Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism

Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Printable Version

+- Forums (http://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Indian Politics, Business & Economy (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Strategic Security of India (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Thread: Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism (/showthread.php?tid=807)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 06-16-2006

Latest Pew Golbal survey out, something that stands out:
QUOTEThe latest survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, conducted among nearly 17,000 people in the United States and 14 other nations from March 31-May 14, finds that the U.S.-led war on terror draws majority support in just two countries - India and Russia

Any surprise?

Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 06-16-2006

The recent events in Afganistan gives an indication that the Talaban is re grouping in certain parts , particulaly in the South. The coalition forces are now trying to fight out these forces but it is yet ot be seen as to how successful we be teir latest move and how long the effect will last.
There is certain limitations and domestic compulsions , so the NATO forces cannot afford to take on too much casuality in such operations.However, it is equally important to ensure that the Talaban do not succeed in its efforts to re group.India has so far been engaged in the rebuilding of the infrastructure of Afganistan, but all its efforts and resources will go wasted if Afganistan cannot be made a secured place.

Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 06-16-2006

QUOTE it is equally important to ensure that the Talaban do not succeed in its efforts to re group
How they are going achieve this?
We know they can't stop prasing Mushy of Pakistan. Till Pakistan is not checked, nothing is going to happen. They are not re-grouping but new cadre is joining with same old vigour with full support of Pakistan.
Why we are not hearing any news on any kind of fire in Rawalpindi HQ anymore?

Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 06-16-2006

India to ratify nuke terror convention

Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 07-19-2006

QUOTEAmerica's ambivalence on terrorism, by Richard M. Bennett
July 14, 2006
Washington's War on Terrorism appears increasingly to be falling short of a coherent and reasoned campaign, with its ambivalent attitude to States like Pakistan which at best provide sanctuary for Islamic extremists and at worst actually support, organise and control major terrorist groups. Pakistan's infamous Inter Service Intelligence agency has long had strong links with Islamic terrorists including both the Taliban in Afghanistan and Kashmiri militants whose actions have already taken the lives of tens of thousands of India's citizens. The fact that the ISI was established with CIA help and has often acted on behalf of their American paymasters must further cast doubt on America's real commitment to fight terrorism.

That India should be the target of a prolonged and vicious Islamic terrorist campaign -- in all probability covertly supported by one of Washington's closest allies in the War on Terrorism -- is perhaps not quite so surprising when seen in the light of the large number of determined espionage operations run by the CIA to steal India's most important secrets.

India's nuclear and missile technology has been broadly targeted as have the war plans of its armed forces. Plans, it should be noted, that most probably relate to any possible future conflict with America's close ally Pakistan.

The broader picture of what increasingly proves to be a disorganised and failing War on Terrorism must include the dramatic failure by the major Western powers in particular to understand that their continued marginalisation of moderate Middle East opinion in favour of openly supporting those often undemocratic, but oil rich Arab States has seen the sidelining of secular and liberal political influence throughout this volatile region.

Power is drifting slowly, but surely into the hands of fundamentalist and extremist Islamic politicians, and without a shadow of doubt, ill thoughtout campaigns launched for the joint purpose of regime change and economic self interest have merely hastened the polarisation of the Middle East.

America for all its undoubted military might has yet again proved quite capable of that remarkable feat of quickly winning the war and slowly losing the peace.

However, the United States position as the world's only superpower is now under threat. Its ability to influence, cajole and even threaten the international community is waning, partly due to its inept handling of major international crisis after crisis, but perhaps more significantly, because of a resurgent and still well armed Russia and the amazing growth of the two Asian giants, India and China.

The United States armed forces must now be rather painfully assessing whether it any longer has the true capability to retain its position in war-torn Afghanistan and Iraq, maintain its support for a myriad of lesser powers propped up by Washington's money and military power and at the same time prepare for potential conflicts with Iran, North Korea and even Venezuela.

Should the answer prove to be a negative, Washington may well be reduced to launching large scale aerial and missile bombardments on the most sensitive targets, without following this up with a highly unpredictable land invasion which, however, remains the only sure way of achieving regime change.

Degraded the military capability of Iran and North Korea would most certainly be, but revenge hungry regimes with a considerable propensity for terrorism are hardly what the Western world needs now or could possibly afford in the future.

The current War on Terrorism grinds on without a possible end in sight. One of its supposed main antagonists, Osama bin Laden, has proved to be a very useful lever to help Washington to get its way over the last five years, and yet the CIA closed down its dedicated anti-Al Qaeda unit in 2005.

Despite this obvious lessening in the perceived importance of bin Laden's organisation, every major terrorist outrage is still laid at Al Qaeda's door. Perhaps it is now time for both Washington and London to come clean and distance themselves from any country that openly or covertly supports any form of terrorism, even if it has previously been a long term and useful ally.

American officials used to refer to certain Third World dictators as 'Bastards, but at least they are our Bastards.' On this basis, of course, Saddam Hussein would still be one of America's closest allies as well!

Richard M Bennett is an intelligence analyst.
http://us.rediff.com/news/2006/jul/14guest1.htm

Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 07-19-2006

QUOTE(Viren @ Jun 16 2006, 12:06 AM)Latest Pew Golbal survey out, something that stands out:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEThe latest survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, conducted among nearly 17,000 people in the United States and 14 other nations from March 31-May 14, finds that the U.S.-led war on terror draws majority support in just two countries - India and Russia

Any surprise?
[right][snapback]52536[/snapback][/right]
</div>
yes. i want to understand why russians would support it. i dont think so the belsan bombings and the chechnian fights are the reason.

Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 08-18-2006

Terrorism and counter-terrorism revisited
The Bush administration says democracy is the answer, but evidence does not support this 

RICHARD N HAASS

Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 08-19-2006

Afghanistan: America's options
Subhash Kapila
QUOTEThe United States has been finally forced to recognize that its laudable political and strategic objective of building Afghanistan into a moderate, democratic Muslim state is seriously endangered by Pakistan, its Major Non-NATO ally in the region.Â
This was very much in evidence when US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was forced to make a long detour in the last week of June, en route to the G-8 Foreign Ministers meeting in Moscow. She spent a day each in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The President of Afghanistan, American military commanders and the NATO Force Commanders in Afghanistan have all agreed that the resurgence of the Taliban, the incidents of terrorism in Kabul and the violence in South and East Afghanistan all originate from Pakistan. These Pakistan-based insurgents are targeting US and British soldiers and the fledgeling Afghan National Army.

The big question is: why this selective targeting of these forces? The answer is that all of them are engaged in the security of Afghanistan's reconstruction and its emergence as a model democratic state with moderate Muslim credentials.

The next big question is, who is interested in preventing Afghanistan's emergence as a model democratic state in the Muslim world? The answer is obvious.

But while Condoleezza Rice made all the correct noises in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the major impression that one gets is that the US Administration continues to be in a "state of denial" over Pakistan's continued involvement in the de-stabilisation of Afghanistan through its proxy organisation, the Taliban.

Years ago, I had predicted that Afghanistan was of greater strategic importance to United States national security interests than Iraq, and suggested that the US should desist from military intervention in Iraq till it stabilizes Afghanistan. This holds more true today.

The United States at no cost should give up or abandon Afghanistan. It is far too important for US strategy in relation to the Gulf Region, the Central Asia region and its "Grand Strategy" on China.

The present ground realities in Afghanistan endanger US end-objectives, and it is high time Washington wakes up to this fact.

However much the US Administration protests that Pakistan's military dictator is a "moderate force" in the Muslim world and that Pakistan is a "staunch ally" of the US in the global war on terrorism, Pakistan's record in terms of the continuing turbulence in Afghanistan is condemnable. Pakistan is guilty of endangering US national security interests in Afghanistan.Â

The US military intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 did not end Pakistan's involvement with the Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Pakistan ever since has been involved in the resuscitation of the Taliban in Afghanistan to revive its strategic aims and hold on Afghanistan.

As a consequence, and despite American pressures, Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and the Al Qaeda and the Taliban hierarchy flourish in Pakistani sanctuaries. From these Pakistani sanctuaries, they continue to generate terrorism, insurgency and violence in Afghanistan so as to coerce the United States and NATO forces to exit Afghanistan.

The Pakistan-Afghan border, despite Pakistani claims of deploying 70,000 troops to seal it, facilitates easy ingress and exit of Taliban cadres engaged in operations in Afghanistan. This arises due to complicity of Pakistan Army and its intelligence agencies.

It is no strange coincidence that the regions in Afghanistan which abound in insurgency and terrorism are the ones which border Pakistan directly.

Is it not strange that the US Administration should be giving clean chits to Pakistan and its military dictator, when the ground realities indicate otherwise? And this is not a new phenomenon; it has been in the making ever since US displaced the Pakistan-protï¿½gï¿½ regime of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

In July 2005, The Washington Post stated that 'In all, the danger is growing that Afghanistan could begin to look like Iraq, with an entrenched insurgency that severely disrupts (US) reconstruction and becomes a magnet for Islamic extremists.'

The situation today is far worse, and calls for decisive action to stem the destabilisation of Afghanistan. The turbulent situation in Afghanistan today arises from the original sins in US policies on Afghanistan. The main mistake was in assuming that Pakistan would be a dependable ally in the implementation of its Afghanistan policies.

At the height of military operation in Afghanistan the United States facilitated the air evacuation of over 12,000 Pakistani Army, ISI and Taliban cadres from Konduz in Northern Afghanistan. Safe air corridors were provided by the US Air Force. This was done to shore up General Musharraf's position in Pakistan.

Subsequent reports now indicate that but for a couple of thousands of Pakistan Army regulars, the remaining thousands evacuated from Konduz were hardcore Taliban cadres who are now re-operating in Afghanistan under Pakistani directons. If this was not enough, the US continued to falter in its misplaced trust of the Pakistani military dictator.

Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar along with their hierarchies were facilitated by the Pakistan Army to withdraw into safe sanctuaries in Pakistan following the Torah Bora operations offensive by US forces. The United States military strategy thereafter was to deploy NATO forces for reconstruction in Northern Afghanistan.

The correct military decision by US would have been to deploy all NATO Forces in Afghan provinces bordering Pakistan to prevent the resurgence of the Taliban. The Northern Provinces of Afghanistan were not a Pakistani preserve and did not require NATO Forces.

It was the Southern and Eastern provinces of Afghanistan which bordered Pakistan, which were the Pakistani preserve. The major deployment of NATO Forces initially should have gone into these provinces.

Even after recognizing Pakistan's perfidy, no major pacification military measures were taken in these provinces. Only in a belated recognition of the above reality, NATO Forces have now been moved to these Afghan provinces, with appreciable military results against the Taliban.

Analytically, the three major deductions that emerge from the analysis above are as follows:

The misplaced US notion that Pakistan is an asset in the prosecution of its national security interests in Afghanistan needs to be dispelled forthwith.

The US must coerce/presurrise Pakistan into severing Taliban's ingress into Afghanistan and dismantling its support structure in Pakistan. Within the US Administration, if not publicly, in-house directives must be initiated that United States national security objectives in Afghanistan override and supersede its interests in Pakistan.

Afghanistan's President Karzai has already publicly declared that the roots of insurgency and terrorism in Afghanistan lie outside it, and that the United States needs to ensure that these are cut. The United States has to ensure that it strikes at these roots in Pakistan. If Pakistan is unable to do so, or expresses helplessness to do so, then the United States should reserve the right to do it unilaterally.Â

Only if the US follows these options can it live up to CondoleezzaÂ Rice's asertion during her visit to Kabul on June 28 that Washington has a strong and enduring commitment to Afghanistan. That the US is committed to fight against the Taliban and other violent extremists threatening the country "until it is victoriously concluded."

"We will not repeat the mistake of leaving Afghanistan once again and of not sustaining out commitment to our relationship," she said.

These are noble words and laudable objectives of the United States, but the fly in the American ointment is Pakistan.

If US national security interests in Afghanistan are to be secured, then the evil spell cast by Pakistan has to be removed.

(Dr Subhash Kapila is an international relations and strategic affairs analyst, and a consultant, Strategic Affairs, with the South Asia Analysis Group. He can be contacted at drsubhashkapila@yahoo.com)


Afghanistan is key to India's strategic security! Since the ancient days, breeding ground of Ghazis. Majaraja Ranjit Singhji had recognized this and indeed continuousely manuvered and effectively managed the Kabul's politics, and so did British.

I think India should deploy its armed forces along side NATO in Afghanistan.

Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 08-27-2006

<!--emo& Sad

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /> Blair subservient to Bush govt: Carter
[ 27 Aug, 2006 2059hrs ISTAP ]

RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

LONDON: Former US president Jimmy Carter lashed out at British Prime Minister Tony Blair for being "so compliant and subservient" to the George Bush administration in Washington.

"I have been surprised and extremely disappointed with Tony Blair's behaviour," the former US president told the Sunday Telegraph newspaper as he promoted his new book Faith and Freedom.

"I think that, more than any other person in the world, the Prime Minister could have had a moderating influence on Washington, and he has not," said the 81-year-old former president of America.

He faulted Blair for not having been a constraint on US President George W Bush's decision to invade Iraq in March 2003 an invasion which, he said, subverted the fight against global terrorism.

"We now have a situation where America is so unpopular overseas that, even in countries like Egypt and Jordan, our approval ratings are less than five percent," said Carter, who was in the White House from 1977 to 1981.

"It's a shameful and pitiful state of affairs, and I hold your British Prime Minister to be substantially responsible for being so compliant and subservient."

Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 09-05-2006

Bush reminds Americans U.S. is at war QUOTE"Bin laden and his terrorist's allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them," the president said before the Military Officers Association of America and diplomatic representatives other countries that have suffered terrorist attacks. "The question is `Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?'"

Quoting extensively from letters, Web site statements, audio recording and videotapes purportedly from terrorists, as well as documents found in various raids, Bush said that al Qaida, homegrown terrorists and other groups have adapted to changing U.S. defenses.


linkQUOTEEarlier today, the administration released an updated counterterrorism strategy. The White House said: "The United States and our partners continue to pursue a significantly degraded but still dangerous al-Qaida network."

"Yet the enemy we face today in the war on terror is not the same enemy we faced on Sept. 11," said the 23-page terrorism strategy update. "Our effective counterterrorist efforts in part have forced the terrorists to evolve and modify their ways of doing business."

Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 09-11-2006

May God grant the strength to those who lost their beloved 1s and also help those whose lives are no longer healthy physically and mentally easpecially rescue workers.
I think, 9/11 is the singlemost turning event of History to which we all are witnesses. The cardinal event out of that was the bravery of the passengers of PA flight which prevented further tragedy.
Saw some people beating the effigy of Osama outside a mosque in CA; I did not hear exactly whether it was by mosque people themselves or outsiders but most probably mosque people.

Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 09-14-2006

QUOTESolidarity 
Our first duty is to stand together against bin Ladenism. 

BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
Monday, September 11, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110008926

Never mind where I was standing or what I was doing this time five years ago. (Because really, what could be less pertinent?) Except that I do remember wondering, with apparent irrelevance, how soon I would be hearing one familiar clichÃ©. And that I do remember hearing, with annoyance, one other observation that I believe started the whole post-9/11 epoch on the wrong foot.

The clichÃ©, from which we have been generally but not completely spared, was the one about American "loss of innocence." Nobody, or nobody serious, thought that this store-bought phrase would quite rise to the occasion of the incineration of downtown Manhattan and 3,000 of its workers. It might have done for the Kennedy assassination or Watergate, but partly for that very reason it was redundant or pathetic by mid-day on September 11, 2001. Indeed, I believe that the expression, with its concomitant naÃ¯ve self-regard, may have become superseded for all time. If so, good. The beginning of wisdom is to recognize that the United States was assaulted for what it really is, and what it understands as the center of modernity, and not for its unworldliness.

But here I am, writing that it was "the United States" that was assaulted. And there was the president, and most of the media, speaking about "an attack on America." True as this was and is, it is not quite the truth. I deliberately declined, for example, an invitation to attend a memorial for the many hundreds of my fellow-Englishmen who had perished in the inferno. I could have done the same if I was Armenian or Zanzibari--more than 80 nationalities could count their dead on that day. It would have been far better if President Bush had characterized the atrocity as an attack on civilization itself, and it would be preferable if we observed the anniversary in the same spirit.

In the past five years, I have either registered or witnessed or protested at or simply "observed" the following:

(1) The reopening of a restaurant in Bali, where several dozen Australian holidaymakers and many Indonesian civilians had earlier been torn to shreds. (2) The explosion of a bomb at a Tube station in London which is regularly used by two of my children. (3) The murder of a senior Shiite cleric outside his place of worship in Iraq. (4) The attempt to destroy the Danish economy--and to torch Danish embassies and civilians--as a consequence of the publication of a few caricatures in the Danish press. (5) The murder of the U.N. envoy to Baghdad: a heroic Brazilian named Sergio Vieira de Mello, as vengeance (according to his murderers) for his role in shepherding East Timor to independence. (6) The near-successful attempt to blow up the Indian parliament in New Delhi, and two successful attempts to disrupt the commerce and society of Mumbai. (7) The destruction of the Golden Dome in Samara: a place of aesthetic as well as devotional importance. (8) The bombing of ancient synagogues in Tunisia, Turkey and Morocco. (9) The evisceration in the street of a Dutch filmmaker, Theo van Gogh, and the lethal threats that drove his Somali-born colleague, a duly elected member of the Dutch parliament, into hiding and then exile. (10) The ritual slaughter on video of a Jewish reporter for this newspaper.

This list is not exhaustive or in any special order, and it does not include any of the depredations undertaken by the votaries of the Iranian version of Islamic fundamentalism. I shall just say that I have stood, alone or in company, with Hindus, Jews, Shiites and secularists (my own non-sectarian group) in the face of a cult of death that worships suicide and exalts murder and desecration. This has not dimmed, for me, the importance of what happened in New York and Washington and Pennsylvania. But it has made me slightly bored with those who continue to wonder, fruitlessly so far, in what fashion "we" should commemorate it.

The time for commemoration lies very far in the future. War memorials are erected when the war is won. At the moment, anyone who insists on the primacy of September 11, 2001, is very likely to be accused--not just overseas but in this country also--of making or at least of implying a "partisan" point. I debate with the "antiwar" types almost every day, either in print or on the air or on the podium, and I can tell you that they have been "war-weary" ever since the sun first set on the wreckage of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and on the noble debris of United Airlines 93. These clever critics are waiting, some of them gleefully, for the moment that is not far off: the moment when the number of American casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq will match or exceed the number of civilians of all nationalities who were slaughtered five years ago today. But to the bored, cynical neutrals, it also comes naturally to say that it is "the war" that has taken, and is taking, the lives of tens of thousands of other civilians. In other words, homicidal nihilism is produced only by the resistance to it! If these hacks were honest, and conceded the simple truth that it is the forces of the Taliban and of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia that are conducting a Saturnalia of murder and destruction, they would have to hide their faces and admit that they were not "antiwar" at all.

One must have a blunt answer to the banal chat-show and op-ed question: What have we learned? (The answer ought not to be that we have learned how to bully and harass citizens who try to take shampoo on flights on which they have lawfully booked passage. Yet incompetent collective punishment of the innocent, and absurd color-coding of the "threat level," is the way in which most Americans actually experience the "war on terror.") Anyone who lost their "innocence" on September 11 was too naÃ¯ve by far, or too stupid to begin with. On that day, we learned what we ought to have known already, which is that clerical fanaticism means to fight a war which can only have one victor. Afghans, Kurds, Kashmiris, Timorese and many others could have told us this from experience, and for nothing (and did warn us, especially in the person of Ahmad Shah Massoud, leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance). Does anyone suppose that an ideology that slaughters and enslaves them will ever be amenable to "us"? The first duty, therefore, is one of solidarity with bin-Ladenism's other victims and targets, from India to Kurdistan.

The second point makes me queasy, but cannot be ducked. "We"--and our allies--simply have to become more ruthless and more experienced. An unspoken advantage of the current awful strife in Iraq and Afghanistan is that it is training tens of thousands of our young officers and soldiers to fight on the worst imaginable terrain, and gradually to learn how to confront, infiltrate, "turn," isolate and kill the worst imaginable enemy. These are faculties that we shall be needing in the future. It is a shame that we have to expend our talent in this way, but it was far worse five years and one day ago, when the enemy knew that there was a war in progress, and was giggling at how easy the attacks would be, and "we" did not even know that hostilities had commenced. Come to think of it, perhaps we were a bit "innocent" after all.

Mr. Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is "Thomas Jefferson: Author of America" (HarperCollins, 2006).

Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 09-19-2006

<!--emo& Sad

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /> Fish Could Detect Terror Attacks
By Marcus Wohlsen
Associated Press
posted: 18 September 2006
04:55 pm ET

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) â A type of fish so common that practically every American kid who ever dropped a fishing line and a bobber into a pond has probably caught one is being enlisted in the fight against terrorism.

San Francisco, New York, Washington and other big cities are using bluegills â also known as sunfish or bream â as a sort of canary in a coal mine to safeguard their drinking water.

Small numbers of the fish are kept in tanks constantly replenished with water from the municipal supply, and sensors in each tank work around the clock to register changes in the breathing, heartbeat and swimming patterns of the bluegills that occur in the presence of toxins.

âNature's given us pretty much the most powerful and reliable early warning center out there,'' said Bill Lawler, co-founder of Intelligent Automation Corporation, a Southern California company that makes and sells the bluegill monitoring system. âThere's no known manmade sensor that can do the same job as the bluegill.''

Since Sept. 11, the government has taken very seriously the threat of attacks on the U.S. water supply. Federal law requires nearly all community water systems to assess their vulnerability to terrorism.

Big cities employ a range of safeguards against chemical and biological agents, constantly monitoring, testing and treating the water. But electronic protection systems can trace only the toxins they are programmed to detect, Lawler said.

Bluegills â a hardy species about the size of a human hand â are considered more versatile. They are highly attuned to chemical disturbances in their environment, and when exposed to toxins, they experience the fish version of coughing, flexing their gills to expel unwanted particles.

The computerized system in use in San Francisco and elsewhere is designed to detect even slight changes in the bluegills' vital signs and send an e-mail alert when something is wrong.

San Francisco's bluegills went to work about a month ago, guarding the drinking water of more than 1 million people from substances such as cyanide, diesel fuel, mercury and pesticides. Eight bluegills swim in a tank deep in the basement of a water treatment plant south of the city.

âIt gave us the best of both worlds, which is basically all the benefits that come from nature and the best of high-tech,'' said Susan Leal, general manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.

New York City has been testing its system since 2002 and is seeking to expand it. The New York City Department of Environmental Protection reported at least one instance in which the system caught a toxin before it made it into the water supply: The fish noticed a diesel spill two hours earlier than any of the agency's other detection devices.

They do have limitations. While the bluegills have successfully detected at least 30 toxic chemicals, they cannot reliably detect germs. And they are no use against other sorts of attacks â say, the bombing of a water main, or an attack by computer hackers on the systems that control the flow of water.

Still, Lawler said more than a dozen other cities have ordered the anti-terror apparatus, called the Intelligent Aquatic BioMonitoring System, which was originally developed for the Army and starts at around $45,000.

San Francisco plans to install two more bluegill tanks.
âIt provides us an added level of detection of the unknown,'' said Tony Winnicker, a spokesman for the city's Public Utilities Commission. âThere's no computer that's as sophisticated as a living being.''

Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 10-05-2006

High-calorie diet fattens prisoners at Guantanamo Bay 
QUOTESAN JUAN, Puerto Rico â A high-calorie diet combined with life in the cell block â almost around the clock in some cases â is making detainees at Guantanamo Bay fat.
Meals totaling a whopping 4,200 calories per day are brought to their cells, well above the 2,000 to 3,000 calories recommended for weight maintenance by U.S. government dietary guidelines. And some inmates are eating everything on the menu.
..................
<!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />

Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 10-06-2006

First time I have heard this, Is it true ?
The FBI and Ptech: A Case To Answer with Indira Singh Part 1 of 2

THE PTECH STORY: Indira Singh, whistleblower, former J P Morgan Chase âRisk architectâ. In her allotted half hour, Indira Singh, an EMT at ... all Â» Ground Zero on 9-11, tells how she later bumped into Ptech, thinking of hiring the high-level information spooks (PROMIS plus) for Morgan Chase. She didnât, but took her growing suspicions and documents to the FBI and the official 911 Commission, which muzzled them. Singh takes us on a quick tour of back door banking and corporate spying and stealing and drugs and terrorism and CIA front organizations involved at every turn. 911CitizensWatch inquiry, NYC Sept. 9

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...&q=indira&hl=en

Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 02-08-2008

Radical cleric to be extradited to U.S.QUOTELONDON, England (CNN) -- Britain's Home Office has signed an extradition order that will send accused terrorist Abu Hamza al-Masri to the United States for prosecution, CNN has confirmed.

Abu Hamza al-Masri's followers include the "shoe bomber" and the only person charged in the 9/11 attacks.

Al-Masri, a one-eyed, hook-handed preacher, already is imprisoned in Britain for inciting racial hatred at his North London mosque.

His legal team has 14 days to appeal the decision. If he does not appeal, he could be handed over to U.S. authorities within 28 days.

A Home Office representative said it is likely Al-Masri will appeal the decision, but they have heard nothing from his lawyers


This is big.

Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 02-08-2008

Abu Hamza al-Masri's flight should have a stop over at Guantanamo Bay so that he can meet his pissful brothers-in-jihad.

Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 02-08-2008

Guantanamo Bay is about to close, he must be heading for Arizona or Guam for roast.

Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Guest - 02-08-2008

QUOTE(Mudy @ Feb 8 2008, 09:25 PM)Guantanamo Bay is about to close, he must be heading for Arizona or Guam for roast.[right][snapback]78182[/snapback][/right]

Why are they closing such an nice entertainment park for the jehadis? On the contrary they should consider expanding it to recieve the new wave of terrorists who are right now being indoctrinated by Al-Qaeda.

Yesterday US military released an video showing Al-Qaeda training small children in conducting kidnapping and handling assault rifles. These are the future of Al-Qeada and they need an exciting place like Guantanamo Bay to enjoy their life to the fullest.

Geopolitics And The War On Terrrorism - Capt M Kumar - 04-14-2010

The report concludes with a warning not only to Russia but also to the US and its Nato allies operating in Afghanistan. The report also has an intriguing reference to robbing of banks, financial institutions and other unconventional means of fund raising. It must be noted that there is a precedent in ransom money from high-profile kidnapping being used to fund terror attacks. Ilyas KashmiriÃ¢â¬â¢s associates have been accused in the kidnapping of actress Juhi ChawlaÃ¢â¬â¢s uncle and film producer Satish Anand in Pakistan. http://www.dailypioneer.com/248880/A-sinister-trap-for-Moscow.html