Tag Archives: al-Qaeda

As if it could get any crazier in the Middle East

May 16, 2016 kanelis2012

So … you might be asking: How complicated can it get in the Middle East?

Here’s a thought: Al-Qaeda could become something of an “ally” of ours if the terror organization decides to train its guns on another terror organization.

You remember those guys, right? They flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and launched the current Global War on Terror. We hunted down Osama bin Laden and killed his sorry backside in Pakistan. We’ve been fighting al-Qaeda ever since.

Now we have the Islamic State to contend with. We’ve been taking those monstrous terrorists as well.

Now comes word that al-Qaeda might decide to go after the Islamic State in Syria.

Which of these terror cabals poses the greatest threat to the United States and our allies? Do we take sides?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/al-qaeda-turns-to-syria-with-a-plan-to-challenge-isis/ar-BBt5p8n?li=BBnbcA1

Here’s a thought. Maybe we ought to just let al-Qaeda do what reports indicate it intends to do. The Shiite terror group might have determined that ISIL — the Sunni monsters — pose a grave threat to them.

The report attached to this blog post suggests al-Qaeda might seek to “compete” with ISIL for supremacy in the dark world of Middle East terrorists. What about, oh, Hezbollah and Hamas? Why not “compete” against them as well?

Of course we’re not going to take sides. Nor should we.

My own hope is that “compete” actually means to “fight,” which means one terror group is going to kill members of the other terror group.

If that’s what transpires, then let ’em fight.

International news, military news, national news

Listen to this man’s sensible argument on fighting terror

May 13, 2016 kanelis2012

David Petraeus is a retired U.S. Army general — the four-star variety. He served in combat and commanded troops in the fight against international terrorists.

He served for a time as the nation’s spook in chief, aka the director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

He’s written a compelling essay for the Washington Post in which he argues forcefully against those — that would include you, Donald J. Trump — who propose to ban visitors to this country based solely on their religion.

Here’s the crux of what Gen. Petraeus is trying to convey:

“I have grown increasingly concerned about inflammatory political discourse that has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam, including proposals from various quarters for blanket discrimination against people on the basis of their religion.

“Some justify these measures as necessary to keep us safe — dismissing any criticism as ‘political correctness.’ Others play down such divisive rhetoric as the excesses of political campaigns here and in Europe, which will fade away after the elections are over…

“As policy, these concepts are totally counterproductive: Rather than making our country safer, they will compound the already grave terrorist danger to our citizens. As ideas, they are toxic and, indeed, non-biodegradable — a kind of poison that, once released into our body politic, is not easily expunged.

“Setting aside moral considerations, those who flirt with hate speech against Muslims should realize they are playing directly into the hands of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. The terrorists’ explicit hope has been to try to provoke a clash of civilizations — telling Muslims that the United States is at war with them and their religion. When Western politicians propose blanket discrimination against Islam, they bolster the terrorists’ propaganda.”

Take a look at the complete essay:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-petraeus-anti-muslim-bigotry-aids-islamist-terrorists/2016/05/12/5ab50740-16aa-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

How about returning sanity — and intelligence — to this issue of protecting ourselves against those who seek to do us harm?

International news, military news, national news, political news

Let’s get real, Sen. Cruz … patrol Muslim neighborhoods?

March 22, 2016 kanelis2012 2 Comments

Ted Cruz is reacting just like a politician seeking any advantage he can find.

The Texas Republican U.S. senator and a leading candidate for president, responding to the terrorist attacks that killed dozens of people in Brussels, Belgium, has called for law enforcement to “patrol Muslim neighborhoods” in the United States.

He believes “political correctness” and “fear” are preventing U.S. officials from doing enough to prevent terror attacks in this country. It’s time to “utterly destroy” the Islamic State and other terror cells.

No argument on the destruction of ISIS, senator.

But tell us, please: How are we going to define “Muslim neighborhoods”? Are there such enclaves in major American cities? Houston, which it Cruz’s hometown, has the largest Muslim population of any city in Texas. Where are those Muslim neighborhoods?

How about we concentrate fully on another course?

Let’s instead redouble our intelligence and military efforts to destroy ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram and other terror cells abroad. Hasn’t the federal government already declared its intention to “destroy” these murderous cults? Hasn’t the president vowed to protect Americans? Aren’t we killing bad guys each day with air strikes, using manned and unmanned aircraft?

And aren’t we intercepting efforts to bring terror to this country?

We should vow to stand with our allies who are grieving at this moment over the senseless and brutal loss of life in Belgium, just as we have done for allies in Paris and in all places where the terrorists have struck.

Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, denounced Cruz’s statement.

“It’s really beyond belief that you have one of the leading presidential candidates calling for law enforcement to target religious communities totally based on the fact that they are of a particular faith,” Hooper told the Washington Post. “In normal times, this would be the sort of thing that would disqualify someone from running for dogcatcher, much less president of the United States.”

Well, Mr. Hooper, here’s a flash. These aren’t “normal times.” We have this presidential campaign going on in the midst of a fearful climate — and candidates for the highest office in the land are likely to say just about anything to get their names in front of the public.

There’s a lot of fear being spread — not just by the terrorists, but also by politicians who think they stand to benefit from it.

International news, military news

Now you tell us, general …

December 4, 2015 kanelis2012

Michael Flynn didn’t disclose much that many Americans already didn’t believe or even know.

The retired Army lieutenant general — who once headed the Defense Intelligence Agency — told a German newspaper that the Iraq War was a big mistake and that the Bush administration started it on “sketchy evidence” that Iraq had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.

Who knew?

History, Gen. Flynn said, won’t be kind as the Iraq War legacy is written over time.

Gosh. Do you think?

I guess my question for the general might be: Why didn’t you tell us before now?

Flynn told Der Spiegel, “When 9/11 occurred, all the emotions took over, and our response was, ‘Where did those bastards come from? Let’s go kill them. Let’s go get them.'”

I don’t think the emotional part of the response should be criticized. We were angry as hell at what happened. that day.

But to assign complicity for the 9/11 attack almost immediately to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein after going after the Taliban and al-Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan is where the policy came apart rapidly.

Flynn believes that eliminating Saddam Hussein helped strengthen and embolden the Islamic State, the Sunni terrorist organization that has risen to become a fearsome force in the Middle East. He lays responsibility for that squarely on the Bush administration.

Flynn, though, doesn’t spare Barack Obama from blame in this conflict. According to the Huffington Post: “In a recent interview with Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera’s ‘Head to Head,’ Flynn took aim at Obama’s publicly stated goals to ‘degrade and ultimately destroy’ the Islamic State, saying that while the administration is effectively degrading the organization, the group cannot be ‘destroyed,'”

He added: “We may cause it to change its name, but we are never going to destroy this organization,” Flynn said. “Destroy means to completely eliminate — he should not have used those words, those were incorrect words to use and he should have been more precise.”

So … the debate goes on.

International news, military news

Time for a strategy change against ISIL, Mr. President

November 22, 2015 kanelis2012

Michael Vickers knows a lot about terrorists and how to fight them.

He’s written an essay for Politico that lays out an interesting argument directed straight at President Barack Obama.

The thrust of his message? Change your strategy in this fight against the Islamic State and the Levant, Mr. President.

It’s interesting to me what Vickers doesn’t say. He doesn’t insist that we send in thousands of ground troops to resume our war in the region. Instead he says it’s time to focus our immense air power on Syria, where he said ISIL’s strength has gone global. The Iraq-based enemy, Vickers asserts, is more of a “local” threat. The Syrian element is much more dangerous and invasive, he writes.

Vickers worked as a Special Operations and CIA officer. He helped draft strategies for fighting the Red Army when it invaded Afghanistan in 1980. He also assisted in planning the SEAL/CIA mission that killed Osama bin Laden.

The man’s got anti-terrorism chops.

Perhaps the most provocative and dramatic element of his strategy is this: “Airstrikes are not enough, however. We must leverage the moderate Syrian opposition—and they do exist in the tens of thousands—to dislodge ISIL and Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra, from their territory. As we did in Afghanistan, we must support the moderate opposition with overwhelming air power, substantially increase the flow of arms to the moderate opposition, and place special operations and intelligence advisers with them. With American assistance, a much smaller insurgent force defeated the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. With our many Sunni partners, we can do the same in Syria.”

According to Vickers, we need to work shoulder-to-shoulder with the moderate Syrians who are fighting Bashar al-Assad and the Islamic State.

President Obama’s strategy, according to critics in both parties at home, has become too timid. Yes, we’re scoring victories here and there. We’ve managed to wipe out known terror leaders and high-profile assassins, such as Mohammad Emwazi, aka Jihadi John.

But we’ve got some help standing by, ready to assist in this aerial campaign. Russia has gotten damn angry over the bombing of that jetliner that killed 224 people; France has unleashed its significant air power in response to the recent attack in Paris.

As Vickers has said, the time has come to ratchet up the attacks not only in Syria but also in states where ISIL is known to be operating.

Listen to this man, Mr. President.

International news, local news

Standing tall with France

November 16, 2015 kanelis2012

It’s only a symbol of solidarity, but given its location and the occasional animosity that flares up around these parts toward the people of a certain country, it’s worth a notation here.

The picture is a bit blurry, but it showed up on social media overnight. The 85-year-old Santa Fe Building — which houses several Potter County offices — arguably is one of the more iconic structures in downtown Amarillo. Its top floors have been lit up in the colors of the French flag.

The statement of solidarity with our French allies in the wake of the Paris terrorist massacre is not unlike what’s been done in communities across the United States. The Islamic State has taken responsibility for the attacks that killed 129 people and injured hundreds more. It was the worst attack of terror in France since World War II.

We feel their pain, as they have felt ours.

President Obama noted in the immediate aftermath of the terror attacks that France is America’s “oldest ally.” The French stood with us as we fought to gain liberation from Great Britain during our American Revolution.

And yet …

Some of us here have ridiculed France, particularly since 9/11, when certain political elements in that country opposed our going to war in Afghanistan in response to al-Qaeda’s brutal attack on this country.

Do you remember “freedom fries”? How about the continual references to France needing the Allies’ military muscle to defeat the Nazi occupiers during World War II? The French became the butt of jokes.

Today, though, we stand with France. Even here, in this part of the United States, where those anti-French feeling ran deeply.

I’ll assume for a moment that Potter County Judge Nancy Tanner made the decision to color the top of the Santa Fe Building to honor France’s struggle to recover from the monstrous act of terror.

Thank you, judge, for showing your true colors.

International news

Is this what world war looks like?

November 14, 2015 kanelis2012

Paris has been hit. Again.

Terrorists went on the attack in a concert hall. Dozens of victims were killed. French police then stormed the hall, rescued some hostages and killed two attackers.

World leaders around the globe have issued statements of condemnation. President Obama called the tragedy today an “attack on all of humanity.”

Is this what world war looks like? Have we been fighting this international war against terrorism around the globe to such a degree that someone can declare this to be the start of World War III?

Paris was hit a couple of years ago at a magazine publishing office. Twelve victims died in that act of terror. And there have been countless other attacks all around the world.

The 9/11 attacks in 2001 in New York and Washington seemed to ignite the inferno. There have been so many others they are impossible off the top of one’s head to count them.

We knew when President Bush sent the troops into Afghanistan to hunt down al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists that this war wouldn’t be won with a surrender document. There wouldn’t be a Battleship Missouri Moment. This looks for all the world like a war without end.

Paris is suffering yet again.

Our hearts go out to the French, its leaders and its people.

Will there be more heartache somewhere else? Most assuredly. Yet the fight must go on wherever we find monsters willing to commit gruesome acts of terror against innocent victims.

For as long as it takes.

Intgernational news, national news, political news

Bush seeks to dodge 9/11 responsibility

October 19, 2015 kanelis2012

CNN’s Jake Tapper might have asked the most incisive and insightful question of the 2016 president campaign.

Over the weekend on “State of the Union,” Tapper asked former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush the following question: “Obviously Al Qaeda was responsible for the terrorist attack of 9/11, but how do you respond to critics who ask, if your brother and his administration bear no responsibility at all, how do you then make the jump that President Obama and Secretary Clinton are responsible for what happened at Benghazi?”

Gov. Bush answered this way: “Well I — the question on Benghazi which, is hopefully we’ll now finally get the truth to, is was the place secure? They had a responsibility, the Department of State, to have proper security. There were calls for security, it looks like they didn’t get it. And how was the response in the aftermath of the attack, was there a chance that these four American lives could have been saved? That’s what the investigation is about, it’s not a political issue. It’s not about the broad policy issue, is were we doing the job of protecting our embassies and our consulates and during the period, those hours after the attack started, could they have been saved?”

Did you follow the former governor’s answer? I had trouble getting the connection.

Bush once was thought to be the favorite for the Republican presidential nomination next year. He’s no longer the front runner, based in part on the stumble-bum answers he’s given to questions regarding whether President Bush — Jeb’s big brother — was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Gov. Bush said his brother “kept us safe” during his presidency. Hmmm. The loved ones of the 3,000 or so Americans who died on that terrible day might disagree with that view.

The attack occurred nine months into Bush’s presidency. He had been briefed by national security advisers about the threat that al-Qaeda posed. He was warned in advance about the possibility of an attack. The massive intelligence apparatus that we employed did not do its job in protecting the nation.

Is that the president’s responsibility? Well, gosh, it seems that the commander in chief ought to be held accountable. However, Gov. Bush chooses to avoid holding his brother accountable for that breakdown.

As for Tapper’s question, it still requires some clarity in the answer.

If George W. Bush doesn’t deserve blame for the tragedy that befell us on 9/11, how can Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama be held responsible for the Benghazi attack that occurred 11 years later to the day?

Is there a double-standard being applied?

International news

Hoping that Mullah Omar is burning in hell

July 29, 2015 kanelis2012

Can it be true?

Mullah Omar, the Taliban terrorist leader who harbored Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda thugs, is dead? Afghanistan officials say he’s a goner. U.S. officials aren’t confirming it — yet.

https://gma.yahoo.com/taliban-leader-mullah-omar-died-afghan-officials-105317136–abc-news-topstories.html#

There’s no word yet on the possible cause of death.

As good as the news might turn out to be, let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

As we’ve known for some time since bin Laden’s death at the hands of U.S. Navy SEALs and CIA commandos, one man’s death doesn’t mean the end of the fight against the organization he once led.

Make no mistake, though. Mullah Omar is — or was — a seriously bad actor.

The State Department had put a $10 million bounty on Mullah Omar’s head for information leading his capture.

Let’s all hope we can confirm this animal’s death so we can move on to getting rid of the individual who likely will emerge to take his place.

And, yes, even though the State Department declines to refer to the Taliban as a “terrorist organization,” the rest of the world knows better.

military news

Troop levels to drop; U.S. is still No. 1

July 11, 2015 kanelis2012

U.S. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry is worried about reductions in the number of men and women serving in the U.S. Army.

The Pentagon plans to cut the troop strength to 450,000 by September 2017. Thornberry suggested recently that the reduction is part of an on-going strategy to slash defense spending that’s been enacted since the beginning of Barack Obama’s presidency.

He’s concerned about it. So, too, are some in the media, such as the Amarillo Globe-News, which opined on Friday that the troop reduction “is bad news.” It cited “ongoing issues related to Russia and Iran, to name but a couple.”

Then the paper decided to take a cheap shot by noting that “the federal government only spends more than $70 billion a year on food stamps.”

I think a broader question ought to be this: Are we still the world’s No. 1 military power? Yes … by a country mile.

Let us also ponder: Does a reduction in the troop levels make us less able to defend ourselves against terrorists? Given tremendous advances in technology, the use of drones (which this week killed another leading Islamic State officer), our immense intelligence capability and the tremendous skill that our troops employ in the field, we absolutely are able to defend ourselves.

Thornberry wrote: “I have consistently warned about the size and pace of reductions in both end strength and defense spending and the negative impact on our country’s national security.”

Does the presence of more men and women in uniform deter terrorists from striking at us? Do the Islamic State and al-Qaeda leaders really consider the United States defense establishment — taken in its entirety — to be less capable of defending the world’s strongest nation than it was, say, when the 9/11 attacks occurred more than a dozen years ago?

The United States remains by far the pre-eminent military power on the planet.

If we are going to seek some sort of fiscal responsibility, which Thornberry and others in Congress keep insisting we should, then we must look at all aspects of the federal budget.

The day we cannot strike hard at those who seek to do us harm is the day I’ll join the doomsday chorus that includes Chairman Thornberry. We aren’t at that point. Nor do I expect us to get there.

High Plains Blogger