Strategy of Tension, Necrophilous and Drone Nation

Counter-Intelligence: Part III - The Strategy of Tension from S DN on Vimeo.

Some highlights:

For students of war, there are many overlapping strategies for the defeat of the enemy. The first tactic is well understood: physical violence between opposing armies.  The second, far more mysterious is psychological warfare. In psychological operations, the target is the mind…the beliefs, motives and ultimately behaviors of entire societies.

Operation Northwoods

James Bamford discovered the Operation North Woods document and included it in his book “Body of Secrets”. In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved what may be te most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. In the name of anti-Communism, they proposed launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba.

Among the suggestions, a fake hijacking of remote controlled planes to be blamed on Cuba. The blowing up of an American ship also to be blamed on Cuba. And a terror campaign in Florida carried out by anti-Castro exiles to be blamed on Cuba. The most remarkable thing about Operation North Woods itself was that it was approved by every single member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking military officers in the land. Only when it reached the desks of Robert McNamara, and JFK was the plan nixed.

"Conspiracy theory"
 Are we just supposed to sit back and accept outrageous lies and absurd coincidence? Because whoever questions the official stories is labeled a "conspiracy theorist". It's not used against people who ascribe conscious intent to the poor, the middle-class, or third world countries. It's used against anyone who claims the wealthy people in power calculate, collude, organize in conscious pursuit of wealth and power... putting themselves above the law. Yet, these same people who condemn conspiracy theory, create preposterous conspiracy theories without any evidence at all (or created evidence) all the time.

"Conspiracy theory" is the way mass media, government. academics, etc, discredit individuals who apply critical thinking skills. It's a form of propaganda.


Counter-Intelligence: IV - Necrophilous from S DN on Vimeo.

“The passionate attraction to all that is dead, decayed, putrid, sickly; it is the passion to transform that which is alive into something unalive; to destroy for the sake of destruction; the exclusive interest in all that’s purely mechanical. It is the passion to tear apart living structures.” – Eric Fromm The Necrophilous Character

School of the Americas

Since 1946, The School of Americas functioned as the primary training ground for the teaching of terrorism. In 2000, the school was closed down only to reopen one month later as the the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSC). The SOA has trained more than 60,000 Latin American soldiers and policemen since 1946 who have been responsible for the worst acts of terrorism in the Western hemisphere within the last 50 years. Among its graduates are notorious dictators, Manuel Noriega of Panama, Leopoldo Galtieri of Argentina, and former Bolivian dictator Hugo Banzer Suárez.

Harvey Point

Described in official reports as an annex to CIA training base, Harvey Point is a lesser known training facility for domestic and foreign intelligence personnel in Virginia. The New York Times reported that Harvey Point trained 18,000 foreign intelligence operatives from 50 different countries. Trained at this facility were, El Salvador's death squads chief, Roberto D'Aubuisson, Egypt's intelligence directorate, Colombian counter insurgency personnel and Arab cadres who later joined Osama Bin Laden's forces fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.

“But what counter-insurgency really comes down to is the protection of the capitalists back in America, their property and their privilege.” – Philip Agee, CIA Diary p.562

Counter-Intelligence: V - Drone Nation from S DN on Vimeo.

Read more...

In Check or Checkmate?

While obviously, there are worse atrocities then the TSA's invasive molesting procedures, it sticks out as one of the more blatant abuses of constitutional liberty, as it stands in direct violation of the fourth amendment: protection against unreasonable searches and seizure!

So, where is the outrage? Since when is it okay to violate someone's privacy and dignity in such an egregious manner? Since when is it okay for complete strangers to place their hands on you or your child's most intimate parts?

And why does the TSA have so much authority? Consider the man who tried to leave the airport after refusing a screening and pat-down. You know, the guy, who stated, "Don't touch my junk".  They threatened him with a lawsuit if he didn't submit.  Why couldn't he leave the airport? He wasn't trying to board a plane.

When in doubt, follow the money.

And when you follow the money, start with the Republicans.  What are they doing, saying, suggesting?  Well, they're pushing privatization, as usual. We all know profits are much more important than safety.

It just may be that this TSA horror show is meant to, once again, show Americans just how bad government is, in order to get Americans to accept privatization. Or the TSA "horror show" might serve to get us to accept something new, that will seem benign in comparison.   Maybe, new technology that authenticates identity via iris recognition (bio-metric screening).  Either way, the motive is power and/or profit, and more than likely, both.  Rest assured it has nothing to do with protecting American citizens from the big bad terrorist.

Is the game over? Is the last piece in place...have we been checkmated? Or is still possible to capture the queen? Or, do we wipe them off the board completely, level it, and devise our own rules?

Read more...

Bush Strategist Speaks Out.

Matthew Dowd, a 46-year old political strategist, and one-time Democrat who helped put Bush in office is now expressing his disillusionment with President Bush. He questions the federal government's role in same-sex marriage; he questions Bush's decision to tell Americans to go shopping and get back on airplanes instead of asking for sacrifice, and ultimately he questions the Iraq war itself.

His disenchantment with the president built over several years. Dowd went public at a Berkeley seminar on the 2006 California governor's race; Dowd was both a senior advisor to the Republican National Committee, where he landed after Bush took office, and a top strategist for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's reelection effort. It was a question about the president that set Dowd off and, looking back, liberated him.

"Do you lose sleep at night knowing that you gave this country probably the worst administration we've ever had?" asked a young man. "I mean, have you thought about maybe trying to save your soul by calling for impeachment?"

Dowd tensed and leaned forward. Rather than defend Bush, he spoke of the oldest of his three sons, an Army language specialist then facing deployment to Iraq. "Now, am I a person who stays up at night thinking about that? Yeah. . . . Do we have hopes and dreams and disappointments? . . . Yes," Dowd said.

Read more...

Why the Iraq war is turning into America's defeat

The week's news from Iraq: According to the state television network, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was wounded in a clash with security forces just north of Baghdad. A senior deputy was killed.

Meanwhile, the punk cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has decided that discretion is the better part of mullahs and has temporarily relocated to Iran. That's right: The biggest troublemaker in Iraq is no longer in Iraq. It may be that his Persian vacation is only to marry a cousin or two and consult with the A-list ayatollahs, but the Mookster has always had highly sensitive antennae when it comes to his own physical security -- he likes being the guy who urges martyrdom on others rather than being just another schmuck who takes one for the team. So the fact that urgent business requires him to be out of town for the Big Surge is revealing at the very least of how American objectives in Iraq are not at the mercy of forces beyond their control; U.S. military and political muscle can shape conditions on the ground -- if they can demonstrate they're serious about doing so.

Which these days is a pretty big "if." Reporting the sudden relocation, the New York Times decided -- in nothing flat -- that it was yet another disastrous setback. In Iraq, no news is good news, and Sadr news is badder news:

With the new American offensive in Baghdad still in its early days, American commanders have focused operations in the eastern part of the city, a predominantly Shiite area that has long been the Mahdi Army's power base.

If Mr. Sadr had indeed fled, his absence would create a vacuum that could allow even more radical elements of the Shiite group to take power.''

As my National Review colleague Rich Lowry marveled: "So now we need to keep Sadr in Iraq because he's such a stabilizing influence!" Of course! As Hillaire Belloc wrote, ''Always keep a hold of Nurse/For fear of finding something worse'' -- and, even when Nurse Sadr is blowing up the kids in the nursery every day, it's best to cling to her blood-drenched apron strings because the next nurse will be an even bigger psycho. America is a big helpless baby who's blundered into a war zone he can never hope to understand.

According to a report by the New York Sun's Eli Lake last month, Iran is supporting Shia insurgents in Iraq and Sunni insurgents in Iraq. In other words, it's on both sides in the so-called civil war. How can this be? After all, as the other wise old foreign-policy "realists" of the Iraq Study Group assured us only in December, Iran has "an interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq.''

Au contraire, the ayatollahs have concluded they have a very clear interest in fomenting chaos in Iraq. They're in favor of Sunni killing Shia, and Shia killing Sunni, and if some vacationing Basque terrorists wanted to blow up the Spanish Cultural Center in Mosul, they'd be in favor of that, too. The Iranians don't care who kills whom as long as every night when Americans turn on the evening news there's smoke over Baghdad. As I say in my book, if you happen to live in Ramadi or Basra, Iraq is about Iraq; if you live in Tehran, or Cairo, or Bei-jing, Moscow, Pyongyang or Brussels, Iraq is about America. American will. American purpose. American credibility.

There was a TV station somewhere -- was it Thunder Bay, Ontario? -- that used to show a continuous loop of a roaring fireplace all night, and thousands of viewers would supposedly sit in front of it for hours because it was such a reassuringly comforting scene. The networks could save themselves a lot of money by adopting the same approach: Run a continuous loop of a smoking building in Baghdad all night while thousands of congressmen and pundits and think-tankers and retired generals run around Washington shrieking that all is lost. America is way out of its league! A dimwitted tourist in a fearful land of strange people who don't watch "American Idol." Iraq is so culturally alien that not a single Sunni, Shia or Kurd has come forward claiming to be the father of Anna Nicole's baby!

Get a grip, chaps! In Iraq, everyone's a tourist. This al-Qaida honcho, al-Masri, is an Egyptian. His predecessor, Zarqawi, was a Jordanian. Al-Sadr is a Persian stooge. For four decades, the country was a British client. Before that, it was a Turkish province. The Middle East is a crazy place and a tough nut to crack, but the myth of the unbeatable Islamist insurgent is merely a lazy and more neurotic update of the myth of the unbeatable communist guerrilla, which delusion led to so much pre-emptive surrender in the '70s. Nevertheless, in the capital city of the most powerful nation on the planet, the political class spent last week trying to craft a bipartisan defeat strategy, and they might yet pull it off. Consider this extraordinary report from the Washington Post:

"Democratic leaders have rallied around a strategy that would fully fund the president's $100 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but would limit his ability to use the money. . . . The plan is aimed at tamping down calls from the Democrats' liberal wing for Congress to simply end funding for the war.

"The Murtha plan, based on existing military guidelines, includes a stipulation that Army troops who have already served in Iraq must be granted two years at home before an additional deployment. . . . The idea is to slowly choke off the war by stopping the deployment of troops from units that have been badly degraded by four years of combat."

So "the Murtha plan" is to deny the president the possibility of victory while making sure Democrats don't have to share the blame for the defeat. But of course he's a great American! He's a patriot! He supports the troops! He doesn't support them in the mission, but he'd like them to continue failing at it for a couple more years. As John Kerry wondered during Vietnam, how do you ask a soldier to be the last man to die for a mistake? By nominally "fully funding" a war you don't believe in but "limiting his ability to use the money." Or as the endearingly honest anti-war group MoveCongress.org put it, in an e-mail preview of an exclusive interview with the wise old Murtha:

"Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the president's foreign and national security policy."

"Undermining"? Why not? To the Slow-Bleed Democrats, it's the Republicans' war. To an increasing number of what my radio pal Hugh Hewitt calls the White-Flag Republicans, it's Bush's war. To everyone else on the planet, it's America's war. And it will be America's defeat.

Read more...