Recently in United States Category

It is not coincidental that the main issue that currently exercises "moderate" Muslims in the U.S. such as the operatives of Hamas-linked CAIR is the drone strikes. "New English-language jihadi publication calls on Muslims to hack US drones," from RT, May 6 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A new magazine set up by Islamist radicals in Afghanistan and Pakistan is appealing to Muslims of the world to collaborate in developing new methods and technology to undermine American drone operations.

Publishing under the title “Azan,” the magazine’s first edition became available on May 5, according to the SITE intelligence group. The sprawling 80-page issue includes a lengthy section that evaluates drone strikes while making the case for a mass movement to undermine their impact.

The editorial calls for assistance against drones as a “sacred duty” of the Ummah, or the Muslim community.

“These drones can be hacked and manipulated as evidenced by the efforts of the Iraq Mujahideen. Furthermore, they can be destroyed using various technologies that the Mujahideen are working on. But the Muslims of the world must question themselves as to what role they are playing in helping these innocent Muslims with the abilities that Allah Has Given them. This is a call to anyone in the Islamic Ummah with knowledge, expertise and theories regarding anti-drone technology.”

The hacking to which the article refers is a 2009 incident in which Iraqi insurgents evidently deployed commercial software called SkyGrabber to tap into live video feeds put out by US Predator drones in Iraqi airspace.

The story, originally reported by the Wall Street Journal, attributed the exploit to Iranian-backed militants. At the time, the report also suggested that drones in Afghanistan had been exploited in the same manner.

"Any opinions, thoughts, ideas and practical implementations to defeat this drone technology must be communicated to us as early as possible because these would aid the Ummah greatly in its war against the Crusader-Zionist enemy," reads the entreaty by the magazine's editors.

Azan depicts Pakistan’s Army and government as collaborators with the US in the continuing American drone campaign, though the US is shown to be the “main culprit.”

A significant portion of the magazine’s drone editorial is dedicated to describing how local spies and militants are recruited and bribed by the Pakistani Army from such locations as Miranshah Camp, and count on the assistance of other groups, such as KFP (Koast Protection Force), which is described by Azan as “an Afghan organization, whose hypocritical and beguile exploits are known.”...

War is deceit, said Muhammad.

But just look what it has bought us: a stable, peaceful, prosperous Afghanistan that is a fully functioning secular republic with equal rights for women and non-Muslims -- our foremost and most reliable ally in Central Asia.

"With Bags of Cash, C.I.A. Seeks Influence in Afghanistan," by Matthew Rosenberg for the New York Times, April 28 (thanks to all who sent this in):

KABUL, Afghanistan — For more than a decade, wads of American dollars packed into suitcases, backpacks and, on occasion, plastic shopping bags have been dropped off every month or so at the offices of Afghanistan’s president — courtesy of the Central Intelligence Agency.

All told, tens of millions of dollars have flowed from the C.I.A. to the office of President Hamid Karzai, according to current and former advisers to the Afghan leader.

“We called it ‘ghost money,’ ” said Khalil Roman, who served as Mr. Karzai’s deputy chief of staff from 2002 until 2005. “It came in secret, and it left in secret.”

The C.I.A., which declined to comment for this article, has long been known to support some relatives and close aides of Mr. Karzai. But the new accounts of off-the-books cash delivered directly to his office show payments on a vaster scale, and with a far greater impact on everyday governing.

Moreover, there is little evidence that the payments bought the influence the C.I.A. sought. Instead, some American officials said, the cash has fueled corruption and empowered warlords, undermining Washington’s exit strategy from Afghanistan.

“The biggest source of corruption in Afghanistan,” one American official said, “was the United States.”

The United States was not alone in delivering cash to the president. Mr. Karzai acknowledged a few years ago that Iran regularly gave bags of cash to one of his top aides.

At the time, in 2010, American officials jumped on the payments as evidence of an aggressive Iranian campaign to buy influence and poison Afghanistan’s relations with the United States. What they did not say was that the C.I.A. was also plying the presidential palace with cash — and unlike the Iranians, it still is.

American and Afghan officials familiar with the payments said the agency’s main goal in providing the cash has been to maintain access to Mr. Karzai and his inner circle and to guarantee the agency’s influence at the presidential palace, which wields tremendous power in Afghanistan’s highly centralized government. The officials spoke about the money only on the condition of anonymity.

It is not clear that the United States is getting what it pays for. Mr. Karzai’s willingness to defy the United States — and the Iranians, for that matter — on an array of issues seems to have only grown as the cash has piled up. Instead of securing his good graces, the payments may well illustrate the opposite: Mr. Karzai is seemingly unable to be bought.

Over Iran’s objections, he signed a strategic partnership deal with the United States last year, directly leading the Iranians to halt their payments, two senior Afghan officials said. Now, Mr. Karzai is seeking control over the Afghan militias raised by the C.I.A. to target operatives of Al Qaeda and insurgent commanders, potentially upending a critical part of the Obama administration’s plans for fighting militants as conventional military forces pull back this year.

But the C.I.A. has continued to pay, believing it needs Mr. Karzai’s ear to run its clandestine war against Al Qaeda and its allies, according to American and Afghan officials.

Like the Iranian cash, much of the C.I.A.’s money goes to paying off warlords and politicians, many of whom have ties to the drug trade and, in some cases, the Taliban. The result, American and Afghan officials said, is that the agency has greased the wheels of the same patronage networks that American diplomats and law enforcement agents have struggled unsuccessfully to dismantle, leaving the government in the grips of what are basically organized crime syndicates.

The cash does not appear to be subject to the oversight and restrictions placed on official American aid to the country or even the C.I.A.’s formal assistance programs, like financing Afghan intelligence agencies. And while there is no evidence that Mr. Karzai has personally taken any of the money — Afghan officials say the cash is handled by his National Security Council — the payments do in some cases work directly at odds with the aims of other parts of the American government in Afghanistan, even if they do not appear to violate American law.

Handing out cash has been standard procedure for the C.I.A. in Afghanistan since the start of the war. During the 2001 invasion, agency cash bought the services of numerous warlords, including Muhammad Qasim Fahim, the current first vice president.

“We paid them to overthrow the Taliban,” the American official said....

And look at how well that worked out.

Chechnya and Turkey. What might those two have in common?

And yet the U.S. is allowing Turkey and China to ignore the sanctions on doing business with Iran. As long as that continues, the sanctions themselves are toothless, and actions like this one are just window dressing.

"U.S. targets companies accused of evading Iran sanctions," by Timothy Gardner for Reuters, April 11:

(Reuters) - The United States on Thursday slapped financial penalties on an Iranian businessman, a Malaysian bank and a network of companies it accused of attempting to evade international sanctions on Iran's nuclear program through money laundering.

The Treasury Department blacklisted Babak Zanjani and First Islamic Investment Bank for providing financial and other support to the National Iranian Oil Company.

It said Zanjani and a network of companies had moved billions of dollars on behalf of the Iranian government, including tens of millions of dollars to an engineering unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

"As international sanctions have become increasingly stifling, Iran has resorted to criminal money laundering techniques, moving its oil and money under false names and pretenses," said David S. Cohen, under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence at Treasury.

The measures are the latest by Washington to crack down on Iran's nuclear program. U.S. and European sanctions on Iran's oil industry aim to choke funding for its nuclear program, which the West says is being used to develop weapons. Iran says the program is for civilian purposes.

The sanctions have slashed Iran's oil exports, devalued its currency, and pushed up inflation.

Based in the United Arab Emirates, Zanjani is the chairman of the Sorinet Group, a group of companies and banks. He told Reuters late last year his network did not work for Tehran after the European Union forbade companies and individuals from doing Iran-related business with him.

NETWORKS

Last month Treasury imposed financial sanctions on Dimitris Cambis, a Greek businessman it said secretly operated a shipping network on behalf of Tehran to evade the oil sanctions.

"Whether through Babak Zanjani, Dimitris Cambis, or tomorrow's chosen accomplice, we will be relentless in exposing and thwarting Iran's attempts to evade international sanctions and abuse the global financial system," Cohen said.

By taking the action against Zanjani, the bank and the network of companies, the Treasury Department prohibited transactions between them and any U.S. citizen and freezes any assets they have under U.S. jurisdiction, it said....

Obama's trip to Israel was a disaster, as he strong-armed Netanyahu into apologizing for Israel's defensive action against the Mavi Marmara jihad flotilla (which apology Al Jazeera -- as noted below -- happily characterized as "normalizing" ties between Israel and Turkey). And comparison of Israeli/"Palestinian" relations to those between the U.S. and Canada was simply bizarre. However, it looks as if Obama may have been on to something: he is standing in the way of a Canadian/U.S. oil pipeline that could end U.S. dependence on oil from Islamic supremacist states.

"Canada, Keystone, and the Palestinians," by Christine Williams at the Gatestone Institute, March 27:

As Obama wrapped up his Middle East tour, applauded by AIPAC for reaffirming "unbreakable bonds" and "deep affection" between two key allies; and by Al Jazeera for "normalizing" Israel Turkey ties, Obama's neighbors to the north are left scratching their heads about what he meant by his off-the-cuff statementthat compared Israeli-Palestinian relations to Canada-U.S. relations.

After acknowledging in his speech the horror of an Israeli sleeping in his bed and having a rocket come through the roof, Obama went on to say: "Even though both sides have areas of strong disagreement, may be engaging in activities that the other side considers to be a breach of good faith, we have to push through those things…. There will be a sovereign Palestinian state, a sovereign Jewish State of Israel and those two states will be able to deal with each other the same way all states do. The United States and Canada have arguments once in a while."

The outlandish comparison – as Canadians do not lob rockets and missiles into Rochester or Detroit or claim the U.S. as "Occupied Canada" -- could have been an Obama gaffe to add to an open-mic one he made during his welcome ceremony after he landed in Israel and declared that this trip allowed him to "get away from Congress." Obama has become quite noted for minor and major gaffes, such as when he insulted Netanyahu and conspired with outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Both incidents raised questions about his character, his policies and potentially hidden agendas.

Although one could not decipher any meaning behind Obama's odd comparison of American-Canadian relations with Israeli-Palestinian relations , one can note some important "arguments" the U.S. now faces with Canada: primarily the Keystone XL pipeline project, designed to carry oil from Canada to Texas oil refineries.

To address further these "once in a while arguments," a Forbes article illustrated how -- with policies similar to what are being promoted by Republicans -- Canada is outperforming the U.S. economically on every level. Entitled "What President Obama Doesn't Want You To Know About Canada", it cited senior sources in the Canadian government who met with Obama administration officials and said their impression was that the White House is jealous of the Canadian government's power to have its way. Even the notoriously liberal Canadian Broadcaster CBC featured in its community blog: "Republicans threaten move to Canada after Obama win".

The Obama administration's energy policy is starkly divergent from the Harper government's. Canada obtains oil from places such as the Athabasca oil sands region in northeastern Alberta, while the Obama administration has reduced drilling permits on public lands and has stalled the go-ahead of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada. The Keystone pipeline not only provides an ethical alternative to importing oil from regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela; it is also an "essential part of the North American energy marketplace" and of U.S.-Canada relations, according to former Conservative cabinet minister Jim Prentice , who is now a senior executive with the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

When Obama rejected Keystone in early 2012, he pinned the blame for the decision on Republicans, accusing them for trying to push the administration to an earlier deadline. But Obama's dilemma about the Keystone project reveals underlying issues that could have long-term implications for Obama's credibility in his ongoing commitment to promote an agenda affecting "climate change," as well as to his liberal economic policies. For example, during a speech on China and India as emerging economies, Obama's assistant on economic policy, Lawrence Summers, raised the idea that India's political-economic model, which he referred to as the "Mumbai Consensus," may in the end win the day. According to Summers the Mumbai Consensus is "not based on ideas of laissez-faire capitalism that have proven obsolete or ideas of authoritarian capitalism that ultimately will prove not to be enduringly successful…." Recall that George Bush was the whipping boy for laissez-faire capitalism in certain camps after the Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae fiasco that led to the 2008 economic meltdown, even though it is no secret that the Democrats bore guilt.

With respect to Obama's credibility, right after taking office, in having vowed to promote policies that would supposedly moderate climate change, Obama committed the U.S. to the foreground of global climate change initiatives -- the centerpiece of which would entail revamping the flawed Kyoto protocol to bring include equitable commitments from countries such as China and India, which, despite being the most objectionable polluters, had been given free passes under the Kyoto accords. Now, years later and into his second term, Obama faces stumbling blocks in making good on his promises, not the least of which involves the Keystone pipeline.

Before tackling that issue, however, there are a couple other entanglements Obama is facing: now that Republicans control the House, Obama has apparently decided to move forward on his own with climate change initiatives, which include plans to engage federal agencies and the Environmental Protection Agency. National regulations will inevitably involve the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The problem is that Obama has failed to appoint a single judge to this powerful court that decides cases challenging agency regulations -- making him the first full-term president in over half a century to do so, and in effect hobbling his own agenda.

Even though Obama has twice thwarted the Keystone project, the Senate has just endorsed its construction, and House Republicans have vowed not to wait for Obama, but to sidestep the White House and vote on legislation to approve the Keystone project by Memorial Day.

Now that Obama has finished playing relationship counselor in the Middle East, he returns to the U.S. to face serious challenges coming in from Canada and from Congress. Environmentalists have already started branding the Keystone pipeline as the "Obama Pipeline" and the "Obama Legacy on Keystone," and are asking questions such as: "What happens if it leaks?" The surrounding heat being generated from the Keystone controversy may well have had an influence upon Obama's gaffe in comparing U.S.-Canada relations with Israeli-Palestinian relations, even though in reality there is no comparison.

Maliki and Kerry, Maliki and Ahmadinejad: Compare and contrast

I've been predicting this since at least 2006: the chief beneficiary of our misguided Wilsonian adventure in Iraq is Iran. But no one in Washington has noticed yet.

June 27, 2006: "Of course, Ahmadinejad may be jumping the gun a bit as far as that is concerned, but he is certainly doing all he can to bring into being a Shi'ite client state in Iraq."

September 13, 2006: "Here we see looming in Iraq the Shi'ite client state of Iran that the U.S. has unwittingly helped put into place with its short-sighted democracy project."

October 31, 2006: "Is al-Maliki on the road to creating the Shi'ite client state that the Iranians have been trying to foster in Iraq for quite some time now?"

February 11, 2007: "Iran continues its efforts to create a Shi'ite client state in Iraq."

June 10, 2008: "Or are U.S. troops the main obstacle to Iraq's becoming a full-fledged client state of Iran?"

November 12, 2008: "Very soon now the President of the United States and the President of Iran will sit down, without preconditions, and hash this out, and clear everything up before Iraq turns fully into the Shi'ite client state that the Iranians covet."

July 1, 2009: "Their goal of creating a Shi'ite client state is closer than ever to being realized."

July 30, 2009: "Was this what we have been fighting for in Iraq all these years? An Iranian Shi'ite client state in Baghdad?"

"Kerry warns Iraq on Iran flights to Syria," by Matthew Lee for the Associated Press, March 24 (thanks to all who sent this in):

BAGHDAD (AP) — Just days after the 10th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry confronted Baghdad for continuing to grant Iran access to its airspace and said Iraq's behavior was raising questions about its reliability as a partner.

Speaking to reporters during a previously unannounced trip to Baghdad, Kerry said that he and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had engaged in "a very spirited discussion" on the Iranian flights, which U.S. officials believe are ferrying weapons and fighters intended for the embattled Syrian government.

Kerry said the plane shipments — along with material being trucked across Iraqi territory from Iran to Syria — were helping President Bashar Assad's regime cling to power by increasing their ability to strike at Syrian rebels and opposition figures demanding Assad's ouster.

"I made it very clear that for those of us who are engaged in an effort to see President Assad step down and to see a democratic process take hold ... anything that supports President Assad is problematic," Kerry said at a news conference at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad after meeting separately with Maliki at his office. "And I made it very clear to the Prime Minister that the overflights from Iran are, in fact, helping to sustain President Assad and his regime."...

Over at FrontPage Magazine, via RaymondIbrahim.com, I discuss the latest calls for U.S. monetary aid to be seen as "jizya" from contemptuous infidel dhimmis to their Islamic overlords:

As earlier suggested, the wonderful thing about Salafis—those extra “radical” Muslims who seek to emulate as literally as possible prophet Muhammad’s teachings and habits—is that they are so unabashed and frank about what they believe. Such is the degree of brainwashing that they have undergone. Unlike the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded much earlier, doublespeak is not second nature to the Salafis.

The most recent example comes from Al Hafiz TV, an Egyptian Islamic station. During a roundtable discussion on the U.S. and foreign aid to Egypt, an Islamic cleric, clearly of the Salafi bent—he had their trademark mustache-less-beard—insisted that the U.S. must be treated contemptuously, like a downtrodden dhimmi, or conquered infidel; that Egypt must make the U.S. conform to its own demands; and that, then, all the money the U.S. offers to Egypt in foreign aid can be taken as rightfully earned jizya.

Historically, the jizya was money, or tribute, that conquered non-Muslims had to pay to their Muslim overlords to safeguard their existence, as indicated in Koran 9:29. As the spirit of Islam continues making a comeback, Muslims around the world continue calling for non-Muslims, especially Christian minorities under Islam, to resume paying the jizya, which was abolished in the 19th century thanks to European intervention.

According to the sheikh, Egypt must be less cooperative with the U.S. and at the same time insist for more monetary aid. If so, the sheikh believes that “America will accept; it will kiss our hands; and it will also increase its aid. And we will consider its aid as jizya, not as aid. But first we must make impositions on it.”

When the host asked the sheikh “Do the Americans owe us jizya?” he responded, “Yes,” adding that it is the price Americans have to pay “so we can leave them alone!” When the host asked the sheikh if he was proclaiming a fatwa, the latter exclaimed, “By Allah of course!” The sheikh added that, to become a truly Islamic state, Egypt must “impose on America to pay aid as jizya, before we allow it to realize its own interests, the ones which we agree to.”

While the Egyptian cleric was focused on “international jizya”—that is, money paid by one non-Muslim nation to a Muslim nation, U.S money to Egypt—other Muslims have been receiving and enjoying individual “jizya” from Western, infidel governments, in the form of welfare aid....

Rapidly re-Islamizing Turkey doesn't want peace with Israel. "US asks Turkey for help with ME peace process," from the Jerusalem Post, March 16 (thanks to Joshua):

US Secretary of State John Kerry called his Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu this week, asking for Turkey's help in restarting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Turkish daily Hurriyet reported on Saturday.

Turkey turned down the request citing bad relations between Ankara and Jerusalem and saying the responsibility to fix the murky relations between the two countries falls on Israel.

Relations between Jerusalem and what was once its only Muslim ally crumbled after Israeli marines raided the Mavi Marmara ship in May 2010 to enforce a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip and killed nine Turks in clashes with activists on board.

The rift has continued despite US efforts to encourage a rapprochement between the two regional powers whose cooperation it needs to address changes sweeping the Middle East.

"Turkey is always ready to do whatever it needs for a fair two-state solution based on the 1967 borders,” Davutoglu said during a joint press conference with Kerry in Ankara on March 1.

"If Israel wants to hear positive statements from Turkey, it needs to review its attitude. It needs to review its attitude toward us, and it needs to review its attitude toward the people in the region and especially the West Bank settlements issue," the Turkish foreign minister said.

A Turkish official speaking to Hurriyet has accused Jerusalem of blocking attempts to restore relations with Ankara....

Projection alert!

Karzai wants to keep the American troops in Afghanistan, because he knows that if they go, so does he. "Afghan leader Hamid Karzai says US, Taliban are colluding," from the Associated Press, March 10 (thanks to Jos):

Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Sunday accused the Taliban and the US of working in concert to convince Afghans that violence will worsen if most foreign troops leave as planned by the end of next year.

Karzai said two suicide bombings that killed 19 people on Saturday — one outside the Afghan Defence Ministry and the other near a police checkpoint in eastern Khost province — show the insurgent group is conducting attacks to help show that international forces will still be needed to keep the peace after their current combat mission ends next year.

“The explosions in Kabul and Khost yesterday showed that they are at the service of America and at the service of this phrase: next year. They are trying to frighten us into thinking that if the foreigners are not in Afghanistan, we would be facing these sorts of incidents,” he said during a nationally televised speech about the state of Afghan women.

There was no immediate response from the US-led military coalition, which is gradually handing over responsibility for securing the country to Afghan forces.

Karzai is known for making incendiary comments in his public speeches, a move that is often attributed to him trying to appeal to those who sympathise with the Taliban or as a way to gain leverage when he feels his international allies are ignoring his country’s sovereignty. In previous speeches he has threatened to join the Taliban and called his Nato allies occupiers who want to plunder Afghanistan’s resources.

His latest remarks come as his government is negotiating a pact with the US for the long-term presence of American forces in Afghanistan and just days after an agreement to transfer the US prison outside of Kabul to Afghan authority fell through. His comments also came while US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel is making his first visit to Afghanistan since becoming the Pentagon chief.

Karzai said in his speech that any foreign powers that want to keep troops in Afghanistan need to do so under conditions set forward by Afghanistan.

“We will tell them where we need them, and under which conditions. They must respect our laws. They must respect the national sovereignty of our country and must respect all our customs,” Karzai said.

Karzai offered no proof of coordination, but said the Taliban and the United States were in “daily negotiations” in various foreign countries and noted that the United States has said that it no longer considers the insurgent group its enemy. The US continues to fight against the Taliban and other militant groups, but has expressed its backing for formal peace talks with the Taliban to find a political resolution to the war.

Karzai said he did not believe the Taliban’s claim that they launched Saturday’s attacks to show they are still a potent force fighting the United States. “Yesterday’s explosions, which the Taliban claimed, show that in reality they are saying they want the presence of foreigners in Afghanistan,” Karzai said.

"This would be a moral outrage that is inexcusable." Yes. "American Mumbai plotter sentenced to 35 years," by Michael Tarm and Sophia Tareen for the Associated Press, January 24 (thanks to Kenneth):

CHICAGO (AP) -- An American drug dealer who had faced life in prison was sentenced instead to 35 years Thursday for helping plan the deadly 2008 attacks on Mumbai, India - a punishment prosecutors said reflected his broad cooperation with U.S. investigators but that a victim's family member called "an appalling dishonor."

It was David Coleman Headley's meticulous scouting missions that facilitated the assault by 10 gunmen from a Pakistani-based militant group on multiple targets in Mumbai, including the landmark Taj Mahal Hotel. TV cameras captured much of the three-day rampage often called India's 9/11. More than 160 people, including children, were killed.

Gee, AP, that's interesting. What kind of "militant group"?

Glimpses of the horror came through the teary testimony of one of the victims who described the gory scene as she huddled under a restaurant table with her friends as gunmen sprayed the room with bullets, then walked around executing men, women and children one by one. Her own clothes soaked with blood.

"I know what a bullet can do to every part of the human body," said Linda Ragsdale, a Tennessee children's author, who was shot. "I know the sound of life leaving a 13-year-old child. These are things I never needed to know, never needed to experience."

Headley faced life in prison, and at 52 years old, even a 35-year term could mean he'll never walk free. But federal prosecutors had asked for a more lenient 30 to 35 years, citing his extraordinary cooperation including as the government's star witness at the 2011 trial of a Chicago businessman convicted in a failed attack on a Danish newspaper.

Former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald spoke in court calling Headley's cooperation within 30 minutes of his 2009 arrest "unusual".

However, Ragsdale and other victims called the 35 years unjust for the severity of the violence.

U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber said he considered the cooperation in imposing his sentence even though "the damage that was done was unfathomable." He cited a letter from Headley who vowed that he was a changed man, but Leinenweber said he didn't buy it.

"I don't have any faith in Mr. Headley when he says he's a changed person and believes in the American way of life," he said.

Headley, who did not address the court, showed no emotion when the sentence was announced. Security was tight at the packed hearing; dogs were walked through the lines of people waiting to get into the courtroom.

Prosecutors say Headley, who was born in the U.S. to a Pakistani father and American mother, was motivated in part by his hatred of India going back to his childhood. He changed his birth name from Daood Gilani in 2006 so he could travel to and from India more easily to do reconnaissance without raising suspicions.

He never pulled a trigger in the attack, but his contribution to the Pakistani-based militant group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, made the assault more deadly. He conducted meticulous scouting missions - videotaping and mapping targets - so the attackers who had never been to Mumbai adeptly found their way around.

One woman whose husband and daughter were killed in the attack said a lighter sentence would be "an appalling dishonor" to those killed.

"I feel that for the magnitude of the killings that took place, David Headley has lost his right to live as a free man," said Kia Scherr, who is currently in Mumbai. "This would be a moral outrage that is inexcusable."...

What could go wrong? "U. S. nuclear component reaches Pakistan via China," by Narayan Lakshman in The Hindu, January 19 (thanks to Lookmann):

Pakistan is circumventing matters of legality and geopolitical complexities in the procurement process for nuclear components.

This may well be the conclusion reached in the case of Qiang Hu, a Chinese national who has been charged in Massachusetts with “conspiracy for violating U.S. export controls by allegedly selling thousands of pressure transducers to unnamed customers through his position of sales manager at MKS Instruments Shanghai Ltd. in China”.

Among the list of nations that use pressure transducers to measure the gas pressure inside centrifuge cascades in nuclear plants is Pakistan. The list reportedly includes Iran and possibly North Korea, but Pakistan, according to experts at the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, is among those nations that “use a considerable quantity of the equipment in their centrifuge plants and have regularly sought them through surreptitious means as used in this alleged scheme”.

That Islamabad was a likely final customer of Mr. Hu’s deceptions cannot be ruled out. According to a report published by ISIS on this case, “Hu and his co-conspirators allegedly arranged their unlawful export to unauthorised Chinese end-users or to other, unnamed country end-users”.

The report’s authors, David Albright and Andrea Stricker, told The Hindu that while recent case studies or evidence of Pakistani procurements of pressure transducers may not be available, Pakistan is “likely procuring them, assuming they don’t have enough in their centrifuge plants or haven’t made them themselves”....

He was involved in a plot by a Pakistani jihad group to "decapitate Danish newspaper employees and toss their heads onto the streets of Copenhagen" because of cartoons of Muhammad. That same jihad group was also behind the Mumbai jihad attack, in which 160 people were murdered and a tiny Chabad house was the primary target: the pious jihadists there brutally and savagely tortured and murdered a rabbi and his family.

We're talking a serious misunderstander of the Religion of Peace and Tolerance. Yet how many programs are there in mosques and Islamic schools in the U.S. and Canada to teach Muslims not to fall for this widespread misunderstanding of Islam? Why, none. None at all.

An update on this story, which is where the quote can be found characterizing his plots that I used in my headline. "Canadian sentenced to 14 years for role in 2008 Mumbai attack," by Stewart Bell for the National Post, January 17 (thanks to Michael):

A Canadian businessman was sentenced to 14 years Thursday for his role in a plot by a Pakistani terrorist group to decapitate Danish newspaper employees and toss their heads onto the streets of Copenhagen.

A U.S. District court judge in Chicago imposed the prison term on Tahawwur Hussain Rana, 52. The conspiracy was retaliation for a cartoon in the Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten showing the Muslim prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban.

He was also convicted of providing material support to Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, the Pakistani terrorist group that attacked the Indian city Mumbai in 2008 killing 160 people, two of them Canadians.

A former Pakistani army officer who immigrated to Canada before moving to Illinois, Rana “provided critical support” to terrorists overseas,” said Lisa Monaco, the U.S. Assistant Attorney General for National Security....

They will most likely be used against genuine pro-democracy protesters and/or Israel, but we are not supposed to think about that. "Higher strategic interests" are involved here.

"Military source: US arms deal continuing despite lawmakers' objections," from DPA, January 13:

Egypt's negotiations with the US to acquire F-16 aircraft and M1A1 Abrams tanks are proceeding smoothly, a senior Egyptian military source has said.

The source added that the negotiations are proceeding regardless of statements made by political opponents of US President Barack Obama, in what may have been an oblique reference to calls by US Congressman Vern Buchanan for the suspension of this deal over what he described as the “dictatorship of President Mohamed Morsy.”

He also said that news about fresh military assistance or deals always sparks controversies, which tend to subside when the deals are concluded. He alleged that those Congressmen or officials who oppose supplies of advanced weaponry to the Egyptian army belong to the pro-Israel camp.

He added that demands made by some Congressmen to stop weapon deals with Egypt are motivated by electoral interests, adding, however, that the US administration does not take into account the opinions of voters when it makes assistance deals because such deals are connected to higher strategic interests.

And what might those be, in this case?

Egypt has been getting US$1.3 billion in annual assistance from the US since it signed the peace treaty with Israel in 1979. Since Islamist President Mohamed Morsy assumed power in July 2011, a number of members of US Congress have called for withholding aid to Egypt.

From The Post-American Presidency, by Pamela Geller with Robert Spencer:

Like Brzezinski, [Rosa] Brooks also indulged in the familiar anti-Semite’s complaint: that a few simple criticisms of Israel got one slapped with accusations of…anti-Semitism. (Neither, of course, seemed inclined to own up to how they had prejudged the case and stacked the deck against Israel.) Brooks enunciated this complaint in this way in 2006: “Publish something sharply critical of Israeli government policies and you’ll find out. If you’re lucky, you’ll merely discover that you’ve been uninvited to some dinner parties. If you’re less lucky, you’ll be the subject of an all-out attack by neoconservative pundits and accused of rabid anti-Semitism.”[i]

 Chuck Hagel

Former Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) would probably have agreed with Brooks. According to the Jerusalem Post, he was “one of a handful of senators who frequently didn’t sign AIPAC-backed letters related to Israel and the peace process during his time in the Senate and opposed additional sanctions on Iran.”

Apparently, like Brooks, he has faced criticism for these anti-Israel stances – and has complained that “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people.”[ii]

Yet Hagel himself doesn’t seem to have been particularly intimidated. In the Senate he amassed a significant track record as one of a hardline hater of Israel who would not affix his name even to the most innocuous pro-Israel initiative. When all but four Senators signed a pro-Israel statement in 2000, Hagel was one of the holdouts. The next year, he was again among the few Senators – eleven this time – who refused to add their names to a statement urging George W. Bush not to meet with Yaser Arafat as long as the Palestinian groups under his control continued to pursue violence against Israel. In 2005, Hagel, along with 26 other senators, opposed a call to the Palestinian Authority to disqualify terror groups from participating in elections. And when twelve senators wrote to the European Union in 2006 asking that the EU join the U.S. in classifying Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, Hagel was once again one of the few.[iii]

 Hagel wasn’t intimidated, and Barack Hussein Obama wasn’t either. In late October 2009 he appointed Hagel co-chair of his Intelligence Advisory Board.[iv] And in a particularly piquant symbolic move, the appointment was announced at J Street’s first annual conference – by Steve Clemons of George Soros’s New America Foundation.[v]

And the effect of all this showed in his policies, beginning almost immediately when he took office.

It bodes ill for Jews just how comfortable and at ease Obama obviously is with proud anti-Semites and Israel haters. Obama has appointed all these people, but has concealed their true natures. 

WASHINGTON — President Obama is expected to nominate Chuck Hagel, a former Republican senator and Vietnam veteran, to be Defense secretary, officials said, setting up a confirmation battle with lawmakers and interest groups critical of Hagel's views on Israel and Iran.

White House officials said Friday that the president hadn't formally offered the job to Hagel, but others familiar with the process said that the announcement could come as soon as Monday.

Hagel, who was elected to the Senate from Nebraska in 1996 and retired in 2008, was awarded two Purple Hearts for wounds he received as a soldier in Vietnam. His experience serving in that war made him wary about using force unless other options had been tried, he said in a recent interview with the history magazine Vietnam.

"I'm not a pacifist. I believe in using force but only after a very careful decision-making process. … I will do everything I can to avoid needless, senseless war," he said.

By nominating a Republican to run the Defense Department, Obama would give his second-term national security team a bipartisan cast as the White House is rapidly winding down the war in Afghanistan and planning for even deeper cuts in the defense budget. Hagel's criticism of the Iraq war has made him deeply unpopular with many conservative Republicans, however.

The choice also sets up a possibly contentious confirmation fight with Israel's defenders in Washington, some of whom mounted a public campaign to head off Hagel's nomination. They criticized him for past comments calling on Israel to negotiate with Palestinian groups and for opposing some sanctions aimed at Iran....

Hagel's record on Israel and Iran are likely to be the main focus of the nomination battle. William Kristol, the editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, published a "special editorial" Friday accusing him of having "dangerous views on Iran" and an "unpleasant distaste for Israel and Jews."

Critics have cited a comment Hagel made in 2008 to author and former State Department Middle East peace negotiator Aaron David Miller about why he sometimes opposed pro-Israel groups in the Senate.

"The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here," Hagel said, but "I'm a United States senator. I'm not an Israeli senator."

They also have cited his calls for direct negotiations with Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that the U.S. and Israel refuse to deal with directly, and his votes against some Iran sanctions.

But defenders and former aides say Hagel showed his support for Israel by voting repeatedly to provide it with military aid and by calling for a comprehensive peace deal with the Palestinians that should not include any compromise regarding Israel's Jewish identity and that would leave Israel "free to live in peace and security."

They note that he also supported three major Iran sanctions bills: the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1998, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 and the Iran Freedom Support Act of 2006.

In the Senate, Hagel initially voted to give the George W. Bush administration authority to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, but he later harshly criticized the conduct of both wars, irritating fellow Republicans and making him popular with Democrats critical of those wars.

Obama and Hagel formed a close relationship in the Senate, and their foreign policy views seem closely aligned. Like Obama, Hagel has called for negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, a position that made some pro-Israel advocates wary about whether Hagel would back using force against Iran if diplomatic efforts to halt the program failed....

Obama will need to deal with opposition from a number of pro-Israel senators from both parties who have already raised questions about their support for Hagel. One example is Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has distanced himself from Hagel in comments last month. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has also raised questions about Hagel's past comments....

Here is evidence that the infiltration long predates the Obama Administration.

Here is al-Awlaki addressing "moderate" Muslims including Nihad Awad of Hamas-linked CAIR on Capitol Hill in 2002. The rest is below. "Documents Uncovered by Judicial Watch Indicate FBI Knew Assassinated U.S. Born Terrorist Anwar al-Aulaqi Purchased Airline Tickets for 9/11 Hijackers," from Judicial Watch, January 3 (thanks to Jeff):

WASHINGTON, DC--(Marketwire - Jan 3, 2013) - Judicial Watch announced today that it has received documents from the U.S. State Department indicating that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was aware on September 27, 2001, that Anwar al-Aulaqi, the U.S. born terrorist assassinated by a U.S. drone in Yemen on September 30, 2011, had purchased airplane tickets for three of the 9/11 terrorist hijackers, including mastermind Mohammed Atta. Subsequent to the FBI's discovery, al-Aulaqi was detained and released by authorities at least twice and had been invited to dine at the Pentagon.

According to a September 27, 2001, FBI transcription, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State and Federal Bureau of Investigations (No. 1:12-cv-00893)), al-Aulaqi purchased airline tickets for the following 9/11 hijackers:

• Mohammed Atta, America West Airlines, 08/13/2001, for a flight from Washington, DC, to Las Vegas, Nevada, to Miami, Florida.
  
  
• S. Suqami, Southwest Airlines, 07/10/2001, for a flight from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, to Orlando, Florida.
  
  
• Al-Sheri, National Airlines, 08/01/2001, for a flight from San Francisco, California, to Las Vegas, Nevada, to Miami, Florida.

The documents also include material showing that al-Aulaqi was uncooperative with FBI agents investigating the 9/11 attacks and was seemingly a central focus of the FBI investigation and monitoring related to 9/11.

But records previously uncovered by Judicial Watch, subsequent to the September 27, 2001, FBI transcription, show that al-Aulaqi was arrested and released by authorities. Two documents uncovered by Judicial Watch include "Privacy Act Release Forms" issued by the U.S. Embassy in Sana'a, Yemen, and signed by al-Aulaqi. One was dated November 14, 2006, and the other July 2, 2007, indicating that al-Aulaqi had been arrested by authorities. The documents do not indicate how long al-Aulaqi was detained or why he was released.

In addition to the arrests noted by the documents in 2006 and 2007, al-Aulaqi was detained and questioned at New York's JFK airport on October 10, 2002, under a warrant for passport fraud, a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. However, the FBI ordered al-Aulaqi's release, even though the arrest warrant was still active at the time of his detention as reported by Fox News Channel's Catherine Herridge. Once released al-Aulaqi then took a flight to Washington, DC, and eventually returned to Yemen.

On February 5, 2002, four months after the FBI discovered his connection to the 9/11 terrorists, al-Aulaqi was invited to dine at the Pentagon on February 5, 2002, "as part of the military's outreach to the Muslim community in the immediate aftermath of the attacks," reports Herridge.

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." -- Qur'an 9:29

Muslim spokesmen in the West routinely claim that this verse has no applicability in the modern world. They're lying.

"Syrian Jihadist Group Threatens United States," from IPT News, December 27:

A Syrian opposition group tied to al-Qaida has issued a threatening statement against the United States two weeks after the U.S. Treasury Department designated its leaders as terrorists.

A statement published on a jihadist website from Abu Mohammad Tahawi, a leading Jordanian Salafi jihadist who often trumpets the Nusrah Front in Syria, taunts the United States and President Obama and promises bloodshed.

The Nusrah Front "placed you long ago on the terrorism blacklist based on injustice, tyranny and vanquishing people," Tahawi wrote. "They have made a pledge for themselves to obey the oath of Sheikh Osama [bin Laden] … and you will not know a pleasant life, nor quiet and happy sleep until you return to your homes, with bowed heads, weary, miserable; and you pay them the Jizya (tax on non-Muslims), and are humbled ."

I don't know if this is true, as PressTV is government-controlled Iranian television, but if it is, the troops are apparently there so as to be in position to aid the Syrian jihadists whom Obama has endorsed.

"3,000 US troops secretly return to Iraq via Kuwait," from PressTV, December 9 (thanks to Kenneth):

Over 3,000 US troops have secretly returned to Iraq via Kuwait for missions pertaining to the recent developments in Syria and northern Iraq, Press TV reports.

According to our correspondent, the US troops have secretly entered Iraq in multiple stages and are mostly stationed at Balad military garrison in Salahuddin province and al-Asad air base in al-Anbar province....

This is great: the Egyptian military will be all set when it goes to war with Israel. "Muslim Brotherhood inherits U.S. war gear," by Rowan Scarborough for The Washington Times, December 6:

For Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government, more battle tanks and jet fighters are on their way from the United States.

Cairo’s military link to Washington has remained intact, meaning the U.S. will continue to modernize the biggest military in Africa — even as President Mohammed Morsi has decreed near-absolute power for himself and his supporters and opponents battle outside his palace.

Analysts say Egypt’s military buildup presents risks for Washington — and Israel — with the growing influence of the Brotherhood, whose overriding goal is to establish Shariah, or Islamic, law worldwide.

A Pentagon statement to The Washington Times on Thursday said: “We are always reviewing our foreign assistance to make sure foreign assistance advances U.S. objectives and is being used for the right purposes.”

For now, Egypt is due 200 M1A1 Abrams battle tanks, the same mechanized firepower manned by American soldiers, bringing Egypt’s inventory to a robust 1,200.

Also in the pipeline is a squadron of the Air Force F-16 Falcon, a multipurpose warplane able to dogfight and drop ordnance.

The government awarded Lockheed Martin Corp. a contract in March 2010 for 20 F-16s, the last to be delivered next year. That would increase Egypt’s total fleet to 240, according to a company press release at the time.

“Egypt has far and away the largest army in Africa,” said Egypt analyst Robert Springborg, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif.

The billions of dollars in U.S. military aid — in annual $1.3 billion stipends — have made the Egyptian air force the fourth-largest F-16 operator among 25 countries. Egypt’s 4,000 tanks, including the 1,000 or so M1A1s, make it the world’s seventh-largest tank army.

“This is a pretty substantial capacity that they have developed,” Mr. Springborg said....

And what target are they most likely to use it all against?

And 40% think that Muslims here should not be governed by the Constitution, but by Sharia. Does this really surprise anyone? Why should Muslims in the U.S. hold different beliefs from Muslims elsewhere?

"Guess who U.S. Muslims are voting for," by Bob Unruh for WND, October 31:

Nearly half of 600 Muslim-American citizens polled who plan to vote in the 2012 presidential election believe parodies of Muhammad should be prosecuted criminally in the U.S., and one in eight say the offense is so serious violators should face the death penalty.

The results came in a groundbreaking scientific poll for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies. It was taken Oct. 22-26 and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3.98 percentage points.

The poll also found 40 percent of Muslims in America believe they should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution, but by Shariah standards.

And the big winner among Muslim-Americans in the presidential election is Barack Obama, the poll found. More than 72 percent said they are definitely supporting Obama, and another 8.5 percent are leaning that direction. Only 11 percent are for Romney....

“Almost half of those Muslims surveyed – an astonishing 46 percent – said they believe those Americans who offer criticism or parodies of Islam should face criminal charges,” said pollster Fritz Wenzel in an analysis of the survey’s results.

“Even more shocking: One in eight respondents said they think those Americans who criticize or parody Islam should face the death penalty, while another nine percent said they were unsure on the question,” he said.

Wenzel said even the 9 percent “undecided” on that particular question is alarming.

“Seldom in survey research does a response of ‘not sure’ carry such significance, but the response to this question certainly is a surprise, given the severity of the question, and offers insight into the conflict that some Muslims appear to face in making the ideals under-girding American society fit into their religious lifestyle,” he said.

Wenzel’s poll said 7.2 percent of the respondents said they “strongly agree” with the idea of execution for those who parody Islam, and another 4.3 percent said they somewhat agree.

While 80 percent said that they somewhat or strongly disagree with the idea, when those who said they were not sure are added, one in five Muslims across America cannot say they believe Christians or others who criticize Muhammad should be spared the death penalty.

More Muslim women (10.4 percent) than Muslim men (4.9 percent) said they strongly agree with the idea, while 12.4 percent of the women and 7.1 percent of the men were uncertain about the issue involving Muhammad.

Four in 10 said Muslims in America should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution, but by Islamic Shariah law.

“A much smaller percentage said they think the U.S. should establish an entirely separate court system to adjudicate matters involving Muslims,” Wenzel said.

While the respondents overwhelmingly lean toward the Democratic Party and like the direction Barack Obama, who repeatedly has praised Islam around the world, is leading this nation, they also have a fundamental conflict with American life, expressing objections to the freedom of speech and religion guaranteed in the Constitution.

American Muslims, Wenzel said, “show signs of ambivalence toward the U.S. Constitution generally and the First Amendment specifically.”

“These survey findings show a community in conflict with the foundations of our nation, as many Muslims favor and enjoy the freedoms offered by the U.S. Constitution, including participation in elections here, but at the same time significant percentages want to be treated differently than the average non-Muslim when it comes to legal matters,” he said.

“While 39 percent of Muslims said they believe existing U.S. courts should consult Shariah law when adjudicating cases involving Muslims, a plurality of 45 percent said they do not agree with this idea. Asked if the U.S. should establish separate courts based solely on Shariah law to adjudicate cases involving Muslim, 21 percent said it should. Two-thirds of respondents – 66 percent – said that separate courts are not necessary to adjudicate Muslims.”

While 9 of 10 of the Muslim respondents said they agree with the First Amendment, they are also in conflict with it, Wenzel said, citing evidence in answers to “another question in the survey which found that one-third of Muslims – 32 percent – believe Shariah should be the supreme law of the land in the United States,” Wenzel said.

“Another shocking finding from the survey is how Muslims view the religious freedoms of Christians. Asked whether U.S. citizens who are Christians have the right to evangelize Muslims to consider other faiths, just 30 percent agreed Christians have such a right. Another 42 percent said they do not have such a right, while 28 percent said they were unsure on the question.”

One in five say Muslim men should be allowed to follow their religion in America and have more than one wife, and 58 percent said criticism of their religion or of Muhammad should not be allowed under the Constitution.

While 43 percent said they disagreed with the idea of Christians evangelizing Muslims, another 27 percent said they were undecided. Only 19 percent said they “strongly agree” with the idea that Americans have a right to invite Muslims to consider another faith.

Nearly one in three said Israel either has no right to exist or they were uncertain whether it does.

Robert Spencer, author of “Stealth Jihad” and “Did Muhammad Ever Exist?,” told WND the survey is a “disquieting indication that Muslims in the U.S. support Shariah blasphemy laws and want to bring them to the U.S.”

“This should not surprise anyone,” he said. “There is no reason to believe that Muslims in the U.S. believe in a different form of Islam from that which prevails everywhere else. But it underscores the need for Americans to defend, forthrightly and without apology, the freedom of speech, as it is increasingly embattled today, and to revive and enact anti-Shariah laws nationwide.”

Spencer has authored 12 books on Islam and has led seminars about jihad for the United States Central Command, United States Army Command, the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force and others.

Pamela Geller, author of ”Stop the Islamization of America” and a WND columnist, said: “Restrictions on free speech are part of Shariah. This poll does nothing but show that Muslims in this country adhere to Shariah in large numbers. What is surprising is that the percentage of those who oppose free speech isn’t higher. But probably many of the respondents already know better than to say what they really think to non-Muslim pollsters.”...

Over at FrontPage Mag (via RaymondIbrahim.com), I discuss how understanding Obama's failed Mideast policy is as easy as understanding the bully mentality when appeased:

In an era of high education and specialty degrees—from psychology to political science—perhaps it was inevitable for simple common sense to fall by the wayside. The embassy attacks across the Muslim world, especially the most savage in Egypt and Libya, are a testimony to this: U.S. policy towards these countries fundamentally exacerbated their wild reactions. To understand all this, one need only turn to the classic “schoolyard bully” paradigm, that any child can understand.

Not especially large or strong, the schoolyard bully—generally a prickly, nasty fellow—picks on two groups: 1) those who are obviously weaker than him and 2) those who, while larger or stronger than him, willingly give in to him—willingly appease. Bullying the first group, the weak, is an easy matter for the bully. As for the second group, whose capacities and responses are unclear, these he must first determine through a few bully trial-runs—to see whether they will fight back, or whether they will give in. He begins small—a shove and harsh word here and there—and takes it from there, always seeing how far he can go.

The bully will receive one of two responses from the second group, those not smaller or weaker than him: either appeasement and giving in, or a punch to the nose. If he receives the former, he continually ups the bullying to see how much more he can get away with: harsh words and shoves become demands for lunch money and stolen jackets. His work becomes complete with the absolute subordination of his victim.

As for the one who does not put up with his bullying—who gives him a swift punch to the nose—not only does the bully leave him be, he even begins to respect if not befriend him.

For centuries, people from all walks of life knew this—from experience if not common sense. Children knew it.

Now consider how the Schoolyard Bully paradigm helps explain America’s relationship to the Muslim world, especially in the last four years, culminating with the U.S. embassy debacles in the Muslim world...