Archive for October, 2006

Russia Plagiarism Files, LTCM, Pakistan etc.

October 30, 2006

October 29th, 2006 at 16:52:03 From: Fallaci Admirer
Pakistan ISI is using Afghanistan on us like on Russia
They are using Afghanistan to defeat America like we tried to use it to defeat the Soviet Union. Same with Iraq. This is their plan. Saudis fund resistance in both places. Solution: Invade Iran, surround Pakistan, blockade it to give up nukes, bin Laden and Taliban. Invade Arabia and make it Multicultural Arabia, majority non Muslim population in Mulitcultural Mecca.

October 29th, 2006 at 17:22:32 From: Fallaci Admirer
To “Pissed”, Army in Iraq can Invade Iran leave Iraq
In WWII we island hopped to the Japanese mainland rather than get bogged down in peripheral conflicts. The same applies here. Its time to Island/Country hop from Iraq to Iran, one of the 3 main homelands of what is attacking us. Its wrong to let our troops die in a peripheral war when we can go to the source.

October 29th, 2006 at 17:41:04 From: Fallaci Admirer
Spy problem in US
“little spies in US they have managed to literally destroy the super power status of US single handed.” Its Russia, China, Pakistan, UAE and Saudi Arabia that have spies in the US who are harming us. Russia got low interest rate loans in the 1990’s while knowing detailed history of Clinton people involved.

Bushco knew some of that history as well and may have used it to get the Iraq Liberation Act or during Bush v. Gore. Pakistan, Saudi and UAE may have guessed what this was by 9-11 and then used that as leverage on Bush so that he didn’t go after them, despite their actions in the 5 years before 9-11, regardless of their specific involvement in 9-11. This is the spy problem we have.

We need to go to the source of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE no matter what they have on Bush Clinton. This is a hypothesis and speculation.

October 29th, 2006 at 18:03:49 From: Fallaci Admirer
re Pissed and AIPAC
Jane Harmon and AIPAC are both Americans and the issue of who becomes chairwoman of House Intelligence is a domestic political matter. We were attacked on 9-11. In the 5 years since, Pakistan has been implicated in helping the Taliban against US and NATO troops in Afghanistan.

There was a heated discussion between Armitage and General Ahmed of the Pakistan ISI on 9-12 or 9-13. Did Ahmed have info on Armitage and the PNAC group that got the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 during Clinton impeachment hearings, hearings on loans to Russia, the USAO Mass investigation of Harvard, HIID, Shleifer, Hay, the fed bailout of LTCM, which had Harvard employee(s) in common, etc.

Did Russia have detailed info on Clinton admin that LTCM, Harvard, etc. knew of and may have traded Russian govt bonds on? Was this kept from the USAO Mass starting in 1997 and Congress in 1998? These are questions not assertions.

Did Wolfowitz and Yoo know or suspect? Was that used to get the Iraq Liberation Act in 98 and then during Bush v. Gore? Did Pakistan, UAE, Saudi Arabia use that after 9-11 to keep Bush from going after them? Have Russia and China used that to torpedo the talks with North Korea and Iran?

These are not assertions, but questions and speculation. But this is the real spy issue. Were we attacked on 9-11 or are the Saudis and Pakistan aiding the fight against the US in Pakistan and/or Iraq because they have such info over Bush and Clinton?


October 29th, 2006 at 18:28:52 From: Fallaci Admirer
‘We were attacked on 9-11” by al Qaeda
With possible support or knowledge before or after by Pakistan, UAE and Saudi Arabia. However, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia don’t get a pass for all their acts before and after 9-11 because we don’t have enough public proof for everyone of their complicity before or after.

The London Times has reported that this fall the head of NATO in Afghanistan went to Pakistan to talk about Paksitan support of the Taliban with Saudi funding against NATO troops. The same applies to Saudi funding in Iraq and elsewhere. This then goes back to the issue of whether the Saudis and Pakistan have leverage on Bush. That then goes back to those earlier Clinton era investigations, the USAO Mass investigation of Harvard, HIID, Shleifer, LTCM trading of Russian bonds and the Fed arranged bailout.

This is one where there are bits of circumstantial evidence consistent with Russia have files on issues relating to the profs at Harvard, IMF, US Treasury and LTCM going back decades and including possible attempts to pressure that group for nominations for the 1975 Nobel Prize in economics at an econ conference in Warsaw in 1972. Jacob Wolfowitz, Paul’s father knew of issues back to 1952.

John Yoo may have picked up info at Berkeley law school on this. Scalia had econ Ph.D./J.D. clerks before and after Bush v. Gore. These are questions and hypotheses, not assertions. But this is the real issue, were we attacked before or after 9-11 with Pakistan and Saudi assistance relying on their high level appointees at IMF and World Bank to know this history?

The USAO Mass investigation of Harvard and HIID lasted to August 2005, overlapping the AIPAC and Plame leak investigations. This is the issue for probing. This is hypothesis not assertion.


October 29th, 2006 at 18:36:06 From: Fallaci Admirer
USAO Mass investigation was 1997 to Aug 2005
1995 is a key year, in spring of 1995, the Gorelick Wall Memo said the FBI couldn’t give info to Assistant US Attorneys from NSA wiretaps overseas including foreign profs. Gorelick became a Harvard Overseer in 1998. She hired Summers from US Treasury in 2001 after Bush v. Gore. Daschle appointed her to the 9-11 Commission.Summers was in charge of loans to Russia with Stanley Fischer.

It was Samuelson the uncle of Summers who was involved in the 1969 MIT incidents with Fischer and Robert C. Merton that raise questions, not asserting misconduct here, but which the Russians may have tried to use to pressure nominations for the 1975 Nobel Prize in economics from Arrow and Samuelson, uncles of Summers for Kantorovich of the USSR. Jacob Wolfowitz had a student going to MIT in 1969 and MIT econ prof(s) as prior student(s). These are questions not assertions.


October 29th, 2006 at 18:58:59 From: Fallaci Admirer
re Putin paid debt last August
You are well informed Pissed, or looked this up in the meantime, either way I tip my hat to you.The reason Putin paid the debt was to put it in the past as not being an ongoing issue for the USAO Mass investigation of Harvard, HIID, Shleifer, Hay, etc.

The big IMF loans started in spring of 1995. In the fall of 1995, Boris Berezovsky and the oligarchs got part of Russia’s oil and gas in loans for shares. Berezovsky has a Ph.D. in math at Moscow State University and worked as a manager at the Institute of Control Sciences Academy of Sciences USSR and was the power behind the throne in the Yeltsin admin.

The reason may be Berezovsky knew from this prior work of the 1952 and 1969 academic incidents and others, which linked to the econ profs and which Jacob Wolfowitz also knew of. Berezovsky hatched the plan to pressure Summers and Fischer, under this hypothesis, to pressure them from this old material used at the 1972 Warsaw econ conference, and US profs from that are still at Harvard and other schools.

It worked, Russia got 10 billion in IMF loans in spring 1995. Berezovsky got his pick of Russia’s oil and gas in fall 1995 as his reward it appears and this money was used to fund Yeltsin’s re-election campaign. Berezovsky became Deputy Secretary of the National Security Council of Russia and picked Putin as successor to Yeltsin.

Putin wanted the IMF loans off the books to put this history behind him. If he thought Pakistan, Saudis, etc. were using this as leverage for 9-11 complicity or subsequent support of Afghanistan and Iraq attacks on US troops that is even more reason for him to put this behind him. This is all speculation and hypotheses.


October 30th, 2006 at 09:35:04 From: Fallaci Admirer
re Ron “woefully ignorant of how it works. “
How does the IMF work? Aleksei V. Mozhin (Russian Federation) Andrei Lushin (Russian Federation) sec/memdir/eds.htm see russia Wouldn’t Mozhin and Lushin work with Russian intelligence to have files on US econ profs at IMF?

Wouldn’t that include Stanley Fischer and issues relating to his 1969 MIT Ph.D. thesis and the role of Paul Samuelson, Summers’ uncle in the Fischer thesis and NSF papers that duplicated work of a 1966 UCLA thesis? We are neutral here on whether it was actual plagiarism.

But if you search Samuelson Merton 1969, and then Samuelson Merton Hakansson 1969, you’ll find Harvard not crediting the 1966 UCLA thesis. Look at Robert Merton’s Nobel Prize bio, where he says Hakansson was a grad student at the time, i.e. in 1968, when in fact Hakansson’s thesis is 1966.

Merton’s bio was written in 1997, and he knew Hakansson got his Ph.D. in 1966. Fischer credited Merton and Samuelson in his 1989 textbook. Russian profs gather these facts in and relay them to Mozhin at IMF to use on US profs like Fischer.Fischer got his US citizenship through his thesis and papers on it. This is all to be understood as restated as questions and hypotheses, not assertions.

October 30th, 2006 at 09:43:25 From: Fallaci Admirer
Merton wrote bio in ’97 after USAO Mass investigation
started in spring of 1997. In fall, Merton got Nobel Prize.
USAO Mass was investigating Harvard’s investment in Russian govt bonds, but not it appears LTCM’s investment in them. Merton wrote his NP bio in fall 97 after the investigation of Harvard and its Russian investments started. Ayman Hindy and Victor Haghani at LTCM were involved in trading Russian bonds and LTCM bet heavy on them in Aug 98. One book on LTCM says they traded Russian govt bonds as if they had the inside scoop, Lowenstein’s I believe. This is all hypotheses and speculation.

.. Additional Note on Merton October 1997 Nobel Prize

Merton shared in the Nobel Prize for his contributions to the development of the Black Scholes model, sometimes called Black Scholes Merton. This also raises issues of proper credit being given to A. James Boness thesis at University of Chicago Ph.D. in 1964 and the McKean appendix to the Samuelson paper that contains the first appearance of a partial differential equation for an option price.

Poincare said there should be such an equation in 1900 when Bachelier did his thesis under Poincare at University of Paris. Samuelson had a student do a thesis in the 1950’s that duplicated that paper, according to Samuelson without prior knowledge, until Savage sent Samuelson the citation.

1. Russia started keeping plagiarism files in 1925.

2. these were used to get atomic know how, get Klaus Fuchs into Los Alamos and pressure Niels Bohr.

3. The universities covered this up starting in WWII including in 1950 investigation by FBI of Klaus Fuchs and Oppenheimer Security Clearance Hearings.

4. Russia used this kompromat to get nominations from US profs for Nobel Prizes in physics and econ from 1950’s to present.

5. The same group of profs was pressured at the 1972 Warsaw conference for econ as controlled IMF loans to Russia in the 1990’s, which came to include Larry Summers and Stanley Fischer.

6. LTCM and others traded Russian govt bonds in the 1990’s knowing Russia had this pressure.

7. USAO Mass investigated Harvard econ from 1997 to 2005, but they were deceived. Congress investigated loans to Russia, LTCM bailout but Fed, DOJ HQ, Treasury, etc deceived it.

8. Paul Wolfowitz and Yoo knew this, used it get Iraq Liberation Act and during Bush v. Gore.

9. India and Pakistan knew it in 1998 and used it to do their nuclear tests.

10. Pakistan, Saudis, UAE knew it on 9-11 and used it to continue supporting terrorism in last 5 years even if not involved in 9-11.

11. Russia and China have used it for CFIUS approvals, and to undermine Iran and NoKo negotiations. Russia sold arms to Syria and Iran in 2005 after Israel hired Stanley Fischer as central banker.
12. Bushco are caught in having used this.

13. The Democrats can’t investigate Bush if they control Congress and reveal all, because it leads back to Clinton admin.

14. Marc Rich pardon was because Rich knew this and he got Israel’s support for Rich pardon, Libby his lawyer, because he gave them info on Swiss links.

15. Libby and co have withheld this from Fitzgerald investigation.

16. Russia, China, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan have Bush by the nose because of this, and the Democrats can’t expose because they are in it.

17. Supreme Court, DOJ HQ, Senate Judiciary — Hatch, law school profs, clerks, etc. all linked in.


Samuelson Merton Hakansson 1969

0 hits Monday October 30, 2006

Samuelson Merton 1969

15 hits

Samuelson Merton 1969

46,600 hits

Samuelson Merton Hakansson 1969

359 hits

The Role of Learning in Dynamic Portfolio Decisions – Brennan (1997) ” states
Thus, the basic single period theory was extended by Hakansson (1970) Merton (1971) Samuelson (1969), Breeden (1979) and others to allow for a multi period horizon in which investment opportunities might either be constant, time dependent, or even stochastic 4 in the latter case, “

Above is all speculation and hypotheses, and should be restated as questions.


“Nigerian leaders ‘stole’ $380 billion”

October 22, 2006

“Nigerian leaders ‘stole’ $380 billion”

BBC News

“More than $380bn has either been stolen or wasted by Nigerian governments since independence in 1960, the chief corruption fighter has said.

Nuhu Ribadu told the BBC that Nigeria has “nothing much” to show for the missing money. “

October 20th, 2006 at 16:03:27

October 20th, 2006 at 16:44:14 From: Fallaci Admirer
IMF World Bank corruption part of this
The IMF and World Bank themselves are corrupt. Russia has extensive files on US profs who are at the top of the IMF and World Bank and US Treasury, fed, Antitrust Division, judges, etc. From the very beginning this was true. Harry Dexter White was a Soviet spy in WWII and was part of setting up the IMF. Nigeria has likely known of this for decades and used that as a way to get away with this. This is a hypothesis and speculation.

This post represents opinion, hypotheses, and speculation. All other disclaimers apply.

“Nato’s top brass accuse Pakistan over Taliban aid”

October 21, 2006

The Telegraph

Nato’s top brass accuse Pakistan over Taliban aid

By Ahmed Rashid in Kabul
(Filed: 06/10/2006)

“Commanders from five Nato countries whose troops have just fought the bloodiest battle with the Taliban in five years, are demanding their governments get tough with Pakistan over the support and sanctuary its security services provide to the Taliban.

Nato’s report on Operation Medusa, an intense battle that lasted from September 4-17 in the Panjwai district, demonstrates the extent of the Taliban’s military capability and states clearly that Pakistan’s Interservices Intelligence (ISI) is involved in supplying it.”

“Nato’s top brass: Pakistan aids Taliban”

October 7th, 2006 at 17:49:33

October 7th, 2006 at 20:31:02 From: Fallaci Admirer
Takes an army to change Pakistan
It takes an army to change Pakistan. Our army is in Iraq getting itself shot for nothing. Iran is in the way. Going through Iran on the way to Pakistan is the fastest and best route to get there. Also by the time we subdue Iran, Pakistan may get the message.

October 7th, 2006 at 22:13:56 From: Fallaci Admirer
Scott l
At the end of another thread, you said that Iran like Russia would fight us through proxies and that getting nukes doesn’t mean we won’t have conflict with them. The point of invading Iran is to fight them when we can defeat them now with low casualties. We decided not to fight Russia in 1945, and lost 50k+ in Korea and Vietnam each. Battle phase deaths in Iraq were 200, occupation deaths are 70. So if we leave Iraq and invade Iran we can avoid greater deaths later.

October 7th, 2006 at 22:15:42 From: Fallaci Admirer
reply to Piltdown
“We should have dealt with the Taliban long ago, and done it properly.” They are still a threat as is Pakistan. The levels of deaths we have in battle now are very low compared to wars past. When they catch up with us in technology this will pass. We need to defeat them now when its very low. This won’t last forever.

October 7th, 2006 at 22:19:32 From: Fallaci Admirer
reply to Gandhi
“But to state that Pakistan’s Interservices Intelligence (ISI) is involved is clearly speculation.” Frontline went to Pakistan and filmed the Taliban in the tribal regions. They have killed over 100 tribal elders. The head of NATO in Afghanistan is a Brit. The Brits are facing up to the reality of Pakistan because of Pakistan’s role in terrorism there and their much greater links and respect for India, something you, Gandhi, should appreciate. The Seymour Hersh New Yorker article on Kunduz airlift says that India’s RAW (their intel) monitored it. This was the Nov 2001 airlift of Pakistan generals and adviers to the Taliban out of the Afghan city of Kunduz. They were fighting us even after 9-11. Saudis give them money to fund the Taliban and they skim a percentage. They have 38 billion in foreign debt.

October 7th, 2006 at 22:24:58 From: Fallaci Admirer
Many of your points are well taken. But those emphasize why we need to denuke them and keep them from funding terrorism or immigrating here. We should realize Iraq was a failure. We also failed to set up a secular govt and abolish religious law and courts so that we were at least fighting for what we believe.

October 7th, 2006 at 22:28:03 From: Fallaci Admirer
You are right that fighting in Afghanistan is a losing proposition, like Iraq. We need to think in terms of raids instead of occupation. That is why we need to denuke Pakistan, and not waste our effort on Afghanistan that we can never win. Same with Iraq. Denuke Iran and Pakistan and leave.

October 7th, 2006 at 23:00:12 From: Fallaci Admirer
You are right, invading Iraq was a mistake. It was a Bush, PNAC obsession. When we were attacked on 9-11, they should have reoriented to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE. If they had done that, we might have gotten Iran to give up its nukes, or we could blow them over quickly like we did Iraq and can now.

October 7th, 2006 at 23:01:53 From: Fallaci Admirer
Not sure your point, but I think if Bush explains a real strategy to the American people they will support it. He can explain we had 200 battle phase deaths in Iraq and have 70 occupation deaths per month. So the logic is leave Iraq but denuke Iran while its easy. He can then say that lets us combine our armies together without spelling out the threate to Pakistan in public.

October 7th, 2006 at 23:20:01 From: Fallaci Admirer
“Put your money where your mouth is.” The point is we can lose a few lives now or more later. In Iraq we had 200 battle phase deaths and lose 70 deaths per month of occupation, which gains us nothing. We want to denuke Iran and Pakistan and stop the funding of terrorism by Saudi Arabia and UAE. So we should do exactly those things. That’s what the neocons want to do, but they think they have to lie to the American people instead of just say, this is our plan. They can do each part of it one at a time so as not to tip off the others, but each part makes sense. If they tell the American people we are leaving Iraq so the 70 deaths per month are over, but we have to denuke Iran by ground invasion and point out this cost only 200 deaths in Iraq, they have a plan to sell.

October 7th, 2006 at 23:21:31 From: Fallaci Admirer
Piltdown, Secular rulers gone
We have focused our efforts in the wrong direction in Iraq and Afghanistan, you are right. If we invade Iran, we will be taking out theocratic rulers. All rulers in that part of the world are unpopular. If you depose theocratic rulers, the people will support non theocratic ones, adn vice versa. So depose the theocrats in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

October 7th, 2006 at 23:34:39 From: Fallaci Admirer
Thank you

October 7th, 2006 at 23:36:08 From: Fallaci Admirer
re Dmaker
We Pakistanis and Saudis agree to what we ask but then do what they want. They both keep supporting terrorism. So we have to create change.

October 7th, 2006 at 23:45:01 From: Fallaci Admirer
The Pakistanis and Saudis agree to what we ask but then do what they want.

October 8th, 2006 at 09:19:24 From: Fallacie Admirer
Since Iran has no nukes, this is the time to keep them from getting them. North Korea is a problem as is Pakistan because they have nukes and spread missile and nuclear technology.

October 8th, 2006 at 09:24:36 From: Fallaci Admirer
reply to Scott l
“I will have to settle for the natural course of cultural evolution to get my wish. ” So in the meantime, we need to contain the violence that may come towards us. As you point out, their masses are programmed with extreme views towards us that include what we call suicide bombing, but which they call maryrdom. Until that view changes, we need to keep nukes out of their hands. How long is this? Arabia attacked the West in 633 AD. Its now 2006. The Middle East and Pakistan were more Western in the 1960’s than now. Thus the evolution has been towards extremism. Iran, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are all funding or supporting that movement. Changing the governments can stop that direction. They can’t start getting better until we stop their governments and rich sheiks from making it worse. Denuke them in the meantime.

October 8th, 2006 at 09:26:54 From: Fallaci Admirer
FA: The Pakistanis and Saudis agree to what we ask but then do what they want. “you mean what is good for the usa and conspirators???????? and for themselfs!!!” Its what we ask them to do and then they don’t do. We ask them to stop supporting terrorism and in reference to Scott l’s comments, to stop teaching hate of the West in their schools. Saudi textbooks have such ideas in them, and they spread those textbooks in other lands, even in the US and Europe.

October 8th, 2006 at 09:27:35 From: Fallaci Admirer
FA: The Pakistanis and Saudis agree to what we ask but then do what they want. “you mean what is good for the usa and conspirators???????? and for themselfs!!!” Its what we ask them to do and then they don’t do. We ask them to stop supporting terrorism and in reference to Scott l’s comments, to stop teaching hate of the West in their schools. Saudi textbooks have such ideas in them, and they spread those textbooks in other lands, even in the US and Europe.

October 8th, 2006 at 10:13:32 From: Fallaci Admirer
“Ask whether can America afford the losses that have been the only reward for her unstinting support for Isreal?” The attack on the West started in 633 and was against the Christian Eastern Roman Empire. The Pope quoted Manuel II from 1500 and indicated it was a brusque statement, and there have been death threats. In France, the police have had 2500 wounded in 2006 from going into the projects of immigrants. Women are raped routinely in Malvo Sweden for not wearing veils and the government covers it up. A car dealer in Ohio just got death threats for an ad about Discounts for Dhimmis. Its not limited to Isreal in space or time. It started in 633 and is almost global in scope. They attacked India in 1999 and said it was terrorists when it was Pakistan’s army. When the invaders reached India they killed millions, some estimate tens of millions.

October 8th, 2006 at 12:59:59 From: Fallaci Admirer
Reply Dmaker
The Western doctrine is not just a random doctrine that we have and others have one just as good. The West’s doctrine reflects the wisdom of the ancient world around the Mediterranean basis. This includes the ancient Middle East. The Ancient Greek city states were based on democracy and on free state on the sea. They learned from each other, debated, and advanced science, law, freedom, etc. That was partly preserved by the Eastern Roman Empire. The attack in 633 was an attack on the ancient laws of Babylon and the Middle East for trade, commerce, interest, etc. The idea is to not have to nuke the rest of the world later by acting now when battle phase deaths in Iraq were 200 v. occupation deaths of 70 per month. We can invade Iran, leave Iraq, cut our total deaths and help Iraq by cutting of the aid to the rebels from Iran. Thus invading Iran dominates staying in Iraq.

October 8th, 2006 at 14:29:16 From: Fallaci Admirer
Good link and point. “Gen. David Richards, a British officer who commands NATO’s 32,000 troops here, warned in an interview with The Associated Press that if life doesn’t get better over the winter, most Afghans could switch sides.” We need to take this to the source, Pakistan which is training them and Saudi Arabia and UAE that are funding them.

October 8th, 2006 at 14:29:48 From: Fallaci Admirer
We need to increase our army size, good point Tom3.

October 8th, 2006 at 14:57:17 From: Fallaci Admirer
So we agree on the diagnosis, that Pakistan is the source and that it seeks to harm the West. So the question is the remedy. Invading Iran lets us surround Pakistan. We can then exert pressure on it by sanctions and even blockade. We can bomb their nuclear processing plants to stop their producing more fuel. Nuclear weapons have to be touched up or they become inert. Without a source, they become inoperative.

October 8th, 2006 at 15:48:54 From: Fallaci Admirer
“So, tell me again Fascist Admirer, how are we going to invade Iran and Pakistan, when we are LOSING in Afghanistan and Iraq?” We are fighting wars on the periphery in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are funding or supporting those wars. That is why we must take the war to the source. Our main army is in Iraq. That army can leave Iraq and knock over Iran. Battle phase deaths in Iraq were 200, occupation deaths are 70 per month. We take out Iran and that positions us to surround Pakistan. We then offer them to give up their nukes or face sanctions and blockade and we hit their reactors so they can’t maintain their nukes, nukes decay over time and become inert.

October 8th, 2006 at 15:52:04 From: Fallacie Admirer
“Afghanis’ lives don’t improve”. Thus showing our current strategy isn’t working. Which is why going to the source can work. Defeating Iran will change perceptions in Pakistan of US capability. It also puts the army that defeats Iran on their border and unites the army in Iraq with the NATO army in Afghanistan. It gives direct supply from the sea through Iran to Afghanistan, so that we don’t depend on Pakistan. They have leverage on us because we don’t have a path from the sea to Afghanistan that doesn’t go through them. That will change their leverage, which will change their behavior.

October 8th, 2006 at 16:11:21 From: Fallacie Admirer
Reply to Gandhi
NATO is in Afghanistan to protect the West. Pakistan is intentionally undermining it by training the Taliban and supporting them with funds from Saudi Arabia that they take a cut of. Iran is supporting international terrorism and developing nukes. Pakistan developed its nuke in May 98 and then attacked India in 99 and in effect has attacked us through the Tablian and al Qaeda in Aug 98 embassies, 2000 Cole, 2001 WTC and Pentagon. Saudis are funding this. We have to go to the two sources Pakistan and Saudi Arabia or we will lose. They will fund and support rebels against us in Afghanistan and Iraq forever. Iran is part of this combination and it sees that like Pakistan, once it gets nukes, it can go on the offensive. So we need to attack them now when battle phase deaths are 200 v. occupation deaths per month in Iraq are 70. Deaths in Iran may be higher than in Iraq for the battle phase, but we are bleeding in Iraq and Afghanistan while our main opponents sit back in Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia without being touched.

October 8th, 2006 at 16:14:27 From: Fallaci Admirer
To Tom3
Why do you want to let Pakistan and Saudi Arabia fund the deaths of Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq, and likely 9-11, the Cole and the embassy attacks? Why is your anger at the neocons but not at those who are the real source against us? Why do you want the Saudis to fund world wide terror and get away with it? Why let Pakistan fund the Taliban right now? 2 Pakistani generals were airlifted out of Kunduz in Nov 2001 according to Seymour Hersh. They have been fighting us the whole time. Doesn’t that mean anything to you?

October 8th, 2006 at 16:15:01 From: Fallaci Admirer
To Tom3
Why do you want to let Pakistan and Saudi Arabia fund the deaths of Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq, and likely 9-11, the Cole and the embassy attacks? Why is your anger at the neocons but not at those who are the real source against us? Why do you want the Saudis to fund world wide terror and get away with it? Why let Pakistan fund the Taliban right now? 2 Pakistani generals were airlifted out of Kunduz in Nov 2001 according to Seymour Hersh. They have been fighting us the whole time. Doesn’t that mean anything to you?

October 8th, 2006 at 17:37:29 From: Fallaci Admirer
Scott l
First, over the last half century they expropriated our oil contracts, leases, and more. “Historically the West has shown a greater propensity for aggression and domination than the Muslim world. ” The West has been subject to barbarian invasions from the East for millenia. The current immigration based version is the same as in millenia past. They attacked us in 1993 at WTC. That was intended to kill 250,000 people. They attacked us again and again. We took until 2001 to notice they were really at war with us. The Saudis are funding the Taliban against us now with Pakistan. Iran is funding terrorism like Hezbollah. You seem to be proposing surrender as the solution. The extremism came from the Muslim Brotherhood. Qutb came to America around 1950, had a bad reaction, and pushed modern extremism. Khomeini was pushing it in 1942. The Ottoman Empire was against us in WWI as part of the onslaught that started in 633 against the West. But your conclusion Scott is that we should surrender?

October 8th, 2006 at 17:53:11 From: Fallaci Admirer
Link on the relativism argument.

You can also look at for the latest atrocities and terrorism incidents.

October 8th, 2006 at 20:15:52 From: Fallaci Admirer
West Bank: Buy in Buy Out
I propose Buy in or Buy out for the West Bank. Buy in is cut all outside aid, and aid creates rage, and instead have them spend their time at work to support themselves. Now they are paid to resist. Those who don’t like buy in, can go for buy out, they get 750 dollars per year per person and the host country gets the same. Jordan, Syria, Egypt can be hosts. The money can come from the oil fields in Iraq and Iran.

October 8th, 2006 at 20:18:05 From: Fallaci Admirer
West and violence
It is true the West has had violence in its past, but it was attacked at WTC 93 and didn’t really respond until 8 years later after WTC 01 and Pentagon attacks. So the West is peaceful and is being set upon by the non peaceful.

October 9th, 2006 at 08:48:46 From: Fallaci Admirer
re Buy Out Move Out

It has a nice ring to it Scott, so the question is which group to buy out and move out. Economically it applies better to the Palestinians. Per capita income of Israelis is 20k or more, while on the West Bank, Jordan, Egypt, its 2k or less per year. There are approximately 6mm Palestinians and Israelis. So the buyout plan makes more sense for the Palestinians. Once they are gone, the per capita income of Israelis will likely rise by 10 percent or more, and security costs will fall, so that this pays for the buy out move out of the Palestinians.

“Iran: Sanctions won’t derail enrichment”

October 5, 2006

Ground invasion will though. Iraq battle phase deaths were 200, occupation deaths are 70 per month. The drivers of occupation deaths are foreign Sunni Arab fighters and Sunni Shiite clash in Iraq. Both won’t happen in Iran, since Iranians won’t allow Sunni Arab fighters nor do they have the clash.

So if we invade Iran we cut the Iranian supply of Iraq and if we leave Iraq we cut our casualties after an initial bump up. This then positions our army on the Pakistan border to pressure them to give up their nukes as well.

October 5th, 2006 at 08:59:55   From: Fallaci Admirer
Scott l
The Mideast Minute Men we could call them? What about you Scott, do you want to join? You can be a Captain of the Minute Men. We are running out of time. Bush will likely strike Iran with air power only. He may hope that will give a warning to North Korea and Pakistan of what a US air strike is like.

October 5th, 2006 at 14:03:35   From: Fallaci Admirer
Faulty logic?
Not for us, but it is for them. Pakistan got the bomb in May 98. Al Qaeda attacked our embassy in Aug 98. Pakistan attacked India in 1999 when both had the bomb. That was Musharraf’s idea. Musharraf pretended the Pakistani troops were terrorists and wouldn’t accept back their dead bodies from India. Al Qaeda attacked the Cole in 2000.

All through these years, Pakistan was talking to US and IMF on refinancing its debt. Musharraf said he felt US owed Pakistan for opposing Soviets in 80’s and, in effect, disliked us extremely for dropping them. Mush also called saying Pakistan’s bomb was Muslim racist in his book. On Sep 11, 2001, Pakistan had 38 billion in debt including to IMF and World Bank.

US told them they couldn’t refinance it unless they gave up their nukes perhaps, Pakistan was under sanctions.

On 9-13, General Ahmed of ISI and Armitage got into a shouting match it appears. What did Ahemd say? Give us money if you want the terrorism to stop? Pakistan has gotten over 4 billion since 9-11 and refinanced its debt. Armitage promised them F16s in 1988/89 and they resented they hadn’t gotten them.

Frontline did a special this week, see their webpage, that basically showed the Taliban have killed the Tribal Leaders in Waziristan that Mush said made the deal not the Taliban. They showed Mush saying two different things in the same interview.

In their minds, their nuke let them attack India, Musharraf admits that. On 9-11, they either gave up their nukes to refinance or let al Qaeda attack us and charge protection money is one interpretation. Their logic means we have to denuke them now.

October 5th, 2006 at 14:06:48   From: Fallaci Admirer
gregdn “They can fight back”
The reply to “Faulty logic” address this. They got a nuke and attacked India in 1999. MAD says nuclear powers won’t fight. Instead Pakistan got a nuke in May 98 and unleashed terrorist attacks and their own military pretending to be terrorists in every year since. That includes every year since 9-11, since as Frontline shows they are giving money they get from us to the Taliban who are fighting us with al Qaeda. Their concept of war is that their people are not productive and they have to attack us until we pay them money. Their concept is if we kill their people its less people to share the protection money they make us pay them.

Iran: Sanctions won’t derail enrichment

October 5th, 2006 at 05:45:04 From: Fallaci Admirer

This post is hypothesis and speculation. All other disclaimers apply.

“Russia, India, China worst for bribery”

October 5, 2006

Bill Moyers reported last night on PBS that part of the case against Tom Delay is that Russian oligarchs paid him to get funding of the IMF in 1998 to give Russia loans or at least roll over their debt. Stanley Fischer at IMF and Larry Summers at US Treasury were in charge of negotiating with Chubais of Russia.

Chubais was briefly on the payroll of HIID, ie. Harvard under Shleifer in Jan 96. The first big IMF loans were spring 95 and the oligarchs got Russia’s oil and gas in fall 95 under loans for shares, also under Chubais. Chubais negotiated the July 98 4.8 billion from IMF and that was reported to be stolen in Aug 98.

LTCM traded Russian bonds in Aug 98. Congress had hearings on bailout of LTCM, loans to Russia, Iraq Liberation Act, Clinton Impeachment in fall 98.

The allegations against Tom Delay according to Moyers are that Russia bribed him to keep this IMF funding of Russia going. USAO Mass investigated Harvard and HIID and Shleifer from 1997 to 2005.

If info was not revealed to USAO Mass by Clinton administration and Harvard , was that used by PNAC and neocons to influence the Iraq Liberation Act in 98? Was Delay involved in getting that passed?

Was this information used to influence court in Bush v. Gore or Gore to go away? By November 2000, the House Republicans including Porter Goss and Christopher Cox, now at SEC, had said that Al Gore, Strobe Talbott and Larry Summers were part of a run away Troika mismanaging the relation to Russia. The main relation was the IMF loans.
Did Pakistan know that and use that to threaten Armitage on Sep 13 2001 leading to his threat to bomb Pakistan if they exposed the neocons not for their role if any in 9-11? General Mahmood Ahmed of the Pakistan ISI met with Armitage on 9-13. That is when Musharraf says that Armitage threatened to blow him back to the “Stone Age”.

This is all speculation and hypothesis.
October 5th, 2006 at 05:14:12
Russia, India, China worst for bribery

This is hypothesis and speculation. All other disclaimers apply.