Terror Trends BulletinKuwaiti authorities have reportedly uncovered a plot to attack a US military logistics base in Kuwait. No doubt we will be providing updates about this development as they come available…but here are two brief articles in the meantime…
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/world/middleeast/12kuwait.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE57A35F20090811
It has long been feared that all or a portion of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal could fall into the hands of Jihadist terrorists.
There are numerous scenarios in which this might happen, ranging from a raid by a terrorist group to capture a warhead to the government of Pakistan being overthrown by Jihadists in a coup d’etat, with the new Jihadist rulers gaining control over the country’s arsenal.
So far, fortunately, none of these scenarios has come close to happening, but there IS a report in the UK Telegraph that terrorists have in fact targeted some of Pakistan’s nuclear facilities…
Pakistan’s nuclear bases targeted by al Qaeda
Obama’s decision to shut down Gitmo at all costs continues to have unexpected consequences for friends of America around the globe.
The folks in Bermuda aren’t real thrilled with their new Uighur neighbors. Now the government there is facing a no-confidence vote. This, of course, comes after America’s staunchest ally, Great Britain, was once again purposely insulted by Obama by our failure to notify them of the deal to send the Uighur jihadis to a commonwealth nation.
Why Obama hates the Brits so much and what he expects to gain by treating them so shabbily is certainly a mystery to me.
Meanwhile, some of the other Uighurs who were slated to go to Palau after Obama bribed that poor nation into taking them, now say they don’t want to go, at least that’s what their lawyers are telling us. (Think how surreal this is; enemy Jihadis captured on the battlefield being represented by American lawyers. I still can’t get used to the concept.)
Since the Uighurs don’t want to go to Palau, I have some suggestions as to where we might send them:
French Frigate Shoals
Wake Island
South Georgia Island
Diego Garcia
The search for the elusive and mythical “moderate” Taliban that President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton keep telling us about uncovered 33 such individuals in Helmand province in southern Afghanistan…
In the video below, President Obama is asked if his policies toward North Korea and Iran are accomplishing anything, other than buying those two nations time to expand their nuclear programs.
This was a surprisingly excellent question from the media–and one that could only have been asked overseas. There is simply no way in hell that any member of the lapdog White House press corps, which may as well be a branch of the administration staff, would have sacked up to ask this question.
Predictably, Obama, sans teleprompter, stuttered and stammered his way clumsily through a non-answer. Watch as French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose administration led negotiations with Iran for some time and was critical of Obama’s naivete’ regarding Iran, is clearly uncomfortable sitting next to Obama as our president pratfalls his way through his attempt at an answer:
There is much that is troubling about Obama’s answer, besides his obvious inability to articulate on the subject.
He appears to be taking shots at the Bush administration by stating repeatedly that North Korea will no longer be rewarded for bad behavior.
But the fact is, his policy toward North Korea is EXACTLY a continuance of the Bush policy: We’ve got Russia and China on our side…
Russia and China are NOT on our side here. China in particular has a long history of supplying arms to North Korea. Without Russia and China, in fact, North Korea’s nuclear program would be a group of physicists in a lab conducting experiments and nothing more.
It is especially ironic that Obama is attempting to distance himself from the Bush policies given that he himself personally selected the architect of the Bush policy toward North Korea, Christopher R. Hill, to be ambassador to Iraq, where, even more ominously, he will no doubt have to interact with the neighboring Iranians. Obama picked him over the desires of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who wanted retired Marine General Anthony Zinni for the Iraq ambassadorship. This is an indication of just how impressed Obama is with Hill.
We can only shudder to think what Hill might give away to appease the Iranians. He had North Korea taken off the terrorist-sponsoring list, above the objections of US ally Japan, because of their perceived “cooperation” on their nuclear program, only to watch with his thumb up his you-know-where as they went back on those agreements after the fact. If there is one man in the United States of America who we do NOT want dealing with the Iranians, it is Christopher R. Hill.
Note in the video that Obama completely ignores the issue of Iran. He does not even attempt to answer that part of the question and basically covers up the Iranians’ actions:
1. Like North Korea, Iran has also conducted ballistic missile tests.
2. Iran has announced that they are now spinning 7200 centrifuges–in violation of international treaties and UN Security Council resolutions.
3. Iran has refused to cooperate with IAEA inspectors–again, in violation of international treaties and UN Security Council resolutions.
4. Iran continues to supply heavy weapons to the Taliban, which the Taliban use to kill US GIs in Afghanistan
Obama mentions none of this.
Why?
For years now, NATO commanders have been saying that Iran has been supplying weaponry to the Taliban in Afghanistan.
For instance, General Petraeus told reporters back in February that Iran was aiding the Taliban:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=aru5H2YB1Tv8&pid=20601087
However, these reports go at least all the way back to 2007, when a US State Department representative cited irrefutable evidence of Iran arming the Taliban:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/06/13/iran.taliban/index.html
In fact, NATO intercepted a shipment of arms from Iran to the Taliban just about two years ago:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/document_iran_c.html
Nevertheless, some on the Left have been skeptical of Iran’s support for the Taliban, based on the fact that the Taliban are Salafi Sunni Muslims and the Iranians are Shiite Muslims.
This type of blind dogma continues to hamstring US policy, despite overwhelming evidence that Iran works enthusiastically with Sunnis against the West.
For instance, HAMAS receives the lion’s share of its funding and arms from Iran, despite the fact that HAMAS is a Sunni terrorist offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, another Salafi Sunni organization. This is not in dispute. Iran admits that they fund HAMAS and HAMAS admits that they get money from Iran.
Moreover, Iran has also aided the Taliban’s greatest ally, Al Qaeda, another Salafi Sunni terrorist organization. Many continue to dispute that Iran sponsors Al Qaeda, but the facts are out there for analysis, as yours truly wrote in National Review back in March 2008:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGE0ZWE0MWVjMmI2YjI4NzI1OTg2YzZmMjJjNzMwOGY
Despite Iran’s record of aiding Sunni terrorist organizations and the Taliban in particular, the Obama administration has been trumpeting the idea of enlisting Iran’s aid in the battle against…those same Taliban.
The problem is, predictably, the hairbrained scheme to get the Iranians to help NATO battle the Taliban in Afghanistan is running into a little problem: Iran is arming the Taliban.
What now Obama?
Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, who reportedly studied jihad with an Islamic scholar in Yemen, shot Private William Long and Private Quinton I. Ezeagwula. Long died from his wounds.
Will these two soldiers killed/wounded by the Jihadist in Little Rock get Purple Heart awards?
That might be a question with national policy implications in terms of Obama’s nomenclature for the war formerly known as “on terrorism” and now known as “overseas contingency operations.”
Little Rock isn’t overseas and the perpetrator might be regarded as a “criminal” and not the enemy that he is.
Given the new parameters of the Obama administration, would the slain soldier and wounded soldier be eligible for Purple Hearts? Had the two soldiers been standing in front of the recruiting office and been slain/wounded in an armed robbery, they certainly would not be eligible for Purple Hearts.
If the Obama administration views Jihadist terrorism as a law enforcement issue, as they claim, would these two soldiers be eligible for Purple Hearts? And, if they do receive Purple Hearts, isn’t that a tacit acknowledgement that they were in fact not involved in a crime but in an action in which they were killed/wounded by enemy fire?
Today I want to extend my very best wishes to all who are celebrating Nowruz around the world.
This holiday is both an ancient ritual and a moment of renewal, and I hope that you enjoy this special time of year with friends and family.
Here are some of Iran's friends. They call themselves "Hezbollah."
In particular, I would like to speak directly to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Here is one of Iran's current leaders, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking in front of a photo of Iran's original leader, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Nice folks. Hope they listen to Barry.
Here is the REAL leader of Iran. The Supreme Leader himself, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Like all great religious men, he is delivering this sermon whilst fondling the muzzle of a rifle. I sure hope Barry's message of hope and change gets through to him!
Nowruz is just one part of your great and celebrated culture. Over many centuries your art, your music, literature and innovation have made the world a better and more beautiful place.
Iranian "art"
More Iranian art
A rather stylized Iranian depiction of Uncle Sam. Ain't Iranian art great! Barry says it is!
More Iranian "art." This time a nice mural.
Not all Iranian art has an American theme.
####################################################################################
President Obama is right. Iran does have some “unusual” literature. Here are some of the writings of the father of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini:
A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However he should not penetrate, sodomising the child is OK. If the man penetrates and damages the child then he should be responsible for her subsistence all herlife. This girl, however does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister.
From Khomeini’s book, “Tahrirolvasyleh”, fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom,
Iran, 1990
It is better for a girl to marry in such a time when she would begin
menstruation at her husband’s house rather than her father’s home. Any
father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in
heaven.
From Khomeini’s book, “Tahrirolvasyleh”, fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom,
Iran, 1990
A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on.
However he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not
sell the meat to the people in his own village, however selling the meat to
the next door village should be fine.
From Khomeini’s book, “Tahrirolvasyleh”, fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom,
Iran, 1990
“If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrement become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed and as quickly as possible and burned.”
The little green book, Sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini, Political, Phylosophica, Social and Religious with a special introduction by Clive Irving, ISBN number 0-553-14032-9, page 47
A woman who has contracted a continuing marriage does not have the right to go out of the house without her husband’s permission; she must remain at his disposal for the fulfilment of any one of his desires, and may not refuse herself to him except for a religiously valid reason. If she is totally submissive to him, the husband must provide her with her food, clothing, and lodging, whether or not he has the means to do so. A woman who refuses herself to her husband is guilty, and may not demand from him food, clothing, lodging, or any later sexual relations; however, she retains the right to be paid damages if she is repudiated.
Ali [son in law of Mohammed], having cut off the hands of two thieves, treated their wounds and offered them his hospitality, and this affected them so much that they became utterly devoted to him; or again when he heard that the marauding army of Muawiyah had abused a woman of one of the tribes, he was so upset and moved to pity he declared: “If a man died after such an occurrence, no one could blame him.” And yet, despite a nature as sensitive as that, Ali bared his sword and hacked the perpetrators to pieces. This is the meaning of justice.
“The Sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini, Political, Philosophical, Social and Religious” (The Little Green Book), ISBN number 0-553-14032-9.
##################################################################################################
Here in the United States our own communities have been enhanced by the contributions of Iranian Americans. We know that you are a great civilization, and your accomplishments have earned the respect of the United States and the world.
Here is one of Iran's most recent accomplishments and contributions to the world: it's called an Explosively Formed Penetrator. These were made in Iran and used to kill many American GIs in Iraq.
For nearly three decades relations between our nations have been strained. But at this holiday we are reminded of the common humanity that binds us together. Indeed, you will be celebrating your New Year in much the same way that we Americans mark our holidays — by gathering with friends and family, exchanging gifts and stories, and looking to the future with a renewed sense of hope.
One reason US-Iranian relations became "strained" 30 years ago was because they invaded our embassy and took our people hostage
When Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah killed 241 American GIs in an Islamikaze attack in 1983, relations became more strained
Within these celebrations lies the promise of a new day, the promise of opportunity for our children, security for our families, progress for our communities, and peace between nations. Those are shared hopes, those are common dreams.
"Hope" is one of Barry's favorite words. It's one of the Ayatollahs' favorite words too. They like it so much that they named their latest missile "Omid," which means "Hope!"
So in this season of new beginnings I would like to speak clearly to Iran’s leaders. We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.
Iran has so much "respect" for us that they even have a national holiday called "Death to America" Day!
You, too, have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right — but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.
So on the occasion of your New Year, I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek. It’s a future with renewed exchanges among our people, and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce. It’s a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you and all of your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace.
I know that this won’t be reached easily. There are those who insist that we be defined by our differences. But let us remember the words that were written by the poet Saadi, so many years ago: “The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence.”
With the coming of a new season, we’re reminded of this precious humanity that we all share. And we can once again call upon this spirit as we seek the promise of a new beginning.
Thank you, and Eid-eh Shoma Mobarak.
In 2002, former CIA director R. James Woolsey called the war on terrorism “World War IV.” To this day, we believe that this name is far more appropriate than any other name we have seen or heard.
Why?
Because “World War IV” is descriptive and accurate. Militant Islamists are conducting offensive Jihad around the world to impose Shariah and eventually re-establish a caliphate.
These Jihadists are far from homogenous and often at odds with one another, however, they are united in their hatred of the West.
An example of one forgotten theater in this war is Thailand. Southern Thailand has been wracked by a Jihadist insurgency for some time, with intense combat since 2004. 3,300 people have been killed in the Jihadist insurgency there, which the Thai military has been hard-pressed to contain.
Little is known about the Islamic “separatists” in southern Thailand and the US has been reluctant to become involved in this struggle, thanks to our unfocused and counterproductive State Department. The Thais, a loyal US ally since US aircraft conducted an air campaign from bases in Thailand against targets in Vietnam, are now buying weaponry from Russia, the Ukraine and Israel. From time to time, the Pentagon has explored the possibility of providing logistic support and advisors to Thailand, but the State Department managed to have these efforts aborted.
Now that Obama is in office, you can be sure that the dim hope of US assistance is non-existent. The State Department has always failed to recognize World War IV for what it is–a global struggle against Jihadists. Obama seems determined to pare back the struggle against Jihad even more, to the point that there is no point in even questioning whether Obama would provide help to Thailand.
As stated previously, much is not known about the Jihadists in Thailand. Why did they become so active again in 2004 after a long period of relative calm? How are they supported? Where are they getting their arms and training?
Some in the media speculate that the Thai Jihadists are merely an isolated separatist movement without outside ties and support.
I refuse to believe that. The timing is just too coincidental. The intensification of combat in 2004 coincides with Jihadist activity in too many other places in the world, from Algeria to the Philippines. The idea that this is exclusively a local conflict strictly borne of the overthrow of a Muslim monarch in Pattani 101 years ago, as some maintain, defies reality.
And given the worldwide support for Jihad by government sources such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, not to mention numerous Muslim charities through zakat payments, one of the five pillars of Islam, I am extremely skeptical that the Thai Jihadists aren’t getting support from the outside.
This conflict needs to be monitored. In other places, such as the Swat Valley in Pakistan, Somalia, Chechnya and the Philippines, armistices have been negotiated allowing Shariah to be imposed in disputed territories. (Thankfully, in the Philippines, that country’s supreme court declared the agreement null and void.) It would be most unfortunate if a similar agreement took hold in Thailand.
For now, monitor is all we can do, until America is once again reawakened from its slumber and it recognizes World War IV for what it is and realizes that no theater of operations can be ignored and neglected.
A summary from the Global Post:
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/thailand/090311/thailand-the-war-youve-never-heard
Excerpt and LINK…
Last Friday night in Buenos Aires, Claudio Lifschitz, former secretary to the judge in charge of the AMIA bombing investigation, was kidnapped and tortured in Buenos Aires by three hooded men who later released him.
The Jerusalem Post, the JTA and YNet news have the story, which is being ignored by the US media:
Terror Trends Bulletin 