novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

Browsing Posts tagged terrorism

Sorry. I wanted to get this out earlier but the transcript wasn’t available. I watched it live and was very excited through the whole speech. Unfortunately it wasn’t the leader of MY country making me feel good, but that of ANOTHER country. This speech was needed to be said and heard. READ THE WHOLE THING SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND ITS IMPORTANCE.

There were many Congress critters absent, although you could not tell because this was a PACKED HOUSE! Even Feinstein was there after she said she wouldn’t be. Pelosi was there, annoyingly and continuously turning around to talk to others. Who was very conspicuously absent was Plugs Biden. Well, his schedule says he is doing this. Not sure what it is but it is consistent with this administration: when things are in crisis mode, there is always time to f#^koff and be political. Nature of the beast.

When you read this transcript, you will see things like “the enemy of my enemy is my enemy” and “Israel can stand up for itself”. He is giving Obama a chance to do the right thing but he is stating that the U.S. will not keep Israel from doing what is necessary for its protection. Bravo BiBi, bravo.

Al-Awlaki is committing treason. I do not believe that he has been convicted of treason. In this Jack has a point. That being said …

I recall that in the out on the western frontier many a sheriff’s would put up ‘wanted dead or alive’ posters or even “wanted dead” posters in public spaces. The “wanted” were then typically made dead. The end result was that in the West many people by the beginning of the 20th century slept without locking their doors. Were those sheriff’s outside the law? At the very least al-Awlaki is an outlaw.

Consider this: during WWII Americans were caught during the battle of the bulge wearing American uniforms, but fighting for the Germans. These American were recruited before the war. They helped train Germans to speak better English and then they accompanied these German troops into battle to wreak havoc behind American lines. After capture they were shot without a trial. This was done on orders from Ike.

No one filed a charges against Eisenhower for killing these ‘allegedly’ treasonous Americans. Why? Because those who take up arms against us on the battlefield are at war with us. Because during war one does not have to abide by civilian rules of engagement on the battlefield. Similarly, we also did not read the Jap’s their Miranda rights before we turned a flamethrower on them as they hid in their bunkers.

Al-Awlaki is on the battlefield. The term battlefield has been forever more been changed by the Islamic Jihad that threatens our civilization. The battlefield now includes the cockpits of airliners. The discotheques, pizza parlors and bus stops of the world are also on the battlefield. The battlefield is not a plain in the middle of nowhere with armed uniformed men facing other uniformed armed men. The battlefield is now fought in a suitcase buried in the cargo compartment of an Airbus over Scotland.

The Islamic Jihadists like al-Awlaki hide behind their woman and children. From this position they attack our women and children. The likes of al-Awlaki do not wear uniforms to announce their allegiance. They attack the unarmed in their homes, offices and shops or on their way to these places. They do so because they are seeking to destroy our civilization.

What rules? What decency? What limits? This is a war being waged by a band of unwashed thugs, dressed in street garb — goaded on by imams such as al-Awlaki. In WWII we used intelligence to kill Admiral Yamamoto. He was the leader who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor. Al-Awlaki is a leader of the Jihadist army that plans attacks on civilians and soldiers alike. Killing him with high explosives is in line with the manner in which he kills. We used planes to target Yamamoto; the attack on our fleet was conducted with similar aircraft. Killing the Jihadist Al-Awlaki, a US citizen, who has placed himself on the battlefield, is an act of war during this time of war.

WWII was fought with armies using tanks, planes, and ships. The National Socialists used tanks, planes, and ships. Did we become National Socialists because we too used tanks, planes, and ships? The war today is conducted in the streets using bombs, with the chief target being those who are not wearing a uniform. Those we fight do not wear uniforms. Should we avoid killing them because they are not organized into battalions and dressed in some homogeneous garb?

The Jihadists use the Geneva convention as a weapon to be turned on the civilization that created it. Our civilization must defend itself from this perversion. Similarly, our constitution is not a suicide pact to be used against us. We must fight this war using what are the tanks and planes of this war. This means high explosives detonated without a notice of intent, in order to prosecute with extreme prejudice the Jihadist scum who would murder us in our sleep.

The resent attacks by terrorist in Mumbia are enough reason for me to believe we (law abiding citizens, that are capable of being trained in firearms defense) should be armed. The link is to an account of a photo journalist who was upset at armed police officers that refused to return fire.

I heard from my pastor that one of the people in the office complex in which he works (it is closer to his home than the church, so he works remote to the building) wanted to get a conceal carry license and obtain a firearm after hearing about the police not being willing to return fire. That might not be that remarkable … my pastor knows the man well, and knows he is not opposed to firearms from a moral position (he is also a minister) but he has a very personal aversion to guns. He was shot when he was young, and he gets the shakes around them. The minister knew there was a problem, but he figured he would have to get around and work through the aversion. The reasoning for such?

My pastor had at least some insight; if you are faced with a man with a rifle, then you certainly don’t want to be armed with just a pistol. The police were outgunned in this case. A really good pistol shooter might be able to take someone out at 60 or 70 feet, but an average shot with a rifle can take down a person at 150 yards (450 feet). A person defending themselves might be much more willing to open fire with a pistol if he is defending himself or his family, but even a police officer could understandibly not want to reveal his position and attract what would be near certain death.

Mumbia (all of India) has very strict gun control laws. Those laws gauranteed the terrorist an unarmed populous and the ability to shoot people like the proverbial “fish in a barrel”. The laws that are supposed to “protect the citizen” are in fact the reason for criminals being able to get away with murder (quite literally at times).

If we can train an 18-year-old to effectively carry fully automatic weapons, send them to wars, and expect them to use reasonable care in the use of the rifle they carry, we should be able to train every (law abiding, mentally fit) 25-year-old to carry a semi-automatic pistol, or even a rifle both appropriately and effectively. I’d rather be in a group of 50 well armed law-abiding citizens than in a place where guns are prohibited.