Who is on the "Enemies List"

[tw]

Although not proven, it appears defacto that bin Laden is the primary target of this war. However Bush has also included others, unnamed, on our 'Enemies List'. Anyone who provided aid and support to bin Laden will also appear on that list - we think. So who is on that list?

The obvious suspect nations are Afghanistan and Iraq. (Ironically, Iran's response could result in an improved America/Farsi relationship).

If Afghanistan is on the list, the military callup will be mostly light infantry and airborne equipment. The US Army has yet to trust Delta, et al to conduct any serious military operations. In fact the US military so feared to commit 'sneakies' to any operation in Iraq, that eventually and out of frustration, it was the British SAS that finally stopped most Scud missile launches in Western Iraq and only after British government demanded that the SAS be permitted to do so. Neither the Air Force could nor US special forces tried.

But a war in Afghanistan must be using light infantry and Airborne resources to back up Special Forces. Again, this will be quite a reversal in Pentagon thinking. (Again aircraft carriers will be useless in battle).

If Iraq is on the list, then the US will have reason to go to Baghdad. However, and again, this will require support from adjacent countries. Saudia Arabia is unlikely to support such an operation. Turkey, whose President wanted to conduct their own invasion of Iraq in 1990, does not have the same, gun-ho leadership. IOW if we go to Baghdad, it will test most decisively the leadership abilities of George Jr. He does not have anyone the equivalent (I fear) of James Baker who so phenomenally put together the coalition that George Sr. required. If Iraq is proven complicatory, then Geroge Jr has all but required us to invade Baghdad.

In every case; in every failure; and every resulting action was previously predicted by the many who 'come from where the work gets done'. Air crew complaints; even testimony before Congress that was ignored, is now getting consideration in Congress. If Congress is really more interested in more than their own self serving biases, then they will do what every - yes every - relevant security organization has long requested. They have all demanded the closing of National (Reagan) Airport. Unfortunately for us, National Airport has only had one supporter - a self serving Congress.

If Congress is finally interatest in national security, then National Airport will never reopen. But Congress must also address another issue they have ignored.


Here is the rub. These terrorist activities did not require support from any nation. This and previous operations only required cash - lots of cash. bin Laden has that cash. But who is his banker? Again, people who 'come from where the work gets done' have been complaining bitterly about our International Banking system. Every attempt to trace bin Laden's cash has been thwarted by some members of the international banking system. That system is probably the real source of bin Landen's support. The international banking system is probably more responsible for current events than any nation. Certain country's international banking systems should really be on that "enemies list".

International bankers and international regulators have complained for more than the last decade that some countries openly support international corruption just to obtain more banking business. First nations that come to mind - Cayman Islands and Switzerland. But the list of ten countries most likely to have provided the finanical support for bin Laden is rather interesting. It does not include Cayman Islands or Switzerland. Although I don't currently have the list, these two countries are on that list are representative of that list: Bahamas and Israel. Other members (I think) had been posted by me previously in The Cellar.

The US has had the muscle but not the will power to expose and eliminate these gapping holes in international corruption. It may have taken 5,000 lives - American and International - to finally go to war on those who financed current events. The corrupt members of the International finance community should be a major frontline of this newly declared 'war'. It is indeed a new kind of war. Just that the public has yet to hear who has really provided aid and support to the primary suspect.

The 'Enemies List' may not include nations. It may actually include the banking systems in countries we consider friendly. Again, Congress did not have the will power to address this security problem. Hopefully they will not only close National Airport, but will also empower the international banking community to punish those rouge international bankers. The most important support that bin Laden's people got was international finance. Yes, it will be a new kind of war.

[tw]

Who is really an ally? Who encourages money laundering? Why is the Northern Alliance so important?

Over 50 countries lost citizens in the WTC. Topping the list by numbers are Britian, Germany, Chile, Columbia, and Canada. The WTC attack may be the largest single loss of British civilians since WWII.

Curious are those who would stand solidly behind the US. Australia said they will send troops for any military action. Britian's Tony Blair is most responsible for rallying an international condemnation - having personally called so many world leaders. Recently, George Jr declared a US / Mexican relationship as the most important to the US - a direct snub to both Canada and Britian - and even Germany. So where is Mexico? They simply condem the attack whereas 'less important relationships' such as Australia and Britian would send troops to war? Where are the promised Mexican troops?

George Jr's destruction of US international relations, as exampled by his pre-WTC comments, demonstrates he requires so much international education when he no longer has time to learn. We currently need a President that is a quick learner - so that he can personally call upon most world leaders. Below is just part of the complexity.


BTW, we have yet to hear from Saddam Hussein whose history is to test every new American and British leadership.


bin Laden required no nation's support for his operations. International money laundering was the support he required - and got.

Who are on the list of potential money laundering nations - where a terrorist organization can finance international terrorism without any nation's support? Banking in Pacific Island of Nauru, Lebanon, Russia, and the republic of Montenegro. Both the Cayman Islands and Bahamas insist they have stopped issuing licenses for 'shell' banks - so often used in the money laundering process - but did not announce the closing of existing shell banks said to number between 400 and 600 in both countries.

From The Economist of 14 Apr 2001:
"... OECD’s Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which was established in 1989. Last July, it published a blacklist of 15 jurisdictions, ranging from Russia and Israel to the Marshall Islands, that are "non-co-operative" with its anti-money-laundering efforts."

Just another of many reasons that America should strongly reasses all relations with Israel dominated by an extremist, right wing religious and racist government. America's recently revived support for this government, according to many indepedent experts, is considered one significant reason why current and future terrorist target the US. It is one reason why Indonesia's Vice President feels that the US is being punished for its past sins.

Some countries actively trying to be removed from the FATF blacklist are Switzerland, Austria, and Cayman Islands.

However even inside the US are forces that would quash any effort to suppress money laundering. Again noted by The Economist:
""Phil Gramm, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, recently boasted that "I killed the (Clinton) administration’s anti-money-laundering legislation last year" - which would have banned dealings with banks in certain outlawed jurisdictions. He added that reform was "not on my agenda", because America has strong laws already."" This powerful right wing extremist TX Senator said this despite testimony to the contrary from those who come from where the work gets done; those we now know were correct. They tried to track bin Laden's money trail during the Clinton years but were denied access by laws that Gramm said were unnecessary. Makes you wonder who Phil Gramm was protecting. Where are his campaign contributions coming from?


The WTC attack is not believed to be an isolated incident. The Taliban do not control all of Afghanistan. The Lion of Panjshir, Ahmad Shah Masoud, earned his reputation in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Only his "personality and presence" (The Economist) is said to hold together the moderate, anti-Taliban coalition called Northern Alliance. "" "Without Pakistan", said Mr Masoud, "the Taliban cannot last for six months." ""

Last Sunday, before the WTC attack, a video camera carried by Algerian or Moroccan (phony) journalists exploded definitely killing or seriously injuring many top Masoud advisors or ambassadors. Was Masoud killed? IOW, Afghan permission for the WTC attack may have been in exchange for the bin Laden assasination of the Taliban's most feared enemy. This video camera bombing has bin Laden operational characteristics.

Masoud, once a most feared guerilla leader, is (or was) supported by Russia. Only Saudia Arabia, United Arab Emerites, and Pakistan regarded the Taliban as leaders of Afghanistan.

Is Masoud dead? Listen carefully to the news. He could have been a major asset in the war against bin Laden. He has disappeared and reappeared many times before. If the US is at war with the Taliban, Masoud's presence in cooperation with his Russian support will be an asset for those future battles.

Who is the enemy? I have tried to keep it simple. Provided should be information sufficient to understand who and what mentioned trivially in press reports is really a front line event - either as a friend or as an obstruction. Military movements may just distract you from a real battleground. Watch. For example, Sen Phil Gramm was an obstruction. Will he make amends? Watch the news - and not the local gossip.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by tw
Recently, George Jr declared a US / Mexican relationship as the most important to the US - a direct snub to both Canada and Britian - and even Germany. So where is Mexico? They simply condem the attack whereas 'less important relationships' such as Australia and Britian would send troops to war? Where are the promised Mexican troops?

We already have warm cordial relationships w/Canada and the UK. I seriously doubt that either country got their panties in an uproar over that one. Their assistance to us is, unfortunately, already understood. Mexico is another story. Our relations with them have not always been the best. Their government has always had a tinge of corruption. Many of their people are risking their lives to head north. Now Mexico has a leader who, from what I know of the man, is a lot like Dubya. Not to mention, Mexico is poor as hell. The US is trying to help lead them to some sort of prosperity, or as I see it, trying to get them stable so that people won't want to leave as much anymore.

George Jr's destruction of US international relations, as exampled by his pre-WTC comments, demonstrates he requires so much international education when he no longer has time to learn. We currently need a President that is a quick learner - so that he can personally call upon most world leaders. Below is just part of the complexity.

Perhaps I'm seeing it from a different viewpoint, but to be honest--and I am not a fan of Dubya--I don't see where he has faltered so badly on international relations.

America's recently revived support for this government, according to many indepedent experts, is considered one significant reason why current and future terrorist target the US.

tw, i've asked this before, but don't remember getting an answer: Just how has the United States been supporting this current Israeli government, when if anything, the US has been the one admonishing it like a little kid over the past several months? I saw a hell of a lot more support when Barak and Rabin were prime ministers.

It is one reason why Indonesia's Vice President feels that the US is being punished for its past sins.

But now Indonesia is supporting us in our efforts. Another key ally--the world's largest Muslim country.

For example, Sen Phil Gramm was an obstruction. Will he make amends? Watch the news - and not the local gossip.

Does he even care anymore? He's leaving in 2 years, along with Helms and Thurmond. And the conservatives go marching off into the sunset...a good chance for the Dems to solidify their win earlier this year.

[tw]

Originally posted by sycamore
tw, i've asked this before, but don't remember getting an answer: Just how has the United States been supporting this current Israeli government, when if anything, the US has been the one admonishing it like a little kid over the past several months? I saw a hell of a lot more support when Barak and Rabin were prime ministers.

The US provides most foreign aid to only five countries. Top of the list is Israel. Figures put Israel and Eygpt together at about 50% of US foreign aid. Why do we still provide so much aid to a nation now run by a racist government?

Ironically it is Powell who kepts blaming Arafat - not Sharon - for "just not getting it". Powell sees offers made during negotiations but forgets Israel's history of promising so much at the negotiation table, then slowly withdrawing bits and pieces during the process. It is those takebacks during the execution of details that Powell forgets and Arafat so remembers. Israel said details could be negotiated later - just as in the Oslo Accords that are being taken apart detail by detail after right wing Israeli extremists all but assasinated Rabin. The only reason negotiations failed during the Clinton period - Israel refused to sign onto the details even through Arafat was ready to define those details right then and there.

We still support Israel - massively. We could have forced Israel to work out the details in advance by withdrawing our own aid detail by detail. But the details for all that US aid are already defined - in detail. Ironic?


What is the EU's largest criticism of current US Middle East policy? From this week's The Economist:
""Speaking just a few hours before the attacks on New York and Washington, a sernior Eurpean Union official said that EU policymakers were in "despair at the lack of American engagement" in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis."" It is that lack of engagement that only strengthens the position of the extremist and known murder, Ariel Sharon, at the expense of moderate Palestinians such as Arafat. It is also that lack of engagement that helps Arab extremists recruit from the ranks of moderates. It is that lack of engagement that provides more support to the current Israeli right wing extremist government. It is that lack of engagement that empowers all Middle East extremists at the expense of moderates.

Those are but two reasons how the US still supports Israel.

[tw]

Originally posted by tw
""Phil Gramm, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, recently boasted that "I killed the (Clinton) administration’s anti-money-laundering legislation last year"

Originally posted by sycamore
Does he even care anymore? He's leaving in 2 years, along with Helms and Thurmond. And the conservatives go marching off into the sunset...a good chance for the Dems to solidify their win earlier this year.

Whether HE cares is irrelevant. Much of the tools necessary for anti-terrorism were known, needed, and denied by those who have been in power too long - the definition of a corrupt politician. Phil Gramm is an example of the problem. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. We have a Sen Phil Gramm bragging about quashing something that was necessary for both anti-terrorism and anti-corruption. Where is his apology?

Same attitude currently applies to a Congress that saved National Airport - a direct slap in the face to all Washington area security agencies - including the Pentagon.

It is irrevelant whether Gramm, or Helms, or Hatch are leaving. The point is to learn again from the history of extreme right wing politicans who have also been in power too long. Whether it be a successful terrorist attack, or inventing lies about a black Congressman so that she will not be an ambassador, or filling the prisons using racist, mandatory sentencing for acts that should never be a crime - all three are directly traceable to people long since out of touch with reality for both above reasons.

Also the point is - will Sen Phil Gramm acknowledge he was wrong? If he does not care anymore, because he was retiring, then would an honest Senator at least acknowledge his mistake? Also does this lesson, existing requirements for term limits, and current news rumors have something in common?

Not only did Sen Gramm make terrorism easier, but he will not even acknowledge, let alone apologize, for putting partisan politics (sticking it to Clinton) above national interests.

[Griff]

The big problem with tw's whole line of thought here is that he irrationally believes that our government can protect us from terrorism. The tools of the terrorist are cheap and readily available. Halting the free flow of capital, as represented by Phil Gramm, while serving tw's other political goals would be or will be ineffective. Other attacks on freedom will follow. From censorship to gun control to national IDs encroachments on our liberties will do nothing to make us safer. Reducing freedom here will only create potential domestic terrorists. What we are seeing is opportunism by statists using our present crisis of confidence to push their extremist agenda.

The only way to reduce terrorism is to reduce hatred of America overseas. That means getting our boot off the throats of the Iraqi people after ten long years of bombing, getting our troops out of Saudi Arabia (holy ground to the muslim faithful), and ending our financial backing for Israel. We need to give up our interventionism.

I heard Doris Kearns Goodwin, cheerleader for the omnipotent state, preaching that one of the main reasons we are despised by extremist moslems is the equal status of women in our culture. Bush keeps saying we are hated because we have freedom. I consider both these responses to be at best idiotic at worst simple war propaganda. As Joe Sobran put it, "They don't hate us for our virtues, they hate us for our vices."