Showing posts with label al qaeda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label al qaeda. Show all posts

Thursday, October 13, 2011

In Memoriam...Sergeant Nathan L. Wyrick


From the Executive Chamber of New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo

Governor Andrew Cuomo has directed that flags on state government buildings be flown at half-staff on Monday, October 17 in honor of a Fort Drum soldier who died in Afghanistan on October 10.

Sergeant Nathan L. Wyrick died in Kandahar province while supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

Wyrick was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 32nd
Infantry Regiment of the 10th Mountain Division's 3rd Brigade Combat Team stationed at Fort Drum. Sergeant Wyrick was from Enumclaw, Washington.

"I join with all New Yorkers in mourning the loss of Sergeant Wyrick and I extend my deepest condolences to his family, friends, and fellow soldiers," Governor Cuomo said.

"We will honor his service and his dedication to our country."


From The G-Man would like to honor Sergeant Nathan L. Wyrick, his love of country, and his service with the following video tribute. May he rest in peace.


Video uploaded to YouTube by moderatepopulist

Friday, July 1, 2011

Obama Nominates Olsen as NCTC Director

Will Play a Key Role on President's National Security Team

President Obama has nominated Matthew Olsen as the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). Olsen will play a key role on the President’s national security team – bringing a strong voice and critical knowledge to integrate intelligence in order to protect Americans across the nation and around the world.


“I am pleased to nominate Matthew Olsen to be the next Director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Matt has a distinguished record of service in our intelligence community and I’m confident he will continue to build on our strong counterterrorism efforts,” said President Obama.


“Matt will be a critical part of my national security team as we work tirelessly to thwart attacks against our nation and do everything in our power to protect the American people.”


If confirmed, Olsen will build on the important work of the dedicated intelligence professionals at NCTC who work every day to keep our nation safe and secure. He will continue NCTC’s mission to integrate intelligence relating to counterterrorism and to share that information with agencies and departments across the federal government.

Additionally, Olsen will continue NCTC’s critical effort to conduct strategic operational planning for counterterrorism activities across the federal government, ensuring that we bring the full weight of our diplomatic, financial, military, intelligence, homeland security, and law enforcement authorities and capabilities to bear to thwart terrorist plans. NCTC is organizationally part of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).

He currently serves as the General Counsel for the National Security Agency (NSA) and principal legal advisor to the NSA Director.

Olsen previously served in the Department of Justice as an Associate Deputy Attorney General and was responsible for supervising and coordinating national security and criminal matters. From 2009 to 2010, he was Special Counselor to the Attorney General and Executive Director of the Guantanamo Review Task Force.

In this role, he managed the interagency effort to conduct a comprehensive review of intelligence information on the Guantanamo detainees. Olsen also served as the acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security during the 2009 presidential transition, supervising the daily operation of the Department of Justice’s National Security Division.

From 2006 to 2009, he was a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the National Security Division and was responsible for the management of the Department’s intelligence operations and oversight. In this position, Olsen supervised the implementation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, helped craft landmark legislative changes to the surveillance laws, and advised government officials on intelligence activities and national security.

From 1994 to 2006, Olsen was a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. From 2005-2006, he was the chief of the office’s National Security Section, where he supervised the investigation and prosecution of terrorism, espionage, and export violation matters.


Olsen served as Special Counsel to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 2004 to 2005, where he focused on counterterrorism and intelligence investigations. As an Assistant United States Attorney, Olsen successfully prosecuted a violent drug trafficking organization in the longest criminal trial ever in the District of Columbia.

Olsen graduated from Harvard Law School (J.D.) and the University of Virginia (B.A.). He is an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University.


Photo source: Wikipedia
Author: Department of Justice
Permission: Public Domain

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Syed Saleem Shahzad: Rest in Peace

Asia Times Online Journalist Found Dead

Syed Saleem Shahzad, the Pakistan Bureau Chief for Asia Times Online who went missing on Sunday evening, has been killed, according to police.

Shahzad, who has been writing for Hong Kong-based Asia Times Online for nearly 10 years, failed to show up for a scheduled appearance on a television talk show in the capital Islamabad.

Police reported that his body was found in a canal in Mandi Bahauddin in Punjab province about 150 kilometers southeast of Islamabad and about 10 kilometers from where his car was found. They said that his body bore marks of torture.

Earlier, the International Federation of Journalists released a statement saying it "urgently appeals to the Government of Pakistan to order its security and police agencies to respond immediately to find a senior journalist who disappeared in Islamabad on May 29".

Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani expressed his "deep grief and sorrow" over Shahzad's death and ordered an immediate inquiry into his kidnapping and murder, according to Associated Press of Pakistan.

Shahzad, 40, had on several occasions been warned by officials of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) over articles they deemed to be detrimental to Pakistan's national interests or image. He leaves a wife, two sons aged 14 and seven, and a daughter aged 12.

Human Rights Watch researcher Ali Dayan Hasan earlier said he suspected ISI officials abducted Shahzad, possibly because of a recent story he wrote on al-Qaeda infiltration in the Pakistani navy. Authorities haven't commented. (Al-Qaeda had warned of Pakistan strike.)

Tony Allison, the Editor of Asia Times Online, expressed his deep concern for one of the most fearless journalists with whom he had ever worked. "We will bring the utmost pressure to bear on the authorities over this case. We at Asia Times Online express our deepest sympathies for Saleem's family."


Editor's Note: From The G-Man contacted Asia Times Online to express its deepest condolences regarding the death of Syed Saleem Shahzad. After corresponding with the publication's editor, Tony Allison, this site was granted permission to republish the aforementioned article. Thank you, Mr. Allison.

The article was republished in order to honor the legacy and life of Shahzad, one of the world's greatest investigative reporters, and to serve notice that attacks on freedom of the press or journalists, in any country, threaten and violate all human rights and our very existence.

The murder of Syed Saleem Shahzad occurred in Pakistan, but the impact is being felt all over the world. Without question, the Pakistani government and military "have issues".

The Obama Administration has publicly spoken out against the killing of Shahzad, and they are to be applauded for doing so. In the interest of global peace and national security, From The G-Man urges President Obama and Madam Secretary Hillary Clinton to follow up on the slain journalist's final news story regarding al-Qaeda members infiltrating the Pakistani navy. It would be a fitting tribute to a man that made the ultimate sacrifice in his quest for justice and the truth.

Monday, March 28, 2011

President Obama Makes His Case for Libyan Intervention

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

IN ADDRESS TO THE NATION ON LIBYA

National Defense University

Washington, D.C.

7:31 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Tonight, I’d like to update the American people on the international effort that we have led in Libya –- what we’ve done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us.

I want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform who, once again, have acted with courage, professionalism and patriotism. They have moved with incredible speed and strength. Because of them and our dedicated diplomats, a coalition has been forged and countless lives have been saved.

Meanwhile, as we speak, our troops are supporting our ally Japan, leaving Iraq to its people, stopping the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and going after al Qaeda all across the globe. As Commander-in-Chief, I’m grateful to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and to their families. And I know all Americans share in that sentiment.

For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That’s what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.

Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt -– two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny. For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant -– Muammar Qaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world –- including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.

Last month, Qaddafi’s grip of fear appeared to give way to the promise of freedom. In cities and towns across the country, Libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights. As one Libyan said, “For the first time we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over.”

Faced with this opposition, Qaddafi began attacking his people. As President, my immediate concern was the safety of our citizens, so we evacuated our embassy and all Americans who sought our assistance. Then we took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Qaddafi’s aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of Qaddafi’s regime’s assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Qaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. I made it clear that Qaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.

In the face of the world’s condemnation, Qaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. Water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misurata was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques were destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assaults from the air.

Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition and the Arab League appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. And so at my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass a historic resolution that authorized a no-fly zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.

Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Qaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear.

At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Qaddafi declared he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we wanted -- if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.

It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973.

We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Qaddafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit Qaddafi’s air defenses, which paved the way for a no-fly zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities, and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Qaddafi’s deadly advance.

In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies -– nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey –- all of whom have fought by our sides for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibilities to defend the Libyan people.

To summarize, then: In just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a no-fly zone with our allies and partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians. It took us 31 days.

Moreover, we’ve accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America’s role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.

Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and the no-fly zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Qaddafi’s remaining forces.

In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role -- including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation -- to our military and to American taxpayers -- will be reduced significantly.

So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: The United States of America has done what we said we would do.

That’s not to say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO responsibilities, we will work with the international community to provide assistance to the people of Libya, who need food for the hungry and medical care for the wounded. We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Qaddafi regime so that it’s available to rebuild Libya. After all, the money doesn’t belong to Qaddafi or to us -- it belongs to the Libyan people. And we’ll make sure they receive it.

Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than 30 nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Qaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve -- because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people.

Now, despite the success of our efforts over the past week, I know that some Americans continue to have questions about our efforts in Libya. Qaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous. Moreover, even after Qaddafi does leave power, 40 years of tyranny has left Libya fractured and without strong civil institutions. The transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task. And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community and –- more importantly –- a task for the Libyan people themselves.

In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all -– even in limited ways –- in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing needs here at home.

It’s true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country -– Libya -- at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Qaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.

To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and -– more profoundly -– our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful –- yet fragile -– transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the United Nations Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling that institution’s future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.

Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Qaddafi and usher in a new government.

Of course, there is no question that Libya -– and the world –- would be better off with Qaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.

The task that I assigned our forces -– to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a no-fly zone -– carries with it a U.N. mandate and international support. It’s also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Qaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground to accomplish that mission, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.

To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.

As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do -- and will do -- is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supplies of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Qaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Qaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Qaddafi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on Qaddafi’s side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.

Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America’s military power, and America’s broader leadership in the world, under my presidency.

As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform. I’ve made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies and our core interests. That's why we’re going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold. That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan, even as we have ended our combat mission in Iraq and removed more than 100,000 troops from that country.

There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and our values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and our common security -– responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us. They’re problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.

In such cases, we should not be afraid to act -– but the burden of action should not be America’s alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.

That’s the kind of leadership we’ve shown in Libya. Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya. Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States –- in a region that has such a difficult history with our country –- this American did not find enemies. Instead, he was met by people who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, “We are your friends. We are so grateful to those men who are protecting the skies.”

This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer.

Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently to different countries. There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes. And then there will be places, like Iran, where change is fiercely suppressed. The dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns will have to be addressed.

The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference.

I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed at one’s own people; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.

Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith -- those ideals -- that are the true measure of American leadership.

My fellow Americans, I know that at a time of upheaval overseas -- when the news is filled with conflict and change -- it can be tempting to turn away from the world. And as I’ve said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength here at home. That must always be our North Star -- the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring for our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear.

But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer, our own future is brighter, if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity.

Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our effort forward. And let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world.

Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you.

END 7:58 P.M. EDT


Photo source: The White House
Permission:
The White House

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

A MAJOR Ass-Kicking Could Be Coming!

Members of the al Qaeda terrorist group

Terrorists Will Capitalize on Political Discord, If We're Not Careful

Hey, America! Just when you thought things couldn’t get any worse, another superstar senator bolts his political party because he feels “Congress isn’t working.” Duh! I guess Evan Bayh didn’t get the memo until now, folks. I'd like to say something to Senator Bayh and every elected official that jumped ship or is planning to do so. You guys give whole new meaning to the term “bail-outs”, and you’re all cowards in The G-Man’s book.

Each of you made the decision to leave office when your country and constituents needed you most. You sons-of-bitches gave the President of the United States the authority to send more soldiers to die in Iraq and Afghanistan, but now many of you are choosing to “cut and run” instead of rolling up your sleeves, hammering out solutions and doing the right thing for this country and its inhabitants. Every politician that bounced on President Obama simply because of political discord is a disgrace to this country and the oath they took.

They're all a bunch of traitors who deserve a traitor's fate, especially when you consider the fact that American soldiers have been and continue to be placed in harm’s way. Thousands have died taking their last breath on foreign soil in the so-called war on terror. Unlike Senator Bayh and other members of “the bail-out boys”, these soldiers fought to the bitter end for honor and for country. Elected officials will never, ever be able to come up with an excuse good enough for bailing on America. Any politician thinking about going “Bayh-Bayh” needs to soldier up, sit their gavel-swinging ass down, break out the Louisville Slugger, which I call “an attitude adjuster”, and start doing what voters put them there to do.

The fact of the matter is the United States of America is teetering on the brink of economic, social and political collapse. Tensions are rising across the nation. Voters, after being raped by incompetent political representatives, have given birth to a political bastard called the Tea Party. Anger, anxiety, distrust, fear and uncertainty about the future have superceded “And to the Republic, for which it stands.” President Obama’s approval rating continues to plummet, and Madame Secretary Clinton has sounded very “hawkish” on Iran in recent weeks. Things certainly don’t appear to be getting any better, and I truly believe it all will culminate with something disastrous.

With the country in such turmoil, terrorists could see this as a perfect opportunity to launch an attack that would make the World Trade Center catastrophe pale in comparison. The situation in Washington, D.C. is very similar to a classic horror movie – the one where people are arguing about the best way to destroy the monster lurking outside. They’re all shouting and refuse to listen to one another when the monster suddenly bursts through the door and kills them. They didn’t pay attention to what was going on outside, and the monster took full advantage.

President Obama, his administration, the Congress and the Senate are the people arguing in the house. I guarantee you the terrorists are watching all of this, and it’s only a matter of time before they take advantage of the disorder, gridlock and incompetence and assume the role of monster. In the end, everyday Americans will become the sacrificial lambs in order to unify the country and end all the bickering, bitch slapping and finger pointing between the silver-haired fools on the hill. September 11th has already proved that.

This commentary is from the heart…. and…From The G-Man.

Author: paranormalknowledge.com

Permission: paranormalknowledge.com


Friday, October 9, 2009

President Barack Obama: "Nigger Nobel"

Award Presents Clear and Present Danger to Presidency

President Barack Obama has received the Nobel Peace Prize, and I’ve noticed that many people are not happy about it. While walking along the streets of lower Manhattan, I heard scores of people on cell phones, who were predominately white, blasting the Nobel Prize committee and the president. “He hasn’t done a damn thing to broker peace anywhere! All he’s done is make a bunch of eloquent speeches,” stated one woman. “I don’t fucking get it! Everybody’s pandering to this fucking liberal, including this committee, and the man has no clue about how to run this country,” said a man sporting a Syracuse jersey. Another woman summed up her feelings by loudly proclaiming, “This is bullshit!” I’m sure there were white people that supported the selection, but I didn’t see or hear them during my travels.

With all of the vitriol expressed by so many whites over the last several months, on issues ranging from health care to deficit reduction, I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if the hardcore Obama-haters, particularly the racists of America, started referring to him as “Nigger Nobel” in the wake of the committee’s decision. In stark contrast, a good number of black people, like national radio talk-show hosts Tom Joyner and Michael Baisden, have applauded President Obama’s recent and historic accomplishment. As much as it pains The G-Man to say it, I’m in the minority. I absolutely loathe the fact that he has been awarded the prize, and I fear that the President of the United States is being set up for failure and will eventually be made to look like a complete asshole.

Stay with me on this, folks. In recent months, President Obama’s approval rating has taken a serious beating. Poll numbers indicate that more and more people are unhappy with the policies and regulations he’s attempting to put in place, in addition to the unprecedented level of debt that has been heaped on the country. The haters have “Jokerized” him and compared him to Adolf Hitler. By the way, don’t let those gun-toting imbeciles at the president’s town hall meetings fool you. They know exactly what the hell they’re doing, but that’s another article entirely. Moreover, members of the Republican Party added fuel to the fire by distributing copies of “Barack, the Magic Negro” to fellow “Pubs”, calling the president a liar before the nation, and making gorilla jokes about the president and the First Lady. The level of disdain for President Obama, be it political or racial, continues to grow. However, there’s only one thing that threatens to eradicate every political/social victory and make him the most beleaguered, hated and ridiculed president in U.S. history: a deadly, large-scale terrorist attack.

Americans, especially blacks, can celebrate the Nobel Prize committee’s choice all they want. Don’t look for The G-Man to be part of the stupid celebration. I know what’s at stake, and all it will take is one cataclysmic attack on American soil for the level of animosity and distrust for President Obama to dramatically increase, and there will be hell to pay as a result. A Nobel Peace Prize won’t be able to do a damn thing to change that! Now that he has been presented with this esteemed honor, Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations and networks, including domestic terrorists, will place even greater emphasis on carrying out their mission in effort to annihilate and denounce everything the U.S., the Nobel Peace Prize, and its 2009 recipient stand for.

Photo source:

Author: Pete Souza, The Obama-Biden Transition Project

Permission: Creative Commons Attribution 3.o License

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Al Qaeda: Unleashing Hell on Earth!

Dr. Stephen Morse is Founding Director and Senior Investigator for the Center for Public Health Preparedness at the National Center for Disaster Preparedness. He also serves as an Associate Professor of Clinical Epidemiology at Columbia University.

A Leading Bioterrorism Expert Discusses Dangers & What You Can Do

Al-Qaeda still maintains a global presence and is vastly increasing in number. This is a sobering fact, but there is one other fact that is absolutely frightening. Recent data from federal government agencies, such as the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., indicate that their weapons of choice have been upgraded to include chemical, biological and possibly nuclear agents, as the terrorist organization and many of their offshoots now focus on generating casualties on a worldwide scale.

In an attempt to prevent or contain these potential threats, various crisis management centers and offices have been developed across the country and the globe through state and local governments. In the United States, the most widely recognized and respected of these facilities is the National Center for Disaster Preparedness (NCDP), a resource center at New York City’s Columbia University. The center is dedicated to the study, analysis and enhancement of the nation's ability to prepare for and respond to major disasters, including terrorism. According to the center’s website, “Particular areas of interest include readiness of the health and public health systems, health workforce and citizen readiness, disaster communications, national preparedness benchmarks and the needs of special populations.”

Given the extremely serious nature of the data in these government reports, I contacted the center and obtained this exclusive interview with Dr. Stephen Morse, Founding Director and Senior Investigator for the Center for Public Health Preparedness, at the NCDP, and Associate Professor of Clinical Epidemiology at Columbia University.

G-Man: The U.S. has thwarted a number of planned attacks since September 11. However, Michael Chertoff, former Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, has stated to the media and the public that another attack is imminent. He also noted that the intelligence gathered indicates it will involve bioterrorism. Doctor, are you confident that your center and staff will be able to control or contain an attack of this nature?

Dr. Morse: You can never be prepared enough, and there’s no room for complacency. So, I wouldn’t ever use the word “confident”. It takes a lot of moving parts to make preparedness and response work. “Consequence management” -- controlling and containing the effects of an attack -- is a partnership of many agencies working together. Our center is here to provide information, scientific expertise, and training. For example, during the anthrax letter attacks of 2001, we spoke at community forums, handled almost 200 media inquiries, and provided training to doctors. This facility is part of a national network of Centers for Public Health Preparedness, now numbering about 40 nationwide, set up by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2000.

At our institution in general, and at our city and state health departments, there has been a lot of attention to emergency preparedness. The anthrax attacks of 2001 that followed soon after 9/11 were very stressful for all concerned. These crises certainly should have sent the message that we need to be prepared for unexpected – even once unthinkable -- disasters. Obviously, health departments at every level (local, state, and federal), and the healthcare system, will have a very big role to play here, along with other agencies. Much will depend on the quality of the public health system (and the healthcare system), so it’s critical to sustain this system and keep it well oiled. I think my colleague, Dr. Irwin Redlener, puts it very well: “Events like 9/11, the anthrax attacks, and Katrina have been termed “wake-up calls”, but often seem more like snooze alarms. In addition to sustained funding, well trained people are essential.”

G-Man: Why are you so confident that your center will be able to handle a crisis situation if you’ve never experienced one in real time?

Dr. Morse: Although we haven’t experienced a large-scale attack, we did have the anthrax letters in the fall and winter of 2001. The incident was harrowing and painful, but it shed light on the many areas where we all need to do better. We have also had various natural infectious disease outbreaks in the last few years – both unexpected (West Nile; SARS in a number of places outside the United States), and more familiar (flu) – which have some of the same characteristics, including surprise. Of course, a large bioterrorist attack would be more challenging, at many levels. Since 2001, the government has greatly increased spending at both the federal and local levels for emergency preparedness, including readiness for bioterrorism and pandemic influenza. There have been a number of training and practice exercises. So, I think we’re further along. Am I completely confident? Of course not because there’s still a lot of work to do, and preparedness has to be a constant process.

G-Man: Are you equally confident that similar facilities across the nation will perform in the same capacity during crisis situations?

Dr. Morse: Everyone will do their best, of course, but there will be differences. Some are very well prepared now, while other places are still getting started. This will depend on resources and having well trained personnel with the right skills, in particular. In recent years, especially since 9/11, local agencies and healthcare facilities have been encouraged to plan for unusual emergencies and to develop mutual aid agreements to share resources. Programs such as “Project Public Health Ready” for local health departments, works with a network of Centers for Public Health Preparedness to support them with training and assistance, and special federal funding for hospital preparedness and the states have helped bring many health departments and healthcare facilities to at least a basic level of preparedness. But it’s still not a seamless system, and we really need to keep at it. In a major attack, in addition to the sheer numbers of people who will need help, there will be challenges such as communication between jurisdictions, coordinating different agencies, and getting accurate information as rapidly as possible.

G-Man: When the “Bird Flu” crisis was being discussed in America, government officials and a number of leading scientists conducted press conferences to note the effectiveness of Tamiflu in combating the illness. If the intelligence gathered by the C.I.A., F.B.I., Department of Homeland Security and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention clearly mentions the chemicals terrorists plan to use in an attack, have any sample vaccines or antidotes been produced? If so, why hasn’t the information been conveyed to the public?

Dr. Morse: There’s no simple answer. It will really depend on what we get hit with, and we will probably not know many details in advance. The key is early recognition and quick response. In some cases, we may have effective antibiotics (or antiviral drugs) and vaccines. Many of the bacteria we often mention as bioterrorism threats, like anthrax, can be treated successfully IF we identify the victims and get to them early enough. The same is true in the case of smallpox, which is a virus, and some others. We have vaccines for some of these infections as well. In other cases, such as flu pandemic, it may take months to produce a vaccine. Until then, we’ll be recommending good hygiene, avoiding crowds, staying home as much as possible, and perhaps drugs like Tamiflu, if appropriate.

For chemical agents, we do have specific antidotes for some of them, and prompt medical treatment can help save many lives even when we don’t have a specific antidotal. Again, rapid identification and response is the key. You pose an excellent question, G-Man. Why don’t we provide more information to the public? I firmly believe that we should. It’s one of the most important things we can do. I think it’s often forgotten in the heat of the debate, or authorities are afraid of frightening people or saying the wrong things. We all need to become much better at educating the public and keeping everybody as well informed as possible. By the way, the CDC website is a very good source of information. Your readers can get information at www.bt.cdc.gov/

G-Man: The public has a right to know about the horror and devastation associated with this type of attack, so don’t sugarcoat your response to this question. Can you present at least two worst-case scenarios, the signs and/or symptoms, and an approximation of how many would die as a result?

Dr. Morse: I’m afraid anyone with a little imagination can come up with lots of possible scenarios. One of the simplest may be a plane flying over a city and releasing anthrax. The World Health Organization estimated that 50 kilograms (about 100 pounds) of anthrax released this way in a city of 5 million would probably cause 250,000 cases and 100,000 deaths, with possible effects for 10 miles or more. This was a very conservative estimate. Anthrax, when inhaled, starts as a flu-like illness, then (usually after a temporary improvement in the patient’s symptoms) progresses in a few days to a severe pneumonia and then rapidly moves to affect almost all the organs. About half the victims get meningitis, an inflammation of the lining covering the central nervous system, with a lot of hemorrhaging there. Untreated, inhalation anthrax is about 90% fatal.

Personally, I worry about a natural event: influenza pandemics. A pandemic is an epidemic that essentially covers the world. The greatest known influenza pandemic, in 1918-1919, claimed over 500,000 lives in the United States, and probably at least 50 million worldwide. Many were healthy young adults. We hope that’s the rare exception, but if a pandemic of that severity happened today, according to CDC’s calculations, it would be likely to cause almost 2 million deaths in the U.S. alone.

G-Man: If Al-Qaeda cells launch a chemical, biological or small-scale nuclear attack in the U.S., what does the center suggest people do if they’re in these settings: on the street or at an outdoor sporting event; on a train (underground during rush-hour); on an airplane; in an office building; in a car (while on a bridge) or in their homes?

Dr. Morse: First of all, remember that for any individual, the statistical chances that it will happen to you personally are very, very small. An exception is the natural outbreak of pandemic influenza, which will infect a large percentage of the population. It’s a matter of being in or near the area when the attack is occurring or, hopefully, not being there. These three types of attacks (chemical, biological, or nuclear) are different in important ways.

A chemical attack usually shows its results very quickly. If you see people suddenly stricken, the key is to get to a location that has fresh air as quickly as you safely can, wherever you are, and make sure you are not running in the direction of the wind. If I were in a car, I’d roll up my windows and turn off the air conditioning until I can get further away. In a plane, which is enclosed, open the air vents to bring in outside air, get as far away from the source as possible and cover your nose and mouth with a moist cloth. You can also use your scarf or necktie. Covering your nose and mouth is generally recommended for all these events, although they probably don’t do that much (biological is a possible exception). Then, seek medical attention if you start feeling ill, having breathing difficulties, or any skin or eye irritations.

Biological attacks are not immediately obvious. Even if you see someone running around spraying something, which is highly unlikely, who knows what they’re spraying? The illness from a bio-attack will take several days to develop, for some (like smallpox) even up to a couple of weeks. Many start as “flu-like illnesses” that rapidly get worse. I’d suggest seeking medical attention for a flu-like illness that makes you feel sicker than the flu usually does and comes with abdominal pain, chest pain, or a spreading rash, especially if you don’t have a runny nose. Call your doctor immediately. Chances are, if you were exposed, so were others, and the attack may already have been identified by the time you get sick.

Radiological dispersion devices (“dirty bombs”) may not be immediately obvious either. You may be aware of the explosion but may not know it had radioactive material in it. This may be discovered later when law enforcement or public health authorities check the bombed area for radioactivity. If you were too far to be affected by the explosion, that is, fairly far away, you’ll probably okay. Get away from the area, and seek medical evaluation.

A “small” nuclear explosion (NOT a “dirty bomb”, but a real nuke) is a different story. According to Graham Allison at Harvard, a 10-kiloton atom bomb (a fairly small one – roughly the equivalent of the bomb used in Hiroshima during World War II) would instantly vaporize anyone, and almost everything, within 1/3 of a mile from the blast site. At ¾ mile, most people would be killed or seriously injured, and there would be severe damage to buildings. At a 1-mile radius, there would be considerable injury or death from radiation and firestorms. Allison’s website www.nuclearterror.org allows you to generate a map of this for any U.S. zip code of your choice. If you can see the blast, DO NOT look at it. If you’re well over a mile away, try to move on if you safely can in a direction away from the wind (just as for a chemical attack).

The radiation goes in all directions, but the radioactive particles and fire will mainly follow the wind. If you’re in a car, getting away may be difficult due to traffic jams. In most cases, it will make little difference – if you’re far enough away, you may not be affected in any case. Stay in the car and roll up the windows. When feasible, recognizing that the hospitals will be busy with people much worse off, seek medical attention. People who received a moderate dose of radiation develop “radiation sickness” (vomiting, diarrhea, loss of hair, and other symptoms) days to weeks after, depending on the dose, and need immediate medical attention.


G-Man: There are many hospitals in low-income communities, nationwide, that aren’t equipped to handle triage situations, let alone a national catastrophe, because of financial constraints. Does the center have a plan in place that will enable people in underserved areas to receive the appropriate care and treatment in an emergency situation?

Dr. Morse: In the long term, ensuring access to care is a government responsibility. There is a need to make sure everyone has good access to healthcare. That should be a right, not a privilege. However, many excellent hospitals are in low-income communities (our own hospital is an example) or have outreach programs. Except possibly for rural areas, most will have the same chance at the emergency room as everyone else. However, there may be big differences in the education and information members of these communities receive. Our center, as well as others, is working on how best to inform and educate different ethnic communities so they can get good information they trust.

G-Man: Are there any “home remedies” or marketed products that may serve as a defense against chemical or biological agents?

Dr. Morse: In general, no. First, remember that, tragic as these events are, the chance of you or your family being directly in the danger zone is very small. I think the best defense is to keep well informed, both before any attack and while the event is going on. Incidentally, there are very few products I could recommend without reservations. There are no real lines of defense against chemical or biological attacks, and companies are cashing in on public concern by selling “protection devices” at inflated prices. Many of them are of poor quality. A high efficiency mask, FDA approved N-95 type respirator, which is good for protection against biological attack, is now available over the counter at many pharmacies and chain stores. But in a biological attack, it’s often impossible to know when to put it on and when it’s safe to take it off. Moreover, the masks are very uncomfortable! This sort of problem occurs with almost every product.

In most cases, you won’t be in the danger area anyway, and by time the attack is recognized it makes no sense to start taking precautions. If you are fairly near but not in the danger zone, try to stay indoors as much as possible, keep the windows closed if you can, and close off the outside air supply for the air conditioning until your local authorities give the “all-clear” in your area. Some people like indoor “HEPA” air filters. They can be useful, especially for biological events, and they also help with allergies. However, the filters must be properly maintained. In general, keep informed and updated, and adapt to the situation.

G-Man: What can people do to protect very young children and pets?

Dr. Morse: I think the most important thing is to have a family emergency plan. Emergencies may happen when the children are in school, for example. Ask the school authorities whether they will shelter the children there, or expect parents to come pick them up. It helps to know in advance so you can plan accordingly. A form can be downloaded at http://www.ready.gov/america/index.html.

G-Man: Given an attack of this magnitude, one could assume that many areas would be quarantined and that large quantities of food would be contaminated. Thus, people would not be able to shop or could unknowingly consume noxious products already in the home. What do you suggest people do in this case?

Dr. Morse: Many experts recommend keeping at least several days’ supply of canned non-perishable food and bottled water. In most cases, these items will be safe to consume, especially if stored in enclosed areas like a closet or pantry. And if you don’t need medical attention, staying at home is often the best option.

G-Man: Finally, in your honest opinion, how likely is it that a large-scale bioterrorism attack will occur on U.S. soil in the next two to three years?

Dr. Morse: Anyone who says they can predict this with any accuracy is either naive, a charlatan, or clairvoyant. With that said, the honest answer is I can’t say for sure when an attack of this nature will occur. It could take more than two to three years. However, I can say with utmost certainty that it will happen.