A good read on the terrorist's "He said the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and one of its splinter groups, the Islamic Jihad Union, both have recruited Chechen, Turks and other non-Arab Muslims to fight with them against U.S. forces in Afghanistan. According to Kohlmann, both of these groups are based in the Waziristan tribal area of Pakistan, "and these groups can be just as radical as anything al-Qaeda puts out."

"They have a strong animus against the United States," Kohlmann said.

But he cautioned against making any assumption at this point that the bombing suspects were recruited and/or trained by foreign terror organizations.

"What happened (in Boston) is within the capability of two relatively sophisticated, homegrown individuals," Kohlmann said. "These two people seem to have come out of nowhere."

David Schanzer, a terrorism expert at Duke University, said the attack appeared to be "homegrown" and that the suspects appear unsophisticated and without ties to or training from international terrorist groups.

"The fact that they needed to rob an ATM to get money (suggests) they didn't get large amount of outside funding. They had no escape plan to leave the country," Schanzer said. "These are hallmarks of people who are not particularly sophisticated. I don't see this as a highly planned plot. They seemed to be making this up as they go along."

Several links have been identified between Chechen guerrillas and al-Qaeda, according to an analysis by the Council on Foreign Relations.

Despite the two suspects' apparent affinity for the Chechen cause, anti-separatist Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov said there was no link between his country and Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the two brothers suspected of the Boston bombings.

"We don't know the Tsarnaevs, they did not live in Chechnya. They lived and studied in America," Kadyrov said Friday. "It has become habitual, everything that is happening in the world is connected to Chechens. Blame the Chechens."

Kohlmann sent a post on his Twitter feed Friday that the official arm of the Chechen mujahedin has denied any connection between them and the Boston suspects.

Ruslan Tsarni of Montgomery Village, Md., the uncle of the two brothers, said the family was ethnic Chechen.

Author Kimberly Marten, who researched Chechnya for her recent book, Warlords Strong-Arm Brokers in Weak States, cautioned Friday against concluding that the Boston attack was an act of terror.

"We shouldn't assume... there's a political motive behind the bombing," said Marten, who's a political science professor at Barnard College in New York City and director of Columbia University's Harriman Institute.

Most of the Chechens' acts have come in Chechnya, Russia or neighboring republics.

Among the most shocking acts of violence was an attack in the neighboring republic of North Ossetia in 2004, where militants seized a school and, in the three-day siege that followed, more than 300 were killed, most of them children.

The attack was ordered by Chechen separatist leader Shamil Basayev, who was himself killed in a 2006 bombing believed to have been conducted by Russian internal security forces.
Militants from Chechnya and other restive regions have targeted Moscow and other areas with bombings and hostage-takings for more than 20 years. The republic is predominantly Muslim and has waged two wars with Russian security forces since the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991.

p******** Vladimir Putin has often stressed that al-Qaeda is linked with Chechen fighters. According to the Council on Foreign Relations analysis, a Chechen warlord is said to have met with Osama bin Laden while both were fighting against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan from 1979-89.

Authorities have also found links between Chechen separatists and other Islamist terrorist groups. The U.S. Justice Department said in a 2004 report that Zacharias Moussaoui, who was convicted for his role in the 9/11 attacks, had previously sought to recruit at least one man to fight in Chechnya. Intelligence officials in France had warned the FBI of Moussaoui's connection to the Chechen fighters.

An online jihadist, "Abu Sulaiman al-Nasser," boasted Friday that the Tsarnaev brothers "made the streets of America just like the streets of Afghanistan."

Violence dates back to the years after World War II when the Soviet leader Josef Stalin crushed a revolt there during the Nazi invasion and in 1944 deported the entire Chechen population to Siberia and Kazakhstan. They were allowed to return to their homeland in 1957.

Shortly after the Soviet Union's collapse, Chechnya declared independence from Russia, a move that eventually led to war from 1994-1996 when tens of thousands died and Russian regained control of the republic.

The Tsarnaev family reportedly fled Chechnya for nearby Kazakhstan and, later, the United States.

Fighting broke out in Chechnya again in 2000 when Russian forces destroyed much of the republic's capital city of Grozny in a bid to crush resistance. With the killing of key militant leaders, the separatist movement has been quelled, although violence in the region continues.

Chechen militants have committed sporadic large-scale attacks in Russia since the 1990s. In March 2010, Chechen terrorists claimed responsibility for bombings on the Moscow subway system that killed more than 40 people. In June 2010, the State Department added Chechen rebel Doku Umarov, who claimed responsibility for the March subway attack, to its terrorist list and froze his assets.

A 2008 report by the Congressional Research Service said in 2007 Russian security forces ran 850 sweeps through Chechnya that involved surrounding entire villages and searching every house. "Critics of the operations allege that the troops frequently engage in pillaging and gratuitous violence and are responsible for kidnappings for ransom and 'disappearances' of civilians,' " the report said.

Of the region's almost 1.3 million residents, ethnic Chechens make up about 95%, according to Russian government statistics. The rest are a combination of ethnic Russians and other ethnic groups from nearby countries and regions"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/apr/02/swat-valley-flogging
Mmmm diversity !! This is what is coming to a Country near you.

A video showing a teenage girl being flogged by Taliban fighters has emerged from the Swat Valley in Pakistan, offering a shocking glimpse of militant brutality in the once-peaceful district, and a sign of Taliban influence spreading deeper into the country.

The two-minute video, shot using a mobile phone, shows a burka-clad woman face down on the ground. Two men hold her arms and feet while a third, a black-turbaned fighter with a flowing beard, whips her repeatedly.

"Please stop it," she begs, alternately whimpering or screaming in pain with each blow to the backside. "Either kill me or stop it now."

A crowd of men stands by, watching silently. Off camera a voice issues instructions. "Hold her legs tightly," he says as she squirms and yelps.

Ok really? Mods are just going around 404'ing anything at this point. Normal porn and stuff that is like middle aged chick talking dirty into a cam got 404'ed. If you want to destroy ML just take it down you don't have to bore and annoy people to death to kill ML. Ether you have some really pissed off militant lesbian members of NoW as mods or the feds have come in a told you to hand over site control for content fishing. Ether way, you are killing your cash cow.

Saw this on another website and thought it would be of interest here.

Twitter and Facebook aside, groups of young blacks who violently harass whites and Asians (�flash mobs�) are hardly new. In the 1960s this was called �wilding,� and for over a decade New York City subways (and probably much public transportation elsewhere) became almost unusable thanks to black teenagers who moved from car to car terrorizing hapless white riders.

Nevertheless, today�s flash mobs (for a listing of attacks, see http://violentflashmobs.com/) are disturbing beyond the immediate violence. In the context of contemporary race relations, this growing epidemic of anti-white mayhem was not supposed to happen. Blacks attacking whites because they are white represents an abrogation of a decades-long treaty between whites and blacks. Not a treaty in the formal sense, but an �understanding� that might as well be a legal contract. Let me explain.

The 1960s saw widespread black violence, much of it explicitly anti-white. This ranged from week-long urban riots to individual blacks killing or raping whites opportunistically. Many victims were chosen only because of race. The government�s response was both enhanced policing and, of the utmost relevance, today�s racial spoils system: affirmative action, set asides, massive anti-poverty spending, Justice Department decrees to help blacks get elected, dumbed down civil service standards, easy home mortgages and sundry other �help blacks� programs. You can also add race-driven political correctness: banning �offensive� words (e.g., colored), exaggerating the role of blacks in American history, glowing media portrayals, downplaying black-on-white violent crime, and everything else designed to massage black egos. And for good measure, add hate crime laws, speech codes, and draconian punishment for those who spoke the truth on race. This is the price white America now pays for public safety.

The Treaty�s aim was to stop the underclass from running wild by creating a black middle class who would, it was assumed, keep a lid on things out of economic self-interest. A newly appointed affirmative-action $125,000-a-year black school principal might not boost test scores but he would not encourage pupils to seek economic justice �by any means necessary.� Better to have potential rabble-rousers toiling as corporate vice-p********s for diversity than stirring up the brothers.

Endless failed policies have not undermined the Treaty. In education, for example, Head Start and school meals funding is still growing despite disappointing outcomes. Armies of support staff now fill largely black schools even though academic performance remains unchanged. Clearly, this lavishness can be understood only as a pay-off to sustain racial peace.

The Treaty is sacrosanct across the ideological spectrum, and even admitting its existence is verboten. Nobody dare ask, for example, if all the affirmative action hires or government set-a-sides that guarantee domestic tranquility actually yield economic benefits. No struggling black university student worries that flunking out will endanger affirmative action; a dreadful drop-out rate will only bring more government largess.

Since the 1960s, with scant exceptions, this pay-off has been amazingly successful. Once common �race war� rhetoric (burn baby burn, the fire next time etc.) has virtually vanished. Urban riots have gone from once a week to once a decade. Black militancy has largely reverted to its pre-1960s form of litigation and legislative demands. White mayors no longer walk the streets to keep the peace during the �long hot summer� or plead for Washington money so they can hire community-activist firebrands. Yes, black crime persists, black-run cities like Newark and Detroit sink into Third-World depravity, and whites are sometimes the victims of black crime, but 1960s style anti-white mayhem (and revolutionary oratory) has, at least until very recently, almost vanished.

The key question is whether these flash mobs are the first inklings of a soon-to-be broken Treaty (recall how the �Arab Spring� began with a single, seemingly innocuous incident). It is not inconceivable that America could return to 1960s-style racial upheaval. It is this possibility, not the criminality per se, that makes proliferating flash mobs especially frightening. Aggressive policing in response could prompt a vintage urban riot, and rioting is often contagious. Fiscal cutbacks might end millions of government �make work� jobs for blacks, and many of the slots blacks used to fill are now taken by Hispanic immigrants. Our former $125,000-a-year principal will no longer have an incentive to keep the peace.

Keep in mind that no black under the age of 40 remembers the pre-Treaty days, a world without the lucrative spoils system and ego-enhancing PC. For them, all the keep-the-peace benefits bestowed by a white-dominated government are normal, a justly deserved arrangement with no expiration date.

Can anything be done if matters begin reverting to pre-Treaty days? Probably not much beyond more aggressive policing, a risky tactic that might exacerbate violence. The Treaty cannot be amended to provide even more benefits for blacks. Pressuring American firms to hire more unqualified African Americans or upping the penalties for alleged racial discrimination will just push businesses to North Dakota or Asia. It is hard to imagine America becoming even more PC on race. Admitting more unqualified blacks to colleges would just boost the drop-out rate. And forget about more generous welfare at a time when cities and states already have budget shortfalls. If anything, the tide seems to be turning to renegotiate the Treaty to cut benefits for blacks. State bans on racial preferences�never legislated by elected representatives but forced on them by voters�are a good example of how ordinary people are thinking.

In short, the Treaty may be expiring but the spoils system�even if the benefits are a little leaner�is probably forever.

Mr. Kay is a retired academic finally free to speak his mind.

(Posted on August 5, 2011)