‘You failed’, says 16 year-old survivor to Norway gunman

‘You failed’, says 16 year-old survivor to Norway gunman

Agence France Presse

Oslo: Open letter from Ivar Benjamin Oesteboe, a 16-year-old survivor of Norway’s shooting rampage, who lost five friends in the attack, posted on Facebook and published today in the Dagbladet newspaper:

“Dear Anders Behring Breivik.

We are not responding to evil with evil as you wanted. We are fighting evil with good. And we are winning.

Maybe you think you’ve won. Maybe you think you’ve destroyed the Labour Party and people around the world who stand for a multicultural society by killing my friends and fellow party members.

Know that you failed.

You describe yourself as a hero, as a knight. You are no hero. But one thing is certain, you have created heroes. On Utoeya on that warm July day, you created some of the greatest heroes the world has seen, you united the people of the world.

On the day of the attacks, Oesteboe hid with others on the islands shore when he heard the first gunshots. They thought Behring Breivik, who was dressed in a police uniform, was there to help them.

You have united us … You have killed my friends, but you have not killed our cause, our opinion, our right to express ourselves. Muslim women have been hugged by Norwegian women in the street in sympathy … Your act has worked against its purpose. We have created a community.

You deserve to hear how your plan worked. A lot of people are angry, you are Norway’s most hated man. I am not mad. I am not afraid of you. You can’t get to us, we are bigger than you.”

Islamists force Egypt’s liberals to regroup

Islamists force Egypt’s liberals to regroup

ATUL ANEJA

Jolted by the heavy mobilisation by Islamists on Friday at Cairo’s Tahrir Square and other major cities, Egypt’s liberal pro-democracy activists are trying to re-group to prevent their country from evolving into a theocracy.

Late on Sunday, Amr Hamzawy, the spokesman for the Egypt Freedom Party, a Liberal formation, announced that a broad coalition of like-minded parties was in the works to counter the growing influence of Islamist and religious movements in the country. Mr. Hamzawy said Egyptians had to make a choice: Now that the former President, Hosni Mubarak, had fallen from power, they could either build a “civil state” or allow the emergence of a theocracy.

As Egypt seemingly stood at political and ideological cross-roads, Ayman Nour, president of the Ghad (Tomorrow) Party, and a possible candidate for the presidency, said Egyptians had to navigate a difficult path, avoiding both the pitfalls of an extended military rule as well as a vocal demand for a religious state.

Egypt’s liberal parties are planning their rearguard action on account of a recent show of strength by the Islamists.

On Friday, hundreds of thousands of people, mostly supporters of the puritanical Salafists and the less radical Muslim Brotherhood, thronged Tahrir Square, the icon of Egyptian pro-democracy movement. Unlike the past when mobilisation had been on pluralistic and nationalistic lines, Friday’s rally appeared singularly partisan.

“Islamic law above the constitution,” blared many of the banners. Many chanted “Islamic Islamic”, seemingly prefacing another slogan: “Not Western or Eastern. No liberal or secular.” The Associated Press reported that during the course of the rally, Islamists unfurled the Egyptian flag but replaced the eagle at its centre with the Islamic slogan: “There is no god but God and Muhammad is his prophet.” The show of strength by Islamists in Cairo was repeated in other Egyptian cities. Thousands of Salafists and other Islamists congregated at a prominent square in Alexandria. Huge numbers also rallied in Suez thronging the city’s January 25 square.

Friday’s rallies showed that Egypt’s political and societal divisions were too deep to be papered over. These demonstrations were held despite a desperate appeal by the liberals that the protests should target the military for not fulfilling its promises and focus on common demands. In the meetings held before the rally, the non-religious parties had identified some of these demands — ending the use of military courts to try civilians, setting a minimum and maximum wage in the country and fixing the compensation amounts for families of those killed during the course of the uprising.

However, neither did the Islamists target the military nor did they stick to the common points. As it became clear during Friday prayers that the Islamists would call for the enactment of Sharia law and theocracy, the liberal activists withdrew from the rally. By evening on that day, a coalition of 33 parties announced their dissociation with Islamist groups that had now taken over Tahrir Square.

After Friday’s rally, the liberal camp is questioning the role of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was involved in mobilisation but later spoke out against partisan sloganeering, in advancing the pro-democracy movement. On Sunday, Ghad Party’s Mr. Nour praised the Muslim Brotherhood for adopting a “flexible” approach. Some analysts say the Muslim Brothers can still become the bridge between the liberals and the Salafists.

U.S. Commandos Raid Pakistan All the Time

It’s Not Just bin Laden; U.S. Commandos Raid Pakistan All the Time

In recent years, U.S. special operations forces have regularly and “surreptitiously” slipped into Pakistan, raiding suspected terrorist hideouts on Pakistani soil. The team that killed Osama bin Laden — those guys alone had conducted “ten to twelve” of those missions before they hit that infamous compound in Abbottabad.

In a remarkable story for this week’s New YorkerNicholas Schmidle puts together the most detailed picture so far of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. But the most combustible  component of the explosive article might be the disclosure that U.S. commandos sneak into Pakistan on the regular.

Over the last week, current and one-time top officials have debated the wisdom of the U.S. launching unilateral strikes in places like Pakistan. Former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told a gathering of security professionals in Aspen that the attacks weren’t worth the local antipathy they generated. Retired Gen. Doug Lute, who oversees Afghanistan and Pakistan strategy at the White House, admitted that there was a major “humiliation factor.” But he told the conference that now was the time to “double down” on the raids, with al-Qaida in disarray. “We need to go for the knockout punch.”

Most people in the audience assumed Lute was talking about additional drone attacks. Perhaps Navy SEALs would deliver the hit, instead.

In many minds, that decisive blow landed last May, when Navy SEALs took out the world’s most wanted terrorist. Schmidle’s piece confirms much of what we already knew about the bin Laden raid: yes, they used a stealthy spy drone and a radar-evading Black Hawk and a particularly ferocious dog; yes, bin Laden was unarmed; yes, the SEALs found his porn.

But Schmidle reveals tons of new details, too. One SEAL bear-hugged bin Laden’s wives, to keep them from detonating suicide vests (an unnecessary precaution, it turns out). The commandos considered tunneling into the compound — until overhead imagery showed that the water table would prevent any digging. At least three of the SEALs were part of the operation that rescued Maersk Alabama captain Richard Phillips from Somali pirates.

Since the bin Laden raid, the government of Pakistan claimed it was kicking dozens of U.S. military trainers out of the country. Islamabad made noises about shutting down a base from which U.S. drones took off. Generally, relations between the two countries have gone into the toilet.

But the drone attacks haven’t let up. Will the special operations raids continue, as well? Or was the bin Laden operation the final mission?

One side note: at last week’s Aspen Security Forum, Special Operations Command chief Adm. Eric Olsonrefused again and again to answer questions about the bin Laden raid. Too much had been disclosed already. “For the special operations community, the 15 minutes of fame lasted about 14 minutes too long,” Olson said. But the admiral – who oversaw the mission, is responsible for all special operations forces, and almost certainly approved Schmidle’s access to his troops – did offer one thought: the raid was routine. A “dozenish” of these kill-or-capture missions were launched every night, mostly in Afghanistan. “Eleven went left,” Olson noted, “one went right.”

Interestingly, a senior Defense Department official talking to Schmidle used almost identical language. “Most of the missions take off and go left,” he said. “This one took off and went right.” Perhaps it’s not so bad if those 15 minutes last another second or two longer.

Photo: U.S. Army

Iran Kills, Arrests PJAK Terrorists for Gas Pipeline Sabotage

Iran kills, arrests people linked to gas pipeline blast

TEHRAN | Mon Aug 1, 2011

(Reuters) – Iranian security forces killed three people on Monday and arrested four others they suspected of being behind a pipeline blast which halted gas exports to Turkey last week, Iran’s student news agency ISNA reported.

Officials in Maku, a city in Iran’s West Azerbaijan province, said the militants had crossed the border from Iraq to blow up the pipeline and that at least one was a Turkish citizen.

“‘Jamil’, a Turkish national and head of this terrorist group, was killed along with two others,” Maku governor, Hamid Ahmadian was quoted as saying.

Gas exports to Turkey were briefly halted due to a blast on Friday. The pipeline was swiftly repaired and gas flows were resumed on Saturday.

So far, no group has claimed responsibility for the blast.

But the official Iranian news agency said Iranian Kurdish rebel group PJAK was believed to have been responsible.

Sabotage is common on pipelines leading into Turkey from Iran and Iraq, where Kurdish separatist militants operate.

Iranian security forces have regularly fought rebels from PJAK which has bases in the border provinces of neighboring Iraq.

PJAK is an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which took up arms in 1984 to fight for an ethnic homeland in southeast Turkey. Both Tehran and Washington have called PJAK a terrorist organization.

Iran is Turkey’s second-biggest supplier of natural gas after Russia, sending 10 billion cubic meters of gas each year. Turkey uses gas to fire half of its power plants.

(Writing by Ramin Mostafavi; Editing by Jon Hemming)

Serbia: America sides with Albanian terrorists

Serbia: America sides with Albanian terrorists

01.08.2011

Serbia: America sides with Albanian terrorists. 45013.jpegWhat is it with the USA and terrorists? They created the Taleban, they sided with the KLA, now they are siding with Al-Qaeda in Libya. Back to the KLA, Albanian thugs are starting a terrorist campaign occasioning serious human rights abuses in Serbia. The western media looks the other way, the USA aids and abets them. As usual.

The background:

News alert: The Kosovo “Prime Minister” (he may as well call himself King Zog, it has as much legitimacy), Hashim Thaçi, has apparently called up a general mobilization of the Albanian security forces in Kosovo.

 

Quote: U.S. Ambassador to Servia Mary Warlick: “The government of Kosovo has been independent since February 2008, and it makes sovereign decisions. From time to time, it consults with international partners, including the U.S., but it is a country that makes its own decisions,” Warlick said.

Kosovo is not a country. It is a province of Serbia, under international law.

My message to Mary Warlock: OK then let’s carve out a piece of the USA, let’s arm some locals and turn them into terrorists then let’s call them freedom fighters, let’s give them uniforms and weapons and get them to carry out terrorist attacks then let’s see if your armed forces react. If yes then they will get bombed for attacking civilians and then a country will recognise this new province as an independent country then someone such as your good self can step in a call it a country. Do you agree that is fair? Obviously you do because that is precisely how the United States of America has behaved with Serbia.

The Albanians have started up again in Kosovo and Metohija and according to reports from eye-witnesses given directly to Pravda.Ru, the American battalion will not allow the Serb forces to help their countrymen. Gordan Bogdanovic and Borko Stefanovic are being blocked from entering Kosovo and Metohija. Who are the Americans, if this is the case, to block Serbs from entering Serbia?

Now the Albanians have cut off the water supply to the Serbs in northern Kosovo and Metohija – a crime against humanity, and the KFOR soldiers do not allow the Serbs from the other side to get humanitarian aid through? Why is KFOR blockading the border crossing at Jarinje Brnjak delaying even food supplies coming from the north?

Serbian witnesses in northern Kosovo are warning of a humanitarian disaster, since the Albanians cut the water pumps and have not allowed medical supplies into hospitals. Babies in neo-natal units are at most risk along with cancer patients. Dr. Milan Jakovljevic, director of the local health center in Kosovska Mitrovica has stated that: “the hospital is threatening lack of oxygen bottles, medicines, gasoline, food and water, which will further jeopardize the treatment of the most vulnerable patients with cancer, apoplexy, and put the babies in danger, in the neonatology unit”.

Where is this story in the international media? In Pravda.Ru.

So why did KFOR not only do nothing about the Albanian terrorist action, but actively enforce a blockade? After what NATO has done in Libya, precision bombing homes to destroy families with a callous and evil disregard for human life, the answer is very clear.

Kill a child today and he won’t have a future. NATO = child murderers.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Pravda.Ru

US Scuttling Negotiations With Taliban Over Super-Bases Since 2007

Ex-PM Says Taliban Offer Talks For Pullout Date 

Gareth Porter*

KABUL, Jul 28 (IPS) – The Taliban leadership is ready to negotiate peace with the United States right now if Washington indicates its willingness to provide a timetable for complete withdrawal, according to a former Afghan prime minister who set up a secret meeting between a senior Taliban official and a U.S. general two years ago.

They also have no problem with meeting the oft-repeated U.S. demand that the Taliban cut ties completely with Al-Qaeda.

Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai, who was acting prime minister of Afghanistan in 1995-96, told IPS in an interview that a group of Taliban officials conveyed the organisation’s position on starting peace negotiations to him in a meeting in Kabul a few days ago.

“They said once the Americans say ‘we are ready to withdraw’, they will sit with them,” said Ahmadzai.

The former prime minister said Taliban officials made it clear that they were not insisting on any specific date for final withdrawal. “The timetable is up to the Americans,” he said.

Ahmadzai contradicted a favourite theme of media coverage of the issue of peace negotiations on the war – that Mullah Mohammed Omar, head of the Taliban leadership council, has not been on board with contacts by Taliban officials with the administration of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the U.S.

He confirmed that Mullah Baradar, then second in command to Mullah Omar, had indeed had high-level contacts with officials in the Karzai government in 2009, as claimed by Karzai aides, before being detained by Pakistani intelligence in early 2010.

And contrary to speculation that Baradar’s relationship with Mullah Omar had been terminated either by those contacts or by his detention, Ahmadzai said, “Baradar is still the top man,” and “Mullah Omar’s position on him hasn’t changed.”

Ahmadzai, who studied engineering at Colorado State University before joining the U.S.-sponsored mujahideen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, maintains close ties with Quetta Shura officials but has also enjoyed personal contacts with the U.S. military. He brokered a meeting between a senior Taliban leader and Brig. Gen. Edward M. Reeder, then commander of the Combined Special Forces Special Operations Army Component Command in Kabul in summer 2009.

The former prime minister’s account of that meeting in the interview with IPS further documents the Taliban leadership’s interest in entering into peace negotiations with the United States prior to the Barack Obama administration’s decision to escalate U.S. military involvement sharply in 2009.

A senior Taliban leader told Reeder at the meeting that the insurgents had no problem with severing their ties to Al-Qaeda, but could not agree to U.S. demands for access to military bases.

Ahmadzai said he negotiated the meeting with the Taliban leadership in the spring of 2009, at the request of Reeder, who had just arrived in Kabul a few weeks earlier. The process took four months, he recalled, because the Taliban leadership had so many questions that had to be addressed.

The main question, of course, was what arrangements would be made for the Taliban representative’s safety. In the end, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) command facilitated the Taliban representative’s travel into Kabul, Ahmadzai recalled.

The Taliban official who met with Reeder and Ahmadzai in Kabul was a member of the Taliban Quetta Shura (leadership council) who called himself Mullah Min Mohammed for security reasons, according to Ahmadzai.

The Quetta Shura representative complained to Reeder about the failure of the United States to follow up on a previous contact with a senior Taliban representative, according to Ahmadzai’s account.

“Mullah Mohammed” recalled to Reeder that the Taliban had met two years earlier in southern Kandahar province with an unnamed U.S. official who had made two demands as the price for U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan: an end to the Taliban’s relations with Al-Qaeda and U.S. long-term access to three airbases in the country.

“We agreed to one but not to the other,” the senior Taliban official was quoted by Ahmadzai as saying.

The Taliban leader explained that it had no trouble with the demand for cutting ties with Al-Qaeda, but that it would not agree to the U.S. retaining any military bases in Afghanistan – “not one metre”, according to Ahmadzai’s account.

The Quetta Shura representative then reproached the U.S. for having failed to make any response to the Taliban offer to cut the organisation’s ties with Al-Qaeda.

“You haven’t responded to us,” he is said to have told Reeder. “You never told us yes or no.”

The Taliban complaint suggested that the Quetta Shura leadership had been prepared to move into more substantive talks if the U.S. had indicated its interest in doing so.

Reeder, who has been commander of the U.S. Army Special Forces Command at Fort Bragg since July 2010, did not respond to an e-mail from IPS to the command’s Public Affairs Office for comment on Ahmadzai’s account of the meeting.

After the announcement of the major increase in troop deployment in Afghanistan, the Obama administration adopted a public posture that suggested the Taliban leadership had no reason to negotiate unless put under severe military pressure.

In light of the contacts between senior Taliban leaders and U.S. officials in 2007 and 2009, the Taliban clearly concluded that the United States would not negotiate with the Taliban except on the basis of accepting U.S. permanent military presence in Afghanistan.

After the 2009 meeting between Reeder and the Taliban leader, a number of reports indicated the Taliban leadership was not interested in negotiations with Washington.

Despite the apparent policy shift against seeking peace talks, the Taliban continued to signal to Washington that it was willing to exclude any presence for Al-Qaeda or other groups that might target the United States from Afghan territory.

Mullah Omar suggested that willingness in an unusual statement on the occasion of the Islamic holiday Eid in September 2009.

Then in early December, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan – the official title adopted by the Quetta Shura leadership for its political-military organisation – said in a statement posted on its website and circulated to Western news agencies that it was prepared to offer “legal guarantees” against any aggressive actions against other countries from its soil as part of a settlement with the United States.

What annoyed Obama about Mullah Omar

What annoyed Obama about Mullah Omar

By M K Bhadrakumar

What really prompted US president Barack Obama to change his mind and to allow himself at the last minute to be persuaded by his military commanders to opt for the ’surge’ in Afghanistan in end-2009 is crucial to understanding the current status of the war and its likely future trajectory. Among Obama’s inner circle, Vice-president Joe Biden was reportedly pitching against the ’surge’ at that time. The former Afghan PM Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai has now revealed what prompted the US ’surge’. ASA is a credible source, having been close to Burhanuddin Rabbani, Rasul Sayyaf in the Mujahideen government (where he served as PM along with Ahmed Shah Massoud as Defence Minister before fleeing for Turkey where he lived in exile during the Taliban regime.)

That ASA was the intermediary between the Americans and the Taliban in 2009 shows the wheels-within-wheels, as it were. (ASA did his graduate studies in the US; he lived in exile in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.) According to ASA, the main sticking point between the US and Taliban in the 2009 talks was that Mullah Omar was stubbornly opposed to the US request to allow permanent military bases in Afghanistan in a post-settlement era. Taliban was willing to compromise on other issues but when it came to the US bases, Omar was tough as nail. He apparently took the stance that “not one metre” of Afghan soil could come under foreign occupation. Interestingly, Omar was willing to negotiate the date of US withdrawal from Afghanistan and was prepared to be flexible on the actual date of withdrawal, but the US troops simply had to vacate at some point.

What emerges is that the Pentagon top brass decided to bleed the Taliban for its ‘obduracy’ apropos the US military bases, based on a strategy to weaken them and somehow compel them to compromise on the question of the permanent US military bases. Thus was born the ’surge’ strategy — make one big push to degrade the Taliban militarily before negotiating. So, looking back, when the Anglo-American thesis of the ‘good Taliban-bad-Taliban’ was shoved down the throat of countries like India at the the London conference in January 2010, Richard Holbrooke and Hillary Clinton indeed had a wholesome game plan. Alas, Indian diplomacy has been naive and continued to be enthusiastic about the ’surge’.

It stands to reason that there was some major intelligence failure and Delhi had no clue to what was really going on. Maybe it isn’t late even today for someone to talk with interlocutors like ASA and try to piece it all together. Unless we know reliably well what transpired between the US and the Taliban, how would we comprehend  what is going to unfold in the coming period? Unsurprisingly, the US continues to keep us ‘briefed’ selectively on a need-to-know basis. Special Representative Marc Grossman visited Delhi just once. He is setting out again on a regional tour that will take him to Pakistan and the Central Asian region (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan). India remains a bystander. All this happened primarily because our diplomats chose to work as the ‘B Team’ of the American embassy in Kabul through the past decade since the ouster of the Taliban regime in 2001 and we didn’t diversify our contacts with the Afghan political elites and other regional powers.

 

Afghans, Not Americans, In Exploratory Peace Talks With Real Afghan Taliban

Taliban Join Hands for Talks Le by Mullah Omar

Mazhar Tufail

Islamabad

In their contacts with the Rabbani group, leaders of different groups of the Afghan Taliban have hinted at advancing their dialogue with the Afghan peace jirga under the leadership of Mulla Muhammad Omar.

“The Taliban, who are divided in various groups, have now agreed on one point that talks should be held for establishment of peace in Afghanistan. They are, however, also afraid of al-Qaeda,” said a Taliban leader, who enjoys ample influence among his comrades engaged in talks, while talking to The News here on Saturday from an undisclosed location in Afghanistan on telephone.

“All rounds of talks held so far are just a beginning because nobody from the two sides is yet ready to risk the announcement of power sharing or overtly holding talks for the establishment of permanent peace in Afghanistan with any other group including the Rabbani group,” said the Taliban leader, who wanted not to be named.

The Taliban leader said the progress in talks made recently had never been made in the past. He, however, categorically stated that neither the US has any role in initiation of dialogue nor the Afghan Taliban have agreed to join talks on pursuance by the US.

“It has been our demand since day one that first the US and allied troops should leave Afghanistan. It seems that our demand is going to be met to some extent now. As soon as the foreign troops will start leaving Afghanistan, all the progress made so far in

talks will be made public,” he said.

The Taliban leader said that the authority to make a final decision rests with Mulla Muhammad Omar. He said that a meeting of the Taliban Shura might also be convened to seek the consent of its members for peace talks.

When contacted by The News for comments, Brigadier (R) Mahmood Shah, an expert on Afghan affairs, said it is correct that one group of the Taliban is holding talks with the Afghan leadership.

He said that it is, however, difficult to say that the Taliban are holding talks with the US officials, Afghan government or any specific group because very sensitive issues are involved and none of the groups could risk confirmation of talks as they are afraid of al-Qaeda.

“In the existing circumstances, both sides will definitely deny holding of talks and an effort will be made to keep secret the dialogue process and any progress made so far,” Mahmood Shah said. “If the negotiators come into open, there is a strong possibility that al-Qaeda may kill them. It is an important point with regard to secrecy of talks,” he remarked.

The analyst said that there are 50 percent chances of the success of the talks. He said that one thing is, however, in the favour of the Taliban that their demand of the withdrawal of foreign troops has been acceded to and a formal announcement has also been made in this regard.

Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber

Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber

m_topn picture

J U N E  2 0 0 0

In the fall of 1958 Theodore Kaczynski, a brilliant but vulnerable boy of sixteen, entered Harvard College. There he encountered a prevailing intellectual atmosphere of anti-technological despair. There, also, he was deceived into subjecting himself to a series of purposely brutalizing psychological experiments — experiments that may have confirmed his still-forming belief in the evil of science. Was the Unabomber born at Harvard? A look inside the files

by Alston Chase

(The online version of this article appears in four parts. Click here to go to part two, part three, or part four.)
LIKE many Harvard alumni, I sometimes wander the neighborhood when I return to Cambridge, reminiscing about the old days and musing on how different my life has been from what I hoped and expected then. On a trip there last fall I found myself a few blocks north of Harvard Yard, on Divinity Avenue. Near the end of this dead-end street sits the Peabody Museum — a giant Victorian structure attached to the Botanical Museum, where my mother had taken me as a young boy, in 1943, to view the spectacular exhibit of glass flowers. These left such a vivid impression that a decade later my recollection of them inspired me, then a senior in high school, to apply to Harvard.This time my return was prompted not by nostalgia but by curiosity. No. 7 Divinity Avenue is a modern multi-story academic building today, housing the university’s Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology. In 1959 a comfortable old house stood on the site. Known as the Annex, it served as a laboratory in which staff members of the Department of Social Relations conducted research on human subjects. There, from the fall of 1959 through the spring of 1962, Harvard psychologists, led by Henry A. Murray, conducted a disturbing and what would now be seen as ethically indefensible experiment on twenty-two undergraduates. To preserve the anonymity of these student guinea pigs, experimenters referred to individuals by code name only. One of these students, whom they dubbed “Lawful,” was Theodore John Kaczynski, who would one day be known as the Unabomber, and who would later mail or deliver sixteen package bombs to scientists, academicians, and others over seventeen years, killing three people and injuring twenty-three.IHAD a special interest in Kaczynski. For many years he and I had lived parallel lives to some degree. Both of us had attended public high schools and had then gone on to Harvard, from which I graduated in 1957, he in 1962. At Harvard we took many of the same courses from the same professors. We were both graduate students and assistant professors in the 1960s. I studied at Oxford and received a Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton before joining the faculty at Ohio State and later serving as chairman of the Department of Philosophy at Macalester College, in Minnesota. Kaczynski earned a Ph.D. in mathematics at the University of Michigan in 1967 and then joined the Berkeley Department of Mathematics as an instructor. In the early 1970s, at roughly the same time, we separately fled civilization to the Montana wilderness.

In 1971 Kaczynski moved to Great Falls, Montana; that summer he began building a cabin near the town of Lincoln, eighty miles southwest of Great Falls, on a lot he and his brother, David, had bought. In 1972 my wife and I bought an old homestead fifty-five miles south of Great Falls. Three years later we gave up our teaching jobs to live in Montana full-time. Our place had neither telephone nor electricity; it was ten miles from the nearest neighbor. In winter we were snowbound for months at a time.

In our desire to leave civilization Kaczynski and I were not alone. Many others sought a similar escape. What, I wondered, had driven Kaczynski into the wilderness, and to murder? To what degree were his motives simply a more extreme form of the alienation that prompted so many of us to seek solace in the backwoods?

Most of us may believe we already know Ted Kaczynski. According to the conventional wisdom, Kaczynski, a brilliant former professor of mathematics turned Montana hermit and mail bomber, is, simply, mentally ill. He is a paranoid schizophrenic, and there is nothing more about him to interest us. But the conventional wisdom is mistaken. I came to discover that Kaczynski is neither the extreme loner he has been made out to be nor in any clinical sense mentally ill. He is an intellectual and a convicted murderer, and to understand the connections between these two facts we must revisit his time at Harvard.

I first heard of the Murray experiment from Kaczynski himself. We had begun corresponding in July of 1998, a couple of months after a federal court in Sacramento sentenced him to life without possibility of parole. Kaczynski, I quickly discovered, was an indefatigable correspondent. Sometimes his letters to me came so fast that it was difficult to answer one before the next arrived. The letters were written with great humor, intelligence, and care. And, I found, he was in his own way a charming correspondent. He has apparently carried on a similarly voluminous correspondence with many others, often developing close friendships with them through the mail.Kaczynski told me that the Henry A. Murray Research Centerof the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, although it released some raw data about him to his attorneys, had refused to share information about the Murray team’s analysis of that data. Kaczynski hinted darkly that the Murray Center seemed to feel it had something to hide. One of his defense investigators, he said, reported that the center had told participating psychologists not to talk with his defense team.

After this intriguing start Kaczynski told me little more about the Murray experiment than what I could find in the published literature. Henry Murray’s widow, Nina, was friendly and cooperative, but could provide few answers to my questions. Several of the research assistants I interviewed couldn’t, or wouldn’t, talk much about the study. Nor could the Murray Center be entirely forthcoming. After considering my application, its research committee approved my request to view the records of this experiment, the so-called data set, which referred to subjects by code names only. But because Kaczynski’s alias was by then known to some journalists, I was not permitted to view his records.

Through research at the Murray Center and in the Harvard archives I found that, among its other purposes, Henry Murray’s experiment was intended to measure how people react under stress. Murray subjected his unwitting students, including Kaczynski, to intensive interrogation — what Murray himself called “vehement, sweeping, and personally abusive” attacks, assaulting his subjects’ egos and most-cherished ideals and beliefs.

My quest was specific — to determine what effects, if any, the experiment may have had on Kaczynski. This was a subset of a larger question: What effects had Harvard had on Kaczynski? In 1998, as he faced trial for murder, Kaczynski was examined by Sally Johnson, a forensic psychiatrist with the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, at the order of a court. In her evaluation Johnson wrote that Kaczynski “has intertwined his two belief systems, that society is bad and he should rebel against it, and his intense anger at his family for his perceived injustices.” The Unabomber was created when these two belief systems converged. And it was at Harvard, Johnson suggested, that they first surfaced and met. She wrote,

During his college years he had fantasies of living a primitive life and fantasized himself as “an agitator, rousing mobs to frenzies of revolutionary violence.” He claims that during that time he started to think about breaking away from normal society.

It was at Harvard that Kaczynski first encountered the ideas about the evils of society that would provide a justification for and a focus to an anger he had felt since junior high school. It was at Harvard that he began to develop these ideas into his anti-technology ideology of revolution. It was at Harvard that Kaczynski began to have fantasies of revenge, began to dream of escaping into wilderness. And it was at Harvard, as far as can be determined, that he fixed on dualistic ideas of good and evil, and on a mathematical cognitive style that led him to think he could find absolute truth through the application of his own reason. Was the Unabomber — “the most intellectual serial killer the nation has ever produced,” as one criminologist has called him — born at Harvard?

The ManifestoTHE story of Kaczynski’s crimes began more than twenty-two years ago, but the chain of consequences they triggered has yet to run its course. Dubbed “the Unabomber” by the FBI because his early victims were associated with universities or airlines, Kaczynski conducted an increasingly lethal campaign of terrorism that began on May 26, 1978, when his first bomb slightly injured a Northwestern University public-safety officer, Terry Marker, and ended on April 24, 1995, when a bomb he had mailed killed the president of the California Forestry Association, Gilbert Murray. Yet until 1993 Kaczynski remained mute, and his intentions were entirely unknown.

By 1995 his explosives had taken a leap in sophistication; that year he suddenly became loquacious, writing letters to newspapers, magazines, targets, and a victim. Two years laterThe Washington Post, in conjunction with The New York Times, published copies of the 35,000-word essay that Kaczynski titled “Industrial Society and Its Future,” and which the press called “The Manifesto.”

Recognizing the manifesto as Kaczynski’s writing, his brother, David, turned Kaczynski in to the FBI, which arrested him at his Montana cabin on April 3, 1996. Later that year Kaczynski was removed to California to stand trial for, among other crimes, two Unabomber murders committed in that state. On January 8, 1998, having failed to dissuade his attorneys from their intention of presenting an insanity defense, and having failed to persuade the presiding judge, Garland E. Burrell Jr., to allow him to choose a new attorney, Kaczynski asked the court for permission to represent himself. In response Burrell ordered Sally Johnson to examine Kaczynski, to determine if he was competent to direct his own defense. Johnson offered a “provisional” diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, but she concluded that Kaczynski was nevertheless competent to represent himself. Burrell refused to allow it. Faced with the prospect of a humiliating trial in which his attorneys would portray him as insane and his philosophy as the ravings of a madman, Kaczynski capitulated: in exchange for the government’s agreement not to seek the death penalty, he pleaded guilty to thirteen federal bombing offenses that killed three men and seriously injured two others, and acknowledged responsibility for sixteen bombings from 1978 to 1995. On May 4, 1998, he was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole.

Driving these events from first bomb to plea bargain was Kaczynski’s strong desire to have his ideas — as described in the manifesto — taken seriously.

“The Industrial Revolution and its consequences,” Kaczynski’s manifesto begins, “have been a disaster for the human race.” They have led, it contends, to the growth of a technological system dependent on a social, economic, and political order that suppresses individual freedom and destroys nature. “The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system.”

By forcing people to conform to machines rather than vice versa, the manifesto states, technology creates a sick society hostile to human potential. Because technology demands constant change, it destroys local, human-scale communities. Because it requires a high degree of social and economic organization, it encourages the growth of crowded and unlivable cities and of mega-states indifferent to the needs of citizens.

This evolution toward a civilization increasingly dominated by technology and the power structure serving technology, the manifesto argues, cannot be reversed on its own, because “technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom,” and because “while technological progress AS A WHOLE continually narrows our sphere of freedom, each new technical advance CONSIDERED BY ITSELF appears to be desirable.” Hence science and technology constitute “a mass power movement, and many scientists gratify their need for power through identification with this mass movement.” Therefore “the technophiles are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into the unknown.”

Because human beings must conform to the machine,

our society tends to regard as a “sickness” any mode of thought or behavior that is inconvenient for the system, and this is plausible because when an individual doesn’t fit into the system it causes pain to the individual as well as problems for the system. Thus the manipulation of an individual to adjust him to the system is seen as a “cure” for a “sickness” and therefore as good.

This requirement, the manifesto continues, has given rise to a social infrastructure dedicated to modifying behavior. This infrastructure includes an array of government agencies with ever-expanding police powers, an out-of-control regulatory system that encourages the limitless multiplication of laws, an education establishment that stresses conformism, ubiquitous television networks whose fare is essentially an electronic form of Valium, and a medical and psychological establishment that promotes the indiscriminate use of mind-altering drugs. Since the system threatens humanity’s survival and cannot be reformed, Kaczynski argued, it must be destroyed. Indeed, the system will probably collapse on its own, when the weight of human suffering it creates becomes unbearable. But the longer it persists, the more devastating will be the ultimate collapse. Hence “revolutionaries” like the Unabomber “by hastening the onset of the breakdown will be reducing the extent of the disaster.”

“We have no illusions about the feasibility of creating a new, ideal form of society,” Kaczynski wrote. “Our goal is only to destroy the existing form of society.” But this movement does have a further goal. It is to protect “wild nature,” which is the opposite of technology. Admittedly, “eliminating industrial society” may have some “negative consequences,” but “well, you can’t eat your cake and have it too.”

THE Unabomber’s manifesto was greeted in 1995 by many thoughtful people as a work of genius, or at least profundity, and as quite sane. In The New York Timesthe environmental writer Kirkpatrick Sale wrote that the Unabomber “is a rational man and his principal beliefs are, if hardly mainstream, entirely reasonable.” In The Nation Sale declared that the manifesto’s first sentence “is absolutely crucial for the American public to understand and ought to be on the forefront of the nation’s political agenda.” The science writer Robert Wright observed in Time magazine, “There’s a little bit of the unabomber in most of us.” An essay in The New Yorkerby Cynthia Ozick described the Unabomber as America’s “own Raskolnikov — the appealing, appalling, and disturbingly visionary murderer of ‘Crime and Punishment,’ Dostoyevsky’s masterwork of 1866.” Ozick called the Unabomber a “philosophical criminal of exceptional intelligence and humanitarian purpose, who is driven to commit murder out of an uncompromising idealism.” Sites devoted to the Unabomber multiplied on the Internet — the Church of Euthanasia Freedom ClubUnapack, the Unabomber Political Action Committee; alt.fan.unabomber; Chuck’s Unabomb Page; redacted.com; MetroActive; and Steve Hau’s Rest Stop. The University of Colorado hosted a panel titled “The Unabomber Had a Point.”

By 1997, however, when Kaczynski’s trial opened, the view had shifted. Although psychiatrists for the prosecution continued to cite the manifesto as proof of Kaczynski’s sanity, experts for the defense and many in the media now viewed it as a symptom and a product of severe mental illness. The document, they argued, revealed a paranoid mind. During the trial the press frequently quoted legal experts who attested to Kaczynski’s insanity. Gerald Lefcourt, then the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said the defendant was “obviously disturbed.” Donald Heller, a former federal prosecutor, said, “This guy is not playing with a full deck.” The writer Maggie Scarf suggested in The New Republic that Kaczynski suffered from “Narcissistic Personality Disorder.”

Michael Mello, a professor at Vermont Law School, is the author of The United States of America vs. Theodore John Kaczynski. He and William Finnegan, a writer for The New Yorker, have suggested that Kaczynski’s brother, David, his mother, Wanda, and their lawyer, Tony Bisceglie, along with Kaczynski’s defense attorneys, persuaded many in the media to portray Kaczynski as a paranoid schizophrenic. To a degree this is true. Anxious to save Kaczynski from execution, David and Wanda gave a succession of interviews from 1996 onward to The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Sixty Minutes, among other outlets, in which they sought to portray Kaczynski as mentally disturbed and pathologically antisocial since childhood. Meanwhile — against his wishes and without his knowledge, Kaczynski insists — his attorneys launched a mental-health defense for their client.

One psychology expert for the defense, Karen Bronk Froming, concluded that Kaczynski exhibited a “predisposition to schizophrenia.” Another, David Vernon Foster, saw “a clear and consistent picture of schizophrenia, paranoid type.” Still another, Xavier F. Amador, described Kaczynski as “typical of the hundreds of patients with schizophrenia.” How did the experts reach their conclusions? Although objective tests alone suggested to Froming only that Kaczynski’s answers were “consistent with” schizophrenia, she told Finnegan it was Kaczynski’s writings — in particular his “anti-technology” views — that cemented this conclusion for her. Foster, who met with Kaczynski a few times but never formally examined him, cited his “delusional themes” as evidence of sickness. Amador, who never met Kaczynski at all, based his judgment on the “delusional beliefs” he detected in Kaczynski’s writing. And Sally Johnson’s provisional diagnosis — that Kaczynski suffered from “Paranoid Type” schizophrenia — was largely based on her conviction that he harbored “delusional beliefs” about the threats posed by technology. The experts also found evidence of Kaczynski’s insanity in his refusal to accept their diagnoses or to help them reach those diagnoses.

Most claims of mental illness rested on the diagnoses of experts whose judgments, therefore, derived largely from their opinions of Kaczynski’s philosophy and his personal habits — he was a recluse, a wild man in appearance, a slob of a housekeeper, a celibate — and from his refusal to admit he was ill. Thus Froming cited Kaczynski’s “unawareness of his disease” as an indication of illness. Foster complained of the defendant’s “symptom-based failure to cooperate fully with psychiatric evaluation.” Amador said that the defendant suffered “from severe deficits in awareness of illness.”

But Kaczynski was no more unkempt than many other people on our streets. His cabin was no messier than the offices of many college professors. The Montana wilds are filled with escapists like Kaczynski (and me). Celibacy and misanthropy are not diseases. Nor was Kaczynski really so much of a recluse. Any reporter could quickly discover, as I did through interviews with scores of people who have known Kaczynski (classmates, teachers, neighbors), that he was not the extreme loner he has been made out to be. And, surely, a refusal to admit to being insane or to cooperate with people who are paid to pronounce one insane cannot be taken seriously as proof of insanity.

Why were the media and the public so ready to dismiss Kaczynski as crazy? Kaczynski kept voluminous journals, and in one entry, apparently from before the bombing started, he anticipated this question.

I intend to start killing people. If I am successful at this, it is possible that, when I am caught (not alive, I fervently hope!) there will be some speculation in the news media as to my motives for killing…. If some speculation occurs, they are bound to make me out to be a sickie, and to ascribe to me motives of a sordid or “sick” type. Of course, the term “sick” in such a context represents a value judgment…. the news media may have something to say about me when I am killed or caught. And they are bound to try to analyse my psychology and depict me as “sick.” This powerful bias should be borne [in mind] in reading any attempts to analyse my psychology.

Michael Mello suggests that the public wished to see Kaczynski as insane because his ideas are too extreme for us to contemplate without discomfort. He challenges our most cherished beliefs. Mello writes,

The manifesto challenges the basic assumptions of virtually every interest group that was involved with the case: the lawyers, the mental health experts, the press and politics — both left and right…. Kaczynski’s defense team convinced the media and the public that Kaczynski was crazy, even in the absence of credible evidence … [because] we needed to believe it…. They decided that the Unabomber was mentally ill, and his ideas were mad. Then they forgot about the man and his ideas, and created a curative tale.

Mello is only half right. It is true that many believed Kaczynski was insane because they needed to believe it. But the truly disturbing aspect of Kaczynski and his ideas is not that they are so foreign but that they are so familiar. The manifesto is the work of neither a genius nor a maniac. Except for its call to violence, the ideas it expresses are perfectly ordinary and unoriginal, shared by many Americans. Its pessimism over the direction of civilization and its rejection of the modern world are shared especially with the country’s most highly educated. The manifesto is, in other words, an academic — and popular — cliché. And if concepts that many of us unreflectively accept can lead a person to commit serial murder, what does that say about us? We need to see Kaczynski as exceptional — madman or genius — because the alternative is so much more frightening.

“Exceedingly Stable”NO. 8 Prescott Street in Cambridge is a well-preserved three-story Victorian frame house, standing just outside Harvard Yard. Today it houses Harvard’s expository-writing program. But in September of 1958, when Ted Kaczynski, just sixteen, arrived at Harvard, 8 Prescott Street was a more unusual place, a sort of incubator. Earlier that year F. Skiddy von Stade Jr., Harvard’s dean of freshmen, had decided to use the house as living accommodations for the brightest, youngest freshmen. Von Stade’s well-intentioned idea was to provide these boys with a nurturing, intimate environment, so that they wouldn’t feel lost, as they might in the larger, less personal dorms. But in so doing he isolated the overly studious and less-mature boys from their classmates. He inadvertently created a ghetto for grinds, making social adjustment for them more, rather than less, difficult.

“I lived at Prescott Street that year too,” Michael Stucki told me recently. “And like Kaczynski, I was majoring in mathematics. Yet I swear I never ever even saw the guy.” Stucki, who recently retired after a career in computers, lived alone on the top floor, far from Kaczynski’s ground-floor room. In the unsocial society of 8 Prescott, that was a big distance. “It was not unusual to spend all one’s time in one’s room and then rush out the door to library or class,” Stucki said.

Francis Murphy, the Prescott Street proctor, was a graduate student who had studied for the Catholic priesthood, and to Kaczynski it seemed the house was intended to be run more like a monastery than a dorm. Whereas other freshmen lived in suites with one or two roommates, six of the sixteen students of Prescott Street, including Kaczynski, lived in single rooms. All but seven intended to major in a mathematical science. All but three came from high schools outside New England, and therefore knew few people in Massachusetts. They were, in Murphy’s words, “a serious, quiet bunch.”

Much has been made of Kaczynski’s being a “loner” and of his having been further isolated by Harvard’s famed snobbism. Snobbism was indeed pervasive at Harvard back then. A single false sartorial step could brand one an outcast. And Kaczynski looked shabby. He owned just two pairs of slacks and only a few shirts. Although he washed these each week in the coin-operated machine in the basement of the house next door to 8 Prescott, they became increasingly ragtag.

But it is a mistake to exaggerate Kaczynski’s isolation. Most public high schoolers at Harvard in those days, including Kaczynski, viewed the tweedy in-crowd as so many buttoned-down buffoons who did not realize how ridiculous they looked. And the evidence is that Kaczynski was neither exceptionally a loner nor, at least in his early years at Harvard, alienated from the school or his peers.

Harvard was a “tremendous thing for me,” Kaczynski wrote in an unpublished autobiography that he completed in 1998 and showed to me. “I got something that I had been needing all along without knowing it, namely, hard work requiring self-discipline and strenuous exercise of my abilities. I threw myself into this…. I thrived on it…. Feeling the strength of my own will, I became enthusiastic about will power.”

Freshmen were required to participate in sports, so Kaczynski took up swimming and then wrestling. He played the trombone, as he had in high school, even joining the Harvard band (which he quit almost as soon as he learned that he would have to attend drill sessions). He played pickup basketball. He made a few friends. One of his housemates, Gerald Burns, remembers sitting with Kaczynski in an all-night cafeteria, arguing about the philosophy of Kant. After Kaczynski’s arrest Burns wrote to the anarchist journal Fifth Estate that Kaczynski “was as normal as I am now: it was [just] harder on him because he was much younger than his classmates.” And indeed, most reports of his teachers, his academic adviser, his housemaster, and the health-services staff suggest that Kaczynski was in his first year at Harvard entirely balanced, although tending to be a loner. The health-services doctor who interviewed Kaczynski as part of the medical examination Harvard required for all freshmen observed,

Good impression created. Attractive, mature for age, relaxed…. Talks easily, fluently and pleasantly…. likes people and gets on well with them. May have many acquaintances but makes his friends carefully. Prefers to be by himself part of the time at least. May be slightly shy…. Essentially a practical and realistic planner and an efficient worker…. Exceedingly stable, well integrated and feels secure within himself. Usually very adaptable. May have many achievements and satisfactions.

The doctor further described Kaczynski thus: “Pleasant young man who is below usual college entrance age. Apparently a good mathematician but seems to be gifted in this direction only. Plans not crystallized yet but this is to be expected at his age. Is slightly shy and retiring but not to any abnormal extent. Should be [a] steady worker.”

Continued…(The online version of this article appears in four parts. Click here to go to part two, part three, or part four.)


Alston Chase is the author of Playing God in Yellowstone(1986) and In a Dark Wood (1995). He is at work on a book about Theodore Kaczynski.

Mainstream Media Ignore Breivik-Belarus Tie

Mainstream Media Ignore Breivik-Belarus Tie

Was Norway’s Monster Made in Minsk?
Was Norway’s monster made in or at least manipulated by Minsk?

Maybe. Belarus figures in the mass murderer’s manifesto. He visited and may have even trained in the country, as reported here,here, here, and here.

Paramilitary training … foreign spymasters … plastic surgery and mysterious trips abroad … are these tantalizing pieces of mis/disinformation, or possibly important clues that could help solve the mystery of the cold-blooded killer’s background and the people who may have been behind him? Why aren’t mainstream media outlets all over this story?
According to media reports, Anders Behring Breivik (another three-named assassin“behaved with the efficient dullness of a machine programmed to do a certain job.” When he finished his bombing-and-shooting rampage he reportedly telephoned the police and told them: “Mission accomplished.”
He taunted Norway’s incompetent cops (who took 90 minutes, incredibly, to reach the island of death). In this respect, he copied the notorious American Unabomber, Harvard-educated Ted Kaczynski, whose screed Breivik plagiarized, to the point of copying and pasting whole paragraphs with a few minor changes.
Given disturbing evidence that the Unabomber was himself a manmade killing machine, the media blackout on a possible intelligence connection to the Norway attacks is indeed strange, as if the Islamist-appeasing, prestige press does not want to consider any explanation that could interfere with the already accepted liberal narrative of a rightwing Christian terrorist influenced by bigoted, anti-jihadist activists and bloggers to singlehandedly plot, plan and actually pull off coordinated atrocities.
A Manchurian Candidate-style terrorist, programmed to slaughter his fellow ethnic Norwegians in a way that appears to have been deliberately designed to embarrass Israel (which the killer praised in his manifesto) and put legitimate, pro-democracy anti-Islamists on the defensive–an operation like that would be most likely be viewed with favor in Belarus, where, U.S. Special Envoy Hannah Rosenthal reports, “President Lukashenka and other Belarusian government officials are known for making anti-Semitic statements.”
According to Rosenthal, “The [Belarus] government does not provide tolerance education and acts of vandalism go unpunished, while the state press and other government agencies continue to publish anti-Semitic literature.”
A bloody, horrifying false flag operation would not be out of the question in a brutal dictatorship known for government-sponsored kidnapping and torture–of an American citizen.
A false flag operation by an anti-Semitic, Stalinist regime that proclaims a strategic partnership with … Islamist Iran … whose longtime partner in nuclear and missile crime, Stalinist/Kimist North Korea, pioneered the brainwashing of prisoners … and the programming of assassins … why is that possibility so far-fetched?

Is America Turning Reckless?

Is America Turning Reckless?

Edward Lozansky

captain-america.jpgThe overheated political debate on reducing the United States’ astronomical debt has transfixed the world. From an international perspective, the United States – due to the size of its economy and its exclusive ownership of the green printing press – can help the entire global economy right now or plunge it off the cliff.

Two factors are overlooked in the political debate on reducing the national debt, which is fast approaching the mind-boggling figure of $15 trillion, or close to 100 percent of the country’s GDP.

First, you do not have to be an elite economist to figure out that even if the Republicans in Congress force President Barack Obama to accept a $4 trillion “deficit reduction” over the next decade, it does not mean that the current national debt will diminish by $4 trillion. It only means that the growth in the national debt will be $4 trillion less than otherwise, but 10 years from now the debt will still be much higher than the current $15 trillion. However, all these calculations may become totally meaningless as reckless policies lead to a global economic and financial collapse.

Second, although the main austerity measures are proposed for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, it is the military and security budgets that amount to about 70 percent of the current annual federal budget deficit.
According to reliable statistics, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost U.S. taxpayers the same $4 trillion by which Congress hopes to cut federal spending over the next 10 years. Add to this the thousands of lives of the brave American young men and women who died in these wars. What is there to show for the nation’s enormous sacrifices besides huge financial and economic losses and, yes, America’s diminished moral standing? Is America now safer or better liked in the world or in Afghanistan and Iraq? It is difficult for many to believe that these countries are more democratic – or less corrupt.

One would have thought that these profound issues would be the subject of the Congressional hearings on foreign and security affairs. Instead, U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Republican-Florida), chairperson of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is calling a hearing entitled: ‘Time to Pause the Reset? Defending U.S. Interests in the Face of Russian Aggression.’

Russian aggression? Pause the Reset? It is hard to fathom that the U.S. Congress considers Russia an aggressor, even as the presidential administration talks about partnership and cooperation. Why does the Pentagon propose collaboration with Moscow on missile defense through a joint operations center, with military officers from both countries considering different scenarios? Is there a highly placed Russian mole in the Pentagon – or does this collaboration make sense after all?

Perhaps Ros-Lehtinen has not thought the issues through: A pause in the reset would also mean a hiatus in the use of Russian railroads and airspace for shipping American military supplies to Afghanistan. We now know that the use of the alternative supply routes often requires substantial kickbacks and protection payments to…are you ready?…the Taliban!!

The investigation continues, but it is pretty obvious already that U.S. taxpayers’ money has been indirectly funneled to the Taliban under a $2.16 billion transportation contract that the United States has funded in part to promote Afghan businesses. Congressman John F. Tierney (Democrat-Massachusetts.) said in this connection: “I would hate like hell to think my kid was over there” and the Taliban was “coming after them with something bought with our money.”

I have lately developed a need to finish my articles with this one-liner: ‘God, save America.’ It looks like more and more world citizens wish to add, ‘And the rest of us.’ For when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches pneumonia.
Edward Lozansky is president of American University in Moscow.

Globalist Imperial Network

Globalist Imperial Network

As explained by a globalist.
by Tony Cartalucci

Bangkok, Thailand July 30, 2011 – The mechanics of world empire, in particular the current corporate-financier oligarchy has been examined in great detail. The US State Department, supporting NGOs funded directly by both US taxpayers’ money as well as funds from the Fortune 500 corporations they serve, alone constitute a global spanning, incessantly meddling homogeneous network working to undermine both personal and national sovereignty while replacing national governments around the world.

Photo: Globalist warmongering degenerate Anne-Marie Slaughter makes her rounds at the Fortune 500-funded Chatham House. She is the author of the book “A New World Order” and believes foreign policy should be shifted into the unelected, unaccountable hands of corporations, foundations, and NGOs.

….

This is far from a conspiracy theory – it is stated fact admitted to by the US State Department itself who regularly announces its funding of subversive activities around the globe from training, equipping, and funding hordes of youth activists years before the “Arab Spring” unfolded, to helping dupes in China circumvent national cyber defenses, to forming brigades of youth fodder to take to the streets in Belarus and Malaysia, to propping up pro-globalist propaganda outlets like Prachatai in Thailand.

Perhaps sensing that the secrecy and public ignorance the global elite have been operating behind for decades is now fading, globalist footstool and degenerate warmonger Anne-Marie Slaughter has written a sweeping essay openly admitting “foreign policy” is moving beyond governments and being put into the hands of unelected organizations, corporations, NGOs, and “social movements.” By social movements, Slaughter cites and apparently is referring to the “Arab Spring” which is on record the result of US meddling and organizing, and nothing close to resembling true grassroots activism. It is merely the latest trick out of the social engineering, human exploitation, propagandist playbook.

Slaughter’s admissions should send shivers down the spines of anyone who believes in a constitutional representative government, personal and national sovereignty, and freedom in general – for the world Slaughter proposes is one run by unaccountable, self-appointed arbiters, the likes of which have been covered ad nauseum within these pages. Self-serving hypocrisy has already rendered contrived institutions like the International Criminal Court illegitimate, as it turns its head at documented war crimes committed by Libyan rebels while pursuing in earnest cases against Libya’s Qaddafi based on evidence not even collected within the nation itself.

As we peel back the layers of Slaughter’s vision of the “new foreign policy frontier,” we see nearly every institution, organization, NGO, or consortium mentioned lined with Fortune 500 corporate sponsors and representatives pursing an agenda of global economic and military hegemony. No one would suggest that manipulating people on a massive scale, leveraging legitimate ideals such as democracy, human rights, or freedom to further a corporate-financier oligarchy’s agenda constitutes anything progressive, nonetheless, Slaughter seems to believe this is not only the future of foreign policy, but an appropriate future at that.


Image: The cover of globalist, degenerate warmonger Anne-Marie Slaughter’s book “A New World Order.” Slaughter believes the future belongs to “global networks” which upon closer examination are all chaired, funded, and directed by the Fortune 500.

….

It should be noted that Slaughter has sat upon the boards of Fortune 500 corporations McDonald’s and Citigroup as well as a Council on Foreign Relations board member. She is the author of a book literally titled, “A New World Order” whose catch line is “Global governance is here.” In it she argues that such governance is done through “a complex global web of government networks.” Upon examination it is obvious to anyone who looks into these “networks” that they represent the Fortune 500, answer to no one, and apply the rule of law as an arbitrary reflection of their self-serving interests subject to change upon a political whim. Despite Slaughter’s enthusiasm for a “New World Order,” in reality it is the recipe for a corporate fascist planetary regime and constitutes the greatest threat to humanity.

The New Foreign Policy Frontier

Slaughter begins a recent Atlantic article titled “The New Foreign Policy Frontier” by citing “corporations, foundations, NGOs, universities, think tanks, churches, civic groups, political activists, Facebook groups, and others” as the new frontier of foreign policy. She then goes on to state that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “insists that 21st century diplomacy must not only be government to government, but also government to society and society to society, in a process facilitated and legitimated by government.” Slaughter continues by saying, “that much broader concept opens the door to a do-it-yourself foreign policy, in which individuals and groups can invent and execute an idea — for good or ill — that can affect their own and other countries in ways that once only governments could.”

And it is through this door Slaughter describes that “groups,” or more specifically corporations, along with their myriad of contrived, disingenuous NGOs, foundations, “charities,” and media outfits go about circumventing both domestic and foreign national laws as well as the will of people across the planet to execute their agenda, including free trade and wars of aggression.

Slaughter mentions a myriad of these corporate-funded entities including the Council on Foreign Relations, Google Ideas, US State Department’s Movements.org, and the corporate-funded Personal Democracy Forum. She also mentions Jared Cohen, utterly unfazed by the monumental conflict of interest represented by his revolving in and out of the US State Department, Fortune 500 corporations like Google, and fringe organizations like Movements.org that criminally combine corporate agendas with US taxpayers’ money to meddle in the sovereign affairs of foreign nations. While Slaughter maintains that these unelected corporate funded organizations are more efficient than governments, she fails to highlight that they are unelected and unaccountable. She also fails to mention what motivates corporations to expend resources on circumventing elected governments to pursue “society to society” efforts.

Slaughter goes on to use the “Arab Spring” as proof positive the new foreign policy paradigm is effective. She mentions her two days spent at the corporate-funded Personal Democracy Forum, which included bloggers and organizers from the contrived “Arab Spring.” She notes that other participants included “government officials, corporate executives, and the civic sector.” She claims the six months of unrest in the streets as a result of this “new foreign policy” has accomplished more than 30 years of traditional “foreign policy.”

Why do corporations like Google, Pepsi, British Petroleum, Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Exxon, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs care about “democracy” in the Middle East? Slaughter never seems to get around to answering this question. A thorough examination of the “Arab Spring,” its sponsorship, and the resulting mayhem and wall-to-wall exploitation being attempted clears up any doubt as to the summation of Slaughter’s acclaimed “New World Order.” It is a parasitic modern day empire spreading its influence, consolidating its power, and deposing all competition to its existence. It is the logical progression of the British Empire and American “Manifest Destiny” combined in a modern day transatlantic, corporate-financier oligarchy.

Arab Spring: New Foreign Policy/Neo-Imperialism in Action

Slaughter’s legitimacy stumbles not only because she is a degenerate warmongering corporate fascist who has spent a lifetime in the service of a global corporate-financier oligarchy, it stumbles also because of her poor choice of examples used to sell her concept of “global governance.” She believes that “Build Local, Go Global and Change the World” represents the new 21st century activist mantra – however when foreign money representing nefarious corporate agendas are doing the building locally, using their vast media empire to spread it globally and “change the world” it would be difficult to label it as an “activist mantra.” It more clearly resembles an imperialist mantra of using duped activists.

Take for example the Egyptian April 6 Movement. It was in New York City as early as 2008 receiving training and an opportunity to “network” at the US State Department sponsored Alliance for Youth Movements (AYM) summit. In 2009, the April 6 Movement then attended training at the US-created CANVAS organization in Serbia before returning to Egypt to partake in the year-long run up to the revolution led by International Crisis Group trustee Mohamed ElBaradei and his “National Front for Change.” In fact, April 6 Movement members attempted to welcome ElBaradeiwhen he first returned to Egypt back in February, 2010, almost a full year before the “Arab Spring” would even begin.

 

Image: Alliance for Youth Movements boasts major corporate support, as well as a partnership with the US State Department. The organization was contrived solely to foment unrest throughout target nations.

….

The US State Department backed by Fortune 500 corporations literally held the Egyptian opposition’s hand for years walking them through their “revolution.” With an overt US stooge, Mohamed ElBaradei leading them and still to this day attempting to worm his way into Egypt’s presidency, the victory is neither the “Egyptian people’s” nor “democracy’s,” but rather the victory of corporations and their interests within the strategically located, 80 million strong nation. Nothing could be more damning of the Egyptian revolution and its final results than the victory lap John McCain, chairman of the International Republican Institute cited by the New York Times as being instrumental in executing the “Arab Spring,” conducted with Fortune 500 industry magnates at his side. The June 2010 trip served as an opportunity for these corporate interests, the chief sponsors behind the training and organizing of ElBaradei’s army of dupes, to size up assets they soon hope to roll into their financial empires as well as to promote “private sector growth.”

This is surely not what the Egyptian youth had in mind – surely it is not in their best interest to be exposed to the parasitic corporate fascists currently bankrupting every nation from North America to Europe. However their ignorance, short-sightedness, and immense naivety allowed this nefarious global network to manipulate and mislead them, their nation, their entire future into the shackles of modern day imperialism.

Conclusion

This nefarious global network is precisely what Slaughter is promoting in her writings, constituting what she admittedly calls a “New World Order” for enabling global governance. For those that take the time to examine who is behind the “NGOs, universities, think tanks, churches, civic groups, political activists, Facebook groups” Slaughter refers to, they will find corporations like Exxon, Dyncorp, Goldman Sachs, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Rothschild, Halliburton, Bechtel, BP, and many others.

Could anyone seriously accept corporations that are responsible for the worst chapters in modern human history as the architects of a system of global governance and ultimately our future? With the power and wealth they wield, how would they be held accountable? They have the ability to literally buy politicians on both sides of every election from one side of the planet to the other with bottom-lines that eclipse many national GDPs – they do so in a process that is streamlined with the creation of supranational entities like the European Union, North American Union, ASEAN and others. Already the EU is proclaiming dictates each member state is beholden to, with supranational law superseding national and local laws.

It is a bleak future indeed, one where true freedom is replaced with the mere illusion of it. Pragmatism and self-reliance is replaced with trips to the ballot box to pick from a variety of bought-off, ineffectual, self-serving crooks serving a degenerate global oligarchy.

Policy is already being produced not by the people but by corporate-funded think-tanks that then market it to the public through their control of the mainstream media. Their system is refined down to a science – their system is now merely being replicated, nation to nation. The solution to this problem is obvious. If the power truly lies with these corporations, the very foundation upon which Slaughter’s “New World Order” rests, undermining these corporations through full-spectrum boycotts and the systematic replacement of their goods and services on a local level shifts that power back into the people’s hands – pragmatically, not politically. It is a solution as elegant as it is simple and one that is impossible to commandeer as the globalists have done with so many attempted political solutions in the past.

There is no doubt now, with daily affirmations coming from the global elite themselves that their “New World Order” is coming. There is no doubt, as exemplified in Libya, that they are willing to murder on vast scales to eliminate any obstruction to their designs. There is no doubt, after the corporate-financiers have just helped themselves to trillions of taxpayers’s dollars to cover their collapsing pyramid schemes that they are far from the progressive “international order” they claim to represent. There is no doubt that now is the time to act. There is absolutely no justification for buying another Pepsi, Coke, Big Mac, or Starbucks and further empowering this modern day empire. What we have been taught are the features of a civilized society are in fact the padded, gilded shackles of our enslavement. There is absolutely nothing the global corporatocracy can do that people can’t do better locally. The only barrier is ambition, education, and a shift in our collective paradigm to see ourselves, not some elected savior, as the ultimate solution to our problems.

The fulfillment of Slaughter’s depraved vision of the future rests entirely in our hands. It will be determined day by day, depending on how we choose to spend our resources, time, attention, and energy. The simple decision to buy or produce locally rather than patronize Walmart, Starbucks, or any number of other globalist consumer feeding troughs as an individual may seem futile, but a shift in our collective actions and paradigm will undoubtedly derail this ignoble future that awaits us.

Israeli, Lebanese Troops Exchange Fire in Wazzani

Israeli, Lebanese Troops Exchange Fire in Wazzani

by Naharnet Newsdesk

The Lebanese and Israeli armies exchanged fire in the area of Mountazahat in Wazzani on Monday morning after a Jewish state patrol allegedly crossed the U.N.-drawn Blue Line.

Officials on both sides reported no casualties and each blamed the other for the clash.

Israeli military sources accused a Lebanese soldier of opening fire on Israeli troops carrying out work on a border fence.

“Earlier this morning an IDF (Israeli military) force carrying out a routine patrol within Israeli territory near the Israel-Lebanon border was fired upon from the direction of Lebanon,” an Israeli military spokeswoman told Agence France Presse.

But a Lebanese army official said the incident occurred at around 7:00 am when “an Israeli patrol in the Wazzani area crossed the Blue Line and went beyond it about 30 meters.”

“Lebanese troops stationed in the area fired warning shots,” he said. “The Israeli patrol retreated and then fired at Lebanese army posts.”

The exchange of fire continued for several minutes, Voice of Lebanon radio station (93.3) said.

It added that the incident led to a state of alert among Lebanese army and UNIFIL troops, which dispatched patrols to the Wazzani area.

Two Lebanese soldiers, a Lebanese journalist and a senior Israeli officer were killed in a rare cross-border clash in Adaisseh in August last year, the worst such violence since the 2006 war between Israel and Hizbullah.

Xinjiang attack masterminded by terrorists trained in Pakistan

Xinjiang attack masterminded by terrorists trained in Pakistan

In this Friday, July 10, 2009 file photo, a statue of former leader Mao Zedong is seen as an Uighur man looks on in Kashgar, China. Two knife-wielding men hijacked a truck in China’s restive northwest, then rammed the vehicle into a crowd and got out to attack the pedestrians, sparking clashes, a police official said Sunday, July 31, 2011. The attack happened in the Silk Road city of Kashgar in northwest Xinjiang, a region rocked by ethnic violence in recent years. – AP Photo

BEIJING: China said on Monday that Islamic extremists were behind an attack on the eve of the Muslim fasting month in the restive western region of Xinjiang that left 11 people dead.

The attack in Kashgar city on Sunday afternoon was the latest violence to shake the region where Muslim Uighurs have long resented the presence of Han Chinese and religious and political controls imposed by Beijing.

It came less than 24 hours after two small blasts hit the city, which is dominated by Uighurs.

“A group of religious extremists led by culprits trained in overseas terrorist camps were behind the weekend attack,” a Kashgar government statement said.

An initial police investigation found that the leaders of the group behind the attack had learned about explosives and firearms in Pakistan at a camp of the separatist “East Turkestan Islamic Movement,” it said.

Police shot dead five people and arrested four others after they stormed a restaurant, set in on fire after killing the owner and a waiter, and then ran onto the street and hacked to death four people, Xinhua news agency reported.

For the ruling Communist Party, the latest violence presents another tricky test of its control in Xinjiang, where Uighur and Han Chinese residents view each other with suspicion. Beijing has been wary of contagion from uprisings across the Arab world inspiring challenges to Party power in China.

“This was another violent terrorist action by a small group of foes organized and planned under special conditions,” the local government said.

Captured suspects had confessed that the ringleaders had earlier fled to Pakistan and joined the “East Turkestan Islamic Movement” and had received firearms and explosives training before infiltrating back into China, it said.

“Their malign intention behind this terrorist violence was to sabotage inter-ethnic unity and harm social stability, provoking ethnic hatred and creating ethnic conflict, splitting Xinjiang off from the motherland, casting the people of every ethnic group into a disastrous abyss.”

Xinhua, describing deserted streets and bloody scenes, said many residents had gathered around the area, holding clubs for self-defence, describing deserted streets and bloody scenes.

“There are very few people on the streets, and unless it’s something urgent, I won’t go out,” a Han Chinese businesswoman in Kashgar told Reuters by phone, adding that there was a heavy police presence in the city. She would give only her surname, Jiang.

In July 2009, the regional capital, Urumqi, was rocked by violence between majority Han Chinese and minority Uighurs that killed nearly 200 people, many of them Han Chinese.

China sees Xinjiang as strategically vital, and Beijing has shown no sign of loosening its grip on the territory, which accounts for a sixth of the country’s land mass and holds deposits of oil and gas.

Critics of Chinese policy in Xinjiang and advocates of Uighur self-rule say that Beijing has exaggerated the influence of terror groups and its tough policies have only deepened Uighur anger by smothering peaceful protest.

Kashgar lies in Xinjiang’s south, where Uighurs predominate.

Earlier on Sunday, Chinese media reported that two men wielding knives attacked a truck driver and then a crowd of people following two explosions in Kashgar on Saturday night, leaving eight people dead including one of the attackers.

Eighteen people including 14 “rioters” were killed in an attack on a police station in Xinjiang on July 18, according to the government.

Libyan rebel faction is unmasked as Gadhafi men

Libyan rebel faction is unmasked as Gadhafi men 

(AP) Libyan rebel leaders said Sunday their forces hunted down and clashed with supporters of Moammar Gadhafi who had been posing as rebel fighters to infiltrate the opposition’s eastern stronghold. The overnight battle killed four from each side and added to a sense of crisis within the rebel movement.

  • Libyan special emergency police officers and local militia guard the hangar where the fighting between rebel forces and suspected pro-Gadhafi fighters took place Sunday.By Sergey Ponomarev, AP

    Libyan special emergency police officers and local militia guard the hangar where the fighting between rebel forces and suspected pro-Gadhafi fighters took place Sunday.

By Sergey Ponomarev, AP

Libyan special emergency police officers and local militia guard the hangar where the fighting between rebel forces and suspected pro-Gadhafi fighters took place Sunday.

As officials pieced together events leading up to Sunday’s gunbattle, they announced that a faction of fighters called al-Nidaa was actually made up of Gadhafi loyalists posing as rebels. The revelation could raise questions about the loyalty of over rebel factions and sap the movement of much-needed unity in its push to topple Gadhafi nearly six months after the revolt began.

Suspicions about al-Nidaa were confirmed, a rebel security leader said, when intelligence officials determined the group was behind two prison break’s on Friday in the rebels’ de facto capital of Benghazi that freed 200 to 300 inmates, including pro-Gadhafi mercenaries, fighters and other regime loyalists.

“These people took advantage of the chaos that resulted from the killing of Younis and entered and attacked the military prison and the (civilian) Kuwaitiya prison,” said the rebel’s deputy interior ministry, Mustafa al-Sagezli.

On Sunday before dawn, rebel forces tracked al-Nidaa members to a factory where they were hiding out and sent in negotiators to try to persuade them to surrender. When they refused, the rebel units besieged the factory, killing four of the Gadhafi fighters, said rebel Information Minister Mahmoud Shammam.

A battlefield commander who participated in the operation, Ismail Salabi, said four of those posing as rebels were also killed and 25 were captured. He described them as Libyans from the southern part of the country who belonged to the Gadhafi Brigades.

“This is a hard hit for the fifth column,” he said.

Rebel forces also seized 40 of the freed prisoners, who were found hiding out with the fighters.

Talk of a fifth column adds to the disarray that was set off with Thursday’s killing of the chief rebel commander, Younis, in still mysterious circumstances. The leadership says authorities had arrested him on suspicion of mismanaging forces under his command and that gunmen attacked while he was being transported from one location to another under heavy guard.

Several rebels who witnessed the attack, however, said he was killed by his own side. Younis was Gadhafi’s interior minister before defecting to join the rebels.

In the Nafusa mountains of western Libya near the Tunisian border, rebel forces said they were making gains in their push against Gadhafi forces from the other main front line.

On Sunday, they said they were in the town of Hawamid and advanced another six to nine miles (10-15 kilometers) toward the small town of Tiji in the last 24 hours.

“Hundreds of rebel fighter are surrounding Tiji,” said Jamal Motawa, a 26-year-old rebel who was one of seven wounded in the fighting. Motawa had shrapnel in his left leg.

Pro-Gadhafi forces inside Tiji were under siege but continued to attack the advancing rebels with rockets, according to Motawa.

Tiji is on the main road from the Tunisian border to Tripoli, the Libyan capital. It is considered a strategically important town if rebels were to continue their advance to Tripoli, some 150 miles (240 kilometers) to the northeast.

Rebels in the Nafusa mountains have been making modest advances against Gadhafi’s troops, but fighting in the east has been stalled for months, with neither side able to make any significant progress.

Despite the slow pace of events on the ground, France, one of the rebels’ main outside backers, is counseling patience.

In an interview published on Sunday, French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet addressed the growing pressure for a quick resolution to the Libya conflict, insisting that “impatience is never a good adviser” and that rebel fighters don’t deserve the blame.

“Things have to move in Tripoli. To put it clearly, the population has to rise up. The month ahead will naturally be intense. There will not be, I think, a pause because of the month of Ramadan,” Longuet said.

On Sunday, a day after NATO airstrikes hit three Libyan state television satellite transmitters in Tripoli, a spokesman at NATO’s operational headquarters in Naples said the alliance had seen reports of casualties among the TV network’s employees.

“We are aware of the allegations related to this subject,” said a NATO official who could not to be identified in line with standing restrictions. “We cannot confirm them since we have nobody on the ground there.”

He noted that the Libyan government had on several past occasions claimed that NATO airstrikes had killed civilians, but that most of these proved to be false.

On Saturday, the head of Libyan state TV’s English-language section told reporters in Tripoli that three state television journalists were killed and 15 other people were wounded in the NATO strikes.

“We are not a military target. We are not commanders in the army and we do not pose a threat to civilians,” Khaled Bazelya said.

NATO said the strike was launched because Gadhafi was using Libyan TV to “incite acts of violence.”