Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Pakistani Sheikh Responds

(via Northeast Intelligence Network)

Investigative report issued by the Northeast Intelligence Network and co-authored by Internet researcher CP angers Pakastani Cleric.

"A Message of concern to the American people from His Eminence Al Imam Sheikh Syed Mubarik Ali Gilani"
BREAKING - 29 March 2006: Sheikh Mubarik Ali Hasmi Shah Gilani, pictured above, issued a statement from his headquarters in Lahore, Pakistan. Gilani, the founder of the terrorist organization Jamaat ul Fuqra, has rubbed shoulders with various members of the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah, their mullah backers, and even Osama bin Laden himself. He has trained fighters for the battlefields of Kashmir, Chechnya, and Bosnia. Gilani was in Pakistani custody for the abduction of US journalist Daniel Pearl, but has since been released. Official sources in Pakistan have indicated that Daniel Pearl was attempting to meet Gilani in the days before he disappeared in Karachi. Pakistani police arrested Gilani in Rawalpindi on January 30, 2002 and shifted him to Karachi for questioning. Although he denied any link to the abduction, police also detained several of his colleagues. Consequent to his arrest, he reportedly told his interrogators that he had links with the Pakistani intelligence agencies.

Now, Gilani is upset with the findings of an investigative report concerning Jamaat ul Fuqra issued by the Northeast Intelligence Network and Internet researcher "CP" as outlined in the report below.

The following is a statement just released by this Islamic "cleric:"

On the 12th of February, a so-called ‘interim investigative report’ by an unknown private individual who called himself ‘CP’ investigator and Douglas J. Hagmann , with the internet address,, was released. This highly questionable report about Muslims of the Americas (MOA), their town Islamberg, NY, the International Quranic Open University (IQOU), and the Vice Chancellor of IQOU, is a small part of a campaign of hate, fabricated falsehood, lies, and appalling propaganda aimed at bringing about a clash between Muslims and Christians the world over, and particularly in the United States (U.S.) As the Imam of the Muslims of the Americas and Vice Chancellor of IQOU, I take this opportunity to expose this recurring scheme of deception and falsehood conjured up by vested interests.

The compilers of this report, CP/Hagmann, assert the claim of the existence of an alleged “Jamaat-ul-Fuqra”, placing me as its head. For the past 25 years I, and the members of MOA, and the staff of IQOU at Islamberg, have adamantly denied knowledge of any such organization in the U.S., Pakistan, or elsewhere.

In order to uphold and sustain one lie, one has to use hundreds of arguments.

In this regard I am going to prove that Douglas J. Hagman and his group are the actual perpetrators of international terrorism, and racial and religious bigotry and their ceaseless campaign of hate, is more damaging to the U.S. than any other country. The U.S. has become a pawn of hidden hands that use America’s wealth and the innocent blood of their sons and daughters to wage their wars against Muslims.....


UPDATE: You can download Gilani's full 14-page diatribe as a PDF - HERE

Monday, March 27, 2006

Canadians Can Be Proud

The Walrus Magazine has a great profile this month of Canadian soldiers fighting in Afghanistan.

Click here to read the whole thing titled -
"Soldiers, Not Peacekeepers".

It covers the dangers they are facing every day as part of the coalition fighting Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgents and the soldiers' professional efforts to do their job well. The piece offers a window into the uncertain deliberation Canada has had with itself with regard to a militaristic role in world affairs. The strong picture of the soldiers contrasts with the reticent rhetoric of political liberals who'd rather refer to them as peacekeepers, relegating them to aid missions and blue helmets.

This article seems to have been written before the recent election of PM Stephen Harper because it did not address the direction Canadian defense is likely to take under his leadership.

I am encouraged by what I have seen so far from Mr. Harper. I have wanted for some time to see a Conservative leader in Canada as have many other US conservatives. For too long we felt that a French Canadian socialist elitism muddied the relationship that should be enjoyed between our two countries. We are each other's largest trading partners and we should be allied closely when it comes to world affairs. I believe Canada can have a bigger seat at the table if it wants to - they have just lacked good leadership.

As this article points out, the leftist view of the military is that it should only be used for peacekeeping.

I am reminded of the Scripture that says, "They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. 'Peace, peace,' they say, when there is no peace." (Jeremiah 6:14)

We must continue to realize that we are at war and this is not just the "United States' War on Terror" as some people like to put it in quotes. It is an ideological and cultural struggle. I believe we are just beginning to see an awakening in other Western countries and I hope that Canada prepares itself to stay the course.

PM Harper's recent visit to Afghanistan was a real encouragement to me. His emphatic statement that Canada would not "cut and run" reflected a boldness not seen in his predecessors. I was again encouraged when he phoned the president of Afghanistan this past week on behalf of the Abdul Rahman, who faced trial and execution for his Christian faith.

Following Harper's Afghan visit, I read a comment after a post on the Canadian Sentinel blog where someone wrote "It's morning again!" in Canada. I'll repeat here what I wrote in response:

"Morning again" indeed. I hope this is the beginning of a new resurgent Canadian strength. The West will only be stronger with Canada at its side and its weapons at the ready. The West must be united in this fight. We have so much in common and too much to lose if we are not in it together. May patriots and free men fight together for the protection of our homelands and the freedom of others.

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Playing Cutesy: Chris Matthews & Che Guevara

This week, the Media Research Center's Newsbusters blog noted an exchange between Chris Matthews of MSNBC and Kristinn Taylor of They were talking about kids in East Africa running around wearing bin Laden t-shirts and Taylor compared it to American kids wearing Che Guevara t-shirts.

Matthews failed to see the analogy ignorantly stating (emphasis mine), "Yeah, but they’re, they’re kind of cute at this point, aren’t they? They’re not about somebody out to get us now. I think there’s a difference. I mean, that’s kind of camp almost, isn’t it? Che Guevara the symbol of hate in the United States anymore?...I don’t think so. I mean, a lot of our kids wear them. I see kids wearing them all the time, I think my kids wear them. It’s like a Robert Marley T-shirt at this point."

Can we officially declare Matthews an imbecile, now? Being the Carterite he is, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that he'd see Guevara as an endearing figure, but seriously, "cute"?!

Let's give Mr. Matthews the history lesson he should have given his kids before they started trotting out the Commie-fashionwear.

Here's a choice quote from Castro's former comrade, Mr. Guevara:
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary...These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of The Wall!"

["The Wall", being where Che's victims were lined up and shot.]
Or, how about this one, pretty cute, right?:
"Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any enemy that falls in my hands! My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood. With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl!"
Oh, and this is precious:
"I ended the problem with a .32 caliber pistol, in the right side of his brain [...] His belongings were now mine."

-- Che Guevara, diary from Sierra Maestra (1957) [on the shooting of fellow Eutimio Guerra which he suspected of passing on information]
Journalist Nat Hentoff recalls a personal encounter with Guevara, when he asked him about democracy:
"The one time I met Guevara, at the Cuban mission to the United Nations, he expressed one of his convictions. Guevara professed not to understand English. So, looking at him and his interpreter, I asked this idealist: "Can you conceive — however far into the future — a time when there will be free elections in Cuba?"

Not waiting for his interpreter, Guevara broke into laughter at my naively ignorant question. He made it clear that I had no understanding of a true people's revolution, firmly guided by Maximum Leader Castro."
Charming fellow, that Che. Really makes you all warm and fuzzy, doesn't he? I wonder if they make a plush doll of Che, so the kids can curl up with it as you read Marx to them before bed?

But, you know, I can't just pick a few quotes and be done with it. No, I must point out another item. It might merit an oh-well shrug from Mr. Matthews, but it's worth mentioning.

It's a list of over 200 of Guevara's victims [PDF] - just the ones between 1957-1959 as documented by the Free Society Project. Che reportedly admitted to sending at least 2,500 to "The Wall" during his campaign of terror.

There's a reason the color of Communist "revolution" is red. The prison of evil it creates is painted with the blood of innocents.

Sunday, March 19, 2006

Vice President Cheney Hits Back

Vice President Cheney was interviewed by Bob Scheiffer on CBS' Face the Nation Sunday morning. He had a few words regarding Ted "I Need A Drink" Kennedy's national security bona fides. I couldn't pass up posting this. He tells it like it is (emphasis mine):
Q Let me read to you what Senator Kennedy, liberal Democrat from Massachusetts, and a long-time opponent of the war said on the third anniversary. Here's part of his statement. He said:

"It is clearer than ever that Iraq was a war we never should have fought. The administration has been dangerously incompetent. And its Iraq policy is not worthy of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. Yet President Bush continues to see the war through the same rose-colored glasses he has always used. He assures the American people we are winning, while Iraq's future and the lives of our troops hangs so perilously on the precipice of a new disaster."

Dangerously incompetent is what he is saying. I want to give you a chance to respond.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I would not look to Ted Kennedy for guidance and leadership on how we ought to manage national security, Bob. I think what Senator Kennedy reflects is sort of the pre-9/11 mentality about how we ought to deal with the world and that part of the world.

We used to operate on the assumption before 9/11 that a criminal attack -- a terrorist attack was a criminal act, a law enforcement problem. We were hit repeatedly in the '90s and never responded effectively, and the terrorists came to believe not only could they strike us with impunity, but if they hit us hard enough, they could change our policy, because they did in Beirut in 1983, or Mogadishu in 1993.

We changed all that on 9/11. After they hit us and killed 3,000 of our people here at home, we said, enough is enough. We're going to aggressively go after them. We'll go after the terrorists wherever we find them. We'll go after those states that sponsor terror. We'll go after people that can provide them with weapons of mass destruction. We'll use our intelligence and our military services very aggressively. And we have.

We did in Afghanistan. We've done it in Pakistan. We're working with the Paks. We captured or killed hundreds of al Qaeda. We've done it in Saudi Arabia. And obviously, we're doing it now in Iraq. That kind of aggressive forward-leaning strategy is one of the main reasons we haven't been struck again since 9/11 because we've taken the fight to them.

Senator Kennedy's approach would be pack your bags and go home; retreat behind your oceans and assume you can be safe. But we learned on 9/11 that, in fact, what's going on 10,000 miles away in a place like Afghanistan, or Iraq can have a direct impact here in the United States when we lost 3,000 people that morning. And we know now that the biggest threat that we face of all isn't just another 9/11, it's a 9/11 where the terrorists have something like nuclear weapons, or a deadly biological agent to use against us.

The Iraq situation has to be viewed within the broader context of the global war on terror. It is a global conflict. You can't look just at Iraq and make decisions there with respect to how that's going to come out without having major consequences for everything that's going on. And I think we are going to succeed in Iraq. I think the evidence is overwhelming. I think Ted Kennedy has been wrong from the very beginning. He's the last man I'd go to for guidance in terms of how we should conduct U.S. national security policy.
You know, I wish Cheney would just tell us what he really thinks. Heh.

Well said, Mr. Vice President.

Saturday, March 18, 2006

Democrats Seek to Lower Morale

The Washington Times is reporting the contents of the newest Democratic strategy to oppose President Bush. They desire a plan that will exploit the military, including veterans' families, for political gain, weaken the president, and destroy morale throughout the country.

The directives of Senate Minority Loser Harry Reid are despicable. This man serves no useful purpose to this country and his entire party should be ashamed of him and itself. The Democrats gasp when they perceive that others question their patriotism. Well, take a deep breath Dems, because I absolutely question it.


The Party of Pessimism is not believable as the Party of Patriotism. They have fought our Commander-in-Chief at every turn. They have worked to limit our ability to fight this war. They have said that Iraq was not part of the War on Terror. They have sought to pull our troops out of theater while they are still engaged in combat. They have depicted our troops as senseless torturers over and over again. They have advocated that we fight a more "sensitive" war on terror believing that the enemy will relent. They have tried to get election votes from military personnel overseas thrown out. Their presidential nominee famously "voted for the $87 billion" to support the troops "before he voted against it".

This latest strategy is born of pure political calculation. There is not one shred of nobility in it because the Democrats cannot be trusted. The value of this planned series of stunts is found in the photo-op and negative coverage for the President. There is no message of national unity or sense of mission here. Their enemy is George W. Bush and they will do everything in their waning power to weaken him. In doing so, they have propelled an image of collective weakness beyond our shores, and our country and our troops have suffered for it. Democratic talking points have become a must read for the propagandizers of al-Jazeera and al-Qaida.

The Democrats have no message and no solutions. They have consistently said they support the troops, but oppose the mission. They have consistently encouraged opposition from needed allies and insulted those who have contributed with their own blood. Now, they are seeking to "support the troops" by driving a wedge between them and their Commander-in-Chief. They want to stage press events with active-duty military personnel, so that they can bash the President. This is outrageous!

Can you imagine anything like this during World War II? Lobbying for special treatment of Nazi prisoners-of-war? Staging press events with soldiers on Iwo Jima telling Roosevelt to pull out of the Pacific?

Today's Democratic Party just incenses me to no end.

Consider the recent treasonous actions of their beloved ex-president Jimmy Carter, who personally lobbied foreign countries to vote against the United States at the UN Human Rights Commission. To what lengths will they go? How many people have to die before they recognize who the enemy is? Will it take a mushroom cloud in an American city to wake them up? Will they be steadfast even then? God help us.

I believe we are engaged in a conflict far more expansive than they or most people realize. The recent protests over the "Mohammad cartoons" should illustrate that. These protests were seen the world over and were based on something so inconsequential as a pencil drawing in a newspaper. If the sheer rage of these events doesn't show people that this war, not just against guns and bombs, but with hearts and minds, is not a long war, then I don't know what will.

We must be united in this fight. We cannot stand for subversive posturing from those who would send us back to the "years of sabbatical". We must say to our enemies, "Sic Semper Tyrannis!" and to our people, "E Pluribus Unum!"

Thursday, March 16, 2006


Hey folks, sorry for the light posting the last couple weeks. Just been a little busy. Should be back to it this weekend.

Sunday, March 12, 2006

Atlas of Jihad

Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna has been hard at work - call it a labor of love. Between his day job, family, and prolific writing, he found time to put together an informative database mapping project. Dubbing it The Bloody Borders Project, he has taken data from the The Religion of Peace website re: militant Islamist attacks worldwide and fused it with mapping software to present a visual documentation of jihadi terror.

click map to proceed to database

Make sure to check it out and read Baron and Dymphna's related posts:
The Bloody Borders Project
Bloody Borders: Updates
White Space
The Islamintern

I found "The Islamintern" an especially interesting post. Baron makes a defensible comparison between militant Islam today and Communism in the 20th century. An excerpt:
It is a war of ideas, and will be won or lost in the journals and on the television screens of the West.

To that end, the Islamists are closely following the playbook of the Communists. Like the Communists, they are spread out in loosely-connected clandestine networks. Like the Communists, they are guided and funded by a few sources, but operate independently as “indigenous” movements. And, like the Communists, they understand that the success in the propaganda war is absolutely crucial.

As soon as Communism consolidated power in Soviet Russia, it began its preparation for the World Revolution by establishing the Communist International. For the next sixty years or so the dedicated cadres and willing dupes of the Comintern took Soviet money, propaganda, and materiel, and used them to undermine and overthrow governments all over the world.

But Stalin did not directly command most of these operations. Even at the apogee of Soviet power, the Kremlin could only enforce its ukases in the Soviet Union itself and the “near abroad,” those communist vassals immediately contiguous with Soviet territory.

Tito, Hoxha, Mao, and Castro all followed Soviet guidelines when its suited their interests, and departed from them when required. But all of them were acting in the name of Communism, and all were intent on establishing their version of its soul-destroying totalitarianism.

And so it is with militant Islam. The Islamists are not directly controlled by bin Laden or King Abdullah or the mullahs of Iran; but they work towards a common purpose, co-operating with each other out of self-interest and deferring the cutting of each other’s throats until the opportune moment arrives.

Look at the Sunni-Shiite division as a parallel between Soviet Communism and Maoism. Give Zarqawi the role of Josip Broz Tito, with his propensity to ignore central direction and follow his own plans. The Communists had the KGB to spread money and disinformation; the Islamofascists have the Saudi “charities” to perform the same functions.

Call it the Islamintern. Like the Comintern, it attracts the marginal, the disaffected, the petty thugs and common criminals, and gives them a clear and simple ideology to guide their actions. It allows them to continue in their customary ways — murdering, raping, stealing and extorting — while furnishing them with a mandate from Allah to do so. The Communists were following the dictates of History, and the Islamists are carrying out the will of God.

To the willing dupes in the West, there is no connection among all these groups, just as there was none among the Viet Cong and the FMLN and revolutionaries of Angola. But somehow all these native freedom fighters just happened to be fomenting violence in the same way at the same time.

And somehow all these terrorists spread all over the globe just happen to be murdering and maiming in the name of Allah. It’s just coincidence.

The Comintern, of course, was aided in its efforts by all the fools and shills in the West.

The 1930s had George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, Walter Duranty, and The New York Times.

In the 21st century, the Islamintern has Dan Rather, Cindy Sheehan, Jimmy Carter, and The New York Times.

Every generation has its useful idiots.
Well said.

Saturday, March 04, 2006

A Bear in the Desert: Revisited

Well, new information coming from Iraq's own archives, most of which has yet to be translated, indicates that the full story what happened to Saddam's WMDs may not have been revealed just yet. Stories are beginning to resurface about the potential hand Russia may have played in the removal of those materials. It's all very mysterious as you might imagine.

Such a revelation would not only be evidence of one of the most sophisticated intelligence operations in history, but it would be incredibly detrimental to the US-Russian relationship. It would shock and massively discredit everyone who reflexively accepted the mantra that "Saddam had no WMDs."

I have yet to be convinced of this. It is entirely possible that these weapons did and do exist somewhere and that the entire story has not been written. Certainly it is conceivable that if they could hide two or three dozen fighter planes that we didn't know about by burying them in the desert sand, other things, say a few dozen drums of nerve agent, could have been hidden or spirited away.

Whatever goodwill that has existed in the relationship between the leaders of the US and Russia in recent years, one can still see layers of subversion. The Cold War strategy of using proxies to fight one's battles has not gone away. It is no secret that a number of our enemies at present are both closely aligned with and armed by Russia. Are we then to trust such a nation, headed by an authoritarian veteran of the KGB, that seeks to arm our enemies?

It is a conundrum with no ready-made solution. Stories like this do not give me any confidence that Russia will be of any useful service regarding Iran. Here's hoping we are watchful and that we don't feed the Bear again.

That said, below are some of the most recent stories about all this, followed by related coverage from 2003 and 2004.

Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney recently endorsed the Russian theory on FOX News (video) - (2/21/06) Note: This video is hosted by a leftwing group that thinks this is just some radical FOX News conspiracy theory.

Ex-Official: Russia Moved Saddam's WMD - article (2/19/06)

Congressman Hoekstra, chairman of the Select House Intelligence Committee on Iraq's untranslated intelligence files (video) - PJ Media interview (2/19/06)

Saddam's WMDs and Russia - Canada Free Press article (2/28/06)

Evgeny Primakov Named in International Scandal - Kommersant article (3/1/06)

Iraqi WMD Mystery Solved - FrontPageMagazine interview (3/2/06)


Ex-spy fingers Russians on WMD - Op-ed written by Ion Mihai Pacepa, former Romanian spy chief and the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc. (August 2003)

A couple of these recent stories mention that two Russian ships reportedly left the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr shortly before the war and headed for the Indian Ocean, possibly carrying WMD materials. Interestingly enough, I remember hearing a similar story, right before the war started. Three ships were being tracked under suspicion of carrying WMDs. They were cruising around in circles in the Indian Ocean and maintaining strict radio silence. Could this have been related? Here's that story from February 2003 - "I saw three ships come sailing in, and what was in those ships all three?"

See my previous posts on this back in 2004
A Bear in the Desert
A Bear in the Desert, Part II
A Bear in the Desert, Part III

[Hat tip to PJ Media for the link at WMD Files]

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Who Ended The Cold War? A Short History Lesson for the AP

Apparently, the Associated Press needs to brush up on their 20th Century history. In a news story Wednesday, they seemed enamored of former leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, as he spoke out against U.S. "arrogance". They gave him full credit as "the man who ended the Cold War". Well, that's a little contradictory to the view I hold.

I like what the editor of the Lone Star Times says:
Gorbachev ended the Cold War like Hirohito ended World War II: by losing. The collapse of the Soviet Union wasn’t "given as a gift." The USSR was dragged into the modern world, kicking and screaming, by an aggressive U.S. foreign policy.
Read his whole post here.

And, just so the AP is clear on who won the Cold War, they should take notice of the sequence below. I even included pictures to make it easier.







[Thanks to Pajamas Media for the link!]