Showing posts with label Al Qaeda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Al Qaeda. Show all posts
Saturday, November 14, 2015
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
ISIS Territory Is The New Rwanda
Map of Rwanda from CIA World Factbook, with province boundaries and names added. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
ISIS is not a religion, it is not a state, it is a cult. It is not even a terrorist organization like the Al Qaeda, it is a cult.
Monday, September 01, 2014
A Comprehensive War
In the book, Blair writes that he hoped that George W. Bush would win a second term as President of the United States in 2004. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Suddenly there are two broad fronts. There is Russia. And there is ISIS, which is in a stronger shape than the Al Qaeda ever was, with the same ill intentions to match. It would not flinch to unleash a biological attack somewhere, it would detonate a dirty bomb if it could. The dangers are grave. Obama might have similarly prematurely declared the death of Al Qaeda with the death of Bin Laden.
I happen to think the top idea here is what Google has. Beam internet from the skies and flood the earth with cheap Android phones. Google already has the prototype. I think the US government should massively scale it. If Google is thinking one billion, the US government should pump in 100 billion into the same effort. That would go a long way to the spread of democracy.
Related articles
- The Covert Origins of ISIS
- U.S. begins airdrops to town ringed by ISIS
- ISIS's bloody catalogue of atrocities
- Small Business and Proposed Bush Policies
- U.N.: Plight of peacekeepers held in Syria very fluid
- The Time Is Ripe For A False-Flag Attack On American Soil
- U.S. Launches More Airstrikes Against ISIS in Iraq
- US Launches Surveillance Flights Over Syria: ISIS Eliminates Syrian Air Defenses
- JIHAD'S OWN CIVIL WAR Fighting in Syria spawns rift in global terror movement
- ISIS = Smoke & Mirrors. Giving cover now for strikes on Syria
Friday, September 06, 2013
Syria: The Most Important Move Is Still Political
Barack Obama can strike if he wants to, and he does want to strike. He could rain 100 million dollars worth of missiles, or he could rain two billion dollars worth of missiles. He has leeway to decide. There will be no American troops on the ground. None are needed.
But the biggest challenge is not all that. That part is done. The biggest challenge is political and it has to do with the Syrian opposition.
The Obama administration has to make a clear case to the Syrian opposition in exile. They have to get their act together. That means cobbling together a united opposition. That means agreeing to an interim president in waiting. Who is that candidate? That means agreeing to elections to a constituent assembly within a year of Assad getting toppled. That means only inviting those groups into the coalition that will agree to lay down their arms once Assad is out.
The transition will have to be smooth. The post-Assad regime ironically will have to secure all the chemical weapons as the first order of business, that and any other weapons of mass destruction.
Unless the Syrian opposition is willing to all this political homework, the Obama administration should attempt only a limited strike, enough to punish Assad but not enough to hand over Syria to the Al Qaeda. The Obama administration has to do all it can - and there is much it can do - to push the Syrian opposition to do all the necessary political homework. Why strike if you are not going to get rid of Assad? We are not attempting a fireworks display.
Related articles
- U.S. Action Against Syria Will Have 'Some Teeth,' Includes Arming the Rebels
- Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?
- 25 essential quotes about the coming war with Syria that every American should see
- Article cited by Limbaugh on Syrian chemical attack being a U.S. false flag
- Hadley Says Republicans Should Back Obama on Syria Strike
- Many in Middle East struggling to understand Obama's Syria policy
- Syria strikes: Senate committee approves resolution in boost for Obama
- AIPAC finally appears on the syria war hawk horizon, but then gets edited out again
- Syria strikes: Senate committee approves resolution in boost for Obama
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Osama Also Asked For "Proof"
English: Muammar al-Gaddafi at the 12th AU summit, February 2, 2009, in Addis Abeba. Français : Mouammar Kadhafi au 12e sommet de l'UA, le 2 février 2009 à Addis-Abeba Русский: Муамар Каддафи на 12-м саммите Африканского Союза в Аддис-Абебе. 2 февраля 2009 года. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Syria is not a case of sectarian violence. This is a case of a brutal regime slaughtering its own innocent citizens. Some Islamist radicals with Al Qaeda ties might have picked up the gun, but the Syrian rebel forces by and large are native lovers of regime change and ultimate democracy.
This is a liberation struggle being violently suppressed, with over 100,000 innocents killed and counting, the last thousand or so with chemical weapons. It does not getting any more black and white than this.
America should do now what it should have done a year ago. The red line is when a dictator starts slaughtering innocents. I can understand why sending in American troops can get messy and costly and open ended. But no ground troops are necessary. They were not necessary in Libya. A few billion dollars worth of air strikes is all it took to get rid of Gaddafi. Assad has to go. This would be the first serious step America takes against the brutal regime in Iran. That is another regime that mercilessly slaughtered its own people at massive scales in 2009.
Related articles
- In Need of a 'Devastating' Response to Assad
- Syria, Cameron, UK Parliament and Risks of Military Action - John Gelmini
- Top 5 Reasons Not To Use Missile Strikes In Syria
- Obama Already Waited Too Long on Syria
- Flashback: Interview with Osama bin Laden. Denies his Involvement in 9/11 !
- Obama Faces Toughest Foreign Policy Challenge in Syria - Bloomberg
- USA Gov Asked To Prove Osama Bin Laden Death - In Court
- Kill Maher al-Assad
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
Republicans Being Ridiculous On Benghazi Attack
Cover of George W. Bush |
In hindsight we know what the Benghazi attack was. It happened on 9/11. The Al Qaeda feels poetic about that date. America killed Bin Laden, so the Al Qaeda killed an American ambassador. I read up on the guy after the death. He was a dream ambassador. He was steeped in the local culture with passion long before he was picked for the job. Libya was lucky to have him. And he got killed. Of course people did not get it right right away. You start with disbelief. You even engage in a little bit of denial. But then you get it right, and you draw a plan of action. The president said the perpetrators will be brought to justice. And I think he means it, he meant it on Bin Laden.
Hillary Clinton has been an excellent Secretary of State. In an era when soft power means for more than military power Hillary has managed to draw on all sorts of levers of soft power to do an effective job as America's face to the world. Now for the Republicans to conclude her time in office with a humiliating hearing on Benghazi I find obnoxious. It is "offensive" - Barack Obama's word to Romney during the second debate. The Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for playing political football with an apparent tragedy. It is a disservice in that it takes away from the fight against the Al Qaeda. This meets my definition of a witch hunt. And if they are not ashamed they should own up to the fact that 9/11 happened on their watch.
Is Hillary Running?
A month after falling ill, Clinton returns to work
on Capitol Hill, where Clinton is expected to face bruising questioning from Republicans about security lapses at a diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya. The deaths of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in a militant attack there in September represent the largest blot on Clinton’s record as secretary, and Republicans have insisted that she testify in person about what went wrong ..... Top deputies gave Clinton the helmet and a jersey with the number 112, representing the number of countries she has visited during her tenure. .... “She loved it. She thought it was cool,” Nuland said, referring to the gift. “But then, being Hillary Clinton, she wanted to get right to business.”
Related articles
- Hillary Clinton 'will testify about Benghazi consulate security shambles' despite concussion and blood clot
- Hillary Clinton will testify about Benghazi on January 22
- Hillary Clinton Still Recovering From Benghazi Flu Very Real Blood Clot in Her Head
- Republicans press for answers from Clinton on Benghazi
- Clinton set to testify on Benghazi
- State Dept. photo: 'Look guys, Hillary is totally back to work and stuff'; What about Benghazi?
- Senate Benghazi report blames FBI, CIA but exonerates Obama
- The character assassination of Hillary Clinton (Kathleen Parker, Washington Post)
- Hillary Clinton's Benghazi Testimony Has a Date
- Senate Republicans refuse to confirm Kerry until Hillary testifies about Benghazi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)