دعمت الإرهاب بأي طريقة فأنت
جي بي و يليامس
جورنال - 16/7/2007
*اذا كنت تؤو ي الإرهابيين فأنت
*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
You Support Terrorism in Any Way You Are a Terrorist!
Fifth Column JB Williams
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
what point will our governments take serious action to
end this threat once and for all?
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.
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
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
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
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."
military force is off the table for Iran, how do you
plan to immediately stop Iran from ever achieving its
goal of nuclear proliferation?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I make it any clearer?
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
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
لهذه المقالات لا يعني أنها
تعبر عن وجهة نظر المركز كلياً
من حق الزائر الكريم أن ينقل وأن ينشر كل ما يعجبه من موقعنا . معزواً إلينا ، أو غير معزو .ـ