25 Years Later: We Came in Peace

(Compiler's note: A "must read" article. rca) jihad

By Colonel Timothy J. Geraghty, U.S. Marine Corps (Retired)

In a Proceedings exclusive, the commanding officer of the Marine unit devastated by the suicide bombing of its barracks in Beirut recounts the horror of that October day 25 years ago and calls it a seminal event in the war against Islamist extremists.

On Sunday morning, 23 October 1983, I awoke as usual at dawn, dressed, and went below to the 24th Marine Amphibious Unit's Combat Operations Center to check the overnight communications traffic. I roamed outside my headquarters at Beirut International Airport to view the dawn, struck by the quiet of the morning. I saw Marines going about their duties and greeted others preparing for a workout. Being Sunday, we were on a modified routine that pushed reveille back an hour to 0630, with Sunday brunch served between 0800 and 1000.

I returned to my office, which I shared with my executive officer, Lieutenant Colonel Harry Slacum, to review the daily schedule. Little did we know that this morning would be anything but quiet and routine.

At 0622, a massive explosion rocked our headquarters, followed by enormous shock waves. Shards of glass from the blown out windows, equipment, manuals, and papers flew across the room. The office entry door, located on the far side away from the explosion, was blown off its hinges, the frame bent and the reinforced concrete foundation of the building cracked.

I ran outside to find myself engulfed in a dense, gray fog of ash, with debris still raining down. I felt sickened as I stumbled around to the rear of my headquarters, thinking we had taken a direct hit from a Scud missile or heavy artillery. As the acrid fog began lifting, my logistics officer, Major Bob Melton, gasped, "My God, the BLT building is gone!" A knot tightened in my gut.

After an instant of disbelief, I quickly realized we had suffered heavy casualties. I later learned that a suicide driver penetrated our southern perimeter and rammed a 19-ton truck bomb into the lobby of the Marine Battalion Landing Team (BLT) building and detonated it. Forensics and intelligence later estimated the compressed-gas-enhanced device to have an explosive equivalent in excess of 20,000 pounds of TNT. Minutes later, a similar truck bomb struck the French paratrooper headquarters at Ramlet-El-Baida, bringing down a nine-story building and killing 58 French peacekeepers.

This started the longest and most miserable day of my life. The death toll eventually reached 241 Marines, Sailors, and Soldiers, the highest loss of life in a single day since D-Day on Iwo Jima in 1945. The coordinated dual suicide attacks, supported, planned, organized, and financed by Iran and Syria using Shiite proxies, achieved their strategic goal: the withdrawal of the multinational force from Lebanon and a dramatic change in U.S. national policy. The synchronized attacks that morning killed 299 U.S. and French peacekeepers and wounded scores more. The cost to the Iranian/Syrian-supported operation was two suicide bombers dead.

Remembrance and Justice

At dawn this 23 October, a solemn candlelight vigil will begin the day at the foot of the Beirut Memorial, nestled in the pines of North Carolina. Families, veterans, and friends will gather to pay tribute to those who "Came in Peace" on this, the 25th anniversary. Each name etched on the marble wall of the memorial will be read aloud by a family member or friend. Later, a more formal ceremony will include military music, pageantry, and speeches commemorating the legacy of the peacekeepers who paid the ultimate sacrifice. A wreath will be laid at the foot of the statue of the lone Marine standing perpetual guard at the memorial.

The quiet strength and dignity displayed by the families of those lost is a continual source of inspiration to me. There are numerous stories about how they picked up the pieces of shattered lives, helped one another, and carried on to raise their families. There is no finer tribute to honor the memories of these fallen.

In the Iranian Behesht-E-Zahra cemetery in southern Tehran, there will also be a ceremony at a monument erected in 2004 to commemorate the Beirut suicide bombers. In attendance will likely be some dressed as suicide bombers, chanting the standard "death to America" and "death to Israel."

One individual who will be absent this year is Imad Fayez Mugniyah, one of the world's most wanted and notorious terrorists. He was a key operative in the suicide bombings that Sunday morning in Beirut and has been linked with many major operations including the 1984 kidnapping and murder of the CIA station chief in Beirut, William Buckley. Mugniyah was also directly in charge of the 1988 kidnapping and execution of Marine Corps Colonel Rich Higgins, who was serving with the United Nations peacekeeping mission. And he was indicted in absentia by the U.S. government for his role in the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 in 1985, which led to the savage beating and execution of U.S. Navy diver Robert Stetham.

Long overdue justice was finally served on 12 February 2008. In an ironic twist, Mugniyah was assassinated in a quiet, upscale neighborhood of Damascus-by a car bomb, one of his weapons of choice. His greatest notoriety was pioneering the widespread use of suicide bombers, which has evolved to become the favored tactic of Islamic extremists.

Osama bin Laden took inspiration from Mugniyah's 1983 bombings and used that model for al Qaeda's first successful dual suicide bombings against the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania, on 7 August 1998. Before a meeting between bin Laden and Mugniyah in Sudan in 1996, al Qaeda did not have this expertise. But it later expanded the simultaneous, coordinated suicide bombing model for the four commercial airline hijackings and attacks on 11 September 2001.

The events that Sunday morning in Beirut exposed a deep-seated fanaticism fanned by Islamic jihadists without sectarian divisions. Recent history has made us more familiar with this phenomenon. The 18 April bombing of the U.S. embassy and the Marine barracks' bombings in Beirut are considered to be seminal events in the war against terrorism. It was the first time Islamic suicide bombers had attacked significant American targets. This Iranian- and Syrian-instigated act of war was pure terrorism. Our timidity to respond created an aura of impunity that the Islamic extremists sensed and pursued all the way to the 9/11 attacks, which finally awakened America.

Suicide Attacks

The introduction of suicide truck bombs as a tactic in Beirut in 1983 proved to be an effective if heinous tool. The bottom line is that they worked, and recent history has confirmed their cruel efficiency and huge cost in innocent lives. These attacks were cynically planned to ensure success for the terrorists and cause massive casualties.

The post-bombing investigation conducted by FBI Special Agent Danny Deffenbaugh revealed computations and technical assessment of the device (bomb) and the high explosive used-pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN). Deffenbaugh also identified canisters of compressed butane gas contained in the bed of the truck with the PETN. This enhancement of the explosive, also found at the earlier U.S. embassy attack, indicated the Iranians were trying to create a fuel-air explosive. This creates a shocking effect with a propagation wave that produces additional heat and takes away the oxygen twice as fast. An explosives expert stated that this effect verified the anti-personnel purpose of the attack. It also explained the reason why so many dead and wounded suffered severe burns.

In describing the destructive strength of the bomb, Deffenbaugh verified publicly what was briefed to us privately by the FBI and others-that the immensity of the bomb precluded the necessity of the truck bomb reaching the building. I was informed that the truck did not even have to leave the airport access road adjacent to the western side of the BLT building to have comparable devastation and casualties. The suicide bomb that killed the French paratroopers did not reach their headquarters before it detonated but still caused the collapse of the nine-story structure.

More telling was the successful suicide attack on Israeli headquarters in Tyre, Lebanon, on 4 November 1983, just ten days after the attack on U.S. and French peacekeepers. Even though the Israelis had none of the restrictions of a presence mission and nothing that would hinder their extensive intelligence capabilities, they were struck with a carbon-copy attack ten days after our attack. It should be noted that the Israelis had many of the defenses the Marines were criticized for not having at Beirut International Airport. Still, the terrorist attack was successfully carried out-killing 60 and injuring 30 more-even though the suicide truck was halted well short of the target.

Members of the intelligence community compiled an all-sources damage assessment after the Marine barracks bombing. In it, they studied signals, overhead, and human intelligence and concluded the evidence was overpowering that Iran had been behind it. An intelligence expert close to the final assessment stated he did not know anyone who studied the information and drew any other conclusion.

Beyond carnage, suicide bombings provide grand theater by way of international press coverage. Since their genesis in Beirut, such attacks have grown to becoming a weapon of choice for Shia and Sunni alike. This tactic carries a profound psychological message of fear and intimidation. I believe reasonable observers agree that such attacks are very difficult to deter, and their increased usage and success reflect the terrorists' desire for the spectacular hysteria and chaos created by such attacks.

Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah

The Multinational Peacekeeping Force presence in Lebanon in 1982-83 undoubtedly contributed to the stability of the government of Lebanon and saved lives. Our successes, albeit limited, were obviously worrisome enough to the primary powerbrokers in Tehran and Damascus to compel them to launch the suicide truck bombing operations against us. The timing, locations, and targets of the bombings were no more coincidental than were the sophisticated planning, magnitude, and execution of the attacks.

The choice of 23 October was significant because National Reconciliation Talks among all key factions within the government of Lebanon were scheduled to be held in Geneva, beginning on the 31st. Preliminary talks were set to begin on the 24th at Beirut International Airport, where the U.S. Multi-National Peacekeeping Force had been located for more than a year.

The airport site was supposed to be one of the most secure areas in Lebanon. The Marine and the French headquarters were targeted primarily because of who we were and what we represented. The passive nature of the peacekeeping mission provided attractive targets that Iran and Syria were not about to pass up. It is noteworthy that the United States provided direct naval gunfire support-which I strongly opposed for a week-to the Lebanese Army at a mountain village called Suq-al-Garb on 19 September and that the French conducted an air strike on 23 September in the Bekaa Valley. American support removed any lingering doubts of our neutrality, and I stated to my staff at the time that we were going to pay in blood for this decision.

Unknown to us at the time, the National Security Agency had made a diplomatic communications intercept on 26 September (the same date as the cease-fire ending the September War) in which the Iranian Intelligence Service provided explicit instructions to the Iranian ambassador in Damascus (a known terrorist) to attack the Marines at Beirut International Airport. The suicide attackers struck us 28 days later, with word of the intercept stuck in the intelligence pipeline until days after the attack.

Iran's Motivation

Looking back today, it is easier to comprehend why Iran moved a contingent of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps into the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley during the height of the Iraq-Iran War in 1982-83. Following the 1982 Israeli invasion, and with Syrian complicity, Iran established a base of operations to carry out its strategic goals. This corps founded, financed, trained, and equipped Hezbollah to operate as a proxy army, a force expanded today to challenge the freely elected government of Lebanon, which cannot control, much less disarm, Hezbollah.

Using Lebanon as a base, the force conducted border raids and rained rocket and missile attacks on Israel. Iranian persistence and determination has paid off handsomely in terms of regional influence, political power, and military prowess, and they have suffered no consequences. It is clear that their brashness and the carnage they inflict continue to expand.

The recent revelations that Iranian weapons are killing U.S. Marines and Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan should surprise no one. Conclusive evidence has disclosed that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's Quds Force has transported roadside bombs and armor-piercing "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs) from Iran into Iraq. Other advanced Iranian weapons found in Iraq include the RPG-29 rocket-propelled grenade, 240-mm rockets, and perhaps the most ominous, the Misagh 1, a portable surface-to-air missile that uses an infrared guidance system.

This influx of sophisticated weaponry has been accompanied by intelligence revealing Iranian facilitation of travel and training inside Iran for Iraqi insurgents. U.S. intelligence officials have stated that Iranian complicity could not take place without approval at the highest levels of the Iranian government.

Among the terrorist groups that Iran supports are al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Three of them are Sunni groups and are supported, among other reasons, to undercut the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. Shiite Iran's support and its strategic relationship with the Sunni Wahhabi al Qaeda are especially telling.

The relationship between Iran and al Qaeda was confirmed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission. Its report highlighted Iranian involvement in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, training for al Qaeda operations against Israel and the United States, and safe-transport and safe-haven for those operations.

War Against the United States

What continues to unfold is the debunking of the theory that an ideological separation between the Sunnis and Shiites would prevent any mutual cooperation in operations against a common enemy, i.e., the United States and its allies. Evidence confirms the old adage that my enemy's enemy is my friend.

In reality, Iran has been waging war against the United States for more than a quarter-century, from the 1979 hostage crisis and the Marine barracks bombing in 1983 to providing sophisticated weaponry to Sunni and Shia insurgents in Iraq. Iranian mullahs have chosen to wage a radically aggressive campaign to create and accelerate instability throughout the region by using their proxies, many of whom are non-Shia. Some examples include:

Support for Hamas to launch rockets and attacks into Israeli villages across the Gaza Strip borders

Continued building of heavily armed Hezbollah in Lebanon to not only challenge the legitimacy of the duly-elected government of Lebanon, but also to prepare for the inevitable next war with Israel

Supporting Syria, their lone Arab client, in their incessant efforts to further destabilize Lebanon and Iraq. (At last count, eight anti-Syrian Lebanese leaders, journalists, and members of parliament have been assassinated by Syrian operatives.)

Supporting Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan against NATO forces

Using the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force to facilitate training, equipping, and financing Shiite and Sunni extremist militias in Iraq against U.S., Iraqi Army, and coalition forces.

A recent development revealed that Hezbollah instructors trained Shiite militiamen in remote camps inside southern Iraq and planned some of the most brazen attacks against U.S.-led forces.

Iran has evolved as a major player in the Middle East with growing influence. Its proxy war with Israel, which many fail to see as only one front in a larger war, increases Iranian popularity throughout the Arab world. The Iranian capability to cause trouble on three fronts, on their schedule, does not augur well for the peace process. Add to this Quds Force links to the Taliban and Iranian weapons and sophisticated munitions being smuggled into Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran has positioned itself to wreak havoc and cause diversions through proxies while avoiding retribution for their continuing bloodshed.

Connecting the Dots

In August 2005, Mustafa Mohammad-Najjar was named the new defense minister of Iran. This position takes on new importance considering the brazen, complex campaign Iran is waging to destabilize the region. Keep in mind that these diversions draw attention from their primary objective of attaining a nuclear capability.

Najjar's previous assignment as senior commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps earned him a reputation of ruthlessness and ideological loyalty. In 1983, he commanded the 1,500-man expeditionary force sent to Lebanon's Baaka Valley.

This Iranian unit provided security, planning, training, and operational support for the dual suicide truck bombings on 23 October 1983. Najjar's successes in these attacks, which are still celebrated in Tehran today, led to the withdrawal of the Multinational Peacekeeping Force. The withdrawal after the bombings, with no retribution from the United States, became a turning point in the unbounded use of terrorism by radical Islamic fanatics worldwide. Under his command, Najjar's corps played a key role in the formation of the Party of God (Hezbollah) and the education and training of Mugniyah, who reportedly lived and operated out of Iran.

I often wonder whether Najjar was among those troops involved in the fighting at Suq-al-Garb during the September War in 1983. The 24th Marine Amphibious Unit's 2d Radio Detachment was intercepting, among others, significant Farsi communications during the multi-Muslim militia's assault on the Lebanese armed forces. The multi-confessional Lebanese army held together and successfully defended its position which, in my opinion, led the decision makers in Tehran and Damascus to change their tactics from conventional attacks to the shadows of terrorism. Whether or not he was present at Suq-al-Garb, Najjar's position as commander of the Revolutionary Guard detachment supports the notion that he would have wanted to be there. My guess is that he was.

As the Iranian defense minister, he is most certainly involved in global terrorist attacks and the acquisition of nuclear weaponry. It is more probable than possible that Iran will use its favorite proxy, Hezbollah, to carry out future attacks against the West, including the United States. Najjar's long association with the now-deceased terrorist mastermind Mugniyah lends credence to this. We could well find ourselves, in our own country, the recipient of a weapon of mass destruction in an attack planned and executed by some of the same players who carried out the 1983 suicide attacks in Beirut. Some of these dots could very well connect.

Another dot emerged shortly after the announcement of Najjar's ascendency to defense minister. A close confidant and fellow alumnus of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's Lebanon contingent was appointed by Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to lead the corps' ground forces. Brigadier General Ahmad Kazemi, whose previous assignment was commander of the Republican Guard's air force, was responsible for the development of solid-fuel technology. He was also responsible for research and production of Shahab missiles, including the Shahab-4, with a projected range of 3,000 kilometers and capable of carrying a nuclear warhead that could reach the heart of Europe.

The Story Continues

Today, Lebanon is again being used as a battlefield for foreign forces to settle their disagreements. The state-within-a-state that the Palestine Liberation Organization created in the late 1970s has been replaced. The Iranian model, establishing Hezbollah as a proxy, has proved to be more successful. Hezbollah's development and growth suggest that in 1983, Iran and Syria had a long-range strategy to increase their influence in the region and the world. The operational and training base established by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that year remains an active hub of activity a quarter-century later.

This 23 October, when families and friends gather for this year's remembrance, will again remind us of those dedicated peacekeepers who never came home. They were denied the joy of raising a family, pursuing their dreams, and enjoying the blessings of America. Amid the renewals of friendship, hugs, and tears, there always lingers an undercurrent of deep sorrow and anguish that hasn't lessened 25 years later. The peacekeepers' valor and sacrifice will never be forgotten.

Colonel Geraghty served over 25 years in the Marine Corps and seven years in the Special Operations Group of the Central Intelligence Agency. He commanded the 24th Marine Amphibious Unit in Beirut, Lebanon, during the suicide truck bombings on 23 October 1983. He currently resides in Phoenix, Arizona.

Attacking "Obsession"

By Robert Spencer

Khaleel Mohammed, a professor at San Diego State University and a popular “moderate Muslim,” burnished his credentials as a “moderate” by appearing in the film Obsession, the famous exposé of Islamic jihad activity. For several years now since the film originally appeared he seemed perfectly happy to have done so. Even when it was shown on Fox News, as far as I can tell Khaleel Mohammed uttered not a word of demurral or protest. But now that 28 million copies of the film have been distributed all over the country and it has a higher profile than ever before, Khaleel Mohammed has discovered that it is a “vile piece of propaganda,” and has apologized for appearing in it. The apology appears on the “Obsession with Hate” website.

His statement is audaciously deceitful. He says, “I explained the meaning of Jihad, and its misuse by extremists,” when he must know, if he knows anything about Islamic theology, that all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that jihad mainly means warfare (by various means, violent and nonviolent) against unbelievers in order to subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law. And when he says that the film demonizes the entire Muslim community, he is ignoring large sections of the beginning and end of the film, where the film plainly states that most Muslims have nothing to do with the jihadist program, and other elements within it -- including Khaled Abu Toameh’s assertion that his religion has been “hijacked,” which is presented without contradiction.

Khaleel Mohammed’s deceptions go deeper than just this apology. He goes around the country reassuring Jewish audiences by telling them that in the Qur’an Allah gives the land of Israel to the Jews. And it does say that. One key verse is 5:21, which promises Israel to the Jews conditionally: “O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.”

This sounds great, of course: it suggests that Muslims who fight against Israel are ignoring their own holy book, and that once this verse and others like it are pointed out to them, they will accept the existence of Israel. And it also suggests that the vast majority of Muslims, because of this verse, have no problem with Israel at all.

Unfortunately, the Qur’an also says that the Jews, through their disobedience to Allah, have earned Allah’s curse (2:89, 9:30). Those who are accursed forfeit whatever Allah has given them. Meanwhile, the true followers of Moses’s genuine, uncorrupted teachings are the Muslims, and so they are the ones who inherit the promises about Israel.

But that part of the Qur’anic message doesn’t make it into Khaleel Mohammed’s presentations.

Also, a few years ago Khaleel Mohammed said this about me: “He misquotes verses of the Qur’an, takes things out of context, and shamelessly lies.” Since I do not misquote verses of the Qur’an, take things out of context, or shamelessly lie, I contacted him and asked for either documentation of his charges or a retraction. (I also responded to his false charges here.) He refused to retract, even though he did not (and could not) produce even one example of my misquoting verses of the Qur’an, taking things out of context, or shamelessly lying. And he compounded matters by responding: “As for shameless lies, I stand by my assertion, especially after received material in which you claim Muhammad married his daughter in law etc.”

In reality, I did not fabricate this “claim,” and I am sure that Khaleel Mohammed is well aware of this. The notorious incident of Muhammad’s marriage to his former daughter-in-law Zaynab, far from being a “shameless lie,” is a well-known and much-discussed element of Islamic tradition. You can read about it in this section of my Jihad Watch Blogging the Qur’an series. But after I noted this at my website Jihad Watch, Khaleel Mohammed responded venomously at The American Muslim -- a reliably truth-free publication – in a piece about “Spencer and his satanic cabal.” In it, he says:

This time around he raises the red-herring and disproven nonsense about Muhammad marrying his daughter-in-law--and here, either Spencer is a bigger ignoramus than I think, or he has once again resorted to prevarication. It is difficult to figure out where he is coming from. The issue of whether or not an adopted son like Zaid is technically Muhammad’s son could be answered by any first week student of Islamic law. Perhaps Spencer should go reattend Professor Carl Ernst’s classes and get some deprogramming from a bona-fide expert on Islam.

I never had the pleasure of being a student of the estimable Carl Ernst, so Khaleel Mohammed’s “reattend” is inaccurate.

But more importantly, in this Khaleel Mohammed suggests that Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, did not actually marry his daughter-in-law, because his adopted son Zayd was not to be considered his son at all -- and that I am either unaware of all this or lying about it. It is “difficult” for Khaleel Mohammed to know where I am “coming from” because he apparently has not read, or does not want his readers to know about, my discussions of this incident, in which I deal with the material he claims I ignore. See, for example, this section of my Blogging the Qur’an series, in which I wrote this:

Allah here emphasizes that an adopted son cannot be a true son, and so by extension Zaynab was never really Muhammad’s daughter-in-law at all, and there is no cause for scandal.

If Khaleel Mohammed had cared to spend even a moment on research before slinging his accusations, he might have discovered that I also discuss the issue of adoption and its relationship to the Zaynab incident on page 67 of my 2006 book The Truth About Muhammad. But he prefers to pretend that I ignore all this, out of either stupidity or bigotry, in order to portray Muhammad in the worst possible light.

Yet it is I whose scholarship is poor and who issue “poison-pen” tirades.

The bulk of Khaleel Mohammed’s piece in The American Muslim consists of the usual series of insults to my integrity and scholarship, accompanied by the usual failure to provide any actual evidence of my alleged egregious errors. He even asks his readers to take his word that what he is saying is true:

Spencer seeks to hoodwink his readers by talking of Jihad being war...and that idea, rather obviously, is not accepted by scholars of Islam (Muslim and non-Muslim). I am not even going to get into detailing that I do not deny that there are some Muslims who attempt to warp the meaning into that...but throughout Islamic history, there have always been scholars who have harkened [sic] to the true meaning.

What is that true meaning? Which scholars? What establishes that the Muslims who believe that jihad includes warfare are “warping” its meaning? Khaleel Mohammed offers no answers -- we just have to take it all on faith.

And then, displaying again the audacity of his dishonesty, he accuses me of being the one who doesn’t work from evidence:

I guess it irks you that your “scholarship” is not accepted among people of conscience and discernment. Perhaps, instead of knowledge, you rely on faith to argue against Islam and anyone who is a Muslim. Since you are such an upstanding crusader, I wonder: what would Jesus do in this situation?

What would Jesus do, Dr. Mohammed? For one thing, he would tell the truth. But that is a concept with which you are quite obviously unacquainted. In his apology for Obsession comes Khaleel Mohammed’s most audacious deception of all: “And I expect now that those who support the film will make me their target. But again: I am no diplomat, and I love a good fight. I am obsessed with the truth. Let’s get it on.” Obsessed with truth? This is a man who misrepresents the Qur’an to Jewish audiences; who has smeared me and my work with false charges that he refuses to retract; and who is either unacquainted with or deliberately deceptive about one of the most famous incidents in Muhammad’s career. Obsessed with truth? Obsessed with obscuring it, maybe. Obsessed with destroying it, fine. But obsessed with presenting it? Not Khaleel Mohammed.

I have already told Khaleel Mohammed that I accepted the challenge he issued to those who support the film. I am ready to debate him about Obsession, the meaning of jihad, the Jews in the Qur’an, and the life of Muhammad and his marriage to his former daughter-in-law. However, at The American Muslim, he contemptuously refused: “You claim to want to debate, and hope that perhaps in entertaining you, I will somehow give credence to your nonsense.” One would think, of course, that if I really were the “satanic ignoramus” he calls me in that piece, that he would accept my invitation to debate, mop the floor with me, and thereby end my baneful influence forever. But instead, he hides behind a barrage of insults, and refuses my challenge.

“Satanic.” “Ignoramus.” “Bigotry.” “Crusader.” Khaleel Mohammed’s frenzied name-calling only highlights his intellectual bankruptcy, his contempt for truthful and honest dealing -- and his increasing desperation at being exposed as the poseur he is.

---

Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of seven books, eight monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His next book, Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs, is coming this November from Regnery Publishing.

Al-Qaida: US economic crisis equals Muslim victory

BY HADEEL AL-SHALCHI

CAIRO, Egypt - An American member of al-Qaida pointed to economic troubles in the United States as proof that "the enemies of Islam" face defeat, in an English-language video released Saturday.

In a half hour video message, California-native Adam Gadahn urged Pakistanis to unite against their government and U.S. forces, and taunted Americans over their economic crisis, relating it to their military interventions.

"The enemies of Islam are facing a crushing defeat, which is beginning to manifest itself in the expanding crisis their economy is experiencing," said Gadahn, in a clip of the message distributed by the SITE Intelligence Group, a Washington-based monitor of militant Web sites.

"A crisis whose primary cause, in addition to the abortive and unsustainable crusades they are waging in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, is their turning their backs on Allah's revealed laws, which forbid interest-bearing transactions, exploitation, greed and injustice in all its forms."

Gadahn, 29, grew up in Riverside County, east of Los Angeles. He was indicted by a federal grand jury in Santa Ana in 2005 and charged with one count of treason and two counts of providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.

The FBI says Gadahn moved to Pakistan in 1998 and attended an al-Qaida training camp six years later, serving as a translator and consultant.

Gadahn also urged Pakistanis to unite and establish an Islamic state. Al-Qaida's media arm, al-Sahab, is increasingly using English-language videos to address Muslims in Pakistan who are unlikely to speak Arabic.

Gadahn warned Pakistanis to continue to fight their government which, according to him, bows to American interests.

"Someone wanted us to imagine that the same Pakistani government, which is probably responsible for the death of more Muslims in Pakistan than the Americans are, and the same Pakistan army (is) suddenly prepared to fight kufars (infidels) instead of Muslims," Gadahn said.

Robert Spencer interviews Geert Wilders, Part I

From Jihad Watch

Here is the first segment of my (Robert Spencer) conversation with Geert Wilders, the courageous Dutch Parliamentarian who produced Fitna, and the debut of Jihad Watch Video. Watch for much more in the coming days and weeks.

SEC Makes Mark-to-Market Accounting Markedly Better

(Compiler's note: I know this is going to be a little like taking bad tasting medicine, but this is a "must read" article if you're going to appreciate some of finer points about this recent bailout. rca)

By David C. John and James L. Gattuso

Accounting rules rarely garner much public attention, and for good reason: The business of toting up numbers is both devilishly complex and profoundly uninteresting to most Americans.

This week, however, accounting was suddenly in the national spotlight as policymakers grappled with the ongoing financial crisis. At issue was a concept known as "mark-to-market." On Tuesday, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), along with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)--the private regulatory body charged by the SEC with determining such arcane things--issued new guidance on how companies should apply mark-to-market rules to their balance sheets. It sounds like a small thing, especially when compared to a $700 billion rescue plan, but it is a significant step toward addressing the causes of the credit crisis. bailout

Mark-to-Market v. Historic Cost

In the simplest terms, mark-to-market accounting (also known as "fair-value accounting") means that firms should value their assets based on their current market prices rather than at the price the firm originally paid for them. As a general principle, this is good policy--if a firm holds stock, for instance, it is natural that it be valued at the current trading price rather than the price the firm paid for the stock perhaps years previously. Both investors and regulators can make better decisions if they know the real value of a company as opposed to a valuation that hides gains or losses.

The problem with mark-to-market, however, comes when assets are not easily measured. Last November, the FASB issued new rules concerning how firms should value assets for which there is no actual or even comparable market price. The rule, known as FAS 157, made it harder for firms to avoid putting market prices on so-called Level 3 assets, the ones that are hardest to value.

Problems in Today's Marketplace

Unfortunately, FASB's timing could not have been worse. Growing problems with mortgage-related securities meant there were an increasing amount of often complex assets for which there simply was no trading value--especially recently. Further, many institutions have been forced to dump assets at fire sale prices. As a result, firms began to reflect the radically reduced value of these assets on their accounting statements even in cases where the company had planned from the beginning to hold the assets for some time. Not only did this misrepresent their real condition, but for regulated entities it triggered an immediate need to raise more capital. The effect was substantial: One source at the time estimated that reported asset values would be reduced by some $100 billion due to the accounting change.[1]

Faced with this situation, many in Congress and elsewhere called for mark-to-market to be scrapped. The problem, however, was that, as flawed as the application of the rules has been, going back to historic cost would be no more accurate. Sure, firms' books would look better in these unsettled markets, but they would still not reflect reality. In addition, intervention by Congress, however well-intended, would inject politics into the accounting rulemaking process, further undercutting its integrity and reliability.[2]

Faced with this dilemma, the FASB, along with the SEC, found a solution. Rather than dump mark-to-market, it simply issued revised guidelines for interpreting last year's FAS 157 on how to apply that rule to troubled assets. Among other things, the new guidance makes clear that:

• Firms can use their own estimates as to the value of a security--based on expected cash flows or other factors--when an active market does not exist;
• Quotes from brokers or pricing services are not necessarily determinative as to value if an active market does not exist; and
• Distressed or forced liquidation sales are not necessarily determinative in measuring value.

The guidance also lays out the factors to be considered by a firm in determining whether an investment is only "temporarily impaired" and thus need not be revalued.

Throughout, the SEC and FASB make clear that the proper application of this rule is a matter of judgment, not just a matter of applying formulas. Along with clear and transparent disclosures, the ability to exercise discretion in determining value should help to ensure that financial reports provide--as they should--useful and meaningful information about a firm's financial condition.

These clarifications are good ones, and--without fanfare--go far to address the problems with mark-to-market. By itself, of course, the notification does not solve the financial markets' problems. But it is one among many steps that can be taken to address the current crisis. The SEC and FASB clarifications both address shortcomings in the application of the existing rule and will help to ensure that investors, regulators, and the public have a more accurate picture of a firm's financial position.

David C. John is Senior Research Fellow in Retirement Security and Financial Institutions and James L. Gattuso is Senior Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

ACORN: The Poisonous NUT That Ended Democracy in America

(Compiler's note: Couldn't have said it better myself. This is a "must read" article. Could this be part of "cultural jihad" ... I know, but I'm just saying. If nothing else, it is support to the cultural jihad by "useful idiots." rca)

By Cristi Adkins

Within its shell, ACORN contains all the makings of an intriguing government political conspiracy movie: drama, injustice, organized crime, election fraud, intimidation, violence, money, lies, extortion and a presidential candidate.[1]

If you are a patriotic, middle class American who spends most of your time working for your family and enjoying your FREEDOM, you have probably not been bothered by the sounds of an ACORN dropping before now.

But, while you were sleeping peacefully at night, the roots of Socialism have broadened its reach, without determent right into the foundation of the White House.[2]

Allow me to enlighten you to the ways of a radical community action group that could impact your way of life forever.

ACORN is an acronym that stands for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Its mere definition contains hints of Socialism as it claims to be a group advocating for low- and moderate-income families that addresses housing, schools, neighborhood safety, health care, job conditions, and other social issues.[3]

Beneath that surface lie violence, intimidation, threats, race baiting and direct physical attacks on property, people and the legal establishment.

Without going into the myriad details, many ACORN policy proposals are widely considered to be in line with the far left wing of the Democratic Party.[4]

If you are asking yourself what could possibly be so ‘bad’ with a group that in theory advocates for low income families, then you’ve just given yourself the reason this group has been allowed to thrive in America with little scrutiny and under the radar of main street observation until now.[5]

In truth, ACORN is the most virulent, organized crime group in this decade...and it is funded by YOU.

Put simply, ACORN is ripping off the taxpayer through Congressional hand outs.[6] In fact, ACORN was recently due to receive nearly $700 million of the $700 billion dollar bailout bill until Republicans in the Senate redlined it.[7]

Allow that to sink in for a moment: $700 million from the US for an organized crime group.

Yes, ACORN has been receiving Obama campaign funding, but what’s worse is that ACORN leaders are actively extorting money from banks, mortgage brokers and Congress. To add insult to injury, ACORN is costing Americans millions to investigate all of its criminal activities across America.

And then there’s the end of the democratic process through valid elections.[8] Yes, ACORN is behind much of the rampant voter fraud.[9] ACORN has been involved with fraudulent voter registrations for years.[10] In fact, Missouri has 8 ACORN guilty pleas on record (for 2006 violations of federal voting laws) just this year. Many other states are investigating many hundreds of cases of voter fraud in their jurisdiction.[11] We have compelling evidence that ACORN has been involved in fraudulent voter registration since early in the 2007 launch of the Obama campaign.

But we don’t stop at faulty funding and voter fraud. Obama’s community organizational skills are synonymous with totalitarian tactics as its leaders use violence, intimidation, threats, racial baiting and direct physical attacks on property, persons and the legal establishment.[12] When you shed the shell, there is just no good to the group known as ACORN. It is corrupt and without any upside.

With a group like ACORN running rampant in government and shaking hands in Washington, why not legitimize the Bloods and The Crypts? They too are street gangs but they just happen to push drugs instead of bogus registrations drives and sub-prime mortgage deals.

Uncle Sam should be putting ACORN at the top of its list as internal terrorist groups, yet the red, white and blue sense of justice seems to be crumbling. Many numbed citizens just roll their eyes at groups like ACORN simply because America has unfortunately become deadened to the idea that politicians have ulterior motives, nameless agenda’s and behave unscrupulously at times.

However, the rest of this American story is without filtering or fear.
The disturbing reason more ACORN activities go un-prosecuted is because the FEC as well as the FBI have refused to open investigations out of fear of rocking the Obama campaign.[13]

The MOST disturbing fact you need to know about ACORN is that its organizers have terrorized the Federal justice and law enforcement system into NON-action.

How can one group get away with so much? Because ACORN has many Democratic backers in Congress who work tirelessly for its perpetuation and the head ACORN nut is Senator Obama.[14] In fact, Senator Obama is so entwined in ACORN it has become a career and campaign double helix in his DNA.

If you’re asking yourself what Obama has to do with ACORN, consider this:
Obama has served ACORN as its attorney, has been its direct action trainer, its mentor, its contractor, and its PRIMARY illegal campaign funder. ACORN is part of the ‘Community Organizing’ experience his evil empire would like to bring into the White House.[15]

American men and American women should be recognizing that mother freedom is on the brink of extinction with one single NUT trampling all over liberty.

Who will be left sleeping peacefully at night as the ACORN marks the beginning of Socialism in America brought to you courtesy of Barack Obama?[16] With ACORN intact or worse, empowered in the White House, American Democracy will be a legend long gone. Socialism and criminality will be the rule. bailout

[1] Rotten Acorn
[2] http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=307579834298611” title="IBD Editorial">IBD Editorial
[3] Special Report: Rotten Acorn
[4] Discover the Networks.org
[5] National Review
[6] New York Times
[7] Fox News
[8] National Review
[9] Fox News
[10] Michelle Malkin
[11] Rotten Acorn
[12] IBD Editorial
[13] Texas Darlin http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/breaking-whistleblower-ignored-by-doj-fec-fbi-200-million-in-fishy-obama-donations/
[14] Real Clear Politics
[15] IBD Editorial
[16] IBD Editorial

Trying to Lose The War We're In

by Tom Donnelly

On Monday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates gave another in the remarkable series of speeches of recent months, laying out the course he believes the U.S. armed forces must follow to prepare themselves for the conflicts of the 21st century. Addressing the National Defense University, he again complained of “Next-War-itis,” and “the defense bureaucracy’s priorities and lack of urgency opposed to a wartime footing and a wartime mentality.” In marked contrast to Donald Rumsfeld, the man he replaced at the Pentagon, Gates described the war on terror not as a high-tech global manhunt but as “in grim reality, a prolonged, world-wide irregular campaign.”

Even as Gates was telling unpleasant truths to people in uniform--for it is they who will most bear the brunt of the Long War--congressional Democrats revealed how deeply they remain a state of denial. Rep. John Murtha, the chairman of the House appropriations defense subcommittee, announced his opposition to the Bush administration’s plan (and the supposed position of presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama) to increase the size of the active-duty Army and Marine Corps. Taking a page out of the Rummy pre-9/11 playbook, Murtha told Congressional Quarterly's Josh Rogin that the Pentagon “is going to have to cut personnel in order to pay for procurement.”

To be sure, the Defense Department faces critical budget problems. Procurement needs are genuine: Most current major U.S. weapons systems are products of the Reagan build-up. But, as Gates puts it, you have to win the war you’re in. The Bush troop plan is, if anything, a belated half-measure, a snail-paced increase that would bring the combined size of the Army and Marine Corps to about 750,000 in 2013, just 10 percent more than it was in 2005. Sen. John McCain has called for a larger, longer-term surge that would bring total land-force strength to 900,000.

The theme of Gates’s NDU speech was a warning about the limits of wonder weapons. While lauding “advances in precision, sensor, information and satellite technology,” he admonished the military to “never neglect the psychological, cultural, political and human dimensions of warfare, which is inevitably tragic, inefficient and uncertain.” He concluded his talk with words from one of the greatest American practitioners of irregular warfare, Gen. “Vinegar Joe” Stilwell, whose experience taught him “no matter how a war starts, it ends in mud. It has to be slugged out--there are no trick solutions or cheap shortcuts.” It is ironic that Gates, the soft-spoken former intelligence officer, better understands the need for boots on the ground than Murtha, the gruff former Marine.

But Murtha led the way when Democrats turned hard against the Iraq war in 2006; without his imprimatur, surely, Speaker Nancy Pelosi might have moderated her anti-war, San Francisco instincts. Apparently the Democratic strategy is now to limit the prospects for future mischief--that is, the prospects for successfully waging the Long War--by withholding the manpower that is needed. They’re doubling down on defeat

by Tom Donnelly

Johnstown-Democrat..still in bed with Murtha...

With regard to the pending lawsuit by PA-12 constituent Justin Sharratt against Jihad Jack Murtha, the editors at the Johnstown-Democrat no doubt had a huge lump in their throat and a scowl on their face when they begrudgingly wrote the following:

We certainly hope justice is done in this case.

That would mean that if Murtha truly damaged someone’s reputation with false accusations, that he face the music in court.

The rules should be no different for public officials than for the rest of us.

But the editors, still in love with their self-absorbed, repugnant, corrupt congressman from PA-12, couldn't help but add the following salt to the wounds of those already unjustly besmirched by Murtha:

We would also hope that the courts – military and civilian – are making every effort to be certain that those who are cleared of wrongdoing deserve that treatment. War means dangerous circumstances, but even in such a setting, crimes against civilians should not be tolerated.

There was no "crime" against civilians perpetrated by U.S. Marines. Period. If there was a crime against civilians, it was perpetrated by the terrorists, who, against the Geneva Convention and the rules of war, chose to utilize civilians as human shields in time of war and during a firefight. And the sycophant editors at the Tribune-Democrat go on to offer yet another "caveat" with regard to their faux consternation of Jihad Jack: ....

Muslims threaten Hindus in New York

From Jihad Watch

“We have freedom of religion, and we have the Constitution.” At least for now. But how many Islamic supremacists such as those who figure in this incident will be needed to change all that? And who is doing anything to stop them from coming into this country and spreading their views?

"Hindu-Muslim Family’s Choice of Cremation Arouses Anger," by Anne Barnard for the New York Times, October 3 (thanks to RG):

Friends and family remember Shafayet Reja as an affectionate young man who stayed up late to write poetry, danced exuberantly at weddings and explored the faiths of his father and mother with an openheartedness that led him to declare on his Facebook page, “I never get tired of learning the new things that life has to offer.”

But within hours of his death on Sept. 10 after a car accident, his memory — in fact, his very body — had become the object of a tug-of-war over religious freedom and obligation. It began when his mother, who was raised Hindu, and his father, who is Muslim, decided to have his body cremated in the Hindu tradition, rather than burying him in a shroud, as Islam prescribes.

His parents, Mina and Farhad Reja, say a small group of Muslims who do not understand their approach to religion are trying to intimidate them over the most private of family choices. “This is America,” Mrs. Reja said. “This is a family decision.”

The couple say that people accosted them at their son’s funeral, that an angry crowd threatened to boycott a shopping center they own in Jackson Heights, Queens, and that on Sept. 13, two men they know threatened to bomb and burn down the building.

The men they accused in a complaint filed with the police — one is a doctor and the father of a close friend of Shafayet Reja, the other a Bangladeshi business leader — say that they made no threats and deny that they have called for a boycott. They say they and others simply expressed their concern about what they see as a deep violation of their religion and of the wishes of the son, who, according to some of his college friends, had recently chosen Islam as his sole religion.

The Police Department’s hate crimes unit is investigating whether the threats took place, whether they would constitute aggravated harassment, and whether they qualify as bias crimes, which carry tougher penalties, a spokesman for the department said. No charges have been filed.

What is not in doubt is that the episode is a source of consternation, from the Queens neighborhoods where Mr. Reja’s parents live and work to their native Bangladesh, one of the world’s most populous Muslim countries, where it has been national news.

The dispute has especially swept up several bustling blocks in Jackson Heights, where dozens of businesses are Bengali. It had business owners on edge during the busy shopping season before this week’s Id al-Fitr festival. The festival marks the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan and brings throngs of shoppers to dine and to buy jewelry and sparkling traditional dresses.

The neighborhood is a place where business rivalries and family arguments often intersect with disputes over Bangladesh politics, especially in the case of Mrs. Reja, a prominent property owner and outspoken advocate of the rights of Bangladesh’s religious minorities. Her 1999 self-published book, “God on Trial,” angered some Muslims in the neighborhood with its critique of Islamic fundamentalism.

The cremation dispute goes to the heart of a debate among Muslims in America about what makes someone a Muslim — to some of the critics, the fact that Shafayet Reja listed Islam as his religion on Facebook is enough — and how to reconcile this country’s freedom of religion with what some Muslims see as a communal obligation to uphold religious observance.

But to the family, the dispute is a frightening imposition that they say violates their civil rights.

“We have freedom of religion, and we have the Constitution,” said the Rejas’ son Mishal, 19, who studies at Washington University in St. Louis. “Why would they bother us? It’s none of their business. Even if he was the most hard-core Muslim.”...

GoldenEye: The Real Meltdown

(Compiler's note: Must read rca)

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Strategic Defense: A new report says the United States must develop robust missile and space defenses to counter China. If you think the current economic crisis is something, imagine the effects of a nuke over Iowa.


Imagine a world in which you can't get money from your bank or can't get a loan. You can't get money from your ATM even if it's within walking distance. You can't drive to one because your car won't work. No, it's not what would happen if the Congress doesn't pass a bailout bill.


This is a small snapshot of what would happen if a hostile power detonated a nuclear weapon high over the United States generating an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that would fry virtually every circuit and electronic device in the U.S., sending America and its economy back a century or more in time.


In the 1995 James Bond flick "GoldenEye," Agent 007 fights to prevent an arms syndicate from hijacking a Russian "GoldenEye" satellite weapon to fire an electromagnetic pulse against London in order to cause a global financial meltdown. We may soon see life imitating art unless we heed the warning of a draft report by the secretary of state's International Security Advisory Board.



The ISAB report addresses the growing threat from China but could apply equally to a rearming and resurgent Russia and an ambitious and soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. To avoid increasing vulnerability, the report says, "the United States will need to pursue new missile defense capabilities, including taking full advantage of space."



There is also a new threat whereby a single nuclear weapon could paralyze the U.S.


In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in June, Assistant Secretary of Defense James Shinn noted that China is working on EMP weapons that can destroy electronic systems. Shinn told the committee that "We are, as you know, and as the Chinese also know, heavily dependent on sophisticated communications, satellite communications, in the conduct of our forces."


We are also dependent, as the Iranians also know, on electronics in the conduct of the world's largest economy. Iranian military literature is full of references to the damage a high-altitude nuclear blast could do to the U.S. and its economy.



"Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?" Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asked at the "World Without Zionism" Tehran conference in 2005. "But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved." He added that Iran had a strategic "war preparation plan" for what it called "the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization."


A simple Scud missile, with a nuclear warhead, could be fired from an inconspicuous freighter in international waters off our coast and detonated high above the U.S. It would wreak near-total devastation on America's technological, electrical and transportation infrastructure. With the explosion masked as a terrorist attack, Iran could plausibly deny any responsibility.



Iran has practiced launching and detonating Scuds in midflight, launched from ships in the Caspian Sea. Iran has also tested high-altitude explosions of its Shahab-3 ballistic missile, a test consistent with an EMP attack. Iran only needs a nuke.



The Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack, established by unanimous consent of the House and Senate, released a report on the same day as the 9/11 Commission report, which blamed those attacks, in part, on a lack of imagination on our part.


The report told us of how millions could die as hospital systems shut down, as rail and air traffic control systems collapsed. Farmers would be unable to harvest crops and distributors couldn't get goods to market. Energy production would cease. Computers and PCs would become large paperweights. Telephones, even cell phones, wouldn't work. Food in refrigerated warehouses would rot, and clean water would be scarce.


It would indeed be the jihadist dream of "death to America." It could happen all too soon, unless we harden our infrastructure against EMP attack and develop a more robust multilayer missile defense.
An undefended EMP attack would make the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a fond memory. Is Congress listening?

U.S. sounds out Japan about security technology cooperation pact

TOKYO —

The United States has sounded out Japan about concluding a new pact on cooperation over national security technologies, including terrorism information exchanges and joint development of devices to detect dangerous materials, government sources said Thursday. The overture aims at cooperation not only in technological development but performance assessment and proof of the new technologies, the sources said.

The proposed pact would enable the United States to make use of Japanese technologies and allow Japan to have access to concrete information on the methods and type of explosives used in actual terrorist attacks, which have been kept confidential under current bilateral technological cooperation arrangements, they said.

Violent gangs are ‘spreading like a virus’

McALLEN - Gov. Rick Perry urged state legislators Tuesday to fund a $24 million initiative aimed at fighting international gangs along the Texas border with Mexico.

Citing groups with names like the Texas Syndicate and Barrio Azteca, he called such criminal organizations "the most important threat to our state's security." ....

Why a can of petrol is more dangerous than a dirty bomb

By Richard A. Muller

Intelligence experts reported recently that terrorist groups are taking advantage of the chaos in Pakistan to get radioactive material, and are hoping to use it to make a 'spectacular' attack on the West.

People fear they might explode such a weapon in London or another major city, kill hundreds, if not thousands, trigger widespread panic, and perhaps force an indefinite evacuation.

Much of this fear is unwarranted. Dirty bombs spread radioactivity, and that's bad - but true nuclear weapons, such as the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are much worse because of their enormous release of energy, the equivalent of 18,000 tons of TNT for Nagasaki alone.

Fearful: Right At Your Door, a 2006 film in which dirty bombs are used to attack Western cities

Most of the deaths in these nuclear attacks came from blast and fire, and less than two per cent from lingering radioactivity.

Could terrorists make a true nuclear weapon completely on their own? Virtually all experts say no.

To do so requires either the enrichment of uranium, involving expensive high-tech methods, as Iran is doing with its centrifuges, or the tricky implosion of plutonium, the approach taken by North Korea.

Kim Jong Il spent billions on his bomb project, and the result was less than a kiloton of explosion - five per cent of the Nagasaki bomb. It's tough to make a dependable nuclear explosion.

Compared to a real nuclear bomb, a dirty bomb is easy, and certainly within the reach of a well-organised terrorist group. All it needs to do is get some radioactive material and blow it up with dynamite or another conventional explosive.

Terrorists could get radioactive materials from Pakistan, but they could also get them from hospitals, where radioactivity is used for everything from cancer therapy to CAT scans.

In 1987, scavengers opened a container they found in an abandoned hospital in Goiania, Brazil.

They didn't know it was radioactive until days later, and by then they had contaminated themselves and 200 others. Three adults and a child eventually died from radiation illness. Forty-one houses in the neighbourhood were evacuated. This was all inadvertent.

A full-scale nuclear blast packs vastly more power than dirty bomb could

Imagine what terrorists could do on purpose. Suppose they got a Goiania-type source and spread the radioactivity over a whole city - what would happen?

The answer is surprising. Spread out the radioactivity enough and the deaths from radiation illness disappear completely.

People exposed would have a slight increase in the risk of eventually contracting cancer, but there would be no dead bodies at the scene - except those killed by the dynamite. Diluted radiation loses its potency.

We measure radiation dose in units called rem. Above 1,000 rem, incapacitation occurs within minutes, followed by extreme fatigue and nausea, then death. For smaller doses, 300 to 500 rem, about half of the victims die within a month.

But reduce the dose a little more, down to 100 rem, and the effects are very mild. At 50 rem, nobody even gets sick.

This 'threshold effect' creates problems for the terrorist. He can put radioactive material into a bomb - but concentrated radioactivity kills fast, so he'll have to protect himself with a ton of lead.

Then he must deliver the bomb, take it out of the lead shield and explode it with dynamite so the radioactive material spreads into the air.

He wants the wind to carry it around the city, but has to hope it doesn't spread too much or it won't kill anyone.

If radioactivity comparable to that of the Goiania accident were spread over a square mile, the exposure to people - even if they stayed outdoors for a month - would have been only 10 rem, far below the lethal threshold. There would be no radiation illness, no dead bodies.

Low levels of radiation do cause harm, but it is hidden and delayed: tiny mutations in your DNA that increase your risk of cancer by a very small amount.

Would a terrorist be satisfied with the knowledge that his bomb might cause a small increase in cancer deaths among a small number of people in many years' time? Or would he pick an alternative attack?

Petrol bomb: The jet fuel in the planes that hit the World Trade Centre released the energy of 1.8 kilotons of TNT

Consider Jose Padilla, the Chicago thug who was trained by Al Qaeda and came to America planning to make a dirty bomb.

According to the US Justice Department, Al Qaeda had doubts about the practicability of such an attack, so it directed him to abandon the dirty bomb and blow up two apartment buildings using natural gas.

What worries me about this story is that it suggests Al Qaeda understands the limitations of dirty bombs better than government leaders and many scientists.

I suspect any well-organised terrorist organisation would pick a more reliable weapon, such as petrol or jet fuel. The 120 tons of jet fuel in the planes that hit the World Trade Centre released the energy of 1.8 kilotons of TNT - over twice the energy of the North Korean nuclear test.

Aircraft attacks have worked for Al Qaeda in the past. They are far more straightforward to implement than a dirty bomb and the results are more predictable.

To my mind, the real terror weapon of choice is the one they can buy at the local petrol station.

• Richard Muller is Professor of Physics at the University of California, Berkeley. His book, Physics For Future Presidents, is published by Norton.

Michelle Malkin Was Right about ACORN, Of Course

By Michael J. Gaynor

ACORN, a key culprit in the current economic mess, made Obama a local, statewide and national political success, but awareness of what ACORN really is and how Obama has served it as organizer, trainer, lawyer and funder and received its political support (legal or not) in return can and should put an end to that political success.

Months before this year's national conventions, the prescient Michelle Malkin focused on what should now become Obama's albatross, the innocuously named ACORN.

Michelle, “The ACORN Obama Knows,” June 25, 2008:

“If you don't know what ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is all about, you better bone up. This left-wing group takes in 40 percent of its revenues from American taxpayers -- you and me -- and has leveraged nearly four decades of government subsidies to fund affiliates that promote the welfare state and undermine capitalism and self-reliance, some of which have been implicated in perpetuating illegal immigration and encouraging voter fraud. A new whistleblower report from the Consumer Rights League claims that Chicago-based ACORN has commingled public tax dollars with political projects.

“Who in Washington will fight to ensure that your money isn't being spent on these radical activities?

“Don't bother asking Barack Obama. He cut his ideological teeth working with ACORN as a ‘community organizer’ and legal representative. Naturally, ACORN's political action committee has warmly endorsed his presidential candidacy. ACORN head Maude Hurd gushes that Obama is the candidate who ‘best understands and can affect change on the issues ACORN cares about’ -- like ensuring their massive pipeline to your hard-earned money.”

If you read Michelle, you were not surprised when ACORN, a key cause of the bad loans that ultimately resulted in the current financial crisis, shamelessly tried to become a big monetary beneficiary of the rescue/bailout bill.

The good news is that ACORN has not succeeded in that respect.

The best news is that the ATTEMPT to get the money for ACORN instead of to use it to reduce the national debt opened the door to scrutiny of ACORN and its long-term relationship with its favorite presidential candidate, Chicago’s own Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.

Michelle on “The ACORN Obama Knows”: “Last July, ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud in the history of Washington State. Seven ACORN workers had submitted nearly 2,000 bogus voter registration forms. According to case records, they flipped through phone books for names to use on the forms, including ‘Leon Spinks,’ ‘Frekkie Magoal’ and ‘Fruto Boy Crispila.’ Three ACORN election hoaxers pleaded guilty in October. A King County prosecutor called ACORN's criminal sabotage ‘an act of vandalism upon the voter rolls.’”

An isolated incident?

Hardly!

Michelle:

“The group's vandalism on electoral integrity is systemic. ACORN has been implicated in similar voter fraud schemes in Missouri, Ohio and at least 12 other states. The Wall Street Journal noted: ‘In Ohio in 2004, a worker for one affiliate was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey. During a congressional hearing in Ohio in the aftermath of the 2004 election, officials from several counties in the state explained ACORN's practice of dumping thousands of registration forms in their lap on the submission deadline, even though the forms had been collected months earlier.’

“In March, Philadelphia elections officials accused the nonprofit advocacy group of filing fraudulent voter registrations in advance of the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary. The charges have been forwarded to the city district attorney's office.”

Nevertheless, ACORN has collected plenty of public money.

Michelle:

“Under the guise of ‘consumer advocacy,’ ACORN has received money from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD funds hundreds, if not thousands, of left-wing ‘anti-poverty’ groups across the country led by ACORN. Last October, HUD announced more than $44 million in new housing counseling grants to over 400 state and local efforts. The White House has increased funding for housing counseling by 150 percent since taking office in 2001, despite the role most of these recipients play as activist satellites of the Democratic Party. The AARP scored nearly $400,000 for training; the National Council of La Raza (‘The Race’) scooped up more than $1.3 million; the National Urban League raked in nearly $1 million; and the ACORN Housing Corporation received more than $1.6 million.

“As the Consumer Rights League points out in its new expose, the ACORN Housing Corporation has worked to obtain mortgages for illegal aliens in partnership with Citibank. It relies on undocumented income, ‘under the table’ money, which may not be reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Moreover, the group's ‘financial justice’ operations attack lenders for ‘exotic’ loans, while recommending 10-year interest-only loans (which deny equity to the buyer) and risky reverse mortgages. Whistleblower documents reveal internal discussions among the group that blur the lines between its tax-exempt housing work and its aggressive electioneering activities. The group appears to shake down corporate interests with relentless PR attacks, and then enters ‘no lobby’ agreements with targeted corporations after receiving payment.”

ACORN IS THE PROBLEM, NOT THE SOLUTION!

Michelle lamented that ACORN’s thuggish tactics had worked well for it:, while acknowledging that might change: “Republicans have largely looked the other way as ACORN has expanded its government-funded empire. But finally, a few conservative voices in Congress have called for investigation of the group's apparent extortion schemes. This week, GOP Reps. Tom Feeney, Jeb Hensarling and Ed Royce called on Democrat Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, to convene a hearing to probe potential illegalities and abuse of taxpayer funds by ACORN's management and minions alike.”

Alas, Chairman Frank was a roadblock to Treasury oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and never convened such a hearing.

Michelle on Obama and ACORN: “Where does the candidate of Hope and Change -- the candidate of Reform and New Politics -- stand on the issue? Barack Obama, ACORN's senator, is for more of the same old, same old subsidizing of far-left politics in the name of fighting for the poor while enriching ideological cronies. It's the Chicago way.“

The Chicago way is NOT the American way!

ACORN, a key culprit in the current economic mess, made Obama a local, statewide and national political success, but awareness of what ACORN really is and how Obama has served it as organizer, trainer, lawyer and funder and received its political support (legal or not) in return can and should put an end to that political success in the nick of time.