Pages

Showing posts with label Pakistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pakistan. Show all posts

Saturday, October 9, 2010

Ilyas Kashmiri MI5 Target: Ilyas Kashmiri Terror Cells Targeted by MI5

After a warning from the U.S., Britain's MI5 counter-intelligence is going after Mohammed Ilyas Kashmiri's terror cells believed to have already been dispatched to the U.K. Kashmiri is reportedly acting under orders from Osama Bin Laden, and has sent terror cells to the West to make Mumbai-style attacks in Europe.

Ilyas Kashmiri (perhaps in disguise)


Kashmiri claims to be an accomplice, and involved in the the murderer of Daniel Pearl by Omar Saeed Sheikh.
Some senior Al Qaeda members who were associated with Kashmiri were killed by a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan on September 8, including a Briton named as Adbul Jabbar, who had been tasked with leading an Al Qaeda group in the UK.
Kashmiri had more than a few contacts with American David Coleman Headley and Canadian Tahawwar Hussein Rana, both of Chicago. Headley was arrested in October 2009 and held on charges of conspirace to commit terrorist acts and conspiracy to provide material support to terrorist groups. Testimony from Headley stated that he was planning to meet Kashiri in Pakistan in October 2009. He was arrested at O'Hare Airport preparing to board a flight.



Tahawwar Hussein Rana owns several businesses, including First World Immigration Services in Chicago, New York and Toronto, a halal meat plant and a grocery store. He is charged with one count of conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorism groups. Both Headley and Rana were born in Pakistan.

In January 2010, the FBI said Headley also worked as an agent for First World Immigration Services. The U.S. Attorney General's office was "working to determine the immigration status of people who entered the U.S. with the agency's help, with false documents. In an Internet search, First World Immigration Services appears to still be operating.

The photo above of Headley and Rana comes courtesy of Cao's Blog who has the details on these two men and their operation, including the immigration scam wrought by First World Immigration Services.

France and Germany have also elevated their terror watch, with the U.K. set at 'severe.'

Mohammed Ilyas Kashiri was believed in a U.S. drone strike in 2009, but gave an interview to a Pakistani reporter in early to mid-2009. He was charged in abstentia in the U.S. in January 2010 and of plotting international attacks. Read an in-depth report about the Osama Bin Laden and Ilyas Kashmiri connection at Long War Journal.

Posted by Maggie @ Maggie's Notebook


Linked by Conservative Hideout - thanks Matt!

Sunday, August 1, 2010

Mullah Omar in Pakistan Custody?

Some Taliban believe the leader of their jihad, Mullah Mohammed Omar, may be in the custody of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). With more proof this week that Pakistan plays it both ways with the U.S. and Afghanistan, perhaps we should ask if Omar, known as the One-Eyed Sheikh, is being hosted by Pakistan. This Newsweek article takes a look at the dynamics depending on Pakistan to root out Taliban, while providing the U.S. questionable intelligence.

Omar infamously brought back the Pashtun tribal practices of unkempt beards for men, no education for women, no music, no photos or drawings...even no kite flying. This article is an interesting look at Mullah Omar, the illusive warlord.

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Ten Under Arrest in Times Square Car Bomb: Fertilizer in Faisal Shahzad Home

Fox News is reporting that 10 are now under arrest in the Times Square failed car bombing. Eight in custody in Pakistan, and perhaps 2 in the States, which may have been with Shahzad as he tried to leave the country. Two are said to be blood relatives, but it is unclear where they are detained. A news conference is minutes away. Continuing updates as available.

Faisal Shahzad

Also reporting that fifteen (15) bags of green fertilizer were found in this home/apartment, along with fireworks labeled "Silver Salutes," which are similar to M-80's.

ABC FBI recovered a shopping center surveillance tape with Shahzad test driving the car he paid cash for and loaded the bombs into. Shahzad reportedly had the windows of the Nissan Pathfinder used in Times Square, tinted.

Related and Background:

Faisal Shahzad Mirandized after questioning.

Eric Holder Lies: UAE Notifies US of Shahzad on Flight?

Faisal Shahzad is Democrat? Rush says Faisal Shahzad is Registered Democrat

Faisal Shahzad Naturalized in 2009: Huma Mian is Faisal Shahzad's Wife

Faisal Shahzad or Shahzad Faisal Arrested in Times Square Car Failed Bombing

Times Square Car Bomber Name Mystery 

Ten Under Arrest in Times Square Car Bomb: Fertilizer in Faisal Shahzad Home

Bloomberg Katie Couric: Times Square Car Bomber Deranged - Didn't like Health Care

Senator Inhofe's Office on SB3081 - Holding Americans Indefinitely without trial

John McCain SB 3081: Hold American's Indefinitely without Trial









Faisal Shahzad Naturalized in 2009: Huma Mian is Faisal Shahzads Wife

Faisal Shahzad and his wife, a Pakistani, son and daughter, disappeared last May, according to a neighbor. MSNBC reports that his Shahzad's name is Huma Mian. Shahzad disappeared first. The bank foreclosed on their Shelton, Connecticut home and Shahzad has been living in a Bridgeport, Connecticut apartment. Brenda Thurman, the neighbor, said the family was friendly, but a little odd, and frequently dressed in traditional Muslim clothing. See two videos below. Updates as available.

Faisal Shahzad


Faisal Shahzad and unidentified woman and child


The photo of Shahzad and the woman and child is from MSNBC, which says it is a Facebook photo.

If you missed the news last night, Shahzad, a Pakistani-born, naturalized American citizen, whose name was first reported as Shahzad Faisal, boarded United Arab Emirates Flight 201 to Dubai, when apprehended. The flight had taxied, but returned to the gate and Shahzad was arrested. Obviously Shahzad was not on a no-fly list, or the United Arab Emirates ignored it if he did show up. MSNBC is reporting Shahzad was naturalized less than one year ago. Other reports say he was arrested before he boarded the flight, but the general consensus is that he did make it onto the flight.

The feds found components from the bomb making equipment in a car he parked at JFK, and a 9 mm handgun with ammunition clips. He apparently was renting an apartment in Bridgeport (sans wife and children) where more bomb components were found, including a box that had contained the alarm clocks used as a detonator timer.

Pakistani police told NBC that Shahzad arrived in Karachi, Pakistan on July 3, 2009, and returned to the States on August 8th, 2009. From Karachi, it is believed he traveled to Peshawar on the Afghanistan border. The same source reports Shahzad has just recently returned from another trip to Pakistan which resulted in a 5-month stay.



Neighbor talks about the Shahzad family





Thanks to Reaganite RepublicanLeft Coast Rebel and The Lonely Conservative.



Related and Background:

 Eric Holder Lies: UAE Notifies US of Shahzad on Flight?
 
 
Faisal Shahzad Mirandized after questioning.

Faisal Shahzad Charged with Treason? Can His Citizenship be Revoked 

Eric Holder Lies: UAE Notifies US of Shahzad on Flight?

Faisal Shahzad is Democrat? Rush says Faisal Shahzad is Registered Democrat

Ten Under Arrest in Times Square Car Bomb: Fertilizer in Faisal Shahzad Home


Faisal Shahzad Naturalized in 2009: Huma Mian is Faisal Shahzad's Wife

Faisal Shahzad or Shahzad Faisal Arrested in Times Square Car Failed Bombing

Times Square Car Bomber Name Mystery 


Senator Inhofe's Office on SB3081 - Holding Americans Indefinitely without trial

John McCain SB 3081: Hold American's Indefinitely without Trial





Sunday, May 2, 2010

Pakistan Taliban Claims Credit for Times Square Car Bomb

I just heard a live report from Fox News that a Taliban website in Pakistan is claiming credit for the failed Times Square car bomb found yesterday. More when available.

Sunday, March 7, 2010

The Consequences of Refusing to Profile

The consequences of refusing to profile:

The top U.S. diplomat in Pakistan says the Obama administration does not know how many Americans might have disappeared overseas to train with al-Qaida or other terrorist groups.
The number is not thought to be large, but Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson outlined a possible "nightmare scenario" — people holding U.S. passports receiving terrorist training then returning legally to the U.S. to commit violent acts.
She said in a speech Friday to the Pacific Council in Los Angeles that the U.S. is working with Pakistan and other governments to figure out how to identify such people.
She said after the speech "there are more out there than we know about."
Young Arab men flock from the U.S. with their American passports to Islamic countries. They can legally return whenever they want. We have no databases on these men to track a pattern, even though we know all Islamic jihad is waged by young Arab men. The consequences of refusing to profile: we haven't a clue to the identities or numbers of radicalized Americans, but we know they are out there.

Friday, February 12, 2010

Biden Ignores Operation Moshtarak: Biden Shivers over Pakistan

As thousands of troops launched a huge offensive in Helmand Province, Afghanistan today, Vice President Joe Biden wanted to talk about our enemies, but not those in Afghanistan. He wanted to talk about Pakistan.

 
U.S. Marine affixes a mortar round 
during a helicopter-borne assault
near Marja, Afghanistan
Photo credit: Sgt. Brian Tuthill 


I understand that Pakistan is a nuclear country, but really, on the day that Operation Moshtarak descends on Majah, Afghanistan, he should have kept quiet...saved it for a few more days, or...at least acknowledged that at the minute he is once again gaffing, our finest are doing the job that few want to do.

Biden and Obama sat in the Senate and voted against everything that would have helped President Bush end Iraq quicker, perhaps make greater strides in Afghanistan and take care of Iran. Perhaps had he taken the Taliban more seriously, Pakistan would not on the burner at this moment.

 

Marines identifying targets as Taliban fighters approach from Marja
Photo credit Sgt. Brian Tuthill


Democrat resistance is the reason this country did not fight a full-out war with gusto. They sniped and threatened and called Bush a war monger. It is amazing he was able to accomplish what he did. Bush walked on eggshells after Liberals deserted the ship and cried "Bush lied."

Just a mention, was all Biden had to do, before he flipped off Afghanistan. This foolish Vice President, supposedly a foreign policy expert, is wrong all the time

As Michael Rubin shows, Biden has fared no better when it comes to Iran. According to Rubin:
Biden's unyielding pursuit of "engagement" with Iran for more than a decade has made it easier for Tehran to pursue its nuclear program, while his partisan obsession with thwarting the Bush administration has led him to oppose tough sanctions against hard-liners in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. (more excellent commentary at PowerLineBlog)
Going back to 2005, "Biden accused of 'double talk' on Iran. This from Jerome Corsi:
...Biden's words should be assessed in the context of his "long track record of appeasement and double talk on the Iran nuclear risk."

"The mullahs have known that Biden is their No. 1 go-to guy in the Senate whenever they want their bidding done to fool the American people," Corsi charges.

In his book, Corsi names Biden, along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton as recipients of funds from the "pro-mullah lobby" in the U.S.

While there always has been debate over whether to engage or isolate rogue regimes, Biden's concilatory approach to Tehran is especially dangerous, asserts Corsi.

"He's being played for a fool and doesn't recognize that that strategy failed in North Korea, and it's going to fail here again," he said. "What's he going to do, act surprised when the mullahs make a bomb?"
He once referred to Afghanistan and Pakistan as the "superhighway of terror"...where his helicopter was "forced down" "with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains." Sounds like the then Senator saw some action from the Taliban, doesn't it? Maybe the aircraft was underfire, but...no. There was snowstorm. The helicopter landed safely. No one was hurt. The enemy was huddled in some cave and likely didn't know these big bad boys of the US Senate (Sens. Hagel and Kerry) were in their area.

National Review has a good article summing up Every-Which-Way Joe and his exercises in "folly and self-contradiction."
As Biden so frequently pointed out on the campaign trail, a powerful vice president can be “very dangerous.” This is especially the case when a vice president has a track record like Joe Biden’s.
I can't top that.

Linked by Storm'n Norm'n - Biden the Iranian Medal of Honor Winner - Thank You!

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Obama Uganda Gays: Bashing Christians- Ignoring Islamic Hate: Obama National Prayer Breakfast Transcript

President Obama and Hillary Clinton both spoke briefly at the National Prayer Breakfast about Ugandan legislation to make homosexuality a crime in Uganda, a crime that could draw the death penalty for "serial offenders." The hidden message is: Christians are behind the Ugandan bill to oppress gays, but he makes no mention of the most torrid gay-haters of all time - Islam. Bash Christians at the National Day of Prayer breakfast, ignore Islamic hate - go figure. See the transcript of Obama's Prayer Breakfast speech below commentary.

Religion in Uganda is divided almost equally between Catholics and Protestants, with 42% each. Twelve percent of the population is Muslim. This Ugandan bill was introduced by David Bahati, who may ties with a controversial Christian group known as The Family. Throughout Islam, homosexuality is punishable by death, although that punishment is not always carried out. Eighty-three countries have laws against homosexuality. Of the 83, 26 are Muslim countries. Seven countries carry the death penalty for "homosexual acts," but...Sharia Law allows the death penalty, at all times.

Obama's message today was subtle. You may have missed it. Leave it to Barack Obama to put the spotlight on Christianity, when it comes to the oppression of gays, but never mentions the heinous crimes against homosexuals by Muslim countries - the only countries where the call for discrimination and, often death, is loud and clear.

Homosexuals die in Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and thoughtout the Muslim world. Has the President ever condemned them? Iran's President Achmadinejad recently said there "are no homosexuals in Iran." Here's why.

If gay communities everywhere were to be a part of the President's comments today, then it was appropriate to bring up Uganda's Anti-Homosexual legislation, specifically because it calls for the death penalty, but why not call out Islam, and it's routine torture, imprisonment, and death of gays. Why not ask our Nation to pray for the safety of homosexuals throughout the world, and from the podium at the National Day of Prayer Breakfast, call out Iran, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, where the citizens often take over the punishment, saving the government the bother.

In today's speech, more than once, he hinted at Christian intolerance. Who do you think he is talking about with this quote:

For centuries, entire religions have been persecuted, all in the name of perceived righteousness.
Citing the "Golden Rule" and the words of Jesus to 'Love our neighbors as we love ourselves," he quoted an Islamic hadith that cites brotherhood, but ignores that non-believers cannot be brothers with a Muslim. He said there is no religion having a central tenant of hate...but ignores the fact that jihad is called for against any non-believer. He ignores that you and I are non-believers.

Off-topic only a slight bit, but nevertheless relevant, is Obama's failure to call out Palestinian laws that call for the extinction of Jews...the death of Jews. It's no different than the call for death to homosexuals. While demanding a two-state solution in Palestine, with Israel giving up their land in exchange for a peaceful relationship with Palestinians, has Obama, or our State Department, pointed out that Palestinian Constitutions and Charters simply do not allow such a relationship with Israel... or admitted that the "solution" is folly because of the unmitigated hatred from one people toward another people? No he has not.

Other comments in this speech are just as disingenuous. He said our faith requires us not only to believe:
...but to do - to give something of ourselves for the benefit of others and the betterment of our world.
He thinks we do not give, yet the records show that he and Michelle gave next to nothing in years 2000-2004, even though he was an Illinois Senator for three of these year. In 2005 he gave 4% and in 2006 6.7% of his adjusted gross income - as he eyed the presidential campaign trail for 2007. See The TaxProf Blog for how uncharitable this power couple were. And now he denigrates our lack of giving something of ourselves.

In Obama's new budget released this week, he is trying to reduce or do away with tax deductions for charitable giving, and in a speech he accused parents of spending tuition money on gambling in Las Vegas!  He thinks we do nothing! The betterment of our world, in The Time of Obama, is directing and instructing ACORN, and moving incredible powers into the hands of organizations like them. Believe me, the agenda here is to force all "giving" from the government. if passed, the new budget will bring $291 billion to government coffers, from what was once a deduction to you, over the next ten years.  Congress shot this down early last year. Here it is back again.
 The White House is expecting to collect an additional $291 billion over the next decade by reducing the write-off for families earning over $250,000 despite the fact Congress roundly rejected such a measure last year. While the administration is portraying this as a populist move, experts have said the end result will be a significant blow to charities and non-profits already reeling in the midst of the recession.

Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center said the rule change would make it about 10 percent more expensive for individuals affected to donate to charity. He estimated that would correspond to a $10 billion drop in donations out of the $300 billion Americans give annually.
But here is Obama's real agenda, his secret agenda: enslave the people. Make them come to the government for everything:
Last year the Obama administration defended the move, claiming that the $100 million included in the Recovery Act for charities and non-profits would help cover the gap, along with the natural rise in donations following the economic recovery. Those arguments will be even tougher to make this year with the country still mired in double-digit unemployment and no second stimulus for charities in the works.
I think that can be a naive view, that charities will be specifically helped by getting potential government dollars instead of private dollars they are getting right now,” Riley said. “The idea that private money will be replaced by growth that may or may not happen, government programs that may or may not happen, seems at best a risky bet.”
Okay, that's my rant. Here's the transcript:
Good morning. I want to thank the Co-Chairs of this breakfast, Representatives Heath Shuler and Vernon Ehlers. I’d also like to thank Tony Blair for coming today, as well as our Vice President, Joe Biden, members of my Cabinet, members of Congress, clergy, friends, and dignitaries from across the world.

Michelle and I are honored to join you in prayer this morning. I know this breakfast has a long history in Washington, and faith has always been a guiding force in our family’s life, so we feel very much at home and look forward to keeping this tradition alive during our time here.

It’s a tradition that I’m told actually began many years ago in the city of Seattle. It was the height of the Great Depression, and most people found themselves out of work. Many fell into poverty. Some lost everything.

The leaders of the community did all that they could for those who were suffering in their midst. And then they decided to do something more: they prayed. It didn’t matter what party or religious affiliation to which they belonged. They simply gathered one morning as brothers and sisters to share a meal and talk with God.

These breakfasts soon sprouted up throughout Seattle, and quickly spread to cities and towns across America, eventually making their way to Washington. A short time after President Eisenhower asked a group of Senators if he could join their prayer breakfast, it became a national event. And today, as I see presidents and dignitaries here from every corner of the globe, it strikes me that this is one of the rare occasions that still brings much of the world together in a moment of peace and goodwill.

I raise this history because far too often, we have seen faith wielded as a tool to divide us from one another - as an excuse for prejudice and intolerance. Wars have been waged. Innocents have been slaughtered. For centuries, entire religions have been persecuted, all in the name of perceived righteousness.

There is no doubt that the very nature of faith means that some of our beliefs will never be the same. We read from different texts. We follow different edicts. We subscribe to different accounts of how we came to be here and where we’re going next - and some subscribe to no faith at all.

But no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.

We know too that whatever our differences, there is one law that binds all great religions together. Jesus told us to "love thy neighbor as thyself." The Torah commands, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow." In Islam, there is a hadith that reads "None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." And the same is true for Buddhists and Hindus; for followers of Confucius and for humanists. It is, of course, the Golden Rule - the call to love one another; to understand one another; to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.

It is an ancient rule; a simple rule; but also one of the most challenging. For it asks each of us to take some measure of responsibility for the well-being of people we may not know or worship with or agree with on every issue. Sometimes, it asks us to reconcile with bitter enemies or resolve ancient hatreds. And that requires a living, breathing, active faith. It requires us not only to believe, but to do - to give something of ourselves for the benefit of others and the betterment of our world.

In this way, the particular faith that motivates each of us can promote a greater good for all of us. Instead of driving us apart, our varied beliefs can bring us together to feed the hungry and comfort the afflicted; to make peace where there is strife and rebuild what has broken; to lift up those who have fallen on hard times. This is not only our call as people of faith, but our duty as citizens of America, and it will be the purpose of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships that I’m announcing later today.

The goal of this office will not be to favor one religious group over another - or even religious groups over secular groups. It will simply be to work on behalf of those organizations that want to work on behalf of our communities, and to do so without blurring the line that our founders wisely drew between church and state. This work is important, because whether it’s a secular group advising families facing foreclosure or faith-based groups providing job-training to those who need work, few are closer to what’s happening on our streets and in our neighborhoods than these organizations.

People trust them. Communities rely on them. And we will help them.

We will also reach out to leaders and scholars around the world to foster a more productive and peaceful dialogue on faith. I don’t expect divisions to disappear overnight, nor do I believe that long-held views and conflicts will suddenly vanish. But I do believe that if we can talk to one another openly and honestly, then perhaps old rifts will start to mend and new partnerships will begin to emerge. In a world that grows smaller by the day, perhaps we can begin to crowd out the destructive forces of zealotry and make room for the healing power of understanding.

This is my hope. This is my prayer.

I believe this good is possible because my faith teaches me that all is possible, but I also believe because of what I have seen and what I have lived.

I was not raised in a particularly religious household. I had a father who was born a Muslim but became an atheist, grandparents who were non-practicing Methodists and Baptists, and a mother who was skeptical of organized religion, even as she was the kindest, most spiritual person I’ve ever known. She was the one who taught me as a child to love, and to understand, and to do unto others as I would want done.

I didn’t become a Christian until many years later, when I moved to the South Side of Chicago after college. It happened not because of indoctrination or a sudden revelation, but because I spent month after month working with church folks who simply wanted to help neighbors who were down on their luck - no matter what they looked like, or where they came from, or who they prayed to. It was on those streets, in those neighborhoods, that I first heard God’s spirit beckon me. It was there that I felt called to a higher purpose - His purpose.

In different ways and different forms, it is that spirit and sense of purpose that drew friends and neighbors to that first prayer breakfast in Seattle all those years ago, during another trying time for our nation. It is what led friends and neighbors from so many faiths and nations here today. We come to break bread and give thanks and seek guidance, but also to rededicate ourselves to the mission of love and service that lies at the heart of all humanity. As St. Augustine once said, "Pray as though everything depended on God. Work as though everything depended on you."

So let us pray together on this February morning, but let us also work together in all the days and months ahead. For it is only through common struggle and common effort, as brothers and sisters, that we fulfill our highest purpose as beloved children of God. I ask you to join me in that effort, and I also ask that you pray for me, for my family, and for the continued perfection of our union. Thank you.


Sunday, January 31, 2010

Hakimullah Mehsud Dead...Finally? Wali-Ur-Rehman Now Taliban Commander?

In August 2009 Hakimullah Mehsud shared a second-in-command position under Taliban commander, Baitullah Mehsud. Both were reported dead. Turns out, Hakimullah Mehsud was very much alive, but Baitullah was not. After a power struggle with Wali-ur-Rehman, who was also reported dead, but wasn't...Hakimullah became the new Taliban leader in South Waziristan. Today Pakistan television reports that Hakimullah Mehsud was killed in a CIA-directed drone attack, perhaps on January 17th.

 
Hakimullah Mehsud and Wali-ur-Rehman

 Pakistan military is trying to confirm the report.
An elder in the Mamuzai area of Orakzai tribal agency said he attended Mehsud's funeral on Thursday, the Associated Press reported. Speaking anonymously for fear of retaliation, the elder said Mehsud died at his in-laws' home.

A Reuters report, quoting a Pakistani intelligence official, said the Taliban leader may have been fatally wounded following a 17 January drone attack on two vehicles in North Waziristan.
He was also speculated to be dead in a January 13th drone attack. That report was incorrect. Hakimullah Mehsud's territory has been targeted in retaliation of the suicide bomber attack in Afghanistan that killed seven CIA agents. The bomber, a Pakistani doctor, was recruited as a double agent, or so the CIA thought. After the attack, a video showed him sitting beside Hakimullah, issuing a statement of his coming death.

At this moment, 9:35 a.m. Sunday morning, FOXNews' Eric Shawn has announced that top "intel sources" confirm that he is dead. Assuming this is true, that leaves Wali-ur-Rehman  commander. These two men previously, "physically" fought for the commander position after Baitullah Mehsud's death.

Hakimullah Mehsud man has a history of having more than one life, and after reports of his demise, he has a habit of phoning a Western journalist for a few laughs. We'll see if that phone call comes.

Related and Background:
Baitullah Meshud Successor is Alive

Hakimullah Mehsud Dead: Wali-ur-Rehman Dead - Successors Kill Each Other?

Baitullah Mehsud is Alive: Baitullah Mehsud is Dead








Thursday, December 24, 2009

Pakistani Christians Promised Special Christmas Present by Islam

Jihad Watch reports that Christians in Pakistan received text messages warning of a "special Christmas present."


Pakistan

The Gorja Christian Colony located about 220 miles southwest of Islamabad was torched in August by some 3000 Muslim maurauders. Today, Christians are receiving text messages of a "special Christmas present."
It was the fires that most traumatized Gojra's Christian Colony, a neighborhood in the heart of this Punjabi city about 220 miles (354 kilometers) southwest of Islamabad. In early August, hundreds of Muslims rampaged through the dirt streets, looting and torching homes as panicked residents tried to flee and thick black smoke rose into the air.
Eight Christians died -- seven of them from one family trapped in a burning home.... [...at least 8 people - including 4 women and a child of 7 years - were burned alive}
Christians say more than 100 homes were burned and looted in Gojra and the nearby village of Korian. While many homes have been rebuilt using state money, dozens of families are still living in tents, waiting for construction on their houses to finish.
Both those who have moved back into their homes and the ones still in the camp say they are still regularly threatened -- phone calls telling them to stop pressing for those responsible to be convicted, or else; armed men turning up at their homes; text messages on their cell phones promising a "special Christmas present;" rocks thrown at the tents in the night.
Just imagine, if 3,000 Christians or Jews had attacked a Muslim compound, anywhere in the world - the outcry would have been defeaning.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Obama West Point Afghanistan Speech Transcript: Breaking down Obama West Point Speech

This was a very strange speech, especially as the President was speaking to an audience of West Point cadets. The usual pundits seem to think our President is acknowledging that what we have here, is not a man-made disaster, but rather a real war on terror. He did not say that. I don't think he meant that. Obama had to acknowledge a threat to justify increasing troop levels in Afghanistan. Then he dismissed it all, with a date for withdrawal.



West Point


Here's more that I find odd:

He reminded us that Islam is one of the world's greatest religions, And that we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World – one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict... I don't think so. What is that explanation, Mr. President, of how you have done this. Nothing has changed in the Muslim world. Most Americans are infidels. Radical Islam is planning our deaths. We saw that at Fort Hood, and our President would not call it what it was - 14 murders at the hand of a radical Islamiscist. It is known as jihad. He has done nothing...nothing to quell radical Islam, just as no Islamic country has done anything to quell radical Islam.

He said combat troops will be gone from Iraq by summer 2010 and all troops will be gone by the end of 2011. He said that he will send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, and they will begin to return from Afghanistan in 18 months. He said he is giving the troops what they need to "seize the initiative." You and I know, that he doesn't know this to be true. He has set a definite timeline and radical Islam is nothing if not patient.

After telling the enemy when we will leave, he outlined the battle we are facing, and he got this right, at least in part:
"no idle danger, no hypothetical threat."

"This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity."

Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali.

We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda. ...we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.
I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The security of the U.S. and the American people is at stake.
 He said the struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. He said that the dangers to a free society "involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies. He is loathe to speak it - that the disorderly regions and diffuse extremism comes only from Muslim countries.

President Obama ignored that 9-11-01 changed everything, forever. The battle with radical Islam will not end, and it will not be over in 18 months - and especially not in Afghanistan or Pakistan.  This is an unending battle and we ignore it at our peril.

Obama talked to this young group of cadets about the economic problems we face and the burden of the cost of the war..."we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars."
That is a real confidence builder. We are facing "no idle danger and he is "convinced" our security is at state, but "we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars." In my opinion, this conversation had no place in this speech - it was inappropriate conversation on a night when he speaks of the importance of this war, and the risks if it is not won.

He talked about his quest to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and his goal to achieve a world without them - yet, he cannot stand up to Iran. His diplomacy cannot convince Russia and China to stand up to Iran. Obama believes that "true security" will come for those who will reject WMD. And who will that be? Those days are gone. Terrible weapons are a reality, and I pray that ours our "more terrible" than theirs. I pray that we have the courage to use them, if it is absolutely necessary - and that we have the wisdom to know that time.

So, the question to President Obama is - what happens when you realize that not only can you not tamp down the aggression in 18 months, but what happens when you realize that we will never again be without the threat of attack from radical Islam.

*****

President Barack Obama

The Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan
United States Military Academy at West Point
December 1, 2009

Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan – the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here – at West Point – where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda – a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban – a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them – an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 – the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network, and to protect our common security.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy – and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden – we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the UN, a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention – and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.

But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort.

Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation’s Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and – although it was marred by fraud – that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and Constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan Security Forces and better secure the population. Our new Commander in Afghanistan – General McChrystal – has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people – and our troops – no less.

This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you – a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have travelled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

So no – I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months.

The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 – the fastest pace possible – so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility – what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people – that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

Second, we will work with our partners, the UN, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas – such as agriculture – that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation – by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand – America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect – to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now – and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance – would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan Security Forces and give them the space to take over.

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort – one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who – in discussing our national security – said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance, and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars.

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly 30 billion dollars for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended – because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.

Let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold – whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere – they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

And we cannot count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons – true security will come for those who reject them.

We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World – one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.

Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values – for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home – which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America’s authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions – from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank – that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades – a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for – and what we continue to fight for – is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.

As a country, we are not as young – and perhaps not as innocent – as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people – from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.

This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue – nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united – bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we – as Americans – can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment – they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, one people.

America – we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God Bless you, God Bless our troops, and may God Bless the United States of America.

End Obama speech

Related:

West Point is Enemy Camp? Cool Audience for Obama? Chris Matthews Enemy Video

George W. Bush vs Barack Obama West Point Speeches

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Hillary Clinton We tax everything that moves and doesn't move: Hillary Pakistan Press Video

The Democrat party working for you. Hillary tells Pakistan "We [U.S.] tax everything that moves." See two videos below.



Hillary Clinton

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, wearing her hijab somewhere in Pakistan:
We [U.S.] tax everything that moves and doesn't move, and that's not what we see in Pakistan
Rare moments of clarity and truth. She's growing her out. It's a good thing.

In the first video below, Clinton talks about the recent bombing that happened while she was in the area and makes a strong, and easily understood statement: "...terrorism cannot build. That is where we have an advantage."

In the second video, it is interesting to hear Hillary talk with reporters about Pakistan's failed attempt to treaty with the Taliban. In short she said, they tried, it failed, the government admitted it failed, and now a new road must be followed. If we had that policy dealing with Iran, we wouldn't have the Iranian menace today. It's a lesson we need not to forget. We also need not forget her "tax everything that moves and doesn't move" ideology. With 2010 elections coming, Democrats admitting they tax everything should be a Republican mantra. Not what the Founders had in mind.







Hillary Clinton on Terrorism in Pakistan
 
 
 
Hillary Clinton Pakistan Press(video)
 





 


Friday, September 25, 2009

Abu Adam is German al-Qaeda in Pakistan (Video)

German Muslim converts are making a life in Pakistan for themselves and their families. It takes a village, dont ya know, and this one in Waziristan specializes in hitting Nato forces in Afghanistan. See videos below. The village of "white" al Qaeda forces boasts schools, hospitals, pharmacies and day care centers. It's a great life there and 24 year old German, Abu Adam, "warmly" invites you to join him and others like him, including small children surrounded by German burkha'ed mothers .

According to German foreign ministry officials a growing number of German families, many of North African descent, have taken up the offer and travelled to Waziristan where supporters say converts make up some of the insurgents' most dedicated fighters. The Europeans are there [in Waziristan]. The most dedicated people there are from Europe. They will do anything for Islam. They are not there because their father's are Muslim, but by choice," he said.
Reports are that Abu Adam's real name is Mounir Chouka and he was born in Bonn Germany. The first video below seems to be a recruitment video. The title indicates Abu Adam and his "brother," are featured. Is the speaker Abu Adam? He is identified as Abu Ibraheem., so I think not. The video is worth watching. It presents a Hollywood-style view of terrorists. Watch toward the end as numerous jihadists are profiled individually. These guys are rock stars. Take a look at Ausbilder Ishaq at about 4:05 minutes in, and "Idris" right after Ishaq. It's striking to see a succession of jihadists actually smiling and posing for the camera. The second video features Abu Adam.





Abu Adam and "Brother"





Saturday, August 8, 2009

Hakimullah Mehsud Dead: Wali-ur-Rehman Dead: Baitullah Mehsud Successors Kill Each Other?

Reports that the South Waziristan Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud was killed in a U.S. drone attack yesterday was met with derision by Hakimullah Mehsud. "Ridiculous lies" he said. But reports are mixed and it seems the truth may favor that Baitullah met his end. The news is that Hakimullah (Hakeemullah) Mehsud is also dead today in a quest to take the position of power once held by Baitullah Mehsud. See update 8-25-09 below.

Hakimullah Mehsud

Hakimullah Mehsud was not yet 30 years old but as deputy to Baitullah Mehsud (Mehsud is a tribal name) and the leader of the Fidayeenal Islam, he planned to take Baitullah's place. Powerful and influential though the young man was, perhaps it was not to be. During a meeting (Shura or council meeting) to choose the new leader, unconfirmed but numerous reports say that Hakimullah and another leader, Wali-ur-Rehman, broke into a gunfight. Some reports say that both men are dead and others that only Hakimullah is dead.

South Asian News Agency (SANA) is reporting both men are dead. Saying the men exchanged "hot words:"
As a result Commander Wali Ur Rehman opened fire on Hakeemullah Mehsud leaving him dead on the spot. In the clash Wali Ur Rehman was also killed by his rivals.
GEO Television reports that Hakimullah was "appointed" as Baitullah Mehsud's replacement but an "armed clash" ensued and both men died.

From the TimesOnlineUK, no confirmation yet of the deaths of the two successors:
Last night a gun battle erupted between Mufti Wali Rehman and Hakimullah Mehsud, two of the rivals to succeed Mehsud. The Pakistan government reported that one of them was killed in the shootout.
Update 8-4-09:
Two men identifying themselves as Hakimullah Mehsud and Wali Rehman called media yesterday and said something like, hey guys we're still alive. Neither of us killed the other, and our brother Baitullah Mehsud didn't die when you said he did. He died just a couple of days ago.

Hakimullah seems to have the tribal leadership with Baitullah's demise. There's nothing like choosing a hero to lead the followers, and Hakimullah became an icon when the planned the deaths of the Sri Lanka cricket team in Lahore and the bombing of the Pearl Continental hotel in Peshawar. What a guy - "Chief of the Terrorists."

Related:

NEW - UPDATE: Hakimullah Mehsud Alive: Baitullah Meshud Successor is Alive


Baitullah Mehsud is Alive: Baitullah Mehsud is Dead
©2007-2012copyrightMaggie M. Thornton