#1
What China believes is necessary. China doesn't have universities full of anti-Chinese parasites. They may dislike their government but they are still Sino-centric chauvinistic.
#2
We'll see shortly. As China has invested a great deal of money and effort towards plundering the oil and mineral riches of the African continent, I suspect they don't look generously on a bunch of rag tags taking control of any of their ships. I don't think there will be much showing up in the press. Just a continuing decline in the amount of attacks/attackers with no explanation as to how it's occurring.
#4
As China has invested a great deal of money and effort towards plundering the oil and mineral riches of the African continent
I think this is more accurate phrasing:
As China has investedsquandered a great deal of money and effort towards plunderingpaying peak prices for the oil and mineral riches of the African continent
#6
Also on STRATEGYPAGE: ATTRITION: COMMUNIST REBELS LOSE THEIR EDGE [India].
Methinks its more correct to say the Commies are letting their Theo-Socialist = Fascist "Limited Commie", etc. Islamist cohorts take the lead [fall] for IN-COUNTRY VIOLENCE IN ORDER TO HELP GAIN POLITICAL SEATS. The Commie-Islamist alloance is very much a [Hollyweird]TEMPORARY COLLUSION/MARRIAGE OF MILPOL CONVENIENCE ONLY AS PER WAR FOR OWG-NWO - THE POST-WOT "DIVORCE" T'AINT GONNA BE A PRETTY!
#7
OTOH, WORLD MIL FORUM [paraph = Google Chinglish translation] > IIUC THE CHINESE PLA WILL SEVERELY PUNISH THE ILLEGAL COVERT OPERATIONS OF SMUGGLER"S AND TRAITORS, which IMO may infer the CPC = Chin Military Commission SETTING UP A PCORRECT LEGAL AND DIPLOM BASIS/COVER FOR [anti-Terror?]INTERNATIONAL PLA-LED BLACK OPS???
#8
Under the auspices of the Chin PLAN + PLAAF, two services which weirdly and msyteriously would be the leads in delivering covert Commando-INTEL ground units. CHINA's PLA MODERNIZATION > REMAINS VERY MUCH A WORK-IN-PROGRESS/PROCESS DESPITE SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS, i.e. CHINA HAS NOT YET DEV AN EXTENSIVE INTERNATIONAL NETWORK OF PARTY-STATE CONTROLLED, NON-PLA [Foreign Ministry, etc] INFORMATION OR INTEL OPS.
The India-Pakistan confrontation following the Mumbai attacks is the fourth such crisis in the last two decades. While India says it has provided enough evidence to Pakistan, Islamabad says what it has been given cannot be taken to a court of law for prosecution. Also, there is still no solid evidence that the Mumbai attacks were planned by a Pakistani group; or that the attackers were all Pakistanis. The audio recording of one of the attackers, available online, includes the use of Hindi words not in the Pakistani lexicon.
There is a strong sense in Pakistan that the Indian governments allegations are designed to deflect attention away from Indias own security lapses, to safeguard against erosion of electoral support for the ruling party and to utilise the crisis to further de-legitimise the Kashmiri insurgency.
Western support for Indias largely unsubstantiated allegations has encouraged Indian hawks advocating military actions against Pakistan, especially airstrikes against alleged jihadi training camps. They see the continuing US Predator strikes against Al Qaeda and Taliban targets in Pakistans Western frontier as the example and precedent. But India is not the US and drone strikes have a more complex configuration.
No Pakistan government can acquiesce in such Indian strikes. As the Pakistan army chief has warned, any Indian attack will invite a befitting response. During the previous three crises, Pentagon game planners reportedly reached the conclusion that an India-Pakistan conflict is likely to escalate rapidly, including possibly to the nuclear level. Hopefully, as in 2002, the present Indian government will also reach the same conclusion and not allow the hawks to propel it into creating a South Asian catastrophe.
An Indian military strike, and consequent Indo-Pakistan conflict, would also imply the immediate termination of Pakistans cooperation with the US and NATO regarding Afghanistan. The use of the Pakistani airbase at Jacobabad; the NATO supply convoys through Pakistan to Afghanistan; intelligence cooperation on Al Qaeda and Taliban operations; the Pakistani military deployments and operations against Al Qaeda and the Taliban on the western frontier, would all end abruptly.
This is all the more likely because Pakistans collaboration with the US-NATO war in Afghanistan is highly unpopular in Pakistan and seen as the principal cause of the recent terrorist attacks on security and civilian targets within Pakistan.
Nor can President-elect Obama or New York Times editorials convince the vast majority of Pakistanis that the Taliban, not India, is the real enemy.
India and Pakistan have fought three wars. Indian military intervention dismembered Pakistan in 1971. India continues to brutally suppress the Kashmiri freedom movement and tolerates the systemic discrimination and occasional pogroms against its Muslim minority. It has deployed over 70 percent of its huge armed forces against Pakistan (not China) and seeks to establish its strategic dominance over South Asia and beyond. Indian intelligence agencies are supporting, if not organising, violence and terrorism in Balochistan and perhaps even helping some of the Islamist militants in the Frontier.
It is, therefore, naïve for the West to believe that the Pakistan government will forcibly suppress the militant groups which support Kashmirs liberation struggle at least until Pakistans strategic differences with India, including Kashmir, are resolved.
Nor should there be Western expectations that political pressure and economic incentives would persuade any government in Pakistan to compromise on vital national issues, in particular its nuclear and strategic programmes that provide credible deterrence against Indian and any other foreign aggression.
Western discrimination against Pakistan on strategic issues, epitomised by the Indo-US nuclear deal, and the periodic unrealistic demands for the surrender or elimination of Pakistans nuclear weapons, reinforce the common Pakistani view that the West is conspiring with India to weaken and destabilise, if not dismember Pakistan.
Also, Western chancelleries should not exaggerate their political and economic influence over Pakistan, even with the present government. Pakistan does not need to rely on US or Western military support. The most advanced Western hardware and technology will not be made available to Pakistan. The rest it can get, more reliably and cheaply, from China.
Economically also, a West preoccupied with saving its own broken financial institutions is in no position to provide Pakistan with the magnitude of financial and development assistance it requires for economic stabilisation and rapid growth. Here again, it is China, which has the financial reserves to come to Pakistans rescue.
This is not to argue that terrorism and extremism do not pose a threat to Pakistan, to its socio-economic development and its strategic objectives. However, unlike the threat posed by India, the threat of terrorism and extremism is not existential.
Despite Western media prognostication, there is no possibility of an extremist or jihadi government assuming office in Islamabad. Neither the Pakistani electorate nor the Pakistan Army would accept this. Ending extremism and its terrorist tactics, in Pakistan and the region will require a comprehensive and painstaking process of police and intelligence action and cooperation as well as the elimination of the political and economic grievances which create the justification for terrorism.
In this context it should be noted that all four recent India-Pakistan crises January 1990, June 1999, January-December 2002 and this one were linked, directly or indirectly, to the Kashmir dispute. Unless this dispute is resolved, such periodic confrontations will continue to erupt. Such a solution must be one that is acceptable, first and foremost, to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
Finally, a comprehensive strategy against terrorism in South Asia must also seek to end state terrorism, state-sponsored terrorism and Islamic as well as Hindu extremist violence, including that perpetrated by Hindu fascist organisations like the RSS, against Muslims in India.
The writer is a former ambassador to the UN. The article is based on comments prepared for a discussion on the Mumbai attacks at the Asia Society in New York which could not be delivered because the organisers, at the last minute, excluded Ambassador Akram from the panel. The panel included the author Salman Rushdie and two Indian nationals
Posted by: john frum ||
12/29/2008 08:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It is, therefore, naïve for the West to believe that the Pakistan government will forcibly suppress the militant groups which support Kashmirs liberation struggle at least until Pakistans strategic differences with India, including Kashmir, are resolved.
Munir, whom the NYPD was unable to arrest for domestic violence because of his diplomatic immunity, admits that Kashmir is only one of many disputes to be settled in Pakistan's favor before it acts against the terrorist camps
Posted by: john frum ||
12/29/2008 8:20 Comments ||
Top||
#2
ANYTHING that happens to Pakistan would have to leave an improved situation behind it. I'm still partial to partition and disollution. If there were ever a state almost as bad as Hamass' Gaze, it's Pakistan.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
12/29/2008 20:50 Comments ||
Top||
#3
China's on the other side of the Himalayas, bub. You ain't.
A quarter century has passed since Israel last claimed to go to war in the name of peace. "Operation Peace for Galilee" -- Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon -- failed to convince the international public and even many Israelis that its goal was to promote reconciliation between Israel and the Arab world. In fact, the war had precisely the opposite results, preparing the way for Yasser Arafat's disastrous return to the West Bank and Gaza, and for Hezbollah's ultimate domination of Lebanon. And yet, Israel's current operation in Gaza is essential for creating the conditions that could eventually lead to a two-state solution.
Over the past two decades, a majority of Israelis have shifted from adamant opposition to Palestinian statehood to acknowledging the need for such a state. This transformation represented a historic victory for the Israeli left, which has long advocated Palestinian self-determination. The left's victory, though, remained largely theoretical: The right won the practical argument that no amount of concessions would grant international legitimacy to Israel's right to defend itself. That was the unavoidable lesson of the failure of the Oslo peace process, which ended in the fall of 2000 with Israel's acceptance of President Bill Clinton's proposal for near-total withdrawal from East Jerusalem and the territories. The Palestinians responded with five years of terror.
Yet much of the international community blamed Israel for the violence and repeatedly condemned its efforts at self-defense. The experience left a deep wound in the Israeli psyche. It intimidated Israeli leaders from taking security measures liable to be denounced by the United Nations and the European Union, or worse, result in sanctions against the Jewish state.
One consequence was an Israeli reluctance to respond to periodic Hezbollah provocations following Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000. This hesitancy allowed the Shiite terror organization to amass a rocket arsenal with the proclaimed intent of devastating Israel's population centers. Finally, when Hezbollah unleashed its weapons in July 2006, Israel was widely accused of responding disproportionately. It was pressured into prematurely ending its defensive operations in Lebanon, and compelled to accept an international "peacekeeping" force that has permitted Hezbollah to rearm far beyond its prewar levels.
Israelis are now asking themselves whether their Lebanon nightmare is about to repeat itself in Gaza. The parallels are indeed striking. As in Lebanon, Israel in 2005 unilaterally withdrew to its international border with Gaza and received, instead of security, a regime dedicated to its destruction. The thousands of rockets and mortar shells subsequently fired on Israeli neighborhoods represented more than a crude attempt to kill and terrorize civilians -- they were expressions of a genocidal intent. Israelis across the political spectrum agreed that the state had the right, indeed the duty, to protect its people. But one question remained: Would the international community consent?
That question grew urgent in the days before Dec. 19, when the tenuous cease-fire between Israel and Hamas expired. Nearly 300 missiles landed in Israel, paralyzing much of the southern part of the country. Yet Israeli leaders held their fire. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni flew to Cairo to implore Egyptian leaders to urge restraint on Hamas, and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told viewers of Al-Arabiyah Television that Israel had no interest in a military confrontation. If Israel was guilty of acting disproportionately, it was in its willingness to seek any means, even at the risk of its citizens' lives, to resolve the crisis diplomatically.
Yet the U.N. Security Council abstained from condemning Hamas and convened only after Israel resolved to act. The U.N.'s hypocrisy, together with growing media criticism of Israel, is reinforcing Israeli concerns that territorial concessions, whether unilateral or negotiated, will only compromise the country's security and curtail its ability to respond to attack. This fear is compounded when Israelis consider withdrawals from the West Bank, which is within easy rocket range of its major population and industrial centers.
Gaza is the test case. Much more is at stake than merely the military outcome of Israel's operation. The issue, rather, is Israel's ability to restore its deterrence power and uphold the principle that its citizens cannot be targeted with impunity. Without the assurance that they will be allowed to protect their homes and families following withdrawal, Israelis will rightly perceive a two-state solution as an existential threat. They will continue to share the left-wing vision of coexistence with a peaceful Palestinian neighbor in theory, but in reality will heed the right's warnings of Jewish powerlessness.
The Gaza crisis also has implications for Israeli-Syrian negotiations. Here, too, Israelis will be unwilling to cede strategically vital territories -- in this case on the Golan Heights -- in an international environment in which any attempt to defend themselves will be denounced as unjustified aggression. Syria's role in triggering the Gaza conflict only deepens Israeli mistrust. The Damascus office of Hamas, which operates under the aegis of the regime of Bashar al Assad, vetoed the efforts of Hamas leaders in Gaza to extend the cease-fire and insisted on escalating rocket attacks.
In the coming days, the Gaza conflict is likely to intensify with a possible incursion of Israeli ground forces. Israel must be allowed to conclude this operation with a decisive victory over Hamas; the untenable situation of intermittent rocket fire and widespread arms smuggling must not be allowed to resume. This is an opportunity to redress Israel's failure to humble Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006, and to deal a substantial setback to another jihadist proxy of Iran.
It may also be the last chance to reassure Israelis of the viability of a two-state solution. Given the unfortunate historical resonance, Israel should refrain from calling its current operation, "Peace for Southern Israel." But without Hamas's defeat, there can be no serious progress toward a treaty that both satisfies Palestinian aspirations and allays Israel's fears. At stake in Gaza is nothing less than the future of the peace process.
From January 1 until December 21, Hamas and its allies had launched exactly 1,250 rockets across the border between Gaza and Israel. Then the escalation really started: on Wednesday 70 projectile missiles landed in the Negev and its populated areas. On Thursday, more of the same. On Friday, two Palestinian girls, cousins of 5 and 12 years, were killed by a rocket that was launched in the Strip and landed in the Strip. But these unfortunates were not the targets of fire. It was just another day of blast offs into the Jewish state.
The government in Jerusalem had made it unmistakably clear that it would no longer tolerate this fire power aimed at innocent civilian life. It had been saying this for months to an increasingly skeptical and apprehensive, not to say, restive public. And to Hamas which didn't seem to care. Instead, it threatened Israel by word and follow-up deeds that confirmed the recklessness - as if confirmation was needed- of also this Palestinian "liberation" movement, the last in the long line of terrorist revolutionaries acting in the name of pathetic and blood-thirsty Palestine.
So at 11:30 on Saturday morning, according to both the Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz, as well as the New York Times, 50 fighter jets and attack helicopters demolished some 40 to 50 sites in just about three minutes, maybe five. Message: do not fuck with the Jews. At roughly noon, another 60 air-attack vehicles went after other Hamas strategic positions. Israeli intelligence reported 225 people dead, mostly Hamas military leaders with some functionaries, besides, and perhaps 400 wounded. The Palestinians announced 300 dead, probably as a reflex in order to begin their whining about disproportionate Israeli acts of war. And 600 wounded.
Frankly, I am up to my gullet with this reflex criticism of Israel as going beyond proportionality in its responses to war waged against its population with the undisguised intention of putting an end to the political expression of the Jewish nation. Within hours, Nicolas Sarkozy was already taking up the cudgel of French righteousness and pronouncing the actually quite sober Israeli response to the continuous war on its borders "disproportionate." Enough. What would be proportionate, oh, so so proportionate apparently, are those tried-and-true half measures to contain Hamas that have never worked. Remember that in 2005 Israel ceded Gaza to the Palestinians waiting and hoping that they would make something of a civil society of their territory, civil for their own and civil to their neighbors. It was not to be.
There is only small likelihood that Hamas has learned its lesson. These Sunni fanatics are still supported by the Shi'a fanatics in Iran. And they are also backed by the House of Saud which cannot be seen to be turning its back on Sunni piety. Gaza is the only place in the Middle East where Tehran and Riyadh are allied. In both Lebanon and Iraq, they are the bankrollers (and more than bankrollers) of hostile sectarian forces engaged in killing each other. Thus, Hamas has still some rope with which to play. Cash, after all, is a great deluder.
The current warfare will go on a bit longer. If there is a pause and if I were giving advice to the Israelis, this is what I would say to Hamas and to the people of Gaza: "If a rocket or missile is launched against us, if you take captive one of our soldiers (as you have held one for two and a half years), if you raise a new Intifada against us, there will be an immediate response. And it will be very disproportionate. Proportion does not work."
No sooner had I written these last words that Khaled Meshal, the Hamas leader exiled in Damascus (which also apparently pines to make peace with Israel), announced the beginning of the Third Intifada.
#2
Remember when the tiger at the San Francisco zoo had enough of the pestering and taunting by the intoxicated young men? Well one of those young men was attacked by the tiger and is now pushing up daisies and no one blames the tiger. Disproportionate Force.
#4
Disproportionate force would be 1000 Caterpillar D-11s lined up blade-to-blade along the NE border, & rolling SW, pushing all before them into Egypt. At full speed, ~2 hours, but some structures might need to be hit at less than full speed. Since I don't believe there ARE 1000 D-11s, I guess they'd have to substitute some D-9s and put some blades on their Merkavas.
#5
The US responded with "disproportionate force" to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor -- thank God. The way to stop aggression is to defeat it, not to give it time to inflict more harm.
The war in the Gaza Strip spilled over into Egypt Sunday when dozens of Gaza residents crossed the border only to encounter Egyptian gunfire aimed at driving them back. The ongoing closure of the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt has become a symbol of Cairo's policy, which critics charge is one of collaborating with Israel to impose economic sanctions on the Strip. Judging by Arab leaders' statements to the media, or the slogans shouted by demonstrators in several Arab capitals, one might have thought that Egypt, not Israel, was the one waging war on Gaza.
Hamas' demand that Egypt open Rafah to all Gazans, and not just to the wounded seeking treatment abroad, has been rejected in part because Egypt remains committed to an Israeli-Palestinian agreement from 2005 that governs the Gaza border crossings, even though it was never a signatory to the pact. But beyond this formal reason, Egypt wants to prevent thousands of Palestinians from once again crossing the border into its territory. This past January, when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians broke through the border fence, the Egyptian government suffered harsh criticism at home for allowing Egypt's sovereignty to be violated.
Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that Cairo will long be able to withstand the enormous pressure being generated by the Arab media and public.
Thus far, Hamas has not succeeded in generating an Arab diplomatic initiative that would lead to a renewed cease-fire on its terms. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which view Hamas as an Iranian ally whose goal is to increase Tehran's regional influence at their expense, prefer to wait a bit in the hopes that Israel's military operation will strip Hamas of its ability to dictate terms. And without those two states, the Arab League will have trouble even convening an emergency summit.
Granted, such a summit has limited practical value. But its absence indicates that Arab solidarity with the Palestinians is crumbling under Hamas' leadership.
Cairo is still furious with Hamas for having torpedoed Egyptian-sponsored reconciliation talks between Hamas and Fatah in November, while Saudi Arabia is wary of launching any new initiative after the much-touted reconciliation agreement it brokered between Hamas and Fatah in 2006 collapsed into bloodshed nine months later. As a result, Qatar is likely to step into the role of "honest broker" between Israel and Hamas. Qatar, one of only two Arab nations (along with Jordan) that contacted Israel directly to demand that it stop its operation in Gaza, currently carries diplomatic heft. This is partly because of its success in brokering an agreement between the warring factions in Lebanon this spring, but also because it manages to maintain good relations with everyone: both Israel and Iran, as well as Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Nevertheless, it will probably be premature to talk about mediation toward a cease-fire as long as Jerusalem believes it can force Hamas to sue for a truce on Israel's terms.
#2
Type 2... dietary changes are sufficient treatment in most cases, already. Type 1 (juvenile) diabetes is a deadly, chronic condition that requires a lifetime of insulin injections and constant blood-testing for survival. There's virtually no comparison between the two - while both conditions share a name, it's helpful to make note of the distinction.
#3
REDDIT/OTHER > ALZHEIMER's may be consequence of LOW GLUCOSE/SUGAR INFLOWS to the human brain. Although not a new theory or suppos [1970's -80's], I 've posted whether this infers that ALZHEIMER's including PARKINSONISM IS A FORM OF DIABETES SPECIFI TARGETING THE BRAIN FUNCTIONS???
Try not to piss on the rugs, okay, hippies?
Anti-Zionists, cranky over Israel's brazen smack down in the Gaza Strip, which left 220 people dead, will have a whisper-quiet protest over at DiFi's office later this afternoon at 5 p.m. Co-Sponsored by Direct Action to Stop the War; the Middle East Children's Alliance (awwwwww), Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism (oh Jesus, really?), and SF Women in Black (wait, what?). We didn't think much of this protest at first; another protest at Diane Feinstein's office where prog elitists can pretend to looked concerned, we sighed to ourselves. But it turns out you're supposed to "bring candles, posters, and banners; wear black." Wear black? We'll see you tonight at Market and Montgomery at five o'clock sharp. ...and don't forget the Big Giant Puppets...
The putative Caroline Kennedy candidacy for senator has had the odd effect of reopening the media can of worms treatment of Gov. Palin. Compared to Sarah Palin's almost immediate immersion into crowds and public speaking, Kennedy seems like a deer in the headlights before the media that is either ignored or asked to submit written questions. Palin was a natural; Kennedy can't finish a single sentence without "You know" or "I mean." Palin's family saga and daily grind were populist to the core; Kennedy is a creature of a few blocks' radius in Manhattan and Martha's Vineyard.
Outsider and lower-middle-class Palin toughed it out in Wasilla for years of politicking on a 16-year slog through Alaskan old-boy politics; Caroline Kennedy in regal fashion apparently skipped voting in about half of New York elections, and has never run for anything.
Reporters swarmed over Palin's pregnancies, and her wardrobe, but apparently took on face value that Caroline's fluff books were really a sign of either erudition or scholarship.
Conservative Palin endured liberal Charlie Gibson's glasses0on-the nose pretentiousness, and Katie Couric's attack-dog questions; insider Kennedy I doubt will meet with either, much less sit down with a hostile questioner like a Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly. Her friendly New York Times "interview" proved an embarrassmentrarely have so many words been spoken with so little content.
But, no, the real embarrassment proves to be the media itself that apparently can't see this weird unfolding self-incriminating morality tale: It is not just that Palin is conservative, Kennedy politically-correct (e.g., pro-abortion, gun control, gay marriage, etc), or Palin a newcomer to public attention, Kennedy a celebrity since childhood. Rather it is the aristocratic value system of most NY-DC journalists themselves who apparently still assume that old money, status, and an Ivy-League pedigree are reliable barometers of talent and sobriety, suggesting that the upper-East Side Kennedy's public ineptness is an aberration, a bad day, a minor distraction, while Palin's charisma and ease are superficial and a natural reflection of her Idaho sports journalism degree.
A few generations ago, Democrats would have opposed Palin but appreciated her blue-collar story, and applauded a working mom who out-politicked entrenched and richer male elites. But now the new aristocratic liberalism has adopted the values of the old silk-stocking Republicans of the 1950sand so zombie-like worship rather than question entitlement.
Posted by: Mike ||
12/29/2008 06:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Swwms they're not looking for capability, only fluff that can be spun into apparent brains,
REAL INTELLIGENCE NEED NOT APPLY.
Posted by: Rednek Jim ||
12/29/2008 9:03 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Sheesh, SEEMS, spell check dummy.
Posted by: Rednek Jim ||
12/29/2008 9:05 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Whenever I think of the NYT and liberal MSM et. al. I can't help but see one of those 16th or 17th century paintings of the Medici court with all their sycophants, poppinjays and hangers-on in their silly hats fawning over the nobility.
#4
What's hilarious is that the pampered Princess even managed to insult the two questioners from the Slimes. Almost an impossible task, but she did it. Add that to the resume, as it's looking a bit threadbare at this juncture.
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.
