Archive for Al Qaeda

I Hope the War Against Ebola is Going Better Than the War Against ISIS

It couldn’t be going worse:

BEIRUT — The Obama administration’s Syria strategy suffered a major setback Sunday after fighters linked to al-Qaeda routed U.S.-backed rebels from their main northern strongholds, capturing significant quantities of weaponry, triggering widespread defections and ending hopes that Washington will readily find Syrian partners in its war against the Islamic State.

Moderate rebels who had been armed and trained by the United States either surrendered or defected to the extremists as the Jabhat al-Nusra group, affiliated with al-Qaeda, swept through the towns and villages the moderates controlled in the northern province of Idlib, in what appeared to be a concerted push to vanquish the moderate Free Syrian Army, according to rebel commanders, activists and analysts.

Other moderate fighters were on the run, headed for the Turkish border as the extremists closed in, heralding a significant defeat for the rebel forces Washington had been counting on as a bulwark against the Islamic State.

A Jabhat al-Nusra base was one of the first targets hit when the United States launched its air war in Syria in September, and activists said the tensions fueled by that attack had contributed to the success of the group’s push against the moderate rebels.

“When American airstrikes targeted al-Nusra, people felt solidarity with them because Nusra are fighting the regime, and the strikes are helping the regime,” said Raed al-Fares, an activist leader in Kafr Nabel, in Idlib.

“Now people think that whoever in the Free Syrian Army gets support from the U.S.A. is an agent of the regime,” he said.

Doing to the Syrian opposition what he did to health care.

Obama does so many stupid things—I mean really numb-skulled, moronic, imbecilic things—I’m beginning to wonder if he’s as smart as they’ve been telling us. I’m thinking not.

PS: Didn’t Harry Reid declare Bush’s war in Iraq “lost”, when it was shortly after won? Where is he now (but on his way out, on his ass)?

Comments

Another Reason To Hate The Military…

Some of them are talking about Benghazi

As usual, if you want to know what happened in the US, read the British press. We are such a banana republic.

Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn’t ‘switched sides in the War on Terror’ and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report
Citizens Committee on Benghazi claims the US government allowed arms to flow to al-Qaeda-linked militants who opposed Muammar Gaddafi
Their rise to power, the group says, led to the Benghazi attack in 2012
The group claims the strongman Gaddafi offered to abdicate his presidency, but the US refused to broker his peaceful exit
The commission, part of the center-right Accuracy In Media group, concluded that the Benghazi attack was a failed kidnapping plot
US Ambassador Chris Stevens was to be captured and traded for ‘blind sheikh’ Omar Abdel-Rahman, who hatched the 1993 WTC bombing plot

The Citizens Commission on Benghazi, a self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.

‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.

She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.
‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..

‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’

The weapons were intended for Gaddafi but allowed by the U.S. to flow to his Islamist opposition.
The Citizens Committee on Benghazi released its interim findings on April 22, 2014 in Washington. Pictured [at link] are (L-R) Clare Lopez, Admiral (Ret.) Chuck Kubic, Admiral (Ret.) James ‘Ace’ Lyons, former CIA officer Wayne Simmons and civil rights attorney John Clarke

‘The White House and senior Congressional members,’ the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday, ‘deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al-Qaeda.’

‘Some look at it as treason,’ said Wayne Simmons, a former CIA officer who participated in the commission’s research.

Retired Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic, another commission member, told reporters Tuesday that those weapons are now ‘all in Syria.’
‘Gaddafi wasn’t a good guy, but he was being marginalized,’ Kubic recalled. ‘Gaddafi actually offered to abdicate’ shortly after the beginning of a 2011 rebellion.
‘But the U.S. ignored his calls for a truce,’ the commission wrote, ultimately backing the horse that would later help kill a U.S. ambassador.
Kubic said that the effort at truce talks fell apart when the White House declined to let the Pentagon pursue it seriously.
‘We had a leader who had won the Nobel Peace Prize,’ Kubic said, ‘but who was unwilling to give peace a chance for 72 hours.’

More at the link, including names and pictures of committee members. Then, take the Aggie Challenge! Go to the NY Times and the Washington Post and see if you can find any mention of this. BTW did you notice that those weapons are now in Syria? If this President and his administration had declared their intent to allow the murder of as many Muslim civilians as possible, they couldn’t have done a better job. How many have died in Syria? How ’bout The Arab Spring™? Libya? Various drone attacks on wedding and such-like. You can see why they might not care for us.

– Aggie

Comments

Why Now?

Maybe they can start with Detroit.

I mean because so many buildings need to be razed anyway! (Don’t be so sensitive.)

Untitled

Al Qaeda is calling on terrorist affiliates to detonate car bombs in major U.S. cities, including New York, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles, in the latest edition of its Inspire magazine.

The issue comes nearly a year after the Boston Marathon bombing, and as the city readies new security measures for this year’s race, being held next month. Inspire is the same magazine that included instructions for how to make pressure cooker bombs, which were used in last year’s Boston attack.

The magazine’s Spring 2014 issue urges jihadists to target heavily populated events such as political rallies and sporting events, both in the United States and abroad — including in Great Britain, France and other “crusading” countries.

And they offer this advice:

“Disguise yourself during the operation, appear fat (add some clothes on you), change your complexion, be a ‘clone’, use any mask (believe me embarrassment is the last thing you will think about), wear a mask suitable for the festival, white beards on 25th Dec,” it reads. “All in all, be creative brother. The most important part to hide is your eyes and around.”

Be fat and grow a beard…say, you don’t suppose…

PS: To return to the question in the title, Al Qaeda has been after us for 23 years, since Bush 41 put profane American boots on sacred Saudi ground in January 1991. Since him, we’ve had Clinton, Bush 43, and now Obama. So, why call out for such indiscriminate bloodshed in American cities now, under Obama? I don’t really have an answer, but it surely suggests a confidence they didn’t have before.

Comments

More Obama Foreign Policy Successes

Remember Libya?

Western countries voiced concern on Thursday that tensions in Libya could slip out of control in the absence of a functioning political system, and they urged the government and rival factions to start talking.

Two-and-a-half years after the fall of former leader Muammar Gaddafi, the oil-rich North African state is struggling to contain violence between rival forces, with Islamist militants gaining an ever-stronger grip on the south of the country.

“The situation in Libya is very worrying,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told reporters on the margins of a conference in Rome to discuss the Libyan crisis.

He said the uncertain security position, especially in the south, worsened an unstable political situation which required Libyan political forces to come together to reach a solution.

“We are asking the Libyans to talk to each other and to find a stable solution,” he said.

Just to refresh our memory, Obama invaded Libya in support of the “rebels” and Moammar Khadafi was killed. Now there is no leadership in Libya and Obama and our State Dept. are silent. Are we intentionally trying to establish al-qaeda across the Middle East? I would also point out that this article fails to mention the US military action in Libya.

– Aggie

Comments

Don’t Tell the New York Times!

With their head so far up their ass, they’re unlikely to hear of this, but just to be safe, let’s keep this between us girls:

Sunni militants linked to al-Qaeda are reportedly still in control of parts of two cities in western Iraq.

There has been fierce fighting in recent days as government forces have tried to force militants aligned to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) out of Ramadi and Fallujah.

An AFP news agency journalist told the BBC that black flags used by jihadists were still flying in both cities.

On Tuesday, Mr Maliki agreed to withdraw the army from towns and cities in Anbar province so that the police could resume control of security.

But as soon as soldiers left their posts, militants aligned to al-Qaeda appeared on the streets of Ramadi, Fallujah and Tarmiya, storming police stations, freeing prisoners and seizing weapons.

The prime minister reversed his decision the next day, sending soldiers back to Anbar and offering tribal leaders weapons and money in return for helping combat the militants.

On Thursday, police and pro-government tribesmen battled ISIS and its allies for control of Ramadi and Fallujah. Hospitals reported that at least 35 people were killed and 70 wounded.

Militants raised black flags on buildings in both cities and used the loudspeakers of mosques to call on people to join their struggle and support a “peaceful takeover”.

Over a hundred casualties—grading on the curve, that’s relatively peaceful for Al Qaeda. I still haven’t seen the insulting video that started unrest and strife all across Araby, but it’s got to be more offensive than Porkie’s II.

PS: In surveying the Arab World yesterday or the day before, who remembers, we neglected this situation in Iraq. We regret the oversight. Israel looks better all the time.

Comments (1)

The New York Laughingstock

Who needs a comics page when you have the front page?

“Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.”

But how much effort did Kirkpatrick expend to uncover any possible al Qaeda ties? Judging by the Times’s glaring omissions, not much.

Kirkpatrick’s piece totals more than 7,000 words and yet he fingers only one suspect out of the dozens who took part in the attack. Another suspect, an ex-Guantanamo detainee, is briefly mentioned, but only then to dismiss the notion of his involvement.

Left out of the Times’s account are the many leads tying the attackers to al Qaeda’s international network.

On October 29, 2012 three other New York Times journalists reported that Jamal’s network, in addition to a known al Qaeda branch (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), was directly involved in the assault. The Times reported (emphasis added): “Three Congressional investigations and a State Department inquiry are now examining the attack, which American officials said included participants from Ansar al-Shariah, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Muhammad Jamal network, a militant group in Egypt.”

Anyone else?

On the day he was killed, [Ambassador Stevens] said it was a question of when, not if, there would be an attack. So, we had warning beforehand, and instead of increasing security, reduced security. During the attack, eight a half hours, we didn’t launch so much as one F-16. There’s a lot of questions about, not what the military capability is today, which has been improved, but what the military capability and response… And then lastly, there was this clear attempt, and Andrea said it very well, there was an attempt to put a bright spot — and maybe it was to cover up CIA activities — but they went out on five stations and told the story that was, at best, a coverup for CIA, and at worst, something that cast away this idea that there was a real terrorist operation in Benghazi.

Well, that’s just two.

Oh wait:

It is hard to find any real legitimate new content in the NYT’s recent “investigative” report on the tragic failure of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and the devastating attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi 15 months ago. The report states that it has confirmed that al-Qaeda was not involved in the attack. It reaches this lame conclusion because it was unable to find a direct connection between core al-Qaeda and the attackers. The very nature of al-Qaeda is that it is both operational and inspirational. The attackers were radical jihadists who hated the West and the United States. It is immaterial whether they were a direct affiliate of AQ or not. They share the same aspirational goals. The Times’ conclusion is a conclusion with no meaning.

The report’s second conclusion — that the attacks were inspired by a video is thin to nonexistent. I have talked with individuals present at the riots in Cairo. They will tell you that the Cairo attacks weren’t even inspired by the video, but by extremists who cared more about the Blind Sheikh than any video. More evidence exists that the attack in Benghazi was premeditated and that the timing was driven by the ambassador’s presence in Benghazi, not by external events.

The report misses the main take-away from Benghazi: The State Department totally misread the threat environment in Benghazi on September 11. The State Department believed that it could engage with radical militias. This is consistent with the State Department’s belief that it could engage constructively with the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and the extremist regime in Iran. That assumption is just plain wrong. You cannot engage with these extremist elements and expect to influence their behavior.

One more, and let’s be done with it:

While some have cast the story as helpful to Hillary Clinton and the administration, it actually amplifies some of their key failures. It’s pathetic that we failed to heed ample warning signs, including attacks on our own compound. It’s pathetic that we provided such inadequate American security that a small group of attackers were able to breach the gates with ease (It’s telling that the few Americans actually had to run to grab their weapons; they weren’t already armed). It’s pathetic that they had no help under fire. It’s pathetic that one reason why they had no help is that we placed American lives under the protection of Libyan militias. The greenest platoon leader in my regiment in Iraq could have (and would have) devised a better defense. And it’s especially pathetic that Western journalists keep interviewing the prime suspects while our own government either cannot or (more likely) will not do what it takes to bring them to justice.

A sealed indictment? Our enemies tremble in fear.

It’s pathetic that we keep circling back to a YouTube video to explain Benghazi. Did the YouTube video motivate previous attacks in Benghazi, including a previous attack on our own compound? Did a YouTube video motivate Libyan militias to shows of force under the black al-Qaeda flag? Did a YouTube video enable the militias to so carefully scout American positions that they were able to land multiple direct hits on the American CIA annex?

The Times is a lamentable joke. I called it a Birther of the Left this morning. There is more evidence that Obama was born in Kenya than there is that Benghazi was in response to a YouTube video (unless it was Rebecca Black’s “Friday”).

Comments

When Algerian Eye is Smiling…

Move over, Mullah Dadullah.

We have another badass di tutti badasses:

Handsome devil:

The State Department says the Africa-based Murabitoun terror group, led by Algerian Mokhtar Belmokhtar, poses the “greatest near-term threat to U.S. and Western interests” in the Sahel region of Africa, The New York Times reported.

Belmokhtar is described as “adventurous,” “reckless” and with a “penchant for carrying out headline-grabbing attacks against Western interests,” according to the Times.

The notorious Belmokhtar who lost an eye to shrapnel, fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan and returned to Algeria in the 1990s where he became a leader of al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb.

He broke with the al-Qaida affiliate in 2012 to form the Mulathameen Battalion. Over the years, Belmokhtar has been behind the kidnapping of a Canadian diplomat, the attack on an Algerian gas plant that killed 38 civilians, among them three Americans, and other deadly attacks in Mali and Niger.

This new Al Murabitoun group “concerns us more than any in the region,” a State Department source told the Times.

No decision on targeting Belmokhtar militarily has yet been made by the Obama administration, the Times reported.

Meanwhile, Fox News reported that the reward for Belmokhtar stands at $5 million. His precise whereabouts are not known.

How much for his other eye?

PS: Do he and Mullah Omar share a pair of sunglasses?

Comments

If You Like Your Head, You Can Keep It

Period:

Radical anti-government fighters in Syria mistakenly beheaded a wounded fellow rebel soldier after assuming he was a supporter of President Bashar al-Assad, according to an online statement from the radical fighters’ group.

A separate online video showed a gruesome display of radical fighters holding what appeared to be the victim’s head.

After the beheading earlier this week, the victim was determined to be Mohammed Fares, an anti-government fighter wounded in clashes against the Syrian Army earlier, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

On Thursday, an online statement from a spokesman for the al Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), whose fighters apparently carried out the beheading of Fares, called for forgiveness for the killers and asked for “restraint and piety” from anti-government supporters.

Talk about your bungled rollouts! But if you think we’re getting boned by ObamaCare, well…count your blessings:

In the separate online video, two fighters from ISIS are seen displaying what appears to be the decapitated head of a bearded man to a crowd in Syria’s commercial capital of Aleppo.

“He is an Iraqi Shiite volunteer fighter in Bashar al-Assad’s army,” a young man brandishing a knife in one hand and holding the decapitated head in another says in Arabic to a group of men all dressed in black.

“If they (al-Assad’s army) enter they will not distinguish between supporters and opponents. I swear they will rape the men before the woman,” another jihadi fighter continues in the amateur video.

Hey, that’s a recruiting pitch over there from what I hear.

Comments

Now, This is How You Project American Power

There. Now, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

In two operations nearly 3,000 miles apart, U.S. military forces went after two high-value targets over the weekend. And while officials have yet to say whether the operations were coordinated or directly related, they show Washington’s reach, capability and willingness to pursue alleged terrorists.

One operation took place Saturday in the Libyan capital of Tripoli, when U.S. forces captured Abu Anas al Libi, an al Qaeda leader wanted for his role in the deadly 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

As al Libi was leaving his house for morning prayers, a group of 10 masked men surprised him, a source close to Libyan intelligence said. Citing al Libi’s wife, the source said the al Qaeda leader tried to reach into his car to grab his gun — but the U.S. forces quickly snatched him.

In the second raid, a team of U.S. Navy SEALs in southern Somalia targeted a top leader of Al-Shabaab, which was behind last month’s mall attack in Kenya. The SEALs came under fire and had to withdraw before they could confirm whether they killed their target, a senior U.S. official said.

“One could have gone without the other,” said retired Lt. Col. Rick Francona, CNN’s military analyst. “But the fact that they did them both, I think, is a real signal that the United States — no matter how long it takes — will go after these targets.”

The operations were carried out even as polls show Americans are skittish about U.S. military involvement in overseas conflicts. This means, Francona said, that others who might be in the U.S. government’s cross hairs could have more reason to worry.

Speaking to reporters at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Bali, Indonesia, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said the raids ought to make clear that the United States “will never stop in its effort to hold those accountable who conduct acts of terror.”

“Those members of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations literally can run,” he said, “but they can’t hide.”

In other words, you were for the projection of American military power after you were against, Mr. Secretary?

I’ll keep my snarkiness to a minimum because I couldn’t approve more strongly if Israel conducted a successful raid on Iran’s nuclear installations. Bravo.

I’ll just add that if I woke up one morning six weeks ago to learn that US forces had pounded Syrian government military facilities after concluding that they were responsible for the war crime of gassing their own people—rather than the embarrassing humiliation of letting “I dare not wait upon I would” that happened—I would have stood and applauded (with some snarkiness) rather than blow the raspberries I blew.

I’ll have to leave it to wiser minds than mine to know the difference between the two situations.

Congratulations—and thanks—to all involved.

PS: And thanks to President Obama for implicitly sanctioning Israel’s projection of military power in its own defense as well. Win-win.

Comments

Brits Gently Explain: If US Attacks Syria, Then US Is Fighting On Al Qaeda’s Side

Yes, nearly twelve years after September 11th, we are about to partner with Al Qaeda.

And, because Obama is such a genius, he’s boxed himself in. If he bombs Syria, he’s with Al Qaeda, if not he is (supposedly) allowing Assad to gas his own people. AND either way, no one will believe in his reasoning. Do you believe the guy that assured us that Benghazi happened because some dope in California made an internet movie trailer?

If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.
Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three Musketeers who shouted “All for one and one for all” each time they sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if – or when – the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad.

The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.

This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House – nor, I suppose, by al-Qa’ida – though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa’ida’s affiliates. But it does raise some interesting possibilities.

Maybe the Americans should ask al-Qa’ida for intelligence help – after all, this is the group with “boots on the ground”, something the Americans have no interest in doing. And maybe al-Qa’ida could offer some target information facilities to the country which usually claims that the supporters of al-Qa’ida, rather than the Syrians, are the most wanted men in the world.

There will be some ironies, of course. While the Americans drone al-Qa’ida to death in Yemen and Pakistan – along, of course, with the usual flock of civilians – they will be giving them, with the help of Messrs Cameron, Hollande and the other Little General-politicians, material assistance in Syria by hitting al-Qa’ida’s enemies. Indeed, you can bet your bottom dollar that the one target the Americans will not strike in Syria will be al-Qa’ida or the Nusra front.

That’s just a taste of what’s in the article. Read it and weep.

– Aggie

Comments

Who Lost Iraq?

One clue: his name rhymes (sort of) with “No-Sack Osama”:

As violence and political turmoil tear through a war-wrecked Iraq, military experts are warning Congress that Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist cells are regrouping and working together not only in Iraq but in the entire region to undo a decade of U.S.-led progress.

“We left (Iraq) on the edge of being stable,” Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a former military intelligence officer, told Fox News.

While saying it’s clear the job was “not done,” he warned: “Al Qaeda as an entity is coming back strong within the region and is doing things to destabilize governments, which, at this point in time, are still friendly to us.”

On Thursday, Iraq’s parliament speaker painted a grim picture of a crumbling country that is taking another beating by terrorists.

“The situation is grave,” Osama al-Nujaifi said during a press conference.
Al-Nujaifi believes recent spikes in sectarian violence coupled with political instability are fueling concerns that the country could be pushed into another civil war.

Why should Iraq miss out on all the fun?

And anyone can play!

A suicide bomber has killed eight Kurdish police in northern Iraq after targeting a convoy, officials say.

The attack took place in the town of Tuz Khurmatu, about 70km (45 miles) south of Kirkuk, and also wounded nine officers, district official Shahal Abdul told news agency AFP.

The town is in an area that is a source of dispute between the Iraqi government and the Kurdish minority.

This year has been one of the deadliest across Iraq, with thousands killed.

Somebody ought to get the news to these guys that Osama bin Laden is dead. Then they’ll just give up.

Comments

George Bush, Right Again

Like to see them try this with Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney at the circuit breaker!

Violence exploded in Iraq over the past 24 hours near Baghdad and in Mosul, leaving nearly 50 people dead and hundreds of al Qaeda-linked militants free in a massive jailbreak, authorities said Monday.

Security forces battled militants outside two major penitentiaries near the Iraqi capital of Baghdad and thwarted prison breaks, the Justice Ministry said Monday. The incidents occurred Sunday night at Abu Ghraib, west of Baghdad, and al-Taji prison, north of the capital.

The Justice Ministry said well-armed “terrorist groups” attacked the prisons simultaneously using mortars. They also carried rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns, and were accompanied by suicide bombers and car bombs, the ministry said.

The attacks coincided with riots by inmates who set fires inside the prisons, the ministry said. At least 21 inmates and at least eight prison guards were killed, it said, while 25 inmates and 14 guards were wounded.

More than 500 inmates escaped from the two jails Sunday night, lawmaker Hakim al-Zamili said Monday. Most were from al Qaeda in Iraq, and some were senior members of the group.

It’s hard to run too fast with a leash around your neck.

I don’t condone the senseless exploitation of terrorists, as depicted above. But then I don’t condone terrorists, either. I do condone the reasonable exploitation of terrorists for intelligence. I also condone the incarceration of them indefinitely if they are deemed a perpetual danger to society. So on the whole, President Bush has been proved right. Again.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »