Coldwarrior has the story on 2.0: The Blogmocracy

(Reposted with permission)

This report does not look good. Frankly, he is highlighting what we are already hearing and have suspected from reading various other reports and hearing from on the ground from people in our own lives.

Please check out the LTC’s website linked here. He knows this will wreck his career by not going along. We need more leaders like him, not like the current batch of ‘leaders’.

Here is the article in full from Armed Forces Journal:

BREAKING:

Truth, lies and Afghanistan: How military leaders have let us down
By LT. COL. DANIEL L. DAVIS

I spent last year in Afghanistan, visiting and talking with U.S. troops and their Afghan partners. My duties with the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force took me into every significant area where our soldiers engage the enemy. Over the course of 12 months, I covered more than 9,000 miles and talked, traveled and patrolled with troops in Kandahar, Kunar, Ghazni, Khost, Paktika, Kunduz, Balkh, Nangarhar and other provinces.

What I saw bore no resemblance to rosy official statements by U.S. military leaders about conditions on the ground.

Entering this deployment, I was sincerely hoping to learn that the claims were true: that conditions in Afghanistan were improving, that the local government and military were progressing toward self-sufficiency. I did not need to witness dramatic improvements to be reassured, but merely hoped to see evidence of positive trends, to see companies or battalions produce even minimal but sustainable progress.

Instead, I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level.

My arrival in country in late 2010 marked the start of my fourth combat deployment, and my second in Afghanistan. A Regular Army officer in the Armor Branch, I served in Operation Desert Storm, in Afghanistan in 2005-06 and in Iraq in 2008-09. In the middle of my career, I spent eight years in the U.S. Army Reserve and held a number of civilian jobs — among them, legislative correspondent for defense and foreign affairs for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.

As a representative for the Rapid Equipping Force, I set out to talk to our troops about their needs and their circumstances. Along the way, I conducted mounted and dismounted combat patrols, spending time with conventional and Special Forces troops. I interviewed or had conversations with more than 250 soldiers in the field, from the lowest-ranking 19-year-old private to division commanders and staff members at every echelon. I spoke at length with Afghan security officials, Afghan civilians and a few village elders.

I saw the incredible difficulties any military force would have to pacify even a single area of any of those provinces; I heard many stories of how insurgents controlled virtually every piece of land beyond eyeshot of a U.S. or International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) base.

I saw little to no evidence the local governments were able to provide for the basic needs of the people. Some of the Afghan civilians I talked with said the people didn’t want to be connected to a predatory or incapable local government.

From time to time, I observed Afghan Security forces collude with the insurgency.

From Bad to Abysmal

Much of what I saw during my deployment, let alone read or wrote in official reports, I can’t talk about; the information remains classified. But I can say that such reports — mine and others’ — serve to illuminate the gulf between conditions on the ground and official statements of progress.

And I can relate a few representative experiences, of the kind that I observed all over the country.

In January 2011, I made my first trip into the mountains of Kunar province near the Pakistan border to visit the troops of 1st Squadron, 32nd Cavalry. On a patrol to the northernmost U.S. position in eastern Afghanistan, we arrived at an Afghan National Police (ANP) station that had reported being attacked by the Taliban 2½ hours earlier.

Through the interpreter, I asked the police captain where the attack had originated, and he pointed to the side of a nearby mountain.

“What are your normal procedures in situations like these?” I asked. “Do you form up a squad and go after them? Do you periodically send out harassing patrols? What do you do?”

As the interpreter conveyed my questions, the captain’s head wheeled around, looking first at the interpreter and turning to me with an incredulous expression. Then he laughed.

“No! We don’t go after them,” he said. “That would be dangerous!”

According to the cavalry troopers, the Afghan policemen rarely leave the cover of the checkpoints. In that part of the province, the Taliban literally run free.

In June, I was in the Zharay district of Kandahar province, returning to a base from a dismounted patrol. Gunshots were audible as the Taliban attacked a U.S. checkpoint about one mile away.

As I entered the unit’s command post, the commander and his staff were watching a live video feed of the battle. Two ANP vehicles were blocking the main road leading to the site of the attack. The fire was coming from behind a haystack. We watched as two Afghan men emerged, mounted a motorcycle and began moving toward the Afghan policemen in their vehicles.

The U.S. commander turned around and told the Afghan radio operator to make sure the policemen halted the men. The radio operator shouted into the radio repeatedly, but got no answer.

On the screen, we watched as the two men slowly motored past the ANP vehicles. The policemen neither got out to stop the two men nor answered the radio — until the motorcycle was out of sight.

To a man, the U.S. officers in that unit told me they had nothing but contempt for the Afghan troops in their area — and that was before the above incident occurred.

In August, I went on a dismounted patrol with troops in the Panjwai district of Kandahar province. Several troops from the unit had recently been killed in action, one of whom was a very popular and experienced soldier. One of the unit’s senior officers rhetorically asked me, “How do I look these men in the eye and ask them to go out day after day on these missions? What’s harder: How do I look [my soldier’s] wife in the eye when I get back and tell her that her husband died for something meaningful? How do I do that?”

One of the senior enlisted leaders added, “Guys are saying, ‘I hope I live so I can at least get home to R&R leave before I get it,’ or ‘I hope I only lose a foot.’ Sometimes they even say which limb it might be: ‘Maybe it’ll only be my left foot.’ They don’t have a lot of confidence that the leadership two levels up really understands what they’re living here, what the situation really is.”

On Sept. 11, the 10th anniversary of the infamous attack on the U.S., I visited another unit in Kunar province, this one near the town of Asmar. I talked with the local official who served as the cultural adviser to the U.S. commander. Here’s how the conversation went:

Davis: “Here you have many units of the Afghan National Security Forces [ANSF]. Will they be able to hold out against the Taliban when U.S. troops leave this area?”

Adviser: “No. They are definitely not capable. Already all across this region [many elements of] the security forces have made deals with the Taliban. [The ANSF] won’t shoot at the Taliban, and the Taliban won’t shoot them.

“Also, when a Taliban member is arrested, he is soon released with no action taken against him. So when the Taliban returns [when the Americans leave after 2014], so too go the jobs, especially for everyone like me who has worked with the coalition.

“Recently, I got a cellphone call from a Talib who had captured a friend of mine. While I could hear, he began to beat him, telling me I’d better quit working for the Americans. I could hear my friend crying out in pain. [The Talib] said the next time they would kidnap my sons and do the same to them. Because of the direct threats, I’ve had to take my children out of school just to keep them safe.

“And last night, right on that mountain there [he pointed to a ridge overlooking the U.S. base, about 700 meters distant], a member of the ANP was murdered. The Taliban came and called him out, kidnapped him in front of his parents, and took him away and murdered him. He was a member of the ANP from another province and had come back to visit his parents. He was only 27 years old. The people are not safe anywhere.”

That murder took place within view of the U.S. base, a post nominally responsible for the security of an area of hundreds of square kilometers. Imagine how insecure the population is beyond visual range. And yet that conversation was representative of what I saw in many regions of Afghanistan.

In all of the places I visited, the tactical situation was bad to abysmal. If the events I have described — and many, many more I could mention — had been in the first year of war, or even the third or fourth, one might be willing to believe that Afghanistan was just a hard fight, and we should stick it out. Yet these incidents all happened in the 10th year of war.

As the numbers depicting casualties and enemy violence indicate the absence of progress, so too did my observations of the tactical situation all over Afghanistan.

Credibility Gap

I’m hardly the only one who has noted the discrepancy between official statements and the truth on the ground.

A January 2011 report by the Afghan NGO Security Office noted that public statements made by U.S. and ISAF leaders at the end of 2010 were “sharply divergent from IMF, [international military forces, NGO-speak for ISAF] ‘strategic communication’ messages suggesting improvements. We encourage [nongovernment organization personnel] to recognize that no matter how authoritative the source of any such claim, messages of the nature are solely intended to influence American and European public opinion ahead of the withdrawal, and are not intended to offer an accurate portrayal of the situation for those who live and work here.”

The following month, Anthony Cordesman, on behalf of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote that ISAF and the U.S. leadership failed to report accurately on the reality of the situation in Afghanistan.

“Since June 2010, the unclassified reporting the U.S. does provide has steadily shrunk in content, effectively ‘spinning’ the road to victory by eliminating content that illustrates the full scale of the challenges ahead,” Cordesman wrote. “They also, however, were driven by political decisions to ignore or understate Taliban and insurgent gains from 2002 to 2009, to ignore the problems caused by weak and corrupt Afghan governance, to understate the risks posed by sanctuaries in Pakistan, and to ‘spin’ the value of tactical ISAF victories while ignoring the steady growth of Taliban influence and control.”

How many more men must die in support of a mission that is not succeeding and behind an array of more than seven years of optimistic statements by U.S. senior leaders in Afghanistan? No one expects our leaders to always have a successful plan. But we do expect — and the men who do the living, fighting and dying deserve — to have our leaders tell us the truth about what’s going on.

I first encountered senior-level equivocation during a 1997 division-level “experiment” that turned out to be far more setpiece than experiment. Over dinner at Fort Hood, Texas, Training and Doctrine Command leaders told me that the Advanced Warfighter Experiment (AWE) had shown that a “digital division” with fewer troops and more gear could be far more effective than current divisions. The next day, our congressional staff delegation observed the demonstration firsthand, and it didn’t take long to realize there was little substance to the claims. Virtually no legitimate experimentation was actually conducted. All parameters were carefully scripted. All events had a preordained sequence and outcome. The AWE was simply an expensive show, couched in the language of scientific experimentation and presented in glowing press releases and public statements, intended to persuade Congress to fund the Army’s preference. Citing the AWE’s “results,” Army leaders proceeded to eliminate one maneuver company per combat battalion. But the loss of fighting systems was never offset by a commensurate rise in killing capability.

A decade later, in the summer of 2007, I was assigned to the Future Combat Systems (FCS) organization at Fort Bliss, Texas. It didn’t take long to discover that the same thing the Army had done with a single division at Fort Hood in 1997 was now being done on a significantly larger scale with FCS. Year after year, the congressionally mandated reports from the Government Accountability Office revealed significant problems and warned that the system was in danger of failing. Each year, the Army’s senior leaders told members of Congress at hearings that GAO didn’t really understand the full picture and that to the contrary, the program was on schedule, on budget, and headed for success. Ultimately, of course, the program was canceled, with little but spinoffs to show for $18 billion spent.

If Americans were able to compare the public statements many of our leaders have made with classified data, this credibility gulf would be immediately observable. Naturally, I am not authorized to divulge classified material to the public. But I am legally able to share it with members of Congress. I have accordingly provided a much fuller accounting in a classified report to several members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, senators and House members.

A nonclassified version is available at www.afghanreport.com. [Editor’s note: At press time, Army public affairs had not yet ruled on whether Davis could post this longer version.]

Tell The Truth

When it comes to deciding what matters are worth plunging our nation into war and which are not, our senior leaders owe it to the nation and to the uniformed members to be candid — graphically, if necessary — in telling them what’s at stake and how expensive potential success is likely to be. U.S. citizens and their elected representatives can decide if the risk to blood and treasure is worth it.

Likewise when having to decide whether to continue a war, alter its aims or to close off a campaign that cannot be won at an acceptable price, our senior leaders have an obligation to tell Congress and American people the unvarnished truth and let the people decide what course of action to choose. That is the very essence of civilian control of the military. The American people deserve better than what they’ve gotten from their senior uniformed leaders over the last number of years. Simply telling the truth would be a good start. AFJ

Please visit afghanreport.com.

Remarks from 1389:

Relying on “local troops” is insane, all the more so when those “local troops” are Muslim.

Peace never comes from peace conferences, peace studies, peacekeeping, Nobel Peace Prizes, or anything like that. It comes only from defeating our enemies so thoroughly that they can trouble us no more.

If we cannot let our warriors be warriors, we will be defeated every time.

Conan, what is best in life?

(h/t: mfhorn):

Click here to view the embedded video.

Can you find the cat in this picture? Yes, there actually is one!

Twitter member @DealSpaceIN asks:

Bored?? Let’s play a game… Find the CAT in the picture…
Share it if you find & Comment if you didn’t http://t.co/plDp1vvN

Click for full-size view.

Curious Snow Leopard Cub Steals Camera Trap

By Katie Scott, Wired UK

A camera trap set on the Afghan Border has captured images of a leap of elusive snow leopards, but also the moment when one of the cubs made off with one of the cameras.

The cameras were set up in the Zorkul nature reserve close to the Afghan border in Tajikistan at the beginning of August, and left there until October. Dr Alex Diment is the Capacity and Development Manager for the Eurasia Programme for the charity Fauna & Flora International (FFI). He told Wired.co.uk that the FFI and Panthera team set up the camera traps to cover an area of around 15 sq km, which stretched across eight separate valleys.

The 11 cameras photographed five separate snow leopards living in one of these valleys, and this included a family with two cubs — one of which took a shining to the cameras and carried one off.

Diment says that the camera traps have made a huge difference in conservationists. “Camera traps have been an amazing piece of technology, and are really maturing as a technology, becoming reliable and giving great results. They are giving us the ability to research animals, which were previously almost entirely unknown.”

More here.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary Feminism is defined thus:

Date: 1895

1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests

Who can ever forget the iconic cover of “The Female Eunuch”, by Germaine Greer?

It was everywhere when it was first published in 1970.

It was virtually the next best thing that had happened to women since Emmeline Pankhurst and her Suffragettes worked to get women the vote. So we were told.

And certainly you cannot deny the benefits and progress that have come from these two women, and the many others who have taken over the baton and changed the lives of millions.

Many of today’s other famous feminists are living very comfortably on self-earned wealth: fine with me, it’s well-deserved.

They have turned their politics and activism into income sources by working in journalism and other media.

People listen to them.

They have power, enormous power.

Camille Paglia is but one of many whose opinions are highly respected, and it is easy to see why.

Germaine Greer is still going on strongly about all kinds of issues.

Gloria Steinem is another member of this esteemed crowd and there are also very many not-so-famous feminists.

These feminists are in almost all professions from politics to pianists, parents and yes, prostitutes – the oldest “profession” of them all!

Then of course there are the other women in the world who don’t occupy this rarefied space but who have decided, and yes, it is a decision now, to become homemakers and mothers. Some of them decide to resume successful careers and some chose not to.

But I wonder if we all really received so many benefits from all these feminists? Some of us didn’t.

With all that is good and liberating in human progress there are often side effects and “unintended consequences”.

Sadly there are goals that have not, and will not, be achieved.

Certainly many of us get equal work for equal pay nowadays, but not all of us.

Then there are those who chose to be wives and mothers, who are often scorned, or looked down upon, for their choices.

“They had jobs, but feminists weren’t satisfied; every other woman had to get one too. So they opened fire on homemakers with a savagery that still echoes throughout our culture. A housewife is a “parasite,” [Betty] Friedan writes; such women are “less than fully human” insofar as they “have never known a commitment to an idea.”

And….

Housewives, not men, were the prey in feminism’s sights when Kate Millett decreed in 1969 that the family must go. Feminists do not speak for traditional women. Men cannot know this, however, unless we tell them how we feel about them, our children, and our role in the home.

Men must understand that our feelings towards them and our children are derided by feminists and have earned us their enmity. Whether or not this understanding garners men’s support, traditional women must defend ourselves because the feminist offensive is, most essentially, a breach of solidarity with us, a disavowel [sic] of the obligation to honor the Women’s Pact [that religious celibates, professional women, and homemakers respect each other] that women in the movement owed to us” (Source).

Oh yes, this site has more. Feminism today goes on and on, intellectualising and re-defining feminism to the extent where it is almost too difficult to follow, let alone comprehend.

Quite frankly I am more interested in the practical day-to-day realities.

I take the two definitions at face value and I note it doesn’t specify any nationality, political allegiance or religion.

1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests

It is true a lot of this has happened in the West but rather than have Greer et al espouse “intellectual yada yada” I would rather see these women get militant again and do something to help their long-suffering sisters who live in Islamic countries, and who can but only dream of the lifestyle many of their famous feminist sisters enjoy.

All too often I see stories of honour killings, rape, female genital mutilation, subservience, domestic (and other) violence, forced marriage and utter discrimination perpetrated against women in Muslim countries and now also in the West.

Some women are getting hymenoplasties and buying repair kits before they marry.

Some are being recruited as homicide bombers.

One is punished for drinking beer, others face lashings or stonings.

Recall the recent case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani. Fate not yet known, but not looking promising. Here I admit many westerners got under the skin of the Iranian Mullahs. At least they tried.

An Australian Islamist tries to justify poligamy for everyone. Why not? Let’s normalise this situation, let’s legitimise it. How do you suppose women would fare in such a relationship that is so one-sided in favour of the male gender?

There are women who suffer terribly from acid attacks quite frequently.

Women in Gaza are not allowed to ride motorcycles, and Somali women are being scrutinised for wearing a bra!

Where’s Germaine when you need her, or would this make her happy I wonder?

Yet in spite of these incidents feminists like Naomi Wolfe manage to defend discrimination towards women in Islam and it then takes a compassionate feminist, Phyllis Chesler, who has actually lived in a Muslim country, to sort it out for her!

I know many feminists, and women in general, can be fearless fighters.

Code Pink, for example, have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan. True, they are an anti-war movement, but perhaps, just perhaps, they could have drawn some attention to the women who live and suffer in the war zones they are so adamantly against.

They could have easily added one more mission statement to what is on their website which mentions “social justice” – an insidious phrase which bears investigating.

How about some “equal justice” instead?

Indeed, any other anti-war group could easily have done the same. I know they do not define themselves as feminists per se, but why not do more?

Could they not have met with Malalai Joya and offered some help?

Now of course, in hindsight, one knows far more about Code Pink. They are not an anti-war movement at all. They have been helping orchestrate the “Arab Spring” in Egypt.

Together with Bill Ayres and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn they are political activists of a rather nasty kind – and I am being polite here!

And they have the full backing of the Obama Administration.

When I read about the case of Sahar Gul, 15 years of age, I wonder how these feminists can sleep at night.

(Warning – very graphic images.)

Not to mention the wife of Rafiqi Islam who had her fingers chopped off because she wanted an eduction!

I would like to see some of our famous feminists, female politicians and celebrities who spend so much time choking on their own venom over Sarah Palin instead do something useful for the women in Islam.

Are they afraid? “You betcha!” as Sarah Palin would say. Afraid and gutless!

Or are they simply not interested in the women’s issues of today because they think it is another culture and therefore they shouldn’t interfere when they often stick their noses where they may not be wanted.

They know it isn’t right but they can turn a blind eye to it, even as it happens under their noses, and in their own backyards.

How can one respect these women anymore?

It’s a cop-out.

The improvement of the condition of women in Islam is, to me, a far loftier goal than getting to wear trousers, getting equal pay, getting an abortion on demand, and having a man treat a woman more like a man!

This was definitely an “unintended consequence” for me: trivial as it may seem.

I am much heartened by the fact that progress is being made, albeit in small steps.

Kuwati women in parliament refuse to wear the veil. How long will they be able to keep it up?

An Egyptian Cleric wanted to ban burquas and other facial coverings.

Not going to happen anymore with the Muslim Brotherhood in charge!

The women in any country controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood are going to have it worse than ever before.

Strict Sharia Law will prevail.

Honour killing or Honourcide is getting more attention. The tragedy of this is that we are seeing it in the West more and more and little is being done about it.

Lubna Hussein got a lot of media attention over her sentence for wearing trousers.

Najwa Bin Laden and her son, Omar, wrote a book about their now late husband and father, Osama, and seem to be fearless about it. They have provided a fascinating insight into this man as well.

I think the real “feminist”heroines now are the ones who have literally put their lives on the line, not only for women in Islam but for the world in general.

Their goals and commitment are what is truly deserving of our respect and support.

I am referring to women like Dr Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Irshad Manji and women like them.

Although Ms Manji has not left Islam it is still worth noting she has put herself out there and for this she deserves credit.

There is another one who would have possibly made it to this list – the face of the Iranian Green Movement: – Neda Soltan -

Tragically she cannot, but in spirit she can inspire so much. I feel she deserves a mention among these brave, dedicated and fascinating women.

This is my challenge to today’s feminists. Use your power again.

I am not a celebrity, a journalist or a politician. I do not have your platform and power.

Justice and equality for women in Islam is indeed a most worthy cause to support and fight for now more than ever.

First Published on “Muslims Against Sharia”.

This is the updated version with permission from the author.

TheBlaze: Wis. Muslim Allegedly Beats Man With Tire Iron for Insulting His Islamic Faith

Another case of “sudden jihad syndrome”?

…One witness told a Wausau Daily Herald reporter that he saw the suspect pull up in his vehicle, get out of the car and then accuse the victim of criticizing his Islamic faith. According to the witness, when approached, the victim denied the charge. Unfortunately, that did little to stop the assailant from unleashing his fury.

The suspect purportedly grabbed a tire iron, hit the man in the head, punched him, then hopped back into his vehicle and sped off. A second witness, Bakonn Jackson, confirms these claims…

CTV News: Condolences to family of al-Qaeda propagandist
This is a man who said he was “proud to be a traitor to the United States” and who recruited jihadis to kill Americans!!!

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — The U.S. State Department has offered the government’s condolences to a family whose son became an al-Qaeda propagandist and was killed in a drone attack in Yemen, The Charlotte Observer reported Saturday.

The call came Thursday, nearly a week after 25-year-old Samir Khan was killed along with cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the newspaper reported. Both men were American citizens.

Khan wrote a radical blog while living in Charlotte, North Carolina, then left to join al-Qaida and produce its English-language online magazine. U.S. officials said al-Awlaki was the target of the drone attack…

Big Peace: German General: We’ve Failed In Afghanistan
“Nation-building” is a bad idea from the get-go, and it always fails in a Muslim country. Our objective should have been to annihilate the Taliban.

General Harald Kujat, who was instrumental in planning the German mission in Afghanistan, has come out with a blunt assessment of what the future holds in Afghanistan. In short, he believes it has been a failure. ”The mission fulfilled the political aim of showing solidarity with the United States,” he told a German newspaper. ”but if you measure progress against the goal of stabilizing acountry and region, then the mission has failed.” He faults the strategy that the allies have employed. ”The opponent was fighting a military battle and we needed to do the same.” He says too much time was spent on “stabilization” rather than fight the enemy. He is the German Bundeswehr’s highest ranking soldier and was a leading planning of the German mission.

And what happens if we withdraw in 2014 as now planned? ”If we withdraw from Afghanistan in 2014 then the Taliban will take over power again within just a few months.”

CNS News: Not a Single Christian Church Left in Afghanistan
(h/t: Blazing Cat Fur and MuniMula)

There is not a single, public Christian church left in Afghanistan, according to the U.S. State Department.

This reflects the state of religious freedom in that country ten years after the United States first invaded it and overthrew its Islamist Taliban regime.

In the intervening decade, U.S. taxpayers have spent $440 billion to support Afghanistan’s new government and more than 1,700 U.S. military personnel have died serving in that country.

The last public Christian church in Afghanistan was razed in March 2010, according to the State Department’s latest International Religious Freedom Report. The report, which was released last month and covers the period of July 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010, also states that “there were no Christian schools in the country.”

“There is no longer a public Christian church; the courts have not upheld the church’s claim to its 99-year lease, and the landowner destroyed the building in March [2010],” reads the State Department report on religious freedom. “[Private] chapels and churches for the international community of various faiths are located on several military bases, PRTs [Provincial Reconstruction Teams], and at the Italian embassy. Some citizens who converted to Christianity as refugees have returned.”

In recent times, freedom of religion has declined in Afghanistan, according to the State Department.

“The government’s level of respect for religious freedom in law and in practice declined during the reporting period, particularly for Christian groups and individuals,” reads the State Department report.

“Negative societal opinions and suspicion of Christian activities led to targeting of Christian groups and individuals, including Muslim converts to Christianity,” said the report. “The lack of government responsiveness and protection for these groups and individuals contributed to the deterioration of religious freedom.”

Most Christians in the country refuse to “state their beliefs or gather openly to worship,” said the State Department…

Why has Pakistan arrested 5 informants on the alleged death of Osama bin Laden?

(CNN) — If Pakistan prosecutes one of the men who helped the CIA hunt down Osama bin Laden, what does it say about the state of relations between Washington and Islamabad?

Nothing good, according to national security experts contacted by CNN…

Also see:

• Doctor accused of aiding Bin Laden raid may face treason charge
• Another assassination attempt to kill Karzai foiled

Remember “Muhammad Bombhead Comes to Life”?

Back in July, an Afghan suicide bomber used a turban to conceal the explosives that he used to kill the mayor of Kandahar. We had the story here. What a disgusting way to commit homicide.

It’s happened again. This time, the target was former Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani. He had also served as the political head of the Northern Alliance and an associate of Defense Minister Ahmad Shah Massood, who had also been assassinated in a suicide attack on September 9, 2001.

Now I have no illusions about Rabbani, Massoud, or anybody else in Afghan public life. Hard-core mujahideen all; none were or are secularists, none have respected the rights of non-Muslims, of dissidents, or of women and girls. But even in those dismal environs, the Taliban are in a class by themselves when it comes to perfidy.

Fox News has the story:

Suicide Bomber Kills Ex-Afghan President Rabbani

KABUL, Afghanistan – A suicide attacker with a bomb in his turban posed as a Taliban peace envoy and assassinated a former Afghan president who for the past year headed a government council seeking a political settlement with the insurgents.

Tuesday’s attack, carried out in former President Burhanuddin Rabbani’s Kabul home, dealt a harsh blow to attempts at ending a decade of war. The killing of Rabbani, an ethnic Tajik and one of the wise old men of Afghan politics, will blunt efforts to keep in check the regional and ethnic rivalries that help feed the insurgency.

President Hamid Karzai cut short a visit to the United Nations and called on Afghans to remain unified in the face of Rabbani’s “martyrdom.” An emergency Cabinet meeting was called for Wednesday.

The attack came days after a daytime assault by insurgents on the U.S. Embassy and NATO headquarters that deepened a sense of insecurity in the capital.

NATO said in a statement that two suicide bombers were involved in the attack on Rabbani, both of them men who had feigned a desire to reconcile with the government. It was unclear if a second bomber was able to detonate his explosives.

Afghan officials, however, insisted there was only one attacker. Four men were wounded, including a key presidential adviser, said Mohammad Zahir, the head of criminal investigations for the Kabul police. Initial reports had four bodyguards killed but Zahir said those were incorrect.

Close friends of Rabbani said that the former president returned from a trip to Iran to meet with a man who had been described as a high-ranking Taliban contact. The visitor, a young man, was shown into the house by two of Rabbani’s associates at the Afghan High Peace Council, who insisted that he did not need to be fully searched, said a friend who spoke anonymously because he was not a spokesman.

When Rabbani appeared, the man shook the former president’s hand and bowed as a sign of respect, said Fazel Karim Aimaq, a former lawmaker from Kunduz province and friend of Rabbani.

“Then his turban exploded,” Aimaq said. The blast broke windows in Rabbani’s home and shook nearby houses.

As the leader of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, Rabbani sought a political deal with the Taliban — with U.S. blessing — and he will be hard to replace soon. His death could unleash a well of resentment among some senior Northern Alliance members, who accuse Karzai of colluding with the Taliban.

More here.

IBN TV: Ex-Afghanistan President Rabbani killed

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by ibnlive on Sep 20, 2011

Two Afghan government sources say former Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani has been killed in the capital Kabul. The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that Rabbani was killed Tuesday evening at his home in Kabul.

Rabbani on RT: Last TV talk before brutal death

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by RussiaToday on Sep 20, 2011

Days before he was brutally killed, Former Afghan President and head of the High Peace Council Burhanuddin Rabbani told RT’s sister channel Russia Al Youm that despite the difficulties, he had high hopes for the peace process in his country. President Rabbani led Afghanistan during the 1990s. Most recently, he ran the country’s peace council, attempting to negotiate a political solution between the government and the Taliban. The High Peace Council was intended to open a dialogue with insurgents who had been trying to bring down his government since the US-led invasion overthrew their regime in late 2001. It was inaugurated in 2010, amid mounting reports of secret peace talks with Taliban leaders and key insurgent groups. Delivering his acceptance speech, Rabbani said he was “confident” that peace was possible — and he continued to believe and work towards achieving that peace until the end.
RT on Twitter: http://twitter.com/RT_com
RT on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/RTnews

Web Pro News has the story:

It might surprise you to learn that the Taliban, the Islamic fundamentalist group most notable for their harboring Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda network, is on Twitter.

The account, @alemarahweb, is linked to the official website of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan was the name of the ruling powers of the Taliban from 1996 to 2001 when they took control of Kabul and 90% of the country. This regime was famous for their harsh treatment of women and the Shia minority in Afghanistan. The Taliban became synonymous with Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda following 9/11.

So yeah, that Taliban is now active in the world of social media.

The account in question has been around for s few months now, but it just tweeted its first English tweet late yesterday. The Guardian first reported the account and their shift to English:

Their Twitter feed, @alemarahweb, pumps out several messages a day, keeping 993 followers up to date with often highly exaggerated reports of strikes against the “infidel forces” and the “Karzai puppet regime”. Most messages are in Pashtu, with links to news stories on the elaborate and multilingual website of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, as the Taliban’s shadow government likes to style itself.

Today, the feed broke into English for the first time, with a tweet about an attack on police in Farah province.

When the Guardian reported on the account last night it had just under 1,000 followers. At the writing of this article it has 2,814 followers. The account is following only 12 other accounts, including an Afghani carpet weaving group and a children’s mini-circus based in Kabul. Strangley enough the Taliban’s account also follows a USAF logistics readiness officer currently deployed in Afghanistan. How’s that phrase go? Keep your friends close but follow your enemies on Twitter?

More here.

This Twitter account carries the name Mostafa Almedi and is associated with http://alemarah-iea.net/.

As of this writing (September 17, 2011), @alemarahweb has 5,721 followers, but it is following only four other accounts:

• @FeedTwit, a utility
• @kavkazcenter “News, Facts, Analysis, Events in Caucasus, Caucasus Emirate, Chechnya, Russia, Islamic World”
• @nunnasia, a Pakistani site, not in English
• @alsomood, “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan”, associated with http://www.alsomod-iea.com, not in English

Notice the connection between the Afghan Taliban and the Chechen jihadis.

Author’s note: This is the third of a three part essay dealing with Islamic terrorism and what can be expected regarding Islam’s ultimate fate. These articles are written in memoriam of the 9-11 atrocity’s tenth anniversary and are dedicated to the 3,000 innocent Americans who were murdered on that fateful day.

How will it end?

Short answer ― The Muslim holocaust.

There is a proverb whose thread is found both in Aesop and the Bible. It reads:

“The clay pot should keep its distance from the iron kettle.”

Instead of keeping its distance, Islam has cozened its way into Western civilization and, parading under false colors as an alleged religion, it flies a counterfeit Liberal standard of interfaith Multiculturalism. Besotted with its own temporary successes and newfound “purity” ― through a recent reformation leaving it even more violent, intolerant, misogynistic and puritanical ― Islam is in the process of infiltrating Western civilization to an unprecedented degree. However, in this respect, it is the non-industrial Islamic clay pot that is getting too close to the militarily advanced Western iron kettle.

A Talmudic variation of this fable provides a different perspective: “If a pot falls upon a stone, woe to the pot; if a stone falls upon a pot, woe to the pot; either way, woe to the pot” (Esther Rabbah, 7:10). For Islam’s clay pot, violence is the stone. As Islam continues to embrace terrorism it is eagerly drawn to that stone with a dangerous degree of impetus. In its love of death and martyrdom, Islam puts the stone in precipitous motion, which just as often falls upon the heads of Muslims themselves.

In either case ― much as with so-called Islamic martyrdom ― Islam imprudently brings itself into proximity with danger and eventually this will prove its own undoing. Suffused with delusions of adequacy, Muslims think nothing of constantly antagonizing Western powers who long ago perfected industrialized warfare to an extent that Islam can only dream of, despite its supremacist fantasies.

Like a candle that sputters and flares, Islam casts outsized shadows which too many in the West mistake for genuine military potency. The exact opposite is true and it is only by using the asymmetrical warfare of terrorism that Islam holds any sway. It is a schoolyard bully writ large and every bit as cowardly. The brittleness of Islamic doctrine is too often confused with strength and its fanaticism taken for authority.

In a recent Berlin speech, Swiss Member of Parliament, Oskar Freysinger, noted that, “Islam is only as strong as we are weak.” One glimpse of how Islam remains almost entirely reliant upon Political Correctness to drive its Western agenda reveals that this parasitic entity’s success wholly depends upon the frailty of a civilization debilitated by Multiculturalism and self-doubt. This is underscored both by the physical compulsion and violence that lies beneath so much of Islamic doctrine and the fact that no nation in history has ever voluntarily adopted Islam without an application of force being involved.

Politician Barrack Obama epitomizes the danger that Liberals pose to Islam. Not only do they appease and cower before Islamic bullying but Liberalism also infantilizes Muslim men through the soft racism of lowered expectations. Thus enabled by such hollow victories, Islam is capable of duping itself into believing its own propaganda; a perilous mistake at the best of times and often fatal in a time of conflict.

Little do Liberals understand how they will be among the first who go to the wall should Islam prevail. Nor, in their haste to disarm the world, do they understand that such military ineptitude on their part will see them left with few responses other than nuclear Armageddon when confronted by WMD terrorist strikes. Through appeasement and facilitation, Liberals are Islam’s most dangerous “friends”.

This same Politically Correct doctrine has seen ineffectual campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq that have cost the multinational coalition on the order of two trillion dollars, with America shouldering a lopsided $1.36 trillion share of the burden. That is the cost of keeping in check just two of some fifty Muslim majority countries. Subduing the other four dozen Islamic nations represents at least another staggering $96 trillion dollars of expenditure and countless more military casualties. No single nation or combination of international economies can possibly afford this sort of expenditure.

This inordinate cost of conventional war needed to obtain even a modicum of peace is, perhaps, the grimmest thing about Islam’s future. As the mask slips and “radical” or “fundamentalist” Islam are revealed to be mainstream and fully compatible with regularly accepted Islamic doctrine, Total War ― something Muslims continue to boast of declaring against the West ― looms evermore probable. However, the economic factors alone point directly away from conventional war.

Truth be told, in the absence of that $96 trillion dollars, there is only unconventional warfare left as a survival option. Nuclear weapons represent the sole existing and cost-effective way of managing hostilities with some 1.6 billion people. Like a proverbial trout in the milk pail, this one simple fact is difficult to ignore. Basic economics dooms perpetually hostile Islam to utter annihilation.

Any expectation of Islam pacifying, moderating or reforming itself must be dismissed out of hand. Islam has already undergone a recent reformation from which it emerged as an even more intolerant, more violent, more puritanical and more misogynistic creed. Those Muslims who do seek any pacification or sincere moderation of Islam’s violent doctrine are usually put to death by more devout believers.

Lending some much needed perspective to this nettlesome debacle is a quick estimate of the death toll that reasonably could be expected if Islam somehow managed to take over the world. Here are several, admittedly, rough estimates of what to anticipate from the establishment of a global caliphate.

1.) Extermination of all Jews:
Some 13.5 million people, world-wide would most likely die at the hands of their Muslim oppressors.

2.) Execution of all homosexuals:
We will use what some call a “wildly exaggerated figure” for the sake of including the bisexual and transgender community plus other sexual deviants who would all be put to death under shari’a. Therefore, some 10% of the world’s population or 600 million people would fall into this category.

The remaining factors that follow are much more difficult to quantify.

3.) Armed resistance to Muslim encroachment:
It’s safe to say that nearly everyone in the counterjihad movement would perish fighting a Muslim attempt to overrun America or Europe. Worldwide, the numbers would most likely exceed that of the Jews. We’ll place it at a meager 100 million.

4.) Women denied access to medical care:
This is a huge number because, under Islamic law, women would only be able to be seen by female doctors—an exceedingly small fraction of this world’s medical practitioners. We’ll use the figure for global female cancer mortality rates as an example of how reduced early intervention would escalate avoidable deaths, especially among women. That figure amounts to more than 3 million per year.

5.) Liquidation of political prisoners:
Toss in another 10 million dead. Remember, Islam has many enemies, be they perceived or real.

6.) Execution of those who refuse to convert:
We shall use the world’s population of Catholics as a figure representing those who would adamantly refuse to convert or cooperate and be put to death instead. While the number would likely be much higher, this figure approaches over 1 billion.

We now have a total of 1.726 billion people who would die within the first year or so of Islam establishing its global caliphate. This figure is larger than the world’s Muslim population. Millions more would die each year due to Islam’s heavy-handed shari’a law and its excessive demand for capital punishment. Women would keep dying in droves due to the unavailability of female doctors. Emerging homosexuals would be killed as with many other deviants; be they political, religious or otherwise.

Concealed in all this is a small yet meaningful number of so-called “honor killings” that typically involve young Muslim girls or wives who ― through premarital sexual activity or inappropriate dalliances ― have disgraced their families and are put to death for it, typically by their own family members. In a global caliphate, over one million of these murders per year would not be an unexpected figure. Do not think for one moment that Western women would magically be immune from this stricture. Imams and Islamic mutaween (“morals police”) would cheerfully put to death any youthful or adult offenders regardless of their race or belief.

Hidden even deeper in these figures is a calculation which will probably fail to evoke much sympathy amongst knowledgeable Westerners; yet, humanity demands that it be recognized. Should the global Islamic caliphate arrive, there also would be countless more Muslim deaths, just as there are today throughout the MME (Muslim Middle East); except for now these executions would proceed briskly, unfettered by any condemnation from the world community that they, at least marginally, receive today. Rape victims being given lashes or stoned to death and other appalling injustices would flourish.

However crude the above projections are, they do not even account for a world suddenly stripped of many modern technologies considered haram (“forbidden”) by Islam. A sharp drop in agricultural productivity, reduction in medical services ― as noted above ― along with the elimination of food supplies derived from haram animals, such as pigs (including rennet, gelatin, whey and alcohol), would see mass starvations and medically preventable deaths soar upwards. These are just a bare few examples of the unknown death toll that would accompany an Islamic caliphate. Unimaginable as it may seem, imposition of global shari’a could result in the death of up to half this world’s population.

None of this deals with the tremendous loss of Western and world heritage in the form of buildings, monuments, paintings, sculptures, books and priceless documents that would be heaped upon bonfires or pulverized into rubble. The Magna Carta, America’s Constitution plus innumerable other ephemera would go up in smoke. Notre Dame’s fabulous Rose Window would follow the Bamiyan Buddhas into oblivion. They would be just the start of unparalleled and inconceivable vandalism on a global scale.

Rarely, if ever ― even among counterjihad fora ― is there any mention of either the massive death toll or the loss of heritage that would accompany global shari’a law. There remains, especially in the larger public, an almost intentional ignorance of these two devastating potentials. Eventually, in the face of so much stark evidence, it becomes difficult to deny that there exists the will not to believe.

This will not to believe carries its own loathsome price tag. Recent events in Norway show that long before Muslims manage to demographically displace native Europeans there will begin a serious backlash against the Multiculturalists who have imposed this lethal burden upon the West. It is rather doubtful that American and European culture will go quietly into the Politically Correct Islamic night.

Ironically, as Muslims continue to financially drain the West ― through exorbitant military campaigns, increased security measures, petroleum sales and abuse of social benefits in host countries ― they only increase the eventual appeal of cost effective measures that will be required to subdue Islam. There will also come a time when Western nations begin to recoil at the prospect of sending any more soldiers to die for the sake of letting Muslims erect yet another shari’a government and terrorist production facility.

Complicating all of this is how the concept of military deterrence is essentially nonfunctional as regards Islam. A culture that glorifies and worships death is more than difficult to deter. For every bit that the West shrinks from waging Total War, the necessity of posing an existential threat to Islam only increases. When it comes to the ineffectuality of deterrence, no better example exists that of modern day Iran. The ramifications of Ahmadinejad’s tutelage under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini pose some serious issues. Recall Khomeini’s words during his 1980 speech in Qom, the Shi’ite spiritual hub:

We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land [Iran] go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.

When Ahmadinejad threatens to “wipe Israel off the map” it is with the implicit knowledge that Iran, as a country, may perish as a result. In effect, he is turning his entire nation into a gigantic suicide bomber. Neither is this the end of it. Iran’s reckless pursuit of genocide against the Jews could precipitate the Muslim holocaust all by itself. Little known to most people is Israel’s Samson Option. If true, the Jewish state has quietly informed its Arab neighbors that a single WMD strike against Israel will result in the entire MME (Muslim Middle East) being incinerated in nuclear plasma. Hundreds of fusion warheads along with newly acquired Dolphin class submarines and cruise missiles back this up.

There is cold comfort in this for Israel but it also has quite worrisome implications for the West. At a recent pan-Arab conference Saudi Arabia’s king essentially told Ahmadinejad to “sit down and shut up” with his genocidal ravings before the entire MME is annihilated. Should he take this admonishment to heart, then the question is beggared as to who else might be targeted for an Iranian nuclear strike.

It bears mentioning how simple statistics indicate that, beyond a certain as yet undetermined number of Islamic nuclear warheads, there emerges a non-zero probability that one or more of them will fall into terrorist hands. Keeping that in mind, America ― better known to Iranians as “The Great Satan” ― suddenly materializes as a grim alternative target to Israel. What’s more, the Obama administration’s abject appeasement of Islam can only have strengthened Muslim perceptions that the United States lacks sufficient political will to respond in kind should it experience a nuclear terrorist attack.

As noted earlier, Obama and most of his cabinet have little to no military experience. With their being so unlettered in war fighting doctrine, could it not be possible that these appeasers might abruptly discover ― after repeated military budget cuts ― that massive nuclear retaliation was their sole playing card? Again, pro-disarmament Liberals rate as the most dangerous kind of “friends” that Islam could have.

Repulsive in the extreme is how truly avoidable this looming Muslim holocaust really is. A far less costly program of “wetwork” style targeted assassinations directed at the top echelons of Islam’s clerical, political, scholastic and financial aristocracy could see global jihad quickly screech to a grinding halt. Information hoarding is a way of life in the MME and even more so with terrorist leaders. Break enough strands in their networks and they will no longer function. A useful side effect of such a program would be to create numerous power vacuums that would draw violent contenders like moths to a candle’s flame. Subsequent infighting might even match the original fallout with equally fruitful results.

As noted in Part II of this essay, Islam has “unhappy ending” written all over it. Belmont Club’s Richard Fernandez (Wretchard), was one of the first to note this in his 2003 magnum opus, “The Three Conjectures”:

The most startling result of this analysis is that a catastrophic outcome for Islam is guaranteed whether America retaliates or not. Even if the President decided to let all Americans die to expiate their historical guilt, why would Islamic terrorists stop after that? They would move on to Europe and Asia until finally China, Russia, Japan, India or Israel, none of them squeamish, wrote -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column. They too would be prisoners of the same dynamic, and they too have weapons of mass destruction.

It is more than safe to say that an industrially and militarily unlettered Islam is not going to take over the world using such a feeble tool as terrorism. As was also noted in Part II, Islam is assembling too many enemies too fast and that pace far outstrips any ability of theirs to perfect the mass production of intricate nuclear weapons nor muster fighting forces of even marginal proficiency. Chronic overreach is a hallmark of Islam and its habit of poking at the Western nuclear dragon with its terrorist pointed wooden stick bodes especially unwell for Muslims everywhere.

Fernandez goes on to observe:

Long before 3,000 New Yorkers died on September 11, Iraq and Iran killed 500,000 Muslims between them. The greatest threat to Muslims is radical Islam; and the greatest threat of all is a radical Islam armed with weapons of mass destruction.

Remember that for eight long years, Iran and Iraq fought to a bloody stalemate using chemical weapons and even ten year-old boys as human minesweepers. Less conservative estimates cite up to a million Muslim fatalities with both nations sending the flower of their youth into an insatiable meat grinder. Now, consider how America rolled up Iraq’s sidewalks in two weeks. This is the “reality gap” confronting Islam and its delusory vision of world domination. No such thing will ever happen.

Given that the global caliphate is forever out of reach, whither Islam? What of its obsessive quest for global supremacy? Handily, Israel provides us with a micro synopsis of the macro global problem. Imagine a tiny nation like Costa Rica routinely beating America’s military posterior like a cheap dime store drum. That is the equivalent of Israel defeating the combined military might of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. Please remember that, in Arab culture, humiliation is worse than death. Abandoning conventional warfare in favor of terrorism, the Arab nations intentionally selected a strategy of low-intensity conflict whose upper limit would not trigger direct intervention by the global community.

Thus was tiny Israel left alone to defend itself against continuous terrorist attacks the like of which no other nation on earth save, perhaps, India has had to endure. What of the much vaunted peace negotiations; the Oslo “Road Map” and so forth? What about the “land for peace” concessions that Israel has so often made in the pursuit of a negotiated settlement?

Few people understand that any sort of “negotiated peace” with Israel would serve to unravel the entire Islamic Arab consciousness. Reaching even the least sort of peace agreement would be a frank admission that jihad had failed. Furthermore, any recognition of a Jewish state would contravene the genocidal doctrine that is a cornerstone of Islam. Acceptance of Israel’s continued existence contradicts Islamic canon on so many levels that any such thing is unimaginable.

Piled on top of this is Israel’s continuous string of military victories against often overwhelming Arab forces. How then to explain that away without an indisputable annihilation of Israel tucked under their Islamic belt? Deprived of any concrete proof that Islam actually can prevail against the eternally hated Jew, please do not begin to imagine that there will be any near term cessation of hostilities, if ever.

Thus we are presented with the micro model of global terrorism. Withdrawal, surrender, in fact, peace of any sort with Islam is simply out of the question. In reality, Islam offers nothing that remotely resembles an actual “peace treaty”. Instead, there is only hudna, a temporarily cessation of hostilities that is specifically designed to permit Muslims the rearming needed to then break that “truce” at their convenience. Whither Israel … whither the global community where Islam is concerned.

So long as the West does not pose an existential threat to Islam’s continued presence on earth, there will be no accommodation of any sort. This is the bottom line. That degree of political will is sorely lacking in the West and, even if it existed, there is little likelihood that anyone involved would appreciate how any such pact with the unbelievers would be broken at the first instant of advantage for Islam.

Islam has always demanded to be paid in its own bloody coin. Violence is the only tender it recognizes and all other currency is scorned as a coward’s coinage. Hudna, taqiyya and kitman all assure that there is no hope of an honorably negotiated peace. Islam wants no such thing. Global domination is its imperative and any re-scripting of those priorities is simply out of the question.

Hardest of all to remember is that this has been Islam’s central doctrine from the very beginning of its existence. The West’s opposition or threat to Muslims has no bearing on why Islam wages its barbarous terrorism against us. The hammer of violence remains Islam’s only tool and we are all nails in its sight. Islam has already determined how it will end. It is merely a matter of survival for the West and to let Islam’s chips fall where they may. Muslims will forever be cannon fodder for Islam’s eternal jihad. Until they realize this and rebel for once and all time against their warlord masters nothing will ever change.

Remember … as always; Islam wouldn’t have it any other way.

That is how it will end.

Part I: “When Will it End?”

Part II: “Why Will it End?”

YouTube video by the Shark Tank:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by intub8or on Sep 3, 2011
Excellent words by brilliant patriot and proven warrior!

Rep. West speaks on multiculturalism, learning what the Qur’an is all about, defending western civilization, and the death of Theo Van Gogh.

More about Florida politics at The Shark Tank.

If you’ve been around video or pinball arcades, no doubt you’ve encountered Whac-A-Mole. If you haven’t, you can play it online for free at Addicting Games.

According to Wikipedia:

Whac-A-Mole is an arcade redemption game. A typical Whac-A-Mole machine consists of a large, waist-level cabinet with five holes in its top and a large, soft, black mallet. Each hole contains a single plastic mole and the machinery necessary to move it up and down. Once the game starts, the moles will begin to pop up from their holes at random. The object of the game is to force the individual moles back into their holes by hitting them directly on the head with the mallet, thereby adding to the player’s score. The more quickly this is done the higher the final score will be.
[…]
Colloquial usage
The connotation of “Whac-a-mole” or “Whack-a-mole” in colloquial usage is that of a repetitious and futile task: each time the attacker is “whacked” or kicked off a service, he only pops up again from another direction.[5][6] The term has been used in the computer and networking industry to describe the phenomenon of fending off recurring spammers, vandals or miscreants. It is also used in the military to refer to opposing troops who keep re-appearing.[7] This use has been common in the Iraq War in reference to the difficulty of defeating the Iraqi insurgency.[8] Nuclear scientist Edwin Lyman compares the multiple simultaneous crises at Fukushima I to a game of “whack-a-mole” [9]

Let’s go get ‘em!

We in the blogosphere can help by uncovering at least some of the Muslim Brotherhood bad guys (and some bad women, of course), so that we don’t have to wait for them to rear up their ugly heads on their own.

We’ve recently drawn your attention to that wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing, Grover Norquist, who has insinuated himself into conservative and Republican circles as an anti-tax activist, but who is a vile agent of the Muslim Brotherhood.

American Thinker: Grover Norquist’s Jihad

By Pamela Geller

The Freedom Defense Initiative, a new organization I started with author and scholar Robert Spencer, hosted its inaugural event to an enthusiastic standing-room-only crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference on February 19. But this event was at CPAC, not of CPAC. Could this be because of the influence of conservative kingmaker and power-broker Grover Norquist, who is a member of the Board of Directors of the American Conservative Union, which hosts CPAC? The only event concerning the war on America at CPAC was worse than nothing at all: It was an Islamic propaganda (taqiyya) presentation entitled “You’ve Been Lied To: Why Real Conservatives are Against the War on Terror.” Its message was that “real conservatives” don’t support the war on terror because it is a creation of the “Israeli lobby.”

How did CPAC come to this?

Grover Norquist’s ties to Islamic supremacists and jihadists have been known for years. He and his Palestinian wife, Samah Alrayyes — who was director of communications for his Islamic Free Market Institute until they married in 2005 — are very active in “Muslim outreach.” Just six weeks after 9/11, The New Republic ran an exposé explaining how Norquist arranged for George W. Bush to meet with fifteen Islamic supremacists at the White House on September 26, 2001 — to show how Muslims rejected terrorism. Wrote TNR author Franklin Foer:

On the afternoon of September 26, George W. Bush gathered 15 prominent Muslim- and Arab-Americans at the White House. With cameras rolling, the president proclaimed that “the teachings of Islam are teachings of peace and good.” It was a critically important moment, a statement to the world that America’s Muslim leaders unambiguously reject the terror committed in Islam’s name.

Unfortunately, many of the leaders present hadn’t unambiguously rejected it. To the president’s left sat Dr. Yahya Basha, president of the American Muslim Council, an organization whose leaders have repeatedly called Hamas “freedom fighters.” Also in attendance was Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who on the afternoon of September 11 told a Los Angeles public radio audience that “we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list.” And sitting right next to President Bush was Muzammil Siddiqi, president of the Islamic Society of North America, who last fall told a Washington crowd chanting pro-Hezbollah slogans that “America has to learn if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come.”

It was Norquist who ushered these silver-tongued jihadists into the Oval Office of an incurious president after the worst attack ever on American soil. Instead of Hamas, Hezb’allah, and the Muslim Brotherhood, Ibn Warraq, Bat Ye’or, and Wafa Sultan should have been advising the president. Instead, at that September 26 meeting, Bush declared that “the teachings of Islam are teachings of peace and good.” It was a critically important, historic incident. What should have been the most important teaching moment of the long war became a propaganda tool for Islam. A singular opportunity was squandered, and the resulting harm is incalculable.

Bush did this because he trusted Norquist, who vouched for these Muslim leaders. Yet “the record suggests,” wrote Foer, “that [Norquist] has spent quite a lot of time promoting people openly sympathetic to Islamist terrorists.” And this continued for years. In December 2003, David Horowitz wrote that Norquist,

…has formed alliances with prominent Islamic radicals who have ties to the Saudis and to Libya and to Palestine Islamic Jihad, and who are now under indictment by U.S. authorities. Equally troubling is that the arrests of these individuals and their exposure as agents of terrorism have not resulted in noticeable second thoughts on Grover’s part or any meaningful effort to dissociate himself from his unsavory friends.

Horowitz wrote this in an introduction to a detailed exposé by Frank Gaffney showing how Norquist had given Muslims with jihad terror links access to the highest levels of the U.S. government.

Grover Norquist was on the Islamic payroll before and after the carnage of September 11. Gaffney revealed Norquist’s close ties to Abdurahman Alamoudi, who is now serving twenty-three years in prison for financing jihad activity. In 2000, Alamoudi said at a rally, “I have been labeled by the media in New York to be a supporter of Hamas. Anybody support Hamas here? … Hear that, Bill Clinton? We are all supporters of Hamas. I wished they added that I am also a supporter of Hezb’allah.” Alamoudi was at that time head of the now-defunct “moderate” group known as American Muslim Council (AMC), and he was active in other Muslim groups in the U.S. that showed sympathy to or support for jihadists. And Alamoudi, according to Gaffney, gave $50,000 to the lobbying group Janus-Merritt Strategies, which Norquist co-founded.

Alamoudi’s money bought influence. Gaffney wrote in 2003: “It seems unlikely that even in Alamoudi’s wildest dreams he could have imagined the extent of the access, influence and legitimacy the American Muslim Council and allied Islamist organizations would be able to secure in Republican circles, thanks to the investment they began in 1998 in a relationship with Norquist.”

Alamoudi also helped found Norquist’s Islamic Institute with a $10,000 loan and a gift of another $10,000. The founding director of the Islamic Institute is Khaled Saffuri, a Palestinian Muslim who had previously been active in Islamic groups in Bosnia, where Islamic jihadists from all over the world gathered “to establish,” says Gaffney, “a beachhead on the continent of Europe.” Gaffney adds that Saffuri “has acknowledged personally supporting the families of suicide bombers — even though, in public settings, he strenuously denies having done so.” Saffuri also denounced Bush’s shutdown of the Holy Land Foundation, which was funneling charitable contributions to Hamas.

Norquist has also carried water for Islamic supremacist attempts to weaken anti-terror efforts. Gaffney reveals that “Norquist was also a prime-mover behind efforts to secure one of the Islamists’ top pre-9/11 agenda items: the abolition of a section of the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act that permits authorities to use what critics call ‘secret evidence.’ … Norquist was an honoree at an event held by Sami Al-Arian’s National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom in July 2001, two months before 9/11. The award was for being a ‘champion of the abolishment movement against secret evidence.’” Al-Arian in 2006 pleaded guilty “conspiracy to make or receive contributions of funds to or for the benefit of Palestinian Islamic Jihad.” Palestinian Islamic jihad is even worse than Hamas’s; it celebrates the killing of Israeli civilians and calls repeatedly for the destruction of Israel.
[…]
Much more here.

We’ve already pulled the bedcovers (both figuratively and literally) off Hillary Clinton and her pet MB mole, Huma Abedin, in the context of Weinergate.

Anthony Weiner resigned, but the real problem is his wife Huma, and she is still around!

Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack: U.S Ignores Hillary Clinton’s Powerful Aide Huma Abedin at Its Own Risk

[…]
Even more disconcerting…is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton​’s aide and Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, who has been with Clinton since 1996. She was never properly screened, this will be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

To be concerned about Abedin’s access to sensitive information is an issue that will most likely garner unsolicited curses from “sensitive” Americans who are enamored with her. These same people ignore this diva’s familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood…

Abedin is even more potentially dangerous: She can leak state secrets. She is closely associated with her Muslim Brotherhood​ family and even joined Clinton at an event with her mother, Saleha Abedin, at Dar El-Hekma College in Saudi Arabia. Also present was a close associate of Saleha Abedin—Suheir Qureshi. Qureshi’s name later appeared in several prominent Arab newspapers when it was revealed that she belonged to a list of 63 members of the secret arm of the Muslim Brotherhood called The Sisterhood. The full list was later revealed—Huma Abedin’s mother is on it. Huma’s brother—Hassan Abedin—also collaborates with Omar Naseef and Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, two of the most influential terror supporters in the world.

Yet, as detractors argue “guilt by association,” they unwittingly strengthen our case, because this is what the FBI uses when investigating federal employees: “Character. Associates. Reputation. And Loyalty to the United States. (CARL).” This checklist was never applied to Huma Abedin, who still associates with her family. Dismissing all this as “guilt by association” ignores a tough question:

Other than Huma Abedin, has there ever been a case in which a family member who either belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood or was a prominent Islamist did not denounce a Muslim female relative who married a non-Muslim male?

It’s a question with only one answer: Her family made an exception for her because Huma has a higher calling.

Westerners erroneously compare the “Middle East” mindset with that of the “Midwest,” and fail to shift gears to understand the Muslim worldview. They do not comprehend the seriousness of a Muslim “daughter” or “sister” marrying a Jewish male, particularly because the Islamic Shariah Faculty in Kuwait has deemed Huma Abedin’s marriage to a male Jew null and void.

While Westerners portray The Sisterhood as a simple “mule service,” our own detailed research—which will be released shortly—reveals male supervisors as official members along with their wives and/or daughters. The list includes spies who have proudly disclosed their heroic acts during Israel’s wars with Egypt. Others are Nazi-style propagandists, Nazi affiliates from the time of the Brotherhood’s inception, hijab (Muslim head covering and modest styles of dress) advocates in Europe, prominent doctors, popular conspiracy theorists and media icons that closely emulate the Goebbels propaganda machine of Nazi Germany.

The group’s influence spans several international organizations from the United Nations to the United States to women’s advocacy groups worldwide. Its influence is immense. Overlooking this group—and by extension, Huma Abedin—is not dissimilar to ignoring the Able Danger intelligence operation’s revelations about Mohamed Atta​ prior to 9/11.

Any doubting Thomas must acknowledge the validity of The Sisterhood list because it follows the same agenda and direction shown on the Muslim Brotherhood’s official website, and it has been confirmed by Egyptian security services and top experts, including the Arab Center for Research and Studies, headed by researcher Abdul Rahim Ali.

To give you a taste of this bitter herb, we will examine a single name before we publish all 63. Take Najla Ali Mahmoud, who is supervised by her husband, Mohammed Aidalmrsi, member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Guidance Bureau and the current leader of the Justice and Freedom Party (the Brotherhood’s new propaganda name). He recently appeared on national television and explained why “Egypt needs to ban Western dress” and how “no one with a full mental faculty can believe in the Trinity.” He even condemned Egyptian monuments as “idols.” This group differs from the Taliban only in that it has a Western propaganda machine.

Will Egypt do to the Sphinx what the Taliban did to the Buddhist statues in Bamiyan, Afghanistan? Will Egypt perpetrate a holocaust on Coptic Christians who are already portrayed as having a mental deficiency for believing in the Trinity?

And while this “Goebbels” runs his propaganda machine, the naysayers demand evidence of Huma Abedin’s membership in this notorious group. Would someone have appointed the daughter of Magda and Joseph Goebbels as the deputy chief of staff for Cordell Hull—the U.S. secretary of state during World War II​—arguing that she was not a member of the Nazi party?

It is not “racist” to compare the Muslim Brotherhood with the Nazis. Hassan Al-Banna, the grandfather of Tariq Ramadan​(Ramadan’s ban from the U.S. was lifted by Clinton), collaborated with Hitler henchman Haj Amin al-Husseini, who became the Muslim Brotherhood leader after the war. Neither has the Brotherhood repented. They still take pride in their collaboration with the Nazis.

And while the U.S. House of Representatives debated whether to cut off funds for Obama’s military campaign in Libya, which aids the Brotherhood-backed rebels, Clinton challenged Congress over its position, asking, “Whose side are you on?”

This is a question the secretary of state should ask herself.

Read it all.

But wait, there’s MORE…

MB moles in the Obama White House!

NoisyRoom: Did Obama’s actions put Seal Team Six in danger? Muslim Brotherhood in our White House

By: AJ of NoisyRoom.net & Arlen Williams
Contributor: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

New details and names have emerged regarding appointees that Obama brought into our White House who allegedly have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. This article lays out what we have learned and calls for an immediate Congressional investigation.

It is no secret that Obama has embraced an enemy that openly states their desire to destroy Western Civilization and declares “Death to America.” Obama’s perplexing actions over the course of his Presidency appear to be more aligned with the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood and United Nations than with America’s agenda.

From Obama’s illegal war in Libya with U.S. military support to Al Qaida insurgents (under UN direction) – to his most recent war waged in Yemen – to the murders of 30 U.S. special operations troops which included 17 members of SEAL Team Six who took out Osama bin Laden, the truth about Obama’s actions and those he has placed in our White House must be found.

Background:

As documented in our previous article, “Muslim Brotherhood in Our White House and the Murders of SEAL Team Six”:

“Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, author and self-described Liberal Democrat Marxist Muslim who campaigned for Barack Obama, revealed the identity of Obama’s White House appointees who have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood (see Muslim Brotherhood in our White House – Vetting Obama).

Obama and Hillary Clinton are reaching out to the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamic fundamentalist group committed to the destruction of America, Britain and Israel and identified as a terrorist organization by the U.S.

Obama began talks with the Taliban to negotiate with these terrorists.”

Obama sells tanks and weaponry to the Islamists in Egypt who want to suspend the treaty with Israel and annihilate them. They have formed a NAZI party that is gaining strength in Egypt today.

Obama invites people to our White House during Ramadan who have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood; he omits their names on the Iftar guest list.”

New Details:

We now learn that the threat of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration runs much deeper in our White House. WND’s investigative reporting uncovered stunning information from a former FBI special agent in Washington D.C. and WND presents that information in: “Underpublicized threat deep in White House.”

WND reports, “Former FBI special agent John Guandolo says Obama’s ties to agents for the Muslim Brotherhood are even more extensive.”

Excerpt from the WND article:

“Another Brotherhood-tied figure influencing the White House is Azizah al-Hibri.

Obama this June appointed her to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. A Muslim professor, al-Hibri is also the granddaughter of a sheik, who claims the Saudi criminal justice system is more moral than the American one because it accepts blood money from murderers.

Al-Hibri herself has proclaimed: “Islamic fiqh (law) is deeper and better than Western codes of law.”

She served on the advisory board of the American Muslim Council and made joint appearances with its leader Abdurahman Alamoudi. Now defunct, the AMC was a front group for the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, and Alamoudi was the Brotherhood’s top leader in America. He is now behind bars as one of al-Qaida’s top fundraisers in America.

Al-Hibri has also made appearances at Islamic Society of North America conferences. The Justice Department says ISNA is a Brotherhood front and recently named the group an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to provide material support to Hamas terrorists.

Guandolo identified several other Brotherhood-connected agents of influence – all of whom are just as politically savvy and moderate sounding – who have worked their way into government positions, including:

Arif Alikhan, who was assistant Homeland Security secretary for policy development and is now a distinguished visiting professor of homeland security and counterterrorism at the National Defense University.

Syrian-born Kareem Shora, who is Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s senior policy adviser.

Navy Cmdr. Youssef Aboul-Enein and Jocelyne Cesari, a Muslim convert who previously worked with Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, both of whom teach at colleges within the National Defense University.

Guandolo blames the advances Brotherhood figures on political correctness and lax vetting at government agencies.

Even at the FBI, he notes, an Iranian-born Muslim has taken over the agency’s weapons of mass destruction program.”

Conclusion:

SEAL Team Six was in danger if Obama brought individuals into our White House who have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood – a terrorist organization that created Al Qaida, Hamas and the Taliban. It was reported that it was the Taliban who murdered our troops on August 6, 2011.

There is no question that the Muslim Brotherhood would want to exact revenge for the death of Osama bin Laden. Obama not only enabled them by permitting public release of the identity of our troops, but he may also have unwittingly provided them with access to mission-related information from within the White House by his own appointees.

Serious questions remain from the moment Obama allowed the release of SEAL Team Six’s identity up to the day our troops were murdered.

[…]
More here.

Not that long ago, enemy foreign agents were rooted out and then hanged. Now we can’t even get them FIRED. Is that too much to ask?

Also see:

• Denying Islamists Federal Security Clearances

We’ve been blogging about Kurt Westergaard’s Mo-toons for a long while. We even have a Mo-toons category link. But it never occurred to us that anybody would use the Mo-toons as an illustrated how-to guide.

Mo Turban Cartoon Come Full Circle

…What a difference a few short years make. In 2006, Muslims across the globe were incensed over Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten’s publishing of the Mo Toons. Which resulted in the deaths of over 100 people. As psychopathic as it sounds, yes… you read that right – cartoon related deaths, their blood on the hands of arrogant, enraged Muslims, demanding all bow to allah fubar.

The most popular Mo Toon is of course, the Mohammed Turban Bomb toon by Kurt Westergaard…

Now recently, in a most ironic twist of events, a Taliban suicide bomber assassinated the mayor of Kandahar, Afghanistan, Ghulam Haider Hamidi with get this –an exploding turban bomb he was wearing.

Folks you can’t make this stuff up…

More here.

The victim was not one of us counterjihadists, but another Muslim. Nonetheless, at 1389 Blog, our desire is not to see Muslims die, but rather, to see them be converted.

News1130: Suicide bomber with explosives in turban kills populist Kandahar mayor

Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press Jul 27, 2011 23:30:00 PM

He liked to cast himself as one of the few honest men in Kandahar, a plucky troublemaker not afraid to stick a finger in the eye of authority or vested interests.

And in the end, those traits might have contributed to the brutal death of Ghulam Haider Hamidi, the outspoken mayor of Kandahar city.

He had survived previous attempts to kill him, but a suicide bomber with explosives concealed in his turban assassinated Hamidi on Wednesday.

Hamidi, 65, was the third high-ranking official in the volatile southern Afghan province to be murdered this year. The president’s half brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, and the provincial police chief, Gen. Khan Mohammad Mujahid, were killed earlier.

The Taliban claimed responsibility, saying it was revenge over a land dispute involving the demolition of 200 illegally constructed homes in the city’s vast northern slum — an act that insurgents claimed had caused the death of two children.

That alleged zoning disputes continue to be settled with bombs in Kandahar is setback for the U.S., which took full control of the province from the Canadian army a few weeks ago.

Hamidi, who spent 30 years in exile in Arlington, Va., as an accountant, said in recent interviews with The Canadian Press that he knew he was marked for death but accepted the risk as his way to give back to the city he loved.

He was appointed Kandahar mayor in 2007. “I didn’t do my job for Ahmed Wali Karzai. I did not do it for Mr. Hamid Karzai. I do my job because I owe this city,” Hamidi said last December.

“I (was) born here. I grew up here. I eat from this city. I was educated in this province and I had good times here. Now in the last times of my life, I want to spend it here, serving my city and city citizens.”

“I could go back to America, but I choose to be here,” he said. “I will fight, fight corruption (and) those corrupt people. This my city. Kandahar is my city and I will die here.”
[…]
Read it all.

Sad.

Too many civilians killed by NATO air strikes

Published: Tuesday, July 19, 2011, 12:53 AM
Letters to the Editor

The article about Afghanistan read “NATO says its airstrikes killed civilians as well as fighters” (July 8). This is not the first time NATO airstrikes have killed civilians, and in the following cases there were no fighters.

The London Telegraph reported in 1999 that NATO struck an Albanian convoy, killing at least 64 Kosovo Albanian refugees, a number of them children, and wounding 20 others. NATO initially tried to blame the atrocity on Serbian forces, but eventually had to admit that it had bombed the refugee convoy and apologized for the deaths.

In another incident, a NATO pilot hit a bridge in central Serbia crowded with traffic and pedestrians on a Sunday afternoon; 17 people were wounded and people died, including a priest, as reported by Reuters, May 30 1999. Four minutes after the initial attack, a second attack hit the bridge just as help arrived for the surviving victims.

NATO is an organization of nations that agree by treaty that if one member is attacked, it is considered to be an attack against them all. It should be noted that Yugoslavia did not attack the United States nor any other NATO member. Formed to counter the threat from the now-defunct Soviet Union, NATO has gone far beyond its intent.

STELLA JATRAS, Camp Hill

More reasons why we MUST ban the burqa, the niqab, and all similar facial and bodily disguise in public places:

Terrorists in Drag: Bombs Beneath the Burqa

Posted by Phyllis Chesler on Jul 6th, 2011

There they all stand, guilty as sin, Afghan Taliban terrorists disguised in women’s burqas—but exposed when they were captured by the Afghan Border Police. Their photo (or rather photos) were taken by an Afghan photographer somewhere near Jalalabad and have just been seen worldwide.

One of these charmers was wearing an explosive vest; six had AK-47s. Clearly they were up to no good. One wonders how long they will remain in jail and what they will do when they emerge.

These photographs conclusively validate the concern that Dr. Daniel Pipes has had about the security risk that burqas represent. For the last six years, Dr. Pipes has been detailing the number of common criminals and Islamist terrorists who have robbed jewelry stories and peeped into women’s bathrooms while wearing burqas, or who have blown themselves and others up from under the protective cover of a mere woman’s shroud.

In December, 2009, a suicide bomber dressed in a full veil and abaya gained access to a ceremony attended by Somali government officials in Mogadishu and killed 19 people, including three cabinet ministers. In February, 2010, a female suicide bomber killed 54 Shia pilgrims in Baghdad. She was dressed in an abaya, which police said allowed her to hide an explosive device. In December, 2010 in Pakistan, a woman wearing a burqa threw a grenade and detonated an explosive vest at a U.N. security checkpoint, killing 41 people.

This is not just happening in Muslim-majority countries or in war zones.

In August, 2010, a man wearing a burqa robbed a bank in Silver Spring, Maryland. In January, 2011, a man wearing niqab (a face veil) attempted to rob a bank in Philadelphia. Three years earlier, also in Philadelphia, three men dressed as Muslim women stuck up a Bank of America branch. One of the men shot and killed a police officer during their getaway.

Why are burqas allowed in public? Or rather, why don’t we view them as potentially suspicious as opposed to a religious custom which we infidels are obligated to honor and revere?

For reasons of safety, the West, and for that matter the entire Muslim world, should immediately ban the burqa as a security risk. [Emphasis added.]

Read the rest here.

More here:

• Blazing Cat Fur: Ezra Levant in Drag
• All 1389 Blog articles on banning the burqa

Allen West: First Principles for National Security

Allen West spoke at a Center for Security Policy event in New York City on the national security threats America faces, specifically in the Middle East.

Just for starters: Libya DOES NOT fit within the War Powers Act, and was unconstitutional from the get-go.

Rep. West exposes the role of the Muslim Brotherhood and its role in the “Arab Spring,” predicts the result of the draw-down of US troops, explains the need for secure borders for Israel, and warns of the dangers of Islamic infiltration and political correctness in the US.

He also points out that the rivalry between Iran and Turkey for hegemony over the Muslim world brings NATO into a potentially deadly conflict.

Watch it all; there’s much more in the video.

Where do Barack Hussain Obama, Hillary Clinton, Lindsay Graham, Gen. Petraeus, and US military policy really stand when it comes to Islam, Christianity, Shari’a, and the First Amendment? Hear them in their own words!

Shariamerica: Islam, Obama, and the Establishment Clause

Uploaded by Acts17Apologetics on Apr 14, 2011

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/
The U.S. government condemns burning the Qur’an. Yet the U.S. government burns Bibles. This is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.