Home  |   Jihad Watch  |   Horowitz  |   Archive  |   Columnists  |     DHFC  |  Store  |   Contact  |   Links  |   Search Friday, May 25, 2018
FrontPageMag Article
Write Comment View Comments Printable Article Email Article
War Blog By: FrontPage Magazine
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, September 22, 2008


By Steve Breen

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen




By Charles Johnson

Coming up: the second round in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas funding trial, in which the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) are both listed as unindicted co-conspirators, despite their repeated attempts to be removed from the list: Terrorism Financing Case Back in Court.

The government’s largest terrorism financing case returned to a courtroom in Dallas this week as prosecutors once again try to secure criminal convictions against five men for allegedly raising more than $12 million in what investigators call “blood money” to support overseas suicide bombings.

The case against former leaders of the Holy Land Foundation, a Texas charity that authorities shuttered seven years ago because of its alleged links to the militant Palestinian group Hamas, comes nearly a year after a previous trial ended in disappointment for the government. Jurors acquitted one man outright on 31 charges and deadlocked on charges against the others. Senior U.S. District Judge A. Joe Fish declared a mistrial in October 2007.

The turbulent jury deliberations ignited debate about the strength of the government’s evidence and its pursuit of financiers who back terrorist groups. In the years since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, authorities increasingly have accused suspects of providing “material support” to hostile groups, but the Justice Department’s trial record in such cases has been mixed.


By Charles Johnson

At the Investigative Project on Terrorism: CAIR Exec’s Telling Interview.

In a recent interview with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Islam Online website, and reported by the BBC Middle East Monitoring Service, the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ (CAIR), Executive Director Nihad Awad reflected on “interfaith dialogue,” the Bush administration, the upcoming presidential election, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Asked about the prospect of a new U.S. president, and whether American Muslims regret support for George W. Bush in 2000, Awad’s answer offers a disturbing window into his soul.

“We should not blame the Muslims for taking part in the political process, and we should not blame the United States alone for the 11 September 2001 attacks, but we should also blame the perpetrators.” (Emphasis added)

How noble.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone to see Awad give an interview with a Brotherhood-linked website. After all, the Brotherhood’s deputy chief, Mohammed Habib, recently acknowledged in an interview that there is a relationship between his group and CAIR. That’s what federal prosecutors in the Hamas financing case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) have said for more than a year, naming CAIR as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Palestine Committee.” That is less than thinly-veiled code for Hamas. Awad’s former employer, the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), was also named in the same document as part of the Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, and has been named by two federal judges as a Hamas front group.

Incidentally, prosecutors reiterated CAIR’s role in the conspiracy last week, introducing their Second Supplemental Trial Brief for the upcoming case, which stated:

“Along with the HLF, whose function was to raise funds on behalf of Hamas, the Palestine Committee oversaw the Islamic Association for Palestine (’IAP’), the United Association for Studies & Research (’UASR’) and, later on, the Council on American Islamic Relations (’CAIR’).”

The prosecution sees CAIR as a sister-organization to the chief financial front group for Hamas in the U.S., and not without reason. In the days after the horrific 9/11 terror attacks, CAIR used its website to solicit funds for HLF, sending visitors who clicked on a button which read, “Donate to the NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund,” to the HLF website. In other words, CAIR used the occasion of the worst terror attack on U.S. soil to direct its constituents to send money to a Hamas-front group.  Sunday, September 21, 2008




By Gary Varvel

Political Cartoon by Gary Varvel




By John Hinderaker

Is Barack Obama running the most disgraceful Presidential campaign of modern times? The evidence continues to mount, as Obama's ads and speeches are filled not only with exaggerations and distortions, but with outright lies: claims about John McCain that Obama must know are false.

Like many Democrats, Obama engages in the politics of fear. He tries, especially, to scare senior citizens. In one ad, he asserts that the "Bush-McCain privatization plan" would "cut Social Security benefits in half." That this crude lie is absurd on its face does not mean that no fearful seniors will fall for it. FactCheck.org writes:

This is a falsehood sure to frighten seniors who rely on their Social Security checks. In truth, McCain does not propose to cut those checks at all.

The ad refers to a Bush proposal from 2005 to hold down the growth of benefits for future retirees. Compared to the buying power of benefits paid to today's retirees, that would not have been a "cut" for anybody. It would have been a "cut" of half only in relation to benefits now promised to retirees who have yet to be born. And for average workers, that "cut" in 2075 was projected by one of Obama's own economic advisers to be 28 percent, not "half."

Obama continued to try to scare senior citizens with lies yesterday in a speech in Daytona Beach, Florida. Obama said:

Without Social Security half of elderly women would be living in poverty - half. But if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week.

Once again, FactCheck.org:

That's untrue. All current retirees would be covered by exactly the same Social Security benefits they are now under what the Obama campaign likes to call the "Bush-McCain privatization plan," which Bush pushed for unsuccessfully in 2005.

Actually, under the current Social Security system workers don't have "their Social Security tied up" anywhere. They have no retirement assets, only a promise from the federal government that will be revised or rescinded when the burden becomes unsustainable. If we had a sensible retirement system--one based on savings, not taxes on the next generation--workers would accumulate real assets, not revocable promises. They wouldn't have to put their money in the stock market, of course, but every person I know who has a 401k account or similar retirement portfolio puts at least some of that money in equities. As a person nears retirement he normally shifts his investments from equities into bonds; if he wants to begin his retirement with investments that are self-evidently more secure than the government's promise to pay benefits, he can put the whole thing in government bonds.

Barack Obama knows all of this, of course; he just doesn't want America's workers to have the same opportunity to accumulate wealth that he himself enjoys. We're used to the Democrats demagoging Social Security, but Obama goes beyond demagoguery when he engages in outright lies.


By John Hinderaker

One of the Democrats' strategies in this election season is to turn the Presidential campaign into a referendum on the American people: we have to elect Barack Obama President, or else we're racists. Many pundits, politicians and celebrities have made this claim explicitly; a new AP/Yahoo News poll advances the same theory in a pseudo-scientific way. Here is how the AP reports the results of its survey:

Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks—many calling them "lazy," "violent" or responsible for their own troubles. ...

[T]he effects of whites' racial views are apparent in the polling.

Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice.

Since John McCain, if he wins, will almost certainly win the popular vote by fewer than six points, this survey will be used to cast McCain as an illegitimate President, elected only by virtue of white racism.

The attitude toward the campaign of those who conducted the survey reveals their own bias:

The pollsters set out to determine why Obama is locked in a close race with McCain even as the political landscape seems to favor Democrats. President Bush's unpopularity, the Iraq war and a national sense of economic hard times cut against GOP candidates, as does the fact that Democratic voters outnumber Republicans.

Others would say that the question requiring investigation is why John McCain is locked in a close race with Barack Obama, when Obama has no discernible qualifications for the office and (as the survey shows) holds views well to the left of the electorate. Occam's razor would suggest that the fact that 47 percent of respondents describe Obama as "inexperienced" accounts more readily for the tight race than the divinations of "racism" derived from the poll.

You can find what Yahoo News describes as the "full poll results" here. Only they aren't, in fact, the full results. As made public, the poll results are broken down only by "all respondents" and "whites only." But the AP reporters had access to data, apparently not publicly available, that break responses down among Republicans, Democrats and independents. Thus, they report:

Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment.

Among white Democrats, one-third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58 percent said they planned to back Obama. ...

Among white independents, racial stereotyping is not uncommon. For example, while about 20 percent of independent voters called blacks "intelligent" or "smart," more than one third latched on the adjective "complaining" and 24 percent said blacks were "violent."

Nearly four in 10 white independents agreed that blacks would be better off if they "try harder."

Whether those responses do or do not indicate racism, I find it interesting that the AP has data it interprets as apportioning racist attitudes among Republicans, Democrats and independents, but elects not to share it. Here is what the AP says about Republicans:

Lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too, but the survey found they weren't voting against Obama because of his race. Most Republicans wouldn't vote for any Democrat for president—white, black or brown.

No data in the survey, as reported, support these statements. It's interesting that while the AP cites statistics (albeit cryptic ones) to support the imputation of racism to Democrats and independents who don't support Obama, it offers no such data about Republicans beyond the helpful assertion that "lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too." I suspect this is because this poll, like all other surveys I have seen on the subject, found that Republicans are less likely to express negative attitudes toward people of other races than Democrats and independents.

None of this, of course, will stop liberals from deriding McCain as a President elected by virtue of racism if he wins the election.  Sunday, September 21, 2008




By Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay




By Scott Johnson

Politico reports that Minnestoa senatorial candidate Al Franken helped craft the opening sketch mocking John McCain that kicked off Saturday Night Live last night. A video of the sketch is available online.

Franken is of course a former staff writer for the show. He purports to have put his work as a comedy writer behind him. In his speech accepting the senatorial nomination at the DFL convention in June Franken extended an apology: "It kills me that things I said and wrote sent a message ... that they can't count on me to be a champion for women, for all Minnesotans. I'm sorry for that. Because that's not who I am."

But who is he? In the oral history of Saturday Night Live assembled by James Miller and Tom Shales, Franken talks (pages 119-120) about using cocaine while pulling all nighters writing for the show: "I only did cocaine to stay awake to make sure nobody else did too much cocaine. That was the only reason I ever did it. Heh heh."

Franken was discussing his cocaine use during his first stint writing for the show from 1976-1980, a relatively long time ago. The jocular attitude he expressed toward his drug use would have occurred in his comments for the book (published in 2002), considerably more recently. Franken presumably made his contribution to the show last night without benefit of his old inspiration.

Last night's sketch serves up the party line of the Democratic/Media Complex about John McCain's allegedly nasty and false campaign advertising. I noted a few days ago in "How low can you go for Al Franken?" that Franken's buddies at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee are running one of the dirtiest ads I've ever seen on behalf of Franken himself. The DSCC ad all but accuses Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman of killing Army National Guard Major Stuart Anderson in Iraq in January 2006.

Franken is the angry liberal scourge of corporate America who didn't get around to paying the taxes he owed in at least 17 states. This year he wrote checks totaling some $70,000 in taxes and penalties to the various states in which he had taxes owing since 2003. Franken finally got around to paying the taxes only when his nonpayment was exposed in the course of the current campaign.

In his business capacity, Franken has also somehow overlooked the little man for whom he purports to wage his political battles. Franken was found to owe a $25,000 penalty to the New York State Workers' Compensation Board for failing to carry workers' compensation insurance for employees of his namesake corporation from 2002 to 2005.

New York officials who made numerous attempts to contact Franken about the worker's compensation matter since April 2005 never received a reply. Franken campaign spokesman Andy Barr said that neither Franken nor his wife Franni were aware of the matter before it was exposed in the course of the campaign in March of this year. Now that's funny, as are the efforts of Franken's campaign to lie on his behalf about his contribution to the show last night.

The Politico story quotes Coleman campaign spokesman Luke Friedrich commenting on Franken's SNL sketch: “Angry Al has run one of the nastiest, most negative attack campaigns in Minnesota history. Angry Al complaining about someone else’s campaign ads is about as funny as 'Saturday Night Live' will get this year.” If Al Franken was ever funny, the humor dried up about two decades back. In last night's sketch Franken once again tapped into the vein of unintentional humor that has been his forte for quite a while.


By John Hinderaker

In today's column, New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt assesses two hit pieces that ran on the front page of the Times last weekend. The first hit piece was an attack on John McCain; it alleged that McCain had "regularly stretch[ed] the truth" in describing Barack Obama's positions on the issues. Hoyt gives this article a clean bill of health, finding that it was based on "a solid foundation of fact." Why? Because the paper's reporters had "seen a pattern of 'demonstrable falsehoods, exaggerations, misconstruals or omissions' on the part of McCain."

Strong words. What's the evidence? Hoyt mentions two items specifically. The first is a McCain ad that made the "false charge that Obama supported comprehensive sex education for kids in kindergarten." Only that charge wasn't false, it was true. Obama did support "comprehensive sex education" for kindergartners. Adding that the sex education should be "age appropriate" doesn't change the fact.

Hoyt's second instance is that McCain "repeatedly and incorrectly asserted” that Obama would raise taxes on the middle class. That's arguably untrue if one takes the tax proposals that Obama has offered for the first time during the campaign at face value, although his increased taxes on oil companies would raise the price of gasoline for everyone and his proposal to increase Social Security taxes would affect families that by any reasonable definition are middle class. But no one seriously believes that under an Obama administration, spending would increase dramatically, taxes would be cut for all but the "rich," and the "rich" would magically make up the difference. There just aren't enough rich people to go around. The McCain campaign based its criticism of Obama not on the pie-in-the-sky proposal he fashioned for purposes of the campaign, but on his voting record. And it is an indisputable fact that Obama has repeatedly voted to raise income taxes on families earning as little as $41,000 annually.

So McCain's ads are either plainly true, or fair argument. But what about Obama? Hasn't he been guilty of misrepresentations and exaggerations over the course of the campaign? Well, sure, the Times admits. But that's different:

While the article said that Obama’s “hands have not always been clean in this regard” — he “incorrectly” said that McCain supported a hundred-year war in Iraq, “distorted” his record on school financing and took economic comments “out of context” — the brunt fell on McCain because of his large number of misrepresentations recently.

So: John McCain accurately notes that Obama voted for sex education for kindergartners, and that's an outrageous lie meriting a front-page article. Barack Obama falsely says--probably 100 or more times--that McCain wants to fight a war for 100 years, and that's, what? A slip of the tongue? The contrast is a stark illustration of the Times' partisan perspective.

That was the article that Hoyt says was well-founded. He can't say the same for the Times' front-page hit piece on Sarah Palin, which consisted of a pastiche of anecdotes spun by Alaskans who don't like her:

I think it presented a series of unflattering anecdotes, some confusing and incomplete, but never made the connection between style and results necessary to judge a politician who was overwhelmingly re-elected mayor and has an 80 percent approval rating as governor.

Of course, in the inimitable style of the New York Times, Hoyt's real complaint is that the article isn't long enough: if only they had gone on at greater length, they could have gotten the goods on Governor Palin!

So Hoyt concludes that the Times went one for two in its back to back hit pieces on the Republican nominees. What we're still waiting for, of course, is back to back front-page hit pieces on Barack Obama and Joe Biden. But the Times is no more likely to produce such pieces than the Democratic National Committee, its political soul-mate.  Sunday, September 21, 2008




By Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie




By Allahpundit

Literally unrecognizable, says Pulitzer winner Dexter Filkins, back in the country for the first time since 2006 and relentlessly disoriented by the normalcy he finds in areas he remembers firsthand as bombed-out moonscapes. No piece I’ve ever read better communicates the amazement of Iraq’s revival; the effect is the same as these photo comparisons from Hurricane Ike, except in reverse. I want you to read it all so I’ll keep this short, but we (and a lot of other bloggers) were remiss last week thanks to the election in not paying proper attention to the handover of command in Baghdad, when Gates, Adm. Mullen, and Gen. Odierno gave Petraeus his due. As a tribute to his achievement, you can scarcely do better than this:

In Sadr City, the small brick building that served as the Mahdi Army’s headquarters still stands. But not 50 feet away, a freshly built Iraqi Army post towers above it now. Next to the army post, perhaps to heighten the insult to the militia, the Iraqi government has begun installing a new sewer network, something this impoverished and overcrowded ghetto sorely needs. “Wanted” posters adorn the blast walls there, too, imploring the locals to turn in the once-powerful militia leaders.

Inside the Sadr Bureau, as it’s called, the ex-militia gunmen speak in chastened tones about moving on, maybe finding other work, maybe even transforming their once ferocious army into a social welfare organization. I didn’t see any guns.

“Please don’t print my name in your newspaper,” one former Mahdi Army commander asked me with a sheepish look. “I’m wanted by the government.”

Read it all. And try to suppress a smile, or a catch in your throat, at this: “THERE IS NOWHERE FOR YOU TO HIDE.”  Sunday, September 21, 2008




The carnage at the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad.

The bombing yesterday at the Marriott hotel in Pakistan's capital of Islamabad is shaping up to be one of the country's most deadly attacks. The complex attack is the latest in a series of al Qaeda attacks that have occurred in the Middle East and South Asia over the last five years.

More than 70 people have been reported killed and 257 have been reported wounded so far in what the Pakistani press has dubbed "Pakistan’s 9/11." The death toll is expected to rise as more people are believed to have been trapped in the hotel. Dozens of Westerners have been wounded in the attack, and there are unconfirmed reports one or more Westerners have been killed.

The massive blast left a crater 25 foot deep by 20 feet wide. The blast detonated a natural gas line in the hotel, which then set several floors of the hotel ablaze. Several floors of the hotel are still on fire. The hotel is essentially destroyed, there are fears the structure will collapse due to fire and blast damage. Buildings blocks away were heavily damaged.


The blast crater in front of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad. Photo from CBS News.

The attack was well planned and executed. The strike occurred in a so-called secure zone in Islamabad. Two vehicles were involved in the attack, according to Geo TV. A small vehicle breached the outer security barrier. A large dump truck packed with more than one ton of explosives then moved through the breach and detonated at the front of the hotel.

The Taliban may have been gunning for a high-value target. It was believed President Asif Ali Zardari would be visiting the hotel, but he was reportedly nearby when the blast occurred. Reports indicate teams from the US Central Intelligence Agency as well as US Marines were in the hotel at the time of the attack. Western diplomats, tourists, and businessmen favor the five-star hotel. The attack began in the evening after Muslims broke fast for Ramadan, ensuring the restaurants were filled.

The Marriott attack is one of the largest suicide strikes inside Pakistan over the past year, and the second large-scale bombing in over a month. More than 70 Pakistanis were killed and more than 100 were wounded after two suicide bombers detonated their vests nearly simultaneously outside the gates of the Wah military installation on Aug. 21. The Wah facility hosts elements of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program.

The largest attack in Pakistani history occurred in Karachi on Oct. 18, 2007. Suicide bombers killed more than 130 Pakistanis and wounded more than 500 at a rally held to celebrate the return of Benazir Bhutto, the leader of the Pakistani People's Party. A gunman and suicide bomber killed Benazir Bhutto as she campaigned in the military garrison city of Rawalpindi just two months later.

A potent enemy

The attack on the Islamabad Marriott is the latest in series of complex strikes against hardened locations or military formations in the Middle East and South Asia over the last five years by al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their allies. These attacks require logistical and financial support, training, coordination, intelligence gathering, and access to weapons and explosives.

Al Qaeda and allied movements have conducted multiple complex attacks in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The first strike occurred in Saudi Arabia, before al Qaeda in Iraq even began its insurgency and terror campaign.

Al Qaeda has reformed Brigade 055, the infamous military arm of the terror group made up of Arab recruits, US military and intelligence sources told The Long War Journal in July. The unit is thought to be commanded by Shaikh Khalid Habib al Shami.

Brigade 055 fought alongside the Taliban against the Northern Alliance and was decimated during the US invasion of Afghanistan. Several other Arab brigades have been formed, some consisting of former members of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guards, an intelligence official told The Long War Journal. These units have helped to increase the Taliban's sophistication in military operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

A look at some of the more high-profile complex attacks throughout the Middle East and South Asia over the past five years:

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
May 12, 2003
Four vehicles, three carrying explosives and two carrying the assault teams breached the gates of three compounds housing Westerners in the capital city. The assault teams breached the gates and the car bombs were driven into the compounds. Thirty-four people, including eight Americans, were killed and more than 160 were wounded.

The US Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Dec. 6, 2004
Al Qaeda hits the front gate of the US Consulate in Jeddah. The gate is breached and an assault force stormed the compound. The terrorist took hostages. Six local staff members, a security guard, and three Saudi soldiers were killed.

Abu Ghraib Military Prison, Iraq
April 2, 2005
Al Qaeda in Iraq used car bombs in an attempt to breach the wall of a military prison in Abu Ghraib just west of Baghdad. The bombers were followed up by an infantry assault. US Marines repelled the assault, inflicting heavy casualties on the attackers.

Camp Gannon, Husaybah, Iraq
April 13, 2005
Al Qaeda in Iraq attempted to breach the walls of a US military outpost on the Syrian border. Three trucks packed with explosives attempted to punch a hole in the outer wall. Al Qaeda then launched an infantry assault. US Marines repelled the attack, inflicting heavy casualties on al Qaeda forces.

Baghdad, Iraq
June 24, 2005
More than 100 al Qaeda fighters launched an attack on an Iraqi police station in Baghdad. Like the attacks in Abu Ghraib and Husaybah, the attackers used suicide car and truck bombs and followed up with an infantry assault. The Iraqi Police held their ground and defeated the attack.

The Palestine Hotel, Baghdad, Iraq
Oct. 25, 2005
Al Qaeda launched several car and truck bombs in an attempt to breach the wall of the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad. One truck penetrated the perimeter but the driver detonated after it stalled on the road.

Amman, Jordan
Nov. 10, 2005
Three suicide bombing teams penetrated security and struck nearly simultaneously at the Grand Hyatt, the Radisson SAS and the Days Inn in Amman. The attacks occurred during weddings and other events. Fifty-six civilians were killed and 97 were wounded.

Abqaiq Oil Refinery Facility, Saudi Arabia
Feb. 25, 2006
Al Qaeda operatives in two cars made to look like ARAMCO vehicles got past the first ring of security but were destroyed after being detected and attacked by facility security guards.

Masila oil field, Hadhramout province, Yemen
Sept. 15, 2006
Two teams of car bombers dressed in military-styled uniforms attempted to destroy two oil installations at the Masila oil field. Security guards repelled the attacks; one came close to destroying a natural gas line and control room.

Tarmiyah, Iraq
Feb. 20, 2007
Three al Qaeda suicide car and truck bombs attempt to breach the perimeter of a combat outpost in Tarmiyah. The bombs were followed up by a conventional assault on the compound. The ground assault was repelled but one of the car bombs exploded near the inner wall. This caused a fuel explosion and the collapse of a tower, killing two US soldiers.

South Waziristan, Pakistan
Aug. 31, 2007
Taliban fighters under the command of Baitullah Mehsud captured a Pakistani regular Army company without firing a shot. The Taliban fighters surrounded the convoy as it moved through the tribal agency, and the Army commander surrendered. The soldiers were exchanged for Taliban prisoners.

South Waziristan, Pakistan
January 2008
A large Taliban force estimated at 400 fighters overran a fort manned by the Frontier Corps in the town of Sararogha. The fort was taken after the Taliban breached an outer wall with a truck bomb. Sixteen Frontier Corps paramilitaries were killed and 24 were captured. A large force of Taliban fighters took control of the Saklatoi Fort the next day without firing a shot and conducted several complex attacks on the Lahda Fort but failed to take it.

Spera district, Khost province, Afghanistan
July 1, 2008
A large Taliban, al Qaeda, and Haqqani Network force launched a complex military attack against a combat outpost in eastern Afghanistan. The Taliban coordinated indirect fire to maneuver its infantry. US and Afghan forces defeated the attack, killing 33 Taliban fighters.

Wanat, Nuristan, Afghanistan
July 13, 2008
A joint Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and al Qaeda force launched a complex military attack against a newly built combat outpost in eastern Afghanistan. The enemy force came close to overrunning the outpost. Nine US soldiers were killed in the assault.

US Embassy, Sana'a, Yemen
Sept. 17, 2008
The Yemeni Islamic Brigades, an al Qaeda affiliate, launched a complex attack against the US Embassy in Sana'a. A car bomb detonated outside the main gate, and then assault teams opened fire on the Yemeni security forces outside the gates. Six terrorists, six Yemeni security guards, and four civilians were killed in the fighting.


We have implemented a new commenting system. To use it you must login/register with disqus. Registering is simple and can be done while posting this comment itself. Please contact gzenone [at] horowitzfreedomcenter.org if you have any difficulties.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Home | Blog | Horowitz | Archives | Columnists | Search | Store | Links | CSPC | Contact | Advertise with Us | Privacy Policy

Copyright©2007 FrontPageMagazine.com