Adam Gadahn - "Convert to Islam"

Marty,
I don't know what you are saying here?

Are you saying that because a tape in English calling for conversion to Islam is a reason to . . . give up what?

Ps I have no idea who Adam Gadahn is.

Why does China have to worry, they are getting all the U.S.A. Dollars they need thanks to good ole merican businessmen.

I do aggree with you that China is the real issue.

Adam Gadahn is a kid from California who converted to Islam and attended some Al Qaeda terror Training camps. Supposedly, he has been a translator, and his name has surfaced a couple of times in trying to trace al qaeda activities, and who should be on the FBI's most wanted list.

China may not realize how if our economy does tank, the global systems will almost certainly collapse. Maybe China wants the global systems to collapse, but I don't think so.

If global systems collapse, how long will Shanghai continue to expand? Not very long.

Thank you Daniel, and Mary.

Lots of scattered, sometimes incoherent thoughts here. I'll just say this, as far as China goes, they want our dollars and it would take a substantial change of current circumstances to change that fact. They'll do whatever they think they have to do, to get as many of our dollars as they are able. They'll even finance the debt to do it.

As far as Iran goes, I say drop a load on them right now, let's go nuke. Those crazies need to be dealt with in the only way they understand, brute force.

I'm not sure why we're waiting, really.

Adam Gadahn is a lost child of the 80's. The son of a goat farmer that believes the only way to make his mark on the world is join a group that wants to use him for the only thing he possesses. The fact that he is an American. Was an American. In private, They probably see him as more of a joke than we do.
They want people to talk and write about him. This is the first and last of my time he will recieve.

Adam Gadahn is Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw Haw. The hype continues....

Iran hasn't threatened anyone, even Israel - except to declare they will defend themselves if attacked - but it seems people don't pay attention to what they have said or fail to confirm whether the media is giving accurate information.

What does bin Laden or Zawahiri have to do with Islamist parties that participate in their various nations' governments?

"Islam" is a religion , with many variations. Muslims have varied values, just as other groups. How many kinds of Christians are there?

Some Christians and Muslims are marxists, leninists, terrorists, etc.

Iran hasn't threatened anyone, even Israel - except to declare they will defend themselves if attacked - but it seems people don't pay attention to what they have said or fail to confirm whether the media is giving accurate information.

---Actualy they said Israel should be wiped off the map-----

What does bin Laden or Zawahiri have to do with Islamist parties that participate in their various nations' governments?
----The fact of bin-Ladden inspire those with anger becouse of some wrong inther lives that the US is at fault and that the "brave" Bin-Ladden should be followed... this includes government leaders...


"Islam" is a religion , with many variations. Muslims have varied values, just as other groups. How many kinds of Christians are there?

----The only variation I am concerned with at this time are those who wish to destroy others, in particular my country and way of life, but also I believe in defending any others in the way of such destructive forces.

Some Christians and Muslims are marxists, leninists, terrorists, etc.

-----Honestly men and women of all religions have been fooled into wrong choices, it doesn't make it wrong to fight those who are making the wrong choices. In fact it become imparative that we do so, if we are to have a place for our children to grow up free in.

Iran hasn't threatened anyone, even Israel - except to declare they will defend themselves if attacked - but it seems people don't pay attention to what they have said or fail to confirm whether the media is giving accurate information.

---Actually, are you, Clarke, alleging that the reports of Ahmadinejad voicing that the holocaust didn't happen were false? Reports of Ahmadinejad saying that Germany should take back the jews are innaccurate?

There are many people who behave badly. We can try altering the incentives and penalties for their misbehavior. Life tends to be funny that way. Supposedly, now Russia doesn't want Iran to be punished. Unfortunately, that may lead to greater pressures to act.

"The only variation I am concerned with at this time are those who wish to destroy others, in particular my country and way of life..."

Matthew, you and so many others, are completely delusional if you believe either Osama Bin Laden or Iran is going to destroy the US or any other western country. How many attacks have actually been carried out by Islamic fundamentalist groups on US soil? Since 9/11 I believe the answer is ummm...none. How likely is Iran to destroy the US with nuclear weapons. Not at all. Even if it has developed a nuclear weapon it will not destroy the US. If Iran attacks Israel it risks getting nuked BY Israel or wiped off the planet by the US.

The loose cannon in the middle east is Israel, as it has proved time and time again. It has an Old Testament belief that it has divine right to do whatever the hell it wants, and the US backs it to the hilt. If Iran does develp nuclear capability or looks like it may be approaching it, the most likely scenario is that Israel, as it did with Iraq in the 80's will hit the reactor and then, quite possibly, Iran will, quite justifiably, respond and who will be to blame?

Why should the US, Britain and Israel decide who should and who should not have nuclear capability?

And give up pork chops? Besides trying to make the prettier half wear a head covering all the time would result in this jihadist getting kicked in the mullahs.

Iran doesn't have to hit anyone directly to be a threat. They can hand it out to any loony that wants to try and sit back and watch.

A dirty explosion of radiologic material will cause havoc. While it may not destroy physical countries, it will cause significant disruption of our "way of life." That might not happen. It could be worse, it could be more destructive.

I'm a Buddhist and the Buddha would be mad at me if I converted, for he is a jealous, fat and happy God.

I'll tell you why Iran is a threat. George Bush and Ahmadinajad are just like each other.

Much of the media reported Ahmadinejad , who does not represent Iran's official policy, said Israel 'should be wiped off the map.' This old quote from Ayatollah Khomeini (c.1980) is well-known and never implied Iran should or would attack Israel. A better translation would be "should vanish from the pages of history." The naying means that Israel was an artificial creation by the West in the land of Palestine. It shows solidarity with the rights of Palestinians and reproves Israel's behavior, likening it to behaving like a colonialist, imperialistic nation. This is also the view of most nations throughout the world, asd quite a few Israelis.

In 2003 Iran offered to negotiate with the US, and included an understanding it was willing to recognize Israel. Iran's official policy is to attack no nation unless attacked. Supreme Leader Khamenei determines policy, not Ahmadinejad.

While Ahmadinejad presses buttons with his political rhetoric, playing populist and nationalist at home and seeking to enhance Iran's role as an important power in its region abroad, he also presents a cogent argument for negotiations with the United States that could lead to establishment of full relations between Iran and the United States.

He did not deny the Holocaust, in that he did not claim it didn't happen. He explained that it was brought about by Germans, and Europeans and Jews, Christians and Muslims had a history of good relations for many centuries in the Middle East. Yet people in the West accuse Muslims of being anti-semitic, as though they had participated in the Holcaust. He said he loves people, Israelis included, but their government's Zionist policies is another matter. He was asked by the Jewish member of the Iranian Parliament to make a statement that he did not deny the Holocaust, because his remarks were offensive to all Jews,not least the Jewish communties in Iran. However, he evaded doing so, by saying he would make a "clear" statement that would be acceptable to everyone. The fact is he would lose politically by doing so, in Iran and many countries.

The Western media has distorted his message, along with suggesting that Iran is a threat to the West and to Israel. Both Iran and United States have exploited the issue of nuclear development for their own political ends. The right to develop nuclear energy is a nationalist issue for Iran, and making it controversial helps the government avoid domestic criticism for its handling of the economy and allows it to more readily suppress reformists (although Bush's calling Iran part of the "Axis of Evil already did that, Ahmadinejad's election being one consequence).

The unilateral abrogation of treaties and no-negotiation- with -"evil" -nations -policy (which badly backfired with North Korea) and the doctrine of preemptive war that the Bush adminstration is now trumpeting in regard to Syria and Iran in the name of a "new Middle East" has recently led to veiled threats to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. This serves to distract people from its failures, most notably Katrina and Iraq.

These rhetorical games can have dangerous consequences, for in the current chaotic conditions in the Middle East can erupt in unanticipated and not-so-unanticipated ways. The media's role has been more disinformative than informative.

I am mystified WHY you want to believe there is such a terrible threat. Yes, it may yet materialise but why may that happen?

I watched a new BBC programme tonight in which the reporter spoke to, as he was described, the son of the man who wrote the book on modern Jihad. The son had fought in Afghanistan, the father had too. His father's belief was that Jihad against foreign occupying forces was justified. The son in his neat suit, (who wouldnt have looked out of place in any western city) , speaking to the reporter, said his father would have been totally opposed to the activities of Zarqawi in Iraqi and the targetting of civilians. The man said that he had personally sent Zarqawi correspondence (if indirectly) and copies of his father's writings on Jihad explaining that his actions were not of a true Jihadi.

This was a Jihadist who had fought the Soviets in Afghanistan with his father. He is totally opposed to the representation of Islam and Jihad as "terrorist", that it's purpose is not to indiscriminately kill civilians but to repel what they see as foreign invaders. The most interesting part of this was that this man distinguished between Zarqawi and Al Qaeda and the insurgents fighting in Iraq. He said that as the US and Britain were occupying forces that he would, if necessary go to fight in Iraq against the occupying forces. This was not a man with hate in his voice, this was a man who was completely rational, eloquent and convinced that an occupying force should not be in a Muslim country, and yet, he was definitely not a "terrorist".

One other very interesting point to come out of this was, an often stated view, but this time from an American commentator who just happened to have been the former head of a US government agency whose sole purpose was to track Bin Laden down. His opinion, like that of many others was that Iraq is Al Qaeda's best recruiting sargeant, Bin Laden has to do nothing for the recruits to swell his ranks while the occupation of Iraq continues. Iraq, they said was training the future of Al Qaeda and its kind, for them to return to Europe, the US and across the globe, dwarfing the training ground that was Afghanistan in the 1980's. If this scenario does materialise who is at fault? I think, (if we are hones), we know the answer even if you do not wish to face it. If you can't honestly see that it is because the US and Britain are occupying Iraq then you are fooling yourself.

Just for the record, a so called "dirty bomb" has been determined to be an insignificant weapon.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency:

"Basically, the principal type of dirty bomb, or Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD), combines a conventional explosive, such as dynamite, with radioactive material. In most instances, the conventional explosive itself would have more immediate lethality than the radioactive material. At the levels created by most probable sources, not enough radiation would be present in a dirty bomb to kill people or cause severe illness. For example, most radioactive material employed in hospitals for diagnosis or treatment of cancer is sufficiently benign that about 100,000 patients a day are released with this material in their bodies."

China is the biggest threat to us both miliatilry and economically. Right now they are trying to gather all the natrural resource that they will need(see oil). Thay have millions of extra men who won't be able to find wives inside China and its only a matter of time before they start looking outside. As for the notion that are dependant on us for their economic well being, that may be somewhat true for the moment, but it is fading fast. They are quickly developing an economy that can replace our demand with their own internal demand. India will also provide signifigant replacement demand if need be. In the next 15 years China will be the main superpower.

Josh, what happens if significant quantities of U235 enriched enough for nuclear power are combined with conventional explosives? I believe Iran supposedly has enough material for powering a heavy water reactor. At least, they have announced a heavy water reactor.

Now, they might choose to not cause chaos, but Ahmadinejad's stated goals are to cause chaos such that the hidden imam will come out of hiding. True, we may regard such beliefs as crazy, but that is a danger when leaders are elected with such beliefs.

It should be interesting watching China deal with Islamic Extremists. My guess is that they will not be politically correct in supressing dissent.

Marty, I take it you meant John,

I'm no expert, I just happened to be reading up on this and the dirty bomb is not considered a significant weapon by anybody in the know. We've been hyped.

Ahmadinejad's back is against the wall, and he is saying whatever he can to make it seem undesirable to mess with Iran. He knows we might attack any time, can you really blame him for trying to look nasty?

I think when you start out by naming a nation as part of an "axis of evil" you have an agenda. Bush has without question been gunning for Iran since the beginning of his presidency. Its been known for decades that Iran has no love for the Israeli government and yet has it NEVER shown any intention of attacking Israel. The whole idea makes absolutely no sense. The latest thinking is that it would take Iran between 5 -8 years to create a nuclear weapon (and anywhere up to 15 years I have also read recently). So why this dire need to promote Iran as the biggest threat to the region? Only ONE Middle Eastern state has nuclear capability and that is Israel and it IS a proven loose cannon. I know who I fear in the Middle East and it isn't Iran.

Well, Pakistan has the bomb and they have shared their technology with other nations, North Korea and Libya to name two. A takeover of Pakistan by the extremists shifts the balance of power to the East. A chaotic Middle East could cause that.

A recent Army report says 25 nations with light water reactors could produce material to make weapons.

Speaking of China, who needs 80% of Iran's oil, the Times Magazine has an article today. They are not going to take lightly our attempts ot sanction Iran.

The World According to China


By JAMES TRAUB
Published: September 3, 2006
In Late July, as the United Nations Security Council argued long into the night over the wording of a so-called presidential statement castigating Israel for the bombing attack that killed four U.N. observers in southern Lebanon, Wang Guangya, the Chinese ambassador, blew his stack. This was almost unprecedented: Wang, a veteran diplomat, typically comports himself with unnerving calm. But one of the four fatalities had been Chinese, and Wang had grown increasingly frustrated with the refusal of the United States to condemn Israel outright for the bombing. Worse still, the United States was represented not by Ambassador John Bolton but by a junior diplomat, a breach of etiquette that Wang apparently took to be a calculated insult.
Ambassador Wang at China's U.N. mission in New York.
Without naming any countries — he lost his temper, not his grip — Wang lashed out at "a tyranny of the minority in the council" and vowed that there would be "implications for future discussions" on other subjects. Once the meeting ended, Wang planted himself before the U.N. beat reporters and engaged in 10 minutes of robust public diplomacy, complaining that the presidential statement had been "watered down," observing in several different formulations that "we have to take into account the concerns of other countries" and predicting that the "frustration" his country felt "will affect working relations somewhat."

It was a delicately calibrated performance. In an earlier era, when the People's Republic of China tended to conduct diplomacy by tantrum, this might have been the signal for a real breach. But China cares too much about the international order for such revolutionary shenanigans.

Actually, in an earlier era Chinese nationals would not have served in an observer mission in Lebanon, and the People's Republic would have taken a pass on the whole subject. But China now aspires to play an active role on the global stage, which is why it sends skilled diplomats like Wang Guangya to the U.N. That's the good news. The bad news is that China's view of "the international order" is very different from that of the United States, or of the West, and has led it to frustrate much of the agenda that makes the U.N. worth caring about. The People's Republic has used its position as a permanent, veto-bearing member of the Security Council to protect abusive regimes with which it is on friendly terms, including those of Sudan, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Myanmar and North Korea. And in the showdown with Iran that is now consuming the Security Council, and indeed the West itself, China is prepared to play the role of spoiler, blocking attempts to levy sanctions against the intransigent regime in Tehran.

It's a truism that the Security Council can function only insofar as the United States lets it. The adage may soon be applied to China as well. ...

Marty S,
China at the moment is trying appeasment, for the Muslims. Muslims are allowed to have more than one child.

John, Mister Knight, Ahmadinejad may be trying to look nasty, but remember Saddam was the most recent middle eastern dictator who tried to look nasty.

Brian, Israel is somewhat more western in it's mindset. They don't want to use Nuclear weaponry. They are in the neighborhood, and any nuclear fallout will likely affect the entire neighborhood.

Marty, I remember, that he was complying with weapons inspectors and threatening no one. What do you expect people to do, when their under pressure like this from both the global and regional superpowers?

I agree with Brian in the fact that Iran is not a threat with or without a Nuclear weapon. Even if they handed a nuclear bomb to a suicide bomber and denied it, a nuke going off in Israel will point at Iran. In effect, whether the bomb is Iranian or not, Iran will be blamed.

Now China is willing to sit pretty while the US increases its deficit in they way we're prosecuting this war on terror until they are economically above us and then they will work for global stability just like the US did during World War II.

Clarke, if the UN were to move most of it's operations to Geneva, that would not be a bad thing. If the UN were to move to Shanghai, the world would be different.

Cena, the Chinese probably wouldn't look too good hosting the olympics, if they were killing whole families of muslims. At least until after the Olympics.

John, Saddam was conducting a shell game, 3 card monte, with the weapons and the inspectors. Some of the weapons could be in Syria, some could be in the Bekka Valley. Saddam had the chem bio suits which were found in a nmasiryah hospital. Saddam never said that he was powerless. The military has found and destroyed some 500 chem shells, or something.

Glen, if that is the case, then it would be a good thing. I don't think that China wants global stability, though. They probably want to dominate. Eventually, they will, if things go as you project, and they don't get involved. China could find things to be much more messy if most countries have gone nuclear by the time it assumes global superpowerdom and excerts influence.

Marty,

I'm confused, do you have anything at all to back up any claim that Saddam had an active WMD program, or are we just talking about old speculation? We have chem/bio suits around the country too, and the 500 shells were ancient by military standards, and totally devoid of meaningful hazard. Why do you bring up this long decided issue?

Please answer my question; what do you expect the Iranian government to do under such overwhelming threats? Roll out a red carpet? Beg for mercy? Pretend Bush has not targeted them?

Throw me a bone here. I'm not trying to rattle your cage, I'm trying to say that the Iranians are in a tight spot and picking over their words like they were casual conversation is unrealistic.

If Iran was not wanting to exert dominance in the region, then it should be okay. The only reason I brought up saddam is because he was the latest mid east leader to thry obstructing the US. I would hope that Iran would not try scaring neighbors in the region and the US by persuing advancing Nuclear technology. If Iran had sense about self preservation, it would go ahead and do that. Unfortunately, Iran does not persue that course. China will become their primary customer, and probably their saviour from action being persued with the blessing of the UN security council. But Iraq was invaded without blessing from the security council.

I am just a consumer of information. If Iran thought they were in a tight spot, they probably wouldn't be antagonizing the jews. Again, Saddam was an antagonizer of the jews, and a supporter of the palestinian authority. The fact that shells are old does not neccessarily mean they were unusable. If they were launchable with 1980's technology guns, then yes, they posed a potential danger. Just because we have satelite guided Joint Direct Attack Munitions (J-DAMs), doesn't neccessarily mean that we have nothing to fear from 1980's shells filled with chemicals/biotoxins. Iran may have similar weapons stockpiles. It is not advantageous for Iran to say that they don't have any weapons which would be harmful to enemy forces. They were instrumental in taking out the Israeli warship with the silkworm missle off the coast of Lebanon.

Iran wouldn't mind a military confrontation. We know it can take out our aircraft carriers and large ships and take out the Saudi Arabian and other oil facilities and also block the Gulf . I don't know if we know (a guess) whether she has nuclear weapons.
By the way, old shells with chemicals are dead as doornails.
In /"The Grand Chessboard"/ (1997) Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski said control of the Middle East and Central Asia, including Afghanistan and the Caspian oil fields was a prerequisite to controlling Russia and China.

As Brzezinski wrote: "the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)

(See Michael Ruppert, "A War in the Planning for Four Years: How Stupid do they Think We Are?" )

9/11 was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

In 2001, Russia and China together with four Central Asian states set up the "Shanghai Cooperation Organization" to expel the US from the region.
Iran, Pakistan and India were granted observer status. Iran was regarded as the linchpin to the whole region.
Ahmadinejad made a significant speech at the annual meeting of the SCO this summer. Iran is becoming a full member. It seems unlikely Russia and China would let Iran be destroyed or occupied. The same applies to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Why does Pakistan have nuclear weapons but not Iran? Supposdly, Pakistan is a Western client state. But Pakistan is drawing closer to China and is assisting the Taliban.

Clarke, I guess you didn't hear the news yet that 200 Taliban and 4 Canadians were killed in operations in Southern Afghanistan recently. Presumably, the 4 canadians were part of the allied death counts.

You can believe figures if you wish. History shows they were never accurate as reported. I recall there was a plane crash that killed 14 Canadians. That would more likely be accurate. Why do you think the US press is not allowed to record our troops bodies brought to the US?

I am not sure how much pull Adam Gadahn will have here in the U.S. Certainly, I can see him causing some unrest perhaps. I believe, we should be a little bit worried about the Middle East. We already have a bad image. All we can do is stay on top of things.

The "war on terror" in stark reality. Its a pity you cant see the little map on the front page . Basically the report says that the "war on terror" has been fuelled by US foreign policy. The vastly overhwelming majority of those killed have been Muslim civilians? There really should be a "war on terror", and its easily won, leave the Middle East, and if a real threat does arise then the US and Britain will unquestionably receive global support for their actions.

This is one of the UK daily newspapers, The Independent, which I recommend you bookmark

Some nice links at the side for you to read too.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article1359854.ece

"When the US, Israel, and Britain are stoning women, hanging gays and minorities, and funding terrorist militias..."

Well the British and the US engage in terrorist acts whether you choose to believe it or not. They also have a history of funding, or supplying arms and/or assistance to such groups, whether directly or indirectly, through their "security services". They are far removed from the knights in shining armour that you choose to portray them as. You should also perhaps research the history of the Taleban and Al Qaeda and you will see how the US helped them spawn into the hellish creations they are today.

As for Israel, is there a more aggressive nation in the Middle East?

Keep it up Marty!! Good job.

The fact that they are trying to convert America sould be an alarm clock for all Americans (libs for sure) .

The enemy will show it's self soon. Israel had the responseablity to fight for the captured soliders.

Until the Islamic governments comeout and declair war we need to keep posting the truth, who the real enemy is. When the facts outweigh the bull being fed to the general public by the democrats, America will stand and be united under the cause for freedom.True Americans who love everything about this great country will say with one voice that our way of life will not be "converted" God bless America.

Yes, because Americans have no free will and have no defence from the awesome power that is an idiot's voice on a recorded message. I mean Adam Gadahn by the way, not George W. , just to clarify.

I think that the next attack will happen. Having Adam Gadahn present an option to the americans, however false an option it really is, is part of the Koranic guidelines for waging war, as interpreted by some sholars. How destructive it will be is open to interpretation. How damaging to global trade it will be should be interesting.

It's odd how the last attack was on a tuesday.

That line would be good in a Monty Python skit, Marty S.

Get serious. This is Pentagon--sponsored Rand think-tank
analysis of the so-called"War on Terror":
RAND Review
Five Years After 9/11
True Grit
To Counter Terror, We Must Conquer Our Own Fear
By Brian Michael Jenkins
http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2006/truegrit1.html