Thursday, August 31, 2006

The Sudan defies the UN on Darfur.. and backs it up with bullets

Aerial view of Darfur attack

As I reported here, President Bush sent Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Jendayi Frazer to Sudan to meet with the Sudan's president Omar Hassan al-Bashir in Khartoum to try and convince him to accept a UN peacekeeping force to stop the government backed Arab militias from perpetrating the jihad massacre in Darfur on Black Christians.

it was a waste of time, in spite of the usual diplospeak on the part of Frazer.

Secretary Frazer was met by massive government organized demonstrations at the airport telling her to go home - and worse. And President al-Bashir actually avoided her for the entire first day of hervisit, and then briefly met with her before adamantly stonewalling her request for the Sudan's cooperation.

Today, ater a certain amount of the usual wrangling, the UN voted to establish the UN peacekeeping force. Not suprisingly, when the UN voted there were three abstentions, from Russia, China and Qatar, the Arab member on the council.

The Sudan rejected the U.N. resolution, which was watered down to give the UN permission to establish the peacekeeping force in Darfur on condition that the government in Khartoum gives its consent.

Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir chaired a meeting of the ruling National Congress party leadership which rejected the resolution.

"The Sudanese people will not consent to any resolution that will violate its sovereignty," President al-Bashir said in a released statement.

The statement said it regarded the approval of the resolution as "unjustifiable hostility against Sudan." It called on the Sudanese people to "strengthen further their cohesion and ranks and prepare to face any development."

To add urgency, it appears that the fears of the Black seperatist movement in Darfur about the Government planning an assault to wip them out were correct. Just prior to the vote, they reported being attacked by Sudanese planes and troops in a new offensive that the Sudanese government began just as Secretary Frazer was meeting with Sudan's President Bashir. Sudanese government forces attacked and occupied Kulkul about 35 km (22 miles) north of Darfur's main town, el-Fasher.

"Government forces have moved north of Kulkul with about 90 vehicles and are attacking the area of Um Sifir, bombing with Antonov planes," said Jar el-Neby, a rebel leader, quoted in ABC news.

Sudan will never allow anything or anyone to stand in the way of the jihad on Darfur unless they are stopped by force.

The best thing we could do would be to airlift arms to the people in Darfur they can defend themselves. And we should do it N O W.

Thes epeople have nothing but rape, enslavement and murder facing them. But if they succeed in defending themselves, they stall the jihad in East Africa, and strengthen the anti-Jihad forces there. And we might just end up with an oil producing, non-Muslim ally.

After all of the wasted billions we've spent chasing the mythical `Arab Democracy' and trying to bribe the hearts and minds of people who are going to hate us regardless, it's time we put some money and metal where it could actually benefit America.

This is, yet again, an opportunity for the US to combat jihad on the ground...will we take it?

Stay tuned...

Common sense from Bill Maher - of all people

I find Bill Maher's sarcastic, Leftist condescension pretty wearing for the most part, but where credit is due. Seen and heard on Larry King, last Monday night:

KING: What did you make of the whole Middle East thing about Hezbollah?

MAHER: Well, I wrote a -- we were just talking about Arianna in the back. I wrote a little blog for Arianna about that because it was her birthday, you know. I'm not a big blogger but when it's her birthday you can't turn her down. And I was saying that to me, you know, the world is Mel Gibson because the world is anti-Semitic.

KING: The world?

MAHER: Absolutely and the proof of that is that they ask Israel to maintain a level of restraint when they're attacked that no other country would ever be asked to uphold.

I mean can you imagine if there was a terrorist organization that took over the country on our northern border, which would be Canada, and they started shelling us in our northern cities and Minnesota and Bangor, Maine was being shelled, what do you think George Bush would do?

I think he would nuke them before breakfast. And, look, you know I don't like George Bush but he is the best president we've ever had on Israel because for some reason he gets that....

I had Spike Lee on Friday night and I was saying, you know, when you see Katrina a year later these people can't get help. A day after the war ended there is Hezbollah handing out and peeling off hundred dollar bills, American, U.S. currency, hundred dollar bills.

KING: Where did it come from, Iran?

MAHER: Where did it come from? It came from U.S. consumers buying gasoline. I wish someone would do a little tape where they would morph that, morph the guy at the pump paying for his gasoline here in America into the Hezbollah guy peeling off those hundred dollar bills. Yes, we buy gasoline. It does to Iran because they sell us the oil. They get the money to Hezbollah. Hezbollah shells Israel. It's a continuum.

So, you know, I feel really bad for Lebanon. I'm sorry you got your country all bombed up. But, you know, when you let a terrorist organization take over your country that's what's going to happen. I'll tell you two Arab countries that never get bombed, Egypt and Jordan, because they made a peace treaty with Israel. Try it.

Way huge shout out to my homie Patrick at Clarity & Resolve.

Iran tells the UN to go pound sand on UNSC deadline

Ahmadinejad made it official again today, to mark the offical Security Council deadline of August 31: Iran is not going to stop its nuclear program regardless, and Ahmadinejad essentially told the UN,`take your best shot.'

"They [the West] should know that the Iranian nation will not yield to pressure and will not accept any violation of its rights," Ahmadinejad told a large crowd in Orumiyeh in northwestern Iran. "Arrogant powers want to stop our nation's progress... I am telling them that they are wrong...Iran will not back down an inch... and will not accept being deprived of its rights."

Ahmadinejad also had a few things to say about the threat of sanctions.

".. many of our successes, including access to the nuclear fuel cycle and production of heavy water, have been achieved under sanctions. It would be better for the European countries to make decisions independently and settle the issue through negotiations."

How much plainer could he make it? Ahmadinejad and his mullah bosses know damn well that sanctions aren't going to happen, and even if they do they will be meaningless.

Russia and China have already stated that they will not support sanctions, and even some of the Western Europeans are wavering.

The French, predictably, were first to start weaseling. The French foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, said in Paris today that Iran’s response was “not satisfactory” but warned that it would be worse "to lend fire to a confrontation between Iran on one side —- the Muslim world with Iran — and the West." At least Douste-Blazy apparently realizes that this is a war between the Muslim world and the West, even if he doesn't want to actually do anything about it.

The Italians also are wavering, Italy’s Leftist Foreign Minister Massimo D’Alema said in response to Ahmadinejad's statements "If Iran is looking to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, it is not only legitimate, but can also clear the way for cooperation."

Here's a little clue for those who think that an Iranian nuclear program is no big deal, and that they might really just be using it for `civilian purposes' after all.The difference between a civilian nuclear program and a military nuclear program have nothing to do with different design or equipment. It simply depends on what the output's used for. Iran’s military is already in firm control of the Iranian nuclear program, the regime has already threatened to destroy a neighboring country and is involved in proxy hostilities in Lebanon and Iraq, all of which are pretty clear indicators of Iran's aggressive intentions.

And since all this is true, what we're really talking about - and what no one wants to mention - is the issue of trusting the good intentions of a nation that had a clandestine nuclear program for years and is the world’s premiere state sponsor of Islamic terrorism.

And by the way, that sponsorship of terorism is another very good reasson to make sure by whatever means that these fascists never get within spitting distance of dangerous toys like nuclear weapons.

Maybe D'Alema and his ideological soulmates feel like trusting the mullah's good intentions, but frankly, my mother didn't raise any dumb children.

So now, the diplomatic danse macabre begins all over again, with more endless rounds of debate and diplomatic no purpose whatsoever.

I will repeat this again and again - a confrontation with Iran is inevitable, and the longer we put it off the more costly it will be.

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Bush Administration freezes assets of Hezbollah `charity' inthe US

Yesterday, the Treasury Department moved against the Islamic Resistance Support Organization, a key Hezbollah fund raising organization in the USA, ordering a freeze on its assets in the United States and making it illegal for Americans to contribute to the `charity'.

The Treasury Department released copies of a receipt issued by the group to a donor, which on the back listed projects such as "collection box project for the children and homes," "contribution to the cost of a rocket" and "contribution to the cost of bullets." The donor, whose name was redacted, used ink to signal his interest in helping fund a rocket.

(By the way...this is like the illegal al Manar television subscription list I reported on here . We have the names and presumably the addresses of these people. What action is being taken against these `loyal Americans' who contributed to a jihadist organization like Hezbollah with American blood on its hands?)

During the war with Israel, Hezbollah launched about 4,000 rockets deliberately targeted at civilian areas, killing more than three dozen civilians and wounding hundreds.

"Hezbollah projects an image as a humanitarian organization," said Stuart Levey, Treasury's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence. "This puts the lie to that image. This shows there is no separation, and they raise money for social services and also raise money for terrorism."

One brochure put out by the group showed coins going into a mosque, made to look like the al Aksa mosque in Jerusalem, and emerging as rockets aimed at a battered Star of David. The group primarily raises money from Shiite communities in the Persian Gulf but has also raised money in the Detroit area.Dearbornistan strikes again, for sure...

It's been tough for the US to cut off funds for Hezbollah the way they've done for Hamas. For one thing, Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, and any aid we give that particular `Arab democracy' gets partly siphoned off by Hezbollah..which is one great argument for not giving Lebanon a penny, at least until Hezbollah is disarmed.

Another problem, of course is Europe, which loves Hezbollah, does not classify them as terrorists and considers them just another political party - especially when they're murdering Israelis.

Frankly, I find it difficult to understand the logic behind the US government freezing the assets and prohibiting money from going to Hezbollah from the Islamic Resistance Support Organization on the one hand and then giving $230 million dollars to Lebanon with the other, money that Hezbollah will assuredly get a piece of.

What was that again that a certain president said about not giving aid to countries that harbor terrorists?


Mini jihad in San Francisco?

The MSM is bending over backwards to avoid mentioning it, but we may have had a mini-jihad attack committed in San Francisco.

Yesterday,a driver took his SUV and deliberately targeted pedestrians in San Francisco, injuring 15 people and killing one....and referred to himself as a `terrorist.'

Omeed Aziz Popal, 29, of Fremont, was taken into custody on suspicion of 14 counts of attempted murder and one count of willful flight after causing serious injury or death.

According to San Francisco police Sgt. Neville Gittens, "In some cases he drove on the sidewalk, in some cases he drove on the street. He aimed at people in the crosswalk...This happened pretty quickly. We're talking about a span of about 20 minutes."

Eventually, the San Francisco police finally boxed the SUV in with their cruisers in the city's Laurel Heights district...right in front of the Jewish Community Center (Laurel Heights, where most of the rampage occurred is a largely Jewish area of San Francisco).

Gittens said the suspect "made some comments" to officers as he was arrested, but he did not elaborate.

In this video, courtesy of lgf ,you can watch Watch as KTVU reporter Rob Roth says a witness heard the suspect refer to himself as a terrorist, and then editorializes and tells his audience, `this was not an act of terrorism.'

What's fascinating is that we continually have these incidents happening to the point where it's become commonplace,which all seem to involve members of the `Religion of Peace' committing violence against non-Muslims (usually Jews) and yet we're supposed to believe that it's always some whacked out loner without an axe to grind or a jihad ot wage..


Watcher's council nominations, 8/30/06

Every week, the Watcher's Council nominate two posts each, one from the Council members and one from outside for consideration by the whole Council. The complete list of this week’s Council nominations can be found at our fearless leader's site Watcher of Weasels

Some great stuff this week:

1.J O S H U A P U N D I T: Meanwhile, in Darfur.... Anybody remember Darfur? With all the hysterical bleating by the Muslim world and their apologists about `Islamophobia', you ever here `em say squat about the Muslim genocide in the Sudan? Just like with Iran, we are playing silly games in the UN that will NEVER yield any rsults as long as the Islamist govenment inthe Sudan has oil to sell. I amke the point that rather than doing this, we should be dropping arms to the Black Christians in Darfur so they can defend themselves against certain genocide.

It's high time we started helping the anti-Jihad forces inplaces like East Africa and Kurdistan instead of giving millions in aid to people that hate us in the hope of `influencing hearts and minds' any reasonable person expects that to trump tribalism and jihad! OK , rant over.

2. Gates of Vienna: Empire and Apocalypse More detail on last week's post on the idea of the nation/state being a western concept and thus foreign to Islam, where the loyalties are tribal and to the Muslim umma. And more on why the Europeans don't get it and are in danger of having some of their countries subjected to the `Peace of Islam.'

I did disagree with this one part: "They demand a Shari’ah existence in a democratic environment; it’s never going to happen. Nor will their demands for unequal treatment meet with eventual success..... In the long run, however, Islam’s run-in with modernity will mean the end of the current fantasy that fanatical Islam rehearses repeatedly."

They are not demanding a seperate sharia existence in a `democratic environment'IMO, Dymphna..whatthey want is a sharia existence for ALL of us, willing or no. And I wouldn't count myself on the fantasies Islam nourishes itself on disappearing with modernity..the jihadis are willing to use the TOOLS of modernity to establish the New Caliphate, but not its mindset or essence.

Killah piece.

3.Done With Mirrors: Read it and weep Callimachus considers the press coverage of a certain Sneator McCain and how the MSM tries to have things both ways at once.

4. ShrinkWrapped: "Root Causes" and Other Nonsense That Shrinkwrapped is one sneaky lil' so and so. He starts out with a seemingly mundane story on changes British shoplifting laws to reflect the Leftist idea of `root causes' to eliminate the culpability of the thief...and then comes the zinger as he relates it to the typical Leftist cant of terrorism, AKA `you have to understand their rage..' A fine job by ShrinkWrapped.

5. AbbaGav - Say Anything Abbagav does a fine, angry job of taking apart the cynical methodology of the MSM in allowing themselves to be used by Islamic fascists. He's right, of course, especially when it comes to Israel..and here's an old joke to prove it, chaver..

6. Right Wing Nut House : SAVE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE! Rick Moran doies a great job of explaining the electoral college and why it's important. Y'know, back in 2000 the Democrats wanted to eliminate itbecause gore won the popular vote. In 2004, back when they thought Kerry was going to pull some extra votes out of the Cleveland Democratic machine in Ohio, they were touting it's `traditional American value'. Now, anticipating 2008, it looks like they want to try and torpedo it again!

7. The Sundries Shack : Cutting the Biased Some Slack Jimmie Bise takes on someone who has consistently been one of the most wrongheaded and flat out mistaken columnists in America..the WAPO's David Ignatious. I still remember almost falling off my chair when this buffoon pontificated right before the G-8 conference in St. Petersburg on how Putin was going to help Bush with Iran! Here, he write about Ignatious kissing up to al Jazeera..sheesh!

8.Rhymes With Right: Valid Pedagogical Purpose – Poor Pedagogical Methodology Greg presents a fine examination of the story of that middle school teacher’s use of flag burning as an illustration in a Constitution class.

9. The Glittering Eye: Fearmongering? Or oversight? Dave parses the House Intelligence Committee's report on the strategic threat posed by Iran.

10. Soccer Dad: Targeted killings, moral consideration An interesting piece by Soccer Dad on the moral implications of so-called `targeted killings'.
Personally, while I think it's important to avoid civilian casualties, these people are murderers who surround themselves with civilians and I think it's better to get the job done quickly. As AbbaGav points out, Israel is never going to get a fair shake in the MSM anyway, no matter what..I mean, after the murderous Sheik Yassin was finally incinerated, the MSM STILL referred to him as Hamas' `spiritual leader'. Given a choice between the opinion of the international community and the biblical injunctions about Amalek and rising up early to slay one who comes to slay you, I think the Torah has the right slant on this and makes more sense when it comes to people like that. Call me a primitive, I know...

11.Pluto struck down as unconstitutional : Socratic Rhythm Method Matt writes about the demotion of Pluto to a secondary status and uses a piece by Mark Graber as a take off point.

12.The Education Wonks: Flag Flapped In Colorado More flag stuff from EdWonk! This time it's a teacher `reassigned' for displaying the UN, Chinese and Mexican flags on equal level and right next to Old Glory..which probably says something about his politics....I say fire his posterior.

Kofi leaves Israel and Lebanon empty handed

Kofi Annan and the UN are the Rodney Dangerfield of international relations, who get no respect...except their material isn't nearly as funny.

First, the UN Secretary general trucked over to Lebanon to do some photo-ops in the rubble of the Hezbollah strongholds subjected to a forced `remodeling' courtesy of the IDF, and then he huddled with Lebanese prime Minister Siniora to say that, yes, he wanted Resolution 1701 enforced and Hezbollah to be disarmed...without providing any framework or any assistance from the new UNIFIL forces to do it! Then, he asked for news of the two Israeli hostages and said that they should be turned over to the Red Cross.

Hezboallah and Siniora told Kofi to go pound some sand, on all counts...and wouldn't even provide any proof that the hostages are still alive.

Next, Annan went to Israel to tell the Israelis that they needed to immediately end the blockade of Lebanon before the arms embargo to Hezbollah mandated by 1701 is enforced and to pull back the IDF before the new UNIFIL forces moved in. At which point Olmert likewise turned him down on all counts.

I can't imagine what Annan thought he was doing, unless he expected that either Hezbollah or more likely, the Israelis would be stupid enough to be impressed by him and follow his orders.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

A special inteview with Steve Emerson

For those of you who don't know, Steve Emerson is one of the foremost experts we have in the United States on Islamic terrorism. He's the executive director of the Investigative Project, the largest intelligence and data gathering organization in the world on Islamic terrorism. He's also a prize winning investigative reporter who won an award for his PBS documentary `Jihad in America' and is the author of a number of must-read books like `American Jihad'.

He's also the been the recipient of a number of death threats and fatwas..hence, no picture of him with this article.

Here, he's interviewed in the June 2006 issue of Journal of Counterterrorism

Long time Joshua's Army member Joyce Chernick get's a way huge shout out for bringing this to my attention.

IACSP JCT Interviews

A Special Interview with Steve Emerson

JCT: You've been doing terrorism research for 12 years now. What drives you to work the hours you do?

Emerson: Look, I'll be honest with you, I would rather not be eating at midnight over my keyboard. But when I think about other things that I could be doing, and for a lot more money, there is nothing that compares with the satisfaction that this job brings. Yes, there is also the instinctive thrill of the chase-for example, uncovering hidden terrorist assets and secret terrorist connections-- that still energizes me from the days that I used to be an investigative reporter.

I have met dozens of families who have lost their children in terrorist attacks for whom life will always be a function of grieving. They need a voice and, for them, I can play some small role. I am grateful for the opportunity.

I also draw inspiration from the incredible dedication of government officials who don't get public recognition for their hard work. FBI agents, Justice Department prosecutors, local police, and Treasury analysts are some of the faceless members of the government who understand what this war is all about.

JCT: And what would you say this war is all about?

Emerson: Well, it is not just a war on terrorism. That's like saying World War II was a war against submarines. There is a particular enemy who seeks to kill Americans and westerners and impose its theological totalitarianism on countries with Muslim populations. That enemy is militant Islamic fundamentalism. It is rooted in theological doctrine-and the West makes a big mistake claiming that radicals have "hijacked" a religion or that they have perverted the meaning of "jihad." While genuine moderates certainly exist, and while jihad can mean spiritual struggle to some, the stark reality is that jihadists have been in control of Muslim hierarchies and religious institutions throughout the Muslim world, and for that matter, many Muslim institutions in the West.

When we sanitize the concept of jihad, or when we simply call the war we are fighting a "war on terrorism" instead of calling it a war on Islamic extremism, we are only playing into the hands of the savvy Islamic fundamentalist apologists by essentially rendering the attacks by radical Islam to be devoid of a motive. There is clearly a religious motive behind the suicide bombings in Israel, the bombings on the London and Madrid transport systems and Bali clubs, and the attacks of 9-11. That motive is the belief by some that their version of Islam can be imposed or that they are entitled to attack their "enemies" who block their imposition of Islam. It is that totalitarianism that empowers Islamic terrorists to carry out their attacks.

JCT: So is it a war against Islamic terrorism or a war against radical Islam?

Emerson: It is both. We need to be fighting those would kill us, but we also need to be fighting the parental ideology and leadership that sanction these attacks. Islamic terrorists are subsumed under the larger body of radical Islamic religious and political leaders, who not only provide the justification for attacks, but who also provide the religious rationale for rules that subjugate women to second class status, for honor crimes in which young women are executed by their brothers and fathers, for the rights of husbands to beat their wives, and for throwing acid in the faces of secularized Muslim women if they do not cover-i.e., wear a hijab-as has happened in Gaza and Algeria. Additionally, Christians in the Muslim world are routinely persecuted.

Frankly, focusing on the Islamic terrorists who are targeting us is the easiest part of explaining what the war is about. No, not easy in terms of actual fighting, but it is easy in terms of understanding who the enemy is. It is more difficult to understand that we are fighting the larger force of Islamic fundamentalism, of which Islamic terrorism is but one tool. Aside from the treatment of women, there is the unremitting virulent hatred expressed towards Christians, Jews and Hindus in many Islamic text books, in many mosque sermons, on the airwaves, and on the internet - to "educate" both children and adults. And perhaps most difficult to understand in an open pluralist society are the related assiduous efforts made by Islamic fundamentalists in the West who insinuate themselves into positions of authority, intimidate us into accepting their version of reality and who advance an unspoken agenda that has totalitarian goals - all to acquire political influence.

These actions are exactly from the playbook of the Muslim Brotherhood. We in the West are supremely naive in accepting their sincerity.

JCT: What is their agenda?

Emerson: Ultimately, it's about conquering the West and imposing their interpretation of Islam. Oh, I am not worried that the US is going to become part of a Caliphate. But I am worried that we are being intimidated, by either implicit threats of violence or by false charges of racism, into compromising our beliefs and values. Nowhere was this more evident than in the confrontation over the Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. The West gave in to the fear of violent bullying and thereby engaged in self-censorship. Muslim groups phrased the argument in terms of religious disrespect for Islam: in other words, they wanted to suppress publication of material they considered blasphemous. And we obliged them.

Aside from the sheer hypocrisy shown by many in the Muslim world with their unremitting daily demonstrations of hatred toward other religions in their media and culture, since when did "blasphemy" become part of American jurisprudence? With only a few notable exceptions, many of the beacons of freedom of thought, who pride themselves in the freedom of the press' right to disclose national security secrets, acquiesced to the demands of the Muslim world.

The editors at the Washington Post and New York Times performed rhetorical acrobatics in trying to explain why they would not publish the cartoons. And yet it came down to pure raw intimidation. Journalists, too, have to suffer the false branding of somehow being 'anti-Islam' when legitimately reporting on Islamist extremism. Ironically, it is the extremists who are making that connection! When you add the deception perpetrated nearly every day by radical Islamic groups falsely pretending to be victimized, often with the witting and unwitting connivance of some members of the media and government, you start to see another facet of this war-and it is this facet that we are losing.

JCT: Can you give examples of deception?

Emerson: I think the American public would be absolutely shocked to see how some within the FBI, DHS, State Department, the Bureau of Prisons and numerous other governmental agencies have kowtowed to officials of radical Islamist groups who purport to be moderate. Many of the leaders of these groups claim to speak on behalf of most Muslim Americans, while they attempt to close down other voices within the Muslim community.

The "dialoguing" that goes on - with group leaders who demand to be the only representatives of the Muslim community with whom the government should meet -- has real consequences: There is in fact a cost to our long term security --because ultimately, the answer to the threat of militant Islam is to encourage an Islamic reformation. That means empowering genuine moderates, not the ones who ostentatiously issue "fatwas," (with no content), against terrorism as was done last summer, yet attack every prosecution of Islamic terrorists as part of a sinister war against Islam. How can one be against terrorism yet champion Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah, Lashkar-e-Taibah and others? Rather than call these groups on their hypocrisy, some within the FBI and State Department-and I don't mean all members of those institutions-have often legitimized, and sometimes even given grants to groups such as CAIR, MPAC and ISNA-all of whom are ideological derivatives of the Muslim Brotherhood - to provide "sensitivity training" to government agents.

The agencies even have used these groups' conferences as sites for recruiting new agents. This legitimization goes far beyond our own borders. Does the State Department's Karen Hughes honestly believe that promoting the leaders and members of ISNA and the Muslim Student Association as the poster models of American Muslims will make the Muslim world respect us, or cause these groups to stop championing Islamic terrorist movements or cease portraying the war on terrorism as a war against Islam?

The State Department has continued to give visas to radical Islamic extremists to visit this country. And under the banner of outreach, State has arranged for officials of radical Islamic groups to represent the US abroad. Moreover, US embassies abroad have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe millions of hard-earned tax payer money, on conferences in which radical Islamic groups and leaders from the US have been feted abroad. In one case we just discovered, the Embassy in Pakistan gave a grant of $22,000 to Islamic fundamentalist groups to produce a 10 part CD series that promotes wearing of the hijab and spawns conspiracy theories about the "war against Islam."

JCT: Who is watching over these practices?

Emerson: That's the problem. No one is. If federal agencies are prepared to spend millions of dollars on outreach program that empowers front groups to the exclusion of actual moderates, who is going to stop this? Fortunately, one FBI program was nixed at the last moment, but these shenanigans go on routinely throughout the government at the federal, state and local level. The height of this deception occurred with American Muslim leader Abdurahman Alamoudi, who in the 1990's was invited routinely to the White House, sent abroad by the State Department, lauded at the CIA, and feted at the FBI. He pretended to be moderate, a pretension accepted at face value by nearly every wing of the US government.

Alamoudi succeeded in insinuating himself into the highest reaches of the US government-just look at the numerous pictures of him with the President Bill Clinton and Vice President Gore. He had been routinely portrayed as a moderate by some in the mainstream media. But it was patently clear from scrutinizing his organization-the American Muslim Council-that he was a supporter of terrorist groups; he vehemently expressed such support in a public speech in Lafayette Park across the street from the White House.

I wrote two articles in the Wall Street Journal in 1996 warning that the administration was essentially inviting Hamas to the White House. But the articles fell on deaf ears -- until 2003, when Alamoudi was arrested (at Heathrow airport with $340,000 in a briefcase). He ultimately pleaded guilty to illegal financial dealings overseas and participating in a plot to assassinate the leader of Saudi Arabia with the connivance of two Al Qaeda supporters in London. This deception is not limited to just one administration, or to just Democrats. The former Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader based in Tampa, Sami Al-Arian, and family were photographed with, then-candidate, President George W. Bush in Florida.

JCT: How can we guard against such deception?

Emerson: Well, that's one of the primary reasons I created the Investigative Project on Terrorism to insure accountability, to chronicle the activities of radical Islamist groups and their enablers and to document the ulterior motives of these groups by collecting open source material. We also are able to contact members of Congress who have oversight over agencies that are engaged in legitimizing the radicals. Unfortunately within the law enforcement and intelligence communities, there is still a residual bias against open source intelligence. Something stamped `Secret' is always going to be more sexy. But the reality is that open source intelligence can be just as important. Increasingly however, institutions are now beginning to understand the role of open source intelligence.

But to your larger question about insuring that we do not fall for the deception, the problem is that we live in a `Kumbaya' society -- we can all get along if we simply hold hands and roast marshmallows. The extent to which the government officials--essentially the gatekeeper for the agencies in government-- have fallen for this chicanery is mind-boggling. Law enforcement officials have actually attended fundraisers for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group created by Hamas front organizations and whose officials have defended Islamic terrorist groups. The FBI has embraced the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC), whose leaders have defended Hezbollah and other Islamic terrorist movements and leaders. So naturally, the Department of Homeland Security has done the same thing. You know that one of the most effective defense strategies by accused Islamic Jihad leader Sami Al-Arian was playing up the fact that he had been invited to the White House four times: How could a terrorist have been invited to the White House? He must be innocent, it was argued by his defense. By embracing these ersatz moderate groups, we are making a major mistake in that we are empowering the radicals at the expense of the genuine moderates. And we are legitimizing groups that, were it not for their campaigns of intimidation against critics by labeling them anti-Muslim, would be seen for exactly who they are: Corollaries of David Duke.

Law enforcement would never attend a David Duke fundraiser. So why do they attend CAIR fundraisers? The point I am trying to make is that if we see the battle only in terms of preventing a physical attack on America soil, i.e. focusing on actual terrorists, but not the
terrorist ideology, we will lose.

JCT: Five years after 9-11, why do you think we have not been hit, and what do you foresee is coming down the line?

Emerson: A series of factors have probably contributed to the failure of terrorist groups to carry out operations here in the US. Number one has been the aggressive intelligence gathering and prosecution by law enforcement, in particular the FBI, which has undergone a revolution since 9-11. I might add parenthetically that despite the FBI's seemingly contradictory outreach program towards fundamentalist groups, they have done a phenomenal job of investigating terrorists -those who would carry out violence. The second factor has been the unrelenting pressure by the Department of Justice on individuals here in the US. The Virginia Jihad case is a great example of the US making very clear that the recruiting, training or planning for terrorist activity abroad is simply not going to be tolerated in this country. The third factor has been the pressure exerted on terrorist financiers and groups by the Treasury Department. The fourth factor has been the external pressure put on Al Qaeda by the CIA and DOD overseas; Al Qaeda is just a shell of its old corporate self, having lost much of its executive talent to the US `early retirement program.' And with all that, Al Qaeda will try to reconstitute itself and rebuild itself to the extent that it can, no matter how long it will take. But as the recent Miami, Toronto, London and Australian cases demonstrate, we now have the additional phenomenon of home-grown terrorists. And they are much more likely to strike here in the US sooner than later. Given that they are largely self-compartmentalized, self-directed, and self-financed, they do not need an Al Qaeda mastermind to carry out their operations.

In the past 18 months alone, we have witnessed four dangerous cases in the US: one hatched in California's Folsom Prison where inmates were plotting the destruction of synagogues, military installations and a National Guard facility; the second case revolved around a group of men in Toledo, Ohio plotting attacks on American forces overseas. The third involved the young Muslim in Brooklyn who plotted to bomb the New York City subway stations. And the last case is the group of Miami-based radicals who swore an oath of allegiance to Osama bin Laden and wanted to create an Islamic Army here in the US and blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and several FBI offices, and free Muslim inmates from a Chicago prison.

JCT: What motivates these homegrown jihadists?

Emerson: The electronic global jihad has arrived. Anyone with an internet connection can plot jihad at a Starbucks. There are other factors at play here as well. We have read repeatedly over the alienation of young Muslims in Europe who have not been integrated socially to some extent because of the separatist philosophy of their culture but also to blame are some of these countries who have been complicit in keeping them on the fringes of society-- and thus provide ripe candidates for radicalization. While the US does not have the same degree of Islamic underclass here, there is a widespread alienation in the Islamic community that is self-induced and self-perpetuated: some mainstream Islamic `civil rights' groups barrage their followers with the message that their rights are being taken away and that there is a war against Islam. These groups' leaders indoctrinate their followers with paranoid views of the US, not dissimilar to the views expressed by Osama bin Laden in his rants of how the US has become an enemy of Islam. Add to this mixture the easy access of jihadi websites and militant Islamic publications that are widely available, the end result are increasing numbers of radicalized Muslims who hate this country. Of course, this does not mean that all Muslims hate the US, but in the absence of reliable polling data, the circumstantial evidence points to numbers that are dangerous.

By the way, the distinction we now make is quite revealing. It was not long ago when the term, `homegrown' terrorists, referred to white supremacists, neo-Nazis and Timothy McVeigh-types. Nowadays, we use the term for indigenous Islamist militants not tethered to any external foreign source of support. `Homegrown' is still a misnomer because the factors influencing these local jihadists is still an external ideology, but it has become embedded into American culture through, often foreign-funded, Islamist schools that incorporate Wahabi textbooks and curricula, the internet, and some US-based clerics who preach jihad.

JCT: Then why do we not see more homegrown plots?

Emerson: There are essentially two types of jihadists. The hard-core military jihadists who are prepared to carry out terrorist attacks in the United States. They have already been indoctrinated. All they await is a charismatic leader or the external order that gives them a green light. Secondly, there is the far greater number of what I call `cultural jihadists.' The cultural jihadists are not willing to carry out attacks themselves, but rather, they provide the moral support for the military jihadists.

The Pew poll of Muslim public opinion recently showed that only 17% of British Muslims felt that Arabs were responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Its not a matter of rocket science to intuit who they think is responsible the US and Israel. And earlier this year, in the trial of the would-be NYC Herald Square bomber, an undercover informant for the NYPD recounted an astonishing observation. He said that as he made his rounds among two different mosques, he encountered a virulent hatred for the United States. This does not mean that all mosque members hate the United States--I know of mosques and Islamic leaders who genuinely foreswear violence--but it does tell us that there is a problem that has been brewing here for a long time. For example, I can show you a tape of a Hamas rally held in New Jersey in 1993. There are thousands of people in attendance, women, children and men all chanting slogans such as "We buy paradise with the blood of the Jews." Do I think that all of them are terrorists? Of course not. But they are cultural jihadists.

Various Islamic conventions held over the past 12 years have distributed virulent jihadist publications and the constant refrain of many of the speakers at these conferences is that there is a war against Islam, that Muslims are unfairly stereotyped and profiled, that there is an orchestrated campaign of hatred against Muslims, and that the negative image the Islam suffers from derives from the malevolent product of the media and folks like myself, etc. You will not hear an iota of self-responsibility from the leadership of these groups for Islam's `image problems' - - rather, these officials constantly portray Muslims and Islam as victims.

No acknowledgement of the Islamic extremism and violence that emanates from established Muslim institutions, mosques, publications, websites and sermons. Instead, all we hear from Islamic leaders is the mantra that Islam condemns terrorism.

JCT: Why have these so-called mainstream Islamic groups not taken responsibility?

Emerson: Because these self-appointed spokesmen of the U.S. Muslim community are actually extensions of Salafist and Muslim Brotherhood movements that do not see any distinction between moderate Islam and extremist Islam. To them, there is only one Islam and it is fundamentalist. The ultimate aim of the Salafists and Brotherhood types is to impose Islamic sovereignty and the Sharia through the Muslim world and for some, throughout the non-Muslim world, i.e. religious hegemony.

The groups operating in the United States, with few exceptions, replicate the same spectrum of Islamist groups operating in the Middle East. I know what you'll ask me, "Don't these groups say they are civil rights organizations protecting the rights of Muslims in the US?" Yes, that is exactly what they say. And no doubt they do take up some legitimate cases of bias against Muslims. But they do it to acquire legitimacy in the US in order to promote an Islamist agenda. And that includes neutralizing the counter-terrorist laws, removing terrorist designations from Hamas and other terrorist organizations, excising from school textbooks and curricula references to Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist groups, intimidating Hollywood to refrain from producing any films with Islamic terrorists as antagonists, to try to prevent public discourse about Islamic extremism, discrediting genuine Islamic moderates and secularists, and ultimately making this country a Muslim country under Shariah law. This goal was explicitly stated by a leader of CAIR and by Abdurahman Alamoudi.

JCT: Are any of these groups preaching jihad?

Emerson: Some, no. Others have had leaders who, behind closed doors, preach that jihad is in some cases not only permissible, but obligatory. You can hear sentiment against carrying out attacks in the United States, not because it is immoral but because it is counter- productive. I am reminded of the famous speech of former American Muslim Council leader Abdulraham Alamoudi made in Chicago before a Hamas convention in 1996. He told the crowd that even if they wanted to see America destroyed, violence should not be carried out in the US and that ultimately the US would become a Muslim country thru dawah [education]. However, he added, that if one wanted to attack the US outside its borders, then that would be fine. A few years later he stated that if an attack were to take place against US interests, he would prefer it to be a Zionist target in the United States.

Similarly, the Muslim Brotherhood groups do not want to see attacks occur here partly because it sets back their efforts to acquire political influence. Still, at the same time, the groups are caught up in a contradiction, since they constantly reinforce the message that there is a war against Islam practiced by the United States. This Islamist paranoia is what feeds terrorism and legitimates jihad as self-defense. It is quite significant that none of the major Islamic groups have ever endorsed or applauded the government in any of the numerous counterterrorism actions taken, such as terrorist deportations, convictions and asset forfeitures. The response of CAIR, MPAC, ISNA and others has been to attack the government for nearly every counterterrorism program, from the enforcement of immigration law, to the freezing of funds of terror supporters. This proves that the famous fatwa against terrorism that CAIR and other groups ceremoniously announced last summer was an illusion designed to foster the false image that these groups are against terrorism. At least one of the signatories to the fatwa was an actual unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorist case.

JCT: Are we likely to see suicide bombings like Israel has experienced?

Emerson: That's a question that is discussed a lot in law enforcement circles. I don't think we will find ourselves in the situation Israel faces. Israel has to contend with tens of thousands of terrorist attacks and plots per year. The entire Palestinian political and religious infrastructure from Fatah to Hamas sponsors, funds, trains, and protects Palestinian terrorists. Sadly for Israel, it lives in a bad neighborhood and it cannot move. With its small population, Israel has endured the equivalent of twenty-five 9-11's. The United States is a long way from that environment. And yet, the first time a suicide bomber detonates himself in the US it will have tremendous ripple effects in our country.

I think we already have seen the profile of two potential suicide bombers. One was the Egyptian who went to LAX in 2002 and killed two American-Israelis at the El Al ticket counter before he himself was shot and killed by a guard. And most recently, the UNC graduate student who ran his car into as many students as he could because he was avenging the crimes against Islam. Now these individuals fit the profileĆ¢€¹they were prepared to die-- but did not commit suicide in their acts. I think that as the number of homegrown jihadists continues to grow, it is only a matter of time before a suicide bomber walks into a shopping center or as happened in London, into a mass transit system.

JCT: So are you hopeful or pessimistic?

Emerson: Some days I am hopeful, other times I am pessimistic. But if I were truly a pessimist, I would be moving to southern California and learn how to surf. It is true that we face a determined enemy who has a much longer time frame than congressional re-election cycles. Moreover, a large bloc of my time is spent trying to contain the damage caused by naive public officials who do not see the larger battle we face. The fundamental problem comes down to one word: Deception. That being said, this is going to be a long haul. I don't think we will see an end to this battle in our lifetime. But if we give up, the bad guys win. We don't really have a choice since failure is not an option.

JCT: Thank you for your time.-

Ahmadinejad needles Bush - `Let's debate'

When the going gets tough, the weird turn pro, as the good Doctor once observed.

Believe it or not, Iran's president Ahamdinejad has challenged President George W Bush to a live TV debate on world affairs.

"I suggest holding a live TV debate with Mr George W Bush to talk about world affairs and the ways to solve those issues," Ahmadinejad told reporters.

"The debate should be uncensored in order for the American people to be able to listen to what we say and they should not restrict the American people from hearing the truth."

Maybe we could have Mike Wallace or Larry King as emcees.

Needless to say, the White House was less than enthused.

"Talk of a debate is just a diversion from the legitimate concerns that the international community, not just the US, has about Iran's behaviour," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino was quoted by al-Reuters as saying.

Ahmadinejad accused the US and UK of abusing their "special privileges", saying he thought they were the "the origin of all disturbances in the world".

Iran and many other nations "are against America's practices in managing the world", he said, calling such practices unjust....and also weighed in on their right to a veto in the UN Security Council. "Isn't it time that international relations are founded on democracy and equal rights of the nations?" he went on.

Iran has shown zero signs of comply withthe previous UN resolutions on its nuclear program...the reverse in fact, with IAEA inspectors barred from key locations and numerous statements fromthe country's leaders that they have absolutely no intention of foregoing their nuclear program, even for the juicy `incentives' package offered by the West which would have created no problems for a natin withpeaceful purposes in mind.

Ahmadinejad stuck fully to this script, saying "The Iranian nation has chosen that [course] based upon international regulations, it wants to use it and no-one can stop it."

The deadline for Iran to comply is August 31st, two days away. Washington has proposed implementing sanctions if Iran fails to meet the deadline, while Russia and China are opposed.

Ahmadinejad, of course, has the UN's number perfectly. He correctly said it was "unlikely" the Security Council would take action against Iran, and said "sanctions are not an issue".

"We have said everything in our response. I think the time to use the instrument of the Security Council has expired," he said.

One more time, ad naseum...Ahmadinejad and Iran have hurled the glove in our faces and are daring us to do something about it. Will we blink?

Monday, August 28, 2006

Israeli terrorism expert predicts attack on US in 90 days or less

Israeli counterterrorism Juval Aviv is a former Israeli Counterterrorism Intelligence Officer, President and CEO of Interfor, Inc. and a world reknowned authority who has served as a special consultant to the U.S. Congress on issues of terrorism and security.

Tonight he was interviewed by Fox News:

Do you believe another terrorist attack is likely on American soil?

I predict, based primarily on information that is floating in Europe and the Middle East, that an event is imminent and around the corner here in the United States. It could happen as soon as tomorrow, or it could happen in the next few months. Ninety days at the most.

What advice do you have for individuals that have the misfortune of finding themselves in the middle of a terror attack?

Since mass transportation is the next attack, when you travel to work have with you, a bottle of water, a small towel and a flashlight. What happened in London is exactly a point to look at. Those people who were close to the bombs died, then others were injured or died from inhaling the toxic fumes or getting trampled. The reason you take a bottle of water and a towel is that if you wet the towel and put it over your face, you can protect yourself against the fumes and get yourself out of there.

Don't be bashful. If your gut feeling tells you when you walk onto a bus there is something unusual or suspicious, get out and walk away. You may do it 10 times for no reason, but there will be one time that saves your life. Let your sixth sense direct you.

Try to break your routine. If you travel during rush hour every day, try to get up a little earlier and drive to work or take the train when it’s still not full. Don’t find yourself every day in the midst of rush hour. Terrorists are not going to waste a bomb on a half-empty train.

What portion of the American infrastructure do you believe is at the greatest risk for a terror attack?

We have put all of our emphasis, right or wrong, on the aviation area. What has happened, in the last two to three years, based on information we have, is the terrorists have realized that they cannot hijack a plane in America soon because the passengers are going to fight back. So they realize what they have been very successful with over the last 50 years in Madrid, London, Iraq, Israel: demoralizing the public when they go to work and when they come back from work.

What they’re going to do is hit six, seven or eight cities simultaneously to show sophistication and really hit the public. This time, which is the message of the day, it will not only be big cities. They’re going to try to hit rural America. They want to send a message to rural America: "You’re not protected. If you figured out that if you just move out of New York and move to Montana or to Pittsburgh, you’re not immune. We’re going [to] get you wherever we can and it’s easier there than in New York."

What more do you think the government can do to protect the public?

Number one, and this is the beef I’ve had with Homeland Security for the last four years, is educating the public on how to deal with those types of events. There’s no education. We’re raising the color code alert and that means nothing to anyone. Whether it’s green, yellow, pink, no one ever educated the public how to identify suspicious items or people. In Israel, so many of them [terrorists] have been apprehended just because people have phoned in. We don’t have that training on campuses, schools or kindergarten.

In Israel, it’s very popular right now [amongst terrorists] to put one device to explode and time another one for five minutes later when it’s all calm, people are getting up and the rescue teams have responded. You need to know all those things and think about those things. The government must pursue that. Law enforcement will never have enough people on the street to detect things. We don’t have that kind of manpower. That’s why the government must enlist the public.

Is he right? We'll find out...

Kofi Annan in Lebanon

Kofi Annan is in Lebanon today, and inspected Israeli damage to Hezbollah bases in South Beirut's Dahya neighborhood.

In meeting with Lebanese Prime Minister Siniora, he stressed that ALL militias in South Lebanon must `be disarmed'...which is absolutely hilarious considering that Annan has made a point of declaring thatthe new UNIFIL forces won't be doing anything remotely reembling that!

He also stated that he wanted Hezbollah to release the two Israel captives, and suggested that they could be released to the Red Cross rather than Israel.

Kofi Annan is due to visit Israel Tuesday, and the the UN secretary general intends to discuss the lifting of its air and sea blockade on Lebanon. At the same time, he once again confirmed that UN troops will not be deployed on the Lebanese-Syrian border to enforce the arms embargo embodied in UN resolution 1701.

Since they're not going to be disarming Hezbollah and are not going to enforce the UN mandated arms embargo to Hezbollah...just what are they there for, I wonder?

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Congressman Tom Lantos:No US aid to Lebanon unless UNIFIL patrols Syrian border

Finally some common sense.

US Congressman Tom Lantos (d-CA) has announced his intention to put a hold on US aid to Lebanon unless UNIFIL patrols Syrian border..and unless Israel receives reconstruction aid from the Bush Administration.

"It would be singularly unfair and inequitable in the wake of this disaster to have aid flow to one party, which basically allowed the provocation, but not to the other victims," he said. "Lebanon will get help from Europe, the Arab world and the United States. And unless the United States provides some aid to Israel, Israel will not receive aid."

Lantos said that he would seek to prevent any funds going to Lebanon until it allowed for UNIFIL control of the Syria/Lebanon border.

"The international community must use all our available means to stiffen Lebanon's spine and convince the government of Lebanon to have the new UNIFIL troops deployed on the Syrian border in adequate numbers," he said. "To provide aid while allowing a porous Lebanon-Syria border will only invite the repetition of a Hezbollah attack in the future. Hezbollah must not be allowed to rearm."

As I reported here, US President George W. Bush has earmarked $230 million of our money as aid to be sent to Lebanon. Since Hezbollah is a major part of the government of Lebanon and since they are already taking a major part in the `reconstruction', there's no telling how much of that money will be siphoned off the Hezbollah's coffers.

I dimly recall somebody who once said that `you're either with us or with the terrorists' and pledged not to aid countries that harbored them......and I sense 241 dead US servicemen murderd by Hezbollah in Beirut turning over in their graves.

Lantos, who is the ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee has the ability to put a hold on any aid going to Lebanon. Lanto s referred to this as a `friendly hold.'

"No one wants to see that hold removed more than I do," he said. "But I am convinced that the government of Lebanon must take the necessary steps to make Lebanon a fully sovereign country."

Lantos also noted to reporters that in 2001 he pressed legislation to prevent the US from giving aid to Lebanon as long as Hezbollah wasn't disarmed, in accordance with the UNSC resolution..but apparently the fable of `Arab democracy' came first with the Bush Administration.

"At that time, the administration chose to sweep the problem under the carpet, and now the disaster has happened," he said. "I am convinced that, had my legislation been implemented, the tragedy of recent weeks could have been prevented, would have been prevented, and moreover, a thousand precious Lebanese and Israeli lives would have been saved."

I'm rather familiar with Congressman Lantos, one of the handful of Democrats with a common sense attitude towards the War on Jihad.

Maybe his being a Holocaust survivor has something to do with it.

You go, Congressman..make them do the right thing.

Kidnapped Fox journalists freed - after conversion to Islam at gunpoint

Kidnapped Fox journalists Steve Centanni and photographer Olaf Wiig were released shortly after noon Sunday and dropped off at the Beach Hotel in Gaza City, where they were greeted by a swarm of people celebrating their release. The hotel is a popular hangout for western journalists.

The two men later crossed into Israel and left for Jerusalem.

Shortly before they were released, the two men were converted to the Religion of Peace at gunpoint. On a tape shown Sunday morning, New Zealander cameraman Olaf Wiig read out an anti-American statement blaming Apaches firing Hellfire rockets made in America for Palestinian deaths. He said that George Bush is seen as "an evil man in some parts of the world and his statements about Islam-fascists do not help.'

"We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint," Centanni said just hours after the release of that video, in an interview with FOX immediately following his release. He added: "I have the highest respect for Islam and have learned many things about it. It was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns and we didn't know what ... was going on."

The tape, titled in Arabic gave the journalists “Islamic names.” The American journalist Steve Centanni was billed as Steve Khaled.

Guess what,'re Muslims now to these people, whether you like it or not. And any deviance from Islam on your part will get you killed if the opportunity arises. Read the Qu'ran for further details.

What is amazing to me is that, after all this, Centanni still talks about `telling the Palestinian story' as opposed to objectively reporting the news!

"I just hope this never scares a single journalist away from coming to Gaza to cover this story because the Palestinian people are very beautiful, kind-hearted loving people who the world needs to know more about," said Centanni at a brief news conference.

Wiig echoed those remarks. "That would be a great tragedy for the people of Palestine and especially for the people of Gaza. Your story doesn't get very well told because it is difficult to work here and anything that -- any little discouragement -- an incident like this could give a network an excuse not to be here and that would be a great tragedy for the people of Gaza," he said.

I smell coercion and orders from Fox and the other news outlets not to say anything that will endanger other journalists telling the `Palestinian story.'

Now, here's the REAL story. The actual kidnapper was Palestinian warlord Zakaria Dughmush of the Popular Resistance Committee, which is a Hamas group, and was part of the new `security force' formed by Hamas under the late and unlamented Jemal Semhadana. As such, these people were fully known to both Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah and Ismail Haniya of Hamas, which is why Abbas was able to tell the men's wives that they were in `good condition'. Of course, both Haniyeh and Abbas claimed to have no information on the kidnappers...but outright falsehood from these people is nothing new.

What actually transpired is that negotiations were done through the British M15 office in Rafah, Gaza through Palestinian go-betweens, and a deal was struck which included the journalists' public conversion to Islam, an anti-American harangue on air and a six-figure cash ransom paid to Dughmush...some of which will undoubtedly be kicked upstairs in time honored mafia fashion to to Haniyeh as Gaza's capo del tutti.

Haniyeh gets the added benefit of appearing helpful to the least to the gullible.

This is a similar scenario to the kidnapping of Kate Burton, a British `human rights' worker at the Gaza-based al-Mizan organization back in December and her elderly parents, who were ransomed through the same M15 office. Ms. Burton, once she was safely back in Britain had a number of uncomplimentary things to say about the not-so-nice side of the Palestinians that were largely hushed up by the British media.

We may or may not see similar statements later from Wiig and Centanni.

Hat tip and a commendation to longtime Joshua's Army member Zeb Gardner for some of the information used in this piece.

So, why did Israel accept the Lebanon ceasefire anyway?

As you members of Josha's Army know, I've devoted a number of articles to the farcical nature of the UN `ceasefire' in Lebanon.

And a number of you have posted comments wondering: `Why did Israel accept this? How did Israel benefit..the two kidnapped soldiers weren't even released. Was Israel threatened into accepting it? By whom?'

All of which makes fertile soil for an article on this very of the many occasions where Joshua's Army members have helped out enormously by tossing a grenade or two into the `comments' section or sending me an e-mail.

So what happened?

For a start, it's helpful to know the background.

Both the Sharon government and the Olmert government were tacitly aware of Hezbollah's threat on Israel's northern border...but they were unaware of how dangerous the threat was and how well dug in Hezbollah was.

Part of the reason for this, and one some of you may be unaware of is the purge carried out by Sharon and Olmert, his deputy, on Israeli generals and intel chiefs who disagreed with the party line on `disengagement'in Gaza and elsewhere...including General Y'aalon, the highly capable IDF Chief of staff who was unceremoniously booted out to make way for loyal party liner General Halutz.

Olmert had been under major political skeptism and criticism and had image problems in Israel because of his pushing the ethnic cleansing of Jews from their homes, his lack of military credentials and his notoriously far left(and very public) wife and children.

It's also helpful to understand that Olmert's cobbled together party, Kadima, does not have anything like a majority and had to build a majority with the most blatant coalition politics- which is why Israel, for the first time in its history has a defense minister, Peretz, with no military commmand experience whatsoever and who's chief recommendation for the job is his leadership of the Leftist Labor party.

Olmert sent the IDF into Lebanon precipitously, without adequate intel or supplies and severely undermanned, counting on Israel's airforce to take out Hezbollah and figuring on a `nice, quick little victory' to make him look strong on defense..and provide an impetus for the further ethnic cleansing of Jews from Judea and Samaria. If you remember, he stupidly said as much, back when it was thought the war was going well. Those remarks, by the way, severely impacted IDF morale as many of the IDF combat troops realized that, according to Olmert, they were fighting Hezbollah so that he could them and their families homeless after the war.

Instead of a quick victory, the IDF was surprised by well armed, highly disciplined Hezbollah troops, stiffened with a core of Iranian Republican guards fighting on fortified terrain. And unlike previous Israeli wars,the IDF was unable to make an end run in force while surrounding the fortified strong points because Olmert refused to commit the troops necessary to do so. In doing do, he overuled his own chief of staff.

The IDF adapted quickly, but were hampered by Olmert's indecisiveness. It's worth noting that even in the brief time they were allotted (less than 48 hours) once Olmert gave the green light to the offensive the IDF wanted all along, the Israelis reached the Litani River and had most of Hezbollah's forces surrounded and cut off in a large pocket that extended from the Litani River in the north, to Tyre in the southwest. And this was with a slipshod, ill planned assault on the ground.

One can only regret that the IDF was not given free rein a lot sooner, and in force.

The ceasefire happened because Olmert asked for it, in my opinion, and painted himself into a corner thanks to his own ineptitude. He froze at the wheel and wanted out. The repudiation on the ground to his pet policies and the revealation of Olmert as a political hack lacking ideas or the ability to lead made him want to turn to diplomacy in an effort to try and salvage something from the mess.

Here's what I think happened:

The Bush Administration held out for almost a month, but were under increasing pressure from the EU and the Arab states to bring this to some kind of ceasefire, and finally acquiesed, especially as Israel seemed unable to clearly win the war. What's more, faced with an increasingly disaffected IDF and Israeli public, criticism by the EU and UN and massive criticism at home, and most tellingly a lack of will, Olmert and his cohorts opted to go for pretty much anything offered, as long as it looked and sounded good.

Another factor is Olmert and Foreign minister Tzip Livni's desire to look good to the EU,the UN and the `international community'...regardless of how that affected Israel's interests.

The initial UN draft actually might have ended the conflict positively, if it had been enforced, but once the French got their orders from Iran and the Arab League, the resolution was watered down to the point of beiong nothing more than a grim joke. Of course by that time, having committed in principle to a ceasefire, it was too late for Israel to mouth any major objections.

Hezbollah was damaged, but not destroyed, and there is now an important precedent in place..the idea of UN/EU troops being used as a `buffer' doing nothing to prevent Arab attacks on Israel while impeding the IDF from responding.

Look for Kofi Annan and the rest of Israel's enemies to try to extend this concept to Gaza to protect Hamas.

On the plus side, Olmert and his policies have been thoroughly discredited, and Israel will at least have the opportunity to obtain the leadership it will need to fight the next round...which may be closer than anyone thinks.

That's not a neglible benefit.

Friday, August 25, 2006

The EU kicks in troops for the Lebanon `peacekeeping' force

Originally, Israel and the US conceived of a `robust' multinational force as a guarantee of its border security against terrorist attack and a boost for the Lebanese army to disarm Hezbollah. Then France and the Arab League got involved.

Now, what we have is a token group of observers without a mandate to do anything meaningful.

After lots of back and forth, Italy ended up pledging 3,000 troops and Belgium 400 to boost UNIFIL in South Lebanon after France finally got shamed into committing 1,600. Like most pledges, we'll have to wait and see, especially since Chirac is already whining about the size of the committment.

The force, dubbed by Kofi Annan UNIFIL-2 has no operational plan to enforce the UN arms embargo mandated by the UN ceasefire resolution...which would involve shutting down the heavy flow of Iranian arms shipments entering Lebanon day by day via Syria.

Long, heavily laden truck convoys are en route from the Syrian ports of Latakia and Tartus to the Hezbollah's bases in the Bek'aa Valley, bringing Hizballah its first heavy missiles - the Russian-made Scud-B adapted by Iran as the Shahab-1, which has a one-ton warhead.

The most that the European troops will number (and I'll believe it when I see it)is about 6,000 troops, to move into position and allow IDF troops to pull out.

The object,of course, is to boost the 60,000-strong Lebanese army (40% of whom are Shiites) sufficiently to extend the Fouad Siniora government’s sovereignty to the whole of Lebanon. The reality is that under cover of this deployment, Hezbollah (and Iran) is rearming and tightening its grip on Lebanon. All you have to do is observe the huge posters of Iran’s president Ahmadinejad and Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, mushrooming alongside Nasrallah’s along the highways and roads of Lebanon.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah is rearming under UNIFIL's protection and setting up new military positions ready for their next round against Israel.

Yep. Another succesfull UN mission is unfolding before our eyes.

Meanwhile, in Darfur....

By the way, Mr. Secretary General Annan...speaking of human rights violations, you plan on getting the UN to do anything about Darfur anytime soon? Or are the rules different when it comes to your friends in Muslim regimes that have oil to sell?

Here's a picture of a Christian slave from Darfur who was purchased back from her Arab masters who'd love to hear your answer...

The murder, rape and enslavement of Black Christians by the Islamist government of Sudan goes on.

And no one but the US and perhaps Britain want to do a thing about it.

President Bush is sending U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer to the Sudan in an effort to convince the Sudanese government to allow UN peacekeepers in the region to protect the Black population from the Sudanese government sponsored `janjeweed' militias.

So far, the Islamist Sudanese government has flatly refused to allow them to enter to replace a token force of African Union (AU) troops now in Darfur, where the United Nations estimates as many as 200,000 civilians have been killed and more than 2 million people displaced and ethnically cleansed by the Arabs since violence first flared up in 2003. Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir has become increasingly vehement. He recently compared a potential U.N. deployment to Israel `invading' Lebanon. And seeing as they have oil to sell and buy arms from usual sources, nobody has been particularly anxious to do very much about it.

The U.S. and Britain last week introduced a U.N. Security Council resolution that would give an official UN mandate the new peacekeeping force. But the Arab states, China and Russia have refused to allow the resolution to go forward.

The Security Council invited Sudan's foreign minister to a meeting Monday in New York with the African Union, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League to explain his nation's objections.

But the Sudanese government refused...and of course they're being backed up by the Russians, the oil-hungry Chinese and the Muslim bloc.

Speaking at a press conference, Frazer voiced frustration at the continued "foot-dragging" by both the Sudanese government and the United Nations.

Frazer told journalists at an August 24 Washington Foreign Press Center news conference that she was leaving the next day for Sudan, where she planned to meet with President Omar al-Bashir and top Sudanese government officials about Darfur.

"My primary mission is to consult further with the government of Sudan" in Khartoum about fulfilling its responsibility to protect the citizens of Darfur, who have been assailed over the years by renegade militias called Jinjaweed..."

"We cannot let violence and atrocities continue. We cannot allow future Rwandas to happen," Frazer said, adding, "We must act now" to get a U.N. force in place in Darfur and have President al-Bashir and his government accept it.

The assistant secretary also had a few things to say about the United Nations' slow response in deploying a peacekeeping force of up to 18,000 troops to relieve the beleaguered African Union (AU) force now in Darfur, saying: "We cannot delay. We cannot allow ... bureaucratic ... foot-dragging at the U.N."

An ill-equipped force of 7,000 African Union troops is in Darfur, assigned to monitor the May peace accord. But they been under siege — two of the Rwandan peacekeepers were killed this month. The AU's mandate and funding run out at the end of September, and they're leaving.

Frazer called the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations' January 2007 target date for deployment is "intolerable."

Asked if the United Nations would deploy the peacekeeping force in Darfur over the objections of President al-Bashir, Frazer said: "This force is not going to fight its way in. We're not trying to deploy Western domination here [in Sudan]." The point, she said, is to protect Darfur's civilians and relieve the AU peacekeepers, who are "sitting ducks".

I place that remark right up there with French defence minister Michele
Alliot-Marie's llittle bon mot on Lebanon about "What we must absolutely avoid is giving the image of a Western world imposing peace on the Muslim world."

What both Madame Alliot- Marie and Assistant Secretary Frazer are essentially saying is that if the `Muslim world' is committing real genocide on non-Muslims, no one is supposed to make a peep lest they be seen as Evil Imperialist opposed to acknowledging the loud cries and indignation from the Muslim world at the phoney `genocide' Israel is supposedly committing against the Palestinians.

This is the same disgusting hypocrisy practiced by the Islamic world and their apologists with the constant screeds about `Islamophobia' in the west, while glossing over or ignoring the murders, discrimination, church burnings and persecution Christians face in the Muslim world.

Sorry, Madame Secretary , the UN isn't going to do anything, which is why they vaguely scheduled blue helmet peacekeepers for January of next hurry, you know, maybe the problem will solve itself once the jihad is successful.

And the Islamist government of the Sudan is NOT going to allow anything to interfere with the jihad on Darfur...which is just a step towards the extension of the jihad and Islamization of Ethiopia and East Africa.

If we want to stop this genocide, the best thing we could do would be to airlift arms to the people in Darfur and the Black seperatist movement in the South Sudan so that they can defend themselves. And they just might be able to do so. As we've seen in places like the Warsaw Ghetto, the prospect of extermination and slavery can be a powerful fighting incentive...the Jews trapped in the Warsaw Ghetto and facing annihilation actually held out longer than the entire Polish Army.

Worst case scenario is that these people will be killed and enslaved, which is what awaits them anyway. But if they succeed in defending themselves, they stall the jihad in East Africa..and perhaps may even become an independent, non-Muslim oil producing friend of the US.

It amazes me that we will spend billions on people in Iraq and Lebanon who hate us in the name of `Arab democracy' while ignoring our friends in places like Darfur and Kurdistan.

Big, big mistake.

Iran's Holocaust cartoons contest

After the MoToons meltdown among Muslims, Iran's largest paper Hamshahri and the government of Iran decided to sponsor a `Holocaust cartoons' contest as an example of `free expression'(revenge against whom? the Joooos?) and took entries on a worldwide basis..after all, Jew hatred and holocaust denial are hardly confined to the Muslim world!

It's quite illuminating to compare the blatant hatred shown in these entries with what was expressed in the relatively inocuous MoToons..and to compare the reaction of Jews to that of Muslims:


Stefan Penev/Bulgaria

Igor Savenkov/Russia

Mohammadreza Doustmohammadi/Iran

Mohammadreza Doustmohammadi/Iran

Mohammad Ali Rajabi/Iran

Abolfazle Mohtarami/Iran

Firouzeh Mozafari/Iran

Watcher's Council Results, 8/25/06

The Council has spoken! The Council has spoken! Complete results can be found here on the site of our fearless leader,Watcher of Weasels

Some killah stuff came in this week, but here are the winners:

For Council posts:

First place Right Wing Nut House: IRAQ: QUIT OR COMMIT The clear winner, and well deserved. Rick makes the point that we either need to commit to victory in Iraq (which in my mind, means more boots on the ground, confronting Iran and Syria and liquidating al-Sadr and the Shiite militias) or leave, plain and simple. Regular members of Joshua's Army know that I linked to this as soon as Rick put it's that good.

In Second place, Gates of Vienna: The Nation-State vs Anarchy and Imperialism Dymphna uses a Mark Steyn column as a take off point for a fine essay on something I've said for quite a while...that the whole idea of a nation/state is a western concept and thus foreign to Islam, where the loyalties are tribal and to the Muslim umma. This tells us a lot about some of the danger some western nations face from the large concentrations of Muslims within their borders, who may have some divided say the least.

You know it's a tough pick when two posts this good get nominated...

The quality of the council posts is normally pretty high, and they were all good this week but I want to commend two posts for a special honorable mention:

ShrinkWrapped: On Meaning A fine essay by ShrinkWrapped as he explores the human search for meaning and purpose and how it relates to the War on Jihad. Done superbly, in Shrinkwrapped's usual style.

And The Sundries Shack: Bring them home. Now Jimmie Bise writes a killah screed on the two journalists kidnapped by the Palestinians as hostages and his outrage at the MSM for ignoring the situation.

For non-council posts the winner wasBuzzwords Blog: 3AM Magazine: BAD FAITH by David Thompson, a superb examination of `cultural relevance' in comparing Islam and other faiths. Here's a sample:

`...while red-faced evangelists may say gay people are wicked, damned to hellfire, etc, I don't know of any internationally renowned Christian leaders who are calling for the imprisonment and killing of gay people. Unlike the supposedly "moderate" Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who insists that gay men and lesbians should be "killed in the worst manner possible." Not condemned, 'corrected', prayed for, or pitied, or any of the usual nonsense spouted by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson et al; but murdered -- as brutally as possible.'

Hearty kudos to all the winners!!

Thursday, August 24, 2006

The jihadis among us...`businessman' arrested in New York for relaying Hezbollah TV

Javed Iqbal, 42, was arrested Wednesday on conspiracy charges for relaying broadcasts of al Manar, AKA Hezbollah TV to `customers' in the Greater New York City area, according to a statement by U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia.

Garcia said Iqbal used satellite dishes at his Staten Island home to distribute the broadcasts through a Brooklyn company called HDTV Limited.

All well and good..Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization in the USA and relying their broadcasts illegally is a crime.

But what I want to know is who was receiving those broadcasts..Iqbal doubtless had lists of his subscribers. And they need to be outed and placed under surveillance, or deported if the law allows.

I guarantee you you won't see the MSM covering this one.

Iran secretly builds advanced nuclear centrifuges-but you knew that

At least, you knew it if you are a regular member of Joshua's Army.

I first reported on this back in mid April, here and here

Iran Focus-News has today's story:

Paris, Aug. 24 - Iran has secretly built more than a dozen advanced P2 nuclear centrifuges in breach of is commitments to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), an Iranian opposition leader announced on Thursday.

“According to the information obtained by the Iranian Resistance at least 15 P2 centrifuges have been assembled so far and are being tested”, Mohammad Mohaddessin, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, told a Paris press conference.

Mohaddessin said that around the time hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ascended to the Presidency, Tehran secretly set up a company called “Iran Centrifuge Technology Company”, also known as TSA, which began producing P1 and P2 centrifuges. “The company’s chair, Jafar Mohammadi, is a top expert in the manufacture of centrifuges. He was transferred to TSA from the Defence Ministry”, he said.

Mohaddessin gave the address of the company in Tehran as well as the location of what he said was another secret site where Iran was assembling P2 centrifuges.

He said that the second site, on the outskirts of Tehran, was operating as part of a project codenamed “Shams”.

“Some of the sensitive centrifuge parts such as magnets are being bought on the black-market”, he said.

Or from the Russians or Chinese, I imagine.

The UN and `sanctions' are not going to solve this problem. Ahmadinejad and his Mullah bosses know it, and it's about time we realized it.

Time to do the mullah dance. Before it's too late.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

"Freedom Is Slavery! War is peace! Long live Big Mullah!"..Iran's response to the UNSC and what it means

As we all know, Iran made its formal response to the UN Security Council, they won't stop nuclear enrichment or their nuclear weapons development, but aside from that, they're open to serious talks!

What this `proposal' really was designed to do was to buy more time for Iran to complete its nuclear weapons cycle and to split the nations on the Security Council.

It's likely to succeed.

Iran made the decision on its response long before yesterday. Supremem leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was only the latest Iranian leader to say that giving up uranium enrichment was impossible. "The Islamic Republic of Iran with Allah's help will continue its research in the nuclear sphere," he said, going on to criticize the U.S. and other countries for pressuring Iran and promising not to turn from the path that will bring Iran "sweet fruit." Another indication of these intentions was Iran's refusal to allow UN inspectors into underground nuclear facility at Natanz, where new, high efficiency gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment have been installed.

Bolton and the Bush Administration, in conjunction with the French (!!) made a point of saying that the Iranian response was `inadequate' and that if a positive response was not forthcoming by the August 31st deadline, they would proceed with talks about sanctions.

President Bush should get a clue based on how the French, supposedly in line with the US on the requirements for a Lebanon ceasefire changed abruptly once French Foreign minister met his Iranian counterpart in Beirut and got France's orders from the Mullahs.

The Russians and Chinese once again reiterated that they would veto any sanctions against iran in the Security Council. The Russians have multibillion dollar arms contracts with Iran, including building all their nuclear facilities...and the Chinese want all that oil.

Don't count on the Europeans to fall in line either, for the same addition to their restless Islamic populations.

The last time America tried to get Europe to go along with sanctions against Iran was back in the days of Euro-Friendly Jimmy Carter, after our embassy was overrun and our diplomats were takenhostage..and after numerous assurances of support, they essentialy melted away when hard action was called for.

And we also have the latest examples of the UN in action..the Oil For Food program with the sanctions against Saddam's Iraq and the Lebanese farce.

Bush is kidding himself if he thinks that this time will be any different.

Even in the unlikely event that the Europeans develop a spine and some kind of sanctions get voted in, they will be useless in preventing further aggression by Iran.

Aside from the fact that Russia and China won't honor them, the Mullahs know that sanctions will act as a smokescreen for their failing economy, galvanize the Iranians behind their leadership, will push oil prices to even higher limits, and will buy Iran more time to carry on with its enrichment work without fear of IAEA supervision.

America is in this alone, with perhaps only a very few allies.

The glove's been thrown in our faces. Will we blink, and put things off until later?

I guarantee you that the cost if we do so will be horrendous.