I continuously update the sidebar with additional links.
First of all, there is an extensive set of links for news, analysis and commentary from around the world. I have tried to get off the beaten path, and provide links to news sources that most Americans would not normally have in their favorites list on their computer. A main focus has been local news sources from regions that seem to play an important role in current events.
In this context, I have a widget linking US regional news sources from the southwest and border area, as illegal immigration is becoming quite a problematic issue. Related issues include drug trafficking and the trafficking of other contraband, and the related political corruption (though this latter topic seems to get less coverage). For further information, I am linking law enforcement agencies, beginning with those that deal with border issues, and have just finished linking every sheriff's office in Arizona, as Arizona seems to play an especially pivotal role right now.
There are also widgets dealing with Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, as the dynamic interplay of these three countries seems to have quite an impact on the world today. I may add other widgets for other countries.
I have a list of links to UK political parties, and am considering adding widgets for political links from elsewhere in the anglosphere.
Meanwhile, I have begun a list of links for US political websites. The focus here is on national websites or websites for issues or campaigns of national importance. For example, I am not terribly interested in every sheriff's race in every county in the US, but the sheriff's races in counties near the Mexican border are of interest due to the issues that they involve.
On that note, I try to provide links to as many sides of an issue as I can. My news links are from around the world, both geographically and ideologically; similarly, I tried to link every UK political party of even remote national importance.
I am also trying to provide links to other resources, but have not yet really begun to organize this.
If you have any suggestions, please leave them as a comment, or email me (earlylight21 -- yahoo -- com), or let me know via my Facebook account which you can find via my email address. At this point, I would rather include a link that may be of little use than exclude a link that could be important, so I am erring on the side of putting the links in; that could change very fast.
Please note: I want this blog to be a free speech zone. Linking to a website does not necessarily mean I endorse any of the material found there; the links are provided for my reference and for the reference of my readers.
I have a similar view of comments, but will delete comments that seem to be just ads disguised as comments, and may (or may not) delete comments with excessive profanity, that call for violence or illegal activity, etc.
I encourage disagreement, because the crucible of debate is key to arriving at the truth, but please keep it civil.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Impeach Obama, not Judge Bolton
Arizona is literally being overrun by illegal immigrants. Contrary to how this is portrayed by some, these are not just decent people looking for a better way of life. There is a main drug-trafficking corridor from the border well into the heart of Arizona, and in this corridor and along the border, even law enforcement is outgunned and severely threatened; ordinary people are in deep trouble here.
I have extensive links in my sidebar, including a very long list of links to news services from California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas; you can learn about the issues along the border from local TV and newspapers in the area by clicking on the links. It is not hard to do your own research and learn more.
I am opposed to the Arizona law for one reason: the federal government should be securing the border, not the state government.
The problem Arizona faces is that the federal government refuses to do its job; given this, how can Arizona officials best protect the citizens of their state? In this situation, the law seems to make sense. I am sure those same officials who passed this law would also want the federal government to do its job, so Arizona wouldn't have to, but given that this is not the case, Arizona's officials are trying to serve the best interests of their state. Arizona's officials have been dealt a bad hand, and are playing it as well as they can.
US District Judge Susan Bolton recently ruled on the Arizona law, and some of the rationale behind the ruling is in Why Judge Susan Bolton blocked key parts of Arizona's SB 1070, dated July 28, 2010, of which we review excerpts:
Federal priorities are not what the Constitution says they should be, so maybe this law would be a means of redirecting the federal government so it does its job - not proactively, but reactively in support of a state that has had to step in.
Agreed.
That last sentence nails it. The problem is not along Arizona's border, nor anywhere in or even near Arizona - the problem is in Washington.
Our "Constitutional scholar" President not only doesn't DO his Constitutionally-mandated job, I wonder if he even knows (or cares) what the hell his Constitutionally-mandated job IS.
Judge Bolton is not the one to come down on here - like Arizona's officials, Judge Bolton is trying to make sense of a situation that sucks.
If you want someone removed from office, Judge Bolton is not the one to impeach; impeach Obama. He is failing to do his job, which is to see that the laws of the land are faithfully executed, most emphatically including the job of protecting the state of Arizona from an illegal invasion which threatens to destroy not just Arizona, but vast regions of the United States, by allowing US territory to be controlled by hostile foreign powers, namely international drug cartels based in Mexico.
For further information, I suggest Next steps for the Arizona immigration law after court's preliminary decision and Judge Blocks Parts of AZ Law, Battle Not Over, from which I take the following vid:
I have extensive links in my sidebar, including a very long list of links to news services from California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas; you can learn about the issues along the border from local TV and newspapers in the area by clicking on the links. It is not hard to do your own research and learn more.
I am opposed to the Arizona law for one reason: the federal government should be securing the border, not the state government.
The problem Arizona faces is that the federal government refuses to do its job; given this, how can Arizona officials best protect the citizens of their state? In this situation, the law seems to make sense. I am sure those same officials who passed this law would also want the federal government to do its job, so Arizona wouldn't have to, but given that this is not the case, Arizona's officials are trying to serve the best interests of their state. Arizona's officials have been dealt a bad hand, and are playing it as well as they can.
US District Judge Susan Bolton recently ruled on the Arizona law, and some of the rationale behind the ruling is in Why Judge Susan Bolton blocked key parts of Arizona's SB 1070, dated July 28, 2010, of which we review excerpts:
The judge said the state measure was preempted by federal law because such checks would swamp federal immigration officials who are pursuing different priorities.
"The number of requests that will emanate from Arizona as a result of determining the status of every arrestee is likely to impermissibly burden federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established," Bolton wrote.
The judge said the same problem would arise under the provision requiring police officers to check the immigration status of suspected illegal immigrants. "Federal resources will be taxed and diverted from federal enforcement priorities as a result of the increase in requests for immigration status determination(s)," she said.
Federal priorities are not what the Constitution says they should be, so maybe this law would be a means of redirecting the federal government so it does its job - not proactively, but reactively in support of a state that has had to step in.
The judge said the provision would also create an impermissible burden on immigrants who are lawfully present in Arizona.
Agreed.
Bolton concluded that there was a likelihood of irreparable harm to the interests of the federal government if certain provisions of SB 1070 took effect.
"The court by no means disregards Arizona's interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime, including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money," Bolton wrote.
"Even though Arizona's interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws," she said.
Opponents of SB 1070 said the law would lead to illegal racial profiling by state and local law enforcement officials. Supporters countered that the state law was necessary to make up for lax and ineffective border enforcement by the federal government.
That last sentence nails it. The problem is not along Arizona's border, nor anywhere in or even near Arizona - the problem is in Washington.
Our "Constitutional scholar" President not only doesn't DO his Constitutionally-mandated job, I wonder if he even knows (or cares) what the hell his Constitutionally-mandated job IS.
Judge Bolton is not the one to come down on here - like Arizona's officials, Judge Bolton is trying to make sense of a situation that sucks.
If you want someone removed from office, Judge Bolton is not the one to impeach; impeach Obama. He is failing to do his job, which is to see that the laws of the land are faithfully executed, most emphatically including the job of protecting the state of Arizona from an illegal invasion which threatens to destroy not just Arizona, but vast regions of the United States, by allowing US territory to be controlled by hostile foreign powers, namely international drug cartels based in Mexico.
For further information, I suggest Next steps for the Arizona immigration law after court's preliminary decision and Judge Blocks Parts of AZ Law, Battle Not Over, from which I take the following vid:
The Coming Mid-Term Elections
An interesting article provides analysis of the likely coming powershift, and what has contributed to it. GOP Gains Weren’t Always Inevitable This Year, dated July 28, 2010, ends like this:
When the Democrats are running both houses of Congress and the White House, the inevitable result is higher taxes and more spending. Since the Democrats tax work and subsidize unemployment, there is a trend toward fewer people producing wealth, and more people getting government checks. This, in turn, causes deficits to rise, slowly building into a firestorm of tax-and-spend policies.
What reigns in the Democrats is a mid-term power shift - something the Democrats are almost guaranteed to bring us, by causing Americans to vote for more Republicans.
An added factor is that Republican-leaning voters are more inveterate; that is, they are more likely to show up at the polls. Consequently, in Presidential general elections, both the D's and the R's show up, but the farther you get away from a Presidential general election (off-year or mid-term elections, odd-year elections, and any kind of primary), the more the likelihood that the D doesn't vote, but the R does.
The reason the Republicans ever lose power is because too many standard-bearers aren't really Republicans - they are instead what the Democrats were decades ago.
The reason these same Republicans have a shot at winning is because the Democrats (at the national level) have long ago stopped being Democrats, and have become Socialists, Communists or Fascists.
Notice that we have not yet factored in corruption. The Clinton Administration was blatant, the Bush-43 Administration was more sophisticated, and the Obama Administration runs things Chicago-style.
If honest, dedicated, true Republicans were on the ballot, there would be a relative landslide, a mandate, and a reversal of decades of socialistic practices, which have been topped off with increasingly fascistic, corrupt "banana republican" tendencies.
One commentator at the above link had this to say:
That pretty much sums up the threat of the Obamanistas, except that, as in the writings of most mainstream opinionmakers and their commentators, corruption is not really addressed - and it needs to be, very significantly.
Actions, indeed, do have consequences. In this case, the combination of an aggressive Democratic agenda, a weak jobs recovery and a large deficit has created a political environment very different from the one 18 months ago, when Democrats won a special election in New York's open 20th district by demonizing Republicans for waffling on, then opposing, Obama's economic stimulus plan.
It's very difficult to imagine Republican gains in the House of fewer than two dozen seats, and my own newsletter, after going race by race, recently placed likely GOP gains in the range of 28 to 33 seats, if not higher.
The House surely is at great risk, and anyone who asserts that Democrats are certain to maintain their majority after November is simply not worth listening to on the subject. The trajectory of this election cycle is clear. But don’t delude yourself. It didn’t have to be this way.
When the Democrats are running both houses of Congress and the White House, the inevitable result is higher taxes and more spending. Since the Democrats tax work and subsidize unemployment, there is a trend toward fewer people producing wealth, and more people getting government checks. This, in turn, causes deficits to rise, slowly building into a firestorm of tax-and-spend policies.
What reigns in the Democrats is a mid-term power shift - something the Democrats are almost guaranteed to bring us, by causing Americans to vote for more Republicans.
An added factor is that Republican-leaning voters are more inveterate; that is, they are more likely to show up at the polls. Consequently, in Presidential general elections, both the D's and the R's show up, but the farther you get away from a Presidential general election (off-year or mid-term elections, odd-year elections, and any kind of primary), the more the likelihood that the D doesn't vote, but the R does.
The reason the Republicans ever lose power is because too many standard-bearers aren't really Republicans - they are instead what the Democrats were decades ago.
The reason these same Republicans have a shot at winning is because the Democrats (at the national level) have long ago stopped being Democrats, and have become Socialists, Communists or Fascists.
Notice that we have not yet factored in corruption. The Clinton Administration was blatant, the Bush-43 Administration was more sophisticated, and the Obama Administration runs things Chicago-style.
If honest, dedicated, true Republicans were on the ballot, there would be a relative landslide, a mandate, and a reversal of decades of socialistic practices, which have been topped off with increasingly fascistic, corrupt "banana republican" tendencies.
One commentator at the above link had this to say:
Mick Russom July 29, 2010 3:24 AM
If you support Obama and his Regime, you support a Statist authoritarian who is an empty suit who speaks in platitudes who is beholden to the oligarchical collectivists and banking cabals. You are against freedom, liberty and our constitutional republic and the notion that all of our rights are inborn and are given by our creator. Some autocrat in Washington does not grant rights - the constitution simply enumerates them for added protection. The constitution also limits the Powers of the Federal Government yet an expansionist authoritarian view is used in modern times contrary to what Madison had intended. If you support Obama you support the biggest threat to our free will in our history, and when the last bastion of freedom in the USA falls, there is nowhere else to go.
That pretty much sums up the threat of the Obamanistas, except that, as in the writings of most mainstream opinionmakers and their commentators, corruption is not really addressed - and it needs to be, very significantly.
Monday, July 26, 2010
The Legacy of Iraq?
(Here's where I lose some of my "conservative" friends.)
First, Did the Iraqi surge succeed? by Thomas E. Ricks, July 26, 2010:
(Please see the original for formatting and links which I did not reproduce.)
Saddam Hussein's brutal regime was removed, but under American occupation, abuse of prisoners continued.
Make no mistake about it - the American military, at its worst, is nowhere near as bad our enemies at their best. No military does as good a job caring for "enemy" populations as the US military - Vietnam and the Indian wars notwithstanding.
But, prisoner abuse occurred, due not just to negligence on the part of the civilian command authorities, but due to the active intervention of our civilian leadership to make sure certain harsh, abusive things happened.
Once American troops pull out, though, Iraq will wind up with another brutal regime, where the treatment of prisoners will be far worse - on a par with what happened under Hussein.
So, what were our troops sent in to die for?
Hussein's Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, and the Bush-43 regime knew that.
Hussein's Iraq was connected to the Oklahoma City bombing, but that has, so far, been covered up.
The invasion has been very lucrative for certain business interests.
Strategically, though, it was a blunder.
A secular regime was removed; the replacement will ultimately be one that pushes militant Islam.
America's reputation has suffered for various reasons.
America's federal debt has dramatically increased, leaving us far less able to deal with future issues, whether natural disasters, wars or economic catastrophes.
It will be interesting to see what the legacy of the Iraq war will be.
One thing is for sure - the Obama Administration has neither the intelligence, nor the integrity, nor the guts to fix the blunders of its predecessor.
In fact, we have sunk to a new level - far below where we were a couple of years ago.
First, Did the Iraqi surge succeed? by Thomas E. Ricks, July 26, 2010:
Yes, if you think its purpose was to enable the United States to find a way to get out of Iraq with a few shreds of dignity. (But that would be cynical!) No, if you think its purpose was to improve security in such a way that Iraq would have a political breakthrough.
I dredge this all up because of a good article by young Leila Fadel in the Saturday edition of the Washington Post that examines how all the basic issues in Mosul remain unresolved. She writes that, "Kurdish and Sunni Arab leaders battle over disputed lands, provincial and central government officials wrestle for control, and Sunni insurgents continue to slip back and forth across the porous borders with Turkey and Syria."
This is a microcosm of Iraq's problems as a whole: There is no agreement on how to share oil revenue, no resolution of the basic relationship between the country's three major groups, and no decision on whether Iraq will have a strong central government or be a loose confederation. And no resolution on the future place of the Kurds and Kirkuk.
On the upside, it is going to be interesting to see how Iraqi officials treat journalists after there no longer are so many Americans about. Here's a taste that Fadel and her friends got from Iraqi Lt. Col. Shamel Ahmed Ugla when they asked about a detainee who said he was beaten as he was interrogated about his connections to al Qaeda: "If he was beaten, to hell with him," Ugla yelled. "Stop asking these questions."
(Please see the original for formatting and links which I did not reproduce.)
Saddam Hussein's brutal regime was removed, but under American occupation, abuse of prisoners continued.
Make no mistake about it - the American military, at its worst, is nowhere near as bad our enemies at their best. No military does as good a job caring for "enemy" populations as the US military - Vietnam and the Indian wars notwithstanding.
But, prisoner abuse occurred, due not just to negligence on the part of the civilian command authorities, but due to the active intervention of our civilian leadership to make sure certain harsh, abusive things happened.
Once American troops pull out, though, Iraq will wind up with another brutal regime, where the treatment of prisoners will be far worse - on a par with what happened under Hussein.
So, what were our troops sent in to die for?
Hussein's Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, and the Bush-43 regime knew that.
Hussein's Iraq was connected to the Oklahoma City bombing, but that has, so far, been covered up.
The invasion has been very lucrative for certain business interests.
Strategically, though, it was a blunder.
A secular regime was removed; the replacement will ultimately be one that pushes militant Islam.
America's reputation has suffered for various reasons.
America's federal debt has dramatically increased, leaving us far less able to deal with future issues, whether natural disasters, wars or economic catastrophes.
It will be interesting to see what the legacy of the Iraq war will be.
One thing is for sure - the Obama Administration has neither the intelligence, nor the integrity, nor the guts to fix the blunders of its predecessor.
In fact, we have sunk to a new level - far below where we were a couple of years ago.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Desiccated Land, Part 1
In Jammu and Kashmir, India is sure trying to do something (I'm not sure what).
From Terms of Kashmir dialogue finalised (July 24, 2010):
Other initiatives include efforts to find employment, to get local young people working instead of throwing rocks (or maybe even grenades).
But, meanwhile: Curfew imposed in Sopore, Kupwara (July 23, 2010):
For some background, we consider Jihadis set to spill over into Kashmir, July 21, 2010:
There are parallels to be drawn between Kashmir and many other contested regions in the world.
Skipping down:
Elements in Pakistan are supporting the militants/ separatists/ terrorists, and that support is causing blowback in Pakistan.
Skipping down again:
Honestly, for the jihadists "Palestine" and "Kashmir" are merely buzzwords, excuses to do what Mohammed commanded but which many Muslims had outgrown.
For some analysis regarding India's actions in Kashmir, we go to India's strategy of suppression in Kashmir could backfire, July 23, 2010:
Though economics is a factor - there is a need for more job opportunities, and many of the job opportunities that the region offered are now gone due to the standstill caused by the crackdown - many of the rock-throwing youths say economics is not the reason, but rather the crackdown is causing the problems: if they can't vent peacefully, then simmering problems will boil over into violence. The issue: self-determination, promised during partition in the 1940's, but never realized.
However, the mixture is made more potent by support for militants from across the border in Pakistan.
But, India's response as if all the protesters are Pakistani-backed instigators is itself helping to foment the trouble, and simultaneously giving militants an issue.
More to follow on Jammu and Kashmir.
From Terms of Kashmir dialogue finalised (July 24, 2010):
JAMMU: The Indian government has finalised the terms of dialogue that it intends to open with all the groups in Jammu and Kashmir, including the separatists, highly placed sources said on Saturday.
The sources here, in touch with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Congress president Sonia Gandhi and union home minister P Chidambaram, told IANS that the central government would open dialogue with the groups in Kashmir with a straight offer to dilute the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, the legal cover that shields armed forces from prosecution for any acts of omission and commission in counter-terrorism operations.
Other initiatives include efforts to find employment, to get local young people working instead of throwing rocks (or maybe even grenades).
But, meanwhile: Curfew imposed in Sopore, Kupwara (July 23, 2010):
Srinagar Curfew was clamped on Friday in Bandipora and Kupwara districts and Sopore town in view of a call given by separatists to hold demonstrations to protest the killing of several youth during clashes with security forces in the past one month.
Elsewhere in the Kashmir Valley, restrictions continued on the movement of people.
For some background, we consider Jihadis set to spill over into Kashmir, July 21, 2010:
LAHORE - There was hope but no great expectations for the dialogue between India's External Affairs Minister S M Krishna and Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Quereshi on July 15. And so the headline of a major English-language Pakistan daily read, "They talked but said nothing" - an outcome which proved pessimists' predictions.
Pakistan's bottom line had always been for progress on the disputed Kashmir region and the Siachen Glacier dispute, with the reduced flow of downstream water in the Indus River connected to the overall equation. The Indian side declined to take up these major issues, saying it did not have the mandate. Khrishna instead remained fixated on blaming Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) for terror activities in India, bringing the talks to a virtual standstill, according to people with direct knowledge of the discussions.
The Siachen Glacier lies just east of the Line of Control between India and Pakistan, it has been the scene of an ongoing battle between the two countries since 1984. The glacier's melting waters are the source of the Nubra River in Indian-controlled Ladakh, which drains into the Shyok River and in turn joins the Indus, Pakistan's main water source. India abandoned plans to withdraw from Siachen after Pakistan's incursion into Kargil in Indian-administered Kashmir in 1999.
The larger Kashmir dispute encompasses much more than water rights. It is an emotive issue stretching back to 1947, when Pakistan was carved out of British India on the understanding that the sub-continent's Muslims constituted a separate nation. Religion alone determined the territorial demarcation of the two states. Kashmir was made an exception, which set the stage for two of the three wars between the two countries in 1947 and 1965. Whether this was contrived or accidental is moot, and both India and Pakistan suffer the consequences.
There are parallels to be drawn between Kashmir and many other contested regions in the world.
Skipping down:
In the South Asian smoke and mirrors game, encouraging India and Pakistan to work together will clearly take much more than the Americans bargained for. The LeT, the organization India accuses of masterminding the Mumbai carnage, has long been identified as a Pakistan proxy, bred to boost the independence struggle in Kashmir yet reportedly bending only to Pakistan's military establishment.
The LeT was given free rein to collect funds and recruit members in Pakistan before the 9/11 attacks in the US. Post-9/11, however, a large number of LeT "strays", or breakaways, were found in the company of al-Qaeda-linked jihadi groups that had adopted an anti-American position. This drew another picture and the organization was banned. But it was not disbanded: its leaders simply advised LeT members to keep a low profile in Pakistan, with the doors to India purportedly left open.
Inevitably, the LeT was seen by the Indian ruling elite as complicit in terror attacks that rained down on India. These include the December 2001 assault on the Indian parliament that killed 12; the October 2005 Delhi bombings that killed 62; the September 2008 Delhi bombings that killed 30: the November 2008 Mumbai assault which left 175 dead after a three-day rampage; and the February 2010 Pune blasts that killed nine. However, the organization denied any connections to the assaults, claiming that targeting civilians went against its religious principles.
Pakistan meantime was confronted by a vicious campaign of terror, beginning in 2001. This ran all the way up from Pakistan's southern port city of Karachi to the Khyber Pass in the north. The restiveness in Pakistan's Balochistan province was an added problem. Bomb blasts from 2007 through 2009 alone accounted for 5,500 civilian deaths, and nearly every Pakistani was convinced that India's Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) was behind the killings.
Elements in Pakistan are supporting the militants/ separatists/ terrorists, and that support is causing blowback in Pakistan.
Skipping down again:
The "clear and present danger" spelled out from the failure of the Indian-Pakistan talks and the conference episodes, is that the jihadis are gathering momentum and set to spill over into Kashmir. From there, or so the region's political pundits have it, al-Qaeda had planned to move on into India to secure "strategic depth" with heightened terror tactics. Then it can trek onto Central Asia to forward the jihadi movement for the liberation of Palestine.
Ahmed Rashid, author of Taliban, in the introduction of his new offering Descent into Chaos, described the support system of al-Qaeda's human resources succinctly when he wrote, "to a handful of Muslims, al-Qaeda posed a civilizational solution - albeit an extreme one - to the justice denied to Muslims in Palestine [and] Kashmir". The failure of India and Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir dispute will provide the international jihadi movement with all the space it needs.
Honestly, for the jihadists "Palestine" and "Kashmir" are merely buzzwords, excuses to do what Mohammed commanded but which many Muslims had outgrown.
For some analysis regarding India's actions in Kashmir, we go to India's strategy of suppression in Kashmir could backfire, July 23, 2010:
Police say only four protests occurred across the Indian-controlled Kashmir region. One protest in Srinagar swelled to 1,000 people, though tear gas quickly broke its ranks. In the village of Palhalan, someone from within the protest crowd shot a police officer twice in the leg.
But separatist leaders and police officials are now warning that the government's apparent strategy of curfews and suppression lacks a political roadmap and could, in the long run, send the current generation of rock-throwing boys back to the gun-and-grenade warfare that dominated the 1990s. Human rights groups say 19 civilians have died since June 11 in clashes between protesters and security officials.
Kashmir back to the future
"You have the environment that you can push the people again toward what had started in the early '90s. But we don't want that to happen," says Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, one of the two top separatist leaders. Both are currently under house arrest. "Today boys are out pelting stones. Tomorrow these are the same boys who will probably pick up the gun."
He and most Kashmiris say their struggle is not religious at its root, but about self-determination. However, Mr. Farooq warns that the closure of main mosques – smaller mosques have remained open – starts down a dangerous path.
"If the government is not letting the people pray then it's mandatory for the people at a certain time to declare war against the state. And I think this is something the muftis and the religious scholars will have to think about," he says.
What separatists want
New Delhi has called for meetings that would involve a wide range of voices, including separatists. But before any dialogue begins, separatists have demanded an easing of draconian security laws, release of prisoners, and pullbacks of street forces. The two sides appear at a standoff.
Though economics is a factor - there is a need for more job opportunities, and many of the job opportunities that the region offered are now gone due to the standstill caused by the crackdown - many of the rock-throwing youths say economics is not the reason, but rather the crackdown is causing the problems: if they can't vent peacefully, then simmering problems will boil over into violence. The issue: self-determination, promised during partition in the 1940's, but never realized.
However, the mixture is made more potent by support for militants from across the border in Pakistan.
But, India's response as if all the protesters are Pakistani-backed instigators is itself helping to foment the trouble, and simultaneously giving militants an issue.
More to follow on Jammu and Kashmir.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Seat of the Shah, Part 1
Yesterday for tomorrow...
From Somalia: African Union Head Blasts Lack of Somalia Response, dated July 23, 2010:
Actually, Ping's comments are a little off-base. We tried to intervene for humanitarian reasons two decades ago; we declared war on chaos and suffering, and chaos and suffering won.
Of course, there is the age-old concept that if a nation's national security is not threatened, a nation should probably not use troops; our national security was not threatened, but Americans are basically good and generous people (many people in the world are), and we wanted to help the Somalis out, so we sent in troops to try to stabilize the country and feed the people - that'll learn us!
If the African Union - or any African entity - emerges as an effective unifying and stabilizing force in Africa, that will dramatically change the global power dynamic; Africa has great mineral wealth, including significant oil reserves, and other natural resources, and, if unified and organized, could become a major power astride the world's major shipping lanes.
Real trouble if it should be organized and unified under militant forms of Islam...
Along the lines of militant Islam prospering in Somalia, we consider Somalia: Obama's Next Big Headache, dated July 18, 2010 by Greg Beals:
Goading their opponents into overreacting in a form of asymmetric warfare designed to win the world's support by losing on the battlefield... shades of Vo Nguyen Giap?
We hear about Somali piracy and Somalia as a base for terrorists, but we don't often hear the other side of the story: foreign fishing vessels fishing Somali waters and depleting fish stocks, foreign vessels dumping hazardous waste in Somali waters... Somalis have a right to be angry over these infringements on Somali sovereignty, and just because Somalia does not have an effective government to deal with this does not give foreigners the right to essentially rape Somalia like this.
Yes, this will be a headache for Obama, or perhaps for his successor if the problem simmers for the duration of Obama's Presidency (hopefully only until January of 2013, and not January of 2017).
One thing is for sure, though: neither Obama (our first President of partial African descent) nor the rest of the Washington crowd knows even what the questions are in Africa, much less what the answers are.
From Somalia: African Union Head Blasts Lack of Somalia Response, dated July 23, 2010:
African Union head Jean Ping has blasted the international community for neglecting the crisis in Somalia and only seeking to intervene when their interest is threatened by piracy and international terrorism.
Actually, Ping's comments are a little off-base. We tried to intervene for humanitarian reasons two decades ago; we declared war on chaos and suffering, and chaos and suffering won.
Of course, there is the age-old concept that if a nation's national security is not threatened, a nation should probably not use troops; our national security was not threatened, but Americans are basically good and generous people (many people in the world are), and we wanted to help the Somalis out, so we sent in troops to try to stabilize the country and feed the people - that'll learn us!
Jean Ping was speaking in Kampala on the sidelines of the meeting of African Union ministers. The summit of heads of state is expected to come out strongly in favor of a more robust intervention policy for Somalia.
Ping's harshest criticism was for the permanent members of the UN Security Council. But he did not spare Africa either, saying the recent Ugandan terrorist attacks blamed on Somali Islamists has resulted in certain countries increasing direct military or logistical support for the African Union military Mission to Somalia.
"We have been requesting UN Security Council to intervene in Somalia, but have gotten no result," said Ping, "So we have decided to help our brother country ourselves, despite a lack of means."
If the African Union - or any African entity - emerges as an effective unifying and stabilizing force in Africa, that will dramatically change the global power dynamic; Africa has great mineral wealth, including significant oil reserves, and other natural resources, and, if unified and organized, could become a major power astride the world's major shipping lanes.
Real trouble if it should be organized and unified under militant forms of Islam...
Somalia will be the key issue at this summit, Ping believes.
Guinea-Conakry has already announced that it will immediately contribute one ready- to-deploy battalion. East and Horn of African Countries under the regional Inter-Governmental Authority on Development have committed to deploy 2,000 troops including one battalion from neighbouring Djibouti. Algeria will provide transport logistics.
Al-Shebab in Somalia claimed responsibility for this month's Kampala attacks whose final death toll was 82. Ping said that the summit will not only discuss more promises of troops and material, but also change the mandate of the African Union Mission.
Somalis will be authorised to allow the troops to use force to enforce peace if necessary, as all of them now agree that there is no peace to keep in Somalia anyway.
Along the lines of militant Islam prospering in Somalia, we consider Somalia: Obama's Next Big Headache, dated July 18, 2010 by Greg Beals:
The Obama administration has to get serious about dealing with Somalia and the Somali Islamist jihadist group Harakat Al-Shabaab. The July 11 bombings in the Ugandan capital of Kampala, which killed 76 people, should have sent the administration a clear warning signal. The messages are both blunt and subtle, and the administration needs to get those messages and respond appropriately.
The terror attacks were well planned. Shabaab has now shown that it can strike beyond Somalia's borders and engage in bombing campaigns through Somali diaspora networks anywhere in East Africa and probably also in the U.S. But the more subtle message is this: Shabaab leadership calculates that Uganda will retaliate with ever increasing brutality against civilians in Somalia's capital, Mogadishu -- thus bringing more cadres into its ranks, including support from the United States.
Goading their opponents into overreacting in a form of asymmetric warfare designed to win the world's support by losing on the battlefield... shades of Vo Nguyen Giap?
So far the Ugandans have been playing into their hands. The attacks have already inspired Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni to invite African neighbors to join Uganda and Burundi in sending more African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) troops, ostensibly to protect that country's feeble Transitional Federal Government. But many within the African Union have been clamoring for these troops to undertake offensive operations. Uganda wants as many as 20,000 international forces, compared with the 6,000 currently stationed in the Somali capital.
The Ugandan and other contingents of the African Union forces in Mogadishu seem more bent on revenge than anything else. In Kampala the government is rounding up Somalis regardless of evidence and throwing them in jail. In Mogadishu officials are violating international humanitarian law. "They're killing lots of civilians right now," one U.S. diplomat with information on the current situation in Somalia told The Root. "At the moment, I am afraid they are going to drive a wedge between themselves and the civilian population."
AMISOM forces now threaten to live up to the reputation of their predecessors. In 2006 Ethiopia led an invasion into Somalia. More than 16,000 were killed, and 1.9 million were displaced as a result. Not surprisingly, Somalia's civilian population hated the Ethiopians, who eventually lost the conflict. More civilian deaths now will breathe new life into Shabaab at just the moment when its popularity among Somalis has reached an all-time low.
We hear about Somali piracy and Somalia as a base for terrorists, but we don't often hear the other side of the story: foreign fishing vessels fishing Somali waters and depleting fish stocks, foreign vessels dumping hazardous waste in Somali waters... Somalis have a right to be angry over these infringements on Somali sovereignty, and just because Somalia does not have an effective government to deal with this does not give foreigners the right to essentially rape Somalia like this.
Yes, this will be a headache for Obama, or perhaps for his successor if the problem simmers for the duration of Obama's Presidency (hopefully only until January of 2013, and not January of 2017).
One thing is for sure, though: neither Obama (our first President of partial African descent) nor the rest of the Washington crowd knows even what the questions are in Africa, much less what the answers are.
The South Country, Part 7
Not surprising...
First, we review the first half of What Role Did Crime Kingpins Play in Southern Kyrgyzstan’s Violence?, dated July 23, 2010:
Local criminals battling over turf, with the involvement of corrupt government officials (and a superpower or two)... now what blogger do I know who suggested this?
Next, an excerpt from The Pseudostate of Kyrgyzstan, dated July 16, 2010:
If you don't know about the Ferghana Valley, take my advice and research it. The United States will, in my opinion, not cease to exist prior to having to send troops there to fight.
Think about that comment.
The region is a crossroads for trade, most emphatically including illegal trade ("contraband"), including arms, people, controlled technologies and, of course, drugs - including opiates from Afghanistan.
The region is also a potential powderkeg due to the different ethnicities involved, and due to variations in culture, an important element of which is the Religion of Peace.
Consequently, there is a potent mix of business opportunities - on whatever side of the law - and corruption and influence-peddling to control it, all set against a volatile ethnic and ideological background, in a region contested by all the world's powers.
Next, we consider an excerpt from Kyrgyzstan Destined To Become Another Narco-State?, April 18, 2010:
Manageable chaos... an ideal environment for terrorist cells and drug cartels....
From Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Calls Current 9/11 Investigation Inadequate by Jim Hogue, dated May 7, 2004:
This is exactly what is going on in the Balkans, and in the Caucasus, and even in Latin America these days. In fact, down south, it isn't just terrorism, but Islamic terrorist organizations are getting a foothold, establishing themselves and making connections with the criminal underworld, preparing for their future jihad in the Americas.
And this criminal activity brings with it illicit money, and that money travels...
More to follow.
First, we review the first half of What Role Did Crime Kingpins Play in Southern Kyrgyzstan’s Violence?, dated July 23, 2010:
Criminal networks have long maintained a strong presence in southern Kyrgyzstan, given the region's status as a trade hub. In the weeks since inter-ethnic violence in the region left hundreds dead, observers have been wondering about what role, if any, criminal groups played in stoking the violence?
Some experts believe that a breakdown of state authority in the region in the months leading up to the mid-June violence helped touch off an underworld turf war, which, in turn, played a key role in inciting broader inter-ethnic violence. Others say gangs simply reacted to the violence, using the inter-ethnic clashes as cover for their own actions, which were aimed at altering the local criminal balance-of-power.
Kyrgyzstan's criminal networks generally fit into one of two categories, local experts tell EurasiaNet.org. The first – prison-based hierarchical networks – comprise professional criminals who follow an established code of conduct. Kamchi Kolbaev, an ethnic Kyrgyz, was reportedly one of the most influential criminal figures in the South. Authorities detained him on June 16, days after the outbreak of inter-ethnic violence in Osh and Jalal-abad. He has been undergoing interrogations since then.
Athletes – sportsmen, in local parlance – form the second type of networks. These groups are widely believed to engage in racketeering, money laundering, drug trafficking and fraud. Their leaders reportedly fund youth sports clubs, leisure facilities and private enterprises to attract crowds of young and unemployed men.
Osh-based observers, speaking to EurasiaNet.org on condition of anonymity due to fear of repercussions, say that while various links between the two types of networks exist, the sportsmen-led networks do not have the same kind of clearly delineated hierarchy and strong code of conduct that exists in the prison networks. Sportsmen are also known to lend muscle to Kyrgyz political factions during protests, and to form groups along ethnic lines.
"There is no doubt that criminals played a part [in the June 10-14 clashes]," said Abdurahman, an Osh-based expert on ethnic and religious tensions, who asked his surname not be printed.
Abdurahman suggested that the June 7 assassination of Aibek Mirsidikov – a drug lord also known as Black Aibek – was directly linked with the mid-June violence. A Jalal-abad based Kyrgyz criminal gang reportedly killed Mirsidikov, an Uzbek, to neutralize his Uzbek gang. Mirsidikov was believed to have played a role in fomenting protests in May, according to a report distributed by the 24.kg news agency.
Sabyr, an economics professor at an Osh university who also spoke on the condition that only his first name is printed, contended that there was only tenuous evidence to support the hypothesis that criminal groups initiated the mid-June violence. But he acknowledged that former president Kurmanbek Bakiyev's demise destroyed a fragile balance and unleashed a power struggle among various criminal gangs.
"They have been clashing over control of the bazaars and drug trade for a long time," Sabyr said.
Recently, some government officials have faced allegations of involvement with criminal elements. Timur Kamchibekov and Bakyt Amanbaev, two former top officials in Osh’s municipal government accused Osh Mayor Melis Myrzakmatov of maintaining links with criminal gang members, Ferghana.ru reported on June 17. Myrzakmatov is a Bakiyev appointee whom the interim government appears unable to remove. He is also widely reviled in the Uzbek community.
Local criminals battling over turf, with the involvement of corrupt government officials (and a superpower or two)... now what blogger do I know who suggested this?
Next, an excerpt from The Pseudostate of Kyrgyzstan, dated July 16, 2010:
In recent years, ordinary citizens of the Republic have received daily surprises in the form of assassinations of members of parliament, businessmen and sports personalities; continual, ineptly hidden disputes among the elite; mob rule and corporate raids; and, more recently, ethnic riots in which hundreds of the country’s citizens are brutally murdered.
Conflict follows conflict without a break, and there is no end in sight. As the sad joke goes in Bishkek, "a brutal mob paid another working visit on Government House."
Everybody now knows that the criminal element facilitated both the first "revolution" (to a greater extent) and the second (to a lesser extent) with the resources and manpower needed to carry out protests and capture Government House. Therefore, it is not surprising that the criminal element has become a major component of everything that happens in the Republic. The hand of criminals can be clearly seen in the riots that took place in Osh, Jalal-Abad and near Suzak. And it appears that Kyrgyzstan's elite sees nothing out of the ordinary in that.
It looks like Bakiyev and his family were the instigators of what happened in southern Kyrgyzstan, but that is not certain. Perhaps even more to blame is the "new" government itself, which is capable of nothing more than idle talk.
A low-intensity civil war of the type seen in Central Asia is going on in Kyrgyzstan—ethnic violence. It is hardly the first in the region; it has been going on in the Ferghana Valley since the middle of the 19th century. In this case, incited by their own leaders and by Bakiyev's hired provocateurs, the Kyrgyz have been working off their frustrations over their poor economic conditions and robbing the slightly more affluent Uzbeks. In addition, for years homegrown ideologues have instilled ideas about the greatness of the Kyrgyz, Manas the Benevolent and their native land. They have been told that invading Sarts set their sights on it and that behind them looms the shadow of Tashkent (which has its own mythology about that great humanitarian consolidator, Tamerlane). Kyrgyz politics and politics in general are overly emotional and hysterical. As rightly noted by Russian analyst Vitaly Khlyupin, "For the most part, those who carried out the massacres in Osh are extremely cruel adolescents who do not understand anything or anybody and who got out of control. Only a very good machine gun can rein them in." The provocateurs got the ball rolling, but ordinary people carried on with enthusiasm and rage.
If you don't know about the Ferghana Valley, take my advice and research it. The United States will, in my opinion, not cease to exist prior to having to send troops there to fight.
Think about that comment.
The region is a crossroads for trade, most emphatically including illegal trade ("contraband"), including arms, people, controlled technologies and, of course, drugs - including opiates from Afghanistan.
The region is also a potential powderkeg due to the different ethnicities involved, and due to variations in culture, an important element of which is the Religion of Peace.
Consequently, there is a potent mix of business opportunities - on whatever side of the law - and corruption and influence-peddling to control it, all set against a volatile ethnic and ideological background, in a region contested by all the world's powers.
Next, we consider an excerpt from Kyrgyzstan Destined To Become Another Narco-State?, April 18, 2010:
First, Kyrgyzstan is indeed a country of unique geopolitical location. It encircles Fergana valley – a heavily populated oasis at the core of Central Asia, shared with Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Besides the vital Russian interest to control Fergana as the first outpost defending vast and open deserts and steppes on the way to the Volga, all Chinese moves in Uyghur Autonomous Region can be easily monitored from Kyrgyz Tien Shan highlands as well. Perhaps that is the main reason why the USAF installed Manas military base few kilometers away from Bishkek soon after the start of NATO operations in Afghanistan in 2001. The base is still operating there in full fledge as the 'US military transit centre'.
Another key point is that since then Kyrgyzstan became the most notable hub for distribution of the Afghan drugs to Eurasian 'markets', a business that had multiplied in times under the NATO guardianship in Afghanistan. The town of Osh, the 'southern capital of Kyrgyzstan', has long ago become a major cross-point for the Great Heroin Way through non-controllable mountainous Tajik-Kyrgyz border and transparent way to the north-west. Most likely the illicit profits proceeding from narco-trafficking were the main sources of spectacular enrichment of Bakiev's clan during his presidency in 2005-2010. There were numerous evidences that the very arrival of Kurmanbek Bakiev to power in March 2005 as a result of 'Tulip revolution' was financed and supported by prosperous international narco-mafia. It is also notable that while in office Bakiev liquidated Kyrgyz Anti-Drug Agency.
As a matter of fact, Kyrgyzstan, once a 'model Central Asian democracy', as it used to be regarded in 1990s, and the first (!) post-Soviet state that joined WTO back in 1998, has ended up with two illegitimate coup d'etat in 5 years. It makes us believe that the events we witnessed in early April are only partly a result of mismanagement by the Kyrgyz ruling clan, their reckless appropriation of the state funds, international credits and national assets at the expense of their own people. We can assume that the tragedy in Kyrgyzstan reflects a wider diabolic strategy.
The theory of 'manageable chaos' as a perfect instrument for dominating the world 'after tomorrow' is thoroughly scrutinized by the leading Western minds and political practitioners. The old London’s and later Washington’s habit to impose 'puppet' dictators anywhere in the world has proved its ineffectiveness. Sooner or later the dictator starts playing his own game, as it was in case of Saddam Hussein. Much more promising are configurations with a sequence of weak and irresponsible ‘democratic’ governments holding office exclusively thanks to propaganda support from the media centers of global power. Such scheme allows maintaining 'controllable conflicts' in any zone, making up ideal environment for elusive 'terrorist cells' and drug cartels, targeting the strategic adversaries in the neighborhood.
Manageable chaos... an ideal environment for terrorist cells and drug cartels....
From Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Calls Current 9/11 Investigation Inadequate by Jim Hogue, dated May 7, 2004:
JH: Here's a question that you might be able to answer: What is al-Qaeda?
SE: This is a very interesting and complex question. When you think of al-Qaeda, you are not thinking of al-Qaeda in terms of one particular country, or one particular organization. You are looking at this massive movement that stretches to tens and tens of countries. And it involves a lot of sub-organizations and sub-sub-organizations and branches and it's extremely complicated. So to just narrow it down and say al-Qaeda and the Saudis, or to say it's what they had at the camp in Afghanistan, is extremely misleading. And we don't hear the extent of the penetration that this organization and the sub-organizations have throughout the world, throughout their networks and throughout their various activities. It's extremely sophisticated. And then you involve a significant amount of money into this equation. Then things start getting a lot of overlap -- money laundering, and drugs and terrorist activities and their support networks converging in several points. That's what I'm trying to convey without being too specific. And this money travels. And you start trying to go to the root of it and it's getting into somebody's political campaign, and somebody's lobbying. And people don't want to be traced back to this money.
This is exactly what is going on in the Balkans, and in the Caucasus, and even in Latin America these days. In fact, down south, it isn't just terrorism, but Islamic terrorist organizations are getting a foothold, establishing themselves and making connections with the criminal underworld, preparing for their future jihad in the Americas.
And this criminal activity brings with it illicit money, and that money travels...
More to follow.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Judge Napolitano Vid
Go to Judge Napolitano at the American Revival and watch the vid.
Hat tip to R3publican: Restore * Reenergize * Reignite.
Hat tip to R3publican: Restore * Reenergize * Reignite.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
When Our Thin Blue Line Crosses The Line
From Negeen's Arrest at Dearborn Arab Festival, dated July 16, 2010, by David Wood; copied in its entirety:
When the police cease to defend the civil rights of law-abiding citizens and become oppressors of free people, then they cease to earn our respect and become our enemy.
We need to understand that this was the misquided actions of a few, who undoubtedly are pressured by their superiors; however, this does not excuse their actions. There comes a time when a police officer can best protect and serve by resigning, rather than by enforcing unconstitutional interpretations of the law.
(Hat tip to Atlas Shrugs)
Here's the video footage from Negeen's camera while she was being assaulted by Dearborn Police. In any other city, in any other state, police officers would recognize her Constitutional rights. But this is Dearborn. They can accuse a Christian of anything, and violate her rights in any way they see fit.
If this doesn't make your blood boil, nothing will.
"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his or her liberty has the same right to use force in defending him or herself as he or she would in repelling any other assault and battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance." (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
When the police cease to defend the civil rights of law-abiding citizens and become oppressors of free people, then they cease to earn our respect and become our enemy.
We need to understand that this was the misquided actions of a few, who undoubtedly are pressured by their superiors; however, this does not excuse their actions. There comes a time when a police officer can best protect and serve by resigning, rather than by enforcing unconstitutional interpretations of the law.
(Hat tip to Atlas Shrugs)
Unsecret Ballots
A story breaking in New Mexico... we have the abridged version from KOB in Albuquerque, Ballot secrecy compromised in NM, other states, and the full AP version via the Mailtribune in Oregon; I will review the first half of the latter:
Basically, some precincts have only a few voters. Records are generally maintained of who voted; these people are called "inveterate voters". If you cross-reference the list of who voted with the list of what votes were tallied in a precinct, it is possible to figure out who voted for which candidate.
Obviously, this is a problem in a small precinct where only one voter voted - the results for that precinct would have to be maintained confidential.
However, theoretically, if you have one hundred votes cast in one precinct in one race, but all were for the same candidate, then the confidentiality of which way the vote went in that race in that precinct could not be maintained by releasing the results, even though there were many votes cast.
With enough analysis, and comparing the results of many races and many elections, it is theoretically possible under certain circumstances to get a pretty good idea how some individual voters vote, though this is true mainly in the smaller precincts. The results of this work could easily be offset by voters who just get fed up with one party and change the way they vote.
Aggregated results may be more useful. A neighborhood will likely have people who tend to think a certain way, and who generally agree on certain political issues. Even as people move in and out of the neighborhood, this aggregated behavior will probably change only slowly over time; more rapid changes dealing with certain issues or as a result of certain demographic changes can be better identified other than by trying to track individual voters.
To maintain voter confidentiality, it takes discretion and a degree of judgement on the part of the workers in the election office. Citizens can perhaps best ensure this by involving themselves in the election process and informing themselves as to how that process works, and asking about procedures about which they may have doubts.
This issue in New Mexico (and elsewhere) demonstrates that they need to be a little more careful, but at this point I wouldn't make too big a deal out of this. In my opinion, of far more concern are voting machines and deliberate election fraud - topics for another post.
By the way - many people complain they have no one to vote for in the general elections, but these people then fail to vote in the primary elections. The primary election is where voters choose the candidates who will be in the general election. If you don't like your choice in the general election, but didn't vote in the primary, then you are part of the problem.
Bottom line: get involved, and become an inveterate voter - the kind that votes in Presidential elections, off-year elections (when US Representatives, one third of US Senators, and many corresponding state officials, as well as many state officers and other officials are chosen) and odd-year elections (often for municipal officials); vote in the primary and in the general elections.
Educate yourself, debate the issues, exercise your Constitutional rights, and vote inveterately.
This is what makes America the oldest and the boldest of democratic republics, and if we continue to participate, we can renew our republic's democratic principles and be the latest and the greatest.
Jul 16, 9:58 AM EDT
Ballot secrecy compromised in NM, other states
By BARRY MASSEY
Associated Press Writer
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) -- Retired state worker Joyce Pankey cast her absentee ballot in New Mexico's primary election last month thinking that she alone knew which of the candidates she favored.
Wrong.
For Pankey and hundreds of voters in New Mexico, and potentially those in a handful of other states, the secret ballot is not so secret. It's possible to learn the identities of voters and which candidates they supported by checking public records. Detailed election data, which lawmakers have demanded to help them with their campaigns and redistricting, often is the culprit.
"It shocks the hell out of me," Pankey said when an Associated Press reporter recently told her how she had voted and how that could be determined. She was the only person to cast an absentee ballot in her Santa Fe precinct.
Ballot secrecy is a bedrock principle of the nation's electoral system, but it's compromised in places like New Mexico, Florida and California, where election results are broken down with precinct-by-precinct tallies for different types of ballots.
In New Mexico, there are absentee ballots that can be returned by mail, early in-person voting and Election Day balloting at polling locations.
In precincts where only one or a handful of voters participated, it's possible to identify voters and determine who they supported by cross-checking public records - a roster of voters who cast ballots in a precinct and the precinct-by-precinct results.
There were at least 370 single-vote precincts in this year's Democratic and Republican primaries in New Mexico, according to a review of election results by The Associated Press.
In precincts with dozens or hundreds of voters, ballot secrecy is preserved.
Basically, some precincts have only a few voters. Records are generally maintained of who voted; these people are called "inveterate voters". If you cross-reference the list of who voted with the list of what votes were tallied in a precinct, it is possible to figure out who voted for which candidate.
Obviously, this is a problem in a small precinct where only one voter voted - the results for that precinct would have to be maintained confidential.
However, theoretically, if you have one hundred votes cast in one precinct in one race, but all were for the same candidate, then the confidentiality of which way the vote went in that race in that precinct could not be maintained by releasing the results, even though there were many votes cast.
With enough analysis, and comparing the results of many races and many elections, it is theoretically possible under certain circumstances to get a pretty good idea how some individual voters vote, though this is true mainly in the smaller precincts. The results of this work could easily be offset by voters who just get fed up with one party and change the way they vote.
Aggregated results may be more useful. A neighborhood will likely have people who tend to think a certain way, and who generally agree on certain political issues. Even as people move in and out of the neighborhood, this aggregated behavior will probably change only slowly over time; more rapid changes dealing with certain issues or as a result of certain demographic changes can be better identified other than by trying to track individual voters.
To maintain voter confidentiality, it takes discretion and a degree of judgement on the part of the workers in the election office. Citizens can perhaps best ensure this by involving themselves in the election process and informing themselves as to how that process works, and asking about procedures about which they may have doubts.
This issue in New Mexico (and elsewhere) demonstrates that they need to be a little more careful, but at this point I wouldn't make too big a deal out of this. In my opinion, of far more concern are voting machines and deliberate election fraud - topics for another post.
By the way - many people complain they have no one to vote for in the general elections, but these people then fail to vote in the primary elections. The primary election is where voters choose the candidates who will be in the general election. If you don't like your choice in the general election, but didn't vote in the primary, then you are part of the problem.
Bottom line: get involved, and become an inveterate voter - the kind that votes in Presidential elections, off-year elections (when US Representatives, one third of US Senators, and many corresponding state officials, as well as many state officers and other officials are chosen) and odd-year elections (often for municipal officials); vote in the primary and in the general elections.
Educate yourself, debate the issues, exercise your Constitutional rights, and vote inveterately.
This is what makes America the oldest and the boldest of democratic republics, and if we continue to participate, we can renew our republic's democratic principles and be the latest and the greatest.
Friday, July 16, 2010
The Land of the Pure, Part 5
So, Hillary Clinton is going to Islamabad. Here is an excerpt from US declines to go public on ISI's role in 26/11 [the date of the Mumbai massacre, akin to 9/11 in the US], dated July 17, 2010:
And the situation in Afghanistan is very much linked to relations between Pakistan and India.
The Taliban were a creation of Pakistan to stabilize Afghanistan. Beyond that, the militant madrassas that teach Islam and jihad (and which spawned and continue to supply the Taliban), especially in Pakistan's border areas (where the Taliban seem to have a refuge from everything except Predator drones), were promoted to provide proxies and strategic depth: proxies to fight India in Kashmir, and strategic depth should India ever threaten Pakistan too much during hostilities.
As long as Pakistan perceives a threat from India, those in Pakistan's elite who support this system of militant madrassas will have reason to continue doing so, and this system, in turn, will continue to fuel jihad in Afghanistan, Kashmir, and far, far beyond. For example, from Pakistan: the Jihad Factory:
If you don't know where those places are and what is going on there, you need to. Some of the very same people who are our enemies in Afghanistan or Iraq are our allies in places like Chechnya, Bosnia or possibly even Xinjiang.
Why in Chechnya? The rebels in Chechnya are fighting Russia, and there are definitely elements in Washington that want the Cold War to restart (as there are elements in Moscow that want the same). Big power politics: the same guy is a terrorist in Afghanistan, but a member of an oppressed minority in the Caucasus.
Continuing now with US declines to go public on ISI's role in 26/11:
Washington doublespeak for "I am trying to have it both ways here."
Skipping down, we get to the key point:
Analysis from a different source provides some understanding. From Radicalization of Pakistan will increase threat to India:
Washington's doublespeak is a sign of doublethink - they actually seem to believe that the guys responsible for unleashing these jihadists on the world are somehow going to be trustworthy allies in stopping the very same jihadists that these guys unleashed.
The War on Terror - or whatever they're calling it these days - is falling into the gap between what is said and what is done.
Ahead of the visits, state department officials welcomed the largely unyielding exchanges between Islamabad and New Delhi, saying "it is expressly the kind of dialogue that we think will help to address and resolve issues of interest between the two countries and of consequence in the region as a whole." Washington has now linked improved relations between India and Pakistan to its fortunes in Afghanistan.
And the situation in Afghanistan is very much linked to relations between Pakistan and India.
The Taliban were a creation of Pakistan to stabilize Afghanistan. Beyond that, the militant madrassas that teach Islam and jihad (and which spawned and continue to supply the Taliban), especially in Pakistan's border areas (where the Taliban seem to have a refuge from everything except Predator drones), were promoted to provide proxies and strategic depth: proxies to fight India in Kashmir, and strategic depth should India ever threaten Pakistan too much during hostilities.
As long as Pakistan perceives a threat from India, those in Pakistan's elite who support this system of militant madrassas will have reason to continue doing so, and this system, in turn, will continue to fuel jihad in Afghanistan, Kashmir, and far, far beyond. For example, from Pakistan: the Jihad Factory:
Jihad contradicts the sovereignty based on defined territoriality of a nation state. It is an interventionist ideology, which divides the world between Dar-ul-Islam (Muslim majority) and Dar-ul-Harb (land under a Non-Muslim majority, secular or otherwise, which needs to be converted to Dar-ul-Islam). Thus in the recent past we observe that footloose Jihad warriors are radiating outwards to Kashmir, Chechnya, Bosnia, Dagestan, Xinjiang and many other nation states. The purpose is to install pristine Islamic rule as interpreted by the Wahhabis. With scant regard for inter-state boundaries, Mujahideen in numbers that equal combatants in a regular army division have infiltrated the Valley. They are hard core trained Jihad soldiers of the ISI. It is an outright incremental invasion of India and not indigenous terrorism as the international community would like to believe. This is aggression under international law and the legitimate response can be war. Thus, Russia's action in Chechnya is by a nation state in defence of territoriality.
If you don't know where those places are and what is going on there, you need to. Some of the very same people who are our enemies in Afghanistan or Iraq are our allies in places like Chechnya, Bosnia or possibly even Xinjiang.
Why in Chechnya? The rebels in Chechnya are fighting Russia, and there are definitely elements in Washington that want the Cold War to restart (as there are elements in Moscow that want the same). Big power politics: the same guy is a terrorist in Afghanistan, but a member of an oppressed minority in the Caucasus.
Continuing now with US declines to go public on ISI's role in 26/11:
However, unlike New Delhi's tack, Washington declined to publicly excoriate ISI for its now-increasingly recognized role in promoting terrorism. Asked about LeT operative David Headley implicating ISI in the Mumbai attack, the mention of which by the Indian home secretary evidently queered the Krishna-Qureshi dialogue, a state department spokesman declined to elaborate. He said anything he disclosed "would either compromise intelligence information or an ongoing legal investigation."
Washington doublespeak for "I am trying to have it both ways here."
Skipping down, we get to the key point:
Washington and its intelligence agencies are particularly beholden to ISI for its selective help in the war on terror, while believing that there are only some bad apples in the organization and it is not an institutional or state-backed malaise.
Analysis from a different source provides some understanding. From Radicalization of Pakistan will increase threat to India:
Apart from the civil society and military a major stakeholder in Pakistan today is the US. It needs stability in Pakistan for its war on terror, neutralizing hard core Taliban in Afghanistan, access to energy rich Central Asian Republics and safeguarding of the nuclear arsenal there. Pakistan plays ball with the US in return for heavy subsidies. US will try to maintain its dominant position irrespective of who governs Pakistan but the presence of a strong military system of governance can be its preferred option if the elected government fails to establish stability.
Washington's doublespeak is a sign of doublethink - they actually seem to believe that the guys responsible for unleashing these jihadists on the world are somehow going to be trustworthy allies in stopping the very same jihadists that these guys unleashed.
The War on Terror - or whatever they're calling it these days - is falling into the gap between what is said and what is done.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
The Land of the Pure, Part 4
From Pakistan cracks the whip, by Syed Saleem Shahzad, July 15, 2010:
The crackdown is a joke until Pakistan's politico-military elite realize that they need to stop supporting the militants. Until this happens, the militancy is a fire that threatens to cook the goose of those who stoke it:
The only thing bloodier than Islam's borders is Islam's interior, and Pakistan's elite will, sooner or later, be declared takfir, overthrown and killed.
This process will be seen as purifying the Land of the Pure.
Skipping down:
The Taliban originated in Pakistan.
Skipping down again:
It will be interesting to see what happens when the Land of the Pure is eventually "purified". Until then, the purification process continues. From Suicide bomber misses target in Swat; five die, dated July 16, 2010:
That'll be the day.
From US calls India-Pakistan talks helpful for region, July 16, 2010:
Again, certain elements of Pakistan's officialdom are behind the system that produced the militants that did the 2008 Mumbai attack and the more recent attack in Swat.
To be sure, a stable Indo-Pak peace would remove much of the perceived need for Pakistani support of militants for strategic depth against India. The trouble is, as these militants discover the meaning of Islam and jihad, they lose their focus on the infidels in India.
ISLAMABAD - Despite repeated warnings by Pakistan's premier intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, under American pressure the government has begun a risky crackdown on extremist religious organizations as well as the essentially inactive remnants of banned jihadi organizations.
Over the past few days, more than 200 people in the northwestern city of Peshawar have been detained, while in the eastern province of Punjab about 100 members of banned militant organizations have been arrested. The banned extremist Sunni Muslim group Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan - now known as Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat - was among those groups targeted.
The crackdown is similar to the one in 2004-2005 following unsuccessful assassination attacks on then-president General Pervez Musharraf. Hundreds of jihadis were arrested, including heroes of the Pakistani establishment such as Ilyas Kashmiri and veteran jihadi Abdul Jabbar. The crackdown led to a split between the militants and the Pakistani military and made Pakistan very much a part of the Afghan war theater by 2007. Top guerrilla commander Ilyas Kashmiri's 313 Brigade is now an operational arm of al-Qaeda.
The crackdown is a joke until Pakistan's politico-military elite realize that they need to stop supporting the militants. Until this happens, the militancy is a fire that threatens to cook the goose of those who stoke it:
The latest crackdown sharpens the schism between the two largest Sunni sects and adds fuel to the fire of conflict between Shi'ites and Sunnis.
Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat is an anti-Shi'ite political party that wants to have Shi'ites declared non-Muslim through legislation in parliament. In the early 1970s, Ahmadis suffered this fate.
The only thing bloodier than Islam's borders is Islam's interior, and Pakistan's elite will, sooner or later, be declared takfir, overthrown and killed.
This process will be seen as purifying the Land of the Pure.
Skipping down:
Following the twin suicide attacks this month in Lahore on a Sufi shrine in which more than 40 people were killed and nearly 200 injured, the Punjabi Taliban were brought into the spotlight. They are considered responsible for changing the dynamics of the Afghan war theater as they have vast expertise acquired while fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s and Indian forces in disputed Kashmir in the 1990s.
The Taliban originated in Pakistan.
Skipping down again:
Anti-Taliban sections of the government have tried to elicit support from Sunni anti-Taliban organizations. In the southern port city of Karachi in Sindh province, organizations from the Brelvi (Sufi) school of thought have seized some mosques previously operated by the pro-Taliban Deobandis. This has provoked serious tension between the country's two largest Sunni sects.
"We warn against any intrigues or conspiracies against Deobandi madrassas or mosques. Otherwise, we reserve our rights to strongly react," said a representative of all Deobandi schools, mosques and religious parties.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the Land of the Pure is eventually "purified". Until then, the purification process continues. From Suicide bomber misses target in Swat; five die, dated July 16, 2010:
They said that militants were on the run but the operation against them would continue till their elimination.
That'll be the day.
From US calls India-Pakistan talks helpful for region, July 16, 2010:
WASHINGTON: The United States welcomed Thursday's meeting of top diplomats from India and Pakistan, and said the healing process between the two neighbors would benefit all of south Asia.
"We certainly welcome this high-level meeting," said US State Department spokesman Philip Crowley.
"It's expressly the kind of dialogue that we think will help to address and resolve issues of interest between the countries and have consequence in the region as a whole," he added.
Foreign ministers S.M. Krishna of India and Shah Mehmood Qureshi of Pakistan met in Islamabad, in the third high-level contact in a six-month thaw since New Delhi broke off peace talks after gunmen killed 166 people in Mumbai in 2008.
Again, certain elements of Pakistan's officialdom are behind the system that produced the militants that did the 2008 Mumbai attack and the more recent attack in Swat.
To be sure, a stable Indo-Pak peace would remove much of the perceived need for Pakistani support of militants for strategic depth against India. The trouble is, as these militants discover the meaning of Islam and jihad, they lose their focus on the infidels in India.
Living in the Dark
Found in my messages on Facebook:
I can judge any religion I want to. It is my right to do so. The same as I defend, in principle, the right of Muslims to call me and other Christians and Jews "brothers of apes and pigs". It is their opinion, they are entitled to it, and I think they should be allowed to voice it.
Indeed, I think it is good to have them voice their opinion, so the whole world can see and hear who the real bigots are.
Islam is fast-growing because under Islamic law, women are treated like cattle, kept uneducated and with no control over their reproductive activity; they can essentially be raped at the will of the men around them, and such rape is either protected by Islamic law if it happens under the guise of marriage, or reporting of such rape is deterred by the requirement for four male witnesses to the act; the failure to produce such witnesses being construed as proof that the victim participated in consensual sex, resulting in her punishment (lashes or stoning).
I would like to point out that Christians and Jews are "brothers" of apes and pigs; women are not viewed as "sisters" of apes and pigs, but rather as the spoils of war for good Muslims to rape after the men are dead; Mohammed himself set this example.
Furthermore, anyone who seeks to leave Islam is an apostate, and faces the death penalty under Islamic law. Though the Quran provides that there is no compulsion in religion, the death sentence for someone wishing to leave Islam is pretty compelling. Open the doors to the Islamic world by eliminating this penalty, and it would be interesting to see how many people leave; I'm betting Islam would be the fastest-declining religion in the world.
Our media has a definite pro-Islam flavor to it. That is what one would expect based on its liberal domination, its politically-correct indoctrination, and the dhimmification of its owners. To suggest that I get all of my information about Islam from our media - even including non-mainstream media - is absurd. Much of my information about Islam comes from Islam's holy texts, especially the Quran, which calls for my forced conversion to Islam or my subjugation as a dhimmi; as long as I feel myself subjugated and pay the jizya, the Quran does at least pay lip service to no compulsion in religion (though dhimmi status is pretty compelling).
If you think I believe everything I see on TV or elsewhere in the media, then you know as much about me as you suggest I know about Islam.
I abhor the innocent deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Honestly, I am even sad to see the Taliban die. However, they have chosen to fight, but the death and dismemberment of truly innocent people caught in the crossfire, like children, is really a terrible thing. You might be surprised how much I know about what is going on in these places.
My religion is irrelevant here; it is Islam that degrades all who fail to submit to it. Islam is an ideology of armed conquest, seeking to dominate people and their thoughts both on Earth and in the afterlife. Your comments, which demonstrate absolutely no understanding either of what I know about Islam or about where I get my information, are typical of why the Islamic world produces so much violence: though you yourself are not advocating violence in this message, you say nothing to condemn what the Islamic world is doing, and this is de facto acquiescence to the agenda of the most extreme factions of the Islamic world - factions which, sooner or later, will either force you to submit to their vision or Islam or destroy you as takfir.
Consequently, I do not live in the dark regarding all this; in fact, I try to provide some light on the subject: those who are living in the dark regarding Islam are mostly Muslims or dhimmis.
Faizel Khan July 12 at 11:02am Report
who the hell u think u r judging my religion, u have any idea islam is
the most growing religion in the world and teach peace.but this is ur media that create all this propaganda about us did u see any thing like that in ur own eyes or u believe what u see on tv.do u have any idea what ur government and usa busy doing in Iraq and Afghanistan,killing thousand of innocent people for nothing thousand of beautiful babes like urs have been killed,thousand has been separated frm there parents, u have any idea have u. if ur religion teach that degrade other religion with out finding the truth, then i am very sorry for u people,cuz u guyz r living in dark.
shame .
I can judge any religion I want to. It is my right to do so. The same as I defend, in principle, the right of Muslims to call me and other Christians and Jews "brothers of apes and pigs". It is their opinion, they are entitled to it, and I think they should be allowed to voice it.
Indeed, I think it is good to have them voice their opinion, so the whole world can see and hear who the real bigots are.
Islam is fast-growing because under Islamic law, women are treated like cattle, kept uneducated and with no control over their reproductive activity; they can essentially be raped at the will of the men around them, and such rape is either protected by Islamic law if it happens under the guise of marriage, or reporting of such rape is deterred by the requirement for four male witnesses to the act; the failure to produce such witnesses being construed as proof that the victim participated in consensual sex, resulting in her punishment (lashes or stoning).
I would like to point out that Christians and Jews are "brothers" of apes and pigs; women are not viewed as "sisters" of apes and pigs, but rather as the spoils of war for good Muslims to rape after the men are dead; Mohammed himself set this example.
Furthermore, anyone who seeks to leave Islam is an apostate, and faces the death penalty under Islamic law. Though the Quran provides that there is no compulsion in religion, the death sentence for someone wishing to leave Islam is pretty compelling. Open the doors to the Islamic world by eliminating this penalty, and it would be interesting to see how many people leave; I'm betting Islam would be the fastest-declining religion in the world.
Our media has a definite pro-Islam flavor to it. That is what one would expect based on its liberal domination, its politically-correct indoctrination, and the dhimmification of its owners. To suggest that I get all of my information about Islam from our media - even including non-mainstream media - is absurd. Much of my information about Islam comes from Islam's holy texts, especially the Quran, which calls for my forced conversion to Islam or my subjugation as a dhimmi; as long as I feel myself subjugated and pay the jizya, the Quran does at least pay lip service to no compulsion in religion (though dhimmi status is pretty compelling).
If you think I believe everything I see on TV or elsewhere in the media, then you know as much about me as you suggest I know about Islam.
I abhor the innocent deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Honestly, I am even sad to see the Taliban die. However, they have chosen to fight, but the death and dismemberment of truly innocent people caught in the crossfire, like children, is really a terrible thing. You might be surprised how much I know about what is going on in these places.
My religion is irrelevant here; it is Islam that degrades all who fail to submit to it. Islam is an ideology of armed conquest, seeking to dominate people and their thoughts both on Earth and in the afterlife. Your comments, which demonstrate absolutely no understanding either of what I know about Islam or about where I get my information, are typical of why the Islamic world produces so much violence: though you yourself are not advocating violence in this message, you say nothing to condemn what the Islamic world is doing, and this is de facto acquiescence to the agenda of the most extreme factions of the Islamic world - factions which, sooner or later, will either force you to submit to their vision or Islam or destroy you as takfir.
Consequently, I do not live in the dark regarding all this; in fact, I try to provide some light on the subject: those who are living in the dark regarding Islam are mostly Muslims or dhimmis.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Hizb ut-Tahrir Working in US to Abolish US Constitution
From Sharia Flaw: U.S. Group Aims for Islamic Domination, by Erick Stakelbeck, correspondent and terrorism analyst for CBN News. The article is dated July 8, 2010:
This vid is excellent, because it addresses how Hizb ut-Tahrir serves to recruit jihadists, while maintaining itself at a distance which the group thinks will allow it to disavow the results (jihad) of its activities.
Here is the group's ad; all form, no real substance:
The politically-correct West needs to start speaking openly about Islam; failure to do so will mean our silence as we are lead to the halal slaughter.
A little more background from Watch 'Stakelbeck on Terror' -- New from CBN News:
If Islam has become associated with terrorism and violence, Muslims have themselves (with a few exceptions), starting with Allah's apostle, to thank.
This vid is excellent, because it addresses how Hizb ut-Tahrir serves to recruit jihadists, while maintaining itself at a distance which the group thinks will allow it to disavow the results (jihad) of its activities.
Here is the group's ad; all form, no real substance:
The politically-correct West needs to start speaking openly about Islam; failure to do so will mean our silence as we are lead to the halal slaughter.
A little more background from Watch 'Stakelbeck on Terror' -- New from CBN News:
If Islam has become associated with terrorism and violence, Muslims have themselves (with a few exceptions), starting with Allah's apostle, to thank.
Monday, July 5, 2010
The OKBOMB and the TiNRATs, Part 5
Please read my previous post, which addresses illegal trafficking of commodities (mostly drugs) across the border from Mexico, the impact this is having on the US, and the reason why it is being allowed to continue.
As I previously mentioned, we have a group on Facebook seeking to find out the truth about the circumstances surrounding the death of Sergeant Terrance Yeakey of the Oklahoma City Police Department. We immediately began growing fast, and now have 224 members as I write this post.
Finding out the truth about Sgt. Yeakey's death is important for a variety of reasons.
First and foremost, he was a hero, an honest, decent American working to make his community and his country a better place. He was a member of our thin blue line, defending us against the criminal chaos on the streets. He sought to work constructively and preventively, making efforts to keep people from becoming involved in crime, rather than just waiting to confront criminals after their crimes had been committed.
He was a first responder on the scene of the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, and worked diligently to bring victims out of the rubble, despite the danger he personally faced when word constantly circulated about the possibility of other bombs that had yet to explode among the rubble.
As such, when he died under mysterious circumstances, having been obviously tortured and then brutally executed, and his death was labeled a suicide, this situation is intolerable. We owe it to him to find out about his murder, and to bring his killers to justice.
Terry would not abandon his community, and I will not abandon him; I will not live under the same sky with his killers.
But his case has a broader meaning even than that.
Terrorism and organized crime are related these days. They have common methods - illegal activities and violence - and common enemies - the people they prey upon, and the governments that seek to stop their activities. Their motives are somewhat different, but not completely. While one seeks political change, but is involved in profitable activities to support its agenda, the other seeks profit, but is involved in political activities to facilitate its business.
When you trace their support networks, you find that their illegal activities intertwine. Terrorist and organized crime cartels become allied, their money-laundering, smuggling and other activities interconnected.
If we dig into the OKBOMB case, we will discover that government officials knew of the threat to the Murrah Building, but neither prevented it nor adequately investigated it. They produced two players who were involved, McVeigh and Nichols, but it ended there. Had it gone further, the investigation of the terrorist support network would have connected to drug-trafficking, and the drug-trafficking would have connected to corrupt government officials who turn a blind eye, obstructing justice and facilitating illegal activities for a fee: racketeering and influence-peddling that crosses the line, and becomes treason.
Sergeant Yeakey was murdered because he had seen something at the incident scene - something that did not correspond to the official story. Brave, honest and dedicated, his integrity and sense of duty would not allow him to just ignore it, even though it became obvious to him that failure to let this go could be dangerous to him. He was too good a man, too dedicated to his job and to his community; too honest; too much a cop; too much a hero.
So he was killed to send a message to others - a torture-murder intended to let others know they had better shut up, as well, lest the same happen to them.
But, if we dig - if we really dig, tenaciously following every possible lead as far as we can, refusing to let go - we will dig up those who killed Terry, and we will dig up why he was killed... and with that, we will uncover the connections between government officials and organized crime, connections that lead to terrorist groups, both foreign and domestic, connections that make it obvious why our government refuses to do its job to seal our borders against drug- and human-traffickers, connections that allow us to understand why we can't seem to decisively defeat Al Qaeda; connections that show us how the 9/11 attacks succeeded beyond all expecations, and literally against all odds.
Though Terry Yeakey alone is more than worth the effort, as the hero he was and still is, he would be the first to tell us that it is not about Terry Yeakey, it is instead about our community and our country, and this is why we must pursue his case; not for those who have died, but for those who still live, for ourselves and our posterity.
As I previously mentioned, we have a group on Facebook seeking to find out the truth about the circumstances surrounding the death of Sergeant Terrance Yeakey of the Oklahoma City Police Department. We immediately began growing fast, and now have 224 members as I write this post.
Finding out the truth about Sgt. Yeakey's death is important for a variety of reasons.
First and foremost, he was a hero, an honest, decent American working to make his community and his country a better place. He was a member of our thin blue line, defending us against the criminal chaos on the streets. He sought to work constructively and preventively, making efforts to keep people from becoming involved in crime, rather than just waiting to confront criminals after their crimes had been committed.
He was a first responder on the scene of the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, and worked diligently to bring victims out of the rubble, despite the danger he personally faced when word constantly circulated about the possibility of other bombs that had yet to explode among the rubble.
As such, when he died under mysterious circumstances, having been obviously tortured and then brutally executed, and his death was labeled a suicide, this situation is intolerable. We owe it to him to find out about his murder, and to bring his killers to justice.
Terry would not abandon his community, and I will not abandon him; I will not live under the same sky with his killers.
But his case has a broader meaning even than that.
Terrorism and organized crime are related these days. They have common methods - illegal activities and violence - and common enemies - the people they prey upon, and the governments that seek to stop their activities. Their motives are somewhat different, but not completely. While one seeks political change, but is involved in profitable activities to support its agenda, the other seeks profit, but is involved in political activities to facilitate its business.
When you trace their support networks, you find that their illegal activities intertwine. Terrorist and organized crime cartels become allied, their money-laundering, smuggling and other activities interconnected.
If we dig into the OKBOMB case, we will discover that government officials knew of the threat to the Murrah Building, but neither prevented it nor adequately investigated it. They produced two players who were involved, McVeigh and Nichols, but it ended there. Had it gone further, the investigation of the terrorist support network would have connected to drug-trafficking, and the drug-trafficking would have connected to corrupt government officials who turn a blind eye, obstructing justice and facilitating illegal activities for a fee: racketeering and influence-peddling that crosses the line, and becomes treason.
Sergeant Yeakey was murdered because he had seen something at the incident scene - something that did not correspond to the official story. Brave, honest and dedicated, his integrity and sense of duty would not allow him to just ignore it, even though it became obvious to him that failure to let this go could be dangerous to him. He was too good a man, too dedicated to his job and to his community; too honest; too much a cop; too much a hero.
So he was killed to send a message to others - a torture-murder intended to let others know they had better shut up, as well, lest the same happen to them.
But, if we dig - if we really dig, tenaciously following every possible lead as far as we can, refusing to let go - we will dig up those who killed Terry, and we will dig up why he was killed... and with that, we will uncover the connections between government officials and organized crime, connections that lead to terrorist groups, both foreign and domestic, connections that make it obvious why our government refuses to do its job to seal our borders against drug- and human-traffickers, connections that allow us to understand why we can't seem to decisively defeat Al Qaeda; connections that show us how the 9/11 attacks succeeded beyond all expecations, and literally against all odds.
Though Terry Yeakey alone is more than worth the effort, as the hero he was and still is, he would be the first to tell us that it is not about Terry Yeakey, it is instead about our community and our country, and this is why we must pursue his case; not for those who have died, but for those who still live, for ourselves and our posterity.
So Far From God, Part 7
Interesting developments along the border...
First, from Drug lords' warning, dated June 24, 2010:
That information went via Reuters to a PRC news website, China Daily. I wonder if the seriousness of the situation has become apparent in our White House?
From Arizona Cops Threatened by Mexican Drug Cartel, dated June 24, 2010:
That's significant - for the first time, they are threatening to bring the drug war to us. (Not that it isn't already here.)
From Mexican drug cartel threatens Nogales police officers, updated June 22, 2010:
Our cops are the best in the world.
There are some that abuse their power - police power is easy to abuse - and there are some that are dishonest, but the vast majority of our cops are brave, honest, and have a high degree of integrity. Our "thin blue line" is something we can really be proud of.
Here's an excerpt from Fear Mexican Cartel Violence Headed to U.S., updated July 3, 2010:
It is a war.
It is a war against non-state actors.
The first part of Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution:
Obama's solution? Instead of doing his job as President, he is taking action against Arizona, which is in the difficult position of trying to do the job of the federal government, since the federal government is so woefully and deliberately inadequate to protect these United States.
(I wrote "deliberately inadequate" - why did I choose those words?)
And, this not some new development.
From Sensing weakness, drug cartels issue warning to U.S. law enforcement, July 5, 2010:
This is a key point to be made. Obama is obviously weak, which in a way is good news, because he is also anti-American. Since he is more of an enemy than a friend to this country, it is good that he is weak.
But, Bush-43 was not the strong, honest leader some paint him to be. Bush-43 had his deals cut, as well; honestly securing and protecting this country was not his priority, but rather his cover story for the rampant high-level corruption in his administration.
In that regard, the "change" (ever since January of 1993, if you think about it) has been more form than content.
It is a war against non-state actors, and our side is handicapped by high-level corruption of government officials who are on the payroll of foreign organized crime - the very same non-state actors who are waging war against us.
Switching gears to a completely different subject (or is it?), here is a quote from Found in Translation FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds spills her secrets, by Philip Giraldi, January 28, 2008:
Let me take this following quote out of its original context, and use it in this post. It is from Did Speaker Hastert Accept Turkish Bribes to Deny Armenian Genocide and Approve Weapons Sales?, August, 2010, in which Sibel Edmonds talks about her case:
Treason.
I took the Sibel Edmonds quote out of context, but perhaps her case establishes a greater context, one where US government officials sell this country out not just to foreign powers (both state and non-state actors) from the Middle East and Southwestern Asia, but also to foreign powers - non-state actors - from other regions as well?
From Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution:
In our Pledge of Allegiance, we call America "one nation, under God" - though certain elements in this country hate that concept and want us not to say it.
However, in one of his most famous quotes, Porfirio Díaz offered a different perspective, summarizing the power that the United States had over Mexico: "Poor Mexico, so far from God and so near to the United States."
This power today manifests itself not only as that of the customer for illegal drugs and other contraband smuggled northward, but also as that of a superpower whose government officials are corrupt, on the payroll of the very same non-state actors who are destabilizing and perhaps even destroying Mexico.
Should it be proven that US government officials are on the payroll of these foreign organized crime cartels - these non-state actors who are illegally invading and destroying the United States - that would constitute treason.
First, from Drug lords' warning, dated June 24, 2010:
Police in a US border city are on heightened alert after receiving a warning from a Mexican drug cartel that officers may be targeted if they carry out off-duty drug busts, authorities said on Tuesday.
Nogales, Arizona police received the threat through an informant after two off-duty policemen seized 400 pounds (182 kg) of marijuana while horseback riding outside the city in early June.
"The warning was ... that the officers, if they are off duty, are to look the other way and ignore any drug trafficking loads that are coming across the border," a police spokesman said.
Arizona straddles a major corridor for Mexican smugglers who haul illegal immigrants and drugs north to the US in an illicit trade worth billions of dollars a year.
That information went via Reuters to a PRC news website, China Daily. I wonder if the seriousness of the situation has become apparent in our White House?
From Arizona Cops Threatened by Mexican Drug Cartel, dated June 24, 2010:
A Mexican drug cartel has threatened police officers in Arizona who confiscated a marijuana shipment, prompting the small town department to warn its officers to remain armed and have radios with them at all times, and keep their body armor handy.
Police and experts believe the warning against the Nogales, Ariz., cops marks the first time that powerful Mexican drug cartels, used to bribing and bullying police south of the border, have targeted U.S. officers.
That's significant - for the first time, they are threatening to bring the drug war to us. (Not that it isn't already here.)
From Mexican drug cartel threatens Nogales police officers, updated June 22, 2010:
NOGALES, Ariz. (KGUN9-TV) - A Mexican drug cartel is threatening Nogales police officers, telling them to avoid off-duty drug busts or deal with the consequences of being assaulted by armed smugglers or targeted by snipers from across the border.
Nogales Police Chief Jeff Kirkham said the threats are serious, credible and a sign that drug cartels have become a much more dangerous enemy.
"Some direct threats came against our officers that if they're off duty, they were not to interdict any type of narcotics coming across the border or they would be targeted," Kirkham said.
Kirkham tells 9 On Your Side the threats stem from an incident two weeks ago, when off-duty officers conducted a drug bust while riding horseback in an unincorporated area of town. Some of the traffickers were apprehended, but others fled across the border. During the ensuing investigation, credible informants told police about the threats.
Kirkham says that given drastic budget cuts recently, the department does not have adequate funding or resources, but will not be deterred by the threats.
Our cops are the best in the world.
There are some that abuse their power - police power is easy to abuse - and there are some that are dishonest, but the vast majority of our cops are brave, honest, and have a high degree of integrity. Our "thin blue line" is something we can really be proud of.
Here's an excerpt from Fear Mexican Cartel Violence Headed to U.S., updated July 3, 2010:
TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) Twenty-one died in cartel violence Thursday night in Tubutama, a small Mexican town, just 12 miles south of the Nogales, United States border. And, now, many are saying it's just a matter of time before that sort of violence explodes in southern Arizona.
In Tucson, several lawmakers commented on the impact of the violence.
"The cartels are obviously getting really good with their aim. And, they are killing more efficiently," facetiously said Republican State Senator Frank Antenori, who continued, "I'm waiting for any day now. That violence is coming! I mean, how many times do you have to get hit in the head with a brick? I mean the federal government is not getting the message."
Republican State Representative believes that message has already been delivered too late, "It's (the violence) has already happened. Look what happened two and a half months ago with the Pinal County Sheriff's Deputy getting ambushed. The war is already 80 miles north of the border and 40 miles south of Phoenix."
It is a war.
It is a war against non-state actors.
The first part of Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion
Obama's solution? Instead of doing his job as President, he is taking action against Arizona, which is in the difficult position of trying to do the job of the federal government, since the federal government is so woefully and deliberately inadequate to protect these United States.
(I wrote "deliberately inadequate" - why did I choose those words?)
And, this not some new development.
From Sensing weakness, drug cartels issue warning to U.S. law enforcement, July 5, 2010:
President Obama failed to respond to either the [April, 2010]bombing of our consulate, or to the [March, 2010] coordinated murders of U.S. consulate employees. That inaction, combined with his unwillingness to defend the border has undoubtedly sent a message of weakness to the cartels, and will likely result in the deaths of more U.S. law enforcement officers.
Of course, Obama's predecessor was equally weak on this issue. The threats began in earnest under the Bush administration, as assaults on Border Patrol agents began rising at unprecedented rates. By 2007, assaults (which include shootings) had tripled from 2001, with 987.
This is a key point to be made. Obama is obviously weak, which in a way is good news, because he is also anti-American. Since he is more of an enemy than a friend to this country, it is good that he is weak.
But, Bush-43 was not the strong, honest leader some paint him to be. Bush-43 had his deals cut, as well; honestly securing and protecting this country was not his priority, but rather his cover story for the rampant high-level corruption in his administration.
In that regard, the "change" (ever since January of 1993, if you think about it) has been more form than content.
In 2007, the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin reported that they had obtained a confidential Department of Homeland Security memo. The function of the document was to issue an Officer Safety alert to U.S. Border Patrol agents that human smugglers were bringing MS-13 gang members into the country for the sole purpose of murdering the agents.
The alert reads: "Unidentified Mexican alien smugglers are angry about the increased security along the U.S./Mexican border and have agreed that the best way to deal with U.S. Border Patrol agents is to hire a group of contract killers."
A Border Patrol agent speaking on the condition of anonymity said: "It's not just people coming over here to pick lettuce. These gang members, criminals, are endangering American lives." He went on: "Our vests won't stop a rifle bullet, and many of us feel like sitting ducks."
On August 25, 2008, federal and local law enforcement officials told the Associated Press that Mexican drug cartels are now sending hit men into the U.S.
Officer Chris Mears of the El Paso Police Department told reporters: "We received credible information that drug cartels in Mexico have given permission to hit targets on the U.S. side of the border. One of the first things we did was to notify all officers in our department of the situation."
It is a war against non-state actors, and our side is handicapped by high-level corruption of government officials who are on the payroll of foreign organized crime - the very same non-state actors who are waging war against us.
In July 2008, police in New Mexico and Texas received a cartel hit list, uncovered by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The list contained the name of at least one New Mexico police officer.
Luna County Sheriff's Capt. Arturo Baeza told the press: "We have been concerned for quite some time that this thing will spill over here."
Snipers, who at one time, operated only on the Mexican side of the border, now move about freely. They fire a few shots at agents, then move to cover--only to fire again from another location. The tactics are typical of military sniper training. More than likely, the snipers are creating a diversion so that the smugglers can cross in another location. They know that the U.S. agents cannot pursue them into Mexico, and their own government is seemingly powerless to stop their activities.
In 2005, Border Patrol spokesman Andy Adame said: "We believe the vast majority of these assaults are directly tied to alien and drug smugglers based in Mexico."
Of course, Mexico's drug cartels are now operating within the interior of the U.S.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the cartels have set up shop in 231 U.S. cities. Atlanta, for instance, has been transformed into a major hub from which Mexican methamphetamine is distributed throughout the east coast.
With a largely unprotected border, and a President and a Homeland Security chief who seem oblivious to the threat posed to American cities, it is very easy for cartel hit men to cross into the U.S.
If Obama does not begin to take seriously his oath of office, we must install a Congress which vows to impeach the man who seems more concerned with golf than with the safety of U.S. citizens.
Obama's weakness only encourages the violent cartels, now in control of Mexico.
Switching gears to a completely different subject (or is it?), here is a quote from Found in Translation FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds spills her secrets, by Philip Giraldi, January 28, 2008:
Most Americans have never heard of Sibel Edmonds, and if the U.S. government has its way, they never will. The former FBI translator turned whistleblower tells a chilling story of corruption at Washington's highest levels—sale of nuclear secrets, shielding of terrorist suspects, illegal arms transfers, narcotics trafficking, money laundering, espionage. She may be a first-rate fabulist, but Edmonds's account is full of dates, places, and names. And if she is to be believed, a treasonous plot to embed moles in American military and nuclear installations and pass sensitive intelligence to Israeli, Pakistani, and Turkish sources was facilitated by figures in the upper echelons of the State and Defense Departments. Her charges could be easily confirmed or dismissed if classified government documents were made available to investigators.
Let me take this following quote out of its original context, and use it in this post. It is from Did Speaker Hastert Accept Turkish Bribes to Deny Armenian Genocide and Approve Weapons Sales?, August, 2010, in which Sibel Edmonds talks about her case:
SIBEL EDMONDS: As I said, Amy, I have been giving all the details to the appropriate channels. And they have been confirmed. And what I have said all along is the fact that as far as the 9/11 is concerned, September 11 is concerned, these departments—and when I say "these departments," the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and the Department of Defense—have intentionally blocked the investigations of real—the real criminals in this country. And we are talking about countries involved. The Vanity Fair article points out to Turkey—countries. And it’s very interesting. To this date, we are not hearing anything about targeting, you know, certain Central Asian countries. They are not speaking about the link between the narcotics and al Qaeda. Yes, we are hearing about them coming down on some charities as the real funds behind al Qaeda, but most of al Qaeda’s funding is not through these charity organizations. It’s through narcotics. And have you heard anything to this date, anything about these issues which we have had information since 1997? And as I would again emphasize, we are talking about countries. And they are blocking this information, and also the fact that certain officials in this country are engaged in treason against the United States and its interests and its national security, be it the Department of State or certain elected officials.
Treason.
I took the Sibel Edmonds quote out of context, but perhaps her case establishes a greater context, one where US government officials sell this country out not just to foreign powers (both state and non-state actors) from the Middle East and Southwestern Asia, but also to foreign powers - non-state actors - from other regions as well?
From Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort
__________
In our Pledge of Allegiance, we call America "one nation, under God" - though certain elements in this country hate that concept and want us not to say it.
However, in one of his most famous quotes, Porfirio Díaz offered a different perspective, summarizing the power that the United States had over Mexico: "Poor Mexico, so far from God and so near to the United States."
This power today manifests itself not only as that of the customer for illegal drugs and other contraband smuggled northward, but also as that of a superpower whose government officials are corrupt, on the payroll of the very same non-state actors who are destabilizing and perhaps even destroying Mexico.
Should it be proven that US government officials are on the payroll of these foreign organized crime cartels - these non-state actors who are illegally invading and destroying the United States - that would constitute treason.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
The Land of the Pure, Part 3
Ah, Pakistan...
From Attack on Lahore shrine raises concern about sectarian violence in Pakistan, by Issam Ahmed, July 2, 2010:
The extremists in Punjab are integral to Pakistan as it currently exists.
When the Indian subcontinent was maneuvering for independence in the 1940's, Muslim leaders demanded their own state. Possibly intended as a bargaining position, suddenly the wish was granted and Pakistan owed its existence to Islam.
But, it was a trap. Having called attention to the differences between Muslims and Hindus in India, with an eye toward ensuring Muslim representation in political processes, the situation was now exasperated by international boundaries dividing places like Punjab, and by significant Hindu and Muslim minorities facing the choice of relocation or being on the "wrong" side of a line; the Hindu ruler of Jammu and Kashmir chose to hook his Muslim majority realm up with India following an invasion by Pashtun tribal militias.
Immediately, there were simmering hostilities. Though Pakistan is the world's sixth most populous country, India's numerical superiority is perceived as a threat - a powerful Indian military thrust could cut Pakistan in half, fairly quickly isolating the bulk of the population from ports along the coast.
Consequently, it has been the de facto policy of Pakistan's government to support and promote Islamic militants - both for a proxy war against India in Punjab and beyond, and to provide strategic depth stretching across the Durand Line into Afghanistan - real "boots-on-the-ground" infringements which have sparked border skirmishes between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
This situation was intensified as Pakistan became more militantly Islamic supporting the jihad against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980's, under the rule of Islamist Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, a general who seized power and became Pakistan's sixth president.
Closely intertwined with Pakistan's officialdom - especially the military and Pakistan's military intelligence - the Islamic militant movement took on a life of its own, and gained momentum, even after the Soviets left Afghanistan. Skipping forward to today (and down in the article):
The result is that Islamabad is now hostage to its own policy, threatened to be roasted over the Islamic militant fire that its politico-military elite have been stoking.
From Hiding In Plain Sight, by Ahmad Majidyar, July 2, 2010:
Rawalpindi, or "Pindi" as it is called, is home to many key government and military institutions, including Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence (ISI).
In Urdu and Persian, "Pakistan" means "Land of the Pure", and Pakistan's desire to be purely Muslim is generating serious blowback. Once a nation is defined by the purity of its ideology, no one is safe, as there is always someone to accuse others of not being pure enough.
In Islam, a person who is not Muslim enough is takfir, an apostate, and the penalty for this is death.
Skipping down in the article:
The only thing bloodier than Islam's borders is Islam's interior; either Pakistanis deal with their militancy problem now by renouncing Islamic militarism and ending jihadism within Pakistan's borders (and elsewhere), or the militants will take over in a bloodbath, and an infidel world threatened by a land of pure, militant and nuclear-armed Islam will be forced to destroy Pakistan in self-defense.
As final commentary, I offer a blog post entitled "Be the Change" which I copied completely, as is; there is a moral to it both real and immediately applicable:
From Attack on Lahore shrine raises concern about sectarian violence in Pakistan, by Issam Ahmed, July 2, 2010:
Thousands of Pakistanis took to the streets on Friday demanding better security for places of worship and a crackdown on extremists following twin suicide bomb attacks at the country's most famous Sufi shrine that have raised concerns about an increasingly sectarian cast to the country's violence.
But some analysts said it would be a mistake to characterize the recent spate of attacks as sectarian, given the one-sided nature of attacks thus far.
"We don't see violent attacks coming from the other groups. They are coming from one community," says Rasul Baksh Rais, head of political sciences at the Lahore University for Management Sciences, adding that the militants are finding themselves increasingly unpopular for carrying out such strikes.
[snip]
"Punjabi militants are sectarian in origin, and when they find themselves unable to attack government or security targets, they will lash out at other sects," says Ashaar Rehman, the Lahore editor of Dawn, a leading Pakistani daily.
The extremists in Punjab are integral to Pakistan as it currently exists.
When the Indian subcontinent was maneuvering for independence in the 1940's, Muslim leaders demanded their own state. Possibly intended as a bargaining position, suddenly the wish was granted and Pakistan owed its existence to Islam.
But, it was a trap. Having called attention to the differences between Muslims and Hindus in India, with an eye toward ensuring Muslim representation in political processes, the situation was now exasperated by international boundaries dividing places like Punjab, and by significant Hindu and Muslim minorities facing the choice of relocation or being on the "wrong" side of a line; the Hindu ruler of Jammu and Kashmir chose to hook his Muslim majority realm up with India following an invasion by Pashtun tribal militias.
Immediately, there were simmering hostilities. Though Pakistan is the world's sixth most populous country, India's numerical superiority is perceived as a threat - a powerful Indian military thrust could cut Pakistan in half, fairly quickly isolating the bulk of the population from ports along the coast.
Consequently, it has been the de facto policy of Pakistan's government to support and promote Islamic militants - both for a proxy war against India in Punjab and beyond, and to provide strategic depth stretching across the Durand Line into Afghanistan - real "boots-on-the-ground" infringements which have sparked border skirmishes between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
This situation was intensified as Pakistan became more militantly Islamic supporting the jihad against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980's, under the rule of Islamist Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, a general who seized power and became Pakistan's sixth president.
Closely intertwined with Pakistan's officialdom - especially the military and Pakistan's military intelligence - the Islamic militant movement took on a life of its own, and gained momentum, even after the Soviets left Afghanistan. Skipping forward to today (and down in the article):
"The government must crack down on all terror being committed against all sects," said Fazl-e-Kareem, a prominent Barelwi scholar, to a crowd of some 2,000 people. The Barelwi sect accounts for the majority of Sunni Muslims in Pakistan, and its traditions and beliefs are closely associated with Sufism.
Others were keen to point out what they called government hypocrisy. "This is all the fault of the Deobandi extremists whom the government continues to support," says Muhammad Saleem, a businessman and member of the Sunni Tehrik, a Islamic political organization affiliated with the Barelwi sect.
"They pay the salaries of Jamat-ud-Dawa but fail to protect us," he added, in reference to the provincial Punjab government's lack of action against the charitable arm of Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was officially proscribed by a United Nations Security Council resolution but remains a legal organization in Pakistan.
The result is that Islamabad is now hostage to its own policy, threatened to be roasted over the Islamic militant fire that its politico-military elite have been stoking.
From Hiding In Plain Sight, by Ahmad Majidyar, July 2, 2010:
Pakistan's Punjab province is not usually cited among the areas in danger of imminent takeover by terrorists, but that will likely soon change. On July 1, suicide bombers had no problem launching a triple attack on a famous Sufi shrine in Lahore, its bustling capital city. At least 35 were killed and over 175 injured in the assault. In fact, it was only the latest in a string of terrorist attacks that have rocked Pakistan's densely populated heartland over the past year. Last month, Taliban gunmen torched 50 U.S. and NATO supply trucks headed for Afghanistan just outside Islamabad in northern Punjab. And the problems are likely to get worse in Punjab before they get better.
While U.S. and Pakistani military strategists focus on the terrorist threat in Pakistan's tribal areas, the Taliban and al Qaeda are expanding into Punjab and teaming up with local terrorist organizations such as Jaish-e-Mohammed, the alleged recruiter of Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad.
Punjab is an attractive refuge for the Taliban for two reasons. First, the area allows a convenient strategic retreat as the Pakistani military recaptures key Taliban strongholds in the Swat Valley and South Waziristan and mulls a further offensive into North Waziristan, the key power base of Pakistani Taliban groups, the Afghan Taliban's Haqqani network, and al Qaeda. The Taliban has reason to think of Punjab, home to nearly half of Pakistan's 20,000 madrasas, many of them incubators for radicalism, as an accommodating new home.
The second reason is that militants know that in Punjab, with its dense cities and a population of more than 90 million, they can hide in plain sight, safe from U.S. drone strikes, which according to CIA officials, have killed more than 500 militants, including high-profile Taliban leaders, in the past two years. After all, with the international community already harshly criticizing drone strikes in which a dozen Pakistani civilians are killed, al Qaeda calculates correctly that the White House would never risk hundreds of civilian casualties by ordering a strike in the heart of Rawalpindi.
Rawalpindi, or "Pindi" as it is called, is home to many key government and military institutions, including Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence (ISI).
Suicide attacks in Punjab doubled in 2009 from the previous year, and this year will likely be deadlier. In a March interview with Rediff.com, Qari Hussain Mehsud, the Pakistani Taliban's deputy commander, promised, "A new series of suicide attacks will take place soon" and said, "The focus would be on Punjab, where policies are made." Al Qaeda's al-Jihad Punjab group claimed credit for the March 8 assault on the Special Investigation Agency in Lahore, as well as a series of attacks there in May that killed 80. In some villages, the extremists openly demand Islamic law, ban video and music shops, and urge the local population to prepare for an Islamic revolution, the same process that preceded the Taliban's seizure of Swat.
The Pakistani government's willingness to turn a blind eye to militancy exacerbates the problem. The Punjabi-dominated Pakistani Army is unwilling to fight its brethren. In a June 24 interview with the BBC, Pakistani Army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas ruled out a Waziristan-style military operation in Punjab. "There needs to be a political decision to crack down on the jihadi organizations," he noted. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League runs the provincial government and openly courts the terrorist groups for political support.
In Urdu and Persian, "Pakistan" means "Land of the Pure", and Pakistan's desire to be purely Muslim is generating serious blowback. Once a nation is defined by the purity of its ideology, no one is safe, as there is always someone to accuse others of not being pure enough.
In Islam, a person who is not Muslim enough is takfir, an apostate, and the penalty for this is death.
Skipping down in the article:
The fight in Pakistan will not end when the U.S. and Pakistani armies expel terrorists from the border regions with Afghanistan. For Pakistani leaders, violence in the tribal areas is an irritant; they seem not to realize that the same type of militancy in Punjab threatens to rock Pakistan to its very core. Barring effective action in Islamabad, Washington must plan for a greater terrorist threat emanating from Pakistan over the horizon.
The only thing bloodier than Islam's borders is Islam's interior; either Pakistanis deal with their militancy problem now by renouncing Islamic militarism and ending jihadism within Pakistan's borders (and elsewhere), or the militants will take over in a bloodbath, and an infidel world threatened by a land of pure, militant and nuclear-armed Islam will be forced to destroy Pakistan in self-defense.
As final commentary, I offer a blog post entitled "Be the Change" which I copied completely, as is; there is a moral to it both real and immediately applicable:
It was a 13- 15 year old girl, standing on a narrow walkway by a crowded pharmacy right opposite Ashfaq manorial Center, waiting for her mother to return with the medicines. I spotted two men, probably masons, they had their tools in their hand, walking towards this girl, their unfriendly gaze, fixed on her. She panicked, and tried to press herself to the wall so to give these men space to pass by her without getting near to her while they kept walking with broad chests, dead center of the aisle. As they walked closer, and were about to pass by her, I moved quickly forward them from the opposite side, looking at these men right in the eye, there was anger on my face. I was truly going to retaliate only if they would have made one wrong move, but as soon as they saw me approaching them from the opposite direction their posture suddenly changed, they suddenly moved their eyes downwards, they walked away from the girl and quickly past me, while i continued to follow them with my angry gaze.
in the mean while the girl's mother too was back from the medical story, and now they were walking away to get a rickshaw for their next destination.
if you may have realized, i am not at all a well built person, actually i am quite skinny, and was no match for these culprits, but what scared them was the feat that if i could have raised alarm, and the shop keepers and passers by would probably have beaten the crap out of him.
people keep asking me how they can bring a change in the society, i tell you, It takes not much to do so, if you want to see a change, the next time you spot a man gazing a women, ask him out loud what his problem is. If you are a men looking at this culprit alone will be enough to get him back to his senses. Be the change you want, feel and take the responsibility of the society you are a part of, and you will see the change coming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
