• The following comment and response is to comments reguarding a few of my articles published at opednews.com. 

"I think you mistakenly thought this was a neo-con WEB site rather than a progressive site since you posted here.  Haven't you read any of the articles at this site?" Larry  

"Just trying to bring intellectual stimulation to YOUR mind!" Catlover

"The Gentleman is obviously missing the environment of this site b by light years!" PetertheProf

"Who Calibrated Your Crystal Ball?" Mac166688

"You are barking up the wrong tree by putting something like this here!" Pappy_mcfae

"The article is pure rubbish, and deserves no more of a response" BluePilgrim

"Maybe your simply  not  from  this  planet!" Jessiana

"Quit smoking whatever it is you're smoking!" Archie1954

"Our Resident Stealth Neo-con think tank speaks" Mac

Unbelievably, this is just a short sample of reader's comments that I have received in the past 3 days. The Iraq war is a volatile issue which provokes and seeds anger and resentment from all perspectives.  The stance that I have chosen is drawn from my own personal opinion and not talking points from parties on either side of the aisle. Disturbingly many of the comments I have received demonstrate that there is no longer any room for objectiveness from individuals to re-examine the issues that plague our society today. Even more surprising, that it would occur on an opinionated based website regardless of its political ideologies. I am no more a republican (or neo con contrary to popular belief) than I am a democrat.  Honestly the notion of either party sickens me as an entity.  I believe if one was to look at the body of my work, or the entries of my blog that they would find a distinct educated individuals opinion based upon the moral, ethical, religious principles he holds to be true.  As a writer I accept any and all comments and criticisms that readers of my work feel encouraged to return.  Please do not construe this reply as a notion that feedback is not wanted as that is not the case. I believe that only through a myriad of perspectives and opinions can we then find an ideal solution that works in a society such as ours. I look forward to submitting more material at this site for you all to consider, whether you agree with it or not. I only ask that you refrain from pre-judging myself or others solely based upon a single issue!

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." - JFK

America has reached its boiling point. The escalation of chaos and terror in the Middle East as well as across the globe acting in concert with the inability to strategically undermine the "will" of the insurgency has resulted in Americans to lose their "will" to continue the fight. The idea of troop withdraw has gained more popularity with each new report of American loss of life. As an American as well as a practicing Muslim, I fully understand the significance that troop withdraw from Iraq promises...

• If we withdraw from Iraq - we can expect far worse tribal chaos and Islamic terrorism than in Mogadishu or Lebanon.

• If we withdraw from Iraq - we will alienate moderate arabs in the Middle East - who could never again believe in any American assurances of support for reform and would have to retreat into the shadows-or find themselves at the mercy of fascist killers.

• If we withdraw from Iraq - the enemy will swell their ranks as they hype their defeat of the American infidels. Recruitment will accelerate across the globe.

• If we withdraw from Iraq - any strategy of hitting terrorists hard abroad would be discredited and replaced by a return to the pre-9/11 tactics of a few cruise missiles and writs.

We must remember that the enemy has an eighth-century agenda of gender apartheid, religious intolerance, and theocracy. We only fool ourselves if we think that peace is the natural order of things and that it follows organically from the cessation of hostilities. We must finish this task regardless of how ugly and bloody it gets. We risk loosing more in the future then we have already lost to this point. Though we continue to sacrifice dearly, the peace of mind that we have been able to thwart any terrorist effort within the United States since 9/11 is proof that something is working. Obviously many of us can agree that this is not due to the diligence of our government to protect our borders and secure the homeland.

Development towards bringing peace to the Middle East hinges on continued American resolve in Iraq as well as our ability to address the situation in Palestine. There has not been any other world leader who has stepped up to combat these issues outside of their own Country. Of course the administration must account to the American people for the way this war has been waged as well as the false pre-tenses that initiated this conflict in the first place. The administration must also be held account for the manipulation of executive powers which have only led to the increased distrust of the federal government. We must try and repair the wounds that we have caused with our allies around the world, as well as encourage them to increase their presence in the Iraq conflict. This will allow the U.S. to withdraw a large amount of its military presence in Iraq and put forth to the terrorists a global unified front. America must not carry the flag of freedom and liberty alone. This is a failed strategy and we must work hand in hand with other powers to ensure the life and safety of individuals across the globe. We must find a new global strategy to combat terrorism that is no longer lying dormant in our cities and villages. If we fail to do so, we risk losing more of our unique freedoms and liberties that make America what it is.

Current polling suggests that Americans remain unscathed from fears of imminent and future terror attacks on U.S. soil. Since November 2001, the Gallup Poll has questioned Americans about their thoughts regarding terrorism occurring within the United States. At any given time, only about 5 - 14 % of Americans polled have said that they are Very worried that they or someone in their family would become a victim of terrorism. Around 55% answered that they were either not to worried, or not worried at all. When asked if they felt that there would be further acts of terrorism in the United States the majority responded that it wasn't too likely or not likely at all. When polled regarding what the priorities for Congress and the President were, National Security was rated seventh falling behind the environment and pollution. In a news briefing on July 17^th 2007, Homeland Security Advisor Frances Townsend expresses that Americans should feel safer due to "Our greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts since September the 11^th." She further states that it is because of this effort that "we have constrained the ability of Al Qaida to attack the U.S. again and have led terrorist groups to view the homeland as a harder target to strike than it was on 9/11." However, Townsend also explained that "Al Qaida will continue to attempt visually dramatic mass casualty attacks in the homeland. And they will continue to acquire and employ chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials and will not hesitate to use them if they develop sufficient capability." These statements were based upon the newly released national intelligence estimate of the terrorist threat to the United States homeland. The first ever of its kind, this estimate is "intended to provide a strategic understanding of the terrorist threat to the homeland over the next three years and to give the intelligence communities baseline judgments in order to help policy-makers develop and prioritize government actions." But do Americans trust the intelligence gathered by the various agencies of the federal government to be credible?

For many years some have felt that the Bush administration have used terror threats as a way to manipulate the media by creating a distraction from negative press. Other claims have included that Bush has used the threat of Domestic terrorist attacks as a means to demonstrate our need to continue the war in Iraq and engage the enemy abroad. However, Senator Barack Obama expressed today that the national intelligence estimate demonstrates "a chilling reminder of what we have feared all along. After almost six years, awesome sacrifices by our brave men and women in uniform, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, we are no safer than we were on 9/11." Supporting that notion Senator Russ Feingold said that "``The NIE confirms that al-Qaida is the most serious threat to the United States, and that key elements of that threat have been regenerated or even enhanced. ... The administration's policies in Iraq have also allowed the emergence of an al-Qaida affiliate that didn't exist before the war.'' Both parties recognize the report's serious threats of plans by al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks - which including homegrown terrorists, to inflict mass casualties through new attacks on the United States. Frances Townsend reiterated this feeling in his press briefing saying "We are facing a persistent terrorist enemy led by Al Qaida that remains driven and intent on attacking the homeland and that continues to adapt and improve its capabilities... There should be no question in anybody's mind: Despite our successes, this is an enemy that remains determined. And it remains determined to try and understand if there are vulnerabilities that they may exploit. It requires us to be equally adaptive at capturing or killing them." Although Townsend adds that there has been no "credible information pointing to a specific imminent attack", what serious security threats do we face as a Nation?

According Paul Williams, seasoned investigative reporter and former FBI consultant, al-Qaida is not content with detonating just one nuclear devise inside the United States but multiple detonations simultaneously in seven cities. He reveals in his recently released book "The Day of Islam: The Annihilation of America and the Western World", that New York, Washington, D.C., Las Vegas, Miami, Boston, Houston, and Los Angeles are all targets for what he calls is an inevitable "American Hiroshima". According to Williams, former CIA Director George Tenet informed President Bush one month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that at least two suitcase nukes had reached al-Qaida operatives in the U.S. "Each suitcase weighed between 50 and 80 kilograms (approximately 110 to 176 pounds) and contained enough fissionable plutonium and uranium to produce an explosive yield in excess of two kilotons," wrote Williams. "One suitcase bore the serial number 9999 and the Russian manufacturing date of 1988. The design of the weapons, Tenet told the president, is simple. The plutonium and uranium are kept in separate compartments that are linked to a triggering mechanism that can be activated by a clock or a call from the cell phone." He asserts that the nuclear weapons have already been smuggled into the United States over the Mexican border with help of the MS-13 street gang. Can this be true? Williams's explosive revelations cannot be construed as just mere speculation; in fact, there are many top level government officials which have been mentioned as his sources. This list includes current FBI Director Robert Mueller who verifies Williams' that al-Qaida is poised "to detonate a nuclear device that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans" - and that, they seek to simultaneously detonate these devices in multiple cities. A Senior CIA official named Michael Scheuer, confessed to Williams that the CIA ""found that [bin Laden] and al-Qaida were involved in an extraordinarily sophisticated and professional efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction - in this case, nuclear weapons." Other Revelations include:

• In 1996, al-Qaida's "paymaster" and a top lieutenant for bin Laden walked into a U.S. embassy in Africa and spilled the beans on the terror group's activities - including that al-Qaida had purchased nuclear material in the Sudan.
• The story of a Brooklyn, N.Y., mosque that was receiving "stipends" from the federal government for more than $2 million a year up until 1993 - when it was discovered that the mosque was the nerve center for the first attack on the World Trade Center.
• The case of a Chicago charity that raised millions for bin Laden and even paid for one of his operatives whose sole job was to acquire nuclear weapons.
• Evidence the Saudi intelligence service claims bin Laden has an arsenal of between 40 and 70 tactical nuclear weapons.
• Russian sources that claim bin Laden bought 12 to 15 fully assembled nuclear weapons.
  
• Ties between al-Qaida and the Chechen rebels who allegedly acquired nuclear suitcase devices.
• Bin Laden's claim to a Pakistani journalist two months before 9/11 that acquiring nuclear was "not difficult" - claiming they were available from Russia for between $10 million and $20 million.
• Evidence bin Laden spent between $60 and $100 million to build nuclear devices with the help of scientists from Pakistan, Russia, and China.
• The damage even a low yield "junk" nuclear device would do to New York - with an estimated 250,000 dead in several days.
• The remarkable story of two British secret agents who penetrated al-Qaida's camps in Afghanistan - and reported to Britain that the terror group was finishing work on radiological weapons.
• The stunning admission of the head of Britain's MI5 who confirmed that "renegade" scientists had provided al-Qaida with the knowledge they needed to build a nuclear device.
• New Jersey: the strange case of a Pakistani who died of radiological poisoning soon after 9/11, a man who had apparently served as a "mule" to transport the deadly material into the U.S.
• Axis of Evil: the secret alliance between al-Qaida and Iran that brings together two religious groups with one common goal: destroying the U.S.

Interestingly, Williams claims that despite Homeland Security Advisor, Frances Townsends July 17^th assertion that we have captured or killed two-thirds of Al-Qaida's leadership from 9/11, "only one member of bin Laden's shura - or high command - has been killed." So again I ask, can Americans trust the intelligence gathered by the various agencies of the federal government? Is there credible evidence that al-Qaida currently possess nuclear weapons within the United States?

Recently, a Virginia company was able to acquire a nuclear license granting them the permission to purchase machines containing Americium 241 and Cesium 137. Both are radioactive elements that could too easily create a non-fissible bomb that spreads radiation over an extensive area. Although this company was set up by the U.S. government to test the ability of individuals to purchase enough nuclear material to build a bomb, it demonstrates that there still remains serious safety concerns post 9/11. "Although we (Investigators from the Government Accountability Office) had no legitimate use for the machines, our investigators received, within days of obtaining a license from NRC, price quotes and terms of payment that would have allowed us to purchase numerous machines containing sealed radioactive source materials."

This disturbing news comes after a June 2007 report in which the FBI revealed the name of Adnan Gulshair el-Shukrijumah being al-Qaida's operational leader on a nuclear plot targeting the United States. Authorities believe that El-Shrukrijumah is "reportedly the man Usama bin Laden tapped to lead a previous plot to detonate nuclear bombs simultaneously in several U.S. cities." However Intelligence officials claim that "although al-Qaida created a team to develop nuclear terror plots targeting American cities, the organization has to date been unable to acquire the key materials necessary to carry out such attacks." Adnan Gulshair el-Shukrijumah is a Saudi Born al-Qaida operative who currently remains at large and quite possibly residing within the United States. The State Department is offering up to $5 million dollars for information about current location through the Rewards for Justice Program however, they have yet to receive any pertinent information. El-Shrukijumah has reportedly spent fifteen years in the United States and has a mother who currently resides in Florida. Although the FBI is not sure whether el-Shrukrijumah is working alone or if he is acting in concert with others as part of a terrorist cell, they believe that "he may play a large and leading role in the next set of terrorist attacks inside the United States."

With all of these revelations, as well as the recently foiled terrorist attacks here and abroad; how is it that the majority of Americans remain confident that our National Security is sufficient enough to prevent another atrocity from occurring on U.S. soil? Can we currently afford to allow politicians on both sides of the isle to use the Intelligence agencies as a tool to cast blame and create fear? Has the Iraq War Issue completely taken our focus off of protecting the United States from an even larger, more horrific terrorist attack then that of 9/11? How can we continue to support our elected officials when they hold our very lives with contempt?

As a Nation we must not fail to recognize the serious and explicit threats to our homeland. We must not allow the media and politicians to hijack and streamline their rhetoric on the back of what is believed as credible intelligence. These strategic assessments should be used as they were purposely designed, which is to help policy makers develop and prioritize government actions. Furthermore, we as a Nation must quickly come to grips with regard to the overall safety of our daily lives. We must not forget that there are still many issues such as Immigration Reform and Border Patrol that are vitally important to the direct safety of our cities and villages. We must do this with constant regard to maintaining the delicate balance between civil liberties and the ability of the government to protect American Lives.

On July 12 2007,  US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, told a Congressional panel that the United States is paying around $ 100 million a month for the deployment of 80,000 Pakistani troops on its border with Afghanistan.  These payments are funded to Pakistan are "for stationing troops and moving them around, and gasoline, and bullets, and training and other costs that they incur as part of the war on terror."  Boucher admitted to the panel that this "reimbursement" totals around $1.2 Billion per year and is explicitly earmarked for paying for Pakistan's military expenses in the region.  In all, US aid to Pakistan is now close to $ 2 billion a year, according to figures provided by Boucher.  In 2006, Congress authorized to aid Pakistan with an additional $ 738 million in assistance programs which also include $ 300 million in separate military aid. This overall figure now places Pakistan in the top three recipients of U.S. aid for military assistance with Israel and Egypt. But wait that's not all! The United States has set aside an additional $750 Million dollars which will be pouring into the lawless tribal areas of northern Pakistan in an effort to win the "hearts and minds" of the people. This area is home to 3.2 million people and remains a desolate landscape where the Pakistani government has no authority and the smuggling of opium and other contraband is routine. Although there was recently a 10 month old peace accord with militants in the area, on July 14 they ended the peace pact with the government and launched two days of suicide attacks and bombings that killed at least 70 people.  The violence comes on the heels of last week's government storming of a radical mosque in the capital, Islamabad, a clash that left more than 100 people dead.

These new developments have offered a respite to President and Military Chief Pervez Musharraf who has been under pressure by pro-democracy movements to renounce his army post and allow fair and free balloting.  Some now believe the Musharraf may put off elections scheduled for this year and declare a state of emergency.  But the respite from political pressures has now placed Musharraf in the line of fire of militants and tensions are quickly heating up to what could become a large scale civil war.  In an analysis over the weekend, Lisa Curtis of the Heritage Foundation argued that "if President Musharraf is to succeed in liquidating extremism, he would need U.S. support. U.S. officials should make it clear, that eliminating terrorism requires that the Pakistan army resumes its offensive in the Tribal Areas."  Pakistan has played the fence with both the United States and Islamic militants for years and is now forced to make a decision that will dictate the future of the country.  Considered one of the most dangerous places in the world it is home of significant senior al Qaeda officials, possibly including Osama bin Laden and the former Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Recently, Danielle Pletka, Vice-President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute characterized Pakistan as a Nation that "has teetered between quasi-democracy and autocracy for decades, is home to a significant stock of nuclear weapons, has gone to war three times with its nuclear armed neighbor, and has a small but committed minority of extremists bent on killing the Pakistani President and taking over the country." If the United States continues to ignore Pakistan's failure to make significant political and social reforms then Pakistan could quite easily dissolve into civil war - making it much easier for militants to cease even more territory, support, weapons and stability.  The U.S. must take a harder stance on how Pakistan disburses the financial aid we supply in order to ensure that these reforms are met.  This includes insuring that free elections are held this year and that the recommendations set by the 9/11 commission report regarding education reform are instituted. We should as well demand that either Pakistan begins a campaign to rid the militants from its borders or allow U.S. troops to operate within its territory to do so. With the growing militant and civil unrest in Pakistan as well as an uncertain future with Iran that could include U.S. military action at some point, Pakistan remains a vital component in the war on terrorism.  Although some experts feel that we should not pressure Pakistan by issuing demands for reform which may decrease Musharrafs ability to wage war, I believe this is a mistake. Success in the region hinges upon empowering the civilian base as well as empowering the army at the same time. We must enter into a long-term, broader working relationship with Pakistan to ensure that it remains an ally or risk the possibility of nuclear armed militants.

Read more great articles at the Evolution of Thought Institute.

Neurotechnology holds the potential to transform nearly every aspect of our lives and revolutionize our conception of the human mind. The science of the brain is moving forward more rapidly than any other science today. For example, American neuroscientists are currently developing "memory-management" drugs. They believe that such pills could help individuals improve their memory skills or even erase unwanted memories, such as that bad childhood experience lurking at the back of your mind. Concerns for ethical and responsible use of neuroscience-based technologies such as brain-machine interfaces, transcranial magnetic stimulation, Positron Emission Tomography and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging are very rarely heard outside the neuroscience community. Although it seems the majority of individuals dismiss notions of Mind uploading, hypersonic messaging, neurochips, brain pacemakers and brain-computer interfacing as science fiction. However, "research on BCI's began in the 1970s."(1). "Pionerring researchers can now conceivably attempt to produce BCI's that augment human functions." (1).

There are currently commercial companies such as Cyberkinetic Neurotechnology Inc. "who have set the development of practical BCIs for humans as its major goal."(1). How has the discussion regarding the ethical implications of neurtechnology as a whole not debated in the public realm? What concerns do you hold for the future of this technology?

Visit the Evolution of Thought Institute for more great articles.