Re: U.S. Considers New Covert Push Within Pakistan

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:37:44 -0500, Li RM wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:21:05 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
<Curly.is.not@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:51:08 -0500, Li RM wrote:

Thank you for the first rational response you've offered. My reply is
in-line below.

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:10:02 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
<Curly.is.not@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:44:15 -0500, Li RM wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 20:23:15 -0700, Winston_Smith
<not_real@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
------snip------
You just can't understand that some people are not driven by partisan
politics to the exclusion of all else, can you? That's really very
sad.
It does explain a lot about how the NeoCons think though.

Based on how much of a rant you went on about Hillary it seems you
might just be one of those who hates everyone who comes to power.

I've met them and know a few among my acquaintances in real life.

They are terminally unhappy with everything and everyone in politics.

How do you know you're dealing with one?

Simple.

They are never ever happy with anything that is ever said or done by
anyone in politics.

Ignoring the exaggeration, what is wrong with being critical of most
members of a government gone awry? Seriously, when the entire Federal
Government, all three branches, are fucked up what is wrong with
clearly stating that factoid?

Yes, there are chronic complainers but we're talking about those here
who joust on policy. Not speaking for Winston but I fit your
description of being a chronic critic of the Federal Government. When
both major parties and the Executive Branch collude to wrest control of
the electoral process, offer only pre-screened candidates which refuse
to obey their oath of office or the Constitution, the Judicial Branch
refuses to hear cases which violate the Consitution and use Case Law to
circumvent the clear meaning of the Consitution we have not only a
right but an obligation to speak out on these crimes.

Let's get serious for a moment and cease fire on the ad homenims.
Let's give each other the consideration that we all want the same
thing, a strong, secure, free, America.

Can you not see that imperialism threatens that mutual goal? That
membership and support of either party is a vote for more of the same?

You might find it interesting that I voted for Harry Browne back in
'96. I am not unfamiliar with the libertarian viewpoint and in some
ways and on some issues I support it.

I would say the events of 9/11 drastically altered my view of the
world, but that isn't entirely correct.

As it did for most. I see three common reactions. First a reactive
anger and fear of Islamic Fundamentalists. After introspection an
understanding of why 9/11 occurred and our own culpability leading to the
attack. This does not mean that I justify what happened but understand
_why_ it happened. Finally there are the conspiracy theorists. While
I'm still open to the possibility of a false flag operation that's not
very high on my list of responses.

The fact that a Truther movement exists at all stuns me.

And it bothers me on multiple levels.

For starters, within days of the attacks one of the most frequent things I
encountered with Muslims in my communications with them was their attempt
to portray the following:

1. There were no Muslims on board the hijacked aircraft - it was a
complete fabrication.
2. No Jews were present at the WTC - they were told to stay home that
day.
3. Islam was being framed for the attacks and the operation was most
likely a Massod or US operation.

Sound familiar?

The Truther movement was born within days of the attacks and was launched
and propagated by Muslims themselves. This isn't to say that it took hold
and ran under its own momentum in other venues.

But I know where I heard it first and I know who I heard it from. This was
before Dylan Avery and company were a blip on anyone's radar screen.

Secondly, I used to find the Truthers mildly amusing in a sick sort of way
- the way one would horse laugh what comes out of someone's mouth in an
insane asylum.

That was up until this past 6th anniversary when I saw the repugnant and
despicable way these slime ball scum bags infiltrated the memorial
services at the WTC - the place where the families of the dead went to
honor them and hold vigil.

Even bin Laden has probably said to al Zawahiri "Wait a second. You mean
there are actually large groups of people in America who believe we
weren't responsible and their own government was? <pause> Chock up
another reason why it's a *really* good idea for us to be killing these
idiots".

I've not run into those folks. The majority conspiracy theory involves
both, that the US government was involved and that bin laden were
involved and is rather convincing.

This is a somewhat common event through history. Read Orwell's 1984 and
study the Reichstag Fire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire "The Counter-trial
began on September 21, 1933. It lasted one week and ended with the
conclusion the defendants were innocent, and the true initiators of the
fire were to be found amid the leading Nazi Party elite."

It was what I began to discover in the weeks and months following it
that shocked me into a sense of reality that we are not up against a
few fanatics hell bent on destroying America.

I spent probably the better part of a year/year and a half after the
attacks in Islamic chat rooms and forums. During that time period
there were a few Islamic sites that drew fairly large crowds. One was
ummah.com and the other was azzam.com. Both of these were closed down
by the feds, which I hope I helped play a part in. They were not only
recruiting grounds for jihadi warriors, but regular distribution
points for propaganda for the Islamicists. I was stunned that these
sites stayed up as long as they did post 9/11.

Now that I find interesting. And quite believeable.

Insofar as the attacks of 9/11 were horrific they were no where near
as chilling as what I saw in these rooms. It was only after going
there day after day, week after week and month after month that I
began to see the pervasive nature of this threat.

We are not at war with a small group of fanatics which was my initial
impression by 10 am on the morning of 9/11.

We are at war with Islam which seeks to establish a world wide
caliphate and destroy America and the West.

Keep in mind that the literally tens of thousands of people whose
visited these sites were obviously not jihadi's logged in from laptops
in caves in Afghanistan. They were very well educated (for the most
part) Muslims-on-the-street in the United States, Britain, France, and
Europe as well as various middle eastern countries.

When can be handled by deportation. When you reported the threats did
you get any sense of how the authorities were going to handle them?
While I'm pretty liberal on immigration I demand loyalty to our nation
for those wanting to live here and that they integrate and participate
in mutual respect for others.

I sent screen caps to the FBI of conversations of those who were heading
off to Afghanistan to go help kill Americans. They were regular
occurrences. They were not "I'm going to Afghanistan to help kill
Americans". The conversations were long goodbyes to known and trusted
friends in preparation to leave. I am not sure these conversations were
real, but they very much seemed to be.

To the best of my knowledge at the time, it was my understanding that
the FBI and other agencies were not able to even be present in these
places or at least acknowledge their presence there. I think, but again
am not sure if all this changed after the Patriot Act. But I do know at
some point there was a visible effort on the part of the system
administrators to make people toned down the anti-American sentiment on
the site.

I didn't bother sending the death threats I got and I got quite a few.
This was usually after heated discussions with some of the members.
Interestingly, the most literate, rational and educated of the members
were the women and even in the best cases many of these conversations,
the hope was to see America destroyed. The men were equally as
passionate, but didn't express themselves as eloquently.

It wasn't all murder and mayhem. There also were some humorous things
that went on. On one occasion I logged in as "HotBlonde36C" as the
fanatics got very upset by any talk or innuendo regarding sex.
Immediately the system administrator told me my screen name was
inappropriate and I would have to leave. I said "Oh, I'm sorry" and
then logged back in.

It seems that you were being intentionally provocative, knowingly ringing
their bell. I don't like Islamic culture either but if I go *** in their
lobby I'd expect a less than cordial reception.

As "NotSoHotBlonde36C".

"Is that better"?

Boom. Kicked off :)

Shouldn't be a surprise.

There were a few there who could appreciate this sort of humor, but they
were few and far between.

You're not going to find a more anti-religious person than I but I do not
intentionally hunt out the crazymotherfuckers to annoy. When they stick
their little pin-heads up I wack-a-mole otherwise leave them alone.

I want the same respect, leave me the *** alone and I won't annoy you.

One of the most interesting aspects of this experience was the depth to
which they became aware of who I was. I'm not talking about simply
tracking an IP address via a traceroute. I was warned on several
occasions that certain people knew who I was and the information that
was given to me led me to believe this was the case. This is quite
remarkable when one stops and thinks about it. It indicates a possible
relationship with people inside my ISP and probably well outside the
scope of what any sysadmin on the board could discover on their own.

Not good but more than the moslems have access to this info. If you want
confidentiality you have to take more security precautions. Mossad and
NSA are even better.

I will never forget my first day at ummah.com. I went to the site,
spent the better part of a few days reading about the 5 pillars of
Islam, etc. to gain a bit of background before venturing out to talk
with people.

I was logging in back then as "An American". I did not go to incite
or inflame the situation. In fact, one of my first visits to the site
I specifically avoided any retaliatory words and instead asked a
simple question: "I am American who is concerned over what you think
the best way is out of the mess that the West and Islam finds itself.
I am open to hearing your ideas about how best to resolve it".

The first response I got was "Die".

It went downhill from there and got no better over the following
months.

At times the conversations would be civil - if it can be called that.
But the desire to see the West destroyed - not simply removed
physically and from influence in the middle east as some here view as
a solution - was pervasive and constant.

Keep in mind these were not militants going off to fight in
Afghanistan (although there were some there who did). These are
average college aged (for the most part) Muslims living among us in
the US and other large European cities.

Funny thing is that ummah.com traces to England, azzam.com is no longer
functional although also registered in England.

It appears that ummah.com is back up and running, but not the actual
chat portion of the site, just the forums. But like I said, it's really
been years since I actively spent time there. I do know it was closed
at some point.

Over the next few years I also read a variety of materials on the
topic - some authors having what was my experience and others viewing
things differently.

If you think that - hypothetically - let's say tomorrow we pulled
every soldier out of every middle eastern country - removed our
embassies - removed every trace of Western civilization from Islamic
culture that it would end this war, I think you are gravely and
fatally wrong.

No, I do not think the tenor would change immediately. Nor would I
close our embassies however I would put extreme pressure on those
foreign governments to shut down the anti-american propaganda with a
clear warning that any terrorist activity in the USA traced to them will
result in a nuclear response.

Agreed. Hardball works.


I would not put troops on the ground in their nation. I would isolate
them by severing any connection they have with the outside world and
starving them into tolerable behavior. When we learned of Osama's
location at Bora-Bora we made a big mistake in using conventional
weapons. Osama bin Laden and his entire gene line should have been
eradicated.

Absolutely. But from what I've read in various books, "Bush at War" by
Woodward, there was a definite action to allow the ISI to fly out via a
corridor to supposedly get their people out of Afghanistan before we
pounded the *** out of the bad guys. Unbeknownst to us at the time,
the ISI also helped many of the Taliban and AQ personnel out along with
their own. Hindsight is 20/20 unfortunately and as I've said before, we
also had the added burden of having to work with Pakistan to find out
what was coming down the pike. I think it was a bad decision, but it's
also easy to say here and now what should or shouldn't have been done
back in those very uncertain days after 9/11.


We must proceed on two fronts simultaneously, respect their right to
self determination and demanding respectable behavior in and toward our
nation.

True Islam and real Muslims cannot coexist while our culture of
democracy lives. They are as mutually incompatible with us as we
would be living under Sharia law, which in the end rules the day in
Islam.

I'm not sure that is the case although you no doubt saw a large number
of hostile moslems. I've been in more than a few Islamic countries and
find their society repulsive, I know what you speak of. But there is
another side of the story, that moslems _are_ evolving toward
moderation.

We cannot impose sanity from the outside, we must foster that within the
Moslem community. That is not possible while we micromanage their
affairs, we must disengage and make clear the conditions of their
responsibility. If they refuse to rein in their extremists we will hold
all accountable. When 15 Saudis were found on those four planes then
Saudi Arabia is accountable and we will eradicate their bloodlines by
whatever means are at our disposal.

Along with Pakistan, the Saudi's are another of our supposed allies who
are also playing both sides against the middle. IMO, they are probably
the one nation that has done more to foster Islamic fundamentalism than
any other. Let's face it - Wahabbism is their state religion.

AGreed. It is infuriating that our government continues to deal, support,
and subsidize the Saudis. This is one issue which exemplify the outright
graft and corruption in American politics. The quid pro quo is so obvious!

I am not adverse to using any and all weapons at our disposal but I am
adamantly opposed to ground incursions, occupations, and nation
building.

Burnt civilians in large numbers seems to work (at least in did in
Japan) and I agree - why send troops when you can send nuclear weapons.

It can be done by conventional weapons too, famous examples are Hamburg
and Tokyo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestorm but the cost is
tremendous. I believe in efficiency when the lives of my countrymen are
involved. This is why Congress must be held accountable along with Bush,
war isn't a game.

We hear talk of bringing democracy to the middle east and a balance to
Islam.

Might that happen?

Maybe. In 150 or 200 years or so.

I agree. I also believe that it is not our right nor responsibility to
"democracize" anyone. America is not a Democracy. I do not want to
live in a democracy. I see no positive to living in a democracy.

The million dollar issue is whether we (meaning America and the West)
survive long enough to see it happen or whether we are destroyed long
before the process is complete.

Current events prove that the existing paradigm is a failure. Yes, we
need to confront perceived dangers but not in the way Bush has elected.
Invading Iraq was an incredibly stupid move. Iraq was contained and
Saddam didn't permit al qaeda to operate there.

Let's not forget that Saddam created a lie of having WMD's and
developing them - not so much as a threat against us, but against the
Iranians who I'd say he feared quite a bit more and used this lie to
better his position during their war.

He also had a history of developing chemical weapons and used them.

Do I give a *** that he gassed the Iranians?

Not really. War is war and the goal is to destroy the enemies will and
means to fight.

Many people also bring up the issue of the US having had a relationship
with him at one time as being indications of all kinds of things.

We had a relationship with him because he was the best guy to have a
relationship with at the time when Iran was our enemy.

Big deal.

Relationships between nations come and go all the time. We had a
relationship with the Soviets during WWII and they quickly became our
enemy after it was all over.

Life in the big city. *** happens.

No arguement. Don't take this flippantly, but so what?

We knew Hussein was a nasty mothefucker. That's what George HW Bush
wanted in his puppet government, a nasty motherfucker. How has this
suddenly become an excuse for invasion?

It relates to my position that prior internvention causes the events we
use for aggression. This is so in every nation we've fought on a cultural
level attempting to instill our ethos upon an alien culture. We have
neither the right nor the wealth to do this.

Afghanistan is another story, we had to respond to the taliban after
they admitted involvement. Nor am I against our involvement there on
the ground entirely but I do not believe the tactics being used are
sound.

I may be wrong, but I do not believe any nation in history has
successfully ever invaded Afghanistan and kept control over it for any
length of time.

True, not since Ghengis I believe.

I would have told the Taliban on 9/12/2001 "you've got 48 hours to turn
over bin Laden or we nuke your entire fucking country to smithereens".

Agreed.

Bush is trying to win over the people and build a nation in Afghanistan.
That is neither our responsibility nor right, we are there to root out
the criminals involved and put a halt to their ability to continue. In
war one does not fight nice.

Here, here to that.

I am not a warmonger. Peace should always be the preferred choice.

But when attacked, you stomp the living *** out of the enemy so hard
that not only do they not get back up, but also to send a message to
others who are thinking about doing the same.

This is a lesson generally everyone learns before they are out of high
school.

Understood and in full agreement. Let's not allow the underlying problem
here, there is a quantum step of responsibilty, authority, and committment
involved. We cannot permit a system with a slippery slope war-making in
the hands of politicians. Congress relinquishing their war decisions to
Bush was dereliction of Constitutional responsibility coupled with decades
of interventionist foreign policy which pissed off the surrogate
population.

We must take steps to halt our meddling and require the same of other
nations. When our motives are pure we'll have a moral standard to respond
with whatever force is necessary for the task. And a lot fewer problems.

Pakistan is another Bush fuckup.

So not only do I take issue with the Bob's who say that by leaving
them the *** alone it will solve our problems, but I also take issue
with those who think once Islam gets a taste of "democracy" they will
flock to it like flies to a picnic. The latter represents the
idealists within the Republican party and yes, Bush has expressed
sentiments along these lines I know. But at least he is willing to
confront this enemy. The Bob's just want to leave and hope what will
fill the political vacuum I don't know. It won't be a liberal
democracy, that's for sure.

If you listen I don't think "the bob's" take that position. We do need
to leave other nations alone but that does not mean permitting them to
launch attacks on America. Our involvement, taking their natural
resources, and desire to push democracy upon them, only serves to
alienate them furhter. Instead I suggest working with their ruling
governments while holding them accountable for their citizenry.

So I suppose in summary while I am not exactly doing a jig that we
have to be in the middle east and there certainly was a time when I
felt that US involvement in foreign countries and government was a bad
idea any way you sliced it, I don't believe that anymore. We simply
cannot wait until this enemy sails nukes into a dozen of our harbors
and detonates them simultaneously. We must act to preserve our way of
life. If that means we run covert ops, so be it. If that means we
have to premptively attack nations, then so be it. If that means we
have to have to develop a policy of mutually assured destruction with
Islam and the Muslim on the street should the warriors they send out
to do their bidding attack us with WMD's, then so be it.

Covert operations for intelligence are mandatory. Using covert
operations to interfere with another society is dangerous and cannot be
taken lightly.

How would you respond if it was found that Mossad was involved in 9/11?

I would have incinerated Israel.

No discussion. No compromise and no negotiation.

But I consider this so far off the table as to practically be
impossible.

Not that it wouldn't be to Israel's advantage to see the coming ***
storm to the jihadi's, but any war that goes nuclear in the middle east
is not going to be a good thing for real estate values in that part of
the world (so to speak). Israel has so much to lose in any World War
that involves mushroom clouds blooming down the street.

And if the Jews think they were persecuted before this...

I'm still open to the idea. Mossad was unleashed after decades of Arafat,
Hamas, and others constant terror attacks. There have been mor than a few
false flag incidents tied to Mossad, New Zealand, Australia, Egypt, Jordan
and Lebanon. I don't blame them for self defense, I'd be an nasty enemy
if Mossad was proven involved.

Whatever it takes.

Only under a Congressional Declaration of War. Once war is legally
declared then I agree. We may not agree on the implementation though. I
do not like the idea of massive ground invasions, pacifications, and
nation building. When we declare someone is an enemy I believe in
annihilation. War is not a game nor a political arena, either they die
or I die and I'm not dying easily.

I treat a treat seriously. If someone says they are going to kill me
then I will kill them first. No discussion, no argument, no threats, no
warning. In war you rip out the opponents throat with your teeth if
necessary. That is why I'm reluctant to go to war but the lack of
courage in America has blunted that warning to the world and any tin pot
dictator thinks they can bluster and the US will back off.

And they are right.

What is needed is a serious demonstration to the world not to *** with
us coupled with a simultaneous disengagement. When America is no longer
seen as an occupying force or colonial power we will regain our stature
as the beacon of freedom. And woe to anyone who attacks or threatens
us.

I could have written the above exactly - my sentiments are the same.

With maybe the exception of the Congressional Declaration part.

Covert op's are just that.


You disparage Ron Paul without offering a single example of reasoning,
you disparage Winston for being a chronic complainer (and by reference
me too), yet you are employing the very same tactics in complaining
about their political position ostensibly because you support Bush but
cannot justify that opinion in a discussion.

I support Bush on some levels and on others I do not. I think I've
expressed that pretty regularly.

I've not seen it until today. Again, thanks for responding rationally.

We do seem to hear each other a tad better with the volume turned down
and it seems we have more common ground then I would have thought.


I'm not going to rub your nose in it here nor demand that you speak
for Bush. What I'm asking is "What is your vision for America?" Ask
and each of us should respond rationally, we do have the same goals.

I hope I expressed that above, insofar as what I perceive to be our
biggest threat at the moment. Your question is so inclusive it could
literally take scores of posts to fully address.

Perhaps we should pursue this in another topic then. This is much more
productive than the constant sniping.

In spite of posts that may grow to great length, I really try to keep
snipping to the barest minimum, figuring that what someone said that *I*
may not think is relevant, may in fact be very relevant to them or their
point.

That is lost by many here who chop of important parts of the dialog
because they may not have the slant they wish. Impartiality is required
when editing and few of us here are.

Anyway, good discussion and also thank you for your civility, too.


Mine is a anarchist/minarchist/libertarian society, that which was
enacted by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I am not willing to
live under a socialist, authoritarian, or fascist regime.

I want maximum freedom for everyone, a halt to laws which criminalize
private, consensual, behavior and lifestyles. I want people to ***
out of others business, I want liberty for all.

I stand behind these ideas in principle as well, but not to the point
where it costs us our ass in the process.

Of course not however the current path being followed by America is
suicide to our economy, society, and future.

The devil is in the detail.

Indeed.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------

.