11.9.2001
First, put and call options are placed all the time. The fact that Deutsche Bank or Merrill could profit by getting comission on someone's bet that the stock of UAL and American would go down, hardly constitutes any causal relationship. They didn't initiate these trades. Whoever did hasn't picked up their check for obvious reasons. Of course in hindsight, it seems that someone or ones with advance knowledge tried to profit off of the attacks. But does that mean that these banks, or the CIA, knew? Even if they were monitoring the market, an unusally high volume of puts could signal insider trading -- but why would anyone make the leap to terrorist activities against those firms? If we used the stock market as a method for determining the terrorists' moves, most of the firms in the world would be identified as "targets" at some point.
Secondly, I find it difficult to believe that the heads of Deutsche Bank and Merrill would choose to profit from 9/11. Both firms are located in and next to the WTC. The amount of economic damage they sustained from the attack has far exceeded whatever they could hope to gain from put options on the two airlines. My friend who works for Deutsche has had her office destroyed, and the firm is still dealing with the ensuing chaos.
If you go here you'll find a larger (laundry) list of connections that Ruppert has put together. I don't think his theory holds water. Yes, the CIA got caught napping. Yes, we've been in bed with the Taliban before, and other unsavory types. Yes, diplomats met (isn't that what they're supposed to do?). I still don't think it adds up to conspiracy.
Just my $0.02.
-- Mike
Subject: Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading lead directly into the CIA`s Highest Ranks by Michael C. Ruppert Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 11:36:38 -0500
Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream U.S. media, there is abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That evidence also demonstrates that, in the case of at least one of these trades -- which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed -- the firm used to place the "put options" on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency. Until 1997 A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard had been Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown. A.B. Brown was acquired by Banker's Trust in 1997. Krongard then became, as part of the merger, Vice Chairman of Banker's Trust-AB Brown, one of 20 major U.S. banks named by Senator Carl Levin this year as being connected to money laundering. Krongard's last position at Banker's Trust (BT) was to oversee "private client relations." In this capacity he had direct hands-on relations with some of the wealthiest people in the world in a kind of specialized banking operation that has been identified by the U.S. Senate and other investigators as being closely connected to the laundering of drug money.
Krongard (re?) joined the CIA in 1998 as counsel to CIA Director George Tenet. He was promoted to CIA Executive Director by President Bush in March of this year. BT was acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1999. The combined firm is the single largest bank in Europe. And, as we shall see, Deutsche Bank played several key roles in events connected to the September 11 attacks.
The Scope of Known Insider Trading
Before looking further into these relationships it is necessary to look at the insider trading information that is being ignored by Reuters, The New York Times and other mass media. It is well documented that the CIA has long monitored such trades - in real time - as potential warnings of terrorist attacks and other economic moves contrary to U.S. interests. Previous stories in FTW have specifically highlighted the use of Promis software to monitor such trades.
It is necessary to understand only two key financial terms to understand the significance of these trades. "Selling Short" is the borrowing of stock, selling it at current market prices, but not being required to actually produce the stock for some time. If the stock falls precipitously after the short contract is entered, the seller can then fulfill the contract by buying the stock after the price has fallen and complete the contract at the pre-crash price. These contracts often have a window of as long as four months. "Put Options," purchased at nominal prices of, for example, $1.00 per share, are sold in blocks of 100 shares. If exercised, they give the holder the option of selling selected stocks at a future date at a price set when the contract is issued. Thus, for an investment of $10,000 it might be possible to tie up 10,000 shares of United or American Airlines at $100 per share, and the seller of the option is then obligated to buy them if the option is executed. If the stock has fallen to $50 when the contract matures, the holder of the option can purchase the shares for $50 and immediately sell them for $100 - regardless of where the market then stands.
A "call option" is the reverse of a put option, which is, in effect, a derivatives bet that the stock price will go up.
A September 21 story by the Israeli Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism, entitled "Black Tuesday: The World's Largest Insider Trading Scam?" documented the following trades connected to the September 11 attacks:
a.. Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options... Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these "insiders" would have profited by almost $5 million.
b.. On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance;... Again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent "insiders," they would represent a gain of about $4 million.
c.. [The levels of put options purchased above were more than six times higher than normal.]
d.. No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday.
e.. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. Morgan Stanley's share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million.
f.. Merrill Lynch & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 12,215 October $45 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day [a 1200% increase!]. When trading resumed, Merrill's shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50; assuming that 11,000 option contracts were bought by "insiders," their profit would have been about $5.5 million.
g.. European regulators are examining trades in Germany's Munich Re, Switzerland's Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster. [FTW Note: AXA also owns more than 25% of American Airlines stock making the attacks a "double whammy" for them.] On September 29, 2001 - in a vital story that has gone unnoticed by the major media - the San Francisco Chronicle reported, "Investors have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they made trading options in the stock of United Airlines before the Sept. 11, terrorist attacks, according to a source familiar with the trades and market data.
"The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors - whose identities and nationalities have not been made public - had advance knowledge of the strikes." They don't dare show up now. The suspension of trading for four days after the attacks made it impossible to cash-out quickly and claim the prize before investigators started looking.
"... October series options for UAL Corp. were purchased in highly unusual volumes three trading days before the terrorist attacks for a total outlay of $2,070; investors bought the option contracts, each representing 100 shares, for 90 cents each. [This represents 230,000 shares]. Those options are now selling at more than $12 each. There are still 2,313 so-called "put" options outstanding [valued at $2.77 million and representing 231,300 shares] according to the Options Clearinghouse Corp."
"...The source familiar with the United trades identified Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown, the American investment banking arm of German giant Deutsche Bank, as the investment bank used to purchase at least some of these options..."
As reported in other news stories, Deutsche Bank was also the hub of insider trading activity connected to Munich Re. just before the attacks.
CIA, the Banks and the Brokers
Understanding the interrelationships between CIA and the banking and brokerage world is critical to grasping the already frightening implications of the above revelations. Let's look at the history of CIA, Wall Street and the big banks by looking at some of the key players in CIA's history. Clark Clifford - The National Security Act of 1947 was written by Clark Clifford, a Democratic Party powerhouse, former Secretary of Defense, and one-time advisor to President Harry Truman. In the 1980s, as Chairman of First American Bancshares, Clifford was instrumental in getting the corrupt CIA drug bank BCCI a license to operate on American shores. His profession: Wall Street lawyer and banker.
John Foster and Allen Dulles - These two brothers "designed" the CIA for Clifford. Both were active in intelligence operations during WW II. Allen Dulles was the U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland where he met frequently with Nazi leaders and looked after U.S. investments in Germany. John Foster went on to become Secretary of State under Dwight Eisenhower and Allen went on to serve as CIA Director under Eisenhower and was later fired by JFK. Their professions: partners in the most powerful - to this day - Wall Street law firm of Sullivan, Cromwell.
Bill Casey - Ronald Reagan's CIA Director and OSS veteran who served as chief wrangler during the Iran-Contra years was, under President Richard Nixon, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. His profession: Wall Street lawyer and stockbroker.
David Doherty - The current Vice President of the New York Stock Exchange for enforcement is the retired General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency.
George Herbert Walker Bush - President from 1989 to January 1993, also served as CIA Director for 13 months from 1976-7. He is now a paid consultant to the Carlyle Group, the 11th largest defense contractor in the nation, and which shares joint investments with the bin Laden family.
A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard - The current Executive Director of the Central Intelligence Agency is the former Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown and former Vice Chairman of Banker's Trust.
John Deutch - This retired CIA Director from the Clinton Administration currently sits on the board at Citigroup, the nation's second largest bank, which has been repeatedly and overtly involved in the documented laundering drug money. This includes Citigroup's 2001 purchase of a Mexican bank known to launder drug money, Banamex.
Nora Slatkin - This retired CIA Executive Director also sits on Citibank's board.
Maurice "Hank" Greenburg - The CEO of AIG insurance, manager of the third largest capital investment pool in the world, was floated as a possible CIA Director in 1995. FTW exposed Greenberg's and AIG's long connection to CIA drug trafficking and covert operations in a two-part series that was interrupted just prior to the attacks of September 11. AIG's stock has bounced back remarkably well since the attacks. To read that story, please go to http://www.copvcia.com/stories/part_2.html.
One wonders how much damning evidence is necessary to respond to what is now irrefutable proof that CIA knew about the attacks and did not stop them. Whatever our government is doing, whatever the CIA is doing, it is clearly NOT in the interests of the American people, especially those who died on September 11.
Go on, find out what's good with the universe. And add your three cents. Thanks to Greg for accentuating the positive.
11.8.2001
Here's a not-bad article about Buffy the Musical, from Salon:
The hills are alive with the sound of ... vampire slaying!
An extraordinary episode of "Buffy" takes the American movie musical to
places it's never been before.
[NB: As a Buffy fan myself (OK, I admit it), I thought that the musical was great. Debbie and I were worried that it could be a Jump the Shark episode. But the lyrics were clever, the episode played with musical conventions well, and the whole thing moved the story arc along considerably. Is there a future for Buffy and Spike? Stay tuned.]
11.7.2001
Mike - here's something for ishbadiddle. It's pretty chilling, I just received this e-mail describing some of the hidden language and implications of the anti-terrorist bill that was signed into law by Bush. The e-mail calls for action to try and ammend or stop the bill. Unfortunately, it is now too late.
On a related note, my friend Erik did some hunting and found that right wing pundits are now equating Noam Chomsky's writings with those of Bin Ladin (!). So, by my logic-- I was required to read Chomsky for a college course - thus making me a trained terrorist. Not only can they come after me and my assets, but since I am the director of a non-profit, they can seize all assets of the non-profit, as well as those of anyone who has ever donated money!!! Sound paranoid? It's just a slippery slope.
Suddenly, I am becoming very, very interested in Pre-Nazi Germany. Is there anyone out there who has studied the rise of Nazism who could shed some light for the rest of us -- specifically, at what points could the citizens of Germany have acted to stop the holocaust, and what could they have done? I surely don't intend to stand by and watch. Here is the e-mail I received:
10.08.01
[snip � all caps, multiple-!-filled histrionics removed for your safety and protection]
Under Senate Bill 1510, now being considered in the Senate as an Anti-terrorism act:
(1) An entire 501C3 organization or other organization, including its members, can have their assets seized for supporting bodily acts or international causes that the U.S. Secretary of State may deem terrorist activity. Political activities that were legal prior to S.1510 may �RETROACTIVELY" be deemed terrorist activity by U.S. Government. Participants and supporters may be charged with terrorist and other offenses.
(2) S.1510 "RETROACTIVELY" abolishes the "Statue of Limitations" for many past offenses where no one was injured. After passage of S.1510, any past offense that can be broadly alleged to have put someone "at risk" may be used by federal and state prosecutors to charge a citizen with a terrorist act - even 30 years after the Statute of Limitations period had already passed. Government will have no difficulty manufacturing evidence to prosecute citizens once Constitutional safeguards against passing Retroactive Laws are abolished after passage of S.1510.
(3) No "innocent owner defense" allowed against Asset Forfeiture when, after passage of S 1510, U.S. Government agencies will be able to seize assets of citizens, 501C3 and other organizations and their members without ever disclosing the evidence against their property. Government need only allege that disclosing such evidence may compromise National security and/or an ongoing investigation. S 1510 provides for paying "unnamed informants huge rewards" resulting from arrests and forfeited assets. It is hard to believe any organization or citizen could ever recover their assets once they are seized by a government agency in the name of National Security. That may include a citizen's home in which an informant secretly alleges someone said the wrong thing.
(4) "D Below" is from the Senate Bill 1510. So much for trusting attorneys!
"(d) UNDERCOVER ACTIVITIES- Notwithstanding any provision of State law, including disciplinary rules, statutes, regulations, constitutional provisions, or case law, a Government attorney may, for the purpose of enforcing Federal law, provide legal advice, authorization, concurrence, direction, or supervision on conducting undercover activities, and any attorney employed as an investigator or other law enforcement agent by the Department of Justice who is not authorized to represent the United States in criminal or civil law enforcement litigation or to supervise such proceedings may participate in such activities, even though such activities may require the use of deceit or misrepresentation, where such activities are consistent with Federal law.
(e) ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE- No violation of any disciplinary, ethical, or professional conduct rule shall be construed to permit the exclusion of otherwise admissible evidence in any Federal criminal proceedings".
[snip � comparison to Hitler removed to bolster author�s credibility]
Understand! Under the law as now written, you and anyone connected with any organization - 501(c)(3), church, Rotary, any organization - can be snagged under this legislation. Lifting the Statute of Limitations means that you could have your home and other assets seized if you were a member of an organization that supported, for example, Leonard Peltier, or sent food or medicine to Cuba, or even protested against nukes in the '60s - and the U.S.G. decided that that organization was then or is now in any way associated with someone or some organization that is somehow connected to a "terrorist organization." Of course, it will be said that that is highly unlikely to happen if you keep your nose clean - and don't give financial or other support to any suspect organization. There are thousands of people in our prisons now, put there by the testimony of paid/"rewarded" informers. All it takes is for some such person to provide "testimony" that the ACLU or the Sierra Club or Pastors for Peace, or other organization is "supporting" terrorists. Or maybe some member of such an organization does provide support to a terrorist: all members are liable to imprisonment and seizure of their assets. Who, under a law like that, is going to give funding to any 501(c)(3) organization or any other actionist group - even for work with rehabilitating prisoners or drug addicts, or providing housing for the poor? If this law passes in this form, kiss protest - by letter or demonstration - and democracy goodbye!
Go to www.senate.gov and send a note to your Senators and tell them to kill this bastard before it becomes law. At least to amend the damn thing! And please forward this (or your own) message to EVERYONE on your e-mail list. P.S. If you want to read this bill for yourself, go to http://Thomas.loc.gov, to the 107th Congress, and Senate Bill 1510 (S.1510).
As long as Ishbadiddle still covers ephemeral things, this Salon story is an essential read.
I'd heard about this fan re-edit of 'Star Wars I...Phantom Menace' some time ago, but I had no idea it was spreading so far and wide. The most interesting part of the Salon piece, besides a short review,
is the discussion of the role of the editor in the final "vision" of a film.
It also reminds me of the Coen Brothers' special-edition re-edit of their own debut feature 'Blood Simple,' in which they actually removed several minutes and made it a much tighter, better-paced flick.
If anyone knows of a cheap n' easy way to get their hands on a copy of this "edit," please share...
Overheard in the elevator this morning; a Board of Election worker (they're a floor above us) giving her theory of Bloomberg's victory:
"It just shows you how you gotta have passion. How does Mark expect people to love him if he don't show himself? It's like he's the ex-boyfriend, taking you for granted, and along comes this new guy trying to win you over. You'll go for the new guy just for the excitement."
11.6.2001
A friend forwarded this to me in email. It's some musings purportedly written by someone with military training and experience in Afghanistan running the land mine deactivation program. The provenance is questionable: it could be from bin Laden himself, but the logic is quite detailed and interesting. There seems to be a Richard Kidd with these credentials whose biography is on a vietnam vets of america web page.
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 6:13 AM
Subject: My military experience in Afghanistan
Many of you are probably not aware that I was one of the last American citizens to have spent a great deal of time in Afghanistan. I was first there in 1993 providing relief and assistance to refugees along the Tadjik border and in this capacity have traveled all along the border region between the two countries. In 1998 and 1999 I was the Deputy Program Manager for the UN's mine action program in Afghanistan. This program is the largest civilian employer in the country with over 5,000 persons clearing mines and (unexploded ordnance) UXO. In this later capacity, I was somewhat ironically engaged in a "Holy War" as decreed by the Taliban, against the evil of landmines, and by a special proclamation of Mullah Omar, all those who might have died in this effort were considered to "martyrs" even an "infidel" like myself.
The mine action program is the most respected relief effort in the country and because of this I had the opportunity to travel extensively, without too much interference or restriction. I still have extensive contacts in the area and among the Afghan community and read a great deal on the subject.
I had wanted to write earlier and share some of my perspectives, but quite frankly I have been a bit too popular in DC this past week and have not had time. Dr. Tony Kern's comments were excellent and I would like to use them as a basis for sharing some observations. First, he is absolutely correct.
This war is about will, resolve and character. I want to touch on that later, but first I want to share some comments about our "enemy." Our enemy is not the people of Afghanistan. The country is devastated beyond what most of us can imagine. The vast majority of the people live day-to-day, hand to mouth in abject conditions of poverty, misery and deprivation. Less than 30% of the men are literate, the women even less. The country is exhausted, and desperately wants something like peace. They know very little of the world at large, and have no access to information or knowledge that would counter what they are being told by the Taliban. They have nothing left, nothing that is except for their pride. Who is our enemy? Well, our enemy is a group of non-Afghans, often referred to by the Afghans as "Arabs" and a fanatical group of religious leaders and their military cohort, the Taliban.
The non-Afghan contingent came from all over the Islamic world to fight in the war against the Russians. Many came using a covert network created with assistance by our own government. OBL (as Osama bin Laden was referred to by us in the country at the time)restored this network to bring in more fighters, this time to support the Taliban in their civil war against the former Mujehdeen. Over time this military support along with financial support has allowed OBL and his "Arabs" to co-opt significant government activities and leaders. OBL is the "inspector general" of Taliban armed forces, his bodyguards protect senior Talib leaders and he has built a system of deep bunkers for the Taliban, which were designed to withstand cruise missile strikes (uhm, where did he learn to do that?). His forces basically rule the southern city of Kandahar. This high-profile presence of OBL and his "Arabs" has, in the last 2 years or so, started to generate a great deal of resentment on the part of the local Afghans. At the same time the legitimacy of the Taliban regime has started to decrease as it has failed to end the war, as local humanitarian conditions have worsened and as "cultural" restrictions have become even harsher. It is my assessment that most Afghans no longer support the Taliban. Indeed the Taliban have recently had a very difficult time getting recruits for their forces and have had to rely more and more on non-Afghans, either from Pushtun tribes in Pakistan or from OBL. OBL and the Taliban, absent any US action were probably on their way to sharing the same fate that all other outsiders and outside doctrines have experienced in Afghanistan-defeat and dismemberment.
During the Afghan war with the Soviets much attention was paid to the martial prowess of the Afghans. We were all at West Point at the time and most of us had high-minded idealistic thoughts about how we would all want to go help the brave "freedom fighters" in their struggle against the Soviets. Those concepts were naive to the extreme. The Afghans, while never conquered as a nation, are not invincible in battle. A "good" Afghan battle is one that makes a lot of noise and light. Basic military skills are rudimentary and clouded by cultural constraints that no matter what, a warrior should never lose his honor. Indeed, firing from the prone is considered distasteful (but still done). Traditionally, the Afghan order of battle is very feudal in nature, with fighters owing allegiance to a "commander" and this person owing allegiance upwards and so on and so on. Often such allegiance is secured by payment. And while the Taliban forces have changed this somewhat, many of the units in the Taliban army are there because they are being paid to be there. All such groups have very strong loyalties along ethnic and tribal lines. Again, the concept of having a place of "honor" and "respect" is of paramount importance and blood feuds between families and tribes can last for generations over a perceived or actual slight.
That is one reason why there were 7 groups of Mujehdeen fighting the Russians. It is a very difficult task to form and keep united a large bunch of Afghans into a military formation. The "real" stories that have come out of the war against the Soviets are very enlightening and a lot different from our fantastic visions as cadets. When the first batch of Stingers came in and were given to one Mujehdeen group, another group-supposedly on the same side, attacked the first group and stole the Stingers, not so much because they wanted to use them, but because having them was a matter of prestige.
Many larger coordinated attacks that advisers tried to conduct failed when all the various Afghan fighting groups would give up their assigned tasks (such as blocking or overwatch) and instead would join the assault group in order to seek glory. In comparison to Vietnam, the intensity of combat and the rate of fatalities were lower for all involved.
As you can tell from above, it is my assessment that these guys are not THAT good in a purely military sense and the "Arabs" probably even less so than the Afghans. So why is it that they have never been conquered? It goes back to Dr. Kern's point about will. During their history the only events that have managed to form any semblance of unity among the Afghans, is the desire to fight foreign invaders. And in doing this the Afghans have been fanatical. The Afghans' greatest military strength is the ability to endure hardships that would, in all probability, kill most Americans and enervate the resolve of all but the most elite military units. The physical difficulties of fighting in Afghanistan, the terrain, the weather and the harshness are all weapons that our enemies will use to their advantage and use well. (NOTE: For you military planner types and armchair generals-around November 1st most road movement is impossible, in part because all the roads used by the Russians have been destroyed and air movement will be problematic at best).
Also, those fighting us are not afraid to fight. OBL and others do not think the US has the will or the stomach for a fight. Indeed after the absolutely inane missile strikes of 1998, the overwhelming consensus was that we were cowards, who would not risk one life in face to face combat. Rather than demonstrating our might and acting as a deterrent, that action and others of the not so recent past, have reinforced the perception that the US does not have any "will" and that we are morally and spiritually corrupt. Our challenge is to play to the weaknesses of our enemy, notably their propensity for internal struggles, the distrust between the extremists/Arabs and the majority of Afghans, their limited ability to fight coordinated battles and their lack of external support. More importantly through is that we have to take steps not to play to their strengths, which would be to unite the entire population against us by increasing their suffering or killing innocents, to get bogged down trying to hold terrain, or to get into a battle of attrition chasing up and down mountain valleys.
I have been asked how I would fight the war. This is a big question and well beyond my pay grade or expertise. And while I do not want to second guess current plans or start an academic debate I would share the following from what I know about Afghanistan and the Afghans. First, I would give the Northern Alliance a big wad of cash so that they can buy off a chunk of the Taliban army before winter. Second, also with this cash I would pay some guys to kill some of the Taliban leadership making it look like an inside job to spread distrust and build on existing discord. Third I would support the Northern alliance with military assets, but not take it over or adopt so high a profile as to undermine its legitimacy in the eyes of most Afghans.
Fourth would be to give massive amounts of humanitarian aid and assistance to the Afghans in Pakistan in order to demonstrate our goodwill and to give these guys a reason to live rather than the choice between dying of starvation or dying fighting the "infidel." Fifth, start a series of public works projects in areas of the country not under Taliban control (these are much more than the press reports) again to demonstrate goodwill and that improvements come with peace. Sixth, I would consider vary carefully putting any female service members into Afghanistan proper-sorry to the females of our class but within that culture a man who allows a women to fight for him has zero respect, and we will need respect to gain the cooperation of Afghan allies. No Afghan will work with a man who fights with women. I would hold off from doing anything to dramatic in the new term, keeping a low level of covert action and pressure up over the winter, allowing this pressure to force open the fissions around the Taliban that were already developing.
I expect that they will quickly turn on themselves and on OBL. We can pick up the pieces next summer, or the summer after. When we do "pick-up" the pieces I would make sure that we do so on the ground, "man to man." While I would never want to advocate American casualties, it is essential that we communicate to OBL and all others watching that we can and will "engage and destroy the enemy in close combat." As mentioned above, we should not try to gain or hold terrain, but Infantry operations against the enemy are essential. There can be no excuses after the defeat or lingering doubts in the minds of our enemies regarding American resolve and nothing, nothing will communicate this except for ground combat. And once this is all over, unlike in 1989 the US must provide continued long-term economic assistance to rebuild the country. While I have written too much already, I think it is also important to share a few things on the subject of brutality. Our opponents will not abide by the Geneva conventions.
There will be no prisoners unless there is a chance that they can be ransomed or made part of a local prisoner exchange. During the war with the Soviets, videotapes were made of communist prisoners having their throats slit. Indeed, there did exist a "trade" in prisoners so that souvenir videos could be made by outsiders to take home with them. This practice has spread to the Philippines, Bosnia and Chechnya were similar videos are being made today and can be found on the web for those so inclined. We can expect our soldiers to be treated the same way. Sometime during this war I expect that we will see videos of US prisoners having their heads cut off. Our enemies will do this not only to demonstrate their strength" to their followers, but also to cause us to overreact, to seek wholesale revenge against civilian populations and to turn this into the world wide religious war that they desperately want. This will be a test of our will and of our character. (For further corroboration of this type of activity please read Kipling).
This will not be a pretty war; it will be a war of wills, of resolve and somewhat conversely of compassion and of a character. Towards our enemies, we must show a level of ruthlessness that has not been part of our military character for a long time. But to those who are not our enemies we must show a level of compassion probably unheard of during war. We should do this not for humanitarian reasons, even though there are many, but for shrewd military logic. For anyone who is still reading this way to long note, thanks for your patience. I will try to answer any questions that may arise in a more concise manner.
Thanks,
Richard Kidd '86
[NB: This analysis from Stratfor is the most cogent I've read on the political and military situation.]
Summary
After more than a month of bombings, Washington is now contemplating the second phase of the campaign in Afghanistan. Having achieved air superiority, the military must move to a strategic ground offensive. This week, STRATFOR will examine what options the United States -- as well as its enemies -- may pursue as part of a ground strategy in Afghanistan.
Analysis
The battle between the United States and al Qaeda, with the first attacks and counterattacks over, is settling into the extended warfare most reasonable people expected it to be. The Sept. 11 attacks hurt the United States but did not cripple it. The U.S. counterattack has similarly hurt the Taliban but has not crippled it either.
Certainly nothing that is happening in Afghanistan has eliminated the capabilities of al Qaeda inside the United States. Each side played its first card. More cards remain to be played.
There have never been two more dissimilar fighting forces than those of the United States and al Qaeda. Both have global capabilities, but these capabilities are utterly different. Al Qaeda's strength derives from pure stealth. It is a special operations force designed to survive by disappearing into the surrounding society and then, at the time and place of its choosing, strike suddenly. U.S. strength derives from its overwhelming technology, which allows America to strike where and when it wants. Both sides enjoy extraordinary freedom of action - - for very different reasons -- yet neither appears able to match its armed forces to its political aims.
Al Qaeda's goal is to see the creation of a pan-Islamic movement to establish a transnational Islamic state based on its reading of Islamic law. The purpose of this state would be to insulate the Islamic world from the economic, political and cultural power of the non-Islamic world, and by logical extension, serve as the foundation for an expanded Islamic world.
Al Qaeda must have at least one and preferably more Islamic states under its control in order to succeed. Afghanistan, for both geographic and political reasons, is unsuitable for the group's long-term plans. Al Qaeda would dearly like to have the resources of countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia behind it, but without becoming a prisoner of those regimes in the process. To achieve its goal, the group needs to generate a political upheaval in several Islamic countries in which its supporters would supplant existing political elites. If this were to happen, then greater things would be possible.
The attack on the United States was not an end in itself but a means toward this end. Al Qaeda must first persuade the Islamic public that its vision is not sheer lunacy but a practical political-military possibility. The Sept. 11 attacks were designed to convince that public that America is not invincible.
Just as important, al Qaeda must convince the Islamic public that America is not only highly vulnerable but also the enemy of Islam. To prove its point, the organization would like to see Washington make war on multiple Islamic countries simultaneously. America must also be proven to be heedless of innocent Islamic lives. Although the current air campaign in Afghanistan is not as broad as al Qaeda would like, it does serve part of its purpose.
Al Qaeda at this point has two warfighting objectives. The first is simply for it and its Taliban allies to survive, as this will demonstrate to the Islamic masses that U.S. power is merely illusory. It will also increase frustration among Americans, hopefully causing the government to overreach. This is the second warfighting objective: to draw Washington into war in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Islamic world so Islamic countries are forced to stand against it and weaken U.S. power through endless conflict.
As part of its objectives, al Qaeda must first continue to strike -- or be perceived as striking -- inside the United States, weakening the country as much as possible and goading the government into irrational countermoves. Second, it must maintain its base of operations inside Afghanistan to draw the United States into conducting piecemeal operations, cause casualties and demonstrate the limits of U.S. power.
Washington's strategic goal has been set by al Qaeda. First, and most important, it wants to stop any further attacks by al Qaeda on U.S. soil. Second, it wants to demonstrate that the consequences of attacking the United States are catastrophic so that this may serve as a deterrent to any other groups that might be contemplating such actions.
The United States must penetrate al Qaeda's task forces operating within its borders. This is obviously difficult because these forces have had several years in which to disappear into American society. Therefore, it is necessary to cut their financial support and their command and control system.
Those elements lead out of the United States and overseas, not only to European countries but -- more important -- into Islamic countries whose interest in being seen as helping the United States is limited, but whose interest in seeing al Qaeda destroyed might well be substantial.
Washington must then build a coalition of European and Islamic countries to help it root out al Qaeda cells inside U.S. borders. It needs to build coalitions not so much to fight the war in Afghanistan as to get at al Qaeda's support systems throughout the world. Such a coalition, done covertly and carefully, could help the United States in its first mission. But the same coalition also limits America's ability to carry out the second mission: punitive action against Afghanistan.
Important segments of most Islamic countries want to see al Qaeda crushed. They are prepared to cooperate covertly, but overtly, their position is more ambiguous. They fear the U.S. war in Afghanistan. Specifically, they worry the air campaign will generate the kind of anti-American groundswell among the Islamic masses that al Qaeda is hoping for. They are also afraid their regimes will be destabilized if they are seen as supporting U.S. intelligence in its war on al Qaeda.
For instance, the United States finds itself in a terrific quandary with Pakistan. It cannot win in Afghanistan without Pakistan, and at the very least, it must have Pakistan's cooperation in sealing the Afghan border so the Taliban is not resupplied. But the fact is the Taliban government is a creature of Pakistan, and Pakistan does not want it toppled.
Islamabad can perhaps accept the fall of Taliban leader Mullah Omar and the capture of Osama bin Laden, but it cannot accept the collapse of the Taliban altogether. And it certainly cannot tolerate the Northern Alliance, which they see as Russian puppets, retaking Kabul.
That makes formulating warfighting strategy in Afghanistan extraordinarily difficult. Washington will need many months to work out suitable political arrangements before it can confront the issue of actually toppling the Taliban militarily. In the meantime, there is a fundamental issue of whether the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan would mean the end of al Qaeda's attacks on the United States. There is no reason to believe this to be the case. Quite the contrary, al Qaeda is constructed to withstand a calamity in Afghanistan.
The U.S. warfighting goals are therefore not fully synchronized. The operation in Afghanistan will not yield victory in the American theater of operations. In fact, the greater the pressure in Afghanistan, the more restive the Islamic world becomes. And the more restive the Islamic world becomes, the less likely the coalition for covert operations is to survive. There is, at the root of American strategy, a logical inconsistency that must either be reconciled or overcome by sheer power.
Al Qaeda from the beginning placed the United States on the defensive. The United States has chosen to launch its first significant counteroffensive from the air in Afghanistan. This is highly predictable warfighting on the part of the United States. It is the way it fights wars. Now the question is, after the airpower card is played, what will the next one be?
That is the point we have reached in the conflict. Al Qaeda struck first. If it isn't responsible for the anthrax attacks, it is extraordinarily lucky to have a faceless, nameless ally helping it along. As with all al Qaeda attacks, the anthrax attacks continue to challenge the United States both psychologically and in terms of infrastructure.
If the U.S. Postal Service were forced to close or slow its operations, the effect on the economy would be enormous. Perhaps nothing else will come next, or perhaps another calamity will hit. Only al Qaeda knows, and that is its advantage.
America has achieved air superiority. It is bombing the Taliban in the north. But whether the Northern Alliance can take Kabul and whether the United States, mindful of Pakistan, wants it to, are both unclear. Washington now has to move to a strategic ground offensive in Afghanistan, and beginning no later than spring is essential. What is still not known is where the offensive will take place, or what options the United States -- or its enemies -- will pursue as part of a ground strategy in Afghanistan.
This week STRATFOR will be trying to figure that out.
The original article is at:
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com
Title: arab news spreads anti-semitism
Author: charles
Date: 11/5/2001 at 9:17:50 am
--------------------------------
Glenn and Matt have both mentioned these loathsome articles in the Arab News already; but I'm going to point them out too, because we need to see what's really going on in Saudi Arabia, a country run by a corrupt theocracy that owes its existence to the taxpayers of the US. Keep in mind this is not a free press; every word in the Arab News is approved by the Saudi government.
First, Hassan Tahsin notices that the US press is, all of a sudden, being -really mean- to poor, noble Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Why? Because our media is controlled by the evil international Zionist conspiracy, of course! Why else?
Quote:
Thomas Friedman, a Jew, accuses Saudi Arabia and Egypt of not being with the US in its war on Afghanistan. The Washington Post even questions the legitimacy of the government in Egypt by saying that the elections were not fair, that freedom of expression is suppressed and that the political situation is in peril.
There is no doubt that after World War II, the world Jewry has been trying to be as close as possible to the decision-making processes in the West in general and the US in particular -- Congress, the Senate and the Pentagon. Zionism convinced the Western world that communism was their enemy No. 1 with Islam occupying the second position. As communism is no longer a threat, Islam is the No. 1 enemy and such a canard is unfortunately believed by many Westerners.
Moreover, as Zionism is surviving on lies, it exploits every opportunity to target Islam and this is evident following the September attacks on the US. Therefore, the US media that are controlled or dominated by
Zionists continue attacking Islam, Muslims and Arabs taking advantage of the fact that the prime suspects in the attacks are Arab or Muslim.
This is truly hateful stuff, and it is not unique. Browse through the columns at Arab News, and you'll find dozens of similar articles dripping with totally undisguised anti-Semitism.
Crown Prince Abdullah says pretty much the same things, but tries to hide the anti-Semitism a little: Abdullah slams anti-Saudi media campaign.
Quote:
Crown Prince Abdullah, deputy premier and commander of the National Guard, yesterday lashed out at the US media smear campaign, accusing the newspapers of trying to drive a wedge between the Kingdom and the United States. "The newspapers that are writing about us (Muslims) and the Kingdom are all paid for that," Prince Abdullah told a gathering of education officials in a speech broadcast on state television.
Of course, everyone listening to this speech understands what he's saying here -- the newspapers are being paid off by Jews. And the hypocrisy! The leader of a country that brutally suppresses freedom of speech, making accusations against the US press. On "state television."
He goes on to make this surprising assertion:
Quote:
The crown prince quoted US President George W. Bush as telling him in a telephone conversation that such reports sought to "break the ties between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United States and to damage the Kingdom�s reputation."
"President Bush phoned me. He began the conversation by saying that he was sorry. I said, 'for what Mr. President'? He replied, 'for what is carried by the newspapers which are trying to drive a wedge between the Kingdom and America and damage its reputation.
'We will not accept this and I will not accept it, and most American people will not accept it'," the crown prince quoted the president as telling him during the telephone conversation.
"I told the president that newspapers had attributed their reports to some officials. He replied, 'this I know, I am now looking for them and when I find them things will be straightened out'."
There are two possibilities here; either Dubya has some 'splaining to do, or the Prince is demonstrating an incredible capacity for self-delusion. I think Bush needs to respond; we can't have these bloated swine claiming that our president -apologizes- for the freedom of our press!
Can you tell I'm outraged?
Thanks to Chris for forwarding this article, debunking yet more rumors about 9/11.
ABCNEWS.com : Sept. 11 Rumors: Fact or Fiction?
Also an article on e-mail hoaxes here.
[Xeni, our Iowa correspondent, writes:]
A glance at my out box reminds me that I haven't been the best correspondent of late. An anxious person by nature, I have been turned by recent events into a super-anxious person. (The energy of my fidgeting would be enough to power all my small appliances; add the chronic pacing, and I could take care of all the light fixtures as well.) It's only recently that I've gotten back to my writing, and I'll soon be sending out Chapter 6 of my Iowa City adventures, which I was working on at the time of the attacks. They seemed too trivial to send in September or October; they may seem too trivial even now. It's possible that, as both a human being and a writer, I'm ill-suited to serious times.
I held my classes on the day of the attacks. I didn't know what else to do. Other teachers had canceled their classes, but I needed to be around people and it made me think that maybe my students needed to be around people, too, and so I didn't cancel. Accelerated Rhetoric met at 11:30 Central Time, and a lot of my students had yet to hear about the bombings. I apologized for being out of it, realizing, even as I did, that I apologized almost every other day for being out of it. And I felt as if I had even less of an excuse than I normally did. I hadn't been up accomplishing anything important. I'd gone to bed at my normal time, gotten up at my normal time, and was still alive three hours later. I had yet to account for all of my friends, but I had no reason to think any of them would be in or near the trade towers. When I told my students, "I think my friends are all okay," I was surprised that the utterance didn't provide more comfort. The near-certainty of your safety, the complete certainty of my family's safety--for the first time, it wasn't enough.
After Rhetoric, on my way to teach Undergraduate Nonfiction Writing, I stopped in the computer room to check the news and my email account. Two students said they were too upset by the day's events to attend (both adding for good measure that they also felt colds coming on). Most of the class was in attendance, and at that point there wasn't much to say. Someone mentioned the Palestinians dancing in the streets as the towers burned, and I thought, That can't be true. Who does that kind of thing? My nonfiction writing students and I talked about the attack, about whether they thought it was possible or appropriate to talk about the personal against the current international backdrop, and my most curmudgeonly student answered, "All I know is that a lot of nonfiction writers are going to be sitting at a lot of computers writing about how they feel about the attack, and it's all gonna suck!" He went on to say that he couldn't complete the assignment, due in class on the eleventh, because it all seemed so trivial, writing about someone you didn't like at a time like this one. (In my defense, the assignment was to do a portrait of a person you didn't like that showed sympathy for that person, a different project entirely.) I did not respond by telling him that if he'd started his assignment, oh, more than a half-hour before class, he might have avoided this problem. I told him that writing could indeed seem trivial at times like these, and made a note to myself to add a force majeure clause to the late work section on next semester's course policy statement.
Returning home from Nonfiction Writing, I passed the physics building, Van Allen Hall, where ten years ago (ten years ago on November 1, actually) a disgruntled physics student walked in with a gun, killed five people, paralyzed a sixth, and then shot himself. A lot of people--many of them wonderful writers--have written about the killings. My friend Margaret and I, sitting in front of Van Allen a year ago, licking ice-cream cones from the unfortunately-named but excellent Whitey's, sick-joked about the necessity, in a place with such a high concentration of writers, of yelling out "dibs" or the less elegant "I called it" in times of tragedy. (Margaret's apartment burned down a month later, and she says that what roused her out of bed when the smoke alarm failed to sound was her cat's insistent meowing and the thought that some asshole acquaintance of hers in the Workshop would co-opt the story of her death and make it the poignant center of a memoir about his or her Workshop years.)
It embarrasses me to admit it, but I usually try to avoid walking by the physics building. I fear having to teach a class in there. It's irrational, the idea that something bad is more likely to happen in Van Allen, and more irrational still the idea that evil 's exclusive Iowa City residence is a medium-sized building on the campus of a large university. When I was at school in New Haven, a gunman followed someone in and out of Atticus Book Store. I don't think anyone ended up getting shot, but my mother happened to catch a mention of the chase on the local news, which mentioned that Atticus was on the corner of Chapel and High. Never has a human being gotten more peace of mind from a phrase than my mother did from "Corner of." "You live in the middle of a block. And that's where I imagine you being. Safe. In the middle of blocks." If she needed to believe in an evil that lurked only at intersections, then I would let her. And if I needed to believe in an evil contained in a mid-sized building on a large university campus (when everyone else knew it was contained in the three dollar beer-and-a-brat combo at the homecoming game), then so be it.
But even as my mother tried to pinpoint my location (as I did with all of my New York friends, pushing imaginary pins into my mind's map of Manhattan, reassured that they did not extend beyond Battery Park, my own mid-block), my father insisted on reminding me of a world beyond my own, the one that extended beyond our shores. He arrived for a Parents' Weekend, said by way of greeting, "American kids don't know enough about geography," and thrust a globe at me. It was an indictment, I knew that. An indictment of the insular life that I led, the insular life that every American child led. But the globe backfired. My father had made a grave miscalculation. He had let my mother pick out the globe, and she had chosen one that was--is it possible for a globe to be--adorable! It was so pretty! In regular light, it was a topographical map, but plugged in, it turned into a political map, glowing with the prettiest patchwork of pastel colors!
The bombings on September 11 and the events that have followed have done what the globe failed to do. I've been made to feel part of the world. Is that what it means to feel part of the world, though? To feel vulnerable? To feel unsafe? I suppose--I hope--that I've also been made to feel compassion--for people--near and far--that I'd never have thought to think of, people who also have stories to tell or, if it is too late--as it is for the people in the Trade Centers and the Pentagon and Van Allen Hall and all over the world--to have told for them.
Love, Xeni
11.5.2001
The Manhattan Bridge service changes are too complicated to explain on a poster. They are not complicated enough to inspire a Philip Glass opera but would make for a white-knuckle 'Law & Order' crossover event. They are trashy enough to make a great summer read but not worth buying in hardcover. The only way to explain the service changes is through a series of Spanish-language comic strips wherein the trains are metaphorically represented by young people confronting HIV. The changes took effect on July 22, 2001, and are scheduled to end in brutal hand-to-hand combat on March 7, 2009.
BDQ trains have new names and attitudes. The D is now the Q and is finally out of the closet. The old Q is now the Q Diamond. The B is now the W, but never existed in the first place. W trains have all the characteristics of N trains. They make all local and express N stops on the N line in all boroughs, according to the N schedule, and they are labeled with the letter N. Q Diamond trains that attempt to masquerade as W trains will be demoted to E trains, the "Untouchables" of the subway system.
The G train will no longer terminate. It will run from eastern Queens to the Earth's molten core.
The old Q was played by Desmond Llewelyn. Dame Jude Dench is the new M. "Take the A Train" by Duke Ellington becomes "Smooth Operator" by Sade. "Sade" is pronounced "Q Diamond". Lou Diamond Phillips rides the F anyhow.
Special K is now Fiber One. Circle K becomes Hy-Vee and terminates at 34th Street. On weekends, the R train is pronounced "Shar-day".
[Andrea forwarded this to us.]
Whining and Wailing Won't Win a War
If the recent collective shift in public opinion from panic to blame is any reliable indication, we are showing ourselves to be a weak and whiny people, too self-entitled and resourceless to face adversity or make even negligible sacrifices for the things we hold dear.
But this, it seems, is beside the contentious point. Everything is unsatisfactory to the sniveling hordes. The air war in Afghanistan is a travesty. We're just high-tech bullies terrorizing civilians and taunting them with inappropriate, unreachable, inadequate (the list seems endless) food. We haven't caught Osama bin Laden. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft is sounding useless terrorist alerts at home. And on and on.
What garbage. Thoughtful and constructive critiques of U.S. policy are indispensable, as always. Tantrums are not. We can't win this war if we're nit-picking away our own morale. Don't like the strategy? Then do something to change it. Don't carp from your armchair. Kennedy's famous epigram of personal responsibility has never been more applicable. So, wise guy, what have you done for your country lately?
From Naunihaul:
[I wonder what they would have done if it was two Muslims Praying? It's amazing that anybody could see prayer as threatening. Of course, it wasn't the action of these two that disturbed the others but their "foreign appearance" and the fact that they weren't speaking in English. Final Score: Xenophobia 1, Common Sense 0]
Flight Diverted Due to Confusion Over Prayer
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (Reuters) - A Delta Air Lines flight was diverted to Charlotte, North Carolina, on Sunday after passengers mistook prayers being said by two Orthodox Jews on board as a threat, the airport manager said.
Delta Flight 458 from Atlanta to Newark, New Jersey, landed at Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, and passengers were taken off the flight while officials investigated a report of two "Middle Eastern men'' creating a disturbance on board.
"Everybody is kind of on edge, and it just doesn't take much to upset a lot of people,'' Charlotte-Douglas International Airport operations manager Jerry Orr said.
