Tag Archives: al-Qaeda

Another prime al-Qaeda target emerges

Welcome to the world of most wanted public enemies, young man.

I refer to the son of Osama bin Laden, a fellow named Hamza bin Laden, a 28-year-old terrorist with visions of walking along his late father’s blood-soaked trail.

The young bin Laden has declared that he wants to rekindle al-Qaeda as a terrorist force, a force for evil.

OK, then. Here’s a thought for Donald Trump’s national security team.

You’ve got a professed killer on the loose with the stated aim of juicing up a bloodthirsty terrorist organization. That means he has declared himself to be an enemy of the United States of America.
What does this mean? It means the young man is fair game. He’s a target for our special ops forces, our CIA spooks and those who might be close to him who could help guide our personnel toward a hit in the manner of the mission that took out Osama bin Laden in May 2011.

The president has a first-rate national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, on the job. His homeland security secretary, John Kelly, also is a competent former Marine general. They have the best military apparatus ever assembled at their disposal; indeed, former Marine Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis has emerged as a serious-minded secretary of defense. They also have the best intelligence-gatherers available to them as well — no matter what the president might think of them.

Let’s get busy and find this guy.

I think they ought to commence — if they haven’t already — a “search and destroy” mission to rid the world of Osama bin Laden’s son.

Good hunting. We’ll await your report.

Is this an anti-Muslim rule … or not?

Donald J. Trump swears up and down, left and right — puts his hand on a stack of Bibles and says “Scout’s honor” for all I know — that his ban against refugees is not an “anti-Muslim” initiative.

The president, though, has delivered to our enemies a prime-time, gold-and-silver-plated recruitment tool.

He calls our enemies “radical Islamic terrorists.” Yes, they are.

They also are experts at distorting people’s intentions, even their very words, twisting them into propaganda fodder.

What the president has done is create a climate for terrorists such as the Islamic State and al-Qaeda to target American Muslims to join their fight against the “infidels.” He also has delivered to a much wider audience the very message that his two immediate predecessors — Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Barack H. Obama — fought like hell to avoid delivering. Presidents Bush and Obama said clearly: We are not at war with Islam! The enemies are the monstrous murderers who have perverted a great religion.

Now we have the potential for the precise opposite message being delivered to those who might be inclined to join a radical militant movement, to take up arms and to join the fight against the rest of the civilized world.

The president of the United States is expected to speak with absolute clarity and precision. When we’re dealing with the complexities of the current world geopolitical climate, any misstep or clumsy language can produce dire consequences.

The president’s refugee ban has roiled members of the president’s own party, created a firestorm within the legal community over its very constitutionality, and it has possibly enraged Muslims around the world — and in the United States — to the point of causing grievous harm.

Get rid of Flynn as national security adviser

flynn

President George W. Bush was quite adamant when we went to war in 2001 against radical Islamic terrorists that we were not going to war against Islam.

President Barack Obama has echoed that mantra ever since.

So, who does the president-elect bring in as national security adviser, the guy who’ll advise him on how to fight groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State? A retired Army three-star general who calls Islam a “cancer” and says Americans’ fear of Islam is “rational.”

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, moreover, apparently has ties with multiple foreign governments.

Flynn is now the target of groups asking Donald J. Trump to rescind Flynn’s appointment as national security adviser. They cite concerns over Flynn’s statements about Islam, Iran and whether his views would jeopardize a hoped-for peaceful settlement of the ongoing dispute between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michael-flynn-trump-appointment-advocacy-groups-232208

I don’t expect the president-elect to heed their call.

Indeed, Flynn is a noted hothead. He’s a brilliant military tactician. He also has the kind of personality that would clash immediately and often with the likes of retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, who is Trump’s pick to be the secretary of defense; I will add that Gen. Mattis is a well-chronicled hothead himself, someone known to speak his mind freely.

The issue, though, is Flynn and whether he’s a good fit to become national security adviser.

The advocacy groups asking Trump to rethink his appointment believe he is a terrible fit.

I happen to agree.

The national security adviser is a staff position and, thus, is not subject to Senate confirmation. Gen. Flynn’s status rests solely with the president he would serve.

Get rid of him, Mr. President-elect.

New president might face huge intraparty hurdle

mcconnel-and-trump

Donald Trump has good reason to smile.

He won the presidency over someone thought to be the prohibitive favorite. He is now selecting members of his team … to mixed reviews to be sure. Hey, what difference does it make? He won the election.

Now comes the sternest of tests for the new president. He has to govern alongside the very members of Congress he disparaged whenever he could; he demonized them; he called them names, such as “loser.”

I’m not talking about Democrats, mind you. I’m talking about Republicans who control both congressional chambers.

They’re grinning these days, too. I’m not sure whether they’re happy to be working with a fellow Republican (In Name Only) or whether they’re anticipating being able to stick it to the guy who called them all those nasty names.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/republican-party-obstructionism-victory-trump-214498

The Politico story attached to this post talks about how the Republicans’ strategy of “no” worked so well against President Obama. It also reminds us of how that strategy enabled them to win back the House of Representatives in 2010, the Senate in 2014 and now the White House in 2016.

Who do they get as president? The guy from within Republican ranks who ran against them!

All this sets up an interesting dichotomy for Republicans, many of whom are those “establishment” types who don’t trust Trump as being truly one of them.

It’s a given, of course, that Democrats who detest Trump are going to do all they can to stop anything the new president wants to do — much like Republicans sought to do when Barack Obama arrived in the Oval Office. The Politico article reminds us that the president got his $800 billion economic stimulus package approved in 2009 with virtually zero GOP support.

How is Trump going to cope with those Republicans who will resist him on, say, his enormous proposed infrastructure project? They keep telling us the Treasury doesn’t have the money.

I guess Trump could remind them that they didn’t have the money to go to war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in 2001, but they did — while approving tax cuts proposed by President Bush. My guess is that GOP leaders in the House and Senate wouldn’t like to hear such a thing coming from one of their own.

We talked during the length of the election campaign that we were entering a new era. This would be the most unconventional election in history. That presumed a Hillary Clinton victory, for crying out loud.

The other person won. Let’s get ready for the most unconventional governance in U.S. history.

My often-trusty trick knee tells me the Republicans who run Capitol Hill might try to wipe the smile off Donald Trump’s face.

Say it again, Trump: ISIS is ‘winning’ … seriously?

adnani

Abu Muhammad al-Adnani is dead — reportedly.

Who is this guy, Adnani? Oh, he’s the No. 2 man in the Islamic State hierarchy. He’s one of the founders of ISIS. He’s believed to be the mastermind behind the recent terrorist attack in Paris.

Adnani apparently bought it in Aleppo, Syria, according to ISIS’s media arm.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/world/middleeast/al-adnani-islamic-state-isis-syria.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

This is a big deal, man. A real big deal, in fact.

It’s not clear yet how Adnani was killed. Was it an air strike by a manned jet fighter with an American or allied pilot at the stick? Was it by a drone strike?

Does this mean the end of the Islamic State? No.

However, it suggests — presuming Adnani’s death can be confirmed — that ISIS is in serious trouble.

Why mention this today? Well, we keep hearing from Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, that ISIS is “winning,” that U.S. forces can’t defeat this Islamic terrorist organization because the commander in chief, Barack Obama, refuses to link the terror organization to the religion it purports to represent.

Let’s review for a brief moment.

Osama bin Laden is dead; drone strikes have taken out al-Qaeda and ISIS leaders throughout the Middle East; our special operations forces — Navy SEALs, Army Delta Force commandos and CIA operatives — are on the hunt constantly for the terrorist monsters.

We’re killing bad guys almost daily.

When we take out leaders of the Islamic State brain trust — such as Abu Muhammad al-Adnani — that’s a really big deal.

The fight will go on. Can we declare victory yet? Of course not. It is my sense, though, that we’re a lot closer to that moment than we were on 9/11.

Newt calls for Muslim ‘test’

newt

Newt Gingrich must be making a last-ditch pitch to become Donald J. Trump’s running mate.

Or … he’s feeling frisky now that he appears to be out of the running to join the Republican presidential ticket led by the presumptive nominee.

Whatever the case, the former U.S. House speaker has gone ballistic — and flown off the rails — in the wake of the terrible attack yesterday in Nice, France, in which someone plowed his truck through crowds of people in an apparent terrorist attack.

Eighty-four people are dead. Yes, it is a horrible, despicable act. The group responsible for it must be punished with extreme prejudice.

What is Newt’s response? He wants to apply a “test” to every single Muslim living in the United States of America. If they pass the test, they’re welcome to stay. If they fail, out they go. Deported. Sent to their country of origin.

The basis for Newt’s test is whether these Muslims believe in Sharia law, which he said is “incompatible” with western civilization. Oh, and he wants to “monitor” mosques to see if they’re being used to recruit jihadists.

Holy moly, Mr. Speaker.

My third thought about Newt’s post-Nice rant is that he’s trying to show off his own anti-Muslim credentials to Trump.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gingrich-calls-for-muslim-test-says-trump-veep-is-probably-pence/ar-BBumw4I?li=BBnb7Kz

A few questions come to mind.

One concerns the logistics involved. How do we identify every single Muslim currently in this country? How do we pay for this endeavor? How does the country enlist enough security agents to fan out across more than 3.6 million square miles of American real estate to search for these individuals?

How do we devise this test? How do we establish whether its results prove beyond a doubt that someone is a Sharia-believer?

Has the ex-speaker decided that U.S. citizens who also are Muslim also should be tested in this manner? If so, well, then we have another fairly significant issue to ponder: the U.S. Constitution. That silly ol’ First Amendment says something about religious freedom and guarantees every American the right to worship as they please without government interference.

Moreover, I recall President Bush saying right after the 9/11 attacks that we weren’t going to war against Islam, which his successor, President Obama, has reiterated. Our enemies are the radical Islamists who have perverted a religious faith for political gain.

Of course Americans ought to be outraged over what has happened in Nice. Someone said last night that this attack that occurred while France was celebrating Bastille Day appears to be the costliest attack in terms of lives lost ever committed by a single terrorist. French police shot the driver of the truck to death and then apparently discovered his vehicle contained other munitions, suggesting he was operating as part of an organization.

Is it the Islamic State? Or al-Qaeda? Or some other group?

French intelligence officials are pretty good at rooting out bad guys. And they’ll have plenty of help from U.S., British, German, Israeli and other international law enforcement agencies as they seek to combat this latest attack.

As for Newt Gingrich’s proposal to go after every living Muslim in the U.S. of A., let’s not allow fear and panic to overtake us.

Terrorist tragedy hits France yet again

BBulElR

France and its heroic citizens are grieving yet again.

This time the terrorist — or terrorists — employed a new and ghastly method of delivering death and destruction.

It came tonight in the form of a truck that plowed into a crowd of revelers celebrating Bastille Day, which is France’s independence day.

As I am writing this brief blog post, the death count stands at 80. Officials, though, think that number will increase.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/truck-attacker-kills-up-to-80-in-nice-bastille-day-crowd/ar-BBulpVJ?li=BBnb7Kz

The world is shocked and in grief over the tragedy that struck in Nice.

World leaders are issuing the appropriate expressions of condemnation.

What now?

It’s not yet clear whether the driver of the truck was from the Islamic State or al-Qaeda. Officials can’t ask him, because French police opened fire on the vehicle and killed the driver in the hail of bullets.

My sense is that we’ll know pretty damn soon just who this guy was and for which organization he was working — if it turns out he was a terrorist agent.

U.S. officials earlier today confirmed that Omar the Chechen indeed was killed this past spring in a U.S.-led attack on ISIS forces in Iraq. No one, quite naturally, believes Omar the Chechen’s death spells the end of ISIS, given that he was a top-tier commander of the terrorist organization.

This is the kind of “war” the world is fighting against these radical Islamist monsters. They attack so-called “soft targets,” causing uncontrollable fear among their victims. Is it at all possible to detect every single attack before it occurs?

As we’ve learned to our horror once again, the world is fighting a cunning and ruthless enemy.

What’s more, the world has received yet another stern lesson on the need to hit the terrorists hard — and keep hitting them hard for as long as it takes.

Trump gives love to … Saddam Hussein!

trump

Let’s see if this is correct.

Donald J. Trump says in one breath that Saddam Hussein was a “bad guy, OK?” and then heaps praise on the one-time tyrant because he killed terrorists without reading them their rights.

The Republican presidential candidate thinks the world would be better off if Saddam and Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi were still in power.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-gives-saddam-hussein-a-shout-out/ar-AAi914h?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Gadhafi was pretty tough on his enemies, too, so I reckon he’d be getting some love from the Trumpenator if the moment presented itself.

Saddam Hussein brought zero redeeming quality to the world’s geopolitical situation. Do I agree with the decision to invade his country in 2003 on a phony pretext that he possessed weapons of mass destruction? No. But there can be nothing worth praising about the guy.

As for whether we’re tough enough in our war against international terror, I believe we’ve been quite ruthless in the hunt for Islamic State, al-Qaeda and other terrorists lurking in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Osama bin Laden’s corpse was dumped into the ocean after our commandos took him out. We’ve been launching drone strikes and manned air strikes daily against terrorists since we went to war with them after the 9/11 attacks.

Trump, though, is blathering utter nonsense if he thinks Saddam Hussein presented the model for fighting terrorists.

No ‘eye for an eye’ exchange here

mullah

I got scolded the other day for a blog I posted commenting on the drone strike that killed Taliban leader Mullah Mansour.

The fellow who scolded me said the U.S. air strike against the terrorist leader gives cause to continue the fighting.

Someone has to stop it, the individual seemed to imply. Thus, the implied question was: Why not us?

Many of those who read High Plains Blogger — and I am grateful beyond measure for those who do — likely think of me as a squishy liberal, a softy who wants to talk everything through.

When it comes to our war against international terror, I take a back seat to no one in the continuing prosecution of that effort. No, I don’t want us to send combat troops back onto the battlefield. I fully support the air strikes we’ve been launching against the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

My critic wondered whether we were engaging in an “eye-for-an-eye” type of response.

My view simply is this: The terrorists are targeting innocent victims, mostly fellow Muslims; we are killing the killers.

I see zero compatibility between what the terrorists are doing and what we are doing in response.

Keep the aircraft armed and on the hunt for the bad guys. We’ve got a lot more of them to kill.

 

Was it a terror attack … or something else?

egypt air

I’m puzzled.

Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting Donald J. Trump bellowed that he is absolutely certain it was a terrorist attack.

Democratic nominee-to-be Hillary Rodham Clinton said in more restrained tones that it appears to be an act of terror.

Greek aviation officials said mechanical failure likely wasn’t the cause.

FBI director James Comey has dispatched the finest investigators in the world to the scene of the tragedy.

Everyone seems to think the downing of EgyptAir 804 was the act of the Islamic State, or al-Qaeda, or some other nefarious, evil group.

Where, though, are the claims of responsibility?

History tells us that ISIS is quick to take “credit” for these evil acts. Al-Qaeda is a little slower to do so, but not this slow.

Indeed, terrorist groups want the world to know they have succeeded in committing these terrible deeds. In the case of this tragedy, 66 people have died. The jetliner was en route from Paris to Cairo when it veered 90 degrees and then spun in a circle before apparently plummeting into the Mediterranean Sea near the Greek island of Karpathos.

So, the question must be asked: Was it an act of terror?

The latest news is that sensors reportedly detected smoke inside the plane moments before it plunged into the sea.

Was it mechanical or electrical failure after all?

Let’s turn for just a moment to the politics of it all.

Perhaps you heard Trump say immediately that terrorists did this, that anything less than an all-out retaliatory strike against ISIS would be a sign of weakness.

Clinton didn’t want to be left on the sidelines, as she, too, sought to lay blame, although not with the bellicosity that Trump exhibited.

There remains a good chance that search teams will find the flight data recorders on the sea bottom. Absent any declaration of responsibility from terrorists, it would be wise in the extreme to see what’s contained in those recorders.