SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Carolyn who wrote (8705)10/26/2001 9:30:17 PM
From: Giordano Bruno  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 27666
 
From the laughter thread:

Message 16557790



To: Carolyn who wrote (8705)10/26/2001 9:30:28 PM
From: Patrick Slevin  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 27666
 
Another perspective.

#reply-16566938



Osama has hijacked an entire nation and as his cult power in the streets grows, not
only aspires to hijack our entire religion, he threatens as well to hijack the entire
future of 1.8 billion Muslims on this earth.

Osama Bin Laden in 1996! A rich kid on the new terrorist block, educated well and
sophisticated in his ways. Osama is in sharp contrast to Mullah Umar, a rustic,
brought up by a stepfather, ignorant of the world outside Afghanistan, in fact
outside of Kandahar. In awe of Osama, Mullah Omar was ripe to be "cultivated",
it seems Osama did exactly just that, pandering to Mullah Omar's ego by raving
about his "holy" qualities, proclaiming him as the "Chosen One". To strengthen
the bonds, he married Mullah Umar's sister, marrying his own son to Mullah
Umar's daughter. He took control of Mullah Umar's personal protection, using
Arabs almost exclusively as a form of Praetorian Guard. He stroked Mullah
Umar's ego as well as his fears. Every time the world accused Osama Bin Laden of
terrorism, this "western lie" further strengthened his standing as "a Muslim
among Muslims". History is replete with such instances, the most famous being
Rasputin.
The Taliban fluctuated between extremism and moderation when they came to
power, their radicalization into absolute obscurantism began only after 1998 when
Osama acquired almost absolute power in Kandahar, engineering what amounts to
a palace coup. About the only ones left with some independence to air some dissent
were the old Mujhahideen commanders like the late Governor of Jalalabad,
Mullah Rabbani (who died of cancer in March), most were commanding field
troops: far away from Kandahar. The Talib technocrats controlling the centres of
power and administration are mostly from Kandahar, some like Foreign Minister
Mullah Mutawakil have not even seen the Afghan war.
Mullah Umar, and by extension Osama Bin Laden, has complete control. This
absolute authority of Mullah Umar is tailor-made for Osama Bin Laden to exploit,
to radicalize Islam at will and make his distorted version official (and in doing so
distort the western world perception of Islam). He has cleverly and neatly
dovetailed anti-Americanism into religious protest.

Ikram Sehgul on origins of present post Russian withdrawl Afghan war...

Assuming the war with the Soviets would be a long drawn out one, CIA funded
many of the Madrassahs through the ISI in the 80s as a future source of recruits.
The Soviets packed up from Afghanistan far earlier than anticipated, Talib
detachments with the various Mujhahideen factions went home or back to the
Madrassahs to continue their education. Pakistan did not really try convincing the
Americans about their post-war responsibilities. Having seemingly defeated a
Superpower by themselves, the then ISI bosses did not want the US to disturb their
vision of a crescent of Pan-Islamic Countries. This naked individual ambition has
contributed to the problems of this region today, the perpetrators still hiding behind
"Islamic" garb and unbridled rhetoric as a convenient smokescreen. Only too
happy to oblige, the Americans abdicated as paymasters in further financing the
war or the peace to follow. Our then military rulers were not unduly worried, after
all the Muslim world, led by the rich Arabs, would move in with massive funding, or
so they thought! The net result, no post war plan for Afghanistan, arrangements for
economic aid and/or political rehabilitation, even in the pre-planning stage.

During the Junejo civilian interregnum, the Foreign Office took Afghanistan back
from the ISI and signed the Geneva Accords, but Gen Zia frustrated his own
"civilian experiment" by unceremoniously showing PM Junejo the door in 1988.
The ISI were then trapped into attacking Jalalabad, a vain attempt at obtaining
military glory on the cheap, sending others to their death for "the cause". Maj
Talat, an ISI cover officer in Kabul, had gone to Jalalabad to arrange for the burial
of Bacha Khan (Wali Khan's father) who wanted to be buried there. The large
movement of troops and heavy equipment he saw on the road to (and in) Jalalabad
alarmed him enough to flash a message to HQ ISI.

The large garrison at Samarkhel having surrendered earlier, HQ ISI was on a high
and not listening. A majority of the hard core Mujhahideen veterans of the Afghan
War were decimated. Has anyone ever enquired about this bloody debacle and the
man responsible? Ahmed Shah Masood, veteran of many "private" cease-fires
with the Soviets, kept his Tajiks out of harm's way and struck a deal with
mercenary Uzbek Rashid Dostum, whose "Jumbish" militia (from Mazar-i-Sharif)
was already in Kabul propping up Najibullah, to take control in Kabul, de-facto
seat of government. The Mujahideen had literally fallen apart, fighting each other
as fiercely as they had fought the Soviets, the commanders becoming warlords in
the territories they ruled over e.g. Ismail Khan became Governor Herat; Mullah
Naqib, Kandahar; Mullah Rabbani, Jalalabad etc. Lesser commanders simply
became brigands, blocking roads and imposing "taxes" at will. Absolute
lawlessness ruled the land, rape, loot and pillage became the order of the day.

The new Afghan Armed Forces became an amalgam of elements of the Soviet
trained Afghan Army and lateral entries from the Afghan Mujhahideen. Most of
those inducted were Tajik and Uzbek loyalists of Defence Minister Ahmed Shah
Masood (the actual man in power), this alienated the majority Pashtuns. Holding
the major cities and the military bases around the country, Masood abandoned the
countryside to the Mujhahideen-turned-bandits. The withdrawing Soviets left a
vast surplus of defence material, particularly tanks, fighter aircraft, helicopters
and ammunition of all kinds, greased and packed in crates.

With Masood increasingly hostile, his troops stood by as a mob set the Pakistan
Embassy on fire, the Benazir Government in 1994 mandated the ISI to help the
traders secure a route for Central Asia through Kandahar and Herat to Turghundi.
Unwittingly Ms Benazir acted as a midwife to the birth of the Taliban. A convoy of
Pakistani trucks was intercepted by the local Mujhahideen Commander in Hilmand
alongwith the accompanying ISI operatives. When the Governor Kandahar Mullah
Naqib expressed his helplessness, ISI requested Mullah Zakiri, who was in
Quetta, for help. A small group of Talibs led by a relatively obscure religious
preacher Mullah Umar, who had lost an eye during the Afghan War, freed the
convoy. Welcomed as saviours, the Talibs replaced Mullah Naqib. Hundreds of
Talibs from all over rushed to join the Talibs in Kandahar.

With Kandahar in their control Mujhahideen from the other factions and even
entire units of the Armed Forces defected to the Talibs. The world could not
believe that these country yokels, now known as the Taliban, could handle
sophisticated weapons. They concluded these were Pakistani skilled personnel
despite the fact that Soviet origin equipment (except for MI-8 helicopters) is not in
use in Pakistan. For their own individual selfish purposes some ISI officers, started
the myth that Pakistan created the Taliban, this damaged Pakistan no end. True
that Pakistan has been giving money and material support, far cheaper than to
have refugees costing many times more for their upkeep.

The Taliban restored law and order by clearing the roadblocks of all bandits and
disarming everyone not in the new militia. Fed up of years of lawlessness and
atrocities, the population welcomed the cleanliness of Taliban governance.
Provinces fell without firing a single shot when the local commanders came over to
the Taliban side. Fully 90 percent of those called Taliban were not Talibs and have
never been Talibs, many have never been to any school or Madrassah. The
Taliban ultimately took over control of Kabul in 1996 from Masood, his forces
withdrawing to the safety of his native Panjsher Valley. Masood was brave but
parochial in looking only after the Tajik interest.

This myopic vision created anarchy in all of Afghanistan except Kabul, a set-piece
environment for takeover by the Pashtun-dominated Taliban. Mazar-i-Sharif
changed hands a couple of times before Rashid Dostum fled.
By consensus, the Taliban chose Mullah Umar as their Supreme Leader,
Amir-ul-Momineen. While the seat of government remained in the capital Kabul,
Mullah Umar rules by edicts from Kandahar, a very centralized system alien to
Islamic governance, where once policy is enunciated, a fair amount of autonomy is
given to the Governors. Modern communications has made this over-centralization
work, disrupted hopelessly now by the targetted US attacks on communications
and logistics centers.



To: Carolyn who wrote (8705)10/27/2001 12:31:14 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 27666
 
David Limbaugh

October 27, 2001

Cool heads must prevail

I was a bit surprised by the reaction to my last column where I argued that we shouldn't underestimate the magnitude of the radical Islam movement. I expected the reaction to come from the other direction.

I anticipated being bombarded with protests from the politically correct crowd, cautioning me not to overplay the terrorist threat for fear that I might be interpreted as impugning the religion of Islam itself. The exact opposite occurred.

Most of the critics said I just didn't get it. This is a holy war: Christians and Jews against Islam. Islam, they said, is not a peaceful religion. The violence is not limited to a fringe group of Muslims. They pointed to passages from the Koran. "Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans." "Then fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them. And seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them ..."

I'm aware of these passages, as well as respected British historian Paul Johnson's haunting observation: "Islam is an imperialist religion, more so than Christianity has ever been, and in contrast to Judaism ... (The pagan nations) however mighty, the Koran insists, must be fought 'until they embrace Islam.'" I'm also troubled that so few American Muslim leaders have openly condemned the Trade Center bombings.

So, yes, I, too, worry about these things. I would be less than honest if, political correctness aside, I denied wondering whether and to what extent mainstream Islam is hostile toward "infidels." I just don't know.

What I do know is that all of Islam has not declared war on America. Far from it. Many of the Muslim nations are helping the American cause at various levels. The most amazing is the Pakistani government, which is providing an incredible level of support considering the presence of so many fundamentalists in its own country.

Why do you suppose certain Arab nations are being supportive to the extent they are? Why do you suppose they are not being more supportive?

The same answer fits both questions, and it has nothing to do with religion, but practical political considerations. They fear the terrorists, too. The radical Muslims pose a far greater threat to their regimes than to ours. These nations want to survive. They want to give us sufficient support to defeat the terrorists, but not enough to provoke fundamentalist uprisings in their own countries.

Why do you suppose George Bush is approaching this war incrementally – first in Afghanistan and later (hopefully) Iraq? Well, not because he lacks resolve against Saddam Hussein, the man who ordered the assassination of his father! Not because he doubts that Hussein is manufacturing weapons of mass destruction.

Same answer, in part. He, too, is trying to prevent radical Muslim insurgencies in neighboring nations. If you think we have problems now ... Bush is also trying to use our limited military resources (don't forget the extent to which our forces were depleted during the preceding decade) efficiently. We are hardly prepared to fight in multiple theaters at once and protect our own mainland simultaneously.

So just what is it the purists would have President Bush do? Talk is cheap. Do they want him to use it cheaply, too? Do they want him to stand behind his bully pulpit and declare a jihad against the world's billions of Muslims, including those who are Americans?

Even if the Koran arguably encourages Muslim imperialism, I don't believe that the bulk of Muslims subscribe to that notion. And even if they did, we couldn't just go out and declare war on the religion.

The Soviet Union was unarguably committed to our overthrow by any means necessary, but we never declared a hot war against it. Red China is probably still committed to our demise, but we haven't and shouldn't declare war against it, either.

I'm certainly not contending that the administration is handling everything perfectly. I wish we would abandon our double standard toward terrorism against Israel and our rhetoric in favor of a Palestinian state. I also wish Secretary Powell wouldn't even casually suggest that the new government in Afghanistan might include some "moderate" members of the Taliban. That's almost like saying we should allow a few terrorists to fly on each commercial flight.

But I believe that, for the most part, President Bush is handling this matter just about right. We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with terrorists who subscribe to a militant brand of their religion. Let's try to keep our heads.

townhall.com



To: Carolyn who wrote (8705)10/27/2001 12:32:21 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 27666
 
Pat Buchanan

October 27, 2001

Tracking down the enemy within

On June 13, 1942, eight trained saboteurs paddled ashore on rafts from Nazi submarines in Florida and Long Island. Carrying fake IDs, explosives and $175,000 in cash, Hitler's agents had come on a mission: Blend into American society and blow up U.S. factories.

On Long Island, four were spotted. Two defected and betrayed their comrades. FDR ordered all eight to be tried by military tribunal. On August 8, six were executed in a D.C. jail, buried in unmarked graves. America was a deadly serious country in the summer of '42.

Few Americans protested, for the same would have happened to any American OSS agent caught behind German lines. Under the rules of war, soldiers out of uniform, engaged in spying or sabotage, are executed. In our own revolution, teenage patriot Nathan Hale was hanged for spying, as was Major Andre, the go-between for Benedict Arnold and Gen. Clinton. Andre's only plea, denied, was that he be shot as a soldier, not hanged as a spy.

If we are serious about this war on terrorism, Congress ought not only to declare war, but warn that any terrorist caught in the U.S. on a mission of massacre will go before a military tribunal and be put to death quickly and in secret, as were those German saboteurs.

If a Delta Force commando is captured in Afghanistan, he will not be provided with a lawyer. If a 17-year-old Afghan kid is found at bin Laden's cave when U.S. Special Forces arrive, he will not be read his Miranda rights. Why, then, should any alien terrorist, like that would-be bomber who entered the U.S. at Seattle before Y2K, enjoy any constitutional protection, simply because he made it here and his terrorist comrades in Afghanistan did not?

While this idea may seem shocking, it is how nations at war behave. Yet, some Americans speak as though nothing has changed. Only days after Sept. 11, this writer heard one U.S. statesman rattle off a list of nations we ought to bomb, then declare himself committed to "open borders."

Last summer, editorial editor Robert Bartley of The Wall Street Journal endorsed "open borders for not only goods and investment but people." Yet, the Journal that wants to abolish our Border Patrol and tear down our border posts also howls for strikes "aimed at terrorist camps in Syria, Sudan, Libya, and Algeria, and perhaps even in parts of Egypt."

Under this homeland security policy, we would have bombed Nazi Germany but kept the door open to Nazi immigration. After all, these husky fellows in crew cuts "are only coming to America to take jobs Americans don't want." This is not cognitive dissonance; post-Sept. 11, this is cognitive disorder.

Americans can no longer indulge such nonsense. Either we abandon the utopian globalism of open borders and "ally-ally-in-free" immigration or we lose the war on terrorism and our freedoms with it. To fight a terrorist network in 60 countries, we must seal our borders and get as serious about homeland security as were the Americans of '42.

Herewith, several suggestions Governor Ridge might ponder, if we are serious: An immediate moratorium on all immigration, which will also assist America's newly unemployed. Expand the Border Patrol to 20,000, which would still give us only three Border Patrol personnel for each mile of our 6,000 miles of borders with Canada and Mexico. Slash radically the number of visas we extend to states that harbor terrorists. Expedite the deportation of the eight-to-11 million illegal aliens, beginning with those from rogue nations. President Bush's amnesty proposal should be quietly interred.

Other ideas that may have seemed radical yesterday, may not today as we dig out the dead in lower Manhattan. One is to transfer the UN out of the U.S., and thus remove from the United States all diplomats of states that harbor terrorists, denying them diplomatic immunity and diplomatic pouches as they do their dirty business with their sleeper agents already inside the U.S.A.

This will cause howls. Yet, not only did the U.S. wrongly intern loyal Japanese-Americans in World War II, we rightly sent home all German and Italian diplomats and nationals – not because they were terrorists, but because we could not take the chance. As a result, hardly a factory was sabotaged or a citizen perished in the 48 states from enemy sabotage or assassination. During that worst war in history, Americans here at home were more secure than today. But now the enemy is inside our gates, and we must ferret him out.

Mr. Bartley was once quoted (inaccurately, he claims) as saying, "I believe the nation-state is finished." Well, if we follow Mr. Bartley's foolish counsel, America may be finished. Time to get serious.

Contact Pat Buchanan

©2001 Creators Syndicate, Inc

townhall.com



To: Carolyn who wrote (8705)10/27/2001 12:37:13 AM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 27666
 
Could Governor Giuliani Be Next?

foxnews.com