Terror Threat – Here and There

Posted by Tina

A story by Paul Sperry in the New York Post today shouldn’t really surprise anyone. The title, “Boston bombers’ mosque tied to ISIS,” barely scratches the surface of what is becoming increasingly apparent…Americans have been too eager to protect our willingness to be inclusive and not nearly suspicious enough to protect our citizens from real danger.

Consider those tied to the “moderate” mosque that inspired the Boston Marathon bombers:

Abdurahman Alamoudi, the mosque’s founder and first president who in 2004 was sentenced to 23 years in prison for plotting terrorism. In 2005, the Treasury Department issued a statement saying Alamoudi raised money for al Qaeda in the US.

Aafia Siddiqui, an MIT scientist-turned-al Qaeda agent, who in 2010 was sentenced to 86 years in prison for planning a New York chemical attack. Known as “Lady al Qaeda,” she is related to 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. ISIS has tried to trade her release for journalist hostages.

Tarek Mehanna, who in 2012 got 17 years in prison for conspiring to use automatic weapons to murder shoppers in a suburban Boston mall.

Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a mosque trustee and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leader banned from the US after issuing a fatwa that called for the killing of US soldiers.

Jamal Badawi, another former trustee who in 2007 was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a plan to funnel more than $12 million to Palestinian suicide bombers.

Now it can be revealed that another regular worshipper at the Islamic Society mosque was Ahmad Abousamra, who is now the top propagandist for ISIS.

Americans are naturally inclusive and friendly…and its killing us. Trust but verify is smart but perhaps we’ve been too long on the trust end. We have no good reason to automatically trust…terrorists are liars! Presidents all the way back to Carter have made this about bad actors, and it is, but it is also about a movement, a movement very similar to the rise of Hitler (see below).

It’s clear that we’ve had a JV team running plays in the White House for six years. A team that drops the ball, makes bad calls and tries to cover for mistakes by spinning yarns. America leads from behind dragging the free world behind us on a team without coaches and apparently without a playbook.

Journalists worth their salt patiently remind the good citizens of America that those we put in charge have been clueless:

We are not going to organize our counterterrorism policies against a feckless delusion that is never going to happen. We are not going to elevate these thugs and their murderous aspirations into something larger than they are. ~~ John Brennan, Director, CIA

All of that early posturing, including the silly explanation for failures in Benghazi, were about making sure Obama won the 2012 election. But it didn’t serve America! And what is the excuse now?

The problem with electing someone who is unprepared to lead, and then re-electing them, is that many of the people placed in authority are also unprepared to lead their various departments. Call it trickle down, what we are seeing is trickle down feckless incompetence. It all boils down to The United States appearing weak in the world and being weak and unprepared to deal with a growing dangerous threat.

So this morning we get the big news, “Exclusive: Obama to Deliver Major Address on ISIS, Vows to “Hunt Down” Extremists.”

ne day before the thirteenth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, President Barack Obama plans to address the nation on the threat posed by ISIS extremists — telling NBC News the U.S. will “hunt down” the terrorists “wherever they are.”

The president revealed his plans for the upcoming address during a wide-ranging, exclusive interview on NBC’s Meet the Press.

“What I’m going to be asking the American people to understand is, number one, this is a serious threat,” Obama said about the speech, which is not expected to be a prime time address. “Number two, we have the capacity to deal with it.”

Obama emphasized he will not advocate for the deployment of U.S. ground troops in the region, saying it would be “a profound mistake” to put American boots on the ground in Syria as some critics have suggested.

“This is not the equivalent of the Iraq war,” he said, stressing that the United States will work with “regional partners” like Iraqi and Kurdish forces and Syrian rebel troops to degrade the terror group’s capacities.

“Over the course of months, we are going to be able to not just blunt the momentum of (ISIS),” he said. “We are going to systematically degrade their capabilities. We’re going to shrink the territory that they control. And that’s how we’re going to defeat them.”

In further comments the President used the term “occupy” for what we did in Iraq under the leadership of George Bush. Our intention was never to occupy that country; our intention was to liberate it and help the people to establish a democratic government and ally that would work with us to decimate terrorists. It’s time, in my mind, that this President knocked off the partisan terminology. Its time he recognized he’s on the same tea,. It’s time to choose team USA or step aside so someone who will work for America can take the reins.

Cross your fingers, hope for the best, and PRAY for our nation and the world…and pray for this President and his appointees. If ever there was a time when we needed a miraculous turn around it is NOW!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Terror Threat – Here and There

  1. Tina says:

    What do Islamic Terrorism, Feminism, and Political correctness have in common? Read the utterly fascinating and enlightening, “‘Progressive Moral Depravity’: A Confederacy of Dunces,” by Clarice Feldman over at American Thinker

    Wake up, wake up, wake up!

  2. Peggy says:

    Wacko, Ward Churchill will be on the Kelly File tonight on Fox at 6pm. He was a faculty member at a university in Colorado for over ten years.

    Guess, this answers the question of what happened to make our country so full of radical progressive voters.

  3. Tina says:

    I just read that Obama has put together a coalition of nations to fight the terrorists…ten of them, including us: Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Turkey, and the United States.

    Remember how the left harped about George Bush’s inadequate coalition of seventeen participating nations? They look pretty stupid now.

    Speaking of Bush…the Washington Post at least has the smarts to admit that GWB was right in 2007:

    At a White House news conference on July 12, 2007, Bush declared: “I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

    He had no idea at the time how prophetic his words would be.

    In 2010, Obama did precisely what Bush warned against and withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq — overruling his commander on the ground, Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, who had recommended that Obama keep 24,000 troops. And since then, everything that Bush warned would happen has come to pass.

    Read the rest of the article. It spells out Bush’s predictions one by one.

    A whole lot of people owe that man an apology! (Not turning blue.)

  4. Peggy says:

    When Obama says, “no boots on the ground” is he talking about our military or is he also saying no private contractors too, like those stationed at Benghazi?

  5. Libby says:

    You want me to go dig up six Neo-Nazi, “Christian” jihadists who’ve been jailed in the last 15 years. I could.

    Take a pill.

  6. Tina says:

    Take your own damn pill!

    An, no, we don’t, Libby. It would be a useless, ignorant exercise. The moral equivalency game doesn’t fly here.

    You really make me sick.

    I recall you having a conniption fit over refugees fleeing from Iraq…”poor boys” dying during the Bush years. We now have all of the gains we made being reversed and the terrorist threat has multiplied! There are even more refugees all over the place, there are mass killings, beheadings, and persecutions, including crucifixion, and a group with the exact same intention as the Nazis and all you can do is try to justify it by claiming Christians are the equivilent?

    You are insane.

  7. Peggy says:

    Take a pill? You have to be off of your rocker.

    Do you think Foley and Sotlof were even given a “pill” before they had their heads cut off? Here watch and read these to see if it would have helped them.

    Foley:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/29/why-facebook-and-youtube-should-show-the-james-foley-beheading-video/

    Sotloff:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/world/middleeast/steven-sotloff-isis-execution.html?_r=0

    (I won’t watch the video so I don’t know if their of the above links has the beheading.)

    I do believe you should take your own advice Libby and take a pill or two to help you deal with what is going on all around you instead of pretending it doesn’t exist.

  8. Peggy says:

    Darn, missed Mr. O’s speech tonight. Spent the evening with my grandkids having a great time.

    Looks like those who did watch him didn’t like it and wish they hadn’t watched it either.

    http://twitchy.com/2014/09/10/if-you-think-you-are-the-only-one-baffled-by-obamas-speech-you-arent-consensus-wtf/

  9. Libby says:

    Tina: “The moral equivalency game doesn’t fly here.”

    And she never spoke a truer word.

  10. Tina says:

    Dam* straight…there is NONE!

  11. Chris says:

    Libby: “Of course there is moral equivalency between Christian and Muslim “jihadists”. They are both savagely bigoted, hideously violent, whack jobs. Why you should be scared into insensibility by the one and not the other is a great mystery.”

    Well, that one’s easy, Libby: because there are more Muslim jihadists than their Christian equivalent. Violent Christian extremists exist, but they do not run governments or effective worldwide terror organizations. Bringing up Christian extremists when discussing the threat of Islamist terror is really quite silly; the threat of the former is dwarfed by the fear of the latter.

    That said, it is of course possible to exaggerate any threat, and that’s definitely happened here. This sentence:

    “What do Islamic Terrorism, Feminism, and Political correctness have in common?”

    Is hilarious in its mixture of absurdity and self-seriousness. As any rational person would concede, Islamic terrorism, which relies on a philosophy that subjugates women and preaches an extremely narrow life path, has nothing in common with feminism, which teaches that men and women are equals and that many ways of expressing one’s identity are valid.

    The question is revealing about a certain frame of mind popular among radical nationalist/right-wing movements, a mindset where an enemy is always around the corner, and totally unrelated forces are all in on some sort of giant conspiracy against white Westerners; the author of the American Thinker (a misnomer if there ever was one) piece manages to tie feminists, Islamic terrorists, and even believers of climate change into a Grand Unified Theory of Why The Left Sucks, because that’s what you do when your ideology is based on fear.

    The American Thinker piece is entirely fallacious. So feminists haven’t commented on ONE news story, and that proves they’re in bed with terrorists? Really? That would only be convincing to someone who already hates both feminist and Muslims.

    The notion that feminists never speak out about the abuses within Islamic cultures is also ridiculous, and only proves how ignorant about feminism Tina and her sources are. You can find TONS of feminist analysis about the problems in patriarchal Islamic culture if you just look for it. It’s funny how conservatives always shout, “Why aren’t feminists speaking out against X” and “why aren’t Muslims speaking out against Y;” I guess when you wrongly assume that Muslims and feminists control the media, that might make sense, but that assumption is asinine. Feminists and Muslims are not well represented in the media; you actually have to look for what they’re saying in order to find out.

    Hell, almost all of the Muslim women I KNOW are feminists. They spend a lot of time talking about reforming their religion/culture and how to empower women in the Muslim world. Female genital mutilation, the widespread tolerance of domestic abuse, co-ed praying without a partition–these are issues that Muslim feminists talk about all the time.

    For anyone interested in their unique perspective:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_feminism#Equality_in_the_Mosque

  12. Tina says:

    Libby: “Why you should be scared into insensibility by the one and not the other is a great mystery.”

    I believe this is where we all scream…take a pill…please.

    Okay, now I have to know…what Christian/Christian group is threatening you and the rest of America with violence, death and tyrannical rule today? Name them! Name them and I will gladly join you in condemning them.

    ” The fact that some Muslims are pedophiles does not mean that all Muslims are pedophiles”

    There you go with the wild imagination AGAIN. No one here has said that…ever!

    How you do look down your nose at the caricatures you construct in your head though.

    “ISIS will be dealt with…”

    You mean after your party is finished empowering them or what?

    ” In fact, as a practical matter, it’s none of your business.”

    Says who…you? Man, Libby, you must really be embarrassed by the last six years…you’ve gone completely round the bend.

    Your problem is that you were wrong about Bush, wrong about our enemy, wrong about what needed to be done, and wrong about the abilities and intentions of “the one.”

    Our readers should know…our educational system has been sloppy with respect to history and the the Crusades. I suspect the sloppiness is yet another arm of the influence atheists and Marxists have had on education in America.

    The views of those at Islam Watch are worth considering. It’s history you might not have learned in school.

    Islam Watch is:

    …a group of Muslim apostates, who have left Islam out of our own conviction when we discovered that Islam is not a religion at all. Most of us took a prolonged period of time to study, evaluate and contemplate on Islam, the religion of our birth. Having meticulously scrutinized Islam, we concluded that it is not a religion of peace at all, as touted by smooth-talking, self-serving Muslims and their apologists from non-Muslim backgrounds. The core of Islam—namely the Qur’an, Hadis and Sharia—is filled with unbounded hatred of the unbelievers, unbelievably intolerant toward them, and extremely cruel and merciless to those Muslims, who dare to deviate from its doctrines.

    We also realized that Islam is beyond reformation, because Muslims—who attempt to modernize and reform its unremitting bigotry, irrational rituals, and cruel and draconian punitive measures—are targeted for annihilation. Our verdict was that the only way to escape from the tyranny of Islam is to leave it altogether. We have, therefore, discarded Islam from our life, so that we can be free to enjoy a normal, pleasant and humane life in complete harmony with all peoples on earth, irrespective of their religion, race or creed.

    Another good perspective exoressed on Breitbart:

    Historian Thomas Madden puts it more directly, “Now put this down in your notebook, because it will be on the test: The cru­sades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West’s belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world.”6…

    …By the sixteenth century, Islam’s empire covered all of North Africa, Asia Minor, Arabia, and much of southern Europe. Had Islamic forces not been turned back outside the Gates of Vienna, Christianity itself may not have survived. (The battle ended in victory for the Christians on September 12, but it was the day before, marking the apex of Muslim rule, that would stick in the minds of many Muslims for the next 318 years.)

    By that point the Crusades period was several centuries in the rear­view mirror, and most Muslims considered them one of their many, if minor, victories.

    “In the vast Arabic historiography of the Crusades period,” writes Lewis, “there is frequent reference to these invaders, who are always called ‘Franks’ or ‘infidels.’ The words ‘Crusade’ and ‘crusader’ simply do not occur.” Lewis notes that the word only starts to gain wide currency in the Middle East in the nineteenth century, when Western notions of imperialism seep into the Muslim mind. And that’s the irony. In the nineteenth century Europeans (and Americans) invoked the Crusades to justify their imperialist agenda. When imperialism fell into disrepute in the twentieth century, the Crusades fell with it. But the idea that twelfth-century Muslims—or even eighteenth-century Muslims—saw the Crusades as European imperial aggression is nonsense.7 “In other words,” Madden explains (writing back when bin Laden wasn’t fi sh food), “Muslims in the Middle East—including bin Laden and his creatures— know as little about the real crusades as Americans do. Both view them in the context of the modern, rather than the medieval world. The truth is that the crusades had nothing to do with colonialism or unprovoked aggression. They were a desperate and largely unsuccessful attempt to defend against a powerful enemy.”8

    This is enlightening too:

    After fighting a series of successful defensive battles against the advancing Islamic jihadists outside Rome in 1090, the Roman Catholics and Western European potentates agreed to help the Byzantines defend themselves against Islam. As a result, they launched the first crusade in 1095.
    This “Christian” response, while it is not labeled as such, is the only portion of this rather important drama academia seems to care about. And I suppose that is because it allows the “enlightened” to bash
    Christianity. Yet to focus on the Crusades while ignoring the intervening thirteen centuries of Islamic aggression, occupation, and plunder is like watching a documentary on the KKK in 1920 and then
    thinking you understand America.

    Most Westerners do not know that a century before the Crusades were initiated, Rome, the religious
    capital of Europe, had been besieged by Islam. They do not equate the four-hundred-fifty-year siege of Constantinople, the political capital of Christendom, with the Catholic response. Nor are most aware that
    Christians had been ruthlessly persecuted in the Holy Land and their churches had been burned by the Muslims who occupied the region.

    Further, the Crusaders were about the business of returning Jerusalem to the Byzantines who had the Holy Land stolen from them by Muslim mujahideen.

    It isn’t my intention to ridicule or blame any or all peaceful Muslims.

    It is also unacceptable that I be forced or expected to pretend the jihadists waging tyrannical war on the world today do not use as their justification the three holy books of Islam.

    And Libby, don’t pretend you have the authority or right to order me, or anyone else at PS, around. If you are upset at the turn of events all I can say is you earned this!

  13. Chris says:

    Tina: “It isn’t my intention to ridicule or blame any or all peaceful Muslims.”

    But when you post bigoted hate sites saying that “Islam is not a religion” and is basically unreformable, that’s exactly what you’re doing, whether you “intend” to or not.

    Also, your “Bush was right” WaPo article at #3 is ridiculous. It completely ignores that a year after Bush said all that, he set a timetable for withdrawal–and we withdrew exactly on that schedule, much to Obama’s chagrin. Didn’t you just give Obama (well-deserved) flak for falsely taking credit for the withdrawal the other day? If the president can’t have it both ways, then neither can you.

  14. Tina says:

    Chris: “…when you post bigoted hate sites saying that “Islam is not a religion”

    Hateful? Bigoted? or simply willing to look at the subject matter with eyes wide open?

    You pretend to worry about offending others and yet it doesn’t bother you at all to offend others by making these baseless accusations. As far as you’re concerned anyone who dares to examine this religion and put forth the opinion that it doesn’t follow the general form of other religions has to be hate filled. There is nothing wrong with questioning the holiness, if you will, of a religion that exhorts its followers to commit violence as a means to heaven. The religion is unusual…it is unusual in practice! It should be examined seriously! To say that those who do are hateful is patently ridiculous and intellectually lazy.

    “It completely ignores that a year after Bush said all that, he set a timetable for withdrawal–and we withdrew exactly on that schedule”

    That is the spin. It’s nothing but a sack of excuses.

    The Nation march 23, 2009:

    President Obama owes his election in part to his early, forceful opposition to the Iraq War and to the antiwar movement, which rallied around his candidacy. It is fitting, then, that one of the early acts of his presidency was to announce a plan to withdraw US forces from Iraq.

    For the most part, Obama’s plan is faithful to his campaign promises. It calls for the end of combat operations and the withdrawal of most of the 142,000 troops in Iraq by August 31, 2010 (slightly longer than the sixteen-month timeline he proposed during the election). But the plan includes a major asterisk that should be of concern to all who opposed the war and who supported a complete withdrawal of American forces: it would leave in Iraq a residual force of as many as 50,000 troops until the end of 2011, the date the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement stipulates the removal of all US troops. According to the president, this transitional force would have three missions: training Iraqi security forces, carrying out anti-terrorism missions and protecting American civilian and military forces.

    In his speech at Camp Lejeune, Obama stressed the importance of diplomacy, “comprehensive engagement across the region” and cooperation with Iraq’s neighbors and with the United Nations–signaling to the people of Iraq and the Middle East that the United States has no intention of permanently occupying Iraq or determining its future. But the presence of so many residual forces undercuts this message and undermines the main strategic reasons for an American withdrawal. The American troops–some stationed at the heavily militarized US Embassy, for example–will be a continual reminder of the occupation. At the least, they will be a diversion from the reconciliation within Iraq that is needed if it is to emerge as a stable country free of large-scale violence.

    I think Obama was prepared to follow the advice of his predecessor and the generals but his base was pushing him to get out. Since he had taken such hard stance and made Bush and Iraq the focus of hate…the enemy to overcome in the election, he caved to the activist voices rather than doing his duty as President and the right thing for the nation and the world.

    Obama takes credit for the good stuff and blames others for the bad stuff. This is his pattern. It is a sign of immaturity and on of the things that made him a poor candidate for this very difficult job.

    I’m not trying to have it both ways, Chris. I can forgive a president for making a bad call. This isn’t about a bad call. This is about a man who puts himself above his job and his party ideology above the safety and well being of those in harms way and the nation. I can’t think of a time when Obama has put politics aside. He seems unable to act any other way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.