Shameful Degradation

A Make-Believe Narrative

What came out of the recent appearance by Hillary Clinton, prodigious liar, when she was examined by a House Committee over the "Benghazi Affair" is hard to credit.  For ordinary, God-fearing people, it seems  incredible.

The "Affair" has faded in memories, somewhat.  In 2012, just before the upcoming presidential election, Al Qaeda attacked a US embassy outpost in Benghazi.  Four Americans, including the ambassador, Chris Stevens lost their lives as a result.  Within twenty-four hours President Obama and Hillary Clinton (then Secretary of State) were proclaiming that the attack was actually a demonstration, a spontaneous uprising of outrage at an anti-Islamic video made by some random person in the United States (and hitherto watched by around five people, according to generous assumptions).  Sub-text: the deaths of the four Americans were ultimately the responsibility of the random video-maker. 

Thus ran the public narrative, defended by Clinton and Obama to this day.

Ten Years On

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Ten years on from 9/11--what have we learned?  There are pluses and minuses--which is to be expected in a fallen world.  To our mind, here are some of them:

1. There is now much more unease amongst Islamic people over the nature of their religion.  It is evident to many that Al Qaeda and its affiliates have killed many more Islamic "brethren" than infidels.

British Realism on Al Qaeda?

Something The US Should Also Learn

General Sir David Richards is the newly-installed Chief of the Defence Staff. He is a 39 year career army officer. In an interview published in the Daily Telegraph, he appears to present a more contained and realistic view on dealing with Al Qaeda and other forms of Islamic militancy. Whilst he has to defend his country's current commitment in Afghanistan, he does so with an expression of wishful thinking, rather than military conviction.

Defeating al-Qaeda and Islamist militancy

The general subscribes to the notion that such an ideologically-driven adversary cannot be defeated in the traditional sense, and to attempt to do so could be a mistake.

"In conventional war, defeat and victory is very clear cut and is symbolised by troops marching into another nation's capital.

First of all you have to ask: "do we need to defeat it (Islamist militancy)?" in the sense of a clear cut victory, and I would argue that it is unnecessary and would never be achieved." It is a bold statement and he quickly adds: "But can we contain it to the point that our lives and our children's lives are led securely? I think we can."

This sort of talk would have you "gone by lunchtime" in the United States. He goes on to suggest that Islamic terrorism is not fundamentally a military problem but a religious and philosophical one. He believes it will only be "defeated" by westernising those lands where Al Qaeda is now supported. He does not use the term "westernise" but that is actually what he has in mind.

Education, prosperity, understanding and democracy, he argues passionately, are the weapons that would ultimately turn people away from terrorism, although he admitted that to believe that such an undertaking could be achieved "within the time frame of the Second World War would be naive in the extreme".

Ah, yes, back to that doomed notion of "nation building".

We believe a far more sane and enlightened approach would be for the US and others to focus their military and policing efforts on protecting their citizens from attacks. It should not be upon removing the threats. Such a goal is idealistic and naive. It sucks nations into social welfare programmes and "nation-building" in such extremely primitive places like Afghanistan (which, of course, have to be protected by the requisite military force and presence.)

Reading between the lines, General Richards appears to be setting up a point at which he will begin to argue for withdrawal from Afghanistan.

"I believe the sacrifice made by British troops in Afghanistan has been worth it," he said, the smile slipping from his face. "I keep well in touch with servicemen and women and that is all our views."

Recent polling in Afghanistan also suggests that up to 90 per cent of Afghans do not want the Taliban to return but the general admits that the country is beginning to tire of Nato's failure to deliver on many of its promises.

He continued: "If I thought for one minute that the majority of the Afghan people didn't want us any more – then I and everyone else would say that it's time to go, we've failed.

"But there is no indication of that. The vast majority do not want the return of the Taliban and it must be in our strategic interest to see that whole region stabilised before we eventually go, which we will do.

Ninety percent of Afghans do not want the Taliban to return. Must have been some real smart polling that was done. If that were true, victory would have been achieved five years ago. He cannot really believe that. We suspect he is looking for as fast an exit as possible.

A Fatwa Against All Christians

Christians Now "Legitimate Target"

About ten days ago, Al Qaeda operatives invaded a Christian worship service being held in a church in Baghdad. By several accounts they began indiscriminately shooting and throwing grenades at the congregation. Security forces arrived, stormed the church, and dispatched the terrorists--but not without a great loss of innocent life.

France has announced a special asylum programme for 150 Iraqi Christians, with priority being given to those who survived wounded in the attack, according to a report in Al Jazeera. Good on the French.

The same article reports that

Al-Qaeda has declared Christians everywhere "legitimate targets" in the wake of the bloodshed at the Baghdad church.

So be warned. Every Christian in the world should now consider that, like Salmon Rushdie, they have a fatwa hanging over their head. Not that it will change anything. We are called to be servants of the Living God, not to be in craven subjugation to the devil.

But the religious reality represented by Al Qaeda is becoming more evident.

Nasty

Bosom Bombers

We don't know much about explosives but if the following report is accurate, then suicide bombing in airplanes is going to get much more difficult to counteract. Let's hope that the relevant authorities are preparing rapidly to counter this kind of threat.

It's pretty chilling that only five ounces of PETN, if exploded properly, would tear a hole in an aircraft.

Bosom bombers: Women have explosive breast implants
Authorities alarmed by possibility of surgically placed explosives
Posted: February 01, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

LONDON – Agents for Britain's MI5 intelligence service have discovered that Muslim doctors trained at some of Britain's leading teaching hospitals have returned to their own countries to fit surgical implants filled with explosives, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

Women suicide bombers recruited by al-Qaida are known to have had the explosives inserted in their breasts under techniques similar to breast enhancing surgery. The lethal explosives – usually PETN (pentaerythritol Tetrabitrate) – are inserted during the operation inside the plastic shapes. The breast is then sewn up.

Similar surgery has been performed on male suicide bombers. In their cases, the explosives are inserted in the appendix area or in a buttock. Both are parts of the body that diabetics use to inject themselves with their prescribed drugs.

The discovery of these methods was made after the London-educated Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab came close to blowing up an airliner on Christmas Day with explosives he had stuffed inside his underpants.

Hours after he had failed, GCHQ – Britain's worldwide eavesdropping "spy in the sky" agency – began to pick up "chatter" emanating from Pakistan and Yemen that alerted MI5 to the creation of the lethal implants.

A hand-picked team was appointed by Jonathan Evans, the head of MI5, to investigate the threat. He described it as "one that can circumvent our defense." Top surgeons who work in the National Health Service confirmed the feasibility of the explosive implants.

In a report to Evans, one said:

"Properly inserted the implant would be virtually impossible to detect by the usual airport scanning machines. You would need to subject a suspect to a sophisticated X-ray. Given that the explosive would be inserted in a sealed plastic sachet, and would be a small amount, would make it all the more impossible to spot it with the usual body scanner."

Explosive experts at Britain's Porton Down biological and chemical warfare research center told MI5 that a sachet containing as little as five ounces of PETN when activated would blow "a considerable hole" in an airline's skin which would guarantee it would crash.