3 Years Ago Obama Bans Words: Islamist & Terrorist Terms Tied To Muslim Nations

http://obama-and-islam.blogspot.com/

USA.  What exactly has changed since 3 years ago til now? There has been more violence, more carnage, more terror attacks plaguing the United States on US soil than ever before.  Obama and his Czars and his personal Socialist/Fascist Islamic allies such as Egypt’s Morsi have only been emboldened and inspired by the lack of leadership to protect US Sovereignty, US Troops, US $$$ and US Lives.  Words DO matter.-PBN

Publishers Note: Some of these links appear to have been scrubbed since the original post-PBN

The Obama administration has just announced its intent to ban all words that allude to Islam from important national security documents. Put differently, the Obama administration has just announced its intent to ban all knowledge and context necessary to confront and defeat radical Islam (news much welcomed by Islamist organizations [1] like CAIR [2]). While this move may reflect a naively therapeutic administration — an Obama advisor once suggested that Winnie the Pooh [3] should inform U.S foreign policy — that Obama, the one U.S. president who best knows [4] that politically correct niceties will have no effect on the Muslim world, is enforcing this ban is further troubling.

An Associated Press report [5] has the disturbing details:

President Barack Obama’s advisers plan to remove terms such as “Islamic radicalism” from a document outlining national security strategy and will use the new version to emphasize that the U.S. does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism, counterterrorism officials say.

First off, how, exactly, does the use of terms such as “Islamic radicalism” indicate that the U.S. views “Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism”? It is the height of oversensitivity to think that the so-called “Muslim street” can be antagonized by (ultimately accurate) words in technical U.S. documents — documents they don’t know or care about — especially since the Arabic media itself often employs such terms. Surely we can use “Islamic radicalism” to define, well, Islamic radicals, without simultaneously viewing all Muslims “through the lens of terrorism”? Just as surely as we can use words like “Nazism” to define white supremacists, without viewing all whites through the lens of racism?

The AP report continues:

Obama’s speechwriters have taken inspiration from an unlikely source: former President Ronald Reagan. Visiting communist China in 1984, Reagan spoke at Fudan University in Shanghai about education, space exploration and scientific research. He discussed freedom and liberty. He never mentioned communism or democracy.

The analogy is flawed. For starters, in Reagan’s era, the Soviet Union, not China, was America’s prime antagonist — just as today, Islamic radicals, not Muslims, are America’s prime enemy. Moreover, unlike Obama, who would have the U.S. bend over backwards — or, in his case, just bend over [6] — to appease Muslims, Reagan regularly lambasted the Soviet Union, dubbing it the “evil empire.” Finally, the Chinese never attacked America, unlike Islamic radicals, who not only have attacked it, but daily promise it death and destruction — all in the name of Islam.

The ultimate problem in the White House’s new “words-policy,” however, is reflected in this excerpt from the report:

The change [i.e., linguistic obfuscation] would be a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. It currently states, “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”

No doubt this important document will soon say something totally meaningless like “The struggle against extremism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.” Such changes bode ill for the future. For it is one thing to carefully choose your words when directly addressing Muslims; it is quite another to censor American analysts and policymakers from using the necessary terms that conceptualize who the enemy is and what he wants.

The situation is already dire. There is already a lamentable lack [7] of study concerning Muslim war doctrine in the curriculum of American military studies, including in the Pentagon [8] andU.S. Army War College [9]. Obama’s more aggressive censorship program will only exacerbate matters: another recently released strategic document, the QDR [10], nary mentions anything remotely related to Islam — even as it stresses climate change [11], which it sees as an “accelerant of instability and conflict” around the world.

At any rate, as I have argued [12] several [13] times [14] before [15], the U.S. government needs to worry less about which words appease Muslims — another governmental memo [16] warns against “offending,” “insulting,” or being “confrontational” to Muslims — and worry more about providing its own citizenry with accurate knowledge concerning its greatest enemy.

In short, knowledge is inextricably linked to language. The more generic speech becomes, the less precise the knowledge it imparts; conversely, the more precise the language, the more precise the knowledge. In the conflict against Islamic radicalism — there, I said it — to acquire accurate knowledge, which is essential to victory, we need to begin with accurate language.

This means U.S. intelligence analysts and policymakers need to be able to use, and fully appreciate the significance of, words related to Islam — starting with the word “Islam” itself, i.e., submission.

It means the U.S. military needs to begin expounding and studying Islamic war doctrine — without fear of reprisals [17].

In sum, it means America’s leadership needs to take that ancient dictum [18] — “Know thy enemy” — seriously.

Deplorably enough, nearly a decade after the Islamist-inspired attacks of 9/11, far from knowing its enemy, the U.S. government is banning itself from merely acknowledging its enemy, which is doubly problematic, as knowledge begins with acknowledgment.

Nor is there much room for optimism: if the Obama administration can easily expose America to attack by reducing our physical defenses [19], surely a subversion of our intellectual safeguards — that is, a subversion of something as abstract as knowledge — will go unchecked.


URLs in this post:

[1] Islamist organizations: http://www.meforum.org/916/cair-islamists-fooling-the-establishment
[2] CAIR: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cair-welcomes-white-house-shift-on-islamic-radicalism-90122577.html
[3] Winnie the Pooh: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/2139573/Barack-Obama-aide-Why-Winnie-the-Pooh-should-shape-US-foreign-policy.html
[4] best knows: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-puzzling-approach-to-the-muslim-world/
[5] Associated Press report: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hmaKsSfPsbleEB-Hs16JlU2JCnVwD9EU2T1O0
[6] bend over: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-abominable-obeisance-cultural-perspectives/
[7] a lamentable lack: http://article.nationalreview.com/370554/studying-the-islamic-way-of-war/raymond-ibrahim
[8] Pentagon: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52644
[9] U.S. Army War College: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/strategic-collapse-at-the-army-war-college/
[10] QDR: http://www.defense.gov/qdr/images/QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000.pdf
[11] climate change: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/78855-pentagon-review-to-address-climate-change-for-the-first-time
[12] argued: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/words-matter-in-the-war-on-terror/?singlepage=true
[13] several: http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/TUTC021209/Ibrahim_Testimony021209.pdf
[14] times: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/428142.aspx
[15] before: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/would_a_jihadi_by_any_other_na.html
[16] governmental memo: http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/126.pdf
[17] fear of reprisals: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jan/04/inside-the-ring-83234302/
[18] ancient dictum: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu
[19] reducing our physical defenses: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/07/obamas-new-nuke-strategy-alarms-gop-defense-officials/

©2010 Raymond Ibrahim Originally Published April 24, 2010
Obama Tries to Eradicate Radical Islam
by Raymond Ibrahim
Pajamas Media

Source Here:

Benghazi to Boston – Obama’s and Islam’s Bloody Motives

Photo Credit counterjihadreport.com

We agree with Canada Free Press Hagmann’s assessment that Benghazi and Boston are interconnected in an autonomic way. We must be on the offensive and continually garner legitimate intel in order to prevent further terror attacks on US Soil at home and abroad.-PBN

What do the murders of four Americans in Benghazi have to do with the murders of three in a terrorist attack in Boston? Plenty, if you understand what you are seeing in the abstract expressionism of the Jackson Pollock painting is actually a blood trail, and the Pollock painting you are closely studying is an exact reproduction of one of his earlier works. It is a reproduction of a reproduction. We’ve seen this picture before, a bloodstained tangle of lies being sold to us as an artistic masterpiece. But you have to step farther back, not closer to the painting, to actually see the blood trail.

Does anyone still remember the terror attack and murders of Americans in Benghazi on September 11, 2012? Does anyone still care? How about the indignation shown by Obama’s then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on January 23, 2013, when being questioned by Senator Johnson about whether the American people were misled about the motive for the attacks? Animated and agitated, Clinton never did answer the question, instead waving her arms and pounding her fist on the table before her in a decidedly undiplomatic like fashion while shedding absolutely no light on what she knew and when she knew it.

Her response was dreadfully shrill yet non-committal, instead rebuking the Senator for seeking the truth with “Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans What difference, at this point, does it make?”

In the wake of the bombings in Boston and amid information the government and media does not want you, the average American citizen to know, motive and causation make a lot of difference. Compare Clinton’s terse response to questions surrounding Benghazi with that of Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, whose testosterone levels rose sharply as she decided that she would not even dignify Congressman Jeff Duncan’s questioning last week about the reported involvement of a Saudi national identified as Abdulrahman Ali Isa al-Salami al-Harbi, a/k/a Abdulrahman al Harbi.

The Saudi connections

In the event you don’t recognize that name associated with the Boston bombing, the media initially reported that a Saudi national, later determined to be al Harbi, was under guard at a Boston hospital after being injured in the attack. He was seen running from the explosions and tackled by police a short distance from the bombing site. During the normal investigative process of al Harbi, investigators learned that he was reportedly the subject of an alleged deportation order under Section 212 3B Immigration & Nationality Act regarding “Security an”, but completely unrelated to Boston. To get on this list requires some pretty substantial evidence. To be removed from this list is practically impossible, short of detention or death.

Amid the flurry of media reports that followed, however, his name and status at the hospital were gradually and methodically being erased from news reports and people’s memories. An intentional government and media brown-out turned into a noticeable blackout, even while federal authorities were searching his fifth floor apartment at 364 Ocean Avenue, Revere, MA and removing various items for forensic analysis.

Before the last items were taken from his apartment, I am told, orders were given to immediately stop any investigation of al Harbi. Suddenly and inexplicably, al Harbi became off limits, and a few federal agents are angry and want to know why.

His status under Section 212 3B was reportedly rescinded about 5:30 p.m. ET Wednesday, and he suddenly enjoyed protective status on orders from the ‘highest levels of our government’,  but not before Congressman Duncan had a copy of the 212 3B status of al Harbi. Additionally, it is reported, not only was the order rescinded, but his file was made to appear as if the order never existed in the first place.

According to sources close to this author, al Harbi became the primary focus of a high level diplomatic meeting between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al Faisal on Tuesday morning, the day after the marathon bombing and the day before his status suddenly changed. The 10:00 am meeting was abruptly closed to the media with only minutes notice, something that rarely happens. The reason, according to sources with “knowledge” of the matter, is due to the classification of al Harbi as a person of interest in the marathon bombing and his status as a Saudi “elite”.

The aforementioned file alteration and status were changed following this meeting, and arrangements were reportedly made for him to leave the United States. As all of this reportedly took place in such a very short period of time, it is important to understand that the alleged changes had to have the approval at the level of the U.S. Secretary of State, or higher. It was done on behalf of the Saudis, with approval and direction from the highest levels of our own government. Why is this important to the events in Boston and Benghazi?

Benghazi to Boston: the Saudi agenda & shielding the truth

First, don’t get stuck in the minutia of al Harbi, just be aware of it and who is behind it. Instead, look at the larger picture. To be clear, al Harbi himself is not the main story here. It’s bigger than that, and the problem is that people are not thinking big enough. It’s about an agenda to shape the world power structure. The Obama regime is in place to finish what was started long ago. Now, the players under Obama and a complicit press are shielding the truth from the American people. We are not being told the truth about anything, from Benghazi to Boston, and the common factor in all of this is Saudi Arabia.

Our intimate relationship with Saudi Arabia began in earnest (most recently) under George Herbert Walker Bush, and was further expanded by George W. Bush, a/k/a ‘Bandar Bush,’ a name earned for his intimate relationship with Prince Sultan bin Bandar of Saudi Arabia. It should be clear by now that the continuity of this globalist, Pan-Islamic agenda that existed under Bush was further solidified and even expanded by the Obama administration. It is not a political agenda, but a globalist one. We do not have elected leaders who favor the U.S., but internationalists that favor the globalist agenda. Understanding this should explain that the right-left paradigm is a historical artifact, and provide prospective in terms of how the government is pushing this agenda towards completion. We’ve been overtaken and captured from within.

We’ve learned from the 2001 attacks that the Saudis are the largest exporters of terrorism, yet we continue to work for them, providing our military assets and our troops to doing their dirty work. Through the Muslim Brotherhood, they have infiltrated many, if not all levels of our government. As stated, this did not begin under Obama, but was expanded under him. And what better presidential candidate was there to accomplish this objective? Now does his meteoric rise from a community organizer to state senator to President make better sense?

We still cannot even have any intelligent conversation about Obama’s Constitutional legitimacy to hold the Office of President without being marginalized by both sides of the political divide. Why then, would we expect the truth about Benghazi? And yet, Americans believe what they see and hear about everything from Benghazi, Boston, and even to matters of our economy? We are a captured operation.

Just as the situation involving al Harbi provides us with a window into this agenda, Benghazi provides us with that same window. Unraveling the truth from the lies in both instances will show just how deep the U.S. is involved with expanding the Saudi Kingdom of power across the Middle East, even at our own national peril. Of critical importance, this relationship is leading us on the path to World War III.

Before the marathon bombings, Russian intelligence officials warned the U.S. about the Islamic terror threat posed by Islamic terrorists in the U.S., including the older brother of the Boston bombing duo. The FBI KNEW the identity of the elder Boston bomber a year ago. Yet, the U.S. DHS, under the Obama regime, deliberately ignored the warnings. We’re spreading and actually sponsoring this radicalization through this Pan-Islamic agenda, yet most people cannot see the bigger picture.

Putin warned us that our policies were the equivalent of playing with dynamite, and continuing to play would result in a direct confrontation with them. During the so-called Arab Spring, Putin also warned the U.S. not to destabilize the Middle East, and warned Obama not to meddle in the affairs of Syria, which he described as their ‘red line in the sand’. Syria holds strategic military and economic importance for Russia and China, and is the backdoor to Iran, another country of importance to both superpowers.

Despite these warnings, the U.S. set up the largest weapons running operation in Benghazi, a location from where weapons were shipped under U.S. operational command to the Islamic terrorists in Syria to topple the Assad regime. The Saudis were the paymasters for this operation, but are duplicitous.

Benghazi was the direct result of this operation, and we now find ourselves in a proxy war with Russia-and soon to be China-with no peaceful end in sight as the U.S. continues to do the dirty work for the Saudis, the internationalists, the international bankers, and the global elite. The terror attacks in Boston were the latest blowback from our foreign policy, and there will be more.

Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, and the entirety of the Obama regime are refusing to provide Americans with any truths about what is actually taking place, whether it is about a sole Saudi citizen or the attacks in Benghazi, and complete Saudi agenda. Meanwhile, clueless Americans cheer as the younger bombing suspect is arrested after one of the most unprecedented manhunts in U.S. history, but fail to see all of the entanglements of the Pollock painting. We are willfully and almost gleefully giving up our rights because of the globalists who are running the foreign and domestic policies.

The path to WW III

Like the Pollock paintings, people must be able to see the connections—the blood trails—that connect the terrorist attacks in Boston to the terrorist attacks in Benghazi. We are emboldening the Muslim terrorists by our foreign policies. We are training them, arming them, and in some cases, siding with one faction over another. We are not exporting peace or freeing people from oppression, but creating a new world order.

Time and again, from the first World Trade Center Bombing to 9/11, from Benghazi to Boston, we see the same template reproductions of the paintings, yet don’t recognize it.

We are not dealing with Americans with an American mentality. No, we are dealing with Americans in name only, driven by an internationalist, global mentality.

The ‘elected’ are the ‘elect’ vying for a future seat at the global table. They are hidden amid the entanglements of the Pollock work. They are the very ones who will lead us into global conflict.

So when you see the next massive manhunt that closes a city, understand that this is of our own doing. This is part of a larger agenda that you must step back from the painting to identify. While we surrender our rights domestically, we advance on the path that takes us into WW III. Boston was an indirect blowback from Benghazi, but the truth of the matter will continue to remain hidden unless we demand and receive answers to the proper questions. That is assuming, of course, there is anyone left to ask such questions.

Step back and look at the larger picture. See the blood trail that extends among the continents.

Copyright © Douglas J. Hagmann and Canada Free Press Source Here:

BostonBombingJPG

Make No Mistake, It Was Jihad – WSJ [WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGE]

Islam hates you.  Unless you are ready to die for allah and take as many infidels with you to hell, you are a target, muslim or not.

Let’s hope the administration gets over its reluctance to recognize attacks on the U.S. for what they are.

BostonBombingJPG

By MICHAEL B. MUKASEY

If your concern about the threat posed by the Tsarnaev brothers is limited to assuring that they will never be in a position to repeat their grisly acts, rest easy.

The elder, Tamerlan—apparently named for the 14th-century Muslim conqueror famous for building pyramids of his victims’ skulls to commemorate his triumphs over infidels—is dead. The younger, Dzhokhar, will stand trial when his wounds heal, in a proceeding where the most likely uncertainty will be the penalty. No doubt there will be some legal swordplay over his interrogation by the FBI’s High-Value Interrogation Group without receiving Miranda warnings. But the only downside for the government in that duel is that his statements may not be used against him at trial. This is not much of a risk when you consider the other available evidence, including photo images of him at the scene of the bombings and his own reported confession to the victim whose car he helped hijack during last week’s terror in Boston.

At the behest of such Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups as the Council on American Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America, and other self-proclaimed spokesmen for American Muslims, the FBI has bowdlerized its training materials to exclude references to militant Islamism. Does this delicacy infect the FBI’s interrogation group as well?

Will we see another performance like the Army’s after-action report following Maj. Nidal Hasan‘s rampage at Fort Hood in November 2009, preceded by his shout “allahu akhbar”—a report that spoke nothing of militant Islam but referred to the incident as “workplace violence”? If tone is set at the top, recall that the Army chief of staff at the time said the most tragic result of Fort Hood would be if it interfered with the Army’s diversity program.

Full article “Make No Mistake, It Was Jihad – WSJ

 

Obama’s Silent Pro-Islamic War Against America Happening On US Soil Now

Obama’s Silent Pro-Islamic War Against America Happening On US Soil Now

Osama bin Laden’s Wingman: Sulaiman Abu Ghayth, Arrested/Arraignment March 8, 2013

Sulaiman Abu Ghayth

WASHINGTON—Sulaiman Abu Ghayth, a/k/a “Suleiman Abu Gayth,” a former associate of Osama bin Laden, has been arrested and charged in an indictment unsealed today

in New York City with conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals, announced Attorney General Eric Holder, Assistant Attorney General for National Security Lisa Monaco, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara, the Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s New York Field Office George Venizelos, and the Police Commissioner of the City of New York (NYPD) Raymond W. Kelly. Abu Ghayth is expected to be presented and arraigned tomorrow, March 8, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.

“No amount of distance or time will weaken our resolve to bring America’s enemies to justice,” said Attorney General Holder. “To violent extremists who threaten the American people and seek to undermine our way of life, this arrest sends an unmistakable message: There is no corner of the world where you can escape from justice because we will do everything in our power to hold you accountable to the fullest extent of the law.”

“The arrest of Abu Ghayth is an important milestone in our ongoing counter-terrorism efforts. I applaud the many agents, analysts, and prosecutors responsible for bringing about this significant case and arrest,” said Assistant Attorney General Monaco.

“It has been 13 years since Abu Ghayth allegedly worked alongside Osama bin Laden in his campaign of terror and 13 years since he allegedly took to the public airwaves, exhorting others to embrace al Qaeda’s cause and warning of more terrorist attacks like the mass murder of 9/11,” said U.S. Attorney Bharara. “The memory of those attacks is indelibly etched on the American psyche, and today’s action is the latest example of our commitment to capturing and punishing enemies of the United States, no matter how long it takes.”

“Sulaiman Abu Ghayth held a key position in al Qaeda, comparable to the consigliere in a mob family or propaganda minister in a totalitarian regime,” said FBI Assistant Director in Charge Venizelos. “He used his position to persuade others to swear loyalty to al Qaeda’s murderous cause. He used his position to threaten the United States and incite its enemies. His apprehension is another important step in the campaign to limit the reach of al Qaeda and enhance our national and international security.”

“While New York City must remain vigilant to continued terrorist threats against it, Abu Ghayth’s apprehension and prosecution promises to close another chapter in al Qaeda’s notoriously violent history of killing Americans,” said NYPD Commissioner Kelly. “This case also represents another success in the ongoing partnership between federal agents and NYPD detectives through the JTTF.”

As alleged in the superseding indictment that has been filed against Abu Ghayth in federal court:

Since around 1989, al Qaeda has been an international terrorist organization dedicated to opposing non-Islamic governments with force and violence. Osama bin Laden served as the leader, or “emir,” of al Qaeda until his death on or about May 2, 2011. Members of al Qaeda typically have pledged an oath of allegiance, called bayat, to bin Laden and to al Qaeda.

The core purpose of al Qaeda, as stated by bin Laden and other leaders, is to support violent attacks against property and nationals, both military and civilian, of the United States and other countries. Between 1989 and 2001, al Qaeda established training camps, guest houses, and business operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries for the purpose of training and supporting its agenda of violence and murder. Members and associates of al Qaeda have executed a number of terrorist attacks, all in furtherance of the organization’s stated conspiracy to kill Americans, including the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, which killed approximately 2,976 people.

From at least May 2001 up to around 2002, Abu Ghayth served alongside Osama bin Laden, appearing with bin Laden and his then-deputy Ayman al Zawahiri, speaking on behalf of the terrorist organization and in support of its mission, and warning that attacks similar to those of September 11, 2001, would continue.

In particular, around May 2001, Abu Ghayth urged individuals at a guest house in Kandahar, Afghanistan, to swear bayat to bin Laden. On the evening of September 11, 2001, after the terrorist attacks on the United States, bin Laden summoned Abu Gayth and asked for his assistance, and he agreed to provide it. On the morning of September 12, 2001, Abu Ghayth, appeared with bin Laden and al Zawahiri and spoke on behalf of al Qaeda, warning the United States and its allies that “[a] great army is gathering against you” and called upon “the nation of Islam” to do battle against “the Jews, the Christians, and the Americans.” Also, after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Abu Ghayth delivered a speech in which he addressed the then-U.S. Secretary of State and warned that “the storms shall not stop, especially the airplanes storm” and advised Muslims, children, and opponents of the United States “not to board any aircraft and not to live in high rises.”

Abu Gayth arranged to be, and was, successfully smuggled from Afghanistan into Iran in 2002.

Source Here:

JohnBozombieBrennan

Libs: Explain Why Water Boarding is Evil but Indiscriminate Killing of Civilians Isn’t [VIDEOS]

The evil clan of Bozombies are at it. How long will it be before dissenters are “sanctioned” for disagreeing with the administration?

Washington – According to John Brenner, Obama’s pick for Director of the CIA, everything is fair in love and war except water boarding. While he defended the drone program at yesterday’s Senate nomination hearing, he depicted water boarding as reprehensible.

John Brenner, in a rare display of bipartisanship, came under fire by both Democrats and Republicans during his nomination hearing in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. In what the Washington Post described as one of the most heated sessions for a nominee in a decade, Brennan was asked to defend the refusal by the administration to provide basic information on the drone program, including the death toll. To make the point, he was prodded to square this with his assertion that he opposed enhanced interrogation methods, known as water boarding. In both cases justice department lawyers provided legal opinions justifying the programs.JohnBozombieBrennan

Earlier this week a White Paper was leaked and published by NBC news that justified killing American citizens abroad provided that they were an imminent threat to the United States, as determined by a high level administration official. The White Paper was vague enough to allow the execution unchecked.

A Justice Department White paper issued late Monday, justifies killing Americans abroad if they pose an imminent threat to the United States. The document details that the American citizen has to be associated group and poses an imminent threat to the United States.

The document further details that the imminent threat does not have to be based on intelligence of a specific attack, but “imminence must incorporate considerations of the relevant window of opportunity.” It must also take collateral damage to civilians into consideration.

While Brennan defended the White Paper policy and the drone program in general, he said that the water boarding undertaken by the Bush administration was reprehensible and had to be stopped. Brennan wasn’t sure if the enhanced interrogation program was effective and if it had yield any useful information.

On a second controversial topic, he said that after reading a classified intelligence report on harsh interrogation techniques, he does not know if water boarding has yielded useful information.

Despite what he called a public misimpression, Brennan told the Senate Intelligence Committee that drone strikes are used only against targets planning to carry out attacks against the United States, never as retribution for an earlier one. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” he declared.

Republicans have claimed that water boarding indeed yielded results and information extracted that vital information and possibly thwarted dozens of attack and may have led to the capture of Osama Bin Ladin.

This was confirmed in an interview of retired Central Intelligence Agency field officer John Kiriakou, who headed he interrogation of Zubaydah in Pakistan after his capture in 2002.

Kiriakou told ABC that Zubaydah was waterboarded — a technique in which the person being interrogated is made to feel as if he is being drowned — after initially refusing to cooperate with those questioning him.

Zubaydah withstood the waterboarding for “quite some time” — about 30 to 35 seconds — Kiriakou said in the ABC interview.

“The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate,” Kiriakou told ABC. “From that day on, he answered every question. The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.”

While Brennan supports the Obama administration drone program, he said that it has to be acknowledged publicly.

Apparently Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) was not too impressed with Brenner’s answers. She opined that this rationale was long gone. She said that she thought the administration was victim of its own secrecy.

She said that she had sought permission to disclose estimates of civilian casualties attributed to the drone program, but was told she couldn’t since it was classified. For the public, the drone program doesn’t exist.

She also indicated, for the first time, that she plans to have the committee examine the creation of a special court to evaluate evidence against Americans who might be targeted, similar to the scrutiny applied to government monitoring of the communications of Americans suspected of having connections to terrorist groups.

Although the public and the media have been aware of the drone program, particularly the drone strikes into Pakistan, this week was the first time that the administration publicly acknowledged it.

Since 9/11 the CIA has transformed into a powerful para military arm of the US administration. While it still collects data from all corners of the world it has become more and more involved in striking foreign targets with drones from a distance. The whole operation can be likened to a computer game, where the operators guide a drone to its target often more than 10,000 miles removed. No stench, no noise and no real evidence of collateral destruction. Clinical and clean with minimum psychological effect on the operators, the program has become an effective tool for the administration.

If John Brennan were confirmed, he would be the most experienced director in decades, having served 25 years in the agency.

The question is if water boarding is so reprehensible, why isn’t the indiscriminate killing of civilians?

Full article here.

Pathetic Panetta and the Libyan Lies

http://www.zengardner.com/wp-content/uploads/panetta.jpgThe CIA knew, Panetta knew, Hillary Clinton knew, and Obama the Liar In Chief: The POTUS, must have known, that the USA was working on a covert operation to support the Syrian rebels via US Ambassador Chris Stevens at a diplomatic facility located in Benghazi, Libya.  The pathetically remarkable excuse by Panetta, Clinton, and Obama et al that the United States had no warnings of increasingly unstable geo-political environment and of possible and likely impending acts of terror in an already unstable Middle Eastern country such as Libya cannot be ignored especially on the anniversary of 911 – PBN

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta told Congress on Thursday that the Pentagon had supported a plan to arm Syrian rebels that was developed last year by David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director at the time, and backed by Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was then serving as Secretary of State.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, left, and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Panetta and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were asked by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, if they had supported the recommendation that weapons be provided to the Syrian resistance.

“We did,” Mr. Panetta said.http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mgd1gNwN1AQ/UI7f3u5BQBI/AAAAAAAAAlU/Eiteu_-kPPg/s1600/EmbassyBombed.jpg

“You did support that” Mr. McCain asked again.

“We did,” General Dempsey added.

The White House, however, was worried about the risks of getting more deeply involved in the crisis in Syria. And with President Obama in the midst of a re-election bid, the White House rebuffed the plan, rejecting the advice of most of the key members of Mr. Obama’s national security team.

The New York Times reported in its Sunday editions that as the fighting in Syria raged last summer, Mr. Petraeus developed the plan, which Mrs. Clinton supported and that called for vetting rebels and training fighters who would be supplied with weapons.

His proposal offered the potential reward of creating Syrian allies with whom the United States might work, during the conflict and after President Bashar al-Assad’s eventual removal.

Some administration officials expected the issue to be revisited again after the election. But when Mr. Petraeus resigned because of an extramarital affair and Mrs. Clinton suffered a concussion, missing weeks of work, the issue was shelved.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta was said by some officials to have been sympathetic to the idea, which was presented to the White House last year, though a spokesman for Mr. Panetta declined to comment on his role when asked last week.

General Dempsey made his comments during testimony with Mr. Panetta on the Sept. 11 attack on an American compound on Benghazi, Libya, which led to the deaths of J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador, and three other Americans.

Discussing steps to improve security at American compounds abroad, Mr. Panetta said that it would take two to three years to add the 35 new Marine security guard detachments that the United States plans to deploy to improve the security of American diplomatic compounds abroad.

The Marines have guard units at 152 diplomatic compounds, but did not have one in Benghazi when the assault occurred. Mr. Panetta said that the role of the Marines detachments would be expanded beyond protecting classified information at the compounds.

“This could include expanded use of nonlethal weapons, and additional training and equipment, to support the Embassy Regional Security Officer’s response options when host nation security force capabilities are at risk of being overwhelmed,” Mr. Panetta said in his prepared remarks.

Mr. Panetta said that the Pentagon was not able to respond more quickly to the Benghazi episode because it had not received an intelligence alert about animpending attack.

“Without adequate warning, there was not enough time given the speed of the attack for armed military assets to respond,” Mr. Panetta told the committee in his prepared statement.

When the attack began, the Pentagon had no forces that could be rapidly sent to Benghazi or to protect diplomatic outposts in Tunisia, Egypt or Algeria that might also have come under assault on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The closest AC-130 gunship was in Afghanistan. There are no armed drones thought to be within range of Libya. There was no Marine expeditionary unit — a large seaborne force with its own helicopters — in the Mediterranean Sea.

The Africa Command, whose area of operation includes North Africa, also did not have on hand a force able to respond rapidly to emergencies — a Commanders’ In-Extremis Force, or C.I.F., as it is known. Every other regional command had one at the time, but the Africa Command shared one with the European Command, and it was on an exercise in Croatia at the time.

In his prepared remarks, Mr. Panetta did not address the question of whether the Africa Command had requested any of these forces to be on hand on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Nor did he say whether Mr. Panetta or General Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had given any thought to moving forces to the region as a precaution before the attacks in September last year.

Senator McCain criticized the Pentagon for not positioning more forces in the region before the anniversary of Sept. 11 so they could more rapidly respond.

“We could have placed forces there,” he said. “We could have had aircraft and other capabilities as short distance away as Souda Bay, Crete.”

By MICHAEL R. GORDON

Source Here:

Pakistan Protecting Rebels Costs US Military Lives

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/6/2/1307039050646/Haqqani-Taliban-fighters--008.jpgPakistan allegedly shelters the Islamist Rebel Militants within North Waziristan. North Waziristan is the equivilent of a Swiss Bank account for weapons and ordinance for terrorists. Why then do the US and UN want to bring them into the political fold? 

It is a point of contention between the US & Pakistan’s relationship specifically because the worst rebels end up in Afghanistan shooting our US Troops.  “The most powerful group in the area, the Afghan Haqqani network, is also believed to be seen by the army as a potential ally in Afghanistan after foreign forces withdraw, making a military offensive even more complicated.” All that said, our strategically challenged president is announcing our draw-down to the enemy putting our troops in even graver danger. -PBN

QUETTA, Pakistan (AP) — Pakistani leaders dismissed the government of southwest Baluchistan province early Monday in response to the demands of protesters angry about an attack on minority Shiite Muslims there that killed 86 people.

In another part of the country, a roadside bomb killed 14 Pakistani soldiers.

Over the past three days, thousands of Shiites have blocked a main road in the Baluchistan capital of Quetta with dozens of coffins of relatives killed in the twin bombing of a billiards hall in the city Thursday. They demanded the provincial government be dismissed and that the army take over responsibility for the city.

Last year was the deadliest ever for Shiites in Pakistan, with over 400 dead in targeted killings. Violence has been especially intense in Baluchistan, home of the largest number of Shiites in the country.

Pakistani Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf said in a televised address shortly early Monday that the governor has been made head of Baluchistan province, replacing the chief minister. Also, paramilitary forces will receive police powers and launch an operation against militants behind the billiards hall attack.

The prime minister flew to Quetta on Sunday after other efforts to pacify the protesters failed. Human rights organizations have accused the Pakistani government of not doing enough to protect Shiites targeted by radical Sunni Muslims who believe they are heretics.

The billiards hall attack was carried out by Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, a sectarian militant group allied with al-Qaida and the Pakistani Taliban.

Taliban militants and their allies have also been waging a bloody insurgency against the Pakistani government over the past several years.

A roadside bomb hit a Pakistani army convoy Sunday in a mountainous militant stronghold in the northwest, killing 14 soldiers, one of the deadliest attacks against the army in that sector, intelligence officials said.

The North Waziristan tribal area is a major trouble spot that the military has been reluctant to tackle. The remote region is home to Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaida militants at war with the government. It is also used as a sanctuary by other militants who have focused their attacks in neighboring Afghanistan.

The attack Sunday occurred near Dosalli village in North Waziristan, said Pakistani intelligence officials. The blast destroyed two vehicles and damaged a third, they said.

The 14 dead and 20 wounded were brought to a military hospital in the nearby town of Miran Shah, the officials said.

Pakistani military officials confirmed the bombing but said four soldiers were killed and 11 others wounded. The discrepancy could not immediately be reconciled.

Then officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to reporters.

The Pakistani military is worried that if it targets its enemies in North Waziristan, that could trigger a backlash whereby other militants in the area turn against Pakistan. The most powerful group in the area, the Afghan Haqqani network, is also believed to be seen by the army as a potential ally in Afghanistan after foreign forces withdraw, making a military offensive even more complicated.

North Waziristan has been a sore point in relations between Pakistan and the United States. Washington has repeatedly pushed Islamabad to launch an operation in the area, especially against the Haqqani network, considered one of the most dangerous groups fighting in Afghanistan. But Pakistan has refused.

North Waziristan has also become an increasing problem for Pakistan. It is the only part of the tribal region where the army has not conducted an offensive, and many Pakistani Taliban militants have fled there to escape army operations. The Taliban and their allies have staged hundreds of attacks across Pakistan that have killed thousands of people.

Also Sunday, a Pakistani cleric and thousands of his supporters left the eastern city of Lahore on a “long march” to demand sweeping election reforms before national elections expected this spring.

Police officer Suhail Sukhera estimated the crowd to be at least 15,000. They left for Islamabad in hundreds of buses, cars and trucks. Some waved flags and pictures of the 61-year-old Sunni Muslim cleric, while others shouted, “Revolution is our goal, brave and religious leader Qadri.”

Critics of Qadri, who returned last month after years in Canada, are worried he is bent on derailing elections, possibly at the behest of the country’s powerful military — allegations the cleric has denied.

Qadri has a large following that extends outside Pakistan and has a reputation for speaking out against terrorism and promoting his message through hundreds of books, an online television channel and videos.

Now, Qadri’s focus is on Pakistan’s election laws. He is suggesting vaguely worded changes, such as making sure candidates are honest as well as ending exploitation and income disparities so that poor people are free to vote for whomever they want.

His plan to hold a massive rally in Islamabad on Monday has alarmed many members of Pakistan’s political system. The government has deployed a large number of police throughout the capital and set up shipping containers to block protesters from reaching sensitive areas.

Qadri accused the provincial government of Punjab, where Lahore is the capital, of harassing his supporters Sunday to make it difficult for them to participate in the march.

“These negative tactics will not work, and God willing the march will reach Islamabad with a sea of people,” Qadri told reporters.

___

Associated Press writers Ishtiaq Mahsud in Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan, Rasool Dawar in Peshawar, Pakistan, Zaheer Babar in Lahore, Pakistan, and Asif Shahzad in Islamabad contributed to this report

Full article here.

Go Frogs!! France Bombs Islamist strongholds in North Mali (Timbuktu)

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/france_frog_rouissy_airport.jpg

BAMAKO/PARIS (Reuters) – French fighter jets pounded Islamist rebel strongholds deep in northern Mali on Sunday as Paris poured more troops into the capital Bamako, awaiting a West African force to dislodge al Qaeda-linked insurgents from the country’s north.

The attacks on Islamist positions near the ancient desert trading town of Timbuktu and Gao, the largest city in the north, marked a decisive intensification on the third day of the French mission, striking at the heart of the vast area seized by rebels in April.

France is determined to end Islamist domination of northern Mali, which many fear could act as a base for attacks on the West and for links with al Qaeda in Yemen, Somalia and North Africa.

Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said France’s sudden intervention on Friday had prevented the advancing rebels from seizing Bamako. He vowed that air strikes would continue.

“The president is totally determined that we must eradicate these terrorists who threaten the security of Mali, our own country and Europe,” he told French television.

Residents and rebel leaders had reported air raids early on Sunday in the towns of Lere and Douentza in central Mali, forcing Islamists to withdraw. As the day progressed, French jets struck targets further to the north, including near the town of Kidal, the epicenter of the rebellion.

In Gao, a dusty town on the banks of the Niger river where Islamists have imposed an extreme form of sharia law, residents said French jets pounded the airport and rebel positions. A huge cloud of black smoke rose from the militants’ camp in the city’s north, and pick-up trucks ferried dead and wounded to hospital.

“The planes are so fast you can only hear their sound in the sky,” resident Soumaila Maiga said by telephone. “We are happy, even though it is frightening. Soon we will be delivered.”

Paris said four Rafale jets flew from France to strike rebel training camps, logistics depots and infrastructure around Gao with the aim of weakening the rebels and preventing them from returning southward.

“We blocked the terrorists’ advance and from today what we’ve started to do is to destroy the terrorists’ bases behind the front line,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told LCI television.

France has deployed about 550 soldiers to Mali under “Operation Serval” — named after an African wildcat — split between Bamako and the town of Mopti, 500 km (300 miles) north.

In Bamako, a Reuters cameraman saw more than 100 French troops disembark on Sunday from a military cargo plane at the international airport, on the outskirts of the capital.

The city’s streets were calm, with the sun streaking through the dusty air as the seasonal Harmattan wind blew from the Sahara. Many cars had French flags draped from the windows to celebrate Paris’s intervention.

“We thank France for coming to our aid,” said resident Mariam Sidibe. “We hope it continues till the north is free.”

AFRICAN TROOPS EXPECTED

More than two decades of peaceful elections had earned Mali a reputation as a bulwark of democracy, but that image unraveled in a matter of weeks after a military coup in March which left a power vacuum for the Islamist rebellion.

France convened a U.N. Security Council meeting for Monday to discuss Mali. French President Francois Hollande’s intervention has won plaudits from leaders in Europe, Africa and the United States but it is not without risks.

It raised the threat level for eight French hostages held by al Qaeda allies in the Sahara and for the 30,000 French expatriates living in neighboring, mostly Muslim states.

Concerned about reprisals, France has tightened security at public buildings and on public transport. It advised its 6,000 citizens to leave Mali as spokesmen for Ansar Dine and al Qaeda’s north Africa wing AQIM promised to exact revenge.

In its first casualty of the campaign, Paris said a French pilot was killed on Friday when rebels shot down his helicopter.

Hours earlier, a French intelligence officer held hostage in Somalia by al Shabaab extremists linked to al Qaeda was killed in a failed commando raid to free him.

Hollande says France’s aim is simply to support a mission by West African bloc ECOWAS to retake the north, as mandated by a U.N. Security Council resolution in December.

With Paris pressing West African nations to send their troops quickly, Ivory Coast President Alassane Ouattara, who holds the rotating ECOWAS chairmanship, kick-started the operation to deploy 3,300 African soldiers.

Ouattara, installed in power with French military backing in 2011, convened a summit of the 15-nation bloc for Saturday in Ivory Coast to discuss the mission.

“The troops will start arriving in Bamako today and tomorrow,” said Ali Coulibaly, Ivory Coast’s African Integration Minister. “They will be convoyed to the front.”

The United States is considering sending a small number of unarmed surveillance drones to Mali as well as providing logistics support, a U.S. official told Reuters. Britain and Canada have also promised logistical support.

Former French colonies Senegal, Niger and Burkina Faso have all pledged to deploy 500 troops within days. In contrast, regional powerhouse Nigeria, due to lead the ECOWAS force, has suggested it would take time to train and equip the troops.

HOUSE-TO-HOUSE SEARCHES

France, however, appeared to have assumed control of the operation on the ground. Its airstrikes allowed Malian troops to drive the Islamists out of the strategic town of Konna, which they had briefly seized this week in their southward advance.

Calm returned to Konna after three nights of combat as the Malian army crushed any remaining rebel fighters. A senior army official said more than 100 rebels had been killed.

“Soldiers are patrolling the streets and have encircled the town,” one resident, Madame Coulibaly, told Reuters by phone. “They are searching houses for arms or hidden Islamists.”

Analysts expressed doubt, however, that African nations would be able to mount a swift operation to retake north Mali — a harsh, sparsely populated terrain the size of France — as neither the equipment nor ground troops were prepared.

“My first impression is that this is an emergency patch in a very dangerous situation,” said Gregory Mann, associate professor of history at Columbia University, who specializes in francophone Africa and Mali in particular.

While France and its allies may be able to drive rebel fighters from large towns, they could struggle to prise them from mountain redoubts in the region of Kidal, 300 km (200 miles) northeast of Gao.

Human Rights Watch said at least 11 civilians, including three children, had been killed in the fighting. A spokesman for Doctors Without Borders in neighboring Mauritania said about 200 Malian refugees had fled across the border to a camp at Fassala and more were on their way.

In Bamako, civilians tried to contribute to the war effort.

“We are very proud and relieved that the army was able to drive the jihadists out of Konna. We hope it will not end there, that is why I’m helping in my own way,” said civil servant Ibrahima Kalossi, 32, one of over 40 people who queued to donate blood for wounded soldiers.

(Additional reporting by Adama Diarra, Tiemoko Diallo and Rainer Schwenzfeier in Bamako, Pascal Fletcher in Johannesburg, Joe Bavier in Abidjan, Catherine Bremer, Leila Aboud and John Irish in Paris and Phil Stewart in Washington; Writing by Daniel Flynn; Editing by Will Waterman and Roger Atwood)

Full article here.

Illinois Total Gun Ban Legislation To Be Submitted: Confiscation to Follow?

Are we, as American citizens slated to become…
Defenseless Public Slaves?

maps/myimg.gif
maps/myimg.gif

New Mexico Colorado Arizona California Nevada Texas Oklahoma Oregon Washington Idaho Montana Wyoming North Dakota South Dakota Nebraska Kansas Minnesota Iowa Missouri Arkansas Louisiana Wisconsin All USA Michigan Indiana Ohio Kentucky Tennessee Mississippi Alabama Alaska West Virginia Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Florida Hawaii Puerto Rico Pennsylvania New York Maine Vermont Virgin Islands New Hampshire Massachusetts Connecticut Rhode Island New Jersey Delaware Maryland Washington DC Northern Marianas American Somoa Guam

The Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) is claiming that it has learned from a credible source that Illinois State Senate President John Cullerton plans to introduce an “assault weapons” ban on Wednesday January 2nd during the course of the “lame duck” session.

Cullerton’s apparent strategy is to ram the bill through the Illinois State Congress during the “lame duck” and provide the passed version to Governor Quinn by Friday for signing. Quinn is, of course, a notorious gun grabber.

If the bill passes, according to the ISRA, “nearly every gun you [Illinois residents] currently own will be banned and will be subject to confiscation by the Illinois State Police.”

The ISRA states,

Based on what we know about Cullerton’s bill, firearms that would be banned include all semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Pump action shotguns would be banned as well. This would be a very comprehensive ban that would include not only so-called “assault weapons” but also such classics as M1 Garands and 1911-based pistols. There would be no exemptions and no grandfathering. You would have a very short window to turn in your guns to the State Police to avoid prosecution.

According to The Truth About Guns, there will actually be two bills – “one for semi-automatic rifles, lever guns, shotguns and handguns with certain features (e.g., threaded barrels); and one for ammunition magazine capacity.”

The ISRA has posted five points on “What You Need To Do To Save Your Guns.” They are as follows:

  1. Beginning Wednesday, call your State Senator and politely tell him or her that you are a law abiding firearm owner and that you strongly oppose Cullerton’s gun ban. Also, be sure to call your State Representative as well and politely deliver the same message. If you do not know who your State Representative please call the Illinois State Board of Elections at 217-782-4141.
  2. Forward this alert to all your gun owning friends and family members. Be sure to tell them to call their senators and representatives as well.
  3. Post this alert to any and all Internet bulletin boards and blogs to which you belong.
  4. Join or renew your membership in the ISRA. Encourage your friends and family to join as well.
  5. Make a generous donation to the ISRA by clicking the link below. We are in desperate need of your financial support to help beat back the onslaught of gun grab bills coming our way in 2013.

In the wake of the Newtown school shooting, the anti-gun agenda will undoubtedly be pressed harder and harder into concrete actions against the Second Amendment. The attacks on gun ownership will likely be coming from all sides in the coming months. Thus, while one may attempt to achieve as many victories for the Second Amendment as possible through the legislative and political process, it should always be remembered that there should be no compromise and no debate when it comes to our basic rights.