A Word To The Wise

No matter what banks, credit card companies and others involved with personal finance do to lessen customer's risks and improve security, ingenious thieves across the nation seem only a half step behind them in figuring out equally effective countermeasures and schemes to invade our privacy and steal our resources.

The 1990s spawned a new breed of crooks known as “Identity Thieves” - whose stock in trade is our everyday personal transactions, i.e., our bank and credit card account numbers, our incomes, social security numbers, names, addresses and telephone numbers. Nothing seems sacred to these rogues except to relieve you of your funds, usually before you are aware of it.

Personal computers are easy marks for Identity thieves with nerd skills, despite firewalls and other protective software. Experts can easily get around these devices and steal enough information to do financial harm - sometimes catastrophic. But even those who don't use computers are easy prey.

What to do?

Get the facts and take every precaution possible.


The Federal Trade Commission has published an outstanding booklet entitled ID Theft - When Bad Things Happen To Your Good Name. It is a must-read if one wants to learn how to avoid being scammed - or at least greatly minimize the prospects for such a personal catastrophe.

Your bank may have a copy to give you, as mine did, or you can check out the FTC's Website at []

But don't wait.

Do it NOW.

You probably will make some changes in the way you handle your personal affairs.


Defending Our Home Land A Must-win Game
By Army Sgt1st Class Doug Sample, AFPS

Washington D.C., 2/27/04 (AFPN) - “The mission of homeland security is like playing an away game and a home game,” said Gen. Ralph Eberhart, the U.S. military's homeland defense commander, and head of U.S. Northern Command, Peterson AFB, CO” In war, just as in sports, it is the away game that you want to win, but it is the home game that you must win.”

The general used the analogy to explain his views on how to handle the nation's security challenges in a speech on Feb. 25 at the 2004 Armed Forces Communication and Electronics Association Homeland Security Conference here.

General Eberhart, who also heads the North American Aerospace Defense Command co- located at Peterson, said he agrees with the president's policy on pre-emptive measures against attacks. “A good offense is much better than defense here,” he said. “We should concentrate our efforts on deter, defend and defeat.”

Eberhart said deterrence works well against terrorism, just like it did during the Cold War. “I believe we can prevent terrorism, I believe we can defeat it, but if all else fails, we'd better be pretty good at cleaning up after it.”

Throughout the nation's history, the country has been involved mostly in the away game, resulting in the United States focusing equipment, contingency operations and military tactics to wage wars on foreign soil, the Eberhart said. That strategy is the “game we want to play. That's the war we want to wage. We don't want the fans, the citizens in the stands, in proximity to the battle.”

“I'm not here telling you this morning that we need to pull the throttle back on the away game,” he said. “We want to defend as far forward as we possibly can.” However, he also emphasized that “more attention needs to be put on the home game of defending the United States. There needs to be more jointness and interoperability in the efforts of homeland defense and homeland security.”

The relationships among first responders cut across all federal, state, county and local levels. “When we talk about relationships, we redefine jointness and interoperability. … I'm not naive enough to say that in this nation you can buy the same radio and same uniform for all first responders out there,” he said. “But what you can do is make sure that they are compatible — that you can talk to one another, that you train alike, that you use the same lexicon.”

He also stressed the need to share intelligence information among agencies. “We need to change from the need-to-know Cold War mentality to the need-to-share in this global war on terrorism - where we've used all the instruments of national power for both the away game and the home game.”


Written by an unnamed retired attorney, May 19, 2004.
[] Forwarded to Keeping Apace by J D Johnson

Dear Tom, Kevin, Kirby and Ted:

As your father, I believe I owe it to you to share some thoughts on the present world situation. We have over the years discussed a lot of important things, like going to college, jobs and so forth. But this really takes precedence over any of those discussions. I hope this might give you a longer term perspective that fewer and fewer of my generation are left to speak to.

To be sure you understand that this is not politically flavored, I will tell you that since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led us through pre and WWII (1933 - 1945) up to and including our present President, I have without exception, supported our presidents on all matters of international conflict. This would include just naming a few in addition to President Roosevelt - WWII: President Truman - Korean War 1950; President Kennedy - Bay of Pigs (1961); President Kennedy - Vietnam (1961); [1] eight presidents (5 Republican & 4 Democrat) during the cold war (1945 - 1991); President Clinton's strikes on Bosnia (1995) and on Iraq (1998). [2] So be sure you read this as completely non-political or otherwise you will miss the point.

Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:
1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us: Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983; Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000; New York World Trade Center 2001; Pentagon 2001. (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide). [3]

2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

4. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

5. What is the Muslim population of the World?
25% [4]

6. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). ( [] ). Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way - their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else.. [5] The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing - by their own pronouncements - killing all of us infidels. I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.

What losing really means is: We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly to terrorist attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast. See the attached article on the French condition by Tom Segel. [6]

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war and therefore are completely committed to winning at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by imploding. That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

— President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war. For the duration we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently. And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

— Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

— Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening, it concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

— Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying.

We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of an American prisoner they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the “humiliating” of some Muslim prisoners - not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but “humiliating” them. Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned - totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. [7]

Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into all non-Muslims - not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.

— We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant'. That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't. If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the Press, equal rights for anyone - let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the World.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar? [8]

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the “peaceful Muslims”?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I believe that after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it.



[1] By the way on Vietnam, the emotions are still so high that it is really not possible to discuss it. However, I think President Kennedy was correct. He felt there was a communist threat from China, Russia and North Vietnam to take over that whole area. Also remember that we were in a 'cold war' with Russia. I frankly think Kennedy's plan worked and kept that total communist control out, but try telling that to anyone now. It just isn't politically correct to say so. Historians will answer this after cool headed research, when the people closest to it are all gone.

[2] As you know, I am a strong President Bush supporter and will vote for him. However, if Senator Kerry is elected, I will fully support him on all matters of international conflict, just as I have supported all presidents in the past.

[3] Source for statistics in Par. 1 is

[4] The Institute of Islamic Information and Education. []

[5] Note the attached article by Tom Segel referred to in footnote 6 infra, the terrorist Muslim have already begun the havoc in France. As I have said before, I think this is the war of the century. It is not a war against terrorism. Terrorism is merely a tactic. It is a religious war. Muslims vs. Christians and Jews. As in all of our successful wars we should hold no quarter. Political correctness could destroy western civilization. The time to stand up for our institutions is NOW. Dave Swinford.

[6] I checked this article with two sources - Hoax Busters and Urban Myths. It does not come up as a Hoax on either. I also then E-mailed Mr. Segel and he confirmed the article was his.

[7] “I don't think the Army or any branch of service runs any type of war any more. It's done by senators and congressmen. There are too many civilians involved.” Returning Iraq veteran, Sgt. 1st Class Greg Klees as quoted in the Cedar Rapids, IA Gazette on May 13th, 2004.

There are 64 Muslim countries. This does not count countries like Spain that are controlled by the Muslim terrorists.


An Editorial Which Speaks To Our Times
From BGEN R. Clements USAF (Ret)

Up Against Fanaticism
By Phil Lucas, Executive Editor, Panama City New Herald 4/23/04

If straight talk of savagery offends you, if you believe in ethnic and gender diversity but not diversity of thought or if you think there is an acceptable gray area between good and evil, then turn to the funny pages, and take the children, too. This piece is not for you.

We published pictures Thursday of burnt American corpses hanging from an Iraqi bridge behind a mob of grinning Muslims. Some readers didn't like it. Mothers said it frightened their children. A woman who works with Muslim physicians thought it might offend or endanger them.

Well, we sure don't want to frighten, offend or endanger anybody, do we? That's just too much diversity to handle. I mean, somebody might get hurt.

We could fill the newspaper every morning with mobs of fanatical Muslims. They can't get along with their neighbors on much of the planet: France, Chechnya, Bosnia, Indonesia, Spain, Morocco, India, Tunisia, Somalia, etc. etc. etc. Can anybody name three ongoing world conflicts in which Muslims are not involved? Today, where there is war, there are fanatical Muslims.

We might quibble about who started what conflicts, but look at the sheer number of them. One thing is sure. Muslim killers started the one we are in now when they slaughtered more that 3,000 people, including fellow Muslims, in New York City.

Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state and reckless appeaser who helped get us into this mess, said last week Muslims still resent the Crusades. Well, Madam Albright, if Westerners were not such a forgiving people, we might resent them too.

Let's recap the Crusades. Muslims invaded Europe, and when they reached sufficient numbers, they imposed their intolerant religion upon Westerners by force. Christian monarchs drove them back and took the battle to their homeland. The fight lasted a couple of centuries, and we bottled them up for 1,000 years.

Now, a millennium later, Muslims have expanded forth again. Ask France. Ask England. Ask Manhattan. Two-and-a-half years ago fanatical Muslims laid siege to us. We woke up to the obvious. Our president announced it would be a very long war, then took the battle to the Islamic homeland. Sound Familiar?

Let's consider the concept of a “long war.” Last time it was 200 years, give or take. Anybody catch Lord of the Rings? You know, the good part, the part that wasn't fiction, the part that drew us to the books and movies because it was the truest part: the titanic struggle between good and evil, between freedom and enslavement, between the individual and the state, between the celebration of life and the worshipping of death.

That's the fight we are in, and it never ends. It just has peaks and valleys.

There may be a silent majority of peaceful Muslims - some live here - but that did not save 3,000 people in the World Trade Center, the million gassed and butchered in the Middle East, the tens of thousands slain in Eastern Europe and Asia, the hundreds blown to bits in the West Bank and Spain, or the four Americans shot, burned and hung like sausage over the Euphrates as a fanatical minority of Muslims did the joyful dance of death.

Maybe we are so tolerant, we are so bent on “diversity,” we are so non-judgmental, we are so wrapped up in our six-packs and ballgames that our brains have drained to our bulbous behinds. Maybe we're so addled on Ritalin we wouldn't know which end of a gun to hold. Maybe we need a new drug advertised on TV every three minutes, one that would help us grow a backbone.

It doesn't take a Darwin to figure out that in this world the smartest, the fastest, the strongest, and the most committed always win. No exceptions.

Look at your spouse and children. Look at yourself in the mirror. Then look at the pictures from the paper last Thursday. You better look at them. Those are the people out to kill you.

Who do you think will win? You? Or them? Think you can take your ball and go home and they will leave you alone? Read a little history. Start with last week, last month, last year, and every other year back for half a century. Then go back a thousand years. Nobody hides from this fight.

Like it or not, that's the way it was and that's the way it is.

But many Americans don't get it.

That's why we published those pictures.

If they jarred you off the sofa, if they offended you, if they scared your children and sent you into a rage at mass murderers or heartless editors… then I say, it's a start.


Geopolitical Diary
Forwarded by BGen Bob Clements USAF (Ret) 4/26/04

The FBI issued a warning of an al Qaeda threat against refineries in Houston, Texas. The refineries are clustered in an area known as Pasadena and have long been identified as a potential al Qaeda target. Stratfor has speculated on this scenario. Pasadena contains a substantial proportion of U.S. refining capacity. With good luck for the attackers — and the right wind — a well-planned attack could render part of a major American city uninhabitable.

There is, of course, a difference between a potential target and a real threat. The FBI obviously thought it detected a real threat against Houston. What it detected is secret, but it could have been a suspected al Qaeda member moving to the region, or a cell phone conversation intercepted in Pakistan. It could also have been al Qaeda testing the system again — exercising its tendency to put out false information in order to confuse U.S. security services and observe their patterns of response.

Or it could have been a real threat that has been deterred by the warning, with would-be attackers abandoning the project, now that they have been detected. Or it could have been the FBI, concerned that there might be a threat, trying to reduce it by issuing the alert. Or it could have been the FBI trying to confuse al Qaeda by generating a false alert. The permutations are endless.

The struggle between U.S. intelligence and security services and al Qaeda is complex, and a good deal of it has to do with trying to manipulate the psychology of the other side. The FBI announcement could mean many things.

What is clear is that U.S. intelligence is braced for attack on a global basis. The U.S. Embassy in the United Arab Emirates, for example, closed Thursday because of threats. The global situation is extremely tense. The situation in Pakistan is fluid and developing in uncertain directions. The killing of Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin by the Israelis introduces another variable. The bombing in Madrid indicates that at least one militant unit is operational in Europe. There is a sense that something is about to give — and the Texas warning symbolizes it.

In general, al Qaeda rarely attacks when and where it is expected. The bombing in Madrid, like Sept. 11, came out of nowhere. It was only after the fact, with perfect hindsight, that the indicators could be seen — and al Qaeda is expert at fragmenting and diffusing indicators. When you look closely, for every Madrid there are a dozen feints or aborted missions where the indicators match. Al Qaeda did not manage to drive the United States and Europe wild with doubt and uncertainty by being predictable.

There are constantly enough indicators out there to call a general alert throughout the world. Al Qaeda makes certain of that. On occasion, an indicator breaches the wall of the routine to become a public warning. Most public warnings turn out to be counterindicators: the higher the alert, the less likely the attack — or so it has been until now.

With global indicators of attack rising — and local indicators increasing — we would expect al Qaeda to go quiet. Politically, however, this would be enormously difficult. At the same time, refineries in Texas might not be — logically, at least — the most likely target. A refinery attack can certainly cause massive casualties, but such attacks can also fizzle. There is a risk of failure, and al Qaeda can't risk many failures at this point. Still, the FBI point is made. The danger is out there, and this is a target-rich environment in which a sparse global network has the tactical advantage.


By Frosty Wooldridge. Forwarded by BGen Bob Clements

Last week, I attended an immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of America's finest minds and leaders. Writers, speakers, CEO's, representatives from Congress such as Tom Tancredo as well as former governors graced the podium.

Bonnie Eggle, mother of the national parks ranger Chris Eggle, slain by Mexican drug runners last year on our unguarded southern border - gave a compelling speech that left not one dry eye in the place.

Peter Gadiel, father of Jamie Gadiel, spoke powerfully on how the World Trade Center took his son and how nothing has been done since - to stop the flow of illegal immigration into the United States. Even with the façade of Tom Ridge's Homeland Security, 800,000 illegal aliens continue walking, crawling or tunneling across the Mexican border annually. Their accelerating numbers are undermining America's ability to function.

During the conference, speaker after speaker astounded the audience with facts on how fast the present administration and congress continue dismantling the American Dream for average citizens. Mr. Rob Sanchez of Arizona, showed how H1 B and L1 visas have ripped one million high tech jobs out of American worker's hands.

Another speaker told a packed audience how 'offshoring' and 'outsourcing', fully supported by the president and congress have cost over three million American jobs in the past six years. His prediction was even more depressing: In excess of three million more jobs will be 'outsourced' within four years. Those American jobs are headed to Mexico, India, China, Pakistan and Brazil.

Later, a brilliant college professor named Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, “MEXIFORNIA”, explaining how immigration, both legal and illegal, was destroying the entire State of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of the American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. This writer sat in the audience spellbound by the eight methods for destruction of the United States.

He said, “If you believe that America is too smug, to self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America.” It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall, and that, “An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.”

“Here is how they do it,” Lamm said. “Turn America into a bilingual or multi lingual and bicultural country.” History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way, “The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy.” Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons and Corsicans.

Lamm went on, 'Invent multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal… that there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

We could make the United States a 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the ATLANTIC MONTHLY recently: “The apparent success of our own multi-ethnic and multi-cultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.

Lamm said, “I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.”

Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% rate from high school.

My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology'. I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.

My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks: The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet, all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'Pluribus' instead of the 'Unum', we can Balkanize America as surely as Kosovo

Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits - make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity'. I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate.

“Having made America a bilingual - bicultural country, having established multiculturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology', I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws.

I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must ALWAYS be good. I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.”

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. The profound Finally, he said, “Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book 'MEXIFORNIA'. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book.

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today.

Every discussion is being suppressed.
Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness.
Barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity'.
American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as greedy corporations create a Third World in America. California and other states, to date have 10 million illegal aliens and growing, fast.

It reminded me of George Orwell's book, '1984'. In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: “War is peace,” “Freedom is slavery,” and “Ignorance is strength.” I sat there as one of the most patriotic Americans I know, Governor Lamm, walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy, is deeply in trouble and worsening fast.

If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially the American Dream.

Frosty Wooldridge is a teacher and author who has bicycled 100,000 miles on six continents to see overpopulation up close and ugly. His latest book is: 'STRIKE THREE! TAKE YOUR BASE'.


Here is a new identity theft scam you may not know about: Stealing information, including Social Security numbers, birth dates, and credit card numbers for verification purposes.

Identity theft scammers, pretending to work for local courts, are calling potential victims with the news that they have failed to report for jury duty and that a warrant has been issued for their arrest. They then ask victims for personal confidential information scammers need to commit identity theft.



Beware Of Identity Theft
From NAUS Update For 30 JAN 04

Internal Revenue Service officials are warning taxpayers about protecting their personal financial information contained in both regular and electronic mails.

This is the time of the year for collecting financial information for income tax returns and criminals are using several E-mail scams to gather personal financial information from taxpayers.

From One scheme informs a taxpayer that he or she is being audited by e-mail and asks the person to release his or her Social Security number, bank account numbers and other confidential information. If you receive such an e-mail notice, DO NOT PROVIDE THE INFORMATION requested. IRS does not operate in this manner.

These schemes and scams are an attempt to steal the identity of those who respond and could lead to a depleted bank account and ruined credit. Those who do respond risk becoming a victim of a scam designed to prey on a person's fear of a threatened IRS audit and assessment of penalties and interest.

IRS field auditors and collection officers carry picture identification cards and generally contact those persons being audited by telephone before visiting their homes or offices. If you have been a victim of a scam, contact the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigations Hotline at the toll free number: 1-800-829-0433.


Forwarded by JayDJay
A must read by Rick Mathes, a well-known leader in prison ministries.

Last month I attended my annual training session that's required for maintaining my state prison security clearance. During the training session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Muslim faiths who explained each of their belief systems.

I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say. The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a video. After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers. When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Iman, and asked: “Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams & clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world. And, that by killing an infidel, which is a command to all Muslims, they are assured of a place in heaven. If that's the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?”

There was no disagreement with my statements and, without hesitation, he replied, “Nonbelievers!”

I responded, “So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith, so they can go to Heaven. Is that correct?”

The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar… He sheepishly replied, “Yes.”

I then stated, “Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope John Paul commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr. Stanley ordering Protestants to do the same in order to go to Heaven.

The Imam was speechless.

I continued, “I also have problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are tilling your followers to kill me. Let me ask you a question? Would you rather have your Allah who tells you to kill me in order to go to heaven or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to heaven and he wants you to be with me?

You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame. Needless to say, the organizers and/or promoters of the 'Diversification' training seminar were not happy with Rick's way of dealing with the Islamic Imam and exposing the truth about the Muslim's beliefs.

I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this but with the liberal justice system, liberal media and the ACLU there is no way this will be widely publicized.


From Larry Abraham's Insider Report, January 29, 2004 []
Forwarded by Jerry Van Wagner

I urge all of my readers to make copies of this report and send them to your friends and relatives. The information is too critical to be over looked in the madness of this election year.

Watching and listening to the Democrat Party candidates is tantamount to enduring the Chinese water torture. The blah, blah, blah goes on and on and nothing of value comes out except the pain of listening to the same nothingness over and over again. I won't take the time or space to repeat what you have heard so many mind numbing times but what you have not heard is crucial.

President Bush and his administration spokesmen are not telling the American people what they really need to know about this “war.” If they don't do that between now and November it may cost them the election.

The war against terror did not begin on September 11, 2001, nor will it end with the peaceful transition to civilian authority in Iraq, whenever that may be. In fact, Iraq is but a footnote in the bigger context of this encounter, but an important one none the less.

This war is what the Jihadists themselves are calling the “Third Great Jihad.” They are operating within the framework of a time line which reaches back to the very creation of Islam in the seventh century and are presently attempting to recreate the dynamics which gave rise to the religion in the first two hundred years of its existence.

No religion in history grew as fast, in its infancy, and the reasons for the initial growth of Islam are not hard to explain when you understand what the world was like at the time of Muhammad's death in 632 AD. Remember that the Western Roman Empire was in ruins and the Eastern Empire, based in Constantinople, was trying desperately to keep the power of its early grandeur while transitioning to Christianity as a de facto state religion. The costs to the average person were large as he was being required to meet the constantly rising taxes levied by the state along with the tithes coerced by the Church.

What Islam offered was the “carrot or the sword”. If you became a convert, your taxes were immediately eliminated, as was your tithe. If you didn't, you faced death. The choice was not hard for most to make, unless you were a very devoted martyr in the making. At the beginning, even the theology was not too hard for most to swallow, considering that both Jewry and Christianity were given their due by the Prophet. There is but one God-Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet, as was Jesus, and the pre-Christian Jewish prophets of the Torah (Old Testament). Both were called “children of the book”—the book being the Koran, which replaced both the Old and New Testaments for former Christians and Jews.

With this practical approach to spreading the “word” Islam grew like wild-fire, reaching out from the Saudi Arabian Peninsula in all directions. This early growth is what the Muslims call the “First” great Jihad and it met with little resistance until Charles Martel of France, the father of Charlemagne, stopped them in the battle of Tours in France, after they had firmly established Islam on the Iberian Peninsula. This first onslaught against the West continued in various forms and at various times until Islam was finally driven out of Spain in 1492 at the battle of Granada.

The “Second great jihad” came with the Ottoman Turks. This empire succeeded in bringing about the downfall of Constantinople as a Christian stronghold and an end to Roman hegemony in all of its forms. The Ottoman Empire was Islam's most successful expansion of territory even though the religion itself had fractured into warring sects and bitter rivalries with each claiming the ultimate truths in “the ways of the Prophet”. By 1683 the Ottomans had suffered a series of defeats on both land and sea and the final, unsuccessful attempt to capture Vienna set the stage for the collapse of any further territorial ambitions and Islam shrunk into various sheikhdoms, emir dominated principalities, and roving tribes of nomads.

However, by this time a growing anti-western sentiment, blaming its internal failures on anyone but themselves, was taking hold and setting the stage for a new revival known as Wahhabism, a sect which came into full bloom under the House of Saud on the Arabian Peninsula shortly before the onset of WWI. It is this Wahhabi version of Islam which has infected the religion itself, now finding adherents in almost all branches and sects, especially the Shiites.

Wahhabiism calls for the complete and total rejection or destruction of anything and everything which is not based in the original teachings of The Prophet and finds its most glaring practice in the policies of the Afghani Taliban or the Shiite practices of the late Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. Its Ali Pasha (Field Marshall) is now known as Osama bin Laden, the leader of the “Third Jihad”, who is Wahhabi as were his 9/11 attack teams, 18 of which were also Saudi.

The strategy for this “holy war” did not begin with the planning of the destruction of the World Trade Center. It began with the toppling of the Shah of Iran back in the late 1970's. With his plans and programs to “westernize” his country, along with his close ties to the U.S. and subdued acceptance of the State of Israel, the Shah was the soft target. Remember “America Held Hostage”?

Thanks, in large part to the hypocritical and disastrous policies of the Jimmy Carter State Department, the revolution was set into motion, the Shah was deposed, his armed forces scattered or murdered and stage one was complete. The Third Jihad now had a base of operations and the oil wealth to support its grand design or what they call the “Great Caliphate”.

What this design calls for is the replacement of all secular leadership in any country with Muslim majorities. This would include, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, all the Emirates, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Malaysia, Indonesia and finally what they call the “occupied territory” Israel.

As a part of this strategy, forces of the jihad will infiltrate governments and the military as a prelude to taking control, once the secular leadership is ousted or assassinated. Such was the case in Lebanon leading to the Syrian occupation and in Egypt with the murder of Anwar Sadat, along with the multiple attempts on the lives of Hussein in Jordan, Mubarak of Egypt and Musharraf in Pakistan. Pakistan is a particular prize because of its nuclear weapons. (Please note al Qaeda call for the Islamic-militant overthrow of Musharraf in Pakistan on March 25, just yesterday.)

The long-range strategy of the Third Jihad counts on three strategic goals. First, the U.S. withdrawing from the region just as it did in Southeast Asia, following Vietnam. Second, taking control of the oil wealth in the Muslim countries, which would be upwards to 75% of known reserves; third, using nuclear weapons or other WMDs to annihilate Israel. A further outcome of successfully achieving these objectives would be to place the United Nations as the sole arbiter in East/West negotiations and paralyze western resistance, leading to total withdrawal from all Islamic dominated countries.

Evidence of the Bush Administration awareness of this plan is found in the events immediately following the 9/11 attack. The administration's first move was to shore up Pakistan and Egypt, believing that these two would be the next targets for al Qaeda, while Americans focused on the disaster in New York. The administration also knew that the most important objective was to send a loud and clear message that the U.S. was in the region to stay, not only to shore up our allies but to send a message to the Jihadists.

The attack on Afghanistan was necessary to break-up a secure al Qaeda base of operations and put their leadership on the run or in prison.

The war in Iraq also met a very strategic necessity in that no one knew how much collaboration existed between Saddam Hussein and the master planners of the Third Jihad or Hussein's willingness to hand off WMDs to terrorist groups including the PLO in Israel. What was known were serious indications of on-going collaboration as Saddam funneled money to families of suicide bombers attacking the Israelis and others in Kuwait.

What the U.S. needed to establish was a significant base of operations smack dab in the middle of the Islamic world, in a location which effectively cut it in half. Iraq was the ideal target for this and a host of other strategic reasons.

Leadership of various anti-American groups both here and abroad understood the vital nature of the Bush initiative and thus launched their demonstrations, world-wide, to “Stop The War”. Failing this, they also laid plans to build a political campaign inside the country, with the War in Iraq as a plebiscite, using a little known politician as the thrust point—Howard Dean. This helps to explain how quickly the Radical Left moved into the Dean campaign with both people and money, creating what the clueless media called the “Dean Phenomenon”.

By building on the left-wing base in the Democrat party and the “Hate Bush” crowd, the campaign has already resulted in a consensus among the aspirants, minus Joe Lieberman, to withdraw the U.S. from Iraq and turn the operation over to the U.N. And, if past is prologue, i.e., Vietnam, once the U.S. leaves it will not go back under any circumstances, possibly even the destruction of Israel.

Should George W. Bush be defeated in November we could expect to see the dominoes start to fall in the secular Islamic countries and The Clash of Civilizations, predicted several years ago by Samuel Huntington, would then become a life changing event in all of our lives.

What surprised the Jihadists following the 9/11 attack was how American sentiment mobilized around the president and a profound sense of patriotism spread across the country. They were not expecting this reaction, based on what had happened in the past, nor were they expecting the determined resolve of the President himself. I also believe this is one of the reasons we have not had any further attacks within our borders. They are content to wait, just as one of their tactical mentors; V.I. Lenin admonished…”two steps forward, one step back”.

A couple additional events serve as valuable footnotes to the current circumstances we face: the destruction of the human assets factor of the CIA during the Carter presidency, presided over by the late Senator Frank Church. This fact has plagued our intelligence agencies right up to this very day with consequences which are now obvious. And, Jimmy Carter himself, the one man who must bear the bulk of the responsibility for setting the stage of the Third Jihad. Americans should find little comfort in how the Democrat contenders constantly seek the “advice and counsel” of this despicable little hypocrite.

Lastly, we should not expect to see any meaningful cooperation from Western Europe, especially the French. Since failing to protect their own interests in Algeria (by turning the country over to the first of the Arab terrorists, Ammad Ben Bella), the country itself is now occupied by Islamic immigrants totaling twenty percent of the population.

We are in the battle of our lives, a battle which will go on for many years possibly even generations. If we fail to understand what we are facing or falter in the challenge of “knowing our enemy” the results will be catastrophic. Imagine a world where al Qaeda regimes control 75% of the world's oil, have at their disposal nuclear weapons, legions of willing suicide soldiers, and our national survival is dependent on the good graces of Kofi Annan and the United Nations.

There is one final footnote which may be the scariest of all. Either none of the Democrats currently leading the drive to their party's nomination are aware of the facts of the Great Caliphate and Third Jihad or they do know and they don't care so long as their power lust is satisfied.

But, I can guarantee you one thing for sure: some of their most ardent supporters are aware of this and will do anything they can to bring it about.


Jeff Jacoby (archive) 6/14/04 ©2004 Boston Globe
Forwarded by 1stAdmPAO

“A recent fatwa posted on a popular Islamic website in Saudi Arabia,” reports Neil McFarquhar in The New York Times “explains when a Muslim may mutilate the corpse of an infidel.”

The ruling by Sheik Omar Abdullah Hassan al-Shehabi specifies two circumstances in which the desecration of an infidel — i.e., a non-Muslim — is permitted. One is retaliation — “when the enemy is disfiguring Muslim corpses or when it otherwise serves the Islamic nation.” The other is when mutilation will “terrorize the enemy” or “gladden the heart of a Muslim warrior.”

With conditions like those, it is hard to imagine any situation in which an Islamist militant couldn't justify the mutilation of a victim's body.

“That a cleric can post such an argument in an open forum,” comments McFarquhar “goes a long way toward explaining how the most radical interpretations of religious texts flourish in Saudi Arabia.”

But it isn't only in Saudi Arabia that they flourish. The popular “Ask the Scholar” feature of Islam Online ( was recently asked “how Islam views the issue of mutilating dead bodies of enemies.” In a reply, Sheik Faysal Mawlawi, deputy chairman of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, began by declaring that mutilation is “not allowable” under Islam. But then came the loophole: “It is possible to mutilate the dead only in case of retaliation… If he inflicts any physical damage on anyone, he should be retaliated against in the same manner. In case of war, Muslims are allowed to take vengeance for their mutilated dead mujahids (fighters) in the same way it was done to them.” This, the European sheik explained, is the teaching of the Koran (16:126), which counsels patience but authorizes revenge.

Does this mean that normative Islamic law authorizes Muslims to mangle the bodies of non-Muslims they have killed? I am not a scholar of Islam and would not presume to say. But two facts seem indisputable: (1) A Muslim intent on such mutilation can find clerical authority to justify it. And (2) a small but implacable minority of Muslims are intent on such mutilation.

Indeed, it has become a signature of the evil we are fighting, as the news of the last few months has shown. (Warning — the following descriptions are graphic.)

Fallujah: Four Americans are ambushed, hauled from their vehicles, jumped on, and pounded with bricks. As jubilant Iraqis chant Islamic slogans, the bodies are dismembered and set on fire. Two of the charred remains are then hung from a bridge; the other two are dragged behind cars along the city's main street.

Khobar, Saudi Arabia: A British oil executive, Michael Hamilton, is one of 22 people murdered in an Al Qaeda attack. His corpse is dragged through the city, then dumped near a bridge.

Gaza: After six Israelis are blown up in a bomb attack, Palestinians are filmed dancing in the streets and playing with the dead men's body parts. In a video, two Islamic Jihad terrorists take credit for the massacre — and display the severed head of one of their victims.

Iraq: Islamofascists videotape their murder of Nicholas Berg, a 26-year-old US civilian. Shouting “Allahu akhbar!” (“God is great!”), they saw off Berg's head as he shrieks in fear and pain.

The disfiguring of victims' bodies did not begin this year. In a notorious lynching four years ago, two Israelis were taken from their car to the second floor of a Palestinian police station in the West Bank town of Ramallah, where they were literally torn limb from limb. Their internal organs were pulled from their bodies and their eyes gouged out. What was left of them was then thrown from a window to a cheering crowd below, which set the corpses on fire and dragged them through the town.

Perhaps even more infamous, at least to Americans, were the beheading of journalist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan in 2002 and the mutilation of the bodies of US soldiers in Somalia in 1993.

We are in a war to the death with an enemy whose deepest civilizational values come straight out of the 8th century. In the world that they would impose on us all, there is no dissent, no pluralism, no path to God but theirs — and no mercy or tolerance for those who might choose a different path.

Our enemies make no secret of their intentions: We will bow to their totalitarian idea of Islam, or we will be killed. And not only killed, but mangled, mutilated, and subjected to the most hideous indignities they can devise.

The terrorists and their followers burn and batter corpses for the same reason the Taliban smashed magnificent statues — for the same reason Hitler wrote Mein Kampf [http://] to openly proclaim their contempt for the moral principles of the civilized world.

Ultimately it is up to the world's moderate, modern Muslims to rise up against the barbarians in their midst. Until that day comes, there is nothing the West can do to ameliorate or appease this enemy. We can only destroy it — or be destroyed.


By Tom Segel, []

Harlingen, Texas, May 20, 2004: Living next to the Texas-Mexico border gives one a different view of life than is experienced by most Americans. On one side of the Rio Grande are millions of Mexicans willing to risk anything to cross that ribbon of muddy water. North of the riverbank is another population made up of citizens, legal residents and undocumented workers. Ethnically, 90% of this population is Hispanic.

If you remove the divisiveness of politics and ask people how they view themselves or those around them, most will say they are Americans. Many will say they are Texans. Few, if any, claim allegiance to Mexico or any Latin American country.

The culture here is also unique. From food to festivals we all call it Tex-Mex. The richest in culture, customs and traditions of both nations have been blended into a way of life, which might seem strange to some, but proves to be very rewarding for those of us who make our homes in the Rio Grande Valley.

Now view this cultural assimilation by both Hispanic and Anglo along the U.S. border with what exists in countries experiencing immigration by Muslims:

France has seen a large Muslim immigration, primarily from Algeria, Senegal and Mali. These people have never been totally accepted by the French citizenry. The Muslim population is estimated at 4 to 5 million in a country of 56 million people. The country has seen an explosion of mosques, with numbers now in excess of 1,200. With a growing resentment toward the immigrants, these mosques increase the anxiety about Muslims felt by the French Christian community. The large number of young Muslims who claim no allegiance to France, but instead claim to be Islamists further heightens this anxiety.

France does have a radical Muslim problem. This militant version of Islam is not being imported, but is increasingly homegrown. It includes not only Muslims on the fringe of French society, but hundreds of highly educated and westernized French Muslims who are becoming intoxicated with the holy-war ideology being preached throughout western Europe. When asked, most will deny any involvement or assimilation into French culture.

Muslim immigration to Germany has been primarily from Turkey. Since 1990 there has been an increase in Muslim asylum seekers from Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. This has grown that immigrant population to about 2.5 million.

In Germany, Muslim youth are following an Iranian concept, which is known as “the new holy-war community of believers.” It recognizes no national or ethnic identity. It even shows disdain for traditional Islamic values. This new doctrine is one, which The Weekly Standard calls, “a belief that suicide and murder become sacred acts of believers who want to bring about a purifying Apocalypse.”

Holland has seen a thirty-year experiment in trying to develop a tolerant multicultural society fail. Government officials claim their worst mistake was to encourage Muslim children to speak Turkish, Arabic or Berber in elementary school, instead of Dutch. The result: 850,000 Muslims who have failed to assimilate into the nation¹s culture, import spouses from their home countries, are creating militant enclaves, actively preach Jihad, and work to built a terrorist networks in this nation of only 16 million people.

Our most important ally Great Britain has not been immune to a growing Muslim presence. In 1951 there were only 23,000 Muslims in the country. Fifty years later that figure had expanded to 2 million. In addition to a documented Muslim immigrant population made up primarily of Pakistanis, Indians and Bangladeshis, there has been a large influx of undocumented Arabs and Somalis whose numbers are disputed.

That these are true asylum seekers is suspect. They have been seen by the thousands in mosques listening to anti-western Islamic rhetoric. It is known some are taking lessons in making incendiary devices and other weapons of terror. Even France, with Muslim problems of its own, has warned Britain that many of those it is sheltering under the asylum system are terrorists.

According to [], French intelligence services have even provided the names of known terrorists living in Great Britain and told the British which mosques these terrorists attend. Nothing has been done and Britain¹s Muslim problem continues.

Currently there are about 23 million Muslims residing in Europe. Of course, these are not all fundamentalists. In all fairness in must be noted that many Muslims have become westernized. By accepting western values and lifestyle, they have also made themselves targets to the more militant of Islamic factions. There is major conflict between the new western approach to life and what those who claim to be Islamists demand. Those Muslims who adopt western ways are also the enemy in the eyes of fundamentalists.

Islamic fundamentalist hatred of all things western is something which baffles both Europeans and Americans. This hatred is a rejection of western civilization, not only for what it is, but also for the values it professes. Among the Islamists, those who promote or accept this life style are enemies of God.

In Islam the war between good and evil has both political and military dimensions. By their philosophy, according to Bernard Lewis writing in Atlantic Monthly, “If the fighters in a war for Islam, the holy war in the path of God, are fighting for God, it follows that their opponents are fighting against God. And since God is in principle, the sovereign, the supreme head of the Islamic state, then God as sovereign commands the army.” Lewis goes on to write, “The duty of God¹s soldiers is to dispatch God¹s enemies as quickly as possible to the place where God will chastise them, that is to say, the afterlife.”

Islam is more than religion. It is also the politics or Muslims and the platform on which Muslims base their militancy. As this radical version of the faith has grown, it has destroyed the culture of a great people. Once leading the world in art, science and education, militant Islam has reduced every land where it flourishes to that of a Third World country. It has triggered more warfare than any faith. As a quick exercise try to think of two or three wars raging in the world that do not involve Islam.

Muslims in America have found open hostility since the events of September 11, 2001. Some leaders of the Islamic community have been urging Muslims to return to the countries of their origin. Other leaders have been urging the establishment of stronger Islamic communities here in the United States. While traditional Islamic law states Muslims should reside in their own lands, it also concedes that Muslims may live in non-Muslim lands as long as they fulfill their religious obligations.

Observers see the Muslim community as being very conflicted because of the pronouncements by its own leadership. Increasing the conflict is the fact that Muslims born in the United States are more open, more tolerant and less sectarian. This creates divisions, which have detrimental effects within these closed communities. Regardless of being U.S. born or immigrant, all Muslims in America share similar views on international Muslim politics, the hypocrisy of United States foreign policy, and negative media reports about Muslims.

Viewed from the western perspective, Muslim immigration into the United States is becoming a concern. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the nation. In just over thirty years, immigration from the mid-east has changed from being about 15% to 73% of immigrants being Muslim. From a small number in the 1970s, the mid-eastern immigrants have grown to an estimated 2.5 million.

Within this body of immigrants we have already found terror cells, terror finance operations and those who support fundamentalist ideas. We have also seen that that Muslim support of America¹s War on Terror has been weak at best. There have been a few letters to newspapers, sound bites on television news and interviews where Muslim leaders go through the motions of expressing sorrow at the loss of 3,000 innocent lives or words of encouragement of the people of America. Missing has been any real expression of outrage at any terrorist act.

Now our own government, in an attempt to be politically correct says, “We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with terror!” A nation cannot be at war with an “outcome. “. Terror is an outcome of militant Islam.

With all of these things unfolding, there is now even a movement to modify language. We are being told that it is not a preaching of Islam to hate. They even tell us that Islam really means “peace.” This is a new definition by any stretch. What Islam means is “submission.” It is the objective of Islam to have all non-believers submit. If they will not do so willingly, they will be forced into submission.

We cannot speak for those countries in Europe, but there is one thing all Islamists should quickly learn about America: it does not submit to anyone.


“I agree the French Muslim situation is a model for what's happening in the Islamic world, but the math is lousy. There are 4 - 5 million Muslims in France - total pop 61 million = 6.5 - 8.1 %, not 20%. They constitute about 8 times the Jewish population, not 10. To get to a majority would mean an increase from 5 million to about 40 million in 25 years. The web is too powerful a checking tool.
“There is also a North American connection, since Quebec also has an exploding Muslim population arriving via France. Quebecers love them cause they speak French. Ahmed Ressaam came that way (LA airport
terrorist captured near here).
“He arrived in Montreal with a phony passport, and outstanding warrant and deportation order against him in France, but was released the same day, and immediately paid $550/month by the government, and even re-admitted after going to a bin Laden training camp for 9 months. He set up a terrorist cell and participated in numerous criminal activities to support himself. Quebec also has become a center for Islamic demonstrations against for example appearances by Jewish or Israeli politicians.
“Both of these places, overwhelmed perhaps by their blind love for all things French, have inoculated themselves with cancer. Cancer is a terminal disease.”
Bob Bogash, Snohomish, Washington

“Though the figure 5 million (Muslims) may not seem large when viewed next to the populations of countries such as Indonesia, it still represents almost twenty percent of the people in France.” - Tom Segel.
“This would not appear to be true because the population of France is over 60 million, and 5/60 yields but 8.33%.
“Was Mr. Segel misquoted in some way? I have been asked about this issue by so very many people that I would very much like to have an opportunity to have Mr. Segel's response. This could be helpful in establishing the validity of the other points he has made in this and other articles.”
Tom Adcock, McLean, VA

Ed Note: The latter was also sent direct to Tom Segel.


Forwarded by JackMack

Imagine: You walk across the parking lot, unlock your car and get inside. Then you lock all your doors, start the engine and shift into Reverse. Habit!

You look into the rear-view window to back out of your parking space and notice a piece of paper, some sort of advertisement stuck to your rear window. So, you shift into Park, unlock your doors and jump out of your vehicle to remove that paper (or whatever it is) that is obstructing your view.

When you reach the back of your car that is when the carjackers from out of nowhere, jump into your car and take off. Your engine was running, your purse or briefcase is in the car, and the carjackers practically mow you down as they speed off.

. Just drive away. Remove the paper that is stuck to your window later… and be thankful that you read this article and sent it to your friends.


By former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman
U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, May 2004
Forwarded by BGen R. Clements, USAF (Ret.)

John Lehman, a current member of the Kean Commission investigating the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, addressed the U.S. Naval Institute 130th Annual Meeting and Annapolis Naval History Symposium on 31 March. Here is an edited version of his remarks:

The subject here is naval history and the naval history to come. This is particularly relevant, given the subjects I've been immersed in over the last year-the so-called war on terrorism and the attacks of 9/11, what went wrong, and what we should do to fix it. I have learned that what these two institutions - the U.S. Naval Institute and the U.S. Naval Academy - stand for are at the center of what we face as a nation going forward.

We are at a juncture today that really is more of a threshold, even more of a watershed, than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was in 1941. We are currently in a war, but it is not a war on terrorism. In fact, that has been a great confusion, and the sooner we drop that term, the better. This would be like President Franklin Roosevelt saying in World War II, “We are engaged in a war against kamikazes and blitzkrieg.” Like them, terrorism is a method, a tool, a weapon that has been used against us. And part of the reason we suffered such a horrific attack is that we were not prepared.

Let's not kid ourselves. Some very smart people defeated every single defense this country had, and defeated them easily, with confidence and arrogance. There are many lessons we must learn from this.

We were not prepared intellectually. Those of us in the national security field still carried the baggage of the Cold War. We thought in concepts of coalition warfare and the Warsaw Pact. When we thought of terrorism, we thought only of state-sponsored terrorism, which is why the immediate reaction of many in our government agencies after 9/11 was: Which state did it? Saddam, it must have been Saddam. We had failed to grasp, for a variety of reasons, the new phenomenon that had emerged in the world. This was not state-sponsored terrorism. This was religious war.

This was the emergence of a transnational enemy driven by religious fervor and fanaticism. Our enemy is not terrorism. Our enemy is violent, Islamic fundamentalism. None of our government institutions was set up with receptors, or even vocabulary, to deal with this. So we left ourselves completely vulnerable to a concerted attack.

Where are we today? I'd like to say we have fixed these problems, but we haven't. We have very real vulnerabilities. We have not diminished in any way the fervor and ideology of our enemy. We are fighting them in many areas of the world, and I must say with much better awareness of the issues and their nature. We're fighting with better tools. But I cannot say we are now safe from the kind of attack we saw on 9/11. I think we are much safer than we were on 9/11; the ability of our enemies to launch a concerted, sophisticated attack is much less than it was then. Still, we're totally vulnerable to the kinds of attacks we've seen in Madrid, for instance.

We face a very sophisticated and intelligent enemy who has been trained, in many cases, in our universities and gone to school on our methods, learned from their mistakes, and continued to use the very nature of our free society and its aversion to intrusion in privacy and discrimination to their benefit.

For example, today it is still a prohibited offense for an airline to have two people of the same ethnic background interviewed at one time, because that is discrimination. Our airline security is still full of holes. Our ability to carry out covert operations abroad is only marginally better than it was at the time of 9/11. A huge amount of fundamental cultural and institutional change must be carried out in the United States before we can effectively deal with the nature of the threat. Today, probably 50 or more states have schools that are teaching jihad, preaching, recruiting, and training. We have absolutely no successful programs even begun to remediate against those efforts.

It's very important that people understand the complexity of this threat. We have had to institute new approaches to protecting our civil liberties the way we authorize surveillance, the way we conduct our immigration and naturalization policies, and the way we issue passports.

That's only the beginning. The beginning of wisdom is to recognize the problem, to recognize that for every jihadist we kill or capture as we carry out an aggressive and positive policy in Afghanistan and elsewhere another 50 are being trained in schools and mosques around the world.

This problem goes back a long way. We have been asleep. Just by chance about six months ago, I picked up a book by V. S. Naipaul, one of the great English prose writers. I love to read his short stories and travelogues. The book was titled Among the Believers (New York: Vintage, 1982) and was an account of his travels in Indonesia, where he found that Saudi-funded schools and mosques were transforming Indonesian society from a very relaxed, syncretist Islam to a jihadist fundamentalist fanatical society, all paid for with Saudi Arabian funding. Nobody paid attention.

Presidents in four administrations put their arms around Saudi ambassadors, ignored the Wahhabi jihadism, and said these are our eternal friends.

We have seen throughout the last 20 years a kind of head-in-the-sand approach to national security in the Pentagon. We were comfortable with the existing concept of what the threat was, what threat analysis was, and how we derived our requirements, still using the same old tools we all grew up with. We paid no attention to the real nature of this emerging threat, even though there were warning signs. Many will recall with pain what we went through in the Reagan administration in 1983, when the Marine barracks were bombed in Beirut - 241 Marines and Navy corpsmen were killed. We immediately got an intercept from NSA [National Security Agency], a total smoking gun from the foreign ministry of Iran, ordering the murder of our Marines.

Nothing was done to retaliate. Instead, we did exactly what the terrorists wanted us to do, which was to withdraw. Osama bin Laden has cited this as one of his dawning moments. The vaunted United States is a paper tiger; Americans are afraid of casualties; they run like cowards when attacked; and they don't even bother to take their dead with them This was a seminal moment for Osama.

After that, we had our CIA station chief kidnapped and tortured to death. Nothing was done. Then, we had our Marine Colonel [William R.] Higgins kidnapped and publicly hanged. Nothing was done. We fueled and made these people aware of the tremendous effectiveness of terrorism as a tool of jihad. It worked. They chased us out of one place after another, because we would not retaliate.

The Secretary of Defense at the time has said he never received those intercepts. That's an example of one of the huge problems our commission has uncovered. We have allowed the intelligence community to evolve into a bureaucratic archipelago of baronies in the Defense Department, the CIA, and 95 other different intelligence units in our government. None of them talked to one another in the same computerized system. There was no systemic sharing. Some will recall the Phoenix memo and the fact that there were people in the FBI saying, “Hey, there are young Arabs learning to fly and they don't want to learn how to take off or land. Maybe we should look into them.” It went nowhere.

We had watch lists with 65,000 terrorists' names on them, created by a very sophisticated system in the State Department called Tip-Off. That existed before 9/11, but nobody in the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] bothered to look at it. The FAA had 12 names on its no-fly list. The State Department had a guy on its list named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He was already under indictment for his role in planning the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. The State Department issued him a visa. I could go on and on.

Two big lessons glare out from what our investigations have discovered so far. Number one, in our government bureaucracy today there is no accountability. Since 9/11-the greatest failure of American defenses in the history of our country, at least since the burning of Washington in 1814-only one person has been fired.

He is a hero, in my judgment: [retired Vice] Admiral John Poindexter]. He got fired because of an excessive zeal to catch these bastards. But he was the only one fired. Not any of the 19 officers lost their jobs at Immigration for allowing the 19 terrorists-9 who presented grossly falsified passports-to enter the country. One Customs Service officer stopped the 20th terrorist, at risk to his own career.

Do you think he's been promoted?

Not a chance. That is the culture we've allowed to develop, except in the Navy. We've all felt the pain over the last year of the number of skippers who have been relieved in the U.S. Navy: two on one cruiser in one year. That's a problem for us. It's also something we should be mightily proud of, because it stands out in stark contrast to the rest of the U.S. government.

In the United States Navy, we still have accountability. It's bred into our culture. And what we stand for here has to be respread into our government and our nation. Actions have consequences, and people must be held accountable.

Customs officer Jose Melendez-Perez stopped the 20th terrorist, who was supposed to be on Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania. Probably because of the shorthanded muscle on that team, the passengers were able to overcome the terrorists. Melendez-Perez did this at great personal risk, because his colleagues and his supervisors told him, “You can't do this. This guy is an Arab ethnic. You're racially profiling. You're going to get in real trouble, because it's against Department of Transportation policy to racially profile.”

He said, “I don't care. This guy's a bad guy. I can see it in his eyes.” As he sent this guy back out of the United States, the guy turned around to him and said, “I'll be back.”

You know, he is back. He's in Guantanamo. We captured him in Afghanistan. Do you think Melendez-Perez got a promotion? Do you think he got any recognition? Do you think he is doing any better than the 19 of his time-serving, unaccountable colleagues?

Don't think any bit of it. We have no accountability, but we're going to restore it.

The other glaring lack that has been discovered throughout the investigation is in leadership. Leadership is the willingness to accept the burdens and the risks, the potential embarrassment, and the occasional failure of leading men and women. It is saying: We will do it this way. I won't let that guy in. I will do this and I'll take the consequences. That's what we stand for here. That's what the crucible of the U.S. Naval Academy has carried on now since 1845, and what the U.S. Naval Institute has carried on for 130 years and hasn't compromised.

We all should be very proud of it. We need leadership now more than ever. We need to respread this culture, which is so rare today, into the way we conduct our government business, let alone our private business.

Having said all this, I'm very optimistic. We have seen come forward in this investigation people from every part of our bureaucracy to say they screwed up and to tell what went wrong and what we've got to do to change it.

We have an agenda for change. I think we're going to see a very fundamental shift in the culture of our government as a result of this. I certainly hope so. This should be a true wake-up call. We cannot let this be swept under the rug, put on the shelf like one more of the hundreds of other commissions that have gone right into the memory hole. This time, I truly believe it's going to be different.


Forwarded by Harley Koets
An Attorney's Advice

Read this and make a copy for your files in case you need to refer to it someday. Maybe we all should take some of this advice.

The next time you order checks, have only your initials and last name imptinted on them, instead of your first name. If someone takes your checkbook they will not know if you sign your checks with just your initials or your first name but your bank will know how you sign your checks.

When you are writing checks to pay on your credit card accounts, DO NOT put the complete account number on the “For” line Instead, just put the last four numbers. The credit card company knows the rest of the number and anyone who might be handling your check as it passes through all the check processing channels won't have access to it.

Put your work phone # on your checks instead of your home phone. If you have a P.O. Box use that instead of your home address. If you do not have a PO Box, use your work address. NEVER have your SS# printed on your checks. (DUH!) You can add it if it is necessary. But if you have it printed, anyone can get it.

Place the contents of your wallet on a photocopy machine; copy both sides of each license, credit card, etc. You will know what you had in your wallet and all of the account numbers and phone numbers to call and cancel on a moments notice. Keep the photocopy in a safe place.

We've all heard horror stories about fraud that's committed against us in stealing a name, address, Social Security number, credit cards, etc. Unfortunately I, an attorney, have firsthand knowledge because my wallet was stolen recently. Within a week, the thieves ordered an expensive monthly cell phone package, applied for a VISA credit card, had a credit line approved to buy a Gateway computer, received a PIN number from DMV to change my driving record information online, and more.

But here's some critical information to limit the damage in case this happens to you or someone you know:

  We have been told we should cancel our credit cards immediately. But the key is having the toll free numbers and your card numbers handy so you know whom to call. Keep those where you can find them.
  File a police report immediately in the jurisdiction where it was stolen, this proves to credit providers you were diligent, and is a first step toward an investigation (if there ever is one).
But here's what is perhaps most important:
  Call the three national credit-reporting organizations immediately to place a fraud alert on your name and Social Security number. I had never heard of doing that until advised by a bank that called to tell me an application for credit was made over the Internet in my name. The alert means any company that checks your credit knows your information was stolen and they have to contact you by phone to authorize new credit.

By the time I was advised to do this, almost two weeks after the theft, all the damage had been done. There are records of all the credit checks initiated by the thieves' purchases, none of which I knew about before placing the alert. Since then, no additional damage has been done, and the thieves threw my wallet away this weekend (someone turned it in). It seems to have stopped them in their tracks.

The numbers are:
Equifax: 1-800-525-6285
Experian (formerly TRW): 1-888-397-3742
Trans Union: 1-800-680-7289
Social Security Administration (fraud line):1-800-269-0271


By Walter S. Mossberg, Wall Street Journal

If you're running a Windows computer, you must install an array of security software to fend off an international collection of crooks, hackers, vandals and sleazy business people who aim to invade your PC through the Internet.

You need a good antivirus program, a strong firewall program, an effective antispam program, and a program that specializes in stopping spyware and adware. Or you could just buy an Apple Macintosh, which isn't significantly affected (so far) by these threats, other than spam email.

But the fastest-growing computer-security problem isn't viruses or other traditional malicious programs, and it can't be entirely defeated by using security software or by buying a Mac. It's called “social engineering,” and it consists of tactics that try to fool users into giving up sensitive financial data that criminals can use to steal their money and even their identities.

Social engineering is a broad term that includes “phishing,” the practice by which crooks create emails and Web sites that look just like legitimate messages and sites from real banks and other financial companies. It's closely linked to a newly named category of malicious software called Crimeware — programs that help criminals steal your private financial information.

… to continue this article, click here. [ ]


Forwarded by Bill Thompson

The average person probably has no idea of how pervasive sexual crimes have become in this country. Here is an eye-opener that may prove this point:

Click on the FAMILY WATCHDOG SITE [ ] and enter an address. Each colored box indicates a convicted sex offender in the neighborhood of the address you select, as well as other areas of that community. A color code key at the side of the screen indicates types of crime.

Click on any colored box on the map and a name, address and (usually) a photo of the person will pop up, along with conviction information.

You may be surprised (or shocked) by the number of offenders at most any area you check!

SPECIAL NOTE: Family Watchdog makes no representation, implied or expressed, that all information placed on this web site is accurate. The information that is used to report on this site derives from official public records. Some of the official data is gathered from the offenders themselves who are required by law to report their current address to law enforcement officals.

Information contained on this site provides no representation as to any offender’s likelihood of re-offending or the nature of any future crimes they may commit.

If you believe that information on this web site is incorrect please contact your local police department in which you believe the error to be. They will be able to assist you directly or by referring you to the appropriate authority.

Harassment, stalking, or threatening anyone on this list likely violates your state law and is neither condoned nor encouraged by Family Watchdog, its directors or employees.

Your continued use of this site constitutes understanding of these provisions.


U. S. Department of Home Security

You’ve probably wondered, Is there anything we can do to protect ourselves from the threat of terrorism?” Here’s your answer:

You do not have to feel helpless in the face of terrorist threats against the United States. You can take action and be prepared.


All of us should be able to survive comfortably for at least a three-day period. That is the amount of time you will need to remain in your home until the danger of a biological, chemical or radiological attack has passed.

Obviously you will need a change of clothes, sleeping bags, food and water. A gallon of water per person per day should be enough. Canned and dried foods are easy to store and prepare.

Start now by gathering basic emergency supplies: a flashlight, a battery-powered radio, extra batteries, a first-aid kit, prescription medicines and toilet articles. Duct tape and heavy-duty plastic bags can be used to seal windows and doors.


Your family may not be together at home when an attack occurs. Make sure everyone knows how to get in touch. It may be wise to have everyone call an out-of-state friend or relative.

Keep a list of emergency numbers near the telephone. Select a room where everyone can gather. The best choice is an interior room above ground with few windows and doors.

Keep at least a half-tank of gas in your car at all times in case you are told to evacuate during an emergency. If you do not have a car, plan what to do if you are asked to leave.


Planning helps. If your family knows what to expect, all of you will be calmer in the aftermath of a terrorist event. For example, you should find out where to turn for instructions.

Local authorities will broadcast information as quickly as possible concerning the nature of the emergency and what you should do next. Be sure to keep listening for updates.

What can you do right now? You can get more information and educate yourself and your family

For more details on emergency preparedness, visit our Web site at [], or get a free brochure by calling 1-800-BE-READY (1-800-237-3239).




1920, Sept. 16, New York City: TNT bomb planted in unattended horse-drawn wagon exploded on Wall Street opposite House of Morgan, killing 35 persons and injuring hundreds more. Bolshevist or anarchist terrorists believed responsible, but crime never solved.

1975, Jan. 24, New York City: bomb set off in historical Fraunces Tavern killed four and injured more than 50 persons. Puerto Rican nationalist group (FALN) claimed responsibility and police tied 13 other bombings to it.

1993, Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center; killed six and injured at least 1,040 others. Six Middle Eastern men were later convicted in this act of vengeance for the Palestinian people. They claimed to be retaliating against U.S. support for the Israeli government.

1995, April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 persons were killed, including 19 children and one person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly two years earlier.

2001, Sept. 11, New York City and Arlington, Va.: American Airlines Boeing 767 and United Airlines Boeing 767, both en route from Boston to Los Angeles, were hijacked and flown only minutes apart into the north and south towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. Shortly afterwards, American Airlines Boeing 757, en route from Washington, DC, to Los Angeles, crashed into the Pentagon. A fourth hijacked plane, operated by United and headed from Newark to San Francisco, crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pa. Both World Trade Center towers collapsed, and a section of the Pentagon was destroyed. All 266 passengers and crew aboard the aircraft were killed; final death toll and persons responsible unknown at time the almanac went to press, although total deaths were estimated to be in the thousands.


All times Eastern Daylight Time, by David Johnson

8:45 a.m.
American Airlines Flight 11, Boston to Los Angeles with 92 people onboard, crashes into the north tower of the World Trade Center in New York City.

9:03 a.m.
United Airlines Flight 175, Boston to Los Angeles with 65 people onboard, flies into the south tower of the World Trade Center.

9:31 a.m.
Speaking from Florida, President George Bush pledges the United States will hunt down the guilty parties.

9:40 a.m.
American Flight 77, en route from Dulles Airport, Washington DC, to Los Angeles with 64 people onboard, crashes into the Pentagon.

9:48 a.m.
The U.S. Capitol and the West Wing of the White House are evacuated.

9:49 a.m.
The Federal Aviation Administration bans all aircraft takeoffs in the United States.

9:50 a.m.
South tower of the World Trade Center collapses.

9:58 a.m.
Emergency operator in Pennsylvania receives a call from a passenger on United Flight 93, Newark to San Francisco with 45 people onboard, stating the plane was being hijacked.

10:00 a.m.
United Flight 93 crashes about 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.

10:29 a.m.
North tower of the World Trade Center collapses.

11:00 a.m.
New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani orders lower Manhattan evacuated.

11:40 a.m.
With U.S. military on nuclear alert, Bush taken to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

1:20 p.m.
Bush boards Air Force One for Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, headquarters of the U.S. Strategic Air Command.

2:51 p.m.
U.S. military deploys missile destroyers and other equipment in New York and Washington.

5:20 p.m.
Another World Trade Center building collapses.

7:00 p.m.
President Bush arrives in Washington.

8:31 p.m.
The president addresses the nation, vowing to punish “evil acts.


  • Officials estimate 200 dead, including hijacking victims, at the Pentagon.
  • Osama bin Laden denies involvement.
  • The Taliban, of Afghanistan, denies foreknowledge of attacks.
  • 4,000 FBI and CIA agents involved in the investigation.
  • Families report receiving calls from victims of hijackings.
  • Major league baseball games, NFL games, Emmys, and other major events postponed.
  • For the first time NATO invokes Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states that an armed attack on one member nation “shall be considered an attack against them all”.
  • Four suspects in Boston and Rhode Island detained and released.
  • Investigations lead police to flight-training schools in Florida.
  • List of victims from hijacked planes released.
  • Relatives, friends search for survivors in area hospitals.
  • Almost 100 confirmed dead in New York.
  • Americans line up at blood donation centers.
  • Rental car found at Boston's Logan airport contains Arabic-language flight manuals.
  • Flags fly at half-staff around the world. U.S. financial markets closed.
  • U.S. airports close.


  • Ten suspects detained at New York airports; some said to be carrying fake credentials and knives.
  • Family and friends of WTC victims fill out missing person reports at the Lexington Street Armory.
  • Flight data and voice recorders found at the Pennsylvania crash site.
  • Secretary of State Colin Powell names Osama bin Laden as main suspect.
  • German police detain suspect in Hamburg.
  • U.S. urges on Pakistan to close its borders with Afghanistan.
  • President Bush visits survivors of Pentagon attack.
  • Mayor Giuliani estimates over 4,000 dead in New York.
  • European Union declares Friday, September 14, a day of mourning.
  • U.S. airports begin reopening; Boston's Logan and D.C.'s Reagan airports remain closed.
  • U.S. bond markets open.


  • SEC relaxes rules on company buybacks.
  • Afghan refugees flee to Iranian and Pakistani borders.
  • Suspects flown from Texas and Minnesota to New York for questioning.
  • President Bush declares a national emergency.
  • The Senate adopts a resolution authorizing the use of U.S. armed forces against those responsible for the attacks.
  • President Bush visits World Trade Center site.
  • Federal officials release names of the 19 hijackers.
  • President Bush declares a “national day of prayer and remembrance.” Many Americans attend religious services.
  • Congress unanimously approves $40 billion for emergency aid.
  • Suspects detained at New York airports cleared and released.
  • President Bush activates 50,000 National Guard and Reserve members to help with recovery and security.
  • Flight data and voice recorders found at the Pentagon crash site.


  • President Bush meets with senior advisors at Camp David.
  • DNA testing will be used to identify remains; families and loved ones of missing asked to bring in hairbrushes, razors, and other items for DNA analysis.
  • Continental Airlines announces 12,000 layoffs; Continental, American, United, Northwest to cut schedules.
  • Funeral services held for New York City's Fire Department Chief Peter Ganci, First Deputy Fire Commissioner William Feehan, and department chaplain Father Mychal Judge.


  • Investigators learn three hijackers may have attended the same German university, the Technical University of Hamburg- Harburg.
  • Attorney General John Ashcroft asks Congress to write tougher anti-terrorist laws and to expand the powers of law enforcement to use wire-tapping.
  • 190 confirmed dead at World Trade Center.
  • Memorial service takes place at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City.
  • Vice President Cheney tells press President Bush authorized F-16 fighters to shoot down hijacked planes heading toward Washington, D.C.
  • Mayor Giuliani now says over 4,900 reported missing.
  • Mayor Giuliani dispels rumors of tapping heard in the WTC wreckage.
  • Transportation Secretary Norman Minetta announces he appointed two task forces to report on improving air security.


  • Attorney General Ashcroft says federal marshals will be flying on many commercial flights.
  • Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri leaves for Washington, the first world leader to visit after the attacks.
  • The IMF and World Bank cancel their annual meetings, which were to take place later this month in Washington, D.C.
  • Pakistani envoys meet with Taliban leaders to urge the extradition of Osama bin Laden.
  • Wall Street reopens after longest closing since 1933; Dow logs its greatest point loss ever.
  • Federal Reserve lowers interest rates.
  • Major league baseball pennant race resumes.
  • Airlines losing millions; more lay-offs to come.
  • President Bush says bin Laden is wanted “dead or alive.”
  • Pakistan essentially closes its border with Afghanistan; an estimated 1 million Afghan refugees are confined to northern camps.


By Pat Gilmore, former USAF and Delta Airline pilot
Forwarded by MG Hank Stelling USAF (Ret), via Gen Bob Clements USAF (Ret)

As a Delta B-767 captain, at the time of the attacks on 9/11, I was in crew rest in Orlando that morning. I had just turned on the TV in my hotel room only to see the WTC tower on fire, then saw the second airplane hit the other tower.

My immediate reaction was, “Terrorists… we're at war,” followed by the realization that we airline crewmembers had all dodged a bullet; it could have been any one of us flying those planes.

As soon as the news stations flashed the first pictures of the terrorists I knew just how close and personal was the bullet I dodged. There, on the screen for all to see, was a man who had sat in my jump seat the previous July.

His name was Mohammad Atta, the leader of the terrorist hijackers. Atta had boarded my flight from Baltimore to Atlanta on July 26, 2001 wearing an American Airlines first officer uniform. He had the corresponding AA company ID identifying him as a pilot, not to mention the required FAA pilot license and medical certificate that he was required to show me as proof of his aircrew status for access to my jump seat.

An airline pilot riding a cockpit jump seat is a long established protocol among the airlines of the world, a courtesy extended by the management and captains of one airline to pilots and flight attendants of other airlines in recognition of their aircrew status. My admission of Mohammad Atta to my cockpit jump seat that day was merely a routine exercise of this protocol.

Something seemed a bit different about this jump seat rider, though, because, in my usual course of conversation with him as we reached cruise altitude, he avoided all my questions about his personal life and focused very intently upon the cockpit instruments and our operation of the aircraft. I asked him what he flew at American and he said, “These”, but he asked incessant questions about how we did this or why we did that. I said, “This is a 767. They all operate the same way.” But he said, “No, we operate them differently at American.”

That seemed very strange, because I knew better. I asked him about his background, and he admitted he was from Saudi Arabia. I asked him when he came over to this country and he said “A couple of years ago,” to which I asked, “Are you a US citizen?” He said no. I also found that very strange because I know that in order to have an Airline Transport Pilot rating, the rating required to be an airline captain, one has to be a US citizen.

Knowing the US airlines and their hiring processes as I do, I found it hard to believe that American Airlines would hire a non-US citizen who couldn't upgrade to captain when the time came. He said, “The rules have changed,.” which I also knew to be untrue. Besides, he was just, shall I say, “Creepy?” My copilot and I were both glad to get rid of this guy when we got to Atlanta.

There was nothing to indicate, though, that he was anything other than who or what he said he was, because he had the documentation to prove who he was. In retrospect, we now know his uniform was stolen and his documents were forged. Information later came to light as to how this was done.

It seems that Mohammad Atta and his cronies had possibly stolen pilot uniforms and credentials from hotel rooms during the previous year. We had many security alerts at the airline to watch out for our personal items in hotel rooms, because these were mysteriously disappearing, but nobody knew why. Atta and his men used these to make dry runs prior to their actual hijackings on 9/11. How do I know? I called the FBI as soon as I saw his face on the TV that day, and the agent on the other end of the line took my information and told me I'd hear back from them when all the dust settled.

A few weeks later I got a letter from the Bureau saying that my call was one of at least half a dozen calls that day from other pilots who had had the same experience. Flights were being selected at random to make test runs for accessing the cockpit. It seems we had all dodged bullets.

Over the years my attitude towards the War Against Terrorism and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been known to be on the redneck, warmongering, rah-rah-shoot-em-up side of things. I've been known to lose my patience with those who say the war in Iraq or anywhere else in the Muslim world is wrong, or who say we shouldn't become involved in that area of the world for political correctness reasons.

Maybe it is because I dodged the bullet so closely back in 2001 that I feel this way. I have very little patience for political rhetoric or debate against this war because for a couple of hours back in July 2001, when I was engaged in conversation with a major perpetrator in this war, I came so close to being one of its victims that I can think in no other terms.

I don't mind admitting that one of the reasons I retired early from Delta last May, other than to protect my disappearing company retirement, was because it became harder and harder for me to go to work every day knowing that the war wasn't being taken seriously by the general public.

The worst offenders were the Liberal detractors to the present administration, and right or wrong, this administration is at least taking the bull by the horns and fighting our enemies, which is something concrete that I can appreciate. Nobody was taking this war seriously, and it seems everyone found fault with the US government, rather than with those who attacked us. I found that incomprehensible.

I also found myself being scrutinized by TSA screeners more and more every day when I went to work, and suffered the humiliating indignity of being identified about half the time for body searches in front of the general flying public who looked at the entire process as being ludicrous. “They don't even trust their own pilots!” accompanied by an unbelieving snicker was the usual response.

Here I was, a retired USAF officer who had been entrusted to fly nuclear weapons around the world, who had been granted a Top Secret clearance and had been on missions over the course of 21 years in the military that I still can't talk about without fear of prosecution by the DOD, being scanned by a flunkie TSA screener looking for any sign of a pen knife or nail file on my person.

It wasn't until six months after my retirement, when my wife and I flew to Key West, FL, last November, that I was finally able to rid myself of the visage of Mohammad Atta sitting behind me on my jump seat, watching my every action in the cockpit and willing to slit my throat at the slightest provocation.

I missed being a headline by a mere 47 days, and could very well have been among the aircrew casualties on 9/11, had one of my flights on my monthly schedule been a transcontinental flight from Boston or New York to the west coast on the 11th of September. Very few people know that, while only four airliners crashed that day, four more were targeted, and two of them were Delta flights.

The only reason these four weren't involved is because they either had minor maintenance problems which delayed them at the gate or they were scheduled to depart after the FAA decided to ground all flights. Theirs are the pilots and flight attendants who REALLY dodged the bullet that day, and my faith in a higher power is restored as a result.

I will see United 93 when I get the chance, and I will probably enjoy the movie for its realness and historical significance, but forgive me if I do not embrace the Muslim world for the rest of my life. The Islamic world is no friend of the West, and although we may be able to get along with their governments in the future, the stated goal of Islam is world conquest through Jihad and it is the extremist Jihadists, backed and funded by “friendly” Moslem governments, whom we have to fear the most.

We must have a presence in the Middle East, and we must have friends in the Middle East, even if we have to fight wars to get them. Only someone who has dodged a bullet can fully appreciate that fact.

For additional background information on the 9/11 attack, click here [ ] and scan down to the series of articles under the title, Attack on America.


By Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe, April 11, 2004
Forwarded by 1stAdmPAO

We'll get to last week's big Washington story — Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the September 11 Commission — in a moment. But first, a short quiz:

1. Identify the following list of topics:
               The World Bank's Mission Creep
               Getting Debt Relief Right
               Russia's Unformed Foreign Policy
               Japan, The Reluctant Reformer
               With A Friend Like Fox          
               Caspian Energy At The Crossroads

     No clue? Don't feel bad. You would have to be suffering from acute foreign-policy wonkishness to recognize the table of contents from the September/ October 2001 issue of Foreign Affairs, the flagship publication of the Council on Foreign Relations. Like the curious incident of the dog in the night-time — in the famous Sherlock Holmes tale, the “curious incident” was that the dog didn't bark — the significance of these headlines is not in what they say but in what they don't say: The nation's leading journal of international relations was paying no attention to the threat from Islamist terror even as Islamist terrorists were planning the deadliest attack ever committed by foreign enemies on US soil.

2. Which US senator admitted on Sept. 11, 2001, “We have always known this could happen. I regret to say — I served on the Intelligence Committee up until last year. I can remember after the bombings of the embassies, after TWA 800, we went through this flurry of activity, talking about it — but not really doing the hard work of responding.''
     That was John Kerry on “Larry King Live,” ruing his and his colleagues' pre-9/11 failure to give the threat from international terrorism the urgent attention and “hard work of responding” it should have had.

3. President Clinton's final national security policy paper, submitted to Congress in December 2000, was 45,000 words long. Yet it never once mentioned which international menace?
     Al Qaeda. The document referred to Osama bin Laden just four times, and its discussion of terrorism spoke not of wiping out the killers in their nests but of extraditing “fugitives” to make them “answer for their crimes.”

Which brings us back to Rice's appearance last week.

If anything has been obvious since 9/11, it is that the government of the United States, like the foreign-policy establishment generally, was grossly derelict in its understanding and handling of Islamist terrorism. That was true during the first eight months of the Bush presidency and it was true during the preceding 8 years of the Clinton presidency. For all the atmospherics of the Sept. 11 Commission, for all of the partisan skirmishing of its Democrats and Republicans, there was no important difference between the two administrations prior to that terrible day. Rice's efforts to prove otherwise were largely unconvincing. So, a week earlier, were Richard Clarke's.

The simple truth was put bluntly by Rice in her opening statement: “The terrorists were at war with us, but we were not yet at war with them. For more than 20 years, the terrorist threat gathered, and America's response across several administrations of both parties was insufficient.”

Democracies rarely face up to the worst dangers they face until disaster strikes. Until then, political leaders find it much easier to do nothing than to press for unpopular reforms and face the public's wrath.

Imagine the backlash the administration would have faced, for example, if it had reacted aggressively to the CIA briefing in August 2001 that warned of possible terrorist hijackings — the one ominously titled “Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States.” If the Transportation Department, on the strength of that warning alone, had ordered air travelers to arrive at least two hours before their flights, banned a long list of common household objects — knives, knitting needles, scissors - from airplanes, and authorized pilots to eject “Middle Eastern” ticket holders they deemed suspicious, the public would have reacted with fury. And the administration would have backed down.

Prior to 9/11, no president from Jimmy Carter through George W. Bush properly understood or reacted to the swelling danger of Islamist terrorism. None recognized that we were under attack by a ruthless enemy bent on global conquest and the destruction of Western liberty. Neither did leaders in Congress, nor elite opinion makers in the media.

Far more important is what has happened since 9/11: The Bush administration went to war. It destroyed Al Qaeda's base in Afghanistan, toppled Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, turned Pakistan from a backer of terrorists into a terror-war ally, and intimidated Libya into ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Crucially, the administration has demolished the perception of America as — in bin Laden's derisive term — a “weak horse” that bolts at the first gunshot. And it did it all in the face of withering political fire at home and abroad.

How you regard that performance — as invaluable wartime leadership by the president or as a fraud “made up in Texas” — is likely to decide how you vote this November. For what matters now isn't who was wrong before 9/11. It is who has been right since. []


From Foreign Policy Research E-Notes, []
By Stephen Gale and Lawrence A. Husick, August 13, 2004
Stephen Gale is Co-Chairman of FPRI's Center on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Lawrence Husick is a Senior Fellow with FPRI's Center.

Almost three years after the attacks on September 11, 2001, the 9/11 Commission Report (The Report) has finally provided the nation with both a comprehensive account of the attacks and some new insights on security recommendations.

No doubt about it: the Commission and its staff obviously did their homework on the September 11th attacks and the Islamic jihadists behind it. And there is a bonus: it reads almost like a well-written novel rather than the final report from a high-level government commission.

The quality and depth of the Report certainly reinforces our own take from the discussions we had with several of the Commission members during the past year. This was a deeply dedicated group, devoted to finding explanations for the September 11th attacks and to identifying security recommendations that could make a real difference in the future.

As with the results of the various Pearl Harbor Commissions during WWII, The Report is not the proverbial whitewash job or simple finger-pointing exercise that many feared. And, as The Report so accurately demonstrates, there's certainly more than enough blame to fill both sides of the aisle.

Taken on its own terms, The Report does make a great deal of sense and it is generally insightful. And yet, given what seems to be a broad national movement aimed at simply adopting The Report's recommendations whole cloth, we believe that there needs to be a few words about its limitations and shortcomings.

It is important to keep in mind, however, that our observations on The Report's shortcomings are directed less at the content of The Report than at Congress' mandate in forming the 1Commission. There is no question that the Commission fulfilled the mission it received. But the mandate itself was arguably a weak foundation for the recommendations that the Commission recognized as being required to prevent future acts of terrorism against the US.


The Report focuses primarily on “what went wrong” prior to September 11th — the so-called failures in intelligence, communications, and domestic security operations.

Rather than concentrating on identifying and explaining the broader long-term goals of the now worldwide Islamic jihadist movement, the on-going shifts in the Islamists' immediate objectives, and their tactical and strategic options in the future, the bulk of the Commission's work is best seen as the rough equivalent of the process of judicial discovery — gathering and analyzing the concrete evidence about the attacks on September 11th.

Who was directly involved in the actions? What were their relationships to one another and to their leadership? How did they obtain information about the targets? Who provided the financing for their training and for the action itself? What were the gaps in security that allowed for the detailed planning required for the execution of the attacks?

As useful as it may be in the courtroom, however, the discovery process is limited both in scope and (more importantly) with respect to the types of issues that it is designed to address. Even where there is sufficient information to answer all those very pointed questions about who, when, how, and so on, the discovery process is about ensuring that the information stays (with all due apologies for the metaphor) “on target,” that the focus is on the events that occurred and not, say, on events that could have occurred, or on tactical options, or on hypothetical conditional speculations about the jihadists support network within the US.

In effect, the use of the discovery process allowed the Commission to concentrate on “one case alone” and, therefore, to assume that future terrorist actions could be best be understood and anticipated solely by reference to the lessons from the attacks on September 11th.

Unfortunately, as our “failure of imagination” prior to September 11th illustrates, policies and procedures based solely on prior circumstances (e.g., the pre-September 11th procedures for responding to airliner hijackings and the post-1993 improvements to access control for the World Trade Center buildings) are often inapplicable in novel situations.

As we see it, the model for The Report was to provide an account of a specific “battle” using analyses of the (understandably very partial) information “discovered” in the process of determining the accountability for and the causes of the actions on September 11th: the motivations, recruitment, training, and logistical and financial support of the nineteen “actors;” al Qaeda's pre-September 11th structure, organization, and modus operandi; the status of our intelligence concerning the “actors,” their support network, and al Qaeda prior to September 11th; and the structure and operation of the then current crisis management procedures in New York and Washington, DC.

But, as they say, one battle does not make a war and The Report does not offer much in the way of a clear presentation of what the September 11th attacks mean in terms of the longer campaign: an explication of al Qaeda's goals, strategy, and tactics together with a parallel assessment of the goals, strategy, and tactics of U.S. counter-terrorism and homeland security operations.

In the final analysis, the Commission's work on identifying and explaining the causes for the events of September 11th and its efforts at tracing the specific motivations and backgrounds of the attackers may help to set the framework for the on-going litigation related to the losses resulting from the attacks. Unfortunately, it is less likely to provide the basis for improving either the intelligence required to anticipate future actions or the methods needed to guide effective future investments in the nation's security.


Paradoxically, the solidly America-centric focus of The Report resulted in what we see as its second major shortcoming. Faced with the prospect of coming to terms with the actions of the dedicated Islamist groups now operating throughout the world — of reading and interpreting testimony and documents in Arabic, Pashto, Farsi, Urdu, and all the rest of the linguistic soup that makes up Muslim society (the “Ummah”), of distinguishing among crime, terrorism, and war, of coming to terms with the outcomes of “red team” exercises — the membership of the Commission appears to have been primarily drawn to ensure domestic political balance (and to provide a more than liberal dose of attorneys).

Taken together with the Congressional mandate, the Commission's role and methods thus seem to have been predetermined by its 2makeup. Admittedly, employing this kind of “forced deck method” has become rather common in assembling the membership of government commissions but, as the argument goes, the required “technical expertise” was supposed to be provided by the Commission's staff.

From its mandate and membership it is not surprising, therefore, that both the hearings and The Report focused on the US — American culture, American institutions, American lives — and concluded that America and Americans are the focus of al Qaeda's actions. One almost gets the feeling, from the testimony presented as well as The Report itself, that al Qaeda's objectives in its actions on September 11th were simply “to kill Americans indiscriminately and in large numbers,” “to undermine America's freedoms,” and “to demonstrate that a small number of 'true believers' could bring about an all-pervasive fear in all-powerful America.”

The Report, in fact, lacks any sense that al Qaeda has objectives beyond attacking America and the West. Nothing could be further from the truth and nothing could be more misleading as a guide to the future security of the nation.

And therein lies the second major shortcoming of The Report: killing and displays of power are almost always a means to an end and the ends (the goals), in the case of what is now a worldwide movement, are directly related to the Islamists' vision of the future of Islam.

In the past, we have written about al Qaeda and fundamentalist Islam and have tried to place the history of the jihadist attacks of the past decade or so — including the ones on September 11th — within the framework of the Islamist goals, namely a reorganized and purified Islam. (Note that this goal is promoted not only by al Qaeda, but also by a wide range of groups and actors that are only loosely affiliated with — and in no sense controlled by —the leadership of al Qaeda.)

In the absence of a perspective that speaks directly to goals of al Qaeda and the variety of Islamist groups throughout the world, The Report ultimately offers insight only into one event and, thereby, sidesteps our critical need to understand the global jihadist forces that are the real targets of any proposed reorganization of US security resources.

Al Qaeda, in short, was not established solely to create terror. Rather, as the various fatwahs and communiqués demonstrate, al Qaeda was created to save Islam from the West and to open the way for a political and religious restructuring — and purification — of Islam.

The language of al Qaeda has been consistent and clear on at least one point (at least to the extent that the translations have been on the mark): the apostate “puppet regimes” of dar al Islam must be eliminated and replaced with a unified pan-Islamic society that follows in all respects the word of the Prophet. In effect, the goal of al Qaeda is to re-create Islam, to fashion Islamic society in terms of what they see as the will of God, not simply to cause the destruction of the enemy. Al Qaeda is at war with the West — and with the U.S. in particular — and its goal is the defeat of the West in order to allow dar al Islam to re-emerge, purified and powerful.

For all its clarity and insight with respect to the causes of the attacks on September 11th, The Report is thus never really clear about why al Qaeda is at war. The Commission's discussion of war (for example, in Chapter 10) is, in fact, very brief and America-centric in that speaks only to the problems of the use of a US military, designed as it was for the Cold War, in the context of the War on Terror. The result is that The Report's picture of al Qaeda's struggle with the West is a picture distorted by assuming that al Qaeda's tactics are its objectives and, therefore, that US security should be designed to focus on the prospects for thwarting only very specific types of attacks.

The America-centric interpretation of al Qaeda's goals — seeing American deaths and the destruction of American icons as the jidadists objectives — may not have been of much of a limitation in the Commission's determination of the causes of the September 11th attacks, but this perspective could easily turn out to be a critical problem if it is used as the sole basis for security recommendations in the future.

Implementing extensive security measures to protect what we, as Americans, see as our national treasures — Washington, D.C.'s myriad monuments and government buildings, the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall in Philadelphia, and so on-may give us comfort, but that comfort could come at the expense of neglecting targets that are far more critical to al Qaeda (for example, the on-going operations of such critical areas of the US economy as the transportation, communications, financial services, and manufacturing sectors).

Resources are always limited and misperceptions of al Qaeda's past and future goals, its strategy, and its tactics may thus prove to be disastrous. After all, the security recommendations implemented in the aftermath of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center that focused on garage and building access controls were not particularly effective in preventing the attacks on the same facilities in 2001.

And while the Commission did recognize this problem when they wrote of a general “failure of imagination,” with the germ of a misinterpretation of al Qaeda's goals embedded in both the content and recommendations of The Report, we believe that a reconsideration of the recommendations will be needed lest the “failure of imagination” turn into a “crisis of imagination” and a “weakness of conviction” turn into an “absence of conviction.”


As we have noted, aside from its genuinely important observations about the causes of the September 11th attacks, we believe that The Report's overall recommendations are based on weak assumptions about the import of this one case and the predictive value of the analysis methods the Commission employed. Judicial discovery standards and America-centric interpretations of al Qaeda's goals, strategy, and tactics are simply not likely to yield great insights when evaluating the effectiveness of future US intelligence and homeland security strategies and tactics in the War on Terror.

(Note that even the phrase “war on terror” is, itself, an oxymoron; if nothing else, it is a good indicator of the nation's misperception of the very identity of the enemy.) The Report's assumptions about the generally fixed character of American government is, if anything, even weaker — but the results of this error can be far more pervasive and, therefore, lead to potentially far more damaging longer-term consequences.

Government, in our society, is the basis for the legal system; it regulates and sets standards for virtually every aspect of American life — especially the economy; and, most importantly, it is the mechanism through which the people exercise their mandate as citizens. Government, moreover, is, in reality, multiple governments — federal, state, county, and municipal governments all more-or-less coordinated through the auspices of the federal government. And even more significantly, in a war in which the “front” can be anywhere and everywhere, government is the means for organizing and coordinating public and private sector efforts at every level and location.

Even a quick scan of the changes instituted in and by the federal government during World Wars I and II — not to say the Civil War — indicate that, in the past, questions about the effectiveness of the “business as usual/government as usual” model were taken very seriously. Each of these past crises led to significant changes in both government and private sector operations —particularly with respect to government-private sector cooperation. Some of the changes were modest; others were more fundamental. (It is fascinating, for example, to read that, in many circles Honest Abe was referred to as “King Lincoln, the man who destroyed our constitutional republic.” And many of us, now advanced in years, can still vividly recall the endless criticisms of F.D.R. by the America First crowd.)

On the whole, during these past crises American principles of government and governance were changed judiciously — but they were changed and changed in ways that were determined first and foremost by what was important in meeting the demands of the crisis.

In a sense, The Report does advance two approaches that, in terms of current government operations, might be regarded as just this side of revolutionary.

First, the Commission suggested (in about the strongest terms imaginable) a reversal of the twenty-five year old Congressional trend toward more committees, subcommittees, and a dilution of authority with respect to intelligence oversight by proposing a return to a single, unified Joint Intelligence Committee.

Second, the Commission proposed a means to rectify perhaps the most glaring defect in the National Security Act of 1947, whereby the Director of Central Intelligence assumes full responsibility for coordinating intelligence, but lacks the authority over budgets and personnel - arguably, the only criteria that matter in 21st century Washington. The new post proposed by the Commission — a National Intelligence Director — is thus probably what was intended in the1947 legislation, but subsequently derailed by DOD and the other agencies that imagined that they would lose control over resources.

Viewed from the perspective of the nation's needs in the War on Terror, however, the Commission's approach to reform appears to us to be locked into proposing what may turn out to be only minor variations on the “government as usual” approach. In fact, The Report not only takes today's governmental structure as pretty much a given, it neglects to provide a new role for what is perhaps the one really critical — and novel — feature of today's counter-terrorism and homeland security pictures: the private sector.

Most (if not all) of the operation of the US economy (and even much of government) is not under direct federal control and, in lieu of a strategy aimed at destroying the various government icons, al Qaeda and the other related jihadists groups have spoken repeatedly of the importance of targeting these “joints of the American economy” - the private sector operations that are the real heart of America and the American way of life.

As valuable as the Commission's “revolutionary” recommendations may be with respect to changes in federal policies and practices, they simply fall short of providing the needed guidelines for parallel changes in either the private sector or in public-private sector relations. The Commission's proposals for an integrated approach to intelligence are clearly warranted — and would undoubtedly have been an improvement even during the Cold War; in the War on Terror - as in the wars of the past - it is likely that far more attention to public and private sector cooperation - and, probably, integration — will also be required.


The three areas of concern with The Report that we have outlined are, we believe, examples of more than simple omissions in the Congressional mandate that motivated the Commission's work. As we see it, they are indicators of several bedrock problems that directly affect America's current efforts to make intelligent, well-informed decisions about future investments in the nation's security.

The Report provides a vital first step in the process of developing the foundations for security in a world where terrorism is fast becoming the preferred method of battle.

We believe that the nation must now expand the Commission's mandate into a continuing analysis and evaluation process that is designed to improve our understanding of the Islamic jihadists' goals, strategies, and tactics as well as the types of goals, strategies, and tactics that the US will require for its security in the future.

Broader scope and vision are one important result of The Report and the Commission's excellent work. It is now up to the US, as a nation, to insure that this first step is not the last step. Otherwise, we may simply be tempted to “paste new labels on old bottles” and return to government and business as usual — at least until after the next attack.

1. According to Public Law 107-306, Title VI, 602, “The purposes of the Commission are to:
(1) examine and report upon the facts and causes relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, occurring at the World Trade Center in New York, New York, in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon in Virginia;
(2) ascertain, evaluate, and report on the evidence developed by all relevant governmental agencies regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the attacks;
(3) build upon the investigations of other entities, and avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of — A. The Joint Inquiry of the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives regarding the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, (hereinafter in this title referred to as the “Joint Inquiry”); and B. Other executive branch, congressional, or independent commission investigations into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, other terrorist attacks, and terrorism generally;
(4) make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the attacks, and the extent of the United States' preparedness for, and immediate response to, the attacks; and
(5) investigate and report to the President and Congress on its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective measures that can be taken to prevent acts of terrorism.”

2. Public Law 107-306, Title VI, 603(b)(3) states that “It is the sense of Congress that individuals appointed to the Commission should be prominent United States citizens, with national recognition and significant depth of experience in such professions as governmental service, law enforcement, the armed services, law, public administration, intelligence gathering, commerce (including aviation matters), and foreign affairs.”

FPRI, 1528 Walnut Street, Suite 610, Philadelphia, PA 19102
For information, contact Alan Luxenberg at 215-732-3774,ext. 105,
E-mail [] or visit []


Forwarded by 1stAdmPAO.
Extracted from Ralph Peters' new book, When Devils Walk The Earth.

Chapter III. Fighting Terror: Do's and Don'ts for a Superpower:

Be feared.

Identify the type of terrorists you face, and know your enemy as well as you possibly can. Although tactics may be similar, strategies for dealing with practical vs. apocalyptic terrorists can differ widely. Practical terrorists may have legitimate grievances that deserve consideration, although their methods cannot be tolerated. Apocalyptic terrorists, no matter their rhetoric, seek your destruction and must be killed to the last man. The apt metaphor is cancer: You cannot hope for success if you only cut out part of the tumor. For the apocalyptic terrorist, evading your efforts can easily be turned into a public triumph. Our bloodiest successes will create far fewer terrorists and sympathizers than our failures.

Do not be afraid to be powerful. Cold War-era gambits of proportionate response and dialog may have some utility in dealing with practical terrorists, but they are counter-productive in dealing with apocalyptic terrorists. Our great strengths are wealth and raw power. When we fail to bring those strengths to bear, we contribute to our own defeat. For a superpower to think small, which has been our habit across the last decade, at least, is self-defeating folly. Our responses to terrorist acts should make the world gasp.

Speak bluntly. Euphemisms are interpreted as weakness by our enemies and mislead the American people. Speak of killing terrorists and destroying their organizations. Timid speech leads to timid actions. Explain when necessary, but do not apologize. Expressions of regret are never seen as a mark of decency by terrorists nor their supporters, but only as a sign that our will is faltering. Blame the terrorists as the root cause whenever operations have unintended negative consequences. Never go on the rhetorical defensive.

Concentrate on winning the propaganda war where it is winnable. Focus on keeping or enhancing the support from allies and well-disposed clients, but do not waste an inordinate amount of effort trying to win unwinnable hearts and minds. Convince hostile populations through victory.

Do not be drawn into a public dialog with terrorists, especially not with apocalyptic terrorists. You cannot win. You legitimize the terrorists by addressing them even through a third medium, and their extravagant claims will resound more successfully on their own home ground than anything you can say. Ignore absurd accusations, and never let the enemy's claims slow or sidetrack you. The terrorist wants you to react, and your best means of unbalancing him and his plan is to ignore his accusations.

Avoid planning creep. Within our vast bureaucratic system, too many voices compete for attention and innumerable agendas, often selfish and personal - intrude on any attempt to act decisively. Focus on the basic mission: the destruction of the terrorists with all the moral, intellectual and practical rigor you can bring to bear. All other issues, from future nation building, to alliance consensus, to humanitarian concerns are secondary.

Maintain resolve. Especially in the Middle East and Central Asia, experts and diplomats will always present you with a multitude of good reasons for doing nothing, or for doing too little (or for doing exactly the wrong thing). Fight as hard as you can within the system to prevent diplomats from gaining influence over the strategic campaign. Although their intentions are often good, our diplomats and their obsolete strategic views are the terrorist's unwitting allies and diplomats are extremely jealous of military success and military authority in their region (where their expertise is never as deep or subtle as they believe it to be). Beyond the problem with our diplomats, the broader forces of bureaucratic entropy are an internal threat. The counter-terrorist campaign must be not only resolute, but constantly self-rejuvenating in ideas, techniques, military and inter-agency combinations, and sheer energy. Old hands must be stimulated constantly by new ideas.

When in doubt, hit harder than you think necessary. Success will be forgiven. Even the best-intentioned failure will not. When military force is used against terrorist networks, it should be used with such power that it stuns even our allies. We must get over our cowardice in means. While small-scale raids and other knifepoint operations are useful against individual targets, broader operations should be overwhelming. Of course, targeting limitations may inhibit some efforts but whenever possible, maximum force should be used in simultaneous operations at the very beginning of a campaign. Do not hesitate to supplement initial target lists with extensive bombing attacks on nothing if they can increase the initial psychological impact. Demonstrate power whenever you can. Show; don't tell.

Whenever legal conditions permit, kill terrorists on the spot (do not give them a chance to surrender, if you can help it). Contrary to academic wisdom, the surest way to make a martyr of a terrorist is to capture, convict and imprison him, leading to endless efforts by sympathizers to stage kidnappings, hijacking and other events intended to liberate the imprisoned terrorist(s). This is war, not law enforcement.

Never listen to those who warn that ferocity on our part reduces us to the level of the terrorists. That is the argument of the campus, not of the battlefield, and it insults America's service members and the American people. Historically, we have proven, time after time, that we can do a tough, dirty job for our country without any damage to our nation's moral fabric (Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not interfere with American democracy, values or behavior).

Spare and protect innocent civilians whenever possible, but: do not let the prospect of civilian casualties interfere with ultimate mission accomplishment. This is a fight to protect the American people, and we must do so whatever the cost, or the price in American lives may be devastating. In a choice between them, and us, the choice is always us.

Do not allow the terrorists to hide behind religion. Apocalyptic terrorists cite religion as a justification for attacking us; in turn, we cannot let them hide behind religious holidays, taboos, strictures or even sacred terrain. We must establish a consistent reputation for relentless pursuit and destruction of those who kill our citizens. Until we do this, our hesitation will continue to strengthen our enemy's ranks and his resolve.

Do not allow third parties to broker a peace, a truce, or any pause in operations. One of the most difficult challenges in fighting terrorism on a global scale is the drag produced by nervous allies. We must be single-minded. The best thing we can do for our allies in the long-term is to be so resolute and so strong that they value their alliance with us all the more. We must recognize the innate strength of our position and stop allowing regional leaders with counterproductive local agendas to subdue or dilute our efforts.

Don't flinch. If an operation goes awry and friendly casualties are unexpectedly high, immediately bolster morale and the military's image by striking back swiftly in a manner that inflicts the maximum possible number of casualties on the enemy and his supporters. Hit back as graphically as possible, to impress upon the local and regional players that you weren't badly hurt or deterred in the least.

Do not worry about alienating already-hostile populations.

Whenever possible, humiliate your enemy in the eyes of his own people. Do not try to use reasonable arguments against him. Shame him publicly, in any way you can. Create doubt where you cannot excite support. Most apocalyptic terrorists, especially, come from cultures of male vanity. Disgrace them at every opportunity. Done successfully, this both degrades them in the eyes of their followers and supporters, and provokes the terrorist to respond, increasing his vulnerability.

If the terrorists hide, strike what they hold dear, using clandestine means and, whenever possible, foreign agents to provoke them to break cover and react. Do not be squeamish. Your enemy is not. Subtlety is not superpower strength but the raw power to do that which is necessary, is our great advantage. We forget that, while the world may happily chide or accuse us - or complain of our inhumanity - no one can stop us if we maintain our strength of will. Much of the world will complain no matter what we do. Hatred of America is the default position of failed individuals and failing states around the world, in every civilization, and there is nothing we can do to change their minds. We refuse to understand how much of humanity will find excuses for evil, so long as the evil strikes those who are more successful than the apologists themselves. This is as true of American academics, whose eagerness to declare our military efforts a failure is unflagging, or European clerics who still cannot forgive America's magnanimity at the end of World War II, as it is of unemployed Egyptians or Pakistanis. The psychologically marginalized are at least as dangerous as the physically deprived.

Do not allow the terrorists sanctuary in any country, at any time, under any circumstances. Counter-terrorist operations must, above all, be relentless. This does not necessarily mean that military operations will be constantly underway sometimes it will be surveillance efforts, or deception plans, or operations by other agencies. But the overall effort must never pause for breath. We must be faster, more resolute, more resourceful and, ultimately, even more uncompromising than our enemies.

Never declare victory. Announce successes and milestones. But never give the terrorists a chance to embarrass you after a public pronouncement that the war is over.

Impress upon the minds of terrorists and potential terrorists everywhere, and upon the populations and governments inclined to support them, that American retaliation will be powerful and uncompromising. You will never deter fanatics, but you can frighten those who might support, harbor or attempt to use terrorists for their own ends. Our basic task in the world today is to restore a sense of American power, capabilities and resolve. We must be hard, or we will be struck wherever we are soft. It is folly for charity to precede victory. First win, and then unclench your fist.

Do everything possible to make terrorists and their active supporters live in terror themselves. Turn the tide psychologically and practically. While this will not deter hard-core apocalyptic terrorists, it will dissipate their energies as they try to defend themselves and fear will deter many less-committed supporters of terror. Do not be distracted by the baggage of the term assassination. This is a war. The enemy, whether a hijacker or a financier, violates the laws of war by his refusal to wear a uniform and by purposely targeting civilians. He is by definition a war criminal. On our soil, he is either a spy or a saboteur, and not entitled to the protections of the U.S. Constitution. Those who abet terrorists must grow afraid to turn out the lights to go to sleep.

Never accept the consensus of the Washington intelligentsia, which looks backward to past failures, not forward to future successes.

In dealing with Islamic apocalyptic terrorists, remember that their most cherished symbols are fewer and far more vulnerable than are the West's. Ultimately, no potential target can be regarded as off-limits when the United States is threatened with mass casualties. Worry less about offending foreign sensibilities and more about protecting Americans.

Do not look for answers in recent history, which is still unclear and subject to personal emotion. Begin with the study of the classical world, specifically Rome, which is the nearest model to the present-day United States. Mild with subject peoples, to whom they brought the rule of ethical law, the Romans in their rise and at their apogee were implacable with their enemies. The utter destruction of Carthage brought centuries of local peace, while the later empire's attempts to appease barbarians consistently failed!



Cell phone numbers are being released to telemarketing companies and you will be charged for any such cell calls you receive.

To prevent this, USE YOUR CELL PHONE to call the NATIONAL DO NOT CALL REGISTRY number at 888-382-1222. This action will take only a few moments of your time and will block your number from such unwanted intrusion for five years.

Learn more about it HERE [ ].


Forwarded by BGen R. Clements, USAF (Ret.)

From an unnamed Major General in the Mideast, Sunday, May 30, 2004:
“This is a translation of a message from the guys who are claiming responsibility for the attacks in Al Khobar yesterday. I think you will find it interesting, not to mention telling you what we are up against. I had two of my guys wounded last night, but we got them out and they are stable in a Saudi hospital. Med-evacing them to Ramstein tonight.”

Publisher: Qaedat Al-Jihad
Statement Concerning Jerusalem Brigade Attack 10/4/1425 (29 May 2004)

Thanks to Allah (God), the protector of God-Fearing people. No aggression except against oppressors and peace and prayers be upon the messenger who was sent with the Sword as a mercy to all humans, our prophet Mohamed, his family and all of his companions.

With the grace of God only, our heroic mujahedeen from Jerusalem Brigade were able this morning, Saturday 10 Rabi Thani 1425 (29 May 2004), to penetrate the locations of US companies (Petroleum Center and Schlum Berger) that belong to the US occupation company Haliberton, a group of companies specialized in petroleum works and drilling contracts that are working to plunder and steal Muslims' fortunes. Until now, they were able to kill and wound a number of the crusaders, the enemies of God. We will provide you with the details of the operation in subsequent time. We will, God willing, also mention our blessed company's heroes.

Those heroes are honorable examples of Muslim youths in the Arabian Peninsula. There are many that match them who are racing to martyrdom and are eager to fight God's enemies, the Jews, the crusaders and their followers from renegade leaders.

Their hearts (the youth) are filled with pain for the distress of their Muslim brothers in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and everywhere. You will see from them what will quench the thirst for revenge, God willing.

Oh Allah, thy the sender of the Book, the mover of clouds, the defeater of *Ahzab, defeat America and its allies, defeat them all, shake them {shake the land under their feet} and provide us with victory over them, Oh Allah, the Almighty and the most powerful.

Al Qaida Movement in the Arabian Peninsula.

*Quraish tribe, other Arab tribes, and the Jews who lived in Al-Madina (the same city the Prophet lived in at the time) who collaborated together and fought the Prophet in Al-Ahzab battle


By Ralph Peters
Forwarded by BGen Bob Clements

LtCol Ralph Peters (USA, Ret.) left the Army shortly after his last promotion. In addition to lecturing on the future of conflict, he provides commentaries to media outlets as diverse as Army Times and National Public Radio. He is the author of eight novels.

The mass murder of children revolts the human psyche. Herod sending his henchmen to massacre the infants of Bethlehem haunts the Gospels. Nothing in our time was crueler than what the Germans did to children during the Holocaust.

Slaughtering the innocents violates a universal human taboo. - or a nearly universal one. Those Muslims who preach Jihad against the West decided years ago that killing Jewish or Christian children is not only acceptable, but pleasing to their god when done by “martyrs.”

It isn't politically correct to say this, of course. We're supposed to pretend that Islam is a “religion of peace.” All right, then: It's time for Muslims to stand up for the once-noble, nearly lost traditions of their faith and condemn what Arab and Chechen terrorists and blasphemers did in the Russian town of Beslan.

If Muslim religious leaders around the world will not publicly condemn the taking of children as hostages and their subsequent slaughter - if those “men of faith” will not issue a condemnation without reservations or caveats - then no one need pretend any longer that all religions are equally sound and moral.

Islam has been a great and humane faith in the past. Now far too many of its adherents condone, actively or passively, the mass murder of school kids. Instead of condemnations of the Muslim “Jihadis” responsible for butchering more than 200 women and children in cold blood, we will hear spiteful counter-accusations about imaginary atrocities supposedly committed by Western militaries.

Well, the cold fact is that Western soldiers, whether Americans, Brits, Russians or Israelis, do not take hundreds of children hostage, then shoot them in cold blood while detonating bombs in their midst. The Muslim world can lie to itself, but we need lie no longer.

The tragedy in southern Russia occurred thousands of miles from the United States, but, in essence, that massacre happened next door. The parents, teachers and students kept for days without water or food in a sweltering school building before being butchered were our children, our sisters, our wives, our parents.

The mass hostage situation wasn't about Chechen rebels (and at least 10 Arabs) opposing the Russian government. It was a continuation of the universal struggle between good and evil. And there is no doubt which side is evil, scorned though the word may be by our own elite.

How can any human being with a shred of conscience dismiss what occurred in that school as anything less than evil? The attack in Beslan wasn't about Russia's brutal incompetence in Chechnya - as counter-productive as Moscow's grim heavy-handedness may have been.

It was about religious bigotry so profound that the believer can hold a gun to a child's head, pull the trigger and term the act “divine justice.”

We will hear complaints that the Russian special forces should have waited - even after the terrorists began shooting children. Negotiations are the heroin of Westerners addicted to self-delusion.

Who among us would have waited when he or she saw fleeing children cut down by automatic weapons? The urge to protect children is as primal as any impulse we ever feel.

Make no mistake: No blame attaches to the Russians for the massacre at that school. The guilt is entirely upon the Islamic extremists who have led the religion they claim to cherish into the realms of nightmare. There will be repercussions.

Having suffered the hijacking and destruction of two passenger jets, a deadly bombing at a Moscow subway station and a massacre in a primary school all in less than two weeks, the Kremlin will have learned to rue the day it imagined that there was anything to gain by opposing American efforts against terrorists, whether Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein.

As they inevitably do, the terrorists reminded the world of their heartless barbarism. Even if France manages to beg the release of its kidnapped journalists in Iraq, it has begun to sense its vulnerability.

And all Europeans with a vestige of sense will recognize that the school seizure in Russia could easily repeat itself in Languedoc or Umbria, Bavaria or Kent.

An attack on children is an attack on all of humanity. No matter what differences Western states discover to divide them, the terrorists will bring us together in the end. Their atrocities expose all wishful thinking for what it is.

A final thought:

Did any of those protesters who came to Manhattan to denounce our liberation of 50 million Muslims stay an extra day to protest the massacre in Russia? Of course not. The protesters no more care for dead Russian children than they care for dead Kurds or for the hundreds of thousands of Arabs that Saddam Hussein executed. Or for the ongoing Arab-Muslim slaughter of blacks in Sudan.

Nothing's a crime to those protesters unless the deed was committed by America. The butchery in Russia was a crime against humanity. In every respect. Was any war ever more necessary or just than the War on Terror?

And what will terror's apologists say when the killers come for their own children?