Al Manor is designated by the U.S. Treasury Department as a terrorist organization. Why then does Google News use al Manor as a "news" source? If al Qaeda had a "news" arm, would Google News carry that as well? And by promoting al Manor on their website, isn't Google in violation of federal law?

As Daveed Gartenstein-Ross says over at the Counterterrorism blog:

Reasonable minds can differ about the relative merits of MichelleMalkin.com, Little Green Footballs and Democratic Underground for inclusion in Google News [and I would add, The Jawa Report]. But the inclusion of al-Manar -- itself a Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity, and known for its unrelenting support of terror against Americans and Israelis -- is simply indefensible.

Update: In a roundabout way (via Blogfather Charles, and Blogsister Michelle) I find this excellent post at Atlas Shrugs discussing the ins and outs of it.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:49 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

I must disagree with the good Dr. Shackleford on his assessment of the importance of the cyber-jihad.

While I have no issue with American hackers being paid to take down jihadist sites and forums, I don't believe that it's an imperative to winning this war. I did a post back during the Cartoon Jihad wherein I pooh-poohed the reaction of people to the MSM's failure to print them, because all of us had already seen them. By us I meant blogs, and those who frequent them. A nice commenter reminded me of the total number of people who don't get news from blogs. Healthy slap in the face, that was.

Yes, the internet is a tool used to recruit terrorists, but it's just a tool. Recruitment of Islamic terrorists was going along just fine before the internet became a household tool. The Marine barracks in Beirut was bombed when the internet was in its infancy.

Rusty wrote:

If we cannot win the cyber war, we cannot win our war against Muslim ideologues bent on creating the Islamic utopia by any means necessary.

Mohammed had no internet, and now 1.2 billion people on this Earth are forbidden to gaze upon his visage. Saladin had no internet, and it didn't stop him from kicking Crusader ass. The mujahadeen in Afghanistan had no internet, and they stomped the Soviets.

Hacking jihadi websites doesn't stop madrassas being built in Eastern Europe. Hacking jihadi websites doesn't stop imams preaching on Fridays. Hacking jihadi websites doesn't do any more good than jihadis hacking our websites. They, like us, will just put them up somewhere else.

Hacking sites may even be counter-productive. We, the great unwashed, have no true idea of what our government's capabilities are. Most of that stuff is classified. If hackers start disabling jihad sites, who knows what information they would be depriving us of.

So I disagree with my blogfather. The best way to deal with jihadis is not to hack their websites, it's far more simple than that.

Kill them all, let Allah sort 'em out. It's hard to access Ummah.com when you're dead.

And before you spit in my face in the comments, "Kill them all" does not refer to all Muslims, just the jihadis. And yes, Improbulus Maximus, "Kill them all" does refer to all Muslims, not just jihadis. And no, Background Noise, I really don't mean all Muslims, just jihadis. There, have I covered my ass?

Rusty responds--the bitch slap! Ahhh, finally a debate! A debate, a debate, my kingdom for a debate!

Okay, how to respond? Since most of my posts are tongue in cheek, focus on lipstick lesbians, or are devoted to calling people names, it isn't easy slamming on the brakes and putting on the academic helmut so quickly. But here goes.

What Vinnie has just done is a classic example of not understanding two very important points and because he misses those points, is arguing against a straw man.

1) Probabalistic relationships are different than cause-effect relationships.

Contrary to what you were taught in both physics and logic, not all cause-effect relationships are direct. No one is arguing here that the internet causes terror, only that the increase in jihadi activity online has led to an increase in a) sympathy for terrorists which gives them room to hide among the civilian populations of the world b) recruitment of terrorists.

Thus, decreasing online terror activity will certainly decrease support for terrorism worldwide and therefore terrorist acts worldwide.

2) An effect often has multiple causes.

Before the internet there was jihad and after the internet there will be jihad, thus jihad must not be caused by internet. True enough, but the internet is a cause today if not the cause.

Wars are fought on many fronts and in many different ways simultaneously. So far, we have not even begun to fight the front that is cyberspace. My argument has never been that if we win this front we will win the war on terror, my argument is that if we wish to win the war on terror we must also win the cyber war.

Winning the cyber war will not mean we will win the war on terror, but it will certainly help. However, if we do not win the cyber war we cannot win the war on terror. It is a necessary condition for winning, but not the only condition.

Why? Wars are won when the enemy believes there is no hope for victory. When fighting an army, a nation, or even an organized resistance group, killing/capturing most of them or taking control of key physical territory usually serves as sufficient grounds for resistance to fall. But because in assymetrical and decentralized warfare beating individual cells is not enough to win, an atmosphere must be created in which enemy combatants have no hope of winning and therefore lay down their arms.

There are several other erroneous points Vinnie makes--such as not understanding the differences between Saladin's or Mohammed's very centralized armies and decentralized cells of terrorists--but I'll skip to the most important one.

The argument, if I understand it correctly, is that taking down terror websites is impossible since terrorists will just find new web space and new sites will pop up. That is, we should not wage war against the cyber jihadis because we cannot win it.

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't fly. How do we know we can't win it if we've never even attempted to fight it? Further, I would argue, effectively fighting the cyber war is actually much simpler than most understand. Since the vast majority of cyber jihadi activity only come from a handful of websites, taking out the most popular ones will drastically reduce the power of terrorists to shape the opinions of Muslims around the world.

We do not need to take down every jihadi website, we only need to take down the most popular ones. This could be accomplished today if we put our mind to it. That's right, today.

And, when the jihadis move to another website, we can follow them. Then take down that website. And the next. And the next.

Last, if you think taking down a few hundred websites is hard, how hard do you think it will be to find and kill a few hundred thousand jihadis? Impossible.

Vinnie:

I still don't see how this is a necessary condition to winning the war. To me, a necessary condition would be, say, removing the mullahs from power in Iran.

Hacking jihad websites is more like H/I fire in my opinion.

So...could you elaborate on that for me?

Posted by: Vinnie at 12:50 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 1149 words, total size 7 kb.

It's time we took the cyber jihad seriously. It has become obvious that the U.S. government is ill equippied to deal with the problem If we cannot win the cyber war, we cannot win our war against Muslim ideologues bent on creating the Islamic utopia by any means necessary.

Why is the U.S. government unable to respond adequately to the cyber jihad?

a) They are still in law enforcement mode.

Unless an internet website is breaking the law, no action is taken by the government. However, if we are in a war, then the normal rules do not apply. We cannot treat terrorist forces on the web as if they were simply exercising some Constitutional right of free speech. If this is a war, then fight it like one. If you can kill your enemies in war, then certainly censoring them is justified.

b) Intelligence agencies lack the institutional know-how to fight the online jihad.

Traditionally, intelligence agencies such as the NSA and CIA have been the information gathering arm of the U.S. government. Such intelligence is used by other agencies to act. They may monitor jihadi websites, but they obviously are not acting on their information.

Occasionally they do act, but when they do --such as with the arrest of Irhabi 007--they are in law enforcement mode. Irhabi 007 was charged with a crime, but if using the internet to wage war upon your own country is a crime, then doesn't this reveal the underlying problem of not treating this as a war?

c) The military lacks the tools to fight the internet jihad.

If this is war then it is the military--not the intelligence agencies such as the CIA and NSA, and not the law enforcement agencies such as the FBI -- that ought to be fighting it. The military is great at doing a lot of things, but taking down websites is not one of them. Even if we could identify each and every web server which hosts terror websites, the solution is not bombing the webhosts. For the most part, companies either are not aware that terrorists use their services or they do not care because there are no real consequences to doing business with the online jihadis.

The solution? There is no government solution. The only people really equipped to counter the online threat are hackers themselves. These cyber pirates have the necessary knowlege, tools, and experience in infiltrating and taking down websites. With minimum investment in equipment, with the assurance that they will not be prosecuted for activities which are normally considered illegal, and with the promise of a reward for each website taken down, these cyber pirates would be turned into cyber privateers. There skills which are normally deemed socially unacceptable, can be used to the advantage of winning the long war against militant Islam.

I will be posting on cyber-privateering from time to time. Stay tuned!

Michael B. Kraft at the Counteterrorism blog has some notes on Professor Gabriel Weimann's new book Terror on the Internet:

Prof. Weimann also describes various efforts by private groups or individuals to take down the web sites of terrorists –and the back and forth efforts between Israelis and Palestinians or their supporters to take down each other’s websites. He also discusses the efforts, largely futile, by governments to deprive terrorist groups of service providers because they jump to other providers or conceal their origin.

Hoffman emphasized another side of the coin—the need to take the offense as well as play defense. He said the United States and friendly governments should do more to make use of the internet get across reliable news and counter what he called the ”parallel world” in which terrorists and their supporters receive distorted perspectives and rumors on their web sites.

This may take more nimbleness and sophistication than US Government public diplomacy efforts have shown in recent years. But it is time to act and think outside the conventional box and should be given high priority. [READ THE REST]

Posted by: Rusty at 09:03 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 703 words, total size 5 kb.

(Gaza City) Sources report that the top al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades Commander, Raed Abayat, has been killed by Israeli Defense Forces. Very good news, in my estimation, because any time the heart of a terrorist stops beating, the world is a better place.

From ArabNews.com:

Witnesses said that the Israeli troops backed by tanks stormed into Beit Sahour town early yesterday morning and surrounded a building in the town where the top commander and his assistant were hiding. They added that a short exchange of fire between the commander and the Israeli soldiers resulted in the killing of Aqsa commander and the arrest of his assistant who was injured in the exchange of fire.

Medical sources confirmed the death of the commander and identified him as Raed Abayat, 31.

Israeli security sources said that the troops noticed two Palestinians hiding in a house in the town and called on them to surrender but when they spotted Abayat toting a rifle, they opened fire at him. The sources added that Abayat was wanted by Israel for five years for his involvement in the murder of Israelis.

From Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 09:23 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 2 kb.

(Singapore) According to Ronald Noble, Secretary-General of the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol), al Qaeda terrorists are preparing to engage in biological warfare. Countries are being urged to pass laws to allow police to investigate scientific activity that leads to manufacture of biological weapons.

From KhaleejTimes.com:

There is enough evidence to show that Al Qaeda is preparing to engage in biological warfare, Noble said.

"It can't be that we as a world community have to wait for a September 11 type of attack in bio-terrorism before we prepare," Noble told government officials, police and health experts attending the Asian Terrorism Workshop.

"Unlike other forms of terrorist acts where the impact can be felt almost instantaneously in the aftermath, we may not realize that a biological attack has occurred until perhaps days or even weeks later," said Ho Peng Kee, Singapore's senior minister of state for law and home affairs.

"By that time, the terrorist may already have fled the country or succumbed to the biological agent, and all the valuable investigative leads may have disappeared," Ho noted in a keynote address.

From Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 05:35 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

Like....DUH:

Is America taking terrorists too seriously? In the wake of continued threats, that might seem like a ridiculous question. But in terms of the psychology of the war on terrorism, it's a question that needs to be asked.

In a brilliant new white paper on public diplomacy, Michael Waller, the Walter and Leonore Annenberg chair in International Communication at The Institute of World Politics, makes a strong case for America's employing a new powerful weapon against the terrorists: ridicule.

"Ridicule raises morale at home. Ridicule strips the enemy/adversary of his mystique and prestige. Ridicule erodes the enemy's claim to justice. Ridicule eliminates the enemy's image of invincibility. Directed properly at an enemy, ridicule can be a fate worse than death," writes Waller.

Apparently someone doesn't read the Jawa Report.

Posted by: Vinnie at 06:15 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

1 >>>>>Apparently someone doesn't read the Jawa Report. hahaha!!! brilliant.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 23, 2006 06:36 PM (8e/V4)

2 I couldn't agree more! That's why I'm so excited to announce my development deal with FOX Network for my new sitcom, "O, Sama!" More info at my blog, Osama's Place: http://www.osamasplace.com/?p=27

Posted by: Osama at March 23, 2006 06:56 PM (HcXmZ)

3 Osama : We already have one Osama here. I emailed "our" osama and this is a different one. Jawa Osama asked that I clarify that. Please Osama we like the site and all but in the future if you would do ?? so we can tell you apart.

Posted by: Howie at March 24, 2006 03:32 PM (D3+20)

4 Ridicule does work. In the 1940s there was a lot of concern over a resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan to the levels of power they had in the 1920s. A reporter infiltrated the KKK and learned all their secrets. He then turned over their secrets to, of all people, the Superman radio show. For several weeks Superman would beat up various KKK goons and mock their titles like Kleagle, Grand Exalted Cyclops, and Richard Byrd. The KKK went from a terrible political force, to a joke. So let's all do the same to Al-Qaida.

Posted by: Vox Poplar at March 24, 2006 05:10 PM (jiA7A)

5 Show the AL QUEDA for what they are TERRORISTS and killers of women and children

Posted by: sandpiper at March 26, 2006 03:02 PM (slksM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The U.S. Treasury Department has designated various Hezbollah owned media outlets as Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) entities. Included in today's listing are al-Manar Television, al-Nour Radio, and the Lebanese Media Group---all affiliates of the Iranian lbacked terror organization, Hizballah.

It would be good to see the Treasury Department go after those internet outlets that support terrorism as well, but I'm afraid the U.S. government just isn't serious about that yet.

Al-Manar is the official global satellite television station of the Hezbollah terrorist organization. Until the 9/11 attacks, Hezbollah had killed more Americans than any other terrorist group. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 03:44 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 3 kb.

Here is a link to a Powerpoint presentation saved by John Donovan that accompanied a lecture given by Rear Admiral Bill Sullivan, the Vice Director for Strategic Plans & Policy on The Joint Staff (the J5). The venue was the Executive Lecture Forum, Radvanyi Chair in International Security Studies, Mississippi State University, entitled “Fighting the Long War--Military Strategy for the War on Terrorism”.

Go check out John's take here.

My initial response is WOW. The military seem to actually get what is at stake in Iraq. Admiral Sullivan discusses the long-term goal of Salaafism as the restoration of the Caliphate and the al Qaeda strategy of turning Iraq into the central base of operations for the future Islamic empire.

The military also seems to get that two of the main tools used by terrorist networks are the media and internet. However, I see nothing in the presentation on how those two tools of the enemies can be removed.

My own personal view is that the internet jihad needs to be counterattacked. Up to now, there has been virtually no real effort made to treat the terror presence on the internet as a military matter.

Many law enforcement arrests have been made (not nearly enough), but if this is a war we are in then we must treat the internet as an instrument of war. You do not fight a war with indictments. It is precisely the fact that there is no due process in war that differentiates it from normal police work.

So, how does the military fight the internet jihad? It can't.

We must understand our enemies as non-hierarchically organized networks of like minded individuals. There are literally thousands of websites, chat rooms, and forums which spread the jihadi doctrine. Law enforcement cannot hope to close down all of these websites and the military is simply not designed to fight it. A centralized command structure cannot fight such a network since each cell is not connected to the others.

So, is there a way to fight the internet jihad? Yes, there is. Cyber-privateering.

Fight fire, with fire. The only way to win the cyber-war is by removing the propaganda outlets of the enemy. State actors, though, are limited in what they can get away with on this front. However, there are millions of hackers out there who do have the tools necessary to take down these websites. They could actually be more effective if a) government resources and programs were added to their arsenals b) like privateers of old they were shielded from the retribution of the laws of foreign countries.

Privateers of old were private citizens given free reign to wreak havoc on enemies. Unlike privateers on the high-seas, there is no financial gain to be had from shutting down an enemy website. That is why cyber-privateers ought to be given a bounty for each terrorist website they take down. In addition to bounties, cyber-privateers could be given immunity from prosecution both abroad and at home. Expect to hear more about cyber-privateering from me in the future.

Along with taking the long-war seriously, we must also take the cyber-war seriously. Winning both will require new ways of dealing with threats.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:34 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 548 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Heh. How Chinese of you, Rusty. Peoples War. You are espousing the exact approach the Chinese propound. And are executing, every day.

Posted by: John of Argghhh! at March 17, 2006 04:26 PM (rBMZ5)

2 Cyber-Privateer, that appeals to me both professionally, and personally on so many levels!

Posted by: davec at March 17, 2006 04:53 PM (CcXvt)

3 That's is fricken brillant. CYBER PRIVATEERS, HELL, I even like the name. And Congress could grant "Internet Letters of Marque." That is a suggestion outside the box, BIG TIME. Kudos for thinking of it, and kudos for having the savvy to conjure up the whole idea. I'm going to call some Congressmen on Monday and refer them to your website, and your suggestion. I also suggest that you email this post to Thomas P. Barnett, who can be contacted through his website. I don't agree with everything that Barnett says, especially his idea of accepting the mullahs getting nukes, but the guy is connected, and he definitely has an eye for ideas that are outside the box. So contact him.

Posted by: Dan at March 18, 2006 12:50 AM (GAtBS)

4 Fantastic idea.... Run with it.

Posted by: blert at March 18, 2006 02:17 AM (zqIhB)

5 Rusty, this is an interesting idea, and normally, I agree with you, but in this case, I think you make a few incorrect assumptions. You said, "Up to now, there has been virtually no real effort made to treat the terror presence on the internet as a military matter." Do you know this for sure? I think it is being very much treated as a military matter, and in fact, the military is both trained and equipped to fight a cyber war, and they exercise their capability quite often. Simple ideas espoused on foreign websites are not the danger, and even though some sites traffic in the exchange of jihad videos or executions and beheadings, it is still open expression of ideas. Really cruddy ideas, but thats all. Jihadists, like liberalism is better if it is exposed and in the open. Leave it to people to judge it for themselves and reject it. Also, launching attacks and taking down websites would likely be very counter-productive. They are free open sources of intelligence, and the US intelligence agencies are paying attention and using them to gather intel. Shutting down the sites would eliminate those sources. All this said, there are real cyber dangers posed by jihadists, and I'm not talking about defacements of pro-Israeli websites or sabre-rattling on a message board. The real dangers are the same that face us every day- Using the internet to launch denial of service attacks or intrusions against the national critical infrastructure that may be connected to the internet, including the banking system, SCADA systems and others. Also, there are dangers posed by jihadists using phishing and other techniques to steal the identities and ultimately, cash from Americans and then using the stolen loot to finance real world attacks against Americans and their allies. These are attacks that you cannot see happening very well. And unfortunately, there is not much that average citizens can do to privateer against this- except to deny hackers the use of your own PC as a participant in a botnet, and you do this by patching and keeping your system clean.

Posted by: Pat at March 18, 2006 11:33 AM (3LGfC)

6 hackers do not create botnets.

Posted by: davec at March 18, 2006 04:54 PM (CcXvt)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

MSNBC headlines its report that federal investigators recently passed homemade bombmaking materials through checkpoints at 21 US airports, "Airline screeners fail government bomb tests":

In all 21 airports tested, no machine, no swab, no screener anywhere stopped the bomb materials from getting through. Even when investigators deliberately triggered extra screening of bags, no one discovered the materials.

Posted by: Bluto at 01:08 AM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 393 words, total size 3 kb.

Last evening, LGF opened up the register to comment, and I managed to slip in. Normally, I just read the posts and skip the comments, now I'm glad I have an excuse to go in. That's where I found this.

From MEMRI:

The Last Warning To The American People

"Despite the fact that the New York, Washington, Madrid, and Londonexpeditions have been carried out a few years back. The search for clues on how they were conducted in such a successful manner is still going on and reports upon reports are still being written about them. However, the next expedition might not find someone who can provide analysis for. The top intellects, strategists, and analysts, will be totally clueless as to how to explain what occurred. Let me also inform you that we are talking about two operations, not one. The scale of one of them is larger than the other but both are large and significant. However, we will start with the smaller, and temporarily put the larger on hold to see how serious the Americans are about their lives. Should you value your own life and security, accept MuslimsÂ’ demands, but if you shall prefer death (over giving in to MuslimsÂ’ demands). Then, we, by the grace of Allah, are the best in bringing it (death) to your door steps.

Follow the link to read it all.

I did a Google News search and there is none, zero, mention of this in the media. The only other two hits I got were the SITE Institute and World Net Daily.

Whether this is a legitimate threat, or some jackoff spouting off, we need to get the word out anyway.

Thanks for keeping us informed, media.

UPDATE: Good 'ol Patrick al-Kafir has been looking askance at Mr. Williams since November.

Posted by: Vinnie at 04:58 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

Add your name to the petition.

Via Agora.

Posted by: Vinnie at 12:13 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

For those of you interested in the private fight against public terrorists, these articles are for you. This is a follow up to our earlier report on the arrest of the internet's #1 cyber-jihadi, Irhabi 007. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 03:35 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

Men Were Not Allowed Counsel During Closed Hearings

Able Danger whistleblowers Anthony Shaffer and J.D. Smith have filed a lawsuit against the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, and against George Peirce, Robert H. Berry, Jr., William J. Haynes, II, Esq., and Tom Taylor - acting both as individuals and as counsels for the DIA, the DoD, and the Department of the Army. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 02:08 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.

I love death threats. You haven't really made it until you've got one. Now, how 'bout that fatwa? more...

Posted by: Rusty at 09:56 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

From Reuters:

GAZA (Reuters) - Islamic Jihad's most senior commander in the Gaza Strip was killed on Wednesday by an explosion that tore through his car, the Palestinian militant group said, blaming the Israeli army, which denied involvement.

Witnesses to the death of Abu al-Waleed al-Dahdouh, head of Islamic Jihad's armed wing in the Gaza Strip, said his car blew up as he opened one of its doors and that an Israeli military aircraft was flying overhead at the time.

"The Israeli army did not operate in Gaza," a military spokeswoman said. "It wasn't us."

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:43 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.

Muslim Charities Complain US Targets Them For Investigation
From Haaretz [emphasis added]:

WASHINGTON - U.S. Muslim charities feel they are being targeted by the U.S government's counterterrorism efforts. On Tuesday, a coalition of U.S. Muslim organizations requested a meeting with Treasury Secretary John Snow to discuss concerns that Muslim charities are targeted in the government's counterterrorism efforts.

In a letter to Snow, the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections (AMT) said government closures of Islamic charities have hindered American Muslims' ability to carry out their religious obligation to help the needy.

The state has revoked the medical license of Dr. Rafil Dhafir, formerly of Manlius, because of his conviction last year in federal court on 59 felony charges.

Dhafir is serving a 22-year sentence in federal prison in Fairton, N.J., for his crimes, which include mail and wire fraud, tax evasion, money laundering and mishandling nearly $2 million from his charity, Help the Needy. Dhafir maintains he is innocent and plans to appeal his conviction.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:51 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.

The identity of Irhabi 007 (also known as Qaeda 007 & Terrorist 007) has finally been revealed by the SITE institute as Younis Tsouli, a 22 year old from West London. Irhabi [which means 'terrorist' in Arabic] 007 was one of the most prolific internet jihadis of the last several years. The FBI had been actively tracking down Irhabi 007 for at least a year. Aaron at Internet Haganah had been tracking him for even longer.

According to SITE, Younis Tsouli was among four terror suspects arrested by Scotland Yard on Oct. 21, 2005. Tsouli, aka "Irhab 007", may have been involved in a plot to attack the White House. He has also been linked to a string of arrests in Europe--including Scandinavia--over plots to commit acts of terrorism all over the Continent.

Through his contacts with al Qaeda in Iraq and other terror organizations, Irhabi 007 put up scores of posts. Among his many claims to fame, it was Irhabi 007 who first posted the al Qaeda video of Jack Hensley being beheaded at an Islamic forum. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 06:16 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 581 words, total size 4 kb.

The FBI has added new names to its Most Wanted Terrorists List. Unfortunately, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi only made the Seeking Information List, where he joins the ranks of the 'American al Qaeda' leader, Californian Adam Yahiye Gadahn. However, the information leading to Zarqawi's arrest will get you a $25 million award.

Interestingly enough, one of the terrorists, Abd Al Aziz Awda, is an imam in the Gaza strip where he preaches and lives in the open. Hmmm, you mean the Palestinian Authority isn't cooperating in the Global War on Terror?

Another, Ramadan Abdullah Shallah, lives in Damascus. Another is in Beirut after our friends the Germans released him. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 01:26 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 488 words, total size 4 kb.

Able Danger Blog has posted the first audio segment of the Able Danger conference call between Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA) and bloggers, conducted last Thursday evening. The clip lasts for about twenty minutes and covers most of Congressman Weldon's opening remarks.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 03:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

I participated in a conference call tonight with Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA) and several other bloggers about the Able Danger program, 9/11, the USS Cole attack, and the ongoing coverup by mid- to senior-level bureaucrats spanning two administrations. Frankly, a lot of information was forthcoming and I need time to process it all.

But I do want to address a charming bit of character assassination by Washington Post writer William M. Arkin, who has a problem with Able Danger whistleblower Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer: more...

Posted by: Bluto at 08:11 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Well, character assasination is the only thing left to the anti-ideological ideologues of today in defense of Able Danger BS. Its rather interesting, how undifferentiated each major party has become from one another. Democrats are the socialists with more taxes, Republicans are the socialists with a few "tax cuts" and then some hidden taxes (deficeits.) Essentially the politics of today has more the feel of a sporting event than any actual ideological confrontation. Instead of a stand between principled opponents each attempting to prove their consistant ideology is what is best for the nation, you have a pair of personalities that are universally anti-idealistic, "pragmatic" (funny how so-called "pragmatists" are so unpractical, in the long run,) and totally divorced from any thought except how to justify themselves, not even the day after tomorrow, just tomorrow. This culture is evident in the numerous amount of spending, the inability to be fiscally responsible, and the flat-out refusal to deal with big issues - on the premise that, since nobody has any ideology to guide them on their actions as to what is right, they have no idea what is the good and proper thing to do. Thus, no one wishes to be the first one to act when the first one to do so is going to be blamed for the shebang. Thus, our "practical" politicians have an ever-shrinking range of concern, limiting themselves to issues that can be predicted by today's focus group, tomorrow's exit polls. And that, of course, is the price one pays for allowing that dirty word, "practical," into the political scene. To be "practical," in this day, is to compromise on whatever principles you hold for some (supposed) advantage. It has lead to the insane contradiction of a politician seeking election for the sake of being elected - as, once you've compromised enough, the only ideal you have left is that you must compromise to get anything done - and thus, you have nothing to compromise on and are incapable of any significant action in the political realm. A lesson to learn. Too bad it has to be learned at the worst possible moment - but such is the penance for America's abandonment of principled stands for the individual.

Posted by: MiB at February 23, 2006 09:59 PM (tFcEO)

2 Just found the site and my pagan ass loves it! keep up the outstanding work! love g

Posted by: girish at February 24, 2006 01:12 AM (IpuE8)

3 Anyone else noticed problems with Jihadwatch? Seems to be frozen up or possibly hacked.

Posted by: dave at February 24, 2006 04:07 AM (GHTct)

4 MiB, you're right on, I will only add that the only thing the parties agree on is that they must steal as much as possible from us before we wise up and hang them all. Girish, welcome. Dave, it works fine now.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 24, 2006 04:56 AM (0yYS2)

5 No, Jihadwatch still isn't updating, and the sidebar with the links and email form has vanished. Thats how it's appearing to me. I can't post a comment at all. Very odd.

Posted by: dave at February 24, 2006 05:44 AM (GHTct)

6 I think JW/DW has been cyber-attacked. By the way, I think MiB speaks truth.

Posted by: kentim at February 24, 2006 05:56 AM (CqTKB)

7 Dave, re: JW/DW, I didn't notice the side bar missing until you mentioned it . Since last night, I (only) noticed that the final comment on each thread was not identified by who posted it. It didn't dawn on me that I couldn't comment until you mentioned it. I thought it was my system blocking cookies or something . . .hmmmm.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at February 24, 2006 06:00 AM (XU9K/)

8 JW has been frozen like that for at least 15 hours I'd say.

Posted by: dave at February 24, 2006 06:07 AM (GHTct)

9 oh, and sorry for butting into this thread.

Posted by: dave at February 24, 2006 06:11 AM (GHTct)

10 I had not heard about this "Able Danger" thing before. Senator Joseph McCarthy comes to mind(more and more every day), remember what he said? Paraphrased-- "if these things were mistakes due to incompetence, the perpetrators would do the right thing "accidently" at least once in a while, but instead there is a distinct pattern that suggests a coherent pursuit of a specific goal". I have no doubt in my mind anymore he was right. While chasing the Leninists, who were so obvious and easily identified, he stumbled upon the Pragmatic(Americanised) Fabians, that's where the real power is, and that was the force that destroyed him. Goldwater knew too, probably Wallace too. The fact is, with this knowledge, almost all "history", or "conventional wisdom" is suspect. This fact is dangerous for a truth-seeker. Power is what determines what is "sane and rational", but that may or may not coincide with truth and reality. "The Naked Capitalist" by Skousen and "Tragedy and Hope" by Quigley pretty much shatters the myth of "self-government" here.

Posted by: kentim at February 24, 2006 06:56 AM (CqTKB)

11 I'm still reading Shaffer's testimony, but so far I'm shocked that the megalomaniacal, self-aggrandizing attitudes of those charged with the defense of this country are so systemic. I guess I always knew it, but seeing so many individual accounts of it is still shocking. Has the House Armed S_ervices Committee subpoenaed any of Shaffer's documents or email (or anything) to corroborate his testimony? It would be a dereliction of duty not to. Unless they've been purged too. This entire investigation would be a farce without it. The House Armed S_ervices Committee member's list is extensive. I wonder how many of them are taking this seriously. I also read Cambone's testimony. Eighteen pages of obfuscation with no names and many generalities. His testimony reads like a parent making light of some child's game. His answers focus consistantly on Atta even when not requested to do so. So this is their Able Danger "expert"? Someone who was not involved in the program while it was underway and was charged with finding information on 2.5 terabytes of information which was purged? His testimony is basically useless. (Sorry for the underscores in some words. MuNu's filters are over-zealous)

Posted by: Oyster at February 24, 2006 07:06 AM (YudAC)

12 Everyone who has taken the time to read this, don't forget the numerous supporting military and contractor witnesses supplying their own statements backing up Colonel Shaffer, some found here: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr/index.html#ad . P.S. Shaffer names conspirators in Pentagon--now anyone can call them and let them know what real Americans think of them.

Posted by: jim at February 24, 2006 10:17 AM (6Q9ZO)

13 Hang in there friend and pursue the able danger to the bitter end. It looks to me like there is far more being withheld than is being exposed.

Posted by: Earl J Prignitz at February 24, 2006 11:47 AM (m2XUf)

14 gambling addiction Probaly you should read this. gambling addiction Hope this helps. See you next life. Buy gambling addiction now

Posted by: gambling addiction at March 24, 2006 05:26 AM (0oDgr)

Hide Comments | Add Comment