San Diego Radio,
Politics and News,
Sewing--The Sewing Herald Tribune....we need contributors, Travel....
Agree or Disagree....Please feel free to comment.....all comments appreciated and thank you for your time.....
food,dogs and cats......
let's sit down at this cafe, have a cup of coffee and talk about politics.
mentioned, I'm afraid I will be blogging only infrequently for a couple
of months as we go through the edit process on the new covert warfare
book - the publisher would like to have it out in January and that means
a lot of work right now. I did want to mention that I will be going on
internet radio with Jeff Bushman against this evening, for a full hour.
It will be live at 8 pm Central at
its archived for anyone who wants to check in later. I'll be on for a
full hour this evening. I also wanted to give everyone a bit of an
update on the JFK Lancer Conference coming up in November.
conference will be considerably larger this year, both in terms of
length and number of participants - you can find the details on the JFK
Lancer web site - we began receiving requests to participate in the
2013 conference last November and have been working on reviewing
proposals and scheduling since the end of last year. The focus of this
conference is on taking a new look at the evidence officially presented
against Lee Oswald as the shooter and sole participant in the crime. We
have a number of professionals lined up to address the forensics and
ballistics evidence, presenting what has been learned including
considerable information that was either filtered or simply not
presented to the official investigations. We will also have critiques
of each of the official investigations based on what has been revealed
by the past 50 years of research, in particular the new information
surfaced beginning in the 1990's with a vast amount of oral history work
and document releases.
addition a number of speakers will be offering brand new research,
literally never presented previously. If anyone thinks that nothing new
exists on the case - well the conference should dispel that notion. We
always try to maintain a real balance in the conference participants,
covering the range of interests without too much redundancy and also
offering the attendees the chance for personal dialogs with authors they
have read or specialists the have read about - of course nobody will
agree with all the information presented but its good to remember that
nobody every learns much new by only talking to people with whom you
elaborate on that point, one of the things going on at this years
conference will be a number of focus group discussions on a wide variety
of topics. We have recruited researchers specializing in those
subjects to moderate the focus groups and Debra Conway has obtained a
separate conference room for that. She has also organized cash
breakfast and lunch buffets so that attendees will have to option of
eating while listening to and participating in some of the structured
discussions. That is going to be important this year given the crowds
expected in Dallas and the lines at restaurants, etc. Beyond that we
will be running conference activities from around 8 am in the morning to
9 pm each evening. If you are coming, rest up in advance as we will be
keeping you quite busy.
final point on Dallas this November, I know some folks are concerned
about access to the Plaza. Debra has pursued that issue with the Mayors
office for months, starting last year. Although its pretty clear that
Dallas still has some work to do and decisions to make about the crowds
at its official ceremony, we have been assured that once that is over,
the Plaza will be open to the public on November 22. And of course our
normal walking tour of the Plaza area will be a couple of days later on
Sunday, so attendees should have no concern about access to the Plaza
during their time in Dallas.
Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity....often promoting Islamophobia.....
their crime.....always pretending to have a discussion when there is obviously no intention of trying to find actual facts or information.
They both "pretend" they are discussing the issue when in reality their ploy of asking a "question" only serves to further their point of view.....especially when they attempt to force the guest to "just answer the question, why won't you just answer the question, I'm the host, it's my show, I'll ask the questions."
What a stupid game by these particularly ugly Americans.
If fox news, or these American embarrassments were truly interested in finding facts and information they would certainly conduct themselves differently..........
Recently, mr. o'reilly had a representative on from CAIR but instead of letting the man talk he proceeded to interrogate the individual. He must have felt embarrassed, if that is possible, but he continued to proclaim his innocense and the reasons for his vulgarity on the following shows.
There is a reason why Wesley Clark would not go on o'reilly...I wonder why.....
copied from wiki.... The Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) is America's largest Muslimcivil liberties advocacy organization that deals with civil advocacy. It is headquartered on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., with regional offices nationwide. CAIR's mission statement
is "to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect
civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that
promote justice and mutual understanding".
Debate has ranged widely over how to prevent terrorist attacks
Arun Kundnani says answer is not more and more surveillance
He says mosque leaders are fearful of engaging in discussion with radicals
Kundnani: Don't toss people like Tamerlan Tsarnaev out of mosques; confront them
Editor's note: Arun
Kundnani is author of the forthcoming book "The Muslims are Coming!
Islamophobia, extremism, and the domestic War on Terror," to be
published by Verso Press in January 2014. He teaches terrorism studies
at John Jay College, New York.
(CNN) -- Since the bombing of the Boston marathon --
in which three people, including a child, were killed and more than 200
injured -- attention has naturally focused on what could have been done
to prevent it.
Some, such as Rep. Peter King, the New York Republican who chairs the Homeland Security Committee, have argued for increased
surveillance of Muslims in the United States. Local police departments
"have to realize that the threat is coming from the Muslim community and
increase surveillance there," he says.
Others have asked whether
leads were properly followed and if better sharing of information
between agencies would have helped thwart the bombing.
However, the government, with its $40 billion annual intelligence budget,
already amasses vast quantities of information on the private lives of
Muslims in the United States. The FBI has 3,000 intelligence analysts
working on counterterrorism and 15,000 paid informants, according to Mother Jones.
Exactly how many of them
are focused on Muslims in the United States is unknown; there is little
transparency in this area. But, given the emphasis the FBI has placed on
preventing Muslim terrorism, and based on my interviews with FBI agents
working on counterterrorism, there could be as many as two-thirds
assigned to spying on Muslims.
Taking the usual estimate of the Muslim population
in the United States of 2.35 million, this would mean the FBI has a spy
for every 200 Muslims in the United States. When one adds the resources
of the National Security Agency, regional intelligence fusion centers,
and the counterterrorism work of local police departments, such as the
New York Police Department (where a thousand officers
are said to work on counterterrorism and intelligence), the number of
spies per Muslim may increase dramatically. East Germany's communist-era
secret police, the Stasi, had one intelligence analyst or informant for
every 66 citizens. This suggests that Muslims in the United States
could be approaching levels of state surveillance similar to that which
the East German population faced from the Stasi.
Boston Imam: Suspect should be buried
Student visas under scrutiny post-Boston
The roots of radicalization
Yet, as the Stasi itself
eventually discovered, no system of surveillance can ever produce total
knowledge of a population. Indeed, the greater the amount of information
collected, the harder it is to interpret its meaning. In the majority
of terrorist attacks in recent years, the relevant information was
somewhere in the government's systems, but its significance was lost
amid a morass of useless data.
What is obscured by the
demands for ever greater surveillance and information processing is that
security is best established through relationships of trust and inclusion
within the community. The real missed opportunity to intervene before
the bombs went off in Boston likely came three months earlier, when
bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev stood up during a Friday prayer
service at his mosque - the Islamic Society of Boston, in Cambridge - to
angrily protest the imam's sermon.
The imam had been celebrating the life of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., which Tsarnaev thought was selling out. According to one report, Tsarnaev was then kicked out of the prayer service for his outburst.
Since 9/11, mosque
leaders have been under pressure to eject anyone expressing radical
views, rather than engaging with them and seeking to challenge their
religious interpretation, address their political frustrations, or meet
their emotional needs.
That policy has been
forced on mosques by the wider climate of excessive surveillance, which
means mosques are wary of even having conversations with those perceived
to be radicals, for fear of attracting official attention.
The fear is that every
mosque has a government informant listening for radical talk.
Unsurprisingly, this means most people are reluctant to engage with
young people expressing radical views, who instead tend to be ejected
from the congregation.
The Tsarnaev brothers were said to be angry
about U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan and Iraq, possibly drawing
parallels with their own experiences as refugees from Russia's brutal
wars of counterinsurgency in the Caucasus. But because discussions of
foreign policy have been off-limits in
mosques since 9/11, they were unlikely to have had their anger
acknowledged, engaged, challenged or channeled into nonviolent political
The heavy surveillance
of Muslims has meant there is no room for mosques to engage with someone
like Tamerlan Tsarnaev, listen to him, challenge those of his ideas
that might be violent, or offer him emotional support. Instead, Muslims
have felt pressured to demonstrate their loyalty to America by steering
clear of dissident conversations on foreign policy.
Flawed models of the so-called "radicalization" process
have assumed that the best way to stop terrorist violence is to prevent
radical ideas from circulating. Yet the history of terrorism suggests
the opposite is true.
Time and again, support
for terrorism appears to increase when legitimate political activism is
suppressed - from the French anarchists who began bombing campaigns
after the defeat of the Paris Commune, to the Algerian National
Liberation Front struggling to end French colonialism, to the Weather
Underground's "Declaration of a state of war" after state repression of
student campaigns against the Vietnam War.
motivation for the bombings is fraught with difficulty; there can be
little certainty in such matters. But pathological outcomes are more
likely when space for the free exchange of feelings and opinions is
As many community
activists and religious leaders argued in Britain in the aftermath of
the 7/7 terrorist attacks on the London transport system in 2005, the
best preventive measure is to enable anger, frustration and dissent to
be expressed as openly as possible, rather than driving them underground
where they more easily mutate into violent forms.
These activists put this
approach into practice, for example at the Brixton mosque in south
London, by developing initiatives in the community to engage young
people in discussions of foreign policy, identity and the meaning of
religious terms like jihad, in order to counter those who advocate
violence against fellow citizens. It is difficult to measure the success
of such programs. But many see them as having played an important role
in undermining support
for terrorism. In what must seem a paradox to backers of East German
levels of surveillance like Peter King, more radical talk might be the
best way of reducing terrorist violence.
No one could have
predicted from Tsarnaev's outburst that, a few months later, he would be
suspected of carrying out an act of mass murder on the streets of
Boston. And we don't know what would have made a difference in the end.
But a community able to express itself openly without fear, whether in
the mosque or elsewhere, should be a key element in the United States'
efforts to prevent domestic terrorism.