HOW TO KNOW IF AN ATTACK IS TERRORISM

The recent attacks in Israel, of military buses and vehicles, has been labeled 'terrorism.' Read the story here. Yes, it appears there may have also been civilian casualties.

Attacking a military target is not terrorism, folks. It is an act of warfare, a military strike. It does a disservice to public opinion to label every bombing, strafing, or shooting 'terrorism' when in fact what has taken place is a fairly conventional military operation.

Terrorists target helpless and vulnerable non-military people, preferably women and children and shoppers and tourists. Blowing up a busload of soldiers, especially those that shoot back as in the above cited story, is decidedly not terrorism.

So, media: call it what it is, and spare us the inflammatory headlines.

THE MILITARY STRIKE AT FORT HOOD

Now that your friendly ostrich killer has gotten over his anger at the events at Fort Hood, he has donned his more thoughtful, philosophical thinking hat. The following is something that you may not hear from any other source.

The scumbag who killed all those people was an enemy soldier, who had successfully infiltrated our military and conducted a military strike. That is a time-honored tradition of all armies since the beginning of time.

It's important to notice the primary difference between terrorists and military: terrorists attack the defenseless, military attacks military. Since Hasan attacked a military target, and was an enemy in disguise, this is a simple case of military action.

Now, it's tradition that such infiltrators who do not wear the uniforms of their convictions are shot on capture. Executed on the spot, no trial no nothing. That famous photo taken in Viet Nam is one such case. The guy getting his brains blown out was correctly getting them blown out.

But that scumbag Hasan is still alive. To that I say Hooray. Now he can be squeezed for information. Now he and any of his clandestine helpers and supporters can hear the mainstream muslim leadership condemn what he did. He'll get to learn that a woman half his size brought him down. I'd love to see his face when he learns that. Did you know that among the other signals he was sending out to the Army, he always refused to be photographed with women in group photos?

But there are other troubling items still left on the plate:

1. What intelligence agencies failed to provide the necessary warnings, even when they had good cause to predict what he would do? (You can start by guessing special handling for islamics.)

2. Why did the US Army fail to act when they knew about his 'islam first, America second' convictions? (You can start by guessing PC here.)

3. Why does General Casey, Army Chief of Staff, believe that diversity in the Army is more important than the lives of his soldiers? Here's what he said, direct quote: “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse."

4. What steps will be taken to prevent another such tragedy? This is the second one of its type, both in the Army.

5. Hasan was a psychiatrist. What did he plant in the heads of his patients? What did he learn from them that he may have passed along to his friends in Al Qaeda? Who among his patients might have been a contact / message carrier for Al Qaeda? I'm sure our intelligence agencies can think of many other such questions. OTOH, given the failures to date, maybe not . . . maybe they've been emasculated to the point of utter impotence.

Obama can't blame that on Bush.

WHAT DO WE NOT KNOW ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY?

Your Ostrich Killer provides you this, from yesterday's headlines:

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — The U.S. Homeland Security secretary says she is working to prevent a possible wave of anti-Muslim sentiment after the shootings at Fort Hood in Texas.

Janet Napolitano says her agency is working with groups across the United States to try to deflect any backlash against American Muslims following Thursday's rampage by Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim who reportedly expressed growing dismay over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That ought to reassure everyone, right? Especially

- islamic terrorists in the US;

- the hand-wringing bed wetters who cry over the perps and forget the victims;

- trial lawyers who stand to make millions in lawsuits

Janet Napolitano promises to make monitoring and neutralizing islamic terrorists in the US more difficult. It's easy to predict that part of her effort to deflect backlash will require more paperwork and diligence on the part of enforcement agencies. Hell, it may even require a few more bureaucracies. Slow them down, in other words, and tie their hands with PC cuffs. What's a few more dead Americans, if we can enforce pretending we don't believe what we all believe?

But another question arises: To a suspicious mind like mine, I see enforcement threats hidden behind her rhetoric. But I was unaware that DHS (Department of Homeland Security) had an enforcement arm. But maybe they do. And maybe they can be used against normal citizens who think they're being good citizens.

I have a political page, where well before 9/11 I predicted certain things, based solely on what I saw as emerging trends. My most recent entries are almost ten years old by now. But there is something eerily reminiscent in her actions. I went back and read what I wrote. The hairs on the back of my head stood up. Read it for yourself, if you're curious, at http://blizzardguy.com/politics/crystal.htm

I even mentioned the possibility of a federal police force, akin to the KGB or Gestapo. I called it the Bureau of Internal Stability back then, before DHS was spawned from the ashes of the World Trade Center.

Can there be a National Homeland Security Enforcement force in the works? Anyone know anything more about such a federal police force in the making? Make a comment, let us all know.

Terrorism and the abridgement of free speech

Okay, call me stupid, but when a government bends over to avoid calling a spade a spade in order to not offend the people who are attacking its citizens, is that not surrender?

Today Britain has rearranged their vocabulary to pander to the islamic (non-caps intentional) rabble within its borders. Let's not say 'islamic terrorist', is the official British line under their new PM.

I wonder what sort of adjective they'll use to describe terrorists? Middle Eastern? Iranian? Misguided? Or will they only label terrorists if they are not islamic (such as, Anti-islamic terrorism, should someone attack a muslim?)

At some point citizens will decide for themselves what to call these people, and begin taking care of the problem that resides in the hearts of any population of muslims in a more direct manner. Unfortunately, that point will likely not be reached until many thousands of innocent citizens of western countries have died in horrible attacks.

Stay tuned. You know it's coming. And if you are not an ostrich you know what, eventually, must be done about the problem. Prepare yourselves and your families.