7 October 2008 Warnings: The Final Report

7 October 2008: Latest Updates

Final update - 8 Oct - 4am Eastern: The morning after. Thank God, nothing happened. The biggest story of the day turned out to be the rather lackluster Second Presidential Debate. The predicted terrorist hurricane never touched our shores. Once again, a projected date for a possible "event" has come and gone. After almost two weeks this disturbing article can finally move down the list and take its place with all of those other articles in Radarsite's archives.

I want to thank all of those who in one way or another contributed information and ideas to this report. We will most likely never know the real 'story behind the story'. Was this whole predicted catastrophe merely a result of mistaken information or erroneous interpretations? Was there ever any real basis to this warning? Was it perhaps just a purposeful propaganda ploy by our enemies to further destabilize an already chaotic economic situation? Who knows? Your guess is as good as mine.

Have we learned anything from this whole unsettling episode? Yes, I believe we have. Perhaps the most important thing those of us who have been following this story have learned is that we truly are in a war and we truly are still vulnerable. Not just vulnerable to some massive terrorist attack, but vulnerable to rumors of massive terrorist attacks. In these last few volatile weeks where our news has been dominated by a faltering economy and a hugely important presidential campaign, it is vital for us to remember that these are not the only things that matter. There is a looming menace hovering over us which, despite these current domestic distractions has not receded into the background; if anything our world is becoming more dangerous every year.

Yesterday, October 7, I had occasion to contact the Department of Homeland Security on an entirely different matter. During the course of the conversation I asked the HS agent what advice I could give my readers for coping with this new environment we find ourselves in. What criteria do you use to make up your mind as to whether a reported threat should be taken seriously or not? At what point do suspicious activities we may observe become suspicious enough to report to the authorities? Is there such a thing as being too suspicious? In short, in this dangerous new post 9/11 world we now live in what's the difference between taking rational precautions or merely succumbing to unreasonable paranoia? What defines the boundaries of our New Normal? His answer: Trust your instincts. Trust your common sense. Evaluate the information to the best of your ability, and then if you truly believe the situation warrants it, act on it. Don't worry about making a fool of yourself. Don't worry about being wrong.

If this situation arises again -- and it most likely will -- I think Radarsite would handle it essentially the same way. Put all the information we can gather together in one place, in one article. Keep that article bumped to the top of the posts. Open the post up to all comments and emails and post them all to the ongoing report. Immediately update any new information -- especially any information which seems to question or negate the validity of the original report.
And finally, in the words of the HS agent, don't worry about making a fool of yourself. Don't worry about being wrong. Sometimes it's wonderful to be wrong.

I want to thank all of those readers who contributed their insights and information to this report. I think we have shown what can be done when serious people come together to address an issue like this. You have provided us with a model for future collaborations.

Lastly, these October 7 Radarsite articles have received literally thousands of readers (over ten thousand yesterday alone) and yet surprisingly few derisive comments, surprisingly few comments accusing us of fearmongering or grandstanding. What does this tell us about our present day circumstances? To me, it says that people really do want as much information as they can get about this volatile environment we all share. To me, it says that many people are very aware of the threats we face and want to stay as informed as possible. And to me, this an encouraging sign. -rg

Read more at Radarsite

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday Hero

Cpl. Lance M. Thompson
21 years old from Upland, Indiana
2nd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force
November 15, 2004


The father of Cpl. Lance Thompson said his son would be proud knowing he fought and died to help Iraqis vote in an election.

Cpl. Lance Thompson died in during fighting in Ramadi by a truck bomb. His father, Greg Thompson, said his son sent him a letter in September of '04 which said, "Freedom is not free. It requires sacrifice."

Greg Thompson said the millions turning out to vote in Iraq was "fantastic" and said it was a "momentous day in the Middle East."

"Are you asking me was it worth Lance losing his life?" he asked a reporter. "Being the gung-ho Marine that he was, he would say yes. So I'll say yes. That is a tough, bitter pill to swallow. It hurts. God, I didn't want to give up my son."

These brave men and women sacrifice so much in their lives so that others may enjoy the freedoms we get to enjoy everyday. For that, I am proud to call them Hero.
We Should Not Only Mourn These Men And Women Who Died, We Should Also Thank God That Such People Lived

This post is part of the Wednesday Hero Blogroll. For more information about Wednesday Hero, or if you would like to post it on your site, you can go here.

Sphere: Related Content

Myth vs Fact

Myth	Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.	Malik's Muwatta Book 21, Number 21.12.21: Yahya related to me that Malik said that he had heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz used to say, "The man on horse-back has two shares, and the man on foot has one." Malik added, "I continue to hear the same." Malik, when asked whether a man who was present with several horses took a share for all of them, said, "I have never heard that. I think that there is only a share for the horse on which he fought." Malik said, "I think that foreign horses and half-breeds are considered as horses because Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, 'All horses, and mules, and asses, for you to ride, and as an adornment.' (Sura16 ayat 8). He said, the Mighty, the Majestic, 'Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to terrify thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy.' (Sura 8 ayat 60). I think that foreign breeds and half-breeds are considered as horses if the governor accepts them." Said ibn al-Musayyab was asked about working horses, and whether there was zakat on them. He said, "Is there any zakat on horses.?"
Tafsir

Sphere: Related Content

assolutatranquillita.blogspot.com/

We are all known by the company we keep. That's a fact. No matter that Obama will try and claim that Ayers is not relevant to his presidential campaign. No matter that Obama screams "racist" and "smear," every time anyone *dares* to suggest that Obama's character should be judged by his association/friendship/collaboration with William Ayers. It IS legitimate examination.

Whether Obama likes it or not, it is not racist to examine his relationships (ya know, like his campaign continues to dig at Sarah Palin.lol,) with known terrorists/fugitives who still show NO remorse for their treasonous bombing activities. People ARE closely looking at Obama's choice of friends, since it IS relevant for a man who aspires to the highest office in America. Many are now connecting the dots publicly. From Family Security Matters comes this:

Exclusive: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn - Friends of Barack Obama

October 7, 2008

Exclusive: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn – Friends of Barack Obama

John Howard

I am a child of the ‘60s. I grew up with the radical twaddle of people like Tom Hayden (the Ted Baxter of the radical Left), and Romper Room Revolutionaries William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, the Mao and Jiang Qing of adolescent radicalism. It was an overheated time made worse by nursery school traitors. It was a time during which the most pampered generation in the history of mankind went into an extended tantrum, punctuated only by the indulgent sighs of their misguided and clueless parents who still apparently thought the destructive impulses of their little darlings were somehow cute. Bill Ayers’ father, the late Thomas G. Ayers, Commonwealth Edison Chairman, Chicago grandee and symbol of muscular capitalism comes to mind. (Does anyone really believe that Ayers and Dohrn, wanted by the FBI, lived without family help and contact for 11 years “underground” in Chicago, the town his prominent father and powerful friends helped run and which has been described as having the distinction of being the only completely corrupt city in the nation? Please.)

But Ayers and Dohrn demonstrated that low grade, child radicals, too, could be dangerous. Their simple minded nihilism was exceeded only by their almost complete ineptitude. But it is important to recall who they were and to know who they are because not only do they still exist and spread their poison, their very relationship to a national candidate for President should chill every thinking citizen.

An outgrowth of an earlier Leftist organization, the Students for a Democratic Society, was established in 1960 with a manifesto that represented a break with the traditional non-Communist Left. With Tom Hayden at its helm, it is unsurprising that it started as a shallow, self-dramatizing collection of students fresh from panty raids and looking for something more interesting to do. As the turmoil of the ‘60s continued to ferment, it became more and more strident, inflexible and radical in its project.

After an internecine war in 1969, it split into different groups, among which was the Weathermen, a would-be domestic terrorist organization with little apparent purpose except to engage in violent acts in service of the national tantrum and of a badly articulated, simplistic ideology with little grounding in anything other than the romantic fantasy that they were somehow aiding “the Revolution.” The preening self-regard of its leaders was breathtaking.

Its primary activity was the issuance of dramatic “communiqués” from the underground in a grotesque imitation of stilted Soviet-speak, like a bad ‘50s movie, threatening violent action in instant mayhem. Its first act was a riot called “Days of Rage,” not surprisingly in Chicago. With its usual flair, the Weathermen announced that its protest would be the largest ever, but with its usual ineptitude, only a few hundred showed up. They blew up a statue honoring policemen who had been killed or injured in earlier riots. (They blew it up again when it was rebuilt several years later.) They burned cars, shattered windows and attacked policemen, injuring 28.

Bernardine Dohrn, in an astonishing display of hubris, demonstrated her simple-mindedness and limited forensic gifts in her attempt to define their purpose: “We are building a communist organization to be part of the forces which build a revolutionary communist party to lead the working class to seize power and build socialism… We must further the study of Marxism-Leninism within the Weather Underground Organization. The struggle for Marxism-Leninism is the most significant development in our recent history. We discovered thru [sic] our own experiences what revolutionaries all over the world have found — that Marxism-Leninism is the science of revolution, the revolutionary ideology of the working class, our guide to the struggle.”

History has now shown us the merit of that project as even those who knew it best and preserved it longest have rejected the moronic and evil ideology that was Marxism-Leninism – but not Ms. Dohrn and Mr. Ayers.

Shortly after the Days of Rage riot, the Weathermen risibly “declared war” on the United States. The sheer pretentiousness of these junior Bolsheviks was vaguely laughable. But they were deadly serious. Dohrn constructed and planted an anti-personnel bomb containing heavy metal staples and metal projectiles on the window ledge of a police facility, killing one officer, Bryan V. McDonnell, and severely wounding and permanently blinding another, Robert Fogarty. Their families never recovered. Ayers laughingly and emphatically admitted his participation and Dohrn’s skill in placing the fatal bomb.

In 1970, the Weatherman attacked New York City policemen with bombs and firebombed the home of a New York judge presiding over the criminal trial of black thugs who had wrapped themselves in the mantle of radicalism; a favorite ruse of the time. They went on to plant bombs at the United States Capital, the New York City Police Department and the Pentagon, all the time issuing taunting communiqués suggesting more attacks were on the way. Had it not all been so lethal, it would have had all the earmarks of children playing war in the back yard. It is a shame it was not so benign.

Despite their later, self-serving statements that they really intended to harm only property, the evidence is clearly otherwise. In 1970, an explosion rocked Greenwich Village, destroying a beautiful, privately owned townhouse. The townhouse had been converted to a bomb factory and, demonstrating the ineptitude for which the Weathermen had become almost as legendary as their infantile communiqués, three of them blew themselves up while making bombs. It was a fitting end to the meaningless lives of Diana Oughton, Ted Gold and Terry Robbins, whose deaths stunned their colleagues but left the world a little cleaner. The fragmentation bombs they were making were intended for the murder of American soldiers at a dance at Fort Dix and for the destruction of a library at Columbia University.

Who were these people?....

Further down in this article, John Howard says "some things are not forgivable," and this IS the truth. Connecting obvious dots is never racist, NEVER a smear. In this case, Obama and Ayers, it is truth.

Go read the rest of this important article here - now!

Sphere: Related Content

Myth vs Fact

Myth	Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.	Malik's Muwatta Book 21, Number 21.6.20: Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu'z-Zinad that Said ibn al-Musayyab said, "People used to be given bonuses from the Khumus." Malik said, "That is the best of what I have heard on the matter." Malik was asked about bonuses and whether they were taken from the first of the spoils, and he said, "That is only decided according to the ijtihad of the Imam. We do not have a known reliable command about that other than it is up to the ijtihad of the Sultan. I have not heard that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, gave bonuses in all his raids. I have only heard that he gave bonuses in one of them, namely the day of Hunayn. It depends on the ijtihad of the Imam whether they are taken from the first of the spoils or what is after it."
Tafsir

Sphere: Related Content