Pride of Lions, Part 1

I have been working on this new series of posts (even though I have other series unfinished), but have been wondering how to introduce it. Well, hat tip to my email tipster for providing me a link that fits the bill!

We begin with Foreign Law and the First Amendment by Floyd Abrams, April 30, 2008:

Late in 1941, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion which, for the first time in our history, starkly distinguished American protection of speech from that of England.

Two union members had been convicted of assaulting nonunion truck drivers. The day before they were to be sentenced, the Los Angeles Times published an editorial urging the trial judge not to grant probation, but to punish the transgressors severely: "This community," the editorial asserted, "needs the example of their assignment to the jute mill."

Contempt of court proceedings were brought against the newspaper. California law at the time, like that of other states, was rooted in English law, under which such commentary, aimed at a judge during a trial, constituted contempt. Under English law, both then and today, such speech is punishable by massive fines or even imprisonment.

In reversing the ruling of the California courts holding the newspaper in contempt, the Supreme Court set this country on a different course. "No purpose in ratifying the Bill of Rights was clearer," Justice Hugo Black wrote, "than of securing for the people of the United States much greater freedom of ... expression ... than the people of Great Britain had ever enjoyed."

Today, there are sharp distinctions between U.S. and English law. One difference is that under the First Amendment we provide far more protection for speech that is claimed to be libelous.

There is no need for democratic nations to agree upon such matters. The values of free speech and individual reputation are both significant, and it is not surprising that different nations would place different emphasis on each.

But a serious problem has surfaced. In recent years, English libel law has come to have a disturbing impact on the right of Americans to speak out.

England has become a choice venue for libel plaintiffs from around the world, including those who seek to intimidate critics whose works would be protected in the U.S. but might not in that country. That English libel law has increasingly been used to stifle speech about the subject of international terrorism raises the stakes still more.

As you may have guessed by now, this post is about the Ehrenfeld case. This series, however, will go beyond Dr. Ehrenfeld's epic David-vs-Goliath struggle, and will address the game that is being played out, of which Dr. Ehrenfeld's battle is only a part; beyond even that, we will look at the stakes involved in this game not just for the United Kingdom, but for Europe, and even for the world.

The case against Rachel Ehrenfeld in England by Saudi banker Khalid Bin Mahfouz is illustrative. Her 2003 book "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Funded and How to Stop It" dealt at length with one of the most significant (and difficult and dangerous to research) topics – the funding of terrorism. The conduct of Mr. Bin Mahfouz as a possible funder of terrorism was one of the subjects discussed in the book, which was published in New York.

Twenty-three copies of the book were sold in England. On that slim basis, Mr. Bin Mahfouz sued there, claiming that his reputation had been gravely harmed.

Ms. Ehrenfeld (on the advice of English counsel) refused to appear before the English courts, and a judgment against her was entered in the amount of $225,000. At any time, Mr. Bin Mahfouz could seek to enforce that judgment. Whether or not he does, the harm to Ms. Enhrenfeld's reputation remains real.

This is a part of the case that never seems to get addressed.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is a competent scholar. Her work is thoroughly researched, and well-documented.

Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz has not sought to challenge her work based on its merits in an American court of law, but rather has challenged it in UK courtrooms, where the laws are very different, and where the merits of Dr. Ehrenfeld's research are not examined. Consequently, Shiekh bin Mahfouz won by default in the UK.

The fact that he has a technical legal "victory" -- however hollow and illusory it may be -- does damage to Dr. Ehrenfeld's reputation.

That Sheikh bin Mahfouz funds terrorists is a conclusion supported by a great deal of evidence, evidence documented and interpreted not only by Dr. Ehrenfeld, but by other competent scholars as well. Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz is thus a Financier of Holy Terror.

Beyond that, though, Sheikh bin Mahfouz's legal maneuverings, which were obviously intended to avoid the merits and facts of the case, have the effect, which was also obviously intended, of deterring researchers from exploring how terrorism is funded, and of deterring publishers (and others) from disseminating the results of such research.

Sheikh bin Mahfouz is thus not merely a Financier of Holy Terror, but rather, as his legal maneuverings are intended to terrorize infidels into submission, he is thus a terrorist -- a Libel Terrorist.

That so much effort is being expended to silence Dr. Ehrenfeld and other researchers only confirms the sensitivity of their work. Terrorism is portrayed as a "legitimate" means of oppressed people to strike against their oppressors; the truth is, however, that terrorist acts are diabolically criminal in their deliberate targeting of innocent civilians. Moreover, far from being a tool of "the oppressed", terrorism is in fact a tool of the oppressors -- terrorism can now not be separated from organized crime activities that fund it, so much so that terrorism is big business, and important terrorists are very wealthy men. Yasir Arafat, for example, died a billionaire -- one with enormous power over vast tracts of land via the Palestinian Authority.

Consider these quotes from an interview with Sibel Edmonds, entitled Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Calls Current 9/11 Investigation Inadequate by Jim Hogue, May 07, 2004:

JH: Can you explain more about what money you are talking about?

SE: The most significant information that we were receiving did not come from counter-terrorism investigations, and I want to emphasize this. It came from counter-intelligence, and certain criminal investigations, and issues that have to do with money laundering operations.

You get to a point where it gets very complex, where you have money laundering activities, drug related activities, and terrorist support activities converging at certain points and becoming one. In certain points -- and they [the intelligence community] are separating those portions from just the terrorist activities. And, as I said, they are citing "foreign relations" which is not the case, because we are not talking about only governmental levels. And I keep underlining semi-legit organizations and following the money. When you do that the picture gets grim. It gets really ugly.

[snip]

JH: Here's a question that you might be able to answer: What is al-Qaeda?

SE: This is a very interesting and complex question. When you think of al-Qaeda, you are not thinking of al-Qaeda in terms of one particular country, or one particular organization. You are looking at this massive movement that stretches to tens and tens of countries. And it involves a lot of sub-organizations and sub-sub-organizations and branches and it's extremely complicated. So to just narrow it down and say al-Qaeda and the Saudis, or to say it's what they had at the camp in Afghanistan, is extremely misleading. And we don't hear the extent of the penetration that this organization and the sub-organizations have throughout the world, throughout their networks and throughout their various activities. It's extremely sophisticated. And then you involve a significant amount of money into this equation. Then things start getting a lot of overlap -- money laundering, and drugs and terrorist activities and their support networks converging in several points. That's what I'm trying to convey without being too specific. And this money travels. And you start trying to go to the root of it and it's getting into somebody's political campaign, and somebody's lobbying. And people don't want to be traced back to this money.

Returning now to Foreign Law and the First Amendment:

She sought a declaratory judgment in New York determining that the English judgment was not enforceable here, and that her work was protected under American law. But the New York Court of Appeals determined that her suit could not be heard under state law. Any change in that law, the court concluded, was up to the New York legislature.

To the surprise of those who denigrate the ability of the New York legislature to act decisively, both the Assembly and its Senate have unanimously passed a bill that would give Ms. Ehrenfeld and other citizens who are sued for libel abroad the right to obtain a declaration here that their works are protected under American law.

Gov. David Paterson has until the end of today to decide whether or not he will sign the bill. Meanwhile, the Ehrenfeld saga has led Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) to propose federal legislation which would provide similar relief.

The need for such legislation has become very real – all the more so since English libel law is increasingly being used to limit public debate about terrorism. Mr. Bin Mahfouz has personally commenced or threatened to commence at least 30 law suits in England. This tactic has served him well in obtaining libel judgments that would be unthinkable as well as unconstitutional here. The danger is that other American writers and publishers will shy away from this crucial subject, out of fear of being sued far from home.

This is a reasonable concern as a good deal of litigation related to reporting on terrorism has been threatened or started in England by individuals who have limited contact with that nation, but who find its libel law congenial.

England should be free to choose its own libel law. But so should we. It is not too much to ask that American law should protect our people when they speak in precisely the "uninhibited, robust and wide-open" manner that the First Amendment was drafted to protect.

You can learn more about Dr. Ehrenfeld's case, read her work, and contribute financially to counterterrorism by funding her legal counterjihad all at her website, The American Center for Democracy.

Meanwhile, speaking of "uninhibited, robust and wide-open" freedom of speech -- and of freedom of religion -- we have the following from Are Muslim enclaves no-go areas, forcing other people out, asks historian John Cornwell, from March 16, 2008:

Allahu akbar, Allahu akbar (Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest). Ash-hadu alla ilaha illa-llah (I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship but Allah).

The call to prayer resounds across the rooftops before dawn, bringing echoes of the Levant to provincial Luton and its 30,000 Muslims. But for infidel locals, the holy wake-up is a curse. "I'd like to pull the plug on that caterwauling," a second-generation Luton Irish woman tells me. "I go to work, and I've got two small kids. It's just not fair on non-Muslim families around here."

It is not only non-Muslims who suffer. While the borders of the Islamic world are bloody and oppressive, the interior of the Islamic world is more so.

From The Gina Khan Interview - Part One January 9, 2008:

Gina Khan lives in Birmingham's Ward End. She is a British Muslim and has spoken out in the past about the problems she and her community faces from extreme Islamists. Described as "a very brave woman" in an article for the London Times, Gina will, over the coming days, be stating her experience to the Westminster Journal as a British Muslim and calling out, especially to the British Government, for help in solving the Islamist problem the West now experiences from within.

Q: So, Gina, tell us a little about yourself, your background and your motivations:

I'm a British Asian Woman from a Pakistani ethnic background; a Sunni Muslim and a lone parent. I grew up in Birmingham in the English Midlands -- in an area with a preponderance of Muslims.

I used to be a victim of psychological aggression. With hand on heart and head, I can say this was just because I was born a female into a Muslim family in the West. (Pain figures in the lives of many Muslim women because of accepted Muslim social practices. I was no exception to the rule).

Today the rhetoric you hear from extreme Islamists or the stories you read in British papers about honour killings or forced marriages doesn't shock me or many others at grassroots level. It's an old story, one that has been repeated for hundreds of years. Just that today the voices are amplified after 9/11 and there are more extreme mosques and more extreme Islamists than ever on the streets of areas like mine.

I was once one of the 'silent majority' who remained silent. I was told silent and good Muslim women are respected and honoured. I was told Islam protects and gives special status to Muslim women/mothers compared to the Western woman.

My life experience proved otherwise.

I have always had an issue with aspects of my religion and culture but was taught never to question. Now I question, seek and acknowledge the truth -- the truth as I see it, as I lived it, and as I observed it from others around me, all of my life.

I am not liked by the Islamists. I've had bricks thrown through the window and I've had family members beaten up. I've been told to move on. But I'm not budging. This is my home and I belong here. The Islamists where I live -- in Birmingham's Ward End -- are an awful scourge.

With my very first post on this blog, I pointed out that Islam is not a religion of peace, but rather an ideology of armed conquest.

Yet, Islam as practiced by people like Gina Khan seems to be very much a "religion of peace", and if the Islamic world were more fully populated with people like Gina Khan, the whole "religion of peace" question would be one very much academic, perhaps debated by people like Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld -- Islamic conquest would certainly not be a subject I would be blogging on.

Instead, in addition to the wonderful, peaceful, law-abiding people like Gina Khan, the Islamic world is also populated with barbarous thugs -- murdering, drug-running terrorists who enslave and torment their own people; criminals for whom no crime is too horrible to commit in the pursuit of their insane goal of forcing humanity to submit to the depravity of their evil god, whom they created in their own image.

Muslims -- of all kinds -- are people, and this is a story as old as mankind.

However, this story has the potential to be the final chapter of Mankind's Story.

Stay tuned to Stop Islamic Conquest as Pride of Lions continues.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away
then dumb and silent we may be led,
like sheep to the slaughter."

George Washington

Reflections, Part 2

We continue from Part 1.

From Karzai backs Pakistan's talks with Taliban:

NEW YORK, April 26: Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Saturday decried the British and the US conduct of "war on terror" in his country and expressed support for "the new Pakistani government's efforts to make peace with the Taliban".

I wonder if President Karzai supports the new Pakistani government's efforts to make peace in Balochistan?

In an interview with The New York Times, Mr Karzai said his "government be given the lead in policy decisions" and that he wanted the US forces to stop arresting suspected Taliban and their sympathisers.

Mr Karzai said he supported the Pakistani government's efforts to make peace with the Taliban there who were not a threat to the rest of the world, adding "but if the deal is with those that are hardcore terrorists, Al Qaeda, and are bent upon sooner or later again causing damage to Pakistan, and to Afghanistan and to the rest of the world, then that's wrong and we should definitely not do it."

And President Karzai's statements are right on the money.

The Taliban is not necessarily our enemy. We should be treating the Taliban with a degree of respect, and we should be open to the prospects of peace with the Taliban movement.

However, hardcore terrorists and those who continue to support them are another matter.

(Which kind of makes us wonder about US duplicity with regards to Saudi Arabia.)

In the interview Mr Karzai expressed optimism over Afghanistan's path, and said that the change of government in Pakistan could bring progress against terrorism. "We began on a very good note," he said of relations with the new government.

"I am fairly confident of their good intentions," he said.

"If the current government has the full backing of the military and intelligence circles in Pakistan and with the good intentions that they have, things will improve."

That's a big "if".

He criticised the US-led coalition forces for their conduct in the "war on terror" in Afghan villages, alleging the real terrorist threat lay in sanctuaries of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan. Mr Karzai said that he did not know Baitullah Mehsud, the militant leader accused of instigating opposition leader Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, but said he would send him some advice: "All that he is doing is hurting his own people, that he shouldn’t do that."

Mr Karzai blamed mistreatment by some warlords and US forces for driving the Taliban out of the country, to Pakistan, where they "regrouped and took up weapons again".

The problem is rooted on the Pakistani side of the frontier, and has been for years! (Even Moscow would probably agree with that.)

"Some of the warlords, and the coalition forces at times, in certain areas of the country, behaved in a manner that frightened the Taliban to move away from Afghanistan," he told the newspaper. "That should not have happened."

To be fair, we are at war with the Taliban over their harboring of Al Qaeda... but, again, we should not be foolish enough to consider this a perpetual state of affairs, especially considering that there have been recent reports that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are not getting along so well these days.

Asked about the "war on terror", Mr Karzai reiterated that sanctuaries across the border in Pakistan be closed off.

"There is no way but to close the sanctuaries," he said. "Pakistan will have no peace, Pakistan's progress will suffer, so will Afghanistan's peace and progress, so will the world's. If you want to live, and live in peace, and work for prosperity, that has to happen. The sanctuaries must go, period."

That kind of hits the nail on the head, doesn't it?

The deaths of civilians in the fighting have also been a big problem, he said. "It seriously undermines our efforts to have an effective campaign against terrorism," he said. While Nato says civilian casualties have declined in the last six months, Mr Karzai said that was not good enough.

"I am not happy with civilian casualties coming down; I want an end to civilian casualties," he said. "As much as one may argue it's difficult, I don’t accept that argument."

He added: "Because the war against terrorism is not in Afghan villages, the war against terrorism is elsewhere, and that's where the war should go," referring to the Taliban and Al Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan.

The War on Terror should be in Washington, cleaning up all the corruption and throwing in prison all the people who share with Al Qaeda the profits from jihad, especially heroin money.

Of course, President Karzai doesn't dare suggest that -- so much more so because elements of his own government are implicated!

The weakness of his own government meant that he learned only much later of some of the things that were occurring, he conceded.

He gave an example of a former member of the Taliban who was quietly running a paint shop in Kabul and had been arrested three times by US and Afghan security forces.

"We have to make sure that when a Talib comes to Afghanistan, that he is safe from arrest by the coalition," he said. "And we don't come to know when the coalition arrests them; it is a major problem for us, a problem that we have spoken about repeatedly without solution."

Like it or not, the Afghan government needs to be respected -- otherwise, it's just a puppet, and accusations of Western or American imperialism get more traction.

In reply to a question whether he could stop US forces from arresting suspected Taliban or their sympathisers in Afghanistan, he said: "We are working hard on it, very hard on it. It has to happen." The Times said that the comments came as Mr Karzai is starting to point toward re-election next year, after six years in office, and may be part of a political calculus to appear more assertive in his dealings with foreign powers as opponents line up to challenge him.

He said that civilian casualties, which have dropped substantially since last year, needed to cease completely. For nearly two years the US-led forces had refused to recognise the need to create a trained police force, he said, leading to lawlessness.

A trained police force might also impact the heroin trade -- and where would that leave so many of our officials in Washington?

Meanwhile, if Kabul wants to kiss and make up with the Taliban -- something that needs to happen somehow, sooner or later -- doesn't that indicate that the new government in Islamabad is on the right track with its softened position in Balochistan?

And, by extension, doesn't that just give us one more reason to question the Bush-Musharraf axis?

(For some late-breaking news, check out the story on the attempted assassination of President Karzai.)

More in Part 3!

Reflections, Part 1

For the first time in a while, I looked at the website of Dawn from Pakistan (see sidebar under news), and opportunely found some interesting stuff.

First up is a short article entitled Al Qaeda-linked foreigners are in tribal areas: Musharraf, reproduced here in its entire brevity, with my comments interspersed:

LAHORE, April 26: President Pervez Musharraf has said that foreigners, particularly Uzbeks and Afghans having links with Al Qaeda, are hiding in tribal areas and they carry out terrorist activities not only in the country, but are also financiers for such activities.

Addressing participants of a management course at the National Management College here on Saturday, he said the Taliban were also facilitating terror acts and had links with foreigners.

"A major threat is the spread of Talibanisation from the tribal areas to Swat and southern parts of the NWFP," the president said, adding that Pakistan today was facing internal security threats.

None of this should come as news to readers of my blog.

He said that another factor hampering the country's development was extremism, accusing the custodians of Lal Masjid of trying to impose their will by force.

He also said some elements in Balochistan like the BLA had separatist tendency, but the government would "nip their designs".

The Balochistan Liberation Army... more on the BLA below.

"We have to chalk out a long-term strategy to address these grave problems. Pakistan does not have any offensive designs against anyone and is at peace. This is its strength."

The government, he said, had tried to settle the Balochistan issue politically and through socio-economic development.

President Musharraf stressed the need for bridging the gap between policy formulation and implementation. He said it was unfortunate that every incoming government "does away with the outgoing government's policies". This hindered development, he added.

If the outgoing government's policies make sense and the people are behind them, the incoming government won't do away with them.

Otherwise, isn't it nice to have a change?

It will be interesting (and scary, considering the options) to see what happens in January of 2009.

The president said that nepotism was another menace which badly affected the government's performance. "The job of a government is to ensure security, progress and development of the country and welfare and well-being of its people," he added.—APP

Actually, it is the job of a government to ensure that people's liberties are respected, and that the rule of law is respected; it is the job of the people to ensure progress, development of their country, and their own welfare and well-being.


We turn now to focus on the BLA, reviewing excerpts from Tribes and Rebels: The Players in the Balochistan Insurgency by Muhammad Tahir:

As the violence on Pakistan's northwest frontier dominates the headlines, a lesser-known insurgency has gripped Pakistan's southwestern province of Balochistan. Bomb blasts and rocket attacks have become almost daily events in this region: A ten-week period in 2008 saw 76 insurgent-linked incidents reported, claiming the lives of 14 people and wounding 123 (South Asia Terrorism Portal: Balochistan Timeline 2008).

The troubled history of Balochistan dates back to the independence of Pakistan in 1947, beginning as a reaction to the annexation of the princely state of Qalat—later joined to three other states to form modern Balochistan—by Pakistani authorities in 1948. The annexation led to the first Baloch rebellion, which was swiftly put down. The security situation in the region remained fragile as rebellions erupted in 1958, 1973, and most recently in 2005.

Unlike previous anti-government insurrections, it is currently hard to pinpoint one person or group for orchestrating these incidents as there are today several groups in Balochistan potentially interested in challenging the government. The most immediate suspect is the Taliban, who are unhappy with Pakistan's cooperation with the United States in its war on terror. The Taliban is active throughout Balochistan, particularly in Quetta and the Pashtun belt of the province, bordering with Afghanistan.

However, despite the Islamist presence, the prime motivators of the current insurgency remain Baloch nationalists, who live in the remote mountains of the province and believe they have been deprived of their rights and revenues from the considerable natural resources of their province. The nationalists believe these revenues are appropriated by the federal government with little return to the province (Ausaf, February 7, 2006).

There's probably a degree of basis to the concerns of these Baloch nationalists.

Recall how in previous posts here (no links provided; sorry) we looked at how Pakistan was working with China to improve port facilities in Gwadar. Recall also how in our Genesis series (of which I just completed a post after many weeks of neglecting this series) we address the support from Pakistan for the Taliban movement.

A logical connection to make is that the Taliban were needed to stabilize Afghanistan so the road improvements leading northward from the Gwadar port facilities, which were in the initial stages of being upgraded in the early-to-mid 1990's, would connect all the way through Afghanistan to Central Asia, bringing Central Asian trade through Pakistan, and thus providing competition for Iran.

Of course, considering Washington's (somewhat fickle) close relationship with Pakistan, and American concern about Iranian intentions ever since the Islamic revolution there, one could be forgiven for suspecting US complicity in the rise of the Taliban, n'est-ce pas?

The Baloch claim to have been native to the region since 1200 BC. Today, there are an estimated eight to nine million Baloch, living in Iran and Afghanistan as well as Pakistan. Their language consists of three main dialects: Balochi, Brahwi and Saraiki. The Balochistan province of Pakistan is one of the important Baloch settlements in the region, located at the eastern edge of the Iranian plateau and in the border region between southwest, central and south Asia. It is geographically the largest of the four provinces of Pakistan and composes 48 percent of the nation’s total territory.

That's half the country at stake!

Though the Baloch have a long history of mistrust of the central government of Pakistan, the federal government has its own interpretation of the current tensions, claiming that the hostile situation is provoked by Baloch nationalist leaders who consider large-scale initiatives to develop the region as a threat to their influence. President Pervez Musharraf even accused the leading tribal chiefs of the Baloch tribes of Bugti, Marri and Mingal of playing a direct role in the mounting insurgency (Daily Dunya, August 25, 2006; Dawn [Karachi], July 21, 2006).

These initiatives probably are a threat to the influence of the tribal chiefs -- just as the development of trade between Central Asia and the rest of the world via Pakistan would be a threat to the influence of the Taliban, who owe their rise to a desire to provide stability to enable such trade. (!)

Skipping down some, past some background information...

Tribal Leaders and Insurgent Groups

Since Musharraf came to power in 1999 there have been other goals besides independence that have drawn Baloch nationalists together. The most influential Baloch leaders—Akbar Khan Bugti, Khair Bakhsh Marri and Ataulla Khan Mingal—have had a variety of reasons to be suspicious of the government's involvement in the area, which they viewed as an attempt to de-seat them from tribal chieftainship. Government moves have included state support to rival factions within the tribe and the deployment of military forces into the region (Bakhabar, August 27, 2006). Nevertheless, no tribal chief is ready to tie himself to insurgent groups publicly, though military sources remain skeptical that the authoritarian tribal chiefs are ignorant of who is firing rockets in their territory.

So, Islamabad is accused of destabilizing its own province of Balochistan!

Currently at least five insurgent groups are publicly known in Balochistan, including the Baloch Republican Army (BRA), Baloch People’s Liberation Front (BPLF), Popular Front for Armed Resistance (PFAR), Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), and the Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF), the last two being the largest and most widely-known.

Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA)

The BLA's political stance is unequivocal: They stand for the sole goal of establishing an independent state for Baloch in the Balochistan province of Pakistan. The roots of the BLA date back to 1973, during the period of resistance against military operations in Balochistan and the discovery of the secret NAP-led London Plan.

Again, that's 48% of Pakistan under threat of secession.

Though the movement did not become public until 2000, some sources claim that the BLA was a Russian creation and came into being during the Afghan war, propped up as a reaction to Pakistan's anti-Soviet involvement in Afghanistan (Dawn, July 15, 2006). Those supporting this claim point to the Moscow education of the alleged leader of BLA, Balach Marri, and the time he spent in Russia and Afghanistan.

Considering the Soviet quagmire in Afghanistan during the jihad -- turnabout is fair play?

The number of BLA activists is not known, but Pakistani military sources suggest that there are currently 10,000 Baloch insurgents involved in separatist activities, of which 3,000 are active in the insurgency. The government implicates India and Afghanistan in supporting the movement. President Musharraf reportedly presented a damning file regarding these allegations to President Karzai during his visit to Afghanistan in late February 2006 (The News [Islamabad], April 16, 2006). Despite these allegations and regardless of any possible outside support, the nature of the BLA's activities has a local focus, with no foreign nationals being arrested with proven involvement in the Baloch insurgency.

Of course, Islamabad accuses New Dehli of just about everything bad that happens in Pakistan.

And, Islamabad has had repeated, and somewhat justifiable, concerns about Indian involvement in Afghanistan.

Keep in mind this allegation from Musharraf of Afghan involvement.

Skipping down some in the article....

Conclusion

Regardless of the number of Baloch insurgents, the nature and scale of their activities since 2000 have marked their emergence as a major threat toward regional security, with Pakistan's new government—elected on February 18—apparently recognizing this threat. Soon after the election, the victorious politicians began signalling the adoption of a softer approach to ease tension in Balochistan. The election was boycotted by the Baloch nationalist parties in response to ongoing military operations in Balochistan that began in 2005.

As a first step to change the tense atmosphere, the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) has hinted at accommodating some Baloch nationalists under its political umbrella and has accepted their demand to stop military operations in the region. The nomination of Aslam Raisani, an independently elected Baloch member of parliament, for the post of provisional chief minister in Balochistan by the PPP is another signal directed at winning hearts and minds in the province.

It is unclear whether these policies and the appointment of Raisani as a chief minister may bring a major breakthrough, but soon after his nomination, Raisani hinted at taking a completely different approach toward the crisis from the military-based policies of the Musharraf regime. Recently he was quoted by local media saying that the so-called rebel Baloch are his own brothers and if he could not make them agree to lay down their arms, he will step down (Daily Zamana, March 9).

The question of an independent state remains a tricky issue, but some moderate Baloch voices say that independence is no longer a priority for the Baloch majority, as they are struggling to survive due to the devastating effect of hostilities on the local economy. The economic structure of Balochistan is where the future of the region begins. Involving local Baloch in the large-scale economic projects proposed for the province will be a major step in winning their confidence; otherwise there is no reason to believe that the tense political situation in Balochistan will not deteriorate further.

I have a slightly different spin on this.

The development of Gwadar, plus a road running through Balochistan (and, of course, Afghanistan) connecting Gwadar to Central Asia, would help ease the economic difficulties faced in the province. Such economic development might take the people's minds off economic concerns and allow them the leisure to drift back onto thoughts of independence? Certainly, the increased traffic through the area would further erode tribal authority and tradition, and could spark a reactionary backlash.

In any case, what we see here is definitely an example of what President Musharraf was saying about an incoming government doing away with the policies of an outgoing government, as the newly-elected cabinet in Pakistan makes a break with policies established under Musharraf regarding Baloch nationalism.

And, this brings us back to the accusation of Afghan instigation in Balochistan, only in a round-about way....

(Continued in Part 2.)

We Do This for Allah (and Our Seventy-Two Virgins)

Shamelessly copied from Highest Infidelity.

We Do This for Allah (and Our Seventy-Two Virgins)

"I have the words of the Prophet!"
The sheikh began to talk,
Explaining to us the law,
Saying "In this way you must walk!
Be good believers,
And follow these rules,
And in heaven you will have women,
Great riches, fine jewels."
"Tell us of these heavenly women,"
We asked of the sheikh,
"Whose are they? And,
How many may we take?"
"Virgins all," he answered;
"To each seventy-two.
But only for believers!
Not for kuffar, Christian or Jew.
So live your life as a good Muslim,
And do not be discouraged.
Do this now for Allah
(And your seventy-two virgins)."

We did as the sheikh commanded,
And lived as the Prophet spoke.
"But more is required,"
Said the sheikh, and I quote:
"We must spread the word;
To the nonbelievers do go!
Speak the words of the Prophet,
That they, too, may know.
But if they should not believe you,
Do not be discouraged.
We do this for Allah
(And our seventy-two virgins)."

We spoke to the nonbelievers,
But the infidels did balk!
They would not hear our words;
In our ways they would not walk.
We told this to the sheikh,
Asking "What now must we do?"
"They will submit to the sword,
Those kuffar, Christians and Jews!
And if some should escape,
Do not be discouraged.
We do this for Allah
(And our seventy-two virgins)."

So off we went,
And many infidels did heed.
But the sheikh was not satisfied;
"Of more believers we have need!
Give them then these choices:
Convert, submit, or be killed!
And have ye no fear;
You do Allah's will.
But if the battle goes to them,
Do not be discouraged.
We do this for Allah
(And our seventy-two virgins)."

Many infidels submitted,
But others, oh how they fought!
We reported all to the sheikh,
Saying "We did as you taught!"
Enraged he yelled "Go ye now forth,
And the infidels do slay!
But spare ye their women!
With them ye may play....
But if they should smite you,
Do not be discouraged.
We do this for Allah
(And our seventy-two virgins)."

"But if to Islam they convert,
Themselves your brothers they do make.
Otherwise, slay them,
And what is theirs you may take!
All the world to Allah must come,
Other religions are hereby banned!
Those are the orders of the Prophet;
That is Allah's command!
Do as you have been told,
And do not be discouraged.
We do this for Allah
(And our seventy-two virgins)."

So off to battle we went;
The infidels we attacked!
But the infidels were strong,
Their armies pushed us back.
Many brothers did fall;
The nonbelievers did win.
Angered, the sheikh said:
"This is because you have sinned!
Be ye now more faithful,
And do not be discouraged.
We do this for Allah
(And our seventy-two virgins)."

Again we attacked them,
But our attack completely failed.
Our brothers were struck down;
The infidels prevailed.
To Allah they sent us
As happy as we could be.
Although we lost the battle,
Surely Allah will see
We did as Allah commanded;
We did not get discouraged.
We did this all for Allah
(And our seventy-two virgins).

Martyred holy warriors,
In heaven we proudly stood.
We lived as good Muslims;
We spread the word as we could.
In holy battle we died;
Great was our reward!
We looked for our virgins
As we were promised before.
We never turned back,
Nor were we discouraged.
We did this all for Allah
(And our seventy-two virgins).

But the virgins were not there
To us it was explained.
Instead we were shown more infidels;
We were told to not complain!
"The infidels martyred your brothers!
Go now and settle the score.
Do not worry about the virgins;
I shall bring more.
It matters not how the battle goes,
So do not be discouraged.
Do this now for Allah
(And your seventy-two virgins)."

So off again we went
Against the infidels to battle,
And there we saw something,
And our wits it did rattle!
There was our holy Prophet
Saying "It was all a great lie!
It was not the angel Gabriel!
I hearkened to the wrong guy!
He promised us women,
And taught us to hate!
I was deceived by his words;
Now it is too late.
There are no virgins here;
Only eternal war.
All that is before us,
Is to fight, and fight some more!"
"What did you expect?"
He was answered with a grin,
"That you rape virgins in Heaven,
And kill and plunder to get in?
Deception is all relative;
And now you are all mine!
So fight and fight some more!
This is how you will pass your time,
Here with me in eternity,
Being tormented in this flame,
Because hate is my motivation,
And torment is my game!"

At this point we cried mightily,
And became greatly discouraged.
We had done this all for Allah
(And our seventy-two virgins).
But we had been mocked and deceived;
Satan had played us for fools.
We learned to hate others
And here where we were, hatred is what rules.
We began to wonder,
"Can our Creator be this cruel?"
Even more loudly did we cry:
"God save us! We are fools!"

With these words things changed;
A great light we did see.
One like the Son of God appeared,
Saying "Listen carefully to Me.
I gave you commands,
But these have not been kept.
When innocents suffered,
You should have wept.
Instead you hated,
And to the depths you did fall.
But our Father is merciful and kind;
He truly loves you all.
So another chance you will have,
But you must do as you're now told.
Love one another;
For love is worth more than gold.
Much evil you have done,
And much misery you have made.
Don't worry about that;
Its price I long ago paid."

"Lies!" from behind us
Cried an angry voice.
And then the thought struck us:
We actually had a choice!
It got deathly quiet
As we all looked around;
And, slowly, one by one,
We dropped our swords to the ground.
Our holy Prophet stepped forward,
Saying to Satan "It is through.
A terrible mistake I made,
But I knew not it was you.
Now I see more clearly;
Now I understand the choice:
Those who preach hatred
Do not speak with God's voice."

Satan's anger burned,
As the Prophet spoke to us:
"Fight the infidels no more;
Love them you must."
And to Jesus he turned;
The Prophet's words I can't forget:
"My men wish to leave this place,
If you will permit.
A further request I have,
Take from this place the others.
An important lesson we have learned:
The infidels are our brothers."
Then to Satan the Prophet spoke:
"A lesson for you: set aside your hate!
Learn how to love.
It is never too late."

Genesis, Part 14

We continue reviewing the rise of the Taliban as seen through US State Department cable traffic. The declassified documents can be found at George Washington University's website; here we review a cable dated September 6, 1995 about the situation as the Taliban forces approach Kabul and take over in Herat.

SUBJECT: AFGHANISTAN: HEAVY FIGHTING RAGES WEST OF KABUL; HERAT CALM AFTER TALIBAN TAKE-OVER

1. CONFIDENTIAL -- ENTIRE TEXT.

HERAT SITUATION
---------------

2. AFTER TAKING HERAT SEPTEMBER 4, THE TALIBAN ISSUED A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT DECLARING A THREE-DAY HOLIDAY AND URGING RESIDENTS TO REMAIN CALM. THE CITY IS REPORTEDLY PEACEFUL, WITH U.N. OFFICIALS LEAVING HERAT FOR MASHHAD -- NOT BECAUSE OF THE SECURITY SITUATION BUT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE IMPROMPTU HOLIDAY. ISMAEL KHAN, ACCOMPANIED BY BETWEEN 300-600 OF HIS FOLLOWERS, IS SAID TO HAVE LEFT TAYBAT FOR MASHHAD. IRANIAN BORDER OFFICIALS, HOWEVER, DISARMED THE FLEEING GOVERNOR AND HIS ENTOURAGE BEFORE ADMITTING THEM TO THE COUNTRY. KHAN'S RETINUE INCLUDES MEMBERS OF A NEGOTIATING BODY FROM KABUL (DEFENSE MINISTRY SPOKESMAN AND KEY MASOOD ADVISOR DR. ABDULLAH, SAID NURULLAH, AND OTHERS, ALTHOUGH DR. ABDULLAH HAS NOW RETURNED TO KABUL), WHO WERE CAUGHT BY SURPRISE BY THE SUDDEN TALIBAN ADVANCE INTO HERAT. OTHERS FROM THE GROUP, INCLUDING SIDDIQUE CHAKIRI, PRESIDENT RABBANI'S ECONOMIC ADVISOR, WERE LESS LUCKY AND ARE NOW IN THE HANDS OF THE TALIBAN.

Ismael Khan's abandonment of Herat was considered by analysts at the time to be something that would cost him his political future. However, as historical events show, that turned out not to be the case.

KABUL CONDITIONS
----------------

3. TALIBAN FORCES AT MAIDAN SHAHR ATTACK MASOOD'S POSITIONS JUST WEST OF KABUL AT COMPANY, ON THE NIGHT OF SEPTEMBER 5. MASOOD ALSO HAS COUNTER-ATTACKED THE FORMER SAYYAF COMMANDER, SHER ALAM, WHO DEFECTED TO THE TALIBAN TWO DAYS BACK. RABBANI REPORTEDLY CHAIRED AN EMERGENCY MEETING ON THE AFTERNOON OF SEPTEMBER 5 TO DISCUSS HOW THE KABUL GOVERNMENT SHOULD REACT TO THE LOSS OF HERAT. KABUL ENVOY MASOOD KHALILI TOLD POLOFF SEPTEMBER 6 THAT RABBANI REMAINS SUPPORTIVE OF A U.N./OIC EFFORT TO REACH A PEACEFUL SOLUTION TO THEIR CRISIS, AND WOULD WELCOME MESTIRI'S PROMPT RETURN TO THE REGION. HOWEVER, KHALILI ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE "RABBANI FORMULA" FOR PROVINCIAL REPRESENTATION WOULD NOW GIVE A MAJORITY OF THE SEATS TO THE OPPOSITION -- BUT HE INSISTED THAT A "FAIR" SELECTION PROCESS WOULD RETURN A MAJORITY FOR JAMIAT. KHALILI SEEMED CONFIDENT THAT THE KABUL GOVERNMENT WOULD BE ALBE TO HOLD ITS OWN MILITARILY, ALTHOUGH HE PREDICTED AN ISMAEL KHAN COUNTER-ATTACK WAS STILL SOME DAYS OFF. AS INDICATION OF THE CURRENT EXCITEMENT OVER THE FALL OF HERAT, A RUMOR SWEPT ISLAMABAD AFGHAN WATCHER CIRCLES (BOTH JOURNALISTS AND DIPLOMATS) LATE SEPTEMBER 5 THAT FORMER COMMUNIST GENERAL BABA JAN HAD SUCCESSFULLY STAGED A COUP D'ETAT AGAINST RABBANI -- A RUMOR, OF COURSE, WHICH SHORTLY TURNED OUT TO BE FALSE.

It was "predicted an Ismael Khan counter-attack was still some days off" -- to say the least; Khan was in Iran, the forces accompanying him disarmed.

ELSEWHERE...
------------

4. HEAVY FIGHTING BY JAMIAT FORCES AGAINST HEKMATYAR COMMANDER ZARDAD RAGED SEPTEMBER 5 AS THE KABUL GOVERNMENT SOUGHT TO SECURE ITS LAND ROUTE TO JALALABAD. HEKMATYAR'S OFFICIALS CLAIM ZARDAD HELD ONTO THE LATABAND ROAD, BUT ADMIT THAT CASUALTIES ON BOTH SIDES WERE HEAVY -- MORE FIGHTING IS PREDICTED. ZARDAD, MORE OF A BANDIT THAN A COMMANDER, IS NONETHELESS SAID TO BE A GOOD FIGHTER; MOST BET THAT MASOOD WOULD DO BETTER TRYING TO BUY HIM THAN DEFEAT HIM. IN JAMIAT'S HEARTLAND, BADAKHSHAN PROVINCE, PROMINENT COMMANDER BASIR ANNOUNCED HIS DEFECTION TO DOSTAM. JUMBEST OFFICIALS PREDICT THAT THEY WILL SOON TAKE KUNDUZ, BUT THE KABUL GOVERNMENT CLAIMS TO BE HOLDING ITS OWN THERE. FINALLY, U.N. OFFICIALS HAVE CONFIRMED THAT DOSTAM'S FORCES UNDER THE COMMAND OF RASUL PAHLAWAN TOOK TORGHUNDI ON THE TURKMENISTAN BORDER -- JUMBEST HAS INSTRUCTED PAHLAWAN TO AVOID CONTACT WITH THE TALIBAN AND UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES TO ENGAGE THEM.

Keep in mind Jalalabad's importance, as it sits astride the major road that leads from Kabul to the Khyber Pass, and from there down into Pakistan. A threat to the land route from Kabul to Jalalabad is very serious to any government in Kabul.



Badakhshan Province is the extreme northeasternmost tip of Afghanistan, including the little piece that juts eastward toward China.

We previously met General Dostum in Afghan Government Tries to Arrest General Dostum and General Dostum and the Heroin Trade.

5. LATE BREAKING NEWS . . .: THE PAKISTANI FOREIGN MINISTRY SAYS IT IS RECEIVING INITIAL REPORTS THAT AN ANGRY CROWD OF DEMONSTRATORS IN KABUL HAS CONVERGED ON THE PAKISTANI EMBASSY AND HAS SET FIRE TO THE BUILDING. MFA DIRECTOR FOR AFGHANISTAN, M. NAEEN KHAN, SAYS HE CANNOT GET THROUGH TO THE EMBASSY (NOT A GOOD SIGN) AND CONFIRMS THAT THE AMBASSADOR, A SECOND SECRETARY AND THE DEFENSE ATTACHE, AS WELL AS SUPPORT STAFF, ARE IN RESIDENCE IN KABUL AT THIS TIME. THE U.N. SAYS ITS OFFICIALS REPORT AN ANGRY MOB OF SEVERAL HUNDRED CONVERGING IN THE AREA OF THE PAKISTANI EMBASSY, CHANTING SLOGANS BLAMING ISLAMABAD FOR THE FALL OF HERAT. SMOKE IS SAID TO BE RISING IN THE VICINITY OF THE PAK EMBASSY, BUT THE U.N. CANNOT CONFIRM AFP REPORTS THAT BOTH THE PAK AND ADJACENT BRITISH MISSIONS HAVE BEEN SET ALIGHT, NOR DO THEY HAVE INFORMATION ON THE PRESS REPORTING OF THREE INJURED PAKISTANI OFFICIALS. WE WILL KEEP THE DEPARTMENT INFORMED AS WE GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

Now why were the crowds of people blaming Pakistan for the fact that the Taliban had taken Herat?

Do you suppose the crowds knew something?

COMMENT
-------

6. THE SITUATION REMAINS VERY FLUID, WITH INDIVIDUAL COMMANDERS ATTEMPTING TO ASSESS WHO HAS THE UPPER HAND, AND WHEN TO SWITCH SIDES. THE MILITARY SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE SHIFTS REMAINS TO BE SEEN, ALTHOUGH THEY DO ADD TO THE OPPOSITION'S MORALE BOOST. THERE ARE SOME INITIAL INDICATIONS OF DIVISIONS BETWEEN MASOOD AND RABBANI, AS WELL AS MASOOD AND DR. ABDUR-RAHMAN AND GENERAL FAHIM -- THESE MAY INCREASE AS PRESSURE ON THE KABUL GOVERNMENT MOUNTS. THE BOTTOM LINE, HOWEVER, REMAINS THAT MASOOD'S MILITARY REMAINS THE MOST CAPABLE FORCE IN AFGHANISTAN -- WHETHER THEY HAVE BEEN SHAKEN UP ENOUGH TO CAVE TO THE TALIBAN IS STILL IN DOUBT.

Out of Context, Part 3

We continue from Part 2 looking at the Chairman’s Report Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee, subtitled The Oklahoma City Bombing: Was There A Foreign Connection?

Terry Nichols and Ramzi Yousef

Lisa and Marife Torres had a Filipina friend and fellow "tour guide" in Shelton's mail order bride business named Vilma Elumbaring. Lisa claims that Vilma dated a man whose last name was "Khan" and that Marife, Vilma, and Khan were together on at least one occasion at a disco in Cebu one month before Terry Nichols first traveled there. This Khan could possibly be Yousef friend and fellow terrorist, Wali Khan, who trained aspiring terrorists in the Philippines and was later convicted of plotting to blow up U.S. airliners. According to one Abu Sayyaf (see below) member who trained with Khan, he was a master at making explosives. If the "Khan," identified by Vilma as part of the Cebu disco scene was convicted terrorist Wali Khan, that would place Terry Nichols and a Yousef ally in the same circles in Cebu City.

NOTE: The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee was unable to confirm the identity of Vilma's "Khan" because, even with the help of the Philippine National Police and the American Embassy in Manila, we could not locate Vilma Elumbaring or Tom Shelton. Additionally, the Subcommittee requested an interview with Wali Khan in Colorado’s Supermax prison, but Khan refused.

In addition to a "Khan" being with Marife's group in Cebu, a prominent member of the Philippine terrorist organization, Abu Sayyaf, made statements to investigators and police in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing. Edwin Angeles had trained at the terrorist camp in Mindanao around the time Wali Khan was there. Angeles told McVeigh defense team interviewers that Terry Nichols had met with Yousef, Khan, and Murad on at least one occasion in Mindanao in the early 1990s.

Angeles' credibility is another matter. Members of the Philippine National Police insisted to Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee staff that Angeles was unreliable. The authorities asserted that Angeles was a drug user, a likely double agent, and had made several conflicting statements. He was released from a Philippine jail in 1997 and was promptly murdered in broad daylight on a public street. His statements about an alleged terrorist meeting that included Nichols and Yousef should not be ignored, but cannot be relied upon without verification. The subcommittee was unable to find such verification.

There is no doubt, however, that Nichols and Yousef were both in Cebu City in December and January prior to the April 19, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Yousef, having successfully escaped America after exploding a bomb in the World Trade Center in February 1993, had been living in Manila with Murad and Khan. They were working on their next two part plan, Project Bojinka: a conspiracy to place bombs on twelve American airliners which would explode over the Pacific Ocean, potentially killing hundreds of Americans, and to overtake the cockpits of American airliners and crash them into buildings such as the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

Yousef decided to do a test-run of his airline-bombing plot in December 1994. He took a Philippine Airline flight from Manila where, after placing his test bomb underneath a seat, he disembarked in Cebu City. The bomb exploded on its way to Tokyo, killing a Japanese businessman. Meanwhile, Terry Nichols and his wife were in Cebu City, where Marife was attending college at Southwestern University.

In the December 1994 and January 1995 time period when Yousef and Nichols were in Cebu City, it is not known where Yousef stayed; however, items found one month later by the Philippine National Police in his Manila apartment suggest that he had either stayed at or visited the Sundowner Hotel, where Marife and Terry had met years before and where Tom Shelton ran his "tour guide" business. The opportunity for a Yousef-Nichols link-up during this time is clear. The proof, however, has not been established.

Note: Nichols hastily departed the Philippines immediately after the Yousef bomb operation was discovered and Murad was arrested in Manila. Shortly before, Nichols had arranged his reservations to leave at a later date. Inexplicably, his plans changed the day the Manila bomb plot was broken up. All this justifiably leads to speculation that the Bojinka bombing plot may have been tied to a more grandiose scheme. Had the Bojinka plot and the Oklahoma City bombing occurred in the same time frame, it would have been a spectacular worldwide attack on the American people. Evidence is circumstantial but serious questions remains.

What is interesting as you research the literature on the Oklahoma City bombing is that Nichols and McVeigh had worked together trying to make bombs, but many reports indicated their bombs didn't quite meet up to their expectations -- until Nichols finally returned from the Philippines a few months before the April 19th, 1995, bombing of the Murrah Federal Building.

The possible connection between Nichols and Islamic extremist terrorist Ramzi Yousef could explain the effectiveness of the bombing in the Murrah Building quite well. Yousef was a very adept bomb-maker, and had trained many an Islamic terrorist in his craft. The obvious implication is that perhaps Yousef trained Nichols.

Of course, there are other possible explanations for the effectiveness of the blast, as well -- but was any of this seriously explored by the FBI during the investigation?

Terrorism just can't be separated from other criminal activities, and in particular, Islamic terrorism cannot be separated from narcotics trafficking.

The heroin that the Islamic extremists sell to fund their jihad destroys infidel societies, even as it provides evidence for the terrorist leaders to point to indicating how rotten infidel culture is and how infidel society must therefore be forced to submit or be destroyed.

In light of all this, I can't help but recall the following quote from 'The Stakes Are Too High for Us to Stop Fighting Now' An interview with FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds by Christopher Deliso August 15, 2005:

SE: In some cases where the FBI stumbles upon evidence of high-level officials being involved in drug-smuggling, they're even prevented from sharing it with the DEA [Drug Enforcement Agency]. The Department of State just comes in and says, "Leave it."

You know, it's funny, after 9/11, the common criticism was that there was "no information-sharing" between the FBI, CIA, and the like, and this is why the terrorists pulled it off -- as if we didn't want to cooperate. No information-sharing? That's the biggest BS I ever heard!

Stay tuned for Part 4!

Out of Context, Part 2

First, we continue reviewing from Part 1 the Chairman's Report Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee, subtitled The Oklahoma City Bombing: Was There A Foreign Connection?

Terry Nichols in the Philippines

Terry Nichols began traveling to the Philippines in August 1990. He traveled to Cebu City with Shelton Paradise Tours, a business run by Tom Shelton and his son, Earl, who were allegedly involved in several disreputable ventures. Shelton Paradise Tours touted itself as a "mail order bride business," but apparently was also a prostitution ring. Shelton ran ads in fringe publications in the United States targeted at men who wanted to travel to the Philippines to find women for pleasure or marriage. He also ran ads in the Cebu City daily newspaper for young women who wanted to escape a life of poverty by becoming mail order brides. His Cebu City ad was answered by a young woman named Flordaliza "Lisa" Torres, who later brought her sister, Marife, into the business.

Marife met Terry Nichols on his first trip to the Philippines in August 1990 and the couple married in November of the same year. When Marife joined him in the United States a short time later, she was pregnant with another man's child. When interviewing Marife’s friends and family in the Philippines, the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee discovered that Nichols may have promised the Torres family land and U.S. citizenship, even though he lacked regular employment and had no means of support other than occasional odd jobs. Terry and his Filipina bride moved to his family's farm in Michigan, where her child was born, before eventually moving to Herington, Kansas.

Terry Nichols' Activities in the Philippines

On his first trip to Cebu with Shelton Paradise Tours, Terry Nichols was initially introduced to "tour guide" Daisy Gelaspi. They spent about four days together and, in a sworn signed statement to police and investigators, Gelaspi claimed that Nichols asked her if she knew anyone in the military or anyone else who could help him make a bomb. Additionally, on his final trip to the Philippines just months before the Oklahoma City bombing, Nichols had with him a bomb-making book entitled The Chemistry of Powder and Explosives. Nichols' interest in bomb making during his trips to the Philippines raises some doubt about whether he was genuinely there for a wife, or whether he was there to network with underground criminals and terrorists.

Terry Nichols' behavior prior to his last trip to the Philippines in November 1994 also raises questions. He left a sealed note for his ex-wife that instructed her to open it in case he did not return. She opened it almost immediately and found a letter from Nichols telling her where he had hidden $20,000 for her and their son. When asked directly about this by the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, his answers were not credible; Nichols suggested the $20,000 came from babysitting money. Nichols had also written a note to McVeigh saying "Your [sic] on your own, go for it." The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee inquired into why Nichols would have feared for his life on his last trip to the Philippines as well as where he got $20,000. Our answers are speculative at best. The money could have come from his robbery of Arkansas gun dealer Roger Moore, but this could not be confirmed. Additionally, it has not been ascertained as to why Nichols feared for his life.

Nichols' skill as a terrorist seems to have grown while in the Philippines. Initially he was an unsuccessful bomb-maker. According to Michael Fortier's testimony, Nichols and McVeigh failed miserably when they tested an explosive device in the Arizona desert just six months before they bombed the Murrah building. After Nichols' final trip to the Philippines, he and McVeigh were fully capable of manufacturing the crude but deadly bomb that was used to bring down the Murrah federal building.

This connection to the Philippines is significant. An excerpt from Islamic Terrorism in the Philippines -- an Updated Perspective helps us understand why (see original for footnotes):

The Worldwide Islamic Jihad Arrives in the Philippines

During the 1980s, Hashim Salamat joined the Arab and non-Arab Muslim volunteers fighting in Afghanistan, where he first met 'Abdullah 'Azzam and Usama bin Ladin. During that same time period MILF [Moro Islamic Liberation Front] continued to manage a guerilla and terrorist campaign against the Philippine regime. Throughout the 1990s the MILF forged ties with the Philippine organization Abu Sayyaf and with bin Ladin's al-Qa'ida, using the latter's training camps in Afghanistan and advisors that were sent to the Philippines in order to train members of the Front. In terms of numbers, it is estimated that MILF is comprised of anywhere between 8,000 and 15,000 fighters, some of which are Afghan Alumni. ⁴

In 1991, another split occurred within MNLF [Moro National Liberation Front] when 'Abd al-Raziq Abu Bakr Janjalaani-an Afghan Veteran who opposed Miswaari's moderate stance-quit the Front and founded the Abu Sayyaf Group. The group is named after Janjalaani's alias during the war in Afghanistan - "Bearer of the Sword". The Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) sought to create an independent religious Islamic state in the southern Philippines, and argued that this objective can only be obtained through the use of force. Since the 1990s, the organization has directed terrorist attacks against Christian institutions and leaders in addition to kidnappings and murders, especially of foreign nationals. ASG is considered the smallest yet most radical of the Islamic organizations operating in the Philippines, and its forces stand at approximately 200 Mujahideen, some of them Afghan Veterans and Afghan Alumni, andh an additional 2,000 supporters.⁵

Since its inception ASG has maintained strong links with other Afghan Alumni. The Group used their experiences in guerilla warfare and terror in order to intensify the struggle against the regime and to heighten its reputation among competing Islamic organizations. It also aided those Afghan Alumni that needed a base of operations to launch terrorist acts under the framework of the worldwide Islamic Jihad. The most famous example of these instances was the tie between ASG and Ramzi Yusuf, an Afghan Veteran of Iraqi origin who is considered the mastermind behind the first World Trade Center attack in New York on February 26, 1993. Yusuf, who met Janjalaani some time in the 1980s during the war in Afghanistan, used ASG's infrastructure in the Philippines in 1994 for an attempt to simultaneously bring down two American passenger airlines in the Far East using explosive devices hidden in the planes. He also planned to attack Pope John Paul II during his visit to the Philippines in the beginning of 1995. Yusuf's plans were never fulfilled, however, as a result of a fire that broke out in his hiding place, which led to the capture of an accomplice and the revelation of the plots. Yusuf escaped to Pakistan, where he was arrested in February 1995 and extradited to the United States.⁶

Usama bin Ladin intently followed the events taking place in the Philippines. Pakistani and Philippine intelligence sources believe that bin Ladin, who knew Janjalaani from Afghanistan, directed Jamaal Khalifah, another Afghan Veteran and bin Ladin's brother-in-law, to offer financial aid to Janjalaani in the summer of 1991 in order to expand his organization. According to these sources, bin Ladin later ordered Khalifah to convince Ramzi Yusuf and Wali Khan Amin Shah to go to the Philippines and train members of ASG. Yossef Bodansky and 'Abd al-Rahim 'Ali noted that bin Ladin even visited the Philippines in the winter of 1993 and introduced himself to the regime as a Saudi investor seeking to aid the Muslims in the south. As a result, he gained increased cooperation in achieving these goals. Later bin Ladin appointed Jamaal Khalifah as the man in charge of transferring the aid.⁷

It is safe to assume that bin Ladin opposed both the formal negotiations held in November 1993 between government representatives and Nur Miswaari, who agreed to abandon his demands to secede the Muslim south from the Philippines Republic, and the peace treaty signed between Miswaari and the Philippine government in September 1996, which resulted in Miswaari's appointment to governor of the south.⁸

As time passed, Janjalaani strengthened his ties with al-Qa'ida. In February 1998, he joined bin Ladin's Worldwide Islamic Front for Holy War against the Jews and the Crusaders. He was aided by the training camps of al-Qa'ida in Afghanistan and by the al-Qa'ida advisors sent to the Philippines in order to train his fighters. As such, Janjalaani held ties with Salamat's Islamic Front and continued to forge ties with radical Islamic leaders throughout the world who fought alongside him in Afghanistan.⁹

[snip]

A Hotbed for the Recruitment and Perpetration of Terrorism

The United States has called Mindanao Island and the Sulu archipelago in the southern Philippines a sanctuary, training and recruiting ground for terrorist organizations. According to Navy Adm. William J. Fallon, chief of the US Pacific Command, the Philippines, along with Indonesia and Malaysia, has served as a center for the activities of terrorists and their supporters in Southeast Asia. He added that the governments of these countries are cooperating with Washington in the war against global terror. Fallon did not say what terrorist groups were operating in the southern Philippines, but Manila previously admitted that dozens of members of the Southeast Asian terror group JI, including Dulmatin-who is linked to the deadly 2002 Bali bombings-were hiding in Mindanao.²⁴

Local military estimates placed the number of ASG terrorists operating in Mindanao at about 510 active members, with 30 JI extremists. Led by Al-Qadhafi Janjalaani, most of them are holding out in the dense jungles of Central Mindanao, offering refuge to JI leaders Umar Patek and Dulmatin who are both wanted for the Bali attacks.25 The most recent reports indicate that Dulmatin is living under ASG's protection in exchange for providing bomb-making expertise.²⁶

In the middle of March 2006 local troops captured alleged ASG weapons courier Julkaram Hadjail in Jolo and in a separate incident security forces killed several militants on the island. Security forces also recovered in early March 2006 a cache of explosives and homemade bombs near a highway in Jolo's Indanan town where troops regularly pass.²⁷

So, Congressman Rohrabacher addresses ties between the Oklahoma City bombing and a place now known as "A Hotbed for the Recruitment and Perpetration of Terrorism" -- a place now complete with someone who has a reputation for "providing bomb-making expertise."

Just like back in the 1990's, when the Philippines had someone else with a reputation for "providing bomb-making expertise."

From Cracking the Case: An Interview With Sibel Edmonds by Scott Horton, August 22, 2005:

SE: And the main media is treating it as if "here's one piece of information the 9/11 Commission didn't include." I had this press conference last summer and together with 25 national security experts. These sort of people from NSA, CIA, FBI. And we provided the public during this press conference with a list of witnesses that had provided direct information, direct information. Some had to do with finance of al-Qaeda. These are people from NSA, CIA, and FBI to the 9/11 Commission, and the 9/11 Commission omitted all of this information, even though some of this information had been established as fact. One of them had to do with certain informants in April 2001. This informant provided very specific information about the attacks. The other had to do with certain information the FBI had in July and August 2001, where blueprints and building composites of certain skyscrapers were being sent to certain Middle Eastern countries, and many more information was just omitted.

Information that just gets omitted....

Stay tuned for Part 3!

(Meanwhile, you can read what my esteemed cohort wrote about the Philippines last year: Islamic terrorism problem in Philippines by Nora, July 11, 2007.)

Out of Context, Part 1

The Sibel Edmonds case is quite captivating.

The statements that Sibel Edmonds makes -- the way she talks around things to keep from actually saying things that she is prohibited from saying by gag orders placed on her by the US government -- makes for a craft known in the trade as "Sibelology", as Sibelologists parse her words and attempt to discover the underlying meaning.

It is important to keep in mind that Sibel Edmonds has presented -- or, perhaps, has not presented, depending on how you look at it -- her information in the context of the 9/11 attacks.

However, what is interesting to me is what happens if you allow the Sibel Edmonds case to establish a context of its own. In light of what we know, what we surmise, and what we guess based on our forays into the world of Sibelology, many events in the world around us take on a whole new meaning.

I justify this exercise with the following rationale: In late 2001 and early 2002, working as a translator for the FBI in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Sibel Edmonds caught a glimpse of the underworld as seen through raw, unfiltered information at the FBI. Specifically, this information was in the languages that Edmonds speaks, Turkish, Farsi and Azeri; consequently, it tied in to foreign organized crime and terrorism, but, since the FBI was looking at it, it also tied in to events and activities involving American interests and American nationals, possibly as players, possibly as victims or targets. However, the underworld she saw was -- and is -- dynamic. It had a past, and it had a future; while Edmonds saw snapshots, the underworld was in fact an ongoing movie. Logically, then, there is more to what she saw than just 9/11-related matters.

It is in this light that we now begin a look at the Oklahoma City terrorist attack, which occurred 13 years ago, by reviewing the Chairman's Report, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee, subtitled The Oklahoma City Bombing: Was There A Foreign Connection?:

Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R - CA)
Staff Investigator: Phaedra Dugan
Press Contact: Tara Setmayer (202) 225-2415

Note: This report reflects the views of the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and its investigators, and has not been approved by a vote of the subcommittee or the full International Relations Committee.

On Wednesday, April 19, 1995, at approximately 9:02 AM, a bomb exploded in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, killing 168 people, including 19 children, and injuring countless others. Within days, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were in custody as the prime suspects and were eventually convicted of the crime. Undoubtedly, McVeigh and Nichols were responsible for this violent domestic terrorist attack, and, with the conviction of these murderers, justice was served. However, from the time of the bombing until today, questions persist as to whether others were involved. Especially alarming has been speculation that there might have been a foreign connection.

Within our jurisdictional, legal and resource limits, the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee has conducted an intensive investigation into whether there was a foreign connection to the Oklahoma City bombing. The effort focused primarily on two theories that seemed to be based on factual evidence that, if verified, would indicate a foreign participation in the bombing.

First, we attempted to determine whether McVeigh or Nichols received any help from Middle Easterners, and, second, whether a German national living at an extremist compound in eastern Oklahoma played a role. Adding credence to the suspicions is a number of credible sightings putting Timothy McVeigh with another person before and on the day of the bombing (at the time, this apparent accomplice was dubbed John Doe Two by the FBI). This report details the investigation and presents its findings, conclusions and discoveries.

At the outset, members of Congress were met with a startling development. On March 31, 2005, the FBI was alerted that a second stash of explosives was missed by the FBI in their first search of Terry Nichols' house after the Oklahoma City bombing. The tip-off included instructions on how to find the explosives which were, according to the tipster, still underneath the floorboards of Terry Nichols' small wooden framed structure. Instead of immediately checking this lead, the FBI waited. It was not until members of Congress were alerted and began to investigate that the FBI rushed forward only to discover explosives that had eluded them in their first search. This episode was serious enough to precipitate an investigation to determine what else may have been missed or mis-analyzed in the original bombing probe.

The FBI has been a fine organization. It is not perfect; it has been infiltrated by foreign operatives and by operatives of domestic organized crime; it is subject to corruption and occasional incompetence. Nonetheless, it is an organization that Americans can and should be proud of, even as we the people demand and help provide the oversight that it and any other government agency requires that it may serve the needs of the American people -- oversight that is required, lest roles reverse and we the people come to serve our government.

In the last introductory paragraph of Congressman Rohrabacher's report, we are presented with clear evidence of a flaw in the FBI's investigation of the Oklahoma City bombing. This flaw was one of many in the FBI's handling of the case. In aggregate, these flaws in the handling took on the appearance of a cover-up.

Why?

Why would elements in the Federal Bureau of Investigation cover up aspects of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil prior to the 9/11 attacks?

Let me take a quote from Sibel Edmonds out of context, and use it to rephrase my question. From Cracking the Case: An Interview With Sibel Edmonds by Scott Horton, August 22, 2005:

SE: [snip] The most important issue is: What were these criminal activities, and why instead of pursuing these our government chooses to cover it up and actually issue classification and gag orders so the American public will not know about what is going on within these agencies within their government -- and even within the Congress? [snip] I'm saying, "I came forward because criminal activities are taking place -- have been taking place -- some of them since 1997." Some of these activities are 100 percent related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, and they are giving this illusion that they are pursuing these cases, but they are not. If the case touches upon certain countries or certain high level people, certain sensitive relations, then they don't. But, on the other hand, they go and talk about lower-level criminal activity that boils down to people like Atta and Hamdi.

The Sibel Edmonds case deals with the interplay between foreign organized crime and international terrorists, and the impact of this corrupting the United States government. Edmonds dates the material she saw going back to 1997.

Of course, we know that bribery of government officials by organized crime goes back before 1997; we also know that foreign terrorists have sought to target America since well before 1997. And, we know that terrorist organizations and organized crime have been interacting since before 1997.

Continuing with The Oklahoma City Bombing: Was There A Foreign Connection?

PART I: Possible Middle Eastern Connections

There is serious, yet in some cases circumstantial, evidence that suggests a possible Middle Eastern connection to the Oklahoma City bombing (named “OKBOMB” by federal investigators):

For example, of all the cities in the world, convicted terrorist Ramzi Yousef and Terry Nichols were in Cebu City in the Philippines at the same time three months before the Oklahoma City bombing. Yousef was the perpetrator of the first World Trade Center attack as well as the mastermind behind the planning of other high-profile attacks on Americans. Furthermore, Ramzi Yousef's phone records, from the months before he detonated the first World Trade Center bomb in early 1993, show calls placed to the Filipina neighbor and close friend of Terry Nichols' in-laws in Queens, New York. The opportunity for interaction between American terrorist, Nichols, and al-Qaeda terrorist, Yousef, is evident.

One indicator that this terrorist act had broader implications came directly from Abdul Hakim Murad, Yousef's roommate, childhood friend, and fellow convicted terrorist. On the day of the bombing, Murad claimed responsibility for this terrorist act from his jail cell in New York. He bragged to his prison guards, verbally and in writing, that the bombing of the Murrah federal building was the work of the "Liberation Army." His confession was similar to the one Yousef had made two years earlier in the immediate aftermath of the first attempt to destroy the Word Trade Center. Hours after he drove a Ryder truck into the garage of the north tower of the World Trade Center and detonated the deadly bomb, Yousef called the FBI from a pay phone in Newark International Airport and boasted that the "Liberation Army" had conducted the attack. He then boarded a plane and escaped, ending up in Manila, Philippines.

Note: the Oklahoma City Bombing followed a similar pattern to the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center —a rental truck loaded with ammonium-based explosives, using similar detonation devices, based on the strategy of driving a vehicle into or near a target.

Another possibility of Islamic terrorist involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing was pursued by Jayna Davis, a local Oklahoma City television reporter. Davis did extensive research in the immediate and long term aftermath of the crime and concluded that a small group of recent Iraqi émigrés living in the Oklahoma City area helped McVeigh bomb the Murrah building. She documented multiple witnesses who placed Timothy McVeigh with a foreign-looking person (and/or persons) in the days leading up to, as well as the day of, the Oklahoma City bombing. Her witnesses offer substantial support to the theory of a Middle Eastern connection and relate directly to the existence of John Doe Two. The FBI, much to the frustration of some of its own investigators, discarded the possibility of the existence of John Doe Two, two months into the investigation. There are a number of factors, including information provided by Davis, indicating the existence of John Doe Two and a possible Middle Eastern connection.

Jayna Davis has done some outstanding, thoroughly-documented investigative reporting, and we will be considering some of her work and interviews that have been done with her in future posts. For now, please see her website for more information.

Note: at the outset of the subcommittee's investigation, former Oklahoma governor Frank Keating personally requested that the investigation be called off. During his meeting with the subcommittee chairman, Governor Keating mentioned that then-President Bill Clinton had called him only hours after the bombing. According to Keating, President Clinton's first comment to him after the bombing was "God, I hope there's no Middle Eastern connection to this."

This mindset, described by Governor Keating, may or may not have influenced the original Oklahoma City bombing investigators. There were many reasons to believe that there might have been a foreign connection. There should have been no hesitation to investigate and make that determination, even if it would have required a forceful retaliation.

The activities Sibel Edmonds saw -- or ones very similar to them -- had been occuring already for years as of the 1997 date Edmonds gives, as this quote from Cracking the Case: An Interview With Sibel Edmonds by Scott Horton, August 22, 2005, addresses:

SH: Okay, I'm going to go ahead and name some people whom I suspect inside the State Department and the Pentagon, and I suppose you won't be able to answer affirmative or negative on any of these, but I'm very curious when I read about this kind of corruption going on in the State Department, I immediately think of John Bolton and David Wurmser. Do those names mean anything to you?

SE: Well, first of all, I'm not going to answer that question at all, but also you should pay attention to the fact that some of these people have been there for a while, and some of these people had their roots in there even in the mid-1990s.

SH: So more career officials rather than political appointees.

SE: Or maybe a mixture of both.

The Sibel Edmonds case involved career officials and political appointees (as well as elected officials) going back to the time of the Oklahoma City bombing.

With that in mind, here's a quote from 'The Stakes Are Too High for Us to Stop Fighting Now' An interview with FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds by Christopher Deliso August 15, 2005:

SE: In some cases where the FBI stumbles upon evidence of high-level officials being involved in drug-smuggling, they're even prevented from sharing it with the DEA [Drug Enforcement Agency]. The Department of State just comes in and says, "Leave it."

You know, it's funny, after 9/11, the common criticism was that there was "no information-sharing" between the FBI, CIA, and the like, and this is why the terrorists pulled it off -- as if we didn't want to cooperate. No information-sharing? That's the biggest BS I ever heard!

CD: So you're saying that the whole process of sorting through the intelligence you received, executing investigations, and getting information where it needed to go was prevented by the State Department?

SE: Several times, yes.

CD: And again, because of the "sensitive foreign relations" excuse?

SE: Well, yes, obviously all of these high-level criminal operations involve working with foreign people, foreign countries, the outside world -- and to a certain extent these relations do depend on the continuation of criminal activities.

In the context of the Oklahoma City bombing:

According to Keating, President Clinton's first comment to him after the bombing was "God, I hope there's no Middle Eastern connection to this."

In the context of the Sibel Edmonds case:

SE: In some cases where the FBI stumbles upon evidence of high-level officials being involved in drug-smuggling, they're even prevented from sharing it with the DEA [Drug Enforcement Agency]. The Department of State just comes in and says, "Leave it."

You know, it's funny, after 9/11, the common criticism was that there was "no information-sharing" between the FBI, CIA, and the like, and this is why the terrorists pulled it off -- as if we didn't want to cooperate. No information-sharing? That's the biggest BS I ever heard!

Stay tuned for Part 2!

More on Hillary and Terrorists

Here's a good one -- Dick Morris: Hillary has her own terrorist problem by Jerome R. Corsi, April 19, 2008:

With the media focus this week on Sen. Barack Obama's relationship with the notorious Weatherman Underground figure William Ayers, voters should be reminded of Sen. Hillary Clinton's ties to terrorists, says political analyst and former Clinton adviser Dick Morris.

Clinton has argued Obama would make a more vulnerable general election candidate because opposition researchers are just beginning to vet his past political associations, but Morris told WND he believes Hillary is wrong when she maintains all her "baggage" has been "rummaged through for years."

Morris insists Clinton has plenty of radical political skeletons in her closet that have not been fully investigated.

It's true that Hillary's "'baggage' has been 'rummaged through for years'", but if there's more dirt on the Clintons, Dick Morris should know!

"In the 1980s, Hillary served on the board of the New World Foundation, which gave a grant to the PLO, then designated by the U.S. as a terrorist group," Morris noted.

In 1996, he added, Clinton organized a White House conference for the American Muslim Alliance.

Clinton took a $50,000 donation from the Alliance when she ran for the Senate and tried to hide it on her forms by calling it the 'American Museum Alliance, Morris said.

"Then, when it was discovered, she hesitated until a week before the election and then returned the money," he explained. "By the time Hillary gave it back, she had forsworn use of soft money in the campaign, so the donation had lost its usefulness in any event."

Writing in the Wall Street Journal Nov. 3, 2000, terrorism expert Steven Emerson identified the American Muslim Alliance as "an anti-Israeli group whose leaders have sanctioned terrorism, published anti-Semitic statements and repeatedly hosted conferences that were forums for denunciations of Jews and exhortations to wage jihad."

Emerson objected to Clinton's attempt to distance herself from wrongdoing, instead of admitting she had courted radical Islamic groups such as the American Muslim Alliance. Clinton, he said, used the White House to hold conferences so she could solicit campaign contributions for her up-coming New York Senate race.

Emerson quoted Clinton saying, "I have been part of some of those events. I have hosted some of them."

Yet, Emerson said, she tried to position her actions "as part of the administration's efforts to open lines of communication and build bridges with Muslim Americans and Muslim leaders from all over the world."

Emerson asked, "What have these groups done since Mrs. Clinton began reaching out to them?"

It's worth comparing this to Hillary's "reaching out" to the KLA, and the support she subsequently received from many in America's ethnic Albanian community. The parallel to behind-the-scenes activity related to Kosovo is interesting.

He answered by documenting a long list of instances in which Islamic groups invited to the White House by Clinton had held radical anti-Israel rallies, speeches and public meetings.

Among the examples cited by Emerson was a Sept. 16, 2000, Washington rally sponsored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the American Muslim Council and the Muslim Public Affairs Council.

At the rally, the head of CAIR, Nihad Awad, declared: "[The Jews] have been saying 'next year to Jerusalem,' we say to them 'next year to all of Palestine!'"

In an article entitled "Hillary's Terrorist Ties," written to appear on his website, Morris credits the work of WND author Aaron Klein, who in his book "Schmoozing with Terrorists" documents "how most of the Hamas leaders are fulsome in their praise of Hillary and outspoken in their hopes for their victory."

The Clintons should also be known by the company they keep -- Dick Morris, James Carville, the Communist Chinese.... (Actually, that list may be a little unfair to the communists.)

"Clearly, Barack Obama should not have stayed in Reverend Wright's church and his campaign should not maintain a 'friendly' relationship with William Ayers," Morris asserted. "But what about Hillary hosting a terror-supporting group in the White House? And her acceptance of a $50,000 campaign contribution from that group? These are far more serious connections than have been established for Obama and either Wright or Ayers."

We have seen, especially in the context of Albanian organized crime, how US policy has been steered in return for campaign contributions.

And then there's the Sibel Edmonds case.

Ayers is the 1960s Weather Underground radical who participated in bombing New York City's police headquarters in 1970, the U.S. Capitol building in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972.

Ayers served with Obama on the board of the Chicago-based Woods Foundation when the group provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network. The group's founder, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, is a harsh critic of Israel who was associated with the Palestine Liberation Organization when it was labeled a terrorist organization by the State Department.

In Wednesday's presidential debate in Philadelphia, ABC's George Stephanopoulos confronted Obama about his association with Ayers.

Obama replied, "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis."

Obama argued, "And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make sense, George."

Of course, Senator Obama was somewhat misleading regarding this matter, too, wasn't he?

Obama may not be a Clintonite, but the Democrats at the national level have been fully Clintonized, and Obama is of the same cut.

Now, it seems like the neolibs and the neocons are running neck-and-neck in the race to sell out our country for personal gain; the neocons seem to be winning only because they have controlled the White House these past few years.

Obama, Clinton and McCain -- only the details would be different depending on which one gets to the White House.