If you Harbor, Train, Arm, Fund or in any way Support Terrorism
You Are a Terrorist!
Written by JB Williams
©2007 USA
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.