From Creeping Sharia:
Indiana DHS doesn’t investigate or monitor jihadi propagandists
Posted on December 31, 2010 by creeping
DHS was set up precisely because of Islamic terrorists that attacked the U.S. and considering Islamic jihad has been one of the primary threats to the U.S. for the last decade, and homegrown jihadis have increased in number, wouldn’t you expect your state department of Homeland Security to monitor such activity? Not in Indiana. Feel safer?
According to the left-wing TPM website article ridiculing Fox News published-then deleted-then published again report on the grandma convert to Islam and online jihahi propagandist, Indiana DHS doesn’t bother with homegrown terror activity:
I asked Indiana Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Emily Norcross if the investigation reported by Fox News was generated by the Fox reporter’s tip.
“Essentially,” Norcross said. “We don’t investigate things like that, we really don’t even monitor things like that. But we forwarded it to the intelligence fusion center, which is run by the Indiana state police.”
Norcross told me I should get in touch with the Indiana state police. “She sent us the video, we sent it to [the police],” Norcross added.
Norcross said she talked to Winter about the difference between what the state Department of Homeland Security office does and what the state fusion center does. Indiana’s Homeland Security Department mostly handles natural disasters responses, Norcross told me.
Tuesday’s story by Fox News quoted Norcross as saying that the video Winter forwarded to them was “being looked at and evaluated by Indiana State Police, which runs Indiana Intelligence Fusion Center.” It said Norcross added that the video would be passed along to appropriate law enforcement for further investigation.
That almost puts the Indiana state DHS on par with those running the federal DHS, who are busy hiring and sharing information with stealth jihadists rather than finding and defending Americans from violent jihadists.
TPM gives also does the jihadi-grandma a favor sharing her jihadi-propaganda video – freely hosted on Google’s YouTube.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Al Queda, Taliban Create Female Suicide Cells In Pakistan And Afghanistan
From The Long War Journal:
Al Qaeda, Taliban create female suicide cells in Pakistan and Afghanistan
By Bill RoggioDecember 31, 2010
Qari Zia Rahman and a map of northeastern Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan. Map from the Asia Times; click to view.
The Taliban and al Qaeda have established female suicide bombing cells in remote areas of northwestern Pakistan and northeastern Afghanistan. The female suicide bombers have struck in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The existence of the cells, which appeared evident after female suicide bombers attacked twice over the past five months in Afghanistan and Pakistan, was confirmed by a 12-year-old Pakistani girl named Meena Gul.
Gul, who said she was trained to be a "human bomb," was detained by Pakistani police in the Munda area in Pakistan's northwestern district of Dir, according to the Times of India.
"Gul said that women suicide bombers were trained for their deadly task in small cells on both sides of the porous border and were dispatched to their missions with a sermon, 'God will reward you with a place in heaven.'"
Gul said her cell was led by Zainab, her sister-in-law, who dressed as a man and fought alongside the Taliban against Pakistani troops.
Prior to the two attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan this year, there have been no recorded instances of female suicide bombers carrying out attacks in either country.
A female suicide bomber struck for the first time in Afghanistan in Kunar province on June 21, 2010. Two US soldiers were killed and two Afghan children were wounded in the attack. Gul claimed her younger sister carried out that attack.
The next female suicide attack took place on Dec. 24, 2010, in Pakistan's tribal agency of Bajaur. The suicide bomber killed 42 Pakistani civilians in an attack at a World Food Program ration distribution point.
The Taliban and al Qaeda cells are under the command of Qari Zia Rahman, the dual-hatted Taliban and al Qaeda commander who operates on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border. Qari Zia claimed credit for the June 2010 suicide attack in Kunar.
Qari Zia is the Taliban's top regional commander as well as a member of al Qaeda. He operates in Kunar and in neighboring Nuristan province in Afghanistan, and he also operates across the border in Pakistan's tribal agency of Bajaur. Earlier this year, the Pakistani government claimed they killed Qari Zia in an airstrike, but he later spoke to the media and mocked Pakistan's interior minister for wrongly reporting his death.
Qari Zia is closely allied with Faqir Mohammed, the Taliban's leader in Bajaur, as well as with Osama bin Laden. Qari Zia's fighters are from Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and various Arab nations. He commands a brigade in al Qaeda's paramilitary Shadow Army, or the Lashkar al Zil, US intelligence officials have told The Long War Journal.
Background on the hunt for Qari Zia Rahman and al Qaeda in Kunar
The US has targeted Qari Zia in multiple raids in Kunar over the summer and fall of 2010, but has failed to kill or capture him. In late July and early August, ISAF announced that it was hunting Qari Zia Rahman. The US has targeted Qari Zai in three raids over the past summer. On June 29, the US launched a battalion-sized operation in Kunar's Marawara district, which directly borders Pakistan. More than 150 Taliban fighters were reported killed in the operation. On July 20, US and Afghan forces launched another battalion-sized operation in Marawara to flush out Qari Zia. And on Aug. 2, combined forces conducted a raid, again in Marawara, that targeted the al Qaeda leader.
The top al Qaeda commander in Kunar province is Abu Ikhlas al Masri, an Egyptian who has spent years in Afghanistan and has intermarried with the local tribes. Abu Ikhlas is al Qaeda's operations chief for Kunar province, having assumed command after Abu Ubaidah al Masri was promoted to take over al Qaeda's external operations branch (Abu Ubaidah died in early 2008 of a disease).
The US military has killed three senior al Qaeda leaders in Kunar this fall. On Sept. 25, a US airstrike killed a senior al Qaeda leader named Abdallah Umar al Qurayshi and an "explosives expert" named Abu Atta al Kuwaiti, along with "several Arabic foreign fighters." Sa'ad Mohammad al Shahri, a longtime jihadist and the son of a retired Saudi colonel, is also thought to have been killed in the same strike.
Kunar province is a known sanctuary for al Qaeda and allied terror groups. The presence of al Qaeda cells has been detected in the districts of Pech, Shaikal Shate, Sarkani, Dangam, Asmar, Asadabad, Shigal, and Marawana; or eight of Kunar's 15 districts, according to an investigation by The Long War Journal.
Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/12/al_qaeda_taliban_create_female_suicides_cell_in_pakistan_and_afghanistan.php#ixzz19kFdxITE
Al Qaeda, Taliban create female suicide cells in Pakistan and Afghanistan
By Bill RoggioDecember 31, 2010
Qari Zia Rahman and a map of northeastern Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan. Map from the Asia Times; click to view.
The Taliban and al Qaeda have established female suicide bombing cells in remote areas of northwestern Pakistan and northeastern Afghanistan. The female suicide bombers have struck in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The existence of the cells, which appeared evident after female suicide bombers attacked twice over the past five months in Afghanistan and Pakistan, was confirmed by a 12-year-old Pakistani girl named Meena Gul.
Gul, who said she was trained to be a "human bomb," was detained by Pakistani police in the Munda area in Pakistan's northwestern district of Dir, according to the Times of India.
"Gul said that women suicide bombers were trained for their deadly task in small cells on both sides of the porous border and were dispatched to their missions with a sermon, 'God will reward you with a place in heaven.'"
Gul said her cell was led by Zainab, her sister-in-law, who dressed as a man and fought alongside the Taliban against Pakistani troops.
Prior to the two attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan this year, there have been no recorded instances of female suicide bombers carrying out attacks in either country.
A female suicide bomber struck for the first time in Afghanistan in Kunar province on June 21, 2010. Two US soldiers were killed and two Afghan children were wounded in the attack. Gul claimed her younger sister carried out that attack.
The next female suicide attack took place on Dec. 24, 2010, in Pakistan's tribal agency of Bajaur. The suicide bomber killed 42 Pakistani civilians in an attack at a World Food Program ration distribution point.
The Taliban and al Qaeda cells are under the command of Qari Zia Rahman, the dual-hatted Taliban and al Qaeda commander who operates on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border. Qari Zia claimed credit for the June 2010 suicide attack in Kunar.
Qari Zia is the Taliban's top regional commander as well as a member of al Qaeda. He operates in Kunar and in neighboring Nuristan province in Afghanistan, and he also operates across the border in Pakistan's tribal agency of Bajaur. Earlier this year, the Pakistani government claimed they killed Qari Zia in an airstrike, but he later spoke to the media and mocked Pakistan's interior minister for wrongly reporting his death.
Qari Zia is closely allied with Faqir Mohammed, the Taliban's leader in Bajaur, as well as with Osama bin Laden. Qari Zia's fighters are from Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and various Arab nations. He commands a brigade in al Qaeda's paramilitary Shadow Army, or the Lashkar al Zil, US intelligence officials have told The Long War Journal.
Background on the hunt for Qari Zia Rahman and al Qaeda in Kunar
The US has targeted Qari Zia in multiple raids in Kunar over the summer and fall of 2010, but has failed to kill or capture him. In late July and early August, ISAF announced that it was hunting Qari Zia Rahman. The US has targeted Qari Zai in three raids over the past summer. On June 29, the US launched a battalion-sized operation in Kunar's Marawara district, which directly borders Pakistan. More than 150 Taliban fighters were reported killed in the operation. On July 20, US and Afghan forces launched another battalion-sized operation in Marawara to flush out Qari Zia. And on Aug. 2, combined forces conducted a raid, again in Marawara, that targeted the al Qaeda leader.
The top al Qaeda commander in Kunar province is Abu Ikhlas al Masri, an Egyptian who has spent years in Afghanistan and has intermarried with the local tribes. Abu Ikhlas is al Qaeda's operations chief for Kunar province, having assumed command after Abu Ubaidah al Masri was promoted to take over al Qaeda's external operations branch (Abu Ubaidah died in early 2008 of a disease).
The US military has killed three senior al Qaeda leaders in Kunar this fall. On Sept. 25, a US airstrike killed a senior al Qaeda leader named Abdallah Umar al Qurayshi and an "explosives expert" named Abu Atta al Kuwaiti, along with "several Arabic foreign fighters." Sa'ad Mohammad al Shahri, a longtime jihadist and the son of a retired Saudi colonel, is also thought to have been killed in the same strike.
Kunar province is a known sanctuary for al Qaeda and allied terror groups. The presence of al Qaeda cells has been detected in the districts of Pech, Shaikal Shate, Sarkani, Dangam, Asmar, Asadabad, Shigal, and Marawana; or eight of Kunar's 15 districts, according to an investigation by The Long War Journal.
Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/12/al_qaeda_taliban_create_female_suicides_cell_in_pakistan_and_afghanistan.php#ixzz19kFdxITE
U.S. Predators Strike Again Along Afghan-Pakistani Border
From The Long War Journal:
US Predators strike again along the Afghan-Pakistani border
By Bill RoggioDecember 31, 2010
The Ghulam Khan area in Pakistan. Click to view larger map.
US Predators struck yet again today in Pakistan's Taliban-controlled tribal agency of North Waziristan, launching an airstrike in an area right along the border with Afghanistan that is used to stage attacks against US and Afghan forces.
Today's strike took place in the town of Ghulam Khan, when unmanned Predators or the more deadly Reapers fired four missiles at a convoy of vehicle thought to belong to members of the al Qaeda-linked Haqqani Network. Eight Haqqani Network fighters were said to have been killed in the strike.
No senior al Qaeda or Haqqani network leaders have been reported killed in today's attack.
The Ghulam Khan area is in the sphere of influence of both Hafiz Gul Bahadar and the Haqqani Network. The area is used by the Taliban and other terrorist groups for staging attacks on Coalition and Afghan forces across the border in Afghanistan.
Bahadar is the overall Taliban commander for North Waziristan. Bahadar provides shelter to top al Qaeda leaders as well as terrorists from numerous Pakistani and Central Asian terror groups.
The Haqqani Network is a Taliban group led by mujahedeen commander Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son Siraj. The Haqqanis are closely allied to al Qaeda and to the Taliban, led by Mullah Omar. Siraj Haqqani is the leader of the Miramshah Regional Military Shura, one of the Afghan Taliban's top four commands; he sits on the Taliban's Quetta Shura; and he is also is a member of al Qaeda's Shura Majlis. The Haqqanis are based on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border.
The US has targeted Siraj and other top-level Haqqani Network commanders since 2008. On Feb. 18, 2010, the US killed Mohammed Haqqani, another of the 12 sons of Jalaluddin Haqqani, in an airstrike in Danda Darpa Khel just outside Miramshah. Mohammed served as a military commander for the Haqqani Network. Siraj is believed to be sheltering in the neighboring tribal agency of Kurram to avoid the Predators.
The Haqqani Network operates on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border. The US military has heavily targeted the Haqqani Network's leadership in raids and airstrikes in the Afghan provinces of Khost, Paktia, and Paktika.
The Predator strikes, by the numbers
The US has conducted 12 airstrikes in Pakistan's tribal agencies since the beginning of December. The two previous strikes, which both took place on Dec. 28., also hit targets in the Ghulam Khan area of North Waziristan. Those attacks targeted compounds and vehicles, reportedly killing 15 terrorists.
The pace of the strikes from the beginning of September 2010 has been unprecedented since the US began the air campaign in Pakistan in 2004. September's record number of 21 strikes was followed by 16 strikes in October and 14 more in November. The previous monthly high was 11 strikes in January 2010, after the Taliban and al Qaeda executed a successful suicide attack at Combat Outpost Chapman that targeted CIA personnel who were active in gathering intelligence for the Predator campaign in Pakistan. The suicide bombing at COP Chapman killed seven CIA officials and a Jordanian intelligence officer.
The US has carried out 117 attacks inside Pakistan in 2010, more than doubling the number of strikes in 2009. In late August 2010, the US exceeded 2009's strike total of 53 with a strike in Kurram. In 2008, the US carried out a total of 36 strikes inside Pakistan. [For up-to-date charts on the US air campaign in Pakistan, see LWJ Special Report, Charting the data for US airstrikes in Pakistan, 2004 - 2010.]
In 2010 the strikes have been confined almost exclusively to North Waziristan, where the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, the Haqqani Network, al Qaeda, and a host of Pakistani and Central and South Asian terror groups are based. All but 13 of this year's 117 strikes have taken place North Waziristan. Of the 13 strikes that have occurred outside of North Waziristan, seven took place in South Waziristan, five occurred in Khyber, and one took place in Kurram.
Since Sept. 1, 2010, the US has conducted 63 strikes in Pakistan's tribal agencies. The bulk of those attacks took place against the terror groups in North Waziristan, with 57 strikes in the tribal agency. Many of the strikes targeted cells run by the Islamic Jihad Group, which have been plotting to conduct Mumbai-styled terror assaults in Europe. A Sept. 8 strike killed an IJU commander known as Qureshi, who specialized in training Germans to conduct attacks in their home country.
The US campaign in northwestern Pakistan has targeted top al Qaeda leaders, al Qaeda's external operations network, and Taliban leaders and fighters who threaten both the Afghan and Pakistani states as well as support al Qaeda's external operations. [For a list of al Qaeda and Taliban leaders killed in the US air campaign in Pakistan, see LWJ Special Report, Senior al Qaeda and Taliban leaders killed in US airstrikes in Pakistan, 2004 - 2010.]
Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/12/us_predators_strike_14.php#ixzz19kCmBVKd
US Predators strike again along the Afghan-Pakistani border
By Bill RoggioDecember 31, 2010
The Ghulam Khan area in Pakistan. Click to view larger map.
US Predators struck yet again today in Pakistan's Taliban-controlled tribal agency of North Waziristan, launching an airstrike in an area right along the border with Afghanistan that is used to stage attacks against US and Afghan forces.
Today's strike took place in the town of Ghulam Khan, when unmanned Predators or the more deadly Reapers fired four missiles at a convoy of vehicle thought to belong to members of the al Qaeda-linked Haqqani Network. Eight Haqqani Network fighters were said to have been killed in the strike.
No senior al Qaeda or Haqqani network leaders have been reported killed in today's attack.
The Ghulam Khan area is in the sphere of influence of both Hafiz Gul Bahadar and the Haqqani Network. The area is used by the Taliban and other terrorist groups for staging attacks on Coalition and Afghan forces across the border in Afghanistan.
Bahadar is the overall Taliban commander for North Waziristan. Bahadar provides shelter to top al Qaeda leaders as well as terrorists from numerous Pakistani and Central Asian terror groups.
The Haqqani Network is a Taliban group led by mujahedeen commander Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son Siraj. The Haqqanis are closely allied to al Qaeda and to the Taliban, led by Mullah Omar. Siraj Haqqani is the leader of the Miramshah Regional Military Shura, one of the Afghan Taliban's top four commands; he sits on the Taliban's Quetta Shura; and he is also is a member of al Qaeda's Shura Majlis. The Haqqanis are based on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border.
The US has targeted Siraj and other top-level Haqqani Network commanders since 2008. On Feb. 18, 2010, the US killed Mohammed Haqqani, another of the 12 sons of Jalaluddin Haqqani, in an airstrike in Danda Darpa Khel just outside Miramshah. Mohammed served as a military commander for the Haqqani Network. Siraj is believed to be sheltering in the neighboring tribal agency of Kurram to avoid the Predators.
The Haqqani Network operates on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border. The US military has heavily targeted the Haqqani Network's leadership in raids and airstrikes in the Afghan provinces of Khost, Paktia, and Paktika.
The Predator strikes, by the numbers
The US has conducted 12 airstrikes in Pakistan's tribal agencies since the beginning of December. The two previous strikes, which both took place on Dec. 28., also hit targets in the Ghulam Khan area of North Waziristan. Those attacks targeted compounds and vehicles, reportedly killing 15 terrorists.
The pace of the strikes from the beginning of September 2010 has been unprecedented since the US began the air campaign in Pakistan in 2004. September's record number of 21 strikes was followed by 16 strikes in October and 14 more in November. The previous monthly high was 11 strikes in January 2010, after the Taliban and al Qaeda executed a successful suicide attack at Combat Outpost Chapman that targeted CIA personnel who were active in gathering intelligence for the Predator campaign in Pakistan. The suicide bombing at COP Chapman killed seven CIA officials and a Jordanian intelligence officer.
The US has carried out 117 attacks inside Pakistan in 2010, more than doubling the number of strikes in 2009. In late August 2010, the US exceeded 2009's strike total of 53 with a strike in Kurram. In 2008, the US carried out a total of 36 strikes inside Pakistan. [For up-to-date charts on the US air campaign in Pakistan, see LWJ Special Report, Charting the data for US airstrikes in Pakistan, 2004 - 2010.]
In 2010 the strikes have been confined almost exclusively to North Waziristan, where the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, the Haqqani Network, al Qaeda, and a host of Pakistani and Central and South Asian terror groups are based. All but 13 of this year's 117 strikes have taken place North Waziristan. Of the 13 strikes that have occurred outside of North Waziristan, seven took place in South Waziristan, five occurred in Khyber, and one took place in Kurram.
Since Sept. 1, 2010, the US has conducted 63 strikes in Pakistan's tribal agencies. The bulk of those attacks took place against the terror groups in North Waziristan, with 57 strikes in the tribal agency. Many of the strikes targeted cells run by the Islamic Jihad Group, which have been plotting to conduct Mumbai-styled terror assaults in Europe. A Sept. 8 strike killed an IJU commander known as Qureshi, who specialized in training Germans to conduct attacks in their home country.
The US campaign in northwestern Pakistan has targeted top al Qaeda leaders, al Qaeda's external operations network, and Taliban leaders and fighters who threaten both the Afghan and Pakistani states as well as support al Qaeda's external operations. [For a list of al Qaeda and Taliban leaders killed in the US air campaign in Pakistan, see LWJ Special Report, Senior al Qaeda and Taliban leaders killed in US airstrikes in Pakistan, 2004 - 2010.]
Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/12/us_predators_strike_14.php#ixzz19kCmBVKd
Danish Newspaper Plotter Arrested Twice Before
From The Long War Journal:
Danish newspaper plotter arrested twice before
By Thomas JoscelynDecember 31, 2010
Former Guantanamo detainee Mehdi Ghezali's Swedish passport. Ghezali was arrested in 2009 in Pakistan along with Munir Awad, the primary suspect in the most recently foiled Danish newspaper plot. Image from The Associated Press/Washington Times..
One of the suspects arrested in connection with the recently foiled terrorist plot against Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper that printed cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed, has been arrested twice before.
Munir Awad was among the suspects arrested earlier this week for plotting to kill employees at the Danish newspaper, according to The Local, a Swedish publication. Awad had been arrested twice before because of his suspected ties to the terror network -- once by Ethiopian forces in Somalia and a second time in Pakistan.
On both of the previous occasions, Awad and his supporters claimed that he and his traveling companions were merely vacationing.
"Vacationing" in Somalia
In 2007, Awad and his girlfriend, the then 17-year-old Saifa Benaouda, were detained in Somalia. They were suspected of answering the call for jihad. New recruits were streaming into Somalia from around the world at the time.
But the worldwide press ran Benaouda's story that she and Awad were just a young couple mixed up in a foreign adventure. For instance, The New York Times published an account entitled, "Young Tourists Pick Somalia, and a 3-Nation Ordeal Begins." The Times described Benaouda as having a "blend of naiveté and a love of travel" and explained that she and Awad just happened upon Somalia while in pursuit of an "authentic" Muslim vacation.
Benaouda, according to the Times, "disavow[ed] any political or religious motive for her venture into Somalia, and says her boyfriend is also not political." The Times concluded its piece by assuring readers: "While there is no telling whether there are similar adventures in store for Ms. Benaouda as she exercises her wanderlust, her immediate future promises to be uneventful."
Benaouda's passport had supposedly been confiscated by American soldiers, according to the Times, and Ms. Benaouda's mother, who heads a prominent Muslim organization in Sweden, "had no intention of signing the parental consent form that a minor needed to get another one."
2009 arrests in northern Pakistan
In August 2009, Benaouda and Awad, along with their young son, were arrested again. This time they were traveling to northern Pakistan. A former Guantanamo detainee named Mehdi Ghezali was part of their traveling party and was arrested as well.
The Swedish press has reported that Ghezali had previously served 10 months in prison in Portugal because he was suspected of burglarizing tourists and stores. He was freed and attempted to study Islam in Saudi Arabia, but failed to do so. He traveled to London where he may have studied under Omar Bakri Muhammad, a notorious jihadist preacher.
Ghezali then made his way to Pakistan and Afghanistan, where he claims he stayed with family. Press reports indicate that he is suspected of staying in a notorious al Qaeda safehouse in Jalalabad instead. Ghezali was arrested in Pakistan in December 2001.
"Ghezali reportedly was part of a group of 156 suspected al-Qaida fighters caught while fleeing Afghanistan's Tora Bora mountains," according to the Associated Press.
Ghezali was sent to Guantanamo and his story became a cause for attorneys and activists in Sweden who portrayed him as a wrongly-detained innocent. In July 2004, Ghezali was transferred from Cuba to Sweden.
But the controversy surrounding Ghezali was not over. Five years after he left Gitmo, Ghezali, along with Awad, Benouada, and nine others, was detained in northern Pakistan. The group had traveled through Iran, and one member of the entourage was an Iranian.
Shortly thereafter, another Muslim Swede, Sahbi Zalouti, was arrested in the same area of Pakistan. Zalouti was also picked up this week in connection with the plot against Jyllands-Posten.
Through their attorneys, Benaouada, Awad, and Ghezali all professed their innocence, claiming they were simply on a pilgrimage to a "larger Pakistani city" in order to celebrate Ramadan.
Pakistani authorities claimed otherwise.
Expressen, a Swedish newspaper, reported that the group may have had the Danish embassy in Islamabad in its sights. A bomb belt, $10,000 in cash stuffed in diapers, maps, and other "detailed information" concerning Western embassies were reportedly found in the group's possession. If this is true, then it is possible the group had planned an operation similar to the plot against Jyllands-Posten, targeting the Danish embassy as retribution for the controversial cartoons.
The Local explains that the "Swedes were part of a group of foreigners thought by Pakistani police to be travelling in the company of a terror suspect who was bringing the group to the lawless region of northern Waziristan to meet Zahir Noor, a suspected Taliban leader."
According to yet another Swedish publication, Aftonbladet, "the group's 20-year-old Pakistani guide exposed the Swedes, and confessed to having had the task of taking them to a local leader with connections to al-Qaida."
And in an interview with the Associated Press after the arrests, Mohammad Rizwan, a Pakistani police chief, described Ghezali as "a very dangerous man."
"Mumbai-style" plot
Awad is one of three suspects arrested in Denmark on Wednesday. Zalouti was arrested in Sweden. European officials have concluded that the four intended to launch a "Mumbai-style" plot against Jyllands-Posten.
The three men who were brought before a Danish court "were accused of being in possession of a machine pistol, a 9-millimeter pistol, ammunition for both and a silencer," according to The New York Times. Quoting from a Danish charge sheet, the Times explains that the men picked up the weapons in Sweden and "then on Dec. 29, 2010, drove into Denmark from Sweden, where using the weapons, they intended to attack Jyllands-Posten and kill an unknown number of people."
Thus far, the press has not reported that Awad or his alleged co-conspirators really intended to vacation in Denmark.
Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/12/danish_newspaper_plo.php#ixzz19kCUgTps
Danish newspaper plotter arrested twice before
By Thomas JoscelynDecember 31, 2010
Former Guantanamo detainee Mehdi Ghezali's Swedish passport. Ghezali was arrested in 2009 in Pakistan along with Munir Awad, the primary suspect in the most recently foiled Danish newspaper plot. Image from The Associated Press/Washington Times..
One of the suspects arrested in connection with the recently foiled terrorist plot against Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper that printed cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed, has been arrested twice before.
Munir Awad was among the suspects arrested earlier this week for plotting to kill employees at the Danish newspaper, according to The Local, a Swedish publication. Awad had been arrested twice before because of his suspected ties to the terror network -- once by Ethiopian forces in Somalia and a second time in Pakistan.
On both of the previous occasions, Awad and his supporters claimed that he and his traveling companions were merely vacationing.
"Vacationing" in Somalia
In 2007, Awad and his girlfriend, the then 17-year-old Saifa Benaouda, were detained in Somalia. They were suspected of answering the call for jihad. New recruits were streaming into Somalia from around the world at the time.
But the worldwide press ran Benaouda's story that she and Awad were just a young couple mixed up in a foreign adventure. For instance, The New York Times published an account entitled, "Young Tourists Pick Somalia, and a 3-Nation Ordeal Begins." The Times described Benaouda as having a "blend of naiveté and a love of travel" and explained that she and Awad just happened upon Somalia while in pursuit of an "authentic" Muslim vacation.
Benaouda, according to the Times, "disavow[ed] any political or religious motive for her venture into Somalia, and says her boyfriend is also not political." The Times concluded its piece by assuring readers: "While there is no telling whether there are similar adventures in store for Ms. Benaouda as she exercises her wanderlust, her immediate future promises to be uneventful."
Benaouda's passport had supposedly been confiscated by American soldiers, according to the Times, and Ms. Benaouda's mother, who heads a prominent Muslim organization in Sweden, "had no intention of signing the parental consent form that a minor needed to get another one."
2009 arrests in northern Pakistan
In August 2009, Benaouda and Awad, along with their young son, were arrested again. This time they were traveling to northern Pakistan. A former Guantanamo detainee named Mehdi Ghezali was part of their traveling party and was arrested as well.
The Swedish press has reported that Ghezali had previously served 10 months in prison in Portugal because he was suspected of burglarizing tourists and stores. He was freed and attempted to study Islam in Saudi Arabia, but failed to do so. He traveled to London where he may have studied under Omar Bakri Muhammad, a notorious jihadist preacher.
Ghezali then made his way to Pakistan and Afghanistan, where he claims he stayed with family. Press reports indicate that he is suspected of staying in a notorious al Qaeda safehouse in Jalalabad instead. Ghezali was arrested in Pakistan in December 2001.
"Ghezali reportedly was part of a group of 156 suspected al-Qaida fighters caught while fleeing Afghanistan's Tora Bora mountains," according to the Associated Press.
Ghezali was sent to Guantanamo and his story became a cause for attorneys and activists in Sweden who portrayed him as a wrongly-detained innocent. In July 2004, Ghezali was transferred from Cuba to Sweden.
But the controversy surrounding Ghezali was not over. Five years after he left Gitmo, Ghezali, along with Awad, Benouada, and nine others, was detained in northern Pakistan. The group had traveled through Iran, and one member of the entourage was an Iranian.
Shortly thereafter, another Muslim Swede, Sahbi Zalouti, was arrested in the same area of Pakistan. Zalouti was also picked up this week in connection with the plot against Jyllands-Posten.
Through their attorneys, Benaouada, Awad, and Ghezali all professed their innocence, claiming they were simply on a pilgrimage to a "larger Pakistani city" in order to celebrate Ramadan.
Pakistani authorities claimed otherwise.
Expressen, a Swedish newspaper, reported that the group may have had the Danish embassy in Islamabad in its sights. A bomb belt, $10,000 in cash stuffed in diapers, maps, and other "detailed information" concerning Western embassies were reportedly found in the group's possession. If this is true, then it is possible the group had planned an operation similar to the plot against Jyllands-Posten, targeting the Danish embassy as retribution for the controversial cartoons.
The Local explains that the "Swedes were part of a group of foreigners thought by Pakistani police to be travelling in the company of a terror suspect who was bringing the group to the lawless region of northern Waziristan to meet Zahir Noor, a suspected Taliban leader."
According to yet another Swedish publication, Aftonbladet, "the group's 20-year-old Pakistani guide exposed the Swedes, and confessed to having had the task of taking them to a local leader with connections to al-Qaida."
And in an interview with the Associated Press after the arrests, Mohammad Rizwan, a Pakistani police chief, described Ghezali as "a very dangerous man."
"Mumbai-style" plot
Awad is one of three suspects arrested in Denmark on Wednesday. Zalouti was arrested in Sweden. European officials have concluded that the four intended to launch a "Mumbai-style" plot against Jyllands-Posten.
The three men who were brought before a Danish court "were accused of being in possession of a machine pistol, a 9-millimeter pistol, ammunition for both and a silencer," according to The New York Times. Quoting from a Danish charge sheet, the Times explains that the men picked up the weapons in Sweden and "then on Dec. 29, 2010, drove into Denmark from Sweden, where using the weapons, they intended to attack Jyllands-Posten and kill an unknown number of people."
Thus far, the press has not reported that Awad or his alleged co-conspirators really intended to vacation in Denmark.
Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/12/danish_newspaper_plo.php#ixzz19kCUgTps
three Jihad-Martyrdom Suicide-Bombers Storm Iraqi Compound, Murder Anti-Al Queda Cop
From Jihad Watch:
Three jihad-martyrdom suicide bombers storm Iraqi compound, murder anti-Al Qaeda cop
They were wearing police uniforms -- "war is deceit," after all, as Muhammad said. "3 suicide bombers used to kill tenacious Iraqi cop," by Barbara Surk for Associated Press, December 29 (thanks to JCB):
BAGHDAD - Police commander Lt. Col. Shamil al-Jabouri knew al-Qaida wanted him dead. He was renowned in the tense northern city of Mosul for his relentless pursuit of the terror group, and insurgents had tried at least five times to kill him for it. On the sixth attempt, al-Qaida left little to chance.
As al-Jabouri slept Wednesday morning on a couch in his office, three men wearing police uniforms over vests laden with explosives slipped through an opening in the blast walls surrounding the compound where his building stood, police said.
Police manning one of at least four observation towers surrounding the compound shot one of the attackers in a yard and his vest exploded. Under the cover of that blast, police said, the other two suicide bombers charged about 100 yards (90 meters) and made it into al-Jabouri's single-story building.
They detonated their vests simultaneously -- one at the door of al-Jabouri's office -- killing the commander instantly and injuring a policeman sleeping in a trailer nearby. The two blasts brought the whole building down, burying the slain commander under the rubble, police said.
The attack on the commander responsible for hunting al-Qaida in Mosul -- a former militant stronghold -- was a reminder of the significant gaps in Iraqi security, the challenges the new government will face in trying to close them and the lengths insurgents will go to take out people they perceive as threats....
An Al-Qaida affiliate, the Islamic State of Iraq, took responsibility in a statement posted on the Internet. It said al-Jabouri had been targeted several times before, but had not been deterred from fighting al-Qaida....
Peterson said that by killing officials like al-Jabouri, al-Qaida is trying to institute fear in the local population....
"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah..." -- Qur'an 8:60
Posted by Robert on December 30, 2010 5:33 AM
Three jihad-martyrdom suicide bombers storm Iraqi compound, murder anti-Al Qaeda cop
They were wearing police uniforms -- "war is deceit," after all, as Muhammad said. "3 suicide bombers used to kill tenacious Iraqi cop," by Barbara Surk for Associated Press, December 29 (thanks to JCB):
BAGHDAD - Police commander Lt. Col. Shamil al-Jabouri knew al-Qaida wanted him dead. He was renowned in the tense northern city of Mosul for his relentless pursuit of the terror group, and insurgents had tried at least five times to kill him for it. On the sixth attempt, al-Qaida left little to chance.
As al-Jabouri slept Wednesday morning on a couch in his office, three men wearing police uniforms over vests laden with explosives slipped through an opening in the blast walls surrounding the compound where his building stood, police said.
Police manning one of at least four observation towers surrounding the compound shot one of the attackers in a yard and his vest exploded. Under the cover of that blast, police said, the other two suicide bombers charged about 100 yards (90 meters) and made it into al-Jabouri's single-story building.
They detonated their vests simultaneously -- one at the door of al-Jabouri's office -- killing the commander instantly and injuring a policeman sleeping in a trailer nearby. The two blasts brought the whole building down, burying the slain commander under the rubble, police said.
The attack on the commander responsible for hunting al-Qaida in Mosul -- a former militant stronghold -- was a reminder of the significant gaps in Iraqi security, the challenges the new government will face in trying to close them and the lengths insurgents will go to take out people they perceive as threats....
An Al-Qaida affiliate, the Islamic State of Iraq, took responsibility in a statement posted on the Internet. It said al-Jabouri had been targeted several times before, but had not been deterred from fighting al-Qaida....
Peterson said that by killing officials like al-Jabouri, al-Qaida is trying to institute fear in the local population....
"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah..." -- Qur'an 8:60
Posted by Robert on December 30, 2010 5:33 AM
U.K.: Jihadists Targeted U.S. Embassy
From Jihad Watch:
UK: Jihadists targeted U.S. Embassy
As well as the London Stock Exchange, Big Ben, Westminster Abbey, etc. More on this story. "U.S. Embassy in London Was Terror Target: State Department Confirms American Embassy in London Was Target of British Terror Plotters," by Luis Martinez for ABC News, December 27 (thanks to Family Security Matters):
The U.S. State Department confirms that the 12 terrorism suspects arrested in the United Kingdom last week had targeted the American Embassy in London.
British authorities arrested 12 men Dec. 20 for suspicion of terrorism. Few details of a possible plot emerged until a court hearing in London today for the nine men still in custody. A British police statement released earlier in the day did not provide a list of targets but said the men had conspired to cause "explosions of a nature likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property."
The BBC reported that prosecutors told the court that the nine men had plotted bomb attacks on the American Embassy and the London Stock Exchange in the days before Christmas. The men were also said to have targeted unnamed political and religious figures.
But State Department spokesman Mark Toner confirmed to reporters today that U.S. Embassy officials in London "are aware of this, are working quite closely with British authorities and appreciate the high level of cooperation that we have with them, and are obviously taking suitable security precautions."
When he was asked if the information had come first-hand from British authorities, he said, "I think you asked me if we were aware that we were on the targeting list? and I confirmed that."...
Posted by Robert on December 30, 2010 7:50 AM
UK: Jihadists targeted U.S. Embassy
As well as the London Stock Exchange, Big Ben, Westminster Abbey, etc. More on this story. "U.S. Embassy in London Was Terror Target: State Department Confirms American Embassy in London Was Target of British Terror Plotters," by Luis Martinez for ABC News, December 27 (thanks to Family Security Matters):
The U.S. State Department confirms that the 12 terrorism suspects arrested in the United Kingdom last week had targeted the American Embassy in London.
British authorities arrested 12 men Dec. 20 for suspicion of terrorism. Few details of a possible plot emerged until a court hearing in London today for the nine men still in custody. A British police statement released earlier in the day did not provide a list of targets but said the men had conspired to cause "explosions of a nature likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property."
The BBC reported that prosecutors told the court that the nine men had plotted bomb attacks on the American Embassy and the London Stock Exchange in the days before Christmas. The men were also said to have targeted unnamed political and religious figures.
But State Department spokesman Mark Toner confirmed to reporters today that U.S. Embassy officials in London "are aware of this, are working quite closely with British authorities and appreciate the high level of cooperation that we have with them, and are obviously taking suitable security precautions."
When he was asked if the information had come first-hand from British authorities, he said, "I think you asked me if we were aware that we were on the targeting list? and I confirmed that."...
Posted by Robert on December 30, 2010 7:50 AM
Pakistan: Jihadists Torch More NATO tankers
From Jihad Watch:
Pakistan: Jihadists torch more NATO tankers
But don't worry: the Pakistani authorities are on the case, so you can be sure the jihadists will be swiftly brought to justice! (Yes, that sentence is sarcastic.) "More NATO tankers torched in Pakistan," from Military World, December 30 (thanks to Twostellas):
Pakistani militants have attacked two NATO supply vehicles transporting fuel destined for US-led forces in Afghanistan and set them on fire in Baluchistan province.
A group of unidentified armed men opened fire on two tankers in Quetta -- the provincial capital of Baluchistan Province -- on Thursday morning. At least one driver was killed in the shootout, Pakistani news television channel AAJ TV reported.
The assailants later torched the tankers and fled the area in a vehicle. Their whereabouts is unknown.
Police cordoned off the area after the incident and launched a search operation to arrest the perpetrators.
The attack came a day after one person was killed and two others sustained injuries as militants attacked two NATO fuel tankers in Landi Kotal district of the border town of Torkham.
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan militants regularly attack NATO convoys in Pakistan.
The US military and NATO rely heavily on the Pakistani supply route into landlocked Afghanistan, more so now that Taliban attacks are increasing....
Posted by Robert on December 30, 2010 8:01 AM
Pakistan: Jihadists torch more NATO tankers
But don't worry: the Pakistani authorities are on the case, so you can be sure the jihadists will be swiftly brought to justice! (Yes, that sentence is sarcastic.) "More NATO tankers torched in Pakistan," from Military World, December 30 (thanks to Twostellas):
Pakistani militants have attacked two NATO supply vehicles transporting fuel destined for US-led forces in Afghanistan and set them on fire in Baluchistan province.
A group of unidentified armed men opened fire on two tankers in Quetta -- the provincial capital of Baluchistan Province -- on Thursday morning. At least one driver was killed in the shootout, Pakistani news television channel AAJ TV reported.
The assailants later torched the tankers and fled the area in a vehicle. Their whereabouts is unknown.
Police cordoned off the area after the incident and launched a search operation to arrest the perpetrators.
The attack came a day after one person was killed and two others sustained injuries as militants attacked two NATO fuel tankers in Landi Kotal district of the border town of Torkham.
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan militants regularly attack NATO convoys in Pakistan.
The US military and NATO rely heavily on the Pakistani supply route into landlocked Afghanistan, more so now that Taliban attacks are increasing....
Posted by Robert on December 30, 2010 8:01 AM
After START
From Town Hall:
Cliff May
After START
Email Cliff May
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up National security hawks lost a battle last week when 71 members of the Senate -- not all of them Democrats -- voted to ratify New START. The treaty limits America’s non-nuclear long-range weapons. Its verification provisions are not as rigorous as those negotiated in the 1991 START treaty. And, perhaps most troubling, the Russians have made clear that they view the agreement as limiting America’s deployment of a comprehensive system of defenses against missile attacks.
President Obama insists that the treaty does not mandate such constraints. What’s more, he has gone on record, for the first time, unambiguously supporting missile defense. National security hawks – not all of them Republicans – should now ask him to back that up with funds for missile defense development, testing and deployment.
A world without nuclear weapons is a lovely dream but one that will not be realized during the lifetime of anyone reading this column. What is feasible in the foreseeable future: a world in which aggressors know that America has the means to prevent missiles armed with nuclear warheads from reaching their intended victims.
In September, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) offered an amendment to the resolution to ratify New START that would have committed the U.S. to exactly this goal: deploying “as rapidly as technology permits an effective and layered missile defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States and its allies against all ballistic missile attacks."
Why would anyone oppose that? During the Cold War, we relied on MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction. The idea was that so long as both we and the Soviets left ourselves vulnerable, neither would see benefit in being the first to strike. Proponents of “strategic deterrence” argue that the doctrine served us well then and that it would be a mistake to abandon it now.
I would argue that MAD was not crazy – not at a time when effective missile defense was barely a twinkle in Ronald Reagan’s eye and the Soviet Union, though an evil empire, was not an irrational one. Soviet rulers did not believe that martyrs for Communism would be greeted in Paradise by black-eyed virgins or that an apocalypse would summon the Mahdi (the Islamic messiah) from occultation.
This, too, has changed: Since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, American scientists have made astonishing progress in missile defense technology. Not long ago there were those who insisted it was impossible to hit a bullet with a bullet. Now we have the means to hit a spot on a bullet. And much additional progress can be achieved if we will make the necessary investments in such technologies as the ABL, an aircraft-based laser that could be flown near potential ballistic-missile launch locations.
The DeMint amendment never came to a vote but the approach it encapsulates ought to be debated both in the next Congress and in the public square. Do most Americans want to remain vulnerable to Russia and China as well as to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his ilk -- who for years have been killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, inscribing “Death to America!” on their missiles, and stating their long-term foreign policy goal as “a world without America”?
Consider, also, what Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez might do with Iranian-provided ballistic missiles. And should we not have a defense against the possibility that terrorists aboard a ship off the American coast might launch an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) attack? Henry F. Cooper, former Director of the Strategic Defense Initiative, and Robert L Pfaltzgraff Jr., President of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, recently noted that “no national strategy addresses this threat or underwrites a serious program to counter its effects …”
A comprehensive and “layered” missile defense program would be designed to stop ballistic missiles in all stages of flight -- boost, midcourse and terminal. It would include land- and sea-based defenses as well “interceptors” that would destroy ballistic missiles in space. Some call that “weaponizing” space but it’s really the opposite: It’s preventing space from being used as a nuclear weapons highway.
Such a system would protect South Korea and Japan from a North Korean missile strike. Israel and other threatened allies around the world would have confidence that America really is providing a “defense umbrella,” a goal to which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the United States is committed.
Were we to deploy a comprehensive missile defense system, it would be senseless for most nations to invest in offensive nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. Such weapons would become obsolete. Those who hope to rid the world of nuclear weapons entirely should think of missile defense as a means toward that end – a better means than reducing our own nuclear arsenal in the hope that foreign despots will be moved to emulate us rather than seek advantages over us.
What if the U.S. takes this approach and, in response, the Russians withdraw from New START in protest? Then we’ll know for certain that the American and Russian interpretations of the treaty were at odds. Negotiators can return to the table and try to hammer out an agreement on which both sides actually agree.
Meanwhile, President Obama says he agrees with national security hawks on the need for serious missile defense. He should be given an opportunity, between now and 2012, to demonstrate that he means what he says.
Cliff May
Clifford D. May is the President of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies
Cliff May
After START
Email Cliff May
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up National security hawks lost a battle last week when 71 members of the Senate -- not all of them Democrats -- voted to ratify New START. The treaty limits America’s non-nuclear long-range weapons. Its verification provisions are not as rigorous as those negotiated in the 1991 START treaty. And, perhaps most troubling, the Russians have made clear that they view the agreement as limiting America’s deployment of a comprehensive system of defenses against missile attacks.
President Obama insists that the treaty does not mandate such constraints. What’s more, he has gone on record, for the first time, unambiguously supporting missile defense. National security hawks – not all of them Republicans – should now ask him to back that up with funds for missile defense development, testing and deployment.
A world without nuclear weapons is a lovely dream but one that will not be realized during the lifetime of anyone reading this column. What is feasible in the foreseeable future: a world in which aggressors know that America has the means to prevent missiles armed with nuclear warheads from reaching their intended victims.
In September, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) offered an amendment to the resolution to ratify New START that would have committed the U.S. to exactly this goal: deploying “as rapidly as technology permits an effective and layered missile defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States and its allies against all ballistic missile attacks."
Why would anyone oppose that? During the Cold War, we relied on MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction. The idea was that so long as both we and the Soviets left ourselves vulnerable, neither would see benefit in being the first to strike. Proponents of “strategic deterrence” argue that the doctrine served us well then and that it would be a mistake to abandon it now.
I would argue that MAD was not crazy – not at a time when effective missile defense was barely a twinkle in Ronald Reagan’s eye and the Soviet Union, though an evil empire, was not an irrational one. Soviet rulers did not believe that martyrs for Communism would be greeted in Paradise by black-eyed virgins or that an apocalypse would summon the Mahdi (the Islamic messiah) from occultation.
This, too, has changed: Since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, American scientists have made astonishing progress in missile defense technology. Not long ago there were those who insisted it was impossible to hit a bullet with a bullet. Now we have the means to hit a spot on a bullet. And much additional progress can be achieved if we will make the necessary investments in such technologies as the ABL, an aircraft-based laser that could be flown near potential ballistic-missile launch locations.
The DeMint amendment never came to a vote but the approach it encapsulates ought to be debated both in the next Congress and in the public square. Do most Americans want to remain vulnerable to Russia and China as well as to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his ilk -- who for years have been killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, inscribing “Death to America!” on their missiles, and stating their long-term foreign policy goal as “a world without America”?
Consider, also, what Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez might do with Iranian-provided ballistic missiles. And should we not have a defense against the possibility that terrorists aboard a ship off the American coast might launch an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) attack? Henry F. Cooper, former Director of the Strategic Defense Initiative, and Robert L Pfaltzgraff Jr., President of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, recently noted that “no national strategy addresses this threat or underwrites a serious program to counter its effects …”
A comprehensive and “layered” missile defense program would be designed to stop ballistic missiles in all stages of flight -- boost, midcourse and terminal. It would include land- and sea-based defenses as well “interceptors” that would destroy ballistic missiles in space. Some call that “weaponizing” space but it’s really the opposite: It’s preventing space from being used as a nuclear weapons highway.
Such a system would protect South Korea and Japan from a North Korean missile strike. Israel and other threatened allies around the world would have confidence that America really is providing a “defense umbrella,” a goal to which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the United States is committed.
Were we to deploy a comprehensive missile defense system, it would be senseless for most nations to invest in offensive nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. Such weapons would become obsolete. Those who hope to rid the world of nuclear weapons entirely should think of missile defense as a means toward that end – a better means than reducing our own nuclear arsenal in the hope that foreign despots will be moved to emulate us rather than seek advantages over us.
What if the U.S. takes this approach and, in response, the Russians withdraw from New START in protest? Then we’ll know for certain that the American and Russian interpretations of the treaty were at odds. Negotiators can return to the table and try to hammer out an agreement on which both sides actually agree.
Meanwhile, President Obama says he agrees with national security hawks on the need for serious missile defense. He should be given an opportunity, between now and 2012, to demonstrate that he means what he says.
Cliff May
Clifford D. May is the President of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies
Russian Duma's Impending Action On New START Could Spell Trouble For The Treaty
From The Heritage Foundation and The Patriot Update:
Russian Duma’s Impending Action on New START Could Spell Trouble for the Treaty
Posted December 30th, 2010 at 1:00pm in American Leadership, Protect America with 7 comments Print This Post
It now appears likely that the Russian Duma will attach an understanding to the new strategic nuclear arms control treaty with the U.S., known as New START, that specifically rejects the U.S. Senate’s understanding that Russia has no grounds for using New START to impose general limits on U.S. missile defense options. The Duma is scheduled to continue consideration of the treaty next month.
Such an action by the Duma would confirm the suspicions of a number of Senators, led by John McCain (R–AZ), that the Russian government would point to language in New START’s preamble as a means of limiting U.S. missile defense options. This language re-establishes the “link” between strategic offensive arms and missile defenses that was broken by President George W. Bush in 2002, when the U.S. withdrew from the Soviet-era Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which imposed severe restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program. Accordingly, McCain offered an amendment to New START in the Senate to delete this language in the preamble. The amendment was defeated on the basis that the language in the preamble is not legally binding.
As a weaker alternative to the McCain amendment, Senators McCain, Bob Corker (R–TN), and Joe Lieberman (I–CT) attached an understanding on December 22 that specifically rejects the Russian claim that the language in the preamble is legally binding. Apparently, the understanding the Duma will consider will clearly and unequivocally reject the understanding attached by the Senate.
The Heritage Foundation has expressed concerns about the negative impact New START’s provision in the preamble could have on the U.S. missile defense program and pointed out during Senate consideration of the treaty that the Senate had the option to strike this language. The Senate rejected this option and chose to adopt the understanding.
An explicit action by the Duma to reject the Senate understanding raises two fundamental questions, one of which could be very explosive. The first is whether the two diametrically opposed understandings will bar the exchange of the instruments of ratification and entry into force of New START. The Obama Administration is legally bound to include the Senate understanding in the U.S. instrument. It cannot simply walk away from it. While the Administration could try to ignore the understanding in the Russian instrument of ratification, this runs the risk of the U.S. being charged by Russia with material breach of New START if it undertakes steps to improve U.S. missile defense capabilities. In reality, the language of the two understandings will reveal that there is no agreement between the parties on an issue that is essential to the treaty. The honest thing to do would be for both parties to acknowledge this and not exchange the instruments of ratification.
The second and more explosive issue is what would happen if the Russians reveal relevant portions of the treaty negotiating record that show that U.S. negotiators pledged to limit the U.S. missile defense program in accordance with the logic of the language in the preamble. It is all but certain that the understanding attached by the Senate contradicts such a pledge, if it was provided. Accordingly, such a revelation by Russia would constitute compelling evidence that the Obama Administration misled the Senate. Compounding the problem for the Administration will be the fact that it withheld the negotiating record from the Senate, despite demands from some Senators. The Heritage Foundation on took the position that access to the treaty negotiating record should have been provided to the Senate.
In short, the impending action by the Russian Duma may well raise fundamental questions about the viability of New START. These include whether there is no proper agreement between the parties on the issue of missile defense and whether the basis for the Senate granting consent to ratification does not correspond to the requirements of the treaty.
Russian Duma’s Impending Action on New START Could Spell Trouble for the Treaty
Posted December 30th, 2010 at 1:00pm in American Leadership, Protect America with 7 comments Print This Post
It now appears likely that the Russian Duma will attach an understanding to the new strategic nuclear arms control treaty with the U.S., known as New START, that specifically rejects the U.S. Senate’s understanding that Russia has no grounds for using New START to impose general limits on U.S. missile defense options. The Duma is scheduled to continue consideration of the treaty next month.
Such an action by the Duma would confirm the suspicions of a number of Senators, led by John McCain (R–AZ), that the Russian government would point to language in New START’s preamble as a means of limiting U.S. missile defense options. This language re-establishes the “link” between strategic offensive arms and missile defenses that was broken by President George W. Bush in 2002, when the U.S. withdrew from the Soviet-era Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which imposed severe restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program. Accordingly, McCain offered an amendment to New START in the Senate to delete this language in the preamble. The amendment was defeated on the basis that the language in the preamble is not legally binding.
As a weaker alternative to the McCain amendment, Senators McCain, Bob Corker (R–TN), and Joe Lieberman (I–CT) attached an understanding on December 22 that specifically rejects the Russian claim that the language in the preamble is legally binding. Apparently, the understanding the Duma will consider will clearly and unequivocally reject the understanding attached by the Senate.
The Heritage Foundation has expressed concerns about the negative impact New START’s provision in the preamble could have on the U.S. missile defense program and pointed out during Senate consideration of the treaty that the Senate had the option to strike this language. The Senate rejected this option and chose to adopt the understanding.
An explicit action by the Duma to reject the Senate understanding raises two fundamental questions, one of which could be very explosive. The first is whether the two diametrically opposed understandings will bar the exchange of the instruments of ratification and entry into force of New START. The Obama Administration is legally bound to include the Senate understanding in the U.S. instrument. It cannot simply walk away from it. While the Administration could try to ignore the understanding in the Russian instrument of ratification, this runs the risk of the U.S. being charged by Russia with material breach of New START if it undertakes steps to improve U.S. missile defense capabilities. In reality, the language of the two understandings will reveal that there is no agreement between the parties on an issue that is essential to the treaty. The honest thing to do would be for both parties to acknowledge this and not exchange the instruments of ratification.
The second and more explosive issue is what would happen if the Russians reveal relevant portions of the treaty negotiating record that show that U.S. negotiators pledged to limit the U.S. missile defense program in accordance with the logic of the language in the preamble. It is all but certain that the understanding attached by the Senate contradicts such a pledge, if it was provided. Accordingly, such a revelation by Russia would constitute compelling evidence that the Obama Administration misled the Senate. Compounding the problem for the Administration will be the fact that it withheld the negotiating record from the Senate, despite demands from some Senators. The Heritage Foundation on took the position that access to the treaty negotiating record should have been provided to the Senate.
In short, the impending action by the Russian Duma may well raise fundamental questions about the viability of New START. These include whether there is no proper agreement between the parties on the issue of missile defense and whether the basis for the Senate granting consent to ratification does not correspond to the requirements of the treaty.
Terrorists' Lone-Wolf Approach Changes U.S. Strategy
From Homeland Security NewsWire:
Terrorists' lone-wolf approach changes U.S. strategy
Published 31 December 2010
The year which coming to an end saw several terror plots in the United States foiled; these plots had two things in common: They were launched by lone-wolf attackers, and the FBI was in the middle of them; experts say to expect more undercover cases in 2011, because the FBI has clearly decided that the best way to battle the growing threat of homegrown terrorism in this country is to confront the suspects directly
Osman Mohamed, Portland's Christmas-tree bomb suspect // Source: marinecorpstimes.com
This year ended with a flurry of terrorism sting operations. A young Somali-American in Oregon was arrested after he allegedly tried to ignite a car bomb at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland. A Virginia man was arrested after he allegedly conspired with people he thought were al Qaeda operatives to bomb D.C.-area targets. Authorities say a Baltimore man unknowingly was working with undercover FBI agents when he detonated a dummy car bomb outside a U.S. military recruitment center.
The three plots had two things in common: They were launched by lone-wolf attackers, and the FBI was in the middle of them. NPR reports that experts say to expect more undercover cases in 2011, because the agency has clearly decided that the best way to battle the growing threat of homegrown terrorism in this country is to confront the suspects directly.
“I believe that we have something in this country that you don’t see characterized in TV shows,” says Philip Mudd, a former counterterrorism official with both the CIA and the FBI, who is now a research fellow at the New America Foundation.
“It is not cells or clusters of individuals that are like-minded … it is clusters of kids who are talking about extremism,” he says. “I think this exists across the country. Kids are talking about what they don’t like in Palestine or Iraq or Afghanistan, and within those clusters occasionally you’re going to have a couple who say, ‘All my friends, all our friends are talking, why don’t we do something about it?’”
Evolving strategy
As it turns out, this increasing interest in violent jihad in the United States coincides with al Qaeda’s smaller scaled aspirations. Pinned down by drone attacks in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan, the group’s leadership has been calling on affiliates to launch attacks — any attacks. That call is expected to grow louder next year.
“I think regional affiliates will get more aggressive precisely because al Qaeda central is being pressed so hard in South Asia,” says Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. “So the current terrorist strategy ironically is at once a product of our own success and indeed of their own resiliency. Even under this intense pressure, they are able not only to survive, but evolve a different strategy.”
Former DHS secretary Michael Chertoff says that in its own way, a less ambitious al Qaeda is a dangerous development. “I’m concerned that what’s happened is that the terrorists, al Qaeda and similar groups, have finally decided that there is still value in smaller, less sophisticated attacks,” says Chertoff, who now heads his own security firm. “So they are looking at a broader set of targets, and that means, frankly, it will be harder to detect and stop those attacks. If you look at their public comments, they talked about how they are now looking at economic impact as part of the benefit of a terrorist attack, and that suggests to me they are going to be trying to hurt our commercial businesses in the way they previously focused on mass casualties.”
Symbolic anniversary
The year 2011 holds special significance to al Qaeda for another reason: It marks the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
There has not been a successful major attack against the United States. since then, and officials say that rankles al Qaeda’s top leadership. Osama bin Laden is said to be keen to launch something spectacular so the United States can not say it has beaten back the terrorist threat for a decade.
In the words of one high-ranking terrorism official in the Obama administration: “Nothing focuses minds in al Qaeda like a symbolic anniversary, and we’re about to have a big one. The last thing they want is for former President Bush or President Obama to be able to stand at ground zero and say it has been ten years since a strike. I think al Qaeda will do all it can to make sure that doesn’t happen.”
Terrorists' lone-wolf approach changes U.S. strategy
Published 31 December 2010
The year which coming to an end saw several terror plots in the United States foiled; these plots had two things in common: They were launched by lone-wolf attackers, and the FBI was in the middle of them; experts say to expect more undercover cases in 2011, because the FBI has clearly decided that the best way to battle the growing threat of homegrown terrorism in this country is to confront the suspects directly
Osman Mohamed, Portland's Christmas-tree bomb suspect // Source: marinecorpstimes.com
This year ended with a flurry of terrorism sting operations. A young Somali-American in Oregon was arrested after he allegedly tried to ignite a car bomb at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland. A Virginia man was arrested after he allegedly conspired with people he thought were al Qaeda operatives to bomb D.C.-area targets. Authorities say a Baltimore man unknowingly was working with undercover FBI agents when he detonated a dummy car bomb outside a U.S. military recruitment center.
The three plots had two things in common: They were launched by lone-wolf attackers, and the FBI was in the middle of them. NPR reports that experts say to expect more undercover cases in 2011, because the agency has clearly decided that the best way to battle the growing threat of homegrown terrorism in this country is to confront the suspects directly.
“I believe that we have something in this country that you don’t see characterized in TV shows,” says Philip Mudd, a former counterterrorism official with both the CIA and the FBI, who is now a research fellow at the New America Foundation.
“It is not cells or clusters of individuals that are like-minded … it is clusters of kids who are talking about extremism,” he says. “I think this exists across the country. Kids are talking about what they don’t like in Palestine or Iraq or Afghanistan, and within those clusters occasionally you’re going to have a couple who say, ‘All my friends, all our friends are talking, why don’t we do something about it?’”
Evolving strategy
As it turns out, this increasing interest in violent jihad in the United States coincides with al Qaeda’s smaller scaled aspirations. Pinned down by drone attacks in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan, the group’s leadership has been calling on affiliates to launch attacks — any attacks. That call is expected to grow louder next year.
“I think regional affiliates will get more aggressive precisely because al Qaeda central is being pressed so hard in South Asia,” says Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. “So the current terrorist strategy ironically is at once a product of our own success and indeed of their own resiliency. Even under this intense pressure, they are able not only to survive, but evolve a different strategy.”
Former DHS secretary Michael Chertoff says that in its own way, a less ambitious al Qaeda is a dangerous development. “I’m concerned that what’s happened is that the terrorists, al Qaeda and similar groups, have finally decided that there is still value in smaller, less sophisticated attacks,” says Chertoff, who now heads his own security firm. “So they are looking at a broader set of targets, and that means, frankly, it will be harder to detect and stop those attacks. If you look at their public comments, they talked about how they are now looking at economic impact as part of the benefit of a terrorist attack, and that suggests to me they are going to be trying to hurt our commercial businesses in the way they previously focused on mass casualties.”
Symbolic anniversary
The year 2011 holds special significance to al Qaeda for another reason: It marks the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
There has not been a successful major attack against the United States. since then, and officials say that rankles al Qaeda’s top leadership. Osama bin Laden is said to be keen to launch something spectacular so the United States can not say it has beaten back the terrorist threat for a decade.
In the words of one high-ranking terrorism official in the Obama administration: “Nothing focuses minds in al Qaeda like a symbolic anniversary, and we’re about to have a big one. The last thing they want is for former President Bush or President Obama to be able to stand at ground zero and say it has been ten years since a strike. I think al Qaeda will do all it can to make sure that doesn’t happen.”
63% Of Americans Oppose The War In Afghanistan
From Common Dreams.org:
Published on Friday, December 31, 2010 by The Huffington Post
63 Percent of Americans Oppose War in Afghanistan
by Amanda Terkel
BUFFALO, N.Y. -- Opposition to the war in Afghanistan is at an all-time high, with 63 percent of the public now opposed to U.S. involvement there, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey. Just 35 percent of survey respondents say they still support U.S. involvement.
The increase in opposition to U.S. involvement comes as pessimism about how the war is going is rising. According to a poll done Dec. 17-19, 56 percent of the public believes that "things are going badly for the U.S. in Afghanistan."
"The war has not always been unpopular -- back in March, when a majority thought that the war was going well, the country was evenly divided. But by September, the number who said that things were going well for the U.S. in Afghanistan had dropped to 44 percent, and opposition to the war had grown to 58 percent," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Today, with Americans remaining pessimistic about the situation in Afghanistan, they also remain opposed to the war."
There are, however, at least two groups where there is still a slim majority of support for the war -- the Republican Party establishment, and Tea Party activists. Here's a look at the partisan breakdown of supporters and oppositionists:
TEA PARTY: 52 percent favor, 45 percent oppose.
REPUBLICAN: 52 percent favor, 44 percent oppose.
CONSERVATIVE: 49 percent favor, 48 percent oppose.
DEMOCRAT: 24 percent favor, 74 percent oppose.
Story continues below
LIBERAL: 20 percent favor, 80 percent oppose.
INDEPENDENT: 35 percent favor, 63 percent oppose.
MODERATE: 32 percent favor, 66 percent oppose.
Income level also seems to play a significant role: 70 percent of people making under $50,000 annually said they oppose the war; only 54 percent of those making more than $50,000 annually said the same thing.
As the Los-Angeles Times reports, "This has been the war's deadliest year for noncombatants and combatants alike, with civilian casualties for the first 10 months of this year running 20% higher than the same period a year ago, according to the most recent figures available from the United Nations."
The number of foreign troops killed in the nine-year war has hit an all-time high, with more than 700 lives lost. Nearly 500 U.S. servicemembers were killed this past year alone, according to the site iCasualties.org.
A new report by Reporters Without Borders also finds that the country remains dangerous for journalists. There was a "major increase" in the number of journalists kidnapped in 2010, with Afghanistan a hot spot of trouble. "The case of French TV journalists Hervé Ghesquière and Stéphane Taponier and their three Afghan assistants, held hostage in Afghanistan since 29 December 2009, is the longest abduction in the history of the French media since the end of the 1980s," writes the organization in its report.
There are approximately 140,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan. Last year, President Obama ordered 30,000 more U.S. troops be sent there. He has promised that the United States will begin withdrawing troops in July 2011.
Copyright © 2010 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
Published on Friday, December 31, 2010 by The Huffington Post
63 Percent of Americans Oppose War in Afghanistan
by Amanda Terkel
BUFFALO, N.Y. -- Opposition to the war in Afghanistan is at an all-time high, with 63 percent of the public now opposed to U.S. involvement there, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey. Just 35 percent of survey respondents say they still support U.S. involvement.
The increase in opposition to U.S. involvement comes as pessimism about how the war is going is rising. According to a poll done Dec. 17-19, 56 percent of the public believes that "things are going badly for the U.S. in Afghanistan."
"The war has not always been unpopular -- back in March, when a majority thought that the war was going well, the country was evenly divided. But by September, the number who said that things were going well for the U.S. in Afghanistan had dropped to 44 percent, and opposition to the war had grown to 58 percent," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Today, with Americans remaining pessimistic about the situation in Afghanistan, they also remain opposed to the war."
There are, however, at least two groups where there is still a slim majority of support for the war -- the Republican Party establishment, and Tea Party activists. Here's a look at the partisan breakdown of supporters and oppositionists:
TEA PARTY: 52 percent favor, 45 percent oppose.
REPUBLICAN: 52 percent favor, 44 percent oppose.
CONSERVATIVE: 49 percent favor, 48 percent oppose.
DEMOCRAT: 24 percent favor, 74 percent oppose.
Story continues below
LIBERAL: 20 percent favor, 80 percent oppose.
INDEPENDENT: 35 percent favor, 63 percent oppose.
MODERATE: 32 percent favor, 66 percent oppose.
Income level also seems to play a significant role: 70 percent of people making under $50,000 annually said they oppose the war; only 54 percent of those making more than $50,000 annually said the same thing.
As the Los-Angeles Times reports, "This has been the war's deadliest year for noncombatants and combatants alike, with civilian casualties for the first 10 months of this year running 20% higher than the same period a year ago, according to the most recent figures available from the United Nations."
The number of foreign troops killed in the nine-year war has hit an all-time high, with more than 700 lives lost. Nearly 500 U.S. servicemembers were killed this past year alone, according to the site iCasualties.org.
A new report by Reporters Without Borders also finds that the country remains dangerous for journalists. There was a "major increase" in the number of journalists kidnapped in 2010, with Afghanistan a hot spot of trouble. "The case of French TV journalists Hervé Ghesquière and Stéphane Taponier and their three Afghan assistants, held hostage in Afghanistan since 29 December 2009, is the longest abduction in the history of the French media since the end of the 1980s," writes the organization in its report.
There are approximately 140,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan. Last year, President Obama ordered 30,000 more U.S. troops be sent there. He has promised that the United States will begin withdrawing troops in July 2011.
Copyright © 2010 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
U.S. Predator Strikes Kill 25 Militants In North Waziristan
From The Long War Journal:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LWJ Supports
(8) ShareThis
US Predators kill 25 'rebels' in pair of strikes in North Waziristan
By Bill RoggioDecember 27, 2010
Map of the Miramshah-Mir Ali area in North Waziristan. Click to view larger map.
The US launched two airstrikes today in Pakistan's Taliban-controlled tribal agency of North Waziristan. The strikes are the first in 10 days, and the first in the Mir Ali area in a month.
In the first strike, unmanned Predators or the more heavily armed and deadly Reapers fired two missiles at a compound and four more missiles at two vehicles in the village of Sher Tala in the Mir Ali area of North Waziristan, according to Geo News. One of the vehicles is said to have been laden with explosives and ammunition, "magnifying the blasts from the missile attacks," Al Jazeera reported. Pakistani intelligence officials said that 21 "rebels" were killed. Pakistani officials often refer to al Qaeda or allied Central Asian terrorists as rebels.
The second strike occurred hours later in the village of Machikhel in the Mir Ali area. Four more Taliban fighters were killed in an attack on a vehicle.
No senior al Qaeda or Taliban fighters have been reported killed in either of the strikes.
The Mir Ali area is in the sphere of influence of Abu Kasha al Iraqi, an al Qaeda leader who serves as a key link to the Taliban and supports al Qaeda's external operations network. Mir Ali is a known hub for al Qaeda's military and external operations councils. In addition to al Qaeda, Taliban leader Hafiz Gul Bahadar and the Haqqani Network also operate in the Mir Ali area.
In 2010, the US has been pounding targets in the Datta Khel, Miramshah, and Mir Ali areas of North Waziristan in an effort to kill members involved in the European plot. Al Qaeda and allied terror groups such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Islamic Jihad Group, the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Party, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, and a number of Pakistani and Central and South Asian terror groups host or share camps in the region.
Since Sept. 8, a total of 16 Germans and two Britons have been reported killed in Predator strikes in the Mir Ali area. The Europeans were members of the Islamic Jihad Group, an al Qaeda affiliate based in the Mir Ali area. The IJU members are believed to be involved in a recently discovered al Qaeda plot that targeted several major European cities and was modeled after the terror assault on the Indian city of Mumbai in 2008.
Despite the known presence of al Qaeda and other foreign groups in North Waziristan, and requests by the US that action be taken against these groups, the Pakistani military has indicated that it has no plans to take on Bahadar or the Haqqani Network. Bahadar and the Haqqanis are considered "good Taliban" by the Pakistani military establishment as they do not carry out attacks inside Pakistan.
The Predator strikes, by the numbers
Today's strikes are the first since the US launched three attacks in the Tirah Valley in the tribal agency of Khyber on Dec. 17. In those attacks, 54 Taliban and Lashkar-e-Islam fighters were killed.
The US has carried out nine airstrikes in Pakistan's tribal agencies since the beginning of December.
The pace of the strikes from the beginning of September up to the end of November was unprecedented since the US began the air campaign in Pakistan in 2004. September's record number of 21 strikes was followed by 16 strikes in October and 14 more in November. The previous monthly high was 11 strikes in January 2010, after the Taliban and al Qaeda executed a successful suicide attack at Combat Outpost Chapman that targeted CIA personnel who were active in gathering intelligence for the Predator campaign in Pakistan. The suicide bombing at COP Chapman killed seven CIA officials and a Jordanian intelligence officer.
The US has carried out 114 attacks inside Pakistan in 2010, more than doubling the number of strikes in 2009. In late August 2010, the US exceeded 2009's strike total of 53 with a strike in Kurram. In 2008, the US carried out a total of 36 strikes inside Pakistan. [For up-to-date charts on the US air campaign in Pakistan, see LWJ Special Report, Charting the data for US airstrikes in Pakistan, 2004 - 2010.]
In 2010 the strikes have been confined almost exclusively to North Waziristan, where the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, the Haqqani Network, al Qaeda, and a host of Pakistani and Central and South Asian terror groups are based. All but 13 of this year's 114 strikes have taken place North Waziristan. Of the 13 strikes that have occurred outside of North Waziristan, seven took place in South Waziristan, five occurred in Khyber, and one took place in Kurram.
Since Sept. 1, 2010, the US has conducted 60 strikes in Pakistan's tribal agencies. The bulk of those attacks took place against the terror groups in North Waziristan, with 54 strikes in the tribal agency. Many of the strikes targeted cells run by the Islamic Jihad Group, which have been plotting to conduct Mumbai-styled terror assaults in Europe. A Sept. 8 strike killed an IJU commander known as Qureshi, who specialized in training Germans to conduct attacks in their home country.
The US campaign in northwestern Pakistan has targeted top al Qaeda leaders, al Qaeda's external operations network, and Taliban leaders and fighters who threaten both the Afghan and Pakistani states as well as support al Qaeda's external operations. [For a list of al Qaeda and Taliban leaders killed in the US air campaign in Pakistan, see LWJ Special Report, Senior al Qaeda and Taliban leaders killed in US airstrikes in Pakistan, 2004 - 2010.]
Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/12/us_predators_kill_6_3.php#ixzz19fOIswil
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LWJ Supports
(8) ShareThis
US Predators kill 25 'rebels' in pair of strikes in North Waziristan
By Bill RoggioDecember 27, 2010
Map of the Miramshah-Mir Ali area in North Waziristan. Click to view larger map.
The US launched two airstrikes today in Pakistan's Taliban-controlled tribal agency of North Waziristan. The strikes are the first in 10 days, and the first in the Mir Ali area in a month.
In the first strike, unmanned Predators or the more heavily armed and deadly Reapers fired two missiles at a compound and four more missiles at two vehicles in the village of Sher Tala in the Mir Ali area of North Waziristan, according to Geo News. One of the vehicles is said to have been laden with explosives and ammunition, "magnifying the blasts from the missile attacks," Al Jazeera reported. Pakistani intelligence officials said that 21 "rebels" were killed. Pakistani officials often refer to al Qaeda or allied Central Asian terrorists as rebels.
The second strike occurred hours later in the village of Machikhel in the Mir Ali area. Four more Taliban fighters were killed in an attack on a vehicle.
No senior al Qaeda or Taliban fighters have been reported killed in either of the strikes.
The Mir Ali area is in the sphere of influence of Abu Kasha al Iraqi, an al Qaeda leader who serves as a key link to the Taliban and supports al Qaeda's external operations network. Mir Ali is a known hub for al Qaeda's military and external operations councils. In addition to al Qaeda, Taliban leader Hafiz Gul Bahadar and the Haqqani Network also operate in the Mir Ali area.
In 2010, the US has been pounding targets in the Datta Khel, Miramshah, and Mir Ali areas of North Waziristan in an effort to kill members involved in the European plot. Al Qaeda and allied terror groups such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Islamic Jihad Group, the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Party, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, and a number of Pakistani and Central and South Asian terror groups host or share camps in the region.
Since Sept. 8, a total of 16 Germans and two Britons have been reported killed in Predator strikes in the Mir Ali area. The Europeans were members of the Islamic Jihad Group, an al Qaeda affiliate based in the Mir Ali area. The IJU members are believed to be involved in a recently discovered al Qaeda plot that targeted several major European cities and was modeled after the terror assault on the Indian city of Mumbai in 2008.
Despite the known presence of al Qaeda and other foreign groups in North Waziristan, and requests by the US that action be taken against these groups, the Pakistani military has indicated that it has no plans to take on Bahadar or the Haqqani Network. Bahadar and the Haqqanis are considered "good Taliban" by the Pakistani military establishment as they do not carry out attacks inside Pakistan.
The Predator strikes, by the numbers
Today's strikes are the first since the US launched three attacks in the Tirah Valley in the tribal agency of Khyber on Dec. 17. In those attacks, 54 Taliban and Lashkar-e-Islam fighters were killed.
The US has carried out nine airstrikes in Pakistan's tribal agencies since the beginning of December.
The pace of the strikes from the beginning of September up to the end of November was unprecedented since the US began the air campaign in Pakistan in 2004. September's record number of 21 strikes was followed by 16 strikes in October and 14 more in November. The previous monthly high was 11 strikes in January 2010, after the Taliban and al Qaeda executed a successful suicide attack at Combat Outpost Chapman that targeted CIA personnel who were active in gathering intelligence for the Predator campaign in Pakistan. The suicide bombing at COP Chapman killed seven CIA officials and a Jordanian intelligence officer.
The US has carried out 114 attacks inside Pakistan in 2010, more than doubling the number of strikes in 2009. In late August 2010, the US exceeded 2009's strike total of 53 with a strike in Kurram. In 2008, the US carried out a total of 36 strikes inside Pakistan. [For up-to-date charts on the US air campaign in Pakistan, see LWJ Special Report, Charting the data for US airstrikes in Pakistan, 2004 - 2010.]
In 2010 the strikes have been confined almost exclusively to North Waziristan, where the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, the Haqqani Network, al Qaeda, and a host of Pakistani and Central and South Asian terror groups are based. All but 13 of this year's 114 strikes have taken place North Waziristan. Of the 13 strikes that have occurred outside of North Waziristan, seven took place in South Waziristan, five occurred in Khyber, and one took place in Kurram.
Since Sept. 1, 2010, the US has conducted 60 strikes in Pakistan's tribal agencies. The bulk of those attacks took place against the terror groups in North Waziristan, with 54 strikes in the tribal agency. Many of the strikes targeted cells run by the Islamic Jihad Group, which have been plotting to conduct Mumbai-styled terror assaults in Europe. A Sept. 8 strike killed an IJU commander known as Qureshi, who specialized in training Germans to conduct attacks in their home country.
The US campaign in northwestern Pakistan has targeted top al Qaeda leaders, al Qaeda's external operations network, and Taliban leaders and fighters who threaten both the Afghan and Pakistani states as well as support al Qaeda's external operations. [For a list of al Qaeda and Taliban leaders killed in the US air campaign in Pakistan, see LWJ Special Report, Senior al Qaeda and Taliban leaders killed in US airstrikes in Pakistan, 2004 - 2010.]
Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/12/us_predators_kill_6_3.php#ixzz19fOIswil
Hamas Pal Galloway Helps Terrorist-Supporting U.S. Muslim Group Raise Money
From Creeping Sharia:
Hamas pal Galloway helps terrorist-supporting U.S. Muslim group raise money
Posted on December 27, 2010 by creeping
Not just any U.S. Muslim group but the Muslim Legal Fund – a group that raises money for Muslim terror suspects and “supports” convicted terrorists. They invited known Hamas-fundraiser George Galloway to help them raise funds. While the Hamas terror partner should be barred from entering the U.S., reports that he is barred seem to be purely anti-American, anti-infidel propaganda. via British MP once kept out of Canada, now kept from U.S..
First he was told he wouldn’t get into Canada, and now it appears George Galloway is having trouble visiting the United States.
Galloway recently completed a tour of Canada after being told in 2009 he would likely be denied entry due to his support for the terrorist group Hamas.
While Canada never banned him outright, officials did inform the former British MP he might not be allowed into Canada over a cash donation he made to Hamas in March 2009.
Now Galloway has been stopped from engaging in a U.S. speaking tour that was supposed to visit five cities and wrap up December 15 in Pompano Beach, Fla., near Fort Lauderdale.
The Muslim Legal Fund of America, which is hosting the tour as a fundraiser, has confirmed Galloway was denied entry to the U.S. due to visa problems.
According to reports, Galloway spoke to a group in Louisiana via Skype, an online phone and video calling service. Galloway told the crowd he had been informed there were problems with his visa for entry to the U.S. but was not sure whether it was a political or technical problem keeping him out.
According to an eyewitness report posted on the website of a left-wing group in the U.S., Galloway is undeterred.
“Nothing will stop me. Not the government of what they call Israel; not the government of Canada or the U.S.,” Galloway was quoted as saying.
In an e-mail to QMI Agency Galloway said he hasn’t been blocked from entering the U.S. but was not able to board his flight last weekend.
“It looks like it was a technical glitch – at Heathrow airport in London – rather than a political decision and my office is now in touch with the embassy in London to fix it,” Galloway said.
The politician turned activist hopes to appear in person for a speech in Dearborn, Mich., next month.
Who are the Muslim Legal Fund? For starters, they are another Muslim group in the U.S. that advise Muslims not to cooperate when approached by the FBI, but rather protect the ummah first. From the MLF homepage:
A look at some of the “cases” MLF has supported in include some of the most notorious Islamic terrorists in or from the U.S.:
Lady al Qaeda – Aafia Siddiqui – convicted
The Holy Land Foundation – convicted
Sami al Arian – convicted
Flying Imams – helped submit U.S. airlines to sharia
The Muslim Legal Fund also helps people send letters to Muslims convicted of terrorist activities – again directly from their web page where they include the names and addresses of convicted terrorists.
This Muslim “legal” group is also busy proselytizing non-Muslim Americans through the distribution of Korans across the U.S., as we told you about here and here. They’re linked to the big U.S. Muslim Brotherhood outlets and now partnering with the sanctions-defying, Hamas-supporting George Galloway. Don’t count on Eric Holder investigating this insidious group raising money to support Islamic terror suspects who aim to kill Americans and spread sharia
Hamas pal Galloway helps terrorist-supporting U.S. Muslim group raise money
Posted on December 27, 2010 by creeping
Not just any U.S. Muslim group but the Muslim Legal Fund – a group that raises money for Muslim terror suspects and “supports” convicted terrorists. They invited known Hamas-fundraiser George Galloway to help them raise funds. While the Hamas terror partner should be barred from entering the U.S., reports that he is barred seem to be purely anti-American, anti-infidel propaganda. via British MP once kept out of Canada, now kept from U.S..
First he was told he wouldn’t get into Canada, and now it appears George Galloway is having trouble visiting the United States.
Galloway recently completed a tour of Canada after being told in 2009 he would likely be denied entry due to his support for the terrorist group Hamas.
While Canada never banned him outright, officials did inform the former British MP he might not be allowed into Canada over a cash donation he made to Hamas in March 2009.
Now Galloway has been stopped from engaging in a U.S. speaking tour that was supposed to visit five cities and wrap up December 15 in Pompano Beach, Fla., near Fort Lauderdale.
The Muslim Legal Fund of America, which is hosting the tour as a fundraiser, has confirmed Galloway was denied entry to the U.S. due to visa problems.
According to reports, Galloway spoke to a group in Louisiana via Skype, an online phone and video calling service. Galloway told the crowd he had been informed there were problems with his visa for entry to the U.S. but was not sure whether it was a political or technical problem keeping him out.
According to an eyewitness report posted on the website of a left-wing group in the U.S., Galloway is undeterred.
“Nothing will stop me. Not the government of what they call Israel; not the government of Canada or the U.S.,” Galloway was quoted as saying.
In an e-mail to QMI Agency Galloway said he hasn’t been blocked from entering the U.S. but was not able to board his flight last weekend.
“It looks like it was a technical glitch – at Heathrow airport in London – rather than a political decision and my office is now in touch with the embassy in London to fix it,” Galloway said.
The politician turned activist hopes to appear in person for a speech in Dearborn, Mich., next month.
Who are the Muslim Legal Fund? For starters, they are another Muslim group in the U.S. that advise Muslims not to cooperate when approached by the FBI, but rather protect the ummah first. From the MLF homepage:
A look at some of the “cases” MLF has supported in include some of the most notorious Islamic terrorists in or from the U.S.:
Lady al Qaeda – Aafia Siddiqui – convicted
The Holy Land Foundation – convicted
Sami al Arian – convicted
Flying Imams – helped submit U.S. airlines to sharia
The Muslim Legal Fund also helps people send letters to Muslims convicted of terrorist activities – again directly from their web page where they include the names and addresses of convicted terrorists.
This Muslim “legal” group is also busy proselytizing non-Muslim Americans through the distribution of Korans across the U.S., as we told you about here and here. They’re linked to the big U.S. Muslim Brotherhood outlets and now partnering with the sanctions-defying, Hamas-supporting George Galloway. Don’t count on Eric Holder investigating this insidious group raising money to support Islamic terror suspects who aim to kill Americans and spread sharia
Lakin's Choice
From The American Thinker:
December 28, 2010
Lakin's choice
Richard Kantro
Several words by way of closure re the Lt. Col. Terry Lakin affair. Readers who followed it (see story here) learned that, on the day of his sentencing, he conceded that the Army was the wrong place to make his case, and that he would like to be reinstated, and would deploy if ordered to do so.
One might view this outcome as a defeat of the brave actor who originally refused orders which he contended derived from a commander-in-chief of extremely questionable provenance. Lakin's final posture was, to be sure, ultimately less defiant than some might have wished, given the history of his public defiance and the subsequent confessional quality of the allocution. It seems certain that his alternative would have been to spend years in Leavenworth instead of the six months he got. But his case was already lost, early, when Judge Lind denied him discovery, witnesses, and argument in the early phases of the trial. The point is that this doubtless is not the last well-founded challenge to the dangerous, unconstitutional, and ludicrously insupportable position that no living human being has standing to see Hussein Obama's birth certificate. That position cannot, and ultimately will not, withstand the disinfecting sunlight of a renewed Constitutional dawn.
But given whatever pre-sentencing ... uh ... blandishments the military judge may have "offered" Lakin -- with her hand over the microphone and Lakin's attorney at sidebar, before he was invited to step back -- it may be that in these particular circumstances Lakin's discretion was the better part of his valor. His case received practically no coverage in national media large or small. The New York Times did send someone to the sentencing, albeit only to shriek at him, but from a vulture's perch, and no eagle's aerie. His supporters were outflanked and outgunned by a prosecution determined to offer him no quarter. And after all, he intentionally didn't show up, or deploy. Some may argue in good faith that his reason -- to call attention to a possible criminal at the top of the order-giving pyramid -- is irrelevant to his sentence, and that he should have been prepared to swallow the full dose of his military medicine. Okay, but no matter. Realizing, his military career over, that he had done all he himself could do as one man decrying the peril confronting the country -- of a possibly illegitimate commander-in-chief -- he took the deal.
In this writer's opinion, that resolution does not detract from the courage with which Lt. Col. Lakin acted in bringing to the nation's attention -- wan as it was until the moment of his conviction -- the rot at the top of the executive branch, from which all lower orders ultimately derive their legitimacy. As a surgeon, Lt. Col. Lakin knows that a gangrenous condition cannot be left untreated indefinitely. Our government, reeling under Caesar Obama, is fevered, and sick. Lt. Col. Dr. Lakin has identified the sepsis, prepped the patient for surgery, and done his part. And now it's time for the larger surgical team -- Senatus Populusque Americanus -- to get to work.
Posted at 01:02 AM
December 28, 2010
Lakin's choice
Richard Kantro
Several words by way of closure re the Lt. Col. Terry Lakin affair. Readers who followed it (see story here) learned that, on the day of his sentencing, he conceded that the Army was the wrong place to make his case, and that he would like to be reinstated, and would deploy if ordered to do so.
One might view this outcome as a defeat of the brave actor who originally refused orders which he contended derived from a commander-in-chief of extremely questionable provenance. Lakin's final posture was, to be sure, ultimately less defiant than some might have wished, given the history of his public defiance and the subsequent confessional quality of the allocution. It seems certain that his alternative would have been to spend years in Leavenworth instead of the six months he got. But his case was already lost, early, when Judge Lind denied him discovery, witnesses, and argument in the early phases of the trial. The point is that this doubtless is not the last well-founded challenge to the dangerous, unconstitutional, and ludicrously insupportable position that no living human being has standing to see Hussein Obama's birth certificate. That position cannot, and ultimately will not, withstand the disinfecting sunlight of a renewed Constitutional dawn.
But given whatever pre-sentencing ... uh ... blandishments the military judge may have "offered" Lakin -- with her hand over the microphone and Lakin's attorney at sidebar, before he was invited to step back -- it may be that in these particular circumstances Lakin's discretion was the better part of his valor. His case received practically no coverage in national media large or small. The New York Times did send someone to the sentencing, albeit only to shriek at him, but from a vulture's perch, and no eagle's aerie. His supporters were outflanked and outgunned by a prosecution determined to offer him no quarter. And after all, he intentionally didn't show up, or deploy. Some may argue in good faith that his reason -- to call attention to a possible criminal at the top of the order-giving pyramid -- is irrelevant to his sentence, and that he should have been prepared to swallow the full dose of his military medicine. Okay, but no matter. Realizing, his military career over, that he had done all he himself could do as one man decrying the peril confronting the country -- of a possibly illegitimate commander-in-chief -- he took the deal.
In this writer's opinion, that resolution does not detract from the courage with which Lt. Col. Lakin acted in bringing to the nation's attention -- wan as it was until the moment of his conviction -- the rot at the top of the executive branch, from which all lower orders ultimately derive their legitimacy. As a surgeon, Lt. Col. Lakin knows that a gangrenous condition cannot be left untreated indefinitely. Our government, reeling under Caesar Obama, is fevered, and sick. Lt. Col. Dr. Lakin has identified the sepsis, prepped the patient for surgery, and done his part. And now it's time for the larger surgical team -- Senatus Populusque Americanus -- to get to work.
Posted at 01:02 AM
U.K. Court Remands Nine Terror Suspects
From Gateway Pundit:
Dec 27, 2010 (3 days ago)UK Court Remands Nine Terror Suspectsfrom Gateway Pundit by Lady LibertyThe men, most of them of Bangladeshi origin, are charged with preparing bombing attacks against several targets in London and testing incendiary devices.
Mohammed Moksudur Rahman Chowdhury, 20, one of nine men charged with planning a terrorism attack, leaves Westminster Magistrates Court in London. (Lewis Whyld, Associated Press / December 27, 2010)
The LA Times Reported -
Nine men accused of terrorism and conspiracy to blow up high-profile targets that reportedly included the U.S. Embassy and the London Stock Exchange in a Christmas bombing campaign made their first appearance in a central London court Monday.
Most of the nine, ages 17 to 28, are of Bangladeshi origin. They were among 12 men arrested a week ago in three cities across Britain. Three were released without charge.
They were charged late Sunday after a weeklong interrogation by counter-terrorism police at a London police station. They appeared at the city’s Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Monday in three groups.Anti-terrorism prosecutor Sue Hemming said the nine men were charged with preparing to commit terrorist acts or assisting in them.
The men were also accused of igniting and testing incendiary materials and downloading material for the preparation of acts of terrorism, Reuters news agency reported, and five of them were charged with possession of documents and records of potential use to terrorists. They will reappear in London’s central criminal court, the Old Bailey, on Jan. 14.
The Guardian newspaper identified the nine as Nazam Hussain, 25, Usman Khan, 19, Mohibur Rahman, 26, and Abul Bosher Mohammed Shahjahan, 26, from Stoke-on-Trent in the Midlands area of England; Gurukanth Desai, 28, Omar Sharif Latif, 26, and Abdul Malik Miah, 24, who were detained in Cardiff, South Wales; and Mohammed Moksudur Rahman Chowdhury, 20, and Shah Mohammed Lutfar Rahman, 28, from London.
Though few details were revealed about the targets, the BBC reported that the men were accused of carrying out reconnaissance of high-profile targets, including the American Embassy and the London Stock Exchange.
I wonder, would it be presumptuous of me to send an e-mail to the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and inform him of the latest developments in this case?
Dec 27, 2010 (3 days ago)UK Court Remands Nine Terror Suspectsfrom Gateway Pundit by Lady LibertyThe men, most of them of Bangladeshi origin, are charged with preparing bombing attacks against several targets in London and testing incendiary devices.
Mohammed Moksudur Rahman Chowdhury, 20, one of nine men charged with planning a terrorism attack, leaves Westminster Magistrates Court in London. (Lewis Whyld, Associated Press / December 27, 2010)
The LA Times Reported -
Nine men accused of terrorism and conspiracy to blow up high-profile targets that reportedly included the U.S. Embassy and the London Stock Exchange in a Christmas bombing campaign made their first appearance in a central London court Monday.
Most of the nine, ages 17 to 28, are of Bangladeshi origin. They were among 12 men arrested a week ago in three cities across Britain. Three were released without charge.
They were charged late Sunday after a weeklong interrogation by counter-terrorism police at a London police station. They appeared at the city’s Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Monday in three groups.Anti-terrorism prosecutor Sue Hemming said the nine men were charged with preparing to commit terrorist acts or assisting in them.
The men were also accused of igniting and testing incendiary materials and downloading material for the preparation of acts of terrorism, Reuters news agency reported, and five of them were charged with possession of documents and records of potential use to terrorists. They will reappear in London’s central criminal court, the Old Bailey, on Jan. 14.
The Guardian newspaper identified the nine as Nazam Hussain, 25, Usman Khan, 19, Mohibur Rahman, 26, and Abul Bosher Mohammed Shahjahan, 26, from Stoke-on-Trent in the Midlands area of England; Gurukanth Desai, 28, Omar Sharif Latif, 26, and Abdul Malik Miah, 24, who were detained in Cardiff, South Wales; and Mohammed Moksudur Rahman Chowdhury, 20, and Shah Mohammed Lutfar Rahman, 28, from London.
Though few details were revealed about the targets, the BBC reported that the men were accused of carrying out reconnaissance of high-profile targets, including the American Embassy and the London Stock Exchange.
I wonder, would it be presumptuous of me to send an e-mail to the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and inform him of the latest developments in this case?
Russia In NATO?
From The American Thinker:
December 28, 2010
Russia in NATO?
By G. Murphy Donovan
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
- Sun Tzu
Russians observers often see their political glass half-empty. Recent arguments on the pages of the Moscow Times about NATO membership provide an example. First there was Michael Bohm (19 November), recidivist Times editor, trotting out all the old Cold War stereotypes about Russia and Russians. Bohm doesn't think Russia could ever be included in the NATO club. Then comes Alex Kramarenko, of the Russian Foreign Ministry, on 9 December, refuting Bohm's analysis. Unfortunately, both Bohm and Kramarenko emphasize differences, not similarities. If we highlight what Russians and Americans have in common, then Russian NATO membership seems to be a match made in heaven.
First, there are things like money and energy. Russia has both. The EU is going broke. The Kremlin could be thought of as a rich uncle once removed, a kind of orthodox Santa Claus. The Russian economic model may be predicated on natural resources and larceny, but whatever the Russians are doing seems to be keeping Europe warm and working better than communitarianism. Indeed, if Angela Merkel stops writing checks, Western Europe may fold like a cheap tent. And Americans may not see black ink until sometime after they win a World Cup. NATO should welcome Russia because all clubs should have at least one member solvent enough to pay for the electric bill and the adult beverages.
Almost any Russian oligarch is a walking, talking stimulus package. Never mind arguing about the morality of their winning ways; there's no argument about oligarch or emerging market spending habits. The Russian rich spend like sailors on shore leave -- sports teams, big cars, big dachas, big condos, big watches, and big boats. And unlike their Arab counterparts, Russian energy plutocrats do not invest in anti-democratic, anti-capitalist, or misogynistic jihads.
Speaking of women, the Russian variety should be welcomed visa- and duty-free to the EU and the Americas. Ballerinas and leggy tennis players are, indeed, the two Russian exports best calculated to change attitudes in the West. Most female athletes in Europe and America look like East German weightlifters or Madeline Albright. Russian girls, on the other hand, have changed the viewing habits of millions worldwide. No woman since Anna Karenina has done more for the Russian brand than the two Marias: Kirilenko and Sharapova.
Before Glasnost and Perestroika, no one watched women's sports. The Russian beauty infusion has changed all that in the West. Not only have they raised eye candy standards, but Russian tennis moans and grunts have convinced many gals that international sports might be as much fun as sex.
Money and the ladies aside, there are prudent strategic reasons for merging the military capabilities of East and West, especially those of America and Russia. These two have pretty much cornered the megaton market anyway. Why not create a near-nuclear monopoly by bringing Moscow into the NATO camp? The French, ever given to hyperbole, call their atomic capability the "force de frappe," making these things read like breakfast choices. Imagine what a Russian/American merger might be called. For renegades and miscreants like the Persians and North Koreans, surely such a combine would be known as a smoked "s--t sandwich." Formidable!
But the best reasons for giving Russia a NATO membership are cultural. Europe has been drifting left, while Russia has tacked to the right. For many Europeans, all things American are seen as cultural imperialism. Unfortunately, as Margaret Thatcher might put it, the EU is about to run out of other people's money -- making social utopianism and European cultural pretensions more than a little tedious.
Russians, in contrast, embrace the same things that drive American entrepreneurs: women (most of us anyway), money, shopping, red meat, music, movies, art, alcohol, bacon, fighter planes, beets, lobster, fast cars, sports, bellinis, caviar, junk food, and Italian vacations. Indeed, grand ideas like capitalism and democracy (of a sort) are thriving in Russia -- in Western Europe, not so much. Russia might be the perfect foil to slip into the NATO mix, an ingredient that might stop what seems to be an inexorable slide into the delusional muck of a European commune. Americans and Russians in concert could save Europe from itself -- and Islamists.
Today, America has more in common with Russia than it does with many nations in Europe and almost all of the Muslim world. Indeed, Russia is, like America and England, a perennial jihad target. Unlike America, the Russians don't take prisoners. Surely, Moscow is a better fit than Ankara; Turkey acts more like a fox in the hen house these days.
And Yanks and Russians have more in common than Harley Davidson bikes. Beyond language, they share an affinity for kinky politicians: Khrushchev couldn't keep his shoes on any more than Putin can keep his shirt on; Bill Clinton can't keep his pants on any more than Hilary can take hers off.
And then there are guns! The two most famous guns in history originated in America and Russia: the Colt .45 and the Kalashnikov -- two great nations separated by millimeters of caliber.
Excepting language, the American cowboy and mother Russia might be a perfect match. And Brussels would be the perfect spot for a honeymoon.
The author was the last director for research and Russian studies at USAF Intelligence in Washington, D.C. He also writes at Agnotology in Journalism and G. Murphy Donovan.
December 28, 2010
Russia in NATO?
By G. Murphy Donovan
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
- Sun Tzu
Russians observers often see their political glass half-empty. Recent arguments on the pages of the Moscow Times about NATO membership provide an example. First there was Michael Bohm (19 November), recidivist Times editor, trotting out all the old Cold War stereotypes about Russia and Russians. Bohm doesn't think Russia could ever be included in the NATO club. Then comes Alex Kramarenko, of the Russian Foreign Ministry, on 9 December, refuting Bohm's analysis. Unfortunately, both Bohm and Kramarenko emphasize differences, not similarities. If we highlight what Russians and Americans have in common, then Russian NATO membership seems to be a match made in heaven.
First, there are things like money and energy. Russia has both. The EU is going broke. The Kremlin could be thought of as a rich uncle once removed, a kind of orthodox Santa Claus. The Russian economic model may be predicated on natural resources and larceny, but whatever the Russians are doing seems to be keeping Europe warm and working better than communitarianism. Indeed, if Angela Merkel stops writing checks, Western Europe may fold like a cheap tent. And Americans may not see black ink until sometime after they win a World Cup. NATO should welcome Russia because all clubs should have at least one member solvent enough to pay for the electric bill and the adult beverages.
Almost any Russian oligarch is a walking, talking stimulus package. Never mind arguing about the morality of their winning ways; there's no argument about oligarch or emerging market spending habits. The Russian rich spend like sailors on shore leave -- sports teams, big cars, big dachas, big condos, big watches, and big boats. And unlike their Arab counterparts, Russian energy plutocrats do not invest in anti-democratic, anti-capitalist, or misogynistic jihads.
Speaking of women, the Russian variety should be welcomed visa- and duty-free to the EU and the Americas. Ballerinas and leggy tennis players are, indeed, the two Russian exports best calculated to change attitudes in the West. Most female athletes in Europe and America look like East German weightlifters or Madeline Albright. Russian girls, on the other hand, have changed the viewing habits of millions worldwide. No woman since Anna Karenina has done more for the Russian brand than the two Marias: Kirilenko and Sharapova.
Before Glasnost and Perestroika, no one watched women's sports. The Russian beauty infusion has changed all that in the West. Not only have they raised eye candy standards, but Russian tennis moans and grunts have convinced many gals that international sports might be as much fun as sex.
Money and the ladies aside, there are prudent strategic reasons for merging the military capabilities of East and West, especially those of America and Russia. These two have pretty much cornered the megaton market anyway. Why not create a near-nuclear monopoly by bringing Moscow into the NATO camp? The French, ever given to hyperbole, call their atomic capability the "force de frappe," making these things read like breakfast choices. Imagine what a Russian/American merger might be called. For renegades and miscreants like the Persians and North Koreans, surely such a combine would be known as a smoked "s--t sandwich." Formidable!
But the best reasons for giving Russia a NATO membership are cultural. Europe has been drifting left, while Russia has tacked to the right. For many Europeans, all things American are seen as cultural imperialism. Unfortunately, as Margaret Thatcher might put it, the EU is about to run out of other people's money -- making social utopianism and European cultural pretensions more than a little tedious.
Russians, in contrast, embrace the same things that drive American entrepreneurs: women (most of us anyway), money, shopping, red meat, music, movies, art, alcohol, bacon, fighter planes, beets, lobster, fast cars, sports, bellinis, caviar, junk food, and Italian vacations. Indeed, grand ideas like capitalism and democracy (of a sort) are thriving in Russia -- in Western Europe, not so much. Russia might be the perfect foil to slip into the NATO mix, an ingredient that might stop what seems to be an inexorable slide into the delusional muck of a European commune. Americans and Russians in concert could save Europe from itself -- and Islamists.
Today, America has more in common with Russia than it does with many nations in Europe and almost all of the Muslim world. Indeed, Russia is, like America and England, a perennial jihad target. Unlike America, the Russians don't take prisoners. Surely, Moscow is a better fit than Ankara; Turkey acts more like a fox in the hen house these days.
And Yanks and Russians have more in common than Harley Davidson bikes. Beyond language, they share an affinity for kinky politicians: Khrushchev couldn't keep his shoes on any more than Putin can keep his shirt on; Bill Clinton can't keep his pants on any more than Hilary can take hers off.
And then there are guns! The two most famous guns in history originated in America and Russia: the Colt .45 and the Kalashnikov -- two great nations separated by millimeters of caliber.
Excepting language, the American cowboy and mother Russia might be a perfect match. And Brussels would be the perfect spot for a honeymoon.
The author was the last director for research and Russian studies at USAF Intelligence in Washington, D.C. He also writes at Agnotology in Journalism and G. Murphy Donovan.
Multi-Culturalism Vs. Morality And National Survival
From The American Thinker:
December 28, 2010
Multiculturalism vs. Morality and National Survival
By Pieder Beeli
For the sake of analysis, let's consider a hypothesis: The texts of Islam are a terror manual, and the Prophet of Islam is the world's terror-commander.
For the purposes of this article, this is only an unsubstantiated hypothesis. But let's entertain the hypothesis and see some possible consequences in our political culture.
Clearly, the more physically benign behavior of moderate Muslims appeals to the egalitarian sensibilities of the multiculturalists. The multiculturalists -- who cannot stomach the thesis that Islam is evil -- look to resurrect a morally palatable picture of Islam by any means possible. While epistemologically, Islam should be defined by its texts and its Prophet -- whom Koran 33:21 identifies as an excellent example of conduct -- the multiculturalists are only too willing to sacrifice epistemological primacy for their "good" of declaring Islam just as virtuous and legitimate as any other religion out there.
In other words, multiculturalists look for any good -- or even merely the avoidance of some bad -- anywhere in the neighborhood of Islam, and when they find it, presto! Islam itself is declared morally virtuous.
If Islam were a religion of terror, such interplay between moderate Muslims and Western multiculturalists would be lethal. Moderate Muslims would present a moral veneer of Islam which multiculturalists would use to prohibit the moral legitimacy of Islam from being challenged. Reflexive declarations of "Islamophobe!" upon those challenging the multiculturalists' creed would serve to prevent or inhibit the West from ideologically attacking Islam and depriving the jihadists of their noble self-perception.
While it is obvious that one should not be tolerant of evil, to the multiculturalist, the highest virtue is tolerance, and especially tolerance of Islam. Standing prominently in Obama's speeches, including the "A New Beginning" speech in Cairo and his September 11 "Day of Unity and Renewal" speech, are references to "tolerance." One such statement on the passing of Sheikh Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi praises Tantawi -- who called Jews "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs" -- as "a voice for faith and tolerance." Would Obama so eulogize a member of the KKK who said that black people are "descendants of apes and pigs"?
By the magic of multiculturalism, the once "self evident [truth] ... that all men are created equal" has been superseded.
According to a Department of Homeland Security recently declassified report, "[A signature of r]ightwing extremism in the United States ... [is] hate-orient[ation] (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups)." Even though the Islamic world's Jew-hatred is clearly the greatest inspiration to racism today, the word "Islam" or "Muslim" is nowhere mentioned in the document.
It seems that instead of our academic a priori "Islam is evil" hypothesis, the U.S. government has adopted an a priori "Islam is good" hypothesis...and runs with it.
But not just political theory is overthrown by multiculturalism; mathematics is, too. Given that Muslims constitute around 20% of the global population and that 27 of the 28 FBI most wanted terrorists are foreign Muslims, mathematically, Muslims are -- by very conservative estimates -- over one hundred times more likely to commit an act of terror against the U.S. than are non-Muslims. But the equipoise nature of multiculturalism apparently operates on a higher level of mathematics, enabling Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to say in the wake of the Fort Hood massacre that Nidal Hasan "does not, obviously, represent the Muslim faith."
Political theory, mathematics, and yes, even war are hijacked by multiculturalism. Citing that one does not war against a tactic, but an ideology, the Obama administration wisely criticized the Bush administration for the label "War on Terror." But in saying "our enemies are al Qaeda and their allies who are trying to kill us," Obama replaces the tactic of "terror" with the tactic of "killing." Whereas Bush led the quixotic "War on Terror," Obama leads the quixotic "War on Killing."
The Obama White house forwarded that the ideological objective in "al Qaeda's case is global domination by an Islamic caliphate." But isn't this objective shared by most countries of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)? For that matter, isn't it the objective of the U.N. to provide some sort of supranational political domination to achieve their ends? How, then, is it that when al-Qaeda pursues the end of a global caliphate, al-Qaeda is bad, but when the OIC attempt to do so, the Obama administration assists them?
According the DHS report, "Rightwing extremism in the United States ... reject[s] federal authority in favor of state or local authority." In other words, DHS is going to war against the Tenth Amendment.
The Obama administration has no objective ideological criterion by which it distinguishes al-Qaeda and the Taliban from any other organization. But identifying and attacking the ideology of your opponent is the first and primary task of war. The administration's clearest statement of ideological warfare has been against the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Is the U.S. ideological campaign countering terrorism more interested in exempting Islam from ideological and moral scrutiny -- so as to protect delicate Islamic sensibilities -- than in engaging in meaningful ideological warfare? Indeed, what is the meaning of the phrase "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic" if those making this oath are unwilling to consider whether or not a certain ideology seeks to put those of us who "[do not] hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger" under subjugation "until they pay the Jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Koran 9:29, Yusef Ali translation)?
Clearly, it would be unfair to say a priori that Islam is evil. Such an assertion would itself be evil. But despite our multiculturalist proclivities, perhaps it is no less evil to say a priori that Islam is not fundamentally evil. Even then-Senator Obama once said, "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason."
Nearly ten years after 9/11, it just might be time to start a debate on the matter. Resolved: the texts of Islam are a terror manual, and the Prophet of Islam is the world's terror-commander. Given both the disproportionate representation of Muslims on the FBI's most wanted terrorist list and the mantra of American Muslims -- who assure us of the compatibility of critical thinking, self-examination, and moral virtue with Islam -- one might logically, but naïvely, think such a debate would be welcomed by the Islamic community.
Based on the above recent hypocritical, incoherent, treasonous, and racist remarks from the White House, it seems that some critical thinking is long overdue. If we cannot even entertain debate about the moral character of Islam, then the war is already over.
Pieder Beeli, Ph.D. (Physics) is a homeschooling father of five beautiful children. His work has been published at WorldNetDaily.com.
December 28, 2010
Multiculturalism vs. Morality and National Survival
By Pieder Beeli
For the sake of analysis, let's consider a hypothesis: The texts of Islam are a terror manual, and the Prophet of Islam is the world's terror-commander.
For the purposes of this article, this is only an unsubstantiated hypothesis. But let's entertain the hypothesis and see some possible consequences in our political culture.
Clearly, the more physically benign behavior of moderate Muslims appeals to the egalitarian sensibilities of the multiculturalists. The multiculturalists -- who cannot stomach the thesis that Islam is evil -- look to resurrect a morally palatable picture of Islam by any means possible. While epistemologically, Islam should be defined by its texts and its Prophet -- whom Koran 33:21 identifies as an excellent example of conduct -- the multiculturalists are only too willing to sacrifice epistemological primacy for their "good" of declaring Islam just as virtuous and legitimate as any other religion out there.
In other words, multiculturalists look for any good -- or even merely the avoidance of some bad -- anywhere in the neighborhood of Islam, and when they find it, presto! Islam itself is declared morally virtuous.
If Islam were a religion of terror, such interplay between moderate Muslims and Western multiculturalists would be lethal. Moderate Muslims would present a moral veneer of Islam which multiculturalists would use to prohibit the moral legitimacy of Islam from being challenged. Reflexive declarations of "Islamophobe!" upon those challenging the multiculturalists' creed would serve to prevent or inhibit the West from ideologically attacking Islam and depriving the jihadists of their noble self-perception.
While it is obvious that one should not be tolerant of evil, to the multiculturalist, the highest virtue is tolerance, and especially tolerance of Islam. Standing prominently in Obama's speeches, including the "A New Beginning" speech in Cairo and his September 11 "Day of Unity and Renewal" speech, are references to "tolerance." One such statement on the passing of Sheikh Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi praises Tantawi -- who called Jews "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs" -- as "a voice for faith and tolerance." Would Obama so eulogize a member of the KKK who said that black people are "descendants of apes and pigs"?
By the magic of multiculturalism, the once "self evident [truth] ... that all men are created equal" has been superseded.
According to a Department of Homeland Security recently declassified report, "[A signature of r]ightwing extremism in the United States ... [is] hate-orient[ation] (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups)." Even though the Islamic world's Jew-hatred is clearly the greatest inspiration to racism today, the word "Islam" or "Muslim" is nowhere mentioned in the document.
It seems that instead of our academic a priori "Islam is evil" hypothesis, the U.S. government has adopted an a priori "Islam is good" hypothesis...and runs with it.
But not just political theory is overthrown by multiculturalism; mathematics is, too. Given that Muslims constitute around 20% of the global population and that 27 of the 28 FBI most wanted terrorists are foreign Muslims, mathematically, Muslims are -- by very conservative estimates -- over one hundred times more likely to commit an act of terror against the U.S. than are non-Muslims. But the equipoise nature of multiculturalism apparently operates on a higher level of mathematics, enabling Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to say in the wake of the Fort Hood massacre that Nidal Hasan "does not, obviously, represent the Muslim faith."
Political theory, mathematics, and yes, even war are hijacked by multiculturalism. Citing that one does not war against a tactic, but an ideology, the Obama administration wisely criticized the Bush administration for the label "War on Terror." But in saying "our enemies are al Qaeda and their allies who are trying to kill us," Obama replaces the tactic of "terror" with the tactic of "killing." Whereas Bush led the quixotic "War on Terror," Obama leads the quixotic "War on Killing."
The Obama White house forwarded that the ideological objective in "al Qaeda's case is global domination by an Islamic caliphate." But isn't this objective shared by most countries of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)? For that matter, isn't it the objective of the U.N. to provide some sort of supranational political domination to achieve their ends? How, then, is it that when al-Qaeda pursues the end of a global caliphate, al-Qaeda is bad, but when the OIC attempt to do so, the Obama administration assists them?
According the DHS report, "Rightwing extremism in the United States ... reject[s] federal authority in favor of state or local authority." In other words, DHS is going to war against the Tenth Amendment.
The Obama administration has no objective ideological criterion by which it distinguishes al-Qaeda and the Taliban from any other organization. But identifying and attacking the ideology of your opponent is the first and primary task of war. The administration's clearest statement of ideological warfare has been against the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Is the U.S. ideological campaign countering terrorism more interested in exempting Islam from ideological and moral scrutiny -- so as to protect delicate Islamic sensibilities -- than in engaging in meaningful ideological warfare? Indeed, what is the meaning of the phrase "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic" if those making this oath are unwilling to consider whether or not a certain ideology seeks to put those of us who "[do not] hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger" under subjugation "until they pay the Jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Koran 9:29, Yusef Ali translation)?
Clearly, it would be unfair to say a priori that Islam is evil. Such an assertion would itself be evil. But despite our multiculturalist proclivities, perhaps it is no less evil to say a priori that Islam is not fundamentally evil. Even then-Senator Obama once said, "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason."
Nearly ten years after 9/11, it just might be time to start a debate on the matter. Resolved: the texts of Islam are a terror manual, and the Prophet of Islam is the world's terror-commander. Given both the disproportionate representation of Muslims on the FBI's most wanted terrorist list and the mantra of American Muslims -- who assure us of the compatibility of critical thinking, self-examination, and moral virtue with Islam -- one might logically, but naïvely, think such a debate would be welcomed by the Islamic community.
Based on the above recent hypocritical, incoherent, treasonous, and racist remarks from the White House, it seems that some critical thinking is long overdue. If we cannot even entertain debate about the moral character of Islam, then the war is already over.
Pieder Beeli, Ph.D. (Physics) is a homeschooling father of five beautiful children. His work has been published at WorldNetDaily.com.
Mental Health Care, Muslim Style
From The American Thinker:
December 28, 2010
Mental health care, Arab style
Ethel C. Fenig
Israel's late Prime Minister Golda Meir, of blessed memory, once stated that peace would end the Arab-Israeli war when the Arabs loved their children more than they hated Israelis. Sad proof that peace is not about to break out from Arabs soon is this horror story from the English edition of the Israeli Hebrew daily, Ha'aretz (the Land).
A Palestinian caught trying to infiltrate a settlement Wednesday night claims he was sent by his family members, who had hoped he would be killed by soldiers during the infiltration.
But he was caught by Israeli soldiers before he could do damage so they didn't have to defensively shoot and kill. But why, in addition to proudly claiming a "holy martyr" in the family, did his Arab/Muslim parents deliberately choose this son for this "holy suicide terrorist mission?" Was the son especially brave? Religious? Full of hate towards Israelis? Maybe all of these but the basic answer is even more chilling.
According to the investigation into the incident, the boy was behaving in a strange manner and the soldiers originally thought that he was drunk. Later on in the investigation, it was clarified that he was actually suffering from a mental illness.
The boy told investigators that his family wanted him dead. He said they threatened him at gunpoint, forcing him to walk towards the settlement with the hope that soldiers would think he was trying to infiltrate and would shoot him.
Further investigation confirmed his story; he is mentally ill.
To remove a huge stain on the family honor, to rid the family of a socially embarrassing problem while simultaneously gaining family martyr honor status, the family deliberately forced a vulnerable individual to a hoped for death.
Hmmmm, who has the biggest mental health problem--the son or the family? Or the culture?
Posted at 08:50 AM
December 28, 2010
Mental health care, Arab style
Ethel C. Fenig
Israel's late Prime Minister Golda Meir, of blessed memory, once stated that peace would end the Arab-Israeli war when the Arabs loved their children more than they hated Israelis. Sad proof that peace is not about to break out from Arabs soon is this horror story from the English edition of the Israeli Hebrew daily, Ha'aretz (the Land).
A Palestinian caught trying to infiltrate a settlement Wednesday night claims he was sent by his family members, who had hoped he would be killed by soldiers during the infiltration.
But he was caught by Israeli soldiers before he could do damage so they didn't have to defensively shoot and kill. But why, in addition to proudly claiming a "holy martyr" in the family, did his Arab/Muslim parents deliberately choose this son for this "holy suicide terrorist mission?" Was the son especially brave? Religious? Full of hate towards Israelis? Maybe all of these but the basic answer is even more chilling.
According to the investigation into the incident, the boy was behaving in a strange manner and the soldiers originally thought that he was drunk. Later on in the investigation, it was clarified that he was actually suffering from a mental illness.
The boy told investigators that his family wanted him dead. He said they threatened him at gunpoint, forcing him to walk towards the settlement with the hope that soldiers would think he was trying to infiltrate and would shoot him.
Further investigation confirmed his story; he is mentally ill.
To remove a huge stain on the family honor, to rid the family of a socially embarrassing problem while simultaneously gaining family martyr honor status, the family deliberately forced a vulnerable individual to a hoped for death.
Hmmmm, who has the biggest mental health problem--the son or the family? Or the culture?
Posted at 08:50 AM
U.S. Predators Strike Again In North Waziristan
From The Long War Journal:
US Predators strike again in North Waziristan
By Bill RoggioDecember 28, 2010
The Ghulam Khan area in Pakistan. Click to view larger map.
US Predators struck again today in Pakistan's Taliban-controlled tribal agency of North Waziristan, launching two airstrikes in an area right along the border with Afghanistan.
Both strikes took place in the Ghulam Khan area of North Waziristan. In the first strike, the unmanned Predators or the more deadly Reapers launched missiles at two compounds in the village of Ghulam Khan, killing five people.
The second strike targeted vehicles in the nearby village of Nawab. The Predators made two passes at a group of vehicles. In the second strike, 10 Taliban fighters were reported killed.
"First a US drone fired missiles at a double-cabin pick-up truck and about 15 minutes later two more cars were struck," a Pakistani intelligence official told Geo News.
No senior al Qaeda or Taliban leaders have been reported killed in either strike.
The Ghulam Khan area is in the sphere of influence of both Hafiz Gul Bahadar and the Haqqani Network. The area is used by the Taliban and other terrorist groups for staging attacks on Coalition and Afghan forces across the border in Afghanistan.
Bahadar is the overall Taliban commander for North Waziristan. Bahadar provides shelter to top al Qaeda leaders as well as terrorists from numerous Pakistani and Central Asian terror groups.
The Haqqani Network is a Taliban group led by mujahedeen commander Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son Siraj. The Haqqanis are closely allied to al Qaeda and to the Taliban, led by Mullah Omar. Siraj Haqqani is the leader of the Miramshah Regional Military Shura, one of the Afghan Taliban's top four commands; he sits on the Taliban's Quetta Shura; and he is also is a member of al Qaeda's Shura Majlis. The Haqqanis are based on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border.
The US has targeted Siraj and other top-level Haqqani Network commanders since 2008. On Feb. 18, 2010, the US killed Mohammed Haqqani, another of the 12 sons of Jalaluddin Haqqani, in an airstrike in Danda Darpa Khel just outside Miramshah. Mohammed served as a military commander for the Haqqani Network. Siraj is believed to be sheltering in the neighboring tribal agency of Kurram to avoid the Predators.
The Haqqani Network operates on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border. The US military has heavily targeted the Haqqani Network's leadership in raids and airstrikes in the Afghan provinces of Khost, Paktia, and Paktika.
The Predator strikes, by the numbers
After a 10-day lull in strikes, the US has launched four Predator attacks in North Waziristan in the past two days. Yesterday the US killed 25 Taliban fighters in a pair of strikes in the Mir Ali area of North Waziristan. The US has conducted 11 airstrikes in Pakistan's tribal agencies since the beginning of December.
The pace of the strikes from the beginning of September has been unprecedented since the US began the air campaign in Pakistan in 2004. September's record number of 21 strikes was followed by 16 strikes in October and 14 more in November. The previous monthly high was 11 strikes in January 2010, after the Taliban and al Qaeda executed a successful suicide attack at Combat Outpost Chapman that targeted CIA personnel who were active in gathering intelligence for the Predator campaign in Pakistan. The suicide bombing at COP Chapman killed seven CIA officials and a Jordanian intelligence officer.
The US has carried out 116 attacks inside Pakistan in 2010, more than doubling the number of strikes in 2009. In late August 2010, the US exceeded 2009's strike total of 53 with a strike in Kurram. In 2008, the US carried out a total of 36 strikes inside Pakistan. [For up-to-date charts on the US air campaign in Pakistan, see LWJ Special Report, Charting the data for US airstrikes in Pakistan, 2004 - 2010.]
In 2010 the strikes have been confined almost exclusively to North Waziristan, where the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, the Haqqani Network, al Qaeda, and a host of Pakistani and Central and South Asian terror groups are based. All but 13 of this year's 116 strikes have taken place North Waziristan. Of the 13 strikes that have occurred outside of North Waziristan, seven took place in South Waziristan, five occurred in Khyber, and one took place in Kurram.
Since Sept. 1, 2010, the US has conducted 62 strikes in Pakistan's tribal agencies. The bulk of those attacks took place against the terror groups in North Waziristan, with 56 strikes in the tribal agency. Many of the strikes targeted cells run by the Islamic Jihad Group, which have been plotting to conduct Mumbai-styled terror assaults in Europe. A Sept. 8 strike killed an IJU commander known as Qureshi, who specialized in training Germans to conduct attacks in their home country.
The US campaign in northwestern Pakistan has targeted top al Qaeda leaders, al Qaeda's external operations network, and Taliban leaders and fighters who threaten both the Afghan and Pakistani states as well as support al Qaeda's external operations. [For a list of al Qaeda and Taliban leaders killed in the US air campaign in Pakistan, see LWJ Special Report, Senior al Qaeda and Taliban leaders killed in US airstrikes in Pakistan, 2004 - 2010.]
Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/12/us_predators_strike_13.php#ixzz19f6EseD4
US Predators strike again in North Waziristan
By Bill RoggioDecember 28, 2010
The Ghulam Khan area in Pakistan. Click to view larger map.
US Predators struck again today in Pakistan's Taliban-controlled tribal agency of North Waziristan, launching two airstrikes in an area right along the border with Afghanistan.
Both strikes took place in the Ghulam Khan area of North Waziristan. In the first strike, the unmanned Predators or the more deadly Reapers launched missiles at two compounds in the village of Ghulam Khan, killing five people.
The second strike targeted vehicles in the nearby village of Nawab. The Predators made two passes at a group of vehicles. In the second strike, 10 Taliban fighters were reported killed.
"First a US drone fired missiles at a double-cabin pick-up truck and about 15 minutes later two more cars were struck," a Pakistani intelligence official told Geo News.
No senior al Qaeda or Taliban leaders have been reported killed in either strike.
The Ghulam Khan area is in the sphere of influence of both Hafiz Gul Bahadar and the Haqqani Network. The area is used by the Taliban and other terrorist groups for staging attacks on Coalition and Afghan forces across the border in Afghanistan.
Bahadar is the overall Taliban commander for North Waziristan. Bahadar provides shelter to top al Qaeda leaders as well as terrorists from numerous Pakistani and Central Asian terror groups.
The Haqqani Network is a Taliban group led by mujahedeen commander Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son Siraj. The Haqqanis are closely allied to al Qaeda and to the Taliban, led by Mullah Omar. Siraj Haqqani is the leader of the Miramshah Regional Military Shura, one of the Afghan Taliban's top four commands; he sits on the Taliban's Quetta Shura; and he is also is a member of al Qaeda's Shura Majlis. The Haqqanis are based on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border.
The US has targeted Siraj and other top-level Haqqani Network commanders since 2008. On Feb. 18, 2010, the US killed Mohammed Haqqani, another of the 12 sons of Jalaluddin Haqqani, in an airstrike in Danda Darpa Khel just outside Miramshah. Mohammed served as a military commander for the Haqqani Network. Siraj is believed to be sheltering in the neighboring tribal agency of Kurram to avoid the Predators.
The Haqqani Network operates on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border. The US military has heavily targeted the Haqqani Network's leadership in raids and airstrikes in the Afghan provinces of Khost, Paktia, and Paktika.
The Predator strikes, by the numbers
After a 10-day lull in strikes, the US has launched four Predator attacks in North Waziristan in the past two days. Yesterday the US killed 25 Taliban fighters in a pair of strikes in the Mir Ali area of North Waziristan. The US has conducted 11 airstrikes in Pakistan's tribal agencies since the beginning of December.
The pace of the strikes from the beginning of September has been unprecedented since the US began the air campaign in Pakistan in 2004. September's record number of 21 strikes was followed by 16 strikes in October and 14 more in November. The previous monthly high was 11 strikes in January 2010, after the Taliban and al Qaeda executed a successful suicide attack at Combat Outpost Chapman that targeted CIA personnel who were active in gathering intelligence for the Predator campaign in Pakistan. The suicide bombing at COP Chapman killed seven CIA officials and a Jordanian intelligence officer.
The US has carried out 116 attacks inside Pakistan in 2010, more than doubling the number of strikes in 2009. In late August 2010, the US exceeded 2009's strike total of 53 with a strike in Kurram. In 2008, the US carried out a total of 36 strikes inside Pakistan. [For up-to-date charts on the US air campaign in Pakistan, see LWJ Special Report, Charting the data for US airstrikes in Pakistan, 2004 - 2010.]
In 2010 the strikes have been confined almost exclusively to North Waziristan, where the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, the Haqqani Network, al Qaeda, and a host of Pakistani and Central and South Asian terror groups are based. All but 13 of this year's 116 strikes have taken place North Waziristan. Of the 13 strikes that have occurred outside of North Waziristan, seven took place in South Waziristan, five occurred in Khyber, and one took place in Kurram.
Since Sept. 1, 2010, the US has conducted 62 strikes in Pakistan's tribal agencies. The bulk of those attacks took place against the terror groups in North Waziristan, with 56 strikes in the tribal agency. Many of the strikes targeted cells run by the Islamic Jihad Group, which have been plotting to conduct Mumbai-styled terror assaults in Europe. A Sept. 8 strike killed an IJU commander known as Qureshi, who specialized in training Germans to conduct attacks in their home country.
The US campaign in northwestern Pakistan has targeted top al Qaeda leaders, al Qaeda's external operations network, and Taliban leaders and fighters who threaten both the Afghan and Pakistani states as well as support al Qaeda's external operations. [For a list of al Qaeda and Taliban leaders killed in the US air campaign in Pakistan, see LWJ Special Report, Senior al Qaeda and Taliban leaders killed in US airstrikes in Pakistan, 2004 - 2010.]
Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/12/us_predators_strike_13.php#ixzz19f6EseD4
Obama Gives Terror Suspects Access To Frozen Accounts
From Creeping Sharia:
Obama gives terror suspects access to frozen assets
Posted on December 28, 2010 by creeping
The likes of the ACLU and CAIR can now get funds directly from the terrorists they defend. From Judicial Watch:
Caving in to the demands of liberal civil rights groups, the Obama Administration has quietly amended a counterterrorism sanction so that accused terrorists can pay for their defense with assets frozen by the U.S. government.
The exemption to the government’s Global Terrorism Sanctions was made official this week by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which is responsible for enforcing economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security threats. The office operates under presidential national emergency powers and acts largely on international mandates.
Among its duties is to freeze the assets of individuals or groups engaged in terrorist activities. Under executive orders signed by both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the OFAC can confiscate the assets of suspected terrorists identified by the Treasury Secretary if the funds are in control of institutions regulated by the U.S.
That means that individuals charged with terrorism can’t access money to pay for attorneys, something that has long bothered the left. This week the Treasury Department gave in, making it possible for terrorism suspects whose assets have been frozen by Uncle Sam to use the money to pay for legal representation. Suspects must apply for a special license from the OFAC, which will make the cash disbursements.
The official amendment in the Federal Register says that the OFAC is adding “new general licenses to authorize U.S. persons to receive specified types of payment for certain authorized legal services.” This also includes a license authorizing the establishment of legal defense funds that collect donations from persons who are not suspected of terrorism.
It’s unlikely that the mainstream media will give this much coverage or that White House press releases will tout it. After all, the official notice in the Federal Registry says that “public participation” or “delay in effective date” are not applicable because the amendments involve a foreign affairs function and executive order.
Jim Kouri adds, Obama caves to pressure to bypass terror sanctions:
This latest instance of the Obama Administration assisting terrorists is not a surprise to many working in law enforcement or the intelligence community. For example, the issue of Attorney General Erich Holder’s past legal papers came up after some Republicans asked why lawyers who had previously done legal work for terror detainees now had jobs in the Justice Department, something President Barack Obama successfully avoided discussing, and something conveniently overlooked by a Justice Department now saturated with Holder colleagues whose work records show they defended terrorism suspects and ‘Gitmo’ detainees.
Attorney General Eric Holder didn’t tell the Senate Judiciary Committee about at least six Supreme Court Amicus briefs he prepared or supported, his office acknowledged in a letter Friday, including two urging the Court to reject the Bush administration’s attempt to try Jose Padilla as an enemy combatant.
Not only did Holder withhold papers regarding the legal work for Gitmo detainees, but many of his DOJ staff are also recused from Gitmo cases. Holder also has a long history of supporting terrorists going back to his push for clemency of Puerto Rican terrorists
Obama gives terror suspects access to frozen assets
Posted on December 28, 2010 by creeping
The likes of the ACLU and CAIR can now get funds directly from the terrorists they defend. From Judicial Watch:
Caving in to the demands of liberal civil rights groups, the Obama Administration has quietly amended a counterterrorism sanction so that accused terrorists can pay for their defense with assets frozen by the U.S. government.
The exemption to the government’s Global Terrorism Sanctions was made official this week by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which is responsible for enforcing economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security threats. The office operates under presidential national emergency powers and acts largely on international mandates.
Among its duties is to freeze the assets of individuals or groups engaged in terrorist activities. Under executive orders signed by both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the OFAC can confiscate the assets of suspected terrorists identified by the Treasury Secretary if the funds are in control of institutions regulated by the U.S.
That means that individuals charged with terrorism can’t access money to pay for attorneys, something that has long bothered the left. This week the Treasury Department gave in, making it possible for terrorism suspects whose assets have been frozen by Uncle Sam to use the money to pay for legal representation. Suspects must apply for a special license from the OFAC, which will make the cash disbursements.
The official amendment in the Federal Register says that the OFAC is adding “new general licenses to authorize U.S. persons to receive specified types of payment for certain authorized legal services.” This also includes a license authorizing the establishment of legal defense funds that collect donations from persons who are not suspected of terrorism.
It’s unlikely that the mainstream media will give this much coverage or that White House press releases will tout it. After all, the official notice in the Federal Registry says that “public participation” or “delay in effective date” are not applicable because the amendments involve a foreign affairs function and executive order.
Jim Kouri adds, Obama caves to pressure to bypass terror sanctions:
This latest instance of the Obama Administration assisting terrorists is not a surprise to many working in law enforcement or the intelligence community. For example, the issue of Attorney General Erich Holder’s past legal papers came up after some Republicans asked why lawyers who had previously done legal work for terror detainees now had jobs in the Justice Department, something President Barack Obama successfully avoided discussing, and something conveniently overlooked by a Justice Department now saturated with Holder colleagues whose work records show they defended terrorism suspects and ‘Gitmo’ detainees.
Attorney General Eric Holder didn’t tell the Senate Judiciary Committee about at least six Supreme Court Amicus briefs he prepared or supported, his office acknowledged in a letter Friday, including two urging the Court to reject the Bush administration’s attempt to try Jose Padilla as an enemy combatant.
Not only did Holder withhold papers regarding the legal work for Gitmo detainees, but many of his DOJ staff are also recused from Gitmo cases. Holder also has a long history of supporting terrorists going back to his push for clemency of Puerto Rican terrorists
Waking Up America
From AEI:
Waking Up America By Arthur Herman
New York Post
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
On the night of Dec. 29, 1940, 70 years ago, President Franklin D. Roosevelt went on the radio to awaken Americans to a looming darkness on the horizon, even as they sat snug and secure digesting their post-Christmas dinners.
He warned of a growing totalitarian threat in the world bent on creating a new global order, one with "no liberty, no religion, no hope." He spoke of the fall of France to the Nazis, of China invaded and Britain besieged. The idea of freedom itself was at peril.
It was up to Americans, he said, to reverse the tide of decline. "We must be the great arsenal of democracy" and put our "resources and talents into action" to face the still-distant threat.
After slumbering through the isolationist '30s, America finally awoke to the fact that it lived in a dangerous world in which no nation could live as an island--and that America's economic strength had to be matched by its military strength; indeed, the two were inseparable.
Today, we need a similar wakeup call.
The talk in Washington these days is about cutting back on defense to ease the budget and winding down the war in Afghanistan and our presence in Iraq. Our Defense secretary wonders openly why we need so many aircraft carriers. The most popular military analysts all argue that somehow our military can do more while spending less.
Once again, the forces of darkness are gathering--slowly but inexorably. It's true no world war is looming. But no one in December 1940 guessed that Pearl Harbor was coming in less than a year, either.
Europe isn't in flames as it was when FDR spoke, but it is in turmoil--and its future in doubt. The march of democracy around the world, for the first time in two decades, is in retreat. Rogue nations Iran and North Korea build their nuclear arsenals, as one round of diplomacy after another fails to halt them.
After slumbering through the isolationist '30s, America finally awoke to the fact that it lived in a dangerous world in which no nation could live as an island.Meanwhile, our two great adversaries during the Cold War, Russia and Communist China, grow their navies and arsenals and make their strategic presence felt around the world, even as ours recedes.
The trend is alarming. Our real defense budget--excluding the overhead costs of Iraq and Afghanistan--has shrunk to its lowest level compared to GDP, to less than 3.6 percent, compared to the average in time of peace of 5.7 percent. Even Bill Clinton before 9/11 managed 4.5 percent.
That's the bad news. The good news is that every time we reassert our strength, we also spur our economy. During World War II, our GDP virtually doubled. President Ronald Reagan's Pentagon spending in the '80s helped to fuel the most uninterrupted period of growth in American history. The George W. Bush years saw a similar growth of the defense budget while unemployment fell to less than 5 percent.
The truth is every dollar spent on defense goes into real hardware and real jobs, even union jobs. By one estimate, just a 5 percent boost in the Pentagon's operations and maintenance budget could create as many as 300,000 jobs. A similar boost in research and development for things like robotics, missile defense, new remote-guidance technology and cyberwarfare would reverberate through the economy and could boost our GDP by billions a year.
A strong military is our economic stimulus. By becoming strong and vigilant once more, and by allowing our military to rebuild and integrate emerging technologies with our existing forces, we can be a pillar of strength for the world--and for ourselves.
Dec. 29, 1940, marked the date when America, having lost its way, regained its confidence and found the tools to support democracy abroad and build a military second to none. An economy battered by depression and mismanagement from Washington regained its energies and roared back to life--and a world with tyranny looming on all sides found a beacon of hope in America and drew the material and spiritual tools for its salvation.
We're still the biggest economy in the world, just as we're still the defender of the sea lanes and guardian of global stability. We still have the finest business minds and engineers,and we are still the home of innovation, from missile defense and stealth technologies to Google, Apple and Oracle.
These are forces only waiting to be unleashed in 2011. As Roosevelt said, "We have every good reason for hope--hope for peace, yes, and hope for the defense of our civilization"--and for the cause of liberty and freedom.
Arthur Herman is a visiting scholar at AEI.
Waking Up America By Arthur Herman
New York Post
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
On the night of Dec. 29, 1940, 70 years ago, President Franklin D. Roosevelt went on the radio to awaken Americans to a looming darkness on the horizon, even as they sat snug and secure digesting their post-Christmas dinners.
He warned of a growing totalitarian threat in the world bent on creating a new global order, one with "no liberty, no religion, no hope." He spoke of the fall of France to the Nazis, of China invaded and Britain besieged. The idea of freedom itself was at peril.
It was up to Americans, he said, to reverse the tide of decline. "We must be the great arsenal of democracy" and put our "resources and talents into action" to face the still-distant threat.
After slumbering through the isolationist '30s, America finally awoke to the fact that it lived in a dangerous world in which no nation could live as an island--and that America's economic strength had to be matched by its military strength; indeed, the two were inseparable.
Today, we need a similar wakeup call.
The talk in Washington these days is about cutting back on defense to ease the budget and winding down the war in Afghanistan and our presence in Iraq. Our Defense secretary wonders openly why we need so many aircraft carriers. The most popular military analysts all argue that somehow our military can do more while spending less.
Once again, the forces of darkness are gathering--slowly but inexorably. It's true no world war is looming. But no one in December 1940 guessed that Pearl Harbor was coming in less than a year, either.
Europe isn't in flames as it was when FDR spoke, but it is in turmoil--and its future in doubt. The march of democracy around the world, for the first time in two decades, is in retreat. Rogue nations Iran and North Korea build their nuclear arsenals, as one round of diplomacy after another fails to halt them.
After slumbering through the isolationist '30s, America finally awoke to the fact that it lived in a dangerous world in which no nation could live as an island.Meanwhile, our two great adversaries during the Cold War, Russia and Communist China, grow their navies and arsenals and make their strategic presence felt around the world, even as ours recedes.
The trend is alarming. Our real defense budget--excluding the overhead costs of Iraq and Afghanistan--has shrunk to its lowest level compared to GDP, to less than 3.6 percent, compared to the average in time of peace of 5.7 percent. Even Bill Clinton before 9/11 managed 4.5 percent.
That's the bad news. The good news is that every time we reassert our strength, we also spur our economy. During World War II, our GDP virtually doubled. President Ronald Reagan's Pentagon spending in the '80s helped to fuel the most uninterrupted period of growth in American history. The George W. Bush years saw a similar growth of the defense budget while unemployment fell to less than 5 percent.
The truth is every dollar spent on defense goes into real hardware and real jobs, even union jobs. By one estimate, just a 5 percent boost in the Pentagon's operations and maintenance budget could create as many as 300,000 jobs. A similar boost in research and development for things like robotics, missile defense, new remote-guidance technology and cyberwarfare would reverberate through the economy and could boost our GDP by billions a year.
A strong military is our economic stimulus. By becoming strong and vigilant once more, and by allowing our military to rebuild and integrate emerging technologies with our existing forces, we can be a pillar of strength for the world--and for ourselves.
Dec. 29, 1940, marked the date when America, having lost its way, regained its confidence and found the tools to support democracy abroad and build a military second to none. An economy battered by depression and mismanagement from Washington regained its energies and roared back to life--and a world with tyranny looming on all sides found a beacon of hope in America and drew the material and spiritual tools for its salvation.
We're still the biggest economy in the world, just as we're still the defender of the sea lanes and guardian of global stability. We still have the finest business minds and engineers,and we are still the home of innovation, from missile defense and stealth technologies to Google, Apple and Oracle.
These are forces only waiting to be unleashed in 2011. As Roosevelt said, "We have every good reason for hope--hope for peace, yes, and hope for the defense of our civilization"--and for the cause of liberty and freedom.
Arthur Herman is a visiting scholar at AEI.
Suicide Assault Team Kills Mosul Emergency Police Chief
From The Long War Journal:
Dec 29, 2010 (yesterday)Suicide assault team kills Mosul emergency police chieffrom The Long War Journal A team of al Qaeda in Iraq suicide bombers stormed a police headquarters in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul today and killed a senior police officer who has targeted al Qaeda's top leaders.
Lieutenant Colonel Shamel Ahmed Ugla, the commander of the 1st Emergency Battalion in Mosul, and three other policemen were killed in the early morning attack after three members of a four-man suicide assault team penetrated security by slipping through a gap in the wall of the battalion's headquarters in Bab Sinjar in western Mosul. Police killed a fourth member of the suicide team before he could enter the police headquarters and detonate his vest.
One or more of the al Qaeda in Iraq suicide bombers, who were dressed in black and armed with assault rifles, detonated their vests after entering Ahmed's office. The blast leveled much of the building, trapping other policemen in the rubble.
In a statement issued on its website, the Islamic State of Iraq, al Qaeda's front group, claimed credit for the attack and said it had targeted Ugla five previous times.
"This day was the decisive one," the terror group said.
Ugla was targeted for his aggressive raids against al Qaeda's network in Mosul. Ugla was behind the Dec. 21 raid that killed Munadel Salem, al Qaeda's top leader in the northern city.
Since Salem was killed, Iraqi security forces have captured two top al Qaeda leaders in the area. Yesterday, police captured Dawoud Hassan Abdullah al Farhat, the leader of the Mohammed Rasul-Allah Brigades, an al Qaeda unit in Mosul. Farhat had previous held the rank of brigadier in the Iraqi police and commanded the police in the western city of Tal Afar.
On Dec. 27, police arrested Abdul Wahid Mustapha Ahmed Saed, al Qaeda's top "administrative official in western Ninewa province." Saed aided in suicide attacks in the region and provided false identities to al Qaeda operatives.
Today's attack in Mosul takes place just two days after al Qaeda in Iraq suicide bombers carried out a deadly attack outside the provincial headquarters in Ramadi in Anbar province. The first suicide bomber detonated a bus packed with explosives, while the second suicide bomber, dressed as a policeman, detonated his vest shortly afterward. The attack killed 17 people.
Background on the state of al Qaeda in Iraq
Al Qaeda in Iraq has suffered significant blows to its leadership at the hands of the Iraqi security forces this year [see LWJ report, Al Qaeda in Iraq is 'broken,' cut off from leaders in Pakistan, says top US general, for a list of senior leaders killed and captured up until June 2010]. But while unable to hold territory, the terror group has been able to reorganize and launch high-profile terror attacks against the Iraqi security forces and government institutions. The attacks have been less frequent over the past two years, however, and have failed to threaten the Iraqi state.
The recent attacks are being directed by Nasser al Din Allah Abu Suleiman, al Qaeda's new 'war minister' for Iraq. Suleiman was appointed in May after his predecessor, Abu Ayyub al Masri, was killed in a US raid along with Abu Omar al Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq. Also in May, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi al Hussieni al Qurshi was named the new emir of the Islamic State of Iraq, and Abu Abdullah al Hussieni al Qurshi, was named the deputy emir. [For more information on the identities of al Qaeda's top two leaders, see LWJ report, Al Qaeda in Iraq's security minister captured in Anbar.]
Al Qaeda in Iraq is supported primarily through its networks in eastern Syria. The al Qaeda ratlines, which move foreign fighters, money, and weapons, pass from eastern Syria through the northwestern Iraqi cities of Sinjar and Rabiah into Mosul.
Last year, al Qaeda's central leadership based in Pakistan reportedly sent a senior ideologue to Syria to partner with a dangerous operative who ran the network that funnels foreign fighters, cash, and weapons into western Iraq. Sheikh Issa al Masri is thought to have left Pakistan's tribal agency of North Waziristan and entered Syria in June 2009, where he paired up with Abu Khalaf, a senior al Qaeda operative who had been instrumental in reviving al Qaeda in Iraq's network in eastern Syria and directing terror operations in Iraq, a US intelligence official told The Long War Journal.
Although the US killed Abu Khalaf during a Jan. 22 raid in the northern city of Mosul, Sheikh Issa is alive and is believed to be based in Damascus and is protected by the Mukhabarat, Syria's secret intelligence service.
Sources:
•North Iraq Ninewa's Emergency Battalion Commander killed in Mosul, Voices of Iraq
•Suicide bombers kill police chief in Mosul attack, Reuters
•Al-Qaida kills Iraqi police commander on 6th try, The Associated Press
•Emergency force kills Islamic State of Iraq leader in Mosul, Voices of Iraq
•Al-Qaeda Emir (Prince) - ex Police Director of Talaafar town, arrested in Mosul, Voices of Iraq
•Al-Qaeda's Administrative Official arrested east of Mosul, Voices of Iraq
•Twin suicide bombings kill 17 in Iraq's Ramadi, Reuters
•Al Qaeda in Iraq is 'broken,' cut off from leaders in Pakistan, says top US general, The Long War Journal
•Al Qaeda appoints new 'war minister' for Iraq, The Long War Journal
•Al Qaeda in Iraq's security minister captured in Anbar, The Long War Journal
•US, Iraqi forces target Syrian-based network, The Long War Journal
•US kills senior Syrian-based al Qaeda facilitator in Mosul, The Long War Journal
Dec 29, 2010 (yesterday)Suicide assault team kills Mosul emergency police chieffrom The Long War Journal A team of al Qaeda in Iraq suicide bombers stormed a police headquarters in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul today and killed a senior police officer who has targeted al Qaeda's top leaders.
Lieutenant Colonel Shamel Ahmed Ugla, the commander of the 1st Emergency Battalion in Mosul, and three other policemen were killed in the early morning attack after three members of a four-man suicide assault team penetrated security by slipping through a gap in the wall of the battalion's headquarters in Bab Sinjar in western Mosul. Police killed a fourth member of the suicide team before he could enter the police headquarters and detonate his vest.
One or more of the al Qaeda in Iraq suicide bombers, who were dressed in black and armed with assault rifles, detonated their vests after entering Ahmed's office. The blast leveled much of the building, trapping other policemen in the rubble.
In a statement issued on its website, the Islamic State of Iraq, al Qaeda's front group, claimed credit for the attack and said it had targeted Ugla five previous times.
"This day was the decisive one," the terror group said.
Ugla was targeted for his aggressive raids against al Qaeda's network in Mosul. Ugla was behind the Dec. 21 raid that killed Munadel Salem, al Qaeda's top leader in the northern city.
Since Salem was killed, Iraqi security forces have captured two top al Qaeda leaders in the area. Yesterday, police captured Dawoud Hassan Abdullah al Farhat, the leader of the Mohammed Rasul-Allah Brigades, an al Qaeda unit in Mosul. Farhat had previous held the rank of brigadier in the Iraqi police and commanded the police in the western city of Tal Afar.
On Dec. 27, police arrested Abdul Wahid Mustapha Ahmed Saed, al Qaeda's top "administrative official in western Ninewa province." Saed aided in suicide attacks in the region and provided false identities to al Qaeda operatives.
Today's attack in Mosul takes place just two days after al Qaeda in Iraq suicide bombers carried out a deadly attack outside the provincial headquarters in Ramadi in Anbar province. The first suicide bomber detonated a bus packed with explosives, while the second suicide bomber, dressed as a policeman, detonated his vest shortly afterward. The attack killed 17 people.
Background on the state of al Qaeda in Iraq
Al Qaeda in Iraq has suffered significant blows to its leadership at the hands of the Iraqi security forces this year [see LWJ report, Al Qaeda in Iraq is 'broken,' cut off from leaders in Pakistan, says top US general, for a list of senior leaders killed and captured up until June 2010]. But while unable to hold territory, the terror group has been able to reorganize and launch high-profile terror attacks against the Iraqi security forces and government institutions. The attacks have been less frequent over the past two years, however, and have failed to threaten the Iraqi state.
The recent attacks are being directed by Nasser al Din Allah Abu Suleiman, al Qaeda's new 'war minister' for Iraq. Suleiman was appointed in May after his predecessor, Abu Ayyub al Masri, was killed in a US raid along with Abu Omar al Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq. Also in May, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi al Hussieni al Qurshi was named the new emir of the Islamic State of Iraq, and Abu Abdullah al Hussieni al Qurshi, was named the deputy emir. [For more information on the identities of al Qaeda's top two leaders, see LWJ report, Al Qaeda in Iraq's security minister captured in Anbar.]
Al Qaeda in Iraq is supported primarily through its networks in eastern Syria. The al Qaeda ratlines, which move foreign fighters, money, and weapons, pass from eastern Syria through the northwestern Iraqi cities of Sinjar and Rabiah into Mosul.
Last year, al Qaeda's central leadership based in Pakistan reportedly sent a senior ideologue to Syria to partner with a dangerous operative who ran the network that funnels foreign fighters, cash, and weapons into western Iraq. Sheikh Issa al Masri is thought to have left Pakistan's tribal agency of North Waziristan and entered Syria in June 2009, where he paired up with Abu Khalaf, a senior al Qaeda operative who had been instrumental in reviving al Qaeda in Iraq's network in eastern Syria and directing terror operations in Iraq, a US intelligence official told The Long War Journal.
Although the US killed Abu Khalaf during a Jan. 22 raid in the northern city of Mosul, Sheikh Issa is alive and is believed to be based in Damascus and is protected by the Mukhabarat, Syria's secret intelligence service.
Sources:
•North Iraq Ninewa's Emergency Battalion Commander killed in Mosul, Voices of Iraq
•Suicide bombers kill police chief in Mosul attack, Reuters
•Al-Qaida kills Iraqi police commander on 6th try, The Associated Press
•Emergency force kills Islamic State of Iraq leader in Mosul, Voices of Iraq
•Al-Qaeda Emir (Prince) - ex Police Director of Talaafar town, arrested in Mosul, Voices of Iraq
•Al-Qaeda's Administrative Official arrested east of Mosul, Voices of Iraq
•Twin suicide bombings kill 17 in Iraq's Ramadi, Reuters
•Al Qaeda in Iraq is 'broken,' cut off from leaders in Pakistan, says top US general, The Long War Journal
•Al Qaeda appoints new 'war minister' for Iraq, The Long War Journal
•Al Qaeda in Iraq's security minister captured in Anbar, The Long War Journal
•US, Iraqi forces target Syrian-based network, The Long War Journal
•US kills senior Syrian-based al Qaeda facilitator in Mosul, The Long War Journal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)