After Osama Bin Ladin's Abu Jindal Declaration of War on America-Evolution of Economic Attacks?

Since Osama Bin Ladin speaking at his Abu Jindal terrorist training camp in Afghanistan declared in 1998 that he would send attacks upon American targets, U.S. intelligence and military services had had a difficult time keeping up with the latest Al Qa’eda T.O.E. (table of evolution). http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/militia-fac.htm

When the United States allowed al Qa’eda to escape from Tora Bora and Khandahar with the Taliban of Afghanistan the terrorist organizations were able to return to former friendly locales in Pakistan and more recently Kashmir. Al Qa’eda today may have more terrorist training infrastructure than it did in 1998-the year that Pakistan detonated five nuclear bombs at once to demonstrate to India their nuclear capability.

http://www.currentintelligence.net/agenda/2010/7/5/al-qaeda-in-kashmir.html

http://kashmirihindu.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/taliban-al-qaeda-linked-to-kashmir/

Pakistan has had a history since 1947 of support for radical Muslim terrorist organization fundamentally to war against Indian political and military forces in Kashmir. Pakistani intelligence and military services have largely controlled these organizations. Terrorist networks of large jihadist groups such as Hizbul Mujahideen are quite bloody and ruthless even purging rival jihadist organizations by the thousands. These organizations with Kashmiri insurrectionist goals have long trained and even fought in Afghanistan.

Al Qa’eda has declared a new branch for Kashmir named al Qaeda in Kasmir. Without a good regional approach to terrorist management abroad, and a new ecological economic pro-nationalist spin on full employment for U.S. citizens and no immigration of cheap, destabilizing foreign labor the prospects for American defrapping of the fundamentalist Muslim assault upon western civilization funded largely by oil sales profit sharing diminish.

It would be a fine thing if some Nobel Peace Prize winning political liberator like China's Liu Xiaobo emerge to lead the Central Asian Muslim world away from the road to global terrorist jihad, yet that seems unlikely.

Because the U.S. economic structure has moved away from a monetary base with money function generally as an intermediate abstract trade device to one in which the manipulation of money and finance debases the value of real material production the United States has moved into an economic milieu with more regard for the possession of the intrinsically worthless paper than of the well being of citizens.

Financial networking has become the main producer of more money (besides the dubiously honorable U.S. Federal Reserve that may just print up money to buy federal bonds thus further debasing the value of material production). Even home mortgages have become commodified and tradable en masse by foreign concerns. The development of global financial networks that have undermined U.S. material security and production values of material goods in a practical sense have made the United States vulnerable to foreign economic terrorism. In reliance upon foreign oil and a corrupting and implicitly environmentally obsolete economic structure the United States places itself on the auction block of financial terrorism and Muslim intrigue. Plainly if al Qa’eda were to take out the Saudi Ras Tannura oil facility or otherwise close down mid-east oil sales right away the U.S. economy would plunge into depression.

Al Qa’eda is unlikely to destroy the primary source of Saudi, Sunni, Wahhabist wealth. The Arab terrorists training in Pakistan and possibly Kashmir share the same religious and national credentials even if from an antipathetic economic position in some instances.

Not much can be said for American prospects for not merging through much terrorism and financial defeat to eventual Muslim control and even Sharia if the nation’s leadership is simply stupid, lazy and greedy. There is no guarantee of anything politically in the wild kingdom.

Mini-Submarines as Nuclear Bomb Package Delivery Vectors (The Gomar Khan Factor)

Since 1996 a variety of home-built semi submersible submarines have been fabricated to deliver cocaine to the United States from Columbia. Many of these large smuggling vehicles are apprehended by legal authorities, perhaps some are not. The potential for manufacturing very small, completely submersible drone craft to deliver a nuclear bomb to a harbor city such as San Francisco, Los Angeles or Anchorage Alaska, Boston or Washington D.C. via the Chesapeake Bay is manifest. Launched from an approaching ship, fishing boat or seafood processor offshore, made to carry at bomb at a set depth such as 400 feet at a slow speed, the minimal drone submersible travelling along may methodically make its way to the harbor to explode.

http://www.niuginidiving.com/japsub.html

http://www.heiszwolf.com/subs/plans/plans.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco_submarine

http://www.psubs.org/store

We believe the engineering and fabrication capacity for production of minimallly detectable mini-submarines is well within the ability of numerous fundamentalist Muslim terrorist organizations. If launched over the side perhaps 100 miles from the U.S. coast, or from international fishing boats in the Gulf of Alaska, successfully delivery of a drone, automatically guided mini-submarine nuclear bomb package is evident. Besides the Mexican border infiltration route, the undersea route is also quite real.

The Bush administration in 2008 produced a Homeland Security measure to defend against small boat ingression of weapons deliver packages by terrorists, yet we remain unconvinced that a foreign fishing vessel in international waters beyond Kodiak could not introduce a mini-submersible drone to crawl up Cook Inlet to Anchorage, or alternatively from the Grand Banks into Boston Harbor.

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2008/04/28/homeland-security-unveils-plans-to-thwart-small-boat-terror-attacks/

Pakistan has about 100 nuclear warheads and has miniaturized some for use on missiles. It is increasing its plutonium producing capacity, nad manufactures a significant about of plutonium. The Nagasaki bomb used in World War Two had only 6 kilograms of Pu-239. A good plutonium bomb needs only 8 to 11 kilograms, and the Pakistanis spike their bombs with tritium, and a few ounce of that makes a nuclear bomb 300% more explosive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Making a mini-submarine drone able to deliver a 30 to 40 pound bomb of U-239 doesn't seems that difficult. With the I.S.I., the Taleban, al Qa'eda and a plethora of additional terrorist groups good buddies, perhaps new border security control measures should be taken to screen out the big bang the first time it's launched.

Kashmir, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan & U.S. Foreign Policy

This is a brief article to describe some elements of the equilibrium of terrorist organization location, activity and relationship in the central Asian region, as I understand it. For an American citizen with interests besides those of foreign policy objectives and analysis there is quite a lot of time consuming reading required to get a meaningful idea of the relationships in this area.

The U.S. Defense budget is just about the largest expense annual in the U.S. federal budget. We as citizens are told by the military from year t year that the 'war' must go on for several years for national defense. We also wonder if the cost is worth the return. Since it is our federal budget, we have no necessity of signing carte blanche these checks too fund military, defense contractors and C.I.A. ventures abroad. National interest might be in making our own nation prosper rather than those of central Asia.

So we wonder; is the premise that installing a friendly government in Afghanistan will halt most al Qaeda terrorist attacks on the United States valid. Another point possible, desirable and so forth. We wonder how many years that will take, and what the opportunity for the United States will be?

The origin of terrorist training camps and organizations in Pakistan goes back to the early 19th century. Jihadist organizations sought to repel the noon-Muslim British occupiers. Yet we will skip over that to the more recent 1940's, 1970s and 1980's when two more recent political conflicts stimulated the formation of jihadist terrorist training organizations in Pakistan.
The first and most significant cause was the sectarian separation of India and Pakistan and their fight to control Kashmir. On one side is the Hindu Indian Government with the legal title to Kashmir and on the other is the majority population of Muslims with decades long support continuing to the present of training of jihadist Muslim guerilla fighters. The 1972 line of control roughly divided Kashmir and Jammu in half and is a good enough permanent boundary, yet neither nation (Pakistan or India) would be happy with that, and the additional problem of Kashmiri Muslim guerrillas fighting for Kashmiri national independence form both Pakistan and India also exists.

The Pakistan Intelligence Service and military have worked for decades in providing training and support for Kashmiri Muslim jhadist guerrilla fighters. Pakistani leaders have supported the constellation of terrorist training camps and have provided arms and munitions including some from the United States.

The Afghanistan war against the Soviets and the Afghan civil war following led to the Taliban taking control of most of the nation. The Taliban were formed in Pakistan and simply move south when American forces are present. It is possible that a natural selection of fundamentalist Muslim leaders are elevated to lead the Taliban and that to negotiate with the United States would be suicidal in effect, for the Taliban would be at the top of one jihadist pyramid and unlikely to receive broad popular support in the jihadist community if they fraternized with the infidels much. U.S. concepts of negotiating with theTaliban seem destine to just create a Hamas effect of shifting the violence to another terrorist organization and infrastructure supported at sometime by the Pakistani I.S.I. (intelligence service).

The United States to reduce the terrorist training in Pakistan would need to settle the Kashmir issue satisfactorily to all concerned parties first. That would reduce tensions between India and Pakistan. Pakistan does not want Indian involvement in Afghanistan and were probably happy when the Indian embassy in Kabul was blown up in 2008.

From my point of view it seems improbable that the Indian-Pakistani boundary, water rights and Kashmir control issues will be solved in the next year or two, and that means more pressure for Pakistan to support Muslim jihadist guerrillas to train in Northern Pakistan to establish terror structures and cells in Kashmir. Whenever Pakistan regulars go to fight in Kashmir as they have in the past against Indian forces it escalates the conflict--and that could lead to a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India potentially.

A comprehensive solution to the problems of Pakistan and Kashmir seems an essential element of a plan to have peace in Afghanistan. It is dubious that peace and stability in Afghanistan would itself eliminate the terrorist dangers to U.S. interests, for al Qa'eda and the Taliban merely moved south and east when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and are flourishing there today.
Perhaps Bin Ladin is in an alp near Nanga Parbat in Kashmir with a few wives enjoying the good, rural life-who can say? At six foot five Oz bin Ladin is a striking king of figure in some regards, and one unlikely to be followed by the paparazzi for some years. Because the U.S. Government does not say what its comprehensive India-Pakistan-Kashmir-Afghanistan policy is, we have no basis to determine if it is competent or not, or if there is not a need to formulate a better and more effective policy to reduce the development of terrorism in the region.

Collectivist Capitalism vs. Compassionate Capitalism

This is actually a fairly simple distinction. Capitalism that grows from an individual or family’s personal work building assets without exploiting other people is compassionate capitalism, while the impersonal stock investment, M.B.A. networking trans-national globalism business approach is collectivist. The collectivists are cold-blooded while the small time capitalist is compassionate and cares about his own work and building up of resources.

Adam Smith, the modern spiritual founder of capitalism, wrote largely in support of compassionate capitalism inclusive of trade. There weren't the sort of large-scale networked corporations in existence in his day that built up huge global capital advantages and leveraging monetary sophistication. It is quite a stretch to transmogrify The Wealth of Nations into a support for absolute abstract modern business practices and monetary policy. One must be disingenuous to extend Smith's Wealth of Nations so far as that.

Adam Smith was a pragmatic economist and held the welfare of the people of England of his day-of the ordinary people, as being of first concern. He sought for methods to understand, improve and describe more ideal forms of economic methods. One of the fundamental challenges of his day was to liberalize trade and business from the corrupting control of concentrated wealth in the form of royal power or taxation that was not spent to advance the interests of the people of England.

Thus in the United States today compassionate capitalists may rightly oppose foreign military spending in badly thought out ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. We know that jihad by the U.S. Government in Afghanistan is opposed by jihadists from Kashmir, Pakistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world. Our jihad is an economic one, for the military industrial complex makes a vast fortune on the enterprises, while the goal of preventing terrorist attacks through the installation of a toady regime in Kabul is unlikely to stop the sources of jihad in Pakistan, Kashmir and elsewhere. Better policy is required. What does the expense do to increase the standard of living of the poor and middle class in the U.S.A.?

Compassionate capitalist support a general increase of wealth in the United States for all citizens and of a healthy ecosystem. They have their eyes open and look at the real world and not just abstract profit and loss statements or throughput concepts and expanding networked, corporate power and market control.

Compassionate capitalist support practical limits on the opportunity for individual citizens to control other through the acquisition of monetary wealth and leveraged investments. Social capital may be perceived as differing from compassionate capital and should be limited. A democracy has the freedom to choose to limit the power that collective business enterprises may gain because of their capacity to oppress the citizenry and harm the security of the nation's ecological environment. It is reasonable that a maximum percent of the gross national product held by any legally individual entity such as a corporation or individual might be set in order to prevent tyranny.

Compassionate capitalists would be concerned that the poor would all have free health care and that the environment is getting better and recovering toward a more natural condition of health viable for centuries ahead rather than in decline perennially. Compassionate capitalists would be aware that all citizens require life-long secure housing and would reverse the legislation that eliminated Glass-Steagle protections on home mortgages. A home should not be a financial chip for of interest to global collective capitalist acquisition.

Instead of the duplicitous policy of building quarter million dollar homes for entry level workers to buy with dubious prospect for three decades of job security ahead the Government rightly should encourage a generation of low cost affordable ecologically no net loss of biota energy generating homes. Compassionate capitalists could readily support low-cost affordable housing that is beneficial to the environment comparatively and realistically is a base for self-sufficiency, home gardening and so forth.

While the collectivist capitalist trait is product disposability, through-put for profit and impersonal conformity if citizen reasoning the compassionate capitalist endeavors to assure that all citizens are secure in their home and possessions and that a conservation principle of ecological husbandry overtakes and corrects the wastage of collectivist capitalism.

Bike Ideas & The Kashmir Concept©2010 Gary Clifford Gibson

Recently I broke several spokes simultaneously on a bicycle. With winter approaching and the prospect of riding becoming more dangerous with an increased chance of crashing on asphalt or hard packed snow I thought it might be good to change the usual structure of bike wheels and tires to a more snow and ice friendly format.

It can be challenging to fix a flat tire in the snow, and larger rubber tires weigh more than thin tires yet a wider tire offers a better surface for riding on snow and icy surfaces. Why not increase the tire size and reduce the weight while eliminating the possibility of getting a flat tire?

There are several no-flat tire systems in existence that tend to weigh a lot or be fairly costly. It could be best to change the shape of bike wheels and tires together.

Of course I think a three wheel trike with two wheels and a cargo boot aft would be safer than a two-wheel bike for riding on ice and snow, yet the new wheels and tires should work equally wheel for either and the tires and wheels should work well in warm environments as well.

The new wheels would be of a convex shape something like a half-moon with the curved surface facing outward and a few thick spokes meeting the hub. The tires would be half moon shaped also and not inflated with air at all. For shock absorbing they would be a little like those running shoes popular nowadays with a little built in pseudo spring or shock absorber-yet not made of steel.

The half-moon tires might be of double thickness with a little air space and a lot of small half-inch or so shock absorbers. The tire could be in curved sections instead of in a completely round shape since they are not inflated and are lightweight. It would be possible for these pseudo-tire riding surface to just bolt on to the wheel in various sections-perhaps quarter wheel sections in order to permit alternate bolting on of studded tires for winter riding on ice.

The back of these tire sections could have a curved backing of fiberglass, aluminum or some suitable material to contact the wheel-actually there are innumerable methods of attaching the tire halves to the wheel.

It might be possible to make some sort of a film for-profit about a bicycle designer who goes to live in Kashmir in order to design the fastest bicycle wheel and bike design for competitive road racing. Perhaps he could be a former world champion bike rider who was injured after winning his first race and lost his medal because of a false doping charge later.

The fortyish bike designer could still be in excellent shape and meet some woman who has a father that was involved in some local political movement and killed unjustly by either partisans or government forces or foreign agents.

The designer and the Indian woman could together survive numerous efforts by foreign agents to steal the new bike in order to allow a sectarian rider to win the tour de France and provide a platform for rebellion and a coup d’etat of Jammu and Kashmir to form a terrorist training base.

Of course the bike designer could ride his new bike at high speed across the Himalayan and over the Indus River headwaters on a bridge while being pursued by terrorist jihadists firing full metal jacket AK-47 bullets at the bike designer. I won’t give the ending of the story away. Let’s just say. The bike-riding champion also enjoys skydiving.

Federal Over-Regulation of Select Labor Concerns May Reduce National Competetiveness

The United States is a republic at the Federal level and a democracy at the state’s level. The Federal government foisted media rule of wealth on the nation, and it is a pervasive force for aristocracy and evil. It is important to remember that the United States had an implicit competitive factor amidst them that can be defeated by federal uniformity requirements. For example, if the minimum wage is standard the states can have no regional wage labor competition advantage over others and employers that exploit cheap labor must relocate to Mexico or destroy wage labor values by making the Mexican border transparent to illegal workers and jihadists.

It does not require communism to be politically in opposition to rule by the rich, the few and the aristocratic--remember the American revolution? it also had land reform in it-a concept that would make today's toadying conservative tremble with rage that their master's share could be diminished.

It is a common error of sycophants to mistake one form of totalitarianism or tyranny for another--if not on column A then it must be from column B. The logic is faulty. Such people tend to believe that democracy and equal access are in some way 'communist' and they are completely wrong.

The broadcast media control by the rich is plain political corruption. Today's politicians are incapable of political reform that would better defend national interests,; they are runts of a sort bought and paid for by the rich.

A Rush Limbaugh will come out swinging in support of tax cuts for the top two percent, while a Billionaire Buffet of Berkshire Hathaway comes out in t against the tax cuts because the rich can afford it and the nation is in financial crisis. He is a patriot while Rush Limbaugh is a kiss up.

I am a supporter of free speech equal opportunity to the broadcast wavelengths for myself and all other citizens on a realistic basis. If I advocate for my own interests it is not therefore 'communism'. I am not a commune myself.

Sometime I will write about the differences between Collective Capitalism vs. Compassionate Capitalism. Perhaps the nation has forgotten that boundaries and real concern for neighbors and nation are at the core of the American Dream.

U.S. Foreign Policy Challenges; Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Lashkar-i-Taiba

U.S. Foreign policy is presently engaged in the midst of a political quagmire with Pakistan. Since that nation formed in 1947 in a divorce form India as the British gave independence, each nation has fought over turf and water. Kashmir and Jumma-a former princely kingdom has the headwaters of several important rivers that flow south and west useful for irrigation and drinking. Perhaps the fight over a divided Kashmir and Jumma is fundamentally about water rights as much as real estate.

The allocation of Kashmir and Jumma was made by a British administrator drawing a line on a map and neither India or Pakistan has been able to reconcile to the difficult boundary apportionment. Pakistan trained as many as a half a million terrorists or guerillas to fight Indian forces in Kashmir the last 30 years. One of the essential terrorist training entities is Lashkar-I-Taiba.

Pakistan’s main intelligence service named the I.S.I. worked closely with establishing several lashkars (tribal militias) in the Northern Territories of Pakistan to trained jihadists to fight the hated Hindu military in Kashmir. The American C.I.A. also got involved in supplying and encouraging terrorist-guerilla fighters to battle the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. The constellation of jihadist training camps has also supported the Taliban of Pakistan and the Taliban of Afghanistan in addition to Al-Qa’eda. The I.S.I. haven’t much interest in ‘turning off’ these Sunni terrorist training facilities much because of Pakistan political concerns.

Pakistan has a perennial concern about renewed war with India. Neither does Pakistan want Afghanistan to become influenced much by Hindus of India. Pakistan is a poor nation with an officially Sharia based constitution and like the U.S. Congress avoids intelligent policy decisions because extremists in each major party compel extremism.

Pakistan has a weak civilian government and education system. It is under funded and not very powerful. Often the military is called in to rule for a time, and the military is paradoxically the most secular of the major political forces in Pakistan. The Intelligence service is rifled with fundamentalist sympathizers, as increasingly is the military. When the United States alerted Pakistan that it was sending cruise missiles to hit Osama Bin Ladin in 1996 (I believe it was), he was alerted within minutes and departed the scene in Afghanistan.

Pakistan has a protracted and difficult to manage internal political economic and an ambiguous relationship with India regarding stability. The Kashmir status is unsettled and has hundreds of thousands if not millions of economically and socially challenged people with allegiance as much to fundamentalist concepts including jihad as much as to any particular government ruling entity. Many rural people would prefer to simply live well, yet the nature of western capitalism precludes the good neighborliness approach any way from being a practical economic development paradigm. Even in the U.S.A. corruption in economic networking can lead to vicious repression.

The United States spends hundreds of billions to finance a military in Afghanistan and only moderately effective economic assistance to construct a stable, de-volatilized society. Yet Pakistan has a long-range interest of controlling the Afghan government through a sponsored Taliban or other proxy organization. Pakistan is happy enough with a friendly jihadist Sunni government in Afghanistan as a way to secure its northern border.

Kashmir and Jammu might be a direct route to connect with India in some hypothetical future and that would not be to Pakistan’s liking. Afghanistan could also connect to India via far western China if mountain routes can be transcended with engineering, and that could change relationships too.

The United States sends billions of dollars in military aid packages to Pakistan for who knows what reason-ostensibly to buy assistance in sending predator missiles to hit Taleban human targets as well as al Qa’eda targets in Northern Pakistan, and also to allow the U.S.A. to offload military supplies from ships and drive overland from Karachi to Afghanistan. Payments are made by the United States to Taleban and Al Qa’eda connected neo-terrorist gangs on the route for ‘protection’ so the convoys won’t be attacked.

Even if the United States can attain a kind of low level of violence in Afghanistan in a couple of years, the longer range prospects for eliminating the constellation of jihadist training facilities and support in Pakistan seems a kind of ‘out there in the distance’ prospect. AN interesting point regarding Afghanistan security is that the Sunni terrorists can always relocate too another nation in the area for training purposes. It is also somewhat unusual that Al Qa’eda prefers the para-military form of terrorism requisite for war in Kashmir in attacking western targets rather than conventional tradecraft of espionage and clandestine saboteurs engaging in economic war.

The U.S.A. does not face a real convential military threat from Muslim fundamentalists at all. Good intelligence and border security work could halt terrorists from reaching the United States at far lower cost. Newer and more effective economic engagement relationships founded in low entropy environmentalism could be innovated simultaneously with newer and more cost effective defense strategies. A better long-range policy for Pakistan should be developed that would allow Internal Pakistani economic development and political actualization for a populist regime that does not require bilateral antagonism with India.

The United States for decades has been one of Pakistan’s major foreign aid contributors and our policies have in part helped shape the present situation. Our policies definitely seem to require correction and more of an intelligent design considering all of the elements involved. Afghanistan also shares a border with Iran and Uzbekistan and each have real concerns. Iran is of course also a neighbor of Iraq, and Turkey and the Kurds have issues as well. Our policy cannot be simply isolated in its applications for the displacement of various political parties and shifting of relationships occurs whenever change is brought to any portion of the region. It is not simple yet not terribly difficult either. It is an obvious multi-year project to attain regional economic stability along low-entropy principles of ecological economics and respect for religious beliefs and humanitarianism together. The U.S. administrations of the present and future should be aware that the defense budget is a little larger than the interest on the national debt annually and contributes to its increase.

The U.S. national economy is ill founded on to axes. One is its high-entropy anti-nationalistic globalist approach concentrating wealth and increasing poverty and harm to the environment—even Pollock in Alaska are over-fished and may lead to a crash of the fishery health similar to the problems with Atlantic cod- Fishing should largely be restricted to sports fishing and subsistence use the next decade to give the fisheries time to recover robust health. Soybeans are an excellent source of vitamin D.

The second ill-foundation of the U.S. economy is the Clinton-Obamonics of Wall Street and Financial sector skimming of wealth instead of low-entropy economic manufacturing being the foundation of the economy. Protracted foreign wars and foreign economic and military engagements are harmful to U.S. national interests and should be rolled up and stowed in the bad policies of the past bin.