War On Terror News

Islamist Terrorists have not "ended" the war

The terrorists have not "ended" their war, no matter how badly the politicians want to claim the war is over.  There is only one way that one side of a war can end it, of their own accord; surrender.  There is only one basic goal that must be recognized to win a war; War must take the necessary steps to remove the enemy's will to fight.  It appears that the enemy is closer to that goal, despite their heavier losses, than are we.

"There is only way you can be guaranteed peace, and you can have it in a second.  That is to surrender."  Ronald Reagan, decades before he became President, during the era that politicians were purporting that cutting Our Defenses, and talking the enemy to death was the "right path."  Negotiations in weakness did not end the Cold War, and it has not ended the Terrorists' War on Us.  Reagan's buildup of Military Strength did bring the Cold War to an end.

While politicians and police slap each other on the back for their "successes" in Boston, they also continue with their calls to cut defense, and to militarize the police.  One resident in the search area described the situation as a "police state."  And indeed, one of the goals of terrorism is to induce the government to tighten its grip on civilians, while simultaneously demonstrating the lack of effectiveness of the "security blanket" of the government, until the civilians are fed up.  The police cannot protect you.  That is not their job.  Their job is to arrest criminals that have already committed the crimes.

While the first 7 seven years of the War on Terrorism saw a few modest intrusions on our lives, the last 5 of "Overseas Contingency Operations" have seen (TSA) state sponsored sexual assaults and pornographic xrays at the airports, a government which deems your 3 month old email as theirs to read without a warrant, and require new cell phones to update their location to within a few yards.

"Mr Obama and his intelligence community know the threat from al-Qaeda affiliates, but have chosen to downplay it to the US public." Peter Foster, UK Telegraph

The Administration's policies are not one of ignorance, not anymore.  They are policies of stubborn partisanship, and party platform to change the very nature of the US Military, from one prepared for war, to one that is utilized only as part of a coalition in peace-keeping operations.  Bill Clinton and Eric Shinseki openly espoused that fundamental shift in the 90's, when the world believed we had entered a new era of peace, but the fact of Islamist Terrorism has hampered this Administration from being as straightforward about its goals.  It couches the shift in saying that we will pin our defenses on allies given our best equipment, while stripping our own ranks of its Troops and latest equipment.

Islamist terrorists are not just Al-Qaeda.  Indeed, islamism is not just terrorism.  Islamist terrorists include Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Quds Force (Iran), Boko Haram, al-Shabab, and many, many others.  Yet, partisan supporters of the politician in chief would have us believe that various regional commands of Al-Qaeda aren't even part of Al-Qaeda.  While at times they proclaim the core element of the former headquarters of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan has been defeated, they deny that Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, or Al-Qaeda in the Islamic West (Maghreb) are the same organization.  And yet, reports continue to point out that Al-Qaeda is still active in Afghanistan, and still strong in Pakistan.

Josef Biden has stated both that the Taliban have always been the enemy, and that they are not the enemy, but the Taliban are some of the most fundamental of Islamists, and some of the most atrocious of terrorists, superceded perhaps by the Chechens, in the department of atrociousness.

Islamism is stronger now than it has ever been.  It has grown and spread and taken over governments in the last 3 years, through "Arab Spring."  The battle lines which had shrunk in 2008, have expanded greatly since 2010.  Mubarrak had "contained" Islamists in Egypt for decades.  Bashir had pulled back from open support of Islamist terrorists in the Sudan, when he saw the 2001 results in Afghanistan.  His final efforts in Darfur were finally ended.  Saudi Arabia had quieted and Yemen was slowed.  The tide in Iraq had shifted.

Today, Islamism rules Egypt, Tunisia, Iran, and is fighting for Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria, Mali, and Libya.  Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Turkey are trending towards, not away from Islamism.  And while political Islamism espouses the use of tyranny, rather than openly supporting terrorism, to achieve its goal of establishing the caliphate, of conversion of ALL to Islam, it remains diametrically opposed to Freedom, and the Rights of Citizenship, of Human Rights themselves.

The brutality of Islamists towards religious freedom can be seen in the imprisonment (and death penalties in many cases) of ex-Muslims converted to Christianity in Iran, in Egypt, and in Pakistan.  Riots have been seen in Kabul, Afghanistan, over the existence of Bibles written in Dari.  All Islamism is political, though it does not all use terrorism as its means.  It prefers tyranny.  In fact, the goal of Islamist terrorism is to attain the reins of government, so that its tyranny can be more complete.  The great migration of religiously oppressed from Tunisia, Egypt, and Somalia are testament to this.  And many of those religiously oppressed, like the Bahai of Iran, are Muslims.

For the Coptic Christians in Egypt, the distinction between the fire bombs and explosives of Islamist terrorists during the Mubarrak era and the attacks of Islamist tyrannical government forces under Mosri, is the distinction of lost hope.  It is the distinction of being opposed by the government to supported and enforced by the government.  While Mubarrak never took the measures Bashir Assad did in wiping off the map, and face of the earth, an entire town for supporting the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, he did keep illegal, though ineffectively suppressed, the organization which called for the brutal oppression of Human Rights.

The Boston attack should serve as a reminder that Islamist Terrorists have not "ended" the war, but so should have the Little Rock, and Fort Hood attacks.  In each of these, the terrorists succeeded in killing unarmed Americans, but these are not the only reminders that the terrorists have not lost their will to fight.  The panty bomber, the Times Square bomber, the Wrigley Field bomber, the Christmas Tree bomber in Seattle, and many, many more attempted attacks have been downplayed as "lone wolves" or forgotten due to the failures of the enemy to execute the attacks.

Like so many of these others, the Chechen Islamist brothers will likely be played off as "self-islamized, home grown, lone wolves," but the Islamization of those with US passports or greencards is not a new factor in this war.  It has long been known that Islamists were trying (and succeeding) to convert violent criminals in our jails.  Adam Gadahn, of California, was already a ranking member of Al-Qaeda on 9/11, and the "American Taliban" was captured on the battlefield in the early days of the War in Afghanistan in 2001.  It was only a few years ago, that 7 gang-bangers went on a rampage in Oakland, CA in the name of Islamism, after their conversions.  The government has known for a decade that the strategy of the enemy was that the first wave of terrorists would be Saudi, the second wave others, and the third stage of attacks carried out by those with US passports and green cards. 

A stereo-typical terrorist cell has 4-6 members.  It is purposely de-centralized.  Tamleran was known to the FBI.  He was reported to them by a foreign country, probably Russia, as a potential terrorist.  He likely had religious leaders, and terrorist directors, at the Mosque partially paid for by governments in Massachusetts.  His Islamization did not occur in a vacuum, and his Uncle has clearly stated that the attack was a dishonor to the family and to all Chechens.  But the Chechens were in Afghanistan in 2001, and they are still there in 2013, in lesser numbers, but more often across the border in Pakistan.

While I will agree with Jonn, at This Aint Hell, that Obama was not directly responsible for the Boston Attacks, I must also recognize some of the points made by the UK Telegraph, that the Administration's attempts to claim the War on Terrorism is over, that Al-Qaeda is defeated, has led, partially, to the complacency of the people. 

And while "Blame Bush" is overplayed, he didn't quite get it right when he only told the American people to go about their lives.  In no way, should he have espoused that the people live their lives in fear, but he should have found a way to give the people a meaningful purpose in the War against Terrorists.  He had the foresight to know that this war would not be over quickly, that it would take decades to win, and the humility to recognize that he must change his party platform on "nation building," but in some way, the American People needed to be engaged in the efforts, as were the People, in WWII.  That doesn't mean recycling metal, and food rations, or even higher taxes, but it should mean a heightened sense of Situational Awareness.

Neither Bush nor Obama can be blamed for idiots walking around with eyes glued to their iPods, but both should have told the American People to be aware of those around them, to recognize terrorists and criminals.  Instead of demonizing Warriors as PTSD afflicted for their heightened sense of awareness after having seen the evil in this world, they should have sponsored people having an awareness of what's around them.  They should have reminded the Nation that being aware was not the same as being afraid, that instead that knowing their environs was an innoculation to fear.

The Office of the President, has a mandate to preside over the government, and to lead the Nation, to explain to the People "why" a war is in their interests, and how they can help win it.  It is not enough for him to say I'll do what I want, what I believe, because I won the election, particularly not in these times, where we choose from the less bad choice, rather than those we truly believe prepared for the Office.  It is not enough for the President to understand the importance of fighting terrorists there, so we don't see American Civilians murdered here.  It is his duty to explain that "why" to the American People, so they understand it, particularly when his partisan opponents see the lack of explaination as the means to undermine him, and the Nation, for political purposes of attaining power.  And not giving that "why" was Bush's failure.

Related articles

Premature Detonation Kills 3 Nigerian Islamist Terrorists

Advancing the Rise of Islamism

None Dare Call It Islamism

Terrorism strikes Boston

The Growing Power & Threat of Islamism: 2011

"Hope is NOT a Strategy!"

Islamist Terrorists Kill 131 Nigerians

Nigerian leader condemns Obama Admin decision on Islamist Terrorists

Those Libyan Ties to Terrorism, CIA & MI6

Parallels of History: "the end of war is nigh"

Majid Shoukat Khan pleads "guilty," gets a deal

High-value Guantanamo Detainee Pleads Guilty in Deal

By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

FORT MEADE, Md., Feb. 29, 2012 – The only legal U.S. resident being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, today became the first high-value detainee to plead guilty to charges of helping terrorists plot and carry out attacks.

Majid Shoukat Khan, 32, pleaded guilty to all charges against him as part of a plea deal that will give him a reduced sentence in exchange for cooperating with the U.S. government, including possibly testifying at other detainees’ trials.

Khan is charged with conspiracy, murder in violation of the law of war, attempted murder in violation of the law of war, providing material support for terrorism and spying.

U.S. Faces Broad Spectrum of Threats, Intel Leaders Say

By Lisa Daniel
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 16, 2012 – The United States and its allies face a broad spectrum of national security threats from terrorism, nuclear proliferation and cyber attacks, intelligence leaders told Congress members today.

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Army Lt. Gen. Ronald L. Burgess Jr. provided their worldwide threat assessments to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Clapper listed countering terrorism, nuclear proliferation and cyber threats, as well as counterintelligence, as being at the forefront of national security concerns. But, he added, “it is virtually impossible to rank – in terms of long-term importance – the numerous potential threats to U.S. national security.”

Unlike in the Cold War days of having a single, large adversary, Clapper said, “it is the multiplicity and interconnectedness of potential threats – and the actors behind them – that constitute our biggest challenge.”

Video: Taliban Justice-Pakistan

This is Taliban "Justice."  It comes from 2009, when Pakistanis were realizing the Taliban were the enemy.  It comes from a time when Pakistan was an ally against the common enemies of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.  This is light punishment under Islamism.  Taliban "justice" includes: stoning for "adultery," hangings for "homosexuality," and acid thrown in the face of girls that have the audacity to go to school, to learn to read.

 The VP says the Taliban are "not the enemy."  The POTUS wants to fly Taliban terrorist leaders from GITMO to an office in Qatar, to negotiate their way back into the government of Afghanistan.

Video: Islamist "Justice" in Iran: Adultress Stoning

This is "justice" under Islamist, i.e. Sharia Law.  Suriyah allegedly was an adultress.  This is what the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda want to be the law of the land.  Caution: Graphic Content, this is not a re-enactment.  This is real and it is happening in Taliban controlled parts of Afghanistan, in Iran, and wherever Islamism rules:

The Serbian Connection to International Unrest

‘Revolution School’ Teaches How to Overthrow a Government

Henry Ridgwell, VoA News, London

Veterans of the uprising in Serbia, which overthrew President Slobodan Milosevic, are running workshops for opposition groups around the world on how to bring down a dictator.

On the outskirts of new Belgrade - among Communist-era tower blocks - lies the anonymous-looking office the Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies [CANVAS]. It teaches the science behind forced regime change.

Inside, Srja Popovic runs a School of Revolution.

Egypt's Present and Future?

It is far too early to predict what the future of Egypt will be.  But the historical parallels with 1979 Iran present some very scary possibilities.  Egypt has been a target of exportation of Iranian Islamism for decades and Sudan has been the transit point for much of it.  At times, Iran considered Egypt to be the bridge too far, and at others a key to the future Caliphate.

The international political justification for positions on the Egyptian situation are particularly interesting.  Many politicians and many protesters were asking the Egyptian Military to take over from an elected leader, in order to establish democracy.  The same parties that claim we should not impose Western ideals of democracy on Middle Eastern nations were calling for the overthrow of a democracy by the minorities as a means of democracy.  The same parties that so vocally oppose military leaders, even when elected to office, such as Musharraf, were calling for the Military to take over, in Egypt.

Video: Islamist Influence in the United States

How influential are islamists within Our Own Nation?

According to one former CIA insider, things are much worse than we know.  H/T Your Daddy's Politics where the speaker's bio is listed.  This is not just a wild conspiracy theory, but documented in many aspects, such as the Muslim Brotherhood's plan for islamisizing the US and court documents linking the "Holy Land Foundation" to Hamas.

Analyst: Iran Un-deterable

Deterrence Might Not Work in Case of Iran, Analyst Says

VOA News: The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council - Britain, China, France, Russia and the U.S. - plus Germany, are holding talks, this month in Turkey, focusing on their fears Tehran is seeking nuclear weapons - an accusation Iran denies, saying its program is for peaceful purposes.

But what if Iran was in fact developing and were to use a nuclear weapon? VOA’s Susan Yackee spoke about such a scenario with Evan Braden Montgomery, a Research Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. He is the co-author of a report on the Iranian nuclear issue, published by the Council on Foreign Relations.

14 YO Palestinian Boy Didn't Want to Die

When Israeli Troops save a 14 year old from an Islamist Suicide Belt

Propaganda Exposed: Indoctrinating Hate

Propaganda exposed. This is a discussion of the roots of hate, of the roots of terrorism, of the indoctrination of kids to be so willing to murder that they'll kill themselves to do so.

Keep in mind, the parallels between Nazi propaganda and Islamist propaganda are not theoretical, but demonstrated in alliances of the 1930's and 1940's to an extent that one must wonder why Ahdiminijihadist denies the results of the Holocaust, which is in line with his own goals and those of his surrogates including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda.  And while "Iran" is a derivative of "Aryan," the audience of 1.2 Billion to which Islamist anti-semitism seeks is much greater than the few Germanic people Hitler wished to capture.  But also remember that not all Germans subscribed to the hate, even if many accepted the propaganda, just as not all Iraqis believed in that Ba'athist party line, even if they had a membership card, and not all Muslims accept Islamism's tyranical goals, even if they fall for the lies.

H/T: Fantaesia

Simplyfying Confusing Complexities

There is a security inherent in multiple layers of complex language and there are also inherent confusions and complexities in attempting to carefully specify precisely which group is doing what.  Civilians often complain about the seemingly encrypted acronyms which emanate from the military.  Enlisted joke that officers get medals and OER bullets for dreaming up a new acronym to replace an old one.  NCO's can speak a language of acronyms without even realizing the ensuing confusion.

The enemy hides beneath these confusing layers of complexity and the press fuels the confusion.  What's the difference between an "insurgent" and a "terrorist?"  Why does the military report it captured "suspected" insurgents?  With newly named terrorist groups popping up, is there a difference between Haqqani, HiG, and Taliban?  Why is it that after 9 years, citizens still confuse the Taliban and al-Qaeda?  (I've actually ran into anti-Iraq types that claimed that the Taliban were still strong in Iraq.)

The military reports are extremely precise and cautious in nature.  If there is a 1% doubt in the military author's mind, a terrorist becomes an insurgent and an insurgent becomes "suspected insurgent."  Fortunately, I can find a generic and appropriate term for such "unlawful combatants," that may not be political correct, but is appropriate: "enemy" or "bad guys."  Perhaps it comes from being on the wrong end of rounds fired of unknown entities.  The saying goes: "Incoming fire is NOT friendly."  In other words "bad guys" are shooting the "enemy" weapons and at that moment I don't care if it's "friendly fire."  I care about making it stop.

On Sheep, Wolves & Sheepdogs, LTC David Grossman

On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs,
by LTC David Grossman

Ok, I made it easy. Here is the original article from his page. www.killology.com

"Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for?" - William J. Bennett In a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: “Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident.” This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.

A Muslim Condemns Islamism: The 3rd Jihad-1

I've said it before;  there is a huge divide between the religion of Islam and the political warfare of Islamism that abuses the religion.  I've called on true Muslims to speak out against islamist terrorism.  I've pointed out the Crimes Against Islam.  And on occasion, I've pointed out that not all islamism is violent, that some is designed to undermine Our Fundamental Rights through our rights and freedoms, through our legal system, and through our compassion.  We must Choose Our Enemies Wisely, but we must also recognize the enemy that has chosen us.  H/T to Sharia Vigilant for the video link.

Contrast the actions of the enemy vs. the actions of Our Troops in today's news alone.

Base of Islamism - 5: Prophecies Fulfilled

In the last several chapters of the book, Bodansky repeatedly notes that Al-Qaeda is preparing for global “spectacular attacks” to include inside the US, with specific targets of Washington DC and New York.  In one message from the enemy, it notes that airliners and their passengers are legitimate targets.  Completed in 1999, the book sounds the alarm for 9/11, though it does not note the kind of attack we witnessed.  The elements of information are there, but not put together to make the precise prediction of either time or type.

Bodansky illustrates the type of propaganda used but gives too much credence to the hierarchy of Islamism in believing their hype.

Ah, but I promised you the hypocrisy of OBL and Al-Qaeda.  I only promised one cornerstone crumbled.  I’ll give you multiple: Al-Qaeda has killed more Muslims than has any other force in the 21^st Century.  It has purposely targeted Muslim Civilians in Iraq, to include both Shi’a and Sunni, even when no foreign troops were present.

It is a cardinal sin to commit suicide, according to the Koran, yet OBL trains recruits to commit suicide.  OBL himself has a plan for his death in the case of imminent capture, but it is not by his own hand.  His loyal bodyguards are charged to kill him, as even he won’t take the chance on suicide.

 

Al-Qaeda and the myriad of terrorist organizations/names used by it fund themselves by alliance with organized crime, to include atheists, apostates, and polytheists, by means of drug trafficking and prostitution.  Al-Qaeda controlled prostitutes include Muslim women of the former Soviet Union.

On multiple occasions, Al-Qaeda has purposely murdered its own supporters or fighters in order to claim atrocities by the West.

 

While proclaiming its cause as the liberation of “holy sites” of Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem, Al-Qaeda has taken little action against any entity involved with the control of those locations.  It ignores the plight of Palestinians and has chosen to attack the United States, primarily.  In fact Al-Qaeda declared in the late 90's that America itself was the enemy, that it would attack us, not the Israelis, not the Europeans, not the governments of the Middle East.

Al-Qaeda does engage in charity,

Base of Islamism - 4: Unholy Alliances

On June 26^th, 1995, an alliance of Iranian, Sudanese, and multiple terrorist organizations implemented an assassination attempt on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarrak.  Key players were Sudanese leader al-Turabi, Osama bin Laden, and al-Zawahari, who planned the attack in coordination with Iranian Intelligence.  Though members of the cell were captured and though terrorists organizations of less known names claimed responsibility for the attempt, the long term effect was for Mubarrak to move closer towards appeasement of the terrorists and distance himself and his government of the US Administration.

The reasons for the Egyptian political moves were US missteps.  An Arab, known to have acted on CIA orders in times past, claimed that the US had authorized the attack.  Further, the CIA operative had negotiated a deal which was in direct conflict with promises made to Arab Nations shortly beforehand.  The perception in Middle East governments was that the US Administration of the 90’s would not keep its promises and would throw its allies to the wolves with the smallest basis.

 

This perception was seized upon by Middle East enemies as well as terrorist organizations.  They used it to weaken US-MidEast alliances while re-enforcing their own alliances and building new ones.

The primary US attention in the Middle East was focused on Iraq, an enemy in common with bin Laden and Iran.  But it must be put into context that Arabs view nationality in a different light than does the Western World.  An “Islamic Emirate” is as much akin to a

Base of Islamism - 3: Islamist Alliances

Osama, as with many rich leaders, headed not only the “charity,” Al-Qaeda, but also for-profit corporations, primarily construction companies but also financial institutions, and terrorist organizations.  Though of Yemeni descent, he was born in Saudi Arabia, and returned from the Soviet-Afghan war a favored son of the Saudis, a hero, whose father had a special relationship with the King himself.

Enamored with the Afghan success, marketed as a hero, and believing the hype, when Saddam invaded Kuwait and threatened the Saudi Kingdom, he offered to lead the mujhadeen veterans in defense of the two kingdoms against the secular tyrant.  His enormous pride was wounded when his offer was rejected by the King, in preference of the more tested, but secret ally’s offer: the United States. 

Pragmatism overruled ideology and religion in the decision.  The world’s 4^th largest military (Iraq) would be challenged by the last superpower, not the ragtag force that had taken down the other superpower.  The firebrand Osama took great offense that the King had less confidence in his military abilities.

The Wahhabi sect (based in Saudi Arabia) of Sunni Islam has some of the strictest ideologies, but the Islamism of Osama was of greater radicalization.  The Shi’a sects of Islam also have historical political implications from which the Shi’a Islam was incubated.  One would expect the militants of these two to be even more opposed than the populace, but in most places, to include Iraq, Shi’a and Sunni have traditionally lived together in peace.

Base of Islamism - 2: Rise of the Anti-Mohammed

The bin Laden family itself is not to be implicated for Osama’s evils no more than Charlie Manson’s blood cousins are guilty of his murderous rampage.  In fact Osama’s father was not part of the rise of Islamism nor did Osama grow up as an islamist.  Osama grew up as a member of the privileged elite, heir to great riches.  His father was loyal to the Royal Saudi family and gained great wealth by being a preferred construction contractor to it. 

Of particular note is that the family construction business was contracted by the Saudi Monarchy to renovate the Kabaa in Mecca.  This resulted in power, prestige, and financial gain for the bin Laden family.  The young Osama was enamored with the benefits of the rich lifestyle.  He partied and whored around as many spoiled rich kids do. 

It wasn’t until he attended college that his “radicalization” started.  As an engineering student in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, he was exposed to a professor and his mentor, Sheik AbdAllah Yussuf Azzam.   Azzam, born in Jenin, Samaria, had a BA degree in Sharia from Damascus University, and a Master’s in Sharia Law from Azhar Univerisity in Egypt, along with a Ph.D. in Islamic Jurisprudence from Amman University.

Both the engineering student, Osama, and the radical professor, Azzam, found themselves in the Afghan-Soviet War, as community organizers.  It is unknown if their travels were mutually planned but they both set up organizations to influence political support for the conflict in Arabia as well as logistical support in the Pakistan/Afghan border mountains.  It was there that they were reunited.

Base Motivations of Islamism - 1

It is a widespread perception that terrorist organizations are independent of each other and compete or aggressive to others.  While this may have held true in times past, one of the key developments of the 90’s were the increasing alliances and unified efforts of  various organizations under umbrella organizations and direction of key state sponsors of terror. 

 

These alliances are designed to further a financial/politico-military goal rather than being purely ideological.  On the international government level, this is most evident in the alliances of ideological opponents in order to further the power of otherwise weak causes.  But it also demonstrates that the ideologies are simple tools of powerful elites who lust for even greater power. 

  

If the Iranian dictator were ideologically pure, would he really have key allies such as Kim Il Jong who propagandizes to his own people that he is a god?  Can a "fundamentalist Muslim" truly be allied with Hugo Chavez, who purports to be a Catholic, while holding the Catholic Church itself as a primary enemy of Islam?  And these are simply the more obvious hypocrisies of the "Islamic Republic of Iran." 

 

At the base of this discussion, is the rise to power of Osama bin Laden, and the roots, the mechanisms, and the means of it.  The intent is to dispel myths of his “fundamental” religious beliefs, myths of the Sunni-Shi’a conflict, myths of OBL's piety, as well as dispel what amounts to propaganda initiated by various elements and propagated by political and media organizations for their own gains, even when in conflict with the original purpose of the propaganda itself.

Governance, Economics & Warfare: What's the Connection?

Don't start sending tin foil hats.  I do not ascribe to "conspiracy theories."  I'll leave that to the geniuses so smart that they can connect dots with lines that do not exist.  On the other hand, it does not take a genius to realize that politicians do "conspire" to create the best environment for growth of their own power.  They create alliances, called political parties, to further that goal. 

In a democracy, they must convince everyday citizens to give them the power to increase their power, so those alliances demonize the opposition and propagandize their own greatness.  Politicians and Parties are known to lie, cheat, and steal to create a convincing perception  that they are honest, caring, and benevolent.  That kind of snowjob takes a lot of money and marketing and a near fanaticism in volunteers to the cause.  It's no wonder that Citizens distrust Politicians.  The closer one is to a political campaign, the more one understands the dirty tricks used to convince others to parrot it.

Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, and Islamism are economic systems where as Democracy, Republics, Communism, and Islamism are forms of governance.  Islamism is not to be confused with Islam, just as Capitalism should not be confused with Christianity, nor Atheism with Communism.  The concepts may be based in or marketed to the followers of particular religions, but it does not mean these major religions are synonomous with the forms of governance or economic systems.

Great Deals on Great Books! Recommended Reading in Time for Christmas

 In time for Christmas, even if shipped to the Troops, these books are recommended reading and found in our Books Category. The 2009 Marine Corps Reading List, Air Force Reading List, Army Reading List, are all great places to shop for your Warrior and no doubt have great deals as well, but these are the War On Terror Recommended books, so far.  It will give you a start in understanding our Current Conflicts from multiple points of view, from the Lone Survivor of battle to the General that helped plan it, from the first troops in to the detention camp they sent the prisoners in Cuba, from WWII to today, from the humanitarian efforts of veterans and doctors to the raw reality of Infantry.  Some of these priceless works of history are available for as little as a penny, though the blank paper would be worth the original price and the insight worth 10 times that.

It's amazing to me that some are willing to part with these great books for the prices they are.  These are the books that we put on our sidebars because they are tomes of knowledge, history often written as it was made.  Most have been reviewed in our Books Section.  The prices are not guaranteed to last.  The best price is a race amongst readers and shipping generally runs about $3.99 though if you buy new, Amazon sometimes offers free shipping.

Whether you are shopping for yourself, for your Warrior, or your best friends, you'll want to see these great deals and perhaps even buy the ones still available new but certainly want to snap up those that aren't in publication any more before they become unavailable.

US Born Terrorists

The Fort Hood Massacre has brought out arguments that "MAJ Hasan is no more a terrorist than were the Beltway Snipers."  I will agree with the statement on grounds that John Allen Muhammed is a terrorist.  In fact I didn't realize that this status was even in question in anyone's mind.

There is absolutely no definition of terrorism that does not include John Allen Muhammed and Lee Malvo as terrorists.  Contrary to early FBI conclusions, it is appearing more and more like MAJ Hasan also must be considered a terrorist, rather than a run of the mill mass murderer.  He acted in accordance with an earlier foiled plot that would have targeted FT Dix.

Fact & Fiction: Two Tales of One Event

The Greatest value of Twitter to War On Terror News has not been the new readers, though we're grateful that the news is reaching a wider audience.  It is the world of others that Support Our Troops, the new sites we've found and bring to you, our readers.  Our most recent addition to our blogroll falls in the category "Allies" and is aCanadian who runs MilNews-Canada.  He has clearly developed a source base for Taliban propaganda and more.

This one caught my eye immediately, as it so clearly demonstrates the inflated numbers the Taliban use in their propaganda:

"According to reports, three heroic Mujahideen of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan carried out a martyrdom-seeking attack inside the guest house of UNAMA, killing a great number of workers of the runoff campaign. In the heart of the Kabul city, Share Naw, Mujahideen killed 50 foreigners in UNAMA guest house no. II as a result of martyrdom seeking attack." (Statement claiming responsiblity for 28 Oct 09 attack on U.N. staff in Kabul)

The Sunni-Shi'a Myth

Shortly after Al-Qaeda attacked on 9/11, an acquaintance asked if Iran or Iraq were involved.  My primary focus before that day was not on terrorist organizations, though I had maintained a degree of attention.  Terrorism had long been a threat, but I had not expected the US would ever take serious measures against it.  I knew enough to be dangerous.  I expressed what would become popular perception:

"Saddam and OBL were enemies.  Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah were rivals.  Iran would be pleased to see Saddam and Al-Qaeda fall."

That response failed an overriding Middle East principle: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."  It also was ignorant of key facts and details, some of which had already been published on 9/11 and others that would not be published for a few more years.

A key strategy and tactic of the Middle East and Islamism is deception including outright lies.  Perhaps the most complete lie perpetuated on the average Western citizen is that Sunnis and Shi'a have irreconcilable differences, that they will fight each other to the same extent if not greater extent than they will fight Christians, Jews, Atheists, Animists or Apostates. (Listed in order of disdain according to the Koran which considers Christians and Jews as misguided religious brothers.)

Muslim Leader Denounces Suicide Bombers as "Hell-Bound"

As I've said elsewhere, one of the evolutions of understanding that I had to come to grips with was: "If 'fundamentalist Muslims' are required to kill all non-Muslims, why have so many devout Muslims risked their lives to fight terrorists, beside me?

The answer was given me long before I understood it.  A Muslim that risked his life day after day, beside me, that ate at the same table and slept a dozen feet away noted that the Koran states that nothing can be added to it.  That means volumes of works, including Sharia Law and much more are heretical to Islam.

Suicide is "haram," a cardinal sin according to the Koran.

Map: How Global is The War On Terror?

Not so long ago, I ran the series "How Global is the War On Terror?"  In it I explained that though we often concentrate on Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan and the whole world knows that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues decade after decade, the struggle between Freedom and Islamism is much more global with various levels of US participation and various levels and types of enemy activity.  But with a rather broad stroke, I've painted the map of battlelines.

I say it is broad strokes because while Iran and The Sudan have Islamists governments, they are very different, as demonstrated in the original series.  Green denotes Islamist control, whether as the recognized government or the pockets of shadow governments such as the Hezbollah or Hamas shadow governments.

How Global is the War On Terror? Part 4 Nationalism & Culture

"Tribalism" is but one example of embracing or attempting to change an alien culture.  The popular connotation of tribalism has little to do with the reality of it in Afghanistan.  "Warlord" is another example of a powerful but misused word used to villify political players in other parts of the world.  I would venture the perception of many when "Tribal Warlord" is mentioned that one draws the image of an African (or Aztec) style tribe led by a dynastic tyrant that makes war with any weaker local power and rules by brute force.

And yet such a perception does not account for a Jeffersonian style of selecting local leaders who select leaders of the next level, etc.  Such a perception does not take into account the numerous calls for political leaders in the West to return to leading formations into battle, just as these political leaders called Warlords do in the regions of Afghanistan, or did.

How Global is The War On Terror? Part 2: Europe & Asia

Clearly the Islamist Struggle and terrorism is evident in Africa and in Afghanistan & Pakistan.  This alone would demonstrate a trans-continental war waged by our enemies from Africa to Central Asia.

But the battle extends into Europe as well.  Iran and Al-Qaeda are both active in Turkey, attempting to undermine the hidden example of secular democracy in a Muslim Nation.  Both elements are using both legal and atrocious means to overthrow democracy there.  Not only are Turks subjected to propaganda in every form, including at Mosques, but also the advent of political parties attempting to change the government from within the system.

Turkey's democratic and economic successes over nearly a century (post WWI) are the most dangerous message easily evident to the Persian People. Iran fears that seeing that success will induce its people to do exactly what happened in the aftermath of their recent elections.

How Global is The War On Terror? Part 1: Africa

It should come to me as little surprise that I was questioned about the pertinence to the War On Terror News of an article about Somalia.  It has been some time since we mentioned the pertinence of Somalia to the struggle between islamism and democracy.

In the minds of some, perhaps many, the Global War on Terror is limited to Afghanistan & Pakistan, with Iraq being an unjustified diversion, hardly global at all. Afghanistan is currently the center of attention and arguably the central front in the War On Terror.  Though some believe it is where it all started, this is not necessarily the case. 

The Big Picture

By Time Traveler, Editor, War On Terror News

Like a camera lens, sometimes we focus on the big picture and at other times on the minute details.  It is the myriad of small details that make up the wider terrain.  A Mountain Range provides a natural border, just as does an ocean, but a mountain Range is made up of a multitude of mountains and those mountains are made up of boulders and rock, of grass, of seeds, and of pebbles. 

The camera lens can be focused on the Range, the Mountain, the Boulders, the Pebbles, or the Grass and Seeds.  Or a microscope can be focused on the molecules that make up the seeds and pebbles.  Satellite cameras can focus on the entire range, the nation, the region, or the entire hemisphere.

Mountains do not just appear.  They have millenia of history and physical force which forced them to become what we now see.  In only the modern era have we been able to measure the growth or diminishment of mountains.  To truly understand, either mountains or the War In Afghanistan, one must examine not only the current battles, but also the history that brought us to this point and the culture and terrain which create the challenges we face.

Recent History plays into the scenery.  The events of 9/11, of the Soviet invasion, of the

Taliban Code of Conduct

A number of people have asked me my opinions about the Taliban's new Code of Conduct. I hope to see the actual document as soon as I can find a translated copy of it. But from the excerpts I have seen, and news stories that have been written in AJE about it, it is very worrisome to me on a number of different levels.

The first area that worries me tremendously about this document is its desire to increase the Taliban's legitimacy. Many analysts have said that this document is an answer to General McCrystal's new ISAF Tactical Directive. Well, that may be part of the story, but I do not feel it is all of the story. The Taliban for the last 2-3 years has been striving to increase their legitimacy amongst the local populace. They have realized that there are gaps in the Afghan Governments ability to penetrate all of its territory with security, stability, basic sustenance, and governmental infrastructure. They have tried to take advantage of that gap by establishing shadow governments within these areas, and become the de-facto government.

Also, they have taken advantage of the weakened tribal system, and used it to play weak tribes against other weak tribes. They have formed coalitions of smaller tribes to take over areas that other tribes had once inhabited. What does all of this mean? The Taliban have taken a play from Mao and are establishing legitimacy through becoming the de-facto government. For a long time in Afghanistan, the effort for us was at establishing governance at the central level in Kabul. Because of this, local governance was not strengthened as it should have been. Coupled with the issues of penetration by the Afghan Government, this has allowed the Taliban to become a legitimate force and government in many of these areas. This code of conduct in my opinion is just the next step in achieving greater legitimacy at the local level.

Secondly, this code of conduct worries me due to its timing. The new tactical directive from ISAF HQ was signed on 6 July 2009. That means that less than two weeks later the Taliban were pushing this new code of conduct. That is an impressive timeline for an organization that is dispersed and spread throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan to publish a concise statement in return. It shows a great deal of synchronization and command and control. The other part of that timing is that this comes out less then a month from the Afghanistan Elections. I highly question how much of this was to also influence voters, and whether it will work. Coupled with the desire to increase their legitimacy, this could be a very ugly development.

Europe, Afghanistan, and Federalism

This post is inspired by a conversation we had in my class today, and by my thesis that I am currently writing for my Masters. For those of you who regularly follow me, you know I've been hammering away on it for the last few months. I am hoping to have the draft complete this week. We will see how many revisions have to be made after that.

But I digress. The point of this post is to discuss the federal system of governance and it's many positive implications for a nation-state. Europe in the 16th and 17th Centuries was just exiting the Dark Ages, and the Age of Enlightenment was beginning. What would follow is quite interesting.

You see up until this point and in all honesty for the next three hundred years Europe had many issues, and experienced many growing pains. The religious wars that were fought made many actions within the current Middle East seem tame by comparison. The Catholic and Protestant nations and their military forces were quite literally at each other's throats. Governments had extremely low levels of penetration within their nation-states. Regionalism, and tribalism was quite high. Revenue generation and revenue sharing was almost non-existent. Ethnic grievances were extremely high.

So what happened? First, education began to take hold at many levels within society. The enlightenment was the beginning of this, followed by various romantic movements that strove to reconcile the natural world with the tensions of the creative genius. (1) Second the feelings of Nationalism began to take hold, spurned on in many ways by the results of the French Revolution. Third, and most importantly to me, was that many of these European Nations made the movement to a federal system of government. Some chose Republics, some Constitutional Monarchies, but the result was the same.

The federal system of governance allowed for alleviation of many of these above mentioned issues. It allowed for greater governmental penetration of it's territories. It addressed and reduced ethnic tensions and grievance by allowing for peaceful conflict resolution. It provided a form and function for revenue generation and effective revenue sharing. Regionalism and Tribalism found a positive outlet within this system and reinforced a federal state.

The Treaty of Versailles and Afghanistan

Did the Treaty of Versailles have anything to do with Afghanistan? Well no, not directly, but the inherent attitude that permeated the Versailles Treaty did.

You see, throughout most of the last half of the 19th century the British Empire and the Russian Empire were locked in what became known as the Great Game. They were fighting for control over the area that would become known as Afghanistan. The British wanted to secure their northern frontier in India, and the Russians wanted to continue their march towards a warm water port.

As they signed various treaties with one another, and certain Afghan Tribes they drew up boundaries for a country, that had never been a country. To make matters worse the British signed a treaty with Emir Khan of Afghanistan in 1893 laying out the Durand Line. This was supposed to designate the line in the sand between the Afghan Tribes and Pakistan. The British had fought battle after battle with the Afghan Tribes that had not fared well for them. Establishing a border was seen as a way to secure their possessions within present day Pakistan.

But what did this line in the sand do? Well it doesn't exist. It is just that, a line in the sand. To make matters worse, it split the Pashtun Super Tribes in two between Afghanistan and Pakistan. People in the

Attacking Our Defenders

The following post was published January 17, 2008 in response to the NY Times article proclaiming our Veterans as psychotic killers.  The pertinence of this article is revived with the recent arguments defending the DHS/Napolitano memo.  It should be noted that the NYTimes article presented our Troops as being unable to control violent psychosis, which is fully debunked by their own "evidence," but none of their evidence demonstrated propensity to terrorism.

ORIGINAL:

Most here are already aware that the NYTimes devoted an inordinate amount of space to portraying our returning veterans as psychotic killers, unable to adjust to civilian life.  Most in my circle of contacts are also very aware that the NYTimes does not hide its politics very well.  They are anti-gun, anti-war and anti-Bush.  They gave moveon,org a discount for their ad attacking General Petreaus.  I’ll come back to the main focus of this article which is the article attacking our troops in a minute but let me provide some background on war and warriors first.

 

War changes people.  There is no doubt about that.  All extreme situations in life have a profound effect on those that experience them and war is several extremes combined.  Life and death are decided in split seconds.  The enemy desires and often attempts to kill you.  War never takes place in tourist destinations.  The terrain and environment are always extreme.  Prisoners have better living conditions than Soldiers.

 It is unnatural to take the life of a member of the same species but a warrior must come to grips with the NEED to do so.  The warrior is exposed to the worst humans can do.  Our enemies commit both the most severe atrocities as well as the most base of civil rights restrictions.  When a warrior is faced with all of this, his naiveté is lost.  He knows the frailty of life and the necessity of killing.  He knows that if unchecked, evil will overcome those he desires to protect from all of these realities.

 

War is the extremes of boredom and adrenaline packed exhilaration.  It alternates between them with no warning.  When you see no enemy, you are in the most danger.  This changes the way a veteran thinks and acts.  Not all learn to manage these changes in themselves.

 

Somewhere between 1 and 3% of our population are psychotic.  They are not just willing to kill, they desire to do so.  The military attempts to weed out the psychotic.  Recruiters are trained to see the signs and avoid their recruitment.  Drill Sergeants are trained to be observant for the signs and weed them out.  Soldiers are trained to watch for warning signs and report them.  Nevertheless, some will slip into the system.

 

LTC Grossman identifies all of this very well in his book “On Killing” and its sequel “On Combat.”  He describes the differences between our military and law enforcement and criminals and terrorists very well in his excerpt “On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs” on his webpage www.killology.com He has studied it extensively and is the pre-eminent researcher on PTSD.

 

 

We MUST provide the best training to our troops.  We MUST support our troops.  And when they have done our bidding, we MUST give them the tools to overcome their shift back into “civilized” society.  NONE of this is accomplished by the recent attacks on our troops in the NYTimes.

 

 With the Virginia Tech Shootings still fresh on the minds of academicians, the electorate and our politicians, there is currently a push to prevent a similar psychotic killer from legally attaining a gun again.  The killer in that case had a long history of mental health issues.  A judge had already declared him a danger and by entering that into the record, the killer should have been entered into the list of people that cannot buy guns.  That is already the law. 

 

Congress is attempting to expand that law.  Included in the expansion of this law is a provision to put all members of the military treated for PTSD on the same list that the VT killer should have been on.  This law would remove the 2^nd Amendment rights of those who have risked their lives in order to protect ALL of our rights.  Who in their right mind would support removing the rights EARNED by those who have protected the rights each of us was lucky enough to been born into.

 

 

Mobilizing the Nation for Victory

Is there room for Scientists, Artists, Academics, Diplomats, & Peace Activists in the Battle for Victory, in the War to Preserve life and to attain Peace, Security, & Safety in the World?  First some background information:

There are many arguments about the cause of the Struggle between Islamist Terrorists & the Defenders of Freedom and Democracy, the rightness or wrongness of strategies to combat it, and how to safeguard Our Nation with the least cost in lives and dollars necessary.  In the Know Your Enemy Series, I've given much of the background information on who we are or are not fighting and on why it can be just as dangerous for one to take a "nuke 'em all" attitude as a "sing kumbaya" attitude.

In the Politics of Peace category, I and others have explored the motivations behind the

Q&A: Progress & Protecting Refugees on the Battlefield

I apologize for the delay on this.  Yesterday was an eventful day:

I just can't get my head wrapped around the fact that after 7 years that there isn't more signs of progress. I was reading an article last night about the returning refugees from Pakistan. It stated that there were over 260,000 living in tent cities. In the middle of winter, many are literally freezing to death. Many had no food. So now my question is this, Why hasn't more been done to take care of those Afghans? ~Ky Woman (In comments here)

Well, I can't accuse you of not asking the tough questions.  There is not a simple answer to these inquiries.  I wish there were, just as do our Military Leaders.  Part of the answer, that refugees and their ailments are a fact of war that seems impossible to overcome is in no way satisfying.

In a perfect world, combatants would not impact the lives of non-combatants, but in a perfect world there would be no war.  Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world and it is unlikely that we will in the foreseeable future.  Unfortunately, there will likely always be the evil-doers, or psychotic if you prefer.  The nature of humanity is that some will prey on others and that is best described by LTC Grossman and the adaptation in poetry by Russ Vaughn of his work which I reposted here earlier today.

As I have stated many times, the war in which we are currently embroiled is truly a war of good vs. evil.  In recent history, there has been no other that pitted such atrocious enemies against Troops as honorable as our own.  This is made clear in one of the most important articles I've posted on Afghanistan, yesterday.  It is based on the findings of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission which is referenced and downloadable in the Article "Crimes Against Islam." 

The cited report is long overdue.  It catalogs the manners in which our

Threats of Terrorism? Historical, Current, or Prophetic?

Has the threat of terrorism against America been diminished, destroyed or enhanced?  According to Homeland Security as reported by MSNBC:

"The threat of terrorism and the threat of extremist ideologies has not abated," Chertoff said in his year-end address on Dec. 18. "This threat has not evaporated, and we can't turn the page on it."

On September 12th, 2001, many were asking why terrorists had suddenly decided to attack the United States and her civilians as well as our international guests working in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the target of Flight 93.  The little appreciated fact was that we were not "suddenly" the target.  Terrorists had targeted us for several decades but the force of our might and the attention of the people had not been given the enemies we ignored.

The threat of terrorism is rooted in history, a history that predates 9/11 and predates the 1998 declaration of war on us by Bin Laden.  It predates our response to it in Afghanistan.  It predates our acknowledgment of the threat.  It is historical, but is it current?

We have largely defeated Al-Qaeda in Iraq and they have

A Time to Reflect

I've pointed out many times that the Iranian government is doing all in their power to undermine the greatest threat to their tyranny and terror as they can.  But it's good to hear from others:

"On top of these two challenges, we have the Iranian influence to combat.  Our neighbors to the east are intent on destroying this attempt at democracy, and infiltrate and support terrorists at every opportunity.  The Judiciary continues to be a success story, and it remains strongly independent and resistant to executive branch influence.  As a side note, we got our first death sentence in a Coalition case this week; one of the Al Qaida terrorists who participated in the beheading of Nick Berg. " March 30, 2006, LTC Joseph Myers

I could easily quote his whole email here, but that would be disrespectful to the owner of that page. 

The point of the matter is that the LTC is saying then the same things I've been saying for some time here, that the world of "journalism" is not fulfilling their duties, that we are facing a brutal enemy, and that we are and have been winning for some time, despite what the news tells you.

The Colonels write a blast from the past, from a time when our next elected Commander in Chief was declaring our inevitable defeat, from when the media was attacking our Troops, from when the American people believed Code Stinkos and had just elected The Party to rule.

War on Terror News©2007-2008, ARM, all rights reserved.

The Enemy Propaganda Machine

This War is being fought on many fronts, including in the media and on the internet.  The enemy provides us a look inside their tactics as they attempt to recruit their ilk.  Adam Gadahn of California, a traitor who has renounced his citizenship and torn up his passport is the evil genius behind their propaganda.

The Brits report:

Do our citizens and politicians realize they are the tool of the enemy when they actively work to undermine the resolve of the American People?

Zawahari, AQ #2, responds to American Elections

The Enemy has sent us a message.  It arrived 19 Nov 2008.  Though it is full of propaganda, lies, and bluster, we can also find hidden in it truth and prophecy.  Too often, the cartoonish nature of the culture of our enemy leads us to discount the nature of their threat.  The secret is to note how their blusterous words match up with the realities we later see and then apply it current and future bluster.

al-Zawahari (the #2 leader of Al-Qaeda, assuming OBL still breathes and leads) has responded to our Elections.  He has confirmed how I and others predicted the enemy views our choice.

Zawahari notes: "A message of congratulations.. on the American people's admission of defeat in Iraq...the American people, by electing Obama, declared its anxiety and apprehension." 

The propaganda part is in declaring the US defeated in Iraq.  We have achieved unforeseen Sustained Success, but clearly he believes that Obama's election proves his perceptions that America has endorsed a retreat.  As much as I was opposed to the Obama choice, I hope rational minds will prevail on him to retreat from his campaign rhetoric of retreat.

He goes on to declare what the media and Obama campaign re-iterated (falsely) for partisan purposes to get him elected: that not only have we lost in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan.  He challenges Obama to send "thousands more Soldiers" to Afghanistan.  In the History of US Warfare, there are few examples of such low casaulty rates as we have seen against the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Zawahari has looked to Somalia and Viet Nam and drawn the lesson that while he cannot defeat the US Military on the battlefield, the US Media and groups like Code Pink, NOIN, and SDS, which spawned the Weathermen, will provide the perception of losses necessary to erode support of the people and hence Congress.  He believes the election of Obama proves his own propaganda as well as that of the Obama campaign, the retreat from Iraq.

He issues a coded personal threat to the incoming CinC.  Under Sharia Law, the lowest member of society, condemned to the worst of punishments both in this and the next worlds is the Apostate, those that were Muslims and turned away from Islam.  Their punishment on earth is to cut their own heads off, though I know of no instances where an Apostate did this, islamists did call on the Pope to do so.  There are plenty examples of islamists beheading those they deem Apostates though.

Also under Sharia Law, anyone born of a Muslim father is automatically considered to be a Muslim.  Hence, the coded threat in this statement:

"You were born to a Muslim father, but you chose to stand in the ranks of the enemies of the Muslims, and pray the prayer of the Jews, although you claim to be Christian, in order to climb the rungs of leadership in America."

But we also see his call for recruits from the "Islamic Nation" (Ummah):

"America.. continues to be the same as ever, so we must continue to harm it."

And we see again his bluster in calling the Obama election a Victory for AQ in Iraq while addressing the terrorists and specifically the fictional Iraqi leader of AQI:

"Your enemy's stagger has begun, so don't stop hitting him.... Your enemy admitted defeat.(to 'Omar al-Baghdadi,')"

For the full text of his propaganda speech: http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/nefazawahiri1108.pdf

Of note is that he probably had written two speeches, one for each possible outcome of our elections.  it took 14 days for the speech to be published by his propaganda machine.  This indicates a difficult chain between him and the outside world.  It makes it more difficult to find him, but more importantly it makes it difficult for him to lead.  It means that our continued success against the #3 leaders of Al-Qaeda are important, more important than taking out the mouthpiece called Zawahari, and effective.