Excellent post overall, Bob (Dubya Doctrine? Did you create this term? Really wry!), but let me hone in on one paragraph that just blew me away. Totally.

On 2001-10-31 07:59, Bob Butler 54 wrote:

In many (perhaps not all) fourth turnings, the poor outsiders sought increased power from the rich establishment. The poor outsiders, with hindsight, have generally been perceived as having just cause. The rich establishment is often perceived as attempting to maintain privilege and resist necessary progress. Is this perspective meaningful today?

Bob, so, do you think that this will be the global direction of this next 4T?

Because, that would mean that America won't go for a leftist-progressive GC / agenda by the Regeneracy? We will stay conservative right-ish working towards One-Party? And whoa, we'll be the ones making global concessions to the poor because we are the rich, but we'll spend hundreds or thousands of billions fighting (ourselves) in a terrorist war beforehand? And, then, all those who aren't adverse to questioning will be by then really upset at all the Nationalists (as opposed to the Patriots, well, Patriotism-ists) who couldn't take a moment from the macho chest-beating and all the lives lost to actually come to the concessions conclusion in the first place?



Ok, this is an extreme (and poking-fun a bit)extrapolation of your possible point, BUT, I'd never before thought about replacing country with global in the historical 4T political direction.

Global economic protectionism. Global economic colonialism. What would this internal 4T political anomoly do to the civic values of our next High? Linear continuation? Ultra-violent Awakening? Whoa.

On 2001-10-31 07:59, Bob Butler 54 wrote:

The real irony of the situation is that Osama bin Laden is essentially demanding that we live by our own original principles. Not that he knows or cares a whit for constitutional government, the counsel of the Founding Fathers, and suchlike infidel malarkey; but his demand for American withdrawal from the Middle East would never have been necessary if we had retained the modest "republican form of government" that was bequeathed to us. Instead the United States has become a global empire.

AND

A day earlier, Liz54 wrote:

I think my problem with rehashing our past foreign policy in the Middle East now that it is pointless. It's TOO LATE to repair the damage.

We're facing an 80-year-old festering wound over there inflicted by our long dead progenitors. Unfortunately, either cauterizing or amputation is the only solution left.


Can there be any doubt what limb needs to excised from the U.S.A.?

Further, by going global, in terms of seeking equal rights throughout the world; promoting foreign trade; insuring voting rights to the third world; raising the standard of living everywhere; and exporting our culture; we have, I fear, brought our country to the lowest common denominator worldwide - the rifle.

It doesn't matter if bin Laden intended to set us straight, we have wandered as a "global power" and now we pay the price.


I can only pray for the victims (and hope I'm not one of them).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2002-01-01 00:05 ]</font>

Barbara asks..

Dubya Doctrine? Did you create this term? Really wry!

Yah. I?m afraid I invented it for the post. I also created the Clinton Doctrine a week before Clinton proclaimed it. However, the Clinton Doctrine bombed. I fear I forgot it. I wouldn?t be surprised if Clinton forgot it too. :wink: Something about international intervention when crimes against humanity are in progress? Who knows. Maybe it will make a comeback?

Barbara also asks if I believe the global direction of the 4T will be reflected by the following.

Me

In many (perhaps not all) fourth turnings, the poor outsiders sought increased power from the rich establishment. The poor outsiders, with hindsight, have generally been perceived as having just cause. The rich establishment is often perceived as attempting to maintain privilege and resist necessary progress. Is this perspective meaningful today?

Barbara

Global economic protectionism. Global economic colonialism. What would this internal 4T political anomoly do to the civic values of our next High? Linear continuation? Ultra-violent Awakening? Whoa.

I think Dubya is hoping for continued superpower status for the US, with Japan, Europe and other powers tamely following the US lead. This is the current world order. Why should the world order change? It?s a pretty neat world order from our perspective, no? Why should US policy in the Middle East, Asia or Africa be discussed or changed?

The opposite extreme would be a radical shift in power structures. Guerilla warfare and terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction prevent the established powers from maintaining the current extremely uneven distribution of wealth. This change in military balance of power leads to wealth shifting from rich countries to poor, with ecological limits making the shift difficult. The rich nations will be less than enthusiastic, and will try to minimize the process, but might be forced trade off wealth and privilege in return for peace and justice. Ethnic and racial hatreds complicate the process. Settling racial and ethnic hot spots will be difficult to impossible without solving the poverty that often fuels the hatreds. Government corruption is also part of it, with the wealthy pushing government policies such that the uneven distribution of wealth is maintained and increased. Again, the security, economic, ecological, religious-ethnic and political aspects are so linked that one can?t attack terror without attacking the whole mess. Old world order gone? Wipe slate? Start from scratch? A true fourth turning?

I see Dubya as playing Hoover?s role, attempting to maintain the current world order essentially intact, shunning nation building if possible, not involving himself in far away ethnic problems if possible, but dragged reluctantly into an impossible situation. He is apt to try to use US superpower status and assorted well to do allies to keep the impoverished in their place. While Dubya may yet decide to walk a different path, he may start the West and its allies down an ugly path of attempting to maintain wealth and privilege at the expense of the underdeveloped world. However, even after a few months of walking this path, it is starting to look ugly. While an effort to save the old world order is possibly inevitable, Dubya might instead hand off the presidency to a Gray Champion wannabe who is willing and eager to address the underlying issues and take radical measures. Gore seems to be warming up for the part. He was just up in New Hampshire, talking about maintaining US values of religious, economic and political freedom. Political, religious and economic freedom represent the way we as human beings are intended to live our lives together. We will never turn our backs on those values. (Has someone been visiting this web site, and noting the odd references to the Four Freedoms speech? Gore hit nearly precisely on my forgotten three.)

But yes, it is possible that the conservative establishment will attempt to cling to power. They might even succeed for a time. I?m hoping they won?t cling too hard. The US in past crises has had progressive agendas, or make that radical agendas. Fourth turnings ought to be times of radical change. I?d like to see the string continued. This is possible, but not inevitable.

In World War II?s lead up to the Battle of the Bulge, Hitler wanted to go for the Ally?s ports in Holland, while the generals in charge though a more modest offensive was more practical. Hitler?s approach came to be called the ?Big Solution,? as opposed to his general?s ?Small Solution.? Hitler?s plan was tried, but fell well short of the coast, as the professionals predicted. However, Hitler may have been correct, as the Germans needed more than a small victory at the time. Anyway, the debate on this web site seems to be between a new Big Solution and Small Solution question. Can the old world order be preserved, or is it dead policy walking? Should we seek continued superpower status, or try to even the playing field? Do we need a new birth of freedom, or should any new birth be aborted? E2K+4 might pivot on the question.


_________________
We shall not have Freedom from Fear, everywhere in the world, while we forget the other three.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bob Butler 54 on 2001-10-31 14:40 ]</font>

Barbara, bin Laden *is* Saudi. He's the scion of a prominent, westernized, very rich Saudi oil family. And he got disaffected with them in part (I think, I aint sure) because of something that happened when the Saudis allowed the Americans to put our troops their during the Gulf War.

Rich, I think everyone, including me, has the capacity to be Muhammad Atta, given the right circumstances. This is a theological opinion, but it's also based on my Xer worldview.

Waaaaay back, years ago when the new Star Wars film came out, I talked about empathizing with Anakin Skywalker. Try seeing all these kids out there as Anakin Skywalker, young Anakin, before he meets Palpatine, before he gets tempted by the Dark Side. Young, brash, a little angry but with so much potential for good.

And not Darth Vader. Not yet.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: angeli on 2001-10-31 15:51 ]</font>

oh, and we keep tossing about this term "regenerency" but I wasn't around when it was defined. What's a regenerency?

Here is BBC World Service on this bin Laden guy. (they say he's not in oil but construction)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...00/1551100.stm

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: angeli on 2001-10-31 15:31 ]</font>

And this is part of why I think we're not accomplishing much with the bombing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...00/1615720.stm

On 2001-10-31 Bob Buttler wrote:

While Dubya may yet decide to walk a different path, he may start the West and its allies down an ugly path of attempting to maintain wealth and privilege at the expense of the underdeveloped world.

Bob, don't you think that Clinton, and Even Bush Sr. was on that road, years ago? I was as surprised as anyone else to learn that for the past 10 years, the U.S. has flew over Iraqi airspace every day. We have bombed that country routinely for the past ten years, and used sanctions to cut off aid, pissing off thousands of arabs and killing a few to boot. All to punish the people for allowing Saddam Hussain to stay in power. We didn't finish that war, and sadly we might not finish this one either. But the "ugly path" of wealth and privilege, at the expense of undeveloped "arab" worlds isn't a new path. Been down it for a long time.

Angeli wrote:

Rich, I think everyone, including me, has the capacity to be Muhammad Atta, given the right circumstances. This is a theological opinion, but it's also based on my Xer worldview.
Waaaaay back, years ago when the new Star Wars film came out.........

Before we get into Star Wars, let me share a real life story (not Dune or Star Wars), for our readers. This story sets the tone for nationalisn in the country, is based in fact, and is strikingly different than the misguided tone of our culture. Here it is:

The legend of William Tell is the central defining myth in Swiss national consciousness. Most
schoolchildren, whether in Switzerland or elsewhere in the West, know at least the bare bones of
the story, but whereas in most cultures it is little more than one folktale among many, in
Switzerland, it has come to embody the very essence of Swissness.

The story
At a time soon after the opening of the Gotthard Pass, when the Habsburg emperors of Vienna
sought to control Uri and thus control trans-Alpine trade, a new bailiff, Hermann Gessler, was
despatched to Altdorf. The proud mountain folk of Uri had already joined with their Schwyzer and
Nidwaldner neighbours at R?tli in pledging to resist the Austrians? cruel oppression, and when
Gessler raised a pole in the central square of Altdorf and perched his hat on the top,
commanding all who passed before it to bow in respect, it was the last straw. William Tell, a
countryman from nearby B?rglen, either hadn?t heard about Gessler?s command or chose to
ignore it; whichever, he walked past the hat without bowing. Gessler seized Tell, who was well
known as a marksman, and set him a challenge. He ordered him to shoot an apple off his son?s
head with his crossbow; if Tell was successful, he would be released, but if he failed or refused,
both he and his son would die.

The boy?s hands were tied. Tell put one arrow in his quiver and another in his crossbow, took
aim, and shot the apple clean off his son?s head. Gessler was impressed and infuriated ? and
then asked what the second arrow was for. Tell looked the tyrant in the eye and replied that if
the first arrow had struck the child, the second would have been for Gessler. For such
impertinence, Tell was arrested and sentenced to lifelong imprisonment in the dungeons of
Gessler?s castle at K?ssnacht, northeast of Luzern. During the long boat journey a violent storm
arose on the lake, and the oarsmen ? unfamiliar with the lake ? begged with Gessler to release
Tell so that he could steer them to safety. Gessler acceded, and Tell cannily manoeuvred the
boat close to the shore, then leapt to freedom, landing on a flat rock (the Tellsplatte) and
simultaneously pushing the boat back into the stormy waters.

Determined to see his task through and use the second arrow, Tell hurried to K?ssnacht. As
Gessler and his party walked along on a dark lane called Hohlegasse on their way to the castle,
Tell leapt out, shot a bolt into the tyrant?s heart and melted back into the woods to return to Uri.
His comrades were inspired by Tell?s act of bravery to throw off the yoke of Habsburg oppression
in their homeland, and to remain forever free.

Thoughts in the Presence of Fear by Wendell Berry

Below I will paste in an excellent article from The Guardian which details the situation surrounding the oil pipeline in Afghanistan and its relationship to our so-called war there. But I encourage everybody to actually follow the link here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/560854/posts

Points of emphasis are added in the Free Republic copy of the article, but more important are the posters' comments which follow it. Individual posters flesh out the situation in much greater detail with copious documentation. If all these facts could somehow get through the mainstream media cover, they could have tremendous bearing upon this administration's standing and the course of this crisis. I hope that some prominent Democrats are paying attention and that they might for once give a damn. Enjoy:

(For information and discussion purposes only)

Society: environment: Route to riches: Afghanistan has huge strategic importance for the west as a corridor to the untapped fuel reserves in central Asia, reports Andy Rowell

The Guardian - United Kingdom; Oct 24, 2001

BY ANDY ROWELL

As the war in Afghan-istan unfolds, there is frantic diplomatic activity to ensure that any post-Taliban government will be both democratic and pro-west. Hidden in this explosive geo-political equation is the sensitive issue of securing control and export of the region's vast oil and gas reserves.

The Soviets estimated Afghanistan's proven and probable natural gas reserves at 5 trillion cubic feet - enough for the UK's requirement for two years - but this remains largely untapped because of the country's civil war and poor pipeline infrastructure.

More importantly, according to the US government, "Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from central Asia to the Arabian Sea".

To the north of Afghanistan lies the Caspian and central Asian region, one of the world's last great frontiers for the oil industry due to its tremendous untapped reserves. The US government believes that total oil reserves could be 270bn barrels. Total gas reserves could be 576 trillion cubic feet. These dwarf the UK's proven reserves of 5bn barrels of oil and 27 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

The reason oil is so attractive to the US - which imports half of its oil - and the west, is for three reasons. "Firstly it is non-Opec oil," says James Marriott, an oil expert from Platform, an environmental NGO. "Opec has been the bete-noire of the west since its inception in 1960. Secondly, these states are not within the Arab world and thirdly, although they are Muslim, they are heavily secularised."

The presence of these oil reserves and the possibility of their export raises new strategic concerns for the US and other western industrial powers. "As oil companies build oil pipelines from the Caucasus and central Asia to supply Japan and the west, these strategic concerns gain military implications,"argued an article in the Military Review, the Journal of the US army, earlier in the year.

Despite this, host governments and western oil companies have been rushing to get in on the act. Kazakhstan, it is believed, could earn Dollars 700bn (pounds 486bn) from offshore oil and gas fields over the next 40 years. Both American and British oil companies have struck black gold. In April 1993, Chevron concluded a Dollars 20bn joint venture to develop the Tengiz oil field, with 6-9bn barrels of estimated oil reserves in Kazakhstan alone. The following year, in what was described as "the deal of the century", AIOC, an international consortium of companies led by BP, signed an Dollars 8bn deal to exploit reserves estimated at 3-5bn barrels in Azerbaijan.

The oil industry has long been trying to find a way to bring the oil and gas to market. This frustration was evident in the submission by oil company Unocal's vice-president John Maresca, before the US House of Representatives in 1998. "Central Asia is isolated. Their natural resources are landlocked, both geographically and politically. Each of the countries in the Caucasus and central Asia faces difficult political challenges. Some have unsettled wars or latent conflicts."

The industry has been looking at different routes. The Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) route is 1,000 miles west from Tengiz in Kazakhstan to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiisk and came on stream last week. Oil will go by tanker through the Bosporus to the Mediterranean. Another route being considered by AIOC goes from Baku through Tbilisi in Georgia to Ceyhan in Turkey. However, parts of the route are seen as politically unstable as it goes through the Kurdistan region of Turkey and its Dollars 3bn price tag is prohibitively expensive.

But even if these pipelines are built, they would not be enough to exploit the region's vast oil and gas reserves. Nor crucially would they have the capacity to move oil to where it is really needed, the growing markets of Asia. Other export pipelines must therefore be built. One option is to go east across China, but at 3,000km it is seen as too long. Another option is through Iran, but US companies are banned due to American sanctions. The only other possible route is through Afghanistan to Pakistan. This is seen as being advantageous as it is close to the Asian markets.

Unocal, the US company with a controversial history of investment in Burma, has been trying to secure the Afghan route. To be viable Unocal has made it clear that "construction of the pipeline cannot begin until a recognised government is in place in Kabul that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company."

This, it can be argued, is precisely what Washington is now trying to do. "Washington's attitude towards the Taliban has been, in large part, a function of oil," argues Steve Kretzmann, from the Institute for Policy Studies in the US. "Before 1997, Washington refused to criticise and isolate the Taliban because Kabul seemed to favour Unocal, to build a proposed natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to the Pakistan coast."

In 1997, the Taliban signed an agreement that would allow a proposed 890-mile, Dollars 2bn natural gas pipeline project called Centgas led by Unocal to proceed. However by December 1998, Unocal had pulled out citing turmoil in Afghanistan making the project too risky.

To secure stability for the Afghan pipeline route, the US State Department and Pakistan's intelligence service funnelled arms to the Taliban, argues Ahmed Rashid in his book: Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, the book Tony Blair has been reportedly reading since the conflict started. Rashid called the struggle for control of post-Soviet central Asia "the new Great Game".

Critics of the industry argue that so long as this game is dependent on fossil fuels the region will remain impoverished due to the effects of the oil industry, which is, says Kretzmann, "essentially a neo-colonial set-up that extracts wealth from a region. The industry is sowing the seeds of poverty and terrorism. True security, for all of us, can only be achieved by reducing our dependence on oil."

To angeli:
The Fourth Turning, page 256
A Crisis era begins with a catalyst - a startling event (or sequence of events) that produces a sudden shift in mood. Once catalyzed, a society achieves a REGENERACY - a new counterentropy that reunifies and reenergizes civic life. The regenerated society propels toward a climax - a crucial moment that confirms the death of the old order and birth of the new. The climax culminates in a resolution - a triumphant or tragic conclusion that separates the winners from losers, resolves the big public questions, and establishes the new order.
They go on to say the regeneracy usually occurs one to five years after the era begins, the climax one to five years before it ends.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tom Mazanec on 2001-10-31 21:40 ]</font>

Sv81 writes?

Bob, don't you think that Clinton, and Even Bush Sr. was on that road, years ago? I was as surprised as anyone else to learn that for the past 10 years, the U.S. has flew over Iraqi airspace every day. We have bombed that country routinely for the past ten years, and used sanctions to cut off aid, pissing off thousands of arabs and killing a few to boot. All to punish the people for allowing Saddam Hussain to stay in power. We didn't finish that war, and sadly we might not finish this one either. But the "ugly path" of wealth and privilege, at the expense of undeveloped "arab" worlds isn't a new path. Been down it for a long time.

Agreed. As the West has developed, there has tended to be an allegiance between idealists favoring human rights and democracy, and wealthy individuals that wish to alter government to favor greater wealth for wealthy individuals. The old opponents were the feudal nobility, owning the land, and virtually owning people bound to the land. While it is clear that human rights and democracy have been advanced by the alliance between democracy and capitalism, the division of wealth has been relatively constant. Economic and political power was concentrated in the hands of a few during feudal times, and seem still to be concentrated in the hands of a different few. However, the ?trickle down? to some of us lowly peons has improved over they years. Still, this ?ugly path? is very old indeed.

Dave, the ?Thoughts in the presence of Fear? article is a good find.

A couple pages back, Bob Butler mentioned the need for a definiton of terrorism. I couldn't agree more. Every problem-solving method I've ever seen has the same first step -- Define the problem. Until that is done, we're just blundering around in the dark.
With that in mind, from the Executive Order on Terrorist Financing: Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism

(d) the term "terrorism" means an activity that: (i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and (ii) appears to be intended: (A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (C) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.

Bush's own words.

The legend of William Tell is, alas, just a legend. Although Swiss my age were taught the story when they were in school, they now believe it to be a folk tale.


Historians have analyzed the official records from that period and there is no record of a bailiff named Gessler, nor of anybody named Tell shooting him. The story is a distorted version of the events that led up to the formation of the "Everlasting League" between the cantons of Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden, as a mutual defense against the Hapsburgs.


But the region where the story took place, around the lake Vierwaldstaettersee, is among the most beautiful in Switzerland and I highly recommend it for a visit. The formation of the League took place on August 1, 1291, near Ruetli, overlooking the lake. A monument to this event, titled "Schwurhaende", can be seen next to the boat landing at Fluelen.
(See pic at this link.


I have stayed in Kuessnacht several times, and I do not remember a castle or any other large structures there.

As I mentioned a month or so ago, a good book to read on the Taliban is : " Taliban, Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia" by Ahmed Rashid. As the Stonewall Patton article and link cites, we have put our selves into this pickle: helping the Taliban against its enemys, then fighting the Taliban now. Helping Iraq against its enemies, then fighting Iraq later.

It all comes down to foreign policy - or lack thereof. Bob Buttler is right on point that the U.S. has become a global empire, way past the direction of our founding fathers, and way beyond the interests of our citizens.

Forming alliances with foreign states (even NATO)is something our founding fathers would scorn as well. As a country, we live or die by their actions.

Mostly we have been living, lately we have been dying.

As my earlier postings indicate, we give billions in foreign aid, to turn around and sell billions in weapons to those same countries! What the hell is going on! Who got rich on that deal? Which one of you voted for that? I sure didn't!

Additionally, without wanting to be unduly negative regarding capitalism, another book to read is "Affluenza", The all consuming epidemic. by DeGraff, Wann and Naylor. First a PBS show, it gained popularity by exposing the rampant consumerism pushed at us by our friends the media and government.

I don't exagerate by saying that America is bipolar when it comes to our culture, and bin Laden and others punctuate the illness. Americans save nothing they earn currently, and as one faction says spend more to help the economy, another says conserve more to help the world. For years, there seems to be no clear consensus on how these competing theories will be resolved, but the crisis ahead is going to solve them in one stroke - Survival. The crisis according to S&H isn't an academic phase; it shakes society to its very foundations. As was once said, paraphrasing, "it will come with a flame, and I wish it was here now."

The "West" has been accused by middle eastern protestors as being both self absorbed and self destructive. I think the're right. We now reap what we sow.

Although it saddens me to see the huge shift in values ahead, and all the pain that such a shift entails, we were taught that the next turning is a natural state of human affairs, and 'winding up the clock' for the next saculum is a normal and healthy phase for the world.

On 2001-11-01 08:05, Justin '77 wrote:
A couple pages back, Bob Butler mentioned the need for a definiton of terrorism. I couldn't agree more. Every problem-solving method I've ever seen has the same first step -- Define the problem. Until that is done, we're just blundering around in the dark.
With that in mind, from the Executive Order on Terrorist Financing: Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism

(d) the term "terrorism" means an activity that: (i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and (ii) appears to be intended: (A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (C) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.

Bush's own words.

(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;

Good boy, Junior! Good boy! You have done Daddy proud! Now you can label any patriotic American who believes in the same principles as the great men who founded this nation as a terrorist! If he dares give voice to the principles upon which this country was founded and illustrates the supreme fraudulence and illegitimacy of the current ruling regime in light of these principles, then he is just downright seditious, isn't he? All you have to say, Junior, is that expressing these ideas constitutes "an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure" and that the speech is an effort "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." Outstanding, Junior, you have made your masters proud! It's good to be the King, ain't it, Junior?

Perhaps Junior, a.k.a. HRH George II, being a Boomer will be responsive to the words of another Prophet, Samuel Adams -- that is if he ever clears the cobwebs out of his head:

" If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"

The whole speech may be found here:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/SamuelAdams1776.html

Read it, Junior. READ IT.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2001-11-01 11:45 ]</font>

On 2001-11-01 08:05, Justin '77 wrote:
A couple pages back, Bob Butler mentioned the need for a definiton of terrorism. I couldn't agree more. Every problem-solving method I've ever seen has the same first step -- Define the problem. Until that is done, we're just blundering around in the dark.
With that in mind, from the Executive Order on Terrorist Financing: Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism

(d) the term "terrorism" means an activity that: (i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and (ii) appears to be intended: (A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (C) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.

Bush's own words.

Well, actually, the words of a GS-12 or 13, which were cleared by a series of career officials in an acting capacity, and finally by the releasing office, agency, or department.

On 2001-11-01 09:45, Jenny Genser wrote:

Well, actually, the words of a GS-12 or 13, which were cleared by a series of career officials in an acting capacity, and finally by the releasing office, agency, or department.

My bad. However, in signing it, Bush has given it the force of law.

"Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kind of cool, huh?"
-George Stephanopolous

ANOTHER
NO-WIN WAR?

PATRICK BUCHANAN

AUGUST 25, 1998

On behalf of the nation, the White House has declared war on
terrorism. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has informed us
it will be a long struggle in which we may expect American
casualties.

Fine, but before we go marching, a few questions, please. Gen.
MacArthur said, "In war, there is no substitute for victory."
What is America's strategy for victory? What will victory look
like? How, and when, will we achieve it?

Our enemy, it is said, is Osama bin Laden, a financier of Islamic
terror who has thousands of fanatics at his beck and call. A
veteran of the Afghan-Soviet war, bin Laden is a Saudi who
hates Americans and vows to kill them wherever he can find
them.

Why does he hate us, and what are his goals?

Bin Laden wants to end what he sees as a U.S. occupation of
his country and defilement of the holy places of Mecca and
Medina. He wants the Saudi monarchy overthrown, U.S.
hegemony in the Gulf ended, and U.S. military power and
cultural influence -- which he believes is morally corrupting --
expelled from the Muslim world.

Bin Laden has an cause, and if we date this war to the Reagan
era, his side is winning. Terrorists have inflicted more casualties
on us than we have on them. They blew up our embassies in
Lebanon, Kenya and Tanzania, blasted the Marine barracks in
Beirut and the Khobar Towers, and brought down Pan Am 103.
More Americans have died in terrorist attacks than were lost in
battle in the Gulf War. And the terrorists seem to be winning
politically. After the strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan,
America's friends from Morocco to Malaysia were mute, while
we are being denounced from the Arab League to the Islamic
Conference. Who and what are we defending in taking these
casualties and fighting this war?

In 1990, Secretary of State James Baker said the Gulf War had
to be fought for one strategic goal: oil. Yet the world is now
drowning in oil. The only reason Moammar Qaddafi, the
ayatollahs and Saddam Hussein aren't pumping and shipping
more, dropping prices to 1930 levels, is that they are blocked
by U.S. sanctions, embargoes and fleets.

Ex-Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger says the United
States has a vital interest in "stability" in the Middle East, which
is like having a vital interest in stability in the Caribbean during
hurricane season. The Middle East is perhaps the most
explosive, volatile region on Earth, and monarchy is not a growth
stock there.

King Hussein's grandfather was assassinated in 1951, and
Hussein himself has been targeted half a dozen times. Egypt's
King Farouk was ousted in 1952; Iraq's King Faisal was
murdered in 1958; King Idris of Libya was ousted in 1969;
Ethiopia's Emperor Haile Selassie in 1974. The shah was
dethroned in 1979. When even the Brits are thinking of dumping
the dynasty, how long are Arab monarchs, emirs and sheiks
likely to last?

America's strategy in the Cold War was to contain the Soviet
Empire, until the inherent contradictions in the communist
system, and the irrepressible desire of its peoples for a better
life, brought it down. Time was on our side. But in the Middle
East, is time on the side of monarchy? And as the Viet Cong
expropriated the banners of nationalism, these Islamic terrorists
claim to be dying and killing for a religious faith in which a billion
people devoutly believe.

What is the cause of the king of Saudi Arabia or the emir of
Kuwait that can impel men to sacrifice their lives? Can a salary
of petrodollars compete with an offer of salvation? To defeat an
idea on the march, you must offer a superior idea. What is the
shining vision America holds out to the peoples of Egypt, Saudi
Arabia and the Gulf? Democracy? But when Algerians and
Turks voted the Islamic parties into power, we looked away as
the elections were nullified by the army. Does anyone believe we
truly want one-man, one-vote democracy in Egypt, Saudi
Arabia, Morocco and Kuwait? Today, the most "democratic"
state in the Gulf is -- President Khatami's Iran.

The United States did not lose a major battle in Vietnam but lost
the war because we failed to destroy the enemy's capacity, or
will, to fight. How, exactly, do we propose to destroy the
capacity or will to fight of terrorists now signing up to kill
American soldiers, tourists and diplomats in retaliation for last
week? Before we enlist in any more no-win wars, let's hear
some serious answers.

To find out more about Patrick J. Buchanan and read his past
columns, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at
http://www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 1998 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

So the official definition is?

(d) the term "terrorism" means an activity that: (i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and (ii) appears to be intended: (A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (C) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.

(I shall likely delete this post in a bit. However, at the moment I am just ticked?)

While the above does not list the dropping of bombs from aircraft as one of the prohibited methods, it seems clear that Israel is indeed a terrorist state by the US definition, thus the US is a sponsor of terrorism. The Dubya Doctrine, responding to terror with terror, as implemented by both Dubya and bin Ladin, is a head for an eye, and a jaw for a tooth. This seems problematic in terms of long term world peace, especially with oil likely inspiring Dubya?s bombings.

Perhaps bin Ladin should propose that the UN freeze the US budget and seize all US aid to Israel as the obvious way to end at least some of the terrorist acts? Oh, jeez. I forgot. The terrorists have a veto on the Security Council. I guess this will have to be solved by violence.


_________________
We shall not have Freedom from Fear, everywhere in the world, while we forget the other three.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bob Butler 54 on 2001-11-01 11:45 ]</font>

Check it out - the Jews who control the media are at it again! Oh, right - these are ARAB columnists. Shucks - I had such a good conspiracy theory going there for a while.

http://memri.org/news.html#1004561703

Special Dispatch No. 294: Terror in America (21) - Saudi Columnists Condemn Conspiracy Theories

Jihad and Terrorism Studies: Terror in America (21)

October 31, 2001

Saudi Columnists Condemn Conspiracy Theories and Anti-U.S. Sentiment in the Arab World

Two Saudi columnists recently challenged Arab conspiracy theories. Both aimed their comments primarily at well-known Islamist Egyptian journalist Fahmi Huweidi who wrote a series of articles in the Saudi press accusing "extremist American militias" or, alternatively, the "Israeli Mossad," of carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11. Huweidi was a member of the group of Islamic clerics that issued a fatwa allowing Muslim soldiers in the American armed forces to participate in the war in Afghanistan. The following are excerpts of the articles:

An article by Saudi columnist, Hamad Abd Al-Aziz Al-'Isa, which appeared in the Egyptian weekly Al-Qahira, blasted Huweidi's charges of conspiracy as presented in two of the latter's articles in the Saudi daily Al-Watan (September 18 and 25, 2001):

"...Huweidi cited 'experts' who maintain that it is highly probable that right-wing American militias are behind this attack... I am stunned [by the way in which] half-truths are presented; is it conceivable that Huweidi could write two articles, each covering three-quarters of a page, without mentioning at all that the only person in the world to issue a fatwa ? on October 12, 1996 ? calling for the killing of American civilians and military personnel is one of the Afghani Arabs [i.e. bin Laden]?..."

"Second, Prof. Huweidi tried to deny that Arabs were involved in this act of terror by saying that [the operation] required a high level of technical capability in flying planes, in addition to the imagination and inventiveness that are lacking in those Middle Eastern elements to which the acts of terror (of September 11) are attributed! I am amazed at this interpretation, and want to ask Huweidi...:"

"'Didn't Arabs try to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993? Aren't Arabs capable of flying planes? Aren't Arabs responsible for suicide operations in Southern Lebanon and in occupied Palestine? Didn't Arabs come up with the idea of hijacking and blowing up civilian planes in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and then give it up after it turned out that this method failed abysmally in achieving their political goals...?'"

"Third, Huweidi expressed exultation over the U.S.'s misfortune... In my opinion, the success of the terrorist action is a 'tax' paid by the U.S. and the good ? yes, 'good' ? and peaceful ? yes, 'peaceful' ? American people because of their civilized treatment of anyone, without exception, who comes to the U.S. legally. I say this from personal experience, and I can swear that anyone who has ever visited the U.S., or lived there, joins me [in this statement]. Does Fahmi Huweidi know that every tourist, even if he looks like an [Islamic] fundamentalist like myself, could have toured the White House, the Capitol buildings, the Supreme Court, and the FBI building? Doesn't Huweidi know the freedom in which the Arabs and Muslims in the U.S. live? Doesn't he know that 'extremist' Islamic preachers curse the U.S. on its own home soil without being harmed ? something I witnessed personally?..."

"Fourth, Huweidi cited, and adopted, a suggestion made by a teenage girl on an Internet chat: to establish an international investigative committee to examine 'what happened' (note the genteel expression) [on September 11], because the FBI, Huweidi claims, is, historically, notorious for 'influencing the process of investigation and fabricating its results'... Personally, I maintain that establishing an international investigative committee would be a wonderful idea had the terror attack occurred in some banana republic, but no way after it occurred in Uncle Sam's home! I suggest [to Huweidi] that he show some humility when he puts forth suggestions of this kind? The American legal system is superb, and unequaled with regard to protecting the rights of the accused? Besides, did Huweidi forget that The Washington Post caused President Nixon's resignation?... Wasn't President Reagan investigated over the Iran-gate scandal?... I am embarrassed for Huweidi's selective memory, and leave the decision up to the readers."

"Sixth, Huweidi cites an 'item' from Hizbullah's television channel (notice it's not Reuters), according to which 4,000 Israelis [who] work[ed] at the World Trade Center (notice it doesn't say 'Jews') were all absent from work on the day of the attack! All right; let us analyze this 'item' rationally: The Mossad planned the action and, so as not to harm a single Israeli, reported to the 4,000 Israelis 'perhaps by means of the Internet' not to go to work that day. Of course, 'all' 4,000 Israelis carried out the order they were given without asking why, and also did not report it to their 460,000 colleagues!!! I was in shock when I read these words, and I leave the decision regarding this 'item' up to the readers."

"Seventh... Huweidi posited the question, 'Would the U.S. have been attacked had it been less biased towards Israel?' My small brain is incapable of linking this question with Huweidi's claim that it is reasonable to assume that this terror attack was carried out by extremist American militias!..."(1)

An article by another Saudi columnist, Suleiman Al-Nkidan, that sharply censured Huweidi and the other proponents of the conspiracy theories, appeared in the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat.(2) Following are excerpts from the article:

"Huweidi's opinion astounded [I didn't expect] such an opinion from a sheikh as enlightened as he. Not only does the man believe [in the conspiracy theory], but he has also begun to prove it, and to market absurd, improbable explanations that are no better than those [explanations] rife among the simple folk ? such as the story about a number of Israelis being arrested at the scene of the events as they were filming the catastrophe and exulting over the Americans' [misfortune]."

"If this is the condition of the enlightened elite [to which Huweidi belongs], what can be said about the cave-dwellers of Kandahar? Unfortunately, if we examine modern Arab thought from this angle, we will find that it is collapsing under the weight of these delusions. The Arab thought completely lacks the rationality or critical spirit required for Arab and Islamic societies today and in the future..."

"Most of the Arab and Islamic commentators have not eliminated the possibility of conspiracy in one way or another. Naturally, the conspirator is always Israel; alternatively, the finger is pointed at the Jews. If it seems inconceivable logically and in light of events that this catastrophe was perpetrated by the Zionist movement or that Jewry had a hand in it, we tend to stress the Jewish influence on decision-making [and on American] public opinion, or even their control over the American business and financial community. These claims appear somewhat convincing, but there remains one point important for [Arab commentators] to ignore, and that is that American society is a democratic, open society, and there is no way of hiding the truth from it to please anyone, even if it concerns Israel itself..."

"Some of us make assumptions, and [settle for] determining that there is nothing to do but to [conclude] that the Jews assisted in the planning [of the attacks], and hinting that U.S. intelligence [apparatuses] could have carried out such an action. In that case, [it is claimed] that Israel was not directly involved, because the American people is likely to find this out with its advanced [security] apparatuses. We do not forget [to point out] that the Jewish soul always tends towards adventurism and haste..."

"Throughout history, there has not been a single instance of proof of the veracity of the assumptions underpinning this [conspiracy] theory. Nevertheless, Arab thought has become enamored of it..."

"The truth is that we are not capable of formulating an interpretation [of the events] from scratch, and therefore we recycle this idiotic culture, the same improbable and stupid theory? Despite the changes in the Arab world and in the world around us, the Arab citizen still does not have a complete character that could have enabled him to independently impose on the Arab rhetoric his own position regarding the events..."

"In conclusion, do any of you remember the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? They too spoke of a Jewish conspiracy against the world, even though no one in his right mind in the world today can view them as the truth..."(3)

Endnotes:

(1) Al-Qahira (Egypt), October 23, 2001.

(2) The same points were made in another article in the Saudi daily Al-Madina.

(3) Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), October 25, 2001.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Delsyn on 2001-11-01 20:19 ]</font>

[quote]
On 2001-11-01 11:40, Bob Butler 54 wrote:

Quote:

(d) the term "terrorism" means an activity that: (i) involves a violent act or
an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and (ii) appears
to be intended: (A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;


While the above does not list the dropping of bombs from aircraft as one of the prohibited
methods, it seems clear that Israel is indeed a terrorist state by the US definition, thus the US is
a sponsor of terrorism.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2002-01-01 00:07 ]</font>

I've actually been thinking a great deal about the question of what is a terrorist and what constitutes a terrorist act. Let me offer this as a potential definition of terrorism:

?Terrorism is any violent act committed against civilians and civilian targets by a non-governmental para-military organization for no military purpose other than the creation of fear in the targeted government?s populace. The hope of terrorism is that a frightened populace will influence their government to acquiesce to the terrorist?s demands in exchange for a cessation of violence.?

Using that definition, the destruction of the World Trade Center is a terrorist action as it serves no military purpose other than the creation of fear. The attack on the Pentagon by itself, however, is NOT a terrorist act, as the Pentagon is a valid military target ? a ?Command & Control Center?. What makes it a terrorist act is the deliberate use of a civilian passenger jet to cause the destruction. Had the Pentagon been attacked by a car bomb ? despite inevitable civilian casualties ? it would be an act of sabotage on a vital enemy installation. Note that this definition doesn?t imply that such an act would be any less heinous or any less worthy of a justifiable military response on the part of the United States ? but it wouldn?t be considered terrorism.

Using such a definition even clears up the question of ?State-sponsored terrorism.?. By defining ?terrorism? as acts being committed by non-governmental organizations, an organization that receives funding or support from a governmental body is now considered to be part of the armed forces of that government. While this means that governments cannot commit ?terrorism? (Let?s remember that the bar of justifiable violence is lower for a government) it means that any action committed by a government sponsored group that would be defined as terrorism by an NGO now falls under the Geneva Convention as both acts of war and real, definable War Crimes.

Such a definition also explains why military action has the possibility to succeed in it?s aims while terrorism tends to strengthen that which it is attacking. Robert Heinlein in Starship Troopers points out that the purpose of war is not to kill the enemy merely to be killing him. The purpose of war is to use judiciously applied violence to force an enemy government to acquiesce to your demands by reducing their ability to back up their ?no? via a reduction in military capability or the populace?s morale. Military actions tend to be rationally created and future oriented. Terrorist actions, on the other hand, seem to be more about revenge, rage and the redress of past wrongs (either real or perceived). It also explains why you cannot negotiate with terrorists ? actions rooted in irrational rage can?t be halted by acquiescence ? ask any battered wife how well that works.

That?s what also outrages me about those who call Israel a ?terrorist state?. That?s absolute crap. Israel?s hands are hardly clean ? but their actions are rooted in a desire for survival. Israel can be negotiated with and in fact has offered on any number of occasions breathtaking concessions to their Arab tormentors. As I said before, the one thing that Israel cannot compromise is its own existence. Those who oppose her seek her destruction and the extermination of the Jewish people. Read that again ? Arab anti-Semitism is very real, very strong and it?s not going away any time soon. As an American Jew I lose it when I hear Arab students talk about how they don?t hate Americans because I know what they?re saying is that they don?t hate CHRISTIAN Americans. How do I know that? Simple, because they follow it up with the kinds of paranoid conspiracies about Jews that SV81 is fond of tossing around. Most notably ?The Jews control the Media (or Finance or the Government)?

Americans like SV81 (and I?m still not sure whether he?s a good person who?s latched onto some bad ideas or a bad person who?s latched onto some very bad ideas) find it very difficult to follow up statements like

[quote]

Without any hatred in my heart, I maintain that the United States is a occupied country. We are occupied by a nationality who operates under a subterfuge that to insure its homeland in Jerusalem, U.S. foreign policy must be manipulated to advance its agenda.

The Jewish homeland has been secure for over 50 years, but there's no question why more jews live in the U.S., - this is a better place to live. Israel is a totalitarian state, the most racist place on earth, the only nation to legally allow torture of prisoners (remember that in-custody palestinian guy that died a couple of days ago). The U.N is always on their case, and for good reason. It's a police state that kills dissenters.

?snip?

Third, the media bias is so real that even you, perhaps, must sense it. There is a tremendous concentration of jews in the media industry, and on this planet, we don't get the same version of the facts as people in other countries. There has been a vast dumbing down of our population to news, and most people go along with it. But you might be smarter than that.

I challenge you, look on the official news broadcasts of other countries on the web - I guarantee you will experience a huge shock. Seems that media sources don't always spin clockwise.

I didn't want to offend Delsyn, you or Jenny Genser with a harsh version of the facts. Most jews have no idea of that has happened, and what goes on a half an earth away. [quote]

Ignoring the nonsense that the Jewish homeland is secure when you consider that Israel has been attacked EVERY DAY of it?s 50 years of existence, what exactly is the solution to the ?problem? offered here? Maybe we start by making sure that an Arab or Christian supervisor edit every news story to make sure that there?s no ?Jewish bias?? Then we?ll restrict the Jews? ability to write editorial columns and create pro-Israel Website and run Holocaust movies like the upcoming ?Uprising? on NBC? Maybe we should relax surveillance rules on Jewish media professionals to make sure that they aren?t receiving coded instructions from their Israeli masters? Monitor every Jewish bank account? Then if that doesn?t work, we?ll expel all the Jews from the media. At that point, of course, since the Jews will doubtlessly still be a threat to Christian America ? there?s always one solution left ? the Final Solution.

Uh, oh. Delsyn?s violated one of the cardinal rules of a discussion board ?bringing up the Nazis, at which point most discussions usually end. But Jews are very sensitive to the ideas that justify genocide ? and not just because of the Holocaust. It?s because the Holocaust wasn?t the first time it?s happened to us ? we?ve been on the run for 5,000 years and every nation that ever welcomed us has eventually tried to kill us. No one else can make that claim. SV81 will doubtlessly claim that he doesn?t hate Jews, and it may even be true ? but his conspiracy theories are where all pogroms begin and Jews have seen it too many times before to not recognize it again.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Delsyn on 2001-11-01 21:14 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Delsyn on 2001-11-01 21:27 ]</font>

An interesting article written by former CIA Director James Woolsey in the New Republic Online right after the 911 attacks indicating evidence for an Iraqi plot.
09/16/2001 : "THE IRAQ CONNECTION,Blood Baath."
THE IRAQ CONNECTION,Blood Baath.
In the immediate aftermath of Tuesday's attacks, attention has focused on terrorist chieftain Osama bin Laden. And he may well be responsible. But intelligence and law enforcement officials investigating the case would do well to at least consider another possibility: that the attacks--whether perpetrated by bin Laden and his associates or by others--were sponsored, supported, and perhaps even ordered by Saddam Hussein.
To this end, investigators should revisit the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. A few years ago, the facts in that case seemed straightforward: The mastermind behind the bombing, who went by the alias Ramzi Yousef, was in fact a 27-year-old Pakistani named Abdul Basit. But late last year, AEI Press published Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America, a careful book about the bombing by AEI scholar Laurie Mylroie. The book's startling thesis is that the original theory of the attack, advanced by James Fox (the FBI's chief investigator into the 1993 bombing until his replacement in 1994) was correct: that Yousef was not Abdul Basit but rather an Iraqi agent who had assumed the latter's identity when police files in Kuwait (where the real Abdul Basit lived in 1990) were doctored by Iraqi intelligence during the occupation of Kuwait. If Mylroie and Fox (who died in 1997) are right, then it was Iraq that went after the World Trade Center last time. Which makes it much more plausible that Iraq has done so again.
According to the theory of the 1993 bombing embraced by federal prosecutors and the Clinton administration, Yousef/Abdul Basit was just another Middle Eastern student who became radicalized in his early twenties. But it is worth noting that the only two publicly reported items suggesting that Yousef and Abdul Basit are the same man could very easily have been products of Iraqi tampering with Kuwaiti police files: a few photocopied pages from earlier Abdul Basit passports that had clearly been tampered with, provided by Yousef in New York in 1992 to get a Pakistani passport in Abdul Basit's name, and fingerprints matching Yousef's found in Abdul Basit's police file in Kuwait. It is also worth noting that Abdul Basit and his family, who lived in Kuwait, disappeared during the Iraqi occupation, and the family has never reappeared. Was this a random tragedy of war or part of an effort to set up a false identity for Yousef?
Moreover, the Fox/Mylroie theory--that Yousef, via Iraqi intelligence, stole Abdul Basit's identity--would explain a number of troubling differences between Abdul Basit in the summer of 1989 (when he left the United Kingdom after three years of study) and Yousef in September 1992 (when he arrived in New York). If the two are indeed the same man, then, over the course of three years, he would have: (a) grown four inches (from five foot eight inches to six feet) in his twenties; (b) put on between 35 and 40 pounds; (c) developed a deformed eye; (d) developed smaller ears and a smaller mouth; (e) gone from being an innovative computer programmer to being computer-challenged; (f) aged substantially more than three years in appearance; and (g) changed from being a quiet, smiling young man respectful to women to a rather different one (a sound file in Yousef's computer, for example, includes his voice saying "Fuck, fuck, fuck" and "Shut up, you bitch").
What incentive would the U.S. government have had to overlook these changes, stipulate that Abdul Basit and Yousef were the same person, and turn away from any suggestion that Saddam was behind the first WTC attack? One can only speculate. But by arguing that the 1993 WTC bombing and a separate, FBI-thwarted plot to bomb New York tunnels and buildings were connected as parts of a common conspiracy, prosecutors made convicting the participants, under the very broad seditious conspiracy law, far simpler. As for the Clinton administration itself, there would be less need to confront Saddam, and perhaps less need to make hard choices, if it didn't finger him as being behind the WTC bombing.
And indeed, ever since Fox's ouster, federal prosecutors and the White House have hewed to the line that most terrorist attacks on the United States are either the products of "loose networks" of folks who just somehow come together or are masterminded by the mysterious and unaccountable bin Laden. Explicit state sponsorship, especially by Iraq, has not been on the agenda. The Clinton administration, meanwhile, treated Saddam--in former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger's famous metaphor--like the mole in an international version of the "Whack-a-Mole" carnival game: If you bopped him on the head, he'd stay in his hole for a while. But what has he been doing while he's down there? If Fox and Mylroie are right, quite possibly planning, financing, and backing terrorist operations against the United States.
As of yet, there is no evidence of explicit state sponsorship of the September 11 attacks. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Does it not seem curious that bin Laden issues fatwas, pushes videotapes, quotes poems, and orders his followers to talk loudly and often about his role in attacks on us? Does someone want our focus to be solely on bin Laden's hard-to-reach self, and not on a senior partner?
If we hope to answer that question, the 1993 WTC bombing is a good place to start looking. No one other than the prosecutors, the Clinton Justice Department, and the FBI had access to the materials surrounding that case until they were presented in court, because they were virtually all obtained by a federal grand jury and hence kept not only from the public but from the rest of the government under the extreme secrecy requirements of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Now a new administration, a new attorney general, and a new FBI director should investigate the materials that Abdul Basit handled while in the United Kingdom in 1988 and 1989, which were taken into custody by Scotland Yard. If those materials have Yousef's fingerprints on them, then the Fox/Mylroie theory is likely wrong. But if they don't, then Yousef was probably a creature of Iraqi intelligence. Which means that Saddam still considered himself at war with the United States in 1993. And, tragically, he may still today.
R. JAMES WOOLSEY is a partner at Shea & Gardner in Washington, D.C. He served as director of central intelligence from February 1993 to January 1995.
by R. James Woolsey
The New Republic Magazine Online

dear delsyn,

amen...:smile:

i could not agree with you more.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: enjolras on 2001-11-01 22:33 ]</font>