Enter Lindsey Graham — Once Again

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. — George Washington

South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham appears to be coming out of the failed John McCain election closet to launch himself back onto the national political stage. Graham appeared on Sunday morning's CBS Face the Nation in an interview with Bob Schieffer, condemning the burning of the Islamic holy book, the Quran.

Shirt tailing on the announcement by Gen. David Petraeus that Quran burning poses a security threat in Afghanistan, Graham expresses his intention to work closely (across the aisle) with Senators Kerry and Reid and others to condemn the burning of Qurans. Picking up where Petraeus left off in condemning Florida Pastor Terry Jones for burning a Quran earlier this week, Graham said:

“Yeah, I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war. During World War II you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy.” In essence Senator Graham is accusing Pastor Terry Jones of giving aid and comfort to the enemy — treason.

As an American in the United States of America, you are allowed to do many things. You can burn the flag. You can burn the Bible. You can produce obscene art and sometimes even get government money to finance it.

You can make movies and TV shows that ridicule Christianity, traditional morality, and that take the Lord's name in vain.

If anybody objects to this, you can just accuse him of trying to impose his values on others. Then start talking about the Salem Witch Trials and the Spanish Inquisition.

Yes, you can do all those things, and more. But can you burn a Quran?

Yes, but maybe not for long.

Terry Jones, pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center, in Gainesville, Florida, became the target of world condemnation last year when he announced he would burn a copy of the Quran in protest.

President Obama didn't want him to do it. Neither did General David Petraeus, commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Actress/Activist Angelina Jolie spoke out against it. I'm still waiting for Angelina to speak out against anti-Christianity in Hollywood.

As a result of his plan to burn a Quran in the U.S.A., Terry Jones received death threats. His website was shut down. The mortgage on his church's property was called in and — what a coincidence — the church's property insurance was cancelled. The city of Gainesville threatened to charge the church for protection. And who knows what else happened behind the scenes? All this happened to a private group which wanted to burn a privately-owned book on private property. What if the powers that be decide your private activity is objectionable? In the end, Jones decided not to burn the Quran.

That was seven months ago. But now, he and his group have finally burned a Quran. What they did was hold an American-style trial of the Quran, conducted in English and Arabic. The Quran was defended by an imam from Texas. And several former Muslim converts to Christianity were included.

If you'd like to really see where Jones and his group are coming from, you ought to check out his website, assuming it is still online. Click here; and you can also click here to read Jones's Ten Reasons to Burn the Quran.

The ten Reasons Terry Jones gave for burning the Quran are as follows:

One: The Quran teaches that Jesus Christ, the Crucified, Risen Son of God, King of Kings and Lord of Lords was NOT the Son of God, nor was he crucified. This teaching removes the possibility of salvation and eternal life in heaven for all Islam's believers. They face eternal damnation in hell if they do not repent.

Two: The Quran is not what Islam claims it to be. It does not have an eternal origin. It is not recorded in heaven. The Almighty God, Creator of the World, is NOT it's source. It is not holy. Its writings are human in origin, a concoction of old and new teachings.

Three: The Quran's teaching includes Arabian idolatry, paganism, rites and rituals. These are demonic, an ongoing satanic stronghold under which Muslims and the world suffer.

Four: The earliest writings that are known to exist about the Prophet Mohammad were recorded 120 years after his death. All of the Islamic writings (the Quran and the Hadith, the biographies, the traditions and histories) are confused, contradictory and inconsistent. We have no conclusive account about what he said or did. Yet Muslims follow the destructive teachings of Islam without question.

Five: Mohammad's life and message cannot be respected. The first Meccan period of his leadership seems to have been religiously motivated and a search for the truth. But in the second Medina period he was openly corrupt, power hungry, and obsessed with selfish pleasures. These are characteristics that God hates. They also led to political assassinations and massacres which continue to be carried out on a regular basis by his followers today.

Six: Islamic Law is totalitarian in nature. There is no separation of church and state. It is irrational. It is supposedly immutable and cannot be changed. It must be accepted without criticism. It has many similarities to Nazism, Communism and Fascism. It is not compatible with Western Civilization.

Seven: Islam is not compatible with democracy and human rights. The notion of a moral individual capable of making decisions and taking responsibility for them does not exist in Islam. The attitude towards women in Islam as inferior possessions of men has led to countless cases of mistreatment and abuse for which Muslim men receive little or no punishment. This is a direct fruit of the teachings of the Quran.

Eight: A Muslim does not have the right to change his religion. Apostasy is punishable by death.

Nine: Islamic teaching and culture consistently perpetuate an irrational fear and loathing of the West.

Ten: Islam is a weapon of Arab imperialism and Islamic colonialism. Where Islam has or gains political power, Christians, Jews and all non-Muslims suffer persecution and discrimination. This includes murders, rape, imprisonment and the destruction of churches, synagogues, temples and other places of worship.

Nowhere in Jones’ list of reason does he express intent to cause violence as has been reported in the press. After reading Jones’ list, even if you disagree with what Jones has done, you will know what you are talking about.

Anyway, after the Quran was condemned, it was burned. So the "world" exploded in hysterical condemnation. In Afghanistan, especially, rioters felt duty-bound to prove that Jones was wrong to call their religion a violent one. So they went on a rampage, killed people and burned Obama in effigy.

President Obama, rather than defend American principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, put the rioters on the same level as Pastor Jones: Obama said; "The desecration of any holy text, including the Quran, is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry. However, to attack and kill innocent people in response is outrageous, and an affront to human decency and dignity."

Just as last September, General Petraeus, commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, got involved. Last September he had complained that burning the Quran in Florida could put the troops in Afghanistan in danger.

Earth to Petraeus. Your troops are already in danger. They're at war.

This time, Petraeus said the burning "was hateful, it was intolerant and it was extremely disrespectful and again, we condemn it in the strongest manner possible,"

Excuse me, but is it really appropriate for a general to be making pronouncements over U.S. domestic policy? Is it a general's prerogative to tell American civilians what they can or cannot do? Why does Petraeus condemn the burning of one Quran? The U.S. Army has confiscated and burned Bibles in Afghanistan. Where was the outcry over that?

As if all this weren't quite bad enough, several members of Congress have implied they might do something about the Quran burning. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat) promised to look into it. Even worse, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham had this chilling threat for citizens who don't get in line: "I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war,"

This reminds me of why we have a First Amendment. Contrary to popular opinion, the First Amendment was not written to give us freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. Read what the First Amendment actually says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Did you notice that? The First Amendment was specifically written to prevent Congress from taking away our rights! And when you have senators like Reid and Graham, you can see why!

As someone once quipped, "no man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session." Or his right to burn the Koran.

Graham and others may be willing to restrict our speech, despite the fact that that First Amendment is specifically written prohibits the Congress from doing so.

Conservative commentator Ann Barnhardt gives a blow-by-blow analysis of Graham's speech, highlighting the fact that if John McCain had been elected president, McCain's "Best Buddy" Graham most likely would have been the U.S. attorney general, raising a red flag of danger based on Graham's statement in which he clearly favors restricting Americans' freedom of speech. Barnhardt said,

“Hold people accountable? For what? For exercising their constitutionally protected and divinely ordained right to freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of religion?”

Yes, we know that as Americans are waking up to the threat of radical Islam knocking on our back door, the issue of Quran burning is a hot one, and likely to grow a lot more volatile before things cool down. But as we face the next presidential election, might we ask, also, what exactly is the real reason for McCain's shotgun rider Lindsay Graham to be jumping back into the bonfire of the national political arena?

Watch Barnhardt's commentary below: The video is in two parts due to the size requirements of YouTube. The first part is a direct reply to Lindsey Graham and the second an expose of the violence in the Quran. You don’t have to agree with Ms. Barnhardt, but you should listen to what she has to say. We are headed down a path towards Sharia Law in the same drip by drip manner the Fabians brought socialism to England. It’s the boiling frog syndrome and the water is getting hotter. Feel it yet?

Ann Barnhardt’s reply to Lindsey Graham

Ann Barnhardt’s commentary on the Quran

The havoc carried out by Muslim berserkers proves Pastor Jones's point about Islam being a violent religion. In effect, they are saying "Islam is not a violent religion. And if you say it is, we'll kill you!"

An interview with Barnhardt can be found here.

Let’s Begin With Foreign Aid

In this financial year we will be spending at least $1.5 billion on foreign aid and we cannot be sure that this money will be properly spent, as corruption and mismanagement in many of the recipient countries are legend. — Pauline Hanson, Australian politician

Last week USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah told the House Appropriations State and Foreign Ops subcommittee on Wednesday that the budget plan, which would cut $61 billion in federal spending, would lead to the deaths of 30,000 kids in a malaria control program that would have to be scaled back, 24,000 from a lack of immunizations and 16,000 from a lack of skilled attendants at birth.

There's a way to do this that does not have to cost lives and we're very focused and very much want to work with the committee to identify a path forward that can allow us to be effective at doing so," he said. Shah is seeking $59.5 billion in funding for his agency, up 22 percent, or $10.7 billion, from the current level.

None of the Republicans, who control the committee, challenged what Shah called a "conservative estimate." The subject quickly changed to agricultural production in Afghanistan and food security in Guatemala.

But subcommittee member Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., sent a statement to FoxNews.com Thursday saying, "Nearly every administration witness appearing before the Appropriations Committee has put forward nightmare scenarios and dire numbers to argue why we should not be reducing spending in any program.

"Republicans won't be drawn into a debate over what might happen based on speculation and hype," he said. "We understand that if we don't rein in these trillion-dollar-plus deficits, programs like this one may have to be eliminated entirely in the near future."

Lewis noted that the GOP plan reduced the overall USAID account but left it entirely up to the administration on how to find the savings.

"I have faith that the administration will find a way to reduce spending without leading to the deaths of children," he said.

Shah's comments contained echoes of former Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson's explosive charge two years ago that the Republicans' idea of health care was wanting sick people to "die quickly." Grayson lost his Florida seat in November's midterm elections.

A mere 7% cut from a bloated $50 billion dollar budget and 30,000 children would die. That’s pure undulated hogwash. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is one of the most bloated, overrated, inefficient agencies in the US Government. Its track record is dismal a best and devastating on the whole. It is a funding source for NGOs and foundations to pad their coffers while they send bone-headed professors and college kids off to foreign lands to dig wells and promote democracy. I know, because I have had experience with this agency.

As an example several years ago USAID granted a nonprofit church organization $30 million to build a sewer system and sewage treatment plant in Gaza. The main qualification of the organization was that they had a retired civil engineer on their staff. Big deal. This was $30 million down a rat hole as the Palestinian’s still have waste running down the street.

For the life of me I can’t see how a cut of $3.4 billion will kill 30,000 African kids by allowing them to contract malaria. Did they ever hear of DDT? Oh, I forgot that remedy was discredited by another left-wing do-gooder, Rachel Carson, and eventually through her book Silent Spring and 60 Minutes got that effective, harmless, killer of mosquitos banned decades ago and 30-40 million Africans have died.

USAID is filled with left-wing do-gooders who believe hey are making a difference as the trek off to some African or Muslim nation, don a hijab or a burka and teach the locals how to dig a well or practice birth control and safe sex. These same people will take as much money as they can for the council bosses or tribal leaders, smile and nod their heads at the USAID workers and then go back to living on the dung heap and contracting AIDS when the workers go home feeling good about themselves.

USAID is where the real left-wing loonies hang out. They have such an inflated view of their do-good mission in life they can’t see the forest for the tress or realty from some college professor’s fantasy. All you need to do is write a paper loaded with charts and graphs, bind it in a slick plastic binder with a clear cover and entitled it “for the children”, “clean, safe drinking water”, “birth control for the poor” of “AIDS prevention in the developing world” and bingo, you’ve got your grant. Then off go the grant writers, usually university professors on a paid sabbatical to some hell hole so they can write a book on how they saved the world

On he other hand the Japanese don’t pass out much foreign aid unless many bamboo strings are attached. I draw your attention to a recent example when I was in Bangkok for a meeting with the US State Department economic officer. As we were driving through heavily congested Bangkok we passed the construction of an overhead viaduct that would relive the traffic congestion. The project was being constructed by a Dutch firm with World Bank money. Also the viaduct was being constructed with steel, not the more usually and more cost effective pre-stressed concrete. The economics officer mentioned how he Japanese had done the feasibility study and design for free under their economic aid program. He thought that was just a whiz bang deal for the Thais. When I mentioned that the Japanese don’t export concrete, they export steel and their designers were able to write steel into their plans and specifications the light went on in his brain.

The Japanese get it, we don’t. The Japanese do everything with the thought in mind as to how will this help the Japanese. We do with the thought in mind of how will this make us feel good and loved.

Any foreign aid we give any nation should have strings, strings that will bring us a return on investment and each USAID project manager should be evaluated on what that return is, i.e. no return, no job.

It’s time for the US government to stop tossing around our money on the whim of some do-gooder grant writer. Of all the billions we have spent on foreign aid over the years what have we gotten in return. The government is not in the charity business. If Bill Gates or the Ford Foundation wants to go about the world sprinkling their money about fine, just don’t do it with mine.

The next thing Congress should defund is Planned Parenthood. $330 million for cancer screening they don’t do. You see it’s always for the children or the poor women of the world.

The Real Threat is now in Yemen.

The Real Threat is now in Yemen."If we are to be told by a foreign Power what we shall do, and what we shall not do, we have Independence yet to seek, and have contended hitherto for very little." — George Washington

Catherine Herridge of Fox News reports that Al Qaeda has gained control of a Yemeni town. She states; “Terrorists aligned with Al Qaeda are in control of Jaar, the historical capital of the Yemen province of Abyan, a Yemeni official briefed on the intelligence data told Fox News.

“Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the terrorist group's branch in Yemen, has taken hold of the town, along with former elements of a group known as Aden-Abyan Islamic Army. The Yemeni military is actively negotiating with the groups, who have yet to gain control of the entire province, the official says.”

“Abyan has been a focus of U.S. and Yemeni government counterterrorism activities because it is believed to be the main foothold for the Al Qaeda affiliate, which — with the American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki playing a key role — is now considered a greater threat to U.S. national security than Osama bin Laden and the remnants of his network in Pakistan.”

“There has been little government presence or authority in Abyan historically, but Fox News is told that the Yemeni armed forces moved troops closer to Abyan — an area with ties to the country's vice president and a top general.”

“Within the last week, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and other extremist groups in the region surrounded a smaller military company, which eventually had to withdraw because no reinforcements were available due to the protests in the capitol Sanaa.”

While the world’s attention is focused on the combat transpiring in Libya and the events in Egypt and Bahrain, Yemen has also descended into crisis. The country is deeply split over its support for Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, and this profound divide has also extended to the most powerful institutions in the country — the military and the tribes — with some factions calling for Saleh to relinquish power and others supporting him. The tense standoff in the Yemeni capital of Sanaa has served to divert attention (and security forces) from other parts of the country.

On March 28, an explosion at a munitions factory in southern Yemen killed at least 110 people. The factory, which reportedly produced AK rifles and ammunition, was located in the town of Jaar in Abyan province. Armed militants looted the factory March 27, and the explosion reportedly occurred the next day as local townspeople were rummaging through the factory. It is not known what sparked the explosion, but it is suspected to have been an accident, perhaps caused by careless smoking.

The government has reported that the jihadist group Aden-Abyan Islamic Army worked with militant separatists from the south to conduct the raid on the factory. Other sources have indicated that they believe the raid was conducted by tribesman from Loder. Given the history of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) activity in the Loder area, if the tribesmen were indeed from Loder, it is highly likely they were at least sympathetic to AQAP if not affiliated with the group.

While it is in Saleh’s interest to play up the separatist and jihadist threats as a way of showing international and internal parties how important he is and why he should remain in power, these threats are indeed legitimate. Even in the best of times, there are large portions of Yemen that are under tenuous government control, and the current crisis has enlarged this power vacuum. Because of this lack of government focus and the opportunity to gather weapons in places like Jaar, militant groups such as AQAP, the strongest of al Qaeda’s regional franchise groups, have been provided with a golden opportunity. The question is: Will they be capable of fully exploiting it?

The raid on the arms factory in Jaar was facilitated by the fact that government security forces had been forced to focus elsewhere. Reports indicate that there was only a company of Yemeni troops in Jaar to guard the factory and that they were quickly overwhelmed by the militants. While the government moved a battalion into Jaar to restore order, those troops had to be taken from elsewhere. This confrontation between troops loyal to Saleh and those led by Brig. Gen. Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar in the capital city has also caused security forces from both sides to be drawn back to Sanaa in anticipation of a clash. It has also resulted in a vacuum of power in many parts of the country. Currently, government control over large parts of the country varies from town to town, especially in provinces such as Saada, al-Jouf, Shabwa and Abyan, which have long histories of separatist activity.

It is important to understand that Yemen was not a very cohesive entity going into this current crisis, and the writ of the central government has been continually challenged since the country’s founding. Until 1990, Yemen was split into two countries, the conservative, Saudi-influenced Yemen Arab Republic in the north and the Marxist, secular People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen in the south. In 1994, following a peaceful unification in 1990, a bloody civil war was fought between the north and the south. While the north won the war, tensions have remained high between the two sides, and there has long been a simmering anti-government sentiment in the south. This sentiment has periodically manifested itself in outbreaks of armed hostilities between the armed southern separatist movement and government forces.

In Yemen’s northwest, the al-Houthi rebels also have been waging a war of secession against the central government in Sanaa. In the last round of open hostilities, which ended in January 2010, the Yemeni government was unable to quell the uprising, and Saudi Arabia had to commit military forces to help force the al-Houthi rebels to capitulate.

Yemen’s tribes present another challenge to the central government. President Saleh had been able to use a system of patronage and payoffs to help secure the support of the country’s powerful tribes, but this recently has become more difficult with Saudi influence with the tribes eclipsing that of Saleh. In recent weeks, many prominent tribal leaders such as the al-Ahmars have decided to join the opposition and denounce Saleh. The tribes have always been largely independent and have controlled large sections of the country with very little government interference. Government influence there is even less now.

Saleh has also used the conservative tribes and jihadists to help him in his battles against secessionists in both the north and the south. They proved eager to fight the secular Marxists in the south and the Zaydi Shiite al-Houthi in the north. The practice of relying on the conservative tribes and jihadists has also blown back on the Yemeni regime and, as in Pakistan, there are jihadist sympathizers within the Yemeni security apparatus. Because of this dynamic, efforts to locate and root out AQAP elements have been very complicated and limited.

The Yemeni tribes practice a very conservative form of Islam, and their tribal traditions are in many ways similar to the Pashtunwali code in Pakistan. According to this tradition, any guest of the tribe — such as an al Qaeda militant — is vigorously protected once welcomed. They will also protect “sons of the tribe,” such as American-born Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a member of the powerful Awlak tribe (the Yemeni prime minister is the uncle of al-Awlaki’s father). The AQAP leadership has further exploited this tribal tradition by shrewdly marrying into many of the powerful tribes in order to solidify the mantle of protection they provide.

In late 2009, in the wake of the Christmas Day plot to destroy Northwest Airlines Flight 253, the Fort Hood shootings and the attempted assassination of the Saudi deputy interior minister, STRATFOR believed that 2010 was going to see a concerted effort by the Yemenis to destroy the AQAP organization. As 2010 passed, it became clear that, despite the urging and assistance of their U.S. and Saudi allies, the Yemenis had been unable to cause much damage to AQAP as an organization, and as evidenced by the Oct. 29, 2010, cargo-bomb attempt, AQAP finished 2010 stronger than we had anticipated.

In fact, as we entered 2011, AQAP had moved to the forefront of the international jihadist movement on the physical battlefield and had also begun to take a leading role in the ideological realm due to a number of factors, including the group’s popular Arabic-language online magazine Sada al-Malahim, the emergence of AQAP’s English-language Inspire magazine and the increased profile and popularity of al-Awlaki.

As we noted last month regarding Libya, jihadists have long thrived in chaotic environments such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia. Indeed, this is exactly why the leadership of AQAP left Saudi Arabia and relocated to the more permissive environment of Yemen. Unlike the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, AQAP is active, has attempted to conduct a number of transnational attacks, and has sought to encourage grassroots jihadists across the globe to think globally and attack locally. With the government of Yemen unable to prosecute a successful campaign against AQAP in 2010, the chance of them making much progress against the group in 2011 amid the current crisis is even more remote.

The United States has spent the past several years training up a “new guard” within the Yemeni security apparatus — mainly the Counter Terrorism Unit, National Security Bureau, Special Forces and Central Security Forces, which are all led by Saleh’s relatives — in an effort to counterbalance the influence of the Islamist old guard in the military (led by Saleh’s big competitor right now, Ali Mohsin). These select forces are now being tasked with protecting the Saleh regime against dissident units of the Yemeni military, which means there is no one left on the Yemeni side to focus on AQAP. This situation is likely to persist for some time as the standoff progresses and even after the installation of a new government, which will have to sort things out and deal with the separatist issues in the north and south. Indeed, these issues are seen as more pressing threats to the regime than AQAP and the jihadists.

If there is a transition of power in Yemen, and Mohsin and his faction come to power, there is likely to be a purge of these new guard forces and their leadership, which is loyal to Saleh. The result will be a removal of the new guard and an increase in the influence of the Islamists and jihadist sympathizers in the Yemeni security and intelligence apparatus. This could have a significant impact on U.S. counterterrorism efforts in Yemen, and provide a significant opportunity for AQAP.

The violence and civil unrest wracking Yemen has almost certainly curtailed the ability of American intelligence officers to travel, meet with people and collect much information pertaining to AQAP, especially in places that have fallen under militant control. Additionally, the attention of U.S. intelligence agencies has in all likelihood been diverted to the task of trying to gather intelligence pertaining to what is happening with Saleh and the opposition rather than what is happening with AQAP. This will likely provide AQAP with some breathing room.

The United States has been quietly active in Yemen, albeit in a limited way, under the auspices of the Yemeni government. If the Islamist old guard in the military assumes power, it is quite likely that this operational arrangement will not continue — at least not initially. Because of this, should the United States believe that the Saleh regime is about to fall, it may no longer be concerned about alienating the tribes that have supported Saleh, and if it has somehow obtained good intelligence regarding the location of various high-value AQAP targets, it may feel compelled to take unilateral action to attack those targets. Such an operational window will likely be limited, however, and once Saleh leaves, such opportunities will likely be lost.

Today the NY Times reported; “The United States, which long supported Yemen’s president, even in the face of recent widespread protests, has now quietly shifted positions and has concluded that he is unlikely to bring about the required reforms and must be eased out of office, according to American and Yemeni officials.”

“The Obama administration had maintained its support of President Ali Abdullah Saleh in private and refrained from directly criticizing him in public, even as his supporters fired on peaceful demonstrators, because he was considered a critical ally in fighting the Yemeni branch of Al Qaeda. This position has fueled criticism of the United States in some quarters for hypocrisy for rushing to oust a repressive autocrat in Libya but not in strategic allies like Yemen and Bahrain.”

If the United States is not able to take such unilateral action, AQAP will have an excellent opportunity to grow and flourish due to the preoccupation of Yemeni security forces with other things, and the possibility of having even more sympathizers in the government. Not only will this likely result in fewer offensive operations against AQAP in the tribal areas, but the group will also likely be able to acquire additional resources and weapons.

In the past, the leadership of AQAP has shown itself to be shrewd and adaptable, although the group has not displayed a high degree of tactical competence in past attacks against hard targets such as the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa and the British ambassador. Still, AQAP has come very close to succeeding in a number of failed yet innovative attacks outside of Yemen, including the assassination attempt against Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the Christmas Day 2009 underwear-bomb plot and the UPS printer-bomb plot in October 2009, and the window of opportunity that is opening for the group is sure to cause a great deal of angst in Washington, Riyadh and a number of European capitals. It remains to be seen if AQAP can take advantage of the situation in Yemen to conduct a successful attack outside of the country (or a hard target within the country) and finally make it into the terrorist big leagues. [Source; Stratfor]

"This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR"

Is Terry Jones Showing us the Truth?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” — The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Fox News has reported that Senators consider Hamid Karzai's request to condemn Koran burning amid protests in Afghanistan. “U.S. lawmakers said Sunday they would consider a request by Afghan President Hamid Karzai to formally condemn a Florida pastor's decision to burn the Koran, after the act triggered deadly riots in Afghanistan.”

“The protests entered their third day Sunday as demonstrators battled police in the southern city of Kandahar and, in the eastern city of Jalalabad, blocked a highway and burned an effigy of President Obama.”

“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid repudiated Pastor Terry Jones for touching off the chaos with what he called a "publicity stunt." Jones had earlier threatened to burn the Koran, but then shelved the plan until last month. The burning attracted little U.S. attention at the time but was used as a rallying cry in Afghanistan.”

"This was an effort to get some publicity for him. He got it. But in the process, 10-20 people have been killed," Reid said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

“Asked whether Congress could pass a resolution condemning it, he said, "We'll take a look at this."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., suggested Congress should condemn the burning, but also stressed that one pastor's actions should not excuse the subsequent killings.”

"Burning a Koran is a terrible thing, but it doesn't justify killing someone. Burning a Bible would be a terrible thing, but it wouldn't justify murder," he said. "But having said that, any time we can push back here in America against actions like this that put our troops at risk, we ought to do it."

“Obama had a similar message, saying in a written statement that Jones' actions marked "an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry," but that the violence must stop.”

"To attack and kill innocent people in response is outrageous, and an affront to human decency and dignity," Obama said

Well, how about passing a resolution against the Westboro Baptist Church for protesting at military funerals or burning an American Flag? They can’t do that as it’s been decided by the Supreme Court that this is “free speech”. How about the beheading of Christian Missionaries for bringing a Bible into Afghanistan or burning the Bibles? Oh no, this is acceptable for after all it’s the Muslims doing it in their land and we have to respect their culture and values. Well how about the Muslims respecting out culture and values. Aren’t we the ones dying for their so called freedom?

In 2009 the United States military burned bibles that had been sent to soldiers in Afghanistan. The military stated they have a policy that unsolicited religious materials are not allowed to be sent or distributed by military personnel. Central Command General Order No. 1 specifically forbids “proselytizing of any faith, religion or practice” and is to be strongly enforced in sectors which are predominantly Muslim, for fear such material distribution will be taken as an attempt on behalf of the U.S. to proselytize and convert the local people. If such actions were perceived in this manner, the military says it could jeopardize the safety of their mission and cause possible harm to come to the soldiers on base as well as the local Muslims who might show interest in another religion.

Time Magazine world editor Bobby Ghosh told host Chuck Todd on Friday. According to him, the Koran is directly from God, while the Bible isn’t.

GHOSH: The thing to keep in mind that`s very important here is that the Koran to Muslims, it is not — it is not the same as the Bible to Christians.

The Bible is a book written by men. It is acknowledged by Christians that it is written by men. It`s the story of Jesus.

TODD: Yes.

GHOSH: But the Koran, if you are a believer, if you`re a Muslim, the Koran is directly the word of God, not written by man. It is transcribed, is directly the word of God.

That makes it sacred in a way that it`s hard to understand if you’re not Muslim. So the act of burning a Koran is much more — potentially much, much more inflammatory than –

TODD: Directly attacking — directly attacking God.

I guess its okay to burn bibles, but not the Koran.  After all the Bible was written by man, but the Koran was written by God.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress.

I have no truck with Pastor Jones and I think his actions were stupid and ill advised, but his Koran burning has shed the light of truth on who the Muslims really are and the type of law and governance they would bring to a people if they get the power.

Una Moore, a self-proclaimed UN worker writes in her blog. “Foreigners have been killed in Afghanistan before, and today’s attack was not the first fatal attack on UN staff. But it was different than previous fatal attacks. Very different. The killers were ordinary residents of a city deemed peaceful enough to be one of the first places transferred to the control of Afghan security forces. The men who broke into the UN compound, set fires and killed eight people weren’t Taliban, or henchmen of a brutal warlord, or members of a criminal gang. They weren’t even armed when the protests began –they took weapons from the UN guards who were their first victims.”

“Foreigners committed to assisting in the rebuilding of Afghanistan have long accepted the possibility that they might die at the hands of warring parties, but this degree of violence from ordinary citizens is not something most of us factored into our decision to work here.”

“Tonight, the governor of Balkh province (of which Mazar-i-Sharif is the capital) is telling the international media that the men who sacked the UN compound were Taliban infiltrators. That’s rubbish. Local clerics drove around the city with megaphones yesterday, calling residents to protest the actions of a small group of attention-seeking, bigoted Americans. Then, during today’s protest, someone announced that not just one, but hundreds of Korans had been burned in America. A throng of enraged men rushed the gates of the UN compound, determined to draw blood. Had the attackers been gunmen, they would likely have been killed before they could breach the compound.”

“I was sharing a meal with aid worker friends when I heard the news. Phones began buzzing. Security officers were demanding that my friends return to their compounds immediately. Cars had already been sent to retrieve them. Lockdown was in effect.”

“This is not the beginning of the end for the international community in Afghanistan. This is the end. Terry Jones and others will continue to pull anti-Islam stunts and opportunistic extremists here will use those actions to incite attacks against foreigners. Unless we, the internationals, want our guards to fire on unarmed protesters from now on, the day has come for us to leave Afghanistan.”

While Una Moore is no doubt a bone-headed, do-gooder liberal she got one thing right. It is time for the US to leave the hatemongering Muslim morass of Afghanistan as well.

Tragically, the same immoral equivalence is evident in this statement by our own General Petraeus. “In view of the events of recent days, we feel it is important on behalf of ISAF and NATO members in Afghanistan to reiterate our condemnation of any disrespect to the Holy Quran and the Muslim faith. We condemn, in particular, the action of an individual in the United States who recently burned the Holy Quran. We also offer condolences to the families of all those injured and killed in violence which occurred in the wake of the burning of the Holy Quran. We further hope the Afghan people understand that the actions of a small number of individuals, who have been extremely disrespectful to the Holy Quran, are not representative of any of the countries of the international community who are in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people.”

What a disgraceful statement that entirely ignores condemnation first and foremost of the fanatical Afghan Muslim murderers. Petraeus' utterance is further proof that we need new military leadership which understands the jihadist enemy and its threat doctrine so that more brave American soldiers are not sacrificed on the altar of insane, morally bankrupt dhimmi "social work," masquerading as military strategy.

I used to believe that the fight in Afghanistan meant something to America. We were destroying the Taliban and their support of al-Qaeda. That was then. Now we are fighting a resurgence of a Taliban based in Pakistan and “nation building” in Afghanistan. Most of al-Qaeda has moved to their new bases in Yemen. All we are doing is wasting our treasure and the blood of our soldiers and Marines on a corrupt, barbaric 6^th century collection of tribes, who don’t give a damn about us.

I am tired of hearing about the rights of Afghan women and their plight under Sharia Law. How about the plight of our female soldiers now being “advised” to wear the hijab in lieu of the protective Kevlar headgear?

It’s time to leave Afghanistan to the Afghans and bring our troops home before more are killed fighting for a ungrateful bunch of savages.

Political Correctness Gone Wild

“I believe that political correctness can be a form of linguistic fascism, and it sends shivers down the spine of my generation who went to war against fascism.” — P. D. James

If you think political correctness has gone too far guess again. The latest example of what the British crime novelist P.D. James calls linguistic fascism has emanated from the Pentagon. Caroline May reports in The Daily Caller; “In an effort to get closer to the local population, American female soldiers stationed in Afghanistan are being encouraged to wear a Muslim headscarf when interacting with civilians. But some question whether the practice constitutes cultural sensitivity or a form of appeasement that is degrading to U.S. soldiers.”

“Major Kyndra Rotunda, executive director of the Military Law and Policy Institute and AMVETS Legal Clinic, told The Daily Caller that while the women are not being ordered to wear the head scarf, encouragement is tantamount to a demand.”

“They say they are encouraging women to wear the headscarf when they are out and about and on patrol. But the problem is — and I think anyone who has been in the military understands that being encouraged to do something is about the same thing as being ordered — it really puts them in an uncomfortable position when their commander says, ‘We really want you to do this, technically you don’t have to, but we really want you to do this,’” she said.”

Lt. Col. Michael Lawhorn, a U.S. Central Command spokesman, stressed to The DC that while commanders are encouraging American women to wear headscarves while engaging with civilians, they are not having them wear the headscarf in lieu of their kevlar helmets.

“Nobody is saying, ‘Okay as we head out onto this dangerous street, you wear a hijab instead of your kevlar helmet,’” Lawhorn said. “As women are on some of these engagement teams and they are going to go into places where are going to predominantly be dealing with other women, like giving them medical information or finding out their concerns are in the local community. Local commanders are encouraging them — not demanding, but encouraging — if they feel more comfortable — ‘Feel free to wear a headscarf.’”

“Rotunda remained unconvinced, telling The DC that helmets are always the preferred head wear among soldiers.” “Even if it is outreach, you never know what to expect. You really should be wearing your kevlar helmet, it is a safety issue,” she said.”

“Retired Col. Martha McSally, whose grievance about being forced to wear the Muslim abaya while stationed in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s resulted in 2002 legislation outlawing the practice of making female soldiers wear Muslim religious garb in Saudi Arabia, told The Daily Caller that the sanctity of the uniform should not be sullied with outside accessories like the hijab.”

“Another thing that makes this inappropriate is that they are wearing it with their uniform,” she said. “All the services have several-hundred-page regulations about what is appropriate and is not appropriate to wear with the uniform, and we have very strict guidelines. You are representing the United States government. You are wearing the U.S. military uniform, and it confuses what you are representing when you add this to the uniform.”

“In mid-February one of the sponsors of the 2002 legislation that outlawed the practice of making female soldiers in Saudi Arabia wear the abaya, Rhode Island Democratic Rep. James Langevin, wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates requesting more information about soldiers in headscarves.”

“I understand the mission in Afghanistan is drastically different than the situation our female troops faced in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 10 years ago,” Langevin wrote. “However I am interested to know the precise policies or operating instructions that are currently being employed with regard to the garments worn by female service members in Afghanistan and other Muslim nations.” Langevin continues to wait for a response.

“Female service members are not the only ones concerned. Retired Navy SEAL Scott Taylor told TheDC that he has been troubled by reports of women wearing the headscarves with their uniforms.”

“I am completely oppose appeasement to a culture rather than respecting it,” Taylor wrote in an email. “My personal Middle Eastern experience in a very conservative country has taught me that Muslims can feel respected without submitting to an impersonation of their culture. There is little or nothing gained by an American woman in a Hijab, in what is deemed by some as cultural sensitivity. Women in Female Engagement Teams can successfully complete their stated mission without utilization of the Hijab. Encouraging (which coming from leaders is basically an order within the military) this approach is against what the American soldier in uniform stands for. Soldiers operating covertly are a different story.”

“Colonel Martha McSally is hopeful that the experience she had in Saudi Arabia being forced to wear the abaya will not be repeated in Afghanistan with the hijab.”

“I am a civilian now, I retired from the Air Force, these things will not apply to me, so there is no personal connection in that sense. But as an American and someone who went through this with the abaya — I feel on principle, for the same reason the abaya was wrong, this is wrong,” she said. “It is important to be sensitive to the local culture in any mission, and understand the culture but this is not about shaking with your left hand or showing the bottom of your feet — this symbolizes that women have a lower status than men.”

“Major Rotunda is hopeful that Congress will get involved to ensure that female soldiers are no longer pressured to comply.”

“It is clearly within Congress’s realm to pass another provision like what they passed in 2002,” she said, “If the military on its own doesn’t stop this nonsense.”

This is just another example of cow-towing to the Islamic world. Isn’t it about time we stopped worrying about what they think and start standing up for our values and if they don’t like they can go kill one another like they have for the past fourteen hundred years.

Today we live in a society plagued with political correctness and euphemisms for everything. War has become kinetic military action and abortion has become pro-choice. There are euphemisms for just about every activity that, if given the specific title, would be deemed offensive to civil discourse, also known as polite conversation. Hence, in a continuing effort to soften our language and distort reality, we find words that make us feel better about who we are and how un-judgmental and tolerant we can be. Those who are extremely overweight are not referred to as obese or fat. Instead, a man would be called heavy-set or husky, while a woman would be full-figured. People who used to be called handicapped or crippled are now labeled physically challenged. The famous comedian Henny Youngman told a joke about his brother-in-law who claimed to be a diamond-cutter. Later, it was learned that he was in charge of mowing the lawn at Yankee Stadium. Ed Norton, the famous sewer-worker from "The Honeymooners" television show, introduced himself as "an engineer in subterranean sanitation." Employees are never fired from their jobs; they are "let go."

When I was a young lad, people who were physically attracted to the same sex were known as homosexuals. Now they are gays and lesbians. Euphemisms are unpleasant truths wearing diplomatic cologne. In days of yore, we never even heard of someone being able to change from one sex to another, but when it became surgically possible it was called a sex change operation. Soon, the term was considered objectionable, so it became "gender reassignment." Once upon a time, if you supported taking the life of a child in the womb, you were pro-abortion; if you didn't, you were anti-abortion. Now, you're classified pro-choice or pro-life.

Someone who has died is said to have passed away, bought the farm, given up the ghost, kicked the bucket, or, as the great Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet, "shuffled off this mortal coil." When ending the life of a pet it's called "putting him/her to sleep." When the mob wants to put someone to sleep, they put a "contract" out on him. They don't want to murder the guy, they want him "whacked," "hit," "taken for a ride," or "fitted for a cement overcoat." The bad guys don't get sent to prison; they go to correctional institutions. In military terms, people and places bombed out of existence have been "marginalized." When innocent civilians are killed during a war, it's known as "collateral damage." Slums and ghettoes have been euphemistically excised from the language and reborn as economically depressed or culturally deprived environments. People who violate our laws by sneaking across our borders are no longer "illegal aliens," they are "undocumented immigrants."

When taxpayers became aware of the term "earmarks," which are pork barrel projects intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, it became an epithet for wasteful spending. Therefore, it needed a new name, so it was magically transformed into "legislatively directed spending." All of the foregoing is meant to be more than a linguistic exercise; it's about questioning where we are as a society. It's about our refusal to deal with reality, preferring instead to pretend that what is happening before our eyes can be creatively denied by the use of more "tolerant" language. In other words, if we can find a comfortable substitute for the truth, we can avoid facing it.

Now we want to put our female soldiers in danger by “advising” them to wear the hijab in lieu of the Kevlar helmet, a dangerous practice. What happens when an IED goes off down the block and piece of shrapnel pierces a female soldiers head while she is being political correct. Who will take responsibility? Will they next be required to wear a burka and a full face cover? Isn’t it about time we began to call a spade a spade? Ops, I meant to say a pointed hand-held digging tool.

The Good War

“No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.” — Abraham Lincoln

A few years ago Studs Terkel wrote a Pulitzer Prized winning book titled “The Good War.” the book is a firsthand account of people involved before, during and after the war. The book mainly consists of interviews with people who lived the events that went from the beginning of America's involvement in World War II, Pearl Harbor, to the end.

According to Terkel WWII was a war that needed to be fought and was the last “good war”. All subsequent wars the United States has been involved since WWII should be considered “bad wars” — that is according to today.

How times have changed! The United States isn't the imperialistic, blood-for-oil war machine that it was just a few years ago. We've shed the "I ride alone" image and become acceptable in the world community. Every charge levied against the United States following the Iraq invasion is yesterday's news and America can again wage a “just war”. All we needed was a change of party at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Remember the arguments against President Bush's decision to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein? Those arguments aren't heard today, now that a Democrat administration has led us to war in Libya. Oh, I know President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton don't consider the Libyan no-fly zone a war, but it is a war. When bombs are dropping, missiles are launching, guns are firing, and people are dying, that's a war. No question about it. Ask any Korea or Vietnam veteran to describe a "police action."

While hardline pacifists are stridently against the administration's "rush to war" in Libya, they have gained little traction compared to their efforts to demonize the Iraq War. Dennis Kucinich, Code Pink, Michael Moore, and the usual culprits are screaming. But few among the Democrat leadership and their media allies seem to care. The reason is that their opposition to the Iraq War was political, not principled. Now, to borrow from Jeremiah Wright, the Democrats' chickens have come home to roost. Factually, George Bush was on much firmer ground with Iraq than Obama is with Libya.

Bush's detractors accused him of rushing America to war with no clear objective. Actually, Bush's agenda was quite clear. The United States would depose Saddam Hussein and then help Iraq hold elections and establish a constitution. Those goals were accomplished. Admittedly, not all subsequent events unfolded as planned. Iraq's elections produced Shiite majorities, which is the same ideology that holds sway in Iran, and their constitution amounts to Sharia Law. But each goal was reached.

President Obama has no clear objective in Libya. First he said Col. Gaddafi must relinquish power. Then he said Gaddafi could remain in control if he promised to play according to Hoyle. Obama has since reversed course again, and Gaddafi must go. We're unsure of our objective, if indeed we have one. Even identifying our enemy is harder than in Iraq. Gaddafi is a loon no doubt, an unpredictable despot with a terrorist history. But the rebel forces we aid in Libya are linked to al-Qaeda and could prove worse than Gaddafi.

Bush was accused of acting unilaterally in Iraq. But his coalition for the Iraq War included more countries (30) than Obama's coalition (16) in Libya. What's more, Bush built his allies. Obama joined a work in progress and is quite comfortable passing the leadership role to NATO.

Did Iraq attack America? According to Democrats and their media lapdogs, Iraq did not. However, reality intercedes with their convenient fantasizing. Iraq did attack the United States and our interests. Hussein's forces invaded Kuwait, a move outside their borders that threatened international trade shipping routes. Hussein agreed to cease-fire terms upon Iraq's expulsion from Kuwait. He violated those terms flagrantly and, yes, attacked American forces directly. No-fly zones were established over Iraq as part of the cease-fire. Iraq, however, fired on American aircraft patrolling those zones, directly violating the agreement.

Gaddafi's government hasn't directly attacked U.S. interests in years. In fact, in the last ten years the Libyan government acknowledged responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and agreed to restitution for the victims, renounced terrorism (supposedly) and abandoned its nuclear and chemical weapons program. Furthermore, Bush's critics charged him with involving America in Iraq's civil war. So what's happening in Libya? Vacation Bible School? Obama bears more guilt for interceding in a sovereign civil war than did Bush.

The Iraq War began without congressional authorization. Or did it? Congress adopted a resolution granting President Bush the authority to use force, at his discretion, to combat terrorism wherever he determined it existed. And Congress authorized President Bush to use force directly against Iraq to ensure compliance with resolutions outlined in the Gulf War cease-fire pact.

The Obama administration simply began dropping bombs and firing missiles into Libya. No consent was sought from Congress. No strategy is evident and there's no meaningful definition of victory. All we really know is that American forces are preventing a humanitarian disaster in Libya where a mad dictator is killing his subjects. Wasn't the same true in Iraq?

Does anyone honestly believe Saddam Hussein didn't kill his own people? Tell that to the Kurds, upon whom he used chemical weapons. Tell that to the victims of the torture chambers U.S. troops uncovered after Hussein's fall. What's more, if humanitarianism serves as criterion for American air strikes, the bombs should soon fall on Sudan, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, North Korea, and a host of other unruly nations and authoritarian regimes.

The arguments used to implicate Bush as an international war criminal should also apply to Obama's decision to bomb Libya. I'll concede that America entered Iraq with some unrealistic expectations, but we weren't meddling in their affairs. Hussein's actions demanded our response. But even Robert Gates has found no compelling U.S. interest in warring with Libya.

Nothing mentioned thus far should promote sympathy for Muammar Gaddafi. He is a despot and an enemy of the United States. I'll lose no sleep if he disappears beneath a Tomahawk missile. I also support our troops' safety and their mission's success. Alas, there's no appearance of a mission to support, no clear objective. The rebels receiving our support may be a worse enemy than Gaddafi; Obama has abandoned our military leadership role to NATO, bypassed Congress, and surrendered our sovereign authority to wage war to the United Nations.

The outrage that greeted the hawkish Bush has dissipated. The peace marchers who were the darlings of dissent when Bush was the target are today as irrelevant as Keith Olbermann. Few people, if any, are denouncing American imperialism or Obama's military-industrial complex. Obama hasn't been labeled a Nazi, and I've yet to see the first effigy go up in flames.

What a difference a war can make or, in the words of Studs Terkel, this is a good war.

The Religion of Peace

"No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome." — Winston Churchill, 1899, Sir Winston Churchill; (Source: The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 London)

I am sick and tired of hearing that Islam is a religion of peace. The mouth piece organizations for Islam like CAIR, Muslim Students' Association, American Society of Muslims and Islamic Society of North America keep telling us the Islam is a religion of peace while being unwilling to condemn radical Islamic terrorism and global jihad.

Every time there is an incident of Islamic terrorism or violence against women spokespersons from these and other groups are dragged out for interviews in the media. They will not denounce any Islamic group that practices or promotes these acts and spin the issue to look like any critic is an Islamophobe. Of course it is perfectly acceptable to portray a crucifix in a jar of urine or the Virgin Mary covered in dung as art – and paid for with taxpayer money, but don’t criticize anything pertaining to Islam.

Our own Justice Department has a special unit within the civil rights division where lawyers look out and prosecute those who they think are violating the civil rights of Muslims. There is no such unit looking out for civil rights of those violated by the Black Panthers in Philadelphia.

The latest incident of Islamic peace and tolerance occurred this week in Afghanistan where American and NATO soldiers are dying to protect the lives of the Afghans and we are spending millions to build roads, schools, houses, water purification plants and power grids. This incident has been ignored in the American media, probably due to their support for Obama’s involvement in Libya.

The London Daily Mail has reported that Two UN staff beheaded and eight others murdered in protest against U.S. pastor who a burnt Quran in Florida, thousands of miles from Kabul. The Daily Mail reports; “At least 10 United Nations staff were murdered — two by beheading — after extremists stormed their compound in northern Afghanistan today.

“According to reports, protesters in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif beheaded two U.N. guards, seized their weapons and began shooting those inside the compound after a demonstration against Koran burnings in the U.S. turned violent.”

“The bloodshed is the worst attack on the U.N. in Afghanistan since the war began in 2001.At least four Afghan workers were also killed and officials fear the total death toll could rise to 20.”

“The rampage began when over a thousand protesters flooded into the streets after Friday prayers where they heard reports about the Koran burnings in America last month.”

“After slaying the guards, the armed mob scaled the compound's blast walls before setting fire to a guard tower and several other buildings. An Afghan police source, who asked not to be named, said the chief of the mission in the city was wounded but survived.”

“Among those murdered were Norwegian, Romanian, Swedish and Nepalese nationals. Two were decapitated, it is understood.”

“UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told reporters in Nairobi that the attack was 'outrageous and cowardly.”

“The worst previous attack was in 2009 in an insurgent assault on a guesthouse where UN staff were staying. Five UN staffers were killed and nine others wounded. In October 2010, several militants were killed when they attempted to ambush the UN compound in Herat dressed in burkas worn by women.”

“General Daud Daud, commander of Afghan National Police in several northern provinces, said those killed included five Nepalese guards who were working for the UN and two other foreigners employed at the complex. A UN spokesman confirmed that workers had been killed at the mission, but he said the situation on the ground was still confusing and it was difficult to 'ascertain facts.”

“The Norwegian Defense Ministry said one of the victims was Lt. Col Siri Skare, a 53-year-old female pilot. A Swede and four U.N, guards from Nepal were also killed. The nationality of the seventh has not released. According to Afghan officials it looks increasingly likely that the attacks were carried out by insurgents who had blended into the angry crowds.”

“This evening Afghan police said they had arrested the suspected mastermind behind the attack. Rawof Taj, deputy police chief in Balkh province, said this evening he was one of more than 20 people arrested after the violence.”

“Taj said the suspected mastermind was from Kapisa province, a hotbed of the insurgency about 250 miles southeast of Mazar-i-Sharif.”

All of this violence because Terry Jones, a bone headed pastor on Florida burned a Quran in public, something he had every right to do according to the Bill of Rights. Jones is quoted as saying, “We must hold these countries and people accountable for what they have done as well as for any excuses they may use to promote their terrorist activities. The time has come to hold Islam accountable. Our United States government and our President must take a close, realistic look at the radical element Islam. Islam is not a religion of peace. We demand action from the United Nations. Muslim dominated countries can no longer be allowed to spread their hate against Christians and minorities. They must alter the laws that govern their countries to allow for individual freedoms and rights, such as the right to worship, free speech, and to move freely without fear of being attacked or killed.”

While Jones is no doubt a goofy pastor of a little cult church in Florida he does, however, make a point. You cannot draw a cartoon or Image of Mohamed, you cannot even touch the Quran if you are an infidel and any criticism of Islam or Mohamed is met with quick and violent retribution.

Here we are in Afghanistan supposedly riding them of the dictatorial Taliban and the Afghan people are burning American flags and beheading people for the actions of a person they know nothing of just because some radical cleric or Imam tells them to do so.

There is no reason on earth for murdering people, regardless of the "provocation." This is especially true when it comes to reacting to the mindless, intolerant bigot in Florida. If Jones wants to burn a Koran, as long as he's not violently attacking anyone or advocating such, he is within his rights to do so. There is no law against idiocy, nor even hate as long as the hater does not violate the rights of another.

Melanie Phillips recently got into trouble with the PC police in Great Britain for referring to mindless, Muslim fanatics as "savages" for murdering an Israeli family in their beds. I think that description would be apt in this case as well.

Isn’t about time we look at Islam as the real religion it is — a religion of violence and persecution of anyone who does not follow it.