[osint] Iran's Direct and Material Involvement in 9/11
Iran's Dirty 9/11 Secrets Posted By Kenneth R. Timmerman On September 9, 2011 @ 12:20 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 3 Comments http://frontpagemag.com/2011/09/09/iran%e2%80%99s-dirty-911-secrets/print/# comments_controls It has taken nearly ten years, but the real story of Iran's direct, material involvement in the 9/11 conspiracy is finally coming to light. And it's being revealed not by the U.S. government or by Congressional investigators but by private attorneys representing families of the 9/11 victims in U.S. District Court. Just one week before the 9/11 Commission sent its final report to the printers in July 2004, diligent staffers discovered a six-page classified National Security Agency analysis summarizing what the U.S. intelligence community had learned about Iran's assistance to the 9/11 hijackers. They happened upon the document by chance. It had been tucked away at the bottom of the last box in the last stack of classified documents they were reviewing. But it was so explosive that several Commissioners pushed hard to make sure the information it contained was included in the final report, despite intense push back from the intelligence community. The page and a half section that made the final cut (see pages 240-241 http://information.iran911case.com/Exhibit_1.pdf ) details repeated trips to Iran by 8-10 of the muscle hijackers between October 2000 and February 2001. Flying in from Saudi Arabia, Damascus, and Beirut, the future hijackers were accompanied by senior Hezbollah operatives who were in fact agents of the Iranian regime. The information was so explosive that the CIA lobbied hard to get it expunged from the final report, in part because they had detected some of the movements as they were occurring but failed to appreciate their import. They saw them as travel through Iran, not travel to Iran, a senior 9/11 Commission staffer told me at the time. By the time the staffers had read into the 75 source documents on a Sunday morning out at NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, MD, the Commission was pushing up against the end of its mandate and could not do any additional work. The information was so serious and had such clear geopolitical import that it requires further investigation by the U.S. government, they concluded. Many of the Commissions and senior staff who were aware of the document find assumed someone else would pick up the ball. But as attorney Thomas Mellon, Jr. and his colleagues representing Fiona Havlish and other 9/11 widows and family members discovered, no such investigation was ever carried out. Not even the Congressional intelligence committees would go near the subject, despite direct appeals from the Havlish plaintiffs and a review of many of the original still-classified documents cited in the report. I was engaged by the Havlish attorneys in 2004 to carry out the investigation the 9/11 Commission report called on the U.S. government to handle. We had no governmental authority, hardly any budget, and no access to classified intelligence or intelligence assets. But what we found and made public starting this May is enough to hang a fish. Put simply: . The Islamic Republic of Iran helped design the 9/11 plot; . provided intelligence support to identify and train the operatives who carried it out; . allowed the future hijackers to evade U.S. and Pakistani surveillance on key trips to Afghanistan where they received the final order of mission from Osama bin Laden, by escorting them through Iranian borders without passport stamps; . evacuated hundreds of top al Qaeda operatives from Afghanistan to Iran after the 9/11 just as U.S. forces launched their offensive; . provided safe haven and continued financial support to al Qaeda cadres for years after 9/11; . allowed al Qaeda to use Iran as an operational base for additional terror attacks, in particular the May 2003 bombings in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Key elements of our proofs are in bullet points at the end of this article. http://www.kentimmerman.com/news/2011_05_19-Havlish-Iran-links-lawsuit.htm For those wishing a more detailed account, here is a partially-redacted affidavit http://information.iran911case.com/Exhibit_2.pdf I provided to the Court that traces the Islamic Republic of Iran's relationship al Qaeda back to the early 1990s. Panic at CIA As the Havlish case was getting closer to making its information public last year, certain old guard elements within the CIA went into a panic mode, apparently worried that their failure to act on indicators and warnings in 2000 and 2001 would come to light and ruin their post-Agency careers. I can now reveal that they made several attempts to suborn two of the Havlish witnesses who were located overseas. In the first attempt, in August 2010, an individual presenting himself as a CIA official, told our witness that the Agency wanted to break the Havlish litigation against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and considered the witness's testimony to be
[osint] NATO's Total Reliance on US for Operations
http://tinyurl.com/455vygd September 09, 2011 NATO Notes Reliance on US for Operations http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/.a/6a00e551d9d3fd883301543534ed4d970c-po pup EuropeNATO: U.S. Capabilities Vital for Allies By Cheryl Pellerin AFPS WASHINGTON, Sept. 6, 2011 - NATO-led operations in Libya show NATO forces are flexible, open and strong, and also demonstrate the need for critical capabilities such as the unmanned aircraft supplied by the United States, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said today. This was the first alliance operation where European allies and Canada took the lead, and the alliance got the job done, Rasmussen told reporters during a briefing in Brussels on what NATO calls Operation Unified Protector. European allies and Canada led the air force, he added, but this mission could not have been done without capabilities which only the United States can offer. For example, drones, intelligence and refueling aircraft. Such capabilities are critical for all NATO allies, Rasmussen said, and include transport and strategic airlift capacity. More allies should be willing to obtain [such capabilities] and that is a real challenge, he added. We will have to find the solutions at the next NATO summit in Chicago. At the Lisbon Summit in Nov. 2010, NATO presented its third Strategic Concept since the end of the Cold War, defining the alliance's 11 strategic priorities for investment over the next decade, including missile and cyber defense, and counter-IED technology. From now until the May 2012 summit in Chicago, Rasmussen said, we will try to identify a number of areas in which a group of countries could pool and share resources. Then in Chicago, he said, hopefully, we can identify a number of elite nations that would carry forward these projects, building on the priorities named in Lisbon. It will be a comprehensive defense package that will contribute to making more efficient use of our resources, Rasmussen said, but also aim at narrowing the economic and technological gap between the United States and Europe. That's my ambition. In addition to highlighting such gaps, Operation Unified Protector shows the flexibility, openness and strength of NATO forces, the secretary-general said. Though the operation is not over, it has an unprecedented United Nations mandate -- the responsibility to protect the Libyan people -- and NATO has implemented the mandate with unprecedented precision, Rasmussen said. No comparable air operation in history has been so accurate and so careful in avoiding harm to civilians, he added, noting that the operation in five months has degraded a war machine that took more than 40 years to build. NATO and our partners will be there as long as we are needed but not one minute longer, he said. When we assess that the threat is over for good, we will conclude Operation Unified Protector. I cannot give a precise date, but I believe it will come soon. NATO began the operation on March 31 with the aim of protecting civilians and civilian-populated areas under attack or threat of attack by Libyan leader Moammar Ghaddafi's military. According to NATO, the mission consists of an arms embargo, a no-fly zone and actions to protect civilians. Since the operation's start, NATO allies have conducted 21,662 sorties, including 8,140 strike sorties. NATO's operations commander is Canadian air force Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, who operates with his staff from the Allied Joint Force Command in Naples. To support the arms embargo, 15 ships under NATO command are patrolling the central Mediterranean. They have hailed 2,500 vessels, boarding 258 and denying passage to 11. Also since March 31, NATO has recorded 949 air, ground and maritime movements by international humanitarian assistance organizations to bring food, water and medical aid to the Libyan people. It is now [time] for the Libyan people to shape their future, the secretary-general said. [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
[osint] Terror Threat in DC/NYC
Note: al-Qaeda and most terrorist organizations do not attack on anniversaries.as they KNOW the West values anniversary dates and mistakenly anticipates anniversary attacks and increase security at these times. Muslims do not even use the same calendar as the rest of the world, so THEIR dates of anniversaries are not the same as the Western dates each year. If the details of the threat are so well known, why not share them with the world? Why is the secret kept from the American public? The terrorists know the details of their attack; the US Government knows the details of the attack. The terrorists, thanks to the ignorant commentary by US Officials, know that the US Government knows.From Whom is the government keeping the details then? and Why? B http://tinyurl.com/4yo99az September 09, 2011 Terror Threat in DC/NYC US Intelligence Agencies have released information that Pakistan based terrorist organizations have stated an intent to attack Washington DC and New York in the days surrounding the 10th Anniversary of 9/11. The threat is specific in cities targeted and type. The information released indicates the terrorist threat is by car bomb. The specific cities mentioned are Washington DC and New York City. This does not mean that other cities are not at risk. Sketchier is the group behind the threat: potentially the Pakistani Taliban or Al-Qaeda, while other terrorist groups also operate in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan identified as the area from which the plot was hatched. Also sketchy, according to the information released, is if or how many potential terrorist operatives are already within the country, with one news source stating it was as few as 5-10. For obvious reasons, the intelligence agencies did not release statements as to specific source of their information, the scope of the information they do or don't know, or if they know the names of those involved. The military increased its threat level yesterday, due to the heightened potential of attacks around the anniversaries of previous attacks. [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] Missing In Action: All-American Courage
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.10336/pub_detail.asp September 9, 2011 Missing In Action: All-American Courage Since 9/11, we've wallowed in hysteria and fear. http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/authors/id.192/author_detail.asp Ralph Peters Print This javascript:%20printVersion() E-mail This javascript:%20emailVersion() javascript:void(0); http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/images/share.png ShareThis javascript:void(0); Comments (1) http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/comments.asp?id=10336 http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/imgLib/20110112_RALPHPETERSBANNER.jpg Why have conservatives become such captives of fear? Before 9/11, conservatism stood for stalwart courage and confidence in the United States of America. Across the past decade, however, we succumbed to a weird mania that wildly exaggerates threats and revels in our purported strategic vulnerability to furtive religious perverts sinking along with their doomed civilization. The enthusiasm with which many of my fellow conservatives paint militant Islam as a mighty movement capable of a takeover of Europe and America is a grotesque wallow in political masochism. Islam is on the ropes of history, battered, bleeding and disfigured. And it's never going to be a contender again. Yet, many Americans appear determined to cower in our corner of the ring. It's baffling: We're winning in every possible respect, but tell ourselves we're losing. http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/imgLib/20110522_OsamaWatching.jpg Certainly, Islamist terrorists remain deadly. But we're much, much deadlier. Since our national humiliation on September 11th, 2001, we've slaughtered terrorists by the thousands around the world, including almost all of al Qaeda's top leaders. Muslims overwhelmingly have turned against al Qaeda, and the organization's popularity in today's Middle East is lower than Casey Anthony's in Florida. Before his well-deserved death, Osama bin Laden himself had been reduced to a prematurely aged pornography hound confined to a virtual prison where he was afraid to walk around in his own courtyard. Al Qaeda Central has been shattered. Regional franchises struggle to remain relevant amid popular revolutions that have left the terrorists behind as yesterday's men. In Europe, teetering elites can no longer contain the people's rage at left-wing multiculturalist farces. Here in our own country, radical Islam is little more than a last resort for losers, surviving only among prison inmates, isolated sociopaths and eroding lobbying organizations--and in mosques funded by Saudi Arabia's degenerate royals (who are terrified that American freedoms will transform their stunted faith). We've made mistakes. First, we took terrorists prisoner who should have been killed on the spot. Second, Ivy-League-poisoned Washington officials and our irresponsible media invented legal and human rights for subhuman monsters. Third, instead of settling for effective, efficient punitive expeditions that butchered our enemies and left instructive ruins in our wake, a Republican administration decided that we could rebuild feckless, failed Muslim societies in our own image-a notion as pointless as it has been colossally wasteful. But let's get a grip. Taking stock of the events of the last decade, we should be proud of the stunning effect our military, our intelligence services and our law-enforcement organizations have had, as well as of the knock-on effects of our policies. Al Qaeda can still kill-mostly fellow Muslims--but can no longer shake the world. When not restrained by political correctness, our might terrorizes the terrorists. And one after another, the dictators and terrorist potentates whose oppression generated countless recruits for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have fallen or are struggling to survive: Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak (who was not our friend), Muammar Qaddafi, and Bashar al Assad. Except in Iraq, which has been abandoned by our current president, Iran's influence is collapsing beyond its borders, with its sole Arab ally, Syria, under siege from its own people and both Hezbollah and Hamas refusing to obey Tehran's command to condemn the Syrian protesters. Contrary to still more reflexive hysteria among conservatives, Israel will be far safer with a new regime in Syria, no matter its make-up. It's been a terrific decade for the good guys. Yet, we're relentlessly glum about our security. That may be good business for unscrupulous defense contractors and our 24/7 media, but it's neither sensible nor healthy for our country. Under President George W. Bush, conservatives championed democracy and freedom in the Arab world. Iraq was supposed to be an example that would spark regional change. Well, the irony is that Iraq's democracy, however flawed, has, indeed, inspired Arab democracy movements elsewhere. But now that we have a
[osint] UK Law Enforcement Favors Sharia over Citizen Groups
http://tinyurl.com/3ox6k8e UK Law Enforcement Favors Sharia over Citizen Groups http://www.rightsidenews.com/2011090914457/world/geopolitics/protests-again st-radical-muslims-in-london.html Thursday, 08 September 2011 19:17 Right Side News http://www.rightsidenews.com/component/option,com_mailto/link,b5931696e010e c4b60a2452c2439a44fa0cc00af/tmpl,component/ E-mail http://www.rightsidenews.com/2011090914457/world/geopolitics/protests-again st-radical-muslims-in-london/print.html Print http://www.rightsidenews.com/pdf/2011090914457/world/geopolitics/protests-a gainst-radical-muslims-in-london.pdf PDF US Readers: What you see in the UK is here now... UK: Tower Hamlets - Not Just Another Peaceful EDL Demo In the run up to the EDL demonstration we saw http://englishdefenceleague.org/banning-the-edl-march-in-tower-hamlets-send s-out-completely-the-wrong-message/ the march banned, we saw the EDL http://sheikyermami.com/2011/08/30/the-beep-does-another-hatchet-job-on-the -edl/ misrepresented and attacked in the press, we faced scaremongering from the far-Left and then, at the last minute, we were forced to http://englishdefenceleague.org/tower-hamlet/ change our plans due to the http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=25909 threat of strikes by the RMT Union. And yet, despite all this, despite the efforts to sabotage our demonstration, and despite the frustrations that must have been felt, we managed to hold a peaceful protest. To everyone who attended - thank you. If you like this article, please subscribe to our daily newsletter http://rightsidenews.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=1cf0488db68779540d6924 66fid=80b67972fb No_Sharia_in_Western_LandsJust two weeks after we embarrassed scaremongering local councilors in Telford by holding an entirely peaceful protest http://englishdefenceleague.org/march-banned-footie-cancelled-shops-shutter ed/ , we've once again proved that we have no desire to cause trouble, just a desire to exercise our democratic right to protest. There will be some critics who will continue to point to the efforts of the police as the only reason why there was only very few minor incidents. It is important to remember that alongside them, EDL Stewards did a fantastic job keeping an eye out for any potential trouble makers, and handed a couple of individuals over to the police. But in battling to ensure a peaceful protest our focus was not on the need to control any unruly EDL supporters. Instead, our main focus was on combating the ludicrious (and dangerous) fabrications being spread by far-Left activists, fascists and radical Muslims: claims that we were intending to assault Muslims, that we were telling our supporters to attack Mosques, etc, etc.Behind the scenes we worked to disprove these accusations, and up and down the country our Division Leaders made sure that no one was under any illusions that our intentions would be anything other than peaceful. If these accusations had any grounding in reality, we would have hoped that those making them would have informed the police, rather than incite trouble. As it happened, the police did receive intelligence that suggested that there might be parties in attendance who were intent on violence. But what the BBC, for one, may have failed to make clear was that these parties were not on the EDL side. No wonder Scotland Yard's National Co-ordinator for Domestic Extremism, Adrian Tudway, recently stated http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/02/english-defence-league-muslims-pol ice that the EDL are not extreme, and that Muslim groups would do well to engage with us. (below: EDL Supporters Cross the Iconic Tower Bridge) Tower_Hamlets__Not_Just_Another_Peaceful_EDL_DemoPerhaps if they understood some of the reasons http://englishdefenceleague.org/10-reasons-to-demonstrate-in-tower-hamlets/ why we were in Tower Hamlets, then hostility from the Muslim community could be avoided. Dialogue, as we will continue to say http://englishdefenceleague.org/tommy-robinson-challenges-david-cameron-to- a-live-debate/ , is far more effective at ensuring 'community cohesion' than listening to provocateurs who claim that the only reasons we demonstrate are to divide communities, 'spread hatred', or incite violence. What an offensive thing to claim and, ironically, what an effective way of encouraging conflict. The ability to exercise our democratic right to peaceful protest, in the face of people who would rather it were taken away, is of particular importance. Large numbers did come out in opposition to the EDL demonstration, but there will always be those who oppose freedom, or who are deceived by manipulative radical activists. Of the individuals present at the counter-demonstration, there was at least one man who may have had good reasons for opposing the EDL demonstration. He was Tower Hamlets Mayor Lutfur Rahman - the man sacked from the Labour Party because of his links with Islamic extremists
[osint] Anti-Israel Durban Declaration to be Reaffirmed
http://eyeontheun.us1.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=779a7657507fa1127185b036aid=725a4e0bbde=96e585893a http://www.eyeontheun.org/images/spacer.gif http://www.eyeontheun.org/images/spacer.gif For Immediate Release: September 9, 2011 *NEW* Follow us on http://eyeontheun.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=779a7657507fa1127185b036aid=17622ecc21e=96e585893a Facebook and http://eyeontheun.us1.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=779a7657507fa1127185b036aid=6efc37c481e=96e585893a Twitter. See our September 22 Conference http://eyeontheun.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=779a7657507fa1127185b036aid=98a9331d83e=96e585893a web-site. Contact: Anne Bayefsky i...@eyeontheun.org Anti-Israel Durban Declaration to be Reaffirmed This article by Anne Bayefsky appears on National Review Online http://eyeontheun.us1.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=779a7657507fa1127185b036aid=67157850e7e=96e585893a . On Thursday, Western negotiators at the U.N. caved in to the demands of envoys from Islamic states to renew a modern-day form of the decades-long U.N. smear campaign alleging that the Jewish state is racist. Diplomats agreed on a new “anti-racism” declaration that went public Friday at noon. The document is intended to be adopted by all the heads of state and government in attendance at the U.N. “Durban III” conference to be held in New York City on September 22. So far, nine democratic countries, including the United States, Israel, and Canada, have decided to boycott the event and will not agree to the racist “anti-racism” manifesto. The final sticking point in negotiations, conducted at U.N. headquarters over the last two months, was whether the original Durban Declaration adopted in 2001 in Durban, South Africa, would be reaffirmed. Passed just three days before 9/11, with the enthusiastic participation of Yasser Arafat, the Durban Declaration grossly discriminates against Israel — the only one of 192 UN members charged with racism in the document. On Thursday, Islamic states led by Benin, as well as South Africa and the rest of the bloc of developing states called the G-77 — which constitutes a majority of UN members — held firm to their demand to reaffirm the whole message of the 2001 declaration. Western opposition fell apart. The document therefore reads: “We heads of state and government … reaffirm our political commitment to the full and effective implementation of the Durban Declaration.” The document also catapults the Durban Declaration and its racist-Israel libel into the center of the U.N.’s “anti-racism” agenda. It “reaffirms” — actually for the first time — that the Durban Declaration is “a comprehensive framework and solid foundation” for combating racism. It downgrades the relative status of the U.N. racism treaty, which has been on the books for 46 years; negotiators refused to repeat even the 2009 Durban II statement that the treaty was “the principal international instrument to prevent, combat and eradicate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” or to call for the treaty’s universal ratification. Non-parties to the U.N. racism treaty include the likes of Angola, Malaysia, North Korea, and Burma/Myanmar. In U.N. backrooms Thursday, Islamic states and South Africa taunted the weakness of Western negotiators. South Africa said: “You say you want to commemorate the ten years of the existence of that document, but you don’t want to reaffirm it … Come to terms with the fact that you are celebrating ten years of the existence of a document.” Indeed, the goal of the entire spectacle is now unmistakably set out in the new declaration’s opening words: “We heads of state … gathered at the UN Headquarters … to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Durban Declaration.” It will be a celebration of a conference best remembered for handing anti-Semitism a global stage. What happens next? The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, a native of Durban and lead champion of the “anti-racism” sham, will begin to parade the new declaration as a contribution to the equal protection of human rights. Prior to Durban II, Pillay audaciously told reporters: “The Durban Declaration transcended divisive and intolerant approaches.” The one and only head of state to attend Durban II in Geneva was the tolerant Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And as soon as the conference adopted an “outcome document,” Pillay held a news conference calling the event “a success story” and pointing to the language which related specifically to Palestinians. Pillay is well known as the U.N.’s top salesman of the notorious Goldstone report, which she continues to push despite the main author’s having retracted the central allegations against Israel. Not surprisingly, therefore, Pillay has been issuing statements calling objections to Durban III “political distractions” “from the
[osint] Bold New Approach to Foreign Policy
http://www.newswithviews.com/Eakman/beverly159.htm BOLD NEW APPROACH TO FOREIGN POLICY by Beverly Eakman September 9, 2011 NewsWithViews.com Last week (September 1), columnist Merrill Matthews asked, What is a conservative foreign policy? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/1/matthews-what-is-a-conservat ive-foreign-policy/print in a Washington Times commentary. He cited various U.S. Presidents and wannabes as far back as Ronald Reagan, many of whom had no vision at all, or whose goals devolved into nation-building. The upshot of his musings was that conservatives have largely avoided a real foreign policy debate for decades. Ronald Reagan is the only President in recent times to articulate a specific vision - i.e., challenging Soviet expansionism and restoring the strength of, and respect for, the U.S. and its military, to which the left predictably howled Cowboy Diplomacy! Today, candidate Ron Paul decries all forms of intervention, decrying what Thomas Jefferson described as entangling alliances. Given our present predicament, this view has a certain appeal. Nevertheless, there is a void. Most conservative candidates do indeed appear reluctant to fill it - possibly for fear of provoking the liberal media, and even their own assortment of sometime-allies. And let's be honest: the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration have done more to make Americans angry than to make them safe. Yet, avoiding the topic does nothing to portray conservatives as bold action figures with innovative ideas. At least President Reagan's Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! and the Strategic Defense Initiative were memorable, from a public-relations standpoint. The following, then, is a proposal for a vastly altered, unambiguous U.S. foreign policy message which reflects 21st century fiscal and domestic realities. Some aspects echo candidate Ron Paul's statements, with a few important deviations: The United States has exactly zero interest in appending foreign territory or people. We have quite enough individuals flocking to our shores as it is - from asylum-seekers to opportunity-seekers to entitlement-seekers. We are, however, committed to defending our nation and our citizens from harm, including those employed overseas. The United States therefore sends this message to the world: Do not make us go to war with you! If you attack our country, its properties, its Territories or its private citizens going about their business in foreign lands, we will consider that an Act of War and respond forcefully. You will not win. We are light-years ahead of you technologically; we have the best-prepared armed force on the planet. Attack us, and your country will be leveled. We can, and will, demand unconditional surrender so that your people, formally sanctioned by your government or not, will not attack us again. This means no more nation-building. No more attempts to buy good will by providing America's enemies state-of-the-art infrastructures that we cannot afford for ourselves. If you, or your proxies, commit what we have defined as an Act of War upon the United States, then you will sit in your own rubble - if you survive. There will be no more pre-emptive police actions, no undeclared wars to serve as a warning. Regarding humanitarian aid: Our nation's many charitable organizations are free to offer services, accepting the risks and expenses of such endeavors from donations. The U.S. Government will neither hinder nor help such efforts. Humanitarian projects are, by definition, philanthropic. Therefore, the U.S. Government will no longer confiscate (steal) money from citizens, who may not wish to donate to specialized philanthropic causes. Such effort must be entirely voluntary - with one caveat, for which a tax break will be provided to any requesting charity (lest this stipulation be seen as an unfunded mandate): Any materiel used in a humanitarian effort, whether from natural disasters (e.g., famines, earthquakes) or war-caused displacement, sickness and ruin, will dispatch no supplies or literature that are not embossed with the donating organization's logo, clearly visible, as well as a U.S. flag. This action serves to curtail the practice of foreign outlaws appropriating American-made goods for re-transmittal under their own name. As for propping up regimes deemed friendly to the U.S. or its interests, including the legions of staff we send to fragile and unstable nations to help construct Constitutions, safeguard voting rights and implement democracy: The United States is no longer in the business of imposing a specific type of government on inhabitants of other nations. After nearly 70 years, we now recognize that each country must be ready to move to representative government and democracy; it cannot be forced from without. Nor can the United States police the entire world - even in the face of what we view as grave tragedies - in the misplaced hope that
[osint] Thank You, America, for the Golden Age of Islam
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0911/west090911.php3?printer_friendly Thank you, America, for the golden age of Islam By Diana West http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | It is something to have gone 10 years without an Islamic attack of similarly gigantic proportions to those of Sept. 11, 2001, but it is not enough. That's because the decade we look back on is marked by a specifically Islamic brand of security from jihad. It was a security bought by the Bush and Obama administrations' policies of appeasement based in apology for, and irrational denial of, Islam's war doctrine, its anti-liberty laws and its non-Western customs. As a result of this policy of appeasement -- submission -- we now stand poised on the brink of a golden age. Tragically for freedom of speech, conscience and equality before the law, however, it is an Islamic golden age. It's not just the post-9/11 rush into Western society of Islamic tenets and traditions on everything from law to finance to diet that has heralded this golden age, although that's part of it. More important is the fact that our central institutions have actively primed themselves for it, having absorbed and implemented the central codes of Islam in the years since the 9/11 attacks, exactly as the jihadists hoped and schemed. Take the U.S. military, symbol plus enforcer of American security. In Afghanistan, our forces are now trained on the sanctity of the holy book (the Quran) and go to significant steps to protect it, as the official International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) website reported last year. Are they similarly trained to take significant steps to protect other books? Hardly. It's reckless and irresponsible to demand that troops make the protection of any book a priority in a war zone. But it's not merely the case that U.S. troops have become protectors of the Quran in the decade following 9/11. Never talk badly about the Qu'ran or its contents, ISAF ordered troops earlier this year. Did the Pentagon restrict language about Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto? They, too, were blueprints for world conquest that the United States opposed. Of course not. But the Quran is different. It is protected by Islamic law, and that's enough for the Pentagon. Not incidentally, ISAF further cautioned troops to direct suspects to remove any Qurans from the vicinity before troops conduct a search -- no doubt for the unstated fear that infidel troops might defile the protected book. None may touch the Qu'ran except in the state of ritual purity, the Islamic law book Reliance of the Traveller declares. And ritual purity, naturally, is a state a non-Muslim can never, ever achieve under Islam. Since when did Uncle Sam incorporate Islamic law into military protocols? Since 9/11. Now take the State Department, symbol and nerve center of U.S. action on the world stage. In July, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced a collaborative effort between the United States and the OIC, newly repackaged as Organization of the Islamic Cooperation. (It used to be C for Conference.) The get-together planned for Washington, D.C., is supposed to implement a non-binding resolution against religious stereotyping (read: Islamic stereotyping) that passed last March at the U.N. Human Rights Council. Such stereotyping, of course, includes everything from honest assessments of the links between Islamic doctrine and Islamic terrorism to political cartoons. This makes this U.S.-led international effort nothing short of a sinister attempt to snuff free speech about Islam. And that sure sounds like a U.S.-co-chaired assault on the First Amendment. Not only is this treachery on the part of the U.S. government, it also happens to be part and parcel of the OIC's official 10-year-plan. Since when did Uncle Sam get in the business of doing the bidding of the OIC? Since 9/11. This is just a snapshot of what the rush toward Islamization as a goal of national policy looks like, 10 years since the Twin Towers collapsed in a colossal cloud of dust and fire. The air has cleared, but the appeasement and the Islamization go on. Thus, a golden age begins, but unless we throw off this mental yoke of submission, it cannot be our own. http://ads.doclix.com/adserver/serve/img/ad_img/default1m.pngProtect Your Community!Earn A Criminal Justice DegreeLearn More Today! Prepare For The Future By Earning Your Degree Online in Criminal Justice. [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
