Lt. Col. Allen West: I’d put the New Black Panthers on a terror watch list

This is why I love Allen West – he never minces words, and so far, he’s always right! He sees the New Black Panther party for what they really are and he’d go after them if he were POTUS. I love this man!

Enjoy listening to Mr. Awesome!



Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

51 thoughts on “Lt. Col. Allen West: I’d put the New Black Panthers on a terror watch list

  1. Before the 2008 election, the Obama campaign had a section of his website devoted to the New Black Panthers and their endorsement–that is, until the Obama camp realized what a public relations liability it was and took it off. The NBPP website features rap songs about being proud “Bin Laden terrorists” and so forth.

  2. Where am I putting anyone else's interests ahead of America's? The only way I'm not putting America first, is to say that I don't want American's first in harm's way in somebody else's war.

    Whether we went to war in Iraq over the specter of WMD, or to get rid of Saddam… either way, that's done. I see no reason why we need to lose one more American life or limb there. I see no reason why Americans in uniform needs to miss one more family birthday celebration. To accomplish what? To make Iraq safe for Iraqis? They can do that on their own, and they should, because it won't be theirs unless they do it.

    That's why I said, if we were concerned that West's men might be going into an ambush set up by Hamoodi… then send Hamoodi into it, with only his own men and let West and the Americans monitor what happens, on CCTV. We've got the technology to do that, don't we? West's men can even shadow them, 20 or so clicks back, but unknown to Hamoodi. Or let Hamoodi think he's 20 clicks back… to see if what happens there. There were lots of ways to work this… without resorting to behavior that's against even our own laws.

    But you and some others here are all applauding West's illegal actions, even though his superiors saw fit to discipline him for it… and you say it's everyone else who's untrustworthy?

    You're being manipulated by classic “groupthink,” which is what's going on here. Your only defense against it, is to start doing your own thinking again. Glenn Beck even tells you that you should do your own thinking… but it appears you're willing to let others do your thinking for you. I know we all do it… all day long. It's how our society works, and there's nothing wrong with it, in moderation. Every time you take anyone's suggestion, whether it be about watching a movie, reading a book, checking out a new website, trying a new recipe or restaurant, betting on a horse… you're letting someone else do your thinking for you, and following their conclusion that the action is worth your expending your time or money.

    But there's a tendency to become too dependent on other people's thinking, and we sometimes have to stop and start doing our own again. It's laudable that you refuse to let Obama, or the establishment do your thinking for you. But it may be just as big a mistake to let someone else do it instead, whether it be Col. West, or Rush Limbaugh, or a long-dead Founder or even longer-dead philosopher or church official, or whoever, when really… you need to do your own.

  3. Have you ever wondered why a great many Americans look at Democrats and liberals distrustfully? Do you know why we say they are anti-American and not trustworthy? Well sir, it is because no matter what else, it seems you put America's interests after everyone else's.

  4. “Our country decided there was a reason to go get Sadam. All of this is the result. “

    If going to war was irrelevant, you shouldn't have brought it up. Personally, I think the fact that our reasons were bogus calls into question the validity of every mission, and our continued presence. So the question then is, how vital is this particular mission which may be ambushed? What exactly is it supposed to accomplish? Should the troops go out on this mission which may be ambushed, or not? Is it patrolling the streets? Hamoodi was a police official, right? Can't Hamoodi's unit do it?

    Also, if you think all the “stuff” I brought up is irrelevant (like, the reliability of the intel you're betting your men's lives on? Sounds kinda relevant to me… Are you being manipulated by a few words of cleverly planted misinformation into attacking your allies and destroying the training you've spent weeks and perhaps months giving these local police? Sounds kind of relevant, doesn't it?) Are West's actions revealing that despite the supposed core mission of training Iraqi police officers to handle things after we leave.. the plain fact is that we don't trust them to do their jobs there, and never will? And does that mean they might as well join the insurgents anyway, because based on nothing more than rumor, we're going to assume they already have?

    I think you're the one who's lost sight of the future goal that eventually, we want to bring our troops home, and not have any more American troops in harm's way in Iraq.

  5. Why we went to war was beside the point. The why isn't part of the decision making process Col West was faced with. He had to move based on what was before him at the time. All the stuff you bring up is irrelevant and only of interest over a beer afterward and far away. Here is the deal Don: You have been told what West was told. It is a matter of life and death for someone. You have to decide. Delay and your troops may pay the ultimate price. The only information you have is what has been presented in the story. What are you going to do? Wait an hour and maybe your people die. Move your people out and maybe someone else, a friendly, dies and the mission is compromised. Now you decide. Use real world thinking not some pie-in-the-sky notion smart people talk about over dinner. What would you tell the widowed wife and child of your dead troop? “I am sorry but we hadn't finished our discussion with the academics, reporters, pacifists and commentators back in the States about what to do when the bad guys came galloping around the corner and blew your husband out of his socks.”

  6. We didn't lose any more rights because of the Muslim terrorist attacks than we did as a result of McVeigh's or the Unabomber's. If we lost any rights, it was because of our reaction to the attacks, and our fear of them.

    The tool by which they were taken, I think, was not the USA PATRIOT Act, but the Military Commissions Act. THE PATRIOT Act basically was more an expansion of FISA.

    I think the Military Commission Act may have broken new ground, where the Bush Administration believed that it could unilaterally redefine what had always been called and prosecuted as torture… I'm pretty sure we had a right to expect that such tactics would not be used openly by our people, unless they were willing to risk court-martial; where American citizens could be determined to be “illegal combatants” and thus deprived of due process rights.

    But again, no foreign terrorists took these rights away from us, nor could they ever. Only our own government can do that.

  7. 1. I don't know that that would not have happened. I'm not sure how you can be. Our military courts have a record of being lenient in cases where nobody was lying. Even cases involving friendly fire deaths. Major Schmidt violated a direct order to “hold fire” and dropped a bomb on a Canadian training exercise in 2002, killing 4 and wounding 8. His discipline was a fine and a reprimand.

    2. They may not have been able to determine if the information was correct or not. By that, I mean the initial tip about the ambush, the information about Hamoodi's alleged complicity, or the information about the two men Hamoodi identified. I note the conspicuous absence of anything further about any of it.

    3. I don't impugn the man. But I say I see nothing heroic in the actions described in this particular incident. He appears to have lost control, that's all.

  8. But when the information you have available is both questionable and insufficient, you need to get more information, but you need it to be reliable. Threatening a man with death is a great way to get him to lie to you. Believing info simply because you obtained it that way, or because you paid for it… is not smart.

    I'm not more concerned with our enemies' rights than Americans' lives… but remember, that people instinctively tend to trust more those who look like themselves, than those who look different. I am concerned with knowing who our enemies really are, and not giving those who might be neutral or leaning our way a reason to think that we… the ones who look more different… a're really the bad guys, as opposed to those who know their customs and speak their language.

    In the meantime, if you think your route may be heading into a trap… you cancel the mission if it's not that important, or change your route, or figure out where the enemy would have to deploy to trap you.

    As for going to war… The reason we thought there was a reason to get Saddam, was that Saddam had WMD, and he was working with AlQaeda. That turned out to be more wrong information, fed to us by people who wanted Saddam gone, and knew we were the only ones who could do it. But we would only listen to those who could confirm it. We knew some of our informants, like the source known as Curveball, were probably fabricating information to sell us. But we liked the song, so we bought it.

    You do the best you can with the information you have available…. but the information you have available may be useless, too. Or worse.

  9. Look Don you can “what if” and second guess until “the cows come home” and it changes nothing and does nothing to change the statements of Col.West on the incident and its outcome.If you are looking to impugn the man I suggest research and some pretty impeccable sources to back it up as even the Army has not refuted or denied the Colonel's stated outcome and results of this incident.Until I see solid evidence otherwise,I for one am completely willing to take Col.West at his word on the matter.
    Edit: The fact that even after the Army disciplined the Colonel, they allowed him to resign at his current Rank and with his full benefits and pension,had the information about the spy and the information on the ambush and insurgents been “incorrect” this would not have happened.

  10. I am an Independent but I don't have beef with the way libertarians vote, they're great conservative constitutionalists, they're originalists in the purest sense. I support the 2nd Amendment too because we the people can protect ourselves better than the state but I don't assume civilians can protect other civilians from terrorists threats on a daily basis, that's the government's job, the comment just made me think of a lot of Ron Paul agreements. I promote liberty, but there are some people out there who go as far to think the state shouldn't even keep criminal records on dangerous people –because it infringes on liberty. The liberty issue can get excessive at times, like a fetish, but that's my own opinion–but Barry Goldwater may disagree.

  11. What is wrong with being a libertarian? I don't agree with them always but they are just as loyal as any conservative Republican? At least they aren't some Socialist Democrat.

  12. Like I said above – sometimes it just doesn't matter. The commander doesn't have the luxury of hindsight. He has to make the call with what he has available at the time. You either support him or you keep your trap shut. Until YOU have to make such a call you can't know what is important and what isn't. Col West did the best he could with the information in front of him – good bad or otherwise. He determined that the safety of his troops was more important than anything else, something every good commander would do – even you.

  13. That is the problem with pacifists and lefties against any war. They are more concerned about the enemies rights than the lives of Americans. My God man. we are killing people and getting killed. What are so called “rights” to that? In any war, some good guys get killed, some bad guys get killed and some onlookers get killed. If you don't want any of that to happen don't go to war. Our country decided there was a reason to go get Sadam. All of this is the result. It always has been and always will be. You do the best you can with the information you have available. The rest is useless.

  14. That is the problem with pacifists and lefties against any war. They are more concerned about the enemies rights than the lives of Americans. My God man. we are killing people and getting killed. What are so called “rights” to that? In any war, some good guys get killed, some bad guys get killed and some onlookers get killed. If you don't want any of that to happen don't go to war. Our country decided there was a reason to go get Sadam. All of this is the result. It always has been and always will be. You do the best you can with the information you have available. The rest is useless.

  15. Wasn't the decision not to prosecute criminally and instead to proceed with a civil action… made by the Bush Administration?

  16. Okay, I tried it. It's pretty much the same thing that was posted here. I didn't see anything anyone found that corroborated the initial tip of an ambush, or that Hamoodi was part of it.

    Getting somebody to confirm something by threatening to kill him if he doesn't… isn't what I would call reliable. Threatening to kill him if he doesn't name some names… will just get him to give you the names of people. Perhaps made up names, perhaps the names of people he suspects of being involved, perhaps of people he'd like to see you do the same things to… such as a shopkeeper who refused to pay him a bribe, or the man who chased him away from a woman he desired. There can be all kinds of things going on there.

  17. The important part is that nobody was killed? Surely the important part is whether or not there was actually a plot, and whether the information they got was true and accurate?

    Suppose the initial tip that there was a plot was bogus… then everything can still play out the same way. And nobody would be killed, because there was nothing there.

  18. The important part is that nobody was killed? Surely the important part is whether or not there was actually a plot, and whether the information they got was true and accurate?

    I'm not saying there weren't Iraqi police working against our troops… of course, there were. But suppose the initial tip that Hamoodi was plotting an ambush was bogus… Perhaps made up by an insurgent in an attempt to get their American and Iraqi enemies fighting each other? Introduce this kind of interrogation, and you'll have people, confessing to things out of fear, and threatening them out of anger, and wasting resources chasing down “leads” that are nothing but imagination.

    If there was no ambush plot, wouldn't everything still play out the same way? And nobody would be killed, because there was nothing there, except that other plots might slip under the radar, other insurgents might bolster their reputation.

    This kind of interrogation may yield information, but not trustworthy information.

  19. You would have to ask someone else, however, that isn't the problem. The problem is how do you know if the other guy is telling the truth? I think you have to trust the people who were there. By nature, pacifists can't be trusted. Thier abhorance with killing anyone makes whatever actions someone like Col West took abhorant. They don't have room in their vocabulary for terms such the necessities of war. By their nature they reject anything that has to do with the military. They are not honest observers. The important part of this episode is that no one was killed. Even the suspect was unharmed. But, no pacifist would even allow that West's methods could possibly be warranted., even to save lives. That is why pacifists are not trustworthy.

  20. Well I can only speak to my experience while I was serving,just over thirty years ago, but I ran across far more men of Col.West's quality than not. The “board-riders” do exist but are far fewer than Hollywood would have us believe. At least back then The Corps was doing a pretty good job of keeping those kind of numbnutted bums in places where they could do little or no harm to (as my CO put it) the “Real Marines”. For myself,taking my Father's advice of “Keeping my eyes and ears open,my head screwed on right and getting my heart right and pay attention to my Sergeant” paid dividends.

  21. Is there any evidence, other than Hamoodi's statement, that the information he gave under this kind of pressure was actually true? Did anybody even care whether it was true or not, so long as they got a confession and some more names?

    Was there any evidence, other than Hamoodi's statement, that the two men he turned in were actually involved in any plot? Think about it, giving up the name of some respected innocent pacifist members of the community, and having them arrested, subjected to such interrogation including physical abuse, punching, kicking… it's a great way to mobilize more local support against American troops, isn't it?

  22. It isn't the NCOs I worry about. It is the field grade officers that give me heart burn. Like they say, there is nothing in the world so useless as a second lieutenant and a major (especially staff) who wants to be a colonel. Even good NCO's still have to carry out the boss' orders. It is the bad orders that are the problem. It is about leaving people exposed when they don't need to be.

  23. Best piece of advice I could give on that is to listen to their NCO's, on the ground in the thick of it those are the people actually running the show.

  24. I have two grandsons who will be in the military within the next few years. One is thinking Marines and the other Army. Both want combat arms. If I knew for certain they would be serving under someone like Col West I wouldn't worry. But I am seriously concerned that they will be subordinate to some yahoo more concerned about political correctness than his men. Can you imagine the Pentagon is serious about awarding a citation for not taking action when troops are threatened? That is no BS.

  25. Obama wanted those Russian spies out of Dodge quickly for one very good reason – he didn't want a trial where they would spill what they knew. He can't afford to have this type of scandal just before an election. These Rooskies were here to recruit spies and influence political types JUST LIKE OBAMA. A dollar to a donut that these people had influence with many of Obama's acolytes and they are yet influencing what is happening in the White House.

  26. Some hard core leftists like Kieth Olbermann have taken a few shots at Col West for how he defended his troops in Iraq. Here is the story as told by Front Page Magazine. You decide.

    In late August, Colonel West received news that his men had been targeted by a group of thugs associated with an Iraqi policeman named Yahya Jhodri Hamoodi. Allied forces quickly apprehended Hamoodi in Saba al Boor, a tiny town near Tikrit. Four interrogation specialists worked late into the evening of August 20, desperately trying to pry the attack plans out of him. Growing frustrated, the interrogators resorted to physical force, punching Hamoodi – without success. (Hamoodi was not seriously injured at any point during the interrogation.) It was then that Col. Allen West intervened.

    Seeing that even physical violence had proven ineffective, Colonel West took the next logical step: He took the intransigent suspect outside, shoved Hamoodi’s head into a sandbox and threatened to kill him. The Colonel then pulled out his sidearm and fired a warning shot into the sky. Then West carefully held Hamoodi’s head aside as he fired a shot over Hamoodi’s shoulder, into the warm Iraqi sand burying his visage.

    That near-scrape with death did the trick. Hamoodi began singing, telling West the identities of two men planning the attacks and revealing their attack plans, including the site of the intended ambush. The two men were arrested, and Colonel West ordered his men away from the site as they continued to serve the liberated Iraqi people. Upon turning Hamoodi over, he admitted his unorthodox tactics. For protecting the 700 soldiers in his care and cracking Hamoodi where professional interrogators had failed, Colonel West was immediately stripped of his command and threatened with jail time.

    Now, who would you want to be your commander? Who would you be willing to risk your life for? Who do you think has YOUR best interest in mind, the likes of Kieth Olbermann or Col. West? In whose army would you want your kids to serve?

  27. “Why the double standard?”

    1. The crazy, successful introduction of GENERATIONAL “White” GUILT

    If what SOME whites did (i.e. the hideous practice of one bag of dust… enslaving another bag of dust, like they were, somehow, less 'dusty') was WRONG ~ which it WAS! (and 618,000 'white' bags of dust DIED ~360,000 of them, NORTHERN LIBERATORS


    – and no one knows how many of the Southern dead NEVER OWNED A SLAVE… and damn-sure were NOT fighting to prolong slavery~ Additionally, over 2,000,000 lives of 'white' bags of dust were STAGGERINGLY AFFECTED by the conflict, North AND South.)



    If what SOME 'white' bags of dust did over the years leading up to 1965 was wrong (I know the law was passed in '64, but it got judicial TEETH in '65)… and it WAS! (For every Bull Connor, there was a Levi Coffin or Samuel Chapman Armstrong. Look 'em up, then do your own research. For every 'monster', I can show you TWO 'saints'. GENERATIONAL 'WHITE' GUILT?)



    A. Disenfranchise ~ JIM CROW LAWS
    B. Dehumanize ~ WELFARE, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION (the list is too long…)
    C. Detroy ~ 'PLANNED PARENTHOOD'… and the “Negro Project”

    an ENTIRE RACE (bags of dust with more God-given TAN)

    was/IS WRONG… and it was/IS!!!

    If something is “wrong”… then it is WRONG.

    If black bags of dust (rightfully!) wanted out from under the crushing weight of what SOME white bags of dust were doing to them… BECAUSE IT WAS WRONG…

    …then there is NO WAY IN HELL (let alone, Heaven) that turning around, NOW THAT THEY ARE FREE OF IT, and gleefully doing the VERY SAME WRONG… to ALL white bags of dust…

    …is in ANY way, shape or form, “right”.

    Slavery was/is WRONG… because it was/is WRONG. Not because of the color of the owner or the slave. If at ANY TIME that proves to NOT be so… then the argument of its being wrong, at all, is destroyed.

    Hatred, based on skin tone was/is WRONG… because it was/is WRONG. Not because of the tan level of the more 'powerful' side. If at ANY TIME that proves to NOT be so… then the cries of those who suffered its sting when it went unchallenged in the public square before become as much useless 'noise'… as the cries of those beginning to experience its filthy touch NOW are being characterized as.

    If, at ANY TIME, being of a certain God-given tan level turns this vomit into wine, in the eyes of those whose ancestors JUST WANTED AWAY FROM IT… then the WRONG of it, ever… becomes a pox'd rag, useless for warming ANYONE'S SOUL.


    For what?

    I'm CM Sackett ~ and I approved this message.

  28. AMEN! Investigate, by all means. They are making these threats on their own. No one is putting them up to it. If they are intimidating voters, which they were, open and shut case, then they should be prosecuted. Maybe I missed something, but West isn't saying they can't speak, but that their speech in this case was used as an ACT, along with weapons at a place where people were voting. He's not saying shut down their websites etc. Prosecute them for what they DID, watch them closely to see if they are going to DO, if they carry out their threats. Their speech act is an invitation in itself to watch them.

    West also nails it when he points out the hypocrisy; reverse race roles and a white guy in that situation gets taken down HARD, which he should. Why the double standard?

  29. The Klan is on the list why not the Panthers? Where is Morris Dees in all of this? You know Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Prosecuting the klan made him a Millionaire. Well now is his chance to double that and do the same with the Panthers. BUT—-is it just white people that are racist???.

  30. OK, so you're smarter than the average liberal, I'll give you that much.

    You replied, though, which proves you aren't as smart as you think you are. You see, not replying would have left your premise unexplained. Maybe you didn't see it. Replying with no facts to back up your statement about lost rights proves you don't have any facts.

    Nice try, though.

  31. Unfortunately, I deleted my Facebook account after the last release of private information and I just cannot accept the apology of the snide little twit that runs it a third time. He is kind of like the current President in that respect. His promises come with an expiration date. Otherwise I'd be there CM.

  32. It seems that you've concluded that I'm an idiot. Expending effort to amuse you with this homework assignment would only justify your condescension.

  33. What rights have we lost since 9/11/2001? That's a date, by the way. 911 is what you call when your house is on fire.

    Please be specific and explain to me what rights have been lost as a result of the Muslim attacks on the United States on Tuesday morning September 11, 2001.

    And just a heads up, if your first sentence contains any reference to the Patriot Act, please explain what is so bad about it and why every Congress and two presidents were wrong to sign it and renew it.

    I'm waiting with baited breath. I can't wait to read your intelligent reply. Try Google, it might help.

  34. Actually this is exactly the type of organization that falls under the purview of the F.B.I.,in exactly the way the K.K.K. does. This is the sort of group Aunt Nappy should be all over instead of our returning servicemen and women or the TEA parties.

  35. There you have it, I have yet to hear this man mince words or back down from a statement.This man is cut from a cloth that all true leaders come from. I just hope there is enough of it to go around.

  36. This is where conservatives continually shoot themselves in the foot. The Black Panthers are racist thugs and the black community should publicly and collectively condemn their inflammatory rhetoric. That being said, I vehemently disagree with Col. West in suggesting that they be viewed as terrorists and placed on a federal watch list. The government would like nothing better. They continually gin up fear and then insist that we sacrifice multiple liberties to insure our protection. Just look at the rights we've lost since 911. The government can't defend us from every threat. It's more important that they defend our rights to defend ourselves.

    1. Before the 2008 election, the Obama campaign had a section of his website devoted to the New Black Panthers and their endorsement–that is, until the Obama camp realized what a public relations liability it was and took it off. The NBPP website features rap songs about being proud “Bin Laden terrorists” and so forth.

Comments are closed.