I love how some analysts totally disregard the facts on the ground. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Pakistani Taliban was responsible for this type of attack. Their operations thus far have been contained to South Asia, mostly against Pakistani soldiers and civilians in the Northwest Frontier Province and in the occasional Pakistani city (like Quetta and Karachi). And if this really is a supposed attempt by the TTP to attack the United States directly, then relying on a white middle-aged balding man to carry out the bombing is an interesting choice. After all, that's what the eighty-some odd security cameras in Time Square picked up.

Personally, I cannot take claims by the TTP seriously. The last time they "celebrated" an attack on American soil was in April 2009, when a mass shooting killed civilians in Binghamton, NY. But upon investigation into the case, it turned out that there was no connection between militant groups based in Pakistan and the incident in the remote New York state town. So how is this any different? With the Pakistani Taliban battered by U.S. drone-strikes from the air and military offensives from Pakistani soldiers on the ground, can we honestly believe that they have the capability to strike at the heart of America's biggest city?

But don't take my word for it. NYC Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg have both said publicly that there is no ties between the failed car bombing in Times Square and the TTP in western Pakistan.

None of this is so say that the TTP won't strike in the future. But it's pretty unlikely that they can muster such an attack in the present day.

http://www.depetris.wordpress.com

The analyst's real goal here is to try and connect the failed bombing to some broader largely irrelevant opinion. What does this have to do with the Israel-Palestinian issue? The statement was clearly a 'drive-by' remark that does not even analyze the issue and seems to want to rebut the recent 'revelations' that Israel's policy is harmful to U.S. strategic interests. And why lump all salafi groups together like they have some common vision? In Pakistan all these militant groups are starting to kill each other - each has their own fiefdoms and agendas. This piece is ridiculous, pure ignorance, and drips of an individual trying to push some pent up personal opinion on another issue through other means. Perhaps FP readers will get lucky and not have to read another article by this author.

...I would take a red pen to your unsupported claims.

Has the administration ever claimed that "solving the Israel-Palestinian conflict will end the terrorist threat to United States"? I very much doubt it. Please substantiate this claim if you can.

I come away unimpressed with the sophistication of your views on these issues. Of course the current status of Palestinians is a source of anger in the arab and islamic worlds, and of course US efforts to reach a reasonable solution to this problem would reduce anger at the US, as well as sympathy and support for those would would carry out terrorist attacks against us.

Sadly, this blog has been edging towards a reflexive closed-minded support for the current Israeli government. Shouldn't the shadow government be looking out for the US? Let's think seriously, please, about what US policy on Israel-Palestine is in the interests of the US.

Even if Pakistani Taliban did not try to carry out failed NYC car bomb attack, it does point to the fact that Pakistan remains ‘terror center’ of the world after almost nine years of Musharraf being forced to join US fight against terrorism under the dire threat by Richard Armitage and US giving billions of dollars in aid to that bankrupt country.

US may want to ignore such a fundamental fact but Pakistan will remain a cess pool of terrorists no matter how much money US pours in that hell hole.

That is because Pakistani governments - democratic as well as military - have created, nurtured, supported and sheltered innumerable terrorist outfits on its soil, continuously changing their identities as and when needed.

Nobody forced Pakistani government to facilitate relocation of Osama bin Laden from Sudan to Afghanistan in 1996. Democratic government of Pakistan chose to do so of its own free will.

Ex-CIA official Bruce Riedel said in an interview on 1/29/2009 that ''In Pakistan, the jihadist Frankenstein monster that was created by the Pakistani army and the Pakistani intelligence service, is now increasingly turning on its creators. It's trying to take over the laboratory.'' Pakistani Army and Intelligence Service (ISI) chose to create this ‘jihadist Frankenstein monster’ with full blessings and financing by Pakistan’s democratic governments in 1990s.

Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton’s national security advisor told 9/11 Commission in March, 2004 that ’Pakistani Army was the midwife of Taliban’.

Declassified DIA Washington D.C., "IIR (intelligence Information Report) Pakistan Involvement in Afghanistan," dated November 7, 1996 states how "Pakistan's ISI is heavily involved in Afghanistan," and also details different roles various ISI officers play in Afghanistan. Stating that Pakistan uses sizable numbers of its Pashtun-based Frontier Corps in Taliban-run operations in Afghanistan, the document clarifies that, "these Frontier Corps elements are utilized in command and control; training; and when necessary combat“.

Declassified U.S. Department of State, Cable "Pakistan Support for Taliban" from Islamabad dated Sept. 26, 2000 states that "while Pakistani support for the Taliban has been long-standing, the magnitude of recent support is unprecedented." In response Washington orders the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad to immediately confront Pakistani officials on the issue and to advise Islamabad that the U.S. has "seen reports that Pakistan is providing the Taliban with materiel, fuel, funding, technical assistance and military advisors. [The Department] also understand[s] that large numbers of Pakistani nationals have recently moved into Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban, apparently with the tacit acquiescence of the Pakistani government." Additional reports indicate that direct Pakistani involvement in Taliban military operations has increased.

Why not listen to the CIA man in charge of hunting Osama bin Laden instead of some Zionist apologist shill?

Let us see what he has to say, shall we:

"The young Nigerian in Detroit and the Jordanian bomber in Khost and his wife have told America’s Marines, soldiers, and CIA officers what they already surely sense, but what their political leaders deny. Both attackers cited motivations that pivot on U.S. support for Israel against the Palestinians; U.S. occupation of Muslim lands; and U.S. attacks on their fellow Muslims. The three individuals’ words echo the components of U.S. foreign policy named by bin Laden in 1996 as the causes of war — which also include U.S. support for Arab tyrants and exploitation of Muslim energy resources — and which polls show 80 percent of the world’s Muslims identify as attacks on their faith.

While it is hard for Americans to hear, we are at war with a steadily growing number of young men and women in the Muslim world because of what the U.S. government has done in that arena since 1945. The current slate of U.S. foreign policies toward the Islamic world generates the basic and most compelling and uniting motivation for our Islamist enemies.

Should some of these policies be changed? I surely think so...."

http://thehill.com/special-reports-archive/699-homeland-security-january-2010/75531-when-troops-and-cia-officers-die-for-a-fantasy

When troops and CIA officers die for a fantasy
By Michael Scheuer - 01/12/10 06:25 PM ET

The men and women of the U.S. military and intelligence services are the most important part of America’s defense capital. When they enter the service of their choice they are well aware of the implicit contract between the nation and themselves. In return for their career, America has the right to call on them to go into harm’s way, very often at the risk of their lives. I have never known a Marine, a soldier or a CIA officer who did not accept this reality, and I have never known one who balked when called on to deploy. That said, each I have known — and I suppose all — hope that if defending America costs his or her life, the cause for which it is spent is clear and worthwhile. It is precisely on this point that the U.S. government’s executive and legislative branches are lethally failing these men and women.

The events of the past three weeks throw into sharp relief that we are sending our young men and women overseas to fight an enemy that does not exist. Among the first thoughts expressed by President Obama after the near-miss al Qaeda attack on Christmas — and then echoed by his lieutenants, various members of both parties in Congress, and numerous pundits — was that the young Nigerian bomber hated our way of life. And since seven CIA officers in Afghanistan were killed by al Qaeda on Dec. 30, the same thought has been expressed by the same people.

This central thought has been accompanied by additional assertions, among which are the attackers were nihilistic Muslim fanatics and the attackers’ motivation has nothing to do with Islam. The sum and substance of the U.S. bipartisan political elite’s response to recent events has been — as it has been since 1996 when Osama bin Laden declared war on America — that the Islamist terrorists hate us for who we are and how we live, not for what we do.

This contention is a fantasy. It is fair to say that all the U.S. Marines, soldiers and CIA officers who have died in Afghanistan since 9/11 and in Iraq since Saddam’s removal have died fighting an enemy that does not exist. In numbers now approaching 6,000, these men and women have bravely fought and died in combat against an enemy whose main motivation U.S. political leaders have consistently denied. No U.S. soldier, Marine, or CIA officer has been killed by an Islamist fighter who took the field because America has women in the workplace, beer is available in ample supply, and there are early presidential primaries in Iowa every fourth year. Indeed, Islamists motivated by such issues would not rise to the level of a lethal nuisance; they certainly could not stymie the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The young Nigerian in Detroit and the Jordanian bomber in Khost and his wife have told America’s Marines, soldiers, and CIA officers what they already surely sense, but what their political leaders deny. Both attackers cited motivations that pivot on U.S. support for Israel against the Palestinians; U.S. occupation of Muslim lands; and U.S. attacks on their fellow Muslims. The three individuals’ words echo the components of U.S. foreign policy named by bin Laden in 1996 as the causes of war — which also include U.S. support for Arab tyrants and exploitation of Muslim energy resources — and which polls show 80 percent of the world’s Muslims identify as attacks on their faith.

While it is hard for Americans to hear, we are at war with a steadily growing number of young men and women in the Muslim world because of what the U.S. government has done in that arena since 1945. The current slate of U.S. foreign policies toward the Islamic world generates the basic and most compelling and uniting motivation for our Islamist enemies.

Should some of these policies be changed? I surely think so, but that is a discussion for another time and broad public debate, perhaps during the 2010 midterm elections. For now, the discussion must focus on our enemies’ motivation and the knowing failure of U.S. leaders in both parties to be honest with our fighting forces. If we fail to understand that motivation, America cannot shape a war-fighting strategy to either defend those policies or defeat the tenacious, talented, religiously motivated, and growing foe our soldiers, Marines, and CIA officers are now losing to in the field. Those men and women — and their parents, spouses and children — deserve to know they are risking their lives to defeat a skilled and enduring enemy, one who is motivated by the impact of U.S. policies, and one that genuinely threatens America. They are not fighting the cartoon-like foe described by their political leaders for the past 15 years.

Scheuer is a former senior CIA officer and adjunct professor of security studies at Georgetown University.

Why is there Anti-Americanism? Many reasons, but we have to admit our fault: our bad policies, as even the Defense Science Board has admitted.

See Section 2.3 of the DoD document:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/commun.pdf

Entitled "2.3 What is the Problem? Who Are We Dealing With?"

Some of AQ's causes are legitimate even if their means to achieve them are WRONG.

Our flawed foreign policy engenders anti-Americanism.

We have indirectly killed >1 million muslim civilians in Iraq and Af/Pak:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12150

.

The US-led war on terrorism has left in its wake a far more unstable world than existed on that momentous day in 2001: Rather than diminishing, the threat from al Qaeda and its affiliates has grown, engulfing new regions of Africa, Asia, and Europe and creating fear among peoples from Australia to Zanzibar.

The US invasions of two Muslim countries have so far failed to contain either the original organization or the threat that now comes from its copycats in British or French cities who have been mobilized through the Internet. The al Qaeda leader is still at large, despite the largest manhunt in history.

Afghanistan is once again staring down the abyss of state collapse, despite billions of dollars in aid, a hundred thousand Western troops, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. The Taliban have made a dramatic comeback. The international community had an extended window of opportunity for several years to help the Afghan people—they failed to take advantage of it.

Pakistan has undergone a slower but equally bloody meltdown. In 2007 there were 56 suicide bombings in Pakistan that killed 640 people, compared to just 6 bombings in the previous year.

In 2010, American power lies shattered, US credibility lies in ruins. Ultimately the strategies of the Bush administration have created a far bigger crisis in South and Central Asia than existed before 9/11.

Eight years of neocon foreign policies have been a spectacular disaster for American interests in the Islamic world, leading to the rise of Iran as a major regional power, the advance of Hamas and Hezbollah, the wreckage of Iraq, with over two million external refugees and the ethnic cleansing of its Christian population, and now the implosion of Afghanistan and Pakistan, probably the most dangerous development of all.

This is what the US government’s Defense Science Board has to say on the situation (See Section 2.3 of the DoD document:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/commun.pdf )

“American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.

American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.

• Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies.

The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.

• Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that
“freedom is the future of the Middle East” is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World — but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.

• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim selfdetermination.

• Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have
elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack — to broad public support.

• What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.”

====

Our messing around overseas (witness our clear involvement with the terrorist murder of 5 Iranian revolutionary guards recently) causes blowback terrorism. It does not matter whether or not AQ has any safe havens or not or whether Hezbollah is rearming— regular people — heck, even US army officers, it appears — can become radicalized by the sheer extent of our injustice abroad.

Note I am not justifying what they did. Their means are WRONG. But their cause is, at least partly, just.

We need to stop our addiction to oil and leave the middle east.

Force — even when wielded by the seemingly strong against the nominally weak — continues to be an exceedingly uncertain instrument. The United States’ penchant for projecting power has created as many problems as it has solved. Genuinely decisive outcomes remain rare, costs often far exceed expectations, and unintended and unwelcome consequences are legion.

The pursuit of US military dominance is an illusion, the principal effect of which is to distort strategic judgment by persuading policymakers that they have at hand the means to make short work of history’s complexities. The real need is to wean the United States from its infatuation with military power and come to a more modest appreciation of what force can and cannot do.

We have to come to the painful conclusion that we have created much of the terrorism and anti-Americanism that we are subject to via our terrible foreign policies. It will be difficult to protect us from our (well-earned) blowback without fixing our own foreign policy.

Remeber this MIT official calculates >1000000 dead muslim civilians as a result of our war of choice.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12150

Do you think we should be surprised at blowback?

How about we start using our brains -- and solving the Zionist problem, among other things. (At the very least the US should stop funding the Apartheid Zionist state -- let them fight their own battles. I like Times Square just the way it is).

Not a very smart way to start your FP career Mary.

When has the Obama administration ever claimed that resolving the israel/palestinian issue would eliminate the terrorist threat, claiming that they believe such a thing is nonsense

Your zionist apologist cards are too clear -- you tipped your hands too early in this first post of yours.

Hand in your resignation Mary.

Were we were just lucky that the Times Square Bomber and before him the Underpants Bomber did not succeed. Well, I’ll tell you. I think people in our intelligence services department of psychological warfare are always trolling for guys like this, somewhat mentally unstable Muslim men with an identity crisis. Both the bombers and the Fort Hood Shooter fit this description. Once they hook such a person, they send him to some sort of recruiting station in North Waziristan, or Yemen as the case may be, where he is indoctrinated for a few months using intensive brainwashing techniques. Then he is released back to the U.S. to create an incident. The Fort Hood Shooter “succeeded” in killing a bunch of people; since then the other two would-be terrorists have succeeded only in making fools of themselves, and of course, making the Homeland Security service, FBI, etc. look good. “We are making progress in the War on Terror, there is no more Al Qaeda, the Senior Leadership is hibernating deep underground” (six feet, in the case of bin Laden?) “we have reduced them to pitiful clowns” - but now of course there is instead the Pakistani Taliban, the Tehrik-i-Taliban, to carry on as our enemy in the War on Terror, so what’s the difference? All three recent incidents served to keep the pot simmering, keep terrorism in the news. Now just putting a firecracker in some pathetic patsy’s underpants or a few of them with some propane tanks and an alarm clock in a car is enough to make headlines for a week.

Here is a recent quote from Professor David Ray Griffin, the scholarly leader of the 9/11 truth movement: “Whereas it is widely recognized that the US–led war in Afghanistan is illegal under international law because it was never authorized by the UN Security Council, most Americans believe that it is morally justified as a response to the 9/11 attacks, and many believe it is still justified as a necessary means to prevent another attack originating from that region. My lecture will present evidence showing that both of these beliefs are untrue, and that the 9/11 Truth Movement and more traditional Peace and Anti–War groups should be able to combine forces to oppose this illegal and immoral war.”

Recently, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad wrote a letter to UN Secretary Ban Ki-Moon asking for the United Nations to investigate 9/11. I join Mr. Ahmedinejad in this call for an investigation of 9/11. I have spent many hours looking at the scientific evidence, and there’s no doubt in my mind those World Trade Center buildings were blown up - anyone can see it for themselves at ae911truth.org. If the Obama Administration prevents such an investigation, then let’s have a U.N. investigation instead. If the U.S. government has nothing to hide, then it will strengthen itself by having an honest and open investigation into 9/11. But I’m afraid Ahmedinejad is right about the hegemonic plans of the Anglo-American-Israeli alliance, and all these incidents since the end of the Cold War, culminating in 9/11, and now followed by these minor incidents have essentially been pretexts for military actions in Muslim countries. Ahmedinejad has a right to be heard at the United Nations, and those who walk out on him look to me like contemptible hypocrites and cowards. Walking out is not the alleged Obama policy of engagement with the Muslim world.