Yemen and Somalia: Terrorism, Shadow Networks and the Limitations of State-building Briefing Paper Sally Healy and Ginny Hill, October 2010 * Yemen and Somalia face parallel challenges: insurgencies, terrorism, economic hardship, and ineffective governments that are perceived to lack legitimacy. * Western engagement in Yemen and Somalia is based on a state-building framework involving diplomacy, development and defence. Yet the priority attached to security-sector interventions undermines the balance of political and economic actions needed for this approach to succeed. * There is a growing tendency among the Western policy community to amalgamate the risk emanating from Yemen and Somalia, on the basis that al-Qaeda affiliates in both countries are recruiting Western citizens, and have the potential to work more closely together. * Both AQAP and al-Shabaab have developed successful narratives around injustice that are not being addressed by existing Western interventions. * On the contrary, Western policies are contributing to a sense among some Yemenis and Somalis of being 'under attack' and are drawing them towards radicalization and militancy. * The threat of radicalization extends throughout the far-flung diasporas of Somalia and Yemen, defying efforts at containment within the two countries and requiring new thinking about stemming the appeal of radicalism at source. * Conventional counter-terrorism and counter-piracy strategies are hindered by the existence of multi-million-dollar shadow business networks spanning the Gulf of Aden. Source

The Conoco - Somalia Declassification Project College of DuPage - Geography Department - Prof. Keith Yearman Introduction: Michael Parenti on Somalia and Operation Restore Hope "Just days before he left office in January 1993, President Bush sent troops to Somalia supposedly to safeguard food distribution to its hungry people. Here seemed to be another worthy humanitarian cause. But why would Bush, who spent an entire career in public office untroubled by poverty and hunger at home and abroad, suddenly be so moved to fight famine in Somalia? Why not any of the other African countries in which famine raged? And why such an elaborate military undertaking for humanitarian 'famine relief'?" ("Against Empire." San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1995, p. 122). Perhaps the following declassified documents will help explain why Somalia was the chosen country. The following documents have been obtained using the Freedom of Information Act, and are posted online for the first time. As of now, no documents concerning the initial contact between Conoco and the US government concerning Operation Restore Hope have been made available. This initial contact came in at least 1991, as is demonstrated in "Mogadishu Assessment Mission, Oct. 17-20: Preliminary Report" (22 October 1991) below. Document Collection Conoco: "This goose laying golden eggs" "Petroleum Exploration: Conoco Searches for Oil in Somalia." Cable from US Embassy in Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 21 March 1990. Cable Number: Mogadishu 02844. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2006-01-286) to Keith Yearman. "The largest and most purposeful enterprise going on in Somalia at the present time is Conoco's quest for oil...Conoco is investing in oil exploration in Somalia on a scale unmatched by its rivals, building roads and airstrips, chartering one of the national airline's three planes full time, and sending seismic survey teams to the edge of [somaliland National Movement]-controlled territory... The benefits to all if Conoco finds oil, and the immediate benefits to the economy of Conoco's spending, whether oil is found or not, are so apparent that no one has tried to kill this goose laying golden eggs... "The most important part of the 'whole story,' perhaps, is that even if Conoco finds oil in significant amounts, there will have to be additional steps and much more investment before Somalia can benefit. The first prerequisite will be that Somalia achieve internal peace. [President of Conoco Somalia Raymond] Marchand explains to [somali government] officials that if there is no peace, then neither Conoco nor anyone else will be able to get the oil out. A pipeline, pumping station and terminal would cost in the neighborhood of UDS 500 to 800 million..." The Kott Delegation The U.S. Embassy in Mogadishu was closed on January 5, 1991, due to the security situation in Somalia. The former embassy building was heavily damaged in the following months. Somali diplomatic affairs were, in the interim, run out of the US Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. In October 1991, a State Department team headed by Bob Kott (of the African Affairs Bureau) was dispatched to Somalia to explore the possibility of opening a new, scaled-down embassy. Of particular importance are two documents concerning this delegation. In the first, "Mogadishu Assessment Mission," Conoco assured the State Department of the delegation's security. This drew a sharp rebuke from the Deputy Chief of Mission in Nairobi, Robert Southwick. The second document, "Mogadishu Assessment Mission, Oct. 17-20: Preliminary Report," stresses the role the US government should play in supporting US corporations in Somalia, "especially in the oil sector." 1. "Travel of Mogadishu Assessment Team." Cable from State Department Headquarters to US Embassy in Nairobi. 10 October 1991. Cable Number: State 336658. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-361) to Keith Yearman. The State Department announces Bob Kott will lead a delegation to Mogadishu to "assess the feasibility of re-opening a small embassy in Mogadishu. 2. "Mogadishu Assessment Mission." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 11 October 1991. Cable Number: Nairobi 24866. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. John Fox, Political Officer at the Embassy in Nairobi, spoke with a source (likely Marchand) to "assess the situation in Mogadishu as it regards the safety of the [state Department] assessment mission scheduled to arrive there next week. "Conoco, a non-[uS government] entity, has basically given the 'green light' for this mission. It is not Conoco's call to do so. Conoco's security is excellent. Their guards are well-paid and well-armed and the company's security zone is adjacent to the K-7 compound, the focal point of interest for this assessment team. In all likelihood, team members, under the Conoco umbrella, will encounter no security problems on the ground, do their business and go home. Then again, the security situation could change suddenly and dramatically (it already has numerous times since the fall of the Barre gover nment) and someone could get hurt. If the latter be the case, Conoco, which has no legal responsibility to protect USG personnel, will say 'we tried our best' and the USG is faced with both an embarrassing political and legal dilemma. A mission of this importance may warrant the use of US military or [Diplomatic Security Service] assets." 3. "Mogadishu Assessment Mission, Oct. 17-20: Preliminary Report." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 22 October 1991. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. This is a report on the Kott delegation. The purpose was to "evaluate the political and security situations and to examine available properties, in order to give the department the information required to make a decision regarding the re-opening of a small diplomatic mission in Mogadishu." "There are, at present, few American citizens in Somalia. Conoco (Somalia), Ltd., however, anticipates re-commencing oil exploration work in southern Somalia within the next several months. According to Conoco, this would involve the introduction of 50-60 Amcit employees into Somalia. If the security situation does not deteriorate, it would be realistic to project a total presence of around 100 Amcits in southern Somalia by the middle of 1992. Such a community would justify a consular presence in Mogadishu." "There are, at present, only two US firms (Conoco and Turnkey) operating in Somalia. Others, especially in the oil sector, are considering resuming operations. These firms will sometimes require the type of diplomatic support best provided by a permanent diplomatic mission. Pursuing Black Gold in Somalia The following cables demonstrate how the oil companies were pursuing Somali crude, and some of the difficulties they encountered along the way. 1. "Chevron Drilling Site in Northern Somalia." Cable from US Embassy in Djibouti to State Department Headquarters. 31 March 1988. Cable Number: Djibouti 0711. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2006-01-288) to Keith Yearman. This cable refers to Chevron's operations in Somalia. "Chevron Oil has begun exploratory drilling at the first of two sites in northern Somalia...Another Chevron employee, a Somali-born US citizen...believes the [somaliland National Movement] has taken a firm descision not [repeat] not to harass the oil operation in any way. The SNM believes the oil (which Somalis and Djiboutians apparently are convinces is present in major quantities) should be exploited for the benefit of the Somali people, particularly in the north. From a technical standpoint, that can only take place in the 1990's, when Siad Barre - and presumably his government - is gone...He believes many of the alleged terrorist incidents in northern Somalia were really the work of the soldiers themselves. Ill-fed and frequently unpaid because of the corruption...these soldiers often exaggerate and sometimes create, boming incidents and firefights in order to be able to justify more support from Mogadishu." 2. "FY-88 Security Assistance Funding Trips Up Military Review Committee (MRC) Meeting." Cable from US Embassy in Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 2 February 1988. Cable Number: Mogadishu 01297. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2006-01-288) to Keith Yearman. This cable is an overview of US-Somali military cooperation. While important militarily, the last page mentions "the capture of 2 dissidents [and the pursuit of] 3 others whose objective had been to sabotage U.S. oil drilling activities. [somali Defense Minister Aden Abdullahi Nur] attributed their training and support to Ethiopia and claimed the goal was to close down the exploratory drilling by Conoco along the Gulf of Oman. Embassy will attempt to corroborate this report." 3. "Conversation with Outgoing Japanese Ambassador." Cable from US Embassy in Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 6 February 1989. Cable Number: Mogadishu 01519. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2006-01-288) to Keith Yearman. This short cable provides an overview of Japan's relationship with Somalia, from rehabbing Somali radio stations to opening a new embassy. Of note, "Nippon Mining (Kyoto) has invested in shares of the Conoco Oil exploration project in northern Somalia, on a strictly financial basis." 4. "Travel Restrictions." Cable from US Embassy in Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 11 March 1990. Cable Number: Mogadishu 02441. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2006-01-288) to Keith Yearman. Ambassador Frank Crigler's travel had been restricted by the Somali government. During a March 7, 1990 telephone conversation, the Prime Minister guaranteed Crigler free travel. Crigler chose to "test" this policy by visiting Conoco's site at Las Anod. 5. "Winds of Peace Blowing Even in Northwest Somalia." Cable from US Embassy in Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 15 March 1990. Cable Number: Modgadishu 02658. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2006-01-288) to Keith Yearman. Crigler's report on his trip to the Conoco site. Most of the cable is dedicated to security issues, however Crigler noted: "Northwest Somalia's ace-in-the-hole may be oil. Conoco has spent dols. 16 million drilling near Las Anod, with no results so far (at 9800 feet) but they remain optimistic." 6. "Somalia Summary, Number 10 of 1990." Cable from US Embassy in Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 12 April 1990. Cable Number: Mogadishu 03595. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2006-01-288) to Keith Yearman. This overview of Somali events mentions Conoco's abandonment of its first well near Las Anod. "After repeated difficulties they managed to reach a depth of 10,750 feet before losing a portion of the drill string down the hole. Conoco Somalia President Raymond Marchand and his colleagues are disappointed that they were not able to explore potential source rock to a depth of 14,300 feet." 7. "Official Informal No. 021. Minister of Minerals and Water Resources Memcon." Cable from US Embassy in Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 9 October 1990. Cable Number: Mogadishu 08737. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2006-01-288) to Keith Yearman. This cable reports on Ambassador James K. Bishop's meetng with Abdirizak A. Elmi, Minister of Minerals and Water Resources. "The Minister indicated that he enjoys doing business with the American companies searching for petroleum in Somalia. He spoke favorably of several of their local representatives. Due to depart for meetings with the [international Bank for Reconstruction and Development] in a few days, the Minister plans to visit Houston, where he has appointments with Conoco and Pectin. Noting the bullish attitude of the American companies, Elmi said they all want the Hargesia exploration concession, as their geologists have concluded that it is the most likely site for a substantial find." A Temporary Withdrawal - Security Concerns 1. "Update of Threat Assessment - Somalia." Cable from US Embassy in Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 7 September 1989. Cable Number: Mogadishu 09512. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2006-01-288) to Keith Yearman. "Somalia remains in a medium to high threat category with a potential for becoming critical with little or no warning..." Conoco "has not reported any incidents." 2. "[Excised] Security in Northern Somalia." Cable from State Department Headquarters to US Embassy in Mogadishu. 19 July 1990. Cable Number: State 236961. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2006-01-288) to Keith Yearman. "Amoco, Conoco, Phillips, and Pecten have all contacted us recently about the security situation. Amoco said it may take out dependents permanently and expats temporarily until the drill site in Brava is ready. The expats will probably return if, as Amoco expects, the Somali government agrees to let them fly directly between Brava and Kenya." 3. "Oil Companies are Worried." Cable from State Department Headquarters to US Embassy in Mogadishu. 30 July 1990. Cable Number: State 249168. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. Conoco told representatives of State's African/Near Eastern Affairs Bureau that they were "suspending operations in Somalia as of today (7/27) because of deteriorating security in Mogadishu and upcountry...The Somali government gave Conoco a letter releasing Conoco of obligations to continue exploration at this time...Amoco tells us American oil companies will meet in Houston the middle of next week to discuss the situation in Somalia." 4. "Conoco Shutting Down." Cable from US Embassy in Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 1 August 1990. Cable Number: Mogadishu 06900. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. In this heavily-excised cable, Deputy Chief of Mission Joseph J. Borich reports on Conoco's suspension of operations "following the apparent assassination of their security detachment commander and the killing of a truck driver." Of possible importance, note the distribution list of this cable - it went to the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, as well as the Defense Intelligence Agency. Conoco and State - A Cozy Relationship 1. "Private Courier Service." Cable from US Embassy in Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 10 December 1989. Cable Number: Mogadishu 13536. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2006-01-288) to Keith Yearman. In this cable, Ambassador Frank Crigler describes how dependents of State Department personnel provided courier services for Amoco, Chevron and Conoco. An anonymous complaint brought an investigation by the Inspector General, which "found no wrongdoing." 2. "Conoco on How to Pay Our Employees." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 21 May 1991. Cable Number: Nairobi 12692. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. With the embassy in Somalia closed, the State Department was concerned with paying its Foreign Service Nationals in Somalia. A consultation was held with Conoco (apparently Marchand), in which he advised State on how to proceed - from setting up accounts with the Central Bank to the amount of time State Department personnel should expect to spend. Of importance in this cable - "Two [uS government] employees would travel to Mogadishu several days after Conoco re-occupies its offices on June 4..USG employees would be welcome to stay with Conoco and would be protected throughout their stay by Conoco's private guard service...USG employees could travel to Mogadishu either on the [Red Cross] aircraft...or by the Conoco aircraft...Conoco would probably not charge us for taking one of its regular flights...A final note: In addition to being helpful to us in every other way possible, Conoco has been giving rice, spaghetti, and powdered milk to out FSN's when they come to the Conoco office. Conoco refuses to accept payment from us for this service." [Note: See cables from May 20, 1992 and June 3, 1992 for further details on paying State Department's Somali employees]. 3. "Mogadishu Security Assessment." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 9 October 1991. Cable Number: Nairobi 24780. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. "Embassy is in daily contact with Conoco (Somalia), Ltd...During four visits by [uS government] officials to Mogadishu over the past several months, Conoco (Somalia), Ltd. has provided the following security: USG officials are met at the airport by armed guards and escorted via convoy to the Conoco residence. This residence lies in the center of a blocked-off, two square-block security zone...This zone is controlled by Conoco and is heavily fortified. USG officials move about Mogadishu as little as necessary. When they do, they are provided with armed guards. USG officials sleep and take their meals at the Conoco compound. When they leave Mogadishu, they are again escorted to the airport via convoy under armed guard. The aircraft, leased from 'Rent-A-Plane,' is in constant contact with the Conoco compound while in flight, which further facilitates security during take-offs and landings and allows last-minute changes in plan, if necessary." 4. "Conoco Phasing Out Mogadishu Office, Will Work From Garoe." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 18 February 1992. Cable Number: Nairobi 03944. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. Conoco "has ceased staffing its Mogadishu office with expatriates, according to Raymond Marchand, president of Conoco (Somalia)...Conoco, the only U.S. firm that kept its Mogadishu office open during the turbulent past year, finally despaired of stability and government returning to the capital anytime soon...All USG employees travelling to Mogadishu in the past year have stayed with and been protected by Conoco." This is was also released as Document R01, from the Department of State's Bureau of African Affairs. 5. "Request for Travel to Mogadishu to Pay FSN Employees." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 20 May 1992. Cable Number: Nairobi 11635. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. Discusses efforts of State Department to pay Somali nationals who were employed by the US government. The political officer, John Fox, "would travel into Mogadishu aboard either a Conoco aircraft or a relief flight. He would stay at the well-guarded compound of Conoco (Somalia), Ltd." See "Approval on Fox Travel to Mogadishu to Pay FSNs" (3 June 1992) for response. 6. "Approval on Fox Travel to Mogadishu to Pay FSNs." Cable from State Department Headquarters to US Embassy in Nairobi. 3 June 1992. Cable Number: State 175303. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. Washington approves Fox's travel to Mogadishu for June 8-11, 1992. See "Request for Travel to Mogadishu to Pay FSN Employees" (20 May 1992) for initial request. 7. "Former FSNs Paid in Mogadishu." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 12 June 1992. Cable Number: Nairobi 13356. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. Discusses Fox's trip to Mogadishu, describes Osman Atto at being "most helpful." See London 00133 ( "TFS001: More on Somali Perceptions vs. the Facts of Operation Restore Hope," 5 January 1993) for more on Atto. 8. "Somalia Security Assessment." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 2 October 1992. Cable Number: Nairobi 22214. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. Discusses debriefing of Fox conducted 28 September. Fox "observed no anti-American sentiment...U.S. personnel have the ability to communicta (sic) via satelite telephones provided by Conoco...There is some thought being given in the department to opening an office in Mogadishu for the coordination of U.S. relief efforts. The office would probably be leased from Conoco." 9. "Opening of U.S. Liaison Office in Somalia." Cable from U.S. Embassy in Nairobi (Regional Information Management Center) to State Department Headquarters. 4 December 1992. Cable Number: Nairobi 26851. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. Announces creation of a U.S. liaison office in Mogadishu, and that a "temporary office may be established at the Conoco compound if possible." [The US leased the Conoco compound, a villa, and had interest in an apartment complex known as K-7.] 10. "Somalia: Deployment Instructions for Ambassador Oakley." Cable from State Department Headquarters. 8 December 1992. Cable Number: State 390758. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. Copy of cable originally sent 4 December 1992 to US Embassy, Addis Ababa. Gives orders to Robert Oakley to "proceed immediately to Mogadishu to establish yourself as the chief United States government representative in Somalia. Your establishment will be called the United States Liaison Office." Also note, "Department is working with Conoco. Rene Marchand, to secure their compound for your use. Conoco is willing but there may be some difficulties in actually getting set up right way." This cable was forwarded to U.S. Central Command Headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base. 11. "Financial Support for Mogadishu - Update No. 1." Cable from State Department Headquarters to U.S. Embassy in Nairobi. 11 December 1992. Cable Number: State 399037. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. "Our initial thought is to establish a contract with Conoco at some fixed amount per person for lodging and food." 12. "FBO Funding for Mogadishu - 2562." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 24 December 1992. Cable Number: Nairobi 28472. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. "Administrative officer in Mogadishu has neotiated a lease for the Conoco compound for six months at dols 41,260." A villa was also leased for $36,000. Raymond Marchand, President of Conoco Somalia 1. "Views of an Old Africa Hand." Cable from US Embassy in Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 30 September 1990. Cable Number: Mogadishu 08487. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2006-01-288) to Keith Yearman. Conoco Somalia's President, Raymond Marchand, met with Ambassador James K. Bishop to discuss the security situation in Somalia. "[He] took his family out of Somalia in August because he decided the Siad regime could not last much longer and that its demise probably would be chaotic. [He] closed down Conoco's field operations in northern Somalia at the same time, because insurgent activity in the country side [sic] made it impossible to transport necessary supplies to the site where the company was preparing to drill its third well...He feels the current government will be overthrown by the end of the year." 2. "Your Meeting with Raymond Marchand, President of CONOCO Somalia, April 2, at 2:30 p.m." Letter from Martin L. Cheses, Bureau of African and Near Eastern Affairs, to Herman J. Cohen. 31 March 1992. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. This letter is a briefing for a meeting between Raymond Marchand and Cohen. "...Marchand, in contrast to almost everyone else, has some optimistic thoughts about Somalia." 3. "TSF001 - Letter to Conoco." Cable from US Liaison Office Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 15 December 1992. Cable Number: Mogadishu 000004. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. Oakley writes to Brandon Grove, leader of an interagency task force on Somalia, to "arrange a letter of appreciation from President Bush to the president of Conoco for the tremendous support that Conoco as a corporation and Raymond Marchand as an individual have provided here." This document was forwarded to the United States Delegation as State 403689 on 16 December 1992. 4. "Situation in Somalia: Conoco Ready to Return." Cable from US Embassy in Djibouti to State Department Headquarters. 14 April 1991. Cable Number: Djibouti 00976. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. Entitled "Situation in Somalia: Conoco Ready to Return," Conoco personnel noted a "stable" security situation in northern Somalia. In an apparent reference to Conoco Somalia's President Raymond Marchand, "he would be happy to take Djibouti [embassy officers], Mogadishu [political officer] John Fox, or other American officials with him on his next trip to Berbera." In this briefing of Djibouti embassy officials, Marchand described a recent trip to northern Somalia. In Berbera, "the SNM has succeeded to a great degree in disarming the population and has established a rudimentary justice system which sounds like something from the Old West: Murder, armed robbery and certain other 'weapons offenses' are capital crimes, and several executions have occurred. The frontier justice system seems to be working..." 5. "Condition of IPAC Facilities in Berbera." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 15 April 1991. Cable Number: Nairobi 09509. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. The Navy and IPAC had previously been quite active in the city of Berbera. Marchand, upon returning from his trip to Berbera, informed the State Department that the US government residences in Berbera had "been looted of all furniture and are in need of a thorough cleaning..[but he] gave no information on the condition of the fuel storage and pumping equipment in Berbera." 6. "TFS001: ETA - Admoff Swenson." Cable from US Liaison Office Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 26 December 1992. Cable Number: Mogadishu 000068. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. Oakley describes Conoco representative Raymand Marchand as "one of our major supporters to our reentry into Mogadishu." Also, "this would be an ideal opportunity to work out future arrangements in continuing to occupy Conoco's compound and its resources." Conoco's Role in Reconcilliation 1. "SNM to Propose Federation." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 18 June 1991. Cable Number: Nairobi 14987. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. The Somaliland National Movement was preparing a proposal to form a federation with the Ali Mahdi government in Mogadishu. The source of this information apparently came from within Conoco. Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 19 June 1991. Cable Number: Nairobi 15103. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. A source (a Conoco employee) reported fighting in Mogadishu on June 16 and 17. The fighting "involved some heavy guns" and "was serious enough to force the closure of the Ministry of Mineral Resources on June 17 and to scare bus traffic off the streets...[The political officer] was able to hear sounds of automatic weapons firing over the telephone." 2. "Somali National Reconciliation Conference: An Organizer's Views on Next Steps." Cable from US Embassy in Djibouti to State Department Headquarters. 20 June 1991. Cable Number: Djibouti 01559. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. This cable discusses reconciliation conferences. The US government was asked to "play a greater role in the reconciliation process." Conferees sent a message to the Europeans. As Ambassador Barrett reported, "One element of this message is said to be a reference to a possible future request for international military intervention for the purpose of disarming tribal militias and restoring order..." Concerning Conoco, Barrett's source "claims to have seen an internal document of Conoco (Somalia), which states that sites in the Garoe-Las Anod area are capable of producing 300,000 barrels of oil per day. Conoco's drilling rig near Garoe is, we understand, technically outside the boundaries of former British Somaliland. However, if the presence of large quantities of oil is confirmed, the bulk of the Somali oilfield will probably lie under soil controlled by the SNM. A confirmed strike could pre-empt moves toward reconciliation by making it appear more likely to northerners that the 'Somaliland Republic' is a viable economic entity. It could also set off battles between clans for control of land where drilling is expected." Miscellaneous Documents 1. "[Excised] Security in Northern Somalia." Cable from US Embassy in Djibouti to State Department Headquarters. 13 April 1991. Cable Number: Djibouti 00967. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. Ambassador Robert S. Barrett reported on a visit by Conoco personnel to the Somali cities of Berbera, Hargeisa and Garoe. The Somaliland National Movement were reportedly "anxious to have 'visitors from the State Department,' and that any Americans traveling to northern Somalia would be met 'with open arms.'" 2. "Somalia Weekly Wrap-Up No. 15." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 13 June 1991. Cable Number: Nairobi 14783. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. A weekly overview of the situation in Somalia; apparently a source in the redacted portions of the document was connected to Conoco. 3. "Mogadishu Daily Report for 9/30/9L." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 1 October 1991. Cable Number: Nairobi 23995. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. "Conoco (Somalia), Ltd. expatriate employees returned to Somalia today. After visiting their rig site in Garoe and stopping for one day in Hargeisa, they will re-open their offices in Mogadishu." 4. "Guidance for Personnel Travelling to Mogadishu" [sic]. Cable from US Liaison Office Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 20 December 1992. Cable Number: Mogadishu 000029. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. This cable provides a travel guide for incoming personnel regarding food and vaccinations. Source

How political Islam is winning the war for talent (and gaining a competitive edge) In 2009 the Muslim Brotherhood's Supreme Guide Mohammed Mehdi Akef voluntarily stepped aside -- the first time a top leader in the movement had voluntarily resigned before reaching death's door. His message, as Michele Dunne of the Carnegie Endowment describes it, was that ‘we old guys need to step aside -- I'm going to set an example.' This month Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Akef's counterpart in the ruling establishment, hinted he would run for a third term in office next year, extending his three decade rule. Akef's resignation was the high note in a pitch that Islamist groups have repeatedly made: that they are more internally democratic and dynamic than their secular counterparts. It's a cultivated image that glosses over a deeply flawed system, one that can be just as autocratic and hostile to new ideas. But it is giving Islamist groups a competitive edge, especially in attracting and retaining a new generation of talented members. Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood are the sharpest examples: they recruit young, smart entry-level members, sort them according to interest and expertise, and, in some cases, allow them to rise the ranks, with an emphasis on ideological purity and a populist touch. Through an internal political Darwinism, the process produced leaders who've have been able to outsmart and outmaneuver their secular rivals. It has also energized the lower ranks, where young volunteers then help run rallies, canvass for elections, or take up arms. ‘An educated, politically interested young person from some secondary Egyptian city would certainly be attracted to the Muslim Brotherhood over the NDP,' said Steven Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations. ‘It is clear that is where the political dynamism is.' I tested the idea with Ramy Raoof, a 23-year-old digital activist from Egypt's Al Minya province. I asked whether he and his contemporaries -- middle class recent college graduates -- were attracted to the Muslim Brotherhood's mix of ideology, social services, and opportunity for engagement. He steered away from the movement and into an NGO on human rights. But his friends were attracted by the Muslim Brotherhood's pitch. "The Brotherhood is getting more young people to join them by offering different things," Raoof told me. Those things include college fees, cheap textbooks, and money to defray the cost of getting married. "But they'll also say, ‘Come join us and we will make you general manager of this, or head counselor of that. Some sexy title,'" Raoof explained. "It's part of how they attract people. Some people are looking forward to being leaders, and the Brotherhood use these kind of opportunities to get people to join. " In Raoof and others there is evidence that political Islam is winning the war for talent, attracting a greater share of the young, smart, and politically inclined than the secular establishment. It's partly because for decades, Islamist groups have been the most viable opposition, harnessing public frustration and outlasting secular leftists who've been stamped out by the regime. As the primary opposition, Islamists have been driven by necessity to attract and make room for entry-level activists, who in turn boost their claims of popular legitimacy. April 6 and Mohammed El Baradei's National Association for Change are adopting some of the same grassroots tactics and attracting some of the young political talent. But the Muslim Brotherhood has a long lead and an enormous base -- part of the reason Baradei has partnered with them to get his movement off the ground. To say that political Islam may be winning the war for talent requires a working definition of ‘talent.' I don't mean the MBAs and Ivy League graduates, who'd likely find a place in the ruling establishment (in part because they often come from it). I am thinking of the Ramy Raoofs, the dynamic twenty-somethings with ideas and energy but no discernable ‘wastah,' or connections into the power elite. They are the majority by number, and their hearts and minds are in play. Where they land says much about the momentum and future direction of the Arab polity. Here, attracting ‘talent' means attracting focused, capable support. Hezbollah has built itself on that kind of ‘talent.' While it filters doctors into its hospitals and teachers into its schools, in key roles it values street smarts, battle smarts, and emotional intelligence over formal qualifications. Alastair Crooke, a former British diplomat considered close to Hezbollah, says that during the 2006 war their units were led by men in their early 20s, making decisive moves on a largely autonomous basis. Crooke says they are selecting for young people who were ‘very knowledgeable and very self-effacing. It's not like ticking the box -- have you taken this course, have you had this degree? It's the ability to cast a spell, to cast a web, to have people follow you.' But Lebanon, as usual, is a complicated case study. Within its sectarian system young talents generally stick to their own religious party -- Shiites to Hezbollah or Amal, Maronite Christians to the Lebanese Forces or Phalange, etc. Their bonds of allegiance may be stronger, because they are bonds of faith and ideology. But there is a limit to individual participation in that talent can rise, but the top spot is often held for scions of a political family. There are alternative outlets for activist energy, like civil society groups that promote culture, environmentalism, and the movement for a secular Lebanon. But when it comes to the major political parties, young upstarts are largely locked out. One way Islamist groups have tapped in to that base is by creating diverse ways to participate; you can be a cleric in Hezbollah or attend one of its rallies in a miniskirt; you can lead your local branch of the Muslim Brotherhood or just collect signatures; you can join the volunteer police corps run by Hamas. That kind of easy-to-reach participation cements support and helps new recruits take the first step into their circle. But once in the system, can fresh faces really rise into leadership? That's where the system gets stuck. In terms of real meritocracy, Islamists political movements have many of the same deficiencies as the secular establishment: they are largely autocratic, manipulated through patronage and often intolerant of dissent. 'There's still a complaint that the younger generation don't feel they have a chance,' said Carnegie's Michele Dunne. '‘[it can be] the leader for life phenomenon, undemocratic internal procedures, gerentocracies with old men holding onto their seats forever.' Yet Islamists maintain a perceived meritocracy, along with a real opportunity to participate at the low- and mid-level. That gives them a strategic advantage in attracting and retaining many of the region's brightest and most dedicated minds. Having that human capital makes them better equipped and more resilient as the political forces of the Arab world collide. Lara Setrakian is an ABC News reporter.

It's the Occupation, nacassyahow Extensive research into the causes of suicide terrorism proves Islam isn't to blame -- the root of the problem is foreign military occupations. BY ROBERT A. PAPE October 22, 2010 "Foreign Policy" -- -Although no one wants to talk about it, 9/11 is still hurting America. That terrible day inflicted a wound of public fear that easily reopens with the smallest provocation, and it continues to bleed the United States of money, lives, and goodwill around the world. Indeed, America's response to its fear has, in turn, made Americans less safe and has inspired more threats and attacks. In the decade since 9/11, the United States has conquered and occupied two large Muslim countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), compelled a huge Muslim army to root out a terrorist sanctuary (Pakistan), deployed thousands of Special Forces troops to numerous Muslim countries (Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, etc.), imprisoned hundreds of Muslims without recourse, and waged a massive war of ideas involving Muslim clerics to denounce violence and new institutions to bring Western norms to Muslim countries. Yet Americans still seem strangely mystified as to why some Muslims might be angry about this situation. In a narrow sense, America is safer today than on 9/11. There has not been another attack on the same scale. U.S. defenses regarding immigration controls, airport security, and the disruption of potentially devastating domestic plots have all improved. But in a broader sense, America has become perilously unsafe. Each month, there are more suicide terrorists trying to kill Americans and their allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Muslim countries than in all the years before 2001 combined. From 1980 to 2003, there were 343 suicide attacks around the world, and at most 10 percent were anti-American inspired. Since 2004, there have been more than 2,000, over 91 percent against U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries. Yes, these attacks are overseas and mostly focused on military and diplomatic targets. So too, however, were the anti-American suicide attacks before 2001. It is important to remember that the 1995 and 1996 bombings of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen were the crucial dots that showed the threat was rising prior to 9/11. Today, such dots are occurring by the dozens every month. So why is nobody connecting them? U.S. military policies have not stopped the rising wave of extremism in the Muslim world. The reason has not been lack of effort, or lack of bipartisan support for aggressive military policies, or lack of funding, or lack of genuine patriotism. No. Something else is creating the mismatch between America's effort and the results. For nearly a decade, Americans have been waging a long war against terrorism without much serious public debate about what is truly motivating terrorists to kill them. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, this was perfectly explicable -- the need to destroy al Qaeda's camps in Afghanistan was too urgent to await sober analyses of root causes. But, the absence of public debate did not stop the great need to know or, perhaps better to say, to "understand" the events of that terrible day. In the years before 9/11, few Americans gave much thought to what drives terrorism -- a subject long relegated to the fringes of the media, government, and universities. And few were willing to wait for new studies, the collection of facts, and the dispassionate assessment of alternative causes. Terrorism produces fear and anger, and these emotions are not patient. A simple narrative was readily available, and a powerful conventional wisdom began to exert its grip. Because the 9/11 hijackers were all Muslims, it was easy to presume that Islamic fundamentalism was the central motivating force driving the 19 hijackers to kill themselves in order to kill Americans. Within weeks after the 9/11 attacks, surveys of American attitudes show that this presumption was fast congealing into a hard reality in the public mind. Americans immediately wondered, "Why do they hate us?" and almost as immediately came to the conclusion that it was because of "who we are, not what we do." As President George W. Bush said in his first address to Congress after the 9/11 attacks: "They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." Thus was unleashed the "war on terror." The narrative of Islamic fundamentalism did more than explain why America was attacked and encourage war against Iraq. It also pointed toward a simple, grand solution. If Islamic fundamentalism was driving the threat and if its roots grew from the culture of the Arab world, then America had a clear mission: To transform Arab societies -- with Western political institutions and social norms as the ultimate antidote to the virus of Islamic extremism. This narrative had a powerful effect on support for the invasion of Iraq. Opinion polls show that for years before the invasion, more than 90 percent of the U.S. public believed that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction (WMD). But this belief alone was not enough to push significant numbers to support war. What really changed after 9/11 was the fear that anti-American Muslims desperately wanted to kill Americans and so any risk that such extremists would get weapons of mass destruction suddenly seemed too great. Although few Americans feared Islam before 9/11, by the spring of 2003, a near majority -- 49 percent -- strongly perceived that half or more of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims were deeply anti-American, and a similar fraction also believed that Islam itself promoted violence. No wonder there was little demand by congressional committees or the public at large for a detailed review of intelligence on Iraq's WMD prior to the invasion. The goal of transforming Arab societies into true Western democracies had powerful effects on U.S. commitments to Afghanistan and Iraq. Constitutions had to be written; elections held; national armies built; entire economies restructured. Traditional barriers against women had to be torn down. Most important, all these changes also required domestic security, which meant maintaining approximately 150,000 U.S. and coalition ground troops in Iraq for many years and increasing the number of U.S. and Western troops in Afghanistan each year from 2003 on. Put differently, adopting the goal of transforming Muslim countries is what created the long-term military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, the United States would almost surely have sought to create a stable order after toppling the regimes in these countries in any case. However, in both, America's plans quickly went far beyond merely changing leaders or ruling parties; only by creating Western-style democracies in the Muslim world could Americans defeat terrorism once and for all. There's just one problem: We now know that this narrative is not true. New research provides strong evidence that suicide terrorism such as that of 9/11 is particularly sensitive to foreign military occupation, and not Islamic fundamentalism or any ideology independent of this crucial circumstance. Although this pattern began to emerge in the 1980s and 1990s, a wealth of new data presents a powerful picture. More than 95 percent of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation, according to extensive research that we conducted at the University of Chicago's Project on Security and Terrorism, where we examined every one of the over 2,200 suicide attacks across the world from 1980 to the present day. As the United States has occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, which have a combined population of about 60 million, total suicide attacks worldwide have risen dramatically -- from about 300 from 1980 to 2003, to 1,800 from 2004 to 2009. Further, over 90 percent of suicide attacks worldwide are now anti-American. The vast majority of suicide terrorists hail from the local region threatened by foreign troops, which is why 90 percent of suicide attackers in Afghanistan are Afghans. Israelis have their own narrative about terrorism, which holds that Arab fanatics seek to destroy the Jewish state because of what it is, not what it does. But since Israel withdrew its army from Lebanon in May 2000, there has not been a single Lebanese suicide attack. Similarly, since Israel withdrew from Gaza and large parts of the West Bank, Palestinian suicide attacks are down over 90 percent. Some have disputed the causal link between foreign occupation and suicide terrorism, pointing out that some occupations by foreign powers have not resulted in suicide bombings -- for example, critics often cite post-World War II Japan and Germany. Our research provides sufficient evidence to address these criticisms by outlining the two factors that determine the likelihood of suicide terrorism being employed against an occupying force. The first factor is social distance between the occupier and occupied. The wider the social distance, the more the occupied community may fear losing its way of life. Although other differences may matter, research shows that resistance to occupations is especially likely to escalate to suicide terrorism when there is a difference between the predominant religion of the occupier and the predominant religion of the occupied. Religious difference matters not because some religions are predisposed to suicide attacks. Indeed, there are religious differences even in purely secular suicide attack campaigns, such as the LTTE (Hindu) against the Sinhalese (Buddhists). Rather, religious difference matters because it enables terrorist leaders to claim that the occupier is motivated by a religious agenda that can scare both secular and religious members of a local community -- this is why Osama bin Laden never misses an opportunity to describe U.S. occupiers as "crusaders" motivated by a Christian agenda to convert Muslims, steal their resources, and change the local population's way of life. The second factor is prior rebellion. Suicide terrorism is typically a strategy of last resort, often used by weak actors when other, non-suicidal methods of resistance to occupation fail. This is why we see suicide attack campaigns so often evolve from ordinary terrorist or guerrilla campaigns, as in the cases of Israel and Palestine, the Kurdish rebellion in Turkey, or the LTTE in Sri Lanka. One of the most important findings from our research is that empowering local groups can reduce suicide terrorism. In Iraq, the surge's success was not the result of increased U.S. military control of Anbar province, but the empowerment of Sunni tribes, commonly called the Anbar Awakening, which enabled Iraqis to provide for their own security. On the other hand, taking power away from local groups can escalate suicide terrorism. In Afghanistan, U.S. and Western forces began to exert more control over the country's Pashtun regions starting in early 2006, and suicide attacks dramatically escalated from this point on. The research suggests that U.S. interests would be better served through a policy of offshore balancing. Some scholars have taken issue with this approach, arguing that keeping boots on the ground in South Asia is essential for U.S. national security. Proponents of this strategy fail to realize how U.S. ground forces often inadvertently produce more anti-American terrorists than they kill. In 2000, before the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, there were 20 suicide attacks around the world, and only one (against the USS Cole) was directed against Americans. In the last 12 months, by comparison, 300 suicide attacks have occurred, and over 270 were anti-American. We simply must face the reality that, no matter how well-intentioned, the current war on terror is not serving U.S. interests. The United States has been great in large part because it respects understanding and discussion of important ideas and concepts, and because it is free to change course. Intelligent decisions require putting all the facts before us and considering new approaches. The first step is recognizing that occupations in the Muslim world don't make Americans any safer -- in fact, they are at the heart of the problem. Robert A. Pape teaches at the University of Chicago and is co-author, with James K. Feldman, of Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It.

How many Somalis would've been living today if Ethiopia never supported our warlords with weapons? How many Somalis would've been living today if the USA never empowered Ethiopia to invade Somalia on its behalf? How many Somalis would've been living today if the African Union never contracted Ugandans to take crimes against humanity from where the Ethiopian proxy army have left the job? Isn't time to sue these politicians for war crimes?, Melez Zenawi, TFG warlords, Ugandan mercenaries, and their American mentors?

Israel is Relieved Not to be The Only War Criminal The voice of joy, the voice of rejoicing is heard in Israel: The Americans and British have also committed for war crimes, not only us. By Gideon Levy October 26, 2010 " Haaretz" - -The voice of joy, the voice of rejoicing is heard in Israel: The Americans and British have also committed for war crimes, not only us. WikiLeaks' revelations have inflamed all our noisy propagandists: Where is Goldstone, they rejoiced, and what would he have said? They were relieved. If the Americans are allowed to do it, so are we. Indeed, the Americans are not allowed, and neither are we. When the traffic police stop a driver for speeding, the argument that "others do it" will not help him. When Richard Goldstone exposes war crimes in Gaza, the claim that "everyone does it" will not help us. Not everyone does it, and when they do, they should be excoriated and penalized. According to the logic of Israeli propagandists, some of whom are disguised as journalists, Israel should now proudly look at the rest of the world: They killed more people there. There is no need to improve prison conditions in Israel - in China the situation is much worse; there is no need to upgrade health services - in America 50 million people have no insurance; no need to reduce the gap between rich and poor - in Mexico it is greater; we can continue to assassinate without trial - the British also do it; human rights are protected here - the Iranians are much worse; Israel has no corruption - look what's happening in Africa; the United States has the death penalty - let's have it too; it is even permissible to kill dissident journalists - look at the Russians. Yes, war is cruel, the world is full of crimes and injustice, but not one of them exonerates Israel, even if Israel's sins seem pure as snow compared to those of the great United States. Now is the time to sharply censure America, not to forgive Israel. It is the task of all patriots and people of conscience to express their fury over any such revelations, especially, of course, in their own country. Israelis must aspire to a more just and much more law-abiding country, without reference to what is going on in the world. True, we are not the worst; far from it. The number of civilians killed in Iraq, as was revealed, is a thousand times more horrific than the number killed in Gaza. So what? Even if the world holds us to a harsher standard, our hands do not become any cleaner. The world is more strict with us for various reasons, some justified, and at the same time treats us favorably and turns a blind eye to many other things. And in any case, the determining factor should be what we see in the mirror, if we look at it honestly. Our rejoicing propagandists have changed their tactics now: no longer "the most moral army in the world," a contention any reasonable person can see is ridiculous. Now they say: "We are terrible, like all the rest." That claim does not hold water, especially because Israel is not judged only by one or another of its military operations, but by its decades-long occupation, with no end in sight. Such a lengthy occupation is unparalleled in the modern world and a disgrace to Israel, no matter what America is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. WikiLeaks has proven that in the end the truth will out; it is hard to hide anything in this era. Goldstone also showed it, albeit much less dramatically. Some two years after Operation Cast Lead, even the Israel Defense Forces is still dealing with it here and there, investigating and trying officers and soldiers who did what the Goldstone report, which so infuriated Israel, said they did. Israel should thank Goldstone, and America should thank Julian Assange. Their revelations prove the futility of war and its crimes. Imagine how much hatred America has sown in Iraq, with its thousands of mourning families, and how much hatred Israel has sown in Gaza, with its thousands of mourning families and its ruination. How futile are all the assassinations and the torture, abuse and false arrests, with Iraq and Gaza looking as they do. What are we brandishing? More than 100,000 dead in a terrible, useless war, the whim of a democratic leader? True, George W. Bush should now be sent to The Hague. But the fact that others are doing it, as Assange's revelations show, is the consolation of fools, and theirs alone.

A Worse Record Than Saddam's It could fuel terrorism, recruitment into jihadi cells, suicide bombers and ugly attitudes towards the West. But keeping the stories hidden was always wrong By Yasmin Alibhai-Brown October 26, 2010 "The Independent" - -Bad boy Julian Assange, the pretty, blondish founder of the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks was hugely admired when he uncovered oppressors and political chicanery in places like China and Kenya, but now he takes on Western duplicity and crimes. Can't have that. This spawn of Beelzebub, say our masters, a traitor whose insolence is a crime against the secretive states of the US and UK. Disregard the pique and dyspepsia of officialdom. It is a distraction, smoke from fires deliberately started to stop us seeing what lies before us. The audacious website first released confidential and candid material on the hellish war in Afghanistan and now opens up a new front, more than 400,000 classified US files documenting the previously untold horrors of the Iraq war. Revealed are countless atrocities and the deaths of 66,000 Iraqi civilians at the hands of US and British soldiers and Iraqi personnel who had joined the allies. Men were burnt, some had parts removed, others were killed slowly; women were shot, children too, killed before they grew. Anything goes, it seems, during a military conflict and no questions are asked. As an Israeli army trainer said, when asked about the death of Rachel Corrie, the young, pro-Palestinian activist mown down by an Israeli tank: "During war there are no civilians". The authorities in Iraq did not investigate reports of abuse and killings. An Iraqi friend tells me the rape of girls, women, boys and men was widespread, a tool used both to intimidate and punish. Apparently, there are images from Abu Ghraib prison of these sadistic "punishments"; they were never released because of the feelings they could arouse in Muslim countries. So morally deformed are these men of war that they care more about inconvenient outrage than they do about crimes against the people they supposedly went to save. They should have heeded the words of Martin Van Creveld, an erudite Israeli war historian who compared the disastrous American Vietnam War with the Iraq adventure: "He who fights the weak – and the rag-tag Iraqi militias are very weak indeed – and loses, loses. He who fights against the weak and wins, also loses. To kill an opponent who is much weaker than yourself is unnecessary and therefore cruel." By this reasoning, to fight the weak who are not in any sense your enemy is extreme brutishness and totally self-defeating. Key figures in the British Army and Government must have been privy to this information. They held their tongues and presumably sidestepped any ethical niggles. The Americans were in command and you don't get to lick the **** of the world's only superpower and then turn round and kick it. That, you understand, is the pact, the unbreakable deal behind our special relationship. Manfred Novak, the UN special rapporteur on torture, says Obama's administration must investigate and come clean – after all, this President vowed to change the image and behaviour of the US which, for too long, has co-operated with tyrants and violated human rights across the world, including in Guantanamo Bay, which is still open and where captured, lost boys became broken men. Fewer and fewer global citizens now believe the rapturous anthems and sombre panegyrics of God's own America. After this week, the number will have tumbled further, which, in some ways, is a pity. There is much to praise about the US, its history of perpetual resistance to unacceptable state power, its energy, creativity, business, intellectual and cultural buzz. When such a great nation does great wrong, its mirror is shattered and even if the shards are stuck back together again, the cracks will always remain. And when the custodian of the free world behaves so appallingly, how do we liberal Muslims promote democratic values across the Muslim world? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (sounding like a clone of Condi Rice) slammed the Wikileaks exposé and warned that lives of US civilians and forces and their allies were now in serious danger. At one level, I fear she is right. The internet traffic over the past two days has been so fast, furious and volatile, it could indeed fuel terrorism, recruitment into jihadi cells, even more violence in unstable Iraq, suicide bombers in Afghanistan and ugly attitudes towards the West, home to millions of Muslims. But keeping the stories hidden was always wrong. Innocent Iraqi people should never have been made to suffer by the allies and even the guilty should have faced due process to prove commitment to justice and decent values. When there was evidence of liberators behaving monstrously, action should have been taken and in the public eye. Clinton must know this, as a lawyer. It is a primary principle of her profession. I wonder if some staunch supporters of the Iraq war will now think again about the purpose and execution of that illegal and vainglorious expedition. The sanctions and war killed, maimed and destroyed more civilians than Saddam did, even during the most diabolical periods of his rule. Blair, Bush and their armies have never had to face proper, international judicial interrogations. Now imagine good Muslims worldwide, who know all about universal rights, but can see that there is no universal accountability, that Third World despots are made to pay while others earn millions writing autobiographies and lecturing the world on good leadership and governance. Hundreds of savvy, smart, keenly aware young people email me from various Muslim states asking: "What's the point? They say one thing and do the opposite. They say they want to help us and kill our people. Why should we trust the British and Americans?" What do our army commanders and American leaders advise me to tell these disenchanted Muslims? And Mr Blair, I wonder if he has some wise thoughts? He is, they tell me, still one of the greatest prime ministers this country has had. And his wife, the hot human rights lawyer, does she think these abuses her husband just might have known about should be investigated? No answers will be forthcoming. Those who took us into this war are not obliged to explain themselves, not liable. In that they are worse than the dictator they toppled. Not comfortable that thought, but true. y.alibhai-brown@ntlworld.com

Don't Say: Don't say: "where should I begin", Start today with Allah's obedience. Don't say: "which way should I take", True Guidance is in Allahs' Shariah when followed with patience. Don't say: "when am I going to enjoy life", Paradise is waiting, it will take away your worries forever with that please your conscious. Don't say: "I will repent tomorrow", this very moment might be your last chance for a penance. Author: Unknown 2010 eNuri Softwaano Series Translation, Courtesy of eNuri Transemantics " لا تقل من أين أبدأ ... طاعة الله البداية لا تقل أين طريقي... شِرعة الله الهداية لا تقل أين نعيمي... جنة الله كفـاية لا تقل في الغد أبدأ ... ربما تأتي النهاية " Nur

The Shaming of America Robert Fisk delivers a searing dispatch after the WikiLeaks revelations that expose in detail the brutality of the war in Iraq - and the astonishing, disgraceful deceit of the US By Robert Fisk October 24, 2010 "The Independent" -- As usual, the Arabs knew. They knew all about the mass torture, the promiscuous shooting of civilians, the outrageous use of air power against family homes, the vicious American and British mercenaries, the cemeteries of the innocent dead. All of Iraq knew. Because they were the victims. Only we could pretend we did not know. Only we in the West could counter every claim, every allegation against the Americans or British with some worthy general – the ghastly US military spokesman Mark Kimmitt and the awful chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Peter Pace, come to mind – to ring-fence us with lies. Find a man who'd been tortured and you'd be told it was terrorist propaganda; discover a house full of children killed by an American air strike and that, too, would be terrorist propaganda, or "collateral damage", or a simple phrase: "We have nothing on that." Of course, we all knew they always did have something. And yesterday's ocean of military memos proves it yet again. Al-Jazeera has gone to extraordinary lengths to track down the actual Iraqi families whose men and women are recorded as being wasted at US checkpoints – I've identified one because I reported it in 2004, the bullet-smashed car, the two dead journalists, even the name of the local US captain – and it was The Independent on Sunday that first alerted the world to the hordes of indisciplined gunmen being flown to Baghdad to protect diplomats and generals. These mercenaries, who murdered their way around the cities of Iraq, abused me when I told them I was writing about them way back in 2003. It's always tempting to avoid a story by saying "nothing new". The "old story" idea is used by governments to dampen journalistic interest as it can be used by us to cover journalistic idleness. And it's true that reporters have seen some of this stuff before. The "evidence" of Iranian involvement in bomb-making in southern Iraq was farmed out to The New York Times's Michael Gordon by the Pentagon in February 2007. The raw material, which we can now read, is far more doubtful than the Pentagon-peddled version. Iranian military material was still lying around all over Iraq from the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and most of the attacks on Americans were at that stage carried out by Sunni insurgents. The reports suggesting that Syria allowed insurgents to pass through their territory, by the way, are correct. I have spoken to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers whose sons made their way to Iraq from Lebanon via the Lebanese village of Majdal Aanjar and then via the northern Syrian city of Aleppo to attack the Americans. But, written in bleak militarese as it may be, here is the evidence of America's shame. This is material that can be used by lawyers in courts. If 66,081 – I loved the "81" bit – is the highest American figure available for dead civilians, then the real civilian mortality score is infinitely higher since this records only those civilians the Americans knew of. Some of them were brought to the Baghdad mortuary in my presence, and it was the senior official there who told me that the Iraqi ministry of health had banned doctors from performing any post-mortems on dead civilians brought in by American troops. Now why should that be? Because some had been tortured to death by Iraqis working for the Americans? Did this hook up with the 1,300 independent US reports of torture in Iraqi police stations? The Americans scored no better last time round. In Kuwait, US troops could hear Palestinians being tortured by Kuwaitis in police stations after the liberation of the city from Saddam Hussein's legions in 1991. A member of the Kuwaiti royal family was involved in the torture. US forces did not intervene. They just complained to the royal family. Soldiers are always being told not to intervene. After all, what was Lieutenant Avi Grabovsky of the Israeli army told when he reported to his officer in September 1982 that Israel's Phalangist allies had just murdered some women and children? "We know, it's not to our liking, and don't interfere," Grabovsky was told by his battalion commander. This was during the Sabra and Chatila refugee camp massacre. The quotation comes from Israel's 1983 Kahan commission report – heaven knows what we could read if WikiLeaks got its hands on the barrels of military files in the Israeli defence ministry (or the Syrian version, for that matter). But, of course, back in those days, we didn't know how to use a computer, let alone how to write on it. And that, of course, is one of the important lessons of the whole WikiLeaks phenomenon. Back in the First World War or the Second World War or Vietnam, you wrote your military reports on paper. They may have been typed in triplicate but you could number your copies, trace any spy and prevent the leaks. The Pentagon Papers was actually written on paper. You needed to find a mole to get them. But paper could always be destroyed, weeded, trashed, all copies destroyed. At the end of the 1914-18 war, for example, a British second lieutenant shot a Chinese man after Chinese workers had looted a French military train. The Chinese man had pulled a knife on the soldier. But during the 1930s, the British soldier's file was "weeded" three times and so no trace of the incident survives. A faint ghost of it remains only in a regimental war diary which records Chinese involvement in the looting of "French provision trains". The only reason I know of the killing is that my father was the British lieutenant and told me the story before he died. No WikiLeaks then. But I do suspect this massive hoard of material from the Iraq war has serious implications for journalists as well as armies. What is the future of the Seymour Hershes and the old-style investigative journalism that The Sunday Times used to practise? What is the point of sending teams of reporters to examine war crimes and meet military "deep throats", if almost half a million secret military documents are going to float up in front of you on a screen? We still haven't got to the bottom of the WikiLeaks story, and I rather suspect that there are more than just a few US soldiers involved in this latest revelation. Who knows if it doesn't go close to the top? In its investigations, for example, al-Jazeera found an extract from a run-of-the-mill Pentagon press conference in November 2005. Peter Pace, the uninspiring chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is briefing journalists on how soldiers should react to the cruel treatment of prisoners, pointing out proudly that an American soldier's duty is to intervene if he sees evidence of torture. Then the camera moves to the far more sinister figure of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who suddenly interrupts – almost in a mutter, and to Pace's consternation – "I don't think you mean they (American soldiers) have an obligation to physically stop it. It's to report it." The significance of this remark – cryptically sadistic in its way – was lost on the journos, of course. But the secret Frago 242 memo now makes much more sense of the press conference. Presumably sent by General Ricardo Sanchez, this is the instruction that tells soldiers: "Provided the initial report confirms US forces were not involved in the detainee abuse, no further investigation will be conducted unless directed by HHQ [Higher Headquarters]." Abu Ghraib happened under Sanchez's watch in Iraq. It was also Sanchez, by the way, who couldn't explain to me at a press conference why his troops had killed Saddam's sons in a gun battle in Mosul rather than capture them. So Sanchez's message, it seems, must have had Rumsfeld's imprimatur. And so General David Petraeus – widely loved by the US press corps – was presumably responsible for the dramatic increase in US air strikes over two years; 229 bombing attacks in Iraq in 2006, but 1,447 in 2007. Interestingly enough, US air strikes in Afghanistan have risen by 172 per cent since Petraeus took over there. Which makes it all the more astonishing that the Pentagon is now bleating that WikiLeaks may have blood on its hands. The Pentagon has been covered in blood since the dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima in 1945, and for an institution that ordered the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 – wasn't that civilian death toll more than 66,000 by their own count, out of a total of 109,000 recorded? – to claim that WikiLeaks is culpable of homicide is preposterous. The truth, of course, is that if this vast treasury of secret reports had proved that the body count was much lower than trumpeted by the press, that US soldiers never tolerated Iraqi police torture, rarely shot civilians at checkpoints and always brought killer mercenaries to account, US generals would be handing these files out to journalists free of charge on the steps of the Pentagon. They are furious not because secrecy has been breached, or because blood may be spilt, but because they have been caught out telling the lies we always knew they told. US official documents detail extraordinary scale of wrongdoing WikiLeaks yesterday released on its website some 391,832 US military messages documenting actions and reports in Iraq over the period 2004-2009. Here are the main points: Prisoners abused, raped and murdered Hundreds of incidents of abuse and torture of prisoners by Iraqi security services, up to and including rape and murder. Since these are itemised in US reports, American authorities now face accusations of failing to investigate them. UN leaders and campaigners are calling for an official investigation. Civilian death toll cover-up Coalition leaders have always said "we don't do death tolls", but the documents reveal many deaths were logged. Respected British group Iraq Body Count says that, after preliminary examination of a sample of the documents, there are an estimated 15,000 extra civilian deaths, raising their total to 122,000. The shooting of men trying to surrender In February 2007, an Apache helicopter killed two Iraqis, suspected of firing mortars, as they tried to surrender. A military lawyer is quoted as saying: "They cannot surrender to aircraft and are still valid targets." Private security firm abuses Britain's Bureau of Investigative Journalism says it found documents detailing new cases of alleged wrongful killings of civilians involving Blackwater, since renamed Xe Services. Despite this, Xe retains extensive US contracts in Afghanistan. Al-Qa'ida's use of children and "mentally handicapped" for bombing A teenage boy with Down's syndrome who killed six and injured 34 in a suicide attack in Diyala was said to be an example of an ongoing al-Qa'ida strategy to recruit those with learning difficulties. A doctor is alleged to have sold a list of female patients with learning difficulties to insurgents. Hundreds of civilians killed at checkpoints Out of the 832 deaths recorded at checkpoints in Iraq between 2004 and 2009, analysis by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism suggests 681 were civilians. Fifty families were shot at and 30 children killed. Only 120 insurgents were killed in checkpoint incidents. Iranian influence Reports detail US concerns that Iranian agents had trained, armed and directed militants in Iraq. In one document, the US military warns a militia commander believed to be behind the deaths of US troops and kidnapping of Iraqi officials was trained by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

Bilal Bro. A very good argument indeed, I am sure other nomads would agree with you too because they may also be looking at the problem from the same perspective. To tackle this dilemma, let us go back in History to learn few lessons from a similar helpless, divided, oppressed people like ours. The Children of our Prophet Israel ( Yacquub), may peace be upon him. There is no story in the holy Quraan as celebrated as the story of the children of Prophet Israel and for a good purpose, Allah SWT is teaching us that the procession of the righteous people in history is continuous and that every generation of righteous men and women will be tested as the Children of Israel were tested by Allah SWT in so many ways. This test is for our knowledge of each other, not for Allah SWT as he knows what we conceal as well as what we claim. Allah SWT says in Surah Ankabut ( The Spider) Quraan: 2. Do people think that they will be left alone just by claiming : "We believe," and that their ( Claim) will not be tested (Verified for all to see) 3. And We indeed tested those who were before them. And Allah will certainly make (it) known (the truth of) those who are genuine, and will certainly make (it) known the fake. So, one of the main purposes in this long dilemma is truth to surface out of the ruble of deceit and to show the true colors of those who claim to be believers in Allah, whose action loudly tells otherwise a different story altogether Now, let us go back to visit the plight of the children of Prophet Israel and how the test unearthed so many human traits of genuine faith in Allah, Kufr, bravery, cowardice, patience, impatience, perseverance, blame-game, generosity, kindness, cruelty etc. Narrating their story, Allah SWT tells us in Surah Acraaf how Moses tried to calm his people in the face of Pharaoh's unbearable oppression that tried to break their will and their believe in Allah. 128. Musa (Moses) said to his people: "Seek help in Allah and be patient. Verily, the earth is Allah's. He gives it as a heritage to whom He will of His devotees, and the (blessed) end is for the Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2)." 129. They said: "We (Children of Prophet Israel) had suffered troubles before you came to us, and since you have come to us." He said: "It may be that your Lord will destroy your enemy and make you successors on the earth, so that He may see how you act?" Note: Allah made His promise true, Allah destroyed Pharaoh his soldiers, and today those who claim to be descendants of Prophet Israel are more powerful than the descendants of Goliath, the Palestinians. The irony is that today, the weak and helpless Israelites have traded places with powerful tyrants, they are the tyrants and the Goliath who are oppressing the weak Palestinians. 130. And indeed We punished the people of Fir'aun (Pharaoh) with years of drought and shortness of fruits (crops, etc.), that they might remember (take heed). 131. But whenever good came to them, they said: "Ours is this." And if evil afflicted them, they ascribed it to evil omens connected with Musa (Moses) and those with him. Be informed! Verily, their evil omens are with Allah but most of them know not. 132. They said [to Musa (Moses)]: "Whatever Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) you may bring to us, to work therewith your sorcery on us, we shall never believe in you." 133. So We sent on them: the flood, the locusts, the lice, the frogs, and the blood: (as a succession of) manifest signs, yet they remained arrogant, and they were of those people who were Mujrimun (criminals). 134. And when the punishment fell on them they said: "O Musa (Moses)! Invoke your Lord for us because of His Promise to you. If you will remove the punishment from us, we indeed shall believe in you, and we shall let the Children of Israel go with you." 135. But when We removed the punishment from them to a fixed term, which they had to reach, behold! They broke their word! 136. So We took retribution from them. We drowned them in the sea, because they belied Our Ayat (lessons, signs, etc.) and were heedless about them. 137. And We made the people who were considered weak to inherit the eastern parts of the land and the western parts thereof which We have blessed. And the fair Word of your Lord was fulfilled for the Children of Israel, because of their endurance. And We destroyed completely all the great works and buildings which Fir'aun (Pharaoh) and his people erected. Note: This point in history is partially analogous to 2006 For Somalis in Mogadishu! Unfortunately, after Allah saved Somalis from the grip of the warlord Pharaohs, some of them with short attention span would later forget all about their 16 years suffering and plight under the criminal warlords and yearn for idol worship ( DEMON-CRACY) Read On! 138. And We brought the Children of Israel (with safety) across the sea, and they came upon a people devoted to some of their idols (in worship). They said: "O Musa (Moses)! Make for us an ilaah (a deity) as they have aliha (deities)." He said: "Verily, you are a people who know not (the Majesty and Greatness of Allah and what is obligatory upon you, i.e. to worship none but Allah Alone, the One and the Only God of all that exists)." 139. [Musa (Moses) added:] "Verily, these people will be destroyed for that which they are engaged in (idols-worship). And all that they are doing is in vain." 140. He said: "Shall I seek for you an Ilahan (a God) other than Allah, while He has Fadhalakum (chosen you as the best for your devotion to Allah) over the 'Alamin (mankind and jinns of your time)." The above verses were revealed to teach us to make our allegiance to Allah the cornerstone and unwavering principle that we stand for in adversity as well as prosperity. In Surah Al Baqarah the children of Isreal asked Allah to raise a great leader from among them to stand up to Goliath's tyranny so that they can fight in Allah's cause ( Jihad) to stop the evil of Jaalut (Goliath), but not all Israelites had the will power to obey Allah in abstaining from the forbidden river water in order to have the strength to stand up to Goliath, as a result, most of them drank too much of the river water (representing the love of this worldly life), but the very few remaining faithful who obeyed Allah in abstaining from drinking the water had the will power, the drive and energy to fight in Allah's cause against Goliath and to defeat him at the end. Let us read the verses. 246. Have you not thought about the group of the Children of Israel after (the time of) Musa (Moses)? When they said to a Prophet of theirs, "Appoint for us a king and we will fight in Allah's Way." He said, "Would you then refrain from fighting, if fighting was prescribed for you?" They said, "Why should we not fight in Allah's Way while we have been driven out of our homes and our children (families have been taken as captives)?" But when fighting was ordered for them, they turned away, all except a few of them. And Allah is All-Aware of the Zalimun (oppressors). 247. And their Prophet (Samuel) said to them, "Indeed Allah has appointed Talut (Saul) as a king over you." They said, "How can he be a king over us when we are better fitted than him for the kingdom, and he has not been given enough wealth." He said: "Verily, Allah has chosen him above you and has increased him abundantly in knowledge and stature. And Allah grants His Kingdom to whom He wills. And Allah is All-Sufficient for His creatures' needs, All-Knower." 248. And their Prophet (Samuel) said to them: Verily! The sign of His Kingdom is that there shall come to you At-Tabut (a wooden box), wherein is Sakinah (peace and reassurance) from your Lord and a remnant of that which Musa (Moses) and Harun (Aaron) left behind, carried by the angels. Verily, in this is a sign for you if you are indeed believers. 249. Then when Talut (Saul) set out with the army, he said: "Verily! Allah will try you by a river. So whoever drinks thereof, he is not of me, and whoever tastes it not, he is of me, except him who takes (thereof) in the hollow of his hand." Yet, they drank thereof, all, except a few of them. So when he had crossed it (the river), he and those who believed with him, they said: "We have no power this day against Jalut (Goliath) and his hosts." But those who knew with certainty that they were to meet their Lord, said: "How often a small group overcame a mighty host by Allah's Leave?" And Allah is with As-Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.). 250. And when they advanced to meet Jalut (Goliath) and his forces, they invoked: "Our Lord! Pour forth on us patience and make us victorious over the disbelieving people." 251. So they routed them by Allah's Leave and Dawud (David) killed Jalut (Goliath), and Allah gave him [Dawud (David)] the kingdom [after the death of Talut (Saul) and Samuel] and Al­Hikmah (Prophethood), and taught him of that which He willed. And if Allah did not check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief. But Allah is full of Bounty to the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists). 252. These are the Verses of Allah, We recite them to you (O Muhammad ) in truth, and surely, you are one of the Messengers (of Allah). More analysis of the verses to come soon inshAllah To be continued.......... Nur

As long as the warring factions persist in their present path the inn-follow of arms and money from the foreigners will continue and in consequence our people and country will suffer most. From my perspective evidently the warring factions have most to blame. Blame Game! Akhi, solving a complex problem requires some simple steps: 1. Problem Identification: Are we talking about the same problem? mise cadan baa laga heesayaa? if you ask two Somalis what the problem is you will get different answers, this itself is the first problem. Do we want peace in this life only at the expense of next? do we want peace on both? etc. 2. Problem analysis: Do we agree on what led to this problem in the first place? What is feeding it to this day? who are the players who have an influence and what are their motives? can all the requirements of the different opponents and their supporters be met? 3. Possible solutions: A list of criteria and options to solve the Problem. How many solution sets do we have? 4. Selection of the best option: How should we prioritize these Solutions? Please address these questions, that may take us closer to where we all want to go, I mean Jannatul Firdows inshAllah Nur

Bilaal bro. You write: In my last post, I touched on how numerous Islamic scholars, including ones directly engaged in the current struggle, would not agree with your reasoning. They would argue that intransigence and struggle for the sake of struggle is not of our deen. I won't indulge too much in this area without first hearing your thoughts on matters raised in my last post. Akhi, sometimes, difference of opinion can be very healthy, and if one is sincere and wears others shoes and walks a mile with them, one can have an empathy and a fresh outlook that is different than his/her previously held world view. However, insisting on one's rights should not be viewed as intransigence, specially if one is the victim and the other side is the rapist. The more the resistance insists on Somalia's right of self determination and non interference of foreign powers in the internal affairs of Somalia, the more owners of the Somali problem are expected to appear, and the more likelier that a more just environment than the current unipolar one can be put in place for justice to be served for the victims. There is no better strategy than to bring a stunning attention to a robbery in progress and a criminal thief to an oblivious audience. That is why we teach our kids if an stranger approaches them to steal them to shout loud for passersby to come to the their aide. Nur

The country and Islam are not reserved for a certain group nor do they belong to certain authority but both are things we share and have to safeguard together. True The solution is to denounce fighting as means to achieve goals and instead seek consensus in a peaceful and sincere manner so that good things could come to us in more beneficial ways through the spirit of our communality. Would be nice. It is an escape goat to mention foreigners when our house is divided and we are participants in torching it. First we need to own our agenda; at least try to do that before we point fingers. Is it a scape goat to mention that it was the Ethiopian foreigners who have invaded the country after the liberation of the nation from the clout of war criminal Warlord Control of 16 years? and that the Ethiopians have placed a flimsy dummy TFG government as a window dressing with a massive foreign prodding to safeguard foreign interests not Somalia's. How can you ignore this fact yaa saaxibi? If this was a football game, the analogue would be our national football team aka TFG are all bribed and bought to score the goal for the adversaries against Somalia with the full approval of the referees ( UN, AU) who are as well illegally bribed by rich game fixers US and EU to look the other way, which prompted another self appointed national Somali team to denounce this traitor team and offer to play the game with the adversaries on plain ground with fair rules of engagement. Are you asking the self appointed national team to compromise with the known team members who are receiving bribes from the opposing team to allow couple of goals scored against Somalia to please the adversaries? That would be a boring game, wouldn't it? Nur

Jewistan: Finally Recognizing Israel as the Jewish State By Francis Boyle October 20, 2010 "ICH" -- Israel’s Likudnik Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reached into his bag of Zionist tricks and pulled out a brand-new demand that had never surfaced before in the history of the Middle East Peace Process going all the way back to their beginning with the negotiation of the original Camp David Accords conducted under the personal auspices of U.S. President Jimmy Carter in 1978: The Palestinians must recognize Israel as “the Jewish State.” Not surprisingly, the Zionist controlled and funded Obama administration publicly endorsed this latest roadblock to peace that was maliciously constructed by Israel. Netanyahu deliberately shifted the goal-posts on the Palestinians. It would be as if the United States of America demanded that Iran recognize it as the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) State as a condition for negotiating and then concluding any comprehensive peace settlement with it. Of course such demands are racist and premeditated non-starters to begin with. Netanyahu’s racist ultimatum would lead to the denationalization of the 1.5 million Palestinians who are already less than third-class citizens of Israel and set the stage for their mass expulsion to the Palestinian Bantustan envisioned by Netanyahu as the “final solution” to Zionism’s “demographic problem” created by the very existence of the Palestinians. This racist and genocidal demand would also illegally terminate the well-recognized Right of Return for five million Palestinian refugees living around the world as required by U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194(III) of 1948, by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 13(2) (1948), and by general principles of public international law, international humanitarian law, and human rights law. This would doom all prospects for peace between Israelis and Palestinians forever, and pave the way for the creation of “Greater Israel” dominating the entire former Mandate for Palestine, both of which objectives have been the intention of Netanyahu and Likud all along. But if Netanyahu is really serious about Israel being recognized internationally as “the Jewish State” then there is a simple manner by which this universal diplomatic status can instantly be achieved unilaterally and without the consent of the Palestinians. Under basic principles of international law, every state is free to change its own name if it so desires: e.g., from Congo to Zaire then back to Congo. Therefore Israel is free to change its name to Jewistan -- the State of the Jews. Thereafter every state in the world that has diplomatic relations and treaty relations with Israel will henceforth necessarily have to recognize it as Jewistan -- the State of Jews -- and deal with it as such by that name on a daily basis. The name of Jewistan would automatically replace the name of Israel in the United Nations System, at all other concerned international organizations, and on all bilateral and multilateral treaties to which Israel is currently a contracting party. Indeed, in the aftermath of its serial genocidal atrocities perpetrated against the Palestinians and the Lebanese, Israel has quite understandably been seeking to “re-brand” itself. Jewistan is Israel’s perfect new moniker. In fact, Israel has never been anything but a Bantustan for Jews setup in the Middle East by the White racist and genocidal Western colonial imperial powers in order to serve as their racist attack dog and genocidal enforcer against the Arab and Muslim world. From the very moment of Western imperialism’s genocidal conception of Israel in 1947-1948, Israel has historically always functioned as Jewistan – the world’s Bantustan for the Jews. So Israel might as well finally change its name today to Jewistan, own up to its racist birthright, and make it official for the rest of the world to acknowledge. Of course, all the Black Bantustans in racist criminal apartheid South Africa were eventually dismantled and no longer exist. The same will eventually happen to the racist criminal apartheid Jewish Bantustan in the Middle East no matter what name they call themselves. Actually, Jewistan/Israel is more closely analogous to the genocidal Yugoslavia that collapsed as a State, lost its U.N. membership, and no longer exists as a State for that precise reason. In either event, when this Israeli Bantustan for Jews predictably collapses as a State, all the Palestinian refugees living in their Diaspora around the world will be able to return to their homes as guaranteed by Resolution 194. Such is the ultimate solution for securing the Palestinian Right of Return under International Law. In the meantime, the Palestinians should sign nothing with Jewistan/Israel and let this Bantustan for Jews collapse of its own racist and genocidal weight. Good riddance! FRANCIS A. BOYLE is a leading American expert in international law. He was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia-Herzegovina at the World Court. He served as legal adviser to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East peace negotiations from 1991 to 1993. In 2007, he delivered the Bertrand Russell Peace Lectures. Previous Russell Lecturers have included E.P. Thompson, Elena Bonner, Edward Said, Ramsey Clark, Nobel Peace Prize Winner Joseph Rotblat, Johan Galtung, and Noam Chomsky. Professor Boyle teaches international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign and is author of, inter alia, The Future of International Law and American Foreign Policy, Foundations of World Order, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, Destroying World Order, Biowarfare & Terrorism. And Tackling America’s Toughest Questions. He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University.

Epidemic? Half of US Teens ‘Meet Criteria for Mental Disorder’ By Agence France-Presse October 16, 2010 "AFP" -- WASHINGTON — Around half of US teens meet the criteria for a mental disorder and nearly one in four report having a mood, behavior or anxiety disorder that interferes with daily life, American researchers say. Fifty-one percent of boys and 49 percent of girls aged 13-19 have a mood, behavior, anxiety or substance use disorder, according to the study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. In 22.2 percent of teens, the disorder was so severe it impaired their daily activities and caused great distress, says the study led by Kathleen Merikangas of the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH). "The prevalence of severe emotional and behavior disorders is even higher than the most frequent major physical conditions in adolescence, including asthma or diabetes," the study says. Mental problems do not get the same attention from public health authorities even though they cost US families around a quarter of a trillion dollars a year, according to the study. Around nine percent of all US children have asthma and less than a quarter of one percent of all people under the age of 20 have diabetes, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Merikangas and a team of researchers analyzed data from the National Comorbidity Study-Adolescent Supplement, which surveyed more than 10,000 US teens. The study is the first to track the prevalence of a broad range of mental disorders in a nationally representative sample of US teens. They found that nearly a third of the teens met the criteria for the most common mental disorder among US youth, anxiety disorders, which include social phobia and panic "attacks". This class of disorder also had the earliest median onset age, occurring in children as young as six years old. Behavior disorders, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, were the next most common condition (19.1 percent), followed by mood disorders (14.3 percent) such as depression. Eleven percent of teens with a mood disorder, 10 percent with behavior disorders and eight percent who had anxiety disorders, especially social phobics, met the criteria for severe impairment, meaning their condition affected their day-to-day life and caused them great distress. Teen mental disorder rates mirror those seen in adults, suggesting that most adults develop a mental disorder before adulthood, say the researchers, calling for earlier intervention and prevention, and more research to determine what the risk factors are for mental disorders in youth.

* POLITICO * Israeli, American indicted for gun running to Somalia By: Laura Rozen Israeli, American indicted for gun running to Somalia - Laura Rozen: Israeli, American indicted for gun running to Somalia June 28, 2010 A federal grand jury in Miami, Florida has indicted an Israeli defense consultant and an American citizen of conspiring to transfer hundreds of AK-47s to northern Somalia. Chanoch Miller, an Israeli aeronautical engineer who previously served as an executive with Israel’s Radom Aviation, was indicted on June 17, 2010 on seven counts of conspiring to export defense equipment to an embargoed nation, Somalia, money laundering, providing false end user certificates, and related charges. His co-defendant’s name is redacted in the indictment but is described as an American citizen. Beginning in April, according to the indictment, Miller conspired with his American co-defendant to find an air cargo service to fly hundreds of AK-47s from Bosnia to the northern Somalian city of Banderal, using false end user certificates of Chad, in violation of U.S. arms export control laws. Somalia is under a UN arms embargo. But the transport services source they contacted turned out to be an informant for the U.S. Customs and Immigrations Enforcement (ICE) agency, the indictment describes. “On April 15, 2010, [redacted name of co-defendant] sent an email to an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement confidential informant (hereafter CI) and asked if CI had Antonov 12 or similar line [aircraft] available for two charter flights from Bosnia to Africa to lift 12 tons on each flight for two round trips, landing in Africa “to unload mil equipments” and return to Bosnia for a second trip,” the indictment reads. “On April 21, 2010, [blacked out] sent an email to the CI and advised the CI that the cargo would be Boxed AK-47s, 6 to 7.6 tons, and that the CI could choose to use AN26 or AN12 aircraft from Tuzla Bosnia to Banderal, Northern Somalia and that payment would be made by wire transfer or cash before departure.” “On April 21, 2010, [blacked out] sent an email to the CI and advised that he has enough cargo for 100 flights if the first flight is successful.” “On April 28, 2010, [blacked out] sent an email to the CI and also sent a copy of the email to CHANOCH MILLER and advised that CHANOCH MILLER, who was the buyer in Israel and who would sign the contract and pay the CI, had accepted the price at least verbally but was hoping to get the first flight done sooner.” Miller arranged through the same confidential informant to purchase 700 AK-47s, 200 in the U.S. and 500 in Panama, and fly them to Somaliland earlier this month. On June 15, 2010, the indictment states, Miller wired $116,000 from an Israeli bank to a Broward County, Florida Wells Fargo branch to pay for the air services including a $2,000 commission for his co-defendant, the indictment said. The case against Miller was brought by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Wifredo Ferrer and Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Walleisa. Miller was arrested on June 18th, court documents show, and was due to be arraigned today. The indictment of his co-defendant is sealed, until his arrest or August 9, 2010, whichever comes first. In February, Somaliland local press cited an Israeli foreign ministry official that Israel was considering recognizing Somaliland as an independent country, but the official has denied ever making such a statement and said the local media had made it up. "It's pure fabrication," Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told POLITICO Monday. "A few months ago, someone brought my attention to the fact that a pro-Somaliland website quotes an interview I supposedly gave to the Israeli paper Haaretz in which I supposedly said a few things. I never spoke to Haaretz on any subject to do with Somalia or freedom of Somaliland. It's pure fabrication. And you know what, the funniest thing, after this is published, and circulated on pro-Somaliland websites, pro-Somaliland activists are asking me to be their friend on Facebook." Somaliland, a former British colony, is strategically located in the Gulf of Aden. The breakaway republic held elections on Sunday which international observers declared free and fair.

Akhi Bilaal You write: " I think it would be fair to say that your strong opposition to the current ideological and military struggle the West is waging in Muslim lands somewhat blurs your judgment" I would be very thankful if you can help me see better , yaa akhi al kareem, I am for one, a champion of seeing the right things, seeing them through the right frame of reference and context and for that purpose have established eNuri Opticians Inc. When a Nomad suffers from a blurred vision, a kind Nomad comes to his rescue by putting together and presenting the right information that will help make the picture clear and sharp for the Visionary afflicted Nomad. Akhi, I have not categorically rejected negotiation for the sake of peace in Somalia, please reread my thread above, to save time and effort, my concern was who should negotiate with who: 1. The TFG with the Somali Resistance 2. The Ethiopians with the Somali Resistance 3. The African Union with the Somali Resistance 4. The United Nations with the Somali Resistance 5. The United States of America with the Somali Resistance. My suggestion was that the root cause of Somalia woes lies squarely with the USA alone, not with any other party as America claims to have the Lions share in the interests of peace in Somalia.(As far fetched it may sound, imagine an odd alliance of Al Shabaab + Hizb Al Islami Freedom Fighters, and the US!, who can stand in their way in all of East Africa where the USA has vast interests)?. About such scenario, Allah SWT says in Holy Quraan in Surah Mumtaxnah, v 7 "Perhaps Allah will make friendship between you and those whom you hold as enemies. And Allah has power (over all things), and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful". Isn't it therefore prudent to get the word from the Lions mouth? what benefit does the stooge TFG , Ethiopians, AU and the UN can offer Somalia that would work without the blessing of the Lion USA? Our faith is based on taking direct straight routs to where we want to go, not wishy washy winding roads that get us nowhere, when we worship, we pray to our maker alone without intermediaries, and when we settle disagreements, we settle them directly with the party that counts alone! according to the Holy Quraan's commandment : " So enter houses through their proper doors, and fear Allah that you may be successful." Al Baqara, v 189. Holy Quraan. If this above reasoning represents a blurred vision, please show me the way, like the saying goes, don't just curse the darkness, light a candle. Nur Note: Information is to our judgment of the situation in Somalia, as a lens is to a blurred vision, the more reliable the information that we have an access to and the better analysis of that information, the better our judgment of the situation and hence, the better our strategy for going forward. I have to admit and warn you too from the same, that my blurred vision is probably caused by watching too much of the wrong content like

Killing Each Taliban Soldier Costs $50 Million Killing 20 Taliban costs $1 Billion / Killing all the Taliban would cost $1.7 Trillion By Matthew Nasuti October 05, 2010 "Kabul Press" - -- The Pentagon will not tell the public what it costs to locate, target and kill a single Taliban soldier because the price-tag is so scandalously high that it makes the Taliban appear to be Super-Soldiers. As set out in this article, the estimated cost to kill each Taliban is as high as $100 million, with a conservative estimate being $50 million. A public discussion should be taking place in the United States regarding whether the Taliban have become too expensive an enemy to defeat. Each month the Pentagon generates a ream of dubious statistics designed to create the illusion of progress in Afghanistan. In response this author decided to compile his own statistics. As the goal of any war is to kill the enemy, the idea was to calculate what it actually costs to kill just one of the enemy. The obstacles encountered in generating such a statistic are formidable. The problem is that the Pentagon continues to illegally classify all negative war news and embarrassing information. Regardless, some information has been collected from independent sources. Here is what we know in summary and round numbers: 1. Taliban Field Strength: 35,000 troops 2. Taliban Killed Per Year by Coalition forces: 2,000 (best available information) 3. Pentagon Direct Costs for Afghan War for 2010: $100 billion 4. Pentagon Indirect Costs for Afghan War for 2010: $100 billion Using the fact that 2,000 Taliban are being killed each year and that the Pentagon spends $200 billion per year on the war in Afghanistan, one simply has to divide one number into the other. That calculation reveals that $100 million is being spent to kill each Taliban soldier. In order to be conservative, the author decided to double the number of Taliban being killed each year by U.S. and NATO forces (although the likelihood of such being true is unlikely). This reduces the cost to kill each Taliban to $50 million, which is the title of this article. The final number is outrageously high regardless of how one calculates it. To put this information another way, using the conservative estimate of $50 million to kill each Taliban: It costs the American taxpayers $1 billion to kill 20 Taliban As the U.S. military estimates there to be 35,000 hard-core Taliban and assuming that no reinforcements and replacements will arrive from Pakistan and Iran: Just killing the existing Taliban would cost $1.75 Trillion The reason for these exorbitant costs is that United States has the world’s most mechanized, computerized, weaponized and synchronized military, not to mention the most pampered (at least at Forward Operating Bases). An estimated 150,000 civilian contractors support, protect, feed and cater to the American personnel in Afghanistan, which is an astonishing number. The Americans enjoy such perks and distinctions in part because no other country is willing to pay (waste) so much money on their military. The ponderous American war machine is a logistics nightmare and a maintenance train wreck. It is also part-myth. This author served at a senior level within the U.S. Air Force. Air Force “smart” bombs are no way near as consistently accurate as the Pentagon boasts; Army mortars remain inaccurate; even standard American field rifles are frequently outmatched by Taliban weapons, which have a longer range. The American public would pale if it actually learned the full story about the poor quality of the weapons and equipment that are being purchased with its tax dollars. The Taliban’s best ally within the United States may be the Pentagon, whose contempt for fiscal responsibility and accountability may force a premature U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan as the Americans cannot continue to fund these Pentagon excesses. If President Obama refuses to drastically reform the Pentagon’s inefficient way of making war, he may conclude that the Taliban is simply too expensive an enemy to fight. He would then have little choice but to abandon the Afghan people to the Taliban’s “Super-Soldiers.” That would be an intolerable disgrace. The problem is not simply within the Pentagon. The hapless U.S. State Department is equally to blame. It: 1. Continues to sit on the sidelines of this war; 2. Refused for nine years to deploy an adequate number of civilian experts; 3. Continues to hire abusive and disreputable security contractors; 4. Failed to fight for the needs of Afghan civilians; and 5. Has made little effort to win their hearts and minds. A crucial statistic that demonstrates this is to compare military and security expenditures by the United States in Afghanistan with expenditures for civilian aid, such as reconstruction. That statistic is as follows: Money spent on Military/Security: $365 billion Money spent on Afghan civilians: $8.5 billion This latter number spells out “FAILURE.” U.S. diplomats and USAID officials have failed to improve the lives of ordinary Afghans and as a result they have accomplished the impossible. Their lack of resolve and interest has made an increasing number of disillusioned Afghans view Taliban rule as potentially an improvement. Appendix (Supporting Information) Taliban Field Strength: The figure of 35,000 is based on an interview given by General Stanley McChrystal earlier this year. Taliban Soldiers Killed: The Pentagon refuses to disclose the total number of Taliban killed each month in Afghanistan by coalition forces, special operations personnel and the CIA. One reason became obvious during Operation Moshtarak in Marjah earlier this year. The Pentagon and NATO refused to specify the actual number of Taliban casualties in Marjah because the number was embarrassing low. American, NATO and Afghan forces reportedly suffered more casualties (killed and wounded) than they inflicted on the Taliban, making Marjah a military defeat for the West (if casualties determine victory or defeat). To fill the gap created by Pentagon silence on this issue, media groups have published their own Taliban casualty count based on official and press reports. That count is inflated as the U.S. military labels everyone it kills a “Taliban militant,” even if they are criminals, drug traders, war lords or civilians defending their homes. As a result of the Pentagon’s lack of credibility on this issue, this author assumes that only 50% of those labeled as Taliban actually are. The Associated Press has reported that 3,800 militants were killed in 2008, and 4,500 in 2009. Pro-NATO blogs, such as the web site “Terrorist Death Watch,” have calculated that 3,667 terrorists have been killed in Afghanistan since January 1, 2006, (about 700 per year). The author assumes that an average of 2,000 hard-core Taliban are killed each year U.S. Military Costs: Total military expenditures in Afghanistan are not clear as the Pentagon does not release all of its direct and indirect cost for the war. While most direct costs are known, billions of dollars in CIA and special operations costs are improperly classified and remain hidden. In addition, the indirect costs for the war (i.e., military regular pay, equipment depreciation, wear & tear, long term health costs, Pentagon support costs within the U.S., USTRANSCOM transportation costs, transport hub costs such as Manas air base, costs for borrowing funds etc.) are not precisely known. Independent studies conducted of the Iraq war are available and they calculate that the indirect costs equal or exceed the direct costs. What we know about Pentagon direct costs is as follows: - From 2001, to April 2009, the Pentagon directly spent $171.7 billion in Afghanistan. - From May 2009, to the present, the Pentagon directly spent an additional $166.3 billion. This is an incredible increase over the past 17 months. Monthly expenditures have also seen a staggering increase. - October 2009, the Pentagon was directly spending $3.6 billion a month. - February 2010, the Pentagon was directly spending $6.7 billion a month. - October 2010, with the addition of 35,000 more combat and support troops into Afghanistan, the number must be close to $8 billion a month. Some estimates place direct Pentagon Afghan war costs for all of 2010, at $105 billion. U.S. State Department Costs: Officially the State Department and USAID have expended about $35 billion in Afghanistan since 2001. According to most audits, about 75% or $27.5 billion has been spent on training, housing and equipping the Afghan security services, and road construction with the balance ($8.5 billion) being spent on civilian projects. Much of this $8.5 billion has been wasted on dilapidated schools and minor “trophy” projects in Kabul.

Akhi Bilaal You write: "The long-term consequences of the current stalemate between the resistance and the TFG are unknown but given the events of recent history, a TFG resurgence fueled by Western armaments is not out of the question. " Akhi, the longer the resistance can hold ground, the more enlightened many Somalis will be, the robbery will be more transparent and the criminal will not be allowed to inherit his victim. At the moment, the strength of the resistance is moral superiority, not weapons, nor support of what is known as the "international community". As long as they stay just with the people, there is no way the TFG can compete for their allegiance, the resistance has risen the justice, transparency and security bar to new heights and I am afraid, that neither the TFG nor their handlers can jump the new standards that the resistance are setting for Somalia. You write: "As you can appreciate, if this was to eventuate, our country would be open to an onslaught – with the West operating as it pleases." Akhi, the West can not operate outside of Allah's plans, if we follow that logic, Jews would still live under Pharaoh. You write: This is why I emphasize the need for the resistance to be strategic and take advantage of their current, strong bargaining position to reach an amicable agreement with Somali elders and Culumada as mediators. Akhi, they have done it, more elders are embracing the resistance, the most recent is the endorsement they got from many clan elders. You write: The TFG has signaled its readiness to enter into a power sharing agreement on similar terms. The TFG has no weight at all, they have to go to Addis Ababa for approval. Addis Ababa has to get approval from Washington, Shouldn't the resistance negotiate directly with America, the real power behind world misery? You write: As someone well-versed in Islam and its history, you would be aware that entering into an agreement (as long as it terms do not run counter to what Allah has revealed) with an opponent in order to further your cause is not uncommon in Islamic history. The treaty of Hudaibiyyah is the best example. It becomes even more of a necessity when those you’re entering into an agreement with are themselves Muslims, as is the case in Somalia. AS and HI would not only be furthering their cause but at the same time ease the suffering of the displaced and ensure that the affairs of Somalia remain in the hands of Somalis. This is a big bite, " Hudaybia treaty" has been misused out of context lately, let us analyze the analogy. Hudaibiya Treaty Context: a. Parties: Two Different States with Mutual Recognition of each other. b. Leadership: Independent Leadership For each party, Sovereign (Their decision is their own.) C. Seat Of Government: Madina for Muslims, Makkah For Kuffar d. Purpose: Peace. e. Main Articles: 1. Cessation of Hostilities for ten years, 2. Freedom of free citizens of each party to convert to the other religion and migrate to their respective allies to practice their beliefs. 3. Allowing non-free dissenters of one party ( Muslims) to migrate and seek asylum with the other ( Kuffar), while Dissenters of the non-free non-believers who have not secured permission from their masters, who join the Muslim camp are to be returned to the non-believers. e. Beliefs: Distinct; Islam and Polytheism f. Situation: Confrontation and War Today Context as per The TFG and The Resistance: a. Parties: Two parties who do not recognize each other. b. Leadership: One party, ( The Resistance) has independent Leadership, the other party, ( TFG) is a Special Vehicle for Foreign Control of Somalia. C. Seat Of Government: Kismaayo for Resistance, Mogadishu Shared by Resistance and Proxy d. Purpose of Treaty: Peace; 1. By way of sharing Governance of the Nation e. Beliefs: Islam for Resistance and Hypocrisy for Proxy Party f. Situation: Confrontation and War. Analysis Although Peace is a common purpose in both cases, the CONTEXT is very divergent and different. 1. Hudaybiya Treaty was represented by independent voluntary leaderships. The same can not be said in Somalia today. 2. In Hudaybiya, parties possessed distinct domain of influence, no land domain dispute, same can not be said of parties in Somalia today. 3. Hudaybiya Treaty's main purpose was the protection of the Faith ( Making Umrah in Makkah) from the Muslims perspective, and for that purpose, sacrificing the right of freedom of Muslims in bondage under Qureish was the price. In contrast, today the Somali resistance are being asked to sacrifice and compromise the practice of their faith in exchange of peace. A good parallel in line with the Hudaiybiya Treaty for today would be for the resistance forces to make a direct negotiation with the Americans, here are the terms that could be on the table: 1. Cessation of Hostilities, between Americans and the Somali Resistance, the US withdraw their navy and all forms of military presence from Somalia's Sovereign waters, air and land and pledge not to interfere in Somalia's internal affairs. 2. Resistance to pledge that they will not threaten the peace of the United States, the West and African neighbors in any way including but not limited to by becoming a hub of what the US considers to be threatening to its peace and national security. The Resistance further pledges the clean up of the Piracy scourge from Somali Coasts and the respect of the international maritime conventions. 3. Any American Citizen resistance volunteer of Somali origin who migrated to Somalia and is wanted by the US can not be extradited to US. Any Somali citizen who fled to US and wanted by the Resistance can not be extradited to Somalia. 4. Any American or Foreign national wanted by his country for any crime and in the custody of the Resistance government shall be extradited to his respective country after a hearing against him is conducted in a transparent court of Sharia Law attended by international observers. You write: What would you rather have? A Somalia run by Somalis (however diverse their opinions) or one controlled by foreign governments? This is the choice we face. It’s a choice which the resistance can influence; they can choose the lesser of two evils while at the same time working towards bridging the gap between it and the TFG – i.e. what form a Shariah-based government should resemble and how it would operate. Were it not for AS, I’m pretty certain HI and Sh. Aweys would have chosen to work with the TFG in order to overcome the current impasse (thereby helping to ease the humanitarian crisis) and to thwart a foreign takeover of our country. Akhi, I find the Americans to be more rational and more just than the criminal warlords, If I have to choose who to negotiate with, I would directly negotiate with their masters, why talk to a slave? when push comes to shove, we can maintain a long and enduring peaceful civil disobedience that wears out their masters. If Sharif never crossed the line, if the unity of the resistance was not broken, all of Somalia would have been under a unified Islamic Governance. The Islamic Courts Franchise System was catching like fire. Unfortunately, Sheikh Shareef stole the drum, but no one is dancing around it. Nur

War on Terror logic By Glenn Greenwald * (updated below) The U.S. war in (against) Pakistan continues to escalate, as Pakistanis attacked NATO tankers carrying fuel through their country to soldiers in Afghanistan last night, killing three people, an attack that was in retaliation for vastly increased U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan this month, which were ordered in alleged response to reports of increased Terrorist threats aimed at Europe, which, in turn, were in retaliation for the escalating wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan (as evidenced by the large numbers of individuals of Afghan descent involved in these plots). Jim White -- in a post this morning entitled "Stuck in Feedback Loop: Drone Strikes Provoke Terrorists Who Provoke More Drone Strikes" -- documents exactly the process at play here: The situation in Pakistan appears to have reached a point where a positive feedback loop prompts continued escalation on both sides. The US sees drone attacks as its primary weapon and has stepped up such attacks in the belief that they will create more security for military actions in Afghanistan and disrupt planning of terrorist attacks on the West. Instead, the attacks appear to enrage the surviving targets, recruit more to their ranks and lead to more attacks. What a surprise: bombing Muslims more and more causes more and more Muslims to want to bomb the countries responsible. That, of course, has long been the perverse "logic" driving the War on Terror. The very idea that we're going to reduce Terrorism by more intensively bombing more Muslim countries is one of the most patently absurd, self-contradicting premises that exists. It's exactly like announcing that the cure for lung cancer is to quadruple the number of cigarettes one smokes each day. But that's been the core premise (at least the stated one) of our foreign policy for the last decade: we're going to stop Terrorism by doing more and more of exactly the things that cause it (and see this very good Economist article on the ease with which drones allow a nation's leaders to pretend to its citizenry that they are not really at war -- as we're doing with Pakistan). Speaking of counter-productive U.S. actions in Pakistan, this Washington Post article from Friday discusses the possibility that a coup could be engineered in that country to overthrow the current Government and replace it with one that is friendlier to U.S. interests: U.S. officials pointed to recent signs that Pakistan's powerful army and opposition parties are positioning themselves to install a new civilian government to replace President Asif Ali Zardari and his prime minister in the coming months. . . . U.S. officials indicated that the administration has begun to contemplate the effects of a change, engineered through Zardari's resignation as head of his political party, the dissolution of the current coalition government, or a call for new elections under the Pakistani constitution, rather than any overt action by the military. Some suggested that a new, constitutionally-approved government that was more competent and popular, and had strong military backing, might be better positioned to support U.S. policies. The article does not say that the U.S. is actively involved in those efforts, but it's very difficult to imagine American military and intelligence officials simply sitting passively by as a coup is underway in a country (like Pakistan) where we are so invested, just keeping their fingers crossed that it results in a new government "better positioned to support U.S. policies." Whatever else is true, it's very easy to imagine how such a coup -- resulting in a more U.S.-friendly government -- will be perceived in that country and around the Muslim world. That perception is unlikely to help reduce the threat of Terrorism. For more on the growing U.S. war in (on) Pakistan, watch this quite good Rachel Maddow monologue from Thursday night: UPDATE: Here's a reminder of what a 2004 Task Force convened by Donald Rumsfeld said about the actual causes of Terrorism and, specifically, the effects on Terrorism from our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The whole Report is worth reviewing, but among the highlights: (a) the "underlying sources of threats to America's national security" are grounded in "negative attitudes" towards the U.S. in the Muslim world and "the conditions that create them"; (b) what what most exacerbates anti-American sentiment, and therefore the threat of Terrorism, is "American direct intervention in the Muslim world" -- through our "one sided support in favor of Israel"; support for Islamic tyrannies in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia; and, most of all, "the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan"; and © "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies."

What Tyranny Looks Like

One in 28 US Kids Has a Parent in Prison: Study By Daniel Tencer October 01, 2010 "Raw Story" -- The US's exceptionally high rate of incarceration is causing economic damage not only to the people behind bars but to their children and taxpayers as a whole, a new study finds. The study (PDF) from the Pew Research Center's Economic Mobility Project, released Tuesday, reports that the US prison population has more than quadrupled since 1980, from 500,000 to 2.3 million, making the US's incarceration rate the highest in the world, beating former champions like Russia and South Africa. This means more than one in 100 Americans is in prison, and the cost of prisons to states now exceeds $50 billion per year, or one in every 15 state dollars spent -- a figure the study describes as "staggering." According to the authors, one in every 28 children in the US has a parent behind bars -- up from one in 125 just 25 years ago. This is significant, the study argues, because children of incarcerated parents are much likelier to struggle in life. A family with an incarcerated parent on average earns 22 percent less the year after the incarceration than it did the year before, the study finds. And children with parents in prison are significantly likelier to be expelled from school than others; 23 percent of students with jailed parents are expelled, compared to 4 percent for the general population. "Both education and parental income are strong indicators of children’s future economic mobility," the survey notes. "With millions of prison and jail inmates a year returning to their communities, it is important to identify policies that address the impact of incarceration on the economic mobility of former inmates and their children." In all, 2.7 million US children have parents behind bars, and "two-thirds of these children’s parents were incarcerated for non-violent offenses," the study notes. Not surprisingly, the statistics show large disparities when broken down by race. Among black children, fully one in nine, or 11.4 percent, have a parent in jail. For Hispanics, the number is one in 28, and for white children it's one in 57. The study also finds that the US now has a prison population larger than the 35 largest European countries combined. The incarceration rate in the US is five times that of Great Britain -- 753 inmates per 100,000 people, compared to 151 inmates in the UK. Even the British incarceration rate is high compared to some countries: 96 in France and 88 in Germany, for example. The cost of such a high incarceration rate hasn't been lost on lawmakers in this era of budget deficits. Over the past few years, numerous states have released prisoners early to reduce incarceration costs. California granted early release to some 1,500 inmates this year, and the state hopes to reduce its prison population by a total of 6,500. But those early releases have proven controversial, both for political and public safety reasons. The New York Times reported earlier this year: In February, lawmakers in Oregon temporarily suspended a program they had expanded last year to let prisoners, for good behavior, shorten their sentences (and to save $6 million) after an anticrime group aired radio advertisements portraying the outcomes in alarming tones. “A woman’s asleep in her own apartment,” a narrator said. “Suddenly, she’s attacked by a registered sex offender and convicted burglar.” In Illinois, Gov. Patrick J. Quinn, a Democrat, described as “a big mistake” an early release program that sent some convicts who had committed violent crimes home from prison in a matter of weeks. Of more than 1,700 prisoners released over three months, more than 50 were soon accused of new violations. An early release program in Colorado meant to save $19 million has scaled back its ambitions by $14 million after officials found far fewer prisoners than anticipated to be wise release risks. In more than five months, only 264 prisoners were released, though the program was designed to shrink the prison population by 2,600 over two years. With concern growing about the cost -- both economic and social -- of incarceration, lawmakers have turned an eye to sentencing reform. But prospects for wholesale changes to sentencing in the US are dim, primarily because of the difficulty of selling "weaker" criminal punishments to a skeptical public. This year, the Obama administration backed sentencing reform for crack cocaine, reducing the disparity between crack sentences and powder cocaine sentences on the basis that they discriminated along racial lines. But, as law professor Andrea Lyon noted at the Huffington Post, even that reform allowed for large disparities in sentences. "What was a 100 to 1 disparity is now 'only' an 18 to 1 disparity," she writes. In Missouri, an innovative new law gives judges access to information about incarceration costs before they decide on punishment, as well as access to information on recidivism rates for various crimes. Lawmakers hope it will result in a more consistent application of the law. Marijuana law reform could also have an impact, by simply reducing the number of crimes for which people can be jailed. Last year alone, there were more than 858,000 arrests in the United States for marijuana. That's down from a peak of 872,000 in 2007, but still near record highs. More than half of all drug arrests involved marijuana.

Stalinism At Work

They don't have to go that far, besides its pretty cold, they can simply poke a hole in any ocean bed to release trapped methane that will have 20 times the effect of of co2. Ocean Bed Trapped Methane Nur

A New Emerging Business Model Based on Condi Rice's Vision Of Creative Chaos! As the US economy heads south as a result of the financial, political and military mismanagement, and as many nations feel the US weakness, a new business model will flourish as a result of the Civil Wars that will be created: BEC Business Environment Creation Here is one such company undergoing rebranding! International Development Solutions! Western Mercenary Contractors , proxy armies from poor corrupt countries like Uganda will be roaming Africa and Latin America, and PakAfghanistan to set up safe zones for Western Multinational Corporations seeking free Energy and Minerals. Proxy Army Contractors Nur