Sunday, March 30, 2008



Good photos of a pair of F-18 Hornets at Top Gun which had a mid-air collision and then the pilots "John Wayne-ed" them back to base.

Hook down - hydraulics gone - incredible!! This truly is a miracle; two heavily damaged aircraft.

The pilots would have been justified in "punching out" but instead, they chose to bring the jets home.

This endangered their lives but saved the taxpayers about 80 million dollars. What is especially intriguing is in picture 3, notice the radome, radar and all of the avionics equipment, everything in front is gone.

This created several problems for the pilot:

aerodynamics, eventual loss of hydraulics due to loss of fluid, navigation, and probably the most amazing, as the pieces fell away, some debris had to be ingested by the engines ....and yet he still was able to bring it home!

The story behind them is: Two F/A-18 Hornets from "Top Gun" were dog fighting and made a head on pass, just a bit too close.

One got home with part of the left wing and left vertical fin and rudder missing, while the other jet is missing everything forward of the cockpit pressure bulkhead and is a flying "convertible" because the canopy is shattered too.

Friday, March 28, 2008


Many Americans have less quarrel with the Democratic politics for inside America than with their handling of Islamic leaders and lack of understanding what Islam is.

This global, political "ism" has uniform ANTI-WESTERN aims and statutes and tenets written IN STONE into the Koran, Hadiths and Surah and are independent of the ethnic origins of the proponents.(Islam does not recognize nationalities as all Moslems are "citizens/slaves" of Allah, so to speak, thus can have no other allegiance).

For you Islam might be a joking graphic of a "halal" (Islamic kosher) boobs below.

But in reality, its a hornet's next across the nation and often the world as the diagram below shows with a schematic of an Islamic concerted, coordinated reaction to a SINGLE EVENT.

We cannot get this kind of cooperation inside our own governments in the face of a natural disaster! So the danger is clearly visible in this.

The Soviets lost the revolution they and Jimmuh Carter (yes, these were the partners) initiated against the late Shah of Iran.

When the monarch's organized government structure swas sabotaged and fell leaving the only national network still in place, the Islamic "hornets nest" of mosques all over Iran.

They organized the equivalent to "neighborhood watches", which then linked to their neighbors and were soon running the country.

In other words or analogy, the Africanization of honey bees into vicious killers.


Had the picture below depicted Jesus instead of Mohammad, many Christians would have been offended, but would not have poured into the streets and destroyed property and threatened the lives or harmed non-Christians. Perhaps as many may have smiled at the humor behind it as spoofs are rarely conisered an insult.

Saturday, March 22, 2008


Unless there is something behind the scenes we cannot fathom, supplying arms to the new, mostly Moslem, State in the heart of Europe is NUTS.

Condoleeza Rice has often been close to showing a lunatic attitude in foreign affairs, specially regarding Iran, mostly prompted by former assistant Secretary Burns, who has left office (not his replacement of the same name). But this???

Is there enough motivation in an anti-Russian (anti-Soviet Putin) stance to invite the unintended consequences? Mr. Bush, weigh this very carefully. Or unleash unintended consequences of major proportions.

WASHINGTON (AFP) — President George W. Bush authorized Wednesday supplying Kosovo with weapons, signaling the establishment of government-to-government relations after recognizing its independence, the White House said.

In a memo to the State Department made public by the White House, Bush said: "I hereby find that the furnishing of defense articles and defense services to Kosovo will strengthen the security of the United States and promote world peace."

A senior official said the authorization followed US recognition of Kosovo's independence and was part of the normal process of establishing relations with a new government.

In a comment apparently meant to allay concerns from Serbia and its ally Russia, the official stressed the military restrictions imposed on Kosovo under a plan by former UN special envoy for Kosovo Martti Ahtisaari.

Under the Ahtisaari plan, which is the basis for Kosovo's supervised independence, Kosovo is allowed a lightly armed 2,500-person security force under NATO oversight and training.

Kosovo, an Albanian-dominated Serbian province under UN administration since 1999, unilaterally declared its independence on February 17. The United States recognized it on March 18, despite strong opposition from Serbia and Russia.
The US official, who asked not to be identified, said the US weapons deliveries were preparing the ground for the future, adding that the United States had struck similar relations with other countries in the region.

Furthermore, the official said, provisions of defense equipment and services would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The official said that providing military equipment to Kosovo would improve security relations and engagement with Kosovo, promote security and stability throughout the Balkans, improve Kosovo's capacity to take part in peacekeeping activities, to detect, deter and defeat terrorists, and to deal with humanitarian emergencies.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008


What the Pentagon Report Missed
March 18, 2008 12:30 AM

The recent Pentagon study was far from the final word on the Iraq-Al-Qaeda connection. Richard Miniter sheds light on what the report - and the media - overlooked.

by Richard Miniter

When an Institute for Defense Analysis study seemed to announce that there was “no connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda,” the media was quick to parrot the line of Warren P. Strobel of McClatchy Newspapers.

(Newspapers recently caught at disseminating NEGATIVE disinformation about our troops)

Relying on a leaked executive summary of the report, Strobel wrote that “an exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents” found “no evidence” linking Saddam Hussein with Al-Qaeda.

Led by the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes, the right side of the blogosphere was quick to point out that the report did contain evidence of such connections, focusing mainly on Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which merged with Al-Qaeda in 1997, and the Army of Mohammed, a Kuwaiti affiliate of Al-Qaeda.

The New York Sun’s Eli Lake and the Weekly Standard’s Thomas Joscelyn found in the report evidence that at least five Al-Qaeda affiliates were funded by Iraq.

Still, both the MSM and blogosphere have missed some key points:

The report utterly demolishes the myth that Saddam Hussein, a “secular dictator,” would never work with radical Islamists. The report contains a wealth of information demonstrating that Saddam Hussein was in touch with nearly every Islamist terrorist group in the Middle East and that his intelligence services had standing orders to monitor and reach out to any group of significance.

That includes factions of Fatah, Hamas, the Army of Mohammed, and even Iran’s favorite terror group, Hezboallah. Of course, Hussein also worked with a number of Al-Qaeda proxies. Claudia Rossett has a good summary here. But the bigger point remains unnoticed: secular socialist Saddam did work with Islamist terrorists, despite their “ideological differences.”

The report was not “exhaustive,” as McClatchy Newspapers and others described it. Virtually every news story and blog post says that the researchers surveyed 600,000 captured documents in the Harmony database.

There are two problems with that claim. The Harmony database contains some two million documents. So the report examined less than a quarter of the captured Iraqi documents — hardly exhaustive. In the fine print, the report concedes it was not able to access many documents because they were being actively used by “other agencies” — meaning one or more of the nation’s 16 intelligence services, the State department, or other elements of the Defense department.

The second problem: The researchers didn’t even examine all 600,000 documents available to them, the report concedes. Only 15% — about 90,000 — of those 600,000 documents have been translated into English.

The remaining 510,000 documents were, in the language of the report, “screened” not read. Every Harmony document has a title, number, and several key words in English.

Researchers simply sifted through the labels looking for “bin Laden,” “Al-Qaeda” and so on. That isn’t very exhaustive; officials who have used the Harmony database say that the key words and titles were typed in by hourly contractors who often missed the significance of what they were inputting.

Besides, they were rewarded for speed, not thoroughness. Worse still, Al-Qaeda did not refer to itself by its name until after 2001. Instead, it was known as “the company,” “the organization,” and so on, and bin Laden was simply referred to as “the director.”

So it would be unusual for the phrase “Al-Qaeda” to show up in captured Iraqi documents. In short, the keyword search applied to 85% of the available documents is meaningless.

The report definitely missed documents that established the Iraq-Al-Qaeda connection. On Friday, I spoke with a former government official whose position required him to review captured Iraqi documents in the Harmony database. (He insisted on anonymity because his work was classified and he continues to consult on intelligence matters.)

“I have been in that database and I saw an instruction from the [Iraqi] foreign ministry to its embassy in Havana, instructing them to cooperate with members of Al-Qaeda. The document named specific individuals we know are connected to Al-Qaeda.” Yet, that document does not appear in this report.

Why? Most likely, my source says, because it is still being used by the State department or the CIA.

The report was never supposed to be the final word on the Iraq-Al-Qaeda connection. Instead, it was supposed to mine the Harmony database for information that could be useful to military commanders. On page vii, the report lays out its mission.

Getting to the bottom of one of the most vexing issues of the Iraq war wasn’t listed.

So how did the press get it wrong? One official familiar with the history of the report told me what he believed happened.

Kevin M. Woods, the main author of the report, wrote a factual report whose conclusions clung narrowly to the available facts. Somewhere along the line, a politically motivated supervisor inserted a one-liner into the executive summary, and that person, or another, leaked it to Strobel, at McClatchy Newspapers.

The rest of the MSM dutifully followed Strobel’s line. That made a mostly neutral report into a politically-charged weapon, much like the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) - since discredited).

The report does not say that there is “no connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda,” as many in the media have summarized it. It states that researchers looking in essentially 15% of one-quarter of the Harmony database found no evidence of an “operational link.”

An operational link is one in which Iraqi officials order Al-Qaeda to carry out specific operations.

There is a big difference between “no link” and “no operational link.” The phrase “no operational link” concedes that there are many other types of links, such as training, financial assistance, exchange of personnel and so on.

The report ignores open sources. If researchers really wanted to be “exhaustive” in their investigation, they would have looked at the numerous “open source” links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

Before exploring the myriad links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, let us consider sources. To be persuasive, the best sources have to be authoritative and impartial — and preferably independent of the White House.

So the main sources for this article are the official reports of the 9-11 Commission, bipartisan reports of U.S. Congressional committees, and news stories written by staff members of overseas center-left dailies, mostly the Guardian and the (London) Observer as well as established center-left American publications, such as the New Yorker.

The main Administration source relied on here is Colin Powell, who was the most independent member of the Bush cabinet and certainly not a cheerleader for war in Iraq. (And I only relied on words that he did not later retract.)

The other Administration source cited is CIA Director George Tenet, who was first appointed by President Clinton. I also relied on my own prior reporting in Egypt, Sudan and Iraq.

There are four kinds of undisputed connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda found in open sources: meetings, personnel, money and training.


Photographs, taken by Malaysian intelligence in January of 2000, place Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, a suspected Iraqi intelligence operative, at key planning meetings with Al-Qaeda members for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11th attacks.

“In the spring of 1992, according to Iraqi Intelligence documents obtained after the war, Osama bin Laden met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Syria,” Colin Powell told the United Nations.

Why didn’t researchers look for these documents in the Harmony database?

Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.

Former head of the bin Laden unit at the CIA and sharp critic of the Bush Administration, Michael Scheuer, writes in his 2002 book, Through Our Enemies Eyes, that Bin Laden “made a connection with Iraq’s intelligence service through its Khartoum station.”

Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq’s Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam’s son Qusay, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat, Iraq’s external intelligence service in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Powell.

An Al-Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam’s men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Powell said.

Saddam’s relationship to bin Laden was documented while the archterrorist was based in Sudan from 1991 to 1996. Patrick Fitzgerald, an U.S. attorney in the Clinton Justice Department, prepared an indictment of Osama bin Laden:

“Al-Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, Al-Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.”

In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq’s mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with Al-Qaeda officers. Mr. Hijazi is “thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq,” the Guardian reported.

“In 2000, Saudi Arabia went on kingdom-wide alert after learning that Iraq had agreed to help Al-Qaeda attack U.S. and British interests on the peninsula,” Powell said.

In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane’s Foreign Report, a respected London-based defense newsletter. Jane’s reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, Al-Qaeda’s second-in-command.

Why are all of those meetings significant?

The London Observer reports that FBI investigators cite a captured Al-Qaeda field manual in Afghanistan, which “emphasizes the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.”

As recently as 2001, Iraq’s embassy in Pakistan was used as a “liaison” between the Iraqi dictator and Al-Qaeda, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

Qassem Hussein Muhammed, a twenty-year veteran of Iraqi intelligence, was interviewed by New Yorker veteran reporter Jeffrey Goldberg in 2002 — almost a year before the war.

Muhammed said that he was one of the seventeen bodyguards assigned to protect Zawahiri on a 1992 trip to Iraq.

Zawahiri, according to Qassem, stayed at the al Rashid Hotel in Baghdad. Qassem claimed that he was on the security detail that shuttled Zawahiri to one of Saddam’s opulent palaces for a meeting with Saddam.

Both ABC News’s Nightline and the PBS’ Wide Angle interviewed a “twenty-year veteran of Iraqi intelligence” who told the same story.

He was not named by Wide Angle. Nightline identified him by his nom de guerre, Abu Aman Amaleeki.

“In 1992, elements of Al-Qaeda came to Baghdad and met with Saddam Hussein,” Amaleeki said, “And among them was Ayman al Zawahiri.” Amaleeki added, “I was present when Ayman al Zawahiri visited Baghdad.”

Another visit by Zawahiri, in September 1999, was confirmed by former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi in a wide-ranging interview with a reporter from the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat.

Allawi said the Iraqi secret service in the new Iraqi intelligence service had found documents from the Saddam era that detailed the relationship between the Iraqi strongman and Al-Qaeda.

Allawi said that Al-Qaeda’s number two al Zawahiri was invited to attend the ninth Popular Islamic Conference by Izzat Ibrahim Al-Douri, Saddam’s second-in-command. The Iraq government has the invitation and other documents.

Yusuf Galan, also known as Luis Galan Gonzales, is a Spanish convert to Islam linked to Al-Qaeda by Spanish investigative judge Baltasar Garzon. Galan is charged by a Spanish court with being “directly involved with the preparation and planning” of the September 11 attacks.

In the course of their investigation, Spanish police searched Galan’s home and found an array of documents related to al Qaeda — and an invitation to a party at Iraqi embassy in Madrid. Galan worked for a former roommate of Mohammed Atta, who led the 9-11 attacks. The invitation used his “Al-Qaeda nom de guerre,” London’s Independent reports.


Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden.

According to London’s Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit “youth to train for the jihad” at a “headquarters for international holy warrior network” to be established in Baghdad.

The Arabic-language daily al-Hayat reported on May 23, 2005: “A detained al Qaeda member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist Al-Qaeda after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by Al-Qaeda’s attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.”

Mullah Melan Krekar ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior Al-Qaeda officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988.

When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on Americans, “three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000 ‘to undertake jihad,’” Newsday reported.

Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group operated in a portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein — and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to Saddam.

A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United Press International correspondent that Krekar’s group was funded by “Saddam Hussein’s regime in Baghdad.”

Le Monde, the Paris-based center-left daily, reported on July 9, 2005, that Ansar al Islam “was founded in 2001 with the joint help of Saddam Hussein — who intended to use it against moderate Kurds — and Al-Qaeda, which hoped to find in Kurdistan a new location that would receive its members.”

A captured Ansar al Islam terrorist, Rebwar Mohammed Abdul, revealed to the Los Angeles Times: “‘I never talked to [Abu] Wael [an Iraqi intelligence officer] but I saw him three times in meetings with Mullah Krekar [the head of Ansar al-Islam].

The mullah told us that Wael was a friend of his for 23 years and that they had met in Baghdad while Wael was an intelligence officer.”

The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Goldberg interviewed several prisoners held by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, one of the Kurdish factions fighting Ansar al-Islam. The prisoners related an intricate web of coordination between an Al-Qaeda splinter group and Saddam’s intelligence service, the mukhabarat. Goldberg writes:

“The allegations include charges that Ansar al-Islam has received funds directly from Al-Qaeda;

that the intelligence service of Saddam Hussein has joint control, with Al-Qaeda operatives, over Ansar al-Islam;

that Saddam Hussein hosted a senior leader of Al-Qaeda in Baghdad in 1992 [Zawahiri];

that a number of Al-Qaeda members fleeing Afghanistan have been secretly brought into territory controlled by Ansar al-Islam;

and that Iraqi intelligence agents smuggled conventional weapons, and possibly even chemical and biological weapons, into Afghanistan.”

In Iraq in May 2007, I interviewed Adullah Rahman al-Shamary, a former assistant to Uday Hussein, Saddam’s son. Al-Shamary was a liason between Hussein and Abu Wael, who essentially commanded Ansar al Islam, Al Qaeda’s first Iraq affiliate.


An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as “Abu Mohammed,” told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden’s fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997.

At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam’s Fedayeen, a brutal strike force that reported directly to Saddam Hussein. Mohammed described an encounter at Salman Pak, a training facility southeast of Baghdad.

At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives — on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: “We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas.

I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: ‘You’ll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden’s group and the PKK [a Muslim terror group known for atrocities in Turkey] and Mojahedin-e Khalq [a terror group active in Pakistan].’”

After the end of major combat operations in Iraq, an Associated Press reporter visited Salman Pak. “Salman Pak, about 15 miles southeast Baghdad… satellite photos show an urban assault training site, a three-car train for railway-attack instruction, and a commercial airliner sitting all by itself in the middle of the desert.”

Ravi Nessam, the Associated Press reporter, continued: “Speaking at an April 6, 2003 press conference, General [Vincent] Brooks said: ‘The nature of the work being done by some of those people that we captured, their influences to the type of training that they received, all of these things give us the impression that there was terrorist training that was conducted at Salman Pak.’”

Nationally syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock sifted through the publicly available information about al Qaeda operatives training in Iraq’s Salman Pak facility: “Sabah Khodada, [is] a former Iraqi army captain who once worked at Salman Pak. On October 14, 2001, Khodada granted an interview to PBS television program Frontline stating, ‘This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the whole world.’

He added: ‘Training includes hijacking and kidnapping of airplanes, trains, public buses, and planting explosives in cities… how to prepare for suicidal operations.’ He continued: ‘We saw people getting trained to hijack airplanes…They are even trained how to use utensils for food, like forks and knives provided in the plane.’”

The following year, according to 9-11 Commission Staff Statement 15, bin Laden took the Iraqis up on their pledge. [Iraqi intelligence officer Farouk] Hijazi told his interrogators in May 2003 that bin Laden had specifically requested [from Iraq] Chinese-manufactured anti-ship limpet mines as well as training camps in Iraq.”

Mohammad Atef, the head of Al-Qaeda’s military wing until the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior Al-Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to learn how to make chemical weapons, according to Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Powell asked: “Where did they go, where did they look?” said the secretary. “They went to Iraq.”

The Iraqis, who had the Third World’s largest poison-gas operations prior to the Gulf War I, have perfected the technique of making hydrogen-cyanide gas. (The Nazis used to call that gas Zyklon-B.) In the hands of Al-Qaeda, this would be a fearsome weapon in an enclosed space — like a suburban mall or subway station.

CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee: “Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb making to Al-Qaeda. It also provided training in poisons and gasses to two Al-Qaeda associates; one of these [Al-Qaeda] associates characterized the relationship as ‘successful.’

Mr. Chairman, this information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence. It comes to us from credible and reliable sources. Much of it is corroborated by multiple sources.”


Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, entered the U.S. on a phony Iraqi passport.

Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the Al-Qaeda cell that detonated the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years.

He fled to Iraq.

U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam’s hometown, that show that Iraq gave Yasin both a house and monthly salary. This confirmed ABC News reports from the Clinton era.

ABC News correspondent Sheila MacVicar reported on July 27, 1994: “Last week, [television program] Day One confirmed [Yasin] is in Baghdad…Just a few days ago, he was seen at [his father’s] house by ABC News. Neighbors told us Yasin comes and goes freely.”

Six months before the 9-11 attacks, which were plotted in Germany, Germany federal police arrested two Iraqi men suspected of spying.

“They are suspected of carrying out missions for an Iraqi intelligence service in a number of German towns since the beginning of 2001,” said a spokeswoman for state prosecutors Kay Nehm in Karlsruhe.

On March 16, 2001, a Paris-based Arabic-language newspaper reported fresh details on the arrests. The Middle East Intelligence Bulletin translated the report from al-Watan al-Arabi:

Al-Watan al-Arabi (Paris) reports that two Iraqis were arrested in Germany, charged with spying for Baghdad. The arrests came in the wake of reports that Iraq was reorganizing the external branches of its intelligence service and that it had drawn up a plan to strike at US interests around the world through a network of alliances with extremist fundamentalist parties.

The most serious report contained information that Iraq and Osama bin Laden were working together.

German authorities, acting on CIA recommendations, had been focused on monitoring the activities of Islamic groups linked to bin Laden. They discovered the two Iraqi agents by chance and uncovered what they considered to be serious indications of cooperation between Iraq and bin Laden.

The matter was considered so important that a special team of CIA and FBI agents was sent to Germany to interrogate the two Iraqi spies.

In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam’s son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

“The Senate Intelligence Committee report says that [Abu] Zubaydah was the ‘senior al Qaeda coordinator responsible for training and recruiting.’ Zubaydah, who is in U.S. custody, is often cited by skeptics of the Iraq-Al-Qaeda connection because he told interrogators that he thought it ‘unlikely’ that bin Laden would establish a formal alliance with Iraq for fear of losing his independence.

But the skeptics often ignore other aspects of Zubaydah’s debriefing. Again, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee report, Zubaydah ‘indicated that he had heard that an important al Qaeda associate, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, and others had good relationships with Iraqi intelligence.”

In 2001, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two Al-Qaeda members entering the oil-rich kingdom from Iraq. “They were linked to associates of the Baghdad cell, and one of them received training in Afghanistan on how to use cyanide,” Powell said.

Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates “converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there,”

Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, Powell said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for Al-Qaeda’s global network.

Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an Al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Powell told the United Nations. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002.

Official records discovered in Baghdad revealed that Zarqawi received medical treatment at the Olympic hospital run by Uday Hussein, Saddam’s son.

When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Almost a year before the Iraq war, Zarqawi’s Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan.

The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi’s cell in Iraq, Powell said. His accomplice escaped to Iraq. “After the attack, an associate of the assassin left Jordan to go to Iraq to obtain weapons and explosives for further operations.”

Powell told United Nations: “the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp, and this camp is located in Northeastern Iraq.”

Powell added: “Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein’s controlled Iraq, but Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000, this agent offered Al-Qaeda safe haven in the region.”

Iraq was clearly harboring Zarqawi before the Iraq war and refused twice to turn him over to U.S. Powell told the U.N.: “We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates.

This service contacted Iraqi officials twice, and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi. The network remains in Baghdad; Zarqawi still remains at large to come and go.”

Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He called his relationship with Saddam’s regime “successful,” Powell told the United Nations.

Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May of 2000.
“Hissam al Hussein, the former second secretary at Iraq’s embassy in Manila. The Philippine government expelled him on February 13, 2003, just five weeks before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Cell phone records indicate he had spoken with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, two leaders of Abu Sayyaf, al-Qaeda’s de facto franchise for the Philippines. The timing was particularly suspicious, as he had been in contact with the Abu Sayyaf terrorists just before and after they conducted an attack in Zamboanga City.

“Abu Sayyaf’s nail-filled bomb exploded on October 2, 2002, injuring 23 individuals and killing two Filipinos and one American. That American was U.S. Special Forces Sergeant First Class Mark Wayne Jackson, age 40.”

Vice President Dick Cheney sat down with Tim Russert, host of NBC’s Meet the Press, in 2004. Here is how Cheney summarized the evidence:

RUSSERT: But is there a connection [between Iraq and al Qaeda]?

CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that.

Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ‘90s, that it involved training, for example on BW [biological weapons] and CW [chemical weapons], that al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved, the Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al Qaeda organization.

CIA Director George Tenet and Secretary of State Colin Powell have also testified that the trail of meetings between Iraq and Al-Qaeda stretch back to the early 1990s.

Tenet wrote the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 7, 2002 that the CIA and other American intelligence services had amassed “solid reporting” of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade.

Powell said that the U.S. had documented “decades-long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and al Qaeda,” in his speech to the United Nations. “Going back to the early and mid-1990s when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an al-Qaeda source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that al Qaeda would no longer support activities against Baghdad.

Early al Qaeda ties forged by secret high-level intelligence service contacts with al Qaeda.” “There is evidence of linkage between al Qaeda and Iraq,”

Powell told the panel at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 26, 2002. “There is not linkage to 9-11 that we are aware of, but I can’t dismiss that possibility.”

No connection? Well, Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi state certainly had a lot of meetings, money changed hands, some terrorist training occurred in Iraq, and a lot of personnel — including Abu Musab al Zarqawi — moved freely through the Iraqi police state. In short, there are connections.

None of this means that Iraq ran Al-Qaeda or had foreknowledge of its most gruesome attacks. It certainly does not mean Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks or even knew about them in advance.

Still, for there to be “no connection” between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, it would mean no meetings, no money, no training and no movement of personnel.

On the strength of much weaker evidence, Saudi Arabia is “connected” to Al-Qaeda. Why is Iraq the one nation given the benefit of the doubt?

Also - plentiful evidence exists as to the movement of WMDs from Iraq to silos in Syria and Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, with extensive aid of the Russians.

Alan Note:

Also remember much of the work on WMDs and nuclear techonology had been outsourced, since the first Gulf War, to Libya where some 20,000 Iraqi and Syrian scientists were working under Ghaddafi patronage, to advance capabiities in chemical, biologial and nuclear weaponry for Iraq.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008


A Tifton agricultural researcher says he has found the solution to the world’s energy crisis through genetic modification and cloning of bacterial organisms that can convert bio-mass into hydrocarbons on a grand scale.

The local researcher believes his groundbreaking discovery could result in the production of 500 to 1,000 barrels of hydrocarbon fuel per day from the initial production facility.

The hydrocarbon fuel — commonly known as oil or fossil fuel when drilled — will require no modification to automobiles, oil pipelines or refineries as they exist today and could forever end the United States’ dependence on foreign oil, he said.

Researcher: Discovery could end energy crisis

By Jana Cone/reporter

A Tifton agricultural researcher says he has found the solution to the world’s energy crisis through genetic modification and cloning of bacterial organisms that can convert bio-mass into hydrocarbons on a grand scale.

The local researcher believes his groundbreaking discovery could result in the production of 500 to 1,000 barrels of hydrocarbon fuel per day from the initial production facility.

The hydrocarbon fuel — commonly known as oil or fossil fuel when drilled — will require no modification to automobiles, oil pipelines or refineries as they exist today and could forever end the United States’ dependence on foreign oil, he said.

J.C. Bell, who brought the world powdered peanut butter, has spent the last four years, identifying the bacteria that produces hydrocarbon and then finding a way to genetically alter it so that it could produce hydrocarbon in greater volume.

Bell cited a USDA study that projected it was possible to produce two billion tons of bio-mass that could be converted to hydrocarbon with some modification to agriculture and forestry practices.

Pamela Serino, Chief of the Department of Defense Energy Support Center at Fort Belvoir, Va., said she was very excited about Bell’s technology. “The DOD Energy Support Center is the energy purchasing arm of the defense logistics agency,” Serino said.

She said she became acquainted with Bell when he met with a senator about his hydrocarbon research. “We give support to the Hill,” she said. “When he was briefing the senator, we were there to see if his technology was viable.” Serino said her job was to question the science behind the technology. “It looks good to me,” she said.

Serino said she envisions a near future where “we have multiple regional energy sources.” She said the growth in China and India makes the work in bio-energy more critical.

Now that his discoveries have been patented, his corporation formed — Bell Bio-Energy, Inc. — and his government communications established, Bell announced his discoveries to the local press on Friday morning.

“I have received a tremendous amount of support from the state and federal government,” Bell said. “I could not have gotten this far without the help of (U.S. Sen.) Saxby Chambliss, (U.S. Sen.) Johnny Isakson, (Rep.) Jim Marshall, (Rep.) Jack Kingston and Floyd Gabler, the deputy undersecretary of the USDA.” He said, “They have opened doors for me at the Department of Defense and the EPA and EPD.”

Bell said he never considered ethanol for his research. “He who burns his food goes hungry,” Bell said. “That’s an old Chinese proverb.” Instead he concentrated on bio-mass and hydrocarbons. “If it grows it’s bio-mass,” Bell said. Bio-mass is any living or recently dead biological material.

Hydrocarbon is an organic compound consisting entirely of hydrogen and carbon. Decomposed organic matter provides an abundance of carbon and hydrogen and is naturally occurring in crude oil.

Sources for bio-mass to be converted to hydrocarbon fuel are the forestry industry, pulp plants, agriculture and waste derived from the construction and demolition industry.

“This is the ultimate recycling,” Bell said.

“Environmentalists should rejoice. We are only using waste products.” Bell said his company would take all of the waste of the plants: The tree limbs and tree tops, husks and cob of the corn, wheat stubble and corn stover.

Bell said that with ethanol, “The United Stated would have to totally rebuild our infrastructure.” He said, “We wanted to make hydrocarbon that could immediately be pumped.”

Bell said the original idea came from observing cows expel gas. “That is natural gas,” Bell said. “Cows release methane gas.” He said the gas is created by bacteria in the cow’s rumen or stomach. “These bacterial organisms are responsible for biological conversion of bio-mass into hydrocarbons,” he said.

With his research complete, Bell is in the process of building his pilot plants and production facilities. At the pilot plants, the bio-mass will be tested to select bacterial strains, bacterial genetic modification will be tested, revision of production protocols will be established, and a determination will be made of the best method of bio-mass conversion.

“We are exploring several locations for our pilot plants and production facilities,” Bell said. “We have the opportunity to put our plants in several locations.”

He estimated the budget for the research facility to be at $60 million annually and the production facilities at $250 to $300 million a year. He anticipates being in full scale production by October 1, 2009.

Sunday, March 16, 2008


By Rodger Baker

Over the last few decades, China, Japan and South Korea have dabbled on the international stage mainly via “soft” tools such as cultural and economic exchanges.

But as the global trading system has evolved — along with the East Asian trio’s stature within that system — the three countries’ hunger for resources and markets has grown to an all-time high.

This has pushed them into increasingly bold experiments on the international stage with “harder” tools such as military and security exchanges. China is contributing troops to a hybrid U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force in Sudan’s war-torn Darfur region.

Japan has resumed refueling operations in the Indian Ocean in support of U.S. and coalition anti-terrorism operations in Afghanistan.

And South Korea, which at one point had the third-largest contingent of troops in Iraq, is revisiting its defense relationship with the United States and preparing to take a more active role in East Asia and elsewhere.U.S. distractions in the Middle East and the collapse of U.S. Cold War security guarantees to Japan and South Korea have played a key role in creating the environment necessary for these experiments to occur.

Overall, a fundamental reassessment has been taking place in Northeast Asia over the past decade. Beijing, Tokyo and Seoul are reviewing their strategic positions not only in relation to one another in Asia, but in regard to their global role and vulnerabilities.

Once-insular East Asia is debating the merits of breaking from historic patterns and seeking a more assertive global role economically, politically and militarily. To help understand how Asia got to where it is today, some historical background is in order.

The European AgeIn the 1500s, Europe underwent a rapid expansion of global exploration and conquest, spreading European influence and involvement far beyond the North Atlantic and Mediterranean to nearly every part of the globe.

The European age, stretching from the late 1400s to the late 1900s, was driven by the need for raw materials and resources, markets and power. Power resulted from industrial capacity and wealth, which foreign resources and domestic labor fed.

The imperial age created a competitive cycle, with European powers building bigger fleets and armies to protect their economic interests and scrambling for new territories and resources to feed their war machines.

The more territory a country held, the bigger its navy needed to be; the bigger the navy, the more resources the country needed; the more resources it needed, the more territory it needed to hold. For better or worse, Europe engaged the world aggressively, spreading European influence and power worldwide.

It engaged other countries in their respective regions. For example, when Europe engaged Asia, it did so in Asia. Europe colonized the world; the world did not colonize Europe.

Before the European age, spreading powers had engaged Europe in Europe via the Mediterranean or the Eurasian heartland, but these occurred before European exploration created the first truly global international system.

For the most part, Asian powers stayed in Asia, African powers stayed in Africa, and so on. It was Europe — and its technological revolutions in shipbuilding, navigation and naval warfare — that united the world into an integrated system.

By the mid-1800s, and increasingly after the U.S. Civil War, the United States had joined the Europeans in spreading its own economic, political and military power and influence in the world. The United States spread its wings in the Western Hemisphere, but its aspirations later extended far beyond.

With one flank on the Pacific, the United States was perfectly positioned to take a more active role in Asia, which was increasing in importance due its trade and resources.

While the United Kingdom had “opened” China to the outside world, it was the United States that had opened Japan and Korea.Cold War to Asia as Trade CornerstoneWorld Wars I and II left Europe in shambles and its global empires crumbling.

As the European age faded, the United States and the Soviet Union embarked on a global Cold War, spreading their respective influence and power in a strategic worldwide chess game.

Soviet and U.S. interests squared off in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and Africa. What had once been the playground of Europe was now the proxy battleground of the U.S.-Soviet rivalry. While Europe still dabbled in internationalism, its focus mostly shifted inward. Like the imperial age it replaced, the Cold War brought a certain sense of order to the world despite the high-stakes rivalry.

The collapse of the Soviet Union left a power vacuum, with the United States as sole global hegemon. The U.S. Navy was far and away the most powerful in the world, giving the United States the ability to assert its interests quickly, nearly anywhere in the world.

After Sputnik, the United States worked to establish a strong lead in space, which evolved into a cornerstone of U.S. technological dominance and war-fighting capability.

Global trade patterns had shifted, too. Trans-Pacific trade equaled trans-Atlantic trade by 1980, and surpassed it in the next decade. While post-Cold War America remains the dominant global power by dint of sheer size and industrial and economic heft, global trade is focused on Asia.

The Asian export powers — China, Japan and South Korea — all sit among the top 12 economies in the world. But their dependence on resources from abroad, particularly energy, and on overseas export markets have stretched their economic interests far beyond the reach of their military capabilities.

During the Cold War, this did not matter nearly so much. Japan and South Korea fell under the U.S. security umbrella, while China was not really a part of the global economic system. It matters now, however. China is now a major global economic player.

And U.S. interests now more frequently collide with Japanese and/or South Korean interests. For example, Japan’s energy deals in Iran greatly displeased Washington, and South Korea has different views on relations with North Korea than the United States does. The vulnerabilities of the three Asian countries’ respective economic positions are increasingly obvious.

But as Beijing, Tokyo and Seoul consider expanding their political and security reach to ensure their economic interests, they have little experience to build on outside of Asia. ChinaChina, the “Middle Kingdom,” was long the dominant power in Asia.

In times past, it demanded tribute from surrounding nations and maintained land-based trade routes southward into Southeast Asia, northward into the Mongolian and Russian steppes, and westward into Central Asia — and even as far as South Asia and Europe. But China had little experience with maritime power projection.

The treasure fleets of Chinese explorer Zheng He, which reached along Middle East and African coasts and might have spread to the shores of South America, were more of a frivolity than a necessity for China’s economic security.

So when trouble developed at home in China, the government scuttled the massive fleet. The Chinese disregard for maritime power was dramatically highlighted once again when the naval budget was redirected to the construction of Beijing’s Summer Palace, including a massive hand-dug artificial lake.

Until the modern era, China could get its vital resources — including its energy needs — domestically or via land routes. But that has changed. China now reaches far abroad not only for oil, but for minerals and other raw materials to feed its export-driven economy and internal growth and urbanization.

It is also seeing a training ground in the developing markets for its budding global commercial players. This has caused a major shift in Chinese strategic thinking, and the once-reticent giant — which for the vast majority of its history held an insular view of its role in the world — has of late taken a more proactive role internationally.

This has included everything from a stronger role in international organizations such as the United Nations, to sending peacekeepers abroad, to working with the government of Sudan to break a deadlock over the deployment of foreign forces to Darfur.

Certainly, China’s steps are hesitant. And Beijing is working to stress to the nations it is dealing with and the United States that its interests are not imperialistic, but simply friendly and mutually beneficial.

But despite its efforts to sugarcoat its global ambitions, China is starting to see some resistance to its encroachments in Africa — Beijing has been accused of coming to Africa just to despoil its mineral resources, as the Europeans have done before.

Despite the resistance, the need for secure supply lines and market access will continue to drive China away from its long-held insular focus and into more proactive international involvement. JapanJapan has the greatest experience in recent history in imitating the imperialist system of Europe.

From the time Commodore Matthew Perry’s black ships steamed in and opened Japan to the world, Tokyo began seeking not only to play on European terms, but to rewrite the rules of the game in its own favor. But even Japan’s imperialist moves were limited to the Asia-Pacific theater.

Moreover, Tokyo quickly found itself caught in the same cycle Europe had faced — it needed more resources and territory to supply the industrialization and military construction necessary to ensure resource security. Ultimately, Japan ran up against U.S. interests in the Pacific, and lost.

Following World War II, Tokyo exploited the U.S. position in the Cold War to gain security guarantees while building up its own economic might. But Japan’s economic rise eventually began raising concerns in the United States. With the end of the Cold War, Japan’s interests were no longer necessarily synonymous with U.S. interests.

Since Tokyo could no longer count on Washington to ensure Japanese national interests, Tokyo began rethinking its military capabilities and reach. Japan has the world’s second-most powerful navy, and aside from domestic constitutional restrictions on the use of its military abroad, it has the technological prowess to further expand its military capabilities.

But historic animosities with its neighbors — and in many cases, former colonial subjects — as well as a domestic satisfaction with the Cold War status quo that required little military or political action abroad, have left Tokyo walking a cautious line in restructuring its regional and international role.

The United States in some ways is encouraging the reassertion of Japanese power, treating Japan as a partner in regional security, and encouraging the strengthening of Japanese defense capabilities. This cooperation with the United States helps mask Tokyo’s own national interests and keeps the expanding role couched in terms of international cooperation.

But Tokyo is also learning from the cooperation. Refueling U.S. vessels in the Indian Ocean provides real-world training for sustaining a force abroad — potentially even a naval force in the Indian Ocean as part of Tokyo’s energy supply lines — and Japanese defense procurement plans show a clear path toward power-projection capabilities.

South KoreaSouth Korea, by far the smallest of the trio of Northeast Asian powers — but not necessarily the least technologically advanced — also is rethinking its own defense posture in relation to its international economic vulnerabilities. Korea has flirted with big regional power status in the past — the Koguryo kingdom reached far into Manchuria — but for the most part, it has been overshadowed by its neighbors, in part since it has the weakest geographic position of the three.

South Korean foreign policy thus has been to appear as inconspicuous as possible and to portray itself as not worth attacking. Successive Korean kingdoms would pay homage to China to maintain Korean independence, but would be most unwelcoming to visitors trying to open the so-called “hermit kingdom” in the peninsula.

Certainly, there was maritime and land-based trade throughout the region, but the Koreans made sure to keep that trade largely away from their peninsula. When the regional system grew too difficult for Korea to handle on its own, it would turn to one of the larger regional powers to keep the others at bay.

This strategy ultimately failed in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and Korea became a Japanese colony. The practice of turning to larger powers was resumed after World War II, with the North seeking Soviet and Chinese assistance and the South turning to the United States.

Since the Korean War, South Korea largely has depended upon the United States for its security abroad, and to a large extent for domestic security. Only in the past decade has there been a significant shift in Korean defense policy and capability, with South Korean forces taking a larger role in defense of the peninsula.

First and foremost, its defensive posture has been aimed at North Korea. More recently, it has focused on threats further abroad, particularly Japan, with which South Korea has competing claims on islands in the East Sea/Sea of Japan.

Japan, South Korea can no longer fully rely on the United States to ensure its strategic interests. After all, both Japan and South Korea in many ways are economic competitors to the United States.

Without the common threat of the Soviet Union, Washington has little interest in sacrificing U.S. economic interests to keep these East Asian allies happy. Seoul is now debating a more active and assertive role internationally, building on the so-called Korean Wave, which has seen the spread of Korean TV dramas, movies and pop music abroad and the election of a Korean as U.N. secretary-general.

This is not to say that South Korea and Japan are both fleeing the U.S. embrace altogether, only that the two East Asian nations also are addressing their own independent strategic needs as well. Thus, South Korea contributed the third-largest contingent of military forces to Iraq, not necessarily just to appease the United States, but rather to expand its own interaction and influence in Iraq and the Middle East.

Korean forces were stationed in Iraqi Kurdistan, and Korean energy companies followed the troops in a bid for access to the region’s petroleum. South Korea is considering establishing its own Peace Corps-type concept, sending Koreans abroad to spread influence and increase the political clout of the nation.

It also plans to expand its overseas development assistance — a tool Japan once used to spread its influence and ensure its interests in Southeast Asia. A Shared ConundrumBeijing, Tokyo and Seoul at present all face a similar problem:

Their economic interests — both in resources and markets — are spread further and further around the globe, but each lacks the military ability, established policy or experience to ensure their interests far from their shores. While soft power formerly was all they could bring to bear, this is slowly changing.

The initiative is now present for more active political and security roles to match their economic involvement around the world. While the United States will remain the dominant power globally, East Asia is waking up to the prospect of an active global role.

This marks a further evolution in the global system, which has gone from European global activity to American interaction, and has seen Soviet and now Asian involvement.

This represents untried territory for the Asian nations, which will face new challenges in logistics, in foreign policy and in the widespread strength of the United States.

Saturday, March 15, 2008

koran 9:28, "O ye who believe! Truly the polytheist (Christians, Jews, pagans) are unclean."

This is islam since 1400 years, and you are, and will still be, as we speak, unclean for islam, till you (westerners) decide it’s about time to stop being treated like filth, and rise up to gain back, and defend, what muslims already consider it to be their ultimate achieved victory:

destroying your self-respect, and reducing you to the dhimmi (enslaved) status in your own countries. All that, in broad daylight, all over the news, leaving you nowhere to hide, slapping you straight in the face.

We are warned daily about the threats we face from muslims practicing their “noblest” deeds on us, and nobody knows exactly how many of these demons actually exist.

Our profligate government squanders billions on "homeland security", but continues to usher in muslim immigrants by the tens of thousands. There is definitely a suicidal trend afoot.

When a cashier, called the Bible “unclean”, she didn’t only mean the Bible, but also the person buying the Bible. Since if anything is unclean, then whoever touches it couldn’t be but unclean. It’s not only limited to that woman that went to buy the bible at Marks & Spencer, but everyone in the world that reads the Bible is unclean. Including the Christians working in that store, and the Jewish owners of M & S.

All these muslim’s insults are meant to tame you to submission. For muslims, that’s the stealth Jihad, the prelude to a bolder action. It only confirms what we stated in

Muslim Minds"

Muslims not only don’t burden themselves with such nonsense as to be considerate not to hurt your feelings, but actually, trashing you (westerners), is the first step of a lethal strategy.

This indoctrination is not the work of “hijackers” of a religion of peace, but this filth, insults, trash (let’s call things by their real name), and slandering others, is the core of the Islamic faith. The only faith in the world built on trash and trashing others.

The following nine things are essentially najis [impure, unclean] according to islamic texts:

1. Urine

2. Faeces

3. Semen

4. Dead body

5. Blood

6. Dog

7. Pig

8. Kafir [unbeliever, Christians, Jews, Atheists, and every non muslim.] That means the kaffar is equal to everything in the list.

9. The sweat of an animal who persistently eats najasat (filth)

All these muslim’s insults are meant to tame you to submission.



What is being taught to muslims about non muslims in islamic schools.

Two other videos on the subject have been removed from YouTube.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Captured FARC Documents Link Democrats to Terror Group

It's a bit odd that this is not getting more attention.

In this photo released by Colombia's Presidency police chief Gen. Oscar Naranjo shows documents recovered from the computer of the senior commander of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, FARC, killed in Ecuador during a press conference at the presidential palace in Bogota, Monday, March 3, 2008.

According to Naranjo some files recovered from a laptop owned by the rebel leader known as Raul Reyes, who was killed Saturday in an operation by Colombian security forces just over the border in Ecuador, reveal that the guerillas sent money to Hugo Chavez when he was a jailed coup leader before being elected Venezuela's president and that Chavez had recently paid US$ 300 million to the FARC.

What Colombian investigators found on the FARC terror leader's computer:--

FARC connections with Ecuadorean president Rafael Correa

-- Records of $300 million offerings from Hugo Chavez

-- Thank you notes from Hugo Chavez dating back to 1992

-- Uranium purchasing records

-- Admit to killing the sister of former President Cesar Gaviria

-- Admit to planting a 2003 car bomb killing 36 at a Bogota upper crust club

-- Directions on how to make a Dirty Bomb-- Letter to Libya's Moammar Gadhafi asking for cash to buy surface-to-air missiles

-- Meetings with "gringos" about Barack Obama

-- Information on Russian illegal arms dealer Viktor Bout who was later captured

-- FARC funding Correa's campaign-- Cuban links to FARC...

And, more.

Captured FARC terrorist documents link US democrats to the Colombian terrorist group. 16 documents were posted this weekend in the Spanich Semana magazine.

One of the documents mentions that US Democrats were trying to organize meetings with the FARC.The AP reported:

New docs detail Colombian rebel ties The 16 documents were published Sunday by the news magazine Semana.

They also detail previously unknown relationships held or sought by Latin America's oldest and most potent rebel force, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.

Another discusses an apparent effort by U.S. Democrats to have celebrated novelist Gabriel Garcia Marquez mediate talks with the insurgents — possibly with former President Clinton's involvement.

There is no evidence the FARC ever obtained surface-to-air missiles, however. Attempts to reach Clinton and Garcia Marquez were unsuccessful.

Hat Tip Suzie at GatewayPundit

Monday, March 10, 2008


By: Ronald Kessler

John McCain is likely to win the presidential election because he is appealing directly to a growing coalition of those who want the government to do less for them, political guru Grover Norquist tells Newsmax.

"This election is turning out to present a very classic choice between those who want to be left alone by government and those who want government to do more and take more," Norquist says. "McCain is speaking as a leave-us-alone guy and is articulating the threat of spending more clearly than any president did since Ronald Reagan in 1976."

Norquist is one of the country's pre-eminent political analysts. As president of Americans for Tax Reform, he runs the so-called Wednesday meetings, where 150 leaders from the White House, Congress, and conservative interest groups converge to exchange information, listen to presentations by presidential and congressional candidates, and plot strategy.

Norquist's book, "Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government's Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives," is being published this week.

As part of the book promotion, Norquist will be on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" on Tuesday evening.

The book articulates the difference between what Norquist calls the "Leave us Alone Coalition," which is basically the Republican Party, and the "Takings Coalition," which Norquist describes as being at the heart of the tax-and-spend left.

"The modern center-right political movement is a movement of different groups and individuals who want to be left alone," Norquist says. "Gun owners want to be left alone with their guns, business guys with their business, taxpayers with their money, religious people with their faith and their kids.

The left's coalition, which is the Takings Coalition, are people who view the proper role of government as taking things from some people and giving them to others."

Conservative Movement to Strengthen

Contrary to Newsweek's recent claim that the conservative movement has "crumbled," Norquist writes that if "present trends continue, the center-right coalition will grow and strengthen while the left's strength ebbs."

Laced with political wisdom and buttressed by tables and graphs, the book traces trends that have helped or hurt each coalition and how they will affect the outcome of the 2008 election.

"The growth in the number of Americans who are in the stock market helps conservatives," Norquist says. "The decline of organized labor's membership helps conservatives. The decline in the number of hunters helps the liberals. The increase in the self-employed helps conservatives.

Conservatives have more children than liberals do."
While those in each coalition rarely agree with each other on every issue, they all agree on the paramount issue of whether they want government to do more or less for them.

"The guy who wants to be left alone with his guns, the guy who wants to go to church all day, the guy who wants to make money all day, they don't agree on everything," Norquist says.

"They're not friends. They don't have tea together. But they all vote for the same candidate."

While the Leave Us Alone Coalition aims to help people become self-reliant, the Takings Coalition relies on making people dependent for its support.

"Ours is a low-maintenance coalition," Norquist says. "We don't have to give anyone anything other than good government, including a national defense, law enforcement, and a court system. What the Democrats have to do is create supplicants and victims. They want people to say, 'Please give me stuff, thank you.'"

According to Norquist, that's why the Democrats are so opposed to offering personal retirement accounts as part of Social Security, which would give everyone the opportunity more highly paid workers have to invest in 401(k) retirement accounts.

"Privatizing Social Security is the end of the modern Democratic Party,"

Norquist says. "You cannot have the party based on envy and class division and stealing money from one group to give to another group, if every 18-year-old can afford to retire with half a million dollars in the bank."

Democrats Want More Tort Law

Many people are liberals because they "think that if the government passes a law that says we will now help poor people, that somehow you'd help poor people," Norquist says.

"That the minimum wage law is somehow helping poor people instead of making it impossible to hire more of them because businesses can't afford to do so. But some, like government workers and trial lawyers, are the beneficiaries of statism.

Trial lawyers who contribute millions of dollars to the Democratic Party know exactly the damage that tort law does to the economy. They're just beneficiaries of it, so they don't care about the damage."

As an example of how beholden Democrats are to trial lawyers, the House Democratic leadership decided to go on vacation and allow the Protect America Act, which is essential to allowing quick interception of terrorist communications, to lapse for more than three weeks rather than vote on giving telecommunications companies immunity for helping to track terrorist threats.

"They could say no to intercepting the terrorists' calls; they couldn't say no to the trial lawyers," Norquist says.
Norquist, 51, is his generation's William F. Buckley.

A graduate of Harvard and Harvard School of Business administration, he is erudite and has a sharp wit. While his Wednesday meetings are off the record, Norquist and his wife Samah hold even more hush-hush events ranging from Christmas parties to receptions for conservative think tanks from each state at their home on Capitol Hill.

Conservative writers like Robert Novak and John Fund and political figures like Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove are regulars.

Like Buckley, Norquist welcomes an occasional liberal to his parties and invites them to speak at the Wednesday meetings.
Norquist says the good news for Republicans is that during the primaries, each Republican candidate was eager to position himself squarely as a conservative appealing to the Leave Us Alone Coalition.

"The fighting that you saw was each candidate pointing at the other candidate and saying that candidate wasn't with the Leave Us Alone Coalition three years ago or five years ago on this issue or that issue," Norquist says. "No one stood up and said he wants to be with the tax increasing, property rights violating, anti-home school, pro-spending wing of the party, as happened when Nelson Rockefeller ran for president."

The Democratic candidates have been just as solidly aligned with their interest groups - the trial lawyers, government workers, and labor unions, Norquist says.

At the same time, he says, the Republican message is likely to attract a lot of independents.

"I believe that properly done, the Republican Leave Us Alone Coalition speaks to an awful lot of independents and will win more independents,"

Norquist says. "The Democrat who stands up and says I can give the trial lawyers everything they want and the labor unions everything they want and spend a lot of money is going to not attract a lot of independents.

The Republican Party that says, as McCain has done, 'I will never raise your taxes' places him dead center of the Leave Us Alone Coalition in a way that is attractive to the muddled middle. These are the independents and the people who decide late."

End the Earmarks

The fact that McCain has said he will veto any bill with earmarks for pork barrel spending is also a good sign, Norquist says.

"There are three parties in Washington, and two need to be defeated," Norquist says. "We need to defeat the Democrats and the appropriators.

President Bush didn't understand who the enemy was. Half of the people who walked in to talk to him had Rs on their jerseys, but they were appropriators, not Republicans. It's hard to say 'heck no' to guys who are voting with you on other issues.

"The guys in Alaska who spend all that money on bridges to nowhere also vote with the president on foreign policy issues. So you've got to be able to say, 'Thank you very much for your foreign policy support, you still can't have your bridge.'"

Ronald Reagan showed that "when you stand dead center of the Leave Us Alone Coalition and articulate what you're doing clearly, you win 60 percent of the vote," Norquist says.

"It's when you break up the Leave Us Alone Coalition or abandon parts of it, as President George H.W. Bush did in 1990, that you can end up being in trouble."


A BRITISH soldier who almost single-handedly took on 150 Taliban after he and his 50-man convoy were ambushed in Afghanistan has been awarded the Military Cross.

Fusilier Damien Hields used his grenade machinegun to destroy seven Taliban positions before his ambushers realised he was their main threat.

After peppering his vehicle with bullets, they hit the 24-year-old soldier. He had to be dragged off for treatment by his driver after he tried to continue fighting.

Mk19 in action:
It’s an automated MK79 - been around for a while ...

hip, hip hurray!
Female U.S. soldier in Afghanistan earns high honour
Updated Sun. Mar. 9 2008
CAMP SALERNO, Afghanistan -- A 19-year-old medic from Texas will become the first woman in Afghanistan and only the second female soldier since World War II to receive the Silver Star, the nation's third-highest medal for valor.
Army Spc. Monica Lin Brown saved the lives of fellow soldiers after a roadside bomb tore through a convoy of Humvees in the eastern Paktia province in April 2007, the military said.
After the explosion, which wounded five soldiers in her unit, Brown ran through insurgent gunfire and used her body to shield wounded comrades as mortars fell less than 100 yards away, the military said.
"I did not really think about anything except for getting the guys to a safer location and getting them taken care of and getting them out of there," Brown told The Associated Press on Saturday at a U.S. base in the eastern province of Khost.
Brown, of Lake Jackson, Texas, is scheduled to receive the Silver Star later this month. She was part of a four-vehicle convoy patrolling near Jani Kheil in the eastern province of Paktia on April 25, 2007, when a bomb struck one of the Humvees.
"We stopped the convoy. I opened up my door and grabbed my aid bag," Brown said.
She started running toward the burning vehicle as insurgents opened fire. All five wounded soldiers had scrambled out.
"I assessed the patients to see how bad they were. We tried to move them to a safer location because we were still receiving incoming fire," Brown said.
Pentagon policy prohibits women from serving in front-line combat roles -- in the infantry, armor or artillery, for example. But the nature of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with no real front lines, has seen women soldiers take part in close-quarters combat more than previous conflicts.
Four Army nurses in World War II were the first women to receive the Silver Star, though three nurses serving in World War I were awarded the medal posthumously last year, according to the Army's Web site.
Brown, of the 4th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, said ammunition going off inside the burning Humvee was sending shrapnel in all directions. She said they were sitting in a dangerous spot.
"So we dragged them for 100 or 200 meters, got them away from the Humvee a little bit," she said. "I was in a kind of a robot-mode, did not think about much but getting the guys taken care of."
For Brown, who knew all five wounded soldiers, it became a race to get them all to a safer location. Eventually, they moved the wounded some 500 yards away and treated them on site before putting them on a helicopter for evacuation.
"I did not really have time to be scared," Brown said. "Running back to the vehicle, I was nervous (since) I did not know how badly the guys were injured. That was scary."
The military said Brown's "bravery, unselfish actions and medical aid rendered under fire saved the lives of her comrades and represents the finest traditions of heroism in combat."
Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester, of Nashville, Tenn., received the Silver Star in 2005 for gallantry during an insurgent ambush on a convoy in Iraq. Two men from her unit, the 617th Military Police Company of Richmond, Ky., also received the Silver Star for their roles in the same action.

Saturday, March 08, 2008


Geert Wilders: 1400 years ago war was declared on us by a barbarian who called himself the Prophet

By ibn Misr

What Geert Wilders is saying for Holland, Is also true for every single western country. If western populations won't wake up and act to outlaw the Koran, only God knows the turmoil and chaos you'll bring on yourselves and your children.

This is not over reacting, exageration, sounding alarmist, or crying wolf. In case that's what you would say, then it's you who is not reading - not the writing on the wall - but the writing in the Koran.

And it's not me threatening you with turmoil, death and destruction. It's the Koran, every Muslim believing in its commandments, Islam's history of terror, mosque's preachers, Muslim activists, the unending demands and threats of Muslims in every western country, the intelligence agencies of the western world, turmoil and chaos in the Islamic world, and the daily news.

Mr Wilders contribution to the parliamentary debate on Islamic activism (thanks to Louis)

Madam Speaker, allow me, first, to express my sincere thanks to you personally for having planned a debate on Islam on the very day of my birthday. I could not have wished for a nicer present!

Madam Speaker, approximately 1400 years ago war was declared on us by an ideology of hate and violence which arose at the time and was proclaimed by a barbarian who called himself the Prophet Mohammed. I am referring to Islam.

Madam Speaker, let me start with the foundation of the Islamic faith, the Koran. The Koran’s core theme is about the duty of all Muslims to fight non-Muslims; an Islamic Mein Kampf, in which fight means war, jihad.

The Koran is above all a book of war – a call to butcher non-Muslims (2:191, 3:141, 4:91, 5:3), to roast them (4:56, 69:30-69:32), and to cause bloodbaths amongst them (47:4).

Jews are compared to monkeys and pigs (2:65, 5:60, 7:166), while people who believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God must according to the Koran be fought (9:30).

Madam Speaker, the West has no problems with Jews or Christians, but it does have problems with Islam. It is still possible, even today, for Muslims to view the Koran, which they regard as valid for all time, as a licence to kill. And that is exactly what happens.

The Koran is worded in such a way that its instructions are addressed to Muslims for eternity, which includes today’s Muslims. This in contrast to texts in the Bible, which is formulated as a number of historical narratives, placing events in a distant past.

Let us remind ourselves that it was Muslims, not Jews or Christians, who committed the catastrophic terrorist attacks in New York, Madrid and London; and that it was no coincidence that Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered by a Muslim, Mohammed Bouyeri.

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that there are people who call themselves Muslims and who respect our laws. My party, the Freedom Party, has nothing against such people, of course.

However, the Koran does have something against them. For it is stated in the Koran in Sura 2, verse 85, that those believers who do not believe in everything the Koran states will be humiliated and receive the severest punishment; which means that they will roast in Hell.

In other words, people who call themselves Muslims but who do not believe, for example, in Sura 9, verse 30, which states that Jews and Christians must be fought, or, for example, in Sura 5, verse 38, which states that the hand of a thief must be cut off, such people will be humiliated and roast in Hell.

Note that it is not me who is making this up. All this can be found in the Koran. The Koran also states that Muslims who believe in only part of the Koran are in fact apostates, and we know what has to happen to apostates. They have to be killed.

Madam Speaker, the Koran is a book that incites to violence. I remind the House that the distribution of such texts is unlawful according to Article 132 of our Penal Code.

In addition, the Koran incites to hatred and calls for murder and mayhem. The distribution of such texts is made punishable by Article 137(e).

The Koran is therefore a highly dangerous book; a book which is completely against our legal order and our democratic institutions. In this light, it is an absolute necessity that the Koran be banned for the defence and reinforcement of our civilisation and our constitutional state.

I shall propose a second-reading motion to that effect.

Madam Speaker, there is no such thing as “moderate Islam”. As Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan said the other day, and I quote, “There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it”.

(Alan note: the opposite ends of the same stick).

Islam is in pursuit of dominance.

(Alan note: and MINDLESS obedience as DEMANDED by a text from 1,400 years ago and along the mindsets from those Dark Ages among uneducated illiterates whose leader the Prophet was one of those).

It wishes to exact its imperialist agenda by force on a worldwide scale (8:39). This is clear from European history.

Fortunately, the first Islamic invasion of Europe was stopped at Poitiers in 732; the second in Vienna in 1683.

Madam Speaker, let us ensure that the third Islamic invasion, which is currently in full spate, will be stopped too in spite of its insidious nature and notwithstanding the fact that, in contrast to the 8th and 17th centuries, it has no need for an Islamic army because the scared “dhimmis” in the West, also those in Dutch politics, have left their doors wide open to Islam and Muslims.

Apart from conquest, Madam Speaker, Islam is also bent on installing a totally different form of law and order, namely Sharia law. This makes Islam, apart from a religion for hundreds of millions of Muslims also, and in particular, a political ideology (with political/constitutional/Islamic basic values, etc).

Islam is an ideology without any respect for others; not for Christians, not for Jews, not for non‑believers and not for apostates.

Islam aims to dominate, subject, kill and wage war.

Madam Speaker, the Islamic incursion must be stopped. Islam is the Trojan Horse in Europe. If we do not stop Islamification now, Eurabia and Netherabia will just be a matter of time.

One century ago, there were approximately 50 Muslims in the Netherlands. Today, there are about 1 million Muslims in this country. Where will it end?

We are heading for the end of European and Dutch civilisation as we know it. Where is our Prime Minister in all this?

In reply to my questions in the House he said, without batting an eyelid, that there is no question of our country being Islamified. Now, this reply constituted a historical error as soon as it was uttered.

Very many Dutch citizens, Madam Speaker, experience the presence of Islam around them. And I can report that they have had enough of:

burkas, headscarves,

the ritual slaughter of animals,

so‑called honour revenge,

blaring minarets,

female circumcision,

hymen restoration operations,

abuse of homosexuals,

Turkish and Arabic on the buses and trains as well as on town hall leaflets,

halal meat at grocery shops and department stores,

Sharia exams,

the Finance Minister’s Sharia mortgages, and

the enormous overrepresentation of Muslims in the area of crime, including Moroccan street terrorists.

In spite of all this, Madam Speaker, there is hope. Fortunately.

The majority of Dutch citizens have become fully aware of the danger, and regard Islam as a threat to our culture. My party, the Freedom Party, takes those citizens seriously and comes to their defence.

Many Dutch citizens are fed up to the back teeth and yearn for action. However, their representatives in The Hague are doing precisely nothing.

They are held back by fear, political correctness or simply electoral motives.

This is particularly clear in the case of PvdA, the Dutch Labour Party, which is afraid of losing Muslim voters. The Prime Minister said in Indonesia the other day that Islam does not pose any danger.

Minister Donner believes that Sharia law should be capable of being introduced in the Netherlands if the majority want it.

Minister Vogelaar babbles about the future Netherlands as a country with a Judeo‑Christian‑Islamic tradition, and that she aims to help Islam take root in Dutch society. In saying this, the Minister shows that she has obviously gone stark raving mad.

She is betraying Dutch culture and insulting Dutch citizens.

Madam Speaker, my party, the Freedom Party, demands that Minister Vogelaar retract her statement. If the Minister fails to do so, the Freedom Party parliamentary group will withdraw its support for her.

No Islamic tradition must ever be established in the Netherlands: not now and also not in a few centuries’ time.

Madam Speaker, let me briefly touch on the government’s response to the WRR [Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy] report.

On page 12 of its response, the government states that Islam is not contrary to democracy or human rights. All I can say to that is that things can’t get much more idiotic than this.

Madam Speaker, it is a few minutes to twelve. If we go on like this, Islam will herald the end of our Western civilisation as well as Dutch culture.

I would like to round off my first-reading contribution with a personal appeal to the Prime Minister on behalf of a great many Dutch citizens: stop the Islamification of the Netherlands!

Mr Balkenende, a historic task rests on your shoulders. Be courageous. Do what many Dutch citizens are screaming out for. Do what the country needs. Stop all immigration from Muslim countries, ban all building of new mosques, close all Islamic schools, ban burkas and the Koran. Expel all criminal Muslims from the country, including those Moroccan street terrorists that drive people mad.

Accept your responsibility! Stop Islamification! Enough is enough, Mr Balkenende. Enough is enough.


, ,

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry:
Geert Wilders: 1400 years ago war was declared on us by a barbarian who called himself the Prophet.

TrackBack URL for this entry:

hal said:

Geert Wilders could have said it better - he was very polite - but if we are to survive, it must be said stronger than that! They advocate cold blooded murder of absolutely innocent people! Try to get one to talk to you about what their book of terrorism and murder requires them to believe!

No sane group of humans would tolerate for one minute having these people living next door to children! they are all potential murderers - even if most are not brainwashed to the point where they would murder even their own daughter, they will some day be given a gun or asked to give shelter to murderers, and they will do it to save their own families from having their heads sawed off!

They will pull the trigger, same as most of the people you know if they were put in similar circumstances would - all flesh is weak, but the constant threat of murder as commanded by God in the Koran makes us murderers even more so. Much more so!