Archive for the ‘terrorism’ Category

Ambassador Chris Stevens is dead in part because there were MANPADS in Libya that were being shipped to Syrian rebels, at least that’s how some of the story goes, but we can’t confirm it because the CIA is hiding Benghazi survivors and changing their names.

But now the CIA is openly sending weapons to Syrian rebels… who also count Al Qaeda among their numbers.

The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war.

The arms shipments, which are limited to light weapons and other munitions that can be tracked, began arriving in Syria at a moment of heightened tensions over threats by President Obama to order missile strikes to punish the regime of Bashar al-Assad for his alleged use of chemical weapons in a deadly attack near Damascus last month.

“Can be tracked?”

The Obama administration wouldn’t track weapons they send into Mexico that got hundreds of Mexicans and two US federal agents killed, and we’re supposed to believe they’ll do it in a war zone in Syria?

“When you finally have a free Syrian government, you will know them and they will know us,” Ward said. “We will have been working with them week after week, month after month. These won’t be strangers.”

That worked so well in Libya and Egypt.

Libya, Egypt, and Syria will be the Whitman, Price, and Haddad of the Middle East.

-

Now Assad is demanding that in order to give up his chemical weapons, the US needs to stop arming the rebels.  Oh look, the meaningless accord that Obama reached when he kneeled before Putin has already been proven meaningless.  Good thing he’s got that extra flexibility he told Medvedev about.

Mission Dawah and 9/11 Cake

Posted: September 11, 2013 by ShortTimer in Culture, islam, Jihad, Never Forget, terrorism

Mission Dawah is a Muslim advocacy group who states their mission is:

To fulfill the vision of the Prophet peace be upon him of Islam entering into every home.

They also suggest that September 11th is a good day to give dawah (prosletyzing).  And a few of their followers suggest enjoying some cake:

mission dawah 911 cake 1

Yup, cake.

mission dawah 911 cake 2

Yup, that’s a cake that is exactly what it looks like.  And it’s on Mission Dawah’s page, dedicated to spreading submission to Allah and Mohammed.

mission dawah 911 cake 3

In the comments, there are at least a couple people who don’t approve (and credit’s due to them), but there are a couple who “like it” at worst and plenty more who simply accept it quietly, rather than take a moment to critcize it.  You’d think if they were true believers in some kind of peace, they would find such a thing offensive because it insults both potential converts and their own religion as being a cult of violent sociopathic murderers who laugh at the deaths of thousands, but there are a lot who are silently accepting.

But there are several of the mission dawah followers who are too busy claiming the Jews did 9/11 and it’s all a conspiracy to blame peaceful muslims who would never harm anyone or do anything to offend anyone.

mission dawah 911 cake 4

Apparently Mission Dawah is cool with it and supports their followers, because neither the cake nor “teh Jooos did 9/11″ has gone away as of this posting.

Somehow I suspect their prosletyzing on the anniversary of a terrorist attack that killed thousands of people in the name of their god and led to a 12-year-long war wasn’t going to go over well to begin with.  The best way to show you’re not really a violent sociopathic ideology of tyranny and oppression is probably not to joke about the deaths of thousands at the hands of your fellow Muslims by making a cake out of a murderous sneak attack.

But of course, Islam didn’t do it, the “Jooos who control the US government did it to frame muslims”.

-

Update: Dr. Rusty at Jawa Report notes once again that commenter posts and the page owner may share different views and some pages don’t have fully moderated comments to prevent such posts.  But they usually don’t have a string of followers supporting it, and it’s still up on their page.  To both the credit and detriment of commenters, there are a handful against, and several for.

A search on Tineye with just the cake yields results from 2010, so the picture is older, but it’s being circulated in this context.  But it’s not whether it’s some leftist bakeoff in SanFran being reused to spread ill will… it’s that it’s just being used to spread ill will, and the obvious sentiment that goes with it.

Never Forget

Posted: September 11, 2013 by ShortTimer in Jihad, Never Forget, terrorism
Tags:

9/11/01
>Never Forget

>Never Forget

>Never Forget

-
9/11/12
benghazi blood walls

I’ve been reading about this and listening to this for a while, and as someone who’s had to fight in the Middle East before, I’m hearing a replay of 2002-2003, but a much worse one, with an imperial president who ignores the law as opposed to a neocon president who even his staunchest critics when confronted with the data can see at least jumped through the required hoops.

So far, it’s heavily suspected that Syria has used chemical weapons on its own rebels and population, though it’s also possible that the rebels themselves (who are affiliated with Al Qaeda) may have used them to garner international sympathy – mideast terrorist groups and their allies do use propaganda, after all.   Reuters even has rebels saying it was rebels (but Reuters in the mideast isn’t exactly trustworthy, as is evidenced one link ago). The use of chemical weapons is pretty much accepted, but by whom isn’t wholly decided.

The Obama administration has attacked Bashar Assad’s credibility when asked for proof.  If you’ve heard the audio (Charley Jones on 1080 KRLD played some of it last night), you know it starts off with a question asking about where the proof is that chemical weapons were used by the Assad regime, and sounds even less convincing when spoken than written.

Q:   But based on the President’s own criticism of the previous administration, not being able to clearly establish the use of WMD — if you’re now acknowledging the U.N. doesn’t have the mandate to determine that anyway, what will the President use to decide whether or not to take U.S. military action –

MR. CARNEY:  Again, we are continuing to assess the matter of culpability.  We believe, and I think the evidence is overwhelming, that there is very little doubt that the Syrian regime is culpable.  But we will continue to establish, or assess the incident, and we’ll have more information for you, as Secretary Kerry mentioned, in the coming days about that matter.

But, in the meantime, we should make clear from here and from the State Department and elsewhere, and in capitals around the world, that the Syrian regime has very little credibility on this matter.  If the Syrian regime had any interest, as Secretary Kerry said earlier, in proving that they were not culpable, they had the opportunity to allow that U.N. inspection team to visit the site immediately.  Instead, they blocked access for five days while they shelled the neighborhood, killing more innocent civilians, in an attempt to destroy evidence.

And even today, when the inspection team began its trip to the region where the attack occurred, its convoy was attacked.  They had to turn back.  And then they were able to make it later into the region.  After they left, the Syrian regime started shelling again.  The credibility here does not exist.

Except saying Assad is an uncooperative liar doesn’t mean Obama has definitive proof.  Saying “we have evidence from sources on the ground and from surveillance” would be a point.  Saying “we are assessing culpability” isn’t the same.  Considering the numerous resolutions against Saddam Hussein’s WMDs and ultimately action taken because of them, Obama is setting us up for the very same thing he railed against and ran on as a presidential candidate and president.  But Democrats are always against terrorist regimes before they’re for giving up and abandoning the efforts against terrorist regimes:

The Syrians have allies in Iran and Russia and Hezbollah, and the rebels are allied with and often part of Al Qaeda.  There are arguments by interventionists that some rebels are regionally different, but ultimately it doesn’t matter.  All sides involved are villainous.  There’s no reason for the US to get involved.  Neither side winning is good for the US.

If Syria wins, America’s adversaries in Russia, Iran, and China as well get strengthened in the region.  If the rebels win, Al Qaeda and other extremist forces will take over… just like happened in Egypt and much of Libya.  Either way, non-combatants in Syria suffer.

But speaking of Libya, the reason Ambassador Chris Stevens is dead is most likely because he was out in the middle of nowhere in Benghazi trying to secure weapons for the Syrian rebels.

Lawmakers also want to know about the weapons in Libya, and what happened to them.

Speculation on Capitol Hill has included the possibility the U.S. agencies operating in Benghazi were secretly helping to move surface-to-air missiles out of Libya, through Turkey, and into the hands of Syrian rebels.

That’s from a while ago.  Realistically, we’ve probably been supporting Syrian rebels since then.

The problem is that as we’re supporing the Free Syrian Army, we’re supporting the same allies of Al Qaeda that we’ve been fighting since at least the 1993 WTC bombing, and for no particular reason.

One question that hasn’t been answered adequately is that if we intervene, who will end up with those 1000 tons of chemical weapons that Syria has?  If the rebels win, are we handing Al Qaeda 1000 tons of sarin or VX?

If we act against Syria, will they use chemical weapons on their neighbors in Israel and Jordan and Turkey?  Is that part of why Turkey, who got involved in Syria a bit, stopped getting involved?

-

So far the hypothesis has been that in a few days of air attacks, we could seriously degrade the Syrian air force and reduce Assad’s capability to fight significantly.  If we were to do that, basically providing Al Qaeda the use of our air force, and ultimately leading to an AQ/rebel victory and our actions were to protect the world from chemical weapons… then what do we do once they have those chemical weapons?  The answer ends up being boots on the ground.

There are only a few options in Syria:

  • We don’t get involved.
  • We support Syria’s government and push for stability against AQ.
  • We support Syria’s rebels and push for regime change and a new stable state that magically doesn’t turn into an AQ-state or Egypt redux.
  • We get involved and crush both sides, secure WMDs, and leave with them secured or destroyed.
  • We get involved and crush both sides, secure WMDs, and stay and nation build.

Carl Von Clausewitz stated as his elegant definition of war:

War therefore is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.

-

So what is our will in Syria?  To stop the use of WMDs?

There have been tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands killed in Syria’s civil war by conventional violence.  Why were those deaths less important than the ones killed by a nerve agent?

To control WMD proliferation and keep WMDs out of the hands of groups that would threaten the US and our allies?  Supporting Syria would lead to stabilization and keep weapons out of terrorist hands – because a regime like Syria is a nation-state with something to lose if it uses WMDs against us.  A stateless organization like Al Qaeda doesn’t care.

Or is our will just so Obama can say his “red line” means something and not look like a complete weakling in front of Putin and China?  Too late, they know our president is weak on US interests and more concerned with instituting self-destructive policies within the US.  Any angry, self-righteous response against Syria is just going to look like Obama going “oh yeah, I’ll show you guys!” and they’ll still think him weak, because he is.  Obama doesn’t care about US interests.  He does care about himself, but that’s not strength, that’s vanity.

-

The progressive left is interventionist, though.  They have been since the days when Woodrow Wilson dragged us into WWI, and before then the progressives under Teddy Roosevelt on the right dragged us all into other wars.

Consider this NYT editorial, titled “Bomb Syria, Even if It Is Illegal”:

The latest atrocities in the Syrian civil war, which has killed more than 100,000 people, demand an urgent response to deter further massacres and to punish President Bashar al-Assad.

They don’t want to be the world’s policeman enforcing the law, they want to be the world’s angry disciplinarian out castigating people for things they don’t like.

But there is widespread confusion over the legal basis for the use of force in these terrible circumstances. As a legal matter, the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons does not automatically justify armed intervention by the United States.

There are moral reasons for disregarding the law, and I believe the Obama administration should intervene in Syria. But it should not pretend that there is a legal justification in existing law. Secretary of State John Kerry seemed to do just that on Monday, when he said of the use of chemical weapons, “This international norm cannot be violated without consequences.” His use of the word “norm,” instead of “law,” is telling.

There’s currently a big push by the administration to say that Syria is violating international norms and must be punished.  You’ll hear the word in news reports a lot as a new narrative is made.  Sort of like hearing about the hun.

Syria is a party to neither the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 nor the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, and even if it were, the treaties rely on the United Nations Security Council to enforce them — a major flaw. Syria is a party to the Geneva Protocol, a 1925 treaty that bans the use of toxic gases in wars. But this treaty was designed after World War I with international war in mind, not internal conflicts.

Not only will Russia and China block any UN resolutions, it doesn’t matter, because there is no authority to something Syria isn’t a signatory to.  This is the very unilateralism the left railed against.

What about the claim that, treaties aside, chemical weapons are inherently prohibited? While some acts — genocide, slavery and piracy — are considered unlawful regardless of treaties, chemical weapons are not yet in this category.

Some acts are unlawful regardless of treaties?  What a joke.  Sudan is on the UN Human Rights Commission even though they were and are engaged in genocide.

If there is no law, they are by definition not unlawful.

…if the White House takes international law seriously — as the State Department does — it cannot try to have it both ways. It must either argue that an “illegal but legitimate” intervention is better than doing nothing, or assert that international law has changed — strategies that I call “constructive noncompliance.” In the case of Syria, I vote for the latter.

Since Russia and China won’t help, Mr. Obama and allied leaders should declare that international law has evolved and that they don’t need Security Council approval to intervene in Syria.

This would be popular in many quarters, and I believe it’s the right thing to do. But if the American government accepts that the rule of law is the foundation of civilized society, it must be clear that this represents a new legal path.

This can be summed up simply:

There is no law in this administration, there is only what people in power feel like doing, and whatever complex mental and linguistic gymnastics they can do to justify acting out how they feel.

Under Bush, the administration went through the processes that were necessary, getting approval along the way before acting on a perceived threat, regardless of the haste or individual opinions on the wisdom of those actions.  Under Obama, we have leftists actively advocating for ignoring laws they agree to with their wonderful UN-consensus ideals because it’s now magically moral to break the law, to do what feels good even though it’s illegal.

The rule of law is the foundation of a civilized society, but we have the rule of men, and of a man who feels what he’s doing is right means more than the law.  I’m sure Assad would agree with the decisions to ignore legality and do what you want as a ruler.

-

As a final note, I heard or read this story not too long ago:  A bartender saw a boyfriend and girlfriend fighting across the bar and saw the boyfriend slapping the girlfriend.  The bartender decided this was wrong, and he had to get involved and separate the two.  He stepped around the bar and got them apart, and the girlfriend then broke a beer bottle over the bartenders head.

As of right now, with no real evidence of a threat to the US or US interests, there’s no reason to get involved.

This is a cluster of our enemies fighting each other.  It’s tragic what’s happening to the non-combatants, but unless we want to wage a massive, all out campaign to suppress the rest of the world and pacify them, we can’t change that.

Away from wartime, we can change things through trade and commerce, but in wartime, there’s little we can do unless we go all-out.  And there’s while there may be some broader humanitarian desire to act, there’s really little reason to get involved, as both potential victors in the only likely outcomes are villains.

Graphic below.

From Breitbart:

At a June 18 gun control rally in New Hampshire sponsored by New York mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns group, the name of Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev was read aloud as a recent victim of gun violence.

Remember?  This guy:

tamerlan tsarnaev welfare

Throughout the rally, organizers read a list of names of people who had been killed with guns since the Dec. 14 shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.

When they read Tsarnaev’s name, pro-gun supporters who were at the rally to counter Bloomberg’s group began shouting, “He’s a terrorist,” according to a report by Tim Buckland of the New Hampshire Union-Leader.

For those who need a reminder, this is what Bloomberg’s poor little victim of gun violence did:

boston marathon bombing 5

-

Also note this was Bloomberg’s professional paid-for protestors who travel the country in search of ways to disarm, weaken, and control you.  Basically the same thing Tamerlan Tsarnaev wanted, but at least he was honest about his hate for America.

Pro-gun attendees said the buses of the rally organizers had Texas license plates, and rally organizers refused to talk to talk to the media. Gun rights supporter Tony Mayfield was in attendance and said: “This is joke. We have, for all intents and purposes, a corporation from out of town doing this little publicity stunt here.”

According to the Union-Leader, there was violence at the rally. Two persons–including a police officer–were assaulted and one person was arrested.

A spokesperson for Sen. Kelly Ayotte’s (R-NH) said that “well-heeled out-state-groups have gone on the attack against the [Senator].”

Bloomberg and all the other anti-gun, anti-rights, anti-freedom wannabe dictators in the Ruling Class are absolute scum.  Bloomberg is a guy who just had his minions go out to intimidate different states around the country in order that he, a billionaire who rides in a caravan with guards armed with full-auto weapons, can force you to be defenseless.  He agrees with the Tsarnaevs that you should be dominated and defenseless, he’s just got different tools to those ends, and believes he should be your master.

Update: Allahpundit at HotAir finds it baffling.

It came from Slate, which “of course” would put a terrorist down as a poor, innocent victim of gun violence who was really and honor student trying to fix up his life.

Yesterday, at an event organized by Mayors Against Illegal Guns in Concord, N.H., a list of names of “victims of gun violence” was read aloud. Today, one name stands out: that of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bombing suspect killed during a shootout with police. The MAIG list came from Slate‘s interactive, “How Many People Have Been Killed By Guns Since Newtown?” The Atlantic Wire and others are asking: Should Tsarnaev’s name be on that interactive?

Of course it should. The interactive is not a list of “victims” of gun violence—in fact, the interactive never uses that word, for this very reason. It is a pure accounting of deaths, provided, as our original partner in the project @GunDeaths notes, “regardless of cause and without comment.”

Thing is, it’s being used as a stat for gun control activists – that’s why they’re keeping track.  Lefty Slate is perfectly happy to pad their rolls of poor innocent victims, regardless of what they’re claiming now, in order to make gun violence look worse; when in reality, terrorist killed by guns (or knives, JDAMs, SUVs, rattlesnakes, orbital plasma cannons, falls, self-detonation, mad cow, or anything else) are all good things.

Update 2: Allahpundit at HotAir notes that maniac cop Chris Dorner was also on the list.

the list from which the activists were reading — which was compiled by Slate and includes more than 6,000 names — contained at least 10 murder suspects, including the alleged cop killer Christopher Dorner, who was the subject of a massive, high-profile manhunt in February, and apparently killed himself in a cabin after a gun fight with police.

Why would you keep a comprehensive list of people killed in shootings after Newtown if you’re not interested in building sympathy for them as victims? The point of the list is, or should be, to drive home the tragedy of so many innocent lives taken. If you’re going to toss non-innocents like Tsarnaev, Dorner, et al. in there, you might as well ask the Pentagon for an estimate of Al Qaeda fighters shot on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan and toss them in too. They’re all casualties of the demon device known as firearms, aren’t they? Come to think of it, didn’t Hitler shoot himself?

It’s an … interesting political project that has room for Tamerlan Tsarnaev on its roll call of the fallen but not the people he murdered because of a difference in the precise means of lethal force used.

Again, as above, Slate says “of course it should” include them.

To briefly hit on this, I remember either Evan Sayet mentioning it when talking about leftists some time after his great “How Modern Liberals Think” speech, or someone discussing it, and noting that much of the root of the modern leftist thought comes out of World War I, when the left decided that conflict was to be avoided at all costs; much like discrimination is to be avoided – regardless of whether it’s just making good decisions on the available information.  Avoiding conflict is so important that the tools of conflict – even if used for defense – are considered horrible.  So the individual who owns guns for self-defense and will use them if threatened (but only if threatened), is viewed as someone who has justified violence (because self defense is a basic right of all beings).  To the brain-dead indoctrinated left, there is no difference between self-defense and terrorism, and all violence is evil (except grievance-based violence or their own violence to gain power, of course) – and this means that Tsarnaev and Dorner are “victims” of a “gun culture”.

Much like Dorner’s manifesto, they can engage in violence or support aggressors against peaceful people and simply ignore the mad inconsistency – because if the peaceful people aren’t defenseless victims, they probably deserved it somehow.  And if they are defenseless victims of the wrong political ideology, they deserved it for their thoughts.

Via Breitbart:

A group supporting an open-borders policy on immigration is trying to use the nationwide release of Man of Steel to further its cause.

We Are the American Way, a project from Define American, has a new site dubbed “Superman Is an Immigrant” meant to piggyback on the cultural conversation around the superhero film.

Well, let’s run with that for just a bit.

Technically, Superman was adopted by US parents, so his legalization process actually isn’t all the difficult.  There aren’t any issues with his original country, since Krypton was destroyed, so technically he’d be a refugee, and if he were an adult, he’d be able to file for asylum and he’d be allowed into the US pretty easily.  The asylum officer would process his claim, but in the meantime, he’d be staying in the US.

So Superman has virtually nothing to do with the illegal immigration debate.

But y’know who does?

General Zod & company

General Zod and his crew aren’t coming to the US (or Earth) as children, or as refugees.  They’re coming to take jobs that Americans (aside from Obama) won’t do – like supreme leader.  Their first encounters with the US are to violate US laws, and they really don’t care what you think.

There’s also this guy:

darkseid

Darkseid, in the same manner, doesn’t really care about your borders.  He also doesn’t care about your life, except as it provides utility to  him.

Your laws are meaningless.

Then there’s these guys:

illegal aliens shoot cops free stuff

Difference is that these guys are real, and they’re plundering you because your government has a welfare state that will give handouts to anyone.  Rich politicians whose quality of life will never be impacted by their actions can spend your money to make themselves feel better and morally superior, all the while telling you that you deserve to be plundered from and criminals deserve your stuff.  They set up a world where the criminals – the illegal aliens – get handouts at your expense, and you’re blamed for the illegal aliens’ problems, and you’re taxed for the illegal aliens’ problems, and the illegal aliens and their supporters are paid in government benefits to keep voting for the same politicians.

At least Zod and Darkseid are honest about their desire to conquer and plunder.  Real life politicians convince you that criminals from other nations somehow have a right to what you’ve built in your nation.

They’re making it so the home invader that breaks into your house now has a right to sleep in your bed, and the guy ringing the doorbell – the legal alien – gets screwed.

-

But there’s nothing day-to-day about illegal aliens in sanctuary cities that ever causes problems, is there?

But nothing bad ever comes from having lax immigration laws and not deporting illegals, right?

COMBO PICTURE OF SUSPECTED HIJACKERS

From the Washington Times:

Before the Boston Marathon bombings, the Obama administration argued for years that there is a big difference between terrorists and the tenets of Islam.

A senior White House aide in 2009 publicly urged Washington to cease using the term “jihadist” — asserting that terrorists are simply extremists. Two years later, the White House ordered a cleansing of training materials that Islamic groups deemed offensive.

Now, some analysts are asking whether the 2009 edict and others that followed have dampened law enforcement’s appetite to thoroughly investigate terrorism suspects for fear of offending higher-ups or the American Muslim lobby.

It’s not just suspected.  The most recent fedgov-sponsored anti-terrorism course I took spent the first few hours going over the SPLC’s laundry list of evil white terrorist organizations that to any sane person, aren’t more than a footnote.

In October 2011, 57 Islamic groups wrote a letter to John O. Brennan, now CIA director, but then President Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser.

Citing news reports, the groups complained of “biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam” inside the federal government’s instructional halls.

“While recent news reports have highlighted the FBI’s use of biased experts and training materials, we have learned that this problem extends far beyond the FBI and has infected other government agencies, including the U.S. Attorney’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Councils, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Army,” the letter read.

Muslims objected to several training guides, such as a 2009 report produced at the Army Command and General Staff at the Fort Leavenworth School of Advanced Military Studies.

“Moderate Muslims are not exercising moderation; they are simply applying other means to accomplish the same goal of establishing global Islamic dominance,” it quoted the report as saying.

At least two of the 57 groups were listed by the Justice Department as unindicted co-conspirators and as being connected to the Muslim Brotherhood in the prosecution of a Texas charity for funding Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. The groups are the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America.

The organizations’ letter demanded that biased trainers be disciplined, that all instructors undergo retraining and that materials deemed offensive by Muslim activists be purged.

Want to know why we can’t effectively fight jihadi terrorists?  Why we keep having Fort Hoods and Bostons?

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.  If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.  If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

- Sun Tzu

Sun Tzu’s reflections on the Obama administration would probably be something like: “If you deny yourself knowledge of the enemy and even deny the enemy’s existence because you don’t want to offend the enemy, you have already been defeated.

John Guandolo, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, has spent years studying the global Muslim Brotherhood movement and its links to American Islamic groups. The FBI relies on some of them to guide its training. The political left has branded Mr. Guandolo an “Islamophobe.”

“There is no strategy in the FBI,” he told The Times. “At FBI headquarters, it is a daily fire drill. The threats come in, and they run around to deal with them and run them down. But because none of it can have anything to do with the Muslim Brotherhood’s movement in the U.S. or Islam, they never address the root cause and common investigative realities.”

Mr. Emerson, who maintains back-channel ties to law enforcement, said any slide presentation on Islamic extremism now has to be submitted to a special Justice Department panel.

He said one slide that was required to be omitted showed the famous photo of captured Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. The photo of a disheveled and unshaven Mohammed was deemed “offensive to Islam,” Mr. Emerson said.

There is a strategy in the FBI.  It’s a strategy of concession and defeat.

… the president does not “see this challenge as a fight against ‘jihadists.’ Describing terrorists in this way — using a legitimate term, jihad, meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal — risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.”

Some analysts disagree with that interpretation, saying the Koran clearly states that jihad is a “holy war.”

Jihad is war.

Denying it and pretending that it’s simply “internal jihad” denies reality.  The struggle in Islam is further submission to the will of Allah – Islam means submission.  Salaam and the peace of Allah is all about submission to Allah’s will.  People with an internal “my struggle” tend to be types who are worth keeping an eye on anyway.

Beyond that point, it doesn’t actually matter what the US says.  Contrary to American popular belief, the world does not actually revolve around us.  The right knows we’re big and important and we have an important role to play, but we’re ultimately not everything; the left mocks our actual importance, but then thinks every evil in the world is caused by our interference and instead blames America for everything as though we are the cause of all evil in the world – a far more powerful egocentric belief.

Jihadis who are willing to kill themselves to strike a blow against the West in a desire to further the plans for the caliphate do not care what you or I think of them.  The US saying “Islamic jihadi terrorists are Islamic jihadi terrorists” doesn’t change much.

They don’t need our opinion to make themselves legitimate.  They are, by their own actions, legitimating themselves.  They strike terror against the west and they prove they are jihadis.  The US understanding and saying “they’re jihadis” does not magically make them jihadis.  That they are blowing themselves up for jihad makes them jihadis.  This is a question of acknowledging reality.  They aren’t seeking our approval to make them jihadis.

For your nation to protect itself does demand that it acknowledge what it is fighting.

“When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.”

- Osama bin Laden

Frankly, when we’re acting befuddled because we can’t understand jihad, it doesn’t make us the strong horse.  When our government, filled with mush-brained liberals at best; and jihad-allies leftists as well, tells you with their rose-colored glasses and romantic worldview (or straight up leftist redistributive propaganda) that these are a peaceful, peaceable, highly spiritual wise people with a history that goes back thousands of years, wise exotic mystics who travel the deserts and kept alive the knowledge that racist bigoted white European Christians threw away, and then were attacked by ruthless murderous Christian fundamentalist Crusaders who sought to kill them for some reason… it sets up a ridiculous worldview.

The leftist worldview doesn’t allow for acknowledging who the enemy is.

“They say our enemy is violent extremism,” Mr. Lieberman said. “It’s not. It’s not animal rights extremists or white supremacy extremists. It’s Islamic extremism.”

Lieberman’s one redeeming virtue is that he somewhat understands this.  At the same time, it’s not extremism.

This is extremism:

Rubio also has part of the problem recognized, but this is still a problem:

Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida Republican, told Fox News this week that the administration will not recognize the terrorists for what they are — radicalized Islamists.

These are radical muslims:

Notably, those muslim snowboarders aren’t jihadis.  Or at least, probably not (Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a Golden Gloves boxer, after all).

“My problem with this administration is they refuse to acknowledge the existence of this kind of terrorism,” Mr. Rubio said.

He noted that after the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic complex in Benghazi, Libya, the White House refused to call it terrorism and blamed it on everyday demonstrators.

To really explain that further, the White House’s so-called “demonstrators” brought mortars.  The White House story is that they brought fire support to yell about a video that no one had ever seen.

You don’t bring indirect fire area-effect weapons to a protest.

Enduring Freedom mortars

I voice my continued objection to the new zoning regulations! No new strip centers!

This is a Second Amendment protest – a protest about guns and the right of the people too keep and bear arms in order to throw off oppression – up to and including possibly overthrowing a corrupt government:

guns across america austin tx 6

And they didn’t bring any artillery.  They also aren’t jihadis.

Update: It also looks like the Tsarnaevs’ bombs required some additional training and expertise to make, as though they might not be a “lone wolf” operation as the administration claims, as though there might actually be some kind of global movement that’s doing this bombing extremist stuff (for no discernable reason)… like there’s maybe a group of people who believe in the same thing (extremism and radicalness, sayeth the administration) and are out to spread terrorism for the sake of terrorism.  Whoa.  (How you can have two people working together and still call them a “lone” wolf ignores what the word “lone” means, but I digress.)