Category Archives: Military

WarbotObama Kills More Non-Combatants

Foreign Policy, Israel, Military, Terrorism, War

When American armed forces working for warbotObama kill non-combatants in the Afghan theater, they are referred to in the press as NATO forces. MSNBC.com leads with the story that “A NATO airstrike in southern Afghanistan killed at least 33 civilians, the Afghan cabinet said Monday, an incident that is inflaming already heightened sensitivities over noncombatant casualties in the war.”

On the 15th, at least 10 people, including 5 children, were killed in Marja, with American rockets.

Face it, the forces might be deluding themselves that they are killing bad Taliban in Afghanistan, but they don’t really know who they are targeting. “NATO forces confirmed in a statement that its planes fired Sunday on what it believed was a group of insurgents in southern Uruzgan province on their way to attack a joint NATO-Afghan patrol.”

It turned out they were women and children.

On the other hand, the Israelis—in a spectacularly surgical operation—remove the blight of a terrorist from the face of the earth and the world, Israelis included, is fulminating.

Update III: Murder By Majority (Or Mercy Killing)

Barack Obama, Homeland Security, Islam, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Military, Propaganda, Terrorism, War

Barack Obama needed a war he could call his own. In Afghanistan, OB has found such a war. A meaty presence in Afghanistan has morphed into an all-out onslaught, with the attendant slaughter of innocence.

It wasn’t a daisy cutter of the Bush era, but a Himars rocket, an acronym for High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, that killed at least 10 people, including 5 children, in Marja, a Taliban stronghold in Helmand Province, to where Obama has taken his war.

The place is dotted with rural villages and villagers, so some are bound to be incinerated by American bombs. So far nothing about BO’s shame in the op-ed pages of the LA Times or the NYT.

Most Americans may approve of BO’s pet war, but murder by majority approval is still murder. Those Afghans who died today are involuntary conscripts—they get to partake of the wonders of American democracy only indirectly: a mob (of Americans) in a far-away land decided their fate. And by golly what a splendid job this mob has done.

Update I: THE MIGHTY TALIBAN.

“I don’t think you can really describe them militarily. It seems like a few guys taking potshots … and not terribly effectively, with some exceptions.”

That’s NYTs correspondent ROD NORDLAND describing the Taliban on the PBS News Hour today.

His Boy Obama and his General get top marks for mercy killings. When Bush finished off civilians it wasn’t nearly as kindly as when McChrystal does it under the divine inspiration of BO:

Remember “the — the wedding, one of several, actually, that was bombed a year or two ago,”? … “the Bush administration, you know, they just — it took them months to ever admit they had even done anything wrong.”

Barack, by contrast, is positively killing these kids with kindness:

“They were so quick to announce that, in fact, that it turns out they exaggerated, apparently, the number of civilians they killed. It turned out it was actually only nine, and there were also three Taliban in the house who were shooting from the house, and thereby, at least arguably, making it a legitimate target.”

To listen to NORDLAND, you’d think that BO brought back from the dead three civilians thought dead.

In fairness to this correspondent, the NYT was all for the previous warbot’s war as well.

During Bush’s war, “Fox News was able to create the perception of a parallel universe in Iraq replete with big (nuclear) bangs and miraculously materializing al-Qaida terrorists because its Hollywood-inspired vision resonated with viewers. The ratings provided proof. By popular demand, MSNBC, CNN, and the New York Times (This means you, Judith Miller) adopted a similar faux patriotism devoid of skepticism and serenely accepting of every silly White House claim.”

Everything is as it is in the USA.

Update II (Feb. 16): Thanks you Van Wijk for reminding the errant folks that, as I put it, “Our adventurous foreign policy might be a necessary condition for Muslim aggression but it is far from a sufficient one.”

Update III: I loathe rehashing arguments I’ve already won on this space many times over. Alas, this is the human condition.

Myron: Polls show a respectable percentage of Muslims condone Jihadi pursuits (search for some fresh data; I like those). If equaled by as many Jews and Christians, liberals and libertarians and elements on the American Right always helping to make the “Islamikazes'” case would protest as loud as you lot squealed over placing a bug in Abu Zubaydah’s cage. Hence the issue of fifth-column immigrants.

Back in 2005, “a leaked Whitehall dossier revealed that affluent, middle-class, British-born Muslims were signing up to Al-Qaida in droves. Translated into official speak by Timesonline, only ‘3,000 British-born or British-based people have passed through Osama Bin Laden’s training camps.’

And if that doesn’t allay unwarranted fears, ‘Intelligence indicates that the number of British Muslims actively engaged in terrorist activity, whether at home or abroad or supporting such activity, is extremely small and estimated at less than 1%.'”

In other words, 16,000 homicidal sleepers are loose in England!

These figures, of course, are statistically significant—stupendously so—given the barbarism they portend. Over this sort of astoundingly consequential number, our Myron is jumping for joy.

Such is the liberal mindset.

Update III: Why No One Robs A 7-11 In Israel:

Feminism, Gender, GUNS, Individual Rights, Israel, Military

The adorable, armed girls of Israel (via Walter Block). (I’d be careful not to shortchange the redhead.)

Clearly, mowing down Israeli soldiers on and off base is not as easy as it is stateside. When a Jihadi committed fratricide last year at Fort Hood, murdering 13 people and maiming 31, Lieutenant General Robert W. Cone, commander of III Corps at that based, boasted: “We don’t carry weapons here, this is our home.”

Invert that and you’ll arrive at my philosophy, and that of most patriots.

Be it on the border or on base, the American treason class proves over and over again that it hates its own.

As hateful as they are to some of Israel’s enemies, Israeli politicians (there is no such thing as a Jerusalem Elite) simply don’t hate their own as much as Washington hates its underlings.

Update I (Feb. 15): Unlike the US Army—and contrary to the utter ignoramuses who’ve called Israel a “bristling Sparta” without ever having visited there—Israelis society, its armed forces especially, is very informal. There is no jumping to attention every second; uniforms are worse than casual (positively disheveled, I’d say), etc. Women—again, unlike our crazy PC military—don’t go into combat. They serve in auxiliary roles, as they should. This does not mean they are unable to drop a Jihadi.

Update II (Feb. 16): Van Wijk makes an astute comment. These Israeli girls carry rifles as naturally as other women carry handbags or pooches, or adopted, exotic ankle biters. That’s precisely what’s so good about the image.

Update III: “Hottie with Krinkov Uses Live Ammo On Attacker.” This is an ad, yes? Which means it’s not real, right? So in a phony universe, where everything comes alive provided it’s on TV or YouTube, a scantily clad bimbo shooting off a machine gun—in real-life probably a lefty who opposes what she’s doings—this is better than ordinary kids buying candy, guns strung across their shoulders?

Phony, stylized illusion (model filmed shooting a nice toy) is preferred over natural, organic behavior (Israeli lasses)?

I give up. Or perhaps the reader was just joking.

The attempts to demote the Israeli youngsters, a representative sample of tens of thousands of such kids in that country, is pathetic.

As reader Alan Butler notes, “the 2nd lady on the right has a 30 round magazine in her belt. Only seconds away from lock and load!!!”

The girls’ outfits indicate to me that they are undergoing basic training, which mean these sweet things are all of 18! Babies.

Shame on their detractors. Most of you, in secret, wish you had such daughters.

Updated: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell For Hets & Homos

Etiquette, Feminism, Gender, Homosexuality, Military, Sex

In his “State of the Union remarks, President Obama said he would work with Congress towards repealing the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law on which the policy is based.” The Generals, sitting in the front row, remained conspicuously stone-faced.

Today the news was all a-flutter when a politician in fatigues, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “made an impassioned plea for allowing gays to serve openly in uniform, telling a Senate panel it was a matter of integrity and that it is wrong to force people to ‘lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.'”

As the top- old dogs of the military are replaced by younger, more hip men, faces will soften on hearing such ludicrous ideas. So will the will.

The issue can be solved by returning the military to an earlier formation of disciplined men, united in common purpose. The ubiquity of women in the military has introduced into its ranks rampant, promiscuous sexuality. Combine youth, on-hand studs, testosterone, abundantly available loose women, and enabling laws—and you’ve created an assembly line of unwed, welfare moms, operating in a sexually charged atmosphere.

Remove women from the military, and you’ve removed the toxic effects straight women have on esprit de corps (and on rates of illegitimacy and welfarism).

In this kind of all-male outfit, there is no need to parade sexuality, straight or gay. Think of an all-boy school. Yeah, some hanky-panky goes on, but clandestinely.

Gay men who’ve chosen a military career are probably inclined to keep quiet about their sexual exploits. If he is the very poofy, prancing type, who doesn’t shut up about his beloved or bathhouse exploits; then our gay military man is probably unfit to serve.

As a wise woman said back in 2002, “The closet, sadly, has come to signify oppression, not discretion.”

I propose restoring indiscriminate discretion.

My answer to this facile debate is thus, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” for all military men, hets and homos.

Update (Feb. 4): A while ago “some industrious Army general in Iraq sought to limit the wages of whoring in the military. Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo III, quite reasonably, issued a policy on Nov. 4, 2009, ‘forbidding pregnancy among his soldiers.'” Cucolo was shot down by just about everyone. His, however, is a reflection of a healthy traditional morality. So screwed up have we become—so corrupt a culture are we mired in—that we think that our “civil rights”; in this case the right to fornicate, impregnate, procreate on the public dime, must accompany us wherever we peddle our sorry behinds.

I suspect most individuals who associate gays in the military with prancing poofs who feminize the force have a stereotypical view of gays. Homosexual men are not necessarily feminine. Men who join the army are seldom feminine. Among the vocal DADT advocates I’ve seen on TV, none was feminine; in fact most were way manlier than Markos Moulitsas, the editor of the Daily Curse, who has served.

The point is to restore decorum and morals to an army in which everyone is sexing it up. See? Back in the closet, hets and homos.