Writers Strike or Not: The Adam Gadahn Show

Verse of the Sword:

“Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful” (Sura 9:5).

Some losers just become bigger losers.

Over the years TV viewing has changed in many ways; one is that no longer is pilot week in say early September, these days it isn’t just Fall and Spring. October 27, 2004 saw the release of the pilot episode of The Adam Gadahn Show, which proved a smashing success and has seen; follow on episodes although no regular time slot. This may be due to its sad, tired and unchanging storyline; obviously these writers have refused to cross the picket line.

Oddly though, this tack has had some success. Due to his rare appearances most viewers do not tire of seeing the young strap-on strapping lad. In fact, it may be that some enjoy seeing how he has grown and matured, kind of like a “hi Mom, Dad, doing great here at camp…” video letter.

He’s back…

"Coming soon by the will of God, an invitation to reflection and repentance”

Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists believe somehow that an Adam Gadahn will speak better to the infidel than say a bin Laden or other Middle Eastern, non English speaking loser. Hogwash, a loser is a loser and when a loser chooses to announce himself spouting stupidity and ignorance a loser he remains.

A Bit About a Boy

Some reports indicate that Gadahn the Magnificent resides in Pakistan. In between videos he is likely filling as a “fluffer” to bin Laden and the rest of his merry band of caved (closeted) butt bandits. Gadahn likely gets along well with his fellow miscreants based upon his and their shared love of and experiences with goats. Their love for him is best expressed in the words purportedly spoken of young Adam by none other than Osama himself….

Prior to the release of his first video but following the FBIs interest in the amateur many news outlets attempted to find out what made this kid tick. One approach even looked into his once being a fan of “death metal” to explain his latest choice of friends; unlikely but experts were interviewed, including those who knew him best (?).

From Peace, Love, Death Metal:

“If I saw him listed as a translator for Al Qaeda, I could believe that. Adam was a born communicator and could relate to others. I see him channeling his aggressions through something artistic, much more than becoming a combatant. He wasn’t a foaming-at-the-mouth type, which there are plenty of in metal. People forget that this was a nice guy.”

Considering that the two interviewed for this article really didn’t know Gadahn, this quote above does serve as having certain prescience…“channeling his aggressions through something artistic.”

Gadahn is just a minor, little puss like the rest of them, but does not have what it would take to actually get down and dirty like that other loser Johnny Taliban. No, Gadahn just wants to be loved and accepted like most; even if that love and acceptance sees him taking it like a pro between episodes of the Gadahn the Magnificent Show.

Gadahn…you are nothing but a tool to them as you would be to anyone else regardless of what vocation you choose; born a loser, living as a loser and one day Allah permitting you will die a loser. In a nation of 300 plus million I’m sure they could find another idiot to fill your shoes as well as being willing to be filled as they one by one, or perhaps in groups enter through the backdoor.

Note: I would like to apologize to anyone other than the intended that is offended by the previous as this is meant to offend and upset specific targets (not that they'll read it, but I feel better now). As much as it may sound as if it is from a homophobe or angry loser this is not the case (well maybe the loser part is).

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

New Video: Zawahiri in Video from Unknown City

New threats have emerged via an 81 minute video featuring the “mid-summer steamer:”

“Al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri has called for Iberia to be restored to the Islamic world, saying the first step needs to be the 'cleansing' of Spaniards and French from the Maghreb.

Zawahiri was speaking in an 81-minute documentary-style video entitled "The Power of Truth" made public on Thursday by the US-based SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors Islamist websites.

"O our Muslim Ummah (community) in the Maghreb of ribat and jihad (land of resistance and holy war): restoring Al-Andalus is a trust on the shoulders of the Ummah in general and on your shoulders in particular," he said.

"You will not be able to do that without first cleansing the Maghreb of Islam of the children of France and Spain."

Zawahiri needn’t feel bad about being “number two,” as his Mohammed (PBUH) was number two as well; although dried up and blew away a long, long time ago.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Imam Mahdi – May God Hasten His Appearance; A Friday Sermon of Al Qaeda/Taliban/US Alliance

Provisional Friday Prayer Leader of Tehran Ayatollah Mohammad Kashani sermonizing before a standing room only congregation said:

"US administration is propagating a certain version of Christianity that is not based on Jesus Christ (PBUH) teachings, but after securing Zionists' interests.

Based on this mentality, the Jews must gather in Palestine and then in the course of a revolution two thirds of them to get killed, and the remainder should see the reappearance of Jesus (PBUH).

Therefore, they are after gathering the entire Jews of the world in Palestine, which is definitely a move with political and Satanic roots, but the idea is put forth in the framework of an idea behind the hope for reappearance of Messiah. US President George W. Bush is the standard bearer of that mentality. That man is loathed to an extent in the United States today that the mentality he supports, too, has very limited number of supporters."

They have Satanic interactions with the Zionists, but such a mentality has extremely weakened in the Western world today.”

So, the U.S. led by George Bush is against peace, also the nation as a whole:

“They are well aware that the governing political system in the Islamic Republic of Iran is after establishment of peace and justice in the world, and that Iran is today a divine world power.”

Now we can understand just why the Islamic Republic is so dead set against the U.S. and Western world in general. This is all well and good and if we’re really, really lucky they’ll be victorious and save us from ourselves as, “the people in the United States and Europe are living wretched lives today.”

The Prayer Leader regrets:

“that family foundation has no real meaning in their societies; philanthropy, faithfulness, friendly relations, love, living with one another, and caring for spiritual matters have no place in Western societies.”

In part, the leader is mistaken, especially the “love” part as recent news has revealed to us here in the U.S. “anonymous love” that takes place daily in public restrooms across the nation.

"There is no doubt that justice would finally prevail through the channel of faith, and both God's blessings and His wrath, too, would be distributed through the same path."

The Ayatollah quoted “a saying from Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) advising Christians what to do to rid themselves of the problems with which they would be entangled at the end of the world.”

This helps shed a little light upon the interest in “peaceful nukes,” which seems to point to a hastening of the “end of the world,” so that we may know peace; I knew they had our better interests in mind with this cockamamie “peaceful nukes,” thing.

Also of newsworthy note is the fact that, according to Iranian Majlis deputy National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Kazem Jalali:

"US President George W Bush and American neoconservatives make utmost use of al-Qaeda and Taliban acts, Main crimes by al-Qaeda in the world are in line with interests of the US extremists. The MP noted that news reveal that the US works with Taliban and has confidential talks with al-Qaeda. In its terrorist acts, al-Qaeda takes interests of the US and the Zionist regime into consideration. Bush has always strived to cause obstruction and raise accusations against others and Iran in particular. This is while the world's public opinion know that al-Qaeda is led by Washington."

Elsewhere, while addressing the Security Council, Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mansour Sadeghi said of Hamas:

"Hamas has came to power through an election which the whole international community recognized as fair, free and democratic.

It is therefore high time for the international community to urgently weigh in to counter the Israeli regime's inhumane policies and practices in imposing humanitarian disasters on the defenseless Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip and elsewhere in the Palestinian territories."

Who knows, it's all very confusing. Perhaps this is just some of that panicked, backs up against the wall pressure that VDH theorizes they may beginning to react to.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Inside the Northwest Territory, Nuke's News & Views, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Right Voices, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Hamas - Gaza and its Talibanization

A strip of land once used as a buffer for protection is now a strip of nostalgia for the days of the Taliban as Hamas tightens its grip on the land in its quest for Sharia, the Islamization of the region and ultimately the world.

"The Gaza Strip has never been idyllic. But, under Hamas, as one New York Times reporter notes, “Gaza looks like Somalia: broken and ravenous.” Hamas conquered Gaza by force. It will need to maintain its grip on power by force. This is the beginning of the Talibanization of Gaza, and the end of hope for the rule of law."

At NRO, "Hamas Rules..."

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/2016024333950658065

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Inside the Northwest Territory, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, The Florida Masochist, Public Domain Clip Art, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Faultline USA, Wake Up America, 4 Time Father?, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Victory has a Hundred Fathers, but Defeat is an Orphan

Yesterday saw the publication of an OpEd in The NY Times regarding the Iraq Theater in the war on terror written by Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack entitled, “A War We Just Might Win.” Say, have you heard about it?

Today, possibly as a counterbalance (as opposed to the editorial page’s usual ever so slight, falling over LEFTIST tendency), to yesterday’s opinion is one submitted by Nicholas Thompson, a senior editor at Wired magazine, “A War Best Served Cold.” Thompson is currently authoring a biography about George F. Kennan, a career foreign service officer who is credited with formulating the policy of “containment,” against the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

According to Thompson, Kennan “gave American strategy a name, but not much else.” Also the article, “X” published in Foreign Affairs “sixty years ago this month” was basically “grounded in a misunderstanding. Kennan didn’t make clear whether he intended containment to be primarily a political or military strategy. Despite the article’s ambiguity, everyone assumed the latter.”

Admittedly, Thompson says of the Kennan view of “containment” that:

“we can’t know for sure how his recommended, wholly political version of containment would have fared in the cold war. But we do know that a militant foreign policy didn’t lead to nuclear war and did, eventually, help bring about the collapse of Soviet communism. We also know that a strong offensive policy has yet to succeed against Al Qaeda.”

Which is an honest enough assessment of not knowing how things would have turned out had we done X rather than Y, but in writing of the almost half century long Cold War it appears a bit incongruous to point out that “we also know that a strong offensive policy has yet to succeed against Al Qaeda.”

Thompson takes Kennans explanation of containment, which lacked the clarity of whether it was “primarily a political or military strategy,” and turns it into his own version lacking clarity by making it an outright “political” one, forsaking a “military” side to the equation:

“A 21st-century rendering of X’s vision of containment would involve the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp, an unambiguous renunciation of torture and an abandonment of the notion that our legal and moral norms don’t apply to the current struggle. Kennan believed we gave our opponents a propaganda victory each time we acted in a manner unfitting of our ideals.”

Thompson’s assessment sounds more akin to the arguments we have been hearing over the past few years, but with a “twist of Kennan” to somehow give it more credibility. Ultimately though it falls flat and could just be that based upon the opinion of an author in the throes of writing a book about and honorable and intelligent subject.

It would seem more likely that today’s generational war will be best accomplished with various pieces of past lessons paired with adjustments to the ever-changing landscape of war in general.

Yesterday also saw an NRO Symposium entitled “Turning Point?” If you haven’t read it, it is a must read:

“The New York Times ran a piece Monday by two non-“neoconservatives” — Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack — arguing that the war in Iraq can be won. Is this indicative of some kind of mood change afoot? Could we really win this war? Could the rhetoric in Washington really change? National Review Online asked a group of experts.

Read the responses from; Frank Gaffney Jr., Victor Davis Hanson, Clifford May, John McCain, Mackubin Thomas Owens, James Robbins, Peter Rodman, Joseph Morrison Skelly and Michael Yon.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/6232131706495933981

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Webloggin, The Pink Flamingo, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Republican National Convention Blog, Conservative Cat, and Conservative Thoughts, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

“The War Is for You or For Us to Win”

"Here's the bottom line: Al Qaida in Iraq is run by foreign leaders loyal to Osama bin Laden. Like bin Laden, they are cold-blooded killers who murder the innocent to achieve al Qaida's political objectives. Yet despite all the evidence, some will tell you that al Qaida in Iraq is not really al Qaida — and not really a threat to America. Well, that's like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun, and saying he's probably just there to cash a check."

Personally when it comes to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere; I don't care whether the egg came before the chicken or vice versa. Intelligence can be so off, as it has been yet often that is all you have. Do you go for it or not? The NY Times and the rest have the benefit as do I, of not having to make any decision based on intelligence.

As much as the intelligence community has failed in recent years past it is still all we have. The Times and others will tout it when it suits them and damn it when it doesn't or when it has abjectly failed. Our nation doesn't have that luxury; the editors do.

A portion of President Bush's speech Tuesday July 24, at Charleston Air Force base in South Carolina:

"A good place to start is with some basic facts: Al Qaeda in Iraq was founded by a Jordanian terrorist, not an Iraqi. His name was Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Before 9/11, he ran a terrorist camp in Afghanistan. He was not yet a member of al Qaida, but our intelligence community reports that he had longstanding relations with senior al Qaida leaders, that he had met with Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Zawahiri.

In 2001, coalition forces destroyed Zarqawi's Afghan training camp, and he fled the country and he went to Iraq, where he set up operations with terrorist associates long before the arrival of coalition forces. In the violence and instability following Saddam's fall, Zarqawi was able to expand dramatically the size, scope, and lethality of his operation. In 2004, Zarqawi and his terrorist group formally joined al Qaida, pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and he promised to "follow his orders in jihad."

Soon after, bin Laden publicly declared that Zarqawi was the "Prince of Al Qaida in Iraq" — and instructed terrorists in Iraq to "listen to him and obey him." It's hard to argue that al Qaida in Iraq is separate from bin Laden's al Qaida, when the leader of al Qaida in Iraq took an oath of allegiance to Osama bin Laden.

According to our intelligence community, the Zarqawi-bin Laden merger gave al Qaida in Iraq — quote — "prestige among potential recruits and financiers." The merger also gave al Qaida's senior leadership — quote — "a foothold in Iraq to extend its geographic presence ... to plot external operations ... and to tout the centrality of the jihad in Iraq to solicit direct monetary support elsewhere." The merger between al Qaida and its Iraqi affiliate is an alliance of killers — and that is why the finest military in the world is on their trail.

Zarqawi was killed by U.S. forces in June 2006. He was replaced by another foreigner — an Egyptian named Abu Ayyub al-Masri. His ties to the al Qaida senior leadership are deep and longstanding. He has collaborated with Zawahiri for more than two decades. And before 9/11, he spent time with al Qaida in Afghanistan where he taught classes indoctrinating others in al Qaida's radical ideology.

After Abu Ayyub took over al Qaida's Iraqi operations last year, Osama bin Laden sent a terrorist leader named Abd al-Hadi al Iraqi to help him. According to our intelligence community, this man was a senior advisor to bin Laden, who served as his top commander in Afghanistan. Abd al-Hadi never made it to Iraq. He was captured, and was recently transferred to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. The fact that bin Laden risked sending one of his most valued commanders to Iraq shows the importance he places on success of al Qaida's Iraqi operations.

According to our intelligence community, many of al Qaida in Iraq's other senior leaders are also foreign terrorists. They include a Syrian who is al Qaida in Iraq's emir in Baghdad, a Saudi who is al Qaida in Iraq's top spiritual and legal advisor, an Egyptian who fought in Afghanistan in the 1990s and who has met with Osama bin Laden, a Tunisian who we believe plays a key role in managing foreign fighters. Last month in Iraq, we killed a senior al Qaida facilitator named Mehmet Yilmaz, a Turkish national who fought with al Qaida in Afghanistan, and met with September the 11th mastermind Khalid Shaikh Muhammad, and other senior al Qaida leaders.

A few weeks ago, we captured a senior al Qaida in Iraq leader named Mashadani. Now, this terrorist is an Iraqi. In fact, he was the highest ranking Iraqi in the organization. Here's what he said, here's what he told us: The foreign leaders of Al Qaida in Iraq went to extraordinary lengths to promote the fiction that al Qaida in Iraq is an Iraqi-led operation. He says al Qaida even created a figurehead whom they named Omar al-Baghdadi. The purpose was to make Iraqi fighters believe they were following the orders of an Iraqi instead of a foreigner. Yet once in custody, Mashadani revealed that al-Baghdadi is only an actor. He confirmed our intelligence that foreigners are at the top echelons of al Qaida in Iraq — they are the leaders — and that foreign leaders make most of the operational decisions, not Iraqis.

Foreign terrorists also account for most of the suicide bombings in Iraq. Our military estimates that between 80 and 90 percent of suicide attacks in Iraq are carried out by foreign-born al Qaida terrorists. It's true that today most of al Qaida in Iraq's rank and file fighters and some of its leadership are Iraqi. But to focus exclusively on this single fact is to ignore the larger truth: Al Qaida in Iraq is a group founded by foreign terrorists, led largely by foreign terrorists, and loyal to a foreign terrorist leader — Osama bin Laden. They know they're al Qaida. The Iraqi people know they are al Qaida. People across the Muslim world know they are al Qaida. And there's a good reason they are called al Qaida in Iraq: They are al Qaida … in … Iraq.

Some also assert that al Qaida in Iraq is a separate organization because al Qaida's central command lacks full operational control over it. This argument reveals a lack of understanding. Here is how al Qaida's global terrorist network actually operates. Al Qaida and its affiliate organizations are a loose network of terrorist groups that are united by a common ideology and shared objectives, and have differing levels of collaboration with the al Qaida senior leadership. In some cases, these groups have formally merged into al Qaida and take what is called a "bayaat" — a pledge of loyalty to Osama bin Laden. In other cases, organizations are not formally merged with al Qaida, but collaborate closely with al Qaida leaders to plot attacks and advance their shared ideology. In still other cases, there are small cells of terrorists that are not part of al Qaida or any other broader terrorist group, but maintain contact with al Qaida leaders and are inspired by its ideology to conduct attacks.

Our intelligence community assesses that al Qaida in Iraq falls into the first of these categories. They are a full member of the al Qaida terrorist network. The al Qaida leadership provides strategic guidance to their Iraqi operatives. Even so, there have been disagreements — important disagreements — between the leaders, Osama bin Laden and their Iraqi counterparts, including Zawahiri's criticism of Zarqawi's relentless attacks on the Shia. But our intelligence community reports that al Qaida's senior leaders generally defer to their Iraqi-based commanders when it comes to internal operations, because distance and security concerns preclude day-to-day command authority.

Our intelligence community concludes that — quote — "Al Qaida and its regional node in Iraq are united in their overarching strategy." And they say that al Qaida senior leaders and their operatives in Iraq — quote — "see al Qaida in Iraq as part of al Qaida's decentralized chain of command, not as a separate group."

Here's the bottom line: Al Qaida in Iraq is run by foreign leaders loyal to Osama bin Laden. Like bin Laden, they are cold-blooded killers who murder the innocent to achieve al Qaida's political objectives. Yet despite all the evidence, some will tell you that al Qaida in Iraq is not really al Qaida — and not really a threat to America. Well, that's like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun, and saying he's probably just there to cash a check."

The rest is here at NRO.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Recent Deaths PROVE Iraq is a Distraction from Real War on Terror

Just trying to get a jump on the Editorial Curve


According to CNN:

"Car bombers targeted throngs of Iraqis Wednesday as they spilled into Baghdad streets to cheer a national soccer victory, killing at least 17 people and leaving scores more wounded.

Attacking revelers in the Mansour district of western Baghdad, a suicide car bomber killed at least 10 people and wounded 62, said an Interior Ministry official. Later, in the southeastern neighborhood of Ghadir, a second car bomb killed at least seven and wounded at least 27, the official said. The attack is near an Iraqi army checkpoint.

Thousands of fans had filled the streets of the capital after Iraqi athletes competing in Malaysia defeated South Korea, catapulting the nation to the Asian Cup finals for the first time."

Having foolishly believed in the past that Iraq is a central or the central front in the war on terror I have now come to my senses having read the above. Our military should not be in Iraq to either referee soccer matches or their aftermath. NO BLOOD FOR SOCCER!!!

This blogger apologizes to the ever-prescient editorial board of The NY Times for this and previous attacks upon their present and previous omniscience in these most trying of times.

NO BLOOD FOR SOCCER!!!

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/6268313482964182882

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, guerrilla radio, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Thoughts, third world county, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Planck's Constant, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Hearing through the Bullhorn Grapevine that Iraq is Lost

Michael Ledeen this morning at NRO said:

“The fight in Iraq is part of a broader struggle that’s unfolding across the region...The same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons and threatening to wipe Israel off the map is also providing sophisticated IEDs to extremists in Iraq who are using them to kill American soldiers.

The same Hezbollah terrorists who are waging war against the forces of democracy in Lebanon are training extremists to do the same against coalition forces in Iraq.

The same Syrian regime that provides support and sanctuary for Islamic jihad and Hamas has refused to close its airport in Damascus to suicide bombers headed to Iraq.

...the war against extremists and radicals is not only evident in Iraq, but it’s evident in Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories and Afghanistan.”

What part of the “surge” to retreat addresses this reality and why might it just disappear? What part of the Lugar-Warner amendment improves upon diplomacy in the region where the U.S. pulls out, leaving its allies hanging? How do fewer numbers of troops improve a situation that is challenging to the large number there now?

Yesterday, reference to Iraq being an issue that can only be resolved politically suggested this idea to mind:

“Let’s try this plan: Iraq is lost. Put all the Iraqi leaders in a sealed room of a sealed building and let them work it out and come and solve it politically. While solving in politically allow devastation, murder, blood and death to continue unabated outside; but leave them to solve it politically.

Once they have solved it politically, open the doors and let the light of day enter (if you can see it through the smoke). What happens to that political resolution now?

One piece, not the other, no two can be combined. Politically the problems cannot be resolved without military assistance. Militarily the problems cannot be resolved without political assistance.”

The military piece of the puzzle being suggested does not come close to that necessary to hold off the hoards while those political solutions are being discussed."

USA Today opinion from Friday July 13, 2007:

“In Washington Thursday (7/12), the Iraqi ambassador, astoundingly, talked of Americans as being too focused on "instant gratification" — this more than four years into a grinding war that has cost more than 3,600 American lives.”

The day to day view of “instant gratification” is somewhat offended by this remark, but it speaks more realistically of Iraq then anything coming out of our Democrat leadership and those few Republicans lacking this same spine and myopic WORLD view. The ambassador was correct in his assessment for those that actually want Iraq seen through to the time that we can drawdown as we inch along toward that goal.

To those stubbornly holding to a view that good will come of our leaving, the recent Iraq Assessment was proof that we “have” failed in our mission in Iraq. Had the assessment been more than the 50/50 that it was in the obviously moving forward positively column, the assessment would still have been proof that we “have” failed our mission in Iraq.

These views are of the same vein as hate in that hate is much simpler than love or even like. They are the same pessimistic views that can only invest intellect in the discovery of what is wrong rather than what might be right. It is the same simplistic view that ones way is the only way and anyone that disagrees is an idiot.

You won’t find many that are in favor of continuing on in Iraq, especially with an eye toward hearing from General Petreus in September disagree that war is a drag; the deaths are painful; many in the Middle East hate us; that this can and does generate bad guys etc..

What you won’t find is anyone that disagrees with our being in Iraq and want us to pull out NOW (now is the “instant gratification” of next spring) agreeing with those that want to continue the fight for now on anything Iraq. I guess that’s because we’re the stubborn ones.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/8656620875964312159

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Right Celebrity, third world county, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Al Qaeda, Hamas, Those in Support – Pirates (I kid you not)

Disclaimer:

Skip over my introduction if you wish, by all means, BUT do not pass up the post being introduced. It can be considered lengthy, however, it is by far a very thought provoking and usable definition according to US Code Title 18, Chapter 81 regarding piracy and how this can and should be applied to those at war with this nation. This is a must read

Who in their right mind would ever consider terrorists, pirates? In the course of conversation perhaps, but truly and by what most consider a pirate to be or look like.

“Piracy is an activity, which has bounds and definitions placed upon it of which the 'swashbuckling' form of it from previous centuries is only a sub-part of the larger and broader definitions of Piracy.”

One of the debates in the Edwardian “bumper sticker war” is the outrage over those held indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It is without doubt a serious question as to what it is we do with these people; if only because they are “enemy combatants” of the kind we haven’t really dealt with before in a war of the same lack of experience; a war, which will not end any time soon. So what to do with those captured and detained until the end of hostilities when those hostilities have every indication of consisting of decades time?

We know the arguments, the very basics of which are; treat them almost as though they have committed a civil crime and try them in the criminal court system with all the protections that entails or keep them locked up, gain intelligence and deal with them via military tribunal, treating them through the military community’s means.

“Enemy combatant,” “unlawful enemy combatant,” or other such nomenclature not yet thought considered?

A Jacksonian has done much research to date and finds that there is little or no need to classify or reclassify as each detained, involved, in support of whether individual, group or nation are by definition involved in piratical activity or pirates themselves.

Sound ridiculous, have your doubts or does it peak your interest? Regardless, read what has been posted to date before one considers snickering in amusement thinking they know better.

From A Jacksonian at Dumb Looks Still Free: “Why do we refuse to call terrorism for what it is?”

“I have looked at the Federal Piracy Laws in two posts: When Terrorists are Pirates, and A deeper look at Terrorism and Piracy, and why it matters.

This piece now works off of the more finalized views of the second piece, but do understand the background given in the first as necessary to this.

Piracy is an activity, which has bounds and definitions placed upon it of which the 'swashbuckling' form of it from previous centuries is only a sub-part of the larger and broader definitions of Piracy. Consider the very broad part of the US Code Title 18, Chapter 81 on this:

Sec. 1651. Piracy under law of nations

Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life.

This is the very broad view of keeping the traffic lanes on the seaways open from illegitimate and unlawful attacks, seizures and other activities that put the commerce of the seas and navigation of the seaways at peril. Those that endanger such, even if they endanger NO US owned or operated vessels, are Pirates. That is more simple brigandage upon the high seas, but also delineates that Nations at War are respected in their ability to hamper shipping against their enemies that directly supports those enemies, as that is a lawfully declared purpose of Sovereign Nations. Putting war material on a passenger liner, however, is a violation of that as it comingles civilian and military affairs in wartime and is, thusly, considered to be shipping in support of the war effort of one Nation.

Beyond that, however, this is a very broad purposeful law that does NOT put forth that non-State organizations cannot be considered Pirates. In point of fact that is why the law is addressed in such a broad way: to include anyone who commits laws against Nations on the High Seas to put shipping at peril. And as Civil Law may not hold here, it is the Admiralty part of the US Armed Forces that are to apply these Laws.

Sounds ancient, doesn't it?

Consider this news report from 15 JUL 2006 by ABC News, confirmed by multiple sources:...”

READ THE REST AND FOLLOW THE LINKS TO PREVIOUS POSTS ON THIS SUBJECT

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/2454549331067827652

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Big Dog's Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, The Pet Haven, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, Public Eye, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Red Mosque Siege in Pakistan and the Board

Yesterday, the editorial board of The NY Times had some advice for the Bush Administration regarding General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. Of Musharraf the board said:

“he has done far less than he promised — and far less than is needed. It’s not clear which side his intelligence services are rooting for, while Taliban and Qaeda fighters continue to find shelter and support on Pakistan’s side of the Afghan border.”

One cannot disagree that Musharraf’s Pakistan has done less than promised in the fight against terrorism, however via the opinion of the toiletPaper all the nuance that they find commendable in a Kerry, they don’t apply to themselves with regard to a problem that is not at all as simple as they would like.

Question to the board: whose intelligence will Musharrafs be if he is replaced whether Democratically or by other means?

The board believes:

“Washington needs to make clear to the Pakistani people that America is the ally of their country, not their dictator, and that the United States favors the earliest possible return to free elections and civilian rule.”

Well, this is hard to disagree with as well; but their people are definitely a mixed bag as are the many different parts of the government there. “America is the ally of their country,” including one assumes of Mohammed Abdul Aziz and Abdur Rashid Ghazi; the fellas in the lead on the Red Mosque stand-off.

Did the boards words strike fear in Musharraf and lead to the recent military storming of the mosque? Hmmmmm…..

BBC News considers the consequences of the siege:

“Pakistan's military ruler, Gen Pervez Musharraf, has often been accused of tolerating elements in the military and the intelligence services who are known to maintain ideological and strategic links with the country's Islamic militants.

That includes those holed up in Islamabad's Red Mosque (Lal Masjid).

So does the final showdown at the mosque mean that Gen Musharraf is moving decisively against those elements - and if so, what are the consequences?”

The board should consider more than just their simplistic biased views when blowing the hot air of their clarion call; whatever the subject.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/8479943656982506143

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Right Celebrity, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Right Truth, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, CommonSenseAmerica, Conservative Cat, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Qaeda Deputy Leader in Washington Seen in New Videos

Er, oops, confusion over where exactly the Deputy Leader is due to NYT/AP headline.

Other possibilities of where he is in an effort to locate him further confused by use of professional appearing green screen. His image/video is circulating in numerous locations; leaves msm confused and irrational as usual.









Reports of Islamist crossdressing still unconfirmed










Moron More on Zawahiri's fireside chat from Michelle Malkin.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/2482438633398244050

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Right Pundits, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Big Dog's Weblog, Maggie's Notebook, Right Truth, The Populist, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Planck's Constant, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Former DIA analyst challenges George Tenet's account on Iraq/al Qaeda intelligence – Regime of Terror

From a site, “the intent of which is to provide a comprehensive and analytical historical resource focusing on a number of issues relating to terrorism and Saddam Hussein’s regime, stories both confirming both links between the former regime and efforts by it's members to counter terrorism;” comes this latest post from Regime of Terror.

Cross posted from Regime of Terror:

In a recent Washington Post Op-Ed former DIA analyst Christina Shelton discussed her intelligence work analyzing links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq and countered some of the conventional wisdom on the subject while taking issue with the way her background and work were depicted in former CIA director George Tenet's recent book "At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA."

Responding to Tenet's charge that she claimed the debate over Iraq - al Qaeda links was "open-and-shut" and in no need of further analysis Shelton wrote:

I said the covert nature of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda made it difficult to know its full extent; al-Qaeda's security precautions and Iraq's need to cloak its activities with terrorist networks precluded a full appreciation of their relationship.

Cooperation or meetings between the two sides would likely be something which would necessitate extreme secrecy and the information of such meetings/cooperation would likely be compartmentalized on a "need to know" basis if/when such meetings took.

(MORE HERE)

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1393703036858697877

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Committees of Correspondence, The Random Yak, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Stageleft, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Martyrs, Jihadists Are NOT the Brightest Bulbs on the Porch

Interesting reads today from NRO from three very good writers. The overall impression put forward by the media has been that these latest attacks by terrorists are not really al Qaeda linked because the skillset of the "would bes" lacks a certain proficiency or professionalism; this of course is due to the fact the intended outcome failed.

We wouldn't want to discount their abilities obviously by suggesting they cannot succeed again. Yet when they have not had a successful attack, in the U.S. especially the public and media tends to discount that as though there were no threat. When they fail, the failures are looked upon as lacking that 007 aspect, so of course these cannot be real terrorists, al Qaeda or not.

While the main thrust of these articles, with the exception of Ledeen's may not be on the subject of "IQ" the reader does get the underlying sense that the terrorists/suicide bombers/martyrs aren't all that quick on the uptake.

Michael Ledeen takes the question of "smarts" as main thesis in his article this morning, ‘“Stupid Terrorist” Is it any surprise?”’

"Did you really expect high-I.Q. martyrs? Maybe clever killers, but somebody should have pointed out — long since — that it isn’t very smart to blow yourself up. And for the most part, the martyrs haven’t come from the best-educated sectors of the population. But so many scribblers have been impressed by the deep faith of the suiciders, that they’ve shied away from this fairly obvious point. And one could go further. Indeed one should go further: All those parents and siblings who speak with reverence of their exploded child or brother or sister or cousin or uncle, they should be ashamed of themselves. Because they’re fools."

Andrew McCarthy speaks this morning that “Islamic Terror Strikes the U.K. … Again” so ultimately does it really matter whether al Qaeda, an off-shoot or even unrelated as far as the underlying belief system?

"Britain’s new prime minister, Gordon Brown, has been explicit in his public statements that this new series of attacks is linked to al Qaeda. The nature of that linkage is has not been revealed, and many experts have expressed skepticism about the possibility because the explosive devices here were poorly constructed. This, though, gives way too much credit to al Qaeda. Yes, several of its operations have been highly professional, but its operatives are not all ten feet tall and they have produced their share of amateur-hour moments."

Finally, James Robbins considers that it is not all about Iraq, with "Club Bombers - Jihad runs deep"

"There are several lessons to be learned from the failed terrorist attacks in Britain. Some are obvious, such as the fact that the terrorists are still a threat, the war is still on. Also that the terrorists are seeking softer targets, which speaks to the effectiveness of hardening others. The Glasgow airport attack in particular illustrates this — despairing of actually getting on an airplane, the bad guys just rammed the gate with a Jeep Cherokee with a bomb in the back. It was not a well-planned or thought-out attack; the vehicle was hung up on the static defenses, which worked as intended. And did one of the perps really as was reported pour gasoline directly on an open flame? No wonder he ignited. These are not superstars."

It shouldn't take much of a stretch for those that either don't see it or refuse to believe it, that this problem we have is not just about Iraq, but is all around us. We shouldn't wait forever for that smoking gun, as even a smoking gun can be denied as being a smoking gun.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1576624753695728030

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Committees of Correspondence, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, High Desert Wanderer, Pursuing Holiness, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.