John Doe

John Doe is being sued by the Imams, who after acting in an extremely suspicious manner were removed from the US Airways flight form Minneapolis to Phoenix. Now, I see on Michelle Malkins blog that a few bloggers, Uncle Jimbo of youtube.com/unclejimbomadcity, Robert Spencer of jihadwatch.com, Erick Stakleback of cbn.com/blogs/erick_stakleback/index.aspx, and Brian Preston of hotair.com, have stepped up with the John Doe Manifesto, the manifesto lets it be known to all who would enslave us, or work to bring down America that John Doe will not be intimidated. He will not be silenced, and he will not give a rat’s pa-toot what they think. He is vigilant, he is aware or his surroundings, he is watching. But, who is John Doe, really? He is the guy looking over from the next car at the stop light. He is the woman who watched you pump gas into the gallon can for your lawn mower. John Doe is bagging your groceries. He is the cashier at the store where you stop on the way home from work. He is the person who collects your garbage. He is the woman pushing the stroller, who smiled pleasantly as you passed. He is the jogger in the park. John Doe is us. He is every American who watched television on 11 September, 2001 with purple faced, white fisted rage as the Twin Towers fell. He howled in frustration at his feelings of impotence, because there was nothing he could do, when learning about the Pentagon. He wept, unashamed, at the bravery of the passengers on flight 93. He wants to do some thing, anything, to protect his country, and to defend her. John Doe does not care when told he is a bigot because he is on alert for the enemies of his country. He will become more vigilant. He is more suspicious, he is taking a harder look at those who are trying to make his vigilance falter. He will not back down. John Doe will tell the flight attendants when he sees something, or someone that isn’t quite right. He will call the Police when he sees something disturbing, he doesn't care if he is wrong. He will err on the side of caution. We are John Doe. I am John Doe. Are you John Doe?
Below is the John Doe Manifesto as taken from Michelle Malkin’s blog.

Dear Muslim Terrorist Plotter/Planner/Funder/Enabler/Apologist,
You do not know me. But I am on the lookout for you. You are my enemy. And I am yours.
I am John Doe.
I am traveling on your plane. I am riding on your train. I am at your bus stop. I am on your street. I am in your subway car. I am on your lift.
I am your neighbor. I am your customer. I am your classmate. I am your boss.
I am John Doe.
I will never forget the example of the passengers of American Airlines Flight 93 who refused to sit back on 9/11 and let themselves be murdered in the name of Islam without a fight.
I will never forget the passengers and crew members who tackled al Qaeda shoe-bomber Richard Reid on American Airlines Flight 63 before he had a chance to blow up the plane over the Atlantic Ocean.
I will never forget the alertness of actor James Woods, who notified a stewardess that several Arab men sitting in his first-class cabin on an August 2001 flight were behaving strangely. The men turned out to be 9/11 hijackers on a test run.
I will act when homeland security officials ask me to “report suspicious activity.”
I will embrace my local police department’s admonition: “If you see something, say something.”
I am John Doe.
I will protest your Jew-hating, America-bashing “scholars.”
I will petition against your hate-mongering mosque leaders.
I will raise my voice against your subjugation of women and religious minorities.
I will challenge your attempts to indoctrinate my children in our schools.
I will combat your violent propaganda on the Internet.
I am John Doe.
I will support law enforcement initiatives to spy on your operatives, cut off your funding, and disrupt your murderous conspiracies.
I will oppose all attempts to undermine our borders and immigration laws.
I will resist the imposition of sharia principles and sharia law in my taxi cab, my restaurant, my community pool, the halls of Congress, our national monuments, the radio and television airwaves, and all public spaces.
I will not be censored in the name of tolerance.
I will not be cowed by your Beltway lobbying groups in moderate clothing. I will not cringe when you shriek about “profiling” or “Islamophobia.”
I will put my family’s safety above sensitivity. I will put my country above multiculturalism.
I will not submit to your will. I will not be intimidated.
I am John Doe.

Courage is contagious. When a brave man takes a stand, the spines of others are often stiffened. — Billy Graham
The Swamp Fox

Labels: Swamp Fox, terrorism

Permalink

Iranian Mentality

As I'm sure you have all heard by now, last week Iran captured two British RHIBs with fifteen Sailors and Marines aboard. You may or may not have heard that this isn't at all unprecedented; Iran has aggressively claimed waters it doesn't own for many years, and has "captured" British and Iraqi servicemembers it claims were in its territory. In some cases, they have even crossed into Iraq and fired on American troops, thankfully without hurting any. This particular incident, however, is unique in that Iran doesn't seem inclined to return the Brits any time soon. There's reporting that Iran has moved them to Tehran, and is preparing for long-scale negotiations.


The question each of us should be asking ourselves is "What does Iran think it has to gain?" There was a lot of speculation that the capture was meant to influence the sanctions vote last week. That's ridiculous -- the capture was only a day before the vote, and previous captures have resulted in a release within two or three days. Britain, at the time of the vote, had no reason to believe Iran wouldn't release the servicemembers by Monday.

A lot of Iranian press has talked about various Iranian "diplomats" kidnapped by Americans, and a possible prisoner exchange. The Iranian Majles has been considering adopting a bill requiring that the Brits only be released when these Iranians are released (although it's doubtful the Council of Guardians would allow such a bill). The "kidnapped" Iranians include a defector whom the West would never force to return to Iran, and a number of imprisoned Iranians caught red-handed providing explosives to terrorists in Iraq. I don't see either President Bush nor PM Tony Blair as being willing to release them at this point, especially with Iran continuing to defy the UNSC.

So what's Iran's problem? The first problem is that this wasn't a pre-planned capture, as many have speculated. The timing was awful, and the choice of British over Americans was careless. The erratic response shows a lack of coordination, and various branches of the convoluted Iranian government are still trying to sort each other out and come to a consensus on what to do.

The next problem is that this crises couldn't have come at a worse time for Iran. Engaged in a game of brinkmanship with the West, Iran would view a release of the Brits as a sign of weakness. The Iranian leadership has an attitude not too different from inner-city gangs -- it's all about appearance. They instruct the IRGC to harass multi-national forces and occasionally "capture" foreign forces, because they think it makes them look "tough." This time, however, the nuclear crises has left them without a nice out. No exit strategy, as it were.

So what will Iran do next? It's hard to predict such an irrational beast. The most likely scenario is they will hold onto the prisoners until the nuclear crises defuses, try them for made-up crimes in a kangaroo court, and sentence them to some long incarceration -- then quietly commute it to time served and let them go without any attention.

What if the crises doesn't defuse? We all remember the Iranian hostage crises; Iran's played this game before. Iran won the last crises by waiting for the next election and releasing them as a sign of goodwill to Ronald Reagan. But unlike Reagan, who saw no problem in treating enemies like friends just to stab the Soviet Union in the eye, I don't see any of the contenders for the White House or 10 Downing Street as being willing to work with Iran. And frankly, I don't see either Bush or Blair as being willing to tolerate a hostage situation lasting into elections.

So if Iran doesn't quietly let these fifteen Brits go, what happens next? The Nervous Rodent predicts a series of strikes against IRGC, leadership, and nuclear facilities to continue until the Brits are released. The problem is Iran isn't very good at giving up when it's outmatched... When you believe God is on your side, you tend to think you'll survive any fight. Iran is likely to retaliate outside its own borders, which is a sure trigger for war.

The ball is in Iran's court. They've kicked out the inspectors, and they've captured the Brits. You'd think they would have seen what happened to their neighbors when they refused the demands of the civilized world, but this isn't a rational country. It's a country powered by emotion and prestige, and they aren't going to back down. Whatever Iran does, it's going to be a bumpy ride.


In other news, events are conspiring to keep me off blogging. I'll be unable to blog for the most part over the next few months. Rather than leave the blog idle as before, I've invited a friend (The Swamp Fox) to make some guest posts. Please give him a warm welcome!

Labels: iran, nukes, terrorism, UK

Permalink

Nowhere to Run, Nowhere to Hide

The U.S. government was derided for producing decks of cards with terrorists and wanted criminals, but those decks are long forgotten today. Why? Because most of the cards have big X's through them now. Strike another one up, possibly two.

Yesterday an AC-130 gunship rained fire and death down on terrorists fleeing from Somali and Ethiopian forces in Hayi and on an island training camp.

Today helicopters killed an estimated 30 terrorists hiding under foilage near Afmadow, about 30 miles from Hayi. There were reports the helicopters were American, but the military has denied operating the helicopters, which witnesses did not see any markings on.

Today's strike was aimed at Tariq Abdullah, aka Abu Talha al-Sudani, known as an explosive expert, Al Qaeda trainer, and planner for at least one terrorist attack against U.S. forces. Fazul Abdullah Mohammad, one of the two major planners of the twin bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, was also reported to be killed. Both fatalities have yet to be confirmed, and will be difficult to confirm in the near future.

Who owned those helicopters? I don't know. It doesn't really matter, when you get down to it. Somalia and Ethiopia have both stated that they believe the best way to stablize the region is to eliminate terrorists as they find them. As a result, they are allowing U.S. forces the right to attack when and where we find them. America, Somalia, and Ethiopia are freely sharing intelligence on the location of terrorists, and whoever is best positioned to take advantage of the intelligence is doing so. Thus, the USS Eisenhower stationed off the Somalia coast.

The bottom line? Nevermind what the Democrats and Peacemongers are saying. America has not given up on chasing down terrorists and killing them. We're no longer in a target-rich environment, but key Al Qaeda leaders are continuing to die across the world. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Somalia... everywhere they hide, they find enemies. Period.

Labels: Somalia, terrorism

Permalink

More News About Jordan

Moustafa Akkad and his daughter died in the Amman terrorist attacks. Don't recognize his name? Sounds like another terrorist to you? Akkad was born in Aleppo, but immigrated to Los Angeles and become a filmmaker. He was responsible, among other films, for all eight Halloween horror flicks. Just thought you should know that. The Lebanese Daily Star carried the story here.

So the Washington Post carried an article today about Washington area Muslims mourning relatives lost in the attacks. Apparently two attendees of the Falls Church Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center lost a combined 17 relatives. Sheikh Shaker Elsayed decried "...this senseless act -- people who did nothing but go about celebrating the wedding of their son and daughter." He also said that Islam does not condone the killing of innocents.

What a nice man, and right here in our own backyard, too.

I could have swore I'd heard that name before. Shaker Elsayed used to be the Secretary General of the Muslim American Society. I wasn't surprised when The Counterterrorism Blog told me in this article why the name Sheikh Shaker Elsayed sounded familiar. Let me quote his speeches when he isn't comforting relatives of those who died in terrorist attacks:

"...about the subject unfairly named suicide bomber, homicide bomber, murderers, or killers. Our answer to this issue is simple... The Islamic scholars said whenever there is an attack on an Islamic state or occupation, or the honor of the Muslims has been violated, the Jihad is a must for everyone, a child, a lady and a man. They have to make Jihad with every tool that they can get in their hand. Anything that they can get in their hand and if they don't have anything in their hand then they can fight with their hand without weapons..."

"We say to the Palestinian people, 'Go ahead. Continue your fight against occupation no matter what name they give you because we give you the name of courageous people who stand for the rights and we're standing with you.' ...My name is Shaker Elsayed ... I'm the Secretary General of the Muslim American Society."

Heck, one only has to look at his perverted view on the US and Iraq, including the bizarre belief that the US ordered Saddam Hussein to attack Kuwait so that we could drove him out in order to justify our "occupation" of Saudi Arabia. It's clear this man sees the world through blood-colored glasses.

So what's my point? We've got a rat in our own backyard, encouraging terrorism. Suddenly his good friends and followers come up and tell them they lost close relatives in a terrorist attack, and now he says Zarqawi was wrong. Wrong for hurting his friends, that is -- he should have concentrated on American troops and Israelis. You gotta love that hypocrisy.

Labels: iraq, jordan, terrorism

Permalink

Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!

I'm coming late to this topic (I've been overworked and unable to post for awhile now), but I couldn't let this one slip by. Thousands of protestors took to the streets in Jordan, denouncing Al Qaeda, and specifically the Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. This fits in nicely with my last post about Moroccan protests against Al Qaeda. The difference? Western media covered this one. (AP, CNN, USA Today)

Interestingly, of that list none mentioned that Zarqawi was born in Jordan. Also, while some mentioned the protests occurred across the country, none mentioned the specific cities of Zarqa (Zarqawi's birthplace), Aqaba (the site of the last terrorist attack in Jordan), and Maan (considered the most fundamentalist of Jordanian cities). Al Jazeera did cover that, and more. They were also the only major press outlet to post pictures of the protests.

Bloggers have been covering this very well, as you can see in this partial list:

• "Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!", In The Bullpen
  
• Jordanians Protest al-Zarqawi, Right Truth
• Terror attacks spark fury in Jordan, Jihad Watch

Why the increased coverage of this protest, and none at all of the Moroccan protests? Perhaps it's because Jordan has historically allied itself with the US. Jordan was a bigger supporter of the US invasion of Iraq than, say, France... and the western news consistently fails to even mention the rioters in France are Muslim. It appears as if the media is content to draw false images of the world as they want to perceive it.

Reading the news, one could draw the following conclusions:

1. The French poor are rioting because France's socialistic system has failed to take care of them. Reality: Muslims in France are attempting to establish autonomous ghettos where they will be able to self-rule under Sharia law, thus allowing Wahhabist sanctuaries in Europe.
2. Iraqi's have attacked Jordan because Jordan supported the invasion of Iraq. Reality: Very few suicide bombers are Iraqi. The hotel bombings were orchestrated and prepared in Iraq, by a Jordanian, and conducted by non-Iraqi citizens.
3. The majority of Sunni Muslims support Al Qaeda. Reality: Nearly one hundred percent of Jordanians are Sunnis. Across the Middle East, there is no country in which the majority of Muslims, much less Sunnis, support Al Qaeda.

I'd go on, but I'm running low on time and energy. I can only continue to ask that readers continue to look beyond the MSM for news and perspective on world events.

Labels: France, jordan, media, Morocco, terrorism

Permalink

UNSC Passes Syrian Resolution

I'm pleasantly surprised that the UN managed to unanimously pass a resolution calling for Syrian cooperation with the independent investigation of Hariri's assassination. Among the provisions is a required that Syrian arrest anyone the probe deems a suspect, and to allow the investigators to question them in any location they choose. Direct threats of sanctions were removed to obtain a unanimous vote, but since the resolution was passed under Chapter VII, it is legally enforceable by military means.

The most disturbing part of the news is another section of the resolution dropped out of the final wording. In order to obtain Russian and Chinese support, the sponsors removed the wording appealing Syria to cease support for "all forms of terrorist action and all assistance to terrorist groups." Why would any country oppose that plea?

Because China and Russia know that Syria won't like cooperating with the investigation, but they will. They also know that Syria is about as likely to become the 51st State as cease supporting terrorism. Passing a resolution requiring Syria to stop supporting terrorism is an automatic approval for action e.g., sanctions, against Syria, a major trading partner with both countries.

But hey, we can accept a little terrorism as long as our trade goods keep flowing. Especially if the terrorism is directed against Israelis and US troops.

News links here and here.

Postnote: Mohammed has a wonderful post on the subject here, and I highly encourage you to read it if you haven't already.

Labels: Syria, terrorism, UN

Permalink

Beautiful Maidens

The Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC), which owns five television channels (including Al Arabiya) as well as a radio station, is helping shatter America's misperception that Arabic TV is more biased than CNN.
Jeremiah Stoddard wrote an article yesterday about a new TV show on MBC, which takes extremist Islamists to task. By quoting the Quran and discrediting extremist religious foundations, it weakens the base from which extremists can draw from. The director for the show even admits its targeted to those who have yet to make up their minds about terrorism, and show them how un-Islamic violence really is.

Of course, extremists across the Middle East are angry. Even some of the moderates are angry, or at least angry at the title: Al-Hour Al-Ayn, or Beautiful Maidens. Most of the terrorists and extremists are sexually repressed young men, waiting for their seventy two virgins when they martyr themselves. One of the attackers in the 2003 bombing of a residential center in Saudi spoke his last words over his radio: "One second to the beautiful maidens."

It must be very upsetting for young men to discover the Quran doesn't say anything about seventy-two virgins. The Hadith does specifically mention seventy-two virgins, but only in the context of a reward for virtuous men. Killing young children is apparently not a prerequisite the poking them in the afterlife.

The American equivalent would be a popular morning evangelist saying that discriminating against gays will prevent you from coming into Heaven. Or maybe the Catholic Church saying that the Bible isn't accurate on certain points, but that's another story entirely.

Either way, it's making news. Extremists are mad, and the common folk are talking about it, and this is all good news to me. My favorite part? Airing the show during Ramadan, when the righteous have little else to do but watch TV until the sun goes down.

Labels: media, terrorism

Permalink

Letters from the Front, Part Deux

A few days ago I posted a blog article about letters written to America by soldiers deployed to Iraq. Foolishly, I forgot that Americans aren't the only "fighters" writing letters, and today the Pentagon decided to help fill that gap.

The Pentagon has released portions of a letter written by Ayman al-Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. If you don't follow the war on terror, this would be approximately equivalent to Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, writing a letter to General Abazaid, the commander of US Forces in the Middle East -- and having our enemies obtain a copy of the letter. I'll break down some key points here:

• Zawahiri warns that things are not good in Afghanistan. He tells Zarqawi that they have been defeated, and are hiding to avoid capture. Their communications and funding have been cut off. Desperately, he pleas for Zarqawi to send money to him. Fewer than half of Americans think we can win this war, but our enemy's leadership seems to think we can.
  
• He warns Zarqawi that the violence he is causing, especially beheadings and other "terror" attacks, will ultimately serve to turn the population against him. Gruesome images like the one to the right only serve to make Iraqis realize that Al Qaeda is not "on their side." While I cannot find good evidence of this on CNN.com or Fox News, I will tell you that conversations with friends in Iraq back this statement up. The message from Iraqis to our soldiers: Help us get rid of this menace!
• Expressing optimism that somehow Al Qaeda could force America to abandon Iraq, Zawahiri implored Zarqawi to not end the fight there. Instead, he urges him to push out into other countries, expanding the war until it encompasses the entire world. While some may be deluded into thinking that pulling out means peace, it is clear that Al Qaeda's plan is "Iraq first, then the world." Appeasement didn't work with the Nazi's, and it won't work now.

Captain Ed and Discerning Texan both have good blog entries about this letter as well, kudos to 'em for beating me to the punch.

"And it is that the Mujaheddin must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal. We will return to having the secularists and traitors holding sway over us."

Labels: afghanistan, iraq, media, terrorism

Permalink

The Carrot and Stick Approach

Libya, and Col Qadhafi, is by no means America's greatest friend. Col Qadhafi has personally ordered numerous terrorist attacks, including the 1988 bombing of a Pam Am flight over Lockerbie Scotland. As a strong believer that the US needs to stand strong against terrorism, why then do I applaud this move by the US?

Because it shows us the War on Terror is working. If you had asked me in 2000 what states were the largest sponsors of terrorism, I would have answered Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Strike two state sponsors of terrorism to military action. Which leaves Iran, Syria, and Libya.

Iran remains belligerent. Syria has been making baby steps, pulling out of Lebanon and attempting to stem the flow of foreign fighters across their border in Iraq. While these measures by Syria show some willingness to join the international community of civilized nations, they are not enough. Libya, on the other hand, has seen the light.

Col Qadhafi's decision to renounce his WMD program, even though the West had no solid evidence of illegal weapons, and thus had not applied pressure on him to disarm, caught many by surprise. Examining Libyan nuclear weapons research, US intelligence analysts discovered they were far more advanced than previously believed. Why would a dictator who was successfully hiding his WMD come clean?

The answer is obvious. For the first time in modern history, America has a president that is serious about confronting terrorists and rogue states. Bill Clinton responded to Al Qaeda's twin bombings of US embassies by firing missiles at a camp in Afghanistan, but took no further action when it was discovered that Bin Laden was not hurt in the attack. And his response to a failed assassination attempt by Iraq against a former president of the United States was... firing missiles. It may have come as a surprise to America, but the rogue nations of the world already knew that no country has ever fallen to missiles alone. Without the threat of boots on the ground, all America could do was talk loudly and carry a very small stick.

With the successful overthrow of two rogue states and sponsors of terrorism, Libya knew that America was no longer the paper tiger of the West. Bush's foreign policy had teeth. Given the carrot of renewed trade and the stick of serious military action, Col Qadhafi's decision makes perfect sense. This is the power diplomacy that is understood by Arab culture, and this is evidence that the world is, despite CNN's insistence to the contrary, becoming a safer place.

Labels: libya, terrorism

Permalink

Why We Are Right, And Why We Will Win

A day does not pass where I do not read an editorial about us losing the war in Iraq. In fact, in a recent poll, most Americans said the US will not win the Iraq war. Well, I've got news for you. We won a long time ago. We came in, removed a dictator, and began building a peaceful democratic country.

What we have now is an "insurgency," fueled by forces from outside Iraq, attempting to prove to the world that the US is weak and vulnerable. After a searing defeat in Afghanistan, the Jihadists need a new country to act as safe haven and sponsor -- and if they can show the world they can take it from under America's nose, well, that's one hell of a cherry on the top.

That's not an insurgency in my book. Insurgents are people unhappy with their government, willing to fight against it. The correct word for outside criminals fostering violence to overthrow a society for personal gain is terrorists.

We must prevail in Iraq, because to fail would elevate this war to a new scale. An Iraq run by Jihadists, planning attacks against the US homeland, would be the worst of all possible scenarios. Do you really think these terrorists will be satisfied with just one country? Not in a million years!

But let us look for a moment at who we are fighting. Who are these strange men who wrap bandanas around their heads and chant oddly while firing in the air? They aren't Iraqis. Many, like Zarqawi, leader of the Al Qaeda in Iraq, are criminals from other countries who found an opportunity to gain fame and power. Others, like Ahmad Al-Shaye', are idealists who were tricked into supporting these criminals.

Yes, I said tricked. And no, you've never heard of Ahmad Al-Shaye'. But you should have. On September 18th, Al-Majd TV in Saudi Arabia aired a hospital interview with Ahmad Al-Shaye'. (For those with Arabic skills, visit MEMRI and search on that name. Clip #861 has the entire interview. Everyone else can click the first link for a translated transcript.)

The terrorists that co-opted Ahmad Al-Shaye' asked him if he wished to conduct a suicide bombing. He answered he did not. They took his identification and money "for safekeeping," and asked him to drive a fuel-laden truck to provide supplies. What he did not know was the truck was an armed bomb, and his route was designed to kill innocent civilians and Iraqi government officials. His "leaders" had already called his parents to tell them he died bravely in combat.

Fortunately for Ahmad Al-Shaye', he survived the explosion. Badly wounded, he returned to Saudi Arabia and told the story of his attempted murder on national TV.

Thank you, Ahmad Al-Shaye', for exposing the truth about the evil criminals who are masterminding the "insurgency" in Iraq for their own gain. Thank you, Al-Majd TV, for telling Saudi Arabia the truth. Shame on you, CNN, for telling America that we are losing a war against an insurgent Iraqi population that never wanted to be rescued from Saddam Hussein's death squads.

Labels: iraq, media, Saudi Arabia, terrorism

Permalink