posted 09-14-2001 04:47 PM            

quote:

---

Defence Journal:

Osama Bin Laden started off as a freedom fighter, a Mujahideen, against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. In the early 80s this was not unusual since the Afghan movement attracted activists from all over the muslim world, what was unusual was that this was a moneyed man, a scion of a famous construction family in Saudi Arabia, personally worth over US$ 300 million. That he chose to face the rigour and the risks was indeed worth notice - and praise. He was actively sponsored by the CIA and other intelligence agencies, soon making his mark by acts of bravery, leading his men in action from the front. As any person of any military consequence knows, the sound of a bullet is a great equalizer, it separates the men from the boys. As a leader Osama Bin Laden earned the respect of men hardened in battle. The purity of his purpose symbolised his penchant for sacrifice, at that time suiting [the] CIA and other handlers. As the Afghan War wound down, Osama Bin Laden came into his own and started looking at horizons beyond Afghanistan, falling first out of favour in his own homeland for his rather ‘radical’ views with respect to the established customs and traditions.

...

The Cruise missiles devastated a couple of training camps in Afghanistan (made originally by CIA and CIA funds) where Osama Bin Laden was suspected to be. At least one of the camps was being run by the Harkat ul Ansar (HUA) for training Kashmiri Mujahideen

...

As for the US, their Cruise missile attack will cause terrorism to proliferate instead of containing it, it will provide the Bin Ladens of the world more recruits. One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist and vice versa. That sums up the dilemma that confronts both the US and Osama Bin Laden, once the darling of the CIA (and by extension the US), now the object of it’s concentrated hatred. Can one contain terrorism by countering it with terrorism?
http://www.defencejournal.com/sept98/osamabinladen.htm

---

So, it seems that our tax dollars have gone a long way towards helping the very same group that has now attacked us so brutally. Okay hindsight is 20/20, but maybe we shouldn't be getting involved and spending big bucks on wars in Afganistan, when we could use that money here at home to educate and provide for our own.

posted 09-14-2001 07:17 PM            

Herein lies the nature of fanaticism.

Instead of turning over the world's Number One suspect in a mass murder of gargantuan proportion (as many as 5,000 dead), let's harber and abet the (most likely) criminal and then later pretend to declare a Holy War against the Free World.

I've got news for some: The Taliban is not hated within their own country for no reason. They are so intolerant as to make, say, Chairman Mao seem like a wayward pussycat in comparison.

Girl children are routinely genitally mutilated in Afghanistan; even while, as grown women, they have no rights (save for those "granted" by their husbands and the state); though honestly, men fare little better in this culture. The bombs which flew against their capitol last Tuesday evening WERE LAUNCHED BY THEIR OWN PEOPLE -- they are currently in a civil war, for these and many other reasons. They refuse reason on "grounds" of religion. They refuse the will and desire (to become even moderately "modern") of their own "governed". In this, they refuse the inevitable advance of time and reject any possible "influence" from the outside world -- to the point of inviting war, all the while "denying" the same.

THESE ARE NOT "NICE", "CIVILIZED" PEOPLE. Not as you or I might come to recognize the term, nor by any stretch of the imagination, nor certainly even by the measure of their own culture. Rational, yes. Well-studied, yes. Pleasant conversationalists? Certainly. Intelligent? Yes. "Condoning" the WTC attacks? Well, they say they don't "condone" them -- yet they have no problem harboring, aiding and abetting those responsible, so you tell me who is lying to whom, and about what.

Anyone who actually believes that a "Jihad" (a so-called "Holy War") has not ALREADY been declared against America, the West, and the entirety of the Free World as of last Tuesday morning, roughly 8:30 a.m. Eastern time, is living in a fairy tale world which does not exist for the Taliban.

You can believe that fairy tale for as long as you wish, as far as they're concerned -- for it just makes you an easier target. (Surprise: Shoulder-launched missiles, biologicals, and "suitcase nukes" -- among many other things -- likely stand at the ready. Are you willing to believe that our intelligence community knows about these things as well?)

Meanwhile, they (the Taliband) will make proclamations and overtures so as to bide for time; they firmly believe that any lie told to "infidels" (the rest of the non-"fundamentalist" Muslim world) is justified in their eyes: Allah will "forgive" them. And they are willing to die -- and if necessary, to take the lives of the rest of the world with them -- in order to prove it.

My best guess at this moment is that they are merely stalling for time -- time with which to find a way and to finalize the diplomatic overtures/contacts/bribes necessary to ferry Osama Bin Lauden off to North Korea (and therefore, by geography, to force this as an issue between the US the government of mainland China) so as to involve yet more "infidels" in the "greater struggle", whereby they hope that perhaps one or the other of the "infidel governments" can begin the dirty work of annihilation of the remaining infidels FOR them...thus securing their place in Heaven at the side of Allah.

As I said, they are NOT stupid. (Study the tremendous amount of high-level intel they gathered in order to carry out last Tuesday's wave of attacks, and you'll see this as well.)

Mark my words, Bush is no saint; certainly neither was his father. But don't buy the lie, not from either side: We are ALREADY at war, whether any of us chooses to realize this fact or not.

posted 09-14-2001 08:30 PM            

You seem to have an understanding of the gravity of this situation, as well as the depth at which this game is being played, Djembemon.

Now, the Taliban is a brutal regime, no question about it. So is Saddam Hussein's. But it is the United States who is responsible for enabling the rise to power of both of those entities. This is a point that seems to be conveniently overlooked by those advocating all out war in the Middle East.

My own feeling is that this situation is quite a bit different from the Gulf War. If our objective is to remove the threat of further terrorism, then one has to assume that we are talking about an all out invasion of most of that region. Carpet bombing major population centers isn't going to secure our safety.

So, we are talking about a land war; an expression of American military force that is sure to raise a few eyebrows in China. Aside from any concerns that our political opponents may have about waging all out war within spitting distance of their borders, one also has to consider what effect this will have on our own ability(?) to defend our homeland.

If any anology can be made to recent historical events, I submit that the closest match would be the Cuban Missile Crisis. We are dealing with a threat to te continental United States and events are spinning rapidly beyond our ability to control.

My only remaining hope is that the current US military posturing is meant as a message to the Taliban and that they decide to turn over Osama Bin Laden rather than risk an all out war with the US.

Consider this as well; direct military action by the US is certain to be a unifying factor in the Middle East. And the immediate retalitory target from the Arab perspective will of course be Israel. We are liable to be put in a defensive posture quite a bit sooner than most people realize. If we don't commit our resources to protecting Tel Aviv, we are assured of a nuclear response.

In fact, I can see no other eventual outcome. The probability is that there are, in fact, nuclear and biological weapons already in place for use against this country. In my estimation, we need to focus all our attention on securing our citizens safety and worry about the Taliban at some later date. Again, this problem is entirely self-created. Only by looking objectively at what caused our current dilemma will we be able to prevent another re-occurrence.

posted 09-14-2001 08:42 PM            

by Michel Chossudovsky
Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa

Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), Montréal
Posted 12 September 2001

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A few hours after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Bush administration concluded without supporting evidence, that "Ousmane bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organisation were prime suspects". CIA Director George Tenet stated that bin Laden has the capacity to plan ``multiple attacks with little or no warning.'' Secretary of State Colin Powell called the attacks "an act of war" and President Bush confirmed in an evening televised address to the Nation that he would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them". Former CIA Director James Woolsey pointed his finger at "state sponsorship," implying the complicity of one or more foreign governments. In the words of former National Security Adviser, Lawrence Eagleburger, "I think we will show when we get attacked like this, we are terrible in our strength and in our retribution."

Meanwhile, parroting official statements, the Western media mantra has approved the launching of "punitive actions" directed against civilian targets in the Middle East. In the words of William Saffire writing in the New York Times: "When we reasonably determine our attackers' bases and camps, we must pulverize them -- minimizing but accepting the risk of collateral damage" -- and act overtly or covertly to destabilize terror's national hosts".

The following text outlines the history of Ousmane Bin Laden and the links of the Islamic "Jihad" to the formulation of US foreign policy during the Cold War and its aftermath.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prime suspect in the New York and Washington terrorists attacks, branded by the FBI as an "international terrorist" for his role in the African US embassy bombings, Saudi born Ousmane bin Laden was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war "ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders". 1

In 1979 "the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA" was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal.2:

With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.3

The Islamic "jihad" was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade:

In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.4

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) using Pakistan's military Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam:

Predominant themes were that Islam was a complete socio-political ideology, that holy Islam was being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow.5

Pakistan's Intelligence Apparatus
Pakistan's ISI was used as a "go-between". The CIA covert support to the "jihad" operated indirectly through the Pakistani ISI, --i.e. the CIA did not channel its support directly to the Mujahideen. In other words, for these covert operations to be "successful", Washington was careful not to reveal the ultimate objective of the "jihad", which consisted in destroying the Soviet Union.

In the words of CIA's Milton Beardman "We didn't train Arabs". Yet according to Abdel Monam Saidali, of the Al-aram Center for Strategic Studies in Cairo, bin Laden and the "Afghan Arabs" had been imparted "with very sophisticated types of training that was allowed to them by the CIA" 6

CIA's Beardman confirmed, in this regard, that Ousmane bin Laden was not aware of the role he was playing on behalf of Washington. In the words of bin Laden (quoted by Beardman): "neither I, nor my brothers saw evidence of American help". 7

Motivated by nationalism and religious fervor, the Islamic warriors were unaware that they were fighting the Soviet Army on behalf of Uncle Sam. While there were contacts at the upper levels of the intelligence hierarchy, Islamic rebel leaders in theatre had no contacts with Washington or the CIA.

With CIA backing and the funneling of massive amounts of US military aid, the Pakistani ISI had developed into a "parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government". 8 The ISI had a staff composed of military and intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents and informers, estimated at 150,000. 9

Meanwhile, CIA operations had also reinforced the Pakistani military regime led by General Zia Ul Haq:

'Relations between the CIA and the ISI [Pakistan's military intelligence] had grown increasingly warm following [General] Zia's ouster of Bhutto and the advent of the military regime,'... During most of the Afghan war, Pakistan was more aggressively anti-Soviet than even the United States. Soon after the Soviet military invaded Afghanistan in 1980, Zia [ul Haq] sent his ISI chief to destabilize the Soviet Central Asian states. The CIA only agreed to this plan in October 1984.... `the CIA was more cautious than the Pakistanis.' Both Pakistan and the United States took the line of deception on Afghanistan with a public posture of negotiating a settlement while privately agreeing that military escalation was the best course.10

The Golden Crescent Drug Triangle
The history of the drug trade in Central Asia is intimately related to the CIA's covert operations. Prior to the Soviet-Afghan war, opium production in Afghanistan and Pakistan was directed to small regional markets. There was no local production of heroin. 11 In this regard, Alfred McCoy's study confirms that within two years of the onslaught of the CIA operation in Afghanistan, "the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world's top heroin producer, supplying 60 percent of U.S. demand. In Pakistan, the heroin-addict population went from near zero in 1979... to 1.2 million by 1985 -- a much steeper rise than in any other nation":12

CIA assets again controlled this heroin trade. As the Mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan Intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories. During this decade of wide-open drug-dealing, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to instigate major seizures or arrests ... U.S. officials had refused to investigate charges of heroin dealing by its Afghan allies `because U.S. narcotics policy in Afghanistan has been subordinated to the war against Soviet influence there.' In 1995, the former CIA director of the Afghan operation, Charles Cogan, admitted the CIA had indeed sacrificed the drug war to fight the Cold War. `Our main mission was to do as much damage as possible to the Soviets. We didn't really have the resources or the time to devote to an investigation of the drug trade,'... `I don't think that we need to apologize for this. Every situation has its fallout.... There was fallout in terms of drugs, yes. But the main objective was accomplished. The Soviets left Afghanistan.'13

In the Wake of the Cold War
In the wake of the Cold War, the Central Asian region is not only strategic for its extensive oil reserves, it also produces three quarters of the World's opium representing multibillion dollar revenues to business syndicates, financial institutions, intelligence agencies and organized crime. The annual proceeds of the Golden Crescent drug trade (between 100 and 200 billion dollars) represents approximately one third of the Worldwide annual turnover of narcotics, estimated by the United Nations to be of the order of $500 billion.14

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a new surge in opium production has unfolded. (According to UN estimates, the production of opium in Afghanistan in 1998-99 -- coinciding with the build up of armed insurgencies in the former Soviet republics-- reached a record high of 4600 metric tons.15 Powerful business syndicates in the former Soviet Union allied with organized crime are competing for the strategic control over the heroin routes.

The ISI's extensive intelligence military-network was not dismantled in the wake of the Cold War. The CIA continued to support the Islamic "jihad" out of Pakistan. New undercover initiatives were set in motion in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans. Pakistan's military and intelligence apparatus essentially "served as a catalyst for the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the emergence of six new Muslim republics in Central Asia." 16.

Meanwhile, Islamic missionaries of the Wahhabi sect from Saudi Arabia had established themselves in the Muslim republics as well as within the Russian federation encroaching upon the institutions of the secular State. Despite its anti-American ideology, Islamic fundamentalism was largely serving Washington's strategic interests in the former Soviet Union.

Following the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989, the civil war in Afghanistan continued unabated. The Taliban were being supported by the Pakistani Deobandis and their political party the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI). In 1993, JUI entered the government coalition of Prime Minister Benazzir Bhutto. Ties between JUI, the Army and ISI were established. In 1995, with the downfall of the Hezb-I-Islami Hektmatyar government in Kabul, the Taliban not only instated a hardline Islamic government, they also "handed control of training camps in Afghanistan over to JUI factions..." 17

And the JUI with the support of the Saudi Wahhabi movements played a key role in recruiting volunteers to fight in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union.

Jane Defense Weekly confirms in this regard that "half of Taliban manpower and equipment originate[d] in Pakistan under the ISI" 18

In fact, it would appear that following the Soviet withdrawal both sides in the Afghan civil war continued to receive covert support through Pakistan's ISI. 19

In other words, backed by Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) which in turn was controlled by the CIA, the Taliban Islamic State was largely serving American geopolitical interests. The Golden Crescent drug trade was also being used to finance and equip the Bosnian Muslim Army (starting in the early 1990s) and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In last few months there is evidence that Mujahideen mercenaries are fighting in the ranks of KLA-NLA terrorists in their assaults into Macedonia.

No doubt, this explains why Washington has closed its eyes on the reign of terror imposed by the Taliban including the blatant derogation of women's rights, the closing down of schools for girls, the dismissal of women employees from government offices and the enforcement of "the Sharia laws of punishment".20

The War in Chechnya
With regard to Chechnya, the main rebel leaders Shamil Basayev and Al Khattab were trained and indoctrinated in CIA sponsored camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to Yossef Bodansky, director of the U.S. Congress's Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, the war in Chechnya had been planned during a secret summit of HizbAllah International held in 1996 in Mogadishu, Somalia. 21 The summit, was attended by Osama bin Laden and high-ranking Iranian and Pakistani intelligence officers. In this regard, the involvement of Pakistan's ISI in Chechnya "goes far beyond supplying the Chechens with weapons and expertise: the ISI and its radical Islamic proxies are actually calling the shots in this war". 22

Russia's main pipeline route transits through Chechnya and Dagestan. Despite Washington's perfunctory condemnation of Islamic terrorism, the indirect beneficiaries of the Chechen war are the Anglo-American oil conglomerates which are vying for control over oil resources and pipeline corridors out of the Caspian Sea basin.

The two main Chechen rebel armies (respectively led by Commander Shamil Basayev and Emir Khattab) estimated at 35,000 strong were supported by Pakistan's ISI, which also played a key role in organizing and training the Chechen rebel army:

[In 1994] the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence arranged for Basayev and his trusted lieutenants to undergo intensive Islamic indoctrination and training in guerrilla warfare in the Khost province of Afghanistan at Amir Muawia camp, set up in the early 1980s by the CIA and ISI and run by famous Afghani warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In July 1994, upon graduating from Amir Muawia, Basayev was transferred to Markaz-i-Dawar camp in Pakistan to undergo training in advanced guerrilla tactics. In Pakistan, Basayev met the highest ranking Pakistani military and intelligence officers: Minister of Defense General Aftab Shahban Mirani, Minister of Interior General Naserullah Babar, and the head of the ISI branch in charge of supporting Islamic causes, General Javed Ashraf, (all now retired). High-level connections soon proved very useful to Basayev.23

Following his training and indoctrination stint, Basayev was assigned to lead the assault against Russian federal troops in the first Chechen war in 1995. His organization had also developed extensive links to criminal syndicates in Moscow as well as ties to Albanian organized crime and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In 1997-98, according to Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) "Chechen warlords started buying up real estate in Kosovo... through several real estate firms registered as a cover in Yugoslavia" 24

Basayev's organisation has also been involved in a number of rackets including narcotics, illegal tapping and sabotage of Russia's oil pipelines, kidnapping, prostitution, trade in counterfeit dollars and the smuggling of nuclear materials (See Mafia linked to Albania's collapsed pyramids, 25 Alongside the extensive laundering of drug money, the proceeds of various illicit activities have been funneled towards the recruitment of mercenaries and the purchase of weapons.

During his training in Afghanistan, Shamil Basayev linked up with Saudi born veteran Mujahideen Commander "Al Khattab" who had fought as a volunteer in Afghanistan. Barely a few months after Basayev's return to Grozny, Khattab was invited (early 1995) to set up an army base in Chechnya for the training of Mujahideen fighters. According to the BBC, Khattab's posting to Chechnya had been "arranged through the Saudi-Arabian based [International] Islamic Relief Organisation, a militant religious organisation, funded by mosques and rich individuals which channeled funds into Chechnya".26

Concluding Remarks
Since the Cold War era, Washington has consciously supported Ousmane bin Laden, while at same time placing him on the FBI's "most wanted list" as the World's foremost terrorist.

While the Mujahideen are busy fighting America's war in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, the FBI --operating as a US based Police Force- is waging a domestic war against terrorism, operating in some respects independently of the CIA which has --since the Soviet-Afghan war-- supported international terrorism through its covert operations.

In a cruel irony, while the Islamic jihad --featured by the Bush Adminstration as "a threat to America"-- is blamed for the terrorist assaults on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, these same Islamic organisations constitute a key instrument of US military-intelligence operations in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union.

posted 09-14-2001 09:54 PM            

Chem11, you are absolutely correct in that assessment, best as I can tell -- with exception to the notion that it is I who am somehow calling for "all out war in the Middle East". I'm not, not by a long shot.

All I'm saying is that war is not only inevitable -- but that we are already at war, and have so been since early Tuesday morning (oddly enough, it is only Americans who seem not to understand this point). George W. Bush does not HAVE to declare war -- it appears he's not going to be given the chance. Neither is congress. Nor will we, as a nation, get to "decide".

Are you beginning to understand what I'm seeing in the current situation?

Based on what little I understand about the Taliban, it appears that we have no say in the matter. For instance: Has anyone seen a list of "grievances" or "demands"? Likely, there will never be one, or anything with acceptable conditions if any such list ever materializes.

How one conduct's one's self during times of peace is known as "diplomacy". If, however, one does not learn to think as one's enemy thinks (if only to understand their strategy and anticipate probable situations), then there will exist no chance of "conducting one's self" during times of war.

posted 09-14-2001 11:00 PM            

In my humble efforts at determiming the source of Osama Bin Laden's training and funding, I discovered that he was another monstrous creation of the CIA. This is an unpleasant reality that no one seems willing to address.

Assuming for the moment that he is no longer working under the direction of shadowy American intelligence agencies, the question becomes who is he working for now?

The immediate and abvious answer would be the Taliban and perhaps some network of similar middle eastern interests.

Or perhaps there is more going on then we, the great unwashed, are currently aware of.

America is not the only superpower that has enlisted the aid of terrorists to futher it's own agenda. The Chinese have engaged in this despicable activity as well. Perhaps we should consider how our deployment of military forces is going to affect our ability to defend ourselves from other potentially hostile nations. Again, we seem to playing a game of checkers when all we've done thus far is played three-dimensional chess on the board of global politics.

Before we 'accept' or declare that we are at war, it would certainly be helpful to determine with whom we are at war with.

Some say Afghanistan. Others say Iraq. Whitley Strieber has named no less than seven nations, as well as Palestine, as targets that must be engaged and defeated.

My own belief is that it is the military/industrial complex and our own highly supect foreign policy and support of terrorism that must be overcome.

posted 09-14-2001 11:37 PM            

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said, or even posted in terms of background information. I've been aware of some of this for years. (As Director of the CIA, it also appears that the Sr. Bush was well aware of these facts even as he placed the name "bin Laden" on the lips of the American public).

Bin Laden is a "soldier for hire", whether he realizes that salient fact or not.

He may think himself more exalted, perhaps even "holy" or sanctified -- yet in the words of a fictionalized character from Apocalypse Now, he is in truth little more "than an errand boy from the grocer, delivering a bill..."

Someone (?!?) has obviously hired him for activity within the continental United States.

It is widely accepted that he is currently residing in Afghanistan.

The Taliban is the current government in Afghanistan.

Bin Laden may indeed NOT be the "devil" that G.W. Bush seeks -- but he is almost certainly on the devil's payroll, and likely oversees the personnel and training departments in his particular division of Hades.

Who is the devil? Your guess is as good as anyone's.

Military Industrial Complex? No, they obviously don't have any sort of "complex" about making or selling arms to anyone. You got money, they've got "game". Wrong country? Don't fret, we can always sell to you from "another division".

We (the U.S.) it seems can either have a very big, drawn-out, perhaps even "end-of-the-World" type war over this massive, catastrophic intrusion, or we can create a very small (but very, very dark and deep) hole, located somewhere in a nearly deserted area of Afghanistan. But either way, it appears as if the machinery of war is already turning and will not be satisfied otherwise. (It never has, not in any other century nor in any other time, by any other peoples. This century is not so different from the last, by any account one could imagine.)

Either way, this situation has been designed to give the United States -- as a nation, as a national identity, as a government, and as individuals who aspire toward the concepts of "liberty" and "freedom" -- little choice but to retaliate in some fashion or else suffer perhaps much, much more of the very same.

If we do NOT respond militarily (AND yet also constructively, justly, proportionately, and as world citizens), then what is left of our "national identity" may be worthless to all but the Osama bin Ladens of the world, for at that time we might as well hang a sign around the neck of the Statue of Liberty which, in ten foot tall letters, reads:

posted 09-15-2001 12:46 AM            

Except, we had him by the fine hairs and opted to let him off the hook at the last moment.

Why? Because his capture simply doesn't suit our interests. We want that region destabilized, and he is a destabilizing force.

I am of the firm opinion that cold, hard US currency will bring Bin Laden to justice. The five million dollar reward currently being offered is a drop in the bucket compared to what a military operation will cost.

Not that this debate is liable to be anything other than rhetorical. The Machine is moving forward and is probably already approaching the point of no return.

For the sake of arguement, what would be the most 'acceptable' target in Afghanistan, if the decision was left to you Dj? Bearing in mind that Bin Laden is most likely hiding in a cave somewhere or out of that country by now... who gets hit?

posted 09-15-2001 02:44 AM            

however, the irritating complexity of random numbers regarding this event is terribly disturbing...

9/11/01

911 #1 emergency...

Flight numbers 11, 93, 175, and 77.

11 = tuesday
9+3 = 12 = wednesday
1+7+5 = 13 = Thursday
7+7 = 14 = Friday

and the "moon" in relation to the planets occuring currently in our sky and similarly depicted on islamic flags...

the use of "America" "United"...the airlines and how it fits...as a metaphor...

this I find very curious....

posted 09-15-2001 01:48 PM            

Yes, we have already been "committed" to war. We have no choice, regardless of who/whom is ultimately responsible. As I said, it is only the naiveté of being "American" which prevents us from comprehending these events and their implications on a world scale.

Yes, the machinery of war is already grinding. Were I currently in the military (and I am not), I would without doubt be ready to die, if necessary, to defend my country. I've had relatives ask me this week if they should enlist -- my advice was for them to "stay home for now, I think we're going to need you here." That's how close to home I feel this uninvited war is going to come (largely because it is already here, and avoiding that fact will not change a thing).

The numerology and symbology -- yes, unmistakeable. This is not a "coincidence". Best I can tell, it is a silent call to "Jihad", or "Holy War" (that once again, only the West, in its relative cultural infancy, shall "miss"). How easily we forget that the Magi in the story of the Christ child were astrologers, scientists and astronomers -- these traditions run deep in the Middle East. More analysis of the astrology and numerology would be necessary, but it doesn't take a genius to see a definite pattern here.

Were it up to me, what might I do?

To be certain, we should all be glad it's NOT up to me.

All the same, bin Laden is not the "coward" the media makes him out to be. He's extremely intelligent, shrewd, battle hardened over two decades, has the respect of his people, and is obviously a good planner. Instead of hiding himself among women and children ("human shields") as Saddam Hussein did, bin Laden in my estimation would rather die "like a man", like a soldier. He will be "holed up" somewhere deep in the mountains of Afghanistan, a strategically difficult target at best.

Mountains are much "harder" targets than a glass and steel building -- but they can be brought down, and we should make no mistake about it, they probably shall.

The true difficulty would be locating him so as to minimize any possible "collateral damage", and then notifying China with sufficient warning -- as tremendously deadly projectiles would likely be flying in their general direction before descending over Afghani terrain (the Pentagon spent a good deal of time in the American desert figuring out just how to dig enourmous holes with atomic weaponry).

Let it be known that I do not particularly believe such an action would "cease" all planned terrorist activity around the world; bin Laden, as a strategic planner, would have contingencies in place to ensure that the Jihad would continue in his absence.

Options? Considering that this enemy has "no face", and "no demands" -- then who, alternatively, would there be with which to "negotiate" a settlement? This appears to be a non-option.

Like I said, it's probably a good thing it's not up to me.

posted 09-15-2001 02:55 PM            

This is really a topic unto itself, but I suggest researching The Book of the Law, Jack Parsons from JPL and the practice of Thelema to gain an understanding of the signifigance of theses numbers an how they relate to rites of sacrifice.

After reading The Book of The Law, the signifigance of the number 11 will be obvious. Researching Jack Parsons will lead you to the Babalon Working, the fourth Book of The Law. It contains 77 verses. It revolves around the invocation of an entity , Babalon, whose sign is a seven sided star and whose name contains seven letters. In the course of your research you are liable to uncover a connection between this occult belief system and key players in the aerospace industry and the military.

Liber 175 is a Thelemic manusrcipt dealing with methods of uniting oneself with this entity and makes cryptic reference to accompanying sacrifices:

Concerning a further sacrifice. --- Of this it shall be understood that nothing is to be spoken; nor need anything be spoken to him that hath wisdom to comprehend the number of the paragraph.

Thelema is a Greek word which means "will", and which computes to the value of 93 in Greek Gematria, or numerology. Agape is a Greek word which means "Love", and which also equates to 93. Under the basic concepts of Gematria this demonstrates a relationship between these two words.

Again, a topic unto itself and one which I am loathe to re-visit. A Googlesearch on the information provided will certainly provide anyone with further interest an adequate starting point.

posted 09-15-2001 08:45 PM            

I would guess then that the real question for Americans is, do we allow our "leadership" to drag us into THEIR equivalent of a "holy war" against "terrorists and anyone who aids them" (as completely vague and rife with potential abuse, death and human suffering as that statement is), or do we hold our military and our leadership accountable to the tasks at hand:

-- repairing the country and the economy;
-- attempting ANY sort of diplomatic contact with responsible parties;
-- the airing of potentially "sensitive" laundry in public, as a compromise political solution;
-- and, if absolutely necessary, an incisive, swift, proportionate strike against ONLY the leadership of the group which perpetrated the crimes we are currently suffering.

____________________________

There is yet another dimension which we have not discussed concerning possible "motivations" for the disasters -- one which might not be far from what brief analysis of Parson's writings (and obvious Black Magick / aerospace connections) seems to be suggesting [as Chem11 states, much research on Parson's history, writings and "practice" is available online].

Corporate America as it happens is having perhaps its worst year since the 1929 Great Depression. Earnings reports have been released which indicate nothing short of an economic "meltdown" in the early stages is at hand. More than $4 TRILLION has "evaporated" from the trading floors of Wall Street alone (less than two blocks distant of the WTC), and this in merely the last few months. Many large, once powerful global companies are at dire risk of bankruptcy, while it is certain that many more will vanish from the business landscape in coming months. Layoffs / firings in the US have reached the hundreds of thousands PER MONTH at they desperately "trim" expenses in an effort to remain "afloat". Meanwhile, U.S. consumer debt is at its highest point, though consumer savings has reached its nadir (corporate debt, to compare, is even far worse). Widespread bank failures can only be around the corner, as billions in worthless corporate paper comes due.

I have even heard rumor of a new report which suggested that a crew found THE TRADING VAULTS IN THE BASEMENT OF THE WTC "EMPTIED" OF ALL GOLD AND SILVER HOLDINGS THIS WEEK (no confirmation on this last point yet) -- and while this "unconfirmed" loss seems trivial in comparison, it could at least provide "motive" for the crimes under consideration.

At the very least, it would certainly serve certain globalist banking purposes to have a "madman" upon which to blame any upcoming financial instabilities or impending calamity -- and the timing could not be more "appropriate".

___________________________

We're pretty sure that bin Laden is a soldier-for-hire, at least in some sense of the word. He's already faced, fought against, and stood down one of the largest and best-equipped armies the world has ever mustered (the Soviets). He's also deftly navigated the often deadly maze of CIA sponsorship, and has managed to position himself squarely inside the sheltering arms of fundamentalist Islam.

It also appears as if he is shrewd enough to "cut a deal with the Devil" -- that is, so long as it suited his or his people's purposes to do so -- and then, having so done, still have the cahones to renege on that deal, if only to let the Devil know whom he considers his "boss" (for he is considered a Holy Warrior in Islam, and therefore competent to lead Jihad).

_______________________

I know this sounds far-fetched, but we may be watching the greatest double-cross in the history of the civilized world.

_______________________

I'll say this much: For several hours after Tuesday morning, our "military leadership" looked, on national television (and therefore to the entire world), a lot like the little boy on the school playground who had just had the stuffing completely knocked out of him and who was standing up from the ground for the first time since.

It's a pretty sure bet that national security was at far greater risk than we were led to believe, and probably for a greater period of time than anyone will ever be willing to admit, as the Pentagon scrambled to replace key personnel who were missing and to "decentralize" vital functions, intel pipelines, and contingency command and defense structures during the crucial early hours after the attacks.

In short, we were vulnerable to the world for a few brief moments.

___________________________

I hope I'm wrong, but that is how "close to home" I believe the recent strikes have already come. A double-cross of such magnitude would also explain the "steady drumbeat of war" (and "rumors" of the same) that now seems inevitable, no matter how futile or self-destructive that "war" may prove to be.

______________________

If you believe in a higher power, then pray for peace.

Pray for an absolute miracle to end the Jihad, because if by some odd chance it is THEY who are actually fighting the "nameless, faceless" enemy and original evil of all mankind -- then that may be exactly what it takes, for anything else will speak of inevitable war, regardless of the number of "innocents".

posted 09-15-2001 11:50 PM            

I'm seeing some mixed signals out of DC lately. While Bush is talking about a 'sustained war', Colin Powell is pointing out the strategic difficulties in a military solution and expressing his opinion that a diplomatic or 'financial' plan of action might offer a better solution. Perhaps this is all part of the message we wish to broadcast to the Taliban. Or perhaps it is indicitive of some genuine disagreement over how best to proceed.

Back to Parsons, et al. One of my concerns is that further investigation of the topic seems to lend the thoughtform more energy, something I noticed in our previous explorations.

And yet... it is interesting, isn't it?

The development of the jet engine and it's role in both the chemtrail contoversy and the 'penttbom' attacks... it's co-designer's entanglement with Aleister Crowley and his own contribution to their new religion (point of interest: L. Ron Hubbard accompanied Parsons to the Mojave desert for the invocation of BABALON. He is the 'scribe' referred to in the Babalon Working's text. His involvement was not constrained to merely recording the events, but I will spare readers the tawdry details).

When one considers the qabalistic influence on Judaism, one has to ask if it is possible that these flight numbers were not chosen entirely at random. And if not, were they chosen to send a message to the religious leaders of Isarael or were thay chosen as a message to Thelemites in our own military and politcal circles. The OTO was originally intimately tied with Feemasonry and it's influence is plainly evident in American politics as well.

Or it could all be a co-incidence, just like the Challenger memorial.

posted 09-16-2001 05:52 PM            

I also find it most interesting that Parsons, Crowley and L. Ron Hubbard should have ANYTHING in common with a so-called "deity" named "Babalon" or "modern aviation". These are most peculiar associations indeed, and I'm certain the popular press won't touch them with a 20-foot word processor -- not even if they were paid to (and they're not paid to make such associations).

THE LATEST ON "RUMORS" OF WAR
So, this morning's news broadcasts seemed full of starry-eyed, red-white-and-blue pundits clamoring to espouse the White House's new policy of, essentially, DECLARING UNILATERAL WAR ON PERHAPS AS MANY AS 30-35 ISLAMIC NATIONS -- all in the name of "anti-terrorism".

But as if a war on 35 fronts were not inadvisable enough, our "commander-in-sleep", Dubyuh, now seems to be aching to START A GROUND WAR INSIDE OF HOSTILE, LANDLOCKED AFGHANISTAN.

For the moment I'll just ignore the strategic imbecility of starting a multi-faceted war in as many as 35 separate "hostile" locations, and focus on the idea of a "winnable land war" within Afghanistan:
-- This will not be the first "land war" in Afghanistan.
-- This will not be the first "well-equipped" army the Mujahadeen have ever faced.
-- Likely, this will be the first time American ground troops have been asked to "defend" a "concept" ("freedom", "anti-terrorism") within the confines of such enemy terrain.
-- Not since Viet Nam will a largely young, inexperienced and underequipped American force have ever faced such a well-hidden, well-trained, dispersed, and battle-hardened "enemy".

I wish G.W. had bothered to call his buddies in the Kremlin first to get their reaction (and probably their surprise at the suggestion). They saw tens of thousands of their own boys come home mutilated -- not because that's what war does, but because of a particular style of war which is fought there. Apparently, it's better to send a mutilated soldier home, alive -- that's deterrent -- than to send a dead enemy home in a body bag (that's "motivation").

The Mujahadeen may be worried, but I doubt they'll back down.

Why? Let's go back to the first instance then, the current administration's very thinly disguised suggestion of what can only amount to a "class war" against the very poorest of all Islamic nations and populations.

I hope no one at the Pentagon actually believes that American forces are equipped and ready to take an enemy on in as many as 35 theatres simultaneously. Sure, they'll be able to "inflict heavy damage". Sure, they'll kill lots of people (but whom, and why?). The greater point is this:

Saddam Hussein, the Mullahs of Iran, the Taliban, AND Osama bin Laden all realize that any such attack against the poorest peoples of Islam WILL INCREASE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE RADICAL ELEMENTS OF THEIR SOCIETY BY AT LEAST TEN-FOLD, ALL OVER THE WORLD.

That, potentially, roughly translates to ten times the current number of "terrorists" to deal with, worldwide.

That fact is probably at this moment being "classified" in American intelligence briefing papers (to keep it out of public scrutiny).

And so there you have it.

Geroge Herbert Walker Bush III's picture will thus become a recruitment poster for all of the most radical, extremist, and fundamentalist elements of Islamic society throughout the world. Probably not since Mohammed will someone become so "recognized" in their culture -- and for all the wrong reasons.

So then, let's revisit what I called the "strategic imbecility" of the administration's proposed ground war in Afghanistan.

First, American troops will need to land and stage out of Pakistan -- a compromise at best, for security leaks from this part of the world (directly into Afghanistan and the rest of Islam) will be formidable at best.

Second, they will be moving INTO, and attempting to take, a territory which is not only unfamiliar to them but in which they will be surrounded by potential hostiles. [Tanks mean little in the mountains of Afghanistan, and booby traps will litter the hills. Ask a Soviet military advisor if you don't believe me -- if you can find one willing to comment.]

"Air power" may also mean little due to the terrain, and the fact that shoulder-launched anti-aircraft weaponry appears to be well within the capabilities of the "enemy" there. But further, where anti-aircraft doesn't exist -- they will "improvise".

This is exactly how they forced the Soviets into retreat, by attrition. By hit-and-run. By ambush. By sending wounded (not dead), mutilated ground troops home in such large numbers the Soviets lost all will to pursue. I'm sure the CIA thinks they know everything that bin Lauden has up his sleeve -- but it likely won't be their asses on the line in the heat of battle.

And so our current administration (much like another famous figure in American war lore, one General Custer) seems poised to send the best of the American military off deep into the interior of Afghanistan, where they will be surrounded by spies and "hostiles", navigating unfamiliar terrain, and "compromised" every step of the way -- perhaps even finding that most of their technological gadgetry is all but worthless while fighting in unpredictable, "non-traditional" warfare.

posted 09-16-2001 09:22 PM            

What if they threw a "war on terrorism" -- and yet forget to target the terrorists?

____________________________________
____________________________________

While government and media sources continue to point the finger at US-trained terrorist Osama bin Laden, when pressed, all have to admit that there is only circumstantial evidence linking him to this act. That isn't stopping the Bush administration from acting as if bin Laden is guilty and leaning heavily on Pakistan to induce the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan to extradite him to the US.

In response to US demands, Pakistan and the Taliban have told the US they will be only too happy to comply with US demands for bin Laden's extradition if the US presents credible evidence of his involvement--which may be tough to come by. One former US CIA official was even more candid. He said, "no specific evidence is necessary since we've proven the case against bin Laden's cohorts in court recently and no one will question us if we go after him again." Sad, but true--Americans are all too willing to give unquestioned support to government in these times. I was also distressed to see a CNN internet poll showing that almost 80% of Americans condoned the bombing of the Afghanistan capitol of Kabul should the Taliban refuse to hand over Osama bin Laden. Where is America's compassion for innocent citizens? Would they become terrorists themselves in bombing innocent civilians simply to assuage their ruffled national sensibilities?

Focusing on Osama bin Laden may be a red herring meant to divert attention from the Palestinians, support for whom provides the fire and drive behind almost all other Islamic terrorist groups. I have no doubt that these terrorist acts were committed by Arab Islamic extremists with a mix of Palestinians who may or may not feel the need to hide behind religious motives. This radical branch of Arabs is the only culture on the planet intentionally producing committed suicide bombers and kamikaze pilots to slaughter innocent civilians. We also have specific evidence on the ethnicity of the attackers from cell phone callers on the doomed airlines who uniformly described the hijackers as Middle Eastern males, some wearing the tell-tale red bandannas identifying a unique terrorist group.

The FBI also claims to now know the identifies of 19 hijackers--all with Middle Eastern origins. Strangely they refuse to release the entire list publicly. Some of the 19 are Palestinians with links to Hamas and Islamic Jihad and US officials appear to be steering the blame away from them. I believe there exists a hidden protective inclination towards the Palestinians in our government operations--despite public support for the state of Israel. At least one Palestinian journalist filmed jubilant Palestinians rejoicing at the news of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon (this is not the same film from 1993 erroneously broadcast as if it were taking place now). Israeli correspondent Oded Granot reported that Yasser Arafat's Tanzim have kidnapped the Palestinian cameraman who filmed a report for a major news agency showing Palestinians in Ramallah celebrating the attacks against the United States as hundreds cheered. He said that the news agency was warned that the cameraman would be killed if they dared to air the item. Other films have been released and photos from these films can be viewed at http://www.gamla.org.il/english/feature/cel.htm These threats are very real and are carried out ruthlessly from time to time. To demonstrate how far the Palestinians will go to perpetuate the appearance of innocence in this affair, PLO leader Yasser Arafat arranged to have film crews roll the cameras while he gave blood for the victims of NY. Even if his blood was destined for NY (which I doubt), I certainly wouldn't want to be the recipient of this hypocrisy.

So, who is responsible? It's going to be very difficult to find that out in a timely manner. Even a US defense source admitted to the International Herald Tribune, "We're talking about an operation that was extremely well-planned and compartmentalized...Such a case could take years to complete and we simply don't have that amount of time." That is why the US has decided to go after Osama bin Laden. Israeli intelligence, on the other hand, says (correctly) that all terrorist cells are supported and sponsored by one or more governments. Terrorist organizations need a steady flow of money, arms and explosives to do their work. Terrorist groups also need a broad base of intelligence operatives throughout the world to keep tabs on their targets. Governments provide this kind of support, but never allow those links to surface so as to avoid blame. Since the Bush administration keeps trying to build an Arab coalition against Iraq, it can't afford to go after any of the legitimate governments harboring terrorists--Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Iran. So that leaves Afghanistan to attack. But, just remember, unless the US goes after all the terrorist camps (including most refugee camps) in Arab countries, it isn't really serious about carrying on a war against terrorism.

It really isn't all that important to know who, at the lower and middle levels, planned and carried out this attack. Fact is, the US is hated by all the major Arab nations (except Kuwait) for its superficial support of Israel. Even Saudi Arabia is only feigning friendship with the US. The motive for Arab antagonism against the US does not really rests of the issue of Iraq, for Saddam Hussein has made his share of enemies in the Middle East. The real unifying motive of all the Arab terrorist organs is the Arab hatred toward the state of Israel, camped right in their midst. There are many factions of terrorists, and some are bitter enemies, but they can all unite on the desire to see the Israel and the US brought down. That is why the pictures of US destruction were so heartily applauded by young and old alike in the Middle East. In the final analysis, any war on terrorism is ultimately futile unless it punishes all terrorists uniformly, and the Palestinians specifically.

posted 09-17-2001 02:48 PM            

We are at war, no choice in the matter. We stay home, then attacks will continue. We go elsewhere to fight, attacks will continue. We stage a "ground war" somewhere as inhospitable at Afghanistan, we will likely suffer heavy, grizly casualties -- and attacks will still continue, perhaps worsen.

There ARE ways to "fight" this war and prevail. Zero tolerance of terroristic activites is only a starting point.

-- Bring our "U.N. Peacekeeping Force", troops AND equipment, HOME. We now need them HERE.

-- Bring all reserve corps to "active" or "ready" status; again, keep them HOME. Disperse troop concentrations and stations so they are not "easy targets".

-- Attempt to maintain/improve diplomatic contacts with all involved organizations and nations, so no country can say they were "not informed" regarding potential actions.

-- Provide "workable" ultimata to suspect organizations first, so the world can see we are "giving them a chance" of peacefully laying down arms against the West.

-- Otherwise, we should prosecute war against guilty parties AND their organizations with extreme prejudice, wherever they exist -- BUT NOT AGAINST COUNTRIES -- with the caveat that we are not seeking war against any country, but will need to consider that if we are impeeded from this singular task.

The terrorist training network is relatively small, and it is known. If the US were to target just the training network facilities, these camps would spring up elsewhere in a matter of weeks, under new leadership.

"Fighting terrorism" also means fighting the conditions, notions and mindsets which CAUSE these sort of "organizations" to thrive within certain areas and cultures of the world. And THAT is a lot more difficult than prosecuting any type of war -- the "targets" aren't particularly "physical", and it may take generations to rebuild relations and trust between nations (we have accomplished this in recent past with Germany and Japan, so there is a chance it could happen again). Israel will likely remain the key to any settlement -- though we should not depend solely upon Israel for resolve, if indeed push comes to shove.

It is this last point that I don't hear the pundits talking much about.

posted 09-17-2001 03:57 PM            

Get them before they get us. Call it assasination, call it what you will, but I don't think there is a one of us here who would disagree that if there is something we can do to stop this in the future, we should. I'm not talking about going off half-cocked and snatching some guy and I am definately not talking about nuking Afghanistan. I'm talking hard, solid intel here.(which I'm not convinced we didn't have previous to the WTC and Pentagon attacks)

Nothing big, just a few key leaders simply disappear in the night. No trace, no idea where they went, no idea who took them, no signs at all and no idea when it might happen again. Just gone. And 5000+ people get to go home to their families at night.

If someone is coming to get me, I'm gonna want to get them first, that way they, not me, is on the defensive.

posted 09-17-2001 05:27 PM            

quote:

---

CIA's Tracks Lead in Disastrous Circle
By ROBERT SCHEER

So, we've come full circle. The CIA, which originally helped train Osama bin Laden and many of the other terrorists who have turned against us, now will have its powers expanded to do more of the same.

---

posted 09-17-2001 05:52 PM            

Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden notwithstanding, the American geopolitical landscape is littered with HUNDREDS of such "bedfellows" during the last few decades (the Shah of Iran, Idi Amin and Manuel Noriega coming to mind as merely a few members of that "alumni roster").

This being said, throughout history certain circumstances seem always to have provided the opportunity for use of excessive force -- call that "assassination", if you will. Whether it's done by a "lone gunman", a small group of "elite" trained combatants, or an entire battlefield complement with heavy artillery and laser-guided missilry, the end results are generally the same.

It's NOT that the cry of "the king is dead" which is so disruptive to society; it's the aftermath of such actions which leave one to wonder why anybody ever contemplated the initial act in the first place (the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand being merely one example).

Rarely does anything or anyone replacing the "old regime" have any better idea of what's going on than did the old regime itself -- and this is generally the cause of much greater grief on a far greater scale. Often, the "replacements" are more cunning, deceitful -- all traits quite "fitting" of their justification of a more brutal, "dog-eat-dog" world.

Bin Lauden may be worthy of death, perhaps even assassination, but one thing is for certain: he was (and likely still is) a soldier who has lived by an ancient creed. Should he be brutally assassinated and otherwise not "held responsible" for his actions and participation in plots against the West, I shudder to think who/what may stand up to replace him. They will likely see his creed as "usless" and "old-fashioned", ultimately linking it with his demise -- and thereby replace it with their own particular brand of brutality, ruthlessness and hatred of the West.

Mohammed Mosadeq (a communist, but the duly-elected leader of Iran) was overthrown with the aid of covert CIA intervention and imprisoned during the 1950s; while sympathetic to American business interests, the comparatively weak and inneffectual Shah Pahlevi was his "chosen" as Mosadeq's replacement -- though Pahlevi become so intensely hated by his own people during this enforced tenure that this so-called U.S. "policy decision" later backfired in the form of the 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis -- whereupon the absolute Islamic fundamentalist monarchy of Ayatollah Khomeni replaced the Shah during a popular overthrow of "everything American" in Iran. Many Americans and many, many Iranians suffered as a result, and the reverberations were felt throughout Islam; in fact, we are still dealing with the consequences of these events today, NEARLY HALF A CENTURY LATER.

If you really want stop "terrorism" -- then, like everything else, follow the money. Cut off the funding. Seize the accounts. Dry up the well by breaking the bucket. And with the seized funds, begin DOING SOMETHING about the conditions causing the social malaise, lack of opportunity and human suffereing -- which is ultimate source and true breeding ground of "terrorism": PEOPLE BORN INTO A SOCIETY WHICH HAS NOTHING TO LOSE BY PRACTICING TERRORISM.

But THAT would prove be a very unpopular act, as it involves some of the wealthiest families and business interests in the world.