AMAZING!!!!!!
Showing posts with label Osama Bin Laden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Osama Bin Laden. Show all posts
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Judicial Watch Obtains DOD and CIA Records Detailing Meetings with bin Laden Raid Filmmakers
From: Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it has obtained records from the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) regarding meetings and communications between government agencies and Kathryn Bigelow, Academy Award-winning director of The Hurt Locker, and screenwriter Mark Boal. According to the records, the Obama Defense Department granted Bigelow and Boal access to a “planner, Operator and Commander of SEAL Team Six,” which was responsible for the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden, to assist Bigelow prepare her upcoming feature film.
The records, obtained pursuant to court order in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed on January 21, 2012, include 153 pages of records from the DOD and 113 pages of records from the CIA (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Defense (No. 1:12-cv-00049)). The documents were delivered to Judicial Watch late last Friday (May 18). The following are the highlights from the records, which include internal Defense Department email correspondence as well as a transcript from a key July 14, 2011, meeting between DOD officials, Bigelow and Boal:
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that the information leak was designed to help the Obama 2012 presidential reelection campaign: “The White House is also counting on the Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal big-screen version of the killing of Bin Laden to counter Obama’s growing reputation as ineffectual. The Sony film by the Oscar-winning pair who made ‘The Hurt Locker’ will no doubt reflect the president’s cool, gutsy decision against shaky odds. Just as Obamaland was hoping, the movie is scheduled to open on Oct. 12, 2012 — perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost to a campaign that has grown tougher.”
In addition to Judicial Watch’s pursuit of the bin Laden film records, the organization continues to fight in court for the release of the bin Laden post-mortem photos and video. The Obama administration continues to withhold these records citing national security concerns.
“These documents, which took nine months and a federal lawsuit to disgorge from the Obama administration, show that politically-connected film makers were giving extraordinary and secret access to bin Laden raid information, including the identity of a Seal Team Six leader,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is both ironic and hypocritical that the Obama administration stonewalled Judicial Watch’s pursuit of the bin Laden death photos, citing national security concerns, yet seemed willing to share intimate details regarding the raid to help Hollywood filmmakers release a movie ‘perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost’ to the Obama campaign.”
Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it has obtained records from the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) regarding meetings and communications between government agencies and Kathryn Bigelow, Academy Award-winning director of The Hurt Locker, and screenwriter Mark Boal. According to the records, the Obama Defense Department granted Bigelow and Boal access to a “planner, Operator and Commander of SEAL Team Six,” which was responsible for the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden, to assist Bigelow prepare her upcoming feature film.
The records, obtained pursuant to court order in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed on January 21, 2012, include 153 pages of records from the DOD and 113 pages of records from the CIA (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Defense (No. 1:12-cv-00049)). The documents were delivered to Judicial Watch late last Friday (May 18). The following are the highlights from the records, which include internal Defense Department email correspondence as well as a transcript from a key July 14, 2011, meeting between DOD officials, Bigelow and Boal:
- A transcript of a July 14, 2011, meeting between DOD officials, including Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers, Bigelow and Boal indicates that Boal met directly with White House officials on at least two occasions regarding the film: “I took your guidance and spoke to the WH and had a good meeting with Brennan and McDonough and I plan to follow up with them; and they were forward leaning and interested in sharing their point of view; command and control; so that was great, thank you,” Boal said according to the transcript. Vickers asks if the meeting was a follow-up, to which Boal responds, “Yes correct; this was a follow-up.” The documents seemingly reference John O. Brennan, Chief Counterterrorism Advisor to President Obama and Denis McDonough, who serves as President Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor.
- The July 14, 2011, meeting transcript also reveals that the DOD provided the filmmakers with the identity of a “planner, SEAL Team 6 Operator and Commander.” (The name is blacked out in the document.) In proposing the arrangement, Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers said: “The only thing we ask is that you not reveal his name in any way as a consultant because . . . he shouldn’t be talking out of school.” Vickers went on to say during the meeting at the Pentagon: “This at least, this gives him one step removed and he knows what he can and can’t say, but this way at least he can be as open as he can with you and it ought to meet your needs.” Boal later responds, “You delivered.”
- A July 13, 2011, internal CIA email indicates that Bigelow and Boal were granted access to “the Vault,” which is described the CIA building where some of the tactical planning for the bin Laden raid took place: “I was given your name as the POC in [redacted] who could determine the feasibility of having a potential walk-through of…the Vault in the [redacted] building that was used for some of the tactical planning in the Bin Laden Raid [sic]. In consultation with the Office of Public Affairs and as part of the larger chronicling of the Bin Laden raid, OPA will be hosting some visitors sanctioned by ODCIA this Friday afternoon.” (The name of the sender is blacked out.) “Of course this is doable,” an official responds.
- DOD Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Douglas Wilson told colleagues in a June 13, 2011, email to limit media access and that he would follow up with the White House: “I think this looks very good as a way forward, and agree particularly that we need to be careful here so we don’t open the media floodgates on this. I’m going to check with WH to update them on status, and will report back.” A day later, he wrote Department of Defense communications staffers, saying: “Ok to set up the second session with Vickers. I am getting additional guidance from WH.”
- Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers told Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Douglas Wilson and two other DOD communications staffers in a June 13, 2011, email that “[DOD] would like to shape the story to prevent any gross inaccuracies, but do not want to make it look like the commanders think it’s okay to talk to the media.” The email went on to say: “For the intelligence case, they are basically using the WH-approved talking points we used the night of the operation.” The talking points called the raid “a ‘Gutsy Decision’ by the POTUS,” adding that “WH involvement was critical.”
- A June 9, 2011, email from Commander Bob Mehal, Public Affairs Officer for Defense Press Operations, to Vickers and other DOD staff summarizes a meeting with Boal and notes the release date for the film: “Release date set for 4th Qtr 2012…”
- A July 13, 2011, email to Commander Bob Mehal, Public Affairs Officer for Defense Press Operations, indicates that Sarah Zukowski, an associate for The Glover Park Group, arranged the July 14, 2011 visit by Bigelow and Boal to the DOD and the CIA. The Glover Park Group is described by Politico as a “Democratic-leaning advocacy firm.”
- A June 27, 2011, email to an official at the Office of the Secretary of Defense suggests that the request from Bigelow and Boal to meet with Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers came via the White House press office. A June 22, 2011, email to Commander Bob Mehal, Public Affairs Officer for Defense Press Operations notes, “The White House does want to engage with Mark but it probably won’t be for a few more weeks. We should provide them a read-out of the session you do with Vickers.” The name of the White House official who forwarded the request is blacked out.
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that the information leak was designed to help the Obama 2012 presidential reelection campaign: “The White House is also counting on the Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal big-screen version of the killing of Bin Laden to counter Obama’s growing reputation as ineffectual. The Sony film by the Oscar-winning pair who made ‘The Hurt Locker’ will no doubt reflect the president’s cool, gutsy decision against shaky odds. Just as Obamaland was hoping, the movie is scheduled to open on Oct. 12, 2012 — perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost to a campaign that has grown tougher.”
In addition to Judicial Watch’s pursuit of the bin Laden film records, the organization continues to fight in court for the release of the bin Laden post-mortem photos and video. The Obama administration continues to withhold these records citing national security concerns.
“These documents, which took nine months and a federal lawsuit to disgorge from the Obama administration, show that politically-connected film makers were giving extraordinary and secret access to bin Laden raid information, including the identity of a Seal Team Six leader,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is both ironic and hypocritical that the Obama administration stonewalled Judicial Watch’s pursuit of the bin Laden death photos, citing national security concerns, yet seemed willing to share intimate details regarding the raid to help Hollywood filmmakers release a movie ‘perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost’ to the Obama campaign.”
Wednesday, May 02, 2012
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Monday, September 12, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
U.S. justified in killing Osama Bin Laden
A brilliant rebuttal to European critics.
From: Los Angeles Times
First came the street celebrations; then the changing accounts of what happened; then the second-guessing — domestic and foreign.
An "extrajudicial execution," that's what many in the international community are now calling the killing of Osama bin Laden. The U.N.'s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has called for an investigation. According to a U.N. special rapporteur, if the U.S. commandos were under shoot-to-kill orders and did so without offering Bin Laden a "meaningful prospect of surrender," his killing could have been a "cold-blooded execution." In that case, the soldiers who shot him, together with President Obama and any other U.S. commanders who issued the kill orders, would in principle be guilty of murder and should be prosecuted as war criminals.
These claims are absurd. Under any sane construction of the laws of war, the killing of Bin Laden was lawful regardless of whether he "raised his hands in surrender" or whether the American soldiers were under orders to shoot without giving him a chance to surrender. By suggesting otherwise, human rights lawyers only make international law look out of step with basic morality and common sense.
The opportunity to surrender is a cherished, civilized and valuable part of warfare. But accepting an enemy's white flag in the heat of battle is a life-endangering proposition: The flag could be a ruse; a bomb could be hidden; the captors could end up dead. We give enemy soldiers the benefit of this dangerous doubt for two reasons. First, because soldiers who have fought honorably, complying with the laws of war, have earned it. And second, because we want the enemy to treat our soldiers the same way.
Neither reason applies, however, to enemies who flagrantly violate the laws of war, targeting civilians for death, hiding bombs behind burkas, using children as shields or — yes — faking a Red Cross, upraised hands or other symbolic white flags to perpetrate lethal attacks. A white flag makes a statement. It says, I'm giving up; I'm unarmed and pose no threat; I respect the laws of war under which this flag must never be used as a ruse, and I am not using it as a ruse to attack you. Even if we imagine Bin Laden actually waving a little white sock on a stick in Abbottabad, there would have been no reason for our soldiers to credit these statements. No soldier had a duty to take the slightest risk to his own life because Osama bin Laden promised to be good from now on.
From: Los Angeles Times
First came the street celebrations; then the changing accounts of what happened; then the second-guessing — domestic and foreign.
An "extrajudicial execution," that's what many in the international community are now calling the killing of Osama bin Laden. The U.N.'s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has called for an investigation. According to a U.N. special rapporteur, if the U.S. commandos were under shoot-to-kill orders and did so without offering Bin Laden a "meaningful prospect of surrender," his killing could have been a "cold-blooded execution." In that case, the soldiers who shot him, together with President Obama and any other U.S. commanders who issued the kill orders, would in principle be guilty of murder and should be prosecuted as war criminals.
These claims are absurd. Under any sane construction of the laws of war, the killing of Bin Laden was lawful regardless of whether he "raised his hands in surrender" or whether the American soldiers were under orders to shoot without giving him a chance to surrender. By suggesting otherwise, human rights lawyers only make international law look out of step with basic morality and common sense.
The opportunity to surrender is a cherished, civilized and valuable part of warfare. But accepting an enemy's white flag in the heat of battle is a life-endangering proposition: The flag could be a ruse; a bomb could be hidden; the captors could end up dead. We give enemy soldiers the benefit of this dangerous doubt for two reasons. First, because soldiers who have fought honorably, complying with the laws of war, have earned it. And second, because we want the enemy to treat our soldiers the same way.
Neither reason applies, however, to enemies who flagrantly violate the laws of war, targeting civilians for death, hiding bombs behind burkas, using children as shields or — yes — faking a Red Cross, upraised hands or other symbolic white flags to perpetrate lethal attacks. A white flag makes a statement. It says, I'm giving up; I'm unarmed and pose no threat; I respect the laws of war under which this flag must never be used as a ruse, and I am not using it as a ruse to attack you. Even if we imagine Bin Laden actually waving a little white sock on a stick in Abbottabad, there would have been no reason for our soldiers to credit these statements. No soldier had a duty to take the slightest risk to his own life because Osama bin Laden promised to be good from now on.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Germany's Telling Reaction to bin Laden's Death
From: Real Clear World
National debates tell us something about the unique psyche of a country, and the current debate in Germany and the U.S. about the killing of Osama bin Laden is another window on how both countries collectively think and interpret information.
The unfolding debate during the past week in Germany has been illustrative of a national psyche rooted in past history, despite the initial response to the death of bin Laden from Germany's leadership, which was supportive of Obama's actions. Chancellor Merkel expressed her feelings by saying that she was happy to hear about it - and that got her into lots of trouble with the German press and many political figures.
The criticism leveled at the Chancellor's comments took aim at the alleged celebration of a death; bin Laden was essentially executed, it was claimed, without a right to a trial, a lawyer, and access to justice. The U.S. had effectively acted over and beyond the law and Merkel should not support such behavior, went the argument.
The unfolding debate during the past week in Germany has been illustrative of a national psyche rooted in past history, despite the initial response to the death of bin Laden from Germany's leadership, which was supportive of Obama's actions. Chancellor Merkel expressed her feelings by saying that she was happy to hear about it - and that got her into lots of trouble with the German press and many political figures.
The criticism leveled at the Chancellor's comments took aim at the alleged celebration of a death; bin Laden was essentially executed, it was claimed, without a right to a trial, a lawyer, and access to justice. The U.S. had effectively acted over and beyond the law and Merkel should not support such behavior, went the argument.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Ron Paul Would Not Have Ordered Bin Laden Mission: BREAKING IT DOWN
Excerpts from The Daily Caller
Ron Paul has never been one to follow the political norms and in many respects that is worthy of our respect. He is someone who is willing to advance seemingly controversial ideas as a matter of principal. Much criticism has been heaped upon him, but rarely has anyone taken the opportunity to substantively refute his views. This is due in large part because his views are deemed lacking in reality. Above is a portion of an interview of Ron Paul in which he says clearly he would not have authorized the NAVY SEAL raid into Pakistan. Let me break it down.
From: The Daily Caller:
“It was absolutely not necessary and I think respect for the rule of law and world law, international law,” he continued. “What if he had been in a hotel in London? So would we have sent the helicopters into London? No, you don’t want to do that.”
Ron Paul has never been one to follow the political norms and in many respects that is worthy of our respect. He is someone who is willing to advance seemingly controversial ideas as a matter of principal. Much criticism has been heaped upon him, but rarely has anyone taken the opportunity to substantively refute his views. This is due in large part because his views are deemed lacking in reality. Above is a portion of an interview of Ron Paul in which he says clearly he would not have authorized the NAVY SEAL raid into Pakistan. Let me break it down.
From: The Daily Caller:
Texas Congressman and prospective 2012 presidential candidate Ron Paul revealed in a radio interview that he would not have ordered the mission that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden almost two weeks ago.
Talking to WHO’s Simon Conway on Tuesday, Paul – who has formed an exploratory committee for president – explained that a better approach would have been to cooperate with Pakistan to arrest bin Laden like the U.S. did with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and try him in civilian court.
“Why can’t we work with the government?” asked Paul.
Ok, now. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was captured on March 1st 2003 in Pakistan, just Eighteen months after 9/11. The politics of the day were much closer to the events and as such necessitated greater cooperation from the Pakistani Government. More importantly, Pakistan has had free elections since 2008 and at the time of Mohammed's capture Pervez Musharraf was an authoritarian ruler who could successfully direct every phase of political,military,diplomatic and intelligence in the administration of government. The present political makeup in Pakistan has fractured the country and its ability for single minded action. Musharraf could handle Al Qaeda supporters at home, but a much weaker central government is driven by public passions, many of which viewed Bin Laden as a hero. Therefore, the conditions that led to Mohammed's capture in 2003 are no longer prevalent at present. It is evident that sympathetic Pakistani's would never have handed over Bin Laden. Ron Paul, also overlooks the fact that Bin Laden was in that compound for six years in an area coined "The West Point of Pakistan". Does Ron Paul really believe that no one in a position to know was ignorant of Bin Laden's status? Such a conclusion is sadly naive.
Again From The Daily Caller
Jennifer Griffin: Mom and News Reporter Who Covered Osama bin Laden's Death
A very nice article about a great FOX correspondent and one very classy lady
From: Goody Blog
This past Sunday, Jennifer Griffin, a Pentagon Correspondent for FOX News, was at home in the D.C. area trying to tuck her 2-year-old son into bed, when a source called to announce bin Laden’s death. Suddenly, from focusing on a child who was staying up past his bedtime, Griffin found herself focusing on confirming the death with multiple sources. She called into FOX News to report on air and then from there, drove to the Pentagon to continue more reporting for the next 24 hours. In addition to reporting on the war in the Middle East (she was there on 9/11) and national security issues, Griffin is also the mother of three young kids, two girls and one boy.
“I had just gotten home from a friend’s house with 2-year-old Luke, my youngest. It was later than his bedtime, and I was scrambling to warm him a bottle and convince him to put on pajamas. I was at the stove when all of my phones started ringing. The messages on my Blackberry made it seem like [Libyan leader Muammar] Qaddafi had been killed. I put on the TV, gave Luke a bottle on the couch, and told him to be very quiet. That’s when I got a call saying that it was Osama bin Laden, but the source said I couldn’t go [on air] with [the news] unless I got a second confirmation.
“I started dialing like mad and I had three phone lines going at once. I finally got an e-mail from a top-level intelligence source with a one word answer to my question, sent at 10:25 pm on Sunday, May 1: We got him? Dead? The response, sent at 10:47 pm, was: Yes…
“I went on air [over the phone] with Geraldo Rivera of FOX News. My fingers were shaking so badly; my thumbs couldn’t type ’Urgent’ on my Blackberry for a bureau-wide distribution of the news.
“Luke was still awake, so I bribed him with a lollipop to send him downstairs with a new babysitter who had arrived. I ran upstairs and woke up Greg, my husband. Then, I grabbed some clothes, shoved them into a bag, and ran out the door to drive to the Pentagon. I ran a few red lights down Massachusetts Avenue, past the Vice President’s house, and parked at the Pentagon. When I entered, the guards cheered: “We got him!”
“Never showering, I stayed there all night and kept reporting live until 7 pm the next day. When I called home to check on the kids in the morning, my 10-year-old daughter Annalise answered and didn’t say “Hi, Mommy.” Instead, she simply shouted, “Alleluia!” We laughed.
“When I finally left the Pentagon, I looked out at the people milling around the 9/11 Memorial. I remembered reporting on its opening three years ago. It was so calm. So somber. Even though it was a perfect spring day. I got overwhelmed with emotion and remembered exactly where I was in the Middle East on 9/11. Also, I thought back to when my family was in Jerusalem and Annalise was the same age as Luke. Often, I had to run out the door to cover a suicide bombing or terrorist attack. This time, the tables were turned; the story was how we got the world’s number one terrorist. Instead of my daughter, I had been trying to keep my son calm until I could race into work. There was a feeling of déjà vu.”
“Now I thought about how I would explain, when Luke was older, where we were when news was received about bin Laden. Even though I had to leave my girls at a moment’s notice many years before, they now understand why the work was important. Whenever I feel bad, I think of the moms and dads in the military who have to leave their kids routinely for one-year assignments. This helps me get some perspective. The only other way to appease mother’s guilt is by telling myself, One day they will understand.
“This will make a great story when they are old enough — and today was one for the history books.”
From: Goody Blog
This past Sunday, Jennifer Griffin, a Pentagon Correspondent for FOX News, was at home in the D.C. area trying to tuck her 2-year-old son into bed, when a source called to announce bin Laden’s death. Suddenly, from focusing on a child who was staying up past his bedtime, Griffin found herself focusing on confirming the death with multiple sources. She called into FOX News to report on air and then from there, drove to the Pentagon to continue more reporting for the next 24 hours. In addition to reporting on the war in the Middle East (she was there on 9/11) and national security issues, Griffin is also the mother of three young kids, two girls and one boy.
“I had just gotten home from a friend’s house with 2-year-old Luke, my youngest. It was later than his bedtime, and I was scrambling to warm him a bottle and convince him to put on pajamas. I was at the stove when all of my phones started ringing. The messages on my Blackberry made it seem like [Libyan leader Muammar] Qaddafi had been killed. I put on the TV, gave Luke a bottle on the couch, and told him to be very quiet. That’s when I got a call saying that it was Osama bin Laden, but the source said I couldn’t go [on air] with [the news] unless I got a second confirmation.
“I started dialing like mad and I had three phone lines going at once. I finally got an e-mail from a top-level intelligence source with a one word answer to my question, sent at 10:25 pm on Sunday, May 1: We got him? Dead? The response, sent at 10:47 pm, was: Yes…
“I went on air [over the phone] with Geraldo Rivera of FOX News. My fingers were shaking so badly; my thumbs couldn’t type ’Urgent’ on my Blackberry for a bureau-wide distribution of the news.
“Luke was still awake, so I bribed him with a lollipop to send him downstairs with a new babysitter who had arrived. I ran upstairs and woke up Greg, my husband. Then, I grabbed some clothes, shoved them into a bag, and ran out the door to drive to the Pentagon. I ran a few red lights down Massachusetts Avenue, past the Vice President’s house, and parked at the Pentagon. When I entered, the guards cheered: “We got him!”
“Never showering, I stayed there all night and kept reporting live until 7 pm the next day. When I called home to check on the kids in the morning, my 10-year-old daughter Annalise answered and didn’t say “Hi, Mommy.” Instead, she simply shouted, “Alleluia!” We laughed.
“When I finally left the Pentagon, I looked out at the people milling around the 9/11 Memorial. I remembered reporting on its opening three years ago. It was so calm. So somber. Even though it was a perfect spring day. I got overwhelmed with emotion and remembered exactly where I was in the Middle East on 9/11. Also, I thought back to when my family was in Jerusalem and Annalise was the same age as Luke. Often, I had to run out the door to cover a suicide bombing or terrorist attack. This time, the tables were turned; the story was how we got the world’s number one terrorist. Instead of my daughter, I had been trying to keep my son calm until I could race into work. There was a feeling of déjà vu.”
“Now I thought about how I would explain, when Luke was older, where we were when news was received about bin Laden. Even though I had to leave my girls at a moment’s notice many years before, they now understand why the work was important. Whenever I feel bad, I think of the moms and dads in the military who have to leave their kids routinely for one-year assignments. This helps me get some perspective. The only other way to appease mother’s guilt is by telling myself, One day they will understand.
“This will make a great story when they are old enough — and today was one for the history books.”
Friday, May 06, 2011
MAS Official: Bin Laden a "Visionary"
From: IPT
A leader of a major American Muslim organization, the Muslim American Society (MAS), is arguing that there "was nothing wrong with" Osama bin Laden's dream of creating a renewed Caliphate. Khalilah Sabra's comments are the most recent and worrisome from the group, which has a long history of defending alleged terrorists.
Sabra, the director of the North Carolina branch of MAS' Freedom Foundation, made the statement in a sometimes disjointed article entitled "Agreeing to Disagree About the Death of Osama Bin Laden" that was released Wednesday under the MAS logo. The statement aligns more with a period of Sabra's life in the late 1980s, when she traveled to Afghanistan with bin Laden's predecessor, Abdullah Azzam, to provide aid to the mujahideen fighting the Soviet Union.
Her statement doesn't defend bin Laden's terror attack on 9/11. But it does laud his vision of an Islamic state and his desire to "liberate" the Afghani people.
"He was a visionary who believed in the possibility of an Islamic state in Afghanistan and the possibility that this thing might someday be," Sabra wrote. "There was nothing wrong with that dream, even if it differs from that one that all Americans have here for themselves."
In 1997, bin Laden described his vision of a Muslim leader "who can unite them and establish the 'pious caliphate.' The pious caliphate will start from Afghanistan" and spread from there.
A leader of a major American Muslim organization, the Muslim American Society (MAS), is arguing that there "was nothing wrong with" Osama bin Laden's dream of creating a renewed Caliphate. Khalilah Sabra's comments are the most recent and worrisome from the group, which has a long history of defending alleged terrorists.
Sabra, the director of the North Carolina branch of MAS' Freedom Foundation, made the statement in a sometimes disjointed article entitled "Agreeing to Disagree About the Death of Osama Bin Laden" that was released Wednesday under the MAS logo. The statement aligns more with a period of Sabra's life in the late 1980s, when she traveled to Afghanistan with bin Laden's predecessor, Abdullah Azzam, to provide aid to the mujahideen fighting the Soviet Union.
Her statement doesn't defend bin Laden's terror attack on 9/11. But it does laud his vision of an Islamic state and his desire to "liberate" the Afghani people.
"He was a visionary who believed in the possibility of an Islamic state in Afghanistan and the possibility that this thing might someday be," Sabra wrote. "There was nothing wrong with that dream, even if it differs from that one that all Americans have here for themselves."
In 1997, bin Laden described his vision of a Muslim leader "who can unite them and establish the 'pious caliphate.' The pious caliphate will start from Afghanistan" and spread from there.
Will Muslim Brotherhood succeed where Osama bin Laden failed?
FROM: Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Like thousands across the world, I celebrated the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden. He rejoiced in killing. But bin Laden’s murder is not the end of Al Qaeda. And even if Al Qaeda were totally eliminated, the world would still have to deal with Al Qaeda’s progenitor.
Bin Laden was many things, but he was not original. He was himself introduced to the doctrine of jihad by the late Palestinian theologian Abdullah Yusuf Azzam. Significantly, before Azzam begun teaching bin Laden and others in Saudi Arabia, he was a member of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood.
Unlike Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood has evolved and learned the hard way that the use of violence will be met with superior violence by state actors. The clever thing to do, it now turns out, was to be patient and invest in a bottom-up movement rather than a commando structure that risked being wiped out by stronger forces. Besides, the gradualist approach is far more likely to win the prize of state power. All that Khomeini did before he came to power in Iran was to preach the merits of a society based on Islamic law. He did not engage in terrorism. Yet he and his followers took over Iran – a feat far greater than bin Laden ever achieved. In Iran the violence came later.
The point is that fighting violent extremists is only part of the battle; perhaps the easier part. The bigger challenge may be to deal with those Islamists who are willing to play a longer game.
In the West, bin Laden’s ignominious death in a Pakistani hideaway has frequently been contrasted with the mass protests that have swept the Middle East in recent months. Policymakers and commentators have drawn the conclusion that the Arab Spring has triumphed over jihadism, setting the region on a high road to democracy. This is too hasty a conclusion. Let’s take Egypt as an example.
Just how likely is it that Egypt will end up – after the inevitable transition period – being ruled indirectly or directly by the Muslim Brotherhood?
1. The Brotherhood’s strength within the Egyptian military, which is still in charge of the country;
2. The absence of a formidable secular rival within Egypt;
Like thousands across the world, I celebrated the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden. He rejoiced in killing. But bin Laden’s murder is not the end of Al Qaeda. And even if Al Qaeda were totally eliminated, the world would still have to deal with Al Qaeda’s progenitor.
Bin Laden was many things, but he was not original. He was himself introduced to the doctrine of jihad by the late Palestinian theologian Abdullah Yusuf Azzam. Significantly, before Azzam begun teaching bin Laden and others in Saudi Arabia, he was a member of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood.
Unlike Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood has evolved and learned the hard way that the use of violence will be met with superior violence by state actors. The clever thing to do, it now turns out, was to be patient and invest in a bottom-up movement rather than a commando structure that risked being wiped out by stronger forces. Besides, the gradualist approach is far more likely to win the prize of state power. All that Khomeini did before he came to power in Iran was to preach the merits of a society based on Islamic law. He did not engage in terrorism. Yet he and his followers took over Iran – a feat far greater than bin Laden ever achieved. In Iran the violence came later.
The point is that fighting violent extremists is only part of the battle; perhaps the easier part. The bigger challenge may be to deal with those Islamists who are willing to play a longer game.
In the West, bin Laden’s ignominious death in a Pakistani hideaway has frequently been contrasted with the mass protests that have swept the Middle East in recent months. Policymakers and commentators have drawn the conclusion that the Arab Spring has triumphed over jihadism, setting the region on a high road to democracy. This is too hasty a conclusion. Let’s take Egypt as an example.
Just how likely is it that Egypt will end up – after the inevitable transition period – being ruled indirectly or directly by the Muslim Brotherhood?
Three factors
The answer depends on a combination of three factors – two domestic and one foreign:1. The Brotherhood’s strength within the Egyptian military, which is still in charge of the country;
2. The absence of a formidable secular rival within Egypt;
After Bin Laden, in the Fog of War, White House Struggles
From: NationalJournal.com
In the hours after the stunning killing of Osama bin Laden, the White House was quick to offer up the riveting details of the operation, including a movie-worthy denoument in which the terrorist leader, ensconced in a mansion, grabs one of his wives and uses her as a human shield against the American forces.
Much of that has proven to be false, and new details drip, drip, drip out about what really happened.
Administration officials say the evolving account is the unfortunate and inevitable by-product of the “fog of war” and their admirable haste to get information out to the public. Critics see everything from spin to lying.
Whatever the case, the story has changed. That isn't helping the administration as it celebrates an accomplishment and tries to leverage its success in Pakistan into victories on other fronts from beating back al-Qaida to beating back the Republican budget plan.
The contradictions in the administration's story are myriad. Senior administration officials reported a 40-minute operation in which they suggested that Navy SEALs spent much of it engaged by enemy gunfire.
They described Osama bin Laden using a woman as a “human shield.” And John Brennan, the president’s top counterterrorism adviser, even suggested the day after the operation that the Qaida leader died a cowardly death, while hiding in a $1 million compound as his terrorist brethren live in austere conditions.
Some initial details have withstood scrutiny: The White House has acknowledged that bin Laden was not armed, though sources tell National Journal that there was an AK-47 and pistol in his room. Others have not: The White House says that bin Laden’s wife was wounded when rushing a U.S. service member, but officials are no longer calling her a “human shield.”
Much of that has proven to be false, and new details drip, drip, drip out about what really happened.
Administration officials say the evolving account is the unfortunate and inevitable by-product of the “fog of war” and their admirable haste to get information out to the public. Critics see everything from spin to lying.
Whatever the case, the story has changed. That isn't helping the administration as it celebrates an accomplishment and tries to leverage its success in Pakistan into victories on other fronts from beating back al-Qaida to beating back the Republican budget plan.
The contradictions in the administration's story are myriad. Senior administration officials reported a 40-minute operation in which they suggested that Navy SEALs spent much of it engaged by enemy gunfire.
They described Osama bin Laden using a woman as a “human shield.” And John Brennan, the president’s top counterterrorism adviser, even suggested the day after the operation that the Qaida leader died a cowardly death, while hiding in a $1 million compound as his terrorist brethren live in austere conditions.
Some initial details have withstood scrutiny: The White House has acknowledged that bin Laden was not armed, though sources tell National Journal that there was an AK-47 and pistol in his room. Others have not: The White House says that bin Laden’s wife was wounded when rushing a U.S. service member, but officials are no longer calling her a “human shield.”
Thursday, May 05, 2011
The Fans of Bin Laden
From:YID With LID
As so often happens, a peripheral issue has taken over the Western debate regarding the killing of Usama bin Laden. Whether or not the U.S. government releases a photo of the body isn't so important. If bin-Laden isn’t dead let him prove it by sending a video to al-Jazira. The issue is whether or not killing him was a good thing.
As for photos, those who believe that bin Laden isn't dead won't be convinced by photos. Ironically, many of them will simultaneously say that the United States didn't kill bin Laden but the fact that the United States killed bin Laden is a crime for which revenge should be taken.
We should have learned this from September 11, since many say that al-Qaeda wasn't responsible and it was done by the U.S. government and Israel while, at the same time, saying that it was an operation that made Muslims and Arabs feel proud and America deserved it.
Welcome to the Middle East!
Today--and for some years now--people in the Middle East haven't hated America because of its policies so much as defining whatever it does as hateful because America is already an enemy. If you don't want revolutionary Islamists to take over countries, repress all freedom, suppress women, wipe Israel off the map, and expel all Western influence from the region then you are their enemy. You can be a weak, contemptible enemy or a strong bullying enemy but that's about the extent of your choice.
The reaction to the killing of UBL takes place in this context, Those Islamists and radical nationalists who saw bin Laden as a rival in life are finding him a useful martyr in death. Again, the issue is not whether bin Laden is dead but whether the United States was bad in killing him.
So far Hamas, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the highest Muslim cleric in Egypt, and Western favorite phony moderate Tariq Ramadan have all basically endorsed UBL as a great guy, a real martyr, and the victim of an evil United States.
As so often happens, a peripheral issue has taken over the Western debate regarding the killing of Usama bin Laden. Whether or not the U.S. government releases a photo of the body isn't so important. If bin-Laden isn’t dead let him prove it by sending a video to al-Jazira. The issue is whether or not killing him was a good thing.
As for photos, those who believe that bin Laden isn't dead won't be convinced by photos. Ironically, many of them will simultaneously say that the United States didn't kill bin Laden but the fact that the United States killed bin Laden is a crime for which revenge should be taken.
We should have learned this from September 11, since many say that al-Qaeda wasn't responsible and it was done by the U.S. government and Israel while, at the same time, saying that it was an operation that made Muslims and Arabs feel proud and America deserved it.
Welcome to the Middle East!
Today--and for some years now--people in the Middle East haven't hated America because of its policies so much as defining whatever it does as hateful because America is already an enemy. If you don't want revolutionary Islamists to take over countries, repress all freedom, suppress women, wipe Israel off the map, and expel all Western influence from the region then you are their enemy. You can be a weak, contemptible enemy or a strong bullying enemy but that's about the extent of your choice.
The reaction to the killing of UBL takes place in this context, Those Islamists and radical nationalists who saw bin Laden as a rival in life are finding him a useful martyr in death. Again, the issue is not whether bin Laden is dead but whether the United States was bad in killing him.
So far Hamas, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the highest Muslim cleric in Egypt, and Western favorite phony moderate Tariq Ramadan have all basically endorsed UBL as a great guy, a real martyr, and the victim of an evil United States.
Osama bin Laden Now, kill his dream
From: The Economist
A FEW bullets were enough. But the shots that killed Osama bin Laden in the dead of night on May 2nd in a fortified compound not far from Islamabad came after 15 years of dogged pursuit, two long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, well over $1 trillion of spending and around 150,000 deaths. It is a heavy reckoning for one man’s life.
Barack Obama, America’s president, will justifiably savour a moment so dearly bought. A reluctant warrior in other ways, he has not wavered in hunting down the foot soldiers and commanders of al-Qaeda as well as its elusive leader. The president chose a manned assault directly on Mr bin Laden rather than an air strike on his compound, as some of his advisers wished, and it paid off. Mr Obama was lucky, but he made his luck—and he deserves the credit that will now come his way (see Lexington).
Mr Obama has been careful to warn that violent Islamism is still a dangerous force. Al-Qaeda is active, even without Mr bin Laden (see article). The alarming problems of Pakistan, Yemen and so many other places threaten to feed more violence. And yet the death of the world’s most wanted man comes just when radical Islam looks vulnerable to the changes sweeping across the Middle East and north Africa. The task now facing all those who yearn for a safer world is to isolate Mr bin Laden’s savage jihad just as surely as its creator was isolated behind his compound walls.
The man who warped a faith
Mr bin Laden matters because he swept up a ragbag of local grievances into a brand of intoxicating and violent jihad with worldwide pretensions. His vision, however impractical, of purging Islam and establishing a single Islamic caliphate appealed to Muslims disgusted by the venality of their own elites. His means of bringing it about embraced an orgy of murder and martyrdom partly directed against the “Crusader” West, particularly America. Sad to say, that also appealed to many Muslims for a while. And the whole package was decked with the riches-to-rags story of Mr bin Laden himself—a man who had given up power and wealth in Saudi Arabia, lived simply and seemed almost charmed in his capacity to defy the mightiest army in history (see Obituary).
A FEW bullets were enough. But the shots that killed Osama bin Laden in the dead of night on May 2nd in a fortified compound not far from Islamabad came after 15 years of dogged pursuit, two long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, well over $1 trillion of spending and around 150,000 deaths. It is a heavy reckoning for one man’s life.
Barack Obama, America’s president, will justifiably savour a moment so dearly bought. A reluctant warrior in other ways, he has not wavered in hunting down the foot soldiers and commanders of al-Qaeda as well as its elusive leader. The president chose a manned assault directly on Mr bin Laden rather than an air strike on his compound, as some of his advisers wished, and it paid off. Mr Obama was lucky, but he made his luck—and he deserves the credit that will now come his way (see Lexington).
Mr Obama has been careful to warn that violent Islamism is still a dangerous force. Al-Qaeda is active, even without Mr bin Laden (see article). The alarming problems of Pakistan, Yemen and so many other places threaten to feed more violence. And yet the death of the world’s most wanted man comes just when radical Islam looks vulnerable to the changes sweeping across the Middle East and north Africa. The task now facing all those who yearn for a safer world is to isolate Mr bin Laden’s savage jihad just as surely as its creator was isolated behind his compound walls.
The man who warped a faith
Mr bin Laden matters because he swept up a ragbag of local grievances into a brand of intoxicating and violent jihad with worldwide pretensions. His vision, however impractical, of purging Islam and establishing a single Islamic caliphate appealed to Muslims disgusted by the venality of their own elites. His means of bringing it about embraced an orgy of murder and martyrdom partly directed against the “Crusader” West, particularly America. Sad to say, that also appealed to many Muslims for a while. And the whole package was decked with the riches-to-rags story of Mr bin Laden himself—a man who had given up power and wealth in Saudi Arabia, lived simply and seemed almost charmed in his capacity to defy the mightiest army in history (see Obituary).
What's the fuss over Angela Merkel's bin Laden comment?
From: Christian Science Monitor
“I am pleased that we managed to kill bin Laden.” hat was German Chancellor Angela Merkel's response to a reporter's question about her reaction to Osama bin Laden's death. It wasn't a unique sentiment. Leaders around the world said the same thing.
But criticism over Mrs. Merkel's comments in Germany is almost overshadowing news of the raid that killed Mr. bin Laden.
“These are revenge fantasies one shouldn’t indulge in. That’s the Middle Ages,” said Siegfried Kauder, a member of Merkel’s Christian Democrats and chairman of the parliament’s legal affairs committee.
The deputy floor leader of the Christian Democrats, Ingrid Fischbach, called it inappropriate for a Christian to express joy at a premeditated killing of a fellow human. And Hartfried Wolff, legal spokesman for the Free Democrats, Merkel’s coalition partners in government, agreed: “I just cannot take any joy out of someone else’s death.”
Those are her political friends. Her foes want her to explain her comments in parliament and the Green politician Katrin Goering-Eckhardt, vice president of the Bundestag, said: “Killing a person is no reason to celebrate.”
“I am pleased that we managed to kill bin Laden.” hat was German Chancellor Angela Merkel's response to a reporter's question about her reaction to Osama bin Laden's death. It wasn't a unique sentiment. Leaders around the world said the same thing.
But criticism over Mrs. Merkel's comments in Germany is almost overshadowing news of the raid that killed Mr. bin Laden.
“These are revenge fantasies one shouldn’t indulge in. That’s the Middle Ages,” said Siegfried Kauder, a member of Merkel’s Christian Democrats and chairman of the parliament’s legal affairs committee.
The deputy floor leader of the Christian Democrats, Ingrid Fischbach, called it inappropriate for a Christian to express joy at a premeditated killing of a fellow human. And Hartfried Wolff, legal spokesman for the Free Democrats, Merkel’s coalition partners in government, agreed: “I just cannot take any joy out of someone else’s death.”
Those are her political friends. Her foes want her to explain her comments in parliament and the Green politician Katrin Goering-Eckhardt, vice president of the Bundestag, said: “Killing a person is no reason to celebrate.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
