Showing posts with label Osama bin Laden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Osama bin Laden. Show all posts

Friday, August 7, 2015

Obama’s Lies about Bush and Iraq

insert picture
The president’s speech on the Iranian deal, delivered at American University on Wednesday, was vintage Obama, as in a compendium of demagoguery, historical revisionism and outright lying. Nothing emphasized that more forcefully than the portion of the Obama’s speech addressing the war in Iraq. Obama insisted U.S. involvement there was the result of “a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy, a mindset that put a premium on unilateral U.S. action over the painstaking work of building international consensus, a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported.”

That is litany of falsehoods. First, it was a complete lack of military action against a rapidly metastasizing Islamist terror threat, studiously ignored during the Clinton years, that gave Osama bin Laden the ability to plan and execute the 9/11 attacks from the terrorist sanctuary provided to al Qaeda by the Taliban government in Afghanistan. That would be the same Bill Clinton, along with numerous other Democrats, including Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore who provided ample incentive for the invasion of Iraq, characterizing Saddam Hussein and his burgeoning WMD program as a mortal threat to world peace and stability. Moreover, as David Horowitz and Ben Johnson explain in their book“Party of Defeat,” every Democrat who voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq—including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Chuck Schumer—had access to the same National Intelligence Estimate that Bush and Republicans did.

It was a report, despite years of Democratic lying, that ultimately turned out to be correct. Twoseparate reports revealed the existence of large stocks of chemical weapons contained in the Al Muthanna Chemicals Weapons Complex that was overrun by ISIS last year. And in 2008, after Democrats had campaigned for years on the slogan, “Bush Lied, people died,” the New York Times reported that “hundreds of tons of natural uranium” had been removed from Iraq’s main nuclear site and moved to Canada.

As Horowitz and Johnson explain, none of it mattered to a Democratic Party intent on undermining Bush and the war, an effort driven by pure partisan politics arising from the reality that anti-war Democrat Howard Dean vaulted to the top of the pack of Democratic presidential contenders in the 2004 campaign. Without missing a beat, presidential candidates John Edwards and John Kerry suddenly decided they were against the same war they had previously supported, and their Democrat colleagues embraced that defeatist change of heart with all the gusto they could muster. No one more so than Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton. Even before the surge that turned the tide of the Iraq war decisively in America’s favor was completed, Reid declared the war to be “lost.” Less than six months later, Clinton, with an eye towards her own 2008 presidential ambitions, attacked the integrity of Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus, insisting reports on that success “require the willing suspension of disbelief.”


Sunday, August 2, 2015

Terror Trends: 40 Years' Data on International and Domestic Terrorism

Abstract: A decade after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, looking back is as important as looking forward in order to learn from the past and to examine the current and future threats facing the U.S. This survey aggregates international data on global and domestic terrorism from the past 40 years. Combined with new intelligence, this data can better inform U.S. counterterrorism decisions and continue the process of delineating enhanced homeland security policies for the future. From 1969 to 2009, almost 5,600 people lost their lives and more than 16,300 people suffered injuries due to international terrorism directed at the United States. The onus is now on the President and Congress to ensure that the U.S. continues to hone and sharpen its counterterrorism capabilities and adapt them to evolving 21st-century threats.
On September 10, 2001, Osama bin Laden’s name was well known to the U.S. intelligence community. By that point, bin Laden had directed various attacks against the U.S. through the al-Qaeda terror network, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. Yet, despite the fact that “the threat of transnational terrorism was widely recognized by the IC [intelligence community] and policymakers, virtually no initiatives were taken to address the deep-seated limitations of U.S. strategic intelligence that made it an inadequate instrument for meeting its threat.”[1]
The 9/11 attacks, and the subsequent publication of The 9/11 Commission Report served as a tremendous catalyst for a much-needed and robust debate over the nature of the threat facing the United States. The report also drew significant attention to the nation’s intelligence failures and lack of a framework for preventing, preparing for, and responding to acts of terrorism.
The national conversation that followed, specifically about the lessons learned from 9/11, continues to play a significant role in discussions related to the very definition of terrorism, the extent and severity of the threat, and the best methods for stopping future attacks. In many ways, the U.S. has taken this information and acted on it—drastically reforming the federal effort on homeland security, breaking down communication walls between law enforcement and intelligence, providing law enforcement with better intelligence-gathering tools, and forging a national homeland security enterprise composed of federal, state, and local assets, as well as private citizens.
As a result, law enforcement has foiled at least 39 terror plots since 9/11.[2] Simply put, the intelligence and law enforcement communities are better able to track down leads in local communities than they were on September 10, 2001.
A decade later and shortly after the demise of Osama bin Laden, it is as important to look backward as it is to look forward in order to keep learning from the past and to examine the threats now facing the U.S. The survey presented in this paper aggregates international data on terrorism around the world from the past 40 years. Combined with new intelligence, such data can better inform counterterrorism decisions and continue the process of delineating enhanced homeland security policies for the future. The onus is now on the President and Congress to continue to hone and sharpen U.S. counterterrorism capabilities and adapt them to evolving 21st-century threats.

Summary of Research

Between 1969 and 2009, there were 38,345 terrorist incidents around the world. Of these attacks, 7.8 percent (2,981) were directed against the United States, while 92.2 percent (35,364) were directed at other nations of the world:
  • Nearly 5,600 people lost their lives and more than 16,300 people suffered injuries due to international terrorism directed at the United States;
  • While terrorist attacks against the U.S. tend to be slightly deadlier (2.01 fatalities per incident) than attacks against other nations (1.74 fatalities per incident), the higher number of average fatalities for the United States is a consequence of 9/11;
  • Terrorism directed at the United States accounts for only 7.8 percent of all terrorism worldwide, but almost 43 percent of all attacks against military institutions are leveled against U.S. institutions; and
  • Furthermore, 28.4 percent and 24.2 percent of all worldwide terrorist attacks against diplomatic offices and businesses, respectively, are aimed at U.S. institutions.
Between 2001 and 2009:
  • There were 91 homegrown terrorist attacks of all kinds against the United States, while there were 380 international terrorist attacks against the United States;
  • The two most prevalent U.S. targets of international terrorism were businesses (26.6 percent) and diplomatic offices (16.6 percent);
  • The two most prevalent U.S. targets of domestic terrorism were businesses (42.9 percent) and private citizens and property (24.2 percent); and
  • The preferred method of attack against the United States for international terrorists was bombings (68.3 percent), while the preferred method for domestic terrorists was arson (46.2 percent).

The Data

The data used in this descriptive analysis by The Heritage Foundation stem from the RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents (RDWTI).[3] The version of the RDWTI used in this analysis contains information on nearly 38,700 terrorist incidents from across the globe between February 1968 and January 2010. For this analysis, terrorist incidents were counted only if the recorded incidents were officially confirmed as a terrorist incident by RAND in the database. In addition, state-sponsored terrorist attacks are excluded from the analysis. The data are limited to incidents that occurred during a 40-year time span from 1969 to 2009. However, this figure underestimates the number of terrorist incidents because the last entries are not complete for all countries.[4]
To keep the RDWTI up-to-date, RAND staff with regional and language expertise review incidents around the world that can be potentially defined as terrorism.[5] In addition, terrorist incidents must be confirmed as such through press reports before they can be officially counted. While the version of RDWTI used by The Heritage Foundation covers terrorist incidents through January 2010, not all cases of recent terrorism are included in this analysis (such as the November 2009 massacre at Fort Hood perpetrated by U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan). As with any database that tries to contain the most current information, there are necessary delays in confirming cases of terrorism to ensure the incidents are correctly recorded.
An important attribute of the RDWTI is the consistent application of its definition of terrorism, as described by Professor Bruce Hoffman of Georgetown University:
[T]he deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change. All terrorist acts involve violence or the threat of violence. Terrorism is specifically designed to have far-reaching psychological effects beyond the immediate victim(s) or object of the terrorist attack. It is meant to instill fear within, and thereby intimidate, a wider “target audience” that might include a rival ethnic or religious group, an entire country, a national government or political party, or public opinion in general. Terrorism is designed to create power where there is none or to consolidate power where there is little. Through the publicity generated by their violence, terrorists seek to obtain the leverage, influence and power they otherwise lack to effect political change on either local or international scale.[6]
According to this definition, terrorism is defined by the nature of the incident, not by the identity of the perpetrators.[7] The fundamentals of terrorism include:
  • “Violence or the threat of violence;
  • “Calculated to create fear and alarm;
  • “Intended to coerce certain actions;
  • “Motive must include a political objective;
  • “Generally directed against civilian targets; and
  • “It can be [carried out by] a group or an individual.”[8]
Essentially, terrorism can be summarized as violent acts that are “calculated to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm to coerce others into actions they would not otherwise undertake, or refrain from actions they desired to take.”[9] Further, regular criminal acts are not counted as terrorism. So, while drug-trafficking conducted by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) is not counted as terrorism,[10] FARC’s attacks against Colombian citizens are.[11]

A Descriptive Analysis of Worldwide Terrorism

Between 1969 and 2009, there were 38,345 terrorist incidents around the world. Of these attacks 7.8 percent (2,981) were against the United States, while 92.2 percent (35,364) were against the rest of the world. (See Chart 1.)
Which Countries are Targeted?
Global Terrorist Attacks: Fatalities and Injuries
From 1969 to 2009, the average number of fatalities per terrorist attack against a nation other than the United States yielded 1.74 fatalities. (See Chart 2.) When the data are limited to incidents against the United States, the average terrorist attack yielded 2.01 fatalities per incident. These fatalities represent all individuals killed, not only Americans. Without 9/11, the average falls to 0.97 fatalities per attack.
Chart 2 also includes the mean for the number of injuries per terrorist incident. On average, terrorist attacks against nations other than the United States yielded 3.85 injuries. Attacks against the United States averaged 5.88 injuries. As with fatalities, the mean for injuries resulting from attacks against the United States is tied closely to 9/11. Without 9/11, the mean drops to 5.07 injuries per incident.
Four of 10 Terror Attacks on Military Targets Are Against the US
Chart 3 breaks down terrorism by type of institution targeted. The United States comprises a large share. Almost 43 percent of terrorist attacks against military institutions are against the U.S. Armed Forces. The United States also accounted for 28.4 percent and 24.2 percent of all terrorist attacks against diplomatic and business institutions, respectively. Alternately, the United States accounted for only a small percentage of attacks against police (0.3 percent), private citizens and property (1.1 percent), transportation systems (1.4 percent), and government institutions (1.5 percent).

Terror Against the U.S.

International terrorist attacks against the United States have fluctuated. (See Chart 4.) From 1969 to 1991, despite a few down flows, international terrorism against the U.S. was on the rise. In 1991, the trend peaked at 150 terror acts committed against U.S. interests. After 1991, international terror declined sharply until reaching its lowest low point of 14 incidents in 2000. In 2001, the trend reversed and rapidly increased until peaking in 2005 with 87 incidents. The number of attacks decreased until reaching the lowest point in 40 years in 2009 with five recorded international terrorist attacks against the United States. This number, however, needs to be interpreted with caution. While the record of terrorist incidents in the RDWTI for 2009 was completed for North America, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Europe, data collection for Africa, the Middle East, and Asia stopped in January 2009. Afghanistan incidents for 2009 were recorded through August. In addition, the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit on December 25, 2009, by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, known as the “Underwear Bomber,” was not yet confirmed as a terrorist incident in the RDWTI.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Customs Agents To James O’Keefe: You’re Being Detained For Investigating The Federal Government

Project Veritas founder James O
U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents who detained conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe at the airport specifically asked him about the work he’s done investigating the “federal government.”
3

O’Keefe was detained by U.S. customs agents Monday after arriving at the airport in Nassau, Bahamas en route to Miami. Agents told O’Keefe that he was being detained for crossing back and forth across the U.S.-Mexico border while dressed as Osama bin Laden in a video that was published by The Daily Caller. Agents marked his passport with an “X” and explained that he would be detained every time he enters U.S. territory henceforth. (RELATED: Feds Detain At Least One Border Crosser).
8

O’Keefe was not allowed to videotape the encounter as he wished. The below transcript, provided to TheDC, was written by O’Keefe as closely as possible to the actual conversation that he had with the customs agents during the standoff at the airport. Here is the dialogue that went down:
3

James: Well, each and every time I go back into the country you guys do this, and its because I’m a journalist and you don’t like my journalism, so let’s just get this over with, here’s my ticket with the X, just tell what room you want me in.
Customs: (Looking at computer for 15 seconds). It’s not because you’re a journalist. (Turns towards me). What type of journalism do you do?
What do you think?

James: I do like 60 minutes, hidden camera work, investigative, sort of like the guy who catches the predators on NBC Dateline you know?
1

Customs: But what specific type of journalism have you done investigating the federal government?
What do you think?

James: Well, first ACORN was shut down because I posed as a pimp.
What do you think?

Customs: Not the prostitution, the other one involving the federal government.
What do you think?

James: You mean the Obamacare navigators, where many were fired counseling to commit fraud?
2

Customs: No not that one, what did you do involving the federal govenrnment at the borders?
1

James: Well clearly you know which video that was. Why don’t you tell me?
1

Customs: No, I need you to tell me.
1

James: That was the one where I legally waded into the Rio Grande dressed like Osama bin Laden and embarrassed the federal government. DHS secretary was grilled under oath. Are you telling me this is retaliation for that?
1

Customs: I’m telling you that each time you go through here you will need to give an extra hour because we will do this each time. You have a prior criminal record and broke the law crossing into the United States unlawfully.
3

James: It wasn’t unlawful, I did nothing but wade back and forth. Millions of Mexicans cross and you don’t detain them for unlawful entry
3

Customs: You broke the law!
What do you think?

James: I broke the law? I’m a journalist who is trying to expose something important. Deep down in your heart when you set the burocreacy aside you have admit it needed to be exposed.
2

Customs: Come with me.

Sunday, June 14, 2015

Declassified CIA memo shows Bill Clinton crippled anti-terrorism efforts in lead-up to 9/11

In a classic Friday-afternoon document dump, a CIA memo written by then-agency head George Tenet in 2005 has been released, incriminating the Bill Clinton administration in crippling anti-terror efforts.  Stephen Dinan of the Washington Times writes:
The Clinton administration had bankrupted the intelligence community and refused to let the CIA prioritize anti-terrorism over other major priorities in the late 1990s, leaving the agency stretched too thin in the days ahead of the 2001 terrorist attacks, former Director George J. Tenet said in a 2005 document declassified Friday. 
Mr. Tenet, who was head of the agency at the time of the Sept. 11 attacks and has taken severe criticism for not anticipating and heading them off, said in the document that he took the threat of Osama bin Laden very seriously, and put major effort into trying to penetrate al-Qaeda, beginning as far back as 1998.
Clearly, Tenet is covering his posterior.  But:
“Even though senior policy makers were intimately familiar with the threat posed by terrorism, particularly those in the previous administration who had responded to major attacks, they never provided us the luxury of either downgrading other high priority requirements we were expected to perform against, or the resource base to build counterterrorism programs with the consistency that we needed before September 11,” Mr. Tenet wrote.
Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

Thursday, May 21, 2015

[VIDEO] Trove of Bin Laden documents released

U.S. intelligence officials on Wednesday released a trove of documents recovered during the 2011 raid on Usama bin Laden's compound -- offering a rare window into the operations of Al Qaeda and bin Laden's involvement in leading the network from his Pakistan hideaway. 
The documents include dozens of letters, some from  bin Laden himself, as well as accounting information and even what appears to be an application form for prospective Al Qaeda members. That form, which asks a series of detailed questions, includes the line: "Who should we contact in case you became a martyr?" 
The correspondence itself shows bin Laden continued to be engaged from his hideout and sought to direct operations. Shortly before he was killed in the May 2011 raid, a letter shows him celebrating the Arab Spring revolutions which had toppled Tunisia's leader at that point and were mounting in several other countries. 
"These are gigantic events that will eventually engulf most of the Muslim world, will free the Muslim land from American hegemony, and is troubling America whose Secretary of State declared that they are worried about the armed Muslims controlling the Muslim region," bin Laden wrote, according to a translated version. 

Saturday, December 28, 2013

The End of Obama?



testosteroneThis looming scandal could ruin 

the 44th President and 

disrupt the entire...

A few big moves stand out in Barack Obama’s Presidency.
  • The $800 billion stimulus plan passed in 2009
  • The $5 trillion in debt accumulation—the most of any President in history
  • The passage of Obamacare… the assassination of Osama Bin Laden… and huge tax increases
As bad as The Affordable Care Act will be, what's coming next is going to be much worse for the american middle class. And you will hear this shocking revelation from the most unlikely person of all. Meet Jud Anglin (a wealthy healthcare business owner) who stands to gain a lot of money from the Obamacare program. Jud also happens to be uninsured himself due to a pre-existing health condition which prevents him from getting insurance coverage. So you might think he'd be happy with the “universal coverage” offered by the president’s plan. But you’d be wrong...
Jud says "The Affordable Care Act … or Obamacare… is not the godsend it's promoted to be. In fact, it’s been designed to distract us from something radically worse that’s on the horizon. While what’s coming will be a great thing for my business, it’s going to cause you and millions like you sleepless nights."
According to Forbes.com, “Obamacare will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent.” And ABC News reports that “the overwhelming majority will see double-digit increases in their individual health insurance markets.” Many journalists in America also say these events are nothing compared to the next big surprise that could devastate Obama’s legacy.
Imagine you or a loved one needing critical even life-saving surgery. But your application to the Health Board has been rejected. What will you do then? This happens every day in countries around the world. And soon… it will happen right here in America, too.
Now Jud says there’s a much worse and much more shocking surprise working its way through the Obama administration. In the free video, he reveals how this one event could single-handedly ruin Barack Obama’s Presidency… and perhaps even his entire career.
Even if Jud is only half right, this situation will have a dramatic impact not only on Barack Obama, but also everyone else in this country.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Surprise: ‘Million Muslim March’ Really Was ’9/11 Truther Convention’

Fox News Channel’s Sean HannityBill O’Reilly, and the hosts of The Five were all criticized in early August when they sounded alarms about the purpose of Wednesday’s “Million Muslim March.”The Five’s Eric Bolling preemptively accused the organizers of the march of putting on a “9/11 truther convention.” Well, surprise! It turns out he was completely right. 
The Media Research Center sent an interviewer down to the sparsely populated “Million Muslim March” on Wednesday where he probed former Princeton University professor Cornel West and march organizer Chris Phillips about the purpose of the event.
When asked about the march’s mission, West first indicated that it was to protest against “the precious and priceless folk who have been killed by U.S. drones.”
When asked if Islamic extremists were behind the September 11 attacks, West replied that this question was a “good question.”
“From what I see, I think that certainly bin Laden said he did it and had connections,” West said, “But I’m also open to the conversation and investigation.”
He conceded that Osama bin Laden did “have something to do with” the attacks of September 11.
When directly asked if “Muslims” perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, Phillips replied that he did not. “I’m asking questions and finding my own truth,” Phillips said.

Popular Posts