Moderate Muslims must wake up and lead the war on terror

[drdon326]

After September 11, many in the Muslim world chose denial and hallucination rather than face up to the sad fact that Muslims perpetrated the 9/11 terrorist acts. After 9/11, many Muslims, including religious leaders and "intellectuals," blamed 9/11 on a Jewish conspiracy, and went as far as fabricating a tale that 4,000 Jews did not show up for work in the World Trade Center on that day.

snip

With all the evidence that Islam is facing a crisis, one wonders what it will take for Muslims to realize that those who commit mass murder in the name of Islam are not just a few fringe elements. What will it take for Muslims to realize that we are facing a crisis potentially more deadly than the AIDS epidemic? What will it take for Muslims to realize that there is a large, evil movement that is turning what was a peaceful religion into a death cult?

Will Muslims wake up before it is too late? Or will we continue blaming an imaginary Jewish conspiracy and entities like The Dallas Morning News for all our problems? The blaming of all Muslim problems on others is a cancer that is destroying Muslim society. And it must stop.

Muslims must wake up, look inward and put a stop to many of our religious leaders who spend most of their sermons teaching hatred, intolerance and violent jihad. We should not be afraid to admit that as Muslims we have a problem with violent extremism. We should not be afraid to admit that so many of our religious leaders belong behind bars, and not behind a pulpit.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453426.2097222223.html

.................................................................

www.freemuslims.org

[rooboy]

1. Maybe if the west would stop supporting their dictators they would. n/t

[Darranar]

7. And maybe if the "war on terror" wasn't a complete fraud...

concocted to justify US aggression in the Middle East.

[Coastie for Truth]

10. And to protect Big Oil

who continue to pay "Mafia" style protection to various and sundry terrorist groups - directly and indirectly (through corrupt rulers and corrupt so-called charities).

There were allegations of Mafia style protection payoffs to Philippine and Indonesian terrorists (along with stock fraud and seriously overstating "proven reserves") in the sudden resignation of Shell Oil's former CEO, Sir Phillip Wall.

Also see "House of Bush, House of Saud : The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties" by Craig Unger and "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" by F. William Engdahl

[KlatooBNikto]

2. Given the fact that this administration lies at the drop of a hat to

advance its agenda, are you so sure that Arabs/Muslims perpetrated the 9/11 outrage? Especially when you factor in that the so called terrorists could not even fly a piper cub let alone a Boeing 747.

[moez]

3. uh... yes.

[drdon326]

4. Oh.....this is good.

So youre suggesting that Mohamed Atta and al-queda DID NOT perpetuate 9-11 ?

Why do I have the feeling if i ask you who was really responsible for 9-11 i think i know who SPECIFICALLY you are going to blame.

G'head...who was really responsible for 9-11?

[KlatooBNikto]

5. I am not sure.But I know that 19 Arabs, armed only with boxcutters

and unable to fly a plane did it flying through one of the most heavily guarded airspaces in the world.

[drdon326]

6. Riiiiiiiiight.

.

[moez]

8. Tinfoil wrapped a little too tightly today?

[drdon326]

9. And then some. n/t

[Coastie for Truth]

11. The hard part is landing

slightly easier is taking off

Easy part is between taking off and landing.

[Jack Rabbit]

12. Somebody other than Bush should be leading it

That's for damn sure.

In fact, I could read this guy's remarks (presumably the author is Kamal Nawash), substitute in the thrid paragraph "right wing Christian fundamentalism" for "political Islam" and have a good description of probelms facing the American body politic.

The makes some good points, but there are not too many moderate Muslims in power. Those whom the west likes to call moderates are usually just a bunch of authoritarian crooks who do the west's bidding. I'm old enough to remember when Saddam was a "moderate" and King Fisal was a "moderate". That was at the same time Ceaucescu was a liberal Communist.

[Coastie for Truth]

13. The best way to support moderate Muslims

is to buy an Iraqi-Palestinian engineered Ford Escape Hybrid EV powered SUV (on the street before any GM or Daimler-Chrysler hybrid ev).

The absolute best Middle Eastern food in the US (okay - maybe after Fremont CA) is to be found in metro Detroit.

Iraqis and Palestinians - in a western democracy do great things - teach great engineering (as in Wayne State and Lawrence Tech and UofM-Dearborn) and build great cars (as Fords).

And they are too smart to go back.

[number6]

14. who says Muslims perpetrated the 9/11 terrorist acts ....

prove it ....

[drdon326]

15. Right you are.

I always thought they were Norweigans.


:eyes:

[number6]

16. Moderate Norweigans must wake up and lead the war on terror

;)

[number6]

17. one more thing ...

Moderate Murikans must wake up and lead the war against bu$h-ee's terrorism , ..100,000 inocent Iraqi civilians killed ...

[number6]

18. further more ....

just like fundamental wacko Christains and Jews, fundamental wacko
Islamic extremists can be dangerous ...

did they play a part in the 911 conspiracy maybe,..
suspects CIA, Military Industrial Complex, Pakistani ISI
Saudi Extremists ...

[drdon326]

19. Fundamental wacko Islamic extremists can be dangerous ??

I find that hard to believe.

[number6]

20. Really its true, so watch OUT !!

:smoke: ;)

[newyorican]

21. Note the only reference...

from your #18.

Islam-o-phobic tunnel vision. (aka I see dead Arabs, and I like what I see)

[Andromeda]

30. Actually, it was the Irish...

:crazy:

[number6]

44. ha ha funny ....

Norweigens, Irish

how bout the toof fairy....

can't think up any smarty pants answers any less lame
than dr-donnies

[drdon326]

45. As opposed to this little slice of heaven.....

who says Muslims perpetrated the 9/11 terrorist acts ...prove it


thanks.

[number6]

46. you still miss the point, but keep thinking ....

;) thanks

[Colorado Blue]

22. OK, getting past the part where we all agree that Bush is

a lying SOS -

What would be so terrible if moderate forces were to play a greater role in the M.E. dialectic?

Looking at the destruction in Iraq today - that absolutely ghastly, fratricidal bloodbath - I must question the role of the insurgency at this point. It isn't going to work, ultimately, in driving the world back into the Middle Ages; the oil industry won't go away. Western Culture won't go away.

All that' been accomplished is killing and more killing. Meanwhile, people all over the M.E. have been heartened by the elections (much as we might hate to admit it:)

On the other hand, if people would let their own good natures take over, reach across tribal and religious divides, find the moderate path, why couldn't the M.E. grow into a new maturity, develop its own rich character? Back in The Good Old Days the Arab world was a beacon of religious tolerance and intellectual and artistic excellence. Couldn't it could bloom once again?

[Darranar]

23. Because "moderation" effectively means "compliance with US policy"...

and at this point compliance with US policy is not only undemocratic but it is also incredibly stupid.

More and more governments are realizing this, which is one reason Bush is so passionate about this "democracy" nonsense - "democracy" meaning the same thing as "moderation."

If you are speaking of secularism, then it would be a great thing to see happen in the Middle East. It is also very unlikely to occur as long as the US continues its current policy.

As for democracy, and by that I mean its actual meaning this time, I don't think Bush can stop it from happening in the Middle East, though no doubt there are those in his administration who are not pleased with it, and the current policy seems to aim at the strengthening of unpopular regimes through the acceptance of fraudulent or insignificant democratic forms. (Mubarak's recent nod to fair elections is an indication of this.) Of course, if he is interested in forcing it, as he claims to want to do, he can't do that either. The Empire is losing influence in the Middle East, and I have my doubts that any of the other powers interfering there - China, Japan, Europe - have any more interest in democracy there than the US has had for the past fifty years.

[Colorado Blue]

24. Well, if Iraq is an example of US policy I couldn't agree more.

That is unspeakable, beyond stupid.

Going beyond the interests of the oil barons, though, and those who see the Middle East as a gigantic chessboard - long a habit of empires - there is a core to America that is actually GOOD - good ideas, good medicine, good science. There are real ideals here, obscured I agree by the commercial interests whose flag is nominally American or indeed, British. And, there is more than a hint of the despicable British concept of "the worthy Oriental gentleman" - the idea of "white supremacy" and contempt for the people of the region and their religions, remains strong in certain segments of the government and the population. But not in all - hardly in all.

Perhaps in our own minds, we need to make a separation between America and the sharks that fly our flag. They've been a dangerous and corrupting influence since the 19th century. I wasn't aware until recently, how much weight big corporations have been throwing around Latin America, for example, owning huge chunks of our neighbors to the south. People there HATE us for that and of course you probably know better than I the scurrilous deeds committed - being committed - on behalf of our BUSINESS community. Who, of course, are the true force behind the Bush Administration and the majority of Congress. People think this is new, that PNAC represents a new threat, but it really isn't, it's just reframing an ideology that is old and more threatening than ever. PNAC is merely reframing the old ideas in the context of America appearing to be an unopposed superpower. Nature abhors a vacuum, however, and the idea of Pax Americana is actually creating new power centers and possibly reinvigorating an old one - Russia. They've underestimated a number of other factors as well including the most basic: the element of sheer chaos. That is impossible to quantify on a business model and therefore they COMPLETELY missed it in their projections.

Ironically, even the possible reemergence of Russia or the creation of new power centers might work to the capitalists' advantage. New threats require new countermeasures. Good for business if you're in the business of war!

Be that as it may - we DEPEND upon those commercial interests to bring us the resources we've used to build and maintain our economy. Rather than loathe them we need to understand that capitalist enterprises are just like sharks in a sense: they have only one goal. That in the case of the capitalists is to make a profit. They have no morals, they have only adopted our flag and the power of our armies, to enable that goal. We need to control them better, I think, and also recognize our own role along the continuum that they provide. It's extremely important not to let them get a grip on our tax money via the Bush Social Security plan - it would give private and by definition ammoral capitalist entities - now actually multinational and not even American per se - an enormous windfall of money they could then use to do heaven knows what.

So - if moderation means "pro-American" in the sense of respecting and supporting American IDEALS, I do not think that is a bad thing at all. If "moderate" regions are supporting ruthless industries that fly the American flag - cynically I think - for their own purposes - then that is probably not in the best interests of the people of the region. It may well be, however, in OUR best interests if one looks at it merely in a short-term material sense. So we ourselves are in a bit of a bind - one which the Republicans understand and say, far out, more money for ME. We Democrats and other liberals are in a bit of a bind because we are part of this economy after all, and we seem to like it, yet we have Principles, ideals, and we don't like the tactics or the dirty deeds performed in our name.

WE must come up with some ideas, some manner of justifying our ideals with our capitalist economy.

As far as "secularism" is concerned - oh, that would be excellent, a way to truly move toward moderation and balance. Unfortunately right now the religions of Christianity and Islam seem to be moving in an increasingly troubling direction. Islamization, too, is partially political as you know, providing an identity, a sort of bulwark against the West. Hopefully, if people come to feel more secure and have more control over their lives, the political aspects will fade away.

What do you think?

[Darranar]

26. A lot of good points. I agree with a good deal of that...

By "US policy" I mean US government policy, which is dictated, especially in imperial matters, by the state/corporate alliance controlling our economy and dominating our politics.

I tend to have a cynical view of state structures, for at the core of most of them, in fact the core of most systems of centralized power, is a lust for profit and greed. Corporations are one example of this, but most governments are too, the less democratic the more so. The only real solution to this is effective and widespread democracy on every level, not merely political but economic, which is why I am supportive of democratic socialism and similar systems. The conflict here is not really one between private power and what is often called "public" power (but which really amounts to government power), but rather between distributed power and concentrated power.

You are right about PNAC; it is little more than a rehash of traditional doctrine, if more blatant and reckless. Imperialism is typically a result of greed on the part of national governments, and greed often the result of concentrated power (or a severe lack of any power), which is in my opinion the principle reason for US attempts at world domination. Corporations do play a part, an important one, for instance as something of a counterweight to elections and the other tools popular will can use in this country to rein in establishment greed. But if what is called "capitalism" was ceased and the government canceled free elections, unless the populace became resistant the policy changes would be aimed at further concentration of power and further imperial domination, not lesser.

There are severe problems with American society and culture. Nevertheless it has some things worthwhile to it, among them a growing social egalitarianism; there is nothing wrong with exporting it, but it is something of a side point to imperialism. The United States Government does not care what people in foreign countries believe and how people in foreign countries act as long as it does not threaten their interests. It is chiefly nationalism (that is, the desire for self-determination, not country-worship like one might observe in the US) that is problematic to it, whether fundamentalist or secular, and after battling the latter form during the Cold War the former form is posing something of a threat, hence the propaganda about "women's rights" and Islam's "backwardness." We are not about to invade Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, however, because both of those regimes are at the moment sufficiently compliant, despite their fundamentalist aspects.

The American ideals I believe you are referring to are not American, they are human; the US does not have a monopoly on them, in fact it almost never lives up to them. I would welcome them being embraced more than they are pretty much everywhere.

Ordinary Americans may well be far better off after the US empire collapses; we are often the ones who reap what our rulers sow, as was shown in a particularly devastating manner on 9/11/01. The problem is ensuring that the collapse itself does not destroy us, which, unless there is nuclear war, is not too worrying a prospect.

I do not think there is a necessity to reconcile ideals with material gain, at least not at the moment; the people who control the wealth in this country are the same people who control the wealth in this world, and the enemies of the ordinary people of both.

[Coastie for Truth]

27. You can synthesize how our foreign policy got so screwed up--

1. Start with "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" By: F. William Engdahl - shows how oil drives our foreign policy.

2. Then, look at "The Coming End of the American Superpower" by Paul Craig Roberts (OK - he was a Reagan Assistant Treasury Secretary - but he makes some good points). Reprinted at http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts03012005.html

3. Now, read "House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties" by Craig Unger.

4. For a scientific explanation of "Peak Oil" try "Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil" by Cal Tech Physics Professor David Goodstein.

Now that you are thoroughly depressed - disregard GM's "Corporate Image" ads and Shell's "Corporate Image" ads and ExxonMobil's "Corporate Image" ads -- and randomly pick up recent issues of "Scientific American" or "IEEE Spectrum" and separate the hybrid EV and hydrogen economy and fuel cell hype (the image ads) from the favorable view of the facts (SciAm and Spectrum)---

1. "Peak Oil" is real - we can quibble about the timing - but it is real.

2. We have let every President after Carter, and the "Big Three" and "Big Oil" feed us a lot of "feel good" corporate image ads how "peak oil" being "chicken little - the sky is falling" and that "GM and Ford and Daimler-Chrysler and Big Oil are prepared."

3. The truth is - we are NOT prepared.

4. The "Old" Democratic solution was to pump lots and lots of money into research and development on fusion power and fuel cells and energy efficiency and wear sweaters (per President Carter) -- and YES - nuclear power and wind turbines (that makes a whining noise that disturbs the folks at Hyannisport and kills some migratory birds)


Heck - I drive over the Altamont - and the noise doesn't bother me.


5. The Neocon solution -- march in and take the oil.


Which the NeoCons regard as American's birth right - and not the Arab's birth right


6. Israel and the Palestinians are just little pawns in this War for Oil.

And - it's bad now.

It's going to get worse before it gets better.

Who says it's going to get better.

And we are well past the point where replacing Hummers with Priuses will help.

That's my analysis --- and I have been in alternative, renewable, green (and not so green nuke) energy for most of my career.

[Darranar]

28. An interesting analysis...

There is indeed concern for energy sources in US foreign policy, but it is far from the only one.

Not being a TV watcher or a regular reader of the American press (and the few times I do read it I ignore the advertisements), I do not ever recall seeing one of the adds you refer to, and that is probably a good thing.

Peak Oil is pretty much inevitable, that is true, but I highly doubt it is going to mean the end of civilization and the downfall of humanity, as some see fit to predict. It will certainly result in an economic crisis, perhaps a large degree of warmongering, maybe a national draft, but because it has a universal effect, because the people at the top are going to be in trouble as well as the people at the bottom, those nations incapable of retaining access to cheap energy will find a solution one way or another.

In fact there is a good argument that NO Peak Oil would be far worse than what Peak Oil will entail, because it would mean that the human race would likely commit collective suicide by way of ecological devastation. That might happen anyway of course, but it will likely slow down the process.

Saudi Arabia is far from as powerful as, say, China. The fact is the relationship between Bush and Saudi Arabia is nothing new and nothing specific to Bush, it is long-lasting and bipartisan. Favors to those in the Middle East who deliver the oil - and regime change for those who do not - is and has been a major part of US imperial policy since World War II.

I find it amusing that someone who was part of the Reagan Administration has an essay at CounterPunch, but aside from that there is not much interesting in the article you linked to; what he says is basically true, but it is not a rare analysis nor one with which I am not familiar. I think Noam Chomsky, for instance, has written something on pretty much the same lines.

You are right that Israel and the Palestinians are pawns, though Israel may not fall with the US Empire; other superpowers will want client states too, and Israel has never been picky about who to align with. Looking at its current relationships with, say, China and India, its leaders seem to be reading the signs in that respect at least. Or perhaps they are simply cautious, which is wise as well.

It is true we are not prepared, humankind is rarely prepared.

[manic expression]

25. I believe that YOU must wake up and look around

it's funny how you bunch Muslims into a group that blames everyone else for 9/11. It would be nice for you to give some evidence of this Muslim "cancer", and not just spill out worthless claims.

Terrorism has mostly been a reaction to America and its allies' actions around the world. Many Muslims see no reason to trust America.

What you say about Islam turning into a "death cult" is patently wrong. There are many Fundamentalist terrorists (MORE because of the US' and Israel's foolish and selfish actions), yes, but this represents the SMALLEST fraction of Muslims (ironically enough, the locus of this mindset is usually found in the countries of the governments we support).

Muslims are, by and large, the VICTIMS of the disgusting "war on terror".

[Djinn]

29. on edit

I don't know why I bothered wading back into this swamp

[martymar64]

31. Muslims did't kill Yitzak Rabin . . .

Muslims didn't attack the USS Liberty

Muslims didn't bomb the King David Hotel

Muslims didn't recruit Jonathan Pollard to betray his own country

There were no Muslims in Irgun or the Stern Gang

[Behind the Aegis]

32. And Jews didn't...

Jews didn't ram planes into the Twin Towers

Jews didn't assassinate Sadat

Jews didn't blow up a Tel-Aviv disco

So, what is the point again?

[Djinn]

33. perhaps his point is that

when ALL jews are held accountable for the actions of some numpties then we can expect ALL Muslims to be held accountable (or have to apologise for or speak out against blah-de-blah) for the actions of Islamic numpties.

pretty obvious I thought - then again I thought the VAST majority of Muslims HAVE already done what people with barely disguised anti-Muslim feelings keep banging on about them doing. Almost EVERY mosque in the world has issued statements against the acts of some terrorists who are muslim, there is no Muslim Pope or Arch Bishop - what is it that you all want - every single cleric amongst the world's BILLION muslims to contact you directly with their thoughts...sheesh

[Behind the Aegis]

34. Confusing post

I don't hold ALL Muslims for any action held by a few. That is absurd! I have read many places where moderate Muslims have come out against terrorism, in all its forms. As there is no Jewish Pope or other head of religious state, I do not expect ALL Jews to react to every act either.

Perhaps all Jews should send out subliminal messages to those that think all Jews want to rule the world! Oh wait! People think Jews already do that!

[Djinn]

39. so what?

some people are freaking idiots why base your world view on their behaviour.

Hey perhaps ALL muslis should send out subliminal blah blah blah

Read the original article again - see how it says "Muslims" not "a tiny minority of"

WHAT is it you want Muslims to do that they havn't already done

[drdon326]

35. Wow....

then again I thought the VAST majority of Muslims HAVE already done what people with barely disguised anti-Muslim feelings keep banging on about them doing.


oh, you mean these people whom the article is from...

http://www.freemuslims.org/



got it.

[Djinn]

38. I'm not even gonna bother with your link drdon

given what they ususlly are, that and I can guess - again that'd be SOME muslims not ALL the world's billion muslims

[Violet_Crumble]

42. The link was to the predictable 'Muslims support terror' crap...

No surprises there, of course. But this small group of Muslims who don't support terror is the exception to the rule,it's all the other Muslims who are the bad ones, blahblahblah. It's the stuff that bigots wet-dreams are made of. It reminded me a bit of efforts I've seen in the past from minorities in groups who were being singled out by the state to denounce all others in their group as being the bad ones in an effort to try to save themselves from the same sort of denouncements. It never worked then and I doubt it'd work in the future...

One major flaw in the argument of these folk is that they are supposedly speaking out against Islamic extremism. But they slip up when they instead focus on mainstream Islam, as this group has done. Even what is labelled by many to be moderate Islam comes under fire from folk who appear to believe that any show of sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians or who ever-so-foolishly insists that Islam is a religion of peace makes a Muslim an extremist...

Violet...

[Yosie]

37. ALL jews are held accountable for the actions of some numpties

"ALL jews are held accountable for the actions of some numpties" is an historical fact.

A Quisling Sanhedrin (which Halachically according to Talmud was not properly constituted and did even follow the most basic Halachic rules of evidence - such as the Rule of the Zomimim Witness) was established by the Roman Occupiers to try Jesus for sedition. The Roman occupiers applied an implicit rule of

"ALL jews are held accountable for the (seditious and treasonous) actions of Jesus Christ"

And then, subsequently, the Apostles, applied a rule of

"ALL jews are held accountable for the actions of an illegally constituted Quisling Sanhedrin

by blaming all Jews for the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

Fast forward -- today some Progressive Commentators (like KGO's Bernie Ward and Ray Taliafero - I switched to Air America and Ed Schultz and his Jones Network) join with Regressive Conservative Commentators (Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Bob Novak, etc) to hold

"ALL jews ... accountable for the actions of

Paul Wolfowitz and Dennis Feith and Richard Perle and Ariel Sharon.

I am assuming you are using Numbie in the Scottish-Canadian sense.

[Djinn]

40. again you're talking about SOME numpties

and I have no idea what the canadian sense is - the sense I'm using it in is freaks/head cases etc

Good to see though that because many people throughout the years have had a grudge against jews for the jesus thing (personally I don't beleive he ever existed and is an amalgum of various "man/god" figures so I don't blame anyone for his "death") that you think it's now acceptable to blame all muslims for the actions of some.

That's real progressive

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Djinn]

43. Oh right so if it wasn't against the rules

And, by the same token, why do SOME numbies think it is acceptable to blame ALL Jews for Sharon and Wolfowitz and Feith (I am not accusing you - I haven't had time to review all of your appends). The term for that is group libel. Clearly outside the forum guidelines.

How about just assuming that because I post on a progressive board that I might NOT be the sort of person who makes broad generalisations about religious groups and NOT have to check through all my posts to find that out????

If you EVER see a post on this board claiming that ALL Jews must take responsibility for the crimes committed by some I will instantly call that post a pile of steaming crap as well, but strangely it's always the Muslims and Arabs that get "called out". Ever heard the saying two wrongs don't make a right? just because there are bigots who dislike Jews doesn't mean we "even" it out by doing the same thing as them only to a different populace.

BTW if you review my posts you'll see the fashionable term is self hater and that I'm pretty up to date with Scottish expressions what with being a Scot.

[Coastie for Truth]

36. Response to "Muslims didn't attack the USS Liberty"

The canard. I was a Coast Guard Comm Watch Officer when that attack occurred. I WAS FOLLOWING THE MESSAGE TRAFFIC!!!! My dad was a retired US Navy Intelligence Officer who the Naval Intelligence "Command Structure" almost killed by the same kind of screw up.

The Israelis saw a ship - went to the Defense Attache in Tel Aviv (he said no US ship was there - and that there were Russian "False flag" ships in the region).

The Liberty Looked like a Russian intelligence ship. (I am a Coast Guard Veteran - LIEUTENANT - I did the Cuban blockade - I shadowed Russian intelligence ships --I have an Underway Officer of the Deck letter)

Israel's defense ministry contacted the Fleet Commander at Naples - repeat - no US ship there.

Israel's defense ministry then contacted Commander, US Naval Forces Europe in London. Again - no US ship there.

Israel's defense ministry then contacted both Commander in Chief Atlantic and Commander in Chief Atlantic Fleet -- again. No US ship there.

Israel's defense ministry then contacted the Chief of Naval Intelligence -- again denial that a US ship was there.

BTW - check this out in the Unclassified Report on the USS Pueblo (the sister ship that was captured by the North Koreans in Feb 68). I was at the Command Center on Treasure Island when the Pueblo was captured -- and the Navy didn't even know that there were intelligence assets there. Also check it out in Lloyd Boucher's book.

That's the way Naval Intelligence operates - that's how they almost killed my Dad.

Your interest in the Navy and Coast Guard is appreciated.

Lieutenant, USCGR (honorably discharged with a friggin DD214CG)


I know that I am a MINORITY - a Progressive Liberal Democrat veteran of VietNam with real military service. (Kind of like John Kerry)