A Plea For Help - Help Free PFC Corey Clagett

from the site....

PFC COREY CLAGETT
ATTENTION: Clemency/Parole Hearing for 2013

Corey has a Clemency/Parole Hearing coming up. We need your support now more than ever. Corey needs a letter written from you asking on his behalf that he be given Clemency/Parole. He needs your letter by Nov.20th 2012 so he has time to turn them in. The letter must be hand signed with your address. Please mail a letter to Corey and one to his attorney. The addresses are list below.

Mail one to….

Corey Clagett 82477

1300 N. Warehouse rd
Ft.Leavenworth, KS 66027


and one to…


Timothy Parlatore

Cutler & Parlatore, PLLC

260 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10016

Note: If you do not know or unable to write a letter,please use our pre-written letter.Just copy and paste and print it out.Fill in your name and address and hand sign it and mail.You can find this letter under the tab listed Clemency/Parole.

Here is the link to the pre-written letter:   http://www.coreyclagett.com/Clemency___Parole.html

Please help!  We don't have much time.  Let's reach out and help this young soldier.  Please.
---

Swedish Muslim Woman Confesses To Killing Her 5 Month Old Child With a Qur'an

No Comment.

The story comes from The Local via The Religion of Peace.

Woman admits to killing her infant with Koran


A woman who confessed to suffocating her 5-month-old child with the family's copy of the Koran is on trial in western Sweden, with her defense team arguing she had a psychotic breakdown, possibly due to postpartum depression.

"I didn't want to kill him, I wanted to save him," the 28-year-old woman said during a hearing on Tuesday at the Halmstad District Court, according to the Aftonbladet newspaper.

The incident occurred in late July, when the woman met her husband at his workplace, where she told him she wasn't feeling well.

“I told her that we couldn't speak there, and that we could discuss it at home," the husband said in court, according to the Expressen paper.

"At the same time, I suggested she could read passages from the Koran for support, as we’re both Muslims."

However, when he arrived home the father found his child dead with 39 wounds to its body, the majority of which were caused by the holy book.

The 28-year-old mother was subsequently charged with murder, with an alternative charge of aggravated manslaughter.

“The woman intentionally killed her child. She smothered it to death and the Koran was the murder weapon,” prosecutor Anders Johansson said in court, according to Expressen.

The 28-year-old woman has confessed to the murder, blaming her actions on visions which became increasingly vivid in the weeks leading up to the killing.

“I saw horns growing out of the baby's forehead and long vines on his body. I saw an old man's head on his body. I wanted to save my baby, not kill him," she said in court.

The woman's defence lawyer argued his client was in a "psychotic state" when she committed the infanticide, something which experts suggest could be linked to postpartum depression.

“Some people can get so depressed that they want to die, and killing their own child is a type of extended suicide, with the intention of taking their life with your own,” Karin Monsen-Börjesson, psychiatrist and expert on postpartum depression at the Karolinska University Hospital, told The Local.

She explained that the condition has been linked to a number of infant murders.

“When you have any kind of depression you can become a lot more sensitive when you have a small child. But this kind of incident is very, very rare in Sweden,” Monsen-Börjesson said.

Citing his client's condition, the woman's defense lawyer argued that the 28-year-old should not be sentenced to prison for killing her five-month-old son.

“My client was in a psychotic state. She had no intention to kill and considering how she was feeling; she had no way of predicting what might happen,” lawyer Göran Ruthberg told Expressen.

Since her arrest, the 28-year-old has been staying at a psychiatric clinic, and doctors there agree that she was in a psychotic state at the time of the killing.

Fighting back fits of sobbing at the trial, the woman's husband nevertheless had kind words for his wife despite the fact that she killed their infant child.

"She was a good mother and a good wife. I hope she can get help now," he said, according to Aftonbladet.

Russia Cites Obamacare As a Human Rights Violation On the American People

How bad can it get when the American people have to rely on Vladamir Putin to look out for our rights and well being?   LOL

The Russians have cited several items that they view as human rights violations by the United States with a couple being expected ones like predator drone strikes and the NDAA but the last one they site...that of Obamacare is hilarious.  We Americans have been screaming for two years that Obamacare violates the U.S. Constitution in requiring that we purchase a product - everyone knows it is unConstitutional and that includes Justice Roberts, but for a bunch of commies in Russia to understand it and push it back in our faces is beyond belief.

What a Presidency we have plagued America with, huh?

The story comes from CNS News.

Russian Report Cites Obamacare, Drone Strikes and ‘Xenophobia’ as U.S. Human Rights Violations


(CNSNews.com) - Russia claims that Obamacare, the National Defense Authorization Act and CIA drone strikes are all examples of human rights violations being committed by the United States.

In its now-annual report on human rights in the U.S., the Russian government of Vladimir Putin lists a host of alleged violations, including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, of which the report says: “Human rights organizations considered this Act to be a violation of human rights and freedoms as it obliged the citizens to buy insurance policy.”

The “report,” which is based on U.S. government reports, activist group publications and news stories widely available to the U.S. public, claims that 50 million Americans, or 16.3 percent of the population, do not have health insurance.

Citing the liberal Institute for Democracy and Cooperation, it notes that the current U.S. healthcare system involves “insurance companies, banks, pharmaceutical companies, research centers, and healthcare institutions.” It adds that in the “majority of cases” ordinary Americans “are on the losing side.”

The Russian government also cited elements of the defense authorization bill, which passed the House of Representatives on May 18, on a 299-120 vote.

“The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 legalized officially the authority of the executive power to arrest people indefinitely and without trial,” the former Soviet Union noted.

The Russian report noted that the indefinite detention provision of that bill received opposition from groups ranging from the ACLU to the Bill of Rights Defense Committee.

Drone strikes on targets in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen also made the list of alleged U.S. human rights violations.

“Apart from operating on the battlefield, the CIA is actively pursuing a secret unmanned aerial vehicle program for ‘targeted’ elimination of terrorists abroad,” according to the report, noting that over eight years beginning in 2004 the CIA launched 327 air strikes in the country south of Afghanistan.

The death toll from drone strikes in Pakistan range from 2,500 to 3,200, the report claims, placing the number of “peaceful Pakistanis” killed in the range from 482 to 852, including 175 children.

According to the Russians, racism and islamophobia are also on the rise in the U.S.

The report cites “American law enforcement authorities” who it said “register progressive increase in the number of extremist groups, significant number of crimes committed on the grounds of racial, religious and ethnic enmity.”

“Sociologists believe that 15-20 percent of the USA population belong to rabid xenophobes,” according to the Russians. “Approximately so many Americans suppose that it is necessary to prohibit the followers of Islam from working in the government,” it added.

The report even quoted the Southern Poverty Law Center as stating that there are “over one thousand extremist groups” -- a list which includes groups that oppose homosexual activism and same-sex marriage.

The report also restates allegations made in previous reports, including alleged abuses at what it calls CIA “black site” prisons.

In addition, it chides the U.S. for -- among other things -- police brutality, the conditions of U.S. prison systems, capital punishment, voting rights, immigration policy and Arizona’s controversial 2010 immigration law.

The Russian report also called lobbying “a legalized form of corruption that undermines the U.S. ability to confront various economic, social and political challenges.”

Video: If This Doesn't Put a Smile On Your Face, Nothing Will

Video: The Flashlight Silencer

Taliban Set Off IED In Afghanistan Killing Seven Innocent Women and One Man

Last weekend, you might have heard my Blog Talk Radio show entitled "Islam's Women" where I spoke about the centuries of abuse and torture and oppression of women under the so-called "religion" of Islam.  Well, the reality is that this goes on each and every day and yesterday was no exception as the mighty Taliban decided to blow up a vehicle full of Afghan women.  Yep, seven Afghan women and one man with them were all killed when a Taliban roadside bomb destroyed their vehicle.

I guess when there aren't any U.S. or Brit troops in the area, the next stage of jihad for the Taliban is to blow up seven innocent women.  Right?

The story comes from DAWN.

Afghan roadside bombing kills eight civilians


KABUL: Eight civilians, including seven women, were killed in an insurgent roadside bombing in the Musa Qala district of the southern Afghan province of Helmand on Wednesday, the Afghan interior ministry said.

Two people were wounded in the attack, the Afghan interior ministry said in a statement, holding the Taliban responsible for the attack.

“Eight of our civilian compatriots, seven women and a man, were killed today when their vehicle hit a roadside bomb planted by the Taliban terrorists,” the statement said.

Roadside bombs, also known as improvised explosive devices (IEDs), are the deadliest insurgent weapon used in Afghanistan for both the military fighting the Taliban and civilians.

The crude devices, often built on old ammunition, are planted by the side of roads to target Nato and Afghan troops battling the Taliban insurgency aimed at bringing down Kabul’s Western-backed government, but they also kill civilians travelling on the same roads.

The United Nations (UN) said that 1,145 civilians were killed in the Afghan war in the first six months of this year, blaming 80 per cent of the deaths on insurgents, with more than half caused by roadside bombs.

Last year, a record 3,021 civilians died in the war, the UN has said, and this year around 30 percent of casualties have been women and children. Most of them were victims of roadside bombs.

The UN blames insurgents for 80 percent of the civilian casualties in 2012, saying pro-government forces, which include US-led Nato, were responsible for 10 percent.

On Oct 19, a bomb ripped through a minibus carrying guests to a wedding in the northern province of Balkh, killing 19 people.

A day after the Balkh blast, the UN urged the Taliban leadership to enforce their ban on IEDs, announced by the militants’ leader Mullah Omar in 1998.

IEDs are responsible for a large percentage of deaths among the Nato forces helping fight the Taliban.
Foreign combat troops are due to withdraw by the end of 2014 and there are fears that the Taliban will extend their activities across wider swathes of the country against ill-prepared Afghan forces.

On Friday, a suicide bomber wearing a police uniform killed 42 people, including five children, and wounded 50 more at a mosque in northern Faryab province after Eid prayers on the festival of Eidul Azha.

It was the worst death toll in a single attack in Afghanistan since 80 died on Dec 6 last year in a suicide blast at a shrine in Kabul on the Ashura.

Video: More of That Cobra Air Support

Video: Yeah, It's Got a Little Kick To It

Benghazi. Without the Bullshit.

From Ann Barnhardt at Barnhardt.biz

Benghazi
Posted by Ann Barnhardt - October 26, AD 2012 7:23 PM MST


Let's quit the chickenshit dancing around here.

The Obama regime has been running guns and BIGTIME armaments and munitions, including MANPADS, which are shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles designed to shoot down commercial jetliners, to the Muslim Brotherhood. This is just Fast-and-Furious except that the people being armed are musloids tasked with reforming the Islamic Caliphate instead of the drug cartels. But it is exactly the same thing. Ghadaffi was overthrown because the Obama regime wanted to use a chaotic, destabilized "wild west" Libya as the doorway to the Caliphate to get the arms in for distribution to Syria, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt and eventually Saudi Arabia. Egypt would have been too risky.

Ambassador Chris Stevens and the CIA were somehow, some way running or heavily involved this armament pipeline.

The Obama regime wanted and "needed" Chris Stevens dead, probably to cover the gun and armament running, so they killed him. Word was sent to the Muslim Brotherhood to attack the Benghazi facility. The Obama regime promised that there would be no retaliation and that a cover story about "slandering the prophet" would be provided. The Muslim Brotherhood wins all around. They get to keep all of the arms and MANPADS supplied by Obama with no whistleblowers AND they get their bullshit sharia law agenda advanced and explicitly ratified by the government of the United States.

Get used to this business of the Oligarch class using the Muslim Brotherhood to do their dirty work for them. This has been the plan all along, and it will only escalate from here.

As I have been saying since 2008, Barack Obama is the explicit enemy of what used to be the First American Republic, and of Western Civilization in general. EXPLICIT ENEMY. As in traitor. As in treason. As in murderer. As in should be arrested as a non-state, non-uniformed enemy belligerent, tried in a military tribunal, and upon conviction be put against a wall and shot by a firing squad, and then have his dead body publicly displayed so that there will be no future doubt or bullshit conspiracy theory crap that the son of a bitch wasn't executed. No shit.

And the same goes for dozens of people in his "administration" right along with him, except that the U.S. citizens, like Hillary Clinton, should be tried for treason. But like Obama, upon conviction (which should take all of five minutes to deliberate) these people should be executed by firing squad without delay. They are traitors and they are murderers.

After almost four years of this shit, you people are still trying to parse these events as if these people are just misguided or inept. These people are the declared enemy of what used to be the United States (they put the last nail in the coffin - the Republic is already dead) and of Western civilization. They are attempting to bring about a global tyrannical oligarchy and are in a close, explicit alliance with islam in order to consolidate control of the oil producing areas of the muslim world and eliminate Israel, and eventually to use the Caliphate as the army which will totally overrun and overthrow Europe.

Clinton, Obama, Panetta, Axelrod and THEIR HANDLERS, all of these people are coming straight out of Communism, which is really nothing more than a push for a global tyrannical oligarchy. It has little to do with any sort of economic theory per se, its only goal is to put a cadre of oligarchs in power, and to enrich them by any means necessary. We should probably stop calling it Communism and just call it neo-Stalinism.

Chris Stevens was tortured, gang ass raped, killed, and his dead body was gang ass raped again because the initial order came from Washington D.C. to kill him. The details really didn't concern the murderers sitting in Washington watching it happen via drone-cam, nor did the collateral damage in the form of the other three men killed. Stevens thought he was "in the club", but the poor fool was just another "stupid faggot" in the eyes of the Obama regime who was used and then killed because he was worth less than nothing to them. But then, all human life is worth less than nothing to these people.

One of the SEALs was on the roof of the building painting a target with a laser expecting a drone or a gunship to engage. What the SEAL failed to understand is that the drone he knew was flying above him was in fact the asset of the very people who ordered the strike, and that they were back in Washington watching via that drone-cam, cooly waiting for him, the ambassador and the other assets there present to die.

You people need to wake the hell up. Prepare for war. These people are killers and will stop at nothing until someone stops them.

(Hat Tip:  Freedom's Wings)

Video: Michael Moore and Move-On.Org Make the Kind of Political Ad We Expect From the Great Divider, Barack Hussein ObamaThug

Another Green on Blue Attack - 2 British Soldiers Killed By Afghan Policeman in Helmand

G_d be with the families of the two British soldiers killed in the latest "green on blue" attack in Afghanistan.

This latest attack just bullet points how dire the situation has become as the number of friendly attacks has raised the death toll of coalition forces up through the roof this year.

The story comes from The Long War Journal.

Afghan policeman kills 2 British soldiers in Helmand


An Afghan policeman opened fire on Coalition soldiers operating in Helmand province earlier today, killing two British soldiers. Today's killing of Coalition forces marks the 40th green-on-blue, or insider attack, in Afghanistan that has been reported so far this year.

The International Security Assistance Force confirmed that two of its soldiers were killed in today's attack, but did not state the nationality of those killed or the location of the attack.

"An individual wearing the uniform of an Afghan policeman turned his weapon against International Security Assistance Force service members in southern Afghanistan today, killing two," the NATO command said in a press release. "The incident is currently under investigation."

Afghan officials said that the attack took place in Helmand province, and two British soldiers were killed, Pajhwok Afghan News reported. The Afghan policeman escaped after murdering the British soldiers.

Today's green-on-blue attack is the second thought to have occurred in Helmand province in the past week. On Oct. 24, a Royal Marine and a British female soldier on a foot patrol in the Nahr-e Saraj district of Helmand province were shot dead by Afghan policemen in an incident that is currently under investigation. The Taliban, which have executed multiple insider attacks against Coalition forces, have also claimed the attack.

A significant number of the green-on-blue attacks have taken place in Helmand province, according to statistics maintained by The Long War Journal. More green-on-blue attacks have occurred in Helmand province than in any other of Afghanistan's 34 provinces. At least 17 of the 66 recorded attacks have taken place in Helmand since January 2008; and 32 of the 122 deaths have occurred in Helmand.

There have been 40 green-on-blue attacks reported so far this year, resulting in the deaths of 59 ISAF military and civilian personnel. The green-on-blue attacks now account for more than 16 percent of ISAF's casualties so far this year. Last year, such attacks accounted for 6 percent of ISAF's casualties. In 2010, green-on-blue attacks made up just 2 percent of ISAF's casualties. See LWJ report, Green-on-blue attacks in Afghanistan: the data, for more information.

Insider attacks a key part of Taliban strategy

Today's attack in Helmand province comes one week after Taliban emir Mullah Omar released an Eid al-Adha message that urged followers to "[i]increase Increase your efforts to expand the area of infiltration in the ranks of the enemy and to bring about better order and array in the work." The statement continued: "We call on the Afghans who still stand with the stooge regime to turn to full-fledged cooperation with their Mujahid people like courageous persons in order to protect national interests and to complete independence of the country. Jihadic activities inside the circle of the State militias are the most effective stratagem. Its dimension will see further expansion, organization and efficiency if God willing."

Omar had previously addressed the issue of green-on-blue attacks at length in a statement released on Aug. 16. Omar claimed that the Taliban "cleverly infiltrated in the ranks of the enemy according to the plan given to them last year," and urged government officials and security personnel to defect and join the Taliban as a matter of religious duty. He also noted that the Taliban have created the "Call and Guidance, Luring and Integration" department, "with branches ... now operational all over the country," to encourage defections. [See Threat Matrix report, Mullah Omar addresses green-on-blue attacks.]

As insider attacks continue to spike, Coalition officials are starting to acknowledge that the Taliban are behind a larger proportion of the attacks, and ISAF has intensified its efforts against the perpetrators. Many of the attackers appear to come from the eastern Afghan provinces, a BBC reporter wrote in September, where Taliban influence is prevalent. And in early October, ISAF commanders admitted that attackers from Pakistan with links to the Taliban and its subgroup, the al Qaeda-linked Haqqani Network, were significantly involved in the attacks, the Associated Press reported.

Video: My Wish For America Is That You Change Your Damn Vote, Lady

Listen to her explain that the last five years fucked up her retirement but hey, I'm for the Obama clown!

:shakes head:

Image of the Day: The Lie

The REAL Foreign Policy Failure

The article comes from Family Security Matters.

The Real Foreign-Policy Failure


Last week, Doug Feith and Seth Cropsey co-authored a very interesting and important op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, "A Foreign Policy Failure to Acknowledge the Obvious." It is about President Obama's denial of the Islamist threat. In it, they zero in on two "strategic misjudgments" the administration has made:

First is the refusal to accept that the terrorism threat is part of a larger problem of Islamist extremism. And second is the belief that terrorism is spawned not by religious fanaticism but by grievances about social, economic, and other problems for which America bears fault.

This is largely right. If it were internalized by a Romney administration, it would be a step in the right direction. Still, the essay goes awry in significant ways.

Let's start with the authors' intimation that "religious fanaticism" causes terrorism. To be sure, that's a better explanation than the Left's "blame America first" approach. Yet, it still misses the mark. The real cause is ideology, not religion. The distinction is worth drawing because, for the most part, Islamist terror is not fueled by Muslim zealousness for Islam's religious tenets - for instance, "the oneness of Allah." We Westerners recognize such beliefs as belonging to the realm of religion or spirituality. To the contrary, Islamist terror is driven by the supremacism and totalitarianism of Middle Eastern Islam - i.e., by the perception of believers that they are under a divine injunction to impose all of Islam's tenets.

Most of those tenets do not concern religion or spirituality, at least not as Westerners interpret those concepts. Instead, sharia is largely concerned with controlling what we see as secular affairs - political, social, military, financial, jurisprudential, penal, even hygienic matters. Of course, the fact that we separate church and state in the West does not mean our moral sense is without influence - indeed, profound influence - over how we conduct secular affairs. But in the West, we reject the notion that any religious belief system's tenets should control those affairs. In the United States, we reject the establishment of a state religion - such official primacy would suffocate freedom of conscience, a bedrock of liberty.

By contrast, the foundation of Middle Eastern Islam is submission to Allah's law, not individual liberty. This interpretation of Islam thus rejects a division between the secular and the spiritual. Its sharia system contemplates totalitarian control. That makes Islamist ideology (i.e., Islamic supremacism, or what is sometimes more elliptically called "political Islam") just another totalitarian ideology, albeit one that happens to have a religious veneer.

Some of my friends make the error of claiming that "Islam is not a religion." I understand what they mean - it is a clumsy way of making the point that mainstream Islam aspires to control much more than spiritual life. Still, the clumsy rhetoric is a bad mistake, driving a wedge between what should be natural allies: those fearful of Islamic supremacism and religious believers. The latter - for example, American Christians, Jews, and non-Islamist Muslims - today find their core liberties under siege by government overreach and atheist hostility. How convenient for these aggressor forces if, by the hocus-pocus of denying an established creed the status of religion, its adherents may be stripped of their constitutional protections.

No, Islam clearly is a religion, and its theological tenets are every bit as deserving of the First Amendment's guarantees as any other. But Muslims must accept that, in America and the West, it is not Islam but our traditions - especially the separation of church and state - that set the parameters of religious liberty. This way, Islam, the religion, is protected, but Islamic supremacism, the totalitarian ideology, is not. The latter undeniably draws on Islamic scripture, but it is categorically akin to Communism or National Socialism, not to religious creeds.

Next we come to what Messrs. Feith and Cropsey call "Islamist extremism." Again, it is far better than the Obama Left's explanation for the threat to America. Yet, in the end, the phrase contributes more confusion than illumination.

The authors are spot on in arguing that the Obama administration has not acknowledged the ideological nature of the threat. The president, they say, defines our enemy "organizationally" rather than "ideologically" - as al-Qaeda and its network of affiliated terrorist groups, not as believers united by a common construction of Islam.

In addition, Feith and Cropsey correctly take to task both Obama and his mostly non-Muslim advisers for fashioning their own bowdlerized version of Islam. Departures from Obama's rosy Islam - as opposed to the Islam of Mohammed - are branded by the administration as "extremist" (the same adjective that, we shall see, Feith and Cropsey use to describe a different amorphous concept). Team Obama's intimation is that these departures pervert Islam, or are even downright non-Muslim; the brute fact that their endorsements of violence are palpably rooted in Islamic scripture never seems to register.

The authors are also right in faulting the administration for claiming that the "fires of extremism" are stoked exclusively by "longstanding political and economic ‘grievances,'" for which Americans are reliably portrayed as the culprit. A better explanation for "extremism," argue Feith and Cropsey, lies in "the supremacist exhortations of Islamist ideology."

Here is the problem, though: Feith and Cropsey do not tell us is what they think "Islamist ideology" is.

Like Obama, they describe it as "Islamist extremism." Well, what is it that makes the ideology an "extreme" version of Islam? Quite obviously, it is not terrorism. The authors forcefully assert, "the terrorism threat is part of a larger problem of Islamist extremism." Perceptively, Feith and Cropsey see terrorism as only one manifestation of "extremism," by no means the whole story.

This conclusion is underscored by their account of President George W. Bush's approach to anti-terrorism. Bush, they explain, "saw al Qaeda as part of a diverse international movement of Islamist extremists hostile to the United States, to liberal principles (in particular the rights of women), and to most governments of predominantly Muslim countries."

So it is not just al-Qaeda and not just the violence that makes Islamist extremism extreme. It is the ideology's opposition to the West, which is led by the United States and identified by "liberal principles." But what, pray tell, is this ideology's problem with Western principles, "in particular the rights of women"? What has been its problem with the governments of predominantly Muslim countries?

The answer is found in one word: sharia. Unfortunately, that is a word that Messrs. Feith and Cropsey do not utter - the elephant in the room that many Republican national-security thinkers continue to ignore.

Sharia is Islam's societal framework, its legal code. The classical interpretation of sharia is the backbone of the ideology we are talking about. As I reiterated on the Corner earlier this week, it is easily accessible: Reliance of the Traveller is an authoritative sharia manual, the English translation of which has been endorsed by the scholars of al-Azhar University (the center of Sunni jurisprudential learning since the tenth century) and by such influential outfits as the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a think tank established by the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States in the early eighties.

It is sharia that rejects liberal principles, including the fundamental right of people to make law for themselves, irrespective of sharia's dictates. It is sharia that consigns women to second-class legal status. It is sharia, or rather, the failure to rule in accordance with sharia, that drove the ideologues targeted by Bush counterterrorism to oppose the governments of Muslim countries. And when Feith and Cropsey accurately point out that, among other things, "jihad also means holy war," they are singing sharia's tune (or at least they would be if sharia did not frown on music). As Reliance puts it (in Sec. o9.0), "Jihad means to war against non-Muslims."

The failure to confront sharia dilutes the force of the authors' admirable essay. The modifier "extremist" is no substitute - it just makes matters murkier.

I've grappled with this confusion in both The Grand Jihad and my new book, Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy. To summarize, an "Islamist" used to be a scholar of Islam - like an "archeologist" is a scholar in archeology. In the last few decades, however, "Islamist" has taken on a starkly different meaning, to wit: a Muslim who favors the imposition of the sharia societal system.

We use the term to draw the salient distinction, described above, between Islamic-supremacist ideology and "Islam," the root belief system. Setting the parameters of Islam's proper First Amendment protection is not the only reason for this. The distinction is also necessary because many adherents of Islam do not insist on imposing sharia - certainly not the classical sharia laid bare in Reliance of the Traveller. For example, most Muslims in the West, a dwindling majority of Muslims in the Far East, and a minority of Muslims in the Middle East either do not wish to be ruled by sharia or interpret sharia differently from the Islamists - some of them see it as a private compass not to be imposed on others (the same way that Westerners typically view their religions, in keeping with the separation of church and state).

Many analysts, and many Islamists, argue that distinguishing Islam from Islamism is just political correctness. In fact, Turkey's Islamist prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, says it is an insult. Like the Muslim Brotherhood, he contends there is only one true Islam, "and that's it." But that is an argument about ultimate truth, not an accurate report of real-world conditions. It is simply a fact that, of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims, a sizeable number - almost surely not a majority, but not a trivial percentage, either - do not subscribe to Islamic supremacism. These millions are our allies and potential allies. Many of them are our fellow Americans. It is in our vital interest to identify those Muslims, make clear that our ideological quarrel is not with them, and try to empower them when it is practical to do so.

Yet, that is not to say we don't have a political-correctness problem. We do. It rears its head in the use of modifiers like "extremist" ("radical" is similar). There is no reason to call an Islamist "extreme." He is extreme by definition: He wants to impose sharia on a non-sharia society.

As Feith and Cropsey seem to recognize, this desire is extreme regardless of whether the Islamist in question pursues his agenda by violent jihad or by less coercive methods. To speak of "Islamist extremists" is to imply that there must be some Islamists who are not extremists. That's nonsensical. Yes, there are many Islamists who are not violent jihadists - they are not threatening to blow up buildings to coerce their opponents into adopting sharia. But they still want sharia to be adopted. That is what makes them ideological allies of al-Qaeda - the alliance Feith and Cropsey are right to identify as our core challenge.

The authors write, "It is clear that not all Muslims embrace extremist Islamist ideology - perhaps only a small minority do." Here, they commit a less egregious but still costly version of the same offense for which they indict Obama: miniaturizing our foes. The president cannot bring himself to admit that the challenge is ideological in nature or any broader than the al-Qaeda network of terrorists. Feith and Cropsey correct him on both these scores, but then cling to the hope that "only a small minority" of non-terrorist Muslims are ideological allies of the violent jihadists.

This is just wrong. Al-Qaeda wants to impose sharia - that's precisely why it engages in violent jihad. Non-violent Islamists also want to impose sharia - that's why they're Islamists. These reputedly non-violent Islamists are not a "small minority" - they may be a majority of the world's Muslims, and they are certainly a majority of the Middle East's Muslims. They are al-Qaeda's ideological allies, and, truth be told, they're not really all that non-violent: They generally disagree with al-Qaeda's attacks on Muslims and on non-Muslim countries, but they are supportive of violence against what they take to be non-Muslim aggressors in what they consider Islamic territories. Indeed, the sharia to which they adhere requires financial support (zakat) for those fighting in Allah's cause.

Sharia is the tie that binds terrorists to all other Islamists. To admit this is difficult. It means our ideological foes number in the hundreds of millions among the world's 1.4 billion Muslims - we cannot reasonably marginalize them as a "small minority." It also means that Bush counterterrorism, for all the considerable good it did, was incoherent and counterproductive in claiming our government could both fight terrorism and promote sharia - Bush officials having not only lauded Islamic law but enshrined it in the constitutions they helped fashion for Afghanistan and Iraq; Bush officials having done their share of "outreach" to sharia activists, many tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.

If we shrink from confronting the Middle Eastern construction of sharia, though, we cannot do what Messrs. Feith and Cropsey correctly urge that our security demands: "acknowledge the obvious" and understand the ideological threat. The challenge is bigger than terrorism, but to describe it as "extremism" is to miss it. The challenge is sharia.

Video: Drawing the Short Straw As Lead Man With the RPG

Video: Feeling Confident About That Afghan Withdrawl?

What Needed To Be Said About Benghazi

Finally.  A journalist with the balls to tell the American people the truth about Benghazi.

This comes from J.D. Longstreet from the Canada Free Press.

Benghazigate: What Are They Covering-Up?


Four Americans are dead and the American people are being lied to as to how and why they got that way.

Either the President is lying - and needs to be impeached, or he’s NOT lying—and needs to be impeached—because he DIDN’T know what was happening!

Repeat: Four Americans are DEAD. And as much as it pains me to say it—it doesn’t look as if our government made a genuine effort to save them.

I have watched, listened, and read as much as we have been allowed to know—plus—information gleaned by non-mainstream media sources, and I have concluded there is a major cover-up at the top levels of the US government over the incident in Benghazi.

Now, let me be clear: I am not an investigative reporter. That is not what I do. I am a commentator—an opinion writer ... nothing more. I have deliberately “hung back” on any in-depth comments on the Benghazi affair simply because there always seemed to me to be more THERE there. In other words, it was obvious, at least to me, that we were only getting drips and drabs of what really happened and, I felt (and still do) that we have been told nothing of WHY it happened. But, dear reader, even Helen Keller could see there is a major cover-up surrounding the incident in Benghazi!

That CIA “safe-house” has troubled me from the very beginning of this horrible story. What was the CIA doing there? There was no embassy in Benghazi. In fact, the building attacked was not even a consulate. If anything, it was a “mission.” Had it been an embassy, I’d not question a CIA presence. They are practically a part of the furniture in any US Embassy. But, as I said, this was NOT an embassy.

Remember too, the last person our ambassador met with the evening of the attack was a Turkish diplomat. What was a Turkish diplomat doing in Benghazi, Libya, meeting with Ambassador Stevens at an unprotected site. Why not meet in the embassy in Tripoli?

It now seems that the ex-SEALS were not attached to the consulate, but were assigned to the CIA “safe-house.” They (laudably) went against orders and made a rescue attempt of the US officials and staff at the consulate—and lost their lives in the attempt.

There is now a fog of misinformation spewed up and out by the Obama Administration in what—in my opinion—is an attempt to cover-up an on-going scheme/operation to smuggle weapons into Syria through Turkey.

A few weeks ago, there was a report that Libyan militia members had been ordered to turn-in the weapons that had been supplied them in their struggle to overthrow Qaddafi. That report confirmed that many of those weapons had been turned in. Where did those weapons go? Perhaps, to the Syrian rebels?

It has been suspected for some time now that the US has been supplying small arms to the rebels in Syria for a while—even though the Obama Administration denies it.

It is the kind of operation the CIA would be up-to-their-necks in and it would explain their presence on the ground in Libya in a safe-house a mile away from the consulate/mission.

For the sake of argument, suppose the guns gathered from the Libyan militia were being covertly sent to Turkey and then smuggled across the Turkey/Syrian border to the Syrian rebels.

I continue to cycle back to the question—why was the Ambassador THERE , alone, without a security detail, at that particular time, meeting with a high Turkish diplomat. Remember, this was on September 11th. If there was going to be an attack by terrorists—September 11th would be the day for it.

Now, I’m just hypothesizing here. I have no idea, at this point, what was really going on. But, I have confidence in my opinion that there was a covert operation underway—one so black that sacrificing the lives of four Americans was deemed “worth it” by our leaders in Washington.

For whatever reason, the Obama Administration has chosen to tell the world a bald-faced lie about what happened in Benghazi.

So politicians lie, right? Yeah, they do. But this time—four Americans are dead and the country wants to know why that happened and why the Obama Administration chose to lie to us about it.

It is clear now, that all the warnings from the political right about the penchant of this President and his administration for lies was absolutely correct. If they are lying about the “Incident in Benghazi,” what else are they lying about?

Americans have a week to decide if they trust Obama enough to vote for him to lead the country for another four years. It is clear the Mainstream Media is NOT going to cover this story. They are NOT going to investigate what happened for fear that it will drive down support for Obama at the polls. They seem to have taken the attitude: the truth, the welfare of the country, be damned. Getting their man, Obama, reelected is the most important thing, bar none.

Look. The cover-up of “Benghazigate” is far more important that Watergate ever was!

We need a “Congressional Investigation” of the incident at Benghazi and we need it post haste! I understand there is no way that is possible before election day, but—if ever an incident deserved investigating by the Congress, this horrible event in Benghazi is it. It is looking more and more as if grounds for impeachment proceedings are present.

Yes, if only Obama was a Republican, there would be no need for commentators to beg the Congress to investigate—or—for commentators to opine at the reluctance of the MsM to investigate.

It is what it is.

The Mainstream Media in America is an organ of the political left—as is President Obama. There is simply no way we are going to get anything approaching impartial reporting or a REAL investigation of Benghazigate from the MsM.

It behooves every voter to weigh what little we know about Benghazigate and decide if we want to have Obama continue to lead this country after January 20th, 2013.

For me, it is not just a matter of trust, it is a matter of honor—NATIONAL HONOR.

America deserves better than we have gotten, or, are likely to get from Obama.

As you enter the voting booth ask yourself, what else has Obama lied to you about. What else is Obama lying to you about today? Then for the sake of our country—do what’s right.

J. D. Longstreet

Photo of the Day: Honor

British Muslim Family To Sue British Government For Giving Info To Americans Whose Drone Killed Their Terrorist Son In Pakistan

Hahahahaha!  I needed a good laugh today.  You gotta give the Muslims a 10 for the balls that they have - the latest example of misplaced outrage in the Muslim community comes from the U.K. where the family of renowned jihadi and terrorist Rashid Rauf is going to sue the British government because the Brits gave intelligence to the Americans who then used the predator drones over Pakistan to kill Rauf.  The family of course denies he was a terrorist - oh no, he was over in the mountainous region of the tribal areas of northwest Pakistan surrounded by al Qaeda and Taliban because he was there on a 3 month golf vacation!

Morons.

The story comes from The Long War Journal.

Al Qaeda leader Rashid Rauf killed in drone strike, family says


A senior al Qaeda operative who had been plotting terror attacks in Europe and had escaped Pakistani custody in December 2007 was killed in a drone strike, according to family members who are planning to sue the British government.

Rauf's family is planning on suing the British government for providing information to the US that aided in targeting him, according to the Birmingham Mail.

"The Americans could not have found and killed him without help from British intelligence officers who shared information," a friend of the Rauf family who has maintained he was innocent told the Birmingham Mail. "The family want answers. They want to see the evidence that Rashid was a dangerous terrorist."

Rauf's status has been uncertain for years after he was first reported to have been killed in a November 2008 Predator strike in North Waziristan that was also thought to have killed Abu Zubair al Masri and two other al Qaeda operatives. Shortly after the November strike, Rauf's family and his lawyer claimed his was still alive. Taliban fighters close to Rauf also said he was alive.

US and British intelligence initially thought Rauf was killed in the November 2008 drone strike, but the assessment changed after an al Qaeda operative detained during a raid in Belgium claimed that Rauf had trained him and dispatched him to Brussels to conduct a suicide attack during a meeting of European leaders, The Times Online reported in April 2009. The operative also said Rauf had plotted attacks in major cities in Belgium, France, Holland, and England. Rauf has also been implicated as being the director of the failed plot to conduct attacks in England on Easter Sunday in 2009.

US intelligence officials contacted by The Long War Journal said they no longer believe Rauf was killed in the November 2008 strike, but said he may have been killed in one of the more than 270 strikes that have taken place since then. Officials would not comment on the exact strike that killed Rauf.

"It is often difficult to determine when an al Qaeda leader or operative was killed or if they survived targeting," one official involved in the air campaign against al Qaeda and other terror groups operating in Pakistan told The Long War Journal.

"We don't have a body, we can't go there to investigate," the official continued. "The fact is, that despite our persistent targeting [with drones], the FATA [Pakistan's tribal areas] remains a no-go area. This is Taliban territory."

Background on Rashid Rauf

Rashid Rauf has a long pedigree in Pakistan's terror circles. Rauf's family is well immersed in Pakistan's radical jihadi community. He is a relative of Maulana Masood Azhar, the leader the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad, a terror outfit that operates in Indian Kashmir. Rauf's sister-in-law is married to Azhar's brother. Rauf himself is a member of Jaish-e-Mohammad, which has merged with al Qaeda and moved a large number of its fighters into Pakistan's tribal areas.

Rauf's father-in-law and sister-in-law run the radical Darul Uloom Madina, one of Pakistan's largest Islamic seminaries in Bahawalpur. More than 2,000 students attend the Darul Uloom Madina.

His father founded Crescent Relief, a Muslim charity that collected funds for earthquake relief and is currently under investigation for funneling money to fund the failed 2006 London airlines plot.

Rauf was a prolific operational node in the al Qaeda network. He facilitated the 7/7/05 bombings in London and a follow-on attack that failed on 7/21/05, and a plot against as many as 10 airliners originating from Heathrow Airport in the summer of 2006.

Rauf and senior al Qaeda leader Matiur Rehman were the architects of the 2006 London airline plot. Rehman is a senior al Qaeda leader who is known to manage the "jihadi rolodex," the list of the tens of thousands of operatives who have passed through terror training camps over the years. Tayib Rauf, Rashid Rauf's brother, was arrested in Britain for his involvement with the London airline plot along with 22 other suspects. The British government froze the bank accounts of Tayib and 18 other suspects. Most of the suspects arrested in Britain were British nationals of Pakistani origin.

Pakistani security forces captured Rauf in August 2006 in the city of Bahawalpur. On Dec. 15, 2007, he escaped from Pakistani custody, under dubious circumstances. Police escorts claim Rauf broke free of his handcuffs as he was visiting a mosque while being transported from a court appearance in Islamabad to a jail in Rawalpindi. Rauf's uncle had convinced police to transport Rauf in a van and had driven the van himself. Several police were charged with being complicit in Rauf's escape.

At the time of Rauf's escape, the British government was attempting to extradite him. A senior US intelligence official told The Long War Journal that Rauf fled to South Waziristan immediately after his escape.

Video: The One That Didn't Get Away

Video: What? No Wave? No Salute? No Call For Transformational Change? No Time For Some Idle Chit Chat?

Boko Haram Muslims Car Bomb Christian Church In Nigeria Killing At Least 10, Christians Retaliate Killing 3 Muslims

Once again the Muslim terror group Boko Haram appears to have struck at Christians in Nigeria this time car bombing a Christian church during Sunday services....the death toll is at 10 but will probably rise.

But this time, Christians weary of the massacres retaliated as reported at Voice of America News:

The bomber drove a jeep into St. Rita's church in Kaduna's Malali district during Sunday morning prayers causing a large explosion. Rescuers rushed the casualties to hospitals.

Witnesses said angry Christian youths armed with machetes and sticks roamed the streets after the bombing, beating three Muslims to death in the religiously-mixed city.

At some point in time, the Christians of Nigeria are going to have to arm themselves and literally guard their churches on Sunday mornings from the Muslim horde.

10 Killed in Nigeria Church Bombing, Reprisal Attacks

A suicide car bomber rammed into a church in Nigeria's northern city of Kaduna Sunday, killing at least seven people and triggering reprisal attacks that killed another three. More than 100 people were wounded.

The bomber drove a jeep into St. Rita's church in Kaduna's Malali district during Sunday morning prayers causing a large explosion. Rescuers rushed the casualties to hospitals.

Witnesses said angry Christian youths armed with machetes and sticks roamed the streets after the bombing, beating three Muslims to death in the religiously-mixed city.

There has been no claim of the responsibility for the church blast.

Nigerian Islamist militant group Boko Haram has attacked several churches with bombs and guns in the past year. The group claimed responsibility for three church bombings in Kaduna state in June.

Those attacks killed at least 50 people and increased sectarian tensions in Kaduna, which is located on a dividing line between Nigeria's predominantly Muslim north and mostly Christian south.

Nigerian authorities blame Boko Haram for the killings of more than 1,500 people including police and government officials since 2009. The militants appear to be fighting for a strict form of Islamic law to be applied across northern Nigeria.

Video: The Disease of the Libs

Al Qaeda's al-Zawahiri Vows To Free the Blind Sheik

Al Qaeda's leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri released a statement where he vows to see that the Blink Sheik, Omar Abdul Rahman, be released from imprisonment in the United States and at the same time, al-Zawahiri mourned the martyrdom of the Blind Sheik's son who was blown into a thousand tiny bits of jihadi scum by a U.S. JDAM in Afghanistan.

You know, when it comes to the Blind Sheik...it seems to me that possibly the United States of America wasn't the best target for his jihad - the old man sits now in a U.S. prison rotting from his failed attempt in 1993 to bring down the Twin Towers and now his son can only be remembered as a fine red mist splattering the soil of Afghanistan.  And unless Barack Hussein Obama releases this dog, the "glorious" Blind Sheik will die in an America prison looking out through the bars at women in mini skirts and free people loving life.

The story comes from The Long War Journal.

Zawahiri notes death of Blind Sheikh's son 'on the pure soil of Khorasan'


In al Qaeda emir Ayman al Zawahiri's recent message on Egypt, he made a point of recognizing Ahmed Omar Abdul Rahman, the son of the "Blind Sheikh" (Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman), the spiritual leader of the Egyptian Islamic Group who is in a US jail for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. Ahmed was killed in a US airstrike in Afghanistan last fall; his death was noted by the Egyptian Islamic Group in a martyrdom statement released on Oct. 15, 2011.

This is what Zawahiri had to say, according to the SITE Intelligence Group, which translated his statement:

The second condolence is for the patient, stationed sheikh, our sheikh and the sheikh of the mujahideen, his Excellency Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, may Allah release him, and his son Muhammad, who is known as Assad, and his noble family, for the martyrdom of their son Ahmed bin Omar Abdul Rahman, may Allah have mercy on him, in an American bombing on the pure soil of Khorasan. May the vast mercy of Allah be upon him, and May He accept from him his jihad and emigration. May Allah grant this noble family that is patient with hardships in the cause of Allah, patience and solace.

Zawahiri immediately followed up his condolences to the family of the radical Egyptian cleric by vowing to free him:

I confirm to our honorable sheikh, Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, and to his sons and the women of the Muslim captives and their families, that we will never spare any efforts, with the help and power of Allah, until we release every captive in the hands of the disbelievers or die trying.

Two quick comments on Zawahiri's statement:

1) Ahmed is one of several Egyptian Islamic Group fighters and leaders killed while waging jihad in the Afghan-Pakistan theater. See The Long War Journal's report on Ahmed's death for a list of some of them. Although it is often assumed that the Egyptian Islamic Group has shunned violence and joined the political process (it launched the Building and Development Party and won 13 seats in parliament in 2011), members of the group still wage jihad overseas and its leaders still endorse al Qaeda. For instance, Rifai Ahmed Taha Musa, its former leader, acknowledged that "there was a relationship between al Qaeda and the Islamic Group," but said "it was not in the form of a common organizational framework." Instead, Musa said it "was similar to a relationship between any two political parties," with "exchanged benefits." [See LWJ report, Al Qaeda-linked jihadists helped incite 9/11 Cairo protest, for more details.]

2) Releasing the Blind Sheikh from US custody remains a cause célèbre for al Qaeda and a host of jihadist groups. For instance, just four days ago, Shabaab, al Qaeda's affiliate in Somalia, pledged to continue to work to free the jihadist cleric, and on the same day it threatened to attack Britain over the extradition of Abu Hamza al Masri, another radical cleric linked to al Qaeda [see LWJ report, Shabaab threatens Britain over extradition of Abu Hamza al Masri.

Video: Caught Out in the Open

Impeach His Ass

“In my judgement the audio track will show the White House knew that there was an attack going on. The real critical issue is the president says that he immediately ordered all available assets to help. The military would have put out an order from the president. There’s no question about that… What I’m asking is, “Show us the order!” Mr. President if you said use everything available and our military immediately sent out the order, simply show us the order. I have great reservations that there is no such order.“

Link

Video: "he gave us a phone"

Did Hamas Take a Shot At Israel's Nuclear Facility This Morning?

The story comes from DEBKA.

Hamas aims Grad at Dimona reactor – payback for Khartoum raid


Less than 24 hours after Sudanese President Omar Bashir pledged “decisive steps against Israeli interests which are now legitimate targets,” for the destruction of the Iranian missile plant in Khartoum, Palestinian rocket teams early Sunday, Oct. 28, fired Grad missiles as target finders against Israel’s nuclear reactor in Dimona. This is reported exclusively by debkafile. They exploded on open ground in the Ramat Negev district southwest of the town of Dimona.
The nuclear plant is only 42.5 kilometers as the crow flies from the southern Gaza Strip. Saturday night, the Israeli Air Force struck a Palestinian rocket team in the southern Gaza town of Khan Younes, killing one Hamas operative and injuring a second critically.
The Palestinian Hamas has evidently launched a new and expanded targeting-policy marking two developments of grave import: One: Its rulers have submitted the Gaza Strip to Tehran for use as its southern operational arm against Israel, complementing Hizballah’s pivotal role to the north of Israel; and two, having acquired improved surface missiles, Hamas is setting its sights firmly on the most sensitive locations within their reach, e.g., Israel’s nuclear reactor and air force bases and the American X-band radar station in the Negev.
The Islamist rulers of Gaza are expected to keep on trying to perfect their aim.
Israel’s defense ministry and high IDF command sounded at sea Sunday over this dangerous new departure. The IDF spokesperson started out by disclosing that one Grad rocket from Gaza had been aimed at the city of Beersheba, later raising the number to two, both of which exploded outside the city.
But the Grad launched against the nuclear reactor at 07:44 was followed by hours of official silence. Even then, the army spokesperson reported a missile fired against Ramat Hanegev in general terms, without mentioning the reactor’s location in that district at its northernmost point.
It was the second time in three weeks that Tehran was seen to be focusing on Israel’s nuclear plant, debkafile’s military sources note. On Oct. 6, an Iranian stealth drone which flew over Israel managed to photograph the reactor building and its air defense system’s radar. The data gathered was given to Hamas to help guide its first rocket attack on Dimona.
debkafile reported earlier that not two, but four, Grad rockets were fired Sunday morning at Beersheba. They all exploded outside the town and caused no casualties or damage. The mayor decided to keep schools closed for the day since none are fortified against rocket attacks. Beersheba University stayed open for studies. Saturday night, the Palestinians shot a salvo of five Qassam rockets at the Eshkol district. Three exploded over the Gaza Strip; two on the border fence.
The Israel Air Force strike over Khan Younes followed this violation of the informal truce requested by Hamas and brokered by Egypt for the Eid al-Adha festival starting Friday and ending next Monday.

Blog Talk Radio: The Awakening - "Islam's Women"

The Awakening

" Islam's Women "

Listen to internet radio with Holger Awakens on Blog Talk Radio



--

U.S. Predator Drones Venture Into Northern Yemen, Kill 4 Al Qaeda

Sometimes I think the CIA just can't resist going into Yemen with out predator drones because shooting up al Qaeda there is like shooting fish in a barrel - lots of nice open spaces....not all that mountainous terrain of Pakistan.

And today we scored a nice hit by drones killing 4 al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

The story is out of The Long War Journal.

US drones kill 4 AQAP fighters in rare strike in northern Yemen


US drones killed four al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula fighters in the first strike recorded against the terror group in northern Yemen. A local al Qaeda commander and two Saudis are thought to be among those killed.

The unmanned Predators or Reapers fired several missiles at two compounds in the Abu Jabara area of Saada province, Yemeni security officials and tribesmen told Reuters, which reported that four "militants" were killed. A local AQAP commander known as Hadi al Tais was said to be the target of the airstrike; it is unclear if he was killed.

According to The Associated Press, three AQAP fighters, including two Saudis, were killed in the attack that targeted "a compound a wanted al Qaeda militant from another Yemeni province."

The strike is the first recorded against AQAP in northern Yemen since the US began targeting the terror group in late 2009. All of the other strikes have targeted AQAP's network and fighters in the southern provinces.

Saada is a hotspot where local Salafist groups, backed by AQAP and the government, battle the Houthis, a Shia separatist group that is supported by Iran. The Houthis, who are based in Al Jawf and Saada, have been battling the Sunni government for years. In 2010, the Houthis also battled with Saudi security forces along the northern border. Hundreds of Houthi fighters and Saudi troops were killed in the fighting.

In early December 2011, AQAP officially declared war on the Houthis. Ibrahim Suleiman al Rubaish, al Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula's Mufti, issued the announcement and called the Shia a "virus" on the Sunni people. Rubaish was held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility before he was released in 2006. AQAP has conducted several suicide attacks against the Houthis, including an attack in December 2011 that killed a military commander, and another that killed 17 people, including a top Houthi leader and his son.

The Yemeni government has used al Qaeda and other local terror groups, as well as pro-government tribes, to battle the Houthis. In January 2008, a spokesman for an al Qaeda cell in Yemen said the government had recruited some of its members to fight in the Saada War. In exchange, the security forces agreed to "ease the persecution of (al Qaeda) members."

In the past, the government encouraged its young men to fight in Iraq and then return to fight against the Houthi. In early 2007, a Yemeni newspaper counted more than 1,800 Yemenis who traveled to Iraq for jihad; their families said the young men were trained by top-level Yemeni military commanders.

The cooperative agreement between the Yemeni government and al Qaeda collapsed after al Qaeda's branches in Saudi Arabia and Yemen merged in 2009 into Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. AQAP has declared war on the Yemeni state and has conducted numerous attacks against security forces and the oil infrastructure.

US strikes in Yemen

The US is known to have carried out 36 airstrikes against AQAP in Yemen so far this year: one in January, six in March, six more in April, nine in May, two in June, one in July, five in August, two in September, and four so far this month. Other recent airstrikes are believed to have been carried out by the US also, but little evidence has emerged to directly link the attacks to the US.

Since December 2009, the CIA and the US military's Joint Special Operations Command are known to have conducted at least 50 air and missile strikes inside Yemen, including today's strike. [For more information on the US airstrikes in Yemen, see LWJ report, Charting the data for US air strikes in Yemen, 2002 - 2012.]

The pace of the US airstrikes increased as AQAP and its political front, Ansar al Sharia, took over vast areas of southern Yemen starting at the end of May 2011. AQAP seized control of the cities and towns of Zinjibar, Al Koud, Jaar, and Shaqra in Abyan province, and Azzan in Shabwa province.

In May of this year, the Yemeni military launched an offensive to retake the cities and towns held by AQAP. Hundreds of AQAP fighters, Yemeni soldiers, and civilians have been reported killed during fighting that liberated Zinjibar, Jaar, Shaqra, and Azzan.

Since the beginning of May 2011, the US is known to have carried out 46 airstrikes in Yemen. This year, the US has been targeting both AQAP leaders and foot soldiers in an effort to support Yemeni military operations against the terror group. AQAP had taken control of vast areas in southern Yemen and had been expanding operations against the government, with raids on military bases in locations previously thought to be outside the terror group's control.

Five senior AQAP operatives, including Sheikh Abu Zubeir 'Adil al'Abab, have been killed in the 36 strikes so far this year. On Aug. 31, Khaled Batis, a wanted AQAP operative who is said to have been the mastermind of the 2002 bombing of the French oil tanker Limburg, was killed in that attack.

On May 6, the US killed Fahd al Quso in a drone attack in Shabwa province. Quso, who has been described as AQAP's external operations chief, was involved in numerous terrorist attacks, including the 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole that killed 17 US sailors. The information leading to Quso was obtained by the US from a Saudi operative who had penetrated AQAP.

The US killed Mohammed Saeed al Umda (a.k.a. Ghareeb al Taizi) in an April 22 drone strike on a convoy in the Al Samadah area of Marib province. Prior to the downfall of the Taliban regime in 2001, he had attended the Al Farouq military training camp in Afghanistan. Umda served as a member of Osama bin Laden's bodyguard in Afghanistan before returning to Yemen, and was involved in the October 2002 suicide attack on the French oil tanker Limburg. He escaped from a Yemeni jail in 2006.

And on Jan. 31, US drones killed Abdul Mun'im Salim al Fatahani near the city of Lawdar in Abyan province. Fatahani was also involved in the suicide attack on the USS Cole, as well as the bombing that damaged the Limburg oil tanker in 2002. AQAP said that Fatahani had fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

US intelligence officials believe that al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula poses a direct threat to the homeland. The latest AQAP plot against the West, involving an underwear bomb that is nearly undetectable and was to be detonated on an airliner, was foiled earlier this year. The terror group has planned multiple attacks against targets in the US. A strike in Yemen last year killed both Anwar al Awlaki, the radical US-born cleric who plotted attacks against the US, and Samir Khan, another American who served as a senior AQAP propagandist.

Video: Offing a Jihadi Mortar Crew

Video: A Little Air Support Never Hurts

Muslims and Communists In Britain Defy Ban On Protests In Walthamstow, EDL Obeys the Law

Once again the world should take notice of who the real terrorists and thugs and scum are in Great Britain - the Muslims and their defective Marxist supporters and appeasers.  With all protests banned in Walthamstow this weekend, who shows up and decides to defy that order but none other than the UAF (Unite Against Fascism) and some band of freak Marxists deviants calling themselves "We Are Waltham Forest" - no, you aren't "Waltham Forest" you are a bunch of communist punks who will look good working the potato fields, that is if the Muslim overlords you put into control of your country spare your fucking head.

What a bunch of imbeciles.

The story comes from The Guardian.

WALTHAMSTOW: Anti-EDL campaigners defy march ban


CAMPAIGNERS against the far-right English Defence League (EDL) defied a protest ban by marching through Walthamstow after scuffles with police this afternoon.

Officers struggled to contain a crowd of several hundred who broke away from a legal static protest outside the former EMD cinema in Hoe Street at around 1.30pm.

Protesters pushed through a cordon and marched several hundred metres down to the junction with Selborne Road, where police reinforcements eventually stopped them.

The campaigners have now largely dispersed.

The static protest began at 11am and was organised by umbrella group We Are Waltham Forest (WAWF) and Unite Against Fascism (UAF) to celebrate their "defeat" of the EDL in the borough.

The EDL, which claims to be a movement opposed to Islamic extremism but which critics say is racist, had wanted to march through Walthamstow today (Saturday October 27).

But earlier this week the government issued a ban on all marches in the borough for 30 days following police intelligence there could be violence and disruption.

The Met also imposed special "conditions" on the EDL which meant its supporters could only hold a static demonstration outside the Houses of Parliament.

The Guardian witnessed two youths being led from the town centre by police at 10.30am but there was otherwise no visible presence of any possible EDL supporters in Walthamstow.

Estimates over the number of people who attended the static anti-EDL rally vary from 200 to 1,000.

A series of figures, including union representatives and WAWF campaigners, held speeches from a lorry before the crowd was told to "walk orderly" back to Walthamstow Central by organisers just after 1pm.

But defiant sections of the crowd chanted "let us march" and pushed past police who were outnumbered.

The Guardian did not witness anyone being arrested or injured.

Some protesters and police officers pushed each other but this newspaper did not see any serious violence.

Meanwhile a council-organised funday on the adjacent Arcade Site and town square designed to celebrate the borough's diversity was largely unaffected by the protest.

Fairground rides on the Arcade Site did not open at 11am as advertised and attendance was initially low, although later in the day dozens of families and children came to enjoy the activities.

However speakers at the anti-EDL rally criticised the event, including Walthamstow vicar Stephen Saxby, who described it as a "farce".


He said: "There are table tennis tables there - how is that celebrating the multiculturalism of this borough?"

Rev Saxby also criticised the ban on all marches in the borough, calling it a "disgraceful attack on local democracy".

His views were echoed by other speakers such as Jo Cardwell of WAWF.

She told the crowd: "The only reason why they [the police] applied for a ban today is not because they suddenly realised that the EDL is fascist, but because they knew there would be at least 7,000 people on the streets of Walthamstow against the EDL."


She added: "Walthamstow has broken the back of the EDL. We've built the coffin that they've climbed into".

Walthamstow MP Stella Creasy, who attended the anti-EDL rally as an observer, said she had been told by police that just 15 EDL supporters turned up to its static protest in Westminster.

Video: G_d Bless America

What's This? A Fight Between the Muslim Brotherhood In Egypt and Al Qaeda Chief al-Zawahiri?

Okay, okay...I know they are Islamic terrorists and they will make up in the drop of a hat but it's kind of fun anyway to see a couple of the world's biggest terror networks at odds with each other.  Al Qaeda kind of reminds me of that punk at the rock concert that goes around the entire night trying to start fights.

The story comes from The Jerusalem Post.

Al-Qaida head attacks Morsi for ties with Israel


Al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri called on Egyptians to protest what he termed President Mohamad Morsi's "normalization" of ties with Israel, AFP reported Friday.

In a 58-minute video summarized and translated by the SITE Intelligence Group, Zawahiri called for mass demonstrations "against the Israeli embassy and against normalization and the peace treaty with Israel, and against the Israeli occupation of the land of Palestine, and against any concession and surrender to it, and against every siege in Gaza."

Zawahiri, who became the leader of al-Qaida shortly after Osama bin Laden was killed by US troops, also pressed the newly-elected Egyptian president to clarify his position on relations with the Palestinians and "the jihad to liberate Palestine."

Egypt brokered an informal ceasefire between Israel and Hamas earlier this week, after two days of intense violence that saw some eighty rockets and mortar shells fired from the Gaza Strip into the western Negev.

Alongside his mediation efforts, Morsi reaffirmed his commitment to the Palestinian people and promised his support in their "struggle" against Israel. Speaking on state television to mark the Islamic id Al-Adha festival, Morsi said: "We will never accept any assault or siege on the Palestinians."

Even so, some have questioned Morsi's commitment to Hamas. Vice Premier Silvan Shalom said Thursday that "Egypt's actions against Hamas are much harsher [now] than they were under the previous regime."

In a separate video released on jihadi forums, Zawahiri called for Muslims to kidnap Westerners and urged the full implementation of Islamic Sharia law. "The battle isn't over, but it has started," Zawahiri said. "I call upon Muslims to capture citizens of the countries that wage wars against Muslims."

Zawahiri, who was bin Laden's lieutenant and the brains behind much of al-Qaida's strategy for many years, also directly challenged US President Barack Obama, calling him a "professional liar."

"Obama must admit he and his allies are standing in the defeated line, and that Osama bin Laden, may Allah have mercy on him, and the rest of the Mujahedeen and the Muslim Ummah are standing in the victorious line, whether anyone likes it or not," he said.

The Perversion of the Oil Sands Environmentalist Fascists

So, the next time you pull up to the pump to fill the SUV with 30 gallons of seemingly liquid gold, make sure you plan, at some point, to personally thank one of the environmentalists in this country.  Consider finding them, walking up to them, shaking their hand and thanking them for the fact that your family is barely making it due to energy prices through the roof and all of the inflation you pay for petroleum based products.

Yep....thank them and then look 'em in the eye and tell them that you know their game (this is the part where you squeeze their hand REALLY FUCKING HARD).

The story comes from Family Security Matters.

Perverse Environmentalist Oil Sands Ethics


The duplicity and hypocrisy of environmental pressure groups seem to be matched only by their consummate skill at manipulating public opinion, amassing political power, securing taxpayer-funded government grants, and persuading people to send them money and invest in "ethical" stock funds.

In the annals of "green" campaigns, those against biotechnology, DDT and Alar are especially prominent. To those we should now add the well-orchestrated campaigns against Canadian oil sands and the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Oil has been seeping out of Northern Alberta soils and river banks for millennia. Native Americans used the bitumen to waterproof canoes, early explorers smelled and wrote about it, and "entrepreneurs" used it in "mineral waters" and "medicinal elixirs."

Today, increasingly high-tech operations are extracting the precious hydrocarbons to fuel modern living standards in Canada and the United States. Enormous excavator/loading shovels and trucks used in open pits during the early years are giving way to drilling rigs, steam injection, electric heaters, pipes and other technologies to penetrate, liquefy and extract the petroleum.

The new techniques impact far less land surface, use and recycle brackish water, and emit fewer air pollutants and (plant-fertilizing) carbon dioxide every year. Water use for Alberta oil extraction is a tiny fraction of what's needed to grow corn and convert it into ethanol that gets a third less mileage per gallon than gasoline. Affected lands are returned to forest and native grasslands at a surprising pace. And the operations are removing oil that would otherwise end up in local air and water.

Instead of requiring perpetual subsidies, á la the "renewable" technologies that President Obama intends to redouble if he is reelected, the oil sands generate vast sums in royalties and taxes: an anticipated $690 billion into federal and provincial coffers all across Canada over the life of the project. That's on top of tens of thousands of jobs of every description, including nearly 2,000 Native Canadians (Aboriginals), whose communities have enjoyed soaring living standards since the operations were launched. In fact, the oil sands project will ultimately generate 11,219,000 person-years of high-paying employment from Alberta to British Columbia, Ontario and the Maritime Provinces, say government sources.

This North American oil is displacing millions of barrels of annual US oil imports from some of the least savory countries on Earth, while adding billions of barrels a year to planetary petroleum production, and thereby keeping world oil prices lower than they would otherwise be.

These are huge benefits. The oil sands project is hardly perfect. It causes environmental impacts, just as all human enterprises do, especially those that provide energy. Indeed, even fantasy fuel projects - wind, solar and biofuel boondoggles that provide comparatively minuscule amounts of energy, but require billions in taxpayer subsidies - have enormous ecological impacts.Here's the most important point:

Canada's oil sands (and the Keystone Pipeline that will bring their petroleum to the United States) must be evaluated on environmental and ethical grounds that compare them to real world alternatives to them - not to some utopian energy resource that exists only in the minds of idealists, ideologues and special interest environmental pressure groups.

These critics viciously attack Alberta and the oil sands industry - accusing them of "blood oil," environmental devastation and unethical practices. In reality, oil sands petroleum is among the most ethical and ecological on Earth, especially when compared to real-world alternatives like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Sudan, Russia, Ecuador and Venezuela, whose human rights violations, terrorism sponsorship and reckless environmental records are legendary. And yet oil sands critics give them a free pass, while heaping opprobrium on Canada.

Whole Foods says oil sands fuel "does not fit our values." Perhaps the grocer and its "ethical" colleagues prefer values espoused in alternative oil-supplying nations on rights of women, children, gays and foreign housekeepers; stoning, lashing and lopping off hands and heads; treatment of civilians during wars in Chechnya and Darfur; massacres and environmental degradation in the Nigerian delta region; rigged elections and Swiss bank accounts for oil proceeds; or treatment of aboriginals, minorities and Christians.

Perhaps Whole Foods, Sierra Club, NRDC, Obama's EPA and allied critics prefer to look toward China, which provides 95% of the rare earth metals that are essential for wind turbines and solar panels. Those operations have brought unprecedented air and water pollution, cropland and wildlife habitat wastelands, widespread radiation contamination, and cancer and lung disease in workers and local residents.

28% of Canadian oil industry jobs held by women is "not enough," intones Kairos, a left-leaning coalition of churches. Compared to what? Women's jobs in Saudi Arabia or Iran? The 3.5 million more American women who have ended up on poverty rolls since President Obama took office?

Some 1,600 ducks died after landing in an oil sands waste pit several years ago. A repeat of this isolated incident is increasingly unlikely as open pit mining and oil-water separation pits are replaced by in situ drilling and steam. Nevertheless, using analytical methods that only IPCC climate alarmists would appreciate, the "respected" Pembina Institute conjured up the fantastical "calculation" that "more than 160 million birds would die from oil sands development" over the coming decades.

The claim is not merely wild fear-mongering. It ignores the growing impact of wind turbines on raptors, and attempts by industrial wind developers to get US Fish & Wildlife Service "programmatic take" permits: 007 Licenses to Kill thousands of eagles, hawks, whooping cranes and other protected birds every year without fear of prosecution.

Greenpeace routinely pillories oil sands companies as "climate criminals," while the US Environmental Protection Agency uses their oil sands CO2 emissions to justify denying Keystone Pipeline permits. (Greenpeace lost its Canadian tax-exempt status, but still manages to con contributors out of vast sums, to retain its status as a $340-million-per-year pressure group. EPA conducts illegal experiments on humans, to justify regulations that are killing thousands of coal mining and utility jobs.)

These positions reflect adherence to the shaky hypothesis of catastrophic manmade global warming and unsupportable claims that the oil sands contribute disproportionately to a looming climate Armageddon. However, Alberta environment office show that "greenhouse gas" emissions from oil sands plummeted 38% between 1990 and 2009, and are now 5% of Canada's total GHG emissions - and equal to or lower than CO2/GHG emissions from petroleum operations in Nigeria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

So-called "ethical funds" likewise excoriate oil sands developers like Total, Syncrude and Imperial Oil, while promising investors that their money will purchase shares in "responsible" companies that don't produce fossil fuels, do nuclear power or contribute to climate change. Co-operative Bank's is one of those modern day snake oil "entrepreneurs." Its über-ethical Sustainable Leaders Trust (don't you love that name?) makes that pitch - and then invests client cash in Third World coal mines ... and oil sands!

The rogues' gallery of oil sands critics and their shady dealings is so vast that someone could write a book about them. In fact, Ezra Levant did exactly that. His Ethical Oil is an eye-opening companion to my own Eco-Imperialism, which chronicles the often lethal misdeeds of other self-righteous pressure groups.

Their misrepresentations, double standards, questionable practices and perverse ethics would get them brought up on fraud charges, if they were oil companies or non-"ethical" investment "trusts."

It's time to apply the same legal, ethical and credibility standards to these "socially responsible" outfits that they insist on applying to the corporations they denounce. Keep that in mind the next time you see EPA, Greenpeace, Co-operative Bank or anyone else taking pot shots at oil sands or Keystone.