Posts Tagged ‘Al-Qaeda’

h1

Enemy No. 1: Anwar The American

February 9, 2010

Enemy No. 1: Anwar The American

9 Feb. 2010 | IBD

Awlaki in 2008: Why isn't he in the cross hairs of our drones? APAwlaki in 2008: Why isn’t he in the cross hairs of our drones? AP View Enlarged Image

War On Terror: Upstaging Osama Bin Laden as the most dangerous man in the world may be an American recruiter for al-Qaida: Anwar Awlaki. So why’s he talking to Al-Jazeera instead of interrogators?

The radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar Awlaki told the Arab TV network that he supported the failed Christmas Day airliner attack because “the American people have participated in all the crimes of their government.” The turncoat added: “Some 300 Americans are nothing compared to the thousands of Muslims they have killed.”

Awlaki also advised the Fort Hood terrorist, whom he called “a hero.” The two exchanged some 20 e-mails. But he is best known for privately meeting with some of the 9/11 hijackers.

The Christmas crotch-bomber told federal authorities that Awlaki directed him to carry out his airliner attack, which means he has gone operational.

Both U.S. and Yemeni intelligence believe Awlaki met with suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in Yemen late last year, and may have even helped outfit the bomber. There are also reports that Awlaki, born 38 years ago in New Mexico, has given his blessing to roomsful of blue-eyed, blonde-haired Americans preparing for suicide missions against their own country.

If true, this is chilling stuff. Yet the administration seems hesitant to go after Awlaki, who is holed up in a tribal region of Yemen. Some say that because he’s a U.S. citizen, the CIA cannot target him with a drone-fired missile.

Not so. After 9/11, President Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the U.S.

In fact, U.S. citizen Kamal Derwish was killed by a CIA missile strike in November 2002. U.S. spooks knew he was in a car with six other al-Qaida operatives driving through the Yemen desert. And they sent a Hellfire missile after them.

The CIA should put Awlaki in the cross hairs of a drone as a wartime imperative. His family is in touch with him and knows his whereabouts. Will Yemeni authorities help us triangulate on his location?

Political pressure is key. His father, a former Yemeni minister and current adviser to the Yemeni president, is well-connected, and recently made an impassioned plea to the U.S. to spare his son’s life. It’s a little too late for that.

White House national security adviser John Brennan recently testified that “we’re very concerned about Mr. Awlaki.”

Really? Then why hasn’t he even been added to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists list, alongside another U.S. citizen — Adam Gadahn, the “American al-Qaida”?

Gadahn’s crime is issuing al-Qaida propaganda from a safe house somewhere inside Pakistan. There is no evidence he is directly involved in terrorist operations.

Yet he was indicted for treason and material support to al-Qaida, and now has a $1 million bounty on his head.

At the very least, the feds could add Awlaki to the Most Wanted list. He should be made Public Enemy No. 1.

Awlaki is the Pied Piper of jihadists, turning up in case after case. Court records cite Awlaki and his jihadi Web site as the source of inspiration for much of the homegrown terror plaguing the country. Awlaki also inspired the Fort Dix Six, who plotted to kill U.S. troops by posing as pizza delivery drivers; and the 20 Minneapolis students who joined al-Qaida’s jihad in Somalia, including the first known American suicide bomber.

Of all the terrorists arrested since 9/11, none poses a greater threat than this bloodthirsty American preacher, who gets hundreds, if not thousands, of young Muslim men jacked up for jihad, making him a lethal force multiplier for the enemy.

Advertisements
h1

Joe Biden Blunders

October 8, 2009

Joe Biden, V.P. Blunders

Joe Biden was picked for Obama’s VP for his war experience?

JB knows nothing about war. ALWAYS WRONG

“Wrong on every war he’s had a hand in”

“Wrong time and again”

“Biden’s Idea…won’t work”

“Recommended fighting ONLY Al-Qaida and not the Taliban” IBD

“Opposed the Vietnam War”

“Knows little about war”

“A warlord can be a Taliban, an al-Qaida, an opium trafficker or all of the above”

“Biden’s idea, as McChrystal put it bluntly, won’t work”

IBD: “Terrorists don’t wear badges and nobody calls the cops”

OBAMA-BADGES

Biden Butts In

IBD: 6 Oct. 2009

Warfare: As the commander in Afghanistan tries to get President Obama’s attention on troops, it’s political players like Vice President Biden who have his ear. Yet the military has a record of success. Biden has only blunders.

By sending in 21,000 more troops and adding $44 billion to the war budget, the president erased doubts early in his term that the goal in Afghanistan was victory. Even more impressive, he appointed Gen. Stanley McChrystal, a successful Iraq War commander who excels in unconventional warfare, to lead the fight.

But the doubts have returned. McChrystal has merited just two encounters with Obama since taking over in June, and an Aug. 30 proposal seeking 40,000 more troops in a civilian-protection strategy has found the president unable to act. Amid the dithering, 10 U.S. soldiers were mowed down in Afghanistan over the weekend, precisely because they were outgunned and undermanned.

Obama’s reluctance to face the war and the commitment it requires has given an opening to Biden, who knows little about war but a lot about politics. Last week, Obama met with Biden and various Pentagon heavies in a long sit-down in which Biden recommended fighting only al-Qaida and not the Taliban.

This might be an acceptable strategy if the battlefield were some place like Copenhagen. But Afghanistan is a failed state where terrorists don’t wear badges (see above picture) and nobody calls the cops.

McChrystal’s long war experience has shown that protecting and defending civilians are critical to developing a state that can take on terrorists. In the fluid swamp of a failed state, loyalties can overlap. A warlord can be a Taliban, an al-Qaida member, an opium trafficker or all of the above. Biden’s idea, as McChrystal put it bluntly, “won’t work.”

His sentiment echoed comments made two weeks earlier by Gen.David Petraeus, the Central Command chief.

Both McChrystal and Petraeus have long records of military success. Biden, by contrast, has been wrong on every war he’s had a hand in.

He opposed the surge in Iraq, insisting instead on dividing Iraq into three warring fiefdoms with unequal distributions of oil.

He also opposed the Vietnam War, an opposition that led to defeat, a bloodbath of our Vietnamese friends and diminished U.S. global influence.

In addition, Biden played a role in the flawed 1999 design of Plan Colombia, which at first tried to separate a few of failed-state Colombia’s multiple enemies — in this case, drug dealers. But the strategy enabled FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, to grow strong in narcotrafficking as other players dropped off.

Iraq, Vietnam and Colombia all have implications for the war in Afghanistan. McChrystal’s record speaks for itself, while Biden has been wrong time and again. Yet it’s McChrystal who gets criticized for taking his recommendations public.

Obama must decide soon whether this is about winning at politics or at war. Biden’s easy way out represents the former, McChrystal’s reasoned recommendations the latter.

In the end, military victory will be the best politics of all.

h1

Is The Enemy Really Us?

September 22, 2009

Is The Enemy Really Us?

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | 22 Sept. 2009

War On Terror: The arrest of a suspected father-and-son al-Qaida cell near Denver is a reminder that the bad guys remain among us. Why is the Justice Department hunting the good guys?


Read More: Global War On Terror


Twenty-four-year-old Afghan native Najibullah Zazi, his father, Mohammed Wali Zazi, 53, and an associate from New York City were arrested Saturday at what by all appearances was a quintessential suburban residence in Aurora, Colorado. Zazi’s computer reportedly contained a handwritten formula for an explosive device.

All three are either naturalized U.S. citizens or legal resident immigrants. And all three are under FBI investigation as operatives in what could have been the first successful al-Qaida plot within the homeland since 2001. Three Queens, N.Y., apartments have also been raided.

It may be eight years now since 9/11, but eternal vigilance is clearly as necessary as ever. Federal investigators and law enforcement personnel found the Zazis & Co. But how many others remain out there?

Terrorists remain at war with us. But do we remain at war with them?


At the Justice Department, Attorney General Eric Holder is undertaking a different war — one that undermines the real war effort. The AG has reopened criminal investigations into post-9/11 interrogations conducted by the CIA.

A U.S. attorney supervised an investigation of those interrogations four years ago. The result was one conviction and internal disciplinary steps against other personnel who overstepped their legal authority.

What Holder is doing will send a loud-and-clear message to our enemies around the world that the U.S. is cannibalistically punishing those who protect our own country.

Other self-destructive results were eloquently outlined in one of the most extraordinary letters ever sent to a sitting president of the United States.

Seven former CIA directors exhorted President Obama to “exercise your authority to reverse” Holder’s witch hunt. The document was signed by John Deutch and James Woolsey, who served under Bill Clinton; George Tenet, who served under both Clinton and George W. Bush; Porter Goss and Michael Hayden, both under Bush; William Webster, FBI director under Ronald Reagan and CIA director under both Reagan and George H.W. Bush; even James Schlesinger, who ran the CIA under Nixon and was so hated within the agency for firing hundreds of clandestine operatives that he received anonymous death threats.

The seven issued multiple warnings of grave concern to national security. If completed and closed criminal investigations “can so easily be reopened” by a succeeding administration, then “declinations of prosecution will be rendered meaningless,” they noted.

“Those men and women who undertake difficult intelligence assignments in the aftermath of an attack such as September 11 must believe there is permanence in the legal rules that govern their actions,” they added. Moreover, a new criminal probe “will seriously damage the willingness of many other intelligence officers to take risks to protect the country” in the future, the seven warned.

Even more dire, “public disclosure about past intelligence operations can only help al-Qaida elude US intelligence and plan future operations,” the former CIA directors wrote. “Disclosures about CIA collection operations have and will continue to make it harder for intelligence officers to maintain the momentum of operations that have saved lives and helped protect America from further attacks.”

Finally, the seven warned that foreign intelligence agencies that have helped the U.S. fight terrorism in the past “rightly fear that, through these additional investigations and the court proceedings that could follow, terrorists may learn how other countries came to our assistance in a time of peril.” They added that “many countries may decide that they can no longer safely share intelligence or cooperate with us on future counter-terrorist operations” because they “simply cannot rely on our promises of secrecy.”

The president’s reaction was to tell CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday that he does not plan to stop Holder as the attorney general goes after these heroes who saved countless lives by extracting information from terrorist prisoners.

“We have met the enemy, and he is us” was a slogan coined 40 years ago. Has the U.S. government now perversely adopted it as the motto of what has become a non-war on terror?

h1

Nuclear Nightmare

June 23, 2009

55 NUKES!

Nuclear Nightmare

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | 23 June 2009

Nuclear Proliferation: Al-Qaida says it will use Pakistan’s nuclear weapons against the U.S. if it ever gets the chance. We’re not surprised. Nor would we be surprised if it eventually got the opportunity.


Read More: Military & Defense


“God willing, the (Pakistani) nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of the Americans, and the mujahedeen would take them and use them against the Americans.” So says Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, al-Qaida’s top commander in Afghanistan, where the terror group has found a friend and ally in the Taliban.

If you think 9/11 was bad, just wait until al-Qaida gets a nuke, which is not as far-fetched as it sounds. Based both in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s untamed northwest frontier, al-Qaida in April launched a major offensive into Pakistan’s Swat Valley, engaging in fierce fighting with Pakistani army forces.

Swat is just 60 miles from Pakistan’s capital of Islamabad. If al-Qaida beats the Pakistan army in Swat, what will keep it from marching on Islamabad and gaining control of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal — said to number as many as 55 warheads? If you said Pakistan’s ISI intelligence agency, guess again. It’s riddled with fundamentalist al-Qaida sympathizers.

If this isn’t frightening enough, the U.S. stands under direct threat of possible attack by a nuclear power — North Korea. That country, in the destabilizing throes of a leadership change, warns it will launch a missile on July 4 toward Hawaii — even as the U.S. shadows a North Korean ship containing nuclear contraband.

Meanwhile, the world is rightly riveted on Iran’s massive anti-government protests. But even if Iran’s corrupt religious regime falls, the potential threat of a nuclear Iran remains. Once Iran builds a weapon, which now seems certain, its traditional enemies in the region — including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt and Syria, among others — will want to do the same.

This calls for leadership — the kind only the U.S. can supply. Unfortunately, the U.S. has followed a laissez-faire policy on nuclear weapons, abdicating its leadership to the entirely inept and corrupt U.N.

With the U.S. happy merely to talk, North Korea, al-Qaida and most seriously, Iran, are collectively thumbing their noses at us.

Pakistan’s recent history shows where Iran may be headed.

Despite warnings from the U.S. and U.N. in the 1990s, Pakistan acquired nuclear know-how and designs from China and the former USSR. And it bought dual-use technology from Western Europe.

A.Q. Khan, the German-educated metallurgist who served as scientific midwife to Pakistan’s bomb, then resold Pakistan’s nuclear technology on the global black market to bad apples such as Iran, Libya and North Korea.

That’s how proliferation starts. If one country gets a bomb, others want one too — and the race begins. Those who think the U.S. will be safer if it steps aside and lets countries pursue nuclear weapons are sadly mistaken.

Does anyone doubt that Pakistan — a country filled with fundamentalists like the ones who rule Iran — will help a fellow Islamic country get the bomb, as it did North Korea? Or that once Iran gets a bomb, it will make it available to terrorist clients such as Hamas, Hezbollah or even al-Qaida? We sure don’t.

Such proliferation poses a clear and present danger to the West. Yet, the U.S. seems unwilling to go beyond jawboning. Result: North Korea is busy making its nuclear threat real, while Iran is working frantically on a bomb of its own.

Al-Qaida’s threat brings us that much closer to the day when a nuclear device is exploded in a U.S. or European city because we’ve decided that talk — not action — is the way to respond.

h1

Steve Emerson: Homegrown Terrorists

June 12, 2009
Print Send Comment RSS // <![CDATA[// ShareThis

// <![CDATA[//

h1

Jihad against Love

February 16, 2009

Jihad against Love: Valentine’s Day Enflames the Middle East

“Al Gharam mamn’uh, al Gharam kufr,” screamed the self-declared cleric in al-Ansar’s chat room this Friday. “Love is forbidden, love is infidel” — said the online fatwa about the “legitimacy of loving and being in love.”

A weekend before Valentine’s Day, jihadist souls were not questioning the “commercialization” of romance, but inquiring about the ban on “being in love.” The “scholars” said human love is evil. The simple feeling of being attracted to or in love with someone is a terrifying sin if it is committed outside of their religious dogma — and it warrants serious punishment.

“Al Hub” (basic love) — said one of the scholars online — “is not permissible outside commitment to Jihad.” The subject of romantic love was new and overwhelming to the al-Qaeda sympathizers, who were busy dodging the “decadent feeling.” But it was too close chronologically, too well publicized, and too difficult to escape on the web.

Suddenly, a marquee rolled an ad for Valentine’s Day in the room. The room shouted its objections, but the ideologue could not ignore reality. “Sometimes we’ll have to absorb our reaction and control ourselves. This Valentine’s Day is a dark day, it is poison, but by the will of Allah when the Caliphate will be established, Valentine’s Day will be smashed.”

But there was a concern: Valentine’s Day is “ravaging” the region, including under the most restrictive regimes. They are right to worry: the battle for love is as wide as the call for jihad.

In Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, girls were severely punished for not being escorted by male relatives, or for not wearing burqas. Chatting with someone from the other gender was a crime. Movies, mixed-schools, radios, music, and poetry were banned. Valentine’s Day in Kabul was equated to Satan.


In Saudi Arabia, women still can’t drive or vote, much less date. Valentine’s Day is illegal. In Iran, high school girls cannot hold hands with their boyfriends. Imitations exist in Iraq’s Salafi and Sadrist enclaves and in Beirut’s Hezbollah suburb.

But the revolution is rising. The “love guerrillas” are spreading on the street and on the internet. In liberated Afghanistan, transistor radios air love songs. In Iran, boys and girls have waged the revolt of “kissing in public.” Tracked by the militia, the teenagers perform the kiss-and-run tactic.

In Kuwait, tactics are evolving. In this oil-rich state, young Arabs buy two cell phones, and as they see their beloved driving by, they throw one of the mobiles in her car; then the telephonic romance can begin.

In West Jerusalem, young Palestinians who want to stroll freely with their girlfriends, walk up the Yehuda street speaking Hebrew. In Egypt, soap operas compete with their Mexican counterparts. Love warfare has become the boldest threat that can roll back jihad.

On the internet, Arab, Persian, Kurdish, Aramaic, and other love and music chat rooms attract ten times the al-Ansar-crowded rooms. There, you read and hear discussions of love; they seek not decadence, but the early stages of a romantic revolution.

Lebanon’s TV has taken the freedom for love to sophisticated artistic expressions. With shows seen by millions, the LBCI has been shaking off the fundamentalist quarters of the region. On al Jazeera, clerics are horrified by the scenes. Their deepest nightmare is to see young Saudi men singing the beauty of human love, while their jihadist counterparts are assassinating young Iraqi women for not wearing the hijab.

This region has a massive and underreported potential to become a culture of romantic passion. We must remember that Adonis and Ashtarut, antiquity’s gods of love, were Phoenician legends. Cleopatra was an Egyptian Queen. The lovers of pre-Islamic Arabia, Antar and Ablah, were the precursors of Romeo and Juliet. And that the Sherazade of the one thousand and one nights and Omar the hopeless romantic were Persians.

From the twentieth century, let’s remember that Um Kalthum, the voice from Egypt, Said Akl, the poet from Lebanon, and Khalid, the rock singer from Algeria, have sculpted love in the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions of these people.

The B-52s may have been successful in Tora Bora, but Music Channels and the internet are triggering deeper instincts.

The followers of love have no weapon except human nature; it is the only one they need. Valentine’s Day may be infidel in the eyes of the jihadists, but it has many more faithful followers among the peoples of this unlucky region. The terrorists are not intimidated by death, but they are terrorized by love.

*********

This article was published originally on February 14, 2005 by various outlets. It is still valid today. Since then “al-Hubb revolution” is expanding against the Jihadists.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dr. Walid Phares is the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad.

h1

The End of Parenting

February 12, 2009

The End of Parenting: The Complete Morons Who Take Their Kids to “Friday the 13th”

By Debbie Schlussel

Tonight, I concluded that the decline of America is increasing with rapidity and escalation far worse than I’ve earlier diagnosed.

I just returned from a special critics and promotional screening of the latest installment of the “Friday The 13th” movie franchise. This latest one bears the same name as the 1980 original–simply, “Friday the 13th.” And I watched parents voluntarily subject their very young children to graphic, bloody violence, from which many parents in the Third World only wish they could shield their kids.

Al-Qaeda murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11. That was an outrage. But thousands more American parents–who are merely sperm, egg, and womb donors–are doing to this country what Al-Qaeda could never do. These American parents have voluntarily turned their kids’ minds to mush–kids who will still be around, who will “grow up,” and who will continue to add to America’s decline.

In the past, I’ve complained on this site about selfish parents who take their babies to the movies, so we hear them crying instead of the movie. And I’ve lamented that irresponsible parents take their very young kids to violent, graphic, sex-laden, R-rated movies like this one. This latest “Friday the 13th,” should have been rated NC-17 and, a few years ago, it would have been. But Hollywood is desperate to keep teens coming to these flicks and manages to get the ratings standards relaxed.