Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 04, 2015, 07:01:27 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
85147 Posts in 2266 Topics by 1068 Members
Latest Member: cdenny
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 651
1  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Fewer Sun Spots mean ice age is coming? on: March 03, 2015, 10:23:20 PM
The Maunder Minimum (also known as the prolonged sunspot minimum) is the name used for the period roughly spanning 1645 to 1715 when sunspots became exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time.

Like the Dalton Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Maunder Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures.

During one 30-year period within the Maunder Minimum, astronomers observed only about 50 sunspots, as opposed to a more typical 40,000-50,000 spots. (Source)
Climatologist John Casey, a former space shuttle engineer and NASA consultant, thinks that last year’s winter, described by USA Today as “one of the snowiest, coldest, most miserable on record” is going to be a regular occurrence over the coming decades.

Casey asserts that there is mounting evidence that the Earth is getting cooler due to a decline in solar activity. He warns in his latest book, Dark Winter that a major alteration of global climate has already started and that at a minimum it is likely to last 30 years.

Casey predicts food shortages and civil unrest caused by those shortages due largely to governments not preparing for the issues that colder weather will bring. he also predicts that wickedly bitter winter temperatures will see demand for electricity and heating outstrip the supply.

Casey isn’t alone in his thinking. Russian climate expert and astrophysicist Habibullo Abdussamatov goes one step further and states that we are at the very beginning of a new ice age.

Dr. Abdussamatov points out that Earth has experienced such occurrences five times over the last 1,000 years, and that:

“A global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions. The common view of Man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect.” (source)

Don Easterbrook, a climate scientist based at Western Washington University predicted exactly what Casey is saying as far back as 2008. in his paper ‘Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades’ he states:

Despite no global warming in 10 years and recording setting cold in 2007-2008, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC) and computer modelers who believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming still predict the Earth is in store for catastrophic warming in this century. IPCC computer models have predicted global warming of 1° F per decade, and 5-6° C (10-11° F) by 2100 which would cause global catastrophe with ramifications for human life, natural habitat, energy, water resources, and food production. All of this is predicated on the assumption that global warming is caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 and that CO2 will continue to rise rapidly.

The list of climate scientists that are moving into the global cooling camp is growing, many of them base their views on past climate records and history suggests a link between diminished solar activity and bitterly cold winters, as well as cooler summers, in the northern hemisphere.

“My opinion is that we are heading into a Maunder Minimum,” said Mark Giampapa, a solar physicist at the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson, Arizona. “I’m seeing a continuation in the decline of the sunspots’ mean magnetic field strengths and a weakening of the polar magnetic fields and subsurface flows.”
David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshall Solar Physics Center explains:

“We’re at the sunspot maximum of Cycle 24. It’s the smallest sunspot cycle in 100 years and the third in a trend of diminishing sunspot cycles. So, Cycle 25 could likely be smaller than Cycle 24.”

A NASA Science News report of January 2013 details the science behind the sunspot-climate connection and it well worth reading. It should be remembered that since the report was written Solar cycle 24 has been proven to be not the smallest cycle in 50 years, but the smallest for more than 100 years. The last one with sunspot numbers this low was 1906, solar cycle 14.

“Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.”

Livingston and Penn are solar astronomers With the NSO (National Solar Observatory) in Tuscon, Arizona. They use a measurement known as Zeeman splitting to gather data on sunspots. They discovered in 1990, that the number of sunspots is dropping and that once the magnetic field drops below 1500 Gauss , that no sunspots will form. (A Gauss is a magnetic field measurement. The Gauss of the Earth is less than one). If the decline continues at its present rate they estimate that the Sun will be spot free by 2016.

If these scientists are correct, we are heading into a period of bitterly cold winters and much cooler summers. Imagine year after year of ‘polar vortex’ winters that start early, finish late and deliver unprecedented cold across the country. Cool wet summers will affect food production, as will floods from the melting snow when spring finally arrives.


Read more:  http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/11/18/nasa-admits-winters-going-get-coldermuch-colder/
NASA Admits That Winters are Going to Get Colder…Much Colder -
The Maunder Minimum (also known as the prolonged sunspot minimum) is the name used for the period roughly spanning 1645 to 1715 when sunspots...
dcclothesline.com
Like ·
2  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Gowdy goes after Hillary's Benghazi emails on: March 03, 2015, 08:22:26 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/03/trey-gowdy-says-hes-going-after-hillary-clintons-personal-emails-on-benghazi/
3  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: March 03, 2015, 08:21:56 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/03/trey-gowdy-says-hes-going-after-hillary-clintons-personal-emails-on-benghazi/

Also see  http://conservativetribune.com/hillary-benghazi-notes/  In asking for her notes they may be overreaching a bit, but overall it looks like the pressure is building.
4  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Did Pravda on the Hudson get it wrong? on: March 03, 2015, 07:50:34 PM

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/03/the-new-york-times-deceptive-suggestion-that-hi/202726

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/former-state-department-officials-explain-152110637.html
5  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iran on: March 03, 2015, 07:44:24 PM
The deal that Obama blew up by divulging it was with Azerbaijan IIRC.
6  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Elizabeth "Forked Tongue" Warren, Fauxcahontas, Harvard's first woman of color on: March 03, 2015, 09:34:44 AM
"rent seekers and corruption of the political process by favored business interests should be OUR attack on THEIR system."

EXACTLY SO!
7  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Wrap your head around this , , , on: March 03, 2015, 09:29:34 AM
http://shoebat.com/2014/08/26/muslim-children-parade-heads-victims-crowd-muslim-adults-praise/
8  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / VDH: The Liberal Circus on: March 03, 2015, 12:15:51 AM

The Liberal Circus
March 2, 2015 7:30 am / 9 Comments / victorhanson

by Victor Davis Hanson // PJ Media
This Nov. 28, 2012 file photo shows then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton listening as President Barack Obama speaks in the Cabinet Room at the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)


This Nov. 28, 2012 file photo shows then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton listening as President Barack Obama speaks in the Cabinet Room at the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)

Lately liberalism has gone from psychodrama to farce.

Take Barack Obama. He has gone from mild displeasure with Israel to downright antipathy. Suddenly we are in a surreal world where off-the-record slurs from the administration against Benjamin Netanyahu as a coward and chickensh-t have gone to full-fledged attacks from John Kerry and Susan Rice, to efforts of former Obama political operatives to defeat the Israeli prime minister at the polls, to concessions to Iran and to indifference about the attacks on Jews in Paris. Who would have believed that Iranian leaders who just ordered bombing runs on a mock U.S. carrier could be treated with more deference than the prime minister of Israel? What started out six years as pressure on Israel to dismantle so-called settlements has ended up with a full-fledged vendetta [1] against a foreign head of state.

Hillary Clinton likewise has gone from a rather run-of-the-mill liberal grandee to a political grafter [2]. She apparently solicited donations from foreign government officials and wealthy foreign nationals to contribute to the Clinton Foundation — and this was while she was secretary of State conducting the foreign policy of the United States. If those charges are proven accurate, how could she ever be trusted to become commander in chief? Unfortunately, in the last year almost every cause that Hillary Clinton has taken up has been belied by her own actions.

Inequality and fairness? At time when students struggle under a collective $1 trillion-plus student debt, much of it because of universities hiking fees and tuitions above the inflation rate, Hillary has serially charged universities well over $200,000 [3] for 30-minute boilerplate speeches.

Women’s issues? We learn that women on Senator Clinton’s staff once made considerably less than their male counterparts [4]. Had Bill Clinton worked at a university, corporation or government bureau, his sexual peccadillos long ago would have had him thrown off the premises. The latest disclosures about his junkets with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein [5] are so bizarre that no one quite knows what to make of them — the would-be first female and feminist president married to a man who serially cavorted with a convicted sexual pervert?

Transparency? Consider the recent disclosures that Hillary knew almost immediately that the Benghazi killings were the preplanned work of terrorists and not due to spontaneous rioters angry over a video — and yet continued to deceive the public that just the opposite was true. The problem with Hillary’s scandals are not just that they reveal a lack of character, but that they are illiberal to the core on hallmark progressive issues of concern for equality, transparency and feminism.

We no longer live in an age of debate over global warming. It has now transmogrified well beyond Al Gore’s hysterics, periodic disclosures about warmists’ use of faked data, embarrassing email vendettas, vindictive lawsuits, crony green capitalism, and flawed computer models. Now Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, has taken the psychodrama to the level of farce in a two-bit McCarthyesque effort [6] to demand from universities information about scientists who do not embrace his notions of manmade global warming. Where are the ACLU and fellow Democratic congressional supporters of free speech and academic freedom to censure such an Orwellian move? Finally, even the American Meteorological Society had to condemn the unhinged Grijalva for his bizarre efforts.

Attorney General Eric Holder came into office alleging racism and calling the American people cowards, and six years later is exiting, still blaming racism for his own self-inflicted failures. In between, Holder became the first attorney general to be cited for contempt by Congress. He stonewalled the Fast and Furious investigations. His plans to try terrorists in federal civilian courts were tabled almost immediately. He ordered electronic taps and surveillance on the communications of Associated Press and Fox reporters for supposed leaks.  He ignored wrongdoing in the IRS mess, a scandal that continues to grow. He got caught using his government jet [7] to take his daughters and their boyfriends to the Belmont Stakes.

But Holder will be remembered largely for his racialist tenure. He dropped a strong case of voting intimidation by armed Black Panthers at the polls. In congressional testimony, he referred to blacks as “my people”; anyone else — except Joe Biden — who had said the same would have been asked to resign. He promised federal action on Ferguson and the Trayvon Martin shootings — and then quietly backed off when the evidence for civil rights violations did not meet his own rhetorical excesses. The problem, he pleaded, was not that his targets were not guilty under the law, but that the law itself had to be changed to make them guilty.  Holder claimed repeatedly that opposition to Obama was race-based, and he leaves office as a caricature of incompetence and racial divisiveness.

The IRS scandal likewise went from melodrama to farce. The president said there was not a “smidgeon” of corruption in the selective targeting of conservatives. Lois Lerner, the focus of investigations, pled the Fifth Amendment after having received over $100,000 in merit bonuses. When congressional investigators wanted to subpoena her computer records, IRS officials claimed both that her hard drive  had crashed and that its data was unrecoverable. The latter proved untrue; but then so far so has everything the IRS has said. The only lesson is that any private citizen who replied to IRS inquiries in the manner that the IRS responded to public subpoenas would be jailed.

Debt? Barack Obama stated out in 2008 calling George W. Bush unpatriotic for piling up nearly $5 trillion in eight years; he may be on target to double that amount — and trump the combined red ink of all prior presidents. Obama raised taxes, slashed defense, and still ended up with over a $500 billion annual deficit, as he declared the age of austerity over.

So it has become with most liberal issues. The debate over illegal immigration has gone from arguments over closing the border to Social Security cash rebates to illegals and presidential threats to punish Border Patrol officers who enforce existing law. State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf assures us that poverty and unemployment are catalysts to terrorism [8], just as so-called Jihadi John, the psychotic ISIS beheader, is revealed to be a preppie British subject[9] from the upper middle class. The president brags that gas prices have gone down because frackers ignored his efforts to stop them — and then vetoes the Keystone Pipeline.

The Trayvon Martin controversy descends from the purportedly preteen of released photos who was shot down in cold blood by a white vigilante into doctored NBC tapes, airbrushed photos, the New York Times’ invented rubric “white Hispanic,” the president weighing in on Trayvon’s shared racial appearance, girlfriend Rachel Jeantel’s explanation of Trayvon’s violence as a sort of homophobic act of “whoop ass” — only to be echoed by MSNBC talking head Melissa Harris-Perry’s ugly sanction of violence on Martin Luther King Day with the amplification of Jeantel’s term “whoop”:  “I hope [Martin] whooped the sh-it out of George Zimmerman [10].” It would be hard for a satirist to make all that up.

Michael Brown goes from the icon of a “gentle giant” in vain calling out “hands up, don’t shoot” only to be gunned down by a white racist cop — to a thug who strong-armed a store clerk, walked out into the middle of the road under the influence and then attacked a police officer. Conspiracists once warned us that the government was buying up ammo to prevent private gun owners from purchasing it; now we learn that Obama by executive order may ban [11] the most popular type of sporting ammunition. Is there one element of Obamacare that has not been modified, delayed, or ignored — from the employer mandate to the fine for noncompliance?

Why this descent into travesty?

The liberal left got what it wanted in 2009 with a supermajority in the Senate and large majority in the House, a subservient mainstream media, the good will of the American people, and the most liberal president in American history. It only took that the liberal hierarchy six years to erode the Democratic Party to levels that we have not seen since the 1920s. Almost every policy initiative we have seen — whether climate change, foreign policy, health care, or race relations — has imploded.

The answer to these failures has not been introspection, humility, or reevaluation why the liberal agenda proved unpopular and unworkable, but in paranoid fashion to double-down on it, convinced that its exalted aims must allow any means necessary — however farcical —  to achieve them.

The logical result is the present circus.
9  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Too much even for Norway on: March 03, 2015, 12:05:16 AM
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/03/01/norway-mullah-tells-tv-interviewer-we-have-the-right-to-kill-anyone-who-does-not-respect-muslims/

http://toprightnews.com/?p=8509
10  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Benghazi and related matters on: March 02, 2015, 11:23:22 PM

Judicial Watch confirmed Thursday what many Americans already knew: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's attempt to blame the attacks in Benghazi on an "offensive video" was a bald-faced lie. As the result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department, Judicial Watch obtained a series of critical emails that not only reveal State Department officials knew immediately the American compound in Benghazi was under attack but that the attack was perpetrated by assailants tied to a terrorist group. And despite the infamous exasperated question from the Democrats' likely presidential nominee, the truth does make a big difference at this point.
The first email was sent Sept. 11, 2012, at 4:07 p.m. It was forwarded by former Clinton Special Assistant Maria Sand to Clinton's former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, former Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Jacob Sullivan, former Executive Assistant Joseph McManus, and a host of other Special Assistants in Clinton's office. It read as follows:
"The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM [Chief of Mission] personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support."

Another email arrived at 4:38 p.m. It was sent by the former director of the Diplomatic Security Service, Scott Bultrowicz, who was fired following the report issued by the Advisory Review Board (ARB) citing "systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department" responsible for security in Benghazi. That would be the same ARB that refused to interview Hillary Clinton as part of its investigation. State Department Foreign Officer Lawrence Randolph forwarded Mills, Sullivan and McManus the email from Bultrowicz with the subject line "Attack on Benghazi 90112012":

"DSCC received a phone call from [REDACTED] in Benghazi, Libya initially stating that 15 armed individuals were attacking the compound and trying to gain entrance. The Ambassador is present in Benghazi and currently is barricaded within the compound. There are no injuries at this time and it is unknown what the intent of the attackers is. At approximately 1600 DSCC received word from Benghazi that individuals had entered the compound. At 1614 RSO advised the Libyans had set fire to various buildings in the area, possibly the building that houses the Ambassador [REDACTED] is responding and taking fire."

At 12:04 a.m. Randolph updated Mills, Sullivan and McManus with another email with the subject line "FW: Update 3: Benghazi Shelter Location Also Under Attack":
"I just called Ops and they said the DS command center is reporting that the compound is under attack again. I am about to reach out to the DS Command Center."
Contained in that email is a series of equally damning updates:

4:54 p.m.: "Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site to locate COM personnel."

6:06 p.m.: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU): (SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and call for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

11:57 p.m.: "(SBU) DS Command reports the current shelter location for COM personnel in Benghazi is under mortar fire. There are reports of injuries to COM staff."
And finally, at 3:22 a.m., Sept. 12, Senior Watch Officer Andrew Veprek forwarded an email to numerous State Department officials, later forwarded to Mills and McManus. The subject line? "Death of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi":

"Embassy Tripoli confirms the death of Ambassador John C. (Chris) Stevens in Benghazi. His body has been recovered and is at the airport in Benghazi."
Two hours later, McManus forwarded the news of Stevens' death to the State Department Legislative Affairs office -- with instructions not to "forward to anyone at this point."

Hillary Clinton's response? An official statement calling the attack "a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet."

As for her other, earlier response, blatantly ignored by the mainstream media? A 10 p.m. phone call between Clinton and Obama, completely contradicting the previous assertion by the White House that Obama made no phone calls the night of the attack. As National Review's Andrew McCarthy sarcastically asked, "Gee, what do you suppose Obama and Clinton talked about in that 10 p.m. call?"

The rest of the orchestrated disinformation campaign -- sending former UN ambassador, current National Security Advisor and reliable propagandist Susan Rice on network news shows to maintain the despicable lie, Obama's assertion of same on the David Letterman Show and at the UN, the spending of $70,000 for a Pakistani ad campaign showing Obama and Clinton denouncing the anti-Islamic video, and a host of other insults to the public's intelligence -- can no longer be obscured.

America twice elected an inveterate liar as commander in chief. And the very same corrupt media that ran interference for Obama's lies are gearing up to do the same thing for an equally inveterate liar. And make no mistake: All of Clinton's critics will be characterized as perpetrating a war on women whenever the subject of her horrendous track record of prevarication arises -- one that included another blatant lie about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire.

And that's if those questions arise at all. Here are two separate Google Searches related to the revelations presented by Judicial Watch. Note that not a single mainstream media source has even filed a report, much less made this the kind of headline story, followed by a relentless series of updates, that would have attended any Republican caught doing exactly the same thing. An equal amount of calculated disinterest attends the scandalous conflict of interest surrounding the Clinton Foundation, which received millions of dollars from foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state. Foreign governments and individuals are prohibited from giving money to a U.S. political candidate. Funneling those contributions through the Clinton Foundation allows Hillary to skirt such restrictions.

On Benghazi, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton gets it exactly right: "These emails leave no doubt that Hillary Clinton's closest advisers knew the truth about the Benghazi attack from almost the moment it happened. And it is inescapable that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly lied when she planted the false story about 'inflammatory material being posted on the Internet.' The contempt for the public's right to know is evidenced not only in these documents but also in the fact that we had to file a lawsuit in federal court to obtain them. The Obama gang's cover-up continues to unravel, despite its unlawful secrecy and continued slow-rolling of information. Congress, if it ever decides to do its job, cannot act soon enough to put Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, and every other official in these emails under oath."
Whether Congress is up to the job or not, one thing is crystal clear: Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to lead this nation. Her election to the Oval Office would be a continuation of the lawlessness and lying this nation has endured for the past six years. Judicial Watch has produced the smoking gun. The voting public ignores it at the nation's peril.
11  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Elizabeth "Forked Tongue" Warren, Fauxcahontas, Harvard's first woman of color on: March 02, 2015, 11:21:17 PM
I humbly suggest that you are missing a piece of the pie here.

IMHO her critique overlaps more than a little with our Liberal Fascism critique-- which also addresses rent seekers, corruption of the political process by favored business interests and the like.

"Nearly all would buy into this"

EXACTLY!

WE should be making some of these points AND offering actual solutions.
12  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: March 02, 2015, 09:05:42 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?emc=edit_na_20150302&nlid=49641193&_r=0
13  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Elizabeth "Forked Tongue" Warren, Fauxcahontas, Harvard's first woman of color on: March 02, 2015, 05:50:43 PM
A interesting chance to size up Warren:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=423362941159538

You best believe that this is going to really appeal to lots of decent people.
14  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Ukraine's gold in US hands? on: March 02, 2015, 05:45:40 PM
I have no idea whether this is true or not.

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/03/21/the-latest-heist-us-quietly-snatches-the-ukraines-gold-reserves/
15  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / We win one! on: March 02, 2015, 05:23:25 PM
second post

http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/02/25/2015s-first-resolution-calling-for-more-investment-in-israel-passed-by-university-of-georgia-students/
16  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Implications of court finding that PA and PLO are terrorist groups on: March 02, 2015, 02:00:05 PM
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/After-federal-court-finds-that-PA-and-PLO-are-terrorist-groups-Obama-must-follow-suit-and-cut-aid-392611
17  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Looks pretty damning to me , , , on: March 02, 2015, 01:38:59 PM

http://patriotpost.us/articles/33533

===============================

Judicial Watch confirmed Thursday what many Americans already knew: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's attempt to blame the attacks in Benghazi on an "offensive video" was a bald-faced lie. As the result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department, Judicial Watch obtained a series of critical emails that not only reveal State Department officials knew immediately the American compound in Benghazi was under attack but that the attack was perpetrated by assailants tied to a terrorist group. And despite the infamous exasperated question from the Democrats' likely presidential nominee, the truth does make a big difference at this point.
The first email was sent Sept. 11, 2012, at 4:07 p.m. It was forwarded by former Clinton Special Assistant Maria Sand to Clinton's former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, former Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Jacob Sullivan, former Executive Assistant Joseph McManus, and a host of other Special Assistants in Clinton's office. It read as follows:
"The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM [Chief of Mission] personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support."

Another email arrived at 4:38 p.m. It was sent by the former director of the Diplomatic Security Service, Scott Bultrowicz, who was fired following the report issued by the Advisory Review Board (ARB) citing "systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department" responsible for security in Benghazi. That would be the same ARB that refused to interview Hillary Clinton as part of its investigation. State Department Foreign Officer Lawrence Randolph forwarded Mills, Sullivan and McManus the email from Bultrowicz with the subject line "Attack on Benghazi 90112012":

"DSCC received a phone call from [REDACTED] in Benghazi, Libya initially stating that 15 armed individuals were attacking the compound and trying to gain entrance. The Ambassador is present in Benghazi and currently is barricaded within the compound. There are no injuries at this time and it is unknown what the intent of the attackers is. At approximately 1600 DSCC received word from Benghazi that individuals had entered the compound. At 1614 RSO advised the Libyans had set fire to various buildings in the area, possibly the building that houses the Ambassador [REDACTED] is responding and taking fire."

At 12:04 a.m. Randolph updated Mills, Sullivan and McManus with another email with the subject line "FW: Update 3: Benghazi Shelter Location Also Under Attack":
"I just called Ops and they said the DS command center is reporting that the compound is under attack again. I am about to reach out to the DS Command Center."
Contained in that email is a series of equally damning updates:

4:54 p.m.: "Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site to locate COM personnel."

6:06 p.m.: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU): (SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and call for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

11:57 p.m.: "(SBU) DS Command reports the current shelter location for COM personnel in Benghazi is under mortar fire. There are reports of injuries to COM staff."
And finally, at 3:22 a.m., Sept. 12, Senior Watch Officer Andrew Veprek forwarded an email to numerous State Department officials, later forwarded to Mills and McManus. The subject line? "Death of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi":

"Embassy Tripoli confirms the death of Ambassador John C. (Chris) Stevens in Benghazi. His body has been recovered and is at the airport in Benghazi."
Two hours later, McManus forwarded the news of Stevens' death to the State Department Legislative Affairs office -- with instructions not to "forward to anyone at this point."

Hillary Clinton's response? An official statement calling the attack "a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet."

As for her other, earlier response, blatantly ignored by the mainstream media? A 10 p.m. phone call between Clinton and Obama, completely contradicting the previous assertion by the White House that Obama made no phone calls the night of the attack. As National Review's Andrew McCarthy sarcastically asked, "Gee, what do you suppose Obama and Clinton talked about in that 10 p.m. call?"

The rest of the orchestrated disinformation campaign -- sending former UN ambassador, current National Security Advisor and reliable propagandist Susan Rice on network news shows to maintain the despicable lie, Obama's assertion of same on the David Letterman Show and at the UN, the spending of $70,000 for a Pakistani ad campaign showing Obama and Clinton denouncing the anti-Islamic video, and a host of other insults to the public's intelligence -- can no longer be obscured.

America twice elected an inveterate liar as commander in chief. And the very same corrupt media that ran interference for Obama's lies are gearing up to do the same thing for an equally inveterate liar. And make no mistake: All of Clinton's critics will be characterized as perpetrating a war on women whenever the subject of her horrendous track record of prevarication arises -- one that included another blatant lie about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire.

And that's if those questions arise at all. Here are two separate Google Searches related to the revelations presented by Judicial Watch. Note that not a single mainstream media source has even filed a report, much less made this the kind of headline story, followed by a relentless series of updates, that would have attended any Republican caught doing exactly the same thing. An equal amount of calculated disinterest attends the scandalous conflict of interest surrounding the Clinton Foundation, which received millions of dollars from foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state. Foreign governments and individuals are prohibited from giving money to a U.S. political candidate. Funneling those contributions through the Clinton Foundation allows Hillary to skirt such restrictions.

On Benghazi, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton gets it exactly right: "These emails leave no doubt that Hillary Clinton's closest advisers knew the truth about the Benghazi attack from almost the moment it happened. And it is inescapable that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly lied when she planted the false story about 'inflammatory material being posted on the Internet.' The contempt for the public's right to know is evidenced not only in these documents but also in the fact that we had to file a lawsuit in federal court to obtain them. The Obama gang's cover-up continues to unravel, despite its unlawful secrecy and continued slow-rolling of information. Congress, if it ever decides to do its job, cannot act soon enough to put Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, and every other official in these emails under oath."
Whether Congress is up to the job or not, one thing is crystal clear: Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to lead this nation. Her election to the Oval Office would be a continuation of the lawlessness and lying this nation has endured for the past six years. Judicial Watch has produced the smoking gun. The voting public ignores it at the nation's peril.
18  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillary knew that night on: March 02, 2015, 01:25:13 PM
http://patriotpost.us/articles/33533
19  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / How to answer this? on: March 02, 2015, 01:20:43 PM


http://www.newsweek.com/obamacare-picture-health-305471
20  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Noose tightening around Lerner of IRS on: March 02, 2015, 01:15:15 PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/26/irs-watchdog-reveals-lois-lerner-missing-emails-no/?page=all
21  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Court spanks EPA on: March 02, 2015, 01:01:19 PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/2/judge-rules-epa-lied-about-transparency/
22  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / SCOTUS holds bennies for retired public workers can be reduced on: March 02, 2015, 12:59:31 PM
Debt-Saddled Municipal Budgets Get a Lifeline
A unanimous Supreme Court held that health benefits for retired workers can be renegotiated or reduced.
By
Robert C. Pozen And
Ronald J. Gilson
March 1, 2015 5:32 p.m. ET
37 COMMENTS

While underfunded public-employee pensions capture the headlines, health-insurance benefits for retired state and local workers are also a huge problem. But a recent ruling by the Supreme Court may help state and local governments scale back these benefits.

Unlike public pension plans, retiree health benefits aren’t funded in advance; they are typically paid out of current tax revenues, so they compete with other budget priorities like schools and police. This competition will only grow more intense, as unfunded retiree health benefits are close to $1 trillion, according to a recent study in the Journal of Health Economics.
ENLARGE
Photo: Getty Images

Several cities and states have tried to reduce the scope of retiree health-care services, or to increase the portion of the premiums paid by retired workers going forward. Public unions have frequently sued, claiming the benefits are vested for life—roughly parallel to the legal arguments the unions have made against efforts to curb future pension costs.

In late January, however, the Supreme Court issued an unanimous decision that will increase the chances of local governments winning such lawsuits. While the case involved a private business and its union, the principles should generally apply to public-sector agreements.

M&G Polymers vs. Tackett involved a collective-bargaining agreement that provided certain retirees, along with their surviving spouses and dependents, with a full company contribution toward the cost of their health-care benefits “for the duration of [the] Agreement.” The contract was subject to renegotiation after three years, but the critical legal question was whether the retirement health-care benefits continued even after the agreement expired—in effect whether the intent was to vest these benefits for life.

The union argued that the contract did vest these benefits for life and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. The Supreme Court reversed, noting that to prevail, the plaintiffs, in this case the union, had to supply concrete evidence—“affirmative evidentiary support”—that lifetime vesting of retiree health benefits was what both parties to the agreement intended.

Normally, the explicit terms of a contract are taken to reflect the parties’ intentions; only when a contract’s language is ambiguous does a court look to the parties’ intent. Here the Supreme Court followed a traditional rule of contract law: If a contract is ambiguous, proof requires evidence of what the parties intended, not what a court—in this case the appellate court—might infer from the ambiguous contract.

Two principles in Tackett should be especially relevant to reductions in retiree health-care benefits where the duration of these benefits is often unclear. The court, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, supported the “traditional principle that courts should not construe ambiguous writings to create lifetime promises.” Similarly, he wrote that the court endorsed the traditional principle that “contractual obligations will cease, in the ordinary course, upon termination of the bargaining agreement.”

This is where the Supreme Court’s decision is particularly significant for the public sector. There must be explicit proof that a collective-bargaining agreement intended long-term commitments to bind a city or state long past the incumbency of the public officials who signed the agreement.

Today elected officials trade generous retiree benefits in the future for current wages. By doing so, they avoid having to take responsibility for current cutbacks in state and municipal services that would accompany wage increases.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Tackett means that lifetime benefits cannot be inferred but must be made explicit. As a result, if public officials now attempt to revise the benefits in a current or new collective agreement, unions will doubtless demand that any long-term promises be made explicit. But public officials who make these promises explicit send a strong signal that they are putting potentially enormous burdens on future taxpayers and elected officials. This makes it harder for current officials to make such promises. That is a step forward—not just in interpreting contracts but also in enhancing political accountability.

Mr. Pozen is a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Mr. Gilson is a professor of law at Columbia and Stanford law schools.
Popular on WSJ

23  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Noonan on Walker, the unions, and ISIS on: March 02, 2015, 12:56:44 PM

8:29 pm ET
Feb 28, 2015
Uncategorized
Walker, Reagan and Patco

    Article
    Comments (37)

    Drew Lewis
    Patco
    Peggy Noonan
    Ronald Reagan
    Scott Walker

485
278

On Friday at the winter meeting of the Club for Growth, in Palm Beach, Fla., Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a possible contender for the GOP presidential nomination, was pressed for specifics of his foreign-policy views. Walker referred to policy professionals with whom he’d recently met, and then suggested that what is most important in foreign policy is not experience but leadership. The “most consequential foreign-policy decision” of his lifetime, he said, was President Reagan’s handling of the air traffic controller’s strike. “It sent a message not only across America, it sent a message around the world.” The message: “We wouldn’t be messed with.”

That caused a lot of raised eyebrows. I here attempt to return them to a more relaxed state. In the 1990s, when I was researching and interviewing for my biography of Reagan, “When Character Was King,” I became more deeply aware of the facts and meaning of Reagan and the flight controllers, and I discovered an element of the story that I think had not previously come fully to light:

It was the spring of 1981. Reagan was still a new president, and recovering from John Hinckley’s attempt to assassinate him in late March. Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis met with Reagan at Camp David to give him bad news. The Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, or Patco, wanted to go on strike. The union’s 17,000 workers manned radar centers and air traffic control towers across the country. These were tough, high-stakes, highly demanding federal jobs. The union’s contact was up, they had been working under increasingly difficult conditions, and they wanted a big pay increase.

Lewis told me Reagan was sympathetic: The increased pressures of the job justified a pay increase, and he offered an 11% jump—this within a context of his budget cutting. But Patco demanded a 100% increase. This would cost taxpayers an estimated $700 million. Reagan rejected it outright. He told Lewis to tell the union that he would not accept an illegal strike, nor would he negotiate a contract while a strike was on. He instructed Lewis to tell the head of the union, Robert Poli, something else: As a former union president he was the best friend they’ve ever had in the White House.

Reagan’s tough line was not completely comfortable for him, personally or politically. He’d had little union support in the 1980 election, but Patco was one of the few that had backed him. Not many union leaders had been friendly to him, but Patco’s had. And he was a union man. he didn’t want to be seen as a Republican union buster.

Still, Reagan believed no president could or should tolerate an illegal strike by federal employees, especially those providing a vital government service. Not only was there a law against such strikes, each member of Patco had signed a sworn affidavit agreeing not to strike.

Talks resumed, fell apart, and by the summer 70% of the air controllers walked out.

They had thought Reagan was bluffing. He wouldn’t fire them, they thought, because it would endanger the economy and inconvenience hundreds of thousands of passengers—and for another reason, which we’ll get to in a moment.

The walkout became a crisis.

Reagan did what he said he would do: He refused to accept the strike and refused to resume negotiations. He called reporters to the Rose Garden and read from a handwritten statement he’d composed the night before. If the strikers did not return to work within 48 hours, they would be fired—and not rehired. The 48 hours was meant as a cooling-off period. In the meantime, Reagan made clear, nonstriking controllers and supervisory personnel would keep the skies open

What Reagan did not speak about was an aspect of the story that had big foreign-policy implications.

Air traffic controllers in effect controlled the skies, and American AWACS planes were patrolling those skies every day. Drew Lewis: “The issue was not only that it was an illegal strike. . . . It was also that a strike had real national-security implications—the AWACS couldn’t have gone up.” It is likely that even though the public and the press didn’t fully know of this aspect of the strike’s effects, the heads of the union did. That’s why they thought Reagan would back down. “This hasn’t come up,” said Lewis, “but the Soviets and others in the world understood the implications of the strike.”

The administration quickly put together a flight control system composed of FAA and Defense Department personnel, and private controllers, to keep commercial traffic—and US military aircraft—in the air.

It was an international story. The French government pressed the administration to make a deal. Britain backed Reagan. Canada’s flight controllers shut down the airport in Gander, Newfoundland, in solidarity with Patco. Lewis, with the president’s backing, told them that if they didn’t reopen within two hours the U.S. would never land there again. They reopened.

The administration could have arrested the strike leaders but didn’t. Congressional Democrats could have used the strike for partisan advantage and didn’t, or didn’t much.

Sen. Edward Kennedy and Lane Kirkland of the AFL CIO played helpful and constructive roles. Persuaded the administration had a case—a 100% increase was asking too much, a strike against the public safety was illegal—both kept a lot of Democrats on the Hill and in the labor movement from coming out strong against the administration.

Lewis said there were unhelpful moments from a few of the president’s longtime supporters. Some were wealthy men who owned their own jets and didn’t want to be inconvenienced. One called Lewis and told him he was going to get him fired. Lewis called the Oval Office. “I said, ‘Mr. President, you’re going out to California soon and Justin Dart and all these guys have private planes and they’re all raising Cain with me.’ I said, ‘I hope you don’t cut my legs out from under me.’”

Reagan, said Lewis, responded: “I‘ve never cut the legs out from anybody in my life. You let me worry about my friends, you worry about the strike.”

When the two-day cool-off period ended, 70% of the air controllers were still out. They all lost their jobs. “We fired 11,400 traffic controllers,” said Lewis. “That’s a lot of families. . . . And the union had supported us, and it was a good union. It was very sad. We were both upset about the firing. [Reagan] was almost in tears that he was going to hurt those families.”

So why was, and is, the story of Reagan and the flight controllers an important one?

What was at issue was crucial and high-stakes. What Reagan did worked: The administration promised to keep the skies open and did. The Patco decision set the pattern for wage negotiations over the next eight years, not only for the federal government but for local and state governments. The U.S. Postal Service’s half million workers were readying to go on strike shortly after Patco walked out. They didn’t. Mayors soon observed that a new climate seemed to have taken hold in their municipal negotiations.

Foreign governments, from friends and allies to adversaries and competitors, saw that the new president could make tough decisions, pay the price, and win the battle. The Soviets watched like everybody else. They observed how the new president handled a national-security challenge. They saw that his rhetorical toughness would be echoed in tough actions. They hadn’t known that until this point. They knew it now.

This is why Reagan’s secretary of state George Shultz said that the Patco decision was the most important foreign-policy decision Reagan ever made.

Everyone knew at the time that it was a domestic crisis. It wasn’t until years later that they came to appreciate that it was foreign-affairs victory.

So was Scott Walker right about the importance of Reagan and Patco?

Yes.

But two caveats. One is that Ronald Reagan himself would never suggest, on the way to the presidency, that all you need to understand foreign policy is a good gut and leadership abilities. You need knowledge, sophistication, grasp. He’d been studying foreign affairs all his adult life. He walked into the Oval Office with a policy: We win, the Soviets lose. A talent for leadership doesn’t tell you where to go, it helps you get there. Wisdom tells you where to go.

Second, in January Walker said that documents released by the Soviet Union proved the Soviets treated the U.S. differently after the strike. I have never heard of such documents. No one I spoke to for the book referred to them. The Washington Post has quoted former Reagan ambassador to the Soviet Union, Jack Matlock, saying “There is no evidence of that whatsoever.” I suspect that is correct.

If Walker got it wrong, he should say so. Though I’m not sure it matters in any deep way. Of course the Soviets saw and understood what had happened with Reagan and the union. Of course they would factor it in. They had eyes. They didn’t have to write it down.
24  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews on: March 02, 2015, 12:50:45 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/01/one-state-majority-rules-us-the-muslims-watch-this-video-to-see-just-how-anti-israel-college-campuses-have-gotten/
25  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Krauthammer: The Fatal Flaw on: March 02, 2015, 11:47:51 AM
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414515/fatal-flaw-iran-deal-charles-krauthammer?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=54f0a99c15bb3b5305000001&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook
26  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: March 02, 2015, 11:29:14 AM
I'm not noticing any solution to the illegal amnesty/wrok permits issue being offered here, but politically it raises questions that must be addressed.

Squandering a GOP Majority
House Republicans walk into Obama’s immigration trap.
March 1, 2015 5:49 p.m. ET
WSJ

A majority in Congress is a terrible thing to waste, but only two months into their largest majority since the 1920s Republicans are well on the way. Their latest mental breakdown is over their attempt to overturn President Obama ’s order ending deportations for some five million illegal immigrants.

Once again the fight comes down to recognizing political reality, or marching off a cliff to almost certain failure. The Cliff Marchers refuse to vote to fund the Department of Homeland Security without a provision barring the enforcement of Mr. Obama’s immigration orders going back to 2012. But the House bill has failed to get the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate. That puts DHS on the cusp of a partial shutdown.

On Friday the House and Senate voted to fund DHS, but only for a week and only with the help of Democrats. Speaker John Boehner ’s plan to fund the department for three weeks came crashing down when 52 Republicans revolted. The revolters effectively put Nancy Pelosi in charge of the House. So the GOP will now consume itself in more recriminations as it squanders more of its first 100 days.

The sad if predictable irony is that this is exactly what Mr. Obama hoped to incite with his November immigration order. He wanted to goad an overreaction that made the GOP look both anti-immigrant and intemperate enough to shut down the government.

The double irony is that, in shutting down part of DHS, the Republicans would also give Mr. Obama an opening to claim the political high ground on national security. He’d blame the GOP for putting at risk the defenses against a terrorist threat that his own policies have allowed to proliferate.

The smart play now would be for Republicans to fund DHS and move on to more promising policy ground including the budget. Texas and other states that oppose the order have already won a legal victory when a federal court issued a preliminary injunction against implementing it. The Administration has appealed, but even if it wins in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the issue is likely to go the Supreme Court.

The Cliff Marchers dismiss this as surrender and are insisting on a long fight over the immigration order even if it means a partial DHS shutdown. (We say partial because some 85% of DHS’s 240,000 workers are deemed essential and would still report for duty even if the government deferred their pay. The core security functions of DHS would continue.) The GOP dissenters say they’d prevail over time as the public came to see Mr. Obama’s fealty to his immigration diktat as the real cause of the shutdown.

Miracles do happen, but in every previous shutdown the voters blamed Republicans more than Mr. Obama. And if there is a terror attack, good luck explaining that Congress isn’t to blame because those DHS workers were supposed to be on the job even if they weren’t being paid.

Some of the Cliff Marchers are also demanding that Republicans break Senate rules and cashier the filibuster to pass the House bill. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy picked up that theme Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He pointed out that 57 Senators, including four Democrats, had voted to oppose Mr. Obama’s November order.

But busting the filibuster on policy would have ramifications far beyond this fight. Republicans would have to violate Senate rules, which require a two-thirds vote to change a rule midsession. They would also exceed what even Democrat Harry Reid did in breaking the filibusters for executive nominations.

Most important, this would remove what has long been a procedural barrier to narrow liberal majorities rewriting labor and election laws to hurt conservatives. If Republicans are going to throw out the filibuster, it should be done based on more than the desperation of a rump group in the House.

The immigration fiasco raises the larger question of whether House Republicans can even function as a majority. Some backbenchers are whispering that they’ll work with Democrats to oust Mr. Boehner as Speaker if he doesn’t follow their shutdown strategy. Some are also plotting to take down a procedural rule, which would mean handing control to Democrats.

Mr. Boehner has made mistakes, one of which is bending too much to the shutdown caucus. But let’s say the no-compromise crowd did succeed in humiliating the Speaker, and he resigned. What then? Whom do coup plotters want to put in charge?

Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan has support across the House GOP, but why would he want to run a majority that is hostage to the whim of 50 Members who care more about appeasing talk radio than achieving conservative victories?

Republicans need to do some soul searching about the purpose of a Congressional majority, including whether they even want it. If they really think Mr. Boehner is the problem, then find someone else to do his thankless job. If not, then start to impose some order and discipline and advance the conservative cause rather than self-defeating rebellion.
Popular on WSJ
================================

Also see  http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-gop-faces-familiar-dilemma-on-homeland-security-funding/2015/03/01/f5f41e5e-c038-11e4-9ec2-b418f57a4a99_story.html
















27  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action on: March 02, 2015, 11:23:08 AM
You crack me up  cheesy
28  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Plan to re-take Tikrit on: March 02, 2015, 11:22:27 AM
Iraq Military Begins Campaign to Reclaim Tikrit From Islamic State
Reclaiming Tikrit is seen as critical to defeating Islamic State militants in Mosul
Iraq’s military, backed by some 20,000 volunteer fighters, have begun a campaign to recapture the birthplace of Saddam Hussein from Islamic State, also known as ISIS and ISIL. Mark Kelly reports. Image: AFP/Getty
By
Tamer El-Ghobashy and
Ghassan Adnan
March 2, 2015 4:09 a.m. ET
25 COMMENTS

BAGHDAD—Iraq’s military, backed by some 20,000 volunteer fighters, began a campaign to reclaim the city of Tikrit on Monday, state television said, in what is seen an important political and military step in the fight against Islamic State militants.

Monday’s offensive, announced by Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, marks the third attempt by Iraqi security forces to rout militants out of the city, best known as the birthplace of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in Iraq’s Sunni heartland, which fell last summer during a dramatic assault by the Islamic State group.

Previous attempts had failed, mostly due to poor coordination between Iraq’s military and the mostly Shiite volunteer forces, which have proven to be the most effective fighters against the insurgency but carry with them political liabilities.

The Shiite militias are severely distrusted by Sunnis in Iraq, owing to years of abuse under a Shiite-dominated regime that was backed by the U.S.
An Iraqi soldier sits on a military vehicle at Udhaim dam, north of Baghdad, March 1, 2015. Iraq’s military, backed by some 20,000 volunteer fighters, began a campaign on Monday to reclaim the city of Tikrit , hometown of former president Saddam Hussein. ENLARGE
An Iraqi soldier sits on a military vehicle at Udhaim dam, north of Baghdad, March 1, 2015. Iraq’s military, backed by some 20,000 volunteer fighters, began a campaign on Monday to reclaim the city of Tikrit , hometown of former president Saddam Hussein. Photo: Reuters

In the hours before the operation was launched, Mr. Abadi sought to ease the concerns of Tikrit’s overwhelmingly Sunni residents, saying many of the volunteer forces aiding in the fight for the city are Sunni locals supporting the military’s effort.

He also reiterated a pledge to offer clemency to tribal leaders in Tikrit who had previously aided the insurgency.

“We will forget about their bad deeds if they come back to the side of the nation,” he said in a news conference broadcast on state television.

Reclaiming Tikrit, a city about 80 miles north of Baghdad, is seen as a critical point toward a planned offensive to defeat Islamic State militants in Mosul, Iraq’s second city, which had been the de facto base for the insurgency in Iraq.

It is also considered a goodwill gesture from Iraq’s mostly Shiite leadership toward the nation’s Sunnis, whose disaffection after years of policies that marginalized them is seen as a major contributor to the success of the Islamic State in taking large portions of the country under their control.

Write to Tamer El-Ghobashy at tamer.el-ghobashy@wsj.com
Popular on WSJ


29  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Analysis of Canadian Supreme Court decision on: March 02, 2015, 11:18:20 AM
http://www.thecourt.ca/2014/12/31/r-v-fearon-cell-phones-privacy-and-the-supreme-court-in-the-digital-age/
30  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Jeb Bush on: March 02, 2015, 10:37:21 AM
Intelligent observations, and I don't disagree.

I guess what I was trying to say in this moment that there is plenty of substance to Bush as well.   NONE of the candidates has the well-rounded background and positions that I would hope for in a presidential candidate.
31  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Why Islam will never accept the State of Israel on: March 02, 2015, 10:33:31 AM
June 30, 2010
Why Islam Will Never Accept the State of Israel
By Steven Simpson
It is a common belief that the "Arab-Israeli conflict" is a conflict of two peoples fighting over the same piece of land and is therefore one of nationalism. Rarely, if ever, do we hear or read of the religious component to this conflict.

However, if anything, the conflict is more of a "Muslim-Jewish" one than an "Arab-Israeli" one. In other words, the conflict is based on religion -- Islam vs. Judaism -- cloaked in Arab nationalism vs. Zionism. The fact of the matter is that in every Arab-Israeli war, from 1948 to the present, cries of "jihad," "Allahu Akbar," and the bloodcurdling scream of "Idbah al- Yahud" (slaughter the Jews) have resonated amongst even the most secular of Arab leaders, be it Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s or the supposedly "secular" PLO of the 1960s to the present. Indeed, the question must be asked: If this is really a conflict of different nationalisms and not Islamic supremacism, then why is it that virtually no non-Arab Muslim states have full (if any) relations with Israel?

There is a common Arabic slogan that is chanted in the Middle East: "Khaybar, Khaybar! Oh Jews, remember. The armies of Muhammad are returning!" It would be most interesting to know how many people have ever heard what -- or more precisely, where -- Khaybar is, and what the Arabs mean by such a slogan. A short history of the Jews of Arabia is needed in order to explain this, and why Islam remains so inflexible in its hostile attitude towards Jews and Israel.

Until the founder of Islam, Muhammad ibn Abdallah, proclaimed himself "Messenger of Allah" in the 7th century, Jews and Arabs lived together peacefully in the Arabian Peninsula. Indeed, the Jews -- and Judaism -- were respected to such an extent that an Arab king converted to Judaism in the 5th century. His name was Dhu Nuwas, and he ruled over the Himyar (present day Yemen) area of the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, it is most likely that the city of Medina (the second-holiest city in Islam) -- then called Yathrib -- was originally founded by Jews. In any event, at the time of Muhammad's "calling," three important Jewish tribes existed in Arabia: Banu Qurayza, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qaynuqa. 

Muhammad was very keen on having the Jews accept him as a prophet to the extent that he charged his followers not to eat pig and to pray in the direction of Jerusalem. However, the Jews apparently were not very keen on Muhammad, his proclamation of himself as a prophet, or his poor knowledge of the Torah (Hebrew Bible). Numerous verbal altercations are recorded in the Qur'an and various Hadiths about these conflicts between the Jewish tribes and Muhammad.

Eventually, the verbal conflicts turned into physical conflicts, and when the Jews outwardly rejected Muhammad as the "final seal of the prophets," he turned on them with a vengeance. The atrocities that were committed against these tribes are too numerous to cite in a single article, but two tribes, the Qaynuqa and Nadir, were expelled from their villages by Muhammad. It appears that the Qaynuqa left Arabia around 624 A.D. The refugees of the Nadir settled in the village of Khaybar.

In 628 A.D., Muhammad turned on the last Jewish tribe, the Qurayza, claiming that they were in league with Muhammad's Arab pagan enemies and had "betrayed" him. Muhammad and his army besieged the Qurayza, and after a siege of over three weeks, the Qurayza surrendered. While many Arabs pleaded with Muhammad to let the Qurayza leave unmolested, Muhammad had other plans. Unlike expelling the Qaynuqa and Nadir, Muhammad exterminated the Qurayza, with an estimated 600 to 900 Jewish men being beheaded in one day. The women and children were sold into slavery, and Muhammad took one of the widows, Rayhana, as a "concubine."

In 629 A.D., Muhammad led a campaign against the surviving Jews of Nadir, now living in Khaybar. The battle was again bloody and barbaric, and the survivors of the massacre were either expelled or allowed to remain as "second-class citizens." Eventually, upon the ascension of Omar as caliph, most Jews were expelled from Arabia around the year 640 A.D.

This brings us, then, to the question of why modern-day Muslims still boast of the slaughter of the Jewish tribes and the Battle of Khaybar. The answer lies in what the Qur'an -- and later on, the various Hadiths -- says about the Jews. The Qur'an is replete with verses that can be described only as virulently anti-Semitic. The amount of Surahs is too numerous to cite, but a few will suffice: Surah 2:75 (Jews distorted the Torah); 2:91 (Jews are prophet-killers), 4:47 (Jews have distorted the Bible and have incurred condemnation from Allah for breaking the Sabbath), 5:60 (Jews are cursed, and turned into monkeys and pigs), and 5:82 (Jews and pagans are the strongest in enmity to the Muslims and Allah). And of course, there is the genocidal Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:177, which would make Adolph Hitler proud. "The Day of Judgment will not have come until you fight with the Jews, and the stones and the trees behind which a Jew will be hiding will say: 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!"' Thus, the Arab Muslims had their own "final solution" in store for the Jews already in the 7th century.

The fact that Muslims still point to these (and many other) hateful verses in the Qur'an and Hadith should give Jews -- not just Israelis -- pause to consider if there can ever be true peace between Muslims and Jews, let alone between Muslims and Israel. When the armies of Islam occupied the area of Byzantine "Palestine" in the 7th century, the land became part of "Dar al-Islam" (House of Islam). Until that area is returned to Islam, (i.e., Israel's extermination), she remains part of "Dar al harb" (House of War). It now becomes clear that this is a conflict of religious ideology and not a conflict over a piece of "real estate."

Finally, one must ask the question: Aside from non-Arab Turkey, whose relations with Israel are presently teetering on the verge of collapse, why is it that no other non-Arab Muslim country in the Middle East has ever had full relations (if any at all) with Israel, such as faraway countries like Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? Indeed, why would Persian Iran -- conquered by the Arabs -- have such a deep hatred for Jews and Israel, whereas a non-Muslim country such as India does not feel such enmity? The answer is painfully clear: The contempt in which the Qur'an and other Islamic writings hold Jews does not exist in the scriptures of the Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and other Eastern religions. Therefore, people that come from non-Muslim states do not have this inherent hatred towards Jews, and by extension, towards Israel. But when a people -- or peoples -- is raised with a scripture that regards another people and religion as immoral and less than human, then it is axiomatic why such hatred and disdain exists on the part of Muslims for Jews and Israel.

Islam -- as currently interpreted and practiced -- cannot accept a Jewish state of any size in its midst. Unless Muslims come to terms with their holy writings vis-à-vis Jews, Judaism, and Israel and go through some sort of "reformation," it will be unlikely that true peace will ever come to the Middle East. In the meantime, unless Islam reforms, Israel should accept the fact that the Muslims will never accept Israel as a permanent fact in the Middle East.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/06/why_islam_will_never_accept_th.html#.VPMp_x1DLf8.facebook#ixzz3TFMWqdwP
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
32  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Ex Mossad head disgrees with Netanyahu on: March 01, 2015, 08:03:03 PM
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4631634,00.html
33  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Dr. Ben Carson on: March 01, 2015, 07:52:46 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlOfxDKI73M

and , , , apparently he is a creationist?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/01/ben-carson-2016_n_6779138.html
34  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / A new improved Bush Doctrine on: March 01, 2015, 07:19:32 PM

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414588/bring-back-bush-doctrine-one-addition-andrew-c-mccarthy?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=54f2254b15bb3b1038000001&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook
35  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action on: March 01, 2015, 06:50:04 PM
Wouldn't be the first time  cheesy but FWIW it was brought to my attention by a retired LEO.
36  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Middle East: War, Peace, and SNAFU, TARFU, and FUBAR on: March 01, 2015, 06:48:34 PM
Fourth post of the day:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/1/report-obama-threatened-shoot-down-israeli-warplan/?page=all#pagebreak
37  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: March 01, 2015, 05:54:12 PM
Ah.

Fair enough  grin
38  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Middle East: War, Peace, and SNAFU, TARFU, and FUBAR on: March 01, 2015, 03:03:23 PM
http://shoebat.com/2015/02/28/isis-jihadists-tries-to-capture-young-christian-girl-she-takes-out-a-machine-gun-and-slaughters-five-of-them-there-is-now-a-major-christian-militia-with-american-australian-and-british-christians/
39  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Middle East: War, Peace, and SNAFU, TARFU, and FUBAR on: March 01, 2015, 02:55:48 PM
In fairness, I should note that article is essentially RumInt, but IMHO is quite plausible.
40  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: March 01, 2015, 02:51:31 PM
Shouldn't this be in the Epidemics thread?  Why here?
41  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Look out! Here comes the Feds! on: March 01, 2015, 02:50:37 PM
http://nypost.com/2015/02/28/white-house-looking-to-creep-into-401ks/
42  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli jets if they attacked Iran's nukes. on: March 01, 2015, 11:17:31 AM
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/191966#.VPNJAC5UWAi

 , , , and the Obama White House called Netanyahu chickenshit?!?

 angry angry angry
43  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Jeb Bush on: March 01, 2015, 10:33:36 AM
I agree with most of that too smiley  I guess I am just saying not to put our fingers in our ears just yet with Bush. 

I fully recognize that there are some serious potential weak links in his candidacy:

1) A natural and proper revulsion to monarchy/nepotism and the general revulsion to the idea of a First Lady running against the son and brother of previous presidents. 

2) As we call for a return to a strong foreign policy, we are going to be accused of wanting to redo what did not work in Iraq under Bush 2, and Jeb, an honorable man, will have a hard time criticizing him and distinguishing himself from his brother.   Remember too, Rand Paul will be resonating with many people with many of his criticisms.

44  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: March 01, 2015, 08:37:36 AM
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/02/us-muslim-gave-islamic-state-jihadis-us-military-uniforms-combat-boots-tactical-gear-firearms-accessories-and-thousands-in-cash
45  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / US military vehicles 300 miles from Russian border on: February 28, 2015, 11:59:56 PM


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/02/24/u-s-military-vehicles-paraded-300-yards-from-the-russian-border/
46  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Jeb Bush on: February 28, 2015, 11:39:51 PM
I could live with a compromise that AFTER THE BORDERS ARE CONTROLLED allowed those who were brought here very young and for all intents and purposes are Americans, to achieve some sort of legalized status.   I also note that he speaks of the very important point about narrowly limiting the definition of "family" that can be brought in from what it is now.
47  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Historical Jesus on: February 28, 2015, 06:48:56 PM
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/
48  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Elizabeth "Forked Tongue" Warren, Fauxcahontas, Harvard's first woman of color on: February 28, 2015, 06:34:11 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2153832/Elizabeth-Warren-accused-making-fortune-flipping-foreclosed-homes.html
49  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / A Mom's Choice: Jihad or Jail on: February 28, 2015, 09:57:57 AM
A Mom’s Choice: Jihad or Jail
U.K. woman who told police her son joined a militant group in Syria now regrets her decision
By Alexis Flynn and Jenny Gross
Updated Feb. 27, 2015 6:02 p.m. ET
WSJ

BIRMINGHAM, England—Majida Sarwar searched the bedroom of her 21-year-old son five days after he left on what he had said was a university-sponsored trip. Mrs. Sarwar found a frightening six-page letter, addressed, “DEAR MUM PLEASE READ,” that sent her to police.

“As you know, I have gone for a holiday, but the real purpose is to do Jihad for Allah,” the May 2013 letter began. It ended saying he was headed to Syria, where, citing religion, “I will help the oppressed and fight Allah’s enemies.”

Mrs. Sarwar and her husband worked with U.K. authorities to help retrieve their son and his boyhood friend from an al Qaeda-linked rebel group fighting to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Months later, the young men, apparently disillusioned with the war, agreed to return home. They were arrested on arrival at London’s Heathrow Airport and sentenced in December to more than 12 years in prison, the longest penalty imposed in the U.K. so far for traveling to fight in Syria. Mrs. Sarwar, angry over the sentence, says she regrets turning in her son.

As Western countries try to figure out how to keep young people from the lure of Islamic Stateand other terror groups, the U.K. has turned to Muslim women in a program launched last year to help spot radicalism sprouting in their families. The idea is to intercept family members before they leave. Other intervention programs have been started in Denmark, France and Australia.

But the experience of the Sarwar family illustrates the difficulties, and it may give pause to parents who face the choice for their sons and daughters of a militant’s death abroad or a lengthy prison term at home.


“The feeling in the Muslim community was, ‘Are you kidding me?’ ” said Farooq Siddique, a former adviser to the British government’s anti-extremism campaign. “You are effectively asking parents to spy on their children.”

Authorities in the U.K. and throughout Europe are focused on keeping citizens from the conflict zones in Syria and Iraq, seeking to counter homegrown extremism that this year has yielded deadly shooting sprees in Paris and Copenhagen. But despite tightened borders and tougher laws, the numbers are rising.

This week, the British government has come under fire for failing to prevent three Muslim girls from flying to Turkey, despite knowing their links with a British woman suspected of joining Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. Authorities say the school friends, ages 15 and 16, are now believed to be in Syria.

U.S. authorities arrested three men this week from Brooklyn, N.Y., suspected of planning to travel to Syria to join the militant group. A lawyer for one of the men, Akhror Saidakhmetov, said his client planned to plead not guilty. Lawyers for the other two men declined to comment.

Europol, Europe’s police coordinating agency, said as many as 6,000 Europeans have gone to Syria and Iraq. The U.K. counts about 600 of its citizens who have traveled there, mostly to fight; the U.S. about 100.

The head of the U.K.’s domestic intelligence agency known as MI5 said in January that authorities had detected more than 20 terror plots by militants in Syria, including ones directed at Canada, Australia, Belgium and France.

British Prime Minister David Cameron said this week the fact that young British girls can be persuaded by reading the Internet in their rooms to join extremist groups “demonstrates the scale of the problem.”  Beyond police and border agents, Mr. Cameron said, “Everyone has a role to play in preventing our young people being radicalized—whether schools, colleges and universities or families, religious leaders and local communities.”

In addition to the campaign aimed mostly at Muslim mothers, U.K. authorities are seeking passage of a law this year that would require schools, colleges and other public institutions to take action against radicals.

But imposing a statutory duty would create “a climate of fear, where people don’t feel comfortable having a frank conversation,” said Talha Ahmad, of the Muslim Council of Britain, an umbrella group for Muslim organizations. He said the government should be focusing on building ties with local Muslims rather than increased scrutiny, which can fuel mistrust.

Others say the approach places an unfair burden on Muslim families to turn in their own children or siblings, citing the case of Mrs. Sarwar and her son.
Studying computers

Yusuf Sarwar grew up in Handsworth, an ethnically mixed working-class neighborhood in Birmingham. He attended classes at Birmingham City University, studying computer science and working part time guarding cars at a soccer club. He met Mohammed Nahin Ahmed, a postal worker, in junior high.

They took religious inspiration reading online material from Osama bin Laden ’s mentor, Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, as well as from online chats with extremists abroad, according to U.K. prosecutors.

Mr. Ahmed, age 22, asked in one exchange with a Danish Islamist in March 2012: “would the brothers in yemen accept me?” The Dane said he could “be a mujahid wherever in the world you are. Look at 7/7 from your country,” referring to the 2005 attack on London’s transport system that killed 56 people, including the four attackers.

By December 2012, Mr. Sarwar and Mr. Ahmed had begun plans to join the fight in Syria, according to court filings. Mr. Sarwar bought supplies on Amazon, including balaclavas, combat gloves and a walkie-talkie, which prosecutors said were intended for battle. He also bought gym equipment, including a punching bag, prosecutors said.

Two months later, in February 2013, Mr. Sarwar told his mother he was going on a two-week university trip to Turkey. He forged a flier about the outing and included an email contact, which carried a pseudonym for a Hot Mail account he created, according to court documents.

In May 2013, the two men flew to Istanbul on one-way tickets, authorities said, and then made their way to Syria.

During a neighborhood visit a few days later, Mr. Ahmed’s father asked Mrs. Sarwar about the trip their two boys had taken together, according to prosecutors. That was news to Mrs. Sarwar. Her son had said he was traveling alone. That sent her searching his room, where she found the letter explaining his deception and asking forgiveness, prosecutors said.

Mr. Sarwar’s letter also included instructions for settling his affairs, including how to cancel a mobile phone contract and pay any outstanding debts. He told his mother where she could find a check equal to $7,466, his savings, to underwrite a pilgrimage to Mecca for her.

When Mrs. Sarwar handed over the letter to police, she told them she had no inkling of his radical views.

Police assigned an officer to Mrs. Sarwar and her husband as a liaison with detectives. Authorities searched the homes of the Sarwars and the Ahmeds, who lived nearby.

In Syria, Messrs. Sarwar and Ahmed received training from Jabhat al Nusra, an affiliate of al Qaeda, according to prosecutors, and were sent near Aleppo, a scene of fierce battle.

Police and prosecutors pieced together the men’s movements by reading their conversations over the WhatsApp mobile messaging service. Mr. Ahmed exchanged lighthearted and sometimes flirtatious chats with a British woman, who authorities said was a sympathizer. Mr. Ahmed sent her a picture of himself surrounded by automatic rifles.

Mrs. Sarwar tried to stay in touch with her son by phone, according to Ayaz Iqbal, a lawyer for the family. Her eldest son also tried to talk his brother into coming home, Mr. Iqbal said.

Yusuf Sarwar wasn’t persuaded. But after months in Syria, he and Mr. Ahmed had a change of heart. When they decided to return, Mrs. Sarwar gave police the flight details.

Armed police provided an airport homecoming. Forensic experts swabbed the men’s belongings and found traces of military-grade explosives.

Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Sarwar each pleaded guilty at the start of their criminal trial to a single count of engaging in conduct in preparation of terrorist acts. The material provided in their defense was intended to mitigate the penalty.

Attorneys for Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Sarwar argued that the men—acting on their conscience—had been helping to overthrow the Assad regime, a stated British policy in 2013. The men claim not to have fought but instead worked as guards and grave diggers.

Prosecutors acknowledged they couldn’t prove the men had fought on behalf of a terror group but presented as evidence the traces of explosives found when they arrived. Defense lawyers said the material likely came from administering first-aid to civilian bomb victims.

The men offered statements in court down-playing their commitment to radical Islam. Each said they had never intended to attack fellow citizens or commit terrorism in the U.K.

“The defendant is British and he is proud to be British,” said Michael Ivers, Mr. Sarwar’s lawyer. “He is not somebody who is alienated. He enjoys the tolerant society he lives in.”

During the December sentencing hearing, Mr. Ivers urged the judge to take into account Mrs. Sarwar’s cooperation with authorities and said a stiff sentence could deter other families.

Mr. Sarwar and Mr. Ahmed showed little emotion when the judge gave their sentence. “It’s with no enthusiasm the court sentences young men to significant terms of imprisonment,” but they had enthusiastically and determinedly embarked on a path intending to commit terrorist acts, the judge said.


Police in several U.K. cities, including London, have been meeting for months with small groups of Muslim women to warn of seemingly innocuous online forums, including gaming zones. They urge mothers to ask their children about their Internet use. The women also are coached to take notice if family members turn more outwardly religious or are increasingly angry about Syria’s civil war.


Authorities say the program works. Dozens of families contacted police in the first six months of “Prevent Tragedies,” London’s Metropolitan Police said. That helped lead to an increase across the U.K. in terror-related arrests to 327 in 2014 from fewer than 250 the previous year. Of last year’s arrests, 165 were Syria-related, nearly seven times the number in 2013.

The U.K. isn’t alone in such grass-roots efforts. Denmark, which has large numbers of foreign fighters relative to its population, has a program offering help for returning foreign fighters to find a job and a place to live. The program also offers counseling to steer people from extremist ideology.

In France, the government has set up a hotline for tips from friends and family of the more than 1,000 people that authorities say are either planning to travel to fight abroad or have already gone.

Australia, which had a deadly standoff in a Sydney cafe in December, created a $10.5 million program that includes grants to ethnic communities, mainly in the suburbs of Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne, to help counter extremism.

Detective Chief Superintendent Sue Southern, head of the West Midlands police counterterror unit that handled the Sarwar case, acknowledged the fragility of community trust. She said she was sympathetic to Mrs. Sarwar’s feelings but there was little police could do. By the time the family alerted police, she said, Yusuf Sarwar had already committed a crime.

“When a mother contacts us to say, ‘My son’s missing, I think he’s in Syria, can you get him back,’ it’s too late,” she said.

Mrs. Sarwar worked with authorities, in part, because she believed her son would receive more lenient treatment in return, according to a lawyer who represented the family.

One of Mr. Ahmed’s brothers said the stiff sentence was “going to backfire” by alienating Muslim families and discouraging them from coming forward. The brother said Mr. Ahmed recognized his mistakes, and it would have been better for authorities to work to integrate him back into society.

Mr. Sarwar and Mr. Ahmed had grown disillusioned during their months in Syria, according to their accounts in court. They became disturbed by the rise of Islamic State, particularly the militant group’s pursuit of sectarian killing. And they found Syria’s revolution had turned into a deadly rivalry pitting one rebel group against another.

The Sarwars and Ahmeds have also split. Mr. Ahmed’s brother said his family regrets that Mrs. Sarwar called police, and the families no longer speak.

Write to Alexis Flynn at alexis.flynn@wsj.com and Jenny Gross at jenny.gross@wsj.com
Popular on WSJ


50  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Sen. Rand Paul at CPAC on: February 28, 2015, 09:52:19 AM
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152868860841107
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 651
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!