Tagged: war on terror Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • backyardconservative 1:20 PM on 12/12/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , war on terror,   

    Women at War 

    (I’m without adequate words this morning, so I’ll let this photo speak for itself. Because I am so tired and heartsick of these jihadis. But this is a hopeful post.)Hearts and minds. Tribune.

    Related posts here, here, here. …and here.

    And this: Condoleezza Rice Smacks Down Katie Couric’s Insulting, Ignorant Depiction of Iraq War

    The WikiLeaks Vindication of George W. Bush. For the record.

    not women in direct combat, though, which I tend to think is the right policy.

    –crossposted at BackyardConservative

     
  • backyardconservative 9:39 AM on 12/01/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , war on terror,   

    So while stoning a woman for illegal sex, for instance (rajam), is not done everywhere, the penalty is ‘on the books’ 

    It’s not in Oklahoma yet, but the BBC story on Sharia in Indonesia ignores the broader issue. Via Jihad Watch. Comment featured above.

    I see the Tribune has another op-ed pooh-poohing concerns. Have you seen these kind of columns in your local media?

    Do liberals really want to defend this?

    I’ve wondered for years when feminists, and gays, would join us in recognizing this theocratic, terrorist intolerance threat.

    …On the books. We’re not talking about, say, a law that may be still hanging around like Wisconsin’s mandate that a slice of apple pie can’t be served without cheese, or that Harvard professors may graze their cows in Harvard Yard.

     
    • Yukio Ngaby 11:25 AM on 12/01/2010 Permalink | Reply

      You wrote: “…On the books. We’re not talking about, say, a law that may be still hanging around like Wisconsin’s mandate that a slice of apple pie can’t be served without cheese, or that Harvard professors may graze their cows in Harvard Yard.”

      No, the commenter was talking about Sharia law being intrinsically part of Islam.

      He wrote: “The problem with sharia is, yer honor, that it is ‘Allah’s word’ expressed as law…it is sealed in cement, every part of it…It may not be enforced uniformly in every location, for various reasons, but it is always, ‘on the books'”

      Sharia law is not a monolithic thing. It is interpreted differently by various Muslim schools (often for political gain) and comes from multiple secondary sources (not merely the Koran) that are not generally agreed upon– one school believes cleric A’s interpretation should be included, another school says absolutely not, etc.

      The commenter’s wrong by the way. Yes, a form of Sharia IS practiced by all Muslims, but what’s “on the books” varies greatly from one school of Islam to another. Islam is NOT a single religion. Just as Christianity is not a single religion.

      • fuzislippers 6:45 PM on 12/01/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Wouldn’t it be interesting to see what commonalities there are in Sharia? You know, those pesky little things that seem to crop up in every instance that it is applied. Baselines, like women are property, lopping off various body parts is a wonderful deterrent and punishment, and . . . oh, let’s see, non-Muslims are treated under a different set of principles, rules, and laws than Muslims. There must be others, though, whatever might they be?

        • Yukio Ngaby 9:07 PM on 12/01/2010 Permalink | Reply

          Lopping off various body parts and women as property are not universals of Islam Fuzzy…

          The idea of women as property certainly did not originate with Islam, nor did harsh penalties for breaking laws.

          • fuzislippers 7:26 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

            Wow, Yukio, really? Which Muslim state or country doesn’t lop off hands, feet, heads for punishment and doesn’t deem women as property? Seriously, which one?

            • Maia 12:22 PM on 12/07/2010 Permalink | Reply

              Seriously?!?

              The whole “lopping of hands, feet, heads”- I assume the “hands” is in reference to Saudi Arabia? Reality check- In Saudi Arabia, ONLY after three previous convictions for theft is a hand removed as punishment. If you don’t think you could sell this as a good idea to social conservatives here, check out the popularity of three strikes laws in general (despite their lack of efficacy) and do a quick survey. I imagine you’d be surprised. In addition, keep in mind that Saudi Arabia is the ONLY Middle Eastern/Islamic country that actually practices this.

              By the “heads, etc” I assume you are referring to the death penalty in general? Yeah, gee, the U.S. doesn’t have a death penalty… Oh wait, we totally DO!!! We don’t give the death penalty for say, adultery (zina), but NEITHER DO THE VAST MAJORITY OF ISLAMIC STATES. Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran are outliers in this case, not the norm.

              This isn’t a defense of fundamentalism OF ANY KIND. The point is that Islamic fundamentalism is not inherently different from or worse than Christian fundamentalism (who are just as eager to treat women as property). The differences between these mostly have to do with the conditions of colonialism. You can ignore that if you choose, but it makes you wrong-headed.

              • Quite Rightly 2:35 PM on 12/07/2010 Permalink | Reply

                Maia: Why don’t you look up “cross amputation” before you lecture people on the cruelty of fundamentalist Christians, who, by the way, authored the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.”

    • backyardconservative 1:44 PM on 12/01/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Yes. True. There are numerous hadiths. But. That’s kind of a problem too, isn’t it. Because the hammer could come down on you if you live in a country, say, like Indonesia, which is migrating to a more radical form of Islam, at least in this province.

      The dominant form of Islam is Sunni Wahhabist–the most radical, well-funded and, yes, violent. And if you live in Shiite Iran, well, you could be just dragged out of your car and beaten to death. Or shot on the street.

      Sharia law and Islam does call for the supremacy of Islam, doesn’t it? That non-believers are second class citizens. And it’s OK to put special taxes on them or even kill them if they don’t submit. Depending on your interpretation.

      • Yukio Ngaby 9:02 PM on 12/01/2010 Permalink | Reply

        You: wrote: “Yes. True. There are numerous hadiths. But. That’s kind of a problem too, isn’t it. Because the hammer could come down on you if you live in a country, say, like Indonesia, which is migrating to a more radical form of Islam, at least in this province.”

        Not quite sure what you’re saying here. Are you saying that the various forms of Islam are all a bad thing because any Muslim could radicalize at any time?

        Yes, Indonesia is in the midst of a pretty important political struggle. After Suharto was deposed, Muslim radicals (a distinct minority) emerged within the country, made proper political allies, and are now a significant political supporter of the Yudhoyono administration. They push for the de-secularization (is that a word?) of the country. All of this was absolutely ignored by Obama in his Indonesia trip BTW.

        Radical Muslims are significant players in Indonesia in similar ways that white supremacists are political players in Europe. They have enough reliable, fervent clout to swing close votes– so they are courted by the mainstream political parties.

        BTW, Aceh has been pushing for political independence from Indonesia since the 1970s. It was pretty much the tsunami that forced a (most likely temporary) diplomatic solution to the problem. Aceh is a special case among even the Indonesian provinces that have greater administrative and legislative autonomy. In 2003 it instituted a form of Sharia as its legal system– bypassing Indonesia’s secular laws and also can legally receive direct foreign investment– which includes money from Islamic radicals especially Saudi Arabia.

        You wrote: “The dominant form of Islam is Sunni Wahhabist–the most radical, well-funded and, yes, violent.”

        How do you come to this conclusion? Based on what criteria makes it dominant? Wahhabi is certainly not the most popular form of Islam in terms of numbers of believers– not by a long shot. Since it is dominant in Saudi Arabia there’s a lot of money associated with it and it’s aggressively promoted especially in the Muslim world– but I don’t see Wahhabi as being anything that could be described as dominant.

        You wrote: “Sharia law and Islam does call for the supremacy of Islam, doesn’t it? That non-believers are second class citizens. And it’s OK to put special taxes on them or even kill them if they don’t submit. Depending on your interpretation.”

        Well, everything is dependent on one’s interpretation. All forms of religion believe that they are the truth and thus bestow certain privileges on their members. The special taxes and killing non-believers is hardly a universal belief within Islam.

        The problem really comes about when there is no separation between church and state. I addressed this problem when talking about gay marriage (the govt. not having the authority to dictate what constitutes being sacred– such as the institution of marriage), but the point holds true for other countries as well.

        • backyardconservative 10:13 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

          The supremacist belief is inherent to Islam.

          That is why some brave Islamic scholars have called for reform. Islam could use a reformation.

          • Yukio Ngaby 10:26 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

            Yes, Islam does need reformation, especially in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, among aother places. However, saying Islam is evil and Sharia is trying to take over the world, does not encourage reform.

            Reform has to come from within, but can be supported. As I have said before, the trick is finding the people and countries who are legit and have a chance of succeeding.

          • Maia 12:16 PM on 12/07/2010 Permalink | Reply

            “The supremacist belief is inherent to Islam.”

            Actually, the supremacist belief is inherent to ALL Abrahamic religions (Christianity and Judaism included). That’s what makes ALL of you people hard to deal with…

            • backyardconservative 4:02 PM on 12/07/2010 Permalink | Reply

              No other religion sets itself forward as an entire body of law that non-believers must adhere to.

              And does any other religion punish those who wish to leave with the threat of death?

              Some Islamic countries may not enforce this but it is there. Hanging over people’s heads.

          • Maia 12:24 PM on 12/07/2010 Permalink | Reply

            Sure, Islam could use reformation. As could, oh, EVERY religious institution out there.

            The point is that your focus on Islam is 1) factually, observably based on falsehoods and myths and 2) inspired by fear that is promoted to you because your fear induces you to support the oppressive policies of powerful entities in the world (most of whom are NOT Muslim/Islamic).

            • backyardconservative 4:03 PM on 12/07/2010 Permalink | Reply

              I suggest you be more specific. Unless you’re afraid of “the oppressive policies of powerful entities”.

    • Quite Rightly 2:17 PM on 12/01/2010 Permalink | Reply

      “Do liberals really want to defend this?”

      You could try asking the sweet young thing who innocently brought what she called an “Islamic” dish as her contribution to our family’s Thanksgiving dinner table.

      In her liberal circle at least, it seems, apple pie with Wisconsin cheese is now considered as passé as Christmas and the Constitution.

      • Yukio Ngaby 9:10 PM on 12/01/2010 Permalink | Reply

        My wife (not a Muslim BTW) loves couscous. Should we never serve this at Thanksgiving?

        • Quite Rightly 7:26 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

          Yukio–How non-PC of me! I should have realized that it is outré to suggest that Islamic dishes are not traditional fare at an American Christian table.

          I did take note, however, that the sweet young thing did not call her recipe “Moroccan” or “Lebanese” or “Middle Easter, or whatever, but “Islamic.”

          I used to prepare and enjoy couscous at least once a week. Got a fantastic recipe from a friend who married a Middle Eastern guy. Haven’t eaten it since 9/11.

          • fuzislippers 7:29 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

            lol, QR, Yukio can serve whatever he likes at his Thanksgiving table, but there is no way it’s traditional American Christian fare. He knows this. My guess is he’s becoming alarmed by the rightward swing of the ideological pendulum, right, Yukio?

            • Yukio Ngaby 10:19 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

              No. I’m being alarmed at the attempts to segregate American populations, the emerging “us vs. them” mentality, and the push to control people’s lives.

              Is that a result of a rightward swing?

            • Quite Rightly 10:55 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

              Yukio–Sometimes it is “us versus them,” and I vote for us.

              I’m not the only one who has noticed that Islam is in continual war with every group that is non-Islamic and always has been. Or what is it that happened to all the non-Islamic populations of the Middle East that pre-existed Islam? Yeah, everyone else just decided life as a Muslim is so much fun.

              I was minding my own business on 9/11, but somebody else declared war on me and my family, friends, associates, and countrymen. Just because every single member of the group that declared war on us isn’t an active combatant doesn’t mean that the group as a whole is not dangerous. Every single citizen of Germany wasn’t in uniform, but that didn’t make Germany a non-threat.

              And about that “control” thing. As I’ve told you before, I think you’d seriously rethink who believes they should force control over other people’s lives if you spent some time as a female around Muslim men. I have, and it ain’t pretty.

              Here’s a thought experiment for you. Imagine that you are wearing a burqa and a face veil and sitting in the back of the mosque. What’s your life like now?

              • Yukio Ngaby 11:14 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

                You wrote: “Yukio–Sometimes it is ‘us versus them,’ and I vote for us.”

                Sometimes. But not now– not by a long shot. And I see no reason to make it so now.

                You wrote: “I’m not the only one who has noticed that Islam is in continual war with every group that is non-Islamic and always has been. Or what is it that happened to all the non-Islamic populations of the Middle East that pre-existed Islam?”

                Are you talking about the pagans circa 400AD that pre-existed Islam? You’re going to go back 1600 years? What about the Mayans and Aztecs that pre-existed Christianity in the Americas? Proof of Christian imperialism? Really?

                You wrote: “I was minding my own business on 9/11, but somebody else declared war on me and my family, friends, associates, and countrymen. Just because every single member of the group that declared war on us isn’t an active combatant doesn’t mean that the group as a whole is not dangerous. Every single citizen of Germany wasn’t in uniform, but that didn’t make Germany a non-threat.”

                WWII didn’t start because a group of Nazis blew up a building. Do you really want to declare war against 1.57 billion people (including millions of American citizens) because a dozen or so radical Muslims committed mass murder?

                You wrote: “And about that ‘control’ thing. As I’ve told you before, I think you’d seriously rethink who believes they should force control over other people’s lives if you spent some time as a female around Muslim men. I have, and it ain’t pretty.”

                You’re right. It’s not.

                But the pragmatic question is what are you going to do about it? What can you do about it? Especially when it’s happening in another country? Declare war? Force them to behave in ways that you agree?

                If you think reformation can come from attacking their religion, then we’ll have to kill many, many people to accomplish this. Are you advocating this course?

                • Quite Rightly 10:35 PM on 12/03/2010 Permalink | Reply

                  Yukio – Your definition of push back and mine are quite different, it seems. Maybe environment has something to do with it. I live in a Progressive paradise where people go out of their way to brag that they know “a Syrian” or “an Iraqi,” always stressing “what wonderful people” they are, as though knowing a Syrian or an Iraqi qualifies them for a Progressive Medal of Honor for exquisitely PC tolerance. I have heard people return from a Muslim country and the “endearing trait” of the villagers to lie to them. Immediately following 9/11, our family doctor grandly embellished the wall of his waiting room with a large poster of a beautiful Muslima in a pink gauzy veil with a gorgeous little baby girl perched on her knee to show the peasantry where his real loyalties stood. My email box was filled with frantic missives worrying that there might be “push back” on Muslims. One guy took to wearing a “sympathy turban” around town to ostentatiously demonstrate his support for supposedly threatened Muslims. I guess he wasn’t waiting to find out whether or not his family members, friends, and associates had survived 9/11. One woman told me that having an apartment overlooking the smoking ruins of the World Trade Center (as happened to a young friend of mine) was “not at all traumatic.” On Sept. 11, 2001, my bookseller sent a letter to the NY Times placing blame for 9/11 on the U.S. as a “rogue nation.” Got it published, too. Even to this day, at Thanksgiving, when it’s 30 degrees outside in rural New York and families are eating roast turkey, mashed potatoes, and hot apple pie, a young woman shows her “open-mindedness” by gracing the table with an “Islamic” dish meant to be eaten in an sub-Saharan desert during a holiday she never heard of, never mind celebrated. Etc., etc., etc., etc. etc. Talk about snooty, self-serving, PC “redeemers”. Ugh.

                  Now, I don’t propose making war on every Muslim that I run into; in fact, I’m pretty sure I’ve never said even one rude word to a Muslim, which is a great deal more courtesy than some Muslims have shown me. But I definitely am not quietly caving in to politically organized Muslim demands–particularly the demands of foreign Muslims or those funded by foreign Muslims (known Hamas co-conspirators), nor am I willing to support the politically expedient notion that Muslims, by virtue of their very existence, should be handed the keys to the city, the school system, NASA, Ground Zero, and/or Justice Department because I am happy no subscriber to their ideology/ideologies has killed me today. I am not in the business of handing out free passes to enslave children, hold open season on Jews, Christians, and Sikhs, or import any brand of Shariah law into our country as some kind of faux First Amendment right.

                  My freedoms are mine and earned for me by people who sacrificed blood, treasure, and lives, and I’m not giving up those freedoms to make anybody happy. Education is a good place to start. The romantic ideal of PC tolerance for any ideology that rolls down the pike doesn’t stand up to the sobering reality of the Islamic missionary world view, which is so stern that Muslima fruit pickers feel compelled to turn in one of their neighbors for capital punishment because she doesn’t subscribe to their religion and resists the insult of being told that she can’t drink from the same water bucket, just because she is one of the last remaining Christians in their country. Islam is not Christianity, with a set of Commandments lending a relatively peaceful and charitable structure to a society, and that’s obvious. We have plenty of legal means to preserve our cultures in and out of courts; we don’t need to cooperate and we can resist both inside and outside of courts; and, as an obvious step, many European countries are tightening up their immigration policies; too late for them, but we might get away with closing the barn door in time.

                  • backyardconservative 10:18 AM on 12/04/2010 Permalink | Reply

                    Sobering reality all right. Well said.

                  • Yukio Ngaby 5:19 PM on 12/04/2010 Permalink | Reply

                    QR, don’t take this the wrong way. I like you. I know you to be kind and good-hearted person, and I respect the things you have written on your blog.

                    Despite the fact this comment is addressed to me, you’re not talking to me, nor are you addressing anything that I’ve said. Who are you talking too?

                    Exactly when did I advocate child slavery (a real prevalent problem in the US?), hunting Christians and Jews, having NASA engage in Muslim outreach (which I blogged about NASA’s idiocy), etc.? You are assigning to me values that I do not believe in and views which I have not espoused.

                    Perhaps it is time for this line of debate to be ended, and we shall simply agree to disagree.

                    • Quite Rightly 9:38 PM on 12/04/2010 Permalink | Reply

                      Yukio — Over on her Web site, Fuzzy has posted a wonderful Faulkner quote: “I never know what I think about something until I read what I’ve written about it.” And so it is for me.

                      I was attempting to answer the pragmatic question that you posed: “What am I going to do about it? What can I do about it? “It” being, in my mind, the ideology that leads to cultural acceptance of child slavery, slaughtering of non-Muslims, etc.

                      My experiences with Islam overall have been not at all like the romantic image that my (former) doctor wished his patients to accept: Islam as a beautiful Muslima in a pink gauzy veil dandling a gorgeous child on her knee. That fact is not a reflection on you. That’s a reflection on Islam.

                      I can’t say it any more mildly than that.

      • backyardconservative 10:26 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

        It does seem like this food offering was a political statement. From a guest.

        • fuzislippers 7:31 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

          It was and that makes it both rude and insulting. What is wrong with people? Why is it so hard to understand that we have a religion, a cultural heritage that we not only enjoy but consider just as integral to the fabric of our lives and traditions as those of any other religion and nationality. Except THIS is our country, our home. I’m so done with the PC crap. I’m a white, female Christian American, and I am not going to be “fundamentally transformed.”

          • Maia 12:30 PM on 12/07/2010 Permalink | Reply

            “What is wrong with people? Why is it so hard to understand that we have a religion, a cultural heritage that we not only enjoy but consider just as integral to the fabric of our lives and traditions as those of any other religion and nationality.”

            See, in this statement lies the problem. Not that you want space for your cultural traditions (which is absolutely reasonable and fair), but that YOU FEEL ENTITLED TO DEFINE WHO “WE” ARE and what “our” culture is.

            In what reality is the U.S. not a nation of immigrants, from MANY faiths? In what reality are American cultural traditions NOT a mish-mash of things from other cultures and things uniquely local? In what reality are American cultural traditions uniform across the U.S.?

            These things are the problem- that white, Christian U.S. Americans (both male and female) feel entitled to control the definition of who “we” are….
            Because WE’RE NOT ALL LIKE YOU.

            • fuzislippers 8:55 PM on 12/07/2010 Permalink | Reply

              I am entitled to define who “we” are, Maia, because it’s based in our nation’s long history and who we are on this blog. America is a Christian nation, we have traditions and culture, and these are not difficult to find or define. What is “American” is actually quite clear and easy to define. It certainly doesn’t exclude people of all races and faiths, but it does and always has required that people who emigrate here become a part of America. Not the other way around. Now, WE, the people, are being told that we can’t practice our faith freely, that we must hide our religious practices, that we must, in essence, deny who WE, the people, are to make room for a few who don’t like America and who wish to change her. That includes not only our traditional recognition of the Judeo-Christian faith and religion but also the very principles of limited government and the free market on which this nation is based. If you are not like WE, the people, and you do not value America, her traditions and culture, then that’s your choice, but it does not change what America is, nor who the American people are. BO is fond of spouting off about how HE defines America and the American people, and he’s dead wrong. So are you.

        • Quite Rightly 7:40 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

          I’m giving her a pass on this one. In our area, it’s not easy finding someone who hasn’t swallowed the Prog bait–hook, line, and sinker. I get to hear whatever the Libs are telling each other because they can’t imagine that anyone disagrees with them. It does get to be funny when you ask for citations so you can “read more about it.” I seldom encounter a Prog that can offer a source other than “I heard it from so and so.”

    • tennismom 6:04 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Multi culti recipes, no problem. Anti-Christian rhetoric in front of children is another matter. One of my Thanksgiving guests, a liberal man around fifty, whom I’ve known for fourteen years, led the conversation in the direction of bashing Christians for proselytizing. On a holiday, with six children/young adults at the table, I didn’t think this was appropriate. I was already a bit upset because everyone started eating while I was out of the room, and THERE WAS NO PRAYER. When I said to my guest that I found the subject offensive, he didn’t apologize and change the subject, as I expected he would, but argued back at me that he was just making fun of ‘proselytizing’. I suppose I should have pointed out that he was in effect proselytizing for secularism. Instead, I left the room, and the conversation (as I overheard) went on in the same vein for several minutes, making fun of Christians and conservatives for being racist and anti-gay and praising liberals for being tolerant and sophisticated. I said nothing further to criticize the man or his wife, and I sent them home with two pies and a bunch of other stuff. My family’s reaction was, ‘Mom, you shouldn’t have said anything.’ What do you think?

      • fuzislippers 7:36 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

        I think that he was incredibly rude and disgraceful. Liberals do tend to have no manners at all at times. He was in your home, no? Inexcusable. In my current It’s Time To Push Back and Defend Our Values mode, I probably would have asked for a word in the kitchen and requested that he respect my home, my children, and my values while he was dining at my Thanksgiving table. If he chose not to, I’d be A-OK with him leaving. With some pies, of course. :)

      • Quite Rightly 10:25 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

        tennismom- This is a difficult one because you want to be hospitable, especially at Thanksgiving. I think it’s okay to interrupt the meal for the grace, which can be done with a light hand and–to save embarrassment–a white lie about everyone’s thoughtfulness to wait for the prayer until you could be present.

        The bombardment of Christians for proselytizing is something I haven’t learned to confront successfully. I like your idea of noting that your guest was proselytizing for secularism. I think I’ll try it next time. Since you’ve known this guy for 14 years, you’ll probably have another opportunity to point that out, at a time more convenient for you.

    • Jill 7:19 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Sounds like you took a stand, appropriately, then took the high road when he didn’t take the hint.

      • fuzislippers 7:39 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Taking the high road is what got us into this mess. We can push back without being unChristian or abandoning good manners, there’s no need to sink to levels of rudeness, but I think it’s important that we stand firm against the onslaught and attacks on our American Christian values.

        • Quite Rightly 7:45 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

          I so agree with you, Fuz, but I do have trouble being “as wise as a serpent,” if you know what I mean. I just start gagging. The assumptions that are accepted as absolute, irrefutable, obvious truth out there are just staggering. The other day I took the time to have a conversation with an earnest young “scholar” about what he is certain is the “superior” state of medical care in Cuba.

  • pjMom 10:23 AM on 10/01/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , war on terror   

    Wife of a Wounded Warrior: “Army wives are like teabags. You never know how strong she is until she lands in hot water.” 

    Want to see what strength looks like? 

    Strength rocks a purple dress to her husband’s Purple Heart ceremony and smiles through tears.  Strength becomes his advocate, his appointment scheduler, his researcher for alternative medical treatments to restore their lives, his bedrock when he brings the war home. 

    I have the video of Bianca Baldwin giving a speech in honor of her husband, Special Forces Major Darren Baldwin, at his Purple Heart ceremony at pjMom.  Come watch and read “the rest of the story.”

     
    • Jill 7:29 AM on 10/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks so much, PJM. I watched the whole thing. It gives me hope for America.

      • pjMom 1:59 PM on 10/03/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Most welcome, Jill. It’s nice to know strong women still do stand by their soldiers … the divorce rate is incredbily high after 9 years of GWOT.

  • backyardconservative 6:40 PM on 08/30/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , war on terror   

    Chicago-Amsterdam Flight Terror Arrest 

    Boxcutters and cellphone taped to Pepto-Bismol. A test run.

    Checked the luggage to Yemen but boarded the flight to Amsterdam.

    Why Chicago.

    …Lots of activity lately.

    More here.

     
    • Yukio Ngaby 7:14 PM on 08/30/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I guess the good thing is that these two were caught.

      Gotta wonder how many dry runs have passed through the airport security before this…

    • backyardconservative 8:04 PM on 08/30/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Lots to wonder about.

      I suppose they let them get on to see who they would meet up with, once they saw no explosives.

      Still, it creeps me out.

  • nosheepleshere 8:14 AM on 06/12/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Mosab Yousef, war on terror   

    Save Mosab Yousef 

    Mosab Yousef is a man of extraordinary courage, a hero to the nation of Israel and a convert from a religion that demands blood sacrifice to Christianity.  The intelligence he supplied Israel led to the exposure of a number of terrorist cells and to the prevention of dozens of suicide bombings and assassination attempts on Israeli figures.

    For years, this man risked everything to stop terrorism and save innocent lives, but the United States Department of Homeland Security is considering deporting him.

    In 2007, Mr. Yousef came to the United States, where he converted to Christianity from Islam and applied for political asylum. The request was denied in February 2009, Mr. Yousef says, on grounds that he was potentially “a danger to the security of the United States” and had “engaged in terrorist activity.” His case has automatically proceeded to the deportation stage, and on June 30, 2010 at 8 a.m. he will appear before Judge Rico Bartolomei in Homeland Security Immigration Court in San Diego.

    Mr. Yousef is a native of the West Bank, which is where he would presumably return if he is deported and where Hamas would immediately seek to kill him. Under the Convention Against Torture, the U.S. has an international treaty obligation not to return people to countries where their lives would be at risk. That concern stopped the return to China of the Uighers at Guantanamo, and rightly so. It would dishonor the U.S. to deport a convert in the war on terror because our immigration bureaucracy is too obtuse to make even life and death distinctions.

    For this reason, I support the efforts to save Mosab Yousef.  Please visit the Save Mosab Yousef website to learn how you can help stop this rendition of a well-documented hero in the war against terror.

    Read more at No Sheeples Here.

     
  • backyardconservative 9:10 AM on 06/08/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , war on terror   

    Who is Fatima Mohammadi? 

    She’s been treated with incurious sympathy in a Tribune story yesterday. It was practically a Hamas PR piece, you know, the terrorist organization. More on this Iranian-born American from Steve Huntley (HT Pat Hickey):

    The main organizer of the flotilla was Turkish-based Insani Yardim Vakfi, described as a humanitarian relief fund but which, like some other Muslim charities, has links to Islamist radicalism. The Danish Institute for International Studies found the organization provided support to al-Qaida, including for the failed millennium plot to bomb Los Angeles’ airport, and to Algerian terrorists in Europe. A Chicago lawyer on the flotilla, Fatima Mohammadi, describes herself on her LinkedIn page as “national organizer” for Viva Palestina, founded by the rabid Israel-hater and Hamas sympathizer George Galloway of Britain, who is dedicated to delegitimizing the Jewish state.

    If this is a peaceful group why doesn’t it recognize Israel’s right to exist? Fatima arrived back at Chicago’s O’Hare airport the other day. Do we feel safer now? If this is a humanitarian group why did they object to their supplies reaching Gaza over land? More on Fatima. Al Jazeera has taken up her cause, naturally:

    Fatima Mohammadi, another activist on board the Mavi Marmara that Israeli soldiers stormed last Monday in an attempt to stop a flotilla of aid ships from reaching Gaza, was accused of attempting to smuggle banned electronic componants into Gaza.

    She told Al Jazeera through a spokesperson that she refused to dignify the accusation with a response.

    What were you doing Fatima? Are we talking iPods. How undignified. Maybe it was something to do with missiles. Via Gay and Right, Jerusalem Post with more:

    Also on Sunday, the IDF released a list of at least five passengers aboard the Mavi Marmara who have ties to terrorist organizations.

    They were named as Fatima Mohammadi, Kenneth O’Keefe, Hassan Ansey, Hussein Orush and Ahmed Omemun. It was unclear whether they were involved in the fight with naval commandos last week.

    O’Keefe, according to the IDF, is a known American-British anti-Israel activist who wanted to enter Gaza to undergo training and help establish a commando unit for Hamas.

    Another passenger, identified as an Iranian-American, allegedly tried to bring illegal electronic equipment into Gaza. A French national aboard the ship was identified by the IDF as a Hamas operative.

    Well, Fatima came home with a bandage and bruises. You know, 5 of the 6 ships were boarded with no incident for legitimate inspections under international law. Fatima’s ship attacked. Gee, why is that.

    Apparently she wasn’t just standing around peaceably.

    So who is Fatima Mohammadi? Such a victim. Crawling around the press deck. A real humanitarian, for sure. Fatima:

    Mohammadi says the activists intended to challenge Israel’s blockade of Gaza, but did not expect a violent confrontation.

    “We thought maybe, maybe there would be again a like an interference or an intervention, not allowing us to pull into the port. Similar to what they did with the other, but without the boarding. We didn’t expect it to be boarded. We honestly did not and that’s why there was a panic when they first started to try to board, and again they came loaded with heavily, like heavy, heavily armed,” Mohammadi said.

    Oh really? Israelis heavily armed with paintball guns? You didn’t expect to be boarded? What about all those knives on your team. Gas masks. Was beating the Israelis bloody with metal bars and stabbing them with knives just a little irrational exuberance? Like the chant.

    Do you know what they chanted on that boat? Fatima knows, don’t you Fatima. Perhaps that’s why you were smiling and looking quite pleased with your reception by gullible gum-chewing reporters at Chicago’s O’Hare airport.

    Whatever the humanitarian motives of the Irish party heading towards Gaza on the ‘Rachel Corrie’, the overall effect of this mission to Gaza has been to support Hamas.

    Did you see the Arab women’s headgear on Al Jazeera TV News before the assault? Did you hear what they were singing?

    Passengers on the Turkish vessel chanted: “Remember Khairbar, Khaibar, O Jews. The Army of Mohammed will return.” This was a reference to the prophet’s seizure of a Jewish-held oasis, the last Jewish settlement in Arabia.

    Most of the Jews were slaughtered and their leader, Kinana bin al-Rabi, was captured. He was tied down and a fire lit on his chest and, just before death, he was beheaded. His wife was then forcibly ‘married’ to Mohammed. This is the event that some of the Gaza ‘peace mission’ — though obviously, not the Irish — were celebrating in song.

    And no, this doesn’t justify anyone being killed. But do you really believe that the Israelis set out to murder people? If so, why did they kill so few?

    I really have to wonder if you faked your bandage, Fatima. Is there one under your headscarf too?

    Who is Fatima Mohammadi? Americans want to know. Chicagoans want to know.

    P.S. Hey Fatima–are you a bomber buddy of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn? Living on the South Side of Chicago and all. Did you work with them on this “peaceful, activist” mission?

    Ayers, Dohrn and Evans’ Code Pink have led several recent Free Gaza Movement initiatives, including attempted marches into the Gaza Strip. Dorhn was in the Middle East just last month on behalf of the movement.

    Come on Fatima. Steel yourself to tell us the truth.

    On Facebook she says her hometown is Tehran. How nice. Yet Fatima is an American citizen.

    …Are you really working for Iran Fatima?

    Related: Ayers and the Peace Activist Flotilla

    More. Iran’s Gaza-bound ships ready for clash with Israel – Ahmadinejad DEBKAfile

    For updates, go here (scroll down)

    –crossposted at BackyardConservative

     
    • nicedeb 10:56 AM on 06/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Ann! You have a suspicious mind. This Fatima has a honest face…she looks like a kind-hearted humanitarian to me.

    • backyardconservative 11:28 AM on 06/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

      For sure!

    • Quite Rightly 1:51 PM on 06/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

      The Tribune story starts out: “Were it not for a cloth bandage wrapped around her right wrist, Fatima Mohammadi might have passed as just another traveler. I had to laugh. She passes as “just another traveler,” with or without bandages.

      Born in Tehran, but with a U.S. law degree. When will we ever learn?

    • backyardconservative 2:33 PM on 06/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I know. It makes so so sick. And so mad. I used to be all for exchange programs and more legal immigration but clearly we need to be more discerning.

      I have to wonder again–why did her family leave Iran, hmm? Was it because it was such a great place?

  • backyardconservative 6:16 PM on 06/03/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , isra, war on terror   

    Make this viral for Israel. And for freedom 

    We Con the World. Music video via Powerline. The Flotilla Choir Presents

     
  • backyardconservative 9:29 AM on 05/10/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , war on terror   

    Ritual Nicks and Beating Women Lightly 

    The American Academy of Pediatrics gives a green light to advocates of Sharia law in the U.S who wish to perform clitorectomies on girls. Oh, they won’t characterize it that way, nor will their fellow PC apologists at Salon or the NY Times, but that will be the end result.

    Some unexpected revulsion over at Andrew Sullivan.

    Kind of like the polite Beating Women Lightly a U.S. imam suggested as a moderate way to mesh cultures. This undermines mothers and fathers who resist these barbaric cultural pressures, aided up until now by U.S. law and practice.

    We could also consider how abortion enthusiasts piously intone health exceptions for the mother for abortion. Just a little nick and that inconvenient tissue is gone.

    …Are they crying in the womb?

    And then there are Islam’s Nowhere Men. Fouad Ajami, WSJUnsettled by a world they can neither master nor reject.

    Let’s not be an accessory to their world mastering us.

    Mutilation and death of innocents are not the marks of a civilized society.

     
    • fuzislippers 12:39 PM on 05/10/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Sharia creep. I cannot believe that anyone thinks this is a good idea, but you nailed it with the “beating women lightly” comparison. Talk about a slippery slope. I don’t want to “mesh” cultures with misogynist abusive bigots. In fact, I’m pretty much over “meshing cultures” at all. Adapt or go back where you came from.

      • backyardconservative 2:41 PM on 05/10/2010 Permalink | Reply

        It shows once again liberals have no principles except the path of least resistance in attacking Judeo-Christian values.

    • Obi's Sister 5:45 PM on 05/10/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Ritual nicks? They should read Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book, Infidel. Then they will really understand you don’t get ritual nicks with a butcher knife.

    • Jill 4:41 PM on 05/11/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Amanda Marcotte doesn’t have a problem with this: “All they do is prick your genitals, or make a small cut that heals over, but nothing is removed. You’re basically scratching the girl.”
      http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/im_anti_tradition_but/
      From my post on this:
      You go first, Amanda. But it must be done without your consent, with no understanding of why it’s happening, and at the insistence of your only protectors, who will be at your side — to help hold you down. (Gee, this sounds almost like a violation of women’s rights.)
      http://www.punditandpundette.com/2010/05/use-and-abuse-of-girls.html

    • backyardconservative 4:42 PM on 05/11/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Well said.

      • backyardconservative 4:46 PM on 05/11/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Somehow I missed your post the other day. It really is amazing how these so-called feminists can rationalize anything. And obviously it extends further to sexualizing young girls. It is so sickening.

        It certainly not what I envisioned when I thought of myself as a feminist for a brief time back in the 70’s.

  • backyardconservative 8:44 AM on 05/05/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , war on terror   

    The latest threat assessment from the NY Times!!! 

    Those Dangerous Suburban Dads.

    Are you seeing this kind of coverage in your local papers or media?

    Is there a pattern here?

    Oh but the MSM knows the real threat: MSNBC Analyst Worries That Another Terror Attack Might Strengthen Tea Parties

    Yes, there’s a pattern.

    HANSON: Is There a Pattern Here or What?

    And Michelle Malkin on how this “suburban father” got citizenship.

    More. Carol’s Closet: Contessa Brewer: “Why can’t terrorists be white, Christian tea ba**ers like I want them to be?”

    Bread Upon the Waters: Pakistani Tries to Car-Bomb Americans; Therefore Americans Are Racists

    Nice Deb: The Disappointment of Truth That Doesn’t Fit the Narrative (those scary Grandmas)

     
    • rubyslipperblog 11:19 AM on 05/05/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I was wondering about Shahzad’s wife and children. Michelle’s article discusses sham weddings as a path to citizenship but does that necessarily mean that she believed the marriage a sham? I realize she is probably in Dubai and it sure looks like she is a participant here. Still I can’t help but wonder what her side of the story is.

      Also Michelle linked Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic who wrote:
      “This suggests that either he was a long-term sleeper agent (unlikely, for various reasons) or that he became over time immune to the charms of life in America, even Barack Obama’s America. Another unhopeful sign for the future of integration. “
      LOL, immune to the charms even of Barack Obama’s America? Was he supposed to be able to charm would-be terrorists into fine upstanding US citizens? Does that come before or after the healing of the planet I wonder.

    • backyardconservative 1:11 PM on 05/05/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I think I read in one of the articles that she was back in Pakistan, though she was obviously born here. She had a financial background too, so was educated and had some independence–and they lived together before they got married. It seems that he was radicalized and quit his job, but by then she had two little ones to take care of. I suppose she has relatives in Pakistan who could give her more material support but it does seem odd she wouldn’t choose to stay in the states, so you have to think she was somewhat supportive–though maybe not knowing all his plans.

      As for charms, well, as we see it wears thin.

      • rubyslipperblog 6:29 PM on 05/05/2010 Permalink | Reply

        I just read over at Hot Air that he has been on a travel lookout list since 1999 and the Feds were suspicious of him back in 2004. I would venture a guess none of this was kept secret from her so she had to have known something.

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel