Commanders: US ready for any North Korean missile

See: In test, US intercepts short-range missile

Commanders: US ready for any North Korean missile

By FOSTER KLUG – 2 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two senior U.S. commanders said Thursday that the military is ready if called upon to shoot down North Korea’s planned rocket launch next month.

The top U.S. commander in the Pacific, Adm. Timothy Keating, told senators at a hearing that there was a “high probability” that the United States could knock down a North Korean missile. Gen. Walter Sharp, the U.S. commander in South Korea, said the threat “is real.”

The comments come as North Korea reportedly prepares for what many believe will be a long-range missile test in early April. North Korea says it will launch a communications satellite, and defends the launch by saying other countries have been pursuing peaceful space programs.

Keating said the United States is getting “reasonable intelligence” reports that give a close look at North Korea’s activities.

“We’ll be prepared to respond,” he said, adding that “the United States has the capability” to shoot down any missile.

Sharp said any launch would be a “very clear” violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution. “The threat,” he said, “is real, and it is felt in South Korea.” The U.S. has some 28,500 military personnel in South Korea.

“We call on North Korea not to act in this provocative manner,” Sharp said.

In his testimony, Sharp said North Korea continues to build missiles of “increasing range, lethality and accuracy” for sale in Syria and Iran and elsewhere and for its own forces.

The United States, he said, “cannot afford to overlook” the threat those missiles pose to Asia and the world.

Sharp said North Korea is struggling with attempts to balance increased contact with the outside world and the risks such contact poses to “regime control.”

That, Sharp said, “raises questions about the long-term viability of an increasingly stressed North Korean regime.”

Sharp also said North Korean leader Kim Jong Il “is in charge. Every major decision is coming directly from him.”

Kim, 67, reportedly suffered a stroke in August. North Korea denies he was ill.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Is “The Riddle of Anti Semitism” a “Hate Message”?

March 17, 2009

The Canadian Jewish Congress & the Canadian Human Rights Commission want this Sept. 2004 article (and others like it) removed from my website on the grounds that it exposes Jews to “hatred and contempt.” This ridiculous ploy is designed to enforce Zionist control over discourse, outlaw opposition and prevent Jews from asking questions. Their action confirms the very thing they deny.
“We’re being flooded by Jews,” a Canadian immigration officer remarked to his associate .

The year was 1951. He was checking the papers of a young couple with a baby.

My father understood English. He had narrowly survived the Nazis. This was his welcome to Canada.

Luckily it was not a harbinger. We encountered little discrimination and my family prospered in this good country.

Nonetheless, my parents wanted to assimilate. They gave their children English sounding names and hardly associated with the Jewish community. The extent of our Jewish observance was that my mother lit the candles on Friday and we celebrated the major holidays.

My parents rarely spoke of my grandparents who had perished. They seemed to regard being Jewish as a curse.

I did assimilate. It’s ironic therefore that my father had disowned me because I tried to understand anti Semitism other than in simplistic terms.

Nothing can justify the Nazi policy of genocide but you would think Jews would want to understand how a catastrophe of this magnitude occurred. How else can we ensure that the mass of ordinary Jews will not be set up as scapegoats again?
ORIGIN OF ANTI SEMITISM

It should come as no surprise that the people who own and control the world have put their interests before the greater good of humanity. Obviously many of these are not Jewish.

For at least 400 years, Christian civilization has been under covert attack by a diabolical multi-generational program now called the “New World Order”, “globalization” or “world government.”

Essentially globalization represents the consolidation of absolute economic, political and cultural power in the hands of a cabal of super rich dynastic families (bankers and their vast corporate networks) headquartered in the City of London. The UN, IMF and World Bank are some of their instruments.

These families include the Rothschilds, Warburgs and other so-called Jews who have intermarried with Anglo American and European aristocracy. Non-Jewish dynastic families include the Russell’s, the Cecils and the Churchill’s.

This mirrors the collaboration between the moneylenders and kings in the Middle Ages when the Jew shared the proceeds from his lucrative business with the king in return for protection. The New World Order will resurrect the feudal relationship between a wealthy aristocracy and a large impoverished serfdom with a small intermediary class of soldiers/police and technocrats.

These dynastic families have embraced Freemasonry, an occult secret society that worships Lucifer. The top rank of this cabal is called the “Illuminati.”

The Illuminati uses anti-Semitism to manipulate Jews and others. Jews figure prominently in Illuminati sponsored movements such as Communism, Zionism, Socialism, Nazism, Liberalism, Feminism, and Neo Conservatism.

Most of these Jews are opportunists or idealistic dupes who think they are building a secular utopia based on reason and not a world police state straight out of George Orwell’s “1984″.

The Illuminati strategy is divide-and-rule, i.e. get their enemies to destroy each other. For example they set up Communism to attract opponents of private property. They set up Nazism for people who champion nation and race, and hate “Jewish” hegemony. Then they attacked and destroyed each other.

As long as Jews play a disproportionate role in the New World Order, some opposition will be expressed in terms of Anti-Semitism. For example, this recently appeared in a book review on Amazon. “It isn’t Jews dying in Iraq. Our boys are dying for their war on their enemies. Americans are just hostages. Our government and media is hostage to Israel First Americans. “
DEFENSE MECHANISM

Anti-Semitism is not an irrational hatred or sickness in the Gentile soul, as Jews imagine. It is a healthy defense mechanism of mainly Christian and Moslem nations, cultures, races and religions that are threatened by a gradual and insidious process of extinction (i.e. world government.)

Most “anti Semitic” books I’ve seen are remarkably free of hatred and rancor. They do not advocate violence against Jews but present measures to retain national and racial character similar to those practiced by Jews in Israel today.

They tend to be reasonable and portray the Gentile as a feckless victim of superior Jewish intelligence. Leon de Poncins would even accept Jewish leadership if it were benign.

Competition between “Christian” and “Jewish” worldviews is perhaps the central factor in the development of the western world. “The Jew championed reason against the mythical world of the spirit,” de Poncins relates. “He was the doctor of unbelief; all who were mentally in revolt came to him…”(Judaism and the Vatican, p. 116)

“The Jewish Question” has been a major issue for hundreds of years. As early as 1879, a German writer lamented that it cannot be discussed honestly.

“Since 1848 if we Germans so much as criticized any little thing Jewish, it was enough to have us entirely outlawed from the press,” wrote Wilhelm Marr. “While a sense of delicacy is wholly absent among the Jews [when satirizing Germans], it is demanded of us that we handle them like fine glassware or extremely sensitive plants.” (Anti-Semitism in the Modern World: An Anthology 1991, p.85)

THEODOR FRITSCH (1852-1934)

Called “the most influential German anti-Semite before Hitler,” Fritsch’s most influential book Handbuch der Judenfrage 1896 (Handbook of the Jewish Question) went through dozens of printings, and was taught in German schools during the Nazi era. Most copies were destroyed after World War Two.

“Handbook” was translated into English in 1927 and titled “The Riddle of the Jew’s Success” by F. Roderich-Stoltheim, a pen name. It is extremely rare; original copies cost as much as $1000.

Fritsch does not fit the image of hate monger foaming at the mouth. His book impresses me as the work a civilized man with considerable spiritual discernment. His central point is that Judaism does not deserve credit for monotheism because the Jewish God is not universal.

“It is a fatal mistake of our theologians to regard the Jewish God as identical with the Christian. On a closer examination, Jehovah is found to be the exclusive God of Jew-dom and not, at the same time, that of other men.”

He cites many passages from the Old Testament to demonstrate that the Covenant between Jews and their God “bears a hostile meaning for all non- Jewish people.”

For example, “Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance and the uttermost parts of the world for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron…” (Psalms 2.8.9) Or “Thou wilt devour all nations which the Lord thy God will give thee. Thou shalt have no mercy on them…(Moses 5.7.16) (p.55)

As a consequence, the Talmud (the Jewish code of law) distinguishes one system of morality for Jews and another for Gentiles who are regarded as cattle or swine. Fritsch cites many references to show it is permitted to lie, cheat or steal from a Gentile. (pp. 57-65)

Fritsch concludes that anti-Semitism is a natural reaction to these hostile attitudes which he claims are actually practised by many Jews. Since these beliefs are kept secret from non-Jews, he says Judaism is a conspiracy against non-Jews. Its aim is to fulfill the Covenant, and gain dominion over mankind by controlling wealth.

He claims that all Jews are part of this scheme and none can be excepted. I respect the right of Germans to a national homeland but I think he is wrong to judge all Jews by one racist standard.

How would he like to be condemned for what other Germans (e.g. Nazis) did or said? Jews are individuals and should be judged by their individual actions. The vast majority are alienated from Judaism and would find the Biblical passages cited above repugnant.

CONCLUSION

Jews need to re-examine their relationship with Judaism. I cannot overstate the significance of the Jewish rejection of Christ.

Christ represented a universal God and a universal morality. His teaching represented the natural next stage, which Jews should have embraced, while retaining their racial integrity.

By rejecting Christ’s teaching, the Pharisees placed the Jewish people in perpetual opposition to the best interests of humanity, to the ultimate and inevitable path of human spiritual evolution.

They have placed Jews in a state of permanent metaphysical revolt which on a personal level leads to alienation and dysfunction.

Christ taught that God is Love. Love is the Master Plan. Love is Light. Love thy neighbor. Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. By giving of ourselves we find our true selves.

What fault could Pharisees have with a gospel that preaches human brotherhood and putting others before yourself? Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you?

It denies their special claim, as God’s “chosen people” which in practice means self-made Gods.

Growing up means recognizing that other people are special in God’s eyes too. Think of a child that doesn’t want to grow up. One who thinks he can do anything he wants. Who doesn’t have to consider others. Who is never wrong and so never admits it. Who thinks any opposition must be motivated by irrational hatred i.e. “anti-Semitism” and not his own behavior. Think arrested development. Think Canadian Jewish Congress. Think New World Order.

The legislation will expand the1993 AmeriCorps program

House Passes Volunteerism Bill Critics Call Pricey, Forced Service

The legislation will expand the1993 AmeriCorps program

to match the renewed interest in national service since President Obama’s election, which backers say is crucial in tough economic times.

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

March 17: First lady Michelle Obama greets members of AmeriCorps Youthbuild USA during her visit to a “green” home building project on the National Mall in Washington. (Reuters)

show_baynote_guide(“ArticleGuide”);

PEOPLE WHO READ THIS…

Also read these stories:

ACORN to Play Role in 2010 Census

[2009-03-18]

acorn to play role in 2010 census, acorn, census, acorn a census ‘partner’, »acorn to play role in 2010 census

2882 visitors also liked this.

Pelosi Tells Illegal Immigrants That Work Site Raids are Un-American

[2009-03-18]

pelosi immigration raids ‘unamerican’, pelosi, immigration, pelosi calls immigration raids ‘unamerican’, pelosi tells illegal immigrants that work site raids are unamerican

3108 visitors also liked this.

Irritated Obama ‘Stares Down’ Reporter During Press Corps Visit

[2009-01-22]

irritated obama ‘stares down’ reporter during press corps visit, obama, reporters, stimulus, politics

18094 visitors also liked this.

Former Detroit Mayor Eyes Job in Texas

[2009-02-12]

former detroit mayor eyes job in texas, jobs, detroit, texas

16 visitors also liked this.

Gibbs Takes Off Gloves to Challenge Reporters, Hosts Who Cross Obama

[2009-03-04]

gibbs challenges those who cross obama, gibbs takes off gloves to challenge reporters hosts who cross obama, obama, gibbs challenges reporters who cross obama, reporters

6427 visitors also liked this.

powered by Baynote

WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives passed a measure Wednesday that supporters are calling the most sweeping reform of nationally-backed volunteer programs since AmeriCorps. But some opponents are strongly criticizing the legislation, calling it expensive indoctrination and forced advocacy.

The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, known as the GIVE Act — sponsored by Reps. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y, and George Miller, D-Calif. — was approved by a 321-105 vote and now goes to the Senate.

The legislation, slated to cost $6 billion over five years, would create 175,000 “new service opportunities” under AmeriCorps, bringing the number of participants in the national volunteer program to 250,000. It would also create additional “corps” to expand the reach of volunteerism into new sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the National Civilian Community Corps to focus on additional areas like disaster relief and energy conservation.

It is the first time the AmeriCorps program, which was created by President Clinton in 1993, will be reauthorized, and supporters say it will have additional funding to match the renewed interest in national service since President Obama’s election and the acute need for volunteerism and charity in tough economic times.

“National and community service can help make Americans a part of the solution to get our country through this economic crisis. I hope the House and Senate will join us in moving as quickly as possible to help President Obama sign this critical bill into law,” Miller, chairman of the education committee, said after the bill was passed.

But the bill’s opponents — and there are only a few in Congress — say it could cram ideology down the throats of young “volunteers,” many of whom could be forced into service since the bill creates a “Congressional Commission on Civic Service.”

The bipartisan commission will be tasked with exploring a number of topics, including “whether a workable, fair and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the nation.”

“We contribute our time and money under no government coercion on a scale the rest of the world doesn’t emulate and probably can’t imagine,” said Luke Sheahan, contributing editor for the Family Security Foundation. “The idea that government should order its people to perform acts of charity is contrary to the idea of charity and it removes the responsibility for charity from the people to the government, destroying private initiative.”

House committee staff insist the GIVE Act will not change the voluntary nature of service.

“Its ridiculous to suggest that our bill includes any effort to make service a mandatory requirement. All of the opportunities our bill provides to Americans are voluntary. Americans are proud of their service and volunteering and their interest in it is only growing, especially in the face of this crisis. Our legislation recognizes that more Americans than ever want to serve and give back and provides them with more opportunities to be able to do so,” Miller spokeswoman Rachel Racusen said in an e-mail to FOXNews.com.

Others say they are concerned that the increased funding will be used to promote one ideology over another.

“It’s allowing taxpayer funding of the left-wing organizations,” said Larry Hart, director of government relations for the American Conservative Union.

“I think this is a problem that is rife throughout the federal government. When you dramatically expand the program, then you dramatically expand the ability for these left-wing advocacy organizations to get more funding. I don’t see a lot of attention being paid to that, even from those who are critical. That’s where the focus should be. Republicans tend to say its not that they oppose the program, they just want to spend less money. It’s the program that’s bad.”

South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson was one of three Republicans to oppose the legislation in committee. Wilson questioned the utility of the cash-strapped federal government making such huge investments in what he says should be community-inspired projects and programs.

“Volunteerism is part of the American spirit of generosity, and we all stand in support of those who will share their time,” said Wilson, who was voted against the bill with Minnesota Rep. John Kline and California Rep. Tom McClintock.

“However, while our economy and our government is in financial trouble, it is not the best use of taxpayer dollars to spend the level of money on new and existing programs included in this bill.”

Aides to Miller say they are awaiting estimates from the Congressional Budget Office on how much the GIVE Act would ultimately cost. In addition to all of the funding that goes to organizations in the forms of grants and administrative costs, AmeriCorps volunteers typically receive stipends and college scholarships when they complete one of the several available programs.

For example, a participant in the National Civilian Community Corps, which is a 10-month residential commitment, now receives $4,000 in living expenses and a $4,475 in money toward school. That conceivably would increase under the new legislation.

But regardless of the budget estimate, the financial benefits outweigh the cost, Racusen said.

“The millions of Americans who volunteered in 2007 generated benefits worth $158 billion,” Racusen said. “A cost-benefit analysis of AmeriCorps, for example, shows that every dollar invested in the programs yields almost $4 in direct, measurable benefits. Investing in service helps low-income students achieve in school, prepares future workers for green jobs, provides assistance to veterans returning from war, and rebuilds homes and communities after disasters.”

Many of the provisions in the GIVE Act can be found in Obama’s 2010 fiscal year budget blueprint issued in February. The administration proposes $1.3 billion for the Corporation for National and Community Service, which administers AmeriCorps. CNCS received an estimated $260 million in fiscal 2009.

But some critics on the right suggest that the president’s push for national service goes too far, and the recent congressional steps toward expanding the federal role in volunteerism and “civilian service” smacks of a larger agenda. They point to a campaign speech the president made last July in which he suggested national security could be entrusted to a civilian force.

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded,” Obama, who worked as a community organizer in Chicago early in his career, said during a Colorado Springs rally.

At the time, Obama was discussing expanding the USA Freedom Corps — created by President George W. Bush in 2002 — Peace Corps and AmeriCorps, as well as beefing up the cadre of foreign service officers abroad and programs in which veterans help veterans back home.

“This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up,” Obama said in the speech.

“Senator Obama aims to tap into the already active volunteerism of millions of Americans and recruit them to become cogs in a gigantic government machine grinding out his social re-engineering agenda,” Lee Cary of the conservative American Thinker wrote at the time about Obama’s remarks.

“(His words) were about turning America into one, giant, community organizer’s sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers,” Cary wrote.

Supporters say critics are a minority who prefer to agitate than assist.

“Resistance to expanded public service programs can be expected from the ideologically sclerotic, those who occupy the negative ground between government as the problem and government as our enemy,” former Democratic Colorado Sen. Gary Hart wrote in a recent op-ed on the Huffington Post Web site.

The Senate is mulling over a similar piece of legislation, the “Serve America Act,” sponsored by Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. It was given a special endorsement by the president in his address before Congress on Feb. 24.

Ask Your Parents or Grandparents

Cognitive Dissonance and the Human Mind

Prepared by Dan Eden for viewzone.com

When “Robbie” the robot was told to shoot a weapon at a man in the movie Forbidden Planet, his electronic brain sparked and short-circuited. His creator had programmed him to never harm a human and so the conflicting ideas paralyzed him.

Human beings often are presented with opposing thoughts also, but our brains have developed a way of resolving these conflicts through a process call cognitive dissonance.

We are taught, like “Robbie,” that killing is prohibited — but what about war? And many anti-abortionists support the death penalty… conflicting behavior is all around us. So how exactly does that work?

Simply put, congitive dissonance theory states that when you have two opposing ideas (or ideologies) at the same time, you will act upon the one that causes the less distortion to your ego.

According to Wikipedia:Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The “ideas” or “cognitions” in question may include attitudes and beliefs, and also the awareness of one’s behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology. Dissonance normally occurs when a person perceives a logical inconsistency among his or her cognitions. This happens when one idea implies the opposite of another. For example, a belief in animal rights could be interpreted as inconsistent with eating meat or wearing fur. Noticing the contradiction would lead to dissonance, which could be experienced as anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment, stress, and other negative emotional states. When people’s ideas are consistent with each other, they are in a state of harmony or consonance. If cognitions are unrelated, they are categorized as irrelevant to each other and do not lead to dissonance.

Let me give you some examples.

There are lots of schemes and con-artists trying to get your money these days. Almost every day I receive dozens of e-mails from people like Abada Muzoola from Nigeria, who just happened to get my e-mail address and wants me to help him transfer 70-million dollars to my bank in return for a 10 percent commission. Wow, I could use 7-million dollars! All he needs is my bank account number and pin-code. He is even willing to transfer the total amount to my account because he trusts me so much.

I continue to receive variations of this scheme every day. Why? Because they work. Somewhere in the world is a victim who will have cognitive dissonance.

On a more sophisticated scale, Bernie Madoff [ right] bilked hundreds of wealthy people out of an estimated 50-billion dollars by manipulating the same mental process (and would have continued doing so had he not bragged to his sons, who turned him in).

So how is it that people are able to convince others to give them access to their funds or to willingly give them their cash? First, one more example:

You’re walking down a busy street deep in your own private thoughts. All of a sudden a smiling woman jumps out of somewhere, stands in front of you, and puts a flower in your hand. “Hello dear… isn’t it a wonderful day today? I want you to have this flower!,” she says.Now you have a beautiful flower in your hand. It’s a nice gift and she seems friendly. She begins to walk with you, telling you that you have nice, kind eyes. She says she noticed right away that you were special and so wanted to meet you. You forget your previous thoughts about work, bills or your own life. Suddenly you feel good… appreciated… uplifted.

Then, in the same friendly voice and bright smile, she says, “I know you are a good person and you can help me by giving me a something for the beautiful flower — right?”

What happens inside your head at that moment is cognitive dissonance.The dissonance or dis-harmony comes from two conflicting ideas or decision paths. One path tells you that you should just say “No thanks!” and keep on walking; maybe return the flower and feel insulted even if it means she will become disappointed with you. The other path tells you that she has made you feel good and has earned your friendship and a couple of bucks. She has been friendly and you don’t want to ruin the brief relationship you have formed. Heck, you should probably even give her back the flower so she can use it on the next victim.

Which decision will cause the least damage to your ego?

In cognitive dissonance theory the outcome of these opposing thought paths will be the one that requires the least emotional stress. Most victims will pay up rather than feel they are being cruel or disrespectful to someone who has made them feel so good.

In the case of the Nigerian philanthropist, Abada Muzoola, it is often less stressful to believe that you are the lucky “chosen” beneficiary than to believe you are one of the thousands of e-mails he has sent this offer to.

Later, after their bank account has been cleaned out, most people realize that they should have known better and are puzzled by their own vulnerability. Many feel so embarassed that they don’t report the crime to the authorities.

Psychologists refer to this vulnerability as the “willful suspension of disbelief,” where one can easily see the potential manipulations and evil motives of ther perpetrator, but, because they have already made some prior committment to go along with this, it is easier to continue than to back out.

The investors of Mr. Madoff knew that a 10% to 12% annual return on an investment, especially in the current bear market, was impossible. Something dishonest or illegal had to be going on. But because they had been made to work so hard to let him take their money — often begging him to please allow them to invest millions of dollars — they had made the psychological investment that “locks in” the cognitive dissonance. After that, it was more stressful to admit that this was a ponzy scheme than to just avoid worrying about it.

In Festinger and Carlsmith’s classic 1959 experiment, students were asked to perform boring and tedious tasks (e.g. turning pegs a quarter turn, over and over again). The tasks were designed to generate a strong, negative attitude. After an hour of working on the tasks, participants were asked to persuade another subject (who was actually a confederate) that the dull, boring tasks the subject had just completed were actually interesting and engaging. Some participants were paid $20 for the favor, another group was paid $1, and a control group was not asked to perform the favor.

When asked to rate the boring tasks at the conclusion of the study, those in the $1 group rated them more positively than those in the $20 and control groups. This was explained by Festinger and Carlsmith as evidence for cognitive dissonance. The researchers theorized that people experienced dissonance between the conflicting cognitions, “I told someone that the task was interesting”, and “I actually found it boring.” When paid only $1, students were forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had no other justification. Those in the $20 condition, however, had an obvious external justification for their behavior, and thus experienced less dissonance.

Are you beginning to understand how this works now?

In for a dime, in for a dollar

Cognitive dissonance has been used to control larger groups and populations also. In World War II there was a famous campaign where citizens were asked to donate all their old pots and pans, supposedly to be melted down to make tanks, munitions and war planes. The collection was highly effective and the psychological “investment” initiated solidarity and nationalism for the war effort. Of course, all those pots and pans ended up buried in landfills.

Here’s a modern day example: When the US invaded Afghanistan, ex-President Bush came on the television asking families to donate whatever they could to help the school children in Afghanistan who needed paper and pencils. Thousands of school kids collected coins in classrooms across the nation and sent the donations to the White House. The funds ended up being put in to some vague account that never did what it was donated to do. But the “investment” was enough to gain support for a far-away war in an obscure land for vague reasons.

Sometimes, as with the tragic collapse of the World Trade towers on 9-11, the “investment” is made for us. In this way an entire nation can be made to feel that they have already sacrificed something and that they should choose the path of war over peace forgetting about the Iraqi civilian casualties — or even that Iraq was not responsible.

I once belonged to an Episcopal church in New Mexico that collected oil for M-16s to send to the troops in Iraq! They also invested the church funds with Raytheon and Haliburton.

Cognitive Dissonance in Advertising and Marketing

In advertising there is a theory that a consumer may use a particular product because he or she believes the advertising for that product, which claims that the product is the most effective of its kind in the job that it does.

Then the consumer may see a competitor’s advertisement that seems to prove conclusively that this competitive product is better. This creates dissonance. The consumer must now relieve the uncomfortable feeling that the dissonance brings about and will often do so by switching products. The theory acts as a double-edged sword, though, because while advertisers want to create dissonance for nonusers of their product, they do not want to create it for those who do use their product.

This is why advertisers use their logos on things like NASCAR and sports arenas. They want you to become loyal to their brand. This will create distrust when you see the same product — even an apparently better product — with a different and unfamiliar brand.

Cognitive dissonance most often occurs after the purchase of an expensive item such as an automobile. A consumer who is experiencing cognitive dissonance after his or her purchase may attempt to return the product or may seek positive information about it to justify the choice. If the buyer is unable to justify the purchase, he or she will also be less likely to purchase that brand again. Advertisers of high-priced durable goods say that half of their advertising is done to reassure consumers that in purchasing their product the right choice was made.

Some good uses of cognitive dissonance

Congitive therapists use this technique to change bad behavior and decisions. The technique is called a “yes set.”

Getting a patient to agree to treatment for addiction or to initiate some beneficial behavior is difficult. There is often a fundamental “batting of heads” between the patient and people trying to help. The breakthrough is achieved when the therapist purposely initiates a series of statements to which the patient can agree. After repeatedly agreeing with the therapist on a multitude of minor decisions, the patient begins to feel good and the therapist allows the patient to “invest” in this positive relationship. Then, with skill, the therapist introduces the crucial decision. “So don’t you think it’s really time for you go to rehab?” Faced with the option of agreeing or offending the therapist, the patient often continues the “yes” response.

The example above is highly effective because the patient not only agrees to change the bad behavior but is immediately rewarded by the continuation of their positive self-esteem and good feeling.

Cognitive dissonance requires some skill to work

The concept doesn’t always work. Especially if it’s poorly executed.

I was once shopping for a car and, after selecting a possible make and model, found myself sitting in the little room with the salesman, haggling about the price. At one point he asked me for my driver’s license or credit card and told me it was a “gesture” so that I would trust him. At the time, I just said “No way,” and split.

For many customers, this simple act would be enough to form a psychological “investment” with the dealer, who could then use this to manipulate and close the sale. It might be more difficult for the customer to demand his lecense or credit card and storm out of the office than to sit there and be intimidated until they signed the sales contract.

Eliminating Cognitive Dissonance

(from http://www.beyondintractability.org)

There are several key ways in which people attempt to overcome, or do away with, cognitive dissonance. One is by ignoring or eliminating the dissonant cognitions. By pretending that ice cream is not bad for me, I can have my cake and eat it too, so to speak. Ignoring the dissonant cognition allows us to do things we might otherwise view as wrong or inappropriate.

Another way to overcome cognitive dissonance is to alter the importance (or lack thereof) of certain cognitions. By either deciding that ice cream is extremely good (I can’t do without it) or that losing weight isn’t that important (I look good anyway), the problem of dissonance can be lessened. If one of the dissonant cognitions outweighs the other in importance, the mind has less difficulty dealing with the dissonance — and the result means that I can eat my ice cream and not feel bad about it.

Yet another way that people react to cognitive dissonance is by adding or creating new cognitions. By creating or emphasizing new cognitions, I can overwhelm the fact that I know ice cream is bad for my weight loss. For instance, I can emphasize new cognitions such as “I exercise three times a week” or “I need calcium and dairy products” or “I had a small dinner,” etc. These new cognitions allow for the lessening of dissonance, as I now have multiple cognitions that say ice cream is okay, and only one, which says I shouldn’t eat it.

Finally, perhaps the most important way people deal with cognitive dissonance is to prevent it in the first place. If someone is presented with information that is dissonant from what they already know, the easiest way to deal with this new information is to ignore it, refuse to accept it, or simply avoid that type of information in general. Thus, a new study that says ice cream is more fattening than originally thought would be easily dealt with by ignoring it. Further, future problems can be prevented by simply avoiding that type of information — simply refusing to read studies on ice cream, health magazines, etc.

Cognitive dissonance is all around us. We live in a world full of contradictions. Children are killed in Gaza in the name of peace. Feminists wear makeup, short skirts and high heels. Conservationists like Al Gore fly around in private, fuel guzzling jets. Anti-gay Christians tap their feet in public bathroom stalls… these opposing ideologies are all resolved somehow, somewhere, deep in our human psyche with cognitive disonnance.

Israel’s American Chattel

By Paul Craig Roberts

“I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country.“The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors. “There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.” Ambassador Charles Freeman on declining his appointment as Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Wall Street Journal, March 10, 2009

March 18, 2009 “Information Clearing House” — Many conservatives take vicarious pleasure in America’s superpower status.  Bush’s flaunting of American power is one reason conservatives took scant notice of Bush’s police state measures and ill-conceived wars. Conservatives were so delighted with Bush giving the finger to the UN, the world community and especially France, a country conservatives have despised ever since Charles DeGaulle refused to follow the American line, that conservatives paid no attention to Bush’s assault on civil liberty and his squandering of America’s soft power.

I wonder how much longer conservatives will be strutting around now that the “defeated” Taliban are denying the Peshawar/Khyber Pass supply route to the unipower’s military for resupply of its troops in Afghanistan.  The US has had to go hat in hand to the Russians to request a resupply route through Russian territory, and has been told non-munition supplies only.  The Russians might be willing for Obama to send arms through if Obama repudiates Bush’s decision to put anti-ballistic missile defenses in the American puppet states of Poland and Czech Republic.

The Polish government is concerned about repeating its World War II mistake of putting its fate in the hands of a distant protector instead of with the military power on its border and recently admonished Washington not to renege on the missile deal.  Poland is clinging desperately to Bush’s promise of nuclear war in defense of Poland, just as seven decades ago the Polish colonels thought they could stick their finger in Hitler’s eye, because Britain had given Poland a guarantee.

Iraq is another embarrassment for conservatives, with the Iranian-allied Shi’ite party, not the unipower, dictating the withdrawal agreement.  The US remains in Iraq only as a useful scapegoat for the Shi’ite rulers.

But what’s really going to blow the legs out from under conservatives is the realization that the great superpower is the chattel goods of the Israel Lobby.

The Obama administration, despite the Democrats’ decisive electoral victory in last November’s election, has demonstrated that the great unipower cannot appoint its own

chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Charles Freeman, a distinguished and independent-minded American, former ambassador and former Assistant Secretary of Defense, found his appointment blocked by Steve Rosen, a former official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) currently under indictment as an Israeli spy, and a handful of American Jewish neoconservatives closely identified with the right-wing government in Israel.

How is the United States a superpower when it cannot appoint the official who oversees the National Intelligence Estimate without the approval of the Israeli right-wing government and its American agents?

Conservatives will say, of course, that Israel is the “only democracy in the Middle East.”  The question whether Israel, or, for that matter, America, is a democracy is besides the point.  The point is that Israel has shown that it can control not merely US foreign policy but also US intelligence policy.

Last Thursday America’s Overlord sent the Chief of Staff of the American financed and supplied Israel Defense Forces, General Gabi Ashkenazi, to meet with  President Barack Obama, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General James Jones, National Security Advisor, and Dennis Ross, the US State Department’s Special Advisor for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports that General Ashkenazi will also meet with “senior American journalists and with the heads of AIPAC, the American pro-Israel lobbyist group.”

General Ashkenazi will also “be a guest of honor at the annual ‘Supporters of the IDF [Israeli Defense Forces]” convention in the city of New York and will address its participants.

General Ashkenazi will also be meeting with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger “as well as with the heads of the New York Jewish Federation.”

The official reason for General Ashkenazi’s visit is to warn America about the threat that Iran presents to the United States. In reality, the general has been sent to stir up an American attack on Iran.

The military/security complex will welcome the opening of a new front on the “war on terror.”  The profits of the American arms industries desperately need a new war to replace Iraq.  “Our” government in Washington desperately needs new reasons to suppress American civil liberties.  The traitorous Bush Republicans and their Democratic enablers desperately need justification for committing America to multi-trillion dollar illegal wars.  The neoconservatives desperately need a rationale for the lies they told to start what they hope are long-term wars in the Middle East.  The neocon madmen even want to overthrow Saudi Arabia, one of America’s largest creditors.

Conservatives will welcome these developments with open arms.  America will have a chance to redeem itself.  America can yet prove it is a superpower by conquering both Iran and Afghanistan.  Once these victories are in hand, Israel can destroy both Hamas and Hezbollah, and the new Israel can incorporate Palestine and southern Lebanon.

While conservatives dream these dreams, the Premier of China, Wen Jiabao, expressed on Friday, March 13, his fears that the US Treasury’s credit was not good and that his country’s $1 trillion investment in American debt was endangered.  Premier Wen said, “We have lent a huge amount of money to the U.S.  Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I am definitely a little worried.”

Contrast Premier Wen’s concern with the optimism coming out of the Obama administration and what remains of Wall Street.

Then exercise Charles Freeman’s independent thinking and make up your own mind.  Is America a superpower, or is America a rapidly declining country destroyed by gratuitous wars and shyster banksters?

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts has held numerous academic and journalistic posts and was Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury during the Reagan Administration.

There are no good Taliban, cautions India

In an apparent message to the US which has expressed willingness to hold talks with “moderate” militia, India has cautioned against treating any section of Taliban as “good” even as it readies to participate in two international conferences on Afghanistan.

Maintaining that it would be unwise to negotiate with Taliban and leave people to the mercy of the militant outfit, sources here said efforts should instead be made to strengthen the age-old tribal structures which are still intact in Afghanistan.

The situation in Afghanistan, over which world concerns are growing because of resurgence of Taliban, will be discussed at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in Moscow on March 27 and at a conference in The Hague later this month.

India is expected to be represented by the prime minister’s special envoy SK Lambah at the SCO meeting during which it will present its views for stabilisation of Afghanistan. This would include giving

thrust to developmental initiatives besides military and security components in creating a peace zone.

India feels that efforts should be made to create ‘secure areas’ and promote developmental activities in such areas, a process that would alienate the Taliban.

New Delhi disfavours any negotiations with Taliban, either in Afghanistan or Pakistan, saying there are no good elements in the fundamentalist militia as is claimed by some sections.

“There is no good Taliban or bad Taliban. Leaving people at the mercy of Taliban is no solution,” the sources said, adding negotiations with Taliban will serve no purpose.

The comment is a veiled message to the US, which has expressed willingness to hold talks with “moderate” Taliban.

“The old tribal structures still work in Afghanistan and they have no place for Taliban or other extremists,” the sources said, suggesting a three-pronged approach covering development, security and governance for the region.

They cited the successful development projects undertaken by India in Afghanistan by engaging the local people there, who tend to defend the initiatives as they are results of the suggestions of the tribals.

The sources pointed out that the local tribal structures in Pakistan were systematically destroyed by the ISI and this could be a hindrance in engaging local population in development work there.

Significantly, Iran has also been invited for The Hague conference, which is spearheaded by the US.

FATA–A Most Dangerous Place

Containers banned in Nato terminals

PESHAWAR: Peshawar police imposed ban on the entry of containers into Nato terminals because of security concerns.

Talking to Geo News, SP Cantt Nisar Marwat declared the security arrangements at Nato terminals as unsatisfactory.

He said Rs. 70,000 has been charged per container; however, security arrangements are insufficient at the terminals.

Attacks on Nato terminals caused heavy monetary losses. Terminals will not be open for the containers unless these terminals modification would not be made according to international standards, Marwat added.

No Taliban havens in Balochistan: IG Frontier Corps

Inspector General of the Frontier Corps Major General Saleem Nawaz.—APP/File

QUETTA: The Inspector General of Frontier Corps, Major General Saleem Nawaz has denied the presence of Mullah Omar and Taliban in Quetta and other parts of Balochistan, saying that they lacked political and tribal support in the province.

‘Border and other areas of Balochistan territory are not congenial for Taliban activities,’ General Nawaz told reporters in the FC headquarters, here on Wednesday, adding that ‘Quetta is not safe haven of Taliban.’

He said that story published in New York Times about the Taliban presence and free movement in Quetta and other areas needs authentication despite the quoting of US government officials.

Responding to a question about drone attacks planning in Balochistan, the IG Frontier Corps said that drone attacks yielded no positive results and these attacks further aggravated the situation.

He said that as Inspector General FC in Balochistan he was aware of the presence of religious Madrassas (seminaries) but said that they are giving religious education, which was very positive training. However, he conceded that a few Madrassas and people might have contact with them (the Taliban).

General Saleem Nawaz said that explosions and bomb blasts were a nationwide phenomenon. He pointed out that they are taking place all over the country including Islamabad, Lahore, Karachi, administrated and settled areas of Frontier Province. Even in Quetta three suicide attacks were taken place in the different areas and last one was against Maulana Sherani and now such attacks were occurring against religious parties.

‘Political parties in Pashtoon areas were not in the favour of Taliban,’ he said, adding that in view of these facts one can draw conclusion that atmosphere is not very congenial for the Taliban to assemble here and having their headquarter in and around this area and plan to attacks as suspected in these reports.

‘In view of these facts, I see such eventuality may not be materialized in Balochistan,’ General Nawaz claimed’ but added ‘if it does happen the government of Balochistan would handle it in the national interest.’

He said that such things were not happening in Balochistan and as he told that ‘territory is not congenial for various social, political, tribal and economic reasons.’ He said that Taliban cannot operate effectively from this area. However, he said that if somebody is passing from particular territory they look like Baloch, Pashtoon people of Balochistan, NWFP, FATA and Pakistanis and their movement in Pakistan cannot be denied and it is never denied.

‘Balochistan is not safe haven for Taliban.’ Major General Saleem Nawaz said.

On John Solecki’s abduction

Replying to a question about John Solecki, General Saleem said that high officials of Balochistan government Interior Ministry, US agencies and UN officials are direct or indirectly in contact with abductors.

‘I think abductors have realized that they had put their hand in the wrong place and committed mistake, he said adding that they would not like to aggravate which is positive thing. ‘I am of the view that they perhaps need a safe exit for some face saving.’

He said that same people are involved in the kidnapping of John Solecki who claimed the champions of Baloch rights. He said that efforts are under way for safe recovery of UN top official.

He said that he was still confident that Solecki was not shifted to across the border as FC and other security agencies were strictly checking all vehicles in the border areas along with Pak-Afghan border.

‘John Solecki is huge man and cannot be shifted to any where on camel, horse or donkey,’ General Saleem Nawaz said.

He said that some suspects were taken into custody from Magochar area of Kalat district and handed over to the concerned officials for investigation. He said that Solecki could be kept in Dalbandin, Ahmed Wal, Ispelangi and Mangochar areas and security forces were keep strict eye on these areas.

WHO BECOMES A TERRORIST AND WHY?

THE SOCIOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY OF TERRORISM:

WHO BECOMES A TERRORIST AND WHY?
A Report Prepared under an Interagency Agreement by the Federal Research Division,

Library of Congress

INTRODUCTION

Why do some individuals decide to break with society and embark on a career in terrorism? Do terrorists share common traits or characteristics? Is there a terrorist personality or profile? Can a terrorist profile be developed that could reliably help security personnel to identify potential terrorists, whether they be would-be airplane hijackers, assassins, or suicide bombers? Do some terrorists have a psychotic (see Glossary) personality? Psychological factors relating to terrorism are of particular interest to psychologists, political scientists, and government officials, who would like to be able to predict and prevent the emergence of terrorist groups or to thwart the realization of terrorist actions. This study focuses on individual psychological and sociological characteristics of terrorists of different generations as well as their groups in an effort to determine how the terrorist profile may have changed in recent decades, or whether they share any common sociological attributes.

US lawmakers oppose drone attacks in Pakistan

By Anwar Iqbal

US army soldiers patrol an area where there has been reported Taliban presence in Gandalabog, Afghanistan.—Reuters/File

WASHINGTON: A bipartisan group of 15 US congressmen warned the US administration on Wednesday that increased US military activities in Pakistan would have dangerous consequences for the entire region.

In a signed letter to President Barak Obama, the lawmakers also opposed US drone attacks in Pakistan, saying that it’s the continuation of the Bush administration’s policies towards the region.

‘We are also concerned that any perceived military success in Afghanistan might create pressure to increase military activity in Pakistan,’ the lawmakers warned.

‘This could very well lead to dangerous destabilisation in the region and would increase hostility toward the United States,’ they wrote.

The letter followed indications from the White House that it may unveil a new US strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan in less than two weeks. The new strategy is expected to include more economic and military aid for Pakistan, as well as efforts to beef up Afghanistan’s military and try to tamp down raids by Fata-based extremists on targets in Afghanistan.

Later, at a news briefing the lawmakers urged Mr Obama to secure an exist strategy from Afghanistan before sending additional troops and warned that the United States was getting deeper and deeper into a war which seems to have no end.

‘Sending 17,000 troops over there and continuing the drone bombing of Pakistan is hardly a change in policy,’ said a former presidential contender and a Republican lawmaker, Ron Paul.

The lawmakers, who had voted for sending US troops to Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, said they did so because they wanted to ensure that the Qaeda training camps in that country were destroyed.

But ‘the Bush administration decided to go far beyond what Congress had intended and set forth, for their purposes, a permanent occupation,’ said Democrat Dennis Kucinich.

Congressman Paul said Congress has the responsibility, ultimately, to write the bill that redefines the US mission in Afghanistan. The letter they sent to President Obama also urged him to ‘reconsider a military escalation’ in Afghanistan because it ‘may well be counterproductive.’

Mr Paul said the letter was ‘just urging caution because we’re hoping, with the new administration, that we’ll have an administration that will lend itself more to diplomacy and working through other means other than always military confrontation.’

‘A troop surge is not the answer,’ Mr Kucinich added. ‘Afghan citizens and families do not need more destruction and violence. They need homes, jobs, and education. They need security, the rule of law and opportunity.’

‘What’s going on in Afghanistan … has nothing to do with the al Qaeda. It has nothing to do with Osama bin Laden. This is occupation, and it’s being perpetuated —it’s a continuation of the Bush policy,’ said Congressman Paul.

Congressman Kucinich said that less than 10 cents of every dollar spent in Afghanistan goes to nonmilitary aid. ‘And the US aid that does receive Afghanis is shamefully sparse.’

Instead of a troop surge, the Obama administration should begin a high-level diplomatic engagement with the countries of the region to improve the current situation in Afghanistan, he said. ‘A troop surge is not the answer,’ he added.

‘I have a sinking feeling that we are getting deeper and deeper into a war that has no end, a greater war where our strategy and goals are unclear,’ warned Congressman Jim McGovern, a Democrat.

Wahabbi Law: There is No Past

“If Fazlullah does not appear in court when summoned, he will be acting against shariat”

—Sufi Muhammad, Leader of the TNSM

* Keeping weapons is allowed in Islam
* The military violated the ceasefire
* No objection to a cantonment in Swat
* Democracy is not allowed in Islam

The influential pro-Taliban cleric of Swat, Sufi Muhammad has said that the sharia law does not allow debate on the past, and therefore he will not term what his son-in-law Mullah Fazlullah did against the state of Pakistan during the last year and a half as haram or halal. In an exclusive interview with Daily Times’ Peshawar Bureau Chief Iqbal Khattak in Mingora city, the 74-year-old cleric said keeping weapons is Islamic, and that he did not demand that the Taliban surrender their weapons after a peace deal with the NWFP government. Excerpts follow:

Daily Times: You said in a 2005 interview with us that what Al Qaeda and the Taliban are doing in Pakistan is haram. Are Maulana Fazlullah’s activities over the last sixteen months also haram?

Sufi Muhammad: Yes, I said that about Al Qaeda, but not about the Taliban. Let me say…that debate on past happenings is disallowed in Islam. A hadith sharif says, what has happened in the past should not be discussed.

But how can we proceed without debating the past?

The hadith sharif says a Muslim should not discuss past happenings because he may not remember all the [details] and, therefore, he may…sin by not speaking the truth.

A majority of Swat residents do not think the peace deal recently signed between the TNSM and the NWFP government will last long.

God Almighty does everything; he builds and destroys countries.

Residents also doubt whether peace is possible in the presence of armed Taliban.

Everyone keeps weapons. People in Peshawar have weapons with them.

You support keeping weapons?

Yes, you can keep weapons with you.

Did you ask Fazlullah to surrender weapons after the sharia law deal?

Keeping weapons is halal in Islam.

President Zardari said recently that force would be used if the Taliban do not surrender weapons in Swat.

His statement is childish…immature.

With sharia law in Swat, there will be a complete ban on music and girls’ education, and people will be forced to grow beards?

There are five subjects — judiciary, politics, economics, education and the executive. The judicial subject will be with us, the rest is beyond our control.

The Taliban are kidnapping government officials and killing soldiers, yet you still hold the army responsible for ceasefire violations.

Kidnapping cases are taking place all over the world. The military violated the ceasefire.

The military says some of its soldiers were shot dead while bringing water.

No. This is not the case. The soldiers were not killed near any stream.

Are soldiers moving freely in Swat after the peace deal?

No. The military cannot move freely unless peace is restored.

After peace is restored, will the army leave Swat?

This is Pakistan’s army and Swat is within Pakistan’s borders. I will have no objection if a military cantonment is established here.

Locals say innocent people have been killed. Will the aggrieved families be able to get justice?

I have told you already: we will not discuss what has happened in the past. Sharia law does not allow this.

If a court summons a key Taliban commander, will he appear before the court?

If Caliph Umar (RA) can appear before a court, then why can’t others?

So Fazlullah will also appear in court if summoned?

If he does not…he will be acting against the sharia law.

What you did in Malakand in the 1990s and then in Afghanistan in 2001 you called ‘jihad’. Are Fazlullah’s activities over the last 16 months in Swat also jihad?

I do not want to speak on this.

What are Fazlullah’s plans after the peace deal?

He will support imposition of sharia law.

You have termed democracy ‘infidelity’. But Maulana Sami-ul Haq, Maulana Fazlur Rehman and Qazi Hussain Ahmad are taking part in the democratic process.

Democracy is not permissible in sharia law. I will not name [these leaders] but they are taking part in infidelity. I will not offer prayers if one of [these leaders] is leading those prayers.

Do you intend to export
sharia law to other parts of Pakistan?

If people help me, I will. Otherwise, no. *

Pakistan Says U.S. Should Review Baluchistan Strikes

more about “Google News“, posted with vodpod

By Michael Heath

March 19 (Bloomberg) — Pakistan’s government urged the Obama administration to reconsider a plan to expand strikes by drones in the tribal regions to include targets in the southwestern province of Baluchistan.

“From the very first day, the government has been condemning drone attacks,” Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira said in the capital, Islamabad, yesterday, state media reported. Pakistan is “hoping the U.S. administration would review its decision to expand such attacks in Baluchistan.”

The Obama administration recently received two reports on Pakistan and Afghanistan that called for a broadening of targets to include a militant sanctuary in and around Baluchistan’s capital, Quetta, the New York Times reported this week.

Thousands of Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters sought shelter in Pakistan’s tribal region after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001. Mullah Mohammad Omar, who led the Taliban government in Afghanistan, has operated with near impunity in Baluchistan, which is under central government control and abuts parts of southern Afghanistan, the Times said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, asked about the report at a Defense Department briefing in Washington yesterday, said the U.S. is concerned about the security around Quetta and the presence of Taliban militants in the area.

“But I think this is principally a problem and a challenge for the Pakistanis to take on,” he said, according to a Defense Department transcript. “We are prepared to do anything we can to — to help them do that.”

Military Action

Pakistan’s government says it is pursuing a program of selective military action against militants while it woos tribal leaders to encourage them to expel foreign fighters.

Taliban and al-Qaeda-linked insurgents have made inroads in Pakistan in recent months, forcing authorities to sign a truce and agree to Islamic law in the Swat Valley, a former tourist destination northwest of Islamabad.

Some Obama administration officials are concerned extending strikes by Central Intelligence Agency-operated drones may worsen tensions with Pakistan, the newspaper said. Past attacks have triggered anti-U.S. protests in the tribal region and cities after civilians were killed.

President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani have repeatedly protested the strikes, Kaira said, according to the official Associated Press of Pakistan. They say the raids violate Pakistan’s sovereignty and weaken the government’s ability to effectively combat terrorism.

Al-Qaeda Leaders

Drone strikes in tribal areas have been effective at killing nine of al-Qaeda’s top 20 leaders, the New York Times cited administration officials as saying. The aerial campaign was recently expanded to focus on the Pakistani Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud, as well as his fighters and camps, it said.

While American intelligence officials say many top Taliban commanders remain in hiding in and around Quetta, some Afghan officials say that other senior Taliban leaders have fled to the Pakistani port city of Karachi, according to the report.

Strikes on Quetta or Afghan settlements and refugee camps around the city and near the border with Afghanistan would carry high risks of civilian causalities, the newspaper cited officials as saying.

The Obama administration has meanwhile decided to expand Afghanistan’s security force in the hope that a much larger professional army and national police force will stabilize the country, the Times said.

The plan, awaiting final approval by President Obama, would set the goal of about 400,000 soldiers and police, more than twice the current number, according to the report.

War On Terror Within: The End of Jewish History

Gilad Atzmon

The issue I am going to discuss today is probably the most important thing I’ve ever had to say about Israeli brutality and contemporary Jewish identity. I assume that I could have shaped my thought into a wide-ranging book or an analytical academic text but instead, I will do the very opposite, I will make it as short and as simple as possible.

In the weeks that have just passed we had been witness to an Israeli genocidal campaign against the Palestinian civilian population in Gaza. We had been witnessing one of the strongest armies in the world squashing women, elderly people and children. We saw blizzards of unconventional weapons bursting over schools, hospitals and refugee camps. We had seen and heard about war crimes committed before, but this time, the Israeli transgression was categorically different. It was supported by the total absolute majority of the Israeli Jewish population. The IDF military campaign in Gaza enjoyed the support of 94% of the Israeli population. 94% of the Israelis apparently approved of the air raids against civilians. The Israeli people saw the carnage on their TV screens, they heard the voices, they saw hospitals and refugee camps in flames and yet, they weren’t really moved by it all. They didn’t do much to stop their “democratically elected” ruthless leaders. Instead, some of them grabbed a seat and settled on the hills overlooking the Gaza Strip to watch their army turning Gaza into modern Hebraic coliseum of blood. Even now when the campaign seems to be over and the scale of the carnage in Gaza has been revealed, the Israelis fail to show any signs of remorse. As if this is not enough, all throughout the war, Jews around the world rallied in support of their “Jews-only state”. Such a popular support of outright war crimes is unheard of. Terrorist states do kill, yet they are slightly shy about it all. Stalin’s USSR did it in some remote Gulags, Nazi Germany executed its victims in deep forests and behind barbed wire. In the Jewish state, the Israelis slaughter defenceless women, children and the old in broad daylight, using unconventional weapons targeting schools, hospitals and refugee camps.

This level of group barbarism cries for an explanation. The task ahead can be easily defined as the quest for a realisation of Israeli collective brutality. How is it that a society has managed to lose its grip of any sense of compassion and mercy?

The Terror Within

More than anything else, the Israelis and their supportive Jewish communities are terrorised by the brutality they find in themselves. The more ruthless the Israelis are, the more frightened they become. The logic is simple. The more suffering one inflicts on the other, the more anxious one becomes of the possible potential deadly capacity around. In broad terms, the Israeli projects on the Palestinian, Arab, Muslim and Iranian the aggression which he finds in himself. Considering the fact that Israeli brutality is now proved to be with no limit and with no comparison, their anxiety is as at least as great.

Seemingly, the Israelis are fearful of themselves being the henchmen. They are engaged in a deadly battle with the terror within. But the Israeli is not alone. The Diaspora Jew who rallies in support support of a state that pours white phosphorous on civilians is caught in the exact same devastating trap. Being an enthusiastic backer of an overwhelming crime, he is horrified by the thought that the cruelty he happens to find in himself may manifest itself in others. The Diaspora Jew who supports Israel is devastated by the imaginary possibility that a brutal intent, similar to his own, may one day turn against him. This very concern is what the fear of anti-Semitism is all about. It is basically the projection of the collective Zio-centric tribal ruthlessness onto others.

There is no Israeli – Palestinian Conflict

What we see here is a clear formation of a vicious cycle in which the Israeli and his supporters are becoming an insular fireball of vengeance that is fuelled by some explosive internal aggression. The meaning of it all is pretty revealing. Since Palestinians cannot militarily confront Israeli aggression and destructive capacity, we are entitled to argue that there is no Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All there is, is Israeli psychosis in which the Israeli is being shattered with anxiety by the reflection of his own ruthlessness. Being regarded as the Nazis of our time, the Israeli is thus doomed to seeing a Nazi in everyone. Similarly, there is no rise in anti-Semitism either. The Diaspora Zionist Jew is simply devastated by the possibility that someone out there is as ethically corrupted and merciless as he himself proved to be. In short, Israeli politics and Zionist lobbying should be seen as no less than a lethal Zio-centric collective paranoia on the verge of total psychosis.

Is there a way to redeem the Zionist of his bloody expedition? Is there a way to change the course of history, to save the Israelis and their supporters from total depravity? Probably the best way to pose this question is to ask whether there is a way to save the Israeli and the Zionist from themselves. As one may gather, I am not exactly interested in saving Israelis or Zionists, however, I do grasp that redeeming Zionists of their transgression may bring a prospect of peace to Palestine, Iraq and probably the rest of us. For those who fail to see it, Israel is just the tip of the iceberg. At the end of the day, America, Britain and the West are now subject to some similar forms of “politics of fear” that are the direct outcome of Neocon deadly interventionist ideology and practices.

The Shrink from Nazareth

Many years ago, so we are told, there was an Israelite who lived amongst his brethren in the land of Canaan. Like the contemporary Israelis, he was surrounded by hate, vengeance and fear. At a certain stage he had decided to intervene and to bring a change about, he realised that there was no other way to fight ruthlessness than to search for grace. “Turn your other cheek” was his simple suggestion. Identifying the Israelite’s psychosis as “a war against terror within”, Jesus grasped that the only way to counter violence is to look in the mirror while searching for Goodness within.

It is rather apparent that Jesus’ lesson paved the way to the formation of western universal ethics. Modern political ideologies drew their lesson from the Christian prospect. Marx’s normative search for equality can be seen as a secular rewriting of Jesus’ notion of brotherhood. And yet, not a single political ideology has managed to integrate the deepest notion of Jesus’ grace. To seek peace is primarily to search for one within. While Israelis and their Neocon twins would aim at achieving peace by means of deterrence, true peace is achieved by the search for harmony within. As a Lacanian scholar may suggest, to love your neighbour is actually to love yourself loving your neighbour. The case of the Israeli is the complete opposite. As they manage to prove time after time, they are really loving themselves hating their neighbours or in short, they simply love themselves hating in general. They hate almost everything: the neighbour, the Arab, Chavez, the German, Islam, the Goy, Pork, the Pope, the Palestinian, the Church, Jesus, Hamas, calamari and Iran. You name it, they hate it. One may have to admit that hating so much must be a very consuming project unless it gives pleasure. And indeed the Israeli “pleasure principle” could be articulated as follows: it continuously drives the Israeli to seek pleasure in hate while inflicting pain upon others.

It must be mentioned at this point that the ˜War Against Terror within” is not exactly a Jewish invention. Everyone, whether it is nations, peoples or individuals, are a potential subject to it. The consequences of American nuclear murderous slaughter in Hiroshima and Nagasaki made the American people into a terrorised collective. This collective anxiety is known as the “cold war”. America is yet to redeem itself of the fear that there maybe someone out there as merciless as America proved to be. To a certain extent, operation Shock and Awe had a very similar effect on Britain and America. It led to the creation of horrified masses easily manipulated by highly motivated elite. This exact type of politics is called “politics of fear”.

And yet, within the western discourse a correction mechanism is in place. Unlike the Jewish state that is getting radicalised by its own self feeding paranoia, in the West, evil is somehow confronted and contained eventually. The murderer is denounced and hope for peace is somehow reinstated till further notice. Not that I hold my breath for President Obama bringing any change, one thing is rather clear, Obama was voted in to bring a change. Obama is a symbol of our genuine attempt to curtail evil. In the Jewish state, not only it doesn’t happen, it can never happen. The difference between Israel and the West is rather obvious. In the West, Christian heritage is providing us with a possibility of a wish grounded on belief in universal goodness. Though, we are under the constant danger of exposure to evil, we tend to believe that goodness will eventually prevail. On the other hand, in Hebraic tribal discourse, Goodness is the property of the chosen. The Israelis do not see goodness or kindness in their neighbors, they see them as savage and as a life-threatening entity. For the Israelis, kindness is their very own property, accidentally they are also innocent and victims. Within the western universal discourse, goodness doesn’t belong to one people or a single nation, it belongs to all and to none at the same time. Within the western universal heritage, Goodness is found in each of us. It doesn’t belong to a political party or an ideology. The elevating notion of grace and a Good God is there in each of us, it is always very close to home.

What Kind Of Father Is That?

“Then when the Lord your God brings you to the land he promised your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to give you –“ a land with large, fine cities you did not build, houses filled with choice things you did not accumulate, hewn out cisterns you did not dig, and vineyards and olive groves you did not plant – and you eat your fill.” (Deuteronomy: 6: 10 -11).

“When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations…then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy.” (Deuteronomy 7:1-2)

At this point we may try to attempt and to grasp the root cause behind the severe lack of compassion within the Israeli discourse and its supportive lobbies. I believe that an elaboration on the troubled relationships between the Jews and their different Gods may throw some light on the topic. It is rather obvious that the ever growing list of Jewish “Gods”, “Idols” and “Father-figures” is slightly problematic at least as far as ethics and kindness are concerned. The very relationship between “the son” and the “non-ethical father” must be explored. The philosopher Ariella Atzmon (who happens to be my mother) defines the complexity of the false beginning as the “Fagin Syndrome”. Charles Dickens’ Fagin is a “kidsman”, an adult who recruits children and trains them as pickpockets and thieves, exchanging food and shelter for goods the children steal. Though the kids must be grateful towards their master, they must also despise him for turning them into thieves and pickpockets. The kids realise that Fagin’s goods are all stolen and his kindness is far from being genuinely honest or pure. Sooner or later the kids will turn against their master Fagin in an attempt to liberate themselves of the immoral catch.

From a father-son perspective, the Biblical Jewish God Jehovah is no different from what we might see in the Fagin syndrome. The father of Israel leads his chosen people through the desert to the promised land so they can rob and plunder its indigenous habitants. This is not exactly what one may expect of an ethical father or a “kind God”. Consequently, as much as the sons of Israel love Jehovah, they must also be slightly suspicious of him for turning them into robbers and murderers. They might even be apprehensive regarding his kindness. Thus, it shouldn’t take us by a surprise that throughout Jewish history more than just a few Jews had turned against their heavenly father.

However, bearing in mind the common secularist perception that Gods are actually invented by people, one may wonder, what leads to the invention of such an “unethical God”? What makes people follow the rules of such a God? It would be also interesting to find out what kind of alternative Gods Jews happened to pick or invent once Jehovah has been shunned.

Since emancipation, more than just a few Jews had been disassociating themselves from the traditional tribal setting and rabbinical Judaism. Many intermingled with their surrounding realities, dropped their chosen entitlement and turned into ordinary human beings. Many other Jews insisted upon dropping God yet maintaining their racially orientated tribal affiliation. They decided to base their tribal belonging on ethnic, racial, political, cultural and ideological grounds rather than the Judaic precept. Though they noticeably dropped Jehovah they insisted upon adopting a secularist view that was soon shaped into a monolithic religious-like precept. All throughout the 20th century, the two religious-like political ideologies that had been found to be most appealing by the Jewish masses were Marxism and Zionism.

Marxism can be easily portrayed as a secular universal ethical ideology. However, within the process of transformation into a Jewish tribal precept, Marxism has managed to lose any traces of humanism or universalism. As we know, early Zionist ideology and practice was largely dominated by Jewish leftists who regarded themselves as true followers of Marx. They genuinely believed that celebrating their Jewish national revival at the expense of Palestinians was a legitimate socialist endeavour.

Interestingly enough, their opponents, the anti-Zionist Bund of the East European Jewish Labour, didn’t really believe in the institutional robbery of the Palestinians, instead, they believed that taking from rich European is a great universal mitzvah on the path towards social justice.

The following are a few lines from The Bund’s anthem

We swear our stalwart hate persists,

Of those who rob and kill the poor:

The Tsar, the masters, capitalists.

Our vengeance will be swift and sure.

So swear together to live or die!

Without engaging in questions having to do with ethics or political affiliation, it is rather obvious that the Jewish Marxist anthem is overwhelmingly saturated with “hate” and “vengeance”. As much as Jews were enthusiastic about Marx, Marxism, Bolshevism and equality, the end of the story is known. Jews en masse dropped Marx a long time ago. They somehow left the revolution to some enlightened Goyim such as Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales. Leaders who truly internalised in the real meaning of universal equality and ethics.

Though in the late 19th century and the early 20th century, Marxism found many followers amongst European Jews, following the Holocaust, Zionism has gradually become the voice of world Jewry. Like Fagin, the Zionist Gods and Idols: Herzl, Ben Gurion, Nordau, Weizmann, promised their followers a new unethical beginning. Robbing the Palestinians was their path towards a long overdue historical justice. Zionism transformed the Old Testament from a spiritual text into a land registry. But again as in the case of Jehovah, the Zio God transformed the Jew into a thief, it promised him someone else’s property. This in itself may explain the Israeli resentment towards Zionism and Zionist ideology. Israelis prefer to see themselves as the natural dwellers of the land rather than pioneers in a non-ethical Jewish Diaspora colonial project. The Israeli Jew furnishes his political stand by means of severe ethical escapism. This may explain the fact that as much as the Israelis love their wars, they really hate to fight them. They are not willing to die for a big abstract remote ideology such as the “Jewish nation” or “Zionism”. They overwhelmingly prefer to drop white phosphorous and cluster bombs from afar.

However, along the relatively short history of modern Jewish nationalism the Zio God made friends with some other Gods and kosher idols. Back in 1917 Lord Balfour promised the Jews that they would erect their national home in Palestine. Needless to say, as in the case of Jehovah, Lord Balfour made the Jews into plunderers and robbers, he came up with an outright non-ethical promise. He promised the Jews someone else’s land. This was basically a false beginning. Evidently, it didn’t take long before the Jews turned against the British Empire. In 1947 the UN made exactly the same foolish mistake, it gave birth to the “Jews-only State” again at the expense of the Palestinians. It legitimised the robbery of Palestine in the name of the nations. Like in the case of shunned Jehovah, it didn’t take long before the Jews turned against the UN. “It doesn’t matter what the Goyim say, all that matters is what the Jews do”, said Israeli PM David Ben Gurion. Recently Israelis had managed to even shun their best subservient friends in the White House. On the eve of the last American presidential election Israeli Generals had been filmed denouncing President Bush for “damaging Israeli interests for being overwhelmingly supportive” (Ret. Brig General Shlomo Brom). The Israeli Generals basically blamed Bush for not stopping Israel from destroying its neighbours. The moral is rather clear, the Zionists and the Israelis will inevitably turn against their Gods, Idols, fathers and others who try to help them. This is the real meaning of the Fagin syndrome within the Israeli political context. They will always have to turn against their fathers.

I believe that the most interesting Jewish belief system of them all is the Holocaust Religion, which the Israeli Philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz rightly defined as the “new Jewish religion”. The most interesting aspect of the Holocaust religion is its God-figure, namely “the Jew”. The Jewish follower of that newly formed dogmatic precept believes in “the Jew”, the one who redeemed oneself. The one who “survived” the “ultimate genocidal” event. The followers believe in “the Jew”, the “innocent” victim sufferer who returned to his “promised land” and now celebrates his successful revival narrative. To a certain extent, within the Holocaust religious discourse, the Jew believes in “the Jew”, expressed as his/her powers and his/her eternal qualities. Within the newly formed religious framework, Mecca is Tel Aviv and the Holy Shrine is the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum. The newly formed religion has many shrines (Museums) scattered around the world and it has many priests who spread the message around and punish its opposing elements. From a Jewish perspective, the Holocaust religion is a fully transparent expression of self love. It is where past and future merge into a meaningful present, it is when history is translated into praxis. Whether consciously or unconsciously, every person who identifies politically and ideologically (rather than religiously) as a Jew is, practically speaking, succumbing to the Holocaust religion and a follower of its father-figure “the Jew”. And yet, one may wonder, what about Kindness, is there any goodness in this newly formed ‘father-figure’? Is there any grace in this narrative of innocent victimhood that is celebrated daily at the expense of the Palestinian people?

If there is an end to history, the Holocaust religion embodies the very end of Jewish history. In the light of the Holocaust religion the “Father” and the “Son” unite at last. At least in the case of Israel and Zionism they bond into an amalgam of genocidal ideology and reality. In the light of the Holocaust religion and its epic survival ethos the Jewish State considers itself legitimated in dropping white phosphorus on women and children who they have caged in an inescapable open-air prison. Sadly enough, the crimes committed by the Jewish State are done on behalf of the Jewish people and in the name of their troubled history of persecution. The Holocaust religion brings to life what seems to be the ultimate possible form of insular brutal incarnation.

Historically Jews have shunned many Gods, they dropped Jehovah, they dumped Marx, some have never followed Zionism. But in the light of the Holocaust religion, while bearing in mind the scenes from Gaza, Jenin and Lebanon, the Jew may have to continue in the tradition and drop “the Jew”. He will have to accept that his newly formed father-figure was formed in his own shape. More concerning is the devastating fact that the new father is proved to be a call to kill. Seemingly, the new father is the ultimate evil God of them all.

I wonder how many Jews will be courageous enough to shun their esoteric newly formed father-figure. Will they be courageous enough to join the rest of humanity adopting a universal ethical discourse? Whether the Jew drops “The Jew”, only time will tell. Just to remove any doubt, I did drop my “Jew” a long time ago and I am doing fine.

Source: Palestine Think Tank

Army Investigating How and Why Troops Were Sent Into Alabama Town After Murder Spree

Wednesday, March 18, 2009
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor

U.S. Army soldiers from Ft. Rucker patrol the downtown area of Samson, Alabama after a shooting spree March 10, 2009. (Photo: Reuters/Mark Wallheiser. Used by permission. )

(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. Army has launched an inquiry into how and why active duty troops from Fort Rucker, Ala., came to be placed on the streets of Samson, Ala., during last week’s murder spree in that tiny South Alabama community. The use of the troops was a possible violation of federal law.

“On March 10, after a report of an apparent mass murder in Samson, Ala., 22 military police soldiers from Fort Rucker, Ala., along with the provost marshal, were sent to the city of Samson,” Harvey Perritt, spokesman for the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) at Fort Monroe, Va., told CNSNews.com on Monday.

“The purpose for sending the military police, the authority for doing so, and what duties they performed is the subject of an ongoing commander’s inquiry–directed by the commanding general of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Gen. Martin Dempsey.”

TRADOC is the headquarters command for Ft. Rucker.

“In addition to determining the facts, this inquiry will also determine whether law, regulation and policy were followed,” Perritt added. “Until those facts are determined, it would be inappropriate to speculate or comment further.”

Jim Stromenger, a dispatcher at the Samson Police Department, confirmed the MP’s presence in the town, telling CNSNews.com that the troops “came in to help with traffic control and to secure the crime scene”–and the department was glad for the help.

“We’ve been getting a lot of calls,” Stromenger said. “They weren’t here to police, let me make that clear. They were here to help with traffic and to control the crime scene–so people wouldn’t trample all over (it).”

Stromenger said the town needed help–calls had gone out to all police departments in the area.

“We only have a five-man police department,” he told CNSNews.com. “We had officers from all surrounding areas helping out. There were a lot of streets to be blocked off and there had to be someone physically there to block them off. That’s what these MPs were doing. I don’t think they were even armed. The troops helped keep nosy people away.”

But Stromenger said it wasn’t the Samson Police Department that called for the troops.

“I don’t know who called Fort Rucker. But someone did. They wouldn’t have been able to come if someone hadn’t,” he added.

Under Whose Authority?

The troops were apparently not deployed by the request of Alabama Gov. Bob Riley — or by the request of President Obama, as required by law.

When contacted by CNSNews.com, the governor’s office could not confirm that the governor had requested help from the Army, and Gov. Riley’s spokesman, Todd Stacy, expressed surprise when he was told that troops had been sent to the town.

No request from President Obama, meanwhile, was issued by the White House–or the Defense Department.

Wrongful use of federal troops inside U.S. borders is a violation of several federal laws, including one known as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, Title 18, Section 1385 of the U.S. Code.

“Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both,” the law states.

David Rittgers, legal policy analyst at the Cato Institute, said there are other laws barring use of federal troops outside of federal property, as well.

“Title 18, Section 375 of the U.S. Code is a direct restriction on military personnel, and it basically precludes any member of the army in participating in a ‘search, seizure, arrest or other similar activity, unless participation is otherwise authorized by law,’ “ Rittgers told CNSNews.com.

“The security of a crime scene is something I think that would roll up in the category of a ‘search, seizure or other activity,’” Rittgers added.

In addition, there is the Insurrection Act of 1808, as amended in 2007, (Title 10, Section 331 of the U.S. Code) under which the president can authorize troops “to restore order and enforce the laws of the United States” in an insurrection.

“Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection,” the law states.

In 2007, Congress expanded the list to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition” as situations for which the president can authorize troops, provided that  “domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the state or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.”

Congress has been clear that the use of U.S. troops for civilian police purposes is forbidden.

“One of the statutes explicitly says that military brigs can’t even be used to detain domestic criminals,” Rittgers said. “It really is supposed to be a black and white line.”

The U.S. Department of Justice, meanwhile, would have prosecuting authority, if any violation is deemed to have occurred. The Justice Department did not comment for this story.

Ft. Rucker, located in Southern Alabama, is the home of Army Aviation.

Afghanistan Will Remain A “Graveyard For Foreigners”

more about “Buildup In Afghanistan Carries Weight…“, posted with vodpod

Posted by Tucker Reals | 26

This report was filed by CBS News’ Peshawar-based reporter Sami Yousafzai and edited by Tucker Reals in London.

---

A former government minister from the Taliban regime that ruled Afghanistan says the United States can throw as many soldiers into the country as it wants, they will just meet the same fate as all previous “foreign invaders.”

A day after President Obama announced a massive increase in the U.S. troop presence — an additional 17,000 pairs of boots on the ground, coming soon — the former minister told CBS News he couldn’t understand, “why the U.S. relies on figures and the number of troops in a country such as Afghanistan, where the number of foreign invaders has never made any difference, and the winners have always been the freedom fighters.”

CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reported that America’s senior commander in Afghanistan plans to send the new troops straight to the heart of the battle, in the violent southern part of the country, and he plans to ask for even more forces to join the fight. Click here to read the story.

The former government official, who is now a Taliban commander and member of the movement’s Military Council, pointed to the drawn-out war Russian forces fought to win control of Afghanistan, only to be turned back by a relentless insurgency.

“The more troops that the U.S. and NATO send, the more they will get deeper stuck in Afghanistan,” said the former minister, who spoke to CBS on condition that he not be identified.

He still has ties to the militant group, which was toppled from power by the 2001 U.S. invasion, and he claims the number of armed of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan is set to grow by at least a third this year, to 10,000. He said last year they had 5,000 fighters and another 3,000 Kuwa Zarbati (reserves). The largest concentration of militants, he said, was in the southern Helmand and Kandahar provinces.

He said the increase was not related to the influx of new U.S. troops, but had already been decided due to a change in tactic; moving the fight from the countryside to do battle in settled areas. “The numbers aren’t significant, what’s important is the new strategy and tactics,” he said.

The former government minister boasted of suicide bombers in waiting. “Bombers are our main assets, and still we have a number of suicide bombers.”

The compassion of Muslims worldwide toward the Taliban’s cause has increased significantly in the wake of “Israel’s Zionist attack in Gaza,” he said, claiming that donors from many nations have been sending cash to buy cars and explosives, which would be used in bombs aimed at the soon-to-arrive American forces.

America and NATO are “certainly losing their minds,” by increasing their troop presence, “while we almost blocked the supply routes coming via Pakistan, and have already sent about 1,000 Taliban to cut new supply routes from the north into Kabul, via central Asia and Russia,” he said.

The former minister said Western governments and media were constantly painting the militant movement in Afghanistan as a group of terrorists from other countries, but he argued it was almost entirely a homegrown insurgency.

“We don’t have more than three to four hundred volunteers, but all of them are under our command, not al Qaeda,” he said.

“The history of Afghanistan will never take a full U-turn, and we are not used to being defeated by foreigners. For a hundred years, Afghanistan has remained a graveyard for foreigners. There’s no way for it to suddenly become a land of victory for the U.S. It never can happen, and history won’t be changed in this century either.”