John Walker Lindh goes and joins the Taliban against the United States with the hope of killing Americans and you wonder why I call him a leftist? When the connections to the American left and terrorism are quite clear? When they (the American left) were marching in the streets before we went into Iraq trying to save Saddam Hussein? C’mon. Lindh thought he was fighting against the Northern Alliance. Riiiiight. He really loved America. Riiiiight.
When asked if he supported the September 11 attacks, he hesitated. “That requires a pretty long and complicated explanation. I haven’t eaten for two or three days, and my mind is not really in shape to give you a coherent answer.†When pressed, he said, “Yes, I supported it.â€
Someone who came to my website said this to me: You ignorant dip. John Walker Lindh? The man is an extremist right-wing Muslim. You can’t get any less “left†than that. What exactly is your definition of “leftist?†Anyone you disagree with?
No, not exactly. That’s quite a contradiction in terms. I have never heard the term ‘right-wing Muslim’, lol…but I will think of your name if I ever hear of it again. We have seen much evidence of the political left in the United States and how they have allied themselves with radical Islam.
Take a look at the politics of a democrat, Ron Kirk, for example, who at one point was a Senate candidate in Texas. This man employed a political friend of John Walker Lindh, held fundraisers with radical anti-military leftists, and had a campaign donor with felony charges in an anti-terrorism investigation. Kirk’s campaign’s employment of a radical anti-Israel activist with ties to militant Islamic figures such as American-Taliban John Walker Lindh was a good example of the type of relationship I’m talking about between the left and terrorism.
Kirk went to San Francisco for a campaign fundraiser hosted by Rep. Barbara Lee. The latter’s name should ‘ring a bell’. Lee was the only member of Congress to vote “no” on the authorization of military force against Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Osama bin Laden after September 11. This same unapologetic radical is accurately described as a leader of the “blame America first” faction in Congress. Lee is a former Black Panther activist who served as a top aide to Rep. Ron Dellums during the radical congressman’s notorious courting of Granada’s Marxists. Her activities include traveling to communist Cuba with Maxine Waters during the Elian Gonzales dispute and, putting together a coalition of Congressmen opposed to action in Iraq. Whatever people may say now from the vantage point of the 1990s, the Black Panther Party was the Maoist party of the United States in the late 1960s. I don’t think you can get much further to the left than that. See this website: The Maoist International Movement
Kirk employed Steven L. Hyland, a former University of Texas Middle Eastern Studies student, on his campaign payroll through mid June of this 2002. A June 23, 1995 editorial by Hyland in UT’s Daily Texan newspaper reveals the radical extent of this individual’s beliefs. In an editorial about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Hyland wrote “The U.S. government labels Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad as terrorist organizations, but they are really freedom fighters defending their rights in Lebanon and Palestine.” Elsewhere Hyland described Israel’s policies as “Nazi-like” and blamed them, not Palestinian terrorist organizations, for suicide bombings in Jerusalem. The Review further reports that Hyland is a personal friend of American-Taliban John Walker Lindh. He befriended Lindh in 1998 while studying abroad in Yemen and was interviewed by the media regularly during the latter’s recent court proceedings.
The Austin Review reported that the former Dallas official (Kirk) took multiple donations to his 1995 mayoral bid from persons affiliated with radical Islamic organizations. Several Kirk donors are involved with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a radical organization that protested a Los Angeles billboard criticizing Osama bin Laden after the 1998 U.S. embassy attacks. One CAIR official hosted an August 1995 dinner in Kirk’s honor along side former Democrat congressman and ex-Holy Land Foundation (HLF) lobbyist John Bryant.
The Review also reported, and ethics reports confirm, Kirk’s receipt of a $500 donation from ‘Ishan Elashyi’ dated April 24, 1995. Elashyi was at the center of a federal investigations involving the illegal export of computer equipment to terrorist states. The Bureau of Export Administration (BXA), which enforces national security and anti-terrorism related export controls, placed an export ban against the Richardson-based Infocom and Tetrabal corporations. Elashyi, who was specifically named in the order, runs Tetrabal and works for Infocom. According to Attorney General John Ashcroft at a press conference on the investigation, “Infocom, like the Holy Land Foundation, received much of its early money from Mousa Abu Marzook, a top Hamas official who, the U.S. courts have determined, was directly involved in terrorism.”
Take a look here, here, here, here and here. This is all very well documented information, and should give you the definition of a ‘leftist’.
I don’t see how you could possibly say this person is a ‘right-wing Muslim’. A ‘right-wing Muslim’ is someone who agreed with and supported the 9/11 attack?
I assume you’re referring to how the Clinton administration successfully demonized conservatives (which I wrote about here) by allowing the third terrorist, Ramzi Yousef, (and the rest of them) to get away and run back to Iraq? And make racial profiling illegal? That’s the new mantra of the socialists, btw, “racism”. You’ll see that in UN attacks on the United States, and socialists all over the world have picked it up. It’s the new rhetoric, as I pointed out here. You can go back to The Nation of Islam’s Farrakhan calling Judaism a “gutter religion,” referred to Adolf Hitler as a great man, and in a book called, “The Secret Relationship of Blacks and Jews,” Farrakhan exaggerates the role of Jews in slavery, while minimizing the substantial role of Arab slavers. Farrakhan met with Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Iran’s Mohammad Khatami – nations on America’s official list of states that sponsor terrorism. Farrakhan condemned Los Angeles-area Korean storeowners as “bloodsuckers.”
When Malcolm X defected from the Nation of Islam, Farrakhan wrote, “The die is set and Malcolm shall not escape. Such a man is worthy of death.” Over 30 years later, Farrakhan apologized to Malcolm X’s daughter, admitting that his words “helped create the atmosphere” that led to Malcolm’s assassination. I would call it a fatwa. Sorry, neither Farrakhan nor Malcolm X fit your description of ‘right wing Muslims’, lol.
Really, you’ll have to do much better than that. In detailed affidavits, witnesses confidently identified eight specific Middle Eastern men, the majority of whom were former Iraqi soldiers, colluding with the Oklahoma City bombers, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, during various stages of the bombing plot.
Colonel Patrick Lang, a Middle East expert who formerly served as the chief of human intelligence for the Defense Intelligence Agency, determined that the Iraqi soldier’s military tattoo and immigration file indicated that he was likely a trusted member of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard before being recruited into the elite Unit 999 of the Estikhabarat, more commonly known as the Iraqi Military Intelligence Service. Before the 2003 Iraq War, Unit 999 was headquartered in Salman Pak, southeast of Baghdad, and was tasked with clandestine operations at home and overseas.
Interestingly, when proof of this was turned over to the FBI, the documents mysteriously “disappeared”, when they should have been turned over to the legal teams of McVeigh and Nichols.
You’re revealing yourself as someone who has done little research, yet you call me an ‘ignorant dip’. hehe.
I think you have your directions mixed up. Radical Islam is practically married to the left…’right-wing-ers’ are not allied with them. We do not sympathize with the cause of radical Islam, we do not protect them by supporting laws like ‘racial profiling’ in order to let them get away, and we do not make excuses for the likes of John Walker Lindh. As you could see, the Bush administration went after him for what he is–IMHO, a traitor. “Right Wing-ers” support the war in Iraq, and here’s a news bulletin for you: It’s about opposing terrorism, not supporting it.
Flag burners have been notoriously leftists and communists. Flag wavers have notoriously been rightwing, and coincidentally, many of them are families of people who serve in our military. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom he abuses to burn that flag.
John Walker Lindh, the American Talibansman, gave us a sagacious examination into a breed of parenting not exclusive to the left coast. The Lindhs are a prime example of parenting by appeasement. John Walker was a spoiled brat lacking in discipline or moral fortitude. He came from a family who embraced the hippy, “touchy feely” approach to parenting; “If it feels good, do it” mentality, which has been the mother’s milk for leftist leftovers from the 60′s and has cultivated a bitter fruit to swallow.
John Walker’s father, Frank Lindh, as reported by the San Francisco Examiner, left his wife for another man in 1997. This is around the time when Jihad Johnny found solace in The Autobiography of Malcolm X. (hehe no communist influence there, huh?) By December of 1998, Walker was on his way to the Middle East to seek a “purer” form of Islam. Arguably, Frank Lindh’s selfishness aided in John’s downward spiral. The fact that Frank Lindh couldn’t wait till John was a grown man before acting on his self-absorbed gratification is liable, to say the least. And to add insult to injury, why the Walker parents enabled John to go to such a dangerous region to study Islam is beyond explanation. This should have been the time when parents flex their most important parental mandate……the one that just says “no”.
The Walkers are indicative of parenting in the 21st century in America. It seems that it has become more important to be a child’s friend and equal, than mentor or guide. Parents seem reluctant to “invade a kid’s space” rather than risk aphorism by one’s offspring. This “lax” approach to parenting may be a byproduct of laziness in an increasingly lazy society.
Even as John Walker was being shipped back to the US, his parents were making excuses for their son. They claimed that John loved America, even though previous correspondences with their son revealed quite the opposite. Just a year before the 9/11 attacks, John wrote to his mother, “I really don’t understand what your big attachment to America is all about. What has America done for anybody?” John’s reply after the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole suggested that the attack may have been justified because the Cole was docked in an Islamic country.
Yes, the enablers come in all sorts of colors and sizes. Who are the people who villify John Walker Lindh? They’re certainly not people on the right. You don’t see people on the right defending Americans’ rights to defect and fight and kill other Americans in the battlefield. But you hear a lot of people on the left side of the political spectrum crying “racism” and supporting terrorism and mourning Arafat.
John Walker Lindh — itinerant Muslim scholar, accused of conspiring to murder Americans, providing and conspiring to provide support to terrorists, and “using, carrying and possession firearms and destructive devices during crimes of violence” — pleaded guilty to two charges: supplying services to the Taliban, and carrying explosives in the commission of a felony. “I plead guilty. I plead guilty, sir,” Taliban John told United States District Judge T. S. Ellis.
When a criminal defendant pleads guilty, there is a formal “allocution,” in which the judge asks, and the defendant answers, certain questions aimed at eliciting that he knows what he’s doing. “Do you wish to waive your right to a trial?” Ellis asked Lindh. “Yes, Sir,” replied the defendant. “Do you feel as though you can make a decision about your future today? “Yes,” said the American Taliban.
There are at least two important lessons to be learned from the case of Taliban John Walker Lindh.
One is that the Bush Administration – though not indicting Lindh for treason, as many argued it should – unstintingly went after him with all the formidable resources of the federal government, and the Department of Justice did so while consistently and unapologetically projecting moral certainty in the righteousness of their prosecution.
The other is that in doing so, the government sent a message – as it did not in the case of Jane Fonda, whose 1972 trip to Hanoi was every bit as anti-American as Lindh’s teaming up with the Taliban and al-Qaeda – that United States citizens who traffic with the enemy will be held fully accountable. Especially if, as a result of their conduct, other Americans suffer. As did Mike Spann. (More on Spann here and here and here. Spann was a former Marine and CIA agent who was at the same camp interrogating Al Qaeda Fighters and was caught in the middle of a riot, where John Walker Lindh was captured. But Spann was killed, the details of which I cannot find. I can only imagine it was grim.)
The case of Taliban John is now over, and, as usual, it’s a lawyer who has the last word. Brosnahan has been quoted as saying that while in prison, “his client will continue to study Arabic, the history of Islam and the Qu’ran.”
Lindh will have plenty of time.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
