Monday, 11 November 2013

Re: “Without the Veterans, We Wouldn’t Be Here ”


To Neocons *anyone* who questions their beloved jingoistic nationalism is a 'far left extremist'.
Sadly, Rozeff is spot on.

The US began its demise with the Spanish-American War ... solidified with the wholly unnecessary Great War -- that had Great Britain not escalated and elevated would have AVERTED the scourges that were Hitler AND the Soviet Union.

That we have perpetual blowback, manipulation and the all-too-important and 'necessary' replacement for that hobgoblin known as the Red Menace notwithstanding.

Regard$,
--MJ

"During World War I, millions of Americans more or less lost their minds as the government stirred up a hysterical frenzy of "patriotic" oppression. Among the countless outrages, which included everything from lynchings to an almost total suppression of First Amendment rights under federal and state sedition statutes, was this atrocity: Some "religious people opposed to war were thrown in jail, kept in chains and given a diet of bread and water until they renounced their religious convictions." (Michael Linfield, Freedom Under Fire: U.S. Civil Liberties in Times of War (1990), p. 34.
"The next time you encounter someone who insists that the U.S. government has EVER gone to war to protect American liberties, I suggest that you politely inform them they are full of shit and badly in need of remedial historical education." -- Robert Higgs




At 10:34 PM 11/11/2013, you wrote:
I think Mr. Rozeff forgets a few facts, but in general, the theory goes something like this:  "Because our Nation was attacked by terroristic multi-national individuals, to include those who call and/or brand themselves "Taliban";  those Veterans who have been engaged in battle in the Middle East against those same forces who attacked us on numerous occasions since the 1980s, are the ones who have recently threatened the safety and security of our Nation.  This, coupled with the fact that a large number of Muslims want to see the end of Western Society's  (to include all of North America's and all of Europa's) very way of life,  it is safe to acknowledge that yes,  we have our United States Armed Forces to be thankful to,  for providing a deterrent and a defense to these hostile enemies.
 
The rest of Mr. Rezoff's article is just ridiculous.  Of course the whole world was engaged in war during the two world wars.  Mr. Rezoff acts as if it is some type of a wront to support and be thankful for our armed forces and for those who have served their Nation.  Mr. Rezoff is a far left extremist who should be shunned,  yet you post his garbage here.
 
 


On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:08 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

"Without the Veterans, We Wouldn't Be Here"
Michael S. Rozeff

A clerk told me this today. She was a friendly woman of 50, by all appearances a typical middle-class American, perhaps even a grandmother.

Which veterans I wonder? The ones who fought the Spanish and the Filipinos? They had no known designs on America in 1898.

The vets who fought the Iraqis twice? The latter didn't make war against America or even launch sporadic attacks. The vets who have been killing Afghanistan Taliban? Ditto for them. The vets of the Korean War? North Korea didn't attack America either. The vets of the Grenada War? Grenada is just a tiny island. The World War 1 veterans? That war was among European powers until the U.S. got into it, for no reason that had anything to do with making sure that "we would be here".

The vets who fought the Vietnam War? It is a terrible thing to have to say, given the lives lost and mangled, that North Vietnam had no designs on America and that the U.S. presence on the South Vietnamese side had absolutely nothing to do with our being here in America at that time or at any time since, other than to make our lives worse, as in the case of the other wars.

The vets who fought the Japanese? That's a stronger prima facie case due to the Pearl Harbor attack, but, as Robert Higgs explains, the U.S. government provoked an attack and got its war with both Japan and Germany.

We would be here without the vets and without all these wars.

We will be here without American involvement in current wars and trouble spots.

The notion that vets saved us from being enslaved or worse at the hands of assorted foreigners is absurd. What has happened as a result of these wars is that Americans are now enslaved by various elites within this country.

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: “Without the Veterans, We Wouldn’t Be Here”

I think Mr. Rozeff forgets a few facts, but in general, the theory goes something like this:  "Because our Nation was attacked by terroristic multi-national individuals, to include those who call and/or brand themselves "Taliban";  those Veterans who have been engaged in battle in the Middle East against those same forces who attacked us on numerous occasions since the 1980s, are the ones who have recently threatened the safety and security of our Nation.  This, coupled with the fact that a large number of Muslims want to see the end of Western Society's  (to include all of North America's and all of Europa's) very way of life,  it is safe to acknowledge that yes,  we have our United States Armed Forces to be thankful to,  for providing a deterrent and a defense to these hostile enemies.
 
The rest of Mr. Rezoff's article is just ridiculous.  Of course the whole world was engaged in war during the two world wars.  Mr. Rezoff acts as if it is some type of a wront to support and be thankful for our armed forces and for those who have served their Nation.  Mr. Rezoff is a far left extremist who should be shunned,  yet you post his garbage here.
 
 


On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:08 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

"Without the Veterans, We Wouldn't Be Here"
Michael S. Rozeff

A clerk told me this today. She was a friendly woman of 50, by all appearances a typical middle-class American, perhaps even a grandmother.

Which veterans I wonder? The ones who fought the Spanish and the Filipinos? They had no known designs on America in 1898.

The vets who fought the Iraqis twice? The latter didn't make war against America or even launch sporadic attacks. The vets who have been killing Afghanistan Taliban? Ditto for them. The vets of the Korean War? North Korea didn't attack America either. The vets of the Grenada War? Grenada is just a tiny island. The World War 1 veterans? That war was among European powers until the U.S. got into it, for no reason that had anything to do with making sure that "we would be here".

The vets who fought the Vietnam War? It is a terrible thing to have to say, given the lives lost and mangled, that North Vietnam had no designs on America and that the U.S. presence on the South Vietnamese side had absolutely nothing to do with our being here in America at that time or at any time since, other than to make our lives worse, as in the case of the other wars.

The vets who fought the Japanese? That's a stronger prima facie case due to the Pearl Harbor attack, but, as Robert Higgs explains, the U.S. government provoked an attack and got its war with both Japan and Germany.

We would be here without the vets and without all these wars.

We will be here without American involvement in current wars and trouble spots.

The notion that vets saved us from being enslaved or worse at the hands of assorted foreigners is absurd. What has happened as a result of these wars is that Americans are now enslaved by various elites within this country.

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Armistice Day


Armistice Day
By Anthony Gregory 
Friday November 11, 2011

Updated*.

On November 11, 1918, the world finally had enough of the irrational killing spree known as World War I. Fifteen million individual human beings had perished in what was the largest military conflict the world had yet seen. Armistice Day, marking the end of the war, was declared a holiday by the Allied nations. Some countries still observe it every November 11.

Although the day was memorialized by governments whose integrity in the whole matter we can question, there is no doubt that there was much to celebrate in the end of hostilities. World War I convinced much of the world of the insanity of war.

Thanks mostly to mutual defense treaties among nations that had no real reason to fight each other, what started out as a royal family feud and regional squabble exploded into a global bloodbath. Serbia was joined by Britain, France, Belgium, Greece, Romania, Italy, Russia, Portugal, Montenegro, Japan, Brazil and, eventually, the United States, to fight Austria-Hungary's alliance, which included Germany, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria. This madness was triggered when a Bosnian Serb secessionist, sponsored by members of the Serbian military, assassinated Archduke Ferdinand of Austria. One act of violence­over one localized territorial dispute­resulted in the loss of lives, property and liberty of tens of millions of human beings.

It was a complete diplomatic disaster on numerous fronts. Pat Buchanan summed it up well in his bookChurchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War (2008):

Had the Austrians not sought to exploit the assassination of Ferdinand to crush Serbia, they would have taken Serbia's acceptance of nine of their ten demands as vindication. Had Czar Nicholas II been more forceful in rescinding his order for full mobilization, Germany would not have mobilized, and the Schlieffen Plan would not have begun automatically to unfold. Had the Kaiser and [Chancellor Theobald von] Bethmann realized the gravity of the crisis, just days earlier, they might have seized on [Sir Edward] Grey's proposal to reconvene the six-power conference that resolved the 1913 Balkan crisis.

And the governments of other major belligerents­Russia, Britain, and the United States­were also too willing to go to war.

The mass death of the was barbaric, on an unspeakable scale and amounted to nothing good. In one day at the Battle of the Somme, the British suffered more losses than any other day in the history of the empire. Practically all sides stooped to committing atrocities. Particularly savage was Britain's starvation blockade against Germany that consumed between 600,000 and 800,000 lives, according to most estimates.

At the Battle of Verdun, the insanity of war was most apparent. From February to July in 1916, Germans and Frenchmen slaughtered each other relentlessly because their governments told them to. Germany "won" after losing 330,000 soldiers to France's 350,000. It was all over a worthless piece of land, which, by the end of the battle, was littered with corpses and with about 1,000 rifle shells per square meter. Neither side gained any true strategic victory from the battle.

And on November 11, 1918, the world had finally had enough on this insanity. About ten million soldiers and millions more civilians were dead. The war left behind about nineteen million refugees and nine million orphans. In recognition of the horrible war and the glorious peace, November 11 would be known internationally as Armistice Day, a day for remembering the veterans and war dead from around the world, a day to reflect on the moment that the killing ended and the two sides called a truce.

The United States had lost 116,700 men to the war, just in terms of military deaths. Many returning soldiers brought back the Spanish flu that took many thousands more lives in 1918 and 1919. During the war, America lost priceless economic and civil liberties that were never fully restored.

Americans, by and large, didn't want to enter the war in the first place, and Woodrow Wilson had won in 1916 on a campaign slogan that he "kept us out of war." More than twenty years after World War I, Americans reelected Franklin Roosevelt for his third term after he promised not to send Americans to die in another global conflict.

The disastrous effects of World War I had continued, however, and US entry had prolonged the conflict, most likely making the outcome worse. The property destruction eventually translated into global depression. The brutal treatment of Germany under the egregiously unfair Versailles Treaty and German suffering under crushing sanctions and debt made the country ripe for the rise of Adolph Hitler. The war had decimated the Russian monarchical structure and had given Lenin what he needed to establish communism. The damage to internationalism and globalism would not be undone for at least several decades, and in the meantime, international distrust and broken friendships allowed for hostilities to build up, from Europe to Asia, until the boiling point eventually came.

As totalitarianism of different strains began to take root throughout Europe, Americans looked across the sea and saw the failures of foreign intervention. The Great War hadn't made the world safe for democracy. Anti-war scholarship became mainstream in a way that has never again been repeated.

As war in Europe once again broke out, most Americans wanted nothing to do with it until December 7, 1941, when the Japanese military attacked Pearl Harbor. World War II was even far worse than its antecedent. After that, the United States would never revert to a peaceful state for longer than a few years.

At the end of the Korean War, President Eisenhower signed a bill in 1954 that changed the name of the national holiday to Veteran's Day. Perhaps it made no sense any more to honor an Armistice that had been overshadowed by World War II and the beginnings of the Cold War. Whereas after World War I, the United States brought its armed forces home, the war against Communism guaranteed that the United States would henceforth have little interest in armistice, in truce, in peace.

And our country's been at war ever since, with more and more veterans to observe every November.

 

* The way I had this originally written came off to some readers as placing more blame on Serbia than was deserved. This was not my intention, but I am guilty of welcoming this interpretation. I have attempted to clarify my position on this, mostly with the quote by Buchanan.

http://blog.independent.org/2011/11/11/armistice-day/

Nationalism -- the Bane of the Modern Age


Nationalism -- the Bane of the Modern Age
By Robert Higgs 
Saturday April 27, 2013

Everyone, it seems, has a hollow space in his makeup. Perhaps he has no faith, no hope, no charity; no sense that he is basically a lord or a priest or a peasant; no comfort in knowing his personal latitude and longitude in the great scheme of things; no ethical compass to give him his bearings and help him navigate between what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad.

As religion's hold on the Western man's mind has diminished during the past several centuries, replaced by a cold scientific sense that, at bottom, everything is just a lot of lifeless particles and electrical currents or, in many cases, replaced by nothing at all, this empty space has dilated. Into the vacuum of ethical emptiness and absent personal identity has rushed nationalism. More and more people answered the question, "What are you?" by saying "I am a Frenchmen," or a German, or an American, or whatever. State rulers, of course, actively strove to encourage such mass identification because it rendered the masses easier to exploit, plunder, and command. The culmination came in the world wars, when scores of millions submitted to kill and to die in the service of nationalism.

Americans, perhaps more than any others, are immersed in nationalism, drenched to the bone. It follows them everywhere ­ to school, to work, to their amusements and entertainments, even in many cases into their churches. They wallow in it, and they wallow happily. The merest village idiot takes pride that "We are #1," whatever such a declaration might mean. Usually, sad to say, it means only that the idiot's rulers in Washington have their hands on the levers and buttons that allow them to dish out violent death and effective intimidation on a global scale. Hooray for us, he proclaims; we're the biggest, baddest bully in the history of mankind. Yet, this pathetic individual, and the hundreds of millions who resemble him more or less, are really nothing at all. Their inner selves are entirely ersatz; their moral core is devoid of real substance. They have effectively surrendered their souls, their minds, and their capacity for living a moral life to politician/rulers who shamelessly pull the strings of their identity.

Nationalism and its fruit ­ the powerful welfare/warfare nation-states that now infest virtually the entire planet ­ are the banes of the modern age. Their fundamental resources are violence and fraud, and their most indispensable fraud is the conviction they have inculcated in their subjects that the people's very identity, the very essence of who they are, derives from and depends on the nation-state that dominates their lives.

http://blog.independent.org/2013/04/27/nationalism-the-bane-of-the-modern-age/

“Without the Veterans, We Wouldn’t Be Here”


"Without the Veterans, We Wouldn't Be Here"
Michael S. Rozeff

A clerk told me this today. She was a friendly woman of 50, by all appearances a typical middle-class American, perhaps even a grandmother.

Which veterans I wonder? The ones who fought the Spanish and the Filipinos? They had no known designs on America in 1898.

The vets who fought the Iraqis twice? The latter didn't make war against America or even launch sporadic attacks. The vets who have been killing Afghanistan Taliban? Ditto for them. The vets of the Korean War? North Korea didn't attack America either. The vets of the Grenada War? Grenada is just a tiny island. The World War 1 veterans? That war was among European powers until the U.S. got into it, for no reason that had anything to do with making sure that "we would be here".

The vets who fought the Vietnam War? It is a terrible thing to have to say, given the lives lost and mangled, that North Vietnam had no designs on America and that the U.S. presence on the South Vietnamese side had absolutely nothing to do with our being here in America at that time or at any time since, other than to make our lives worse, as in the case of the other wars.

The vets who fought the Japanese? That's a stronger prima facie case due to the Pearl Harbor attack, but, as Robert Higgs explains, the U.S. government provoked an attack and got its war with both Japan and Germany.

We would be here without the vets and without all these wars.

We will be here without American involvement in current wars and trouble spots.

The notion that vets saved us from being enslaved or worse at the hands of assorted foreigners is absurd. What has happened as a result of these wars is that Americans are now enslaved by various elites within this country.

Fwd: US ready to risk Israel, Saudi wrath to seal Iran deal









 

.

Military Space News

.

WAR REPORT

US ready to risk Israel, Saudi wrath to seal Iran deal



IAEA chief holds nuclear talks in Iran
Vienna (AFP) Nov 11, 2013 - The head of the UN atomic watchdog holds talks in Tehran on Monday after Iran and world powers failed to cut even an initial nuclear deal over three gruelling days in Geneva.

International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano said before leaving Sunday that his negotiations were "independent" to those of Iran with six world powers, known as the P5+1.

But after Iran and the six powers dramatically fell short in Switzerland, a deal with the IAEA could help repair damaged hopes for progress ahead of the next P5+1 round on November 20.

"The only reason he (Amano) would go would be if he's confident that they were going to agree on something," one Western diplomat in Vienna told AFP, predicting an initial accord with "confidence-building measures".

Talking to a scrum of reporters before he took off from Vienna airport on Sunday, the Japanese Amano said that Iran and the UN body had reached a "very important point".

"Iran presented a new proposal (to the IAEA) last month that includes practical measures to strengthen cooperation and dialogue, and we hope to build on it," Amano said.

Mindful of his last Tehran trip in May 2012 when he failed to clinch an accord, Amano though stopped short of echoing Iran's IAEA envoy in predicting a breakthrough.

The IAEA conducts regular inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities but it also wants Tehran to answer allegations that it was trying before 2003, and maybe since, to develop a nuclear weapon.

Iran denies seeking or ever having sought nuclear weapons, and says the IAEA's claims are based on faulty intelligence from the likes of the CIA and Israel's Mossad.

For two years and in numerous meetings, Tehran has resisted IAEA requests to visit sites where these alleged activities took place as well as to consult documents and speak to certain Iranian scientists.

The sites include the Parchin military base where the IAEA wants to probe claims that scientists conducted explosives tests that it says would be "strong indicators of possible nuclear weapon development".

But the election this year of the more moderate Hassan Rouhani as Iranian president has created fresh hope and momentum, as it has with Iran's separate but related talks with world powers.

Those discussions with the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany are focused more on Tehran's current activities, in particular uranium enrichment, with Iran seeking sanctions relief.

The two diplomatic "tracks" are closely related, however, since world powers want Iran to answer the IAEA's questions in order to ease fears that Tehran wants the bomb.

The six countries -- all of which except Germany have nuclear weapons -- also want Tehran to submit to more intrusive inspections by the watchdog as part of a wider accord.

The IAEA would also be closely involved in monitoring any freeze in enrichment and in Iran sending its stockpiles of nuclear material to a third country.

Hopes had soared for a deal in Geneva after foreign ministers including US Secretary of State John Kerry joined the talks. But cracks emerged among the powers and nothing was signed.

Israel, the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear power which has refused to rule out bombing Iran, had expressed massive misgivings, calling the mooted agreement "bad and dangerous".

by Staff Writers
Washington (AFP) Nov 11, 2013
The United States remains ready to upset key allies Israel and Saudi Arabia by securing a swift nuclear deal with Iran despite the failure of talks in Geneva, US-based analysts said Sunday.

While Tehran remained under the greatest pressure to reach a speedy deal with the major powers, they said, Washington was anxious to take advantage of Iran's willingness to negotiate an accord and avert future conflict in the Middle East.

Three grueling days of discussions between Iran, the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany ended early Sunday without agreement.

The parties had been hoping to broker an accord that would curb Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

By searching for a deal in Geneva, the US was "maybe trying to go a little too far, too fast, but they were induced by the Iranian enthusiasm," according to Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine.

"It is really the convergence of US and Iranian desires to avoid an even deeper confrontation over the nuclear file that makes an agreement possible at this stage," he added, citing the 10-year impasse concerning the nuclear program, which Western powers suspect of being geared towards producing an atomic bomb rather than peaceful civilian uses.

Alireza Nader, a senior international policy analyst at the RAND Corporation think-tank, questioned the suggestion that the United States was "rushing" to reach a deal at any cost with Iran, with whom it has had no diplomatic relations since 1980.

Despite the historic phone call between US President Barack Obama and Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani at the end of September, any improvement in relations between the two sides must continue to be viewed in the context of the decades of mistrust and animosity that preceded it.

However, it was the clear the the United States was keen on reaching an agreement in Geneva, because a "a deal as a first step (provides) an opportunity to stop Iran from moving towards a nuclear weapons breakout capability."

Nader said the Obama administration had always favored a diplomatic solution to the nuclear stand-off.

"I don't think the US position has changed in the last few months," Nader said. "What we have seen now is the willingness by Iran to negotiate."

Iran was keen to see an easing crippling sanctions, notably restrictions, which have frozen overseas assets worth several billion dollars.

US Secretary of State John Kerry meanwhile defended Washington against the accusation that it was pursuing a deal with Tehran at all costs.

"We are not blind, and I don't think we're stupid," Kerry said.

He also sent a new message to Israel and Saudi Arabia, who have grown increasingly alarmed at the warming of US-Iranian ties, saying Washington had a "pretty strong sense of how to measure whether or not we are acting in the interests of our country and of the globe, and particularly of our allies like Israel and Gulf States."

Israel and Saudi Arabia anxious

Analysts are adamant that Israel and Saudi Arabia remain resolutely opposed to any deal between Washington and Tehran.

"Both the Israelis and the Saudis have indicated publicly they want the United States to go to war with Iran," said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council.

"If there is a deal, there will not be a war, that's why they are upset."

RAND Corporation expert Nader also noted the "anxiety" of Israel and Saudi Arabia, who likely feared that a US-Iran deal would be harmful to their long-term strategic interests.

"They are worried about Iranian-American relations improving to their detriment," Nader said. The possibility of Iran playing a bigger role in regional affairs "creates anxiety for Israel and Saudi Arabia."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday Israel would do all it could to "convince world powers to avoid a bad deal."

American Task Force on Palestine expert Ibish said Gulf states already "seem to be concluding, with alarm, that the US is morphing from the guarantor of regional stability to a broker of unsatisfactory and tenuous agreements with regimes that should be confronted or contained."

"The Saudis and other Gulf states are starting to ask the question 'Why does the US seem to be developing a panel of rewarding its enemies and punishing its friends?'"

 

.

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Will Obama Give Iran the Deal of the Century?








Will Obama Give Iran the Deal of the Century?

Posted By P. David Hornik On November 11, 2013

Israeli officials were described as "furious at the Obama administration" over what seemed to be an emerging nuclear deal between the P5+1 countries (the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China, plus Germany) and Iran.

One official was quoted saying that "the Americans capitulated to Iranian maneuvering…. Kerry wants a deal at all costs and the Iranians are leading the Americans by the nose."

As for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, he was described as being "in shock." That was evident enough in a statement Netanyahu released Friday morning after seeing off Secretary of State Kerry at the airport, in which Netanyahu dispensed with diplomatic bromides and said:

I urge Secretary Kerry not to rush to sign, to wait, to reconsider, to get a good deal. But this is a bad deal—a very, very bad deal. It's the deal of a century for Iran; it's a very dangerous and bad deal for peace and the international community.

Kerry's visit to Israel had already been a rough one, in which he first stigmatized Israeli communities as "illegitimate" and then, on Israeli TV Thursday night, as The Times of Israel's Raphael Ahren aptly put it, "appeared to come perilously close to empathizing with potential Palestinian aggression against Israel." (Reactions by other Israeli commentators were titled "Kerry, give it a rest" and "Kerry: Stay home".)

But the real stunner came on Friday when Jerusalem apparently got word of the deal that seemed to be taking shape in Geneva. It led to the canceling of a joint media appearance between Netanyahu and Kerry, and prompted, instead, a bitter exchange between them before Kerry headed off to the Swiss city.

The possible deal gravely worries Israel—and others with a realistic view of the situation—because it allows Iran to continue uranium enrichment (albeit at a lower level—now meaningless given Iran's advanced centrifuges), continue the construction of its heavy-water reactor in Arak (aimed at producing plutonium bombs), while not requiring the dismantling of a single centrifuge.

At the same time, in "reward" essentially for nothing, the deal gives Iran sanctions relief far beyond what Israeli officials had been led to expect, reportedly including "the unfreezing of $3 billion of fuel funds, an easing of sanctions on the petrochemical and gold sectors, an easing of sanctions on replacement parts for planes and a loosening of restrictions on the Iranian car industry."

With Chinese, Italian, German, and other companies champing at the bit to resume doing lucrative business with Iran, it's believed such an opening will lead to the sanctions regime's total collapse.

So Israel was relieved when it turned out the deal—for the time being—had fallen through on Saturday. But with the talks set to resume in nine days, trepidation remains high.

Israel's ally in objecting to the putative deal has turned out to be France. That appeared to validate earlier reports that, among the Western powers, France was the most clear-eyed about the ayatollahs' regime and the closest to Israel in its perceptions. France has long had tight ties with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and appears to have absorbed some of their realism—and fear—about a nuclear Iran.

Meanwhile, on Sunday morning, Netanyahu's office issued a press release in which he stated:

Over the weekend I spoke with President Obama, with President Putin, with President Hollande, with Chancellor Merkel and with British Prime Minister Cameron. I told them that according to all the information reaching Israel, the impending deal is bad and dangerous.

It is not only dangerous to us; it is dangerous for them, too. It is dangerous for the peace of the world because in one fell swoop it lowers the pressure of the sanctions which took years to build, and conversely, Iran essentially preserves its nuclear uranium enrichment capabilities as well as the ability to advance on the plutonium enrichment path.

…I asked all the leaders what the rush is. And I suggested that they wait…. It is good that this was ultimately the choice that was made but I am not fooling myself—there is a strong desire to strike a deal….

Iran's allegedly "moderate" president Hassan Rouhani, for his part, did not sound conciliatory on Sunday when he said Iran's "red lines" included uranium enrichment and that "We will not answer to any threat, sanction, humiliation or discrimination." But with Iran's interlocutors—possibly with the exception of France—already apparently ready to fold on the enrichment issue, Rouhani's words seemed aimed mainly at Israel.

For Israel, after so many avowals of President Obama's determination to prevent Iran from going nuclear, the latest turn of events is alarming and disillusioning. Many believe that, as long as diplomatic activity between the P5+1 and Iran is going on, Israel is effectively screened out of taking military action. Netanyahu had that in mind when he also said on Friday: "Israel is not obliged by this agreement and Israel will do everything it needs to do to defend itself and the security of its people."

If the situation looks desperate and Israel takes that course, it will not be without (tacit) allies in the region.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.


Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/davidhornik/will-obama-give-iran-the-deal-of-the-century/

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Grounds for Impeachment









 

Saturday, November 9, 2013

Grounds for Impeachment

 

By Alan Caruba

 

I am beginning to think that, short of Obama being videotaped murdering a Fox News reporter on the east lawn of the White House, he will not be impeached.

 

Calls for a president's impeachment are commonplace. I have written in the past that Obama was likely unimpeachable on the constitutional grounds of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

 

Even so, I increasingly believe that Obama should be impeached.

 

The Framers were intentionally vague about the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors, but experts on the Constitution define the terms to mean any serious abuse of power to include both legal and illegal activities. Thus, misconduct, violations of the oath of office, and serious incompetence fall under the purview of impeachment.

 

I don't think one has to be a lawyer to conclude that deliberately and repeatedly lying to Americans about the passage and implementation of the Affordable Care Act that is depriving them of their preferred healthcare insurance, fining them if they do not purchase insurance they may not want or need, while giving the federal government control over one sixth of the nation's economy is an impeachable offense.

 

Everything involving Obamacare wreaks of an attack on the most fundamental elements of the Constitution whose emphasis is on individual liberties and whose construction strictly limits the powers of the central government. Requiring people to purchase something they don't want strikes me as distinctly unconstitutional and, indeed, the Supreme Court gave Obamacare a pass by ruling it was a tax.

 

I have no doubt that presidents have lied to the public in the past. Even George Washington was accused of being a "usurper" of powers not delineated in the Constitution when, over the course of the first two terms of the presidency, he asserted the right of the chief executive to control executive appointments, determine foreign policy and military affairs, as well as government finances, and federal law enforcement. He was the first to legislate by presidential proclamation and to issue secret fiats under the cloak of executive privilege. Those powers exist to this day, passed down through the office to its 44th occupant, Barack Obama.

 

I think impeachment is needed because we face three more years of Obama's presidency and, with Obamacare alone, he has wreaked havoc on the lives of millions of Americans by deception.

 

The impact on the nation's economy is already being felt in the reduction of working hours that it has imposed on millions, the reduction in the creation of jobs well below normal growth, the huge increases in the costs of healthcare insurance, the structural instability of the funding aspects of the law, and the interposition of the government between patient and doctor. The inclusion of the so-called death panels is real and is an abomination.

 

If Obamacare by itself is not cause for impeachment, the deliberate hollowing out of the U.S. military poses a threat to the security of the nation and the recent removal of high ranking officers raises memories of Stalin's purge of generals deemed likely to oppose his tyrannical control. The morale of the members of the armed services is likely at an all-time low and recruitment for the all-voluntary service is surely impacted as well.

 

It appears that Obama intends to rule by executive order as his means of by-passing the authority of the Congress. It has proven to be a weak instrument of restraint and polls show it is held in very low esteem.

 

The basis of the failures and cover-up of the Benghazi attack that resulted in the death of an American ambassador and three others should be sufficient cause for impeachment. It was dereliction of duty.

 

The use of "climate change", aka "global warming" as justification for the destruction of essential elements of the nation's supply of energy and the scandals involving the waste of billions in loans to "clean energy", wind and solar companies, is further evidence of the President's deliberate deception of the public. There is no warming. The Earth has been in a natural cycle of cooling for about seventeen years and is likely to continue for many years to come.

 

The recent negotiations with Iran have revealed that Obama has already begun to lift aspects of the sanctions placed on that rogue nation. Permitting Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is, I suggest, a crime against humanity.

 

Do I think that Obama will be impeached by this Congress? No.

 

The Republican Party that controls the House is sharply divided and the Senate, in which the trial would occur, is controlled by the Democrats, the President's party. There will be no impeachment.

 

Realistically, the only remaining hope is the forthcoming 2014 midterm elections. Voters, millions of whom are being adversely affected, may conclude that candidates who have supported Obamacare in the past should be removed and those who want to repeal it in the future, should be elected. Between now and then, we shall surely hear of Americans who have died as the result of losing coverage. In the plainest term, that is murder.

 

We have reached a point in which Obama is actually lying about the lies he has told. We may not be able to remove him from office, but he can be politically neutered if enough Americans wake up to the dire threat he poses to the nation and to their lives.

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: WOUNDED WARRIORS PROJECT IS A FRAUD









 

 

 

WOUNDED WARRIORS PROJECT IS A FRAUD

By Coach Collins, on November 11th, 2013

by Dean M. Graham (U.S. Army Retired, Iraq Veteran)

The Wounded Warriors Project (WWP) pays millions of dollars for commercials showing injured service members. Many were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements (Why?). I have talked to many Veterans who were promised many things from WWP and did not receive anything in return for the use of their likeness in commercials and print ads.

The commercials do not mention anything WWP does to help the injured service members. Listen closely to the commercials as they parade an injured veteran around like an injured animal. They pay famous actors and musicians to pull on the nation's heart strings. Fox News takes millions in commercial revenue from WWP along with A&E and other T.V. networks. I have written to Fox and others begging them to investigate for themselves. I imagine they too are blocked by a non-disclosure agreement.

WWP has many paid board members; this is not legal according to their own company bylaws. WWP claims only one board member is compensated. In addition they have multiple board members and employees who are former Veterans Administration employees, including the former head of the Veterans Administration. This allows the WWP to tap into federal grants that may not otherwise be available. WWP has made sure to hire board members from high places to give credence to their claims. I beg to differ and believe most people will too.

WWP has twelve or more offices in seven states employing thousands of civilian employees and very few former veterans. These employees should be volunteers. Yet every dime they collect for their paycheck is on the back of an actual injured veteran who needs assistance. I called and talked with six different paid civilian employees and all stated WWP does not award any type of financial assistance. Injured Veterans do not want to go on trips very often, they do however need financial assistance while going through their recovery.

WWP uses other non-profits and organizations to provide trips and special events. Why are they not using their own donations? I believe they have so many employees working on collecting donations and soliciting help from other organizations the actual help to veterans is minimal in comparison to donations.

WWP uses Non-Disclosure agreements with actors and employees to keep them from telling the truth about where the money actually goes. One pilot who used to do Air Shows with them shared this information with me; he said the WWP wanted them to exit the room with donors so they could be in complete control of donations. He refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement because they were taking all the credit for the air shows he and others were performing.

WWP is a for profit business, working under the umbrella of a non-profit. I believe they should be exposed for what they really are; many caring people are duped into donating to WWP,  believing their donations will really help injured veterans. No financial donations, No homes built, No material donations, and according to their own website and commercials it is not clear exactly what they do. I know they help a handful of veterans by showing up at hospitals, throwing their logo on a veteran's chest and snapping a picture to look like they are helping wounded warriors.

WWP is a fraud created by former military members and former Veterans Administration employees that needs to be investigated immediately. They will not go quietly and have an army of lawyers on staff to punish all those who try to expose them. I leave it up to every American to investigate on your own; do not take my word for it. Tell your friends and relatives not to donate to WWP, just help a veteran directly.

Comments and questions can be directed to Dean Graham with Help Indiana Vets by calling (317) 610-9779 or emailing 911@helpindianavets.com. Visit http://www.helpindianavets.com



__._,_.___
 




   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: What Obama and I Learned at Columbia: How to Destroy America From Within









 

What Obama and I Learned at Columbia: How to Destroy America From Within

Nov. 11, 2013 8:27am

Wayne Allyn Root

Wayne's latest book is: The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide: How to Survive, Thrive, and Prosper During Obamageddon. It hit #1 in bookstores, and is currently the 6th bestselling political hardcover in America for the past year. Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, successful entrepreneur, small business defender, business speaker, Capital Evangelist, and media personality- appearing on over 5000 interviews in the past 5 years. Wayne's web site: ROOTforAmerica.com.

Remember when Geraldo opened Al Capone's vault live on national TV? Well I'm about to solve the mystery of Obama. I'm about to break "the Obama code." I'm about to tell you everything about the way Obama, and the people around him, really think. I'm about to rip open the true Obama plan to destroy our country. Because I was there when the plan was hatched.

How do I know all this? Because I was Barack Obama's college classmate at Columbia University, Class of 1983. I was easy to recognize – the lone outspoken conservative in a class of 700 students. I knew I was in trouble when my first political science class at Columbia was "Communism 101″ taught by Professor Trotsky in the Fidel Castro Building, at the corner of Marx Blvd. and Lenin Drive.

I'm only half-kidding. My experiences at Columbia were not far off.

Everyone needs to hear my story because what Obama and I learned at Columbia explains EXACTLY what Obama is doing to America today.

The economy in deep decline; the disappearance of jobs; the annihilation of the middle class; the demonization of business owners; the destruction of small business with onerous regulations and taxes; the overwhelming debt and spending of out-of-control government; the millions of Americans losing their health insurance; and the unimaginable increase in dependency through welfare, food stamps, unemployment, disability, and now free  health care.

It's all easily explained when you hear what Obama and I learned at Columbia.

America's decline under Obama isn't due to mistake, ignorance, or incompetence at the hands of a community organizer. It's a purposeful, brilliant plan hatched at Columbia University to destroy capitalism, American exceptionalism, Judeo-Christian values, and the American Dream.

I never met Obama at Columbia. We were both Political Science majors, both Pre Law. We graduated on the same day. There were perhaps 100 to 150 of us in the Political Science department. And I thought I knew all of them.

America's decline under Obama isn't due to mistake, ignorance, or incompetence.

Share:

As the token big-mouthed conservative patriot, I know they all knew me. But not Obama. I never met him, saw him, or even heard of him. Not one of my friends at Columbia ever met him either. At our 30th class reunion last May, I could not find a single classmate who had ever met him. Strange story, but I digress.

What matters is what Obama learned and experienced at Columbia. My classmates hated America. They spoke with glee about one day  "taking the system down." They blamed America for "unfairness, racism, inequality, and lack of social justice."

Recognize those words?

My classmates proudly called themselves socialists, communists, and Marxists. Even though almost all of them came from wealthy families (or perhaps because of it), they hated the rich and despised business owners. They talked about how the "white power structure" had to be dismantled, business owners bankrupted, and capitalism destroyed. Everything in their minds was based on "social justice."

Protesters upset with the ongoing federal government shutdown and what they fear could lead to Social Security benefit reductions rally outside Republican U.S. Rep. Steve Daines' office in Helena, Mont., Tuesday, Oct. 8 2013. (AP Photo/Matt Gouras)

Sound like the policies of anyone you recognize in the White House? Does "We have to spread the wealth around" ring a bell? How about "If you own a business, you didn't build that."

How about Obama's hatred of Republicans and refusal to negotiate with Congress? It's clear he thinks he's "morally superior" to conservatives. That attitude was born at Columbia too.

In 1981 when a student burst through the doors to our political science class and screamed  "The President has been shot. They've assassinated Reagan"… my classmates yelled, hugged, high-fived, and jumped up and down cheering the death of a Republican. Today most of my classmates are either in government with Obama, or controlling the mainstream media. They talk about "moderation and compromise," but always remember 30 years ago they cheered for the death of a Republican.

But, there's more. We were all taught a simple, but brilliant plan. My classmates discussed it 24/7. It was their "American Dream."

By the time the middle class realizes he's the killer and they're the prey, they'll already be dead.

Share:

It was called "Cloward-Piven," after former Columbia professors Richard Cloward and Frances Piven. To bring down America and our capitalist system, they were taught to overwhelm the system with massive spending, entitlements and debt. That would cause the economy to collapse, wipe out the middle class, and bring Americans to their knees, begging government to save them.

It's the exact plan Obama has been implementing. The centerpiece is Obamacare.

Obamacare isn't about health care. It's about bankrupting the middle class and addicting it to government dependency. It's about redistributing wealth from the middle class and small business to Obama's voters (the poor and unions). Its goal is to wipe out the last vestiges of middle class America, creating a two-class society: the super rich and the poor (both beholden to Obama).

Obama learned well, it's working to perfection.

So that explains the plan. But how do you implement it? We were taught that at Columbia too.

A key component of the plan involved fooling the voters by calling yourself "moderate" and a "uniter," even though you are a radical Marxist. We were taught to never admit what you really believe in. It involved demonizing your opponents, calling them "evil, greedy, extreme, radical, and terrorist." Look in the mirror and call your opponents the very things you are.

Obama learned well.

The plan taught us to hide your true intensions (in other words- lie, misrepresent, commit fraud). So Obamacare is about "saving the uninsured," as opposed to income redistribution.

Government regulations are to "protect us from global warming," as opposed to wiping out small business.

Amnesty for illegal immigrants is about "fairness," as opposed to creating 12 million new Democratic voters.

Immigration advocates support an American flag while taking part in a National Day of Dignity and Respect march on October 5, 2013 in Los Angeles, California. Thousands of people marched for comprehensive immigration reform in more than 150 events nationwide. Credit: Getty Images

High taxes are to "create equality," as opposed to starving Obama's political opposition.

Obscene spending is always about "helping widows and orphans," as opposed to bribing Obama's voters.

Higher teacher salaries to reward terrible performance are "for the kids," as opposed to enriching teachers unions so they can funnel hundreds of millions to Democrat politicians.

Bailing out GM was to "save jobs," as opposed to saving bloated auto union pensions.

It's always about lying to coverup the Marxist agenda of destroying the middle class, redistributing wealth, and putting big government in control of our every move. Why the lies? We were taught at Columbia that "It's for the greater good" and "We know what's best for those people" and "The ends justify the means."

Obama learned well.

But the key to it all is to "boil the frog slowly." We learned at Columbia to set the fire low, so the frog wouldn't complain. By the time he realized what was happening, he'd be cooked.

That's why every Obama speech starts and ends with "I'm here to save the middle class," while his actions are annihilating them. He's boiling the frog slowly. By the time the middle class realizes he's the killer, and they're the prey, they'll already be dead.

The root (excuse the pun) of every Obama policy, everything Obama does, and everything happening to the U.S. economy, all started at Columbia. The entire Obama agenda to overwhelm the system, wipe out the middle class, bankrupt small business, and destroy capitalism, was hatched at Columbia. Obama may not have attended class, but he learned well.

He should have received the Karl Marx Award for "Student Most Likely to Destroy America."



__._,_.





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: How Terrorists Communicate









 

 

 

 

New post on Ed Schroeder's: MILITARY INTELLIGENCE DAILY

 

Ed Schroeder's Military Intelligence Daily: How Terrorists Communicate

by WRITER

Over the last two decades the number of available choices for terrorists, organised criminals and of course, ordinary, law-abiding citizens to communicate has proliferated alongside the growth in digital technology.

There are essentially two categories here: secret and public messages, both of which carry a risk of detection for the original sender.

Sophisticated terrorists are all too aware of the risks of leaving a "digital footprint" that can be traced and identified, hence why it took so long for US intelligence to track down Osama Bin Laden, who relied on couriers delivering messages and data by hand.

Counter-terrorism officials, like MI5's Director-General Andrew Parker, contend there should be no digital "oasis" where law-breakers or terrorist planners can hide messages and communicate freely without fear of surveillance or interception. His critics argue that government intrusioninto private communications has already gone much too far.

Production houses

When it comes to disseminating information as widely as possible, the internet has long been the obvious choice.

Back in 2001, in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, al-Qaeda's leadership posted a number of videos from their Pakistan hideouts to the Qatar-based TV station al-Jazeera. Frustrated by the channel's decision to broadcast only a small fraction of them, heavily edited, al-Qaeda then switched to uploading them to the internet.

Since then, al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Somalia's al-Shabab have all developed media production houses to churn out their online messages, some of which are produced to high production standards.

From Yemen, the local al-Qaeda franchise AQAP disseminates the online magazine Inspire, which famously carried an article aimed at recruits in America entitled "How to build a bomb in your mom's kitchen". Inspire has been cited as the inspiration behind a number of jihadist attacks in the US and Britain but British police warn that anyone caught downloading it will be arrested and prosecuted.

As to secret means of communication, there will doubtless be many obscure methods known only to practitioners, IT experts and those working in government Signals Intelligence (often contracted to Sigint).

Combo shows pictures broadcast by the Russian state-run Rossiya television of a young man, allegedly a British spy, in a park outside Moscow taking a rock being used as a high-tech version of the spy's traditional letter-box or dead drop, shown on 23 January 2006

A British MI6 agent was caught using a fake rock with a transmitter as a modern-day "dead drop" in Moscow in 2006

Loners leave a minimal trail - so, for example, the convicted Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik spent four years with almost no social contact while he planned his attacks of 2011. But here are some of the more commonly known options:

·         Disposable Sim cards. Cheap and legally available for cash, these can be bought anonymously over the counter, inserted into a mobile phone, used once and then thrown away. Corporate executives have also used them in Russia and China for fear of having their regular phones hacked.

·         Dead drops. An old Cold War method used by spies to drop off physical packages of information or photographs in places like hedges or behind dustbins. These would then be retrieved by someone else as they walked past, probably whistling and wearing a Homberg hat and turned-up collar. In a Moscow park in 2006, Britain's MI6 intelligence agency was caught red-handed with a "spy rock" - a fake rock containing a transmitter where informants could wirelessly leave information that could then be retrieved in a modern-day version of the dead letter drop. In today's computer age, digital dead drops are a way of one person sending a message to another over the internet - crucially without pressing the Send button. A message is prepared in draft but not sent. The intended receiver is then separately given the sender's login details so they can view the draft message and if necessary reply.

·         Email and SMS text message. Wary terrorist planners have tended to communicate in code or use metaphors when discussing targets, knowing they may well be intercepted. For example, two of the 9/11 planners, Mohammed Atta and Ramzi Binalshibh, referred to the World Trade Centre as "architecture", the Pentagon as "arts" and the White House as "politics".

·         Social media, chat rooms and gaming. An increasingly popular way of disguising messages in seemingly innocuous interchanges between online "gamers". Many online forums are encrypted and require passwords to join. Some may well be infiltrated by government intelligence agents posing as online militants.

·         USB sticks. A small and discreet way to carry large quantities of data, they are also highly vulnerable to malware and viruses.

·         Jpegs or Gifs. Also known as "steganography" or the art of hiding a message within a message. Digital images encoded as Jpegs or Gifs can in theory be used to carry other data with them using an innocuous subject title.

·         Satellite phone. Despite encryption technology these remain susceptible to interception and terrorist leaders have long been wary of using them even from - or perhaps especially from - remote, sparsely populated areas.

·         Courier by hand. The Bin Laden method that worked for years. It avoids leaving any digital trail but of course still needs a human courier who can be tracked to his destination, as was the case with the al-Qaeda leader, killed by US Navy Seals in Pakistan in 2011.

WRITER | November 11, 2013 at 1:45 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p2gQDJ-B4

Comment

   See all comments

 

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://militarywritersassociation.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/ed-schroeders-military-intelligence-daily-how-terrorists-communicate/

 

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.