[osint] Mark Alexander Challenges Obama's Afghan Cut-and-Run

[Beowulf]

 

  




--- 


Read this on the Web at 
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/06/23/opting-out-of-enduring-freedom/

 



  
The Patriot Post


 


  PDF 
Version

 

 Printer Friendly

  Patriot Archives

  
Comment

  

  Support The Patriot

  

  

   

 


Alexander's Essay – June 23, 2011 


Opting Out of Enduring Freedom


Political Expediency vs. National Security


"[I]t is a common observation here that our cause is the cause of all mankind, 
and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own." --Benjamin 
Franklin

   

On the horizon

In opposition to the advice of military and intelligence advisers -- but with 
the support of popular polls -- Barack Hussein Obama is moving ahead with his 
plan 

  to withdraw American forces from Afghanistan beginning this July. In other 
words, though the drawdown does not comport with the best interests of U.S. 
national security 
 
, it does conform to his 2012 political campaign agenda.

Obama rolled out his worn rhetoric about Iraq being the wrong war, which 
distracted our nation from the right war, Afghanistan, which would seem to 
contradict his drawdown plans. As you recall, President George W. Bush launched 
Operation Enduring Freedom against al-Qa'ida and their Taliban hosts in 
Afghanistan on 7 October 2001, in response to the 9/11 attack on our nation. 
Operation Iraqi Freedom 

  was not launched until 20 March 2003, after Saddam Hussein refused, 
repeatedly, to comply with UN Resolution 1441, giving him "a final opportunity 
to comply with its disarmament obligations."

At the time, we had ongoing combat operations over Iraq enforcing the "no-fly 
zone," and arguably, "Desert Storm 2.0" was necessitated because we departed 
Iraq prematurely after the first Desert Storm in 1991.

Obama credited himself with having taken "decisive action" in late 2009 by 
ordering a troop surge of 30,000 to Afghanistan. History will note, however, 
that he dithered for several months before finally granting his military 
commanders a smaller surge force than the one they'd requested, and that he 
hamstrung our forces by announcing a date certain by which we'd begin to remove 
them.

Obama has committed to withdraw at least 33,000 of our 100,000 warfighters in 
the region by "next summer," just in time to mollify his anti-war base and 
re-energize them for the 2012 presidential election. That would be 30,000 more 
than his advisers requested, which might explain why he made no mention of 
General David Petraeus, Commander of the International Security Assistance 
Force and U.S. Forces Afghanistan.

In early May, besieged with the failure of his socialist economic policies 
 , BHO 
received a short-lived bounce in the polls after announcing that he (read "U.S. 
Special Forces 
 ") 
killed Osama bin Laden, thanks to intelligence "extracted" from Jihadi 
insurgents captured in Iraq when George Bush was president.

As Obama's domestic policies continue to fail miserably, and his popular 
approval sinks to new lows, he hopes to get another pop-poll bounce with the 
announcement of the Afghan drawdown. He jibed, "America, it is time to focus on 
nation-building here at home," but just hours before, Federal Reserve chairman 
Ben Bernanke downgraded the outlook for the U.S. economic recovery, the direct 
result of Obama's "nation building here at home."

All political shenanigans aside, the question we should ask is what action in 
Afghanistan is in the best long-term interest of our national security? Is our 
nation-building strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan the right strategy, or will 
targeted hunt and kill operations suffice.

For the record, the primary national security objective of both Operation Iraqi 
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom were not, first and foremost, to 
eradicate dictators and establish democracy and free enterprise through 
extensive and expensive nation-building efforts. Our objective was to contain 
the nuclear threat 

[osint] Obama Betrays the Falklands

[Beowulf]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100091346/another-slap-in-the
-face-for-britain-the-obama-administration-sides-with-argentina-and-venezuel
a-in-oas-declaration-on-the-falklands/

 


Another slap in the face for Britain: the Obama administration sides with
Argentina and Venezuela in OAS declaration on the Falklands 


By Nile Gardiner 
World   Last updated:
June 8th, 2011

677 Comments
  Comment on this
article
  

President Obama was effusive in his praise
 for the Special Relationship
when he visited London recently, but his administration continues to slap
Britain in the face over the highly sensitive Falklands issue. Washington
signed on to a   "draft
declaration on the question of the Malvinas Islands" passed by unanimous
consent by the General Assembly of the Organisation of American States (OAS)
at its meeting in San Salvador yesterday, an issue which had been heavily
pushed by Argentina. In doing so, the United States sided not only with
Buenos Aires, but also with a number of anti-American regimes including Hugo
Chavez's Venezuela and Daniel Ortega's Nicaragua.

The declaration calls for Argentina and Great Britain to enter into
negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falklands, a position which London
has long viewed as completely unacceptable. It also comes in the wake of
increasing aggression by the Kirchner regime in the past 18 months,
including threats to blockade British shipping in the South Atlantic.

The OAS declaration  ,
adopted at the fourth plenary session on June 7, states:

It has not yet been possible to resume the negotiations between the two
countries with a view to solving the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas
Islands, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding
maritime areas in the framework of resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII),
31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25 of the United
Nations General Assembly, the decisions adopted by the same body on the same
question in the Special Committee on Decolonization, and the reiterated
resolutions and declarations adopted at this General Assembly; and

HAVING HEARD the presentation by the head of delegation of the Argentine
Republic,

WELCOMES the reaffirmation of the will of the Argentine Government to
continue exploring all possible avenues towards a peaceful settlement of the
dispute and its constructive approach towards the inhabitants of the
Malvinas Islands.

REAFFIRMS the need for the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume, as soon as
possible, negotiations on the sovereignty dispute, in order to find a
peaceful solution to this protracted controversy.

DECIDES to continue to examine the Question of the Malvinas Islands at its
subsequent sessions until a definitive settlement has been reached thereon.

Washington backed a similar resolution
  in June last year, and
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it clear in a joint press conference
 with Cristina Kirchner in
Buenos Aires in March 2010 that the Obama administration fully backs
Argentina's calls for negotiations over the Falkands, handing her Argentine
counterpart a significant propaganda coup. The State Department has also
insultingly referred to the Islands in the past as the Malvinas
 ,
the Argentine name for them.

It is hugely disappointing that the Obama administration has chosen once
again to side not only with the increasingly authoritarian regime in
Argentina, but also with an array of despots in Latin America against
British interests. Mrs Clinton should be reminded that 255 brave British
servicemen laid down their lives in 1982 for the freedom of the Falkland
Islanders, who are overwhelmingly British, following the brutal Argentine
invasion.

The sovereignty of the Islands is not a matter for negotiation, and Britain
w

[osint] An Endorsement (and a Blessing) For Michele Bachmann

[Beowulf]

 

 

And I will bless them that bless thee...

 

 

June 22, 2011

 

  GOD
BLESS MICHELE BACHMANN!!

 

By Caroline Glick 

 

  Watch this speech by Congresswoman and
Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann on Israel.

 

I cannot remember EVER hearing a more pro-Israel speech by ANY American
presidential candidate in my life.

 

I cannot remember EVER hearing a more cogent explanation of Israel's
importance to the US by ANY American presidential candidate in my life. 

 

And this speech came out of nowhere. She's not pandering for votes. No one
asked her to say this. She just decided that she had to make a statement.

 

What a great woman. What a great leader. What a great American.

 

God bless you Michele Bachmann!

 

###

 

Amen.

 

Dan Friedman
NYC



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





--
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, 
discuss-os...@yahoogroups.com.
--
Brooks Isoldi, editor
biso...@intellnet.org

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
  Subscribe:osint-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
  Unsubscribe:  osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
osint-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
osint-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[osint] Hughes 500P The "Quiet One"

[Beowulf]

 

  

[Attachment(s) from Carla Fullerton included below] 

 

Air America's Black Helicopter 


The secret aircraft that helped the CIA tap phones in North Vietnam.


*   By James R. Chiles 
*   Air & Space Magazine, March 01, 2008
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/the_quiet_one.html?c=y

&page=1

Shep Johnson 

BLACK HELICOPTERS ARE A FAVORITE FANTASY when conspiracy theorists and movie
directors conjure a government gone bad, but in fact, the last vehicle a
secret organization would choose for a stealthy mission is a helicopter. A
helicopter is a one-man band, its turbine exhaust blaring a piercing whine,
the fuselage skin's vibration rumbling like a drum, the tail rotor rasping
like a buzzsaw.

In the last dark nights of the Vietnam War, however, a secret government
organization did use a helicopter for a single, sneaky mission. But it was
no ordinary aircraft. The helicopter, a limited-edition model from the
Aircraft Division of Hughes Tool Company, was modified to be stealthy. It
was called the Quiet One-also known as the Hughes 500P, the "P" standing for
Penetrator.

Just how quiet was the Quiet One? "It was absolutely amazing just how quiet
those copters were," recalls Don Stephens, who managed the Quiet One's
secret base in Laos for the CIA. "I'd stand on the [landing pad] and try to
figure out the first time I could hear it and which direction it was coming
from. I couldn't place it until it was one or two hundred yards away." Says
Rod Taylor, who served as project engineer for Hughes, "There is no
helicopter today that is as quiet."

The Quiet One grew out of the Hughes 500 helicopter, known to aviators in
Vietnam as the OH-6A "Loach," after LOH, an abbreviation for "light
observation helicopter." The new version started with a small
research-and-development contract from the Advanced Research Projects Agency
(now the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) in 1968. The idea of
using hushed helicopters in Southeast Asia came from the CIA's Special
Operations Division Air Branch, which wanted them to quietly drop off and
pick up agents in enemy territory. The CIA bought and then handed over two
of the top-secret helicopters to a firm-by all appearances, civilian-called
Air America. Formed in 1959 from assets of previous front companies, Air
America was throughout its life beholden to the CIA, the Department of
State, and the Pentagon.

The Quiet One's single, secret mission, conducted on December 5 and 6, 1972,
fell outside Air America's normal operations. The company's public face-what
spies might call its "legend"-was that of a plucky charter airline
delivering food and supplies to civilians in Laos, and flying occasional
combat evacuation missions in Laos and South Vietnam. While it did
substantially more than that, and at considerable peril (217 of its
employees died in Laos), Air America crews did not make it a practice to fly
deep into North Vietnam.

The mission was intended to fill an information gap that had been galling
Henry Kissinger, secretary of state under President Richard Nixon.
Negotiations to end the 11-year war had begun in March 1972 but stalled in
part because South Vietnamese leaders feared that North Vietnam would invade
not long after U.S. troops left. A five-month Air Force and Navy bombing
campaign called Operation Linebacker had brought the North Vietnamese to the
negotiating table in Paris that October, but even that campaign could not
force a deal. Kissinger wanted the CIA to find out whether the North
Vietnamese were following the peace terms or just using them as a
smokescreen for attack plans.

>From its intelligence work a year earlier, the CIA knew about a weak point
in the North Vietnamese wall of security: a telephone line used by the
country's military commanders, located near the industrial city of Vinh. A
patrolled bicycle path ran alongside the string of telephone poles, but at
one spot, about 15 miles southwest of Vinh and just east of the Cau River,
the phone line went straight up a bluff, over a ridge, and down the other
side. The terrain was too steep for bikes, so the path followed the river,
which flowed around the bluff, rejoining the telephone poles on the bluff's
far side (see hand-drawn map, p. 67). This would be the best place to drop
off commandos to place a wiretap.

Because the Vinh tap would be sending its intercepts out of North Vietnam,
across Laos, and into Thailand, it would need a solar-powered relay station
that could catch and transmit the signal, broadcasting from high ground. The
station would be within earshot of enemy patrols, so both the tap and relay
would have to be dropped in by helicopter-a very quiet one.

Disturbing the peace

The Hughes Tool Aircraft Division had started working on such a helicopter
in 1968; that year an affluent suburb of Los Angeles had bought two
piston-powered Hughes 269 helicopters for police patrols. Ci

[osint] European Marxist Helps Muslim Infiltration

[Beowulf]

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/solana9/English

 

Reset Turkey/EU Relations

  Javier Solana

  English
 Spanish
 Russian
 French
 German
 Italian
 Czech
 Chinese
 Arabic

printprint   recomendrecommend 
send linkSend link
http://www.project-syndicate.org/send_commentary/sola
na9/English',%20'solana9',%20'width=600,height=400,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=n
o,resizable=yes')>  clipclip 
secure rightssecure rights   

Alarger   | smaller  

All Commentscomments: 4
 


 
 Share247 



  inShare28 






2011-06-13

  Reset
Turkey/EU Relations

http://www.project-syndicate.org/newsart/a/0/a/m3845_thumb3.jpg

MADRID - Just five months ago, Osama bin Laden was alive, Hosni Mubarak was
firmly in control in Egypt, and Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali ruled Tunisia with
an iron hand. Today, popular rebellion and political change have spread
throughout the region. We have witnessed brutal repression of protests in
Syria and Yemen, Saudi troops crossing into Bahrain, and an ongoing battle
for Libya.

For Europe, the "Arab Spring" should refocus attention on an issue largely
ignored in recent months: the benefits of Turkey's full membership in the
European Union. Given the tremendous opportunities present in the current
circumstances, the advantages for Europe of Turkey's accession should be
obvious. 

With Recep Tayyip Erdoðan now elected to another term as Turkey's prime
minister, and with Poland, a country well acquainted with the importance of
Europe's strategic position in the world, assuming the EU presidency at the
end of the month, now is a time for the Union and Turkey to "reset" their
negotiations over Turkish membership.

The good that Turkey can bring to Europe was visible even before the "Arab
Spring." Europe is, by definition, culturally diverse, so diversity is the
EU's destiny. And, if Europe is to become an active global player, rather
than a museum, it needs the fresh perspective and energy of the people of
Turkey.

Europe today is both larger and different compared to the Europe of 1999,
when Turkey was invited to begin the accession process. It is also
experiencing a profound economic crisis, which erupted around the same time
that the Lisbon Treaty - aimed at accommodating EU enlargement - was finally
approved. Had the treaty been approved in 2005 as intended, it would have
been in place for six years, and the strain placed by the crisis on EU
economic governance - so visible in the eurozone's recent problems - would
have been much more manageable.

But the EU always faces problems, resolves them, and moves on. Today, we
don't have a treasury, but we are about to have something similar.
Similarly, the European Central Bank has capacities today that no one
imagined in, say, 1997.

A major challenge that Europe must still face is migration, which will only
become a bigger problem over time. Between now and 2050, Europe's workforce
will decrease by 70 million. Maintaining our economy requires migration and
open EU borders - and facing down the populist movements in Europe that
would shun "outsiders."

Today's Turkey has also changed dramatically since 1999, both politically
and economically, and this has much to do with the EU accession process.
Indeed, without the attraction of the EU - its "soft" power - such changes
would not have occurred.

Economically, Turkey is now in the G-20 - and playing an effective role
there. And, politically, Turkey has emerged as a regional leader, a role
that it takes extremely seriously.

With just-concluded parliamentary elections, and a new constitution to be
approved, Turkey is approaching an epochal moment. I was a member of the
Spanish Constitutional Commission that wrote the Spanish constitution in
1975 and 1976, following the death of Franco, so I know what it is to move
from dictatorship to democracy - and how important it is that a constitution
be framed by consensus.

The EU-Turkey relationship began with an association agreement signed in
196

[osint] The White Man Made Obama Bomb Libya

[Beowulf]

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder062311.php3

 

June 23, 2011 / 21 Sivan, 5771 

Farrakhan: The White Man Made Obama Bomb Libya 

By Larry Elder 


 





The White Man made him do it. 

Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan recently unmasked the reason for
President Barack Obama's unpopular, non-congressionally authorized, War
Powers Resolution-violating decision to bomb Libya, a country that poses no
imminent threat to the United States.

"We voted for our brother, Barack," said Farrakhan, "a beautiful human being
with a sweet heart, and now he's an assassin. They've turned him into them."


"Them," of course, refers to the evil, racist, manipulative, all-powerful
White Man, who as in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," seized Obama's mind,
body and soul, and changed him into an enemy of the poor, the downtrodden,
the black. 

Don't snicker. Farrakhan may be on to something. 

Here's what presidential candidate Obama said about use of force: "The
president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally
authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an
actual or imminent threat to the nation." Congress passed the War Powers
Resolution in 1973 to restrain the president in non-imminent threat
situations. Obama, however, disagrees that it applies to Libya. This
humanitarian mission, Obama argues, does not involve "hostilities," a
condition that triggers the WPR's application.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, however, before Obama made his Libya
decision, told Congress what a "no-fly zone" over Libya required: "Let's
just call a spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to
destroy the air defenses ... and then you can fly planes around the country
and not worry about our guys being shot down." Sounds a lot like
"hostilities." And Americans, by a two-to-one ratio, oppose military
involvement in Libya. 

The White Man, says Farrakhan, forced Obama to bomb Libya for the oil.
Obama's alleged humanitarian intent, he said, is merely a "noble motive to
hide (America's) wicked agenda!" 

Farrakhan's analysis also explains Obama's job-killing domestic economic
policies - the disastrous effect of which disproportionately hurts blacks.
The White Man, after President Ronald Reagan, vowed, "Never again!" 

Reagan, in the early '80s, faced an even tougher economy, with higher
unemployment, higher inflation and higher interest rates. Reagan cut taxes,
slowed the rate of domestic spending and decreased regulation on businesses.


Reagan, from The White Man's perspective, was catastrophic: Black adult
unemployment fell faster than white adult unemployment, black teen
unemployment fell faster that white teen unemployment, black businesses were
created at a rate faster than white businesses, and the revenues of black
businesses grew faster than those of white businesses. Egads!

Sociologist Charles Murray, in one of the most important books on public
policy in the last 50 years, "Losing Ground," explained how welfare
dependency increased the number of black out-of-wedlock births. The Welfare
Reform Act of 1996 resulted in a dramatic decline in the welfare rolls,
without a corresponding increase in abortion. Welfare recipients, a large
percentage of whom are minorities, found jobs and became self-sufficient. 

The White Man discovered an inexperienced, left-wing, collectivist,
spread-the-wealth, tax-the-rich black senator from Illinois who had not read
Murray's book or, if he had, did not believe it. In fact, then-Illinois
State Senator Obama spoke out against the Welfare Reform Act.

Determined not to repeat the Reagan mistake, The White Man hatched a plan. 

Obama would be The One.

The White Man engineered his election, then programmed the charismatic Obama
to enact policies guaranteed to have the opposite effect of Reagan's
policies: 

The White Man made Obama sign costly "health care reform," which causes
employers to drop coverage, premiums to increase and health care quality to
decline. 

The White Man made Obama raise the minimum wage. This increases unemployment
for those with the lowest skills, a disproportionate percentage of whom are
black. 

The White Man made Obama sign laws to rein in "Wall Street greed," but left
untouched the real reasons behind the housing meltdown: Freddie Mac, Fannie
Mae, the FHA and the Community Reinvestment Act, all of which induced the
otherwise non-creditworthy - a disproportionate percentage of whom are
racial minorities - to take on mortgages they could not afford.

The White Man made Obama oppose choice in education, including the D.C.
Opportunity Scholarship program that, by lottery, gave vouchers to
inner-city Washington, D.C., children and saw high school graduation rates
increase from 70 percent for applicants not offered a scholarship to 82
percent for the scholarship recipients.

The White Man made Obama support a nearly trillion-dollar "stimulus" package
- lar

[osint] Special Ops Work - Petraeus Policy Fails

[Beowulf]

Afghan analysis gives high marks to special ops, but not rest of Petraeus
campaign

By Associated Press, Updated: Thursday, June 23, 12:58 PM

WASHINGTON - An American intelligence analysis finds tangible results from
U.S. special operations raids and outreach to Afghan villages, but larger
efforts such as spending billions of dollars to install a credible central
government are lagging, The Associated Press has learned.

The National Intelligence Estimate gives low marks to some parts of the
counterinsurgency campaign designed by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S.
commander in Afghanistan.

President Barack Obama has nominated Petraeus to be CIA director, and he was
to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday.

The intelligence assessment cites the success of the special operations
programs and finds conventional troops able to hold the territory they've
taken.

But three U.S. officials who have read the analysis and described it to the
AP say it notes far less progress on developing Afghan security forces that
can hold their own or on installing a government that's able to serve its
people.

Where conventional troops withdraw, the Taliban are able to infiltrate, the
officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence
matters.

The assessment, issued in February, does not favor one strategy over
another. But the information gives ammunition to those who support Vice
President Joe Biden's special operations-centered counterterrorism strategy
over Petraeus' backing of traditional counterinsurgency.

Petraeus' approach requires greater use of conventional troops and appears
to be on the way out, with Obama's announcement Wednesday that the U.S. will
withdraw up to 33,000 troops by next summer. It also is an issue that
probably will confront Petraeus if he is confirmed as CIA director.

Petraeus has taken issue with previous intelligence estimates on
Afghanistan, and Iraq, where he also once commanded U.S. forces, arguing
they draw on information snapshots that no longer reflect the current
situation, according to a U.S. official involved in some of the discussions
of those earlier estimates.

The latest Afghan report was based on data from December, the official
pointed out, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe high-level
discussions. It also covered the security and governance situation in
Pakistan.

A U.S. official close to Petraeus has claimed that his own assessments are
based on different, more up-to-date data. While Petraeus has told lawmakers
he plans few changes at the CIA, working to sharpen the analysis is expected
to be one of his goals.

He would succeed Leon Panetta, who's taking over as defense secretary.

The Afghan assessment says special operations night raids, combined with
village-by-village security operations, have shown more lasting progress in
undermining the Taliban and its influence than attempts by conventional
military forces to drive out militants, the officials say. That was seen by
some officials who read the report as proof the additional conventional
forces Petraeus championed made little impact on the overall campaign.

Other U.S. officials argue that the success of special operations troops
would not have been possible without the logistical support from
conventional forces in territory that the U.S. clawed back from insurgents
in large-scale operations. The estimate also says progress has been made in
special operations-led counterinsurgency projects, not just raids, the
officials said.

Petraeus and his predecessor, retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, helped bring
about an increase in special operations forces to roughly 10,000. That
includes about 4,000 elite "direct action" troops who hunt militants, and
6,000 others, such as Green Berets and Marine special operators, who train
village security forces.

As for the lack of progress in some areas noted in the analysis, it's rare
that the picture presented to the public by a general running a war matches
the private advice and criticism given to him by the intelligence services.

"When you are the four-star general running the war, you are the biggest
customer for CIA," said Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the top Republican on
the Senate Intelligence Committee. Now, he'll be providing that intelligence
to those in the field, Chambliss said.

Chambliss predicted Petraeus would make the transition easily. The senator
said Petraeus already had started working on CIA budget issues, including
how to cut costs despite some large looming investments in satellite and
other technical systems.

Petraeus, who has agreed to retire from the Army, has told lawmakers he'll
bring no staff with him, Chambliss said. One former CIA head, Adm.
Stansfield Turner, drew the CIA staff's scorn by installing a small group of
Naval officers with him, and ex-CIA director Porter Goss, a former
congressman, brought several gatekeepers who became known as the
"Gosslings."

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press

[osint] The Right to Criticize Islam Confirmed in Holland

[Beowulf]

06/23/2011 11:33 AM


The Right to Criticize Islam


Wilders Cleared of Incitement Charges


A Dutch court on Thursday acquitted controversial right-wing populist 
politician Geert Wilders on all charges relating to anti-Islamic statements he 
made in his films and on the Internet. The court said Wilders' comments had 
been part of a legitimate public debate. 

After nearly six months, a trial against Dutch firebrand Geert Wilders 
  ended Thursday in Amsterdam. A 
court acquitted the right-wing populist politician on charges of incitement, 
racial hatred and discrimination against Muslims. 

In his verdict, leading judge Marcel van Oosten said that, while Wilders' 
statements were indeed offensive to Muslims, they were also part of the 
legitimate political debate. Wilders' claim that Islam is a violent religion 
and his demands for an immigration ban for Muslims had to be viewed in the 
context of the larger societal debate 
  about 
immigration policies, the judge argued. He said the statements could not be 
directly blamed for increasing levels of discrimination against Dutch Muslims. 

Wilders' supporters greeted the ruling, and the politician himself smiled as he 
left the courtroom.

Comparing the Koran to 'Mein Kampf' 

The politician had been on trial since October 2010 because he compared the 
Koran with Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" in Internet forums and in  
 "Fitna", a 
film he made that was extremely critical of Islam. In his closing statement, 
Wilders said that his controversial statements against Islam were protected by 
the right to free speech. Wilders said he believed the process of Islamization 
presents a threat to Europe 
  and that it 
is his right and duty to warn the public about it.

If he had been convicted, Wilders could have faced up to one year in jail or a 
fine of up to €7,600 ($10,865). At the peak of the controversy over his 
statements, Wilders was once even banned from entering the United Kingdom.

After making strong gains in elections 
  in the 
Netherlands last summer, Wilders' party has become the third strongest in 
parliament. Although it is not technically part of the government, Wilders 
party supports the minority government, which is comprised of the center-right 
Liberal Party and the conservative Christian Democrats and which would collapse 
without backing from Wilders' Party of Freedom. 

Wilders' comments sparked a massive debate on the integration of Muslims in 
Europe that has helped fuel other populist movements 
  around the 
continent. In Germany 
 , 
politician Thilo Sarrazin wrote a bestselling book 
  warning 
that Muslim immigrants were dumbing the country down. 

dsl -- with wires





URL:


*   http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,770045,00.html

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





--
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, 
discuss-os...@yahoogroups.com.
--
Brooks Isoldi, editor
biso...@intellnet.org

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
  Subscribe:osint-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
  Unsubscribe:  osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change 

[osint] Afghanistan War Speech Persuades No One, Invites Defeat

[Beowulf]

http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2011/06/23/news/afghanistan-war-spee
ch-persuades-no-one/

 


Afghanistan war speech persuades no one


June 23, 2011   Terry A. Hurlbut   No comments
  

A memorial to the Soviet Afghanistan war stands in the Ukraine. Photo:
Letitia Avierklieva. CC BY 2.0 Generic License.

?
 Share 

President Obama weakly tried to compromise with his Afghanistan war speech.
He persuaded no one and invited military and political defeat.


Summary of the Afghanistan war speech


President Obama gave this speech
  to the American people beginning at 8:01 a.m. EDT
last night (June 22). He will withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by
year's end, and another 23,000 troops by the end of next summer. In all,
Obama will withdraw as many troops as he sent in about 18 months ago..

The President talked about "nation building," and hinted that it, like
charity, begins at home. He also talked about the Libyan campaign, and
repeated the refrain that

we do not have a single soldier on the ground, but are supporting allies[.]


Reaction on the right


The right is split. The Ron Paul

half sees little gain from any further adventures in Afghanistan. The
McCain-Graham half says that we can win the Afghanistan war, but
 not by withdrawing so many troops at once. In fact,
Obama has rejected the advice of his commanding general in the theater,
General David Petraeus. Recent word that the USA is negotiating with the
Taliban for a "political settlement" confuses everybody
 . The reason: while he is negotiating with
the Taliban, he is also negotiating with Hamid Karzai's government to keep
American drones and special forces in place. Everyone asks, Why? Why fight a
war with half measures? Either fight to win, or get out, but make up your
mind, Mr. President. So say the military experts, and the commentators on
the right.


Reaction on the left


 
 Afghanistan War protest in Boston

Bostonians protest after the 1000th US military death in the Afghanistan
War. Photo: Michael Borkson. CC BY 2.0 Generic License.

The left is almost of one mind on the Afghanistan war speech: they hate it.
If one single thing defines the hard left, it's that they "don't wanna study
war no more." They want American troops out now, and that means all of them.
They won't settle for anything less, no matter who is President. In fact,
they voted for President Obama because they expected him to deliver just
that. Now he won't, and they hate him for it.

Paul Whitefield's opinion piece
  in this morning's Los Angeles Times is typical. He proposes three
measures that he seems to hope will guarantee instant war weariness:

1.  The military should draft people again, and not rely on volunteers.
2.  Congress should enforce the War Powers Act of 1973.
3.  Congress should insist that any war be in the budget-and Whitefield
specifically calls for higher taxes.

Whitefield has two good points: the government financed the war with
borrowed money, and not even with the sale of specific war bonds. And the
War Powers Act deserves either a direct challenge or detailed obedience-not
Obama's contemptuous dismissal.

More to the point, Whitefield and others simply do not like war. And even
after withdrawing 33,000 troops from Afghanistan, Obama will leave about
67,000 of them in place. To fight a losing battle, says the right (both
halves of it). To die for nothing, says the left.


The irony


The irony is that Obama made his Afghanistan war speech for political
reasons
  only. He is trying
to placate his anti-war base. If Paul Whitefield at the LA Times is any
example, he has failed. The left thinks him a traitor. The right thinks him
worse than Hamlet. And the soldiers must think that he is using them, not
leading them.

Featured image: a memorial to the Soviet Afghanistan war stands in the
Ukraine. Photo: Letitia Avierklieva. CC BY 2.0 Generic License.

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[osint] The Gospel of Jon Stewart

[Beowulf]

Another Obama-like clone.


B

 

The Gospel of Jon Stewart 

Thursday, June 23, 2011 
By   Ben Shapiro 

Jon Leibowitz -- aka Jon Stewart -- is a liar.

This week, he sat down with Chris Wallace of Fox News and promptly made an
ass of himself. The left cheered, as they are apt to do when they spot the
Smirking Smarm-smith, but the truth is that without his trusty audience to
cheer his every move, Stewart looked like what he was: a bully, a
manipulator, and an intellectually dishonest partisan hack.

His hackery began when he refused to call The New York Times a "liberal
organization." While standing by his labeling of Fox News as "a relentlessly
agenda-drive, 24-hour news opinion propaganda delivery system," he refused
to say the same of ABC, CBS, NBC and The Washington Post. Instead, he said
their bias "is toward sensationalism and laziness. I wouldn't say it's
toward a liberal agenda." This is plainly idiocy. All news organizations of
any stripe are biased toward sensationalism because it sells and laziness
because it is cheap. But that doesn't preclude them from playing for a
political team, as the mainstream media clearly does.

Wallace then called Stewart on his own political bias. Stewart is a liberal.
That's no shock. When I interviewed Doug Herzog, president of MTV Networks,
for my book, "Primetime Propaganda," he said that Stewart was obviously a
leftist. "I think there is no discussion where Jon's heart lies," Herzog
told me. "I think he wears it on his sleeve to a certain degree." In fact,
Stewart's lackeys refuse to have conservative pundits on his show, as they
told my friend, comedian Steven Crowder.

But Stewart insisted that his political viewpoint was irrelevant because he
was a comedian. "I'm a comedian first," he told Wallace. "My comedy is
informed by an ideological background. There's no question about that. The
thing ... that in some respect conservative activists will never understand
is that Hollywood, yes, they're liberal. But that's not their primary
motivating force. I'm not an activist. I'm a comedian."

But, of course, Stewart can be and is both. He uses his comedy to
propagandize. That's not against the law and not immoral, but it is a
betrayal of his self-proclaimed primary motivating force: to be funny. True
comedy attacks the targets at hand. It does not pick and choose based on
political affiliation. Stewart does, and that's why the quality of his
comedy has declined dramatically since Bush's re-election.

Stewart is a mass of contradictions. He admits that he wants his voice
heard, and says, "That's why I got into comedy." But in the same sentence,
he denies that he is an ideologically partisan activist. He believes he
should speak for good media practice, but refuses to practice it because he
can always put on his Johnny Carson hat.

This, unfortunately, is endemic of Hollywood. The same folks Stewart
believes are unbiased with regard to their news agenda -- people like Les
Moonves at CBS -- have actually considered using Stewart as their nightly
news anchor. Hollywood entertainment folks pretend that they are not
politically motivated for public consumption, but in private, they will
admit that they enjoy using their entertainment to promote their own
political point of view. Stewart's boss, Herzog -- an executive who is
charged with raising stockholder value -- says that he believes that
"through the medium of television, we try to make the world a slightly
better place." By "better," Herzog means leftist. So does Stewart.

Stewart is a liar because he pretends that he cannot be both a comedian and
a political propagandist. He can be both, because Hollywood is full of
people who are both. There is no question that his audience of trained seals
see him for what he is: a master of liberal hackery, unwilling to attack
President Obama harshly or to call out journalistic malfeasance from the
left. That is why when he once dared to make a joke about President Obama,
the audience didn't laugh. "You know, you're allowed to laugh at him," a
grumpy Stewart chided. How would they know that? After all, Stewart hasn't
trained them to laugh at everyone -- he's trained them to laugh at his
political enemies.

At the end of his interview with Wallace, Stewart claimed that "there is not
a designed ideological agenda on my part to affect partisan change." It may
not be designed, but it is an agenda. And Stewart is an expert at pushing it
while pretending to be an honest comedian rather than a comedic
propagandist.

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





--
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, 
discuss-os...@yahoogroups.com.
--
Brooks Isoldi, editor
biso...@intellnet.org

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
  Subscribe:osint-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
  Unsubscribe:  osint-unsubscr...

[osint] Under Obama, US Casualty Rate in Afghanistan Needlessly Increased 5-Fold

[Beowulf]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/us-casualties-afghanistan-have-increased

 

Under Obama, U.S. Casualty Rate in Afghanistan Increased 5-Fold 

Wednesday, June 22, 2011 
By   Edwin Mora 

  Afghanistan
Medics Under Fire

In this picture taken Tuesday, May 10, 2011, United States Marines run
through dust kicked up by a Blackhawk helicopter from Task Force Lift "Dust
Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment as they rush a colleague
wounded in an IED strike for evacuation near Sangin, in the volatile Helmand
Province of southern Afghanistan. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer)

(CNSNews.com) - The average monthly casualty rate for U.S. military forces
serving in Afghanistan has increased 5-fold since President Barack Obama was
inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009.

1,540 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan since Oct. 7, 2001, when
U.S. forces began fighting in that country to oust the Taliban regime that
had been harboring al Qaeda and to track down and capture or kill al Qaeda
terrorists.

During the Bush presidency, which ended on Jan. 20, 2009 with the
inauguration of President Obama, U.S. troops were present in Afghanistan for
87.4 months and suffered 570 casualties-a rate of 6.5 deaths per month.

During the Obama presidency, through today, U.S. troops have been present in
Afghanistan for 29.1 months and have suffered 970 casualties-a rate of 33.3
deaths per month.

This evening President Obama is expected to announce the scope of U.S. troop
withdrawals set to begin next month.

Of the 1,540 U.S. casualties in Afghanistan, according to CNSNews.com's
database of all casualties in the war, 1,340 have resulted from enemy action
and the other 200 have resulted from non-combat accidents, illnesses and
other non-combat causes.

The 970 U.S. casualties that have occurred while President Obama has been
commander in chief equal 63 percent--or almost two-thirds-of all U.S.
casualties that have taken place in the nearly-ten-year-long war.

889 of the 970 U.S. casualties in Afghanistan that have occurred during the
Obama presidency-or about 92 percent-have been combat-related casualties.

During Obama's presidency, U.S. troops have given their lives in the service
of their country in Afghanistan at an average rate of more than one per day.

CNSNews.com's database of U.S. military fatalities in Afghanistan is derived
from official casualty reports issued by the Department of Defense (DOD)
augmented by information taken from media accounts.

The database includes all U.S. troops who died in and around Afghanistan
while supporting military efforts against terrorism under Operation Enduring
Freedom. It also includes some Americans who died in Pakistan and others who
died in the Arabian Sea while supporting operations in Afghanistan.

In December 2009, President Obama announced that he was increasing the U.S.
presence in Afghanistan by 30,000 troops. Currently, the U.S. has a force of
100,000 in the country. Tonight, the president is expected to outline his
plan for beginning the withdrawal of some of those forces.

U.S. military officials have indicated that despite the expected reduction
in forces, the U.S. will maintain a military presence in Afganistan beyond
2014. Gen. David Petraeus, the top-commander of U.S. and NATO forces in
Afghanistan has also told Congress that he would be open to maintaining a
jointly-operated military base in Afghanistan.



This is a list of the U.S. military personnel who have given their lives
serving their country in Afghanistan since Memorial Day, which was May 30.
The list includes the hero's name, age, hometown and date of death as
reported by the Department of Defense.

--Spc. Richard C. Emmons III, 22, North Grandby, Conn., May 31, 2011

--Sgt. Jeffrey C. S. Sherer, 29, Four Oaks, N.C., June 2, 2011

--Sgt. Christopher R. Bell, 21, Golden, Miss., June 4, 2011

--Sgt. Joshua D. Powell, 28, Quitman, Texas, June 4, 2011

--Spc. Devin A. Snyder, 20, Cohocton, N.Y., June 4, 2011

--Spc. Robert L. Voakes Jr., 21, L'Anse, Mich., June 4, 2011

--Chief Warrant Officer Kenneth R. White, 35, Fort Collins, Colo., June 5,
2011

--Chief Warrant Officer Bradley J. Gaudet, 31, Gladewater, Texas June 5,
2011

--Sgt. Joseph M. Garrison, 27, New Bethlehem, Pa., June 6, 2011

--Cpl. William J. Woitowicz, 23, Middlesex, Mass., June 7, 2011

--Lance Cpl. Nicholas S. O'Brien, 21, Stanley, N.C., June 9, 2011

--Cpl. Matthew T. Richard, 21, Acadia, La., June 9, 2011

--Capt. Michael W. Newton, 30, Newport News, Va., June 11, 2011

--Lance Cpl. Jason D. Hill, 20, Poway, Calif., June 11, 2011

--Lance Cpl. Sean M. N. O'Connor, 22, Douglas, Wyo., June 12, 2011

--Lance Cpl. Joshua B. McDaniels, 21, Dublin, Ohio, June 12, 2011

--Pfc. Eric D. Soufrine, 20, Woodbridge, Conn., June 14, 2011

--Staff Sgt. Jeremy A. Katzenberger, 26, Weatherby Lake, Mo., June 14, 2011

--Pvt. Ryan J. Larson, 19, Friendship, Wis., J

[osint] Obama Tapping Emergency Oil Reserve to Make up for Obama-caused Oil Shortage from Libya

[Beowulf]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-ready-release-oil-petroleum-reserv

 

Obama Tapping Emergency Oil Reserve to Make Up for Shortage From Libya 

Thursday, June 23, 2011 
By STAFF, Associated Press 

  Obama US Afghanistan

In this June 15, 2010 file photo, President Barack Obama speaks in
Pensacola, Fla. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Wary of a new surge in gas prices, the Obama
administration has decided to release 30 million barrels of oil from the
country's emergency reserve as part of a broader international response to
lost oil supplies caused by turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa,
particularly Libya.

The release from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve will amount to half of
a 60 million barrel international infusion of oil planned for the world
market over the next month.

"We are taking this action in response to the ongoing loss of crude oil due
to supply disruptions in Libya and other countries and their impact on the
global economic recovery," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Thursday.

The administration said the uprising in Libya has resulted in a loss of
about 1.5 million barrels of oil a day. The release comes as the United
States approaches a period of high energy use in July and August.

High oil prices and the resulting increase in the cost of gasoline have
contributed to an economic slowdown and have put increased political
pressure on President Barack Obama.

The government is wary of dipping into the petroleum reserve, releasing oil
from it only in extreme cases, such as hurricanes, that affect oil supplies.
The reserves -- 727 million barrels stored in salt caverns along the Texas
and Louisiana coasts -- were created in response to the Arab oil embargo in
the 1970s and last tapped in 2008 after hurricanes Gustav and Ike hit.

Oil prices dropped Thursday after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke
warned that the U.S. economy was recovering more slowly than expected and
after the International Energy Agency announced the release of 60 million
barrels of oil.

Retail gasoline prices in the U.S. dropped for the 20th consecutive day to
$3.61 per gallon.

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





--
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, 
discuss-os...@yahoogroups.com.
--
Brooks Isoldi, editor
biso...@intellnet.org

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
  Subscribe:osint-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
  Unsubscribe:  osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
osint-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
osint-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[osint] Fw: Now this is funny...!!!

[Beowulf]

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

  _  

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

Subject: -  Now this is funny...!!!

 

 


 


 

 


 

 

Steve Bridges imitated George Bush on the Jay Leno Show during the entire
eight years he was president. 

 

He was made up to look and act almost exactly like Bush. 

 

He has now started imitating Obama and REALLY does it right.

 

The Administration has tried to put a stop to Bridges' act because Obama has
made it known that he is deeply offended.


 

 
http://www.stevebridges.com/obamavideos-promo-july2010-lg.html

 

 

 



 

 

 








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





--
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, 
discuss-os...@yahoogroups.com.
--
Brooks Isoldi, editor
biso...@intellnet.org

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
  Subscribe:osint-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
  Unsubscribe:  osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
osint-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
osint-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[osint] Do you think this is the result of all that Muslim inbreeding?

[Beowulf]

 


  


 
 Do you think this is the result of all
that Muslim inbreeding? 


  barenakedislam
| June 22, 2011 at 10:56 PM | Categories:
 Islam and the Jews | URL:
 http://wp.me/peHnV-vLE 

"In 1948, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD forces were only  3 hours away from Tel
Aviv and had they not been tricked into two ceasefires, there would have
been no such thing as "Israel" scumming up the Earth." Egyptian Cleric is
certain that "ALL OF JERUSALEM" will soon be liberated and returned to its
its rightful owners, [...]

 
 Read more of this post

 
 Add a comment to this post 

 







 

 


 WordPress  

  WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
 
 Manage Subscriptions |
 Unsubscribe |   Reach out to
your own subscribers with WordPress.com. 

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
 http://subscribe.wordpress.com 

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





--
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, 
discuss-os...@yahoogroups.com.
--
Brooks Isoldi, editor
biso...@intellnet.org

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
  Subscribe:osint-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
  Unsubscribe:  osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
osint-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
osint-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/