Archive for the ‘War on Terror’ category

Burnt Qur’ans in Afghanistan Were Destroyed Because They Were Part of ‘a Secret Taliban Message System’

24 February, 2012

Diana West hits the nail on the head:

Why Is the U.S. Apologizing for Scorched Qurans
Diana West- TownHall

I’ve got it.

We’ve come a long way since the days of the Global War on Terror. Frankly, the GWOT — whatever that was supposed to mean (how do you fight against a tactic?) — is so 10 years ago. “Terror,” meanwhile, has morphed into “extremism,” but that’s only made things more unclear. We still don’t know what it’s all supposed to be about.

Until today.

Mr. and Mrs. America, boys and girls, welcome to the Global War on Quran-Burning, as led by the United States Masochists To Make the World Safe for Shariah (Islamic law).

If a column could have special effects, this is where piercing beams of sunlight would dispel clouds of confusion as pink bunnies jump up and down, squeaking, “That’s it, that’s it!” And a sigh of relief would spread across the happy valley …

Or would it? If my title for the war our country has engaged us in is apt, have I described a cause most Americans support? I don’t think so, but, of course, I don’t claim to know the answer. That’s partly because I see no upset in the land over the latest and greatest display of American dhimmitude — the subservient state of Jews and Christians in thrall to Islamic law — that we have witnessed in Afghanistan all week. Afghan Muslims have convulsed in rioting and killing (among other fatalities, two U.S. military personnel have been murdered by an Afghan army member) on word that Qurans and other religious materials were disposed of on a U.S. military base after authorities discovered the books were being used at Parwan prison in what the BBC said may have been “a secret Taliban message system.”

You didn’t hear about that last part? I’m not surprised. This crucial piece of the story — the logical reason for the books’ destruction — is treated by the media, and also by the U.S. government, as secondary material. At least one unnamed “U.S. official” imparted this part of the story to the press (Reuters and AFP); unnamed “Afghan officials” have told the BBC the same thing. Judging by the gingerly way this news is being handled, it almost seems as if the perfectly logical rationale for the disposal of these materials is regarded as an embarrassment.

Not so the outrageous, primitive response of rioting Muslims. In our state of abject apology, we have, in effect, condoned this murderous behavior according to the Islamic rules governing treatment of the Quran. This isn’t just political correctness run amok; it’s open submission to Islamic law. After all, the Quran is an inanimate object, a thing, cheaply printed and distributed by the gazillion, often by Saudi Arabia. We — if by “we” I may still refer to the Judeo-Christian-humanist world — do not rampage and shoot people when an inanimate object, a thing, even a Bible, is torn, written on or thrown away. In fact, we have constitutional rights to do all of those things as a matter of free speech.

Nonetheless, we as a nation — spilling blood for the “noble people of Afghanistan,” as top commander Marine Gen. John R. Allen says in his prostration video (see it here) — have deemed it vital to accommodate, apologize, slurp and scrape to those who do. Equally as tragic, in the frenzy to apologize, the logic behind throwing the stuff away has been sacrificed. Reason itself has been discarded in a shameful and irrational act of fealty. This isn’t just dysfunctional behavior. This is full-blown dhimmitude.

Sorry to disappoint the pink bunnies.

Surprise, Surprise! Turns Out A Burial At Sea Offends Muzzies!

2 May, 2011

LOL!  This is too rich to pass up!  Yup, here Obama was trying to suck-up to the Muzzies by “respecting Muslim traditions” and yet, in his haste to dump Osama’s body, he couldn’t even get that right:

Sea burial of Osama bin Laden breaks sharia law, say Muslim scholars

US decision to dispose of body in the sea prevents grave site becoming a shrine but clerics warn it may lead to reprisals

Osama bin Laden’s burial at sea was quickly criticised by Muslim scholars who claimed it had breached sharia law and warned that it may provoke calls for revenge attacks against US targets.

And killing al-Qaeda’s iconic figurehead won’t provoke a greater reprisal from Muzzies?  Get real!

Others used the sea burial question to doubt whether he was, in fact, dead at all, with doubts fuelled by the absence of authentic photographs of his corpse.

Burying the al-Qaida leader on land could have led to his grave becoming a focus of contention and pilgrimage as well as posing tough questions about where he should be laid to rest.

“Finding a country willing to accept the remains of the world’s most wanted terrorist would have been difficult,” a US official said. “So the US decided to bury him at sea.” The burial reportedly took place from the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson in the North Arabian sea.

Senior US officials told news agencies that his body would be disposed of in accordance with Islamic tradition, which involves ritual washing, shrouding and burial within 24 hours.

The 24-hour rule has not always been applied in the past. For example, there was controversy when the bodies of Uday and Qusay Hussein – sons of the Iraqi dictator Saddam – were embalmed and held for 11 days after they were killed by US forces. Their bodies were later shown to media.

Standard Muslim practice involves placing the body in a grave with the head pointed toward the holy city of Mecca. Burial at sea is rare in Islam, though Muslim websites say it is permitted in certain circumstances. One is on a long voyage where the body may decompose and pose a health hazard to a ship’s passengers, an exception noted on Monday by the Tunisian scholar Ahmed al-Gharbi. Another is if there is a risk of enemies digging up a land grave and exhuming or mutilating the body.

Dr Saud al-Fanisan, former dean of the faculty of sharia law in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, said that if a body was buried at sea it should be protected from fish. In the words of, the body should be lowered into the water “in a vessel of clay or with a weight tied to its feet”.

Mohammed al-Qubaisi, Dubai’s grand mufti, said of Bin Laden’s burial: “They can say they buried him at sea, but they cannot say they did it according to Islam. Sea burials are permissible for Muslims in extraordinary circumstances. This is not one of them.”

Abdul-Sattar al-Janabi, who preaches at Baghdad’s Abu Hanifa mosque, said: “What was done by the Americans is forbidden by Islam and might provoke some Muslims. It is not acceptable and it is almost a crime to throw the body of a Muslim man into the sea. The body of Bin Laden should have been handed over to his family to look for a country to bury him.”

The radical Lebanon-based cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed said: “The Americans want to humiliate Muslims through this burial, and I don’t think this is in the interest of the US administration.”

The Egyptian analyst and lawyer Montasser el-Zayat said Bin Laden’s sea burial was designed to prevent his grave from becoming a shrine. But an option was an unmarked grave. “They don’t want to see him become a symbol,” he said. “But he is already a symbol in people’s hearts.”

Osama Bin Laden Has Been Killed!

1 May, 2011

Great news!  I knew we were close.  There had been a lot of chatter recently about OBL and his whereabouts.  It seems that when the situation in Libya picked up, OBL had come out of hiding and there was a big al-Qaeda meeting a few weeks ago.  When I heard that, I knew OBL had screwed up!  From the March 25, 2011 issue of Asia Times : 

Bin Laden sets alarm bells ringing
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

ISLAMABAD – After a prolonged lull, the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has launched a series of covert operations in the rugged Hindu Kush mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan following strong tip-offs that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has been criss-crossing the area in the past few weeks for high-profile meetings in militant redoubts.

[…]Officials are said to be “stunned” by the visibility of Bin Laden’s movements, and their frequency, in a matter of a few weeks in the outlawed terrain of Pakistan and Afghanistan, the most unprecedented reports about him since he evaded the US in the Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan in 2001.


Thank you, PB-in-AL for giving us the heads up!

Osama bin Laden killed by U.S. missile strike

Osama bin Laden was reportedly killed.

President Barack Obama is scheduled to address the nation at approximately 8:15 p.m. PT.

According to ABC News sources, al-Qaida mastermind Osama bin Laden was killed in Afghanistan sometime last week. The attack was reportedly a U.S. military or intelligence missile strike.

American forces reportedly have possession of bin Laden’s body.

Somali Insurgents: Obama Must Convert to Islam or Attacks on U.S. Will Come

27 December, 2010

See below for possible counters, you too can help give muzzies what they fear most, backlash.

27 Dec 10, (AP) MOGADISHU, Somalia — A leader of Somalia’s Islamist insurgency threatened to attack America during a speech broadcast Monday.

“We tell the American President Barack Obama to embrace Islam before we come to his country,” said Fuad Mohamed “Shongole” Qalaf.

Al-Shabab has not yet launched an attack outside Africa but Western intelligence has long been worried because the group targeted young Somali-Americans for recruitment. About 20 have traveled to Somalia for training and at least three were used as suicide bombers inside Somalia. Al-Shabab holds most of southern and central Somalia and has the support of hundreds of foreign fighters, mostly radicalized East Africans.

There is more in the ap article but who cares? Muzzies threaten attacks almost as fast as congress spends money.

There is a sizable somali infestation in the US, courtesy of our traitorous state department (thanks for nothing you bums. Most are just into minor criminal acts and welfare fraud they are not technically terrorists but their friends and family are. So what to do? (more…)

Ahmed Ghailani Aquitted of Killing over 200 People Because Activist Judge Wouldn’t Allow Key Testimony

18 November, 2010

This is absolutely outrageous!  Here is a mass-murderer getting off with just a slap on the wrist because Obama insists that terrorists be tried in civilian courts instead of military courts where they belong!:

Terror Verdict Casts Doubt On White House Strategy
by Dina Temple-Raston |November 18, 2010 – NPR

When former Guantanamo detainee Ahmed Ghailani and his lawyers heard that a New York jury had reached a verdict Wednesday about his role in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa, they sat at the defense table looking completely ashen.

They clearly thought the jury had decided against them. So when the foreman stood up and started reciting a litany of not-guilty verdicts, the air seemed to get sucked out of the room. In the end, the jury acquitted Ghailani of more than 280 counts and found him guilty of just one count of conspiracy to destroy government buildings and property — a charge that could get him 20 years to life in prison.

The Ghailani trial was supposed to have been a sure thing.

White House officials said as much when they decided to try him in a federal court in New York over a year ago.

We the People will NEVER FORGET that it was OBAMA and his psychophants who made this horrendous decision!

They were confident because four al-Qaeda members had been convicted in the very same court in the very same embassy bombing case back in 2001. The Ghailani trial was simply going to be a reprise of the earlier case. But after nine years, things had changed: Witnesses had died, details had been forgotten and, from the outset, the Ghailani case followed a different script.

It was also supposed to be a test case to prove the Obama administration’s contention that detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba could be safely tried in criminal courts on American soil. Administration officials told NPR that Wednesday’s verdict makes that argument a much harder sell. The failure to convict Ghailani — the first Guantanamo inmate to face a civilian trial in the U.S. — on the most serious terrorism charges plays right into the hands of those who say terrorists should be tried in special courts, not criminal courts, because juries are notoriously unpredictable.

“I am disgusted at the total miscarriage of justice today in Manhattan’s federal civilian court,” Rep. Peter King of New York, the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement Wednesday night.

“In a case where Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was facing 285 criminal counts, including hundreds of murder charges, and where Attorney General Eric Holder assured us that ‘failure is not an option,’ the jury found him guilty on only one count,” King said. “This tragic verdict demonstrates the absolute insanity of the Obama Administration’s decision to try al-Qaeda terrorists in civilian courts.”

The Justice Department tried to put a different gloss on the verdict, stressing that the single count carries a sentence of 20 years to life in prison. Prosecutors said they plan to seek the maximum penalty.

Still, the verdict casts a pall over the administration’s behind-the-scenes efforts to try accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the four other men implicated in the attacks in a U.S. federal court.

This time last year, the White House announced that the accused plotters would be tried in a federal court in New York. Critics worried aloud about security and the possibility that a jury might actually allow the men to go free. Holder said Mohammed could be held indefinitely, as an enemy combatant, even if a jury didn’t convict. The argument didn’t dissuade critics and Holder has essentially put the 911 trial decision on hold.

That said, it isn’t lost on administration officials who told NPR that the Ghailani verdict came perilously close to the nightmare scenario: a jury permitting an accused terrorist to go free.

The outcome was partly due to the special circumstances surrounding Ghailani himself. He had been captured in Pakistan in 2004 and transferred to one of the CIA’s secret prisons before he ended up at Guantanamo Bay. His lawyers said he was tortured.

In the 2001 embassy bombing case, the defendants’ own statements to the FBI were used against them. But because of the specter of torture hanging over the Ghailani proceedings, the incriminating statements he made under interrogation were not presented by the prosecution. What’s more, one of the government’s key witnesses — who was supposed to testify that Ghailani had bought huge quantities of TNT prior to the attack — never actually testified. The government only became aware of him after his name was revealed during Ghailani’s interrogation at the CIA black-site prison, so the judge ruled he couldn’t take the stand.


Which, again, is why terrorists MUST be tried in a military venue!

Sotomayor Dissents as SCOTUS Upholds Anti-Terror Law that Bars Material Support to Terrorists

21 June, 2010

This should be a no-brainer.  Giving material support to the enemy has always been a crime of treason.

In fact, Article III, section 3 of the United States Constitution declares:  “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

Therefore, if one were to actually read the U.S. Constitution, it is quite clear and specific as to what is considered a treasonous act.

But, that doesn’t stop Lefturd ideologues like Justice Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor from voicing their own unique brand of stupidity:

High court upholds anti-terror law
Jun 21 2010 – via Breitbart

WASHINGTON  (AP) – The Supreme Court has upheld a federal law that bars “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations, rejecting a free speech challenge from humanitarian aid groups.

The court ruled 6-3 Monday that the government may prohibit all forms of aid to designated terrorist groups, even if the support consists of training and advice about entirely peaceful and legal activities.

Material support intended even for benign purposes can help a terrorist group in other ways, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion.

“Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends,” Roberts said.

Justice Stephen Breyer took the unusual step of reading his dissent aloud in the courtroom. Breyer said he rejects the majority’s conclusion “that the Constitution permits the government to prosecute the plaintiffs criminally” for providing instruction and advice about the terror groups’ lawful political objectives. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent.

American-Yemeni cleric advocates killing of American civilians in al-Qaida video

23 May, 2010

The press talks this clown up because he speaks English but I have not seen any reason to make him any more than he is – a typical islamic loudmouth preaching hate. I worry more about the one speaking arabic and plotting while the Americans are busy looking for this clown.

22 May 10 CAIRO (AP) An American-Yemeni cleric whose Internet sermons are believed to have helped inspire attacks on the U.S. has advocated the killing of American civilians in an al-Qaida video released Sunday.

Anwar al-Awlaki has been singled out by U.S. officials as a key terrorist threat and has reportedly been added to the CIA’s list of targets for assassination despite his American citizenship. He is of particular concern because he is one of the few English-speaking radical clerics able to explain to young Muslims in America and other Western countries the philosophy of violent jihad.

The U.S.-born al-Awlaki moved to Yemen in 2004 and is in hiding there after being linked to the suspects in the November shooting at an Army base in Fort Hood, Texas, and the December attempt to blow up a U.S. jetliner bound for Detroit.

“Those who might be killed in a plane are merely a drop of water in a sea,” he said in the video in response to a question about Muslim groups that disapproved of the airliner plot because it targeted civilians.

Al-Awlaki used the 45-minute video to justify civilian deaths — and encourage them — by accusing the United States of intentionally killing a million Muslim civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

American civilians are to blame, he said, because “the American people, in general, are taking part in this and they elected this administration and they are financing the war.”

The video was produced by the media arm of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, though the exact nature of al-Awlaki’s ties with the group and possible direct role in it are unclear. The U.S. says he is an active participant in the group, though members of his tribe have denied that.
-They are attempting to link this clown to everything but reality is the violence called for in the koran is what motivates muslims to kill. The clerics gets the blame but they are just part of the process, changing clerics doesn’t stop terrorism and more than swapping one bullet for another would stop a pistol from firing. (more…)

Iran Using INTERPOL to Target Dissidents

13 May, 2010

You certainly don’t want to allow a fox to guard your henhouse, so why in the world would you allow a terrorist state like Iran the freedom to add names to INTERPOL’s watch list without intense scrutiny?  This is just crazy:


CLICK HERE to watch CBN’s special report.

Iran Targeting Dissidents Through Global Police
By Erick Stakelbeck
CBN News Terrorism Analyst

LOS ANGELES, Calif. — The Iranian regime is notorious for cracking down on dissent inside Iran. Now Mahmoud Ahmadenijad and the mullahs are targeting dissidents in other countries — including those in the United States.

And they are using an international organization to do it.

The Regime Never Forgets

Shahram Homayoun fled Iran for the United States 19 years ago. He was a marked man in his native country, because of his support for democracy and human rights.

Now the regime has finally caught up with Homayoun: not in Tehran, but in Los Angeles.

“They have managed to keep me here, and it seems like there is nothing the U.S. government can do,” Homayoun told CBN News in an exclusive interview.

Homayoun owns a satellite television network in L.A. called Channel One TV. He broadcasts pro-democracy programming into Iran on a daily basis.

Now Iranian officials want to silence him — permanently. A prosecutor in the Iranian city of Shiraz recently issued an arrest warrant against Homayoun on charges of terrorism.

Homayoun explained that he has never called for violence or terrorism of any kind against the Iranian government.

“Never,” he said. “Even if the Iranian regime changes, we are encouraging people not to seek revenge. We are anti-terrorism.”

Yet Homayoun is now a wanted man, unable to leave the U.S. for fear of arrest.

Marked as a Terrorist

The Iranian regime alerted INTERPOL, the global law enforcement organization, about Homayoun. The organization then issued what’s known as a “Red Notice” against him. The Red Notice alerted all 188 INTERPOL member countries that Homayoun was wanted for terrorism.

Homayoun told CBN News that the terrorist charge has made his life extremely difficult.

“I received a notice from my bank in California letting me know about the INTERPOL arrest warrant,” he explained. “After a few days, they closed my account. This was after 10 years that I had an account with this bank. I wanted to open an account at another local bank, and they turned me down as well because I was on the INTERPOL list of terrorists. My wife was also turned down when she tried to open an account.”

Homayoun said he can’t believe the irony of it all. He spends his days on TV speaking out against terrorism committed by the Iranian regime, which funds groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Now that very regime is accusing him of acts of terror in order to silence him — and INTERPOL seems to be playing right along.


Obama Might Delay Withdrawal of Troops in Iraq

13 May, 2010

Wh-a-a-a-t?  You mean to tell me the false messiah didn’t just wave his hands and magically disappear the problem with songs of kumbayah, not bullets?  Shocking!  Just SHOCKING!  /sarc

Iraq violence set to delay US troop withdrawal
Withdrawal of first large phase of combat troops likely to be delayed for at least a month due to Iraq’s instability
Martin Chulov  in Baghdad –

The White House is likely to delay the withdrawal of the first large phase of combat troops from Iraq for at least a month after escalating bloodshed and political instability in the country.

General Ray Odierno, the US commander, had been due to give the order within 60 days of the general election held in Iraq on 7 March, when the cross-sectarian candidate Ayad Allawi edged out the incumbent leader, Nouri al-Maliki.

American officials had been prepared for delays in negotiations to form a government, but now appear to have balked after Maliki’s coalition aligned itself with the theocratic Shia bloc to the exclusion of Allawi, who attracted the bulk of the minority Sunni vote. There is also concern over interference from Iraq’s neighbours, Iran, Turkey and Syria.


Interpreter Goes Jihadi in Afghanistan—Kills Two U.S. Servicemen

30 January, 2010

So, I cut out all the obvious propaganda from the Associated Press and all the irrelevant information from other incidences not related to the title of the AP article, and this is all that was left:

Official: Afghan Interpreter Killed 2 U.S. Troops

Saturday, January 30, 2010 AP – via Fox News

[…] an Afghan interpreter killed two U.S. service members Friday at a combat outpost elsewhere in Wardak province, a NATO official said.

A U.S. soldier then killed the interpreter, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to release the information. It wasn’t clear why the interpreter had opened fire on the Americans.


Yes, that is all that was left from the article.

Of course, the AP writer seems to be a bit confused as to why the interpreter opened fire.  Uhm, now, I’m no fancy-schmancy AP journalist, but I’m going to take a stab at this “puzzler” and see if I can come up with an answer:

“You have in (Muhammad) the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern of conduct for any one to follow.” – Qur’an 33:21

“Allah’s Apostle (Muhammad) said, ‘War is deceit.'” – Bukhari:Vol 4, Book 52, Number 268

“By Muhammad’s order we beguiled them.” – Ishaq:442

“The Prophet said, ‘A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it.'” -Bukhari:Vol 4, Book 52, Number 50

Yup, it sounds to me like someone was just following Islam…

%d bloggers like this: