Pakistan Calls Out U.S. for Hit on World’s Most Wanted Terrorist

Taliban leader killed

The cost of Pakistan’s morally bankrupt policy has been the death of thousands and thousands of Americans, Afghanis and Pakistanis.


A U.S. drone has killed Pakistani Taliban chief Hakimullah Mehsud, the terrorist behind the failed Times Square bombing in 2010 and countless attacks in Pakistan. The U.S. is doing the job that the Pakistani should be doing—and the response of America’s “ally” is furor, not appreciation.

Pakistan’s policy towards the Taliban is filled with contradictions and false hope. It treats the Afghan Taliban as a proxy, while it battles the Pakistani Taliban branch that wants to overthrow the government. The cost of this inconsistent and morally bankrupt policy has been thousands and thousands of American, Afghan and Pakistani lives.

The U.S. killed Mehsud just three days before Pakistani government representatives were due to meet with him for peace talks. One of Mehsud’s demands for peace was the imposition of Sharia law, so these negotiations were bound to go nowhere. Still, the Pakistani government invested its hopes in the imagined reasonableness of the Pakistani Taliban and Mehsud—and is furious at the U.S., at least publicly.

Tellingly, Pakistan’s interior minister didn’t point to Mehsud’s record – namely, his involvement in capturing about 300 Pakistani soldiers in 2007; killing U.S. soldiers; killing Afghan and Pakistani civilians; his ties to Al-Qaeda or his role in the attempted car bomb detonation in New York City in 2010.

Instead, Pakistan’s interior Minister said the U.S. killed him in order to “sabotage” peace talks. The foreign minister joined in, saying the strike “is not just the killing of one person, it’s the death of all peace efforts.” The people hearing these words are led to think that it is the U.S., not the Taliban, who is prolonging the war.



Read more at Clarion Project

It’s Not the Taliban, it’s Our insults

20121218_taliban_LARGEby GADI  ADELMAN

I’ve been down this road before; down it so many times I can drive it with  eyes closed. But just when I thought I had seen it all the Obama administration  trumps itself.

When the Ft. Hood terrorist shooting became “workplace violence”, after certain words such as “Radical Islam”, “terrorism” and “Jihadist” were removed from  all national security documents, or when the FBI  allowed a known Hamas operative into a six week program that included tours of top-secret areas of our National Counterterrorism  Center, I truly thought it  couldn’t get worse. I was wrong.

What has been termed “Green on Blue” attacks, green being the Afghan forces,  blue being the U.N. or Coalition forces, has killed 125 troops. A breakdown  of deaths per year and percentage of Coalition deaths caused by such attacks  shows the increase since these attacks started,

2008 – 2 – less than 1%

2009 – 12 – 2%

2010 – 16 – 2%

2011 – 35 – 6%

2012 – 60 – 16%

A Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article  on December 11 reported on a new Army manual or handbook for U.S. Troops that  goes beyond any stupidity I have seen thus far from this administration,

The 75-page manual, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, is part of a  continuing effort by the U.S. military to combat a rise in attacks by Afghan  security forces aimed at coalition troops.

The proposed Army handbook suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture,  not Taliban infiltration, has helped drive the recent spike in deadly attacks by  Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces.

“Many of the confrontations occur because of [coalition] ignorance of, or  lack of empathy for, Muslim and/or Afghan cultural norms, resulting in a violent  reaction from the [Afghan security force] member,” according to the draft  handbook prepared by Army researchers.

Of course! How silly of me, I should have known that the reason the Taliban is killing troops has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that there is a  war, it is because we have insulted them!

What’s worse that some bonehead actually got paid to study and write this, is what’s inside the handbook itself. Some of the specific points in this manual of ‘Kumbaya crap’ is beyond belief,

The draft handbook offers a list of “taboo conversation topics” that soldiers  should avoid, including “making derogatory comments about the Taliban,”  “advocating women’s rights,” “any criticism of pedophilia,” “directing any  criticism towards Afghans,” “mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct” or  “anything related to Islam.”

What? Are you fricking kidding me? Let’s examine some of these “taboo conversation topics”.

“Making derogatory comments about the Taliban”, of course, that makes total  sense, why would any soldier ever say anything derogatory about THEIR ENEMY,  that would never happen, after all I am sure they have the utmost respect for  each other.

“Advocating women’s rights”, well that just goes without saying, just because  many of the U.S. troops in Afghanistan are women, just because hundreds of women  have received the Combat Action Badge, just because women are among the dead and  wounded, women’s rights need not be mentioned, the Taliban see these women in  uniform every day, no need to mention it.

Read more: Family Security Matters

FamilySecurityMatters.orgContributing  Editor Gadi  Adelman  is a freelance writer and lecturer on the history of  terrorism and  counterterrorism. He grew up in Israel, studying terrorism and  Islam for 35  years after surviving a terrorist bomb in Jerusalem in which 7  children were  killed. Since returning to the U. S., Gadi teaches and lectures  to law  enforcement agencies as well as high schools and colleges. He can be  heard  every Thursday night at 8PM est. on his own radio show “America Akbar”  on Blog  Talk Radio.  He can be reached through his website


See also: SOS: Save Uncle Sam

Will Hillary Clinton bar Imran Khan?

Imran Khan, head of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), wears a turban while addressing his supporters in Musa Khel, in the province of Punjab on October 6. SAAD ARSALAN/REUTERS

By  h/t Patrick Poole

In an attempt to take the heat off President Barack Obama for his foreign policy failures, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this week boasted: “The buck stops with her.” Commenting on the terrorist attack in Benghazi that led to the killing of four Americans last month, Clinton says she is the one who should be held responsible for the security failure.

But Benghazi was just one in a host of failures in the past three years of U.S. foreign policy.

Perhaps Clinton can explain the wisdom of her ambassador in Islamabad granting a visa to Pakistan’s most notorious anti-American politician, Imran Khan, to come to New York next week to raise funds for his anti-American movement.

Khan has justified the Taliban war against the U.S. in Afghanistan as a “jihad.” He also refused to fully condemn the Taliban for attempting to assassinate the 14-year old Pakistani girl Malala Yousufzai. “Who will save my party workers if I sit here and give big statements against the Taliban,” Khan told a press conference after leading an anti-American procession by his party.

Earlier this year, he was granted permission to come to the U.S. and address an anti-American fundraiser in Houston on, of all days, the fourth of July! That event was cancelled after a number of congressmen made phone calls.

Now Khan is coming to New York on October 26 to speak at a fundraising dinner and Eid celebration. In a promotional e-mail, the American organizers of the event claim: “All the money raised will be used to change the political as well as social structure of Pakistan by implementing the law across the board, Insha’Allah (Allah be willing).”

The “law” Imran Khan wishes to “implement” in Pakistan with the help of money raised in America is Sharia: “As Muslims we are bound by Sharia and if the Taliban are enforcing that, we should welcome it, not be fearful of it.”

If there was any doubt left in anyone’s mind about the agenda of Khan, here he is again praising Sharia law: “The liberal class is afraid of Sharia law. They say if Sharia comes people’s hands will be chopped off. I say, what is wrong with Sharia law. Sharia is what makes us human.”

Read more at Toronto Sun

CBS Reporter Lara Logan Rails Against ‘Major Lie’ of Last Two Years in Candid Speech: Islamists Are Still Strong as Ever

By :

Blaze readers are likely familiar with CBS correspondent, Lara Logan, the wartime journalist who endured a horrific ordeal in Egypt last summer when she was beaten and sexually assaulted by a mob of angry Egyptian men during their Arab Spring “celebrations.” Now, Logan has a message for the public: “they” (the Taliban and other Islamic operatives) are as strong as ever.

During a recent keynote address at the Better Government Association annual luncheon last Tuesday, Logan delivered what the Chicago Sun Times called “a provocative speech” to some 1,100 movers in government, politics, media, and the legal and corporate arenas. She explained that the Taliban, al Qaeda and its proxies haven’t gone away and are in fact re-energized and coming back in force. Logan also informed the crowd that a “lie” is being propagated by the American government.

“I chose this subject because, one, I can’t stand, that there is a major lie being propagated…” Logan announced. The lie is that the U.S. military has tamed the Taliban.

“There is this narrative coming out of Washington for the last two years,” Logan began. It is driven in part by “Taliban apologists,“ who claim ”they are just the poor moderate, gentler, kinder Taliban.”

“It’s such nonsense!”

Read more at The Blaze

Dozens of Afghan schoolgirls hospitalized for third time in 2 weeks; Taliban blamed for ‘poison attack’

A girl peeks out of a classroom window at a school in Kandahar, Afghanistan, Oct. 1, 2011. (Anja Niedringhaus/ …

by Dillan Stableford, The Lookout:

Police in northern Afghanistan say 160 schoolgirls were admitted to a local hospital after they were thought to be poisoned by the Taliban. It’s the third such poisoning of Afghan schoolgirls in less than two weeks.

The girls “complained of headaches, dizziness and vomiting before being taken to the hospital,” Hafizullah Safi, director of the Takhar health department, told CNN. Most were discharged within a few hours, Safi said.

Officials suspect their classrooms were sprayed with a toxic chemical by militants who oppose education for girls.

Read more

Reality Check? U.S. Declares ‘War on Terrorism’ Over

by: Arnold Ahlert at Radical Islam:

On Monday it was revealed that the CIA had thwarted a new al-Qaeda-sponsored terror plot hatched in Yemen. The scheme was brought down by a man said to have been a mole for the CIA and Saudi intelligence. After infiltrating the Yemeni cell, the agent enlisted in a suicide mission designed to bring down a U.S.-bound airliner, but turned over his equipment and intelligence once the plan was set in motion. The success of the counterterrorism mission — a story full of intrigue, double agents and high-stakes deception — is a testament to the prowess of U.S. defense capabilities, to be sure. Yet, the event also serves as a grim reminder that recent declarations by Obama surrogates suggesting that the war on terror is “over” have been overstated, to say the least.

On Tuesday, John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s counterterrorism adviser, contended that the discovery of the plot indicates that al-Qaeda remains a threat to the United States a year after Bin Laden’s death. Keep in mind, however, that Mr. Brennan himself revealed in 2009 that the terms “war on terrorism,” “jihadists” and “global war” were no longer acceptable within the Obama White House. At the time, he did concede that we were still “at war with al-Qaida,” yet he insisted that using the three above terms gave the terrorist organization unwarranted legitimacy, and further implied that America is at war with all of Islam.

The “we’re only at war with al-Qaeda” motif was amplified by an unnamed “senior State Department official” in a National Journal article written by Michael Hirsh in April 2012. “The war on terror is over,” said the official. “Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.”

Despite the ridiculous assertion by Hirsh that, if Osama bin Laden were still alive, he “would see a U.S. administration that, having killed most of bin Laden’s confederates, is now ready to move into a post-al-Qaeda era and engage with Islamist politicians as long as they renounce violence and terrorism,” al-Qaeda remains a potent force.

Despite the ridiculous assertion by Hirsh that, if Osama bin Laden were still alive, he “would see a U.S. administration that, having killed most of bin Laden’s confederates, is now ready to move into a post-al-Qaeda era and engage with Islamist politicians as long as they renounce violence and terrorism,” al-Qaeda remains a potent force.

Yemen, Pakistan Nigeria and Somalia represent relatively new and fertile feeding grounds for the terrorist organization — unless one wishes to engage in another round of semantic obscurantism. Such obscurantism attempts to ignore the reality that groups such as Pakistan’s Lashkar-e-Taiba, Nigeria’s Boko Haram, and Somalia’s al Shabaab espouse the very same jihadist ambitions as al-Qaeda in Iraq, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Furthermore, leaders of these affiliates have sworn “bayat,” or loyalty, to current al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, even as they offer him funding and fighters. The Wall Street Journal’s Seth Jones offers the ultimate reality check: “None of these organizations existed a decade ago,” he writes.

Hirsh’s other contention, that the so-called Arab Spring “opened up new channels of expression, supplying for the first time in decades an alternative to violent jihad” is also undone. Documents taken from Bin Laden’s compound and reviewed by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reveal that Bin Laden was seeking a way to “reattach al-Qaeda to the Muslim mainstream.” Ignatius re-iterates the success al-Qaeda has enjoyed in Yemen, but he notes that Egypt’s Salafist party, “which like al-Qaeda traces its roots to the Islamist theorist Sayyid Qutb, has 13 seats in the new Egyptian parliament.” He refers to such political successes as “electoral bin Ladenism.”

There are other notable al-Qaeda success stories as well. It planted its flag on a Benghazi courthouse in post-Gaddafi Libya last November, and has made inroads into the Syrian opposition attempting to overthrow butcher Bashar Assad, a reality revealed by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in February. Thus, it appears the demise of the organization responsible for 9/11 has been greatly exaggerated.

Despite these sobering assessments, one of the reasons the administration likes the focus to remain on al-Qaeda is that it takes the focus off other inconvenient truths. For example, instead of pursuing victory in Afghanistan, the Obama administration has not only been negotiating with the Taliban, but secretly releasing high-level Taliban detainees from a military prison in Afghanistan — with the warning that if they are caught attacking American troops, they will be detained once again. Measured against the Taliban’s long record of savagery, such a warning amounts to delusional thinking.

Read more…

Arnold Ahlert is a former NY Post op-ed columnist.

Qur’an Burning and Destructive Double Standards

By Bruce Thornton at Front Page:

The riots and violence in Afghanistan over some accidentally burned Qur’ans are following a script that by now is all too drearily familiar. As we have seen over the years with the riots over the Mohammed cartoons, Pope Benedict’s comments about violence in Islam, or false rumors of Qur’ans flushed down toilets, violent Muslim overreactions to slights are immediately followed by anxious apologies from American leaders. Rather than defusing the anger, however, such groveling merely encourages more contempt and violence.

So too with the current riots, which have killed 30 people, including 4 U.S. soldiers, two of them in the high-security Interior Ministry. Another seven Sunday were wounded in a grenade attack by demonstrators. This violence, moreover, has been encouraged by mullahs in mosques, teachers in madrassas, and members of parliament. Predictably, the Taliban––with whom our government is eager to talk peace––has encouraged people to “turn their guns on the foreign infidel invaders.” President Obama has responded to this incitement and violence by offering his personal “sincere apologies,” professing his “deep regret,” and vowing to hold those responsible accountable. Defense Secretary Panetta and NATO commander John Allen also apologized.

But no reciprocal apology has been demanded from President Hamid Karzai for the incitement to violence on the part of government and religious leaders, or for the deaths of two of our troops at the hands of an Afghan soldier we trained and armed, and another two inside a government ministry. Newt Gingrich had the best response to this sorry spectacle: “There seems to be nothing that radical Islamists can do to get Barack Obama’s attention in a negative way and he is consistently apologizing to people who do not deserve the apology of the President of the United States period,” Gingrich said in Washington D.C. “It is Hamid Karzai who owes the American people an apology, not the other way around. This destructive double standard whereby the United States and its democratic allies refuse to hold accountable leaders who tolerate systematic violence and oppression in their borders must come to an end.”

The administration and the military, of course, rationalize their indulgence of this double standard as motivated by “the safety of American men and women in Afghanistan, of our military and civilian personnel there,” as Obama spokesman Jay Carney put it. But as one demonstrator in Kabul said, “We don’t care about Obama’s apology. We have to protest to be responsible to our god. They are burning our Qur’an. An apology is not enough.” Most Afghans obviously agree, since rioting and killing have intensified despite apologies from our highest government and military officials. Indeed, over the past few decades, no amount of apologies for alleged “insults” to Muslims has stopped Islamists form attacking us. Nor have the good deeds benefitting Muslims, from rescuing Bosnians from genocide to liberating Libyans from Gaddafi, stopped jihadists from wanting to kill Americans for an endless list of reasons. The past decades of such incidents have shown instead that apologies are useless, and merely confirm the impression among Muslims that we are spiritually inferior, and so endorse the perverse logic that accidentally burning a book is worse than murdering our soldiers and citizens. Why else would we publicly flagellate ourselves over such “insults” even as we say nothing about the Muslim murders of Christians in Egypt and Nigeria, or the Muslim laws prescribing capital punishment for converts to Christianity, or the Muslim vandalizing and destruction of 300 churches in Cyprus, or the Muslim slow-motion extermination of Christians in lands that worshipped Christ for 6 centuries before Islam even existed?

As Gingrich pointed out, these double standards are counterproductive and have been proven over and over to make Muslims despise us rather than like us. What we refuse to accept is the intolerant chauvinism inherent in Islam, the belief that Muslims are the “best of nations” and destined to rule the world. Accepting the double standard merely confirms their superiority and our inferiority. After all, to let someone behave according to one set of principles or standards while demanding that you be subjected to others is to validate a claim of superiority that justifies the disproportionate and unjust behavior. It’s acting like a battered wife, who accepts a beat-down from her husband as justified punishment for burning his dinner. This double standard also reflects incoherent thinking, a failure to apply consistently a principle that presumably has universal validity. Hence we celebrate and practice “tolerance” at the same time we enable, ignore, excuse, and rationalize intolerance. In the West’s struggle with Islamic jihad, our doubts about the superiority of Western beliefs have coupled with this breakdown in ethical reasoning. The result is the appeasement of jihadist aggression and the confirmation of the jihadist estimation of the West’s weakness and corruption.

This record of appeasement, then, has encouraged many Muslims to demand from Westerners a hypersensitivity to Islam, all the while that Christians and Jews in Muslim countries are subjected to harassment, assault, vicious insult, and murder. In the West, respect for Muslim holy books and practices is supposed to be granted as a self-evident right beyond argument or debate. Yet Western ideals and principles, such as tolerance for different creeds, are derided, disrespected, and rejected as self-evident evils. Worse yet, we pretend that our appeasement of jihadist violence is an expression of tolerance, the liberal-democratic virtue that simply has little meaning in Islamic theology. Why would any pious Muslim “tolerate” an infidel culture that jeopardizes the eternal souls of Muslims, and that stands in the way of others’ converting to Islam? As the Ayatollah Khomeini said, “Those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation.” Such confidence is reinforced when we acquiesce in a standard whereby burning a Qur’an or insulting Mohammed with a cartoon is worse than killing people.

Read the rest…


Toxic Taqiyya – “Satan’s greatest victory was getting the world to believe that he did not exist”

By David Meir-Levi at Frontpage:

On May 10th, 1994, just a few months after signing the Oslo Accords (September, 1993), Yasir Arafat addressed an assembly of Muslims in a Johannesburg mosque  where he justified his actions by explaining: “This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Muhammad and Quraysh.”  And he concluded by calling on the worshipers “to come and to fight and to start the jihad to liberate Jerusalem.”

What did those words mean?

Muhammad signed a 10-year truce with the Arabian pagan Quraysh tribe in the city of Mecca (the Treaty of Hudaybiyah, 628 AD). At the beginning of the second year of that ten-year period he found a pretext to justify breaking the truce. He pounced on the Quraysh in a surprise attack, conquered Mecca and defeated the Quraysh, who were not prepared for more hostilities since they were honoring the 10-year accord and assumed that Muhammad was too.  Since then this agreement between Muhammad and the Quraysh has been an example for Muslims world-wide of how to trick the enemy in wartime. In other words, Arafat explained to his Muslim audience that he gave his word to President Clinton and Yitzhak Rabin, and signed the Oslo Accords, only because he planned to annul his commitments and attack Israel as soon as it was expedient for him to do so.  He lied to Clinton and Rabin; but once he was out from under the scrutiny of western media and in the comfort of a Muslim group whose support he could assume, he told the truth to his Muslim audience.  He was not aware that his speech was recorded.

Arafat’s lies to Clinton and Rabin were an excellent example of a 1,400 year old Muslim tradition of Taqiyya: tricking the enemy in wartime by offering a false peace or truce, but preparing to attack once the enemy lets down its guard.

Taqiyya (lit. ‘caution’) denotes the deceit or dissimulation used by Shiites, who may lie and even commit blasphemous acts to conceal their religion when they are under threat of persecution from majority Sunnis. It has long been used in its other manifestation, as an integral part of Muslim military strategy, employing trickery and deceit to mislead the enemy (for a detailed discussion see John Esposito’s The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, Oxford University Press, 2003).

The Qur’an in a variety of verses (2:225, 3:28, 3:54, 9:3, 16:106, 40:28, and 66:2) establishes the religious legitimacy of breaking oaths, lying, unilaterally violating treaties, and generally scheming against non-Muslims.  Allah Himself is described as “the best of schemers” (3:54, 8:30, 10:21), and Muhammad declared, as a justification for murdering unarmed prisoners after offering them safe passage, “war is deceit” (see the Hadith collection of  Bukhari, vol. 4, book 52, nos. 268-271).  So during the negotiations of Oslo I and II, Arafat’s willingness to acquiesce to Israeli demands was merely his acting as a good Muslim warrior, using taqiyya, deceit in warfare, to put his enemy at a disadvantage.

Arafat’s taqiyya began long before Oslo. For decades he told the West that he was just a scruffy little guy doing his best to keep his rough-neck boys (Fatah, the PLO, the el-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and Hamas, inter alia) under control so that he could make peace with Israel; even as he called in Arabic for a million martyrs to march on Jerusalem to destroy Israel and create their “Palestine…from the river to the sea”.  Similarly he told the west that he was trying to rein in Hamas and enforce the ban on terrorism to which he had agreed in the Oslo Accords.  Yet, as became apparent when Israel invaded his muqata (military compound) in Ramallah during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002, and translated thousands of documents taken from his files and computers,  he in reality had partnered with Hamas, funded Hamas, armed Hamas, and aided in Hamas’ terrorism.  Far too many in the West fell for his “good cop – bad cop” act.

Hamas too uses the taqiyya ruse at will, frequently telling the West that it really wants peace, but reminding its followers in Arabic that they must continue the ‘struggle’ (the terror war against Israel) until victory or martyrdom.

Examples of taqiyya are endless.  To the west the PA explains its refusal to negotiate with Israel as a result of Israel’s settlement construction.  But the reality is revealed in the Palestine Strategy Group’s 2009 proposal for a strategy of “intelligent resistance”  (i.e., the priority of law fare, boycott campaigns and other anti-Israel propaganda over terrorism) as a means of continuing the struggle against Israel.

Fatah leader, Abbas Zaki, has repeatedly revealed the duplicity of the PA leaders. On April 9th 2008 he told NBN TV the following: “The PLO has not changed its platform even one iota….The PLO proceeds through phases…..Allah willing we will drive them out of all of Palestine.”  The following year he revealed on Lebanese TV: “When we say that the settlement should be based upon these (1967) borders, President (Abbas) understands, we understand, and everybody knows, that the greater goal (destruction of Israel) cannot be accomplished in one go. If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, evacuates the 650,000 settlers and dismantles the wall – what will become of Israel? It will come to an end.”  He then cautioned his listeners: “It is not acceptable policy to say that we want to wipe Israel out. Don’t say these things to the world, keep it to yourself.”

Mahmoud Abbas in an interview with European reporters (December, 2011) insisted that the PA’s unification with Hamas did not threaten the so-called “peace process:”  ”We set the agreement’s pillars, and Hamas agreed with us that resistance will be popular and adopt peaceful ways, rather than military resistance.” But when Hamas celebrated its 23th anniversary in Gaza the same week (14 Dec 2011), Hamas PM Ismail Haniyeh called upon the Muslim Brotherhood to start a war to liberate Jerusalem: “We affirm that armed resistance is our strategic option and the only way to liberate our land, from the (Mediterranean) sea to the River (Jordan.) God willing, Hamas will lead the people… to the uprising until we liberate Palestine, all of Palestine”.

Palestinian Media Watch recently published “Deception: Betraying the Peace Process,” which documents the hate-speech, hate-preach and hate-teach promoted by PA officials and Arab media, and the manner in which they lie about it to the west. The book, recently reviewed in the NY Times (but see here for a very harsh but accurate critique of the reviewer’s minimization of the PA’s strategy of deceit), lists many examples of deceit.

Despite its public pronouncements in English, the PA glorifies terrorists, libels Israel and promotes a culture of violence. Palestinian Authority television programs, including those on children’s quiz shows, portray cities along Israel’s Mediterranean coast, like Haifa, Jaffa and Acre, as being part of “Palestine.” Some news reports refer to Israel as the Palestinian interior.

A constant theme is the Palestinian denial of any Jewish historic or religious connection to Jerusalem or the Holy Land (see here for a summary and rebuttal of this Israel-denial).

A most recent example of Israel-denial is an op-ed in the Washington Post (12.21.2011) by the PA’s political representative in Washington, in which he promotes a series of fantasy assertions that Palestinians lived in Jericho 10,000 years ago, that Jews and Arabs lived in harmony until 1948, that Israel is to blame for Arab terrorism, and that the PA today has agreed to a two-state solution (for an accurate discussion of this new taqiyya, the invention of Palestinian ancient history, see here).

It is nothing more than common sense that deception of the enemy during war is a commendable tactic and an important part of an effective military strategy.  But in the context of war with Muslim powers, there is a critical difference that must be taken into consideration: jihad is eternal and “The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only.”  Therefore, every truce, treaty or cease-fire agreement made by a Muslim entity with a non-Muslim entity is nothing more than a treaty made to be broken, as soon as the Muslim side finds it useful to do so. This being the case, the most frightening aspect of Palestinian taqiyya is that our own leaders are repeatedly deceived by it, or worse, turn a blind eye to it. Recall that taqiyya is a strategy of deceit against adversaries in wartime. By making taqiyya such a major part of their strategy, PA leaders and Hamas demonstrate that, rather than trying to make peace, they are engaged in continuous war against Israel. So much for the peace process.

A Catholic anecdote says that Satan’s greatest victory was getting the world to believe that he did not exist. Did Satan learn about taqiyyeh from Allah, or the opposite?

U.S. Set to Release Key Taliban Figure in 9/11 Attacks

The U.S. intelligence community is warning that the Taliban have abandoned none of their goals to conquer all of Afghanistan and enforce strict Islamic law (shariah). A new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which represents the collective judgment of the most senior U.S. intelligence analysts, warned the White House in December 2011 that the Taliban would settle for nothing less than total control over “an Islamic emirate.” Nevertheless, the Obama administration acknowledges that its envoys have been pursuing talks with the Taliban for the past year, are working on the opening of a political office for the Taliban in Doha, Qatar, and are considering the release of several Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay—as a “trust-building measure.” What could possibly go wrong?

Aside from the fact that Afghan President Hamid Karzai seems somehow to have been left out of this flurry of diplomatic activity with the Islamic jihadists who have been fighting for the better part of two decades to take over his country, the continuing failure of U.S. leadership to know the enemy cripples our ability to defend America’s most critical national security needs and exposes the homeland to the very real possibility of another 9/11. The December 2011 NIE on the Afghan Taliban plainly stated that Mullah Mohammad Omar, the Pashtun warlord whose government sheltered Usama bin Laden and al-Qa’eda in the 1990s, remains totally committed to taking over all of Afghanistan and subjugating it to the harsh dictates of shariah.

When the Taliban ruled The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan from 1996 until they were ousted by U.S. forces in late 2001, the world saw the most barbaric cruelties of Islamic law inflicted on the Afghan people: amputation, flogging, and stoning, as well as the savage repression of women and girls.

As became obvious on one clear day in September 2001, it wasn’t the Afghan people alone who would suffer at the hands of the Taliban. Mullah Omar’s Afghanistan harbored Usama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the rest of al-Qa’eda as they plotted the attacks of September 11 together with the Iranian regime. As we now know from the December 2011 ruling in the Havlish case by Judge George Daniels of the Southern District of New York, the top levels of the Iranian regime, and specifically the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and intelligence service (MOIS—Ministry of Intelligence and Security), were closely involved in providing “direct and material support” to al-Qa’eda in the 9/11 attacks—and it was Mullah Omar whose steadfast loyalty to Usama bin Laden and secret dealings with Iran allowed those attack plans to proceed.

This is the same Mullah Omar with whom Department of State envoy Marc Grossman has been meeting for months, unbeknownst to the American people and unbeknownst to the thousands of American troops who are still fighting against the Taliban, dying, and coming home maimed for life, in a valiant effort to defeat the forces of shariah Islam.

Unfortunately, most Americans and most of our service members probably don’t know that the Department of State long ago helped write the Afghan constitution, which placed the country firmly under Islamic law, complete with dictates that apostasy is punishable by death, blasphemy/slander against Islam is a capital crime, minority faiths such as Buddhism and Christianity face institutional discrimination, women are officially second-class citizens, and freedom of speech and expression is non-existent. This means that, for the last decade or so, thousands of Americans and other NATO coalition forces have been fighting to defend a government in Kabul that was already subjugated to shariah (one of the key objectives of al-Qa’eda and the Taliban in the first place).   

Late December 2011 and early January 2012 reporting indicates that the situation may yet become even worse. There are indications that the U.S. government is considering the release of several senior Taliban leaders who have been held at Guantanamo Bay for years and have until now been considered too dangerous to let go. Now, however, in a desperate effort to complete the American withdrawal from Afghanistan and entice Mullah Omar’s Taliban jihadis into negotiations, the White House is thinking of setting free some of the worst of the worst Taliban terror leadership—including at least one figure who personally arranged and attended a pre-9/11 planning meeting with Hizballah, Iranian, and Taliban officials.

Khirullah Said Wali Khairkhwa is a former Governor of Herat Province, Afghanistan who served under Mullah Omar’s Taliban government from 1999-2001. Khairkhwa met in Kandahar directly with Usama bin Laden and other jihadi fighters at least once in early 2000 and also after 9/11 at a clandestine October 2001 meeting between senior Iranian intelligence and Taliban officials at which Iran pledged to assist the Taliban in its war against the United States.

Indeed, according to the Havlish case documents, Khairkhwa had been appointed Governor of Heart Province in western Afghanistan with the explicit mission to improve relations between Iran and the Taliban. Guantanamo Bay Combatant Status Review Board transcripts show that he fulfilled that tasking by bringing senior Taliban leaders such as Hizbi-I Islami commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyar together with Usama bin Laden and Hekmatyar associates in the Iranian IRGC and MOIS. Khairkhwa was captured in 2002 and transferred to Guantanamo Bay; significantly, Washington, D.C. District Court Judge Ricardo Urbina denied Khairkhwa’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus in an opinion issued in May 2011.  

Now, the U.S. government is considering releasing Khairkhwa anyway and perhaps several other senior Taliban figures as well, all of whom were closely associated with al-Qa’eda and all of whom the U.S. military has assessed as posing a high risk of returning to Taliban ranks to continue fighting jihad if let out. This would be in return for nothing from the Taliban except some promises to continue talking.

Khairkhwa’s close relationship with the Iranian IRGC and intelligence service only compounds the danger of allowing him out of U.S. custody. And yet, that is exactly what reportedly is now under serious consideration by the U.S. government. With Afghanistan under Islamic law, U.S. and allied Western troops soon to withdraw, and now possibly the Taliban’s top jihadis to be released from American detention, it would be a clean sweep total victory for the forces of shariah Islam. Minus Usama bin Laden and some other former top leaders now gone from the scene, but bolstered by the incredible wholesale collapse of Western resolve, al-Qa’eda and the Taliban, together with jihadist allies in Iran and Pakistan, would be free once again to consolidate their hold over Afghanistan.

As Iran continues to drive towards a deliverable nuclear weapons capability and with Pakistan already in possession of a nuclear arsenal, the forces of shariah Islam clearly are ascendant across multiple fronts. Prospects for stability in West Asia look increasingly dim. Prospects for American leadership in defense of genuine democracy and freedom look even worse.

Clare M. Lopez, a senior fellow at the Clarion Fund, writes regularly for, and is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on Middle East, national defense, and counterterrorism issues

Report: Radical Sheikh a Key Mediator in U.S.-Taliban Talks

by IPT News  Dec 28, 2011

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi