27 March 2008
On Wednesday, Colombian military officials said that they recovered 66 pounds of uranium that, they say, was acquired by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Colombian Gen. Freddy Padilla tied the uranium to the seized laptops, saying one of the computer files mentions attempts by the FARC to buy uranium, apparently to resell. Earlier this month, Colombian officials claimed the rebels were seeking uranium to make a "dirty bomb."
That information should set off alarm bells, but rest assured the media and the American Left, who have already shown an affinity for Hugo Chavez, seem for whatever reason, to be ignoring what is most likely damning evidence against the Venezuelan dictator.
The laptops reportedly detail meetings between FARC leaders and members of Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa's government – and a possible $20,000 rebel contribution to Mr. Correa's campaign. Another document, say Colombian officials, indicates Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez planned to make his own contribution to the FARC of $300 million and several hundred used rifles. Based on that information, Mr. Uribe threatened to have Mr. Chávez prosecuted in international courts for sponsoring "genocide."
After sending troops to the Colombian border, suddenly a week later Chávez called for reconciliation and Correa accepted Colombia's apology for violating its territory.
Laura Gil, an international relations consultant in Bogotá, says it was the computer files rather than their "vocation for peace," that led Chávez and Correa to stand down from the conflict.
"Chávez and Uribe checkmated each other," agrees Mr. Shifter explaining the lightning fast reestablishing of ties. Ecuador has been slower to send its ambassador back to Bogotá, wary that Colombia may still plan to use the information to its advantage.
Both Chávez and Correa are now warning that tensions in the Andes will not fully ease unless Colombia agrees to keep quiet about what's on the computers.
So, why do you suppose that Chavez and his puppet Correa would suddenly and rapidly back off Colombia, who acquired an incredible amount of intel, paper trails, and most importantly, enough uranium to make a dirty bomb from the FARC terrorists? Is there any question what's on those laptops that is even more damning than a direct link to Chavez and Correra helping FARC acquire and supply materials for a dirty bomb? Think Iran is somehow connected given their new "economic" ties with Chavez?
18 March 2008
The Supreme Court took up the Heller case and it's sparked a debate. With the typical Leftwing nuts and the MSM on one side and level headed Americans on the other side. Here's the Liberal argument:
Justice John Paul Stevens noted that Congress and all but two states had focused the "right to keep and bear arms" on the militia, not on personal self-defense. It was seen "as the right to keep and bear arms for the common defense," he said.
But the court's liberal bloc did not appear to have the votes to uphold the law.
Uh-huh. So in Liberal's minds the right to bear arms to defend from an over reaching Federal Government (the same kind, ironically, that they seek to create) is a right of a militia in an effort to fight off or overthrow said government. Say....that was done once before....I think that militia was for...the Confederacy. Interesting view, moonbats.
So besides the handgun ban in D.C., the lawyers for the city said, "hey, people can still OWN a gun" but......
He said the Washington law should be upheld because it allows homeowners to have a disassembled rifle or shotgun at home, even while it bans small handguns.
Ah yes, a disassembled rife will come in very handy during a home invasion. I mean, should a criminal bust in your home, with an illegally owned handgun, and is pointing a gun at you, rest assured, in that brief moment, you move with Superman-like quickness to assemble said rifle, load it, and defend yourself.
Utterly ridiculous. It looks like the non-retarded members of the SCOTUS will prevail though:
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is the swing vote in close cases, said he believed the 2nd Amendment did more than bolster the state militia. "In my view, there is a general right to bear arms" that goes beyond serving in the militia, Kennedy said.
Most Americans believe the 2nd Amendment protects the right of law-abiding persons to "keep and bear arms." But the legal meaning of this provision remains in doubt. The high court has never invoked this right to strike down a gun law nor has it ruled that it protects a personal right to own a gun.
The left always goes off about how our rights are being taken from us when a Conservative movement in in control of any of the branches of government, but really, who assails our rights? The leftists are attempting to strip away the Second Amendment and the individual right that it grants us that is on equal footing to the First Amendment, as are the other components of the Constitution. I'm not going to make any bones about it, one area that was grossly abused by the Bush Administration was the illegal surveillance of American citizens on our own soil. The FISA argument is slightly different, as if we have a known terrorist calling into or out of the US, yes, we should be all over that. However, for intelligence gathering on US citizens, it is our right to have to have search warrants be granted before such action. The same can be said here.
The Second Amendment is an individual right that is granted to us by our Constitution, and here, we see the liberals once again assailing it. Think of their proposal for national health care. Does anyone not thing that giving the government full access to our medical records and telling us how and by what means we will receive care is not an erosion of our right? The government has no right to know our medical history and be able to dissect it. What then if a person had ever had mental health care administered? The government could easily strip them of their right to vote even if it was temporary or minor condition. We can not allow our individual rights to be usurped by a liberal populist movement who clouds their oppressive and Constitution eroding desires to be cloaked under the guise of "public good." We must recognize our rights, cherish them, and protect them at all costs.
On a lighter note, I was on the Communist News Network's (CNN) website and read a brief little update on the case much earlier in the day. Well, as always the morons at CNN didn't disappoint, and even brought a little ray of sunshine into my day:
Thirty-one states along with groups like the powerful National Rifle Association -- a gun rights lobby group -- support the gun owners. A handful of states such as Maryland, Massachusetts, Chicago, and San Francisco support Washington.
Classic leftist writings write there. First, they try to make the NRA seem like the boogeymen, which is entirely not true. Second, CNN makes sure that we know that the STATES OF CHICAGO AND SAN FRANCISCO are firmly against this. Proof read much? Or if they do, I wonder what it feels like knowing that the average first grader would have caught that major mistake. Gotta love the liberal media.
He noted, though, that the Iraqis still managed to establish a government and ratify a constitution after regaining sovereignty in June 2004, and that Iraqis enjoy freedoms that were absent under nearly three decades of Saddam's brutal rule.
"These past five years, I think, were full of hopes and promises but also of tears and blood ... and we've gone through a very, very difficult transformation," Zebari said. "What we the Iraqis have achieved over the last five years since liberation has been remarkable."
He was optimistic that the threats to pull out were empty campaign rhetoric.
"We are in an election season, and many candidates will say things that appeal to the public. But when the real national interests of the United States, of the nation, confront them, I think they have to make hard decisions," Zebari said of the candidates.
"I think now American interests in this part of the world are as important as they were in during the World War so it will not be easy for any administration, Republican or Democrat, just to wash off their hands and walk away," he said. "There is a certain responsibility, an international and moral responsibility, to help the people of Iraq to reach a stable form of governance."
He's completely right of course. In fact, he acknowledges that all sides, including the US, made mistakes but that in order to achieve stability and save the lives of scores, as well as for both nation's foreign policies and national securities, success is vital. He's absolutely right. It's a shame the left can't acknowledge this or even listen to the Iraqi government's wish. Even now, Hillary is out trying to score more cheap leftist points by attacking Blackwater and private contractors who provide the security for the highest level ambassadors and political visitors to Iraq. It's important to note that not a single person under the protection of Blackwater has died while under their guard. The left always neglects that fact and constantly attacks them. The fact is Blackwater has made some mistakes, but really, who hasn't. They have provided security in areas which has allowed the military to shift forces elsewhere, which has had a positive effect as well. The fact is, it is of the utmost importance that we succeed in Iraq, for the interests of this nation and the interests of the Iraqis. It's funny how the media fails to use Japan as the model for what we are trying to do in Iraq, but that's exactly how this should be approached. We owe it to the Iraqis to get them on their own feet, and that takes time. We committed to go to war, and we must be committed to helping rebuild that nation and care for the people of Iraq in the interim.-Caomhin
Obama Refuses to Accept Responsibility, Sets Race Relations Back 20 Years, and Insults Everyone's Intelligence
Obama's mentor Rev. "Amerikkka is EVIL!" Wright got nailed for spouting out fundamentally untrue and vicious lies about our nation, accusing the nation of racism, of "deserving 9/11", of creating the HIV/AIDS virus to kill off its citizens, etc. By Obama's own past admissions, Wright was a huge part in shaping his religious and political beliefs.
So how does Obama answer the charge that his mentor is an anti-American hate peddling hack? By playing the race card.
Race did not make Rev. Wright go up on stage and scream "God Damn America", his politics did. His completely unhinged nutroot mentality made him do that. Race had nothing to do with it. So once, Obama pulled the race card, and played it hard, to dodge having to answer the true questions about the CONTENT of Wright's speech. Here's some video:
Also notice Wright's thinly veiled reference comparison of Obama to Jesus, something that his supporters often do. You'll also notice the scary cult like mentality of the church members, much like his supporters. He also says rich, white people are his "enemies." He also refuses to judge the CONTENT OF THE CHARACTER of black Republicans for not following the cult of liberalism.
Well, let's just look at the speech from today. He excuses Wright's obvious racism as being acceptable because of what has happened in past generations. That's crap, and it's a lie. It's not right. So would a white person who gets jumped by a black person be excused for having prejudice after such an innocent be excused? Would a black person who gets robbed by a white person be excused of prejudice after the incident? Of course not, it's still racism. However, that was not the issue. The issue was politics.
Barack Obama never condemned Wright for his political speech from the pulpit, something the left goes wild over if someone who leans right would do. Obama did not approach this as what it is, a political issue. Instead, he is now riding the race card hard and fast. They've been doing this for quite sometime. If you don't support him or criticize him, you're a racist. Well, here's the truth. The man's politics suck. His speeches are delivered in incredible fashions and he has amazing oratory skills, but they are devoid of any concrete ideas, or if he does present a concrete idea, it's so far to the left that it's unreal. He talks a great game and he's playing the race card like a Vegas card shark.
He says in his speech, that he won't disown Wright because that's not fair? Really? Well, that's just a plain old lack of intestinal fortitude and leadership. If you're entire campaign is run on "hope and change" and doing things to advance and "raise America" up, then by definition you are required to get up and walk away at a minimum. I'm sure Obama would not have a problem booing a cheap shot at a sporting event, but he can't even walk away when he hears insidious attacks like Wright's? He admitted he had heard them before, was at speeches where Wright said things like in the videos above, and he kept going back. That's not leadership, that's a farce. I've had jobs where on break I've heard racist things. I walked away and when asked by one of the people I told them why. I'm not a political leader, I'm not anyone special. Yet, somehow Barack Obama can't even follow his own words? In his case, words speak louder than actions, and that's all he has, words. He's done nothing in the United States Senate and all he did today was illustrate that he is not someone who will change this nation for the better, but will sharply divide this nation even further and give a special "racist-branding" weapon to his supporters to go out and label all opposition to him. Martin Luther King's speech talked about judging people about the content of a person's character, and not their skin color. I could care less if Wright or Obama were white or black. Wright lambasted this nation, in a near treasonous fashion and Obama knew. He did nothing. He kept right on getting advice and consultations from Wright and his race baiting, America bashing ideals. That's wrong, no matter who, no matter the color.
13 March 2008
Clinton, Obama Think Anyone Making $31,850 on Up is Too Wealthy, Seeking Fatalistic Economic Policies
Obama and Clinton both promise to reverse Bush's tax cuts for wealthier
taxpayers, but the Democratic budget they'll be voting for would allow
income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850
and couples earning $63,700 or more.
That's a 12% tax increase for those in the that modest bracket. The definitions of wealthy are much more gray than the Democrats realize, or if they do, are simply lying. $50,000 in some places is a great deal of money, in others, it is not. This is the folly of the direct tax and the tax code in general. That's going to be an extremely difficult hit to swallow. Even as inflation keeps creeping up they will do even more to decrease the amount of real wages that Americans will have their disposal. Let's say for example that the inflation rate in 2010 will be 3% and work gives you a 4% raise. You're up 1%, which isn't necessarily a good thing, obviously you'd want to be much higher. Now let's say the Democrats get away with allowing our lower tax rates to revert to a higher rate and you're in that tax bracket that starts at $31,850. Well, your 1%-3% (the amount of the pay taken, not the 12% increase in actual dollars taken, which is in and of itself, insane) is now a net of LOSING 2% of your pay. This is an economic recipe for success? This is the path the Democrats seek to go down? Even worse, the subprime crisis will a blip on the radar when the investment rates skyrocket and Americans will no longer sell stocks due to an insane capital gains rate, foreign investments coming into the United States and US investors money getting great gains overseas, will drop dramatically. Protectionist policies that are tactically employed by the Democrats will provide another rib breaking punch to the economy. Also keep in mind that the Democrats are killing the efforts in Congress to put just a 1 year, not a lifetime ban as it should be, but a 1 year ban on earmarks.
Opponents of "pork barrel" projects expected to lose a late-night vote
to ban such earmarks for a year, despite the endorsement of all three
All three presidential candidates endorsed it? Really, then why is Harry Reid nearly single handedly blocking this effort and taking the insane position that somehow the Founding Fathers would have shed their blood to protect pork?
“As we look back in history, the Founding Fathers would be cringing to
hear people talking about eliminating earmarks,” Reid said, noting that
the Founders dictated in the Constitution that all spending should
originate in Congress, not the executive branch.
Got that? Understand what he's saying? The FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD HAVE DEFENDED THE ABUSE OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS IN THE FORM OF KICKBACKS AND PET PROJECTS? Is he one the biggest slime balls in America today or what? The Founding Fathers would have railed against this insanity and would NEVER have allowed this to happen in the first place.
This should also illustrate just how badly Obama and Clinton are lying. They want to be the leaders of the NATION and yet can't even get HARRY REID, A MEMBER OF THEIR OWN PARTY TO EVEN ALLOW A VOTE ON A BILL THEY SUPPOSEDLY SUPPORT? What kind of leadership is that? That type of leadership wouldn't get you elected head of work study group, let alone leader of the free world. Appeasing the base is just what the Democrats are good at, and there is plenty of Republicans who have been doing the same thing. However, John McCain, in this respect is excellent:
Obama joined with other lawmakers last year to obtain almost $100 million worth of earmarks for . Clinton worked with others to win $342 million in pet projects for and Pelosi obtained $94 million for .
McCain is among only six members of the Senate who don't ask for pet projects.
Only six, I know one of the other members is my favorite Sen. Tom Coburn. It's sad really. So McCain wasted and swindled $0 from the tax payers, Obama wasted and swindled $100,000,000 from the tax payers, and Clinton wasted and swindled $342,000,000 from the tax payers. Unreal. The economy can not withstand the type of "leadership" that the Democrats can provide.
You may also want to read up on the debacle that is the farm bill that Democrats have crafted up and just how horrible it will be for this nation. I can't even stomach writing more on their ineptitude and economic destroying policies at this point.
Technorati Tags: John McCain, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Taxes, Economics, Pork
It listed computers, video and DVD players, 19-inch and
24-inch television sets, and rice
cookers, electric bicycles, car alarms and microwaves that can
now be freely bought by Cubans.
Video players (VHS)...24" TVs....rice cookers....microwaves. It's like 1990 all over again. The people of Cuba have been oppressed for so long it's hard for those of us who still have most of our freedoms to really comprehend their struggle. I hope that the Cubans have an awakening that will allow for their personal freedoms to grow and flourish along with their economic freedoms. However, under the current Communist thuggery, it will never happen.
Technorati Tags: Cuba, Soccer, Defection, Economics, Freedom
10 March 2008
European companies claim a U.S. ban that forced them out of the lucrative American market discriminates against them in violation of WTO rules, while permitting domestic gambling companies, particularly those offering betting on horse races, to flourish.
In 2006, the WTO had ruled against a U.S. ban that stops American banks and credit card companies from processing payments to online gambling businesses outside the country.There are strict gambling laws in the United States, decided upon by our legislature, who have been elected by the people of the United States. These laws are the ones that the EU and the WTO are attempting to exploit in order to advance their business practices in the United States. Previous efforts by the EU failed in the WTO, but here they are trying again. The investigation is not limited in scope to just the industries that are considered legal gambling within the United States and are not as well regulated and scrutinized as they are here. The efforts by the EU through the WTO openly seek to undermine the laws of our nation and should not be allowed to succeed. I am one of the biggest proponents of the free market, the sale and movement of products across the border, and of the utility derived by the consumers. However, when one organization seeks to forcefully assert itself into a heavily regulated market that would circumvent the laws of this nation, that effort must be shut off immediately. What the EU is attempting to do amounts to nothing more than open contempt for the laws of the United States.
Well, I was reading some articles on Bloomberg today, and the one headline I came across was a great highlight of some of the things I've been saying with regard to the worries I've expressed on inflation, "TIPS' Yield Shows Fed Has Lost Control of Inflation." One of the most worrisome parts of this article:
The last time investors were so worried about faster inflation amid slowing growth, Paul A. Volcker presided over a Fed that would raise rates as high as 20 percent to end the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, according to Seth Plunkett, a bond fund manager at American Century Investment Management in Mountain View, California. The firm manages $20 billion.
That's scary bad, Jimmy Carter bad. Rapid inflation will harm far more people in far more ways than just the subprime crisis. An editorial by Caroline Baum, also from Bloomberg's website, does a great job of presenting a great deal of how I feel, and probably more effectively, here's the takeaway:
You probably can sense where I'm going. Today's economic and financial crisis would resolve itself more quickly and efficiently if the government got out of the way. Yes, there would be pain. Some banks would fail. Others would clamp down on credit to atone for the years of lax lending standards. Homeowners-in-name-only would become renters. Housing prices would fall until speculators found value.
That's not going to happen. The bigger the mess, the more urgent the calls for a government solution, the more willing government is to oblige.
We want laissez-faire capitalism in good times and a government backstop against losses in bad times. It's a tough way to run an economy.
06 March 2008
"They say the new president of their country will be (Barack) Obama," noting that Obama rejects both the Bush administration's free trade agreement with Colombia and the current military aid program.
The terrorists in FARC are no on record supporting Obama, who is protectionist and isolationist in nature. Internally they hope for a Democratic victory in '08 as it will make their terror activities much easier for them.
``He is a private citizen, and as a private citizen he has never commented on his private finances,'' said Kreider, who works out of Nashville, Tennessee.
He doesn't have to, most of us who are following the events closely know how he was able to accomplish this.
You'd think Obama supporters wouldn't be too keen on playing "Cocaine" at a rally, but the entire set they put on was essentially a sound track for pot smoking, rapidly aging, flower children. That wasn't all though. One of the heads of this little get together began approaching our table. Here's how that went down:
Obama Supporter: "I'd hate to interrupt you during your dinner..."
Rissa: "Oh, please don't,"
Obama Supporter, with a load of voter registration documents: "We're with Barack Obama and we're just trying to make sure that everyone is registered...."
Rissa: "We are registered REPUBLICANS and voting McCAIN."
Obama Supporter: "Oh, that's OK, we're just trying to make sure everyone..."
Caomhin: Still Scowling, food getting cold, agitation growing
Obama Supporter: "Oh...." proceeds to walk away and then complain to a few Obama supporters about us.
First of all, the woman had no right to interrupt us during our dinner, which was rudely interrupted and she continued to press even after Rissa had asked her not to come over to us. She then tried to keep pressing after she knew who we were supporting. I had an extremely agitated look on my face while she continued to press until Rissa was finally sufficiently upset to just yell "BYE!" at her. As the little rally continued the people on our side began to filter out as someone with a whiny voice tried to get the crowd to say "Yes We Can," to which they would have been right in so far as if the question had been, can we ruin other people's dining experience. A few people who left were visibly agitated and one even said something about McCain before throwing his money on the bar and leaving, dealing with the gathering for about one minute, to what appeared to us to be someone who decided to vote for Sen. McCain after witnessing the madness that surrounds Obama's campaign. I guess people all over should be expecting this nonsense in the coming months. However, I did learn three important lessons that night. 1. Idiot left wingers can ruin even some of the best food out there. 2. Obama's base has a sizable amount of burned out, old potheads. 3. After witnessing a mass for the Obamamessiah held by his loyal apostles, it had such an impact on some of the people there to either flee the bar or on the spot decide that were going to vote for McCain.
is having trouble with
The white, blue-collar voters personified by the 1970s
fictional television character cost Obama this week. His
Democratic presidential rival, of New
York, beat him 54 percent to 44 percent in industrial , and
58 percent to 40 percent in predominantly white .
``Race played a significant factor in Ohio,'' said Timothy Hagan, who supported Obama. The
state's white voters aren't ``bigots, but the image they see
every day of black America is drugs, crime, guns and violence.''
Actually that's enough to completely sicken me. Where's this new breed of politics Obama talks about? What, you disagree with the man's politics and people are given a key to trash you and call you a prejudice "Archie Bunker" like person? How disgraceful. It's pretty pathetic that when he loses he'll have his aides go out and the make the allusion that people didn't vote for him because white workers "see every day of black America is drugs, crime, guns, and violence." How do you arrive at that conclusion Mr. Hagan? Did you do some exit polling or are you just willing to say whitey is a racist. Oh, but don't forget, when Hillary loses, white men are sexists in that case. Utterly pathetic.
04 March 2008
03 March 2008
The Venezuelan called the rebel leader's death the "cowardly assassination" of a "good revolutionary."
This guy was a "good revolutionary" in what way Chavez, as murderous scum? Here's the Wikipedia entry on Raul Reyes, you'll be especially interested in this point:
Raúl Reyes was said to move through the southern Colombian frontier, especially in Putumayo, along the border with Ecuador. His possible presence on Ecuadorian territory was alleged by Colombian President Álvaro Uribe in late 2006. Ecuador's authorities have rejected this claim. Colombian Army official German Galvis later repeated this claim.
Not too much of a surprise that one of Chavez's puppet's would deny this claim, but guess what? Turns out Colombian intelligence was spot on. Reyes was in Ecuador, and for quite sometime. Glad they nailed him. To further illustrate just what kind of horse Chavez had on this race, consider that he was "negotiating" with FARC to have some of their hostages released in an effort to build up his rep a bit in the face of the international community. Well, well, what do we have here....
Colombia's police chief Oscar
Naranjo said documents from the computer of a guerrilla leader
killed last weekend in Ecuador show links to Venezuela's
President Hugo Chavez.
The documents on the computer of Raul Reyes, the second in
command of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, indicate
that Venezuela provided the guerrillas with at least $300
million and would help Chavez in the event of a U.S. attack on
Naranjo said the FARC, as the group is known, was seeking
to buy 50 kilos of uranium for bomb making with aim of getting
involved in international terrorism.
Ah, so Chavez has a working relationship with FARC, which I'm sure would have led to the release of a few hostages under Chavez's "leadership" with a terrorist organization with whom he had a two way relationship in terms of the flow of money. Not only that, but Chavez has a taste for the cocaine that FARC peddles, which has been documented before. While the funding of a left wing terrorist group isn't exactly surprising to me, it's the other piece of intelligence that the Colombians have gathered that is alarming. FARC was actively seeking to purchase "50 kilos of uranium for bomb making." The fact that a terrorist organization was openly seeking uranium is horrible news in and of itself, but given the fact that 50 pounds is pretty much a universally accepted as the exact amount needed to produce a devastating bomb even if half way competent thugs were to get their hands on it, should set off alarm bells. The Venezuelan dictator has a working relationship with the Iranians who are already getting pounds of the material from the Russians and have developed even more efficient centrifuges over the last year. It's not too much of a stretch to contemplate whether or not FARC was doing the dirty work for Chavez, who would stand to gain an enormous amount of money and God knows what else from the Iranians, for providing them with enough nuclear material to construct a gigantic bomb under the refinement process of these new centrifuges in a worst case scenario. At best case scenario we have Chavez trying to conduct his own operation for use against the "American Devil". Either way, that intelligence may be the key to Chavez's freak out over Colombia's self defense actions and why he threatened war so quickly. It appears Colombia got the best of him and the Ecuadorian government as well as they wasted no time in sharing this intel with the world. Let's hope they wake up.
Al-Saudi was the man who headed up the Al
Qaeda network in southeast Mosul, an insurgent hotbed where U.S. forces
wage daily battles against the group.
the center of Al Qaeda's terrorist activities today. Mosul is a
critical crossroads for Al Qaeda in Iraq. Baghdad has always been Al
Qaeda's operational center of gravity, but Mosul remains their
strategic center of gravity as it provides access to the flow of
foreign fighters," Smith said.
Nabhan is wanted for
questioning in connection with a hotel resort homicide bombing in
Mombasa, Kenya, five years ago, and for a shoulder-fired missile attack
on an Israeli passenger liner.
Here's hoping we got him. We took out a big target in Somalia a while back so these types of strikes have a track record of success. The embassy bombing in Kenya was particularly devastating and the attempted murder of Israeli citizens while traveling on a passenger craft should tell you all need to know about this sub-human's desire to murder civilians. The attack was a little risky and you don't pull the trigger unless you have a very high probability of hitting the target and our military rarely misses their mark.