And rill the media is crippled by its own self-censorship -beheadings in the streets of London, bombings in Boston, thousands of burning cars, Sweden under seige but still the media cannot say the M word.

For those that don't speak media, "Asian", "immigrant", "youth", "immigrant youth", "North African", "Moroccan" all mean the same thing. The prohibited M word - blasphemy under the sharia. "Do not offend Islam."

Social exclusion is to blame. Housing is to blame. Disrespect for the police (non-sharia authority) is to blame. Everything and anything is to blame except what's actually to blame. And Sweden is getting swallowed whole.

Riots in Sweden: Cars Burn in Fourth Night of Youth Violence Spiegel Online, May

Youth in several Stockholm suburbs have rioted for four nights in a row, throwing stones at police and setting cars on fire. Leaders have appealed for calm, but the violence has spread to the southern city of Malmo.

Rioters and police have had a number of violent standoffs since Sunday night. Protestors have thrown stones at police and firefighters and set cars and buildings on fire. At least one police officer was injured Wednesday night. Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has appealed for calm in the wake of the violence, which appears to have been instigated by the police shooting of a machete-wielding 69-year-old man in the Stockholm suburb of Husby this month. Police said the shooting was an act of self-defense, but it has triggered accusations of police brutality.

Riots began in Husby, which has a large immigrant population, on Sunday night and have spread to other locations, including the southern suburb of Fittja.

A police station in another southern suburb was set on fire, but no one was injured in the attack and the fire was quickly extinguished, according to media reports. Dozens of cars have been set ablaze during the riots, testing the resources of the local fire departments, according to the police.

At least one police officer was injured in the riots Wednesday night, and two schools, a restaurant and a cultural center have been damaged this week.

Growing Disparities

The violence has been attributed to the growing disparities between rich and poor in the country, where immigrant communities have been affected the most by cuts in state benefits over the past two decades. Official unemployment among the foreign-born is at 16 percent.

"The reason is very simple," Rouzbeh Djalaie, editor of a local newspaper in Husby told the news agency Reuters. "Unemployment, the housing situation, disrespect from police. It just takes something to start a riot, and that was the shooting."

Djalaie told Reuters that local youths are often the subject of unnecessary identity checks from police, who reportedly called them "apes" during the recent riots. The country ranks fourth among 44 industrialized nations in the absolute number of asylum seekers.

Swedish Justice Minister Beatrice Ask called attacks on police officers or rescue personnel "unacceptable," but said she understood why many people in these suburbs are angry. "Social exclusion is a very serious cause of many problems, and we understand that," she said.

DPA/ Scanpix

This is Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan's party - Obama's most trusted ally (Obama sought his advice in "how to raise his daughters").

And you thought the hundreds of thousdands of Muslims violently protesting for the death penalty for bloggers in Bangladesh was confined to that country only. Wrong. It is Islamic law -- here, there and everywhere. As Prime Minister Erdogan, Obama's favorite foreign leader told him, there is no moderate Islam there is no extreme Islam, Islam is Islam.

Ruling party member calls for the ‘annihilation of atheists’ on Twitter, sparking controversy Hurriyet Daily News, May 22, 2013 (thanks to Armaros)

'My blood boils when spineless psychopaths pretending to be atheists swear at my religion. These people, who have been raped, should be annihilated,' Macit wrote in one tweet.

An official from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) sparked controversy after he called for the “annihilation of atheists" on his Twitter account. 

Mahmut Macit, a senior member of AKP’s Ankara provincial board and keen user of social media, flared up on May 21 about insults against believers via Twitter. “My blood boils when spineless psychopaths pretending to be atheists swear at my religion. These people, who have been raped, should be annihilated,” Macit wrote in one tweet. He also argued that “insulting Islam could not be considered freedom of expression.” 

His remarks came as renowned Turkish-Armenian linguist and former columnist Sevan Nişanyan was condemned to 13 months in prison for alleged blasphemy in a blog comment. 

They also added more fuel to Turkey’s culture wars, reignited by a bill currently debated in the Turkish Parliament that foresees new restrictions on the sale and consumption of alcohol.   

'My blood boils when spineless
psychopaths pretending to be atheist
swear at my religion.These people
which have been raped should be
annihilated,' Macit wrote in one tweet.

While reactions from twitter users were pouring in, Macit retaliated by writing that those who criticized the AKP government were “either seen as nude or holding a bottle of an alcoholic drink in their bio picture.”

This is not the first time that members of the AKP have stirred debate with comments about atheists. AKP Zonguldak deputy Özcan Ulupınar had said last year that “no benefits could come to society from an atheist youth.”

Recently a Turkish sociologist had likened atheism with autism, saying that autistic children can't go to heaven as they were “atheists due to a lack of a section for faith in their brains.” 

 

The Boston jihad bombers were previously investigated too.  The FBI said they posed no threat. It speaks to an epic failure on the part of intelligence agencies that they have these devout savages in their sights and they release them on to an unsuspecting public.

UK jihad murderers were previously investigated by terror probe (thanks to Robert Spencer)

But apparently they were considered to be such a low risk that they were able to roam around London with meat cleavers, looking for a soldier to hack to death. Jihad, after all, it's an interior spiritual struggle, you know!

"London attack: hacking victim named; attackers were previously investigated by terror probe: report," from the Toronto Star, May 23 (thanks to Lookmann):

LONDON — Two men accused of butchering a 25-year-old Afghanistan veteran soldier on a London street had been featured in investigations by security services, a British official said Thursday.

The Ministry of Defence identified the soldier as 25-year-old Lee Rigby, who joined the army in 2006 and served in Afghanistan as a member of the fire support group.

Rigby, the father of a 2-year-old boy, was “an extremely popular and witty soldier (with) a larger than life personality. He was a passionate and life-long Manchester United fan,” the Defence statement read.

His attackers boasted of their exploits and warned of more violence in images recorded on witnesses’ mobile phones. Holding bloody knives and a meat cleaver, they waited for the arrival of police, who shot them in the legs, according to a passerby who had tried to save the dying soldier.

A British government official told The Associated Press both suspects were part of previous investigations for possible terror links.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the investigation, said he could not provide other details because the suspects may face trial.

Investigations by Britain’s domestic security service, MI5, can include undercover surveillance, phone tapping and communications intercepts.

Sky TV reported both suspects “had featured in MI5 investigations, but were not deemed high priority and not thought involved in complex plot.”

Prime Minister David Cameron vowed that Britain would not be cowed by the horrific violence, and that it would reject “the poisonous narrative of extremism on which this violence feeds.”

“It’s hateful, it’s horrific and upsetting. But it doesn’t seem to have made much of a difference,” Christian White, 43, said at King’s Cross station, close to the site of a subway bomb in July 2005.

“Londoners are used to living in a city where life is complicated.”

It's going to get more complicated.

Even so, security was increased at military barracks and installations in the capital, with extra armed guards added in many cases. Police said extra patrols were added at sensitive areas, including places of worship, transport hubs and congested areas.

Wednesday’s attack took place near a military barracks in the Woolwich area of south London.

The following video, obtained by British media, shows the alleged attacker brandishing a knife and cleaver.

There was little hard information available about the wounded suspects. Police gave no details of their injuries or conditions.

After the killing, one of the attackers was recorded on numerous amateur videos warning of more violence and explaining the reason for the crime, while gesturing with bloodied hands and waving a meat cleaver.

“We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you,” the man declared, complaining about British troops fighting Muslims. “We must fight them as they fight us.”

The camera then panned away to show a body lying on the ground.

Police in the county of Lincolnshire in eastern England said a property was being searched in connection to the attack in Woolwich. The Guardian newspaper, with a reporter at the scene, described the home as having been rented for several years by the family, who had since moved to London.

Media, quoting friends and sources, named the suspect in the amateur videos as 28-year-old Michael Adebolajo, who lived in London.

A police raid on an apartment in Greenwich near Woolwich was thought to be related, media reported. Four people, including two children, were taken away early Thursday by police, neighbours told reporters.

A Guardian reporter in Nigeria quoted officials there as saying both suspects were of Nigerian descent but raised elsewhere.

Both men accused of the attack appeared to have converted to Islam from Christian immigrant backgrounds, British media said.

The Islamic Society of Britain has also condemned the attacks.

“Murdering a British soldier is an attack on our nation,” the society said in a statement. “No effort should be spared in purging this hate.

“Our thoughts and sympathies are with the family of the deceased. Justifying this killing in the name of faith or religion is false and rejected.”

The head of a banned British radical Islamist group identified the suspect on the amateur video as Adebolajo and said he “used to attend a few demonstrations and activities that we used to have.”

Anjem Choudary was quoted by Reuters as saying Adebolajo, whom he had not seen for two years, was “a very pleasant man, he was peaceful, unassuming.”

Choudary’s organization gained notoriety for staging events to commemorate the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States with leaflets that referred to the hijackers as “the Magnificent 19”.

Metropolitan Police in London said they will abide by the family’s wishes and not identify the victim for the time being.

“He was from Lincolnshire and I think he served in the Yorkshire Regiment,” soldier Zak Dempster was quoted as saying by the Daily Telegraph as he lay flowers at the attack site.

“He was just starting off his career, in his 20s.”

The attack, just a month after the bomb attacks on the Boston Marathon, revived fears of “lone wolves.” These may have had no direct contact with Al Qaeda but are inspired by radical preachers and by Islamist militant websites, some of which urge people to attack Western targets with whatever means they have.

Chilling images of the blood-soaked suspect—who urged Britons to overthrow their government or risk having their children face a fate similar to a dead soldier lying just yards away—were splashed across the front pages of newspapers.

“I apologize that women had to witness that, but in our lands our women have to see the same thing. You people will never be safe. Remove your government. They don’t care about you,” the man said in the video before crossing the street and speaking casually to the other attacker.

The grisly attack took place on the edge of London’s sprawling Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, a south London working class district which has long-standing historic links to the military.

The victim was wearing a T-shirt saying “Help for Heroes”, the name of a charity formed to help wounded British veterans. Britain has had troops deployed in Afghanistan since 2001 and had troops in Iraq from 2003-2009.

Before he was stabbed to death, the victim was knocked over by a blue car which then rammed into a lamppost. The attackers pounced on him in broad daylight in a busy residential street.

Witnesses said they shouted “Allahu akbar”—Arabic for God is greatest—while stabbing the victim and trying to behead him. A handgun was found at the scene.

Some onlookers rushed to help the victim and one woman tried to engage one of the attackers in conversation to calm him.

“He had what looked like butcher’s tools—a little axe, to cut the bones, and two large knives. He said: ‘Move off the body,’” Ingrid Loyau-Kennett was quoted by local media as saying.

“He said: ‘I killed him because he killed Muslims and I am fed up with people killing Muslims in Afghanistan.’”...

Cameron’s office had welcomed the condemnation from most mainstream British Muslim groups but that the national security committee had discussed community cohesion....

When will authorities begin to demand more than just pro forma condemnations after the fact?

There are no limits to the lengths the media and political elites will go to sanction the savagery of jihad. On the one hand, they will use the most tenuous and many times non-existent ties to indict, say, the tea party on some unrelated offense. They vigorously attempt to tie counter-jihad work to any act of violence, despite our calls for peaceful protest and free exchange of ideas.

And yet they refuse to accept the words from the mouths of Muslims conducting holy war in the cause of Islam. These Muslims state their clear intentions and their motives quite plainly. But the media and politicians refuse to take them at their word. 

And no matter how ridiculous they look in their denial of reality, they pursue their delusions and deceit with boundless energy. They give notorious Islamic supremacists respect and legitimacy while giving them national and international news airtime to spew the most vicious bile, while voices of truth and freedom are silenced, blacklisted.

Telegraph publishes falsehoods about Qur'an in attempt to clear Islam of responsibility for London jihad murder (thanks to Robert Spencer)

Note what Mehdi Hasan leaves out of his Qur'an quotation. "The Muslim faith does not turn men to terror: The two suspects in the Woolwich killing were violating the doctrine of their own holy book," by Mehdi Hasan in the Telegraph, May 23 (thanks to JH):

'Whosoever killeth a human being…” says the Koran, in the 32nd verse of its fifth chapter, “it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.”

Thus, the two supposedly Muslim men suspected of killing and mutilating an unarmed, off-duty soldier in the middle of a London street, while shouting “Allahu Akbar” (“God is Great”), were violating the injunction of their own holy book. Perversely, it was the non-Muslim Cub Scout leader who, in trying to save the soldier’s life, and standing up to his alleged attackers, was acting in accordance with Koranic principles. Let’s be clear: Islam doesn’t permit the killing of innocents. Jihad is permissible only in self-defence and if sanctioned by a legitimate government. To quote from our Prime Minister’s pitch-perfect statement outside No 10, Wednesday’s barbarism was “a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to our country”.

Yes, let's be clear. Qur'an 5:32 actually says this:

For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

Hasan quoted it thusly: "Whosoever killeth a human being...it shall be as if he had killed all mankind." Notice what he left out: "for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth." So the Qur'an is saying only that killing a human being for something other than manslaughter or "corruption in the earth" is as if one had killed all mankind.

But what if someone does commit "corruption in the earth"? The Qur'an goes on: "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom." (Qur'an 5:33)

Now we see why Mehdi Hasan left that part out of his Qur'an quote.

So it is permissible -- indeed, commanded -- to kill those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after "corruption in the land." Islam doesn't permit the killing of innocents, but this victim was a British soldier. He was, in the view of his killer, making war upon Allah and his messenger and spreading corruption in the land by fighting in Afghanistan. In that case, the killer's jihad was defensive, and Hasan's words about it being only permissible if sanctioned by a legitimate government are simply false in terms of Islamic law.

To be sure, only the state authority can declare offensive jihad. A Shafi'i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians...until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh ‘Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)...while remaining in their ancestral religions.” ('Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).

Of course, there is no caliph today, and upon this fact hinges the oft-repeated claim that people like the London murderer are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But he and others like him explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes "obligatory for everyone" ('Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: 'Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until "the final descent of Jesus." After that, "nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent" (o9.8).

Surely Mehdi Hasan knows all this. So why is he misleading people in the pages of the Telegraph?

The jihad plot thickens -- they too intended to "start a war in the streets of London"?

British police have made two further arrests and searched multiple properties as they widened their investigation into Wednesday's fatal hacking to death of a British soldier in broad daylight on a busy London street by two Muslim terrorists.

The two arrests, of a man and a woman -- both 29 -- on suspicion of conspiracy to murder, raises the possibility that the gruesome attack was not a so-called "lone wolf" killing as once thought.  Earlier it had been reported that the attackers were known to UK authorities and one had ties to a radical jihadist group well before the shocking attack that has stunned the United Kingdom and risked inflaming tensions between communities.  (FOX News)

Lone wolf asshattery. There a millions of "lone wolves" who all believe the same thing, all share the same goals, all refer to the same playbook, all cite the same doctrine.

Tributes to soldier killed in Woolwich as police make fourth arrest ITV, May 23, 2013 

The family of the soldier hacked to death in Woolwich paid tribute tonight to "a loving son, husband, father, brother and uncle", adding that he always wanted to be in the Army and "live life and enjoy himself".

Drummer Lee Rigby, 25, was killed by two assailants on the streets of south east London yesterday.

A total of four people including the two men shot by police have now been arrested in connection with the brutal attack.

Scotland Yard said a man and a woman, both 29, were held today on suspicion of conspiracy to murder and are being questioned at a police station in south London.

The two men who were shot, aged 22 and 28, have been arrested on suspicion of murder and remain in hospital in a stable condition with non life-threatening injuries.

Drummer Lee Rigby, 25, leaves behind at two-year-old son. Credit: MOD

Drummer Rigby's family issued the following tribute: "Lee was lovely. He would do anything for anybody, he always looked after his sisters and always protected them. He took a 'big brother' role with everyone.

"All he wanted to do from when he was a little boy, was be in the Army. He wanted to live life and enjoy himself. His family meant everything to him. He was a loving son, husband, father, brother, and uncle, and a friend to many.

"We ask that our privacy be respected at this difficult time."

Six residential addresses were being searched today as part of the investigation, three in south London, one in east London, one in north London and one in Lincolnshire.

In the wake of the monstrous beheading of a young British man in broad daylight by Muslims who cited quran for their ritual slaughter comes reaction from the left and their media propagandists.

Having warned of this very type of incident for years, I was horrified, but not surprised. You might think that the leftist tools in the media might step back and say, perhaps we ought to rethink our dangerous delusions and illogical fantasy. But that would be logical, and the left is vicious, a happy mouthpiece for the savage. The BBC feature the vicious MPAC Islamic supremacist, Asghar Bukhari. No matter how they twist and turn, I am right and have been all along, but they'd rather lose their heads than ever state the obvious.

And so with fresh blood still on the streets of Woolwich, the requisite attacks on voices of freedom begin. No questions as to the jihadic doctrine that calls for the ongoing monstrous savagery. No, just smears against those who oppose it. Enough already.

Enough Already
San Francisco Bay Guardian 

When it became clear that the attackers were Muslims, you could almost hear the Pamela Geller's [sic] and Steven Emerson's [sic] of the world climaxing in sexual ecstasy ...

Anti-Islam backlash in London after machete attack
Salon
The group also has ties to a number of prominent American Islamophobes, including Pamela Geller, and even had a presence at her rally against the so-called ...

In wake of soldier's beheading, UK authorities on alert for anti-Muslim backlash
Beheading puts UK on alert for anti-Islam backlash Read more:
New York Daily News
Fear of a continuing backlash against Muslims gripped London on Thursday following the gruesome beheading of a British soldier by two men spouting jihadist rhetoric.

Anti-Islamist protests flare following London attack
AFP
LONDON — Police arrested two people as they tried to quell anti-Islamist disorder following the brutal murder in London of a man, believed to be a soldier. A 43-year-old man was arrested in Braintree, east of London, late on Wednesday after reportedly ...

Watch the BBC response to a young man who was hacked to death, beheaded on a London suburb street.  MPACUK's Asghar Bukhari on Woolwich Attack -- railing against the British. We are subjected to fallacious and vicious grievance mongering by Islamic supremacist Asghar Bukhari to justify this monstrous slaughter. Instead of having the learned Robert Spencer or Ibn Warraq on to explain the jihadic doctrine, they have a vicious Islamic supremacist attacking Britain. It is just jaw-dropping. The disconnect is stupefying. The Taliban's savage campaign of jihad, whether it's poisoning girls' schools, beheading more moderate Muslims, punitive penalties for women not shrouded in a cloth coffin, death for blasphemy, etc. is sanctioned, but the coalition to free the enslaved and bring the killers to justice --  that is reason enough to slaughter people in the streets.

This is the BBC Islam division. Freedom in the UK is an archaic relic relegated to the dustbin of a once glorious past.

Here's the thing -- they give this savage mouthpiece a platform, respect and deference but they will tear apart and destroy the champions of freedom in the UK like my colleagues Tommy Robinson and Kev Carroll.

The President has decided, five years into his presidency, to finally address the gravest threat to our nation and the West in the wake of a bloody wave of jihad attacks under his sloppy and feckless watch.

"Victory will be measured in parents taking their kids to school; immigrants coming to our shores; fans taking in a ballgame; a veteran starting a business; a bustling city street"

What does that even mean? He speaks of "victory" when he is the architect of defeat. He speaks of victory while the Fort Hood victims languish and the slaughtering jihadist Hasan still has not been brought to trial, but has received over a quarter of a million dollars in compensation.

What is his plan? To partner with Muslim Brotherhood groups in America that work feverishly to "eliminate and destroy" America from within. Obama said today, "the best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American community – which has consistently rejected terrorism – to identify signs of radicalization, and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence." Robert Spencer said:

The Muslim American community has consistently rejected terrorism? Four separate studies since 1998 have all found that 80% of U.S. mosques were teaching jihad, Islamic supremacism, and hatred and contempt for Jews and Christians. There are no countervailing studies that challenge these results. In 1998, Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, a Sufi leader, visited 114 mosques in the United States. Then he gave testimony before a State Department Open Forum in January 1999, and asserted that 80% of American mosques taught the “extremist ideology.”

Then there was the Center for Religious Freedom’s 2005 study, and the Mapping Sharia Project’s 2008 study. Each independently showed that upwards of 80% of mosques in America were preaching hatred of Jews and Christians and the necessity ultimately to impose Islamic rule.

And in the summer of 2011 came another study showing that only 19% of mosques in U.S. don’t teach jihad violence and/or Islamic supremacism. 

What's his plan? To close GITMO and release the killers, when we know the recidivism rate is extraordinarily high. He stands by his drone attacks while having denied the motive of jihadic doctrine. He is killing Americans and yet he whines that we "compromised our basic values – by using torture to interrogate our enemies." He is denigrating the Bush administration's waterboarding three killers that saved thousands of lives and led to the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Our soldiers are waterboarded so that they understand the process. Who does this poser think he's kidding -- he kills people, spies on journalists, and abandons our Ambassador and other Americans in Libya, and he is preaching to us?

He says that there have been no large scale attacks in the US. I disagree. Scores of large scale attacks were thwarted. That counts. And Fort Hood and Boston were large scale. Hundreds of people living with shrapnel, broken flesh and bone and ...... the dead.

Our delusional President claims that our standing in the world is what it was. I beg to differ. We are much weaker under his reign. Obama's abandonment of our allies in Egypt, Libya, Israel, and Eastern Europe have weakened our hegemony and influence in those regions.

Obama claims that "unrest in the Arab World has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries like Libya and Syria." That, too, is a deliberate misrepresentation of what happened. Obama backed jihadists. That's what happened in the Muslim world. Did he think that backing jihadists in Egyt, Libya, Tunisia and now Syria would end well?

What's his plan? Why didn't Obama mention that his administration scrubbed all counter terrorism materials and manuals of jihad and Islam -- disarming law enforcment and counter terrorism officials? Where did that get us? Boston.

When Obama speaks of the threat on our shores, he only cites the rare non-Muslim attacks:

"Finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin; a plane flying into a building in Texas; or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City

Not the hundreds of thwarted and in some cases successful acts of jihad here:

BROOKLYN BRIDGE Iyman Faris, a U.S.-based, al Qaeda operative, planned to cut the bridge's support cables but was deterred, in part, by the NYPD's 24-hour coverage of the bridge. Faris sent al Qaeda leaders a coded message that, "the weather is too hot," indicating he could not carry out the mission. He was arrested in 2003, pleaded guilty and sentenced to federal prison.

SUBWAY CYANIDE - A plot to disperse cyanide gas in the subway system was called off at the last minute by Iyman Zawahiri for what he said was "something bigger."

NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE & CITIGROUP HEADQUARTERS - Al Qaeda plot to use vehicles to bomb the New York Stock Exchange, Citibank, and other financial institutions. NYPD tactical teams were deployed to high-threat locations, and vehicle inspections were increased in response. Dhiren Barot/Issa al-Hindi, an associate of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, pleaded guilty in 2006.

GARMENT DISTRICT PLOT The NYPD and FBI arrested Uzair Paracha for material support of terrorism in New York based on intelligence developed overseas. Paracha is reported to have discussed with top al Qaeda leaders the prospect of smuggling weapons and explosives  possibly even a nuclear deviceinto Manhattan's Garment District through his father's import-export business.

HERALD SQUARE SUBWAY STATION An NYPD undercover officer helped disrupt a 2004 plot to bomb the Herald Square subway station by lone-wolf admirers of Al Qaeda. Shahawar Matin Siraj and James Elshafay conspired to blow up the 34th Street subway station, including surveilling the subway station, choosing the location for their bombs, and diagramming entrances and exits.

PATH TRAIN and WTC RETAINING WALL A multi-agency investigation disrupted a plot to attack NYC's underground transit link with New Jersey in 2006. Law enforcement monitoring international chat rooms discovered suspects' plan to destroy a PATH train tunnel and the retaining wall at Ground Zero, to flood the New York Financial District. The main operative was taken into custody in Lebanon and admitted to plotting the attack.

JFK AIRPORT/BUCKEYE PIPELINE - Al Qaeda sympathizers plotted to bomb the fuel tanks and pipeline at John F. Kennedy Airport, through which jet fuel is transported from New Jersey through Staten Island, Brooklyn, and Queens. Four suspects were arrested in New York and Trinidad in 2007; three were later sentenced to life in prison.

TRANSATLANTIC PLOT  A British-based plot to destroy seven commercial aircraft over the Atlantic Ocean or fly one or more of them into East Coast targets including New York City resulted in multiple arrests in London.

LONG ISLAND RAILROAD - A plot to bomb a Manhattan-bound LIRR commuter train was discussed at the highest levels of al Qaeda operational leadership. See Bryant Neal Vinas, of Long Island.

BRONX SYNAGOGUES  Disrupted in May 2009, the Riverdale plot targeted two Jewish centersa synagogue and a Jewish community centerin the Bronx, and Stewart Air Base in Newburgh, NY. The NYPD and FBI arrested four men who were convicted in 2010.

NYC SUBWAY & TRANSIT HUBS - In September 2009, Najibullah Zazi and others planned a series of coordinated suicide bombings of NYC subway transit hubs at rush hour.

TIMES SQUARE Faisal Shahzad attempted on May 1, 2010 to detonate a bomb inside an SUV parked in Times Square on a busy Saturday night.

MANHATTAN SYNAGOGUE - The NYPD disrupted a plot by two Queens men, Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh, to bomb a synagogue in Manhattan in May 2011.

JOSE PIMENTEL - Muslim convert Jose Pimentel was arrested in November 2011 in Manhattan as he constructed bombs and plotted to killer soldiers returning home to New York from Afghanistan and Iraq. He had followed instructions in an article from Al Qaeda's English-language magazine "Inspire" on "How to Build a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom."

JESSE MORTON; REVOLUTION MUSLIM: The case of Jesse Morton, a New York City-based Muslim convert, resulted from NYPD monitoring, combined with the investigative and prosecutorial expertise of the FBI and the U.S. Attorney for Eastern District of Virginia. Morton was apprehended in Morocco and pleaded guilty in Feb. 2012 to soliciting murder and encouraging violence via the Internet; Morton was sentenced in June to 138 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release, for using his position as a leader of the "Revolution Muslim" organization's internet sites to conspire to solicit murder and encourage violent extremism. His partner Zachary Chesser was sentenced for providing material support to al Shabaab, communicating threats and soliciting acts of extremism, including against the creators of South Park. Chesser and Morton were associates of Mohamed Alessa and Carlos Almonte, two New Jersey men who pleaded guilty in March 2011 to conspiring to murder individuals overseas on behalf of a foreign terrorist group.

He goes on to explain that jihadists are lying when they quote quran chapter and verse and wage war in the case of Islam. Obama said, "this ideology is based on a lie, for the United States is not at war with Islam." No, it is Obama who is lying about the ideology. And while we may not be at war with Islam, clearly there is a significant part of Islam that is at war with us.

President Barack Obama is reasserting his case that closing Guantanamo is crucial to U.S. counterterrorism goals, and is making a defense of the controversial drone program, in a speech at the National Defense University. A White House official said the audience is made up of students from NDU; national security, counter-terrorism, legal and human rights experts; and U.S. government officials.

Here is the text of his speech, as prepared for delivery.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

May 23, 2013

The Future of our Fight against Terrorism

Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery

National Defense University

May 23, 2013

As Prepared for Delivery —

It’s an honor to return to the National Defense University. Here, at Fort McNair, Americans have served in uniform since 1791– standing guard in the early days of the Republic, and contemplating the future of warfare here in the 21^st century.

For over two centuries, the United States has been bound together by founding documents that defined who we are as Americans, and served as our compass through every type of change. Matters of war and peace are no different. Americans are deeply ambivalent about war, but having fought for our independence, we know that a price must be paid for freedom. From the Civil War, to our struggle against fascism, and through the long, twilight struggle of the Cold War, battlefields have changed, and technology has evolved. But our commitment to Constitutional principles has weathered every war, and every war has come to an end.

With the collapse of the Berlin Wall, a new dawn of democracy took hold abroad, and a decade of peace and prosperity arrived at home. For a moment, it seemed the 21^st century would be a tranquil time. Then, on September 11^th 2001, we were shaken out of complacency. Thousands were taken from us, as clouds of fire, metal and ash descended upon a sun-filled morning. This was a different kind of war. No armies came to our shores, and our military was not the principal target. Instead, a group of terrorists came to kill as many civilians as they could.

And so our nation went to war. We have now been at war for well over a decade. I won’t review the full history. What’s clear is that we quickly drove al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, but then shifted our focus and began a new war in Iraq. This carried grave consequences for our fight against al Qaeda, our standing in the world, and – to this day – our interests in a vital region.

Meanwhile, we strengthened our defenses – hardening targets, tightening transportation security, and giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror. Most of these changes were sound. Some caused inconvenience. But some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy. And in some cases, I believe we compromised our basic values – by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.

After I took office, we stepped up the war against al Qaeda, but also sought to change its course. We relentlessly targeted al Qaeda’s leadership. We ended the war in Iraq, and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. We pursued a new strategy in Afghanistan, and increased our training of Afghan forces. We unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with Congress.

Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure. Fewer of our troops are in harm’s way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. In sum, we are safer because of our efforts.

Now make no mistake: our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. We must recognize, however, that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11. With a decade of experience to draw from, now is the time to ask ourselves hard questions – about the nature of today’s threats, and how we should confront them.

These questions matter to every American. For over the last decade, our nation has spent well over a trillion dollars on war, exploding our deficits and constraining our ability to nation build here at home. Our service-members and their families have sacrificed far more on our behalf. Nearly 7,000 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice. Many more have left a part of themselves on the battlefield, or brought the shadows of battle back home. From our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions we are making will define the type of nation – and world – that we leave to our children.

So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us, mindful of James Madison’s warning that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. What we can do – what we must do – is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. To define that strategy, we must make decisions based not on fear, but hard-earned wisdom. And that begins with understanding the threat we face.

Today, the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to defeat. Their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us. They did not direct the attacks in Benghazi or Boston. They have not carried out a successful attack on our homeland since 9/11. Instead, what we’ve seen is the emergence of various al Qaeda affiliates. From Yemen to Iraq, from Somalia to North Africa, the threat today is more diffuse, with Al Qaeda’s affiliate in the Arabian Peninsula – AQAP –the most active in plotting against our homeland. While none of AQAP’s efforts approach the scale of 9/11 they have continued to plot acts of terror, like the attempt to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day in 2009.

Unrest in the Arab World has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries like Libya and Syria. Here, too, there are differences from 9/11. In some cases, we confront state-sponsored networks like Hizbollah that engage in acts of terror to achieve political goals. Others are simply collections of local militias or extremists interested in seizing territory. While we are vigilant for signs that these groups may pose a transnational threat, most are focused on operating in the countries and regions where they are based. That means we will face more localized threats like those we saw in Benghazi, or at the BP oil facility in Algeria, in which local operatives – in loose affiliation with regional networks – launch periodic attacks against Western diplomats, companies, and other soft targets, or resort to kidnapping and other criminal enterprises to fund their operations.

Finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin; a plane flying into a building in Texas; or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City – America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our time. Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

Lethal yet less capable al Qaeda affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them. But as we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11. In the 1980s, we lost Americans to terrorism at our Embassy in Beirut; at our Marine Barracks in Lebanon; on a cruise ship at sea; at a disco in Berlin; and on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. In the 1990s, we lost Americans to terrorism at the World Trade Center; at our military facilities in Saudi Arabia; and at our Embassy in Kenya. These attacks were all deadly, and we learned that left unchecked, these threats can grow. But if dealt with smartly and proportionally, these threats need not rise to the level that we saw on the eve of 9/11.

Moreover, we must recognize that these threats don’t arise in a vacuum. Most, though not all, of the terrorism we face is fueled by a common ideology – a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West, and that violence against Western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause. Of course, this ideology is based on a lie, for the United States is not at war with Islam; and this ideology is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims, who are the most frequent victims of terrorist acts.

Nevertheless, this ideology persists, and in an age in which ideas and images can travel the globe in an instant, our response to terrorism cannot depend on military or law enforcement alone. We need all elements of national power to win a battle of wills and ideas. So let me discuss the components of such a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy.

First, we must finish the work of defeating al Qaeda and its associated forces.

In Afghanistan, we will complete our transition to Afghan responsibility for security. Our troops will come home. Our combat mission will come to an end. And we will work with the Afghan government to train security forces, and sustain a counter-terrorism force which ensures that al Qaeda can never again establish a safe-haven to launch attacks against us or our allies.

Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror’ – but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America. In many cases, this will involve partnerships with other countries. Thousands of Pakistani soldiers have lost their lives fighting extremists. In Yemen, we are supporting security forces that have reclaimed territory from AQAP. In Somalia, we helped a coalition of African nations push al Shabaab out of its strongholds. In Mali, we are providing military aid to a French-led intervention to push back al Qaeda in the Maghreb, and help the people of Mali reclaim their future.

Much of our best counter-terrorism cooperation results in the gathering and sharing of intelligence; the arrest and prosecution of terrorists. That’s how a Somali terrorist apprehended off the coast of Yemen is now in prison in New York. That’s how we worked with European allies to disrupt plots from Denmark to Germany to the United Kingdom. That’s how intelligence collected with Saudi Arabia helped us stop a cargo plane from being blown up over the Atlantic.

But despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed. Al Qaeda and its affiliates try to gain a foothold in some of the most distant and unforgiving places on Earth. They take refuge in remote tribal regions. They hide in caves and walled compounds. They train in empty deserts and rugged mountains.

In some of these places – such as parts of Somalia and Yemen – the state has only the most tenuous reach into the territory. In other cases, the state lacks the capacity or will to take action. It is also not possible for America to simply deploy a team of Special Forces to capture every terrorist. And even when such an approach may be possible, there are places where it would pose profound risks to our troops and local civilians– where a terrorist compound cannot be breached without triggering a firefight with surrounding tribal communities that pose no threat to us, or when putting U.S. boots on the ground may trigger a major international crisis.

To put it another way, our operation in Pakistan against Osama bin Laden cannot be the norm. The risks in that case were immense; the likelihood of capture, although our preference, was remote given the certainty of resistance; the fact that we did not find ourselves confronted with civilian casualties, or embroiled in an extended firefight, was a testament to the meticulous planning and professionalism of our Special Forces – but also depended on some luck. And even then, the cost to our relationship with Pakistan – and the backlash among the Pakistani public over encroachment on their territory – was so severe that we are just now beginning to rebuild this important partnership.

It is in this context that the United States has taken lethal, targeted action against al Qaeda and its associated forces, including with remotely piloted aircraft commonly referred to as drones. As was true in previous armed conflicts, this new technology raises profound questions – about who is targeted, and why; about civilian casualties, and the risk of creating new enemies; about the legality of such strikes under U.S. and international law; about accountability and morality.

Let me address these questions. To begin with, our actions are effective. Don’t take my word for it. In the intelligence gathered at bin Laden’s compound, we found that he wrote, “we could lose the reserves to the enemy’s air strikes. We cannot fight air strikes with explosives.” Other communications from al Qaeda operatives confirm this as well. Dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers, and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. Plots have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, U.S. transit systems, European cities and our troops in Afghanistan. Simply put, these strikes have saved lives.

Moreover, America’s actions are legal. We were attacked on 9/11. Within a week, Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force. Under domestic law, and international law, the United States is at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces. We are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first. So this is a just war – a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense.

And yet as our fight enters a new phase, America’s legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion. To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. For the same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power – or risk abusing it. That’s why, over the last four years, my Administration has worked vigorously to establish a framework that governs our use of force against terrorists – insisting upon clear guidelines, oversight and accountability that is now codified in Presidential Policy Guidance that I signed yesterday.

In the Afghan war theater, we must support our troops until the transition is complete at the end of 2014. That means we will continue to take strikes against high value al Qaeda targets, but also against forces that are massing to support attacks on coalition forces. However, by the end of 2014, we will no longer have the same need for force protection, and the progress we have made against core al Qaeda will reduce the need for unmanned strikes.

Beyond the Afghan theater, we only target al Qaeda and its associated forces. Even then, the use of drones is heavily constrained. America does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists – our preference is always to detain, interrogate, and prosecute them. America cannot take strikes wherever we choose – our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and respect for state sovereignty. America does not take strikes to punish individuals – we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat. And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured – the highest standard we can set.

This last point is critical, because much of the criticism about drone strikes – at home and abroad – understandably centers on reports of civilian casualties. There is a wide gap between U.S. assessments of such casualties, and non-governmental reports. Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars. For the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred through conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But as Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties – not just in our cities at home and facilities abroad, but also in the very places –like Sana’a and Kabul and Mogadishu – where terrorists seek a foothold. Let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes.

Where foreign governments cannot or will not effectively stop terrorism in their territory, the primary alternative to targeted, lethal action is the use of conventional military options. As I’ve said, even small Special Operations carry enormous risks. Conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage. And invasions of these territories lead us to be viewed as occupying armies; unleash a torrent of unintended consequences; are difficult to contain; and ultimately empower those who thrive on violent conflict. So it is false to assert that putting boots on the ground is less likely to result in civilian deaths, or to create enemies in the Muslim world. The result would be more U.S. deaths, more Blackhawks down, more confrontations with local populations, and an inevitable mission creep in support of such raids that could easily escalate into new wars.

So yes, the conflict with al Qaeda, like all armed conflict, invites tragedy. But by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us, and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life. Indeed, our efforts must also be measured against the history of putting American troops in distant lands among hostile populations. In Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of civilians died in a war where the boundaries of battle were blurred. In Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the courage and discipline of our troops, thousands of civilians have been killed. So neither conventional military action, nor waiting for attacks to occur, offers moral safe-harbor. Neither does a sole reliance on law enforcement in territories that have no functioning police or security services – and indeed, have no functioning law.

This is not to say that the risks are not real. Any U.S. military action in foreign lands risks creating more enemies, and impacts public opinion overseas. Our laws constrain the power of the President, even during wartime, and I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. The very precision of drones strikes, and the necessary secrecy involved in such actions can end up shielding our government from the public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites. It can also lead a President and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism.

For this reason, I’ve insisted on strong oversight of all lethal action. After I took office, my Administration began briefing all strikes outside of Iraq and Afghanistan to the appropriate committees of Congress. Let me repeat that – not only did Congress authorize the use of force, it is briefed on every strike that America takes. That includes the one instance when we targeted an American citizen: Anwar Awlaki, the chief of external operations for AQAP.

This week, I authorized the declassification of this action, and the deaths of three other Americans in drone strikes, to facilitate transparency and debate on this issue, and to dismiss some of the more outlandish claims. For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen – with a drone, or a shotgun – without due process. Nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.

But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America – and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot – his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team

That’s who Anwar Awlaki was – he was continuously trying to kill people. He helped oversee the 2010 plot to detonate explosive devices on two U.S. bound cargo planes. He was involved in planning to blow up an airliner in 2009. When Farouk Abdulmutallab – the Christmas Day bomber – went to Yemen in 2009, Awlaki hosted him, approved his suicide operation, and helped him tape a martyrdom video to be shown after the attack. His last instructions were to blow up the airplane when it was over American soil. I would have detained and prosecuted Awlaki if we captured him before he carried out a plot. But we couldn’t. And as President, I would have been derelict in my duty had I not authorized the strike that took out Awlaki.

Of course, the targeting of any Americans raises constitutional issues that are not present in other strikes – which is why my Administration submitted information about Awlaki to the Department of Justice months before Awlaki was killed, and briefed the Congress before this strike as well. But the high threshold that we have set for taking lethal action applies to all potential terrorist targets, regardless of whether or not they are American citizens. This threshold respects the inherent dignity of every human life. Alongside the decision to put our men and women in uniform in harm’s way, the decision to use force against individuals or groups – even against a sworn enemy of the United States – is the hardest thing I do as President. But these decisions must be made, given my responsibility to protect the American people.

Going forward, I have asked my Administration to review proposals to extend oversight of lethal actions outside of warzones that go beyond our reporting to Congress. Each option has virtues in theory, but poses difficulties in practice. For example, the establishment of a special court to evaluate and authorize lethal action has the benefit of bringing a third branch of government into the process, but raises serious constitutional issues about presidential and judicial authority. Another idea that’s been suggested – the establishment of an independent oversight board in the executive branch – avoids those problems, but may introduce a layer of bureaucracy into national-security decision-making, without inspiring additional public confidence in the process. Despite these challenges, I look forward to actively engaging Congress to explore these – and other – options for increased oversight.

I believe, however, that the use of force must be seen as part of a larger discussion about a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. Because for all the focus on the use of force, force alone cannot make us safe. We cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root; and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the well-spring of extremism, a perpetual war – through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments – will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways.

So the next element of our strategy involves addressing the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism, from North Africa to South Asia. As we’ve learned this past decade, this is a vast and complex undertaking. We must be humble in our expectation that we can quickly resolve deep rooted problems like poverty and sectarian hatred. Moreover, no two countries are alike, and some will undergo chaotic change before things get better. But our security and values demand that we make the effort.

This means patiently supporting transitions to democracy in places like Egypt, Tunisia and Libya – because the peaceful realization of individual aspirations will serve as a rebuke to violent extremists. We must strengthen the opposition in Syria, while isolating extremist elements – because the end of a tyrant must not give way to the tyranny of terrorism. We are working to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians – because it is right, and because such a peace could help reshape attitudes in the region. And we must help countries modernize economies, upgrade education, and encourage entrepreneurship – because American leadership has always been elevated by our ability to connect with peoples’ hopes, and not simply their fears.

Success on these fronts requires sustained engagement, but it will also require resources. I know that foreign aid is one of the least popular expenditures – even though it amounts to less than one percent of the federal budget. But foreign assistance cannot be viewed as charity. It is fundamental to our national security, and any sensible long-term strategy to battle extremism. Moreover, foreign assistance is a tiny fraction of what we spend fighting wars that our assistance might ultimately prevent. For what we spent in a month in Iraq at the height of the war, we could be training security forces in Libya, maintaining peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors, feeding the hungry in Yemen, building schools in Pakistan, and creating reservoirs of goodwill that marginalize extremists.

America cannot carry out this work if we do not have diplomats serving in dangerous places. Over the past decade, we have strengthened security at our Embassies, and I am implementing every recommendation of the Accountability Review Board which found unacceptable failures in Benghazi. I have called on Congress to fully fund these efforts to bolster security, harden facilities, improve intelligence, and facilitate a quicker response time from our military if a crisis emerges.

But even after we take these steps, some irreducible risks to our diplomats will remain. This is the price of being the world’s most powerful nation, particularly as a wave of change washes over the Arab World. And in balancing the trade-offs between security and active diplomacy, I firmly believe that any retreat from challenging regions will only increase the dangers we face in the long run.

Targeted action against terrorists. Effective partnerships. Diplomatic engagement and assistance. Through such a comprehensive strategy we can significantly reduce the chances of large scale attacks on the homeland and mitigate threats to Americans overseas. As we guard against dangers from abroad, however, we cannot neglect the daunting challenge of terrorism from within our borders.

As I said earlier, this threat is not new. But technology and the Internet increase its frequency and lethality. Today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda, and learn how to kill without leaving their home. To address this threat, two years ago my Administration did a comprehensive review, and engaged with law enforcement. The best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American community – which has consistently rejected terrorism – to identify signs of radicalization, and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence. And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family. Indeed, the success of American Muslims, and our determination to guard against any encroachments on their civil liberties, is the ultimate rebuke to those who say we are at war with Islam.

Indeed, thwarting homegrown plots presents particular challenges in part because of our proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call America home. That’s why, in the years to come, we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are. That means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, and build in privacy protections to prevent abuse. That means that – even after Boston – we do not deport someone or throw someone in prison in the absence of evidence. That means putting careful constraints on the tools the government uses to protect sensitive information, such as the State Secrets doctrine. And that means finally having a strong Privacy and Civil Liberties Board to review those issues where our counter-terrorism efforts and our values may come into tension.

The Justice Department’s investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between our security and our open society. As Commander-in Chief, I believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field. To do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information. But a free press is also essential for our democracy. I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable.

Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law. That is why I have called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government over-reach. I have raised these issues with the Attorney General, who shares my concern. So he has agreed to review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and will convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review. And I have directed the Attorney General to report back to me by July 12^th.

All these issues remind us that the choices we make about war can impact – in sometimes unintended ways – the openness and freedom on which our way of life depends. And that is why I intend to engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorists without keeping America on a perpetual war-time footing.

The AUMF is now nearly twelve years old. The Afghan War is coming to an end. Core al Qaeda is a shell of its former self. Groups like AQAP must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States. Unless we discipline our thinking and our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states. So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.

And that brings me to my final topic: the detention of terrorist suspects.

To repeat, as a matter of policy, the preference of the United States is to capture terrorist suspects. When we do detain a suspect, we interrogate them. And if the suspect can be prosecuted, we decide whether to try him in a civilian court or a Military Commission. During the past decade, the vast majority of those detained by our military were captured on the battlefield. In Iraq, we turned over thousands of prisoners as we ended the war. In Afghanistan, we have transitioned detention facilities to the Afghans, as part of the process of restoring Afghan sovereignty. So we bring law of war detention to an end, and we are committed to prosecuting terrorists whenever we can.

The glaring exception to this time-tested approach is the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. The original premise for opening GTMO – that detainees would not be able to challenge their detention – was found unconstitutional five years ago. In the meantime, GTMO has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law. Our allies won’t cooperate with us if they think a terrorist will end up at GTMO. During a time of budget cuts, we spend $150 million each year to imprison 166 people –almost $1 million per prisoner. And the Department of Defense estimates that we must spend another $200 million to keep GTMO open at a time when we are cutting investments in education and research here at home.

As President, I have tried to close GTMO. I transferred 67 detainees to other countries before Congress imposed restrictions to effectively prevent us from either transferring detainees to other countries, or imprisoning them in the United States. These restrictions make no sense. After all, under President Bush, some 530 detainees were transferred from GTMO with Congress’s support. When I ran for President the first time, John McCain supported closing GTMO. No person has ever escaped from one of our super-max or military prisons in the United States. Our courts have convicted hundreds of people for terrorism-related offenses, including some who are more dangerous than most GTMO detainees. Given my Administration’s relentless pursuit of al Qaeda’s leadership, there is no justification beyond politics for Congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should never have been opened.

Today, I once again call on Congress to lift the restrictions on detainee transfers from GTMO. I have asked the Department of Defense to designate a site in the United States where we can hold military commissions. I am appointing a new, senior envoy at the State Department and Defense Department whose sole responsibility will be to achieve the transfer of detainees to third countries. I am lifting the moratorium on detainee transfers to Yemen, so we can review them on a case by case basis. To the greatest extent possible, we will transfer detainees who have been cleared to go to other countries. Where appropriate, we will bring terrorists to justice in our courts and military justice system. And we will insist that judicial review be available for every detainee.

Even after we take these steps, one issue will remain: how to deal with those GTMO detainees who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks, but who cannot be prosecuted – for example because the evidence against them has been compromised or is inadmissible in a court of law. But once we commit to a process of closing GTMO, I am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved, consistent with our commitment to the rule of law.

I know the politics are hard. But history will cast a harsh judgment on this aspect of our fight against terrorism, and those of us who fail to end it. Imagine a future – ten years from now, or twenty years from now – when the United States of America is still holding people who have been charged with no crime on a piece of land that is not a part of our country. Look at the current situation, where we are force-feeding detainees who are holding a hunger strike. Is that who we are? Is that something that our Founders foresaw? Is that the America we want to leave to our children?

Our sense of justice is stronger than that. We have prosecuted scores of terrorists in our courts. That includes Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up an airplane over Detroit; and Faisal Shahzad, who put a car bomb in Times Square. It is in a court of law that we will try Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is accused of bombing the Boston Marathon. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, is as we speak serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison here, in the United States. In sentencing Reid, Judge William Young told him, “the way we treat you…is the measure of our own liberties.” He went on to point to the American flag that flew in the courtroom – “That flag,” he said, “will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag still stands for freedom.”

America, we have faced down dangers far greater than al Qaeda. By staying true to the values of our founding, and by using our constitutional compass, we have overcome slavery and Civil War; fascism and communism. In just these last few years as President, I have watched the American people bounce back from painful recession, mass shootings, and natural disasters like the recent tornados that devastated Oklahoma. These events were heartbreaking; they shook our communities to the core. But because of the resilience of the American people, these events could not come close to breaking us.

I think of Lauren Manning, the 9/11 survivor who had severe burns over 80 percent of her body, who said, “That’s my reality. I put a Band-Aid on it, literally, and I move on.”

I think of the New Yorkers who filled Times Square the day after an attempted car bomb as if nothing had happened.

I think of the proud Pakistani parents who, after their daughter was invited to the White House, wrote to us, “we have raised an American Muslim daughter to dream big and never give up because it does pay off.”

I think of the wounded warriors rebuilding their lives, and helping other vets to find jobs.

I think of the runner planning to do the 2014 Boston Marathon, who said, “Next year, you are going to have more people than ever. Determination is not something to be messed with.”

That’s who the American people are. Determined, and not to be messed with.

Now, we need a strategy – and a politics –that reflects this resilient spirit. Our victory against terrorism won’t be measured in a surrender ceremony on a battleship, or a statue being pulled to the ground. Victory will be measured in parents taking their kids to school; immigrants coming to our shores; fans taking in a ballgame; a veteran starting a business; a bustling city street. The quiet determination; that strength of character and bond of fellowship; that refutation of fear – that is both our sword and our shield. And long after the current messengers of hate have faded from the world’s memory, alongside the brutal despots, deranged madmen, and ruthless demagogues who litter history – the flag of the United States will still wave from small-town cemeteries, to national monuments, to distant outposts abroad.  And that flag will still stand for freedom.

Obama said today:

The best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American community – which has consistently rejected terrorism – to identify signs of radicalization, and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence.

A random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S. was conducted to measure the correlation between Sharia adherence and dogma calling for violence against non-believers.  Of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% had no violent texts at all.  Mosques that presented as Sharia adherent were more likely to feature violence-positive texts on site than were their non-Sharia-adherent counterparts.  In 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts.  The leadership at Sharia-adherent mosques was more likely to recommend that a worshipper study violence-positive texts than leadership at non-Sharia-adherent mosques.  Fifty-eight percent of the mosques invited guest imams known to promote violent jihad.  The leadership of mosques that featured violence-positive literature was more likely to invite guest imams who were known to promote violent jihad than was the leadership of mosques that did not feature violence-positive literature on mosque premises.

This is an Islamic pattern from Egypt to Indonesia to Malaysia across the Muslim world ...... "unidentified individuals" desecrated the church, broke windows and painted Allah on the walls. Who could it be?
Aren't you glad Clinton sent US troops into Bosnia to fight for the Muslims against the Christians? Speaking of Clinton's war, did you know that ethnically cleansed Sarajevo is now entirely Muslim? Yes, it is.

"Serbian Orthodox church in Sarajevo desecrated" In Serbia, May 22, 2013 (thanks to Filip)

SARAJEVO – Unidentified individuals desecrated the Serbian Orthodox church of Saint Sava in the Sarajevo neighbourhood of Blazuj, when they broke six windows panes and wrote improper messages. 

Priest Bojan Kulasevic of Blazuj stated that unidentified vandals wrote ‘Allah’ on two spots on the church wall using dark paint.

According to him, the local police have been notified about the incident and they carried out a preliminary investigation.

The church in Blazuj was targeted by an attack a month ago when vandals tried to set the entrance on fire in the night between April 21 and 22, the Radio Televizija Republike Srpske reported.

Video from The Sun. (trnscript thanks to Robert Spencer)

The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers. And this British soldier is one. It is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. By Allah, we swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. So what if we want to live by the Shari'a in Muslim lands? Why does that mean you must follow us and chase us and call us extremists and kill us? Rather you lot are extreme. You are the ones that when you drop a bomb you think it hits one person? Or rather your bomb wipes out a whole family? This is the reality. By Allah if I saw your mother today with a buggy I would help her up the stairs. This is my nature. But we are forced by the Qur'an, in Sura At-Tawba, through many ayah in the Qu'ran, we must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. I apologise that women had to witness this today but in our lands women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your governments, they don’t care about you. You think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? You think politicians are going to die? No, it’s going to be the average guy, like you and your children. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so can all live in peace. So leave our lands and we can all live in peace. That’s all I have to say. [in Arabic:] Allah’s peace and blessings be upon you.

Boris Johnson has said that the blame for the brutal murder of a soldier in Woolwich lies with the ‘warped mind-set’ of his killers. Johnson sounds like the one with the warped mindset. As one eyewitness who spoke with the jihadists after the slaughter of the soldier observed, “He was not high, he was not on drugs, he was not an alcoholic or drunk, he was just distressed, upset. He was in full control of his decisions and ready to do everything he wanted to do."

It takes a warped and deluded brain to deny reality in the face of reality. A is A.

This extraodinary dhimmitude will result in further bloodshed and jihad in the streets of England.

"Boris Johnson: Neither Islam nor UK foreign policy to blame for Woolwich attack" Metro May 23, 2013 (thanks to Van)

Boris Johnson has said the blame for the brutal murder of a soldier in Woolwich lies with the ‘warped mind-set’ of his killers.

The London mayor, arriving for a meeting of the government’s emergency Cobra committee chaired by prime minister David Cameron, said it was wrong to blame either Muslims or the presence of UK troops in Afghanistan for the attack.

One of the two suspects in yesterday’s killing made a series of political statements in the wake of the attack, while counterterrorism officers are waiting to question both men in hospital after they were shot by armed police.

‘One obvious point, it is completely wrong to blame this killing on Islam but also wrong to draw a link between this murder and British foreign policy,’ Mr Johnson said on Thursday morning.

The fault lies with the warped mind-set of those who did it and for the sake of the victim and his family the killers need to be brought to justice.’

The mayor also paid tribute to the bravery of the people in Woolwich after several women went to the aid of the victim as he lay prone in the street.

Urging Londoners to ‘go about their lives in the normal way’, he added: ‘People should take their cue from the people of Woolwich who showed such natural courage and stood up to those killers.’

Mr Johnson reiterated his call for people living in London to continue their day as usual, suggesting the government is treating the attack on Woolwich as an isolated incident.

After visiting the scene of the murder later, he thanked the police for their ‘excellent work’ and pledged to bring those accountable to justice.

The terrorism threat level in Britain remains ‘substantial’.

It took the keystone kops 20 minutes to get to the scene of the jihadist beheading. People need to know they are on their own. Be mindful of this, America, when they try to take down the second amendment.

The jihadists hacked at the soldier “like a piece of meat.”

“He was not high, he was not on drugs, he was not an alcoholic or drunk, he was just distressed, upset. He was in full control of his decisions and ready to everything he wanted to do.

Mum talked down Woolwich terrorists who told her: 'We want to start a war in London tonight' The Telegraph, May 23, 2013

Exclusive: A cub scout leader confronted terrorists just seconds after they had beheaded a soldier asking them to hand over their weapons and warning them: "It is only you versus many people, you are going to lose."

A mother-of-two described tonight how she put her own life on the line by trying to persuade the soldier’s murderers to hand over their weapons.

Cub scout leader Ingrid Loyau-Kennett selflessly engaged the terrorists in conversation and kept her nerve as one of them told her: “We want to start a war in London tonight.”

Mrs Loyau-Kennett, 48, from Cornwall, was one of the first people on the scene after the two Islamic extremists butchered a soldier in Woolwich, south east London.

She was photographed by onlookers confronting one of the attackers who was holding a bloodied knife.

^{Ingrid Loyau-Kennett}

Mrs Loyau-Kennett was a passenger on a number 53 bus which was travelling past the scene, and jumped off to check the soldier’s pulse.

“Being a cub leader I have my first aid so when I saw this guy on the floor I thought it was an accident then I saw the guy was dead and I could not feel any pulse.

“And then when I went up there was this black guy with a revolver and a kitchen knife, he had what looked like butcher’s tools and he had a little axe, to cut the bones, and two large knives and he said 'move off the body’.

“So I thought 'OK, I don’t know what is going on here’ and he was covered with blood. I thought I had better start talking to him before he starts attacking somebody else. I thought these people usually have a message so I said 'what do you want?’

“I asked him if he did it and he said yes and I said why? And he said because he has killed Muslim people in Muslim countries, he said he was a British soldier and I said really and he said 'I killed him because he killed Muslims and I am fed up with people killing Muslims in Afghanistan they have nothing to do there.”

^{Police cordon off the street after the attack in Woolwich (AFP/Getty Images)}

Moments earlier, the killers had hacked at the soldier “like a piece of meat”, and when Mrs Loyau-Kennett arrived on the scene they were roaming John Wilson Street waiting for police to arrive so they could stage a final confrontation with them.

She said: “I started to talk to him and I started to notice more weapons and the guy behind him with more weapons as well. By then, people had started to gather around. So I thought OK, I should keep him talking to me before he noticed everything around him.

“He was not high, he was not on drugs, he was not an alcoholic or drunk, he was just distressed, upset. He was in full control of his decisions and ready to everything he wanted to do.

I said 'right now it is only you versus many people, you are going to lose, what would you like to do?’ and he said I would like to stay and fight.”

The suspect in the black hat then went to speak to someone else and Mrs Loyau-Kennett tried to engage with the other man in the light coat.

^{Ingrid Loyau-Kennett confronts one of the attackers (@dannymckiernan)}

She said: “The other one was much shier and I went to him and I said 'well, what about you? Would you like to give me what you have in your hands?’ I did not want to say weapons but I thought it was better having them aimed on one person like me rather than everybody there, children were starting to leave school as well.

Mrs Loyau-Kennett was not the only woman to show extraordinary courage. Others shielded the soldier’s body as the killers stood over them.

MPs praised the “extraordinary bravery” of the women and raised concerns about why it took armed police 20 minutes to arrive at the scene while people’s lives were at risk.

According to a security source the delay in the armed police response is “particularly surprising” because there is a heavily armed police presence at Woolwich Crown Court, which is just two and a half miles away.

Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs select committee, said: “We are all grateful for the local people who responded so quickly.

“I do want to pay tribute to them [members of the public] – I think what they have done is extraordinarily brave and courageous.

“It shows the spirit of London that people are just not prepared to allow an attack of this kind. I pay tribute to what they have done.”

Patrick Mercer MP, a former army officer and former shadow counter terrorism minister, paid tribute to the people who shielded the body of the soldier.

He said: “This is courage of the highest order, it sounds as if these members of the public are not soldiers, not policemen, not people whose duties demand this, they are extremely courageous people and that courage deserves to be recognised at the highest level.”

Robert Buckland, a Conservative member of the justice select committee, said: “If it is the case [that police took 20 minutes to arrive] it is very worrying. If there was any unwarranted delay then that that needs to be investigated.”

One of the Muslims now being treated at a hospital in London was reportedly stopped as he attempted to leave the country for Somalia to join al Shaabab jihadists. Why wasn't he arrested then? Why was he allowed to bring the war to the streets of London?

Scotland Yard said, "We understand concern about the motivation and we will work tirelessly to uncover why this occurred and who was responsible. I understand people want answers, but I must stress we are in the early stages of investigations."

The UK jihadists who beheaded a British man wearing a 'Help for Heroes' t-shirt cited the quran as justification for their savagery. They were chanting 'allah' as they viciously beheaded this young man and hacked him to death.

Have the Scotland Yard clowns watched the video? They will work tirelessly to uncover the motive? Blood in the streets and still they try to delude the public.

'Woolwich Terror Murder Suspect Named' SKY.com, May 23, 2013

Police search a house in Lincolnshire as a former Greenwich Uni student is identified as a suspect in the killing of a soldier.

The two terror suspects being held under armed guard at hospitals in London were both known to security services, Government sources say.

The men - one of whom has been named as Michael Adeboloja - were arrested following the hacking to death of a serving soldier in the street in Woolwich, southeast London.

Sky's crime correspondent Martin Brunt said Adeboloja is a 28-year-old Londoner of Nigerian descent.

"He was born in Lambeth, grew up in east London. There are still members of his family living in the area.

"He was a student at Greenwich University, but it is not clear what he was studying there. Already on Facebook there are comments from former pupils saying that they went to school with him in east London."

Police carry out a fingertip search of the area

Police investigating the attack have been searching an address in Lincolnshire believed to be connected to Adeboloja.

Brunt added: "We believe it is his father's house that is being searched by Lincolnshire Police on behalf of counter-terrorism command at Scotland Yard."

Police were also at a house in Greenwich, according to sources.

Anjem Choudary, the former leader of banned Islamic group al Muhajiroun, said he knew one of the alleged attackers but had not seen him for about two years.

A message of condolence left at the scene

One of them was also reportedly stopped as he attempted to leave the country for Somalia to join al Shaabab militants.

Counter-terrorism officers are leading the investigation into the "shocking and horrific" murder and the Prime Minister has held talks with his top advisers to address potential security implications.

Relatives of the dead soldier are believed to have been informed and his identity is expected to be released later today.

A Facebook page in honour of the Woolwich victim has received around one million 'likes'.

Two suspected Muslim fanatics attacked the man in the street a short distance from the Royal Artillery Barracks after apparently knocking him down with their car.

Witnesses said they set about the soldier with a number of weapons, which appeared to include knives and a meat cleaver, while shouting the name of "Allah".

They apparently encouraged passers-by to video them. One of the alleged attackers was filmed wielding a bloodied meat cleaver, saying:  "We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

"I apologise that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don't care about you," he said.

In another clip, the man can be heard adding: "You think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start bussin' our guns? You think politicians are going to die?

"No it's going to be the average guy, like you, and your children.

"So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so you can all live in peace."

Armed officers arrived about 20 after the attack began and shot two suspects, with one in a serious condition. According to sources, one of the suspects is being treated in King's College Hospital, Camberwell.

Scotland Yard said on Thursday that officers were at the scene within nine minutes of receiving that first 999 call.

"Firearms officers were there and dealing with the incident 10 minutes after they were assigned, 14 minutes after the first call to the Met," Assistant Commissioner Simon Byrne said.

Scotland Yard's police commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, confirmed that the two men had been arrested.

"We understand concern about the motivation and we will work tirelessly to uncover why this occurred and who was responsible. I understand people want answers, but I must stress we are in the early stages of investigations," he said.

Extra officers were on duty in Woolwich overnight and security has been stepped up at military barracks across the capital.

Forensic officers were still on the scene on Thursday morning and the area remained cordoned off. The car used in the attack was taken away during the night.

After it became clear through eyewitness accounts that the attackers had political and religious motives, the Government held a so-called Cobra emergency response meeting, which was followed by another this morning.

Mr Cameron said afterwards: "The people who did this were trying to divide us. They should know something like this will only bring us together and make us stronger.

"One of the best ways of defeating terrorism is to go about our normal lives."

Muslims are waging jihad in Myanmar. Buddhists are fighting back. So of course Obama has to back the jihadists. But he never has a word about the Muslim genocide of Christians in the Mideast or Africa.  Obviously, he is not on our side.

Don't buy the Muslim myth of victimhood in Burma. It's the same there as it is everywhere. Jihad.

"The term Rohingya is never known to history, nor it is ever recorded in the official documents as the designation of a Muslim coterie in Rakhaing, ostensibly cross-bred by Arab castaways. It is only a belied term employed by the alien Muslim separatists, with the object of advancing a legal claim to ethnic grouping of the Union of Burma. The Imperialist British, who ruled the Indian Empire, named them Chittagonians after the Chittagong District of East Bengal, where from they originated. The term Rohingya, therefore, is synonym of alien Chittagonian separatists or jihadist Mujtahid." -- The Rohingya Hoax (thanks to Larry)

Obama urges Myanmar to stop violence against Muslims Reuters, May 20, 2013

 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama urged the president of Myanmar on Monday to halt violence against a Muslim minority but praised economic and political reforms in the formerly pariah nation that is emerging as a U.S. ally in China's backyard.

During the first visit to the White House in 47 years by a leader of the Southeast Asian nation, Obama called for an end to the killings of Rohingya Muslims in western Myanmar's Rakhine state.

Reformist Myanmar President Thein Sein vowed to resolve ethnic conflicts and bring perpetrators to justice.

"I also shared with President Sein our deep concern about communal violence that has been directed at Muslim communities inside Myanmar. The displacement of people, the violence directed towards them needs to stop," Obama said.

At least 192 people died last year in violence between Buddhists in Rakhine and Rohingya Muslims, who are denied citizenship by Myanmar. Most of the victims, and the 140,000 people made homeless in the attacks, were Muslims.

As the Myanmar government eases repression, long-simmering ethnic tensions are on the boil - a dynamic that resembles what happened when multi-ethnic Yugoslavia fractured in the 1990s after communism fell.

Thein Sein appealed for U.S. "assistance and understanding" as Myanmar attempts difficult reforms.

Obama said the Myanmar leader had assured him that he intends to release more political prisoners and institutionalize political reforms that have already begun transforming the country and ending its estrangement from the West.

Rights groups and some U.S. lawmakers fear Obama has moved too quickly since forging a dramatic breakthrough in relations in 2011 after a half century of military rule in Myanmar.

U.S. officials argue that reforms by Myanmar - freeing democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi and hundreds of political prisoners, scrapping censorship, legalizing trade unions and protests - are transformative and deserve support from Obama, who confirmed the end of Myanmar's pariah status with the West with a landmark visit last November.

"What has allowed this shift in relations is the leadership that President Sein has shown in moving Myanmar down a path of both political and economic reform," Obama said in the Oval Office.

Even critics in Congress of Obama's Myanmar policy support the U.S. strategic goal of bringing Myanmar, tucked between China and India, out of its isolation from the West.

The long U.S.-Myanmar estrangement was a drag on America's relations with ASEAN, the 10-nation Southeast Asian regional grouping that looks to Washington as a counterbalance to the more assertive China of recent years.

I will be appearing on Curtis Sliwa Live on AM 970 at 8:25 am to discuss the Muslims' bloody beheading of a soldier on the streets of a suburb in the UK yesterday.