ATTENTION: 20,000 surface to air and anti tank missiles missing in Libya


Approximately 20,000 portable surface-to-air missile and Russian made anti-tank missiles as well as rifle and anti aircraft ammunition have gone missing in Libya. A couple of those weapons are explained in the graphic above. (Click on to enlarge).

After a 6 month civil war that ended Qaddafi’s 42-year rule and sent him into hiding allowed the regime’s extensive armories to be fully exposed and available to looters, former rebel fighters or anyone with a truck to carry weapons away.

Weapons that could be used to knock down military planes, helicopters or drones as well as cause destruction and damage to innocent civilians.

With the US govt unsure as to who is leading the rebels in Libya and Defense Secretary Robert Gates stating that its “very possible that Al Qaeda is leading the rebellion” and the significance impact of Hamas and Hezbollah in the area makes this matter gravely serious not only for America’s security but also for Israel’s security.

Today, the White House released a press statement saying it will boost efforts to find and destroy the weapons stockpile and last week, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on Libya’s new leaders to secure the chemical weapons and convention weapons supply.

Yet at the same time, visits by The Associated Press to weapons caches around Tripoli (the capital of Libya) show that many remain poorly guarded and have already been heavily looted.

AP reported that 12 rebels wandered around one site where a large hangar was strewn with the boxes of missing weapons. Rebels at another site were leaving with a load of tank shells they said they were taking to a safe place for storage. They acknowledged, however, that they’d found the site unguarded.

At one unguarded site, Bouckaert said he found 100,000 anti-tank and anti-personnel mines. Elsewhere, he found weapons caches hidden under fruit trees.

On a positive note,  the U.N. chief weapons watchdog said Wednesday that Libya’s remaining chemical weapon stockpiles are believed to be secure but we must remain ever viligent.

Let’s pray that we find them and confiscate the weapons before they are used against us and/or our allies.

Copyright (c) September 28, 2011. All rights reserved.

Advertisements

Israelites do not owe the Palestinians’ land.


Israelites do not owe the Palestinians’ land.

The Palestinians lost the land in a war. In fact, Israel won all of the wars; so they rightfully have ownership to the land.

  • 1956 Sinai War
  • 1967 Six Day War
  • 1973 Yom Kippur War

I dont blame the Israelis for not wanting to give land to Palestinians/Hamas; as they would be better equipped to destabilize Israel.

In order to coexist, Israel must be recognized as a Jewish state, Jerusalem must stay in the hands of Israel and the Palestinian authority must be demilitarized.

Copyright (c) May 16, 2011. All rights reserved.

Published in: on May 17, 2011 at 4:02 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

House panel slams the breaks on Obama’s nuclear reduction


A House panel voted today to limit President Obama’s authority in reducing the nation’s nuclear arsenal.

By a 35-26 vote, the  House panel approved an amendment that would prohibit money to take nuclear weapons out of operation unless the administration provides a report to Congress on how it plans to modernize the remaining weapons.

The panel also adopted an amendment that says the president may not change the target list or move weapons out of Europe until he reports to Congress.

Does anybody else find this sad that we even have to craft legislation such as this?

Perhaps if Obama wouldnt take such drastic and controversial action without consulting Congress (much like he did (or did not do) in Libya); we wouldnt have to waste time and tax payer money drafting bills that require the President to respect his office and other legislative branches.

I am glad that the House panel pushed this on Obama with his nuclear reduction talks.

Now if only they would do something similar regarding future Libyan and Syrian operations.

Copyright (c) May 11, 2011. All rights reserved.

Published in: on May 12, 2011 at 2:16 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

SOUND OFF: Pakistan is not acting like a friend of the US; withdraw $7.5 billion/5 yrs of financial aid from Pakistan?


With bin Laden found in Pakistan and Pakistan throwing up roadblocks in the US accessing informative links and interviewing bin Ladens’ wives conjoined with India accusing Pakistan of harboring 50+ criminals shows me that Pakistan is, indeed, harboring terrorists.

Not too mention that there seems to be a slow down of the Blackhawk helicopter shipment that was accidentally left in Pakistan.

Does anybody know the Blackhawk tail shipment status? As far as I know, it has not been received.

If Pakistan allows China to inspect the tail of the Blackhawk helicopter,  that would give us enough reason to defund the Kerry-Lugar Act which affords Pakistan $7.5 billion over a 5 year period for Pakistani actions will have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt,  that the US does not have a friend in Pakistan.

In the Senate, two legislators control the writing of key legislation that allocates Pakistani aid have been particularly critical: Senate Armed Services chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) and Senate Appropriations State and Foreign Ops subcommittee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT).

They are joined by House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Howard Berman (D-CA), who issued a blistering statement on criticizing the administration’s handling of the military assistance to Pakistan.

“Under the current legislative scheme, I don’t think our military assistance is serving the interests we are intending it to serve,” Berman said.  “What I’m asking the administration to do is focus on getting Pakistan to change its approach and go after extremist groups. If they’re not successful, we should reconsider giving this money.”

Berman was critical of the administration’s decision to certify that Pakistan “demonstrated a sustained commitment towards combating terrorism,” a requirement under the Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid bill passed last year, which is worth $7.5 billion over 5 years, in which, I have to concur- considering that bin Laden was in Pakistan for several years in Abbottabad, Pakistan minutes away from a police office.

He also argued that a huge fund to reimburse Pakistan for counterterrorism operations, known as the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund (PCCF), has not been effective.

In a bi partisan effort in the House,  Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) have called for a review of the Kerry Lugar Berman funding in the wake of the bi Laden killing. As leaders on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee, they play a role in authorizing the funds each year.

For me,  I feel that we must use our military and economic financial aid as a leverage to get Pakistan to comply to our wishes.

For starters,  Congress could require the administration to certify that Pakistan is cooperating with the bin Laden investigation as well as adding  financial strings to the Blackhawk helicopter tail that Pakistan needs to send back to the US pronto and their willingness to dismantle their nuclear capabilities.

Negotiation is critical in this manner and I hope Senator John Kerry (D-MA) who is over in Pakistan can reason with our so-called friends. If the Pakistanis want to focus on the fact that their sovereignty was breached even though they were harboring terrorists;  then perhaps we need to start cutting their economic/military aid in percentages with the willingness to drop it to zero altogether.

We have to be careful, though, because if we remove the aid before we get the helicopter back- the Pakistanis will most likely sell our military intelligence to China.

Its most definitely a tricky situation but one that can be manipulated if we handle our financial aid to Pakistan accordingly.

SOUND OFF: Do you think we should eliminate the $7.5 billion that we are spending to help Pakistan? Should we cut military aid, economic aid or both and why?

Copyright (c) May 11, 2011. All rights reserved.

EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Syria’s real power brokers


Published in: on May 9, 2011 at 4:48 pm  Leave a Comment  

BREAKING NEWS: Al Qaeda confirmed bin Laden’s death and antagonizes the United States.


On Friday 05/6/11, Al Qaeda confirmed bin Laden’s death while still antagonizing the United States.

According to the Associated Press, Al Qaeda posted a statement on various militant websites.

“We stress that the blood of the holy warrior sheik, Osama bin Laden, God bless him, is precious to us and to all Muslims and will not go in vain. We will remain, God willing, a curse chasing the Americans and their agents, following them outside and inside their countries.”

“Soon, God willing, their happiness will turn to sadness- their blood will be mingled with their tears.”

The statement comes after President Obama announced that the administration would not release photos of bin Laden’s body so as to not enrage the U.S.’s enemies.

The AP stressed that it could not independently verify the authenticity of the statement, but that it was posted on websites al Qaeda typically uses to post messages.

I think, honestly, that it is only a matter of time before Al Qaeda seeks revenge on the US for taking out one of their beloved leaders.

I am grateful to hear from credible sources that our defense compounds, airports and security are on alert.

However to think that Al Qaeda are going to sit back on their hands and do nothing is naive.  What is needed to be known is if Al Qaeda is organized and bold enough to make a move that would most certainly prompt yet another retailation.

Honestly, I dont feel safer then I did a day before bin Laden was captured.

Al Qaeda has not posed a credible threat to us the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

If anything,  I feel more threatened because Obama just stirred the hornet’s nest by killing and then burying bin Laden at sea (which is frowned upon in the Muslim community).

Copyright (c) May 6, 2011. All rights reserved.


One unwary phone call led US to Bin Laden’s doorstep


Guest Commentary provided by:  Adam Goldman and Matt Apuzzo/AP

When one of Osama bin Laden’s most trusted aides picked up the phone last year, he unknowingly led U.S. pursuers to the doorstep of his boss, the world’s most wanted terrorist.

That phone call, recounted Monday by a U.S. official, ended a years-long search for bin Laden’s personal courier, the key break in a worldwide manhunt. The courier, in turn, led U.S. intelligence to a walled compound in northeast Pakistan, where a team of Navy SEALs shot bin Laden to death.

The violent final minutes were the culmination of years of intelligence work. Inside the CIA team hunting bin Laden, it always was clear that bin Laden’s vulnerability was his couriers. He was too smart to let al-Qaida foot soldiers, or even his senior commanders, know his hideout. But if he wanted to get his messages out, somebody had to carry them, someone bin Laden trusted with his life.

In a secret CIA prison in Eastern Europe years ago, al-Qaida’s No. 3 leader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, gave authorities the nicknames of several of bin Laden’s couriers, four former U.S. intelligence officials said. Those names were among thousands of leads the CIA was pursuing.

One man became a particular interest for the agency when another detainee, Abu Faraj al-Libi, told interrogators that when he was promoted to succeed Mohammed as al-Qaida’s operational leader he received the word through a courier. Only bin Laden would have given al-Libi that promotion, CIA officials believed.

If they could find that courier, they’d find bin Laden.

The revelation that intelligence gleaned from the CIA’s so-called black sites helped kill bin Laden was seen as vindication for many intelligence officials who have been repeatedly investigated and criticized for their involvement in a program that involved the harshest interrogation methods in U.S. history.

“We got beat up for it, but those efforts led to this great day,” said Marty Martin, a retired CIA officer who for years led the hunt for bin Laden.

Mohammed did not reveal the names while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He identified them many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic.

It took years of work for intelligence agencies to identify the courier’s real name, which officials are not disclosing. When they did identify him, he was nowhere to be found. The CIA’s sources didn’t know where he was hiding. Bin Laden was famously insistent that no phones or computers be used near him, so the eavesdroppers at the National Security Agency kept coming up cold.

Then in the middle of last year, the courier had a telephone conversation with someone who was being monitored by U.S. intelligence, according to an American official, who like others interviewed for this story spoke only on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive operation. The courier was located somewhere away from bin Laden’s hideout when he had the discussion, but it was enough to help intelligence officials locate and watch him.

In August 2010, the courier unknowingly led authorities to a compound in the northeast Pakistani town of Abbottabad, where al-Libi had once lived. The walls surrounding the property were as high as 18 feet and topped with barbed wire. Intelligence officials had known about the house for years, but they always suspected that bin Laden would be surrounded by heavily armed security guards. Nobody patrolled the compound in Abbottabad.

In fact, nobody came or went. And no telephone or Internet lines ran from the compound. The CIA soon believed that bin Laden was hiding in plain sight, in a hideout especially built to go unnoticed. But since bin Laden never traveled and nobody could get onto the compound without passing through two security gates, there was no way to be sure.

Despite that uncertainty, intelligence officials realized this could represent the best chance ever to get to bin Laden. They decided not to share the information with anyone, including staunch counterterrorism allies such as Britain, Canada and Australia.

By mid-February, the officials were convinced a “high-value target” was hiding in the compound. President Barack Obama wanted to take action.

“They were confident and their confidence was growing: ‘This is different. This intelligence case is different. What we see in this compound is different than anything we’ve ever seen before,'” John Brennan, the president’s top counterterrorism adviser, said Monday. “I was confident that we had the basis to take action.”

Options were limited. The compound was in a residential neighborhood in a sovereign country. If Obama ordered an airstrike and bin Laden was not in the compound, it would be a huge diplomatic problem. Even if Obama was right, obliterating the compound might make it nearly impossible to confirm bin Laden’s death.

Said Brennan: “The president had to evaluate the strength of that information, and then made what I believe was one of the most gutsiest calls of any president in recent memory.”

Obama tapped two dozen members of the Navy’s elite SEAL Team Six to carry out a raid with surgical accuracy.

Before dawn Monday morning, a pair of helicopters left Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan. The choppers entered Pakistani airspace using sophisticated technology intended to evade that country’s radar systems, a U.S. official said.

Officially, it was a kill-or-capture mission, since the U.S. doesn’t kill unarmed people trying to surrender. But it was clear from the beginning that whoever was behind those walls had no intention of surrendering, two U.S. officials said.

The helicopters lowered into the compound, dropping the SEALs behind the walls. No shots were fired, but shortly after the team hit the ground, one of the helicopters came crashing down and rolled onto its side for reasons the government has yet to explain. None of the SEALs was injured, however, and the mission continued uninterrupted.

With the CIA and White House monitoring the situation in real time — presumably by live satellite feed or video carried by the SEALs — the team stormed the compound.

Thanks to sophisticated satellite monitoring, U.S. forces knew they’d likely find bin Laden’s family on the second and third floors of one of the buildings on the property, officials said. The SEALs secured the rest of the property first, then proceeded to the room where bin Laden was hiding. A firefight ensued, Brennan said.

The SEALs killed bin Laden with a bullet to the head. Using the call sign for his visual identification, one of the soldiers communicated that “Geronimo” had been killed in action, according to a U.S. official.

Bin Laden’s body was immediately identifiable, but the U.S. also conducted DNA testing that identified him with near 100 percent certainty, senior administration officials said. Photo analysis by the CIA, confirmation on site by a woman believed to be bin Laden’s wife, who was wounded, and matching physical features such as bin Laden’s height all helped confirm the identification. At the White House, there was no doubt.

“I think the accomplishment that very brave personnel from the United States government were able to realize yesterday is a defining moment in the war against al-Qaida, the war on terrorism, by decapitating the head of the snake known as al-Qaida,” Brennan said.

U.S. forces searched the compound and flew away with documents, hard drives and DVDs that could provide valuable intelligence about al-Qaida, a U.S. official said. The entire operation took about 40 minutes, officials said.

Bin Laden’s body was flown to the USS Carl Vinson in the North Arabian sea, a senior defense official said. There, aboard a U.S. warship, officials conducted a traditional Islamic burial ritual. Bin Laden’s body was washed and placed in a white sheet. He was placed in a weighted bag that, after religious remarks by a military officer, was slipped into the sea about 2 a.m. EDT Monday.

Said the president: “I think we can all agree this is a good day for America.”

___

Associated Press writers Kimberly Dozier, Eileen Sullivan and Ben Feller in Washington and Kathy Gannon in Islamabad, Pakistan contributed to this report.

BREAKING NEWS in Libya: Qaddafi’s son, Saif al-Arab was killed in NATO night strike.


In an attempt at a straight up NATO execution- style night strike with 3 missiles; Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s compound was attacked by NATO members; resulting in killing Qaddafi’s youngest son, Saif al-Arab (29 yrs old) and 3 of his grandchildren.

The attack struck the house of Qaddafi ‘s youngest son, Seif al-Arab, when Qaddafi and his wife were inside.

Seif al-Arab Qaddafi , 29, was the youngest son of Gadhafi and brother of the better known Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, who had been referred to as a reformist before the uprising began in mid-February. The younger Gadhafi had spent much of his time in Germany in recent years and was not as into politics as other members of his family.

It is said that Qaddafi and his wife were not seriously injured in the attack.

Medic Abdel-Monem Ibsheir considered the strike a form of justice.

“Qaddafi was not far away, meaning he’s not safe,” he said as as  explosions were heard in the background,  “It’s just like our children getting hit here. Now his children are getting hit there.”

Has Qaddafi’s son and grandchildren really been affected by the night time air strike or is it more lip service by the Libyan leader in an attempt to stall NATO operations and strike sympathy from others?  I would like to see the body of  victims as Qaddafi has a habit of lying and this case is no exception.

The fatal airstrike came just hours after Qaddafi called for a mutual cease-fire and negotiations with NATO powers to end a  6 week bombing campaign stating “the door to peace is open.”

You are the aggressors. We will negotiate with you. Come, France, Italy, U.K., America, come to negotiate with us. Why are you attacking us?” asked Qaddafi.

He also railed against foreign intervention, saying Libyans have the right to choose their own political system, but not “under the threat of NATO bombings.”

The problem here is that Qaddafi talks about a cease fire but is found to be an aggressor; so essentially when people try to honor the cease fire- that is when he goes in for the kill (literally).

This has been his 4th/5th (Ive lost track now) of his pleas for a cease fire. Actions speak louder than words.

Qaddafi cant say that peace is possible when he’s bombing Misrata.

NATO has promised to continue its operations until Qaddafi stops attacking and threatening his people and all of Qaddafi’s forces return to their bases and stand down. In addition, full humanitarian access must be granted before NATO stands down.

I dont see this happening. Qaddafi is far to fearsome of regime change for him to let up for even one minute.

What I want to know is WHO within NATO launched the missiles?  I thought that it was agreed upon by the UN/NATO that strikes would be limited to command centers only?  Who changed the direction and what is the new exit strategy? If anybody knows, please email me directly at Theheartofamerica@hotmail.com.

Now I am waiting to see how Qaddafi responds. He can do 1 of 2 things. 1) He will be MAD and retaliate with force or 2) He will shriek back as that attack was too close for comfort or 3) He will utilize this “sympathy time” to gather his intelligence; as this report of fatalities were nothing but a ploy on Qaddafi’s part.

I pray its #2 but I cant help but to think that he will run with #1. Only time will tell that true implications of our involvement in this war but I can already tell you that Obama’s name will NOT be seen in a favorable light.

Who am I kidding? Obama’s name is NOT seen in a favorable light now. I think that Obama and Qaddafi are quite similar in the sense how they say one thing and then do the EXACT opposite.  Does anybody else see that correlation?

Copyright (c) April 30, 2011. All rights reserved.

Exclusive Video, Commentary and Solution on Syria Sanctions and the Importance of Diplomacy.


Reports of the Syrian government forces killing more than 400 people since mid-March with hundreds missing, 1700+ protesters being detained over the past week and cutting off telephone lines and water/electricity supplies to the general area conjoining with Bashar al-Assad’s tanks and machine gunned armed Syrian security forces entering the city of Dara’a in attempt to quell the protesters has sparked a concern from many human rights activists.

It is important to note that there has been massive fighting in Syria with Bashar al-Assad imposing violence on his people ever since Libya started rioting a couple months ago. This type of violence is nothing new to the Syrian People.

Which leads me to the question- If we were to pick a human rights violation and looking to help Israel and her people;  why would we not engage war with Syria who borders Israel?  Wouldnt that be in our best interest?

Apparently, 4 European countries think so as France, Britain, Germany and Portugal have circulated a draft media statement to the Security Council that would strongly condemn the violence against peaceful demonstrators. Although sanctions were not specifically mentioned.

Lebanon, the only Arab member of the council, has very strong ties to Syria and diplomats said it is likely to oppose a council statement as may Russia, also a friend of Syria.

Good ol’ undecided China’s U.N. Ambassador Li Baodong said “we want to get engaged with everybody and try to find a solution and to push for a political solution.”

Turkey, Iraq and Jordan (Syria’s neighboring countries) have been eerily silent on the matter.

We’ll talk about US actions at the end of this Commentary.

Some nations are wanting the US to get involved but is that really the best thing for the US at a time where the US is already committed to 3 full blown wars and an outstanding financial debt of $14.3 Trillion? Can we really afford yet another war?

The George W. Bush administration had, clearly, toughened relations in Syria — imposing new sanctions as Assad ran operations against U.S. troops in Iraq and was implicated in the murder of the Lebanese prime minister — so it will be a little more challenging to see how a non-violent shake up can play out but diplomacy and peace is possible and probable, if the US handles this correctly.

In responding to this crisis in Syria, the Obama administration is pulled by two conflicting currents.

First, Obama appears to be cautious like Syria- much like he was with Egypt- in the fear that the opposition leaders would be worse that the current situation and since the majority of Syria is terrorist based; that could prove to be detrimental to not only the US but also Israel.

(Note: The terrorist infiltration case also runs true in Libya where it is a known fact that Al Qaeda has infiltrated the leaders of the Libyan opposition and Obama has stated that he wants a regime change- so Obama’s foreign policy stance his, once again, inconsistent and much to be desired.)

May I caution the Obama administration about policing the World and encouraging regime changes when he has little information on the opposition parties (Libya anyone?) and little leverage to control events in a land very foreign to us.

Second,  there is resentment running amok as the violence escalates in the Syrian streets and the contradiction of US actions in Libya. The mentality that I predicted would form, “The US helped out the opposition in Libya- why will the US not help us?!” is indeed taking place.

It is a belief of many that Assad is no reformer. Rather, he is an ally of Iran, a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah. So the administration has another chance to “fight the good fight”.

Honestly? If the US was get involved in another war (I wish we wouldnt; we have enough problems and debt at home as it is) but if we were to get involved- I would RATHER get involved in Syria instead of Libya.

But, first above everything else, I would work on transitioning a new US Ambassador to Syria because; obviously, the current one is not doing a very good job.

We need to be EXTREMELY careful as Hezbollah could utilize  this opportunity to capitalize in Lebanon and work to consolidate its control and upset the status quo.

The fall of the Assads and the emergence of a more radicalized Sunni regime in Damascus could raise questions in Israel about the viability of the 1974 disengagement agreement on the Golan Heights, which has made the Syrian-Israeli border the quietest in the Middle East. A Sunni regime would also likely raise tensions with Iraq’s Shia-dominated government.

Personally, I think that the US should deploy another communicator over to assist the US Ambassador to Syria because obviously; he’s not doing a very good job getting a message of “Peace and Prosperity” across.

We should not under any circumstances remove our ambassador from Syria. I realize that there was not an ambassador there before Obama placed him but now, since it has been established, revoking such a position could prove to backfire as we need as many “peaceful” eyes and ears near ground zero.

If that fails to work, THEN and ONLY then; should we place an asset freeze and travel restrictions on the Syrian president and close allies as we have exhausted all means of diplomacy.

After the asset freeze and travel restrictions are placed and if  Bashar al-Assad is continuing to use violence- then we should consider how else we can resolve the matter.

Regime change should only be pushed IF we know WHO we are supporting. We already made that mistake in Libya- let’s not support terrorists again. This would be especially dangerous as Syria borders Israel and would give terrorists direct access to wage war with the holy land.

I feel that diplomacy is possible within Syria but our current way of going about it is not working; let’s focus on reshaping our diplomacy efforts before we consider freezing assets and travel restrictions; especially use of force as that should be our last resort.

US-Syria communication is blocked and we must take steps to get the communication flowing in the right direction before the US gets forceful.

Perhaps the US can talk to the UN Human Rights Council and see what type of diplomatic measures are available within the UN.

NOTE TO OBAMA: Please get Congressional approval before invading Syria so we can comply with the US Constitution as well as join efforts with other nations so that we are not singled out.

Copyright (c) April 27, 2011. All rights reserved.

EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Soil Liquefaction (moving ground) in Japan


Does anybody know what type of ground the Fukushima Reactors are built upon?  If it is purely sand and this continues (which is possible with as many earthquakes/after shocks that keep happening)- this could cause structural damage to the plant facilities.

Please pray for Japan. Thank you! ♥

Published in: on April 17, 2011 at 11:45 am  Comments (1)