The dangerous illusion of independent terrorists

WHEN US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in India this week, all the talk was about "non-state actors" and the challenge they throw up to the international system. The assumption was that the Pakistan-based terrorists responsible for the murders of about 175 people in Mumbai, and the injuries to hundreds more, were non-state actors.

Yet it may be that since the 9/11 attacks in New York, the world has completely misconceived the age of terror.

The radical increase in the lethality, range, political consequence and strategic influence of terrorists comes not from their being non-state actors at all. Instead it comes from their being sponsored by states.

Sometimes they are the instruments of states and at other times they make strategic alliances with states.

A terrorist group operating without any state sponsorship is an infinitely less dangerous outfit than a terrorist group operating with the co-operation of even the most ramshackle state.

However, states not only co-operate with terrorists, in many cases they direct and even found the terrorists....

Back to the Old 9/11 Days

By Victor Davis Hanson

For three days, Islamist gunmen nearly shut down Mumbai, the financial center of India. The terrorists -- Pakistani militants, according to Indian authorities -- murdered almost 200 innocents and left hundreds of others wounded, giving reprieve only to hostages they thought were Muslims.

The timing of their assault seemed aimed for maximum shock value here in the U.S. -- during the transference of American presidential power and amid a long U.S. holiday in which millions of Americans were glued to televised news.

The macabre killing spree was apparently part of a larger, though failed, effort to shoot or blow up a planned 5,000 civilians -- especially Americans, Brits and Jews. The jihadists may have hoped that India would heed Islamist warnings to loosen its connections to Western finance and commerce, and pay better attention to Muslim grievances.

There are a number of things to take away from the Mumbai atrocities.

First was the welcome re-emergence of concerned discussion of the dangers of global Islamist violence. George Bush apparently was not fabricating a global terrorist bogeyman -- as was sometimes alleged over the last years of calm -- when he sought support for his war in Iraq and domestic security measures.

In fact, caricatured efforts like the Patriot Act, the FISA accords, the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, the fostering of Middle East constitutional government, and the killing of violent insurgents abroad in Afghanistan and Iraq might seem once again understandable in the context of preventing another major violent terrorist attack of the sort we just saw at Mumbai.

Second, in the fashion of the old post-9/11 apologists, we were lectured once again that global terrorism is not necessarily an Islamic phenomenon. Supposedly the poverty and mistreatment of India's Muslim minority, not jihadist ideology and hatred, better explain India's incessant sectarian violence. That theory of victimhood is no more convincing now than it was in 2001.

Transnational terrorism still remains mostly Islamist in nature. Very few impoverished Hindu, Christian or Sikh terrorists go abroad to murder civilians. Nor are the wretched poor of Brazil or Haiti organizing mass-murdering assaults against foreigners and Western iconic targets in their cities.

Third, the serial excuses of Pakistan are also beginning to wear thin. Hundreds of Indians have been killed by Pakistani terrorists, who have routinely attacked both foreigners and Christians in their own country. It is now over seven years since more than 3,000 innocent Americans were murdered on orders from terrorists now all but certainly in sanctuary in Pakistan -- and whom we are still told cannot be extradited.

So despite billions of dollars in American military and financial assistance given to Pakistan, nothing really changes. When pressed to explain the apparent role of the Pakistani military or intelligence services in turning a blind eye to jihadists, the government -- whether a Pervez Musharraf in uniform or now civilian President Asif Ali Zardari (formerly known as "Mr. Ten Percent" for allegations of graft) -- still politely offers a variety of clichés.

The Pakistani borderlands are beyond the government's control. Pressuring the existing government for either more order or more democracy will lead only to worse alternatives -- such as a takeover by fundamentalist clerics, authoritarian generals, or weak democrats whose plebiscites will ensure rule by popular fanatics. No Pakistani leader of any stripe ever quite takes responsibility of the government for the mayhem committed by its own citizens or foreigners on its soil.

Instead, there always seems an implied threat that it would be unwise to push too far a volatile Pakistan that possesses nuclear weapons, or whose fanaticism makes it immune from classical laws of nuclear deterrence, or whose poverty and mismanagement ensure that it simply cannot be expected to meet international norms of behavior.

Fourth, the problem of Pakistan and the Islamist terrorism that so frequently emanates from its soil will now be President-elect Obama's to deal with. He will have to decide whether George Bush's anti-terrorism architecture shredded the Constitution and should be repealed, or helped to keep us safe from attack for seven years, and thus should be maintained, if not strengthened.

Obama once advocated open intrusions into Pakistan in hot pursuit of terrorists, and will have to adjudicate whether such actions will more likely enrage nuclear Pakistan or finally eliminate the followers of Osama bin Laden. At the same time, Obama also must ponder whether he should continue our subsidized "alliance" with Pakistan.

Just as I didn't envy George Bush's lose/lose dilemma in dealing with Pakistan and global Islamic terrorism, so too I can only sympathize with President-elect Obama, who faces the same dismal choices.

After Mumbai the Terror Attacks Will Be Worse

by Dr. Walid Phares

Mumbai’s “bloody week” has ended with shock and awe in India and around the world. Since 9/11, and even before, the jihadists have been leaping from one massacre to another, scarring democracies and civil societies with their violent imprints.

From New York and Washington to Madrid and London; from Beslan and Baghdad to Islamabad and Bali, the seekers of a Taliban-like “Caliphate” continue to adapt their tactics and while staying the course. No civilization or continent has escaped their designs.

But after Mumbai, one has to expect more and worse. Let’s look at what’s on the the horizon:

Urban Jihad is Open for Business

My initial assessment of the Mumbai terror attacks leads me to predict that the Mumbai model is now a frame of reference for copycats. These attack can unfortunately happen again, in India, in the region and around the globe. “Urban jihad,” the termed I’ve used in my last three books and in recent op-ed pieces, is a combination of terror activities by Salafists or other adherents of Jihadism aimed at shocking, paralyzing, and seizing part of a city or neighborhood.

The goal of “urban jihad” is to take the battle inside the cities of the enemy, in this case India. But the Beslan school massacre in Russia in September 2004, the terror attacks in Saudi Arabia in November, 2003 the multiple killings in Iraq, Afghanistan and Algeria, as well as the similar scenarios in Israel over several decades, tell us that this form of urban terrorism is now open for business. In the near future I will make more predictions jihadi copycats worldwide.

Real Jihadi Claims Beyond Kashmir

Interestingly, the jihadi propaganda machine reacted instantly to the attacks by invoking the issue of Kashmir. So did many in the international media. But the reality is –- using the words of the jihadists –- the goals have mutated and now extend beyond the classical ethnic conflict in Kashmir. The aim is now to establish a Taliban state covering half of India, all of Pakistan and also Afghanistan. It is more the Caliphate then self-determination that the terrorists seek.

Trans-Regional Forces Trump Local Forces

As I write, many experts and authorities on terror have been trying to determine if the Mumbai “perpetrators” are the Pakistan-based Laskar e Taiba, the Indian Mujahideen, Taliban inspired factions or simply Al Qaeda. Strategically, we don’t need to wonder too much: all four of these groups are all part of the same web. It’s a web that stretches from Kabul to Mumbai: these are the subcontinent’s jihadists. Decisions are made at a high level with coordination between the big bosses and terrorist actions are carried out by the designated organizations, teams, and cells. The rest is left for our media and commentators to guess and juggle. While it is very useful from an intelligence perspective to determine the chain of command and the entity directly involved in the Mumbai terror attacks, from a global perspective it is important for the public and decision makers from around the world to realize that the three south Asian democracies are all threatened by the same enemy, appearing in different shapes and showing multiple faces.

Preempting the Forthcoming Offensive in Afghanistan

Beyond the investigation regarding the Mumbai attackers and their networks, it is equally important for strategic planners inside NATO to read the attacks as a preemptive strike against the forthcoming reinforcement of U.S. and allied troops in Afghanistan. It seems to me that the Mumbai attack, and possibly the other attacks that may follow, are actions designed to break down precarious relationships between the three democratic governments in that region and to weaken the efforts promised by President-elect Obama against Al Qaeda and its regional allies in 2009.

Chinese property hunters to raid US

Terror in India

By David Talbot

Large questions remain unanswered about who is responsible for last week's terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India.

Heritage Foundation expert Lisa Curtis suggests the terrorists may have had foreign connections: "By using names that relate to India, the terrorists clearly want to portray themselves as indigenous, but given the level of sophistication, planning, and organization of the attacks, especially Wednesday's assault on Mumbai, they almost certainly have external links and support."

Writing in the New York Post, Heritage Foundation expert Peter Brookes looks at possible motives for the attacks, including the likelihood that the terrorists sought to push the disputed Kashmir territory into Pakistani hands. India and Pakistan disputed the region since their independence in 1947.

If this was the motivation, Brookes argues, it "could be putting the kibosh on improving Indo-Pakistani relations under new Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari." If any link appears between Pakistan and the attacks, relations could cool.

There is one silver lining, Brookes concludes. The attacks could give America an opening for "greater counter-terror cooperation with both Islamabad and New Delhi – an idea both may be open to now. That step would make us all safer."

Veterans May Now Salute The Flag

Written by Jason Posey

Tuesday, 11 November 2008 21:07

Rules for Rendering Hand Salute of U.S. Flag... Rules for Rendering Hand Salute of U.S. Flag New Law Allows Retirees and Vets to Salute Flag The National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 contained an amendment to allow un-uniformed servicemembers, military retirees, and veterans to render a hand salute during the hoisting, lowering, or passing of the U.S. flag. The amendment does not address saluting the flag during the playing of the national anthem, pledge of allegiance, honors (i.e. Taps), or any other saluting situations. Excerpt from H.R. 4986: SEC. 594. CONDUCT BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND VETERANS OUT OF UNIFORM DURING HOISTING, LOWERING, OR PASSING OF UNITED STATES FLAG. Section 9 of title 4, United States Code, is amended by striking “all persons present” and all that follows through the end of the section and inserting the following: “all persons present in uniform should render the military salute. Members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute. All other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, or if applicable, remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Citizens of other countries present should stand at attention. All such conduct toward the flag in a moving column should be rendered at the moment the flag passes.” Source, "Military.com"

Hearing regarding Auto Industry

Source: A friend

(Compiler's note: I don’t know Congressman Barrett, and don’t live in S.C., but what he said makes sense. Unfortunately, that rarely happens in Washington, DC, especially on Capitol Hill.) bailout

On Friday, December 5, 2008, Congressman Barrett made the following statement and questioned a panel of executives from Ford, GM, Chrysler and the United Auto Workers regarding the need for government intervention to rescue the businesses:

"Honestly, I am unclear as to what we are all doing here, trying to evaluate the competitiveness of your business plans and determine whether taxpayer money should be used to save your businesses. I mean no disrespect, but two weeks ago you came here on your private jets, telling us how your businesses were failing and asking the American taxpayer to bail you out. I understand your situation, and I appreciate you are concerned about the jobs that would be lost as a result of your closing your doors. None of us here want to see that happen, but as we sit here, there are countless people all across this country watching this hearing that have lost their jobs. I’m concerned about them too. Just yesterday I read that in my home state of South Carolina we lost 1,000 manufacturing jobs just last month. And I’m sure all those folks are wondering why their company wasn’t bailed out, and honestly, I can’t blame them. If I were in their shoes, I’d be asking the same question. Like them, I’m wondering why Congress is placing a different value on the auto industry jobs than those of any other industry.

"I know there are some that will say that’s exactly what we did with the financial industry. I was no fan of what we did in that situation, but what was occurring in the financial industry threatened all industries throughout the nation, because if our banking sector collapsed it would be impossible for any business to succeed. However, this is one industry, and while I know there will be a ripple effect felt in many parts of the economy, I have to question whether it is the responsibility of Congress to save an industry. What do I tell my textile folks back home that have watched their jobs all but leave the nation? What do I tell the small business owner that is struggling to keep their doors open? That their jobs don’t rise to the level of national concern? When did we become a nation of handouts? That is not the American way.

"I know these are tough times, but the discussion we are having doesn’t make sense. We are sitting here, trying to evaluate the business plans of corporations. But trust me; Congress is no authority on how to spend money effectively and efficiently – the new visitor center is a classic example of what happens when we are in charge – long delays and over budget. And we certainly can’t predict the direction of a marketplace. I am concerned that businesses are rightly going to start thinking they can just come to Uncle Sam and he will bail them out. Let me tell you - Uncle Sam is broke.

"We are not a bank, and we are not a management consultant. I owned a small furniture store, and the last thing I wanted was for the government to come in and tell me how to run my business. But I am worried we are going down that road. Because we are supposed to ensure taxpayer money is protected and spent appropriately, does this mean the federal government will review your books? Is that what you want? The federal government has to get out of the business of trying to save businesses. Instead, we should be creating an environment where businesses can succeed, not micromanage the affairs of private industries and determining which businesses fail and which grow."

"As I love Muslims, I hate Islam," says 2008 Daniel award recipient Fr Zakaria Botros

U.S. says latest missile defense test a success

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military conducted a successful test of its system built to knock out long-range missiles that could be fired by North Korea or Iran, the Pentagon said on Friday.

The target missile for the test over the Pacific was launched from Kodiak, Alaska and an interceptor was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, officials said. The intercept took place at 3:29 p.m. EST .

Boeing Co is prime contractor for the system, called the ground-based midcourse defense. ....

HISTORICAL MOMENTS BY GEORGE CHEVALLIER

(Compiler's note: Now here is my kind of story .... enjoy!)

from Salisbury News

The Great Jail Incident

Back in the late 1930’s, it was determined that the old jail behind the Wicomico County Courthouse was not adequate and a new one was needed. The first phase entailed razing the old jail. As is proper with government projects, the job was put out for bids.

On the day the sealed bids were opened, my grandfather’s bid was substantially lower than anyone else’s. When questioned by his peers as to how he could do the job at such a low cost. He replied that it wouldn’t cost that much to just dynamite the old jail and haul the rubble away. At that point, he was told he had really made a serious mistake because it was illegal to set off dynamite within the city limits. They told him it would cost him far more than his bid to bring in a crew with sledge hammers and raze the old jail. He just shrugged and said nothing.

Late the following Sunday night a great explosion was heard in downtown Salisbury. The following morning found him standing in front of the Clerk of Court with $25 in his hand. When asked what the money was for, he told the clerk that it was for the maximum amount he could be fined for setting off dynamite within the city limits according to the City Charter. He then proceeded to help with shoveling the rubble into dump trucks and clearing the space where the new jail was to be erected. Needless to say, his costs were well under his estimate.

Will Supremes review citizenship arguments?

Lawsuit: Even with a valid birth certificate, 'he still wouldn't be eligible to be president'

With protesters gathering and praying on the front steps, the U.S. Supreme Court met in conference today to discuss whether or not to hear a case challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.

"Obama was born a dual citizen," protester Roger Bredow told the Washington, D.C., local events blog, DCist. "British, and a citizen of the United States, at birth."

According to Bredow – and the case the Supreme Court reviewed today – dual citizenship makes Obama ineligible to take the oath of office.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, sign WND's petition demanding the release of his birth certificate.

The case of Leo C. Donofrio v. New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells, which claims Obama does not meet the Constitution's Article 2, Section 1 "natural-born citizen" requirement for president, was initially denied a hearing by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, but Justice Clarence Thomas agreed to bring it back for review today.

In order to go forward in the process, the case needs four of the Supreme Court's nine justices to approve a full hearing.

Bredow created a YouTube video inviting supporters to travel to Washington, D.C., and join him in urging the Supreme Court to hear the Donofrio case.

"If I'm going to be honest with you," Bredow confessed, "I thought I might be the only person here."

DCist contributor Dave Weigel reported roughly 15 to 20 people showed up for the rally.

"There aren't a lot of people out here today," said Steve Brindle, who drove into the capital from Pennsylvania. "There are a lot of people talking about this back home. Really, everyone's asking questions."

Donofrio's questions began months ago.

Donofrio's original suit sought a court order to stop the Nov. 4 presidential election. When that was denied, he amended his complaint to stop the Electoral College from certifying Obama as the winning candidate when it meets Dec. 15.

Unlike many of the lawsuits regarding Obama's "natural-born citizen" status, the Donofrio case makes no allegation that Obama was born on foreign soil. Instead, Donofrio contends Obama was a British citizen at birth, because of citizenship in a British colony, Kenya.

"Don't be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues," Donofrio writes on his Natural Born Citizen blog. "They are irrelevant to Senator Obama's ineligibility to be president. Since Barack Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama's birth, then Senator Obama was a British citizen 'at birth.'"

Obama's Fight the Smears website confirms that Donofrio is correct about the Democrat's citizenship at birth, but says his dual citizenship with Britain expired, leaving him with only American citizenship.

Donfrio, however, contends that the Constitution was written in such a way to exclude dual citizens like Obama.

"The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth," Donofrio writes, "were also British citizens, and that's why the Framers declared that, while they were citizens of the United States, they themselves were not 'natural born citizens.'"

"Therefore," Donofrio summarizes, "even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on U.S. soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be president."

As WND has reported, Donofrio's case is only one of several filed around the country challenging Obama's eligibility to be elected president under the Constitution.

Last month WND reported worries over a "constitutional crisis" that could be looming over the issue of Obama's citizenship.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi even traveled to Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, simply hasn't ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject.

Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others filed a court petition in California asking the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office.

The California action was filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation on behalf of Keyes, the presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, along with Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson, both California electors.

"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal," the action challenges.

The popular vote Nov. 4 favored Obama over Sen. John McCain by several percentage points. But because of the distribution of the votes, Obama is projected to take the Electoral College vote by a 2-to-1 margin.

The California case states, "There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot, the individuals running for office must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process," the complaint said, when in fact the only documentation currently required is a signed statement from the candidate attesting to those qualifications.

"Since [the secretary of state] has, as its core, the mission of certifying and establishing the validity of the election process, this writ seeks a Court Order barring SOS from certifying the California Electors until documentary proof that Senator Obama is a 'natural born' citizen of the United States of America is received by her," the document said.

"This proof could include items such as his original birth certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor, all of his passports with immigration stamps, and verification from the governments where the candidate has resided, verifying that he did not, and does not, hold citizenship of these countries, and any other documents that certify an individual’s citizenship and/or qualification for office.

The "certification of live birth" posted by the Obama campaign cannot be viewed as authoritative, the case alleges.

"Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence," the document said. "The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama's original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him."

The case also raises the circumstances of Obama's time during his youth in Indonesia, where he was listed as having Indonesian citizenship. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, raising the possibility of Obama's mother having given up his U.S. citizenship.

Any subsequent U.S. citizenship then, the case claims, would be "naturalized," not "natural-born."

Pentagon expanding number of aliens recruited

WASHINGTON – The Pentagon is planning to expand the number of foreigners it recruits into the military in yet another effort to make up for chronic shortages of doctors, nurses and linguists available for wartime duty.

The Defense Department already draws from aliens living in the United States on green cards and seeking permanent residency. But under a trial program, it will now look to also recruit from pools of foreigners who've been living in the states on student and work visas, with refugee or political asylum status and other temporary visas. ....

Gunmen May Have Survived Mumbai Terror Attack

Reports that several terrorists may have survived the three-day siege of Mumbai and escaped into the population will certainly not do much to calm the fears of a city already on edge.

“I think there are more. My sources say (there were) at least 23 of the gunmen,” said Farhana Ali, a former CIA and Rand Corp counterterrorism analyst and expert on militant networks. Ali, who most recently visited India and Pakistan last month before the attacks, said her information came from Pakistan, but declined to further identify the source.

“If that’s true, that makes one wonder why we haven’t seen more attacks. Are they lying low?” she said “I think they (Indian authorities) are bracing themselves for more,” she said.

Ali spoke at a briefing for U.S. government counterterrorism and military officials, and others. It was sponsored by the Counterterrorism Foundation, which supports research and publication on terrorism issues.

Source

Pak’s really hate missile strikes!

Rock’n the Casbah…

Pakistan tells Petraeus to stop missile strikes

(Because it worx!)

Muzi.com

ISLAMABAD - The U.S. commander running the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, held talks on Monday with Pakistani leaders who told him to stop U.S. strikes on militants in Pakistani territory.

US missile strike kills 3 in Pakistan

MIRAN SHAH, Pakistan – Pakistani intelligence officials say a suspected U.S. missile strike has killed three people in a militant stronghold near the Afghan border.

More

Whole lotta roasted Muzz!

* But as long as they’re doing it to themselves…?!

(AKI) - A powerful blast in Peshawar, in northwest Pakistan has killed least 20 people and injured over 80!

LAHORE: Pakistani officials are urging the incoming Obama administration to stop air attacks on Pakistani territory and are even hinting that they might shoot down US drones in its airspace, according to a report published in the Washington Times (WT).

Petraeus arrived in Pakistan on Sunday, at the beginning of his first foreign tour since taking charge of U.S. Central Command, highlighting U.S. concern about a country seen as crucial to stability in Afghanistan and to defeating al Qaeda.

U.S. analysts say Pakistan is facing a major threat from Islamist militants at a time when the nuclear-armed nation and its new civilian government are engulfed in extraordinarily difficult economic problems.

Petraeus has been hailed as an outstanding military leader for helping pull Iraq back from the brink of civil war with a strategy that brought a “surge” of 30,000 extra U.S. troops.

Both U.S. presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, have said they would put more focus on defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan and eradicating al Qaeda from Pakistan’s borderlands.

Both candidates have said they would boost U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan from the 33,000 there now.

Petraeus was being accompanied in Pakistan by Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Richard Boucher.

Their visit comes as relations between the United States and Pakistan have been strained by a series of cross-border U.S. strikes, most by missile-firing pilotless drone aircraft, on militant targets in Pakistan.

President Asif Ali Zardari told Petraeus the attacks should stop, Pakistan’s state news agency reported.

“Continuing drone attacks on our territory, which result in loss of precious lives and property, are counter-productive and difficult to explain by a democratically elected government,” Zardari was quoted as saying.

“It is creating a credibility gap,” he said.

“MORE ACTION”

The most pressing problems for Petraeus include rising violence in Afghanistan and Taliban and al Qaeda sanctuaries across the border in Pakistan’s ethnic Pashtun tribal lands.

The United States and NATO are losing ground against an escalating Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, despite the presence of 64,000 Western troops, while al Qaeda has regained strength in Pakistan’s tribal region.

Apparently, frustration over deteriorating Afghan security has led to more aggressive U.S. action against the sanctuaries in Pakistan with about 15 missile strikes and one ground assault since the beginning of last month.

Pakistan says the strikes are a violation of its sovereignty and undermine efforts to isolate the militants and rally public opinion behind the unpopular campaign against militancy, which many people see as America’s war.

The United States has shrugged off Pakistan’s complaints saying the attacks are needed to protect U.S. troops in Afghanistan and kill militants who threaten them.

About 20 people, including militants, were killed in the latest U.S. missile strikes on two violence-plagued border regions, North and South Waziristan, on Friday.

Despite the anger over the cross-border strikes, analysts say Zardari is a staunch U.S. ally who wants good ties.

Earlier, Defence Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar said Petraeus had been appreciative of Pakistan’s efforts in battling militants along the Afghan border.

“They believe in our government because previously there was more rhetoric than action but now there is more action than rhetoric,” Mukhtar told Reuters.

“They appreciate that we take it as war against Pakistan. It’s our war … we are fighting for our survival.”

Those Who Forget The Past Are Destined To Repeat It

(Compiler's note: This is a must read article. Also do a search here for "federal reserve bank". One can only conclude that here they go again.)

from Salisbury News

Thomas Jefferson (Letter to James Monroe, January 1, 1815)

“If the American People ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied. The issuing power of money should be taken from the bankers and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs. I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies.

We are completely saddled and bridled, and the bank is so firmly mounted on us that we must go where they ill guide.

The dominion which the banking institutions have obtained over the minds of our citizens...must be broken, or it will break us.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bankers Manifesto of 1892

We (the bankers) must proceed with caution and guard every move made, for the lower order of people are already showing signs of restless commotion. Prudence will therefore show a policy of apparently yielding to the popular will until our plans are so far consummated that we can declare our designs without fear of any organized resistance.

Organizations in the United States should be carefully watched by our trusted men, and we must take immediate steps to control these organizations in our interest or disrupt them.

At the coming Omaha convention to be held July 4, 1892, our men must attend and direct its movement or else there will be set on foot such antagonism to our designs as may require force to overcome.

This at the present time would be premature. We are not yet ready for such a crisis. Capital must protect itself in every possible manner through combination (conspiracy) and legislation.

The courts must be called to our aid, debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible.

When, through the process of law, the common people have lost their homes,
they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers.

People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism.

The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.

By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete actions, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished.