Tag Archives: Pakistan

Female legislator killed in Afghanistan, pro-jihad woman kidnapped in Pakistan

These two stories create an interesting contrast to say the least. First of all, a female legislator is killed by terrorists in Afghanistan.

Excerpt:

A female provincial government official in Afghanistan who worked hard for women’s rights was gunned down on Sunday during a weekend of violence that has rocked the south of the country.

Sitara Achakzai died when gunmen ambushed her outside her home in Kandahar city before driving away, according to Matiullah Khan Qateh, Kandahar province’s chief of police.

Four men on motorcycles drove up to the house and shot Achakzai as she exited her car, Qateh said.

Qari Yousef Ahmedi, a Taliban spokesperson, claimed responsibility for the killing.

Achakzai spent the years of Taliban rule in Afghanistan living outside the country. She lived in Germany for at least 20 years and was a dual Afghan-German citizen.

She returned to Afghanistan to work for women’s rights, according to Shahida Bibi of the Kandahar Women’s Association.

Achakzai was a member of Kandahar’s provincial council and was a vocal proponent of women working outside the home, Bibi said.

And here is an interesting contrast. According to this Fox News article (H/T Small Dead Animals), a Canadian female journalist who advocated in favor of terrorism has now been kidnapped and is being held for ransom by the terrorists that she’d been supporting.

Excerpt:

Soon after Al Qaeda terrorists killed 3,000 people in the U.S., Giesebrecht converted to Islam, adopted a new name — Khadija Abdul Qahaar — and spent the next two years studying the Koran in Egypt.

She created a pro-Jihadi Web site, Jihad Unspun, and she developed a network of contacts, contributors and translators, some of whom introduced her to the Taliban in Pakistan.

But then her new allies turned on her:

And then last November, the Taliban, the group she had befriended, kidnapped her while she was chasing a story in the Bannu region of northern Pakistan. In a video released after her capture, Qahaar says she’s being held by the Taliban…

In the most recent video, released to the Miranshah Press Club on March 18, Qahaar says her captors demand ransom payment of 2 million Rupees — about $25,000 — by the end of March. On earlier tapes, she said her captors were demanding $375,000.

“I’m pleading with you, save my life. Spare me,” she says. “We have a very short time now, I’ll probably be beheaded.”

The article concludes with this:

“I need somebody to help me,” Qaahar pleaded on the most recent video. “My government — the Canadian government, the Pakistan government — I want to go home.”

It’s certainly ironic.

Democrats are weak on military policy and counter-terrorism

I was browsing over at The Anchoress and I came across this post which describes how Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein has inadvertently leaked that the USA launches Predator missions from Pakistan. This may cause the government to lessen their cooperation with American military efforts in the region because a significant amount of the population of Pakistan will not react well to this news.

This sort of error is not the exception but the rule with Democrats. Democrats have a reputation for not taking defense and counter-terrorism seriously. According to this post over at the American Thinker, the 9/11 tragedy was mostly due to a failure in intelligence caused by a “wall” between different intelligence-gathering organizations.

Gorelick, an appointee of Bill Clinton, is the one who constructed the wall of separation that kept the CIA and the FBI from comparing notes and therefore invading the privacy of nice young men like, say, Muhammed Atta and Zacarius Moussaoui. While countless problems were uncovered in our intelligence operations in the wake of 9-11, no single factor comes close to in importance to Jamie Gorelick’s wall.

In fact, it was Gorelick’s wall, perhaps more than any other single factor, that induces some people to blame Clinton himself for 9-11 since he appointed her and she acted  consistent with his philosophy of “crime fighting.” She put the wall into place as Deputy Attorney General in 1995.

George W. Bush’s bold action abroad gave us 7 years free from terrorist attacks on American assets. If there is one thing that deters future attacks, it is military invasions of countries that support and/or harbor terrorists. They understand military force. For Bush, one terrorist attack was enough to get us to respond with force.

As a result of the Bush doctrine of invading states suspected of developing and/or proliferating WMDs, Libya discontinued its weapons program and invited inspectors to come in and cart away all of its research equipment. That was the Bush doctrine – which Libya believed only because they saw that we were willing to back up our demands with force. We can have peace if our enemies believe that we have the will to go to war, and that our enemies fear that they will lose that contest.

Contrast George W. Bush’s immediate response to terrorism with Democrat Bill Clinton. According to Byron York, we had four terrorist attacks during Clinton’s presidency.

So Clinton talked tough. But he did not act tough. Indeed, a review of his years in office shows that each time the president was confronted with a major terrorist attack — the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole — Clinton was preoccupied with his own political fortunes to an extent that precluded his giving serious and sustained attention to fighting terrorism.

How did Clinton respond to these four attacks? According to this interview with Richard Miniter, President Clinton was much less aggressive than Bush was, during his two terms. Bush’s administration did not fear public opinion, but Clinton’s administration did. Miniter lists sixteen of the Clinton administration’s failures to treat terrorism as a serious threat. Below, I cite my favorites. Read the whole list!

Lopez: In sum, how many times did Bill Clinton lose bin Laden?

Miniter: Here’s a rundown. The Clinton administration:

4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.

8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.

11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.

12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.

15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.
16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.

When you look at the facts, we begin to understand why Democrats perform so poorly on national security issues. Remember John Kerry’s global test? Kerry thought that our national security should be partly based on world opinion. (Ironically, Kerry voted against the first war in Iraq, when the whole world supported us in the liberation of Kuwait).

Republicans, on the other hand, believe in peace through strength.

In foreign policy, Reagan sought to achieve “peace through strength.” During his two terms he increased defense spending 35 percent, but sought to improve relations with the Soviet Union. In dramatic meetings with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, he negotiated a treaty that would eliminate intermediate-range nuclear missiles. Reagan declared war against international terrorism, sending American bombers against Libya after evidence came out that Libya was involved in an attack on American soldiers in a West Berlin nightclub.

The differences between the two parties could not be more clear. Weakness provokes war. Wars start when our enemies believe that they can strike us with impunity. Military strength, and the will to use it, deter aggression.