Like the Fort Hood shooter, the warning signs were there, but apparently ignored. The man was radicalized, was a gambling addict, and was failing to learn English which was critical to his employment. The result - 9 dead Americans.
_________
EXCLUSIVE: Inability to learn English, pay cut behind Afghan’s murder of 9 Americans at Kabul military base
By Jana Winter
Published January 26, 2012 | FoxNews.com
The Afghan soldier who gunned down nine Americans in a shooting rampage at a military compound in Kabul last April targeted and killed his U.S. mentors after they took away his wings and cut his salary nearly in half because he was unable to learn English, a longtime colleague of the killer has told FoxNews.com.
A second Afghan airman, who was wounded in the April 27 attack, says the gunman, Col. Ahmed Gul, also intended to kill Afghans who were working with the Americans at the base at Kabul Airport. And he said he fears there will be more incidents like it as the war winds down.
A U.S. Air Force Special Investigation report on the attack that was released last week concluded that Gul, 46, acted alone, and it found no evidence that the attack was connected to the Taliban or insurgents. It noted reports of Gul’s mental and financial problems, but it did not mention Gul’s failure to learn English as a possible motive.
The Air Force report, said the Afghan official who was wounded in the shooting, also reveals clear evidence that the Ministry of Defense failed to conduct a proper background check on Gul, who had returned to active duty after spending 18 months in military housing in Hayatabad, Pakistan, where he became radicalized and increasingly anti-American.
According to the report, a relative of Gul said he started following the teachings of the Taliban in 1995, then later left Afghanistan for Pakistan because “he was upset that foreigners had invaded his country.” When asked why Gul returned to Afghanistan in 2008, he said he “wanted to kill Americans.”
Gul’s longtime colleague, who attended the Afghan Air Force Academy with him, said the gunman’s failure to learn English and qualify for the highly paid position of active-duty Level 1 pilot -- a position he held when Afghanistan was under Taliban rule -- was likely a significant motive behind his rampage. Gul was enrolled in mandatory English classes for all pilots in Kabul, but he was unable to complete the course successfully, the colleague told FoxNews.com.
Because Gul could not return to active duty as a Level 1 pilot, he was forced to take a non-flying job at nearly half the salary.
“Ahmed Gul was very, very angry because of this. He blamed the Americans and the mentors --the mentors working at that same office -- maybe I think he targeted them because of this,” the colleague said.
Gul, who had a gambling problem, was unable to support his six or seven children -- including two children attending college in Kabul -- and had to sell the family home to pay off his debts, the colleague said.
“He had a lot of financial difficulties, he was suffering from poverty, he was crazy because of the poverty,” said the airman, who served with Gul in the Afghan Air Force for 20 years.
“But he could not learn English. He wouldn’t learn English. He needed the bonus and he wanted to fly. He was very, very good pilot, the best. But now we must learn English and he could not. So he could not get bonus. He was very, very angry.”
When asked for comment on whether Gul’s failure to learn English might have been a motive in the attack, spokeswoman Linda Card of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations told FoxNews.com via email:
“We have none and have never had any of this information.”
A recently implemented NATO policy established a system of bonuses for Afghan pilots based on their classification level. Level 1 pilots, who are qualified to fly in any weather condition and at night, are the most elite airmen; Level 2 pilots fly in poor conditions but not at night; Level 3 pilots can fly only in clear conditions and during the day.
Prior to the Afghan civil war, pilots received bonuses based on their level of skill and classification. But when the Afghan Air Force was reconstituted, that bonus system was not reimplemented. This changed in 2009, according to Gul’s colleague, when the U.S. agreed to fund the airmen’s bonuses on the condition that the pilots learn English, the internationally recognized language for flight and air traffic control communications.
English-language training courses for Afghan pilots began in 2007, said David Smith, spokesman for U.S. Air Force, Air Education and Training Command. He could not confirm when the bonus system was established. Gul returned from Pakistan in 2008.
If Gul, who had been a top pilot in the Afghan Air Force, had learned English, he would have earned $600 a month as an active Level 1 pilot. Instead, he was given a job as a non-active pilot making approximately $350 a month, according to figures provided by an Afghan military official.
“This may have been the last thing to push him over edge -- he was very good pilot, but he could not learn English,” his colleague said. “They said he could not fly. He could not have bonus. I think this had big effect on him.
The colleague said it wasn’t fair to expect older pilots to become fluent in English. “It is impossible for over 45 years old, to learn English fluently,” he said. “Ahmed Gul wanted to be first-class pilot, but he didn’t speak English language. He had some disagreements with his mentors about this.”
Some of those mentors appear to be the U.S. soldiers Gul targeted and killed before taking his own life in April.
In response to requests for comment with U.S. military officials in the U.S. and in Afghanistan, Air Force spokesman Chris Isleib said:
"The best source of information on this incident is the investigation report. There is no mention of English classes, or other classes, in the official report. We are not able to speculate into the motives behind this tragedy."
Interviews with Gul’s relatives, which are included in the U.S. Air Force report, reveal that Gul’s radicalization was known -- at least to some -- and that warning signs were ignored, including phone calls from relatives of the shooter, including his brother, warning that he was not safe to return to active duty.
Nevertheless, Gul cleared a background check and returned to active duty in July 2010.
Nine months later, he found himself armed with two American pistols -- one registered to his name by the Air Force; the other unregistered -- in a room with top-level U.S. military. He killed eight U.S. airmen and a civilian contractor.
The Afghan official wounded in the attack, meanwhile, says he believes he was personally targeted, and he said the U.S. investigators underestimate the threat to Afghan military who work closely with American forces. He said he expects there will be more attacks, and he said he fears for his life as U.S. and NATO troops plan their systematic withdrawal.
According to testimony included in the Air Force report, Gul yelled outside of the building, “Good Muslims please stay away or “Muslims don’t come close or you will be killed.”
“Maybe he said that outside, but he said nothing when shooting inside. He targeted me. He is against the U.S. and people like me working with the U.S,” the Afghan official said.
“We are not safe. I am not safe. Afghans working with the U.S., we need protection. There is corruption within Afghan government and Ministry of Defense. I am afraid for my life,” he said.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
America and the Arab Spring
There are those that belive that BHO is intentionally trying to destroy the U.S. from the inside. After reading Glick's article, it is once again obvious that liberal ideas are a complete failure. As Michael Savage has said many times, it does not matter whether BHO is doing this on purpose or as a result of his inexperience. The result is the same.
__________
America and the Arab Spring
by Caroline Glick
A year ago this week, on January 25, 2011, the ground began to crumble under then-Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak's feet. One year later, Mubarak and his sons are in prison, and standing trial.
This week, the final vote tally from Egypt's parliamentary elections was published. The Islamist parties have won 72 percent of the seats in the lower house.
The photogenic, Western-looking youth from Tahrir Square the Western media were thrilled to dub the Facebook revolutionaries were disgraced at the polls and exposed as an insignificant social and political force.
As for the military junta, it has made its peace with the Muslim Brotherhood. The generals and the jihadists are negotiating a power-sharing agreement. According to details of the agreement that have made their way to the media, the generals will remain the West's go-to guys for foreign affairs. The Muslim Brotherhood (and its fellow jihadists in the Salafist al-Nour party) will control Egypt's internal affairs.
This is bad news for women and for non-Muslims. Egypt's Coptic Christians have been under continuous attack by Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist supporters since Mubarak was deposed. Their churches, homes and businesses have been burned, looted and destroyed. Their wives and daughters have been raped. The military massacred them when they dared to protest their persecution.
As for women, their main claim to fame since Mubarak's overthrow has been their sexual victimization at the hands of soldiers who stripped female protesters and performed "virginity tests" on them. Out of nearly five hundred seats in parliament, only 10 will be filled by women.
The Western media are centering their attention on what the next Egyptian constitution will look like and whether it will guarantee rights for women and minorities. What they fail to recognize is that the Islamic fundamentalists now in charge of Egypt don't need a constitution to implement their tyranny. All they require is what they already have - a public awareness of their political power and their partnership with the military.
The same literalist approach that has prevented Western observers from reading the writing on the walls in terms of the Islamists' domestic empowerment has blinded them to the impact of Egypt's political transformation on the country's foreign policy posture. US officials forcefully proclaim that they will not abide by an Egyptian move to formally abrogate its peace treaty with Israel. What they fail to recognize is that whether or not the treaty is formally abrogated is irrelevant. The situation on the ground in which the new regime allows Sinai to be used as a launching ground for attacks against Israel, and as a highway for weapons and terror personnel to flow freely into Gaza, are clear signs that the peace with Israel is already dead - treaty or no treaty.
EGYPT'S TRANSFORMATION is not an isolated event. The disgraced former Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh arrived in the US this week. Yemen is supposed to elect his successor next month. The deteriorating security situation in that strategically vital land which borders the Arabian and Red Seas has decreased the likelihood that the election will take place as planned.
Yemen is falling apart at the seams. Al-Qaida forces have been advancing in the south. Last spring they took over Zinjibar, the capital of Abyan province. In recent weeks they captured Radda, a city 160 km. south of the capital of Sana.
Radda's capture underscored American fears that the political upheaval in Yemen will provide al- Qaida with a foothold near shipping routes through the Red Sea and so enable the group to spread its influence to neighboring Saudi Arabia.
Al-Qaida forces were also prominent in the NATO-backed Libyan opposition forces that with NATO's help overthrew Muammar Gaddafi in October. Although the situation on the ground is far from clear, it appears that radical Islamic political forces are intimidating their way into power in post-Gaddafi Libya.
Take for instance last weekend's riots in Benghazi. On Saturday protesters laid siege to the National Transitional Council offices in the city while Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the head of the NTC, hid inside. In an attempt to quell the protesters' anger, Jalil fired six secular members of the NTC. He then appointed a council of religious leaders to investigate corruption charges and identify people with links to the Gaddafi regime.
In Bahrain, the Iranian-supported Shi'ite majority continues to mount political protests against the Sunni monarchy. Security forces killed two young Shi'ite protesters over the past week and a half, and opened fired at Shi'ites who sought to hold a protest march after attending the funeral of one of them.
As supporters of Bahrain's Shi'ites have maintained since the unrest spread to the kingdom last year, Bahrain's Shi'ites are not Iranian proxies. But then, until the US pulled its troops out of Iraq last month, neither were Iraq's Shi'ites. What happened immediately after the US pullout is another story completely.
Extolling Iraq's swift deterioration into an Iranian satrapy, last Wednesday, Brig.-Gen. Qassem Suleimani, the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps Jerusalem Brigade, bragged, "In reality, in south Lebanon and Iraq, the people are under the effect of the Islamic Republic's way of practice and thinking."
While Suleimani probably exaggerated the situation, there is no doubt that Iran's increased influence in Iraq is being felt around the region. Iraq has come to the aid of Iran's Syrian client Bashar Assad who is now embroiled in a civil war. The rise of Iran in Iraq holds dire implications for the Hashemite regime in Jordan which is currently hanging on by a thread, challenged from within and without by the rising force of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Much has been written since the fall of Mubarak about the impact on Israel of the misnamed Arab Spring. Events like September's mob assault on Israel's embassy in Cairo and the murderous cross-border attack on motorists traveling on the road to Eilat by terrorists operating out of Sinai give force to the assessment that Israel is more imperiled than ever by the revolutionary events engulfing the region.
But the truth is that while on balance Israel's regional posture has taken a hit, particularly from the overthrow of Mubarak and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists in Egypt, Israel is not the primary loser in the so-called Arab Spring.
Israel never had many assets in the Arab world to begin with. The Western-aligned autocracies were not Israel's allies. To the extent the likes of Mubarak and others have cooperated with Israel on various issues over the years, their cooperation was due not to any sense of comity with Jewish state. They worked with Israel because they believed it served their interests to do so. And at the same time Mubarak reined in the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas because they threatened him, he waged political war against Israel on every international stage and allowed anti-Semitic poison to be broadcast daily on his regime-controlled television stations.
Since Israel's stake in the Arab power game has always been limited, its losses as a consequence of the fall of anti-Israel secular dictatorships and their replacement by anti-Israel Islamist regimes have been marginal. The US, on the other hand, has seen its interests massively harmed. Indeed, the US is the greatest loser of the pan-Arab revolutions.
TO UNDERSTAND the depth and breadth of America's losses, consider that on January 25, 2011, most Arab states were US allies to a greater or lesser degree. Mubarak was a strategic ally. Saleh was willing to collaborate with the US in combating al- Qaida and other jihadist forces in his country.
Gaddafi was a neutered former enemy who had posed no threat to the US since 2004. Iraq was a protectorate. Jordan and Morocco were stable US clients.
One year later, the elements of the US's alliance structure have either been destroyed or seriously weakened. US allies like Saudi Arabia, which have yet to be seriously threatened by the revolutionary violence, no longer trust the US. As the recently revealed nuclear cooperation between the Saudis and the Chinese makes clear, the Saudis are looking to other global powers to replace the US as their superpower protector.
Perhaps the most amazing aspect to the US's spectacular loss of influence and power in the Arab world is that most of its strategic collapse has been due to its own actions. In Egypt and Libya the US intervened prominently to bring down a US ally and a dictator who constituted no threat to its interests. Indeed, it went to war to bring Gaddafi down.
Moreover, the US acted to bring about their fall at the same time it knew that they would be replaced by forces inimical to American national security interests. In Egypt, it was clear that the Muslim Brotherhood would emerge as the strongest political force in the country. In Libya, it was clear at the outset of the NATO campaign against Gaddafi that al-Qaida was prominently represented in the anti-regime coalition. And just as the Islamists won the Egyptian election, shortly after Gaddafi was overthrown, al-Qaida forces raised their flag over Benghazi's courthouse.
US actions from Yemen to Bahrain and beyond have followed a similar pattern.
In sharp contrast to his active interventionism against US-allied regimes, President Barack Obama has prominently refused to intervene in Syria, where the fate of a US foe hangs in the balance.
Obama has sat back as Turkey has fashioned a Syrian opposition dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Arab League has intervened in a manner that increases the prospect that Syria will descend into chaos in the event that the Assad regime is overthrown.
Obama continues to speak grandly about his vision for the Middle East and his dedication to America's regional allies. And his supporters in the media continue to applaud his great success in foreign policy. But outside of their echo chamber, he and the country he leads are looked upon with increasing contempt and disgust throughout the Arab world.
Obama's behavior since last January 25 has made clear to US friend and foe alike that under Obama, the US is more likely to attack you if you display weakness towards it than if you adopt a confrontational posture against it. As Assad survives to kill another day; as Iran expands its spheres of influence and gallops towards the nuclear bomb; as al- Qaida and its allies rise from the Gulf of Aden to the Suez Canal; and as Mubarak continues to be wheeled into the courtroom on a stretcher, the US's rapid fall from regional power is everywhere in evidence.
__________
America and the Arab Spring
by Caroline Glick
A year ago this week, on January 25, 2011, the ground began to crumble under then-Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak's feet. One year later, Mubarak and his sons are in prison, and standing trial.
This week, the final vote tally from Egypt's parliamentary elections was published. The Islamist parties have won 72 percent of the seats in the lower house.
The photogenic, Western-looking youth from Tahrir Square the Western media were thrilled to dub the Facebook revolutionaries were disgraced at the polls and exposed as an insignificant social and political force.
As for the military junta, it has made its peace with the Muslim Brotherhood. The generals and the jihadists are negotiating a power-sharing agreement. According to details of the agreement that have made their way to the media, the generals will remain the West's go-to guys for foreign affairs. The Muslim Brotherhood (and its fellow jihadists in the Salafist al-Nour party) will control Egypt's internal affairs.
This is bad news for women and for non-Muslims. Egypt's Coptic Christians have been under continuous attack by Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist supporters since Mubarak was deposed. Their churches, homes and businesses have been burned, looted and destroyed. Their wives and daughters have been raped. The military massacred them when they dared to protest their persecution.
As for women, their main claim to fame since Mubarak's overthrow has been their sexual victimization at the hands of soldiers who stripped female protesters and performed "virginity tests" on them. Out of nearly five hundred seats in parliament, only 10 will be filled by women.
The Western media are centering their attention on what the next Egyptian constitution will look like and whether it will guarantee rights for women and minorities. What they fail to recognize is that the Islamic fundamentalists now in charge of Egypt don't need a constitution to implement their tyranny. All they require is what they already have - a public awareness of their political power and their partnership with the military.
The same literalist approach that has prevented Western observers from reading the writing on the walls in terms of the Islamists' domestic empowerment has blinded them to the impact of Egypt's political transformation on the country's foreign policy posture. US officials forcefully proclaim that they will not abide by an Egyptian move to formally abrogate its peace treaty with Israel. What they fail to recognize is that whether or not the treaty is formally abrogated is irrelevant. The situation on the ground in which the new regime allows Sinai to be used as a launching ground for attacks against Israel, and as a highway for weapons and terror personnel to flow freely into Gaza, are clear signs that the peace with Israel is already dead - treaty or no treaty.
EGYPT'S TRANSFORMATION is not an isolated event. The disgraced former Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh arrived in the US this week. Yemen is supposed to elect his successor next month. The deteriorating security situation in that strategically vital land which borders the Arabian and Red Seas has decreased the likelihood that the election will take place as planned.
Yemen is falling apart at the seams. Al-Qaida forces have been advancing in the south. Last spring they took over Zinjibar, the capital of Abyan province. In recent weeks they captured Radda, a city 160 km. south of the capital of Sana.
Radda's capture underscored American fears that the political upheaval in Yemen will provide al- Qaida with a foothold near shipping routes through the Red Sea and so enable the group to spread its influence to neighboring Saudi Arabia.
Al-Qaida forces were also prominent in the NATO-backed Libyan opposition forces that with NATO's help overthrew Muammar Gaddafi in October. Although the situation on the ground is far from clear, it appears that radical Islamic political forces are intimidating their way into power in post-Gaddafi Libya.
Take for instance last weekend's riots in Benghazi. On Saturday protesters laid siege to the National Transitional Council offices in the city while Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the head of the NTC, hid inside. In an attempt to quell the protesters' anger, Jalil fired six secular members of the NTC. He then appointed a council of religious leaders to investigate corruption charges and identify people with links to the Gaddafi regime.
In Bahrain, the Iranian-supported Shi'ite majority continues to mount political protests against the Sunni monarchy. Security forces killed two young Shi'ite protesters over the past week and a half, and opened fired at Shi'ites who sought to hold a protest march after attending the funeral of one of them.
As supporters of Bahrain's Shi'ites have maintained since the unrest spread to the kingdom last year, Bahrain's Shi'ites are not Iranian proxies. But then, until the US pulled its troops out of Iraq last month, neither were Iraq's Shi'ites. What happened immediately after the US pullout is another story completely.
Extolling Iraq's swift deterioration into an Iranian satrapy, last Wednesday, Brig.-Gen. Qassem Suleimani, the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps Jerusalem Brigade, bragged, "In reality, in south Lebanon and Iraq, the people are under the effect of the Islamic Republic's way of practice and thinking."
While Suleimani probably exaggerated the situation, there is no doubt that Iran's increased influence in Iraq is being felt around the region. Iraq has come to the aid of Iran's Syrian client Bashar Assad who is now embroiled in a civil war. The rise of Iran in Iraq holds dire implications for the Hashemite regime in Jordan which is currently hanging on by a thread, challenged from within and without by the rising force of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Much has been written since the fall of Mubarak about the impact on Israel of the misnamed Arab Spring. Events like September's mob assault on Israel's embassy in Cairo and the murderous cross-border attack on motorists traveling on the road to Eilat by terrorists operating out of Sinai give force to the assessment that Israel is more imperiled than ever by the revolutionary events engulfing the region.
But the truth is that while on balance Israel's regional posture has taken a hit, particularly from the overthrow of Mubarak and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists in Egypt, Israel is not the primary loser in the so-called Arab Spring.
Israel never had many assets in the Arab world to begin with. The Western-aligned autocracies were not Israel's allies. To the extent the likes of Mubarak and others have cooperated with Israel on various issues over the years, their cooperation was due not to any sense of comity with Jewish state. They worked with Israel because they believed it served their interests to do so. And at the same time Mubarak reined in the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas because they threatened him, he waged political war against Israel on every international stage and allowed anti-Semitic poison to be broadcast daily on his regime-controlled television stations.
Since Israel's stake in the Arab power game has always been limited, its losses as a consequence of the fall of anti-Israel secular dictatorships and their replacement by anti-Israel Islamist regimes have been marginal. The US, on the other hand, has seen its interests massively harmed. Indeed, the US is the greatest loser of the pan-Arab revolutions.
TO UNDERSTAND the depth and breadth of America's losses, consider that on January 25, 2011, most Arab states were US allies to a greater or lesser degree. Mubarak was a strategic ally. Saleh was willing to collaborate with the US in combating al- Qaida and other jihadist forces in his country.
Gaddafi was a neutered former enemy who had posed no threat to the US since 2004. Iraq was a protectorate. Jordan and Morocco were stable US clients.
One year later, the elements of the US's alliance structure have either been destroyed or seriously weakened. US allies like Saudi Arabia, which have yet to be seriously threatened by the revolutionary violence, no longer trust the US. As the recently revealed nuclear cooperation between the Saudis and the Chinese makes clear, the Saudis are looking to other global powers to replace the US as their superpower protector.
Perhaps the most amazing aspect to the US's spectacular loss of influence and power in the Arab world is that most of its strategic collapse has been due to its own actions. In Egypt and Libya the US intervened prominently to bring down a US ally and a dictator who constituted no threat to its interests. Indeed, it went to war to bring Gaddafi down.
Moreover, the US acted to bring about their fall at the same time it knew that they would be replaced by forces inimical to American national security interests. In Egypt, it was clear that the Muslim Brotherhood would emerge as the strongest political force in the country. In Libya, it was clear at the outset of the NATO campaign against Gaddafi that al-Qaida was prominently represented in the anti-regime coalition. And just as the Islamists won the Egyptian election, shortly after Gaddafi was overthrown, al-Qaida forces raised their flag over Benghazi's courthouse.
US actions from Yemen to Bahrain and beyond have followed a similar pattern.
In sharp contrast to his active interventionism against US-allied regimes, President Barack Obama has prominently refused to intervene in Syria, where the fate of a US foe hangs in the balance.
Obama has sat back as Turkey has fashioned a Syrian opposition dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Arab League has intervened in a manner that increases the prospect that Syria will descend into chaos in the event that the Assad regime is overthrown.
Obama continues to speak grandly about his vision for the Middle East and his dedication to America's regional allies. And his supporters in the media continue to applaud his great success in foreign policy. But outside of their echo chamber, he and the country he leads are looked upon with increasing contempt and disgust throughout the Arab world.
Obama's behavior since last January 25 has made clear to US friend and foe alike that under Obama, the US is more likely to attack you if you display weakness towards it than if you adopt a confrontational posture against it. As Assad survives to kill another day; as Iran expands its spheres of influence and gallops towards the nuclear bomb; as al- Qaida and its allies rise from the Gulf of Aden to the Suez Canal; and as Mubarak continues to be wheeled into the courtroom on a stretcher, the US's rapid fall from regional power is everywhere in evidence.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
"Green-On-Blue" Shootings
"Green-On-Blue" shootings - is that a new phrase to you. It was to me before reading this article. This phrase refers to the shooting of western troops by Afghan security forces. And as usual, this is something that M3 conveniently does not report on. M3 does not like to report on Jihad murders, as it does not portray their favorite cause as the peaceful one it pretends to be.
__________
Where's the Outrage Over Murders In Afghanistan?
By Diane West
Is there a single public official who is examining -- who cares about -- the murder spree by Afghan security forces against Western troops and security contractors in Afghanistan? I can list well over 40 such murders in the past two years. These incidents even have their own phrase in military jargon -- "green-on-blue" shootings -- but the color we should all be seeing is red. Does Obama see red? Pelosi? Romney? Newt? Anyone?
In the last several months, there have been six separate attacks on Western forces by uniformed Afghan army members. The toll includes three Australian soldiers killed (as they ended a regular, weekly parade) and 10 wounded; six French troops killed and 16 wounded; and one American killed and seven wounded. The American fatality, 20-year-old Army Pfc. Dustin Paul Napier of Kentucky, was shot in the head earlier this month by an Afghan service member during a game of volleyball on base.
The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) didn't offer that painfully vivid detail about the volleyball game; the media did. Official details on these shootings are scarce, and, according to ISAF's "new policy" reported this week by USA Today, will become nonexistent now that ISAF plans to withhold information on such Afghan shootings of Western forces. (Outrageous!) Meanwhile, follow-up investigations are practically unheard of. Only a Freedom of Information Act request by the Air Force Times pried from the Pentagon's clutches the September 2011 report on the murder of nine Americans at Kabul Airport in April 2011 by an Afghan air force officer.
The military's findings? The killer, Ahmed Gul, 46, "acted alone." Reading through the Air Force report, I get the impression that collaboration with "the Taliban" is the only hypothesis the investigators consider worth exploring. It is as though the military believes infiltration by hostile forces is the only conceivable threat posed to U.S. and other allied personnel on their bases in Afghanistan. Having failed to dig up concrete evidence of a more or less conventional enemy conspiracy, military investigators close their eyes to anything else -- such as good, ol'-fashioned Islamic jihad. As Muslims, Afghans and Taliban alike are subject to its call. Fact. Sorry about that, but I didn't write the Quran.
The report states: "The information collected regarding SUBJECT (shooter) and his background does not support his involvement in insurgent activity. (Air Force) analysts, in concert with other analysts and agencies, have reviewed multiple intelligence documents, investigative reports, and Open Source reporting to determine SUBJECT's motive for the attacks. This analysis is not stating that there are no insurgent connections to SUBJECT, but that none have been established thus far during this investigation. Additionally, there are multiple reports that indicated SUBJECT may have had mental issues that were possibly compounded by alleged financial problems."
I may not have read every word of the 436-page report this statement sums up, but I've already picked up a few clues to support the hypothesis that Gul was simply on a jihad.
Gul was said to have returned from Pakistan in 2008 because he "wanted to kill Americans."
Gul frequented a mosque known for being anti-American and pro-Pakistan. (Reminds me of Shafiullah, the volleyball jihadist.)
Gul stayed up all night before his rampage, praying and cleaning his gun. (Reminds me of Maj. Hassan, the Fort Hood jihadist.)
During the melee, Gul shouted to Afghan security forces from a window: "Good Muslims -- please stay away! Muslims don't come close or you will be killed!" (Reminds me of the Mumbai jihadists.)
In a hallway outside the carnage, Gul dipped his finger in blood and wrote on the wall in the Afghan tongue of Dari: "Allah is one," and "Allah in your name."
One witness apparently heard the gunshots as Gul committed suicide, then a voice moaning, "Allah, Allah," then silence.
Silence is right. According to our Inspector Clouseaus with wings, money problems and other stress must have been the murder motive. Some 1,500 Afghans turned out to pay respects to Gul at his funeral. No doubt they all shared similar financial setbacks.
Shame. Jihad is the secret these investigators are keeping, but only from themselves. It drives the murder spree against infidel troops. It also is part of the culture that renders U.S. utopian plans to train an Afghan army and police force dead on arrival. Not saying so doesn't make it go away. It just wastes the lives of our people. Does anyone care?
__________
Where's the Outrage Over Murders In Afghanistan?
By Diane West
Is there a single public official who is examining -- who cares about -- the murder spree by Afghan security forces against Western troops and security contractors in Afghanistan? I can list well over 40 such murders in the past two years. These incidents even have their own phrase in military jargon -- "green-on-blue" shootings -- but the color we should all be seeing is red. Does Obama see red? Pelosi? Romney? Newt? Anyone?
In the last several months, there have been six separate attacks on Western forces by uniformed Afghan army members. The toll includes three Australian soldiers killed (as they ended a regular, weekly parade) and 10 wounded; six French troops killed and 16 wounded; and one American killed and seven wounded. The American fatality, 20-year-old Army Pfc. Dustin Paul Napier of Kentucky, was shot in the head earlier this month by an Afghan service member during a game of volleyball on base.
The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) didn't offer that painfully vivid detail about the volleyball game; the media did. Official details on these shootings are scarce, and, according to ISAF's "new policy" reported this week by USA Today, will become nonexistent now that ISAF plans to withhold information on such Afghan shootings of Western forces. (Outrageous!) Meanwhile, follow-up investigations are practically unheard of. Only a Freedom of Information Act request by the Air Force Times pried from the Pentagon's clutches the September 2011 report on the murder of nine Americans at Kabul Airport in April 2011 by an Afghan air force officer.
The military's findings? The killer, Ahmed Gul, 46, "acted alone." Reading through the Air Force report, I get the impression that collaboration with "the Taliban" is the only hypothesis the investigators consider worth exploring. It is as though the military believes infiltration by hostile forces is the only conceivable threat posed to U.S. and other allied personnel on their bases in Afghanistan. Having failed to dig up concrete evidence of a more or less conventional enemy conspiracy, military investigators close their eyes to anything else -- such as good, ol'-fashioned Islamic jihad. As Muslims, Afghans and Taliban alike are subject to its call. Fact. Sorry about that, but I didn't write the Quran.
The report states: "The information collected regarding SUBJECT (shooter) and his background does not support his involvement in insurgent activity. (Air Force) analysts, in concert with other analysts and agencies, have reviewed multiple intelligence documents, investigative reports, and Open Source reporting to determine SUBJECT's motive for the attacks. This analysis is not stating that there are no insurgent connections to SUBJECT, but that none have been established thus far during this investigation. Additionally, there are multiple reports that indicated SUBJECT may have had mental issues that were possibly compounded by alleged financial problems."
I may not have read every word of the 436-page report this statement sums up, but I've already picked up a few clues to support the hypothesis that Gul was simply on a jihad.
Gul was said to have returned from Pakistan in 2008 because he "wanted to kill Americans."
Gul frequented a mosque known for being anti-American and pro-Pakistan. (Reminds me of Shafiullah, the volleyball jihadist.)
Gul stayed up all night before his rampage, praying and cleaning his gun. (Reminds me of Maj. Hassan, the Fort Hood jihadist.)
During the melee, Gul shouted to Afghan security forces from a window: "Good Muslims -- please stay away! Muslims don't come close or you will be killed!" (Reminds me of the Mumbai jihadists.)
In a hallway outside the carnage, Gul dipped his finger in blood and wrote on the wall in the Afghan tongue of Dari: "Allah is one," and "Allah in your name."
One witness apparently heard the gunshots as Gul committed suicide, then a voice moaning, "Allah, Allah," then silence.
Silence is right. According to our Inspector Clouseaus with wings, money problems and other stress must have been the murder motive. Some 1,500 Afghans turned out to pay respects to Gul at his funeral. No doubt they all shared similar financial setbacks.
Shame. Jihad is the secret these investigators are keeping, but only from themselves. It drives the murder spree against infidel troops. It also is part of the culture that renders U.S. utopian plans to train an Afghan army and police force dead on arrival. Not saying so doesn't make it go away. It just wastes the lives of our people. Does anyone care?
Iran Seeks Strategic Accommodation with Washington
In another brilliant diplodunk move, the BHO administration is attempting to negotiate with more terrorists - Iran.
Iran Seeks Strategic Accommodation with Washington
by George Friedman, CEO and chief intelligence officer of Stratfor
"But the United States also faces a number of constraints in trying to contain Iran. Washington has essentially ceded victory to the Iranians in Iraq, where Tehran has maintained the upper hand in managing the state's chaotic affairs. The last thing the United States wants is a military confrontation with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in the Strait of Hormuz -- a conflict that would send oil prices soaring and exacerbate already fragile global economic conditions. The United States would like to see Iran lose its ally in Syria, but it does not want to commit the military resources to ensure the regime's toppling and does not want to risk sparking a broader sectarian conflict in the region. Further east, the United States is trying to negotiate a complicated deal with the Taliban, and Washington knows that the Iranians hold a number of levers with stakeholders in Afghanistan that could attempt to derail that deal.
The constraints each side faces have created room for diplomatic discussions to take place between rivals that have employed descriptors such as "Great Satan" and "Axis of Evil" to characterize each other. This wouldn't be the first time such a dialogue has been attempted, and there is no guarantee that this will go beyond a truce. Such a truce would entail both sides agreeing not to cross each other's red lines. For Iran, that red line is a U.S. military strike. For the United States, it is Iran's attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz.
Regardless whether this dialogue commences, or which direction it takes, the Iranians benefit greatly from simple public knowledge of this letter. The best way for Iran to put its Saudi neighbors on edge is to spread the idea that the Americans are reaching out to Tehran for a deal. This may explain why Iran belatedly claimed that Obama appealed for direct talks in the letter. Saudi Arabia already doubts Washington's reliability as a security guarantor in the region, following the U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq. If the Saudis think the Americans are trying to negotiate with Iran unilaterally, Riyadh may even feel compelled to negotiate with its Persian adversary itself, just to keep up. A rush to the negotiating table is exactly what Iran wants to foment. Whether Iran can use this nascent diplomatic process to hit Tehran's aim of achieving a strategic accommodation with Washington is, of course, another question entirely."
Iran Seeks Strategic Accommodation with Washington
by George Friedman, CEO and chief intelligence officer of Stratfor
"But the United States also faces a number of constraints in trying to contain Iran. Washington has essentially ceded victory to the Iranians in Iraq, where Tehran has maintained the upper hand in managing the state's chaotic affairs. The last thing the United States wants is a military confrontation with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in the Strait of Hormuz -- a conflict that would send oil prices soaring and exacerbate already fragile global economic conditions. The United States would like to see Iran lose its ally in Syria, but it does not want to commit the military resources to ensure the regime's toppling and does not want to risk sparking a broader sectarian conflict in the region. Further east, the United States is trying to negotiate a complicated deal with the Taliban, and Washington knows that the Iranians hold a number of levers with stakeholders in Afghanistan that could attempt to derail that deal.
The constraints each side faces have created room for diplomatic discussions to take place between rivals that have employed descriptors such as "Great Satan" and "Axis of Evil" to characterize each other. This wouldn't be the first time such a dialogue has been attempted, and there is no guarantee that this will go beyond a truce. Such a truce would entail both sides agreeing not to cross each other's red lines. For Iran, that red line is a U.S. military strike. For the United States, it is Iran's attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz.
Regardless whether this dialogue commences, or which direction it takes, the Iranians benefit greatly from simple public knowledge of this letter. The best way for Iran to put its Saudi neighbors on edge is to spread the idea that the Americans are reaching out to Tehran for a deal. This may explain why Iran belatedly claimed that Obama appealed for direct talks in the letter. Saudi Arabia already doubts Washington's reliability as a security guarantor in the region, following the U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq. If the Saudis think the Americans are trying to negotiate with Iran unilaterally, Riyadh may even feel compelled to negotiate with its Persian adversary itself, just to keep up. A rush to the negotiating table is exactly what Iran wants to foment. Whether Iran can use this nascent diplomatic process to hit Tehran's aim of achieving a strategic accommodation with Washington is, of course, another question entirely."
Estimated 53 Million Dead!!!!
Well, you would think that this statistic could be attributed to the "Religion of Peace," but on this anniversary of the Roe vs Wade decision that made abortion on demand (or as I refer to it, legalized murder) the law of the land, it is estimated that 53 million babies have been murdered. Or if you are politically correct you can say aborted. However you refer to the evil practice, 53 million fewer human beings are with us because of the liberal ideal. God weaps as the devil smiles a Chesire cat smile. What better way for the devil to attack God than by killing innocent children? Liberal policies are inherently evil, and this one is the keystone of their ideology.
"As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade," he said, "we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman's health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman's right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right. ... As we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams."
--President, Barack Hussein Obama, 1/22/2012
--The Patriot Post, Brief · January 23, 2012
The Patriot Post www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/
Will someone please show me where the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to an abortion? Oh, yeah. That's right. The founding fathers DID NOT put that in the Constitution!
The Core Business of Planned Parenthood
How much of the revenue Planned Parenthood generates through its health center affiliates comes from performing abortion procedures?
The question arises because of a chart Planned Parenthood provided in its 2009-10 annual report. In it, Planned Parenthood indicates that abortion services account for just 3% of all the health services it provides.
We suspect this chart was generated to attempt to underemphasize the extent to which Planned Parenthood's provision of abortion services add to its bottom line through the health centers the organization's affiliates operate. [As an aside, that contribution is even visually understated in Planned Parenthood's pie chart, in that abortion services are depicted in a very understated gray tone, where all the other procedures are shown in bright color.]
Since we've already worked out the average price paid for the majority of abortions performed by annual caseload volume of non-hospital abortion providers in the United States for 2008-09, we'll go back to Planned Parenthood's 2008-09 annual report to work out how much of the revenue it generated from abortion services contributed to its overall revenue for all the health services it provided in that year.
Will it be just 3%, as the pie chart depicting all of the health services Planned Parenthood provided in 2009-10 suggests? Our pie chart below provides the answer:
In 2008-09, Planned Parenthood reported that it generated $404.9 million in revenue through the health centers operated by it and its affiliates. Our low end estimate of $135.6 million for the 324,008 abortion services the organization performed in that year would then represent at least one-third of all the revenue generated by the organization through its health centers.
To put that into the context of Planned Parenthood's total revenue for 2008-09, the amount of revenue the organization generates through abortion services would account for 12.3% of all its annual income, or very nearly 1 out of every 8 dollars:
As such, despite representing just 3% of Planned Parenthood's reported number of health services provided each year, abortion represents the core business of the organization.
"As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade," he said, "we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman's health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman's right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right. ... As we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams."
--President, Barack Hussein Obama, 1/22/2012
--The Patriot Post, Brief · January 23, 2012
The Patriot Post www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/
Will someone please show me where the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to an abortion? Oh, yeah. That's right. The founding fathers DID NOT put that in the Constitution!
The Core Business of Planned Parenthood
How much of the revenue Planned Parenthood generates through its health center affiliates comes from performing abortion procedures?
The question arises because of a chart Planned Parenthood provided in its 2009-10 annual report. In it, Planned Parenthood indicates that abortion services account for just 3% of all the health services it provides.
We suspect this chart was generated to attempt to underemphasize the extent to which Planned Parenthood's provision of abortion services add to its bottom line through the health centers the organization's affiliates operate. [As an aside, that contribution is even visually understated in Planned Parenthood's pie chart, in that abortion services are depicted in a very understated gray tone, where all the other procedures are shown in bright color.]
Since we've already worked out the average price paid for the majority of abortions performed by annual caseload volume of non-hospital abortion providers in the United States for 2008-09, we'll go back to Planned Parenthood's 2008-09 annual report to work out how much of the revenue it generated from abortion services contributed to its overall revenue for all the health services it provided in that year.
Will it be just 3%, as the pie chart depicting all of the health services Planned Parenthood provided in 2009-10 suggests? Our pie chart below provides the answer:
In 2008-09, Planned Parenthood reported that it generated $404.9 million in revenue through the health centers operated by it and its affiliates. Our low end estimate of $135.6 million for the 324,008 abortion services the organization performed in that year would then represent at least one-third of all the revenue generated by the organization through its health centers.
To put that into the context of Planned Parenthood's total revenue for 2008-09, the amount of revenue the organization generates through abortion services would account for 12.3% of all its annual income, or very nearly 1 out of every 8 dollars:
As such, despite representing just 3% of Planned Parenthood's reported number of health services provided each year, abortion represents the core business of the organization.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
U.S. Weighs Releasing Taliban Commander From Gitmo as Part of Peace Talks
Hmmm...I missed the press conference and major news story where the U.S. announced that we have abandoned our policy of not negotiating with terrorists. Not only has BHO abandoned our non-negotiation policy with terrorists, he is now considering releasing a known Taliban commander from GITMO to appease the Afghan Taliban. BHO's administration is in peace talks with the Taliban? WTF? Ask the Israelis how effective peace talks are with terrorists. Oh, wait, that would mean that a liberal would have to abandon his ideology and look at reality and proven examples of what works and doesn't work. Yeah, that'll never happen.
*********
U.S. Weighs Releasing Taliban Commander From Gitmo as Part of Peace Talks
WASHINGTON – The U.S. is considering a proposal to transfer a top Taliban commander out of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay as part of a potential step toward peace talks with the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.
A senior U.S. official confirmed to Fox News that Mullah Mohammed Fazl is among the prisoners being considered for release. Held at Guantanamo Bay since 2002, Fazl was suspected in sectarian killings of Shiite Muslims before the U.S. invasion that toppled the Taliban government in Afghanistan in 2001.
The U.S. alleges he was a top Taliban official who at one point commanded thousands of troops.
According to Reuters, WikiLeaks documents also placed him at the scene of a 2001 prison riot where CIA officer Johnny Micheal Spann was killed, though it's unclear whether Fazl was involved.
Any prisoner transfer would be part of a trust-building effort to renew peace talks next year with the Taliban that had reached a critical point before falling apart this month because of objections from Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
One goal of renewed talks with the insurgents would be to identify cease-fire zones that could be used as a steppingstone toward a full peace agreement that stops most fighting, a senior administration official told The Associated Press -- a goal that remains far out of reach.
U.S. officials from the State Department and White House plan to continue a series of secret meetings with Taliban representatives in Europe and the Persian Gulf region next year, assuming a small group of Taliban emissaries the U.S. considers legitimate remains willing, two officials said.
The proposed trust-building measures were a Taliban headquarters office and the release from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, of about five Afghan prisoners considered affiliated with the Taliban. Those steps were to be matched by assurances from at least part of the Taliban leadership that the insurgents would cut ties with Al Qaeda, accept the elected civilian government of Afghanistan and bargain in good faith.
*********
U.S. Weighs Releasing Taliban Commander From Gitmo as Part of Peace Talks
WASHINGTON – The U.S. is considering a proposal to transfer a top Taliban commander out of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay as part of a potential step toward peace talks with the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.
A senior U.S. official confirmed to Fox News that Mullah Mohammed Fazl is among the prisoners being considered for release. Held at Guantanamo Bay since 2002, Fazl was suspected in sectarian killings of Shiite Muslims before the U.S. invasion that toppled the Taliban government in Afghanistan in 2001.
The U.S. alleges he was a top Taliban official who at one point commanded thousands of troops.
According to Reuters, WikiLeaks documents also placed him at the scene of a 2001 prison riot where CIA officer Johnny Micheal Spann was killed, though it's unclear whether Fazl was involved.
Any prisoner transfer would be part of a trust-building effort to renew peace talks next year with the Taliban that had reached a critical point before falling apart this month because of objections from Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
One goal of renewed talks with the insurgents would be to identify cease-fire zones that could be used as a steppingstone toward a full peace agreement that stops most fighting, a senior administration official told The Associated Press -- a goal that remains far out of reach.
U.S. officials from the State Department and White House plan to continue a series of secret meetings with Taliban representatives in Europe and the Persian Gulf region next year, assuming a small group of Taliban emissaries the U.S. considers legitimate remains willing, two officials said.
The proposed trust-building measures were a Taliban headquarters office and the release from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, of about five Afghan prisoners considered affiliated with the Taliban. Those steps were to be matched by assurances from at least part of the Taliban leadership that the insurgents would cut ties with Al Qaeda, accept the elected civilian government of Afghanistan and bargain in good faith.
The Santa Killer Was a Religion of Peacer
The Santa Killer Was a Religion of Peacer
If I wanted to murder my family or destroy a historic university and yet not give my faith a bad name in the press, I would convert to the Religion of Peace.
Yep, if you belong to that lovely creed, you can snap on Christmas and execute your entire clan or burn down a famous college, and the media won’t say shizzle about your faith or your motivation for mayhem. Sa-weet, eh, mass murderers?
Case in point. Aziz Yazdanpanah, known only as the “Santa Killer,” was a follower of this “amazing faith” who slaughtered his family on Christmas Day after his wife dumped him and his 19-year-old daughter wouldn’t stop dating a non-Religion of Peacer. The adherents of said faith refer to this act as an “honor killing,” and when it occurs police and the press reckon it unworthy of unearthing and condemning publicly.
For those not familiar with the term “honor killing,” allow me to explain: An honor killing is a murder wherein a man from the Creed of Calm can give his wife and/or daughter(s) the axe if he deems that they have embarrassed him or their peaceful community. Step lightly, lasses.
Oh, and I nearly forgot this. It’s not only okay to kill the ladies, according to their doctrine, if they make the faithful self-conscious, but adherents may also slay flaming gays who sully the Cult of Tranquility’s public image. I’m guessing Adam Lambert will not be converting anytime soon.
So, how did the truth revealing journalists report this Christmas Day carnage enacted by a male member of the Peace People? Here’s how: They called Aziz the “Santa Killer” who was down on his financial and relational luck whom his neighbors regarded as a decent gent who loved his family and liked to do yard work.
In others words, he was a Mr. Rogers with a tan who had a bad day. And haven’t we all had a bad day? Of course we have, and that’s why Daniel Powter wrote his now famous song.
Look, folks, it is obvious: If you want to commit heinous acts and not have your faith called out for your despicable crimes, you probably ought to seriously think about switching religions to the Sect of Serenity because they always get a free ride in the free press. Indeed, precious few of the mainstreamers said this massacre was carried out by a “you know who” for “you know what” reasons. Y’know what I’m saying?
Indeed, the “Santa Killer” got the same treatment from reporters that Nidal Malik Hasan, also a member of the Communion of Calmness, received after the Ft. Hood bloodbath—I’m sorry, the Ft. Hood “workplace violence” situation. Wink, wink.
For those interested, here’s a laundry list of some recent honor killings carried out by the fathers, brothers and leaders within the Religion of Peace.
**********
Killer Santa Claus was a Muslim
There were two family-death tragedies that hit news services on Christmas. The first one was the house fire in Connecticut where five people died: a grandmother, grandfather, three young girls — a 10-year-old and 7-year-old twins. The girls’ mother, Madonna Badger, and a friend escaped the fire.
The house was being renovated. Fire officials believe the fire was started by fireplace embers that had been cleared out of the fireplace and put in either a mud room attached to the house or a trash enclosure next to it.
The story brought tears to my eyes. I didn’t want to think about what all who were involved went through. It must have been horrible.
There was a news story about another family where tragedy struck. This time it was in Colleyville, Texas, on Christmas day. Here’s how ABC News reported it:
A Santa-suited gunman who killed six people on Christmas morning was the estranged husband of one of the victims and the father of two teenagers who died in the massacre.
Aziz Yazdanpanah, 56, showed up to his estranged wife’s apartment on Christmas morning dressed like St. Nick and opened fire shortly after the family had unwrapped presents.
Yazdanpanah then killed himself.
The six victims were identified by ABC affiliate WFAA as: Nasrin Rahmaty, 55, who was Yazdanpanah’s wife; Nona Yazdanpanah, 19, his daughter; Ali Yazdanpanah, 15, his son; Zohreh Rahmaty, 58, his sister-in-law; Hossein Zarei, 59, his brother-in-law; and Sahra Zarei, 22, his niece.
Later reports tell us that the murderer was a Muslim, a fact that the media are downplaying. “Aziz Yazdanpanah, a Muslim, didn’t like his daughter’s non-Muslim boyfriend and was exhibiting stalker behavior. ‘She couldn’t date at all until she was a certain age, but when he was going to let her date she couldn’t date anyone outside of their race or religion.’”
Investigators are downplaying the motive. Lt. Todd Dearing said that motive isn’t important.
Motive is always important except, it seems, when “when Islam is involved.” (Source)
You may recall that the Defense Department reclassified the Fort Hood massacre as “workplace violence.” We know that Maj. Hassan shouted “Allahu Akbar” (Arabic for “God is Great”) after firing a total of 214 rounds at his fellow soldiers. Even so, we were told that Hassan’s religious believes were not a factor in the shooting.
Maybe if we ignore the relationship between Islam, honor killings, and other acts of violence they’ll all go away. Don’t count on it.
If I wanted to murder my family or destroy a historic university and yet not give my faith a bad name in the press, I would convert to the Religion of Peace.
Yep, if you belong to that lovely creed, you can snap on Christmas and execute your entire clan or burn down a famous college, and the media won’t say shizzle about your faith or your motivation for mayhem. Sa-weet, eh, mass murderers?
Case in point. Aziz Yazdanpanah, known only as the “Santa Killer,” was a follower of this “amazing faith” who slaughtered his family on Christmas Day after his wife dumped him and his 19-year-old daughter wouldn’t stop dating a non-Religion of Peacer. The adherents of said faith refer to this act as an “honor killing,” and when it occurs police and the press reckon it unworthy of unearthing and condemning publicly.
For those not familiar with the term “honor killing,” allow me to explain: An honor killing is a murder wherein a man from the Creed of Calm can give his wife and/or daughter(s) the axe if he deems that they have embarrassed him or their peaceful community. Step lightly, lasses.
Oh, and I nearly forgot this. It’s not only okay to kill the ladies, according to their doctrine, if they make the faithful self-conscious, but adherents may also slay flaming gays who sully the Cult of Tranquility’s public image. I’m guessing Adam Lambert will not be converting anytime soon.
So, how did the truth revealing journalists report this Christmas Day carnage enacted by a male member of the Peace People? Here’s how: They called Aziz the “Santa Killer” who was down on his financial and relational luck whom his neighbors regarded as a decent gent who loved his family and liked to do yard work.
In others words, he was a Mr. Rogers with a tan who had a bad day. And haven’t we all had a bad day? Of course we have, and that’s why Daniel Powter wrote his now famous song.
Look, folks, it is obvious: If you want to commit heinous acts and not have your faith called out for your despicable crimes, you probably ought to seriously think about switching religions to the Sect of Serenity because they always get a free ride in the free press. Indeed, precious few of the mainstreamers said this massacre was carried out by a “you know who” for “you know what” reasons. Y’know what I’m saying?
Indeed, the “Santa Killer” got the same treatment from reporters that Nidal Malik Hasan, also a member of the Communion of Calmness, received after the Ft. Hood bloodbath—I’m sorry, the Ft. Hood “workplace violence” situation. Wink, wink.
For those interested, here’s a laundry list of some recent honor killings carried out by the fathers, brothers and leaders within the Religion of Peace.
**********
Killer Santa Claus was a Muslim
There were two family-death tragedies that hit news services on Christmas. The first one was the house fire in Connecticut where five people died: a grandmother, grandfather, three young girls — a 10-year-old and 7-year-old twins. The girls’ mother, Madonna Badger, and a friend escaped the fire.
The house was being renovated. Fire officials believe the fire was started by fireplace embers that had been cleared out of the fireplace and put in either a mud room attached to the house or a trash enclosure next to it.
The story brought tears to my eyes. I didn’t want to think about what all who were involved went through. It must have been horrible.
There was a news story about another family where tragedy struck. This time it was in Colleyville, Texas, on Christmas day. Here’s how ABC News reported it:
A Santa-suited gunman who killed six people on Christmas morning was the estranged husband of one of the victims and the father of two teenagers who died in the massacre.
Aziz Yazdanpanah, 56, showed up to his estranged wife’s apartment on Christmas morning dressed like St. Nick and opened fire shortly after the family had unwrapped presents.
Yazdanpanah then killed himself.
The six victims were identified by ABC affiliate WFAA as: Nasrin Rahmaty, 55, who was Yazdanpanah’s wife; Nona Yazdanpanah, 19, his daughter; Ali Yazdanpanah, 15, his son; Zohreh Rahmaty, 58, his sister-in-law; Hossein Zarei, 59, his brother-in-law; and Sahra Zarei, 22, his niece.
Later reports tell us that the murderer was a Muslim, a fact that the media are downplaying. “Aziz Yazdanpanah, a Muslim, didn’t like his daughter’s non-Muslim boyfriend and was exhibiting stalker behavior. ‘She couldn’t date at all until she was a certain age, but when he was going to let her date she couldn’t date anyone outside of their race or religion.’”
Investigators are downplaying the motive. Lt. Todd Dearing said that motive isn’t important.
Motive is always important except, it seems, when “when Islam is involved.” (Source)
You may recall that the Defense Department reclassified the Fort Hood massacre as “workplace violence.” We know that Maj. Hassan shouted “Allahu Akbar” (Arabic for “God is Great”) after firing a total of 214 rounds at his fellow soldiers. Even so, we were told that Hassan’s religious believes were not a factor in the shooting.
Maybe if we ignore the relationship between Islam, honor killings, and other acts of violence they’ll all go away. Don’t count on it.
When Is Racial Profiling Wrong?
I think most conservatives, like me, will read this and recognize that this is just common sense. Racial profiling is wrong when it is motivated by bigotry. When motivated by facts and reason, especially in the realm of law enforcement investigations, it is perfectly fine & a valid tool. The ACLU has ruined this country with their political correctness and twisting of the law. The author is correct in noting that racial-profiling only seems to apply to non-whites and non-Christians. That's just one of the problems with the liberal philosophy - it insists on white & Christian guilt in an attempt to address issues, and ends up twisting society into an ineffective knot.
**********
When Is Racial Profiling Wrong?
In whatever area of the country you lived, you knew that there was a group of people from a specific nationality or religion that were posing a danger or committing crimes, would it not make sense to target them in your investigation?
If you were the police in New York City after the 9/11 attack and you were informed that there were other Muslims in your area that were planning other attacks, would it not be prudent and proper to investigate and monitor the Muslim community in general? You would want to know who is saying what about possible attacks and the only way to gather that information is to focus your investigation on Muslims. This could be defined by some as racial profiling and thus an illegal practice.
If you were the police in a southwestern state and knew that 95% of the illegal drug traffic was being carried out by Hispanics, wouldn’t it make sense to focus your investigation towards Hispanics crossing the border? And if you knew that thousands of Hispanics were illegally crossing the border into the US, wouldn’t it make sense to focus your border protection efforts on Hispanics in the area? This could be defined by some as racial profiling and thus an illegal practice.
If you were the police in a city that had a predominantly black population and you had information telling you that a rash of crimes were being committed by young adult male blacks, wouldn’t you need to focus your investigation against male young adult blacks? This could be defined by some as racial profiling and thus an illegal practice.
If you were the police in an area that was experiencing a rash of home break-ins and sexual assaults and you had information that they were being committed by a gang of teenage white males, wouldn’t you focus your investigation towards teenage white males? No one would consider this to be racial profiling, rather it would be proper police work.
This is a growing concern for law enforcement agencies around the nation. Where is the dividing line between proper law enforcement procedures and illegal racial profiling?
In Arizona, the federal government is going after Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for racial profiling against Hispanics, when in truth they are responsible for the majority of crimes in the area.
In New York City, Muslim clerics are boycotting the city’s interfaith breakfast because of supposed racial profiling that has taken place since 9/11. In fact, the NY police department with help from federal agencies has thwarted 14 Muslim terrorist plots and arrested or killed 44 Muslim terrorists in the process. How many lives have they saved by their racial profiling?
Civil liberties groups have gone to extreme measures to make proper law enforcement measures more difficult to carry out because someone who was innocent was offended for being stopped and questioned. People want a safe country but at the same time they don’t want law enforcement agencies to be able to conduct the necessary investigations and surveillance to provide for that safety.
Well, I’m a white male and when I was a teenager, I and my three best friends were detained by the local police for breaking and entering into a home and stealing guns, television and other items. We fit the profile of four white teenage males in the general area. Yes, I was scared to death as I was being threatened with jail for crimes I didn’t commit. Before the police finished booking the four of us, two other officers arrested 4 teenage white males in the process of burglarizing another house.
Had we been black and the description was of four black teens, civil rights advocates would have been at the police station screaming racial profiling. But since we were white, the issue never came to anyone’s mind. I harbor no ill feelings towards the police department for arresting us as I probably would have done the same thing had I been the police officers.
It seems that the charge of racial profiling only applies to non-white and non-Christian groups. It’s okay to use race and religion to profile whites and Christians, but not anyone else.
Don’t get me wrong, I do believe that there needs to be some boundaries to prevent law enforcement from abusing their privileges, but at the same time, they have to be allowed to do their job. If a certain ethnic or religious group is responsible for breaking the law in your area, then law enforcement must be allowed to focus their attention on that specific group. After all, what would everyone say if the police spent their time and resources investigating all ethnic and religious groups when their information pointed to only one?
**********
When Is Racial Profiling Wrong?
In whatever area of the country you lived, you knew that there was a group of people from a specific nationality or religion that were posing a danger or committing crimes, would it not make sense to target them in your investigation?
If you were the police in New York City after the 9/11 attack and you were informed that there were other Muslims in your area that were planning other attacks, would it not be prudent and proper to investigate and monitor the Muslim community in general? You would want to know who is saying what about possible attacks and the only way to gather that information is to focus your investigation on Muslims. This could be defined by some as racial profiling and thus an illegal practice.
If you were the police in a southwestern state and knew that 95% of the illegal drug traffic was being carried out by Hispanics, wouldn’t it make sense to focus your investigation towards Hispanics crossing the border? And if you knew that thousands of Hispanics were illegally crossing the border into the US, wouldn’t it make sense to focus your border protection efforts on Hispanics in the area? This could be defined by some as racial profiling and thus an illegal practice.
If you were the police in a city that had a predominantly black population and you had information telling you that a rash of crimes were being committed by young adult male blacks, wouldn’t you need to focus your investigation against male young adult blacks? This could be defined by some as racial profiling and thus an illegal practice.
If you were the police in an area that was experiencing a rash of home break-ins and sexual assaults and you had information that they were being committed by a gang of teenage white males, wouldn’t you focus your investigation towards teenage white males? No one would consider this to be racial profiling, rather it would be proper police work.
This is a growing concern for law enforcement agencies around the nation. Where is the dividing line between proper law enforcement procedures and illegal racial profiling?
In Arizona, the federal government is going after Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for racial profiling against Hispanics, when in truth they are responsible for the majority of crimes in the area.
In New York City, Muslim clerics are boycotting the city’s interfaith breakfast because of supposed racial profiling that has taken place since 9/11. In fact, the NY police department with help from federal agencies has thwarted 14 Muslim terrorist plots and arrested or killed 44 Muslim terrorists in the process. How many lives have they saved by their racial profiling?
Civil liberties groups have gone to extreme measures to make proper law enforcement measures more difficult to carry out because someone who was innocent was offended for being stopped and questioned. People want a safe country but at the same time they don’t want law enforcement agencies to be able to conduct the necessary investigations and surveillance to provide for that safety.
Well, I’m a white male and when I was a teenager, I and my three best friends were detained by the local police for breaking and entering into a home and stealing guns, television and other items. We fit the profile of four white teenage males in the general area. Yes, I was scared to death as I was being threatened with jail for crimes I didn’t commit. Before the police finished booking the four of us, two other officers arrested 4 teenage white males in the process of burglarizing another house.
Had we been black and the description was of four black teens, civil rights advocates would have been at the police station screaming racial profiling. But since we were white, the issue never came to anyone’s mind. I harbor no ill feelings towards the police department for arresting us as I probably would have done the same thing had I been the police officers.
It seems that the charge of racial profiling only applies to non-white and non-Christian groups. It’s okay to use race and religion to profile whites and Christians, but not anyone else.
Don’t get me wrong, I do believe that there needs to be some boundaries to prevent law enforcement from abusing their privileges, but at the same time, they have to be allowed to do their job. If a certain ethnic or religious group is responsible for breaking the law in your area, then law enforcement must be allowed to focus their attention on that specific group. After all, what would everyone say if the police spent their time and resources investigating all ethnic and religious groups when their information pointed to only one?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
