On September 11th, 2001, the primitive religious fascists
of Al-Qa'ida - supported by the
barbarous, illiterate Taliban regime of Afghanistan -
killing thousands of innocent men, women and children.
America viewed this (quite properly) as a declaration of war,
and attacked Afghanistan immediately.
Within ten weeks
of the Sept 11th attack,
the entire Taliban regime had been destroyed,
and Al-Qa'ida had been scattered, with thousands of jihadis dead.
They have not staged a mega-attack since.
By historical standards,
it was a stunning victory.
Attack the West, and your regime will end.
- This equation, and the
skill and bravery of the American (and Allied) soldiers
who enforce it, is what keeps civilization alive
against the many savages and barbarians
all over the world
who would destroy it.
On September 9th, 2001,
knowing that 9/11 was coming,
Al Qaeda assassinated the Taliban's greatest enemy,
Ahmed Shah Massoud,
as a gift to Mullah Omar
and the Taliban,
so that they could not possibly give up or expel
Al Qaeda after
what was about to happen.
The war was fast, easy and a stunning success.
The complete opposite of the "quagmire" that
and a thousand other ignorant
media whiners predicted.
- "Today .. everyone who cast doubt on the
possibilities of success and everyone who sneered at
American "gung-ho" should observe a period of silence.
The rest of us should, to use a famous phrase from another
war, "just rejoice rejoice"."
So what have the anti-war crowd got to say now?
by Anne McElvoy
- "We were warned that this would be America's Vietnam ...
The West would get bogged down in a ground war,
the bombing campaign was "getting nowhere".
The first time this objection was raised to me was six days
after it began and every week
I've known minor roadworks that took longer to complete than the
fall of Kabul."
the Muslim World
by Daniel Pipes
- Overwhelming American military victory
will not alienate the
but rather will make the
turn towards the West,
and see fundamentalism as the creed of losers,
which is what it is.
KSM denies the popular leftie idea that the jihadis wanted America to respond as it did
(by sending US troops to the Islamic world).
"al-Qaeda expected the United States to respond to 9/11 as we had the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut — when ... the United States “turned tail and ran.”
... he thought we would treat 9/11 as a law enforcement matter."
Al Qaeda were shocked by Bush's response:
"Then he looked at me and said, ‘How was I supposed to know that cowboy George Bush would announce he wanted us ‘dead or alive’
and then invade Afghanistan to hunt us down?’"
KSM says Bush stopped further attacks:
"KSM explained that if the United States had treated 9/11 like a law enforcement matter, he would have had time to launch a second wave of attacks.
He was not able to do so because al-Qaeda was stunned “by the ferocity and swiftness of George W. Bush’s response.”"
First note that Bin Laden is an open liar.
First in Sept 2001, in front of the world,
denied carrying out 9/11.
Later, in front of the whole world, he openly takes credit for it.
You have to understand that
lying to infidels
not considered sinful
by religious Islamists.
Captured private video, Afghanistan, Dec 2001:
"we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy,
who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors
that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all.
.. due to my experience in this field, I was thinking
that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure
of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only.
This is all that we had hoped for.".
Public U.S. election video, Nov 2004:
"I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers.
But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the
American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.
And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish
the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste
some of what we tasted
It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces
would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone,
the time when they most needed him.
But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat
and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes
and their butting of the skyscrapers,
we were given three times the period required to execute the operations - all praise is due to Allah."
"About a year before the two raids of New York and Washington DC the leader,
Abu-Hafs (may Allah
have mercy on his soul), gave a lecture to a group of trainees about Palestine and the Muslims'
conditions in Qandahar. At the end of the lecture the hero,
(may Allah have mercy
on his soul) stood up and asked the leader with seriousness and enthusiasm "what is the way to defeat
the attack on Palestine?" and America knows very well the rest of the story."
Video released Sept 2006
showing Bin Laden with the 9/11 hijackers.
Video captured by US 2001-2,
released Oct 2006,
showing the 9/11 lead pilots Mohammed Atta and
at Bin Laden's camp in Afghanistan in 2000.
Al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahri says they carried out 9/11, Apr 2008.
He attacks 9/11 truthers.
In his bizarre, hate-filled, narrow sectarian world,
he accuses the Shia Muslims
of spreading these
conspiracy theories, such as that Israel carried out 9/11:
"The purpose of this lie is clear - (to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history."
Video of Ziad Jarrah
Ziad Jarrah and Mohammed Atta,
the smiling faces of modern religious evil.
Video still, 2000
(note, this is when
The following year, these two starry-eyed religious young men attacked American civilian targets,
killing 3,000 American men, women and children for no reason.
From 2001 to 2011, the world wondered if Bin Laden was dead.
There was very little video, and it did not seem totally conclusive.
And there was audio, which I did not find convincing at all.
But it turned out he was alive all these years after all.
The brave US military finally killed him in May 2011.
October 6, 2004, makes the argument:
"Osama made endless videotapes. Lecturing, preaching, instructing, firing an AK-47: all the things that make
young jihadis feel funny in the pants. After 9/11, he wowed 'em in several tapes gloating and laughing
over the attack and its aftermath. He was reliably heard on the radio during the final phase of Tora Bora,
then .. nothing.
The freaking invasion of a Muslim country [Iraq in 2003] by the Great Satan,
and this new Caliph, the Leader of the Oppressed, cannot bring himself to shoot a crummy VHS
in front of a white wall condemning this outrage? This glory-seeking egomaniac,
.. who practically put out a 10 DVD commemorative set every time the US so much as hiccupped,
is now suddenly silent, and has been for three years?"
Tony Allwright, Oct 2007, makes the argument:
"Why are these fifteen recordings of such poor technical quality? For years, now, anyone with a laptop, microphone and webcam can record audio and video of almost professional quality, undreamt of just a decade ago. But with OBL recordings so few and far between, it is inconceivable that these productions would be other than of the highest calibre, designed to frighten the infidels and inspire the faithful.".
But it turned out he was alive, living in the terrorist state of Pakistan.
Still no image in the video to date it.
Could he hold up a newspaper or something?
He praises leftist
"This war was entirely unnecessary, as testified to by your own reports. And among the most capable of those from your own side who speak to you on this topic and on the manufacturing of public opinion is Noam Chomsky, who spoke sober words of advice prior to the war, but the leader of Texas doesn't like those who give advice."
Like Nazi propaganda in WW2
claiming that they cared about the people of Britain,
Bin Laden spews out leftist criticism of Bush
that he knows will work with the naive in the West:
"It has now become clear to you and the entire world the impotence of the democratic system and how it plays with the interests of the peoples and their blood by sacrificing soldiers and populations to achieve the interests of the major corporations.
And with that, it has become clear to all that they are the real tyrannical terrorists. In fact, the life of all of mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations, yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistic speaks of the death and displacement of the millions of human beings because of that, especially in Africa."
As if Bin Laden gives a shit about global warming or black Africans!
By the way, his main point is to oppose "the democratic system" itself,
not to argue for a reformed version of it.
He thinks Bush is an argument against democracy.
He shows the great hope he had that
would bring about a surrender,
and how disappointed he is that this has not yet happened:
"Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. ... why have the Democrats failed to stop this war, despite them being the majority?"
He fakes concern for the "suffering" American public:
"And Iraq and Afghanistan and their tragedies; and the reeling of many of you under the burden of interest-related debts, insane taxes and real estate mortgages".
As if Afghanistan or Waziristan could even dream of the wealth of the Americans.
As if Islamism rather than capitalism can generate a
$44,000 per capita
for 300 million people!
As if Bin Laden even gives a shit about earthly wealth!
on the video:
"you read this thing, and it's like he's been sitting around reading lefty blogs, and he's one of these childish people posting rants at the bottom the page, you know, Noam Chomsky and all this stuff.
You can't help read it and not laugh at it".
Disembowelled and murdered for teaching girls
- A teacher killed by the outlawed Taleban remnants in 2006 for teaching girls.
"The gunmen came at night to drag Mohammed Halim away from his home, in front of his crying children and his wife begging for mercy.
He was partly disembowelled and then torn apart with his arms and legs tied to motorbikes."
Afghan Taliban suicide bomb UN office, Oct 2010.
"The Taliban said earlier this year that all foreigners - including troops, diplomats and aid workers - and Afghans working for them were considered legitimate targets".
Warren Weinstein, American aid worker in Pakistan.
Spent years in Pakistan trying to improve living conditions there. He learned the Urdu language and dressed in traditional clothing.
The jihadists couldn't give a toss.
Al Qaeda held him hostage and he died in their captivity.
Taliban use 6 to 8-year-old boy to test bomb, July 2011. It blows off his leg.
"the Taliban forced [the boy] to step on an IED just down the road from here. ... the Taliban may have been testing a new bomb made from a soda bottle. The boy's name is Jalil, and our people estimate that Jalil is 6 to 8-years-old. Jalil was picking grapes with his brother when the Taliban, according to reporting, told the boy to step on the bomb. It blew off his right leg below the knee ... Afghans brought Jalil to the nearby American base called COP Kolk, where 4-4CAV Soldiers treated him. A helicopter took Jalil and his father to Kandahar Airfield for advanced treatment."
In fighting with the allied troops,
Taliban force women and children to stand in front of them as human shields.
They know their infidel enemies have the decency that they themselves lack.
(As a thought experiment, can you imagine the Taliban hesitating for a second
because American civilians are standing in the way?
They would not hesitate. They would be delighted to kill the American civilians.)
The Pakistan Taliban jihad on girls' schools.
Jihadis have destroyed hundreds of schools, mostly for girls, in NW Pakistan
in recent years.
Nearly 200 schools were destroyed in the Swat valley alone.
Imagine how it must feel to be a small girl whose school is burnt or bombed.
Taliban bomb boys primary school in Pakistan, Mar 2010. Maybe they are against all education, even for boys.
"have destroyed hundreds of schools, mostly for girls, in northwest Pakistan in recent years - 16 were destroyed in the last month."
Pakistan Taliban attack school bus with rocket-propelled grenade and assault rifle fire, Sept 2011, killing 4 of the children.
They were the children of a tribe that is anti-Taliban.
"Our comrades attacked the bus which was carrying children from the Aka Khel tribe, whose people are fighting against us
... They have been told time and again to desist from any activity against us but they did not listen. We will continue to carry out such attacks."
"Malala is the symbol of the infidels and obscenity",
said the Taliban savages.
Malala was a hero in standing up to the Taliban.
Shame she is a socialist:
"I am convinced Socialism is the only answer and I urge all comrades to take this struggle to a victorious conclusion."
Sad to see that.
A Twitter user who should be captured or killed.
The Taliban post messages on the infidel invention Twitter,
and they even debate the allies on it. The Jawa Report says:
"While the twitter fight between the Taliban and the ISAF is interesting, couldn't we just settle this like men and bomb the hell out of Qari Yousef Mohammad and "Dr." Zabihullah Mujahid (the Taliban spokesmen)? ...
As enemy combatants, killing them is not only legal under the rules of war ... but it just seems like the right thing to do. I mean, we've all wanted to kill someone over the stupid things they've said on twitter. Now is our chance!"
Jews are falsely blamed for poisoning the water
Black Death persecutions
The Jews were entirely innocent, but the modern Taliban actually do
what the Jews were accused of doing.
The Taliban poison children at school in pursuit of their sick and deranged religion.
Female Apache gunner takes out Taliban with Hellfire missile.
A tiny, tiny bit of revenge for their brutal and sadistic persecution of defenceless women.
I love the way she didn't hang about after clearance was given!
As we see in the Taliban way of war,
the jihad has no honour and no morality.
It has no rules of warfare.
Any depravity, including sexual depravity, is acceptable.
The West provides a great contrast in morality and warfare with honour.
The liberal and secular West has far higher standards of morality than the Islamic religious fighters,
who have no morality at all.
Prince Harry of England
served in Afghanistan in 2007-2013.
his very life in Afghanistan in this struggle of decency against evil.
He was in combat.
He actually killed enemy fighters.
This is the most impressive act by a member of the Royal family
in many years.
His service is a symbol of the West's commitment to the global struggle against Islamist terror.
Image from here.
fought against the Argentine military dictatorship.
On a more depressing note, dictators and even enemy countries were invited to Prince William's wedding:
for Prince William's wedding
in 2011 included the dictators of
Abu Dhabi, Bhutan, Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Swaziland,
and the ambassadors of
Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe.
The ambassadors of
Libya and Syria
were on the original guest list,
but the invites were withdrawn due to recent events (as if the nature of those regimes had changed).
dictated that many of these people had to be invited,
but isn't it remarkable that representatives of Iran and Syria - countries that help to kill British soldiers like Harry
- were invited to the Royal Wedding?
The nobility and heroism of the US military:
comes home from Afghanistan
to surprise his beautiful children.
gives his life to save an Afghan child.
His poor children.
Here's a challenge for leftist jerks reading this page:
Name any time ever when a member of the PLO/Fatah or Hamas or Hezbollah
or the Iraqi resistance
or the Taliban
or Al Qaeda
ever saved the life of an enemy civilian.
Tell me here.
Opinion survey, 2004
- 65 percent approve of the US.
13 percent approve of the Taliban.
This would make Afghans far more pro-US than Europeans.
As Tony Allwright notes,
"I don't think any other country would give a 65% approval rating
to America, probably not even Americans."
68 percent of Afghans
support the presence of infidel US troops in the country.
That's probably more than the percentage of any western country that backs it.
Not even all of the other 32 percent are sincere,
since only 22 percent of Afghans want American troops to leave now or in the next 18 months.
70 percent of Afghans
believe Afghanistan is going in the right direction.
90 per cent want their country run by the current government,
compared with 6 percent who want the Taliban back.
The Taliban have failed to win "hearts and minds", compared with the stunning success of the
foreign infidel Americans at doing that.
69 percent believed the Taliban posed the biggest danger to the country.
66 percent blamed the Taliban, al-Qaeda and foreign militants for violence in Afghanistan.
83 percent said it was either very good or mostly good
that US forces entered Afghanistan in 2001 to drive out the Taliban.
Afghans are more positive about their liberation than the western left is.
The Taliban were defeated,
the Al Qaeda bases destroyed,
the war removed a direct threat to the west.
But, like Iraq, Afghanistan has made little progress towards becoming a free country.
Yes, it's better than the Taliban.
But it's still not a free society.
Afghans are resisting building a free society, and the US is not pushing them.
Victor Davis Hanson,
November 19, 2004,
on the left's sour reaction to Afghanistan's liberation from the Taliban:
"Western feminists, homosexual-rights advocates, and liberal reformists
have never in any definitive way expressed appreciation for the Afghan revolution
now ongoing in the lives of 26 million formerly captive people. They never will.
Instead, Westerners simply now assume that there was never any controversy,
but rather a general consensus that Afghanistan is a "good thing"
- as if the Taliban went into voluntarily exile due to occasional censure from
The New York Review of Books."
Galway Alliance Against War - Irish leftists still protesting the liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban, Nov 2008.
They are unimpressed by
the destruction of the Taliban regime.
They are unimpressed by
the destruction of the Al Qaeda camps.
They are unimpressed by
the 2004 election.
They are unimpressed by
the fact that girls can go to school.
They are unimpressed by
the heroic allied soldiers that have died to make this happen.
They are unimpressed by
the fact that the majority of Afghans support this.
No, these western leftists have a theological belief that all western involvement in Afghanistan
must by definition be wicked,
and they are uninterested in any empirical evidence to the contrary.
The toughest job in re-building
Afghanistan and Iraq is to ensure that democracy
and modern freedom replace
the backward, traditional tribal and religious laws.
This may be impossible, I know.
The pessimists and isolationists may be right.
The Afghans may not be ready for freedom.
We may have to wait decades, or even centuries, before Afghans are ready for the modern world.
I hope this isn't true.
Even if it is true, the war was still worth it for many other reasons.
A pro-West Islamic state is still a major victory
over a pro-terrorist Islamic state.
But it is a much bleaker scenario.
I don't believe it's true, and it's far too early to give up now.
The struggle isn't over yet.
Afghan Taliban terrorists
kidnap an Italian photojournalist
(a Muslim convert, as it happens),
and say they will release him
if the Christian
Abdul Rahman is handed back to them from Italy for execution.
What I and others said when Abdul Rahman was threatened with death:
Bush and Hamid Karzai, you've got to stop this now,
if you want neo-cons like me to keep supporting you.
If this man dies, then what is the point of re-building Afghanistan?
Trial of Christian mocks U.S. sacrifices
- "Over the past four years, 300 U.S. troops have given their lives to
drive the Taliban and al-Qaida from power in Afghanistan.
... The trial of Abdul Rahman is a rank insult to their memories."
Tell Afghan court belief is no crime
- "Canadian troops have died in Afghanistan helping to oust the Taliban regime, to free 28 million people from tyranny and to restore democracy.
Canada did not come to the aid of Afghans ..
to install a backward, illiberal regime where people can be sentenced to hang
for their religious beliefs."
America should at least threaten to withdraw its support for the government:
Former Italian President says
Italy should withdraw their troops
Abdul Rahman is freed:
"It is not acceptable that our soldiers should put themselves at risk
or even sacrifice their lives for a fundamentalist, illiberal regime".
Charles Adler says
Canada should withdraw their troops and their support
if he is killed.
Canada should send one message to the government of Afghanistan:
"We Canadians are not prepared to shed one more drop of blood to support your government
if the sword of your government draws the blood of Abdul Rahman."
America should threaten to withdraw its protection of the Afghan government
if Abdul Rahman is not freed.
The Afghans have got to learn that sick laws like this have consequences.
Pro-war hawks, who supported Afghanistan's liberation,
An Affront to Civilization,
says National Review, one of the very strongest supporters
of Bush and Hamid Karzai in the world.
"Conservatives in this country have been admirably willing to accept the compromises
and frustrations that come with President Bush's attempts to reform recalcitrant parts of the world.
The judicial murder of a Christian convert by a government that exists only on the basis of
American power and good will, however, would be intolerable."
No faith in Karzai's new democracy
by Michelle Malkin, another tough War on Terror supporter:
"This is a watershed moment in the post-September 11 world.
The Taliban are out of power. Yet an innocent man sits in jail
in an ostensibly moderate Muslim nation praying for his life
because he owned a Bible and refuses to renounce his Christian faith."
"President Bush should immediately send Vice-President Dick Cheney
or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Kabul to read
Hamid Karzai's Government the riot act.
Americans will not give their blood and treasure to prop up
new Islamic fundamentalist regimes."
"You cannot ask Americans or Britons to expend blood and treasure to build a society
in which a man can be executed for his choice of religion."
Bush and Hamid Karzai, you've got to stop this now.
Forget Afghan sensibilities.
Worry about the American street.
The "American street" will never forgive you if this happens.
Pessimism - If Afghanistan becomes a regular Islamist state, should it be abandoned?
Should America really withdraw its support for the Afghan government
if things go wrong?
Should Afghanistan then be abandoned?
Should America really withdraw?
Not necessarily. Abandoning Afghanistan prematurely will most likely lead to even worse
Islamists taking over, and it becoming a terrorist base.
Abandoning Afghanistan prematurely would be an
even bigger victory for Islamism
in this war.
If Afghanistan becomes a heretic-persecuting Islamist state,
it should not necessarily be abandoned.
But it then becomes realpolitik.
Realpolitik deals may still be done with unfree
Afghanistan to hunt for Al-Qa'ida.
But Afghanistan will no longer be a real ally,
only an ally of convenience, to be abandoned when it is no longer useful.
The idealism will be dead.
Should the West give up on Afghanistan?
The sharia that has been implemented in Afghanistan since 2001 is sickening.
The Afghans spit on the sacrifices that western soldiers have made for them.
Perhaps we need to be patient, for decades.
Afghanistan is freer now than it was before 2001,
and the movement is in the right direction.
If regular peaceful elections and a diverse press can continue for decades,
the culture war will follow,
and the fundamentalists will eventually lose.
Let us see the Abdul Rahman case, and the other disgusting sharia cases,
as part of the long struggle within Afghanistan.
The struggle goes on.
But America must express its anger with Afghanistan again and again.
Each of these cases should bring new threats and sanctions from America.
I still say the West should not give up on Afghanistan.
But the Afghans aren't helping.
He calls the burning of the Koran by the Florida pastor a
"crime against a religion and the entire Muslim Umma
The President called on the US and the United Nations to bring to justice the
perpetrators of this crime".
Karzai supports sharia for women, March 2012:
Women should not travel without a male guardian.
Women should not mingle with strange men in places like schools, markets or offices.
Beating one's wife is allowed under some circumstances.
Karzai is betraying everything America has done for him and for his country since 2001.
Is supporting Karzai really that different to supporting Mubarak or any other friendly dictator?
Afghanistan bans entire YouTube site, Sept 2012, to protect Muslims from seeing the film
Innocence of Muslims,
an unsympathetic account of the life of the Prophet.
"Afghan President Hamid Karzai condemned the film ... saying its makers had done a "devilish act" and that insulting Islam was not allowed by freedom of speech."
American soldiers died to install this regime!
Should the West give up on Afghanistan?
Should the allies have just deposed the Taliban in 2001 and then left?
Why has Obama not taken the lead on this?
Obama should threaten the Afghan government with abandonment if it does not stamp out all
sharia threats to religious freedom.
Bush was useless on this, but that's no reason for Obama to be useless too.
I still say the West should not give up on Afghanistan.
But the Afghans aren't helping.
Who I block on Twitter:
I will debate almost anyone.
I love ideas.
I will not debate (and will block) people who:
(a) target my job,
(b) target my appearance, or:
(c) libel me.
Also, since 2016, abusive reporting has become a thing.
I was targeted with abusive reporting by
an Israel-hater pretending to be "Jewish".
So I now also block:
(d) any account that even hints that it reports its enemies,
(e) any Israel-hater that claims to be Jewish.
It is just self-defence.