There was growing suspicion last night that the terrorists who killed 22 people in Saudi Arabia at the weekend were allowed to go free as part of a deal to ensure the release of other hostages. After all the Christians were dead, of course
The official Saudi line was that three of the four kidnappers broke out of the compound in al-Khobar using human shields. But one employee at the complex told a different story, claiming that the Saudi forces let them out after they began killing hostages and threatened to blow themselves up. A hostage heard the gunmen shouting that they would release the captives if the security forces let them go, he said. âThe security forces refused at the beginning but then apparently relented. There was a kind of deal reached, although some hostages had already been killed.â One European was decapitated and his head thrown out of the window, another source said. A kidnapper was said to have threatened to shoot a baby in front of its mother.
A Scotland Yard anti-terrorist squad flew to Saudi Arabia yesterday to advise the Saudis and prepare a report for a British coroner on the the murdered oil executive, Michael Hamilton. Sources believe that the kidnappers escaped shortly before Saudi commandos landed on the building. âIt is believed that the three left by foot and didnât hijack any vehicle until they were outside the compound,â the source said. âTo leave, they had to puncture three cordons of defence.â The first was immediately around the tower block, the second around the perimeter and the last and biggest was two blocks back with armoured personal carriers and police cars. The area was sealed off on three sides with the sea on the fourth. Once outside the compound, the terrorists hijacked two cars after changing out of their military fatigues into black tracksuits. Despite the escape, Saudi Interior Ministry officials insisted that the operation was a success, saying that 41 people were freed. A Western diplomat described the attackers as âreally smart guysâ and said the Saudi security forces did âa pretty good jobâ.
Are you the one with the FBI friend?
There are several people here who are rabidly anti-american but carry American passports. These people are getting ready to go back. I know that since they carry American passports, there is very little that the US Dept. can do to prevent them from entering the country. However, somebody has to keep on eye on them, particularly a Saudi woman (doctor) married to an american who converted to Islam.
I might be paranoid but I believe that woman will be the type to support actions against the US.
#5
A4617 - Hmmmm. Yes I know a Field Agent, but I doubt that's the place to begin - and I truly appreciate your concerns - I believe I would be thinking along the same lines if I had heard or seen something from such a person that caused me concern.
If you're serious - then I would start with the US Consulate there in Dhahran - there are FBI Reps in-Kingdom - the consulate should be able to put you in touch. If you don't want to do it IK or find them unwilling to listen or take you seriously, even though they sure as hell should after Khobar, then try the FBI Tip page. This will put you in contact and on-record with your information. I would guess that you'll have to explain more than once why you deem someone a serious potential threat - so be forewarned and don't get frustrated with them, heh.
The FBI is very hidebound about territory, hierarchy, and chains of command - one of the reasons my friend was so frustrated the last time I "talked" with him. BTW, he's an excellent shortstop!
From Debka, so salt to taste. The dividing line between terrorist attacks and the succession struggle raging in the Saudi royal house is becoming increasingly hard to distinguish. The primary duelers now are Princes Abdullah and Nayef. By the time they come to an accommodation, if they ever do, it may be too late for House of Saud.
It is worth noting that Islamic web sites covered the operation closely, indicating, that the terrorists barricaded with their hostages were in touch on line with their controllers throughout the 25 hours of the siege. That same al-Moqrin issued an order to his men last Wednesday, May 26, to organize in small bands of four and to continually strike at Saudi government and US targets without letup. What was behind the Khobar attack aside from the âinfidelâ claptrap? In general, top al Qaeda commanders have stated their determination to overthrow the Saudi throne and shown that they trust in their ability to achieve their goal and pursue it methodically.
#2
I didn't edit this particularly well. The thrust of the article is that the terrorism in SA is being advanced by the byzantine maneuvering between princes to see who follows Fahd to the throne. Nayef is afraid to clamp down too hard for fear of losing the support of Islamic radicals and Abdullah is using the attacks to show that Nayef is not competent to run the family business. Going to get much worse before it gets better.
#3
RWV, that fits with what I've been reading lately. Byzantine political maneuvers, indeed; each is jockeying to be the next power holder, using all the violence and conspiracies at their disposal.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
05/31/2004 18:04 Comments ||
Top||
Three Al-Qaeda gunmen remained at large and a fourth was arrested after commandos yesterday jumped from helicopters in a daring early morning operation to rescue 25 hostages the men were holding at an upmarket compound here, the Interior Ministry said.
Three out of four got away. They were surrounded. As soon as they said that, I knew at least three out of four would get away.
The terrorists killed seven Asians, a Swede and an Italian after gunning down some 13 people during a Saturday rampage. Just after sunrise, three security force helicopters arrived and dropped the forces on the roof of the Tower Building where the hostages were held. Gunfire, heard sporadically overnight, rang out again, and within a few hours, the standoff was over. Security officials flashed victory signs as scores of residents and hostages and gunmen streamed out of the Oasis Compound. Forces were combing it for explosives and fugitive militants, security sources said. Medics were tending some hostages inside the complex, according to its manager. An Interior Ministry spokesman said the lead attacker, who was among the Kingdomâs most wanted suspects, was wounded and is in custody, but the three other terrorists commandeered a car and escaped, using hostages as human shields.
The surprise!... My heart!... Quick, Ethel! My pills!
Security forces earlier evacuated 242 residents from two buildings in the compound. Eastern Province Governor Prince Muhammad ibn Fahd, who visited the injured at the Saad Specialist Hospital in Alkhobar, condemned the âbarbaric actâ of the terrorists and said the government would assure the full safety of residents and citizens. The Saudi ambassador to the United States yesterday vowed the Kingdom would fight the terrorists with redoubled determination.
Prince Naif is on the case. We have nothing to worry about.
âThe terroristsâ goal is to disrupt the Saudi economy and destabilize our country. But they will not succeed,â Prince Bandar ibn Sultan said in a statement released in Washington. âWith every desperate act of violence, our effort and resolve to destroy the terrorists only grows.â Prince Bandar separately told Fox television seven US hostages had also been rescued. âTwo are wounded and five are all right,â he said.
A website statement purportedly written by Al-Qaedaâs cell in the Arabian Peninsula said the attacks and hostage-taking were conducted by âfour mujahedeenâ. The website message, signed by the âAl-Qaeda Organization in the Arabian Peninsulaâ, headed by Abdul Aziz Al-Muqrin, said one of the fighters was killed. The mujahedeen âtook a number of Western hostages, some of whom were killed, including an Italian and a Swede whose throats were slit,â the website message said. The statement announced the death of âten Indiansâ since Saturday morning, who were âamong the murderers of our Muslim brothers in Kashmir.â âThe mujahedeen were cautious to avoid shedding Muslim blood,â it said. One of the hostages said the dead hostages âhad their throats cut by the kidnappers when they tried to escape at night by the stairs.â
A Jordanian hostage, Hazem Al-Damen, said the Italian and Swede worked in the buildingâs restaurant. Damen said the other hostages were all Asians, apart from one Lebanese man. He described how two gunmen aged 20 and 21 knocked on his door at 9 a.m. on Saturday. âThey asked us if we were Muslims or Christians,â Damen said. âAs we replied we were Muslims they told us to stay in the room, adding they wanted to throw out the Americans and the Europeans. They were calm and advised us to grow beards and wear Islamic dress.â
Other residents of the compound confirmed the gunmen were selective. Abdul Salam Al-Hakawati, a 38-year-old Lebanese financial officer, said gunmen came to his house; one spotted him and greeted him in Arabic. The young man asked if he was Arab and Muslim. When he said yes, Al-Hakawati said the gunman told him: âWe only want to hurt Westerners and Americans. Can you tell us where we can find them here?â Al-Hakawati said he told the man he was new in the compound. The gunman said goodbye and left.
The drama began on Saturday morning at 7.30 when gunmen attacked the APICORP compound which houses the headquarters of the Arab Petroleum Investment Corporation as well as its housing facilities. According to eyewitness accounts, four attackers in army uniform aged between 17 and 21 arrived at the gate and asked where company staff were housed. When the two security guards tried to stop them they opened fire, killing both. Stray bullets hit the fuel tank of a GMC Suburban with four school children arriving at the gate from the housing facility, setting it ablaze. A 10-year-old Egyptian boy died trapped in the flames. A passing Briton and a Filipino employee were also caught in the hail of bullets. The Filipino later succumbed to his injuries, the first of three Filipinos to die Saturday, according to Philippine Ambassador to the Kingdom Bahnarim Guinomla. Three Filipinos were injured and three taken hostage, he said. In the second attack around 7.50 a.m., the attackers sprayed the Petroleum Center here with bullets killing three people â an American, a Filipino and a Pakistani.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/31/2004 11:33:56 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
when will the left realize that you cannot force a person to like you..that sometimes extreme measures are needed in dealing with people like this..these aholes view us as weak - especially with a the politics surronding abu-ghrab...we need to let the dirty work happen and help people like see if there are 72 virgins waiting..
Posted by: Dan ||
05/31/2004 13:46 Comments ||
Top||
#4
âWith every desperate act of violence, our effort and resolve to destroy the terrorists only grows.â
I don't think America or the remaining world has any such luxury of waiting around to see if Saudi efforts at combatting terrorism will actually "grow." It will take quite a while (as in, a geological age) for the subatomic particle known as Saudi "resolve" to accrete further material gains.
#5
Watching the news clip of the daring helicopter raid, I swear a couple of those Saudi commandos were pushed or fell out of the copter.
Posted by: john ||
05/31/2004 14:16 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I can understand not putting the weight of the copter on the roof, but your right john, why didn't they use ropes for a fast descent? I think the pilot needs skill honing, unless the wind was too high!
#7
this is getting close to the Royal pocketbook - wonder what Prince Naif's standing is in the "family"....maybe he needs to go for a picnic in the desert a la Arabian Fredo
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/31/2004 14:36 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: ed ||
05/31/2004 15:22 Comments ||
Top||
#10
But Ed, that's an AMERICAN helo pilot!
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/31/2004 15:34 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Something really smells about this "raid." Besides three of the four terrorists managing to get away clean, we have this account of the beginning of the raid from Nizar Hajazeen, a Jordanian Christian who saved himself by claiming to be a Muslim:
Hajazeen, 32, had tried to call a cab to go to work on Saturday but the phone lines were jumbled.
"I went down and the Filipino receptionist told me there were terrorists in the compound and gunshots were heard," he told Reuters.
He tried to help security guards close the hotel entrance gate but the lock did not work and a manager recommended he hide, Hajazeen said.
#12
Leave aside the inability to capture terrorists who are surrounded.How did the car escape?There were helos in area,nobody thought to have one follow car?Nobody could set up a roadblock?Were the human shields also in the get-a-way car?If not,why didn't anyone shoot at car?If yes,should we asume they will be killed after showing up on some video?
Atomic Conspiracy,you are right,something really stinks.
Posted by: Stephen ||
05/31/2004 16:48 Comments ||
Top||
#13
If I were Mr. Hajazeen, I would be taking the fastest available plane, car, or donkey back to Jordan as soon as possible.
As in, the entire Saudi Arabian nation, it's people, police, mosques, schools, military, legal system, their royal family and every d@mned grain of sand they ever set foot upon. Did I leave anything out?
#18
Here's another photo of how to do the Chinook drop--assuming you are serious about getting the bad guys as opposed to staging a show for the media.
#20
âWe only want to hurt Westerners and Americans. Can you tell us where we can find them here?â Al-Hakawati said he told the man he was new in the compound. The gunman said goodbye and left.
Al-Hakawati had the survival instinct switch on. At least he did not give them directions, so things are looking up.
Posted by: Alaska Paul in Cooper Landing, AK ||
05/31/2004 23:13 Comments ||
Top||
#21
More evidence that the Saudi government colludes with al-Qaeda.
From Jihad Unspun
In The Name Of Allah, The Most Benevolent, The Most Merciful. All Praise Be to Allah, the Leader of the Muttaqun (pious people). There is no aggression except on aggressors. All peace be upon he who was sent with sword, the prophet of mercy, Muhammad and upon his family and companions. Ameen.
This morning, Saturday 10 Rabi Al-Akhir 1425, the Mujahideen, the heroes of Al-Quds Sarâya managed, with the power of Allah, to break into the area of Americans companies called Al-Khobar Petroleum Center that that belongs to Haliburton, the American occupying company which consists of some specialized companies in the fields of oil and mining construction that are stealing Muslimsâ resources. As of now, they managed to kill and hurt some of our crusader enemies.
InshaAllah, all details will be published soon to inform you with the names of those heroes of Al-Quds Sarâya. Those heroes are an honorable example of Islamâs youths in the Arabian Gulf. There are many others who are ready for shuhadaa (martyrdom), killing the enemies of Allah from those among the Christians, Jews and the followers of the apostate Arabian governors. Their (the Mujahideen) hearts are bleeding for what is happening to their Muslim brothers in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and everywhere. Keep watching as there is more to come to quench oneâs thirst, with Allahâs Will.
O Lord, who revealed the Holy Book (Quraân), moves the clouds and overpowers the gangs of enemies, strike America and its followers. O Lord, who is the most Strong, strike them, shake them and give us victory. Ameen.
Al-Qaida Organization of the Arab Gulf
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
05/31/2004 1:15:47 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sick stuff, from ultra-sick minds.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
05/31/2004 1:17 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Half of Afghanistan is off limits to aid-workers and foreign contract employees. Similarly no-go is: central and southern Iraq. Killing foreign workers will be an effective terror tool in Saudi Arabia, a tyranny whose oil takes 2 months to arrive in America. Hmmm. How about seizing the Saudi and Iraq oil fields, imposing an exclusion zone, banning those peoples, and bringing in non-Moslem Indian, Phillipino workers to keep our oil flowing.
How do we get the oil-fields? Toss a few well placed nukes and make the locals scatter back to their rat-holes. How do we seize them intact? We threaten Iraqi (excluding the new Republic of Kurdistan) and Saudi savages with total annihilation. I would do that in exchange for 50 cents a gallon gas. Hey! Terrorist life is cheap. And I need my wheels.
"Toss a few well placed nukes"?? That's just plain non-sensical. It would end all support for the US around the world. We truly would become the hated scourge of the earth.
"Threaten Iraqi and Saudi savages with total annihilation"? Only a savage himself could think of such a thing.
You, sir, are a barbarian, an uncouth, coarse, rude, selfish and unmannered idjit. To use the word, you are a lout.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/31/2004 12:20 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Yes Dog Bites Dog Dong is an idiot..but the enemies we face are savage and will not stop until we are destroyed...eventually under this regime nukes will be used...We definetly should lob a few nukes -- but toward tehran and maybe a few in the soddy desert....
we cannot let our energy supplies be taken over by these islamofacists and if that means first use then go for it...as for "it would end all support for the US around the world"
seriously what world do yo live in? the US, for the most part, is already (before 9-11 as well) loathed by friend and foe alike. Be it our culture, our freedoms,our dominant economy, military -- we are loathed regardless of what we do. And if we can save our economy and the future well being of my children then create a waste dump out of these asshats! We did not ask for this (they should of just let the status quo stay - hit us overseas) but we can sure finish it.
Only a savage himself could think of such a thing. You, sir, are a barbarian, an uncouth, coarse, rude, selfish and unmannered idjit. To use the word, you are a lout.
Unless we take the hard, dirty actions necessary to win this we are doomed. We cannot sit back and play by rules that our enemies do not follow.
We cannot play by 18th century British gentlemens war here.
Steve - It will take barbaric actions before this is done. Not what any civilised person wants but it will be necessary.
But I do agree with you the DBT is an idiot - especially from his posts...
Posted by: Dan ||
05/31/2004 20:41 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Phil B ||
05/31/2004 00:48 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
As long as they aren't surrounded...
Now the dance begins, first spinning this way and then that way -- like a whirling dervish on crystal meth.
[rant]
Confused by Saudi internecine politics? Yeah, me too. We'll never really know the full story, of course, because the House of Saud is split into some bizarre factions, one of which controls the "security services" and another controls much or most of the in-Kingdom press. Neither cooperates with the other and neither is keen on having their fuck-ups and agendas openly examined by outsiders. I have never quite grasped Nayef's "position" as it's basically suicidal to support the Wahhabis since they, too, are split into groups - some of which support the AlQ flavor which has as its stated goal the ouster & destruction of the Royals.
I've been trying for a long time to write a decent summary of the Saudi situation in common sense terms, but every day brings new data points - and it seems that most are outliers, heh. So it has become the never-ending task.
I've realized that it's pointless, in sum, to argue about the motives and methods and even the goals of the various factions since much of what is known and what is surmised is nonsense and illogical to anyone except a Saud player steeped in the family politics and rivalries.
In the end, as far as I'm concerned, all that matters are the actions taken, whether it's Abdullah blaming Zionists because he can't publicly blame Nayef (and that's his true enemy it appears) or it's Nayef blaming US support for Israel as the root of all evil (and that seems to be his excuse for what he does). Why should we care if Abdullah's almost a rational Arab (oxymoron?), relatively speaking? Why should we care if Nayef is insane (demonstrable by Western standards) yet in control of most of the internal security forces? What actually matters, once one realizes that their internal Byzantine myriad machinations will never make sense to an outsider in a useful form, which State has traditionally tried and failed to do, is whether or not their sum actions are those of an ally, neutral, or an enemy.
I am amazed and encouraged by Bush's willingness to break with hidebound "traditions", such as the State Dept policies regarding Arabia which serve everyone BUT the US. Investigating Saudi finances in the US, officially advising all US citizens to leave SA, and demanding reforms are all dramatic changes. In the diplomatic world, they're tantamount to declaring the Saudis as adversaries -- almost enemies and almost a declaration of war. This step needed to be taken in self defense - and Bush has done so against the current of Conventional Wisdom and some very powerful vested interests which don't give a flying fuck about what's best for the US. He has, in doing this, bucked the expectations and demands of the "international community" - many bought and paid for by Saudi money and others just jealous has-beens bent on reclaiming imagined glory and lost power or pure adversaries who seek the destruction of American influence - and put that bunch of hyenas on notice that they, too, are looking like adversaries. The next step will be the put-up or shut-up list of demands to the Saudis and, separately, I hope to the UN. Once rejected (And who here doubts they will be?) then open hostilities and action follow.
I wonder what Bush could do, that he is not already doing, that would satisfy those who come to RB to vent their spleens about Islamofascism, yet declare (whether in stealth mode or openly) or consider Bush to have failed, somehow. He is the only President we've ever had who has bucked the "Special Relationship" with the Saudis. He's the only President we've ever had who has taken any definitive direct action against the Islamofascists. He is the only candidate for President who has any credibility on the important issue: the survival of freedom. He, alone, has recognized the duplicity and fallibility of the cadre of cowards (if not traitors) in the State Dept. He, alone, has challenged the Conventional Wisdom of subjugating US interests to the UN. He's got stones. And he's got the right idea: change the Arab world to neutralize the insanity of Islam as it is the source of funding and "inspiration" for the insane actions against freedom. He has taken the stand that needed to be taken to assure future peace: fight the insanity where it directly threatens us and pressure the regimes which harbor insanity to change in favor of democratic forms of government. That is, indeed, the logical action to take first, assuming these people will eventually appreciate freedom's benefits. If it turns out that they can't or won't, well... But we can't know until we try, and I prefer trying to genocide -- at the moment.
About half of Americans "get it" intuitively, and I say this because they get it in spite of an overwhelmingly adversarial press â firmly in the idiotarian camp of multi-culti-cum-dhimmitude. In fact, it can be said that he's the moderate, the man in the middle of the curve, facing two extremes. He's too conservative and reticent for some, too radical and unilateral for others, and his dramatic and bold actions are, in varying degrees, unappreciated by both. For those who want bolder action against the insanity, hang on - it's coming and it's obvious to those of us who seek out the big picture. Rationally, there are steps to be taken and he's taking them. For those that wish us to cease actions against this enemy who has declared their hatred and devout desire to destroy us, well, I can't think of any response that is truthful other than fuck off, you sure as hell don't speak for me.
To both I offer this: grow up, get a grip, think it through for yourself, and be honest - give credit where due. If you can't pony up to the bar and admit when you're wrong or admit facts exist which don't jibe with your stated POV, then you are an intellectual coward and fool / tool. If your grievances are over lesser issues than the very survival of freedom, well, you need to see "get a grip" and accept that perfection isn't available. Okay, heavy sigh, that was yesterday's idiocy - today can be different. No matter who or what you were yesterday, today you can become someone of substance, value, and honor. Go ahead, make today your day. Buck your peers, your family, the very air you breathe filled with the strident blind hatred of idiot memes. Think for yourself, deal within the scope of reality, separate fact from fiction - and take a stand that does, indeed, jibe with the facts. You'll stand out from the crowd. You'll positively drip with class and come-hither pheromones. You'll get more oral sex.
[/rant]
#4
Hot damn, dotcom- that was worth saving on my HD for future reference. Excellent!
I concur with your assessment of Bush: he's taken some uncommonly bold steps, and gets scant credit for having done so by either end of the U.S. political spectrum.
One thing critics of our efforts in Iraq (especially those who think we should have "done" Syria, SA, or Iran instead) don't ever seem to get through their thick heads is that the president of the U.S. simply cannot do any such thing without the express approval of the U.S. Congress. If he even tried, he'd be thrown out of office inside of a week. And I don't think I've ever, not even once, seen any of these people address the issue of what it would have taken (or even would take today) to get a declaration of war against Syria, Saudi Arabia or Iran out of this Congress. Maybe the next one will be different; but today's congressional makeup is utterly hopeless in that regard, and that's the reality with which Bush has had to contend. And in an election year to boot, with the opposition affecting a contrived, cynical anti-war stance for cheap political advantage. I hope this fall's election will prove their political calculus foolish, but I'm not certain it will.
Another reality that critics seem unable to grasp is that the reasons for what we are doing in Iraq lie mainly outside Iraq- and their misunderstanding extends to the point where they cannot even see Iraq as connected in any way with the War On Terror Islamic Fanaticism. They view it as unrelated, which I find incomprehensible.
During the run-up to the war, it became apparent to me that what we were about to do was probably being planned for a host of reasons, very few of which could be discussed openly by American officials. To me, that just seems commonsense.
So I started asking myself, why are we doing this? How might invading Iraq (and deposing Saddam and freeing the Iraqi people in the process) help out in the overall, larger struggle against the malignancy which culminated in the attacks of 9/11?
I made a list, and added things to it as I went along. It's now up to 37 items, whereas when I started I thought I'd be satisfied if I could list just half a dozen. I've put a summary of the list up, at:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dilatush/iraq.html
My only criticisms of Bush so far are that I think he drastically underestimated the perfidy of the Democrats, overestimated the attention span of the American public (especially in the face of Democratic Party efforts to distract it), and overall has done a poor job of keeping the American peoples' eyes on the ball.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
05/31/2004 13:04 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Yeah! What dotcom said! One small quibble - Bust up the monster paragraph - my little pea brain can only absorb big ideas in small bites.
#6
DaveD - That's a great collection, many of which are obvious when stated, but completely lost on the clueless. Just yesterday there was some segment on Fox where Pub & Donk "strategists" were yammering and the Donk twink regurgitated the "No Connection" (AlQ to Iraq) meme and it was so common or mild relative to some of the other memes he spewed that the Pub guy didn't even challenge it. Sigh. Yet the connections are myriad - the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes has almost made a career out of demonstrating it's false - it's even the cover story of their June 7 issue. Yet, once established, memes persist for the slackers who aren't intelligent enough to continually challenge the Conventional Wisdom or the lock-step Talking Points of their peers. Pathetic lot.
Your point about doing the possible, first, before jumping off a cliff (What the Prez can do vs. what he can NOT do - Doh!) is absolutely spot-on. It boggles to read the comments of a total fucking moron, such as Dog Sucks Trolls (Is that auto-erotic, I wonder? I'm not that supple, either physically or intellectually...), in light of such trivialities such as the reality you describe. Blather, that's all they offer. Fred should institute a tougher policy (Easy for ME to say eh?) and require either substance or exceptional snarkiness... IMHO (heh) he should think of himself as the guy at the door - the one who unhooks the velvet rope and lets you in or sends you away as unworthy to be among the posting clientele, lol! I can think of 3 or 4 prolific posters who'd disappear rather quickly, with zero substantive loss to RB content. The overt twits are easy to spot. There are a couple of stealth candidates I'd recommend (Jen and Phil_B are grinning, I'm sure...) as well. RB should be a bit more than just a place to posture and dump your emotional baggage, no matter how well padded with other-people's-thoughts-cum-published-articles. If the basic POV is idiotarian, then everything must be suspect.
Your efforts to keep yourself informed (And organized enough to keep such a terrific list!) are seriously laudable - I wish I had been as astute in maintaining the mish-mash of bookmarks I have. When I need a link, it takes me forever to locate it! I have wanted to make and keep a coherent set of timelines - essential for perspective in making sense of why what happened did happen - but have failed, miserably! I'm just not organized or motivated to become so. No books will come from me - everything I write is extemporaneous, I'm afraid. Of course, you already know by reading my dribbles, heh.
Your assessment of Dubya's failings match mine. I think the series of weekly speeches, now begun to a chorus of jeers from the press and their ilk, might be a good start in changing this problem. I appreciated the clarifications in the first and look forward to more of same. Only the asshats think the process stupid - I'm with you: they will help the undecided and ill-informed to grasp what's up and why.
Americans are a lazy bunch. I have a saying:
It's hard to be hungry with a ham on your back.
Meaning:
If you have no motivation to be a seeker, because everything is being delivered pre-digested (such as the 'product' of the idiotarian press), you won't expend the effort to seek out your own sources, do your own deliberations, confirm your understanding of the issues, or update your opinions to keep pace with reality. I.E. You gotta have a separate good reason to do the work yourself. So, we're lazy, as a group.
Methinks this applies to far too many Americans.
Your posts rock, Dave, and I look for your nym to see what you say. I never have issues with your stuff and only keep silent because I'm not as informed as I'd like to be and doubt I will add to the thread. So I'm sorta saying it all at once here, heh! Plz keep it up! Oh, BTW, my very best regards and wishes to your son, as well!
#9
Both .com and Dave are on a roll -- excellent list, Dave, and .com's rant is sublime.
As to the wish that Dubya would engage the American public more, I rather thought that was what the Saturday radio address was for. That ought to be about the WoT each and every week, no exceptions. Challenge the Dem responder to explain the WoT away.
And a mid-week speech in some battleground state each and every week, with exclusive interviews to the local newscasters, wouldn't hurt either.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/31/2004 14:50 Comments ||
Top||
#10
"Your assessment of Dubya's failings match mine. I think the series of weekly speeches, now begun to a chorus of jeers from the press and their ilk, might be a good start in changing this problem."
Agreed; they're a start. But, like Steve White, I would have preferred he take on the whacko nonsense from the likes of Ted Kennedy, head-on and in-their-face. But that's probably not his style, and I suspect also his team is following a strategy of staying "above the fray" and going about their business with studied, quiet competence. That tactic may work, but I have my doubts: the appearance it creates is too close to the appearance created by simple lack of leadership; and I'm not confident most people will be able to discern the difference when it counts in November, particularly if there's another terrorist attack here.
Thanks for the kind wishes for my son over in Iraq, as well as for your "rants"- I enjoy 'em.
Oh, and as for people like our "Dog Bites Trolls", here's a label: Bloodthirsty Worrywarts. Just another category of "useless weakling".
Posted by: Dave D. ||
05/31/2004 15:05 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Great rants! There's meat in the sizzle today. Dave D. Didn't know you had a son in Iraq, may God bless him and his crew.
I tried your webpage but couldn't access it. I'll try latter.
I'm with you dot, although I don't mind the crash dummies. I'm usually sitting in the back of the class throwing spitballs with them. I learn so much from those who go toe to toe with them. Especially when you can get them to make a point.
#12
"I tried your webpage but couldn't access it. I'll try latter."
Hmmm. It's working OK right now. You can't just click on the link I gave, of course (I don't know how to do proper links here at RB, everytime I try I end up screwing it up), you have to copy the text of that line and then paste it into the Address line of your browser, then hit RETURN.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
05/31/2004 15:58 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Okay Fine. I'm having a small bbq today so I printed a copy to pass around.
All well thought out, easy to read. Makes me ponder some assumption I have about the occupation. My big hang-up is I don't want to see this war not go where "It sends a message..." leads. I don't want the WoT all about Iraqi politics. It needs to go forward.
But make no mistate, I think it was the right thing to do and I'm glad GW did it.
#14
Dave, absolutely brilliant. I'm going to be sending that to a few of my Democrat friends.
.com, kudos to you, too, although now I'll be looking over my back, wondering just who's extraneous around here. I'm not quite as informed as some others, and there was that outburst the other day where I happened to be off the mark . . .
Posted by: The Doctor ||
05/31/2004 17:22 Comments ||
Top||
#15
As I've read more these last few days, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that we're not at war with Islam, but with Arab tribalism, the shame/honor complex, and the conspiratorial worldview that comes from those two and is probably the only thing that makes them less "rational" than us. Because it is, I'm finding, a completely different way of looking at things. Very alien, but also logical in its own brutal way. Except that it doesn't work in the West's modern world.
Could it be that al-Qaeda and the like are, at their black hearts, conspiracies seeking to challenge, basically, the world, and the greatest "power holder" in it, the United States? Islam has a lot to do with their outlook, I know, but the more I think about it, the more I'm suspecting it's more a game of "Who holds the power" and "Who's planning to overthrow whom." In his brilliant book The Closed Circle, which I can't praise enough, David Pryce-Jones talks about Israel being drawn into the tribal conflicts/struggles for power, and how just one of those, the PLO, has been blown far out of proportion. Could something similar be happening with the US, at least in the minds of some Arabs - and can we break that cycle?
Posted by: The Doctor ||
05/31/2004 17:28 Comments ||
Top||
#16
The Doctor - No, no, not you! We're all off-base now & then - that's always forgivable if acknowledged. But, sadly, some of us don't admit mistakes. Ever. Sigh. Sad, no? Since perfection isn't available...
Hey, ignore me! That seems to be a good rule of thumb - there are so many experts, real and imaginary, to choose from!
Fred knows, heh... Hell, Fred knows everything! ;->
#17
"My big hang-up is I don't want to see this war not go where "It sends a message..." leads. I don't want the WoT all about Iraqi politics. It needs to go forward."
Related to that concern, consider this: of the 37 things I wrote in that list, how many of them actually depend on us being able to turn Iraq into a picture-perfect model of a democratic, constitional republic? My assessment is, very few. In my view, the important thing is that Iraq end up peaceful so it won't be a threat to any of its neighbors, and prosperous enough that its inhabitants feel they have a stake in making their society work and won't be a pain in the ass.
As I told someone last year, our plan for conquering Iraq is to make Iraqis fat, dumb, happy and pacifistic- just like we did with the Germans. And it certainly worked with them: the only thing I can think of that's more pacifistic than Germany is a carrot.
The important thing for us, I think, is that we get a permanent land base strategically located in the Middle East, and a supply of oil that isn't going to be shut down by pissed-off Saudi oil ticks who, I dearly hope, we will start pissing off big-time once we get past the November elections.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
05/31/2004 19:15 Comments ||
Top||
#18
I to wonder were I stand in the Great Rantburg Scheme of Things?
#22
OT and Offbase? That's my MO, along with snarky comments and making fun of names
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/31/2004 20:21 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Thanks for the link. Hope I don't get shut down by a CrusaderLanche though...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
05/31/2004 20:26 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Frank G - now be careful, bubba - making fun of names can get you skewered, y'know. And you'll get no apology, either, when you point out the tirade isn't proportional to the offense. So watch your step!
Ptah - Dave's lucid points and org skills would make him an excellent candidate to write a book... and I would hate to be on the other side of the equation!
CL - Look for posts by GK, Michael, Anon4617, and others (argh! memory! apologies!) - they have differing / complimentary experience in SA which rocks!
#25
I'm still bummed nobody bit at my MNLF Human Rights Conferee story comment:
#2 "We didn't know where he was", said Lingga's wife, Connie and his daughter, Anna
Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-31 9:38:29 AM Comment Top
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/31/2004 20:50 Comments ||
Top||
#26
This is Fred's site and he can do what he wants with it, but my 2c worth is that the noise ratio is going up and controlling junk posters like Zenster would help keep the site readable. Various ideas have been floated in the past. I advocate a mixture of paying for the right to post and earning it, based on the 'value' of your comments.
Posted by: Phil B ||
05/31/2004 20:58 Comments ||
Top||
#27
And .com you are the RantMaster! Truly awesome!
Posted by: Phil B ||
05/31/2004 21:00 Comments ||
Top||
KHOBAR, Saudi Arabia - "Are you Muslim or Christian? We donât want to kill Muslims. Show us where the Americans and Westerners live," Islamic militants told an Arab after launching a shooting spree on Westerners in Saudi Arabia. The four gunmen, aged 18 to 25 and wearing military vests, grabbed Abu Hashem, an Iraqi with a U.S. passport, in front of his home in the Oasis compound in Khobar but let him go when he told them he was a Muslim. "Donât be afraid. We wonât kill Muslims even if you are an American," he quoted them as saying. This article illustrates the WOT problem very well. While the West is wringing its hands about whether or not itâs a violation of civil rights to force Muslim women to leave the veils at home when they get photographed for a driverâs license and Christian GIâs get a 6 week sensitivity training to Muslim customs before pushing off to Iraqâs hellhole to "liberate" peace loving Iraqi peoples [cough], terrorists are drawing the battle lines very clearly: the enemy is "infidels" and the good guys are Muslims.
Youâll notice that Al Queda makes no distinctions between radical Muslims or moderate Muslims or Republican Christians or Democrat Christians or practising Christians or fallen Christians. Muslims get the thumbs up even if they are American Muslims and Christians get their throats slashed. very simple.
Now if you are a Muslim and you know you are viewed as a good guy by OBL, whatâs in it for you to help Christians whether you live in Baghdad or Detroit or Kabul?
Posted by: rex ||
05/31/2004 12:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Abu?"
"Yes Lucky, most precious infidel."
"Are muslims exempt?"
"Oh yes Lucky, so as to not turn the ummah against our movement. Soon we'll be in a political strong position. You'll have buckle then Lucky."
"When I buckle Abu should I have a plan."
"Oh yes, my precious, play along, say the right things and be polite to your masters, works for me and I have a job cleaning toilets. May you one day have a place such as mine."
#7
I am somewhat amazed by how my own thoughts have changed over the past five years or so. I would never have thought that I would reach the point that I have reached, where - personally - I now support genocide - of the entire muslim culture and population of the world. I know its unfair to many "innocent" muslims, but it is clearly either "us" or "them" - and I prefer seeing the planet maintain the diversity of its cultures - instead of seeing one belief system imposed on all.
So - I am now an advocate of outright genocide of the entire muslim population of the globe. Heavy stuff. Let the cleansing begin immediately - one jihadi - or a nation of them - at a time.
#8
pushing off to Iraqâs hellhole to "liberate" peace loving Iraqi peoples [cough],
err, i thought i was reading rantburg, not DU, moveon, or other bastions of lunacy. The people of Iraq DO want peaces, and want to defeat the jihadis. Some of them appreciate our help - others resent that we havent been more successful.
But IRAQIS, in the police, officials, and just ordinary citizens who are murdered by the jihadis all the time. They have picked a tough man, Iyad Allawi, as their new PM in an attempt to beat the jihadis.
From Morocco, to Algeria, to Jordan, to Turkey, to Afghanistan, muslims are victims of the jihadis, and are fighting them.
#9
Youâll notice that Al Queda makes no distinctions between radical Muslims or moderate Muslims or Republican Christians or Democrat Christians or practising Christians or fallen Christians. Muslims get the thumbs up even if they are American Muslims and Christians get their throats slashed. very simple.
Similarly the Nazis seperated out Jews,Gypsies
and Slavs for destruction. If you were an "aryan" you were exempt, even if you were Dutch, or British, or American, and even if you were a German who had never supported the Nazi party. Thats why the Nazis were sick. And AQ is sick. It no more makes sense to blame all muslims for the sickness of AQ, than to blame all people of Northern European racial origin for Nazism.
#10
Liberalhawk - It no more makes sense to blame all muslims for the sickness of AQ, than to blame all people of Northern European racial origin for Nazism.
Your right LH, but we fire bombed many a city in Germany in attempt to defeat (not exterminate) Nazis. No difference today. In order to defeat the Islamofascists we must have the "kill em, kill em all" mindset. It will mean that innocents (if there are such an animal in the world of Islam) will be injured/killed. But that is war (we are still at war aren't we?) and it is either total victory or we will all be headed for a beheading.
#11
CI, let's be careful not to lose our souls in the process.
It's a fine line and a difficult balancing act. We must do what we must do - but we should never do those things easily or avoid the fact that they are wrong, even if they are necessary.
The firebombing campaign is studied at West Point in the required sophomore philosophy / ethics class, BTW, precisely to discuss that issue.
#12
I think that target discrimination is a great concept and one our forces use with great judiciousness.
While it may be fun to kill all Moose Limbs indiscriminately, it is with far more effectiveness to chose targets carefully.
For example:
A bus is traveling from Baghdad to Fallujah. We know it is full of folks who just bought tickets to see relatives or do business. There may be some terrorists (unlikely) aboard who couldn't catch the 1739 Camry, but for the most part a basic transaction between the bus company and the passengers. Do we launch a helo/Hellfire strike against these folks to get the terrorist?
The answer is we could legally, since the bus is a legitimate target, but we don't. We know the murdering fella will wind up on someone's sniper scope at some point, and his troubles will soon be over.
The second example. A bus leaves Teheran. We know when it is leaving, our spooks have a passenger manifest and we know it is full of Islamic targets, wannabes who want to die for Allan.
The only question to me is: Which side of the border do we bury the survivors?
This is how we will defeat Islamic terrorism and rein in this 30 plus years of terrorism we have been suffering.
I agree with rkb. We must not lose sight of who we are: kind and compassionate people with a really bad temper, and sufficient amounts of ordnance to turn one third of the world into a parking lot. We don't do that because of our ideals and of who we are.
#13
well, if innocent civilians made the poor choice to live withing the blast radius of the Bushehr reactor, I call it Darwin's law
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/31/2004 9:40 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I agree with #13. War is brutal and the whole point of getting into a war is to win. Having compassion is good if you want to wear blue helmets, not if you wear camfouflage fatigues.
The people of Iraq DO want peaces, and want to defeat the jihadis. Some of them appreciate our help - others resent that we havent been more successful. Kurds want peace. I see no evidence of any consistent efforts coming from Shiites and Sunnis demonstrating they want peace. They want $ from America. If they want peace, we could have wrapped up our campaign a couple of months after Saddam was removed and in fact that was what President Bush was counting on. He was wrong. Some Iraqi police got shot. But a lot of police ran or joined the insurgents.
From Morocco, to Algeria, to Jordan, to Turkey, to Afghanistan, muslims are victims of the jihadis, and are fighting them. Muslims are causing 15 conflicts across the world this year. Most Muslims do nothing. That does not mean they are peace loving or they would be willing to fight jihadists and help win this WOT. In Pakistan they give ultimatums to the jihadists. In Saudi Arabia, they occasionally shoot jihadists but also let them run away. Algerians do better at breeding jihadists than killing them. Morocco does a good job blaming the EU that they would do better if only they were allowed to share more intelligence or if only...
The only good thing I see about this Gulf War is that maybe, if Bremer does not screw up with his one Iraq schtick, just maybe, we can build a strategic military base in Kurdistan and also we can also access Kudistan's oil, which would be especially helpful due to Saudi Arabia falling in the near future.
Let's be honest. If Saddam had not gone off the reservation and if he had kept himself as a nice pro-West dictator, would any of you want to send in troops to "liberate" Iraqi peoples? Not me.
Posted by: rex ||
05/31/2004 10:29 Comments ||
Top||
#15
The sooner we prevail with total victory the fewer innocents who will be injured/killed. I am just tired of not having the debate we need regarding this war. I guess I am mostly referring to the MSM. The action in Iraq is not the Iraq War. It is just the Iraqi Front in the War on Terror. As much as I dislike the WOT title (instead of WWIII or War on Islamofascists or, better yet, the War on Islam) it, however, does describe the global war of the civilized world against this death cult, better known as the religion of peace.
During WWII, we did not call the Italian Front the War in Italy. We must, as a country, begin using the rheteric which will keep the reality of this war on everyone's minds. The leftist commies in our own country use their rheteric in an attempt to keep the war's reality out of public debate. Therefore, we debate WMDs or treatment of prisoners rather than the fact our enemy tells us daily that he will kill us all for no other reason than we do not worship his god (Allah).
Bottom line, you do not compromise with an enemy who absolutely believes he is pleasing his god, and will be eternally rewarded, by killing you and yours. Instead, you kill em first, you kill em all as quickly and as efficiently as possible. That will end this war quicker than any other way. And in the end, it will be the most humane way to end this war also.
#16
War is brutal and the whole point of getting into a war is to win. Having compassion is good if you want to wear blue helmets, not if you wear camfouflage fatigues.
You mischaracterized what I said. Blue helmets even in the face of obvious brutality will do nothing. I speak of target discrimination.
You can mow down hundreds of suspected guerillas who may all be civilians or you can discriminate and just cut down the bad guys leaving the rest of the population thinking that maybe its not such a good idea to support the bad guys.
After all, this is about making democracy viable.
Will not people get the wrong idea that democracy is no different than Baathist socialism if we fail to distinguish between friend and foe?
Doesn't large numbers of people killed indiscriminately make what we want to do a sham?
And far more importantly, do you really think professional commanders in the field will subscribe to the notion that indiscriminate killing will gain us victory in this war of ideas as well as combat?
Kill the Islamists who view the world in this manner.
Not kill all of them. ONLY those who view the non-belivers as non-human and executable.
Quickly. Mercilessly. In large numbers. Without anger. And without remorse.
This is the only way to go about it.
Quickly - because this is an ugly thing to do, but a neccesary one. And if left to fester, it will become much worse, for us and for the people nearby the targets. Its like a philosophical cancer. This is not to say it must be done now - but it should be done as quickly as our abilities allow. Even if it means raising a couple of divisions more so we have adequate troops to do the job, even if it means rolling back social spending so the troops have adequate tools to get the job done, even if it means training and changing the way the most of the ground forces work. It most be done quickly.
Mercilessly - because they view mercy not as mercy, but as weakness to be exploited. Give them all the mercy they show us. Which is to say, none. They will learn the value of mercy once they have been denied it. This is nto to allow another Abu Ghriab, but it refers to the type and tempo of operations - no cease fires, and once they fire from a Mosque, it loses its protection and can be obliterated. We will rebuild it later.
In large numbers - like a cancerous tumor, you cannot just take parts, you must excise the whole of it. Otherwise it will continue to spread and poison healthy areas. The moderated parts of Islam, those who have matured past the hate and literalism, they will fill the gaps we leave quickly - as long as we remove the whole of the radicals who would otherwise crowd them out.
Without Anger - if we do this in the heat of anger, we will make errors, and be unable to clearly maintain our moral focus. And anger, in the west, never burns long enough in the general populace because of our good hearts and short memories. This is a fight of good versus evil, freedom versus slavery, liberty versus tyranny. To fight it only out of anger is to lose our soul in the process.
Without remorse... We believe we are doing what we must, what they have forced us into doing, and what is right. Remorse for the innocent who will suffer? Yes - but only in the degree that we did not act earlier or more forcefully which would have prevented their suffering to begin with. In the end there is no need to be remorseful about the obliteration of this evil culture of Islamism. Remember that Islamism would gladly and joyously erase our civilization from the planet - and our religions and peoples with it.
No remorse for destroying people and ideologies like Wahabbi Islamism - certainly not any more than we were remorseful over the destruction of the Nazis in Germany; which is to say, none at all.
#18
The funky problem. LH has good points and I agree with them. You all have good points and I agree with all of them. Thats a funky problem.
Oldspook said kill islamist with a certain world view. Yes indeed and thats whats going on. But those who don't have that world view, some percent of them have various degress of support for that world view. Thats their team, whether they like the coach or not.
Heard today about the bombing of a green moskq in pakiland in revenge for the killing of a red cleric the day before. Different teams, same conference.
The funky problem, the blood libel, is to change the mindset of those on the other team. And that will IMHO require the targeting of certain leaders of that team and the places they do business (moskq). And thats a bunch. It must be a unhealthy thing to be part of that team.
It's a dirty thing. But I don't want to screw around forever like Israel. If Isreal blew up the golden dome would anything change? Hell yes, the Islamist of the world will seeth, cut their forheads. If we take out mecca would things change, Hell yes Islamist will seeth and cut the forheads of their children. Seems like same ol, don't it?
It isn't Iraqi, Iranians, Saudi and all that we are at war with. It is a geopolitical mindset wrapped up in a religion that uses fear and intimidation to keep those in line. It is that thing, islam, that must be attacked... And defeated with a rightous "praise the lord and pass the amunition".
I guess what I'm trying to say is if your a cleric your dead meat. Then my lil buddy Abu wont have to clean toilets anymore. He'll say to his cleric "Oh, Hamzi, your dead meat, I don't know you."
#19
The thing is. Those who died because they answered 'Christian', knowing full well that it was a death sentence, are the true martyrs willing to give up their lives for their faith.
And if the situation was reversed those who answered 'Muslim' knowing full well that they would have been killed would also have been martyrs.
Those who blow themselves up are not martyrs, only murders....
#20
The memorial service held 9/14/2001 at the National Cathedral set the tone for this struggle. Those in attendance sang all five verses of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, something that had not been done since the Civil War centennial celebrations of the 60's. The lyrics should have given the jihadi's pause: He is trampling out the vintage where the Grapes of Wrath are stored, He hath loosed the fateful lightning of his terrible swift sword...I have read a fiery Gospel writ in burnished rows of steel. Let the hero born of woman crush the serpent with his heel....He hath sounded forth a trumpet that shall never call retreat. He is sifting out the hearts of men before his Judgement Seat....In the beauty of the lilies, Christ was born across the sea...As he died to make men holy, let us live to make men free.
If that didn't make clear enough what was going to happen next, President Bush clarified it as follows: "War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others; it will end in a way and at an hour of our choosing.
With a man like George Bush leading us, the end will be when we have exterminated these vermin and the world is free of their poison.
#21
Would it be morally correct to kill "all"? Try an analogy: There is a building in which one man is shooting into a nearby park, killing children. The building is otherwise filled with 100 people, who do nothing to stop the killer. These other people have sufficient ability to stop the killer, and, yet, refuse to do so. Do these other people have sufficient complicity with the crime to be found guilty?
Note: Arguments such as you could move the kids from the park, or wait-out the shooter, et cetera are all beside the point in our real world. The moral point is clear: Do those who have the power to stop a criminal and yet act to protect the criminal share in the crime? Yes.
For example, there is something in the law known as the "felony murder rule". Under that rule, a person who facilities a murder is likewise guilty of the murder (such as the guy who drives the get-away car).
Finally, is it properly moral to fail to act to save innocents -- the non-muslim innocents who will be slaughtered by these monsters. They want nothing less than a world war. They want the end to come so that they can force the return of their god. Spend some time with muslims end-of-the-world theology and then answer the question.
Posted by: Charles ||
05/31/2004 15:55 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Charles, "Arguments such as you could move the kids from the park, or wait-out the shooter, et cetera are all beside the point in our real world."
No they are NOT beside the point. They are valid points to be considred. Yours is a bad premise. As are your other setup conditions. Sorry, but you are settting up a false set of premises in order to force a conclusion. Its an argumentative fallcy which will not lead to a correct answer.
Ability to stop a crime, seeing the crime occur, but failing to anything does in law put guilt on you. Go look it up.
But what we are referring to here is not those who stand by and do nothing - its those who bring the sniper ammunition, open the doors for him, and provide him food shelter and comfort. And some people are trying to "remove the children from the park" (the wall in Israel for example).
That is an entirely different circumstance from what you try to set forth.
#23
Old Spook: Thank you for the reply. Perhaps I should clarify "beside the point". I was referring to the extent of the analogy -- not to a park full of children. Obviously, if one could move the children, that would be necessary and appropriate.
However, in our world (not the analogy), we simply can't move the children. The terrorist are not geographically bound (as is the shooter in the analogy). By arguing about moving the children, one would be spending too much time on the analogy and not on the limited point of the illustration.
If it were possible to avoid the terrorist, then that would be the best solution. However, that does not seem to be possible. Even Israel's wall is of ultimately of limited value (although it is probably the best under the circumstances).
The moral point is that those who protect bad guys have as much moral culpability as those who commit the acts. I certainly would not advocate immediately nuking everyone in the Arab/Muslim world. However, the issue of "innocents" is certainly difficult to untangle in this instance.
The underlying problem seems to be something inherent in Islam and its relationship to non-Muslims. Consider the world as whole: Muslims and Christians in Africa; Muslims and Hindus in India; Muslims and Budhists in Southeast Asia; Muslims and Secularists in Europe.
There are some Muslim leaders who are acting in a useful fashion. Unfortunately, there are far too few.
Finally, at law, there is no legal responsibility to prevent bad acts from taking place. I may legally (though perhaps not morally) watch a crime be committed or a person drown without liability or legal fault. However, if I act, I am held to a reasonable standard of care.
Posted by: Charles ||
05/31/2004 16:31 Comments ||
Top||
#25
And how many times do we hear the lie that Muslims respect and honor Jesus?
They respect him so much they slit his followers throats, or treat them as second class citizens if they are 'moderate' Muslims.
How very merciful of them.
I spit on Muhammed's grave! I hope that Muhammed is getting his wish, in hell, and dying over and over again for Allah-the Father of Lies!
From Jihad Unspun, originally from Al-Muhahiroun
Sheikh Abu Hamza, Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad and many other Muslim political activists in the UK have been facing intense vilification by the media, who through lies and distortions have made them public enemy No. 1 for the British public. The arrest of Sheikh Abu Hamza today [May 29] is therefore no surprise as the Blair regime gives in to the Jewish lobby ... and the lackeys of the Blair regime within the Muslim community known as the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). The arrest is also intended to appease the masses fearing another attack by Al-Qaaeda and to deflect the publics attention away from the US and UK fascist policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. ....
Moreover, amendments to extradition laws in Britain earlier this year now mean that the Blair regime do not need to find any evidence of crimes having been committed by British citizens if they are Muslims. Rather a mere request or whim from another country, who they consider to have a just judicial system, is enough to secure extradition and possibly even the death sentence. So much for the man made concepts of Freedom and Democracy and so much for the lies of human rights and civil liberties, expounded by secularists, which evidently do not apply when it comes to Muslims. ...
Muslims of course will be saddened and angry at this violation of the honour and life of a fellow Muslim and activist. But many will also be propagating the superiority of the Islamic Judicial system, in which guilt is not subject to the whims and desires of a select few tyrants, where people are not guilty if they are Muslim until they can prove their innocence and where only real evidence is admissible in court, not the fabrications of the media repeated by Israelis and US government officials to suit their own political ends. Finally, this latest fiasco is rightly bound to increase the anger of the Muslims worldwide towards the Tyrant State of America and to quicken their expulsion from Muslim soil paving the way for the Khilafah i.e. Islamic State.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
05/31/2004 1:09:10 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Oh, ferchrissakes, Moslems are always "saddened and angry".
And they seethe, too, particularly on the street.
"Jewish lobby," "lackeys," "appease the masses," yadda, yadda, blah, blah.
At least we know where the propaganda writers from the old Soviet Comminist party have gone.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
05/31/2004 1:20 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I'm thinking they trained the Tass propagandists, Barbara.
Muslims Saddened & Angry, But Tell Superiority of Islamic Justice
If by "superiority" they mean "final," they may have a point. I happen to find Sharia Law's appeal process a litle too abbreviated for my own liking. Additionally, given such tremendous cultural superiority, I've yet to see any good explanation for why Islamist cultures were not the first to invent MRI, semiconductors and, thank goodness, the advanced weaponry that may yet be necessary to kill all of these seething and humiliated murderous thugs.
#3
Boy, am I glad I read this. Until now I didn't realize that the Jooooos are and always have been the cause of all our troubles. Yup, the old tin-foil cap is right on top of the old noggin, right where it belongs. Yessiree. Right where it belongs.
#5
They're not guilty if they are Muslim until they can prove their innocence in court . . . unless, of course, they're an infidel, or a political rival of the current dictator/power holder, or a woman . . .
So much for the man made concepts of Freedom and Democracy . . . for the lies of human rights and civil liberties . . . which evidently do not apply when it comes to Muslims . . .
Seems to me they don't. Check out a couple of Islamic countries, then get back to me on that, 'kay?
Posted by: The Doctor ||
05/31/2004 18:09 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Doc.,now you've got me confused.
If a Muslim is not guilty why would they need to go to court to provr his/her innocence?
#9
Raptor, I was taking where people are not guilty if they are Muslim until they can prove their innocence and where only real evidence is admissible in court and adding the exceptions, though maybe I got a little ixed mup. Although if they weren't guilty they'd still need to prove their innocence if they were charged . . . theoretically, that is . . .
Posted by: The Doctor ||
05/31/2004 22:01 Comments ||
Top||
#10
.com - I don't think the Islamonazis will like it at all if the American Street actually starts seething.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
05/31/2004 22:18 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Tyrant States of America? I kinda like that.... But many will also be propagating the superiority of the Islamic Judicial system, in which guilt is not subject to the whims and desires of a select few tyrants, where people are not guilty if they are Muslim until they can prove their innocence and where only real evidence is admissible in court, not the fabrications of the media repeated by Israelis and US government officials to suit their own political ends.
Now we know where the NorKs' rant writer is moonlighting these days.....
#12
Do this or we'll get mad. No, we mean do THAT or we'll get mad. Wait, let's check with the imam to see when the conference for getting mad is scheduled. ISLAMICISTS=WHINING DRAMA QUEENS. If they were little kids their butts would be skinless by now from all the hidings they would have gotten to beat some damn sense into them.
KCNA humor check: Strange, no spittle and very little seething.
North Korea on Monday accused the Bush administration of making up reports about the Northâs nuclear weapons program as a pretext for war, saying it echoed similar allegations Washington made about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the U.S.-led invasion. "The Bush war forces are going to apply what it used in Iraq to the DPRK," said North Koreaâs official KCNA news agency. "Having worked out a plan to launch a new war on the Korean peninsula in the wake of that in Iraq, the U.S. is building up in advance public opinion about fictitious development of âenriched uraniumâ in the DPRK.
#2
Don't worry Kimmy, just ignore those 7 aircraft carrier battle groups that are suspiciously heading your way. We're just uh...sight seeing..yeah thats right..sight seeing. Maybe even a little fireworks thrown in along the way.
#6
Kimmie---Your rant is lame. It is a 3.5. We are very busy at the moment. Go away and call us some other time. Go read up on carrier battle groups if you have nothing better to do. Oh, by the way, do you still like train travel? Got that nostalgic feeling? Have a nice day.
Posted by: Alaska Paul in Cooper Landing, AK ||
05/31/2004 23:26 Comments ||
Top||
The trial of 69 suspected members of a Turkish al-Qaida cell accused in a string of November suicide bombings in Istanbul was postponed Monday after the court ruled that it did not have the authority to hear the case. In May, parliament abolished state security courts like the one hearing this trial, but that order does not come into force for about another month. The reform was approved as part of Turkey's bid to join the European Union.
Kowtowing to the EU worked well.
The case opened Monday and the court said that due to the changes it no longer had the authority to hear the case. Turkish authorities are expected to set up new tribunals in the coming months that will deal with this and other cases. All 69 defendants, however, must still appear before the court this week on procedural grounds, but no testimony will be heard. In their 128-page indictment, prosecutors were demanded life sentences for five suspects who they said played direct roles in the bombings. The other 64 suspects could face prison sentences ranging from 4 1/2 to 22 1/2 years. Several alleged top ringleaders, however, remain at large. According to the indictment, Habib Akdas, the suspected leader of the cell, and two alleged cell members, Baki Yigit and Adnan Ersoz, met on several occasions with Abu Hafs al-Masri, a former top lieutenant of bin Laden. Al-Masri is believed to have arranged for Akdas and Yigit to meet with bin Laden in 2001 in Afghanistan. Al-Masri and bin Laden suggested attacks against Incirlik Air Base, a southern Turkish air base used by the U.S. military, as well as against Israeli ships in the southern port of Mersin, the indictment said. Intelligence officials have said the militants ended up changing their targets because of high security at the sites. The suspected militants asked for $150,000 for the attacks from al-Masri and the money was paid to the cell last year by affiliates in Europe and Iran, prosecutors said.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/31/2004 3:11:13 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Monaco? Who the hell bombs Monaco?
A bomb exploded outside Monaco's main soccer stadium early Sunday when the building was empty, shattering windows but causing no injuries, a top official said. The device exploded outside an entrance at Stade Louis II, said Jose Badia, Monaco's government counselor for social affairs and public works. The blast targeted a part of the building that houses state offices and the headquarters of sports associations. The stadium is home to the AS Monaco soccer team, which lost the European Champions Cup final 3-0 to FC Porto last week. No one claimed responsibility. The bomb, believed to weigh 2 to 4 1/2 pounds, blew out windows and caused other minor damage. "There is no climate of insecurity in the principality _ this could more likely be an isolated act, maybe linked to sports," Badia said. "It's the first time this type of incident has happened in Monaco."
Posted by: Fred ||
05/31/2004 1:06:26 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Maybe the bombers thought they were in Frawnce. As it was, they were only a few miles off.
Easy mistake to make, I suppose, particularly if Phrench isn't your first language and you're not really up on European geography.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
05/31/2004 1:14 Comments ||
Top||
#7
In case you're not kidding, Monaco is a tiny enclave on the Mediterranean coast of France.
It is an independent country, the second smallest in the world (less than a square mile). It is mainly known to the rest of the world for its famous casino ("Monte Carlo" ring a bell?) and through tabloid coverage of the goings on in its royal family.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/31/2004 20:14 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Rite chew r, Shippy. Another eggcellent suggestion. They could put the finish line in St. Peter's Square. They could circle around the obelisk thingy. Maybe they could soup up the pope-mobile so he could play instead of just waving the green flag. The Swiss guards could be his pit crew...
#14
Maybe the bombers are honing their skills for the summer Oleolympics.
Posted by: Alaska Paul in Cooper Landing, AK ||
05/31/2004 23:29 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Grace Kelly was a honey, no doubt about it, but the royalty bit was more than a little overdone overdone in typical tabloid fashion.
The Princess of my realm, my daughter JJ, is just as pretty and just as blonde as Kelly, as well as much taller and therefore more regal. In fact, JJ is taller than I am, at 6'2" (for real).
The Realm of the Atomic Conspirators is actually larger than Monaco too, 640 acres vs. 480. We don't have a casino or a place to hold an F-1 event, but who needs a swarm of fashionably smelly Eurotrash hopheads anyway?
Irrational paranoia about computer technology threatens to shut down an entire front in the war on terror.
A prestigious advisory panel has just recommended that the Defense Department get permission from a federal court any time it wants to use computer analysis on its own intelligence files. It would be acceptable, according to the panel, for a human agent to pore over millions of intelligence records looking for al Qaeda suspects who share phone numbers, say, and have traveled to terror haunts in South America. But program a computer to make that same search, declares the advisory committee, and judicial approval is needed, because computer analysis of intelligence databanks allegedly violates "privacy." Who are these wankers and why are they breathing my oxygen?
This nonsensical rule is the latest development in the escalating triumph of privacy advocacy over common sense. Unfortunately, the privacy crusade is jeopardizing national security as well. The privacy advocatesâ greatest victory to date was in shutting down the Pentagonâs Total Information Awareness program. That research was testing whether computers can spot terrorist activity by sifting through reams of electronic data. In the wake of the TIAâs demise last September, the defense secretary appointed a panel of Washington stalwarts, including Floyd Abrams and Lloyd Cutler, to advise the Pentagon on future intelligence technology research. But rather than clarifying the issues around computer analysis, privacy and national security, the panelâs recent report has made a bad situation worse. Yes, Iâm very concerned about surveillance abuses, but I also want data mining tools to be used appropriately against the flood of information about terrorists.
At stake is a young technology known as data mining. Data mining responds to the explosion of information in scientific, government and commercial databanks. Through complex algorithms, it uncovers significant patterns in computer data whose sheer volume defeats human analysis. TIA researchers hoped to use data mining on intelligence databases, and possibly commercial databanks as well, to find the electronic footprints terrorists leave as they plan and rehearse their next attack.
Misinformation swirled around the TIA almost from the moment it was announced. Privacy advocates claimed that pattern analysis represents a radically new and unconstitutional approach to law enforcement. It does not. Police officers search for patterns every time they observe a city street looking for suspicious behavior -- someone casing a jewelry store, say, or trolling for drug buyers. Looking for suspicious behavior in computer databases -- connecting the dots, for example, between purchases of large volumes of bomb-making chemicals, phone calls to known Islamic radicals, travel to Sudan and the rental of a Ryder truck -- differs only in the medium of observation, not the technique.
TIA critics also charged that it would insuperably violate privacy. But information in commercial databanks is probably the least private thing about us: It is routinely sold to marketers and is often available by Internet search. The government already has legal access to such data without obtaining a warrant. Nevertheless, TIA researchers were developing cutting-edge privacy protections that would make electronic records anonymous until a sufficiently suspicious pattern suggesting terrorist activity emerged.
The facts about the TIA were lost under nonstop charges that the project represented an Orwellian plot to spy on every American. And now the Pentagon advisory committee has taken the hysteria about data mining to a whole new level.
The committee demands that counterterrorism analysts seek court approval to mine the Pentagonâs own lawfully acquired intelligence files, if there is a chance that they might contain information on U.S. citizens or resident aliens -- basically all intelligence files. Eyeball scrutiny of those same files, however, requires no such judicial oversight. This rule suggests a bizarre conceit that the automation of human analysis, which is all data mining is, somehow violates privacy more than the observation of those same items by a person. In fact, the opposite is true. A computer has no idea what it is "reading," but merely selects items by rule. A human might remember some sort of obscure one-time fact they stumbled across pertaining to a single citizen, a computer CANâT, unless it specifically has been instructed to.
The advisory committeeâs technophobia does not end with intelligence analysis. It would also require the defense secretary to give approval for, and certify the absolute necessity of, Google searches by intelligence agents. Even though any 12-year-old with a computer can freely surf the Web looking for Islamist chat rooms, defense analysts may not do so, according to the panel, without strict oversight. Cue "Twilight Zone" theme:
[nee ... nee ... nee ... nee]
SECDEF having to "give approval for, and certify the absolute necessity of, Google searches" ... Whoever came up with this little gem desperately needs some parking lot therapy.
The defense secretary should reject the panelâs recommendations, which are based neither in logic nor in law. The government receives 126 million intelligence intercepts a day. Humans cannot possibly keep up with the intelligence tidal wave; anti-terror agents miss connections between suspects, places and events every day. Computer analysis of intelligence data is not merely optional, it is virtually required, for the government to have any hope of extracting evidence of terrorist activity from the tsunami of possibly relevant information. To demand a laborious court appeal every time the government wants to sift that data electronically would bring our intelligence efforts to a halt, and leave us vulnerable to the next terror attack. The only way to analyse terrorist communications chatter will be with computers. Even if you forced the computer to exclude natural born American citizens, we would still be light years ahead in our quest to intercept terrorists before they commit their atrocities. There is a happy medium and our very lives depend upon finding it.
Posted by: Zenster ||
05/31/2004 4:28:03 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This does, indeed, sound insane - which suits the idiotarian crowd pefectly. The source is WaPo, which suggests a measure of caution, IMO, regards what's factual and what's opinion or spin... but the premise and conclusion certainly seem logical.
As for the 126 million intercepts, how many will have to be handled by an interpreter first? How many will have to be hand-corrected for non-English speaker screw-ups, such as the bizarre mispellings and syntax wackiness, such as we've seen in articles posted on RB? I'm afraid that there will be a huge amount of human intervention required to reformat non-English DB entries into a usable form. I'm absolutely certain there are not enough translators, trustworthy or not, available. And I'm sure that there are other problems with the premise of managing a master DB of intel which can be mined - beyond the language issue - but the effort is undoubtedly worthwhile. I've done quite a bit of mining code and it does offer surprising results - non-intuitive and other relationships between data points that just aren't visible otherwise. Big hurdles must be oversome, but worthy.
Dismiss this commission of LLL-sensitized twits, Rummy - they're not just foolish, they're on the other side. Common sense is what's required. And speed. Speed's important. Do it. Now.
#2
This is typical of the neo-Luddites of the Left, the people whose self-esteem was boosted by never being told they were wrong in school. They are basically ignorant and secure in their beliefs that they are smart enough, good enough, and that people like them. They are at once both dimissive and fearful of technology. What they know about computer technology they learned from watching The Matrix and, for the older ones, 2001, A Space Odyssey. They will always fear what they don't understand and mistrust those that do. The reason it becomes a problem is that our education system churns out so many of these drones and most of them become lawyers.
#3
This is what happens when the courts manufacture a right - the right to privacy - instead of directing the legislature to enact the preservation and instantiation of the right in legislated law.
We are now dealing with the consequences of a nebulous right manufactured by the activist courts.
THe legislature needs to step up and define the right in laws, which woudl avoid things being bent to rediculous extremes by liberal activists lawyers and their pet judges.
#4
... the people whose self-esteem was boosted by never being told they were wrong in school.
Never has a generation had so much self-esteem for so little reason.
The reason it becomes a problem is that our education system churns out so many of these drones and most of them become lawyers.
You left out the part about how America's politicians are about as technologically literate as a celery stalk.
Old Spook, I tend to concur with you, save in definition. Privacy has been limned out as some sort of privilege granted via judicial decision when, in fact, it is an inalienable right. Privileges are granted, rights are inherent.
#5
Privacy may be an inalienable right but it isn't in the Constitution. That is why it is granted by the judiciary.
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
05/31/2004 15:52 Comments ||
Top||
#6
So I suppose that using Google is an invasion of privacy then? What if they're just looking for random websites?
I can see the trial now:
PROSECUTOR: This man has been using Google without a warrant! We have records of him using that search engine without proper permission!
DEFENDANT: But I was just looking for good places to go on vacation!
PROSECUTOR: And what's next? Looking up facts? Celebrities? Old computer games?
Seriously, this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Words almost fail me in describing their idiocy. What's next, checking out a website (either personal or that of an organization) being the equivalent of search & seizure without just cause?
Posted by: The Doctor ||
05/31/2004 16:54 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Privacy may be an inalienable right but it isn't in the Constitution. That is why it is granted by the judiciary.
Excellent point, Mr. Davis. In light of TIA's advent, perhaps our politicians' costly time would be better spent focussing upon this sort of vital redefinition of rights as opposed to enshrining discriminatory drivel like the DOMA into America's constitution.
#8
I used to post at Samizdata, until I had a major falling out with Perry and others on exactly this topic. I won't rehash all my arguments but it comes down to more privacy = more crime/terrorism. The notion that privacy is a right is frankly ridiculous. It would mean people could commit crimes with impunity, because privacy would block determining a crime had occured never mind collecting of evidence.
Posted by: Phil B ||
05/31/2004 21:27 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Phil B, the privacy of law abiding individuals should be pretty much sacrosanct. Criminals give up any right to privacy due to the necessity of investigating their wrongdoings.
#11
Duh! How can you determine if they are law abiding without invading their privacy? Lets say I murder my neighbour in my basement, cut up the body and bury body parts in said basement. There is no evidence in a public place that a crime has occured. BTW, this is a common MO for mass murders who get away with it for years. I could give you a thousand similar examples/scenarios.
Posted by: Phil B ||
05/31/2004 23:37 Comments ||
Top||
#13
How can you determine if they are law abiding without invading their privacy?
Can you say, "fo-ren-sic a-nal-y-sis?" Very good, I knew you could. Eye witnesses are also pretty useful in narrowing down the list of suspects. Previously recorded MOs and (gasp) accessing data already on file in public records (drivers licenses, tax records, etc.) is pretty standard fare.
Yes, some serial killers without any other priors slip through the cracks. This does not lessen the need for individual privacy to remain a fundamental right of the innocent. Better that a thousand criminals go free than one innocent man be falsely convicted. Got a problem with that?
#14
Better that a thousand criminals go free than one innocent man be falsely convicted. Got a problem with that?
Yep, I have a huge problem with it. It would require a false conviction rate of 0.1%. Hard data on false conviction rates is for obvious reasons difficult to obtain but I have never seen an estimate even remotely close to this level. The only way you could get to this rate would be abandon all prosecutions except where the perp was caught in the act by at least a dozen witnesses. Crime/terrorism would of could skyrocket, since anyone with half a brain could be sure of getting away with almost any crime. Otherwise it is irrelevant to my point. You have to invade privacy to get the evidence that a crime occured in the first place and to identify the perp.
"fo-ren-sic a-nal-y-sis?" I suggest you cut down on your TV watching. It's not good for you.
Eye witnesses are also pretty useful Eye witnesses are close to useless as any first year psychology major will tell you.
Effectively all serial killers slip through the cracks as you call them.
individual privacy to remain a fundamental right of the innocent. Now do you see the internal paradox in this statement? A person can not have privacy and be show to be innocent. Its not logically possible.
Posted by: Phil B ||
06/01/2004 1:06 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Quick question, Phil B. How closely do you equate a law abiding citizen's right to privacy with their constitutional protection from illegal search and seizure?
I also disagree that a private citizen cannot have privacy and simultaneously be shown to be innocent. The burden of correctly determining probable cause or proving any wrongdoing is placed squarely upon the prosecution and their appointed officers operating in the field. People are innocent until proven guilty. They need not be required to prove their innocence until such a time as when their culpability is legitimately called into question.
I suggest you cut down on your TV watching. It's not good for you.
I'll be happy to send you a photo of my only television's remote covered with a deep coating of dust. My set has remained off for almost three entire years to date.
#16
Zenster, I am not an American, and know next to nothing about US constitutional issues. The issue is privacy versus security of person and property. I happen to think privacy is non-issue. Why should I care if someone wants to knew what I have been doing, unless I have been doing something illegal or socially disapproved of (the latter doesnt really apply to me).
People are innocent until proven guilty. Agreed, but the issue is the extent you allow collection of evidence of both a crime occuring and culpability, where such evidence exists on private property or in public hands in the case of the TIA.
The Left continually tries to link personal liberty with privacy, whereas I see them as diametrically opposed. Increasing privacy decreases personal liberty and visa versa.
Posted by: Phil B ||
06/01/2004 5:13 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Better that a thousand criminals go free than one innocent man be falsely convicted. Got a problem with that?
YES, YES, YES, I have a problem with that. The guy who told that silliness obviously thought only about one-time criminals: if ypou let them go the only harm is you lose the opportunity of punishing them. But then there are people like Marc Dutroux. If you let him go then many underaged girls will be raped on camera and killed.
If you release these one thousand criminals then the blood of the victims killed after their release will be on YOUR hands.
And you can rest assured that if one of my daughters is harmed by a serial criminal who has been released (a la Marc Dutroux) I would dedicate my life to making pay both the people who released him and the opinion leaders who advocate the release of serial criminals.
#18
Privacy is a right - but rights must be balanced against one another and must be prioritized.
I have no desire to have government agents, or their software, sifting through my IP packets to see what web sites I've visited.
I also have no desire to see thousands of innocent people blown up, or a much smaller number of children abducted by serial molesters.
The trick here is, as it has always been, to find as good a balance between security and freedom as we can. Historically, that balance has shifted in response to events. During wartime, security generally takes higher priority - but not total priority, if only to preserve the core of that way of life we cherish.
The problem isn't that the government is using software to sift records .. the problem is that the software isn't smart *enough* yet to do so without exposing names and actions unnecessarily to the intel and federal officials using it. Ideally, we could program software agents to find patterns and clues we need, and only expose the identities of the people involved for the limited few instances where there is a sufficiently solid hit.
He was invited by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to conferences in Washington D.C. and New York but he never made it. Instead, he was detained in Los Angeles for 24 hours and then sent back to the Philippines. Muslim scholar Abhoud Syed Lingga, former secretary-general of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), arrived in the United States on May 12 (US time) but never got past LA immigration. During his 24-hour detention, he was not allowed to make phone calls.
Not even the UN official who had invited him to the conferences was aware that the professor was in the custody of US authorities, said Linggaâs wife, Jo. Relatives who were supposed to pick him up upon his arrival were also interrogated for an hour. Jo said the UN only learned of Linggaâs detention after she e-mailed Eugene Martin of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) who had invited Lingga to the conferences scheduled from May 12 to 20. ....
The Inquirer [News Service]learned that Lingga was denied a US visa when he first asked for one to attend the conferences. Later, the US Embassy in Manila called him up and then granted him a visa. ....
Lingga is a professor at the Institute of Bangsamoro Studies in Cotabato City. Described as a dignified intellectual by colleagues, he was behind the creation of the Muslim Alliance in 1983. In 1996, he organized and chaired the Bangsamoro Peopleâs Consultative Assembly (BPCA). He also inspired the organization of the group Maradeka, an Islamic democratic political organization. He was involved in various peace negotiations between the government and the secessionist Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).
Bob Alonto, also a professor at the Islamic school, condemned the incident and said they will ask the UN to act on it. Alonto said that what happened to Lingga was proof that the US was "a racist, paranoid country out to discriminate against every Muslim who wants to enter its territories." ....
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
05/31/2004 4:12:58 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yeah, this was posted before. A long time ago, in fact. Thanks for reminding us that airport security is doing something right, though.
Posted by: Charles ||
05/31/2004 4:23 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"We didn't know where he was", said Lingga's wife, Connie and his daughter, Anna
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/31/2004 9:38 Comments ||
Top||
#3
badda-bing! *rimshot* Ok, now I get it, Frank! Now there's a little snag with Lingga being a femalian, but that would just make her extra-hip, methinks, heh. So how's the family? Schnitz, Link, and Weenie? *eye roll* Okay, I surrender to superior punnery!
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/31/2004 21:04 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Remember Taxi? There was an episode where the conversation hit upon someone named Bill Board - of course the followup comments involved Clip and Switch. Today we'd add Circuit. But that pales compared to yours, since your first names were real first names! Primo Snarky!
#6
Taxi was awesome - great writers - great ensemble. Same with Barney Miller, except that one didn't have Elaine DeNardo's hooters
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/31/2004 21:17 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Ah - and Marylu Henner, yumm. Obviously, great minds think alike! And it was the only time that Andy Kaufman was half as funny as he thought he was.
The U.S. military is moving troops that were withdrawn from Sunni and Shiâite cities to areas near the Syrian border. The units have orders to stop Islamic insurgents from entering Iraq from Syria. U.S. officials said the military has redeployed marines from Faluja to the Syrian border. They said the marines have been operating in the Anbar province in an effort to prevent the flow of Al Qaida-inspired insurgents from Syria into Iraq. "They were able to go ahead and pull some of those forces back out to not only secure the borders," Maj. Gen. John Sattler, Central Command operations director, said. "But also to work the towns along the Syrian border, which is important to make sure that there are no safe havens in those towns."
Officials said the military has made the prevention of foreign insurgency movement from Syria to Iraq a high priority, Middle East Newsline reported. The officials said thousands of mostly Sunni insurgents from throughout the Middle East have arrived in Syria for the trek to Iraq. The initiative to stop Islamic insurgents from crossing the Iraqi-Syrian border has been bloody. On May 29, three Marines were killed in Anbar during what officials termed security and stability operations. No further details were reported. For his part, Sattler said the U.S. military has contained the flow of insurgents from Syria into Iraq. But he said the 900-kilometer border between the two countries provides lots of opportunities for insurgents. "They [marines] were able to go ahead and pull some of those forces back out to," Sattler, in a Pentagon briefing from Qatar, said, "not only secure the borders but also to work the towns along the Syrian border, which is important â all the same reasons: to make sure that there are no safe havens in those towns and, in addition, to work civil military operations projects, bring some degree of commerce, bring money into the town and go ahead and enhance the quality of life."
In May, the military killed more than 20 people at an Iraqi facility near the Syrian border said to have been used as an insurgency way-station. Officials dismissed assertions by Iraqi sources that those killed were revelers at a wedding party. "We have very good intelligence that indicates beyond our shadow of a doubt that that safe house was in fact being used as a safe house to bring fighters across the border and into Iraq," Sattler said. "It was a halfway house where there were clothes there, there were weapons there, there were false documentation there."
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
05/31/2004 9:20:23 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is a classic figure-eight UAV patrolling and/or stationary blimp function with on-call Air Cav forces backed by a Spooky or two and a tribe of Apaches to warm things up prior to boots on the site. Put a 20MM in every square foot of the suspect ground and then come have a look-see.
#2
Last week I thought I read that the Marines were building berms along the border to impede the flow of jihadis. .com has the right idea as long as the right rules of engagement are employed.
#3
Perhaps we'll be able to develop techniques that will be of use with Mexico.
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
05/31/2004 22:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
RWV - I dunno about having an RoE, heh. Unless we're talking about extra points for UN vehicles...
Okay, just kidding, sorta. I do prefer, for ANY crossing point unauthorized by US Mil Cmd, the shoot first then check it out approach, however. No more smuggling. No more jihadis. No more frelancing BS. Kill it then count it.
#5
The second phase of the counter-jihad war has begun.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
05/31/2004 22:30 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The blame for this falls at least partly on the frikking backstabbing Turks - had the 4th ID been allowed to enter the northern routes, its job was to swing west and secure the borders with Syria.
Not to be pissing in Rantburg's Wheaties, but this is something that the current administration and command have really screwed up.
They should have planned to secure the borders from day 1 with whatever forces we had at hand. It would have been a good use for the otherwise unemployed regular Iraqi Army along wiht secureing weapons depots and ammo dumps (sans high level officers) - especially on the Iranian border area. Solves 2 things - gets them out of the cities, puts them far away from where they could do harm, and keeps them from splintering into fragments that the local tribes could use (like Sadr and his gang).
#9
Since the US has declared other sanctions against Syria, why not just close the border between Syria and Iraq? Drop leaflets over the sparsely inhabited areas, then after a few days shoot anything that crosses the "line in the sand".
From IranMainia, originally from AFP
Hundreds of Iranian men and women, even children, declared their willingness to carry out suicide attacks in Iraq and Israel following weekly Friday prayers in Tehran, an AFP correspondent said. The "volunteers" signed their names and gave their telephone numbers to an obscure group calling itself the Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the World Islamic Movement.
A spokesman, Mohammad Yasser Samadi, told AFP the action was to "show our friends in Iraq and all other Muslims that we are ready to give our lives to defend our honor and Islamâs ..... However, there was no evidence the action was anything more than symbolic, and Samadi said they would renounce suicide operations if asked by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The group announced earlier this month it had begun recruiting potential suicide bombers for Iraq in the wake of serious clashes between US-led coalition forces and the militia of radical cleric Moqtada Sadr around the Shiite Muslim holy cities of Najaf and Karbala.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
05/31/2004 1:47:43 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Iranian government has established a center called The Brigades of the Shahids of the Global Islamic Awakening. Shahid means martyr.
Posted by: Phil B ||
05/31/2004 2:44 Comments ||
Top||
#2
One way or another its one less bullet per loon we have to fire ourselves.....Darwinism at work..
#5
I wouldn't worry much about publicized events like this.It is mainly an attempt to revive the long gone "revolutionary fire" among iranian populace.And probably all the signees were given some gift or other.
The hidden agena and actions of the mullhas need closer attention, be it nuclear developpement or meddlings in Irak.
#7
"The Iranians are talking a LOT of smack these days. Do they REALLY want a fight?"
Yes. Yes, they do. You had failed to understand that they *do* want a fight before 9/11, and you seemingly keep on failing to understand it after it.
But hey, there's no reason to actually try to figure out the enemy's plans because they're stoopid moooooslims after all, and so they can't *possibly* have been clever enough to manipulate you into destroying all strong secular opposition in the region at the same time as you lost the ability to intervene into the *actual* state-supporters of Islamofascism. They can't possibly have outwitted the CIA so much that you don't even know whether Chalabi is a double (or triple or quadruple) agent or a genuine ally.
But everything you people cared about was "determination" rather than actual intelligence. So anyone who seemed "determined" to wage war was by definition better than those who wondered whether it was a good idea (or a good target) after all.
"Have the Iranians ever heard of battlefield interdiction?"
They probably have also heard of troops availability as well, enough to know that America doesn't have it as long as it's busy in Iraq. Part of the reason that they probably manipulated you into attacking it in the first place.
One of these decades you'll have to concede that I was completely correct, not "anti-American", when I called invading Iraq a moronic decision. One of these decades you'll have to concede that not all all those who thought Bush an idiot were actually the enemies of America.
But hey, you're in the "geographical hub" of the area now. It's only anti-Americans who think it would have been lots better had you been in Damascus or Tehran instead.
Back to being depressed over the ongoing catastrophe for Western Civilisation that the moronic decision to invade Iraq was.
And you people go back to roaring ineffectually that you'll be invading Iran any day now, you're just waiting until the mood strikes you right -- similar to how Hamas is roaring that it'll be destroying the state of Israel any day now. Bull both of these.
You simply won't. Not under the moronic non-strategy of the Bush administration anyway. But keep on roaring anyway. Makes you look amusing in a very *very* bitter sort of way that only serves to feed my melancholy.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/31/2004 10:09 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Yes, Iran has manipulated the situation.
But some threats bear responding to. Iraq was one of them. And I am not convinced that the mullahs will win this one -- not, at least, if the clearheaded people understand what is at stake.
The Bush administration's tactics might not always have been effective. The strategy, I think, has already begun to bear fruit.
Iran is in great danger of overreach. Whether or not it tumbles will in part be the result of Europe's willingness to set aside it's self-involved myopia and act with longer-range and longer-term interests in mind.
I'm not hopeful that will happen, but I haven't ruled it out yet.
#11
Katsaris, as you've been told many times, invading and liberating Iraq and preparing it to be a Saddam-free democracy and using it as a base (an "Al Queda," if you will) for the democritization of all of the Middle East was a very wise decision.
(Your deciding to post here again after you swore you wouldn't was not.
It's one thing to lie about the facts when you're "discussing" the WOT, but to lie personally is far worse.
Seems you are not the only lying Greek--your countrymen weren't able to face the truth about the cost of the Olympics: Greek official says costs of Games outweigh gains)
Iran ain't all that...Saddam's Army beat them back in 1988 and they're far worse now.
And they're now "bookended" by Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Let 'em threaten.
We're right next door with lots of troops and our ICBMs and Israel's have their number, I'm sure.
Most Iranians are begging to be rid of the mullahocracy and free to enjoy life again and I imagine the reason the USA doesn't move militarily is in the great hope that the Iranian people will overthrow the mullahs the same way the moo-lahs overthrew the Shah.
Posted by: Jen ||
05/31/2004 12:20 Comments ||
Top||
#12
And you people go back to roaring ineffectually that you'll be invading Iran any day now, you're just waiting until the mood strikes you right -- similar to how Hamas is roaring that it'll be destroying the state of Israel any day now.
Invading Iran might not be an option at present, but disabling their nuclear power weapons program sure is. I'd like to see some way of doing it without scattering radiological contaminants all over the countryside, but if that is the price of eliminating this massive threat to world stability, then so be it.
Iran has been playing havoc with the entire Middle East (and world) for so long that it is time for them to realize the price of such deleterious meddling.
#13
Underestimating ones enemy is as much a misstake as overestimating him, sorry Aris I think you over-estimate the abillities of the mullahs.
(nothing personal)
Posted by: Evert V. in NL ||
05/31/2004 13:40 Comments ||
Top||
#14
At the risk of being flamed, there are some things that #7 says that I agree with...BUT not 100% agreement...
I do believe Iran posed a greater threat to the West than Saddam did. But I don't think the US should invade Iran for the same reason that I don't think we should have invaded Iraq.
The US - politicians and public - do not yet have the stomach to allow our military do the things that need to be done to win a war. We have better technology but we have far fewer soldiers than Muslim countries. We can win wars where we destroy things but the odds of winning wars of "hearts and minds" are stacked against us. Jihadists can win Muslim "hearts and minds" far faster than we can convince Muslims the subtle values of democracy because jihadists can appeal to a familiar ages old religion for unity and which is, unfortunately, antagonistic to individual liberties. Also, another antagonist to Western dreams of imposing democracy on Muslim nations is the kinship or consanguity factor. People have more loyalty to family than to state. In the Middle East the preferred form of marriage is a between a man and his cousin, so even in so-called secular countries in the ME, there's a loyalty to kin, to tribes, that is far greater than to Western "liberators." Here's a map of how important a role kinship plays in various parts of the world:
http://www.consang.net/global_prevalence/index.html
I predict it will take a couple more 9/11's to have us reach a level of fear to wage war effectively. Until I hear the words from Congress and the WH "We declare war on blah, blah country ", I think it's selfish to put our troops in harms way in Muslim countries with a mission of "liberating" them. Can you think of any successful democracies that is primarily Muslim? Turkey...maybe, sort of...Some people believe forcing democracy on Muslim countries will give the West peace and security. I disagree. Unless someone wants something so much they are willing to fight for it themselves, they will not value it if it's handed to them on a platter. I say let Muslim countries form an oozing pus whose governments declare war on us. Only then will we prevail.
Until that time we should deploy our military along our southern and northern borders to act as the strong fist backup to our border guards and send them on occasional UN peace keeping junkets to keep a profile in the UN.
Posted by: rex ||
05/31/2004 13:48 Comments ||
Top||
#15
With all due respect, I think you're talking alot of rubbish, rex.
You have your defeatist attitude about what America is doing over there, but I don't envy you it.
Those of us who back President Bush and the WOT fully believe that Democracy can and must come to the Middle East, starting with Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is the only way for the U.S. to achieve long-term peace and security.
Battle was well and truly joined on 9/11 when America was attacked and 3,000 of our people were murdered on our soil.
President Bush took the fight to the Enemy.
Without a Democratic Reformation in the Arab world, we all know that in no time at all, Islamist terrorism will return to harm us with a vengeance.
We committed our military--with the consent of Congress and after an 18-month discussion among the American citizenry that is erroneously called the "rush to war"-- to Iraq and stay in Iraq we shall.
Now is the time.
Iraq is the place where we are making our stand.
Let the chips fall where they may.
But I'm betting on Bush and democracy (even in the Middle East) and Victory.
Posted by: Jen ||
05/31/2004 14:14 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Has Aris always thought the US should have invaded Iran and Syria? If we had would he have been supportive?
Get over it Aris, Saddam is history and your pessimistic "I told you so" snorting sounds childish. Explain your Damascus, Tehran strategy. Now that would be interesting!
Rex good points. "Oozing pus". I don't like fighting the WoT in the sands of Afgan or Iraq either. But with the events that lead up to the Iraq invasion, in particular the breaking of the cease fire agreement after the Gulf War, pretty much had the overthrow of Saddam a done deal. I don't think it needed to be done but had it not, Saddam would still be plotting ways to further undermine our security. I'm good with it. (Not needed as a critical battle in the WoT, but more of unfinished business in the heart of the snakes)
I do feel that Iraq is not that important on the WoT now. It is that damnable islam that needs to be confronted as discussed in the other thread.
The Jun 30th deadline is a major event. I hope we get out of the dust bowl and I hope the Kurds will welcome our security as we take on the more harmful sects of islam. But while we do that (if we do that) there will be animosity among islamic kurds, Turks, Stans, ect. that will be nasty.
rkb, don't worry about a little sloppyness. It's ok, we all do its'. You write really well.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/31/2004 14:46 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Jen, I never believed that Iraq posed enough of an imminent threat to require our troops invading it. I'm sorry but that's the way I've always felt and I assure you I am a conservative.
But like Lucky, now that we are there, we can look at the silver linings of the invasion-we have removed Saddam, who himself was a WMD to Kurds, Shiites, as well as Israelis. We have empowered Kurds to rightfully establish a state for themselves without fear of being mowed down by Saddam. And with regards to the Kurds, if we play our cards right, we can position ourselves strategically to keep a watchful eye on Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia as well as gain access to theone of the largest oil and natural gas reserves in the world.
While it's true that the Turks won't be happy initially, a couple of days ago there was an article posted here from a Turkish source that argued the benefits of a Kurdistan where the PKK and the PKU [whatever those acronymns are]could live happily ever after and out of Turkey's hair. Also, the article suggested that contracts with Kurdistan could be quite an economy booster for the Turks and a strong Kurdistan would serve as a buffer to the hoardes of Iraqi Sunnis and Iraqi Shiites. Evidently, Turkey may fear those folks more than an up and running Kurdistan. So the Turks may see a silver lining in a Kurdistan, like we should see in regime change of Saddam.
As for my "defeatist" attitude about Iraq...look, I'm copacetic about regime change in Iraq but I am not at all happy about nation building a la Jeffersonian democracy model for Iraq. I say get them their elections, like all the other ME countries have for whatever that's worth, and hope a benign strongman gets into power. I think keeping Iraq as one country will not work after the first election. Realistically, I think 3 states will function better in the long run because of tribal/religious loyalties. And Shiite Iraq may be more of a religious run government than Sunni or Kurdish states. But who cares? As long as they muddle along without threatening other countries, who are we to judge their approach to governing is wrong?
Jen, I do not believe forcing democracy on the ME is the answer to peace for the West. If anything, this type of Western arrogance will cause even more resentment and resistence. Islam is a chauvinistic religion for one thing and the concept of democracy dictating equality for all people/both genders is an exceedingly bad fit for Islamic countries.
I believe that Reformation of Islam is the answer and it has to be generated internally.
OBL and his ilk are winning over followers because they do not want to be "infected" by the decadence of Western democracies. Democracy may mean wonderful things to you and me because our religion does not clash with its ideals, but to Muslims in other countries, even our country, democracy, signifies weakling men choosing to marry men, and Britany Spears-Madonna-Lyndie England type liberated women. George Bush praises the idea of liberating women in Afghanistan and Iraq, but where are the visible hundreds of thousands of liberated women from those 2 countries chiming in with thankfulness for being "liberated?" We can re-build as much infa-structure in Iraq and Afghanistan as we want, but as soon as there is a gay parade in either country, all hell would break loose be it tomorrow or 100 years from now.
David Frum wrote an interesting article a couple of days ago in NRO entitled "Sacred Murder II." Frum is a neocon journalist who was quite optimistic for an Iraq democracy. It looks like Frum is having second thoughts about Islam, radical or moderate, taking a back seat to personal liberty and national democracy.
http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary052404.asp We in the Western press often praise âmoderate Islam.â But in practice, âmoderate Islamâ often turns out to be moderate in its actions only. As decent human beings, moderate Muslims will of course refrain from committing acts of oppression, cruelty, and terrorism. But intellectually, moderate Muslims have a difficult time explaining why these acts are âun-Islamic.â ...What Westerners are really yearning for is not a âmoderateâ Islam, but a âliberalâ Islam â one that accepts peace and tolerance on principle, and not just as unfortunate necessities. Yet such a âliberalâ Islam, if it ever came to be, would pose a very serious challenge to the whole elaborate structure of Islamic thought and practice...Intellectually, traditional Islam forms a closed system. You can exit the system (although the penalty for exit â apostasy â is death). But so long as you remain within it, the intellectual system forbids its own reform. A liberal Islam would have to begin by challenging the system. It would have to begin by submitting the Koran itself to human inquiry and reason.
Posted by: rex ||
05/31/2004 15:50 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Aris - I do agree about destroying secular forces..but you have to understand we had very few choices.
1. Give up and run leaving the ME to the mulla's
2. Tell saddam his time is up and he must be our pawn. Essentially becoming allies to confront a common foe.
3. Taking the harder route which Bush has taken. He has complety broken with the past and taken a more enlightened approach - the democracy approach.
Choice 1. is not even on the table.
Choice 2. - well the left, you and the rest of the EU would be in an uproar calling us vile things and how we support tryanny.its all about us controlling iraqs oil..ect..not that EU would do anything on their own to confront tynanny.
Choice 3. - taking the hard route but the morally correct route. take out iraq, scare the shit out the soddys and put the iranians on notice - we are your new nieghbors and things will change.
You call invading iraq moronic. Well please explain to us morons a better option. In the long run (decades - not months or years) Bush has made the correct decision. War is not easy and we have many hard days ahead of us. But quite frankly there is no other nation to step up to the plate.
Pulling out and doing nothing would put your kids, my kids and their offspring at risk of nuclear blackmail and their economies at the mercy of the mad mullas in iran. Now from your posts I can honestly say you do not support the islamofacists. So please tell us a better option.
As for me I do not want to pass this problem to my grandchildern.
Posted by: Dan ||
05/31/2004 15:59 Comments ||
Top||
#20
And yes Aris - we will be dealing with iran. Before they go nuke - either internally or externally. There is still a chance in iran for the moderate voices (where in iraq there was only one voice) to prevail. I do not believe this but it is still possible. If not then you will see American forces there by the end of 2005... you speak of day's..get off the liberal bandwagon and think a little more strategically
Posted by: Dan ||
05/31/2004 16:05 Comments ||
Top||
#21
rex, and that brings us back to the funky thing that OldSpook clearly opined.
#22
There are probably no "right" answers here. We do nothing, it will get worse. They will work at trying to hurt us (proof: US response during the 90's.) There certainly is no evidence that this problem is going to "go away". We try and wack the bad guys and help the good guys. This certainly is not easy or fun. It may not even be possible. There seem to be an awfully large number of people who are spoiling for a war.
We should note that there are US foces on both sides of Iran. There is a large US force near Syria.
Posted by: Charles ||
05/31/2004 16:55 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Jihadists can win Muslim "hearts and minds" far faster than we can convince Muslims the subtle values of democracy because jihadists can appeal to a familiar ages old religion for unity and which is, unfortunately, antagonistic to individual liberties.
Excellent point, except that the word "unfortunately" needs to be replaced with "intentionally."
#24
Okay, #21, you caught me outright -I plead guilty to too much fuzzy yaking about reformation of Islam. That's as naive as hoping that Muslims will embrace democracy. Sure, I can go with OldSpook's clarity - use overwhelming force, "innocent" collateral be damned. Works for me instead of waiting forever for reformation or democracy to take hold. Force is good. I like force. In fact, it should be a)overwhelming force or b)none at all-in which case we should just stick to doing the blue helmet thingie and let the Islamic pus foment until we are forced to resort to a.
#19 Re: not wanting to leave a "problem" for your grandchildren...You wrongly assume that there are a finite number of Muslim bad guys in Iraq, and that once X number are wacked or jailed, presto, the "problem" is solved and then your grandchildren will be able to do summer internships at Baghdad U in their Junior year at college. Even Muslims in our own country say they will vote for the Democrat Party because of our Iraqi "liberation" efforts. These American Muslims have enjoyed the benefits of democracy and still they turn their backs on George Bush. Doesn't that make you pause and re-consider the benefits of engaging in touchy feely "winning of hearts and minds" wars?
I would suggest to you that Iran is not shaking in fear of our Geneva Convention handcuffed military dodging bullets and bombs in Iraq 24/7, when they are not re-building mosques and apologizing for throwing panties on the faces of Fayedeen. Iranians are probably losing patience, however, reading about Saddam the Butcher still breathing and getting 3 square meals aday 6 months after he was captured or how Saddam has access to the best lawyers money can buy while he awaits "trial" and may not even face the death penalty because L. Paul Bremer kindly suspended capital punishment in Iraq. Iranians are impatient, yes, fearful, I don't think so.
Posted by: rex ||
05/31/2004 17:51 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Suicide bombers may be "martyrs," but how often were they used before, oh, I don't know, the mid '80s? They certainly weren't used during any of the conflicts between Israel and its Arab neighbors. If my admittedly spotty memory of WWII serves, Japan didn't even start with the kamikazes until near the end (Guadalcanal was the first instance, I believe, and by then they were on the defensive). The Paleos don't have much else at their disposal; suicide bombers are cheap, effective at killing, and a good place to get rid of extraneous, depressed, angry individuals. It's one of the few things they can do against the better-trained and -equipped Israelis. So why would Iran need a squadron of suicide jihadis, unless their military is either (A) not all it's cracked up to be, or (B) somehow unreliable?
I have nothing to back this up, but somehow I get the feeling that the mullahs have tipped their hand in some way, shown something that maybe they shouldn't have. Whether that be involvement with Iraq, or perhaps some kind of vulnurability that wasn't apparent before, I'm not sure . . .
Posted by: The Doctor ||
05/31/2004 17:57 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Aris quick question..what's your plan on taking on the islamofaciscts? Hit Iran? Hit Saudi Arabia and more importantly where/what targets/whom and where do those attacks come from if there ARE to be attacks? Not sniping at you here, just an honest question.
#27
Valentine>
Hitting Syria would be my favoured course of action. Destroying the headquarters of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah. Freeing Lebanon at the same time.
Since Syria is the main supporter of Palestinian terrorism, at this point even the Palestinians may be forced to figure out there's no hope in the so-called "armed resistance" of these organizations. They accept the formation of a state (with wall of separation) that's roughly on the Green Line, minus Eastern Jerusalem, which the Israelis keep. Even if they don't accept it, you force it on them anyway.
The democratization of Syria proceeds more easily than the democratization of Iraq because it's much more ethnically homogeneous -- and also because it doesn't border with Iran or Saudi Arabia but Iraq instead. Cult-of-personality dictatorships aren't very exportable to other nations -- Islamic dictatorships are.
And the Kurdish minority of Syria can get autonomy. They're located in a small enough area that this doesn't threaten the entire integrity of the Syrian state, as it would if Sunnis/Shias tried for autonomy on Iraq. But the future possibility would exist for unity with the Kurds of Iraq and the creation of a state that forms a bridge all the way to Iran, if the need arose.
Saddam is treated last -- the same way he was pretty much last on the list of regional threats.
Lucky> "Has Aris always thought the US should have invaded Iran and Syria?"
At that time, I had thought that the Bush administration had figured out how many troops they would need for each phase. Back then I had really thought that Iraq was the first phase in a campaign. So it didn't matter much to me which one would be the first country and which would be the second. Iraq still seemed like a foolish unimportant target, but since I'd expected more important ones to follow, I didnt mind so much.
Then it was shown that no other countries would follow because America simply didn't even have enough troops to occupy Iraq itself, let alone Iraq and the other nations combined.
*I* couldn't have known that back then, but I think I'm still free to blame the Bush administration for seemingly not knowing it either. It was their job to know it and they utterly messed up.
#28
The future is an undiscovered country. Whether Iraq ends up as a democracy is unknown. If it ends up as a Saadam mark II dictatorship or a mullahocracy, was it worth trying? Absolutely! We can then move on to plan B.
On a note to Aris, my mother used to tell me that many things in this world are not good or bad, they are just better or worse than the alternatives.
BTW, I agree with you that Syria should have been job one, but that would have entailed completely ditching the UN and even the Brits would have balked at invading Syria. After Afghanistan, Iraq was the low hanging fruit - all those UNSC resolutions.
Posted by: Phil B ||
05/31/2004 20:43 Comments ||
Top||
#29
Well, well. Look who's back.
Surprisingly, I agree with Aris' evaluation of the salutary effects of invading Syria, plus the benefits it would accrue to Israel. Can't argue with THAT.
However, at $25,000 per suicide bomber, Saddam WAS a major player in Palestinian terror. The very same border over which Assad's feeding shahids into Iraq is the same border over which Saddam would be feeding HIS shahids into Syria. And what about the international outcry? At least the United States had a raft full of violated UN Sanctions to wave at to justify the Invasion of Iraq. If THOSE weren't enough in international eyes, what would the justification be for invading Syria, who DIDN'T invade Kuwait? How many UN resolutions have called for Syria to pull out of Lebanon? The outcry when we toppled Saddam would have been nothing compared to the outcry of spearing Assad WITH NO VISIBLE JUSTIFICATION WHATEVER. We'd have been truly alone, for the resolutions against Iraq were what Blair relied on to dare join us in Iraq.
Iraq had records which Syria didn't, and which have proven MOST illuminating.
Although not finding a huge arsenal of WMDs in Iraq, what WAS found were WMD programs in statis and seed form. I know most people are not engineers, and so wouldn't appreciate the finding of a single working gas centrifuge in a rose garden. However, to an engineer, a working model is so close to the Holy Grail that the difference doesn't matter.
Invading Syria would NOT have shaken Quaddafi as much as winning in Iraq and dragging Saddam out of his hidey-hole. Assad was a little fish compared to Saddam.
Politics is the art of the Possible. Within the parameters of the American political system at the time, Bush did what was possible. Seems to me the Euros and Al Jazeera know more about how to jerk the lines in our political environment better than some let on.
#30
We need to build a wall of shame somewhere for these suicide bombers. These jihadi morons ruin their families' lives and their countries' futures and seem to get nothing but accolades for their actions. If we had a wall of shame built somewhere, we could counter the ridiculous fawning over murderers so prevalent in the Muslim world. We could pelt the walls with animal manure and rotted vegetables, etc to show them the derision and denegration they deserve. Let's even put photos of it on the web to really piss off the abetters of terrorism.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
05/31/2004 22:15 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The article says that the attacks on "soft targets", i. e. the oil workers, instead oil infrastructure is a sign of the weakness of the terrorist organization. I don't think so. Rather I think it reflects the perverted jihadi thinking that the West is "plundering Muslim resources." By driving out the Western workers, the resources are preserved for "Muslims." The flaw in the plan is that the Muslims don't have the skilled personnel necessary to operate the equipment AND the resource only has value if the West is willing to buy it. Left to their own devices Arab civilization will collapse in on itself.
#2
Ah - that begs the question: Do we let it? Do we wait for them to fall, and then step in? And are we prepared to make up the shortfall of oil in the meantime?
"Ahmed, what do those big pump things do?"
"I don't know, Mahmoud! Maybe we should just push this big red button labeled in the infidel's language."
"Sure is big, Ahmed, maybe we shouldn't."
"But we're the superior culture! We're Muslims! We're the Faithful! We have the Qu'ran! And Hadith 7.957, Paragraph VI, Subsection A says to always push the big red button! That's what the Prophet did!"
And then the pumps stop working . . .
Oops.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
05/31/2004 23:32 Comments ||
Top||
#3
RWV ,,I concur with your insight concerning Saudi oil & also Persian Gulf crude oil reserves in general, as being preserved for "Muslims" It's true, thus far, the only jihadee targets have been western employees of the Sa'udi oil infrastructure. Not one drop of Arabian crude oil has been burned.
The radical Islamic movement uses the term 'The Treasure of Allah' when referring to the enormous petroleum reserves controlled by either Muslim OPEC member states or non-OPEC Islamic nations producing crude oil. Saddam misused large portions of his OPEC export profits to promote Hamas terrorism against Israel in addition to amassing huge self wealth. Not one dime of Saddam's 'former' fortune will assist him now! Maybe the ACLU will volunteer legal services.
Back to the Arabians; In effect the 'royal family' created the Wahhabi cult resulting in the indoctrinations of the majority of 9-11 highjackers.
Historically the hundreds of billions of dollars earned through the exportation of crude oil sold on the open market through the state run Sa'udi oil giant, ARAMCO, has been used to finance and control Sa'udi 'approved' mosques across the globe. In the United States and most other 'western' nations, these 'Islamic centre's and or 'mosques' never pay a dime in taxes, since applicable federal non-profit laws allow them not only to function and also spread jihadic thought among the Wahhabi faithful ....tax free!
Your second point is also well taken since it was not Arabs, but American and British petroleum experts who initially explored, drilled, developed, and more important, it's western oil companies still maintaining the intricacies of running the daily affairs of the Sa'udi oil infrastructure.
After all these years of course there are also well trained Sa'udi nationals working in all aspects of Arabia's petroleum industry, but if the current wave of 'petrol-terrorism' forces western oil companies to evacuate their top personnel, what shall result will be an inter-Islamic bloodbath for total control of the oil wealth.
The House of Sa'ud is being attacked by the very Wahhabi Frankenstein they created.
The other principal source of Islamic Shi'ite terrorism via vast oil earnings is of course Iran. Removing the demented mullahs I firmly believe is a top priority of the White House.
And some not so new
* ABU MUSAB AL-ZARQAWIâA former commander for al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, this 38-year-old Jordanian has links to terrorist groups from North Africa to Caucuses. He allegedly maintains ties to al-Qaeda and is believed to be leading the resistance to Iraqâs occupation. The CIA said Zarqawi was the black-clad militant who decapitated American Nicholas Berg. He is also believed to have had a hand in the March 11 bombings in Madrid, Spain, the failed chemical attack in Jordan and numerous attacks in Iraq. US authorities are offering US$10- million reward for his capture.
* AMER AZIZIâThe leader of the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, this 36-year-old Moroccan is believed to have supervised the March 11 bombings in Madrid that killed 191 people, acting as the link between al-Zarqawi and a cell of mostly Moroccan al-Qaeda members. Azizi trained in Bosnia and Afghanistan and spent time in Iran. He was recently indicted in Spain for allegedly helping plan the September 11 attacks on the United States.
* ABDULAZIZ ISSA ABDUL-MOHSIN AL-MOQRINâThis 30-year-old Saudi school dropout took command of al-Qaedaâs cell in Saudi Arabia when his predecessor was killed in a May 2003 shootout. He has been trained in Afghanistan and is believed to have been involved in attacks in May and November 2003 in Riyadh that killed 51 people. He is not linked by authorities to the May 1 attack in Yanbu that killed five Westerners and Saudi, but he issued a statement praising the attack.
* HABIB AKDASâIn his 30s, he was little known before Turkish authorities alleged that he orchestrated the November 2003 bombings in Istanbul that killed more than 60. He is believed to have met bin Laden in Afghanistan in 2001 and received military and explosives training there.
* NABIL SAHRAOUIâThis Algerian in his mid- to late-30s, has reputation for ruthlessness. Last year, he took over leadership of North African Salafist Group for Call and Combat based in Algeria and pledged allegiance to bin Laden. The group drew recent attention by kidnapping Europeans.
* FAZUL ABDULLAH MOHAMMEDâThis 30-year-old Comorian is the alleged leader of East Africaâs al-Qaeda cell. He is a computer expert and skilled in languages. US indictment in New York charged him with planning the 1998 attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Kenyan police accused him of planning the 2002 bombing of hotel and attempt to shoot down Israeli airliner. The US government has a $25-million bounty for his capture. He is on a list of seven people just released by the Justice Department in the midst of a new terror scare in the United States.* SALEH ALI SALEH NABÂHANâThis Kenyan is said to be Fazulâs No. 2 man. Kenyan police said he built the bomb used at a Kenyan hotel in 2002 and fired a missile at an Israeli airliner. He and Fazul were believed to have fled from Kenya to Somalia following the attacks, but were seen visiting Kenya last year.
* KHADAFFY JANJALANIâA man educated in Islamic school and Arabic speaker, he is apparently trying to bring the main faction of the Philippinesâ al-Qaeda-linked Abu Sayyaf organization back to religious moorings. He is trying to revive an Islamic separatist group with recruits trained by foreign and Filipino insurgents in guerrilla warfare and urban bombings, according to ex-hostages, captured guerrillas and security officials.
*ZULKARNAENâA former biology student, this Indonesian native is one of few militants from Southeast Asia to have trained in Afghanistan. He stepped in late last year as operations chief of al-Qaeda-linked Jemaâah Islamiyah, replacing Hambali after his August arrest. He is believed to be about 40. His real name is Aris Sumarsono and heâs called Daud by fellow militants.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
05/31/2004 4:08:05 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sheesh. The list of chiefs is a little to long for my taste, heh...
Thanks, Paul. Your amazing hard work in tracking and consolidating the huge mass of tripe out there into a target list of who and why is, simply put, priceless! T H A N X !!!
IMNERHO*, we should emulate the Israelis (Why does that thought occur so often to me? Because they know more about the WoT than we do?) in handling this. It may be time for a (secret) Presidential Finding that authorizes the Letters of Marquee and Reprisal - staffing and funding it with a mix of current and recently-separated SF personnel. They can begin with this list.
Note to self:
Preview is your friend.
Preview is your friend.
Preview is your friend.
Preview is your friend.
Preview is your friend.
Preview is your friend.
This should keep the tranzies in a lather of rightous indignation up till the elections
The U.N. Human Rights Commission will release a report this week assessing the state of Iraqisâ civil rights under the Coalition Provisional Authority, a potentially critical accounting that could undermine U.S. authority on the commission and ignite renewed revulsion over Abu Ghraib. The report, compiled by a small group of human rights experts with detailed input from senior CPA officials, should be made public in the next few days, according to U.N. officials in Geneva. The investigation was announced on April 23 by acting High Commissioner for Human Rights Bertrand Ramcharan, long before news of the prison abuses. Mr. Ramcharan has the right to initiate such a report without consulting the 53-member HRC.
U.S. officials said they learned of the investigation shortly before it was announced at the conclusion of a particularly fractious HRC session. U.S. delegates at one point walked out of the session to protest the election to the commission of Sudan, which stands accused of ongoing genocidal practices in its western province of Darfur. "Our feeling is that they should focus on the Saddam era," said one State Department official who frequently works on human rights issues at the United Nations. "We were hoping the Iraqi human rights ministers ... would tell them, âLook, this isnât necessary.â "
The report will examine the period from April 2003 to May 2004, dealing specifically with the military and security situation, protection of civilians, treatment of persons in detention, the situation of women and children, freedom of religion, civil and political rights, and other standard human rights criteria. The investigation has been championed by human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. U.S. officials say the CPA, the occupationâs civilian authority, has done well overall. But they acknowledge that the prison abuses will probably overshadow significant civil rights advances, such as the provisional constitution that guarantees full rights to women and religious freedom for all. "Presumably, there will be things in there that will give us heartburn," said Richard Williamson, the Chicago lawyer and diplomat who chaired the U.S. delegation to the Human Rights Commission this spring. He said in a telephone interview that he does not expect the report to be deeply biased, but feared "this could really undermine our moral superiority in the commission."
Washington has staked out an increasingly moral and, in many quarters, unpopular stand in the HRC by aggressively seeking the censure of China, Zimbabwe, Cuba and other dictatorial regimes, even as it defends Israel. Some of these resolutions have narrowly squeaked by while others routinely fail. Mr. Williamson acknowledged that the United States is not getting any more popular on the HRC, whose members include more than a dozen nations with suspect human rights records such as Sudan. "The United States in the HRC is already fighting an uphill battle," he said. "Weâd like to be putting the spotlight on the worst dictators in the world, instead of this."
The investigation was carried out by a small group from the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who traveled to the region but not to Iraq itself to interview Iraqis, international groups and nongovernmental organizations. Members of Iraqâs newly created human rights office were to speak to the UNHCHR team. "I think there will be fairly straight reporting, mention of things we have tried to establish, like the interim constitution," said the State Department official. "If you look at the list of 10 things, our feeling is that there is some good news to tell, not just the prisons." Jose Diaz, a spokesman for Mr. Ramcharan, said the report would likely be presented to the commission late this week. He said it was not clear yet whether there would be a public discussion of the report, nor what kind of follow-up action, if any, will be requested by members. Mr. Ramcharan served as the deputy high commissioner for human rights under Mary Robinson and Sergio Vieira de Mello. He has been filling in as high commissioner since Mr. Vieira de Melloâs death in August. He will step down when Canadian lawyer Louise Arbor takes over the office in September.
#1
Look for this to be a big condemnation of the US. The UN HRC is a joke, but people will take what it reports as the gospel truth.
Posted by: AF Lady ||
05/31/2004 21:19 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Recall The Chocolate Makers and Olde Europe? I recall that Richard Boucher was the State Dept Spokeperson who got the enviable opportunity to do the Willy Wonka remark - probably the pinnacle of his tour - you could see the twinkle in his eyes as he delivered it.
I think it's time to take the gloves off and start ridiculing the INCREDIBLE hypocrisy of the UN - in all it disgusting glory. An RBer could write up a nice list of the utterly insane positions, farcical blindered morality, professional lying liars, diabolically dysfunctional disingenuous duplicity, unfettered egregious greed, unequalled inefficiency, and unparalleled ineffectiveness. The UNdead should receive a mercy-killing. And calling a spade a spade would be a fine way to begin.
#3
A dictatorial regime does not recognize human rights. Pure and simple. That committee, more than any other, is nothing but a joke. We should walk out of there and set up our own commission, and show what human rights abuses really are like. Sounds to me like the "Human Rights Committee" is more of a "Human Reduction Committee," given some of its members.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
05/31/2004 23:36 Comments ||
Top||
#1
this is register site -- post the article or delete this thread.
Posted by: Dan ||
05/31/2004 20:14 Comments ||
Top||
#2
You should read this article and then this. The problem is the media. It is irrelevant whether the problem results from Leftist tranzi agendas, or the stunning ignorance of liberal arts majors who are so clueless they couldn't explain how a lightbulb works, yet gleefully pontificate on how to solve hugely complex real-world problems. So how to solve it. Technology will and is democratizing the dissemination of information (RB being a case in point). I view the impact of the internet as profound as that of the printing press was to hide-bound medieval societies. Its the ultimate disruptive technology. In the the short term the US military needs to utilize one resource that it has and the media desperately wants video and reports from soldiers on the ground or in the air. I am mystified as to why it isn't giving out the kinds of images we saw in Gulf war 1. The technology is there. Why isn't it being used? Are lawyers getting in the way?
Posted by: Phil B ||
05/31/2004 20:15 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Dan - Tipper must be reg'd everywhere, lol, but he offers a cure: BugMeNot, thank goodness. Go there and enter the main URL of the desired site to get a login. They seem to have about 90% of the common sites covered.
#4
Phil, good questions. I suspect it is not only the lawyers but the politicians who are holding up the exploitation of new technology. If the Pentagon "goes direct" in the PR battle, what are the second and third order implications? It's one thing to mount a PR campaign to get a weapons system approved by Congress, quite another to convince the American people that we are "winning" a war the media wants to convince them we are losing.
The other guys seem to be doing a much better job than we in the information war. But a lot of it is junk and lies. Their audience is less sophisticated and cynical than our own. I don't think we need an al-Jezeera and I doubt it would work.
Some of our failure is due to the fact that ocupation and reconstruction is a defensive activity. Embeds worked very well to transmit the feel of combat to the homefront without sending too much information to the enemy. There is nothing exciting or newsworthy about the convoy that gets through. Only the one that gets ambushed.
It isn't just the lawyers and politicians either. Gen. Schoomaker and Sec. Brownlee had an article in the summer 2004 Parameters. They begin: "President Bush told us that this war will be unlike any other in our Nationâs history. He was right. After our initial expeditionary responses and successful major combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, those operations have become protracted campaigns where we are providing the conditions of security needed to wage a conflictâa war of ideas." Wow, I said, they get it.
The the article went on to discuss Change, Modular Units, Training, Doctrine, Logistics and Installations among others. These are important topics, but what is the conection to the war of ideas? Do these guys realize they could lose another war in the living rooms of America again? Embeds were great, but there was no follow up.
Still, it is a critical front on which we are losing, in many respects because we are fighting the last war with old weapons.
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
05/31/2004 21:01 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I don't do registrations......
Posted by: Halfass Pete ||
05/31/2004 23:05 Comments ||
Top||
caught via Drudge
Egyptian Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman has reportedly warned Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat to relax his grip on the reins of Palestinian power or face the possibility that Egypt and the US will cease to block Prime Minister Ariel Sharon from carrying out his threat to "remove" the chairman. According to a report Monday in the pan-Arab Al-Quds-al-Arabi, Suleiman handed Arafat three demands:
First, to unite all the Palestinian security forces under one command authority, and into three components. These include the police, the Preventative Security Service (equivalent of Israelâs General Security Service), and the Palestinian foreign security service (equivalent of Israelâs Mossad).
Secondly, give PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei complete authority to conduct negotiations with Israel over Ariel Sharonâs unilateral disengagement plan.
Thirdly, stand aside and accept a symbolic position and let others lead the Palestinian Authority.
If these demands are not met, the Egyptian-American shield saving Arafatâs life may be removed, Al-Quds-al-Arabi reported. Hokay, cuz heâs not gonna reform until death comes for him...
The Egyptian emissary, who last Monday shuttled between Jerusalem and Ramallah to discuss Egyptâs role following a possible Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, warned Arafat that the suggested political and security reforms are necessary and will facilitate Prime Minister Ariel Sharonâs initiative. Arafat was given a deadline of June 15 to give a decisive reply with regards to the suggestion or else his future will be "left in the hands of Ariel Sharon." I like the use of "deadline" there
The newspaper reported that although the list of reforms was communicated by Egypt, it was drawn up in conjunction with the US and Israel. A senior Palestinian official informed al-Quds al-Arabi that the US is eager to push forward a peace plan between Israel and the Palestinian to cover for the letdown of its policy in Iraq and improve its image in the Arab world. The same official met with Arafat in Ramallah, where the PA chairman told him he intends to refuse the Egyptian demands, because their implementation means the end of his de facto leadership and his reduction to a purely symbolic figure, wrote al-Quds al-Arabi.
Egyptian newspaper: PA, faction to meet in Cairo to discuss ceasefire with Israel
Also Monday, the Egyptian newspaper al-Ahram reported that PM Qurei will soon meet representatives of all Palestinian factions, including Hamas and Jihad, in order to discuss a consensual agreement over a ceasefire with Israel. At the meeting, which will be held in Cairo, Qurei will notify Palestinian factions that an agreement over a ceasefire will require them to respect it and each violation of the agreement will be considered "illegal." Under such agreement, the PA holds the right to take "appropriate actions" against the factions who breach the agreement by perpetrating violent attacks against Israel, al-Ahram reported.
The newspaper said that if Qurei finalizes a ceasefire agreement with all Palestinian factions, and pledges to take concrete actions against those who breach it, then Prime Minister Sharon will be willing to meet Qurei. Sharon expressed his willingness to meet Qurei during his meeting last week in Jerusalem with Egyptian Intelligence Chief Suleiman. Sharon said, however, that he would only meet Qurei on condition that the latter proves that the PA is willing to and capable of controlling terror groups.
Shalom, Mubarak to meet in Cairo Thursday
Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom will travel to Egypt on Thursday to meet with President Hosni Mubarak to discuss the establishment of a special committee aimed at promoting relations between the two countries. Sharon decided to send Shalom to Egypt following a phone conversation he held with the Egyptian president on Monday. In the conversation, Mubarak stressed again his support for Sharonâs disengagement plan from the Gaza Strip and said he is willing to help Sharon promote the plan. In a sign of the urgency of improving ties between Egypt and Israel, anti-tank missiles manufactured by the Egyptian military industries have been found in the Gaza Strip, a senior military intelligence officer told the Knessetâs Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee Monday. According to a report on ynet, the missiles are of the âCobraâ type â an advanced RPG â used against IDF forces in the Gaza Strip.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/31/2004 5:07:23 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Did Omar have his fingers crossed when he issued that "warning"?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
05/31/2004 17:35 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Quite obviously, Egypt wants a bigger cut than they're currently getting. "Egyptian leadership," just like "Arab unity," are both total oxymorons.
#4
I think that Israel should unilaterally cede Gaza to Egypt and tell Mubarek that security is his responsibility, i.e., Cairo will be held responsible for any terrorist attacks originating from Gaza. Then he should give the West Bank back to Jordan and tell the UN and Arafat to pound sand. King Abdullah might not be happy to get the Palestinians back, but with a little help, he could control them.
#5
RWV - as is so often true, those that support at a distance, are reluctant when the problem comes home. Isn't there an "empty quarter" in the magic kingdom?
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/31/2004 22:33 Comments ||
Top||
KARACHI: At least 15 people were killed and scores injured in a bomb blast in a Shiâite mosque here on Monday. The blast occurred during mughrib (evening prayers) at the Ali Raza mosque adjacent to the Imambargah located near M A Jinnah Road. Someoneâs prayer was answered. Thanks Allan.
The area was cordoned off following the explosion, which caused considerable damage to the mosque. The mosque is situated only a kilometer away from where Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai, a senior cleric from the countryâs majority Sunni sect, was killed by unidentified assailants on Sunday. Note that as a target rich environment
According to eyewitnesses, the bomb was hidden in a polythene bag. The explosion was so powerful that it caused cracks in the concrete dome of the mosque. Yes, officer, just before the explosion I noticed a polytheme bad that looked as if it did not bvelong there. I went to the white courtesy telephone but didnât get there in time.
The mosqueâs floor and wall were splattered with blood and rescue workers were seen collecting limbs and pieces of human flesh scattered all over the place. The dead and injured were rushed to various hospitals in the city. Police said a 10-year-old child was among the dead. But no infidels? Incompetents!
An angry mob immediately gathered outside the mosque and went on a rampage, burning a filling station and exchanging fire with police, witnesses said. How do they know they were an angry mob? The could have been celebrating. Perhaps they had just come back from a wedding party.
There were no immediate reports of casualties in the clashes. But weâll keep our fingers crossed.
Pakistanâs information minister Sheikh Rashid said that President Pervez Musharraf was gravely concerned over the recurring attacks in the countryâs commercial hub and largest city. "If the situation is not brought under control, the President told me that he will take major decisions very soon," Rashid said, without elaborating. Everybody pack up. Youâre moving to Waziristan.
Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzaiâs assassination triggered violent protests and incidents of arson in Binouri area, where authorities had deployed heavy contingents of police and paramilitary rangers to contain the unrest. They must have learned tactics from the Soddys.
The city has been gripped by violence since May 7, when a suicide bomb blast at a Shiite mosque killed 23 worshippers and injured around 100 others. On May 25, parcel bombs killed two people at the cityâs port and on May 26, two successive car bombs near the US consul-generalâs residence killed a policeman and injured 32 people. Practice, practice, practice.
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
05/31/2004 5:07:07 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
dirtball baby-killers killing other dirt-ball babykillers in one of their own "holy" places.
#3
What makes you think the Pakistani Shias are our enemies?
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
05/31/2004 19:19 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The Shia in Iraqn are not our friends. The Shia in Iraq are not our friends. Why are the Shia in Pakistan different?
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
05/31/2004 19:37 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Most of the Shia in Iran have positive feelings for America, most of the Shia in Iraq did too until recently, and there are still many there who like you.
The Pakistani Shias are the enemies of Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Jihadis due to constant sectarian killings, so they would make natural allies against the Wahabis.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
05/31/2004 19:58 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I remember '79 so it's hard for me to buy that the Shia in Iran have positive feelings for the US except as a result of 25Â years under the Mullahs. Somehow I suspect that would change 25 days after the Mullahs are gone. But I respect everything I've read from you, so I'll keep an open mind on the subject.
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
05/31/2004 20:09 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Mr Davis - I can offer $0.02... in SA, both in 1992-93 and 2000-2003, the Shia (the down-trodden sect there with the Sunnis in charge) were on average exceptional in technical skills, relative to the Sunni Saudis, and much more prone to approach and interact with Westerners. I was very surprised, too, on the first tour!
#8
The Shia are traditionally merchants and traders. Hence, they see the need to be both informed and to value marketable skills. Part of the problem is that Iran is following the Wahabi playbook - pushing shia orthodoxy and a cult of martyrdom.
Posted by: Phil B ||
05/31/2004 20:29 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Whether Shia or Sunni, the so-called moderate Muslims better get their s--t together and keep their religion from being hijacked by the radicals. If they do not, they are all going down.
Posted by: Alaska Paul in Cooper Landing, AK ||
05/31/2004 22:56 Comments ||
Top||
Egypt has smuggled a large number of rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) launchers manufactured by the Egyptian military industries into the Gaza Strip, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said Monday at a Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee meeting. Mofaz said that most of the weapons smuggled through underground tunnels into the Gaza Strip were manufactured in Iran, and included hundreds of Kalashnikov rifles, mortars and thousands of bullets. He added that Katyusha rockets were also supposed to be smuggled into the Strip, but that they were still in the Sinai peninsula...
#1
This is why I feel the proposed takeover by Egypt of border security in the event of an Israeli withdrawl from Gaza would by an idiotic idea. There's a peace treaty on the books, but Egypt is no friend of Israel. Better to drive the Philistines back where they came from: Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon!
#2
It's a multi-faceted problem. Egypt has to police a non-Israel Gaza to keep the Palestinians from going to Egypt. But this means that any further trouble coming from Gaza and the finger will be pointed *directly* at Egypt--so both Israel and the US can apply pressure.
In many ways it could be like Syria policing Lebanon.
Egypt, for its part, is looking more and more fragile, like Saudi or Syria, and should not be ignored as a potential "next case scenario" for US/UN involvement *in some way*.
#3
I'm thinking Egypt's up to something. On the one hand, they do this, but on the other, they're telling Arafat to step down or else they'll "forget" to tell Sharon not to pull the trigger . . . what's their game?
Posted by: The Doctor ||
05/31/2004 18:02 Comments ||
Top||
The blast killed at least two Iraqis and wounded more than a dozen. Police at the scene said the office of Iraqâs prime-minister designate was not far away and speculated that he could have been the intended target. Frantic relatives thronged the scene of the blast to see if their loved ones were safe. "Oh God, Oh God," cried one hysterical woman after her neighbor told her that her mother and child were killed by the blast, which left a 10-foot-deep crater. A young girl hit by shrapnel died in hospital after doctors failed to revive her. "There was a Mercedes car driving down the street and then it turned and suddenly blew up," said witness Mohammad Abbas. "After that we didnât see anything." Debris was scattered across a wide area and a pall of smoke hung over the area as crowds of locals gathered to look at the destruction. Fire fighters on the scene doused the burned-out wreckage of several cars. In the aftermath of the blast, some Iraqis tried to tend to the wounded and to collect body parts. "This is somebodyâs skin," a veiled woman, carrying body parts in a plastic bag, said to a policeman. "Where should I put it?"
A bomb blast tore through evening prayers in Karachi, killing 5 Shiites. Retribution for Mufti Shamzaiâs toe tag?
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/31/2004 11:41:20 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Law of Unintended Consequences? Looks like GW's WOT has seriously destabilized the muslim world. Khobar and Karachi. The jihad is as much an internal battle for Islam as much as it is external on the kufir.
Posted by: john ||
05/31/2004 14:22 Comments ||
Top||
#2
john - If you agree with the following, then it is not really directed at you - it's for general consumption. If not, well, hit me back!
I assume you're referring to the "blue on blue" of "immoderate" Muslims killing each other. That's predominantly ocurring in PakiWakiLand and wherever AlQ acts occur, few as those are, as they seem to have a penchant for shitting on the living room carpet. Regards Islam, does it matter if one is passive or active? When an active jihadi demands it, the passive jihadi gives whatever is demanded. It is demonstrated repeatedly every day. I challenge the mythical moderate Muslims to actually do something about the very real immoderate Muslims.
1) Family.
2) Clan / Tribe.
3) Islam.
That's the loyalty list. Nation isn't there. Civility and reason are missing, too. Tolerance and coexistence are out of town, as well. Peace? Nope.
Why? See #3 - Islam. Read the Qu'uran and the Haddiths. Think you have located an exception? Pfeh, the point was pre-empted by motives from #1 or #2.
:-)
#3
I wish our world had the luxury of just sitting back letting the militant Islamists wipe themselves out via murderous internecine strife. Sadly, they are not doing so quickly enough and we must accelerate this process immensely in order to avoid the messy backsplash of their unhinged scatterfire's collateral damage.
From The Council on Foreign Relations How much authority can Iraqâs interim government exercise?
President Bush said May 24 that the interim Iraqi government taking over for U.S-led occupying authorities on June 30 will be a âgovernment of Iraqi citizensâ with âfull sovereignty.â It will, he said, run the day-to-day affairs of Iraqâs 26 ministries, prepare the country for national elections by January 2005, and help U.S. forces create Iraqi security services that will eventually take responsibility from foreign troops. But whether that amounts to âfull sovereigntyâ is open to question. âWe are essentially ceding legal authority to an interim government to be named with limited competency and questionable legitimacy,â says Lee Feinstein, senior fellow in U.S. foreign policy and international law at the Council on Foreign Relations.
What is âsovereigntyâ?
There is no single legal definition. It is usually defined in political terms, says Jose E. Alvarez, professor of international law at Columbia University. Blackâs Law Dictionary defines sovereignty as âthe supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed.â The definition adds that it is âthe power to do everything in a state without accountability, to make laws, to execute and to apply them, to impose and collect taxes and levy contributions, to make war or peace, to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like.â The modern concept of sovereignty includes three basic components: international political sovereignty, legal sovereignty, and de facto sovereignty, says Noah Feldman, a law professor at New York University and a former adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.
Which of these aspects of sovereignty will the interim government have?
Based on Bushâs speech and a U.S.-British draft U.N. Security Council resolution submitted May 24, it appears Iraq will have the first two components of sovereignty but not the third, some experts say. The interim government will be able to enter into relationships with other nations and receive foreign ambassadors in Baghdad. It will also be officially recognized as the legal government of the Iraqis. But the de facto sovereignty of the new government will be severely curtailed by the continuing presence of 138,000 U.S. forces in Iraq and the inability of the new Iraqi government to defend itself against armed challenges. In addition, it appears that the government canât make laws or long-term international agreements before January 2005, when a national election for a transitional assembly is scheduled. U.S. officials have said the interim government wonât have these powers, and the U.N. resolution and President Bushâs May 24 speech were silent on the issue. âWe are creating a situation in which the legal authority is in one place and the power is elsewhere,â Feinstein says.
Other questions answered:
What is President Bushâs plan for Iraq?
How will the United Nations select members of the new government?
How many Iraqis is Brahimi choosing?
Will most Iraqis have a say in the choice?
How is power distributed among the top four posts?
Will the leaders be technocrats or politicians?
Which politicians are under consideration?
What will the U.S. role be after June 30?
Is violence in Iraq likely to increase after June 30?
When will the Iraqi security forces be ready to secure the country?
What limits will exist on Iraqi authority after June 30?
Which laws will be in effect after June 30?
How much authority will Iraqis have over their military?
Can the interim Iraqi government ask U.S. forces to leave?
What is the rationale for refusing to grant the interim government broader authority?
Are arguments over the resolution expected at the United Nations?
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
05/31/2004 4:57:16 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
AFGHAN authorities fear this yearâs vast opium harvest will provide a huge narcotics war chest for Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists who have been squeezed by new financial tracking operations. The drug money is used to buy everything from satellite phones to ammunition, say officials who predict this yearâs opium crop will at least match last yearâs 3600-tonne harvest. Afghanistanâs Counter Narcotics Directorate chief, Mirwais Yasini, says he knows of at least two millionaire drug smugglers in league with Taliban rebels trying to destabilise the countryâs south. "We know ... the money they make is millions of dollars."
The terrorists are also suspected of taking a cut at other levels of opium production. The head of the United Nations Office of Drug Control, Antonio Maria Costa, believes the smugglers are taxed by the terrorists at a rate of between 13 and 15 per cent of their load. "Cultivation takes place in the centre of the country and then the opium is moved by convoys slowly towards the border of Iran or Pakistan," says Costa, who was to travel to Afghanistan this week to check on the drug trade. "Periodically these convoys run into insurgents or paramilitary checkpoints and they are asked for a share."
Afghan authorities last month arrested a graduate of a feared al-Qaeda-linked Pakistani terror group who was farming opium poppies by day and launching pro-Taliban attacks by night. Mohammed Suhil, 17, was arrested at a checkpoint in the countryâs dangerous Panjwayi region, which has been the scene of numerous fatal attacks on foreigners, government officials and NGOs.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
05/31/2004 4:15:33 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Someone has killed Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai, chief of the great Deobandi madrassah in Karachi, clearly in revenge for the suicide-bombing of cityâs Haideri Masjid where 18 Shias died earlier in the month. The police in Karachi, one of whose constables blew up the Haideri Masjid, is silent about the motivation of the killing, but that is quite ânormalâ with a department whose personnel have been involved in assassination attempts on General Pervez Musharraf himself. Mufti Shamzai was going from his Banuri seminary to his house right across the road when killers on a motorbike shot him dead. His son, nephew and a driver were injured. Two police guards, which he did not think much of, were nowhere around. Everyone knew that he was a target, yet nothing could be done to save him. The motorcycles of death did some good for once
Deobandi students of the Banuri Masjid came out on the roads in many parts of Karachi and indulged in angry vandalism, once again making a show of strength in a city already harassed by violence. They destroyed the police station in Banuri Town, making the police force run for their lives, and torched a number of vehicles. The violence recalls the anarchy witnessed when a few years ago another Banuri Town religious personality, Maulana Yusuf Ludhianvi, was done to death after his sectarian campaigns. No one knows who killed Mufti Shamzai but one can recall an earlier sequence of violence. Last year, massacres occurred in quick succession in Quetta and Karachi, targeting the Shias. When the government as usual was unable to apprehend the culprits, the killers struck in Islamabad and shot dead Maulana Azam Tariq, leader of the banned-for-terrorism Sipah Sahaba, along with his official bodyguards. Other suspects include rival Jihadis, Shias, moderate Sunnis, India, Iran, America, Musharraf etc ad nauseum
Mufti Shamzai was head of the Banuri complex in Karachi. He was rated the most powerful man in Pakistan during the Taliban rule of Mullah Umar in Afghanistan. He was patron of the foremost Deobandi jihadi outfit Harkat-ul Mujahideen. In 1999, after his release from an Indian jail, Maulana Masood Azhar, a top pupil of Mufti Sahib, walked out of Harkat and formed his own organisation (now banned-for-terrorism) Jaish-e Muhammad. Shamzai was clearly inclined to favour Masood Azhar and became a member of the Jaish âshuraâ (governing council). He was already a member of the âshuraâ of Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) of Maulana Fazlur Rehman. After the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 a new situation arose. A five-member âcoalitionâ of the jihadi organisations was launched to avenge the American invasion. The coalition was called Brigade 313 (the number of warriors in the battle of Badr in the times of the Prophet (PBUH) and comprised Lashkar-e Tayba, Jaish-e Muhammad, Harkat-ul Jihad al-Islami, Harkat-ul Mujahideen al-Alami and Lashkar-e Jhangvi. The coalition was said to be responsible for the killings of Christians in Murree, Islamabad and Taxila as revenge against America.
Among the above-mentioned Brigade, three outfits are the backbone of the Kashmir jihad and will become critical for Islamabad if General Musharraf exercises the option of jihad in Kashmir once again. That is probably why the leader of the banned Jaish-e Muhammad, Maulana Masood Azhar, âdisappearedâ from Bahawalpur before activists of the Jaish and Harkat al-Jihad al-Islami allegedly carried out the December 2003 attacks on General Musharraf in Rawalpindi. This was revealed by the captured leader of Lashkar-e Jhangvi, Akram Lahori, and widely publicised in the national press. The leader of the Harkat al-Jihad al-Islami, Qari Saifullah, a graduate of the Banuri seminary, was likewise allowed to flee to the Middle East. The Banuri seminary has lost a powerful leader. Needless to say, his death will be laid at the door of the United States.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
05/31/2004 4:03:25 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"his death will be laid at the door of the United States."
Whose isn't? Line forms on the left and around the block. Please take a number.
Posted by: Billy Hank ||
05/31/2004 9:56 Comments ||
Top||
Renowned religious scholar Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai was assassinated by unidentified men outside his apartment on Sunday morning. Mufti Shamzai was patron-in-chief of Maulana Masood Azharâs banned Jaish Mohammad outfit and retained the same status when the outfit renamed itself Tehrik-al-Furqan, which was also banned by the government last year. On July 1, 1999, at the height of the Kargil war, Mufti Shamzai, Mufti Jamil Khan and Dr Abdur Razzaq had issued an edict of jihad against India in Islamabad in response to a request from the Harkatul Mujahideen. The fatwa ordered that all seminaries in Pakistan should suspend their classes and send their students to Jammu and Kashmir to participate in the jihad. They also called Lt Gen (r) Hamid Gul and Lt Gen (r) Javed Nasir, former directors general of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and Musharraf Allahâs gifts to the nation.
After the Kargil war, Mufti Shamzai started a campaign against Nawaz Sharif, the then prime minister, for allegedly betraying the jihadis and Pakistan Army by succumbing to United States pressure and withdrawing Pakistani troops and jihadis from the Kargil heights and accused him of collaborating with the US against the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Mufti Shamzai was a member of the clerical delegation that went to Kandahar on September 28, 2001, along with Lt Gen Mahmood Ahmed, the then ISI director general, for discussions with Mulla Omar on the Bin Laden issue. The other members were Mufti Saleemullah, Mufti Taqi Usmani, Mufti Muhammad Jamil, Maulana Fazle Rahim, Qari Saeedur Rahman, Maulana Abdul Ghani, Maulana Muhammad Hasan Jan, Qari Mufti Sher Ali Shah and Maulana Haji Abdul Rahman.
The Darul Uloom Islamia Binori Town mosque in Karachi houses one of the largest religious seminaries in Pakistan. It is perceived to be one of the most influential centres of hardline Deobandi Sunni Muslim ideology in the world. Since its establishment in 1951, the mosque and its seminary have been at the forefront of religious education to some 3,500 students at one time and now more than 10,000 pupils. Before the 9/11 attacks on the US, most pupils were drawn from Afghanistan and the Pashto-speaking areas of the NWFP, besides from abroad including Africa, the Philippines and Malaysia. Now, only 99 foreign students are taught there, according to a seminary official. It has a large number of smaller affiliated seminaries both within and outside Karachi. In the same month four years ago, another eminent religious scholar affiliated with the same religious school was killed in an ambush. Maulana Yousaf Ludhianvi was gunned down on May 18, 2000 on his way to the International Khatm-e-Nabuwwat offices in Sharifabad. Theyâre the group who spearhead the anti-Ahmadi movement, yet another group that these Mullahs hate.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
05/31/2004 3:55:06 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Egyptâs Muslim Brotherhood, the countryâs main opposition group, denounced Sunday the terrorist attack at Al-Khobar in Saudi Arabia and said it flouted the teachings of Islam. âThe Muslim Brotherhood believes that what has happened at Al-Khobar is an abominable crime and we condemn it strongly,â the groupâs spiritual leader, Mohammed Mehdi Akef, said. âWe believe that this act contravenes the precepts of Islam which demand the preservation of life and property.â Suspected Al-Qaeda militants killed at least 10 people in twin attacks on oil company offices in Al-Khobar on Saturday and then held more than 20 others hostage in a tense overnight standoff with Saudi security forces. Helicopter-borne troops stormed a residential building early Sunday and freed 25 hostages but nine others were executed by their captors, a survivor said.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/31/2004 1:31:44 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This a great site for looking into the soul of Islam. Thank you, Fred. Other articles on this website are VERRRRRy interesting if you know what I mean. Calling Tenet and Meuller...
Posted by: rex ||
05/31/2004 2:59 Comments ||
Top||
From The Washington Post
In an unused interview for Michael Mooreâs latest film, the American who was later beheaded in Iraq said he was concerned about security there as he prepared to seek work as an independent businessman, his family said Saturday. Mooreâs crew shot the 16-minute interview with Nicholas Berg during an Iraqi business conference in Arlington on Dec. 4, said his brother, David Berg. ....
Moore sent copies of the footage to David Berg in New Jersey and sister Sara Berg in Virginia. Their parents will see the video after returning to their suburban home from vacation, David Berg said. Sara Berg said her brother told Mooreâs crew he was nervous about his safety in Iraq.
"He recognized it was a concern, and he kind of pointed out that heâd worked in difficult situations before," Sara Berg said from her home in Virginia Beach. "Itâs definitely something that he didnât shrug off."
She said her brother seemed enthusiastic in the footage. David Berg, speaking from his home outside Newark, said it was "weird seeing Nick talk" but described the interview footage as dry.
The interview, which was not conducted by Moore, centered on the technical work Berg hoped to find repairing radio transmission towers for his company, Prometheus Methods Tower Service. .... "Nick seemed to be fairly conscious of using this thing to promote his business," David Berg said. "[The interviewer] does ask him at one point about the money and he said no oneâs denying thereâs money to be made. But itâs very clear when you watch it, Nick knew he wasnât going to make a lot of money." ....
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
05/31/2004 2:05:26 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"[The interviewer] does ask him at one point about the money "
Ok, so Mikey was angling for the mercenary perspective. I wonder why the footage was rejected.
Posted by: Rafael ||
05/31/2004 2:33 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Probably said he wasn't making any.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/31/2004 2:40 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I would say Fat Mikey didn't use the interview cause it didn't fit in with his"Hate everything Bush"agenda.
#4
I would say Mikie didn't want to show any 'rebuilding efforts' at all -- at least not from someone who wasn't a carpetbagger ( or: making a killing off the poor Iraqi's). And since Nick wasn't making a lot of money (if any) at the time of production.
I'm sure if Jabba had known that Nick would be beheaded he would certainly have used the footage (as well as Nick's father to blame it on Bush). Mikie might yet.
#5
This gets stranger and stranger. Earlier, we learned that Nick has "let a terrorist use his email account -- ON A BUS!" (Like there's wireless access on this bus).
Now learn that Papa and Mama Berg are off on vacation. How many parents would go off on vacation after their son is brutally murdered?
Posted by: Norman Rogers ||
05/31/2004 16:12 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I can understand the parents taking a 'vacation'. Just getting away from the media circus for a while would help them grieve.
I do agree though, that this is a strange story. There is much that we haven't been told.
Posted by: Les Nessman ||
05/31/2004 18:34 Comments ||
Top||
A militant, Amjad Farooqi, wanted over US reporter Daniel Pearlâs murder and mastermind of two attempts to kill President Pervez Musharraf, is Al Qaedaâs kingpin in Pakistan, according to security officials.
The regional manager, eh?
âIf we catch him we will succeed in breaking the nexus between Al Qaeda and local jihadi groups,â said a senior officer in security services. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, described Farooqi, 30, as an âextremely intelligent and elusive terrorist operativeâ. President Musharraf said in a television interview on Thursday that the âvery clever mastermindâ of the attacks against him was a Pakistani, who was prompted and assisted by a foreign Al Qaeda operative. He did not name either man. Intelligence officials late last week said the president was referring to Farooqi. Farooqi, from the remote rural town of Toba Tek Singh in central Punjab province, joined the Harkatul Jihad-e-Islami militant group as a teenager.
After the Taliban conquered most of Afghanistan in 1996 the young fighters contacts with Osama Bin Laden and his closest lieutenants deepened. âHe became an Ustad (master) at one of the key training camps near Kabul,â the official said. The title won him respect among various militant groups. Farooqi had close contact with Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, Al Qaedaâs number three and the alleged chief planner of the September 11, 2001 attacks. He was also intricately involved in the elaborate plot to abduct and murder Wall Street Journal reporter Pearl in early 2002. Farooqi provided the militants who kept Pearl in a shed on Karachiâs outskirts after the reporter was abducted on January 23, 2002, a police officer who investigated the case said. He was âvery closeâ to Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, the British-born militant convicted of plotting Pearlâs abduction and murder. âOmar told us when he thought of kidnapping Pearl, the first man he contacted for help was Farooqi,â the police investigator said. âOmar lured Pearl into the trap and rest of the job was done by Farooqiâs men. This man is so sharp and secretive that he kept Omar Sheikh in the dark about the real identities of those whom he recruited for carrying out Pearlâs abduction.â In February Omar was shifted from Hyderabad jail to a prison in Rawalpindi for interrogation after investigators had traced Farooqiâs involvement in President Musharrafâs assassination bid. âWe grilled Omar for more than two months but even he did not know Farooqiâs possible whereabouts,â the security official said. Investigators said Farooqiâs real value was that he was one of the very few militants who still have the lists and addresses of all those who trained in Afghanistan camps.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/31/2004 1:16:02 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
The Iraqi Governing Council is to meet to try to finalise the composition of the interim government, due to assume power at the end of June. Many posts have already been filled, but differences remain over who should fill the largely ceremonial role of president. Most council members reportedly favour their current head, Ghazi Yawer. However, former foreign minister Adnan Pachachi is said to be strongly backed by the US-led authorities and the UN. Both men are from the Sunni minority. Council discussions started on Saturday and continued on Sunday with reports of sharp disagreements. US spokesman Dan Senor denied Washington was pressuring or urging any one candidate over another.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/31/2004 1:20:45 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hope its Yawer. Bremer AND Brahimi pushing Pachachi has all my neocon suspicions of both those parties up.
An explosion ripped through a bus in Nepal's capital on Sunday, injuring at least 21 people, three critically, police and witnesses said. Police blamed the blast in Katmandu on communist insurgents.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/31/2004 1:12:51 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
does anyone know if these "rebels" are connected to Al-Queda?
Paramilitary troops blocked roads to this remote Pakistani town Sunday and imposed "economic sanctions" against local tribesmen after they failed to help authorities to register foreign militants believed to be hiding in the region. An army spokesman warned that a military operation would be launched in South Waziristan, of which Wana is the main town, unless tribesmen started to cooperate. Hundreds of Arab, Afghan and Central Asian militants believed to be linked with al-Qaida and the Taliban militia are suspected to be living in the region, which borders Afghanistan. Heavily-armed soldiers in armored cars patrolled deserted bazaars in Wana and roads leading up to the town were blocked. Local journalists had to prove their identities to be allowed in. Sharp shooters had taken up positions on shop rooftops. Army spokesman Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan said authorities had closed shops as "economic sanctions" against tribesmen. He described this as part of a "step-by-step" approach to get them to help in registration of the suspected militants. "If they do not come down to the government stance, there is going to be a military operation," Sultan told The Associated Press in the capital Islamabad. He wouldn't say when that operation might begin.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/31/2004 1:07:32 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sounds like something is coming up. Wonder if we'll be helping a little more this time.
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
05/31/2004 1:20 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I am skeptical. We saw this puffing and posturing in the War in Afghanistan. We have been fighting the Pak army's passive agressive stance for two years now. The last operation was BS. When the Paks bring some results in, then I will believe, otherwise it is a big ***yawn*** /cynical
Posted by: Alaska Paul in Cooper Landing, AK ||
05/31/2004 23:03 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The Paks will never deliver results. That's why the question is how much help we give them.
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
05/31/2004 23:23 Comments ||
Top||
From The Wall Street Journal, an article by Robert D. Kaplan
When Bravo Company of the First Battalion of the Fifth Marine Regiment led U.S. forces into the heart of Fallujah in the predawn hours of April 6, I was the only journalist present. ... Whenever the Marines with whom I was attached crossed the path of a mosque, we were fired upon. Mosques in Fallujah were used by snipers and other gunmen, and to store weapons and explosives. ... But only after repeated aggressions was any mosque targeted, and then sometimes for hits so small in scope that they often had little effect. The news photos of holes in mosque domes did not indicate the callousness of the American military; rather the reverse. The overwhelming percentage of the small arms fire--not-to-mention mortars, rockets and rocket-propelled grenades--represented indiscriminate automatic bursts of the insurgents. Marines responded with far fewer, more precise shots. It was inspiring to observe high-testosterone 19-year-old lance corporals turn into calm and calculating 30-year-olds every time a firefight started.
There was nothing fancy about the Marine advance into Fallujah. Marines slugged it out three steps forward, two steps backward: the classic, immemorial labor of infantry, ... As their own casualties mounted, the only time I saw angry or depressed Marines was when an Iraqi civilian was accidentally hit in the crossfire--usually perpetrated by the enemy. By April 7, two sleep-deprived Marine battalions had taken nearly 20% of Fallujah. The following day a third battalion arrived to join the fight, allowing the first two to rest and recover their battle rhythm. Just as the three well-rested battalions were about to start boxing in the insurgents against the Euphrates River at the western edge of the city, a cease-fire was announced. As disappointing as the cease-fire was, the Marines managed to wrest positive consequences from it. It would free them up to resume mortar mitigation, a critical defense task today in Iraq. Mortars and rockets rain down continually on American bases.
Furthermore, as soon as the First of the Fifth Marines departed Fallujah they headed for Al-Karmah, a town about half the size of Fallujah, strategically located between Fallujah and Baghdad. Al-Karmah was no less hostile than Fallujah. I went there several times in March with the Marines. The streets always emptied upon our arrival, and we were periodically fired upon. After the Fallujah operation, the Marines didnât just visit Al-Karmah; they moved inside, patrolling regularly, talking to people on the streets, collecting intelligence and going a long way toward reclaiming that city. As one company captain told me, "itâs easily the most productive stuff weâve done in Iraq." If Al-Karmah is reclaimed, if Fallujah itself remains relatively calm, if the Marines can patrol there at some point, and if mortar attacks abate measurably--all distinct possibilities--the decision not to launch an all-out assault on Fallujah could look like the right one. The article continues with much criticism of how the was is being reported in most of the media.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
05/31/2004 12:52:53 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
