Archive for the ‘terrorism’ Category

Leftist Huffpo Is A Joke

Posted: April 19, 2013 by ShortTimer in islam, Leftists, Media, political correctness, terrorism
Tags:

First I saw this screencap of a Huffington Post story on Jawa Report:

Huffpo boston bomber muslim no clues 2

And I thought, naw, no way they’re that stupid.  There’s no possible way they can be so politically correct as to willingly ignore the mountains of evidence – mostly the Chechen brothers’ own words online and the self-professed ideology they chose to follow.  The media is already crying that Muslims will be victimized, and yet the media really did claim that the brothers muslim terrorist worldview never made a difference.

I looked for the story, but Huffpo, in the face of mocking reality, had finally started to change it – but “no clues” is visible in the Google cache version.

boston bombers huffpo no clue 1

Now it provides “few clues”, as though it still perplexes them.

Initial Questions About the Boston Terrorists

Posted: April 16, 2013 by ShortTimer in terrorism
Tags:

Most of them want to claim credit for what they did.  The question of how long it takes for a terrorist to start announcing it is answered by the Jawa Report:

Sometimes immediately. Sometimes, not so much:

Osama bin Laden didn’t officially take responsibility for the attack until late October 2001 — almost two months after the assault.Then there’s the 2009 “underwear bomb” attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. That attack occurred on Christmas Day — a Friday — but the message by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claiming responsibility didn’t surface until Monday, three days later. (It had been originally dated Saturday but wasn’t published on radical Islamic websites until Monday.)

And how about the Fort Hood shooting in 2009? It took four days for Anwar al-Awlaki to publicly praise his radicalized pupil, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, on his English-language web site for the tragic killing of 13 people in Texas.

And all of this is assuming that the individual who did the deed was directly connected to a larger terror network. Which misses entirely the notion of the “lone wolf jihadist”.

That’s assuming it’s a jihadist, which it may well be.

Also from Jawa Report:

US News:

A person briefed on the Boston Marathon investigation says the explosives were in 6-liter pressure cookers and placed in black duffel bags.The person says the explosives were placed on the ground and contained shards of metal, nails and ball bearings. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing.

The person says law enforcement officials have some of the bomb components but did not yet know what was used to set off the explosives.

Pictures of the pressure cooker (most likely a stainless steel-INOX Fagor) and bomb fragments from FOX Atlanta:

boston bomb ball bearings

Ball bearings glued together in sheets to act as fragmentation is a hallmark of Al Qaeda bombs.  Of course, anyone could download Al Qaeda’s Inspire magazine and follow their directions, but this has many of the hallmarks of AQ – as Jawa Report also points out.

As a reminder, the magazine as well as components for making a similar bomb were found in PFC Jason Abdo’s room.

Raees Alam Qazi, a 20-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen from Pakistan, and his brother, Sheheryar Alam Qaz also wanted to use the same instructions in a plot to blow up tourist sites in New York City.

The magazine and bomb making instructions were widely distributed among would-be jihadis.

Boston

Posted: April 15, 2013 by ShortTimer in terrorism
Tags:

boston 130415

About the only relative good news is that at the end of a marathon, it’s expected that there will be people hurting from the 26 mile run, so EMTs and emergency personnel were there instantly.

The medic that posted the picture (with permission from the father) said the child was launched about 6 feet, but would probably be okay after a recovery period.

Via Jawa Report, from ABC:

Federal agents arrested a California man this morning in a terror sting after he allegedly tried to detonate a car bomb at an Oakland bank as part of a Taliban plot.

The FBI said the explosive device that Matthew Aaron Llaneza, 28, of San Jose tried to use was not operable and posed no threat, and that Llaneza’s Taliban contact was actually an undercover agent.

According to authorities, in November Llaneza met with a man he believed was linked to the Taliban and the mujahideen in Afghanistan. At their initial meeting, Llaneza allegedly proposed a car-bomb attack against a bank and making the bombing look like the work of anti-government militias. According to the criminal complaint, Llaneza wanted to spark a government crackdown and a right-wing backlash that would lead to civil war.

Emphasis by Jawas, but it’s the key point in the story.

Just like murderer and LAPD failure Chris Dorner, who wants his rampage to be part of the push for gun control, there are leftist zealots who’ve so firmly embraced the cause that they will kill others just to get government to come after you.  This is an ideological movement by individuals who believe in the leftist cause so firmly that they will do whatever it takes to get the agenda through.  These people want Cloward and Piven Strategy through violence as well – they want to destroy the US.

They aren’t all George Soros, some of them are just terrorists like Bill Ayers and Brett Kimberlin.

From NBC, via Drudge:

As in Holder’s speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful:  In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.” But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect  would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes.

HotAir notes that even some leftist media figures find it “frightening”, and more by Ryu Spaeth:

Upon even a cursory examination, however, these constraints are virtually meaningless. The government is not required to “have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future.” Furthermore, the feasibility of capture can be determined by several factors, including if it would simply be too risky for U.S. personnel to conduct a capture operation, or if a capture operation would imperil a “relevant window of opportunity.” There are miles of space to maneuver within the so-called constraints.

guns across america slc ut 2

Enough evidence for a tyrannical regime?  Check.  Too risky to send jack-booted thugs?  Sure.  Relevant window of opportunity?  Check.

Attorney General Eric Holder last year said the Constitution’s guarantee of due process does not necessarily entail a “judicial process” in situations in which national security is at stake.

The state must confiscate guns for the greater good.  The people who want arms are a threat to the state.  They are radical insurrectionists.  The state does not need “judicial process” against people who oppose national security gun confiscation objectives.

Dec. 17 airpower summary: Reapers touch enemy forces

That’s just taking things to their unfortunate conclusions.  Methinks the Founding Fathers would be loading their M4s right now.

Scarborough makes a very interesting point at the 12:35 mark at the HotAir video:

Scarborough: (an American could be killed by a US drone strike)  … Because somebody is sitting in the living room of a guy who is a terrorist?

Congressman Harold Ford (D): I’ve never had one in my living room.

Really?  Because Obama has had this terrorist in his living room:

>Modern Liberal Thought - In Light of 9/11 - Bill Ayers

Update: As a counterpoint, Dr. Rusty at Jawa Report notes that provided the sentence is finished with “in Al Qaeda”, the meaning is totally changed.

1) He must be an immanent threat. By immanent, we don’t mean the threat is immediate. What we mean is that the person is involved in operations that will go forward unless he is killed. In other words, we don’t have to wait for a suicide bomber to get on the airplane before we kill him.

2) Capture is infeasible. This means that a terrorist living in France will be treated differently than a terrorist living in Mali. The major difference being that the French police are perfectly capable (assuming they have the backbone) of arresting a suspected terrorist. In the hinterlands of Mali, not so much.

3) The strike must be consistent with the laws of war. Which is just another way of saying we don’t bomb the whole city of Abotabad just because we know bin Laden is there.

I sure hope he’s correct in his interpretation, and that it is limited in scope solely to AQ operatives.  The first few pages of the memo’s justification aren’t about AQ, though the last few pages get more AQ specific.

But then again, the DOJ that wrote it also intentionally armed the narcoterrorist cartels next door and killed hundreds of our Mexican neighbors and two US federal agents; and we’ve already seen the Obama administration’s hostility towards the Constitution, the rule of law, and the citizenry.

From The Blaze:

“If we want change to come, we would do well not to look at the sites of power we have no access to; the White House, the Congress, the Pentagon,” Ayers added. “We have absolute access to the community, the school, the neighborhood, the street, the classroom, the workplace, the shop, the farm.

>Modern Liberal Thought - In Light of 9/11 - Bill AyersBill Ayers on 9/11/01:

”I don’t regret setting bombs,” Bill Ayers said. ”I feel we didn’t do enough.”

From the Washington Times:

Top Illinois state officials said Tuesday they’ll push to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants — a move backed also by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who for years stood as Democrats’ key impediment to pushing immigration in Congress.

State Senate President John Cullerton said he’ll try to pass a bill in the legislature’s veto session next week to remove restrictions on illegal immigrants getting licenses there, and Gov. Pat Quinn said he’ll sign it, if it reaches his desk. Both men are Democrats.

Illinois would become the third state to allow illegal immigrants to get licenses, joining Washington and New Mexico.

“I strongly support state legislation that will allow every Chicagoan, regardless of legal status, to enjoy the rights and responsibilities that come with a driver’s license,” Mr. Emanuel, President Obama’s first White House chief of staff, said in a statement.

Now, I could go on for quite a while about how Congress writes immigration laws, and how that’s part of the Constitution.  I could go on for quite a while about the effects of drunk driving illegal aliens, of criminal aliens, and how illegal aliens are criminals with their first steps into the country they’re invading.  I could go on and on and on about that, comparing other nations’ immigration laws (Mexico’s are particularly harsh, and allow for citizen detention of non-Mexicans they catch), and make this solely about illegal immigration and the pandering of Democrats for more illegal alien voters is.

Instead, I’ll just quote these folks who think driver’s licenses are important:

“Eighteen of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists boarded those airplanes using driver’s licenses they never should have been issued,” said CSDL President Amanda Bowman. “After the attacks, it was learned that the terrorists possessed 63 licenses from states all across the country. And it was clear why they got them: The driver’s license is America’s internal passport, our de facto national identification card that allows holders access to airplane travel, truck rental, sensitive government and commercial buildings, wire transfers and a host of other terrorism tools and targets. The driver’s license is a terrorist weapon of choice, and Congress must act on that reality,” Ms. Bowman continued.

 

Big hat tip to Jawa Report:

Via Jawa, from NYT:

What do you call it when a self-proclaimed “Soldier of Allah” shouting “Allahu Akhbar” opens fire on dozens of US citizens — killing and maiming as many innocents as he can?

You call it terrorism, if you’re sane.

And “workplace violence,” if you’re the Obama administration.

That’s right: Three years after Nidal Malik Hasan’s jihadist shooting spree at Fort Hood, Texas, in which he murdered 13 people and wounded 29 more, the Defense Department still refuses to classify the attack as what it is: an act of terror.

Instead, it continues to label the shooting officially a case of “workplace violence.”

Let’s not forget Obama’s response to Fort Hood, and giving shout outs and thanking Interior Secretary Ken “Boot Stamping On A Human Face Forever” Salazar, and some anti-colonialist diatribe going on about “First Americans”.

Via The Jawa Report:

The Taliban and Al Qaeda aren’t losing.  They aren’t quitting.

Lara Logan discusses what’s really going on, and how she researched the story.  She’s one hell of a reporter.  It’s well worth watching.

“This is terrorism.  It’s a completely and utterly different fight from anything we have faced in our history…  Our way of life is under attack – and if you think that’s government propaganda – if you think that’s nonsense – if you think that’s warmongering – you’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fight.  In your arrogance, you think you write the script, but you don’t.”

Mark Steyn posted an excellent column today that pretty much covers the last week’s events in the Middle East.  A couple highlights:

So, on a highly symbolic date, mobs storm American diplomatic facilities and drag the corpse of a U.S. ambassador through the streets. Then the president flies to Vegas for a fundraiser. No, no, a novelist would say; that’s too pat, too neat in its symbolic contrast. Make it Cleveland, or Des Moines.

As I say, I’m inclined to be generous, and put some of this down to the natural torpor and ineptitude of government. But Hillary Clinton and General Martin Dempsey are guilty of something worse, in the secretary of state’s weirdly obsessive remarks about an obscure film supposedly disrespectful of Mohammed and the chairman of the joint chiefs’ telephone call to a private citizen asking him if he could please ease up on the old Islamophobia.

Forget the free-speech arguments. In this case, as Secretary Clinton and General Dempsey well know, the film has even less to do with anything than did the Danish cartoons or the schoolteacher’s teddy bear or any of the other innumerable grievances of Islam. The 400-strong assault force in Benghazi showed up with RPGs and mortars: That’s not a spontaneous movie protest; that’s an act of war, and better planned and executed than the dying superpower’s response to it. Secretary Clinton and General Dempsey are, to put it mildly, misleading the American people when they suggest otherwise.

Worth reading the whole thing.