Terror in Sri Lanka

From the Press Association:

A suspected Tamil Tiger suicide attacker bombed the opening ceremony of a marathon outside Sri Lanka's capital, killing a powerful government minister, a former Olympian and 12 others, the military said. Nearly 100 were wounded.

The bombing, the second this year to kill a senior government official, showed while the rebels might be on the defensive against a military onslaught on their heartland in the north, they retained the ability to launch devastating attacks deep in government territory.

The rebels have fought since 1983 for an independent homeland for ethnic minority Tamils after decades of marginalisation by governments run by the Sinhalese majority. More than 70,000 people have been killed.

Scores of runners and onlookers gathered at the starting line of the marathon in Weliweriya, about 12 miles, from Colombo, part of the national celebration of the upcoming Sinhalese New Year.

Yet again, another reminder of how dangerous the world has become.

Defying the system of economics

I drove past the gas station the other day and I couldn't help but notice that the price of fuel went up 11 cents OVERNIGHT, bringing the overall cost to $3.56 a gallon. That of course, is just at Arco...at Chevron, the price is $3.65. Those of us in the San Francisco Bay Area have the honor of having some of the highest prices in the US.

I've reached the conclusion that the "law" of supply and demand is no longer relevant. For one thing, fuel supplies have been up, oil production is strong, and the demand for gasoline has been going down...yet the prices continue to rise, completely defying the system of economics. The question is, who's to blame? Some blame the oil companies, others blame the government, whether it be the Republican Administration OR the Democratic Congress (both of whom have done very little). To be honest, I don't really care who's responsible, I just want someone to fix it.

The real issue:

I couldn't help but laugh when I read this. Just recently, another report was released and offered further proof that the hysteria that is global warming is nothing but a crock, just as I have said on this blog many times. It always seems that these global warming predictors are finding ways to contradict themselves, including the back and forth predictions on hurricanes. Instead of running all these adds proclaiming that we need to "solve" global warming, we should be working to find alternative and more efficient energy...without having to make up some fictitious problem starring Al Gore and a bunch of other alarmists. There is no doubt we have an energy problem, but we should be trying to solve it without having another pretense. Talk about the need to cut back on fossil fuel consumption and the need for a new energy source is everywhere, but it seems that its always followed by the warnings and fear tactics about global warming and how it needs to be stopped. In the end, the threat of $4 per gallon gasoline will probably frighten people a lot more than Al Gore getting up on a lift, pointing to a chart, and preaching about how the destruction of humanity is imminent (unless of course, we listen to him).

Please, not another one...

Last week, Hollywood released its latest propaganda film "Stop-Loss"...and just like the many others that have managed to get into the theatres, it is has tanked at the box office. We all remember movies like "Rendition", "Redacted", "Lions for Lambs", and "In the Valley of Elah"--all of which embraced the same anti-American message and subsequently failed miserably to make a decent profit.

If you read some of the reviews in newspapers like the San Francisco Chronicle, the writers will try to make it seem as though these movies are failing with audiences because of "war fatigue", meaning that people generally agree with the message, but after hearing so much negative news coming in from Iraq, they want nothing to do with it, even watching an antiwar film.

However, I must say that sounds like BS to me. The reason these terrible movies are failing is because the vast majority of Americans who find themselves to the right of moveon.org do not want to pay money, sit in a movie theatre, and hear about how terrible and evil the United States is, regardless of their political affiliation.

I prefer Red Eye Host Greg Gutfeld's analysis, which I must say sums it up pretty good.

Recently, I had the miserable experience of watching the movie "Shooter", the Mark Wahlberg film about a government conspiracy that managed to do a little bit better at the box office. The truth is, my attention slowly drifted away towards the middle of the film, so I don't remember the full plot...just the clever little messages about the Iraq War, Donald Rumsfeld, and the guy wearing the "Che" T-shirt.

In order to achieve real peace, war may be necessary at times

I found a very interesting article on the "Daily Mirror", a Sri Lankan media outlet. The article is about the escalation in fighting between the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, an insurgent group that is seeking the creation of an independent state and has employed many tactics that have been copied by other extremist organizations around the world. Anyway, there is a big debate in Sri Lanka and among the international community over whether or not a full-scale offensive by government forces to crush the rebel movement is the best option, or if a true peace agreement combined with aggressive diplomacy would be a better road to take. Well, the government and the LTTE have already made up their minds, and have engaged in fierce fighting in the north in recent weeks, along with the LTTE's continued use of bombings and ambushes. The thing is though, much of this was happening even when both sides had signed onto a peace treaty.

When I read it, I couldn't help but think of the debate here in the United States over foreign policy. How often do politicians exchange views over whether or not we should engage Iran and Syria, or demand we withdraw from Iraq even before the insurgency has been defeated. Perhaps the USA has more in common with a tiny island-nation in the Indian Ocean than we might think. The big difference though, is that Sri Lanka's leaders are debating the next step as the fighting rages in their own backyard. Imagine if our leaders were debating the war on terrorism while it was taking place on our homeland and American cities were under siege from mortar shelling, gunfire, and suicide bombers like Sri Lanka has been dealing with for decades.

In my opinion, war is sometimes necessary to succeed in making the world a safer place in the long run, although a complex war like the one in Sri Lanka might be more difficult to address. Decisions like removing Saddam Hussein and the Taliban from power and intervening in Bosnia are certainly critical to achieving peace. No matter how hot the debate gets, sitting back and allowing someone like Saddam Hussein to massacre his own people is far from achieving "peace", and withdrawing from Iraq early would be the same.

Diplomacy is the best option available if the two sides actually want peace. For example, conflicts like the one in Northern Ireland have been resolved by doing so. Israelis and Palestinians seem to want peace, and have been holding talks even as terror groups like Hamas do everything possible to sabotage them. In the end, that conflict will have to be resolved through dialogue, and I believe that both sides understand that given the horrendous suffering the 60-year conflict has caused.

At the same time, we cannot be nieve and live in a fantasy world. Proposals like the one being suggested by Pakistan's new Prime Minister to "engage" with the Taliban (yes, the same Taliban that has been gleefully massacring Pakistanis with nail bombs, assassinating the country's leaders, and setting it on a path of death and destruction) will only lead to failure.

Peace is a difficult road and there is no single solution to acheiving it.

Dancing for genocide

Found this in the New York Times:

The heavy fighting that broke out last week as Iraqi security forces tried to oust Shiite militias from Basra is reverberating on the presidential campaign trail and posing new challenges and opportunities to the candidates, particularly Senator John McCain .

The fierce fighting — and the threat that it could undo a long-term truce that has greatly helped to reduce the level of violence in Iraq — thrust the war back into the headlines and the public consciousness just as it had been receding behind a tide of economic concerns.

How cute. As the Iraqis finally take a stand against the Iranian axis of terror that has wrapped southern Iraq in a death grip, we have none other than the biased media once again beating the drums of failure. But wait, it gets worse:

The Democrats, who are calling for phased troop withdrawals, are beginning to point to the fighting in Basra as evidence that the American troop buildup has failed to provide stability and political reconciliation — particularly if the fighting leads one militia, the Mahdi Army , to pull out of its cease-fire; that could lead to a new spate of sectarian violence across the country. Some are saying the fighting strengthens their case for troop withdrawals.

Is anyone willing to look past their own personal politics anymore? Do we really have to go back on this road again? Please people, go back to debating issues like abortion...talk about the economy...run vicious campaign ads, but please don't drag innocent people into this. This is a time where we should be supporting the Iraqis' decision to route out these terrorists and criminal elements that are loaded with Iranian cash and weapons. This is not about right and left...its not about George W. Bush, and its not about the presidential election. Instead, its about our moral values and the difference between right and wrong. For the sake of preventing the slaughter of innocent people, let's finish the job and not make the same mistakes we did with Basra in 1991, when we abandoned the Iraqi Shiites and left them at the hands of the Republican Guard.

Culture battles

In South Thailand, where the Muslim World meets the primarily Buddhist realm of Southeast Asia, the cultural differences have amounted to conflict, war, and bloodshed. Unlike the Middle East and Central Asia, where homicidal fanatics have justified their actions by hijacking the religion of Islam and are using it to accomplish a political agenda, this conflict seems to be happening because of religious issues that are not understood among the opposing sides, and unfortunately, the failure to do so has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people.



On a daily basis, its not uncommon for South Thailand to experience multiple shootings, bombings, or other extremist attacks. Some target security forces, others target schools and religious institutions.

Volunteer Assistance:

The failure to reach an understanding in South Thailand makes it that much harder to try and provide aid to the many people who are suffering due to the violence. For example, Northern Thailand, which is considered to be very peaceful, has numerous community development projects taking place where the locals and international volunteers are working together. If the religious differences in Southern Thailand could be addressed by the local people and the international community, the same action could be taken there as well.

On a personal note, I should add that Thailand is at the top of my list for countries to volunteer in next year, in addition to Tanzania.

Democrat infighting and Iran's antics: Which will be a bigger factor?

These last few weeks, Senator John Mccain has had the opportunity to prove to voters that he is the best choice for president. Indeed, while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been destroying one another in the civil war that is threatening to split the Democratic Apart, Mccain has been traveling overseas, pledging support to our allies, and actively raising money on the campaign trail. Recent Gallup Polls have placed Mccain several points ahead of both Obama and Clinton, especially on Iraq. All the while, he has been facing very little resistance as the left and the democratic party focus their fury on one another.

Still, there are outside forces that can threaten the outcome of the election more than Jeremiah Wright's tirades, Bill Richardson being labeled "Judas", and Bill Clinton being compared to Joseph McCarthy, all of which the democrats have inflicted on themselves with a ferocity that rivals the attacks on President Bush. There are far more threatening challenges out there, and one of them could very well be the Islamic Republic of Iran.

From the BBC:

The most senior US general in Iraq has said he has evidence that Iran was behind Sunday's bombardment of Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.
Gen David Petraeus told the BBC he thought Tehran had trained, equipped and funded insurgents who fired the barrage of mortars and rockets.

He said Iran was adding what he described as "lethal accelerants" to a very combustible mix

Isn't that just lovely? Once again, now that Iraq has set itself on the right track, Iran has decided that it does not like that idea. As disturbing as it is to suggest, Iran does have the ability to influence the US Presidential election by activating one, perhaps two, Mahdi Army splinter cells in places like Baghdad and southern Iraq. On Friday, the cease-fire declared by Muqtada Al-Sadr was threatened as Iraqi security forces and Shiite militiamen battle it out in the southern city of Basra. If you watch the morning news, you will likely get the impression that the fighting is nothing more than internal instability among Iraq's factions, which could be precisely what the Mullahs in Tehran and their surrogate fighters want.

The idea of a terrorist-state influencing who the leader of the free world will be is enough to unnerve any good American. But why would the Iranians want to do that? Well, for one thing, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have called for a withdrawal from Iraq and face-to-face meeting with Iran's leaders. They have also labeled Bush's policies as the main reason for Iran's actions across the Middle East, even though Iran has been destabilizing the region with a vast network of terror cells for decades, long before President Bush ever stepped into the Oval Office. With that, an Obama or Clinton administration with a perceived weakness on foreign policy would give Iran the opportunity to dominate the region and increase its standing on the world stage.

Replenishing a shortage of villains:

So what do the terrorists do when they're infrastructure has been destroyed and the people of Iraq have turned against them? Basically, they import some more terrorists, and Iran, Syria, and other countries export death to Iraq's cities. As I write this, I can't help but think of it as a hotline...1-800-Henchmen (remember, DieHard last year?). Well, I think that sums it up pretty good. It's almost humorous to picture Mookie Al-Sadr and the other insurgent groups getting on the phone with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his puppet masters in Tehran to order more thugs, criminals, and murderers over the border. The truth is, that might not be that far off from how it works.

The difference though, is that this is very real. It not only threatens the innocent people caught in the middle of this in Iraq and elsewhere, but the broader world as well. Unfortunately, America and our allies overseas are divided like never before, and the people who want to make the world a more dangerous place are working overtime to exploit that.

Looking for the good in the world

The news has just crossed the wires that the U.S. death toll in Iraq has hit 4,000. To many though, this will not be a time to reflect on their sacrifice...instead it will be a chance to spin this into some kind of propaganda to use solely for political purposes, whether its the antiwar left, the isolationist right, or Al-Qaeda's media wing, Al-Sahab. The fact that we have reached a point like that is shameful.

However, instead of just counting the deaths of soldiers and Iraqis, I would like to talk about what is really happening in Iraq. Something that the majority of Americans are not hearing about because its just not as important to the Nightly News as the latest body count.

This is from the Los Angeles Times:

The comeback of Fallouja, the site of two major battles between Marines and insurgents in 2004, surprises even the most optimistic U.S. planners.

"It continues to outpace all expectations," said Navy Capt. John Dal Santo, part of a State Department-funded effort called the Provincial Reconstruction Team for Fallouja.

City Council leader Sheik Hamed Ahmed said that he was pleased with the city's progress but that he needed more generators for his neighborhood. Ahmed's three predecessors were assassinated by insurgents, but he has refused to back down.

"Fallouja is alive again," he said.

Restaurants, bakeries, photo shops, tire stores, Internet cafes, a body-building studio and other businesses line the avenues and side streets. BMWs share lanes with donkey carts on congested thoroughfares.

It's amazing, isn't it? A region that was once written off as a lost cause has managed to rise up against the evil that is political terrorism. Less than a year and a half ago, things looked very different, yet the Iraqi people managed to turn the situation around.

The article continues:

There have been soccer tournaments and art contests. And there are plans for a soft-drink bottling plant.

"Fallouja has gone through a metamorphosis -- these people want their lives back," said Lt. Col. Christopher Dowling, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment. "Fallouja has its soul back."
Several hundred Marines live side by side with Iraqi police officers in outposts across the city. In five months, Dowling's Marines have carried out 7,000 patrols in the city and its suburbs without suffering a fatality or major injury.

This is just one of the many success stories that are happening in Iraq. Instead of looking for the news that will divide a country that was once unified and bring about more devastation, maybe we should find the stories that will help make the world a better place.

When the facts tell a different story...

On Tuesday, when speaking in Amman, Jordan, Senator John Mccain came under attack for suggesting that Al-Qaeda militants are working with Iran in their effort to bring about instability to Iraq. Sure enough, the critics came out swinging, saying that Iran and Al-Qaeda could never work together because Iran is a Shiite theocracy and Al-Qaeda adheres to a radical Sunni Muslim ideology. But then again, Iran's actions across the Middle East indicate it is a lot more interested in achieving power and influence as opposed to preserving a Shiite system of beliefs. For one thing, Iran is the primary supporter of Hamas, a terrorist group that "adheres" to the Sunni denomination of Islam. Hmmmmm...why would Iran, which is Shiite, want to work with Hamas?

From the Jerusalem Post:

A week after Shin Bet head Yuval Diskin informed the cabinet that Hamas terrorists train in Iran, a commander in the extremist militia admitted as much to The Sunday Times.

Reportedly, the group has been sending gunmen to train with Iran's Revolutionary Guards for the past two years. Currently, the unnamed commander told the British paper, some 150 gunmen are being trained.

Hamas's members enter Iran via Syria and avoid having their passports stamped. Syria is also home to "more basic training" than that given in Iran. Gunmen deemed of outstanding quality receive extra training and return to train others in Gaza.

The most promising members of each group stay longer for an advanced course and return as trainers themselves, he said. Those unfit for combat return to "serve" in a research unit.

To read more about Hamas' admission about the group's involvement with Iran, the Times Online gives a more detailed analysis.

Anyway, so maybe that debunks the incorrect assumption that terrorists who adhere to different beliefs are unwilling to put that aside for the sake of fighting a common enemy, which in this case would be Israel. But Mccain specifically mentioned Al-Qaeda. While any connections to Iran and the notorious Al-Qaeda in Iraq seem more sketchy, it has been documented in the 9/11 commission Report that Iran may have looked the other way as AQ terrorists were passing through its borders. It's also been suggested that Iranian officials maintained contact with AQ's leadership.

Then there's the allegations that suggest Iran is supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan. If you listen to the critics, the Iranians would never do such a thing, seeing as the Taliban, like Al-Qaeda, are "Sunni extremists". But there's one thing Iran might regard as more of a threat than the Taliban--a democratic Afghanistan on its doorstep. Indeed, if the Afghan reconstruction efforts succeed, it could be a severe blow to Iran's attempts to clamp down on the pro-democracy movement inside its own borders. Therefore, is it all that surprising that the Iranian soldiers patrolling the border would be willing to pass off caches of weapons to Taliban insurgents if they knew if was going to be used to kill American and coalition soldiers?

In the end though, these people--Iran, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and the Taliban--betray everything the religion of Islam teaches by murdering innocent people and justifying violence by holding a Koran in one hand, and an Ak-47 or a bomb detonator in the other. If they are okay with doing that, why would they care if they had to work together with a group that has hijacked a different denomination?

I do not know what Mccain was thinking when he made the statements. Maybe he has researched this issue and read through some of the reports (like the ones I've linked to) or maybe he just assumed that terrorists are all like-minded murderers in the end. One thing's for sure though, no matter what they believe, both Iran and Al-Qaeda are determined to prevent progress towards reconciliation in Iraq, and are willing to kill those who get in their way.

Frightening

The words of Barack Obama's Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, are disturbing. At times, you have to wonder if this guy actually believes what he is saying. To be fair, Obama has distanced himself from the comments, but nevertheless, these anti-American tirades are frightening.

However, Obama should explain to potential voters why he has been attending this particular church for so many years.