Showing posts with label UBL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UBL. Show all posts

Friday, 26 July 2013

Behold a White Horse

"Their hostility to the lawful government of the country has at length become so violent that no officer bearing a commission from the Chief Magistrate of the Union can enter the Territory or remain there with safety, and all those officers recently appointed have been unable to go to Salt Lake or anywhere else in Utah beyond the immediate power of the Army. 

Indeed, such is believed to be the condition to which a strange system of terrorism has brought the inhabitants of that region that no one among them could express an opinion favorable to this Government, or even propose to obey its laws, without exposing his life and property to peril."

James Buchanan
Proclamation - Rebellion in the Territory of Utah
April 6, 1858

"when the Constitution of the United States hangs, as it were, upon a single thread, they will have to call for the 'Mormon' Elders to save it from utter destruction; and they will step forth and do it."

Brigham Young, 1855

In 1858, Orson Hyde (another contemporary of Smith) wrote that Smith believed 

"the time would come when the Constitution and the country would be in danger of an overthrow; and ... if the Constitution be saved at all, it will be by the elders of [the LDS] Church".

In 1922, the LDS Church's fifth presiding bishop, Charles W. Nibley, stated that 

"the day would come when there would be so much of disorder, of secret combinations taking the law into their own hands, tramping [sic] upon Constitutional rights and the liberties of the people, that the Constitution would hang as by a thread. 

Yes, but it will still hang, and there will be enough of good people, many who may not belong to our Church at all, people who have respect for law and for order, and for Constitutional rights, who will rally around with us and save the Constitution."

In 1928, the LDS apostle Melvin J. Ballard remarked that 

"the prophet Joseph Smith said the time will come when, through secret organizations taking the law into their own hands ... the Constitution of the United States would be so torn and rent asunder, and life and property and peace and security would be held of so little value, that the Constitution would, as it were, hang by a thread. 

This Constitution will be preserved, but it will be preserved very largely in consequence of what the Lord has revealed and what [the Mormons], through listening to the Lord and being obedient, will help to bring about, to stabilize and give permanency and effect to the Constitution itself. That also is our mission."

In 2010, Elder Dallin H. Oaks spoke at a Constitution Day Celebration, warning about the importance of preserving the U.S. Constitution. To this end, he claimed that"all citizens—whatever their religious or philosophical persuasion" should maintain several responsibilities regarding the Constitution: understand it, support the law, practice civic virtue, maintain civility in political discourse, and promote patriotism.

George Romney 

In 1967, US presidential candidate George W. Romney said the following regarding the White Horse Prophecy:

"I have always felt that they meant that sometime the question of whether we are going to proceed on the basis of the Constitution would arise and at this point government leaders who were Mormons would be involved in answering that question."

Mitt Romney 

In 2007, US presidential candidate Mitt Romney told the Salt Lake Tribune that

 "I haven't heard my name associated with [the White Horse Prophecy] or anything of that nature. That's not official church doctrine.... I don't put that at the heart of my religious belief."

Glenn Beck 

Conservative media figure Glenn Beck (who joined the LDS Church in 1999) has alleged that President Barack Obama 

"is going to bring us to the verge of shredding the Constitution, of massive socialism."

On November 14, 2008—following Obama's election—Beck appeared on Bill O'Reilly's show The O'Reilly Factor and said that 

"we are at the place where the Constitution hangs in the balance, I feel the Constitution is hanging in the balance right now, hanging by a thread unless the good Americans wake up."

Earlier in November, while interviewing US Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah (also a Mormon), Beck remarked: 

"I heard Barack Obama talk about the Constitution and I thought, we are at the point or we are very near the point where our Constitution is hanging by a thread."

Hatch appeared on Beck's Fox News show in January 2009, and Beck prompted him by declaring 

"I believe our Constitution hangs by a thread."

LDS blogger and religious commentator Joanna Brooks has said that

"it is likely that Beck owes his brand of Founding Father–worship to Mormonism.... 

Many Mormons also believe that Joseph Smith prophesied in 1843 that the US Constitution would one day 'hang by a thread' and be saved by faithful Mormons".

Washington Post journalist Dana Milbank has described Beck's views as essentially "White Horse Prophecy meets horsemen of the apocalypse"—though Milbank has also observed that the White Horse Prophecy is 

"actually a fairly benign prophecy. They're talking about restoring law and order and peace and tranquility. It doesn't sound like a violent thing."

It's not surprising that Mormons howl in protest--screaming "SACRED!" at the top of their latter-day lungs--when honest efforts are made to examine the history of their secret, violence-laden Mormon temple oaths and rituals.

One of the more notorious ones in this regard was the infamous “Oath of Vengeance,” which Mormons swore against the United States government.

Into the first two decades of the 20th century, faithful, temple-attending Mormons, secretly took this Oath of Vengeance. The U.S. Senate considered it a serious enough threat to convene hearings on this Mormon temple vow and other matters related to the LDS church.

Below are some pertinent historical details regarding this Oath of Vengeance that Mormons are not inclined to talk about in openly:

“Following Joseph Smith's martyrdom [actually, Smith, armed with a pistol, was shot to death in a jailhouse gunfight after being place behind bars for ordering the destruction of a newspaper press], Brigham Young [Smith's successor] introduced an oath in the [Mormon temple] endowment which required members [of the church] to swear vengeance 'upon this nation.' 

It became the subject of a United States Senate investigation.

“Reed Smoot was a Mormon Apostle who had been elected a Senator from Utah. In 1903 a protest was filed in the United States Senate to have [the] Hon. Smoot removed from office, on the grounds that he had taken this treasonous oath in the endowment ritual.

"The complete record of this episode was published in 'U.S. Senate Document 486 (59th Congress, 1st Session) Proceedings Before the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate in the Matter of the Protests Against the Right of Hon. Reed Smoot, a Senator from the State of Utah, to hold his Seat,' 4 vols.[+1 vol. index] (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1906).”

When questioned about it under oath during U.S. Senate hearings, Smoot refused to divulge this secret Mormon temple Oath of Vengeance. (for a “New York Times” account of Smoot's cover-up in this regard, see: “Smoot Would Not Tell of Endowment Secrets,” in “New York Times," 23 January 1905, at: ; and “Oath of Vengeance,” at:;)

This secret Mormon temple ritual's multi-generational Oath of Vengeance against the U.S. government was worded as follows:

“You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth generation.”

(“Oath of Vengeance,” at:

With word leaking out of its existence, the Mormon church eventually removed this Oath of Vengeance was from its secret temple rituals.

Below is an overall history of this vow of vengeance and retribution against their own government, as temple-attending Mormons promised to obey it:

“One of the oaths which was formerly taken in the temple ritual was the source of so much trouble that the Mormon leaders finally removed it entirely from the ceremony. This oath was printed in 'Temple Mormonism,' pa. 21, as follows: '

You and each of you do solemnly promise and vow that you will pray, and never cease to pray, and never cease to importune high heaven to avenge the blood of the prophets on this nation, and that you will teach this to your children and your children's children unto the third and fourth generation.'

“A great deal of testimony has been given concerning this oath, and although all of the witnesses did not agree as to its exact wording, there can be little doubt that such an oath was administered to the Mormon people after Joseph Smith's death. John D. Lee related that the following occurred after Joseph Smith's death:

“' . . . Brigham raised his hand and said, 'I swear by the eternal Heavens that I have unsheathed my sword, and I will never return it until the blood of the Prophet Joseph and Hyrum, and those who were slain in Missouri, is avenged. This whole nation is guilty of shedding their blood, by assenting to the deed, and holding its peace.' .. . . Furthermore, every one who had passed through their endowments, in the Temple, were placed under the most sacred obligations to avenge the blood of the Prophet, whenever an opportunity offered, and to teach their children to do the same, thus making the entire Mormon people sworn and avowed enemies of the American nation 

('The Confessions of John D. Lee,' p. 160).

“Some Mormon apologists have maintained that there was no 'Oath of Vengeance' in the temple ceremony, but the 'Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon' makes it very plain that there was such an oath. Under the date of December 6, 1889, Apostle Cannon recorded the following in his diary:

“'About 4:30 p.m. this meeting adjourned and was followed by a meeting of Presidents Woodruff, Cannon and Smith and Bros. Lyman and Grant. . . . In speaking of the recent examination before Judge Anderson Father said that he understood when he had his endowments in Nauvoo that he took an oath against the murderers of the Prophet Joseph as well as other prophets, and if he had ever met any of those who had taken a hand in that massacre he would undoubtedly have attempted to avenge the blood of the martyrs.' ('Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon,' December 6, 1889, pp. 205-06).

“Apostle Cannon went on to relate that [eventual Mormon church president] Joseph F. Smith was about to murder a man with his pocket knife if he even expressed approval of Joseph Smith's death.

“The Oath of Vengeance probably had a great deal to do with the massacre at Mountain Meadows, in which about 120 men, women, and children were killed, and other murders which were committed in early Utah (see 'Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?' pp. 493-515, 545-59).

“Just after the turn of the century the Mormon leaders found themselves in serious trouble because of the oath of vengeance. They were questioned at great length concerning this oath in the 'Reed Smoot Case.' The Oath of Vengeance remained in the temple ceremony, however, even after the 'Reed Smoot Case' was printed . . . . 

It must have been removed sometime between then and 1937, because in a lecture delivered on February 28, 1937, Francis M. Darter complained that 'The Law and prayer of Retribution, or divine judgment, against those who persecute the Saints, has been entirely removed from Temple services. . . . The reason why it was taken out, says one Apostle, was because it was offensive to the young people.' ('Celestial Marriage,' p. 60).

“. . . [T]he oaths taken in the temple were originally very crude. . . . [O]ne example here [From the Smoot hearings]—i.e., the testimony of J. H. Wallis, Sr., who had been through the temple about 20 times:

“MR. WALLIS: ' . . . [A]nother vow was what we used to call the "oath of vengeance.' . . .

“MR. TAYLER: 'Stand up, if it will help you, and give us the words, if you can.'

“MR. WALLIS (standing up): 
'That you and each of you do promise and vow that you will never cease to importune high heaven to avenge the blood of the prophets upon the nations of the earth or the inhabitants of the earth.' 

('The Reed Smoot Case,' vol. 2, pp. 77-79).

“The next day Mr. Wallis corrected his testimony concerning the oath of vengeance:

'In repeating the obligation of vengeance I find I made a mistake; I was wrong. It should have been 'upon this nation.' I had it 'upon the inhabitants of the earth.' It was a mistake on my part. 

(ibid., pp. 148-49).

(“Temple Work,” at:

Rest assured, you will not hear Mitt Romney speaking publicly about any of this.

Proclamation - Rebellion in the Territory of Utah
April 6, 1858


Whereas the Territory of Utah was settled by certain emigrants from the States and from foreign countries who have for several years past manifested a spirit of insubordination to the Constitution and laws of the United States. The great mass of those settlers, acting under the influence of leaders to whom they seem to have surrendered their judgment, refuse to be controlled by any other authority. They have been often advised to obedience, and these friendly counsels have been answered with defiance. The officers of the Federal Government have been driven from the Territory for no offense but an effort to do their sworn duty; others have been prevented from going there by threats of assassination; judges have been violently interrupted in the performance of their functions, and the records of the courts have been seized and destroyed or concealed. Many other acts of unlawful violence have been perpetrated, and the right to repeat them has been openly claimed by the leading inhabitants, with at least the silent acquiescence of nearly all the others. Their hostility to the lawful government of the country has at length become so violent that no officer bearing a commission from the Chief Magistrate of the Union can enter the Territory or remain there with safety, and all those officers recently appointed have been unable to go to Salt Lake or anywhere else in Utah beyond the immediate power of the Army. Indeed, such is believed to be the condition to which a strange system of terrorism has brought the inhabitants of that region that no one among them could express an opinion favorable to this Government, or even propose to obey its laws, without exposing his life and property to peril.

After carefully considering this state of affairs and maturely weighing the obligation I was under to see the laws faithfully executed, it seemed to me right and proper that I should make such use of the military force at my disposal as might be necessary to protect the Federal officers in going into the Territory of Utah and in performing their duties after arriving there. I accordingly ordered a detachment of the Army to march for the city of Salt Lake, or within reach of that place, and to act in case of need as a posse for the enforcement of the laws. But in the meantime the hatred of that misguided people for the just and legal authority of the Government had become so intense that they resolved to measure their military strength with that of the Union. They have organized an armed force far from contemptible in point of numbers and trained it, if not with skill, at least with great assiduity and perseverance. While the troops of the United States were on their march a train of baggage wagons, which happened to be unprotected, was attacked and destroyed by a portion of the Mormon forces and the provisions and stores with which the train was laden were wantonly burnt. In short, their present attitude is one of decided and unreserved enmity to the United States and to all their loyal citizens. Their determination to oppose the authority of the Government by military force has not only been expressed in words, but manifested in overt acts of the most unequivocal character.

Fellow-citizens of Utah, this is rebellion against the Government to which you owe allegiance; it is levying war against the United States, and involves you in the guilt of treason. Persistence in it will bring you to condign punishment, to ruin, and to shame; for it is mere madness to suppose that with your limited resources you can successfully resist the force of this great and powerful nation.

If you have calculated upon the forbearance of the United States, if you have permitted yourselves to suppose that this Government will fail to put forth its strength and bring you to submission, you have fallen into a grave mistake. You have settled upon territory which lies, geographically, in the heart of the Union. The land you live upon was purchased by the United States and paid for out of their Treasury; the proprietary right and title to it is in them, and not in you. Utah is bounded on every side by States and Territories whose people are true to the Union. It is absurd to believe that they will or can permit you to erect in their very midst a government of your own, not only independent of the authority which they all acknowledge, but hostile to them and their interests.

Do not deceive yourselves nor try to mislead others by propagating the idea that this is a crusade against your religion. The Constitution and laws of this country can take no notice of your creed, whether it be true or false. That is a question between your God and yourselves, in which I disclaim all right to interfere. If you obey the laws, keep the peace, and respect the just rights of others, you will be perfectly secure, and may live on in your present faith or change it for another at your pleasure. Every intelligent man among you knows very well that this Government has never, directly or indirectly, sought to molest you in your worship, to control you in your ecclesiastical affairs, or even to influence you in your religious opinions.

This rebellion is not merely a violation of your legal duty; it is without just cause, without reason, without excuse. You never made a complaint that was not listened to with patience; you never exhibited a real grievance that was not redressed as promptly as it could be. The laws and regulations enacted for your government by Congress have been equal and just, and their enforcement was manifestly necessary for your own welfare and happiness. You have never asked their repeal. They are similar in every material respect to the laws which have been passed for the other Territories of the Union, and which everywhere else (with one partial exception) have been cheerfully obeyed. No people ever lived who were freer from unnecessary legal restraints than you. Human wisdom never devised a political system which bestowed more blessings or imposed lighter burdens than the Government of the United States in its operation upon the Territories.

But being anxious to save the effusion of blood and to avoid the indiscriminate punishment of a whole people for crimes of which it is not probable that all are equally guilty, I offer now a free and full pardon to all who will submit themselves to the just authority of the Federal Government. If you refuse to accept it, let the consequences fall upon your own heads. But I conjure you to pause deliberately and reflect well before you reject this tender of peace and good will.

Now, therefore, I, James Buchanan, President of the United States, have thought proper to issue this my proclamation, enjoining upon all public officers in the Territory of Utah to be diligent and faithful, to the full extent of their power, in the execution of the laws; commanding all citizens of the United States in said Territory to aid and assist the officers in the performance of their duties; offering to the inhabitants of Utah who shall submit to the laws a free pardon for the seditions and treasons heretofore by them committed; warning those who shall persist, after notice of this proclamation, in the present rebellion against the United States that they must expect no further lenity, but look to be rigorously dealt with according to their deserts; and declaring that the military forces now in Utah and hereafter to be sent there will not be withdrawn until the inhabitants of that Territory shall manifest a proper sense of the duty which they owe to this Government.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed to these presents. Done at the city of Washington the 6th day of April, 1858, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-second.


By the President:

LEWIS CASS, Secretary of State.

James Buchanan: "Proclamation - Rebellion in the Territory of Utah," April 6, 1858. 

Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.

Friday, 19 July 2013

OKC / 2/26 : Terry the Farmer

Late 1992-Early 1993 and Late 1994:
Future Oklahoma City Bomber Said to Meet with Ramzi Yousef in Philippines

Terry Nichols makes a number of trips to the Phillippines, apparently to meet with al-Qaeda bomber Ramzi Yousef and other radical Islamists. Nichols will later help plan and execute the Oklahoma City bombing

Nichols’s wife is a mail-order bride from Cebu City; Nichols spends an extensive amount of time on the island of Mindanao, where many Islamist terror cells operate. This information comes from a Philippine undercover operative, Edwin Angeles, and one of his wives. Angeles is the second in command in the militant group Abu Sayyaf from 1991 to 1995 while secretly working for Philippine intelligence at the same time

After the Oklahoma City bombing, Angeles will claim in a videotaped interrogation that in late 1992 and early 1993 Nichols meets with Yousef and a second would-be American terrorist, John Lepney. In 1994, Nichols meets with Yousef, Lepney, and others. For about a week, Angeles, Yousef, Nichols, and Lepney are joined by Abdurajak Janjalani, the leader of Abu Sayyaf; two members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF); Abdul Hakim Murad and Wali Khan Amin Shah, both of whom are working with Yousef on the Bojinka plot ; and a half-brother of Yousef known only by the alias Ahmad Hassim (this is a probable reference to Yousef’s brother Abd al-Karim Yousef, who is living in the Philippines at this time).

Elmina Abdul, Angeles’s third wife, will add additional details about these 1994 meetings in a taped 2002 hospital confession to a Philippines reporter days before her death. She only remembers Nichols as “Terry” or “The Farmer,” and doesn’t remember the name of the other American.

She says: “They talked about bombings. They mentioned bombing government buildings in San Francisco, St. Louis, and in Oklahoma. The Americans wanted instructions on how to make and to explode bombs. [Angeles] told me that Janjalani was very interested in paying them much money to explode the buildings. The money was coming from Yousef and the other Arab.”
[GULF NEWS, 4/3/2002; INSIGHT, 4/19/2002; MANILA TIMES, 4/26/2002; INSIGHT, 6/22/2002; NICOLE NICHOLS, 2003]

(“The other Arab” may be a reference to the Arab Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, Osama bin Laden’s brother-in-law, because Janjalani’s younger brother later claims Abu Sayyaf was funded in its early years by Yousef and Khalifa.) [CNN, 1/31/2007]

Abdul claims Nichols and Lepney are sent to an unnamed place for more instructions on bomb-making to destroy a building in the US. She also says that Angeles and others in Abu Sayyaf believe Yousef works for the Iraqi government. [INSIGHT, 6/22/2002]

The Manila Times later reports that “Lepney did indeed reside and do business in Davao City [in the Southern Philippines] during 1990 to 1996.” One bar owner recalls that when Lepney got drunk he liked to brag about his adventures with local rebel groups. [MANILA TIMES, 4/26/2002]

In 2003, Nicole Nichols (no relation to Terry Nichols), the director of the watchdog organization Citizens against Hate, will explain why an American white supremacist would make common cause with Islamist terrorists. Two unifying factors exist, she writes: an overarching hatred of Jews and Israel, and a similarly deep-seated hatred of the US government. [NICOLE NICHOLS, 2003]

After Nichols takes part in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Wali Khan Amin Shah will attempt to take the credit for plotting the bombing for himself and Yousef, a claim federal authorities will not accept.

April 19, 1995:
Bojinka Plotter Takes Credit for Oklahoma City Bombing;
Claim Later Discredited

Abdul Hakim Murad is in a US prison awaiting trial for his alleged role in the Bojinka plot. 

Told about the Oklahoma City bombing that took place earlier in the day, he immediately takes credit for the bombing on behalf of his associate Ramzi Yousef. However, Yousef, also in US custody at the time, makes no such claim. 

An FBI report detailing Murad’s claim will be submitted to FBI headquarters the next day. [LANCE, 2006, PP. 163-164] 

A Philippine undercover operative will later claim that Terry Nichols, who will be convicted for a major role in the Oklahoma City bombing, met with Murad, Yousef, and others in the Philippines in 1994, and discussed blowing up a building in Oklahoma and several other locations.

Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke will later comment: “Could [Yousef] have been introduced to [Nichols]? We do not know, despite some FBI investigation. We do know that Nichols’s bombs did not work before his Philippine stay and were deadly when he returned.” 
[CLARKE, 2004, PP. 127] 

Mike Johnston, a lawyer representing the Oklahoma City bombing victims’ families, will later comment: “Why should Murad be believed? For one thing, Murad made his ‘confession’ voluntarily and spontaneously. Most important, Murad tied Ramzi Yousef to the Oklahoma City bombing long before Terry Nichols was publicly identified as a suspect.” 
[INSIGHT, 6/22/2002] 

Also on this day, Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, an associate of Yousef and Murad who is being held in the US, is moved from a low security prison to a maximum security prison. 
[LANCE, 2006, PP. 164] 

But despite these potential links to Muslim militants, only five days after the Oklahoma City bombing the New York Times will report, “Federal officials said today that there was no evidence linking people of the Muslim faith or of Arab descent to the bombing here.” 
[NEW YORK TIMES, 4/24/1995] 

Murad’s claim apparently will not be reported in any newspaper until two years later [ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, 6/17/1995] , when lawyers for Nichols’s bombing partner, Timothy McVeigh, tell reporters that their defense strategy will be to claim that the bombing was the work of “foreign terrorists” led by “a Middle Eastern bombing engineer.” 

The lawyers will claim that the bombing was “contracted out” through an Iraqi intelligence base in the Philippines, and it is “possible that those who carried out the bombing were unaware of the true sponsor.” 

The lawyers also say it is possible, though less likely, that the bombing was carried out by right-wing white supremacists, perhaps from the Elohim City compound.
[NEW YORK TIMES, 3/26/1997] 

The claims of foreign involvement will be discredited.

Sunday, 7 July 2013

Anti-Soviet Warrior Puts His Army on the Road to Peace

The Saudi Businessman who Recruited Mujahedin now uses them for Large-Scale Building Projects in Sudan.

Robert Fisk met him in Almatig


OSAMA Bin Laden sat in his gold- fringed robe, guarded by the loyal Arab mujahedin who fought alongside him in Afghanistan. Bearded, taciturn figures - unarmed, but never more than a few yards from the man who recruited them, trained them and then dispatched them to destroy the Soviet army - they watched unsmiling as the Sudanese villagers of Almatig lined up to thank the Saudi businessman who is about to complete the highway linking their homes to Khartoum for the first time in history.

With his high cheekbones, narrow eyes and long brown robe, Mr Bin Laden looks every inch the mountain warrior of mujahedin legend. Chadored children danced in front of him, preachers acknowledged his wisdom. 'We have been waiting for this road through all the revolutions in Sudan,' a sheikh said. 'We waited until we had given up on everybody - and then Osama Bin Laden came along.'

Outside Sudan, Mr Bin Laden is not regarded with quite such high esteem. The Egyptian press claims he brought hundreds of former Arab fighters back to Sudan from Afghanistan, while the Western embassy circuit in Khartoum has suggested that some of the 'Afghans' whom this Saudi entrepreneur flew to Sudan are now busy training for further jihad wars in Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt. Mr Bin Laden is well aware of this. 

'The rubbish of the media and the embassies,' he calls it. 'I am a construction engineer and an agriculturalist. If I had training camps here in Sudan, I couldn't possibly do this job.'

And 'this job' is certainly an ambitious one: a brand-new highway stretching all the way from Khartoum to Port Sudan, a distance of 1,200km (745 miles) on the old road, now shortened to 800km by the new Bin Laden route that will turn the coastal run from the capital into a mere day's journey. Into a country that is despised by Saudi Arabia for its support of Saddam Hussein in the Gulf war almost as much as it is condemned by the United States, Mr Bin Laden has brought the very construction equipment that he used only five years ago to build the guerrilla trails of Afghanistan.

He is a shy man. Maintaining a home in Khartoum and only a small apartment in his home city of Jeddah, he is married - with four wives - but wary of the press. His interview with the Independent was the first he has ever given to a Western journalist, and he initially refused to talk about Afghanistan, sitting silently on a chair at the back of a makeshift tent, brushing his teeth in the Arab fashion with a stick of miswak wood. But talk he eventually did about a war which he helped to win for the Afghan mujahedin: 'What I lived in two years there, I could not have lived in a hundred years elsewhere,' he said.

When the history of the Afghan resistance movement is written, Mr Bin Laden's own contribution to the mujahedin - and the indirect result of his training and assistance - may turn out to be a turning- point in the recent history of militant fundamentalism; even if, today, he tries to minimise his role. 'When the invasion of Afghanistan started, I was enraged and went there at once - I arrived within days, before the end of 1979,' he said. 'Yes, I fought there, but my fellow Muslims did much more than I. Many of them died and I am still alive.'

Within months, however, Mr Bin Laden was sending Arab fighters - Egyptians, Algerians, Lebanese, Kuwaitis, Turks and Tunisians - into Afghanistan; 'not hundreds but thousands,' he said. He supported them with weapons and his own construction equipment. Along with his Iraqi engineer, Mohamed Saad - who is now building the Port Sudan road - Mr Bin Laden blasted massive tunnels into the Zazi mountains of Bakhtiar province for guerrilla hospitals and arms dumps, then cut a mujahedin trail across the country to within 15 miles of Kabul.

'No, I was never afraid of death. As Muslims, we believe that when we die, we go to heaven. Before a battle, God sends us seqina, tranquillity.

'Once I was only 30 metres from the Russians and they were trying to capture me. I was under bombardment but I was so peaceful in my heart that I fell asleep. This experience has been written about in our earliest books. I saw a 120mm mortar shell land in front of me, but it did not blow up. Four more bombs were dropped from a Russian plane on our headquarters but they did not explode. We beat the Soviet Union. The Russians fled.'

But what of the Arab mujahedin whom he took to Afghanistan - members of a guerrilla army who were also encouraged and armed by the United States - and who were forgotten when that war was over? 'Personally neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help. When my mujahedin were victorious and the Russians were driven out, differences started (between the guerrilla movements) so I returned to road construction in Taif and Abha. I brought back the equipment I had used to build tunnels and roads for the mujahedin in Afghanistan. Yes, I helped some of my comrades to come here to Sudan after the war.'

How many? Osama Bin Laden shakes his head. 'I don't want to say. But they are here now with me, they are working right here, building this road to Port Sudan.' I told him that Bosnian Muslim fighters in the Bosnian town of Travnik had mentioned his name to me. 'I feel the same about Bosnia,' he said. 'But the situation there does not provide the same opportunities as Afghanistan. A small number of mujahedin have gone to fight in Bosnia-Herzegovina but the Croats won't allow the mujahedin in through Croatia as the Pakistanis did with Afghanistan.'

Thus did Mr Bin Laden reflect upon jihad while his former fellow combatants looked on. Was it not a little bit anti-climactic for them, I asked, to fight the Russians and end up road-building in Sudan? 'They like this work and so do I. This is a great plan which we are achieving for the people here, it helps the Muslims and improves their lives.'

His Bin Laden company - not to be confused with the larger construction business run by his cousins - is paid in Sudanese currency which is then used to purchase sesame and other products for export; profits are clearly not Mr Bin Laden's top priority.

How did he feel about Algeria, I asked? But a man in a green suit calling himself Mohamed Moussa - he claimed to be Nigerian although he was a Sudanese security officer - tapped me on the arm. 'You have asked more than enough questions,' he said. At which Mr Bin Laden went off to inspect his new road.

Saturday, 6 July 2013

Ultimate Chilling Effects: The Story Behind the Story, Behind Snowden and the NSA Affair....

Aug. 24, 2011

From: KR

To: All Internet Operatives and Interns

Re:  Internet Operations --  For Immediate and Aggressive Implementation


Hello Gang,

You've all been working hard, and it's paying off.  Obama's numbers are plummeting as I type this.  Congratulations all around.  But we can't afford to be complacent now.  

I just want to briefly go over a few Mission Points with you.

1. Main mission:  Infiltrate all liberal web sites, posing as disaffected liberals with liberal-sounding user names, icons and signatures.  (Reference Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, FDR, Smedley Butler, Bill Clinton, etc.)

2. Express.  Disappointment.  With.  Obama.  (Whining pays double!)  (jk!)

3. Push primary challenge.  Push third party.  Push Green.  Push Socialist.  Push write-in voting.  Push non-voting to "send a message."

4. Effective memes/talking points:

"Obama is a DINO."
"Obama is no different than a Republican."
"Obama has sold us out."
"It feels good to vote your conscience."
"It feels good to stick to your principles."
"Don't be trapped into voting for the lesser of two evils."
"We need to punish Obama and the Democrats by not voting."
"We'd be better off with a Republican in the White House."
"Obama is a war-mongering, torturing, corporatist shill."

I simply cannot emphasize this point enough:  No meme is too extreme or radical.  "Obama is worse than Bush!"   "Obama is a war criminal!"  Remember: the reader thinks he is reading the opinion of a fellow liberal.  It's all about peer suggestibility, people.  Keep expanding theOverton Window.   The more you push a radical notion, the more likely a slightly less radical notion becomes acceptable.  Someone else said it this way:  "The bigger the lie, the more likely people will believe it."
So take it over the top.  Absolutely nothing is outside the realm of plausibility.  "Obama is an alien from the planet Negron."  I like it!

The libs are disappointed that Obama hasn't turned America into a socialist paradise by now, but they're lazy and spoiled, not savvy and proactive like us.  They think that by whining on a liberal web site they're engaging in some sort of "activism."   They're "holding Obama's feet to the fire."  They actually believe that DC policymakers or their staffers somehow have the time to read every ridiculous liberal blog.  They don't get it that the only ones reading their whiny little rants are--wait for it--other liberals.  So they're actually doing a whole lot of heavy lifting for us with all their dis-motivating buzz-kill, and we want to encourage them as much as possible.  When your enemy is engaged in a circular firing squad, pass them the ammo!

Look, we suckered all those nutjob Christian fundies out of their votes and their money.   LIberals are almost as easy to fool!

You've done great work so far.  At this point, many of the liberal blog sites are virtually indistinguishable from RedState. (And can you imagine us on RedState trashing our own candidate?  Riiiight.)  On most liberal sites, anyone praising Obama is hounded and laughed out of town.  Seeya later, blackwaterdog!  We, with the help of the libs, have made it uncool to approve of or admit to liking Barack Obama on a liberal web site!  Obama-trashing is now in vogue!  Is this a great country, or what?!

Remember, in 2000, the Greens helped us put George in the White House by chanting that Al Gore was the same as Dubya!  That George W. Bush was the same as the biggest liberal around!  And libs bought that!  They've obviously got a serious masochistic streak, so let's hand them a whip!  (Can you imagine what America would be like today if we'd had that commie wuss Al Gore in the White House for eight years?  Gives me goosebumps!)

The Internet was liberals' most effective weapon against us, for spreading lies and motivating other libs to vote and volunteer and donate, but not any more!   Now the only effect of liberal blog sites is to sap enthusiasm and deter liberals from voting, period.  We have monkey-wrenched our enemy's strength and turned it into a liability.  The Republican Party owes Karl's Keyboard Kommandoes a huge debt of gratitude.  You were instrumental in keeping Democrats home last November,  and look what happened:  we took back the House!   I only wish I could thank you all in person.  Mmmwahhh!

I know most of you work at home, but here at Crossroads I sometimes hear you guys yelling across your cubicles.  "Hey, rec me on Kos!  I'm owning those liberal schmucks!  That's another Prius-load of Dims staying home!  Spurn, baby, spurn!  It's a beautiful thang!"

Gotta love that energy!

But we can't let up now.   Now is the time to work even harder to sow and fertilize discontent out there in lib-land.  The debates have begun and soon a front-runner will emerge for the libs to focus on and sling their mud at, instead of their own guy.  (Go Ricky!  Either or both!  The Ricky/Ricky ticket!  Anybody but that grotesque, hideous beotch from the Klondike!)

If Obama manages to steal a second term, he could be an unfettered loose cannon and inflict irreparable damage on our Republic. Two words:  Supreme. Court.  We just can't afford to let Obama pack the SCOTUS with liberal activist judges.
 The long-overdue Citizens United decision means that finally our friends in business will no longer be muzzled from speaking out politically, so now our voices will have the full force of our resources behind them.   Here at Crossroads we're poised to spend $20 million for ad campaigns spreading the truth, and the sky's the limit.

And we also have to acknowledge the work of our fellow patriots at the RNC and Heritage and CFG and AEI, etc., and all the private grassroots blog-warriors out there as well, such as the excellent Advantage Consultants.  You guys are our Republican Underground, freedom fighters prosecuting our mission in the trenches on a daily basis.  And don't think we don't recognize your commendable job of scrubbing all the filthy liberal lies out of Wikipedia.

Here are some helpful answers to your Frequently Asked Questions:

Q:  Some libs are wise to us.  A Rand Paul staffer got caught on Daily Kos last year.  What if I am called out as a mole or troll?
A:  No problem; actually an opportunity.  Simply accuse the accuser of being a troll for Obama and the DNC, of trying to stifle dissent.   (Libs are suckers for that kind of stuff.)
 Say, "It's not a crime to criticize the president!"  Or, "So I'm not allowed to say anything bad about Obama?"  It's a straw man that works every time.   Try this:   "Nobody's gonna shut me up!  I'm gonna keep on speaking out!  Attica!  Attica!"

Q:  What do I do if the libs confront me with Obama's accomplishments?  What if they start rattling off all the liberal crap he's foisted on the American people?
A:  Just come back with the "warmongering corporatist torturer" bit (I know--he's a piker, he sucks at it, but some of them will actually believe that).   Mere laughing dismissal is often very effective.  Usually all it takes is an LOL.  Call your attackers "Obamabots."  Accuse them of mindless fawning, of worshipping their "saviour."  Dismiss the positive, accentuate the negative.  Reference Paul Krugman and Glenn Greenwald.  We know Obama hosed us on the debt ceiling deal, for example, but the libs think he sold out.  That's the spin we want to push.  And it won't hurt to ramp up the vitriol and nastiness.  We want to make every liberal site an unpleasant place to visit.

Q:  What if some of this criticism does reach Obama's radar and he starts going even more leftist or tries to kick Republican butt?  Won't that backfire on us?
A:  Nothing would be better!  Bring it, O man!  We've already managed to inform a big chunk of the electorate that Obama is in truth an angry, racist, America-hating communist.  If we can goad him to the point where he stops playing rope-a-dope with us and starts acting like the thuggish, belligerent, socialist dictator we know him to be in reality, we win.  We want nothing more than for him to lose his temper and get all pushy and uppity (I love that word!) and uncompromising.  Heck, if he gets uppity enough, we might have some traction on an impeachment move.  Admittedly, it's frustrating that he has kept his cool no matter what we throw at him.  His phony act of being so consistently goddamned adult and steady and reasonable and sober and bipartisan is what has made all our people in comparison look like stubborn, childish, maudlin, jingoistic, perverted, hypocritical, narcissistic, grandstanding, demented, ignorant, freak-show corporatist whores who don't give a shit about America.  And they're not.  Not at all.  Nope.  Not all of them.  No way, Hozay!  

Q:  Is our work really that effective?  I mean, how many people actually read these liberal blogs?
A:  Your work is very effective, or we wouldn't be paying you.  True, the people who visit these liberal sites might be a tiny percentage of the population, but they are the most political, the most likely to get involved in organizing, volunteering and fundraising.  In other words, the core.  If we can raise enough doubts among the core, and constantly reinforce those doubts through peer suggestibility, we will in essence drive a stake through the heart of the Democrat party.  And that is a good day's work, my friends!

Q:  He got Osama bin Laden.  How the hell do we spin that?
A:  Easy:  "Obama assassinated a foreign leader without a trial."  "Obama should be tried for murder before an international court of law."  "They didn't even read bin Laden his Miranda rights, or offer him counseling!"

People, the bottom line is that I don't care what you do, or what it takes.  We get it.  The libs don't.  We know it's all about votes, and the money and enthusiasm and volunteering that gets votes.  The guy who goes to the White House in 2013 will have either an R after his name, or a D.  Do we want the party of Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi and Sherrod Brown in our house, or do we want the party of Grover Norquist, Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers?   So, all eyes on the prize, which is:  Keeping those godless, America-hating libs away from the voting booths!

We want to make this the new theme song of the Democrat party:
(To the tune of the In-N-Out jingle)

Sit it out!
Sit it out!
That's what a Dem-ocrat is
All about!

Onward to the Hundred-Year Majority!

And remember:  The month's top poster wins a dream lunch with KR!

Yours in liberty, free enterprise, and purity of purpose,



8:26 PM PT: Wow, 50 HRs and counting.  I stepped into a nest of rattlesnakes, I guess.  I used to love this site years ago, but now I'm sick over what it has become.  All I tried to do was hold up a mirror, and maybe some here didn't like what they saw.  When so much of the work here is so closely aligned with that of our enemies (yes, the Republican party is my enemy), then I think we need to question what effect we're having.  Of course this is interpreted by some (defensively, I feel) as an admonition to stop criticizing President Obama, and that is completely missing the point.  We are talking mostly to each other here, so a constructive purpose of dissent on DK would be to rally others to action.  What action are we rallying our fellow Kossacks to take?

8:51 PM PT: My greatest disappointment:  Apparently no one got the reference of "Spurn, baby, spurn!"  Didn't anyone here see "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room"?