Fighting the war on terrorism has been regularly made harder by the Fifth Column in the Fourth Estate giving aid and comfort to the enemy -- and undermining the Bush Administration through scare tactics and falsehood.

Today's editorial is no exception.

It was appalling to watch over the last few days as Congress — now led by Democrats — caved in to yet another unnecessary and dangerous expansion of President Bush’s powers, this time to spy on Americans in violation of basic constitutional rights. Many of the 16 Democrats in the Senate and 41 in the House who voted for the bill said that they had acted in the name of national security, but the only security at play was their job security.

There was plenty of bad behavior. Republicans marched in mindless lockstep with the president. There was double-dealing by the White House. The director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, crossed the line from being a steward of this nationÂ’s security to acting as a White House political operative.

But mostly, the spectacle left us wondering what the Democrats — especially their feckless Senate leaders — plan to do with their majority in Congress if they are too scared of Republican campaign ads to use it to protect the Constitution and restrain an out-of-control president.

I'd love to respond to this editorial, but I'm fortunate not to need to, given this fine piece by Congressman Pete Hoekstra, who I one day hope to see serving in the Oval Office. It responds to today's editorial and yesterday's article on the FISA Fix.

Article

• Misstatement and Exaggeration: “…impact went far beyond the small fixes that administration officials had said were needed to gather information about foreign terrorists.”

o Facts: FISA is an extremely complex statute that is difficult enough to understand and apply even when it is not being deliberately distorted. Unfortunately, instead of reading the law, the New York Times chose to make up new assertions wholly unsupported by the facts. This did a disservice to our intelligence professionals who are attempting to keep America – especially prominent targets such as New York – safe.

o The new law plainly and expressly provides that surveillance must be “directed at” (targeted to) a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. Under well-established FISA practice and precedent, this only permits surveillance of foreign targets on foreign soil, not Americans on American soil. The Intelligence Community must develop procedures to ensure this is the case, and those procedures must be reviewed by the FISA Court.

o Any surveillance targeting Americans in the United States would still require an individual warrant from the FISA court, and any incidental collection of the communications of U.S. persons would still be subject to extensive minimization procedures. The bill expressly requires such minimization procedures to be imposed on any surveillance conducted under the new law, and those procedures must also be reviewed by the FISA court,

o Congresswoman Wilson expressly clarified in the Congressional Record that so-called “reverse-targeting” of the communications of Americans is intended to be illegal under this bill. Director McConnell also repeatedly has stated his intent in congressional briefings to seek an individualized order of the FISA Court to target any communication of an American.

o Judges of the FISA Court itself have also clearly expressed frustration with the fact that so much of their docket is consumed by applications that focus on foreign targets and involve minimal privacy interest of Americans.

• Misstatement and Exaggeration: “…new law for the first time provided a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act … that is supposed to regulate the way the government can listen to the private communications of American citizens.”

o Facts: The Attorney General has publicly disclosed that the activities previously conducted under the Terrorist Surveillance Program described by the President were moved completely under FISA. The new law applies only to surveillance targeted at foreign persons, and a FISA order would continue to be necessary for surveillance targeted at Americans. The current FISA structure can handle these applications with speed and agility.

• Misstatement and Exaggeration: “[A] still-classified ruling earlier this year … which said the government needed to seek court-approved warrants to monitor those international calls going through American switches.”

o Facts: It’s not necessary to address or discuss any alleged court opinion to demonstrate that this assertion is false. The FISA modernization legislation passed by the House in the 109th Congress – well before the alleged opinion – attempted to address and close the FISA loophole for foreign terrorists.

• Misstatement and Exaggeration: “

he court’s only role will be to review and approve the procedures used by the government in the surveillance after it has been conducted.”

o Facts: This is a false and selective characterization of the plain provisions of the law. Third parties who are asked to assist the intelligence community under the law may challenge the legality of any directive by filing a petition with the FISA Court.

Editorial

• Misstatement and Exaggeration: “

oo scared of Republican campaign ads to use it to protect the Constitution.”

o Facts: Even without addressing the obvious fact that radical jihadists in foreign countries are not entitled to privacy rights under the Constitution relating to foreign intelligence collection, courts that have addressed the issue to date have made clear they believe that the type of surveillance contemplated by the bill is fully consistent with the Constitution, including the Fourth Amendment.

• Misstatement and Exaggeration: “They gave the Director of National Intelligence and the attorney general authority to intercept – without warrant, court supervision or accountability – any telephone call or e-mail message that moves in, out of or through the United States as long as there is a ‘reasonable belief’ that one party is not in the United States.”

o Facts: This assertion is false under the express terms of the statute. The law clearly requires that the surveillance be “directed at” (meaning targeted to) persons outside the United States, and that procedures be in place and reviewed by the FISA Court to ensure that surveillance concerns persons outside the United States. In addition, the law requires minimization procedures reviewed by the FISA Court to be in place to deal with incidental collection of communications of Americans.

• Misstatement and Exaggeration: “It would allow the government to intercept, without a warrant, every communication into or out of any country, including the United States.”

o Facts: If this were the case, the FISA Court would be virtually shut down. We still expect the Court to be conducting a significant and appropriate volume of work to protect the privacy interests of Americans, as it has and as it should.

An excellent, point by point rebuttal of the sedition regularly put forth by the New York Times.

And while I'm at it, let me direct your attention to this fine piece in the National Review. It cogently argues why FISA needs to be abolished or ignored, so that the President can exercise his authority under the Constitution.

For nearly two years since the New York Times blew the NSA’s warrantless-surveillance program, the Left has transfigured itself into a whirling dervish of indignation over President Bush’s imperious trampling of “the rule of law.” Why? Because he failed to comply with the letter of FISA, which purports in certain instances to require the chief executive — the only elected official in the United States responsible for protecting our nation from foreign threats — to seek permission from a federal judge before monitoring international enemy communications into or out of the United States.

But the president, at least, had an excuse. Actually, not a mere excuse but a trump card. We call it the American Constitution. It empowers the chief executive to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign threats. Even the FISA Court of Review, the highest, most specialized judicial tribunal ever to consider FISA, has acknowledged this. So did the Clinton administration when FISA was amended in 1994. In the United States, the “rule of law” first and foremost is the Constitution.

The president’s constitutional authority is inviolable — it cannot be reduced by mere legislation. When Congress passes a statute, like FISA, that purports to reduce the president’s constitutional authority, it is Congress, not the president, that is trampling the rule of law. A president who ignores such a statute is not a law-breaker; he is a defender of the highest law. He is executing the responsibility vested in his office by the Framers who, as Alexander Hamilton observed in The Federalist No. 73, worried deeply about “the propensity of the legislative department to intrude upon the rights, and to absorb the powers, of the other departments.”

Indeed, Andrew McCarthy gets it right when he argues that FISA needs to be buried in order to restore Constitutional equilibrium and a proper balancing of power -- because the judicial branches has no proper role, and the legislative branch none beyond appropriations, in this exclusively executive function.

Posted by: Greg at 11:38 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1534 words, total size 10 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Dead terrorists sure do make me happy.

Coalition troops killed the al Qaeda terrorist who masterminded the February 2006 attack on Samarra's al-Askariya mosque and set off continuing violence and reprisal killings between Sunnis and Shiites, the U.S. military said Sunday.

Haitham Sabah al-Badri, the al Qaeda emir of greater Samarra, was killed by an airstrike Thursday east of Samarra, said Rear Adm. Mark Fox during a news conference.

"Eliminating al-Badri is another step in breaking the cycle of violence instigated by the attack on the holy shrine in Samarra," Fox said. "We will continue to hunt down the brutal terrorists who are intent on creating a Taliban-like state in Iraq."

Coalition forces Thursday raided four buildings outside Samarra that were associated with al-Badri, according to a U.S. military news release. During the raid, at least four armed men were seen leaving the buildings and setting up tactical fighting positions in an effort to ambush coalition forces, the release said.

The coalition forces called in close air support, killing al-Badri and the three others, the release said.

One of those killed was identified as a foreigner; al-Badri was identified by his close associates and relatives, the military said.

A successful Surge and dead terrorist leaders -- I'm sure that the Democrats in Washington are wailing and gnashing their teeth.

Posted by: Greg at 01:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.

"Jihadis roasting on an open fire..."

A man critically burned after allegedly crashing an explosive-laden Jeep into Glasgow Airport died of his injuries Thursday, Strathclyde Police said.

Kafeel Ahmed, 27, had been in the hospital for a month with burns from the alleged attack on June 30, which followed a day after two failed car bombings in London. The other man in the car, Iraqi doctor Bilal Abdullah, has been charged with conspiring to set off explosions.

"We can confirm that the man seriously injured during the course of the incident at Glasgow Airport on Saturday June 30 has died in Glasgow Royal Infirmary," said a spokesman for Strathclyde Police, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with force policy.

Here's hoping that upon reaching Hell he discovered that his 72 virgins are horny gay males who are all "ready for action".

Posted by: Greg at 02:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

Why this jihadi pig is angry.

Nuradin Abdi smiled and laughed with his attorney before admitting in a federal court yesterday that he had worked with terrorists to help plot against the United States.

Abdi, who wanted to blow up a mall in the Columbus area, is expected to serve 10 years in prison and be deported to his native Somalia.

His conviction, though, could be a sign that there are others still to be named as members of the same terrorist cell.

Details brought to light yesterday show that the terror cell was bigger than a trio of local men possibly involved in it -- Abdi, convicted terrorist Iyman Faris and Worthington native Christopher Paul -- previously reported.

Great! We got three who won't be killing Americans -- though I regret that they are not being disposed of with a single bullet to the back of the head (shot through a piece of bacon, of course).

But you have to love the comments from this Islamist dog's lawyer.

"It's better to minimize his losses," defense attorney Mahir Sherif said. A fair trial here would not be possible because Americans "have no or limited understanding" of why Muslims are angry, Sherif said.

Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass why this would-be killer is angry -- personally I think it is because of a particularly small... -- well be that as it may, I find it irrelevant. I don't care about his political gripes, his intolerant religious faith, or the fact that his mama didn't put mint on his pillow before bed each night. He was conspiring to kill Americans because of that anger, and there is no legitimate justification under American law (which is not sharia, for which I praise Jesus), so it does not matter why he or any other Muslim is angry.

And his lawyer sounds like a terrorist sympathizer, too.

After the plea, Sherif said the case should prompt people to ask: Why do Muslims hate Americans?

"I'm angry. If 1 million Americans were being slaughtered, that would be a different issue," Sherif said, of Iraqis killed in the war.

Yeah, I bet you would be out dancing in the streets, just like many Muslims around the world did on 9/11.

H/T Purple Wombats

Posted by: Greg at 08:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, I guess the notion of Islam as a religion of peace can pretty well be laid to rest with this quote from the head of CAIR.

Schanzer also argued that while "radical Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution."

The problem, however, is that "radical Islam has the podium," he added.

"There are extremists in all religions," countered Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). "But the way you don't go about dealing with that is making sweeping generalizations about such large groups of people."

Hooper told Cybercast News Service that Schanzer's definition of "moderate" -- like that used by other conservatives -- is skewed.

"They label those few who are outside the mainstream 'moderates' and then ask why the mainstream doesn't listen to moderates," he said.

Yeah -- those "outside the mainstream" folks we call moderate urge an end to terrorism, equality for women, and respect for human rights. Hooper reveals a great deal about mainstream Islam with his statement.

No wonder Hooper's group has so fervently operated as a fifth column during the Crusade against Jihadism.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Nuke's news and views, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Wyvern Dreams, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Public Eye, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:57 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 4 kb.

Un-FREAKIN'-believable! Now we have a major metropolitan newspaper calling for the release of the little jihadi pig from California. I'll just quote the whole thing, as it is utterly beyond belief.

The president's power to grant clemency -- in the form of either a pardon or a commutation -- is much maligned and occasionally abused, as was the case when President Bush used it to keep his colleague, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, from facing even a day in prison for lying and obstructing justice. But the power has its appropriate uses as well, and the case of John Walker Lindh calls out for it.

Known unfortunately as "the American Taliban," Lindh became a symbol for fanaticism, even treason, in the early months of the nation's response to Sept. 11. He was apprehended in late 2001 in the mountains of Afghanistan, where, at the age of 20, he was serving in the army of a nation that harbored terrorists, including Osama bin Laden. Weak and wounded, he was blindfolded and duct-taped naked to a stretcher, kept incommunicado in an uninsulated shipping container and interrogated by intelligence and FBI agents. Once home, he was charged with terrorism in a 10-count indictment, deliberately sought by the government in the Eastern District of Virginia, then still reeling from the attack on the Pentagon.

Lindh was pilloried by officials at the highest levels of the government. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft called him an "Al Qaeda-trained terrorist," and the charges against Lindh originally included conspiring to commit terrorism. Those charges were dropped, however, and Lindh today is serving time not for any act committed against the United States, but for violating a Clinton-era presidential order that prohibits providing "services" to the Taliban. Lindh, who converted to Islam as a teenager, joined the Taliban before Sept. 11, not after; he did so to fight the Northern Alliance, not the United States. Lindh never took up arms against this country. He never engaged in terrorism; indeed, his commitment to Islam leads him to oppose the targeting of civilians.

John Walker Lindh broke the law. He pleaded guilty to the one crime of which he was guilty -- aiding the Taliban -- and to carrying a gun and hand grenades in the service of that regime's war against the Northern Alliance. For that, he deserved to go to prison, and he should not receive a pardon. He is a felon, and his record should never be cleared.

The issue, then, is not Lindh's guilt but his sentence. He was ordered to spend 20 years in prison, far longer than comparably situated defendants. Maher Mofeid Hawash pleaded guilty to violating the same law, and, after he agreed to cooperate, the government recommended that he serve seven to 10 years in prison. Yaser Esam Hamdi, who fought with Lindh in the Taliban military, was released back to Saudi Arabia in 2004, having spent less than four years in custody. David Hicks, an Australian, pleaded guilty to terror charges before a military commission and was sentenced to nine months. Of all the suspects rounded up across the world in the administration's war on terror, only shoe bomber Richard Reid, who actively attempted to destroy a plane in flight, is serving a longer sentence than Lindh. And to deepen the inequity, Lindh's sentence also gags him, preventing him from protesting his confinement or discussing his interrogation and treatment.

Some will object that Lindh pleaded guilty knowing he could receive this sentence. His plea was entered, however, under what one can only call extreme duress. A poll of potential jurors in the Eastern District of Virginia at that time found that more than a third were ready to sentence him to death without even hearing the case against him. His lawyers cut the best deal they could, but Lindh has spent nearly a quarter of his life in custody for his foolish decision to pursue his religious convictions by aiding another country in its civil war. Without relief, he will spend another dozen years, at least, behind bars.

The concept of mercy spans testaments and faiths, and any system of justice requires the embrace of mercy for leavening and legitimacy. In this case, justice has been served by Lindh's time in prison. Now Bush is uniquely positioned to grant mercy, for while many will long argue over the effectiveness of his war on terror, none question his commitment to it. By giving Lindh a commutation, Bush could prove that his war is, as he often and properly asserts, not against Islam but against those who seek to harm America. Lindh never sought to harm his country; he has served long enough. Bush should send him home.

John Walker Lindh deserved nothing less than a bullet to the back of the head. So does every other terrorist. He was, in fact, involved in a prison uprising that resulted in the death of a CIA agent. His release even one second short of 20 years would be a travesty of justice even greater than the one that occurred when a jury was not allowed impose a sentence that would have sent him to join the rest of his ilk in Hell.

UPDATE PoweLine details the crimes of John Walker Lindh

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Pursuing Holiness, The Magical Rose Garden, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Stageleft, Wake Up America, Pirate's Cove, Nuke's news and views, The Pink Flamingo, Wyvern Dreams, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, 123beta, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam's Blog, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, , Conservative Cat, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Thoughts, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, High Desert Wanderer, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:18 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 999 words, total size 9 kb.

And so we didn't get intel about bin Laden from the Brits in 1998.

Ministers insisted that British secret agents would only be allowed to pass intelligence to the CIA to help it capture Osama bin Laden if the agency promised he would not be tortured, it has emerged.

MI6 believed it was close to finding the al-Qaida leader in Afghanistan in 1998, and again the next year. The plan was for MI6 to hand the CIA vital information about Bin Laden. Ministers including Robin Cook, the then foreign secretary, gave their approval on condition that the CIA gave assurances he would be treated humanely. The plot is revealed in a 75-page report by parliament's intelligence and security committee on rendition, the practice of flying detainees to places where they may be tortured.

You see, the practice of rendition -- much condemned by terrorist-sympathizing liberals today -- was begun by one William Jefferson Clinton during his term as President. The British wanted assurances that the terrorist mastermind would not be subject to that practice before they would help the US capture him.

It is therefore fair to say (using the rhetoric of the deranged left-wingers who place the comfort of terrorists above the lives of innocents) that Bill Clinton's policy favoring torture was a proximate cause of 9/11.

I'm wonder what the position of the leading Democrat presidential candidate is on this revelation?

H/T Don Surber, Say Anything

Posted by: Greg at 04:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

Even though the folks there have this funny tendency to be terrorists -- and return to terrorism after release.

AT LEAST 30 former Guantanamo Bay detainees have been killed or recaptured after taking up arms against allied forces following their release.

They have been discovered mostly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but not in Iraq, a US Defence Department spokesman told The Age yesterday.

Commander Jeffrey Gordon said the detainees had, while in custody, falsely claimed to be farmers, truck drivers, cooks, small-arms merchants, low-level combatants or had offered other false explanations for being in Afghanistan.

"We are aware of dozens of cases where they have returned to militant activities, participated in anti-US propaganda or engaged in other activities," said Commander Gordon.

I guess we can just chalk that one up as another inconvenient truth for the Democrats -- one that the US media is likely to ignore because it doesn't fit with their skewed view on the crusade against jihadism.

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 04:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, we know that those folks at Gitmo are all innocent and being unjustly held. They were never terrorists, and would never engage in terrorist activities after their release -- right?

A former Guantanamo Bay prisoner wanted for the 2004 kidnapping of two Chinese engineers in Pakistan blew himself up with a grenade during a clash with security forces on Tuesday, officials said.

One-legged Taliban militant Abdullah Mehsud killed himself to avoid capture after troops raided his hideout, interior ministry spokesman Brigadier Javed Cheema told AFP.

The Islamic rebel's death comes amid intensifying US pressure on President Pervez Musharraf to take military action against Al-Qaeda and Taliban safe havens in tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan.

"Abdullah Mehsud blew himself up with a grenade and died when security forces raided his hideout. Three of his accomplices were arrested," Cheema said.

Mehsud, 32, became the leader of Pakistani Taliban insurgents based in South Waziristan in 2004, after Pakistani forces launched military operations in the troubled tribal region.

So just remember, next time some liberal starts ranting about Guantanamo Bay -- there have been a number of released Guantanamo detainees who have returned to their terrorist ways. Why would we want the place closed -- or the remaining detainees brought into our heartland?

Posted by: Greg at 01:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

The New York Post sums up the entire argument in favor of immunizing those who report suspected terrorist threats.

No American who reports suspicious activity to police - truthfully and in good faith - should ever have to fear a lawsuit. It's the most basic of civic duties, and it's desperately necessary.

Even if one ascribes the best, most benign of motives to the six imams removed from a flight last fall (something very hard to do, given the involvement of CAIR with this lawsuit), it is quite easy to see the problem raised by allowing such litigation. It reared its ugly head in the Fort Dix terrorism investigation -- the first reaction of an individual with information on possible terrorist activities was "will this get me sued?" If the answer is that it will, it is likely that the next successful terrorist attack in this country will be followed by reports that many were suspicious of the perpetrators but were too afraid of financial ruin to make a call to the authorities -- and that our own legal system will have become a tool in the hands of the jihadis.

Posted by: Greg at 11:22 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

In an attempt to defend Islam from criticism by non-Muslims, scholar Karen Armstrong seeks to redefine the Western notion of tolerance.

But equally the cartoonists and their publishers, who seemed impervious to Muslim sensibilities, failed to live up to their own liberal values, since the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others.

Excuse me -- since when does the principle of freedom of speech imply respect for the opinions of others? Indeed, I'd argue quite differently -- a commitment to the principle of freedom of speech implies respect for the right of others to hold and express an opinion that one does not respect, or even that one holds in contempt.

Posted by: Greg at 12:54 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

I understand that confidentiality is sometimes a useful and responsible tool for journalists.

That said, does this example go too far?

A female survivor of this month's violent storming by Pakistani forces of Islamabad's Red Mosque has spoken of how she wanted to be a suicide bomber.

The 18-year-old told the BBC Urdu Service that she was not held hostage by militants but had willingly remained behind during the week-long siege.

The woman, who asked not to be named, said she was prepared to carry out a suicide attack to defend the mosque.

I'm sorry, but this does not strike me as a responsible application of the principle of confidentiality. You have someone who indicates that she wishes to engage in acts of terrorism. Shouldn't her name be proclaimed to the public, so that all decent people can shun her and governments can keep a close watch upon her?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, 123beta, DeMediacratic Nation, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Maggie's Notebook, The Pet Haven Blog, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Phastidio.net, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, Blue Star Chronicles, Nuke's news and views, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 4 kb.

That there is no al-Qaeda presence in Iraq, and that is why the Democrats are ready to withdraw.

But if that is the case, I really don't see how this could have happened.

The highest-ranking Iraqi leader of al-Qaida in Iraq has been arrested and told interrogators that Osama bin Laden's inner circle wields considerable influence over the Iraqi group, the U.S. command said Wednesday.

Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, who was captured in Mosul on July 4, carried messages from bin Laden, and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri, to the Egyptian-born head of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Ayub al-Masri, said Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, a military spokesman.

"Communication between the senior al-Qaida leadership and al-Masri frequently went through al-Mashhadani," Bergner said. "There is a clear connection between al-Qaida in Iraq and al-Qaida senior leadership outside Iraq."

And it is also clear that one of the main terrorist groups in Iraq is an al-Qaeda front.

"Along with al-Masri, al-Mashhadani co-founded a virtual organization in cyberspace called the Islamic State of Iraq in 2006," Bergner said. "The Islamic State of Iraq is the latest efforts by al-Qaida to market itself and its goal of imposing a Taliban-like state on the Iraqi people."

In Web postings, the Islamic State of Iraq has identified its leader as Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, with al-Masri as minister of war. There are no known photos of al-Baghdadi.

Bergner said al-Mashhadani had told interrogators that al-Baghdadi is a "fictional role" created by al-Masri and that an actor is used for audio recordings of speeches posted on the Web.

"In his words, the Islamic State of Iraq is a front organization that masks the foreign influence and leadership within al-Qaida in Iraq in an attempt to put an Iraqi face on the leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq," Bergner said.

He said al-Mashhadani was a leader of the militant Ansar al-Sunnah group before joining al-Qaida in Iraq 2 1/2 years ago. Al-Mashhadani served as the al-Qaida media chief for Baghdad and then was appointed the media chief for the whole country.

Damn -- it must suck to be claiming that Iraq is where the terrorists aren't, only to find another one of them there. I guess they'll just have to find some other reason to cut-and-run -- maybe it is time for the Democrats to attack the troops again.

Posted by: Greg at 05:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 398 words, total size 3 kb.

A little example of Leftist moral equivalence.

<

I'm waiting for all the liberals who allegedly support our American troops to speak out and denounce Ted Rall over this one.

Unless, of course, they agree with Rall's depiction of the American fighting man.

Somehow, I expect that we will be getting a deafening silence from the cut-and-run crowd -- who, like Rall, are much more supportive of this.

More At Michelle Malkin, Q and O, I'm A Pundit Too, Pat Dollard, NewsBusters, Say Anything, MoxArgon Group

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, Wake Up America, Pirate's Cove, Nuke's news and views, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, guerrilla radio, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Webloggin, Phastidio.net, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, , Conservative Cat, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Public Eye, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:36 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 5 kb.

One could, however, ask why this is the case.

Analysts and intelligence experts say the speed and frequency with which Ayman al-Zawahri has been issuing statements recently does not reflect the actions of a man cowering in a remote cave, cut off from the outside world and unable to direct terror operations.

If anything, the video and audio tapes offer chilling evidence that al-Qaida's leaders are in greater command than previously feared.

"The notion of them hiding in a deep, dark primitive cave isolated from electricity and all communication with the outside is strongly misguided," said Ben Venzke of the IntelCenter, a U.S.-based intelligence group that monitors terrorism messages. "The speed which they have demonstrated (getting messages out) shows that they are far from cut off."

Personally, I'd argue that the reason that al-Qaeda leaders are more confident is the rise of world and national leaders less interested in fighting terrorism than in engaging with terrorists. After all, given the departure of tony Blair from Downing Street and the rise of the cut-and-run Democrats, prospects of an eventual al-Qaeda victory are looking brighter. Why not go on the offensive, in the hopes of forcing a US and British surrender much more quickly?

Posted by: Greg at 01:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 1 kb.

Coming in from Syria.

Underscoring the threat, police searching a truck that had entered from neighboring Syria found 200 suicide belts and packs of explosives, the Interior Ministry said.

It was unclear who was behind the shipment, but U.S. commanders say al Qaeda is increasingly utilizing suicide vests because many vulnerable targets such as outdoor markets have been walled off to stop suicide car bombs getting in.

This should be front page news, not buried in a story. Clearly, al-Qaeda is after the civilians because they can have no significant impact upon the troops.

Posted by: Greg at 12:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

Animal rights terrorists.

A gasoline-filled device in a car bomb fails to go off. Authorities investigating another bombing incident find that after a first bomb exploded, a second bomb was timed to go off when first responders arrived. A recent event in the United Kingdom? Yes, but also in California.

Last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that a bomb was discovered outside the Westside home of Dr. Arthur Rosenbaum, the chief of pediatric ophthalmology at UCLA's Jules Stein Eye Institute. The car bomb failed to explode, despite apparent attempts to detonate it.

I'm curious -- why didn't the media in this country pick up the story and run with it, alerting the American public to the threat in this country and not just the jihadis attacking the UK?

And why aren't more of us familiar with this terrorist ring leader, who walks among us as a free man.

So far, animal rights activists have not killed anyone in the United States, but that does not mean Americans should not fear these extremists. In October 2005, Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a Southern California trauma surgeon who is a leader of the North American Animal Liberation Front, testified before the U.S. Senate and defended killing researchers in order to stop research using animals.

"I don't think you'd have to kill -- assassinate -- too many," Vlasak opined. "I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million or 10 million nonhuman lives.''

And the threats of violence and intimidation work. Last year, UCLA researcher Dario Ringach sent an e-mail to Vlasak in which he proclaimed, "You win" -- he would stop research with animals. Vlasak sent out a triumphant press release.

Vlasak told the Daily Bruin that activists had tried to stop Rosenbaum's research by appealing to UCLA administrators but had failed. "All reasonable attempts have failed, so we're going to take it to the next level," Vlasak told the student paper.

Where is the federal action against Vlasak and his cohorts? Where is the media coverage? And when will the American people stand up and insist that a stop be put to this threat to American lives -- and scientific research that has the potential to save human lives.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Faultline USA, Stageleft, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Walls of the City, The Pet Haven Blog, The Pink Flamingo, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:49 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 4 kb.

And they make no bones about it.

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

And for all the editorial attempts to whitewash it, the "negotiated settlement" to the war in Iraq is nothing more than a call to negotiate the terms under which the United States will surrender. And the editorial also fails to explain how withdrawal and retrenchment from Iraq proper will keep al-Qaeda from following the troops to wherever they go -- be that Kurdistan, Kuwait, or Kansas.

The only up-sides I can see to this outcome will be burqas for Maureen Dowd and Rosie O'Donnell.

Posted by: Greg at 01:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

Sounds bad -- but I think I understand the reasoning.

A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in PakistanÂ’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.

The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin LadenÂ’s top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist groupÂ’s operations.

But the mission was called off after Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, rejected an 11th-hour appeal by Porter J. Goss, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.

Mr. Rumsfeld decided that the operation, which had ballooned from a small number of military personnel and C.I.A. operatives to several hundred, was cumbersome and put too many American lives at risk, the current and former officials said. He was also concerned that it could cause a rift with Pakistan, an often reluctant ally that has barred the American military from operating in its tribal areas, the officials said.

As one looks at that explanation, it become very clear why they didn't complete the operation -- it was too complex to complete successfully AND would have constituted an act of war against Pakistan, a putative ally in the War on Terror. What's more, the attack would have dangerously undermined the Musharraf government -- and possibly led to the establishment of an Islamist government that would have been less cooperative with the US and more cooperative with the terrorists.

Of course, this is one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations.

Having aborted the mission on sound grounds, the Bush Administration's opponents can question the seriousness and competence of the administration. Had the operation moved forward, the administration would be blamed for the negative consequences with regard to Pakistan -- not to mention the criticisms that would have been leveled had the mission failed.

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 379 words, total size 2 kb.

Didn't the terrorist leader get the latest talking points from the Democrats?

A new video by al-Qaida's deputy leader Thursday left no doubt about what the terror network claims is at stake in Iraq — describing it as a centerpiece of its anti-American fight and insisting the Iraqi insurgency is under its direct leadership.

But the proclamations by Ayman al-Zawahri carried another unintended message: reflecting the current troubles confronting the Sunni extremists in Iraq, experts said.

The Islamic State of Iraq, the insurgent umbrella group that is claimed by al-Qaida, has faced ideological criticism from some militants, and rival armed groups have even joined U.S. battles against it. A U.S.-led offensive northwest of Baghdad — in one of the Islamic State's strongholds — may have temporarily disrupted and scattered insurgent forces.

"Some of the developments suggest that it (the Islamic State) is more fragile than it was before," said Bruce Hoffman, a Washington-based terrorism expert at the Rand Corp. think tank.

Al-Zawahri "is trying to replenish the Islamic State brand," he said. "It's time to reassert its viability, but how connected to reality that is, is another issue."

In the unusually long video — at just over an hour and a half — al-Zawahri depicted the Islamic State of Iraq as a vanguard for fighting off the U.S. military and eventually establishing a "caliphate" of Islamic rule across the region.

But wait -- if al-Qaeda says there are terrorists in Iraq and that it is the central front in the war on terrorism, doesn't that mean that the Democrats are wrong when they claim that neither of those things are true? Furthermore, if the Democrats succeed in getting American troops out of Iraq, doesn't that mean that they are handing al-Qaeda precisely the victory that terrorist group is seeking?

Not, of course, that the Democrats would ever seek to undercut US troops in the field and hand victory to our enemies *cough!* Vietnam *cough*.

H/T Llama Butchers

Posted by: Greg at 12:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

But then again, given the connections of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and its staffers to terrorist groups and activities, why should we expect them to support American values?

An Islamic advocacy group is urging its supporters to call a Washington, D.C., radio station to "express your concerns about the Islamophobic attitudes" expressed by conservative columnist and author Cal Thomas.

In a commentary on news-talk WTOP radio Monday morning, Thomas discussed the car-bomb terror attacks recently thwarted in the United Kingdom. The eight Muslims arrested in connection with the plot include several physicians.

"How much longer should we allow people from certain lands, with certain beliefs to come to Britain and America and build their mosques, teach hate, and plot to kill us?" Thomas asked.

He also compared Muslims to a "slow spreading cancer" that must be stopped.

CAIR calls the comments incitement, though there is no call for violence or any activity at all. Indeed, the only thing this speech might incite is a call to public officials demanding that reasonable actions be taken to safeguard our nation from terrorist attacks like those in the UK last week -- attacks that CAIR somehow managed to avoid condemning on their website, even as they went after Cal Thomas for daring to express a thought the group dislikes.

So here's what we need to do in response -- if CAIR is going to target Thomas with a campaign to pressure WTOP to get rid of him, we should be just as forceful in supporting Cal Thomas. Fortunately, CAIR has even provided us with the contact information.

CONTACT:
Jim Farley, WTOP Programming Vice President
Tel: 202-895-5071
Fax: 202-895-5088
Email: jfarley@wtopnews.com

And if you want, you can even include the requested CC to CAIR -- just to let them know what the overwhelming majority of Americans think about Islamic terrorism and those who support it.

COPY TO: info@cair.com

Your choice on that one.

But regardless, we must make sure that this terrorist supporting organization is unsuccessful in silencing voices against terrorism.

Posted by: Greg at 02:38 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

That is a question one has to ask as a result of reading this report.

The next terrorist assault on the United States is likely to come through relatively unsophisticated, near-simultaneous attacks -- similar to those attempted in Britain over the weekend -- designed more to provoke widespread fear and panic than to cause major losses of life, U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials believe.

Such attacks require minimal expertise and training and are difficult to prevent. Although British investigators have not claimed al-Qaeda involvement in the latest incidents, officials here said they may constitute a "hybrid" phenomenon, in which al-Qaeda inspires and guides local groups from afar but establishes no visible operational or logistical links.

The connection, several officials said, is made through a growing network of al-Qaeda intermediaries and affiliates who are far removed from the organization's leadership.

"What is a direct link?" asked one counterterrorism official. "Is it couriers? Messengers?" U.S. officials "from very senior folks" on down, he said, are watching as the British work to reconstruct the attacks and trace their origin.

And if we start seeing attacks modeled on this one, emanating from the Muslim community without direct links to al-Qaeda, then that will raise a much more serious question -- how do we stop these attacks? And perhaps just as pressing, how do we treat a community that will have become a metastasized cancer in our midst?

Posted by: Greg at 02:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

Too bad he wasn't more forthright like this when he was still in office. It would have really put the jihadi Muslims and their supporters in the UK on the defensive.

'The idea that as a Muslim in this country that you don't have the freedom to express your religion or your views, I mean you've got far more freedom in this country than you do in most Muslim countries,' Blair told Observer columnist Will Hutton, who presents the documentary.

'The reason we are finding it hard to win this battle is that we're not actually fighting it properly. We're not actually standing up to these people and saying, "It's not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn't justified."'

Blair held out the example of the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan - criticised by Islamists as an example of the heavy-handed imperial West oppressing Muslims - to highlight unfounded claims of grievance. He asked how it is possible to claim that Afghanistan's Muslims are being oppressed when the Taliban 'used to execute teachers for teaching girls in schools'.

Blair added: 'How are [we] oppressing them? You're oppressing them when you support the people who are trying to blow them up.'

But then again, since the US, UK, and Israel are the axis of evil in the eyes of those opposed to the war against jihadi terrorists, I don't know that we could ever convince them differently, even with appeals to common sense like this one.

Posted by: Greg at 01:46 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, they cannot let good news be seen as good news.

The number of civilians killed in Iraq fell sharply in June to the lowest monthly total since a U.S.-backed security clampdown was launched in February, Iraqi government figures showed on Sunday.

The data, obtained from the ministries of interior, defense and health, showed 1,227 civilians died violently in June, a 36-percent fall from May and the lowest level in five months.

U.S. military officials said it was premature to draw conclusions about the effects of the crackdown, which is seen as a last ditch effort to avert full-scale sectarian civil war between majority Shi'ites and minority Sunni Arabs.

"We continue to be cautiously optimistic, (but) we are still very early in this process," said U.S. military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Christopher Garver.

The rest of the article then seems more interested in "what's wrong" rather than "what's right". Maybe it is that this story otherwise wouldn't fit with the "America is losing" template that most of the media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) have adopted, or maybe it is the failure of the news media to recognize that in war you very rarely have instant complete success.

UPDATE: Not that we can forget the real problem is the brutal nature of the enemy we fight.

Posted by: Greg at 01:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

We've all seen some variation of this news report today.

Air strikes in the British-controlled Helmand province of Afghanistan may have killed civilians, coalition troops said yesterday as local people claimed that between 50 and 80 people, many of them women and children, had died.

In the latest of a series of attacks causing significant civilian casualties in recent weeks, more than 200 were killed by coalition troops in Afghanistan in June, far more than are believed to have been killed by Taliban militants.

It takes a while, however, to get to the reason for this tragedy -- and discern the moral responsibility for the deaths -- as well as where international law places the responsibility.

The bombardment, which witnesses said lasted up to three hours, in the Gereshk district late on Friday followed an attempted ambush by the Taliban on a joint US-Afghan military convoy. According to Mohammad Hussein, the provincial police chief, the militants fled into a nearby village for cover. Planes then targeted the village of Hyderabad. Mohammad Khan, a resident of the village, said seven members of his family, including his brother and five of his brother's children, were killed.

Oh, that is why the bombing tool place -- Taliban cowards hiding themselves among civilians.

What does international law say about such things. Since the terrorists and their supporters wax eloquent about the Geneva Conventions, it is convenient that the answer comes from one of them.

The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. Article 28, Fourth Geneva Convention

The Taliban who attacked US and Afghan troops were a legitimate military target. Their hiding amongst civilians did nothing to make such an attack illegitimate -- and did, in fact, render them morally and legally responsible for any civilian casualties by violating this provision.

The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations. Article 51 (7), Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions

Now, if the Taliban wishes to claim the protections of the Geneva Conventions, then they are also bound by them -- and in violating these provisions, once again prove themselves to be beneath contempt.

But the media is too busy providing aid and comfort to our enemies to tell you such things -- because it does not fit their preconceived template for the news.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, The Random Yak, 123beta, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, , Pursuing Holiness, CatSynth.com "catback" weekend, The Magical Rose Garden, Right Celebrity, Walls of the City, Nuke's news and views, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 528 words, total size 5 kb.

The enemy within.

Arab-American voters are abandoning the Republican Party in large numbers and only 10 percent of them want the United States to stay in Iraq.

* * *

Only one in 10 Arab-Americans wish for U.S. troops to stay in Iraq until they achieve "victory." Almost a third would prefer they leave immediately and more than half think they should withdraw gradually, according to a new poll released by James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute Thursday.

Given recent survey results showing that a frighteningly large proportion of US Muslims support suicide bombings and other terrorists activities, this shouldn't come as a surprise. Given that numerous Arab and Muslim groups are intimately involved in funding the terrorists, we shouldn't be shocked.

Indeed, we need to be vigilant and aware -- for like what we have seen in Great Britain, it is likely that the next terrorist attack in this country will come from home-grown jihadis.

Posted by: Greg at 01:04 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

Fortunately it didn't go off.

London escaped what could have been its worst terrorist attack this morning when a car bomb packed with nails, gas canisters and containers of petrol apparently failed to detonate outside a popular West End nightclub hosting a 'ladies' night'.

Police were called to Tiger Tiger nightclub on Haymarket near Piccadilly Circus shortly before 2am when smoke was seen coming from the inside of a Mercedes car parked outside. Unconfirmed reports said that a man had been seen running away from the vehicle.

Inside officers discovered "significant quantities" of petrol, believed to be 60 litres, plus nails and gas cylinders.

The bomb itself was packed with nails to act as shrapnel.

If the device had exploded, police said that the shrapnel would have killed or injured anyone within a wide area. The bomb could have caused a fireball as big as a house followed by a large shock wave.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke, head of Scotland YardÂ’s counter-terrorism command, said: "It is obvious that if the device had detonated there could have been significant injury or loss of life."

While later reports question the size of the bomb and the competence of the bomb-makers, it is clear that this was a serious attempt to terrorize London again.

Hot Air has a roundup of coverage, including a mention of the second vehicle which has caused the closure of Park Lane in London -- could there be a multi-bomb plot in the midst of Wimbledon and on the eve of the Princess Diana tribute concert?

MORE AT Michelle Malkin and the Counterterrorism Blog.

Posted by: Greg at 02:06 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

Their attorneys have sought to close the courtroom to the press and the public because they don't like the coverage from the media. Fortunately, the judge in the case is issuing his rulings based upon American law, not sharia law.

A federal judge overseeing a lawsuit filed by six Muslim men who were removed from a US Airways flight last fall has declined to limit public access to the case.

Omar T. Mohammedi, a New York attorney for the six Muslim scholars, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he sought limited media access because he felt some of the coverage of the case has been biased against his clients.

"When you think of the media, and the way they have been portraying this case, it has not been very helpful. It has been biased," Mohammedi said. "That has caused a lot of stress, a lot of stress on our clients, as well as made it difficult for us to handle this case ... in a manner that it should be handled."

Mohammedi wanted the court to coerce press coverage favorable to his client -- or prevent press coverage completely by closing all proceedings and records to the media and the public at large. Someone needs to tell him that this is not the American way -- but then again, we have repeatedly seen how much respect Islamic radicals like these have for the American way.

Posted by: Greg at 01:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 1 kb.

Good God! They even have a "graduation" of sorts for these barbarians!

Large teams of newly trained suicide bombers are being sent to the United States and Europe, according to evidence contained on a new videotape obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

Teams assigned to carry out attacks in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Germany were introduced at an al Qaeda/Taliban training camp graduation ceremony held June 9.

A Pakistani journalist was invited to attend and take pictures as some 300 recruits, including boys as young as 12, were supposedly sent off on their suicide missions.

The tape shows Taliban military commander Mansoor Dadullah, whose brother was killed by the U.S. last month, introducing and congratulating each team as they stood.

"These Americans, Canadians, British and Germans come here to Afghanistan from faraway places," Dadullah says on the tape. "Why shouldn't we go after them?"

Which means, of course, that we ought to be paying extra attention to young Muslim men of Asian descent -- and that we will instead step up our searches of crippled nuns using walkers, active duty military personnel, and families with sippy cups and bottles for their young children.

Posted by: Greg at 11:37 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

It warms my heart that the home of arch-terrorist Yassir Arafat has been attacked and looted.

Enraged Fatah leaders on Saturday accused Hamas militiamen of looting the home of former Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat in Gaza City.

"They stole almost everything inside the house, including Arafat's Nobel Peace Prize medal," said Ramallah-based Fatah spokesman Ahmed Abdel Rahman. "Hamas militiamen and gangsters blew up the main entrance to the house before storming it. They stole many of Arafat's documents and files, gifts he had received from world leaders and even his military outfits."

Too bad that they didn't dig up his rotting corpse and drag it through the streets in disgrace.

Posted by: Greg at 12:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

I think this is less a case of Terrorstinian Anarchy President Mahmoud Abbas/terrorist leader Abu Mazen dissolving the government than it is of recognizing that the government had dissolved all by itself.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas dissolved the Palestinian government Thursday and declared a state of emergency after rival Hamas forces took complete control of the Gaza Strip in what the Islamic movement called the territory's "liberation."

In a presidential decree, Abbas fired Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas and suggested that new national elections would occur soon. Abbas's decision ends the three-month-old power-sharing arrangement between his Fatah movement and Hamas, the two main Palestinian political parties.

Haniyeh, in a response delivered early Friday, said Abbas had not considered the "consequences" of his decision and pledged to continue to work with his Fatah "brothers." Other Hamas officials said Abbas's ruling had no legal effect.

Consequences? What consequences? What is going to happen because of this – will Hamas start attacking Fatah facilities and killing Fatah leaders? Oh, yeah – that is already going on!

Best outcome of each this scenario – strangling the last Hamas terrorist with the intestines of the last Fatah terrorist.

Posted by: Greg at 01:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 2 kb.

More Jew-killing terrorist scum stopped -- one of them eight months pregnant.

The Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) said Wednesday that it thwarted a double suicide attack set for Tel Aviv and Netanya last month, orchestrated by Islamic Jihad and meant to be carried out by two Palestinian women, one of them pregnant.

One of the women, Fatma Zak, 39, a mother of eight in her ninth month of pregnancy, has been director of Islamic Jihad's women labor department in Gaza City for the past four years. As part of her job, she was in direct contact with senior terrorists and served as a go-between for women interested in becoming suicide bombers.

The second suspect is Zak's 30-year-old niece, Ruda Habib, a mother of four. Both were arrested by the Shin Bet at the Erez Crossing on May 20, moments before entering Israel.

The two women admitted the plot and confessed to being Islamic Jihad operatives. They said they had used Israel's humanitarian policy to acquire entrance permits on a false medical pretext.

The women said they had planned to blow themselves up in Netanya and Tel Aviv, respectively, in a restaurant or a wedding hall. They said they were instructed to cross into Israel and then contact Islamic Jihad members from Ramallah, who were supposed to guide them to their targets and supply them with explosive belts.

Notice, please, that they were after civilian targets -- and admit to aiding in previous terrorist attacks. And the abuse of Israel's humanitarian policies to engage in terrorism makes it understandable why Israel sometimes looks askance at ambulances and other alleged Palestinian emergency vehicles.

Posted by: Greg at 02:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.

Notice that it isn't we infidels who have staged another attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra -- it is Muslim terrorists.

Early morning blasts Wednesday destroyed two minarets at the same Shiite shrine in Samarra where an attack last year demolished the mosque's gilded dome and plunged the country into a wave of deadly sectarian violence.

No one was injured in the 9 a.m. explosions at the revered Askariya shrine in Samarra, about 65 miles north of Baghdad. But officials said it was just the sort of event that could spark a spiral of retaliatory attacks and make it harder to reduce the violence that has brought the addition of thousands of extra U.S. troops stationed at high-profile posts on the streets of Baghdad and elsewhere.

Let's hope for calm among the Shi'ites after this latest atrocity by al-Qaeda terrorists. When will it finally be acknowledged by the world's Muslims that al-Qaeda is not a friend to any of them -- and that the US is not their enemy?

And I'm curious -- how many Korans were desecrated in THIS attack?

Posted by: Greg at 04:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

Heck, let them keep on killing each other -- then let the Israelis come in and take out the rest of the murderous scum.

Gunmen of the rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah sharply escalated their fight for supremacy on Tuesday, with Hamas taking over much of the northern Gaza Strip in what began to look increasingly like a civil war.

Five days of revenge attacks on individuals — including executions, kneecappings and even tossing handcuffed prisoners off tall apartment towers — on Tuesday turned into something larger and more organized: attacks on symbols of power and the deployment of military units. About 25 Palestinians were killed and more than 100 wounded, Palestinian medics said.

In one Hamas attack on a Fatah security headquarters in northern Gaza near Jabaliya Camp, at least 21 Palestinians were reported killed and another 60 wounded, said Moaweya Hassanein of the Palestinian Health Ministry.

After a senior Fatah leader in northern Gaza was killed Monday, FatahÂ’s elite Presidential Guards, who are being trained by the United States and its allies, fired rocket-propelled grenades at the house of Prime Minister Ismail Haniya, of Hamas, in the Shati Refugee Camp near Gaza City.

An hour later, HamasÂ’s military wing fired four mortar shells at the presidential office compound of Mahmoud Abbas, of Fatah, who is in the West Bank, a Fatah spokesman, Tawfiq Abu Khoussa, said in a telephone interview.

“Hamas is seeking a military coup against the Palestinian Authority,” he said.

Hamas made a similar accusation against Fatah. Hamas, which has an Islamist ideology, demanded that security forces loyal to Fatah, the more nationalist and secular movement, abandon their positions in northern and central Gaza.

Let's remember, folks, that these two terrorist groups are part of the "unity government" of the Terrorstinian Anarchy. If this is their idea of unity, I fail to see how any reasonable individual can advocate giving the Palestinians a state of their own.

Posted by: Greg at 04:03 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

Maybe we'll luck out and they will wipe out their entire breed of terrorist scum.

Gunmen reportedly fired a rocket-propelled grenade at the home of Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya of Hamas today as the worst factional fighting among Palestinians in nearly a month appeared to intensify.

Earlier today, mortar shells hit the Gaza City office of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, the Associated Press reported. No one was hurt in the two attacks, according to the A.P.

The prime ministerÂ’s home and office had come under attack on Monday when violence elsewhere in Gaza left at least nine dead. The death toll on Monday made it the bloodiest day since a fierce two-week bout of internal violence ended in mid-May, and the number of dead appeared to rise again on Tuesday, with the A.P. reporting the death toll over the two days of violence now at 18.

The latest fighting has erupted despite a cease-fire that was supposed to come into force on Monday morning.

Now imagine that -- they violated a cease-fire. Sort of like they have every time there is supposed to be a cease-fire with Israel. When will the world recognize that the problem is not the Jews -- it is the Arabs.

Posted by: Greg at 01:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

Will Muslims riot against the terrorists?

NAIROBI - The Kenyan capital was rocked Monday by a bomb blast thought to be the work of a suicide bomber who blew himself to bits while clutching a copy of the Koran, injuring dozens of people.

“It was a bomb explosion and body parts have been thrown apart,” policeman Gabriel Omondi told AFP after the blast in front of the crowded City Gate restaurant on Moi Avenue, one of Nairobi’s main streets.

When false rumors circulate of Koran desecrations by American troops, Muslims riot. When false accusations claim a Koran has been desecrated by a Christian , that Christian often ends up dead in a mob action. So will there be a similar response to blowing up a Koran as part of a suicide bombing? Or do Muslim terrorists who desecrate the Koran during their acts of violence get a pass?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Committees of Correspondence, DeMediacratic Nation, Maggie's Notebook, On the Horizon, The Pet Haven Blog, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, third world county, stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 03:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 3 kb.

Kudos to Mort Zuckerman for reminding the world that Palestinian terrorism pre-dates the Six-Day War.

The Palestine Liberation Organization, created three years before the Six-Day War, was dedicated to taking back all of Palestine from the hated Jews. We forget that the PLO carried out terrorist attacks in 1964, 1965, and 1966, when Israel was in possession of no occupied territories whatsoever. We forget that a victorious Israel immediately offered to return Sinai to Egypt and the Golan to Syria, only to be met with the Arab League's famous three "nos": no peace, no recognition, and no negotiation. If the Palestinians had wanted a viable state of their own, they could have had it long ago.

As yet another "peace plan" is being prepared to back Israel into a corner and give the Palestinians a baseline from which to start negotiating (for each new proposal giving them more becomes their new minimum standard in negotiations), the fundamental reality needs to be dealt with -- until the Palestinians are willing to fully and unambiguously recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, any attempt to create a Palestinian state serves only to empower Israel's enemies and undermine her security.

Posted by: Greg at 01:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.

We know that the jihadi pigs have their own twisted sense of honor, but this article is chilling right from the beginning.

We were in a small house in Zarqa, Jordan, trying to interview two heavily bearded Islamic militants about their distribution of recruitment videos when one of us asked one too many questions.

“He’s American?” one of the militants growled. “Let’s kidnap and kill him.”

The room fell silent. But before anyone could act on this impulse, the rules of jihadi etiquette kicked in. You canÂ’t just slaughter a visitor, militants are taught by sympathetic Islamic scholars. You need permission from whoever arranges the meeting. And in this case, the arranger who helped us to meet this pair declined to sign off.

“He’s my guest,” Marwan Shehadeh, a Jordanian researcher, told the bearded men.

With Islamist violence brewing in various parts of the world, the set of rules that seek to guide and justify the killing that militants do is growing more complex.

What are the rules? Broadly speaking, Michael Moss and Souad Mekhennet identify the following.

Rule No. 1: You can kill bystanders without feeling a lot of guilt.
Rule No. 2: You can kill children, too, without needing to feel distress.
Rule No. 3: Sometimes, you can single out civilians for killing; bankers are an example.
Rule No. 4: You cannot kill in the country where you reside unless you were born there.
Rule No. 5: You can lie or hide your religion if you do this for jihad.
Rule No. 6. You may need to ask your parents for their consent.

These rules is each backed with an appropriate citation from the Quran, hadith, or sharia law. And some of what is put forward is chilling -- for example, having voted for the wrong political candidate makes an individual a combatant and therefore eligible for death under the Islamic Rules.

Maybe we need one rule for the Crusade Against Islamo-Fascist Jihad:

If it walks like a jihaid pig and talks like a jihadi pig and looks like a jihadi pig, it is a jihadi pig -- KILL IT.

And really, how can any sympathizer with jihad object? After all, if the victims are jihadis, they end up in paradise with 72 virgins. If they are an innocent, they end up in paradise with 72 virgins. What is there to complain about?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT , The Virtuous Republic, Faultline USA, Maggie's Notebook, Big Dog's Weblog, Nuke's news and views, Blue Star Chronicles, Webloggin, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Colloquium, Jo's Cafe, and Adeline and Hazel, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 07:15 AM | Comments (389) | Add Comment
Post contains 458 words, total size 4 kb.

You know, those loons that cannot believe that 9/11 was a terrorist attack and that instead our own government attacked America on 9/11.

No, it isn't an appeal to eyewitnesses, of whom there are many. It isn't an appeal to science, which overwhelmingly demonstrates that the official version is correct. Rather, it is a simple appeal to logic.

o believe in many of these kooky conspiracy theories, you have to believe that tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, politicians, bureaucrats, journalists, FBI agents, and CIA agents all know about an incredibly complex, monstrous plot against the United States, and are keeping their lips sealed while Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell, and the fruit loops who think Bush is a puppet of the Freemasons have figured it all out.

So much like the claim that the moon landings all took place in a soundstage, simple reality cannot sustain the conspiracy claims. After all, given the inability of small groups of people to keep small secrets, there is no way that a large group of people could possibly keep "the truth" hidden if 9/11 was a government conspiracy.

Posted by: Greg at 01:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I don't like this ruling, but it may have an up-side.

A military judge on Monday dismissed terrorism-related charges against a prisoner charged with killing an American soldier in Afghanistan, in a stunning reversal for the Bush administration's attempts to try Guantanamo detainees in military court.

The chief of military defense attorneys at Guantanamo Bay, Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, said the ruling could spell the end of the war-crimes trial system set up last year by Congress and President Bush after the Supreme Court threw out the previous system. The ruling immediately raised questions about whether the U.S. will have to further revise procedures for prosecuting prisoners, leading to major delays.

Over at The Corner, there is serious concern.

Briefly, an enemy combatant can be any enemy soldier. Such a combatant is unlawful if he has not comported with the laws of war — including belonging to a regular army, wearing a uniform, carrying weapons openly, and not targeting civilians. It should have been easy enough to do this with al Qaeda detainees. If it really has not been done, however, that could be a big problem since it would presumably necessitate re-doing all of the combatant status review tribunals before commissions could go forward.

The government is going to appeal. That, too, could be problematic according to the defense, which says they have only 72 hours to do so and the appellate court for commissions has not been constituted yet.

We don't know enough facts yet to make an assessment of what's going on here. Yet, if things are as the defense claims — and it bears remembering that very often they are not — this would be a demonstration of monumental incompetence. Let's hope that's not the case. Stay tuned.

Actually, this could be the worst thing in the world -- for the detainees. Assuming that the government is stuck with the designation of these terrorists as enemy combatants and cannot change their status, there is a proper status for them -- PRISONERS OF WAR. As such, they would have no access to American courts, and can be held until the conclusion of hostilities -- so that they will not be released until the end of the War on Terror. So unless it is the intent of the Democrats to surrender in that larger conflict (and not just on the Iraqi front), these individuals can be kept safe and sound at Gitmo -- forever.

Posted by: Greg at 08:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 418 words, total size 3 kb.