Political Herpes

Just another WordPress.com site

Unsung Victories of American Airmen

leave a comment »

Unsung Victories of American Airmen by Andrew P. O’Meara, Jr., Colonel, United States Army, Retired


I returned to South Vietnam in 1968 joining the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment operating north of Saigon under the operational control of the 1st Infantry Division. I found myself taking part in a hard fought series of battles as we sought to destroy enemy base camps established in the jungles south of War Zone D. The enemy base camps formed fortified staging areas constructed along multiple parallel routes to the south that permitted the enemy to move his combat forces out of Cambodia from one protected battle position to the next in their invasion of South Vietnam. More significantly the base camps acted as fortified assembly areas for staging NVA attacks upon American air bases and logistical support units located north of Saigon.


The battlefield the enemy had selected to contest covered jungle terrain that suited the short-range weaponry that the NVA brought to the conflict in the early years of the struggle, when Hanoi maintained the war of the National Liberation Front (NLF) was an indigenous insurgency.[1] The jungle both restricted visibility to a few yards as American infantrymen and cavalrymen searched for their opponents and it negated the superiority of the long-range weapons and technology the Americans brought to the battle.


The enemy’s base camps consisted of bunkers with overhead cover and extensive trench lines. His troops were armed with Soviet assault rifles and machine guns. Chinese Claymore-type mines that covered the approaches to his fortifications augmented his deadly short-range weapons. Situated beneath dense jungle canopy often two hundred feet in height, the enemy was protected from aerial observation, artillery fire, which detonated prematurely in the tall canopy of the rain forests, and the ground incursions required to take the enemy positions one trench and one bunker at a time. We were winning the battles; for at the end of the day we owned the enemy base camp that had become the target of our attacks, but the grim statistics of the battles yielded no joy.


Aero Rifle Platoon members (ARPs) posing with captured enemy weapons after successfully clearing an enemy bunker complex, a dangerous and often costly operation. The individuals from left to right are Sergeant Butler, Sergeant Roeder, Lieutenant Doubleday, Specialist Starkey, and Sergeant Summers.


With our dead and wounded often as numerous as those of our enemy, we engaged in an exhausting form of battle that sapped the strength of our soldiers in the heat of the tropical rain forests. The fighting also tested the tactical skills of our troops, who learned to approach the enemy bunkers from the blind side

and grenade the occupants, allowing small teams of expert infantry to move through a large bunker complex and inflict heavy casualties on our opponents. Even so victory did not come cheap. The deadly game of seeking out the enemy’s fortified positions proved costly as American troops encountered the well-concealed mines and snipers of the enemy. Once locked in battle the set piece slaughter began as the American infantry and cavalry troopers took out the enemy one bunker at a time.


Bitter, exhausting, and costly engagements characterized the battles for the enemy base camps. My boss, Colonel George S. Patton III, a resolute fighter, commanded the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment. Colonel Patton took care of his men, and his troopers worshiped him in return. We were vexed by the complexity of the problem of reducing the well-constructed base camps of our tenacious opponents. Assigned as the S-2, intelligence officer, of the regiment, I had been watching reports of the battles being waged to destroy the enemy headquarters and base camps along the Cambodian border. These battles had a different character, which pitted the skills of the American air cavalry and the firepower of Air Force B52 strikes to obliterate the enemy. The jungle canopy offered no protection to the massive bomb strikes that literally blew away the massive hard wood trees that grew to great heights. I realized that the battles on the Cambodian frontier made much better use of the American advantages in technology and firepower than our bloody approach to the problem.


I went to Colonel Patton and asked if he would authorize the request of Air Force B52 strikes to destroy the enemy’s prepared battle positions in our AO. He challenged me saying: “Do you have the intelligence to justify that expenditure of firepower.” I swallowed hard and answered yes. I had confidence in our intelligence analysis section headed up by Captain Ralph Rosenberg, as well as in our intelligence collection capabilities, especially the scouts of the regiment’s Air Cavalry Troop. Patton thought about my proposal and responded that if the intelligence section could produce the data to justify an “Arc Light Strike,” the code name given to B52 strikes, he would support the request.


I took the problem to the commander of the Air Cavalry Troop, Major John C. Bahnsen, who immediately recognized the advantages of fighting from our strengths, rather than allowing the enemy to dictate the terms of battle. He was a great fighter and a smart tactician, who recognized that the search for the enemy base camps called for close coordination between the scouts and those of us in the regimental intelligence section working up the request for B52 strikes. He promptly gave me direct access to his scouts, telling them that they would be working directly for the S-2 in developing B52 targets until they were needed to destroy a communist unit brought to bay in the open terrain that formed the western portion of 11th Cavalry area of operations. He said that our Arc Light targeting effort was too important and the time too precious to waste on intermediary links in the chain of reporting.


I fashioned specific AOs for each of our eight scout teams, referred to as pink teams, composed of one light observation helicopter and one cobra gunship providing cover and communication links to the operations section of the troop. I took the scouts teams out one by one and showed them the limits of their assigned area, as well as the enemy trails identified from previous scout reports — intelligence carefully collated and preserved by Ralph Rosenberg and the men working for him. The scouts intuitively recognized the advantages of the new method of attacking the enemy. They did not need to be told that many American soldiers would no longer leave Viet Nam in body bags if we could locate the base camps from the air and bring down on our enemy massive fire from the sky. In the days and weeks that followed the scouts of the Air Cavalry Troop identified multiple enemy base camps in the jungle. We took the intelligence to the 1st Infantry Division and II Field Force, where we convinced our superiors of the lucrative targets that were providing sanctuaries to enemy troop units preparing to launch attacks upon American instillations at Bien Hoa and Long Binh. The Ark Light Strikes were approved.


Most of our B52 strikes went in during the night or at first light. Colonel Patton directed his operations officer, Lieutentant Colonel Jim Dozier, to follow up B52 strikes with ground troops. I worked with the scouts to prepare the Bomb Damage Assessments (BDA) of the strikes. The Arc Light strikes had produced awesome results, obliterating base camps, blasting away the tall jungle canopy, and bringing down trees that once obscured observation. Huge craters plowed the ground that formerly housed formidable communist combat units and logistical support troops. Cadavers hung out of the trees on the perimeter of the strike zone. Only splinters remained of massive trees, and the muck and dirt thrown skyward during the bomb blasts now covered the ground in a carpeted layer several feet thick that obscured human body parts dismembered in the attack. Regrettably, the earth did not conceal the stench of human guts and brains that now saturated the carpet of newly plowed ground – formerly the site of extensive trenches and bunker complexes.


We were elated but hard pressed to describe the results of the BDA. We could count the cadavers hanging from the trees, but we had no idea of the numbers of enemy soldiers incinerated by the blasts. Nor could we imagine the number of NVA survivors who fled toward the Cambodian border as fast as they could to evade our post-strike reconnaissance operations. We did not learn of the massive losses we had inflicted upon the enemy until weeks later, when captured prisoners revealed during interrogation that they had been members of a unit stationed in one of the enemy base camps targeted for attack by the B52s. Whole companies and battalions had virtually ceased to exist in the succession of massive explosions that had obliterated the communist base camps. By then it was difficult to claim the enemy casualties inflicted in a battle that had taken place weeks, if not months, before. The skeptical journalists denied our claims. We were lying to make our commanders look good they claimed. They were wrong.


As hoped, the use of Arc Light Strikes in the fight of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment against NVA base camps dramatically reduced our casualties. The large number of body bags headed to Long Binh on their way to grieving family members of the 11th Cavalry troopers fell sharply. The aircrews of the B52s flying at 25,000 feet could see nothing of their targets except jungle canopy. They had no way of knowing the impact their long and exhausting missions had on our combat operations, especially in view of the fact that the media, reflecting Hanoi’s propaganda, derided the value of the strikes. But we knew and were grateful.


I am confident that I would not have survived my tour of duty with the 11th Cavalry had it not been for the men of the Air Force, who saved the lives of infantrymen and cavalry troopers by sparing them bitter battles to demolish enemy base camps. Words cannot convey our gratitude to the brave Air Force leaders and crewmen who made possible our victories and saved the lives of countless American fighting men.

[1] Later in the war, following the decimation of the Viet Cong military formations and the elimination of the Viet Cong infrastructure by the Phoenix Program, the NVA employed conventional tactics using divisional size units fully equipped with Soviet heavy equipment including tanks and artillery. By 1972 the NLF insurgency had failed and all pretext of NLF control of the North’s war effort in South Vietnam was abandoned, despite the fact that the NLF continued to play a role in the Paris Peace Talks as a diplomatic ploy to bring about a settlement based upon communist participation in the government of South Vietnam (GVN).


Written by anniehamilton805

November 10, 2012 at 7:17 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

The long journey into night

leave a comment »

The Long Journey into Night
Andy O’Meara
The journey from combat to hospitals to rehabilitation and release from military service appeared at the time to be the final leg of our journey in uniform. The journey had begun with military training followed by orders to troop units and combat in Vietnam. The journey was unique for each of us who followed the path from civilian life to duty in jungle fatigues.

Our jobs differed from infantry grunts to artillerymen and aviators, as well as cooks and bakers, who each made different contributions to the conflict. Along the way, we bonded with fellow soldiers. We took pride in our new units with long service in defense of freedom, some reaching back to the Revolutionary War.

Our abrupt arrival in the stifling heat and humidity of South Vietnam was a shock. Before we could adjust to the heat of our new surroundings, large transport aircraft, helicopters, and trucks transported novice warriors to new homes – tent cities in exotic settings from highlands to river deltas. Vietnam was a huge country divided into forty-four provinces—each unique and exotic.

The country stretched hundreds of miles from the North Vietnamese border to the mangrove swamps and rice paddies at the southern tip of the country known as Ca Mau. We had never experienced anything quite like it; and the beauty of the land amazed us as we gazed out upon the vast countryside.
Encounters with the enemy would come later. We gradually came to know our opponents – North Vietnamese Army units, as well as Viet Cong guerrillas.

The enemy strategy was to take control of the rural population and defeat the men dressed in the uniforms of the soldiers of the Saigon Government. Although we did not see it at the time, we were part of the larger Cold War struggle. Our war was a proxy war between America and the Soviet Union. It pitted Hanoi against South Vietnam. The Soviet Union and the Peoples’ Republic of China supported Hanoi. The Americans and their Asian allies – South Korea, Australia, and Thailand, backed Saigon.

Our fight was a test of the Cold War containment strategy that had halted Soviet expansion in Europe. In Northeast Asia, the containment strategy had been tested and had held in Korea; but in Southeast Asia, the situation remained fluid and its outcome uncertain.

We did not perceive that we were part of a protracted struggle that would continue far longer than we could imagine. Our participation in the struggle between the two Vietnams endured for over a decade. The long struggle saw the building of a large South Vietnamese defense establishment and the decimation of the indigenous guerrilla force we knew as the Viet Cong, who were virtually annihilated in the conflict. Their leadership, known as the National Liberation Front (NLF), did not learn they were puppets until the cannon were silent.

The NLF– the face of the communist enemy in the South and their few surviving Viet Cong soldiers– were excluded from the victory parade in Saigon celebrating Hanoi’s conquest of the South. Instead, the Viet Cong survivors joined North Vietnamese units. The NLF fared no better. The survivors found no jobs in the new administration of the South they thought they would govern, as their propaganda proclaimed.

Instead, the NLF cadre were offered menial jobs by Hanoi’s generals, who ruled South Vietnam. Some of the NLF survivors fled as boat people in leaking fishing boats to watery graves or new beginnings in distant lands.
The Americans departed following the signing of the Paris Peace Treaty in 1972, taking our prisoners of war with us as we departed. We had sent home 58,000 American dead for burials in cemeteries across America. The South Vietnamese lost a quarter of a million troops. The North Vietnamese lost 1.4 million soldiers in the extended combat. The collateral damage of the war was extensive. Civilian casualties were heavy on both sides. In addition, wounded soldiers filled hospitals from Hanoi to Saigon and from Hawaii to Washington, DC. 

The most severely wounded remained hospitalized indefinitely. The majority of the wounded were treated and released to return to homes they had departed years before.
The final cost of the dramatic events of the long war included animosity on the Home Front. The mood of the country had changed. The war had changed everyone – the soldiers, their families, civilians on the Home Front and those, who elected to oppose the war. Riots, demonstrations, and angry mobs had seized universities, encouraged by a liberal press, Hollywood and folk singers, who became icons of the period. Frequently, the returning veterans discovered they were no longer welcome in their hometowns, which inflicted emotional scars upon battle scared veterans.

Years later soldiers, innocent of their internal scars from traumatic stress, turned to alcohol and drugs to medicate depression and anger that become constant companions, haunting the living with memories of the dead and dying.

Many veterans had the good fortune to reside near medical facilities of the Veterans Administration (VA). They learned help was available through the VA. VA psychiatrists provided care and counseling. Those suffering from depression and acute stress received medication. Participation in group therapy sessions was available on a voluntary basis.

Most veterans seeking treatment from the VA expected cures. We thought that after counseling and treatment we could return to normal lives in our communities. I recall asking my counselor how long it would take to cure my Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The answer was honest, clear and unmistakable. She replied, “You will take it to your grave.” Granted my case was one of prolonged exposure to high stress levels, but I had no inkling of the consequences of my combat duties.

The VA could assist me with therapy, counseling and medication for depression and anger, but at the end of the day the treatment only contained the most severe symptoms of the disorder. There was no cure in sight. Normality was a thing of the distant past.
Veterans spent years together in therapy listening to fellow warriors telling of their long journey through jungle and highlands, rice paddies and mangrove swamps.

We shared homecomings that were frequently, incredibly bitter – wives had deserted their men, families rejected brothers and sons, complete strangers mocked veterans along with Hollywood and the media in daily vitriol that exiled us in our own land. The most common and difficult emotional burden of combat was survivor’s guilt, which was widespread. We confessed our survivor’s guilt because God spared us, while taking the lives of our closest companions – warriors we loved.

Together we had shared brutality beyond description and close combat that never ended. With the loss of our closest companions, we stuffed emotions so we could carry on. Those of us in leadership position had to be ready for combat only hours away; and our soldiers had to be prepared. No tears, no looking back, and no show of weakness were possible leading the young troopers, who needed us. We refused to look back.

We buried our grief so deep in the hidden recesses of our subconscious that it was beyond recall. The unconscious burial of dark memories took with it all memories and emotions of shared times, faces, names and entire operations disappeared into a fog of denial that shielded us from pain too intense to endure, sights too ugly to recall without jeopardizing our ability to function in combat without end. Duty demanded we move on and prepare for enemy contact in the night or certainly in the morning that was not far off. Over time, we became hardened and felt no pain, no remorse, and no emotions other than rage that drove warriors in combat. The subconscious colluded in our need for protection from trauma and memories too heavy to bear. The denial and stuffing of the ugly past protect us from burdens too heavy to endure for years – ten, twenty years – until the subconscious was exhausted by the constant weight of its enormous burden and began to leak visions of the distant past.

When the subconscious began to surrender its burden, warriors entered a new phase of the journey, when brief memories would surface for brief seconds that prompted anger, curses and then nothing. It was gone – the flashback — and we had no idea what had convulsed us in anger and left us trembling and covered in sweat. Sometimes flashbacks came during the day triggered by a smell that resembled the stench of the battlefield, or a word, or sounds. Other flashbacks returned in the night as dreams that tormented old warrior and their loved ones.

Patients with brief exposure to moderate to low stress levels had the best chance of making progress in the quest to rejoin society, although they also faced the difficulty of regression and public display of PTSD symptoms.  Everyday situations often triggered suppressed combat memories – the backfiring of a truck, the slamming of a door in a high wind, an angry confrontation with a co-worker – resulting in angry outbursts, rage, and depression. Such workers were recognized as a problem in the workplace, which usually was followed by a pink slip in the envelope with his or her last paycheck.

Group therapy sessions offered veterans an opportunity to make sense of painful agonies visited upon the survivors of an ugly past. The sessions were difficult for many because it threw together men of dramatically different combat experiences, many of whom exhibited anger and at times violent responses to combat memories. The benefits of the sessions included the opportunity for soldiers to compare their experiences, as well as the dreams and flashbacks that haunted those exposed to prolonged combat. An unintended outcome of group therapy was that it allowed veterans to find men with similar backgrounds, who became friends in a world hostile to veterans in the aftermath of the long and unpopular conflict.

Regrettably, tensions existed among veterans in group therapy sessions that I attended. The therapy revealed many different categories of stress casualties. Men with multiple combat tours in units that saw heavy and prolonged combat were hardened veterans—angry men – without much concern for those exposed to very real, but less intense stress, while supporting combat operations in supply, transportation and support units on airfields or large logistical installations.

The combat support soldiers periodically experienced incoming rockets and artillery, as well as the stress associated with convoy duties that exposed them to sniper fire, mines and occasional ambushes in forward areas. Even cooks and bakers went to sleep with the sound of artillery fire – friendly and enemy—in the night. Medical personnel were exposed to trauma and stress unique to their calling, but every bit as bitter as that experienced by soldiers across the battlefield. Doctors and nurses witnessed the drama of wounded men and women arriving hourly by choppers with wounds of every description.

They tried valiantly to save the lives of the most seriously injured, but invariably many of those they struggled to keep alive died.
Those of us with extended combat duty during multiple tours of duty in Vietnam recognized intuitively that PTSD could not be understood as simply one category of casualties. It was not a matter of one size fits all. We were a diverse population with stress related symptoms that ranged from infrequent exposure to low stress levels to prolonged exposure to combat trauma – high stress levels –over many years. The most severe cases of traumatic stress were normally found among the veterans, who had served as infantrymen in several wars.

Moreover, soldiers had unique tolerances to stress that differed dramatically. Simply the act of putting on a uniform and undergoing military training from dawn to dusk was highly stressful for some. Military training posed no problem and produced little stress for volunteers from farms and rural communities, who hunted all their lives and were accustomed to hard physical labor from dawn until dusk.

Veterans with PTSD spent years in therapy and came to know fellow veterans, their journey into hell, their problems with flashback, their dreams, and the great sorrows they carried. Over time the sharing, counseling, and listening to the experiences of members of the therapy group brought us to an understanding of what had happened to us as the subconscious gradually revealed the hidden past. The friendships formed in the therapy groups led to close associations as we met for coffee and attended veteran’s organizations like The Combat Infantryman’s Association, The Military Order of the Purple Heart, Vietnam Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans, The American Legion and The Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Friends sat together in the therapy sessions. The senior warriors with multiple combat tours sat with friends with similar experiences. Soldiers with less exposure to danger and stress sat apart. The severely, wounded, senior warriors were a dying breed. They had been wounded multiple times. Typical problems included exposure to Agent Orange, crippling stress that manifested itself in heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.

 These medical conditions aggravated the disabilities veterans brought back from war – gunshot wounds, loss of limbs, lost hearing, impaired lungs, lost vision, and deeply personal wounds that we were only able to share after years of friendship and earned trust. Alcoholism haunted those of us who had resorted to drink to medicate stress in the years before we found VA treatment. Each year our numbers dwindled as trusted comrades lost their struggle for life.

It became obvious to all of us that PTSD was not a single malady with one method of treatment. Both Psychiatrists and patients alike recognized marked differences between PTSD patients who required different approaches to treatment. The most severely disturbed patients required hospitalization. Other PTSD victims required different dosages of medications that varied with the severity of the veteran’s symptoms. Patients exposed to violent trauma and combat stress for extensive periods required more medications and counseling than patients with shorter exposure times to lower stress levels.

Many of the older veterans with extensive service discussed the advantages of segregating patients into groups reflecting the severity of their PTSD symptoms. Such an approach would allow the most seriously injured and aggravated, combat, stress-impaired patients to relate to men and women with similar experiences, reducing the tensions between men and women exposed to dramatically different stress levels.
Discussion of the problem suggested the need for recognition of a hierarchy of PTSD cases in a manner similar to the classification of burn victims in multiple categories reflecting the different treatment required based on the severity of the wound. The following concept of PTSD types is suggested as the basis for further study of the disorder based upon the dramatically different PTSD patients found in VA therapy sessions.

 Categorizations of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder 
First Degree Post Traumatic Stress Disorder:
·       Stress Exposure: Short to moderate duration.
·       Trauma: Limited exposure to traumatic injuries.
·       Victim: Mechanic, cook, accident victim, nurse         (depending upon duties), battered wives.
·       Characteristics: Nurturing personality or employed in a non-combat role.
·       Symptoms: Anger, depression, anxiety, and reduced job site effectiveness.
Second Degree Post Traumatic Stress Disorder:
·       Stress Exposure: Extended exposure to stress.
·       Trauma: Typically exposed to extreme cases of trauma.
·       Victims: Combat infantry, intensive care nurse, police and firefighters, rape or incest victim, EMT personnel, and battered wives exposed to abuse over long periods.
·       Characteristics: Insensitive, history of frequent or multiple tours of duty in combat units, career firefighters and police officer serving in high-risk environment.
·       Symptoms: Combative, angry, sleep disorders, suppressed memories, anti-social, experiences flashbacks.
Third Degree Post Traumatic Stress Disorder:
·       Stress Exposure: Routine exposure over many years.
·       Trauma: Routine exposure to severe trauma over many years.
·       Victims: Combat leaders, Special Forces personnel, SWAT team members.
·       Characteristics: Highly trained professional, impersonal and passionless, takes initiative, insensitive personality.
·       Symptoms: Often none for many years, resorts to alcohol as self-medication to control stress and anxiety, considers psychological disorders a sign of weakness, and denies symptoms of PTSD.
Fourth Degree Post Traumatic Stress Disorder:
·       Stress Exposure: Extensive exposure to intense stress.
·       Trauma: Routine exposure to violent trauma.
·       Victims: The avenger (Killer Angels – General Lee’s infantry in the Army of Northern Virginia), incest victims exposed to molestation over a period of years, prisoners of war exposed to prolonged torture and deprivation.
·       Characteristics: Fights with rage, combat is personal, long history of suffering and personal loss.
·       Symptoms: Anger, combative, use of alcohol to control stress or grief, and frequently denies symptoms of disorder.

Fifth Degree Post Traumatic Stress Disorder:
·       Stress Exposure: Often life-long exposure to stress.
·       Trauma: Extended exposure to multiple forum of trauma.
·       Victims: Victims of multiple form of PTSD.
·       Characteristics: Incest victim that becomes a combat infantryman in more than one war, or rape victim that works as an intensive care nurse.
·       Symptoms: Symptoms may be suppressed for years; later symptoms emerge including uncontrollable anger, history of substance abuse, depression, flashbacks, and sleep disorders

Written by anniehamilton805

October 11, 2010 at 6:03 am

Is Charyse Geurts a murderer?

with one comment

Statistics rarely give an accurate portrayal of the state of children’s rights in America and in fact, according to Jeffrey Bennett, former mayor of Corona, California, fatal child battery and abuse has risen at least 40 % since 1992.

I was first introduced to this horrific reality in 2001 when researching a case in the Pacific Northwest and sadly, the situation has not improved for our Nation’s kids.

Recently I heard about Juliette Geurts, a two-year old twin from Gering, Nebraska, who died as a result of blunt force trauma to the head as well as a four-inch laceration to the liver that caused internal bleeding.

At the time of her death, three adults were present in the tiny home, her mother (CHARYSE GEURTS) and both of the Mother’s boyfriends (DUSTIN CHAUNCEY AND BRANDON TOWNSEND)

The investigation into this child’s murder has been weak at best. No one sealed the crime scene until five days following her death, her twin was not taken into protective custody until four days following Juliette’s murder and since her killing, and all three people of interest have fled town and apparently prosecution.


To add insult to injury it’s widely known that one month prior to Juliette’s killing, DUSTIN CHAUNCEY was involved in another horrible event (he attacked another person with a baseball bat) which resulted in a short stint in prison. Guess who drove the car that delivered Chauncey to the attack?  

CHARYSE GEURTS. No charges were filed against her; she was never even questioned although she’s confirmed as being ‘present’ in the police report.

This woman had two men living with her and her twin toddlers in a tiny home, knowing that at least one of them had violent tendencies and a hair-trigger temper. No one has questioned her in Juliette’s murder nor have they bothered to question either man.

How is this possible?

(When Jaelyn was taken into custody, four days after Juliette’s killing, it was noted that she had large bruises on her neck as though someone had grabbed her.

Still no investigation although Jaelyn is in the custody of her paternal grandparents in Wisconsin and her Father, although as a Soldier, he’s in Afghanistan and must deal with this from afar)

Is anyone wondering yet how this can happen? How the authorities could be so incompetent as to allow this to continue on in such a disgusting fashion?  

DAVE WARNER, local attorney and aspiring politician (running unchallenged) not only has no answers for the victim’s family, he is refusing to release the police report and related information so they can investigate on their own or have closure.

Countless phone calls, emails and letters have been sent and filed on Juliette’s behalf, to no avail. No one seems very interested in attaining justice for this child.




mayor@gering.org and 308-436-5096



Dave Heineman 402-471-2244 or 308-632-1370



Please join me in demanding justice for Juliette. Not only is it unconscionable for her killing to go unpunished it’s immoral for the investigation to continue falling through the cracks of Nebraska’s inadequate system.

Thank you, in advance, for helping raise awareness around this little girl.

Brief history of Islam

leave a comment »


extremist Islamist organizations. Quilliam aims to generate new 

thinking through informed and inclusiiscussion to counter the 

Islamist ideology behind terrorism, whilst simultaneously providing 

evidence-based recommendations to governments for related policy 

measures. Our strategic communications work involves research 

projects, public events, specialist roundtables and media campaigns 

to empower civil society to work towards improved national cohesion, 

Muslim integration through respect for scriptural diversity, and 

encouragement of political pluralism. 

For further information contact: 


Email: information@quilliamfoundation.org 

Tel: +44 (0)207 182 7280 



Quilliam, January 2010 

© Quilliam 2010 – All rights reserved 

Disclaimer: The views of individuals and organizations used in this booklet 

do not necessarily reflect those of Quilliam 




On the morning of the 19th of Ramadan of the year 40 AH (CE 661), Ali ibn Abu Talib

the fourth Caliph of Islam and son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad, entered the Great 

Mosque of Kufa in Iraq and began the call to prayer. After completing this call, he calmly 

took his place in the alcove and waited for the worshippers to arrive. Once they had 

gathered and taken their places behind him in serried ranks, the prayer began. 

However, this prayer gathering was slightly different. Standing in the front row, with 

other worshippers, was a man called Abdur Rahman bin Muljam who had arrived in 

Kufa a few days earlier for a very specific purpose. 

A few years earlier, in 37 AH (CE 657), Ali had temporarily ended hostilities with his 

long-time rival Muawiyah, through arbitration. As Ali and his army marched back to 

Kufa, a group of 12,000 men kept their distance from the main part of the army − they 

were not happy with the way things had ended. They denounced Ali and Muawiyah for 

accepting arbitration as a means of resolving hostilities because in their view, only God 

could decide such matters. They adopted ‘La Hukma Illa Lillah’, meaning, ‘No rule 

except by Allah’ as their slogan and they became known as the Khawarij (Arabic for 

‘renegades’). The Khawarij became very hostile to the Muslims around them to the 

extent that Ali had no choice but to face them on the battlefield; in 38 AH (CE 658) the 

Battle of Nahrawan took place. The Khawarij stood no chance against the far superior 

army of Ali, and they were all killed save for nine men who managed to escape. Abdur 

Rahman belonged to the Khawarij and he was also on the battlefield in Nahrawan that 

day. He was one of the lucky ones who had escaped but he was consumed with the 

desire to kill Ali, and was on a quest to do so. 

Abdur Rahman watched Ali very closely as he stood behind him in the great Mosque of 

Kufa. He had come prepared with a sword soaked in poison that he hid under his cloak. 

When Ali’s head touched the ground in prostration, Abdur Rahman crept up behind him. 

As Ali lifted his head from the ground Abdur Rahman struck and shouted at the fallen 

Ali, ‘authority belongs to God, Ali, not to you’. The Muslims of Kufa were devastated, but 

little did they know that the Khawarij slogan was to be revived 1,300 years later. 

Egypt: Mother of the World 

By the end of the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire was in rapid decline and many of its 

former territories had been taken over by European colonial powers. European political 

ideas along with social and cultural values were highly visible in a number of Muslimmajority 

countries. In this context, a number of progressive Muslim reformers arose who 

sought to advocate a simple and crude form of pan-Islamism as a form of resistance to 

European colonialism. Prominent amongst these were Jamal ad-din al-Afghani 

(1837-97) and his student Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905). These individuals maintained 

that whilst Muslims needed to adopt certain ideas from the West in order to progress, 

they should also formulate a Muslim response to Western cultural and political 

hegemony. They suggested that Muslims should reject the blind following of earlier 

Muslim authorities, whom they accused of having deviated from the true message of 

Islam whilst emphasizing the need to follow the example of the first generation of 

Muslims. They were also strong advocates of rational thought and hence many of their 

contemporaries called them ‘neo-Mutazilites’ (a reference to a movement of Muslim 

rationalists established in 8th century CE). 

Rashid Rida (1865-1935) was a devout follower of Abduh and in 1897 he left his home 

near Tripoli, now in Lebanon, in order to work with Abduh in Cairo. 

Rida published a Magazine called Al Manar from 1898 until his death in 1935. Like his 

predecessors, Rida focused on the relative weakness of Muslim societies that in his 

view had facilitated European colonialism. He blamed this on Sufi excesses, the blind 

imitation of past scholars and stagnation of learning and knowledge among the 

scholars, which had resulted in the failure to achieve progress in science and 

technology. He believed that these weaknesses could only be surmounted by a return 

to what he saw as the ‘true Islam’. An Islam purged of pagan and Western influences, 

as practised by the first generation of Muslims, an Islam that was in tune with the needs 

of modern society. 

Rida’s magazine managed to attract a number of regular readers, including a former 

school teacher by the name of Hassan al-Banna (1906–1949). Al-Banna had moved to 

Cairo from the small town of Mahmudiyya in the early 1920s, and was disturbed by the 

perceived Westernization he experienced there. As well as being an avid reader of Al 

Manar, he also immersed himself in the writings of Abduh and Afghani. Al-Banna 

shared Rida’s central concern about the decline of Muslim societies in relation to the 

West. He decided that the key to reform was to resist Western secular ideas and in turn 

to promote Islam as a political ideology. To this end, he established the Ikhwan 

al-Muslimeen (The Muslim Brotherhood) in Cairo in 1928. His organization decided to 

adopt the motto: 

‘Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our constitution. Jihad is 

our way. Martyrdom is our highest hope’. 

Over the next two decades, al-Banna worked relentlessly at the grassroots level to 

establish a complex but structured organization that propagated its ideas effectively. 

The Ikhwan attached itself to, and built strategic relations with mosques, welfare 

associations and neighbourhood groups, whilst seeking to influence existing activists 

with its revolutionary ideas. By joining local cells, members could access a 

well-established and well-resourced community of activists who would help them in 

all aspects of their lives. The foundations of what we now know as Islamism were being 




By 1948, the Ikhwan had become quite successful, buoyed by the establishment of 

Israel; they had over one million members in Egypt and had branches in other parts of 

the Middle East. 1948 was also the year in which tension between the ruling monarchy 

and society was reaching its zenith. In December 1948, then Prime Minister Mahmoud 

an Nukrashi Pasha was increasingly concerned with the assertiveness and popularity 

of the Ikhwan and so, shortly after rumours of an Ikhwani coup, the group was banned 

and its assets were impounded. Less than three weeks later, the prime minister was 

assassinated by a member of the Ikhwan, a veterinary student called Abdel Meguid 

Ahmed Hassan. This in turn prompted the assassination of al-Banna a month and a 

half later. 

Al-Banna was only 43 years old when he was killed and, according to many, was at the 

height of his career. His assassination did not signal the end of his movement and 

certainly not the end of his ideas. Indeed, many of the young middle class individuals 

who had joined the Ikhwan would go on to form and inspire the vast spectrum of 

Islamist and jihadist movements we see around the world today, including a young 

newly-qualified pediatrician called Ayman al-Zawahiri. Only a few years after al-Banna’s 

death, the Ikhwan also managed to attract a young man who had just returned from the 

United States (US). This man was about to have a huge impact on the future direction of 

the newly-born political ideology of Islamism. In the meantime, Islamism was being 

developed and shaped by other ideologues in different parts of the world. 

Trouble in the Holy Lands: Hizb ut-Tahrir 

‘Resisting a ruler who fails to implement the true Islamic system is also of immense 

importance. So much so that the rule by a Kufr [non-Islamic] system must be prevented 

even if this led to several years of fighting and even if it led to the killing of millions of 

Muslims and to the martyrdom of millions of believers…’ 

1Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) was founded in 1953 by an appeals court judge from Palestine called 

Taqiuddin al-Nabhani (1909-1977). Galvanized by the establishment of Israel in his 

homeland and the creeping influences of Western political ideas, Nabhani had formed 

this political party with the sole objective of establishing an Islamist super state. 

Nabhani too was close to the Ikhwan in his early years and many viewed HT as an 

offshoot of the Ikhwan. Nabhani, being a former Ba’thist, was also heavily influenced by 

Arab nationalism. He maintained his Arab-centric outlook but presented it in the Islamic 

language of a super ‘Islamic’ state – concentrating on the Arabic-speaking 

Muslims – superimposed on his Arab super-nation state concept. He was also regarded 

as a neo-Mutazilite by many of his contemporaries for his emphasis on rational thought 

in theology and his dismissive attitude towards the spiritual dimensions of life. 



1 Abdul Qadeem Zalloom (2000), How the Khilafah was Destroyed (London: Al-Khilafah Publications), p.199. 

After establishing his political party, Nabhani took the bold step of taking the Islamist 

ideology, which had been evolving for more than 30 years, to the next level. For the first 

time ever he produced a detailed constitution for a future ‘Islamic state’, also outlining 

so-called ‘Islamic’ social, political, judicial and economic systems. Nabhani maintained 

that Islam was not a faith but a political ideology that pre-defined how a government 

should be structured and run. Whilst al-Banna had spoken in vague terms about 

‘Islamic governance’, Nabhani crystallized these ideas and produced a blue print. 

This attention to detail, however, was to prove to be a strategic blunder, since it allowed 

followers very little room for creativity and instead contributed towards creating a 

personality cult, rather than an inclusive political party. 

It is fair to say that HT was not very successful as a party. In the early 1950s many of its 

senior members stood in the Jordanian elections but failed to win a seat. They then 

withdrew from the political process, condemned democracy as being anti-Islamic and 

instead focused on building support for their ideas through political activism. 

The masses, however, were not responsive to their message and they failed to garner 

sufficient support for a revolution. Over the next few years they were outlawed in Jordan, 

Syria and Palestine. The resulting frustration inspired coup attempts in 1968-69 and in 

1971-72 in Syria, Jordan and Iraq. Needless to say, all such attempts were unsuccessful 

and subsequently the groups’ members were oppressed. Support for the party 

continued to decline to the extent that in the late 1970s, the party admitted that their 

activities had come to a standstill. The masses were simply not inspired by their shallow 

sloganeering and many of their members either left to join more radical groups or 

simply gave up struggling for the cause. Help, however, was on its way from the most 

unlikely of sources. 

During the 1980s, a number of HT activists fled the Middle East and found refuge in the 

United Kingdom (UK). They immediately recognized the opportunities offered by a 

secular democratic state like the UK that had a proud tradition of free speech and 

tolerance for diverse political ideas. HT was given a new lease of life and a whole new 

generation to reach out to – they were not about to waste the opportunity. By targeting 

higher education institutions, these exiled activists managed to appeal primarily to a 

section of disillusioned second generation British Muslims of South Asian heritage. This 

required slightly tailoring their message whilst remaining faithful to their Arab-centric 

roots. Within the next few years, HT was able to export these new recruits back to their 

fathers’ homelands to establish cells in South East Asia and the Indian subcontinent. 

We Want the World: Jamaat-i-Islami 

In the wake of Pakistan’s nuclear test, young fresh HT activists began arriving in 1999. 

They soon realized that the Indian subcontinent was no stranger to Islamism. Indeed, 

roots had already been put down by an Indian journalist-cum-pseudo-theologian called 

Syed Abul ala Mawdudi. 



‘Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth, 

which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or 

the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own 

ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standardbearer 

of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the 

establishment of an ideological Islamic State. Islam requires the earth — not just a 

portion, but the whole planet’. 

2Mawdudi was born in Aurangabad, in what was then British India, in 1903. His early 

education came primarily from home tutoring and a range of Islamic schools and 

seminaries. His formal secondary education was disrupted by the death of his father 

and so was completed away from mainstream educational institutions. In 1918 he 

turned his hand to journalism and wrote for, and edited, a number of newspapers that 

were primarily aimed at the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. In 1927, he wrote a 

book called Jihad in Islam in which he highlighted his view that the role of jihad was to 

fight to establish Islam as a political ideology and then use jihad to forcibly spread the 

ideology to the whole world. Mawdudi was writing at a time when the people of the 

subcontinent were struggling for independence from the British and so his ideas hit a 

nerve. Despite being denounced by most of the mainstream scholars of the time, his 

prominence grew and in 1941 he established a political party called Jamaat-i-Islami (JI). 

After partition, JI was split into three factions: one for India, one for West Pakistan and 

one for East Pakistan. Mawdudi decided to move to Lahore in order to focus on pushing 

for Pakistan to become an Islamist state. His activity resulted in him being frequently 

arrested and incarcerated, often for long periods of time. After being released from 

prison in the 1950s for opposing the Government’s policy of sending fighters to fight the 

Indian army in Kashmir, Mawdudi decided to stand in provincial elections. He did 

disastrously at the ballot box. He did, however, succeed in generating tension on the 

streets. In 1953, he was sentenced to death for writing a seditious book against the 


ensured that he only received a prison sentence and was released a few years later. 

By 1956, Mawdudi and his party had become a powerful force in Pakistan, and this was 

reflected in the final shape of the 1956 constitution that Mawdudi helped to draft. 

The Government of the time saw this as a way of keeping the Islamist groups quiet and 

strengthening their own weak position. 


3 community, but strong public pressure and support from Saudi Arabia05 

Syed Abul ala Mawdudi (1927), Jihad in Islam (Beirut: The Holy Koran Publishing House), p.6.

Mirza claimed to be the promised Messiah for all Muslims and as such his followers today view themselves 

as revivers of the true Islam. They remain a controversial movement in the Indian subcontinent and were 

declared non-Muslims by the government of Pakistan in 1984. 

The Ahmadiyya movement was founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmed in 1889 in Qadian, India.This constitutional victory was to be short lived for in 1958, under the orders of General 

Ayub Khan, the armed forces seized power, shelved the constitution and banned JI. 

During the next decade JI and similar groups remained on the back foot as Ayub Khan 

tried to implement his modernization programme and keep religion out of politics. 

JI continued to operate and frequently built alliances with other secular parties in order 

to restore democracy and end military rule. 

In the post-Ayub era, JI re-emerged as a political force and fielded 151 candidates for 

the national assembly in the elections of 1971. However, they were bitterly disappointed 

when they managed to win only four seats. At the onset of civil war later that year, 

Mawdudi, in the name of Muslim unity, supported the Government’s military actions 

against the people of East Pakistan. The West Pakistani military sought to curb Bengali 

nationalism with ‘Operation Searchlight’, in which the military were accused of rounding 

up and killing Bengali students, intellectuals, artists and poets. According to most 

estimates, anywhere between 300,000 and three million Bengalis were killed and a large 

number of women were reportedly systematically raped. These actions ultimately 

resulted in the creation of Bangladesh in 1971, with the assistance of India and the 

international community. It also created widespread unpopularity for JI and Islamist 

parties in Bangladesh – an unpopularity that continues to this day. 

Despite failing once again to win more than a handful of seats in the election of 1977, the 

JI retained political influence in Pakistan. It was galvanized into action with the arrival of 

Zulfiqar Bhutto and the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), which it felt would threaten the 

Islamic foundations of Pakistan. JI worked tirelessly to mobilise the masses against 

Bhutto’s Government and helped to shape an opposition alliance called 

Nizam e Mustafa (Order of the Prophet). Within a few years there was yet another 

military coup, Bhutto was overthrown by General Zia ul Haq, and the JI had bolstered 

its image and support base. 

According to author Seyyed Vali Reza Khan in his book Mawdudi and the Making of 

Islamic Revivalism (1996), Mawdudi was disappointed with what he had created. 

In Mawdudi’s eyes, JI had lost its innocence and frequently found itself entangled in 

moral dilemmas that political life gives rise to. After this period of active opposition to 

the socialist policies of Bhutto, Mawdudi passed away in April 1979. He did not live to see 

the ‘Islamization’ programme of General Zia ul Haq, which changed the social fabric of 

Pakistan irreversibly. 

Mawdudi was condemned by many orthodox religious scholars of his day, but despite 

this he has had a lasting impact on religion and politics in the Indian subcontinent. 

He continues to be an inspirational figure for a number of ‘revivalist’ movements which 

are still active in the UK and North America. His popularizing of religious slogans as a 

means of galvanizing the masses continues to be a popular tactic adopted by political 

parties in Pakistan. The JI student wing, Islami Jamiat e Taliba (IJT), remains active on 



the campuses of Pakistan’s higher education campuses. This student group stands 

accused of frequently attacking, bullying and even murdering other students in its quest 

to prohibit ‘vice’ and promote ‘virtue’. Mawdudi also left behind a body of works that 

provide inspiration for Islamists and Jihadists all over the world. His work also 

influenced the ideas of a young Egyptian man, who had just returned from a difficult 

spell in the US. 

The America that He Saw: Syed Qutb 

‘…..the American girl is well acquainted with her body’s seductive capacity. She knows it 

lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in 

the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs — and she 

shows all this and does not hide it…’ 

4Syed Qutb (1906–1966) was not happy with what he saw in America, and after a two-year 

stay he returned to Egypt. On his return, Qutb wrote a book called Amrika allati Ra’aytu 

in 1951 (The America That I Saw), in which he complained about the free mixing of the 

sexes, materialism, individual freedoms and the lack of emphasis on moral and spiritual 

values. This experience had a profound effect on Qutb and helped shape his future 

thoughts and ideas – ideas that would one day inspire another young Egyptian to also 

travel to the US to take part in one of the most infamous terrorist atrocities of all time. 

Qutb was born and raised in a small Egyptian village called Musha but moved to Cairo in 

1929 where he received a Western education before he embarked on a career as a 

teacher. Qutb was also very fond of literature, becoming an author and a critic until he 

eventually obtained a job at the Egyptian Ministry of Education. From 1948 to 1950, he 

was in the US on a scholarship to study the education system, spending several months 

at Colorado State College of Education. On his return from the US, disillusioned with 

increasing Western influences in Egypt, he resigned from the civil service and joined 

Egypt’s largest Islamist group, the Ikhwan al-Muslimeen. 

By June 1952, Egypt’s pro-Western government had become widely unpopular and was 

eventually overthrown by the nationalist Free Officers Movement headed by the 

charismatic Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser. Prior to the coup, the Ikhwan had enjoyed a 

good relationship with the Free Officers Movement having worked together for a spell. 

Nasser, being an astute politician, had paid lip service to the Ikhwan’s ideas, provided he 

received their support. After all, they both aspired to overthrowing the Government of the 

time and claimed to oppose British colonialism. Naturally, the Ikhwan welcomed the 

coup but they expected Nasser to establish an Islamic government. 



Syed Qutb (1951), The America that I Saw (Kashf ul Shubuhat Publications), p.13.It soon became clear that this was not Nasser’s intention and so relations began to turn 

sour. The Ikhwan were once again said to resort to their favoured tactic of expressing 

their dissatisfaction. The attempted assassination of Nasser, allegedly by Mahmoud Abd 

al-Latif, a member of Ikhwan, was followed by a brutal crackdown on the Ikhwan that 

included the imprisonment of many of its senior members. This included Qutb who, 

after joining the Ikhwan in the early 1950s, had rapidly risen through the ranks to 

become chief editor of their weekly magazine and a member of their ‘Guidance Council’, 

the most senior authority in the Ikhwan. 

During his first three years in prison, Qutb was made to reside in appalling conditions 

and was routinely beaten and tortured. This, however, only strengthened his resolve and 

conviction that only Islamism could rescue Egypt from the ‘new pharaohs’. After this 

initial period of difficulty, life for Qutb was made slightly easier in prison in that he was 

offered greater mobility and far more importantly, he was able to write. This was to 

prove a huge blessing for Qutb who used the opportunity to compose two of his most 

important and influential works. During his incarceration, 1954-1964, Qutb wrote various 

volumes of a commentary of the Quran called Fi Zilal al-Qur’an (In the Shade of the 

Qur’an). He also wrote a manifesto on Islamism called Ma’alim fi-l-Tariq (Milestones) in 

1964. According to Anthony Black in The History of Islamic Political Thought (2001), this 

book was heavily influenced by the works of Lenin in that it advocated a clandestine 

armed vanguard movement that would engage in a liberation struggle. 

Qutb’s ideas had been steadily evolving up to that point and these books represented the 

culmination of his thoughts. His disgust with American society, his disillusionment with 

Western influences in Cairo, his time with the Ikhwan and the torture he had received at 

the hands of the Egyptian state had all shaped Qutb’s thoughts. In these works, Qutb 

expressed his radically anti-secular and anti-Western ideas based on his interpretation 

of Islam. 

‘We are also surrounded by Jahiliyyah [ignorance] today, which is of the same nature as 

it was during the first period of Islam, perhaps a little deeper. Our whole environment, 

people’s beliefs and ideas, habits and art, rules and laws – is Jahiliyyah, even to the 

extent that what we consider to be Islamic culture, Islamic sources, Islamic philosophy 

and Islamic thought are also constructs of Jahiliyyah!’ 

5‘There is only one place on earth which can be called the home of Islam (Dar al-Islam) 

[sic], and it is that place where the Islamic state is established and the Shari’ah is the 

authority and God’s limits are observed, and where all the Muslims administer the 

affairs of the state with mutual consultation. The rest of the world is the home of 

hostility (Dar al-Harb) [sic]. A Muslim can have only two possible relations with Dar 

al-Harb [sic]: peace with a contractual agreement, or war. A country with which there is 

a treaty will not be considered the home of Islam’. 



Syed Qutb (2007), Milestones (New Delhi: Islamic Book Service), p.20.

Qutb, Milestones, p.118.Qutb’s main argument was that the so-called ‘Muslim societies’ all over the world had 

reverted to pre-Islamic ignorance (Jahiliyyah) because they didn’t refer to Allah in all 

matters. Hence all leaders in Muslim-majority countries were illegitimate and should be 

forcibly removed through offensive jihad. The ideas first espoused by the Khawarij 1,300 

years ago which tore early Muslim communities apart had been revived to wreak havoc, 

but this time with a 20th century twist. The Jahiliyyah argument had been used before by 

reformers such as Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab (founder of Wahabism) but Qutb 

combined it with a radical new socio-political ideology – Islamism. He was also perhaps 

the first to popularize the idea of forcibly removing governments through armed struggle 

and vehemently opposed the idea of democracy. Over the next 50 years these ideas were 

to become the bedrock of jihadist movements and they were transported to Saudi Arabia 

and Afghanistan by his younger brother, with devastating effect. 

Saudi Arabia: Islamism, Wahabism and (Takfiri) Jihadism 

In 1965, Qutb was charged with treason, tried in what many considered a show trial and 

sentenced to death. On 29th August 1966, Qutb was executed by hanging. In the 

aftermath of Qutb’s execution a number of Ikhwan activists fled Egypt and found refuge 

in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States. Amongst them was Qutb’s younger brother, 

Muhammad Qutb, who had been released from prison in 1972 after serving a seven year 

sentence for conspiring to kill leading political and cultural figures and plotting to 

overthrow the Government. In Saudi Arabia, he became a professor of Islamic studies at 

King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah and used this opportunity to publish his brother’s 

works and give lectures which were regularly attended by a wealthy young Saudi man by 

the name of Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden would go on to recommend one of 

Muhammad Qutb’s books in a 2004 videotape. King Abdul Aziz University managed to 

attract a number of exiled dissidents during this period including a Palestinian activist 

who had just been expelled from Jordan for his radical views. 

‘Jihad and the rifle alone: no negotiations, no conferences and no dialogues [sic]’. 

7Abdullah Azzam was born in 1941 in a small village in the West Bank called as-Ba’ah 

al-Hartiyeh, near Jenin. After completing his education, he moved to Damascus in 1966 

and studied Shari’ah at the university there. After completing his degree he moved to 

Jordan and joined the Ikhwan. The Arab-Israel six-day war in 1967 and the subsequent 

occupation of the West Bank had a profound effect on Azzam and it propelled him to join 

the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). But he soon became disillusioned with the 

secular nationalist approach of Yasser Arafat and moved to Cairo to study Islamic 

sciences at the world famous Al-Azhar University. 



Abdullah Azzam (1987), Join the Caravan (Azzam Publications) p.9.During his time in Egypt, Azzam interacted with a number of senior Ikhwan figures and 

followers of Qutb including Omar Abdel Rahman (the blind Sheikh) and a rising star of 

the Islamist scene whom he would meet again in Afghanistan, one Ayman al-Zawahiri. 

In the early 1970s, Azzam moved to Saudi Arabia and lectured at the King Abdul Aziz 

University until 1979. Bin Laden also studied at this university during this period, and it is 

believed that this is where he first met Azzam, who went on to become his mentor. 

Islamism as developed by al-Banna and Qutb first arrived on the shores of Saudi Arabia 

in the late 1960s. On arriving there it immediately came into contact with Wahabism, an 

ultra-conservative brand of Islam that had been developed by a cleric called Muhammad 

ibn Abdul Wahab in the 18th century. Abdul Wahab had become increasingly concerned 

about the type of Islam he had witnessed being practised around him. He sought to rid 

Islam of the traditional practices that he viewed as heretical innovations and corruptions 

such as mysticism, the visiting of tombs and Shi’ism. He viewed anything that did not 

come out of Arabia proper as ‘un-Islamic’ and sought to restore what he viewed as a 

‘pure Islam’ informed by Bedouin Arab culture alone. 

He pursued his vision with a puritanical zeal and deadly violence, which included the 

murder of rival scholars, the destruction of Islamic holy sites and the extermination of 

entire villages. This included the destruction of the homes and graves of members of the 

Prophet’s family which had stood and been revered for hundreds of years. The Wahabi 

movement entered into an alliance with the ‘House of Saud’ quite early on and together 

they plotted to capture the holy lands of Hejaz which were held by the descendents of the 

Prophet. They also conspired to free Arabia from the Ottoman Empire and they 

successfully enlisted Britain’s help in doing so. In later years the Saud family, with the 

help of petro-dollars, would export this harsh intolerant brand of Islam all around the 


When Wahabism and Islamism first interacted they found that they had much in 

common. They were both revolutionary, they both condemned the vast majority of 

Muslims, they both ignored hundreds of years of traditional Muslim scholarship and they 

both relied on a literalist and vacuous re-reading of scripture. Whilst they clearly had 

their differences too it was the merging of this ultra-conservative and puritanical 

understanding of Islam with the socio-political ideology of Islamism that would go on to 

produce the most deadly concoction of all – takfiri Jihadism. This form of Jihadism made 

no distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim or between civilian and combatant. 

As far as Takfiris were concerned, whoever disagreed with them was an apostate and 

deserved to be killed, even if they were women and children. However, it was still early 

1979 and, although the fusion of Islamism and Wahabism had already begun, another 

event later that year would accelerate the process and, for the first time in history, allow 

the disparate Islamist and jihadi groups from all over the world to come together in a 

common cause. 



The year 1979 was an eventful one in the Islamist calendar. In April, the deeply 

unpopular Shah of Iran was overthrown in a popular revolution which brought Khomeni 

to power. In November, a group of radical Wahabis, led by a former corporal in the Saudi 

National Guard called Juhayman al-Uteybi, stormed the Grand Mosque in Mecca. 

The siege was initially blamed on the Iranians who subsequently issued a statement 

blaming the US and Israel for orchestrating the siege. This led to anti-American riots in 

a number of Muslim-majority countries, which included attacks on embassies, 

consulates and banks. The siege itself resulted in a lengthy and violent military 

confrontation, involving French commandos. Juhayman and his men were eventually 

overpowered and those that were not already dead were beheaded by the Saudis. 

However, Juhayman’s influence remained and one of his former associates, a 

Palestinian preacher called Abu Mohammed al-Maqdisi, went on to become a leading 

ideologue for al Qaeda (AQ) and spiritual mentor of Abu Musab al-Zaraqawi. 

Afghanistan: the Mujahidin and the birth of Al Qaeda 

Another side effect of the Meccan siege was that the US decided to move a battle group 

to the Persian Gulf in order to protect its interests there. This alarmed the Soviets, 

encouraged their regional ambitions and in late December 1979 they invaded 

Afghanistan. The Soviets were initially invited into Afghanistan at the behest of the 

pro-Soviet Prime Minister Hafizullah Amin. Afghanistan’s previous government had 

overthrown the monarchy a few years earlier and began instigating social reforms. 

Many of these reforms, such as land re-distribution and women’s rights, were viewed as 

foreign and un-Islamic by the majority of the deeply conservative Afghan population. 

Mujahidin groups rose to resist and overthrow the Government plunging the country into 

civil war. The Soviets sought to support the communist regime of Amin and safeguard its 

interests in Afghanistan against Iran and the West. The US and UK viewed the Soviet 

invasion as the new front line in the cold war and immediately began to supply the 

Mujahidin with weapons and aid. Pakistan viewed Afghanistan as it’s ‘backyard’ and 

wanted to bolster pro-Pakistan elements in order to counter Indian influence. To this 

end, they also threw their weight behind the US/UK efforts to support the Mujahidin. 

In 1980, Azzam set up an organization in Peshawar called Maktab al-Khidamat (Services 

Office) with the sole intention of providing accommodation and training for young 

recruits who had come to aid the Afghan war effort. He was joined a year later by the 

wealthy bin Laden who used his wealth to fund the transportation and training of the 

Mujahidin. Azzam was very successful in motivating and recruiting fighters from all over 

the world with his speeches and his writings. He believed that the defeat of the Soviets 

would allow for the establishment of an Islamist state in Afghanistan which would lead 

the jihad to liberate other Muslim-majority countries that were under occupation, 

starting with his homeland of Palestine. This view, however, was not universally shared. 

It put him at odds with another former Ikhwan member who had also joined the war 



effort in Afghanistan and, more crucially for Azzam, was also hoping to exert influence 

over the wealthy bin Laden. 

Ayman al-Zawahiri was born in 1951 to a wealthy and well-established family in Cairo. 

His parents and many of his uncles were in admirable professions and his family was 

well known and widely respected. At the age of 14, he joined the Ikhwan and came under 

the influence of his uncle Mahfouz Azzam who was a devout follower of Syed Qutb. 

Zawahiri initially set up an underground student cell which he hoped would work 

towards overthrowing the Egyptian Government. According to Lawrence Wright in his 

book The Looming Tower (2006), Zawahiri developed a mission in life to put Qutb’s words 

into action. Like many others at the time, Zawahiri became disillusioned with the Ikhwan 

who, with the tacit support of President Anwar Sadat who wished to use them as a 

countering-influence to secular- leftist groups, publicly renounced violence in the late 

1970s. Instead, he joined a group called ‘Tanzim al-Jihad’. This group was much more 

militant in its approach and they saw themselves as the true heirs of Qutbism. Their 

spiritual leader was the blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman who was later given a life 

sentence for conspiring to bomb New York’s World Trade Centre in 1993. 

In 1981, Tanzim al-Jihad plotted to assassinate Sadat who had angered the Islamists of 

Egypt by signing a peace deal with Israel. They succeeded in their mission, and 

subsequently many Islamists were rounded up and jailed, including Zawahiri. During 

their time in prison, Tanzim al-Jihad split into two factions, Islamic Jihad and Gama’a 

al-Islamiyya, with Zahawiri leading the former and Omar Abdel Rahman leading the 

latter. Zahawiri suffered heavy torture in prison and apparently revealed the 

whereabouts of an Islamic Jihad activist in the process. He was released in 1986 and 

moved to Peshawar to work in a hospital to treat wounded fighters. In Peshawar, he 

interacted with other Islamic Jihad fighters who had made the same journey as him and 

they began exchanging ideas. It was around this time that he befriended bin Laden. 

Zawahiri sought to influence bin Laden and channel his wealth towards his circle of 

fighters, but his takfiri philosophy was at odds with Azzam, who preferred to focus on 

fighting non-Muslim occupiers of ‘Muslim lands’. 

In 1989, after one failed attempt, Azzam was assassinated along with his two sons as he 

travelled to offer Friday prayers at a mosque in Peshawar. One of Jihadism’s most 

illustrious and influential figures had been killed. Suspicion immediately fell on Zawahiri 

who had regarded Azzam as a rogue element and an obstacle that stood in his way. 

The Soviets also withdrew in 1989 after losing thousands of soldiers and being 

frustrated by the guerrilla tactics of the Mujahidin. This was a humiliating defeat and 

was followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ironically, both Western capitalists and 

Islamist jihadists celebrated the demise of the Soviets as a great victory for their 

ideology. However, the good times were to be short lived as jihadists now focused their 

attention on the near enemy (Muslim-majority governments) as well as the far enemy 

(the West). 



In the aftermath of the Soviet withdrawal, Mujahidin groups in Afghanistan turned on 

each other in their pursuit of power. It is said that Kabul received more shelling in the 

year after the Soviets withdrew than during the entire ten years that they were there. 

Many of the Arab takfiri jihadists rallied around bin Laden and Zawahiri and formed what 

we know today as al Qaeda (AQ). Amongst them were figures such as Abu Musab al- 

Zarqawi who went on to lead a sectarian jihadist campaign in Iraq that took the country 

to the brink of civil war. Despite the Soviet withdrawal, Afghanistan continued to attract 

jihadists from around the world that were looked after and trained in facilities set up by 

the AQ leadership. This included many young Muslims who had been born and raised in 

the West, including a young teaching assistant from Leeds in England called 

Muhammad Siddique Khan. Western governments, however, had lost interest in 

Afghanistan but Pakistan continued to support elements that it thought would serve its 


One such group that attracted attention from Pakistan was made up of Pashtun and 

Pakistani Deobandi students who were fighting other ethnic and religious groups to 

control Afghanistan. They were known as the Taliban. The Taliban was run by a former 

Mujahidin commander called Mullah Umar who, as well as receiving support from 

Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), maintained a good working relationship with 

AQ. The Taliban, however, did not believe in expansionism and were quite content to 

govern the ‘Islamic emirate of Afghanistan’ with an ultra-strict interpretation of Shari’ah 

that was in fact more informed by the Pashtun tribal code than by Islam. The Pakistani 

policy of support towards the Taliban was about to backfire in spectacular fashion due to 

a plot that was being hatched on the streets of Europe. 

Jihad goes Global: The Road to 9/11 

During the 1990s, Islamist groups came close to achieving power in Algeria, only to be 

prevented by the military. The subsequent civil war gave birth to a number of much 

harsher and more violent groups such as Groupe Islamique Armé (GIA) and AQ North 

Africa. They were also given the opportunity to form a government in Sudan with 

disastrous consequences. Causes such as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Chechnya and Kashmir 

continued to attract young zealous jihadists and Islamist groups (eager to seek attention 

by pretending to represent Muslims) set up front organisations in Europe and North 

America. A number of Islamist and jihadist dissidents from the Middle East also found 

refuge and safety in Europe, using the opportunity to recruit young Muslim students to 

their cause. Europe proved to be a fertile recruiting ground and many Muslim students 

from Muslim-majority countries came to Europe to study. Many of these students hailed 

from largely middle class and moderate families in the Middle East and North Africa. 

However, some were to experience what Qutb had experienced in the US 40 years 

earlier. One such student was an Egyptian man called Muhammad Atta who arrived in 

Hamburg in 1992. Atta would go on to succeed where Omar Abdul Rahman before him 

had failed. 



Atta’s fellow students and flatmates found him to be introverted, shy and at times 

aggressively rude. They also found him to be closed minded and noticed that he had 

become increasingly ritualistic in religious observations since he had arrived in 

Hamburg to study Urban Planning. He often expressed his outrage over Western policies 

in Muslim majority-countries and was deeply affected by the Palestine-Israel conflict. 

By the mid-1990s Atta began attending a local mosque in Hamburg that was known for 

its hard-line views and he even taught classes there. 

This gave him the opportunity to meet like-minded individuals with whom he shared his 

views. It is believed that around this time he was recruited to AQ by Muhammad Haydar 

Zammar who had just returned from fighting in Bosnia-Herzegovina. During the next 

few years Atta frequently went missing for long periods of time and is believed to have 

travelled to a number of countries including Afghanistan. What is known is that by March 

2000 Atta, along with other AQ members based in Europe, had begun making enquiries 

at flight training colleges in the US. 

In June 2000, Atta and a number of fellow AQ recruits moved to the US to focus on 

learning how to fly aeroplanes. Over the course of the next year or so, Atta and his 

accomplices honed their aeronautical skills in Florida, also frequenting the strip joints of 

Las Vegas whilst they were out there. By early September 2001, Atta (after months of 

lessons and hours spent with flight simulators) had become relatively competent with 

planes. On 10th September 2001, Atta travelled from Boston to Portland with fellow 

flying enthusiast Abdul Aziz al-Omari. The next day they boarded a Boeing 767 that was 

heading back to Boston, but the plane was not to reach its intended destination. Within 

15 minutes of the flight taking off, Atta had taken over the controls and at 08.46 local 

time the plane collided into the north tower of the World Trade Centre. 


What began as an attempt to re-assert Muslim pride in the face of unrelenting European 

colonialism by the likes of Abduh, Rida and al-Banna, led to the taking of more than 

3,000 innocent lives in the most spectacular terrorist attack of all time. Muslims and 

non-Muslims around the world struggled to understand what could have inspired 

19 young men, full of potential, to take their own lives along with thousands of others in 

such a shocking fashion. By 12th September 2001, the Manhattan skyline, along with the 

rest of the world, had changed forever. 

Islamism was born in an age of empires, an age in which European colonial powers 

were exerting a huge amount of influence in many Muslim-majority countries. European 

ideological, political and cultural trends were beginning to influence societies the world 

over and the social values and norms of predominantly Muslim societies were being 

challenged. Islamism was a product of this environment. It was a rebellious child of 

colonialism, a child that hated its parents despite being shaped by, and inheriting much 



from them. The very early Islamist ideologues felt threatened by the onslaught of 

Western secularism and sought to respond by incorporating aspects of ideologies such 

as socialism and fascism with a literalist and puritanical understanding of Islam. 

Their experiment failed to provide the Muslim masses with what they needed, and was 

rejected and condemned by the vast majority of orthodox theologians. But this rejection 

only agitated and frustrated Islamists further, forcing some to moderate but others to 

become even more extreme. Islamist terror attacks are symptomatic of the failure of 

Islamism in general, and they point to the self-righteous and arrogant nature of 

Islamists. Instead of accepting their own failures they continue to seek attention through 

more drastic and violent means. Years of frustrated attempts to seize power and 

galvanize the masses led to what we have today – a vast spectrum of always 

authoritarian and often brutal Islamist groups and movements that have in many cases 

turned on each other in their quest for domination. 

Islamists remain frozen in an age of warring empires and cosmic wars. They desperately 

cling to their binary view of the world despite it not being supported by the reality around 

them. Dreams of an imperial future in which divinely-inspired warriors conquer and rule 

the world bring contentment to the hearts of some, but instil terror in the minds of 


Ghaffar Hussain 

Head of Outreach and Training Unit (QOTU) 







Azzam, Abdullah (1987), Join the Caravan (Azzam Publications). 

Abou El Fadl, Khaled M. (2005), The Great Theft, Wrestling Islam from the Extremists 

(New York: HarperCollins). 

Aslan, Reza (2009), How to Win a Cosmic War (New York: Random House). 

Black, Anthony (2001), The History of Islamic Political Thought (New York: Routledge). 

Fatah, Tareq (2008), Chasing a Mirage, The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State (Ontario: John Wiley). 

Kepel, Gilles (2000), Jihad, The Trial of Political Islam, trans. by Anthony E. Roberts 

(London: I.B.Tauris). 

Ala Mawdudi, Syed Abul (1927), Jihad in Islam (Beirut: The Holy Koran Publishing House). 

Nasr, Seyyed Vali Reza (1996), Mawdudi and the making of Islamic Revivalism 

New York: Oxford University Press). 

Qutb, Syed (2007), Milestones (New Delhi: Islamic Book Service). 

Qutb, Syed (1951), The America that I Saw (Kashf ul Shubuhat Publications). 

Sageman, Marc (2008), Leaderless Jihad: Terror Networks in the Twenty-First Century 

(Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press). 

Trofimov, Yaroslav (2007), The Siege of Mecca, The Forgotten Uprising (London: Allen Lane). 

Wright, Lawrence (2006), The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the road to 911 (New York: Knopf). 

Zalloom, Abdul Qadeem (2000), How the Khilafah was Destroyed (London: Al-Khilafah 


Quilliam 2010 – All rights reserved 

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this report do not 

necessarily reflect those of Quilliam and organizations 

and bodies referenced in this report are not necessarily 

endorsed by Quilliam. 

For further information contact: 


Email: information@quilliamfoundation.org 

Tel: +44 (0)207 182 7280 


Should America support Israel?

leave a comment »

By Annie Hamilton

Israel’s right to exist, to occupy their land is a right that is entrenched in historic relevance.  
Israel existed right up until the time of the Roman Empire. When the Romans conquered the land, Jews were permitted to live there.

There are two periods where they were effectively forced from their property, the first time in 70 A.D. and the other sometime around 135 A.D.

There’s always been a Jewish presence in Israel and for hundreds of years; the Middle East was easily the most peaceful part of the World.

Some have forgotten that Rahm Emanuel arranged meetings between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat back in the early nineties and during this exchange, Jewish leaders expressed the need to create a Palestinian government to remove the rapidly expanding Palestinian population away from Israeli hands.

The pressing concern of ‘the day’ was Israel’s inevitable destruction and as such the situation must be handled immediately to manage any potential hostile presence in the region.

This seemed agreeable to Israel although it’s not been terribly smooth. (A peace agreement including both sides of the Gaza along with the United States of America)

Obviously following incidents in the late nineties as well as September 11th, Israel has remained steadfast in reliability with America struggling to define and contain threats, global and domestic pertaining to hostile enemies from within the Palestinian and other Islam-based territories.

Now we’re under a different Administration that still includes Emmanuel, oddly enough and things have never been worse.

We have a Muslim President who lied his way into the oval office and since then has appointed several fellow Muslims, radical Marxists, Socialists or other unsavory characters that have effectively dismantled our founding papers since 2008.

This Administration lies to the American people and ridicules our allies while bowing to Islamist leaders, something never done in the history of America, turning the United States Presidency into a mockery, something to be laughed at, no longer respected. Yet, all things considered, Israel must be reckoned with, a formidable force.

Why should the US support Israel? I can give you two solid reasons.

Israel commands the strongest military presence in the Middle East and America would be wise to continue considering Israel a strong ally and perhaps working a little harder on that relationship (perhaps not forcing Bibi to use the servants entrance during meetings at the White House?)

If the powers in Washington had operational brain cells, perhaps they’d use their resources to neutralize Iran’s capacity to maintain nuclear weapons, (yes they have them)

Israel is fundamentally part of the United States’ fabric, part of who we are as a people.

(When the current undocumented President announced that we’re a ‘Muslim’ Nation, he was obviously off of his meds, for we could be nothing farther from)

Our founding draws on the uniquely Hebrew concept of the holiness of the individual and love for the vulnerable. We’re connected for this and other reasons and our destinies and welfare will always be connected, never to be separated.

In many ways, the sacredness of both lands reflect upon one another and must not be banished from political exercise, religion, public life or any other action.

Liberals and their universalism demands that Israel make concessions to appease Arabs but this rarely appeases anyone and the truth is that there is plenty of room for Arabs in other areas and Israel must be left alone at this point.

This Administration’s betrayal of Israel is both shocking and disheartening and exposes the range of evil and/naïve thinking in the people in today’s government AND media who seem to not understand (or care) what is truly at stake right now.

This immoral behavior should disturb us all

Written by anniehamilton805

September 3, 2010 at 5:26 am

Line in the Sand

leave a comment »

We have come to a place in our nation’s history where it is prudent to define who we are as people, a country, and as a culture. The United States was founded on traditional values, including the freedom to practice one’s own religious beliefs, including nothing, should one desire. Our Founding Fathers could not agree on these matters and as such, they left it up to each individual state.

Just as imperative, we must address the passionate unraveling this administration has elected to take on with lusty fervor of our constitutional papers, Bill of Rights, respect for other people, a very basic “creed” of standards that revere regardless of whether their political views stem from.
As a lover of Thomas Jefferson’s readings, I can understand why Obama and friends would want to separate themselves from these documents as much as possible as they have so little in common.

A few blurbs to refresh your memory:

*And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.
*Never spend your money before you have it.
*Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.
*Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
*In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.

As of late, this has become a largely endangered practice that we’ve seen become threatened more and more and as world events have indicated around us, it would seem that it’s time to turn our attention to the writing on the brightly colored wall that is desperately seeking our attention now. Where have we gone wrong and what can we do (if anything) to turn this situation around?

*Warning sign missed (from my perception) our spiritual leaders and institutions have gone soft.

Case in point:  Notre Dame inviting Obama to their ceremonies despite his miserable stance on abortion and their own historical viewpoint on this delicate subject?  And I cannot tell you how many times I’ve pulled into the parking lot on a Sunday morning only to see ‘Obama 08’ Stickers on the back of people’s cars and vans. 
Certainly, they’re entitled to an opinion but my question would be this: what believing person, Jew or Christian would attend a service and support an institution that would willingly endorse a candidate, knowingly or not, that publicly states that his first intention is to remove ALL restrictions off of all abortion altogether?
And if you’re unaware of this, you have your head in the sand. Sorry to be harsh but ignorance is NO EXCUSE.
He only repeated this like a broken record throughout his entire campaign, people and it’s, I believe, the first order he signed. (at least he’s true to his word, right?) but he’s a amoral and hence, has no place in the White House.
*Next, he took large pay outs from the financial institutions and then cried foul during the banking scandals. This highly inappropriate. If you’re going to do something like this, at least stand behind your people. Be accountable when you’re caught AND when they’re caught. So…he’s a scum bag with no backbone. That makes him a weasel on top of that. Typical of the Chicago political machine. They have no loyalty even unto themselves. Anyone recall the St. Valentine’s Day massacre. The Chicago “political MOB is no different.”

*There are countless court cases tying Obama’s birth certificate mystery up in the California Supreme Court as well as the testimony of his Grandmother and people trying to uncover his college transcripts. People (including myself) wanting answers about this person’s past.
We don’t know anything about this person – he claims to be a Christian which is laughable since Black Liberation Theology is a warped version of the gospels and has little connection with real Judeo-Christian theology.
Then consider this, three people from his church were killed execution style over the past couple of years and at least one person, and rumors in Chicago have continued to float that tie Obama to two of them in a sexual way. Again, they are just rumors, but it does prove my point that the man has more shadows to him than we are aware of and that Chicago politics is very dirty, they do tend to feed on their own when convenient. If someone wanted to take him down politically or twist The Manchurian Candidates arm, there is likely enough ammo in his past to make it happen.
Who is he? Is he qualified and eligible to be the leader of the free world? Why is he hiding so many secretive documents? If they are no big deal, why the refusal now in coming forth with them? Is it because they might explain his foreign aid received during his college years?
We DO have a right to know! It’s time to come forth and explain these things to the American people.
Bernard Madoff has been touted the “greatest thug of all time” in political and money blogs over the past several weeks but I must adamantly disagree. It’s Obama and Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and the others who continue to perpetuate and this giant scam they’ve pulled off with the American Reinvestment Act, they are all ripping off the masses while praying at the feet of Obama.

They’ve signed away the country to the “Slum Monkey Trillionaire” who is is unraveling our beautiful country, piece by piece, using our constitution like it’s old toilet paper, and why should he care? He has nothing to lose! As a matter of fact, he doesn’t even hold the deed to his own home and adjoining property, Rezko the slum lord in Chicago does.
Add to this that Obama is very cozy with George Soros and his Joyce Foundation among his other assorted organizations. What kind of a person would be so proud to associate with a man like Soros who has made efforts to put banks and other financial institutions in default to earn himself money at the risk of its common depositors and employees?
Many people are asleep, refusing to see that Obama their teleprompter dependent President is good at making speeches that say NOTHING. He’s a fertilizer salesman and he’s good at spreading it around and the people he associates with have seemingly crawled up from the depths of the same cess pool.
He takes from the earning and gives to the wanting and demanding, not to the needy, not to the poor, not to hard working people with a dream. He is a flim-flam man, a con artist, a shyster and at least 53% of the American people are asleep and not paying attention. They don’t understand that we are close to losing the freedoms our fore fathers worked so hard to instill in all of us.

The right to own a gun for instance, it’s not a privilege, it’s a RIGHT. It’s the second amendment. And they’re working to remove it. We can’t let this happen. It’s up to us as Americans to speak up and tell them that it is not going to happen.
God expects us to stand up and do what is right – period.
We need people to set examples, to use their voices, to NOT be like Michael Steele and Meghan McCain – always looking for the next open mic, rolling video cam, conference call or talk show to get their face or voice on. Besides they are way too politically correct, and have little to no real backbone or at least the one they have is twisted in the wrong direction and weak. Might win an election but it shows no manner of deeper convictions.

In my opinion, Meghan McCain frankly could take a lesson from famous blonde conservative shark, Ann Coulter or conservative female gun activist Rosanna Pulido. And if Michael Steele wants a black conservative mentor, I would suggest he listen to Larry Elder or Lt. Col. Allen West. Their grasp of the issues and how to move the country forward speak volumes to all and not just those who seem to be enamoured with the glitz and glamour of a TV studio.
Give me a Rush, Hannity, Levin, Coulter, Boortz, or a Beck any day over someone afraid to speak their mind and be honest about the issues and let their “yes” be “yes” and “no” be “no” even if it’s unpopular.
It’s perfectly okay to be critical of the President, it is way past time we tip the scales in the right direction, turn the tables, and upset the left. They have done nothing to improve life in America and instead acted irresponsibly for years, not just since the day “HE” was elected.
It is time for strategic thought, tactical voices, deeply heartfelt Judeo-Christian convictions and physical activity; the line is already in the sand, it is time to step over it boldly, get busy and take our country back


leave a comment »

By Annie Hamilton

TREASON – This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance to the United States or its’ protectors

Life in America certainly has changed. We’re watching our banks crumble, businesses fold and taxes grow despite the Government’s failure to protect our financial and regulatory interests. Since January 20th we’ve experienced the horror of a dwindling Congressional backbone, cuts in our Military and an inexperienced President who seemingly despises Americans but would rather cozy up to Dictators and threaten prosecution toward those who practice freedom of speech and personal responsibility. In short we’re in the middle of a mess that requires experience, wisdom, hard work and a return to traditional values.

Now we’ve learned that even the highly coveted Pulitzer has fallen prey into fraudulent hands, soiling the prestige of this prizes’ integrity, permanently. This is unfortunate news for Writers/Reporters of substance as this is the highest achievement and recognition these professionals can earn.


On April 20th, 2009, (one year to the date of the original article’s publication) The New York Times published a press release announcing their receipt of five Pulitzer prizes. One of those, awarded to NYT Reporter David Barstow was especially troubling as its’ intention served as a reward for Barstow’s hit piece on Retired Military Analysts (RMAs), dramatically titled “Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand”

Amongst other things, the piece alleged a manipulative effort to generate favorable news coverage of the Administration’s wartime performance as well as accusations that RMA’s (retired military analysts) were ‘using’ their influence and ties to military contractors in order to gain unfair opportunities to enhance their “individual business interests”

This article so greatly concerned readers that forty one members of Congress filed a formal request for the Department of Defense to conduct a thorough investigation into the ‘relationship’ between the RMA’s and alleged activities and/or advantages. Amongst the specific concerns raised by Congress was the potential use of appropriated funds for the serving of ‘Propaganda or Publicity purposes not authorized by Congress’ As such, under Section 1056 of the Duncan Hunter Act for Fiscal year 2009, the prohibitions were reiterated and a formal request for a detailed report was demanded to be released to Congress within 90 days of the enactment.

In order to fully and appropriately address the issues and Congressional concerns, more than 12,000 pages of documents were reviewed and in excess of 30 witnesses were interviewed, including; RMA’s, Department of Defense Public Affairs personnel, and others who provided outreach briefings, papers and media representatives.

Out of the documentation received and scrutinized, absolutely no findings were discovered that positively identified a pattern for RMA’s tendency to gain favorable advantage through their position or authority. As such, no further investigation was deemed warranted and the matter was closed.

So it begs the question, what on earth was Barstow thinking when he put the article together? Why develop a 3 page hit piece on our Nation’s bravest individuals unless it was intended to further serve his radical leftist agenda? Is he incapable of gathering (and interpreting) accurate research or does he just have a beef with authority figures or the military? Furthermore, why in the hell would the Pulitzer committee give the New York Times one prize, let alone five, after the publication of the 85 page report exonerating these inappropriately targeted officials? Shouldn’t there be accountability, a day of reckoning for this so-called ‘Reporter’ who failed to meet the burden of proof in order to satisfy his story?

Yes, the freedom of speech is a protected Constitutional freedom under our first amendment rights. However, not when what you are saying (or in this case, writing) is a falsehood, riddled with lies and exaggerations. In this case, its slanderous speech, in an attempt to smear the good names and reputations of the individuals named in the poorly written article. It hardly requires genius to understand that Mr. Barstow’s intent was to damage the credibility and reputation of the Bush Administration, our Military and that his publicly discredited attempts to undercut our Nation’s bravest accomplishes little more than turning the Prize, his newspaper and his reputation into a laughing stock.

And we wonder why our newspapers are going out of print? With shoddy reporting like Barstow’s, little wonder why the paper is losing money.

NEW YORK TIMES DOWN TO $34 MILLION IN THE BANK… <http://www.nypost.com/seven/04222009/business/1_3b_debt_rattle_165559.htm>

This is why…there is so little accountability with these unprofessional twits. Until Mr. Barstow comes forward, relinquishing his falsely earned prize, I’d implore the public and the Military to hold him fully accountable for his actions.

File lawsuits, lobby against him personally, professionally and against the New York Times. Don’t give up until he recants his statements, apologizing publicly to the American people, the military, and their families for crying wolf AND for allowing such lies to be told that it required the investigative efforts and energy of forty one congress people and government staff to further investigate for wrongdoing.

We need to rise up in protest to this conduct as it borders on treason. It should not be permitted.