One Conman Falls for Another - Why Gen. Petraeus was Snookered by the "Taliban" Imposter

By GARETH PORTER
The revelation that the man presumed to be a high-ranking Taliban leader who had met with top Afghan officials was an impostor sheds light on Gen. David Petraeus's aggressive propaganda about the supposed Taliban approach to the Hamid Karzai regime.

Ever since August, Petraeus had been playing up the Taliban's supposed willingness to talk peace with Karzai as a development that paralleled the success he had claimed in splitting the Sunni insurgency in Iraq in 2007.

It is now clear, however, that Petraeus was deceiving himself as well as the news media in accepting the man claiming to be the second-ranking Taliban commander Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour as genuine, despite a number of indications to the contrary.

Petraeus's failure to heed those signals was certainly driven by his strong desire to contrive yet another saga emphasizing his brilliance as a war strategist, judging from his public statements prior to the revelation of the fraud.

The tale of self-deception began a few months ago when a man claiming to be Mullah Mansour somehow persuaded U.S. officials, including Petraeus, to help him go to Kabul to talk with Karzai. Mansour had been named, along with Abdul Qayum Zakir, to replace Mullah Baradar last March after Baradar was detained by Pakistani intelligence, according to a Taliban spokesman quoted in Newsweek.

The first warning signal that the man was an impostor was that he gave Karzai regime officials terms for peace that bore no resemblance to the public posture of the Taliban.

He suggested that the Taliban merely wanted to be allowed to return safely to Afghanistan, along with promises of jobs and the release of prisoners, according to the Times account. There were no demands for the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces or for a change to the constitutional system.

Both those demands had been fundamental to the Taliban position, both in public statements and in communications to ex-Taliban intermediaries between Karzai and the Taliban leadership.

But instead of finding the sudden lack of interest in bargaining over those demands suspicious, Petraeus apparently approved giving the man a considerable amount of money to continue the talks, according to reports by the New York Times and Washington Post.

That decision was evidently influenced by Petraeus's strong desire to believe that the vast increase in targeted raids aimed at killing or capturing suspected Taliban officials that had begun in March had caused top Taliban officials to give up their fundamental peace demands – and that he was now on his way to repeating what was believed to be his success in Iraq.

Petraeus began to hint at such a repeat performance in an interview with Katie Couric of CBS News Aug. 20, when he presented the supposed Taliban approach to Karzai as another case of splitting the insurgency.

Couric asked, "So you think they'd be receptive to reconciliation?" to which Petraeus replied, "Some. Again, I don't there's an expectation that [Taliban spiritual leader] Mullah Omar is going to charter a plane any time soon to sit down and discuss the Taliban laying down weapons en masse. However, there are certainly leaders out there who we believe are willing to do that."

In fact, the impostor had said nothing to indicate to U.S. and Afghan officials that he was speaking on behalf of the entire Quetta Shura, including Mullah Omar himself, according to one U.S. official familiar with the episode. The official, who insisted on anonymity, told me the hope was that the man presumed to be Mansour was authorized by the leadership to speak for them.

Nevertheless, Petraeus returned to the same theme in late September, hinting at a divided Taliban leadership and again drew a parallel between peace talks in Afghanistan and what happened in Iraq.

"There are some high-level Taliban leaders who have sought to reach out to the highest levels of the Afghan government, and they have done that," Petraeus told reporters on Sep. 27

The United States supported Karzai's conditions for the talks, he said, likening them to U.S. support for similar conditions for negotiations with Sunnis in Iraq. Then he added, "This is the way you end insurgencies."

The New York Times reported that senior U.S. officials, including Petraeus himself, were saying in October that "the talks indicated that Taliban leaders, whose rank-and-file fighters are under extraordinary pressure from the American-led offensive, were at least willing to discuss an end to the war."

Through the late summer and early autumn, Petraeus was continuing to ignore other warning signals that the Taliban’s willingness to give up the demand for U.S. withdrawal was too good to be true.

But throughout the entire period of U.S. and Afghan contacts with the impostor, the Taliban leadership was firmly denying that they were negotiating with the Afghan government. During the three-day Muslim holiday that began Sep. 9, Mullah Omar had said the Taliban would "never accept" the current government.

On Sep. 29, Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Majahid said Petraeus's claim that the Taliban were negotiating with the Afghan government was "completely baseless", and that the Taliban would not negotiate with "foreign invaders or their puppet government".

Even more important, Taliban officials were telling Pakistani intelligence officers seeking clarification on the Taliban position on peace over the summer that the U.S. and NATO forces would have to be withdrawn before any settlement with Karzai, as reported by Syed Saleem Shahzad in the Asia Times.

But Petraeus evidently believed that he was now in a position to be able to repeat in Afghanistan the strategy that had worked in Iraq.

He had talked about negotiations with a segment of the Taliban leadership as the key to reducing the insurgency in Afghanistan even before he had taken over as chief of CENTCOM in October 2008. At a talk at the Heritage Foundation Oct. 8, 2008, Petraeus had said the key in Afghanistan was negotiations with those insurgents willing to reconcile while isolating the irreconcilables.

Petraeus has been able to reap the political benefit from the fact that most journalists and the U.S. political elite believe that it was Petraeus's maneuvering, combined with the surge, that produced the Sunni turn towards cooperation against al Qaeda.

That version of Petraeus-driven success is largely mythical, however. In fact, the Sunni shift toward joining local anti-al Qaeda militia units was already well underway before Petraeus took command in February 2007.

When Petraeus's U.S.-NATO command, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), finally consulted someone who had actually known Mullah Mansour in late October or early November, they were told the man they had been dealing with was an impostor.

Neither ISAF nor the Karzai government, however, have been able establish the identity of the impostor.

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist with Inter-Press Service specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.

Fabricating Terror

We are deeply saddened by news of our brother's arrest.... at the end of the day, as everyone scrambles around to figure out who or what radicalized him, we would just like to point people in the direction of actual US intervention in Somalia and throughout the Muslim world. Here is a reality that people should think about: America continues to plunge forward into its War on Terror and we all hear the argument that Americans are really good people who care so much about the world yet, when Wikileaks documents reveal genocide, international crimes, and other atrocities generally Americans are silent (minus a small progressive community) after a few days.... The law enforcement agencies certainly helped to create this plot and certainly will generate support for their gestapo-like police state with it. However, the reality is that terror threats evolve and rather than preventing attacks against civilians, this policy of entrapment will only create more animosity. Neglecting to end the wars will only create more animosity. Ignoring the legitimate grievances of the "terrorists" will only create more animosity and eventually something very serious is going to happen again in America.  I don't condone attacks like these, I also don't think we should condemn them until Americans are ready willing and able to condemn the thousands of civilians killed each month by American soldiers throughout the world. Unfortunately, most Western Muslims are all too quick to condemn and attack their brother. Fortunately, many non-Muslim Americans are willing to probe a little deeper, give it some thought and understand that the long term ramifications of such practices are far more severe than folding up the empire, coming home, and ending Terrorism abroad. Here is to more Americans taking a stance against terrorism, in this case their own. You know what they say, "America First..."  If American terrorists take a stand I am sure the Muslim terrorists will follow.

By Paul Craig Roberts

November 30, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- Why does the FBI orchestrate fake terror plots?

The latest one snared Osman Mohamud, a Somali-American teenager in Portland, Oregon. The Associated Press report by William Mall and Nedra Pickler (11-27-10) is headlined in Yahoo News: “Somali-born teen plotted car-bombing in Oregon.”

This is a misleading headline as the report makes it clear that it was a plot orchestrated by federal agents. Two sentences into the news report we have this: “The bomb was an elaborate fake supplied by the [FBI] agents and the public was never in danger, authorities said.”

The teenager was supplied with a fake bomb and a fake detonator.

Three sentences later the reporters contradict the quoted authorities with a quote from Arthur Balizan, special agent in charge of the FBI in Oregon: “The threat was very real.”

The reporters then contradict Balizan: “White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said Saturday that president Barack Obama was aware of the FBI operation before Friday’s arrest. Shapiro said Obama was assured that the FBI was in full control of the operation and that the public was not in danger.”

Then Shapiro contradicts himself by declaring: “The events of the past 24 hours underscore the necessity of remaining vigilant against terrorism here and abroad.”

The story arrives at its Kafka highpoint when President Obama thanks the FBI for its diligence in saving us from the fake plot the FBI had fabricated.

After vacillating between whether they are reporting a real plot or a orchestrated one, the reporters finally come down on the side of orchestration. Documents released by US Attorney Dwight Holton “show the sting operation began in June.” Obviously, the targeted Portland teenager was not hot to trot. The FBI had to work on him for six months. The reporters compare “the Portland sting” to the recent arrest in Virginia of Faroque Ahmed who was ensnared in a “bombing plot that was a ruse conducted over the past six months by federal officials.”

Think about this. The FBI did a year’s work in order to convince two people to participate in fake plots.

If you are not too bright and some tough looking guys accost you and tell you that they are Al Qaeda and expect your help in a terrorist operation, you might be afraid to say no, or you might be thrilled to be part of a blowback against an American population that is indifferent to their government’s slaughter of people of your ethnicity in your country of origin. Whichever way it falls, it is unlikely the ensnared person would ever have done anything beyond talk had the FBI not organized them into action. In other cases the FBI entices people with money to participate in its fake plots.

Since 9/11, the only domestic “terrorist plot” that I recall that was not obviously organized by the FBI is the “Times Square plot” to which Faisal Shahzad pleaded guilty to trying to set off a car bomb in Manhattan. This plot, too, is suspicious. One would think that a real terrorist would have a real bomb, not a smoke bomb.

In his May 19, 2009 article (reprinted Nov. 27, 2010), Joe Quinn collects some of the fake plots, some of which were validated by torture confessions and others by ignorant and fearful juries. The US government comes up with a plot, an accused, and tortures him until he confesses, or the government fabricates a case and takes it to jurors who know that they cannot face their neighbors if they let off a media-declared “terrorist.”

Perhaps the most obvious of these cases is “the Miami seven,” a hapless group of Christian-Zionist-Muslims that called themselves the “Sea of David” and were quietly living in a Florida warehouse awaiting biblical end times. Along came the FBI posing as Al Qaeda and offered them $50,000 and an Al Qaeda swearing-in ceremony.

The FBI told them that they needed to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and various government buildings. An honest reporter at Knight Ridder revealed: “The Justice (sic) Department unveiled the arrests with an orchestrated series of news conferences in two cities, but the severity of the charges compared with the seemingly amateurish nature of the group raised concerns among civil libertarians,” who noted that the group had “no weapons, no explosives.”

The Justice (sic) Department and tamed media made a big show out of the “militaristic boots” worn by the hapless “plotters,” but the FBI had bought the boots for them.

The biggest piece of evidence against the hapless group was that they had taken photos of “targets” in Florida, but the US government had equipped them with cameras.

The US government even rented cars for its dupes to drive to take the pictures.

It turns out that the group only wanted the $50,000, but an American jury convicted them anyhow.

When the US government has to go to such lengths to create “terrorists” out of hapless people, an undeclared agenda is being served. What could this agenda be?

The answer is many agendas. One agenda is to justify wars of aggression that are war crimes under the Nuremberg standard created by the US government itself. One way to avoid war crimes charges is to create acts of terrorism that justify the naked aggressions against “terrorist countries.”

Another agenda is to create a police state. A police state can control people who object to their impoverishment for the benefit of the superrich much more easily than can a democracy endowed with constitutional civil liberties. 

Another agenda is to get rich. Terror plots, whether real or orchestrated, have created a market for security. Dual Israeli citizen Michael Chertoff, former head of US Homeland Security, is the lobbyist who represents Rapiscan, the company that manufactures the full body porno-scanners that, following the “underwear bomber” event, are now filling up US airports. Homeland Security has announced that they are going to purchase the porno-scanners for trains, buses, subways, court houses, and sports events. How can shopping malls and roads escape? Recently on Interstate 20 west of Atlanta, trucks had to drive through a similar device. Everyone has forgotten that the underwear bomber lacked required documents and was escorted aboard the airliner by an official.

The “war on terror” provides an opportunity for a few well-connected people to become very rich. If they leave Americans with a third world police state, they will be living it up in Gstaad.

This despite the fact that everyone on the planet knows that it is not lactating mothers, children, elderly people in walkers and wheelchairs, members of Congress, members of the military, nuns, and so on, who are members of Al Qaeda plotting to bring aboard a bomb in their underwear, their shoes, their shampoo and face creams.

Indeed, bombs aboard airliners are a rare event.

What is it really all about? Could it be that the US government needs terrorist events in order to completely destroy the US Constitution? On November 24, National Public Radiobroadcast a report by Dina Temple-Raston: “Administration officials are looking at the possibility of codifying detention without trial and are awaiting legislation that is supposed to come out of Congress early next year.” Of course, the legislation will not come out of Congress. It will be written by Homeland Security and the Justice (sic) Department. The impotent Congress will merely rubber-stamp it.

The obliteration of habeas corpus, the most necessary and important protection of liberty ever institutionalized in law and governing constitution, has become necessary for the US government, because a jury might acquit an alleged or mock “terrorist” or framed person whom the US government has declared prior to the trial will be held forever in indefinite detention even if acquitted in a US court of law. The attorney general of the United States has declared that any “terrorist” that he puts on trial who is acquitted by a jury will remain in detention regardless of the verdict. Such an event would reveal the total lawlessness of American “justice.”

The United States of America, “the city upon the hill,” “the light unto the world,” has become Nazi Germany. It was the practice of the Gestapo to ignore court verdicts and to execute or hold indefinitely the cleared defendant in the camps. The Obama regime is in the process of completing Dick Cheney’s dream by legislating the legality of indefinite detention. American law has collapsed to the dungeons of the Dark Ages.

This Nazi Gestapo policy is now the declared policy of the US Department of Justice (sic).

"The Demands of the Mujahideen" By Sheikh Abu Musa'b English

Five Types Of Abandonment Of The Qur’aan - by Ibn Al-Qayyim

O Muslims! O Believers of the Qur’aan! Beware you do not fall into those whom the Prophet (saw) will complain about to his Lord on the Day of Judgement:

“And the Messenger (will) say: O My Lord, indeed my people took this Qur’aan as something worthy of being abandoned.” [25:30]

The scholar, Ibn Al Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah (d. 758 AH) said; There are various types of “abandonment” of the Qur’aan:

1) To abandon listening to it and believing in it.
2) To abandon acting upon it, and ignoring its lawful and prohibited ordinances (halaal and haraam), even if one believes in it and recites it.
3) To abandon judging by it, and resorting to it as a judge when there are differences in the essence of the religion or other matters.
4) To abandon pondering over it, and understanding it, and seeking the explanation of it.
5) To abandon using it as a cure in all types of diseases of the heart, and instead to seek to cure these diseases by other means. 

And all of these categories are included in the statement of Allah:
“And the Messenger (will) say: O My Lord, indeed my people took this Qur’aan as something worthy of being abandoned.” [25:30]  

even though some of these types of abandonment are worse than others.

Sultan Abdul Hameed II & the collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate

Ruling on Behalf of the “National Interest” - A Brief History of US influence in the Gulf

With the release of the recent Wikileaks cables, it is apparent indeed the utter loyalty Arab regimes hold for the American Imperialists. However, understanding these relationships requires an analysis that understands that the Anglo-Empire of our age, was split after World War II into the financialized institutions of the City of London and their Wall Street creations which control global finance through international institutions and the American military which polices the world militarily on behalf of that financialized domination.  In this paper we look at the history of US foreign policy in the Gulf Region generally and analyze how the US took over as imperialist in the region.

Of course, a necessary distinction must be made when discussing America's role in the world... the American system of political economy, the system that built the country is something that was so successful it had  Arab populations desiring US intervention in the region as the World Wars ended. Unfortunately, that system was only meant for Western nations and the US embarked on ushering in the neo-imperialist order we see today. The only platform for Muslims today must be, the absolute removal of all military personnel and bases from majority-Muslim nations, the end of support for Israel and the complete removal of support for the authoritarian regimes. Once this is established then Americans could actually contribute to the world by redeveloping original systems that, while not perfect, did contribute to the advancement of humankind.  This is a distinction between empire (Sykes-Picot versus King-Crane), an important distinction interestingly understood by this political action movement below.

Were Muslims able to rid themselves of the traitors, develop stable Islamic political, social and economic systems and return Americans to their non-interventionist attitudes of years gone by, we can make this planet sing and peace and order can be achieved. Unfortunately, it is apparent the wheels of empire have been thrust forth and the momentum is too fierce to contain. The only other option is to continue to fight therefore to make Allah's Word supreme.

Ruling on Behalf of the “National Interest”

As’ad AbuKhalil, a professor of political science at California State University on Arab Regime Loyalty to US Master

Watch from 1:00

Moazzem Begg - "Doing the work for the U.S." - Wikileaks Cable

 NOTE: This post is not meant to attack anyone or belittle the work of CagePrisoners. It is only to question the value of condemning Muslims as terrorists and working alongside of the kuffar for "human rights," without calling to the necessity of the establishment of Allah's religion in the land and the annihilation of the invaders from Muslim soil. We were saddened as well to see CagePrisoners recently condemn their brother Anwar Awlaki as well, but this is not a new trend within the "Activist" community.

That being said, please read the whole post to understand the position and stance and that the comments made by the U.S. officials supporting the narrative of Moazzem Begg is only in regard to closing Guantanamo and encouraging European nations to accept prisoners. However, there is an important and fundamental distinction that should be identified in the conscious one's mind with regard to the difference between activism as false hope and change and as principled Islamic resistance to the entire system of kufr and Western imperialism.

Mr. Begg is doing our work for us, and his articulate, reasoned presentation makes for a convincing argument. It is ironic that after four years of imprisonment and alleged torture,

Moazzam Begg is delivering the same demarche to GOL as we are: please consider accepting GTMO detainees for resettlement. Despite Begg's optimism, the Prime and Foreign Ministers continue to publicly state that the GoL supports the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and stands ready to assist from a financial and logistical perspective, but cannot accept detainees for resettlement.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 LUXEMBOURG 000005

SIPDIS
DEPT FOR EUR/WE VALERIE BELON, S/GC MICHAEL WILLIAMS
AMEMBASSY ANKARA PASS TO AMCONSUL ADANA
AMEMBASSY ASTANA PASS TO AMCONSUL ALMATY
AMEMBASSY BERLIN PASS TO AMCONSUL DUSSELDORF
AMEMBASSY BERLIN PASS TO AMCONSUL LEIPZIG
AMEMBASSY BELGRADE PASS TO AMEMBASSY PODGORICA
AMEMBASSY HELSINKI PASS TO AMCONSUL ST PETERSBURG
AMEMBASSY ATHENS PASS TO AMCONSUL THESSALONIKI
AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PASS TO AMCONSUL VLADIVOSTOK
AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PASS TO AMCONSUL YEKATERINBURG

E.O. 12958: DECL: 2020/01/15
TAGS: PGOV KDRG PREL LU
SUBJECT: TO HELL AND BACK: GITMO EX-DETAINEE STUMPS IN LUXEMBOURG

REF: 09 LUXEMBOURG 328; 09 LUXEMBOURG 288; 09 LUXEMBOURG 302

CLASSIFIED BY: Adam Center, Consul; REASON: 1.4(B), (D)

¶1.       (SBU)  SUMMARY:   Former Guantanamo Bay (GTMO) detainee
Moazzam Begg met with Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn 14 January
2010 to press the government of Luxembourg to accept GTMO detainees
for resettlement.  Begg, a British citizen of Pakistani origin, was
arrested in Pakistan in 2002 and imprisoned in Kandahar, Bagram,
and Guantanamo Bay, before his release to Britain in 2005. In a
statement to RTL Television, Asselborn said that Luxembourg will do
what is possible and reiterated the government's position to
provide financial assistance, training and housing costs, and other
technical assistance.  Consular officer attended an evening
screening of the documentary film "Taxi to the Dark Side," followed
by a Q&A session with Begg.  When asked if he thought Luxembourg
will do more than contribute financially to the resettlement
efforts, Begg replied that he was "pleasantly surprised" with his
conversations with MFA officials and "hopeful." END SUMMARY

--------------------------------------------

AUDIENCE WITH FOREIGN MINISTER

--------------------------------------------

¶2.       (C)  Ex-GTMO detainee Moazzam Begg, released from
Guantanamo Bay in 2005, is barnstorming throughout Europe, pushing
governments to accept GTMO detainees for resettlement.  Following
his release from GTMO, Begg created an NGO dedicated to this cause,
called Caged Prisoners.  Representatives from two additional NGOs,
Reprieve and Center for Constitutional Rights, accompanied Begg on
his visit to Luxembourg.  Luxembourg media coverage on the
Asselborn-Begg meeting was ubiquitous, but superficial.  With
numerous reports that the meeting occurred, nearly all media
outlets were silent on the actual substance of the meeting.  Only
Begg provided some limited insight into the outcome of the meeting.
Speaking later in the evening (see para 4), he responded to an
inquiry about the meeting by saying that "without giving anything
away," he was "pleasantly surprised" and "hopeful."

--------------------------------------------- -----------

ASSELBORN: "WE'LL HELP"/BEGG:  "DO MORE"

--------------------------------------------- -----------

¶3.       (C)  In an interview following his meeting with Begg,
Asselborn avoided specifics of the discussion.  He reiterated
Luxembourg's willingness to provide financial assistance to the
resettlement efforts - the GoL party line for many months.
Asselborn said, however, that he was in regular contact with
American officials, including Special Envoy Dan Fried, as recently
as last week.  (See refs a and b on the Asselborn-Fried meeting in
September 2009 in Luxembourg and subsequent exchange of letters.)
In comments to the press following the meeting, Begg only explained
what the messages he delivered were - not how those messages were
received. Begg's primary message is that European governments have
to step up and accept some of the GTMO detainees for resettlement.
Begg, an articulate man, argued that there are dozens of prisoners
in GTMO just like him - not dangerous to society, able to
communicate and assimilate, able to be a contributing and
responsible member of society - and they just need governments to
stand up and offer them a place to call home. In an interview prior
to his meeting with Asselborn, Begg was asked if countries like
Luxembourg have a responsibility regarding ex-detainees. Begg
reportedly responded that it is a European tradition to offer
asylum to refugees, and that this tradition also should be extended
to former Guantanamo detainees who have not been convicted of
crimes, are not dangerous, and are deemed as releasable.

LUXEMBOURG 00000005  002 OF 003

----------------

TAXI TO HELL

----------------

¶4.      (SBU)  Begg later attended an Amnesty International-hosted
screening of 2007 Oscar Winner for Best Documentary "Taxi to the
Dark Side" (French translation of film title: "Taxi to Hell").
Conoff attended screening and Begg's Q&A session following the
film. The film, a harrowing depiction of alleged torture inside
Bagram, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo, was an undisguised attack on
the Bush Administration, focusing much of its venom on Former
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Former Vice President Cheney. Mr.
Begg, on the other hand, presented an image of "forgive, but never
forget," and has focused his attentions not on the ill treatment he
allegedly received, but on what can be done to resettle the
remaining "releasable" prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.  Reporting
officer estimates 100-150 people attended the filming and Q&A
session and noted the complete absence of press, other diplomats,
or GoL officials.

--------------------------------------------- -

LOOKING FORWARD, NOT BACKWARD

--------------------------------------------- -

¶5.       (C)  During his presentation, Begg spoke almost
exclusively of the future, with hardly any mention of the past.  He
did not discuss the question of legality of torture.  Rather than
stressing past injustices, he focused on what to do now.  He
acknowledged that he lives with the past, but that he now wants to
be part of the solution, and is working to convince Luxembourg and
other governments - and their populaces - to want the same.

---------------------------------------

LUXEMBOURGERS NOT SO SURE

---------------------------------------

¶6.       (SBU)  In a 90-minute Q&A session, Begg was asked, how
would ex-detainees fit in in Luxembourg.  How would it work? Where
would they live? How would they be supported?  The fear and
skepticism was palpable in the audience.  Begg and his NGO cohorts
stressed that there were Algerians and Tunisians in GTMO who could
come to Luxembourg and speak French, one of Luxembourg's official
and most-commonly used languages.  He stressed that neighboring
countries - France, Belgium, Portugal, Ireland - provided examples.
Begg even argued that if detainees could fit in in Palau, they
could do the same in Luxembourg.  Begg deplored that certain people
believe the world is not big enough for the ex-detainees.  He added
that if there were colonies on the Moon, "I'm sure they'd send us
there."

¶7.       (SBU)  Begg declined to speak about specific physical
transgressions against his person.  When told how physically well
and mentally sound he appeared, he joked, "Well, I used to be
taller."  Begg spoke articulately, demonstrating minimal ill will
toward his captors - even going so far as to say he speaks on the

LUXEMBOURG 00000005  003 OF 003

phone occasionally with his former interrogators.  Consular officer
took note of the following exchange:  Asked if he would ever
consider a return to the U.S., Begg replied that he had never been
to the U.S., but that the U.S. had come to him.  Begg commented
that as a British citizen, he could travel to the U.S. without a
visa, but that he thinks he would need "a lot more than a visa to
get out."

-------------

COMMENT

-------------

¶8.      (C)  Mr. Begg is doing our work for us, and his articulate,
reasoned presentation makes for a convincing argument.  It is
ironic that after four years of imprisonment and alleged torture,
Moazzam Begg is delivering the same demarche to GOL as we are:
please consider accepting GTMO detainees for resettlement.  Despite
Begg's optimism, the Prime and Foreign Ministers continue to
publicly state that the GoL supports the closure of the Guantanamo
Bay detention facility and stands ready to assist from a financial
and logistical perspective, but cannot accept detainees for
resettlement.

¶9.       (U)  Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moazzam_Begg
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_to_the_Dark _Side for
extensive information on Moazzam Begg and the film "Taxi to the
Dark Side."
Stroum

When Will Oppressed Americans Take to the Streets?

The Stench of US Economic Decay Grows Stronger

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
On Thanksgiving eve the English-language China Daily and People’s Daily Online reported that Russia and China have concluded an agreement to abandon the use of the US dollar in their bilateral trade and to use their own currencies in its place. The Russians and Chinese said that they had taken this step in order to insulate their economies from the risks that have undermined their confidence in the US dollar as world reserve currency.

This is big news, especially for the news-dead Thanksgiving holiday period, but I did not see it reported on Bloomberg, CNN, New York Times or anywhere in the US print or TV media. The ostrich’s head remains in the sand.

Previously, China concluded the same agreement with Brazil.

As China has a large and growing supply of dollars from trade surpluses with which to conduct trade, China is signaling that she prefers Russian rubles and Brazilian reais to more US dollars.

The American financial press finds solace in the episodes when sovereign debt scares in the EU send the dollar up against the euro and UK pound. But these currency movements are just measures of financial players shorting troubled EU-denominated debt. They are not a measure of dollar strength.

The dollar’s role as world reserve currency is one of the main instruments of American financial hegemony. We haven’t been told how much damage Wall Street fraud has inflicted on EU financial institutions, but the EU countries no longer need the US dollar for trade between themselves as they share a common currency. Once the OPEC countries cease to hold the dollars that they are paid for oil, dollar hegemony will have faded away.

Another instrument of American financial hegemony is the IMF. Whenever a country cannot make good on its debts and pay back the American banks, in steps the IMF with an austerity package that squeezes the country’s population with higher taxes and cuts in education, medical and income support programs until the bankers get their money back.

This is now happening to Ireland and is likely to spread to Portugal, Spain, and perhaps even to France. After the American-caused financial crisis, the IMF’s role as a tool of US imperialism is less and less acceptable. The point could come when governments can no longer sell out their people for the sake of the American banks.

There are other signs that some countries are tiring of America’s irresponsible use of power. Turkey’s civilian governments have long been under the thumb of the American-influenced Turkish military. However, recently the civilian government moved against two top generals and an admiral suspected of involvement in planning a coup. The civilian government further asserted itself when the prime minister announced on Thanksgiving day that Turkey is prepared to react to any Israeli offensive against Lebanon. Here is an American NATO ally freeing itself from American suzerainty exercised through the Turkish military. Who knows, Germany could be next.

Meanwhile in America the Obama administration has managed to come up with a Deficit Commission whose members want to pay for the multi-trillion dollar wars that are enriching the military/security complex and the multi-trillion dollar bailouts of the financial system by reducing annual cost-of-living increases for Social Security, raising the retirement age to 69, ending the mortgage interest deduction, ending the tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance, imposing a 6.5 per cent federal sales tax, while cutting the top tax rate for the rich.

Even the Federal Reserve’s low interest rates are aimed at helping the banksters. The low interest rates deprive retirees and those living on their savings of interest income. The low interest rates have also deprived corporate pensions of funding. To fill the gap corporations are issuing billions of dollars in corporate bonds in order to fund their pensions. Corporate debt is increasing, but not plant and equipment that would produce earnings to service the debt. As the economy worsens, servicing the additional debt will be a problem.

In addition, America’s elderly are finding that fewer and fewer doctors will accept them as patients as a 23 per cent cut looms in the already low Medicare payments to doctors.

The American government only has resources for wars of aggression, police state intrusions, and bailouts of rich banksters. The American citizen has become a mere subject to be bled for the ruling oligarchies.

The police state attitude of the TSA toward airline travelers is a clear indication that Americans are no longer citizens with rights but subjects without rights. Perhaps the day will come when oppressed Americans will take to the streets like the French, the Greeks, the Irish, and the British.

Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

Source: Counterpunch

Wikileaks: Saudi King: US Should Plant Chips in Gitmo Detainees.

By Full US Embassy Cable


xSunday, 22 March 2009, 10:14
S E C R E T RIYADH 000447
NSC FOR JBRENNAN AND JDUNCAN; STATE FOR S/WCI
EO 12958 DECL: 03/16/2019
TAGS PREL, PTER, KWBG, SA, AF, IN, PK, IR, IZ
SUBJECT: COUNTERTERRORISM ADVISER BRENNAN'S MEETING WITH
SAUDI KING ABDULLAH
REF: RIYADH 427
Classified By: Pol Counselor Lisa Carle, 1.4(b),(d)
1. KEY POINTS
-- (S) Saudi King Abdullah welcomed White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, S/WCI Ambassador Williamson, and Ambassador Fraker to his private palace March 15 for a 90-minute discussion focused on U.S. Saudi-relations, counterterrorism cooperation, the Yemeni Guantanamo Bay detainees, Iran, and Iraq.
-- (S) Brennan presented the King with a letter from President Obama expressing a personal message of friendship, appreciation for our close and collaborative relationship and concern over the disposition of Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo.
-- (S) The King said he had told Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki only minutes before that Iran should stop interfering in Arab affairs, and had given Iran a one-year deadline to improve its relations with Saudi Arabia.
-- (S) The King expressed a complete lack of trust in Iraqi PM al-Maliki and held out little hope for improved Saudi/Iraqi relations as long as al-Maliki remains in office.
-- (S) When asked what advice he had for President Obama, the King said he had "one request": that it was "critically important to restore America's credibility" in the world.
U.S. SAUDI RELATIONS
2. (S) PLEDGES OF FRIENDSHIP: Brennan asserted that the U.S./Saudi alliance must remain strong, and assured the King of President Obama's wishes for a long and healthy U.S./Saudi relationship, and the President's personal commitment that Saudi Arabia had a friend in the White House. The King replied that he appreciated the sentiments and that he had great respect for President Obama. "We (the U.S. and Saudi Arabia) spilled blood together" in Kuwait and Iraq, the King continued, and Saudi Arabia valued this tremendously. Friendship can be a difficult issue that requires work, Abdullah said, but the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have done it for 70 years over three generations. "Our disagreements don,t cut to the bone," he stated.
3. (S) U.S. CREDIBILITY IS CRITICAL: The Bush Administration is now in the past, the King said. Both President Bushes were his friends, but the recent President Bush didn,t take his advice on dealing with issues in the region, and they found their problems "compounded." The King said, "we are ready to consult, provide guidance and to do whatever is necessary. We are people of the region and we know it well." Brennan responded that President Obama wants to listen, and asked what advice the King would offer to President Obama. Abdullah said his one piece of advice was that restoring U.S. credibility in the world was critically important. Brennan responded that this was an important issue for President Obama as well. Brennan said that under President Obama we will restore our credibility. He said the U.S. is a great country and we know what we have to do.
4. (S) THE WORLD NEEDS OBAMA: Brennan said President Obama looked forward to seeing the King at the G-20 summit in London. "Thank God for bringing Obama to the presidency," the King answered, which has created "great hope" in the Muslim world. "May God grant him strength and patience, Abdullah continued, "May God protect him. I'm concerned about his personal safety. America and the world need such a president."
5. (C) THAT WITHOUT WHICH NO SAUDI MEETING IS COMPLETE: Abdullah said "as a friend" that "it was a mistake" to limit access of Saudi citizens to the U.S., since "this damages bilateral relations and the image of the U.S. in Saudi Arabia." The King noted there were 60,000 Saudi students abroad, about one third of whom were in the U.S., and "others would have gone" but for the difficulties in gaining access to the U.S. The King noted that for many years very senior Saudi officials, including Prince Saud al-Faisal, had studied in the U.S. He then noted that Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., Adel al Jubeir (who was interpreting for the King) had studied in the U.S. and was "half American" as a result. He also said he was aware of, and appreciated, Ambassador Fraker's efforts to improve the visa situation "even though there were people in Washington who fought him." Finally, he observed that anyone from Saudi Arabia who studies in the U.S. inevitably becomes a friend and advocate of the United States and that we only hurt ourselves by cutting off this flow of students.
DETAINEES
6. (S) GUANTANAMO WILL BE CLOSED: Brennan explained that President Obama had made a commitment to close Guantanamo to eliminate the potential propaganda benefits its existence provided to Al-Qaeda, but also because it was the right thing to do. Brennan reassured the King, however, that President Obama would remain strong on counterterrorism. Brennan presented the King with a letter from President Obama addressing the issue of Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo. Brennan noted that he had met with Prince Mohammed bin Nayef (MbN) the day before to discuss at length The issue of the Yemeni detainees. Brennan further stated that he would be traveling to Sanaa the next day to meet with President Saleh, as the issue of the remaining 99 Yemeni detainees still needed to be resolved. Brennan praised MbN as an outstanding counterterrorism partner, and that the MOI was doing a wonderful, courageous job in countering the terrorist threat to the Kingdom. Returning to the subject later in the conversation, Brennan warned that the U.S. feared Yemen could become another Waziristan, and urged that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia needed to work together to keep Al-Qaeda in Yemen from growing even more dangerous. The King replied that having Somalia next door to Yemen only adds to the danger. Brennan said that the capabilities of the Ministry of the Interior security forces had grown impressively over the past 10 years. Brennan added that counterterrorism and intelligence sharing cooperation between our countries had never been better and that MbN deserved the credit. In an unusual concession, made at the conclusion of their conversation, the King said, "be assured I am fully briefed on the work you are doing with Prince Mohammed bin Nayef."

7. (S) HOW TO TRACK DETAINEES: "I've just thought of something," the King added, and proposed implanting detainees with an electronic chip containing information about them and allowing their movements to be tracked with Bluetooth. This was done with horses and falcons, the King said. Brennan replied, "horses don,t have good lawyers," and that such a proposal would face legal hurdles in the U.S., but agreed that keeping track of detainees was an extremely important issue that he would review with appropriate officials when he returned to the United States.

IRAN
8. (S) A "HEATED EXCHANGE": The King noted that Iranian FM Mottaki had been "sitting in that same seat (as Brennan) a few moments ago." The King described his conversation with FM Mottaki as "a heated exchange, frankly discussing Iran's interference in Arab affairs." When challenged by the King on Iranian meddling in Hamas affairs, Mottaki apparently protested that "these are Muslims." "No, Arabs" countered the King, "You as Persians have no business meddling in Arab matters." The King said the Iranians wanted to improve relations and that he responded by giving Mottaki an ultimatum. "I will give you one year" (to improve ties), "after that, it will be the end."



9. (S) "SPARE US YOUR EVIL": The King expressed hope the U.S. would review its Iran policy and "come to the right conclusion." Brennan responded that President Obama was personally reviewing U.S. Iran policy and wanted to hear the King's thoughts. Abdullah asserted that Iran is trying to set up Hizballah-like organizations in African countries, observing that the Iranians don't think they are doing anything wrong and don't recognize their mistakes. "I said (to Mottaki) that's your problem," recounted the King. Abdullah said he would favor Rafsanjani in an Iranian election, were he to run. He described Iran not as "a neighbor one wants to see," but as "a neighbor one wants to avoid." He said the Iranians "launch missiles with the hope of putting fear in people and the world." A solution to the Arab/Israeli conflict would be a great achievement, the King said, but Iran would find other ways to cause trouble. "Iran's goal is to cause problems," he continued, "There is no doubt something unstable about them." He described Iran as "adventurous in the negative sense," and declared "May God prevent us from falling victim to their evil." Mottaki had tendered an invitation to visit Iran, but Abdullah said he replied "All I want is for you to spare us your evil." Summarizing his history with Iran, Abdullah concluded: "We have had correct relations over the years, but the bottom line is that they cannot be trusted."
10. (S) AN EMPTY CHANNEL: The King said "three years ago" Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei had sent his adviser Ali Akbar Velayati with a letter asking for Abdullah's agreement to establish a formal back channel for communication between the two leaders. Abdullah said he had agreed, and the channel was established with Velayati and Saudi FM Saud al-Faisal as the points of contact. In the years since, the King noted, the channel had never been used.
11. (S) A DANGEROUS NEIGHBORHOOD: Brennan responded that the Saudis lived in a dangerous neighborhood with Iran across the Gulf, with Saudi Arabia sharing a long border with Yemen, and with a number of other troublesome countries nearby. Brennan noted that we have a lot of work to do in the Middle East together. The King responded that the world,s attention was focused on the region. He further stated that he believed that the U.S. could help in this sensitive region, but that we should not take matters lightly. Brennan noted that President Obama is fully aware of the dangers in the region, that the U.S. knew that it had to remain involved in constructing a solution, and that we would seek the King,s counsel in dealing with the many issues in the Middle East. The King asked if that included Iran. Brennan responded that it did. Brennan said that we had our eyes wide open to Iranian ambitions, that we were not nave to the dangers Iran posed to Saudi Arabia, and that Iran could not be allowed to succeed in its destabilizing activites. Brennan observed that the President had ordered a complete review of U.S. Iran policy and made reference to a passage in the President,s letter that we needed to test Iran,s intentions to cease its destabilizing behavior and live up to its international obligations. Brennan further observed that the U.S.-Saudi partnership had to remain strong and that together, and with others, we needed to thwart Iran,s nuclear ambitions. "That is important," responded the King. Finally, Brennan said the President wanted the King to know he had a good friend in the White House who would be willing to assist in any way that he could. The King thanked Mr. Brennan, said he appreciated the sentiments, said that he had great respect for President Obama, and reflected that we had been great friends for many years and would remain friends as our disagreements were minor.
12. (U) SEE REFTEL: Ref A provided a separate readout on the Iran discussion and the King's meeting with Mottaki.
IRAQ
13. (S) IN THE HANDS OF GOD AND IRAN: Brennan expressed the importance the U.S. attaches to achieving peace and stability in Iraq. The King replied that this was "in the hands of God," though he agreed that Iraq was vitally important to both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. The King also pointed out that "some say the U.S. invasion handed Iraq to Iran on a silver platter; this after we fought Saddam Hussein."
14. (S) NO HOPE FOR MALIKI: The King said he had "no confidence whatsoever in (Iraqi PM) Maliki, and the Ambassador (Fraker) is well aware of my views." The King affirmed that he had refused former President Bush's entreaties that he meet with Maliki. The King said he had met Maliki early in Maliki's term of office, and the Iraqi had given him a written list of commitments for reconciliation in Iraq, but had failed to follow through on any of them. For this reason, the King said, Maliki had no credibility. "I don,t trust this man," the King stated, "He's an Iranian agent." The King said he had told both Bush and former Vice president Cheney "how can I meet with someone I don,t trust?" Maliki has "opened the door for Iranian influence in Iraq" since taking power, the King said, and he was "not hopeful at all" for Maliki, "or I would have met with him."
AN ALERT AND ENGAGING HOST
15. (S) I MISS MY HORSES: The King appeared alert and at times animated, entertaining his guests with anecdotes about his encounters with Iranian leaders (septel), and throwing up his hands in complaint when asked if he spent time with his horses: "I see them on television when they race," he said. "I love horses," he exclaimed, "every couple of weeks I get to see them, and then I have a very calm and restful sleep."
16. (S) DIALOGUE AND REFORM AS DUTY: In response to Brennan,s praise for the King,s interfaith dialogue initiative, his commitment to advancing rights as reflected by his recent appointment of the first female (deputy education) minister, the King said "Thanks for the sentiment but I did nothing special, only what I thought was my duty. I believe we do our duty as determined by God."
17. (S) PARTICIPANTS:
Saudi Arabia -- Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud -- HRH Prince Mohammed bin Nayef bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, Assistant Minister of the Interior -- Ambassador to the U.S. Adel al-Jubeir (interpreter)
U.S. -- John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism -- Ambassador Ford Fraker -- Ambassador-at-large for War Crimes Issues Clint Williamson -- John Duncan, NSC Director for Counterterrorism -- Shaun Coughlin, Special Assistant, S/WCI -- Embassy control officer/notetaker
18. (U) Assistant to the President Brennan cleared this cable.
FRAKER
Source: Information Clearing House

Talking to the Taliban about life after occupation

Special report: In the last of his series from Afghanistan, Ghaith Abdul-Ahad asks Taliban leaders past and present what kind of regime they would run – and whether there is a chance of negotiated peace


• Part two: Five days inside a Taliban jail
• Part one: The London cab driver who fights for the Taliban

The administrator

In the south-eastern city of Khost, the everyday business of the Taliban administration carries on across the street from the fortified, government-run city court and police station.
The head of the Haqqani network's civilian administration and his assistant hold their council in the grand mosque, which is also known as the Haqqani mosque because it was built with Taliban and Arab money.
When I met them, the two men – a frail-looking 60-year-old and his younger sidekick – gave the impression of being haggard peasants seeking work in the city rather than members of one of the organisations most feared by Britain and America.
Worshippers at the mosque greeted the Haqqani representatives with a mix of reverence and anxiety, some walking in a long circle to avoid them while others came forward and shook hands, pledging contributions for the movement. The mosque leader begged them to be his guests for the night.
"The resistance is stronger and bolder today," the old man said. "A few years ago the Taliban could move only at night.
"Now that our land has been liberated – thanks be to God – we walk around in the middle of the day and we fight in front of the people. We control our lands and our villages while [the Americans] can only come in by air."



The administrator was laden with messages to deliver. Among his many roles as a senior member of the civilian administration, the most important is as a conduit to the higher Taliban authority of Sirajuddin Haqqani and his base in the border region between Khost and Pakistan.
The old man carries edicts from the leadership in one direction and petitions and complaints in the other.
When the Taliban ruled in Kabul in the 1990s they closed schools, stopped women working and exposed themselves to ridicule by banning trivial pursuits such as kite flying.
Yes, the Taliban had made mistakes in the past, he admitted, and they were still making them. "Our men still do things that annoy the people, and that is part of my job, to convey the complaints," he said.
"But the benefits of the Taliban outweigh the harm we do to the people. In our area there were thieves and bandits. It was chaos.
"People needed someone to monitor and rule and punish. They needed us to impose order.
"The government is besieged in its fortresses and can't come to the people, and corruption is paralysing it. One of the main reasons for our popularity is the failure of this government."
In a striking parallel with what the Americans have been advocating as part of their counterinsurgency initiative, the Haqqanis have set up local shura (consultation) councils made up of village elders and clerics to run the affairs of villagers in the "liberated" areas and create local security. The old man's job is to supervise these councils.
"I am a representative of the movement and I walk among the people and everyone knows me. I move between the people and the commanders, watching the commanders' behaviour. I listen to the people and convey the picture to the supreme leaders," he said.
Had the Taliban changed? A future administration would be based on Islamic rule, which was what the Afghan people wanted, but it would be different in detail from the Taliban regime that had ruled in Kabul before. "We will not rule based on theory. The people want us to be more pragmatic."
He quoted the Muslim poet Muhammad Iqbal. "When the painter works on the same old painting again, he will make it much better.
"The Taliban that will return will not be like the old Taliban. We have learned from the old mistakes. We will accept others. We are not and cannot be all of Afghanistan, but we are an important part of it."

The commander

From Khost I travelled to nearby Ghazni province to meet a commander of the Quetta Taliban I had met two years before.
Last time I saw Mawlawa Halimi he was scared and kept a watch at the doors and window of the small hotel where we had lunch. He had just been promoted to lead a small unit and he moved around incognito, fearing government agents and police checkpoints.
In the intervening years he had become one of the most senior commanders in the province. He was a few pounds chubbier, his hair was longer and he had an air of authority. I waited for him in the bazaar. He arrived on a motorbike with an armed guard riding pillion and no one in the bazaar gave him a second glance. He drove ahead, leading us to a mud-walled compound.
As we followed him, an American patrol passed along the main road a hundred metres distant, three huge armoured trucks wrapped with mesh fences to counter RPG attacks, each with two sets of armoured wheels in front to detect and detonate improvised explosive devices and landmines. The soldiers in their gun turrets trained their weapons left and right.
"Last time we met, the atmosphere in this area was tense. The villages and markets you passed through were targeted by the Americans," Halimi said.
"They used to come here a lot and life for people was difficult. Now, with Allah's grace, this is all ours.
"The war has changed. I used to fear the government wherever I went. Now we move everywhere and carry our guns with us. Two years ago we were just trying to defend our areas. Now we control this area and we go to the main street to attack."
He highlighted another major difference with the Taliban of two years ago. Then, the foot soldiers had all been trained in the madrasas. Now they were less ideological.
"It's a mistake to call all of the fighters Taliban. The Taliban are madrasa students and I am a mullah, but most of my fighters are peasants and farmers and students who come from the government schools.
"In winter we send them to Pakistan to get some religious training, but they are not Taliban," Halimi said.
"When we sit and watch the news on TV we hear that the Taliban attacked here and there and destroyed tanks and killed soldiers. Then in the next news item you hear that the Americans are calling for negotiations and of course you understand that these two news items are related. The second news item is the result of the first, and the Americans want to negotiate because they are losing.
"Why don't they just leave?" he said. "What are they waiting for?"

The ambassador

The fluffed-up sofas in the Kabul living room of Abdul Salam Zaeef, the former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, have seated many high-ranking dignitaries in recent months as officials from the UN, the EU and Nato have come visiting.
It is a dramatic change of affairs for a man who spent three years from 2002 in prison in Guantánamo and who, until July this year, was on the UN list of known terrorists.
Zaeef is now a prolific writer and speaks five languages fluently. According to many Taliban insiders, if there are any negotiations between the Taliban and the Americans they will go through him.
"The Americans came and sat here," he said, pointing at one of the big sofas. "They said they needed to talk to the Taliban but couldn't find them. They didn't know who the Taliban were. I said go and look, they are everywhere, the Taliban have shadow governors and administrators, why don't you go and talk to them?"
The real reason the Americans didn't talk, he said, was that they had no respect for the Taliban.
"I told the Americans to respect their enemy. You can't negotiate with the Taliban from a position of strength, so why would the Taliban come and talk to you? If you want talks you have to treat the Taliban as equals."
In any negotiation, the Taliban would assert that as long as their land was under occupation they would struggle to liberate it.
They would continue to fight until the foreigners left. Their argument was with the Americans, not the Afghan government. They did not want to bring down the government, they just wanted to renew it.
"The Taliban have no problem with the Afghan government. We have no problem with Karzai or the Afghans. The problem lies with the Americans," he said.
"Why would we negotiate with Karzai if he has no say in running his government? They are under occupation and all orders come from foreigners."
The Americans, he said, had not talked to any senior Taliban to his knowledge. However, "the government and the Taliban have been talking for two years on local matters, health-related issues, prisoner exchange, education.
"This is not a negotiation, this is a way to help and benefit our Afghan people and nation. Negotiations haven't started yet."
The Americans had a right to know that Afghanistan would not be used as a base for attacks against them, he said, but that was all.
"The Americans have one right only, and that is their right to be assured that Afghanistan will not be used against them and that is something the Taliban should give.
"Apart from that they have no rights, they have no right to tell us about democracy and human rights. That's an Afghan issue and it will be decided by the Afghans.
"The Americans behave with arrogance and if they don't want to be defeated in Afghanistan they should talk.
"They don't belong here," he said. "They are foreigners, outsiders."
Source: Guardian

U.S. Facing Global Diplomatic Crisis Following Massive WikiLeaks Release of Secret Diplomatic Cables

Media Coverage of Wikileaks!!! Of Course all those Good Americans are Mute...

ABC: What drives you?
Julian Assange: Defending victims and I'm a combative person, so I like crushing bastards... so it is deeply, personally, personally deeply satisfying to me....  

Waiting on Wikileaks...

The Obama administration has told whistleblower WikiLeaks that its expected imminent release of classified State Department cables will put "countless" lives at risk, threaten global counterterrorism operations and jeopardize U.S. relations with its allies.

In a highly unusual step reflecting the administration's grave concerns about the ramifications of the move, the State Department late Saturday released a letter from its top lawyer to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and his attorney telling them that publication of the documents would be illegal and demanding that they stop it.


Still the New York Times, the the first media outlet granted permission to look at the new Wikileaks releases to include some detailed information on their contents, claims these documents expose the US Government as the Empire in Folly that it is…. Over 200,000 of them are scheduled for release over the next few hours.  Some excerpts from the NY Times Article are below…. They seem to be so interesting we may do a little series commenting on them and their implications in coming days…LINK HERE 

Terrorism’s Shadow

The cables show that nearly a decade after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the dark shadow of terrorism still dominates the United States’ relations with the world. They depict the Obama administration struggling to sort out which Pakistanis are trustworthy partners against Al Qaeda, adding Australians who have disappeared in the Middle East to terrorist watch lists, and assessing whether a lurking rickshaw driver in Lahore, Pakistan, was awaiting fares or conducting surveillance of the road to the American Consulate.

They show American officials managing relations with a China on the rise and a Russia retreating from democracy. They document years of painstaking effort to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon — and of worry about a possible Israeli strike on Iran with the same goal.

Even when they recount events that are already known, the cables offer remarkable details.

For instance, it has been previously reported that the Yemeni government has sought to cover up the American role in missile strikes against the local branch of Al Qaeda. But a cable’s fly-on-the-wall account of a January meeting between the Yemeni president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, and Gen. David H. Petraeus, then the American commander in the Middle East, is nonetheless breathtaking.

“We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours,” Mr. Saleh said, according to the cable sent by the American ambassador, prompting Yemen’s deputy prime minister to “joke that he had just ‘lied’ by telling Parliament” that Yemeni forces had carried out the strikes.

Mr. Saleh, who at other times resisted American counterterrorism requests, was in a lighthearted mood. The authoritarian ruler of a conservative Muslim country, Mr. Saleh complains of smuggling from nearby Djibouti, but tells General Petraeus that his concerns are drugs and weapons, not whiskey, “provided it’s good whiskey.”

Likewise, press reports detailed the unhappiness of the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, when he was not permitted to set up his tent in Manhattan or to visit ground zero during a United Nations session last year.

But the cables add to the tale a touch of scandal and alarm. They describe the volatile Libyan leader as rarely without the companionship of “his senior Ukrainian nurse,” described as “a voluptuous blonde.” They reveal that Colonel Qaddafi was so upset by his reception in New York that he balked at carrying out a promise to return dangerous enriched uranium to Russia. The American ambassador to Libya told Colonel Qaddafi’s son “that the Libyan government had chosen a very dangerous venue to express its pique,” a cable reported to Washington.

The cables also disclose frank comments behind closed doors. Dispatches from early this year, for instance, quote the aging monarch of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah, as speaking scathingly about the leaders of Iraq and Pakistan.

Speaking to another Iraqi official about Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, King Abdullah said, “You and Iraq are in my heart, but that man is not.” The king called PresidentAsif Ali Zardari of Pakistan the greatest obstacle to that country’s progress. “When the head is rotten,” he said, “it affects the whole body.”

The American ambassador to Eritrea reported last year that “Eritrean officials are ignorant or lying” in denying that they were supporting the Shabab, a militant Islamist group in Somalia. The cable then mused about which seemed more likely.

Death by a Thousand Cuts

BY DAVEED GARTENSTEIN-ROSS | NOVEMBER 23, 2010

See all those security lines? Just because al Qaeda's recent attacks haven't succeeded doesn't mean the terrorist group's overall strategy is failing.

"Two Nokia phones, $150 each, two HP printers, $300 each, plus shipping, transportation and other miscellaneous expenses add up to a total bill of $4,200. That is all what Operation Hemorrhage cost us… On the other hand this supposedly 'foiled plot', as some of our enemies would like to call [it], will without a doubt cost America and other Western countries billions of dollars in new security measures."

Thus begins the lead article in the latest issue of Inspire, the English-language online magazine produced by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the jihadi group's Yemen branch, which was released Saturday. The cover features a photo of a UPS plane and the striking headline: "$4,200." It is referring to the recent cartridge-bomb plot, and specifically the great disparity between the cost of executing a terrorist attack and the cost to Western countries of defending against asymmetric warfare -- costs now numbering in the billions of dollars a year and climbing. The magazine warns that future attacks will be "smaller, but more frequent" -- an approach that "some may refer to as the strategy of a thousand cuts."

The slick packaging may be new, but al Qaeda's emphasis on bleeding the U.S. economy is not. From Osama bin Laden's earliest declaration of war against America, al Qaeda has linked its attacks to the U.S. economy. He and other salafi jihadi thinkers had long believed that economic power was the key to America's military might; they thus saw weakening Western economies as their path to victory. When bin Laden declared war against the "Jews and crusaders" in 1996, he emphasized that the mujahideen's strikes should be coupled with an economic boycott by Saudi women. Otherwise, the Muslims would be sending money to the enemy, "which is the foundation of wars and armies."

In October 2001, just after he put this strategy to work by striking the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, bin Laden spoke with Al Jazeera journalist Taysir Allouni (who is now imprisoned in Spain, following his controversial conviction for cooperating with al Qaeda). The terrorist leader emphasized the costs that the attacks imposed on the United States. "According to their own admissions, the share of the losses on the Wall Street market reached 16 percent," he said. "The gross amount that is traded in that market reaches $4 trillion. So if we multiply 16 percent with $4 trillion to find out the loss that affected the stocks, it reaches $640 billion of losses." He told Allouni that the economic effect was even greater due to building and construction losses and missed work, so that the damage inflicted was "no less than $1 trillion by the lowest estimate."

In his October 2004 address to the American people, bin Laden noted that the 9/11 attacks cost al Qaeda only a fraction of the damage inflicted upon the United States. "Al Qaeda spent $500,000 on the event," he said, "while America in the incident and its aftermath lost -- according to the lowest estimates -- more than $500 billion, meaning that every dollar of al Qaeda defeated a million dollars."

The economic strategy of jihad would go through refinement. Its initial phase linked terrorist attacks broadly to economic harm. A second identifiable phase, which al Qaeda pursued even as it continued to attack economic targets, is what you might call its "bleed-until-bankruptcy plan." Bin Laden announced this plan in October 2004, in the same video in which he boasted of the economic harm inflicted by 9/11. Terrorist attacks are often designed to provoke an overreaction from the opponent and this phase seeks to embroil the United States and its allies in draining wars in the Muslim world. The mujahideen "bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt," bin Laden said, and they would now do the same to the United States.

Next, bin Laden turned to what he saw as America's greatest vulnerability: its reliance on oil. He had not always seen attacks on oil as part of his war: In 1996, he said oil was not part of the battle because it was "a great Islamic wealth and a great and important economic power for the coming Islamic state." But as al Qaeda elevated the importance of economic warfare, attacks on the oil supply became more attractive. One indication was a March 2004 book by Rashid al-Anzi, who has been described as al Qaeda's "minister of propaganda," titled The Laws of Targeting Petroleum-Related Interests and a Review of the Laws Pertaining to the Economic Jihad. Al-Anzi argued that oil wells should be off-limits as a target (because oil wells represent supplies that may be exploited under a caliphate), but that attacks against other facilities, such as pipelines and refineries (so long as they are not privately owned by a Muslim), are "a legitimate means of economic jihad," which is "one of the most powerful ways in which we can take revenge on the infidels."

Bin Laden reached the same conclusion in a December 2004 audiotape in which he finally told his followers to focus their operations on oil production, "especially in Iraq and the Gulf area," because lack of oil would cause the infidels "to die off." Bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, similarly called for al Qaeda fighters to "concentrate their campaigns on the stolen oil of the Muslims" in December 2005.

Al Qaeda-linked militants responded almost immediately. The most significant attempt occurred in February 2006, when AQAP terrorists attacked the refinery at Abqaiq operated by Saudi Aramco. Local news sources played down the incident, but it may have been a nearer miss than official rhetoric allowed. Written evidence submitted to Britain's House of Commons claimed that the terrorists -- who wore Aramco uniforms and drove Aramco vehicles -- managed to enter the first of three perimeter fences. They were only fired upon as they approached the second perimeter fence. Thus, the terrorists either "had inside assistance from members of the formal security operation of the state-owned energy company" in acquiring the vehicles and uniforms, or else "security was sufficiently [lax] that these items could be obtained and entry to the site obtained," the report reads. Neither possibility would be reassuring. A catastrophic attack on the oil supply would have a tremendous economic impact on the United States, which imports roughly 11 percent of its oil from Saudi Arabia.

Al Qaeda's strategy took another turn following the September 2008 collapse of the U.S. economy (for which Zawahiri and other spokesmen promptly claimed credit). Even before AQAP gave that strategy a name and outlined its defining feature -- smaller but more frequent attacks -- a careful reading of key jihadi documents suggested that this was where the strategy was already heading.

To al Qaeda, America's weakened position makes it seem mortal. "How much more can the U.S. Treasury handle?" radical Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki asked this March, months after a young Nigerian named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up a Detroit-bound plane on Christmas Day. "9/11, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and then operations such as that of our brother Umar Farouk which could not have cost more than a few thousand dollars end up draining the U.S. Treasury billions of dollars… For how long can the U.S. survive this war of attrition?"

In a March 2010 video, al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn praised Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan and encouraged Muslims to follow his example. Although Hasan's target was not economic, Gadahn portrayed Hasan as a model to "further undermine the West's already struggling economies with carefully timed and targeted attacks on symbols of capitalism which will again shake consumer confidence and stifle spending."
In that address, Gadahn put his finger on an important insight that AQAP is now reiterating: Even failed attacks can help the jihadists by "bring[ing] major cities to a halt, cost[ing] the enemy billions, and send[ing] his corporations into bankruptcy." Failed attacks, simply put, can themselves be successes. This is precisely why AQAP devoted an entire issue of Inspire to celebrating terror attempts that killed nobody.
A message making this point at length was posted to the Al-Fallujah Islamic forums in December 2009. The author mockingly addressed the security services monitoring the website, asking them to write the following in their reports:

A Very Serious Threat
Source: A Radical Islamist Forum
Warn them that they must protect every federal building and skyscraper, such as: Library Tower (California), Sears Tower (Chicago), Plaza Bank (Washington State), the Empire State Building (New York), suspension bridges in New York, and the financial district in New York.
Nightclubs frequented by Americans and the British in Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia (especially our dear Bali Island), the oil company owned by the former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in Sumatra (Indonesia), and US ships and oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, Gibraltar, and the Port of Singapore.
Let us not forget any airport, seaport, or stadium. Tell them to protect [these places] no matter the cost, day and night, around the clock.

The point is clear: Security is expensive, and driving up costs is one way jihadists can wear down Western economies. The writer encourages the United States "not to spare millions of dollars to protect these targets" by increasing the number of guards, searching all who enter those places, and even preventing flying objects from approaching the targets. "Tell them that the life of the American citizen is in danger and that his life is more significant than billions of dollars," he wrote. "Hand in hand, we will be with you until you are bankrupt and your economy collapses."

Unfortunately, the author, and the editors of Inspire, are all too right: The economics of this fight favor the terrorists, not those seeking to defend against terrorism. Although there is a tone of triumphalism to al Qaeda's latest statements -- and a clear attempt to spin its recent failures -- we would be foolish to ignore the group's warnings and its clearly articulated strategy.

Source: ForeignPolicy.com