From Radarsite: A Happy Retraction

Prince Harry has been fighting on the front lines in Afghanistan

Radarsite published in the Chicago Sun Times: March 7, 2008

http://www.suntimes.com/news/blogentries/index.html?bbPostId=Cz8neME9DYOr5Cz34JXBtDpWXHBCVNUJpRmOuvCz5claj1FMhRi&bbParentWidgetId=B7sYvm7oI1Qmz1ERanb5EfZn

By Kevin Sullivan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, February 29, 2008

LONDON, Feb. 28 -- Prince Harry has been fighting on the front lines in Afghanistan for 10 weeks, his presence there kept secret until Thursday in a remarkable deal between the British military and news media.

British military officials confirmed that Harry, 23, third in line to the British throne, deployed to Afghanistan on Dec. 14 and has been fighting Taliban forces from a forward operating base in southern Helmand province.

News of Harry's deployment immediately became sensational news here and rekindled an emotional debate about whether the red-haired second son of Prince Charles and Princess Diana should be risking his life in war.

To read the rest of this great story go here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/28/AR2008022801881.html?nav=rss_world

Note from Radarsite:

Sometimes it is such a pleasure to be wrong; this is one of those times.


Recently Radarsite posted an article titled The Queen is Missing, which was highly critical of the Royal Family for virtually ignoring the WOT and the cultural battle against islam on its own soil. Although much of the criticism aimed at those most prominent members of the Royal Family unfortunately still holds; there is, thankfully, one notable and honorable exception: the Good Prince Harry.

Bravo to our brave Prince Harry!
And three cheers to the British Press for actually keeping quite about it!

http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2008/01/queen-is-missing.html

Blips on the Screen: 29 Feb 08

War Of Jihad Part 2








by Garry aka boaz - Cross posted from Do The Right Thing
http://dotherightthing-cyberpastor.blogspot.com/


"The Islamic Jihad or Holy War shows no signs of being in regression any time soon. The United States in Feb. 2008 offered official recognition to the newly formed (unilaterally) state of Kosovo, which is roughly 90% Muslim. With that support and the support of the European Union, one has to wonder just precisely what type of death wish the current administration of the United States has.

It’s not enough that we’re already fighting against rogue groups of Islamists unaffiliated specifically with a nation State? We need another challenge at this point to bolster some ideal of national pride? Somehow the understanding of Islam as a quasi religion of hatred and violence has not filtered through the halls of the White House or the halls of CONgress. (to be distinguished from PROgress)

The Democratic Party of the United States appears poised to nominate for President either a member of the House of Representatives from the state of Illinois Barack Hussein Obama, who has no particular experience on the world stage with the exception of a few Congressional junket trips to Arab Africa..."

Read the rest of this great article here:
http://dotherightthing-cyberpastor.blogspot.com/2008/02/by-garry-aka-boaz-islamic-jihad-or-holy.html

An Announcement to My Readers: 29 Feb 08

As I'm certain you have noticed, in this last week or so I have abandoned my position of neither supporting nor attacking any of our presidential candidates and have come out strongly AGAINST OBAMA.
In this I am merely following the lead of some of our notable blogger friends.

It is my firm belief, based on everthing that I have studied about this subject that, although Hillary Clinton's anti-military, "one-world" socialist agenda would do irreparable harm to this country and set us on a course following the unhealthy example of the EU; I honestly believe that Barack Hussein Obama presents us with a real threat to our existence and must be defeated at all costs.

Therefore, between now and the elections I am going to do my very best to bring out every negative and frightening aspect of this dangerous candidate for Leader of the Free World.

He simply must not win.


rg

From Other Sites on the Line: 29 Feb 08

Barack HUSSEIN Obama: What's In A Name?

by Ben - Cross posted from A Newtone.com
http://www.anewtone.com/2008/02/barack-hussein-obama-whats-in-name.html

Hussein: what's the big deal? That name is an honorific, after Ḥusayn ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Ṭalib, grandson of Moe, who was martyred at Karbala in 680. When ranks of Shi'ia cut & flagellate themselves in the streets, they are commemorating his death.

Barack means blessed, similar to the Jewish name: Baruch. The infant son of an American atheist and an African Muslim, allegedly an apostate, was given those names, which indicate Islamic origin. The big deal is this: Senator Obama claims to be Christian, not Muslim. What difference would it make if is Muslim?

Muslims are obligated to raise their children as Muslims and instruct them in the tenets & rituals of Islam. [See Reliance of the Traveler, Book a4.6.] Instructing them is necessary to save them from Hellfire.

Muslims are obligated to obey Allah and his Messenger. [Reliance, Book B7.3] What did Allah order them to do? Most important to us are his orders to:

1. Make war on Pagans until only Allah is worshiped altogether and everywhere.
2. Make war on Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians until they are subdued and pay extortion.
3. Terrorize their victims.
4. Prepare every instrument of war to terrify the disbelievers.
5. Make a great slaughter.

Using the Senator's full name is considered to be an implication that he is, in fact a Muslim, and as such, inimical to the interests of this nation.

Is there any indication of his leanings in his public statements? From Wikipedia:

At a meeting with Palestinian students two days later, Obama stated opposition to Hamas in favor of rival party Fatah, noting his desire to "consolidate behind a single government with a single authority that can then negotiate as a reliable partner with Israel." In a comment aimed at Hamas, he said that "the US will always side with Israel if Israel is threatened with destruction.

What is the strategic difference between Hamas & Fatah? Which one does not use violence? Which one does not give high praise to shaheed? Which one does not demand the erasure of Israel? Which one does not incite terrorism? Which one is not Muslim? The leader of Fatah was the bag man at the Munich Massacre; some moderate!

...on March 11, 2007, Obama said that "if we could get some movement among Palestinian leadership, what I'd like to see is a loosening up of some of the restrictions on providing aid directly to the Palestinian people.

On March 11, 2007 Obama said: "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people."[48] On June 4, 2007 Obama stated that "resolution [to the conflict] and a better life for all people" "is something that can be achieved, but it's going to require some soul-searching on the Palestinian side. They have to recognize Israel's right to exist; they have to renounce violence and terrorism as a tool to achieve their political ends; they have to abide by agreements. In that context, I think the Israelis will gladly say, 'Let's move forward negotiations that would allow them to live side by side with the Palestinians in peace and security.'"[49]

Were Senator Barack Hussein Obama not a Muslim, his statements about Iran, Darfur and the Armenian Massacre would bring down upon him universal condemnation from Muslims, as would his superficial appearance of support for Israel.

Because he is in favor of the "road map", we know that his 'support' for Israel is not genuine. Demanding concessions to Islam in exchange for empty promises is not support!!

Because of his urge to pull out of Iraq and abandon it to al-Qaeda, it is obvious that he sides with our enemy in the global war on terror. Iraq would replace Afghanistan as the staging area for new attacks prompted by the Qur'anic commands listed above. Terrorism would only increase as a result of our demonstrated weakness and lack of resolve, as it did when we fled Tehran, Beirut & Mogadishu.

Were Senator Barack Hussein Obama a genuine convert to Christianity, Muslims the world over would be howling for his head. Apostasy carries a death sentence. Again, I quote from Reliance

O8.1

When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

O8.2

In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

Why then does Senator Barack Hussein Obama have Muslim supporters?

From Belief Net:

This year, the bulk of Muslim support is likely to go to Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, said Mukit Hossain, a political consultant to the Muslim American Society, which has taken a leading role in mobilizing Muslim Americans to vote and be active in political life.

Obama, whose Kenyan relatives include Muslims and who lived in majority-Muslim Indonesia as a child, has courted Muslim voters, saying he would be more understanding of their concerns because of his background.

If he is not now and never was Muslim, why would Senator Barack Hussein Obama "be more understanding of their concerns because of his background"? And what difference would that understanding make? Would he reverse Shrub's paltry & superficial security measures? Would he prosecute the war effectively or would he surrender to Islam?

If he is a Christian, not a Muslim, let him stand and recite the Nicene Creed. Let him declare Jesus Christ crucified, dead & resurrected as his savior. Let him expressly abjure Islam's evil imperatives to conquest, genocide & terror as laid down in :

1. 2:216
2. 8:12
3. 8:39
4. 8:67
5. 9:29
6. 47:4

Let him expressly abjure the explicit declarations of those commands found in Ibn Kathir's Tafsir, as outlined in my blog post: ROPMA.

At the same time, I want to hear Senator John McCain, Senator Hillary Clinton and Governor Mike Huckabee acknowledge the existence of those same immutable Islamic doctrines and denounce them as inimical to human life & liberty.

Islam is neither a religion nor peaceful; it is a war machine. I disrespectfully demand that anyone seeking my vote for high office acknowledge that fact! I can not place trust in anyone who refuses.

Radarsite Makes the Chicago Sun Times

Chicago Sun-Times January 31, 2008

Wake up America
Political Blog dealing with many subjects including media bias


The Outrage of Patriotism
by Roger W. Gardner. Cross posted from Radarsite.
http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2008/01/outrage-of-patriotism.html


As some of you may know, I have written many articles critical of many things. Most often, of course, I've been critical of that dangerous Religion of Peace, called Islam. However, I have also found time to criticize feminists, liberals, Mexican-Americans, and even the Queen of England. But, no other article I have ever written has generated more angry hate mail, nor more malicious personal attacks than a short piece I wrote earlier this week.

No, it wasn't that one about those deadly Mohammad cartoons; and it wasn't that piece about the Jews and anti-semitism -- which I was certain would receive all kinds of objectionable comments, but actually received none.

The article that generated the most vicious and hateful responses -- even more than any of my anti-Islam pieces -- was that short essay I wrote in praise of America, A Brief Message to America. Even some of those people who had previously been generally acceptive of my point of view got upset enough to let me know about it. In sum, the common theme of these protests was that the article in question was "disgusting" and made them "sick". A lot of jokes about running to get the bucket. One angry commenter accused me of "never having written anything of value since I first started posting". I had, till then, never experienced real unmittigated visceral hatred for something I had written.

Evidently, the subject of patriotism is even more inflammatory and controversial than the subject of anti-semitism. What, I wonder, does this say about us here, today, in America? What does this tell us about ourselves that we don't already know? Do you find this as revealing as I do?

In general, I am being accused of two major personal faults: either being a "phony" or a "fool". To me, a phony is someone who says things that they don't really mean; therefore I am not a phony. As to being a fool, I suppose that's for others to decide. Some ninety per cent of the hate mail came from right here in the U.S. -- although, surprisingly, some of the most disturbing came from -- of all places -- New Zealand.

However, I am also happy to report that this little article unapologetically extolling the virtually-ignored virtues of America and Americans also garnered some of the warmest and most genuinely supportive comments I have ever gotten for any other piece (including, to my surprise, Fox News). The most fulsome praise for that article's praise of America came -- not surprisingly -- from our loyal allies in Australia.

The article is just an article -- but the reactions are significant. Significant and disturbing. This is the nature of our current and growing 'civil war'. These are the enemies we face.

For me, being patriotic is as natural and uncomplicated as loving your parents.
Are our parents without fault? Do they sometimes make mistakes? (although, I must admit, the older I get the less mistakes they seem to have made) The answer to both is of course, Yes. But they are our parents and we love them, don't we? We love them and we honor them, because they are good and they are decent and they have raised us up and nurtured us and protected us from harm to the best of their ability. And, again, the older I get, the more I appreciate how much they sacrificed for me so that I could have a chance at leading a free and productive life.

When I was an adolescent, I thought as an adolescent, and I was more than eager to find fault with them and with all of their 'phony values' and with the way they looked at this world. And I rebelled against them, as I rebelled against all authority figures and all of those loathsome symbols of The Establishment. In this way I was, of course, being a perfect conformist; conforming to the expectations of rebellious adolescence.

Thankfully, and finally, I've grown up now. After September 11, 2001, I've grown up even more -- as I'm sure a lot of us here have.

Over these past years, something has become increasingly apparent to me, a little theory of mine, which I can of course in no way corroborate with facts. It is simply this: the people I have known in my life who seem to be the most productive, the happiest, the most at ease with themselves and this world, are those people who speak of their parents with simple, unreserved affection, loyalty and love. Whether these were attributes which had always been present, or whether they were learned later on through life's experience -- as mine were -- they were almost invariable present and obvious.

I pity our enemies, for I think that they are unhappy and empty, I pity them as I pity all of those current rebellious adolescents who, for the sake of conforming to some perceived convention, have turned on their parents and their country and learned how to despise them and everything they stand for.

Maybe, if they live long enough...


A Brief Message to America
http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2008/01/from-radarsite-to-america-brief-message.html

Read more from this blogger



The views expressed in these
blog posts are those of the author and not of the Chicago Sun-Times

http://www.suntimes.com/news/blogentries/index.html?bbPostId=Cz1Gv91h41vGFCz16NNhbwsU29Cz9xWd1sM06sCBBET6WAxVZv0&bbParentWidgetId=B8k88rWwXopuz5STgLeV

Obama on Iraq: Two Disturbing Alternatives Reconsidered

A note from Radarsite: The plans have been laid, the die has been cast: we have begun the fateful process of pulling out of Iraq and shifting our military presence to the mountainous wastelands of Afghanistan. But, considering the escalating threat from Iran, one can only ask, is this a wise move? Shouldn't we be building our forces up in this volatile region, rather than drawing them down? Isn't Iran acknowledged by all of our leading military experts to be our most immediate and existential threat? As Iran moves inexorably toward its nuclear capability, do we really want our troops removed from the epicenter of this imminently explosive region, bogged down in the labyrinthine badlands of Afghanistan? And finally, who benefits the most from our projected withdrawal? Can anyone seriously consider the threat to the entire region -- indeed, to the entire world -- from the cave-dwelling Taliban warlords to be greater than the monumental threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran?

Presidential candidate Obama ran on the unequivocal promise to withdraw all of our troops from Iraq. President Obama is implementing this policy as expeditiously as possible. But, we must ask ourselves, what is the true logistical reason for this withdrawal?

Some months ago, Radarsite posed this question to our readers and posited some troubling answers. What has changed since then? Are these arguments less valid today than they were then? the results less dangerous? Beyond the lofty rhetoric, what, if anything, do we actually know about Obama's Middle East agenda? What little we do know about Obama's self-proclaimed empathy for Islam and his apparent antipathy for Israel is deeply suspect. Who will be the real beneficiaries of Obama's will? Who will be the winners and who will be the losers?

Perhaps it's time to take a second look at some of these worrisome issues. Please take the time to read them again, and let me know what you think. - rg

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Obama on Iraq: Some Troubling Questions

1. The Terrorists On The Importance Of Iraq:

Osama Bin Laden: Baghdad Is "The Capital Of The Caliphate." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)

Bin Laden: "The Most Important And Serious Issue Today For The Whole World Is This Third World War … Raging In [Iraq]." BIN LADEN: "I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Bin Laden: "This Is A War Of Destiny Between Infidelity And Islam." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Bin Laden: "The Whole World Is Watching This War And The Two Adversaries; The Islamic Nation, On The One Hand, And The United States And Its Allies On The Other. It Is Either Victory And Glory Or Misery And Humiliation." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Ayman al-Zawahiri: We Must "Establish An Islamic Authority … Over As Much Territory As You Can To Spread Its Power In Iraq … [And] Extend The Jihad Wave To The Secular Countries Neighboring Iraq." ZAWAHIRI: "So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate – over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq … The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity." (Complete Text Of Al-Zawahiri Letter To Al-Zarqawi, 7/9/05, Available At: http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20051011_release.htm, Accessed 9/5/06)

Bin Laden: "The War Is For You Or For Us To Win. If We Win It, It Means Your Defeat And Disgrace Forever." BIN LADEN: "Finally, I would like to tell you that the war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever as the wind blows in this direction with God's help." (Bin Laden Threatens New Operations, Offers 'Long-Term Truce,' Posted On Al-Jazirah Net, 1/19/06)

2. Barack Hussein Obama on Iraq War:

"Surge strategy has made a difference in Iraq but failed."

Q: Is Petraeus correct when he says that the troop increase is bringing security to Iraq?
A: There is no doubt that because we put American troops in Iraq, more American troops in Iraq, that they are doing a magnificent job. They are making a difference in certain neighborhoods. But the overall strategy is failed because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq's political leaders. That is the essence of what we should be trying to do in Iraq. That's why I'm going to bring this war to a close. That's why we can get our combat troops out within 16 months and have to initiate the kind of regional diplomacy, not just talking to our friends, but talking to our enemies, like Iran and Syria, to try to stabilize the situation there. This year, we saw the highest casualty rates for American troops in Iraq since this war started. The same is true in Afghanistan. If we have seen a lowering violence rate, that's only compared to earlier this year. We're back to where we started back in 2006.

Source: 2007 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Nevada Nov 15, 2007

Q: If you get us out of Iraq and somehow al Qaeda takes over anyway, what will you do then?
A: Well, look, if we had followed my judgment originally, we wouldn't have been in Iraq. We're here now. And we've got no good options. We got bad options and worse options. The only way we're going to stabilize Iraq and make sure that al Qaeda does not take over in the long term is to begin a phased redeployment so that we don't have anti-American sentiment as a focal point for al Qaeda in Iraq. We can still have troops in the region, outside of Iraq, that can help on counterterrorism activities, and we've got to make sure that they don't establish long-term bases there. But right now, the bases are in Afghanistan and in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan; that's where we've got to focus.

Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8,
2007

A short message from Radarsite: Anyone who has read the captured correspondence of the Al-Qaeda leaders concerning the importance that they attach to Iraq, and the central role that Iraq plays in their scheme for a world-wide Caliphate knows how delighted they would be if we followed the advice of Barrack Hussein Obama, and shifted our focus and resources from the oil-rich center of gravity in Iraq, the universally acknowledged keystone to the Middle East, to the mountainous wastelands of Afghanistan

It is the opinion of this writer, that if we abandoned the Land of the Two Rivers to the enemy now, the long-term strategic consequences of this monumental blunder for our GWOT would be nothing less than disastrous. The idea that we could somehow return to the area if it at some point in the future it became infested with Al-Qaeda is at best naive and ludicrous, and at worst naggingly suspect.

Nothing would suit our enemies in Iraq better than a publicly proclaimed schedule of withdrawal of our troops and their eventual complete pullout.

To this particular observer the absurdity of this plan, which so obviously plays into our enemy's game presents us with one of two troubling alternatives: Either it was purposely designed to enhance the chances for our defeat in this crucial region of the Middle East and enhance the capabilities of our sworn Al-Qaeda enemies, or it is the dangerously delusional bumblings of a hopeless amateur. rg

Voted by Fox News at GOP Hub

Blips on the Screen: 27 Feb 08

A SPECIAL MESSAGE TO OUR RADARSITE READERS:

NOBAMA!
NOWAY!

[Update: The note to my readers below and that second picture were added after this Blip had been published on some other sites. So, although it may seem somewhat redundant I'm posting it again with these additions.]

Note to my readers: So far, Radarsite has managed to stay away from political endorsements or attacks. But this I believe is a very different issue from the usual Democrat/Republican arguments. Before posting that picture of Omama in muslim garb, I did consider all of those foolish photo ops that almost all of our previous Presidents have made over the years in an effort to be cordial to an ally, or to show solidarity, or even to show that they have a sense of humor.

But it is this writer's opinion, that this goes into a whole other place. It's much more than merely foolish -- he is making a statement. And it's a downright dangerous statement. Because it makes friendly with our enemies, it validates them and their cause and gives them a certain respectablilty that few of us around here feel they deserve. Remember, it is the muslims who have declared war on the West, against the Zionists and against America, not the other way around.

Barack Obama's populist Socialistic/Leftist agenda is definitely scary. But the Muslim thing, his true feelings on this most dangerous subject -- in this particularly threatening climate -- is much more troubling and ominous. Despite the "positive message" of his highly-effective rhetoric, and under that pleasing exterior it's difficult to discern or to trust his real motives (or his wife's real feelings). He seems to admire muslims and appears to have a barely-concealed anti-semitic, racist Black Supremicist agenda. She seems to have a grudge against White America. To this particular voter, the prospects of having this particular couple settling into the White House are even scarier than Hillary's anti- military, one-world Socialism.

And, finally, even if we might be wrong about all of this, who wants someone in the White House about whom we can have all of these serious (and legitimate) doubts during these perilous times?
rg

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/another-photo-of-obama-in-muslim-garb