Anyone see a problem with this "picture?"

USA TODAY

US thinks underwear bomb was built by Al Qaeda in Yemen

Los Angeles Times - ‎21 minutes ago‎

WASHINGTON -- The FBI is analyzing a sophisticated underwear bomb that US officials believe was built by Al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen in an effort to target Western aviation.

Related CIA » Osama bin Laden »

Officials: More Al Qaeda Bombs Unaccounted ForABC News

Apparent airline bomb plot thwarted-US officialsReuters

In Depth:CIA Foils New Qaeda Plot to Attack Plane, Officials SayNew York Times

 

The top story of the day is of a plot by al-Qaeda to blow up a plane. And whose picture is on the front of every news cite in the country?

 

So we are supposed to remain afraid of him even after he has been dead for a year!

Seriously? 

American citizen killed without trial

Remember when Republicans said Obama was "soft on terrorism."

Here is the response:

First, the US has killed more suspected high level members of al-Qaeda using predator drone strikes in President Obama's first three years than we did under President Bush did in eight years.

Second, President Obama drew down troops in Iraq and ordered a surge of troops in Afghanistan in order to increase the odds of victory there so that we can get out in the next two years.

Third, Obama created the team and the authorized the specific mission that killed Usama bin Laden (UBL).

Now, the news media report that a major al-Qaeda operative in Yemen has been killed by the US. This guy, Anwar al-Awlaki, was directly inolved not only in 9/11 but also reportedly counseled subsequent attackers including the Fort Hood shooter and the "underwear bomber" among others.

The only problem is, he was an American citizen. And he was killed without trial.

I am not saying this is right or wrong, only that it is an issue worth addressing. And yet, in this story in the mainstream press, there is no mention of it. Yes, they say he was an American citizen, but they do not even raise the issue of what are the implications for Constitutional rights in the war on terrorism.

(For the record, I did write a letter to the editor calling on President Obama to respect the Constitutional rights of all Americans in such cases, which would require capturing Americans suspected of terrorism and giving them trials, assuming they were not killed during capture).

However you feel about the issue--frankly, I can see both sides of the argument--it is still sad that we are sacrificing certain rights in order to achieve victory in this war.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” -- Benjamin Franklin, 1755

And not a word about it in the press.

http://news.yahoo.com/prominent-us-born-al-qaida-cleric-killed-yemen-104110647.html

Why one in five Americans is a blathering idiot

About 20% of Americans do not believe Usama bin Laden (UBL) is dead.

In spite of the President's announcement.

In spite of the fact that other political leaders--including Senators from the other political party--say they have seen the pictures and they have literally no doubt UBL is dead.

In spite of the fact the UBL's wives--yes, WIVES--confirm his death.

In spite of the DNA evidence that proves by a 99.9% certainty that UBL is dead.

And even though al-Qaeda itself--the group UBL formed more than a decade ago--has confirmed UBL's death.

Why? According to the LA Times, it's because political leaders often lie (think Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" or basically everything George W. Bush said about Iraq).

And also because of the media.

From the LA Times:

"The widespread arrival of television some 60 years ago and more recently online video has trained people to expect some kind of visual confirmation of virtually any news, either live or shortly after. Its absence almost surely spawns doubts."

Think about it. On the local news, every day and every night, we see reporters standing at the scenes of car wrecks and crimes even though literally nothing is going on behind them. Even though it adds nothing to a story about a car crash of a murder to have a reporter standing live at the scene where something may have happened hours ago, news stations still send reporters to those scenes presumably because viewers need to "see it to believe it."

The result is a doubting public, unable to accept all the above evidence that one of our most hated enemies is dead.

As for those who celebrated in the streets immediately after hearing about UBL's death? Well, that's another story!


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/05/osama-bin-laden-lives-no-death-photo.html

An acontextual story about al-Qaeda in Iraq

Here we go again, another example of the mainstream media not providing important context for a story.

This time it is the Associated Press, via Yahoo News, reporting that al-Qaeda's number two man, al-Zawahri, receives a pledge of support from the terrorist group, "al-Qaida in Iraq."

That's all well and good. But what does it mean? And why does it matter?

Further, who are "al-Qaida in Iraq" and where did they come from?

In reality, this is a group that was created by the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, a group that did not exist under the rule of Saddam Hussein. Hussein was a brutal dictator, but a secular one, and thus religious extremists posed a major threat to his regime. This is why he so ruthlessly eradicated them from his country, or at least the areas of it he controlled (US officials publicly claimed that an al-Qaeda affiliated group existed in the Northern part of Iraq, but this was in a no-fly zone patrolled by the US and thus out of the control of Saddam Hussein. This group was located by journalists who interviewed its leader who told them he hated Saddam and wanted to overthrow the Hussein regime).

Recall the claims about Iraq and Saddam Hussein made by the Bush Administration in the lead up to the war:

* Saddam Hussein was a "grave and gathering threat" to the US and its allies
* Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that it would likely give to extremist groups bent on hurting America
* Saddam Hussein had known ties to the al-Qaeda network

None of this was true. In fact, every single bit of it was false.

But you won't find it in this story about "al-Qaida in Iraq." Nor will you find any reference to why we citizens should be concerned about this group or how we should best respond as a nation to a group that we are responsible for creating. This is what is meant by stories being "acontextual" or not providing important context for the reader.

One could argue that stories like these make Americans more afraid of or more concerned with terrorism and thus more likely to support US military intervention in places like Iraq. Isn't that thus ironic, given that such intervention is what helps sustain and spread al-Qaeda?

Instead, what you do find in the story is this: "Al-Zawahri has been critical of Obama, even releasing a message that referred to Obama as a 'house Negro,' a slur for a black subservient to whites."

Obama the house negro? And that made it into an AP story about al-Qaeda in Iraq? Wow.  


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110509/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq_al_qaida

How dangerous could al-Qaeda really be?

... when they are planning on poisoning our salad bars?

Evidence shows al-Qaeda is at its weakest in Afghanistan since 2001, with as few as 50 fighters in the whole country. While they have strongholds elsewhere (e.g., Pakistan, Yemen), these stories suggest they're not as dangerous as they once were.

But still, remember that the 9/11 attacks were carried out with boxcutters.

Bottom line -- our hundred billion dollar defense budget and two ongoing wars seem ill-prepared to help us defeat poisonous salad bars!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101222/us_yblog_thelookout/report-al-qaeda-plotted-to-sprinkle-poison-on-u-s-salad-bars