Pro-Osama rally in Pakistan: “Bin Laden was the hero of the Muslim world and after his martyrdom he has won the title of great mujahed”, # Pakistan: Police break up Muslim rally threatening to burn church over rumors of Qur’an-burning

May 3, 2011
By CMAC

JIHAD WATCH

STRATFOR

ATLAS SHRUGS

“Bin Laden was the hero of the Muslim world and after his martyrdom he has won the title of great mujahed”

But but but but Obama say, Osama was not a Muslim leader. Huminah huminah huminah……

Only 800 people were there. That must mean that the Vast Majority of Peaceful Muslims are happy that the great Hijacker of Islam is dead, right? So where are they rallying?

“Hundreds join Quetta rally to honour bin Laden,” from AFP, May 2 (thanks to Benedict):

QUETTA: Hundreds took to the streets of Quetta on Monday to pay homage to Osama bin Laden, chanting death to America and setting fire to a US flag, witnesses and organisers said.Angry participants belonging to a religious party in Quetta, the capital of southwestern province Baluchistan, were led by federal lawmaker Maulawi Asmatullah. They also torched a US flag before dispersing peacefully.

It was the first rally in Pakistan after the United States announced that bin Laden had been killed in an overnight commando mission in Pakistan.

Organisers said between 1,000 and 1,200 people attended the rally, but witnesses put the figure closer to 800.

“Bin Laden was the hero of the Muslim world and after his martyrdom he has won the title of great mujahed (Muslim fighter),” Asmatullah said.

Obama’s DoJ to Fight for Impostion of Islamic Law, Will challenge Missouri anti-Sharia law

As more and more states take a stand against foreign law, Obama’s Department of sharia enforcement Justice is fighting the will of the American people and the Constitution. Just this week, Republicans in North Carolina proposed a bill to ban courts from using “foreign law.” (More here, hat tip Van)

And don’t think that it’s not happening. Eugene Volokh at The Volokh Conspiracy, April 29 (thanks to Robert): “Will Calls for Distribution ‘According to Islamic Laws and Sharia’; Pennsylvania Court Gives Twice as Much to Each Son as to Each Daughter,”

Prof. Abbass Alkhafaji died, and left a will that apparently said, in relevant part,

(4) About my pension, the beneficiaries are all my biological kids and my current wife, … after reducing all costs associated with the house…. [The] rest of the pension, if any left, should be divided according to Islamic Laws and Sharia….(9) In case I have additional monetary benefits from my job, such as life insurance, 401K, 403B or any other retirement funds that I am not aware of, Allah as my witness, They should be divided, after costs associated with the payment of those funds according to Islamic Laws and “Sharia.”

[...]

(1) May a court interpret a will — or a contract, deed, trust instrument, or what have you — that calls for the application of religious law (whether Islamic law, Jewish law, canon law, or any other religious law)? Or does the Establishment Clause preclude courts from deciding what, say, Islamic law actually requires, at least if there’s a controversy between the parties about what the “true” interpretation of the religious law should be? [...]

Here’s my tentative answer to question (1), based on an earlier post: I think courts must refuse to interpret religious terms of wills and other such documents, because of what I call the No Religious Decisions strand of Establishment Clause caselaw. Here’s a very brief summary of that strand: In a long line of cases (such as Presbyterian Church in the United States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church (1969)), the Supreme Court held that secular courts may not resolve religious questions, such as which rival church group most closely follows orthodox church teachings. Some states had rules, borrowed from English law, under which the more orthodox group would get to keep the church property, presumably on the theory that this would be more in keeping with what was intended by past donors to the church. But the Court held that such rules may not constitutionally be applied by civil courts…

No state would be contemplating anti-Sharia laws were it not for Sharia’s political and supremacist aspects, and its elements that are at variance with Constitutional freedoms — notably, its denial of the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience, and of equality of rights for women and non-Muslims. But it is doubtful in the extreme that the Obama Justice Department will give the anti-Sharia side a fair hearing. It will rule that such laws violate religious freedom, without considering Sharia’s political aspects in any way.

“U.S. Attorney: Feds Could Challenge Missouri Anti-Sharia Legislation,” by John H. Tucker for the Riverfront Times, April 29 (thanks to Creeping Sharia):

U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri Richard Callahan visited the Islamic Foundation of Greater St. Louis last night to address the fears and frustrations of Muslim Americans who worry they are being racially profiled and wiretapped — and to assure them that the Missouri Legislature’s attempts to ban Sharia law from being considered in state courts here could face Constitutional challenges.Seated in front of a large Muslim audience during a town hall-style meeting at the Ballwin mosque, Callahan anchored a panel that included fellow federal attorneys (one of whom was Muslim American), as well as three members of the FBI.

The tenor of the night was polite and respectful, but several members of the crowd expressed anger over what they perceive to be rising trends of Islamophobia in America over the past couple years, citing people burning the Koran and communities banning mosques as examples.

“There is a worse kind of Muslim hatred recently,” said Adil Imdad, one of the event’s organizers. “Especially in the last two years, Islamophobia and fear-mongering have been spreading like wildfire, and it’s causing a lot of stress for our youth.”

Funny thing, Imdad: jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism are causing non-Muslim Americans a lot of stress.

The problem is now hitting a little closer to home, said Imdad, pointing to three bills currently circulating through the state legislature that seek to limit Sharia law (Islamic law) in Missouri courts. Sharia law could come into play in rulings considering child custody or prisoner rights for Muslims. As we’ve reported, the bills have become a source of controversy.Callahan responded by hinting that, should anti-Sharia legislation get passed by the Missouri Legislature, it could be overturned by the federal courts. “The Department of Justice has a good history of challenging laws passed by state legislatures,” he said. “If some laws are passed, I think you will see challenges by the federal government on the constitutionality of them.”…

Zia Faruqui, the Muslim American attorney on the panel, spoke to the crowd using several Arabic phrases, encouraging them to avoid hiding. He defended the justice system, citing 50 prosecutions in recent years against people charged with anti-Muslim crimes.

 

 

Muslims Rally Threatening to Burn Church over Rumors of Qur’an-burning in Pakistan

The only thing sicker and deadlier than this Islamic fervor is our response to such savagery — We seek to impose the sharia and call for restrictions on the freedom of expression, instead of restricting and banning jihad and the ideology that inspires killing, gender apartheid, ethnic cleansing, etc., in the name of whomever or whatever.

And the Western response to this madness is to call for restrictions on the freedom of expression, instead of calling these people out for their violent irrationality. “Police break up Muslim rally threatening to burn church in eastern Pakistan, say officials,” from The Associated Press, April 30:

LAHORE, Pakistan — Officials say police have broken up an angry mob threatening to burn a church after the alleged burning of a Qur’an in eastern Pakistan.Saeed Wahla, administrator of Gujranwala city, said the police on Saturday charged 300 protesters that were marching toward a church, infuriated over rumours that Qurans had been burned by Christians.

Nabil Awan, another local official, said a burned copy of Qur’an was found Saturday, while two weeks earler a couple burned pages from the holy book had turned up….

May 2, 2011

Only 800 people were there. That must mean that the Vast Majority of Peaceful Muslims are happy that the great Hijacker of Islam is dead, right? So where are they rallying?

“Hundreds join Quetta rally to honour bin Laden,” from AFP, May 2 (thanks to Benedict):

QUETTA: Hundreds took to the streets of Quetta on Monday to pay homage to Osama bin Laden, chanting death to America and setting fire to a US flag, witnesses and organisers said.Angry participants belonging to a religious party in Quetta, the capital of southwestern province Baluchistan, were led by federal lawmaker Maulawi Asmatullah. They also torched a US flag before dispersing peacefully.

It was the first rally in Pakistan after the United States announced that bin Laden had been killed in an overnight commando mission in Pakistan.

Organisers said between 1,000 and 1,200 people attended the rally, but witnesses put the figure closer to 800.

“Bin Laden was the hero of the Muslim world and after his martyrdom he has won the title of great mujahed (Muslim fighter),” Asmatullah said.

Posted by Robert on May 2, 2011 1:26 PM | 75 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

What absurdity: this non-Muslim Muslim leader whom all Muslims despised is going to be the cause for their rioting? Pamela Geller observes: “But Obama said Osama bin Laden was ‘not a Muslim leader.’ So why are Muslims in a lather? If he doesn’t represent Islam, why would Muslims go jihad? Such stupidity has no precedent.” Indeed.

“Appeal For Calm In UK After Bin Laden Death,” from SkyNews, May 2 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

The head of one of Britain’s largest Muslim organisations has urged people to remain peaceful following the death of Osama bin Laden.Councillor Salim Mulla, who is chairman of the Lancashire Council of Mosques, told Sky News: “I am appealing publicly to all Muslim communities wherever they may be that there is no backlash. We should now move on.”

Cllr Mulla said although he was not critical of the American operation that resulted in the Bin Laden’s killing, he thought many Muslims would be “irritated”.

He said: “I really hope and pray that there will not be a backlash. I hope it won’t happen and I can’t see it happening.

“I have been very critical of American foreign policy in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it is time to move on.

“In relation to Osama bin Laden – we believe that the soul of anybody who dies belongs to God and he will now be accountable to God.”…

Posted by Robert on May 2, 2011 1:01 PM | 22 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

This scrupulous care, of course, is designed to underscore Obama’s claim, repeated last night, that we are not at war with Islam. It is designed to placate the Muslims whom — Obama also hastened to tell us last night — bin Laden did not lead, but rather murdered wholesale. Pamela Geller pinpoints what’s wrong with this: “Such respect we give, not only to a mass murderer of Americans in the name of Islam, but deference to the very ideology that has fueled this war on America.”

“Bin Laden Given Religious Funeral Prior to Sea Burial,” from FoxNews.com, May 2:

Usama bin Laden was given a religious funeral prior to his burial at sea, senior military officials told Fox News.Religious rites were conducted on the deck of the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier at about 1:10 a.m. Monday in the Persian Gulf.

In accordance with Islamic practice, bin Laden was washed and wrapped in a white sheet before buried at sea at 2 a.m. local time, senior U.S. military and intelligence officials said.

Bin Laden, who resisted capture, was “living rather comfortably” in the compound, an official told Fox News….

Posted by Robert on May 2, 2011 12:55 PM | 33 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

But…but…I thought bin Laden was not a Muslim leader, and represented only a Tiny Minority of Extremists. Shouldn’t these Muslims be dancing in the streets and passing out candy because the great Hijacker of the Religion of Peace is dead?

“Arabs Riot in Jerusalem Over Bin Laden’s Demise, Hamas Angry,” by Hillel Fendel for Israel National News, May 2 (thanks to Benedict):

Arabs in the village of Silwan, adjacent to the City of David neighborhood in Jerusalem, rioted Monday night in protest over the elimination of Osama Bin-Laden. The rioters were throwing stones at police and attempting to block roads….

Posted by Robert on May 2, 2011 12:46 PM | 14 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

No surprise here. “WikiLeaks: Osama bin Laden ‘protected’ by Pakistani security,” by Tim Ross in the Telegraph, May 2 (thanks to Mehreen):

Pakistani security forces allegedly helped Osama bin Laden evade American troops for almost 10 years, according to secret US government files. Pakistani army soldiers secure the compound where Osama Bin Laden leader of Al-Qaeda, was killed in an operation, in Abbotabad, PakistanAmerican diplomats were told that one of the key reasons why they had failed to find bin Laden was that Pakistan’s security services tipped him off whenever US troops approached.

Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISID) also allegedly smuggled al-Qaeda terrorists through airport security to help them avoid capture and sent a unit into Afghanistan to fight alongside the Taliban.

The claims, made in leaked US government files obtained by Wikileaks, will add to questions over Pakistan’s capacity to fight al-Qaeda.

Last year, David Cameron caused a diplomatic furore when he told Pakistan that it could not “look both ways” on terrorism. The Pakistani government issued a strongly-worded rebuttal.

But bin Laden was eventually tracked down and killed in compound located just a few hundred yards from Pakistan’s prestigious military academy in Abbotabad.

The raid by elite US troops was kept secret from the government of Pakistan. Only a tight circle within the Obama Administration knew of the operation.

In December 2009, the government of Tajikistan warned the United States that efforts to catch bin Laden were being thwarted by corrupt Pakistani spies.

According to a US diplomatic dispatch, General Abdullo Sadulloevich Nazarov, a senior Tajik counterterrorism official, told the Americans that “many” inside Pakistan knew where bin Laden was.

The document stated: “In Pakistan, Osama Bin Laden wasn’t an invisible man, and many knew his whereabouts in North Waziristan, but whenever security forces attempted a raid on his hideouts, the enemy received warning of their approach from sources in the security forces.”

Intelligence gathered from detainees at Guantanamo Bay may also have made the Americans wary of sharing their operational plans with the Pakistani government….

Posted by Robert on May 2, 2011 10:31 AM | 30 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

No wonder. “Pak kept in dark till last minute on Osama operation,” from Express India, May 2 (thanks to Jaladhi):

Pakistan was kept in dark till the operation to kill Osama bin Laden was successfully accomplished inside the country close to the capital Islamabad, the US officials said.After the four helicopters carrying US special forces swooped down and killed the world’s most wanted man as he was holed up in a two-storey house, just 100 yards from the Pakistani Military Academy, US President Barack Obama called his Pakistani counterpart Asif Ali Zardari to inform him of the mission accomplished.

“We are very concerned that he (bin Laden) was inside Pakistan, but this is something that we’re going to continue to work with the Pakistani government on,” a senior administration official said.

The Obama Administration shared intelligence on the bin Laden operation with no other country, including Pakistan, sources said. “That was for one reason and one reason alone: We believed it was essential to the security of the operation and our personnel… that only a very small group of people inside our own government knew of the operation,” an official said.

Shortly after the raid, US officials contacted senior Pakistani leaders to brief them on the intent and the results of the raid.

But even now, the US officials have not made it clear from where the helicopters and special forces undertook the operation….

Posted by Robert on May 2, 2011 10:24 AM | 9 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Any excuse will do when it comes to Islamic supremacist persecution of Christians in Pakistan. “Christians are an “easy target” for reprisal after Bin Laden’s death, says Mgr Saldanha,” from AsiaNews, May 2 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

Islamabad (AsiaNews) – Christian institutions, schools and organisations in Pakistan have closed down today for fear of attacks. Many fear that the operation by US Special Forces that led to the death of Osama Bin Laden could spark a negative reaction by Muslims against the religious minority. Mgr Lawrence John Saldanha, archbishop emeritus of Lahore, calls for greater protection for Christians, an “easy target” for possible reprisal. Meanwhile, a number of Islamic fundamentalism groups have issued statements, disputing claims that the al Qaeda leader was killed. In Pakistan’s civil society, anger and happiness are the prevailing emotions. For their part, the government and president of Pakistan are preparing to issue a “balanced” statement to avoid stoking tensions.According to early reports, Bin Laden died after being shot in the head. Four other people were killed in the gunfire. US Special Forces are believed to be holding the body, but a US official said the body was buried at sea “according to Muslim customs”….

Meanwhile, Pakistani authorities denied any involvement with the Americans in the operation.

In a statement, extremist group Pakistan Tehrik-e-Taliban dismissed the operation as a sham, saying that as far as they are concerned Osama is still alive.

Retired Pakistan Inter Service Intelligence chief Hameed Gul also cast doubts about the operation and US claims, saying that in the footage shown on TV channels Bin Laden looks too young. However, “Obama is a smart person” and “this is a great start to his election campaign”.

Analysts are divided. Some believe that al-Qaeda will be weakened by Bin Laden’s death. Others fear an escalation in violation in response to the loss.

In Pakistan, local sources are saying that US and Western Embassy officials in Islamabad are examining the opportunity of closing down their respective diplomatic missions as a preventive measure.

Many Christian institutions, schools and organisation [sic] have closed for the day fearing more violence in the wake of episodes that followed the burning of a Qur‘an in Florida a few weeks ago.

Controls have been stepped up in front of churches in fear of anti-crusader retribution.

Mgr Lawrence Saldanha, archbishop emeritus of Lahore, is also concerned about possible reprisals against Christians by extremist groups. For this reason, he has called on the government to do its utmost to prevent acts o vengeance.

He is especially alarmed by the fact that the Christian minority is an “easy target” compared to the United States, whose forces carried out the operation against Bin Laden. Hence, he wants the authorities to take steps to “guarantee the safety” of the minority….

Posted by Robert on May 2, 2011 10:18 AM | 4 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Video here.

Note the scale on the floor. Was the jihadi mastermind watching the carbs?

Posted by Robert on May 2, 2011 10:16 AM | 3 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Just in case any of you still thought Pakistan was on our side. “Musharraf: Bin Laden mission violated Pakistan,” by Ashish Kumar Sen for The Washington Times, May 2:

Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf on Monday accused the U.S. of violating his country’s sovereignty by sending in special forces to kill Osama bin Laden.“American troops coming across the border and taking action in one of our towns, that is Abbottabad, is not acceptable to the people of Pakistan. It is a violation of our sovereignty,” Mr. Musharraf told CNN-IBN, an Indian news channel.

He added that it would have been “far better if Pakistani Special Services Group had operated and conducted the mission. To that extent, the modality of handling it and executing the operation is not correct.”…

Maybe the Americans didn’t want bin Laden tipped off as to what was coming.

Mr. Musharraf said the “lack of trust is very bad.”“If two organizations [are] conducting an operation against a common enemy, there has to be trust and confidence in each other,” he said.

But of course, in such a case, both organizations have to be worthy of trust. With Pakistan’s spy service in league with al-Qaeda, how can it — or the Pakistani government in general — be trusted?

Pakistan is “totally on board” on fighting al Qaeda and Taliban.

No kidding, really?

Mr. Musharraf said it was possible that some local Pakistanis had colluded with bin Laden.

No kidding, really?

“A battle has been won, but the war continues,” Mr. Musharraf said, warning that “al Qaeda is still there.”

No kidding, really?

Posted by Robert on May 2, 2011 9:46 AM | 40 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

The fact that this trial continues is a telling indication of the death-wish of the West.

Final remarks by Geert Wilders at his trial in Amsterdam, May 2nd, 2011Mister President, members of the Court. I recently tried to have Your Honors removed from the case for your refusal to register a statement of perjury against Mr. Hendriks. My challenge of the court did not succeed. I must accept that. I do wish to say, however, that I was more annoyed by another declaration of the President of the Court on the day of the official hearing of Mr. Jansen. He said that I was a free man, that I could not be compared to Mr. Nekschot because I was a free man.

Mister President, you could not be more wrong. For almost seven years now, I have not been a free man. I lost my freedom in 2004. I live as a prisoner with guards without you having convicted me. Without protection I am even less certain of my life than I am now. Mister President, you would not use the words “free man” if you could change places with me for one week.

Mister President, members of the court, I am here as a suspect again today. I have said so before: This penal case is a political trial. An attempt is being made here to silence a politician who speaks on behalf of one and a half million people and who already pays a heavy price for that every single day. Formally, only I stand on trial here, but in practice the freedom of speech of millions of Dutchmen is on trial.

This trial is not merely a political trial. It is also an unjust trial. When you look at the order of the court (to prosecute me) it is clear that the verdict has already been passed. The court has issued an order to prosecute me in which it concludes that I am guilty of incitement to hatred. The court has concluded that my statements as such are of an insulting nature. The court has concluded that I am guilty of the most serious charge: the incitement to hatred and discrimination. The court has concluded that it expects that the criminal prosecution will indeed lead to a conviction. Mister President, members of the court, the court has already done your job. Long before I was brought to trial before you, I was found guilty and was condemned. Hence my right to a just trial has been violated.

Alas, this is but the tip of the iceberg. Without any doubt, the judges who presided this case have conveyed a semblance of partiality. I have been denied 15 of the 18 witnesses whom I wanted to call. Every high representative of the judicial power has given his view on this case, and often to my disadvantage. But Counselor Schalken was the worst.

Counselor Schalken, who co-authored the decision to prosecute me, makes a habit of discussing my trial and arguing his case at elegant dinner parties for intellectuals. Counselor Schalken dined with my witness, Mr Jansen – note that he was one of the only three witnesses whom I was allowed to call – three days before Mr. Jansen was to be interrogated by the court. During this dinner Mr. Schalken TRIED to influence Mr Jansen. The fact that he did not succeed is irrelevant.

Mr. President, members of the court, stop this unfair, political trial. Respect our Dutch freedoms. If this trial continues, despite the fact that the principle of the presumption of innocence has been violated, and if I am convicted, not only my freedom will be infringed, but also the right of all Dutch people to hear the truth. The 19th century black American politician Frederick Douglass, the son of a slave, put it as follows: “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.”

Mr. President, members of the court, I end with a quote of George Washington, who said: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” Mr. President, members of the court, do not let this warning become reality. Stop this charade, this political trial where I have already been convicted by the court even before I was a suspect. Stop it now. If you do so, and I passionately hope you will, this will benefit freedom of speech as well as the respectability of the judicial power and the rule of law.

Posted by Robert on May 2, 2011 9:29 AM | 16 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

The violent end of terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden has provoked a wider variety of responses than expected. While many in the West welcomed news that a CIA operation had “terminated” the jihadist “with extreme prejudice,” some public figures expressed more nuanced responses:

Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump: “I’m very happy to hear these reports of Mr. Laden’s supposed ‘death.’ But I don’t think the American people are going to be satisfied with rumors, second-hand reports, and some hasty, secret burial at sea. This so-called ‘deather’ issue won’t be put to bed until President Obama does the right thing: What Americans want to see is the long form of Mr. Laden’s Hawaiian death certificate. Then they want my team of top-notch, world-class investigators to go over the paperwork and make sure everything is hunky-dory. Pending that, I consider myself guardedly optimistic that Mr. Laden might be dead. But the President has got some serious questions to answer, unless in two years he wants to hear the voters tell him, ‘You’re fired.’”

M.I.T. linguist and international gadfly Prof. Noam Chomsky: “This kind of killing for hire, conducted by the agents of a transnational hyperpower on the soil of an impoverished, developing country that is still recovering from the brutal heritage of Western colonialism, accomplished in secret then trumpeted by the agents of Corporate Media, is just what we have come to expect from the Warfare State. As the last and ugliest manifestation of Late Capitalism, fighting off the death convulsions of irresolvable internal contradictions, secret murder is only a symptom, and we should not be fooled by those who think that putting a stop to CIA and Mossad assassinations will do more than slow down by a few months the inevitable collapse of Amerika’s narco-terrorist plutocracy.”

Republican Congressman Ron Paul: “Muslims are killing people over here because we’re killing Muslims over there. I don’t see how one more death makes Americans any safer. It will only provoke more vengeance and acts of terrorism. If the Islamic world could be liberated from the tyranny of fiat currency and central banking, and given instead a sound currency based on the gold standard, they wouldn’t be driven by economic anxiety to follow statists like Mr. Bin Laden who wish to violate the individual rights of workers in the financial industry, as tragically occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.”

Neoconservative author Dinesh D’Souza: “For every one terrorist we kill, somewhere in the Western media two breasts are emerging with impudence from the willfully opened bodice of some strumpet, an image which corruscates at the speed of light through the congeries of the Internet, to provoke and enrage with rightful indignation young Muslim men against the suppurations of post-Enlightenment moral decay. For each pair of heaving young breasts, I estimate that four new jihad terrorists will rise up to avenge the honor of womanhood, through misguided acts of terrorism aimed at icons of Occidental decadence such as skyscrapers, metro stations, and Coptic churches. Translating bin Laden into an existentially negative state does nothing, so long as the young, fresh white skin of blonde Americans is being recklessly presented to a world of indignant brown Arab eyes.”

Abp. Renato Martino, former Vatican Observer at the United Nations: “Whatever he may or may not have done, Osama bin Laden had human dignity, and such dignity demands an infinite respect. We learn from the Gospel that we must not treat even Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden, as means but as ends in themselves. How is that solemn demand satisfied by this shooting of the man, this tossing of his body into the sea? He was not granted a trial, a chance to defend himself, or even an opportunity to say goodbye to his family—this for a man with many, many wives and children. Think of how they are grieving today, these last and unrecognized victims of 9/11.”

Foreign policy analyst Max Boot: “I stand today vindicated. The surge is working. Our occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq is finally paying off. I knew that if enough Americans were willing to bite the bullet and spend the blood, toil, and treasure required to stay the course, to keep enough American boots on the ground, we would put an end to terrorism. Of course, the battle has just begun. There is far, far more to do. I have derived from this great success a strategic ratio: To execute one major terrorist leader, it is needful that the forces of freedom occupy two terrorist haven countries for a combined total of 19 years. The answer to 9/11 is 2/19. We didn’t know this going in, but you don’t always know the price it’s going to take, defeating evil. Now we do. Armed with this geostrategy, we know what to do going forward: Locate and occupy the next two terrorist havens, and impose on those places a regime of absolute, mandatory freedom for 19 years. Our analysts are already looking for the next two prime targets in the enduring peace offensive. I can’t speak authoritatively—I have yet to meet with my advisors in the national security, ex-military, and policy community—but I strongly suspect that the short list of potential candidates for liberation includes Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.”

Posted by Roland Shirk on May 2, 2011 8:32 AM | 22 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

No surprise here for anyone who has been watching Pakistan’s double game over the last few years. “Hiding bin Laden: Finger of suspicion at ISI,” by Chidanand Rajghatta for TNN, May 2:

WASHINGTON: Just hours after American Navy Seals shot dead Osama bin Laden in a compound in Pakistan on Sunday, US President Barack Obama shot down the Pakistani security establishment’s attempt to claim joint credit for the operation.In a ten-minute television address, Obama left no doubt that US personnel alone were involved in the action that brought bin Laden to justice. ”Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan,” Obama said, adding, ”A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability.”

While Obama said ”It’s important to note that our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding,” he made no mention of any Pakistani military role in the operation. US officials in background briefing made it clear that no country, much less Pakistan, was informed of the operation.

In fact, there was not even a word of thanks for Pakistan. Instead, Obama said: ”Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates.”

The finger of suspicion is now pointing squarely at the Pakistani military and intelligence for sheltering and protecting Osama bin Laden before US forces hunted him down and put a bullet in his head in the wee hours of Sunday. The coordinates of the action and sequence of events indicate that the al-Qaida fugitive may have been killed in an ISI safehouse.

US analysts uniformly suggested that the Pakistani security establishment’s claim of a role in the operation is clearly aimed at ducking charges of its military’s possible role in hiding bin Laden. ”This is hugely embarrassing for Pakistan,” was a common refrain on US TV channels throughout the night.

In fact, top US officials have openly suggested for months that the Pakistani military establishment was hiding bin Laden. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came closest to publicly exposing Pakistan’s role last May when she accused some government officials there of harboring Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar.

”I am not saying they are at the highest level…but I believe somewhere in this government are people who know where Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida and where Mullah Omar and the leadership of the Taliban are,” Clinton said on May 10 last year, adding, ”We expect more cooperation (from Pakistan) to help us bring to justice capture or kill those who brought us 9/11.”

Taken together with President Obama’s pointed reference to President Zardari and leaving out any mention of Pakistani forces’ involvement, it would seem that Washington believes that Pakistan’s military intelligence establishment, including the ISI, was sheltering bin Laden. The ISI was accused as recently as last week by the top US military official Admiral Mike Mullen of having terrorist links, and named as a terrorist support entity by US officials, according to the Guantanamo cables.

Lending credence to the charges is the fact that US forces homed in on bin Laden in Abbottabad, which is a cantonment just 50 kms from Islamabad, where the Pakistani military has a strong presence. The place where bin Laden was killed is only kilometers from the Kakul military academy, where many Pakistani military elites, including some of its ISI cadres, graduate from.

While US officials are tightlipped about precise details, analysts are trying to figure out whether the compound that sheltered bin Laden was an ISI safehouse. There is also speculation as to whether Hillary Clinton was referring to this when she made her pointed remarks last May….



Bin Laden’s Death and the Implications for Jihadism

By Scott Stewart

U.S. President Barack Obama appeared in a hastily arranged televised address the night of May 1, 2011, to inform the world that U.S. counterterrorism forces had located and killed Osama bin Laden. The operation, which reportedly happened in the early hours of May 2 local time, targeted a compound in Abbottabad, a city located some 31 miles north of Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital. The nighttime raid resulted in a brief firefight that left bin Laden and several others dead. A U.S. helicopter reportedly was damaged in the raid and later destroyed by U.S. forces. Obama reported that no U.S. personnel were lost in the operation. After a brief search of the compound, the U.S. forces left with bin Laden’s body and presumably anything else that appeared to have intelligence value. From Obama’s carefully scripted speech, it would appear that the U.S. conducted the operation unilaterally with no Pakistani assistance — or even knowledge.

As evidenced by the spontaneous celebrations that erupted in Washington, New York and across the United States, the killing of bin Laden has struck a chord with many Americans. This was true not only of those who lost family members as a result of the attack, but of those who were vicariously terrorized and still vividly recall the deep sense of fear they felt the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, as they watched aircraft strike the World Trade Center Towers and saw those towers collapse on live television, and then heard reports of the Pentagon being struck by a third aircraft and of a fourth aircraft prevented from being used in another attack when it crashed in rural Pennsylvania. As that fear turned to anger, a deep-seated thirst for vengeance led the United States to invade Afghanistan in October 2001 and to declare a “global war on terrorism.”

Because of this sense of fulfilled vengeance, the death of bin Laden will certainly be one of those events that people will remember, like the 9/11 attacks themselves. In spite of the sense of justice and closure the killing of bin Laden brings, however, his death will likely have very little practical impact on the jihadist movement. More important will be the reaction of the Pakistani government to the operation and the impact it has on U.S.-Pakistani relations.

Foundations

To understand the impact of bin Laden’s death on the global jihadist movement, we must first remember that the phenomenon of jihadism is far wider than just the al Qaeda core leadership of bin Laden and his closest followers. Rather than a monolithic entity based on the al Qaeda group, jihadism has devolved into a far more diffuse network composed of many different parts. These parts include the core al Qaeda group formerly headed by bin Laden; a network of various regional franchise groups such as al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP); and last, a broad array of grassroots operatives who are adherents to the jihadist ideology but who are not formally affiliated with the al Qaeda core or one of the regional franchises.

The al Qaeda core always has been a fairly small and elite vanguard. Since 9/11, intense pressure has been placed upon this core organization by the U.S. government and its allies. This pressure has resulted in the death or capture of many al Qaeda cadres and has served to keep the group small due to overriding operational security concerns. This insular group has laid low in Pakistan, and this isolation has significantly degraded its ability to conduct attacks. All of this has caused the al Qaeda core to become primarily an organization that produces propaganda and provides guidance and inspiration to the other jihadist elements rather than an organization focused on conducting operations. While bin Laden and the al Qaeda core have received a great deal of media attention, the core group comprises only a very small portion of the larger jihadist movement.

As STRATFOR has analyzed the war between the jihadist movement and the rest of the world, we have come to view the battlefield as being divided into two distinct parts, the physical battlefield and the ideological battlefield. The post-9/11 assault on the al Qaeda core group hindered its ability to act upon the physical battlefield. For the past several years, they have been limited to fighting on the ideological battlefield, waging a war of propaganda and attempting to promote the ideology of jihadism in an effort to radicalize Muslims and prompt them to act. The danger has always existed that if pressure were taken off this core, it could regroup and return to the physical struggle. But the pressure has been relentless and the group has been unable to return to its pre-9/11 level of operational capability. This has resulted in the grassroots and franchise groups like AQAP taking the lead on the physical battlefield.

As we noted in our annual forecast of the jihadist movement, the al Qaeda core group not only has been eclipsed on the physical battlefield, over the past few years it has been overshadowed on the ideological battlefield as well. Groups such as AQAP have begun setting the tone on the ideological realm — as in its call for Muslims to assume the leaderless resistance model rather than traveling to join groups — and we have seen the al Qaeda core follow the lead of AQAP rather than set the tone themselves. We believe this deference to AQAP is a sign of the al Qaeda core’s weakness, and of its struggle to remain relevant on the ideological battlefield. There also have been many disagreements among various actors in the jihadist movement over doctrinal issues such as targeting foreigners over local security forces and attacks that kill Muslims.

The Emir is Dead, Long Live the Emir

While the al Qaeda core has been marginalized recently, it has practiced good operational security and has been able to protect its apex leadership for nearly 10 years from one of the most intense manhunts in human history. It clearly foresaw the possibility that one of its apex leaders could be taken out and planned accordingly. This means keeping bin Laden and his deputy, Egyptian physician Ayman al-Zawahiri, in different locations and having a succession plan. There is also very little question that al-Zawahiri is firmly in command of the core group. Even prior to bin Laden’s death, many analysts considered al-Zawahiri to be the man in charge of most of the operational aspects of the al Qaeda group — the “chief executive officer,” with bin Laden being more of a figurehead or “chairman of the board.” That said, the intelligence collected during the operation against bin Laden could provide leads to track down other leaders, and this may make them nervous in spite of their efforts to practice good operational security.

Certainly, bin Laden was an important person who was able to raise much funding and who became an international icon following 9/11; because of this, it will be hard to replace him. At the same time, the jihadist movement has weathered the loss of a number of influential individuals, from the assassination of Abdullah Azzam to the arrests of the Blind Sheikh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Yet in spite of these losses, the ideology has continued, new members have been recruited and new leaders have stepped up to fill the void. Ideologies are far harder to kill than individuals, especially ideologies that encourage their followers to embrace martyrdom whether their leaders are dead or alive. This means that we do not believe the death of bin Laden will result in the death of the global jihadist movement: A man is dead but the ideology lives on.

The Threat

The survival of the ideology of jihadism means the threat of terrorist attacks remains. The good news is that as one moves down the jihadist pyramid from the al Qaeda core to the regional franchises to the grassroots, the level of terrorist tradecraft these individuals possess diminishes and the threat they pose is not as severe. Certainly, grassroots terrorists can and will continue to kill people, but they lack the ability to conduct dramatic, strategic attacks. Thus, though the threat becomes more widespread and harder to guard against, at the same time it becomes less severe.

There obviously will be some concerns regarding some sort of major attack in retribution for bin Laden’s death. Indeed, jihadists have long threatened to conduct attacks over the arrests and deaths of key figures. Analytically, however, the idea that al Qaeda or one of its regional franchise groups has some sort of superattack on standby for activation upon bin Laden’s death is simply not logical. First, the al Qaeda core group has attempted to conduct many attacks against the U.S. homeland following 9/11, as have franchise groups like AQAP. While these plots did not succeed, it was not for lack of trying. Jihadists have also made many empty threats regarding a follow-on to the 9/11 attacks — only to be embarrassed by their inability to follow through. Third, so many plots have been thwarted over the past decade that if the core al Qaeda group or a franchise group had a plan primed and ready to go, it would not sit on it and run the risk of its being discovered and compromised. Instead, it would execute such an attack as soon as it was ready. Furthermore, jihadists — especially those at the grassroots and regional franchise levels — have not demonstrated the sophisticated apparatus required to conduct off-the-shelf planning exhibited by groups like Hezbollah. They generally tend to work on attack plans from scratch and execute those plans when ready.

Undoubtedly, there were jihadists planning attacks on the United States before the death of bin Laden, and there are jihadists planning attacks today. However, these individuals probably would have carried out this planning and any eventual attack — if possible — regardless of bin Laden’s fate. Will groups conducting future attacks claim they were acting in retribution for bin Laden? Probably. Would they have attempted such an attack if he were still alive? Probably.

The potential for low-level impulsive retribution attacks by unprepared individuals or groups directed at American or other Western targets does exist, however. This type of impromptu attack would be more likely a shooting rather than an attack using an explosive device, so there is good reason for the U.S. government to increase security measures around the globe.

The result of all this is that the threat from the global jihadist movement will continue in the short term with no real change. This means that pressure needs to be maintained on the al Qaeda core so it will not have the chance to recover, retool and return to attacking the United States. Pressure also needs to be maintained on the jihadist franchise groups so they cannot mature operationally to the point where they become transnational, strategic threats. Finally, efforts must continue to identify grassroots jihadists before they can launch attacks against soft targets. But these same imperatives also were valid last week; nothing has really changed at the tactical level.

Where the big change may be happening is at the political level. That bin Laden was located in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province (formerly known as the North-West Frontier Province) did not come as a surprise — STRATFOR has discussed this likelihood since 2005. We have also discussed the distrust and suspicion between the U.S. and Pakistan — which was clearly evidenced by the unilateral U.S. action in this case. The significant thing to watch for is the reaction of the Pakistani government and public to the raid. In the past, the Pakistani government has found creative ways of displaying its displeasure with the actions of the U.S. government — like manipulating the Pakistani public into the November 1979 sacking and destruction of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad. While the average Pakistani may not care too much about bin Laden, public sentiment is running very high against U.S. operations in Pakistan, and this operation could serve to inflame such sentiments. These two elements mean that the coming weeks could be a very tense time for U.S. diplomatic and commercial interests in that country.

As I explained many, many times during the uprising against Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood is no friend of the U.S., and the prospect of its coming to power in Egypt is something no free person should welcome.

“Egypt Muslim Brotherhood condemns Bin Laden death,” from AP, May 2 (thanks to Elias):

CAIRO – Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, a conservative organization with links around the Islamic world, has condemned the killing of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden by U.S. forces as an “assassination.”The Brotherhood, which seeks the establishment of a state run according to Islamic principles through peaceful means, is Egypt’s most powerful and organized political movement.

The statement Monday said the group “is against violence in general, against assassinations and in favor of fair trials.”…

Posted by Robert on May 2, 2011 6:52 AM | 19 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

The most influential Islamic institution among Sunni Muslims condemns the sea burial of Osama bin Laden. Obama took pains to make sure that Osama would get a proper Islamic burial, but since he wanted to bury the body quickly (in accord with Islamic law) and couldn’t find a country that would take the body (and probably also didn’t want to create a place of pilgrimage and anti-American agitation), he buried him at sea. He was trying to show the Islamic world that the U.S. is not at war with Islam, but ended up enraging Muslims anyway — demonstrating yet again that dhimmi pandering gets nowhere.

“Bin Laden: Al Azhar, Sea Burial Is A Sin,” from ANSAmed, May 2 (thanks to Insubria):

(ANSAmed) – CAIRO, MAY 2 – The body of Osama bin Laden must be buried in the ground, and throwing it into the sea would be a ‘sin’, said Mahmoud Ashour of the Al Azhar Academy of Islamic Research, the most prestigious Sunni educational institute, while speaking to ANSA.The Al Azhar official rejected the idea of sea burial of the Al Qaida leader for “trivial motives”, explaining that even when someone drowns, the body must be searched for in order to be able to “bury it in the ground”. “They should bury it in the ground without putting anything on the grave,” explained Ashour, responding to a question about whether Osama bin Laden’s burial could become a sort of pilgrimage site. (ANSAmed).

Posted by Robert on May 2, 2011 6:17 AM | 53 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Here is yet another instance of Sharia wielding an influence in U.S. courts, courtesy of clueless dhimmi judges. An update on this story. “Tampa mosque quarrel drawing national attention,” by Tom Brennan for The Tampa Tribune, May 2:

TAMPA — Power struggles can erupt in any organization; from homeowners associations to the Junior League.Typically, the dustups barely register outside the group.

But a tiff involving a Tampa nonprofit organization is sparking a national fuss.

Instead of a disagreement over Robert’s Rules of Order, this quarrel involves a mosque, $2.4 million and what role, if any, Islamic law should play in resolving the court case.

The dispute was ignited in 2002 when members of the Islamic Education Center of Tampa ousted four founding trustees of the mosque, 6450 Rockpointe Drive….

Setting aside the political hot-button issues involving Islamic law, legal experts worry the case wades into the First Amendment prohibition against government becoming entangled in religious practices.

“It is a quagmire at this point,” said Cyra Choudhury, an assistant professor at Florida International University College of Law.

“If it is a simple contract issue, it is very straightforward,” said Choudhury, who has taught on international and commercial law and law in Islamic societies. “But if the court has to determine what Islamic law is, there are some problems.”

The resentments in the mosque case simmered and came to a legal boil when Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise said it needed to acquire 3.4 acres owned by the mosque in order to widen the Veterans Expressway. The agency paid $2.45 million for the land in 2007.

A year later, the ousted trustees sued four members of the mosque whom they held responsible for their removal. Among the issues: Who would spend the state cash and how would it be used?

The mosque became a defendant in the lawsuit in 2010.

The case quietly ground its way through Hillsborough County circuit court.

That was until March, when Circuit Judge Richard A. Nielsen said the case should proceed under “ecclesiastical Islamic law” as to whether there was an enforceable arbitration agreement.

Nielsen noted that state and federal courts have ruled “that ecclesiastical law controls certain relations between members of a religious organization, whether a church, synagogue, temple or mosque.”

Experts say the use of foreign law in arbitration is not unusual: parties can opt to rely on whatever means they wish in order to mediate disagreements – be it another country’s laws or rock-paper-scissors.

“It is whatever the parties agree to,” said Jason Palmer, an assistant professor at Stetson University College of Law who has studied international law and arbitration. “As long as it doesn’t violate U.S. law or public policy.”

That would be fine if there were an arbitration agreement and everyone agreed to use Islamic law, said Paul Thanasides, an attorney for the mosque.

But the existence of an arbitration agreement is at the core of the dispute.

The ousted trustees claim arbitration was held in January 2009. They also contend the arbitrator, an Islamic scholar known as an A’lim from Texas, found in December that the mosque’s membership had improperly changed its bylaws in order to oust them.

In court pleadings, mosque officials deny any arbitration took place. They claim the purported agreement was written by one of the ousted trustees who coerced the arbitrator into signing it.

Nielsen hasn’t made a final decision, saying more testimony is needed to determine whether Islamic dispute resolution procedures were followed.

The mosque has asked a state appeals court to prohibit Nielsen from interpreting or applying any religious doctrines.

“This is a business law issue and what the ruling does is risk the court becoming entangled in ecclesiastical law,” Thanasides said. “We are in a situation where the court is saying to the mosque, ‘This is what your religion says.’”

Even if an arbitration agreement existed, he said, the proper way to enforce it would be through state or federal arbitration codes. And if the ousted trustees wanted to challenge how the mosque’s bylaws were changed, that also would be covered by Florida civil law.

“Why is it that because this is a mosque and they are believers of Islam, they don’t get the benefit of the Florida arbitration code like anyone else?” said Thanasides. “In every case involving a believer of Islam are we going to ignore state law?”…

Posted by Robert on May 2, 2011 6:02 AM | 7 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Sounds like a good idea to me. The quixotic Wilsonian democracy projects and hearts-and-minds initiatives were doomed from the start. But if Western analysts think that once we do withdraw, that the jihad against the U.S. will end, they’re in for a rude awakening. “Brotherhood: U.S. troops should now quit Iraq, Afghan,” from Reuters, May 2:

CAIRO (Reuters) – Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood said on Monday that U.S. soldiers should be withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq after the killing of Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks that led to two U.S.-led wars.Al Qaeda leader was killed in a firefight with U.S. forces in Pakistan on Sunday, U.S. President Barack Obama said.

“With Bin Laden’s death, one of the reasons for which violence has been practiced in the world has been removed,” Essam al-Erian, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s governing body, told Reuters.

“It is time for Obama to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq and end the occupation of U.S. and Western forces around the world that have for so long harmed Muslim countries,” he said….

“The revolutions taking place across the Middle East are proof that democracy has a home in the Middle East and we do not need foreign occupation any more,” Erian said.

Any more? You mean, you needed it up to now?

He said there could be a violent reaction to Bin Laden’s death in areas of the world where al Qaeda had a foothold.”Afghanistan, Pakistan, Morocco and Algeria might react violently as the influence of al Qaeda is pervasive there.”

He said Islam should not be equated with terrorism or the kind of violence espoused by Bin Laden.

“It is time for the world to understand that violence and Islam are not related and that relating them has been an intentional mistake by the media,” Erian added.

No, it has been an intentional “mistake” by people like Osama bin Laden. And I expect that Erian knows that full well.

Posted by Robert on May 2, 2011 5:43 AM | 11 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Hamas-linked CAIR has disingenuously hailed the killing of Osama bin Laden, but note the Islamic terms in which Son Hadi and Abu Bakar Bashir speak about the killing. These people and others like them are appealing to Muslims and claiming Islamic authenticity. If Hamas-linked CAIR really opposes them, then it should explain how they’re getting Islam all wrong.

“Indonesian Radical Group Hails Bin Laden ‘Martyr,’” from the Jakarta Globe, May 2:

Radical Indonesian Islamist group Jemaah Ansharut Tauhid (JAT) on Monday hailed assassinated Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden as a “martyr” who championed Islam against America.”If it’s true Osama bin Laden is dead, then he died a martyr. He fought for Islam and he fought for the lands colonized by America,” JAT spokesman Son Hadi told AFP.

“Al Qaeda didn’t die with him. Jihad will not be dampened just because he’s dead because jihad is a command of the religion, not of individuals,” he added.

JAT was founded in 2008 by firebrand cleric Abu Bakar Bashir, who is standing trial for leading and financing a militant group that was discovered training recruits in Aceh province last year.

The hardline Muslim cleric on Monday said the killing of Osama bin Laden would create disaster as many would retaliate, because Osama was a great cleric and mujahidin

“Obama said that America was not hostile against Islam, but this a big lie,” Bashir said, as quoted by his personal aide, Hasyim Abdullah….

Posted by Robert on May 2, 2011 5:42 AM | 6 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Peace partners. “Hamas condemns killing of ‘holy warrior’ bin Laden,” by Dan Williams, with reporting by Nidal al-Mughrabi for Reuters, May 2:

[...] “We regard this as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood,” Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip, told reporters.Though he noted doctrinal differences between bin Laden’s al Qaeda and Hamas, Haniyeh said: “We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and the martyrs.”

Posted by Robert on May 2, 2011 5:34 AM | 11 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Who put him up there? Who knew that he was there? How long was he there? The Pakistani government needs to come clean. “A massive house with no telephone or internet connection led to bin Laden,” by Chidanand Rajghatta for TNN, May 2 (thanks to Jaladhi):

Washington: A large mansion in a massive compound with 12 feet to 18 feet tall walls topped with barbed wire. No telephone or internet connection to the house. And seldom seen residents who burnt their trash rather than dispose it as other neighbors did.These were the slender leads that eventually took US spooks and seals to the world’s most wanted fugitive. Osama bin Laden lived not in a cave in some frontier mountain redoubt, but in a suburban neighborhood in a million-strong city just an hour’s drive from Islamabad, right under the eyes of the Pakistani military.

No one is particularly surprised about this. In fact, going by the track record of major Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives captured so far, it would seem that images of them hiding in caves are overblown. Most of them have been captured in Pakistani cities — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Rawalpindi, Mullah Biradhar in Karachi, and other operatives in places like Faisalabad and Multan. It would seem the terrorists like their comfort — or at least they are kept in comfort….

“Intelligence analysts concluded that this compound was custom built to hide someone of significance. We soon learned that more people were living at the compound than the two brothers and their families,” one U.S official explained. ”Our best assessment, based on a large body of reporting from multiple sources, was that bin Laden was living there with several family members, including his youngest wife.”…

Although the operation lasted just 40 minutes, U.S officials acknowledged the team ran into resistance. Bin Laden, who was living in the compound with his eldest son and his youngest wife, himself fought before being shot in the head in the firefight. The two couriers who were also with him also died, as did his son and another woman who was used as a human shield. Two other women in the compound, which also had children, were wounded. It is not clear if his wife survived….

Posted by Robert on May 2, 2011 5:25 AM | 8 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Indeed. With Pakistan’s spy service in league with al-Qaeda, this is eminently credible. “India says Pakistan ‘a terror sanctuary,’” from the BBC, May 2 (thanks to W):

The killing of Osama bin Laden near Islamabad is proof that “terrorists belonging to different organisations find sanctuary in Pakistan”, Indian Home Minister P Chidambaram says.President Obama’s statement that the Al-Qaeda leader was killed in Abbotabad “deep inside Pakistan” was a matter of “grave concern”, he said.

The minister urged Pakistan to arrest those behind the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

India has blamed the attacks on Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba group.

After initially denying the charge, Pakistan later admitted that some of the attacks were planned on its territory….

Posted by Robert on May 2, 2011 5:00 AM | 6 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

With Osama bin Laden sleeping with the fishes and all that, it is a good day to revisit Steve Martin’s classic “Seventy-two Virgins,” from the New Yorker, January 29, 2007:

Virgin No. 1: Yuck.Virgin No. 2: Ick.

Virgin No. 3: Ew.

Virgin No. 4: Ow.

Virgin No. 5: Do you like cats? I have fourteen!

Virgin No. 6: I’m Becky. I’ll be legal in two years.

Virgin No. 7: Here, I’ll just pull down your zipper. Oh, sorry!

Virgin No. 8: Can we cuddle first?

Virgin No. 9: It was a garlic-and-onion pizza. Why?

Virgin No. 10: . . . so I see Heath, and he goes, “Like, what are you doing here?,” and I go, “I’m hangin’ out,” so he goes, “Like, what?” . . .

Virgin No. 11: First you’re going to have to show me an up-to-date health certificate.

Virgin No. 12: Hurry! My parents are due home!

Virgin No. 13: Do you want the regular or the special?

Virgin No. 14: I’m eighty-four. So what?

Read it all.

Posted by Robert on May 2, 2011 4:57 AM | 7 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

OBLdead.jpg

From al-Jazeera Arabic (thanks to Sarah)

(I don’t know if the photo is authentic or not. But al-Jazeera is running with it in their Arabic service.)

UPDATE: It’s fake, as the Guardian explains here (thanks to Paul).

Posted by Robert on May 2, 2011 4:43 AM | 19 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

ObamabinLaden.jpg

Whoops.

Image from Kyle Hudgins (thanks to Dr. Rezk)

Posted by Robert on May 2, 2011 4:20 AM | 9 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

May 1, 2011

My reflections on Osama’s death, in Human Events just now:

Osama bin Laden has gone to the great bordello in the sky that awaits every good jihadi.Barack Obama explained that the jihadist mastermind was killed in a “targeted operation: at Abbottabad, Pakistan: “A small team of Americans carried out the operation. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.”

Obama also said that the killing of bin Laden was the “most significant achievement to date” in America’s war against al-Qaeda.

It is undoubtedly significant. Osama bin Laden was wildly popular in the Islamic world. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks Osama t-shirts, hats, and even dolls and action figures sold briskly in many Muslim countries, belying the mainstream media myth that 9/11 was the action of a tiny minority of extremists that had twisted and hijacked Islam, and were duly despised by the vast majority of Muslims. Polls all over the Islamic world always showed a healthy amount of support for bin Laden and, above all, respect for him as a pious mujahid.

But in reality, while the death of bin Laden is fine news, and is certainly a psychological blow to the jihadis and a confidence-booster for Americans, it really won’t change anything….

There is more.

Posted by Robert on May 1, 2011 10:34 PM | 71 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Here’s a telling nugget from an AP story on the death of Osama (thanks to Bryan Preston):

Officials said the U.S. would ensure that bin Laden’s body was handled in accordance with Islamic tradition.

But why? After all, didn’t Barack Obama say this tonight?

“We must also reaffirm that the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader. He was a mass murderer of Muslims.”

So why is the body of a mass murderer of Muslims being handled in accordance with Islamic tradition? Aren’t U.S. officials thereby tacitly acknowledging that bin Laden was a Muslim leader, notwithstanding Barack Obama’s protestations to the contrary?

And if Osama was indeed a Muslim leader, what are the implications of that for U.S. policy?

There’s a question no one in official Washington will dare to answer.

Posted by Robert on May 1, 2011 10:25 PM | 69 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Why? Aren’t moderate Muslims thronging the streets, dancing in celebration and handing out candy? Didn’t bin Laden represent a Tiny Minority of Extremists™ despised by the Vast Majority of Peaceful Muslims?

“US warns of anti-American violence after bin Laden,” by Matthew Lee for the Associated Press, May 1:

WASHINGTON – The State Department early Monday put U.S. embassies on alert and warned of the heightened possibility for anti-American violence after the killing of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden by American forces in Pakistan.In a worldwide travel alert released shortly after President Barack Obama late Sunday announced bin Laden’s death in a U.S. military operation, the department said there was an “enhanced potential for anti-American violence given recent counterterrorism activity in Pakistan.”

“Given the uncertainty and volatility of the current situation, U.S. citizens in areas where recent events could cause anti-American violence are strongly urged to limit their travel outside of their homes and hotels and avoid mass gatherings and demonstrations,” it said….

Posted by Robert on May 1, 2011 10:06 PM | 13 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Not in a cave in Tora Bora. In a mansion outside Islamabad.

Whose mansion? How long was he there? How did he get there? Who knew that he was there?

Now tell me that the Pakistani government wasn’t shielding him. I expect also that they allowed this operation to be carried out, and maybe even offered up bin Laden after all these years, in order to shore up their anti-terror bona fides and keep the jizya flowing from Washington.

“Osama bin Laden killed in a mansion outside the Pakistani capital Islamabad,” from International Business Times, May 1:

Osama bin Laden has been killed in a mansion outside the Pakistani capital Islamabad and his body has been recovered by U.S. authorities, U.S. officials said on Sunday….He had been the subject of a search since he eluded U.S. soldiers and Afghan militia forces in a large-scale assault on the Tora Bora mountains in 2001. The trail quickly went cold after he disappeared and many intelligence officials believed he had been hiding in Pakistan….

Osama was reportedly shot in the head in Pakistan and his body is in U.S. hands….

Posted by Robert on May 1, 2011 9:50 PM | 27 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |
Osama bin Laden is dead. So what? 

Osama bin Laden has gone to claim his virgins, and while that is fine news, it really won’t change anything. The role of al-Qaeda in the global jihad, and the role of Osama bin Laden in al-Qaeda, have both been wildly overstated. Al-Qaeda is not the only Islamic jihad group or Islamic supremacist group operating today, and Osama bin Laden was not some charismatic leader whose movement will collapse without him. The exaggeration of his role, in fact, was a result of the general unwillingness to face the reality that the global jihad is a movement driven by an ideology, not an outsized personality, and that that ideology is rooted in Islam.

So Osama bin Laden, after years of silence punctuated by mysterious gnomic utterances delivered (how? by whom?) to the media, finally joins Generalissimo Franco in the ranks of the still dead. I will forthwith hoist a suitably haram beverage in toast of the happy news. And then it will be back to work. The jihad will go on, and so will I, and so, I hope, will you.

“Osama bin Laden Killed by U.S. Strike,” by Dean Schabner for ABC News, May 1:

Osama bin Laden, hunted as the mastermind behind the worst-ever terrorist attack on U.S. soil, has been killed, sources told ABC News.His death brings to an end a tumultuous life that saw bin Laden go from being the carefree son of a Saudi billionaire, to terrorist leader and the most wanted man in the world.

Bin Laden created and funded the al Qaeda terror network, which was responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. The Saudi exile had been a man on the run since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan overthrew the ruling Taliban regime, which harbored bin Laden.

In a video filmed two months after the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden gloated about the attack, saying it had exceeded even his “optimistic” calculations.

“Our terrorism is against America. Our terrorism is a blessed terrorism to prevent the unjust person from committing injustice and to stop American support for Israel, which kills our sons,” he said in the video.

Long before the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden was known as an enemy of the United States. He was suspected of playing large roles in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. Embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden in October 2000….

Posted by Robert on May 1, 2011 8:07 PM | 87 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Watch this space for updates. Pick your news outlet, but a report from ABC can be found here.

Posted by Marisol on May 1, 2011 8:05 PM | 22 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Why is Turkey’s AKP ruling party opposing efforts to protect women? Because the Qur’an directs men to beat disobedient women (4:34); how, then, is all this domestic violence any concern of a good, pious Muslim? “Domestic violence rings alarm bells in Turkey,” by Şafak Tımur for Agence France-Presse, April 28 (thanks to all who sent this in):

She is neither a celebrity nor a prominent politician, but a bodyguard escorts Nahide Opuz at every step, even at the supermarket, to fend off a menace that has proved lethal: her ex-husband.The 39-year-old mother of two is the first Turkish woman to have a government-funded bodyguard after the European Court of Human Rights condemned Turkey in 2009 for failing to protect her and her slain mother.

Before the landmark case reached the judges in Strasbourg, Opuz was repeatedly beaten and survived both a stabbing and an attempt to run her over with a car.

After Turkish authorities repeatedly failed to act on her complaints, her ex-husband killed her mother.

Opuz, from the mainly Kurdish southeast, now lives a secluded life.

“For her, it is impossible to talk about and have a normal life. She has been haunted by violence and death threats all throughout her marriage and afterward,” lawyer Meral Danış Beştaş told AFP.

Activists say violence against women in the EU-candidate country has reached an alarming level and point the finger at the judicial authorities and the ruling Islamist-rooted Justice and Development Party, or AKP.

In February and March, 52 women were killed by men, according to a tally by BIAnet, a news site focusing on human rights abuses.

The figure was at least 217 for last year, and 27 percent of them were killed after asking for a divorce.

From 2002 to 2009, the number of women killed in pre-meditated murders rose 14-fold, according to Justice Ministry statistics that do not provide details on the perpetrators and circumstances.

“The problem in Turkey has reached the level of ‘gendercide,’” said Hülya Gülbahar, a leading women’s rights activist.

Women have long been victims of violence, including honor killings, in a country where patriarchal traditions persist.

But critics argue the problem has been compounded in recent years by the AKP’s advocacy of conservative values.

Memo to AFP: “conservatives” do not generally commit honor killings or murder women who are seeking divorce.

“The AKP’s conservatism and Islam target the woman’s body and sexuality,” said Pınar İlkkaracan, a rights campaigner.”What is lacking is the will to eliminate violence against women on the part of the government. They have shown serious resistance” against solving the issue,” she said.

Gülbahar also blamed mounting violence on “an intense propaganda that women and men are not equal by creation, and women are therefore responsible for housework and motherhood.”

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan – who once called women activists “marginals” – came under fire last year when he said, “men and women cannot be equal” but only “complementary to each other.”…

Posted by Robert on May 1, 2011 4:16 AM | 149 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

But just last week the Muslim Brotherhood’s Deputy Supreme Guide said that the Brotherhood wanted to establish an Islamic state in Egypt. Whom to believe? The one whose statement matches up with everything the Brotherhood has been dedicated to doing since its founding in 1928, or the one whose statement represents a departure from all that?

“Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood Outlines Political Ambitions,” from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, May 1:

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, the country’s largest Islamic group, today announced that it will not enter a candidate in the presidential election but will contend for as many as half of the seats in parliament.The group earlier said it would contend for only one-third of parliament’s 508 seats.

Mahmoud Mosri, head of the group’s newly formed Freedom and Justice party, told reporters today that they are open to Muslim, Christian, and women candidates because, as he said, it is “not a religious party, not a theocratic party.”

The Muslim Brotherhood is seen as one of the best-organized political parties in Egypt and its dominance has raised fears that political Islam will become a powerful force in Egyptian politics….

Posted by Robert on May 1, 2011 3:51 AM | 22 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Now that they’re all friends again, Haniyeh tries to show Fatah who’s boss. “Haniyeh calls on PLO to withdraw Israel recognition,” from the Ma’an News Agency, April 29 (thanks to all who sent this in):

GAZA CITY (Ma’an) — Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh on Friday called on the Palestinian Liberation Organization to withdraw its recognition of Israel.On Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded to the announcement of a reconciliation deal between Hamas and Fatah by saying the Palestinian Authority must “choose between peace with Israel or peace with Hamas.”

Presidential spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeina said Netanyahu “must choose between peace and settlements.”

Speaking after the Friday prayer in Gaza City, Haniyeh said that the PLO should not only demand that Israel chose between settlements and peace, but should also withdraw its recognition of the state.

In a surprise unity deal announced Wednesday, Hamas and Fatah agreed to form a transitional government ahead of elections to take place within the next year….

Posted by Robert on May 1, 2011 12:49 AM | 8 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

April 30, 2011

No state would be contemplating anti-Sharia laws were it not for Sharia’s political and supremacist aspects, and its elements that are at variance with Constitutional freedoms — notably, its denial of the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience, and of equality of rights for women and non-Muslims. But it is doubtful in the extreme that the Obama Justice Department will give the anti-Sharia side a fair hearing. It will rule that such laws violate religious freedom, without considering Sharia’s political aspects in any way.

“U.S. Attorney: Feds Could Challenge Missouri Anti-Sharia Legislation,” by John H. Tucker for the Riverfront Times, April 29 (thanks to Creeping Sharia):

U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri Richard Callahan visited the Islamic Foundation of Greater St. Louis last night to address the fears and frustrations of Muslim Americans who worry they are being racially profiled and wiretapped — and to assure them that the Missouri Legislature’s attempts to ban Sharia law from being considered in state courts here could face Constitutional challenges.Seated in front of a large Muslim audience during a town hall-style meeting at the Ballwin mosque, Callahan anchored a panel that included fellow federal attorneys (one of whom was Muslim American), as well as three members of the FBI.

The tenor of the night was polite and respectful, but several members of the crowd expressed anger over what they perceive to be rising trends of Islamophobia in America over the past couple years, citing people burning the Koran and communities banning mosques as examples.

“There is a worse kind of Muslim hatred recently,” said Adil Imdad, one of the event’s organizers. “Especially in the last two years, Islamophobia and fear-mongering have been spreading like wildfire, and it’s causing a lot of stress for our youth.”

Funny thing, Imdad: jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism are causing non-Muslim Americans a lot of stress.

The problem is now hitting a little closer to home, said Imdad, pointing to three bills currently circulating through the state legislature that seek to limit Sharia law (Islamic law) in Missouri courts. Sharia law could come into play in rulings considering child custody or prisoner rights for Muslims. As we’ve reported, the bills have become a source of controversy.Callahan responded by hinting that, should anti-Sharia legislation get passed by the Missouri Legislature, it could be overturned by the federal courts. “The Department of Justice has a good history of challenging laws passed by state legislatures,” he said. “If some laws are passed, I think you will see challenges by the federal government on the constitutionality of them.”…

Zia Faruqui, the Muslim American attorney on the panel, spoke to the crowd using several Arabic phrases, encouraging them to avoid hiding. He defended the justice system, citing 50 prosecutions in recent years against people charged with anti-Muslim crimes.

Posted by Robert on April 30, 2011 9:39 AM | 87 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

“I think it’s a solution in search of a problem,” said North Carolina State Representative Joe Hackney in response to that state’s proposed anti-Sharia law. Well, Hackney, here is your problem.

“Will Calls for Distribution ‘According to Islamic Laws and Sharia’; Pennsylvania Court Gives Twice as Much to Each Son as to Each Daughter,” by Eugene Volokh at The Volokh Conspiracy, April 29 (thanks to Ron):

That seems to be what happened in Alkhafaji v. TIAA-CREF Individual and Instit. Services LLC, 2010 WL 1435056 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Jan. 14, 2010), which is now on appeal. I’m posting about this now because the briefs were just posted on Westlaw, and confirm the details of the will, as well as giving some extra perspective on the disputes related to what Sharia law provides in such situations.Prof. Abbass Alkhafaji died, and left a will that apparently said, in relevant part,

(4) About my pension, the beneficiaries are all my biological kids and my current wife, … after reducing all costs associated with the house…. [The] rest of the pension, if any left, should be divided according to Islamic Laws and Sharia….(9) In case I have additional monetary benefits from my job, such as life insurance, 401K, 403B or any other retirement funds that I am not aware of, Allah as my witness, They should be divided, after costs associated with the payment of those funds according to Islamic Laws and “Sharia.”

The trial court entered an order that concluded with, “(1) TIAA-CREF Individual and Institutional Services LLC, shall make distribution of the pension accounts of the TIAA-CREF certificates … to the decedent’s surviving spouse, … in accordance with decedent’s last will and testament dated July 17, 2007, and to his biological children, … in accordance of the law of Sharia, mainly [sic], one-eighth share to the surviving spouse, … and thereafter, the remaining balance to be divided, two shares each to the six male children, and one share each to the [two] female children.”

Now if Prof. Alkhafaji had specified in his will that he was leaving a 1/8 share to his wife, and then 1/8 to each of his sons and 1/16 to each of his daughters, that would be fine, regardless of whether his motivation was religious or secular. [...] People are free to discriminate based on sex, religion, race, and so on in their wills, including in their gifts to their children.

But apparently the will had no such specific provision; rather, it called for distribution under religious law. This raises two questions:

(1) May a court interpret a will — or a contract, deed, trust instrument, or what have you — that calls for the application of religious law (whether Islamic law, Jewish law, canon law, or any other religious law)? Or does the Establishment Clause preclude courts from deciding what, say, Islamic law actually requires, at least if there’s a controversy between the parties about what the “true” interpretation of the religious law should be? [...]

Here’s my tentative answer to question (1), based on an earlier post: I think courts must refuse to interpret religious terms of wills and other such documents, because of what I call the No Religious Decisions strand of Establishment Clause caselaw. Here’s a very brief summary of that strand: In a long line of cases (such as Presbyterian Church in the United States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church (1969)), the Supreme Court held that secular courts may not resolve religious questions, such as which rival church group most closely follows orthodox church teachings. Some states had rules, borrowed from English law, under which the more orthodox group would get to keep the church property, presumably on the theory that this would be more in keeping with what was intended by past donors to the church. But the Court held that such rules may not constitutionally be applied by civil courts…

Posted by Robert on April 30, 2011 9:31 AM | 30 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |
Ale-Habib.jpgAle-Habib: Playing the victim card

This is, as I’ve explained here many, many times, an attempt to impose Sharia restrictions on the freedom of speech upon the West. If Ale-Habib really wants to stamp out “Islamophobia,” he needs to stamp out Islamic jihad terrorism, Islamic supremacism, stealth jihad creeping Sharia initiatives, and the like, and “Islamophobia” will disappear. He probably knows this, and yet he retails this victimhood narrative — which in itself indicates what his real agenda really is: the stifling of all criticism of Islam in the West, including all accurate reporting about how jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence. That in turn will pave the way for the unimpeded advance of Sharia in the West.

“Iran Urges UN Action against Spread of Islamophobia in West,” from the Fars News Agency, April 29:

TEHRAN (FNA)- A senior Iranian diplomat lashed out at growing trend of insults to Islam in the West, and called on the United Nations to take proper measures to confront the spread of Islamophobia in the western societies.Iran’s Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations Eshaq Ale-Habib called on the UN and its Committee on Information to take practical steps to promote “religious tolerance” and to counter the growing Islamophobic trend in the West, and to stop the desecration of Islam.

Ale-Habib also condemned the recent act of burning Islam’s holy book, the Quran, by an extremist US pastor, and said the incident runs counter to the UN’s efforts to promote “religious tolerance and mutual respect between religions and cultures.”

He further slammed Western media for their bias against developing countries as well as their monopolistic control over global information and communications technology.

“This is unfortunate that, by using their modern and exclusive communications technology, some developed countries are constantly distorting the realities and fabricating events… especially with regard to developing countries,” Ale-Habib told the UN’s Committee on Information on Thursday.

“Developing countries have been hindered by the unfair… duplicitous and exclusive approach of the [Western] media,” he added.

The Iranian diplomat urged the international community to promote “fair” media coverage of world events and called for essential steps to promote equal access to information and communications technology.

“We encourage the UN’s information department to play an effective role in establishing a new order of information and global communications based on the free and balanced flow of information,” Ale-Habib noted.

Posted by Robert on April 30, 2011 8:43 AM | 32 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Obama Chavez-Style Media Thuggery: Pro-Obama Press Pool Only or Risk Banning

Is it just me, or is it positively wonderful when the vicious and morally bankupt leftists go after each other? It makes Ali/Frazier look like a night of wild lovemaking.

It has got to be bad when the uber left exposes the uber left President. And Obama’s heavy handed intimidation and media strong-arming should be the top of the news across the country. Instead, the enemedia sharpens the blade that will cut them off. Over at Director Blue:

For an administration that likes to talk about “transparency”, the Obama White House has earned the worst reputation for ostracizing media in modern American history.

Remember, in October of 2009, Obama’s minions unsuccessfully attempted to ban cable news leader Fox News from the White House press pool.

Now, the most thin-skinned president ever (he’s ‘historic’) is engaging in an all-out P.R. war with the ultra-left wing rag The San Francisco Chronicle.

Let’s recap: First, the Chronicle reported that the ‘Administration exercise[d] its control freak streak’ by threatening the paper after it reported unfavorable news:

It seems that Team Obama was none too pleased that veteran Chronicle political reporter Carla Marinucci posted a 40-second video of a group of supporters-turned-protesters serenading the president a cappella – “We paid our dues … where’s our change” – at a recent fundraising breakfast at San Francisco’s St. Regis Hotel. The protesters’ objection: the treatment of Wikileaks source Pfc. Bradley Manning.

The White House threatened that Marinucci would no longer be allowed to serve as a pool reporter during future Obama swings west. Marinucci’s apparent offense was shooting video during an event that was closed to broadcast journalism

An administration truly dedicated to transparency would not require journalists to be “in the tank” as a condition of being in the pool.

Second, using its online public relations arm (the so-called “Politico”, aka last refuge of downsized WaPo hacks), the White House denied it threatened the left-wing San Francisco newspaper.

The White House is denying that it threatened to exclude the San Francisco Chronicle from presidential events in its coverage area after one of its reporters recorded a video of singing protesters at a fundraiser last week that was restricted to print reporters…

…White House spokesman Josh Earnest told POLTICO on Friday that the Chronicle’s claims are “not true,” and that no such threat was ever made, but he wouldn’t provide further details…

Finally, the Chronicle today called the White House liars.

In a pants-on-fire moment, the White House press office today denied anyone there had issued threats to remove Carla Marinucci and possibly other Hearst reporters from the press pool covering the President in the Bay Area.

Chronicle editor Ward Bushee called the press office on its fib:

Sadly, we expected the White House to respond in this manner based on our experiences yesterday. It is not a truthful response. It follows a day of off-the-record exchanges with key people in the White House communications office who told us they would remove our reporter, then threatened retaliation to Chronicle and Hearst reporters if we reported on the ban, and then recanted to say our reporter might not be removed after all.

The Chronicle’s report is accurate.

If the White House has indeed decided not to ban our reporter, we would like an on-the-record notice that she will remain the San Francisco print pool reporter.

I was on some of those calls and can confirm Ward’s statement... Messy ball now firmly in White House court.

Bush’s GITMO Interrogations Led to the Killing of Osama Bin Laden

It was intelligence gleaned from interrogating GITMO detainees, specifically Khalid Sheik Muhammad, that led to the capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden. The name of the courier to OBL took eight years of intelligence work to identify the person and the compound.

The very techniques that Obama and Holder have stopped and fought to reverse. Obama railed against these interrogations and wanted to prosecute the CIA interrogators who led to this capture.

Barack Hussein Obama last night:

I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden.….

I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action…

Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. ……..

Sheesh. The man is incapable of honesty or humility. Of course he signed off on it — you mean, he wouldn’t?

The New York Times reports:

After years of dead ends and promising leads gone cold, the big break came last August. A trusted courier of Osama bin Laden’s whom American spies had been hunting for years was finally located in a compound 35 miles north of the Pakistani capital, close to one of the hubs of American counterterrorism operations….

Detainees at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had given the courier’s pseudonym to American interrogators and said that the man was a protégé of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

American intelligence officials said Sunday night that they finally learned the courier’s real name four years ago, but that it took another two years for them to learn the general region where he operated.

Marc Theissen writes here:

What else KSM and Abu Faraj have in common: Before coming to Gitmo, both were held by the CIA as part of the agency’s enhanced interrogation program, and provided the information that led to bin Laden’s death after undergoing interrogation by the CIA. In other words, the crowning achievement of Obama’s presidency came as a direct result of the CIA interrogation program he has denigrated and shut down.

Something the president forgot to mention last night, when he claimed credit for “the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda.” The president owes some thanks—and apologies—to the men and women of the CIA’s interrogation program.

So Guantanamo detainees provided the key intelligence that allowed the CIA to track down bin Laden. But not just any Guantanamo detainees. It turns out the detainees in question were KSM and Abu Faraj al-Libi, the man who succeeded KSM as al Qaeda’s operational commander, when the 9/11 mastermind was captured in 2003. Following KSM’s capture, Abu Faraj was designated by bin Laden as his official messenger to his operatives in Pakistan, and even moved his family to Abbottabad—the city where bin Laden was killed—to carry out that role. He continued serving as bin Laden’s messenger until his arrest in 2005.

I think it is outrageous that they bathed him and gave him his religious rites before his Islamic burial at sea. Is O nuts?

Here are the men who killed Bin Laden:

The Secret Team That Killed bin Laden by Marc AmbinderFrom Ghazi Air Base in Pakistan, the modified MH-60 helicopters made their way to the garrison suburb of Abbottabad, about 30 miles from the center of Islamabad. Aboard were Navy SEALs, flown across the border from Afghanistan, along with tactical signals, intelligence collectors, and navigators using highly classified hyperspectral imagers.

After bursts of fire over 40 minutes, 22 people were killed or captured. One of the dead was Osama bin Laden, done in by a double tap — boom, boom — to the left side of his face. His body was aboard the choppers that made the trip back. One had experienced mechanical failure and was destroyed by U.S. forces, military and White House officials tell National Journal.

Were it not for this high-value target, it might have been a routine mission for the specially trained and highly mythologized SEAL Team Six, officially called the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, but known even to the locals at their home base Dam Neck in Virginia as just DevGru.

This HVT was special, and the raids required practice, so they replicated the one-acre compound. Trial runs were held in early April.


TOP STORIES: Pictures–The World Reacts

Newspapers’ Front Pages

Secret Team That Killed Bin Laden

PICTURES: WH Correspondents’ Dinner

George W. Bush’s Statement on Bin Laden

Officials React to Bin Laden’s Death

DevGru belongs to the Joint Special Operations Command, an extraordinary and unusual collection of classified standing task forces and special-missions units. They report to the president and operate worldwide based on the legal (or extra-legal) premises of classified presidential directives. Though the general public knows about the special SEALs and their brothers in Delta Force, most JSOC missions never leak. We only hear about JSOC when something goes bad (a British aid worker is accidentally killed) or when something really big happens (a merchant marine captain is rescued at sea), and even then, the military remains especially sensitive about their existence. Several dozen JSOC operatives have died in Pakistan over the past several years. Their names are released by the Defense Department in the usual manner, but with a cover story — generally, they were killed in training accidents in eastern Afghanistan. That’s the code.

How did the helos elude the Pakistani air defense network? Did they spoof transponder codes? Were they painted and tricked out with Pakistan Air Force equipment? If so — and we may never know — two other JSOC units, the Technical Application Programs Office and the Aviation Technology Evaluation Group, were responsible. These truly are the silent squirrels — never getting public credit and not caring one whit. Since 9/11, the JSOC units and their task forces have become the U.S. government’s most effective and lethal weapon against terrorists and their networks, drawing plenty of unwanted, and occasionally unflattering, attention to themselves in the process.

JSOC costs the country more than $1 billion annually. The command has its critics, but it has escaped significant congressional scrutiny and has operated largely with impunity since 9/11. Some of its interrogators and operators were involved in torture and rendition, and the line between its intelligence-gathering activities and the CIA’s has been blurred.

But Sunday’s operation provides strong evidence that the CIA and JSOC work well together. Sometimes intelligence needs to be developed rapidly, to get inside the enemy’s operational loop. And sometimes it needs to be cultivated, grown as if it were delicate bacteria in a petri dish.

In an interview at CIA headquarters two weeks ago, a senior intelligence official said the two proud groups of American secret warriors had been “deconflicted and basically integrated” — finally — 10 years after 9/11. Indeed, according to accounts given to journalists by five senior administration officials Sunday night, the CIA gathered the intelligence that led to bin Laden’s location. A memo from CIA Director Leon Panetta sent Sunday night provides some hints of how the information was collected and analyzed. In it, he thanked the National Security Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency for their help. NSA figured out, somehow, that there was no telephone or Internet service in the compound. How it did this without Pakistan’s knowledge is a secret. The NGIA makes the military’s maps but also develops their pattern recognition software — no doubt used to help establish, by February of this year, that the CIA could say with “high probability” that bin Laden and his family were living there.

Recently, JSOC built a new Targeting and Analysis Center in Rosslyn, Va. Where the National Counterterrorism Center tends to focus on threats to the homeland, TAAC, whose existence was first disclosed by the Associated Press, focuses outward, on active “kinetic” — or lethal – counterterrorism missions abroad. Its creation surprised the NCTC’s director, Michael Leiter, who was suspicious about its intent until he visited.

That the center could be stood up under the nose of some of the nation’s most senior intelligence officials without their full knowledge testifies to the power and reach of JSOC, whose size has tripled since 9/11. The command now includes more than 4,000 soldiers and civilians. It has its own intelligence division, which may or may not have been involved in last night’s effort, and has gobbled up a number of free-floating Defense Department entities that allowed it to rapidly acquire, test, and field new technologies.

Under a variety of standing orders, JSOC is involved in more than 50 current operations spanning a dozen countries, and its units, supported by so-called “white,” or acknowledged, special operations entities like Rangers, Special Forces battalions, SEAL teams, and Air Force special ops units from the larger Special Operations Command, are responsible for most of the “kinetic” action in Afghanistan.

Pentagon officials are conscious of the enormous stress that 10 years of war have placed on the command. JSOC resources are heavily taxed by the operational tempo in Afghanistan and Pakistan, officials have said. The current commander, Vice Adm. William McRaven, and Maj. Gen. Joseph Votel, McRaven’s nominated replacement, have been pushing to add people and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance technology to areas outside the war theater where al-Qaida and its affiliates continue to thrive.

Earlier this year, it seemed that the elite units would face the same budget pressures that the entire military was experiencing. Not anymore. The military found a way, largely by reducing contracting staff and borrowing others from the Special Operations Command, to add 50 positions to JSOC. And Votel wants to add several squadrons to the “Tier One” units — Delta and the SEALs.

When Gen. Stanley McChrystal became JSOC’s commanding general in 2004, he and his intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. Michael Flynn, set about transforming the way the subordinate units analyze and act on intelligence. Insurgents in Iraq were exploiting the slow decision loop that coalition commanders used, and enhanced interrogation techniques were frowned upon after the Abu Ghraib scandal. But the hunger for actionable tactical intelligence on insurgents was palpable.

UPDATE: Then Sen. Obama ridiculed the Rendition Program as unAmerican and promised to end. (hat tip DF

The AP: WASHINGTON – Osama bin Laden, the terror mastermind killed by Navy SEALs in an intense firefight, was hunted down based on information first gleaned years ago from detainees at secret CIA prison sites in Eastern Europe, officials disclosed Monday.

Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Hussein Obama , October 29, 2007: “I have been consistent in my strong belief that no Administration should allow the use of torture, including so-called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ like water-boarding, head-slapping, and extreme temperatures. It’s time that we had a Department of Justice that upholds the rule of law and American values, instead of finding ways to enable the President to subvert them.

 

 


  • Share/Bookmark

Leave a Reply

Ads Plugin created by Jake Ruston - Sponsored by Broyhill Furniture.