Wednesday, May 4, 2011

GWOT: Obama's pics ban starting to look suspect

- Panetta: O-Team watching black screen -

Reuters: "Photos from the Bin Laden Compound"

Photographs acquired by Reuters and taken about an hour after the U.S. assault on Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad in Pakistan show three dead men lying in pools of blood, but no weapons. The photos, taken by a Pakistani security official who entered the compound after the early morning raid on Monday, show two men dressed in traditional Pakistani garb and one in a t-shirt, with blood streaming from their ears, noses and mouths. The official, who wished to remain anonymous, sold the pictures to Reuters. None of the men looked like bin Laden. (...) >>>

May 5, 2011
Jihadi reactions to the killing of Osama, denial -

Memri: "Reactions to News of OBL's Death on Jihadi Websites Voice Disbelief, Call for Revenge; OBL Commemorated on Facebook"

As of this writing, no official message from jihadi media organs has appeared on jihadi websites in reaction to U.S. President Barack Obama's announcement that U.S. forces had killed Osama Bin Laden. The administrators of the Shumoukh Al-Islam forum erased two messages posted by members who discussed the issue (...) >>>

May 2, 2011

The uranium racket -

The Guardian: "Georgia foils attempt to sell weapons-grade uranium"

The Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, has told fellow leaders at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington that his government has thwarted an attempt to sell highly-enriched uranium on the black market last month. (...) >>>

Apr 13, 2010

The fatal misidentification -

Standing by on a hilltop, Soldiers with the 10...Image via Wikipedia
PJM: "The War on Radical Islam Can Be Won; the War on Terror Cannot", by Ryan Mauro

Can the “war on terror” be won? That’s the crux of the entire national security debate today. Terrorism is a vague tactic, and declaring war on it is as akin to the colonists declaring war on bows and arrows when they fought Native American tribes.

The mantra that this is a “war without end” drives the debate over whether the U.S. should devote so many resources to extinguishing terrorism, or whether we should, as Fareed Zakaria has said, “learn to live with radical Islam.” If it’s a never-ending conflict, then temporary powers given to the executive branch and national security apparatus are now permanent. If this war cannot be won, then a law enforcement approach is more suitable. (...) Unfortunately, the term “war on terror” gives the impression that terrorists are an inevitable fraction of a large population — no different than the nutcases that exist in any large setting. The term “homegrown terrorism” further indicates that this phenomenon can be combated, but not stopped. In reality, homegrown jihad is an outgrowth of a foreign ideology that survives because of state support. If state sponsors of this political-religious ideology are removed, it cannot flourish and will whither away.

The debate about prosecuting the war must focus on ideology, not tactics, because ideology can be defeated. There will always be anti-democratic fanatics, but that doesn’t mean an ideology cannot be discredited. If someone calls World War Two the “war against Nazism,” no one doubts that victory has been achieved — even though neo-Nazi gangs still remain. It is with this goal in mind that the war can indeed be won. (...) >>>

Apr 1, 2010
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

No comments: