ROE Cost Lives

New Media Journal alerted me to the existence of an article, which should be on the front page of every newspaper.

'We're pinned down:' 4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush

By Jonathan S. Landay | McClatchy Newspapers

"Whatever we do always leaks," said Marine Lt. Ademola Fabayo, 28, a New Yorker who was born in Nigeria and is the operations officer for the trainers from the 3rd Marine Division. "You can't trust even some of their soldiers or officers."

we waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away.

U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village.

Four Marines were killed and three more wounded in that incident. Blood and treasure are being wasted by politicians who osculate the enemy's ass. Our troops are being restricted from defending themselves efficiently and are denied air support by self serving politicians. This fact should outrage every loyal American on this eighth anniversary of the accursed abomination and should result in turning the entire Congress out of office. At minimum, we must turn Obama out of office in '12.

Take another long hard look at the first quote above. "Whatever we do always leaks." Get a clue. Afghanistan is Islamic. The politicians, police and arm are Muslims and most of them support the Taliban, not us. They can not be trusted.

Take another long hard look at the second quote. Lives were lost because the men waited an hour for promised air support. Lives were lost because artillery support was denied. Treason!!! That is the only word to describe this situation. The rules of engagement imposed by President Obama are costing us lives unnecessarily. We can not win this war without identifying the enemy and resolving to eliminate that enemy from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Both Bush and Obama lack the guts to do either.

I suggest a trip to the bathroom before reading the article, it will piss you off! The author was on the ground with the Marines, the article is up close and personal; anyone not outraged by it is morally defective.

Obamination: Health Destruction

Wave3 has a transcript of the remarks of the liar in chief. Obama is a liar and a hypocrite, accusing others of the same practices he engages in.

But what we've also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government. Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.

Well, the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed.

Democrats have consistently blocked Republican participation in the legislative process, voting down amendments on party line votes. Rep. Wilson was right: two amendments which would have inserted enforcement provisions against exploitation by illegal immigrants were defeated in committee.

Scare tactics?

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it. Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne.

That is an obvious appeal to emotion: sympathy for victims and fear that it could happen to us.

Obama claims that his plan will simultaneously cover more people for more services and reduce costs. Anyone who accepts such claims is a candidate for protective custody. The whole proposal is palpably uneconomic. We already have a shortage of primary care physicians and nurses. He is going to bring more people into the system, stretching it beyond capacity, and that is going to reduce costs. He is not considering overtime wages. He is not considering professional stress and burn out.

He is going to impose new restrictions upon insurance companies, reducing their profit potential, expecting them to reduce premiums, increase benefits and stay in business. Has he considered the precarious position of AIG and others in the current financial market? Of course not.

He promises that you can keep your doctor and your insurance plan, but the current legislation has provisions which will make that impossible. CSN News has an excellent article detailing Obama's previous lies some of which were repeated in this speech.

Anything Congress will pass and the President will sign will result in the destruction of our present system. Increased costs, decreased services, long waiting times and rationing are inevitable. There is no real possibility of avoiding the problems encountered in the British, Canadian & French systems.

Now is the time to say no. Now is the time to say HELL NO! Now is the time to scream God damn HELL NO!!!! Lets make it so loud and clear that it can not be ignored. Lets make sure that our representatives and senators understand that a yes vote on Obama Care means a HELL NO!!!! vote on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November.

At http://www.congress.org, you simply enter your Zip Code and click the Federal Officials link. Paste the following html code into the email form.

the bottom line

If your congress critter has any sense at all, seeing the page invoked by that link will convince him that you are serious about rejecting their vicious schemes and removing him from office if they persist in dragging us down the road to serfdom. Now is the time to make them understand that we know they are selling gold & delivering manure. We ain't buying anymore.

Extremism: Declining Support?

Pew Global Attitudes Project
Declining Support for bin Laden and Suicide Bombing

by Juliana Menasce Horowitz, Research Associate, Pew Global Attitudes Project
September 10, 2009

Eight years after the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Pew Global Attitudes Project finds that support for Osama bin Laden has declined considerably among Muslim publics in recent years.

The first graphic in the article depicts rejection of suicide bombing and violence against civilians. The % declaring it never justified ranges from 87 in Pakistan to 17 in Falestine. The mid range is 56/55 in Jordan/Israel.

Confidence in Usama bin Laden is reported to have declined from 34% in 2008 to 18% in 2009. The question was: " How much confidence do you have in Osama bin Laden to do the right thing regarding world affairs- a lot of confidence, some confidence, not too much confidence or no confidence at all" The question was asked about a group of leaders. Unfortunately, only the bin Laden results are reported.

Support for suicide bombing is graphed on another page. The bar chart is two dimensional, you must click years other than '09 to see their statistics.

Concerns about domestic extremism are charted on another page. In '09, concern peaked at 79% in Lebanon & Pakistan. Note that "not too concerned" is combined with "not concerned". Concerns about global extremism peak in Pakistan, Indonesia & Lebanon.

If support for bin Laden & al-Qaeda has declined, has support for Hamas, Hezbollah and other branches of Islamic terrorism declined? Is the decline a result of publicity surrounding merciless random killings in Pakistan? Is it permanent or temporary? How will it be affected if al-Qaeda brings off a mass casualty attack in Dar al-Harb before September 20?

Is there any reduction in approval of and dedication to Allah's imperative to conquer the world by genocidal Jihad & terrorism? Why don't they ask about attitudes toward the relevant Surahs of the Qur'an?

Obamination: Motivation

Obamination's motivational speech to the students was, for the most part, common sense. No system can produce good results with bad material. There is a difference between students and pupils. That difference is active participation. The two excerpts reproduced belowstand out from the rest.

You’ll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS, and to develop new energy technologies and protect our environment. You’ll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free. You’ll need the creativity and ingenuity you develop in all your classes to build new companies that will create new jobs and boost our economy.

Politicians sell gold and deliver feces. Most of his audience will never be scientists, mathematicians or doctors neither will they be captains of industry. Only a few will reach the top, and those will be the ones with the best abilities, best efforts and best luck.

The litany of social problems which the students will supposedly grow up to solve have been with us since time immemorial and always will be, they will not be solved, they will only be exacerbated by the efforts of Obamination and his ilk.

Your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need to answer these questions. I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn. But you’ve got to do your part too. So I expect you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don’t let us down – don’t let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it.

Education does not answer questions, it provokes questions. Maintenance of physical plant & provision of books, equipment & supplies are not federal issues, they are local issues. They are not part of the duties of the President.

I assume that the speech was heavily edited in the days before its delivery. I'd like to obtain the rough draft to see what was deleted.

Tell DOI to Increase Domestic Oil Production

An email from American Solutions asserts that "U.S. Department of Interior decides when and where we drill, and they decide based on public feedback."
American Solutions has a form letter prepared for us to sign and send. The text is editable, and I made good use of that feature. The deadline for comments is September 21, so it is vital that you make good use of this link now. YourEnergyOpinion.com.

The sooner we begin domestic exploration & production, the sooner we will diminish our suicidal dependence on an oil cartel owned by regimes which hate us. With the Obama administration and Democrat dominated Congress opposed to domestic oil production, an extreme quantity of public pressure is needed to influence the Department of Interior's decision.

If you want lower and more stable gasoline, fuel oil & natural gas prices, click the link above and send that email, then urge your family, friends and associates to do the same.

Tawfik Hamid: Reform Islam

Tawfik Hamid, writing at NEWSMAX, wants to reform Islam. Here are a few vital points from his article.

• Suspend the traditional teaching that Muslims must wage wars on non-Muslims to offer them one of three options: convert to Islam, pay jizia (humiliating tax paid by non-Muslims to Muslims), or be killed.
• Publish new theologically-based books of Islamic jurisprudence that stand against beating women, slavery, killing apostates, and other violent edicts of Shariah.
• As long as the Muslim world insists on teaching violent principles as mentioned earlier, the gap between it and the West will only increase, and the efforts to bridge the gap of civilizations will be inefficient.
• Once the Muslim world puts an end to the destructive points, the voices that emphasize the “common values” will be able to succeed in their great mission to make our world better.

The aforementioned "traditional teaching" is found in the Qur'an: 8:39, 9:29 & Sahih Muslim 19.4294. There is a problem with attempting to suspend teaching of Qur'anic doctrine. Allah's word describes itself as perfected in 5:3 "This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islâm as your religion".

Allah's perfect and final words can not be changed, Allah strictly forbids it. Allah said: "And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can change His Words." 6:115 & 18:27. Allah said "No change let there be in Khalq­illâh (i.e. the Religion of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism), that is the straight religion, but most of men know not." 30:30. Allah's messenger confirmed it with a curse: "'Far removed, far removed (from mercy), those who changed (their religion) after me." Sahih Bukhari 8.76.585.

The clear and absolute prohibitions are confirmed by Shari'ah. Reliance of the Traveller contains a list of acts which entail apostasy, which carries a death sentence. These items are included in that list. O8.7.

-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

-14- to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak'a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);

Allah's imperatives can't be re-interpreted because they are clear, 3:7, requiring no interpretation. Moe's Sunna shows us what they mean; read the book of Jihad or Expedition in any of the canonical hadith collections.

Jihad can not be abandoned because it is central to Islam; its very core. Too much of the Qur'an must be ripped out, the Sira & Sunnna truncated radically, likewise Shari'ah. Then there is Moe's execration.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:

I heard the Apostle of Allah, (peace_be_upon_him) say: When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.

Islam will no more be reformed than lions will become herbivores and graze with the sheep..

Uncommon Sense Applied to Islamic Insurgency

I was reminded of this excellent article by the current issue of the Gathering Storm newsletter. The link in the newsletter led me to Right Side News. Below you will find several excerpts from that article.[My comments are between the quotes.] You will also find links to more of the author's works.

How to Defeat Shari'a-driven Islam's Army for Jihad

By Colonel Thomas Snodgrass (USAF, ret.)

Aug 15, 2007

Today a debate rages. Part of the debate - certainly the most immediate component of the debate - is what to do with Iraq. To cut-and-run seems unthinkable when one considers the consequences. To stay and pursue existing strategies seems almost as unthinkable given the corrosive effects domestically and the lack of American will for another long drawn out war with no real end in sight.

How can anyone disagree with that analysis? A pullout will be followed by an internecine blood bath. No matter who comes out on top, it will be one of our enemies. In any case, Iraq will revert to status quo ante: a state sponsor of terrorism. Terrorists the world over will be empowered and emboldened to launch new attacks against us and our allies.

I have demonstrated, as have many other war analysts, that there is no such thing as a war against terror. The Global War on Terror does not exist. "Terror" is a tactic (see, e.g., What are the military options in Iraq? and Iraq and the War: A Military Reader's Digest). The war we are fighting is against men, cells, networks, regimes and peoples who embrace a hegemonic political ideology driven by traditional and authoritative Islamic law, or what is termed Shari'a. In our war against the Sharia-faithful, the strategic level encompasses all theaters of conflict and the interactions between them - Middle East, Africa, Europe, Pacific, Homeland, etc. Within the Middle East Theater, Iraq and Afghanistan constitute operational levels of war, while Baghdad, Fallujah, Kabul, and Kandahar are examples of areas of operation (AO) at the tactical level.

Why not come right out and write the truth: the enemy making war against us is Islam? To learn what Shari'a rules about Jihad, read Book O, Chapter 9 of Reliance of the Traveller.

It almost goes without saying that, if a belligerent is on the strategic defensive not attacking his enemy's center of gravity to end the war, but is nevertheless on the operational/tactical offensive actively seeking combat within a limited AO, a high number of friendly casualties are going to result. But friendly casualties in a drawn out limited war environment brings us back to the fundamental formula of war and the MOTIVATION factor. If a belligerent's domestic support base, especially in representative polities, will not tolerate significant, continuing casualties inherent in strategic defensive limited war, that belligerent cannot afford to undertake a drawn out limited war. Vietnam, and now Iraq, leaves no doubt about the veracity of that statement.

Got a clue yet? They are bleeding us to death, at least in our own perception and that of our media and politicians. Withdrawing from active defensive action, allowing Islam to inflict more casualties at home, without effective resistance is not the answer.

In Vietnam, the enemy's center of gravity was North Vietnam, and in Iraq it is in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. U.S. counterinsurgent operations in Vietnam were no more effective in their day than the surge will prove to be in Iraq. The lesson of Vietnam, and now Iraq, is that the strategic defensive or limited war, even when waged on the operational and tactical offensive, will only end if and when the enemy's motivation is impaired because its strategic CAPABILITY is unimpaired.

Trimming around the trees won't produce satisfaction, we must mow the lawn. Cut off their supply lines and interdict their reinforcements. No sanctuaries!!!

After 9/11, the U.S. went to war in the same wrongheaded way we have gone to war in every instance since World War II. In spite of the president's ringing rhetoric about permitting our enemy no sanctuary, even to the point of engaging the enemy preemptively, the U.S. again donned the national security straitjacket of strategic defensive limited war (Limited War Doctrine: A Fatal Flaw). The operative assumption underlying limited war postulates that even the most ardent ideological fanatics will accept stalemate or defeat before employing every means of warfare available to them and will not continue the war notwithstanding the continued capability to wage war. History has not borne out this sanguine assumption.

The idea that the U.S. wouldn't employ its ultimate means (i.e., nuclear weapons) has come to also limit the U.S. ends sought in the conflict. In other words, our refusal to use the ultimate weapon must mean we are not committed to ultimate victory in the form of the decisive defeat of our enemy. Instead, we seek "regime change" and "democracy-building" rather than unconditional surrender of all combatants. Indeed, counterinsurgency is the effort to maintain and build a civil society in and around limited kinetic battles with an enemy we don't seek to destroy. Rather than setting our strategic goal as the destruction of the enemy's CAPABILITY to wage war, we seek to contain, co-opt, integrate, re-integrate, and engage politically all in an effort to reduce the enemy's MOTIVATION to continue the war.

All of the parties in the Iraq conflict know that the CAPABILITY of both stateless Jihadi groups and state-sponsored Jihadi groups is sustained by the logistical centers of gravity located in surrounding states. But the U.S. strategic end of fighting a limited, defensive war confines operations within the border of Iraq. (See, e.g., This is No Way to Win a War!)

We must jettison our Cold War national security thinking featuring limited war and instead realistically reassume our World War II strategic offensive posture.

We should have nuked Tora Bora while Usama was still holed up there.

Insurgencies can be fought indefinitely if the re-supply lines remain open. This means that Coalition forces and their airborne assets are better utilized to prevent cross-border re-supply by striking depots in Iran than engaging in urban warfare at close quarters.

This implies cutting off communication between Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq so that the men, material and money can no longer cross the border at will and unimpeded. This implies an aerial campaign against the training camps and supply staging areas in Iran & Syria.

The U.S. must ruthlessly use our technologically superior ground firepower and airpower to fight an asymmetrical war that plays to our strength -- technology, rather than being lured into close urban combat which capitalizes on the suicide commitment of the Shari'a-driven Jihadists.

Whether in conjunction with the current combat in Iraq or at some later date, the Jihadi-sponsoring states of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and possibly Pakistan will have to be confronted militarily and the Jihadi centers of gravity destroyed.

U.S. gun camera film showing Jihadists being vaporized by Western weapons and emphasizing Islamic impotence should flood the Internet and the TV airwaves.

Rigid control of our borders and immigration policy is a must to stave off the inevitable attempts to attack us from within.

Click this link to read the entire article.
Other Articles by Colonel Thomas Snodgrass (USAF Ret.)...
How to Defeat Shari'a-driven Islam's Army for Jihad Colonel Thomas Snodgrass (USAF, ret.)
Strategy, Tactics and Winning Wars (Part Two of Two) Col. Thomas Snodgrass (USAF, ret.)
Strategy, Tactics, and Winning Wars (Part One of Two) Col. Thomas Snodgrass (USAF, ret.)
Is there a viable military strategy for disarming Iran? Part Two - What is 'Air Control?' Colonel Thomas Snodgrass (USAF, ret.)
Is There a Viable Military Strategy for Disarming Iran? Conclusion of Part 1
Is There A Viable Military Strategy For Disarming Iran? Part One (of Two)
This Is No Way to Win a War! Part One (of Two)

Colonel Snodgrass published his article at Family Security Matters. That organization publishes many excellent articles, visit their site and sign up to receive their newsletter.