Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Jihad in Boston?

The Boston terror bombings may be jihad. It is also possible that they may not be. As of this writing on Monday evening, those who know – the perpetrators and their accomplices, and possibly law enforcement officials — aren’t saying anything. Whatever the truth may be, the reactions to the initial reports from various quarters were telling.

An early report from the New York Post stated that “investigators have a suspect — a Saudi Arabian national — in the horrific Boston Marathon bombings.”

However, Boston police denied that they had a suspect in custody, and Leftists and Islamic supremacists rushed to spread that news: Talking Points Memo ran a fairly straightforward piece, but at Salon, Alex Seitz-Wald headlined his report “Pamela Geller blames a ‘Jihadi,’” excoriating Geller for “seizing on a thinly sourced New York Post report.” Islamic supremacist writer Reza Aslan tweeted: “Boston Police: No Arrests Have Been Made In Marathon Bombing so Enough with the Saudi National BS.”

The implication was that if there was no Saudi national in custody, then the bombings were not jihad.

The egg was on their faces, however, when it turned out that the New York Post had been right, and that authorities really did have a Saudi national in custody. According to CBS News, “Law enforcement sources told Miller a witness saw a person acting suspiciously when the explosions happened along the marathon route.” Miller explained:
They see him running away from the device. Now, a reasonable person would be running away. But this person had noticed him before. This is a civilian — chases him down, tackles him, turns him over to the Boston police. The individual is being looked at [and] was suffering from burn injury. That means this person was pretty close to wherever this blast went off, but not so close as to suffer the serious injuries that other people did.
There are other indications that this was a jihad attack: the timed and coordinated bombings were of a kind we have seen previously in the Mumbai jihad attacks, as well as in numerous jihad bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also like Mumbai, the bombs seem to have been set off remotely by cell phone. Yet characteristically, some in the mainstream media rushed to blame “right-wingers”: according to Victor Medina in the Examiner, “Esquire Magazine’s Charles P. Pierce attempted to link the bombings to right wing extremists similar to Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber. In another, CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen speculated that the type of bomb device could link it to right wing extremist groups.”

Such reactions were illustrative of the general mainstream media avidity to downplay and even deny outright that there really is a jihad threat at all. Ultimately, however, whether or not this Saudi (who has been identified as being in the U.S. on a student visa) was involved in the attack or not, and whether or not this Boston Marathon bombing was a jihad attack at all, the jihad against the U.S. still rages. ‪Jihadists worldwide have made their hatred for Americans, and determination to murder them in the name of Allah, abundantly clear on numerous occasions. If the Boston terror bombings turn out to have been perpetrated by someone else, this doesn’t mean that violent jihadists have disappeared.

Jihad is already here in the United States, as we saw not only on 9/11, but in the Fort Hood jihad murders, the attempted Times Square bombing, the Portland Christmas tree bomb plot, and so many others. There have been over 20,000 jihad attacks worldwide since 9/11; the denial that dominates the media and government response to those attacks only ensures that such jihad attacks will become ever more common stateside.

And so as the new coverage continued on Monday night, commentators speculated about whether the terror attack was “domestic” or “foreign.” While leftist analysts freely speculated about “right-wing” involvement, those who declared the attack jihad on the basis of the questioning of the Saudi national were excoriated as “Islamophobes.”  The media marches in lockstep, aided and abetted by a Greek chorus of activists and fellow travelers on Twitter and other social media. And the direction in which they are marching is rendering us all more unsafe.

New Data on Border Crossings Could Change Immigration Debate

By: Byron York / Townhall Columnist
There's a confrontation coming between the Obama administration and Republicans in Congress over the most basic question of immigration reform: How secure is the U.S. border with Mexico?

Not only does the administration not know -- and perhaps doesn't want to know -- but there are signs the border is less secure than some of the most skeptical Republicans thought.

Last year the Border Patrol began experimenting with a new drone-based surveillance system that had been developed for finding Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. Starting in the fall, officials used the radar-based system over a fairly small portion of the Arizona border. The results were striking.

"According to internal reports, Border Patrol agents used the airborne radar to help find and detain 1,874 people in the Sonora Desert between October 1 [2012] and January 17 [2013]," reported the Los Angeles Times last week. "But the radar system spotted an additional 1,962 people in the same area who evaded arrest and disappeared into the United States."

That means officers caught fewer than half of those who made the crossing in that part of Arizona. If those results are representative of other sectors of the border, then everything the administration has said about border security is wrong.

"These revelations are in stark contrast to the administration's declaration that the border is more secure than ever due to greater resources having been deployed to the region, and that lower rates of apprehensions signify fewer individuals are crossing," Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, wrote in an April 5 letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

"Since the creation of DHS, Congress has provided significant funding increases in the number of Border Patrol agents, the building of nearly 700 miles of fencing and the deployment of advanced technologies to increase the nation's ability to monitor the border," the Texas Republican added.

"However, we do not know if additional resources have produced better results."

For years, Napolitano and other officials at the Department of Homeland Security have pointed to the declining number of border apprehensions as proof that the total number of illegal crossings is also declining. Now, it could mean the administration just isn't catching most of the crossers.

"The results speak for themselves," says one GOP Hill aide involved in border security issues. "We can't really use apprehensions as an accurate measure when we're not even seeing half the people."

In light of the radar numbers, McCaul has asked Napolitano to provide data to back up her assertion that the border is more secure than ever. The answer could have a huge effect on the comprehensive immigration reform bills Congress will consider in coming weeks and months.

For example, there are reports that the Senate's bipartisan Gang of Eight negotiators have added a border security provision to their proposal to give immediate legalization to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. Before that legalization occurs, Homeland Security would have to submit a plan that would, within a decade, result in the apprehension of 90 percent of those who cross the border illegally. The department would also have to have 100 percent of the border under surveillance.

That's not all. The Gang of Eight plan is then expected to call for greater border security measures -- and results -- before those newly legalized immigrants are placed on a path that eventually will lead to citizenship.

Both provisions will be met with a lot of skepticism, at least on the right. Will Republicans really agree to legalize 11 million currently illegal immigrants on the strength of Janet Napolitano's promise to secure the border sometime in the next 10 years -- especially after Napolitano claimed, on the basis of dubious evidence, that the border is already secure?

Some immigration reformers see the radar story as hopeful news, showing that there are new ways to use technology to secure the border. But of course it is the administration's job to enforce border security, and DHS has spent years resisting even assessing the situation.

McCaul and others are expected to introduce legislation that would require Homeland Security to come up with a comprehensive strategy to secure the border -- and then carry it out. The problem is that such demands have been made many times in the past, and the border is still not secure. Given the Obama administration's record, is there any reason to believe that things will be any different this time, no matter what promises are made?

Boston Terrorist Attack Proves That We're Still Vulnerable

By: Donald Lambro / Townhall Columnist
Boston Terrorist Attack Proves That We're Still Vulnerable WASHINGTON -- The bombing at the Boston Marathon, the first large-scale attack on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001, was clearly another terrorist attack.

So why wasn't it labeled as such by President Obama in his first public remarks from the White House after the attack had occurred? The White House gave murky legal reasons having to do with future prosecutorial efforts, but this was certainly not a time to mince words.

A White House official, who later talked to reporters on the condition he would remain anonymous, said that this was clearly an "act of terror." The Washington Post noted Tuesday that this was "the same term the president used in the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, in September."

By Tuesday, Obama apparently decided that he could have been more forthcoming in his word choice, since everyone else was calling it an act of terrorism. So at a morning news briefing, he called the bombings what they were: an "act of terror."

"Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror," he said. He wasn't going to make the same mistake twice.

It will be recalled that the Obama administration went to great lengths to avoid calling the Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans, including our ambassador, an act of terrorism by terrorists. Instead, the first official explanation was of a "protest" at the U.S. Embassy that somehow got out of hand.

The State Department also peddled that line, then moved away from it. And then U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice went on several TV talk shows, offering the same "protest" explanation, triggering weeks of widespread criticism from GOP leaders in Congress and, eventually, House and Senate hearings.

The White House abandoned that description when it became increasingly clear that the Benghazi attacks were carried out by terrorists.

We do not know whether the premeditated attack near the marathon's finish line -- which killed three people, and maimed and injured more than 140 others -- was the work terrorists from abroad or a domestic extremist group.

But obviously this was the deadly work of terrorists, whoever they may be, and Obama should have said so up front.

His initial reluctance Monday to call the attack an act of terrorism is a sensitive issue in many political quarters, and, no doubt, the reason why the Post called attention to the president's avoidance of the term in its front-page story on Tuesday.

There are reasons for this sensitivity. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush declared "war on terrorism," and that was the name he gave to the anti-terrorist policies his administration carried out over his two terms in office.

For some reason, never fully explained, the incoming Obama administration abandoned that description as the president sought to put his own stamp on U.S. policies in the battle against terrorism in the Middle East, North Africa and elsewhere.

At the same time, Obama had sought to close down the U.S. military prison base in Guantanamo where the most dangerous terrorist detainees are being held. And Attorney General Eric Holder wanted to move their trials to federal courtrooms in New York City.

That policy change spawned a storm of opposition on Capitol Hill and across the country, and the White House eventually abandoned its efforts, although not entirely.

While we don't know who the perpetrators are as of this writing, or who they represent, the explosive devices were intended to kill or maim as many people as possible in an attempt to show they can still pierce our security defenses.

There have been numerous terrorist plots and attempts in the last decade by individuals to detonate bombs in large population centers -- at least 16 cases in New York City alone. But these attempts have either failed or been thwarted by counterterrorism and other law enforcement agents.

In September 2009, an al-Qaida terrorist plotted to set off bombs in the New York subway system but the attempt was foiled, as was a car bomb left in Times Square in 2010 by Faisal Shahzad, a citizen of Pakistan and the U.S.

Almost all of these attempts have been perpetrated by people from Middle Eastern countries, but the origins of this latest horrific attack in Boston remain a mystery.

The forensic work on the explosive devices may tell us a great deal about whether the terrorists were from abroad. At least one counterterrorism agent was quoted as saying that the attack didn't have the hallmarks of an al-Qaida bombing.

"At this stage, it's perplexing," the official told the Post. "It's not a military or particularly iconic target like Times Square or the New York subway. This could be someone with limited or no foreign connections."

I was in Oklahoma immediately after the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City -- the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil prior to Sept. 11. The radio talk shows that night were filled with angry callers who were certain the people who killed 168 Americans were Middle Eastern terrorists.

It turned out, however, that the bombing was carried out by an American, Timothy McVeigh.

Nevertheless, foreign terrorists continue to pursue their relentless attempts to find lapses in our nation's security apparatus, on airlines, subways, sporting events and other strategic targets.

They're constantly probing our weak spots, looking for new targets and plotting to demonstrate that they're able to penetrate our defenses and inflict heavy casualties on our homeland.

They have to be successful only once, while we have to be right every time, President Bush used to say. Over the course of his war on terror following 9/11, the terrorists were unable to penetrate our homeland. But it now seems clear that they have stepped up their efforts.

The Obama administration may not like the term "war on terrorism," but that is what we are now engaged in 24/7.

Whoever perpetrated the savage Patriots Day attack on the streets of Boston demonstrated that we remain just as vulnerable as we were before.
Op-ed:                                                                                                                          Terrorism isn't coming to America...                    terrorism is already here                                             By: Diane Sori 
Somebody placed bombs on the streets of Boston on Monday with the sole purpose to maim and kill, and that meets the definition of terrorism. Yet in his press conference on Monday afternoon Barack HUSSEIN Obama said. "we cannot jump to conclusions."

“We still do not know who did this or why. And people shouldn’t jump to conclusions before we have all the facts. But make no mistake — we will get to the bottom of this,’’ Obama said.

"We cannot jump to conclusions"...I cannot stress those words of his enough for NO conclusion jumping is necessary for this act deliberately done to create chaos, panic, and fear is terrorism of the worst kind, and yet again as he did in the immediate aftermath of Benghazi, this president of ours conspicuously avoided using the word 'terror’ in his first address to the nation after the deadly bombings at the Boston Marathon.

And in a move I'm sure Obama was NOT happy about, federal investigators classified the explosions as a terror attack right from the start even though it's still NOT known whether this was domestic terrorism or foreign terrorism. In fact, Richard Barrett, the former U(seless) N(ations) coordinator for the al-Qaida and Taliban monitoring team, said it was too early to say who was to blame for the blasts. And although initial indicators seem to point to this being islamic terrorism, many in our ever-loving main stream media are adamant in saying this could have been a domestic attack by 'so-called right wing extremists.'

As always, blame the right when things spiral out of control or differ from the Obama agenda. So I guess the msm is starting the covering up of Obama's tracks in case he needs to protect his brethren down the road...just like he and they did and continue to do in relation in Benghazi.

But the jihadist connection does seem more of a possibility now as its been proven that pressure cookers loaded with nails and ball bearings (anti-personnel packing) were used making these bombs (as they were in the unsuccessful 2010 attempted bombing in Times Square in New York)...making them consistent with bombs used by jihadist terror groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and Nepal...jihadist groups with ties to al-Qaeda. And add in that Brig. Gen. Masoud Jazayeri, deputy chief of staff of the Iranian military, recently told the Fars News Agency (a media outlet run by the Revolutionary Guards) that terrorism was indeed coming to America and coming soon.

Terrorism isn't coming...terrorism has arrived.

In an appeal to the public for any tips and cell phone pictures that might give clues about who was behind this 'terror' attack, FBI special-agent-in-charge Richard DesLauriers said, "We will go to the ends of the Earth to identify the suspects responsible for this despicable crime."

'To the ends of the Earth'...those in authority know this was NO act of domestic terrorism...this was NO Timothy McVeigh homegrown lunatic fringe act...this, in my opinion, was an act of a sleeper cell awoken by 'those out to kill us.' Remember, the area had been 'swept' twice before the race, NO bombs were discovered, yet bombs went off...odd I would say. Was this act a suicide bombing gone awry...maybe...but it was an act that has reminded us that we are NO longer safe in our own country...NO longer safe and yet we have a president who wants to take our guns away...wants to render 'We the People' defenseless against those out to kill us.

And while Federal investigators continue to say that no one has yet claimed responsibility, that will come in time for acts such as this are NOT done for anonymity. But most importantly it must be remembered that cowards targeted Americans...targeted innocent Americans including children out enjoying the festivities on Patriots Day, and NO matter who claims or doesn't claim responsibility the main thing is that when whomever is caught...and rest assured they will be caught...that if we had our way...that if Biblical justice of an 'eye for an eye' was carried out, these bastards would be put to death immediately...NO Obama get out of jail free card...NO appeals...NO nothing!
Oh how I wish...oh how I know that won't be the case.

And on Thursday, Barack HUSSEIN Obama will get his oh so wanted photo-op when he attends the interfaith Memorial Service for the victims...I just wonder if his eyes will be as dry and his voice as monotone and emotionless as they were in Newtown. Two more days and we'll find out.