Italy offers 2,000-3,000 troops for peacekeeping force

Good for them.  Good to see the Italians putting the Frenchies to shame.  Even without Silvio, the US can count on Italy.  Or rather, freedom and oppressed people of the world can count on Italy.

 Chavez cuddles up to Ahmadinejad

The Axis of Evil has been gaining members at a rather alarming rate.  Syria joined by hitching its horse to the Persian juggernaut.  Russia is a silent partner, having been providing nuclear technology to Iran and undermining US and EU-3 attempts to halt Iran's march to the nuclear bomb.  China, likewise, fits the category of silent partner.  Although in view of their subsidization of NKorea and collaboration with the mad midget of Pyongyang, one must wonder whether the PRC is really a silent partner of the Axis of Evil.

Chavez is combining east and west, bringing together the occidental with the oriental.  Chavez has formed alliances with the Communist government of Evo Morales of Bolivia.  Chavez provides energy subsidies to Cuba (and Massachusetts).  Chavez has made new arms and materiel purchases from that silent partner, Russia.

Chavez has been cultivating ties with the dictatorial regimes of the Orient for some time, with commercial ties growing stronger. And now this:

"We stand by Iran at every moment, in any situation," Mr Chavez said in Tehran after receiving the golden High Medallion of the Islamic Republic from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Venezuela, Syria and Cuba were the only countries to oppose referring Iran to the UN Security Council at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in February.

That sounds an awful lot like a pledge of military support.  While it may be easy to dismiss third world dictatorships incapable of operating one day without rampant corruption, it may not be wise to do so when they all appear to be gathering together. 

And they say UBL would never cooperate with a secularist; is UBL more of a fundamentalist than Ahmadinejad?  The enemy of my enemy is my friend.  Me and my cousin against the world; Me and my brother against my cousin; I'll take care of my brother.  People who claim Islamofacists would never cooperate with someone who is secular are either willfully blind, or painfully stupid.

A pressing situation grows ever more pressing as the membership of the Axis of Evil grows and the administration listens ever more to those who seek its demise.  (See Axis of Evil, part II for a previous examination of this topic).

Olmert defended his centrist coalition, saying it had been in power for only two months when the war broke out.
"We don't have a lot of time to talk about what happened. We have to talk about what will happen..."

I'm sorry, that may have been the reason you were unprepared, but, as the leader of your country, you cannot make pi**ant excuses.  Either say that it was not a mistake, or not poorly executed, or admit it was a mistake, or poorly executed.  Triangulating for a middle ground does nothing but avoid responsibility and is not acceptable for a grown man, let alone the leader of a powerful country.

PM Olmert tried to redeem himself with this:

Olmert also ruled out peace talks with Syria as long as it supports "terror organizations," calling the country a "committed, aggressive member of the axis of evil."
Earlier Monday, a top government official suggested it was time to resume talks with Syria despite its support for Hezbollah.

Whoever that clown who suggested negotiating with an unrepentant Syria was, he ought to be thrown out on his ear.  One gains nothing from negotiating with terrorists, while surrendering one's integrity.  The same goes for terrorist regimes (remember Hama) or regimes that support terrorism.  When one lies down with dogs, one shouldn't be surprised to stand up with fleas. 

How in the name of anything holy did Ariel Sharon pick this guy to be his second in command?  The Israelis were all behind the need to dislodge Hezb'Allah and got a leader who tried to knock out a hornet's nest with a fly swatter.

Iran plans multi-faceted response

August 22 promises to be interesting.  My bet is that it is slightly anti-climactic, but that's because the pessimist in me thinks Iran may conduct its first nuclear test.  Realistically, that isn't very likely, but if it were possible, it would be more than a political defeat for the US: it would be a diplomatic and military defeat (in the sense of an inability to deter such action).

What is the most likely scenario for Iran on August 22?

Iran will either refuse to accept the EU-3 and US demands or it will use them as a basis for starting negotiations, as though the last several years hadn't happened. 

In response to this, I can't see anyone other than the US imposing sanctions, and the US already imposes sanctions, so that isn't going to hurt Iran.  The EU-3 will continue to agitate for diplomacy, proving once again, that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly, while expecting different results.  The EU-3 will likely follow Iran's lead to use the "final" demand as a basis to start negotiations.

In sum, 22 August 2006 will be more of same: more intransigence from Iran, more capitulation from the EU-3, more calls for patience from Foggy Bottom, and yet more criticism of the US's unilateral push for war.

If I'm wrong, I'll have to leave this post up as a lesson in humility.  That said, while past results are no sure indication of future results, they certainly provide a basis for prediction.

Conservative court to hear NSA appeal

Does that mean the headline for the first court said something to the effect, "Liberal court halts NSA program"?  For some reason I doubt it.

The article describes the original judge as "District Court Judge" or "appointed by President Carter", while it invariably refers to the 6th Circuit as "conservative".

Why do conservatives need to be labeled as such, but liberals do not?  Don't really care to know the answer, just trying to make a point.

Annan accuses Israel of violating truce

Israel bombed ratlines from Syria.  Hezb'Allah continues to smuggle weapons.  Annan singles out Israel for condemnation, while he calls on "all parties" to respect the arms embargo. 

Would it kill him to condemn Hezb'Allah?

This, of course, demonstrates the colossal ineffectiveness of the UN.  This is the second UN resolution requiring Lebanon to disarm Hezb'Allah.  The UN has had a "peacekeeping" force (UNIFIL) in southern Lebanon for more than two decades.  Has anything been accomplished?  I mean, beyond the empowering of terrorist organizations at the expense of legitimate governments.

If only the UN were merely useless, instead of an active force for the forces of injustice and disorder.  The UN fails to act to protect any minority group, save the Palestinian refugees, who live in squalor in UN established refugee camps.  The UN did nothing to protect the Tutsis, Kosovars, Sudanese Christians, Bosnian, noncommunist Vietnamese, Hmong, non-Khmer Cambodians, and the list can go on and on.  

Fine, the UN does not intervene to protect those who cannot protect themselves; they ought to keep their yaps shut when someone else intervenes.  The UN ought not undermine those who do what the UN was established to do.   

European churches condemn Israel

Who knew there were churches in Europe?

And I love the line about Hezb'Allah being a scapegoat.  What are they being a scapegoat for?  Israel's economic success?  Israel's successful, pluralistic democracy?

Or maybe Hezb'Allah is a scapegoat for Lebanon.  Hezb'Allah is not really holding Lebanon hostage.  They are merely a scapegoat.  Hezb'Allah is not really a terrorist entity, backed by Iran and Syria, dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic republic in Lebanon.  They are merely a social services organization and political party that just happens to be better armed than France.

I've discovered the funniest website on the internet:  English Al-jazeera.  I recommend this site to everyone, excepting those who take life, and things out of their control, way too seriously.

Let us stipulate, for the sake of argument, that Islam is a religion of peace, and that jihad means an internal struggle.

Does this mean that we are to ignore persons who claim to be Muslims who say the opposite?

I am not qualified to say what Islam is or is not, but I am able to both read and listen, and it seems as though UBL, KSM, al-Shibh, Yousef, Atta, Reid, Zarqawi, and many others tend to disagree with the idea of jihad as an internal struggle.  What is more, they argue that not only does Islam sanction their actions, but demands their actions.

Airport security is not the place to debate theological issues as to what constitutes true Islam.  To do so, is as dangerous to Muslims as it is to anyone else.

If, if Islam is a characteristic positively correlated to engaging in acts of terrorism, then it ought to be taken into account when creating a workable profile.  (See Profiling for a brief examination of what is used in creating a workable profile). 

So why is CAIR getting a detailed tour of O'Hare security procedures?  (WorldNetDaily article; thank you to The Corner and View from the Right).  It is terrible if Muslims are painted with the same brush that viscious terrorists are painted with, but if they want to avoid being painted as such, it is their responsibility to repudiate the terrorists and reclaim their religion.  CAIR and other groups, however, are apologists for HAMAS and Islamic Jihad.  So-called "moderate Muslims" in Britain justify attacks on Britain and Israel. 

Either terrorism is justified by Islam or it is not.  Either jihad means an internal struggle, or it is not.  Either Islam is a religion of peace, or it is not.  The evidence is not all in yet, but it is mounting.  And it is not mounting on the "moderate" side of the scale either.

Fox demands entry to henhouse

The Arab League has declared the US backed "roadmap to peace" dead and lays the blame at Israel's feet.  The latter point is too stupid to rebut, but the former may deserve a comment.

Is the roadmap dead?  Obviously it was unable to achieve its goals by its self-imposed timeline (two state solution by 2005), but is it really and truly dead?  Israel has withdrawn from the "occupied territories" (excepting the Golan Heights, which deserves comment later).  Palestine has finally held elections again, removing one corrupt kleptocracy and replacing it with a murderous kleptocracy.  Israel's security fence has allowed it the ability to confront two terrorist armies at the same time--the Palestinian HAMAS and the Iranian Hezb'Allah.  Suicide attacks are down.

It seems that the reason that the Arab League wants the "roadmap to peace" to be dead is because its provisions are too favorable concerning the Israelis.  Now that Israel is weakened, in the eyes of the Arab world, it is time to renegotiate.  (When I am weak, how can I negotiate; when I am strong, why should I negotiate?)  The Arab League backed the "roadmap to peace" when Israel was seen as invincible, but now that Israel's invinvibility is dented, the roadmap allows Israel too much.

The end goal of the Arab League is the destruction of Israel and anything that advances that goal is good.  Now that Israel is weakened, why shouldn't the Arab League attempt to achieve that goal a little quicker?  There is blood in the water and the Arab League wants to go for the kill.

Now about the Golan Heights: Gaza was originally Egyptian territory, but Egypt has renounced its claim on Gaza.  Therefore, Gaza is rightfully the domain of the Palestinians because it cannot belong to Israel.  The West Bank was originally Jordanian territory, but Jordan has renounced its claim on the West Bank.  Therefore, the West Bank is rightfully the domain of the Palestinians because it cannot belong to Israeli.  This, of course, ignores when Jordan and Egypt took this territory: after the UN announced the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine. but that's neither here nor there.

The Golan Heights, unlike the West Bank and Gaza, have never been renounced by Syria.  Therefore, this is an occupied territory that must not belong to the Palestinians.  The pattern is that as long as somebody other than Israel has the land, it's okay.

Why does Israel continue to hold onto the Golan Heights?  Is it to monopolize the fishing on the Sea of Galilee?  Or is it to protect the citizens on the southwest side of the Sea from having Syrian missiles raining down on them?  If Syria were a responsible actor, Israel would not feel compelled to hold and defend this outpost.  Syrian agression, past, present, and promised, forces Israel's hand.  Israel must hold the Golan Heights in order to protect her citizens.

UN investigates sex abuse allegations in Congo

The same organization that investigated the UN Oil for Food scandal, and found no corruption; the same organization that investigated the murder of Rafik Hariri (or is that still on-going?), without finding any direct involvement of anyone... Any bets on whether or not the UN finds anyone at fault? Anyone?

Didn't think so. The UN is dedicated to the proposition that no one is at fault, unless they are Israel or the US, or possibly Britain or Australia. It's a elite group of nations that are responsible for their actions. Apparently none of the other nations have reached the age of reason, after which they may be held accountable. Or perhaps, other nations must be judged by their own standards, rather than by any universal standards--we'd hate to offend anyone by imposing a Judeo-Christian set of standards on them.

Moral relativism strikes again. Sorry, some things are wrong.

Why did the UN investigate the death of Hariri, but not the death of Yitzhak Rabin?

Abbas calls unilateral ceasefire that the other militant groups deny signing up for.

If Israel reciprocates, then Abbas will declare victory.  That'd be two "losses" in less than a month for Israel.  Israel cannot win for losing.

"Hamas has rejected Israel's demands to renounce violence or recognize the Jewish state. Israel has cut ties with the government and refused to transfer tax money it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, making it impossible for the Hamas government to pay full salaries to its employees."
--Considering the corruption of the preceding government, it'd be interesting to know what kind of salaries these thugs are drawing.

"A senior Hamas official said the group's political leaders decided last week to halt rocket attacks on Israel but was waiting for an Israeli gesture in return."
--Considering the end goal of Hamas is the destruction of the Jewish State, I can't imagine they'd be content with anything short of Israel's self-immolation.

A little recent history may be instructive.  Israel seized the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights when Arab nations invaded Israel.  Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan (West Bank) have renounced their claims on land Israel took during those invasions.  Syria still claims the Golan Heights, however.

But how did these strips of land become a part of each of these respective states?  Arab states invaded the newly formed Jewish state after the Palestinians rejected the UN partition plan.  These nations paid no heed to a UN mandate and invaded, seizing land not their own.  Why are these states not expected to abide by UN mandates?  Why are the accepted borders of Israel those of the post-invasion 1948, rather than those of the UN mandate?  (Granted, Israel was a patchwork under the UN mandate, but the question still remains.)

Iran ready to deal

For Pete's sakes; we've gone through this dog and pony show before.

Iran, under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, of which it is a signatory, is entitled to pursue peaceful nuclear energy.  Their hiding the reactors and their program tend to demonstrate a non-peaceful purpose to the Iranian nuclear development.  The world community is under no compulsion to believe the bald statements of a dictatorial regime.  In fact, when the actions of that dictatorial regime demonstrate the falseness of the claims of the regime, the world community has an obligation to disbelieve that regime.  The burden of proof is on Iran.

Secondly, Iran is a terrorist state.  Iranian secret police have murdered dissenters living in foreign countries.  Iran has called for the death of individuals and offered bounties for completing the murder.  Iran has funded and supplied Hezb'Allah.  According to Bodansky, and others, Iran has offered safe haven and transit to Al Qaida members, and hosted meetings with Al Qaida.  Iran has called for the destruction of a nation that is a UN member state and a responsible member of the global community of nations.

Iran should not, no, cannot, be believed.  To believe Iran is to invite destruction, not just of Israel, as Iranian missiles can reach the heart of Europe, but of much of the West.  A nation the holds the US to be a "great satan" will likely attempt to destroy the US, especially when that nation is lead by a man with an apocalyptic worldview.  Let us remember the significance of August 22, as described by Bernard Lewis.

Iran is not a responsible actor and cannot be believed.  Iran has no motivation to behave in a responsible manner, as there exists no credible threat to deter Iran.  The UN is toothless, at best, and a facilitator of dictators and terrorists, at worst.  Post-modern, post-Christian Europe is cowardly.  The US has defanged itself by wanting to be liked rather than wanting to act in the interests of the US.

A brief note on profiling: race is merely one aspect in a complete profile.  Other factors must be included to have a complete, or even a workable profile.  These factors are age, gender, and behavioral activities positively correlated with a given activity.

One's race is important in profiling a murder suspect.  Homicides are largely intra-racial crimes: whites typically kill other whites, blacks typically kill other blacks, et cetera.  This does not mean that if one has a white victim, one has a white killer.  As stated previously, race is but one aspect.  The location of the crime scene, the location of the body, the victim's associates, behavior prior to the murder, and et cetera are all factors that must be taken into account in constructing a workable profile.

When we move to consider terrorism, we are confronted with differing behaviors and details that are positively correlated with terrorism and terrorists.  But race, ethnicity, and religion are ways that advance describing a suspect.  These are neither necessary nor sufficient factors for constructing a workable profile.  They do, however, add to the store of knowledge, that ,when taken into account with behavioral factors, produce a workable profile. 

To say that race cannot be used in constructing a profile is unaccountably dumb and produces no benefits, while producing weakened profiles, which in turn handcuffs law enforcement.

Iran claims Hezb'Allah victory as G-d's promise

What kind of alternate universe can we live in, when Hezb'Allah can even be given the slimmest shred of a reason to declare victory: they murder women and children; and they hide behind women and children as they attack Israel?  In sum, they are cowards.  They are men, and I scorn to call them so, without honor.

Hezb'Allah is a scourge, that like malaria (ie DDT), could be wiped from the face of the earth if not for do-gooders who do no good.  Hezb'Allah has no desire to achieve peace with Israel.  Hezb'Allah only desires peace without Israel.  Terrorists cannot be negotiated with.  Terrorists must be shown the inside of a prison cell and/or force, not a negotiating table..

And now the UN will move in to keep the peace.  That sounds like a punchline, but sadly, it isn't.