Saturday, April 20, 2013

What we have been saying for a very long time now. . .

The Telegraph:

Boston bombs: Obama lulled America into false confidence over terror threat

The war on terror cannot be fought at an arm's length - and the attacks on Boston have brought uncertainty back to American streets, writes Peter Foster.

10:59PM BST 19 Apr 2013

In his State of the Union address to the American people earlier this year, Barack Obama declared that he was "confident" of achieving "our objective of defeating the core of al-Qaeda".

Although he acknowledged the need to pursue the "remnants" of the terrorist group and its affiliates, the overall message was clear – al-Qaeda was badly degraded, the tides of war were receding and the US was winning this fight that was no longer even officially a war.

The Boston bombings would appear to present a fundamental challenge to that assessment and once again bring the nagging uncertainty of terrorism back on to the American main street.

It is too soon to be absolutely sure the attacks were motivated by jihadist ideology, but the Islamic videos on the website of the older of the two Tsarnaev brothers point very firmly in that direction.

They bring home the complexity of the global Islamist threat and the fact that it cannot be confined to wars in distant lands, or fought at arm's length using drones, as the Obama administration has quietly yet insistently led America to believe.

Mr Obama and his intelligence community know the threat from al-Qaeda affiliates, but have chosen to downplay it to the US public.

Even when that fight does directly touch on American lives, as it did last September when the US ambassador to Libya was murdered in Benghazi by an al-Qaeda linked group, the administration appears at pains to deny the connection.

Indeed, next week, America's transportation authority is to relax rules on carrying knives on planes for the first time since the September 11 attacks.

But as many counter-terrorism experts have been saying – their voices often drowned out or ignored in favour of the pleasing simplicity of the Obama administration's narrative – the threat from al-Qaeda is too amorphous and shifting to ever have been discounted.

"They've fallen into the same trap that the Bush administration did early on," says Tom Jocelyn, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank who tracks the movements of high-value al-Qaeda targets.

"They define al-Qaeda as a hierarchical terrorist organisation such that if you kill 'x' number of leaders then the whole thing falls apart."

But the early information on the Tsarnaev brothers – born in Kyrgyzstan to a Chechen family, but living in the US for up to a decade – points to just how blurred, in reality, the distinctions between al-Qaeda and its affiliates can become.

"It's a hybrid thing, that's the problem," says Aaron Zelin, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who has written extensively about the decentralisation of al-Qaeda. "It's a unique threat, there's nothing like it and that's why people have a hard time grasping what it is."

Looked at that way, Mr Obama's "confidence" – and that of the American public – is likely to be badly shaken by what is emerging from Boston.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

2010: Eric Holder: Miranda Rights Should Be Modified For Terrorism Suspects

Anonymous said...

2009: U.S. Lawmaker Says Obama Administration Ordered FBI to Read Rights to Detainees

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/11/lawmaker-says-obama-administration-ordered-fbi-read-rights-detainees/#ixzz2Qy2F7svK

Anonymous said...

Recall also, Holder wanted to move Gitmo trials to civilian courts . . .
""Odds are that he will be convicted of something but in the federal courts, it's the luck of draw as to what judge you get," King told Fox News. "And you could get a judge who would say because he was arrested without a warrant, because he was not read his Miranda rights, because he was held seven years without a trial, all of this is a terrible injustice and therefore I'm going to dismiss the charges. I doubt any judge would do that, but it's going to make it more difficult to get the conviction."

Read more: Holder downplays concerns wartime prisoners entering civilian courts - 2009

Anonymous said...

The dualism of Islam is practiced within this administration and it's pseudo war on terror.

See here: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=26769

Money quote from that link: “But in fact, since the Koran is considered by Muslims to be the perfect word of Allah, both verses are sacred and true. The later verse is “better,” but the earlier verse cannot be wrong since Allah is perfect. This is the foundation of dualism. Both verses are “right.” Both sides of the contradiction are true in dualistic logic. The circumstances govern which verse is used.”

Got that? The circumstances govern which verse is used. Incredibly convenient – no? It fits the excuse pattern used by their prophet (uswa hasana al insan al kamil – the perfect example for all mankind for time) spit.


Anonymous said...

Not too many people have any less regard for obama than I do. To show my low opinion of him, I refuse to capitalize his name when it appears by itself, except at the beginning of sentences.

[O]bama can be aptly characterized by any number of unflattering adjectives. I've used many of them. That said, as little as I care for the man, I insist on a modicum of fair treatment when I cuss and discuss him.

To say he "lulled America into false confidence over terror threat" goes too far.

Pastorius said...

Anonymous,

Really?

I mean, the guy declared the War on Terror to be over, Al Qaeda decimated, and he presided over the coverup of Major Hassan's (who was an intimate of Awlaki) Jihad murder of 27 servicemen.

How is that not lulling the American public to sleep?

Pastorius said...

Anonymous responded to my comment, writing,



There's a difference between you and me, Pastorius: I try to stick with the facts.

1. April 23, 2012: "Today, the National Journal reported that a senior State Department official has announced, 'The war on terror is over.'" That's an unnamed source in the State Department, not obama.

2. Major Nidal Hassan was "an intimate of [Anwar al] Awlaki"? "An FBI investigation concluded that his e-mails with the late Imam Anwar al-Awlaki were related to his authorized professional research and that he was not a threat." Sure, the FBI was wrong, but that doesn't mean Hassan was "an intimate of Awlaki." Clue: Try to learn the meanings of words before you use them.

3. Hassan killed 13, not 27.

4. Can't find obama saying "al Qaeda has been decimated," but I found what Michelle Malkin had to say: "Using the obsolete definition of 'decimated,' Obama basically said Al Qaeda is at 90 percent strength. The modern meaning is 'to destroy a great number or proportion of.' The former isn’t brag-worthy, and applying the latter is to exaggerate more than Joe Biden describing the size of the Romney/Ryan tax cut."

Part of a President's job is to be the nation's head cheerleader. From time to time, a President must rally the troops -- with you and me (Average Jane and Average Joe) being among the troops. In doing so, she may well overstate how well we're doing: "We're turning the corner." "The end is in sight." "Our enemies are on the run." In that sense, we might have been lulled by obama -- but no more so than President Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld et al. lulled US.

Would you have us cower in fear and completely shut down the way Boston did last week? That would be great for the economy, wouldn't it?

Pastorius said...

my answer

1) You're right. It was a State Dept. official who said that, and it may not have been authorized, or reflected, strictly, the views of the Administration. Here's what the Administration actually said:

“We will always seek to delegitimise the use of terrorism and to isolate those who carry it out,” it states. “Yet this is not a global war against a tactic – terrorism – or a religion – Islam.

“We are at war with a specific network, al-Qaeda, and its terrorist affiliates who support efforts to attack the United States, our allies, and partners.”

Pastorius said...

2) 2. Major Nidal Hassan was "an intimate of [Anwar al] Awlaki"? "An FBI investigation concluded that his e-mails with the late Imam Anwar al-Awlaki were related to his authorized professional research and that he was not a threat." Sure, the FBI was wrong, but that doesn't mean Hassan was "an intimate of Awlaki." Clue: Try to learn the meanings of words before you use them.


my answer:

Yeah, you're right. The FBI was wrong, and willfully so. Professional capacity? He was a Psychiatrist. He had no reason to be contacting Hasan.

I will write more later. I don't have time right now.

But, it seems to me your response to this second point is weak, or lacking in sincerity. Are you joking?

Pastorius said...

Alright, I'm back. So I'm back to your 2nd point:

Intimate (as a noun) --- Marked by close acquaintance, association ...

That's the sense in which I used the word intimate with regard to Nidal Hassan's relationship with Awlaki.

Hasan sent Awlaki "as many as 20 emails."

Hasan told Awlaki, 'I speak with you about issues that I never speak with anyone else.'"

Awlaki said of Hasan, "It was clear he trusted me."

In one of the e-mails, Hasan wrote al-Awlaki: "I can't wait to join you" in the afterlife.

Hasan also asked al-Awlaki when jihad is appropriate, and whether it is permissible if innocents are killed in a suicide attack.

In the months before the shooting, Hasan increased his contacts with al-Awlaki to discuss how to transfer funds abroad without coming to the attention of law authorities.

Awlaki was a very important man, a senior leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen, "the Bin Laden of the internet". That he took the time to share ideas with Hasan shows that Awlaki had some regard for Hasan, that he took him at least somewhat seriously.

This is why I used the word intimate.

I'm right to use the word. They shared confidences over which Hasan could have, should have been arrested.

Awlaki was eventually assassinated by the United States for these types of confidences.

Pastorius said...

3) obviously, you're correct.

13 murdered, 32 counts of attempted murder ...

Pastorius said...

4) "Al Qaeda has been decimated"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQjztrnJzCM

President Barack Obama has described al Qaeda as having been “decimated,” “on the path to defeat” or some other variation at least 32 times since the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, according to White House transcripts.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-touts-al-qaeda-s-demise-32-times-benghazi-attack-0

The point is, really, he does not have the right to such a verbal assertion when rallying the troops.