On May 1st, Police observed a vehicle located on the streets in Times Square suspiciously flashing hazard lights. Upon closer inspection and some popping sounds they determined that it contained elements of what we now know was a bomb. After several frantic hours which included evacuating people from the vicinity, they defused the bomb and an investigation was underway.
On May 2nd, Al Jazeera reported that the Pakistani Taliban cell known as Tehrik-I-Taliban was claiming responsibility for the failed attempt in retaliation for the US killing 'Al Qaida' agents!? Later that day Police said it was unlikely that they had anything to do with it. No reason for this suspicion was given.
On May 3rd, Stratfor reported that the Washington Post had reported that 'US Officials' believed the attempted bombing increasingly looked to have international ties. Later that day smaller elements of the investigation and the origination of the car were reported. Late in the day and reported by Stratfor and other Media outlets, the Police announced they had arrested a man in connection with the failed bombing attempt. It turns out he is from Pakistan, a naturalized US citizen who had returned to Pakistan in July of 2009 and had spent 'several months there'.
On this same day, May 3rd, Stratfor reported that Azam Tariq, spokesman for Tehrik-I-Taliban, said they did not release the video and had no information about it. Curious he didn't step away from any claim of involvement in the act itself...
Curiously; on this same day, May 3rd, Stratfor reported that Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud threatened to retaliate against the United States within a month for the killing of Islamist militant leaders.
On May 4th, the suspected bomber, Faisal Shahzad, implicates himself by saying 'he acted alone'. Officials say the investigation is still ongoing and let's not forget Taqiyya.
Of course, there is a point to this. For the last nearly two years we have been told that the Taliban were not Afghan but an outside element that the Afghan people wanted removed from their homeland as much as we wanted to marginalize them. Many of us have contended that they were in fact as much an Afghan phenomenon as anything else and that the mere presence of the Durand line did nothing to lessen that fact. Almost anyone with any historical or first-hand knowledge of that area will tell you so. So the fact that the Taliban can be vaguely divided into Afghan and Pakistani 'cells' does little to bolster the claim that the Taliban is a classically defined 'Insurgent' presence in Afghanistan.
In addition; arguments have been floated that say that the Taliban does not pose the same threat to the US as Al Qaida because they do not have an international focus..... This argument has always been wrong, generally, and because, generally, Islam's ultimate goal is to force world submission to Allah. (By the way; again, Allah is not the God of the Bible). So making the argument that an armed fundamentalist Islamic organization has no interest in the furtherance of this Islamic goal is preposterous.
So let's sum this up:
1. We have a naturalized US citizen from Pakistan who clearly is a Jihadist who spends a significant amount of time back home before returning to his 'chosen' home and then assembles and attempts to detonate a bomb.
2. We have a convoluted series of statements that seem to be pointing to involvement by a Taliban cell in Pakistan - where this Jihadist is from.
3. We have US and NYPD officials not wanting to jump to any conclusions even as the evidence is mounting, that there is a Taliban connection.
4. There is a knee-jerk reaction by the Pakistani Government that has been widely reported to have treacherous fellows in their midst who are 'sensitive' to Taliban doctrine. By the way, the relationship between Pakistan and the US is tenuous at best.
5. We also have continuous claims that the Taliban and Al Qaida not only have different goals but are often at odds even though we have statements from one of the leaders, Mehsud (whom we thought we had killed in a UAV strike), claiming to be prepping a strike against the US for killing 'Islamist Military Leaders'!?
Is anyone starting to question where this is going? What possible motivations could there be for not wanting to 'call a spade, a spade'? At what point do we look at someone like Hassan and say the man is in fact a Jihadist who defiled his oath as an Officer in the Army in lieu of following the warped ideology of his religion? MJ posed a great question to FOX news: quoting General Casey; 'if we lose diversity because the Ft. Hood shooter is a Muslim, it is a greater tragedy than the loss of life.' ; Why are we still referring to him as Major? Why hasn't General Casey been publicly castigated for equating the rights of a suspected mass murderer with those of whom he butchered? (Hey MJ; I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an answer).
When do we step out of the COIN paradigm and take a broader look at the problem; the real problem? When are the strategic ideologues going to put away their holy power point presentations, DOD jargon and go back to the one place that will give them the perspective they need; history and specifically a history as defined by the Islamic Scholars?
Hey MJ; I'm not holding my breath either.