This morning as always I was watching the news and I heard the news about the two terrorists that almost blew up a federal court house and a sky-scraper in Houston, Texas. One came into America When he was fourteen and recently went back for an Al Quada training camp in Afghanistan and returned and made bombs out of things he bought from a beauty store! The other was an illegal immigrent from Iran. God Bless the men and women who found these two and stopped them before billions of HEARTS were broken.
Your Friend,
Erin
September 11, 2009
By Padmini Arhant
Please standby for the tribute to the brave citizens, the victims of the catastrophic event that changed the world economy and international security. Also remembering the fire fighters and humanitarian workers, the real heroes selflessly offered their life during the rescue operations on the mournful date.
Presented @http://www.padminiarhant.com
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
I've found it interesting that the rhetoric is always around finding/killing ObL and by extension defeating a-Q. I believe this is what people want to hear because revenge makes them feel good, but I seriously hope that it is not the real strategy/tactic being relied on to "defeat" a-Q. Here's what my concern is based on: a-Q is not a centralized organization. So taking out the symbolic leader will not defeat it. I won't make this blog long but recommend a scan of the book, "The Starfish and the Spider" (http://www.starfishandspider.com/) and review of the article, "Evolution of the al-Qaeda brand name" (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FH13Ak05.html). I personally don't believe we can defeat a-Q with a 20th century approach and view of command and control.
I hope and pray that the 'real' strategy and tactics to defeat a-Q is based on the understanding of its actual organization structure and a clear understanding of the root causes driving its ideology.
There has been lots of loose talk, over the last six years, about "October surprises" involving the capture or killing of bin Laden. "Oh, if the Republicans kill him, then [fill in candidate] will win." In 2002, it was the Republicans in the mid-term. Dems managed to keep a majority in the Senate, and couldn't have done much in the house anyway. In 2004, the "surprise" was attributed to a Halloween message from al Qaeda -- but most of us pretty much knew that Kerry was cooked anyway.
I submit that this year, if Bush manages to kill the guy (and he might already be dead anyway) it won't hurt Obama -- and might hurt McCain. John McCain has pledged to "follow bin Laden to the gates of hell." But how does he do that if bin Laden doesn't exist anymore? And to top it off, if Bush were to be so bold and irresponsible as to state that it was "John's idea" on how to kill Laden, then Bush wouldn't be able to enjoy the "legacy" that he is hoping to leave behind. In other words: THAT won't happen.
Obama has consistently stated that he would do what it takes to kill bin Laden if he has actionable intelligence to do so. But even so, the public seems to believe that McCain has an edge on fighting terror. Well -- if we remove the #1 enemy to America -- before McCain has the chance to do it himself -- then HOW does that help him, and not Obama?
Just think about it. I'm sure that I'm missing something -- but I don't know WHAT I'm missing.
The Towers, the Pentagon, the White House – Distractions – Who’s the real Terrorist? McVeigh? Bin Laden?
Let’s get serious people.
Palin said last week in the Vice Presidential Debate that she doesn’t want us to “point backwards”.
I think it behooves us to look backward and learn something.
Everyone remembers what happened on 9/11/01 right? Things got really serious on 9/11. And when things got serious, we tossed aside party affiliations, racial prejudices, regional biases, everything was set aside and for a rare moment, we exemplified the American Spirit that day. After a devastation of epic proportion on American soil, we were as one heart, stunned and appalled at the audacity, the brazen manner in which we were attacked. Let me tell you, seven years later we’re still missing the whole point.
We were goaded into doing it to ourselves.
When a sitting United States Senator running for President of the United States and his Vice Presidential candidate have the audacity to accuse another sitting United States Senator running for President of the United States of “palling around with terrorists”, tacitly implying that he too may be a terrorist or at the very least, a terrorist sympathizer, we have lost it.
Now let’s examine this charge. If Sen. John McCain truly believes that Sen. Barack Obama is a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer, why hasn’t he told the authorities? Does he have evidence to back up these allegations? Why won’t Sen. McCain draw the connection for us? I mean, he’s served with the man in the United States Senate for four years. Why are we just now hearing about this? Why didn’t he say this to Sen. Obama’s face in the debate on Tuesday night?
Rebel-rousing a partisan crowd of voters into a rabid blood-thirsty cacophony of angry ranting serves what purpose Senator, Governor?
Seven years have passed since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The most powerful nation on earth has not been able to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, a man who lives in a cave, who travels on foot, or by camel, donkey or pickup truck, and whose most powerful weapon is his ideology. Seven years have passed, and bin Laden continues to spread his poisonous philosophy and teach his murderous techniques to more young recruits.
Say you had to be screwed by one of these people? Which would you rather?
Tony RezkoCharles KeatingScooter LibbyJack Abramoff
or maybe... Thomas Noe
Andrew Fastow
Bernard Ebbers
Phillip Bloom
David Safavian
On May 16, 2008, Arrigo sent extensive government corruption and cover-up information to Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee - in 12 separate cases. This article covers four of them or about one-third of what Congress got. The 12 are explosive and revealing but just the tip of the iceberg:
-- of government corruption and war profiteering; -- sweetheart deals and kickbacks; -- high-level types on the take; -- trillions of missing dollars; -- on September 10, 2001, Rumsfeld admitting "According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions;" -- imagine the current amount; -- its corrosive effect on the nation; and people should -- demand accountability - who profits, who pays and what are the consequences of militarism gone mad.
Or by George W. Bush himself?
Senator Obama has called for a surge in Afghanistan. He hasn't said how long it would last. He hasn't clearly defined the goal of that surge. He said that it had to do with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. In my opinion, we need entirely different responses to each. We need a primarily diplomatic approach with the Taliban, who did not attack us. We need a international police response to bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Notice that neither is a military approach.
And in the meantime everyone should remember how hard it is to avoid civilian casualties in any military effort in Afghanistan. Further, refugees are another unintended and rarely discussed aspect of this conflict . . . much like in Iraq. See the article below for more information on this aspect.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/03/10774/
I haven't done my research on this issue, but I'm just using info off the top of my head to arrive at a common sense conclusion:
Isn't Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden a enemy of both the United States and Iran?
Al-Qaeda is mostly made up on Sunnis. Even though Saddam Hussein was a Sunni and Sunnis were in power when Saddam was the President of Iraq, Osama Bin Laden publicly stated he did not like Saddam because of his secular policies. Iraq is now Shiite led and they are forming a strong alliance with Iran. Iran is a majority Shiite nation with a Shiite government. They supported the Iraq Shiite government in its systematic ethnic cleansing of Sunnis and Al-Qaeda. Though the Ayatollah still has immense power, the youth of Iran are not diehard Muslim extremists which flies in the face of Al-Qaeda.
I don't believe for a second that Osama Bin Laden would try to attack or provoke the Iranians. Yet they are far from friends being that the Iranians supplied the Shiite Iraqis with weapons to defend against them.
Being that we have a common enemy, isn't that reason alone for the United States government to talk directly with the Iranian government to work towards a peaceful resolution to all of our issues?
Link to article: http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080717/OPINION03/807170301/-1/BACKISSUES&template=printart
July 17, 2008
Obama win would be bad for bin LadenModerate Muslims seek to undermine militant arguments, strategiesBy Aguswandi
The world is excited that Barack Obama might become the next president of the United States.
This is especially so in the Islamic world. Muslims from the Middle East to Indonesia have been following the Obama primary contest closely. For Islamic hardliner conservatives, Obama would be bad news.
Why? It's because one of the key arguments of the militants, of Osama bin Laden and of hardliners everywhere goes like this:
The West is oppressing the Muslim world. The West hates Islam and Muslims. Thus, it is necessary to declare jihad on the Judeo-Christian West that will always be the enemy of Islam. It is a world in which the white man sustains an attitude of colonial arrogance toward the rest of the world.
Now, the majority of Muslims do not share this rhetoric. The majority of Muslims, in fact, perceive the extremists as the "bad guys" who have destroyed the image of Islam as a peaceful religion. But the "bad guys," unfortunately, have gained some degree of support by using anti-Western rhetoric. They cite what many see as the hypocrisy of the West and on top of that they will quote the Quran out of context to prove their argument.
There is a struggle within Islam. Muslims throughout the world are contesting the "bad guys" and their ideas. This struggle between moderate and hardliner Muslims is a battle of ideas within the Muslim world.
Moderate Muslims celebrate Western democracy and the Enlightenment as not exclusive to the West. They see it as the path for the rest of the world as well. Muslims have always been a multicultural community. To this day they celebrate multiculturalism and look positively at the fact that they are living side by side with different races and religions. This civil Islam continues to be undermined by the arguments and actions of the militants.
One obstacle facing moderate Muslims fighting the extremists continues to be the behavior of the Western world, especially the U.S., vis-a-vis Muslim countries.
While moderate Muslims are trying to say that the West is not neo-colonialist, there is the war in Iraq. While moderate Muslims are arguing that the West is not a Judeo-Christian world facing up against Islam, there is endless uncritical support of Israel. While moderate Muslims argue for democracy as the path for every society, there is hypocritical Western support for corrupt, despotic and cruel regimes in the Muslim world.
These issues have made it difficult for Muslim moderates to defeat the rhetoric of hardliners.
And this is where Obama may be good for the moderate Muslim world if he is elected president.
Should he be able to deal with issues affecting the Muslim world with a fresh approach, many moderate Muslims feel it will be much more difficult for extremists to use Islamic fundamentalist rhetoric against the West, particularly the United States.
Imagine Obama on the world stage as the president of the United States: A black man, with a Kenyan father and a white American mother. Someone who spent part of his childhood in the most populous Muslim country in the world — Indonesia — and he even has a Muslim stepfather. This is not the sort of person the Islamic militants would like to see as the president of the U.S.
Even before he became the presumptive Democratic nominee, Sen. Obama helped Muslim moderates undermine the arguments of militants and extremists. His skin color and background alone undermines the hate-generating strategy of the militants. Obama has helped repair America's image in the world.
If he is elected, Obama's background of standing up against the Iraq war, his promise to gradually pull out from Iraq and his willingness to try to solve the Palestine issue will build a different relationship between America and the rest of the world. It will give hope not only to the American people, but also to Muslims and the rest of the world.
This is the key reason why Obama is seen as good for the Muslim world, and why Muslims get so excited about him.
Should (Obama) be able to deal with issues affecting the Muslim world with a fresh approach, many moderate Muslims feel it will be much more difficult for extremists to use Islamic fundamentalist rhetoric against the West.
Aguswandi is an Indonesian political analyst and recent visitor to the East-West Center. He can be reached at aguswandi@gmail.com. He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.
There has been some pressure on Arab- and Muslim-American groups to respond to the recent cover of The New Yorker, which satirizes the bigotry and fear-mongering at the heart of anti-Obama media campaigns that seek to “smear” the candidate by implying that he is Muslim. The cover depicts presidential hopefuls Barack and Michelle Obama in the oval office. Barack, dressed in traditional Muslim religious clothing while Michelle sports a 60’s afro alá Angela Davis, fatigues, combat boots, and a machine gun slung Rambo-style over her back. A portrait of Osama Bin Laden holds a place of honor over the mantel while the Stars and Stripes crackle in the fire place.
Do we understand that this cover was intended as a satirical commentary on vicious racially and religiously motivated hate campaigns intended to frighten white America away from a minority candidate? Yes, we do. Do we believe that regardless of the artists’ intentions there is some concern that the imagery could overpower the commentary and reinforce the fears and prejudices it was meant to critique? Yes, we do. But can we look past the noise about whether or not The New Yorker cover is offensive, a red-herring issue with fairly predictable responses on all sides, to deeper questions such as “Why is the label, ‘Muslim,’ such a powerful and popular a weapon against Obama” and “What should the Obama camp be doing, rather than denouncing a magazine cover?” Yes, we can.
(The opinions expressed here are the sole opinion of the writer and do not necessarily express the opinion of the Broncos for Barack group)
Well, I'll say it...the New Yorker was Right! I don't like it, but it does bring things out in the open. Now I know, it's easy for me to say. If my wife was portrayed in an unflattering way and I had to explain it to my children. I could imagine the pain it would cause me. Unfortunately, if you listen to talk radio, people actually believe this stuff! I LOVE talk radio because you can't see faces, so people are anonymous. Anonymity brings true feelings. There are clearly many people that think this way, too. I think it makes them look pretty stupid to just latch on to every stereotype they hear. The reality is they are just insecure themselves. Many insecurity issues stem from a lack of esteem in one's own accomplishments, relationships, sense of personal power to better their own lives, families, etc. People like that respond primarily to their current emotional state. Let’s not do the same. We are a thinking people seeking to understand “Why?” Maybe the New Yorker just wanted to sabotage the campaign. Maybe the New Yorker wants to keep the status quo. Maybe the New Yorker even wanted to earn a buck. More likely the New Yorker, a LIBERAL publication whose primary role is to satirize, not glamorize polarizing events, sought to expose it’s readers to the stereotypes. "Let’s talk about it," is their defense. Even CNN stated that most people's biggest problem wasn't Michelle’s "Gun-toting Angela Davis" depiction, nor the "terrorist fist bump" the militants (lol) used, not even the "Osama Bin Laden" portrait in the oval office...it was the burning of the American Flag! This is exactly what we supporters for change want, people to openly argue how ridiculous these stereotypes are. Mind you, nobody has the gumption to argue FOR the merits of the cover. If they do, I hope they try it with me. We're just lucky they've never seen Obama's eastern looking, turban wearing barber (lol). Even that could be problematic for these kind of people.Yeah, the New Yorker got it right.
I have been stewing the last few days as this whole habeas issue has swirled around. I just don't get why people don't understand that fundamental to our justice system is the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty, beyond a shadow of a doubt. This post captured it nicely -- under our system the punishment, when you are convicted, is proportionate to the crime. You rob a store you go to jail, you kill someone while robbing a store you might get the death penalty. Persons accused of these crimes are both presumed innocent, and entitled to due process throughout all the proceedings. An accused murdered doesn't waive the right against self-incrimination because the crime he is charged with is heinous. You don't get to beat a confession out of one and not the other.
So what happens if Osama Bin-Laden was captured? In the America I was raised in he is put on an airplane, brought to America and put in a cell in Alexandria, VA. He has access to a lawyer, he has a hearing where he pleads guilty or not-guilty, he can review the evidence against him and produce exculpatory evidence in his defense. Presumably if he petitioned for a Writ of Habeas Corpus he would have a hearing and since the government has lots of evidence against him for a variety of crimes, his petition would be denied because his detention while awaiting trial is warranted. His trial would be an international media circus but it would proceed just like any other trial. Again, assuming that the evidence against him is overwhelming and persuasive, he would be found guilty and in all liklihood sentenced to death. He would live out his days in a federal penitentury and at some indeterminate future date when any appeals were exhausted he would be executed for his crimes. We did it to Timothy McVeigh we could do it to Bin-laden.
Take away. . . America's criminal justice system works, we can deal with terrorism and be true our founding principles so maybe not all that much really changed on 9/11. The way I see it dealing with terrorist acts is more like "Law and Order" than "24."
I realize everyone's on an adrenaline high about clinching the nomination, but it's time to relax on the Clinton hate. Yes, she said some pretty stupid things, some of which are going to come back at us in the general, but screaming at the top of our lungs that she needs to concede isn't going to help. It makes us look like sore winners.
