the best News from Pat Dollard june 9
Posted by avideditor on June 6, 2008
I am running late and I need to get ready for shabbat so I am going to copy and paste all the news I find intriguing from Pat Dollard into this post. To watch the video you need to click through by the title of the story.
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — In a quiet, upscale neighborhood in Charlotte, N.C., rows of custom-style homes and neatly landscaped lawns represent the American dream.
But one local resident has shattered that image, calling for the death of American troops in Iraq and supporting Al Qaeda through his Web site, which he reportedly runs from his parents’ home.
Samir Khan is the man behind Revolution.Muslimpad.com — a radical Islamic site that praises Usama bin Laden and asks for Allah to “curse more American soldiers.”
The site posts videos of U.S. Humvees being blown up by roadside bombs in Iraq. It aims to inspire young Muslims to wage war against the West.
Terrorism experts say the Web site, written in English, is one of the premiere sites for Western audiences to get access to radical Islamist propaganda.
Khan, 22, declined requests for an interview, even when approached outside his home with cameras rolling. When asked if the messages on his site represent Islam, Khan would say only that “they represent Muslims.” ( Continued below video)
In an e-mail sent to FOX News, Khan lashed out at the “arrogance” of the media, saying it should focus instead on converting to Islam. “When you go down in to the earth six feet deep, nothing will matter except what Religion you died upon,” he wrote.
Following a FOXNews.com report last month profiling his Web site, Khan railed against “the Kuffaar” — non-believers — who wrote the article and affirmed his belief that jihad is “an Islaamic obligation” rooted in Muslim texts.
Words like those stir mixed emotions in Charlotte, among the general public and among the 8,000 Muslims who live there.
Imam Khalil Akbar, a religious leader in Charlotte, condemned Khan’s site, saying its views do not reflect “mainstream Islamic thinking” and do not represent the Muslim community at large.
“I would reject categorically those kinds of encouragements to look up to people like bin Laden,” Akbar said.
Neighbors described Khan — who immigrated to the U.S. from Saudi Arabia when he was 7 years old — as “friendly” and “reserved.” They said he launched his Web site while taking classes at Central Piedmont Community College and selling Cutco knives.
Abdullah Mahmud, an acquaintance of Khan’s who attends the same mosque, the Islamic Center of Greater Charlotte, defended Khan’s viewpoints, saying his anger stems from the United States’ foreign policy and occupation of Iraq.
Mahmoud said the blood-drenched videos Khan shows of U.S. soldiers injured in combat “serve the purpose of making the reality of the Iraqi scene visible to people.”
“Those videos are not much different than videos involving American soldiers targeting Iraqi civilians,” he said. “You have to look at both sides here.”
One of Khan’s neighbors, Ron Williams, also defended Khan’s right to free speech.
“Our actions (in Iraq) were interpreted broadly in the Muslim world as an attack on Islam,” Williams said, “I defend his right to speak out.”
But Jarret Brachman, director of research at West Point’s Center for Combatting Terrorism, said Khan’s call for violence takes his anti-American views one step further.
“To be unhappy with U.S. foreign policy is one thing, but to advocate violence by promoting Al Qaeda is another,” he said.
“This is the most sophisticated and aggressive Web site in English that really puts out bin Laden’s ideology and the message that’s promoted by Al Qaeda,” he added.
Brachman said Khan’s site “raises the threshold for what it means to be a good, pro-Al Qaeda Web site” and is “the best in English.”
A graphic prominently displayed on the site shows a picture of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a prominent Al Qaeda spokesman whom Brachman calls “Bin Laden 2.0.”
“He’s the guy poised to take over the movement after bin Laden fades away,” Brachman said. “The fact that Khan would display him like he does means he’s trying not only to show he’s an insider, but also to model himself after him.”
The exact dangers his site poses are difficult to assess, experts said.
“It doesn’t necessarily move someone to action immediately, but it primes the pump,” Brachman said. “It gets somebody motivated to think more about Al Qaeda and so over the long term this is a very threatening message that he’s promoting.”
• Click here to see more reactions from Charlotte’s Muslim community.
This is basically what he says (think Rabid Pigs Jimmah) in a long and tedious and boring article in the Guardian. I can’t believe I waded through that whole fukn shitty article to glean the reason I was pointed in that direction.
Jimmy, we don’t hate you because you believe you should wield Moral Authority instead of a sword. It’s because you are trying to wield this “Moral Authority” amongst a people who’s morals are corrupted, and wielded by the sword.
It’s because you think that you can reason with evil. You think you can keep a rabid pig happy by wiping the froth from its snout, feeding it apples, and giving it fresh silk bows to wear.
You shouldn’t do anything with a rabid pig except fucking kill it.
Anyway, here’s the Guardian article if you wish to put yourself to sleep with a good little angry chuckle tonight, I don’t recommend it.
IRBIL, Iraq (AP) – A girl strapped with explosives approaches an Iraqi army captain, who dies in the suicide blast. A woman posing as a mother-to-be to disguise a bulging bomb belt strikes a wedding procession as part of a coordinated attack that kills nearly three dozen people.
The attacks last month were among the latest blows by female suicide bombers—and further evidence of shifting insurgent tactics amid an overall drop in bloodshed around Iraq.
U.S. military figures show the number of female suicide attacks has risen from eight in 2007 to at least 16 so far this year—not including a suicide bombing Friday near Ramadi that Iraqi police believe was carried out by a woman. That compares with a total of four in 2005 and 2006, according to the military.
Some female bombers appear motivated by revenge, like the woman who killed 15 people in Diyala province on Dec. 7. She was a former member of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party whose two sons joined al-Qaida in Iraq and were killed by Iraqi security forces.
Activists and U.S. commanders also believe al-Qaida in Iraq is increasingly seeking to exploit women who are unable to deal with the grief of losing husbands, children and others to the violence started by al-Qaida itself.
“Al-Qaida is preying on those who don’t have jobs, who don’t have education and who are feeling despair,” said Maj. Gen. Mark Hertling told The Associated Press on the sidelines of a conference this week on women’s issues.
The use of women as suicide bombers is a relatively new phenomenon in Iraq, although it has been used by militants elsewhere, particularly in Sri Lanka.
Farhana Ali, a terrorism expert with the RAND Corp. who has studied the issue extensively, said al-Qaida’s efforts to recruit women reflects its desperation after recent crackdowns.
“Al-Qaida and insurgents are now desperate and want to ensure that their cause (and) organization stays alive,” she said. “Women’s participation in violence keeps the cause alive for many reasons: Women, like men, also share similar grievances, especially women who have suffered a loss.”
“Women control their families and communities and when that structure is broken down, women are vulnerable, weak, easily exploited by insurgents,” she added.
Faiza Sayyid Alwan, a Sunni provincial council member from Diyala province who has escaped three assassination attempts, says vulnerable women need to be given more options.
“We must intervene,” she said at the conference in Irbil, the largest city in Iraq’s northern Kurdish region. “While the enemy is trying to reach her with negative influences we must reach in faster and rescue that woman by giving her better ideas, by helping her, by training her and giving her a better opportunity.”
The rise in female suicide bombings comes as the U.S. military says violence is down to its lowest levels in more than four years. The reasons include last year’s U.S. troop buildup, a Sunni revolt against al-Qaida and a cease-fire by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
American commanders claim al-Qaida in Iraq is seeking out women and children to evade stepped up security measures and checkpoints.
Iraqi women often are allowed to pass through male-guarded checkpoints without being searched and they traditionally wear flowing black robes that make it easier to hide explosives belts.
Hertling, who commands U.S. forces in northern Iraq, said five of seven suicide attacks in the past three months in Diyala have been carried out by women.
They included a double bombing on May 17 in which a woman blew herself up outside an office for a U.S.-allied Sunni group and a female suicide car bomber killed one person in an attack on a police patrol.
“They do look for those three categories of illiterate, poor and able to manipulate religious fervor,” he said.
In many cases, recruiters have promised the women that they will provide for their families after their deaths, then failed to follow through, Hertling said.
He also said at least two of the recent suicide bombers were the wives of an al-Qaida in Iraq leader who was killed in U.S. military operations, although he declined to give more further details.
Omayah Naji Jubara, the head of the Iraqi and Arabic Women’s Organization for Salahuddin province, said Iraqi women outside major cities often find that “all the doors are closed to them” for jobs and education.
“Those terrorists come to poor people who are hungry and frustrated with the lack of government support,” said Jubara.
In the meantime, the military is increasing the number of women in the police force.
Hertling said 112 women have enrolled in a police class in the volatile northern city of Kirkuk and the military is trying to set up a similar training program in Diyala, northeast of Baghdad.
“Just the fact that you’re going to have Iraqi policewomen—that will help with security, help with searches, deal with female crimes that aren’t well dealt with by male police officers,” he said.
Alwan said insurgents will try to exploit women’s misery as long as the Shiite-dominated government struggles to improve their lives.
“Religion has been used in a very violent way to pressure the women to do certain things,” she said. “Women in Diyala have been widowed, they have no support. They’re unemployed. Many have been displaced, their houses demolished, their property gone, destroyed. Where can she go, a woman like that? What can she do?”
Wow, what a completely weird situation. I mean, one of the things we did in founding this country that we learned as a no-no from England is not to have an “Official” State Religion.
Of course, back then, the context was not “religion” in the sense of Christianity, Hindu, Muslim, Judaism, but along the lines of divisions within the Christian faith, like Anglican (Official) and Baptists, and Shakers, etc etc…
Now the Church of England (Anglican) is saying “Yo! Gub-Mint! Y’all Fukn up with da Muzzies. Get dem betches the fuck off my Island!”
…er, sort of…anyway it seems rather strange that it may very well be the Anglican Church that saves England from Islamization and not the government, whereas here in the USA it will be our government (Armed Forces, America! Fuck Yeah!) that actually saves America from Islamization…did that make any sense?
Its freaking Friday, man…
In all honesty, we know who truly is in charge…
From Times Online:
The policies of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have helped to generate a spiritual, civic and economic crisis in Britain, according to an important Church of England report.
Labour is failing society and lacks the vision to restore a sense of British identity, the report says in the Church’s strongest attack on the Government for decades. It accuses the Government of “deep religious illiteracy” and of having “no convincing moral direction”.
The report, commissioned for the Church of England and to be published on Monday, accuses the Government of discriminating against the Christian Churches in favour of other faiths, including Islam. It calls for the appointment of a “Minister for Religion”, who would act as the Prime Minister’s personal “faith envoy” and who would recognise the contribution of faith communities to Britain across every government department.
The 180-page report, seen by The Times,describes the Government as moral, but lacking a “compass” and reflects an attempt by the Church to carve out an effective role for itself in the 21st century as a provider of welfare for young and old.
The report was commissioned by the Bishop of Hulme, the Right Rev Stephen Lowe, Bishop for Urban Life and Health, with the support of the archbishops of Canterbury and York, Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu.
The report comes only days after Dr Sentamu accused Mr Brown of sacrificing liberty for misguided notions of equality and of betraying new Labour’s mantra of “rights and responsibilities”. It shows the extent to which church leaders feel betrayed by the Government’s embrace of a secular agenda.
The authors find evidence of deep-seated hostility to the Church in particular, excluding it from important areas of policy and research – despite Mr Blair being one of the most devout prime ministers of the past century. They portray a Government committed to research into Muslim communities but barely interested in Christian involvement in Britain’s civic and charitable life.
This is in spite of what the authors describe as centuries of pioneering work by the Church in areas of welfare and social provision. “We encountered on the part of the Government a significant lack of understanding or interest in the Church of England’s current or potential contribution in the public sphere,” the report says.
Academics from the Von Hugel Institute at St Edmund’s College, Cambridge, approached every Church of England bishop as well as more than 250 MPs, peers and academics. About 70 of the 106 diocesan and suffragan bishops responded. “Every participant in our study from the Church agreed that there was a deep ‘religious illiteracy’ on the part of the Government, especially on the local level, and that an increased tendency to centralised, mega-contracts in some government departments was bad for the whole of the voluntary sector,” they write.
In its strength of feeling it echoes the Faith in the City report of 1985, condemned by one government mininster as “Marxist” because of its criticism of the effects of Thatcherism on Britain’s inner cities. But, far from being a left-wing attack on a Conservative administration, this Church report found many of David Cameron’s policies to be more worthy of praise.
Outlining evidence of huge fault-lines in the relations between Church and state, they write: “The Government is planning blind and has no convincing moral direction.”
They set out recommendations designed to put the Church back at the heart of social and welfare provision, for funds to research the role of “theology” and “spirituality” as motivations in charity organisations and for the archbishops of Canterbury and York to set up a “Anglican Philanthropy Fund” to cash in on a new generation of potential donors.
Perhaps we are getting the gas prices we deserve … for voting such ass-clowns into office.
Yet, more ammo for the American oil companies, and even the republicans, to use in TV radio ads …
Who’s to Blame for High Gas Prices?
by John Hinderaker - Power Line
For several decades, the Democratic Party has pursued policies designed to drive up the cost of petroleum, and therefore gas at the pump. Remarkably, the Democrats don’t seem to have taken much of a political hit from the current spike in gas prices. Probably that’s because most people don’t realize how different the two parties’ energy policies have been.
Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:
ANWR Exploration House Republicans: 91% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed
Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed
Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed
91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.
86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.
So, the internet search engine Google is taking a bit of a lashing from the blogs today … well, the conservative blogs anyway … for, as Pat pointed out in one of his Deep Thoughts entries today, ignoring D-Day in its logo in favor of commemorating the birthday of some Spanish dude that could paint
Which got me sifting through the over-stuffed junk closet that is my adult ADD mind, and I recalled some past Google “noodles”.
January 19, 2006 -
Bush Administration Demands Search Data; Google Says No; AOL, MSN & Yahoo Said Yes
Via John Battelle and Google Morning Silicon Valley, the San Jose Mercury News article “Feds want Google search records” covers the Bush administration demanding last year that Google and other search engines turn over aggregate search information to help revive a child protection law. Google has refused to comply with the subpoena. A motion has been filed this week by US Department Of Justice to force Google to hand over the data.
In particular, the Bush administration wanted one million random web addresses and records of all Google searches for a one week period. The government apparently wants to estimate how much pornography shows up in the searches that children do. [ … ]
January 20, 2006 -
Google refuses U.S. demand for search data
Microsoft, Yahoo! and AOL have complied
Google Inc. is rebuffing the Bush administration’s demand for a peek at what millions of people have been looking up on the Internet’s leading search engine — a request that underscores the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance.
Google has refused to comply with a White House subpoena first issued last summer as part of the government’s effort to uphold an online pornography law. That prompted Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to ask a federal judge in San Jose, Calif., this week for an order to hand over the requested records. [ … ]
January 25, 2006 -
Google Now Censoring In China
Oh, the irony. Less than a week after we hear that Google is ready to fight the US government in part to defend its users, now comes news that Google will cave into the Chinese government’s demands for its new Google China web site. However, the issues aren’t directly comparable. Moreover, while I’m no fan of Chinese censorship, I like some of the way Google is reacting to the demands. Come along, and we’ll explore the entire censorship situation in China, the US and some other places you rarely hear discussed, like France and Germany.
What’s Google done? They’ve agreed to impose censorship on the Google China service that’s reported to be rolling out. Actually, Google’s had sites designed for those in China to use for some time. They did obtain the Chinese domain that this “new” site is using back in May, and you were able to search there uncensored by Google itself since that time. Now Google is stepping in to do the censorship directly, rather than the Chinese government doing it. [ … ]
And in the MEANTIME …
March 31st, 2008 -
CIA enlists Google’s help for spy work
US intelligence agencies are using Google’s technology to help its agents share information about their suspects
Google has been recruited by US intelligence agencies to help them better process and share information they gather about suspects.
Agencies such as the National Security Agency have bought servers on which Google-supplied search technology is used to process information gathered by networks of spies around the world.
Google is also providing the search features for a Wikipedia-style site, called Intellipedia, on which agents post information about their targets that can be accessed and appended by colleagues, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
The contracts are just a number that have been entered into by Google’s ‘federal government sales team’, that aims to expand the company’s reach beyond its core consumer and enterprise operations. [ … ]
There’s more … But I’m sure you’ll “Google” it …
For the first time in my life I am actually opposed to the death penalty. Happens to be for those who perpetuated the worst crime against my country ever committed, too.
Why is that?
Because these piglets love Death. They belong to the Cult of Death: Islam. They are asking for death. We should not give them what they ask for.
After I saw where and how Zacharias Moussaoui is spending the rest of his life, in Supermax…heh heh, this is what they should get, as well. 23 hours a day in a tiny room with no human contact for the rest of their natural lives. They would hate it.
So, this would be the only time I would be okay with no death penalty. Of course, if they get sentenced to die, I won’t cry either…anyway…
Yeah, okay, Khalid Shake Mydickhead whined about his nose being too big in the courtroom sketches, so I fixed the problem. After much study of many pictures of that piglet, I do believe I got his nose right:
The 9/11 Families are not happy with not being able to attend the tribunal…
[See post to watch Flash video]
This from NY Daily News:
A top general admitted the military blew it by not inviting more people who lost loved ones in the attacks.
“In terms of why we didn’t have that accommodation ready, that was a mistake. We’ll make sure that doesn’t occur again,” Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann told reporters gathered here.
Hartmann is the legal adviser to the Pentagon office overseeing the entire military “commissions” court system, which President Bush ordered in November 2001 to try terrorists for war crimes.
No trial has been held since then. Pentagon brass hope Thursday’s arraignment of five 9/11 defendants will finally propel the controversial military trials forward, even though the fairness of the system has been questioned.
What do we mean by that? As Hartmann himself explained, any defendant acquitted automatically “returns to detention status” at the Gitmo prison camp. In other words, getting exonerated at trial will never mean an accused is free to go home.
By Caroline B. Glick - (JWR)
Dr. Muhammad elBaradei’s most prominent personality trait is his chutzpah. Two weeks before Israel destroyed the North Korean-built nuclear reactor in Syria last September 6, elBaradei, the Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency was complaining to Australian television about the US’s decision to augment its military assistance to Israel by $30 billion over the next ten years. The move, he said would lead to a regional arms race.
As far as elBaradei is concerned, diplomacy means never having to say you’re sorry and always attacking people who actually care what you think. And so it is not surprising that ever since Israel destroyed the installation in al-Kibar, elBaradei has reserved his sharpest attacks not for Syria, which was exposed as an illicit nuclear proliferator, but for Israel and the US.
Unlike Israel, Syria is a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. At this week’s meeting of the IAEA’s Board of Governors, elBaradei discussed how — in breach of its treaty obligations — Syria has refused IAEA requests to inspect the bombed out site and three other suspected nuclear sites in the country.
The IAEA has been asking for permission to inspect al-Kibar since last September. And since September Syria has ignored the requests. Satellite photography has shown that Syria has used the intervening months to build a new structure over the destroyed reactor to hide it. Apparently Damascus is now comfortable with the situation on the ground because it has apparently agreed to allow UN inspectors to visit the site later in the month.
Damascus’s belated response to IAEA requests is anything but a sign that Syria is ready to come clean on its nuclear programs. While allowing inspectors at the altered al-Kibar site, Syria has refused IAEA requests to inspect three other military installations where it is suspected of developing nuclear weapons. Nuclear experts told news agencies this week that two of those sites are operational. One is suspected of having equipment that can reprocess nuclear material into the fissile core of warheads.
But elBaradei doesn’t really care. At the Board of Governors meeting this week he sufficed with the laconic statement that Damascus, “has an obligation to report the planning and construction of any nuclear facility to the agency.”
The countries that really got his goat are Israel and the US. ElBaradei complained bitterly that the US waited until April to tell the IAEA what Israel bombed last September. And, of course, he attacked Israel for attacking the nuclear reactor in the first place.
In his words, “It is deeply regrettable that information concerning this installation was not provided to the agency in a timely manner and that force was resorted to unilaterally before the agency was given an opportunity to establish the facts.”
ElBaradei has headed the UN’s nuclear watchdog agency for six years. His stewardship of the IAEA landed him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005. Given the Nobel committee’s open anti-Americanism and embrace of terrorists and their state sponsors, the Nobel committee’s support for elBaradei makes sense. For under elBaradei’s leadership, the IAEA has devoted itself to performing two tasks.
It seeks to be informed of rogue regime’s illicit nuclear weapons programs before those programs are exposed in the media and cause the IAEA embarrassment; and the IAEA works to ensure that nothing will be done to thwart these rogue regimes’ nuclear weapons programs.
If he had to choose between the first and second goal, elBaradei has been clear that he will always choose to protect rogue nuclear programs – even if they are hidden in plain view. As he explained to the BBC in May 2007, “I have no brief other than to make sure we don’t go into another war or that we go crazy killing each other.”
Hinting at his reason for obfuscating Iran’s quest for the atom bomb he added, “You do not want to give additional arguments to new crazies who say, ‘Let’s go and bomb Iran.’”
To prevent such “crazies” from acting, in August 2006 elBaradei launched an attack against the US Congress. In an icy letter to then Rep. Peter Hoekstra, then chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, elBaradei attacked the committee report on Iran’s nuclear program which accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons and accused the IAEA of working to prevent conclusions from being drawn about the nature of Iran’s nuclear program.
It is in light of elBaradei’s unrelenting work to protect Iran’s nuclear program and his campaign against Westerners who wish to take concerted action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons that the IAEA’s latest report on Iran is so remarkable.
The IAEA’s submitted its latest report to the UN Security Council and its Board of Governors last Monday. A far cry from its anemic predecessors, the latest report is a smoking gun.
The report sets out considerable evidence implicating Iran in an attempt to develop nuclear weapons. It also admits that Iran has failed to explain documented evidence of military aspects of its program.
Specifically, the IAEA report noted that Iran is building structures that fit the description of a nuclear test site. Iran has done work designing a missile re-entry vehicle. It has conducted studies toward building a uranium conversion facility that would convert uranium yellowcake to UF4 or Green Salt – a process vital for producing uranium metal for weapons cores. Iran made advances toward adapting its Shihab-3 ballistic missiles to detonate some 650 meters above their targets – a capacity only relevant for nuclear warheads. It has developed and tested exploding bridgewire detonators “that could be applicable to an implosion-type nuclear device.”
The IAEA report also warned that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards-owned company Kimia Maadan has been actively involved in the nuclear program as have several other firms run by the Iranian military. These firms include the Physics Research Center, the Institute of Applied Physics, the Educational Research Institute and the Defense Industries Organization.
The IAEA’s report is devastating. Indeed, it seems to back up the Mossad’s warning that Iran could have an atomic arsenal by next year. At a minimum, it moves the international conversation about Iran’s nuclear program from the question of whether Iran is building nuclear bombs to when Iran will acquire nuclear bombs.
The question that naturally arises from the IAEA report is why did elBaradei agree to publish it?
Given his openly stated objective of preventing anyone from attacking Iran’s nuclear installations, the only reasonable explanation for elBaradei’s behavior is that he is convinced that Iran’s nuclear installations are safe. That is, elBaradei is willing to point a finger at Iran because he is sure that neither the US nor Israel will prevent Iran from getting the bomb.
To have reached this conclusion, elBaradei needed no further intelligence than the morning papers. Reading them, he would have seen that the US intelligence and foreign policy communities have decided to throw in the towel on the war everywhere other than Iraq. The US capitulation, which began with the Bush administration’s decision to appease North Korea last year went into full gear with last December’s publication of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran which claimed that Iran had ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
Then came the Bush Administration’s embrace of Palestinian statehood as what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice referred to as “a vital US interest” in her address to AIPAC’s policy conference this week.
After that, came the downfall of Pakistani dictator and guardian of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal Pervez Musharraf. As the effective release of Pakistan’s Dr. Strangelove, A.Q. Khan from house arrest this week, and the new “democratic” Pakistani government’s surrender of North and South Waziristan to the Taliban in recent weeks show, the US’s support for Musharraf on the one hand, and failure to support or develop anti-jihadist forces in Pakistani society and the Pakistani military on the other has brought about a situation where the US has no one to turn to in Pakistan today. Rather than take action to secure Afghanistan from the Pakistan-based Taliban or arrest Khan, the Bush Administration has sufficed with whining and begging the new pro-jihad and anti-American “democratic” government to accept more US military assistance.
On the theoretical front, the US has similarly capsized its war efforts. In April the Homeland Security Department distributed a memo instructing US officials not to use the terms “Islamic,” “Islamist,” “jihad” or “jihadist,” to describe the US’s enemy in the war. Moreover, the new guidance – which the State Department reportedly adopted happily – also asserts that it is wrong for the US to use the word “liberty” to describe what it hopes to replace jihad with in Muslim societies. From now on, the war is to be described as a campaign to bring “progress” to the Middle East. And the war is no longer a war. Rather, it is the “Global Struggle for Security and Progress.”
But not everyone was satisfied with the new Orwellian terminology. Last week the *Financial Times* reported that Charles Allen, the Department of Homeland Security’s Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis wrote a memo arguing that the term “war on terror” should also be dropped. In his view, the term creates “animus” towards the US in the Muslim world which automatically (and unaccountably) associates terrorism with Islam.
And of course, in ordering US officials responsible for analyzing intelligence and conducting US diplomacy to ignore the nature of the enemy as well as the US’s counter-ideology of liberty, the US is merely following the example of the EU and Britain which abandoned any attempt to bring rationality into their intelligence analyses long ago. Given that these are the people who are responsible for assessing data on Iran’s nuclear program, elBaradei probably figured that he has nothing to worry about.
To all of this of course, must be added the developments in Lebanon. Apparently, the US’s new policy for Lebanon is to ignore the fact that two weeks ago, the Doha agreement between Hizbullah and the Siniora government transferred control of the country to Hizbullah and its state sponsor Iran. In her speech before AIPAC, Rice applauded the Doha agreement as a “positive step.” Earlier in the week, in a visit to Beirut, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman announced that the US intends to increase its assistance to the Lebanese army which takes its orders from Hizbullah and Iran.
So through its serial capitulation to its enemies, the US has convinced elBaradei that Washington has washed its hands of the war.
That of course leaves Israel.
For the past five years, Israel’s leaders – from Ariel Sharon to Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni, Ehud Barak and Eli Yishai — have acted as though Iran’s nuclear program is someone else’s responsibility. “Washington is leading the campaign against Iran,” everyone has said. Aside from issuing periodic backhanded threats, Israel has developed no coherent diplomatic or coercive policy for actually preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons by itself.
Israel can delude itself no longer in thinking that someone else will protect it from annihilation. ElBaradei’s lack of concern that “crazies” will attack Iran shows the Israeli people that if we wish to survive, we must ensure that our leaders understand that we alone are responsible for our security and survival.
So Iran’s little proxy bitch, Piglet Nasrallah says that the terrorist group he heads up, Hezbollah, has declared war on America, and the military front right now is in Iraq…
Hezbollah decides to open front against Washington in Iraq – NATO sources in Brussels said yesterday that Lebanon’s Hezbollah has opened a military front against the Americans in Iraq, claiming that dozens of its members were now in Iraq training special Shiite and Sunni elements to fight the U.S. forces there.
The sources also said that Hezbollah has a plan to subdue the U.N. forces in south Lebanon in the event of another confrontation with Israel.
Oink oink, motherfuckers…get ready to fry.
by David Isenberg
A new book confirms what has to be one of the more unusual exchanges of nuclear information outside of outright spying and helps explain how Pakistani nuclear weapons knowledge made its way to North Korea.
In late 1993 Benazir Bhutto, then prime minister of Pakistan, carried critical nuclear data on CDs in her overcoat to Pyongyang in 1993 and brought back North Korea’s missile information, according to a new political biography, “Goodbye Shahzadi,” by veteran Pakistani journalist Shyam Bhatia.
Bhutto was murdered last December after returning to Pakistan from exile in order to win an election once again as prime minister.
Although it has been mentioned previously in other books, this episode is notable, if only for the fact that Bhutto was, essentially, acting as a female James Bond. Her visit took place when she was prime minister for the second time and had agreed to visit North Korea to ask for No-dong missiles, at the request of A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program. During a state banquet of chestnuts and steamed fish, the book maintains that Bhutto stammered with nerves as she requested a favor from North Korea’s founding father, Kim Il-Sung. She left with a bag of computer disks to pass on to her military.
That was not the first time Bhutto had dealings involving Khan. She said in a 2004 interview with Bhatia, “I first came across him in 1988 when he came to see me with Munir — Munir Ahmad Khan, head of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission. They seemed like government servants ready to carry out government orders.”
In regard to the proliferation publicly admitted by Khan at the beginning of 2004, Bhutto said, “I suspect it was (current Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf because (during) the time I am looking at, both Libya and North Korea were squarely under Musharraf’s watch as chief of army staff and chief executive of Pakistan.”
Ironically, a few months before she was killed Bhutto said that, if returned to power, she would allow U.N. inspectors but not Western powers, and especially not the United States, to question Khan.
According to Bhatia’s book, in 1993 the central question was how the barter for enrichment of uranium — a process A.Q. Khan had mastered — for missiles from North Korea could be carried out.
“Pakistan was under the spotlight as it had never been before, with India, Russia and the secret services of the West monitoring every nuance of the country’s military research,” the book says.
Bhatia details cooperation between Pakistani and North Korean nuclear scientists, which seems to confirm what many in the West suspected — that an Islamabad-Pyongyang axis in proliferation existed that was allegedly aided by Beijing.
Confronting growing international pressure to shut down their plutonium facilities, North Korean scientists looked to Pakistan for help to develop a parallel enrichment program. Subsequently, after Bhutto’s visit, Khan and colleagues from Pakistan became regular visitors to North Korea. By 1998 there were nine military flights a month ferrying military officers and scientists between Islamabad and Pyongyang.
The significance of Bhutto’s North Korean trip is that the transfer of nuclear knowledge was not some independent operation carried out at Khan’s behest. Instead it was done with the full knowledge and approval of the Pakistani government.
Such approval would explain why Musharraf vehemently opposed making Khan available for further questioning. Among other things, it would show that Musharraf was lying when he wrote in his memoir, “In the Line of Fire,” that Khan provided “nearly two dozen” prototype centrifuges suitable for uranium enrichment to North Korea — a charge flatly denied by Pyongyang, and for which there has never been any proof provided.
It would also further debunk the idea that Khan was some sort of rogue operator acting on his own when it came to exporting nuclear technology and knowledge. As Bhutto said in 2004, “He couldn’t even leave the country without somebody watching everything he did, and to accept that he ran an international operation — that Israeli businessmen were involved, Indian businessmen were involved, that parts were coming from South Africa and Malaysia without anyone knowing — is unbelievable.”
(David Isenberg is a national security affairs analyst. He is an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute and a research fellow at the Independent Institute.)
11:22 AM (7 hours ago)
by Arnaud De Borchgrave
In October 2005, two months after he had become president, Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — or as Jay Leno calls the tongue-twister “I’m-a-dinner-jacket” — drew world attention when he called for Israel to be wiped off the map. Denials were slow in coming. Various Iranian experts said he had been misquoted when he painted the broad brushstrokes of history when a purely Jewish state would cease to exist.
The banners in English where he spoke said, “The World Without Zionism.” Below the poster was a slick graphic depicting an hourglass containing planet Earth at its top. Two small round orbs representing the United States and Israel were shown falling through the hourglass’ narrow neck and crashing to the bottom.
Ahmadinejad’s quote, the “Information Clearing House” informed us, was itself a quote from the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution: “The Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” The word “map” was nowhere to be found.
This week the diminutive Iranian president left no room for ambiguity. He predicted Muslims would uproot “satanic powers” and that Israel would soon disappear. The Mehr News Agency, affiliated with the Islamic Propagation Organization, quoted Ahmadinejad saying, “I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion, and betrayal, is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene. Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come, and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started.”
Speaking to a group of foreign visitors ahead of the 19th anniversary of the death of founder Ruhollah Khomeini, Ahmadinejad was on another verbal roll when he added, “I tell you that with the unity and awareness of all the Islamic countries, all the satanic powers will soon be destroyed.”
How is that to happen? Ahmadinejad’s apocalyptic vision of the return to Earth of the Mehdi, the 12th imam of Shiite Islam (a 5-year-old boy who went into “occultation” 11 centuries ago), could be in the 52-year-old president’s lifetime. But not before widespread global death and destruction. Then a bright new era for humanity would rise from the ashes, as the Mehdi returns, along with his companions, including Jesus Christ.
Ahmadinejad is a former member of Al Quds, the revolutionary guards special forces that have been smuggling mortars, rockets and components for EFPs — explosively formed projectiles — that fire a slug of molten metal that penetrates armored vehicles.
Alarming, too, was last week’s deal that followed the Syrian defense minister’s visit to Tehran. Syria’s missile units are to be integrated under Al Quds’ missile section.
Western diplomats who have dealt with him found comfort in the election of Ali Larijani as speaker of Iran’s Parliament, who persuaded the president’s candidate to step aside. An archrival of Ahmadinejad, the new speaker, in his inaugural address, praised Lebanon’s Hezbollah and castigated the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Parliamentarians greeted his words with “God is great!” and “Death to America!” But EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, his old negotiating partner over Iran’s nuclear enrichment activities, was taken by his more restrained, Western-style negotiating stance. For neocons, this smacked of appeasement.
In any event, pragmatist Larijani was now in a position to challenge Ahmadinejad’s bid for a second term. To what degree this would change Iran’s still largely secret nuclear plans to become the world’s ninth nuclear power is unknown. The IAEA has briefed its members on a new document in its possession — Iran’s blueprint of a nuclear warhead.
Iran’s mullahs have been hard at work on their nuclear ambitions for the past two decades, assisted by Pakistan’s Dr. A.Q. Khan, the godfather of his country’s nuclear ambitions. Confined to house arrest by President Pervez Musharraf after he confessed to supplying nuclear know-how to America’s enemies (North Korea, Pakistan and Libya), he was recently released by Pakistan’s new civilian coalition government, which crashed before taking off.
Surveying the regional scene, some of Israel’s staunchest American allies are visibly alarmed by what they see over the diplomatic parapet. Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, sees a Greek tragedy unfolding, which could trigger “staticide,” or the destruction of the Jewish state, “with incalculably serious repercussions for the Free World in general and the U.S. in particular.”
Gaffney sees nothing but the gradual regression of the Jewish state, beginning with the surrender of the Sinai to Egypt in 1974; the Oslo accords and the recognition of Palestine Liberation Organization “terrorist chief Yasser Arafat”; Palestinian control of the West Bank and Gaza; the withdrawal from South Lebanon in favor of Hezbollah; the removal of Israeli citizens from Gaza; and the abandonment of Gaza to “terrorist faction Hamas.” This is no longer land for peace, laments Gaffney, but land for war.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s legal trouble over alleged corruption could lead to early elections, with a return of the right under former Prime Minister and superhawk Binyamin Netanyahu. He believes, along with a majority of Israelis, that Iran’s nuclear ambitions confront Israel with an existential crisis.
The Israeli air force has fine-tuned aerial bombardments of Iran’s key nuclear facilities. But these number at least 27 that are widely scattered, and built underground close to population centers. Iran would then assume that such an operation could not take place without a green light from the White House. And the mullahs’ formidable retaliatory capabilities with asymmetric warfare would then target the United States and its Persian Gulf allies. Oil at $400 a barrel wouldn’t take long.
The human body cannot run or survive on less blood … It will stroke-out and die. And by that, our country cannot run or survive on less oil … the lifeblood of our economy. Our economy is quite possibly on the verge of stroking-out and dying … painfully … and our own government is refusing prophylactic measures to avoid it.
I love how critics like to blame Bush/Cheney’s “oil buddies” for the current oil/gas problems. When we know it is the restrictions Congress has imposed and upheld on domestic drilling and expansion.
During the 1990s I wasn’t as ‘curious’ or ‘enlightened’ to looking things up for myself. But I do recall coming to a complete stop in my next steps when I heard the Clinton Administration was adding more and more land into “federal lands” and “national parks” territory. Even I, then in my selective ‘ignorance’, was able to feel a squeamishness about this. And I think now we see why.
FYI – Oil is right now around $130/barrel … and right around $4.00/gal for gas at the pump … I am hearing they project by July 4th the price for a barrel will be $150 … You do the math on how that converts per gallon of gas at the pump … And you guessed it … It ain’t ‘domestic’ oil.
Two years ago … TWO YEARS AGO, studies found domestic oil-rich areas in the Gulf Of Mexico that could raise our domestic reserves by … 50% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Two years later WE are NOT drilling there … But every other country … is.
It really is time for the American oil companies to run TV and radio (especially as people listen as they drive past the gas stations) ads pointing out the true and core reasons why we have this problem today … and who is continuing to be the blame.
Congress, instead of being part of the solution by reviewing and dropping these enviromentalist-driven restrictions on domestic drilling, continues to be THE center of the problem as they strut around like whorish peacokcs trying to push bullshit Global Warming Bills that would compound our current energy problems by many-fold.
U.S. Policies Put Most U.S. Oil Off-Limits to Drilling
By Pete Winn - CNSNews
Huge basins of untapped oil can be found on federal lands throughout the United States, according to a new report from the federal government. But much of it cannot — and may never be — recovered, because it lies under national parks and national monuments, or it is subject to environmental laws and restrictions that make drilling prohibitive.
The report, which was produced at the request of Congress by the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM), said there are 279 million acres under federal management where oil and gas could potentially could be extracted.
More than half of it is totally off-limits to drillers.
“The total onshore resource is 31 billion barrels,” said BLM’s lead scientist Richard Watson, who authored the report. “Of that, 19 billion barrels are currently inaccessible or 62 percent. A little over 2 billion barrels, or 8 percent, is accessible under what we call standard lease terms.”
If you add in the 85.9 billion barrels of oil that lie offshore, as determined by the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service, there are 117 billion barrels of oil on lands owned or managed by the U.S. government.
But all expansion of offshore oil recovery is currently off-limits.
Adding in what’s available on privately held land, the figure rises to 139 billion barrels of oil, according to the government – more than the known oil reserves of Iran, Iraq, Russia, Nigeria or Venezuela, respectively.
The biggest untapped land-based oil deposit in the United States lies within ANWR, the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, which is currently off-limits.
“We estimate there is something on the order of 7.7 billion barrels in that one area alone,” Watson told Cybercast News Service.
But setting aside Alaska, there is untapped oil on federal lands all across the United States, the government reported, with oil pockets found in Oregon, Washington state, Montana, Wyoming, Florida — even in the Appalachian Mountains.
“In the lower 48 states, there are about 12 billion barrels onshore,” Watson noted.
In California, for instance, where oil producers have been drilling for over 100 years, there are still large amounts available — much of it situated near scenic Santa Barbara.
“In the Ventura basin, there are 281 million barrels under federal ownership,” Watson said. “Forty-eight percent of that is inaccessible. The rest of it is accessible with varying restrictions on access.”
What makes much of the California oil off-limits is the fact that the bulk of it lies under a national forest.
“You’ve got a wilderness area, a condor sanctuary, there are a couple of islands offshore that are part of a national park,” Watson said.
Watson said Congress not only wanted to know how much oil there is on federal lands, it wanted to know what laws and regulations restrict exploration. Much of the oil is off-limits because of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.
Oil producers, meanwhile, say that even when these laws don’t forbid drilling, they are sometimes onerous, making it very difficult — or unprofitable — to get to the oil.
“NEPA, for instance, was originally supposed to be focused only on major federal actions,” said Dan Naatz, vice president of federal resources for the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
“But now, through court cases and regulatory rulings, it is to the point where basically anytime an oil or gas well is proposed on federal land, producers either have to do an environmental impact statement, or a environmental assessment to comply with NEPA,” Naatz added.
If producers don’t engage in the costly and complicated studies, they will end up in court, being sued by environmental groups, he said.
The report also noted that a large amount of oil — a little over 9 billion barrels, or 30 percent of the total — is available for tapping, with restrictions.
“These restrictions are usually in place to mitigate possible environmental damage or to prevent destruction of wildlife migration or nesting,” Watson said.
One restriction is the “no-surface occupancy stipulation,”which means drillers are not actually allowed onto the protected land.
Naatz said producers could recover more of the oil, if they were allowed to use directional drilling more often, which is frequently limited by regulations.
With directional drilling, producers obtain the rights to drill on land adjacent to the forbidden turf, drill down a short way, then drill horizontally – if they are allowed to.
“Directional drilling has revolutionized the industry,” he said. “You don’t ever want to tap into other areas that are not your property, but directional drilling has allowed the industry to reduce its footprint. From one well-pad, you can get a number of wells drilled.”
Another obstacle the report noted is the process of obtaining drilling permits, Naatz said.
“The permitting process is very slow, very cumbersome,” he said. “What happens is that the window of opportunity to operate on some lands is very limited. Usually you are talking about areas where they have winter-use restrictions, where there can be no activity, to allow for migratory birds or animals.”
In many cases, Naatz said, the window for drilling narrows to as little as one month a year.
“In the oil and gas business, that makes it virtually impossible to access those areas,” he added.
Environmental groups like the Sierra Club, meanwhile, are largely dismissive of the BLM report.
“It appears to be more of same kind of thing we’ve had all along from the Bush administration, which wants to exploit the land, rather than protect it,” noted Kristina Johnson, a Sierra Club spokeswoman.
In 2000 and again in 2005, Congress passed laws requiring the Department of Interior to inventory the oil resources that could be found both onshore and offshore in U.S. territory – and any restrictions which bar their recovery.
“Americans have, of course, been here before: Jimmy Carter pledged to reform US foreign policy… and look what happened. Mr Obama’s policies are not just naïve; they are unworkable.”
by Con Coughlin
Over the course of the primary season, Barack Obama has demonstrated an unerring ability to reach out to all Americans, irrespective of ethnic background or social status. He is a black man who was born on the wrong side of the tracks, but his campaign has been refreshingly devoid of the divisive race agenda that characterised the bids of black politicians such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in the 1980s and 1990s.
His simple promise to undertake a radical change in the way the country is run has struck a chord with a nation that has become disillusioned with the Bush Administration’s reputation for deceit and arrogance, particularly with regard to the war on terror.
Americans have, of course, been here before: in 1976, sickened by Watergate, they elected a naïve and inexperienced peanut farmer from Georgia to clear away the cynicism that came to define the Nixon era. From the moment he took office in January 1977, President Jimmy Carter made it clear that he wanted to make a new start in America’s relations with the rest of the world. Gone was the hard-nosed Realpolitik of Henry Kissinger. Mr Carter transformed US policy by insisting that human rights be placed at the top of the agenda – with disastrous results.
The main reason the Shah of Iran, a key ally in Washington’s attempts to keep the Soviet Union at bay in the Gulf, had managed to survive was the ruthless efficiency of his CIA-trained Savak security service. But after Mr Carter hosted a state visit in Washington for the Shah and Empress of Iran in November 1977, the Pahlavi dynasty was encouraged to release hundreds of political prisoners, with the result that, two years later, the Shah was overthrown by Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic revolution. We are still trying to come to terms with the consequences.
One of the less appealing aspects of Mr Obama’s campaign has been the support he has attracted from Mr Carter who, seemingly oblivious to his handling of the Iran debacle (which culminated in 66 Americans being held hostage in Tehran for 444 days), has not been shy about offering his advice. Mr Carter was at it again this week, counselling Mr Obama against making Hillary Clinton his running mate.
Like Mr Carter, Mr Obama is an outsider who was relatively unknown before he decided to make his run for the White House. And like Mr Carter, Mr Obama appears determined to undertake a radical change in the way Washington does business with the outside world; changes that could have the same disastrous consequences for America and the rest of the world as Mr Carter’s policy.
Take Mr Obama’s attitude towards Iran. Until this week, Mr Obama consistently argued that Iran poses no more of a threat than countries such as Venezuela or Cuba, and that the controversy over Tehran’s uranium enrichment programme could easily be resolved by the simple expedient of sitting down and talking to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Mr Obama might not know it, but this is precisely what Europe has been trying to do these past four years. The so-called EU3 – Britain, France and Germany – has done nothing else but talk to Mr Ahmadinejad’s regime in an attempt to negotiate a solution to the nuclear crisis.
Alas, these painstaking negotiations have been to no avail. Having exploited the West’s good intentions for nearly four years, the Iranians simply tore up all the agreements and resumed uranium enrichment which, at the current rate of progress, could give them enough fissile material for a nuclear warhead next year.
Mr Obama’s approach to Iraq is equally ill-considered. Having opposed the campaign to remove Saddam’s regime from the start, Mr Obama wants to withdraw the 200,000 or so American troops currently deployed at the earliest opportunity – 18 months is the most likely time-frame.
But undertaking a unilateral withdrawal at precisely the moment the country is starting to recover from the trauma of the past five years would hardly be in America’s interest. Just as the military surge orchestrated by General David Petraeus has succeeded in destroying the power base of the insurgent groups that have tried so hard to provoke all-out civil war, Mr Obama would be abandoning Iraq to the very groups that want to destroy it.
Mr Obama’s policies are not just naïve; they are unworkable, a fact he now seems belatedly to have taken on board. Addressing the annual conference of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby group, in Washington on Wednesday night, Mr Obama declared that he would do “everything in my power” to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.
Even if he was vague about precisely how he intends to do this, it is a welcome improvement on his previous policy statements on Iran. But if he really wants to reassure the American public, and the wider world, that he has the credentials to be an effective world leader, he needs to give a lot more thought to how he will tackle the great security challenges of our age, whether it be protecting us from the designs of Islamist terrorists or the nuclear ambitions of crazed dictators.
Otherwise, I fear that Osama bin Laden and his chums will be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of Mr Obama becoming the 44th President of the United States of America.