Despite..................

[busybody..]

I bet you wont read it all


Ostrich............head...........sand


despite all efforts to deny it

despite all efforts to pretend its only some

despite all efforts to pretend its about Israel

despite all efforts to pretend its isolated

THEY are everywhere. THEY have every intention of using whatever means to KILL us and take us over. THEY think in terms of decades and centuries , we think in terms of weeks and months. THEY know ONE way to undermine us is to GROW IN POPULATION inside our countries and hollow us out. THEY have the ability to use OUR media against us and we allow it


Excerpts from Future Jihad's international version
By Walid Phares

Following are excerpts from Future Jihad's international paperback version: "Terrorist Strategies against the West" as published in World Defense Review and Family Security Matters this week. The new chapter summarizes the global trends and battlefields of the Jihadists worldwide.

Read More »




FUTURE JIHAD: TERRORIST STRATEGIES AGAINST THE WEST

World Defense Review and Family Security Matters

The international paperback version of Professor Walid Phares’ heart-stopping Future Jihad is now released. The new title is “Terrorist Strategies against the West. The following are adapted excerpts:

WALID PHARES EXPLAINS…


”During the year Future Jihad was published in America, significant developments further proved true the conclusions of the initial book. In one single year, before and after its publication a series of declarations by the Jihadists, by international leaders and by intellectuals on all sides of the conflict, signaled that the “War on Terrorism” was after all an all-out confrontation between a worldwide Web of Islamist movements and regimes on the one hand and a dispersed international community, some of which was engaged in this world war while, on the other hand, parts of it weren’t.

My first objective was to explain basic facts to the international public community: that there was an ideological current out there, aiming at world domination, which is defined as “Jihadism.” The whole of Jihadism comes from two trees, one is Salafi the other is Khomeinist. The Salafists, formed in the Sunni environment, are inspired by doctrines of the Middle Ages and have emerged in modern times as Wahhabis, the Muslim Brotherhood, Takfiris, Deobandis, Tablighi and others. They want the reestablishment of a modern day Caliphate. They feel they are the heirs of 14 centuries of history, and they reject modern international law. The Khomeinists are the Jihadists who emerged in the Shiia community. They aim at establishing an Imamate to reunify all Muslims under their guidance in pursuit of Jihad.

The books’ second objective was to show how Jihadists view the world, its modern history, its international relations, its wars, the various civilizations and how they adapt their strategies to modernity. Chapters three, seven, eight and nine were dedicated to show the readers how the Jihadists viewed the 20th century, WWII, the Cold War, the choices they made and the different options they developed as Salafists, Wahhabis, Khumeinists, regarding the Soviets, Israel, the West, and the Muslim regions. The bottom line was to show that there were no sheer emotional and simplistic reactions to crisis, but rather focused, integrated, and complex policies and strategic objectives. This assertion goes against the dominant theories of the past, which never went away yet, that in essence Islamist attitudes are created by Western policies.

Future Jihad precisely argues otherwise: Jihadi ideologies are sui generis. They were developed before current international relations were formalized in laws, survived the latter and have projected their aims regardless of Western or non-Western policies. Certainly, diplomatic, economic and military acts by greater and small powers impact the evolution, decisions and plans of the Islamists. Policies affect other policies, but Jihadism and its various trees and branches, is a being of its own. It relates to the evolution of political Islam historically and can only be explained from inside out.

The third objective of the book was to describe the Jihadi war against the Soviet Union during the Cold War and against the United States and some of its allies after the cold war, leading to 9/11 and beyond.

The fourth objective in producing Future Jihad was an attempt to analyze the specific conflict between al Qaida and the United States. In chapter twelve I examined the root causes of America’s failure showing that the breaches were not simple security flaws but rather systemic malfunctioning at the national security level. In Chapter thirteen, I suggested a model of what could have been an historically successful Jihadist offensive worldwide and its consequences in the US, had a 9/11 of a greater dimension occurred years later instead.

The fifth objective was to offer modest guidelines and prescriptions to face off with the growing dangers of Salafi and Khomeinist ideologically-based terrorism. While geopolitical threats to regional and world peace come from classical radical regimes, such as Tehran’s and to a certain extent Damascus’ and Khartoum’s, another type of threat is represented by the capacity of Jihadi networks to transform moderate or stable Muslim Governments into radical ones, with a full use of their resources.

Finally, I made another set of recommendations to educate the public, the Government’s agencies and the media as to the mind, visions, strategies and if possible the tactics of the Jihadists, much like a prescription aimed at developing a “global resistance” against Jihad-Terrorism, both within the Arab Muslim world and within the international community.

I am glad to announce that the paperback version of Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West is now out in English and Spanish. Versions in other languages are expected in the near future.

The Jihadi Counter Offensive

During 2005-2006, I had several important opportunities to address and interact with policy, legislative, media, community decision makers, experts and concerned citizens across the US and Europe, including in Paris, London, Brussels, Vienna, and Lisbon. In America, my book tour allowed me to discuss Future Jihad in Washington, New York, New Jersey, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Miami and on many campuses nationwide. Since its launch, I have received many emails and messages from bright readers of the book as well as from viewers of and listeners of talk shows. These inputs were sociologically critical for the assessment of the public’s understanding of the bigger picture.

I was also able to conduct briefings at the European Parliament, the US Congress, the United Nations Security Council, Interpol and other international bodies. In addition, my participation in Arab media forums including on al Jazeera, al Hurra, al Arabiya and other outlets provided me the opportunity to interact with ideologues, academics and activists from all sides, and particularly of relevance, the self-declared Jihadi camp. In addition, my interactions with democracy groups and intellectuals from the Arab and Muslim world on the one hand, and frequent visits to and learning process from the various Islamists - particularly Jihadist - chat rooms online, helped my analysis of Future Jihad refine itself and develop ballistics of knowledge in the clashing strategies of the so-called War on Terrorism.

My main post-book conclusion is as follows: The Jihadists are Salafists and Khumeinists alike - on a worldwide counter offensive with their perceived enemies, and they are planning on widening it, rationalizing it, and rendering it irreversible. Here are the various sketches from present situations into future trends:

In the paperback version of 2006, I discussed the specific issue of Bin Laden and al Qaeda and their importance in the global Jihadi movement; their centrality but also their relativity as well. One concept I noted, particularly the so-called Hudna åÏäÉ (truce) proposed several times by the group, in large part to Europe. The Hudna is a main indicative of Jihadi geopolitics, often misunderstood in the West. Another concept I revisited is the worldwide web of Jihadism, stressing its ideological but also its political nature. While loose and full of fragments, I believe it has a centrality that escapes the classical perception of Western defense parameters.

Europe’s Jihads

Following my several field trips to Europe and monitoring of Jihadi deployments on the continent I analyzed the global strategies of the Salafists in specific zones: the United Kingdom; Western European battlefields: Belgium, Netherlands, Scandinavia, Germany in addition to the southern European zone including Spain and Italy; finally France (which I consider as one zone by itself). Two other European zones are Eastern Europe and the Balkans, with different outlooks and geopolitical Jihadi realities. The European Jihads are ahead of their cross Atlantic parallels. The ideological mobilization that surfaced during the so called “Cartoons Jihad” is an important indicator of the wide spread of Wahhabi and Salafi teachings across the continent

The World’s Battlefields

Russia’s battlefields with the Salafists have reached a national security level of threat, both from Chechnya and through its southern borders with Central Asia. The Asian battlefields have grown geometrically in intensity and scope: Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Malaysia to the East; Bengla Desh, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan to the West; and Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in the center. Asian Jihad is gradually including a Chinese Jihad in the old Muslim Sin Kiang and spills over to Australia south bound and to the Greater Middle East West bound. Australia is facing two threats: one regional to its north, linked to the success and advance of Salafi forces in Indonesia and the Philippines, and the other through domestic infiltration by radical Islamists, similar to the global patterns of penetration in the West. In Africa, the Jihadi battlefields are spreading rapidly from Somalia to Darfur all the way to the sub-Saharan countries of Chad, Mauritania, Ivory Coast and Nigeria.

The Greater Middle East

But it is in the Greater Middle East, from Morocco to Iran, where the central battlefields will be decisive. Iraq’s Sunni triangle – contrary to the mediatized wisdom in the West - is only the tip of the Jihadi iceberg. Al Qaeda in Iraq has “chosen” the battlefield to pin down US central forces while Salafist and Khomeinist forces are on the offensive in other spots. Had America not chosen Iraq as a ground for confrontation, the Jihadists would have chosen another terrain for the clash. It is ironic that mainstream scholarship in the West is blind to this reality.

In the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda and its wider web of Wahhabis patiently await their moment for the ultimate leap. In North Africa, the combat Salafists are omnipresent, and from there on, dispatch their cells into Europe. In Egypt and among Palestinians, the Brotherhoods and Hamas have created strongholds; and in Turkey the soft Islamists are taking all the time needed to deliver their battle of ideas against the seculars. In addition to the Salafi surge, the Iranian-led axis of Jihadism from Tehran to southern Lebanon, with the Syrian regime in the center wages its own campaign. Ahmadinejad’s regional offensive –with nuclear ambitions and Terrorism tools - is only the most recent expression of the older Khamanei’s regime. The “axis” has mounted a separate state-sponsored Jihad: Hamas and PIJ in Palestine, HizbAllah in Lebanon, Muqtada al Sadr in Iraq and cells around the Middle East and within the West. The question of Terrorism in the Greater Middle East isn’t confined to the Arab-Israeli conflict anymore. The latter has become a consequence of the region’s Jihadism, not the other way around.

Latin American Ambitions of the Jihadists

From Venezuela under Chavez’s populist power and from Bolivia’s new “Castrist” leadership, the Jihadist bases are growing to meet the tri-border emerging “Emirate” of the tips of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay. Al Qaeda and HizbAllah are racing to outnumber the cells of each other’s organizations. From the south of the Americas, the Jihadi thrust will be reaching the US mainly through the Mexican border and deep into the heart of the country.

Canada’s Jihadists

With the arrest of cells during the summer of 2006 in Toronto, Canada has entered the Global sphere of Jihadi penetration. Modeled after their American counterparts, the Canadian Jihadists are as determined and prepared to strike and enflame the country. In fact North America seems to have become a single continental hub of operations. Cells form on both sides of the border and interact with each other. For example, the arrest of the Georgia cell last year showed a Montreal connection. The same type of radical literature is found in American and Canadian cities, and interestingly enough the Islamist radical activism operates on a “North American” level.

America’s Jihad Mutates

As I argued in the first edition of Future Jihad (Terrorist Strategies against America), the Mohammed Atta type of terrorist is not in the majority anymore. Today, 2006-2007, the new Jihadists are mostly US-born, speak the language well, are educated and operate within the system. And more importantly, they benefit from a militant political shield, which protects them as they grow ideologically and organizationally. In the past few months, more evidence is emerging on the deep influence the pro-Jihadist groups have developed inside the country. The wall protecting the spread of the Wahhabi-Salafi, and even Khomeinist ideologies in America has become close to being legal, after it has thickened politically.

The mutation of Jihadism inside the US is the single most important challenge the country will face in this decade and maybe beyond. The incapacitation of the US Government in its counter Jihadist efforts has become the central breach in national security.

The War of Ideas

Hence, it has also become clear that whoever will be able to shape the minds of Americans as to identify the enemy will win the War on Terror. And whoever can show the US public, or bar it from seeing the reality of the Jihadi wars against democracies, will make or break the War on Terror and its length.

*****
Professor Walid Phares, author of Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West ”, the paperback published by Palgrave/St Martin; New York and London (December 2006). Dr Phares is a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and Visiting Fellow with the European Foundation for Democracy.

To obtain a signed copy of Future Jihad (hard copy and paperback) go to www.futurejihad.com or www.walidphares.com. For media review copies contact info@futurejihad.com

 

[busybody..]

Pessimism in the Intelligence Community
The overwhelmingly negative assessment of the U.S. counter-terrorism strategy laid out by John Negroponte and other leaders of the intelligence community in the annual worldwide threat assessment was surprisingly under-reported.

But buried in the bleak assessment, one of the starkest in recent reports, was a realistic outline of the spreading threats on multiple Islamist fronts that we are facing.

The report was notable for its candor and the end to the happy talk that has often made its way into assessments on the struggle against the jihadist threat. What is amazing is that, five years and billions of dollars after 9-11, we are falling behind in the conflict. We are not even really competing in the field of ideas, and we have done little to mitigate the broader problems.

Part of the problem is that there is still no general consensus on who the enemy is and if a war exists. Until we decide that, little else of import can happen.

The enemy is the ideology and theology that is still be funded by billions of dollars a year to spread its poison. There are two different poisons-the Salafist-Sunni version funded by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, and the Shia poison funded by Iran. Both are aimed at killing us before they turn on each other.

Yet we are fighting primarily a counterinsurgency war with almost no ideological component. The Islamist front groups in this country and Europe largely operate with impunity, and there is almost no effort to help true, fundamentalist Muslims who understand the danger of the Islamists to get their message out, either here or abroad.

Lt. Gen. Michael Maples said that al-Qaeda “has consistently recovered from losses of senior leadership,” and that its “increasing cooperation with like-minded groups has improved its ability to facilitate, support and direct its objectives.”

Negroponte said the group’s leaders have found a haven in secure locations in Pakistan and added that Osama bin Laden’s network maintains active connections “that radiate outward from their leaders’ secure hide-out in Pakistan to affiliates throughout the Middle East, northern Africa and Europe.”

The assessment underscores how close we are to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in the struggle against the remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The tipping point, where Afghanistan could reasonably expect to become a functioning state, appears to have past. The “open moment,” discussed in my previous blog, is no longer there.

But is a mistake to focus solely on the geographic location of the old al Qaeda leadership. What is more important is the network that exists that wants to respond to the leadership even if they have no organic link to the al Qaeda organization. It is the ideology that is the unifying and driving force.

A second front in the Islamist movements, not always compatible with the al Qaeda/Sunni front, is now open and growing. The Shia Hezbollah is emboldened and Iran stands to gain from almost any of the probably bleak scenarios in Iraq.

Somalia may be a victory or a prelude to another ongoing, bleeding conflict that drains lives and resources, where the Islamists can ultimately regroup and come back.

The realism is refreshing. The reality is scary.

 

[busybody..]

“The reason for this failure is that every one of the ideas we used to evaluate our options is wrong. In every case, the opposite of today’s “conventional wisdom” is true.

A strong offense does not create new enemies; it defeats existing foes. Were this not so, we would be fighting German and Japanese suicide bombers today, while North Korea—undefeated by America—would be peaceful, prosperous, and free.

Poverty is not the “root cause” of wars. If it were, poor Mexicans would be attacking America, not begging for jobs at Wal-Mart.

Democracy is not a route to freedom—not for the Greeks who voted to kill Socrates, nor for the Romans who acclaimed Caesar, nor for the Germans who elected Hitler.

A culture of slavery and suicide is not equal to a culture of freedom and prosperity—not for those who value life.

The world is not a flux of contradictions, in which principles do not work. If it were, gravity would not hold, vaccinations would not work, and one would not have a right to one’s life.

Being moral does not mean sacrificing for others. It means accepting the American principle of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”—and living for one’s own sake.

History is clear: All-out force against fanatical killers is both practical and moral.”

 

[busybody..]

Negroponte said that Hezbollah is fast becoming as dangerous as Al Q

With that in mind

It is mind altering that the US stood in the way of Israel of wiping them out!

 

[busybody..]

The "Hulk Smash" Rule

Colin Powell is credited with coming up the "Pottery Barn" Rule of foreign policy, i.e., "You break it, you bought it." The idea is that, if we attack a country, we are then responsible for fixing the place and making it thriving democracy... or at least one that's only dying very slowly like we did with Germany and Japan.

This is obviously a dumb policy.

As we now know, the American people hate rebuilding operations. If we stay to fix a place, people will complain "quagmire" and constantly whine and annoy the troops. Thus, the policy is not sustainable.

I suggest a new foreign policy called the "Hulk Smash" rule. If a country angers us, we smash them. And we have no responsibility to rebuild them since it was their fault for making us angry and causing us to smash them. Because we're the Hulk.

Some may say this is an irresponsible policy that will make other countries angry at us, but that's a stupid opinion since other countries are always angry at us. The smart thing to do is then disregard the opinions of foreigners when settling on a foreign policy. Thus, the best policy is to follow the "Hulk Smash" rule in which we kill evil foreigners and then no longer have to worry about the clean up afterwards.

 

[Matthew Craig]

Stop bumping your own threads over and over. You're an idiot and nobody cares about this shit.

 

[Peregrinator]

The "Hulk Smash" Rule

Colin Powell is credited with coming up the "Pottery Barn" Rule of foreign policy, i.e., "You break it, you bought it." The idea is that, if we attack a country, we are then responsible for fixing the place and making it thriving democracy... or at least one that's only dying very slowly like we did with Germany and Japan.

This is obviously a dumb policy.

As we now know, the American people hate rebuilding operations. If we stay to fix a place, people will complain "quagmire" and constantly whine and annoy the troops. Thus, the policy is not sustainable.

I suggest a new foreign policy called the "Hulk Smash" rule. If a country angers us, we smash them. And we have no responsibility to rebuild them since it was their fault for making us angry and causing us to smash them. Because we're the Hulk.

Some may say this is an irresponsible policy that will make other countries angry at us, but that's a stupid opinion since other countries are always angry at us. The smart thing to do is then disregard the opinions of foreigners when settling on a foreign policy. Thus, the best policy is to follow the "Hulk Smash" rule in which we kill evil foreigners and then no longer have to worry about the clean up afterwards.

This is retarded.

 

[busybody..]

 

[busybody..]

if we stay to fix it

so many bitch and whine

about the cost

the time frame

we are in a no win

someone pisses us off, SMASH THE SHIT OUT EM

and fuck em

leave em to themselves


You are wrong, Perg

 

[busybody..]

When Bush ran for Pres

he said he was against NATION BUILDING

I know why he is doing it in Iraq

but why Afghanistan?

When the terror camps build up again, carpet bomb em again

 

[busybody..]

Despite

you know nuthins

this thread will not die

 

[Fagin]

you know nuthins

this thread will not die

There's an episode of Monk where a looney guy wanted to hid a bunch of gold, so he melted it down and mixed it in with ink. He started writing in journals to use up (thus hiding) the gold keeping it safe. After about a half of a page he ran out of intelligent things to write about so he filled hundreds of journals with jibberish.
He kept it going and going just for the sake of using up the ink.

 

[busybody..]

I reached that state

after my third thread

 

[busybody..]

you didnt read ANY of this

didya?

 

[Fagin]

I got as far as

Read More »

Read No More »

 

[busybody..]

 

[GreatCthulhu]

Heh heh

This guy's funny...

I don't think that's his intention - but I almost wet myself laughing at this.

Is he trying to be ironic? I thought you Yanks didn't do irony...how wrong was I??

 

[busybody..]

Sandy Berger: What Did He Take and Why Did He Take It?
By Ronald A. Cass

Some things cry out for explanation. Like finding $90,000 in marked bills in a Congressman's freezer. Or finding out that a blue-chip lawyer who held one of the most important jobs in the nation was willing to risk his career, his livelihood, and his liberty to steal, hide, and destroy classified documents.

We all have a pretty good idea what the money was doing in Representative William Jefferson's freezer. But the questions about President William Jefferson Clinton's National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, just keep piling up.

It's time we got some answers.

**********
According to reports from the Inspector General of the National Archives and the staff of the House of Representatives' Government Operations Committee, Mr. Berger, while acting as former President Clinton's designated representative to the commission investigating the attacks of September 11, 2001, illegally took confidential documents from the Archives on more than one occasion. He folded documents in his clothes, snuck them out of the Archives building, and stashed them under a construction trailer nearby until he could return, retrieve them, and later cut them up. After he was caught, he lied to the investigators and tried to shift blame to Archive employees.

Contrary to his initial denials and later excuses, Berger clearly intended from the outset to remove sensitive material from the Archives. He used the pretext of making and receiving private phone calls to get time alone with confidential material, although rules governing access dictated that someone from the Archives staff must be present. He took bathroom breaks every half-hour to provide further opportunity to remove and conceal documents.

Before this information was released, the Justice Department, accepting his explanation of innocent and accidental removal of the documents, allowed Berger to enter a plea to the misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material - no prison time, no loss of his bar license. The series of actions that the Archives and House investigations detail, however, are entirely at odds with protestations of innocence. Nothing about his actions was accidental. Nothing was casual. And nothing was normal.

What could have been important enough for Berger to take the risks he did? What could have been important enough for a lawyer of his distinction to risk disgrace, disbarment, and prison?

To paraphrase the questions asked of Richard Nixon by members of his own Party, what did he take and why did he take it?


**********

The report released by Rep. Tom Davis last week makes plain that right now we cannot answer those questions. We cannot say what information in fact was lost through Mr. Berger's actions.

At President Clinton's request, he reviewed highly confidential material during four visits to the Archives over four months. Only Mr. Berger knows what transpired on his first two visits, when he reviewed collections of confidential memos, e-mails, and handwritten notes, including materials taken from counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke's office - all of which were not catalogued at the individual item level.

On Mr. Berger's third visit Archives employees became suspicious that he might be removing classified material. Rather than directly confront a former Cabinet-level official, Archives officials simply took steps to identify further theft on succeeding visits. That is how Mr. Berger's thefts on his fourth and last visit were documented.

We don't know what Mr. Berger might have removed from the uncatalogued materials reviewed in his earlier visits, but we know his last visit focused on a memorandum called the Millennium Alert After Action Report (MAAAR). Copies of this report were made available to the 9/11 Commission, but the information in those copies undoubtedly is not what interested Berger most. Berger took five copies of the report and later destroyed three of them.

What was on the copies he destroyed? Handwritten notes from Berger, the President, or some other official? Observations that would be embarrassing to them, evidence they missed an important threat or considered or recommended actions - or decisions not to act - they wouldn't want to defend in public? Evidence, perhaps, that would have supported the Bush Administration? We don't know, and no one who does is saying, but the evidence must have been terribly damning for Berger to take the risks he did.


**********

There are good reasons to protect sensitive communications within the government. Some discussions should be private if presidents are to have the best advice and the nation is to have the best decisions on sensitive matters. The President and top officials should be able to explore options and discuss threats - among themselves and with their key staff members - without fear that a remark taken out of context or poorly phrased will come back to haunt them.

Laws that endeavor to strike the balance between salutary confidentiality and beneficial public disclosure at times tilt too far to disclosure. In public debate, advantages of disclosure are often easier to explain than advantages of secrecy. That, in part, follows from the nature of secrets - if you don't reveal them, you can't explain fully why they should have stayed secret.

The Berger episode, however, strictly involves materials that are supposed to be turned over under the law, materials specifically covered by a presidential directive that authorized sharing the information with those investigating 9/11 intelligence-gathering and evaluation. Mr. Berger's willingness to risk everything to suppress the information goes well beyond ordinary concerns against excessive disclosure.

Bill Clinton obviously has great sensitivity to his place in history and to accusations that he did too little to respond to al-Qaeda, that he is to some degree responsible for failing to prevent 9/11's tragedy. That is why he and his lieutenants made reckless and baseless accusations against the current Bush administration, attempting to portray them as having dropped the baton handed off by ever-vigilant Clintonistas (who, according to John Ashcroft's testimony, withheld the MAAAR and its warnings about al-Qaeda's operations in the US from the Bush transition team).

But maybe there is more to the story. Maybe there is something far worse than we can imagine that is worth having his chief security aide risk his reputation, his career, and his liberty to cover up.


**********

Mr. Berger, the Clintons, and their allies do not want questions about this story asked or answered. Mr. Berger's lawyer, Lanny Breuer, along with former Clinton officials, assured us that all of the material destroyed by Berger existed in other form and was made available to the 9/11 investigations, that nothing relevant to the Clinton Administration's response to al-Qaeda was withheld.

Of course, we also were assured that Monica had only imagined a relationship with Bill and that rumors to the contrary were, in Hillary's famous phrase, the work of a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

Politicians never like to admit mistakes. They see legitimate inquiries as politically inspired, which they often are. Changing the subject or shifting blame to others aren't tactics peculiar to the Clintons.

The Clintons, however, take the game of deny-deceive-and-distract to a new level. Their relentless personal attacks on Ken Starr were designed to undermine the credibility of information about Bill Clinton's perjury, to deflect attention from his own failings. Clinton's excessive reaction - complete with hyperbole, finger-wagging, and scolding - to a simple question from Fox News' Chris Wallace about his response to al-Qaeda is in the same vein. Something here touches a nerve.

That nerve is exposed in the Sandy Berger saga. This story at bottom is about the security of our nation, about what was - or was not - done to protect us from the most shocking and deadly attack on American citizens by foreign agents in our nation's history. This story is critical not only to understanding our past but also to securing our future. It can help us understand what it is reasonable to expect can be done to keep us and our loved ones safe from harm. It is, in short, as important a story as there is.


**********

It is a story the news media should be desperate to explore, not desperate to avoid.

They should want to know the full story, no matter what the implications are for the legacy of a president much loved by an overwhelmingly liberal media or what the risks are for a former First Lady whose future is tied to her husband's past. Those risks loom especially large before a field of potential Republican presidential candidates with strong reputations in security matters - like Rudy Giuliani, for example, whose courageous performance on 9/11 still resonates.

Those who wrap themselves so frequently in the mantra of the people's right to know should want to know the truth - all the time. Sadly, today's would-be Woodwards and Bernsteins look more like ostriches than hawks, showing no curiosity about what Sandy Berger was hiding. Had that been the attitude when Watergate first appeared as a minor news story, Richard Nixon would have served out his full second term. The rest, as they say, is history.

Mr. Cass, Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law and Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, served Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush as Commissioner and Vice-Chairman of the US International Trade Commission.

 

[busybody..]

Meanwhile an entity that used to be known as England

Is aiding and abetting the terrorists

UK Islamic Forum Incites Somalia Jihad
One of the UK’s most unapologetic Islamic supremacists, Anjem Choudary, has been caught inciting violence (again!) on a password-protected web site: UK preacher in secret web call for jihad.

ONE of Britain’s most vocal, extremist preachers has been using a false name on a secret website to incite Muslim followers to go on jihad, or holy war, in Somalia.

Anjem Choudary, former spokesman of the banned group Al-Muhajiroun, has posted a statement on a jihadist internet forum telling followers they must join the “divine call of jihad” in the African state.

His call in the password-protected site came days before America mounted air raids on suspected Al-Qaeda units in southern Somalia and news emerged that seven British passport holders had been captured in Somalia by Ethiopian troops.

This weekend the Ethiopian embassy in London said its forces had five Britons in custody, although it has failed to provide any documentary evidence. The Britons are said to have been fighting against the interim Somali government alongside the Union of Islamic Courts, an Al-Qaeda-linked movement.

Choudary is a well-known figure on the forum called Followers of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’aah Muntada (Followers of the Prophet and His Companions). The site, which has about 700 members, is visited by some of Britain’s most notorious Muslim extremists, members of groups such as Al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect, offshoots of Al-Muhajiroun and banned after the London bombings on July 7, 2005. Applicants have to be recommended by a member.

Choudary, who uses the pseudonym Abou Luqman, declares in the forum: “The Ethiopians, with . . . support (from the Christian crusader regimes) and backed by illegitimate Israel (Zionists), have violated the blood of Muslims in Somalia. By committing such an act of terrorism the Muslims in Somalia and nearby lands have responded to the divine call of jihad.”

He then reminds followers of their duty to fight jihad: “The obligation of supporting jihad all over the world is fard ayn (an individual obligation) . . . This honourable act must be carried out according to your own capabilities because our beloved prophet Muhammad said strike the mushrik (infidels) with your wealth, hands and tongue.”

The forum has videos and images produced by Al-Qaeda that call on Muslims to join the jihad. Images of corpses of Ethiopian soldiers are captioned “dead kuffar (infidel) bodies”.

The Guardian has details of a fundraising trip to Britain by the Somali Islamic Courts, to finance their jihad—with the tacit approval of the UK Foreign Office: Somali Islamists held UK meeting to raise funds.

Somalia’s Islamist movement, whose leadership is accused by the US of sheltering some of al-Qaida’s most wanted operatives, sent a delegation on a fundraising trip to Britain last year, the Guardian has learned. Led by an Islamist minister, the Union of Islamic Courts delegation received pledges of funding from members of Britain’s Somali diaspora at a meeting at a north London school in November.

According to one community leader, the Somali delegation also met sympathisers at the Finsbury Park mosque, which became notorious as a recruiting ground for radical Islam under its former imam Abu Hamza. Abdiwali Mohamud, a Somali community worker in Camden, said: “They were trying to influence people in a Muslim way, saying are you with us or with the unbelievers?”

Although they were not officially recognised by Britain, the Islamists also held talks with Foreign Office officials, who urged them to negotiate with Somalia’s government.

The Foreign Office meeting underlines the strikingly different approaches taken by the US - which describes the Islamists as “extremists to the core” and targeted Somalia with an air strike this week - and Britain, which accepts that there were moderate elements within the UIC.

Around 500 people attended the Islamists’ fundraising meeting at the Islington Arts and Media School, according to a British Somali who was in the audience. A delegation led by Omar Mohammed Mahamoud Aftooje, the Islamist minister responsible for reconstruction, appealed for financial help.

“They talked about the progress they made in Mogadishu, how they defeated the warlords,” the audience member, who requested anonymity, told the Guardian. “More than 20 people donated £1,000 each, some people said £100, others £300, some of them gave cash on the spot, others gave bank details or agreed to transfer money. They said the money was for repairing roads in Mogadishu.”

 

[morewickedfun]

Kicks busy in the nuts. Lovingly.

 

[busybody..]

if you dont read it

you cant

 

[busybody..]

The Dark Ages

Still exists

What will they ban next?


Youssef Ibrahim reports in the New York Sun that the Saudi Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice has denied trademark protection to a Saudi businessman for a business that carried the English word "Explorer" because it has the letter X in it. And X resembles the cross and so must be banned. The businessman wonders sarcastically if the next to go will be the plus sign.

This backward and bigoted thinking has been going on a long time in Saudi Arabia.


The Saudi commission has shaped life and death: declared jihad against Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan, banished women from public life, and forced piety at the tip of the whip and the sword. Its edicts have hindered business, education, travel, women's rights, and life itself, creating a fertile ground for terrorism and producing the 15 Saudis who participated in the September 11, 2001, attacks — and many others like them.

Among the commission's deeds is the famed 1974 fatwa — issued by its blind leader at the time, Sheik Abdul Aziz Ben Baz — which declared that the Earth was flat and immobile. In a book issued by the Islamic University of Medina, the sheik argued: "If the earth is rotating, as they claim, the countries, the mountains, the trees, the rivers, and the oceans will have no bottom." Another bright light of the commission, Sheik Abdel-Aziz al-Sheikh, recently stopped a government reform proposal aimed at creating work for women by allowing them to replace male sales clerks in women's clothing stores. Sheik al-Sheikh damned the idea, saying it was a step "towards immorality and hellfire."

The underlying logic is breathtaking: Women are more protected by buying their knickers from men! Over the years, the commission has rendered Saudi Arabia a true kingdom of darkness. Movie theaters are banned, as are sculptures, paintings, and music, and the mixing of sexes in public.


And these are our supposed allies. Yeah.

Between these sectarian leaders driving their country backwards and the Shiites in Iran doing the same there, the entire region could easily fall into a new dark ages lit only by the power of the weapons that they develop with their oil revenues. It's a terrifying thought.

 

[kbate]

The new season of '24' started and Jack Bauer can kill terrorists and save the world.

You should watch it BB, it will make you feel proud to be American.

 

[busybody..]

Make believe

Doesnt cut it in the REAL WORLD!

The above should be interesting reading for YOU!

BTW, wait till we have a WOMAN President

It will get way worse

The Jihadists dont respect Women

They will test her more

The WOMAN Pres will have to act MORE crudly and forcefully to reassert American strentgh

Etc



I dont watch 24

 

[morewickedfun]

Come here little caterpillar.