A Taliban leader with a $5 million American reward on his head is thought to be dead from an drone attack in South Waziristan, Pakistan, but a friend says that report is “ridiculous.” Baitullah Mehsud is alive, or he may be dead. See update below.

Members of the Mehsud tribe consider Baitullah Mehsud their leader. He is believed to command as many as 20,000 Taliban. So far, reports of his probable death by drone strike have not been disproved. In other words, he has sent no message to prove that he is alive and the West has no concrete evidence that he was hit in the strike but have said they are increasingly confident that they got him, this time.

That confidence may come from the fact that the drone hit the home of Baitullah Mehsud’s father-in-law’s home. One report says one of his aides told the AP by phone that he died along with his wife, or at least his “second” wife. In another, the aide is quoted, as well as a local tribesman saying he attended the funeral. Odd that the AP can ring-up the Taliban on one of the harshest battlefields in the world but allied forces cannot follow the pings to take them out.

Pakistani officials have complained that the US has failed to hit Mehsud with drone attacks despite them having supplied co-ordinates three times. The reason they gave was that Mehsud has been more focused against Pakistan in his militancy rather than fully directing his militants against Nato in Afghanistan.

Mehsud is said to hate publicity and particularly photography. Perhaps it is not unusual that he will make no claims to be alive, if indeed he is alive.

Mehsud is or was a hardliner. Even among his peers, he is considered extraordinarily dedicated to holy war against allied forces. In November 2007, Baitullah Mehsud told the BBC: “Only jihad can bring peace to the world.”

In March, Weasel Zippers reported that Baitullah Mehsud “promised an assault on Washington ’soon’ – one he said that will ‘amaze’ the world.” This after claiming responsibility for the attack on a Pakistan police academy in Lahore leaving 18 dead and more than 100 wounded.

As within any organization, even one fighting in the wilderness of Afghanistan, position within an organization is power, and it is believed the “friend” calling American reports of the demise of Mehsud “ridiculous” may be preparing to succeed the leader. While Commander Hakimullah Mehsud says the reports are the work of propaganda, he also say Baitullah Mehsud is adopting the tactics of Osama bin Laden and will “stay silent.”

Update 8-8-08 4:15 pm CDT:
The story of what seems to be Baitullah Mehsud’s demise can be attributed to his desire to have a son in addition to his four daughters by his first wife. With a new wife in the family, and the couple at the home of the new wife’s father, perhaps a son would be delivered. Baitullah was diabetic and not feeling well. A doctor was tending to him:

As he lay on a couch on the roof tended by his new wife, somewhere high up in the clear starry sky a distant unmanned plane was hovering, invisible to the naked eye. Its cameras locked in on him, a command was given thousands of miles away in the Nevada desert, and two Hellfire missiles tore into the mudwalled building.

Afterwards a Pakistani intelligence officer based in the nearest town, Makeen, said Mehsud’s torso had been “totally damaged except for his head”.

It just isn’t proper to have daughters when you’re a distinguished Taliban leader. There is no celebratory gunfire for the birth of a daughter. How frustrating. Four daughters! It appears he died without a son, his second wife along with him, and seven body guards that could do little to save him from the eagle eye of the American drone.

Baitullah Mehsud was a big catch, and perhaps the biggest for the drone program. He is believed to have [been] behind the death of Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in December 2007.

When a former leader was also killed by a Predator drone and replaced by Abdullah Mehsud – who was released by Americans at Guantanamo, Baitullah proved the stronger leader and Abdullah lost his leadership.

Related:

Hakimullah Mehsud Dead: Wali-ur-Rehman Dead: Successors Kill Each Other?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

An unnamed U.S. soldier is missing in Afghanistan and is known to be the victim of kidnapping. The U.S. Military wants the missing soldier back and has sent a sobering message to the residents in at least two villages in suspect areas. The leaflets contained a message and a warning to return our missing soldier.

Afghan Villages Warned

The graphic above shows the front side a leaflet produced at the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan with this message on one side:

The papers show on one side an image of a soldier with his head bowed so that his face is not visible (above). A message in the local Pashtun language over the image says, “If you do not free the American soldier, then…”

Afghan Villages Warned (photo backside)

The second graphic above is the backside of the first and says:

…you will be targeted”.

The military says the leaflet says “…you will be hunted,” but some translators say the word also means “targeted.”

Sources are inconclusive about how the leaflets got to the villagers: some reports say they were dropped from aircraft with the warnings seen in trees and on rooftops. A Military spokeswoman says they were delivered by hand, but says an aircraft leaflet-drop was made earlier to these villages notifying the people that a U.S. Soldier is missing and asking for information on his whereabouts:

U.S. Soldier Missing

The above graphic is not an actual picture [of]the missing soldier. On the front it reads:

One of our American guests is missing.

The backside says:

Return the guest to his home. Call us at…,

Heart-wrenching appeals to the people who live among untold cruelty at the hands of those who are in possession of one of our own.

A Taliban militant said the U.S. Military has made three previous attempts to find the GI, but failed. He said the soldier is in a safe and secure place in a Taliban-controlled area. This spokesman said ransom demands, or an offer for a prisoner swap may be made, but warned that any attempts by foreigners to rescue him will lead to the soldier’s death.

Reuters reports that Mawlavi Sangin, a Taliban commander, issued warnings to the U.S. that continued “harassment” of the villagers in the area may also lead to the soldier’s death.

Reportedly, the U.S. Infantry soldier had just completed a shift and was off-duty when he walked off the U.S. base and left his body armor and weapon behind on June 30th. An anonymous U.S. military source said that communications by insurgents had been intercepted and it was believed that Taliban had the GI. Three Afghan nationals were abducted at the same time.

The Taliban commander, who spoke to Yousafzai [CBS correspondent] via satellite telephone from the region, said a group of militants cornered the American soldier and his Afghan counterparts near a U.S. military base and took them hostage.

But CBS News has learned that not long after the soldier disappeared, U.S. intelligence picked up radio chatter that he had been kidnapped. U.S. officials know he’s already been sold to another group of Afghans – but no direct contact has been made with the kidnappers.

This is believed to be the first abduction of a member of the U.S. Military in the almost-8-years since the War on Terror began. While leaflet-drops are ‘business as usual’ in these areas, those targeted have been the insurgents. This time villagers are warned. It’s a different ballgame. Read the entire article here.

U.S. Department of Defense Graphic credit: CBS News

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The Pentagon, under the direction of Barack Obama, has banned the use of “The Global War on Terror.” But we all know where the terror is, and it is global, and all of it is perpetrated by Islam. Our friends in England are fighting a battle that is being denied by those in the media and Parliament. Brits are running scared. They are afraid to speak out or show-up…with some brave exceptions. See a video below.

Lionheart – Luton, England

Lionheart is a frequent contributor here and other blogs passionately concerned about terrorism. If you do not know his story – and a story that is evolving and very serious to his life and liberty, and that of his family – then visit him at Lionheart. Don’t stop at the homepage. Dig into his archives. Americans need to know what is going on in Britain, because we are the next stepping stone.

On March 28th, this Saturday at 12:25 p.m., there will be a protest in Luton, England, Lionheart’s hometown and where his saga began. Here’s what the march is all about:

After watching our soldiers from the Royal Anglian Regiment being abused by the British wing of Al Qaeda on the streets of Luton, the wider community are now going to march in demonstration against them and in support of our troops.

Here’s a message for Lionheart:

The threat to the life of the nation has never been greater since the Second World War, and it is happening now in our generation.

The militant wing of the Islamic religion is hell bent on causing mass murder and mayhem against the British people as they seek to force us to bend and bow in submission to their religious ideology – This cannot be doubted!

7/7, the Glasgow airport car bombing, the ‘Tiger Tiger’ nightclub failed car bombing and all other thwarted attempts are proof enough of their intent towards us. It might only be a small minority who carry out these acts, but that does not mean that they are not supported by the vast majority (a debatable issue).

The Home Secretary has now stated, after being given a new report on tackling Islamic extremism in Britain, that there is an increased threat of a dirty bomb attack being carried out against us.

The threat is not new, so as the report states regarding the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical substances, it is only a matter of time until there is a successful terrorist attack that outweighs in gravity the attacks that have already been perpetrated against us by Al Qaeda.

It’s not ‘if’. It is ‘when’, ‘where’, and ‘how big’?

The Home Secretary has said that it is the responsibility of not just the Government to tackle the threat now posed to our national security, but also that of the wider community.

Quote: She cited the example of the Muslim activists who recently protested at a homecoming parade in Luton for British forces returning from Iraq.

She said: “The civil challenge means that, if people feel it appropriate to demonstrate against our troops coming home from defending this country abroad, we – as Government and others – will say in turn that we think that that’s wrong.

“Not that they’ve broken the law – one of the things we’re defending in this country is the right to free speech, but that isn’t free speech that will go unhindered or unchallenged by either Government or, I think, the broader community.”

After watching our soldiers from the Royal Anglian Regiment being abused by the British wing of Al Qaeda on the streets of Luton, the wider community are now going to march in demonstration against them and in support of our troops.

The organiser of the official event pulled out of leading this through fear of controversy, and has rearranged for London in April. We the people, are so incensed at what took place on March 10th that we will be meeting in Luton on Saturday with or without Luton Council’s permission. That is just the common consensus amongst the people.

If we the people cannot stand up to this abhorrent behaviour by this civil enemy, then who is going to?

As the Home Secretary has said: “but that isn’t free speech that will go unhindered or unchallenged by either Government or, I think, the broader community.”

The broader community will be meeting in Luton on Saturday March 28th at 12.25 to demonstrate and challenge those extremists living in our country.

Each and every person working within the mainstream media have a responsibility to your country too. Are we not all in this together? What if it is you or one of your relatives caught up in a mass ‘dirty bomb’ attack in London at some point in the future?

We the people need your help to tell the country that we will be meeting in Luton on Saturday.

The BBC and ITV give Anjem Choudry, the Osama Bin Laden of British militant Islam a platform to promote his vile ideology, yet they refuse to help those seeking to challenge that.

Isn’t it about time, for the sake of the future life of the nation, that those in power start to help the common people with their aims and objectives?

Now is that time, and it concerns Luton, which has been the scene of so much Al Qaeda terrorist activity, including Al Qaeda’s deceleration of war against us on the morning of 7/7.

We can do what we do through the internet, and arouse the few, but with mainstream media coverage we can arouse the many from amongst the broader community to come out in support.

Now is the time for you to do what the Home Secretary has said, or go back to sleep and remember this message when you are reporting the next Al Qaeda terrorist attack to hit our shores.

Those on the Left within the Establishment should not refuse what the Home Secretary herself, has said because this is their country too. If they do, it proves the point that they are just as much our enemy as militant Islam itself. No Moslems in positions of influence should refuse either because if they are true to their words about there being moderates from amongst them, then they should welcome a demonstration against the militants from within their own religion particularly as they have never demonstrated against this element themselves.

We will be in Luton on Saturday at 12.25pm whether it is just one elderly man with a sandwich board protesting against this disgusting behaviour on our streets, or 10,000 demonstrators.

Once again Al Qaeda in Britain has started this and this will be our response.

Help us or hang your heads in shame!!!

This is not a political march; this is a demonstration of the people.

Daily Mail: Threat of a ‘dirty bomb’

Further reading: Luton link to ‘dirty bomb’ attack

Further reading: Shopping centre attack

End Lionheart.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Controversy and emotion have tracked this Memorial design. Some feel the design includes significant Islamic symbolism. The hijackers were Islamic terrorists. If I understand correctly, with the exception of one family, all other families currently believe the Memorial plans are a fitting tribute to their loved ones (although there were additional dissenters earlier on).

So why would one family feel passionately that their son will be buried at the foot of an Islamic Mosque paying tribute to the 9/11 hijackers? Is it even reasonable to believe that this family has valid objections to the design? (See the video of Tom Burnett at the end of this post).

That question, and two others are the reason for this post. Why would the architect, chosen out of some 1500 designs, include Islamic symbolism, and if there is any doubt about its presence, why would the plan not be scrapped in favor of a plan that clearly does not include such symbolism?

The following is a list of seemingly verifiable facts. If it is assumed the following are correct, and there are links within the post, and at the end, for your own research, are we just assuming this is coincidence? Are we just assuming that the dissenters are theory or truther conspiracists? Are we just choosing to ignore what we see? Are we just ignoring what we know?

According to Alec Rawls, at Error Theory, who has done the huge work of explaining and verifying his claims, the Memorial Project [U.S. Parks] admits to the following:

…that the Mecca orientation claim is accurate.
They know that ALL of our factual claims are accurate and admit it in private conversation, but have decided that the very outlandishness of all somehow implies that it has to be a coincidence.

Here’s the pertinent, culled-through list from my perspective:

1) The Memorial site is filled with “crescents.” The architect first named the Memorial the Crescent of Embrace. The name has now been changed to the Circle of Embrace. The architect, Paul Murdoch, says that he subsequently changed the design from a crescent to a circle by adding trees to fill in the gap and close the circle. The links I’ve provided below, and the discussion by Alec Rawls, shows clearly that trees were added, but they do not close the crescent assuming Mr. Rawls’ evidence is correct.

From Alec Rawls on the “broken circle”:

The Memorial Project claims to have an innocent explanation for why the central feature of the Flight 93 memorial is a giant Islamic shaped crescent. As architect Paul Murdoch has been saying since September 2005, the flight path breaks the circle, turning it into what was originally called the Crescent of Embrace.

But this isn’t a memorial to an airliner. It is a memorial to human beings. So just who is it that architect Paul Murdoch is depicting as breaking the circle?

As a secular symbol, the circle signifies peace and harmony. There is no way that the heroic passengers and crew can be charged with breaking the circle. It is the terrorists who broke the peace.

Think what that means thematically. The terrorists broke our peaceful circle and turned it into a giant Islamic shaped crescent that just happens to point to Mecca. You could not come up with a more blatant depiction of al Qaeda victory.

2) The Crescent of trees is an arc to be filled with red maple trees. The crescent is in the exact shape of the Islamic crescent and star. The “Sacred Ground” within the Memorial is in the exact place of the Islamic star.

The Tower of Voices is also in the shape of a crescent. It is also a “year round accurate Islamic sundial.” The short story of this confusing detail is that the dial’s shadow falls perfectly for Islamic afternoon prayers – the same as the shadow of the Tower of Voices.

The Tower of Voices is also in the shape of a crescent.

The symbolic lives of the forty heroes literally dangle [wind chimes] down below the symbolic Islamic heavens, projected against the sky above. Not a lot of different possible meanings here.

Dissenters see this as symbolic “damnation” – the infidel passengers dangling forever below an Islamic heaven.

3) There are two Memorial tree groves. Both contain nineteen nested crescents, for a total of thirty-eight nested crescents. Why thirty-eight, when the Memorial advertised forty groves. There were forty heroes that day and a total of nineteen hijackers. The plans clearly show two clusters of nineteen nested crescents.

4) If the orientation of the Crescent/Circle of Embrace were coincidentally and unintentionally oriented toward the spiritual center of Islam, as the architect asserts, wouldn’t we want it changed?

The exact direction to Mecca from the crash-site (about ten miles east of Somerset) is 55.19° clockwise from north. Thus the Crescent of Embrace is oriented about 1.8° north of the exact Mecca line.

Advocates for the design say that to be Islamic, the center of the crescent must be exactly pointing to Mecca, not 1.8 degrees off, but Rawls offers example of other Mosques oriented at varying degrees off of dead center.

5) There are forty-four translucent memorial blocks, forty of which are inscribed with the name of a passenger. There were forty passengers and crew and four terrorists. Forty of the inscribed blocks are positioned below the Islamic star – “symbolically cast out of the symbolic Islamic heavens,” …implying damnation. Three blocks are inscribed with 911 and placed in the Sacred Ground area (where the star is located in the Islamic crescent and star symbol), and one at the upper crescent tip. According to dissenters, the extra four blocks are located within the Islamic heavens.

If the Memorial actually memorialized the forty heroes, it could not be a mosque, as Islam believes all non-Islamics to be infidels. Adding four additional blocks and placing only the four “within the Islamic heavens,” places the Muslim above the damned infidels.

The three blocks inscribed with 911 will be on a section of the Memorial Wall, centered on the bisector of the crescent, which is the exact position of the star on an Islamic flag, set in the exact position of the star on the Islamic crescent and star flag.

6) The central feature of a mosque is a “crescent.” The crescent is faced-into at prayer time. A visitor to the Memorial, when facing into the Crescent of Embrace, is facing toward Mecca, whether they want to or not.

7) In a mosque, the crescent is know as a “mihrab.” The “mihrab” is similar in meaning to a Muslim worshipper, as the alter is to a Christian worshipper.

In 1981, Ayatollah Khomeini explained the meaning of a Mecca-direction indicator (called a mihrab), like the one now being planted on the Flight 93 crash site:

Mehrab means the place of war, the place of fighting. Out of the mehrabs, wars should proceed, just as all the wars of Islam used to proceeded out of the mehrabs. [Hat tip Yoel Natan, Moon-o-theism, p. 30]

The I-ah-told-you-so wasn’t just speaking allegorically either. The University of Chicago’s Francis Joseph Steinglass Comprehensive Persian-English dictionary lists amongst its definitions for mihrab: “warlike,” and “a field of battle.” (Hat tip Czechmade.)

Why would the architect, Paul Murdoch, want to introduce Islamic symbolism into the design, if he did do so?

The Flight 93 Memorial Project consulted experts on the question of Islamic symbolism. It seems from my reading of the report that Rawl’s mathematical arguments are correct but that Rawls is not considering the landscape of the crash site – which is a crescent-shape. Nassar Rabbat, who graduated UCLA in 1984 and was a classmate of Robert Murdoch, scoffed at the idea of any Islamic symbolism. You can read his comments here, along with those of the other experts. Dr. Rabbat makes several statements that have been disputed by Alec Rawls, such as the crescent and star are not often used in Islam, Mosques are not in the shape of an arc, etc.
Rawls’ Error Theory blog discusses this at length.

A check of Rabbat’s background shows that he was a classmate of Paul Murdoch, both getting masters degrees in architecture from UCLA in 1984 and both doing their masters work on Middle Eastern subjects. Murdoch wrote a “masters project” titled: “A museum for Haifa, Israel.” Rabbat did a masters thesis titled: “House-form, climactic response and lifestyle: a study of the 17-19th century courthouse houses in Cairo and Damascus.”

This connection between Murdoch and Rabbat raises the possibility that Murdoch himself orchestrated the Park Service investigation into warnings about his own design. Rabbat denies knowing Murdoch, but given the blatant dishonesty of what he told the Park Service, that denial cannot be trusted.

One of the experts, Dr. Kevin Jacques of Indiana University School of Law “sponsored a forum on the likely legal fallout from the attacks: consequences for immigration law, civil rights, etcetera. As the university’s resident expert on Islamic (sharia) law, Jaques was invited to say something about our looming engagement with the Islamic world and their systems of law.

He chose to write a prescriptive article, urging the United States to frame its response in conformity with traditional sharia requirements:”

In formulating an American response to the acts of terror, it is necessary to define them according to the provisions of Islamic law.

So, is it possible that there’s far too many connections to Islam? Is it possible that Rabbat and Murdoch conspired to come up with a design that actually honors Islam and shows Islam as victorious over the infidels?

Well that’s the short story. I’m not in a position to prove anything, but I find it hard to believe that the Project will go ahead with this design, although that appears to be exactly what is going to happen if we cannot get the media interested, or Congress interested in investigating.

I know the families are exhausted with emotion and weary of the controversy. Maybe it’s just easier to get it over with, but after it is all over with, won’t these families go to bed at night wondering if Alec Rawls is right? What if he is right? Why would we as a Nation take that risk.

A Flight 93 family member was quoted in the New York Times as saying:

The land speaks for itself,” she said. “It’s in the shape of an embrace.”

Were all of the designs submitted in a crescent shape; were other architects restricted to only a crescent design because of the lay of the land?

Sources:
When looking for the chronological story of the Flight 93 Memorial, I like to use Cao’s Blog as a chronological database.

Or…the real authority on the Memorial – Alec Rawls at Error Theory Blog documents everything. Check out the links in his sidebar. Rawls has also written a book, Crescent of Betrayal. A link is available at Error Theory Blog and the download is free until the 2009 print date.

Pertinent links from the above discussion:
A statement from Muslims Against Sharia
Families Divided
A video put together by Muslims Against Sharia
Is this a “truther” or “theory” conspiracy?
The Sacred Ground

To close, here’s a video of Tom Burnett, Sr., the father of Flight 93 passenger, Tom Burnett. The video is featured in the latest blogburst. Listening to Mr. Burnett, a retired school teacher, makes me wonder if I could stand up under this battle. Mr. Burnett and Mr. Rawls are true heroes. Here’s the question again: what if Alec Rawls and Tom Burnett are right?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Cancel as well the urgent action alert that was going to be the subject of today’s blogburst post. The Memorial Project has just abandoned the “gala” tribute and fundraiser they were planning for almost a year. The event was to be held in Washington DC on September 11th, and yes, they actually called it a “gala,” until Flight 93 family members said NO WAY.

Last month’s announcement of the event promised big:

An impressive Honorary Host Committee has been assembled consisting of over 200 members of Congress and the leadership of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Special state delegations from Pennsylvania and California are also being organized for the event.

Assembled where? In the imaginations of Memorial Project personnel? If there really were 200 Congressmen on board, including the leadership of both parties, what could possibly prompt cancellation?

Has word gotten out that the memorial is actually a terrorist memorial mosque?

Fuggedaboudit. We are a long way from Congress being alert to the facts. It is possible, however, that there is a growing awareness in Congress that the Flight 93 families are divided over the crescent design (now called a broken circle). Thank Tom Burnett Sr., whose efforts to stop the desecration of his son’s grave drew national television coverage in May, and extensive Pittsburgh coverage this month:

Tom Sr. on Pittsburgh’s WPXI channel 6, August 4th. (Click for video.)

Us critics know well the difficulty of going up against Flight 93 family members. Who would have imagined that conservative stalwarts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would remain silent about the planting of a giant Mecca-oriented crescent on the Flight 93 crash site? But all it takes is some family members on the other side and nobody wants to get involved.

Maybe Tom’s pleas for help are injecting the same paralysis into would-be supporters of the crescent design. If both sides are paralyzed, that is a step in the right direction, but it is nowhere near enough. Architect Paul Murdoch is still on track to stab his terrorist memorial mosque into the heartland of America. (That is the significance of a crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca: it is the central feature around which every mosque is built.)

How big does the memorial controversy have to get before a few of these paralyzed big-wigs on either side decide to simply check the facts? All congressmen have interns they can assign to fact-check the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent (five minutes), the Islamic crescent soaring in the sky above the symbolic lives of the 40 heroes (five seconds), the 44 glass blocks on the flight path (just open up the design drawings and count).

Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity all have interns too. If these folks are skeptical, they ought to at least want to expose our claims about these features as a fraud, so that the controversy can be put to rest. If they find that our claims are accurate, all we ask is that they join the call for a proper investigation.

Come on movers and shakers. Paralysis is not enough. Stand paralyzed as Paul Murdoch pilots a re-hijacked Flight 93 to its mark, and the heroism of Flight 93 will be well and truly betrayed.

To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post