Posts Tagged ‘Taliban’
Can you imagine a directive coming down for our soldiers not to criticize the enemy and their atrocities during WWII?
Talk about undercutting morale! If they’re not evil and don’t have evil intentions, why are we even at war against them?? Taliban terrorists and their actions are NOT morally equivalent to our troops, and our soldiers shouldn’t be forced to pretend otherwise!
Here is a strong indicator that the Obama Administration’s crusade to appease Islam has gone too far; a new U.S. military handbook for troops deployed to the Middle East orders soldiers not to make derogatory comments about the Taliban or criticize pedophilia, among other outrageous things.
It gets better; the new manual, which is around 75 pages, suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture— not Taliban infiltration—is responsible for the increase in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces.
The soon-to-be-released Army handbook is still being drafted, but a mainstream newspaper got a sneak preview and published an article that should infuriate the American taxpayers funding the never-ending war on terror. The manual is being created because someone with authority bought the theory that cultural insensitivity is driving insider attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
More than three dozen insider attacks have killed 63 members of the U.S.-led coalition this year, according to the article, and some blame “American cultural ignorance.” The bottom line is that troops may experience social-cultural shock and/or discomfort when interacting with Afghan security forces, the new military handbook says. “Better situational awareness/understanding of Afghan culture will help better prepare [troops] to more effectively partner and to avoid cultural conflict that can lead toward green-on-blue violence.”
The draft leaked to the newspaper offers a list of “taboo conversation topics” that soldiers should avoid, including “making derogatory comments about the Taliban,” “advocating women’s rights,” “any criticism of pedophilia,” “directing any criticism towards Afghans,” “mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct” or “anything related to Islam.”
I’d like to say “unbelievable,” but pretty much anything this administration does is believable at this point, no matter how harmful to our interests or security.
The U.S. State Department is actively considering negotiations with the Egyptian government for the transfer of custody of Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as “the Blind Sheikh,” for humanitarian and health reasons, a source close to the the Obama administration told TheBlaze.
The Department of Justice, however, told TheBlaze that Rahman is serving a life sentence and is not considered for possible “release.” Previous calls to the State Department were referred to the Department of Justice and so far, the State Department has neither confirmed nor denied the report.
[...] Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who was the lead prosecutor in the Blind Sheikh case, told TheBlaze that he does not doubt the accuracy of the report, saying “there are very good reasons as to why it could be true.”
McCarthy explained that Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi has been calling for the release of the Blind Sheikh ever since he was elected earlier this year. He said it is a matter of “great importance” to the radical Islamists in Egypt and throughout the Middle East, adding that histransfer to Egypt would undoubtedly lead to the terrorist’s release.
“I think the plan has been to agree to the Blind Sheikh’s release, but not to announce it or have it become public until after the election. That is consistent with Obama’s pattern of trying to mollify Islamists,” he explained. “Obviously, they did not want this information to surface yet… but sometimes a situation can spin out of control.”
McCarthy also said the way the Department of Justice worded its denial may prove to be significant. The DOJ said Rahman’s “release” was not being considered, however, the question was whether or not his “transfer” to Egypt was being discussed.
The Blind Sheikh isn’t the only terrorist Obama is preparing to unleash to fight another day:
President Barack Obama is about to release or transfer 55 Gitmo prisoners, despite reports that the Libyan believed to be behind the killing of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens was a former Guantanamo inmate transferred to Libyan custody.
[...] A release or transfer of 55 inmates means Obama is moving out one third of the prisoners at Guantanamo. And while it doesn’t represent a shutdown of the facility, it’s certainly indicative of a move toward that end.
Obama Didn’t Consult Military Commanders On Afghanistan Withdrawal, Scheduled Retreat To Boost Reelection Campaign
To Obama, the American military is serving on his behalf rather than to defend America, and so the lives of America’s brave men and women in uniform can be put at risk and used as pawns for political expediency…and that’s exactly what he’s doing.
I still think the surge was the right thing to do because it arrested the Taliban’s momentum in southern Afghanistan and at least gives breathing room for the development of Afghan National Security Forces. But in retrospect, it is obvious that the president’s critics were more right than wrong. For evidence look no further than this excerpt from New York Times reporter David Sanger’s new book, which, as Jonathan discussed yesterday, appeared on the front page of the Sunday Times. It quotes an unnamed Obama adviser as follows: “The military was ‘all in,’ as they say, and Obama wasn’t.”
Then Sanger writes that “by early 2011, Mr. Obama had seen enough. He told his staff to arrange a speedy, orderly exist from Afghanistan.” The critical decisions about drawing down troops—with 32,000 departing by the end of September 2012—were apparently made by political aides in the White House without consulting General Petraeus in Afghanistan or other generals or, until the very end, Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Clinton.
This is breathtaking. Commanders on the ground and senior officials at the Department of Defense are not always right, and their recommendations do not always have to be followed by a president. But the commander-in-chief at least has an obligation to solicit their views and take them into careful consideration. Apparently Obama didn’t do that because he wanted to avoid the leaks that attended his previous decision-making process on Afghanistan in the fall of 2009. So he decided to end the surge in September 2012, which Sanger erroneously describes as “after the summer fighting season” (the fighting season actually lasts until late October or early November) and accurately describes as “before the election.” Meaning, of course, our presidential election.
This confirms the worst suspicions of Obama’s critics—namely that he was never committed to victory in Afghanistan and was instead committed to bringing troops home early so as to position himself advantageously for his own reelection. These revelations raise serious questions in my mind about the morality of the entire surge—about the morality of risking troops’ lives and limbs for a goal that is not worthy of their sacrifice.
H/T Weasel Zippers
President Obama has spent the last three years trying to figure out how to turn over Afghanistan to the Taliban without taking the political heat for it. In the process, the Obama Administration has committed a betrayal of our troops so stunning that anything done to them in or after Vietnam pales in comparison.
While the Taliban kills our troops and innocent bystanders in Afghanistan, the Obama Administration is fighting to give them the one thing they can’t seem to win on the battle field: control over the whole country.
It is no accident that despite the deployment of 33,000 troops under Obama, the Taliban in Afghanistan has thrived and grown, as documented by a recent Congressional report released earlier this week. This has happened while the Pakistani Taliban and insurgent groups have been assassinated or bombed into relative submission by our drones next door in Pakistan.
Why haven’t we been as successful, or as aggressive, in Afghanistan? Evidence is mounting daily that the Obama Administration has not only held back in Afghanistan, but has deliberately undermined the war effort there.
A stunning Washington Post piece on Sunday documented how we’ve been secretly releasing captured combatants from Afghan jails to placate the Taliban and other insurgent groups and entice them to negotiate with us. Administration officials wouldn’t say if these terrorist thugs went on to murder our troops, probably because they have.
Why are we so interested in kissing up to these thugs? Obama ultimately intends for the Taliban to rule Afghanistan again, a development that could destabilize the whole region.
It is part of an administration policy called “legitimate Islamism,” and conservatives need to wake up and understand what it means. Basically, as explained by an Obama surrogate in the National Journal recently, Obama is seeking to put radical Islamists in power in country after country on the theory that if they have a “legitimate” government to run, they won’t join Al Qaida and attack us.
So far, Obama has succeeded in overthrowing or destabilizing secular forces everywhere his administration has meddled except Afghanistan. From Libya to Egypt to Yemen, the Obama administration has turned its back on or actively removed leaders who — whether we like them or not — have kept radical Islamists in check. In their place, administration officials have nurtured the radical Muslim Brotherhood and other like-minded groups. In Afghanistan, the Taliban are the administration’s radical Islamic overlords of choice.
Apparently there is no bar below which Obama will not stoop.
Today, President Obama essentially declared victory in Afghanistan. Just in time for his re-election campaign, of course.
First, he blamed President Bush for us not winning the Afghanistan war sooner. “Despite initial success, for a number of reasons, this war has taken longer than most anticipated,” said Obama. What were those reasons? “America spent nearly eight years fighting a different war in Iraq.”
Then he claimed credit for President Bush’s goals: “The goal that I set – to defeat al Qaeda, and deny it a chance to rebuild – is within reach.” Only that was Bush’s goal, not Obama’s. Obama was late to the party; he was busy accusing American troops of air-raiding villages and killing civilians.
Obama couldn’t avoid playing politics. After all, that’s why he was in Afghanistan in the first place, just in time for the anniversary of Osama Bin Laden’s killing.
And Bin Laden played a crucial part in the speech. “Over the last three years,” Obama said, “the tide has turned.” Except for the massive increase in American deaths and loss of control in Afghanistan, of course. Hamid Karzai has been busily working with the Iranian regime to ensure that he has support once the United States leaves.
Obama’s main point is that if he’s left in charge – if he’s re-elected – he will withdraw all American troops by 2014. Once again, we get his reiterated timeline – a timeline he spelled out last year, and that has not changed. So he’s reiterating what we already knew. In primetime.
Of course, Obama also made empty promises about how we would ensure security after pulling out (similar promises to those in Iraq have not been fulfilled):
The agreement we signed today sends a clear message to the Afghan people: as you stand up, you will not stand alone. It establishes the basis of our cooperation over the next decade, including shared commitments to combat terrorism and strengthen democratic institutions. It supports Afghan efforts to advance development and dignity for their people. And it includes Afghan commitments to transparency and accountability, and to protect the human rights of all Afghans – men and women, boys and girls.
Except that they will stand alone, since the United States will not even stand against the Taliban. As Obama said, “In coordination with the Afghan government, my Administration has been in direct discussions with the Taliban. We have made it clear that they can be a part of this future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws.” Sure. No doubt the Taliban will make such promises. Then, when they regain power, we’ll do nothing. The pattern has already been established in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt.
FACT: Although he has overseen the nearly 11-year Afghanistan War for less than four years, almost 70% of all U.S. military casualties have come during the Obama presidency.
FACT: Nearly 100 American soldiers have died in Afghanistan in the last 122 days alone.
FACT: Barack Obama has not made a substantive statement on the Afghanistan conflict for nearly ONE YEAR.
FACT: Despite all but ignoring Afghanistan for much of his presidency, Barack Obama has devoted far more time to 124 campaign fundraisers, golf games, and vacations.
FACT: During his 11-minute campaign stop in Afghanistan yesterday, Barack Obama declared that America was not “worthy” of the soldiers’ sacrifice – indicating he as president will work to further improve the country for another four years.
Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma had some choice words regarding Obama’s blatant campaigning in Afghanistan:
“We’ve seen recently that President Obama has visited college campuses in an attempt to win back the support of that age group since he has lost it over the last three years,” Inhofe said in a statement, first reported by CNN.
“Similarly, this trip to Afghanistan is an attempt to shore up his national security credentials, because he has spent the past three years gutting our military.”
Inhofe said the president “has allowed Washington and campaign politics to dictate his strategy in Afghanistan rather than the conditions on the ground.”
Hamid Karzai, who only came to power in Afghanistan thanks to American support, has the audacity to demand that American troops who disposed of contraband Korans – that had been defaced with coded messages from terrorist prisoners – be put on trial and punished according to Sharia law.
First, burning a Koran is NOT against Sharia law. Secondly, this was on a US military base, which is sovereign US territory. Local laws do not apply. Third, the only penalty which satisfies “blasphemy” (which, of course, is what they consider this to be) is death. So unless we turn our soldiers over to be executed, they’ll NEVER be satisfied. That, of course, is out of the question!
Obama’s dhimmi groveling earns us nothing but contempt and aggression from the Muslim world.
Three days after President Barack Obama dispatched his ambassador to Afghanistan to hand deliver a personal letter from the president of the United States to Afghan President Hamid Karzai apologizing because U.S. forces at Bagram Air Force Base had mistakenly burnt some Korans, Karzai has responded to the gesture in a statement broadcast live on Afghan television.
Karzai, according to a BBC translation of his remarks made Sunday, told the Afghan people he was speaking to them after discussing the matter with “jihadi leaders,” “prominent scholars,” and Afghan elected officials, and that he spoke for the “pure sentiments” of the “Afghan nation” and the “Islamic world,” when he said: “We call on the US government to bring the perpetrators of the act to justice and put them on trial and punish them.”
Karzai’s doing this because he can. And the reason he can is because all Obama has displayed up to this point is weakness.
Think about it: although U.S. military personnel have come forward to say the materials were only burned was because of the messages and inscriptions detainees had written within them, Obama has apologized twice to Karzai. One apology was what you’d call a regular apology, and the second one was what Obama spokesman Jay Carney called a “severe apology.”
What’s next? Will we offer to behead ourselves so Taliban and Al Qaeda members don’t have to go through all the hassle of catching us and tying us up?
Obama may have missed this, but we are at war in that part of the world. Not a play war, like on Xbox, but a real war where American men and women in uniform are in harm’s way day and night. We’ve already lost two brave military personnel via an Afghan solider who was incited by the alleged burning of these materials, used by detainees to exchange extremist messages. And our troops could face even more loses if Obama doesn’t stand up and fight for change.
If Obama would do that, this situation could be handled quickly.
When Karzai asks for our troops to be put on trial for burning the religious materials that contained the extremist messages, we should simply ask whether he’ll put the extremist who shot and killed two of our soldiers on trial as well.
And when Karzai asks for an apology so he can show the power he has over the American president, we should remind him that he only rules Afghanistan by our good graces and financial support. In no uncertain terms, we should let him know that the next time an Afghan soldier shoots an American, the financial aid disappears for good. Period.
We have to deal from a position of strength because doing anything less is self-imposed weakness.
Right now we’re in trouble, not because we burned religious materials that contained extremist messages, but because we are projecting weakness.
The Korans were burnt because they had been defaced with coded extremist messages from terrorist prisoners to one another, and destroying the contraband this way is NOT against Sharia law.
These soldiers were doing their jobs correctly, and the Taliban are simply exploiting this as a reason to incite anti-American riots so they can get themselves back into power.
Yet Obama apologizes to the terrorists who murdered this young father. This grieving family deserves a president who stands up to defend our heroes and demands an apology from his murderers instead of groveling to them!
Forgiveness is a discipline that transcends cultures and bridges many divides when words fail. Without it, the world would look like the chaotic mess that is Afghanistan these days, where an alleged Quran burning by the U.S. military supposedly inspired deadly riots and the murder of U.S. troops.
The more the Obama administration apologizes for the burning, the more it fuels the sweltering rage within those who would much rather watch the world burn than to live in peace. Ahem. So, why are we apologizing, yet again? Because we have an administration that would rather bow to Saudi kings or to political pressure than stand up for the men and women who stand in harm’s way.
What was the Obama administration thinking when it sent senior Pentagon official Peter Lavoy to apologize to a group of D.C. area Muslims during their prayer services at ADAMS Center in Sterling, Virginia on February 24, 2012? Reports say Lavoy apologized numerous times during his brief speech at the Adams Center, which, incidentally, is one of the largest mosques in America.
According to a February 25 Fox News report, Lavoy told the group, the books were burned “unknowingly and improperly” and said our military “neglected, out of ignorance, long-established, correct procedures for handling religious materials.”
The Defense Department procedures he was most likely referring to instructs our military to handle the Quran using “clean gloves” that must be “put on in full view of the detainees prior to handling,” using two hands “at all times…in manner signaling respect and reverence,” and handling it “as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art.”
Lavoy reminded listeners that a string of Obama administration apologies to the Muslim world had already been lifted up by way of ISAF Commander General John Allen and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as well as a personal letter written by President Obama and personally delivered to Afghan President Hamid Karzai via U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.
Lavoy reiterated “that apologies are never enough and do not erase this incident,” and then really stepped in it when he promised “We will hold people appropriately accountable.”
Sounds good. But, there are two sides to every story. Promising that people will be held “appropriately accountable” without full disclosure as to the circumstances surrounding the incident is disingenuous considering that the people to be held “accountable” may very well be scapegoats. I’ll admit I’m a bit defensive, because I have family members who faithfully serve.
Here’s the skinny:
CBS News reported February 21, 2012 that an anonymous “military official with knowledge of the incident” said it appeared the Qurans and “other Islamic readings were being used to fuel extremism, and that detainees at Parwan Detention Facility were writing on the documents to exchange extremist messages.”
Representative Allen West (R-FL) who was appointed to both the House Armed Services Committee and Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee concurs with the CBS report. In his February 26, 2012 newsletter, West said the Parwan detainees “used the Koran [Quran] to write jihadist messages.”
Based on this information, the detainees, and not the military, are to blame for the incident because they defiled their own sacred books, hence violating both Islamic cultural practices and the Parwan Detention facility contraband rules.
According to the same CBS report, Islamic teaching mandates that defiled Qurans be “burned or buried” meaning there is much ado about nothing because the military followed Islamic teaching as well as their own procedures for disposal of contraband.
I just put my boots on because it’s getting quite deep around here; shoveling manure is dirty business. As I see it, the only apology needed is to the U.S. military, which once again did their duty and are being blamed for it.
The Taliban are inciting Afghan troops and police to fire on American soldiers. These are the same Taliban who kidnap children to use as suicide bombers, who run terror training camps for 5-year-olds, who cut the breasts off a nursing woman because she was uncovered when they barged into her house, who just opened a base in Qatar courtesy of American taxpayers, who Biden says is “not our enemy,” who Obama is currently apologizing to and negotiating with to turn the country back over to them.
Now two more Americans have been killed in cold blood by rioting Muslims who believe that the slightest insult to their religion is justification for throwing tantrums in the streets and committing murder.
Equally disturbing, Obama refuses to say whether he believes the Afghan government owes America an apology for murdering our sons, who voluntarily went over there to train and serve them and were thanked with bullets:
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is condemning what he calls the murder of two American military officers in Afghanistan’s capital.
Pentagon press secretary George Little says in a written statement that Panetta believes Saturday’s killings in Kabul are unacceptable.
The nationality of the gunman hasn’t been confirmed. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack inside a heavily guarded government building, saying it was retaliation for the burning of Korans on a U.S. military base in Afghanistan.
Little says Panetta received a telephone call from his Afghan counterpart, who offered his condolences and apologized for the incident.
Little says Panetta urged the Afghan government to take “decisive action” to protect coalition forces and to curtail violence after a week of unrest sparked by outrage over the burning of the Muslim holy books.
Meanwhile, the commander of NATO and U.S. forces says that all NATO personnel are being recalled from Afghan ministries following an attack at the Interior Ministry in Kabul.
Gen. John Allen says staff are being recalled “for obvious force protection reasons.” He says NATO is investigating Saturday’s shooting and will pursue all leads to find the person responsible for the attack.
Two U.S. military advisers were killed Saturday at the Afghanistan Interior Ministry in Kabul, though accounts of what led to the clash were unclear.
Contradictory accounts emerged out of Kabul following the shooting.
The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, saying it was retaliation for the Koran burnings.
Let’s not forget that back in 2009,
Military personnel threw away, and ultimately burned, confiscated Bibles that were printed in the two most common Afghan languages amid concern they would be used to try to convert Afghans.
Would that have been so terrible? If more Afghans became Christians, they wouldn’t be rioting and killing innocent people over the burning of a book right now, and many people who are dead today might still be alive.
Remember all the rioting Christians and profuse apologies from the president and military commanders when the U.S. Military burned a shipment of Bibles sent to Afghanistan? Yeah, me neither.
Even more ironic, those Bibles had been sent as a gift for Afghans who might want to exercise the unalienable right to choose their own religion instead of the one forced upon them by Sharia law. Isn’t that what America stands for?
In contrast, the Korans which were destroyed had been defaced by terrorist prisoners who were scribbling secret messages to one another on the “sacred” pages – an act which is expressly forbidden in Islam. Confiscating and destroying coded terrorist messages was exactly the right thing to do, and the terrorists should be thankful we didn’t destroy the prisoners instead, for they show no such mercy to our troops.
Yesterday, Afghanistan saw its third day of rioting after workers collecting garbage at NATO’s Bagram air base found charred remains of religious texts, including the Koran. The texts in question had been defaced with extremist propaganda and had been disposed of. It’s unclear who did the disposing, but it was reported that the process was overseen by a U.S. officer. Since then, crazed mobs have gathered in Afghan streets chanting “Death to America,” and the Taliban urged Afghans to “continue seeking revenge until punishment is dished out with your hands.” On Thursday, outside a U.S. base in eastern Nangarhar province, an Afghan soldier did just that, killing two American soldiers and escaping into the welcoming arms of an approaching mob.
U.S. Gen. John R. Allen, commander of the international forces, quickly noted the “error” of the burnings, ordered an investigation and apologized to “the noble people of Afghanistan.” President Obama then upped the ante with a letter to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, saying the United States “will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible.” There has been no reciprocal pledge of accountability from Kabul. Instead, the Afghan government has demanded that NATO place the offenders on trial, though no Western laws were broken.
Our so-called “ally”, President Hamid Karzai, is demanding that whoever burned the Korans be put on trial – which, since no western laws were broken, would mean subjecting U.S. service personnel to Islamic religious law. Robert Spencer observes:
What could the charge possibly be? Whoever did it didn’t break any law except Sharia, which NATO has not (yet) adopted. And that’s what this whole controversy is really all about: it’s another Islamic supremacist attempt to force non-Muslims to abide by Sharia provisions.
Obama, no stranger to groveling before America’s enemies, issued an apology, which will of course be construed by the Muslim world as admitting guilt. In their minds, that will justify MORE jihad against us. The Washington Times Editorial page concludes:
…two U.S. servicemen lie dead, betrayed by a member of the Afghan military they were in the country to train. These troops were defending an Afghan regime that seems to believe their deaths were justified. What offends Americans is not just the obsequiousness of Mr. Obama’s response but its one-sidedness. Mr. Karzai will not apologize for the deaths of our troops, for the American-flag and Obama-effigy burnings or for the uncivilized behavior of his volatile people. Nor will Washington demand such an apology. Mr. Obama should have learned by now that bowing to foreign mob violence only justifies and encourages the extremists. Counterinsurgency means never having to say you’re sorry.
Newt Gingrich insiststhat it is Karzai who owes the U.S. an apology:
“There seems to be nothing that radical Islamists can do to get Barack Obama’s attention in a negative way and he is consistently apologizing to people who do not deserve the apology of the president of the United States period,” Gingrich said. “And, candidly, if Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, doesn’t feel like apologizing then we should say good bye and good luck, we don’t need to be here risking our lives and wasting our money on somebody who doesn’t care.”
Obama apologizes for the inadvertent Koran burning this week; now the U.S. trained and protected Afghan Army can apologize for killing two of our soldiers yesterday.
Robert Spencer notes the ironic hypocrisy of Obama’s treatment of rioting Muslims vs. dissenting American Catholics:
Obama paused for a moment from trying to force the Catholic Church to deny its teachings to assure the Afghan people that the U.S. would strictly abide by Sharia provisions regarding the handling of the Qur’an. Maybe if Roman Catholics regularly flew into violent rages when their religious sensibilities were insulted, they wouldn’t be in this fix.
Of course, the Taliban don’t consider Obama’s apology sufficient, and are urging Afghan soldiers to turn their weapons on the very American soldiers who have trained and equipped them, reports Moshtaq Mojaddidi at AFP:
The Taliban exhorted Afghans Thursday to attack and kill foreign troops to avenge the burning of Korans at a US-run base, but stopped short of cutting off contacts with American officials in Qatar.
Of course they’re not interested in “cutting off contacts” in Qatar. The American taxpayers are funding their new base of operations there, thanks to the Obama administration. It’s part of his appeasement plan to hand Afghanistan back over to the very terrorists who harbored Osama Bin Laden and have been attacking U.S. troops for over a decade now. Predictably, appeasement has only made the aggressors more aggressive:
“You should bring the invading forces’ military bases under your brave attack, their military convoys, kill them, capture them, beat them and teach them a lesson that they will never again dare to insult the Holy Koran,” said a Taliban statement sent to media.
It appears the Afghan troops don’t need much encouragement to betray their American counterparts. Yochi J. Dreazen observes at the National Journal:
…the two U.S. soldiers killed during the protests in Nangarhar Thursday were the latest additions to a grim tally of so-called “green on green” violence (the phrase is a reference to the color of the uniforms historically worn by military personnel) throughout Afghanistan.
This year alone, an Afghan soldier opened fire at U.S. soldiers playing volleyball at a base, killing one and wounding several others. Another Afghan soldier killed four French soldiers less than a week later, prompting Paris to suspend its training mission in Afghanistan and threaten to accelerate its withdrawal from the country.
U.S. officials had consistently argued that such attacks were motivated by financial problems, personal stress and other prosaic concerns, not ideological affinity with the Taliban. But that case is increasingly difficult to make as more and more Western troops die at the hands of their Afghan counterparts.
A leaked report prepared last year for the American military command in Kabul found that Afghan soldiers and police officers attacked Western troops at least 26 times between May 2007 and May 2011, killing approximately 58 U.S. and NATO troops. The pace of such attacks has been steadily increasing since 2009, the report found. The worst single incident occurred in April 2009, when an Afghan officer killed eight American troops and one U.S. contractor.
“Lethal altercations are clearly not rare or isolated; they reflect a rapidly growing systemic homicide threat (a magnitude of which may be unprecedented between ‘allies’ in modern military history),” the report said, according to The New York Times, which obtained a copy. U.S and NATO declarations that the attackers were motivated by factors other than ideology “seem disingenuous, if not profoundly intellectually dishonest,” the report said.
All of those attacks took place before the fury unleashed by the Koran burnings, suggesting that there is already a pool of Afghan troops pre-disposed to committing acts of violence against Western troops. The Taliban are calling for more such attacks. Barring something unforeseen, extremist Afghan troops seem likely to listen.
This quote was being passed around Facebook today and it hit the nail right on the head:
“Islam is a religion that inspires VIOLENT OUTRAGE over the destruction of inanimate objects, such as a Quran, and RELATIVE INDIFFERENCE toward the extermination of human beings in the name of Allah.
President Obama apologizes about the burning of a few books that contain 109 verses of hate, murder and terror against all human beings who are not Muslim… Meanwhile, Muslims have committed 18,471 deadly terror attacks SINCE 9/11… 270 million murders in the 14 hundred year history of Islam.. Where is the outrage over that, Mr. President? Where are the apologies from the “peaceful Muslims?” ~ Jan Morgan
This absolutely sickens me. Obama is wasting the blood of every American who sacrificed time away from family, their health, their safety, and their very lives to remove the Taliban and their Al Qaeda allies as a threat to our national security.
Now he is orchestrating a pull-out which will be interpreted as a victory for them, used as a propaganda and recruiting tool, and embolden them to fight even harder against us and our allies.
Numerous U.S. reports allude to mass success in Afghanistan. President Obama has even went on believing our successes in Afghanistan should permit U.S. forces withdraw. Several Generals and politicians on the right and left have swallowed the Kool-Aid publicly proclaiming everything in Afghanistan is just “peachy-keen.” Today, we realize our positive perception of Afghanistan is simply a misnomer.
Everything in Afghanistan is not “peachy-keen.” In fact, for the past two years, things in Afghanistan have gotten much worse. Death tolls have risen, insurgents have operated in the heart of Kabul, and numerous incidents of our so-called Afghan counterparts founded in their national army and police force have murdered our troops.
Some would argue however that these incidents have simply occurred due to our aggressive foot patrols, hearts and minds operations, and “Peace Jirga” interactions. Such adventures expose our troops to the hostilities making them likelier targets. While U.S. forces may be more exposed, this does not justify a higher mortality rate in the past two years.
There must come a time when, contrary to what our elected officials and their puppets proclaim, America accepts the fact that Afghanistan was an utter strategic failure. Numerous tactical successes could be found in Afghanistan however, because our tactical objectives have not coincided with our strategic objectives since around the 2003 timeframe, we have recently been traveling backwards in the Islamic Republic.
Most past and present military advisers, including myself, know this. Unfortunately, our politicians and many of our highest ranking military leaders refuse to accept such facts. Advisers mostly agree however that our government elite and military leaders do understand the truths behind Afghanistan yet refuse to publicly display such truths for political reasons—how sad.
Afghanistan did not start as a political war. Clear strategic objectives were declared after 9-11 allowing tactical operatives the flexibility to determine their executable measure needed to meet those objectives. When we all wore beards, drove in non-standard operating procedure movements, and diligently worked alongside anti-Taliban elements, we swiftly defeated the enemy. The nation was seized and people were freed. This lasted approximately one and a half years.
For whatever reason, after our initial successes, things in Afghanistan turned political. Special operators were told to shave their beards—a directive that didn’t last very long, wear military uniforms rather than the local garb, fulfill more direct action missions versus the traditional “train, mentor, and advise” missions dramatically needed for counter insurgency operations. It got so bad that SOF eventually were used to augment the conventional forces rather than conventional forces augmenting the SOF.
Soon, with this politically correct conundrum, we began nation building. Nation building was never a focus in Afghanistan until the 2003/2004 timeline. By 2003, the first Provincial Reconstruction Team was operational in eastern Afghanistan. By 2006, PRT’s became official entities for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Nation building has proven a worthless principle in war time operations. It should be conducted after wars end—but again, the concept was all politically motivated anyway.
Obama is throwing away all the American blood and treasure that has been sacrificed in Afghanistan, appeasing terrorists in exchange for the “privilege” of surrendering the country back to the Taliban.
This is sending an unmistakable message to Islamic Supremacists around the world: it doesn’t take much to send Americans packing with their tails between their legs.
If the relatively small Black Hawk Down incident was enough to embolden Osama bin Laden to strike us on 9/11, just imagine how this PR victory, which Obama is practically handing them on a silver platter, will inspire martyrdom-seeking jihadists worldwide to strike at the wounded “Great Satan.”
The US has agreed in principle to release high-ranking Taliban officials from Guantánamo Bay in return for the Afghan insurgents’ agreement to open a political office for peace negotiations in Qatar, the Guardian has learned.
According to sources familiar with the talks in the US and in Afghanistan, the handful of Taliban figures will include Mullah Khair Khowa, a former interior minister, and Noorullah Noori, a former governor in northern Afghanistan.
More controversially, the Taliban are demanding the release of the former army commander Mullah Fazl Akhund. Washington is reported to be considering formally handing him over to the custody of another country, possibly Qatar.
The releases would be to reciprocate for Tuesday’s announcement from the Taliban that they are prepared to open a political office in Qatar to conduct peace negotiations “with the international community” – the most significant political breakthrough in ten years of the Afghan conflict.
The Taliban are holding just one American soldier, Bowe Bergdahl, a 25-year-old sergeant captured in June 2009, but it is not clear whether he would be freed as part of the deal.
“To take this step, the [Obama] administration have to have sufficient confidence that the Taliban are going to reciprocate,” said Vali Nasr, who was an Obama administration adviser on the Afghan peace process until last year. “It is going to be really risky. Guantánamo is a very sensitive issue politically.”
Because, after all, strategic military decisions in a time of war are all about the political winds at home, right?
Obama Chooses Genocidal Muslim Brotherhood Sheikh to Play Mediator For Talks With Taliban Regarding U.S. Retreat
I’d say “unbelievable,” but this is Obama we’re talking about.
Radical Islamist cleric and longtime Muslim Brotherhood spiritual guide Yusuf al-Qaradawi serves as a “key mediator in secret talks between the U.S. and the Taliban,” according to unnamed government sources referenced in a reportpublished late Wednesday in The Hindu.
In early December, the report said, “Qaradawi helped draw a road map for a deal between the Taliban and the United States, aimed at giving the superpower a face-saving political settlement ahead of its planned withdrawal from Afghanistan.” The United States is expected to begin pulling out of Afghanistan in 2014.
So who is this new mediator that the Obama administration has chosen?
Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi has been praised by Saudi-funded dhimmi pseudo-academic John Esposito as a champion of a “reformist interpretation of Islam and its relationship to democracy, pluralism and human rights.” But numerous statements of Qaradawi demonstrate that he anything but a “reformist” or a genuine champion of “democracy, pluralism and human rights” – and is, in fact, positively Hitlerian in his Jew-hatred and bloodlust.
During the uprising against the Mubarak regime, a Muslim website published a chapter from Qaradawi’s book Laws of Jihad, including this passage: “One of the forms of jihad in Islam is jihad against evil and corruption within [the Islamic lands]. This jihad is crucial in order to protect society from collapse, disintegration, and perdition — for Muslim society has unique characteristics, and if these are lost, forgotten or destroyed, there will be no Muslim society.”
Qaradawi also enjoys a reputation as a moderate beyond just Esposito: the former Ground Zero mosque imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is himself widely assumed to be a “moderate” despite evidence to the contrary, has hailed Qaradawi as a “very very well known Islamic jurist, highly regarded all over the Muslim world.” And another Muslim leader whose moderate bona fides have been questioned, the vaunted “Muslim Martin Luther” Tariq Ramadan, wrote a foreword to one of his books in 1998, and former London Mayor Ken Livingstone welcomed him to the city in 2004 and praised him repeatedly, despite the fact that during that visit Qaradawi explained to the BBC that suicide attacks against Israelis were not actually suicide at all, but “martyrdom in the name of God.” (Qaradawi has since been banned from Britain, as well as from the U.S.)
And the things that Qaradawi tells the millions of Muslims that he reaches are anything but moderate. In January 2009, during a Friday sermon broadcast on Al-Jazeera, he prayed that Allah would kill all the Jews: “Oh Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one.” He also declared: “Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by [Adolf] Hitler.”
And now he is a mediator for the U.S. Government.
The group of terrorists who harbored Bin Laden, routinely attacks U.S. troops, uses children as suicide bombers, and cuts off the breasts off nursing women isn’t our enemy? The people against whom thousands of American soldiers have died fighting isn’t our enemy?
What on earth does a terrorist have to do in order to qualify as an “enemy”, in Biden’s opinion?
Vice President Joe Biden said today that the Taliban is not an enemy of the United States — in what some have characterized as the latest in a long string of VP gaffes.
“The Taliban, per se, is not our enemy,” Biden told Newsweek, for an article published today. “There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy because it threatens U.S. interests.
“If, in fact, the Taliban is able to collapse the existing government, which is cooperating with us in keeping the bad guys from being able to do damage to us, then that becomes a problem for us.”
But President Barack Obama has said that the Taliban was complicit in protecting Osama bin Laden while the United States spent most of the past 10 years looking for him, according to his May 2 statement posted on the White House website.
Lord have mercy. Where is the outrage from the so-called “Women’s Rights” groups? When are they going to finally denounce this rampant barbarism against women across the Muslim world?
Pakistani Taliban fighters cut the breasts of a woman who was breastfeeding her child and asked other women to eat the pieces, in a gory incident highlighted in a report on the abuse of women in the militancy-hit tribal belt bordering Afghanistan.
The incident occurred when five militants walked into a house and saw the woman breastfeeding her child, The Express Tribune quoted the report titled ‘Impact of crisis on women and girls in FATA’ as saying.
The report, released by the human rights organisation “Khwendo Kor” (Sisters’ Home in Pashto) with financial support from the UN, is based on case studies of women from the tribal belt living in camps set up in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa for people displaced by militancy.
Women in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas are more susceptible to abuse in a post-conflict scenario, whether or not they are part of the conflict, the report says.
How dare she breastfeed her baby in her own home!
H/T Weasel Zippers
It’s an upside down, inside-out Obama world.
Pakistan, which has issued a death sentence to a Christian mother of five for allegedly blaspheming the prophet Mohammed, and which regularly prosecutes Christians for allegedly blaspheming Islam, has passed the religious freedom test imposed by the Obama administration.
When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released the U.S. government’s Annual Report on International Religious Freedom this week, Pakistan was not listed among the so-called “Countries of Particular Concern”
“Secretary Clinton designated eight countries as CPCs: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Uzbekistan,” said the report. “The Secretary applied CPC sanctions to six of these: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, and Sudan.”
As U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Suzan Johnson Cook pointed out on Tuesday when Clinton released the religious freedom report, the International Religious Freedom Act “calls on the U.S. government to designate the worst violators of religious freedom as Countries of Particular Concern or ‘CPCs.’”
“The President’s authority to designate CPCs has been delegated to the Secretary of State,” Cook said.
Clinton did not designate Pakistan even though the State Department’s own report stated that Pakistani law calls for the death penalty for people who commit “blasphemy” against Islam or who convert from Islam to another religion–and even though the report listed multiple instances of the Pakistani government using the law to persecute Christians.
(To see a related story about the religious freedom report click here.)
“The [Pakistani] constitution and other laws and policies restricted religious freedom and, in practice, the government enforces these restrictions,” says the State Department report.
“Freedom of speech was subject to ‘reasonable’ restrictions in the interest of the ‘glory of Islam,’ as stipulated in sections 295(a), (b), and (c) of the penal code,” says the report.
“The consequences of contravening the country’s blasphemy laws were death for defiling Islam or the prophets; life imprisonment for defiling, damaging, or desecrating the Qur’an; and 10 years imprisonment for insulting ‘another’s religious feelings,’” says the report.
Christians are the top target of these Pakistani laws. “Laws prohibiting blasphemy continued to be used against Christians,” says the State Department report.
In the latter half of 2010, the report says, 24 blasphemy cases were registered in Pakistani courts. Ten were brought against Christians, seven against Hindus, three against Ahmadis and only four against Muslims.
Also, according to the State Department, the government schools in Pakistan denigrate members of non-Muslim religions, including Jews.
“The public school curriculum included derogatory remarks in textbooks against minority religious groups, particularly Ahmadis, Hindus and Jews, and the teaching of religious intolerance was widespread,” says the State Department report.
The most notorious blasphemy case against a Christian in Pakistan last year was concluded in November, when a Pakistani court sentenced a mother of five to death for “blasphemy” she allegedly committed in the course of an argument with some Muslim women.
“On November 8 a Christian woman, Aasia Bibi, was sentenced to death for blasphemy, the first such sentence of a woman in the country, by a district court in Nankana Sahib, Punjab,” says the State Department report.
“Aasia was accused of committing blasphemy in June 2009 when she was reportedly fetching water while working in the fields,” says the report. “Following an argument with a group of Muslim women, the women went to a local cleric and alleged that Asia had made derogatory remarks about the Prophet. The cleric lodged a complaint with the police.”
Pakistani President Zardari has refrained from pardoning Bibi—and she remains in prison.
We have not had an update on Asia Bibi in a while, but she remains in a Pakistani prison, unjustly sentenced to death for blasphemy charges brought in retribution for her defending her Christian beliefs and refusing to convert to Islam. The law is inherently abusive, and only lends itself to further abuses.
Barack Obama should know the name of Asia Bibi. Every member of Congress should know her name. Every prospective presidential candidate should know her name. Her case is emblematic of all that is wrong with our “friend and ally” Pakistan. Future aid to Pakistan should be tied to her release, along with all similar prisoners of conscience, with substantive pressure applied to Pakistan to secure the release of all captive women and girls forced to convert to Islam — a “common practice,” according to the Bishop of Islamabad.