This Blog Goes Out...

I love the United States of America,


The Land of the Free, the Home of the Brave,


One nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.


"I, Yankee Doodle, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...."


(The following is, of course, adapted from REM's The One I Love.)

This blog goes out to the one I love
This blog goes out to the one I hold so dear
Land of ideals, to my heart very near
This blog goes out to the one I love

Fire (she's under attack now)

This blog goes out to the one I love
This blog goes out to the one I shall defend
Freedom and justice, America must never end
This blog goes out to the one I love

This blog is a continuation of Stop Islamic Conquest.

The posts on this blog were deliberately dated so as to be in order, optimized to be read from the top of the page toward the bottom.

Blog Trek: Encounter in Cyberspace

CYBERSPACE, THE FINAL FRONTIER...

THESE ARE VOYAGES OF THE UCS WEBLOG...

ITS MULTIYEAR MISSION...

TO EXPLORE STRANGE NEW SITES...

TO SEEK OUT NEW FACTS AND NEW POINTS OF VIEW...

TO BOLDLY GO WHERE NO BLOGGER HAS GONE BEFORE....



Aboard the United Cybership (UCS) Weblog...


Captain’s Blog, Supplemental

This is a continuation of the blog entries for the UCS WEBLOG; previous entries can be found at this cyberlink: Stop Islamic Conquest: Blog Trek. To anyone finding this information, I request that you relay it to Cyberfleet Headquarters, the United Federation of Bloggers.

The UCS WEBLOG was one of several Federation Cyberships patrolling the neutral zone along the border of Federation Cyberspace. With the arrival of reinforcements in the border area, Cyberfleet directed the UCS WEBLOG and other Federation Cyberships to reconnoiter beyond the neutral zone in search of a new enemy, the Morg, that was reported to be threatening the Federation. Additionally, we had been advised of the existence of cyberspecies that are related to the Morg, but who are either neutral or even friendly to the Federation. Furthermore, we had also been warned to be on the lookout for species that had been presumed to be friendly to the Federation, but which were alleged to in fact be actively collaborating with the Morg in their attempt to conquer and subdue the Federation and all other civilizations.

Well, two days out of Federation Cyberspace, we found them.

Almost immediately upon departure from Federation Cyberspace, long-range sensor scans detected a cluster of Morg units in what appeared to be a relatively peaceful interaction with other cybervessels. These other vessels were showing no signs of cyberspace transponder emissions, and were taking other measures to disguise their identity. We approached them to investigate, and the group immediately broke up. I had the impression that at first they just had a general concern about being seen, but that they very quickly realized we suspected something was up. Knowing that we could identify Morg units fairly reliably, and knowing also of the concern that the Federation was being betrayed, I decided to focus our attention on the unidentified units in the hopes of discovering their identity, learning what they were up to, and then passing that information on to Cyberfleet Headquarters.

After that, the encounter progressed quite rapidly. Ignoring the Morg units that were departing the area, we approached the unidentified cybervessels at high velocity. I ordered Red Alert, and as the already tense crew scrambled to battle stations, I directed the communications officer to send our current location, all sensor readings and our blog entries in an omnidirectional transmission to Cyberfleet Headquarters; omnidirectional, in the hopes that any other Federation Cyberships in the area would also intercept the transmission and come to investigate. Meanwhile, our weapons were being loaded and locked on targets, while full sensor scans continued to record all data regarding what we now knew to be hostile forces. Although we were dramatically outnumbered, our unexpected appearance and unhesitating and rapid approach seem to have caught the hostiles quite off guard. We closed range and fired one full salvo of cyber torpedoes; sensors indicated sound hits, as the hostiles began to react. They were commencing sensor readings on us, when we engaged the newly installed cloaking device and then began a series of rapid and dramatic course changes at high speed, a tactic intended to foil their attempts to extrapolate our position based on last known location and heading data. Making an evasive and undetectable escape from the battle area, we continued full sensor scans on the targets.

Meanwhile, long range sensor sweeps indicated that other Federation Cyberships were within the general area, and some had even picked up our transmission. Indications were, however, that they were unsure what to make of it; by the time friendly units arrived in the battle area, it was deserted, and the UCS WEBLOG, still cloaked, could only monitor the situation from a distance. Not knowing the exact numbers, location or strength of the enemy, the only things we could be sure of was that we had stirred up a hornet's nest, that angry enemy units were now looking for us, and that we dare not divulge our location by making contact with the friendly forces that were now reasonably close by.

"Getting out of Dodge" at high warp velocity, still fully cloaked, the UCS WEBLOG continued monitoring an angry enemy that appears to be unsure of our location. Meanwhile, our sensor logs are growing more complete and more interesting by the day.

Sibel Edmonds, George Washington and Yankee Doodle

From THE HIGHJACKING OF A NATION, Part 1: The Foreign Agent Factor, By Sibel Edmonds, November 15, 2006:

In his farewell address in 1796, George Washington warned that America must be constantly awake against “the insidious wiles of foreign influence…since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.”

Today, foreign influence, that most baneful foe of our republican government, has its tentacles entrenched in almost all major decision making and policy producing bodies of the U.S. government machine. It does so not secretly, since its self-serving activities are advocated and legitimized by highly positioned parties that reap the benefits that come in the form of financial gain and positions of power.

The prophetic words of a great statesman and great American, our first President, the Father of our country, George Washington -- repeated by another great American, a lady from Turkey, Sibel Edmonds.

What Graham is trying to establish in his book and previous public statements in this regard, and doing so under state imposed ‘secrecy and classification’, is that the classification and cover up of those 27 pages is not about protecting ‘U.S. national security, methods of intelligence collection, or ongoing investigations,’ but to protect certain U.S. allies. Meaning, our government put the interests of certain foreign nations and their U.S. beneficiaries far above its own people and their interests. While Saudi Arabia has been specifically pointed to by Graham, other countries involved have yet to be identified.

In covering up Saudi Arabia’s direct role in supporting Al Qaeda, the 9/11 Commission goes even a few steps further than the congress and the Executive Branch. The report claims "there is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al-Qaeda before 9/11." Their report ignores all the information provided by government officials to Congress, as well as volumes of published reports and investigations by other nations, regarding Muslim and Arab regimes that have supported al Qaeda. It completely disregards the terrorist lists of the Treasury and State Departments, which have catalogued the Saudi government's decades of support for Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Those other countries -- "involved" but "yet to be identified" -- won't remain unidentified forever.

:)

Why in the world would the United States government go so far to protect Saudi Arabia in the face of what itself declares to be the biggest security threat facing our nation and the world today?

Why is the United States willing to set aside its own security and interests in order to advance the interests of another state?

How can a government that’s been intent upon using the terrorist attacks to carry out many unjustifiable atrocities, prevent bringing to justice those who’ve been established as being directly responsible for it?

More importantly, how is this done in a nation that prides itself as one that operates under governance of the people, by the people, for the people?

How did our government bodies, those involved in drafting and implementing our nation’s policies, evolve into this foreign influence-peddling operation?

In order to answer these questions one must first establish who stands to lose and who stands to gain by protecting Saudi Arabia from being exposed and facing consequences of its involvement in terrorist networks activities. In addition to identifying the nations in question, we must identify the interests as well as the actors; their agents.

An excellent idea: Let's identify the interests as well as the actors.



Above, Sibel Edmonds quoted President Washington. Here is President Washington's quote in full:

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

Here are a couple of more quotes from George Washington, which I throw in for good measure:

Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of Liberty abused to licentiousness.

The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed, and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will deliver them. The fate of unborn millions will now depend on God, on the courage and conduct of this army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the most abject submission. We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or die.

Ref: Still Going Strong: "To those who have been reading this blog, keep the faith. This is a period of relative silence, but that doesn't mean things might not be happening behind the scenes."

:)


Ref: The problem with the 9/11 truth movement (Guest post by Noise): "The problem is thus...people hoping for a real investigation are counting on the people involved in the coverup to jumpstart this effort."

What makes you think that?



Another quote from George Washington:

There is but one straight course,
and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily.

(George Washington quotes from Liberty Tree.)

Jihad, Inc. Part III

(See also: Jihad, Inc. Part I and Jihad, Inc. Part II, both of which are found under Stop Islamic Conquest: The Killing at the old blog.)

Unless otherwise noted, quotes are from: Cooperative Research Complete 911 Timeline Afghan/Pakistani Drug Connection (see original for links to sources):

Afghan opium production rises from 250 tons in 1982 to 2,000 tons in 1991, coinciding with CIA support and funding of the mujaheddin. Alfred McCoy, a professor of Southeast Asian history at the University of Wisconsin, says US and Pakistani intelligence officials sanctioned the rebels’ drug trafficking because of their fierce opposition to the Soviets: “If their local allies were involved in narcotics trafficking, it didn’t trouble [the] CIA. They were willing to keep working with people who were heavily involved in narcotics.”

So, allegedly, the CIA not only helped set up the terrorist networks we are now battling, but at the very least turned a blind eye to the beginning of this current wave of heroin trafficking from South Asia that we are now failing to deal with.

From Heroin, Taliban and Pakistan, B. Raman, Friday, August 10, 2001:

PAKISTAN'S illegal heroin economy has kept its legitimate economy sustained since 1990 and prevented its collapse. It has also enabled it maintain a high level of arms purchases from abroad, and finance its proxy war against India through the jehadi organisations.

While no estimate of the money spent by it on its proxy war is available, according to Pakistani analysts (Friday Times, March 9), about 80 per cent of its total external debt of $38 billion, that is, about US $30.4 billion, was incurred on arms purchases since 1990.

The use of the heroin dollars for such purposes started after the withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan in 1988. In the 1980s, at the instance of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Internal Political Division of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), headed by Brig (retd). Imtiaz, who worked directly under Lt Gen Hamid Gul -- who was Director-General, ISI, during the later years of Zia-ul-Haq and the first few months of Ms Benazir Bhutto's first tenure as the Prime Minister (1988-90) -- started a cell for the use of heroin for covert actions.

This cell promoted the cultivation of opium and the extraction of heroin in Pakistan as well as in those parts of Afghanistan under Mujahideen control for being smuggled into the Soviet-controlled areas to get the Soviet troops addicted. After the withdrawal of the Soviet troops, the ISI's heroin cell started using its network of refineries and smugglers to send heroin to the West and use the money to supplement its legitimate economy.

Not only the state economy, but also many senior officers of the Army and the ISI benefited from the heroin dollars.

Production of poppies in Afghanistan skyrocketed during the years of the Soviet occupation. The CIA, working with Pakistan's Interservice Intelligence (ISI), supported the production of heroin in areas subject to Mujahideen control. The heroin was smuggled across enemy lines in an attempt to get Soviet soldiers hooked on narcotics. The revenues were used to fund the jihad against the Soviet occupation

Much of the money was laundered through the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), the largest Islamic bank in the world, headquartered in Pakistan. Bin Laden and many other militants had accounts there before the bank was finally shut down in 1991.

From Cooperative Research Complete 911 Timeline Afghan/Pakistani Drug Connection again:

In December 1994, Philippine police reportedly begin monitoring a Pakistani businessman by the name of Tariq Javed Rana. According to Avelino Razon, a Philippine security official, the decision to put Rana under surveillance is prompted by a report that “Middle Eastern personalities” are planning to assassinate Pope John Paul II during his upcoming January 1995 visit to Manila. “[We] had one man in particular under surveillance—Tariq Javed Rana, a Pakistani suspected of supporting international terrorists with drug money. He was a close associate of Ramzi Yousef,” Razon later recalls. But it is possible that police began monitoring Rana before this date. In September, the Philippine press reported that he was a suspect in an illegal drug manufacturing ring, and the US embassy in Manila received a tip that Rana was linked to the ISI and was part of a plot to assassinate President Clinton during his November 1994 visit to Manila (see September 18-November 14, 1994). [CounterPunch, 3/9/2006] While under surveillance in December, Rana’s house burns down. Authorities determine that the fire was caused by nitroglycerin which can be used to improvise bombs. One month later, a fire caused by the same chemical is started in Ramzi Yousef’s Manila apartment (see January 6, 1995), leading to the exposure of the Bojinka plot to assassinate the Pope and crash a dozen airplanes. [Contemporary Southeast Asia, 12/1/2002; CounterPunch, 3/9/2006] Rana is arrested by Philippine police in early April 1995. It is announced in the press that he is connected to Yousef and that he will be charged with investment fraud. He is said to have supported the militant group Abu Sayyaf and to have helped Yousef escape the Philippines after the fire in Yousef’s apartment. A search of the Lexis Nexus database shows there have been no media reports about Rana since his arrest. Around the same time as his arrest, six other suspected Bojinka plotters are arrested, but then eventually let go (see April 1, 1995-Early 1996). [Associated Press, 4/2/1995]

Weapons and narcotics smuggling are connected to Islamic terrorists in the Philippines.

Jihad isn't just big business; it's a global empire.

Pakistan’s army chief and the head of the ISI, its intelligence agency, propose to sell heroin to pay for the country’s covert operations, according to Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s prime minister at the time. Sharif claims that shortly after becoming prime minister, army chief of staff Gen. Aslam Beg and ISI director Gen. Asad Durrani present him with a plan to sell heroin through third parties to pay for covert operations that are no longer funded by the CIA, now that the Afghan war is over. Sharif claims he does not approve the plan. Sharif will make these accusations in 1994, one year after he lost an election and became leader of the opposition. Durrani and Beg will deny the allegations. Both will have retired from these jobs by the time the allegations are made. The Washington Post will comment in 1994, “It has been rumored for years that Pakistan’s military has been involved in the drug trade. Pakistan’s army, and particularly its intelligence agency… is immensely powerful and is known for pursuing its own agenda.” The Post will further note that in 1992, “A consultant hired by the CIA warned that drug corruption had permeated virtually all segments of Pakistani society and that drug kingpins were closely connected to the country’s key institutions of power, including the president and military intelligence agencies.” [Washington Post, 9/12/1994]

Pakistan isn't just infested with Khawarij terrorists; it is infested with narcotraffickers as well, and has been for years.

Two points to remember:

1) Narcotrafficking and terrorism are, especially in the Islamic world, just two faces of the same enemy.

2) Pakistan, like Saudi Arabia, is the Bush Administration's bestest buddy in the War on Terror. With friends like these....

Late 1996

Bin Laden establishes and maintains a major role in opium drug trade, soon after moving the base of his operations to Afghanistan. Opium money is vital to keeping the Taliban in power and funding bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network. One report estimates that bin Laden takes up to 10 percent of Afghanistan’s drug trade by early 1999. This would give him a yearly income of up to $1 billion out of $6.5 to $10 billion in annual drug profits from within Afghanistan. [Financial Times, 11/28/2001] The US monitors bin Laden’s satellite phone starting in 1996 (see November 1996-Late August 1998). According to one newspaper, “Bin Laden was heard advising Taliban leaders to promote heroin exports to the West.” [Guardian, 9/27/2001]

Sure, Islamic charities are nice, but the real money is in narcotrafficking. And, it takes real money to finance a good holy war -- readers from my other blog know how expensive jihad is, and how profitable it is, too.

Autumn, 1998

By this time, US intelligence has documented many links between the Pakistani ISI, Taliban, and al-Qaeda. It is discovered that the ISI maintains about eight stations inside Afghanistan which are staffed by active or retired ISI officers. The CIA has learned that ISI officers at about the colonel level regularly meet with bin Laden or his associates to coordinate access to al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. The CIA suspects that the ISI is giving money and/or equipment to bin Laden, but they find no evidence of direct ISI involvement in al-Qaeda’s overseas attacks. The ISI generally uses the training camps to train operatives to fight a guerrilla war in the disputed Indian province of Kashmir. But while these ISI officers are following Pakistani policy in a broad sense, the CIA believes the ISI has little direct control over them. One senior Clinton administration official will later state that it was “assumed that those ISI individuals were perhaps profiteering, engaged in the drug running, the arms running.” One US official aware of CIA reporting at this time later comments that Clinton’s senior policy team saw “an incredibly unholy alliance that was not only supporting all the terrorism that would be directed against us” but also threatening “to provoke a nuclear war in Kashmir.” [Coll, 2004, pp. 439-440]

From How Pakistan’s ISI funds its proxy war by Syed Nooruzzaman, Sunday, November 28, 1999:

That the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate of Pakistan has been pumping in crores of rupees to sustain the proxy war unleashed on India is a well-known fact. But how is the huge fund generated? How does it reach the militants fighting the undeclared war in the Kashmir valley?

Actually, it might not be such a well-known fact. Pakistan for many years just narrowly missed being on the State Department's list of states that sponsor terror because of its proxy war in Kashmir. Then 9/11 happened, and President Bush made his infamous statement:

President George W. Bush, Thursday, September 20, 2001:
Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

(See also Stop Islamic Conquest: ... or you are with the terrorists." Part II and Stop Islamic Conquest: Alligators by the Swampful.)

When President Bush made that statement, India, eyeing Pakistan and Kashmir, had to wonder if he really meant it. (Israel had to, as well, eyeing the Palestinian Authority.)

Still from How Pakistan’s ISI funds its proxy war by Syed Nooruzzaman, Sunday, November 28, 1999:

Surprisingly, militants are not the only people to benefit from these funds received mainly as donations. Certain politicians too have had their share. However, donations are not enough to lubricate the proxy war. There are certain other ways also to ensure an uninterrupted supply of money. These include: (1) sale of narcotics on a large scale (the United Nations Drug Control Programme has it that the ISI annually makes around $ 2.5 billion through this source and it must be spending anything between Rs 537.5 crore and Rs 1,075 crore on fuelling militancy every year); (2) printing of fake currency notes by the National Jehad Council at its printing press at Muzaffarabad in occupied Kashmir; (3) collections made in West Asia and European countries for the Jehad Fund; and (4) extortions from traders, contractors and other moneyed people.

So, narcotrafficking is big business, and Pakistan's political and military establishment is corrupt and in bed with the drug runners, who are either terrorists or in bed with terrorists.

I wonder if President Bush knows that?

Still from How Pakistan’s ISI funds its proxy war by Syed Nooruzzaman, Sunday, November 28, 1999:

In fact, militancy has become a flourishing business. The recruits get either a fixed salary or work on a contract basis. According to The Tribune’s information, a local militant’s monthly salary varies between Rs 2,500 and Rs 5,000 depending on various factors. A foreign mercenary gets between Rs 5,000 and Rs 8,000. The financial support given to the family of a deceased militant ranges from Rs 1500 to Rs 3000 a month. A fresh recruit can secure anything between Rs 5,000 and Rs 20,000 as a one-time payment, depending on his capacity to bargain. A guide gets between Rs 30,000 and Rs 50,000, a porter between Rs 7,500 and Rs 20,000 and a motivator Rs 5,000.

"In fact, militancy has become a flourishing business." Readers of Stop Islamic Conquest have known that for a while.... :)

Still from How Pakistan’s ISI funds its proxy war by Syed Nooruzzaman, Sunday, November 28, 1999:

There is widespread unemployment and poverty in certain areas of Pakistan, Afghanistan and some Muslim-dominated West Asian countries. This helps in recruiting youngsters for the destructive scheme, specially when the “salary” is so tempting. Religion comes handy in brainwashing the poverty-stricken people to risk their lives for a “cause”. This is sheer exploitation of simple souls.

Neither does this come as news to my readers. While bin Laden is making BIG bucks as the CEO of Jihad, Inc., many of the expendable Mujahideen are sexually-frustrated men from the Islamic world (consider how polygamy deprives many poor men of their chances to have a wife, and other issues, to see the sex-connection in the willingness to blow oneself up and get to those seventy-two virgins). Of course, many of the expendable Mujahideen are surprisingly well-off and have university studies behind them, too. (I guess universities have always been good at producing radicals -- look at the communists, feminists, etc.)

Again from Cooperative Research Complete 911 Timeline Afghan/Pakistani Drug Connection:

Operation Diamondback, a sting operation uncovering an attempt to buy weapons illegally for the Taliban, bin Laden, and others, ends with a number of arrests. An Egyptian named Diaa Mohsen and a Pakistani named Mohammed Malik are arrested and accused of attempting to buy Stinger missiles, nuclear weapon components, and other sophisticated military weaponry for the Pakistani ISI. [South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 8/23/2001; Washington Post, 8/2/2002]

A sting operation busts some ISI agents trying to buy nukes and man-portable surface-to-air missiles!

Some other ISI agents came to Florida on several occasions to negotiate, but they escaped being arrested. They wanted to pay partially in heroin. One mentioned that the WTC would be destroyed. These ISI agents said some of their purchases would go to the Taliban in Afghanistan and/or militants associated with bin Laden. [Washington Post, 8/2/2002; MSNBC, 8/2/2002]

Remember that the description is from August of 2002, but the events described precede 9/11.

Mohsen pleads guilty after 9/11, “but remarkably, even though [he was] apparently willing to supply America’s enemies with sophisticated weapons, even nuclear weapons technology, Mohsen was sentenced to just 30 months in prison.” [MSNBC, 8/2/2002] Malik’s case appears to have been dropped, and reporters find him working in a store in Florida less than a year after the trial ended. [MSNBC, 8/2/2002] Malik’s court files remain completely sealed, and in Mohsen’s court case, prosecutors “removed references to Pakistan from public filings because of diplomatic concerns.” [Washington Post, 8/2/2002]

And, the cover-up begins?

Walter Kapij, a pilot with a minor role in the plot, is given the longest sentence, 33 months in prison. [Palm Beach Post, 1/12/2002] Informant Randy Glass plays a key role in the sting, and has thirteen felony fraud charges against him reduced as a result, serving only seven months in prison. Federal agents involved in the case later express puzzlement that Washington higher-ups did not make the case a higher priority, pointing out that bin Laden could have gotten a nuclear bomb if the deal was for real. Agents on the case complain that the FBI did not make the case a counterterrorism matter, which would have improved bureaucratic backing and opened access to FBI information and US intelligence from around the world. [Washington Post, 8/2/2002; MSNBC, 8/2/2002]

The cohorts of terrorists, Pakistani intelligence agents, try to buy Stingers and nukes. The result: basically, a hand-slapping on the individuals involved, burial of the connection to Pakistan, and business-as-usual.

President George W. Bush, Thursday, September 20, 2001:
Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

Which side are you on, President Bush?

Jihad, Inc. Part IV

Unless otherwise noted, all quotes here are from Cooperative Research Complete 911 Timeline Afghan/Pakistani Drug Connection (see original for links to sources):

Before 9/11, US intelligence had collected a list of potential bombing targets in Afghanistan (see Late August 1998-2001). The list is said to include 20 to 25 major drug labs and other drug-related facilities. But according to a CIA source, when the list is turned over to the US military after 9/11, the Pentagon and White House refuse to order the bombing of any of the drug-related targets. This CIA source complains, “On the day after 9/11, that target list was ready to go, and the military and the [National Security Council] threw it out the window. We had tracked these [targets] for years. The drug targets were big places, almost like small towns that did nothing but produce heroin. The British were screaming for us to bomb those targets, because most of the heroin in Britain comes from Afghanistan. But they refused.” This source believes that if the US had bombed those targets, “it would have slowed down drug production in Afghanistan for a year or more.” [Risen, 2006, pp. 154] The US will continue to avoid taking action against drug operations in Afghanistan (see February 2002).

In the next two postings on this thread at Cooperative Research on the timeline regarding the Autumn of 2001, connections are made 1) among Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence (ISI), the CIA, the Taliban and the narcotraffickers, and then 2) between the US allies in Afghanistan and narcotics production.

Several of the subsequent posts then discuss how narcotics production in Afghanistan fourishes openly, in some cases due to inexplicable and suspicious actions on the part of Pakistan and the US.

Interestingly, contradictory information is presented regarding the US Military's understanding of the connection between terrorism and the narcotrafficking, and its desire to combat them both together:

According to one former National Security Council official, Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith argues in a White House meeting that since counter-narcotics is not part of the war on terrorism, the Pentagon doesn’t want to get involved in it. The former official complains, “We couldn’t get [the US military] to do counter-narcotics in Afghanistan.” Author James Risen comments, “American troops were there to fight terrorists, not suppress the poppy crop, and Pentagon officials didn’t see a connection between the two. The Pentagon feared that counter-narcotics operations would force the military to turn on the very same warlords who were aiding the United States against the Taliban, and that would lead to another round of violent attacks on American troops.” [Risen, 2006, pp. 154] Immediately after 9/11, the US had decided not to bomb drug-related targets in Afghanistan and continued not to do so (see Shortly After September 11, 2001).

But:

Mark Schneider, senior vice president of the nonprofit International Crisis Group, later says that during a trip to Afghanistan in November 2003, he is told by US military commanders and State Department officials that they are frustrated by rules preventing them from fighting Afghanistan’s booming illegal drug trade. Author James Risen notes the US military’s rules of engagement in Afghanistan states that if US soldiers discover illegal drugs they “could” destroy them, which is “very different from issuing firm rules stating that US forces must destroy any drugs discovered.” An ex-Green Beret later claims that he was specifically ordered to ignore heroin and opium when his unit discovered them on patrol. Assistant Secretary of State Bobby Charles, who fights in vain for tougher rules of engagement (see November 2004), will later complain, “In some cases [US troops] were destroying drugs, but in others they weren’t. [Defense Secretary] Rumsfeld didn’t want drugs to become a core mission.” [Risen, 2006, pp. 152-162]

How do we resolve this?

Well, the second comment states that the military commanders are frustrated that they can't cut off the drugs, which are funding the enemy. The first quote, however, points to an official of the Bush Administration as saying the military doesn't want to get involved in battling the drugs.

Could it be that the military wants to do whatever it takes to win the war, but that the Bush Administration is putting constraints on them? Could it be that those constraints specifically include preventing the military from targeting the terrorists' cash cow, the heroin trade?

By now, we know that holy war is big business.

But, let's look at this from another perspective: If you have a bunch of jihadis waging holy war, then you need an army to defend against them. And, that army needs equipment, supplies, and so on. It takes money to provide all that.

A lot of money.

Counterjihad is big business, too.

But, we'll get to that soon enough....

Meanwhile, Pakistan's Interservice Intelligence (ISI) is reported to be making staggering sums of money running drugs.

Vanity Fair suggests the ISI is still deeply involved in the drug trade in Central Asia. It estimates that Pakistan has a parallel drug economy worth $15 billion a year. Pakistan’s official economy is worth about $60 billion. The article notes that the US has not tied its billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan to assurances that Pakistan will stop its involvement in drugs. [Vanity Fair, 3/1/2002]

Wow! Fifteen billion a year! Equal to one-fourth of the official economy! And there's no taxes, no red tape -- just the necessary bribery and payola to operate.

Free money.

You can buy a lot of jihad for $15 billion a year.

A British special forces team in Afghanistan calls in a US air strike on a drug lab. The damage leads to a 15 percent spike in heroin prices. It is unclear if US commanders knew that the proposed target was a drug lab. However, this seems to be nearly the only such strike on drug-related targets since 9/11. Shortly after 9/11, the US military decided to avoid such targets (see Shortly After September 11, 2001). The US continued to gain new intelligence on the location of drug facilities and continued not to act. Assistant Secretary of State Bobby Charles later will complain, “We had regular reports of where the labs were. There were not large numbers of them. We could have destroyed all the labs and warehouses in the three primary provinces involved in drug trafficking… in a week. I told flag officers, you have to see this is eating you alive, that if you don’t do anything by 2006 you are going to need a lot more troops in Afghanistan.” [Risen, 2006, pp. 152-162]

First of all, was the air strike a mistake? The policy was to not go after the drugs. What happened?

Or, might this lab have belonged to a rival drug cartel that didn't have the right political connections?

It's easy to be overly suspicious here.

"I told flag officers, you have to see this is eating you alive, that if you don’t do anything by 2006 you are going to need a lot more troops in Afghanistan.”

And here we are, early 2007 -- and we find we are needing a lot more troops in Afghanistan.

Haji Bashir Noorzai, reputedly Afghanistan’s biggest drug kingpin with ties to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, had been arrested and then released by the US in late 2001 (see Late 2001), and then ignored when he wanted to make a deal with US in 2004 (see Autumn 2004). In spring 2005, the US again contacts him and offers a deal. Author James Risen explains, “The Americans asked Noorzai to come to the United States to negotiate a deal, and to the astonishment of nearly everyone involved in the case, he agreed. Noorzai flew on a regular commercial flight to New York, where he was met by federal agents. The Bush administration was so startled that he had actually agreed to come to the United States that it was not quite sure what to do with him.” Secret talks are held in New York City, resulting in Noorzai being indicted in April 2005. “By the summer of 2005, Noorzai was in jail and was talking, but questions remained about whether the Bush administration really wanted to hear what he had to say, particularly about the involvement of powerful Afghans and Pakistanis in the heroin trade.” [BBC, 4/26/2005; Risen, 2006, pp. 152-162]

A big drug kingpin, perhaps the biggest in Afghanistan, with ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, flies to the US and turns himself in, but the Bush Administration apparently does not want to hear what he has to say.

Allegations are that the bungling was deliberate.

Sam Karmilowicz, a former security officer at the US embassy in Manila, suggests in an interview with CounterPunch magazine, that US intelligence may have failed to properly follow leads in a counterterrorism case because of a potential link to Pakistani intelligence. In September 1994, Karmilowicz allegedly received information that a Pakistani businessman with possible ties to the ISI was part of a plot to assassinate President Clinton during his November 1994 visit to Manila (see September 18-November 14, 1994). An interagency US security team that was tasked with investigating the tip ended its investigation after only a few weeks. “My experience in the Philippines shows the US government has compartmentalized information… in order to cover-up its gross incompetence or its complicity in illegal and questionable activities conducted by, or against, foreign powers,” Karmilowicz says. [CounterPunch, 3/9/2006]

Okay, you've taken the first four modules of Jihad, Inc.. Now, here's your test. It's one question, multiple choice:


Why is the United States bungling so badly not just the War on Terror, but the War on Drugs as well?

a) Gross incompetence.

b) Good old-fashioned corruption.

c) Counterjihad and counternarcotics is big business.

d) All of the above.

In Gotham Park

He enjoyed days like this.

With the owner of Wayne Manor at work in Gotham City all day, he had the opportunity to get some shopping done for his boss. He took some of the staff from Wayne Manor with him, and went to downtown Gotham. Each of them understanding where they needed to go, the staff left him alone for a while, and he took the opportunity to sit in Gotham Park and enjoy a beautiful spring day, while reading the Gotham Globe.

As he sat on the bench reading, he noticed a young man looking at his newspaper.

Realizing he had been noticed, the young man began to walk away.

"Is there anything I can help you with, young man?"

"Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to bother you," the young man replied.

"No bother at all."

"I just wanted to see what the headlines were."

He folded the newspaper back up, and held it out to the young man. "You are welcome to my copy. I was just finishing with it."

The young man took it, then looked at the bottom of the front page, where there was a story about the fire that had destroyed Gotham Towers a few years back. He eagerly began to read it, then paused, and looked at the man who gave it to him. "Thanks. Are you sure you are done with it?"

He wasn't really done with it, but smiled reassuringly just the same. "We have it delivered at home, so I have a copy there, young man. I can finish reading it when I get back. Besides, it's too nice of a day to not enjoy the scenery in the park. Go ahead."

The young man smiled, and mumbled "Found by another and read for good measure, One man's trash is another man's treasure."

The older gentleman froze.

A moment later, he caught himself, and smiled again. "What did you say, young man?"

"'Found by another and read for good measure, One man's trash is another man's treasure.'" The man smiled. "So many people don't appreciate the work that goes into a newspaper. But I used to work for the Gotham Globe."

"What do you do now?" he asked gently, aware that he might be on a delicate subject.

"I'm between jobs right now," the young man cheerfully sighed.

"Are you a writer?"

"Yes, I guess so."

"What did you do at the Globe?"

"I was an investigative reporter."

"'Curiouser and curiouser'," the older gentleman said quietly. "And may I ask why you no longer work there?"

"I wish I knew." The man looked at the story about the Gotham Towers. "They have it all wrong, you know. They say a fire destroyed the Gotham Towers. No fire has ever before or since resulted in the complete collapse of a skyscraper, anywhere in the world."

"Did you work on that story?"

"Yes and no. I was investigating the events of that day, but I came to very different conclusions than what they printed here. Here they're still saying it was because of the fire that the three towers collapsed."

The older gentleman sat back some, a little more relaxed. He was beginning to suspect this man did not have all his faculties. "There were only two towers destroyed, young man."

"Actually not. Many people don't know that the Gotham Trade Center was a complex of several buildings. Buildings One and Two were the Gotham Towers that collapsed that day, but Building Seven also collapsed later that afternoon. They say it was a fire caused by arson, but my research on the design of the buildings, coupled with interviews with some of Gotham's firefighters suggests it was more than that." The young man looked up. "This War on Crime is important, but there's a lot more to it than that. There's a financial story behind this that most people have completely missed."

The older gentleman was becoming more interested in the conversation again. "Yes, Gotham is only now really coming out of the economic difficulties caused by that crime. Everybody lost money that day." He thought about how hard-pressed the Wayne Foundation Charity Hospital was to treat all the people who worked in the rescue operations that day, and how hard-pressed the Wayne Foundation was to pay for the charity work due to the money it lost that day. He also thought about how sad he and Mr. Wayne felt -- and still feel -- for all the victims....

"Not everybody. Some people made money that day. A lot of money."

It occurred to the older gentleman that his boss might be interested in hearing this conversation.

"I say, young man. I understand Wayne Enterprises is hiring. I know someone who works there. They need someone with your kind of talent."

"I'd never get in the door. Everybody in Gotham wants to work there. They get hundreds, if not thousands of resumes every day."

The older gentleman had already taken something out of his pocket and was writing on it.

"Show this to the receptionist. I'm confident you'll get special consideration."

The young man took it and looked at it: it was a personal card. On the front, it said Alfred Pennyworth, and on the back it, in very neat handwriting, it said Curiouser and curiouser.

He looked at Alfred.

Anticipating his comments, Alfred smiled. "What do you have to lose?"

"I'll go right now. Thanks!"

The Importance of WTC 7

(See also Stop Islamic Conquest: The Killing; Highest Infidelity.)


From Wikipedia: 7 World Trade Center:

The original Seven World Trade Center, which was destroyed in the September 11, 2001, attacks, was built in the mid-1980s.

A lot of people forget that WTC 7 was destroyed that day, too.

They say it was destroyed by fire, even though no skyscraper was ever destroyed by fire before or after September 11, 2001; but, along with WTC 1 and WTC 2, three skyscrapers were all destroyed by fire at the same time at the same place.

And, WTC 7 did not get hit by an aircraft.

Why did it go down?

7 World Trade Center housed Salomon Smith Barney; American Express Bank International; Standard Chartered Bank; Provident Financial Management; ITT Hartford Insurance Group; First State Management Group, Inc.; Federal Home Loan Bank; and NAIC Securities.

There's a good reason. Money could have been laundered through the computers in WTC 7, just like it was laundered through the computers in WTC 1 & 2.

The government agencies housed at 7 World Trade Center were the Secret Service, the Department of Defense, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),...

There's another good reason. With the SEC disabled, who can investigate the money laundering.

... the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (IRS), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Whoa! Here's another one! The CIA had an office there....

From Report: CIA Lost Office In WTC, NEW YORK, Nov. 5, 2001:

(AP) A secret office operated by the CIA was destroyed in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, seriously disrupting intelligence operations.

The undercover station was in 7 World Trade Center, a smaller office tower that fell several hours after the collapse of the twin towers on Sept. 11, a U.S. government official said. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that immediately after the attack, a special CIA team scoured the rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports stored in the station, either on paper or in computers. It was not known whether the efforts were successful.

Seriously disrupting the operations of the CIA....

That's another good reason to "pull" WTC 7. (Google that expression and see what you get.)

A CIA spokesman declined to comment on the existence of the office, which was first reported in Sunday's editions of The New York Times.

Oh, sure: no comment. What did you expect?

The New York station was behind the false front of another federal organization, which the Times did not identify. The station was a base of operations to spy on and recruit foreign diplomats stationed at the United Nations, while debriefing selected American business executives and others willing to talk to the CIA after returning from overseas.

Aha! This is where they might have watched money laundering and overseas financial activity from!

The agency's officers in New York often work undercover, posing as diplomats and business executives, among other things. They have been deeply involved in counter-terrorism efforts in the New York area, working jointly with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies.

Counter-terrorism....

The CIA's main New York office was unaffected by the attacks, but agents have been sharing space at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, and have borrowed other federal government offices in the city.

The agency is prohibited from conducting domestic espionage operations against Americans, but it maintains stations in a number of major United States cities, where CIA case officers try to meet and recruit students and other foreigners to return to their countries and spy for the United States.

I'll bet the jihadis liked that!

The New York station was believed to have been the largest and most important CIA domestic station outside the Washington area.

No wonder WTC 7 collapsed that day!

"Modern Khawarij"

From an article at Liberal Islam Network, entitled Modern Khawarij, Published on 4/10/2004:

(The translation is a little rough in places.)

This article was published previously in Indonesian at 20/9/2004


Terror begins in the head, and then through the hands befalls the earth. Some people imagine that the whole world is in opposition to them, and that therefore they must build a fortress to protect themselves against any attack. Theirs is a siege mentality. In such conditions, only the language of anger emerges. A friendly attitude towards ‘the other’ will be considered as weakness, and therefore must be avoided.

"Terror begins in the head...." We're off to a promising start.

Sa’duddin Ibrahim, Director of Ibnu Khaldun Centre for Development Studies, Cairo, wrote an interesting column in an Arabic newspaper published in London, Al Hayat. Titled “Al Islamiyyun al-‘Arab Dhidd al-‘Alam” (the Arab Islamist versus the World), it describes the disturbing symptom in which Arab Islamists use violence and disseminate terror, everywhere, from Chechen, Kashmir, Indonesia, Thailand, Pakistan, to Afghanistan.

"The Arab Islamist versus the world...." That's exactly what we're dealing with. While many of the foot soldiers among the terrorists are not Arabs, many of them are. Beyond that, the ideology, which is for the most part Wahhabi Islam, is definitely Arab. Islam itself originated in Arabia, although the Muslims would fairly say that it originated with Allah; without arguing that point either way, I still contend that it was first propagated on earth in Arabia. If, then, a Muslim would accept that human shortcomings have come into Islam, which this article seems to do, then I suggest that the first opportunity for those human shortcomings to enter Islam was when humans first became involved with it on the Arabian peninsula. Indeed, Khawarij Muslims first surfaced at the very beginning of the Islamic era.

Beyond that, a point that I make repeatedly both here and in the previous blog, is about the Arabization of the Islamic world. This hateful brand of Islam, Wahhabism, is today being propagated by Saudi Arabia. The state sponsor of hate, the Saudi Royal Family, pays for many of the new mosques being built in the world today. The preachers of hatred in those mosques are put there by the Saudi Arabs: they either come from Saudi Arabia, or are at least sent there, especially to Medina, for training.

So, "Islamist" is a term used for radicalized, hateful, highly politicized Islam, mainly Wahhabism, and so much of today's Islamism comes from Arabia -- and always has.

For example, in less than a week (since 30/8 up to 5/9, 2004), the Arab Islamists claimed responsibility for a great deal of violence: slaughtering 12 Nepalese, exploding two commercial airplanes in Russia in which 100 people died, and recently taking hostage students in a school in Beslan-Russia during which over 200 people subsequently died in a rescue attempt by Russian forces. 10 of the hostage-takers were Saudies.

Keep in mind that this preceding paragraph was not published on The Religion of Peace or some website like that, but rather was published on a Muslim website! There are Muslims out there who not only see what is going on, but who are willing to speak honestly about it!

The organization exporting terror, Tandzim al-Qa’idah or al-Qaidah, was established and led by a Saudian millionaire, Osama ben laden. The question is this: why has this happened? Why do Arab countries breed radical-extremists? Is it related to Islam, a religion born in Arabia?

It wasn't just Osama bin Laden -- the Saudi Royal Family has been very active in this, as well.

I think Muslim society must dare to make a radical critic, and admit there is an ‘ulcer’ in the social body. Anyone who studies the history of modern Islamic movements will know that the relation between Islam and the ideology of violence and terrorism is not so strange. The most important turning point in the history of modern Islamic movement was the appearance of a figure named Sayyid Qutb, ideologist of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun of Egypt. He was the first Muslim ideologist to interpret jihad as an offensive teaching, not a defensive one (read: jihad difa’i), but something to be used to justify the use of violence against the enemies of Islam.

In the classical era, there was Khawarij which was radical and which considered their enemy as infidels. The modern Islamic group is the modern khawarij. Don’t be deceived by the people behind the Bali blast, and the Marriot and Australian Embassy bombings. Though they may be pious people in terms of performing rituals, as has been said by Sa’aduddin Ibrahim, they are more dangerous to Islam than beneficial. They, with their interpretation, have changed the image of Islam from the religion of peace, to the religion of terror, exactly like the Khawarij people did in ancient times.

[Ulil Abshar-Abdalla]

(Translated by Lanny Octavia, edited by Jonathan Zilberg)

Once again, much of the Islamic world understands that these terrorists are Khawarij.


Now, follow my logic here:

1) Those who support the Khawarij are state sponsors of terror.

2) Saudi Arabia supports the Khawarij.

That means that

3) Saudi Arabia is ...

America's friend in the War on Terror, if you believe President Bush.

(I don't anymore.)

The "De-Arabization of Islam"

From Soheib Bencheikh: We Need Dearabization of Islam Published: 4/12/2006

This is an interview with Soheib Bencheikh, a candidate for President in France. The election is this month, April, 2007. Here is Monsieur Bencheikh's website: Présidentielle 2007 Soheib Bencheikh Candidat

(This is an introductory paragraph for the article; it is in italics in the original.)

Islam is in the midst of rapid growth in France. However, the rise of the puritan and ideological Islam has been specific concern there. Dr. Soheib Bencheikh, the former mufti of Marseille who established French Institute for Islamic Science, said that Islamic dearabization is necessary in order to fit better into French culture during his 10 days visit in Indonesia to Novriantoni from Liberal Islamic Network, Saturday (25/11/2006).

Yes, yes, yes! Kick Saudzilla out and send him back to Riyadh!

I am glad that Indonesia is the first Muslim country that applied democracy and the principle of secular state. This climate will provide every group the opportunity to express their selves. Unfortunately, there are psycho-linguistic barriers for accepting secularism in Indonesia and many other Muslim countries. Psychological barriers exist because secularism originated from the West, and some people are skeptical upon western things. Linguistic barrier happens due to the semantic problem in translating secularism into our languages.

It should read "This climate will provide every group the opportunity to express themselves." That's okay; my English isn't perfect either. It's the thought that counts! :)

To me, secularism is not a complicated philosophy. In France, laicite is nor religion neither ideology. This is a simple idea about administrative neutrality in managing relation between state and religion. Once state declares itself as a secular state, it must give every citizen freedom to accept religion or not. In a more concrete way, secularism is separation between state and religious affair. It benefits both religion and state.

I believe we have an amendment to our Constitution that says something about that, too.

Every religion will be under the protection of state, which is neutral, rational, and susceptible to critique, because it is not a part of sacred institution. Every party in the secular state can be criticized, evaluated, reformed, and even substituted by parties that may be able to lead and prove that they are capable of doing better things.

Protection from extermination, dhimmification... but not from criticism. I like that idea.

State institution becomes neutral, profane, have no divine mandate or sacred values as the claim of every religion. State is liberated from dogmatism. Besides, religion will be free from political intrigues in order to gain the power. This is the fact in countries where secularism has established.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it is free from political intrigues. We are, after all, only human.

In countries such as Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, and other Arab countries, you will find the fact they are not bright and there is no hope for an overhaul. The task of these states seems on one thing, that is safeguarding the sacredness of religion and the power of authority. They only want to preserve the conservative and backward religiosity and utilize it to maintain their power.

Well, actually, that's pretty much what any government does: preserve its own power.

I must say that people who raise their voice on the importance of separation between religion and state were sincere in their religiosity. I have particular reason to advocate secularism. As a Muslim, I can practice Islam proudly in France under the authority of secular state. If only the French politic is up to the procedure of democracy which sometimes side with the power of majority (Catholic majority in case of French, ed), definitely we would not be free living there.

Actually, I see what he's saying, but I'm not so sure I agree. Centuries ago, a Catholic majority may not have permitted open practice of Islam. Today, however, there is a great deal of tolerance of Islam among Catholics, and among most other Christian groups. In fact, I think there is too much tolerance -- some things coming from the Islamic world should not be tolerated.

But, still, I appreciate that he advocates secularism, and I wholeheartedly support that.

It’s a big lie to say that secularism will marginalize religion from every aspect of life. Secularism is simply about administration of the state therefore it will not be easily influenced by cheap religious sentiments. In the west, it is up to you to embrace a religion or not. One’s obedience or disobedience is a private matter between him or her and god. It is different with what happens in the Arab countries, the secular as well as the theocratic ones.

In Saudi Arabia or Algeria, I feel that the inquisitional institution is surrounding me. Hence, my prayer, my worship, my life and death is no more for God. Everything I do, I do it for the institution that spies my move and observance. Everything we do is not for God, but for maintaining the authority’s stability or positive image before public.

And, he's exactly right -- the modern Inquisition is not in the Catholic world, it is in the Islamic world! And, the Saudis, etc., aren't really doing it for Allah as much as they are doing it for themselves.

There's a great deal of power and money at stake, especially in places like Saudi Arabia.

Actually, a clash of civilization does not exist in reality. What happens everywhere is clash between open groups (munfatihin) and closed ones (munghaliq). There is no clash between West and East. We must remember that the first who condemned against the American invasion upon Iraq was the belated Pope John II, while the first who closed his eyes about this tragedy was Sheikh al-Azhar.

The most persistent opponent against the war was France and Germany that bear the consequence up to now. Meanwhile, the facilitator of the invasion and provider of the military base for the US was the Arab countries. Hence, clash between civilizations is a mere imagination of America and it proves that throughout its vicious actions in many parts of the world.

He's against the war in Iraq; he supports Western condemnation of the war, and Arab facilitation of it. These remarks could just as easily be spoken by a "slick" Khawarij. However, the context of this man's remarks make me think he is sincere, while the Khawarij would just be trying to divide up his enemies.

My civilization as an Arab-Muslim laid not on the obligatory of wearing headscarf, furthermore niqab and burqa. I had left shallow perception about standard of civilization based on artificial matters. I dream about civilization that preserves morality.

The Qu'ranic prescription to "draw their veils over their bosoms" was for Arab rural and nomadic women who were already veiled in early Islam but left their bosoms open. Hence, we must perceive that the verse commands Muslims to dress in a modest fashion. That is the universal value of the Quranic verses on veil.

Again, this doesn't sound too objectionable. These sound like the comments from a religious, socially conservative individual.

We have to advocate Islam as a religion that exists within every individual’s heart and we should not demand the state to keep the sustainability of our religion. The matter of obedience or disobedience is not the state’s responsibility. This must be our direct relation with god without human intervention. The Islamic development, which is apart from the state’s power, is important because there is no clerical system in Islam.

Again, he's advocating Islam as something separate from the political power structure. If they ever did that in Iran and Saudi Arabia, there are a great deal of religious police that would lose their jobs.

I am concerned about debate on this topic in Aljazeera television, moreover when British Muslims determined to hold a World Day of Veil (al-yaumul `alami lil hijab) which is a ineffective battle and stake for me. This religion is more than fourteen centuries old, but it still debates about what one should wear or not. I hardly imagine the Archangel Gabriel will come down to earth back and forth just to teach the Arabs and Muslims on how Muslims should dress, how long beard must be, and other trivial matters. Do not forget that the enemies of Prophet Muhammad were wearing bigger turban and maintaining longer beard than ours today.

That's pretty funny. I wonder if the Taliban know that?

Everywhere, those fundamentalist groups were minorities. However, the revival of Christian fundamentalists in western countries is understandable. They were narrow-minded, and they emerged out of the assumption that their democratic, secular, tolerant, and pluralist state has become a Trojan horse that potentially threats their comfortable lives. They already gave full freedom to Muslim migrants in their country, whom now regarded to disturb their existence. That is why those right wings emerged in Germany, Denmark, Holland and other European countries. But nothing to be worried about because they remain minorities.

Interesting. He draws a comparison between fundamentalist Christian and fundamentalist Islamic groups, but he seems to be admitting that the Islamic immigrants are causing problems. However, he seems optimistic about it because all those groups -- Christian and Muslim alike -- are minorities.

Am I reading this right?

In general, I am not worried about the future of Muslims in France. But I am worried about the prototype of Islam which most of French young Muslims adhered and developed nowadays. They waste their times by adhering particular understanding of Islam, which impede them for building better social relationship with their neighbors. They waste their time by discussing about the length of beard, the size of trouser etc.

They forget that prophet Muhammad had utilized the best things in his period just like us in the modern era. As a Muslim thinker, I had been mocked for not applying the Prophetic tradition (Sunna) of their version. “You’ve never paid any attention to the Prophetic tradition!” they protested. “How come?” I asked. “Your daily life style and mainly the way you dress do not reflect your concern about the Prophetic tradition.” My answer is this: I perceive that one of the Prophetic traditions is that he had never deviated (syadz) from the culture around him.

Heh-heh-heh. You tell 'em!

That was my experience of dealing with young extreme Muslims. Some dialogues ended at a deadlock, some others succeeded. Therefore, I suggested French decision makers to be wise in dealing with them. I explained that their attitude was not because of their deep understanding of Islam, but their shallow understanding. They were not immune from the virus of fanaticism. They invited fundamentalist Muslims to teach them about Islam and that is why they failed in building the positive social relation with French society and became marginalized.

There is something to what he says here. While many of these radicals know Islam very well -- every nasty nuance and detail, and can't get over any of the bad stuff -- many of those who get duped into blowing themselves up know very little about Islam.

As I point out in other posts on Stop Islamic Conquest, holy war is big business. Many of the jihadis who are used as suicide bombers are duped into doing it by promises of heavenly rewards for themselves and earthly rewards for their families.

Also, Islamic communities that take Saudi-trained and -funded preachers of Wahhabi hatred are susceptible to it in part because they haven't learned enough about their own religion to have their own firm views of it -- IMHO.

What was I saying over at the other blog? Islam became a vehicle for the Arabs to conquer an empire. The empire, though, became less Arab as it spread. So, the Saudis are spreading their own radical brand of Islam, Wahhabism, in a well-funded attempt to convert the Islamic world. If they succeed with their re-arabization of Islam, they inherit an empire.

Does this candidate for the Presidency of France seem to understand this and even agree? -- and to repudiate the arabization of the Islamic world?!

Yankee Doodle hit the nail right on the head!

Saudi Arabia might want to give some thought to whether they will succeed in re-arabizing Islam, or whether the world will de-arabize and deradicalize it. The world is a lot bigger than Saudzilla, and might decide not to de-arabize and deradicalize peacefully. Once again, I suggest Riyadh consider its options, and pay particular attention to its third option, before infidel and takfir armies overrun their corner of the desert.


It will be interesting to see how the election turns out in France.

Gaddafi Duck

From Gaddafi says only Islam a universal religion, by Salah Sarrar, Fri Mar 30, 5:24 PM ET:

AGADEZ, Niger (Reuters) - Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi said on Friday that it was a mistake to believe that Christianity was a universal faith alongside Islam.

"There are serious mistakes -- among them the one saying that Jesus came as a messenger for other people other than the sons of Israel," he told a mass prayer meeting in Niger.

"Christianity is not a faith for people in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. Other people who are not sons of Israel have nothing to do with that religion," he said at the prayer meeting, held to mark the birth of the prophet Mohammed.

Gaddafi, who is seeking to expand his influence in Africa, said his arguments came from the Koran. He led similar prayers last year in Mali.

"It is a mistake that another religion exists alongside Islam. There is only one religion which is Islam after Mohammed," he said in the sermon, which was broadcast live on Libyan state television.

"All those believers who do not follow Islam are losers," he added. "We are here to correct the mistakes in the light of the teachings of the Koran."

Pay attention to that last comment: "All those believers who do not follow Islam are losers," he added. "We are here to correct the mistakes in the light of the teachings of the Koran."

Look who's talking. If that doesn't convince someone to abandon Islam, then what will?

Gaddafi also said it was a mistake to believe that Jesus had been crucified and killed. "It is not correct to say that. Another man resembling Jesus was crucified in his place."

Perhaps the day will come why Gaddafi Duck, realizing how he has been acting, will say "Another man resembling Gaddafi was acting in his place."

Libya grants financial aid to Islamic communities in Africa and elsewhere to build mosques, Islamic schools and facilities.

Libyan state television often shows Gaddafi meeting groups of African men or women telling him they converted to Islam.

The mass prayers, chaired by Gaddafi, came a day after Arab leaders wrapped up a summit in Saudi Arabia. Libya was the only Arab state to shun the gathering.

"Libya has turned its back on the Arabs ... Libya is an African nation. As for Arabs, may God keep them happy and far away," Gaddafi has said to explain his boycott of the summit.

This is good, for all the reasons I expound upon both here and at the original blog: the Islamic world needs to be de-Arabized. Even Gaddafi Duck's influence is better than that of Saudzilla.

Riddle at Wayne Enterprises

I'm widely loved, despite being green;
In order to get me, even friends can be mean.
I corrupt, because I mean power;
Many use me to build their towers.
These towers rise very high from ground;
In order to get me, two were brought down.

The muscular figure read the email and frowned.

"Is something wrong, Mr. Wayne?"

"No, everything is fine, Mrs. Jones. I'm sorry, I guess my thoughts were elsewhere. What were you saying?"

"I'm just reminding you of your meeting with representatives of the German Embassy and the CEO and leadership of Wayne Enterprises, GmbH in Germany. It begins in 43 minutes. Also, the president of Gotham Bank phoned and needs to see you this afternoon. He says it's urgent."

"Fine, thanks, I'll be at the meeting on time. Where is it?"

"In the big conference room at the other end of the hall, sir."

"Thanks Mrs. Jones. And please schedule Gotham Bank for right after that meeting, if the president wouldn't mind coming over here."

"He already said he'd be delighted to, if you are able to squeeze him in, sir."

"Thanks, great."

"Would you like me to close the door on the way out?"

"Yes, please."

His assistant gone, the muscular figure looked back at his email and frowned again. The sender's name was shown only as "Mr. E." And a mystery it truly was: not everyone had Bruce Wayne's private email address.

A sudden buzz from his wrist cell phone interrupted his thoughts. If it was possible to frown even more, he did so.

"Yes, Alfred," he answered to the friendly image on the screen.

"Did I catch you at a bad time, sir?"

"Not really. Well, sort of. What's up?"

"You have a visitor on his way to see you about your business, sir."

Just then, the door opened, and Mrs. Jones entered again with some files.

"I know, Alfred. I've got visitors scheduled all afternoon."

The face in the image looked more intent. "It's about your other business, sir."

The muscular figure looked at the image, perplexed. "Our new branch of Wayne Enterprises in Thailand?"

"Not that business. Your other business."

"The Wayne Foundation Charity Hospital?" the figure asked, noticing a strange look from Mrs. Jones.

"Your other business, sir," the image intently prodded him.

The figure glanced up quickly at his assistant.

"'Curiouser and curiouser', Master Bruce...." the face prodded him some more. "He should be there any moment."

Honey-Dipped Sexual Jihad

From Hindu girls risking Muslim honey trap claim Forum, Published 30th March 2007:

HINDU and Sikh girl students at north west universities are in danger of being pressurised into becoming Muslims it has been claimed.

Organisers of the National Hindu Students Forum claim fundamentalist Muslim male students are targeting Asian non-Muslim girls in a bid to win converts.

They say the fundamentalist use romance, verbal and even physical pressure to win the girls over.

To anybody following the stories of conduct where the more affluent Muslims of the world come into contact with the non-Muslim world, this is not a new story.

A spokesman for the forum, Sanjay Mistry said male Muslim students start by befriending Hindu and Sikh girls.

He said: "Often they begin a romance with the girls and then say that if they want it to continue they will have to convert to Islam."

He added: "In some cases the girls, outside their close family for the first time, like many other students, feel they want to rebel. Going out with a Muslim male can be part of this."

This is happening everywhere. Many stories have been told about similar events in America, going back decades. Girls fall for some sheihk, with his money, attractive Middle Eastern looks and exotic mannerisms; by the time they are married and in some distant emirate or kingdom, it is too late: they're essentially housebound slaves, beaten and used for sex.

Stories come from Scandinavia and Southeast Asia about how Muslim men use non-Muslim women for sex, either as girlfriends or prostitutes; when they are ready for a serious relationship, they get a "good Muslim" girl who is a virgin.

But make no mistake about it: this whole culture is based on hatred of women. Just as they can justify using non-Muslim women for sex without any regard to them as people, so do they treat "good Muslim" women: with no regard for them as people, but rather, like possessions.

The general secretary of the Hindu Forum of Britain, Ramesh Kallidal recently told a conference attended by Metropolitan Police Chief Constable Sir Ian Blair that anger was growing among the Hindu community.

He said: "The police and other agencies have no idea about the hight levels of resentment building up in the Hindu and Sikh communities over aggressive conversion techniques and intimidation by radical Islamic groups on campuses.

"Families are being broken down, while some of our girls have even been beaten up and had to leave university. We need to look at positive action rather than just speaking about these issues."

If you're waiting for the politically-correct government in the United Kingdom to do something about this, you'll be waiting a long time.

One girl who claims to have experienced intimidation is Natasha Jalota.

She describes on a Hindu website how a fellow student befriended her during her first term and university.

Eventually she claims his attentions began to get disturbing.

She says: "A few months passed on, and one day, (he) hit me with a new and even more shocking bombshell. He told me I had to convert to his religion. I was about to die of shock. Convert??? Why??? I would never do this.

"He brought me some religious books, with titles like 'How to be a true Muslim' and so on, and said 'You best start reading them'.

"I refused to take them and told him to leave me alone and that being friends with him was the biggest mistake I had ever made.

"He became really aggressive and forceful. I was very scared and wondered how long this would go on and what I had done to deserve this. I thought to myself 'How can this guy who seemed so down to earth and normal have turned out to be a religious fanatic and a psycho?' "

Eventually Natasha claimed she went to the police resulting in him stopping his intimidating behaviour.

The best way to help girls avoid being vulnerable to Sweet Jihad is to get the story out. Still, as previously mentioned, this may be an act of rebellion on the part of some girls, so the jihadi becomes the forbidden fruit and even more tempting, especially when he's still being sweet; by the time the sweetness ends, it may be too late.

There are decent people in the world who are Muslims. Unfortunately, thanks to the well-funded hatred being spread by Saudi petrodollars, any Muslim is now suspect for being a "religious fanatic and a psycho" -- and even those who are well-behaved must be suspected of al-Taqqiya.

Attention, decent people who are Muslims: You are being victimized by the radical freaks in the Islamic world; you need to speak out and take action against them, because they are giving Islam a very bad name.

Counterjihad, Inc. Part I

From Offsets: The Industrial, Employment and Security Costs of Arms Exports, "Last updated: November 2001":

One of the most politically powerful claims supporting U.S. arms trading today is that weapons exports sustain American jobs. But the employment benefits of arms exports are diluted, and may be negated, by seldom-discussed side deals known as "offsets." These agreements require a supplier to direct some benefits. -usually work or technology. -back to the purchaser as a condition of the sale.

There is a word for that: kickbacks

Offsets come in two forms. Through "direct" offsets, the purchaser receives work or technology directly related to the weapons sale, typically by producing the weapon system or its components under license. "Indirect" offsets involve barter and countertrade deals, investment in the buying country, or the transfer of technology unrelated to the weapons being sold. Both types of offsets send work overseas, but direct offsets also raise serious security concerns, as they assist the development of foreign arms industries.

So, the kickback can be that the purchasing country's industry gets built up by production of components for the weapon system being purchased.

That's interesting, because one big marketing tool for sale of high-tech weaponry to countries that really shouldn't have it is the jobs (especially high-tech ones) that the sale will bring to the selling country. But, if that industrial capacity and those jobs go to the purchaser's country, then that defeats the purpose of the sale as far as the selling country is concerned: it is just transferring technology, economic benefits and industrial capacity to the purchaser, which often is just a step or two away from being an enemy.

Under those circumstances, the only ones in the selling country who are benefitting are the companies that are actually making the deal -- and they are making money essentially by selling out their country to the highest bidder.

Alternatively, the kickback can be in the form of marketing the buyer country's goods and services (shoes, rugs, furniture, rice, clothing, jihad, heroin...) in the seller country (or elsewhere).

The 2001 report produced by the Presidential Commission on Offsets in International Trade (created by the Defense Offsets Disclosure Act of 1999 ) concluded that the average offset requirement for 1998 was 57.9% of the value of the contract; this rate represented a slight increase over the figures from the previous five years. The quantifiable effect of direct offset transactions for 1993-1998 "supplanted $2.3 billion in U.S. work or 25,300 work-years." The report concluded that while quantitative levels of offsets have remained relatively steady, there has been a qualitative increase in the negotiated transactions. These qualitative increases refer to the transfer of often sensitive technologies to foreign defense industries, which improve the competitiveness of foreign firms and rarely (only in 4% of the cases) result in the transfer of technology back to the U.S. Furthermore, Ann Markusen, a member of the Presidential Commission on Offsets, concluded that although "the United States has one of the strongest licensing regimes in the world, ...enforcement is inadequate." Thus these qualitatively high demands for offsets and the resulting technology transfer increase potential threats to U.S. national security, and pose real threats to U.S. jobs.

So, first of all, the value of the kickback is a very significant fraction of the original sale: more than half, on average.

Second, increasingly it entails the transfer of sensitive technology and the best of the jobs to the buying country.

The report claims that theoretically if offsets were not offered, there would be a net loss of profits which would have a detrimental impact on U.S. jobs. However actual figures speak volumes. William Hartung in his report "Welfare for Arms Dealers" reported that "Today, thanks to these offsets, there are twice as many workers employed building the F-16 in Ankara, Turkey (2,000), as there are at Lockheed Martin's principle F-16 plant in Fort Worth, Texas (1,155)." Sending jobs abroad reduce labor costs for manufacturers, but it translates into the loss of American jobs.

In other words, if America goes to war with Turkey, Turkey is better able to produce F-16's (an American jet fighter) to fight that war than America?

Why aren't American workers protesting this practice? Some are. Workers for Boeing and Lockheed Martin have rallied against licensed production of weaponry and technology transfers that result from direct offsets. In October 1995, one-third of Boeing's workforce went on strike, largely to protest the use of foreign subcontractors. In other cases, though, workers and firms may not realize that they are being negatively affected by military offsets. If an American furniture company loses a bid for a contract to a Swedish or South Korean firm, for example, it doesn't know that an American arms corporation may have helped the foreign firm secure the furniture sale as part of a military offset obligation.

Oops. There's that furniture connection! I was just joking about that.

Hmm... If there really is a furniture connection, I wonder about the other items I was joking about: shoes, rugs, rice, clothing, jihad, and heroin?

There are other disturbing trends in offset agreements. There is an increasing percentage of countries requiring offsets valued at more than 100% of the negotiated contract. Furthermore, in several recent transactions, the purchasing country has demanded and successfully negotiated a "pre-offset" from each of the firms competing for the contract. Pre-offsets are often valued at 10% of the value of the contract and accompany each bidder's offer. The proceeds of these pre-offsets remain with the purchaser, regardless of whether or not the bid is successful.

So the net result is 1) we pay as much as 10% of the value of the contract just be able to bid it, and 2) if we win the contract, we actually lose money. All to build up a foreign power's military forces and the industry to support it. All while sending jobs overseas.

Well, that's fair!

Offsets even occur on arms sales financed by U.S. taxpayers. Such deals cost Americans thrice. first when they pay for researching and developing the weapons, secondly when they pay for the sale, and again when their jobs are shipped overseas. Rep. Cardiss Collins, former Chair of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer Protection, and Competitiveness, challenged the practice at a June 1994 hearing. The Government Accounting Office came out with the same recommendation in a report released at the hearing.

So, the U.S. taxpayer gives these foreign countries the money to use to make the purchase to begin with.

You can't beat that!

If the public realized that U.S. arms corporations were jeopardizing American jobs and security by assisting foreign competitors, opposition to arms sales would increase. The arms industry knows this, and it has worked hard to keep offsets safely out of view. Although the government has examined offsets three times in the past (1985, 1988, and 2001), and some new oversight measures have recently been enacted (see below), it is still very difficult to point to specific firms that have been hurt by military offsets or to ascertain how much offsets are costing U.S. industries and workers.

Opposition would increase???

Far less than that resulted in a revolution back about 230 years ago!

Counterjihad, Inc. Part II

Quotes are from Impact of Offsets in Defense Trade: An Annual Report to Congress:

Offsets are the practice by which the award of contracts by foreign governments or companies is exchanged for commitments to provide industrial compensation. In defense trade, offsets include mandatory co-production, licensed production, subcontractor production, technology transfer, counter trade, and foreign investment.

Okay, this much we established in general terms in the previous post.

But, why do we do this?

Historically, offsets have served important foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States, such as increasing the industrial capabilities of allied countries, standardizing military equipment, and modernizing allied forces. The use of offsets is now commonplace. Today, virtually all of the defense trading partners of the United States impose some type of offset requirement. Countries require offsets for a variety of reasons: to ease the burden of large defense purchases on their economy, to increase or preserve domestic employment, to obtain desired technology, and to promote targeted industrial sectors.

These are not bad reasons to use offsets to make possible a sale of military equipment to European countries that have been devastated by World War II and have become an ally holding off the tide of the Red Army in the beginning of the Cold War. But, that's behind us now, and I wonder if using offsets to sell to Third World dictatorships with abysmal human rights records is wise?

Offsets may be direct, indirect, or a combination of both. Direct offsets refer to compensation, such as co-production or subcontracting, directly related to the system being exported. Indirect offsets apply to compensation unrelated to the exported item, such as foreign investment or counter trade.

Okay, that was a review.

Developed countries with established defense industries use offsets to channel work or technology to their domestic defense companies. Countries with newly industrialized economies are utilizing both military and commercial related offsets that involve the transfer of technology and know-how. The developing countries with less industrialized economies generally pursue indirect offsets to help create profitable commercial businesses and build their infrastructure. Overall, offsets continue to be an important and necessary factor in a climate of increased competition for a declining number of international sales contracts.

"Overall, offsets continue to be an important and necessary factor in a climate of increased competition for a declining number of international sales contracts."

I wonder about that last remark.

However, offsets may be detrimental to the strength of the U.S. defense industrial base, particularly small and medium-sized defense subcontractors. Offsets can displace U.S. subcontractors, enhance foreign competitors and create excess defense capacity overseas. The U.S. Government policy on Offsets in Military Exports views certain offsets to be economically inefficient and market distorting. See the 1990 Presidential Policy on Offsets and the Defense Offsets Disclosure Act of 1999 for more detailed policy information.

"However, offsets may be detrimental to the strength of the U.S. defense industrial base...."

The US had been exporting scrap steel to Japan prior to World War II. That scrap steel came back to haunt us as, reworked into ships, planes, shells and bombs, it was used to pummel American forces at Pearl Harbor and all across the Pacific and Asia. Brits, Dutch, Australians, New Zealanders, Chinese and others also suffered the consequences of Japanese military equipment that was essentially reincarnated refugee vehicles from America's automobile industry.

This goes far beyond that; World War III is going to be much worse.

Counterjihad, Inc. Part III

Quotes are from Defense Offsets: Why Play Fair with "Allies" Who Don't, by William R. Hawkins, Friday, May 20, 2005:

In the Pentagon’s 2004 report Foreign Sources of Supply: Assessment of the United States Defense Industrial Base, the use of foreign sources for the production of military goods for the U.S. armed forces is advocated because importing “promotes consistency and fairness in dealing with U.S. allies....[and] encourages development of mutually beneficial industrial linkages that enhance U.S. industry's access to global markets.” One small problem with the Pentagon’s thinking: America’s “allies” often do not behave in ways that are either fair or beneficial to our interests.

America had a 2004 trade surplus in aerospace products of $31 billion, virtually the only bright spot in an overall trade deficit of $618 billion. The aerospace figure is somewhat misleading, however, because foreign governments usually require industrial compensation to offset the cost of buying U.S. weapons systems. In defense trade, offsets include mandatory co-production, licensed production, subcontractor production, technology transfer, counter trade, and foreign investment. Countries require offsets for a variety of reasons: to ease the burden of large defense purchases on their budgets, to increase or preserve domestic employment, to obtain desired technology, and to promote targeted industrial sectors.

So, we have a significant trade deficit which pays for a relatively small surplus from the aerospace industry. And, that surplus is misleading.

(In other words, America is getting screwed.)

Congress has required an annual report on the impact of offsets in defense trade, prepared by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security under the 1992 amendments to the Defense Production Act. The most recent report, issued in March 2005, found that for 2003, new offset agreements had a total value of $8.9 billion, equaling 121.8% of the $7.3 billion in exported defense items. This means that the American economy is giving up more than it gains when it sells military products to many of our overseas friends.

The stuff we sell goes for $7.3 billion, but it costs us $8.9 billion in kickbacks to sell it!

(In other words, America is getting screwed.)

European nations received offsets equal to 148.8% of the total value of our exports to them. For non-European nations the average was 48.4%. Developed countries with established defense industries, like the Europeans, use offsets to channel work or technology to their domestic high-tech firms, which are rivals to American firms. Countries with newly industrialized economies utilize both military and commercial offsets to transfer technology and know-how to expand their capabilities. Offsets can displace U.S. subcontractors when they require work be outsourced or when American firms lose future contracts to rivals who have benefitted from offsets.

We transfer American jobs and American know-how to countries that either sell weapons to our enemies or are one step away from being enemies themselves.

(In other words, America is getting screwed.)

Even American companies that are not involved in defense projects can be harmed by offsets – because they often entail “indirect” compensation in commercial sectors, including direct purchases, investment in foreign enterprises, technology transfers, and training. These offsets can have a long term impact because they help create new trade rivals, even in the commercial sector. American firms may not even realize that they are being targeted by the offset process. A 1998 GAO study entitled “U.S. Contractors Employ Diverse Activities to Meet Offset Obligations” found that defense contractors even “assisted foreign firms in marketing their products in export markets using the expertise of the contractors’ own organizations or consultants.”

So even innocent American industries who have nothing to do with arms sales suffer.

(In other words, America is getting screwed.)

Even with increasing offsets, European Union countries have dramatically cut their purchases of American weapons. These countries bought $1.4 billion in arms from the United States in 2003, down from $3.5 billion in 2000. Eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004 may appear to be a better potential market for U.S. defense companies, but could be difficult to hold. The EU is pressuring members to “harmonize” policies in favor of consolidating a stronger European industrial base meant to compete with the United States.

So despite the fact that we are kissing their &#%$@ to make the sale, we're not kissing it enough, so business is going down.

(In other words, America is getting screwed.)

The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), a consolidation of French and German companies with some Spanish participation, has been a major beneficiary of the EU trend to buy more from continental sources. EADS owns Airbus, which means its “buy European” argument has impacts on the commercial side of the international economic competition as well. Airbus beat Boeing and Lockheed Martin to a 20 billion euro contract to supply seven European countries with 180 new military transport aircraft, the A400M. In January 2004, EADS scored a major win when the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) picked Airbus to supply refueling aircraft, a type that has long been a Boeing specialty. Airbus promised that half of the work on the new planes and 90% of the conversion work on older A330 aircraft, would be done in the UK.

And, after all that, the UK refuses to buy American.

(In other words, America is getting screwed.)

Yet, as long as European military budgets remain small, continental defense firms are going to have a difficult time staying competitive in the long run. This is why European firms are pushing so hard to gain access to Pentagon contracts. They need to tap into U.S. budgets to compensate for the collapse of EU military spending. As Richard Olver, chairman of BAE told Defense News (Feb. 28, 2005), “It's obviously clear that the extent of R&D in the United States is a very different order of magnitude to the R&D investment in the rest of the world, including the United Kingdom....so our first line of strategy is to have a bias to grow in the United States. High R&D, high budget, high reputation with the customer.”

So, despite all the business the Europeans monopolize for themselves, they still can't make it, so they seek to sell weapons to America, even though they won't buy weapons from America.

(In other words, America is getting screwed.)

The United States does not, however, demand offsets as do the Europeans. This makes for an unbalanced trading system in military products that undermines the long-term superiority of the American industrial base upon which the country’s world leadership depends. I recently had the opportunity to engage in discussions with the “interagency team” assigned by the Secretary of Defense to “consult” with foreign nations on limiting the use of offsets. The team consists of officials from the Defense, State, Commerce and Labor departments, and the office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Unfortunately, because Washington has unilaterally adopted a much more open trading posture than Europe, it doesn’t have much leverage to bring to the table. Indeed, the use of the term “consult” rather than “negotiate” indicates a weak effort.

So America is doing nothing about it.

(And, remember: America is getting screwed.)

This situation calls for more creative “buy American” provisions to transfer production capacity and innovation from Europe. In the Pentagon’s 2005 Industrial Capabilities report, it is stated that foreign direct investment in the U.S. defense industry has jumped 198% in the 2000-2003 period, or about $3.5 billion, even as Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the general economy was declining by 12%. Why is this so? Because foreign firms know that they must weather political criticism in Washington. They have a better shot at US contracts if they locate at least some of their operations here. This is the kind of development Pentagon policy should be encouraging, rather than overseas outsourcing.

Foreign direct investment is down, but FDI in the defense industry is way up.

They are buying our defense industry.

(In other words, America is getting selectively screwed.)

But it must be real FDI, the kind that truly enhances U.S. military and industrial capabilities, not just assembly work. EADS, for example, has been waving the prospect of a major aircraft assembly plant before a number of communities (and their politicians) as part of its drive to win the contract for the next generation of strategic aerial refueling tankers. The catch is that EADS only wants a location near a deep water port, so it can import all the high-tech and truly valuable components of the aircraft and not actually produce much of anything in the United States. FDI of this sort must be seen for the scam that it is and be closely monitored. No one should be fooled for a minute that the EADS Trojan Horse operation is a “mutually beneficial industrial linkage.”

Nice of them to throw us a bone.

(America is getting screwed.)

The proper goal of U.S. policy is not to be “fair” but to be successful. Today we are failing miserably at that goal.

Did I mention that America is getting screwed here?