous in their support of al-Qaeda. Let's ask the Constitution of the United States of America what the definition of treason is.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Thank you, Mr. Constitution Man. It's always nice to get a definition of controversial or inflammatory terms.

So, does the Democratic Party's actions meet this definition?

According to the Washington Post, it does. h/t Ace of Spades.

Mohamad al-Janabi, a reputed al-Qaeda member in the nearby city of Salman Pak, said in a interview that he was unable to contact his comrades in Mahmudiyah to determine whether they were responsible for the attack.

But he added: "I can assure you that we will start pressuring Bush in a new way at the same time he is facing pressures from the Democrats and the American people. And there will be no problem to sacrifice 10 soldiers in order to abduct a single American soldier and get him on television screens begging for us to release him."

So, that sounds to me that according to at least one member of al-Qaeda (well, reputed member) is taking aid and comfort from their actions. And they are quicker to adhere to al-Qaeda operatives than US Soldiers, unless of course they think they can make some sort of political point by it.

Compare the outcry from Democratic congressmen over the treatment of al-Qaeda operatives in Guantanamo Bay vs. their position regarding captured United States Soldiers. Hear the resounding silence? Yeah, that's the Democratic Party position on US prisoners of war.

It's in this atmosphere that the LA Times writes a story about the Democrats attempting to overcome their anti-military image.

Oooooh. . . How nice. They want to include vets on their list of constituencies to buy with token monetary bribes while ignoring our real interests. I feel honored to be on a list with the other favored perpetual victims -- ethnic minorities (except Asians, who are too hard-working, economically successful, and well-educated to vote Democrat), queers, atheists, and radical feminists. While we are slinging the stereotypes, let's offend everyone. Who did I leave off the list?

That sort of facile pandering is proof, as if any more were needed, that very few Democrats have one iota of a clue what sort of person joins the Armed Forces.


Blogger Yuri said...

Nice circular logic there.

Since the Enemy wants us to withdraw, everyone must fight on or be guilty of treason.

Can we at least get a competent f'n plan before we send you back over?e

11:44 PM  
Anonymous Zach Bush said...

Who cares what some al-Qaeda numbnuts thinks about American political parties? I really have little opinion for the words from anybody who would very much like to blow up the train I ride to work every day. You're giving more credibility to the words of a latter-day Axis Sally than your own countrymen. This is a demonstrably deplorable human being saying these things, so why are you using his words as a leg upon which to balance your argument?

What's going on? Are you exaggerating for effect? Have they been winning the info war in a way that gets us to fight against ourselves rather than them? Has political discourse been so poisoned by this war that the only possible context is "with us or ag'in us?"

12:40 AM  
Blogger Just A Decurion said...

Zach: I am taking my countrymen and women at their word. Did you watch the video of Hillary lying out of both sides of her mouth?

Do you actually mean to say that supporting surrender and supporting the insurgents is not adhering to enemies of the United States? Please explain.

Yuri: We have a perfectly competent set of plans, they are in place, they are working, and if you'd pop out of the bubble the MSM wants to put you in, you'd know that.

Yes, I do mean to argue that winning or losing are the only two options in a war, and that those who support losing are the enemy. Thanks for asking.

3:43 AM  
Anonymous Zach Bush said...

Did you watch the video of Hillary lying out of both sides of her mouth?

No, for two reasons:

1) My impression of Hillary Clinton as a hollow sock puppet for the DNC is analogous to my impression of George W Bush as a hollow sock puppet for the RNC. Beyond this she is a walking infomercial of smarm and disingenuity who will baldly say whatever needs to be said to get elected. I have no doubt she can lie out of two sides of her mouth; if she had three sides to her mouth she'd find a way to go for the triple trouble as well. She would give us yet another 4 years, at least, of design-by-committee presidency were she elected, and the past 11 have been enough of that, thanks.

2) Work blocked the video, which I did try to access regardless of #1 so I could at least try to understand your context. Unfortunately I couldn't before I posted. If you think I should I will do so when I get home tonight.

Do you actually mean to say that supporting surrender and supporting the insurgents is not adhering to enemies of the United States?

Please explain where I even implied that. I am hardly a liberal talking point. If that's your impression of how I approach things then I have clearly failed at communication over the past few years.

The issue I take is with bandying about the words "treason" so casually. As a soldier in the U.S. Army you're arguing from a bully pulpit here whether you realize it or not. If it's with ye or ag'in ye, and with ye = no treason, then you're labeling anybody who disagrees with you as a traitor. Whether your views align exactly with the Constitution I leave to legal scholars to determine, but as you are presenting this is the definition held by John M. Atkinson.

By defining everybody who is not "with ye" as a traitor, well, what does that mean, exactly? What happens to traitors? The traditional method is firing squad, but hung by the neck until dead is still popular. A traitor is by definition worse than an enemy, because while an enemy opposes what you believe, a traitor has rejected what you believe. Enemies can become allies, but traitors burn in a society's collective hell.

I do not agree exactly with what you say. If there is zero nuance, that apparently means you think I'm a traitor and that I should suffer the fate of all traitors. Well, what the heck am I supposed to say to that? Do I call the actively serving sergeant in the U.S. Army on his hyperbole? How can a lowly U.S. citizen with treason in his heart possibly win that battle?

11:14 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home