Zebra 3 Report by Joe Anybody
Tuesday, 24 July 2007
Britain Protecting Herion Crops In Afganistan
Mood:  d'oh
Now Playing: CIA / USA & Britian help the Herion Industry Flurish
Topic: FAILURE by the GOVERNMENT

Britain is protecting the

 

"biggest heroin crop of all time"

 

By CRAIG MURRAY

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=469983

This week the 64th British soldier to die in Afghanistan, Corporal Mike Gilyeat, was buried. All the right things were said about this brave soldier, just as, on current trends, they will be said about one or more of his colleagues who follow him next week.

The alarming escalation of the casualty rate among British soldiers in Afghanistan – up to ten per cent – led to discussion this week on whether it could be fairly compared to casualty rates in the Second World War.

Scroll down for more...

 

Killing fields: Farmers in Afghanistan gather an opium crop which will be made into heroin

But the key question is this: what are our servicemen dying for? There are glib answers to that: bringing democracy and development to Afghanistan, supporting the government of President Hamid Karzai in its attempt to establish order in the country, fighting the Taliban and preventing the further spread of radical Islam into Pakistan.

But do these answers stand up to close analysis?

There has been too easy an acceptance of the lazy notion that the war in Afghanistan is the 'good' war, while the war in Iraq is the 'bad' war, the blunder. The origins of this view are not irrational. There was a logic to attacking Afghanistan after 9/11.

Afghanistan was indeed the headquarters of Osama Bin Laden and his organisation, who had been installed and financed there by the CIA to fight the Soviets from 1979 until 1989. By comparison, the attack on Iraq – which was an enemy of Al Qaeda and no threat to us – was plainly irrational in terms of the official justification.

So the attack on Afghanistan has enjoyed a much greater sense of public legitimacy. But the operation to remove Bin Laden was one thing. Six years of occupation are clearly another.

 

Head of the Afghan armed forces: General Abdul Rashid Dostrum

Few seem to turn a hair at the officially expressed view that our occupation of Iraq may last for decades.

Lib Dem leader Menzies Campbell has declared, fatuously, that the Afghan war is 'winnable'.

Afghanistan was not militarily winnable by the British Empire at the height of its supremacy. It was not winnable by Darius or Alexander, by Shah, Tsar or Great Moghul. It could not be subdued by 240,000 Soviet troops. But what, precisely, are we trying to win?

In six years, the occupation has wrought one massive transformation in Afghanistan, a development so huge that it has increased Afghan GDP by 66 per cent and constitutes 40 per cent of the entire economy. That is a startling achievement, by any standards. Yet we are not trumpeting it. Why not?

The answer is this. The achievement is the highest harvests of opium the world has ever seen.

The Taliban had reduced the opium crop to precisely nil. I would not advocate their methods for doing this, which involved lopping bits, often vital bits, off people. The Taliban were a bunch of mad and deeply unpleasant religious fanatics. But one of the things they were vehemently against was opium.

That is an inconvenient truth that our spin has managed to obscure. Nobody has denied the sincerity of the Taliban's crazy religious zeal, and they were as unlikely to sell you heroin as a bottle of Johnnie Walker.

They stamped out the opium trade, and impoverished and drove out the drug warlords whose warring and rapacity had ruined what was left of the country after the Soviet war.

That is about the only good thing you can say about the Taliban; there are plenty of very bad things to say about them. But their suppression of the opium trade and the drug barons is undeniable fact.

Now we are occupying the country, that has changed. According to the United Nations, 2006 was the biggest opium harvest in history, smashing the previous record by 60 per cent. This year will be even bigger.

Our economic achievement in Afghanistan goes well beyond the simple production of raw opium. In fact Afghanistan no longer exports much raw opium at all. It has succeeded in what our international aid efforts urge every developing country to do. Afghanistan has gone into manufacturing and 'value-added' operations.

It now exports not opium, but heroin. Opium is converted into heroin on an industrial scale, not in kitchens but in factories. Millions of gallons of the chemicals needed for this process are shipped into Afghanistan by tanker. The tankers and bulk opium lorries on the way to the factories share the roads, improved by American aid, with Nato troops.

How can this have happened, and on this scale? The answer is simple. The four largest players in the heroin business are all senior members of the Afghan government – the government that our soldiers are fighting and dying to protect.

When we attacked Afghanistan, America bombed from the air while the CIA paid, armed and equipped the dispirited warlord drug barons – especially those grouped in the Northern Alliance – to do the ground occupation. We bombed the Taliban and their allies into submission, while the warlords moved in to claim the spoils. Then we made them ministers.

President Karzai is a good man. He has never had an opponent killed, which may not sound like much but is highly unusual in this region and possibly unique in an Afghan leader. But nobody really believes he is running the country. He asked America to stop its recent bombing campaign in the south because it was leading to an increase in support for the Taliban. The United States simply ignored him. Above all, he has no control at all over the warlords among his ministers and governors, each of whom runs his own kingdom and whose primary concern is self-enrichment through heroin.

My knowledge of all this comes from my time as British Ambassador in neighbouring Uzbekistan from 2002 until 2004. I stood at the Friendship Bridge at Termez in 2003 and watched the Jeeps with blacked-out windows bringing the heroin through from Afghanistan, en route to Europe.

I watched the tankers of chemicals roaring into Afghanistan.

Yet I could not persuade my country to do anything about it. Alexander Litvinenko – the former agent of the KGB, now the FSB, who died in London last November after being poisoned with polonium 210 – had suffered the same frustration over the same topic.

There are a number of theories as to why Litvinenko had to flee Russia. The most popular blames his support for the theory that FSB agents planted bombs in Russian apartment blocks to stir up anti-Chechen feeling.

But the truth is that his discoveries about the heroin trade were what put his life in danger. Litvinenko was working for the KGB in St Petersburg in 2001 and 2002. He became concerned at the vast amounts of heroin coming from Afghanistan, in particular from the fiefdom of the (now) Head of the Afghan armed forces, General Abdul Rashid Dostum, in north and east Afghanistan.

Dostum is an Uzbek, and the heroin passes over the Friendship Bridge from Afghanistan to Uzbekistan, where it is taken over by President Islam Karimov's people. It is then shipped up the railway line, in bales of cotton, to St Petersburg and Riga.

The heroin Jeeps run from General Dostum to President Karimov. The UK, United States and Germany have all invested large sums in donating the most sophisticated detection and screening equipment to the Uzbek customs centre at Termez to stop the heroin coming through.

But the convoys of Jeeps running between Dostum and Karimov are simply waved around the side of the facility.

Litvinenko uncovered the St Petersburg end and was stunned by the involvement of the city authorities, local police and security services at the most senior levels. He reported in detail to President Vladimir Putin. Putin is, of course, from St Petersburg, and the people Litvinenko named were among Putin's closest political allies. That is why Litvinenko, having miscalculated badly, had to flee Russia.

I had as little luck as Litvinenko in trying to get official action against this heroin trade. At the St Petersburg end he found those involved had the top protection. In Afghanistan, General Dostum is vital to Karzai's coalition, and to the West's pretence of a stable, democratic government.

Opium is produced all over Afghanistan, but especially in the north and north-east – Dostum's territory. Again, our Government's spin doctors have tried hard to obscure this fact and make out that the bulk of the heroin is produced in the tiny areas of the south under Taliban control. But these are the most desolate, infertile rocky areas. It is a physical impossibility to produce the bulk of the vast opium harvest there.

That General Dostum is head of the Afghan armed forces and Deputy Minister of Defence is in itself a symbol of the bankruptcy of our policy. Dostum is known for tying opponents to tank tracks and running them over. He crammed prisoners into metal containers in the searing sun, causing scores to die of heat and thirst.

Since we brought 'democracy' to Afghanistan, Dostum ordered an MP who annoyed him to be pinned down while he attacked him. The sad thing is that Dostum is probably not the worst of those comprising the Karzai government, or the biggest drug smuggler among them.

Our Afghan policy is still victim to Tony Blair's simplistic world view and his childish division of all conflicts into 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. The truth is that there are seldom any good guys among those vying for power in a country such as Afghanistan. To characterise the Karzai government as good guys is sheer nonsense.

Why then do we continue to send our soldiers to die in Afghanistan? Our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq is the greatest recruiting sergeant for Islamic militants. As the great diplomat, soldier and adventurer Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Alexander Burnes pointed out before his death in the First Afghan War in 1841, there is no point in a military campaign in Afghanistan as every time you beat them, you just swell their numbers. Our only real achievement to date is falling street prices for heroin in London.

Remember this article next time you hear a politician calling for more troops to go into Afghanistan. And when you hear of another brave British life wasted there, remember you can add to the casualty figures all the young lives ruined, made miserable or ended by heroin in the UK.

They, too, are casualties of our Afghan policy.


Posted by Joe Anybody at 1:31 PM PDT
Updated: Tuesday, 24 July 2007 1:42 PM PDT
Monday, 23 July 2007
Joe Anybody - "NO LONGER SUPPORT THE TROOPS"
Mood:  down
Now Playing: The troops are commiting murder and following a War Criminals orders
Topic: WAR
I POSTED THIS COMMENT ON "not supporting the troops"
here on:
every day
more n more

I too, am starting to utter the "FUCK THE TROOPS"
I am getting sick of their stupidity and ignorance and willingness to be co-operating murderers.
(After all they are the trigger pullers for the war mongers on Capital Hill)

I used to say "I support the troops but not the war and I want them home"
But no longer can I in my heart say I support these troopps.... I don't support one single thing they are doing!

If they had any ethic, respect, honor, human rights morals (read:Geneva) or just remembering how to use their common right/wrong senses, they would be refusing to obey and would be demanding an end to this occupation crime

They are following "criminals" orders, they are following LIARS, they are killing for the war profiteers!
War Crimes & Lies are allowing them to kill with a red white n blue flag in one hand and there gun in the other.

Wise up and Defect..... or be proud of your "gang" you joined, for they are committing murder for Bush.
I say Fuck Em - I have lost my tolerance for stupid illegal killings and occupying foreign lands based on LIES

You wanna keep shooting..... keep kicking doors in ........in a land that "isn't yours" then Fuck You!

Here is a YouTube video showing exactly what I am talking about: 
 link to www.youtube.com

My cousin Ted Westhusing was the "highest ranking officer" to die in Iraq
He committed suicide over the disgusting immoral war;
He said "death before dishonor, I wont be sullied no more" and shot him self in the head

Lay your weapons down and go home (you might want to say your sorry to the over 650,000 dead Iraqi's as well)
My tolerance for your blind rampages has completely ran out!

I do and will support the War Resisters 100%


 


Posted by Joe Anybody at 5:49 PM PDT
Updated: Monday, 23 July 2007 5:52 PM PDT
Friday, 20 July 2007
Outrageous abuse of Executive Privilege
Mood:  don't ask
Now Playing: Above The Law - Dictator Bush
Topic: POLITICS

Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902625_pf.html


White House Says Hill Can't Pursue Contempt Cases

By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 20, 2007; A01

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

The administration's statement is a dramatic attempt to seize the upper hand in an escalating constitutional battle with Congress, which has been trying for months, without success, to compel White House officials to testify and to turn over documents about their roles in the prosecutor firings last year. The Justice Department and White House in recent weeks have been discussing when and how to disclose the stance, and the official said he decided yesterday that it was time to highlight it.

Yesterday, a House Judiciary subcommittee voted to lay the groundwork for contempt proceedings against White House chief of staff Joshua B. Bolten, following a similar decision last week against former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers.

The administration has not directly informed Congress of its view. A spokeswoman for Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the Judiciary Committee's chairman, declined to comment . But other leading Democrats attacked the argument.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called it "an outrageous abuse of executive privilege" and said: "The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law."

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) said the administration is "hastening a constitutional crisis," and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said the position "makes a mockery of the ideal that no one is above the law."

Waxman added: "I suppose the next step would be just disbanding the Justice Department."

Under long-established procedures and laws, the House and Senate can each pursue two kinds of criminal contempt proceedings, and the Senate also has a civil contempt option. The first, called statutory contempt, has been the avenue most frequently pursued in modern times, and is the one that requires a referral to the U.S. attorney in the District.

Both chambers also have an "inherent contempt" power, allowing either body to hold its own trials and even jail those found in defiance of Congress. Although widely used during the 19th century, the power has not been invoked since 1934 and Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for reviving the practice.

In defending its argument, administration officials point to a 1984 opinion by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, headed at the time by Theodore B. Olson, a prominent conservative lawyer who was solicitor general from 2001 to 2004. The opinion centered on a contempt citation issued by the House for Anne Gorsuch Burford, then administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

It concluded: "The President, through a United States Attorney, need not, indeed may not, prosecute criminally a subordinate for asserting on his behalf a claim of executive privilege. Nor could the Legislative Branch or the courts require or implement the prosecution of such an individual."

In the Burford case, which involved spending on the Superfund program, the White House filed a federal lawsuit to block Congress's contempt action. The conflict subsided when Burford turned over documents to Congress.

The Bush administration has not previously signaled it would forbid a U.S. attorney from pursuing a contempt case in relation to the prosecutor firings. But officials at Justice and elsewhere say it has long held that Congress cannot force such action.

David B. Rifkin, who worked in the Justice Department and White House counsel's office under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, praised the position and said it is consistent with the idea of a "unitary executive." In practical terms, he said, "U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will." And in constitutional terms, he said, "the president has decided, by virtue of invoking executive privilege, that is the correct policy for the entire executive branch."

But Stanley Brand, who was the Democratic House counsel during the Burford case, said the administration's legal view "turns the constitutional enforcement process on its head. They are saying they will always place a claim of presidential privilege without any judicial determination above a congressional demand for evidence -- without any basis in law." Brand said the position is essentially telling Congress: "Because we control the enforcement process, we are going to thumb our nose at you."

Rozell, the George Mason professor and authority on executive privilege, said the administration's stance "is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power. Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view. . . . It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers."


Posted by Joe Anybody at 2:13 PM PDT
Updated: Friday, 20 July 2007 6:03 PM PDT
Thursday, 19 July 2007
Gas - The Fuel from Hell
Mood:  hungry
Now Playing: Gas Kills
Topic: TECHNOLOGY
 The Fuel from Hell
*
Written by:
AL MCKEGG
October 5, 2005
We always knew it came from deep in the ground, but until it had us by the wallet we didn’t know it was from hell.

By its very nature, gasoline is nasty stuff, probably the nastiest commercial fuel in the world. Swallow it, inhale it, or leave it on your skin too long and it will poison you. Burn it and it spews an array of poisons into the air. Over the years it’s fouled thousands of wells and retarded thousands, if not millions of people through lead exposure.

The system for transporting crude oil and refining it into gasoline is elaborate and vulnerable. After being pumped out of hell under, let’s say, Saudi Arabia, crude oil is piped to an ocean terminal and loaded into an oil tanker to begin an 8000-mile ocean trip to, let’s say, Beaumont, Texas. The trip is susceptible to terrorists, shipwrecks, storms, and engine failure leading to drifting onto the rocks. If the oil makes it to Beaumont (not spread over beaches, not coating oyster and clam beds and suffocating crabs and fish) it’s refined into gasoline and travels by boat or tank truck or pipeline 2000 miles to Howard County gas stations.

A disruption anywhere along this complex route—pipelines, tankers, refineries—hits us in the wallet. Some of the businesses in the gasoline distribution system responded to hurricane Katrina’s damage by instantly jacking the price of regular towards $4 a gallon. I think they call it “forward pricing.” In the case of a gas station it’s setting their pump price based not on what the gas cost them but on what they think their next tank truck load will cost.

One suspects these modern pricing systems are just cover for the old “charge as much as the market will pay” routine. During the Katrina price spike, one Baltimore station raised their price to $4.50, because (they said) they were afraid they’d run out of gas.

We can expect these same wallet-busting increases (indeed, we have seen them) in response to regional war, major terrorist attacks, tanker catastrophes, and calamities we haven’t yet imagined (remember, there used to be a time our imaginations didn’t include fuel-laden planes toppling skyscrapers.)

Danger and expense aren’t the only downsides to moving fuel along this long, tenuous route. It’s grotesquely inefficient: there’s less energy in a gallon of gasoline than the energy it took to make and transport it. A net loss! One study co-sponsored by the U.S. Departments of Energy and Agriculture found the energy used to find, pump, transport and refine a gallon of gasoline adds up to 20% more than the energy in that gallon. To say that another way, it takes 5 BTUs of energy to make gasoline that yields 4 BTUs.

Engines that use gasoline are inefficient, too, turning only about 30% of the gasoline’s energy content into work. Diesel engines are far better, about 45% efficient (more about this next time.)

And it’s explosive. Once crude oil is refined into gasoline, it’s no longer just flammable, mixed with air it is a very powerful explosive. Accidents involving gas-powered vehicles, stored gasoline, and filling stations can cause raging fires and sometimes lethal explosions. The same potential is available to terrorists.

If you’re like me, every vehicle you own and most of your yard equipment is powered with this fuel from hell. A grim picture. But what alternatives do we have?  At this point, on the commercial scale, not many. But we’re seeing the beginnings, and very soon will see the blossoming of an entirely new class of fuels. If gasoline is the fuel from far beneath the earth, you could call these the fuel from the top of the earth. They’re all promising, but one—biodiesel—is remarkable.

It’s less toxic than table salt and biodegrades at the same rate as sugar.  It’s very clean-burning and burns in standard diesel engines (without the black cloud of soot.) It’s less flammable than traditional diesel fuel, and isn’t explosive. It would boost the incomes of farmers across the country and its supply route is ridiculously short: the vehicles in every state in the US could be operated on fuel that originated and was processed in that state.

And the exhaust smells likes French fries. Make that Freedom fries: freedom from the fuel from hell.
Next article from Al: Biodiesel is the future.

Posted by Joe Anybody at 8:06 PM PDT
Updated: Thursday, 19 July 2007 8:36 PM PDT
Homeland Security Full-Scale-Terror-Drill in Portland Oregon in 2007
Mood:  irritated
Now Playing: Police State & Homeland Security TOP OFF 4
Topic: POLITICS

TOPOFF 4

Frequently Asked Questions

http://www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/training/gc_1179422026237.shtm

1. What is the TOPOFF Exercise Series?

Top Officials 4 (TOPOFF 4) is the Nation’s premier terrorism preparedness exercise, involving top officials at every level of government, as well as representatives from the international community and private sector. Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), TOPOFF 4 is the fourth exercise in the TOPOFF (Top Officials) Exercise Series, a congressionally mandated exercise program. Each TOPOFF exercise involves a two-year cycle of seminars, planning events, and exercises culminating in a full-scale assessment of the Nation’s capacity to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks involving Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

2. What is TOPOFF 4?

Taking place from October 15–24, 2007, the Top Officials 4 Full-Scale Exercise (TOPOFF 4 FSE/T4 FSE) will involve thousands of Federal, State, territorial, and local officials. They will engage in various activities as part of a robust, full-scale simulated response to a multifaceted threat. The exercise will address policy and strategic issues that mobilize prevention and response systems, require participants to make difficult decisions, carry out essential functions, and challenge their ability to maintain a common operating picture during an incident of national significance. As in a real-world response, agencies and organizations will deploy staff into the field and will face realistic incident-specific challenges, including the allocation of limited response resources and exercise actions needed to effectively manage conditions as they emerge. Planning and preparation for the exercise will also help strengthen working relationships between departments and agencies that are critical to successful prevention and response in real emergencies.

3. Where will the TOPOFF 4 Full-Scale Exercise take place? How were the venues selected?

Joining DHS and other Federal agencies in this important effort are the States of Arizona and Oregon, the United States Territory of Guam, as well as three international partners: Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. As radiological incidents originate in Phoenix, Arizona; Portland, Oregon; and the United States Territory of Guam, State, territorial, and local officials in Oregon and Guam will conduct a full-scale exercise, while Arizona officials will participate in a functional exercise. In coordination with the U.S. Department of State, related activities will also take place in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.

States request participation in the exercise to support national exercise goals and to enhance their own preparedness. Typically, two States are selected for each TOPOFF cycle. For the first time in the TOPOFF series, a U.S. territory will take part in the exercise this year.

4. What is the difference between a functional and a full-scale exercise (FSE)?

A functional exercise focuses on coordination of decision-making and communications during a simulated disaster. It is a functional assessment of planning and decision-making in a time of crisis that engages multiple agencies in policy decisions and communications over several days.

A full-scale exercise adds on-the-ground first response activities to test participants on a wide range of capabilities and task areas, including incident response, incident command, cross-jurisdictional coordination, risk communication, and implementation of protocols and policies. Participants in both full-scale and functional exercises also exercise prevention and the intelligence gathering function, which are critical to preventing terrorist attacks.

5. How many, and what kinds of, agencies are participating?

There will be approximately 15,000 participants from government and private sector organizations in TOPOFF 4. Approximately 10,000 participants from more than 275 government and private sector organizations participated in TOPOFF 3.

6. Who participates in TOPOFF training? What top officials are participating?

The exercise engages participants at all levels of government, from Cabinet Secretaries to governors, mayors, and city managers; to local fire, EMS, police, and search-and-rescue personnel; to professionals in law enforcement, public health, and public communications; to members of the private sector.

TOPOFF 4 will enable top officials and relevant personnel to practice different courses of action, gain and maintain situational awareness, and deploy appropriate resources. Top Federal officials, State governors, county executives, mayors, and city managers, along with State, local, and territorial personnel will be key participants and play active roles throughout the exercise.

7. What are the objectives of TOPOFF 4?

TOPOFF 4 has overarching programmatic objectives in five areas, which provide a framework for enhanced interagency coordination, a more cohesive planning process, and a stronger overall exercise experience for participants, culminating in a heightened ability to prevent, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks and natural disasters. The stated objectives for TOPOFF 4 are:

  • Prevention: To test the handling and flow of operational and time-critical intelligence between agencies to prevent a terrorist incident.
  • Intelligence/investigation: To test the handling and flow of operational and time-critical intelligence between agencies prior to, and in response to, a linked terrorist incident.
  • Incident management: To test the full range of existing procedures for domestic incident management of a terrorist weapon of mass destruction (WMD) event and to improve top officials’ capabilities to respond in partnership in accordance with the National Response Plan and National Incident Management System.
  • Public information: To practice the strategic coordination of media relations and public information issues in the context of a terrorist WMD incident or incident of national significance.
  • Evaluation: To identify lessons learned and promote best practices.

While working to meet the overarching exercise objectives, participating agencies, States, territories, and local entities also exercise to support their own individual objectives.

8. What role does the private sector play in T4?

DHS works through its Private Sector Office and Office of Infrastructure Protection to involve the private sector in the TOPOFF exercise cycle of events. TOPOFF 3 involved more than 5,000 members of the private sector participating at varying levels.

9. How does TOPOFF 4 differ from previous exercises in the TOPOFF series?

With each successive TOPOFF cycle, coordination and cooperation are enhanced, creating continuous improvements in the preparedness effort. The T4 FSE includes the greatest coordination to date, with concurrent exercises being conducted by the Department of Defense and, for the first time ever, will include a response from within a U.S. Territory. The exercise includes a strong prevention component, and is being interlinked with the Terrorism Prevention Exercise Program (TPEP), a component of the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP).

TOPOFF 4 also utilizes a capabilities-based planning approach, allowing Federal, State, territorial, and local officials to identify and exercise multiple emergency response and recovery capabilities that would be employed against a wide array of real-world hazards. Some of the capabilities being exercised this year include: evacuation/shelter-in-place, mass care, and interoperable communications. This approach aligns TOPOFF exercise program with the National Preparedness Goal and associated documents such as the Target Capabilities List (TCL) (which identifies needed capabilities) and the Universal Task List (UTL) (which identifies the tasks necessary to execute each capability). It also gives participants an opportunity to become more familiar with the National Response Plan and National Incident Management System. This collective guidance forms the framework for how our Nation responds to all hazards in a coordinated and consistent manner.

10. What is the scenario for the TOPOFF 4 FSE?

The T4 FSE is based on National Planning Scenario 11 (NPS-11). The scenario begins as terrorists, who have been planning attacks in Oregon, Arizona, and the U.S. Territory of Guam, successfully bring radioactive material into the United States. The first of three coordinated attacks occurs in Guam, with the simulated detonation of a Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD), or “dirty bomb,” causing casualties and widespread contamination in a populous area. Similar attacks occur in the hours that follow in Portland and Phoenix. An RDD is not the same as a nuclear attack. It is a conventional explosive that, upon detonation, releases radioactive material into the surrounding area. Although it does not cause the type of catastrophic damage associated with a nuclear detonation, there are severe rescue, health, and long-term decontamination concerns associated with an RDD.

11. How is the TOPOFF 4 scenario developed?

A team of exercise planners experienced in WMD, war gaming, law enforcement, intelligence, and international terrorist networks develop the scenario. The team also works with planners in the participating nations, States, territories, local jurisdictions, private sector entities, and Federal departments and agencies to ensure that the scenario can sufficiently sustain the exercise and meet participants’ specific training objectives.


12. How relevant is the TOPOFF 4 scenario to the war on terrorism?

The TOPOFF 4 scenario is based on research of actual terrorist organizations’ capabilities and news accounts of events that have transpired since September 11, 2001. The scenario is plausible, but purely fictional.  It is not based on specific military or government intelligence and is not intended as a forecast of future terrorist activities. The scenario contains some artificiality to ensure conformance with agencies’ and jurisdictions’ training objectives.

13. Will real weapons be used?

Real weapons will not be used in the scenario, but the response will be mounted as if they had been.

14. How are lessons learned from past exercises used to inform and improve future exercises?

Lessons learned from each TOPOFF exercise provide valuable insights that guide future planning for securing the Nation against terrorist attacks. The Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) is a capabilities and performance-based program that provides a standardized mechanism for building on such lessons learned. HSEEP outlines an evaluation methodology by using Exercise Evaluation Guides (EEGs). These standardized guides ensure that emergency preparedness can be measured in the exact same way everywhere exercises take place. This makes it possible to assess current capabilities and measure preparedness over time for any jurisdiction—in every response area. In addition to establishing standard evaluation tools, this model gives guidance on gathering and reporting lessons learned, which help to identify strengths and areas needing improvement. This information is then folded back into the exercise process to enhance its relevance and realism for the next exercise in the series.

15. What does it mean to “play” in the exercise? How is exercise play prompted and regulated?

Play is the term used to describe how personnel from a variety of agencies and organizations act out the response to the scenario, as though it had actually occurred.  Players are fed information by exercise controllers, based on a Master Scenario Event List (MSEL). The MSEL contains a number of key events that trigger the need to make decisions and conduct activities to exercise specific agency capabilities and achieve the exercise objectives.

16. What is gained from TOPOFF training?

Top officials from all levels of government gain valuable knowledge and experience dealing with complex issues related to terrorism prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. The exercise offers participants a mechanism to test plans and skills in a real-time, realistic environment and to gain the in-depth learning that only experience can provide. Training activities are based on the objectives of participating departments and agencies.

Several of the overarching objectives of TOPOFF 4 pertain directly to the assignment of roles and responsibilities, and the coordination of communications and operations. By exercising these objectives, participants are able to improve upon their overall ability to respond to major disasters, regardless of whether they are natural or manmade.

TOPOFF 4 also provides an opportunity to fully integrate and conform to Homeland Security Presidential Directive – 8 (HSPD-8), the National Preparedness Goal, and the National Exercise Program. DHS will introduce the five-year National Exercise Program plan during the TOPOFF 4 exercise cycle. This program combines exercise activities, affords departments and agencies the opportunity to reduce the number of separate exercises they must plan and participate in, and, more importantly, provides an opportunity to demonstrate that the government can operate effectively during an elevated threat situation.

17. How does TOPOFF influence Federal, State, territorial, and local preparedness capabilities?

The exercise will offer top officials at all levels of government an opportunity to practice and reinforce operations under the President’s National Preparedness Strategy. The exercise’s implementation of the National Response Plan (NRP) will include practicing capabilities in the areas of incident response, incident command, cross-jurisdictional coordination, emergency and risk communication, and implementation of protocols and policies. Significantly, the T4 FSE will help to introduce a more integrated approach to national preparedness, ensuring that existing preparedness initiatives are closely aligned and operationally synchronized. The T4 FSE also offers an important opportunity to aggressively exercise capabilities developed or strengthened as a result of recent events, including new technologies, policies, and procedures.

18. Is the exercise open to outside observation?

Because of the sensitive nature of the capabilities being exercised, external observation and information dissemination will be carefully managed. Some international, Federal, State, territorial, and local officials and emergency response personnel are invited to observe a portion of the exercise, so that they may better understand how we as a Nation are preparing to address terrorist threats. Members of the media will be able to attend briefings during and after the exercise. Some law enforcement and intelligence components of the exercise are classified and will not be discussed in detail.

19. What happens if there is a real terrorist attack or natural disaster while the exercise is taking place?

The exercise will be halted immediately. No essential personnel will be diverted from any type of actual emergency response effort to respond to simulated events, nor will ongoing preparedness efforts be compromised.

20. What information will be made available to the public about exercise outcomes and lessons learned?

There will be a formal evaluation of the exercise, and findings and lessons learned will be applied to ongoing efforts to improve national preparedness and security. Because of the need to maintain operational security and protect sensitive information about efforts to thwart terrorist activities, information released to the public must be carefully scrutinized.  DHS and its partner agencies make every effort to keep the public informed, without releasing information that could potentially aid our enemies.

21. Who can I contact at DHS public affairs for additional information?

News media inquiries about TOPOFF 4 should be directed to the FEMA News Desk at (202) 646-4600 or send an email to FEMA-News-Desk@dhs.gov


Posted by Joe Anybody at 2:57 PM PDT
Wednesday, 18 July 2007
Back from the Oregon Country Fair
Mood:  happy
Now Playing: What a nice oregon hippie getaway ...into the woods for 5 days
Topic: ANYBODY * ANYDAY

Here is a Oregon Country Fair

Drumming Video

Filmed at the campgrounds a 9 min video of the

COUNTRY FAIR (camping) DRUM CIRCLE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu99qhKx8i0

_________a longer 45 min version is on my web site ________

Here is just one small "bottle return" at the campgrounds


 

By the way "no beer drinking allowed in campgrounds"

PEACE ~ Joe


Posted by Joe Anybody at 5:25 PM PDT
Updated: Thursday, 19 July 2007 11:40 AM PDT
Tuesday, 17 July 2007
Are You With The Terrorists?
Mood:  incredulous
Now Playing: WAKE UP AMERICA
Topic: CONSPIRACY

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/180106perspective.htm

CLICK LINK TO DOWNLOAD THIS POLICE STATE MONTAGE  

 

The Final Countdown

This montage features many personalities speaking about the NWO, including Alex Jones.

Thanks to

Alex Ansary
Host of Outside the Box
http://www.alexansary.blogspot.com


Posted by Joe Anybody at 3:24 PM PDT
Updated: Tuesday, 17 July 2007 3:26 PM PDT
Tuesday, 10 July 2007
Joe Anybody has new Videos
Mood:  lyrical
Now Playing: SMILE - Big Brother is watching you
Topic: PROTEST!

Helloooooooooo Vietnam

  

Oh wait……..no body remembers that!

That’s that war we all have seem to have amnesia from all of a sudden!Frown

 

How are my fellow friendly Z3 Readers all doing?

I have been on vacation and it’has been “no sleeping-around” over here.

 

Let me rattle a few topics I have been involved with in the past couple months/weeks:

 

Here is my July 4th 911 Truth - Protest Video Links:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/07/361946.shtml

  

Check out this one where I interview a young activist named Lori

When I met her at the 911 Truth march I was impressed by her insights, so I ask to film/ interview her …..which starts a good conversation on Indy Media about youth and politics see that short YouTube link on this Indy Media post of mine here:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/07/361888.shtml

  

And how about this guy downtown who spoke up, and towards my camera his name is Jerry D Earthling::

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/07/361941.shtml

  

Just yesterday (Monday 7/9) I took this video on a War Resister Protest March::

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6008175453925948790

  

In the morning I am going to court to support 6 grannies who are on trial

 

Then more filming the war resister Agustín, “again” on Wednesday night at PSU

 

I recently was in court (star witness) (still waiting on verdict) with 2 peacemakers who were arrested for trying to talk to my Senator….. Mr. Smith. They were arrested for not leaving the private property The video I took is (same one judge watched) here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2235463856419852730&hl=en

    

The defendants asked me to testify and my video was used as evidence. The judge watched the whole thing. We are awaiting the verdict …. It is a constitutional issue on being denied the right to talk with your Senator.

 

How about those “racist” minuteman who had a protest at city hall so I videoed them.

That was after that big Immigration Raid at Del Monty a few weeks ago, that video of outside city hall is here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1033017606657408336

  

 

 

Oh ya, just finished working on another short video ( I was repairing some bad audio) for the Spanish/Mexican, Day-Labor Center, hope to hand that back to that group today (after the grannies-in-court meeting)…They were NOT in court for the TANK protest during the rose festival that I filmed here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-29585898801983269

  

Just got back a few weeks ago from a 3 day campout in OLLIE Lake

I made two videos and just finished editing them both today. One is two young kids who are my friends children singing “Country Roads” the other is a 30 min “Nature” video with a music background.

I hope to post them on my video page by next week, what a great place!

 

So frequently .......Check here for all my video’s

http://www.joe-anybody.com/id83.html

  

I am still working but almost done with my Barn video… I shot an hours worth of video footage of this very old wooden barn that is falling apart….. Darn that one is behind schedule since I started that a few months ago. I should have that finished any day…its kinda long ….. but sure was a real cool barn by a lake!

 

Maybe it was all those grandkid birthday video I shot and made DVD copies to all my kids, that was real time gobbler …... but those were some cute films.

 

But I live today to wage peace and I urge you all to help support the anti war movement.

This world needs love ……remember …”make love – not war” ? …hmmmmmm?

Ya that saying, it too was from that same era of that war we all seem to have forgot about these day’s.

 

“If your not outraged …your not paying attention!”

 

Off to the Country Fair in 2 days ….. wow no computer out there!

 

PEACE NOW!

 

Joe-Anybody


Posted by Joe Anybody at 4:38 PM PDT
Updated: Tuesday, 10 July 2007 4:43 PM PDT
Friday, 6 July 2007
General Odom's prescription for supporting the troops
Mood:  loud
Now Playing: WITHDRAWL & CUT FUNDING .... THEN IMPEACH
Topic: WAR

General Odom's prescription

for supporting the

troops: withdraw; cut off funds; and impeach

 

This article I found here on Americablog.com:  http://www.americablog.com/2007/07/general-odoms-prescription-for.html


by John Aravosis (DC) · 7/05/2007 07:53:00 PM ET
Discuss
this post here: Comment s (145) · digg it · reddit · FARK · · Link

General Odom was the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) under Reagan (think "Minority Report," and you have the NSA). They're the super-duper secret spy agency that's way more top secret than even the CIA. This guy's credentials are beyond stellar. Here is an excerpt of his recent essay:
If the Democrats truly want to succeed in forcing to begin withdrawing from Iraq, the first step is to redefine "supporting the troops" as withdrawing them, citing the mass of accumulating evidence of the psychological as well as the physical damage that the president is forcing them to endure because he did not raise adequate forces. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress could confirm this evidence and lay the blame for "not supporting the troops" where it really belongs – on the president. And they could rightly claim to the public that they are supporting the troops by cutting off the funds that he uses to keep U.S. forces in Iraq.

The public is ahead of the both branches of government in grasping this reality, but political leaders and opinion makers in the media must give them greater voice....

The president is strongly motivated to string out the war until he leaves office, in order to avoid taking responsibility for the defeat he has caused and persisted in making greater each year for more than three years.

To force him to begin a withdrawal before then, the first step should be to rally the public by providing an honest and candid definition of what "supporting the troops" really means and pointing out who is and who is not supporting our troops at war. The next step should be a flat refusal to appropriate money for to be used in Iraq for anything but withdrawal operations with a clear deadline for completion.

The final step should be to put that president on notice that if ignores this legislative action and tries to extort Congress into providing funds by keeping U.S. forces in peril, impeachment proceeding will proceed in the House of Representatives. Such presidential behavior surely would constitute the "high crime" of squandering the lives of soldiers and Marines for his own personal interest.

Posted by Joe Anybody at 12:22 PM PDT
Tuesday, 3 July 2007
Iraq Social Workers Speaks at the Portland Peace House
Mood:  crushed out
Now Playing: My notes durring a lecture on Refuge's in Iraq
Topic: HUMANITY

Iraq Social Workers

 

Speaks at Peace House

 

on Iraq Refugees Crisis

 

Rassul

 

author: Joe Anybody    

 

I went to The Peace House Lecture on The Iraq Refugee Crisis on Thursday 6-22
Here is some notes that covered most of the Human Rights Presentation
I am not including the name of the speaker due to privacy request
There is a "Refugee Crisis" from the USA invasion of Iraq and she tells us.....

"Nobody Cares"


Yes, tonight I seen a few who do care, but this issue is not in the mainstream news at all.
Thanks to The Seriously Pissed Off Grannies & Code Pink for this Lecture

 

(Most of the quotation marks refer to quotes from Z, unless noted)

We all were seated in a big comfortable living room at the Peace House, in Portland Ore.
Z who is a pretty, middle aged lady, a trained social worker from Iraq, who recently was staying in a Refugee camp in Amman, Jordon.
For her requested, privacy reason I am in this article, referring to her as "Z"

She started out the human rights conversation by saying,
"For her to speak about this, it was a big responsibility".
"The Iraq people are suffering inside Iraq and outside of Iraq."

A Power-Point presentation then started up on the screen to her left.
The presentation was titled: "War in Iraq 2003"

Around 50 to 60 people looked up to the screen to see a young teenage child holding a pop-can taped-together-gun. It was soda cans taped together to look like the shape of a machine gun. It wasn't real but the image was stark, it was followed by pictures of destroyed houses, young children watching/staring at the US military with their guns, pictures of kids crying, children hurt, fathers carrying children that were injured in their arms, pictures of children with their arms missing, bloody babies, ... ... and dead babies. There were pictures of babies in wooden coffins crudely made, children missing eyes, missing legs, and injured beyond belief. One picture showed seven bloody babies in a row like at a hospital. These photos were outrageous, they were maddening ... ... ... these were pictures of the war that our country was causing by our invasion of Iraq.

Z mentioned, that these were children she was seeing in the camps in Jordon, and spread across Iraq, and the surrounding countries.
These were "children that lost their Lives," ... ... they are "Lost and Forgotten!"
They can not be 'normal' children again!

And then she rightly asks, "For how many years must this go on in Iraq?"
She quietly says... ... "13 years of sanctions! ... . No medical help! ... ..No care!..... ?"

A quite moment as Z cry's softly as she recants her first hand knowledge.
She wipes her tears and continues.
The room is silent.

She asks "where is this Democracy from America?"
She states, "They (USA) said they wanted to liberate.
And at first we believed, the first six months we were happy! We welcomed the troops.
But after a while there was no 'better life' there was no 'democracy'.

... ..Why?"

She goes on to say ... ..

"Why the torturing?
Why the killing of the Iraqi men?
Why was this happening?
They did not expect this treatment!"

As millions became refugee's she explained how hard it was to be one.
How the Iraq citizens have fled out into other countries.
Of having to leave to find work and just to survive.
"It is hard to be a refugee" she tells us.
"Yes there is no killing, but there is no rights, no home, no schools, no medical, no dignity, no self worth.
They are living in tents.
For over 3 years now they have been living as refugees.
With No Rights at all. And with no resources, they have nothing."

"No one cares"

She continues, "The government doesn't care!"
"They don't investigate or care at all, they just ignore the refuges situation. They are ignoring a population of over 4 million people, who are homeless and have nothing at all.
And no cares!"

Our attention is again directed to the screen where we begin to hear of her personal account in helping in the social work with the Iraqi people. From Baghdad to the camps in Jordon.

Z, first mention is of a boy named Haydar Hussein.
She starts by telling of this small boy of only fours years and his uncle who were coming back from the store to get some candy. They walked into a gun battle. The little boy was shot at and hit. The US forces then entered into the city returning fire. The Uncle and boy hid by a car. The US shot the car ... it exploded. The uncle died ... the young boy laid there, all burned... .. the family watched ... ..but no one could save them ... .

It was too dangerous... ... .for a long time.

After a while they were able to reach the child.
He needed a doctor.
The father took him to the hospital.
The hospital was not able to help in way at all.
In fact it had no water for the past six months.
It had no specialized medicines or treatment, and was over crowded.
They were advised, to leave Iraq in order to get any care for his young son.
They left as Refugees and spent all their money in leaving, to try to save the child in Jordon.
But there was no hope or help to be found... ..
... .even as a Refugee in Jordon.

She then tells us of another child, this one we seen his picture on the screen.
His name is Rassul. (see picture above)
He is now, missing one eye.
He is a young boy only seven years old.
He was walking with his mother one day, when for no reason, a 'sniper' shot him in the face.
He was innocently walking with his mother down the sidewalk, before that fatal shot.
The mother tried to take him to the hospital. The hospital could not help.
There was no room available.
Latter at another hospital they tried to help the child, by implanting a eye for him, but his body rejected it.
They could not help him anymore.
The family tried to get other help but was unsuccessful, but no one cared.
She said "this was a normal boy at one time, was wrongly injured, he needs help, and now no one cares at all."

She then mentions that;
"These Refugee have no rights what so ever.
There is No Help.
And no one cares"

She informed us that, there are the following camps with Iraq Refugees due to this invasion:

Jordon 1 million
Syria 1.5 million
Lebanon 600,000
Egypt 600,000
... and...

Iraq with over 4 million Refugees
She said it was "endless!"
FOUR MILLION REFUGEES in Iraq alone, right now today, living in tents, with nothing!


She then pointed out to us the discrepancy of the stories we hear in the news of victory.
"What victory?
How can that be?"
She eloquently asks, "What did we do to you? What did we do to harm the USA? Why are we to suffer?"

She tells us that although the mainstream news is not clear in what is going on ... .but there are true news articles and facts on the Internet. "It is there, out on the Internet," Z tells us all.

She says in a soft voice "We Iraqi's didn't choose to do this"
"No one wanted it"... .. she then breaks down and cries, covering her face.

She gently mummers..

... ."What can I say to you all?"

... .."No one much talks about this"... ...

... ... ... ... ."Why is Iraq a target?"

... . "No one cares!"

As she collects herself she tells us that on her arrival to the airport, that she was the only visible Iraqi person. She told us, "No injured Iraqis are allowed into the US"
She looks out at us for the answer and asks ... ."Why is that?,
Why can no injured Iraqi enter the US" ... . The room stays silent.

She tells us all of facts like:
A mother burned to death as the explosions go off ... ..
a fathers watched his son and wife catch fire
The father saved the boy first, and by the time he got to his wife she had died.
He is at such as loss and regrets to be unable to of helped her.
He blames himself.
His boy lived ... .. But his wife died
This man lives in Boston right now, and daily lives his pain and loss, as he still blames himself.

Z tells us:
He didn't choose this, it is we Iraqi people who pay the price."
She covers her face and stops talking
She is crying again, this time she sits down
As a lady comforts her and another comes over to assist

Cristy Murray form Code Pink take the microphone and says:
"this is the greatest Refugee crises to today, We in Portland, here through the Peace House hope to start up a program to help Z and the refugees she is speaking of in Jordon. Cristy was not sure how this was all going to start up but it was a decided and firm idea. A collection plate was passed, as every one there wanted to help in some way.
There was a reference to Emmanuel Hospitals program called "Healing With Children" that they may work in conjunction with what Cristy was hoping to start up with the Peace House and in trying to help with the Refugees Z spoke about.

There was a silent auction, and discussion of further talks Z was going to give or had already done here in Portland.
I wish her peace and love, I hope her world can become a better one soon.
She is a brave courageous loving lady. I am glad to have met her and to share her thoughts with all who read this.

I was going to film her but she wanted some anonymity.
I understand, so I took these notes.
Peace Now
~joe-anybody

To donate you can contact the SURGE Protection Brigade for information:
 surgeprotectionbrigade@riseup.net

More Information o this Iraqi Refugee Crises Check this link form the AFSC:
 http://www.afsc.org/iraq/symposium.htm

This link is on Working to Preserve Their Legacy: the Iraqi Women's Movement:
 http://www.afsc.org/iraq/personal_stories/iraqi-womens-movement.htm


Posted by Joe Anybody at 11:28 AM PDT
Updated: Monday, 22 October 2007 5:53 PM PDT

Newer | Latest | Older

« July 2007 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Ben Waiting for it ? Well Look Here!
Robert Lindsay Blog
ZEBRA 3 RAG
Old Blogs Go to Joe's Home Web Site
joe-anybody.com
Underground
Media Underground
Joe's 911 Truth Report
911 TRUTH REPORT

OUTSIDE THE BOX
Alex Ansary