Category Archives: TERRORISM

Seven Signs of Terrorism

Embed from Getty Images

There is a video currently available from the Delaware State Police at their website entitled the “Seven Signs of Terrorism”.

In this conscise video presentation, the DSP posits the seven signs that we should all be watchful for as: Surveillance, Elicitation, Testing Security, Acquiring Supplies, Suspicious Persons/Vehicles, Trial Runs, Deployment of Assets.

Knowing and putting into practice a response to these signs will help protect you, your family, and your nation as a whole. This is particularly vital in these days where our society is under direct, sustained, committed attack by islamofascist terrorism.

In the area of Surveillance, you should be on alert for someone who might be taking photos, drawing maps or schematics, or constantly found loitering in the area, especially in a clandestine manner, of important facilities, insfrastructure, and public places.

The Department of Homeland Security website is an excellent source of information to help you know the who, what, when, where, how of possible attack targets.

In the area of Elicitation, a subject would be attempting to gain some further information on the object of their surveillance. You may be approached directly, either in your role as an employee of the facility, as a delivery person, even simply as a passerby. They may be looking for information such as operating hours, access roads, traffic patterns, etc.

When they have advanced to Testing Security, the subjects will actually probe the perimeters of the facilities in question, perhaps even going so far as to enter the facility, all in an effort to see what the security response will be, if any. They will always have some legitimate excuse to be where they are, or a good “I’m lost” cover story to tell.

If you are an employee at a business such as Home Depot or Lowe’s, you might notice a large purchase of fertilizer by a private individual. This is but one example that terrorists may be at the stage where they are Acquiring Supplies. The purchase of bomb-making materials, weapons, etc is something that should be pointed out to the store and/or to law enforcement.

The Heritage Foundation reports that there have been 19 thwarted terrorist attacks since 9/11, and your vigilance can help thwart the next one.

Observing any Suspicious Persons or Vehicles is a concept that anyone can understand. If he/she/it doesn’t belong or looks like they don’t belong, if something or someone looks out of place, perhaps it would be wise to take a second look, and possibly even report the person and/or vehicle to authorities. Be careful if directly confronting anyone falling into this category on your own, even if the property they may be intruding upon is yours.

When conducting a Trial Run, the person or organization attempting to pull off the terrorist act will go through all the motions without actually taking their ultimate action. This is their “run through” or practice run, and the totality of their actions could be very suspicious. At this point, they are far along the preparation stage, and you should absolutely not intervene, but let law enforcement know of your concerns.

Finally comes the phase where they will actually Deploy Assets, placing the packages, bombs, weapons, decoys, and other equipment and personnel to carry out the act. This is the time for not only notifying law enforcement, but a time that may also require your judicious use of direct intervention, depending on what is going on and your own self-assessment of your ability to respond.

The Counterterrorism Blog regulary updates with attempts both here in the U.S. and around the world.Some would say that you should NEVER directly intervene, and that you should always contact law enforcement or the military and let them handle things.

The fact is that in the current climate, where terror organizations have publicly stated their intentions to attack us, you may not always have that kind of time in order to thwart the action. Men and women have been called on before in our history to directly defend our nation, and these types of callings will undoubtedly occur in the future.

Stay alert, stay ready. Don’t live in fear, but do live with knowledge and with courage, and with a deep desire to help preserve, protect, and defend our country and our American way of life. Simply by knowing these Seven Signs of Terrorism and remembering them, you are making a start.

Radical Islam at Virginia Tech?

Embed from Getty Images

 

Ismael Ax walked his demented soul out into the quiet early-morning peace of his residence hall at Virginia Tech University. It was just after 7:00 am on Tuesday morning, April 19th, 2007. But the peace all around him was about to be shattered by the evil raging in his own personal hell.

He was about to transfer all that evil into a terror attack of historic proportions. A few hours later, 33 people would lie dead at his hand, many others injured, thousands of lives changed forever.

The news reports have and likely will continue to refer to this killer by his legal given name of Cho Seung-Hui. They will refer to him as a student at Virginia Tech who was “disturbed” and that there were “warning signs” that preceded the attacks. But that is not how the killer referred to himself. The now-infamous letter sent to NBC news by the killer contained an explanatory letter which he signed “Ismael Ax”.

Why, considering the climate in the world since the overt terrorist attacks around the world over the last decade, would this demented soul not sign his name, and instead choose one with an obvious Muslim connotation? Is there any reason to believe that this attack was not just a random one by a single disturbed individual, but instead is yet another example of radical Islam rearing its ugly head?

The name he chose, Ismael, is one that is a uniquely Arabic spelling of the grandson of Abraham, the son of Isaac, who became the father of all the Arab peoples, just as Jacob/Israel became the father of all the Hebraic (Jewish and Christian) peoples.

The attacks occurred on Holocaust Remembrance Day, and one of the professor’s killed was a Jewish holocaust survivor. But these are only the beginnings of the potential radical Islamic ties. He has at least one tattoo in Arabic writing.

His father lived in Saudi Arabia as a young man. His sister works for a contractor to the State Department that controls billions of dollars worth of aid to Iraq. He wrote some now notorious “plays”, the contents of which are now available on the internet. These plays rant about what he sees as American and western decadence, taking swipes at institutions as varied as McDonald’s, the NFL, and the Catholic Church.

Finally, his family had settled in Fairfax County, Virginia, home also to a 29-year old Virginia Tech graduate student from South Korea named Yong Ki Kwon, who was recently convicted of terrorism as one of the “paintball jihadis” who practiced massacres with their paintball guns. Fairfax County…Virginia Tech…South Korean…terrorism…jihad…coincidences all?

Taking all the listed “coincidences” listed here individually could be considered by some as playing into the concept of a “six degrees of separation” game between every major incident that occurs and radical Islamic terrorism. But as a law enforcement professional it is my opinion that taken together they add up more closely to the concept of “probable cause.”

The FBI and other investigators are no doubt beginning to look into these ties. There is reportedly much more on the tapes and in the personal writings of Ismael Ax than has been released to the public at this stage. My guess is that we will learn much more in the coming days and weeks that will thrust the issue of radical islam and it’s involvement as either a direct or indirect cause of this attack into the public debate.

One fact that is not for debate is that once again sin as evil has reared it’s ugly head, whether it has once again taken one of it’s most favored recent forms of radical islam or not. Paul in his letter to the Romans spoke of sin saying “when I want to do right, evil is at hand. For I take delight in the law of God, in my inner self, but I see in my members another principle at war with the law of my mind, taking me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.”

The Reverend Billy Graham wrote in his work “Angels” referring to Lucifer, originally one of the greatest of all angels, the Angel of Light: “Lucifer became Satan, the devil, the author of all sin; and it is sin that has always deceived, disturbed, betrayed, depraved and destroyed all that it has touched…Satan and his demons are known by the discord they promote, the wars they start, the hatred they engender, the murders they initiate, the opposition to God and His commandments. They are dedicated to the spirit of destruction.”

This “spirit of destruction” is everywhere you look on the news today. It can be found particularly in the results of the most recent work of sin in the life of a man who called himself Ismael Ax. A sinner as a disturbed and depraved individual, yet another tool chosen by Satan to use as a destroyer of human beings.

Radical islam is the root cause of many recent terror attacks, and we may soon learn that it once again has reared its ugly head, this time on the campus of Virginia Tech.

Roll out those lazy, hazy, crazy doomsdays of summer

Embed from Getty Images

 

Well, it’s now August the 23rd, and we are all still alive, thank God. For those of you who may have missed out, and thus not been aware of your impending demise, yesterday was thought by some to be a possible “Doomsday” date.

You remember Doomsday, right? End of the world. Armageddon. End times and all that. Ring a bell?

Anyway, yesterday was believed to be a possible Doomsday after noted Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis opined as much in a piece published earlier this year by the Wall Street Journal.

Lewis is no quack, mind you. He is the professor emeritus of Near Eastern studies at Princeton University. His was not actually a prediction, but a warning of a possible date where some action could be taken by radical Muslims.

Lewis’ theory went something like this: August 22nd of 2006 corresponded with the Islamic calendar night when Mohammed (is it Mo? Mu? I never remember) flew first to Jerusalem, then to Heaven, and then back again. There were no planes back then, to fly into buildings or otherwise. So whether this flight took place freestyle, ala Superman, or on a magic carpet is unknown.

In any event, he was warning us that the linkage of this special day in Islam, along with it’s Israeli connection, might be just the type of day that the radical Islamofascists against whom we have been at war might like to use to pull off a new large-scale attack.

Many recent world events began to give credence to this possibility. First, the general instability in the Middle East region caused largely by Iran and it’s lunatic president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who stated that the world would receive his country’s response to western demands regarding Iran’s nuclear program by that date.

Besides both the ongoing personal public speech lunacy and the specific date being mentioned by “President Tom”, as popular TV and radio talk show host Glenn Beck has taken to calling Ahmadinejad for easier pronunciation sake, there was the subsequent response by Israel to repeated attacks against it.

The Israelis had two soldiers kidnapped, and have been taking constant, dangerous shelling and gunfire from the terrorist organization Hezbollah from their strongholds in southern Lebanon. Israel finally, understandably, had enough, and invaded Lebanon to take out Hezbollah when the Lebanese government failed to stand up itself.

With Israel invading Lebanon, and the United States standing up in Iraq and Afghanistan, there has been much speculation that President Tom is preparing to force a showdown with western civilization. Iran may be preparing to form an alliance of radical Muslim forces in the region into one Islamic superstate, and this is far from far-fetched.

It has been speculated that Iran may invade northern Iraq on the precepts of eliminating Kurdish aggression there, and may possibly do so with the help of Syria. With Hezbollah all but in formal control in Lebanon, and with Hezbollah actually a wing of the Iranian forces, we may indeed be seeing the beginnings of a pre-World War II like atmosphere in the Middle East.

Anyway, back to Doomsday.

The “response” that President Tom may have been speaking of could very well have been the recently thwarted airliner bombings in London. This was a well-planned attack that would have resulted in thousands dead, and with incredible disruptions to international travel and commerce. The effort ended with the arrests that reportedly came right before a “practice run” for the real job, just two weeks before August 22nd.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to add things up: radical Muslim Iranian whack-job president threatens response, upcoming date of significance in Islamic calendar, massive terror plot thwarted just before this date. Its simple connect-the-dots type stuff, folks.

Anyone who still thinks, as the radical front-group spokespeople at CAIR would have you believe, that there are no connections, and that this isn’t about an organized Islamic radical fundamentalism trying to topple the west and take charge in the world, is simply blind.

President Bush, despite recent and ongoing attacks on his intelligence by reliable (sic) sources like Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show”, has been way ahead of the curve on these scenarios from the beginning. While liberal-leaning talk, news, and comedy shows bash the President at home over his frequent butchering of the English language, the substance of the man behind his words may be our best defense in these difficult times.

Since the wake up call of 9/11, the President foresaw the dangers of radical Islam building in the region. A danger building at least since the Carter administration was at the point that it could no longer be ignored.

Planting the seeds of democracy in the region beyond Israel may remain a pipe dream, but the direct attacks on our shores combined with the “death to America and Israel” rhetoric have given us an opening to make the attempt.

There have been many setbacks in Afghanistan and Iraq, but many triumphs as well. The road from fascism, dictatorship, hate, and evil to a free, peace-loving democracy is a long one, and it is especially long when you have to overcome religious intolerance and regional instability. But what has been accomplished in these two countries to this point in just a few years is astonishing, and we must not turn our backs on the job now.

The troubles in the Middle East are far from the only major problems plaguing the United States these days. There is also the ongoing problem of massive illegal immigration, and our continuing sieve-like border security problem. America is in desperate need of physically securing our borders, getting control of immigration, and taking actions to secure our homeland, as well as the American culture.

There has been much speculation that the American people just don’t have the stomach for war, that we are nothing like our parents and grandparents of “The Greatest Generation”, who fought and won their own battles with world-domination regimes in the fascism of the Nazis and the communism of the Soviet empire.

If that is true, then what we are seeing this lazy, hazy, crazy summer in the Middle East and along our southern border is the beginning of the end for our civilization as we know it.

If we don’t recognize the danger to peace and democracy coming from the Middle East, as well as get control of our own border and national identity situations, then the America of our children and grandchildren will be strangled thanks to our inaction.

The United States of America as we know it today may never be obliterated in one puff of smoke, in one Doomsday. But the cultural, religious, legal, moral and physical attacks on our way of life are already taking a toll, and the time may come when we wished our demise came so quickly and suddenly.

Any port in an Islamofascist storm

 

It has taken me over a month to finally formulate an opinion on the entire port sale issue, and there is one thing of which I am absolutely certain.

There is no way that anyone who had any type of knee-jerk response to the idea of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) purchasing an interest in a half-dozen U.S. port operations was basing their opinion on anything other than either emotion or ignorance.

However, that is not to say that in the end, many of those people are not right. The sale of any interest whatsoever in our ports, or in any vital American infrastructure, to the UAE is a mistake that should not be allowed to stand.

That is not an easy statement for me to make. I am a converted, hard-core capitalist who believes firmly in the ability of the free market to be left alone to sort out most any issue.

As I read over the positions of the pro-deal folks, I was swayed towards their capitalist arguments, and was prepared to take up the mantle of the unpopular “let the deal stand” side.

But then, I would read and research some more, and be swayed to the anti-deal side. The side that does not trust an Islamic government that has previously shown outward and covert support for terrorists who murdered Americans, and which continues to take political positions such as the refusal to recognize Israel as a legitimate sovereign nation.

In the beginning, there was one other very good reason to mistrust my gut reaction that this was a ludicrous proposal. The fact that President George W. Bush, the primary architect of Americas response to 9/11, the Commander-in-Chief in our War on Islamofascist Terror, and a devoted champion of American security was on the pro-deal side.

Couple the President’s strong support of the deal, threatening to use his first-ever Presidential veto if the Congress should take any action to block it from going through, with those who initially publicly were against the deal. Ted Kennedy. Fritz Schumer. Hillary Clinton. The folks who have led the undermining of our most important national security efforts at almost every turn.

As I continued to listen to the initial reaction, I heard support for the deal coming from Karl Rove (to be expected), but also from former President Jimmy Carter, and from the Los Angeles Times, two ultra-liberal sources. And there were cries against the deal coming from individuals and entities as politically disparate as Senator Bill Frist and the New York Times.

To paraphrase Al Pacino from “And Just For All”, there was something wrong here. Something very, very wrong here. There was something most definitely out of order. Was I really taking the side of Teddy, Hill, Fritz and the New York Times against my President on an issue of national security?

That simple fact required me to take a good, long, hard look at the issue from all sides. What was the President seeing that many others were not? Why was our Commander-in-Chief leaving us open to such on obvious danger? It seemed a ridiculous notion.

But I also know that I have many problems with the approach of the President on other issues of vital national security that continue to go unaddressed, such as fully and properly securing our borders, and creating a solution to the massive problem of illegal immigration.

Then I began my research, and began to hear the arguments and opinions on all sides. The fact is, this is not such a cut-and-dried issue, and there is much more than one way to skin the national security cat.

First, the highlights of the deal, to catch up those of you who may have only heard the rhetoric and not actually gotten the facts.

Dubai Ports World (DPW) is a government-owned holding company in the UAE. They purchased a management interest in six U.S. port terminals from the former owners, who were a British-based company.

They did not actually purchase the ports themselves, which are located in Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans, Newark and New York. Their management interest basically meant that, as “The Patriot Post” put it in their 2-24-06 digest, “American managers and longshoremen will now get their checks cut by DPW instead of P&O” (the former British managers).

The pro-deal side has also made a number of other reasoned, intelligent arguments: DPW already provides support for US Navy ships in the middle east. As only a “holding company”, they would have little to do with day-to-day management at the facilities. Almost all of the employees at the ports are, and would remain, Americans.

Then there are the security arguments. DPW would not have any involvement in security at the ports, which would remain the domain of the U.S. Coast Guard. And the UAE has become a significant ally in helping us to combat terrorism since 9/11, having provided significant support in the areas of staging, intelligence, and actual pursuit and arrest of al Qaeda terrorists.

Finally, the pro-deal side puts forth that any purchase of this type, of a vital U.S. interest by a foreign entity, is reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Direst Investment in the United States (CFIUS), known in slang as “sifius”.

The CFIUS is headed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and includes a dozen agencies such as the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. This committee approved the deal.

So the purchase is only a management interest in which no real day-to-day control is exercised. There is no involvement in security issues. DPW already manages ports that are home to our Navy. The UAE has become a proven ally against terror. CFIUS has approved the deal after an apparently thorough review. What could be wrong, really?

Plenty, as it turns out. And most of it goes back to our initial negative gut reaction.

Former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean, the Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, put it this way: “DPW is a responsible company from everything I know. Should that make a difference? Yes. Will it? No, because of the symbolism and the political reality.

Charles Krauthammer, the noted conservative pundit, described it in his 2-24-06 column “Harbour Exit” posted at Townhall.com. Krauthammer postulated on the rank hypocrisy of Democrats who oppose the deal because it is an Arab company, while fighting against profiling of Arabs in national security:

“If a citizen of the UAE walked into an airport in full burnoose and flowing robes, speaking only Arabic, Democrats would be deeply offended, and might even sue, if the security people were to give him any more scrutiny than they would to my sweet 84-year old mother.”

“Democrats loudly denounce any thought of racial profiling. But when that same Arab, attired in business suit and MBA, and with a good record running ports in 15 countries, buys P&O, Democrats howl at the very idea of allowing Arabs to run our ports.”

“Democrats are rank hypocrites. But even hypocrites can be right.”

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (www.defenddemocracy.org) has stated that the UAE may be in felony violation right now of a 1996 law that is the cornerstone of U.S. counter-terrorism enforcement by providing material support to Hamas, a specially designated terrorist organization, and in it’s relationship with the terrorist organization PIJ (Palestinian Islamic Jihad).

The FDD points out correctly that no nation supporting terrorist organizations in any way can be considered a reliable ally in the war on terror. Islamofascist terror expert Steve Emerson points out that the UAE facilitated a cash transaction by Hamas as recently as last year.

On February 24th of this year in a FrontPage magazine article, analysts described “extensive strands of UAE funding” for Hamas, which included a UAE “compensation” plan for the Palestinian intifada, meaning it made or facilitated cash payments to the families of terrorists who martyred themselves as suicide bombers for the Islamic cause.

Add this to the fact that the UAE continues to fail to recognize the legitimacy of the nation of Israel to fundamentally exist at all, and you have a political nightmare in the making. No matter your view of capitalism, no matter your feelings of what the deal is in practice, in this particular deal principle has to stand for something.

t has been reported that DPW has backed off the deal in part. In actuality, that is misleading. Nothing has changed as to the sale, it has still gone through. DPW has promised to turn over all operations involving the American ports to an American-based “entity”, but has already gone back on that promise in Miami. There is supposed to be a current 45-day review period happening. We don’t need that long to make a decision.

President Bush himself said that “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

The President needs to back off supporting this deal in the name of capitalist principles, which I fully understand his supporting, and he needs to back off the deal for regional security purposes.

Though we do need to cultivate legitimate friendly relationships in the middle east, a nation such as the UAE needs to fully meet our terms before we can embrace them fully ourselves.

The greatest American President of our generation, Ronald Reagan, had a short but famous quote for these types of situations: “Trust, but verify.”

I trust the President has our best national interests at heart at all times. I trust the Coast Guard to effectively secure our ports, no matter the owners. I trust CFIUS to do full and proper reviews of these transactions. And I trust in the principles of capitalism. I can perhaps even be persuaded to one day trust the UAE, and in turn DPW.

But I took Reagan’s advice, and took the time to verify. And in doing so, found much at this current time that does not warrant my unwavering trust. And thus, my call in this stormy port situation is “no deal”.

Islamofascism: President Bush puts a name to the problem

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, it’s about damned time. 

In early October, President Bush finally came clean to the public as to who we are at war with in the War on Terror. 

What had been a generic battle against terrorists and those who make their activities possible wherever we find them was finally crystallized, and those whom we are battling were definitively named. 

President Bush named our actual enemies as the “Islamofascists“, and later referred to them as “radical, militant Islam.

This is something that pundits, researchers, and just plain straight-thinkers like Daniel Pipes have been doing for years. 

Kudos to the President for putting that face on the enemy, for it is vitally important to make the distinction. 

In World War II, it was the Adolf Hitler and the Nazis of Germany, and Hirohito and the Japanese Imperialists that we fought in order to preserve democracy. 

In the Cold War, it was Communism and Socialism, highlighted by the tensions with men like Nikita Kruschev and the Soviet Union. 

Now we can put a definitive face, that of Osama bin Laden and Islamofascism, on this current struggle. This will allow us to focus on enemies, enemy states, future directions, and better judge outcomes. 

Anyone espousing a radical Islamic message is our enemy, and that must include those within that belief system who choose to not stand up and fight themselves, if not physically then at least with public refutations. God bless America.