إذا دعمت الإرهاب بأي طريقة فأنت إرهابي

بقلم: جي بي و يليامس

نيوميديا جورنال - 16/7/2007

*اذا كنت تؤو ي الإرهابيين فأنت إرهابي

*اذا كنت تدعم الإرهابيين بالسلاح و التدريب فأنت إرهابي

*اذا كنت تقدم الدعم اللوجيستي أو التمويلي للنشاطات الإرهابية فأنت إرهابي

*اذا كنت تعمل ضد من يحاولون اصطياد أو القبض أو  قتل الإرهابيين فأنت إرهابي

If You Support Terrorism in Any Way You Are a Terrorist!

The Fifth Column JB Williams

July 16, 2007

Following rather than leading Britain and Europe, America is indeed well on its way to losing the international war on terrorism. Though each of these nations has stated the correct position on terrorism on many occasions for benefit of their respective voters, they have all failed to adhere to those words in practice. Each remains under increasing threat of terror attack as a result.

▪ If you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist.

▪ If you assist with the arming and or training of terrorists, you are a terrorist.

▪ If you provide logistical or financial support for terror activities, you are a terrorist.

▪ If you work against those who are trying to hunt, capture or kill terrorists, you are a terrorist.

Terrorism is defined in general terms as the use of violence or the threat thereof, specifically aimed against unsuspecting civilian targets, for the purpose of coercing entire societies by way of fear, for political purposes. In short, it’s the use of extreme violence against defenseless targets in an effort to force an extreme agenda upon the masses through death, destruction and fear.

Whether you are a member of PETA, the Taliban, Al Qaeda or part of some rogue third world dictatorship, you are free to harbor any extreme belief system you choose. However, you are not free to use extreme violence against civilian targets in pursuit of those belief systems. You are not free to use the death and destruction of innocent civilians or properties to promote your agenda through fear. This is terrorism… and it must not be allowed to stand, much less expand.

For more than thirty years, the west has tried to understand, negotiate with or appease extremists around the globe who see terrorism as their only means of accomplishing their ill conceived agenda for the world.

Though many dangerously misinformed civilians wrongly compare terrorists to "freedom fighters" of some insane sort, freedom is never the agenda of anyone willing to use terror against the free, to accomplish that agenda.

Today we are again being told by our governments, more than five years after we responded to the worst terror attacks in human history on 9/11 that Al Qaeda has reconstituted and has stepped up efforts to hit American and European civilian targets. Had we taken the war on terror seriously at any point over the last thirty years, this would not be the case.

Osama Bin Laden remains at large almost six years after 9/11. The entire world knows he has been operating from within Pakistan since escaping capture in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan years ago. The Musharraf government in Pakistan has tried to work with western allies to hunt, capture and kill Bin Laden and members of his Al Qaeda network. But they have refused to go after terrorists in the tribal regions of their country known to harbor and support terrorists like Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

As a result, both have been able to reconstitute under safe harbor in Pakistan. Though the Musharraf government does not appear to be harboring these terrorists, their countrymen are. If you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist. This region of Pakistan must be treated as such immediately and if Musharraf can’t do it, we must.

It is widely known that the current government of Iran is harboring, training, funding, arming and generally promoting terror activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon and the West Bank. If you harbor, train, arm or fund terrorists, you are a terrorist.

In addition, Iran is on a fast track to long range nuclear capability and the current government has been openly specific about their intentions once they are armed with such capability. Every moment that passes without treating this regime like the terrorists they are, is a moment they use to become stronger.

We know that Syria has been a sponsor of international terror almost since the beginning of time and that they have been funneling arms and soldiers into Iraq and Lebanon in support of ongoing terror operations. If you harbor, train, arm or fund terrorists, you are a terrorist.

We are at war with terrorists in more than sixty countries around the globe, including our own and all of our allies. We are not at war with any of these nations.

But because terror networks reside and operate within these countries, none of these countries can be exempt from military operations meant to hunt, capture or kill terrorists. None of them can be a safe harbor for terrorists.

If you are not with us, you are indeed against us. This was the first fundamental rule of engagement for the war on terror, established less than 24 hours after 9/11. Yet it is not being adhered to by western allies even six years later and today, the west is once again bracing for further terror attacks.

How many more innocent civilians in the west have to die before our governments realize that tough talk alone will not protect the innocent? How much damage must be done to our societies, our financial systems, our government offices, before they begin to act on their tough words?

It’s now clear that Musharraf can not get the job done in Pakistan. We know that Iran is not going to comply with international demands to stop its nuclear proliferation without being forced to comply and yet that they can not be allowed to complete their agenda. We know that both Syria and North Korea are on dangerous paths in support of international terrorism. We know that much of Europe is already on its knees with Islamic extremists running roughshod over their own cities.

At what point will our governments take serious action to end this threat once and for all?

This is a very unconventional war that will only be won through unconventional means. More and more ground troops with their hands tied via insane rules of engagement means only more and more dead troops and a protracted war that will result in more civilian casualties here and abroad.

Meanwhile in Washington, Democrats have been sending a clear message of defeat and disengagement from the war on terror since the moment they voted to send troops into harms way. Now, an increasing number of spineless Republicans, more concerned about their political skins than the troops on the ground, are joining Democrats in that message.

My message to the Code Pink members of our diverse society is this, NOBODY in America likes or wants war you self absorbed dumbasses! Get over yourselves! Nobody in America wants to revisit 9/11 or worse either. If you’re not with us in this regard, you too are against us…

I have a few vital (as in life and death) questions for every American, especially political leaders, who are calling for the "redeployment" of American troops out of Iraq, each of which demands a coherent honest answer.

1) "Redeployment" is a military term used to describe the moving of troops from one field of active war operation to another. When you "redeploy" our troops out of the field of operation in Iraq, you are planning to "redeploy" them to which new field of operation in the ongoing war against international terrorism? Until such time that the enemy is on American doorsteps, recalling troops home is disengagement from the war, not "redeployment."

2) If military force is off the table for Iran, how do you plan to immediately stop Iran from ever achieving its goal of nuclear proliferation?

3) If we do pull our troops out of Iraq, exactly what are your specific expectations for what happens next in Iraq, the region, Europe and America, in both the immediate and long range future? This question must be answered before an intelligent decision can be made concerning Iraq withdrawal.

Anyone calling for troop "redeployment" without offering answers to these elementary questions at the same time can not be trusted to recommend military policy anywhere anytime.

These questions are so fundamental that even to call for "redeployment" of troops without offering answers to these questions smacks of gross ignorance and incompetence. People willing do make such a dangerous error in policy statements can not be allowed to make policy, especially during a time of war and ongoing threat to civilian populations.

Once these questions are answered, the American people can decide whether or not they agree with those assessments. But until then, "redeployment" is nothing more than a rhetorical political term used to fire up the anti-war crowd without providing any coherent leadership on the matter.

If you harbor, train, fund or in any way support terrorism, you are a terrorist! That includes defunding or undermining those engaged in the war to stop terrorism, even from the halls of congress! When done for political gain, it’s cowardly as well.

Can I make it any clearer?

Sadly, even if people like Lugar and Warner read this, they will never heed it. They are obviously worried about re-election, not winning the very real war on terror or even stopping the next 9/11... They are following Democrats in search of safe political harbor, not leading anyone.

JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. A hard hitting columnist, attacking the socialist cancer plaguing America today. He has a pragmatic “common Joe” approach to even the toughest issues facing our nation.

http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/williams/07162007.htm

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

نشرنا لهذه المقالات لا يعني أنها تعبر عن وجهة نظر المركز كلياً أو جزئياً

ـ

ـ

من حق الزائر الكريم أن ينقل وأن ينشر كل ما يعجبه من موقعنا . معزواً إلينا ، أو غير معزو .ـ