149 Sleeper Cell Terrorists Captured

Leave a comment


General Mansur Al-Turki, spokesperson of Saudi Arabia’s Interior Ministry of Security,  announced at a press conference that over the last eight months that Saudi Arabia has captured and imprisoned 149 sleeper cell militants.  They may be the largest personal lost Al Qaeda has suffered since America invaded Afghanistan.

Who and What was Captured?

There were nineteen sleeper cells who were captured; ten were independent sleeper cells, a four cell group, a three cell group, and a two cell group.

The independents generally had closer ties directly to Osama Bin Ladin and the Yemen Branch of Al Qaeda, better known as AQAP.  These cells focused primarily on manufacturer explosives, distributing those explosives, and training militants in the construction of bombs.  Their bombs were going to be involved in planned attacks on numerous security and military facilities across Saudi Arabia.  The majority of their recruits were young male teenagers, on holy pilgrimages to Mecca.  They were militarized and radicalized by the extremist ideology of Al Qaeda.  Boys like these wayward youth make of the majority of the soldiers that fight for branches of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.

The largest group of had four cells and forty-one terrorists.  They had numerous ties to AQAP in Yemen; the spokesperson announced they had terrorism plots in the advanced stages.  The terrorists focused on targeting security officers and security facilities like checkpoints and police stations.  This high coordinated and very advanced branch of Al Qaeda was captured with a small arsenal of weapons, mostly AK-47’s and RPGs, and dozens of laptops.  It is speculated that this group posed the largest threat to the stability of the Saudi Arabian government.

The second largest group had three cells and twenty-four terrorists.  Chiefly they planned to target military complexes such as air strips and small military bases.  They also had planned to assassinate key personal in the high levels of government and the media, both domestic and international.  They targeted journalists, hoping to eliminate non Al Qaeda oriented opinions in Saudi Arabia, posing the largest known threat to the media in the Middle East.

The smallest coordinated group had only two cells and sixteen members.  Unlike the other seventeen cells these terrorists focused on financially funding other branches of Al Qaeda.  They helped quarterback the gathering of 2.24 million Saudi riyals, worth roughly $600,00 US dollars.  These funds were to be used to arm and support the militants in Yemen and Somalia.  Funds were gathered by the terrorists; they deceived donors, claiming that the funds would go to help Muslims in poor countries.

What Affects Will this Have on Al Qaeda?

Capturing nearly a hundred and fifty militants will severely injure Al Qaeda on the Arabian peninsula and may lead to more exposed sleeper cells internationally.  Less than ten thousands men make up the total forces of Al Qaeda, perhaps as low as five thousand.  By capturing a hundred and fifty terrorists Saudi Arabia has imprisoned as much as 3% of the total man power of Al Qaeda, an impressive number that rivals the total number the America has captured in its lengthy campaign in Afghanistan.

Mansur Al-Turki stated that he had already informed Interpol and Yemen Interior Security of numerous sleeper cells outside the borders of Saudi Arabia.  Some of the captured terrorists were African, hinting that they discovered cells in Somalia; others were described as South Asian, so this would probably lead to exposure of cells in Indonesia, the single largest Muslin country.  Capturing these men will lead to uncovering additional of sleeper cells throughout the world, twisting the dagger in th heart of Al Qaeda.

What Have We Learned About Al Qaeda?

We have gained valuable knowledge about the radical ideology of AQAP’s branch of Al Qaeda.  Mansur Al-Turki announced that his officers had discovered a unified set of codes that outlines the direction AQAP will go in during the future.  He stated they are actively,

-Publishing takfirist ideology*

-Facilitating the transfer of recruiting cells to troubled regions

-Carrying out criminal operations that aim to spread chaos around the world

-Destabilizing security in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the USA

-Raising funds to support Al Qaeda, both at home and abroad

(* Takfirist ideology is a radical Al Qaeda and Taliban creed that has moves away from traditional Muslim beliefs and openly encouraged terrorism.  It is denoucned by the vast majority of Muslims.)

While this initial finding may appear worthless, addition information coupled with this known ideology can help authorities locate where future terrorists activities will take place.  This finding may someday save innocent lives.

An addition there was evidence supporting that Al Qaeda is moving towards further isolating the sleeper cells.  Up until this point they have favored groups of sleepers cells, as many as ten connected cells.  The large number of cells made it easier for each group to act effectively and independently, while it did threaten security.  This new system means that each job is further compartmentalized,  breaching one cell will not bring down an entire operation like it did in this latest incident.  Authorities will have to capture coordinators, men who organize large groups of cells and start new ones, in order to find large numbers of cells.  This gives the individual cells more security and more independence while limiting their power.  This will lead to numerous ineffective smaller terrorism events internationally, there will be more attacks but they will each do far less damage.

Questions to Ask our Allies:

Of the 149 militants there was only one women, who was imprisoned for posting “Al Qaeda Ideology” on the internet.  She has recently been released into the custody of her family.  This is not unheard of, there have been precedents of so-called terrorists being released into the custody of their families.  On follow up interviews these alleged terrorists generally only had tenuous links to Al Qaeda at best, some were swindled into supporting terrorism while others were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time.  In some circumstances these “terrorists” were almost certainly imprisoned so that the government could gain leverage over important unruly subjects.  She was convicted of posting “Al Qaeda Ideology” on the Internet, but there has been no evidence to support this and they later released her after a short scare.

America and the European Union should congratulate and support Saudi Arabia in their sleeper cell bust, however they must also recognize that these numbers might be inflated with political prisoners.  Saudi Arabia has a checkered past concerning political prisoners, they have done it in the past but recently they have either stopped the illegal incarceration of innocents or have gotten better at covering it up.

America and the European Union should help Saudi Arabia, it is the best way to eliminate the real terrorists, but they also must pressure Saudi Arabia to stop using the threat of terrorism to eliminate political opponents of King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz, who currently rules Saudi Arabia.  Stabilization of the Middle East, by eliminating unethical practices, is the best way to defeat Al Qaeda, who public support just to survive.  Destroy that support and Al Qaeda will be crushed under the wrath of the common man.

Sources: AAWSAT, GlobalPost, and TheHindu.

Advertisements

Elimination of Political Race Spending in Favor of Popular Opinion Based on Public Debates

1 Comment


I was awakened by fear, a fear of money.

This fear is highly questionable, who would be afraid of something that our society revolves around? Well, that very focus of wealth is what frightens me.  There was a statistic in Capitalism: A Love Story, a revealed Citigroup  memo calmly stated”Less than 1% of all Americans control 95% of the wealth … America should move to a plutocracy.”

Plutocracy: A system of government whereby wealth and the benefits that wealth accrues lead to a concentration of power in the hands of those with disproportionate access to financial resources.

This system of government would greatly benefit the very wealthy and further hurt, more so than they already are, the middle class, lower class, and those in poverty.  Even if this system of government never officially comes into effect it can still become, and already may be, the official doctrine of the United States.  After all elections in this country are not won, they are bought.

Opensecrets.com says that, “In 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of Senate races that had been decided by mid-day Nov. 5, the candidate who spent the most money ended up winning.”

People should win based on their values, not about how much money they can gather.  So waht is the answer to my midnight fear?  Well, I’ll tell you.

We ,must outlaw political race spending.

*crickets*

Ah yes, you are looking for an explanation.  Instead of having each party running its own campaign we eliminate all separate campaigns.  All aspiring politicians have to is sign up for the office they are running for and the government takes care of the rest. Politicians only have to gather signatures, the more signatures they get the more advertisement they will receive.  Nothing flashy, not fancy slogans or bold lies.  More airtime in public government debates.  The federal government will host public debates, that everyone can come to or view over television, and it is there that the politicians will rise and fall and candidates for each party will be decided.

Debates have always been the best way for Americans to get to know their candidates, so why shouldn’t it also be the primary way?  Politicians tend to dance around controversial issues today;under the pressure of a public debate they are forced to take stances on the issues that matter most to Americans.  It will allow the voters to genuinely see who they are voting for.

How will the debates be arranged?  There are dozens if not hundreds of “candidates” who petition each year for the Office of President or a seat Congress or numerous minor offices.  Initially, those with the most signatures in each state will debate, and those with fewer signatures will also converse in separate debates.  There will be several layers of debates, based on how many thousands of signatures that can are gathered.  If those in the lower debate receive more signatures, for greater approval ratings, they will be vaulted up to the higher debates.  If those in higher debates are surpassed they get kicked down to the lower debates.  The politicians with the strongest voice and the best ideas, that match up best with the people voting for him (who represent the majority), emerge on top.

From there, the parties will have their own private votes on who they are going to support; they are by no means forced to go by these debates, but I do believe it will be high recommended.  The best politicians will be given the opportunity for success, not the politicians with the most money (as it is today).

More debates will ensue, to monitor America’s opinion on the politicians.  Statements will be made, lines will be drawn, and expectations will be set.  In the end, the voters will have an honest opinion of their each of their candidates and will be able to vote without being blinded by false advertisements.  In this manner the politician with the strongest voice and whose values best sync up with the majority of the American people will be elected into the offices that matter the most.

With the best possible politicians in every seat in government America will reach a Golden Age, full of splendor.  In addition to having the best men and women to run its government the American people and hundreds of corporations will no longer be throwing their money  at potential candidates.  Everyone will be a little richer.

That doesn’t sound too bad, despite the fact I thought it up at 3AM. Night, now that idea is written out I can finally get some sleep.

Dead Peasant’s Insurance: Your Worth More to Your Employer Dead

Leave a comment


Contrary to popular belief, many notable corporation here in America would love to see their employees dead.

What? THIS IS INCONCEIVABLE! 1

It is true.  Several notable companies take out large life insurance policies on most of their employees, which means every time one of their employees dies they get money.  This is not just minor refunds for their lost labor, they receive up to 1.5 million dollars. Here are the most notable offenders-

  • American Express Co.
  • AT&T Communications
  • Bank Of America
  • Citibank, N.A.
  • Citizens Bank
  • Coca-Cola Company
  • Hershey Foods Corporation
  • NationsBank
  • Nestle Enterprises
  • Panera Bread Co.
  • Procter & Gamble Company
  • Southwest Bank
  • TYCO International
  • Union Bank
  • Wachovia Corporation
  • Walgreen Company
  • Wal-Mart Stores
  • Walt Disney
  • Wells Fargo, N.A.
  • Winn Dixie
  • York Water Co.

This is not the entire list of known companies that buy Dead Peasant Insurance, life insurance policies by corporations on employees.  The full list, comprised of about 215 companies can be found at deadpeasent.com.  Despite the fact you may not work for the listed corporations your company may still practice this ignoble insurance scam.  These companies are the known ones ,there are hundreds of undocumented companies that “insure” as many as ten million Americans.

Many people question the legality of this shady practice.  It is a conflict of interest, the corporations want their employees to die and to the best of my knowledge those same employees do not want to die.  Taking out dead peasant’s insurance is similar to a friend of yours taking out fire insurance on your house, so if it burns down for any reason (including them setting it on fire) they will reap the benefits.

Someone is getting a Camaro. 2

Technically, this is legal. After all these corporations have an investment in their employees, they should receive some funds, that way they can replace their employees and get on with their job of being a callous corporation.

What about the families of the deceased?

What about those who pay as much as a hundred thousand in medical fees associated with the hospital not saving a loved ones life?

What about the cost of the funeral?

The companies give the families of the deceased the cold shoulder, these fees are the sole responsibility of the family, who may have their income halved if not completely eliminated. As they struggle with debt and bankruptcy, the corporations go on to employ someone else, preferably young and unhealthy.  That way they get the “most” out of their loyal workers.

There have been several major moves against this inhumane practice, suits have been filed and many of these companies have been take to court.  Always, the corporations have won.  They site one specific precedent, Santa Clara County V. South Pacific Railroad.  This supreme court case made it so corporations were legally viewed as individuals and therefore got all the rights citizens have. Freedom of Speech.  Protection of Private Property.  The Right to Due Process.

Also the Right to Wish Employees Dead (anything for a better profit margin, right?)

Dead Peasant’s Insurance should be used to benefit those most hurt by the loss of the deceased, the families.  If a company has the foresight to take out a life insurance policy on its workers that is all well and good.  As “individuals’ they have the right to protect their workers.  However, first they should pay off the debts the families would other wise take one, due to loss of income and related medical expenses.  That is what is ethical and morally correct.

This raises a poignant question: Should corporations be view as individuals?  I believe they should, on the condition that they are treated as individuals in all fields.  Today corporations stomp out the little people without a thought when things are going well and hide behind Santa Clara County v. South Pacific Railroad whenever they are in danger.

This verdict was cited in the most in Congress, as more than $700 billion was given to the same corporations that caused the economic recession.  Before they had been acting outside the authority of the government, ignoring restrictions that were in place to prevent a recession from happening.  As the recession broke they begged, and received, money from the government.  They argued that they deserved money because as individuals of America they should be protected and supported by America.

Thanks for the money! More cameros!

This is wrong and is criminal.  If these corporations want funding that is fine, as long as they have paid their dues before hand.  By handing out $700 billion the American government is rewarding recklessness and failure.  This is wrong and criminal.  Only corporations who, like regular individuals, prove that they are worthy of trust should be trusted.  This is fair and what should be done.

Why Politicians Should Build Business Instead of Blindly Throwing Away Money (Duh)

Leave a comment


Obama should not continue the Bush Tax Breaks, instead opting for large scale entrepreneurship of the middle and lower classes.

The democrats fared poorly in last Tuesday’s election, losing control of the House and barely clinging to the Senate.  Now the Republicans hold the House of Representatives, the democrats the Presidency and the Senate.  Obama is now forced to negotiate with Republicans on all issues, otherwise they will very simply stone wall his movements.  In an ideal world this would result in fair political movement, more or less equally balanced between the Democrats and the Republicans.

We don’t live in an ideal world.

What could just as easily happen is that politics in this country grind to a halt, as the politician bicker not over politics, but for power.  The Republicans want more influence across the government, and their only leverage is through the House.  They will exploit this, taking power forcing the Democrats to relinquish some of their power in order to pass any legislation.  The Democrats will fight for endlessly and furiously for their national influence.  Both sides are hostile towards the other, but both are willing to negotiate.

Now arises the Bush Tax Cuts, which are due to expire on December 31, 2010.  These sweeping tax breaks for middle class Americans gave money to many Americans, to spend as they please.  The tradeoff for this is a massive US deficit, if this act is extended even one year it will increase the deficit by $250-$350 billion, if left in place for a decade it will run up a bill of three trillion, or 3,000,000,000,000, on top of the near ten trillion dollars of current deficit.

Deficit is bad.  The deficit is made up of massive loans taken from other countries and banks, so the American government can spend money it needs now, then pay off the loans later.  The benefit of these massive loans is that the government has massive reserves of untapped wealth that can be accessed at a moment’s notice, very useful for wars and natural disasters.  The downside is that the country loses significant amounts of money on each of these loans, the other banks and countries that take the loans and give the money charge interest on money the US government took.  In the end the taxpayers will have to pay off the imbalance.

Obama initially wanted to eliminate these tax cuts all together, countering inflation and putting the country on a more economically friendly track.  Now he is forced to negotiate with the Republicans, trading legislation he wants for protecting this reform.  From a social perspective this is good, the American government is all about a system of checks and balances and compromising.  From the rich men’s perspective this is excellent, they benefit greatly from these tax cuts putting tens of thousands of dollars in their own pockets.  For those already struggling to get buy, they get nothing unless some small amount trickles down to them.

The question of eliminating or maintain the Bust Tax Cuts is a simple question, should those who are successful be helped or those who are in poverty?  Helping those who are successful could create new businesses, but it does not guarantee those less fortunate will be aided.  Helping those who are less fortunate will increase the standard of living for more people, but will probably not create new businesses.  Both are not good options.

I propose that we let those in poverty help themselves, give them many innovators who lack capital the money needed to start a company, help all those who are poor, but focus on those who will create new job opportunities.  Even if many of these businesses fail, the government can default on the loans and get nearly all their money back.  Those that succeed will tens of thousands of those who were previously out of work, making up for their fallen competitors.

This is how Obama should move on the Bush Tax Cuts, eradicate them and replace them with major incentives to help people who have the intelligence and creativity to help themselves.  The tax cuts should be repealed, it will create a great stress on the middle class but they can generally afford the loss that would starve and impoverish those worse off than them.

%d bloggers like this: