Crusader's Armory: May 2013

Obamination:Future of our Fight against Terrorism The Weekly Standard published Obamination's prepared remarks: "Future of our Fight against Terrorism". As usual, when Obamination spews major volumes of feces, I cull the most egregious chunks for annotation. Superscripts inserted into the quotes are linked to my commentary; press your Backspace key to return to your place in the quote after reading the commentary. Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis is mine.

Then, on September 11th 2001, we were shaken out of complacency. Thousands were taken from us, as clouds of fire, metal and ash descended upon a sun-filled morning. This was a different kind of war¹. No armies came to our shores, and our military was not the principal target. Instead, a group of terrorists² came to kill as many civilians as they could³.

And so our nation went to war⁴. We have now been at war for well over a decade. I won’t review the full history. What’s clear is that we quickly drove al Qaeda out of Afghanistan⁵, but then shifted our focus and began a new war in Iraq⁶. This carried grave consequences⁷ for our fight against al Qaeda⁸, our standing in the world⁹, and – to this day – our interests in a vital region¹⁰.

Meanwhile, we strengthened our defenses – hardening targets¹¹, tightening transportation security¹², and giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror. Most of these changes were sound. Some caused inconvenience. But some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy¹³. And in some cases, I believe we compromised our basic values – by using torture to interrogate our enemies¹⁴, and detaining individuals¹⁵ in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.

After I took office, we stepped up the war against al Qaeda, but also sought to change its course. We relentlessly targeted al Qaeda’s leadership¹⁶. We ended the war in Iraq¹⁷, and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. We pursued a new strategy in Afghanistan, and increased our training of Afghan forces¹⁸. We unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts¹⁹, worked to align our policies with the rule of law²⁰, and expanded our consultations with Congress.

Today, Osama bin Laden is dead²¹, and so are most of his top lieutenants. There have been no large-scale attacks²² on the United States, and our homeland is more secure²³. Fewer of our troops are in harm’s way²⁴, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. Our alliances are strong²⁵, and so is our standing in the world. In sum, we are safer²⁶ because of our efforts.

Now make no mistake: our nation is still threatened by terrorists²⁷. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. We must recognize, however, that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11. With a decade of experience to draw from, now is the time to ask ourselves hard questions – about the nature of today’s threats²⁸, and how we should confront them²⁹.

These questions matter to every American. For over the last decade, our nation has spent well over a trillion dollars on war³⁰ exploding our deficits³¹ and constraining our ability to nation build here at home³². Our service-members and their families have sacrificed far more on our behalf. Nearly 7,000 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice³³. Many more have left a part of themselves on the battlefield, or brought the shadows of battle back home. From our use of drones³⁴ to the detention of terrorist suspects³⁵, the decisions we are making will define the type of nation³⁶
– and world – that we leave to our children.

So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle³⁷, or else it will define us, mindful of James Madison’s warning that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare³⁸.” Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. What we can do – what we must do – is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger³⁹, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend⁴⁰. To define that strategy, we must make decisions based not on fear, but hard-earned wisdom. And that begins with understanding the threat we face⁴¹.

Today, the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to defeat⁴². Their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us. They did not direct the attacks in Benghazi or Boston⁴³. They have not carried out a successful attack on our homeland since 9/11⁴⁴. Instead, what we’ve seen is the emergence of various al Qaeda affiliates. From Yemen to Iraq, from Somalia to North Africa, the threat today is more diffuse⁴⁵, with Al Qaeda’s affiliate in the Arabian Peninsula – AQAP –the most active in plotting against our homeland. While none of AQAP’s efforts approach the scale of 9/11 they have continued to plot acts of terror, like the attempt to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day in 2009.

Unrest in the Arab World⁴⁶has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold⁴⁷ in countries like Libya and Syria. Here, too, there are differences from 9/11. In some cases, we confront state-sponsored networks⁴⁸ like Hizbollah that engage in acts of terror to achieve political goals. Others are simply collections of local militias or extremists interested in seizing territory. While we are vigilant for signs that these groups may pose a transnational threat, most are focused on operating in the countries and regions where they are based. That means we will face more localized threats like those we saw in Benghazi⁴⁹, or at the BP oil facility in Algeria, in which local operatives – in loose affiliation with regional networks – launch periodic attacks against Western diplomats, companies, and other soft targets, or resort to kidnapping and other criminal enterprises to fund their operations.

Finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals⁵⁰ here in the United States. Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin; a plane flying into a building in Texas; or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City – America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our time. Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

Lethal yet less capable al Qaeda affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them. But as we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat⁵¹ closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11. In the 1980s, we lost Americans to terrorism at our Embassy in Beirut; at our Marine Barracks in Lebanon; on a cruise ship at sea; at a disco in Berlin; and on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. In the 1990s, we lost Americans to terrorism at the World Trade Center; at our military facilities in Saudi Arabia; and at our Embassy in Kenya. These attacks were all deadly, and we learned that left unchecked⁵², these threats can grow. But if dealt with smartly and proportionally⁵³, these threats need not rise to the level that we saw on the eve of 9/11.

Moreover, we must recognize that these threats don’t arise in a vacuum. Most, though not all, of the terrorism we face is fueled by a common ideology ⁵⁴– a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict⁵⁵ with the United States and the West, and that violence against Western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause. Of course, this ideology is based on a lie⁵⁶ , for the United States is not at war with Islam⁵⁷; and this ideology is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims⁵⁸ , who are the most frequent victims of terrorist acts.

Nevertheless, this ideology persists, and in an age in which ideas and images can travel the globe in an instant, our response to terrorism cannot depend on military or law enforcement alone. We need all elements of national power to win a battle of wills and ideas⁵⁹ . So let me discuss the components of such a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy⁶⁰ .

First, we must finish the work of defeating al Qaeda⁶¹ and its associated forces. In Afghanistan, we will complete our transition to Afghan responsibility for security⁶². Our troops will come home. Our combat mission will come to an end. And we will work with the Afghan government to train security forces, and sustain a counter-terrorism force which ensures that al Qaeda can never again establish a safe-haven⁶³ to launch attacks against us or our allies.

Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror’ – but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists⁶⁴ that threaten America. In many cases, this will involve partnerships⁶⁵ with other countries. Thousands of Pakistani soldiers have lost their lives fighting extremists. In Yemen, we are supporting security forces that have reclaimed territory from AQAP. In Somalia, we helped a coalition of African nations push al Shabaab out of its strongholds. In Mali, we are providing military aid to a French-led intervention to push back al Qaeda in the Maghreb, and help the people of Mali reclaim their future.

Much of our best counter-terrorism cooperation⁶⁶ results in the gathering and sharing of intelligence; the arrest and prosecution of terrorists. That’s how a Somali terrorist apprehended off the coast of Yemen is now in prison in New York. That’s how we worked with European allies to disrupt plots from Denmark to Germany to the United Kingdom. That’s how intelligence collected with Saudi Arabia helped us stop a cargo plane from being blown up over the Atlantic.

But despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists⁶⁷, sometimes this approach is foreclosed. Al Qaeda and its affiliates try to gain a foothold in some of the most distant and unforgiving places on Earth. They take refuge in remote tribal regions. They hide in caves and walled compounds. They train in empty deserts and rugged mountains.

In some of these places – such as parts of Somalia and Yemen – the state has only the most tenuous reach into the territory. In other cases, the state lacks the capacity or will to take action.⁶⁸ It is also not possible for America to simply deploy a team of Special Forces to capture every terrorist. And even when such an approach may be possible, there are places where it would pose profound risks to our troops and local civilians– where a terrorist compound cannot be breached without triggering a firefight with surrounding tribal communities that pose no threat to us, or when putting U.S. boots on the ground may trigger a major international crisis.

To put it another way, our operation in Pakistan against Osama bin Laden cannot be the norm⁶⁹. The risks in that case were immense; the likelihood of capture, although our preference, was remote given the certainty of resistance; the fact that we did not find ourselves confronted with civilian casualties, or embroiled in an extended firefight, was a testament to the meticulous planning and professionalism of our Special Forces – but also depended on some luck. And even then, the cost to our relationship with Pakistan – and the backlash among the Pakistani public over encroachment on their territory – was so severe that we are just now beginning to rebuild this important partnership.

It is in this context that the United States has taken lethal, targeted action against al Qaeda and its associated forces, including with remotely piloted aircraft commonly referred to as drones. As was true in previous armed conflicts, this new technology raises profound questions – about who is targeted⁷⁰, and why; about civilian casualties⁷¹, and the risk of creating new enemies;⁷² about the legality of such strikes under U.S. and international law; about accountability and morality⁷³.

Let me address these questions. To begin with, our actions are effective⁷⁴. Don’t take my word for it. In the intelligence gathered at bin Laden’s compound, we found that he wrote, “we could lose the reserves to the enemy’s air strikes. We cannot fight air strikes with explosives.” Other communications from al Qaeda operatives confirm this as well. Dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers, and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. Plots have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, U.S. transit systems, European cities and our troops in Afghanistan. Simply put, these strikes have saved lives.

Moreover, America’s actions are legal. We were attacked on 9/11. Within a week, Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force. Under domestic law, and international law, the United States is at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces⁷⁵. We are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first. So this is a just war – a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense.

And yet as our fight enters a new phase, America’s legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion. To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral⁷⁶ in every instance. For the same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power – or risk abusing it. That’s why, over the last four years, my Administration has worked vigorously to establish a framework that governs our use of force against terrorists – insisting upon clear guidelines, oversight and accountability that is now codified in Presidential Policy Guidance that I signed yesterday.

In the Afghan war theater, we must support our troops until the transition is complete at the end of 2014. That means we will continue to take strikes against high value al Qaeda targets⁷⁶, but also against forces that are massing to support attacks on coalition forces. However, by the end of 2014, we will no longer have the same need for force protection⁷⁷, and the progress we have made against core al Qaeda will reduce the need for unmanned strikes.

Beyond the Afghan theater, we only target al Qaeda and its associated forces. Even then, the use of drones is heavily constrained. America does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists - our preference is always to detain, interrogate, and prosecute⁷⁸them. America cannot take strikes wherever we choose – our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and respect for state sovereignty⁷⁹. America does not take strikes to punish individuals – we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat. And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured⁸⁰ – the highest standard we can set.

This last point is critical, because much of the criticism about drone strikes – at home and abroad – understandably centers on reports of civilian casualties. There is a wide gap between U.S. assessments of such casualties, and non-governmental reports. Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars. For the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us⁸¹ as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred through conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But as Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties – not just in our cities at home and facilities abroad, but also in the very places –like Sana’a and Kabul and Mogadishu – where terrorists seek a foothold. Let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims⁸² dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes.

Where foreign governments cannot or will not effectively stop terrorism in their territory, the primary alternative to targeted, lethal action is the use of conventional military options. As I’ve said, even small Special Operations carry enormous risks. Conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage. And invasions of these territories lead us to be viewed as occupying armies; unleash a torrent of unintended consequences; are difficult to contain; and ultimately empower those who thrive on violent conflict. So it is false to assert that putting boots on the ground is less likely to result in civilian deaths, or to create enemies in the Muslim world⁸³. The result would be more U.S. deaths, more Blackhawks down, more confrontations with local populations, and an inevitable mission creep in support of such raids that could easily escalate into new wars.

So yes, the conflict with al Qaeda, like all armed conflict, invites tragedy. But by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill⁸⁴ us, and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life. Indeed, our efforts must also be measured against the history of putting American troops in distant lands among hostile populations. In Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of civilians died in a war where the boundaries of battle were blurred. In Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the courage and discipline of our troops, thousands of civilians have been killed. So neither conventional military action, nor waiting for attacks to occur, offers moral safe-harbor. Neither does a sole reliance on law enforcement⁸⁵ in territories that have no functioning police or security services – and indeed, have no functioning law.

This is not to say that the risks are not real. Any U.S. military action in foreign lands risks creating more enemies, and impacts public opinion overseas. Our laws constrain the power of the President, even during wartime, and I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. The very precision of drones strikes, and the necessary secrecy involved in such actions can end up shielding our government from the public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites. It can also lead a President and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism⁸⁶.

I believe, however, that the use of force must be seen as part of a larger discussion about a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. Because for all the focus on the use of force, force alone cannot make us safe.⁸⁷ We cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root;⁸⁸ and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the well-spring of extremism,⁸⁹ a perpetual war⁹⁰ – through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments – will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways⁹¹.

So the next element of our strategy involves addressing the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism,⁹² from North Africa to South Asia. As we’ve learned this past decade, this is a vast and complex undertaking. We must be humble in our expectation that we can quickly resolve deep rooted problems like poverty and sectarian hatred. Moreover, no two countries are alike, and some will undergo chaotic change before things get better. But our security and values demand that we make the effort.

This means patiently supporting transitions to democracy⁹³ in places like Egypt, Tunisia and Libya – because the peaceful realization of individual aspirations⁹⁴ will serve as a rebuke to violent extremists. We must strengthen the opposition in Syria, while isolating extremist elements⁹⁵ – because the end of a tyrant must not give way to the tyranny of terrorism. We are working to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians⁹⁶ – because it is right, and because such a peace could help reshape attitudes in the region. And we must help countries modernize economies, upgrade education, and encourage entrepreneurship – because American leadership has always been elevated by our ability to connect with peoples’ hopes, and not simply their fears.

Success on these fronts requires sustained engagement, but it will also require resources. I know that foreign aid is one of the least popular expenditures – even though it amounts to less than one percent of the federal budget. But foreign assistance cannot be viewed as charity. It is fundamental to our national security, and any sensible long-term strategy to battle extremism.⁹⁷ Moreover, foreign assistance is a tiny fraction of what we spend fighting wars that our assistance might ultimately prevent. For what we spent in a month in Iraq⁹⁸ at the height of the war, we could be training security forces in Libya, maintaining peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors, feeding the hungry in Yemen, building schools in Pakistan, and creating reservoirs of goodwill that marginalize extremists.

America cannot carry out this work if we do not have diplomats serving in dangerous places. Over the past decade, we have strengthened security at our Embassies, and I am implementing every recommendation of the Accountability Review Board which found unacceptable failures in Benghazi. I have called on Congress to fully fund these efforts to bolster security, harden facilities, improve intelligence, and facilitate a quicker response time from our military if a crisis emerges.⁹⁹

As I said earlier, this threat is not new. But technology and the Internet increase its frequency and lethality. Today, a person can consume hateful propaganda¹⁰⁰, commit themselves to a violent agenda¹⁰¹, and learn how to kill without leaving their home. To address this threat, two years ago my Administration did a comprehensive review, and engaged with law enforcement. The best way to prevent violent extremism¹⁰² is to work with the Muslim American community – which has consistently rejected terrorism¹⁰³ – to identify signs of radicalization, and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence. And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family¹⁰⁴. Indeed, the success of American Muslims, and our determination to guard against any encroachments on their civil liberties, is the ultimate rebuke to those who say we are at war with Islam.

Indeed, thwarting homegrown plots presents particular challenges in part because of our proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call America home. That’s why, in the years to come, we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms¹⁰⁵ that make us who we are. That means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, and build in privacy protections to prevent abuse. That means that – even after Boston – we do not deport someone or throw someone in prison in the absence of evidence. That means putting careful constraints on the tools the government uses to protect sensitive information, such as the State Secrets doctrine. And that means finally having a strong Privacy and Civil Liberties Board to review those issues where our counter-terrorism efforts and our values may come into tension.

All these issues remind us that the choices we make about war can impact – in sometimes unintended ways – the openness and freedom on which our way of life depends. And that is why I intend to engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorists without keeping America on a perpetual war-time footing.¹⁰⁶

The AUMF is now nearly twelve years old. The Afghan War is coming to an end. Core al Qaeda is a shell of its former self. Groups like AQAP must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States¹⁰⁷. Unless we discipline our thinking and our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states. So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations¹⁰⁸ must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.¹⁰⁹

And that brings me to my final topic: the detention of terrorist suspects.

To repeat, as a matter of policy, the preference of the United States is to capture terrorist suspects.¹¹⁰ When we do detain a suspect, we interrogate them. And if the suspect can be prosecuted, we decide whether to try him in a civilian court or a Military Commission. During the past decade, the vast majority of those detained by our military were captured on the battlefield. In Iraq, we turned over thousands of prisoners as we ended the war. In Afghanistan, we have transitioned detention facilities to the Afghans, as part of the process of restoring Afghan sovereignty. So we bring law of war detention to an end, and we are committed to prosecuting terrorists¹¹¹ whenever we can.

The glaring exception to this time-tested approach is the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. The original premise for opening GTMO – that detainees would not be able to challenge their detention – was found unconstitutional five years ago. In the meantime, GTMO has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law. Our allies won’t cooperate with us if they think a terrorist will end up at GTMO. During a time of budget cuts, we spend $150 million each year to imprison 166 people –almost $1 million per prisoner.¹¹² And the Department of Defense estimates that we must spend another $200 million to keep GTMO open at a time when we are cutting investments¹¹³ in education and research here at home.

As President, I have tried to close GTMO. I transferred 67 detainees to other countries before Congress imposed restrictions to effectively prevent us from either transferring detainees to other countries, or imprisoning them in the United States. These restrictions make no sense. After all, under President Bush, some 530 detainees were transferred from GTMO with Congress’s support. When I ran for President the first time, John McCain supported closing GTMO¹¹⁴. No person has ever escaped from one of our super-max or military prisons in the United States. Our courts have convicted hundreds of people for terrorism-related offenses, including some who are more dangerous than most GTMO detainees. Given my Administration’s relentless pursuit of al Qaeda’s leadership, there is no justification beyond politics for Congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should never have been opened.

Today, I once again call on Congress to lift the restrictions on detainee transfers from GTMO. I have asked the Department of Defense to designate a site in the United States where we can hold military commissions. I am appointing a new, senior envoy at the State Department and Defense Department whose sole responsibility will be to achieve the transfer of detainees to third countries. I am lifting the moratorium on detainee transfers to Yemen, so we can review them on a case by case basis. To the greatest extent possible, we will transfer detainees who have been cleared to go to other countries. Where appropriate, we will bring terrorists to justice in our courts and military justice system. And we will insist that judicial review¹¹⁵ be available for every detainee.

Even after we take these steps, one issue will remain: how to deal with those GTMO detainees who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks, but who cannot be prosecuted¹¹⁶ – for example because the evidence against them has been compromised or is inadmissible in a court of law. But once we commit to a process of closing GTMO, I am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved, consistent with our commitment to the rule of law.

I know the politics are hard. But history will cast a harsh judgment on this aspect of our fight against terrorism, and those of us who fail to end it. Imagine a future – ten years from now, or twenty years from now – when the United States of America is still holding people who have been charged with no crime¹¹⁷ on a piece of land that is not a part of our country. Look at the current situation, where we are force-feeding detainees who are holding a hunger strike. Is that who we are? Is that something that our Founders foresaw? Is that the America we want to leave to our children?

Our sense of justice is stronger than that. We have prosecuted scores of terrorists in our courts. That includes Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up an airplane over Detroit; and Faisal Shahzad, who put a car bomb in Times Square. It is in a court of law that we will try Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is accused of bombing the Boston Marathon. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, is as we speak serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison here, in the United States. In sentencing Reid, Judge William Young told him, “the way we treat you…is the measure of our own liberties.” He went on to point to the American flag that flew in the courtroom – “That flag,” he said, “will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag still stands for freedom.”¹¹⁸

America, we have faced down dangers far greater than al Qaeda¹¹⁹. By staying true to the values of our founding, and by using our constitutional compass, we have overcome slavery and Civil War; fascism and communism. In just these last few years as President, I have watched the American people bounce back from painful recession, mass shootings, and natural disasters like the recent tornados that devastated Oklahoma. These events were heartbreaking; they shook our communities to the core. But because of the resilience of the American people, these events could not come close to breaking us.

I think of Lauren Manning, the 9/11 survivor who had severe burns over 80 percent of her body, who said, “That’s my reality. I put a Band-Aid on it, literally, and I move on.”¹²⁰

I think of the New Yorkers who filled Times Square the day after an attempted car bomb as if nothing had happened.

I think of the proud Pakistani parents who, after their daughter was invited to the White House, wrote to us, “we have raised an American Muslim daughter to dream big and never give up because it does pay off.”

I think of the wounded warriors rebuilding their lives, and helping other vets to find jobs.

I think of the runner planning to do the 2014 Boston Marathon, who said, “Next year, you are going to have more people than ever. Determination is not something to be messed with.”

That’s who the American people are. Determined, and not to be messed with.

Now, we need a strategy – and a politics –that reflects this resilient spirit. Our victory against terrorism¹²¹ won’t be measured in a surrender ceremony on a battleship, or a statue being pulled to the ground. Victory will be measured in parents taking their kids to school; immigrants coming to our shores; fans taking in a ballgame; a veteran starting a business; a bustling city street. The quiet determination; that strength of character and bond of fellowship; that refutation of fear – that is both our sword and our shield. And long after the current messengers of hate have faded from the world’s memory, alongside the brutal despots, deranged madmen, and ruthless demagogues who litter history – the flag of the United States will still wave from small-town cemeteries, to national monuments, to distant outposts abroad. And that flag will still stand for freedom.

Thank you. God Bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

This is a complex war, with a diffuse & complex aggressor some of whose elements act by proxy. This is an asymmetrical war, with an aggressor relatively weak in conventional armaments, who can not stand up to our military force in open warfare.
     The primary enemy is Islam, the secondary enemies are a handful of Islamic theocracies and the mass of enemy combatants are Muslim Believers.
     This is a war of attrition, death by a thousand cuts, with each cut calculated to draw maximum blood without provoking existential retaliation. It is designed, as were the Barbary Wars, to bankrupt us and wear down our will to resist.
The Magnificent Nineteen constituted the invasion force; the spearhead of the Army of Islam. Their strategy was to weaken our will & resolve while doing maximal economic damage so as to reduce our ability to mount an effective defense. They targeted highly symbolic structures for maximal psychological impact.
They targeted civilians for maximal emotional impact.
Our President, a G'd'd Traitor, lied to us about the identity and nature of the enemy. Instead of applying a nuclear eraser to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran Saudi Arabia & Iraq as a wise and patriotic leader would do, Shrub mounted half-assed invasions, with insufficient force and suicidal rules of engagement. Instead of removing the true cause of the conflict: Islam, Shrub allowed it to be perpetuated and enshrined in the Constitutions of the 'rebuilt' nations he had so unwisely invaded and occupied.
Al-Qaeda is not the enemy, it is one enemy battalion. Many of its personnel relocated to Pakistan and other places. Shrub should have obliterated them while he had the opportunity.
The invasion of Iraq was not a new war, it was a second front. The enemy is Islam, not Afghanistan and not Al-Qaeda. Wherever Muslims are dispersed over the face of the earth is a separate battle front in this war until Islam is eradicated.
Our fight is against Islam: Muslims; Al-Qaeda is one complex member of that set. Afghanistan & Iraq should have been nuked, both were invaded, on the cheap, with drastic consequences and nothing gained. Because their populations and governments remain Islamic, every dollar, every drop of blood, every limb and every life expended in the effort was wasted. Wasted because Islam still exists in Afghanistan & Iraq.
Al-Qaeda is not the enemy, any more than the Panzers were the enemy in WWII. Islam is the enemy. Terrorism is its tactic; the various terrorist groups are divisions of its army, not separate enemies.
Anyone who gives a damn what any foreigner thinks of us; who is concerned about "our standing in the world"; who denigrates the morality of our self defense-- is mentally & morally unfit to call himself an American and should renounce his citizenship & emigrate.
Our interests in the region are: to maintain the flow of energy, and eliminate Islam; to induce the maximum possible incidence of apostasy or death. Neutron bombs are the obvious weapon of choice for Iraq.
There are few fixed targets to harden. There is no way to harden office towers against the impact of hijacked aircraft. You can not harden our food or water supplies. You can not harden the Boston marathon. Obamination sells a false sense of security where no security exists or can exist without the complete exclusion of Islam & Muslims. Because of WMD and rockets capable of delivering them over great distances, there can be no security without the total eradication of Islam.
Frisking and strip searching innocent civilians does nothing to enhance transportation security. If you want enhanced security, simply exclude all Muslims from all public transit venues & vehicles. If you want homeland security, get them and keep them out of this country entirely.
Privacy is for citizens, not for enemy combatants communicating with them by cell phone to construct their plans and implement their plots. Tracing terrorist's contacts is not a violation of the right to privacy; there is no right to get off Scott free.
Our basic values: Life, Liberty, Property & Prosperity [pursuit of happiness]. A carefully defined & controlled system of government is required to obtain and maintain those values for citizens. Swift and impartial trials without self-incrimination are for citizens accused of domestic criminal offenses, not for enemy combatants attacking and killing us or our armed forces in an attempt to destroy our way of life.
The prohibition of cruel & unusual punishments and torture are for citizens, not for Khalid Sheikh Mohammad & Co. They love death as we love live because death at the hands of their enemy is their ticket to Allah's celestial Bordello; their Get Out of Hell Free Card. Water boarding is not torture; it does no permanent damage; it just makes them sense greater proximity to Shaheed status.
Catch & releasing is for sport fishing, not war. Those who shoot at us should be permanently removed from the battlefield; preferably placed under it. Accepting locals taken from the streets and handed over by 'allies' in Afghanistan & Iraq was not a good idea, they may be victims of private quarrels.
Targeting leaders creates temporary dislocation at best; it does not win the war. Usama bin Laden has been replaced, as have lower echelon leaders. If you kill or capture Ayman al-Zawahiri, he, too will be replaced and the war will continue until there are no more living Muslims on the face of the earth. .
We ended our participation in combat, we did not end the war. Iraq is not the war; it is one battlefront. Iraq remains populated and governed by Muslims: we ended a battle, not a war, and we ended it in defeat. Worse yet, it was an intentional, engineered defeat.
Only a damned fool trains his enemy. If they are Muslims, they are enemies, not allies. Get a Godblessed clue for Chrissake!
Civilian courts are for citizens accused of domestic offenses, not for foreigners at war with us; trying to kill us and destroy our way of life. Enemy combatants should be killed on the battlefield, not tried in court.
Islam is not a signatory to the Geneva Accords. There is no caliph; no central governing authority responsible for its entire fighting force. Muslims do not abide by the Geneva Accords; there is no reason why we should when fighting them. Obamination is not advocating a higher moral position, he is echoing enemy propaganda because he is one of them, not one of us.
Is he really dead? When, where and how did he die? Prove it! What difference does it make? Ayman al-Zawahiri is running the show now. Leadership is replaceable. This war will not end until the existence of Islam ends. So long as there are Muslims on the face of the earth, they will repopulate, regroup, rearm and renew their attacks. Islam is the war.
The scale of the attacks is insignificant. Terrorism is designed to cause maximum societal disruption at minimal expense. Each and every terror plot, whether successful or frustrated, increases the level of fear & insecurity. The next large scale attack can come on any day; at any hour of the enemy's choosing. The Boston Marathon bombs could have killed many more victims if properly placed and timed.
The legless, burn victims & shrapnel victims suffer just as much and will face just as much expense without regard to the scale of the bombing. What difference does the scale of the attack make to those who lost loved ones?
More secure? Prove it!!! Four people are dead and more than 200 maimed because you allowed the Brothers Tsarnaev to re-enter and remain in this country. The homeland can never be secure while the enemy's fifth column is present. Security will not exist until all Muslims are expelled and excluded.
None of our troops would be in harms way if we had nuked Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan & Saudi Arabia off the face of the earth immediately after the Accursed Abomination which they co-sponsored.
We do not have Muslim allies or partners! Muslims are expressly forbidden to form equal and inferior relationships with infidels. I disrespectfully direct doubters, dissenters & deniers to the following Ayat: 3:28, 3:118, 4:89 , 4:139 , 4:144, 5:51, 5:57.
We are safer only to the extent that there are fewer live Muslims on the face of the earth.
Terrorists are Muslims: believers who attempt to obey Allah and emulate Moe. I disrespectfully direct doubters, dissenters & deniers to the following list of relevant ayat & ahadith to obtain a Godblessed clue:
3:151, 8:12,39,57,60,65,67, 9:5,29,38, 39,111,120,123, 33:26,27, 47:4,49:15, 59:2,13, 61:10-13; Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220.
Allah said that he would cast terror and did cast terror. Allah commanded Muslims to strike terror. Moe said that he was made victorious by terror. Moe also dictated and dispatched threatening extortion letters to his intended victims.
The strategic threat is one of imperialistic conquest & domination. The tactical threat is anything they can do to injure or enrage us. I disrespectfully & contumaciously direct doubters, dissenters & deniers to the following relevant tafsir & ayah; obtain a Godblessed clue, for Chrissake!
http://www.islam-universe.com/tafsir//2.3156.html
http://www.islam-universe.com/tafsir//48.49630.html
http://www.islam-universe.com/tafsir//3.9075.html
http://www.qurancomplex.com/Quran/Targama/Targama.asp?nSora= 9&l=eng&nAya= 120# 9_ 120
Islam can never be defeated, it must be destroyed; completely eliminated because its damnable doctrines are permanently and immutably enshrined in the Qur'an. 8:39 & 9:29, cited in #27 above, are open ended, outcome oriented fight until loops with neither geographic limits nor expiration dates. Those ayat are the primary jihad imperatives, confirmed in Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 and codified in Reliance of the Traveller, O9.8. After reading O9.8 & 9.9, scroll back to O9.1 to read about the communal obligation of offensive Jihad. If it is possible but not performed, all who know of the obligation are in sin. You will find 9:38 linked in #27 above; click through and read 38 & 39. Go to war or go to Hell. Every Muslim has a Get Out of Hell Free Card, explained in 61:10-13, also linked in # 27. Go to war and go to Paradise.
   To fully comprehend what believers are and what they do, you must read 8:1-5 and explore the context. Go to the home page linked at the top and search for "go out" and "spend" without the quote marks; read all the matching records.
    Turn next to 9:111, also linked in #27 above. Read and re-read it until you understand it. Who are believers; what do they do? Turn next to 49:15 likewise linked. Believers are "only those who" doubt not but strive with their wealth and their lives for the Cause of Allâh.
     Islam presents a continuing,. persistent threat because believers must wage Jihad in fear of Hellfire. If they desire to collect on Allah's promise of perpetual virgins and rivers of wine & honey, they must participate in Jihad.
What price Liberty? Can you put a price tag on it? What price security? How much cheaper would it have been to nuke the principal sponsors of the Accursed Abomination instead of mounting invasions? What have we accomplished with those invasions?
Who exploded the deficit more, You or Shrub? Slick Willy's failure to retaliate for previous attacks invited the Accursed Abomination by demonstrating weakness & lack of resolve; was that a good idea?
This nation was built in 1778, there is no need to build or rebuild it; to recast it as a Socialist tyranny.
The limbs & lives of those servicemen who were injured and killed were sacrificed by traitors to the demon of political correctness,.Carter, Reagan, Bush, Slick Willy & Shrub were not willing to acknowledge the fatal facts laid out above: the identity & character of the enemy and the fact that it must be eradicated to restore peace & security because they falsely equate eradicating Islam, an implacable predator and continuing war crime against humanity with the unjustifiable Shoah. Obamination perpetuates their treachery because he is one of the enemy, not one of us.
Using drones to usher terrorists into Hell saves American lives and money, it is a good practice which should have been implemented much earlier and more intensely.
Muslims are terrorists, not suspects. Those captured on the battlefield do not require trials. Catch and release is for sport fishing, not for war. Why release them to kill again?
A world containing Islamic institutions and Muslims is a world at war, with constant terrorism and threat of mass casualty attacks. When Iran finally obtains suitable nukes and ICBMs, they will use them without hesitation. Allowing the continued existence of Islam on the face of the earth leaves a legacy of suffering and death.
We can not define the scope, scale & nature of the war; those are defined by the enemy who declared and is prosecuting the war against us. We must acknowledge the fact that this war is permanent, starting in 623 and unending until the last Muslim is dead or apostatized or until the last Jew is murdered. Until Iran can combine nukes with ICBMs, this war is asymmetrical and low intensity. This is an existential conflict, terminable only by extinction of the aggressor.
If we can't preserve our Liberty in the context of permanent war, then we must exterminate the aggressor in order to terminate the war and preserve our Freedom.
Islam is an existential enemy posing an unending, genocidal threat of terrorism & war. Belief in Allah, his imperatives, threat & promise motivates Muslims to engage in imperialism, extortion & plunder. While there are believers, there is permanent war. Only the extinction of Islam through mass apostasy or death can end the threat.
Islam, al-Ikhwan-al-Muslimeen, Al-Qaeda, etc. etal are one: ISLAM. Quit playing the name game; acknowledge objective factual reality.
Know your enemy: begin by reading its canonical texts: the Qur'an, Sahih Bukhari's books of Jihad, Khumus & Expedition and The Life of Muhammad. Or take the short course: The Prophet of Doom. If you need more links to texts, visit http://www.crusadersarmory.tk/ .
Islam can never be defeated without destroying the faith of the believers. I disrespectfully direct doubters, dissenters & deniers to page 60 of The Quranic Concept of War to obtain a Godblessed clue. While one believing Muslim remains alive, Islam is not defeated!
The attacks are directed by Islam; Allah & Moe through the Qur'an,. Sunnah & Shari'ah. Believers attack because Allah commands it; Moe exemplified it, and threatened them with eternal damnation if they refuse to follow his example. The existence of independent operators not directly guided by any specific terrorist organization other than the top level group: Islam, does not contradict the fatal facts. Islam is permanent war. The war ends when Islam no longer exists; when there are no more living believers; not before.
The willfully blind can not see the forest for the trees. With no trees, there would be no forest. With no Islam or no believers to implement it, there would be no Islamic terrorism. With Islam and believers to implement it, with or without Al-Qaeda, there is Islamic terrorism.
The threat comes from Islam, always has; always will. All the rest is just a diversionary name game.
The Accursed Abomination came before the "unrest". The contest for occupancy of various thrones and a re-established caliphate is not a cause of terrorism against us.
There are no extremists; only believers. Believers fight in Allah's cause, which is to make Islam dominate the world. They kill others and are killed. Obamination funded and armed the blood thirsty believers who have taken over Tunisia, Libya & Egypt and are waging war in Syria.
State sponsored or independent, Shi'ia or Sunni, they all have something in common: they are Believers. Are you entirely clueless?
The only good Muslim attack is one that kills only Muslims. Regardless of where they happen and their scope & scale, terror attacks on non-Muslims are war crimes against humanity.
[extremists, radicals, fundamentalists, terrorists, Mujahideen]: the set of Believers. There is no radicalism. There is no extremism. There are only men who believe in Allah's imperatives, threat & promise and attempt to implement the imperatives to realize the promise. Muslims are not radicalized; they learn the content of and develop belief in the damnable doctrines of their execrable war cult.
Low intensity warfare: "How hard can we push before they wise up and eradicate us? ". How many casualties are you willing to tolerate? One or two at a time with guns or knives? Thousands with aircraft flown into office towers? Hundreds at the Marine Barracks? Dozens at Embassies? how many sailors did the Barbary Pirates abduct, enslave and murder before we fought two Barbary Wars? Do you want peace & security or do you want Muslims in the world? You can not have both; choose wisely.
Which attack was not left unchecked? Which attack did we retaliate effectively against? Which retaliation resulted in the termination of the threat?
Proportionally? When a wasp stings you, what do you do? Swat one wasp and his nest mates will retaliate. You destroy the entire nest. So it is with Islam. Open your Qur'an to 5:32 and read it carefully. Killing one innocent person is equivalent to killing all of humanity. Follow up with Ibn Kathir's tafsir of that verse. Only Muslims are innocent: all others are in rebellion against Allah; deserving to be killed. When any infidel is killed by Islamic terrorists, proportionate response requires the extinction of Islam; destroy the nest and its inhabitants.
Offensive Jihad is fard al-Kifaya: a communal obligation binding upon all eligible adult male Muslims until a sufficient number have reported to the front. When we retaliate, Jihad becomes fard Ayn: individually binding upon all Muslims, including women, sheikhs and children.
Islamic terrorism is a function of belief in Islamic ideology enshrined in the Qur'an and exemplified by Moe's Sunnah.

Only Allah has the right to be worshiped. 3:2
Only Allah has the right to legislate & rule, which he delegated to Moe and his successors. 33:36
Jihad is ordained for Muslims. 2:216
War must be waged against pagans until only Allah is worshiped on a global scale. 8:39
War must be waged against Jews & Christians until they are subjugated & extorted. 9:29
Acts of terrorism are credited to the terrorist as righteous good deeds. 9:120
The blood and property of infidels ain't sacred to Muslims. Infidels only acquire human rights when they become Muslims. Bukhari 1.8.387
The basic penalty for "waging war against Allah and his Messenger" is execution. 5:33

"waging war against Allah and his Messenger" includes disbelief http://www.islam-universe.com/tafsir//5.13751.html

When this nation became independent from England, the Barbary Pirates sacked our shipping. Paying tribute nearly bankrupted the new nation. Thomas Jefferson and J.Q. Adams asked Tripoli's Ambassador to England by what right they attacked us. He replied:

that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise." http://memory.loc.gov/master/mss/mtj/mtj1/005/0400/0431.jpg
Sahih Bukhari 4.52.386 informs us that Umar sent his army to the great nations to "fight the pagans". When a Persian General asked why, he got this answer, which you should compare to that given by the Barbary Pirates.

Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master."
Islam is a lie, told by a liar and perpetuated, supported, protected & promoted by liars. Moe did not have a pipeline to God, he had Epileptic seizures, accompanied by hallucinations. When receiving revelations, Moe fell to the ground, lost consciousness, sweated profusely, moved his & tongue rapidly and snorted like a young camel. Moe feared that he was losing his sanity and was demon possessed. He even attempted suicide.
Worse yet, Moe recited situational scripture to give divine sanction to his lusty lifestyle. Proving these fatal facts of Islam is beyond the scope of this post. I disrespectfully & contumaciously refer doubters, dissenters & deniers to the following references.

The best professional liars mix in a little truth to enhance believability, Obamination is no exception. Islam is at war against us, but we are not reciprocating. If we had a President instead of a cowardly Traitor in 1993, we would have declared war against Islam immediately after WTC1.
No Muslim can abjure terrorism without signing his own death warrant as an apostate. Islam is a bundled package deal; all or nothing.

Then do you believe in a part of the Scripture and reject the rest? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in the life of this world, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall be consigned to the most grievous torment. 2:85

Islamic law lists 20 items which entail apostasy, these are included in that list.

(6) to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His
command, His interdiction, His promise, or His
threat;
(7) to deny any verse of the Koran or anything
which by scholarly consensus (def: b7)
belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong
to it;
(14) to deny the obligatory character of
something which by the consensus of Muslims
(ijma', def: b7) is part of Islam, when it is well
known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one
rak'a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if
there is no excuse (def: u2.4);

First, we must identify the enemy, second, we must accurately describe its character; then we must identify and counter the ideas which constitute its ideology. Carter, Reagan, Bush, Slick, Shrub & Obamination refused to take any of those steps. The doctrines listed in #54 are absolutely intolerable because they deny our lives & liberties yet no President has acknowledged them, much less attempted to counter them.
First and foremost: expel and exclude all Muslims from the borders of Western Civilization. Terrorism can not be countered while the enemy has a fifth column on our territory. Second, locate and identify every terrorist training facility on the face of the earth and carpet bomb them with Daisy Cutters. Third, bomb & strafe the funeral procession of every terrorist you usher into Hell. Fourth, make a list of Islamic cities, beginning with Mecca & Medina and destroy one of them immediately after each subsequent terror attack. Fifth, do everything Constitutionally possible to counter the movement to destroy the Christian faith and remove it from the public square. Sixth, utter and publish in the face of the Ummah the fatal facts which can destroy their faith: Moe was an impious fraud and Allah is an impotent idol. Google "The Innocence of Muslims" + "true or false?" and read the first blog post in the serps.
The enemy is Islam, not Al-Qaeda, which is only one division of the enemy. The conflict is existential; victory requires extinction. While there is Islam & believing Muslims, the war will continue.
The population and government of Afghanistan are Muslims. Only a damned fool thinks they will fight off the Taliban and prevent a return to their former status as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Only a damned fool thinks that terrorists will restrain terrorism. While Afghanistan remains Muslim, it remains terrorist.
"Its Islam, Stupid!". There is no extremism; there are no extremists; only believing Muslims. The war will not end and will not be won until there are no more believing Muslims on the face of the earth.
Muslims are expressly forbidden to be our friends, partners or allies. Refer to #25 for the details.
Islamic regimes may hand over the occasional rebel seeking to overthrow them, but they are not likely to engage in serious cooperation against terrorists. Terrorism is an act of war, to be punished by the total destruction of the state sponsors, not a domestic crime to be prosecuted and punished by jailing the terrorist.
Islamic terrorism is not a bank robbery or purse snatching, it is an act of war. Terrorists must be ushered into Hell, not into court. Money spent on courtroom security, lawyers, prosecutors and judges in terrorism trials is entirely wasted.
Islamic states are state sponsors of terrorism; part of the problem, not part of the solution!
The fact that Usama was under the state protection of Pakistan confirms the fact that we should have immediately nuked that Hell hole off the face of the earth.
Known enemy commanders, officers and large concentrations of troops should be targeted. U/B.L. should have been taken out with a drone strike.
If they are Muslims, they are not civilians; they are terrorists. The wives and children of terrorists must not serve as human shields. This war ends in victory when there are no more believing Muslims, not before.
Islamic terrorism is doctrine driven, not grievance driven. New enemies pop out of the wombs of Muslim women every day, they are not created by anything we do.
Since when is it illegal or immoral to eliminate enemy combatants using tactics and weapons designed to minimize collateral damage and risk to ourselves?
Picking off a few dozen high value targets does not win the war, while necessary, it is insufficient and by itself, no cause for celebration or bragging. This war will only end in victory when Islam becomes extinct.
"Its Islam, Stupid!". Islam declared and is prosecuting war against us. Restoring peace and security requires the extinction of Islam, an implacable predator which will never stop attempting conquests so long as it exists.
The enemy is Islam! Al-Qaeda is only part of the problem, not the entire problem. Eliminating Al-Qaeda entirely would not end the war with victory.
Nuking Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq & Saudi Arabia immediately after the Accursed Abomination would have precluded the need for force protection.
Detention & trial are for domestic criminals, not for enemy combatants. Just kill them on the battlefield or drown them in the nearest hog farm holding tank. No use wasting time and money on trials for Islamic terrorists!
How can you respect the sovereignty of a failed state that willfully gives aid and comfort to those who attack us? Afghanistan & Pakistan made themselves fair game and should have been nuked in '01.
They are Muslims; associates and families of those would maim and mutilate us; they are fair game, not civilians. They should have been erased from the face of the earth in '01.
They want us dead because we are not Muslims. Because we are not them, they must torment and kill us. They perceive a divine mandate to kill or enslave us. They deliberately set out to mutilate and maim as many of us as possible; to maximize emotional and economic shock to our system. They believe that their god has commanded them to attack and conquer us. They believe that he will damn them to eternal Hell fire if they do not try and will reward them with eternity in his celestial bordello if they do. If we do not eradicate them, the war will continue forever until we are finally conquered. Wheresoever the enemy is gathered; whenever they meet to forge their plots, there let our bombs and bullets fall like a warm spring rain! With and without their friends and families; usher them into Hell. Old Harry knew how to end the War in the Pacific and he did it. Emulate him without remorse.
Islam is tyranny; tyrants have rivals for power. Sunni & Shi'ia are in conflict over occupancy of their various thrones and ultimately, the caliphate if they can re-establish it. When they kill each other, it is a good thing, not a tragedy. Ex-Muslims are the best kind; dead Muslims are second best.
Islamic terrorism is doctrine driven, not grievance driven. Only the wombs of Muslim women create terrorists; they are born, not made.
If they are Muslims, they need to kill us; they are under a demonic mandate to conquer the entire world for Allah and perceive us as the biggest obstacle to global conquest. The Barbary Pirates attacked our shipping because it "was written in their laws". Can you get a clue? Peace and security can only be obtained by making Islam extinct. Islam can not be reformed. It can not be pacified. It can not be placated. It can not be rendered harmless without eliminating it entirely.
Islamic terrorism is not a law enforcement issue; it is a battle tactic. The issue is war. The issue is the continued existence of people who believe that they have a divine mission to conquer and enslave us. While they believe that Allah will damn them if they avoid fighting and bless them if they attack us, we can have no peace without ushering them into Hell.
Islamic aggression can only be ended by making Islam extinct. Invasions won't do it. Occupations won't do it. Drone strikes won't do it. Prosecutions won't do it. No combination of those tactics will do it. Only the complete extinction of Islam will end the war.
Only the extinction of Islam can make us safe. A world without Islam is a world without Islamic aggression including terrorism.
There is no such ideology; there is only Islam, which declares that only Allah has the right to be worshiped and the right to legislate & rule. Islam declares that Allah's rights must be secured by global conquest; that all who do not worship Allah must be killed or enslaved. While men harbor those ideas, peace is impossible. While men believe that Allah will bless them for going to war or damn them for sitting passive at home, they can not be stopped from terroristic conquest short of extinction.
Extremism is a lie! Jihad; genocide & terrorism are normative Islam, not extreme. They were legislated and exemplified by Moe who said that he was made victorious by terror and wealthy by conquests. Obtain a Godblessed clue for Chrissake! Islamic aggression flows from the Qur'an & Sunnah, not from poverty, ignorance, hunger, oppression, repression or anything else. When the Barbary Pirates sacked our merchantmen, there were no boots on the ground in the Hijaz and Israel was occupied by the Ottoman Empire. We did not provoke attack by anything more than not being Muslim.
Islamic law says that infidels may be attacked without provocation. Can you obtain a Godblessed clue for Chrissake?
http://www.shariahthethreat.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/reliance_of_the_traveller.pdf#page=622
http://ia700204.us.archive.org/10/items/hedayaorguideac00hamigoog/hedayaorguideac00hamigoog.pdf#page=154
The war is perpetual, declared in 622 and ending only on Judgment Day. Obtain a Godblessed clue for Chrissake!
http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/hadeeth/abudawud/014.html#014.2526
http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/hadeeth/muslim/041.html#041.6985
By stupidly ignoring several attacks and engaging in weak, ineffective retaliation for others, we displayed weakness and lack of resolve to the enemy, inviting them to hit us again. Any outcome short of the extinction of Islam will leave us vulnerable and eventually conquered. We need to eliminate Islam, as quickly and as cheaply as possible.
Extremism is a lie! Islam's genocidal, terrorist war of conquest is not extreme; it is normative. What part of "Fight them until" do you not understand? What part of "I will cast terror" do you not understand? What part of "Allah cast terror" do you not understand? What part of "I have been made victorious with terror" do you not comprehend? Islam is doctrine driven, not grievance driven. U.B.L:. & A.Z. were wealthy professionals, not paupers. Law, medical & engineering students have engaged in acts of terrorism.
Allah punishes pacifism and rewards terrorism; can you obtain a Godblessed clue for Chrissake?
http://www.qurancomplex.com/Quran/Targama/Targama.asp?nSora= 9&l=eng&nAya= 38# 9_ 38
http://www.qurancomplex.com/Quran/Targama/Targama.asp?nSora= 9&l=eng&nAya= 120# 9_ 120
Malignant Malarkey!!! Islam and democracy are polar opposites. Only Allah has the right to rule; man made law is the antithesis of Islamic theocracy. The transition is from one dictator to another.
There can be no realization of individual aspirations in an Islamic theocracy except for the aspirations of the theocrat who occupies the seat of power.
There are no extremists; there are only believers. We do not have a dog in that fight, let them kill each other!
Only a damned fool believes there can be peace between Muslims and Jews. Only a damned liar says it is possible. Obtain a Godblessed clue, for Chrissake!!!
http://www.qurancomplex.com/Quran/Targama/Targama.asp?nSora= 9&l=eng&nAya= 29# 9_ 29
http://www.qurancomplex.com/Quran/Targama/Targama.asp?nSora= 7&l=eng&nAya= 167# 7_ 167
http://www.qurancomplex.com/Quran/Targama/Targama.asp?nSora= 13&l=eng&nAya= 41# 13_ 41
Israel is living proof of the fact that Allah is an impotent idol whose promise and threat are vain. Muslims will never tolerate that!!!
"Its Islam, Stupid!". There is no extremism; genocidal, terrorist conquest is normative Islam, commanded by Allah and exemplified by Moe.
Induce as many Muslims to apostatize as possible and usher the recalcitrant believers into Hell. There is no other way.
A demagogic combination of the myth of alternative spending and malignant maundery. Muslims are not security forces!!! Peace agreements between Muslims and Israel are not worth the paper they are written on.
A hungry Muslim who starves is one less Muslim we need to kill on the battlefield. What do they teach in those Pakistani schools?
Of all the stinking piles of turd, this takes the brass plated prize. Obamination rejected pleas for enhanced security, When the attack came, he turned a deaf ear to pleas for assistance and fired two Generals and an Admiral who tried to send aid.
Muslims are not radicalized, they only become familiar with normative Islamic doctrines and increase their faith. It makes no difference whether the process is facilitated by videos, books, chat rooms, message boards or in direct contact with an Imam. Islam is what it is: genocidal terrorism; permanent war. It is that way by design because Moe made his living by plunder and extortion.
The violent agenda is part of normative Islam. Why does the Qur'an have a chapter named 'The Spoils of War"? Why does each of the six canonical hadith collections have a book of Jihad?
The best way to terminate the existence of Islam is to induce mass apostasy: cause Muslims to cease believing in Allah, and his imperatives, threat and promise. Provide them evidence of the fact that Moe was a false prophet; a profiteer and Allah is an impotent idol.
Muslims can not reject terrorism because it is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam. If they abjure any part of the Qur'an, they apostatize, risking the death penalty. Allah said that he would and did cast terror, describing the results. Moe said that he was made victorious with terror. Methods of casting terror included assassinations, such as those of Kab Ashraf and Asma bint Marwan, genocide of a settlement that surrendered and burning date palm groves.
Muslims are not part of America, they are an occupying force: an enemy fifth column outbreeding us for eventual demographic conquest in the long run if other methods fail. The doctrines of Islam are not compatible with our founding documents.
We can not have security and Muslims. We must choose one. We can not have liberty and Islam. We must choose one. I choose security and liberty. Expel and exclude Muslims!
Domestically: expel and exclude Muslims. Internationally: nuke them off the face of the earth. No Islam; no Islamic terrorism. While there is Islam, there will be terrorism.
The threat comes from Islam; through the Qur'an & Sunnah. It results from what Allah said and Moe did for Muslims in all ages to emulate. They do not need to kill or maim anyone to induce terror. Every foiled plot is evidence of the fact that Muslims are plotting to harm us. Every individual act of random Islamic assault whether by fist, knife, gun or vehicular assault reduces perception of security and trust.
Thee is one terrorist organization: Islam. Eliminate it if you seek peace.
Ours is a Representative Republic, not a Democracy, but that makes no difference in the need to end the war in victory as swiftly and inexpensively as possible. In 1805 and 1815, we did not have the means to exterminate Islam; now we do.
We need to change that damn fool policy.
The crime/punishment model must be abandoned. Terrorism is an act of war, not a domestic criminal issue.
How much would it cost to hog tie each one and toss them into the holding tank of a hog farm?
His favorite demagoguery: the myth of alternative expenditures. He has more alternatives than dollars to dump on them. There would be no need for Gitmo if we had nuked Afghanistan immediately after the attack.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, and I put no stock in McCain in any case.
They need no more than a swift tribunal and a swift execution; minimal waste of time and money.
This scenario punches a big hole in the crime/punishment model. They are enemy combatants, not citizens holding up a convenience store.
What did they do? How did we obtain custody of them? Why did we bother? Why did we not just nuke Afghanistan and be done with it?
None of those listed, with the exception of Tsarnaev, deserves or has a right to a trial. Establish identity: Muslim & action, then have a summary execution. This is a war in which no prisoners should be taken. Tsarnaev was not caught in the act and he is a citizen.
We did not overcome Communism, except in the short term. It has not been eradicated and it can bounce back. Muslims believe in a divine mandate to conquer us and seize our wealth. They are blessed if they do and damned if they don't. They will never cease from attacking until they are dead or apostates.
Political exploitation of that quote illustrates with great clarity the bottomless venality of the demagogue. 80% second and third degree burns are often fatal and always extremely painful and expensive to treat. That suffering was intentionally imposed by the servants of Satan seeking to kill & maim as many of us as possible and destroy our civilization. There is no Band-Aid cure for those burns and none for the damage done to our economy. This trivialization exposes Obamination's venality as nothing else can.
There is and can be no victory over terrorism until the ideology which motivates it is completely eradicated. So long as one believing Muslim lives, he will breed more, and the violence will continue. There is no victory without extinction in an existential war.