I'd like to see what happens when a group of Imams prays in front of the White House. I bet BHO invites them in and prays with them. We're just beginning to see hints of the tyranny BHO will use to rule us. I pray that he does NOT get a second term to implement his agenda. I agree with the author that our Founding Fathers would shed tears if they could see how the people submit to tyranny.
__________
Obama Gestapo Arrests Group for Praying in Front of White House
Occupy Washington protesters have been camping on US Park Service property for the past four months. They littered and trashed the park. They urinated and defecated all over it. They even defaced public property and nearby buildings.
But few arrests were ever made.
However, let a group of six religious leaders kneel and pray in front of the White House, only to have Obama’s Gestapo-like US Park Police swoop down like vultures on a fresh kill and carry the men off to jail. From being on their knees in front of the presidential palace, the peaceful protesters were charged with failure to obey a lawful order. After being booked, they each paid a fine of $100 and then were released.
Father Wilde of Priests for Life and Rev Pat Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition organized the prayer meeting in front of the White House to follow up on the lawsuit that Priests for Life filed against the Obama administration to put a stop to the contraceptive mandate.
Speaking to a reporter, Father Wilde said,
“Occupy Wall Street protesters have been occupying federal property for months, but when we kneel in prayer, the police are called in and we are arrested.
“We knew that was the risk when we gathered today, and we will do it again regardless of the risk. What people of faith – of every faith – need to do now is stand with us.”
America has had presidents and other political leaders lead prayers from the steps of various public buildings. There is a chaplain in both the US House and US Senate and supposedly, the President has at least one spiritual adviser. In the US Capitol Building, there is a room that was set aside by the 83rd Congress as a room to be used for prayer and meditation by members of Congress. In that room is a beautiful stained glass window of George Washington on his knees in prayer.
When the first Congress of the United Statesmet onSeptember 7, 1774, it began with prayer. On that morning, Congress was very concerned aboutGreat Britain’s recent attack onBoston. Reverend Jacob Duché, Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, was summoned to lead the opening prayers. He first read Psalm 35, after which John Adams stated in a letter to his wife: “I never saw a greater effect upon an audience. It seemed as if Heaven had ordained that Psalm to be read on the morning.” Then rather than read a general prayer as was commonly done, Reverend Duché broke into extemporaneous prayer.
First we have prayer banned from the public schools and many other governmental arenas. Now we have people being arrested for openly praying on public property in front of one of the most revered bastions of America’s freedom. Only those freedoms have been revoked and people are no longer allowed to follow the examples of our Founding Fathers. And if those Founding Fathers like George Washington saw America today, not only would they be on their knees praying, but I’m sure they would also be shedding tears over what they see.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
U.S. Capital Bombing Thwarted
When I first saw this article on Friday my first thought was outstanding police work. But as I learned more details I had to ask myself why 10 years after 911, DHS and ICE still cannot track and deport people who illegally overstay they visa - especially if they are Moozlums. This radical Moozlum, Amine El Khalifi, has overstayed his visa since 1999 - that's 13 years!!!! Why not just arrest him for that. I appreciate all the police work that went into a year long investigation and will probably net this radical Moozlum life in prison for attempting to bomb our capital, but none of it was necessary since the guy could have been arrested for being here illegally.
Now if memory serves me correctly, a lot of the 911 murderers had also overstayed their visas. 10 years after 911 and our governement cannot even track and deport people illegally overstaying their visa.
After reading the article, the first thing that struck me was the man was Moroccan and had a Moozlum sounding name, Amine El Khalifi, but no where in the article was the "religion of peace" mentioned. The article also mentions two other radical Moozlums that were arrested last year for working with Al Qaeda and trying to blow up the capital - Rezwan Ferdaus attempted to buy explosives for remote controlled airplanes to bomb the Pentagon, and Farooque Ahmed wanted to blow up Washington's Metrorail. Again, no mention of the "religion of peace."
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., was interviewed about Amine El Khalifi's arrest and made a couple of inane statements, one about having to
"walk around with a little higher level of paranoia." Really Emanuel? I've been paranoid of radical Moozlums for about 30 years and extremely paranoid of them since 911, but thanks for the sage advice!
Notice that the media goes to great lengths to avoid any mention of the religion of the men arrested for terrorist acts. Could it be they're afraid to mention the "religion of peace"? Could it be they don't want to offend the "religion of peace"? Or could it be that they've traded communism for radical Islam as their cause du jour?
_________
Feds arrest man allegedly heading to U.S. Capitol for suicide mission after sting investigation
Authorities arrested and charged Friday a Virginia man allegedly on his way to the U.S. Capitol for what he thought would be a suicide attack on one of the nation's most symbolic landmarks.
The federal criminal complaint against the suspect identifies him as Amine El Khalifi, a 29-year-old Moroccan citizen who has been living in the United States illegally since 1999 after his visa expired. He was nabbed following a lengthy investigation by the FBI, initiated after he allegedly expressed interest in conducting an attack. Court documents say he came onto the radar screen in early December after he told an undercover agent about an earlier plan to bomb a northern Virginia building.
According to charging documents, he first entered the country that year on a tourist visa, which expired and was never renewed. Khalifi was charged Friday in U.S. District Court in northern Virginia with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.
The suspect allegedly weighed hitting various targets ranging from a military installation to synagogues to a Washington restaurant before settling on the Capitol.
The man thought undercover FBI agents assisting him in his plot were associates of Al Qaeda. He purchased bomb materials including jackets, nails and glue in preparation for an attack. He even conducted a test explosives demonstration in a quarry.
When he was arrested Friday in Washington, he was carrying with him a vest that he had been led to believe was packed with explosives, but the material inside was not actually dangerous, Fox News was told.
A short time earlier, Khalifi had been praying at a mosque in the Washington area. His destination was Capitol Hill.
The public was never in danger, as he had been under constant surveillance for some time, officials said. The FBI provided the suspect with a disabled gun during their ongoing operation, Fox News has learned.
The U.S. Capitol Police, in a statement that confirmed the arrest but provided few details, said the suspect had been "closely and carefully monitored."
A senior source involved with law enforcement at the Capitol also told Fox News the investigation was "all very controlled." The source said the U.S. Capitol Police was involved with the FBI and other agencies in tracking the suspect "not more than a year."
A former landlord in Arlington said he believed El Khalifi was suspicious and called police 18 months ago.
Frank Dynda said when he told El Khalifi to leave, the suspect said he had a right to stay and threatened to beat up Dynda. Dynda said he thought El Khalifi was making bombs, but police told him to leave the man alone. Dynda had El Khalifi evicted in 2010.
El Khalifi had several men staying with him and based on packages left for him, Dynda said, it appeared that he was running a luggage business from the apartment, although Dynda never saw any bags.
"I reported to police I think he's making bombs," Dynda said. "I was ready to get my shotgun and run him out of the building, but that would have been a lot of trouble."
On Capitol Hill, lawmakers in leadership positions had been briefed on the investigation, though rank-and-file members did not appear to have prior knowledge of the case.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., called the plot a "stark reminder" of the dangers Americans face.
"I think it will encourage more of us to take the tunnel. ... Maybe we have to walk around with a little higher level of paranoia," Cleaver told Fox News.
Sites in Washington have long been a target for terrorists, especially self-radicalized extremists caught in FBI stings.
In September, a Massachusetts man was arrested for allegedly plotting to fly bomb-laden model planes into the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol. FBI agents claiming to be associates of Al Qaeda provided 26-year-old Rezwan Ferdaus with what he thought was explosive material for the remote-controlled planes.
Nearly a year earlier, a Virginia man was arrested for trying to help Al Qaeda plan multiple bombings against Washington's Metrorail system. For months, 34-year-old Farooque Ahmed of Ashburn, Va., had been meeting and discussing "jihad" with individuals he thought were affiliated with Al Qaeda, but in fact he was meeting with FBI agents.
In the past year alone, at least 20 people have been arrested in the United States on terrorism-related charges, according to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
"Most of the arrests" have involved "lone wolves," radicalized online and able to use the Internet to build bombs, FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Senate committee last month.
At the time of Ahmed's arrest in October 2010, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Neil MacBride, said the case showcases "our ability to find those seeking to harm U.S. citizens and neutralize them before they can act."
Fox News' Catherine Herridge, Trish Turner, Chad Pergram and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
Another article:
Federal Agents Arrest Amine El Khalifi; He Allegedly Planned to Bomb Capitol
Now if memory serves me correctly, a lot of the 911 murderers had also overstayed their visas. 10 years after 911 and our governement cannot even track and deport people illegally overstaying their visa.
After reading the article, the first thing that struck me was the man was Moroccan and had a Moozlum sounding name, Amine El Khalifi, but no where in the article was the "religion of peace" mentioned. The article also mentions two other radical Moozlums that were arrested last year for working with Al Qaeda and trying to blow up the capital - Rezwan Ferdaus attempted to buy explosives for remote controlled airplanes to bomb the Pentagon, and Farooque Ahmed wanted to blow up Washington's Metrorail. Again, no mention of the "religion of peace."
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., was interviewed about Amine El Khalifi's arrest and made a couple of inane statements, one about having to
"walk around with a little higher level of paranoia." Really Emanuel? I've been paranoid of radical Moozlums for about 30 years and extremely paranoid of them since 911, but thanks for the sage advice!
Notice that the media goes to great lengths to avoid any mention of the religion of the men arrested for terrorist acts. Could it be they're afraid to mention the "religion of peace"? Could it be they don't want to offend the "religion of peace"? Or could it be that they've traded communism for radical Islam as their cause du jour?
_________
Feds arrest man allegedly heading to U.S. Capitol for suicide mission after sting investigation
Authorities arrested and charged Friday a Virginia man allegedly on his way to the U.S. Capitol for what he thought would be a suicide attack on one of the nation's most symbolic landmarks.
The federal criminal complaint against the suspect identifies him as Amine El Khalifi, a 29-year-old Moroccan citizen who has been living in the United States illegally since 1999 after his visa expired. He was nabbed following a lengthy investigation by the FBI, initiated after he allegedly expressed interest in conducting an attack. Court documents say he came onto the radar screen in early December after he told an undercover agent about an earlier plan to bomb a northern Virginia building.
According to charging documents, he first entered the country that year on a tourist visa, which expired and was never renewed. Khalifi was charged Friday in U.S. District Court in northern Virginia with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.
The suspect allegedly weighed hitting various targets ranging from a military installation to synagogues to a Washington restaurant before settling on the Capitol.
The man thought undercover FBI agents assisting him in his plot were associates of Al Qaeda. He purchased bomb materials including jackets, nails and glue in preparation for an attack. He even conducted a test explosives demonstration in a quarry.
When he was arrested Friday in Washington, he was carrying with him a vest that he had been led to believe was packed with explosives, but the material inside was not actually dangerous, Fox News was told.
A short time earlier, Khalifi had been praying at a mosque in the Washington area. His destination was Capitol Hill.
The public was never in danger, as he had been under constant surveillance for some time, officials said. The FBI provided the suspect with a disabled gun during their ongoing operation, Fox News has learned.
The U.S. Capitol Police, in a statement that confirmed the arrest but provided few details, said the suspect had been "closely and carefully monitored."
A senior source involved with law enforcement at the Capitol also told Fox News the investigation was "all very controlled." The source said the U.S. Capitol Police was involved with the FBI and other agencies in tracking the suspect "not more than a year."
A former landlord in Arlington said he believed El Khalifi was suspicious and called police 18 months ago.
Frank Dynda said when he told El Khalifi to leave, the suspect said he had a right to stay and threatened to beat up Dynda. Dynda said he thought El Khalifi was making bombs, but police told him to leave the man alone. Dynda had El Khalifi evicted in 2010.
El Khalifi had several men staying with him and based on packages left for him, Dynda said, it appeared that he was running a luggage business from the apartment, although Dynda never saw any bags.
"I reported to police I think he's making bombs," Dynda said. "I was ready to get my shotgun and run him out of the building, but that would have been a lot of trouble."
On Capitol Hill, lawmakers in leadership positions had been briefed on the investigation, though rank-and-file members did not appear to have prior knowledge of the case.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., called the plot a "stark reminder" of the dangers Americans face.
"I think it will encourage more of us to take the tunnel. ... Maybe we have to walk around with a little higher level of paranoia," Cleaver told Fox News.
Sites in Washington have long been a target for terrorists, especially self-radicalized extremists caught in FBI stings.
In September, a Massachusetts man was arrested for allegedly plotting to fly bomb-laden model planes into the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol. FBI agents claiming to be associates of Al Qaeda provided 26-year-old Rezwan Ferdaus with what he thought was explosive material for the remote-controlled planes.
Nearly a year earlier, a Virginia man was arrested for trying to help Al Qaeda plan multiple bombings against Washington's Metrorail system. For months, 34-year-old Farooque Ahmed of Ashburn, Va., had been meeting and discussing "jihad" with individuals he thought were affiliated with Al Qaeda, but in fact he was meeting with FBI agents.
In the past year alone, at least 20 people have been arrested in the United States on terrorism-related charges, according to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
"Most of the arrests" have involved "lone wolves," radicalized online and able to use the Internet to build bombs, FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Senate committee last month.
At the time of Ahmed's arrest in October 2010, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Neil MacBride, said the case showcases "our ability to find those seeking to harm U.S. citizens and neutralize them before they can act."
Fox News' Catherine Herridge, Trish Turner, Chad Pergram and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
Another article:
Federal Agents Arrest Amine El Khalifi; He Allegedly Planned to Bomb Capitol
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Mali Besieged by Fighters Fleeing Libya
I thought a Taureg was a VW SUV. Now I learn that it is a "semi-nomadic people who inhabit the interior of Africa's Sahara region," and that they served in the Libyan army. Did BHO or Hillary see this coming? Was this part of their plan for instability in the region?
__________
Mali Besieged by Fighters Fleeing Libya by Stewart Scott
__________
Mali Besieged by Fighters Fleeing Libya by Stewart Scott
Egyptian kidnappers reportedly free 2 American tourists
Yesterday, 2/3/12, the news reports were all about the kidnapping of two American women and how the kidnappers were demanding the release of Islamic prisoners. Today, all the headlines and stories are about the release and how nicely the bedouins treated their captives. More evidence that the "religion of peace" really is very nice. No mention of the demands for release of Islamic prisoners today. In my opinion, that's very nice fo M3.
__________
Egyptian kidnappers reportedly free 2 American tourists
__________
Egyptian kidnappers reportedly free 2 American tourists
Obama's Fascination with Taliban Baffles Even Democrats
Want proof that liberals are idiots? Here's all the proof you need. Their flawed ideology and thinking defy reason. They truly believe that releasing some of the most dangerous Taliban from Gitmo will lead to peace talks with the Taliban in Afghaneestan! Liberals should'nt be allowed to breed, let alone lead. Their policy defies common sense and every lesson we've learned in the 10 year war against terrorism. Common sense will tell you, and history will tell you, that when you release a terrorist from prison he goes right back to the life of a terrorist and plans ways to kill you. Go ahead BHO, see if you can talk them out of being terrorists.
__________
Update 2/8/12: Afghanistan: Moving Toward a Distant Endgame by George Friedman
__________
Obama's Fascination with Taliban Baffles Even Democrats by Bob Beauprez
The Obama Administration is reportedly working on a deal to release five Taliban terrorists held at Gitmo as an “incentive” to talk peace in Afghanistan. Taliban leader Mullah Omar reportedly has “demanded” the Gitmo prisoners release as a pre-condition to any talks. The prisoners are among the most dangerous captured since the 9/11/01 attacks. As recently as last May, the White House announced that the 172 detainees still at Gitmo were too dangerous to move.
The release of the prisoners from Gitmo is intended as a “goodwill gesture” by Obama merely for the Taliban’s willingness to establish a political office in Qatar to open “peace talks.”
According to the Israeli News Organization Arutz Sheva, Afghan Taliban Leader Mullah Omar confirmed “peace talks with the United States are on the horizon.” But, in exchange for an implied willingness to talk, “Omar has demanded the release of Afghan prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and complete withdrawal of U.S. led forces from Afghanistan.” Included in Mullah Omar’s “demand” to Barack Obama is the release of Mullah Fazl Akhund, the former leader of the army in a war that has claimed the life of 1879 American troops and wounded 15,300 more.
Democrat and Republican Presidents have historically maintained a rigid policy of not negotiating with terrorists. Obama seems to have thrown that policy in the trash.
The British newspaper, the Guardian, confirms the same “demands” by Mullah Omar and further reports that “the U.S. has agreed in principle to release high-ranking Taliban officials” from Gitmo.
Three days ago, the Associated Press reported that “U.S. intelligence officials acknowledged Tuesday that the United States may release several Afghan Taliban prisoners from the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as an incentive to bring the Taliban to peace talks.”
Did you catch that? Just as an “incentive” to talk.
In December 2011, Vice-President Joe Biden shocked the nation with one of his notorious gaffes claiming “the Taliban is not our enemy.” Instead of clarifying, the White House stood by Biden’s ridiculous assertion. But, on December 28 the Taliban proved Biden wrong. Three NATO troops were killed by a roadside bomb blast. The next day ten Afghan troops were killed in an ambush of a convoy delivering supplies to US-led NATO troops.
The Obama Administration’s strange fascination with the Taliban baffles even leading Democrats. Last June, Senators Chuck Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand of New York along with Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey urged the State Department to formally designate the Taliban a Terrorist organization, but the Administration continued to resist the obvious.
The only three criteria necessary to qualify as a terrorist organization are:
it must be foreign,
it must engage in terrorist activity,
its activity must threaten the security of the U.S. or its citizens.
“It is hard to imagine this agency (the State Department) can see fit to issue a report that doesn’t include the Taliban groups,” Fred Gedrich, a foreign policy analyst and former State Department official said at the time. “They have killed more Americans and conducted more terror attacks on innocent civilians during the past 12 months than any other terror group.”
Nine days after the 9/11 attacks George W. Bush issued the warning “either you’re with us or with the terrorists.” The Taliban harbored and supported Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda base from which the attacks had been hatched. Within weeks U.S. troops invaded Afghanistan in what was dubbed Operation Enduring Freedom.
During the prosecution of the war nearly two thousand Americans have been killed along with a thousand more of our allies. Our forces captured many of the most dangerous Taliban operatives removing them from the battlefield and positions of command. It now appears some of the very worst may be given absolution by Barack Obama – who likes to talk.
__________
Update 2/8/12: Afghanistan: Moving Toward a Distant Endgame by George Friedman
__________
Obama's Fascination with Taliban Baffles Even Democrats by Bob Beauprez
The Obama Administration is reportedly working on a deal to release five Taliban terrorists held at Gitmo as an “incentive” to talk peace in Afghanistan. Taliban leader Mullah Omar reportedly has “demanded” the Gitmo prisoners release as a pre-condition to any talks. The prisoners are among the most dangerous captured since the 9/11/01 attacks. As recently as last May, the White House announced that the 172 detainees still at Gitmo were too dangerous to move.
The release of the prisoners from Gitmo is intended as a “goodwill gesture” by Obama merely for the Taliban’s willingness to establish a political office in Qatar to open “peace talks.”
According to the Israeli News Organization Arutz Sheva, Afghan Taliban Leader Mullah Omar confirmed “peace talks with the United States are on the horizon.” But, in exchange for an implied willingness to talk, “Omar has demanded the release of Afghan prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and complete withdrawal of U.S. led forces from Afghanistan.” Included in Mullah Omar’s “demand” to Barack Obama is the release of Mullah Fazl Akhund, the former leader of the army in a war that has claimed the life of 1879 American troops and wounded 15,300 more.
Democrat and Republican Presidents have historically maintained a rigid policy of not negotiating with terrorists. Obama seems to have thrown that policy in the trash.
The British newspaper, the Guardian, confirms the same “demands” by Mullah Omar and further reports that “the U.S. has agreed in principle to release high-ranking Taliban officials” from Gitmo.
Three days ago, the Associated Press reported that “U.S. intelligence officials acknowledged Tuesday that the United States may release several Afghan Taliban prisoners from the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as an incentive to bring the Taliban to peace talks.”
Did you catch that? Just as an “incentive” to talk.
In December 2011, Vice-President Joe Biden shocked the nation with one of his notorious gaffes claiming “the Taliban is not our enemy.” Instead of clarifying, the White House stood by Biden’s ridiculous assertion. But, on December 28 the Taliban proved Biden wrong. Three NATO troops were killed by a roadside bomb blast. The next day ten Afghan troops were killed in an ambush of a convoy delivering supplies to US-led NATO troops.
The Obama Administration’s strange fascination with the Taliban baffles even leading Democrats. Last June, Senators Chuck Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand of New York along with Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey urged the State Department to formally designate the Taliban a Terrorist organization, but the Administration continued to resist the obvious.
The only three criteria necessary to qualify as a terrorist organization are:
it must be foreign,
it must engage in terrorist activity,
its activity must threaten the security of the U.S. or its citizens.
“It is hard to imagine this agency (the State Department) can see fit to issue a report that doesn’t include the Taliban groups,” Fred Gedrich, a foreign policy analyst and former State Department official said at the time. “They have killed more Americans and conducted more terror attacks on innocent civilians during the past 12 months than any other terror group.”
Nine days after the 9/11 attacks George W. Bush issued the warning “either you’re with us or with the terrorists.” The Taliban harbored and supported Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda base from which the attacks had been hatched. Within weeks U.S. troops invaded Afghanistan in what was dubbed Operation Enduring Freedom.
During the prosecution of the war nearly two thousand Americans have been killed along with a thousand more of our allies. Our forces captured many of the most dangerous Taliban operatives removing them from the battlefield and positions of command. It now appears some of the very worst may be given absolution by Barack Obama – who likes to talk.
Political Correctness and Muslims
O'Reilly is absolutely right in his summation that M3 believes they are protecting minorities by failing to report that those involved in honor killings are Moozlums. But I believe it goes deeper than that. The media elite and their editors have a far left liberal/marxist/communist ideology. Since our policy of containment largely worked and communism collapsed from with, the media elites have turned their communist sympathies to Islam. They deliberately do not report the evil and atrocities committed by Moozlums on a daily basis because they somehow believe their own diatribe that Islam is a "religion of peace." This couldn't be further from the truth, but truth and facts are things that liberals conveniently ignore when they contradict the liberal ideology/theology. Liberalism is a failed ideology. It has failed since recorded human history, but the liberals in America just will not give up on the idea. They will destroy America from within before they are through, and then they'll wonder why their ideas didn't work.
__________
Political Correctness and Muslims
by Bill O'Reilly
The story is grisly: a husband and wife murdering their three young daughters, ages 19, 17 and 13, by drowning them along with their stepmother. The couple was assisted by their 21-year-old son. All were found guilty of first-degree murder in Ontario, Canada. They were sentenced to life in prison.
Mohammad Shafia and his wife, Tooba, immigrated to Canada from Afghanistan in 2007. Being Muslims, they believe in Sharia law, which in some cases allows so-called "honor killings" -- that is, if a family member deviates from strict Muslim teachings, other family members can execute them. Of course, that's insane. But under the Taliban in Afghanistan and in some other parts of the world, "honor killings" are allowed.
In his eyes, Shafia's three daughters were guilty of becoming westernized, wearing nontraditional Muslim clothing and associating with the dreaded Christians. So this demented father ordered the girls killed, as well as his first wife, whom he believed was aiding them in their alleged transgressions.
Reporting on the story in America has been scant and strange. According to the Media Research Center, the initial Associated Press report made no mention of the fact that the convicted murderers are Muslim. They were described as "Afghan." In fact, the only theology mentioned in the AP dispatch is Christianity, used while describing the boyfriend of one of the daughters.
On NBC's "Nightly News," anchor Brian Williams said this: "A verdict has been reached in a murder case that's gotten a lot of attention because it involved so-called honor killings of family members. In this case, an Afghan family living in Canada. It is a culture clash getting a lot of attention to our north."
Culture clash? Between whom? Afghans and Canadians? What is Williams talking about?
The reporter on the story, Kevin Tibbles, also avoided using the word "Muslim." He described the motivation for the violence as "a strict religious family that felt it had been disgraced."
What religion? Incredibly, the reporter didn't say.
This is no coincidence. The politically correct U.S. media are frightened by Muslim violence. They avoid the issue whenever they can.
Just think about what would happen if a Catholic father murdered his daughter for having an abortion. Would the AP and NBC News not have mentioned the religion involved? I think we all know the answer to that question.
Political correctness is dangerous because it obscures the truth. It allows certain people and groups to avoid scrutiny for destructive actions. Today, the press in America is dominated by liberal editors who believe they are protecting "minorities" by failing to mention facts that might cast them in a negative light. Thus, honest reporting is becoming almost obsolete when certain groups are involved.
Shafia, his wife and his son are Muslim fanatics who believe they have the right to commit murder in the name of their religion. Somebody get that dispatch to the media.
__________
Political Correctness and Muslims
by Bill O'Reilly
The story is grisly: a husband and wife murdering their three young daughters, ages 19, 17 and 13, by drowning them along with their stepmother. The couple was assisted by their 21-year-old son. All were found guilty of first-degree murder in Ontario, Canada. They were sentenced to life in prison.
Mohammad Shafia and his wife, Tooba, immigrated to Canada from Afghanistan in 2007. Being Muslims, they believe in Sharia law, which in some cases allows so-called "honor killings" -- that is, if a family member deviates from strict Muslim teachings, other family members can execute them. Of course, that's insane. But under the Taliban in Afghanistan and in some other parts of the world, "honor killings" are allowed.
In his eyes, Shafia's three daughters were guilty of becoming westernized, wearing nontraditional Muslim clothing and associating with the dreaded Christians. So this demented father ordered the girls killed, as well as his first wife, whom he believed was aiding them in their alleged transgressions.
Reporting on the story in America has been scant and strange. According to the Media Research Center, the initial Associated Press report made no mention of the fact that the convicted murderers are Muslim. They were described as "Afghan." In fact, the only theology mentioned in the AP dispatch is Christianity, used while describing the boyfriend of one of the daughters.
On NBC's "Nightly News," anchor Brian Williams said this: "A verdict has been reached in a murder case that's gotten a lot of attention because it involved so-called honor killings of family members. In this case, an Afghan family living in Canada. It is a culture clash getting a lot of attention to our north."
Culture clash? Between whom? Afghans and Canadians? What is Williams talking about?
The reporter on the story, Kevin Tibbles, also avoided using the word "Muslim." He described the motivation for the violence as "a strict religious family that felt it had been disgraced."
What religion? Incredibly, the reporter didn't say.
This is no coincidence. The politically correct U.S. media are frightened by Muslim violence. They avoid the issue whenever they can.
Just think about what would happen if a Catholic father murdered his daughter for having an abortion. Would the AP and NBC News not have mentioned the religion involved? I think we all know the answer to that question.
Political correctness is dangerous because it obscures the truth. It allows certain people and groups to avoid scrutiny for destructive actions. Today, the press in America is dominated by liberal editors who believe they are protecting "minorities" by failing to mention facts that might cast them in a negative light. Thus, honest reporting is becoming almost obsolete when certain groups are involved.
Shafia, his wife and his son are Muslim fanatics who believe they have the right to commit murder in the name of their religion. Somebody get that dispatch to the media.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Afghan kills 9 Americans at Kabul Military Base
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.
_________
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.
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
