RIH BIn Laden!

His future awaits…

…so who is up next on the list?

Advertisements

Why did this CAIR guy start following me on Twitter?

So why did Ahmed Rehab start following me on twitter? It beats me.

Maybe I should follow him back to track the current thinking of America’s enemies?

His twitter profile says he is a leader in US-based anti-US/anti-West Muslim Brotherhood front CAIR.

The profile also says he is an “Egyptian American democracy activist”.

Ha! The Muslim Brotherhood (which is also a 5GWer) and Democracy do not go together.

What are his recent tweets? Two of them are about Al-Qada not existing (they are a fiction of the FBI/CIA):

Here’s the link or here.

LINK: My previous fun with CAIR.

“Can you govern yourself, or do you need a Federal Czar to govern your life for you?”

ChicagoBoyz has a must read post entitled “This is the FRAME that wins 2012”.

“Why is it that the media keeps reminding us that we shouldn’t exaggerate the threat of a small group of radicals – but completely changes tact, when it comes to their own personal safety?”

Greg Gutfeld nailed it. They are the islamophobes.

For Future Blog Entry

Capturing My Thoughts: Influence Warfare and Afganistan – Have we lost?

Here was my comment at Zenpundit (spelling corrected):

This is a mess thought. I suspect the USGOV is now looking at how to declare a “mission complete” and just get out. I don’t think the political leadership class of the US has the will to see this through or to have done what need to be done to win this. They want no errors, no causalities no upset press folks. I suspect deep down, most of Obama’s National Security team does really want the US to have a victory (the US is the bad guy and needs to lose).

Re-reading the RS article…have the Taliban really convinced the Afghanis that the 9/11 attacks were really an attempt to counter an upcoming US invasion? If so…then the Afghanis will see the US as the invader and the Taliban/al-Qaeda types as the scrappy underdogs fighting back against the superpower like the ant-Soviet forces. That means the Afghani people want the US to lose (along of course with the anti-west leftist elements in the West). The US has lost the influence war once again. I don’t see how that loss can reversed. We had the moral high ground. We blew it. They beat us at it.

If the influence war has been lost, then the 4GW/COIN has been lost (there is no chance that US will bring over whelming firepower/3gw/hama-style-4GW to bear to achieve victory for the US political class doesn’t have the will for that for the most part

It is the Taliban/Al-Qada who are now just waiting for the US to realize it and leave. Victory is in their  grasp. They just need to strategically wait us out and keep up some pressure while avoiding any major destruction events.

This sucks for the US. This is a good day for the bad guys.

“What is Lawfare?”

Here is a site on a topic that is of much interest to me – The Lawfare Project:

What is Lawfare?

Lawfare: The Use of the Law as a Weapon of War

Lawfare denotes the use of the law as a weapon of war, or more specifically, the abuse of the law and legal systems for strategic political or military ends.

The Lawfare Project’s concentration is on the negative manipulation of laws to achieve a purpose other than, or contrary to that for which those laws were originally enacted.

The scope of the Lawfare Project’s focus is on lawfare as it is used (via the Western legal system, nationally and internationally) to:

   1. Thwart free speech about issues of national security and public concern,
   2. De-legitimize the sovereignty of democratic states, and
   3. Frustrate the ability of democracies to defend themselves against terrorism.

The primary goals of the Lawfare Project are: (i) To raise awareness about the phenomenon (and specific instances) of lawfare assuring the subject matter receive the credibility and immediacy that it warrants, (ii) facilitate (legal and non-legal) responses to the perversion and misapplication of international & national human rights law, (iii) identify and mobilize human and institutional resources, and (iv) bring diverse and interested parties together in a common forum to discuss the threat.

Lawfare’s central issues:

    * What legal limits should be placed on those who fight the war against terrorism and what rights should be granted to the terrorists we are fighting?
    *What role, if any, does international law play in the determination of a sovereign state’s ability to act within and without its territory?
    *Where does the power of a state end and the power of an international court or tribunal begin?
    *What consists of incitement to immediate violence and what is legitimate criticism of religion? Should hate speech be outlawed?
    *When an international tribunal displays political or other bias in its deliberations, is the state’s sovereign control abrogated?
    *Does the Universal Jurisdiction trend go against our national security interests? If Universal Jurisdiction is a concept that should be retained, what limits should be applied?
    *From where do courts in Spain and the Netherlands derive the authority to unilaterally grant themselves universal jurisdiction and the power to adjudicate over other nation-states?
    *To what extent must classified material be released to protect the rights of terrorists that allege torture? Where should terrorists and unlawful combatants be tried and imprisoned and under what law? Must the “underwear bomber” be read his Miranda rights?
    *Should a United Nations voting bloc comprised largely of undemocratic member states dictate international human rights norms?
    *What is the source of the bias evident in many human rights reports and in certain tribunals?

Case examples of Lawfare:

    *Al Qaeda manuals that instruct captured militants to file claims of torture in order to reposition themselves as victims in the eyes of the law and media.
    *Attempts by terrorist entities such as Hamas to impede the free movement of democratic state officials and achieve legitimacy by hiring lawyers and instituting “human rights” litigation abroad.
    *Efforts at the United Nations to exclude attacks on civilians from any international definition of the crime of terrorism, so long as the civilians are citizens of what is termed an “occupying power.”
    *Predatory defamation and “hate speech” lawsuits filed against anyone who speaks publicly about radical Islam, terrorism and its sources of financing.
    *Unilateral determinations of local/national courts to exert universal jurisdiction over heads of states, charging war crimes, including efforts to charge Israeli and US government officials with war crimes in the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Spain.
    *The International Court of Justice’s ruling on the legality of Israel’s security barrier, which pointedly ignored the fact that the barrier contributed to a sharp decline in terrorism attacks, and when it was unclear whether the court had jurisdiction to consider the issue in the first place.
    *The lack of legal accountability demanded of theocratic states that recruit their own children as suicide bombers and child soldiers.
    * The resurgence of international and national blasphemy laws (at the United Nations and in Europe.)

Check it out.

“Everybody Draws Mohammed Day”

I don’t have the artistic ability to offer an original contribution to “Everybody Draws Mohammed Day“, but out of solidarity let me…

…display this…

…and link to the historical images at the Mohammed Image Archive.