The U.S. Army has long lured recruits with the slogan "Be All You Can Be," but now soldiers and their families can receive plastic surgery, including breast enlargements, on the taxpayers' dime.
"A Army Of Two" "We're looking for a Few Good Breasts"
The New Yorker magazine reports in its July 26th edition that members of all four branches of the U.S. military can get face-lifts, breast enlargements, liposuction and nose jobs for free -- something the military says helps surgeons practice their skills.
I always asked to see their training records, I hate being somebody's OJT training aid.
"Anyone wearing a uniform is eligible," Dr. Bob Lyons, chief of plastic surgery at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio told the magazine, which said soldiers needed the approval of their commanding officers to get the time off. Between 2000 and 2003, military doctors performed 496 breast enlargements and 1,361 liposuction surgeries on soldiers and their dependents, the magazine said. The magazine quoted an Army spokeswoman as saying, "the surgeons have to have someone to practice on."
Practice on the healthy, perfect your skills before you work on wounded soldiers.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/22/2004 10:24:01 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
goddamer! ima just post same story. fred dont post them "army is offer perky perks" story plese.
#2
I've known several females (not in the biblical sense) who've gotten breast jobs done. So long as they take leave and do it on their own time I say good for them.
#3
I knew a woman who got them reduced while whe was in the service. I didn't know they did it the other way. So they do about 125 a year to keep up their skills? Sounds about right. BE ALL THAT YOUR BREAST CAN BE! FYI I like the natural ones, big or small.
EFL
"We've done our part," said James Cason, chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana. America's top diplomat to Cuba said on Wednesday the United States has fulfilled its commitment this year to grant permanent immigration visas to at least 20,000 Cubans, and it was now Cuba's turn to honor its obligations under migration accords.
The migration accords were established in the mid-1990s to promote legal, orderly migration between the two countries. Under the agreement, the United States must provide at least 20,000 visas to Cubans annually, and Cuba is to discourage its citizens from making risky attempts to immigrate illegally to the United States. Cason complained that a lack of access by the American mission to the government-controlled Cuban press keeps people uninformed about safe ways to migrate. He called Cuban claims that the United States wants to provoke a mass migration crisis "totally false."
The United States will continue granting visas to as many other Cubans as possible this year in order to provide a safe, legal way off the island. "We want to publicize this, to let them know we're here, and that you don't have to go by sea," Cason said...
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/22/2004 3:15:43 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Well, ya see, it's like this guv'. We ad just lashes and lashes of some really cracking big guns laying all about the place. These chaps come in for a dekko and it turns out a few of them somehow managed to be something other than semi-automatic. Can't imagine how it happened and all that, especially as regards those silencers ... ... The headline neglects to mention how it's an illegal arms assembly operation ...
The discovery of an underground weapons factory in Melbourne producing submachine-guns fitted with silencers is a dangerous development in the context of the city's gangland war, federal Justice Minister Chris Ellison warned yesterday. He revealed that three Owen submachine-guns and parts to make another six had been seized from a building in Melbourne's south-east.
The Australian Crime Commission and the Victoria Police carried out the raid last month. Senator Ellison said the weapons were being made on the property but he would not say exactly where it was. "There is no doubt that if you manufacture an Owen submachine-gun with a 30 round clip to go with it that is a very serious weapon indeed," Senator Ellison told The Age. "It's not designed for duck shooting. These are highly dangerous weapons. "In view of the situation in Victoria, the seizure is of even more significance.
"These weapons could see an escalation of violence - there's no doubt about that. "These are very powerful weapons, tailor-made for criminals and serious criminals." Senator Ellison said investigators were still trying to ascertain the weapons' destination. The joint investigation had been under way for five months, he said. The Owen gun was a simple, lightweight and effective firearm invented in Australia and mass-produced during World War II.
Australian troops used the weapon in New Guinea and elsewhere. The discovery of silencers with the weapons was of grave concern, Senator Ellison said. "The silencer is a sinister element," he said. "That is very, very serious. "It's an even greater concern in Victoria because of the problems we have there with organised crime." The weapons haul also included four pistols and revolvers, a pistol crossbow, two bayonets and 31 "long-arms" including shotguns, bolt-action rimfire and centrefire rifles and semi-automatic centrefire rifles.
Senator Ellison said it was particularly worrying that the Owen guns were being made in Australia. Already, about 4000 firearms were stolen each year in Australia and found their way to the criminal market. Senator Ellison said the fight against illegal firearms was a priority and the crime commission and its partner agencies had been building up intelligence on the syndicates involved. "We have implemented a number of measures targeted at the criminal misuse of firearms, including new cross-border firearms trafficking offences, which have a substantial maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment and a fine of $275,000," he said. Senator Ellison said the crime commission's budget would be increased by $1.5 million to disrupt illegal firearms syndicates. He said the investigation was continuing and several people were helping the ACC with its inquiries. The crime commission, which replaced the National Crime Authority, has the coercive powers of a standing royal commission and its main target is organised crime. Methinks that even though it's winter, things are heating up a bit in the hometown of Foster's Lager.
St James the Moor Slayer, Spain's patron saint, has notched up another victory. Church officials have been forced to overturn a decision to remove a statue of the saint from the cathedral of Santiago de Compostela in north-west Spain. The statue, an 18th-century work by Jose Gambino which depicts St James on a white charger hacking off the heads of Moors beneath his rampant mount's hooves, was deemed to be offensive to Muslims.
However a spokesman for the church, which is Christendom's third holiest site after Rome and Jerusalem and attracts half a million pilgrims each year, said yesterday that, due to public anger over the proposed move, the statue will now remain in place. "It is still here on the same spot. It is not going anywhere," a spokesman for Alejandro Barral, the president of the cathedral's art commission, said. "We have decided that the statue of St James will stay in the cathedral. There is no reason why it should be removed in the near future. For the moment the debate over its future has been suspended."
Christians have somebody who keeps the holy sites ranked in order, too? Who'da thunkit?
#3
Perhaps they could replace his sword with a white flag.
Posted by: A Jackson ||
07/22/2004 4:14 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"The statue ... was deemed to be offensive to Muslims"
I think I must have missed Zapatero's impassioned speech in response to the threat of Islamic militancy to Spain, but I'm guessing he borrowed from Churchill:
"We will not fight them in the train stations, we will not fight them at the polling stations. We will not fight them in Iraq, and we will not fight them in our churches. We will ever surrender!"
At least that's on hold in Santiago de Compostela.
#5
Before anyone shouts about PCers changing history, lets be aware that theres no real historical evidence (AFAIK) that St James ever went to Spain, and he certainly never slew any Moors while he was alive - thats all based on him appearing in dreams to various Spanish warriors telling them to go fight.
OTOH, if we have to respect the Al Aqsa mosque ...;)
St James could not have been a Moor slayer but his
name was the battlecry of the Castilians during the Reconquista. He was the symbol of paople who fought for eight centuries to avoid falling into submission (Islam in Arabic). Pity that 21th century Spaniards had forgotten him.
By whom, exactly? A "good" moslem wouldn't have any reason to go into a church, so how can they see it and be "offended"?
I'm offended by a good portion of the moslems - starting with the Paleos and going right on through the Saudis. Think they'd be interested in removing themselves from public so as not to offend me?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/22/2004 22:33 Comments ||
Top||
Former national security adviser Sandy Berger repeatedly persuaded monitors assigned to watch him review top-secret documents to break the rules and leave him alone, sources said Wednesday. Berger, accused of smuggling some of the secret files out of the National Archives, got the monitors out of the high-security room by telling them he had to make sensitive phone calls.
Guards were convinced to violate their own rules by stepping out of the secure room as he looked over documents and allegedly stashed some in his clothing, sources said. "He was supposed to be monitored at all times but kept asking the monitor to leave so he could make private calls," a senior law enforcement source told the Daily News.
And you've written up the guards for doing this, right?
Berger also took "lots of bathroom breaks" that aroused some suspicion, the source added. It is standard procedure to constantly monitor anyone with a security clearance who examines the type of code-word classified files stored in the underground archives vault.
The same archives monitors told the FBI Berger was observed stuffing his socks with handwritten notes about files he reviewed that were going to the Sept. 11 panel. It is prohibited to make notes about the secret files and leave with them without special approval.
And you didn't jack him up when he was leaving?
Berger's attorney, Lanny Breuer, has denied the allegation that Berger hid papers in his socks.
"Lies, all lies!"
Posted by: Steve ||
07/22/2004 10:03:34 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Berger also took "lots of bathroom breaks"
What is the vector of the Gore Syndrome?
The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is expected to reject claims that Saudi Arabia provided money and assistance to the hijackers, challenging one of the most contentious allegations raised by a joint congressional inquiry that concluded last year.
In a long-awaited final report scheduled for release today, the Sept. 11 panel concluded that there was no evidence that the Saudi government or Saudi officials knew of or supported the plot to attack the United States, according to sources who had been briefed on the report's contents.
In particular, the report, running more than 500 pages, dismisses long-standing suspicions that two hijackers who resided in San Diego obtained money and logistical support through a Saudi intelligence network in the U.S. that had agents in Southern California who were funded in part by a member of the Saudi royal family.
The commission's report "exonerates the Saudis to a large degree," said a Senate official who attended a recent briefing by the Sept. 11 panel. He said the commission had concluded that contacts between the hijackers from San Diego and two Saudi men "can be explained away as innocent and incidental."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
07/22/2004 9:31:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Quick analysis:
1. Al Bayoumi is sent to SD to "work/train" for the Presidency of Civil Aviation, which at least used to be the official name of his employer. However, I bet he spent all his time going to Tiajuana. No surprise here. It's the Spoiled Rich Kid Syndrom a la seoudienne. The beauty of it is that al Bayoumi's family doesn't have to pay a penny for his debauchery; the PCA picks up the tab. That's why it's the Magic Kingdom. Beautiful cover for an agent since its the MO of most Saudi males who establish themselves abroad.
2. IIRC, the Princess did send money to some folks in SD to help pay for surgery, and wasn't al Bayoumi the conduit through which it was sent? What better cover could an agent use than the ambassador's wife? It's not a stretch that she would help out and thus become an unwitting enabler. She's pals with Laura and Mrs. Powell, after all. Impeccable patrons in times of trouble, Mother Mary.
3. IIRC, al Bayoumi supposedly met the terrorists by chance at the airport and took it upon himself to get them set up in SD. You know, Arab hospitality and all that. Huh? What was he doing there? A flight to Tiajuana? Eleanor Hill's sceptisicm is well-founded.
4. The FBI guys quoted are in opposition to Eleanor Hill's doubts for a simple reason. It's CYA time. "...disappointed...because the implication was that there was a shoddy investigation done by the FBI in SD."
Advantage Hill.
Let's see the 28 pages. I was OK with holding back last year, but since then The Royals have lost all credibility with me through their blaming terrorists attacks in the Kingdom on the Zionists. Let the chips fall where they may.
Posted by: Michael ||
07/22/2004 11:37 Comments ||
Top||
Last Oct. 2, former Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" [the Burgler] Berger stayed huddled over papers at the National Archives until 8 p.m.
What he did not know as he labored through that long Thursday was that the same Archives employees who were solicitously retrieving documents for him were also watching their important visitor with a suspicious eye
The NYTimes is still on the Bergler's side however.
Posted by: mhw ||
07/22/2004 9:17:08 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm gonna mess up these Richard Clarke memos but good!
...Sandy Burg(l)ar
Posted by: rex ||
07/22/2004 16:32 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ten Commissionersâfive Republicans and five Democrats chosen by elected
leaders from our nationâs capital at a time of great partisan divisionâhave
come together to present this report without dissent.
... the dissenting, non-unanimous bits will be out in time for the Sunday shows. Stand by in 3... 2...
The Syrian Wayne Newton
The man inadvertently behind a scare in the skies.
By Clinton W. Taylor
Annie Jacobsen's recent piece for WomensWallStreet.Com made waves. Her account of flying with her family while 14 Middle Eastern passengers acted in a threatening and apparently coordinated manner makes for a terrifying read. Her article captures her sickening sense of both uncertainty and inevitability as what might possibly have been the next 9/11 unfolded around her. . .
. . .An hour later I was talking to the nice folks at Sycuan Casino & Resort, near San Diego. Unlike most casinos where it's all Elvis impersonators, Paul Anka, and Linda Ronstadt — oh, wait, scratch that last one — Sycuan books the occasional "ethnic music" show, too. In August, for example, they'll have a Vietnamese night.
"Oh, do you mean Arab music?" inquired Angie, who answered Sycuan's phone. Yes, they had had an Arab act perform on July 1, an artist named Nour Mehana. Terry, Angie's supervisor at Sycuan, confirmed that he was there and that there was probably a backup band brought in, since there's no house band at Sycuan. In fractions of a second, Mr. Google found a website for Sycuan's event promoters, Anthem Artists, whose archive confirms Nour Mehana performed at Sycuan on 7/01/04.
And then I noticed something that was truly terrifying, something linking Nour Mehana to a figure of such repulsive evil that I felt a rush of prickly fear not unlike Jacobsen's: Just one week later, the same company that arranged Mehana's performance, also booked Carrot Top!
Carrot Top / Syrian Wayne Newton : Makes Sense to Me. Frightening!
HERE IS A LINK TO SAMPLES OF THE MUSIC OF "WAYNE OF DAMASCUS"
With this odd tale, and Sandy Berger sticking Highly Classified National Archive Documents down his trousers, I expect to see flying elephants pretty soon. . . .
It would be wrong to speculate on Sandy Berger's ultimate motive for removing classified documents from the National Archives. Working with insufficient information is the best way to mislead one's self. However, there might be some value to adopting a preliminary framework for understanding new information as it comes to light. The model that comes readily to mind is to regard Berger's escapade as a kind of information countermeasure. The most common ways to conceal information are to 1) create a decoy signal; 2) generate enough noise to blot out the underlying information; and 3) to reduce the signal of the original information which you want to conceal.
Most readers are broadly familiar with the countermeasures used on military aircraft. They can release decoys, like flares or drones. They can emit signals from jamming pods to white out the enemy radar screens. They can employ a variety of measures to reduce their reflection so that they remain unseen, the so-called stealth technology. Each of these corresponds to one type of countermeasure described above. As an exercise one can hypothetically regard the Plame-Wilson affair, the Richard Clarke book and Sandy Berger's bungled theft as representatives of these three kinds of information countermeasures. The first establishes a false "blip" -- the Bush Lied meme -- which misled intelligent bloggers like Oxblog's Patrick Belton for weeks as he followed this phantom echo. The Richard Clarke book can be considered a noise barrager type of countermeasure. It was for the most part a big sound and light show laced with ominous drumrolls with nothing behind it. When the time came to set Clarke's book against Condoleeza Rice's testimony at the 9/11 hearings there was curious lack of collision, as might be expected once you got past the boundary generated by a noise jammer. Berger's attempt to stuff codeword classified documents into his pants and socks looks like signature-reduction exercise on its face. It was an attempt to excise information; to create a stealth object which could pass through unnoticed.
The presence of countermeasures almost always indicates the presence of real information which the jamming is intended to protect. One of the reasons that coverups are so dangerous is they create the danger of "home-on-jam", where the source of jamming signal is itself targeted. The significance of catching Sandy Berger in the act of purloining classified couments is that it enables investigators to "home-on-jam", to find the beneficiary of the coverup. Where will it lead? Stay tuned. Remember that jamming needs to work just long enough for the real bandit to accomplish its mission.
Wonder what he means by that?
Posted by: Mike ||
07/22/2004 12:38:54 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I just wonder how difficult it is to "replace" documents at the National Archives? Is it possible on the first visit he took what he wanted to hide and then replaced it with want they wanted everyone to see?
#3
According to what I've read, Bergler made several trips to make sure he had all copies of a particular followup report to the attempted Millenium bombings and re: countering attacks on our sea ports.
The staff at the National Archives marked these papers to set up a sting and catch him in the act.
The theft of the papers occurred over several occasions, with him being questioned and reminded about procedures on each occasion.
Posted by: Jen ||
07/22/2004 14:24 Comments ||
Top||
#4
There is no excuse for a man who was the NSA to POTUS to "NOT KNOW HOW" to handle classified material. It is utter BS.
If you or I were to be caught inadvertently removing or replacing even 1 classified document, we would be behind bars.
Perhaps that Mr. Bergler was working on behalf of someone else, and knowingly sacrificed as a "pawn" to keep other stuff from coming out, or it being revealed that other documents are missing...
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
07/22/2004 14:54 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Sen. Mitch McConnell had the best description: Sandy put the CCD (coded confidential documents) in his BVDs.
Posted by: Capt America ||
07/22/2004 15:03 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The only someone else I can imagine in this scenario is William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, on whose "administration's" behalf Berger went in. Why would he do this? As has been pointed out a lot, he would know fully well what the procedures are to handle these docs. It was no accident.
What would he possibly gain if he did it? What would Berger stand to lose if he didn't do it? Fun to speculate, but it isn't likely to get anyone far.
Concentrate on: what did he take? Who else was in the meetings where the document drafts were generated? Can the information be recovered by any means.
#9
given the fact that Clinton knew about that Sandy was under investigation and Kerry didn't I think the reason Sandy took the documents was to pre position a Clinton spin in case the 911 Commission was critical of the Clinton administration
#11
CF--The Archive may have some backups, but they are likely of limited number (it's not very secure to have top secret docs lying around in vast quantities). Also, as I understand, several of these docs had hand-written notes or addendums on them (put there by various advisers or experts, I assume) which made them unique.
Posted by: Dar ||
07/22/2004 16:29 Comments ||
Top||
#12
At the same time, if they think Bergler's purloining some/all of the copies of the file, in addition to marking them, how about making a couple of backups and putting them somewhere else?
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/22/2004 17:43 Comments ||
Top||
#13
While it seems to be the archive staff indicating that Berger was making cell phone calls, this doesn't make any sense at all to me. When I worked in a secure area where classified material was present, cell phones were strictly forbidden. Why was he allowed to carry one into the archive in the first place?
#14
"Why was he allowed to carry one into the archive in the first place?"
He was a former NSA, and likely his being from a Democrat administration made the staff a little more cooperative.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/22/2004 20:35 Comments ||
Top||
#15
That's my assumption as well Robert. I was just pointing out how absolutely outrageous Berger's actions really were for those who might not have worked under this sort of security.
#16
Cell phones, cameras, PDAs, MP3 Players, voice recroders (note taker recorders), Ipods, laptops, etc - all forbidden in any place I've worked that had certain compartments and/or classifications.
It was a DELIBERATE act -if you routinely work with that stuff you never "just put it in a pocket".
I've handled (and created) sensitive compartmented information over the years, and were I to stroll out with documents like Berger did, I'd not be here to type - I'd be sitting in a jail cell.
#17
Old Spook, as I remember, the three most cautious officers on a USN ship were the Disbo, the MPA - when he had the main reduction gear open - and a CMS Custodian. Levenworth is full of "sloppy" Disbo's and CMS Custodians.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/22/2004 23:32 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Same where I was OldSpook. Also no briefcases, portfolios, floppy disks (though there weren't any floppy drives even if you had a disk) or other electronic media, etc. We were even told that receive-only portable AM/FM radios & portable playback-only CD players were verboten. This really stinks and it's insane the way it's being whitewashed. But then again the average person would have no idea just how outrageous Berger & Clinton's assertions are on their face.
via Bahrain's Gulf Daily News, of all sources!
Thursday, 22 July 2004
FORT CARSON, Colorado: Officials at Fort Carson are mobilising for a baby boom among the first soldiers who returned from Iraq earlier this year. About 160 babies are expected in December, followed by another 140 in January, said Roycelyn Bowman, obstetrics director at the post. More are set to follow in February and March as some soldiers get ready to deploy again to the Middle East.
"We knew as soon as the troops came back that we were going to have a population explosion," Bowman said. Lol! F**kin' Duh!
Posted by: .com ||
07/22/2004 2:09:01 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Just don't breed up a bunch of a$$holes like the WWII guys did.
#6
LOL, guys!
Well, this makes me happy to see our fine soldiers making sweet love and adding to their families!
Life can go on both at home and in the theatre of battle because of what they've done to bring peace and security back!
Mazeltov and let the rest of us know if we can send you flowers or give you baby presents!
Posted by: Jen ||
07/22/2004 12:35 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Actually Jen, I think BH was referring to the flower children, long haired hippies, and peace pansies of the 60s. Although I've grown quite a rep as being an @$$hole.
via USA Today
By Alan Levin - Updated 7/21/2004 11:23 PM
WASHINGTON — Three of the five hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon set off metal detectors on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, as they passed through security at Dulles International Airport outside Washington, a videotape shown Wednesday reveals.
The hijackers acted casually as security workers checked their bags and put them through additional screening, the surveillance tape shows. Later that morning, the men stormed the cockpit of American Airlines Flight 77 and slammed the jet into the Pentagon. All 64 people aboard the flight and 125 at the Pentagon were killed. (Related video:Hijackers pulled aside at Washington Dulles Airport)
Nothing in the video suggests that the security guards violated screening procedures. The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks concluded in January that the hijackers on all four flights likely carried knives with blades shorter than 4 inches, which at the time were permitted on flights.
But the video and the details surrounding Flight 77 have highlighted a concern raised by the commission: missed opportunities that might have thwarted one or more of the hijackings.
The CIA had identified two of the five hijackers in the video, Khalid Al-Midhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, as potential terrorists because they had participated in a suspected al-Qaeda meeting in Malaysia in 2000. But before 9/11, few names of terrorists were provided to the Federal Aviation Administration, which kept a list of people who were prohibited from flying for security reasons. Their names had also not been provided to Customs officials who allowed them to enter the country.
Both Al-Midhar and Alhazmi set off metal detectors twice and were checked for weapons with hand-held metal detectors, according to the commission's report on the video released in January. Alhazmi's bag was also swabbed for traces of explosives.
Hijacker Majed Moqed also set off a metal detector, the commission said. He walked through a detector a second time and, after it did not signal an alarm, was allowed to proceed. Hani Hanjour, who investigators suspect was the pilot of the hijacked flight, and Alhazmi's brother Salem did not receive additional security.
Initial reports after the attacks suggested the hijackers may have used box cutters in the attacks, but passengers at the time were prohibited from carrying box cutters aboard flights. The commission concluded it was more likely the hijackers used small knives.
Posted by: .com ||
07/22/2004 1:45:12 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
IIRC, wasn't it said at the time that box cutters were allowed on aircraft? Right or wrong?
Posted by: Michael ||
07/22/2004 12:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The sad thing which is not being mentioned is that this can still happen today since Airlines cannot question more then 2 middle easterners without getting hit with a fine from the FTC for 'racial profiling'.
All OBL needs to do is send in 2 suspicious looking middle easterners (with clear records) to meet the quota and VIOLA! Free passes all around!
#3
I can tell you that when I am flying Middle Easterners get extra scrutiny from me. If one of those camel jockies some much as pulls out a comb I am on like white on rice. That shit may have worked on 9/11 but unless your flying with the DNC leadership or a bunch of College professors, most Americans wouldn't let it happen again. If it were up to me anyone named Achmed, Mohammaed, etc. would be stripped searched before they were allowed to fly. Don't like it? Take the bus.
#4
Michael - you are right. Little blades like that didn't used to be confiscated. Now even fingernail clippers are seized. (I think I would have blown chunks if someone started cutting their fingernails on a plane, anyway. Acck!)
Lethal fatuity characterises the United Nations' treatment of Sudan and Israel. To what its own officials have termed the greatest humanitarian crisis in the world, in the Sudanese western region of Darfur, the UN Commission on Human Rights responded in April by passing a weakly worded decision calling for the ceasefire to be respected and access granted to humanitarian organisations.
Even now, when the onset of the rainy season threatens the refugees with famine, the Security Council has still to vote on an American draft resolution. That would impose sanctions only on the leaders of the Janjaweed militias terrorising the Darfuris, not on the Islamist government in Khartoum which has recruited, armed and provided operational support to those militias.
There is no mention of a UN force to protect the refugees, nor of appointing an independent international commission into abuses in Darfur, as recommended by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
While fiddling as people die in Sudan, the world body has overwhelmingly condemned Israel for taking a step which has drastically cut the number of deaths from Palestinian suicide bombings. On Tuesday, by 150 votes to six, with 10 abstentions, the General Assembly approved a resolution ordering the Israeli government to dismantle the barrier on the West Bank.
Following the assassinations of Sheikh Ahmed Hassin, the leader of Hamas, and Abd al-Aziz Rantisi, his successor, the Palestinians threatened "rivers of blood". In fact, terrorist attacks inside Israel proper dropped by more than 80 per cent in the first six months of 2004, compared with the same period last year. The barrier is undoubtedly proving effective in protecting the population, the prime duty of any government.
What is particularly depressing about this resolution is that Britain voted for it, along with all the other members of the European Union, instead of opposing it, like America and Australia, or abstaining, like Canada.
In procrastinating over Sudan and discriminating against Israel, the world body displays a scandalous indifference to human life. That is a betrayal of its charter commitment to peace and security.
Posted by: tipper ||
07/22/2004 1:42:08 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Excellent reporting from The Telegraph - kudos.
Re: the Wall
Indeed, the UN General Assembly vote was as close to a perfect travesty as is possible. This link at Powerline has a pic that should haunt the cousins forever. It references Charles Johnson's post at LGF for the timeless quote:
"The only nations on this sick planet with the guts to vote against this foul resolution: the United States, Israel, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Palau and Australia."
A church in East Palu was the target of a bomb hoax on Thursday, just two days after a female minister, Susianti Tinulele, was shot dead while giving sermon in Effata Church in South Palu. Police were immediately called after an unidentified caller told an employee at the Bala Keselamatan church on Jl. Hasanuddin that there was a bomb in the compound. After combing the premises, police found a fake bomb -- two batteries and cables packed in plastic.
Israeli intelligence chiefs told Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's security cabinet in a joint assessment Wednesday that Iran will have a nuclear weapons capacity by 2007, public radio reported.
The warning came in an annual intelligence report delivered by the heads of the Mossad overseas spy agency, domestic Shin Beth intelligegence service and representatives from army intelligence.
Israel's military intelligence chief General Aharon Zeevi Farkash said earlier this month he believed Iran could build a nuclear weapon by 2007 but Wednesday's report comes with the seal of approval from all the main intelligence agencies.
Iran is now regarded as Israel's number one enemy since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq and intelligence chiefs have increasingly voiced fears about Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
Earlier this week, one military intelligence officer accused Iran of resuming suspect nuclear activities linked to the production of enriched uranium which can be used to build atomic bombs.
The officer said Iran's activities -- which he did not specify -- contravened commitments by Tehran to the UN nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Iran has announced it would resume the assembly of centrifuges -- used to enrich uranium in the most sensitive part of the fuel cycle -- but said it was committed to an accord to allow tougher IAEA inspections, make a full declaration of its activities and suspend enrichment itself.
The IAEA is probing allegations that the country is using power generation as a cover for a secret weapons drive but Tehran insists its programme is solely aimed at meeting the future energy needs of a burgeoning population and freeing up its oil and gas resources for export.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
07/22/2004 11:32:03 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
2007?
Jeez that sounds pretty optimistic. I'll lay odds on November 2005. Perhaps they mean small enough for the abu double dong to launch.
#3
I imagine the the Black Turbans have been humming along with their centrifuges for quite a while, so they should be close to having enough U235 for a bomb or a number of bombs. Only problem is that a U-bomb will be too heavy for a missile. They need Pu239 for a bomb light enough to fit on a Shahab-3 missile. They will either have to make it in their Bushehr reactor or buy it somewhere. Since they are not foaming around with threats of taking out Israel now, it means that the BTs cannot buy it. So their Pu239 supply will depend upon Bushehr being fueled up, and that will drive the date of the attack on the reactor.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/22/2004 14:00 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Iran to have nukes by 2007
There is no way on earth any sane person should accept this projected time line. The levels of subterfuge and concealment that have consistently played out in Iran make it essential to dismantle them now.
There are few ways of actually verifying exactly how far along Iran is in making a nuclear device. It may be possible for them to purchase refined plutonium from North Korea or Pakistan (neither of whom have submitted breeder reactor samples for fingerprinting) and thereby circumvent significant development and enrichment portions of their weapons R&D cycle. All of this makes it imperative that Iran be taken off-line immediately.
Their continuing contribution to regional instability and international terrorism only makes this more imperative.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Wednesday denied the existence of any evidence that Syria has been developing banned nuclear weapons.
In a statement to Egyptian TV, General-Director of the IAEA Mohammed el-Baradei said "the Agency has no evidence on Syria's attempts to build any nuclear program that violates the Non-Proliferation Treaty."
Have you looked?
"Syrian officials are ready to cooperate with the IAEA to prove that an allegation against Syria in this respect is groundless," he added.
"Ready to cooperate", so they haven't up to this point? So how do you know they haven't.........never mind.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/22/2004 11:08:54 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
didnt say they dont have them, just that theres NO EVIDENCE they have them. Not the same thing.
I have no evidence that theres a hot dog stand at the corner of State and Wabash (or whereever) in downtown Chicago. But then I havent looked. Im sure the city of Chicago would cooperate if I were to go look.
#2
There's no evidence that el-Baradei wanted to find any nukes. It like if I was hunting bear, what would I do if I found one?
Posted by: Formerly Dan ||
07/22/2004 12:03 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It like if I was hunting bear, what would I do if I found one?
Dan you just need to be prepared, carry binoculars, match box and high quality tweezers.
#4
"..."the Agency has no evidence on Syria's attempts to build any nuclear program that violates the Non-Proliferation Treaty."
TRANSLATION: Somewhere in the desert outside Damascus there is a 1000x1000 neon and searchlight lit sign with a blinking arrow on it that says THIS WAY TO SECRET SYRIAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM HEADQUARTERS.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
07/22/2004 12:51 Comments ||
Top||
#5
al Baredei is a real treat. If forsenic accountants approached their jobs with the same amount of zeal, no embezzelers would ever be found guilty.
Posted by: Michael ||
07/22/2004 13:17 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I do, however, have evidence that there is a hot dog stand in Chicago at Clark and Wrightwood. Go Weiner Circle!! There is nothing like an open-outcry purchase of a char-dog and cheddar fries at 3:30am. Sorry this is waaaay O/T.
Posted by: remote man ||
07/22/2004 13:40 Comments ||
Top||
#7
#5al Baredei is a real treat. If forsenic accountants approached their jobs with the same amount of zeal, no embezzelers would ever be found guilty.
El Baradei is the Arthur Andersen of Middle East nuclear accountability. Until the IAEA is headed by a non-Islamic individual, all of its findings in that region will be, not just suspect, but irreversibly tainted. The IAEA debacle in Iran is all we can expect to see played out over and over again until el Baradei is removed from office. Not that the UN will ever be able to provide functional investigation of anything more pressing than comparison shopping of Russian caviar brands.
Of course, it's a Pincus story so you have to get half-way through the page to figure out what these links are ...
On Iran, by contrast, the report concludes that al Qaeda's relationship with Tehran and its client, the Hezbollah militant group, was long-standing and included cooperation on operations, the officials said. It also details previously unknown links between the two, including the revelation that as many as 10 of the Sept. 11 hijackers may have passed through Iran in late 2000 and early 2001 because Iranian border guards were instructed to let al Qaeda associates travel freely, sources familiar with the report have said.
Commission and government officials emphasize that they have found no indication that Tehran knowingly helped in the plot. But the commission report will cite evidence that Iran allowed al Qaeda members into the country even after the attacks.
The Sept. 11 panel has also raised the possibility that al Qaeda may have had a "yet unproven" role in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, which killed 19 U.S. servicemen and has been blamed on a Saudi Hezbollah group. Iran is a primary sponsor of Hezbollah, or Party of God, which the United States considers a terrorist group.
Many of the commission's findings about Iran were discovered only in recent weeks from, among other sources, electronic intercepts and interrogations of al Qaeda suspects in U.S. custody, sources familiar with the commission's findings said. Even before then, Chairman Thomas H. Kean (R), a former New Jersey governor, said, "There were a lot more active contacts, frankly, with Iran and with Pakistan than there were with Iraq."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
07/22/2004 9:24:45 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This drives me crazy. There is no difference between His-b'allah, hamas, islamic jihad, the plo, etc... They are all al qaida. How anyone talks with a straight face about al qaida might have been working with his-b'allah is beyond my comprehension. They are all Qaida. People that don't understand that are obtuse.
A significant barrier was crossed when President George W. Bush spoke aloud, Monday, about the possibility of an Iranian role in the 9/11 attacks on the United States. By doing so, he was responding -- in a language that the ayatollahs would understand -- to escalating threats and provocative behaviour from Iran. No matter who is President after November, it appears the U.S. and Iran are now on course for another history-making collision.
The movement of known Afghan-Arab Jihadis through Iranian territory from Afghanistan, both before and after the U.S. invasion, is now so well established in fact that even the CIA has acknowledged it. But as ever, it is nearly impossible for the CIA or any other Western intelligence service -- who do not have their own agents in the field, and thus rely entirely on second-hand information -- to confirm much beyond that.
I fear Mr. Bush is about to repeat a mistake he made in his approach to war in Iraq. This is to develop a case for war, based on narrow, legalistic arguments. As we discovered before, during, and after the invasion of Iraq, this concedes most of the debate to nitpickers in the media and the political opposition: an especially hard course when we remember that agencies like the CIA have proved entirely incompetent in establishing the facts upon which legalistic arguments can be based.
Posted by: tipper ||
07/22/2004 2:07:33 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Tipper, there has been continual speculation about when we aer going to "green light" an Israeli tactical strike. I don't think that's going to happen. GW doesn't strike me as a guy who would use a surrogate. Eventually, we will whack the facilities and it will be stealth aircarft doign the job.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/22/2004 3:33 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I always thought twenty or so well placed TLAMs would be sufficient to take down the Iranian facilities.
Also, I wouldn't place the Israelis off the table quite yet. They may reach the conclusion that they cannot wait for the American elections to conclude.
Posted by: Douglas De Bono ||
07/22/2004 9:26 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I've said it before and I'll say it again ;)
If GW loses in november than Israel gets the green light for a november or december strike before Kerry takes over... then we provoke them on the border and war is inevitable by the time Kerry arrives in January.
#4
DPA - very interesting take on this and I believe very plausible. One thing is sure - sooner or later we will have to deal with iran..and the sooner the better lest we have to waste a few dozen of our nukes....
Posted by: Dan ||
07/22/2004 11:37 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The Iranian conflict has a life of its own. With large scale Iranian insurgents in Iraq, and the Iraqi prime minister threatening action, this thing could explode any day now, irrespective of the presidential election.
Posted by: Capt America ||
07/22/2004 15:09 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Recent announcements include: the recruitment and training of thousands of Iranian volunteers for suicide attacks against U.S. and other targets in Iraq; the resumption of work on Iranâs long-range Shihab 4 and 5 missiles, capable of reaching targets in Europe and the U.S.; and references to a "master plan" to eliminate "Anglo-Saxon civilization" with missiles and martyrdom, mentioning "29 sensitive targets".
These threats are not uttered from a cave in the Hindu Kush. They are official Iranian state announcements. The ability of the Western media to ignore them is astounding.
The only thing "astounding" about any of this is that Iran is still able to utter such nonsense. The mullahs are merely sealing their collective doom with such belligerent swaggering. I hope America, and not Israel, is the one who shows these puffed up theocratic bullies the way to hell's door.
Thank you, borgboy. I say this same thing here a bit too often myself and it's nice to see someone else feel obliged to draw the comparison. I don't care how many people Islamists think they're fooling, it's the exact same sort of sick f&%ked up über-memeâ¢. Anyone who seeks violent jihad must die, now, preferrably.
EIGHT Royal Navy servicemen today break their silence — and reveal the true horror of their kidnap ordeal in Iran.
They were snatched at gunpoint four weeks ago during a routine mission on the Shatt-al-Arab waterway border with Iraq.
It was claimed at the time they had been well treated and only arrested for trespassing.
But the men reveal:
They endured a mock execution.
They were violently abducted — even though they did NOT stray into Iranian waters.
They were humiliated and paraded blindfolded like zoo animals.
They were kept in horrific jail conditions and faced sickening mind games.
The men spoke out to protect their professional reputations.
Marine David Reid, 24, said: "It was unbearable and people have a right to know."
The men arrived safely back in Britain last week.
Posted by: Anonymous2U ||
07/22/2004 1:06:30 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm sure they suffered. But the Iranians went too far when they humiliated them! I'm confident we'll see unending MSM coverage starting on the Today Show tomorrow morning lambasting the black turbans for this lapse in morality.
#4
If Iran makes one move, just ONE more hostile move, hit the bastards HARD, election year be damned. A forced reality check might do wonders for their attitude problem.
#5
Iran is running real rough. It needs an idle screw adjustment as a first go.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/22/2004 2:04 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I do belief they were required to wear Moolah panties (a.k.a., weapons of mass dysentry)
Posted by: Capt America ||
07/22/2004 2:46 Comments ||
Top||
#7
we can all thank the dems for the re-gained balls the iranians have...with all our politics and self-censure we seem paralyzed in our resolve...the fear they had in 2003 is gone and needs to be regained...
Posted by: Dan ||
07/22/2004 10:56 Comments ||
Top||
The United Nations yesterday called for restraint between Israel and the Lebanese Hezbollah resistance movement and warned of the risk of escalating violence on the Lebanese-Israeli frontier after clashes in which three people died. "As we have stated many times in the past, one violation (of the cease-fire there) does not justify another. Indeed, as we have seen, such actions lead to possible escalation which is clearly not in the interest of either party," said Staffan de Mistura, the personal envoy in Lebanon of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
Two Israeli soldiers and a Hezbollah militiaman were killed on Tuesday as air raids and gunbattles raged across the volatile Israel-Lebanon border. The UN is "seriously concerned at the negative turn of events over the last two days that has heightened tension considerably along the Blue Line and in Lebanon in general," the envoy added in a statement. The Blue Line was laid out by the UN to serve as the frontier between Israel and Lebanon after the withdrawal of Israeli forces from south Lebanon in May 2000. "We now call, again, on all parties to exercise maximum restrain to restore calm and to abide by the commitments to maintain such calm," the statement added. The Israeli Army was probing the killing of two of its soldiers yesterday as the senior officer for the northern command issued a warning to Syria if attacks continue.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/22/2004 11:20:54 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hizb'allah is a sworn enemy of Israel and wants to destroy her. The UN runs Ein-al-hellhole and is nothing but an enabler of such behavior. As usual the UN has nothing positive to contribute to the situation, so for the good of all parties involved in the dispute, the least the UN can do is to STFU. God, I hate to finance these UN parasites!!!!!!
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/22/2004 0:59 Comments ||
Top||
#2
We now call, again, on all parties to exercise maximum restrain
Actually, what is needed is for Israel to exercise no restraint at all.
#3
As we have stated many times in the past, one violation (of the cease-fire there) does not justify another
There's some truth in that. Problem is, the first violations are usually attacks by Hizbollah on Israel ... so Anan's comments essentially mean Israel should absorb the attacks without retaliating. Not a viable strategy.
Posted by: too true ||
07/22/2004 8:51 Comments ||
Top||
Just eight months before the September 11 terror attacks, top conspirator Ramzi bin al-Shibh received a four-week visa to Iran and then flew to Tehran—an apparent stop-off point on his way to meet with Al Qaeda chiefs in Afghanistan, according to law-enforcement documents obtained by NEWSWEEK.
German government documents showing the previously undisclosed trip by bin al-Shibh, a captured Al Qaeda operative who played a crucial coordinating role in the 9/11 plot, is the latest evidence that the World Trade Center conspirators frequently used Iran as a safe transit point in their travels to and from Afghanistan.
The final report of the 9-11 Commission, which is due out tomorrow, contains significant new information about a possible "Iran connection" to the plot, including a U.S. intelligence analysis indicating that Iranian border inspectors were instructed not to stamp the passports of Al Qaeda members entering and exiting their country. Although the information has been known to the U.S. intelligence community for some time, President Bush told reporters this week that the U.S. government was "digging into the facts to determine if there was" a possible Iranian connection to the September 11 attacks.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
07/22/2004 7:47:16 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I concur that Spikey did a good article for Newsweak, but the fact that Iran has been in tandem with al Qaeda has seemed quite evident for years. I like Steve Hayes description of the Commission's "Friendly Relations" angle between AQ and Iraq.
Posted by: Capt America ||
07/22/2004 1:14 Comments ||
Top||
Lawyers for ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein have filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights calling on France to make the United States respect the Geneva Conventions. The complaint is based on article one of the Geneva Convention, which calls on all signatories to "respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances", Emmanuel Ludot, one of Saddam's lawyers, said yesterday. *chortle* "I din't give crap about the conventions when I was in charge, but I demand them for myself!"
According to Saddam's defence team, Washington "has not respected the Geneva Convention at all", specifically articles 85 and 105 which detail the required living conditions for prisoners of war and provisions for their representation. He sould consider himself lucky to be in a LIVING condition.
Ludot said Saddam's lawyers "are physically incapable of meeting their client as the detaining power has acted in such a way as to paralyse the rights of the defence, pure and simple". The case also refers to the European Convention on Human Rights, which stipulates that all defendants have the right to the time and facilities needed to prepare their defence, and to question all necessary witnesses. He explained that the legal team opted to file its complaint against France because it is most likely to roll over a signatory to both the Geneva Conventions and the European Convention on Human Rights. France "can thus defend its image as a defender of human rights", Ludot added. Stop it, you're killing me!
The court, which is based in the eastern French city of Strasbourg, confirmed that the complaint had been filed on Tuesday, but that it refused to examine the case on an emergency basis, or within a month's time. The court will first review whether it is competent to hear the case, a process that could take several months. It would subsequently rule on the merits. A court official said that such a case had never been filed. Saddam appeared before a Special Iraqi Tribunal in Baghdad on July 1 for an initial hearing on seven charges of crimes against humanity. Last month, the European Court of Human Rights rejected a complaint filed by lawyers for Saddam, who had asked that Britain be barred from turning him over to Iraqi custody.
#2
Did you get this off Scrappleface? Why don't we just hand him over to the Iraqis and see what they do with him? I am surprised the EU Court actullay ruled against the lawyers. Are they getting soft or smart?
#3
We're doing him a favor in merely refraining from feeding him into the shredder right now, which is more than he ever did. At least we're respecting the fact that he approaches human.
Posted by: The Doctor (in NY for the week) ||
07/22/2004 16:09 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The European Court of Human Rights never came to the aid of the people victimized by Saddam, so I do not think that it will act on Saddam's behalf now. One never knows.
As far as the court being competent to hear the case, I do not think that the court is competent to hear any case. If you need their propaganda website, check it out here.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/22/2004 18:52 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Saddam's subordinates abused POWs in the Gulf War and during OIF, and were not punished by Saddam's government; Saddam is not entitled to Geneva Convention protections.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/22/2004 21:48 Comments ||
Top||
#7
What kind of a weasely dorkface even gives a fat rat's ass about Saddam?
Don't bother - I already know the answer.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/22/2004 22:09 Comments ||
Top||
Relatives and Muslim leaders appealed to Iraqi militants on Thursday to release three Kenyan truck drivers they took hostage, saying the men were good Muslims who went to Iraq to earn a living for their families. A militant group calling itself The Holders Of The Black Banners, announced on Wednesday it had taken the Kenyans, three Indians and an Egyptian hostage. The group said it would behead a captive every 72 hours beginning on Saturday night if their countries do not announce their intentions to withdraw troops and citizens from Iraq. "We plea to those who are holding our brother to release him without any condition because he is a family man who went to make an honest living out there," said Faiz Khamis, younger brother to the kidnapped Ibrahim Khamis. "He is a good Muslim trying to support his wife and four children and the kidnappers should consider that," the younger Khamis said by telephone from Kenya's Indian Ocean port of Mombasa. "Our brother bore no ill-will to the people of Iraq."
Umi Mohamed said she recognised her kidnapped cousin from newspaper photographs and television images of the victims that appeared in the Kenyan media on Thursday morning. The elder brother of hostage Jalal Awadh said he was also a good Muslim and family man. Ahmed Kamal joined Muslim and political leaders calling for the hostages' immediate release. "We are stressing to the kidnappers that they are holding innocent men and they should not do injustice to these men," said Mohamed Dori, secretary general-general of Kenya's Council of Muslim Clerics. "They need to understand that Muslims in Kenya strongly opposed, and still opposes, the invasion of Iraq by the US," Dori said by telephone from Mombasa. "We also oppose US policies in the region because they caused the mess out there." Neither India, Kenya or Egypt are part of the 160 000-member United States led military occupation of Iraq. However, interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi appealed last week to India and Egypt to send in troops.
#1
The so-called "good muslims" have been trying to have it both ways. Now, for these relatives and leaders, the results of appeasement and benin neglect have come home to roost. If the "good muslims"⢠continue appeasement, they will get the same terrorist thing, over and over, ad nausium. The behavior of appeasement to terrorists is going to be the tough nut to crack, and we are witnessing the pains of learning the lesson of no appeasement. It will take more tough lessons before this generation collectively learns.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/22/2004 15:53 Comments ||
Top||
#2
From the point of view of the Jihad, a true "good muslim" should be glad to martyr their head for the cause.
Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi on Thursday said his country wants troops from Arab and Islamic countries, particularly Egypt, to help protect the United Nations if the world body sends a new mission to Iraq.
The incompetent protecting the corrupt, I like it!
Allawi, though, wasn't pushing hard in the face of repeated rebuffs from Arab governments on the question of sending their troops into volatile Iraq.
Allawi's comments came a day after Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that the United Nations has not received a single firm commitment of troops, six weeks after the U.N. Security Council authorized a separate force to protect U.N. staff.
Don't call us, we're busy.
Annan said at U.N. headquarters Wednesday that if the 191 U.N. member states want the United Nations to play a major role in helping Iraq prepare for elections, draft a constitution, and rebuild the country they must ensure adequate security for U.N. personnel.
Snicker
Posted by: Steve ||
07/22/2004 10:08:34 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
I'm beginning to like Allawi more and more lately. If I find out that he really is visiting Iraqi jails and shooting prisoners I'll have to send him a birthday card.
Posted by: Formerly Dan ||
07/22/2004 11:57 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"The incompetent protecting the corrupt, I like it!"
Remember the glory days of the Baltimore Orioles led by manager Earl Weaver? One of the reasons the O's always seemed to be in the mix was that the organization had printed its own book on how to play baseball the Oriole way. One of the more curious out-of-the-box methods I read about was that in batting practice, pitchers who needed to work on their curve balls threw to batters who needed to work on hitting curve balls. Kills two birds with one stone.
Allawi is providing a simple way for the whiners of the UN persuasion and like-minded elites the opportunity to put up, shut up, or get out of the way. Brilliant.
Posted by: Michael ||
07/22/2004 13:06 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Dan I would send him a BIG birthday card if it's true. What else are they going to do with all the Jihadis they capture? Send them to charm school?
RAMALLAH, West Bank -- Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat accused Israel of polluting the West Bank and Gaza Strip with depleted-uranium bullets, causing a sharp increase in cancer rates. "They have caused cancer that is like Hiroshima and Nagasaki," Mr. Arafat said in an interview. "America could not find uranium in Iraq, but we have found it here in Palestine -- and the Israelis are using it to kill our people."
Mr. Arafat, his eyes bulging with anger and his lips trembling, the effect of rumored Parkinson's disease, encouraged reporters to visit Palestinian hospitals and see the cancer patients. Cancer specialists at two hospitals, one in Ramallah and the other in Bethlehem, said they had seen no increase in cancer rates during the current uprising, which began in September 2000.
The Palestinian leader was referring to dense bullets of depleted uranium that are sometimes used by U.S. forces to pierce tank armor. The Palestinians have no tanks.
So there would be no reason to use them, HE is much better for taking down buildings.
Mr. Arafat also accused Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of being linked to the 1995 assassination of then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Mr. Sharon is "part of that group of fanatics who killed my partner, Yitzhak Rabin, with whom I signed the peace of the brave," said the Palestinian leader, referring to the now-defunct 1993 Oslo peace accords. Israeli government spokesman Danny Seaman described Mr. Arafat's charges as "the product of a sick mind and a fevered imagination."
Apart from what Mr. Arafat said during the interview at his Ramallah compound, his tone and demeanor raised questions about the degree of control that the Palestinian leader has over national events and over himself.
"I'll take little to none for $500, Alex."
The visit lasted several hours. Palestinian officials said two previous interviewers were ordered to leave after angering Mr. Arafat with their questions. A list of questions or topics was demanded before this interview, and many questions were vetoed by Mr. Arafat's top adviser, Nabil Abu Rdeineh.
Mr. Arafat declined to discuss the recent upheavals within the Palestinian Authority.
To back the charges of cancer-causing uranium bullets, Mr. Arafat waved a report that he said he had received from the so-called Quartet behind the latest Middle East peace initiative -- the United States, European Union, Russia and the United Nations. "This report, an American report, proves it," he said, handing a copy to visiting reporters. The document turned out to have been written by an obscure peace group. It contained no evidence that Israel had used uranium bullets. It did conclude that Israel probably has such weapons in its armory because it has a close military relationship with the United States.
Sure, for use against tanks, which the Paleostinians don't have.
Separately, no analysis of cancer rates was available at the Palestinian Authority's official bureau of statistics or its department of health. Mr. Arafat's remarks mixed aggression toward his interviewers with anger at his enemies. He became upset when asked why the Israelis had recently killed the two top leaders of the rival Palestinian group Hamas but had not eliminated him. "How dare you?" he yelled, his finger pointing menacingly and lips quivering more than usual. "Are you a Mossad agent? Do you work for the killers of Rabin? Of course they want to kill me, too. "Look at my bedroom that he bombed. Remember, one of [Mr. Sharon's] ministers said a 2-ton bomb would finish me off ... he tried to kill me 13 times in Beirut."
"I'm important, of course they want to kill me! Hey, come back!"
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/22/2004 2:46:28 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Another LLL flapping his lips about DU, a substance about as hazardous as lead. Best precaution is to stop being a terrorist and the IDF will stop trying to kill you!
#2
Here's a link to WHO's report on DU. DU is less radioactive than normal U, and it seems the primary health effect is kidney damage due to its toxicity (not radioactivity; cancer is a long-term effect of exposure to a carcinogen, typically over many years). Finally, DU is used in anti-armor ordnance, not anti-personnel ordnance.
Yasshole is clearly on the edge. Let's give him a push.
#4
I do know that many individuals are susceptible to allergic reactions from bullets. Whenever they get shot, they get these large, red, round holes in their bodies.
#8
On the other hand, I think we'd have a lot to blame the Israelis for if these bullets ARE contributing to a rising cancer rate: it means they're only wounding their targets.
Posted by: The Doctor (in NY for the week) ||
07/22/2004 15:53 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Oh, so poor ol' Yasser is worried about cancer and radiation? Someone tell him that gathering up all the DU fragments and putting it all together can produce a core for a working nuclear bomb. Watch them clean it all up in a really big hurry. Then monitor their communcations to see who Arafart tries to sell the lump of DU to.
EFL: The EU doubletalk here is about what you might expect.
Israel Point: Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said Thursday that this week's European vote supporting a UN General Assembly resolution against the separation fence encourages the Palestinians to continue avoiding their obligation to fight terrorism.
EU's point: Solana, meanwhile, said the West Bank separation fence violates international law, and dismissed the contention that Europe is anti-Israel.
Posted by: mhw ||
07/22/2004 9:05:35 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
On a resolution concerning the wall, (which according to the people in this forum --both pro and against it-- constitutes a new border, just what the Palestinians claim, but according to Israel itself it does not, it's merely an "security obstacle") it's quite clear that it's not the rightness or wrongness, the lawfulness or unlawfulness, the morality or immorality of the wall *itself* that must be judged, but rather whether the resolution "encourages" the Palestinians to avoid their obligation or not. Quite clear.
Ofcourse even the slightest criticism of Israel would have been an encouragement to the Palestinians, therefore Israel must never be criticized.
And as a sidenote, everyone with the exception of America, Australia, Micronesia, Palau and the Marshall Islands are ofcourse "anti-Israel". Any condemnation of any country on any issue means that you automatically hate that country's guts and want it to cease existing.
#2
Wow, palestinians use the same language and take the same attitude, and haven't yet garnered a peep of protest for THEIR attitude. In fact, when that UN envoy even hinted that maybe PART of their problem was Arafat, he was banned and villified.
The point Israel made is that the Wall demonstrably works to reduce terrorism. The point the UN made is that the facts don't mean jack: tear it down and ACCEPT THE CASUALTIES. The UN and other NGOs love to point fingers assigning responsibility for catastrophes, but disavow the responsibility for Israeli civilian casualties caused by THEIR demand for a protective wall to be torn down. "Causality and responsibility is for OTHERS, not for US" they screech.
However, I think we should cut Aris some slack: The European idea of governance is that the national and transnational structure is all, and that citizens are mere appendages, subject to being sacrified for the greater good unless doing so causes a riot that would, you guessed it, threaten the national/transnational structure. France does nothing to stop anti-semitism, since it does not threaten the apparatus of state governance. They've tolerated a low level fever of terrorism for years. rather than REALLY crack down on them, due to oil supply access concerns (among other things): I know, because my mom lived there for a couple of decades, knows the language, saw the news, and lived that shit every day. Paleo support? It's all about OOOOOOIIIIILLLLLL!
REAL democracies (including, but not just, the USA and Israel) realise that the people ARE the state, and that the supreme responsibility is to protect the populace. Even opposition to the Patriot Act springs from concern of government inflicting harm on the populace. Aris' poor little brain can't handle anybody else except a Euroweenie nation caring more for its citizens than it's stature in international circles, a concern of primary interest to, you guessed it, the national/transnational power apparatus. The priority inversion probably appears senseless to him, but proper and logical to Israelis and Americans.
#3
(which according to the people in this forum --both pro and against it-- constitutes a new border,
1. I have never said its a new border.
2. In context, I think an abstention was an acceptable stand. Which Canada and several other states took. Which the EU states could have taken, but did not.
3. This does not mean they "hate Israel" It is, together with other statements and actions, a sign that they are biased against Israel, and perhaps not viable at this point in time as active participants in the negotiating process.
4. I continue to await a UNGA vote on the situation in Western Sudan.
#4
Meanwhile, real people are dying by the thousands in Sudan and the UN does NOTHING about it but talk. How can anyone take such an organization seriously?
#5
"On a resolution concerning the wall, (which according to the people in this forum --both pro and against it-- constitutes a new border, just what the Palestinians claim, but according to Israel itself it does not, it's merely an "security obstacle"...
In point of fact, the Green Line was never a border but a cease fire line, established in the '67 War.
And then there was the Yom Kippur War of '73 when the Israelis won more territory.
These lines have been played with in the Camp David and Oslo Accords and the Paleos were supposedly trading land for peace, but of course, they've never given peace or given up terrorism for land.
So the war goes on and the fence will continue to go up.
And it would help alot--now that the PA is imploding--if both the UN and the EU would stop throwing the evildoers a rope.
But noooooooooooooooooo.
They have to push for the annihilation of the nation of Israel and the talking shops of the world thugs help.
Posted by: Jen ||
07/22/2004 11:11 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The European idea of governance is that the national and transnational structure is all,
The European idea of governance is that a country doesn't have the right to go building walls on a territory that self-admittedly isn't theirs.
The European idea of justice is also that the innocent must not be punished for the deeds of the guilty.
The point Israel made is that the Wall demonstrably works to reduce terrorism.
The point that Israel *didn't* manage to make is how a Wall located on the Green Line wouldn't equally work to reduce terrorism in Israel. The point that Israel *didn't* manage to make is how the wall is really for the security purposes of Israel, rather than the security purposes of *illegal settlements* -- illegal because they are located on territory that Israel *itself* doesn't claims belongs to it.
The occupied territories are supposedly a "security buffer" themselves, right? Rather than annexed territory?
And you should really cut down on the whole caring-about-the-citizens pretend act, Ptah. I understand you well enough to know that this doesn't include Muslims, be they innocent or guilty. Or atleast I don't remember you, Christian as you pretend to be, to have *ever* opposed torturing mere "suspects" of crimes. If you are a Christian you belong to the Spanish Inquisition/Salem burnings branch of Christianity.
#7
And then there was the Yom Kippur War of '73 when the Israelis won more territory.
Not according to Israel itself. My understanding of the matter is that Israel doesn't claim it won more territory, the same way that USA doesn't claim it won territory in Iraq. It's only *occupying* more territory. If I'm wrong on this, Liberalhawk correct me.
One significant difference is that the USA hasn't established dozens of permanent American settlements throughout Iraq.
#8
Aristotle, as I just explained, the Green Line is merely an old cease-fire line.
The territory belongs to the Israelis--they won it in battle in, '47, '56, '67 and '73.
They may have negotiated it away in exchange for peace, but those deals are dead, especially Oslo and they've recently reworked the 1979 Camp David accords.
When it became apparent to me that murdering Jews was way more important to the Paleostinians than developing a vibrant economy and making a killer like Arafat accountable as an "elected" leader was of no importance to them when it's obvious that they get boatloads of money from the UN and EU, I ceased to care about the Paleos well-being.
They belong in Jordan and Syria and not on the West Bank!
And BTW, Sharon is having them dismantle the settlements.
(And I've told you that before! Read the JPost for Gawd's sake!)
Posted by: Jen ||
07/22/2004 11:27 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I think part of the problem is that international law has never been adjusted to deal with terrorism. International law does not account for the fact that suicide bombers ride red crescent ambulences, that materials for suicide bombs are kept in schools and hospitals. Worse, International law does not account for the fact that an entire society could be fundamentally terrorist supporting. This is because International law was developed before the age of the suicide bomber.
If Israel has a right only to arrest terrorists once those terrorists cross the greenline (i.e., no right of preemption), then Israel's population is sentenced to death (which would probably be fine with most of the EU biggies).
If Israel does have the right of preemption, then premption by a fence modestly outside the green line is far more humane than preemption by checkpoints.
As I just told you, not according to Israel itself. Because if the territory belonged to Israel then the question of voting right for all Palestinians would arise. So the territories are simply "occupied", rather than annexed.
"And BTW, Sharon is having them dismantle the settlements. And I've told you that before"
You told me that before, but it's a clear mistake on your part. Only a handful of the settlements are dismantled, not ones like Ariel.
#11
As I just told you, not according to Israel itself. Because if the territory belonged to Israel then the question of voting right for all Palestinians would arise. So the territories are simply "occupied", rather than annexed.
the territories are not annexed. This does not mean Israel does not consider itself to have a claim. Rather it considers that both sides have claims, and any final border must be determined by NEGOTIATIONS betweent the PARTIES. Meanwhile Israel can put its TEMPORARY fence wherever it feels a need, including a place that protects settlements whose FINAL STATUS IS YET TO BE DETERMINED (though it is widely expected that in any final agreement most WILL be annexed to Israel, albeit with territorial compensation to the Palestinians elsewhere)
#12
Well Aris if I were King of the World for a day the new fence would be the border no matter how much bitching the from Arafart. Also I would allow the Israelis to annex another ten kilometers for every ATTEMPTED terrorists attack and 100 for every successful one. I call it my âLand for Peaceâ plan. Also I would allow the Israelis to expel everyone that resides on the new land they acquire. Sooner or later the Palestinians would run out of land or stop the terrorists activity. I would offer the Palestinians financial bonuses for every month that there are no terrorists attempts and another bonus for every terrorists (Hamas, Heballah, etc) that they capture and put in prison. I call this my âCash for Good Behaviorâ program. FYI the money would go directly to both the people and the government on a 50/50 split so they both have a stake in the program. And the Leadership would be forced to spend the money on social or infrastructure projects and no skimming into personal accounts. The Israelis (as their partner in peace) would monitor where the money goes and for what.
#13
the west bank was part of the hashimite kingdom and not israel proper...though they may have a claim it would be to israel's detriment to incorp this area as part of their country...it would be the end of the two state solution..
if israel is a true democracy then the notion of one man one vote applies....and this would in effect have israel cease to be a jewish state and be a majority paleo state...
if they do annex the westbank and do not give the vote to it's citizens then israel would become a true aparthied state⦠and that is no one's interest...
Posted by: Dan ||
07/22/2004 12:18 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Well, I was being technical and practical with Paleo-lover Aris and using only modern day Israelis warfare and politics as the p;parameters, but actually God gave the nation of Israel the lands of Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") a long, long time ago!
Posted by: Jen ||
07/22/2004 12:26 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Jen> But the Israelis haven't been following god's law to stone adulterers. What's up with that?
God gave me Canada, btw. He did it last Tuesday. Honest he did.
#16
Your mockery of our devout faith isn't endearing you to me.
As if it could, you Paleo loving scum.
I can't, don't and won't explain how or why Jews--Orthodox, Hassidic, Reformed, etc.--observe the Laws in Israel but I believe that Jews and Christians both decided that rules like stoning adulterers in the Old Testament were too severe and judgemental for Modern men of faith.
Jews and Christians both went through Reformations, which is why we have it all over Mooslims, who have no problem with executing "adulterous" women, See Taliban.
Posted by: Jen ||
07/22/2004 12:40 Comments ||
Top||
#17
You lie Aris, Toronto belong me.
I am likely to overrun Ludawici next.
Death to speed traps!
#19
Liberalhawk> "Rather it considers that both sides have claims, and any final border must be determined by NEGOTIATIONS betweent the PARTIES. Meanwhile Israel can put its TEMPORARY fence wherever it feels a need, including a place that protects settlements whose FINAL STATUS IS YET TO BE DETERMINED"
First of all the settlements were created only after the occupation, as a result of the occupation -- so it's bizarre to then justify the tools that the occupation uses by reason of needing to protect the settlements.
It leads to the idea that the wall is not used for security, but instead in order to make the viability of the settlements possible, which were in turn made for purpose of land annexation in a disputed land. (And that's the *nice* theory, btw, because the nasty theory is that it was made in order not just to protect the settlements or even to annex land, but in order to hurt the Palestinians as punishment, or seclude them as a prison.)
Secondly, even with that question out of the way, wouldn't it depend on whether the rest of the world truly saw that wall as a temporary security measure, as opposed to a tool for negotiation or a defacto border or a punitive measure? Many people in this forum *did* see this wall as either a defacto border or a tool for negotiations, rather than as something "temporary" and solely meant for reasons of security.
#21
Jews and Christians both went through Reformations, which is why we have it all over Mooslims, who have no problem with executing "adulterous" women, See Taliban.
Indeed -- the reason that Jews and Christians (in general) have it all over Muslims (in general) is that the Jews and Christians have (in general) understood that it's Man that's created God rather than God who created Men. Even though they don't generally admit it.
And thus Jews and Christians have redefined their conception of God's laws to be closer to what *human* morality told them they *should* be.
Good for them! This agnostic-leaning-to-atheist applauds.
#22
Wait a second.....The Danforth is already yours Aris ;)
Posted by: Rafael ||
07/22/2004 12:56 Comments ||
Top||
#23
it's Man that's created God rather than God who created Men. Even though they don't generally admit it.
LOL
finally something .com and Aris can agree on.
the EXISTENCE of the wall is to stop terrorism - the LOCATION of the wall east of the green line is to protect settlements which exist on the disputed territory, and perhaps as a tool for negotiation (which by the way, does not mean its not temporary - by adding cost to a final border anywhere OTHER than the route of the wall,it means the Pals may have to give up more to move the line - but thats NOT a permanent border)
As for what people here on this forum think, thats irrelevant. Though the keepers of this site are fine and dandy people who post lots of really kewl info, many of the posters here are total loonies, I think you would agree. I mean really, is the State of Israel responsible for everything said by any loonie who happens to support Israel?
And er, for all the non-Jews here posting on Jewish belief and practice, if you spent as much time learning about Judaism as arguing about it, you would learn much.
Oh, and AK, most of the early Zionists were quite secular. The bible is important largely as a source on Jewish history in the land (secular bible criticism if anything STRENGHTENS the claim, since it turns out that the Jews probably DIDNT take the land from the Canaanites - they probably WERE the Canaaites) and to provide an understanding of the continued yearning of the Jewish people for its land throughout the exile.
#25
Uh, Aris--wrong again, you atheist Paleo-loving scum!
After Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." at a public stoning, the zeal and fun went out of the activity pretty quickly after that even for the most religious law abiding Jews.
Posted by: Jen ||
07/22/2004 13:12 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Liberalhawk has the best read on this. The purpose of the wall is for security, but its location is a bargaining chip - they can trade the "extra" land for something else later. Of course, the paleos haven't been too willing to give peace for land. They had a chance with Barak and blew it.
BTW, if you look at the history of Israel from the Balfour declaration on, the Jews were first promised all of what is now Israel and Jordan, but declared independence in a much smaller territory, added to that after independence (the greenline), and finally occupied the west bank after the 67 war (in which they were attacked). The west bank has always been a combination security buffer and bargaining chip.
In a famous debate of the Mishnaic era - around 100 to 200 CE:
one Rabbi said : a High court that issues more than one death penalty in a generation is a bloody court
another Rabbi responded: if we followed your opinion, murders would multiply in the land.
IE the death penalty was thought of, even by those who were relatively supportive of it, as basically applying only to murder. Biblical calls for death for lesser crimes were interpretated away.
There is less evidence for the state of jewish law at the time of Jesus, since there is no written "offical" Jewish legal source between the bible (last books dated to circa 300BCE) and the Mishnah (completed 200 CE). The mishnah cites the opinions of older scholars, some from the time of Jesus, but theres no proof those citations of what at the time were 170 year old opinions are accurate. In lieu of such a source, we have the NT (partisan as far as Jewish law is concerned), Josephus (unreliable), and more recently the Dead Sea Scrolls (problematic since they are the documents of a minority sect)
#28
Interesting background on Talmudic law, Lh.
Thanks.
Posted by: Jen ||
07/22/2004 14:43 Comments ||
Top||
#29
to clarify further - adultery is still TECHNICALLY a capital crime in Jewish law. This matters, since capital crimes have unique features in Jewish law. For example its permissible to violate ANY Jewish law in order to save a human life EXCEPT to commit a capital crime. Ergo one may violate the shabbat in order to save a life, but one may not commit a murder OR commit adultery in order to do so.
#30
#1) Aris' answer to everything seems to be a fanatical devotion to his personally-developed religion of secularism/globalism--which he believes will solve all of the world's problems. As "God" in that context, he considers himself to have ascended to the level of "Expert" regarding anything he discusses. It's his religion against other religions, in these discussions, basically. At least, that's the main thing for him--all other things being subserviant to that worldview of his. In fact, Aris is probably the most "religious" person on Rantburg.
#2) Plenty of Israelis (and some Palestinians) would like peace, but most Paleos won't deal. They have an "all or nothing" vendetta grudge-holding approach to the world, and cannot develop a sensible government of their own so that they can negotiate, develop, improve. Or maybe they just like to fight--fighting is easier than assuming responsibility for self-determination. It's a bad situation for the Paleos that would like to explore other options.
I think Cyber Sarge's ideas hinge on a kind of carrot-on-a-stick, last-ditch attempt to get the Paleos to do what would be in their own best interest. Try it--you'll like it (?)
Aris: if the Turks were invading Greece with multiple terrorist attacks over many years, and there was a chance to build a big wall to protect yourself from the attacks--and the only other option would be to die or give up your land to the Turks--what would you, as a Greek, do? Curious.
#31
yet another problem with using a text like the Mishnah to determine actual practice at the time - there are situations where the Mishnah discussess something purely theoretical in detail. Remember, they considered the Bible to be the word of G-d, and the legal system they were elucidating to be divinely ordained -ERGO it had to be logically complete, and there had to be basis for answering every case about it, even if said case didnt actually come up in daily life. We see thats a problem in precisely the area we are discussing, stoning:
We come now to the most difficult (and grisly) part of the tractate: the actual carrying out of an execution - the judicial killing of a man or a woman found guilty of a capital crime. No amount of apologetics will cover up the fact that up to a certain point in Israel's history such executions did take place. However, there is no guarantee whatsoever that when they were carried out that it was according to the procedures described in our tractate! On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that the procedures that will be described in ... our tractate were purely the result of academic extrapolation: two preconceived basic premises determined the form of midrash to be used on the Biblical texts. There is no other way to explain how there could have been a difference of view between Rabbi Yehudah and the rest of the sages on such a particular detail of procedure as whether there was or was not any difference between the execution of a man and the execution of a woman as regards their clothing. It must be that they are not describing a historical reality, but that their difference derives solely from their hermeneutical elucidation of the Biblical text.
#32
ex-lib, since your post doesn't have any connection to anything I said, I should properly ignore it both as where it claims to pertain on myself (personally developed religion of secularism/globalism? What?) and also in the questions it asks.
But since you asked so very nicely, I am telling that I would support the exact same thing I'm also supporting in the case of Israel -- which is the existence of the wall. Not that you knew about it, since you only hear your own foolish assumptions about me echoing in your head.
"The purpose of the wall is for security, but its location is a bargaining chip "
Which is probably the reason I feel that its existence in general is both morally justified and absolutely necessary, but its chosen location both illegal and immoral.
#33
Ergo one may violate the shabbat in order to save a life, but one may not commit a murder OR commit adultery in order to do so.
Correct me if I'm wrong... isn't the defense of Israel also allowed to violate shabbat? So I expect we fight over the meaning of murder.
/angels on a big ass pin
#36
Correct me if I'm wrong... isn't the defense of Israel also allowed to violate shabbat? So I expect we fight over the meaning of murder. /angels on a big ass pin
1. to save a human life is not only permitted its obligated to violate laws such as shabbat
2. Yes, the resistance against those who would kill you certainly warrents violating shabbat. No dispute there from any jewish authority, even the most pacifist.
3. Is targeting a terrorist murder? I think almost any mainstream authority would say no. I think extending it to a planner/inciter like Yassin would trouble few authorities. How much care must you take with collateral damage - well thats difficult, but this is not really any different than the Western laws of war. Of course most Orthodox authorities in Israel are fairly right wing, and so would lean over to justify an attack. Conservative Jews are few in Israel, and Reform Jews arent to big on Jewish law anyway.
Really interesting question is nuclear deterrence. Collateral damage is one thing - deliberaretely taking an innocent life is another. When you fire a rocket at a terrorist you can argue that if all goes well no innocents will die - you can hardly argue the same thing about nuking a city. Yet if you piously refrain from being willing to nuke a city, how do to you deter - during the cold war this would have meant turning the world over to the USSR, hardly an acceptable real world solution.
A Conservative Rabbi I know wrote a book on this subject back in the '80s, when this sort of thing was a bigger topic. I didnt read it and dont know what answer he came up with.
#37
Aris-a few simple questions, hopefully answered concisely:
1.) Do both Jews and Arabs deserve justice? Is it the same justice?
2.) What do the Palestinians have to do for their part of the Plan?
3.) Should Palestine face criticism for allowing/encouraging/assisting Hamas, Hezbollah, etc to carry out homicide bombings? If yes, which countries in the UN would stand behind that criticism?
1) "Do both Jews and Arabs deserve justice? Is it the same justice?"
Yeah. Though consistently "justice" seems to me less important than either "freedom" or "prosperity", since I don't accept "justice" as a goal on itself but only as a means towards ensuring life, liberty and the chance to pursue happiness.
2) "What do the Palestinians have to do for their part of the Plan?"
Reject terrorism, disavow the "right of return", accept the right of Israel to exist.
3) "Should Palestine face criticism for allowing/encouraging/assisting Hamas, Hezbollah, etc to carry out homicide bombings?"
Sure. But as a sidenote I'm not sure whether it's the Palestinian authority that allows Hamas/Hezbollah to exist or vice-versa -- those terrorist groups that allow the Palestinian authority to exist. In short I'm not sure who has the knife on the other guy's throat.
"If yes, which countries in the UN would stand behind that criticism?"
Not the Arabs. Nor the Russians or Chinese. And the French seem to have recently gone on some maniacal trip, so I'm guessing not them either from sheer spite.
Other than that, tough to tell. Many European countries have already criticized the Palestinians AFAIK.
#39
Around these parts (southern Arizona) Feds are building new heavy duty fences and obstacle devices on U.S (To'hono O'oldham reservation) / Mexican border. Indians are being forced to take lengthy detours to visit relatives on other side of the border.
______________borgboy
#40
#6The European idea of justice is also that the innocent must not be punished for the deeds of the guilty.
Here's an interesting poll:
"Support for bombing attacks inside Israel drops from 58% last December to 52% in this survey. But a large majority of 86% opposes arresting those who carry out the bombing attacks, and 67% (compared to 61% last December) believe that armed confrontations have helped achieve Palestinian national rights in ways that negotiations could not."
EMPHASIS ADDED
With some 86% of Palestinians approving of terrorism in principle, I fail to see where any vast number of innocents are being punished for the crimes of a few.
#12I would allow the Israelis to annex another ten kilometers for every ATTEMPTED terrorists attack and 100 for every successful one. I call it my âLand for Peaceâ plan. Also I would allow the Israelis to expel everyone that resides on the new land they acquire. Sooner or later the Palestinians would run out of land or stop the terrorists activity.
It's hard to beat this basic approach. A sufficient number of mass murder terror attacks will result in the Palestinians crowding themselves onto a ragged postage stamp of land.
#15But the Israelis haven't been following god's law to stone adulterers. What's up with that?
God gave me Canada, btw. He did it last Tuesday. Honest he did.
Thank you for placing religious proclamation into proper perspective, Aris.
#19... the nasty theory is that it was made in order not just to protect the settlements or even to annex land, but in order to hurt the Palestinians as punishment, or seclude them as a prison.
Which they richly deserve and have been struggling mightily to obtain.
#21Indeed -- the reason that Jews and Christians (in general) have it all over Muslims (in general) is that the Jews and Christians have (in general) understood that it's Man that's created God rather than God who created Men. Even though they don't generally admit it.
"Man is quite insane. He wouldn't know how to make a maggot, and he makes Gods by the dozen.". -- Michel de Montaigne -
#29Ergo one may violate the shabbat in order to save a life, but one may not commit a murder OR commit adultery in order to do so.
So, I'm not allowed to impregnante my neighbor's wife, even though her infertile husband has threatened to commit suicide because they have no children? Sheesh, no good deed goes unpunished.
NEW YORK - A poll that resulted in a vote to drop "Doonesbury" was defended by the head of a Sunday-comics consortium. "It was not a political statement of any kind," Continental Features President Van Wilkerson told E&P. "I personally don't have an opinion about 'Doonesbury' one way or another."
"I haven't read it since it stopped being funny"
Wilkerson said he conducted the survey because Garry Trudeau's comic "created more controversy than other strips." In the poll e-mail he sent Continental's newspaper clients this spring, Wilkerson wrote: "(I)t is my feeling that a change in one of the features is required. I have fielded numerous complaints about 'Doonesbury' in the past and feel it is time to drop this feature and add another in its place. ... If the majority of the group favors a replacement, you will be expected to accept that change."
Of the 38 papers that run the Continental-produced Sunday comics section, 21 wanted to drop "Doonesbury," 15 wanted to keep it, and two had no opinion or preference. "I wouldn't call the vote [to drop 'Doonesbury'] overwhelming, but it was a majority opinion," Wilkerson said.
One of the 15 papers, The Anniston (Ala.) Star, expressed public dismay with the vote yesterday -- saying the decision amounted to censorship. In an E&P interview after that article appeared, Star Executive Editor Troy Turner said: "Sure, 'Doonesbury' causes editors headaches from time to time, but there is a proven readership for it. Newspapers need to think of readers first, or they will continue to struggle." Turner added that he doesn't recall Continental doing polls about any of the other 22 comics in its package; "Doonesbury" was singled out. Wilkerson acknowledged that the survey was out of the norm.
The Continental head said he doesn't know exactly when "Doonesbury" will leave the package; he's currently polling clients to see if they want to replace it with "Agnes," "Get Fuzzy," "Pickles," "Zits," or another comic.
"Day by Day" comes to mind.
If Continental does pull "Doonesbury" from the package, "we will find a way to run it in the Sunday paper," said Star Editorial Page Editor Bob Davis. He noted that the Star already publishes the daily "Doonesbury" in an unusual locale: the back page of the "A" section.
Our paper moved "Doomesbury" to the editorial page years ago.
As previously reported, Star Publisher H. Brandt Ayers e-mailed Wilkerson to say he and his paper's editors "strongly object to an obviously political effort to silence a minority point of view. For years, my New Deal father bore the opposition views of Orphan Annie and Daddy Warbucks, and I believe he would have fought an effort to silence them by a simple majority vote. This is wrong, offensive to First Amendment freedoms."
Sigh, another person who doesn't understand the First Amendment.
"Doonesbury" -- which appears in more than 1,400 papers via Universal Press Syndicate -- has made a lot of news this year with strong criticism of President Bush and the Iraq war. In one sequence, Trudeau offered $10,000 to anyone who could prove Bush served in the Alabama National Guard. And, in an ongoing story line, the B.D. character lost a leg in Iraq and is dealing with the aftermath of that devastating injury. The 38 papers running the package from Salisbury, N.C.-based Continental are predominately located in the Southeast.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/22/2004 3:19:54 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"I haven't read it since it stopped being funny"
My God! Doonesbury used to be funny? When was that? Musta been before my time (even though I am old enough to remember the original Jonny Quest).
Posted by: Mike ||
07/22/2004 12:50 Comments ||
Top||
#2
We've got a former national security advisor stuffing documents into his jockey shorts and Trudeau can't find anything funny to write about there.
Posted by: Matt ||
07/22/2004 15:15 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I really don't mind Trudeau making political comments in his strip. In fact I personally expcet it. As to whether Doonesbury is funny. I always thought the same question could be applied to "Faulty Towers" too. The strip I find of very questionable taste is Boondocks which has taken to vilifying Bill Cosby for have the balls to stand up to the likes of the NAACP and the Urban League
#4
I cut out a funny Doonesbury strip last year, and stuck it on the refrigerator, the one where an Iraqi scientist asks "Is it true that only 13% of American kids can find Iraq on a map?" and the reporter says "Yeah, but all 13% are Marines". I had to cut it out a save it for my daughter (the Marine) since it was the first one to be funny in decades...
via WaPo
Login: gnafgnnsy1@lnubb.org / gnafgnnsy
GAZA CITY, July 21 -- Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat is facing the most serious internal threat to his authority in a decade, as militants are turning guns against their own government and long-festering political tensions are erupting into gunfights and kidnappings in the streets of the Gaza Strip, according to Palestinian officials, militant leaders and analysts.
The internecine violence has exposed deep fissures in Arafat's Fatah political movement, the dominant faction in the 10-year-old Palestinian Authority, and has escalated demands across Palestinian society that Arafat surrender some of his powers and reform a governmental system riddled with corruption.
Isolated for more than two years in his presidential compound in the West Bank city of Ramallah, Arafat has exercised diminishing control over his party and his supporters in Gaza. The events unfolding in this crowded, impoverished enclave suggest that Fatah is engulfed in full-scale fratricide. Feuding Fatah political leaders have created their own militias, the movement's armed wing has turned against its creators, and reform efforts have become entangled in the power struggles.
"This here street's declared for Hamas, Mahmoud. Git along!"
"No way, Ahmed, this here's for al-Aqsa!"
"No it ain't! Go fer yer shootin' arns, ya varmint!"
"It's an opportunity a catastrophe," said Ahmed Helis, general secretary of Fatah in the Gaza Strip. "The truth is that both sides are corrupt. There's not a good side and a bad side. And Fatah hasn't accepted what's really happening."
Could Ahmed be anymore clueless? Of course there's a good side, unless you're a Paleo.
"It's very serious, much more serious than any time before -- since the beginning of the Palestinian Authority, since the formation of the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] in 1964," said Mustafa Barghouti, a Palestinian physician, political analyst and reform advocate. "The whole society is now upset and wants reform." ...more...
Posted by: .com ||
07/22/2004 2:00:37 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Washington Post is way behind the curve on this one. So is most of the world for that matter.
The EU has been pouring money into the corrupt sink for years and years. The Saudis cut back their Paleo subsidy a year ago.
#3
as info dot com, Hamas, though it cooperates with Fatah (despite denials from Fatah) is NOT part of Fatah. These are INTERNAL Fatah groups fighting it out. A different civil war (if it comes to that - theyre on the verge, but a few kidnappings and firing on a building is quite civil war yet) than what some envisioned - not Hamas vs Fatah, but Fatah vs Fatah.
I also note that the US, Israel and Egypt are now pushing a peace conference in October - a FOUR way conf - Israel, Pals, Egypt, US - to work out the withdrawl from Gaza. Note well who is not (at this point, anyways) invited - no EU, no UN, no Russia. Presumably this officially supplants the Road Map.
#6
he EU has been pouring money into the corrupt sink for years and years.
These EU petrowhores have used their cash to curry favor with the arab states. If the dynamic were changed, and Israel had oil, the EU would be apoplectic over palestinian terror.
It's laughable how easily -- and obviously -- they can be bought.
#7
..and has escalated demands across Palestinian society that Arafat surrender some of his powers and reform a governmental system riddled with corruption.
Kind of silly, really, to think or expect that ol' money-skimming Arafart himself could actually reform "a governmental system riddled with corruption".
Iraqi President Ghazi Al-Yawar assured the country's Kurdish population yesterday that their existing autonomy would be preserved within the context of a future federal Iraq. "We will support this experience of autonomy by all means," said Yawar during a visit to the tourist village of Salahaddin, north of Arbil, where he met Kurdish leader Massud Barzani. "Federalism is a way to bring the diverse groups in our country together."
After the 1991 Gulf War, the Kurds broke away from the central government in Baghdad to set up their own administration in the north under British and US protection. They have continued to enjoy wide autonomy. Yawar, a Sunni from the northern city of Mosul, said the federal nature of Iraq as outlined in the country's interim fundamental law passed under the administration of the US-led occupation "would be respected word-for-word." For his part Barzani, head of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, hailed Yawar as "a friend of the Kurdish people". Barzani's stronghold is in Arbil while that of his rival, now turned ally, Jalal Talabani is Sulaymaniyah. Iraq's Kurds have a "natural right" to reclaim their old land in the northern city of Kirkuk after being driven out by Saddam Hussein, Yawar said. Ethnic tensions have risen between Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen in oil-rich Kirkuk, home to 750,000 people, as groups jostle for advantage following the handover of power in Iraq from U.S. occupying forces to the interim government on June 28.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/22/2004 12:37:08 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yawar, being from Mosul, saw what the Kurds had accomplished - and to his credit (and my surprise!) he indicates full support. Bravo!
#2
im not surprised that he confirmed Kurd autonomy, ive been saying for awhile that thats capable of being compromised and the Iraqis want to avoid a civil war. I AM surprised at the statement on Kirkuk however.
Thoughts - maybe Barzani agreed to a lighter autonomy, in return for Kirkuk??? At Yawers (and Allawis) suggestion. That would fit the current govts apparent strategy of compromising with Shia interests (see their gentle handling of Sadr) and of screwing the Sunni Arabs (see their support of US strikes in Fallujah, etc)
"Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi on Thursday said his country wants troops from Arab and Islamic countries, particularly Egypt, to help protect the United Nations if the world body sends a new mission to Iraq."
Of course any RBers who have been PAYING ATTENTION will not be at all surprised by the above ;)
#4
Inviting Arab and Islamic troops to protect UN members is a savvy move on Allawi's part. If they agree, they have to face off against the Islamacists. If they refuse openly or (most likely) dither without taking action, they forfeit any right to criticize the Iraqi government's actions -- including the action of allowing coalition troops to deal with Ramadi and Fallujah and other hot spots.
#5
yes rkb, and as Ive been saying, having them guard the local UN HQ puts them in the place where they can do the least HARM, and releases US and Iraqi troops to do the real work of winning the war.
#6
Between their Iraqi building getting bombed and the Oil-for-Palaces scam, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the UN to send another "mission."
And I don't think the Iraqis have missed them much either!
Posted by: Jen ||
07/22/2004 9:26 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I gotta say, every day I hear from Allawi and Yawar I'm pleasantly suprised... and I had reasonably high expectations. Here's to hoping they stay the path.
Whoa, there, bubba! Just cuz you think some Arab troops protecting the UN is a good idea doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea! Is it still okay to disagree with you? Lol! ;)
Re: Kurds - It still remains to be seen if Sistani is so bent on his Shi'a domination game (though he stays out of politics, yeah right - when it suits him) to allow for a federal system. I hope he gets a clue before January and backs off his threats to shred the constitutional outline. We shall see, eh?
Notice: This is not a cat-fight or flame invitation, just observations by someone who's paying attention, heh.
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.
