This is a very interesting speech from both a secular and a religious or spiritual perspective. The speech was given by a Professor of National Security Affairs who also worked for the CIA.
Video: Prof. Dr. Richard L. Russell - Former CIA... by AirMaria
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Al Qaeda's War Against The Catholic Church
Dave Hartline from The American Catholic has written both an outstanding and a very informative article on Al Qaeda's war against The Catholic Church and I am passing it along to you.
From The American Catholic:
While most of the world mourns the nearly three thousand who were brutally murdered by Al Qaeda on September 11, 2001, many assume all of Al Qaeda attacks stem from a warped political motive. Most may not be aware that since the day of its inception many of Al Qaeda’s targets have involved the Catholic Church and her holy sites.
Less than one year before the September 11, 2001 attacks Al Qaeda was planning a spectacular Christmas attack at the large and historic Strasbourg Cathedral in France. While this attack was foiled, an attack on the Catholic cathedral in Jakarta, Indonesia was not thwarted, resulting in the deaths of several churchgoers and those on a nearby street.
Yet, five years before this brazen plan, an even more sinister plan was nearly carried out by the chief planner of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Khalid Sheik Muhammad, which he coordinated to coincide with the visit of Pope John Paul II to Manila for World Youth Day in January of 1995. The plan called for the pontiff to be killed along with countless of the faithful who was planning to see him in Manila that day. Incidentally, some speculate that the crowd that came to see the Polish pontiff that day was nearly the same size that came to see his funeral some ten years later. Some speculate it may have been the largest religious gathering at one place in our known history, some five to seven million strong.
Thankfully this plot was uncovered by sheer coincidence (providence for those who of us who are believers) The Manila fire department was called after apartment dwellers reported a kitchen fire, which turned out to be bomb making gone awry. Khalid Sheik Muhammad had already left Manila for the Middle East. However, it was due to evidence uncovered at the scene of the fire that security officials began to understand the emerging terror network that would be known as Al Qaeda (the base.)
Though it would be quite some time before terror officials around the world would come to understand Al Qaeda, there were faint glimpses beginning to emerge of the nefarious plans the network had in store for all those, including many Muslims, who would not fit into their ideology. Several smaller attacks others around the world, most notably in the Arabian Peninsula seemed too small or too unprofessional for terror officials to think that Al Qaeda could ever top something of the caliber of an Imad Mughniyeh plot. Mughniyeh was believed responsible for the nearly simultaneous Beirut attacks on US Marines and French paratroopers in 1983 that left hundreds dead. He was believed to live under the protection of the Syrian and Iranian governments, until his reported violent death in February, 2008. No one imagined that Al Qaeda could ever top a plot devised by Imad Mughniyeh. CONTINUED
From The American Catholic:
While most of the world mourns the nearly three thousand who were brutally murdered by Al Qaeda on September 11, 2001, many assume all of Al Qaeda attacks stem from a warped political motive. Most may not be aware that since the day of its inception many of Al Qaeda’s targets have involved the Catholic Church and her holy sites.
Less than one year before the September 11, 2001 attacks Al Qaeda was planning a spectacular Christmas attack at the large and historic Strasbourg Cathedral in France. While this attack was foiled, an attack on the Catholic cathedral in Jakarta, Indonesia was not thwarted, resulting in the deaths of several churchgoers and those on a nearby street.
Yet, five years before this brazen plan, an even more sinister plan was nearly carried out by the chief planner of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Khalid Sheik Muhammad, which he coordinated to coincide with the visit of Pope John Paul II to Manila for World Youth Day in January of 1995. The plan called for the pontiff to be killed along with countless of the faithful who was planning to see him in Manila that day. Incidentally, some speculate that the crowd that came to see the Polish pontiff that day was nearly the same size that came to see his funeral some ten years later. Some speculate it may have been the largest religious gathering at one place in our known history, some five to seven million strong.
Thankfully this plot was uncovered by sheer coincidence (providence for those who of us who are believers) The Manila fire department was called after apartment dwellers reported a kitchen fire, which turned out to be bomb making gone awry. Khalid Sheik Muhammad had already left Manila for the Middle East. However, it was due to evidence uncovered at the scene of the fire that security officials began to understand the emerging terror network that would be known as Al Qaeda (the base.)
Though it would be quite some time before terror officials around the world would come to understand Al Qaeda, there were faint glimpses beginning to emerge of the nefarious plans the network had in store for all those, including many Muslims, who would not fit into their ideology. Several smaller attacks others around the world, most notably in the Arabian Peninsula seemed too small or too unprofessional for terror officials to think that Al Qaeda could ever top something of the caliber of an Imad Mughniyeh plot. Mughniyeh was believed responsible for the nearly simultaneous Beirut attacks on US Marines and French paratroopers in 1983 that left hundreds dead. He was believed to live under the protection of the Syrian and Iranian governments, until his reported violent death in February, 2008. No one imagined that Al Qaeda could ever top a plot devised by Imad Mughniyeh. CONTINUED
Iraq's WMD Moved to Syria?
It looks like my theorizing about Iraq's WMD's being moved before the U.S. invasion of Iraq and as to their whereabouts are turning out to be correct.
Ha’aretz has revived the mystery surrounding the inability to find weapons of mass destruction stockpiles in Iraq, the most commonly cited justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom and one of the most embarrassing episodes for the United States. Satellite photos of a suspicious site in Syria are providing new support for the reporting of a Syrian journalist who briefly rocked the world with his reporting that Iraq’s WMD had been sent to three sites in Syria just before the invasion commenced.
The newspaper reveals that a 200 square-kilometer area in northwestern Syria has been photographed by satellites at the request of a Western intelligence agency at least 16 times, the most recent being taken in January. The site is near Masyaf, and it has at least five installations and hidden paths leading underneath the mountains. This supports the reporting of Nizar Nayouf, an award-winning Syrian journalist who said in 2004 that his sources confirmed that Saddam Hussein’s WMDs were in Syria.
One of the three specific sites he mentioned was an underground base underneath Al-Baida, which is one kilometer south of Masyaf. This is a perfect match. The suspicious features in the photos and the fact that a Western intelligence agency is so interested in the site support Nayouf’s reporting, showing that his sources in Syria did indeed have access to specific information about secret activity that is likely WMD-related. Richard Radcliffe, one of my co-writers at WorldThreats.com, noticed that Masyaf is located on a road that goes from Hamah, where there is an airfield sufficient to handle relatively large aircraft, into Lebanon and the western side of the Bekaa Valley, another location said to house Iraqi weapons. CONTINUED
The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.
The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.
"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."
Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."
CONTINUED
Should General McChrystal Stay or Go?
In a Rolling Stone's article, General McChrystal's aides let loose on Obama, Biden, and everybody who is anybody on Obama's national security team. Its obvious that General McCrystal wanted his discontent and observations with the way in which this war is being handled leaked out to all the civilian mishandlers in Washington. It seems to me that General McCrystal started out with high hopes for a turnaround in Afghanistan but soon realized that he was placed in an impossible situation that has ended up endangering our soldiers' lives all for the sake of fghting our enemy "fairly". When has giving our enemy an unfair advantage ever been the same as fighting a war fairly? When has forcing our soldiers to fight with one arm around their back ever produced a win in a war? Never. This article shows how the new rules of engagement are helping our enemy and harming our troops who are risking their lives overseas so that we may remain free.
'Young officers and enlisted soldiers and Marines, typically speaking on the condition of anonymity to protect their jobs, speak of “being handcuffed,” of not being trusted by their bosses and of being asked to battle a canny and vicious insurgency “in a fair fight.” '
Here are a couple hghlights from the Rolling Stone's article:
Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.
"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"
"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"
Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his fucking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."
I think that McCrystal's resignation could be the proper outcome in this situation, especially since Obama acts like a whiny child when it comes to his being criticized in any way, and after this article I can't see Obama and General McCrystal working together comfortably and cohesively for the betterment of the Afghan War. While some political pundits are asserting that General McCrystal's lapse in judgement rises to the level of Mac Arthur's insubordination Ken Allard gives some insight why appearances are deceiving. But, we should take into account what is best to win the War in Afghanistan.
'Young officers and enlisted soldiers and Marines, typically speaking on the condition of anonymity to protect their jobs, speak of “being handcuffed,” of not being trusted by their bosses and of being asked to battle a canny and vicious insurgency “in a fair fight.” '
Here are a couple hghlights from the Rolling Stone's article:
Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.
"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"
"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"
Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his fucking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."
I think that McCrystal's resignation could be the proper outcome in this situation, especially since Obama acts like a whiny child when it comes to his being criticized in any way, and after this article I can't see Obama and General McCrystal working together comfortably and cohesively for the betterment of the Afghan War. While some political pundits are asserting that General McCrystal's lapse in judgement rises to the level of Mac Arthur's insubordination Ken Allard gives some insight why appearances are deceiving. But, we should take into account what is best to win the War in Afghanistan.
Who is The Real Enemy of Islam?
Here is the article written by Ralph Peters:
AL Qaeda does one thing ex tremely well: killing Muslims. Between 2006 and 2008, only 2 percent of the terror multinational's victims were Westerners.
The rest were citizens of Muslim countries. Even as al Qaeda claims to be their defender.
I've long complained that we fail to capitalize on al Qaeda's blood thirst in our information operations. Al Qaeda (as well as the Taliban and other insurgent groups) slaughters Muslims -- yet we let the media flip the blame to us.
Last weekend, a Pentagon insider passed me a no-nonsense study recently released by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. "Deadly Vanguards: A Study of al Qaeda's Violence Against Muslims" is exactly the kind of work our analysts should produce -- but rarely do.
Using exclusively Arabic-language media reports and including only those incidents for which al Qaeda proudly claimed responsibility, this scrupulously documented study explodes the myth of al Qaeda as a champion of Muslims:
* Between 2004 and 2008, only 15 percent of al Qaeda's victims were Westerners, and that number skewed upward because of the Madrid and London attacks.
* Between 2006 and 2008, a non-Westerner was 54 times likelier to die in an al Qaeda attack than a Westerner.
* "Outside of the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, 99 percent of al Qaeda's victims were non-Western in 2007 and 96 percent were non-Western in 2008."
Bravo to Scott Helfstein, Nassir Abdullah and Muhammad al-Obaidi for producing this supremely useful report. Now the question is: Will we use it?
The propaganda skills of our enemies eclipse our timid, lawyer-ridden information operations. In the Muslim world, we get blamed even for al Qaeda's proudest massacres of Muslims -- while Pakistanis blame us for Taliban suicide bombings.
As this report documents, we possess facts that could be wielded as weapons. But we're no more willing to fight an aggressive information war than we are to wage a serious ground war against our enemies.
Personally, I was astonished -- and delighted -- that this hard-headed report came out of West Point, the most politically correct major institution in the US Army, now dedicated to the proposition that killing our nation's enemies is so yesterday. Is there new hope for the stumbling Long Gray Line?
Back to al Qaeda: Our porcine intelligence system doesn't bother to ask the basic question of why al Qaeda kills Muslims so avidly. (Even conservative Muslim scholars are questioning al Qaeda's practices.)
The answer's as clear as a sunny day in the desert: Al Qaeda fully reflects its Saudi parentage. Neither the Saudis nor al Qaeda cares a whit about individual Muslims. They only care about Islam.
I've seen, in country after country, how the Saudis sacrifice the well-being and human potential of countless Muslims in order to prevent them from integrating into local societies and to promote the dour Wahhabi cult that has deformed Islam so horribly: purity matters, people don't.
Likewise, al Qaeda is happy to sacrifice any number of Muslims to promote its neo-Wahhabi death cult. The al Qaeda serpent may have turned on the Saudi royals, but their differences are a matter of degree.
Meanwhile, we imagine that our passivity and "tolerance" are virtues. We fail to capitalize on al Qaeda's horrendous record, while our government protects the Saudi-funded extremists who poison American mosques.
(Our leaders blather about "freedom of religion," ignoring the fact that there's no freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia. Can't we prohibit religious funding from states that don't themselves exercise tolerance? We're being idiotic, not virtuous.)
We continue to hear endless nonsense from Washington about how "soft power" is so much more effective than military force. OK, show us. Three good men at West Point have given us a powerful information weapon against al Qaeda.
Will our leaders have the sense to use it?
Here is the Report
H/T to Washington Post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
