Rumors are circulating that up to forty al Qaeda operatives have been killed as the result of a biological weapons research program that went terribly wrong. The original report was in the Sun, which claimed that ALIM (al Qaeda in Magreb) was experimenting with a process to weaponize the bubonic plague. That in itself is no real surprise--reports have been extent for years about al Qaeda's efforts to produce delivery systems for biological weapons such as ricin--yet the deaths--confirmed by U.S. officials, suggest that al Qaeda may find itself the first victim of its plan.

Bubonic Plague is spread by bites from infected rat fleas. Symptoms include boils in the groin, neck and armpits. In Pneumonic Plague, airborn bacteria spread like flu.

It can be in the body for more than a week — highly contagious but not revealing tell-tale symptoms.

Deadly ... the plague bacteria causes horrific symptoms

The al-Qaeda epidemic began in the cave hideouts of AQLIM in Tizi Ouzou province, 150km east of the capital Algiers. The group, led by wanted terror boss Abdelmalek Droudkal, was forced to turn its shelters in the Yakouren forest into mass graves and flee.

The extremists supporting madman Osama bin Laden went to Bejaia and Jijel provinces — hoping the plague did not go with them.

A source said: “The emirs (leaders) fear surviving terrorists will surrender to escape a horrible death.”

An interesting development. The irony here is that the plague doesn't have to kill everyone in Al Qaeda to cripple the organization. The fear of contracting the plague will undoubtedly result in an attempt to isolate surviving cells from members of other cells would could potentially be carriers. Since al Qaeda uses human messengers to avoid the intelligence gathering capabilities of the U.S., their communications network could effectively be crippled.

Bad enough that George W. Bush won in Iraq. No sense in telling people that, yeah--he crushed Al Qaeda too. From NPR no less.

The mystery is solved.

How did Iraqi insurgent and terror groups get more than 80 women to blow themselves up?

Jassim repeated statements she had allegedly made to interrogators that insurgents organized rapes of women and that she would then try to coax the victims to become suicide bombers.

She said she was "able to persuade women to become suicide bombers … broken women, especially those who were raped."

Man, this is cold. The used Islam's feminine ideals as a weapon. The understandably despondent rape victims would be sent to Jassim who would explain to them that the only way to regain their honor was to martyr themselves. She would then sent them to the bombers for outfitting and a target.

The title reads:

Britons on trial over "airliner bomb plot"

I think I would have written it:

"Britons" on trial over airliner bomb plot

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an army psychiatrist, armed himself with two pistols and shot over forty people, killing 12 at last count.

Predictably, no one wants to call it terrorism.

A senior administration official told NBC News that the shootings could have been a criminal matter rather than a terrorism-related attack and that there was no intelligence to suggest a plot against Fort Hood.

After all the demonstrations and self-righteous indignation, the Obama administration is reportedly getting ready to backtrack on bringing KSM to trial in Manhattan and instead--wait for it...

try in GUANTANAMO BAY!!!!!

Adding insult to injury:

the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), clears the Bush administration lawyers who authored the “torture” memos of professional-misconduct allegations.

While the probe is sharply critical of the legal reasoning used to justify waterboarding and other “enhanced” interrogation techniques, NEWSWEEK has learned that a senior Justice official who did the final review of the report softened an earlier OPR finding. Previously, the report concluded that two key authors—Jay Bybee, now a federal appellate court judge, and John Yoo, now a law professor—violated their professional obligations as lawyers when they crafted a crucial 2002 memo approving the use of harsh tactics, say two Justice sources who asked for anonymity discussing an internal matter. But the reviewer, career veteran David Margolis, downgraded that assessment to say they showed “poor judgment,” say the sources. (Under department rules, poor judgment does not constitute professional misconduct.) The shift is significant: the original finding would have triggered a referral to state bar associations for potential disciplinary action—which, in Bybee’s case, could have led to an impeachment inquiry.

I guess they figured this Kangaroo court stuff wasn't going to fly in the current political climate, but the Jacobins will be furious anyways.

The BBC:

Ok, chaps, you didn't get us last time around, here's what you need to work on.

The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. (2 Peter 2:22)

I was reminded of this passage by a little manufactured controversy over Glenn Beck's use of Rudyard Kipling's "Gods of The Copybook Headings" in a video trailer promoting his latest book. Ironically, Beck was accused of plagiarism (although he clearly credits the author) even though it seems to have escaped the notice of his critics that Kipling in turn seems to have stolen a phrase from the Bible.

The whole thing seems pretty typical of left-wing criticism; to borrow another biblical aphorism: "strain at gnats while swallowing a camel".

The point of Kipling's poem, and of the biblical authors, was a commentary on human nature--people who are in the grips of a delusion, a habit or addiction are not dissuaded by what seems like obvious danger, filth or shear, unadorned stupidity.

An early lesson in this for me occurred during my high school years. At the age where my peers began drinking, I was permanently immunized to the attractions of alcohol by egregiously embarrassing behavior that included seeing several of my schoolmates lying semi-conscious in their own vomit. I was fascinated to observe that these same individuals would be back at it the very next weekend.

Now I'm faced with the same behavior writ large, and for stakes that involve my own life and the lives of my loved ones--objectively clear 'delusions' that appear relentlessly attractive to Progressives and Democrat office-holders.

The first former Guantánamo detainee to be tried in a civilian court was acquitted on Wednesday of all but one of more than 280 charges of conspiracy and murder in the 1998 terrorist bombings of the United States Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

The case has been seen as a test of President Obama’s goal of trying detainees in federal court whenever feasible, and the result seems certain to fuel debate over whether civilian courts are appropriate for trying terrorists.

Fuel debate? Who in their right mind would believe that there is still a debate after seeing an outcome so widely predicted become a reality? I dunno, that vomit looks pretty good...

I find this all darkly amusing, as Progressives acting on behalf of the Democrat ruling class, are working so hard to promulgate their most cherished delusions.

I just thought it might be time to provide some clarity on the issue of Islamic terrorism, so let's start there and make the case that yes, it is indeed 'Islamic terrorism' and not random international street crime.

1. The Bush administration coined the term "War on Terror", which may well have been founded on if not a delusion, a serious misapprehension of the reality of the threat. The term has the same political genesis as "The War on Drugs". No politician wants to say that the state is about to engage in a war on drug users, with all the fascist implications associated with targeting a specific group of citizens. Similarly, no politician wants to say that we are effectively engaging in a religious war.

2. Are we engaged in a religious war? Well, I guess that determination would require a definition of terms--what is a religious war? Many so-called religious wars attributed motives to religion that would have more appropriately been laid at the feet of ethnic frictions, imperialistic ambitions or other motives. Euphemistic terms for wars are not something invented in the 20th century. Religious wars; the most obvious example of which would be the Crusades, are wars fought from motivations based on religious doctrine. Do the actions of Al Qaeda constitute religious war? I think that's rather obvious. The pronouncements of various clerics, both Sunni and Shia have been abundantly clear and unambiguous as far back as I can remember. Ayatollah Khomeni's characterization of the US as 'The Great Satan' has been consistently reiterated throughout Islam since the 1970s (at least).

3. Is this religious war merely an artifact of a few misguided 'radicals', as implied by the standard usage of the term 'radical Islam', or is it appropriate to view Islam in its totality, as an enemy religion? No doubt some people don't even want to ask that question, but they're nothing but intellectual wimps. In my view, the way to arrive at a determination is to first consider where the so-called radicals are getting their motivations. The answer to that isn't particularly difficult. We can point to various schools of Islamic thought, such as Wahabbism, label it 'radical' and retire smug and self-satisfied, but labelling the mainstream as extreme is something most Americans are familiar with. Roughly 20% of the population is far-left, and routinely label the rest of the country as 'extreme'. Wahabbism is in fact the most energetic and dominant Sunni Islamic school, and has been extremely successful in proselyting Islam throughout the world. Virtually every madrassa is Wahabbi, every mosque in the western world as well. Among the Shiites, Iranian influence has been similarly successful. The argument that Arabs and Persians would never see eye to eye has been refuted by the facts on the ground Hezbollah and Hamas are constituted with Arabs who clearly accept Iranian priorities.

If you want further evidence, consider the comments of a British general.

The head of Britain's military said that the West cannot defeat al-Qaida and militant Islam on the battlefield.

Gen. Sir David Richards, who took over as the U.K. Chief of the Defense Staff at the start of this month, said that the West should strive instead to "contain" militant Islam through education and development.

He doesn't say why--very politic of him, but the truth just hangs there out in front of him. How can you win a war with an enemy that appears to have an endless supply of recruits willing to sacrifice their lives for the blessings that Allah can provide? If you beat them in Iraq, they just move to Yemen, or any other country that is unstable enough to provide them with safe harbor. Religious fervor is good that way--an endless supply of recruits for suicide missions.

4. One can argue endlessly about what the breakdown is between 'radical' and 'tolerant' Islam, but its a false dichotomy since unlike democratic political regimes, the breakdown isn't between two different policy perspectives, but rather a measure of 'belief intensity' in a single, undifferentiated philosophy. There is no argument in Islam about whether the US is the Great Satan or not. Western values are clearly antithetical to Islam. No one, including American Muslims, is confused on that score. The only internal debate for Muslims is how far they are willing to go to fulfill their religious duties? Furthermore, unlike Christians, Islam has no doctrine of free-will. Unlike Christians who variously see their relationship to God on a continuum of beloved creations to literal children, a Muslim is chattel--a virtual slave of God. Slaves don't get to refuse their religious duties, and that view of the divine relationship has tremendous implications. Christians may well hold differing views on the 'righteousness' of killing abortion doctors, but for Muslims contemplating the war on Shaitān, the more extreme the effort, the more righteous the perpetrator. There simply is no doctrinal difference of opinion on this issue, in fact, one of the central acts of the Hajj is throwing rocks at Iblis (the Devil).

The 'fact-based' Progressive community occasionally gets a hard kick to the groin that should disabuse them of their delusions, 9/11 being a particularly intense lesson, but if the vomit is still looking good after that one, you can put the rent money on Obama etal dismissing the total, unambiguous failure of civil trials for terrorists as a meaningless anomaly (rhetorically at least...).

Good decisions are a lot like scientific proof--people will independently arrive at the same conclusion under the same circumstances time after time.

I've been reading George W. Bush's presidential autobiography, and came to the heart of the book--the three decisions he made immediately in the wake of the destruction of 9/11. I was struck on how, in spite of philosophical and political reasons to arrive at different conclusions, the Obama administration has essentially reaffirmed the essential correctness of those choices. Where they have not, consequences have done it for them.

The decision to treat captured terrorists as prisoners of war rather than criminals is a fresh reminder of the reasons why Bush opened 'Club Med' for our guests from Al Qaeda.

When Richard Reid was arrested, he was swiftly places into the criminal justice system, which entitled him to the same constitutional protections as a common criminal. But the shoe bomber was not a burglar or a bank robber; he was a foot soldier in Al Qaeda's war against America. He had emailed his mother two days before his attempted attack:

"What I am doing is part of the ongoing war between Islam and unbelief."

By giving this terrorist the right to remain silent, we deprived ourselves of the opportunity to collect vital intelligence on his plan and his handlers.

Reid's case made clear we needed a new policy for dealing with captured terrorists. In this new kind of war, there is no more valuable source of intelligence on potential attacks than the terrorists themselves. Amid the steady stream of threats after 9/11, I grappled with three of the most critical decisions I would make in the war on terror: where to hold captured enemy fighters, how to determine their legal status and insure they eventually faced justice, and how to learn what they knew about future attacks so we could protect the American people. (Decisions Points, George W. Bush)

Guantanamo is still open and will be for the foreseeable future. Civilian trials are over except for the rhetorical spin to cover the administration's incompetence. What of 'enhanced interrogation' techniques?

I believe that an administration that is willing to subject its citizens to government sanctioned sexual molestation, doesn't really have a problem with water-boarding.

As is so often the case when we have a Democrat regime, the media simply goes silent of topics of fierce moral urgency. Homeless people disappear from the nightly news, protests suddenly aren't interesting and water-boarded guests at Guantanamo simply aren't news.

The FBI 'nails' a terrorists minutes before he attempts to explode a bomb at an Oregon Christmas tree lighting ceremony.

Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, a Somali-born U.S. citizen, was arrested at 5:42 p.m., 18 minutes before the tree lighting was to occur, on an accusation of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. The felony charge carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a $250,000 fine.

The good guys won one, right?

Not so much.

"The threat was very real," said Oregon's FBI Special Agent in Charge Arthur Balizan. "Our investigation shows that Mohamud was absolutely committed to carrying out an attack on a very grand scale. At the same time, I want to reassure the people of this community that, every turn, we denied him the ability to actually carry out the attack."

Mohamud maintained his interest in carrying out the attack and spent months working on logistics.

He allegedly identified a location to place the bomb and mailed bomb components to the FBI operatives, who he believed were assembling the device. He also mailed them passport photos so he could sneak out of the country after the attack, according to the affidavit.

He provided the FBI operatives with a thumbdrive that contained detailed directions to the bomb location and operational instructions for the attack.

On Nov. 4, Mohamud and the FBI operatives traveled to a remote spot in Lincoln County, where they detonated a bomb concealed in a backpack as a trial run for the upcoming attack.

Its fairly clear that, save for the FBI providing the means, there would not have been an actual terror attack. Mohamed had been given the bum's rush by al Qaeda and would have simply been another American Muslim convinced that America is an affront to Allah and deserves His judgments. In fact, other than his clear commitment to Jihad, Mohamed is well within the mainstream of Islam.

So what is the FBI's game here?

All that effort by the administration and its allies to rehabilitate Islam in the eyes of the American public, even as Homeland Security reinforces the perception that the country is awash in wannabe Jihadists.

Perhaps both strategies are one and the same if you consider them as carrot and stick for the American Muslim community. On the one hand, the promise of mainstream integration, and on the other, aggressive surveillance, entrapment and prosecution of the more fervent believers.

Its a cynical strategy, at odds with our democratic values, and I don't have a better idea.

Will it work?

I am doubtful. The federal government's repression of the Mormons around the turn of the 20th century had targeted an isolated, poor and politically-impotent group, and never managed to wipe out polygamy altogether. In effect, the reality television show, "Sister Wives" suggests that the polygamists have finally won the argument.

American Muslims are affluent, organized and numerous, and part of a world-wide community of a billion Muslims. If you can't crush the will of a few thousand polygamist Mormons, there is basically no chance that you're going to create a democracy-friendly version of Islam.

We're starting to see some initial analysis about the possible impact of the bin Laden assassination. Some might object to the use of that term, but let's face it--it's a completely accurate way of describing both the mission and the result. Barry Rubin is one of several that articulate the consensus.

Many of these other movements are “smarter” than bin Laden, which is to say they know how to be more tactically flexible. They can smile, and smile and be a villain. They understand far better how to be patient, conceal their plans, use elections, sponsor social services to win supporters, run youth camps to train suicide bombers, take Western aid and assistance, hang out with Western journalists to prove they’re cool guys, produce satellite television networks, and play Western democracies for all they are worth. Oh, and they can still throw bombs with the best of them.

Or, to put it in Iranian terms, bin Laden was the “little Satan,” and the “big Satan,” the real revolutionary Islamist movement, couldn’t care less about his death. Indeed, his death serves a useful purpose. If the West thinks the “war on terror” is over and it’s time to celebrate, all the better. Countries can go on trading with Iran, engaging Syria and Hizballah, and acting as if there’s no big threat in Egypt. All the better to eat you up.

For some time, the administration and the media have been collaborating to divorce Islam from Islamic terror. Even the name for this conflict; "The War on Terror" is a device designed to avoid the complication of saying "The War on Mahdi-Anticipationist Islam". This has been a pretty easy job, since the credentialed but uneducated provincials who make up the journalist class, have no personal or cultural reference for the motivational aspects of religion.

There are reasons, possibly even good ones to do this, but every liar is in danger of succumbing to the attractions of their own lies. This is, in no uncertain terms, a religious war with all the implications that entails.

We all understand the effect 9/11 had on the West, but do we understand the effect it had in Islam? I've been watching videos all morning of people spontaneously gathering in front of the White House and Ground Zero. They are chanting U.S.A! U.S.A!, singing the national anthem and reciting the pledge of allegiance. No one is mystified by this--it's unambiguously hurrah for our side. Yet when we saw a similar, spontaneous expression of joy after 9/11 are we supposed to infer that this was hurrah for Afghanistan? Hurrah for Saudi Arabia? Clearly 9/11 was seen as a victory for political Islam. How were the terrorists described in the Islamosphere? As martyrs--a term pregnant with religious meaning with one important diffference--Christian martyrs suffer death for their beliefs. Islamic martyrs kill for theirs.

The cosmology of Islam admits no free will, and even the common Arabic greetings reflect this--Allah willing, if it be the will of Allah. Nothing happens except that Allah willed it.

What does it mean when Allah wills the death of Usama bin Laden? Usama did not martyr himself in a blaze of glory, taking a crowd of infidels with him. He was slaughtered like a steer. An ignoble and meaningless death for a Jihadi, particular one who had been the scourge of the Great Satan, wounding him greatly and deftly avoiding his vengeance. The stunned silence in Pakistan this morning tells anyone who understands the Islamic cosmology that what they are really mourning is not a man, but the death of faith, the killing of a legend, the extinction of the idea of Allu Ackbar. This is the insight missing from all the predictable commentary we are seeing today.

With one bullet, the spiritual fire that sent so many young men to certain death in the name of Allah, has been extinguished, and no one knows this better than the Mullahs in Iran, the elders of the Muslim Brotherhood and the fugitive remnants of al Qaeda's leadership.

In war, the primary targets are always the supply lines. Cut off reinforcement, food, materiel, and victory is all but assured. In the War of Terror, the true supply line was the religious conviction of divine support signaled by the 'miracle' of 9/11.

The leaders of these groups, more cynical than the cannon-fodder they send to their deaths, will of course gesture and threaten and persevere in the interests of personal power, but they brandish no signs in which to conquer, no relics of remembered miracles. The coming of the Madhi has been pushed into a dim future with diminished power to inspire.

Time of course, will confirm whether I'm correct in my perceptions, but how will you notice what is no longer there? The Muslim Brotherhood will continue to foster sedition and Hamas will fling rockets into Israel, but political ambitions are no match for faith when it comes to building empires.

UPDATE: The Captain seems to understand.