Tuesday, March 24, 2015

What's in a Name: An Anagram Reveals Obama's Secret !


Here's an interesting revelation that's come across my computer screen this week. If you rearrange all the letters of President Barack Obama just so, you get a perfect anagram using all 20 characters with none left over. Here's what it reads:

                                                An Arab-backed Imposter

Now that's a nearly perfect description of who Barack Hussein Obama really is. What are the
chances?  I say nearly perfect only because I like to spell imposter with the O rather than the E. But both are acceptable.

Maybe you've seen this before. It's new to me. And I get a lot of Obama stuff across my screen; pro and con. Believe me. I'm stunned. If you had any doubts about a higher power, this could resolve them. His true identity was locked away in an anagram all this time. It's like the Bible codes, only funnier. Dan Brown could write another book, maybe the ''Obama Code'' and expose the hidden Truth about this man. The word ''Anti-Christ'' comes to mind!

This imposter's even got an Arab name. What does Barack Hussein Obama mean in Arabic?

Barack can have three possible meanings based on their usage: ''Blessed'' is one. Another is quite astonishing given his history with the Saudi king. It can mean ''to make to kneel down.''  The last meaning is to ''to curse'' or ''blaspheme.''  Take your pick. 
Hussein generally means ''beautiful'' or ''handsome.''
Obama, an African name, oddly can also translate to ''slightly bent,'' reflective of that that bow again.

So I guess you could say Obama's name means either:
      * Blessed, handsome and slightly bent, or,
      * Bowing, handsome and slightly bet, or,
      * Blaspheming, handsome and slightly bent.  

As for being Arab-backed:
1)  Obama is the guy who famously said of the Muslim call-to-prayer, ''it's one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.'' He's the only Western politician I know who ever said it!

2)  The Arab fund raising spigots were turned on for Obama's 2008 presidential campaign when it was revealed that the campaign was accepting credit card donations in untold amounts from an Arab money-laundering operation in the Palestine Authority.

3 ) Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi raised money for that campaign, too. He has called Israel ''an apartheid system'' and ''racist.''  He made statements supportive of Palestinian terror against Israel and Jews anywhere in the world.


President Obama Bows before Saudi King !
4)  And remember the how shocking it was to see Obama bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia.

I could go on and on, and I have in previous postings, but the fruits of Obama's pro-Muslim, pro-Arab fanaticism are pretty obvious at this point. He has turned over the always-boiling cauldron of Muslim Arab hatred, and it is now spilling all over the Middle East and the world.

His friends in the Arab world must be cheering Obama's stance against Israel and it's Prime Minister and how he exported his political machine to challenge him in retaining power in the recent elections.

Obama’s pledge to “reassess” America’s relationship with Israel cannot be taken lightly. Already paving the way for an Iranian nuke, ... [it] could mean American support for punitive Security Council resolutions or for Palestinian statehood initiatives. It could mean both, or something worse…

His visceral dislike for Benjamin Netanyahu is genuine, but also serves as a convenient fig leaf for his visceral dislike of Israel. The fact that it’s personal with Netanyahu doesn’t explain six years of trying to bully Israelis into signing a suicide pact with Muslims bent on destroying them. Netanyahu’s only sin is that he puts his nation’s security first and refuses to knuckle ­under to Obama’s endless demands for unilateral concessions…

Consider that, for all the upheaval around the world, the president rarely has a cross word for, let alone an open dispute with, any other foreign leader. He calls Great Britain’s David Cameron “bro” and praised Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohammed Morsi, who had called Zionists, “the descendants of apes and pigs."..…  I ask you....who's the real Pig here?

Most troubling is Obama’s bended-knee deference to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah ali Khamenei (photo right) which has been repaid with “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” demonstrations in Tehran and expanded Iranian military action in other countries.


The Way I See It.....the courtship reached the height of absurdity a few weeks ago, when Obama wished Iranians a happy Persian new year by equating Republican critics of his nuclear deal with the resistance of theocratic hard-liners, saying both “oppose a diplomatic solution.” That is a damnable slur given that a top American military official estimates that Iranian weapons, proxies and trainers killed 1,500 US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Who in their right mind would trust such an evil regime with a nuke? Yet Netanyahu, the leader of our only reliable ally in the region, is ­repeatedly singled out for abuse. He alone is the target of an orchestrated attempt to defeat him at the polls, with Obama political operatives, funded in part by American taxpayers, working to elect his opponent.

Sunday, March 22, 2015

Muslims Calling to Revive Ancient, Horrifying Executon Method !


If you think ISIS’s killing methods are bad wait till you see what one video in Arabic done by a Muslim lady dressed in a Hijab circulated to Muslims worldwide. The video was a complaint to Caliph al-Baghdadi (photo right) of ISIS as “the call of Muslim mothers” arguing that such methods as ''beheadings , shootings  and “crucifixions'' are just too humane and will not work to stop the U.S. led coalition air raids which she complained that this is persecution against her living in Syria. To frighten the soldiers and
eliminate the attacks she suggested that an Ottoman method of execution be used to detract pilots from joining the coalition against ISIS.


She suggested to use the captured Jordanian pilot Moaz Kasasbeh and begged not to execute him mercifully by using a bullet or a knife, but begged them to reinstitute the Khazouk. As we now know.....they BBQed him!


Everyone in the Middle East knows three things told to them by their grand parents about the Ottoman Turks and what they spread throughout the Middle East: Sihr “sorcery”, Baksheesh “bribery”, and the Khazouk which is a spike driven through the victim’s rectum, which the Ottomans
used to terrify locals and deter potential insurgents. And this is exactly what this lady wanted to reinstitute:  (photo)


Are you going to execute him with a merciful bullet? Or are you going to execute him with a merciful knife?” she asks. Khawiskou “impale him” she cries out “then send him to his mother” she added.
“Why are the Arab world fighting us. We are Muslim doing the will of Allah”.
“I am pleading [ISIS] to honor my special request that you Khazouk him “impale him” and post it all over the social networks and the media”.


As we learned in school, the Ottomans were creative when it came to all sorts of weirdities. At times they used the hot poker, a red hot metal rod that is inserted through the anus which the expert executioner is able to avoid puncturing the heart and the victim could live up to two days before he dies since the bleeding is minimized as the hot rod caterizes the wound.


But as it seems, some are begging to revive the Khazouk in revenge against the U.S. led coalition pilots. But to this lady, the Khazouk is no fantasy, she is serious. The West does not understand such tradition as a Muslim woman making such an appeal. Here, let me explain it all.


In Ibn Athīr’s famous history book al-Kāmil, he mentions the story in our history of a King called al-Mu’tasim, who was from the Banū ‘Abbas. The event goes like this; A Muslim woman was captured by the Romans and imprisoned, so the Romans laughed at her. The leader of the Roman king sarcastically said, “You won’t ever leave this place until the muslim king himself removes you from these shackles.”


The woman shouted “Wa Mu’tasima!” [Oh my grief, Mu’tasima!]. The Roman King laughed at her“ablaq” a black and white horse. He said this in a way of mocking her and showing the impossibility of the situation.
and said : “He will never come to save you unless he was riding


When al-Mu’tasim heard of the news, he gathered a whole army and made the entire army ride the “ablaq” horses and defeated the Romans (who in this case are viewed as the U.S. and Europeans) and himself entered the prison where the Muslim woman had been imprisoned. “Who are you?” she said, ”I am al-Mu’tasim.” He freed her from her shackles, a sign of humiliation for the Romans. And this became the issue that when a Muslim woman calls upon the Caliph for help he must comply. The Muslims always use this story al-Mu’tasim, a call of a Muslim woman’s appeal in Jihad must be honoured and in this case, the hot poker.


The Way I See it.....I can offer some small hope:

Properly contained, the Islamic State is likely to be its own undoing. No country is its ally, and its ideology ensures that this will remain the case. The land it controls, while expansive, is mostly uninhabited and poor. As it stagnates or slowly shrinks, its claim that it is the engine of God’s will and the agent of apocalypse will weaken, and fewer believers will arrive.


As more reports of misery within it leak out, radical Islamist movements elsewhere will be discredited: No one has tried harder to implement strict Sharia by violence. This is what it looks like.
Even so, the death of the Islamic State is unlikely to be quick, and things could still go badly wrong: if the Islamic State obtained the allegiance of al Qaeda—increasing, in one swoop, the unity of its base—it could wax into a worse foe than we’ve yet seen.

Thursday, March 19, 2015

On Selling ''VIRTUE'' To the Muslum World !


There is more to the current turbulence in the Middle East than the Arab grievances against Israel. Behind it is a broader intellectual critique of America and the West that is widely shared — and a more potent fuel for terrorism than just the Israeli issue.

So far, the U.S. military response to Sept. 11’s physical attacks has been quite adequate. But American writer, Dinesh D’Souza (photo right) says the intellectual response to the terrorists’ assault on America’s principle of freedom has been weak. This matters because shutting down terrorist camps is not enough. We must stop the “jihad factories,” the mosques and educational institutions turning out thousands of aspiring suicide bombers. We cannot kill them all; we must change their minds.

America, however, is making few converts in the Muslim world, as recent Gallup polling there underscored. It has not effectively answered the strongest Islamic critique of our society: that the freedom we value so greatly is not life’s highest goal.

Americans try to defend their society by appealing to shared principles. They say the United States is a free society, or a prosperous one, or a pluralistic culture, or a nation of equal rights. The most intelligent Islamic critics acknowledge all of this — but dismiss it as worthless triviality.

Sayyid  Qutb
Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb, a leading theoretician of Islamic fundamentalism who has been called “the brains behind Osama bin Laden,” argued in his books that the West is a society based on freedom, while the Islamic world is based on virtue.

He argued: Look at how badly the West uses freedom — the materialism, triviality, vulgarity and promiscuity. Islamic societies may be poor, Qutb said, but they try to follow God’s will. Islamic laws are based on divine law, higher than any human law. Virtue, Qutb insisted, is ultimately a higher principle than freedom.

The classical philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle, would have agreed that virtue, not freedom, is a good society’s ultimate goal. And they would be right.

Free will allows evil
To answer the Islamic argument against America on its own terms, we first must concede that in a free society freedom will often be used badly. Freedom, by definition, includes freedom to do good or evil, to act nobly or basely. We should not be surprised that there is quite a bit of vice, licentiousness and vulgarity in a free society. Given humanity’s warped timber, freedom will include expressions of human weaknesses.

But freedom also brings out the best. The millions of Americans living decent, praiseworthy lives deserve our highest admiration: They opt for good when good is not the only choice, giving their virtue a special luster. A free society doesn’t guarantee virtue any more than it guarantees happiness. But it allows the pursuit of both, a pursuit more meaningful because success is uncertain; it requires personal effort.

Force undermines morality
By contrast, the authoritarian society that Islamic fundamentalists advocate undermines the
possibility of virtue. If the supply of virtue is insufficient in free societies, it is almost non-existent in Islamic societies, because coerced virtues are not virtues at all.

Consider a woman required to wear a veil. There is no virtue here, for she is being forced. Compulsion only produces the outward semblance of virtue.

Indeed, once the reins of coercion are released, as they were for the terrorists living in the USA, human nature’s worst impulses break loose. The deeply religious terrorists spent their last days in bars and strip joints sampling the licentious lifestyle they were about to strike out against.
In theocratic societies such as Iran, the absence of freedom signals the absence of virtue. This is the argument Americans should make to the Islamic world.

The Way I See It.....Muslims would be receptive to it. Islam respects the autonomy of the individual soul. Salvation, for Muslims no less than for Jews and Christians, is based on the soul freely choosing to follow God. We can make the case to Muslims that freedom is a gift from God, not simply a secular invention. And because freedom is the necessary pre-condition for virtue, we can assert that our free society is not simply richer, more varied and more tolerant; it is also morally superior to fundamentalists’ version of Islamic society.

Dinesh D’Souza’s newest book is What’s So Great About America. He is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and popular journalist and film maker. 

'Allah Gave Israel to The Jews, There's No Palestine', states Muslim Scholar !


Muslim scholar in Jordan attacks 'Palestinians' for distorting Koran, Jews were given Israel 'until Day of Judgement.'

Allah has promised Israel to the Jews -- so says Sheikh Ahmad Adwan, a Muslim scholar living in Jordan, who declared on his Facebook page recently that "Palestine" doesn't exist.

Blogger Elder of Ziyon translated Arab news sources that this Saturday reported on Adwan's
statements, in which he quotes the Koran saying Allah assigned Israel to the Jews until the Day of Judgement (Sura 5 Verse 21), and that Jews are the inheritors of Israel (Sura 26 Verse 59).

"I say to those who distort...the Koran: from where did you bring the name Palestine, you liars, you accursed, when Allah has already named it 'The Holy Land' and bequeathed it to the Children of Israel until the Day of Judgment," argued Adwan. "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in the Koran."

"Your demand for the Land of Israel is a falsehood and it constitutes an attack on the Koran, on the Jews and their land. Therefore you won’t succeed, and Allah will fail you and humiliate you, because Allah is the one who will protect them (i.e. the Jews)," warns Adwan.

The sheikh had more harsh words for the "Palestinians," calling them "the killers of children, the elderly and women" in using them as human shields in order to falsely accuse the Jews of targeting them. He reports having seen the same tactic used by "Palestinians" against the Jordanian army in the 1970s.

"This is their habit and custom, their viciousness, their having hearts of stones towards their children, and their lying to public opinion, in order to get its support," declared Adwan.

Adwan has previously said his support for the Jewish people "comes from my acknowledgment of their sovereignty on their land and my belief in the Koran, which told us and emphasized this in many places, like His (Allah’s) saying ”Oh People (i.e the Children of Israel), enter the Holy Land which Allah has assigned unto you'" (Sura 5, Verse 21).

The Jews are a peaceful people according to Adwan, who says "if they are attacked, they defend themselves while causing as little damage to the attackers as possible. It is an honor for them that Allah has chosen them over the worlds – meaning over the people and the Jinns (spiritual creatures) until the Day of Judgment. ...When Allah chose them, He didn’t do so out of politeness, and He wasn’t unjust to other peoples, it is just that they (the Jews) deserved this.”

The Way I See It......Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's election win today was primarily base on his appeal to right-wing voters when he declared definitively that if was returned to office he would never establish a Palestinian state. His reversal of a 2009 endorsement speech of a two-state solution comes coincides perfectly with Adwan's pronouncement of the Koran's specific reference to the non-existence of Palestine.

Mr. Netanyahu elaborated further by explaining; ''I think that anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state today and evacuate lands is giving attack grounds to the radicals of Islam against the state of Israel.''  His new stance would further fray Mr Netanyahu's ruinous relationship with the Obama administration and heighten tension with European countries already frustrated with the stalled peace process.  With his re-election, ''King Bibi'' as he is affectionately known, can draw upon Adwan's scholarly reputation to tell the alienated allies to ''Suck-It-Up.''

Sunday, March 15, 2015

Obama Helping to Form a Global Caliphate !

By L. Todd Wood  (a respected author of historical fiction and economic books)  [this was written three weeks ago in Western Journalism which is a news website and blogging platform]

Why do you think the Obama administration went after filmmaker Dinesh D’souza with federal charges, eventually convicting him of a campaign finance felony? D’Souza served eight months in a community confinement center, received five years probation, and paid a $30,000 fine, all for giving some money to a friend to donate to a candidate. Somehow, I think there are plenty of people federal prosecutors have not gone after so aggressively for a similar offense.

The reason the federal government went after D’Souza so forcefully was that Dinesh, in his first movie 2016: Obama’s America, hit the nail right on the head regarding our Dear Leader’s agenda. Obama could not let this continue. He had to attempt to silence Dinesh and buy more time to complete his goal—the creation of a global Islamic caliphate, which would extend from the Atlantic Ocean across North Africa into the heart of the Middle East.

The evidence is just too overwhelming. There is no other conclusion any intelligent, thinking man can come to.

The New York Post reports that Obama could not even acknowledge the concept of “Muslim Terrorists” at the extremist convention the administration threw together to act like they were doing something against the Islamic Jihadist threat.
They’re burning and beheading victims in the name of Islam, but President Obama
delivered a major speech last Wednesday on combating violent extremism — while obviously refusing to use the words “Muslim terrorists.”  Something Stinks !
Obama has not shown any leadership in Europe against Russian designs in Ukraine, or any other international conflict, because it’s just not important to him. It doesn’t fit with his long-term goals, so he just pays it lip service. He has to keep his eye on the ball........the ultimate prize is close to being realized while the West dithers.

The goal of this administration is to weaken American power so the United States cannot stop the formation of the caliphate from North Africa to Pakistan. Even more frightening is that Obama is attempting to radically change the population of the United States through illegal immigration so that eventually, a Muslim U.S.A. will join his new kingdom.

I have written again and again about the Obama administration’s agenda to allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel and bring the entire Levant into the caliphate. Israeli nuclear weapons stand in the way of this goal. A nuclear Iran will destroy the Jewish State.

The Jerusalem Post today reports that the State Department is mocking Israel and openly admits they are not including Israel in the negotiations that involve her very survival.
“Obviously, we work to protect sensitive information in the negotiations,” (State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki) continued. Asked pointedly whether the US is withholding information from inside the talks from the Israelis, she said, “Correct.” Washington’s acknowledgment of a gap in its briefings to Israel highlights growing space between the allies on the emerging agreement with Iran, aggressively sought by US President Barack Obama and opposed with equal vigor by Netanyahu.
Iran going nuclear, ISIS conquering the Middle East and threatening to invade Europe, terrorists actively being courted to enter the United States, Christians being slaughtered, Obama refusing to utter the words ‘Islamic terrorists’, Jihad being carried out in Paris and other European capitals, et cetera, et cetera, all point to Obama forming a global Islamic kingdom which is close to his core upbringing; the resurrected Caliphate.

In my second novel, Sugar, I wrote about this corruption that is destroying America and fostering the formation of the Islamic State. The question is, when he leaves office, is Obama looking to become sultan of his new empire?

The Way I See It......even though this article brings out some plausible points and has an eerie sense of reality to it, the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by this Blogger, but I'm not about sell Dinesh's ideas short.

Ex-Mayor Giuliani Stands By His ''Obama-is-Anti-American'' Claim


Last month, Democrats were predictably slamming former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani for questioning whether President Barack Obama ''loves America,'' while several potential 2016 GOP candidates either distanced themselves from his statements or said they believe Obama loves his country but is definitely engaged in questionable policies.

While the firestorm was going on, the former mayor made the interview circuit, where he clarified his statements slightly but did not back down on what he'd said during a private Republican dinner event on that Wednesday night at Manhattan's elite "21" Club.

At the dinner, Giuliani said that he knows "this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America ... he doesn't love you. And he doesn't love me. He wasn't brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country."

But Giuliani, while softening his comments, didn't back down, telling Fox News' Megyn Kelly on Thursday night that he felt his opinion was "perfectly reasonable," and that he wants to repeat that "all I've heard of him [Obama], he apologizes for America, he criticizes America."
"He sees Christians slaughtered and churches burnt down and doesn't stand up and hold a press conference although we hold a press conference for the situation in Ferguson," Giuliani told Kelly. "He sees Jews being killed for anti-Semitic reasons. He sees Gays being tossed off of high buildings and stoned-to-death. Yet he doesn't stand up and hold a press conference and condemn these inhuman practices. What is he waiting for?''
"This is an American president I've never seen before."

He admitted that patriots are "allowed to criticize," but he doesn't feel Obama's love of America ... ''if we look at his rhetoric, [he] has not displayed the kind of love of America ... the exceptionalism that other American presidents have displayed.''
"That he has gone abroad and criticized us over and over again, apologized for us. Every time he does it embarrasses me."

And Giuliani said he will not back down unless he hears the president make a speech praising the country and admitting that "Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is our enemy." He added, ''I feel most Americans are starting to feel the same as I do.''

The former mayor also defended his comments about Obama not being brought up to love the United States, which some leftist critics called it racist.

"Some people thought it was racist — I thought that was a joke, since he was brought up by a white mother, a white grandfather, went to white schools, and most of this he learned from white people," Giuliani told The New York Times"This isn’t racism. This is socialism or possibly even a mean-spirited  anti-colonialism.''
 
We are at risk of running out of dead horse to flog, but there’s one more aspect of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani’s anti-Obama comments that’s worth isolating. Speaking with reporters from the New York Times, Giuliani denied that his statement that President Obama doesn’t love America was related in any way to the president’s race. “This isn’t racism,” Giuliani said. “I repeat, this smells of socialism or possibly a strong anti-colonialism.”

Socialism doesn’t require any further explanation (unless you're a Millennial); Giuliani is suggesting that Obama is an opponent of capitalism. But what’s the “anti-colonial” thing?

As with many anti-Obama sentiments, that particular charge can be traced back to Dinesh D’Souza. In September 2010, Forbes ran an excerpt from D’Souza’s upcoming book The Roots of Obama’s Rage. “To his son,” it reads, referring to Obama’s father, “the elder Obama represented a great and noble cause, the cause of anti-colonialism. Obama Sr. grew up during Africa’s struggle to be free of European rule, and he was one of the early generation of Africans chosen to study in America and then to shape his country’s future.”

D’Souza (photo left) defines anti-colonialism as “the doctrine that rich countries of the West got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America” — which is somewhat more specific than others might offer. Colonialism generally refers to the era in which European nations (and others, including the United States), occupied other countries as satellite states. Think: “The sun never sets on the British empire.” Anti-colonialism, in the broadest sense, is opposition to that practice.

The argument over anti-colonialism predates D’Souza, of course. For a century, opposition to imperialism was intertwined with communist politics. In part, that was a function of the place of communists outside the political power structure. And in part, it was resonant with countries seeking to declare their independence. At the Second Congress of the Communist International in 1920, the group linked colonialism and capitalism. (Among the theses: “The loss of the colonies and the proletarian revolution in the mother countries will bring the downfall of the capitalist order in Europe.”)
 
Friedrich Engels theorized about an uprising in colonial India in 1882. Ho Chi Minh complained about French colonialism in Vietnam in 1923. In a speech in 1961, Che Guevara saw Cuba as the launching point for an anticolonial wave. “Victory by the popular forces in Latin America is clearly possible,” he said, which could be “the first stage in completely destroying the superstructure of the colonial world.”
 
The argument D’Souza makes to prove his point, is by the way he runs a thread from Obama’s father (with whom, remember, Obama did not grow up) to anticolonial thinkers of the era in which he lived. D’Souza quotes one line from a book written by an academic, noting that this person taught Obama at Columbia. “It may seem incredible to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, but the reality is there”

D’Souza writes, “That is what I am saying.” Obama “adopted his father’s position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder” —despite Obama’s having essentially no contact with him. Of course, his mother's Communist friends and grandparents saturated his very being from childhood with dislike for capitalism. Also, 20 years of sitting in Jeremiah Wright's church and hearing over and over, ''God Damn America'' or varieties thereof  gradually brainwashed him.

With the 2012 election approaching, Newt Gingrich embraced D’Souza’s argument. To the Post‘s Robert Costa (then at the National Review), Gingrich declared that D’Souza had made a stunning insight.  ''What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension,” he said, according to Costa, “that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]? That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”
Gingrich’s comments kicked up much more furor than D’Souza’s, given that the former speaker of the House planned to run for president. A reporter dug up Gingrich’s avowedly pro-colonial dissertation, while the Los Angeles Times lamented that “Gingrich used to be a serious figure.” 
 What prompted Giuliani to throw the expression into the mix isn’t clear. It was simply less contentious but true.

The Way I See It......it's about someone believable of stature, who would not be intimidated with not hidden agenda came out with what many Americans are sensing from the Obama White House. I have already done much background checking into the Obama's past, both him and Michele's, and have posted quite explicit information about them that I'm sure most Americans who foolish voted for him don't want to know.

My background checks have revealed the Obama's links with socialists, communists and other ranking radicals that wish nothing more than to destroy the United States from within. I''ve exposed three (3) of Barack's socialist/communist mentors (31 August - 3 September, 2012) that infected him with a distaste for American values and society as a whole. This may seem shocking to many, but it's true.

Michelle Obama is also an ungrateful radical racist woman. You just have to read my posting; ''The Very Radical Racist Background of Michelle Obama!'' (November, 8, 2013) to understand the significance that she and her husband have on America's future. Some of the words spoken by these two anti-Americans have come directly from the radical book entitled Rules for Radicals by Saul D. Alinsky. I have also exposed Alinsky's background in a previous posting (Obama: Lucifer is My Homeboy! - September 13, 2012).  Read all five (5) of these postings to get the Real Big Picture of what's living in the White House.  

Thursday, March 12, 2015

U.S. Military Doing Secret Raids in Afganistan !


That night the Afghans and Americans got their man, Abu Bara al-Kuwaiti (photo right). They also came away with what officials from both countries say was an even bigger prize: a laptop computer and files detailing Qaeda operations on both sides of the border. American military officials said the intelligence seized in the raid was possibly as significant as the information found in the computer and documents of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, after members of the Navy SEALs killed him in 2011.


In the months since, the trove of intelligence has helped fuel a significant increase in night raids by American Special Operations forces and Afghan intelligence commandos, Afghan and American officials said:

American and Afghan officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing operations that are largely classified, said that American forces were playing direct combat roles in many of the raids and were not simply going along as advisers.
 
“We’ve been clear that counterterrorism operations remain a part of our mission in Afghanistan,” Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said on Thursday. “We’ve also been clear that we will conduct these operations in partnership with the Afghans to eliminate threats to our forces, our partners and our interests.”
Afgan Commandos

The raids appear to have targeted a broad cross section of Islamist militants. They have hit both Qaeda and Taliban operatives, going beyond the narrow counterterrorism mission that Obama administration officials had said would continue after the formal end of American-led combat operations last December.
 
The tempo of operations is “unprecedented for this time of year” — that is, the traditional winter lull in fighting, an American military official said. No official would provide exact figures, because the data is classified. The Afghan and American governments have also sought to keep quiet the surge in night raids to avoid political fallout in both countries.
 
“It’s all in the shadows now,” said a former Afghan security official who informally advises his former colleagues. “The official war for the Americans — the part of the war that you could go see — that’s over. It’s only the secret war that’s still going. But it’s going hard.”
 
American and Afghan officials said the intelligence gleaned from the October mission was not the sole factor behind the uptick in raids. Around the same time that Afghan and American intelligence analysts were poring over the seized laptop and files, Afghanistan’s newly elected president, Ashraf Ghani, (photo right) signed a security agreement with the United States and eased restrictions on night raids by
American and Afghan forces that had been put in place by his predecessor, Hamid Karzai. Mr. Karzai had also sought to limit the use of American air power, even to support Afghan forces. The bastard!
 
Mr. Karzai’s open antipathy to the United States helped push the Obama administration toward ordering a more rapid drawdown than American military commanders had wanted. And while the timetable for the withdrawal of most American troops by the end of 2016 remains in place, the improving relations under Mr. Ghani pushed the Obama administration to grant American commanders greater latitude in military operations, American and Afghan officials said.
 
American commanders welcomed the new freedom. Afghan forces were overwhelmed fighting the Taliban in some parts of the country during last year’s fighting season, which typically runs from the spring into the autumn. Many Western officials fear that this year’s fighting season could be even worse for the Afghans without the air power and logistical support from the American-led coalition, and without joint Afghan-American night raids to keep up pressure on insurgent commanders.
 
Gen. John F. Campbell, the American commander of coalition forces, appears to have interpreted his mandate to directly target Afghan insurgents who pose an immediate threat to coalition troops or
are plotting attacks against them. He is not targeting Afghans simply for being part of the insurgency. But one criterion used to determine whether an individual is a danger to the force, an American military official said, is whether the person has in the past been associated with attacks or attempted attacks on American forces — a large group, given that the United States was at war with the Taliban for more than a decade.
 
Since the start of the year, the rationale of protecting American forces has been readily used by the coalition to justify operations, including in two instances in the past week. On Saturday, coalition officials announced that a “precision strike resulted in the death of two individuals threatening the force” in the Achin district of eastern Afghanistan.
 
Two days later, the coalition carried out what it described as another precision strike that killed “eight individuals threatening the force” in Helmand Province, in southern Afghanistan. Although the coalition would not say who exactly was killed, Afghan and American officials and tribal elders in Helmand said that the dead included Mullah Abdul Rauf Khadim, a former Taliban commander and Guantánamo Bay detainee who recently pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, the terrorist group also known as ISIS or ISIL.
 
In interviews conducted before Mullah Rauf’s death, Afghan and American officials said they had targeted him and his fighters in multiple night raids since November. American officials said that Mullah Rauf’s Islamic State affiliation, which they described as little more than symbolic, was ancillary. Rather, they said in recent days, he was being targeted because of intelligence gleaned from the laptop seized in the raid in October. The officials would not discuss the precise nature of the intelligence that led them to target Mullah Rauf, or whether there had been a list in the laptop that helped them with targeting specific individuals. They said that revealing the nature of the intelligence could compromise future operations.
 
The National Directorate of Security said it had killed Mr. Kuwaiti, the man in the mountain village in October, and claimed credit for seizing the laptop. The C.I.A., which trains and bankrolls the Afghan spy agency, declined to comment. Mr. Kuwaiti himself may have unintentionally provided some clues about the nature of the intelligence in a eulogy he wrote three years ago for another senior Qaeda operative, who was killed in an American drone strike in Pakistan.
 
Writing in Vanguards of Khorasan, a Qaeda magazine, Mr. Kuwaiti said he had been a “student” and “comrade” of Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, who, before his death, was described as Al Qaeda’s general manager, according to The Long War Journal, a website that tracks militants. In the eulogy, Mr. Kuwaiti repeatedly noted that he had access to Mr. Rahman’s documents, and that he had been informed of the details of numerous operations, including a suicide attack in eastern Afghanistan in 2009 that killed seven C.I.A. officers.
 
A former American military official said that Mr. Kuwaiti was believed to have taken on some of Mr. Rahman’s duties within Al Qaeda; that he was close with Ayman al-Zawahri, Al Qaeda’s leader; and that “he would have had a lot of the nuts and bolts about what they were up to in that computer.”

The Way I See It.......Obama's premature troop withdrawal in 2016 shows how the President has no discipline at thinking all the way through a military intervention to the end. The U.S. and its allies have made a lot of mistakes, underestimated and badly planned what they were going to do but were reaching a balance with their training of Afgani soldiers to strengthen their winning position. So, in 2013 Obama makes a political decision, not a military one, to force Afghanistan to go it alone.

Obama seems to think ISIS is the only real threat to be concerned about, but the tactics employed by ISIS are hardly worse than some of the outrages committed by the Taliban. The Taliban and ISIS are just different franchises of the same phenomenon. They may called different names n different places but both have the same culture and their roots lie in the '80's when the Americans trained and funded these people through Pakistan to fight against the Soviet Union.

The reality is that the same mujahedin armed by the U.S to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan went on to be founding fathers of modern jihadist terrorism----men like bin Laden and Mullah Omar, creator of the Taliban. No thought was given then to what would become of these battle-hardened fanatics after the West was done using them. Now it's up to the American Special Forces and Afgan Commandos clean up and hopefully finish the job so Afghanistan's citizens can live in a long-awaited peace and no thanks to President Obama's phony commitment.