Osama bin Laden: Dead

In a surprise announcement last night, President Obama gave a speech that every American has been waiting to hear: Osama bin Laden is dead.

The mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks had been evading capture for almost ten years ever since President Bush gave the orders to the U.S. military to invade Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and to dismantle the al-Qaeda terrorist network.

According to President Obama, bin Laden was killed in a Navy Seal operative shoot out where he was hiding in a mansion in Pakistan, presumably where he has been hiding since fleeing Afghanistan. His body has been disposed of at sea.

While the death of Osama bin Laden immediately sparked celebrations nationwide and should offer some closure to the families of the men and women killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, this does not mean that al-Qaeda is gone.

Immediately following the news that bin Laden was killed, the terrorist group, Hamas, publicly condemned bin Laden’s death saying "We regard this as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood.”

In other words, there will be a high level of alert, as this news has likely infuriated al-Qaeda and followers of radical Islam. Al-Qaeda has already selected its new leader to succeed bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and most likely, al-Qaeda will continue in its pursuit to do harm to America.

On a side note, while the entire Middle East region is increasingly becoming destabilized, it was interesting to know that Ali Abdullah Saleh, the President of Yemen, after indicating for weeks that he would leave power at the height of protests, refused to cease power on the same day that bin Laden was killed. Yemen just happens to be a country that is infested with al-Qaeda.

For the moment however, this should be an exciting day for Americans and to offer some closure to those families affected by the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It is one step closer in combating Islamic terrorism in the Middle East. But when will the battle actually end? We may never know.

Misconceptions of the Middle East

Since the beginning of the upheaval in the Middle East, most of the world following the catastrophe has been manipulated by the news media into believing this is all about human rights and higher pay. Some of this is true. There is no question that dictators like Qaddafi, Mubarak, Ben Ali, among others, have ruled over their people with an iron fist.

However the situation is much more than that and there has been too many misconceptions about what is really going on in the Middle East. Isn't it interesting that you have a dictator like Qaddafi in Libya that is vowing to start a civil war against protesters, not to mention his country harbors a deep resentment against Israel, as it is with all the other Middle Eastern nations. Yet, the clerical leader of the Muslim Brotherhood Yusuf al-Qaradawi has called for Qaddafi's assassination. Qaradawi also wants Israel gone. He spoke in front of thousands of protesters calling for the eliminating of Jews and that they will be punished, much like how Hitler carried this act out in Nazi Germany.

So why would two people who hate Israel, want to kill one another?

Do you see what is happening here? You have dictators that run countries and now they face an even larger threat. If you can get rid of all of these governments, and if the Muslim Brotherhood can infiltrate and persuade their followers to establish a 'new Middle East', the world is going to have one huge problem, not to mention, the economic conditions, will be critical.

This appears to be the common misconception. Here in America, all you hear is this talk of "down with the dictators, let the Arab people have peace!" Yet, people don't realize the evil behind the evil.

Now, in addition to Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria and Libya; Yemen, Bahrain, Oman and Jordan have all began to experience major protests. The one country that is apparently surrounded by this fire is Saudi Arabia. If this country begins to feel the pressure, think of what kind of impact this is going to have on gas prices right here in the United States.

We're in for some tough seas.

Protests in Middle East not a good thing?

There is heavy concern right now with relation to the continued protests in North Africa and the Middle East. As everyone is no doubt already aware, there has been political unrest in a growing list of countries including Tunisia, Algeria, Lebanon, Yemen and most recently inspiring riots against Hosni Mubarak's authoritarian regime in Egypt.

Thus far, the protests from these nations' people are meant to call for an end of the wrath of dictatorship from their leaders, and establish more solvent countries without the crisis of inflation, shortages, poverty and high unemployment.

Many economists did not expect Egypt to revolt against its own government. Well, that obviously was not the case. As of today, the riots in Egypt have become so bad, that members of the country's own police force decided to join the people and for the first time in history, an entire country shut down its internet access to try and isolate its people from the outside. Also today, President Mubarak agreed to fire his entire cabinet, but still refused to step aside.

President Obama has been cheering on the riots, but asking for a more civil and non-violent approach and also called for President Mubarak to engage in this more civil tone with Egypt's people, or the United States will cut off aid to the country.

Now the first argument to this of course is going to be that the United States should just mind its own business. Well, despite the fact that the people in these countries want new government and leadership, there is also something else which might determine that the escalating tension in the Middle East is not a good thing.

As WikiLeaks uncovered the secret cables concerning our beloved Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the knowledge she hid from the American people over Saudi Arabia's involvement in financing terrorism, they have also uncovered documentation of Ms. Clinton's pressure on Middle Eastern nations in particular to push for government reform. One of those nations was Egypt.

So now, the Middle East is in a position of reform, by the riots we've seen from their people. But what kind of reform is it leading to?

Egypt is one of the United States' most trusted allies in the Middle East and they're one of very few countries that has peace with Israel. If Egypt's government entirely collapses, which apparently it is as we speak, this means Sharia Law could be imposed, which is dominated by Muslims. Is it just a surprise that radical Muslims want to whip out Israel?

We should all see the common trend here and it looks rather frightening. Meanwhile, Lebanon's entire government has collapsed and they're trying to shove Hezbollah leaders down that country's throat, who by the way, also want to destroy Israel.

The protests that started in Yemen? They have not been entirely successful on riding al-Qaeda out of their country.

Iran? A clown like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is just waiting in the wings with his nuclear plans. He's already an ally of Hezbollah, and the destabilization in Egypt is the last 'piece of the puzzle' to finally get Israel off the face of the Earth.

Yet, we hear virtually nothing from our leaders in Washington about these common factors, nor the fact that right now we are on the brink of beginning to witness a full scale war in the Middle East.

Like everyone else that HAS seen this trend, I hope I'm wrong.

Iran backs Lebanon; asks U.S. and Israel to stop interfering

The circus in the Middle East is asking the United States and Israel to stop interference with Lebanon's recently collapsed government. When I say circus, I'm referring to the joke that is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad responded on Lebanon's situation: "I tell the Zionists and the U.S. ... be ashamed of your interference in Lebanon and be sure that the Lebanese and regional nations will chop your dirty hands off." 


He went on to say that each time the United States interferes in any country in the Middle East, it makes things much more complicated and that Lebanon can take care of itself.

This is a president that is basically for the most part, offering safe haven to the Militant Shiite group Hezbollah, which effectively collapsed Lebanon's unity government last week when its representative ministers resigned because Hezbollah remains at the top of the list of an international tribunal in the assassination of former Lebanon Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Hezbollah is hoping to establish a new power in Lebanon and to possibly wage a new war on Israel sometime down the road.

Hezbollah has issued a warning that they will "cut off the hands" of anyone who blames any member of the group for Hariri assassination. But the pressure is mounting. While Lebanon's government remains ineffective for the most part, Israel is basically having to battle enemies from all sides by itself and will have one more thing to worry about if Hezbollah gets it way. On the same front, Iran has a nuclear program which is for the most part, aimed at Israel and resentment is harbored by other Middle East nations after Israel was accused of carrying out the assassination on a leader of Hamas.

Things right now in the Middle East are not at all calm. President Obama might want to start getting serious that this idea of international talks and relations is not working. The Middle East could care less about this idea of peace. They want Israel out. If the United States chooses to do nothing, that entire region of the world may become a much larger threat than was anticipated.

Hezbollah collapses Lebanon's government

Earlier this week, Lebanon's government collapsed following the resignations of 11 ministers, 10 of which were representatives of the Militant Shiite Hezbollah, which opposes the parliament. The two main reasons as to why its government collapsed is because Hezbollah is hoping to establish a new form of government without a parliamentary and it would mean no further action can take place regarding indictments in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri from 2005, which the international tribunal is investigating. By collapsing Lebanon's government, Hezbollah has effectively ceased the tribunal's investigation and indictments because wouldn't you know it, Hezbollah is at the top of the tribunal's suspect list for Hariri's assassination.

It is quite obvious what is happening here, because Hariri is the father of Lebanon's current prime minister Saad Hariri and apparent that Hezbollah is hoping to stifle his investigation and opposition of their radical agenda, and remove him from his position. With this current situation growing, some leaders are fearing that the country could lead to the brink of turmoil including violence on the streets.

Of course Lebanon has had problems like this for many years. Find any country in the Middle East that doesn't have these radical problems from militant or terrorist groups, its not necessarily "new" news. Lebanon itself has had to deal with government turmoil before, which include a laundry list of never-ending problems such as assassinations, bombings, a war with Israel and at one point, almost went to the brink of civil war back in 2008. Just about every country over there, with the exception of Israel, hates the United States and they want to kill us.

But coming to a more political standpoint, it seems completely logical to conclude that with President Obama having to deal with all of our problems here, it is the right opportunity for an issue to start over there. Lebanon, is becoming more aggressive like Iran, and they know President Obama does not want to engage in becoming the world police or having to assist in going to war. It occurs to me however, if Lebanon's new government eventually is re-established as being completely dominated by Hezbollah, could also mean another war on Israel.

You think Iran will miss out on an opportunity to help Hezbollah if they want to rage another war on Israel? I think not. So while the resentment continues to grow in the Middle East, some people in Washington right now are continuing to not pay much attention, if any, to this new development that Lebanon is functioning without a government and becoming increasingly dominated by a radical militant group, and most likely, nobody is going to admit that they'll pose as a potential threat to Israel.

But I'll say it here.

Worse than Watergate, Saudis financing Terrorism

What has to be worse than Watergate and the secrets uncovered during the Bush Administration over the War in Iraq, another released U.S. diplomatic cable from WikiLeaks indicates that Saudi Arabia is the world's largest financier of radical Islamic terrorism groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Incredible.

In one of the memos from December 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that "more needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Hamas which probably raises millions of dollars annually from Saudi sources... Saudi Arabia constitutes the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide..."

This is a country that is supposed to be the United States' ally in the Middle East. I'm curious as to how long Mrs. Clinton was going to fool the American people by going on propagating this charade of pretending to be friendly to Saudi Arabia, even though she had direct knowledge in these secret cables that the country was financing terrorism this entire time.

Here's just a side of advice for the Madam Secretary... resign!

The cable does indicate that Saudi Arabia has been attempting to block financing to terrorist networks in the Middle East, and also went to cite Arabia's bordering country, tiny little Qatar, another ally, as being the "worst in the region" concerning its counter-terrorism relationship with the United  States.

Perhaps Qatar, even though as small of a country as it is with the billions of dollars it has in resources as a kingdom, has the capabilities to deal with terrorist threats. But perhaps it is resistant to do so, because of Saudi Arabia's now leaked relationship in financing millions of dollars to these terrorist organizations that are committed to destroying Israel and the United States.

I'd suspect and would not be entirely surprised that the Middle Eastern region is nearly on the verge of breaking out into a massive war. Iraq is a disaster area, U.S. troops have been unsuccessful in their attempts to capture Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, Iran has a nuclear program bent on whipping Israel off the face of the Earth and now Saudi Arabia one of few Middle East allies of the U.S. is financing terrorism throughout the entire region, while Secretary Clinton feels it was necessary to keep all of this completely secret from the American people.

It is just disgraceful.



 
 

Is Obama keeping U.S. safe from a “new” nuclear war and terror?

What is obviously continuing to be an escalating global threat, it was confirmed yesterday that North Korea has enriched uranium for its nuclear facilities. The news apparently sent shockwaves through Washington, yet some U.S. Officials were not entirely surprised by the situation… Well, the ones that were not surprised, at least understand that we’ve only been warned about North Korea’s anticipated progress on advancing its nuclear ambitions for fifteen years, or more. Yet nothing was ever done, except sign a piece of paper with the United Nations.

Back in June 2009 while in France, President Obama was asked at a press conference about North Korea and its relationship with Iran concerning their nuclear ambitions. The President seemed rather evasive on addressing the issue and could not clearly answer the United States’ policy with North Korea specifically, although he ended his statement by saying:

“I don’t think that there should be an assumption, that we will simply continue down a path in which North Korea is constantly destabilizing the region, and we just react the same ways by after they do these things after a while, we reward them.”

Well, why don’t we stop assuming Mr. President? After all, North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il has shown a clear defiance all this time, and violated its resolution with the United Nations. That should be enough of an indicator that they are one step further in expanding their program.

But North Korea, continuing its nuclear plans is just the tip of the iceberg. The United States has feared North Korea intention to sell missiles and nuclear technology to Iran. Even more terrifying, is the notion of North Korea ,possibly one day selling any of its nuclear programs to al-Qaeda, something that the terrorist network would absolutely love to get its hands on.

Iran has actually continued its operations out of the Middle East, in moving forward in establishing their nuclear plans. Now, the country is apparently mining for uranium in Venezuela. Russia agreed earlier this year, to help Venezuela build a nuclear reactor plant, and continued its relationship in assisting Iran. Over the course of the last several years, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have meet with each other in their respective countries to discuss their plans, with Venezuela actually allowing Iran to take over a mining site within its own country to obtain uranium.

Incidentally, on Chavez’s numerous trips to Iran in the last two years, he also began subsidizing the Militant Islamic group Hezbollah in Lebanon, while continuing to work in conjunction with Iran on its nuclear programs. 

Why in the world would a Latin American President be giving money to an organization bent on destroying the United States and Israel?

The commonality of these three countries is based on the fact that they have been working to create a nuclear program that could threaten the safety of the world. Taking into consideration Chavez’s relationship with Hezbollah, which in itself has ties with al-Qaeda and Iran’s relationship with North Korea, which in turn could sell its missiles or weapons to al-Qaeda, paints a very disturbing picture as to what the United States is doing to seriously address this matter.

President Obama has done little when has come to moving forward on solutions to force North Korea and Iran to dismantle their nuclear plans, and is reluctant to admit putting sanctions against Venezuela and its connections to Iran and Middle East terrorist organizations.

The President also seems to be very reluctant to admit that al-Qaeda has moved its breeding grounds to North Africa in the Sahara desert, since the terrorist network has felt increasing heat to move away from Pakistan and Yemen. In September, al-Qaeda kidnapped five French nationals in Niger, and are currently holding them hostage. As of yesterday, al-Qaeda is reportedly demanding that France pull its troops out of Afghanistan if they want to see the hostages released. This, at the height of the NATO summit last week, which its topic of discussion was pulling out of Afghanistan by 2014.

Here’s a side recommendation to the French Government: If they are successful in getting its citizens out of the hands of al-Qaeda, then they should step up and use their own nuclear weapons as a primary defense in the war on terror, along with the United States. One problem resolved. Wouldn’t want to see all of that nuclear testing in the French Polynesian ocean near the Tahitian Moruroa Atoll go to waste.

But these are continuous escalating global threats. I would question President Obama as to how serious he is on taking affirmative action against these countries nuclear plans and the continuation of the threat from al-Qaeda in order to protect the United States, with the assistance of our allies. He can either get the United States to move on these problems; or simply just do what he said in his speech back in June of 2009, and just let them do their thing and reward them later.

This is probably the biggest world threat since the end of the Cold War, and this is not the extension of it, but rather something much worse.

NATO putting on the pressure to pull out of Afghanistan

Last weekend President Obama hopped all over the financial summits in Asia to discuss global economic reform, and now this weekend, he is meeting with leaders at the NATO summit in Lisbon concerning the War in Afghanistan.

As many may remember, President Obama repeatedly stated that he wanted troops to come home by 2011 and handover the responsibility to Afghan forces. Now it appears that officials are more or less focusing to withdraw the 100,000 troops, which included the 30,000 troops ordered by President Obama last year, by 2014.

The reason for this?

Mainly because Afghanistan has shown very little signs of stabilizing itself.

It shouldn’t appear to be such a shocker to President Obama, nor for any official in our Federal Government, as Afghanistan remains one of the top unstable governments in the entire world and has dealt with a continuous civil war for many decades, both from the invasion from the Soviet Union in the 1970’s, to an internal war throughout the 1990’s which resulted in the Taliban. Yet every time there seemed to be a war going on in Afghanistan, it was never able to build itself into a stabilized country.

I seem to recall we also went into Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein. Yet after years of fighting a war in that country, Iraq is still quite unstable and the place is pretty much uninhabitable.

Of course, the primary reason for going into Afghanistan back in 2001 in the first place, was to overthrow the Taliban and dismantle the al-Qaeda network, as a direct result of the September 11^th terrorist attacks. Since that time, the U.S. Military has been unsuccessful in capturing the real ringleader behind those attacks, Osama bin Laden, ranging from theories that he is dead, or hiding out someplace in Pakistan.

President Obama has quite a bit to deal with right now in the Middle East, from leaving Iraq, to stabilizing Afghanistan, and apparently ignorant over Iran’s nuclear program.

At the NATO summit, leaders are pressuring President Obama to implement a better strategy for exiting Afghanistan by that time. While NATO has no exact departure date to be set in 2014, it is projected that the new war efforts in Afghanistan will cost American taxpayers $125 billion through these next three and a half years. Never mind the fact that the United States has enough problems on its plate including servicing its $14 trillion national debt, and providing health care for veterans that just returned from Iraq.

The real question remains as to when the United States does in fact leave Afghanistan, is that country going to be able to sustain itself as a stable government with democracy and its Afghan forces; or will it just become another breeding ground for future generations of al-Qaeda, again posing as a threat to our country’s national security, and the rest of the world?