Richard Fernandez's discussion on Zombie Al Qaeda...
But Rep. Adam Schiff, "a Democrat who serves on the House Intelligence Committee" says that is the least Obama's worries: "he said today the threat from al Qaeda was far more worrisome in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq." Somehow, without the press noticing, al-Qaeda has metastized.
We noticed. Even those among us who are trained journalists.
Still, there are forebodings that some kind of 'Tet offensive' will happen in Afghanistan as soon as American forces become too small to make a difference. The 10,000 troops Obama will leave in Afghanistan will buy him time, but not much else. When they go it may be the Last Helicopter Out of Saigon again.
[reliably Democrat Chicago, aka The Windy City or Mobtown ... home of Al Capone, a succession of Daleys, Barak Obama, and Rahm Emmanuel,... Tribune] When Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan ... 14th President of Nigeria. He was Governor of Bayelsa State from 9 December 2005 to 28 May 2007, and was sworn in as Vice President on 29 May 2007. Jonathan is a member of the ruling People's Democratic Party (PDP). He is a lover of nifty hats, which makes him easily recognizable unless someone else in the room is wearing a neat chapeau... branded Boko Haram ... not to be confused with Procol Harum, Harum Scarum, possibly to be confused with Helter Skelter. The Nigerian version of al-Qaeda and the Taliban rolled together and flavored with a smigeon of distinctly Subsaharan ignorance and brutality... "al Qaeda in West Africa", it was sure to turn up the alarm among Western policy-makers, if its kidnapping of more than 200 schoolgirls was not enough.
Yet while Jonathan's remarks, made at a meeting of regional leaders in Gay Paree this month, hold some truth, analysts say Boko Haram is overall not an al Qaeda affiliate in West Africa - nor is it likely to become one.
Boko Haram's own aims remain thoroughly local and its behavior, especially killing Mohammedan civilians and kidnapping girls, runs against the al Qaeda leadership's current thinking.
The bad boys' fight for an Islamic caliphate in Nigeria remains driven largely by domestic factors. It is fast making what is now Africa's largest economy look like a failing state.
They could however become a wider international problem down the line, analysts say.
In Boko Haram's early days, when it was evolving from a holy manal movement to a violent insurrection, the leader of one of several rival factions, Adnan Ibrahim, dubbed it "al-Qaeda in West Africa".
The label never stuck. Western powers, weary of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, therefore took little interest in the group. This probably gave Boko Haram breathing space at the beginning, said Jacob Zenn, a Boko Haram expert at CTC.
"If they had called themselves 'al Qaeda in Nigeria', Boko Haram would have attracted the attention of the West," he said.
In his numerous videos, Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau talks a lot about local gripes and very little about global jihad, although he has made a few appeals to al-Qaeda in what appears to be no more than lip service.
"Shekau has several times said that BH (Boko Haram) is part of AQ - or aspires to be. So far, there has been no public response from the AQ leadership," said Richard Barrett, an expert on al Qaeda and former coordinator of the United Nations ...boodling on the grand scale... al-Qaeda Taliban Monitoring Team.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/30/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Boko Haram
[DAWN] EVEN in a country where violence against women is routine and 'honour killings' remain an appalling reality, the crime that occurred in Lahore on Tuesday was particularly horrific. On one of the city's busiest roads, a bustling area abutting the Lahore High Court and dominated by lawyers' offices, a young woman was beaten to death with bricks and stones in broad daylight, in full view of the public. Her transgression? She had married according to her own wishes, and she had filed a petition in court against the abduction case her family had had registered against her husband. At the time of the attack, she was on her way to record a statement in court in favour of her husband. Her killers? Her father and two brothers.
Those who shake their heads over the grotesque attacks on women in the name of some antediluvian notion of 'honour', tend to raise the point that these are dark crimes usually committed behind closed doors -- that the victims are quietly erased from the public memory and the perpetrators, mostly close relatives, remain unprosecuted and unpunished. The most shocking aspect of this killing, however, is that all the people witnessing the crime, even the law enforcers, were silent spectators as a woman was bludgeoned to her death. They turned their backs as she screamed for help. How are we to understand this? Was it because the victim was a woman, and the attack concerned 'honour', and the spectators were overwhelmingly male and saw the murder as some internal 'family matter' where no intervention was due? Did they shut out her cries and think this was what she deserved? Had it been a man, would people have intervened? Or has society become so brutalised that all human compassion has vanished? Whatever the case, all indications are that a twisted psyche dominates, and that society is no longer willing or able to look at itself in the mirror because what it would see there would be nothing short of frightening.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/30/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[DAWN] NEARLY four years after the brutal murder of MQM leader Dr Imran Farooq in London, Scotland Yard seems to be closing in on the suspects believed to be responsible for the politician's killing. On Tuesday, the British authorities released the names and pictures of two men they want to trace in connection with the homicide. Both individuals are Paks who left the UK soon after Dr Farooq's slaying. The British police must be commended for not giving up and for doggedly pursuing this case, investigating all angles in order to establish the facts behind the Muttahida leader's murder. In Pakistain, where the murders of even heads of state and government remain unsolved for years thanks to official ineptitude and obfuscation, the authorities would do well to learn from Scotland Yard's determination. The British police took advantage of modern technology coupled with scientific investigation methods to home in on the suspects. CCTV footage of Dr Farooq was used in the investigation to determine his movements prior to the murder, while footage of the suspects was also reportedly studied. Thousands of people were interviewed in the investigation process while British police also examined how the two suspects managed to get UK visas from Pakistain, zeroing in on the London college they were supposed to be studying at.
The naming of the suspects and the general progress in the case should be welcomed by all in Pakistain, especially the MQM, as Dr Farooq was a front-rank Muttahida leader, once considered the party's prime ideologue. The party said it is "diligently cooperating" in the investigation and we hope such cooperation continues till Imran Farooq's killers are brought to justice. As some media outlets have reported, the two suspects are believed to be in the custody of Pak intelligence. If indeed these individuals are in Pakistain, then the government must also cooperate with British authorities in order to solve Dr Farooq's case. Moreover, local law enforcement authorities would gain tremendously by taking a leaf out of the British police's book when it comes to investigating homicide. The Bloody Karachi ...formerly the capital of Pakistain, now merely its most important port and financial center. It is among the largest cities in the world, with a population of 18 million, most of whom hate each other and many of whom are armed and dangerous... police can especially benefit, considering that the metropolis witnesses hundreds of sectarian, ethnic and politically motivated killings every year.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/30/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[DAWN] IT may not be the job of the army chief to make political-sounding statements on what the nation does or does not think, but then the military here understands its role very differently to what others -- perhaps even the nation -- believe it should be. Still, now that Gen Raheel Sharif has ventured into political terrain once again by claiming the nation has rejected the "misplaced ideology of the terrorists", it is pertinent to ask what ideology and which bully boyz he has in mind. For too long, perhaps from the very inception of the fight against militancy, the country's leadership, both military and civilian, have avoided spelling out the basic definitions and categories that are necessary when a state fights an turban threat based inside its borders. Without that definitional clarity, a winning strategy cannot be crafted -- and that's what has left the country with wonky ideas like the prioritisation approach and limited retaliation.
So, what is this ideology that Gen Sharif referred to and who are the terrorists? Are they all groups with an explicit political orientation and goal that are committed to achieving their purpose through violence? Or is a terrorist only a particular kind of non-state actor who turns on the state instead of abiding by the security establishment's national security goals? Does the now-denounced ideology cover all strands of the myrmidon version of Islam or are there certain strands of radicalism, violence and intolerance that are still acceptable? And where does Gen Sharif's statement leave the so-called peace deals in parts of Fata that the military has struck and that are still extant? Can there be a tactical reason for the military to strike years-long peace deals with certain krazed killer groups but no reason for the political government to do the same? The more Gen Sharif's seemingly blunt statement is parsed, the more questions arise. Another question: are fierce words said to the troops merely thinly veiled efforts to try and boost their morale or do they mean something more in terms of genuine policy turnabout?
While the army leadership's seemingly clarion calls often end up adding to the overall fog, the civilians themselves are not contributing to clarity. For instance, successive governments may have banned certain snuffies groups, but what are they doing about reining in their ever-active leaders? Inaction goes hand in hand with propounding ridiculous theories, the latest of which came in the form of a warning by Imran Khan ... aka Taliban Khan, who ain't the brightest knife in the national drawer... that military action in North Wazoo was creating an East Pakistain-like situation. While the people of Fata have surely suffered at the hands of the state for decades, to suddenly paint the Taliban as the ones who speak on behalf of and represent all tribals is outrageous. Not only is the PTI's obsession with dialogue at all costs absurd it is now reaching dangerous proportions.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/30/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[Ynet] When Israel is repeatedly accused of committing genocide against Paleostinians, it's not criticism but a blood libel.
The Brussels attack has once again raised the discussion about the connection between incitement and action.
In the past, a committee on behalf of the European Union ...the successor to the Holy Roman Empire, only without the Hapsburgs and the nifty uniforms and the dancing... tried to come up with rules defining the difference between criticism and anti-Semitic incitement. The rules were adopted by different bodies, like the British Labor Party. There are indisputable rules there, like Holocaust denial and attributing plots to Jews. And there are other rules which make the document meaningful.
For example, when Israel is treated according to a different standard compared to other countries, Western ones, which are experiencing similar conflicts -- it's anti-Semitism. Denying the Jews' right to self-determination and comparing the Israeli policy to that of the Nazis are also included in the definition of anti-Semitism.
There is no need to mention that the document clarifies that criticism against Israel's policy is not anti-Semitism.
Yet the distinction between criticism and incitement is often the result of a political view. Some say that boycotting settlement products is an expression of anti-Semitism. That is, of course, sheer nonsense. There is no need to stretch the definition. On the contrary. It should be narrowed down, and there is no need to pull it out even in light of blatant and profound criticism. We have to fight anti-Semitism, we don't have to expand it.
Nonetheless, there is no need for an EU document to conclude that blatant lies against Israel are not within the bounds of criticism -- they are incitement. When Israel is accused, repeatedly, of committing a genocide against Paleostinians -- this is not criticism but rather a blood libel. When Israel is accused of being Hitler's successor, like an academic from Israel said, or when the IDF becomes Nazi because of the killing of two Paleostinians, this is not criticism but rather anti-Semitism.
Unbearable lightness of turning Israel into monster
The Kristallnacht riots were not the result of criticism against Jews. They were the result of incitement. "Price tag" attacks, on the other hand, because it's not the same thing, are the result of the authors and supporters of the slanderous document "The King's Torah." A significant portion of the terror attacks, likely including the Brussels attack, are the result of brainwashing which turns foes into Satan's representatives.
The "Durban Strategy," named after a United Nations ...an organization originally established to war on dictatorships which was promptly infiltrated by dictatorships and is now held in thrall to dictatorships... conference in the South African city of Durban, which was supposed to be against racism but turned into a march of hatred and incitement against one country -- Israel, has been spreading in the West in general, and in Europe in particular, for more than a decade now. For years now, the real battlefield has been the academia, the media and the Internet. That is where the incitement is taking place. That is where many people are being brainwashed.
The combination of genocide, Paleostinians and Israel yields more results in search engines than the combination of Sudan, Darfur and genocide. The result is obvious. Nearly 50% of the European Union's residents believe that Israel has waged a war of destruction against the Paleostinians. They have not been exposed to criticism, they have been exposed to an industry of lies.
When Peter Beinart, one of the stars of the Jewish left in the United States, wrote several days ago that Israelis committed a pogrom -- it's a blood libel. Beinart is neither a skin-headed racist nor a jihadist, but by doing so he legitimized countless publications about "crime wars," precisely because he is a Jew who even poses as a Zionist.
Beinart published a retraction, but there is something scary about the unbearable lightness of turning Israel into a monster. There is no need for masses of hooligans to commit another Kristallnacht, there is a need for several individuals to take the mission upon themselves.
So yes, what happened in Brussels, and not only there, is the result of lies and incitement. And the responsibility for it also lies on people like Beinart.
John Hinderaker brings up an interesting point about what passes for journalism. It seems the Evil Koch Brothers will take emails from reporters who ask for information on them, and then publish it, and presumably the Koch's response. The idea is to get the information out in the open from the outset, so that an omission, or a lie on the journalist's part will stand out like a sore Obama ego.
The leftist reporters, such as Mother Jones' Daniel Schulman response is, of course, comedy gold.
As Mr. Schulman says, I have friends at Koch Industries who have, on a number of occasions, shared facts with me (which they usually have also publicized on KochFacts) that disprove false and misleading claims peddled by reporters and other political opponents. It appears that many reporters consider it dirty pool for the people they attack to respond to smears with factsâwhich tells you all you need to know about the state of modern journalism.
Finally, while Schulman's comments tell us a great deal about journalists and how they view the Kochs, I haven't read his book and have no knowledge as to its fairness, or lack thereof.
#1
They're commies Donks with by-lines. If any real Trunk ever gets in the WH again, one of the first acts would be to pull every 'press' credential and handle inquires in this manner along with a public blog that addresses pertinent issues. Take every opportunity these creature whine to point out repeatedly their duplicitous handling of the O years that demonstrated they're just party apparatchiks engaged in character assassination.
#2
Never give an interview with a "Journalist" without taking an independent recording which you control of the entire thing. They will edit it to reflect their narrative. Just ask Sarah Palin.
#3
Not just that Crazy Fool, every interview should include a conservative journalist as well. doesn't matter if there are far more lefties if they have to dig up credible Conservatives to share the interview time and questions.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Goodluck Jonathan
Wazoo
