Wednesday, May 05, 2010

Taligram

Well, it looks like the idea that the Pakistan Taliban had a hand in the car bomb that fizzled may not be as farfetched as some people think.

Link

WASHINGTON — American officials said Wednesday that it was very likely that a radical group once thought unable to attack the United States had played a role in the bombing attempt in Times Square, elevating concerns about whether other militant groups could deliver at least a glancing blow on American soil.

Officials said that after two days of intense questioning of the bombing suspect, Faisal Shahzad, evidence was mounting that the group, the Pakistani Taliban, had helped inspire and train Mr. Shahzad in the months before he is alleged to have parked an explosives-filled sport utility vehicle in a busy Manhattan intersection on Saturday night. Officials said Mr. Shahzad had discussed his contacts with the group, and investigators had accumulated other evidence that they would not disclose.


Still, we’ll have to see how this plays out. As I said before I’m more worried about what our government does knowing its propensity to overreact to just about everything. Already people like Joe Lieberman are calling to strip Americans accused of terrorism of their citizenship.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Senator Scott Brown, Republican of Massachusetts, proposed stripping terrorism suspects of American citizenship,


Which I believe gives me some justification to worry about our government’s reactions. And note the wording “terrorism suspects” which means all they have to do is suspect that you are a terrorist and you might be stripped of your citizenship. They don’t have to have proof, just suspicion. If that’s not bizarre I don’t know what is but then the U.S. is bizarre, always has been.

However, as usual with the Obama administration we are given contradictory information.

One senior Obama administration official cautioned that “there are no smoking guns yet” that the Pakistani Taliban had directed the Times Square bombing. But others said that there were strong indications that Mr. Shahzad knew some members of the group and that they probably had a role in training him.


This is the hallmark of the Obama presidency, the innate ability to avoid being pinned down on any given issue. Perhaps this is because The Obama wishes to decide which is better for his presidency, a Taliban coordinated attack, or the actions of a lone actor. In these ever shifting sands one can never be sure of anything. Am I too cynical? Perhaps.

10 Comments:

At May 05, 2010 9:47 PM, Blogger Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Go here:

http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/2010/05/look_on_the_bright_side.html#comments

and read Sean's May 5 comment at 2:18 pm.

 
At May 05, 2010 10:04 PM, Blogger rob payne said...

Hi Charles,

There is always that possibility and I don't rule anything out. Of course they weren't so quick catching old bin Laden. The way I'm looking at this now is considering the immense loss of life we have been inflicting for so many years on so many peoples isn't it logical that there would be some blowback?

 
At May 06, 2010 1:16 AM, Anonymous some guy said...

I think you are correct to be concerned. Brown and Lieberman sound like a couple of fascists. Their citizenship should be stripped, and they should be randomly deported to a country where Americans are hated. Iceland? East Timor?

 
At May 06, 2010 5:04 AM, Blogger Jack Crow said...

The Pakistani ISI overlaps with the Pakistani Taliban. Hell, it controlled the hell out of the Pashto tribes of the Afghan Taliban, with funding, logistics and intelligence support.

The ISI has a proven capacity, in moving around agents, especially in the US, England, India and on the European continent.

I'm not suggesting false flag conspiracy, but these people are in place long before they get the phone call.

It doesn't take much of a leap for one to speculate about the CIA asking the ISI (and there are long, long institutional contacts, there) to activate an agent with a plan doomed to fail.

 
At May 06, 2010 9:14 AM, Blogger Charles F. Oxtrot said...

More food for thought:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/05/04/who_decides_if_terrorist_claims_of_responsibility_are_real

 
At May 06, 2010 1:16 PM, Blogger Jonathan Versen said...

I'm still highly skeptical Rob, although I recognize you're not arguing that doubting the official line is ipso facto a loony position. It sounds like you are saying you're agnostic re: false flag. Yes?

But I'm inclined to agree with Jack. If Faisal gets sent back to Pakistan after Obama fakes out the GOP by asking for expansive new powers just before the election, is rebuffed and accused of playing politics, etc...then BHO can announce to the full court press all sorts of sweeping new programs that would have "prevented" Faisal from being release for insufficient evidence.

Remember the scene in Dirty Harry where Harry finds out that the cops are releasing the Scorpio killer after Harry arrested him because he didn't have a search warrant? My guess is that even in San Francisco where the movie is set, even in '71, it wouldn't have played out that way in real life. But people generally believe that criminals have too many rights, and if it is indeed a false flag op it may well play out that way.



You know, "so we don't have to release the next Faisal, so we can be safer."

Such a scenario would even have the advantage of possibly mollifying the general populace in Pakistan, which despises their government for co-operating with America. It would allow the government to demonstrate how they stood up to the US by virtue of their tough negotiations to get Faisal released, etc. Everybody wins.

Well, sort of.

 
At May 06, 2010 5:02 PM, Blogger rob payne said...

Nothing wrong with being skeptical and I’m not married to the idea that the Taliban had a hand in this, in fact that really doesn’t matter if they were or not. The point I’m trying to make is that there will be repercussions, blowback if you prefer, to eight years of non-stop slaughter. It’s going to happen sooner or later even if this particular case is unrelated. And when that blowback does begin in earnest I think we’ll see the government grabbing even more power. That’s all I’m really trying to say and that particular train of thought was started by this car bomb incident.

And I’m also saying that assuming the Taliban cannot strike a target on American soil is just that, an assumption and I’m not convinced it is a correct one. There are many groups and many more people in that neck of the woods that have been radicalized against the U.S. which shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. In the end Dick Cheney could have done it for all I know. This could be one of those things where we never learn the truth, wouldn’t be the first time and it wouldn’t be the last.

So I think everyone’s ideas on this in the comments are entirely plausible and it would be stupid to rule anything out but you see that also includes that the Taliban may have had a hand in this which really wouldn’t surprise me. I’m not sure why that is so hard to believe. Maybe it’s the way people describe the Taliban -- as a bunch of backward cave dwellers that makes it so hard to believe yet I question that idea.

Also check out Chris Floyd's post today on this topic, a good read as usual.

 
At May 07, 2010 8:49 AM, Blogger Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Reality check:

We can no more blame "al Qaeda" than we can blame "soccer moms."

We can no more blame "the Taliban" than we can blame "4-Square Christians."

Both blamed groups (al Qaeda; Taliban) are too shapeless and formless to be blameworthy.

The only thing we can blame "soccer moms" for being is being mothers of kids who play in soccer leagues.

The only thing we can blame 4-Square Christians for being is people who profess Christianity while holding to a narrow view of what the New Testament suggests.

Neither group acts monolithically.

When an intelligent person allows him- or herself to be gulled and buffaloed by blamecasting in the direction of the Taliban and/or al Qaeda, he/she is failing to use the intellect otherwise available to him/her.

 
At May 07, 2010 12:21 PM, Blogger rob payne said...

Bullslhit Charles.

You didn’t even read the post, something I suggest you do before you go off the deep end. I never once said the Taliban was responsible for the bomb so don’t try to frame the story in that manner. As far as intellectuals, that is the last thing I would want to be. More of your rights are about to be sold down the river but all you can do is focus on is that the Taliban are too stupid and ignorant to attack the U.S. which smacks of American Exceptionalism.

 
At May 08, 2010 7:20 AM, Blogger Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Rob, if you would please re-read my comment you will see I am not blaming you, nor anyone in particular, for holding any position. I am simply offering a reality check for anyone who is inclined to think this story is about "al Qaeda" or "the Taliban."

 

Post a Comment

<< Home