[Iran Press TV] Takfiri ...an adherent of takfir wal hijra, an offshoot of Salafism that regards everybody who doesn't agree with them as apostates who most be killed... groups in Nigeria are carrying out false-flag operations in an attempt to pave the way for US intervention in the African country, experts tell Press TV.
The comments came on Tuesday after Washington said it was going to help find more than 200 schoolgirls kidnapped by the members of the Boko Haram ... not to be confused with Procol Harum, Harum Scarum, possibly to be confused with Helter Skelter. The Nigerian version of al-Qaeda and the Taliban rolled together and flavored with a smigeon of distinctly Subsaharan ignorance and brutality... Death Eater group.
"People should understand that Boko Haram is nothing more than a bunch of mercenaries. They have no relation to Islam. They are backed by Takfiri organizations such as al-Qaeda," said Islamic scholar Shabir Hassanally, adding, "It's very very interesting how, all of a sudden, this phantom Boko Haram... come into play and... the most polite and nice government of America... is suddenly there to lend its assistance."
"Why is America all of a sudden concerned about Nigeria? Nigeria is extremely wealthy and America is after its own interests."
Kevin Barret, the director of truthjihad.com, also slammed the West's role in promoting Takfiri snuffies throughout history.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/14/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Boko Haram
#1
"Why is America all of a sudden concerned about Nigeria?"
Because.
Had the 300 schoolgirls had been Filipinas, the White House wouldn't given a rat's ass.
#9
the learned Islam expert shabir has a point in that Iran oppresses women 24/7 and has been doing so for 30+ years and they don't get any white house tweets for their trouble
Posted by: lord garth ||
05/14/2014 7:43 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Follow the money...both for Obama Biden and Boko Haram.
Why aren't we doing more in Africa?
And who is funding Boko Haram?
The OBAMABIDEN money machine is eyeball deep in Nigeria and they are getting rich. Of course they would protect their interests. If this BH cancer spreads, no one can do business in Nigeria. Hell Nigeria was dangerous enough before these nut jobs appeared on the scene much less NOW.
Previous administrations thought enough of the crazy crap in Africa to send teams into Equatorial Africa to keep track of things...hence my ordeals in Angola, Uganda and Southern Rhodesia. So the Democrats have abandoned Africa to the bottom feeders.
Me thinks we have more to fear from the "pestilence" of Islamic extremism from Africa than the ME because we are watching the ME more closely...coming to a city near you a Boko Haram terrorist act of horrific magnitude and brutality...
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
05/14/2014 11:40 Comments ||
Top||
#11
...hence my ordeals in Angola, Uganda and Southern Rhodesia. So the Democrats have abandoned Africa to the bottom feeders.
[YEMENPOST.NET] Ever since Yemen Defence Ministry announced on April 20 the launch of a massive military operation against al-Qaeda across the southern provinces of Abyan and Shabwa, where terror militants have established several bases and training camps, the impoverished nation has spiralled down a vicious cycle of violence.
Seldom has a day gone by since April 20 which did not bring further reports of killing, maiming and bombing.
Only this Wednesday, security officials in Shabwa where fighting in between the armed forces and al-Qaeda operatives rages on, confirmed that Islamic militants targeted a military convoy near the city of Azzan. The official noted, ""The Yemeni air force is participating in the battles, bombing columns of Al-Qaeda vehicles trying to advance towards Azzan."
According to experts Al-Qaeda which suffered many strategic defeats over the past weeks would be attempting to regain some lost ground by reverting to guerrilla tactics in the hope to thin out the army's resolve and secure pockets of resistance.
General Mohsen Saeed al-Ghazali, an aide to Yemen's defence minister was allegedly killed in the attack. It is important to note that no official statement has been issued yet.
On Tuesday, a military warplane targeted three trucks which intelligence sources identified as carrying weapons for al-Qaeda. The convoy was travelling toward Marib from Shabwa
While analysts have warned earlier this week that al-Qaeda militants will attempt to regroup away from Abyan and Shabwa to catch their breath and devise of a new action plan against Sana's central government, movements towards Marib came to reinforce such theory. As it happens, al-Qaeda could be about to open yet another front to Yemen's war against terror.
The Defence Ministry has confirmed that according to its data dozens of alleged terror militants have been either killed or captures over the past three weeks. Yemen being caught up in a "cycle of violence" is quite to be expected, given its situation. When you're in a war you take punishment as well as giving it. The idea is to dish out more than you take. Ambushes and air power and sieges and even massacres are a part of that process.
the Yemen government's enemy is an internationally-raised army of Islamic mercenaries, who purpose is to impose their own brand of religion on the country. When President Saleh who trying to hold onto power at the last, al-Qaeda conquered a considerable portion of Abyen and Shabwa. That's not a fight against badidos, but a fight against invaders and their partisans.
"Invaders?" The headquarters of al-Qaeda is in Pakistain, not in Yemen. They have a local satrap who's declared his devotion to Ayman al-Zawahiri, but as far as we know Ayman doesn't visit much.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/14/2014 11:51 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Arabia
#1
Yemen is caught in a cycle of violence
Well, if they hitched up their native dress to keep it outta the spokes...
The Obama crowd too often responds to critics and to world affairs like self-absorbed adolescents.
As American foreign policy continues its long string of failures--not a series of singles and doubles, as President Obama asserted in a recent news conference, but rather season upon season of fouls and strikes--the question becomes: Why?
Why does the Economist magazine put a tethered eagle on its cover, with the plaintive question, "What would America fight for?" Why do Washington Post columnists sympathetic to the administration write pieces like one last week headlined, "Obama tends to create his own foreign policy headaches"?
The administration would respond with complaints, some legitimate, about the difficulties of an intractable world. Then there are claims, more difficult to support, of steadily accumulating of minor successes; and whinges about the legacy of the Bush administration, gone but never forgotten in the collective memory of the National Security Council staff.
More dispassionate observers might pick out misjudgments about opportunities (the bewitching chimera of an Israeli-Palestinian peace, or the risible Russian reset), excessively hopeful misunderstandings of threats (al Qaeda, we were once told, is on the verge of strategic defeat), and a constipated decision-making apparatus centered in a White House often at war with the State and Defense departments.
There is a further explanation. Clues may be found in the president's selfie with the attractive Danish prime minister at the memorial service for Nelson Mandela in December; in State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki in March cheerily holding up a sign with the Twitter hashtag #UnitedForUkraine while giving a thumbs up; or Michelle Obama looking glum last week, holding up another Twitter sign: #BringBackOurGirls. It can be found in the president's petulance in recently saying that if you do not support his (in)action in Ukraine you must want to go to war with Russia--when there are plenty of potentially effective steps available that stop well short of violence. It can be heard in the former NSC spokesman, Thomas Vietor, responding on May 1 to a question on Fox News about the deaths of an American ambassador and three other Americans with the line, "Dude, this was like two years ago."
Often, members of the Obama administration speak and, worse, think and act, like a bunch of teenagers. When officials roll their eyes at Vladimir Putin's seizure of Crimea with the line that this is "19th-century behavior," the tone is not that different from a disdainful remark about a hairstyle being "so 1980s." When administration members find themselves judged not on utopian aspirations or the purity of their motives--from offering "hope and change" to stopping global warming--but on their actual accomplishments, they turn sulky. As teenagers will, they throw a few taunts (the president last month said the GOP was offering economic policies that amount to a "stinkburger" or a "meanwich") and stomp off, refusing to exchange a civil word with those of opposing views.
Posted by: Au Auric ||
05/14/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Two years from now, it will be "Dude, that was four years ago"
#5
Oh, and The Peoples' Cube is having some fun with the tag deal.
I'd say it has a lot to do with staffers who like to play topless beer pong in the middle of the afternoon, but this guy was at the most important funeral evah laughing out loud, taking selfies, and getting flirty with a gal other than his wife.
#6
The lefties complaining now agreed with his policies 100% until it became clear they were failures. Now the cheerleaders are trying to avoid their own involvement in encouraging his brainless "opposite of Bush" foreign policy.
A journalist, albeit not trained in journalism, all of 31 years old, white and gay, laments that leftist publications do not live up to their own views on minorities and "diversity".
Via Ace O'Spades
On the staff of The American Prospect, I'm the only member of an ethnic minority. That's not because I bring all the variety the magazine needs, or because the editors don't think diversity is valuable. Everyone on the masthead of this liberal publication is committed to being inclusive--not just of racial and ethnic minorities but of women; gays, lesbians, and transgender people; and the poor. Apparently not committed enough. And this guy's an ethnic minority because he plays for the other team.
It's not just the Prospect. Journalism upstarts like Vox Media and FiveThirtyEight have come under fire recently for lack of diversity in their hires, but that's largely because they are drawing from the milky-white pool of "existing talent." In the corner of the publishing industry that caters to college-educated wonks--a slightly fuzzy designation, but I've included most of the publications my colleagues and I read on a daily basis--racial and ethnic diversity is abysmal. Why do I s'pect your indicated "existing talent" pool are just affluent parents seeking a sinecure for their little precious... (See Alex Wagner, granddaughter of U Thant, at one time with world's number one socialist)
Nearly 40 percent of the country is non-white and/or Hispanic, but the number of minorities at the outlets included in this article's tally--most of them self-identified as liberal or progressive--hovers around 10 percent. The Washington Monthly can boast 20 percent, but that's because it only has nine staffers in total, two of whom belong to minority groups. Dissent, like the Prospect, has one. Given the broad commitment to diversity in our corner of the publishing world, why is the track record so poor? Coz it makes you feel good, you can "stick it to the man", and watch other familiar white faces do the same?
Corporate America long ago signed on to the idea that diversity--besides being a noble goal in itself--is good for business. Companies with diverse workforces consistently outperform their competitors; diversity drives innovation, and workers tend to be happier at companies that value inclusiveness. Well that certainly s'plains leftist publications, doesn't it?
But it's even more important in journalism than, say, at an accounting firm. When you're in the business of telling stories, lacking diversity means you're limited in the sorts of stories you can tell--or even think of telling. A newsroom filled with white guys simply lacks the same imagination as one with people from an array of backgrounds. One editor I spoke with stressed that they "choose staff for what they can bring to the magazine, first and foremost," but lacking diversity is actually a prime indicator that you're failing to attract the top talent.
A large part of the problem is simply that no one is keeping track. Unlike the National Association of News Editors, the American Society of Magazine Editors does not track the number of minorities among magazine staff. Heh. No scorekeeper, eh? Getting someone who tracks hires industry wide will cure diversity woes? How does that work, again?
Most of the editors I spoke with conceded up front that their record of hiring and retaining people of color was poor, but few knew the number off-hand. Most, however, knew their VIDA score--and remember answering for it. Since it launched in 2009, the organization VIDA: Women in Literary Arts has tallied the number of women on staff and in the pages of literary publications each year, releasing its counts in January. The organization's name-and-shame strategy has been highly successful. So, if you're a leftist publication, diversity means you must knuckle under demands to a social group, not voluntarily, which states that the general makeup of the population at large must be reflected in your staff?. How many times have we seen this? Someone in media makes an offhand remark about minorities; they have minorities on staff, and not even a hint of a problem with hiring minorities until the remark is published, and then *poof* Diversity?
"When VIDA publishes those numbers, it rattles around your head," says Franklin Foer, editor of The New Republic. "It's a form of shaming I think is actually fairly effective." Foer, who returned to helm the magazine in 2012 after leaving the post in 2010, says after the most recent VIDA count, he and his staff began keeping tabs on the number of male and female bylines in each issue and established a goal they want to reach before next year's numbers come out. Other publications--including the Prospect--have made inroads on the problem after the VIDA counts. "Having analytics and goals and knowing that it'll just be embarrassing if you don't do better next year is a pretty strong guarantee that things will be better," Foer says. In my survey, the center-left New Republic scored higher on the racial and ethnic-diversity scale than the rest of its more progressive counterparts save Mother Jones, with 12.5 percent of staff members hailing from minority groups. Bossman: Smith, I am afraid, we're gonna hafta let you go. We're too white.
Smith: But why me?
Bossman: Look into the mirror. You're white!
Smith: You're white ,too!
Bossman: But I'm the boss!
The recession, too, took a toll on diversity. At newspapers, the percentage of minorities on staff decreased from 13.73 to 12.37 percent between 2008 and 2012. Anecdotally, the downturn has had a similar effect on the magazine world. Magazine editors offered several explanations for the whitewashing: Publications shrank to their core leadership, cutting off positions in the lower echelons, where members of minority groups are more likely to find themselves; people of color and members of other minority groups disproportionately took buyouts. Funny that when pursuing an agenda, the left finally admits we're in a recession, and that minorities take buyouts "disproportionately". I guess those who who did leave can now be called a new minority, recessionists.
In the struggle to stay afloat, worrying about diversity came to be seen as quaint. "Up until 2008, newsrooms--especially large ones--were really really conscious about diversity," says Slate editor David Plotz, whose publication's staff composition of 75 is about 6.7 percent minority. "The recession made newsrooms very miserly thinking about issues like that. The thinking was, 'We are in survival mode, we are about saving our jobs. This is not an issue we care about.'" Heh. When things are good, we'll behave, honest...
The stagnation of the industry also means there are few opportunities to increase diversity. "The staff here is unionized, which means there is little job turnover," says Richard Kim, executive editor at The Nation, who is Asian American and gay. "We only get to make a hire every four or five years." Among the progressive publications I examined, The Nation scored the lowest, with slightly over 4 percent of its staff hailing from racial and ethnic minority groups.
But the primary reason magazine staffs are so white is structural. "We practice fairly specialized form of journalism and the pool of people who do it isn't terribly large to begin with, and then you look at the group of people who are practicing at a higher level and it's just not a diverse pool," Foer says. Minorities prolly know, prolly instinctively, that if the left's economic and political agenda is enacted, they're on the outside anyway.
The road that ends with a spot on staff at places like The New Republic, The Atlantic, or the Prospect is paved with privilege. It starts with unpaid internships, which serve both as training grounds and feeders to staff positions. A place for leftists to put their precious for the summer while mumsy and daddy jet off to the Seychelles.
"Most of our staff comes through our intern program," says Harper's editor Ellen Rosenbush. "Do we get as many applicants of color as we'd like? Probably not, but we do get them and we have hired them." There's a straightforward reason for the dearth of intern applications: Those who can afford to rely on mom and dad for a summer or a semester tend to be well-off and white. Heh.
While publications like The Atlantic and The Nation have begun to pay their interns minimum wage--in the case of the latter, after an intern revolt last year--most publications offer a meager stipend or do not pay at all. Slate pays its interns $10 an hour. Internships at The New Republic, Salon, Harper's, and the Washington Monthly all unpaid. The Prospect pays its interns a stipend of $100 per week. On the bright side, a number of publications offer paid entry-level fellowships: The Prospect's pays $33,000 and includes benefits, The New Republic offers its reporter-researchers $25,000, and Mother Jones gives its fellows $1,500 per month. But money's not the only issue when it comes to interns. Most publications put little effort into recruiting for their internship programs, and the fact of the matter is that a black or Latino kid who grew up on the South Side of Chicago is far less likely to have even heard of The New Republic or the Prospect than a white woman growing up on the Upper West Side. More commie rhetoric at the link.
#2
the fact of the matter is that a black or Latino kid who grew up on the South Side of Chicago is far less likely to have even heard of The New Republic or the Prospect than a white woman growing up on the Upper West Side
Dog, they get the bennies - why do they need to read about the theory?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[YEMENPOST.NET] Ever since Yemen Defence Ministry announced on April 20 the launch of a massive military operation against al-Qaeda across the southern provinces of Abyan and Shabwa, where terror militants have established several bases and training camps, the impoverished nation has spiralled down a vicious cycle of violence.
There is a further explanation. Clues may be found in the president's selfie with the attractive Danish prime minister at the memorial service for Nelson Mandela in December; in State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki in March cheerily holding up a sign with the Twitter hashtag #UnitedForUkraine while giving a thumbs up; or Michelle Obama looking glum last week, holding up another Twitter sign: #BringBackOurGirls. It can be found in the president's petulance in recently saying that if you do not support his (in)action in Ukraine you must want to go to war with Russia--when there are plenty of potentially effective steps available that stop well short of violence. It can be heard in the former NSC spokesman, Thomas Vietor, responding on May 1 to a question on Fox News about the deaths of an American ambassador and three other Americans with the line, "Dude, this was like two years ago."
