Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers
Tuesday, December 02, 2008 |
|
"Love the Victims, Loathe the Killers" |
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
9:33 AM |
Shmuley Boteach pens a column certain to spark debate across the theological spectrum. (HT: Contentions.) Two paragraphs from the column:
As for my Christian brethren who regularly quote to me Jesus' famous saying, "Love your enemies," my response is that our enemies and God's enemies are different parties altogether. Jesus meant to love those who steal your girlfriend, cut you off on the road or swindle you in a business deal. But to love those who indiscriminately murder God's children is an abomination against all that is sacred. Is there a man who is human whose heart is not filled with moral revulsion against terrorists who target a rabbi who feeds the hungry? Would God or Jesus ask me to extend even one morsel of my limited capacity for compassion to fiends rather than saving every last particle for their victims instead?
Could God really be so unreasonable, could Jesus be so cruel, as to ask me to love baby-killers? And would such a God be moral if He did? Could I pray to a God who loves terrorists? Could I find comfort in Him knowing that He offers them comfort as well? No, such a god would be my enemy. He would abide in Hades rather than heaven. And I would be damned before I would worship him. I will accept an eternity in purgatory rather than a moment of celestial bliss shared with these beasts.
Here is an account of the funerals in Jerusalem of some of the victims of the attack on the Chabad House in Mumbai.
|
|
|
Tuesday, December 02, 2008 |
|
Do Terrorists Read Newspapers? |
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
8:57 AM |
The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stevens wonders whether terrorists are absorbing the worst narratives about their enemies that the media can serve up, thus allowing the killers to justify to themselves their atrocities.
Sensationalism can have terrible consequences, Stevens warns:
But it's worth wondering why a media that treats nearly every word uttered by the U.S., British or Israeli governments as inherently suspect has proved so consistently credulous when it comes to every dubious or defamatory claim made against those governments. Or, for that matter, why the media has been so intent on magnifying genuine scandals (like Abu Ghraib) to the point that they become the moral equivalent of 9/11. Some caution is in order: Terrorists, of all people, might actually believe what they read in the papers.
I still haven't found one MSM article pondering whether the New York Times'/Los Angeles Times' compromise of the Swift program two years ago might have made the task of tracking and discovering the Mumbai terrorists more difficult. It is the sort of question I guess we shouldn't expect the MSM to ponder.
Perhaps after terrorists strike the U.S. with WMD, media critics will begin to wonder whether the self-anointed guardians of the truth within the MSM were really serving the public's interest or their own.
|
|
|
Monday, December 01, 2008 |
|
MESSAGES FROM MUMBAI |
|
Posted by:
Michael Medved at
1:37 AM |
The savage, bloody attacks in Mumbai should remind every American that the threat of Islamo-Nazi terror remains very urgent and very real. Reports suggest that just ten terrorists succeeded in massacring 200 innocents and paralyzing India’s financial capital for days. The attacks also show the danger of retreat in the terror war: since the Congress Party took over India in 2004, with overwhelming support from Muslim voters, they’ve cut funds and urgency from the nation’s desperately needed counter-terror efforts. Since that time, more than 4,000 Indians have died—more terror victims than any nation other than Iraq. President-elect Obama may want to concentrate on economic issues, but his first priority must remain continuing the admirable security record compiled by President Bush in the seven years since 9/11, and continuing to protect our nation from devastating assault.
|
|
|
Sunday, November 30, 2008 |
|
When Crisis Strikes: 10 Steps for CEOs |
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
7:49 PM |
My friend Frank Dowse is the head of Agemus Group, a security-consulting firm. Frank's been in the business since his retirment as a Lt.Col from the Marien Corps a few years back.
Frank was my guest on Wednesday's show as the terror attacks in Mumbai were unfolding. I asked Frank what a CEO should do when he discovers he has employees in an area where a crisis develops. Frank sent along the this follow-up:
I would like to provide for you and your audience a more direct answer to the question…which was (paraphrasing) “If one is a CEO/COO tonight with people in Mumbai, what can they do? I’ll preface this with the situation that the attacks are already underway, and that the CEO is reacting, vice mitigating or preventing, security and crisis challenges in the future. A planning assumption is that there is communication with one’s employees, or at least we know what hotel they are staying, and their basic schedule of events.
“I felt totally helpless…What was needed was a Crisis Management Group in addition to the National Authorities to deal with this crisis”
Ratan Tata, CEO of the TATA Group, owner of the Taj Hotel, Mumbai, India
- Initiate/Designate a Crisis Response Team: If this is not an inherent function or area of responsibility within your organization, then assign a Point Man (COO/Vice President Level, with PR reps to assist) who can lead, authorize, and decide on behalf of the management, in order to best affect plans and responses as events unfold, and information is gathered. This needs to be a 24 hour operation, and should be given top priority for resources, and manpower.
- Start a Log, capturing time lines, significant events, persons, and exterior contacts and players.
Read More... |
|
|
Saturday, November 29, 2008 |
|
Terrorism In India |
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
10:09 AM |
Barcepundit has done all the work rounding up the key links.
Mark Steyn summarizes the grim significance of the attacks.
In the ten months before this week’s atrocity, Muslim terrorists killed over 200 people in India and no-one paid much attention. Just business as usual, alas. In Bombay, the perpetrators were cannier. They launched a multiple indiscriminate assault on soft targets, and then in the confusion began singling out A-list prey: Not just wealthy Western tourists, but local orthodox Jews, and municipal law enforcement. They drew prominent officials to selected sites, and then gunned down the head of the antiterrorism squad and two of his most senior lieutenants. They attacked a hospital, the place you’re supposed to take the victims to, thereby destabilizing the city’s emergency-response system.
And, aside from dozens of corpses, they were rewarded with instant, tangible, economic damage to India: the Bombay Stock Exchange was still closed on Friday, and the England cricket team canceled their tour (a shameful act).
What’s relevant about the Mumbai model is that it would work in just about any second-tier city in any democratic state: Seize multiple soft targets and overwhelm the municipal infrastructure to the point where any emergency plan will simply be swamped by the sheer scale of events. Try it in, say, Mayor Nagin’s New Orleans. All you need is the manpower. Given the numbers of gunmen, clearly there was a significant local component. On the other hand, whether or not Pakistan’s deeply sinister ISI had their fingerprints all over it, it would seem unlikely that there was no external involvement. After all, if you look at every jihad front from the London Tube bombings to the Iraqi insurgency, you’ll find local lads and wily outsiders: That’s pretty much a given.
Read the whole, very troubling thing, and then pray that the president-elect has as well. There's a good chance that Hillary knows the score, and certainly General Jones does.
It his Congressional allies that might not allow President-elect Obama to "grow in office" into a serious proponent of the war against Islamist jihadists. The early details of the sophisticated nature of the attacks in India in this article underscore the nature of the threat posed by jihadists, and not just in India, but anywhere within reach of a country that does not itself have the means or the will to suppress jihadist activity within its borders.
Perhaps some kind soul will send the Office of the President-elect a crate of The War Against the West. Every member of the incoming White House staff could use many doses of Wright, Frantz and Collins, Steyn, Burns and the rest.

|
|
|
Wednesday, November 26, 2008 |
|
Terror Attacks In India and a Threat In NYC |
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
3:12 PM |
The attacks in India will catapult theABC report of a threat in NYC to the top of every newspaper tomorrow.
Check the Times of India, CounterrorismWatch and Belmont Clubm, for updates.
When highly coordinated attacks like those in India unfold, the families of victims have to wonder whether the attacks might have been prevented but for the blows to surveillance of terrorism suspects brought about by leaks such as those involving the Swift program that tracked terrorist financing. The New York Times defended its actions and those of the Los Angeles Times at the time, but it is in the aftermath of deadly attacks that we should all revisit the recklessness of MSM in dealing with such matters.
No one will ever be able to prove whether an uncompromised Swift program might have penetrated such a big ring of terrorists, but at the time of the controversy, I did interview the Los Angeles Times' Doyle McManus, who admitted that the story might have helped terrorists elude capture. When hell breaks loose, we ought to remind ourselves that the media has in the past decided for itself when security could be breached.
The villains are the terrorists, of course, but their lives are made easier by every leak of a national security secret.
The War Against the West goes on.

|
|
|
Thursday, November 20, 2008 |
|
The War Against The West --Radical Shia Front |
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
9:46 AM |
From the Jerusalem Post (HT: Drudge):
"We are ready to do whatever is demanded of us" in order to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, IAF commander Maj. -Gen. Ido Nehushtan told German magazine Der Spiegel in an interview published Tuesday.
Nehushtan told the magazine that whether a military strike is eventually decided upon is a political question and not an issue of Israel's military capabilities.
A strike against Iran's nuclear facilities "is a political decision," the IAF commander said, "but if I understand it correctly, all options are on the table… The Air Force is a very robust and flexible force. We are ready to do whatever is demanded of us."
Iran's uranium stockpile is growing:
Siegfried Hecker of Stanford University and a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory said the growing size of the Iranian stockpile "underscored that they are marching down the path to developing the nuclear weapons option."
Anyone who takes comfort in reports that Iran hasn't gone nuclear yet should read Douglas Frantz's and Catherine Collins' Nuclear Jihadist --which details how A.Q. Khan guided Pakistan (and North Korea) to nuclear weapons and how the world was stunned when Pakistan flipped its nuclear switch. Iran has far more industrial capacity now than Pakistan did then, and the idea that it isn't pursuing a complete nuclear program is absurd.
My lengthy interview with Frantz and Collins are among those compiled in my new book, The War Against the West. Send a copy to any skeptic of Iran's intentions, or to anyone unfamiliar with the full scope of the two-front war the West faces against both radical Sunni and radical Shia forces.

|
|
|
|
|
|
Your Blog Postings:
|
|
Last updated 19 Minutes 43 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 21 Minutes 37 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 25 Minutes 20 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 26 Minutes 41 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 33 Minutes 29 Seconds Ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archives of our Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs
|
|
| | | |