May 05, 2005

Another Innocent Victim Of The VRWC Pajamahadeen

Another innocent man falls victim to the heartless, souless, radical arm of the VRWC Pajamahadeen Organization.

"The basic story is we posted a terrorist's e-mail. A reader with an Arabic sounding e-mail address sent off a message to the terrorist. The terrorist responded. The FBI was informed. The FBI didn't do diddly-squat. The reader kept bugging the FBI. The FBI finally investigated, and ...... drumroll please ..... the FBI now has said terrorist locked up in a jail."

Read the story at The Jawa Report.

While you`re there wish Rusty well on his fishing trip.


- Joatmoaf -

May 5, 2005 at 07:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 09, 2004

Christmas Miracle `03

Have you ever experienced a miracle, or witnessed one, or know someone who has?  I`m not talking about your average everyday convenient coincidence, I mean an undeniable miracle?  I have more than once, and while I might be able to convince some of you of it, others would scoff or try to rationalize it away, mainly because they affected me on a private level. In my case since it was personal to me and not witnessed by others one could either take my word for it, or not.

On the other hand....what if it was something witnessed and obvious and unexplainable? And that it happened on Christmas eve is the cherry on the whipped cream on the banana split of life.

You decide. Read the story.

- Joatmoaf -

December 9, 2004 at 09:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack

August 18, 2004

War and rumors of war

Many detractors of the war in Iraq are quick to point to Iran as the more sensible opponent to invade.
They point out, correctly, that Iran has been in the terror buisness longer and to a much larger degree than just about any Islamic country to date. They`re quick to point out Irans training and funding of terrorist orginizations along with Irans nuclear capability.
All of these points are absolutely true, but I wonder what they would say if we actually did go to war with Iran.
That possibility might not be so far fetched as some would like to believe as This Story in Channel News Asia is reporting.

DOHA : Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warned that Iran might launch a preemptive strike against US forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.

"We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly," Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV when asked if Iran would respond to an American attack on its nuclear facilities.

Once an Islamic Fundamentalist, always an Islamic Fundamentalist as Mr. Shamkhani proves with statements like this:

"The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in the event of an attack, he said.

Of course like all good Islamic fundamentalists he has to drag Isreal into it, whether Isreal wants to go or not.

"Where Israel is concerned, we have no doubt that it is an evil entity, and it will not be able to launch any military operation without an American green light. You cannot separate the two."

And last but not least, through bribery or bullying they have convinced the IAEA to be non-commital about their true nuclear potential.

Diplomats said in Vienna Tuesday that the IAEA would not say in a report next month whether Iran's nuclear activities are of a military nature, nor will it recommend bringing the case before the UN Security Council.

Those who have been against the war in Iraq, and using Iran as an example of "a bigger threat" will now have to find a new "bigger threat". They are unless they`re willing to eat their words and we all know that`s not going to happen.

To be honest, I`ve always seen Iraq as the first logical step and Iran as the next logical step.
I always saw Iraq as a stepping stone to Iran. Iran will have to be dealt with sooner or later, since Iran is responsible for most of the terrorism in the last 25 years and in the war on terror, is the primary enemy.
We have the troops, the logistics and support mechenisms in place and if Iran mounted a preemptive strike there would be almost 100% support from all across the country to finish the Iranian threat once and for all.

Thanks to Dave for the tip.

- Joatmoaf -

August 18, 2004 at 10:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack

August 08, 2004

Valor Defined

On just about any given day when we hear or see news reports about military events in Iraq those reports almost always look bad for us.

Roadside bombs, casualty reports of U.S. dead and injured, and the seeming successes of the enemy are banner headlines in the media to the detriment of the real news.

What of the men and women of the military who have the unenviable task of fighting these battles?
They have families, wives, husbands, children, moms and dads, doesn`t their stories count as 'real news?'

In the battle of Fallujah, the media seemed obsessively fixated on U.S. casualty reports and insurgent gains.
DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN Seems to be the theme with most reporters.
No time to get dirty for a story? Just copy and paste someone elses and send it to the editor.

This post isn`t about lazy journalist, it`s about the men and women doing the fighting in Iraq, and about how, sometimes, you can find a pearl among the swine.

Here`s a report on some of the things that really happened in Fallujah from the Marines perspective, and by a reporter who wasn`t afraid to do his job.

Go read Valor Defined

- Joatmoaf -

August 8, 2004 at 01:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBack

May 26, 2004

Why is this not important information?

Zeyad has the scoop on a statement that was signed by senior clerics in Najaf in response to a sermon given by the General Secretary of Lebanese Hezbolla.

One excerpt:

2. It is the movement of Sayyid Muqtada that has encouraged the occupiers to cross the red lines. And as aside from that, the American occupiers while storming into Iraq and marching towards Baghdad through Najaf and Karbala did not commit the stupidities and insolence with regard to the sanctities in the two holy cities they have committed now.

Places blame for American assaults on religious sites squarely where they belong.

Another:

4. The organization of Sayyid Muqtada is now carrying out intimidation of the general public and arrests of citizens, not only those whom they call collaborators with the occupation, the police, owners of stores selling foodstuffs to occupiers and others, but also students of religious sciences opposed to them and some of the members of the Badr organization [SCIRI],

And this one:

5. The firing of shots at the great dome of the shrine of Imam Ali (peace be upon him) [in Najaf], according to some specialists was most likely from the weapons of Sayyid Muqtada's followers and not from the weapons of others, inasmuch as the time of shooting was the day fighting flared up in the Valley of Peace cemetery, and there wasn't any fighting from the side of Alnabi street, whereas you claimed in your important sermon that the direction of the shooting was from the side of the Qibla gate [to the shrine], which is the side of Alnabi street

Which is significant to me because if the Iraqis know this is what happened and spell it out in detail, then you can be sure that western journalists know about it too. The question is; Why are they silent on it?
They`re silent because a story like this would verify what the military has been saying all along, which is "we`re not shooting up mosques, they are". A story like this might also have the negative effect of vindicating Bush somewhat in the eyes of some un-decided voters. Not to mention the fact that to report on a story like this would be tantamount to admitting they have been witholding information and lying in order to present their agenda as news.

One little story like this could cause some people to wonder,"what else has the media been hiding?" The art of deception is tricky. People will believe a lie or lies, even if they know better, as long as that is what they want to believe. Too may lies however start to have the opposite effect, and that effect always begins with one little doubt. It grows from there.

Read it all Here

-joatmoaf-


May 26, 2004 at 06:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

May 19, 2004

Iraqi Things `n Stuff

There`s a couple of good articles on the Abu Ghraib scandal over at Bradens.

One is a letter from an AF Col. giving his opinions of the failures in discipline and just where the responsibility lies.

The two senior commanders most responsible for the lack of Army leadership, training and discipline are Brig Gen Janis Kapinsky, CO of the 800th MP BDE, and Maj Gen Barbara Fast, CO of the MI BDE, who is currently dead meat at Ft Huachuca. To jump from them to SecDef and the Chairman of the JCS is one hellofa leap in logic, and in the Army chain of command.

Shinseki apointees have been butting heads with Rumsfeld since he took over DoD. They soon may have to pay the piper for that.
In the same post James D. Villa tells what the 372nd MP Company was like in Gulf War I.
Click Here

Here is an article about Maj. Gen. Mohammed Abdul-Latif, the former Iraqi intelligence officer who`s been picked as one of those responsible for taking over security in Fallujah.
In the article he lays out the options for the leaders, mullahs and Imams in Fallujah.

"We can make them (Americans) use their rifles against us or we can make them build our country, it's your choice," Latif told a gathering of more than 40 sheiks, city council members and imams in an eastern Fallujah suburb.

Another few good lines...

"They were brought here by the acts of one coward who was hunted out of a rathole -- Saddam -- who disgraced us all," Latif said. "Let us tell our children that these men (U.S. troops) came here to protect us.

"As President Bush said, they did not come here to occupy our land but to get rid of Saddam. We can help them leave by helping them do their job, or we can make them stay ten years and more by keeping fighting."

Abdul-Latif is not a squeeky clean person. Many accuse him of saying one thing and doing another in order to achieve his objectives, but in the grand scheme of things I have to confess that he has the right attitude for getting the U.S. out of Iraq.

-joatmoaf-


May 19, 2004 at 05:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

May 08, 2004

Torture Victims

Cassandra asks: "WHERE ARE THE PICTURES OF THE TORTURE THAT OCCURRED IN ABU GHRAIB WHILE SADDAM WAS IN POWER?"

Joatmoaf responds: Right here

There are 56 pages of photos of torture victims from when Saddam was in power. Unfortunately none of these victims survived. But CNN, the U.N. and all other alleged voices of reason knew about what was going on and chose to ignore it. The link is an old one and you may have already seen it but if not, be warned, it is graphic.

-joatmoaf-

May 8, 2004 at 04:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

March 28, 2004

Who`s right?

First let me settle this WMD issue once and for all so that you can understand my point of view.
What would you do if someone in your neighborhood had a proven violent reputation. That same someone had gotten ahold of illegal machine guns, grenades and rockets. That same someone had used those illegal weapons on his own family and even attacked 2 of his neighbors.
After the 2nd attack on his neighbor, the police come, slap him around, destroy some of his weapons and make a policy of patrolloing his neighborhood, but basically leave him alone.
12 years later a new police chief tells this someone to either give up his weapons or be raided. He didn`t, so he was.
If a crack house were to spring up in my neighborhood , the first thing I`d do is tell them I`m aware of their actions and I want them to get out. By doing that it let`s them know that not everyone is afraid of them and they`re not as sneaky as they thought. If the neighborhood knows what they are up to you can bet the police know.
What happens when the police raid the crack house? Do they ask them to give up their dope and guns and just decide to leave them alone when the crack heads refuse? DUH!!! NO!!! They go in with everything they have. They bust the doors down, round the criminals, drugs and guns up, and haul them off to jail.
That analogy is how I saw Iraq, on a larger scale.
Saddam had been given notice for 12 years. Not just by the U.S. but by the U.N. (equilivent to a search warrent in the above analogy). He refused to comply so the police ( Coalition Military ) busted down his door and hauled him off to jail.
As far as I`m concerned, WMDs or not ( I still think they are there in Iraq, and in the Bekka Valley and Syria )we did the exact right thing.
Nothing-Anyone-Can-Say will change my mind.

On a different note:
I just watched the interview with Richard Clark and the impression that I kept getting was that he is angry at the Bush administration because his opinion wasn`t as valued by them as it was by Clinton. Everybody keeps asking what his motivation was for writing the book, and after seeing the interview, I can`t help but think it was for the sake of his own ego (Pride).
His suggestions for handling terrorism seemed to always be to launch a few missiles and then a dialog. He even said that his priorities in dealing with Al Quaida and the like was to try to change them from within.
I immediatly thought "Huh? Social engineering and welfare? That`s a theory, a theory that is unfounded, as 40 years of experimentation in the U.S. has proven", and a theory we can`t afford to explore so long as American lives are at stake.
He seemed to have nothing but praise fot the Clinton administration, while at the same time excusing their lack of effectivness and missed oppertunities as "having to be taken into context", but he slams Bush while taking nothing into context.
When the subject of the invasion of Iraq came up, his motivation for the book became clear to me.
He was opposed to invading Iraq and apparently very obstinate about it. For 8 years he had been used to being "the voice" that Clinton listened to concerning dealing with terrorism. In fact, Clintons whole policy for dealing with terrorists can be blamed on Clark. It was Clarks suggestions to lob cruise missiles and then talk. It was Clarks suggestions to negotiate with Al Quaida in hopes of a peaceful settlement rather than go after them where they live and breath.
Islamic fundamental terrorist will not negotiate seriously. They will meet to "discuss" issues, but that is only so they can stall for time. To their way of thinking everyone who doesn`t think like them are infidels, including moderate muslims. Their stated policy toward all infidels is that we must die.
Rather than wait for the inevitable (death through natural causes) they intend to do everything in their power to expidite our deaths. The only negotiation they understand is from the buisness end of a loaded weapon.
Clarks motivation for his book is simple. After years of being regarded as the infallible expert his opinions and methods were discarded. When he became obstinate and arrogant he was transferred. The sudden downfall from his vaunted position was more than his ego could take. He lashed out against Bush. Not Clinton or Bush I or Reagan all of whom he worked for, but Dubya.
He was apparantly hopeful of keeping the status quo of being "the authority" and dealing with terrorism piecemeal. The same strategy that he had been pushing for the last 30 years. The very same strategy that allowed events to lead up to 9-11.
That Bush would dare to question his expertese, and after having made a nuisense of himself, that Bush would dare to have him transfered to a less noble position was too much for him.
Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton more or less took Clarks advice. Bush II (Dubya) didn`t. The fact that the 3 previous presidents never had anything near an issue like 9-11 to deal with seems to have escaped his notice. The possibility that following his advice for the last 30 years is what allowed Al Quaida to be in the position to execute the 9-11 attacks is unthinkable to him. He seems to think that Islamic terrorism is localized, like the SLA of the 70s (remember them?), and that with compassion and understanding, we should negotiate peace with them.
I have no compassion for terrorist.
I have no understanding for their cause.
There will be no peace between us.
They must either stop terrorism or be killed.
If they don`t stop they will be killed.
No debate. No comprimise. No quarter given. Period.

-joatmoaf-

March 28, 2004 at 02:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack

March 19, 2004

No.2 Surrounded?

For the last 2 days we`ve been hearing about the attmpted capture of Ayman al-Zawarhi, Al Quaidas # 2 man linked here . This is good news, especially on the 1 year anniversary of the war on terror.
Regular readers of I Love Jet Noise will perhaps remember that we warned you a month ago about something like this. In this article I explained how the U.S had given Pakistan notice to either hunt down and prosecute terrorists in their own country or we (the U.S) would do it for them.
So readers, why are you suprised? You read it here first, a month ago.

-joatmoaf-

March 19, 2004 at 12:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

March 06, 2004

Blair's Speech

If you haven't already, read Tony Blair's excellent speech on the liberation of Iraq. Blair's been beset by the same second-guessing and intelligence inquiries taking place this side of the Atlantic:

In truth, the fundamental source of division over Iraq is not over issues of trust or integrity, though some insist on trying to translate it into that. Each week brings a fresh attempt to get a new angle that can prove it was all a gigantic conspiracy. We have had three inquiries, including the one by Lord Hutton conducted over six months, with more openness by government than any such inquiry in history, that have affirmed there was no attempt to falsify intelligence in the dossier of September 2002, but rather that it was indeed an accurate summary of that intelligence.

In a bizarre echo of the deliberately misquoted "imminent danger" line from Bush's State of the Union speech, Blair argues:

It is said we claimed Iraq was an imminent threat to Britain and was preparing to attack us. In fact this is what I said prior to the war on 24 September 2002: "Why now? People ask. I agree I cannot say that this month or next, even this year or next he will use his weapons."
The truth is, as was abundantly plain in the motion before the House of Commons on 18 March, we went to war to enforce compliance with U.N. resolutions. Had we believed Iraq was an imminent direct threat to Britain, we would have taken action in September 2002; we would not have gone to the U.N. Instead, we spent October and November in the U.N. negotiating U.N. Resolution 1441. We then spent almost four months trying to implement it.
Actually, it is now apparent from the Survey Group that Iraq was indeed in breach of U.N. Resolution 1441. It did not disclose laboratories and facilities it should have; nor the teams of scientists kept together to retain their WMD, including nuclear expertise; nor its continuing research relevant to CW and BW [chemical and biological weapons]. As Dr Kay, the former head of the ISG [International Survey Group] who is now quoted as a critic of the war, has said: "Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441". And "I actually think this [Iraq] may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought."
But let's be clear. Once this row dies down, another will take its place and then another and then another.
All of it in the end is an elaborate smokescreen to prevent us seeing the real issue: which is not a matter of trust but of judgment.

I argued this point with a very dear friend in the weeks leading up to the war: what happens when international consensus fails? Bush achieved that consensus with Resolution 1441. What was lacking was the will to enforce it. At that point, each nation is forced back upon its own conscience and convictions, combined with a realistic assessment of its alliances and strategic and security interests. As Blair says:

It may well be that under international law as presently constituted, a regime can systematically brutalize and oppress its people and there is nothing anyone can do, when dialogue, diplomacy and even sanctions fail, unless it comes within the definition of a humanitarian catastrophe (though the 300,000 remains in mass graves already found in Iraq might be thought by some to be something of a catastrophe). This may be the law, but should it be?
I understand the worry the international community has over Iraq. It worries that the U.S. and its allies will by sheer force of their military might, do whatever they want, unilaterally and without recourse to any rule-based code or doctrine. But our worry is that if the U.N.--because of a political disagreement in its Councils--is paralyzed, then a threat we believe is real will go unchallenged.

It is clear why Blair and Bush make such an effective team. They are two very different men; their skills complement one another. Without taking anything away from the mercurial Blair, whose rock-solid stand on Iraq led me to reassess him in a more positive light, I think his friendship with George Bush (who, if anything, is not given to second-guessing once he has made a decision) has been a source of strength during the stormy months after the invasion of Iraq. Blair, always adept at political maneuvering, has weathered the storm admirably and his stature as a world leader has been enhanced by the experience.

- Cassandra

March 6, 2004 at 11:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack