Who are the Terrorists??

There are many, many good writers on the Internet and I enjoy cruising around and reading different pieces. With how busy my days can become I don't always have the time to spend the hours that it takes to pull together good written pieces with sources so I've been getting lazy and posting others written work. I don't think this is a bad thing as maybe you haven't read their articles so it is worth giving their articles more exposure. Plus it opens up your eyes to other websites that you may not have explored yourself.

That having been said, here is a good piece from the Winter Patriot blogspot. I encourage you to check all the links and read all the material offered to get a good and thorough understanding of all the issues. It's the only way to really understand everything..

"Who Is The Real Terrorist?" Reports From Pakistan And Afghanistan Differ
Sunday, January 20, 2008

A couple of days ago I lost the only draft of a piece that was half-finished and already so complicated it made my head hurt. In that piece I had quoted Chris Floyd quoting Scott Horton quoting Carlotta Gall and David Rohde and Barnett Rubin. Are you with me so far?

The subject was Pakistan and Afghanistan: The piece by Gall and Rhode talked about Pakistan having lost control of the extremists that had been nurtured by the Pakistani intelligence agency, ISI, before Pakistan joined the War on Terror. The Rubin piece linked this loss of control to the bombing of the Serena Hotel [photo], Kabul's luxury spot for foreign visitors.

I don't have the heart to reproduce the post as I originally intended it, especially since reading it might make your head hurt, too. So I will try to give you more or the less the same information in a very different way.

I once read that the best blog entries consist of links, quotes, and comments. Maybe that's the secret.

Carlotta Gall and David Rohde in the New York Times: Militants Escape Control of Pakistan, Officials Say
Pakistan’s premier military intelligence agency has lost control of some of the networks of Pakistani militants it has nurtured since the 1980s, and is now suffering the violent blowback of that policy, two former senior intelligence officials and other officials close to the agency say.

As the military has moved against them, the militants have turned on their former handlers, the officials said. Joining with other extremist groups, they have battled Pakistani security forces and helped militants carry out a record number of suicide attacks last year, including some aimed directly at army and intelligence units as well as prominent political figures, possibly even Benazir Bhutto.

The growing strength of the militants, many of whom now express support for Al Qaeda’s global jihad, presents a grave threat to Pakistan’s security, as well as NATO efforts to push back the Taliban in Afghanistan. American officials have begun to weigh more robust covert operations to go after Al Qaeda in the lawless border areas because they are so concerned that the Pakistani government is unable to do so.
...

One former senior Pakistani intelligence official, as well as other people close to the agency, acknowledged that the ISI led the effort to manipulate Pakistan’s last national election in 2002, and offered to drop corruption cases against candidates who would back President Pervez Musharraf.

A person close to the ISI said Mr. Musharraf had now ordered the agency to ensure that the coming elections were free and fair, and denied that the agency was working to rig the vote. But the acknowledgment of past rigging is certain to fuel opposition fears of new meddling.
...

The two former high-ranking intelligence officials acknowledged that after Sept. 11, 2001, when President Musharraf publicly allied Pakistan with the Bush administration, the ISI could not rein in the militants it had nurtured for decades as a proxy force to exert pressure on India and Afghanistan. After the agency unleashed hard-line Islamist beliefs, the officials said, it struggled to stop the ideology from spreading.

Another former senior intelligence official said dozens of ISI officers who trained militants had come to sympathize with their cause and had had to be expelled from the agency. He said three purges had taken place since the late 1980s and included the removal of three ISI directors suspected of being sympathetic to the militants.
...

After 9/11, the Bush administration pressed Mr. Musharraf to choose a side in fighting Islamist extremism and to abandon Pakistan’s longtime support for the Taliban and other Islamist militants.

In the 1990s, the ISI supported the militants as a proxy force to contest Indian-controlled Kashmir, the border territory that India and Pakistan both claim, and to gain a controlling influence in neighboring Afghanistan. In the 1980s, the United States supported militants, too, funneling billions of dollars to Islamic fighters battling Soviet forces in Afghanistan through the ISI, vastly increasing the agency’s size and power.

Publicly, Mr. Musharraf agreed to reverse course in 2001, and he has received $10 billion in aid for Pakistan since then in return. In an interview in November, he vehemently defended the conduct of the ISI, an agency that, according to American officials, was under his firm control for the last eight years while he served as both president and army chief.

Mr. Musharraf dismissed criticism of the ISI’s relationship with the militants. He cited the deaths of 1,000 Pakistani soldiers and police officers in battles with the militants in recent years — as well as several assassination attempts against himself — as proof of the seriousness of Pakistan’s counterterrorism effort.
...

One militant leader, Maulana Masood Azhar, typifies how extremists once trained by the ISI have broken free of the agency’s control, turned against the government and joined with other militants to create powerful new networks.

In 2000, Mr. Azhar received support from the ISI when he founded Jaish-e-Muhammad, or Army of Muhammad, a Pakistani militant group fighting Indian forces in Kashmir, according to Robert Grenier, who served as the Central Intelligence Agency station chief in Islamabad from 1999 to 2002. The ISI intermittently provided training and operational coordination to such groups, he said, but struggled to fully control them.

Mr. Musharraf banned Jaish-e-Muhammad and detained Mr. Azhar after militants carried out an attack on the Indian Parliament building in December 2001. Indian officials accused Jaish-e-Muhammad and another Pakistani militant group of masterminding the attack. After India massed hundreds of thousands of troops on Pakistan’s border, Mr. Musharraf vowed in a nationally televised speech that January to crack down on all militants in Pakistan.

“We will take strict action against any Pakistani who is involved in terrorism inside the country or abroad,” he said. Two weeks later, a British-born member of Mr. Azhar’s group, Ahmed Omar Sheikh, kidnapped Daniel Pearl, a reporter for The Wall Street Journal who was beheaded by his captors. Mr. Sheikh surrendered to the ISI, the agency that had supported Jaish-e-Muhammad, and was sentenced to death for the kidnapping.

After Mr. Pearl’s killing, Pakistani officials arrested more than 2,000 people in a crackdown. But within a year, Mr. Azhar and most of the 2,000 militants who had been arrested were freed. “I never believed that government ties with these groups was being irrevocably cut,” said Mr. Grenier, now a managing director at Kroll, a risk consulting firm.

At the same time, Pakistan seemingly went “through the motions” when it came to hunting Taliban leaders who fled into Pakistan after the 2001 American invasion of Afghanistan, he said.

Encouraged by the United States, the Pakistanis focused their resources on arresting senior Qaeda members, he said, which they successfully did from 2002 to 2005. Since then, arrests have slowed as Al Qaeda and other militant groups have become more entrenched in the tribal areas.

Asked in 2006 why the Pakistani government did not move against the leading Taliban commander Jalaluddin Haqqani, and his son Sirajuddin, who are based in the tribal areas and have long had links with Al Qaeda, one senior ISI official said it was because Pakistan needed to retain some assets of its own.
...

“Pakistan would certainly be better off if the ISI were never used for domestic political purposes,” said Mr. Grenier, the former C.I.A. Islamabad station chief. “That goes without saying.”

Continue with reading the story here.

Sphere: Related Content

H.R. 1955 and The Generalization of Terrorism

Good article on H.R. 1955 and it's dastardly ramifications from a fellow blogger. Many of us have the same thoughts on this subject but just say it a bit differently. Also, there are good articles that should be circulated and this is one of them. And sometimes it's just easier to let other people take the podium...

Indentity Check

Anok
1.17.08

Yesterday I wrote a rather dismal bit about our country’s downward spiral into regulated actions and thoughts and an overwhelming Orwellian State. I also said I would comment on the actual bill that inspired the doomsday post, and so, I am delivering.

According to Thomas H.R. 1955, and its related bill, S. 1959 outlines the problems of "homegrown terrorism, and radical violence". There are, and have been serious discussions among us "lefty" and even not-so-lefty bloggers and ordinary citizens. There has been an amazing amount of silence about the subject from our government, and mainstream media sources.

I touched on this bill, by reposting someone else’s post about it after the bill passed the house. I want to remind everyone, that the house passed the bill, without debate on it, 404-6 with only 22 not voting. No debate! At that time, the discussion was mainly about who the bill would affect. The argument is that it only addresses violent acts , thus peaceful protesters, conscientious objectors, and ordinary bloggers like you and me would be perfectly exempt from anything having to do with the piece of crap legislation. But I would like for everyone to stop for a moment, and take a closer look at the bill. Last time, I posted someone else’s words. This time, it is my own, with careful consideration, research, and of course - the overtone of my Anarchist sensibilities. I’m trying to keep this light hearted, if you can tell, because every time I read this bill, I get a little nauseous.

Let us take a look at what the government defines as "Violent Radicalization";

`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

Ok, so it consists of people using "ideological based violence" to promote their agenda. Got it. But wait! What is ideological based violence? Well, it goes on to say;

`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.

Aha! Herein lies a great deal of the vague language that has caused such a brouhaha amongst us "lefties". "Planned use" what exactly does planning entail? How deep into planning would something have to be, in order for it to go from thought, to an act of Violent Radical Behavior? Would they need maps, weapons, and well trained militia style radicals at the ready? Or would it simply entail people gathered together to discuss what kind of actions they might want to take before actually committing to anything? And how would one prove that they have, or haven’t committed to any such action? Would that thinking it through qualify as "planning" or "threatening"? Or would it fall under the category of common sense, that says you can’t be guilty of a crime if you only thought about it, but never committed it?

It doesn’t just address the use of violence, though. It also says "force". Who defines force? Would peaceful protesters who happen to be blocking a building or sidewalk or who refuse to vacate be considered "forceful"?

Many would say yes - and in a way, I agree that they are. However, and here is the real problem, how does a group of other wise ordinary citizens exercising their first amendment rights - albeit in a civil disobedient manner - go from protester, to terrorist?

Haven’t we begun to throw "terrorist" around a little too much lately? If you listen to right-wing pundits, you might believe that anyone who opposes (a sort of "ideological force" if you will) the government on any base, is a terrorist at home. From the Department of Homeland Security’s "National Strategy for Homeland Security", addresses violent radicalization, if only briefly as;

The terrorist threat to the Homeland is not restricted to violent Islamic extremist groups. We also confront an ongoing threat posed by domestic terrorists based and operating strictly within the United States. Often referred to as “single-issue” groups, they include white supremacist groups, animal rights extremists, and eco-terrorist groups, among others.

Now, I think we all agree that white supremacists are a bad lot, the antics of hard hitting animal rights groups such as PETA flirt with the line between legal and illegal actions…and…eco-terrorists? What is an eco-terrorist? From Wikipedia;

For example, a bill proposed by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in Texas called the "Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act", begins with the description, "An act relating to criminal offenses involving acts against certain activities involving animals or involving natural resources and to civil consequences arising from convictions of those offenses." The bill defines an "animal rights or ecological terrorist organization" as "two or more persons organized for the purpose of supporting any politically motivated activity intended to obstruct or deter any person from participating in an activity involving animals or an activity involving natural resources."[5]

If the state of Texas can define terrorist actions on behalf of the environment or animals as "two or more persons organized for the purpose of supporting any politically motivated activity intended to obstruct or deter any person from participating in an activity involving […]"

Any activity? There is no standard there for violence… Legally protected protests, sit ins, and otherwise peaceful forms of civil disobedience are activities by two or more people intended to deter (any) people from engaging in certain acts. Boycotts are a time tested form of financial obstruction or determent - aimed at companies (legally considered individual citizens) who engage in or support actions that we often oppose. Furthermore, it takes far more than two people to make it successful.

Are we to now understand that these forms of redress - a consistent form of grievance airing, social motivation, and change initiation - are acts of terrorism?!

If Texas can make it a law, our government can do the same. That legislation sets the precedent for labeling time honored traditions as acts of terrorism.

I seriously recommend that anyone concerned about our loss of rights take a look - not just at the bill on the senate’s plate - but also the Homeland Security documents, and start looking into laws and bills that have the kind of language that support "ideological warfare" on "Ideological, home grown, or radical terrorists".

The language is vague enough to allow room for further restrictions, some of what I have read is downright scary in the sense that it already eradicates the need for actual violence to occur, or even for "planned violence" to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

The worst part about all of this is the end game. If person has been labeled a "terrorist", American citizen or otherwise, they can be locked up indefinitely because their right to Habeas Corpus no longer exists. In fact, if I am not mistaken, our country is prepared to take away all constitutional rights for suspected terrorists. Suspected terrorists.

Still yet, if our country were to initiate Martial Law because of some disaster, then this bill, H.R. 1955/S. 1959 would only be strengthened - and our country to lock up anybody who starts gathering in groups, for any purpose if they so decide.

Make no mistake, the Homeland Security department has this bill now, is reviewing it, revising it, and it will probably end up with some different language in it when it finally gets back to the senate. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was more inclusive, like the bill from Texas. Many people will still say "It could never happen here." or "They would never…" or proclaim that they trust the government to act in an appropriate manner with this sort of power. I am revisiting this issue because it is of the utmost importance that we not ignore the potential here. Take a look around, there has been no country, no citizen throughout history who hasn’t be deceived, enslaved, or outright betrayed by their government in the cruelest manner. Governments have a nasty habit of turning on it’s people.

Humans have not progressed to the point of eradicating this type of power hungry behavior - look at world events, it is still occurring today! Are we so naive to think that it would never happen to us? The only way to prevent it from happening here, is to actively fight to prevent it. To blindly trust in a government with our freedoms, liberties and personal safety is to make a grave mistake. Isn’t it time we learned to see the slippery slope before we are pushed down it?

Think I am an alarmist? Read it for yourselves, then take a look through your history books, and pay close attention to other countries who have gone through a similar metamorphosis. Read the end of their chapter, to see what our future could hold.

{For your consideration: The links provided to the Thomas page will ask you to resubmit your query. It is time sensitive, so search for the bill by it’s number H.R. 1955 and reference it with (110th) to make sure you have the right bill. Or you can just google it. The Department of Homeland security link is a PDF for those of you who hate PDF’s, this is your warning! The Wikipedia link is for eco-terrorism, but the texts are sourced on that page.}

Sphere: Related Content

Learn About Chemtrails

Chemtrails... There is lots of discussion as to whether or not they are 'real'. However, I've seen them myself and I KNOW what a contrail looks like and what I saw was NOT a contrail. In fact, the first time I saw them I was amazed and nearly pulled over on the the highway to watch. I also wondered who I should call to report them because I knew it was NOT normal sky or plane activity. After a time I learned about chemtrails and BINGO it was what I saw that day on the highway. So I believe they are very real and that something of a very suspicious nature is happening in our skies. Look up, pay attention!

If you are not familiar with chemtrails you should get familiar with them and then let other people know about them too. I've included a handful of sites here to begin your education process plus a debunker's site (it is only fair to present both sides of the story).

Here are just a few videos - one from Austin, TX, one from New Orleans, LA and one from England showing chemtrail activity. In the one from England he even shows you how the chemtrail activity looks from satellite:

Chemtrail Information Sites:

Chemtrail Central

Educate Yourself: Chemtrails

Chemtrails Data Page

Aerosol Operation Crimes and Cover-up

Conspiracy Planet: Chemtrails

Chemtrails: Hall of Shame

Chemtrails: What They Are and What We Know About Them

Chemtrails 911

Debunker Site:

New Mexicans for Science and Reason

Sphere: Related Content

Dead Souls: The Pentagon Plan to Create Remorseless "Warfighters"

Chris Floyd , Empire Burlesque

January 12, 2008

Penny Coleman at Alternet.com gives us a look at a new program designed to dull the moral sensibilities of American soldiers in combat on the imperial frontiers: Pentagon, Big Pharma: Drug Troops to Numb Them to Horrors of War.

But as we'll see below, this attempt to peddle magic pills to chase away the horrors of war is just one front in a long-term, wide-ranging "warfighter enhancement program" -- including the neurological and genetic re-engineering of soldiers' minds and bodies to create what the Pentagon calls "iron bodied and iron willed personnel": tireless, relentless, remorseless, unstoppable.

I.
Coleman takes specific aim at the "Psychological Kevlar Act," aimed at reducing the alarming spread of soldier suicides and post-traumatic stress disorder spawned by the illegal invasion of Iraq. The program relies heavily on dosing soldiers with Propranalol, which, "if taken immediately following a traumatic event, can subdue a victim's stress response and so soften his or her perception of the memory," as Coleman notes. "That does not mean the memory has been erased, but proponents claim that the drug can render it emotionally toothless." She continues:

But is it moral to weaken memories of horrendous acts a person has committed? Some would say that there is no difference between offering injured soldiers penicillin to prevent an infection and giving a drug that prevents them from suffering from a posttraumatic stress injury for the rest of their lives. Others, like Leon Kass, former chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, object to propranolol's use on the grounds that it medicates away one's conscience...Barry Romo, a national coordinator for Vietnam Veterans Against the War, is even more blunt. "That's the devil pill," he says. "That's the monster pill, the anti-morality pill. That's the pill that can make men and women do anything and think they can get away with it. Even if it doesn't work, what's scary is that a young soldier could believe it will."

It is "a kind of moral lobotomy," says Coleman, whose husband killed himself after coming home from the Vietnam War. She puts the bill -- which is being sponsored by Robert Kennedy Jr., among others -- in the historical context of military training:

Since World War II, our military has sought and found any number of ways to override the values and belief systems recruits have absorbed from their families, schools, communities and religions. Using the principles of operant conditioning, the military has found ways to reprogram their human software, overriding those characteristics that are inconvenient in a military context, most particularly the inherent resistance human beings have to killing others of their own species. "Modern combat training conditions soldiers to act reflexively to stimuli," says Lt. Col. Peter Kilner, a professor of philosophy and ethics at West Point, "and this maximizes soldiers' lethality, but it does so by bypassing their moral autonomy. Soldiers are conditioned to act without considering the moral repercussions of their actions; they are enabled to kill without making the conscious decision to do so. If they are unable to justify to themselves the fact that they killed another human being, they will likely -- and understandably -- suffer enormous guilt. This guilt manifests itself as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and it has damaged the lives of thousands of men who performed their duty in combat."

Rest of the story here.

Sphere: Related Content