Crocodile's Lament

Flying by the seat of my pants

Posts filed under Terrorism

Benghazigate – CBA (Cross Border Authority)

 

I received the first opinion below, attributed to the retired Navy Captain, several days ago. It sounded logical, plausible, and in line with what my military and government background had taught me, but I wanted to verify my thoughts on it before posting it here. So, I sent it to a friend (retired Army, multiple stars) for his take on it. He put it out to some of his credible former military sources for their opinions.

Here are the best of the lot which summarize the chain of command and it’s sometimes seemingly convoluted, but sensible, twists and turns.

In short, it says to me that the President is squarely under the bus. Either a driver will jump on board and drive it off, squashing him, or some of his cronies (from the press, administration, or elsewhere) will throw him a lifeline and pull him out from under it.

I may be totally wrong, but I guess time will tell.

lowflyer

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From a retired Navy Captain who lives in Hawaii: CBA (Cross Border Authority):

The Benghazi debacle boils down to a single key factor – the granting or withholding of “cross-border authority.”  This opinion is informed by my experience as a Navy SEAL officer who took a NavSpecWar Detachment to Beirut.

Once the alarm is sent – in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi – dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany.  Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis.  However, there is one thing they can’t do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission.

That is the clear “red line” in this type of a crisis situation.   No administration wants to stumble into a war because a jet jockey in hot pursuit (or a mixed-up SEAL squad in a rubber boat) strays into hostile territory.  Because of this, only the president can give the order for our military to cross a nation’s border without that nation’s permission.  For the Osama bin Laden mission, President Obama granted CBA for our forces to enter Pakistani airspace.

On the other side of the CBA coin: in order to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi, all the President of the United States “(POTUS)” has to do is not grant cross-border authority.  If he does not, the entire rescue mission (already in progress) must stop in its tracks.   Ships can loiter on station, but airplanes fall out of the sky, so they must be redirected to an air base (Sigonella, in Sicily) to await the POTUS decision on granting CBA. If the decision to grant CBA never comes, the besieged diplomatic outpost in Benghazi can rely only on assets already “in country” in Libya – such as the Tripoli quick reaction force and the Predator drones.  These assets can be put into action on the independent authority of the acting ambassador or CIA station chief in Tripoli.  They are already “in country,” so CBA rules do not apply to them.

How might this process have played out in the White House?   If, at the 5:00 p.m.  Oval Office meeting with Defense Secretary Panetta and Vice President Biden, President Obama said about Benghazi: “I think we should not go the military action route,” meaning that no CBA will be granted, then that is it.  Case closed.

Another possibility is that the president might have said: “We should do what we can to help them .  but no military intervention from outside of Libya.” Those words then constitute “standing orders” all the way down the chain of command, via Panetta and General Dempsey to General Ham and the subordinate commanders who are already gearing up to rescue the besieged outpost.   When that meeting took place, it may have seemed as if the consulate attack was over, so President Obama might have thought the situation would stabilize on its own from that point forward.  If he then goes upstairs to the family quarters, or otherwise makes himself “unavailable,” then his last standing orders will continue to stand until he changes them, even if he goes to sleep until the morning of September 12.

Nobody in the chain of command below President Obama can countermand his “standing orders” not to send outside military forces into Libyan air space.

Nobody.  Not Leon Panetta, not Hillary Clinton, not General Dempsey, and not General Ham in Stuttgart, Germany, who is in charge of the forces staging in Sigonella.

Perhaps the president left “no outside military intervention, no cross-border authority” standing orders, and then made himself scarce to those below him seeking further guidance, clarification, or modified orders. Or perhaps he was in the Situation Room watching the Predator videos in live time for all seven hours.  We don’t yet know where the president was hour by hour.

But this is 100 percent sure: Panetta and Dempsey would have executed a rescue mission order if the president had given those orders.

And like the former SEALs in Benghazi, General Ham and all of the troops under him would have been straining forward in their harnesses, ready to go into battle to save American lives.

The execute orders would be given verbally to General Ham at AFRICOM in Stuttgart, but they would immediately be backed up in official message traffic for the official record.  That is why cross-border authority is the King Arthur’s Sword for understanding Benghazi.  The POTUS and only the POTUS can pull out that sword.

We can be 100% certain that cross-border authority was never given.  How do I know this?  Because if CBA was granted and the rescue mission execute orders were handed down, irrefutable records exist today in at least a dozen involved component commands, and probably many more.  No general or admiral will risk being hung out to dry for undertaking a mission-gone-wrong that the POTUS later disavows ordering, and instead blames on “loose cannons” or “rogue officers”exceeding their authority.  No general or admiral will order U.S.  armed forces to cross an international border on a hostile mission unless and until he is certain that the National Command Authority, in the person of the POTUS and his chain of command, has clearly and explicitly given that order: verbally at the outset, but thereafter in written orders and official messages.

If they exist, they could be produced today.

When it comes to granting cross-border authority, there are no presidential mumblings or musings to paraphrase or decipher.  If you hear confusion over parsed statements given as an excuse for Benghazi, then you are hearing lies. I am sure that hundreds of active-duty military officers know all about the Benghazi execute orders (or the lack thereof), and I am impatiently waiting for one of them to come forward to risk his career and pension as a whistleblower

Leon Panetta is falling on his sword for President Obama with his absurd-on-its-face, “the U.S.  military doesn’t do risky things”-defense of his shameful no-rescue policy.

Panetta is utterly destroying his reputation.

General Dempsey joins Panetta on the same sword with his tacit agreement by silence.  But why?  How far does loyalty extend when it comes to covering up gross dereliction of duty by the president?

General Petraeus, however, has indirectly blown the whistle.  He was probably “used” in some way early in the cover-up with the purported CIA intel link to the Mohammed video, and now he feels burned.  So he conclusively said via his public affairs officer that the stand-down order did not come from the CIA.  Well – what outranks the CIA?  Only the national security team at the White House.  That means President Obama, and nobody else.  Petraeus is naming Obama without naming him.  If that is not quite as courageous as blowing a whistle, it is far better than the disgraceful behavior of Panetta and Dempsey.

We do not know the facts for certain, but we do know that the rescue mission stand-down issue revolves around the granting or withholding of cross-border authority, which belongs only to President Obama.  More than one hundred gung-ho Force Recon Marines were waiting on the tarmac in Sigonella, just two hours away for the launch order that never came.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Benghazi – CBA (Cross Border Authority)

Comment on the Above Opinion:

Your friend is correct, but to be more precise, the SecDef and the President are the NCA-National Command Authority. The regional Combatant Commander’s answer directly to the NCA. The CJCS and the Joint Staff are the conduit to which the NCA issues orders and direction to the Combatant Commander’s and the Joint Staff assimilates information, intelligence, and communications to keep the NCA informed. The CJCS is part of that conduit, but he does not have command authority. The CBA would come from the President to SecDef who in turn would have CJCS issue the SECDEF DEPLOYMENT ORDER.  

 My view? In brief, it was a Mid-East gun-running operation to transfer arms to Al-Queda in Syria from Libya. There was a “planned” dog and pony show (rescue) to put a cherry on top of the Bin Laden raid. It got out of hand when the actors got out of control and Zero cut his losses and went to bed. By the way, they (WH & Hillary) never expected anyone to defy orders and run to the guns as did Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. That itself, is what really has their ass hanging out. Amb. Stephens was bait long before. Single, no pictures of a grieving widow or children above the fold in the WP; perfect mark.  Mark my words on this one, my friend. One of these days, hopefully sooner rather than later, we’ll know some part of the truth. 

Semper Fidelis!

Bxxx

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Benghazi – CBA (Cross Border Authority)

Further Comment:

I agree wholly with the main point – an armed force does not cross a national boarder without presidential order.  It is unclear to me that there were any American forces who happened to be, in effect, on strip alert, and instantly deployable so that they could have crossed the Libyan border in time to help.  Especially since the attack came in two waves.  Once the first wave ended it was probably easy for the higher ups to assume the attack was over.  But nonetheless it is easy for me to assume that Obama would have wimped out on giving cross boarder authority, even if he thought it might help.  It didn’t fit the narrative and the narrative was vital to his campaign.  After all, getting re-elected was his number one concern, overriding everything else – including a few deaths in Benghazi.  

 Another issue is the armed forces that were already in country, at Tripoli.  Deploying them would not have required presidential authority, yet they were ordered to stand down.  That might turn out to be the military’s fault, at some high level, altho it is easy to assume that it came from Obama, during his meeting with Sec Def Panetta.

 There is one error in this otherwise strong article.  And I am surprised that this Navy Captain repeats several times.  Dempsey (Chairman of the JCS) is not in the chain of command.  The Joint Chiefs of Staff do not have operational command authority.  The chain of command goes from the President to Sec Def to the Commanders of the Combatant Commands.  An example of Combatant Commanders would be Schwarzkof in Desert Storm or Gen Ham in Libya which is part of Africom. The JCS serves in an advisory capacity only.

Bixx

 

 

Posted in Benghazigate, Media, Middle East, Military Issues, Radical Islam, Terrorism
No Comments »

Two terrorists behead a British soldier on a London street

 Two as yet unidentified Muslin terrorists chanting Allahu Akbar assaulted a British soldier on a street close to the Royal Barracks at Woolwich in southeast London, shot him, hacked him with knives and a machete and finally beheaded him. This happened in broad daylight Wednesday afternoon, May 22, in the presence of dozens of witnesses, the first such outrage seen in a West European capital.

Witnesses told the police that the two terrorists covered in blood had held up body parts of their victim and shouted: “We swear by Allah never to stop killing you.”
British TV stations are airing gruesome scenes of the episode.

The terrorists drove up to their victim in a car, jumped out and after the murder wandered about in the area, apparently lying in wait for more soldiers to come out of the Royal Artillery command barracks 400 meters from the scene of their attack. 

www.jsmineset.com (May 22, 2013)

Posted in Military Issues, Terrorism
One Comment »

Benghazigate: General: Delta Force Could Have Gone In…

 

Another part of the Benghazi story has also come under fire: the claim that no military rescuers were sent in because there wasn’t time to get them there . . .

On my Fox News show Saturday, I interviewed retired Lt. General William Boykin, the former commander of Delta Forces. He knows more than just about anyone about the deployment and capabilities of our elite rescue troops. The Pentagon timeline shows that over 7-1/2 hours passed between the first attack and the deaths of the former Navy SEALS who were holding off the attackers. Gen. Boykin estimated that we could’ve had a jet there to at least scare the attackers within 2 to 3 hours, and boots on the ground within 5 to 6 hours. As for the argument that the rescue mission might’ve been too dangerous, well…that’s what Navy SEALS do. Gen. Boykin says it’s the philosophy of the US military that you never abandon your people, even if all you can do is go in and recover their bodies. As for the excuses for why that order never came, he called them “incredible.”

SOURCE: http://mikehuckabee.com/today-s-commentary

Posted in America's slide, Benghazigate, Middle East, Military Issues, Radical Islam, Terrorism
No Comments »

The Truth is Seeping To The Surface

 

Congresswoman: Obama Gave Benghazi Stand Down Order

US Special forces blocked from protecting consulate

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
May 10, 2013

In comments that went largely unnoticed, Missouri Congresswoman Ann Wagner (R) directly blamed President Obama for ordering the stand down which facilitated the assault on the US consulate in Benghazi.

 

Wagner was asked by talk show host Dana Loesch, “Because you have been an ambassador, you have been overseas with similar responsibilities and similar missions – who gives such an order to stand down? Where does that come from?”

“The President of the United States,” responded Wagner.

The White House has been scrambling to avoid the question of who gave the stand down order ever since whistleblower Greg Hicks, who was number two to Ambassador Chris Stevens, testified that US special forces were ready to board a plane in Tripoli but were prevented from coming to the aid of those under assault inside the consulate.

Hicks revealed that after Stevens had been killed but while the attack was still ongoing, “The Libyan military agreed to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and carry additional personnel to Benghazi as reinforcements,” including US Special Forces, but that a call came through from Special Operations Command Africa saying, “you can’t go now; you don’t have authority to go now.”

“They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it.” Hicks said.

In the hours after the stand down order was given, three more American diplomats were killed by terrorists who laid siege to the consulate.

The Obama administration denies that any kind of stand down order was given, a claim that rings hollow given the White House’s attempt to cover up the nature of what happened in the days after the attack, claiming instead that it was a “protest” sparked by a YouTube video.

It was also recently revealed that the State Department hired Al-Qaeda-linked militants to “defend” the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that was later attacked. State Department officials who blocked efforts to help Americans under assault later tried to hide Al-Qaeda’s involvement in the attack.

As we have exhaustively documented, the Obama administration’s support for Al-Qaeda-linked militants in Libya, which led to the toppling of Colonel Gaddafi, directly contributed to the attack on the consulate and the death of Ambassador Stevens. The very hospital that Stevens was taken to in the last moments of his life was run by the same terrorists who attacked the consulate and who had been empowered as a result of the White House’s military intervention in Libya.

Despite some predicting that the Benghazi cover-up could lead to the impeachment of Barack Obama, an almost identical situation is now unfolding in Syria as a result of the White House’s support for Al-Qaeda terrorists in the pursuit of regime change.

Despite the fact that militants in Syria have openly espoused their hatred for the United States - burning American flags in public while praising Osama Bin Laden and glorifying the 9/11 attacks - the Obama administration is preparing to send them heavy weaponry.

A growing body of evidence also suggests that the entire purpose of the consulate in Benghazi and Ambassador Stevens’ role there was to oversee clandestine arms shipments to Syrian rebels.

Posted in Middle East, Military Issues, Politics, Terrorism
No Comments »

Benghazigate: What About Air Support From Italy?

 

By: Joe Kirkup

Okay, I did a bit of studying on the question of whether a jet (hopefully more than one) could have been dispatched from Sigonella, Italy to Benghazi to assist the Americans under attack.  Benghazi is 750 kilometers from Sigonella, the F16 combat radius is only 550 kilometers.  The Obama admin keeps saying the jet would need inflight refueling and none was available.  That’s only true if the jet needed to go to Benghazi, do it’s support mission and go all the way back to Sigonella.  The combat radius is not the maximum range, it’s the range to a target with enough fuel left to return to the point of origin.   The actual range of an F16 is over 1100 kilometers.

An F16 needs less than 3000′ of runway to land and even a bit less than that to take off depending on fuel and weapons load.  There is an airport just outside Benghazi with a 13,500′ runway.  As my yuppie friends are wont to say, “do the math.”  Certainly landing in Benghazi would be a risky business, but it’s the business those fighter guys are in.  The libs will surely hate hearing this, but if George Bush had still been in the White House that jet would have been there and Bush would have been in the situation room from the moment the attack happened till it ended.

Maybe I’m the only one here who has ever hid, wounded and frightened in the middle of the night, waiting for the US military to come for me.  I was lucky.  Unfortunately, the folks in Benghazi were hoping for help from a whole different America.

JK

Posted in America's slide, Benghazigate, Military Issues, Politics, Radical Islam, Terrorism
Comments Off

The Muslims the Media Doesn’t See

The American press is only free in the sense that it voluntarily puts on its own muzzle.

The media coverage of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has one theme and one tack. Like 30 of the 31 men on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists list, they were terrorists who just happened to be Muslim.

May 8, 2013

by: Daniel Greenfield

While the New York Times dispatched its best and brightest lackeys to Boston to write sensitive pieces on how hard it was for the two Tsarnaevs to fit in leaving them no choice but to bomb the Boston Marathon and then send LOL texts to their friends, it fell to a UK tabloid like The Sun to conduct an interview with the ex-girlfriend of the lead terrorist and learn that he wanted her to hate America and beat her because she wouldn’t wear a Hijab.

There are all sorts of jobs that Americans won’t do. Like pick lettuce, bomb the Boston Marathon and report honestly on the motives of the bombers. The only news network that operates outside the media consensus is owned by an Australian mogul who also owns The Sun.

Americans like to think of their press as freer, but it’s only free in the sense that it voluntarily puts on its own muzzle. European tabloids get into bloody brawls with regulators. American newspapers have nothing to brawl about. They will gleefully report anything that undermines national security at the drop of a hat, knowing that they won’t be touched, but there is a long list of subjects that they won’t touch with a million mile pole.

In Europe, editors risked their lives to publish the Mohammed cartoons. In America, on the rare occasion that they were depicted, they were usually censored. CNN, which could show Kathy Griffin trying to molest Anderson Cooper, without the benefit of pixelation or a suicide button, blurred out Mohammed’s face; assuming that Muslims would appreciate the sensitivity of treating their prophet’s face like an obscene object.

The American media does not need to be censored. It censors itself.

Did the New York Times really fail to come across Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s ex-girlfriend and domestic abuse victim while they were busily interviewing every single person in Boston who ever ran into the future terrorists? Doubtful. The New York Times may be incompetent, but it isn’t that incompetent. If it could track down Tamerlan’s old coach, it could track down his old girlfriend. It chose not to.

So did every other paper.

Either The Sun is staffed with crack journalists who could do what no American newspaper, news channel and network news program could, or The Sun got the scoop on Nadine Ascencao because no newspaper on this side of the ocean wanted to touch it. And it’s easy to see why.

Nadine talks about being beaten in the name of Islam, forced to memorize Koran verses and being taught to hate America. Most journalists on this side of the ocean want quotes on what nice boys the two Tsarnaevs were and how, in true liberal fashion, no one could have expected them to do something like this.

Every background story on them is filled with the same pabulum, because the endless march of “We couldn’t have known” quotes provides the government-media complex with the plausible deniability it needs to continue doing the same thing all over again. If the people couldn’t have known, then it stands to reason that their government or their media couldn’t have known either.

No Islam please, we’re American was the mainstream media’s unspoken message. We don’t do Islamic terrorism. We only report on terrorists who happen to be Muslim.

The only newspaper besides The Sun to do an interview with Nadine Ascencao was the Wall Street Journal; which just happens to be owned by the same tabloid mogul. But there is an interesting difference between The Sun and the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ piece doesn’t mention Hijabs, Koran verses or hating America. It doesn’t mention Islam at all.

Co-written by a Pakistani journalist, it emphasizes only that Tamerlan was a bully of no particular religion. That reporter’s twitter feed features a retweet from another Muslim WSJ reporter who broadcasts that the plans of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to head to Times Square amounted to nothing. Nothing to see here. Move along.

 

Nothing to see here is the theme of the media’s coverage. Like a movie, it begins with inspirational tales of courage, and then just when the villains were about to come on the scene, the credits began to roll. It’s only been twenty minutes, but the audience gets hustled out of the theater and told to leave their sodas and popcorn behind.

The “folks who did this”, in Obama’s patently false folksy parlance, were caught. Or at least one of them was. The sacred liberal ceremony of the Miranda warning was recited by a judge at his bedside and the trial will now move through the traditional phases of expensive lawyers paid for by the taxpayer pleading that their client was traumatized by our foreign policy and the entire story being shoved to the back of the media’s coat rack behind the next sports star who comes out of the closet.

This is the surreal world of the American media, which wields its weapons of mass distraction with clinical precision, so that the news hour and the local paper are virtually indistinguishable in content from an old episode of The Jerry Springer Show. But it can’t possibly spare the time for a coherent discussion of the real world motives of two men who carried out a major terrorist attack in Boston.

Soviet citizens listened to the Voice of America to find out what their own government wouldn’t tell them. American citizens have to read The Sun and the Daily Mail, publications whose standards are slightly above that of The Huffington Post and yet, like the National Inquirer, have become one of the few outlets that will chase after the stories that the media has embargoed as effectively as Pravda.

Instead of wasting time on a dead end like Islam, the media has spent its time chasing down every other possible angle.

Did Tamerlan turn terrorist because he took too many blows to the head while boxing? Could the Boston Marathon bombing have been prevented if only we had let him win?

The New York Times assembled a touching story of an aspiring immigrant boxer radicalized by the petty restrictions of a government that wouldn’t let him apply for citizenship because of his history of domestic violence and appearance on a terrorist watch list. But how does that jibe with the Tamerlan from five earlier who beat up a boy that his sister was dating because he wasn’t Muslim?

When the media must deal with Tamerlan’s theology, it keeps him in the category of the troubled man who turned to some wacky extremist version of Islam propounded by a YouTube convert. The man who beat his sister’s boyfriend because he wasn’t a Muslim and beat his ex-girlfriend because she wouldn’t wear a Hijab wasn’t some brainwashed drone who had his mind stolen by YouTube videos. He was a Muslim.

The Tamerlan of 2007 might not have watched as many Jihadist videos, but it would be a mistake to assume that he would have disagreed with their content. That Tamerlan might not have been looking at bombing targets, but neither would he have been upset and angry if some other Muslim had done what he would go on to do. Like Dzhokhar’s two Muslim friends, his first reaction would have been to cover it up.

When it comes to serial killers and mass shooters, the media is conditioned to look for a break that follows some life crisis. But with Muslim terrorists there is no discontinuity, only continuity. A few setbacks might have made terrorism more appealing to Tamerlan, but that would not have happened if it had not already been on his menu of life choices. Or that of his brother.

That angle is the most terrifying one that the media can think of. It’s the one that they can’t touch. It’s the one that they won’t let anyone else touch either. If they have to mention the “I” word, they will sandwich it between “extremist” and “radicalization”. But it’s not Tamerlan who was the radical extremist. Among Muslims, his views were mainstream. The Wahhabis are in ascendance in most parts of the world, including the United States. Islamist parties roundly won the Arab Spring.

What was the difference between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and any of the Syrian Jihadists held up by the media as the epitome of courage and bravery? What is the difference between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and the Hamas and Fatah terrorists that the media peevishly contends Israel must make peace with? What is the difference between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and any of the tens of thousands of Muslim terrorists fighting in conflicts around the world?

While the European media, for all its faults, occasionally grapples with the incompatibility of liberal values and Muslim values; on this side of the ocean the topic is all but untouchable. There is no national censorship body that does this. Instead stories are held down by the weight of a consensus that insists the media exists to promote liberal values. All else follows from there.

The stories that promote liberal values are reported. The stories about a future Muslim terrorist beating his girlfriend because she wouldn’t wear a Hijab are not because those stories create a sneaking suspicion that Muslim multiculturalism is incompatible with liberal values. And the incompatible Muslims, like Mohammed’s face, have been pixelated out of existence in reports on the terrorist attacks by disgruntled boxers, doctors and perfume salesmen who just happen to be Muslim.

These are the Muslims that the media doesn’t see. And it is doing everything possible to make sure that we don’t see them either.

SOURCE (see excellent comments): http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-muslims-media-doesnt-see.html

Posted in America's slide, Media Nonfeasance, Middle East, Radical Islam, Terrorism
Comments Off

We Paid The Bombers To Blow Up Americans. Isn’t That Just Special?

Tamerlan Tsarnaev got Mass. welfare benefits

 

April 24, 2013
 By: Chris Cassidy

Marathon bombings mastermind Tamerlan Tsarnaev was living on taxpayer-funded state welfare benefits even as he was delving deep into the world of radical anti-American Islamism, the Herald has learned.

State officials confirmed last night that Tsarnaev, slain in a raging gun battle with police last Friday, was receiving benefits along with his wife, Katherine Russell Tsarnaev, and their 3-year-old daughter. The state’s Executive Office of Health and Human Services said those benefits ended in 2012 when the couple stopped meeting income eligibility limits. Russell Tsarnaev’s attorney has claimed Katherine — who had converted to Islam — was working up to 80 hours a week as a home health aide while Tsarnaev stayed at home.

In addition, both of Tsarnaev’s parents received benefits, and accused brother bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan were recipients through their parents when they were younger, according to the state.

The news raises questions over whether Tsarnaev financed his radicalization on taxpayer money.

Relatives and news reports have indicated that Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s descent into extremist Islam began around 2008 or 2009, when the ethnic Chechen met a convert identified only as “Misha,” began to become more devout, and sought out jihadist and conspiracy theorist websites, and the rabidly anti-Semitic propaganda tract, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

In 2009, he was quoted in a photo essay as saying, “I don’t have a single American friend, I don’t understand them,” adding that he believed Americans had lost their “values.”

His uncle Ruslan Tsarnaev said it was around that time his nephew gave up drinking and was devoting himself to “God’s business,” while Tamerlan’s mother, now wearing a hijab — an Islamic headscarf — began relating conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks to her cosmetology clients that she said her son had told her.

In early 2011, Tamerlan Tsarnaev first came to the attention of the FBI when the Russian FSB intelligence service contacted the U.S. agency to warn that he was suspected of being a dangerous radical and sought information.

“The request stated that it was based on information that he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country’s region to join unspecified underground groups.” The FBI reported finding no “terrorism activity.”

In mid-2011, he was being monitored by the FSB, apparently prompting the FBI contact, ahead of his six-month trip home to Dagestan in 2012, where Time magazine reported he is believed to have attended a notorious radical mosque.

The state did not say when the Tsarnaevs began receiving benefits. But Health and Human Services spokesman Alec Loftus said the Tsarnaevs “were not receiving transitional assistance benefits at the time of the incident,” a reference to the marathon bombing that killed three and injured 260.

Loftus declined to specify what kinds of benefits and the amount of benefits the family received.

Their taxpayer-funded status came to light last night after repeated calls and emails to welfare officials from the Herald. They refused to comment throughout the day, but pressure mounted last night when the Herald started asking lawmakers whether the Department of Transitional Assistance should release the information.

SOURCE: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/04/tamerlan_tsarnaev_got_mass_welfare_benefits

Posted in Radical Islam, Terrorism
Comments Off

Bill Maher Calls Out Fellow Liberal Regarding Peace of Islam—There May Be Hope Yet

April 23, 2013

Frank Camp

Ralph Waldo Emerson said: “Society is always taken by surprise at any new example of common sense.” Common sense is just the opposite of what its name implies: common, typical, average, or plentiful. Common sense is an increasingly rare commodity in a world where Barack Obama can be elected twice. Lack of common sense often comes from the minds, and out of the mouths of Liberals. Liberals–whether by defect, or something else entirely–seem to hold the market share of foolishness. So when a Leftist comes out and makes a statement that not only holds water, but stands in direct contradiction to the Liberal cannon, I am always taken by surprise.

A few weeks ago, Bill Maher said something on his talk show that took me by surprise; it was simple, common sense. Now, he’s at it again. On a recent episode of Real Time, Maher and guest Brian Levin (director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino) were discussing the Boston bombing and religion. Here is the transcript:

 Maher: “So you’re obviously the perfect person to have here today. You study this all the time, the mind of crazy people who do horrible things. I’m always interested to know how people like the people we caught today up in Boston can have two minds going at the same time. I mean, if you read what the older brother wrote on his, on the internet, he said his world view: Islam. Personal priorities: career and money. And we see this a lot. I mean, the 9/11 hijackers went to strip clubs the night before they got on the plane.”

Levin: “Could I just interject? Look, it’s not like people who are Muslim who do wacky things have a monopoly on it. We have hypocrites across faiths, Jewish, Christian who say they’re out for God and end up doing not so nice things.”

Maher: “You know what? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You know what? That’s, that’s liberal bullshit right there. I mean, yes, all faiths…They just, they’re not as dangerous. I mean, there’s only one faith, for example, that kills you or wants to kill you if you draw a bad cartoon of the prophet. There’s only one faith that kills you or wants to kill you if you renounce the faith. An ex-Muslim is a very dangerous thing. Talk to Salman Rushdie after the show about Christian versus Islam. So, you know, I’m just saying, let’s keep it real.”

Wow. That is shocking. Common sense coming from the mouth of Bill “Bastion of the Left” Maher? Miracles do exist. He goes on to ask if the “Book of Islam” could be done on Broadway; referencing the Broadway smash The Book of Mormon. Levin replies affirmatively. Maher then asks him what color the sky is in his world.

 It is absolutely fascinating to me that someone so entrenched in the Liberal mindset can throw out these gems every so often. It never fails to send a shock through my system. We all know what Maher said to be true. While there has been violence perpetrated by people on every side at some point, the radical Islamists take the cake. This is because their religion is based in violence, and rage. Those who do not agree with Islam are called “infidels,” and are sentenced to a horrible death. We have all heard of “honor killings;” where a Muslim man, or men, execute a woman for doing something outside the bounds of this misogynistic faith. It even happens in the United States.

Radical Islam–to beat a dead horse–is a backwards, hateful, misogynistic, angry, vile faith. Therefor, it comes as no surprise that the extreme majority–if not the entirety–of terror based violence comes from those practicing radical Islam. We all know this. It’s just bizarre when a Liberal does.

This breach of character shows that common sense–while still not so common–is a trait possessed by all of us. It also shows that Liberals have been brainwashed to shut off that trait. It lies dormant in the recesses of their minds, and sometimes that switch gets flicked on for a moment.

This gives me hope. Liberals can’t be viewed as a lost cause. We cannot simply argue with them for the sake of our own gratification. They are people, who have gone down the wrong fork in the road; and we can help them gain back what common sense they had or can have. Conservatives can win the battle if we behave as happy warriors. We have the facts, they have the propaganda; but light always breaches darkness in the end. We can win the hearts and minds if we are willing to practice patience and kindness.

Thanks, Maher. You just gave me some hope for your people.

SOURCE: http://lastresistance.com/1957/bill-maher-calls-out-fellow-liberal-regarding-peace-of-islam-there-may-be-hope-yet/

Posted in Media, Politics, Radical Islam, Terrorism
Comments Off

FBI, Immigration Officials Lost Track of Boston Marathon Bomber Tamerlan. Say WHAT?

by  Mike Flynn

  20 Apr 2013

Sometime in 2011, officials for a foreign government warned the FBI that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, dead suspect in the Marathon bombing, may have ties to extremist organizations. The foreign government is likely Russia, which keeps close watch on ethnic Chechen ties to terrorist groups. The FBI admitted late Friday that it interviewed Tamerlan that year. A few months later, however, Tamerlan boarded a plane for Russia and spent six months out of the country. Less than a year after he returned, the Boston Marathon was bombed.

 

I don’t know how often foreign governments relay to us intelligence on individuals with suspected terror ties. It seem serious, though, because the FBI conducted an investigation and personally interviewed Tamerlan and his family. At the time, at least, they took the threat seriously.

The most troubling part about the foreign warning is that it specifically mentioned Tamerlan was planned to travel abroad. From the FBI’s statement on Friday:

The request stated that it was based on information that he was a follower of radical Islam and a strong believer, and that he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country’s region to join unspecified underground groups.

That appears to be exactly what Tamerlan did. In January, 2012, just a few months after the FBI closed its investigation of Tamerlan, he departed New York’s JFK for Moscow. He returned to the US in late July 2012. We currently have no information as to what he did or where he traveled while he was abroad for six months.

I don’t fault the FBI for not divining Tamerlan’s evil intentions. I do fault them, however, for not monitoring for the specific action they were warned about. I understand the FBI doesn’t have the resources to closely monitor all suspicious individuals. If, however, the FBI is warned that a person is planning to travel to another country and that person then does so, and is gone for an extended period of time, it ought to trigger some kind of alert.

At the very least, the FBI could have alerted immigration officials to notify it if Tamerlan left the country. A follow-up interview with him after he returned from abroad may have prevented this week’s tragedy.

It is difficult to prevent a terrorist bent on sowing destruction. In this case, however, we did have a warning. Not only that, Tamerlan’s subsequent actions were consistent with this warning. Someone, somewhere decided it wasn’t worth looking.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/20/fbi-immigration-officials-lost-track-of-bomber-tamarlan 

Posted in Immigration and Border, Politics, Radical Islam, Terrorism
Comments Off

INTEL From Mossad and (German) BND re: Terror Hits On The US And Europe.

Here’s a bit of intelligence that arrived just this morning and is something that everyone should read and consider. The source is highly credible. I have known and trusted him (with my life, in Vietnam) since the mid-1960′s. That’s all I feel free to say, so, take it as you wish. I, though, take it as gospel. lowflyer

A HEADS UP!!!

In the realm of “for what it’s worth”, I received an INTEL report yesterday from a very close friend who is German and owns/operates a major global firm. Being from Germany, he has a “pal” who is a BND career guy who has focused his work in the Middle East for few decades; therefore, in that the BND is the CIA of Germany he works closely with MOSSAD the INTEL agency/operator group from Israel. The point to the note from the German man, his connection with the BND stated they and MOSSAD are predicting terrorist’s hits to the U.S. and Europe this year. The “hits” are predicted based upon HUMINT and found OPLANS from al-Qaeda and related groups which are believed to be very “real” and valid. The hit sites are varied targets in both Europe and the U.S. but the “predicted” sites are in cities and rural areas as well. Again, the hits will be this year!! The OPLANS have listed the targets!! The targets are many and in several states!!

** In more specific terms, airports – ports – resorts – hotels – shopping centers, etc., are the target sites. The predictions are apparently well known to law enforcement agencies-departments in both the U.S. and Europe now!! {{These predictions are known to the White House, DHS, FBI and other agencies as they are to the leadership of EuroZone nations. }} **

There are known/valid INTEL reports from al-Qaeda that with the serious economic negatives in the EuroZone and U.S., major “hits” will create added economic negatives for months and longer, which is the a major “incentive” for the hits.

** I do know that there have many “hit” stops (terrorist attacks were thwarted – editor) in the last several years due to the work of agencies/departments at the Federal and local levels. **

Certainly, over the years there have been “hit” predictions but NOW the INTEL from the BND/MOSSAD is “super high” and valid … as per the report.

Posted in America's slide, Middle East, Military Issues, Radical Islam, Terrorism, The Economy
4 Comments »

US issues worldwide caution to its citizens of terror threats

“US citizens are reminded to maintain a high level of vigilance and to take appropriate steps to increase their security awareness,” the State Department said in a statement yesterday. (2/19/2013)

Feb 20, 2013

US issues worldwide caution to its citizens of terror threats
WASHINGTON: The United States has issued a worldwide travel alert to its citizens including in  South Asia where it said terrorist outfits like al-Qaida, the  Taliban and  Lashkar-e-Taiba ( LeT) might harm them.

“US citizens are reminded to maintain a high level of vigilance and to take appropriate steps to increase their security awareness,” the State Department said in a statement yesterday.

Noting that current information suggests that al-Qaida, its affiliated organisations, and other terrorist outfits continue to plan terrorist attacks against US interests in multiple regions, including Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, the State Department said these attacks may employ a wide variety of tactics including suicide operations, assassinations, kidnappings, hijackings and bombings.

It said extremists may elect to use conventional or non-conventional weapons, and target both official and private interests.

Examples of such targets include high-profile sporting events, residential areas, business offices, hotels, clubs, restaurants, places of worship, schools, public areas, and other tourist destinations both in the United States and abroad where the country’s citizens gather in large numbers, including during holidays, the State Department said.

In South Asia, the presence of al-Qaida, Taliban elements, indigenous sectarian groups, and other terror organisations, many of which are on the US government’s list of Foreign Terror Organisations (FTOs), poses a potential danger to US citizens in the region, it said.

Terrorists and their sympathisers have demonstrated their willingness and ability to attack targets where US citizens or Westerners are known to congregate or visit.

According to the State Department, anti-Western terrorist groups, some on the US government’s list of FTOs, have been active in India, including Islamist extremist groups such as Harkat-ul-Jihad-i-Islami, Harakat ul-Mujahidin, Indian Mujahideen,  Jaish-e-Mohammed, and the Pakistan-based  Lashkar-e Taiba.

Terrorists have targeted public places in India frequented by Westerners, including luxury and other hotels, trains, train stations, markets, cinemas, mosques, and restaurants in large urban areas, it added.

Posted in Media, Politics, Radical Islam, Terrorism, Uncategorized
Comments Off