Tag Archives: Fort Hood

Common Sense Has Left The Building

Posted on by

The Daily Caller posted an article today about the latest target of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The group has totally lost all sense of reason.

The article reports:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has declared three of America’s largest Army bases Confederate monuments “with the potential to unleash more turmoil and bloodshed” if activists don’t “take down” the Army bases.

The SPLC included Fort Hood in Texas, Fort Bragg in North Carolina and Fort Benning in Georgia on a list of 1,500 “Confederate monuments” that the SPLC claims could inspire more violence like what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia last month. All three bases are named after Confederate military leaders.

The list makes no mention of renaming namesakes of Confederate monuments; taking the monuments down is presented as the only option. The recent leftist campaign against Confederate namesakes and monuments has included a willingness among some far-left actors to destroy government property to accomplish their goals.

If the SPLC is so unhappy with American history and the American government, why don’t they take their organization elsewhere? Nothing they are doing is improving the atmosphere of division and hate that they say they are combating. In fact, it can be argued that this ‘anti-hate group’ is creating hate and division.

The article notes:

At the same time that the SPLC is waging its campaign against Fort Hood, approximately 400 American soldiers stationed at the base are down in Houston helping victims of Hurricane Harvey.

What is the SPLC doing to help the victims of Hurricane Harvey?

A Much-Needed Policy Change

Posted on by

Approximately seven years ago, Major Nidal Hasan killed thirteen people and wounded more than thirty others at Fort Hood, Texas. Because our military was banned from carrying their weapons at government facilities, none of the soldiers at the base were armed. That situation rule has now changed.

On Monday, The Military Times reported:

U.S. military personnel can now request to carry concealed handguns for protection at government facilities, according to new Defense Department directive issued last week in response to a series of deadly shootings over the last seven years.

While service members already were authorized to carry weapons as part of specific job responsibilities, the new policy allows them to apply to carry their privately owned firearms “for personal protection not associated with the performance of official duties,” the directive says.

It also clarifies when military recruiters can be armed, said Army Maj. Jamie Davis, a Defense Department spokesman.

“Commanders have always had that authority to arm recruiters,” Davis told Military Times on Monday. “Some of the wording wasn’t very clear, so they’ve gone through and cleaned it up so it is very clear now that the commanders have that authority to use at their discretion.”

Effective Nov. 18, the directive culminates years of work, Davis said.

There are some procedures that have to be followed in order to legally carry a handgun on Defense Department property:

Those wishing to carry a concealed personal firearm on Defense Department property must apply for permission. They have to be at least 21 years old and meet all federal, state and local laws and host-nation requirements the directive says.

The individual military services will determine requirements for those who will grant conceal-carry requests, the directive says. Those officials must have a minimum rank of lieutenant colonel, commander or the civilian equivalent.

“These authorizations will be for a maximum of 90-calendar-day increments and may be renewed for as long as the threat or circumstance necessitating arming exists,” according to the directive.

This policy change is overdue. Until this policy went into effect, military bases and recruiting stations were soft targets. Now the military personnel at those places will be able to defend themselves if necessary. Terrorists are less likely to attack a target if they know it will be defended.

Breaking Faith With America’s Military

Posted on by

Fox News posted a story today about the treatment of the shooting victims of the Fort Hood terrorism attack. The Obama Administration has acknowledged that the people hurt and killed in the attack were victims of terrorism. The Obama Administration has also awarded Purple Hearts to the victims. However, the Obama Administration has also denied benefits for the injuries suffered in the attack.

The article reports:

The 2015 defense budget — known as the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA — included language that meant Fort Hood victims were eligible for the Purple Heart honor because the attack was inspired by a foreign terrorist group, and not workplace violence, as the Defense Department initially labeled it.

 Manning (Shawn Manning), who was seriously injured in the 2009 attack) submitted new paperwork so the Army would recognize his injuries were sustained in the line of duty. But his appeal was rejected by a physical evaluation board, apparently based on a narrow interpretation of the law.

“Section 571 of the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act addresses both the awarding of the Purple Heart to service members killed or wounded in attacks inspired or motivated by foreign terrorist organizations and the Defense of Freedom Medal for those members and civilians killed or wounded during the Fort Hood attack on 5 November 20009,” the April 6 letter states.

“Nowhere in the act, however, does it offer combat benefits for service members permanently disabled in attacks inspired or motivated by foreign terrorist organizations. Although subsequent legislation and guidance may change, currently, the Board has no authority to award V1/V3 (service related) designation to soldiers disabled during the Fort Hood attack. “

Manning said, “it’s a great thing to finally be recognized, to stand up there and say, ‘Hey your sacrifice did mean something.’”

But he said the board’s decision means, on a practical level, his family will lose back pay, and $800 a month in benefits, adding he believes other Fort Hood survivors will face the same treatment. “I think you know it’s a huge let-down. I hope that’s not what the Army had intended to do.”

The people who were injured at Fort Hood were where they were as part of their military service. To deny them the full benefits that are paid to soldiers wounded in combat is a disgrace. Congress needs to correct this situation very quickly. This is another example of the Obama Administration breaking faith with the American military.

 

Something Good From Washington

Posted on by

Senator Ted Cruz released the following statement today:

“On November 5, 2009, a brutal terror attack was carried out at Fort Hood. The lives of 14 people were taken, one of them an unborn child, and 32 were injured. Today, we are grateful that the U.S. Army has chosen to bestow the Purple Heart, and its civilian counterpart, the Medal for the Defense of Freedom, on these victims,” said Sen. Cruz.
 
“This attack was a clear act of radical Islamic terrorism, conducted on American soil – the original decision to designate it ‘workplace violence’ and deny these honors was a betrayal of the sacrifice of each of the victims.  It is well past time for them to receive these awards and I thank the Secretary of the Army for reaching this determination. We can never undo the events of that day, but we can properly honor the courageous patriots who protect our nation and remain forever grateful for them.”
 
Last year, Sen. Cruz introduced an amendment to the 2015 National Defense Reauthorization Act (NDAA), which was approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee and passed by Congress, to expand Purple Heart eligibility to victims of the Fort Hood terror attack.

Thank you, Senator Cruz, for working hard to make sure the victims of the attack were properly treated.

It’s About Time

Posted on by

The only good thing that I can find in the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) is the fact that soldiers killed in the ‘workplace violence’ at Fort Hood may actually receive Purple Hearts and have the events of November 5, 2009, actually regarded as the act of domestic terrorism that they actually were.

Yesterday the Military Times reported:

Victims of the 2009 Fort Hood shootings will be eligible to receive Purple Hearts and combat injury benefits under a provision included in the latest defense authorization deal.

The measure is expected to be approved by Congress next week, and would end a five-year quest by Texas lawmakers to get battlefield recognition for the soldiers killed in the deadliest attack on a domestic military installation in U.S. history.

It could also be a financial windfall for the families of the 13 people killed and 32 wounded in the attack.

The latest authorization draft stipulates that Purple Heart medals will be awarded to “members of the armed forces killed or wounded in domestic attacks inspired by foreign terrorist organizations.”

The article points out that decisions on awarding the Purple Heart within the United States after a terrorist attack have not been consistent.

The article reports:

Troops injured at the Pentagon in the terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001, received it. Two Army recruiters shot by a radicalized Muslim outside of a recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas, in June 2009 did not.

Generally speaking, the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) is a bad bill–it cuts military benefits at a time when we are making a lot of demands on our volunteer military (see rightwinggranny). President Obama is threatening to veto the NDAA, and frankly that would not break my heart. This bill needs to be redone after the new Congress is sworn in in 2015. If there is a week gap in funding, we can pay some things late–other than fixing the Purple Heart situation for Fort Hood victims, the bill needs to be changed. Also, if this bill is what the Republican leadership is going to give us, we need new Republican leadership.

Keeping Politics Out Of Our Military

Posted on by

Unfortunately, we are a stage in our country where everything is political. I don’t know exactly how or when we got here or how to get our of here, but here is where we are. It was refreshing today on Fox News Sunday to hear Senator Kaine say that decisions about guns on military bases should be made by the military in order to avoid politics playing a part in the decision.

The Washington Times reported today:

“I trust the military leadership on this. I don’t live on a military base, and I don’t serve in the military,” the Virginia Democrat said on “Fox News Sunday.” “For those of us in Congress to say ‘here’s what they should do,’ I worry that it would be a little political rather than really about safety or security.”

The article also reported:

Rep. Steve Stockman, Texas Republican, is pushing “The Safe Military Bases Act,” which would allow base personnel to arm themselves.

Fellow Texas Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, argued Sunday that, at the very least, senior military leadership on base ought to be able to carry weapons.

There are a few things to consider here. If senior military leadership had been armed, would the shooter have been brought down sooner? But there is something else to consider. Fort Hood is a gun-free zone. The shooter knew that when he opened fire he would be the only gunman in the room (at least for a short time). Had the shooter known that someone in the room might be armed, would he have taken the chance? The guards at the gate cannot reasonably be expected to search every vehicle or person who comes on base for a gun–the lines getting on to the base would be endless if that were attempted. Obviously, not everyone respects a gun-free zone, so I would suggest creating the possibility that someone in any given area of the base would be armed and prepared to shoot back in case of an attack. It is noteworthy that most of the mass killings we have seen have occurred in gun-free zones, where the killer knew that there would be no opposition. I think we need to create at least some potential opposition.

Enhanced by Zemanta

I Guess This Is A Step In The Right Direction

Posted on by

Yesterday the Daily Caller reported that the U. S. Army is ordering a halt to all briefings classifying Christian groups as domestic hate groups. Yes, you read that right. The army needs a memorandum to stop teaching soldiers that Christians are a domestic terrorism threat. Good grief!  A memorandum sent out by the Secretary of the Army, John McHugh ordered all Army leaders “to cease all briefings, command presentations, or training on the subject of extremist organizations and activities, pending promulgation” of a uniform instruction and training program.

The article reports:

As Fox News notes, the Army’s Equal Opportunity Advisor Student Guide highlights the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center). Troops at Fort Hood were recently advised that donations to evangelical Christian groups or Tea Party groups could lead to penalties. Also, in May, Fox says, an Army Reserve training memo called evangelical Christians and Catholics as religious extremists.

The irony of this, of course, is that an SPLC law center map was used by Floyd Lee Corkins to find the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., where his goal was to shoot as many people as possible. Thank God he was stopped by a security guard that he did shoot.

The First Amendment protects our religious freedom. Our military takes an oath to protect and defend our Constitution. Our training memos and lectures should reflect that oath.

Enhanced by Zemanta

As Usual Texas Gets It Right

Posted on by

On Friday the Austin American-Statesman reported that Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson announced that the Texas Veteran Land Board will treat the surviving spouses of the Fort Hood massacre as if their loved ones were killed in combat.

The article reports:

Over 150 victims and family members are suing the federal government seeking to have the attack classified as an act of war, which would lead to increased retirement, medical and disability benefits. The federal government has not called Maj. Nidal Hasan, convicted in the shootings on Friday, an enemy combatant, which would open the door to Purple Hearts and expanded benefits.

The details of the arrangement are currently being worked out by the lawyers, and it is not clear how the decision will affect those surviving family members living outside the state of Texas.

If Major Hasan was not an enemy combatant, what was he? If he was a terrorist, then it was a terrorist attack and the families should receive full benefits. The idea that what happened at Fort Hood was workplace violence does not work. The excuse used to call it that was that the government did not want to interfere with the trial of Major Hasan. The trail is now over. Let’s call what happened at Fort Hood a terrorist attack. That’s what it was. Unfortunately it was a terrorist in our own military–a fact that the government had chosen to ignore.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Hate Crime, Workplace Violence, Or Jihad?

Posted on by

I have always been bothered by the legal concept of ‘hate crime’ for two reasons. First of all, if you are dead, does it really matter if the person who killed you hated you? Second of all, I really don’t believe that a jury can correctly judge the motives of a criminal 100 percent of the time. Charge the criminal with the crime he committed, and let God judge the motive.

This brings me to the trial of Nidal Hasan, charged with the ‘workplace violence’ killing of thirteen people and wounding of more than thirty others. Major Hasan is acting as his own lawyer in the trial.

One of the things Andrew McCarthy (who led the prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the Blind Sheik who planned the first attack on the World Trade Center) has said repeatedly is that during the prosecution of the Blind Sheik the prosecution team studied the Koran to see if the Blind Sheik was an extremist or if he was actually (as he claimed) simply following the Koran. To their dismay, they found ample justification for the killing of infidels in the Koran. Mr. McCarthy pointed out that the key to the prosecution was defining the purpose of the attack. The rest of the government prosecutors evidently have not learned that lesson.

Fox News posted an article yesterday describing the first day of the trial:

After a short opening statement in which ex-Army Maj. Nidal Hasan called himself a “mujahedeen,” admitted to the rampage and said “the dead bodies will show that war is an ugly thing,” Hasan cross-examined prosecution witnesses, including retired Lt. Col Ben Kirk Phillips, his former boss. When pressed by the defendant, Phillips acknowledged that his officer evaluation report had graded Hasan as “outstanding.”

But he declined to cross-examine one of his shooting victims, Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford, who provided the day’s most damning testimony.

Lunsford – who was shot seven times during the incident – described what happened that day, saying he first saw Hasan sitting in a chair, with his arms on his knees while looking at the floor.

He said Hasan then jumped up and ordered the one civilian in the room to leave before shouting, “Allahu akbar” and opening fire. Panic set in among the soldiers, who crowded toward a rear door, which was jammed.

The trial has taken a rather bizarre turn today as Major Hasan’s court-appointed lawyers have asked to be taken off the case.

10 News in Tampa reports:

In a motion filed late Tuesday, Poppe (lead defense attorney Lt. Col. Kris Poppe) and his team said they feel Hasan is trying to purposely get the death penalty and asked the judge, Col. Tara Osborn, to not force them to be part of that effort. Poppe, addressing Osborn on Wednesday, said it became clear that Hasan is seeking the death penalty for himself after hearing the accused opening statement and cross examination of witnesses.

“Assisting him in achieving the goal of moving closer to the death penalty is something a defense trial attorney should not be forced to do,” Poppe said.

But Hasan objected to the defense team’s assertions.

The government is calling the Fort Hoot shootings workplace violence. When lawyers for the wounded soldiers have challenged that ruling, the government has said that calling it terrorism would jeopardize the legal case against Major Hasan. There is another aspect to this, however. If the Fort Hood shooting is a terrorist attack, those wounded soldiers are entitled to Purple Hearts and the benefits that come with being wounded in an attack. Right now, the injured are being denied those benefits.

As witnesses to the attack testify that Major Hasan was yelling “Allahu akbar” during the attack, the idea that this was workplace violence becomes ludicrous. It’s time that the government prosecutors admitted what happened at Fort Hood so that our wounded soldiers could receive the benefits and medals they are entitled to.

What Did He Say?

Posted on by

Friday’s Washington Times posted an article about President Obama’s recent speech on terrorism. The President explained that the threat of terrorist attacks in the United States has returned to pre-9/11 levels. That’s a great idea, but there are a few problems with it. First of all, even though it was not obvious until 9/11, the threat was there–we were fortunate to stop the millennium bomber who was planning to blow up LAX, we were not so fortunate in Oklahoma City, and I am sure there were many thwarted attacks we were unaware of. We really weren’t all that safe before 9/11, and we are even less safe now.

The article reports:

The Heritage Foundation has been cataloguing foiled terror attacks post-9/11 by Islamic groups. The number: 54.

James Carafano, a military analyst at Heritage, said the 1990s’ numbers “were a fraction of that.”

The article lists five attacks since 2009–two of which were successful:

• Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad opened fire at a military recruiting office in Little Rock, Ark., in June 2009, killing one soldier.

• Najibullah Zazi, who said he was a member of al Qaeda, tried to detonate bombs in New York City’s subway in September 2009.

• Army Maj. Nadal Malik Hassan opened fire at a soldier processing center at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13.

• Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to explode a bomb hidden in his underwear onboard a flight to Detroit in December 2009.

• Faisal Shahzad attempted to detonate a car bomb in Times Square in May 2010.

It would be nice if we could declare that the war on terror was over and have it be so, but we are not there yet, and it is dangerous to presume that we are.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Something Is Very Wrong Here

Posted on by

NBC Connecticut is reporting today that three recipients of the Medal of Honor will present the Congressional Medal of Honor Society’s highest civilian award, the Citizen Honors Medal posthumously to the six educators that were killed trying to protect their students in Newtown. Connecticut on December 14th. I think that is wonderful–they are being awarded this medal because they were killed trying to protect their students.

However, there is another group of shooting victims that is being denied the honor they have earned. The Department of Defense is refusing to award the Purple Heart to those soldiers killed on the attack at Fort Hood, Texas.

On April 2, Military.com reported:

A position paper, delivered by the Pentagon to congressional staff members Friday, says giving the award, for injuries sustained in combat, to those injured at Fort Hood could “irrevocably alter the fundamental character of this time-honored decoration.”

If you are attacked at your base and people are killed, isn’t that combat? Admittedly it is unplanned combat, but isn’t a lot of combat unplanned?

The article at Military.com further reports:

Thirteen people were killed and 32 injured in the November 2009 shootings on the base. Maj. Nidal Hasan, the alleged shooter, awaits a military trial on premeditated murder and attempted murder charges.

Fort Hood was a terrorist act–it was not ‘workplace violence.’ Maj. Hasan yelled “Allahu Akbar” as he fired. We are at war–this was an attack by the enemy. We need to acknowledge that and make sure that all the victims of that attack receive the honor and benefits they are entitled to. Meanwhile, we do not hesitate to honor civilians in equally awful situations. Both groups should receive medals in a timely fashion.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Travesty Surrounding The Shootings At Fort Hood

Posted on by

In November 2009, American soldiers were killed on an American army base by an American terrorist. The incident has been called “workplace violence,” and the soldiers injured in that attack have been denied the Purple Heart and the benefits their families would receive as a result of awarding that medal.

PJ Media reported in May 2012 on the Obama Administration’s threat to veto a defense authorization bill. The article lists one of the reasons for the veto:

No. 26 on the list of veto-worthy offenses is objection to awarding Purple Hearts to the victims of the Fort Hood and Little Rock shootings.

“The Administration objects to section 552, which would grant Purple Hearts to the victims of the shooting incidents in Fort Hood, Texas, and Little Rock, Arkansas,” the veto threat states. “The criminal acts that occurred in Little Rock were tried by the State of Arkansas as violations of the State criminal code rather than as acts of terrorism; as a result, this provision could create appellate issues.”

On June 1, 2009, Muslim convert Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, who had spent time in Yemen and was an avowed jihadist, killed one soldier and wounded another in a drive-by shooting on a military recruiting office in Little Rock. He pleaded guilty to murder, avoiding trial and the death penalty, and was sentenced to life in prison.

Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army major who had email communications with senior al-Qaeda recruiter and Yemen-based cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, awaits military trial for the Nov. 5, 2009, massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, in which 13 were killed and 29 wounded.

After the Fort Hood shootings, the FBI quickly said there was no evidence of a greater terrorist plot at work, the Defense Department called it an “isolated” case, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Hasan’s actions were not representative of his Muslim faith.

This is the Clinton Administration’s policy on terrorism–treat it as a criminal action and ignore the problem. This was the thinking that brought us 9-11.

Reuters reported yesterday that the Army has formally declined to issue Purple Hearts to the victims at Fort Hood because it would interfere with a fair trial of Major Hasan. It has been more than three years since the shootings at Fort Hood–why isn’t the trial over?

PJ Media also reported:

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) introduced a bill at the end of April (2012) (H.R.5144) to amend Title 10 of the U.S. Code to provide for the award of the Purple Heart to members of the Armed Forces who are killed or wounded in a terrorist attack perpetrated within the United States.

It’s also retroactive. “The Secretaries of the military departments (and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard) shall undertake a review of each death or wounding of a member of the Armed Forces that occurred within the United States between January 1, 2009, and the date of the enactment of this Act under circumstances that could qualify the death or wounding as being the result of a terrorist attack.”

That bill has 13 bipartisan co-sponsors, including Texas Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee (D), John Carter (R), Henry Cuellar (D) and Mike McCaul (R).

That bill never made it out of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

If the Fort Hood incident had happened during World War II, would Major Hasan still be alive? If not, what has happened to our country?

Enhanced by Zemanta

When Is A War Injury Not A War Injury ?

Posted on by

On Friday, ABC News reported that as a result of an ABC news investigative report regarding the shootings at Fort Hood, Republicans in Congress are asking for more information on how the aftermath of the attack was handled. At issue is the Obama Administration’s decision to charge Major Nidal Hasan with ‘workplace violence’ instead of terrorism. That decision has a great deal of impact on those who were victims of the attack.

The decision that the shooting was ‘workplace violence’ prevents those shot by Major Hasan from being awarded purple hearts. It also gives the surviving victims lower priority when it comes to receiving medical care and a loss of benefits available to soldiers whose injuries are considered combat related. Because the shootings were considered workplace violence, they are not considered combat related.

The article reports:

Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier, and 32 others shot in the Nov. 5, 2009 rampage by the accused gunman, Maj. Nidal Hasan, at the Army base in Killeen, Texas. Hasan, who was in communication with al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, now awaits a military trial on charges of premeditated murder and attempted murder. Al-Awlaki has since been killed in a U.S. drone attack in Yemen, in what was termed a major victory in the U.S. efforts against al Qaeda.

It is bad enough that Major Hasan pretty much broadcast ahead of time that he had gone over the edge–some of his lectures, his business cards, etc. He was not reported because no one was willing to take the chance of being called a racist or anti-Muslim. Because no one came forward, thirteen soldiers died as Hasan shouted, “Allahu Akbar.” It seems to me that it should be rather obvious to even the most naive member of the Obama Administration that most people who commit workplace violence don’t shout, “Allahu Akbar,” and that shout might have something to do with a motive for the killings.

Meanwhile, American soldiers and their families pay a price because the Obama Administration does not want to admit that Major Hasan is an example of a domestic terrorists in our military.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Not All Civilizations Are Equal

Posted on by
Benjamin Netanyahu

Image via Wikipedia

This is one of those rambling posts I put up occasionally. If that bothers you, please feel free to stop reading. In a briefing on Islam given to his fellow Army doctors before his shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Nidal Malik Hasan stated, “We love death more than you love life!” We need to think about that for a minute. Western civilization does not have a perfect record on loving life–we treated the American Indians badly, we treated the slaves badly, and we currently allow abortion (which kills the innocent unborn). We’re not perfect. However, generally speaking, we seek to preserve life. Sometimes we’re even a little nutty about it. We value people as individuals and seek to protect them. Unfortunately, that puts us at a disadvantage when dealing with a culture that worships death.

Yesterday Reuters posted an article stating that Israel and the Hamas rulers of the Gaza Strip have agreed to a prisoner swap. Israeli captive soldier Gilad Shalit will be exchanged for more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners. Gilad Shalit was kidnapped in 2006.

The article reports:

Announcing to his cabinet, and television cameras, that a deal had been signed earlier in the day, Netanyahu said he feared time was running out for Shalit amid political upheaval in the Arab world.

“I believe we have reached the best agreement possible at this time, when storms are raging in the Middle East. I don’t know if we could have reached a better agreement, or even achieved one at all, in the near future,” he said.

“It’s possible that this window of opportunity would have closed for good and we never would have brought Gilad home.”

What is he saying? There is so much upheaval in the Middle East right now, and the entire area seems to be moving against Israel. As more militant Islamists take over the countries surrounding Israel and exert their power, the chances of getting Gilad back to Israel alive will grow dimmer. Again, kidnapping has proved to be a worthwhile activity on the part of those who are opposing western civilization. Iran has used it consistently to raise money. Lebanon has also used kidnapping as a weapon. In Beirut between 1982 and 1992, 96 foreign hostages of 21 national origins were kidnapped. You think we would have learned by now that this is a prime money-raising activity (and prisoner release activity) of terrorists.

I admire Prime Minister Netanyahu for making this deal. He knows as he signs the paper that he is paving the way for more terrorist attacks in Israel. He also knows that this is the only way to bring Gilad home alive. Terrorists do not play fair, and until the western world stands in unity against them, they will continue to promote death and violence.

Enhanced by Zemanta