Tag: Islamic terrorism

More Benghazi Details; More Left-Wing Obfuscation

The New York Times has an in-depth report on the Benghazi incident from a reporter who went there and interviewed dozens of people on the ground. Quick summary:

Fifteen months after Mr. Stevens’s death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.

One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser.

The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda’s role to avoid undermining the president’s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.

The person they finger in the attack is Ahmed Abu Khattala and Ansar Al-Sharia. I would point out that, to many, distinguishing them from Al-Qaeda is academic. Ansar Al-Sharia are an Islamist organization that wants Sharia law implemented and are certainly on the same page as Al-Qaeda even if they are not technically affiliated. But the Times also shows that the US had ample signs that something very serious was about to go down in Libya and distinctly failed to account for it. The video was part of the motivation, but this appears to have mainly affected the timing of the attack. The Islamists were going to hit the US at some point.

As you might expect, the reaction to the Times piece is falling along partisan lines. Republicans are claiming it’s all a cover-up and the NYT is full of crap (although NYT’s reporting is based on far more witnesses (and fewer fraudulent ones) than the 60 Minutes report). Democrats are claiming vindication and that the Benghazi scandal is all a hoax. Ed Morrissey has a great take, pointing out that this confirms what Lee Stranahan has been saying for months.

In other words, the White House story that this was a demonstration that just got out of control was false. As we have discovered through Congressional testimony and the release of communications from that night, the White House and State Department knew immediately that it was a terrorist attack. If the YouTube video played a part in the motivation, it was nevertheless only possible because of a planned attack on an egregiously undefended facility, in the middle of a region controlled by Islamist militias, on the anniversary of 9/11 — when the US should have had its highest readiness.

In other words, this only addresses the relative import of the YouTube video, not any of the questions of the incompetence from State and the White House.

In short, we’re slowly converging on the reality somewhere between the two political poles.

  • Benghazi had become a hotbed of extremist activity and the US had ample reason to believe their personnel were in danger. Nevertheless, security was weak and heavily dependent on locals.
  • Ansar Al-Sharia, an organization not part of Al-Qaeda but sharing its goals, had planned to attack the US for a long time. The “Innocence of Muslims” video served as a spark, but an attack would have come at some point.
  • The first attack wound up with the security forces retreating and Stephens and Smith in a safe room. The attackers set the villa on fire and the smoke inhalation killed Smith and Stephens. The CIA response team arrived within 20 minutes. They rescued the security team and recovered Smith’s body. Stephens’ body was pulled out by sympathetic Libyans and not, contrary to initial reports, violated. It was taken to the hospital and then, eventually, to the airport where the Americans were secured.
  • A seven-man response team was quickly dispatched from Tripoli but ran into problems at the Benghazi airport. By that point, the Americans were in the CIA annex. The compound had come under sporadic initial attack, but this had stopped by the time the response team reached Benghazi airport.
  • About eight hours after the initial attack, shortly after the Tripoli team reached the CIA compound, it was attacked by mortar rounds which kill the two SEALS. The personnel were then evacuated to the airport and from there to Tripoli.
  • In short, both sides were full of it on some points. The Right Wing’s talking points that proved wrong: that Obama had real-time video of events, that the attack was continuous for eight hours, that no response was sent from Tripoli, that Stephens was raped or violated, that the video had nothing to do with what happened, that this was Al-Qaeda. The Left Wing’s talking points that proved wrong: that it was a spontaneous protest, that it was any kind of a protest, that all possible assets were used, that AQ-sympathizing elements had nothing to do with it, that his attack could not have been anticipated.

    In short, the Benghazi conspiracy theories are garbage (with the exception of speculation about the CIA’s presence) but the “there’s nothing to see here; move along” Left Wing knee-jerk defense is garbage too. We’re back to where we were on September 11, 2012: an incompetent State Department that left US personnel in a vulnerable position and then tried to pretend the awful events in Benghazi could not have been foreseen. By the time the attack happened, the die had been cast.

    Sorry, Obama Defense Derangement Syndrome sufferers. This is not a “vindication” of the President.

    60 Minutes Discovers Benghazi

    Sixty minutes is about a year late and a billion dollars short on this, but you should watch this video that basically destroys the White House’s long-debunked contention that the Benghazi attack could not have been foreseen. Several witnesses have now gone public with what they saw in the months and weeks leading up to the attack that night. Al-Qaeda has stated their intention to launch three attacks and carried out two of them. Al-Qaeda had been openly flying black flags in Benghazi for months. And yet the security in Benghazi remained heavily dependent on local militia who basically fled when the attack occurred.

    What happened that night almost becomes secondary. By the time the attack had started, the die was cast. It was only because of the courage of the scant military forces there that it wasn’t even worse.

    We recently had the thirtieth anniversary of the Beirut barracks bombing, an incident that bears more than a passing resemblance to this one. Warnings were ignored, the approach was not barricaded and the guards were under restrictive ROE. The details that have emerged from Benghazi show that we learned nothing from that. Our State Department and our befuddled President still fail to realize that, in regions of the world where terrorists walk free, any American installation is seen as a big fat target.

    Every day in this country, our phone calls are tracked and some are listened to. Every day, people are groped and harassed in airports despite classified admissions that airplanes are not a particularly high-priority target right now. And yet, when the State Department was warned that Al-Qaeda operatives were openly licking their chops in Benghazi, when they asked twice for more security, the State Department decided that a few locals were security enough.

    The political aspects of this will be hashed out in the years ahead. This should permanently end Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions, but that was also true six months ago. What I’m more interested in is whether anyone at State is going to learn the damned lesson and protect the assets that we necessarily place on the frontier between civilization and barbarism.

    Degrees Of Evil

    New information has been trickling through concerning the Westgate Mall attack in Nairobi, information that is absolutely chilling and I’ve been thinking about how we view terrorists in general. Some obvious questions come to mind. Granted all terrorists deserve to die (not imprisoned, mind you) but be removed from existence (better for them, better for us) but is the yardstick of American blood the only measure of urgency in going after these guys? Should the method, the targets or even the intent behind their murderous acts, should these weigh one way or the other in how passionate and resolved we are in their pursuit? Does a suicide bomber, say a 18 year old kid who has been fed a steady diet of “death to the infidels and the pig Jews” all his life by the local imam, who walks into a crowded marketplace and blows himself up along with all the innocents within a 50′ radius, is he on the same shitbag scale as his handler or the original imam? How about the Tsarnaev brothers, who knew better and had witnessed freedom first hand but still decided to mass murder, where do they stand on the evil meter?

    A diligent effort should be made to go after any and all terrorists, that’s for sure, but something changed, drastically, in Nairobi. See, unlike Mumbai, where the terrorists shot everyone indiscriminately, these guys went above and beyond. All the hostages were separated Entebbe style, Muslims over here and non Muslims over there, that is when the horrors began:

    Soldiers told of the horrific torture meted out by terrorists in the Nairobi mall massacre yesterday with claims hostages were dismembered, had their eyes gouged out and were left hanging from hooks in the ceiling.
    Men were said to have been castrated and had fingers removed with pliers before being blinded and hanged.
    Children were found dead in the food court fridges with knives still embedded in their bodies, it was claimed.

    Come to think of it, there was an element of this in Mumbai, I remember that Jewish couple,The Holtzbergs, they got special treatment above that of the other victims before they were murdered. But it was nothing like this, I wonder what Koran verses the attackers fell back on to justify this method of savagery.

    This kind of torturing the hostages, this is a sea-change from what we have seen in the past and I wonder if this is isolated to al Shabaab or can we expect this kind of behavior from now on.

    I guess I should not have expected much from the Nairobi police but this 4 day stand off reminded me of Munich and those bumbling stumbling law enforcement guys that could do nothing right and pretty much sealed the fate of those Israeli athletes. These guys decided to use RPG’s which brought down all 3 stories when stress columns were damaged.

    And I was surprised that only 5 terrorists were killed with 10 captured, some sources says 8 were captured

    Most of the defeated terrorists, meanwhile, were reportedly discovered ‘burnt to ashes’, set alight by the last extremist standing to try to protect their identities.

    Is wasn’t one last extremist but several, and your identities will easily by discovered since you didn’t have the balls to go down fighting.

    Yes, we do drone strikes in Somalia, but given the nature of this attack would Kenya be justified in go into Somalia the way we went into Afghanistan after 9-11? How much help should we give them? is al Shabaab now public enemy number one (they have bragged that this is only the opening salvo with more to come)? Is this the new strategy of terrorists regimes around the world, make it personal?

    The common folk like us, we are not privy to all the back channel communications between the Kenyan government and our own but in keeping with Obama’s self made persona of America’s great terror warrior ,”Yes, Mr. President, we know, OBL is dead and AQ is on the run” if there is any way we can lend a hand in taking care of that Somali roach problem they got, I say let’s roll. The African Union would welcome it, and any opportunity to garner some good will around the world (we sure could use it) should not be an opportunity wasted.

    A License to Kill

    Goodness me, that President Bush is evil. How could he possibly assert that he has the exclusive power to … oh … it’s President Obama? No way!

    Yes way.

    A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

    The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

    They also killed Awlaki’s 16-year-old son for reasons that remain nebulous. Greenwald:

    What has made these actions all the more radical is the absolute secrecy with which Obama has draped all of this. Not only is the entire process carried out solely within the Executive branch – with no checks or oversight of any kind – but there is zero transparency and zero accountability. The president’s underlings compile their proposed lists of who should be executed, and the president – at a charming weekly event dubbed by White House aides as “Terror Tuesday” – then chooses from “baseball cards” and decrees in total secrecy who should die. The power of accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner are all consolidated in this one man, and those powers are exercised in the dark.

    There are many problems with this outline (which is a reduced version of a much longer and still classified policy). The determination that someone is a “senior” Al-Quaeda leader and poses a threat is made entirely by the White House in total secrecy. We’re currently having an argument in the S&P thread about Obama using the power of the justice department to get his enemies. Do we trust them with this power?

    Second, the statement that this applies only to senior terrorist leaders who pose an imminent threat is garbage. Once you look past the Orwellian language, the memo eviscerates those headline requirements, noting that there is no minimum requirement. They don’t have to be a senior member. They don’t have to pose an imminent threat. Awlaki’s son was neither. The White House just has to decide that … well … this person needs killing.

    In other words, this is not a memo that narrowly defines the President’s power to unilaterally kill those that he considers threats. It massively expands it. It declares it to be essentially without bounds. He can order the killing of anyone anywhere in the world for reasons that can remain secret indefinitely.

    Now maybe this sound fine to a lot of people. But Sullum reminds us of something critical:

    The problem is that to accept this position, you have to put complete trust in the competence, wisdom, and ethics of the president, his underlings, and their successors. You have to believe they are properly defining and inerrantly identifying people who pose an imminent (or quasi-imminent) threat to national security and eliminating that threat through the only feasible means, which involves blowing people up from a distance. If mere mortals deserved that kind of faith, we would not need a Fifth Amendment, or the rest of the Constitution.

    Exactly. If we trust the government with the unaccountable power of life and death, why shouldn’t we trust it with the power to decide what speech is acceptable? Why not dispense with the commerce clause and trust it to only regulate commerce when necessary? Why not save money on all those jury trials and just trust that anyone they arrest is guilty of something? Actually, given the explosion of laws, we probably all are guilty of something.

    We spend a lot of time on this blog attacking Obama’s policies and competence. We accuse him of using the Justice Department to attack his enemies and advance his agenda. But we trust him to only kill the bad people?

    (Ironically, as all this is going on, we’re delivering F-16’s and M-1 tanks to Egypt. So while the President is assuming unlimited authority to kill Americans over possible dangers, we’re giving weapons to a national leadership that poses a much more serious and real danger. The Egyptians have promised to be nice. I think.)

    No President should have this power. Not Ronald Reagan. Not George Washington. Not Abraham Lincoln. Not Franklin Roosevelt. And certainly not Barack Obama. I can concede, perhaps, that in the global terrorism theater, it’s necessary to use drones for targeted killing. I can even accept, perhaps, that an American might be the recipient of this. What I can not accept is that this designation happens in complete secrecy with no accountability whatsoever. That we have to trust that our government won’t mix up a name (as they do with the no fly list), get bad intelligence (as the did with Iraq) or just got it completely fucking wrong (as they did with Maher Arar). Or that they won’t abuse that power to kill someone who really isn’t a threat but is, in some way, inconvenient to them.

    I don’t trust government. That’s one of the roots of my fundamental conservatism. If I’m not going to trust government to run my healthcare, why on Earth would I trust them with the power to secretly and unaccountably kill my fellow citizens?

    Update: Ta-Nehisi Coates, one of the few liberal Obama supporters who gets it:

    I don’t want to be thick-witted here. I understand that on some level a democracy generally elects human leaders who will not abuse the spirit of the law. I think Barack Obama is such a leader. That is for the historians to determine. But practically, much of our foreign policy now depends on the hope of benevolent dictators and philosopher kings. The law can’t help. The law is what the kings say it is.

    Lee described the Bush Administration as using “star chamber justice”. Bush had nothing on these guys.

    Drone Groaning

    Young Master Poosh asked me yesterday to check out a new study on the wisdom and effectiveness of the US’s use of drone strikes in Pakistan and other places.  I had my doubts because it sounded like something a Soros-affiliated group would come up with, but I’m always up for a good read.  Or even a bad one (send me shit!  I need ideas!).

    Anyhow, I was right.  It’s a left-wing academia thing assisted by Reprieve, known to me as a progressive grievance group.   But that got me more interested in reading it, not less.  After all, the Left has been pretty quiet about US tactics in the Global War on Terror (whatever that is) since, uh, well, I’m not entirely sure when they lost their curiosity about the appropriateness of our methods.   Weird.  At any rate, these fine liberals decided to start asking some questions that Congressional Democrats and their news media aren’t.

    You can read all about it in this PDF called Living Under Drones.  It’s lengthy, but the major points are:

    1. Drone strikes are killing civilians

    2. They are terrorizing the civilians who don’t get killed

    3. They don’t really work that well

    4. They’re probably illegal

    I think their research is actually quite good, assuming that their anonymous sources aren’t lying or fabricated.  I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt though.  At any rate, I am pleased to see that Obama and the press aren’t getting a pass from the same people who used to scream about Bush doing things like this.  On that basis alone, I take it on good faith.

    If I have one problem with the report, it’s that it offers no alternatives to using drones to hunt militants in Pakistan.  The entire report criticizes their use, but spends no time saying what (if anything) might work better.   What they ironically failed to note is that the same reasons why drones are the only option for knocking off militants in Pakistan are the exact same problems that hindered their own research for the report.

    Primary research in FATA is difficult for many reasons.

    First, it is very difficult for foreigners physically to access FATA, partly due to the Pakistani government’s efforts to block access through heavily guarded checkpoints, and partly due to serious security risks.

    Second, it is very difficult for residents of Waziristan to travel out of the region. Those we interviewed had to travel hundreds of kilometers by road to reach Islamabad or Peshawar, in journeys that could take anywhere from eight hours to several days, and which required passing through dozens of military and police checkpoint stops, as well as, in some cases, traveling through active fighting between armed non-state groups and Pakistani forces.

    Third, mistrust, often justifiable, from many in FATA toward outsiders (particularly Westerners) inhibits ready access to individuals and communities.

    Hmm.  It’s almost as if an area where the host government is uncooperative, road travel is insanely difficult, and the populace loathes outsiders might be ideal for covert, unmanned air operations.

    What the authors really want is more transparency on this program, so they say.   How are targets being selected?  Who are we really killing?  How did the Administration come to the conclusion that this was allowed by international law?  Good questions, but there’s no way that either the Obama Administration or Pakistan’s government can answer those questions and still have the program work effectively since we’re officially not really doing it to begin with.

    The drone program is one of those few things that the Obama Administration has done that I like.  When you blow the bad guys up, you get no messy problems that go with capturing them like indefinite detention, interrogation, and trials.  The same people who complained about those activities were either unaware of or willing to accept the fact that killing suspected terrorists on sight was the only thing that could be done if we were to keep the GWoT going.

    Unfortunately, this method may be too perfect for the US government, you know?   Total secrecy, no risk of losing any pilots and having to explain why one is on Pakistan television with a gun to his head, no explanations of who was killed or why; just an assurance that “he was a militant and we totally didn’t kill any innocent people.”   Note that this has even been done to an American citizen (and total dirtbag, but still).  I don’t think we should give the Administration a complete license to kill on the soil of countries we’re not at war with (yet) with so little accountability or oversight.

    Above all, I’ll say that the report has me convinced that the drone strikes probably have killed plenty of innocent people and are both legally and ethically questionable.  However, I don’t think we’re anywhere close to being able to stop doing them.  Americans approve of drone strikes–and the rest of Obama’s counter-terrorism strategy–in principle, like it when al Qaeda and Taliban guys get zilched out, and see no risk in doing any of it.   But at least somebody’s asking questions.  Maybe it’s time to re-evaluate what we’re hoping to accomplish over there and how we’re doing it.  When you ask me to believe that this Administration should be trusted on terrorism matters, remember that Benghazi has shown us that it simply cannot.

    The Fake Shiek

    All right:

    Authorities say there were not just one but two Muslim men plotting a terrorist attack last week in Chicago. Both allegedly scouted targets. Both talked at length about their plans.

    But by the time the FBI’s fake car bomb was parked outside the Cactus Bar & Grill in Chicago on Friday night, only Adel Daoud, 18, was there to push the button on what he thought was a detonator. Only Daoud was under arrest.

    So what happened to the second person, an unidentified male who Dauod referred to as his “sahaba,” an Arabic term meaning companion?

    Federal court records reveal a leader at a local mosque played a vital role in convincing the second man to abandon his plans for jihad just weeks before the would-be attack.

    Undercover FBI agents, meanwhile, continued to lean heavily on Daoud. The agents supplied him with almost everything he needed to plan the attack and told him they were relaying messages from a foreign sheik who wanted to know if he was truly prepared to carry it out.

    Apparently, the unnamed mosque leader overheard the boys discussing jihad and came down on them like a ton of bricks. So did Daoud’s father. It’s not clear if Individual C actually was brought to the light or just decided to save his jihad for military targets.

    I’m sorry, but this whole exercise — which is one of a number the FBI has run over the last few years — seems a waste of resources. Find some kid talking up jihad, contact him, motivate him, provide him with a fake bomb then arrest him when he tries to detonate it? The FBI came up with, like, 98% of the “plot’. Wouldn’t those resources be better used identifying more potential dangerous people and just keeping an eye on them? That might actually lead you somewhere — to an actual terror cell or a pipeline of support from the Middle East. This just crosses me as finding some dumb kid and building him up into a headline-grabbing arrest.

    An Act of War?

    Isn’t that what this is?

    The US ambassador to Libya is among four Americans killed in an attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, President Barack Obama has confirmed.

    Unidentified armed men stormed the grounds overnight amid uproar among Muslims over a US-produced film said to insult the Prophet Muhammad.

    They shot at buildings and threw handmade bombs into the compound.

    It is still unclear how the ambassador, J Christopher Stevens, and the others actually died.

    CBS is reporting that the staff were moved after the initial attacks but their location was betrayed by Libyan guards.

    Right now, the situation is very fluid. Ansar Al-Sharia, an offshoot of Al-Qaeda, is claiming credit for the attacks. But it’s not clear exactly what went on. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is calling for peaceful protests. We’ll see how that goes.

    All over some obscure privately-funded movie.

    What is clear is that American soil has been attacked and an American official killed. The exact response can be debated. For example, if we really believe that the Libyan government had nothing to do with this, we can work with them to kill the fuckers.

    But a response will be coming. There is simply no alternative.

    Update: It’s probably been taken down now, but a video trailer of the offending film is floating around on youtube. I watched a few minutes. If this is what has provoked the riots, it’s ridiculous. As my brother said, it’s just an excuse. The “film” wouldn’t pass muster as a high school play. Honestly, Maons was more professionally made.

    Liberal flip-flop on terrorists and constitutional rights.

    In a clean reversal of what the left told us all during the hate filled 8 years of Boosh-Hitler’s reign of terror about how the US constitution should apply to everyone, including terrorists at Club Gitmo that needed to be tried in civilian court, where Holder also guaranteed guilty verdicts I remind you reader, we now find out that Holder thinks terrorists are no longer eligible for constitutional protection now that his boss wants the right to just shoot them dead. Let me first point out how happy I am that Holder and Obama have seen the light and finally discovered that extending constitutional protection to enemy combatants at war with you that specifically hide behind the guise of being a civilian until they can strike at you is suicidal and stupid. I knew that once they had to deal with the mess and the consequences they would see the light. Reality still wins out sometimes.

    Now for the fun part, and that is bashing the hypocrisy and pointing out how dangerous the left really is. By now it should be obvious that the only reason they wanted to extend constitutional protection to terrorist when Bush was president was because they felt it would undermine his administration and yield them potential political gains either way. By “they” I mean the cynical leftist power mongers like Obama and Holder that pretended to be morally superior and advocating that constitutional protection be given to terrorists when it brought them political advantage only to reverse themselves now that they stand to reap the fruits of their earlier stance. These people are beyond scumbags. They pretended to be for this insane concept that produced all kinds of problems for the people fighting the Islamist radicals and put American lives in danger, telling everyone that it was out of some higher moral reasoning and lofty idealism, but now that their asses are in the cross hairs and this stance is inconvenient, we find out that it all was for show and pure personal gain. However they didn’t stop at that:

    Holder said in a speech at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago that the government is within its rights to kill citizens who are senior leaders in al-Qaeda or affiliate groups who pose an “imminent threat” of attack against the USA and whose capture is “not feasible.”

    “Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a U.S. citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack,” Holder said, according to a text of his speech. “In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force.”

    Get that? Not only do terrorists not get that constitutional protection these leftist twits once, when it hurt the other side – and I should point out so harshly criticized the previous administration for doing – were for, yet now are against, because it hurts them, but they take it one step further and make the case that citizens that they deem to be terrorists are out of luck too. Look, I believe no terrorist should be granted any kind of constitutional or Geneva Convention protection, especially when they are financed and harbored by foreign entities that are hostile to our way of life, and indubitably they all seem to fall in that category. I also believe we need to start killing traitors, and someone that joins the terrorists and declares war on the US is a traitor, like the constitution told us we should. But I also understand the legitimate concern some have with this practice/power that it can and will be abused, but my bet is that the abuse, as we see now, will come from the power centers on left, which as I pointed out already complained really hard about it then, but now are mostly silent when it gets expanded to include citizens too. And that is fucking hypocritical.

    Anyway, their reversal seems to come from this:

    The attorney general’s remarks come as civil rights advocates have condemned such killings, including the fatal military drone strike in September against Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born leader of al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen. U.S. government officials have asserted that al-Awlaki helped direct the failed Christmas Day bombing of a commercial airliner over Detroit in 2009 and the failed effort to blow up U.S. cargo planes with explosives planted in printer cartridges in 2010.

    Awalaki needed killing. I applaud Obama for ordering that hit. There is no doubt this guy was an enemy of this country, worked hard for the other side, and had blood on his hands. Awalaki even told us so himself. Maybe the people that are angry he was shot by a drone have a point that he every attempt to capture him instead was not exhausted, but considering the ridiculous stance the left took on terrorist and their treatment as prisoners of war, I can see why Obama and Holder, staring at having to deal with that problem themselves, decided that killing this guy was probably less of a headache for them. We need to remain vigilant though. I would not put it past leftists like Obama and Holder to take this a step further and declare Rush Limbaugh a terrorist, then have on of those drones they have now flying on US soil hit him with a hellfire missile. After all, they mean well unlike that cowboy Bush, whom I do have to point out never did anything like this, despite the lefts beliefs that he would be capable of far worse, while Obama did. And no, that wasn’t because the left was vigilant and prevented Bush from doing bad things, despite how hard they pretend that was the case. Most of them are however now unconcerned when one of their own did what they would have found intolerable from the other side and portends to go much further. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

    Jihad is for SUCKERS!

    That is the only conclusion I can make from Osama bin Laden’s advice to his nearest relatives. The man who has been the poster recruited for the death cultist told his relatives the following:

    Osama Bin Laden told his children to live peacefully in the West where they would get a good education, his brother-in-law has revealed. Zakaria al-Sadah, whose sister is the fifth wife of the Al-Qaeda leader, said Bin Laden did not want his children and grandchildren following in the same path of terrorism like him. ‘He told his own children and grandchildren, go to Europe and America and get a good education,’ according to an interview with Sadah in The Sunday Times.

    WTF? Go to evil Europe and America and get an education and avoid Jihad? Seriously? Well yeah, seriously. I am not surprised by bin Laden’s advice. One of the first things I asked when the whole concept of terrorism & the use of death by a lunatic that commits suicide in the process was explained to me, was to ask why the leaders of this movement never where the ones doing the dying, but stupid impressionable kids did. People like Osama are quick to tell people they do not care about all that nonsense they use to sell jihad, but they are never going to put their own kids in harms way. For them, well the men folk amongst his children, I guess, bin Laden wanted exactly the things the death cultists found so objectionable about the west: education and opportunity. I guess like communism, Islamism is full of stupidity and contradictions.

    The Iranian Plot

    Busy day, but I’ll put up a quick post on this:

    FBI and DEA agents have disrupted a plot to commit a “significant terrorist act in the United States” tied to Iran, federal officials told ABC News today.

    The officials said the plot included the assassination of the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, Adel Al-Jubeir, with a bomb and subsequent bomb attacks on the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington, D.C. Bombings of the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Buenos Aires, Argentina, were also discussed, according to the U.S. officials.

    U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in an announcement today that the plan was “conceived, sponsored and was directed from Iran” by a faction of the government and called it a “flagrant” violation of U.S. and international law.

    This is developing very rapidly. I’m a bit skeptical since Iran has never done anything like this before. If they wanted to hit Israel or Saudi Arabia, they have Hezbollah for that. It’s not clear what exactly went on here — whether the Iranian leadership was involved or if this was a rogue Quds element. If the former, this could be construed as an act of war.

    I suspect that this will be downplayed whether it was an official act or not. Our armed forces are spread to thin for a military response to Iran. But hang on to your hats.