Monday, June 30, 2008

The Khawaja Affair: The Master Plan Unfolds

The Enemy Within

Cross posted from

David Harris, Citizen Special
Published: Thursday, June 26, 2008

If terrorism suspect Momin Khawaja, now on trial in Ottawa, is as guilty as Crown prosecutors say, it'll be time to settle an important question: Was Mr. Khawaja a "Naji man"?

Amid trial allegations, court details and defence objections, significant questions arise about Mr. Khawaja's status as a consultant to the Department of Foreign Affairs at about the time of his arrest. Prosecutors claim the software contractor used his perch inside the department to send streams of E-mails to confederates abroad - that federal resources were, in other words, used to advance terror plots. Authorities also say Mr. Khawaja might have used privileged Foreign Affairs department travel documents to travel on his "missions." And that he allegedly suggested using special departmental courier services to send bomb-related equipment to foreign associates, in the apparent belief that a government imprimatur on shipments confers immunity from customs searches.

Insiders can do a lot of damage in sensitive government and private-sector establishments. From intelligence organizations to banks, history is replete with examples of infiltrators and penetrators undermining computer systems, removing money, spilling secrets. Remember Barings Bank? Kim Philby?

So questions must be asked. If, for the sake of argument, Mr. Khawaja was working against Canadians and their allies, what access did he have to departmental personnel, to electronic records, communications and associated encryption systems? Who recommended and hired him in the first place? A friend? If the government's version is correct, why would a software consultant be so confident about his access to special courier services? Did he have a network of friends at the department? It is early days, and no decisive answers are on offer.

But these things must be asked whenever a possible radical or extremist Islamist breach of security is hinted at, and here's why: Islamic extremists and subversives place great emphasis on infiltrating social, political, economic and security apparatuses of target nations, like Canada, with a view to manipulating and undoing their infrastructure.

Last year's dramatic Holy Land Foundation trial in Texas made the point. There, U.S. prosecutors put klieg lights on previously secret strategic documents seized from extremist Muslim Brotherhood (MB) sources. This subversive worldwide organization is the font from which spring a number of hardline "mainstream" North American Islamic front groups and "representative organizations," including many recently defined as unindicted co-conspirators by the U.S. Justice Department - and some, amazingly, periodically engaged in "outreach" by unsuspecting interfaith and even government officials.

The Master Plan

The prize U.S. document was the Brotherhood's 1991 long-term plan to subvert and collapse the United States and its political, economic and other infrastructure, preparatory to achieving a forced radical Islamicization of that country, and others. Through a malign combination of immigration, intimidation, psychological warfare and subterfuge, the MB proposed "settling" - colonizing - the U.S., infesting its infrastructure, and relying on societal openness, constitutional freedoms and influence operations to proceed from there: "The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process'," said the memorandum, adding ominously, "with all the word means."

The Brothers, it continued, "must understand that their work in American [sic] is kind of a grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

More recently, Abu Bakr Naji, al-Qaeda's senior operational strategic thinker, explained the priority. Radical Islamists are to be "infiltrating the adversaries and their fellow travelers and establishing a strong security apparatus" to support the underground movement, now, and the resulting theocratic Islamic state, later. "[We] should infiltrate the police forces, the armies, the different political parties, the newspapers, the Islamic groups, the petroleum companies ... private security companies, sensitive civil institutions, etc."

"That," concludes Mr. Naji chillingly, "actually began several decades ago, but we need to increase it in light of recent developments."

Indeed, Muslim Brotherhood-inspired organizations were being set up on this continent as far back as the 1960s, and considerably earlier elsewhere. By now, there is little doubt that many "Naji men" -- and women -- are ensconced in the West, and recent developments cause concern:

- a police officer in the northeastern U.S., helping a terror suspect at his mosque to identify federal surveillance vehicles;

- an American 911 operator conducting illegal watch-list and other database searches, and communicating the results, illicitly;

- and questions about jihadist sympathies among certain figures in the FBI and CIA, the State Department and U.S. Muslim military chaplain corps, the White House, Homeland Security, the U.S. Air Force, Guantanamo, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. (For details see this Investor's Business Daily editorial on the subject:

Canadians must guard against infiltration of government, business and associated infrastructure. Mr. Naji's operational aims bring home the need to make realistic determinations about the reliability of those employed in military and security offices, in nuclear-energy and power-grid control rooms, and in virus and biochemical research labs - even about those influencing politicians and decision-makers.

We cannot guess the outcome of the Khawaja trial, but perhaps evidence of Mr. Khawaja's work in government will encourage an overdue debate about Canada's counterpenetration strategy. We should begin now, while relative peace allows us to do so in an ordered, balanced and effective way.

David Harris is president of Democracy House, and a lawyer involved in national security matters. He is counsel to the Canadian Coalition for Democracies and a former senior CSIS official.

A note from Radarsite: The Brothers... "must understand that their work in American [sic] is kind of a grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within..."
For those of us who have been writing about the growing dangers of this surreptitious invasion -- and whose dire warnings have invariably been met with laughter and catcalls from our delusional left -- this comes as no great surprise. But it is nonetheless of extreme importance. Here, in our enemies own words, the Master Plan is revealed. And it is formidable in its cunning and its patient resolve. They have taken great care to understand their enemies, they are in no hurry. Time, they know, is on their side. Time, and our delusional left.

"[We] should infiltrate the police forces, the armies, the different political parties, the newspapers, the Islamic groups, the petroleum companies ... private security companies, sensitive civil institutions, etc."
How much clearer can they be? Is it possible that our delusional left will still refuse to believe them? Is it possible that they will continue to ignore the evidence in front of their eyes? Will they continue to obstruct our every effort to defend ourselves by characterizing our reactions as nothing but racism and bigotry? Will they fight us every step of the way?

And the answer of course is YES.

As the Master Plan continues to unfold, our hapless delusional left will meet the growing crisis with their unyielding cynicism and disbelief, with their laughter and their catcalls.

So, it's going to be up to us.

To win this veritable Clash of Civilizations we must somehow convince our delusional left that we are truly in a war, and that we are truly imperilled, that their precious delusional lives are in jeopardy.

And that, my friends, is a more daunting task than defeating the damn Jihadists. - rg

Lionheart: Reports From Across the Pond: 30 Jun 08

Recommended by

The Americans shake their heads in disgust

By Lionheart
30 June 2008

Foreword: Great Britain is supposed to be Americas closet ally in the World, joined by a common language, blood lines that have spanned generations, separated by a little bit of water, and within the present World climate we should be standing shoulder to shoulder in the ‘Global War on Terror’ because what befalls one befalls the other, family in other words, and when I was there the American people took me in without knowing me and made me one of their family so I do know what I am talking about. This present piece of intelligence regarding Abu Hamza who is locked up in one of Britain’s most secure prisons that houses some of the most dangerous Islamic terrorists that has been released into the public domain shows just how far the security of the British homeland has been breached and fallen into such a state of disrepair and uselessness that is continually putting the International community in grave danger, and especially the American homeland.

And this is my Country!

The British government and most of their stooges presiding over the justice system within the land have turned the British State and homeland into an asylum that threatens the safety and security of the British people and the international community as this recent example proves. Nobody with any ounce of intelligence when looking at the picture can say any different.

’Where do you stand and who do you stand with’ has been a statement of mine for many months now, and those within America who are charged with securing and preserving the American homeland, and those who are presiding over the Power of the Nation should seriously be looking at the UK and asking that question for themselves and aligning themselves with those who want to bring order back from the chaos within British society that has been created in my Country, because if they don’t, as Britain burns so will America - If not more so.

Great Britain is probably the No.1 threat to the American homeland now because we are so close, and because of the military wing of the Islamic Kingdom of Great Britain that we now have camped deep within our land the length and breadth of the Country, those who are conducting and declaring Jihad (Holy War) against the infidels, with America as the ultimate target in the sights of the global Jihad.

The Great Satan in the Moslem psyche.

Our present government hands out passports with the Queens crowned stamped on it like sweets, and for our Islamic enemies to obtain one it is like stealing candy from a sweet shop. If this is not a threat to the International community then there are many many more examples for you to pick from.

The UK is the final outpost of Eurabia, the Western Islamic frontier, with it being a stepping stone and launch pad into America, the greatest battlefield of the 21st Century now that the War has been declared and is upon American shores.

What happens if we lose this War?

With all of the facts contained in our 21st Century reality it is not inconceivable to think that there is great devastation and destruction in the distance for all of us, as we face an enemy who longs to die in the process of killing as many of us as possible and destroying our way of life.

How can that be achieved is the question: How close to catastrophe?

Neutralise the most powerful Nation on Earth and the rest will tremble in fear at the ‘what if question’, thus giving the Islamic World a free reign upon the Earth under the clouds and threat of global guerrilla Nuclear terror.

The global Caliphate in the making in the 21st Century, led by the devil incarnate Osama Bin Laden the Anti-Christ and his global Al Qaeda network. The one who is seeking to destroy Christendom in our lifetimes on behalf of the Islamic religion as sanctioned by Mohamed himself in the Koran, as those who have gone before him have failed.

What if?

Listen to what an American thinks: Newt Gingrich

Britain's No.1 caged Islamic terrorist housed in Britain's most secure jail was able to get a message to Al Qaeda’s No.2 Ayman Alzwahiri, a breach of an unparalleled proportions.

The British government and justice system has recently released back out into our society Al Qaeda’s ambassador to Europe Abu Qatadar and within 24 hours he had released a statement urging Moslems to murder and humiliate us, the infidels. The good decent honest hard working tax payer now has to pay 1 million a year just to keep him housed and fed within our society – WHY?

America have been trying for 4 years to have Abu Hamza extradited to face terror charges there and every step of the way we are told he is going, only to be told that there is still more appeal courts for him to go through before America can take him from us.

Millions more of tax payers money going into the hands of his lawyer and the global Jihad, with us still not sure whether or not he will leave us or be released back out into our society to threaten the human rights of every British citizen because of his human rights as an Islamic terrorist conducting his part in the global Jihad to murder us and destroy our lands on behalf of his religion.

Where is the sense in all of this?

Why does someone not drop a little arsenic into his food and do us all a favour, our World would then be a lot safer than it is now, as this present example shows.

We can only hope that he eventually arrives at his destination in Colorado where he has a place prepared for him by those in charge of protecting the American people. I am sure he will enjoy looking at the Colorado sky and the moon and stars at night because that is all he will be seeing, that’s if they even give him the privilege of having a window to still view the World in which he hates so much.

For my American readers please keep coming back because there is a lot more to come about the present state of British affairs that endangers you and your way of life that is emanating from Outpost UK, the Western Islamic frontier.

Daily Mail

American counter-terrorism chiefs are demanding a full explanation from Britain of how radical cleric Abu Hamza was able to smuggle murderous messages from his UK prison cell to Al Qaeda's deputy leader.
The major diplomatic row comes in the wake of a long-running battle by US prosecutors to extradite the former imam of London's Finsbury Park mosque to stand trial in America.

Hook-handed Hamza was jailed for seven years in Britain in 2006 for inciting murder and racial hatred and is held at Belmarsh prison, South-East London, supposedly one of Britain's most secure jails.

But according to senior American intelligence sources, Hamza evaded the extensive security measures surrounding him to send a series of questions to Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama Bin Laden's right-hand man.

Al-Zawahiri is believed to be hiding with Bin Laden in the lawless mountain region along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

Late last year, Al-Zawahiri - who has a £13million bounty on his head - posted a message on an extremist website run by Al Qaeda saying he would answer questions on any topic.

US intelligence tracked all the email replies and among them were messages from Abu Hamza. It is understood they were sent from an email address known to be linked to the cleric.

The sources say they have no doubt that al-Zawahiri was personally involved in answering the questions and that those posed by Hamza had genuinely originated from him.

US prosecutors have been fighting for four years to send Hamza for trial in the US. They accuse him of involvement in a global conspiracy to wage jihad against the US and other Western countries.

Among the most serious accusations is one that he was involved in the kidnap by Islamic radicals of 16 tourists in the Yemen in 1998. Four hostages, including three Britons, died in a rescue attempt.

Earlier this month the High Court turned down Hamza's latest appeal against efforts to send him to the US but his lawyers could still fight his extradition by applying to the House of Lords and the European Court.

For the Americans, frustrated by the length of time it has taken to bring Hamza for trial in the US, the revelation that he was also able to keep in touch with Al Qaeda's high command has caused widespread anger.

One source pointedly said that 'if he is transferred to US custody, he would be kept in the country's highest security prison in Colorado'.

Once there, the source added: 'It would be absolutely impossible for him to communicate with Al Qaeda.'

Posted by Lionheart

A note from Radarsite: "Great Britain is probably the No.1 threat to the American homeland now..." For a great many Americans this seemingly bizarre concept may be a little difficult to comprehend. How could our erstwhile historical ally now be seen as our No.1 threat? Of all the countries in the world who have an axe to grind with the US, Jolly Old England would seem to be the last on the list to pose any real threat to our security.

There was a time when such a claim would rightly be considered ludicrous and beyond the bounds of reason.

But no more.

Consider the implications of these two chilling statements:
"The British government and most of their stooges presiding over the justice system within the land have turned the British State and homeland into an asylum that threatens the safety and security of the British people and the international community..." and "...the military wing of the Islamic Kingdom of Great Britain that we now have camped deep within our land the length and breadth of the Country, those who are conducting and declaring Jihad (Holy War) against the infidels, with America as the ultimate target in the sights of the global Jihad."

One of America's chief motivations for entering into the Second World War on behalf of our beleaguered cousins in England was the realization that if Hitler ever succeeded in occupying Britain, it could -- and most certainly would -- be used a launching pad for the subsequent invasion of the USA. Hitler himself believed in the obvious logic of this strategy. Thankfully, we were saved from this existential catastrophe.

But now, almost seven decades later, this same strategic threat from across the pond is looming once again. Only this time, the threat is perhaps even greater and more imminent. Listen again to Lionheart:
"Our present government hands out passports with the Queens crowned stamped on it like sweets, and for our Islamic enemies to obtain one it is like stealing candy from a sweet shop."

Even during the darkest days of that terrible conflict we never had to worry about the British Government arbitrarily handing our passports to Nazi saboteurs to travel unimpeded to America to set up shop. It would have been all but impossible to even conceive of such a situation.

But no longer.

Could Lionheart's warnings be any clearer? Can we afford to doubt his intimate knowledge of Islam in Britain? Can we trust the British Government, who cannot take care of their own citizens, to protect us? And, finally, are we prepared to listen? Are we finally going to do what is necessary to protect ourselves from this new invasion?

Or will we just roll over and go back to sleep? - rg

Sunday, June 29, 2008

From Other Sites on the Line: 30 Jun 08

Confronting Mubarak: A good idea or a dangerous game?

Crossposted from Sons of Apes and

The US Congress and Leadership Council for Human Rights introduce a resolution to condemn Mubarak and his criminal regime

By ibn Misr on June 28, 2008

We encourage all Anti-Jihadist sites, and individuals to promote this resolution. Its success will be another step forward in our war on Islamic terror.

The U.S. Congress and the Leadership council for Human Rights condemn Mubarak, the godfather of Egypt that parades himself as the champion, for the Palestinian rights and war on terror while denying 15 million Copts of their basic rights, and expose him for what he really is. [A true muslim. This is the best qualification we should use, that should say it all, to address these creatures.]

The beauty is, they will understand what we mean by that when you slap them with it in the face, don’t forget the smile, but they won’t be able to accuse you of anything.

Actually I’m looking forward for the day when muslims and Islamic organizations like CAIR and company start suing us for calling them, true muslim followers of mohammad, knowing how much they’re proud of that infamous name that many of them carry. To give them a double dose of, “Feel the pride.”

When it gets to their bones, and we reach the point of being accused as islamophobic and spreading hate speech, for calling them true muslim followers of mohammad, that will be the day when they’ll bring down the house of islam with their own hands on their heads. And that will be the day when you’ll see scores of muslims wearing crosses and stars of David and calling themselves Mike and Emily instead of mohammad and eisha.

I particularly advise the radio shows, and television talk show hosts exposing islam to use this strategy. Can you imagine a headline like, “CAIR officials sue Michael Savage for calling them, true muslim followers of mohammad?”

We debate muslims every day, and we know the effect. Many muslims became ex-muslims when it made them regain conscience and forced them to connect with the deeds of mohammad and islam.

It is also a double formula. For muslims claiming to be against terrorism, against beating women, against killing kafirs and apostate, calling for peaceful co-existence between all people, equal rights for women and minorities, against the “marriage” of baby girls, against anti Semitism and defaming other religions, etc, etc, we congratulate them for not being true muslims and having a much higher morality than mohammad. But we ask them from where they got all this beautiful teaching, since it’s not in the Koran, and contradicts mohammad’s deeds, unless they can give us the references to correct our lack of knowledge.

Besides, telling a muslim that he’s a true muslim follower of mohammad is perfectly, “Politically correct.” But it will give political correctness a new dimension that will serve our purpose.

LCHR Applauds Egypt Human Rights Resolution, Urges Support

Written by LCHR
Wednesday, 27 June 2008
Washington, D.C. – The Leadership Council for Human Rights strongly supports H. Res. 1303, calling on the Egyptian Government to respect human rights and freedoms of religion and expression in Egypt. LCHR expresses its appreciation to Congressional Human Rights Caucus Co-Chair Frank Wolf for introducing this important resolution, which details Egypt's human rights abuses against religious minorities, journalists and bloggers, democracy proponents, and civil society development organizations. The resolution also urges the President and the Secretary of State to prioritize human rights and religious freedom in meetings with Egyptian officials.
LCHR applauds Rep. Wolf for his consistent leadership on the human rights situation in Egypt. Tragically, many Egyptians have been unable to claim and enjoy their rights because of widespread repression. Religious minorities like the Copts and Baha'is are subject to discrimination at every level, and political opponents of the ruling regime, including Ayman Nour, have been targeted and jailed. Egypt's President, Hosni Mubarak, has promised democratic reforms time and again. These promises have gone unfulfilled.

Please call and encourage your Member of Congress to co-sponsor H. Res. 1303. Your support is vital for the success of the resolution, which if passed will send President Mubarak a clear message that Egypt must respect human rights. Current co-sponsors include Reps. Burton, Smith, Franks, Fossella, Kirk, McCotter, Schakowsky, Souder, Davis, Pitts, Waters, Pence, McGovern, and Goode.

Proposed letter


The Honorable XXXXX(Address)

RE: Request to Co-Sponsor Resolution H.Res.1303
Dear Congressman XXXXX,

I/ We, as members of your district, are writing this letter to kindly ask for your assistance in supporting the aforementioned resolution that admonishes the Egyptian government’s egregious violations of human rights and religious freedoms. This resolution also requests that Egypt ends all forms of harassment and fully implement protection of religious minorities.

We, as Coptic Christians and Americans of Egyptian descent, are extremely concerned with the plight of all Christians in the Middle East, and especially with our Coptic brothers and sisters in Egypt. The Copts of Egypt are the last sizable Christian population left in the Middle East, and are also Egypt’s largest religious minority group.

Egypt’s violations of human rights and religious freedoms have been on the Congressional agenda for some time. However, violations of human rights in Egypt have continued to worsen significantly; and this severe decline and lack of improvement by the Egyptian government prompted:
1. Two European Union Parliament resolutions (one on Nov. 15th, 2007 and one on Jan. 18th, 2008) that condemn Egypt’s violations of human rights and religious freedoms
2. This new proposed US resolution, which will prove to the world that the Americans will always defend democracy and human rights throughout the world; showing our support for helping those who are helpless.

We are writing to respectfully request that you join in co-sponsoring this resolution. Your knowledge and expertise would be a great addition to this resolution.

The lead sponsor of this resolution is Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia. On Friday April 18th, Mr. Wolf’s office sent out a “Dear Colleague” email asking for support of this resolution and it includes the contact information for Elizabeth Hoffman in Congressman Wolf’s office.

We sincerely thank you for your time and attention to this important matter.


A note from Radarsite:
This is a complicated and delicate subject. As anyone who regularly reads this blog well knows, Radarsite is an ardent anti-Islamist, and we will enthusiastically embrace any movement or cause that undermines their influence in this world.

Confronting Mubarak is important and it's time we did it. But we should be careful. History has shown us that confronting -- or even inadvertently helping to depose -- strong arm ME dictators can be a dangerous game, if it is not well thought out. The elder Assad managed to keep the lid on the extreme Islamists in Syria only by the use of overwhelming brute force (purportedly slaughtering 25,000 of them). The same of course could be said of Saddam Hussein. We have all experienced the horrific fallout of our allowing the Shaw to be deposed. In retrospect, this may have been one of our most serious foreign policy blunders. However, at the time, I don't think we had any conception of the potential lethality of the Islamists.

But we do now.

Throughout our history, in order to win our larger battles against our major enemies at that time we have had to make common cause with all sorts of brutes -- perhaps chief amongst them, Stalin in WWII. It may have been unseemly, but it was also absolutely necessary. It is arguable that we could not have won WWII without him.

I believe that it is just and proper to exert whatever influence we may have (Egypt is, after all, the second biggest recipient of our foreign aid after Israel) to elevate the moral standards of dictators like Mubarak and to help protect the rights of his subjects; however, we must always keep in mind the tiger that they have by the tail. As distasteful as it may be, these brutal dictators just might -- at least, in the short term -- be the necessary lesser of two evils. -rg

Interesting visitors:
Host Name
IP Address [Label IP Address]
Country Egypt
Region Al Qahirah
City Cairo
ISP Information And Decision Support Center (idsc)

Navigation Path
Date Time WebPage
1st July 2008 05:41:35 wolf copts

[Confronting Mubarak]

Saturday, June 28, 2008

The Fouse Report: 28 Jun 08

Is UCI Becoming America's "Brown University"?

In 2005, I published a book entitled: Erlangen-An American's History of a German Town. It was a history of the German university town of Erlangen, near Nuremberg. I had spent almost three years in Erlangen as a young US Army MP (1966-1968). Since that time, I have returned several times, most recently this month, due to my love for the city where I spent a formative time of my youth.

During my research, I learned a lot about Erlangen in the years leading up to and during the Third Reich. In the years prior to Hitler taking power, Erlangen University acquired a reputation as a bastion of Nazi support and anti-Semitic feeling. Though there were not that many Jewish students or professors there, those that were found themselves subjected to a lot of abuse from students who were Nazi sympathizers. Indeed, the university was the first in Germany whose student government was dominated by Nazis. Hitler himself paid tribute to the university which gave him the most support in his early years of rising to power in Germany. As a result, Erlangen University boasted the moniker of "The Brown University".

I offer that as a backdrop because the university where I teach part-time, the University of California at Irvine (with the improbable mascot name "Anteaters"), has acquired a reputation in recent years as a bastion of radical Islamic activity (on the part of the Muslim Student Union), as well as anti-Israel-and anti-Jewish expression. It has reached the point where several Jewish students have opted to go elsewhere to study because of the perception. While not equating UCI with anything that existed in Nazi Germany, it is undeniable that words and deeds are on-going at UCI that can only be troubling to Jewish students and their families.

First of all, I have written extensively about this issue for over a year now, and I won't try to recount everything I have written in detail. I have also made the point that 99% of our students have nothing to do with anything that could be called anti-America or anti-Jew. Most of our students are Asian-American, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with the problems on our campus.

The problem, as I see it, is two-fold: First, we have an MSU that is virulently anti-Israel. The problem is that this has included much expression of Anti-American sentiment-and anti-Jewish sentiment on the part of MSU's sponsored speakers who come to UCI every quarter to speak. Many of MSU's speakers are radical Muslims who advocate the destruction of Israel, glorify suicide bombers, defend Hizbollah and Hamas and damn America in the process for its support of Israel and other offenses, real or imagined. Often, some of these speakers use anti-Semitic statements, usually careful to say, "Zionist Jews" to avoid the charge of anti-Semitism. For example, Mohammed Al-Asi, an Imam from Washington DC, has referred to Jews (on the UCI campus) as "low-life ghetto dwellers." He has also stated on the UCI campus that, "You can take the Jew out of the ghetto, but you cannot take the ghetto out of the Jew". He is also a defender of the Government of Iran, as well as Hizbollah and Hamas.

Amir Abdel Malik Ali, (formerly Derek Gilliam) a black convert to Islam, who is an imam in Oakland, comes to UCI every quarter and rails against Israel, America, and Zionist Jews as he defends Hamas and Hizbollah. He has appeared on tape glorifying suicide bombers in Israel.Then there is Abdul Alim Musa (formerly Clarence Reams), from Washington DC, who echoes all of Ali's above sentiments, calls for Islam to take over the world and maintains that 9-11 was an inside job. This former drug dealer turned imam has also appeared at UCI spouting his nonsense. This past quarter, the MSU week of "Holocaust in Palestine" featured a mock wall depicting the wall Israel has established to keep out suicide bombers. On the wall were various photos, drawings and slogans. I personally observed (and have posted) a caricature of Ariel Sharon drawn in the classic style of Julius Streicher's Der Stuermer, a vicious anti-Semitic weekly newspaper of the Third Reich. (Streicher was hanged after the war as one of the major war criminals.) Sharon was depicted with an over sized nose, thick lips and leering gaze.In addition, there have been occasional incidents where Jewish students who monitor and film these events have been harassed, threatened and shoved by MSU members.

During last quarter's events, one Jewish female student who was filming Ali's evening speech, was reportedly followed back to her car by about 6 MSU males, who surrounded her car. This incident was reportedly witnessed by a South African woman who had come to hear the speech. According to her account, when the police arrived, they treated the incident with complete indifference. (This alleged incident was reported in the Red County blog.)

This leads me to the second problem. The response of the university administration over the past several years has been negligible. Their position is that this is all a matter of free speech and free expression. Jewish students who have complained about the MSU have met with similar indifference. Certain university officials have been quoted as having called complaining Jewish students "hysterical Jews", "troublemakers" or "outside groups". Another faculty member just this week stated in an email (which I have read)that complaining Jewish students were misrepresenting the facts. He also took a shot at certain blogs like Pajamas Media and Little Green Footballs for reporting on the issue. The professor opined that whatever was being said by the MSU, no matter how offensive, was protected speech.

UCI Chancellor Michael Drake recently met in Washington DC with representatives of Hillel (a national Jewish student organization). He assured them that there was no room for hate speech at UCI. No room for hate speech at UCI? No room for imams calling Jews "low-life ghetto dwellers"? No room for Nazi-like caricatures of Ariel Sharon? No room for glorifying those who blow up innocent men, women and children on buses and in pizza parlors?

This past quarter, David Horowitz appeared at UCI and characterized it as the "worst in the country" when it came to this problem. There were at least two deans in the audience who listened to Horowitz's remarks. In the question and answer session that followed, none of these individuals took the opportunity to speak up and defend the university. It appears that the Jewish students at UCI are on their own as far as the school is concerned. Yes, there are a few professors who are alarmed at the MSU. Yet, few if any have spoken out publicly to criticize the MSU and the administration. Some choose to lend their influence quietly in working with the administration to make changes. I have chosen to hold the university's feet to the fire in a public manner. I have written to the campus newspaper, the UCI EEO Office and the Orange County Human Relations Commission outlining my concerns. This last endeavor was a waste of time. All I got was a nasty email from the OCHRC director, a certain empty suit hack named "Rusty" Kennedy, who called my letter a "diatribe" against the university (which was doing a great job along with his office to combat racism, blah, blah, blah.) He then had the cojones to sign his nasty-gram, "Rusty"."Rusty".

Fortunately, the US Department of Education (Office of Civil Rights) has agreed to re-open an investigation into anti-Semitic allegations from 2007, which they had previously determined to be "unfounded". Where this will go is anybody's guess. What is needed here is public exposure of the activities of the MSU that have brought so much discredit to what should be otherwise a fine university.

As I stated above, I am not suggesting that anyone at UCI harbors pro-Nazi sympathies, but I personally believe from my own observations that anti-Jewish feeling exists among at least some of the MSU members and especially many of their sponsored speakers. If the university administration cannot or will not meet its responsibility to provide a safe and hate-free environment for its Jewish students, then they should be held up to public exposure as well. While they fiddle and preach about "free speech", UCI is gradually becoming a version of America's own "Brown University". (And that has nothing to do with the one in Rhode Island.)

posted by Gary Fouse

From Other Sites on the Line: 28 Jun 08

Confronting the Islamic Military

Cross posted from Debbie Hamilton's Right Truth:

DEBBIE NOTE: Right Truth is thankful to Martel Sobieskey for publishing his articles here at Right Truth. We look forward to publishing future articles. Regular readers at Right Truth know that I completely agree and support the material set forth in this particular article. We have found a kindred spirit my friends.

This article is posted at Real Clear Politics, your votes are appreciated

The Misnomer of Radical Islam
America’s Security Blunder
June 27, 2008
by Martel Sobieskey

There is the erroneous assertion that Radical Islam is not connected with mainstream (moderate) Islam in any way, that the religion of Islam has been “hijacked by a few extremists” that the vast majority of Muslims do not agree with the Islamofascists. Such thinking is a terrible error and a grave threat to America’s national security, especially in this age of nuclear terrorism.

So what is Radical Islam and what should it be properly named? Radical Islam is actually the Islamic Military. The so-called radicals are not a fringe element; they are fully supported by the worldwide Islamic community (Ummah). If they were a fringe element, they would have been defeated long ago. The fight rages on because of strong support from the moderates both covertly and overtly. This means the Islamic Military (wrongly labeled radicals) is intimately connected with moderate Muslims who we have mistakenly labeled as innocent bystanders.

Moderate Muslims are not innocent bystanders. Moderate Muslims provide the base of operations which makes it possible for the Islamic Military to continue their terrorist operations. Hate America, demands to replace constitution with the Koran, and outbursts for Sharia law are preached openly from nearly every Mosque in America under the guise of freedom of speech and religion. Freedom of speech and religion has morphed into a weaponized tool of Islamic psychological warfare which is defeating America’s will to protect her national security. Any American who says Islam is less than perfect may become the victim of an unfair lawsuit by a “moderate” Muslim organization.

Why can one be so certain about this fact? The answer is the Koran. The Koran fuses together both moderates and their military. No Muslim dares to contradict the Koran because the penalty is -- death and loss of personal salvation. The moderate Muslims of every nation, including those in America fully support their Islamic military because worldwide conquest is the primary religious duty of all Muslims. Fellow Americans if you believe that your local Muslims are not secretly harboring in their hearts an agenda for the conquest of America by Islam then you are dead wrong, and understand nothing about the Koran.

Moderate Muslims may not carry weapons and murder innocent people hands on, but they play the role of “wolves in sheep’s clothing”. Moderate Muslims use two primary strategies to make conquest for Islam. The first is dawa, which is influence peddling, “wining and dining” and manipulation. You make conquest by “pleasing” your opponent, “buttering them up” -- bribery and back room dealings are common place. There is a “ton” of Muslim oil money buying preferential treatment for Islam in America. The second is taqiyya, which is outright deception and lying. Deception and lying to infidels as a strategy of conquest is one of Islam’s most valued “weapons”, a precedent set by the prophet Mohammed himself. Americans hear this deception everyday with proclamations that “Islam is a religion of peace.” This phrase is an excellent example of successful psychological warfare which has caused Americans to let down their guard, and made us very vulnerable to future terrorist attacks, even possible nuclear attacks as several experts have pointed out.

Recent history proves that the “so called peaceful Muslims” work as a team with their Islamic Military. They immigrate to a country touting what peaceful law abiding citizens they are, establish themselves, build mosques, increase their numbers and “bingo” terrorists acts start occurring in the host country. Do the attacks in Spain, England, France, Thailand, Bali, the Philippines, Holland, Sweden and the USA ring any bells here? All these attacks have been preceded by the establishment of moderate mosque communities which in turn became footholds from which the Islamic military could launch their terrorist attacks. The larger the percentage of Muslims that occupy a country the greater the havoc they wreak. The situation is directly proportional. Reducing the percentage of Muslims that dwell in the host country is the most effect way of stopping terrorism. Western governments must evaluate this fact very seriously if they wish to win the war against Islamofascism long term.

Have we Americans become gullible fools? As long as we fail to deal aggressively and comprehensively with the intimate Koranic connection between the moderate Muslims and their Islamic military we can never stop the terrorist attacks. Have you ever wondered why, so numerous the complaints worldwide, that Muslims are not assimilating into their host nation? It is because they are not there to assimilate -- they are there to conqueror the host country for Islam as their Koran requires. Fellow Americans please read the Koran for your self. Don’t take my word on it. You will learn first hand that anyone who tells you that Islam is a religion of peace is insulting your intelligence. The Penguin Classic edition, The Koran, translated by the Arab Scholar N. J. Dawood is a well respected version having sold over a million copies worldwide.

The best description of the symbiotic Koranic relationship between the moderates and their military comes from the Muslims themselves. They have a saying, “the poisonous fish swim in the sea”. The “poisonous fish” are the militants and the “sea” is the moderate mosque community. For example, for their 9/11 operation, the Islamic Military (poisonous fish) used the Al Farouq mosque in New York as the “sea” from which they “swam” to pulverize the trade towers. The next poisonous fish may be swimming from the sea of your local Mosque community with a nuclear explosion. Wake up Americans we are not fighting with bows and arrows anymore. We must take aggressive preventative measures to stop the Islamic military’s “euphoric” obsession to make a nuclear attack on American soil.

It is a great mistake to continue calling the Islamic military radicals because the term “radicals” has blinded us to think that the moderates are not in cahoots with their Islamic Military. In so doing we have violated the primary dictum of warfare which is to know and understand one’s enemy. Consequently, we have failed to understand that the Islam of Osama Bin Laden is main stream Islam – not a radical fringe. Osama Bin Laden is one of the generals of the Islamic military which is fully supported by the worldwide community of moderate Muslims, including American Muslims. Both moderate Muslims and their military have the same goal which is the Islamic conquest of the entire world -- this is the primary religious duty of all Muslims as required by the Koran. Americans desperately need to understand this fact if they wish to protect their country from great harm.

Martel Sobieskey has 35 years research experience in the field of religious conditioning and its relationship to warfare. He is greatly alarmed that American politicians, educators, and security personnel have failed to comprehend the deeply entrenched Jihadist religious conditioning inherent in Islam.


A note from Radarsite: Every now and then we run into an article that just nails it. This is one of those articles.
We find ourselves in the midst of a strange war, the battlefield is obscured by thick clouds of propaganda and obfuscations. The one thing that we need the most in this life and death conflict is clear and concise information about our enemy and their intentions. And this is the very thing that we are lacking. Our own liberal multicultural obstructionists have done their very best to protect America's enemies in the guise of protecting our American values. Our feeble attempts at identifying our enemies -- or in even trying to sort them out from their so-called "moderate" brethren -- are cut short by the liberal left with cries of racism and bigotry.

For generations now, whether it has been in dealing with the IRA or the PLO, or more recently, with Hamas and Hezbollah, we have bought into this bizarre Doublethink ruse of the separation of the so-called "militant wings" of these fanatical and murderous entities from those purportedly benign "political wings". Somehow, either by gullibility or wishful-thinking -- or some mushy combination of the two -- we have allowed ourselves to be bamboozled into accepting this ludicrous paradigm, accepting this preposterous notion that our enemy's left hand isn't aware of (or isn't responsible for) whatever its right hand is doing. This dangerous delusion allows us to believe that at least one half of these lunatic organizations are rational and reasonable and amenable to dialogue. The results of this naivete have almost always proven to be disastrous.

This is why Mr. Sobiesky's article is so very important. By coming up with his new and brilliant paradigm "the Islamic Military", he has given us a much-needed handle to get a hold on the issues and avoid those delusional pitfalls of Doublespeak. Without all the subterfuge, we can plainly see that we are in reality dealing with a single entity. This is exactly the kind of clarity that we so desperately need.

It comes down to something perhaps as simple as this: If a schizophrenic commits a murder, we cannot just prosecute that evil side of his persona; we must incarcerate or eradicate the entire person. With the threat of Islam, we can no longer accept their good Muslim/bad Muslim narrative. The enemy is a single evil entity; and it is Islam.

Thank you Mr. Sobiesky for this gift of reason. And thank you Debbie for posting it.
Hopefully we can still change course, and start to get realistic about this great cultural war we have had thrust upon us. -- rg

For more from Radarsite on this subject see:

Friday, June 27, 2008

Blips on the Screen: 28 Jun 08

Italy: Silvio Berlusconi's 'Iron Fist' Laws Approved

Soldiers could be sent into Italy's cities, illegal immigrants will be imprisoned and all non-serious court cases will be frozen for a year under new measures approved by Italy's senate.
The senate voted 166 to 123 to approve a wide-ranging package of measures which will allow Silvio Berlusconi to govern Italy with an iron fist.
Mr Berlusconi, 71, will now be able to use as many as 3,000 soldiers for up to six months in order to fight crime. Previously, the use of the army had to be agreed by the parliament beforehand.
Another controversial measure in the package will eventually see illegal immigrants imprisoned for up to four years. Landlords who rent homes to illegal immigrants will have their properties seized. Mr Berlusconi has pinned much of the blame for Italy's crime problem on immigrants and has vowed to "wash the piazzas clean of uncertainty". Immigrants who claim to have family in Italy will be given DNA tests.
News Source:

A note from Radarsite: The Conservative backlash continues in Italy. This is how it can be done. This is what the power of will can accomplish. In this example lies our hope and our future. We are aware of the fact that a large proportion of this Italian Immigrant problem is focused on their gypsy population, but the Muslims are also being targeted, as the recent bulldozing of a mosque in Verona illustrated so vividly.

This is what is called national self-defense, a concept that we seem to have overlooked lately, when it comes to enforcing our own immigration laws. If an immigrant element causes problems for the host country, that country has every right to do whatever is necessary to protect itself. And Italy is showing us how this can be done. While Britain and Scandinavia are being all but overwhelmed by their arrogant and often criminal immigrant populations, at least one European country has had enough.

Can we learn from this? Have the delusional multiculturalists wreaked enough havoc yet? We can only hope. And vote! - rg

If Israel attacks Iran, what would the U.S. do?

James Gordon/Creative Commons
The presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, like these F-14B Tomcats, means that Israel would require a U.S. green light to fly in and attack Iran.

If Israel attacks Iran, what would the U.S. do?

A note from Radarsite: Another thorough and insightful analysis of the looming Iranian nuclear crises, this time from JTA. It appears more and more likely that some form of military action will indeed be taken against Iran within these next six months, either from Israel or the US, or some combination of both -- most likely, an Israeli strike with American support and possible American follow up. With the pacifist left still screaming that "Bush lied and thousands died" in Iraq, are we prepared for that inevitable furious liberal backlash?
As usual, our enemies are both internal and external, both our own homegrown Chamberlainesque pacifists and the crazy Iranian mullahs. - rg

Hat tip to Susan Kaminski
Cross posted from

By Ron Kampeas
Published: 06/24/2008

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- As the question of an Israeli attack on Iran edges from if toward when, a new question looms: What would the United States do?
The question is preoccupying not just the White House but the Obama and McCain presidential campaigns, although neither would address
A number of neoconservatives in Washington, known for their closeness to the Israeli defense establishment, now predict that Israel may strike between the election in November and the inauguration of the next president on Jan. 21, if only because that’s a time when Israel can count on U.S. support.

"Israel would be unlikely to do it before the U.S. election," said John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who is close to the pro-Israel community in the capital. "But after the election and before the inauguration would be a window."

Israeli officials will not name a date, but some have grown more pronounced in recent weeks about the increased prospect of a strike should Iran develop nuclear weapons capability.

"A year from now Iran will be very, very close to the completion of its first nuclear bomb," Ephraim Sneh, a member of Israel's ruling coalition, said earlier this month at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference. "I may predict that there is -- will be no government in Jerusalem which would allow it to happen."

Asked to predict what the buzz would be at the May 2009 AIPAC policy conference, Sneh said, "If we are alone we will have to act alone. This will be the subject of May ’09."

Shaul Mofaz, the Israeli transportation minister, said this month that an attack would be "unavoidable" if Iran had the bomb. As Mofaz also is the top Israeli negotiator in the U.S.-Israeli strategic dialogue, his remark suggested that he is confident of U.S. support for an Israeli attack.

Bolton says that is not an unreasonable conclusion with the current administration.
"From past policies, they know that Bush holds a favorable view of Israel's right to self defense," Bolton said of Israeli officials.

Israel's closeness to Bush has led Bolton and fellow neoncons such as William Kristol to predict that Israel may time its strike before Inauguration Day on Jan. 21, 2009, particularly if U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the putative Democratic nominee, wins the presidency.

"The thing that makes an Israeli strike more likely is when any U.S. politician gets up and says Iran can be contained," said Michael Rubin, a colleague of Bolton's at the American Enterprise Institute and an alumnus of the Bush administration's Pentagon policy unit on Iran.

Obama argues for tough diplomacy with Iran -- carrots of engagement backed up by sticks of increased sanctions -- and insists that such diplomacy may yet contain the threat of a nuclear Iran.

Even in the case of a victory by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has adopted a posture on Iran closer to that of the Bush administration, Israel is likelier to trust the backing of the Bush administration in case of a strike, Bolton said.
"You can't predict what a new president will do with accuracy," he said.
Any Israeli attack on Iran almost certainly would first need a green light from the United States. Airspace over eastern Turkey and Iraq, controlled by the United States and one of its closest allies, would be the likely flight path from Israel to Iran.

"You would absolutely need permission and the IFF codes," said Jonathan Schanzer, the director of policy at the Jewish Policy Center, referring to the electronic Identification Friend or Foe codes that combat planes need to cross international airspace.

Schanzer, whose group is allied with the Republican Jewish Coalition, is a Bush administration alumnus, having worked at the Treasury Department as an intelligence analyst.

Orde Kittrie, an Arizona State University expert on Iran and proliferation, said Israel likely would expect U.S. backup following a first strike against Iran because the Jewish state alone could not sustain the required extended attack on Iran.
"You'd have to send several waves" of air attacks, Kittrie said. "It's not clear the Israelis have the capacity for more than one wave. The Americans do have the capacity."

Rubin, who has researched the consequences of an attack for a bipartisan U.S. Senate panel considering its consequences, said an attack would require at least 1,400 sorties -- well beyond Israel's capacity.

"It's not out in the open like Osirak," the Iraqi nuclear reactor Israel destroyed in 1981, he said. "It's all over the place. It might take more than one sortie to strike" some targets. "You'll have to go after the military structure, take out the means for retaliation."

Israel lost the element of surprise after the 1981 strike, Rubin said, and now Iran and other Persian Gulf states have sophisticated anti-aircraft systems.

The difficulties notwithstanding, Israel seems determined to signal to the West that it is considering a strike on Iran.

Last week, The New York Times reported that the Israeli military held an exercise this month involving more than 100 combat aircraft flying up to 900 miles -- the distance between Israel and Iran. Helicopters also conducted pilot rescue exercises.
The Bush administration alumni interviewed agreed that the administration likely would back Israel in the eventuality of an attack. But they were quick to add that the administration also is cognizant of the dangers: terrorist attacks by Hezbollah terrorists, Iran’s proxies, in the Middle East and beyond, as well as missile strikes by Iran.

The most threatening element is a broader conflagration involving the United States, which has some 150,000 troops in Iran’s neighbor, Iraq.

"The biggest danger is that Israel will think it can start the job and leave the United States to finish it," Rubin said.

Bolton said that available Western intelligence on Iran does not adequately predict the outcome of a strike, leaving open the danger of an enraged – and still nuclear capable – regime in Tehran.

"You could have a successful military strike that destroys the conversion facility at Esfahan only to find there's another conversion facility 100 miles away," Bolton said, referring to the process that creates weapons-grade uranium. "You could have the risks and downsides of nuclear attack without breaking the cycle."

The White House and the campaigns would not talk about such a prospect beyond issuing generic defenses of Israel's right to self-defense, but it is clear there are concerns.

The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, is touring Israel this week on a surprise visit. And senior advisers to both campaigns signed on to a report last week calling for an urgent dialogue between Israel and the United States on Iran -- a dialogue that would address the prospect of military action in dealing with the Islamic Republic's threat.

Among the participants on the panel on U.S.-Israel relations convened by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel think tank, were Tony Lake and Susan Rice, top foreign policy advisers to Obama, and James Woolsey, who advises McCain.

"It’s very significant that the key advisers to the presidential candidates signed on to a report that specifically talks about the need and importance for U.S.-Israel cooperation and partnership on the entire range of options regarding Iran," Robert Satloff, who convened the panel, told JTA.

"It is more than just being 'on the table.' It takes it to another level. These are topics that merit at the appropriate time high-level engagement and discussion. It does suggest that these options are legitimate."

Interesting visitors:
IP Address [Label IP Address]
Country Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Region -
City -
ISP Persiasat

Navigation Path
Date Time WebPage
29th June 2008 04:29:33 No referring link

The Fouse Report: 27 Jun 08

Justice Anthony Kennedy-Is He the Most Powerful Man in America?

The Supreme Court Child-Rape Ruling

By Gary Fouse
Friday, June 27, 2008

In the past few days, the US Supreme Court ruled in Kennedy vs Louisiana that no state may sentence a convicted child rapist to death. As usual, the decision was a 5-4 vote, with the 4 liberal justices lined up against the 4 conservative justices. The deciding vote? Anthony Kennedy, of course.

For those of you who don't follow the make-up of the Supreme Court (which everyone should), the 4 liberal justices are; John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and David Souter. The 4 conservatives who dissented were Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Sam Alito and John Roberts. Anthony Kennedy, who is the one swing vote on the Court, sided with the majority and wrote the majority opinion. As Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham opined last night, Kennedy may well now be the most powerful man in America.

And what did the majority base its legal ruling on? Incredibly, they based it on "evolving standards of decency"..."Based on both consensus (among state legislatures) and our own independent judgement, our holding is that a death sentence for one who raped but not kill a unconstitutional under the 8th and 14th Amendments." Where in the Constitution did they find that reasoning? What consensus in state legislatures are they talking about? Does that mean that the elected officials in all state legislatures all are against the death penalty for child rapists? Even if so, what connection is that to the Constitution?

Then there is this statement: "Society's desire to inflict the death penalty for child rape by enlisting the child victim to assist it over the course of years in asking for capital punishment forces a moral choice on the child, who is not of a mature age to make that choice."

In dissenting, Samuel Alito, joined by Scalia and Thomas, demonstrated why they were solid choices to sit on the Supreme Court. Thomas writes, "The court today holds that the 8th Amendment categorically prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of raping a child. This is so, according to the court, no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator's prior criminal record may be." (In the Kennedy case in Louisiana, the defendant, who raped his step-daughter, indeed, nearly killed her in the process.)

Finally, this comment: "Once all of the court's irrelevant arguments are put aside, it is apparent that the court has provided no coherent explanation for today's opinion."

When I was 14, the State of California (back in a different era) executed one Caryl Chessman, who had raped a series of young women leaving one of his victims severely psychologically damaged. (No one died, but one element of his crime that made him eligible for the death penalty involved kidnapping.) After years of appeals and stays of execution, Chessman was executed in California's gas chamber at San Quentin Prison in 1960. That was almost 50 years ago. Had Chessman had the good fortune of committing his crimes today in Massachusetts or Vermont (two states notoriously lenient when it comes to child rape), he might have served a minimal time in jail-even if his victims had been small children. (To repeat, Chessman's victims were not children, but young women.)

Is this the evolving standard of decency that Judge Kennedy refers to? What decency is there in taking a less condemning view of child rape?

This case illustrates why presidential elections are so vitally important. It is not just about taxes, health care, bringing the troops home and all that. The next president will probably select not only 2-3 Supreme Court judges, but a large number of federal judges as well. As a retired DEA agent I well recall the disasterous judges that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton appointed to the federal bench. Is there any doubt that Barack Obama will do the same? Those conservatives out there who are dissatisfied with John McCain as the nominee should think long and hard before sitting out the election.

Stokely Carmichael: Remembering the Hate

Stokely Carmichael:
Remembering the Hate

From The Road to Hell
Friday, Dec. 15, 1967

After five months of jetting around the world, Black Power Proselyter Stokely Carmichael announced last week in Sweden that his journey is about to end. "I shall return to hell," he declared. "That is, to the United States."

[In Paris] the quondam chairman of the misnamed Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee was the star anti-American ideologue at a left wing-sponsored "Che Guevara Week" meeting. Standing under a huge portrait of the late Cuban revolutionary and flanked by Viet Cong flags and a Christmas tree, Carmichael [said]: "We do not want peace in Viet Nam...we want the Vietnamese people to defeat the United States." And: "We feel we are not paying too high a price even if we have to destroy the structures of the United States."

In Cuba, he boasted that "we have our own list, and it includes McNamara, Johnson and Rusk—if we have to kill them, we will." In North Viet Nam, he gave his "warm support for the struggle against the common enemy." In London, he vowed that "we are going to take over—if the whites don't like it, we will stamp them out."

In Conakry, Guinea, he declared: "We will win our rights or we are going to burn the country down to the ground."

A note from Radarsite: Hating America. It may not be the world's oldest profession, but it's certainly not the newest one either. To our younger generation, Hating America may appear to be a relatively recent phenomenon, a post-9/11 exercise in self-flagellation, a reaction to our invasion of Iraq, or an expression of the left's near-psychotic loathing of George Bush. On the international stage, America has been seen by it's enemies (and often by its purported allies) as an aggressive imperialist power, whose impulsive military blunders have threatened the stability of world peace -- something that the Europeans had hoped -- and still hope -- to achieve through their philosophy of appeasement and conciliatory gestures towards dangerous and predatory tyrants.

It is important for us to remember, however, that Hating America has had a long dishonorable history. And to remember that today's hate-filled and inflammatory rhetoric is no more outrageous and disgusting than it was in 1967, when this article was written. It is also interesting to point out that almost invariably the fanatical leaders of these virulent Hate America movements are the products of successful middle -- or even upper class family backgrounds (Stokely Carmichael grew up in his carpenter-father's home in an all-white area of New York's The Bronx -- "We were immediately and completely accepted," recalls his mother Mabel). In short, they never missed a meal, were well provided for, well educated, and seemingly endowed with all of the advantages needed for a successful life. Our Jane Fondas and Danny Glovers and Stokely Carmichaels all share these incongruous biographical details with our international America Haters, the Osama bin Ladens and Mohammed Attas.

Contrary to their own propaganda, these Hate America movements are not the rebellious insurgencies of the poor and downtrodden but, rather, are almost without exception the results of a pampered and coddled existence, coupled with the poisonous indoctrination of a leftist educational system. Almost all of these fanatical rebels were radicalized, not on the cold streets of hard living, but on comfortable ivy-covered paths of expensive college campuses.

Conversely, the poor and downtrodden of this world can't wait for their chance to get to America, and will pay almost any price to achieve this lofty goal.

How, then, do we reconcile these two diametrically opposed views of our controversial country?

We could just stop sending our children to colleges and universities and send them out to work. Or, perhaps more realistically, we could at least attempt to counter the leftist propaganda which eminates from our Ivy League Hate America factories. We could pay a little closer attention to what our children are being taught, and who is teaching them. In short, we could stop abrogating our responsiblities and fight back against the hate. It is, as we have seen, an unending battle.

Read the entire 1967 article here:,9171,837582-1,00.html

Thursday, June 26, 2008

From Other Sites on the Line: 26 Jun 08

Muslim Chutzpah

Cross posted from Monkey in the Middle:
Thursday, June 26, 2008

The pot calling the kettle black!

Thursday, June 26, 2008
I thought that I had heard of every Chutzpah that the Muslim world could throw at the West, but this time they have a new low of accusations. Now it seems that the Islamic Saudi Academy is the subject of Persecution because they are Muslims.View the clip from al Jazeera. This is the school that the US Commission on International Religious Freedom cited that the textbooks used in a American School promote violence, discrimination, or intolerance based on religion or belief. Given the fact that the ISA is run by Saudi Arabia, and that the textbooks used in the school are the same ones used in Saudi Arabia; the Commission was correct to condemn this school for the hatred that the school is espousing.

The Commission has long called for Saudi Arabia to be designated a “country of particular concern,” or CPC, for its egregious and systematic violations of religious freedom. In particular, the Commission has expressed concern about the promotion of religious intolerance and religion-based violence in official Saudi government textbooks used both within Saudi Arabia and at Saudi schools abroad, such as the ISA. The Commission has been urging the U.S. government to press the Saudi government to promote religious tolerance in the Saudi curriculum since 2001, and in 2003 it issued an in-depth report about religious freedom conditions in Saudi Arabia, including intolerance and incitement to violence found in Saudi textbooks and the country’s official educational curriculum. It was not until September 2004 that the State Department first publicly expressed concern over the Saudi government’s “export of religious extremism and intolerance to other countries” at a press conference announcing Saudi Arabia’s CPC designation.

So how did the ISA and the Saudi Government respond to this? Instead of changing the textbooks and removing the hatred, they decided to attack the Commission and the United States, calling both racist and Islamicphobic.

From the transcript of the tape:
Reporter: "We are at the Islamic Saudi Academy in the state of Virginia - the largest institution teaching the Arabic language and Islamic education on the East Coast of the U.S. However, this institution faces mounting pressure, and this is a nightmare for the families of the students enrolled in the academy. This pressure is being brought to bear by several Congressmen, known for their great hostility towards Arabs and Muslims. "

However, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, which was established by Congress, has recommended that the academy be shut down, alleging that its religious curricula, which are taught in Saudi Arabia as well, included material inciting to racism and intolerance towards other religions. [The commission] did not even talk to those in charge of the academy, let alone visit it."

I guess that finally reading the hate filled textbooks was enough to understand exactly what is being taught at the ISA. Given the fact that the 1999 valedictorian of the school, one Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, has been convicted of conspiracy to assassinate the president, conspiracy to hijack aircraft and providing support to Al Qaeda. I am sure his picture is proudly displayed on their walls.Again from the transcript:
Reporter: "The local authority of Fairfax County, where the academy is located, has challenged the threats of closure. It determined that the allegations are invalid, and it approved the religious curricula after examining them. The non-Muslim teachers also expressed disgust and frustration at the allegations."Considering that the School's principal has been arrested for allegedly covering up a 5-year-old girl’s report of sexual abuse by her father.

And considering that the school has promised to clean up the offensive textbooks.Yet the school and Saudis are attacking the Commission even though it is now emerging that this school has been a hotbed of anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic hatred for years and a breeding ground for terrorists. And when the US government after years of being stonewalled finally discovers what the true nature of the Islamic Saudi Academy is. They are being called racists.

And that is the pot calling the kettle black.

Posted by Findalis

A note from Radarsite: Another terrific article from Findalis at Monkey in the Middle. This is exactly the nature of the war we are in. Our victories in this war are, it seems, few and far between. We still have so much to learn, both about ourselves and about the enemy we face. Incredibly, seven years into this WOT, we have still not found the political will to clearly define our enemies and act effectively against them. -rg

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

The Thirty Years War: Iran's Uninterrupted War Against America

Cross posted from ACT

This is a revealing look into the mindset of the militant leaders of Iran – and their views of the West. They are convinced America does not have the political will to do what is necessary to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. What’s more, past attempts at “dialogue” have only emboldened President Ahmadinejad and the Iranian mullahs.

Interestingly, as noted in the commentary below, the one action that did cause Iran to suspend part of its nuclear program was our invasion of Iraq. Those who understand that the militant Muslim world respects strength and power are not surprised by this.

Iran cannot be allowed to complete the building of nuclear weapons. An Iran with nuclear weapons is simply unthinkable and unacceptable.




Why Iran Will Get Nuclear Weapons

June 15, 2008 --

"Hit us and we shall hit you ten times harder!" This is how General Muhammad-Ali Jaafari, the newly appointed commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) has responded to speculation about a possible attack by the United States and/or Israel on Iran's nuclear installations.

Jaafari replaced General Yahya Safavi last year after the latter made a speech in which he implicitly warned the mullahs that Iran's military was not ready for war against far more powerful enemies.

Those familiar with Iranian military capabilities know that it is Safavi's sober assessment, and not Jaafari's bluster, that reflects the true situation.

The problem is that Jaafari can make his claim because he, and his political masters in Tehran, are convinced there would be no military action against their regime.

In 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the then newly-minted President of the Islamic Republic and darling of the IRGC, unveiled a strategy based on the assumption that once George W. Bush is out of the White House, the United States would bite the bullet and accept a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic as "regional superpower" in the Middle East.

Two events convinced Ahmadinejad that his strategy was correct:

The first came in May 2006 when the Bush administration, then at the nadir of its unpopularity because of the situation in Iraq, joined the line of supplicant Europeans begging Tehran to negotiate a deal.

That unexpected shift in Washington's policy produced the opposite effect.

Far from persuading Ahamdinejad that this was a good time to defuse the situation, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's attempt at nuance and multilateral diplomacy convinced Tehran that the Americans had blinked.

The second event that confirmed Ahmadinejad's belief that "America cannot do a damn thing" came with last year's National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Using a language of obfuscation, the NIE claimed that Tehran had abandoned key aspect of its nuclear program in 2003. The NIE undermined the whole case brought by the International Atomic Energy Agency against the Islamic Republic.

Whatever one might say about Ahmadinejad, one thing is certain: he plays an open hand. He is convinced that the US does not have the stomach for a fight and that Bush is the last American president to even dream of pre-emptive war.

He thinks the dominant mood in the US, and the West in general, is one of pre-emptive surrender.

Ahmadinejad may well be right: there is not going to be any war against the Islamic Republic.

Here is why: as soon as there are tangible moves, not just threats, leaked through The New Yorker's investigative reporters, that could threaten the existence of he Khomeinist regime, Tehran will announce a temporary suspension of its uranium enrichment program in accordance with three United Nations' Security Council resolutions.

Such an announcement will instantly defuse the situation, break the diplomatic coalition created by Bush, and, possibly, even inspire Nancy Pelosi to praise Ahmadinejad as a man of peace. To launch a war against Iran in such a situation would become politically impossible, even if John McCain is president.

A temporary suspension would not undermine Iran's plans to build a "nuclear surge capacity" - that is to say producing all that is needed for making atomic warheads without actually manufacturing bombs. Iranians, inspired by 3,000 years of history, know the value of patience. They are not in a hurry. They know that weaving a Persian carpet sometimes takes years.

In 2003, Iran did announce a suspension of its uranium program. Now, however, we know that even during that suspension, Tehran was working on other aspects of its nuclear project.

This time, the regime might accept another temporary suspension only if its own survival is at stake.

Taking measures that might hurt the people of Iran won't do the trick. The mullahs are as concerned about the welfare of their people as Saddam Hussein was about that of the Iraqis and Robert Mugabe is of the Zimbabweans. Sanctions already imposed by the UN make life more difficult for the average Iranian but have little effect on the regime.

This means that the Islamic Republic will not, indeed cannot, offer any concessions unless faced with the prospect of regime change.

Ahmadinejad has said as much, albeit in different words.

He has castigated his predecessor Muhammad Khatami for accepting suspension in 2003 when the regime was not in danger. Khatami says he did so because at the time, shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, he feared that the Americans might make a right turn and march on Tehran as well.

In other words, it was fear of regime change that persuaded the mullahs to accept suspension five years ago. As soon as that fear was gone and Bush appeared to be headed for a political lynching in his own country, the program was resumed at an even faster pace.

The way Western politicians talk about it, one gets the impression that the Iranian nuclear issue is a quirk of the mullahs that could be fixed with the threat of sticks and promise of carrots. It is not.

The Iranian nuclear issue has three layers.

The first concerns the power struggle in Tehran. Ahmadinejad has built his macho image on this issue. If he backs down he will be politically dead.

The second layer concerns the regime's strategy for hegemony in the Middle East. The Islamic Republic needs tactical "nuclear parity" to guarantee it won't be attacked with nuclear weapons as it proceeds to drive the Americans out of the Middle East, help destroy Israel as a Jewish state, and impose Khomeinism on the Arabs in the name of Islamic unity.

The third layer concerns the regime's ambitions, spelled out by Ahmadinejad and others, to create an international coalition to challenge the global system dominated by the United States.

Ahmadinejad has already promised anti-American regimes in Latin America "full support and protection" against the "Great Satan" in Washington. Iran is already laying the foundations for an armaments industry in Venezuela. One day a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic may extend its nuclear umbrella to Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Paraguay, Ecuador and, why not, even Cuba.

The Islamic Republic has been at war against the United States and the international system it leads for almost 30 years. This has been a low intensity war because the US and its allies have shied away from full-scale confrontation. The US has shown it has lots of power but not the courage to use even a fraction of it. The Islamic Republic's power, on the other hand, is "tiny," as Senator Barack Obama has noted. But the mullahs have been prepared to use that "tiny" power in full, with already devastating effects.

The issue is not how to avoid war with the Islamic Republic. It is how to end a war that has been going on for almost 30 years.

As in all wars there are three ways to end this one: surrender, make a deal, or win.

A note from Radarsite: This is perhaps the clearest, most concise analysis of the evolving Iranian threat we have yet to come across. "Surrender, make a deal, or win" -- these are our options. Is there really any choice? "An Iran with nuclear weapons is simply unthinkable and unacceptable". I simply cannot believe that we -- the United States or Israel -- will allow Iran to go nuclear. One or the other of us will do what has to be done. And we will do it before November.

However, if I am wrong, if we cannot find the necessary will to act now while we still have a chance to contain this threat, if we prevaricate and procrastinate beyond that inevitable deadline, then, by God, we will justly deserve the righteous contempt of our adversaries, and must then resign ourselves to live with the consequences of our cowardice.

For more on this subject see:
- "Should We Bomb Iran?"

- "The Strong Horse and the Weak Horse: America and the Fall of the Roman Empire"