| Steve McAlexander on Sat, 17 Nov 2001 07:51:02 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| [Nettime-bold] Terrorism: Theirs and Ours |
Terrorism: Theirs and Ours
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/1114-Terrorism.html
BAIT-AND-SWITCH IN AFGHANISTAN
When I was a boy, a common sales technique was for a
local store to advertise a deep-discount special that would
pull lots of shoppers into its showroom. Shoppers would be
met by a salesman who was trained to sell them an upscale
model of the product, which cost substantially more.
Shoppers would be told that the product was "out of stock
due to high demand." This marketing technique relied on
highly skilled salesmen. The mark of bait-and-switch
selling is an inventory that never has the promised item.
(Note: When you think "out of stock due to high
demand," think "Osama bin Laden.")
The Federal Trade Commission long ago made this sales
technique illegal. So did most states. But it still goes
on. On the Web, you can read about fabulous prices for
certain items. You place the order. They promise to send
it out that day. But you will get a call-back trying to
up-sell you on some high-priced related item that you never
asked for, and which was never mentioned in the ad. If you
resist, you will finally be told that the item is out of
stock and won't be back in stock for weeks. A twenty-
something hustler tried this strategy on me this summer
with a $595 price on a $750 camcorder. When I refused to
buy a $15 battery charger for $120, the camcorder that had
been in stock (which I had twice asked him to verify)
disappeared from stock a week later.
This sales technique is immoral -- fraudulent -- and
it's also illegal. But it's only illegal for businesses.
It is a way of life in democratic politics everywhere.
The technique over the last two months has been used
to establish a new government in Afghanistan. The United
States, as of this week, has officially joined with the
United Nations in a joint nation-building operation.
We have seen all this many times. Let me review,
briefly, how this bait-and-switch technique works in
American foreign policy. Remember this: "War is foreign
policy conducted by other means" (Clausewitz).
GETTING US INTO WAR
In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson ran for his second
term on this political platform: "He kept us out of war."
He won the election, but just barely. The campaign slogan
was fraudulent from the beginning. From 1915 onward, he
had been re-shaping American foreign policy in order to get
America into the war on the side of the British, a goal
that he achieved in 1917. His Secretary of State, William
Jennings Bryan, had resigned in 1915 in protest to Wilson's
phony neutrality program. This was the highest-level
resignation in American history, before or since. (The
best book on Wilson's strategy is Charles C. Tansill's
AMERICA GOES TO WAR [1938].)
Wilson's ultimate goal was to set up a post-war League
of Nations: the first stage in the creation of a world
government. Had the Senate not refused to ratify the
treaty, he would have pulled it off.
I came across a key document a few years ago, a letter
from the American Under-Secretary of the League of Nations,
Raymond Fosdick, which he sent to his wife in July, 1919.
Fosdick told her that he and France's Under-Secretary, Jean
Monnet, were working daily to lay the foundations of "the
framework of international government. . . ." (Fosdick to
his wife: July 31, 1919; in Fosdick, ed., LETTERS ON THE
LEAGUE OF NATIONS [Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press, 1966], p. 18.) This was no idle boast.
Over the next six decades, Jean Monnet became the driving
force behind the creation of the European Common Market and
the New European order. Meanwhile, after the Senate
refused to ratify the Versaille peace treaty treaty in
1919, Fosdick returned to New York, where he became John D.
Rockefeller, Jr.'s lawyer. He ran the Rockefeller
Foundation for the next three decades. He had been on
Rockefeller's payroll since 1913. He became a founding
member in 1921, along with Rockefeller, of the Council on
Foreign Relations.
Fast forward two decades. In 1940, Franklin D.
Roosevelt ran for an unprecedented third term. He ran on a
platform of neutrality toward the war in Europe. "I abhor
war," he said. "My wife Eleanor abhors war." "I will not
send American boys to war." But by then he had already
promised Churchill that he would do what he could to bring
America into the war. He then established restrictive
trade policies that pressured Japan to attack us. (The
best book on this is Tansill's BACK DOOR TO WAR [1953].
Robert Stinnett's DAY OF INFAMY [1999] is also good.)
Hitler accommodated him by declaring war on the U.S. on
December 11, which was the worst foreign policy decision in
modern history.
The anti-Axis allied nations during the war called
their alliance "the United Nations." In a classic bait-
and-switch operation, the foreign policy internationalists
took this name in 1945, added the word Organization, and
attached it to the replacement of the failed League of
Nations. America's Alger Hiss was elected as the first
Secretary General of the UN in 1945. He had been a Soviet
spy ever since his days in the Department of Agriculture, a
member of the "Ware cell," the Communists' first spy ring
inside the U.S. government. By 1945, he was a senior
official in the State Department.
There is an old rule in football: when you have a play
that works, keep using it until it doesn't work any more.
Bait-and-switch in foreign policy keeps working. So, they
keep using it.
ALICE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: WWW.WHITEHOUSE.GOV
The President is quoted all over the Web in an October
25 speech as saying, "We're not into nation-building, we're
into justice." (I used Google and searched for: Bush,
nation-building, justice.)
I wanted to verify this speech. I failed. This
speech has gone down the White House's memory hole. It's a
very big hole.
The White House Web site is a masterpiece of keeping
voters away from anything really important that the
President has said or done. Let me explain.
If you click on the Home Page, "President: Oval
Office," you get a search engine for his speeches. There
are choices of topics. Terrific! I selected "Foreign
Policy." Here is what I got: a September 28 speech
delivered to the King of Jordan. The next one down is a
May 29 speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council.
At the top of the page, we read this: "23 results
found, sorted by relevance." Sorted by relevance? Hey,
guys: America went to war in between these two speeches!
There is not one speech on this list later than June.
Well, maybe there is a list of speeches under
"Military Affairs." Sorry: no such category. Nothing on
the military. But you can select "Faith-Based & Community
Initiatives."
Then I spotted an option at the bottom of the page of
ten foreign policy speeches. It's not in the topical
search's options list: "Policies>Defense." I clicked it.
I got 116 speeches, beginning with January 20. Then I
selected "Sort by Date." At the top of the screen was a
September 26 speech, "President Commends House for Passing
Defense Bill." It is six lines long. Next: "U.S., China
to Discuss Missile Defense." The date on that is September
5. Odd. I recall several speeches in between September 5
and September 26. There was this problem on September 11.
Oh, well.
This site was apparently designed by a disciple of
Lewis Carroll: "Alice Through the Looking Glass."
I used the Home Page's general search engine to find
the words "nation-building" and "justice." The search
engine retrieved dozens of speeches, but not the October 25
speech. I spent an hour looking for it. Gone! Or maybe
never posted. Or lost. Anyway, it's beyond my ability to
locate. So, I cannot supply the link. (On Clinton's site,
I could always find any speech I was looking for.)
I did stumble onto this. Write this down. Keep it in
your scrapbook.
The face of terror is not the true faith of
Islam. That's not what Islam is all about.
Islam is peace.
Remarks by the President at
Islamic Center of Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C. (Sept. 17, 2001)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html
Note for historically inclined: the word "Islam" means submission.
http://www.submission.org
NATION-BUILDING IS US!
Back to this theme: "We're not into nation-building."
On September 27, James Pinkerton, who made famous the
phrase, "a new paradigm," commented on the origin of Bush's
public commitment not to build nations.
In the 2000 presidential debates, George W. Bush
repeatedly ripped the Clinton-Gore foreign policy
record. In Boston on Oct. 3, he declared that he
and Al Gore "have a disagreement about the use of
troops. He believes in nation-building." And
what was Bush for instead? "I believe the role
of the military is to fight and win war and,
therefore, prevent war from happening in the
first place." And so, he continued, his focus
wouldn't be nation-building but rather
"rebuilding the military power."
Mr. Pinkerton has a very different vision -- the same
vision that President Bush, Sr. called the New World Order
back in 1990, as we were getting ready to attack Iraq's
troops. Mr. Pinkerton spells out his vision, brought up to
date.
Soon, the Americans will go and get Bin Laden.
As Bush said, "We're focused on justice." But
what happens after that? Does the U.S. simply
collect Bin Laden, "dead or alive," as Bush said
on Sept. 17, and come home?
If ever a nation needed building, it's
Afghanistan. Its 26 million people -- literacy
rate, 32% -- eke out a subsistence living; a
country the size of Texas has just 1,700 miles of
paved roads. And that's not just a humanitarian
problem for Afghans; it's a national security
problem for Americans because even after Bin
Laden is gone, the same chaotic countryside could
yet again serve as an enterprise zone for mass
murderers.
If the U.S. takes military action against
Afghanistan and then comes home, it would be
making the same mistake it made after World War
I. In 1918, the U.S. spearheaded the defeat of
the Kaiser's Germany at a cost of 116,516
American lives. But we stopped at the Rhine
frontier, told the Germans not to do it again and
retreated back across the Atlantic. Fifteen
years later, the Germans elected Hitler.
By contrast, in 1945, the U.S. won a second, more
costly war against Germany, but this time,
instead of stopping at the Rhine and telling the
Germans to get rid of Hitler, the Allies occupied
much of the country. As Secretary of State
George C. Marshall warned, "Europe's requirements
are so much greater than her present ability to
pay that she must have substantial additional
help or face economic, social and political
deterioration of a very grave character."
Resolved to see no repeat of political
deterioration, the U.S. combined justice -- that
is, the Nuremberg war-crimes trials -- with
nation-building and rebuilding; the Marshall Plan
poured $13.3 billion into devastated Europe,
about 1.3% of U.S. output during those years. If
that level of commitment were converted into
today's dollars, the total expenditure would be
about $150 billion.
But the ultimate reward, of course, has been a
mostly democratic and prosperous Europe that is
now partnered with the U.S. in the fight against
terrorism.
After Bin Laden, the U.S. confronts the
opportunity -- really, the necessity -- of
building stable institutions in Afghanistan. Will
it be expensive? Yes. But will it be less
costly than another Sept. 11? Yes again.
Today, Bush is more than a partisan, or even a
president. He's a war leader, and so he needn't
feel bound by the shortsightedly opportunistic
rhetoric recently uttered by Republicans -- even
if he was once the one doing some of the
uttering.
If this commander in chief comes to realize that
justice and nation-building aren't either-or
concepts but rather ideas that should be twinned,
he will have done the whole world a service and a
greater common good will yet come from this
tragedy.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-092701pink.story
As of November 13, Mr. Pinkerton's "new paradigm" has
become the official basis of American foreign policy in
Afghanistan, replacing President Bush's "no nation-
building" vision. I call this bait and switch.
UNITED NATIONS (November 13, 2001 4:45 p.m. EST)
- The United Nations called Tuesday for a
two-year transitional government for Afghanistan
backed by a multinational security force, while
world leaders urged the world body to have a
leading role in the war-ravaged nation's peace
process.
Lakhdar Brahimi, the top U.N. envoy for
Afghanistan, told the U.N. Security Council that
a plan to bring Afghanistan's many ethnic and
tribal groups together should be completed "as
early as humanly possible."
As northern alliance soldiers replaced fleeing
Taliban forces in the capital, Kabul, on Tuesday,
there was concern that the speed of the military
campaign was outpacing U.N.-led diplomatic
efforts to get a transitional government
installed. Many countries cautioned the northern
alliance not to repeat the violence that wracked
Kabul during their previous rule.
"We need a U.N. presence there as soon as
possible," British Prime Minister Tony Blair said
in London.
And John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the
United Nations, told the Security Council: "An
international presence must be re-established as
soon as possible."
President Bush called for a broad-based
government to replace the Taliban.
"We will continue to work with the northern
alliance to make sure they recognize that in
order for there to be a stable Afghanistan ...
after the Taliban leaves, that the country be a
good neighbor and that they must recognize that a
future government must include representatives
from all of Afghanistan," he said in Washington.
I call your attention to President Bush's phrase,
"after the Taliban leaves." Here is my prediction: the
Taliban isn't going to leave. It has to be defeated. This
is easier said than done. It must now be defeated in the
hills. This will not be a piece of cake.
The northern alliance foreign minister, who uses
the single name Abdullah, defended the
opposition's move into Kabul, saying it had no
choice because the Taliban's sudden withdrawal
left a security vacuum. The United States had
asked the alliance to avoid moving on the
capital, afraid its presence would complicate
efforts to create a coalition government. . . .
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan wants Brahimi's
deputy to travel to Kabul soon, and the United
Nations is eager to get its staff back into the
country and to deliver humanitarian aid.
Brahimi ruled out a U.N. peacekeeping force for
Afghanistan, which he said would take several
months to put together. He said his first
preference would be an all-Afghan security force,
but said a multinational security force could
probably be assembled more quickly.
Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf,
called Tuesday for a U.N. peacekeeping mission
made up of Muslim nations to deploy in Kabul and
said Turkey and Pakistan could contribute.
"Kabul should remain as a demilitarized city," he
said in Istanbul. . . .
http://www.nandotimes.com/world/story/169560p-1632142c.html
Things seem to be coming together nicely for the
United Nations and also for those nations with an interest
in subduing bin Laden, and whatever else they have planned,
such as building an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea
through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. On
this point, see the 1999 maps, published by the Council on
Foreign Relations, relating to the Caspian Sea.
http://www.treemedia.com/cfrlibrary/Library/indexmaps/indexmaps.html
In New York, the so-called "six plus two" nations
-- those neighboring Afghanistan along with the
United States and Russia -- were slated to resume
talks on a post-Taliban government.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell dispatched
James Dobbins, his special envoy for Afghan
opposition groups, to Rome, Italy, to meet with
Afghanistan's deposed king, Mohammad Zahir Shah,
before heading to the region. And the U.N.
special representative for Afghanistan, Lakhdar
Brahimi, said he hopes to assemble the Afghan
groups in the "next couple of days."
A senior State Department official told CNN that
Dobbins would make contact with the Pakistani
government and work with Afghans there on a
future government.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/11/13/ret.afghan.governmen
t/
Over the last two years, America has sent $297 million
to Afghanistan, by way of the United Nations and "non-
governmental organizations" (NGO's). We have promised an
additional $320 million.
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01100916.htm
Now we know why. We have been trying to establish the
legitimacy of the UN in Afghanistan. Now the UN is about
to supervise the building of a new nation, but without a UN
occupying force. Whose occupying force, then? This will
be something to see -- at a distance.
========================================================================
==
WINNING THIS WAR
The strategy for winning every war you get into is
simple: redefine the enemy in mid-stream whenever you can't
beat him -- or, in this case, locate him.
Our original enemy was -- way back when -- Osama bin
Laden. I don't mean last July, when he was a patient in
the American-run hospital in Dubai for ten days. That's
too far back. I mean on September 20, when President Bush
gave his resounding speech to Congress. Back then, bin
Laden and Al-Qaeda were the targets.
Somehow, over the next few weeks, the enemy morphed
into the Taliban, whose recalcitrant leaders refused to
hand over bin Laden when told to by the Bush
Administration. The media's news reports steadily moved
from the horror of the hijackings to the horror of bearded
men who do not let women go to college in a nation without
any colleges. Then America started dropping bombs on
cities where these women lived. As for killing bin Laden,
that was put on hold until the cities were destroyed. Or,
to coin a phrase, "We had to destroy Kabul in order to save
it."
Now that the cities have fallen to the United Front,
President Bush has an opportunity to stop the bombing.
Ramadan arrives in Afghanistan at tomorrow, U.S. time.
Because the cities are now secured militarily, the
justification for carpet bombing has ended, or at least
been made far less plausible. I hope and pray that the
bombing stops.
The pressing immediate need is to get Afghan civilian
refugees into safer quarters before winter hits. If
civilians are no longer afraid of more bombing, they may
decide to go home, unless their homes were destroyed.
Whatever we can do to get them through the winter, we
should do.
The war has to go into hibernation mode anyway. If we
can't locate bin Laden even in good weather, there is no
need to keep up the bombing. Winter will make it difficult
to conduct a war in the mountains. Wrote the NEW SCIENTIST:
Miserable winter weather and lofty terrain could
severely hamper a war on terrorists in
Afghanistan. Cloud cover and snow will
increasingly make laser-guided bombing impossible
and few aircraft can work efficiently at the high
altitudes of the Afghan mountain ranges,
according to a British military expert.
Laser-guided bombs, which were used in the Gulf
war, are not reliable unless the skies are clear.
"The problem is that lasers don't work in bad
weather," says Robert Hewson, Editor of Jane's
Air-launched Weapons. "Rain and snow scatter the
beams and they don't pass through clouds." . . .
Afghanistan has mountain ranges over 6100 metres
(20,000 feet) and the thinner air at that
altitude makes it difficult for aircraft to
operate.
"It's not a problem for B-52s, but helicopters
will have a real problem above 10,000 feet and
even lower than that if they're carrying a lot of
troops or equipment," says Hewson. "They're just
not designed for fighting people in the
mountains."
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991344
The U.S. government must conduct simultaneous public
relations operations: the voters, the coalition, and the
Middle East's Islamic nations. This will not be easy. The
longer it takes to take out bin Laden, the more his legend
will grow in the Islamic world. It looks as though he will
inflict a winter of discontent on us.
Of course, for a man with kidney problems, a winter in
a cave could be lethal. His death would become a major
problem for his immediate followers. If he dies, his
subordinates may decide to keep him alive in the minds of
their followers. They may decide to bury him secretly. He
would join Elvis in the land of the not-quite-dead. But
his TV broadcasts would then cease. That would create
suspicion, once the snow melts.
His continuing video broadcasts raise another
question. How do we know that he is still in Afghanistan?
If he can smuggle videotapes to qatar, what about smuggling
himself? It would be difficult to keep this a secret, but
this man's organization seems highly skilled at keeping
secrets. If he is not in Afghanistan, then our forces
could wind up playing hide and seek with a phantom.
We keep hearing about our high-tech spy satellites.
Or we did early in the war. These days, we don't hear much
about them. But early in October, we were told the
following:
Military and commercial satellites are taking new
images of the whole of Afghanistan every week,
according to military experts. US intelligence
services will also be examining pictures taken at
least once a day from areas of known
significance.
Computers then allow automatic comparison of this
vast amount of data with previous images.
Differences that may indicate changes in military
or civilian infrastructure are highlighted. . . .
The huge surveillance operation is crucial to the
military operations aimed at capturing the prime
suspects for the US terrorist atrocities, Osama
Bin Laden and his followers.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991383
I think we're about to move into the Sitzkreig phase
of the war: "Hurry up and wait." Peace will not come to
Afghanistan until the Taliban is eliminated. The tribes of
the United Front will soon be killing each other. Someone
will have to maintain the peace. This will require an
occupation force, no matter what the UN says today. The
President told us that the war against terrorism will take
many years, but the war against bin Laden is now going into
hibernation until spring.
Al Qaeda is not bottled up in Afghanistan. Bin Laden
may be. What the West has now done is to capture the
cities of a Muslim nation. It must now occupy it as an
invading army. Washington's deal-doers have shrugged this
off. While no one would be so politically incorrect as to
say it, they are thinking, as the British said a century
ago, "machine guns can handle the wogs."
SETTING AN ANCIENT TRAP
The Taliban's forces have moved from the cities -- now
mostly rubble -- into the hills. This news has led to a
rise in the U.S. stock market.
The Taliban's strategy is what every stock broker's
strategy is: to lure the naive into a trap.
The Taliban is a guerilla army that happened to take
over a nation. The Taliban's specialty is mountain
fighting. This has been Afghanistan's military tradition
for centuries. When challenged in the valleys, Afghan
military forces move into the mountains and wait for their
opponents to come and kill them. This strategy has yet to
fail.
The invaders are not all Afghans. The toughest
fighters are Uzbeks, who are under the control of an ex-
Communist. They may not all be Muslims. I am informed by
an Armenian Uzbek that the Uzbek Muslims who run the
government like to assign the front-line fighting to non-
Muslims.
Thus, when the Taliban abandoned the cities, it was
doing what the Afghans' age-old military strategy requires.
The invaders' trick will not be in holding the cities. The
trick will be to eliminate the Taliban. The Russians holed
up in Kabul for a decade. They used Kabul as headquarters.
Their possession of Kabul was supposed to give them a
strategic advantage. It didn't.
Meanwhile, nobody in the attacking force has any idea
where Osama bin Laden is.
With respect to bin Laden's whereabouts, the United
States gets most of its intelligence from Pakistan, which
today is the only remaining nation that still officially
recognizes the Taliban government as legitimate. The other
two Muslim nations revoked their recognition last month.
Pakistan's General Musharraf's response to the fall of
Kabul was restrained horror. THE GUARDIAN reports:
Pakistan's military ruler, General Pervez
Musharraf, last night expressed his dismay that
the Northern Alliance had been allowed to seize
Kabul and said a UN peacekeeping force should be
sent in as soon as possible to stop opposition
troops from "occupying" the city.
Speaking in Turkey, Gen Musharraf said Kabul
should be rapidly "demilitarised" to prevent the
"atrocities of the past" from being repeated. The
UN force should be made up of troops from Muslim
countries. . . .
The Northern Alliance has made little secret of
its hostility to Pakistan's military regime,
which until two months ago was the Taliban's most
crucial ally. Over the past five years
Pakistan's powerful ISI intelligence agency has
secretly given the Taliban vital military support
and advice.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,2763,593093,00.html
I have doubts about the long-term prospects of the new
government of Afghanistan, whoever is in charge.
Britain's Tony Blair on November 14 said: "Though
there may be pockets of resistance, the idea that this is
some sort of tactical retreat is just the latest Taliban
lie. They are in total collapse." Or, as a previous
British Prime Minister said, "Peace in our time."
CONCLUSION
I end with a warning from Eric Margolis, who spent
time in Afghanistan with the mujahadin in the 1980's.
In all my years as a foreign affairs writer, I
have never seen a case where so many Washington
`experts' have all the answers to a country that
only a handful of Americans know anything about.
President George Bush, who before election could
not name the president of Pakistan, now intends
to redraw the political map of strategic
Afghanistan, an act that will cause shock waves
across South and Central Asia.
Anyone who knows anything about Afghans knows:
1. they will never accept any regime
imposed by outsiders
2. an ethnic minority government can
never rule Afghanistan's ethnic
majority, the Pashtun (or Pathan),
roughly half the population. Taliban
are mostly Pushtun. Tajiks account for
18-20% and Uzbeks for 6% of Afghans.
Washington's plan for `nation-building' in
Afghanistan is a recipe for disaster that will
produce an enlarged civil war that draws in
outside powers.
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0930-SpareAfghan.html
Nation-building requires peace. This peace must be
enforced. The warring tribes that today are called
Afghanistan will be killing each other the day occupying
Western forces leave the country. This is now our war, for
it is now our peace to impose. We will have to supply most
of the money, most of the weapons, and some of the troops -
- not just to get bin Laden but also to enforce the peace
among our Afghan allies.
My prediction: Our troops won't be home by Christmas.
Not by next Christmas, either.
===================================================================
YOU Might Be a Terrorist
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=11607
[H.R. 2459] To establish a Department of Peace.
http://disc.server.com/Indices/149495.html
Model State Emergency Health Powers Act
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=11610
"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I
can do something. And because I cannot do everything, I will
not refuse to do the something that I can do. What I can do,
I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of God,
I will do." - Edward Everett Hale
U.S. PATRIOT ACT HR 3162
("We're from the government and we're here to help you!")
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/HR3162.htm
American Patriot Friends Network (APFN)
http://www.apfn.org
APFN EMAIL LIST SUBSCRIBE/UNSCBSCRIBE IN SUBJECT LINE TO: apfn@apfn.org
APFN YahooGroups:
Subscribe: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apfn/join
Unsubscribe: apfn-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Quit now for Great
American Smokeout
http://us.click.yahoo.com/B0gGED/9pSDAA/ySSFAA/aQSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
American Patriot Friends Network (APFN)
http://www.apfn.org
APFN EMAIL LIST SUBSCRIBE/UNSCBSCRIBE IN SUBJECT LINE TO: apfn@apfn.org
APFN YahooGroups:
Subscribe: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apfn/join
Unsubscribe: apfn-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
APFN CONTENTS: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/apfncont.htm
APFN MSG BOARD: http://disc.server.com/Indices/149495.html
APFN SITE MAP:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/sitemap.htm
Public Education System vs Christian Home Schooling
Home School News, Info. & Links
http://www.ordination.org/homeschool.htm
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better
than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask
not your counsel or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands of those
who feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you. May posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold