US ‘Still Looking’ at Establishing an Interests Section in Iran

By Patrick Goodenough

(CNSNews.com) – The United States has not shelved a proposal to establish an interests section in Iran, although there are no public signs that the Iranian government is ready to embrace the idea.

An interests section facilitates relations between people of two countries that do not have diplomatic relations, typically dealing with legal issues such as birth and death registrations, and cultural and educational affairs.

Another, unrelated non-governmental initiative aimed at improving ties between the U.S. and Iran also has drawn skeptical responses in Iran.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said at the weekend that the Bush administration continues to consider the idea of an interests section.

“I think it’s an interesting idea,” she told reporters en route to Astana, Kazakhstan. “But, you know, we are going to take a look at it in the light of what it could do for our relationship with the Iranian people.”

Asked whether the step remained a possibility before the end of the Bush administration in January, Rice said, “We are still looking at the idea.” ....

A State Department spokesman referred queries about the AIC license to OFAC, saying only “our policy has not changed. We encourage efforts to increase people-to-people contacts between the people of Iran and the people of the United States in order to expand mutual understanding, as long as parties involved work in accordance with U.S. laws and regulations.”

IMF: It's Worse Than It Looks

The International Monetary Fund on Tuesday increased its estimate of global losses from the financial meltdown to $1.4 trillion and warned that the world's economic downturn was deepening.

"Declared losses on U.S. loans and securitized assets are likely to increase further to about $1.4 trillion," the IMF said, increasing the loss estimate from $945 billion in April and slightly up from $1.3 trillion it cited last month.

In its quarterly assessment of global capital markets, the IMF said global economic activity is slowing down as growth in advanced economies decelerates and emerging economies start to lose momentum.

"Despite better-than-expected performance early this year, rising financial turmoil has led to a downgrade in the IMF's baseline forecast for global economic growth in 2008-09," it said.

The IMF called for "internationally coherent and decisive policy measures" to restore confidence and to avert a more protracted economic slowdown, but warned that central banks would need to continue injecting cash to calm the unprecedented turmoil.

"The risk of a more severe adverse feedback loop between the financial system and the broader economy represents a critical threat," the IMF said.

"The combination of mounting losses, falling asset prices, and a deepening economic downturn has caused serious doubts about the viability of a widening swath of the financial system," it added.

It estimated that major global banks will need about $675 billion in capital over the next several years.

The IMF warned of further losses, with significant gaps between reported and estimated write-downs, as the crisis increasingly becomes disorderly.

It said a further decline in the U.S. housing market and a wider economic slowdown is leading to new loan deterioration. Delinquencies on prime mortgages and commercial real estate are increasing, as well as those for corporate and consumer loans, it noted.

With the economic slowdown spreading, financial institutions will increasingly face losses on non-U.S. assets as well, the IMF said.

The fund said pressures were now emerging in Europe, as house prices in some countries decline, economic growth falters and lending conditions tighten.

The IMF warned that overall risks to emerging markets, which earlier appeared resilient to the credit turmoil, have risen sharply as appetite for emerging assets has declined and capital outflows have intensified, leading to tighter liquidity conditions.

DHS warns of potential terror attacks on public buildings

By Jim Popkin

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) today issued an analytical "note" to U.S. law-enforcement officials cautioning that al-Qaida terrorists have in the past expressed interest in attacking public buildings using a dozen suicide bombers each carrying 20 kilograms of explosives.

Authors with the U.S. Office of Intelligence and Analysis added that they have "no credible or specific information that terrorists are planning operations against public buildings in the United States." The DHS analysts--after coordinating with the FBI Threat Analysis Unit--said they were releasing the note because "it is important for local authorities and building owners and operators to be aware of potential attack tactics."

According to the note obtained by NBC News, a "recently discovered audio recording of al-Qa‘ida training sessions conducted several years ago provides instruction to potential suicide terrorists on seizing a publicly accessible building and damaging or destroying it with explosive charges."

Among the materials on a CD–ROM seized earlier this year by Belgian authorities and provided to Interpol, the note said, "is a detailed audio explanation by now-deceased senior al-Qa‘ida operative Yousef al-Ayeeri of a method taught in an al-Qa‘ida training camp for attacking a publicly accessible building. Interpol believes the Arabic-language recording was made shortly before al-Ayeeri’s death in 2003."

Saudi security forces killed al-Ayeeri in 2003.

The Audiotape:
The DHS said al-Ayeeri's five-year-old audiotape walks potential suicide bombers through the following scenario:

"Once a target is selected, al-Ayeeri recommends assembling a team of 12 individuals, each armed with an assault rife and grenade and carrying approximately 20 kilograms of explosives. The attackers are to storm the building, seal off escape and access points, and occupy it long enough to set and detonate their explosive packages. Al-Ayeeri stressed the importance of carrying out these steps before law enforcement can respond, even if notified early in the attack. He assumes the attackers will be killed during the operation," the DHS note said.

The instructional audiotape continued:

"Al-Ayeeri believed attackers would be able to enter many publicly accessible buildings easily with little or no resistance from often poorly trained and lightly armed or unarmed security guards, and that an explosion from inside the building would be particularly effective."

In the unclassified report, the analysts added that, "if each of the 12 attackers’ 20 kg charge is combined into a single large bomb, it would have more explosive power than the truck bomb used in the 1983 Beirut Embassy attack. Terrorists to date have not conducted attacks on public buildings using the full range of tactics covered in al-Ayeeri’s training."

Since 9-11, the FBI and DHS have issued hundreds of similar warnings and bulletins to law-enforcement officials, cautioning them about potential terrorist attacks. Critics have said that some of the scenarios seem implausible, including warnings about teams of scuba-diving bombers and terrorists' use of prosthetic devices that would allow women to hide explosives in devices “that mimic the look of a pregnant woman.” Law enforcement officials have responded that there's a need for aggressive intellience sharing--one of the lessons learned the hard way after the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

Update: I have edited this post to make it clear that the Department of Homeland Security authored this document, after consulting with the FBI. As the document states, it was "Prepared by the DHS/Critical Infrastructure Threat Analysis Division. Coordinated with the FBI/Threat Analysis Unit."

Syrian tanks advance to Lebanese Beqaa Valley border. Israel forces on high alert

Russian military experts calculate that the window for an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities will shrink to 3-6 months if Moscow sells Iran (and Syria) the sophisticated S-300 system for guarding those sites against air, missile or cruise missile attack. DEBKAfile’s Moscow sources report that Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert failed in the key missions of his Moscow trip to persuade Russian leaders to discuss Tehran’s nuclear weapons program and to refrain from selling this advanced weapon to Iran and Syria. ...

Syrian tanks advance to Lebanese Beqaa Valley border. Israel forces on high alert

Syria moved tank units up to the Lebanese Beqaa Valley border Tuesday, Oct. 7. DEBKAfile’s military sources report that this is Damascus’ second troop movement on the Lebanese border. For three weeks, commando units have been poised on the North Lebanese border. Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak on an announced visit to the border troops cautioned officers to exercise maximum vigilance. ...

Al-Qaeda Plots New Terror Attacks In Britain

al Qaeda is planning a new wave of terror attacks on Britain, security chiefs have warned.

Intelligence agencies are tracking four plots to unleash carnage on our cities.

And they fear there could be up to a dozen more in the early planning stages. The terror operations are thought to centre on London and Birmingham.

Two are understood to be plans to launch devastating explosions in the city centres.

The intelligence services have less information on the others but fear there could be an attack on a power station, an attempt to poison water supplies or a bid to ASSASSINATE a top politician.

An intelligence source said one reason they were taking the plots so seriously was because there was foreign involvement from Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Former Tory security spokesman Patrick Mercer, who has also advised Gordon Brown, said: “Because we have not been attacked since the handover of Prime Ministers last year does not mean to say that the threat has gone away. Not by a long chalk.

Click here for additional information

Socialism Is Draining America of Capital

By Dick McDonald

A free market capitalist system runs on its capability to devote a reasonable portion of the income it earns each year to investments in its future. For years, no country in the world has done a better job of that than America. Unfortunately for the last few years, Americans are spending more than they earn. That has created a serious shortage of capital in our financial markets and has forced Wall Street to solicit investment funds from foreigners and sovereign wealth funds.

A fear exists that if we continue to allow foreigners to buy up large segments of our economic engine we will lose control of our own destiny. Tom Friedman of the New York Times hopes to ignite that fear in a recent op-ed.

Another friend of mine in the ship-supply business in Baltimore, Alan Kotz, told me about a German customer who recently put in double his normal order. When Alan asked him if he was aware of how much he had ordered, the German brushed his question away and laughed: "Alan, never mind, everything for us is half price."

And a good thing it is. Even though the dollar has strengthened a bit lately, we are going to need foreigners and sovereign wealth funds from China, Asia, Europe and the Middle East more than ever to survive this crisis - and they are going to need us to be healthy as well. In the process, we are going to become even more intertwined and dependent on the rest of the world.

This election season sees capitalism under severe attack from American socialists. Under the guise that 95% of the taxpayers will receive a tax cut, the socialists are playing the Pied Piper leading Americans into believing the same lie that Bill Clinton swept into office with in 1992 and the Democrats took back the Congress in 2006 - middle class tax cuts. Tax cuts were never delivered in 1992 or 1993; rather taxes were raised. In 2006 - 2007, there were no tax cuts either. The question then remains: will Obama deliver a tax cut or will he tax the vibrant American economy unmercifully to establish a socialist state - a state that so many believe to be "fairer" than a free-market economy?

The capital markets, now starved for new sources of capital, appear destined for even more desperate times. A combination of higher prices, inflation and the possible increased taxation on the productive elements of the society will leave little room for investment by ordinary Americans. Combine that with the fact that socialists will flood into Washington in January and you will discover why the stock market has fallen from over 14,000 on the Dow to under 10,000. The people are not stupid. Government governed by those who favor their own concept of fairness over that of freedom signals a massive downturn in economic fortunes of all Americans.

It doesn't have to be so. We have a massive new source of capital to drive the American economy way past the 14,000 level. If we only divert the payroll taxes of $1.4 trillion collected each year by the Federal government into the personal investment accounts of taxpayers and then invest those sums into the capital markets we could put the economy into hyper-drive.

Americans are tired of being told there is no way capitalism can be "fair." They are tired of being robbed of 15.3% of the lifetime income in return for no nest egg whatsoever. It is time to liquidate the $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities for entitlements that the Social Security Administration warns taxpayers may never be funded and therefore cause the total failure of the system.

It is time for capitalism to prove it is the "fair" system ready to vault all Americans into an era of prosperity. As the economy is driven by infusions of new capital every year - we have that new source of that capital that America presently wastes on consumption. See www.riseupamerica.us for the blueprint that will revitalize our economy and enable every American to achieve the American Dream.

U.S. intelligence warns Iraq war could explode again

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

By Jonathan S. Landay, Warren P. Strobel and Nancy A. Youssef,

WASHINGTON — A nearly completed high-level U.S. intelligence analysis warns that unresolved ethnic and sectarian tensions in Iraq could unleash a new wave of violence, potentially reversing the major security and political gains achieved over the last year. ....

Welcoming Terror on Campus

By Jacob Laksin

As the fountainhead of global Islamic terrorism, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood has long had a public-relations problem. For years the Brotherhood has struggled to veil its reputation as a violent and reactionary religious movement without moderating the substance of its politics, which continue to include support for terror attacks and the institution of hard-line Sharia law. At the University of California at Irvine (UCI), the Brotherhood has now found an audience receptive to its efforts.

This Wednesday, four separate UCI programs – including the department of history; the Center for Research on International and Global Studies at UCI’s School of Social Sciences; the school’s Middle East Studies Student Initiative and its Center for Global Peace and Conflict Studies – will host Ibrahim el-Houdaiby, a young member of the Muslim Brotherhood and the leader of its new generation of self-styled “moderate Islamist” activists. Still in his twenties, the Cairo-based Houdaiby has a long lineage in the Brotherhood: His grandfather was Hassan el-Houdaiby, a prominent Brotherhood ideologist. Houdaiby has carried on the family tradition, writing a column for the Brotherhood’s official English-language website, IkhwaWeb.com, and generally trying to arouse foreign sympathy for a movement still regarded as dangerous in the West.

On the UCI faculty, at least, Houdaiby has made a favorable impression. In particular, he has impressed history professor Mark LeVine, who helped organize this week’s event. In an interview, LeVine said that he met Houdaiby in Cairo while conducting research for his recent book, Heavy Metal Islam: Religion, Popular Culture and Resistance in the Middle East, and came away convinced that the young activist truly represents a new breed of Muslim Brother – a clear break with the rigid fundamentalists who dominated the movement throughout its 80-year history.

As an example, LeVine says that Houdaiby is “more interested in working with the secular forces in Egypt, which is something that the Muslim Brotherhood has not traditionally done. And he has a willingness to be critical of the leadership, something that you would not have seen a generation ago.” Inviting Houdaiby to UCI, according to LeVine, is a way for students to engage with a Muslim activist who is not only close in age but also represents a new model of Islamic leadership.

That is a flattering description. Yet, there is reason to doubt whether Houdaiby really represents a trend toward moderation, and whether it is fitting for an American university to provide him with a platform. On the evidence of his published writings, Houdaiby is not the democratic reformer he affects to be.

Houdaiby certainly sounds convincing. Even as he describes himself as a moderate Islamist, he takes care to stipulate that “moderate Islamists fully endorse democracy, and their discourse illustrates a clear respect of civil liberties and human rights.” As for Islamic politicians, he explains, they “fully endorse democracy, support freedom of the press, and believe in equality as the basis of citizenship.”

So it is with the Brotherhood, which, as Houdaiby tells it, should not be considered a fundamentalist group. Rather, it is a “reformist organization that upholds the principles of tolerance [and] peaceful reform.” Instead of imposing its views on society, the Brotherhood champions “constructive dialogue that is based on mutual respect and appreciation of diversity.” It’s no coincidence that the topic of Houdaiby’s appearance at UCI will be “religion and democracy in the Middle East.” If Houdaiby is to be believed, the Brotherhood is now the Middle East’s foremost advocate of democracy and democratic values.

That is not whole story, however. A closer look at Houdaiby’s writings suggests that while he has shrewdly adopted the rhetoric of Western democrats, his political goals, like those of the Brotherhood, could hardly be more opposite. Where Houdaybi departs from his predecessors is largely in his success in putting a fresh and tolerant face on an old and intolerant agenda.

For instance, there are his countless contradictions. While Houdaybi says that the “state should not interfere in the individual’s personal choice to violate Islamic teachings and drink alcohol,” he insists that this is only true “as long as he does not violate the societal rights by threatening its security.” Of course, the notion that deviating from Islamic teachings constitutes a societal “threat” would convince only those who, like the Brotherhood, argue that society should be governed exclusively by Sharia law. Brotherhood founder Hassan el-Banna similarly proclaimed that Islam must be “given hegemony over all matters of life.” Houdaiby’s references to personal choice may sound more congenial to Western ears but it is noteworthy that his underlying assumption about the supremacy of Sharia is exactly the same as el-Banna’s.

Given his explicit support for Sharia law, it’s hard to give credence to Houdaiby’s professed belief in equality. And indeed Houdaiby’s writings point in a very different direction. For example, Houdaiby has criticized Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Mahdi Akef for denouncing as “naked” those women who do not wear the hijab, or headscarf. However, Houdaiby isn’t prepared to say that women should be given a choice on the matter. On the contrary, he has written that “I support Akef’s stance on wearing the hijab, and like him view it as a religious obligation.” One need only consider the Taliban’s promises to assault with disfiguring acid all women who do not wear the hijab to see how tolerant Islamists tend to be of women who do not abide by such “religious obligations.”

Lest one take him for a radical, Houdaiby insists that his ideal of an Islamic society would look nothing like Taliban-era Afghanistan. But his support for criminalizing adultery in accordance with Sharia law belies such assurances. Although he has written that it is a “couple’s personal choice to adhere to Islamic teachings, prohibiting sexual relations outside marriage,” he insists that “the choice should not violate their society’s right to have a decent environment. Therefore, extramarital sexual relations are only a punishable crime if there are four eyewitnesses to the relation.” As with the hijab, the Islamic world provides revealing examples of what such a standard for punishing adultery might look like in practice. In November 2007, a Saudi appeals court sentenced a married woman to 200 lashes and six months in prison after she was gang-raped for the crime of “being in the car with an unrelated male.” In that case, her rapists were also her accusers. In Afghanistan, similarly, women are often sentenced to prison terms of up to twenty years after being raped. Houdaiby’s praise for “Western political systems” may have convinced some Western liberals that he is one of them, but his support for a Sharia-ruled state, with all the gender inequities it implies, indicates otherwise.

Indeed, in his ideology, Houdaiby is an Islamist of the old school. As his spiritual inspiration, he invokes the Muslim Brotherhood’s Sheikh Youssef el-Qaradawi. Of Qaradawi, Houdaiby claims that he has “shown a high level of respect for human rights and civil liberties.” In fact, Qaradawi is an anti-Semite who rejects all dialogue with Jews – “There is no dialogue between them and us other than… the language of the sword and force,” he has declared – and a supporter of terrorism. In 2007, Khaled Mashal, the Damascus-based leader of Brotherhood offshoot Hamas, praised Qaradawi for his “support of martyrdom operations.” According to Mashal, the good sheikh “never hesitated to issue rulings in support of these operations, and there were times when we were in dire need of these rulings.” That Houdaiby regards Qaradawi as a model religious guide is a telling commentary on what it means to be a “moderate Islamist.”

If UCI faculty and administrators are troubled by Houdaiby’s agenda, they show no evidence of it. Professor LeVine, while conceding that he has not read all of Houdaiby’s writing, defended him as someone who “absolutely” does not represent the Brotherhood’s more extreme positions. And yet, LeVine added that he would support inviting him to the school even if that were the case. “In the end I don’t really care,” Levine said. “I think he represents a rising generation of Islamic activists that we need to talk with, and I don’t think I need to read everything he’s written to see that he’s worth engaging.”

Still, LeVine says that he would be happy to invite critics of Islam and Islamism to UCI, including Ayan Hirsi Ali and Dutch politician Geert Wilders, provided that the school can afford their fees. (LeVine said that the Houdaiby will not be receiving an honorarium for his appearance and that the school has paid only for his trip from Egypt.) For now, though, that sentiment does not appear widely shared at UCI. The school does not plan to have a speaker to challenge Houdaiby's presentation of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The only clear winner in that scenario would seem to be the Muslim Brotherhood. The forerunner of al-Qaeda has long tried to present itself as a force for tolerance, human-rights and democracy in the Muslim world. Even in the Middle East that self-description has not gone unchallenged. How ironic that it should meet with so little skepticism at an institution devoted, at least in theory, to promoting critical thinking.

Fed to lend to companies in emergency move

By JEANNINE AVERSA

WASHINGTON (AP) - Frantically trying to stop the bleeding on Wall Street, the Federal Reserve took a first-time step Tuesday to get cash directly to businesses and hinted that interest rates could come down soon. Stocks continued their free fall anyway and hit new five-year lows.

The central bank invoked emergency powers to lend money to companies outside the financial sector and buy up mounds of commercial paper, the short-term debt that firms use to pay for everyday expenses like salaries and supplies.

The Fed, which has only loaned money to banks before, made the move as the gravest financial crisis in decades wore on and concern spread around the world.

In a speech to the National Association for Business Economics, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke delivered a strong signal interest rates may need to be cut. And he warned the country could be stuck in the economic doldrums for some time.

"The outlook for economic growth has worsened," Bernanke said. "The heightened financial turmoil that we have experienced of late may well lengthen the period of weak economic performance."

The gloomy assessment appeared to open the door wider to an interest rate cut on or before the Fed convenes again Oct. 28. The Fed's key interest rate now stands at 2 percent.

Wall Street turned its back. The Dow Jones industrials lost 508 points, more than 5 percent, to close at 9,447, the lowest since Sept. 30, 2003. The Standard & Poor's 500, a broader stock index, closed below 1,000 for the first time since that same day.

President Bush again sought to strike a reassuring tone and said the nation would make it through an economy blighted by job losses, record foreclosures and shriveled retirement savings. Congress' top budget analyst estimated Tuesday that Americans' retirement plans have lost as much as $2 trillion in 15 months.

"Have faith, this economy is going to recover over time," the president said in a speech in Virginia. "I wish I could snap my fingers and make what happened stop. But that's not the way it works."

Bush reached out to European leaders earlier Tuesday to urge coordination on efforts to solve the crisis. The White House said Bush was open to the idea of a summit.

The contagion has spread overseas. Britain's chief financial regulator was readying a statement to make before markets opened Wednesday, and the BBC reported that the British government was poised to announce a rescue package for the banking system there.

Concerns are mounting that a global recession is developing, and pressure is growing on the U.S. government to do something beyond the $700 billion financial bailout package that Bush signed into law Friday.

To that end, the Fed announced it would begin buying companies' short-term debt. The powers were bestowed during the Depression as part of the Federal Reserve Act.

The government's bailout package is aimed at thawing lending by buying bad mortgage-related debt off the books of troubled financial institutions. The idea is that the banks would then be in a better position to lend and get the economy moving.

Commercial paper borrowing usually ranges from overnight to less than a week. But in the current climate of mistrust, the market has dried up considerably.

The action makes the Fed a crucial source of credit for nonfinancial businesses in addition to commercial banks and investment firms—and also exposes it to risk because so much of the debt would not be backed by collateral.

Credit markets, clenched up for weeks now, relaxed somewhat after the Fed's move.

The Fed said it was creating a new entity to buy two types of short-term debt, known as three-month unsecured and asset-backed commercial paper, directly from eligible companies. It hopes to have the program up and running soon, Fed officials said.

Fed officials said they would buy as much of the debt as necessary to get the market functioning again but refused to say how much that might be. They noted that around $1.3 trillion worth of commercial paper would qualify.

The Treasury Department, which worked with the Fed on the program, said the action was "necessary to prevent substantial disruptions to the financial markets and the economy."

The Treasury will provide money to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to support the new program, the Fed said. The money would be separate from the $700 billion financial bailout package.

The Fed said it planned to stop buying the short-term debt on April 30 but may extend the program.

There was $1.6 trillion in outstanding commercial paper, seasonally adjusted, on the market as of last week, the most recent data from the Fed. The market has shrunk from $2.2 trillion last summer.

ACORN office in Vegas raided in voter-fraud probe

By OSKAR GARCIA

LAS VEGAS (AP) - Nevada state authorities are raiding the Las Vegas headquarters of an organization that works to get low-income people to vote.

A Nevada secretary of state's office spokesman said Tuesday that investigators are looking for evidence of voter fraud at the office of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, also called ACORN.

No one was at the ACORN office when state agents arrived with a search warrant and began carting records and documents away.

Secretary of State spokesman Bob Walsh says ACORN is accused of submitting multiple voter registrations with false and duplicate names.

The raid comes two months after state and federal authorities formed a task force to pursue election-fraud allegations in Nevada.

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