LONDON, Sept 15 (Reuters) - Three suspected Muslim militants gunned down a Briton in the Saudi capital Riyadh on Wednesday, security sources and diplomats said. The British embassy confirmed his nationality but declined to give his name.
Here is a short chronology of attacks on Westerners in Saudi Arabia:
Nov. 13, 1995 - Five Americans and two Indians are killed and 60 people wounded in an explosion at a car park near a U.S.-run military training centre in Riyadh.
June 25, 1996 - A bomb in a fuel truck kills 19 American soldiers and wounds nearly 400 people at a U.S. military housing complex in the eastern city of Khobar.
Nov. 17, 2000 - British engineer Christopher Rodway is killed and his wife Jane injured by a car bomb in the capital.
Nov. 22, 2000 - Three British employees of a Saudi firm joint owned by U.S. aircraft giant Boeing, and one Irish woman are injured by a car bomb in Riyadh.
Dec. 15, 2000 - David Brown, a British employee of Coca Cola International, is badly burned by a bomb in Khobar.
March 15, 2001 - A Briton and an Egyptian are injured by an explosive device placed in a bin near a bookstore in Riyadh.
May 2, 2001 - A parcel bomb seriously wounds American doctor Gary Hatch at Saad Medical Centre in Khobar.
Oct. 6, 2001 - Two foreigners, including one American, are killed and four others wounded in Khobar.
June 20, 2002 - British banker Simon John Veness is killed by a car bomb in Riyadh.
Sept. 29, 2002 - A German man dies when what appears to be a bomb rips through his car in Riyadh.
Feb. 20, 2003 - A Briton working for defence contractor BAE Systems is shot dead in Riyadh.
May 12, 2003 - Suicide bombers attack housing compounds in Riyadh, killing 35 people. At least 200 are wounded.
Nov. 9, 2003 - Suspected al Qaeda suicide bombers blow up a Riyadh residential compound housing foreigners and Saudis, killing 18.
May 1, 2004 - Gunmen kill five Westerners and two police in a shooting spree in the oil centre Yanbu.
May 29, 2004 - Militants attack oil company and housing compounds in Khobar then flee to the city's Oasis housing compound, taking dozens of hostages. Seven Saudi security police are killed.
May 30, 2004 - Saudi commandos storm the Oasis compound and free 41 hostages. Twenty-two civilians are killed including an American, a Briton and an Italian. Three gunmen escape.
June 6, 2004 - Saudi gunmen kill Simon Cumbers, an Irish cameraman working for the BBC, and seriously wound his British colleague Frank Gardner in an Islamist militant area of Riyadh.
June 8 - An American working for U.S. company Vinnell, which helps train the Saudi National Guard, is shot dead in Riyadh.
June 12 - Kenneth Scroggs, a U.S. national, is shot dead in Riyadh in the suburb of Malazz. Al Qaeda claim responsibility.
June 18 - Paul Johnson, an employee of U.S. defence contractor Lockheed Martin, is beheaded after being kidnapped on June 12. He is the first Westerner to be kidnapped in Saudi Arabia.
Aug. 3 - An Irish civil engineer who worked for a Saudi firm is shot dead in his office in eastern Riyadh.
Sept. 15 - Three suspected Muslim militants gun down a Briton in the east of Riyadh near a shopping complex.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/15/2004 9:51:46 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
Attack on Iraqis by Islamic militants you mean. There are too many to list. It also includes attacks on innocent Indian and Pakistani people by Islamists. Please have the courage to use your name. We will not jump out of the screen at you.
Oh, Really? Reuters — The United States on Wednesday accused Saudi Arabia of severe violations of religious freedom in a rare official rebuke of a close ally and key oil supplier that potentially could lead to sanctions. "Freedom of religion does not exist" in Saudi Arabia, the State Department said in an annual report tracking religious freedom worldwide. It included the kingdom for the first time on a blacklist of eight countries "of particular concern."
"Freedom of religion is not recognized or protected under the country's laws and basic religious freedoms are denied to all but those who adhere to the state-sanctioned version of Sunni Islam," the report said. Wednesday's surprise designation allowed for a range of sanctions on Saudi Arabia, but there was no expectation any would be applied on the world's largest oil exporter.
"Rather, it's just our way of sending a clear signal to the Saudis that this is a serious issue for us, a problem, and that we want to talk to them about allowing tolerance of religious beliefs and other practices," said a State Department official, who asked not to be named. Vietnam and Eritrea were also added to the list this year, joining Burma, China, Cuba, Iran and North Korea. I am SHOCKED. Shocked, I say.
#1
"Rather, itâs just our way of sending a clear signal to the Saudis that this is a serious issue for us, a problem, and that we want to talk to them about allowing tolerance of religious beliefs and other practices," said a State Department official, who asked not to be named.
Seems to me it'd be MUCH clearer if this unnamed "official" wasn't unnamed.
#2
So "Freedom of religion is not recognized or protected under the countryâs laws and basic religious freedoms are denied to all but those who adhere to the state-sanctioned version of Sunni Islam"
Yet Israel is the "racist" state in the region. Maybe the churches and mosques in Israel aren't big enough?
A former GCHQ translator who leaked details of an alleged plot to bug UN delegates before the Iraq war is urging more whistle-blowers to speak out. Katharine Gun was sacked for revealing details of a memo, but a charge under the Official Secrets Act was dropped. She has now started a campaign to encourage people who spot government wrongdoing to voice their concerns. Her Truth-Telling Coalition, which already has about 15 members, will back whistle-blowers around the world. Not 'about thirteen'! Not 'about fourteen'! But about fifteen! That's about ten more than were in the Thunderbirds! We're gonna change the world!
The group is supported by the former US defence analyst Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers about US involvement in Vietnam. Ms Gun, from Cheltenham, attracted huge attention when she blew the whistle on what she believed was an American dirty tricks campaign to win UN backing for the war in Iraq. I'm assuming she missed the "What we spies do" brief during training. Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Bulldog ||
09/15/2004 10:36:49 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
In America the same treasonous 5th columnists clearly exist in the numerous, well healed, non-profit, so-called 'anti-war' groups, while others are also lurking as government employees .
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/15/2004 10:56 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Mark, Indeed there are probably persons with high clearances that long to disclose how/where/who/when we conduct intelligence operations. There are LLL idiots in every sector of society so chances are there are some that are âcleared for weirdâ. But they know the moment the open their mouth they will be arrested, tried, and sent away. Unlike our British cousins we know what to do with treasonous scum. Itâs a widely known fact that we (and ALL countries) spy on each other. We have a special relationship with the British because we share a common language, culture and itâs only normal that we would ask them to help us get information that they could get legally and we could not. Notice there was NEVER a word in Congress about making this practice illegal. That should tell you a lot about how we depend on this relationship. Ms. Moron should be deported to the Sudan where she can realize her dream and become the concubine slave of some Muslim soldier.
North Korea is looking for an extended delay in resuming negotiations over its nuclear weapons program and even told China there was no point in continuing the six-sided talks at all, a senior U.S. official says. The talks, which recessed in late June, had been expected to be resumed by the end of September. Hoping to persuade North Korea to halt its program, the Bush administration was willing to offer written assurance that it had no plans to attack, while Japan and South Korea were expected to lay out economic incentives they would offer. But North Korea has sought one-on-one talks with the United States and has decided to wait until at least after the Nov. 2 presidential elections to start talking again, the U.S. official said Tuesday.
Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry favors direct talks with North Korea about its nuclear program. President Bush has pursued six-party talks involving North Korea's nearest neighbors — China, South Korea, Japan and Russia — as well as the United States to confront North Korea with the aim of halting its development of nuclear weapons. China already has concluded that negotiations would not resume this month as planned, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The Bush administration is inclined to expect a delay until after the election.
#6
Logical, why should the NK's put up with "W", when they can simply wait him out in favor of Kerry. But realistically, if "W" wanted to confront this issue, he could do so now through January 20th, with Kerry being unable to 'rebottle the spilled milk'!!
EFL from Newsmax
Despite statements to the contrary, senior Clinton White House officials knew of serious cheating by the North Korean government shortly after it signed the Agreed (Nuclear) Framework in 1994. Clinton Secretary of Defense William Perry intentionally suppressed an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report submitted to its Board of Governors in late fall 1994 that raised serous questions about whether North Korea ever intended to abide by the Agreed Framework signed with the Clinton administration. In October 1994, the IAEA, under the U.S.-Korean agreement, sent a team to the North Korean nuclear center at Yongbyon to do a field survey. The team was led by Dimitri Perricos, a senior assistant to then IAEA Director-General Dr. Hans Blix.
The purpose of the Perricos visit was to begin the process of cataloging the equipment and materials at the site that were to be frozen under the agreement with the U.S. What Perricos found — or didn't find — raised serious concerns within weeks of the U.S.-Korean agreement. The White House was concerned about North Korea's construction of a massive, 50-megawatt nuclear reactor. Though Pyongyang insisted that the reactor was destined for "civilian" energy purposes, the CIA was convinced the reactor's main purpose was to build atomic bombs. Almost 10 times the size of the old Soviet-designed research reactor already in operation, the new reactor could produce enough bomb-grade material for 20 or more medium-size nuclear warheads a year, so said the CIA. Under the Agreed Framework, work was to be halted and the reactor eventually dismantled.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/15/2004 4:09:43 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
More charming tales from that classic "Holiday from History".
Posted by: V is for Victory ||
09/15/2004 9:31 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Didn't Al(notso)bright admit to this on Russert's MTP on Sunday? She said "No, but" when asked by Russert if this hadn't started on Clinton's watch. The rest of her answer was more supportive of an Yes than a No!
Posted by: Jack is Back ||
09/15/2004 14:28 Comments ||
Top||
This is an email advertisement for the online version of El Pais, Spain's main newspaper which belongs to the PRISA group, the pro-Socialist media organization that, together with its sister SER radio network, was behind the agit-prop campaign after the March 11 bombings. The ad shows before and after 9/11 pictures of the New York skyline with the byline "You can do a lot in a day, just think what you can do in three month."
How can a country that has men like Azanar harbor swine like this?
#4
Spain's largest print newspaper is El Pais. For years, this 434,000-circulation newspaper offered its content online for free and attempted to generate profits primarily through banner-advertising revenues. But the site bled red ink doing so, despite half a million unique monthly users. So, Mario Tascón, general director of content for Prisacom SA, the chain that publishes El Pais (and himself an online publishing veteran), ordered the site to switch to a totally paid-access business model last December.
Big enough that they can charge for on line usage. Not Air America by any stretch. More like the New York Times.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/15/2004 20:48 Comments ||
Top||
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 4, 2004--The New York Times announced today that it will launch its New York Times International Weekly in Germany's Suddeutsche Zeitung, Spain's EL PAIS and Italy's La Repubblica beginning this month.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/15/2004 20:54 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I definitely do not agree with the translation. My native language is Spanish. The translation should read: "A lot can happen in one day, Imagine what could happen in 3 months". And continues by saying if you subscribe to EL PAIS now, you get 3 months for free.
I know of few people whose native language was Spanish and are named Sheila Anyway Spanish is my other native language and "un dia da para mucho" is litterally "a day gives for much". "Gives for much" is for things like a good pair of shoes allowing you to walk for a zillion miles, well spent money allowing you to do a lot of things, a gas tank allowing you to travel very far and so on. In other words the translation of this guy (who happens to be Spanish) is correct. The translation of your trasnslation would be "Pueden pasar muchas cosas en un dÃia" not "Un dÃa da para mucho". Now where did you learn your native Spanish? At Mexico or at the DNC?
The German government said on Wednesday it would try to stop an "Arab Islamic Congress" taking place in Berlin next month to rally support for "resistance and intifada" in Iraq and Israel. "I will do everything I can to make sure that such a conference does not take place," Interior Minister Otto Schily told reporters. He said the government believed the event, announced on the Internet (http://www.anamoqawem.org/berlincall.htm) and planned for Oct. 1-3, was a threat to security and public order. Schily said he would coordinate with the foreign ministry to try to stop would-be participants entering the country. Organisers have confirmed their plans for the event but have not said where in Berlin they intend to hold it. On their Web site, they urge Iraqi and Palestinian resistance and advocate "the liberation of all the occupied territories and countries in (the) struggle against the American-Zionist hegemony and occupation". In a letter to Schily, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre described the planned meeting as "a political platform for radical Jihad and a market for potential European youth recruits to the ranks of terrorism". The centre -- an international Jewish human rights group best known for tracking down former Nazis -- urged the minister to stop the meeting, investigate its organisers and ban foreign participants from entering Germany.
#2
I agree. Germany has done a good part of shouldering and acknowledging their part in the holocaust. A good and cleansing thing for them and the world. To allow this putrid conference is backtracking, glad they see that.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/15/2004 18:11 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Sounds like a good reason for the Polezi to break out the batons and crack some islamists scum skulls.
Spanish lawmakers investigating the Madrid train bombings decided Wednesday that former Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar should testify about what his government did with intelligence warnings that the country could suffer a revenge attack for supporting the Iraq war. The 16-member panel decided unanimously to hear Aznar's testimony but did not set a date. Aznar was prime minister at the time of the March 11 attack, which killed 191 people and has been blamed on Islamic militants linked to al-Qaida. Aznar's conservative Popular Party has been accused of lying when it blamed Basque separatists for the train bombing even after evidence of an Islamic link emerged. Aznar has admitted calling editors of major news outlets the night of the attack to plug the Basque angle.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/15/2004 4:23:02 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Spain lost a good man in Jose Maria Aznar, to be replaced by a commie Mr. Bean look-a-like. Sad
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/15/2004 16:31 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Zapatero's known as Bambi in Spain. And that was coined by members of his own party. The idiot was nominated only because the party elders expected to be trounced by Aznar in the elctions.
#3
Bambi was Lance Alworth's nickname (of the SD Chargers AFL team in the 60's). This appeasement pussy doesn't deserve it. How about "Craven Pussy" - it fits better
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/15/2004 16:51 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Holy Moley! Lance Alworth! I believe he's working with that weapons inspector.... ummmmm what's that suckers name? They have (or had) similar interests. Or maybe it was a set up.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/15/2004 17:51 Comments ||
Top||
#7
crap - SD - should've remembered - had Hadl syndrome and Domres corrollary
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/15/2004 17:55 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I've got a LaDainian (best RB in the NFL) jersey in the throwback blues....get more comments on that...
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/15/2004 17:56 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Tensi was a failed draft choice Sid the Gillman made. Gillman had a direct line to Florida State before they were good.... Joe Gibbs and B. Bowden were assistant coaches at that point.
The oil companies get their men out of arms way early but let's hope the oilmen have totally moved northward or flown out to much higher ground, like Chicago or New York :)
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/15/2004 20:52 Comments ||
Top||
#14
ship: Sid was genius as was Coryell - SD has been blessed, even if the Hall is late to recognize
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/15/2004 21:15 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I am perpetually amazed that the Brits want to associate with people such as this. Italy seems to be the only part of Western Europe worth saving (well, maybe Denmark). At the rate Germany and France are going, maybe Poland will decide to realign its western border.
IMUS: I don't mind asking. I'll ask you anything. But the question is, give us a couple names of people who would help you get all these allies on board, somebody you might put in over at the Pentagon or at State. You don't have to name your whole cabinet, which you're not going to do anyway probably, but...
KERRY: Well, I'm not going to run through...
IMUS: Well, just give us one name.
KERRY: No, I was just going to say to you, I'm not going to start appointing people to positions, and I think that's completely irresponsible and not appropriate, but...
IMUS: Either give us a name or we won't vote for you.
KERRY: But there are people who are advising me and who are very respected in the community.
IMUS: Holbrooke?
KERRY: He is one who is advising me. I have Joe Biden is advising me. There are -- Madeleine Albright obviously you know.
IMUS: That's a mistake.
KERRY: There are a number of -- General McPeak, General Clark. There are a group of about 10 or 12 admirals and generals.
IMUS: OK.
KERRY: I mean, there's a very solid group of people waiting. You have people like Sam Nunn and George Mitchell, and really extraordinary group of capable people.
IMUS: Those are pretty good names.
KERRY: Beg your pardon?
IMUS: Those are pretty good names. Madeleine Albright is a huge mistake. I mean, come on.
KERRY: No, she gives advice. She gives good advice. And I think she gives good advice, frankly. And she has a very, very strong sense of that region and of other regions and would have made much smarter decisions than this group has.
...
Posted by: BigEd ||
09/15/2004 11:13:50 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Kills me that I missed this interview. But about Imus. The cowboy hat costume thingie. Unless he's paid to wear it, then he should bag it. One of my creeds to live by. Beware of people who wear costumes unless they are paid professionals. And of course never drink alcohol before 5pm, under normal circumstance!
Wonder if Imus' advise penetrated Li-il Lord Fountleroys' long forhead.
#3
Thatâs the trouble with the koolaid drinkers. They think that Albright was successful when she was outwitted by North Korea, Iraq, Serbia, PRC, Vietnam, Haiti, well you get the picture. Just think how great things will be when you put in McPeak and Clark as SecDef? Wow a cold chill when up my spine as I typed that!
#4
I heard parts of the interview. Imus kept trying to get sKerry to show some passion, but Lurch just kept falling back into his talking points and droning on about Bush's bad choices. Imus wants to be in the tank for Kerry, but after the interview, he and his studio dudes were discussing how uninspired he was. The phrase they used was "jump ugly"...ie, they want Kerry to directly challenge Bush, not try to undermine him. They seemed rather sad, actually...
#5
Sam Nunn? That surprises me a little. But then, is there anyone who ISN'T advising the Kerry Campaign? Seriously... I think this must be their 'job growth' idea: just hire everybody in sight for the campaign.
#6
Schizophrenia at work here. You can't simultaneously put forward reasonably hawkish old Dems like Holbrooke and pacifistic idiots like Jimmah and still expect to convince anyone of your seriousness.
#7
Imus, for all his idiosyncracies, has quite a bit of personal honor, and goes ballistic when he thinks he's being BS'd. Sorta like O'Reilly before he started to try to schmooze Kerry into an interview...
#10
Note to sKerry: You've probably been too busy to read the papers, but there's a good reason why Kimmie was so amused while Albright toasted him. He was picturing her nuked, with a morning-after glow. And she was clueless until "this group" took over. Yeah, recycle that mistake and we'll all be glowing.
P.S. -- Be sure to get Teddy to campaign for you as much as he can. Maybe Kimmie would like to put in another good word for you too.
Posted by: Tom ||
09/15/2004 16:03 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Lucky - Imus born/raised in TX (IIRC) has the Imus Ranch for kids with cancer in NM, a working ranch. He's earned the hat (and the gun he carries in his waist back holster) - and owns up to his coke-snorting hard-drinking error-filled ways. I like him
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/15/2004 16:10 Comments ||
Top||
#12
IMUS: Those are pretty good names. Madeleine Albright is a huge mistake. I mean, come on.
KERRY: No, she gives advice. She gives good advice. And I think she gives good advice, frankly. And she has a very, very strong sense of that region and of other regions and would have made much smarter decisions than this group has.
#13
You got that right, Johnny boy. Tell her I said hi.
Posted by: Kim Jong Il ||
09/15/2004 20:34 Comments ||
Top||
#14
..has the Imus Ranch for kids with cancer in NM, a working ranch.
Three years ago, I went from Los Angeles to Chicago on the Southwest Chief, and I believe the route through NM between Lamy and Las Vegas passes somewhere near that ranch....the conductor may have mentioned that little bit of minutia, but I can't quite remember..
The United States has sought clarification from Spain of remarks by Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero which suggested other countries should follow Madrid's example and pull out their troops from Iraq.
Actually changing sides, are we?
Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos said on Tuesday that Washington had requested a transcript of remarks Zapatero made last week during a trip to Tunisia, in the latest sign of strained ties between the NATO allies. Zapatero expressed concern over escalating violence in Iraq, defended his decision to withdraw Spain's troops and said prospects would improve if more allies followed suit. "They asked for clarification and requested the exact transcript of the text," Moratinos said in a television interview, referring to Washington's response to the remarks. "Once we had sent a transcript, then consequently both sides agreed to work together in the fight against terrorism and demonstrate our solidarity in this common struggle," he said.
Oh? Did the Spaniards back down? Or are we being polite?
The minister said Zapatero's remarks were in line with Madrid's calls for more active diplomacy to defuse international conflicts which inspire terrorism -- a top priority for Spain after train bombings by Islamic militants in Madrid killed 191 people in March. "What the prime minister wanted to suggest was that to resolve conflicts in general, and the situation in Iraq in particular, we need more politics and less military intervention," Moratinos said.
More talk and a lot less action, y'mean?
Zapatero, who won power three days after the March bombings, angered President Bush's government by immediately withdrawing troops from the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. Since then, the Socialist leader has repeatedly stressed his desire to refocus Spain's foreign policy toward Europe and away from the previous government's close alliance with Washington. He sealed a new alliance with Iraq war critics France and Germany with a tripartite meeting in Madrid on Monday. The three nations pledged to increase defense cooperation and push for closer European integration.
#3
Not only that but a friggin idiot. If US would pull out before situation is stable in Iraq, the violemce would jump 2 or 3 orders of magnitude in a very short time span.
#4
CF, no, all's vewy quiet regarding 2 amphibians. Methinks that some 'misunderstanding' happened in the jihadi group ranks, and the froggies became collaterals. Hence the stalling, contradictory signals about release and then jihadis finding another excuse.
#5
I suspect hope the next Sec State will be spending a lot of time developing bilateral treaties with New Europe to be in place in the event NATO dissolves.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/15/2004 18:47 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Z: We dropped a bomb on the safe house the journos were being held in. That's the source of the mixed messages.
Has jihad now become binding on every Muslim? If so, on what authority?
Qazi. Hafiz Saeed. Sami. Fazl. Liaquat Baloch. Masood Azhar. Probably six or seven hundred others. Holy men, every one of them. With turbans. And automatic weapons...
As a matter of fact, no prophet ever started Jihad (i.e. fighting with sword) until and unless he had set up and established an Islamic state. But we have still not been able to set up one.
But that's the whole objective, isn't it?
Suppose if Jihad has become incumbent, why is it so that we do not start it in Pakistan while the atrocities and persecution inflicted on the Muslims in Kashmir is a common scene in Pakistan also? Clarify it with sound arguments.
How about that atrocities and persecution inflicted on the Muslims in Pakland by Muslims?
If we cement only the outer parts of the building of Islam but utterly neglect its inner parts and they remain hollow, is it of any use? Please explain.
ANSWERS:
As long as Allah's Messenger (PTUI PBUH) was in Makkah, he was not allowed to fight against the disbelievers, though they (disbelievers) persecuted him and his followers. Then he migrated to Madina. But the disbelievers even then were not ready to abandon the chase and leave him alone. So, at last, Allah made it permissible for him to fight. Sanction is given unto those who fight because they have been wronged; and Allah is indeed able to give them victory. (Al-Hajj: 39)
If you look hard enough, you can always find some way you've been wronged, even if you have to stretch a little...
Then, a step forward, Allah made it binding on the Muslims to fight in His way. Warfare is ordained for you, though you dislike it. (Al-Baqarah: 216) And now for all times to come Allah has made it binding on the Muslims to continue their fighting against the disbelievers till the following objectives are achieved.
THE FIRST OBJECTIVE OF JIHAD: Elimination of Persecution
"Which means the elimation of the persecutors and their families..."
THE SECOND OBJECTIVE: Dominance of Islam
"You're not allowed to go to hell at your own speed. We'll tell you what your beliefs are."
THE THIRD OBJECTIVE: To Force the Disbelievers to Pay Jizya
"Because we're Moose limbs, members of the Master Religion, led by Arabs, members of the Master Race."
THE FOURTH OBJECTIVE: To Help the weak and the Oppressed
"As long as they're not blacks or Hindoos or Buddhists or anybody but us..."
THE FIFTH OBJECTIVE: To Seek Revenge for the Murder of a Muslim
"Dire Revenge is a central tenet of our religion!"
THE SIXTH OBJECTIVE: To Punish those who violate their oaths
"You're required to take the oaths, and you're punished if you violate them. How's that for Catch 22?"
THE SEVENTH OBJECTIVE: To Fight to Defend
"No matter what kind of atrocities we commit, we can never be held to account, 'cuz we got turbans!"
THE EIGHTH OBJECTIVE: To Recapture the Occupied Territory
"That means anyplace that's ever been Muslim's not allowed not to be Muslim. We want Andalusia back. We want all that space leading up to the gates of Vienna back. We want most of India back. We want Greenland back. We want Samoa back. We want Brazil back...
This goes on and on. Check out their website. I am amazed this is going on under the nose of Musharraf and he does not do any thing.
I'm not surprised in the least. His technique seems to be beating them up with one hand and cuddling with them with the other...
Posted by: Fawad ||
09/15/2004 12:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Why be amazed. He knows which side the bread is buttered on.
#2
It might be the best way to gather all the bad guys in one spot. Less ordinance wasted.
Posted by: Ben ||
09/15/2004 5:31 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Anyone supporting, funding, or active in any form of Islamic jihad must be viewed as a form of man made cancer attempting to infect the entire world.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/15/2004 6:18 Comments ||
Top||
#4
yak, yak, yak. Nobody but the cavemen are listening anymore.
restoration of peace through a process of dialogue - sadly - that's so pre-911. Now we speak softly and eliminate our enemies.
Indonesia's presidential candidates pledged to get tough on terrorism as official campaigning began for the country's first direct leadership polls -- a contest overshadowed by a deadly embassy attack. In a televised discussion on the first of three days' official campaigning for the September 20 polls, incumbent Megawati Sukarnoputri defended her government's record on tackling militants, promising to step up security. Speaking just days after her country was jolted by a fresh extremist attack, she tried to reassure voters that with her at the helm, Indonesia would remain a stable nation where a flourishing economy would alleviate widespread poverty.
Megawati's uneasy television appearance, in which she answered questions from a selected panel, marked a departure for the president, who has made a policy of avoiding public events where she is required to stray from a script. Her camp earlier this month refused a challenge to a televised debate from her former security minister Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who was clearly more at ease in front of the cameras during the discussion, offering jokes and asides as he laid out his policies. The discussion is likely to be the most high profile event during the pre-poll campaigning which got off to a slow start on a day dominated by a series of bomb hoaxes at public buildings across the country.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
09/15/2004 1:48:46 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They have the largest Muslim population inthe world. Routine attacks on Christian and Hindi minorities. Over 6000 islands, atolls and other less glamorous hunks of rocks (half of which are unpopulated). Obviously, they have a well entrenched group of Islamicfascists (JI) running around loose.
Yeah sure, they'll be effective against the terrorists. They've done such a good job so far.
Posted by: Douglas De Bono ||
09/15/2004 9:19 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Thanks for the post, Dan.
Not many understand island politics. As cingold has pointed out previously, Indonesian âIslamâ is greatly overshadowed (and I think eclipsed) by âisland traditionsâ having to do with their culture and the influence of animism and Hinduism. The Indonesian population doesnât like the Arab-oriented moslems--considering their superior attitudes, their personal arrogance, and their violent aims something to be avoided.
"Indonesiaâs presidential candidates pledged to get tough on terrorism as official campaigning began for the countryâs first direct leadership polls . . ."
Indonesia is a fledgling democracy, and despite the fact that they are populated by Moslems, the fact that ex-general and former security minister, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (who is campaigning on an antiterrorism platform) is leading the polls is quite significant.
Also, the fact that âboth candidates also covered the key issues of economic growth and alleviating poverty and broached the thorny subject of corruption, a major disincentive to vital foreign investment in Indonesiaâ is also significant. The Indonesians want to be on our side, and we should want them on our side, if we're smart.
Iâm pretty confident the Indonesians will give the terrorists the boot. It wonât be easy finding all of them, but they will. And it wonât be pretty. Itâs an island thing.
The cleric accused of leading the Jemaah Islamiah (JI) group said the Australian Government should pull the nation's troops out of Iraq. Abu Bakar Bashir, who condemned the suicide bomb attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta, described the invasion of Iraq as a mistake. In an interview on the SBS program Insight, Bashir also said Australia should not fight Islam. "John Howard is in deep trouble," he said. "He's connected to George Bush. I think America's invasion of Iraq is a mistake. If Australia defends America that is also a mistake. That's my opinion. So it would be better if Australian troops pulled out."
Bashir warned Australia not to follow the US in fighting against Islam. "Don't say you are fighting terrorists when you are really fighting Islam," he said. "We can see they are forcibly detaining Muslim activists because the police are paid by Australia and America."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
09/15/2004 1:25:07 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Abu Bashir needs to catch a slug d@mn soon. As usual, he denies any involvement in terrorism but does not hesitate to make veiled threats. This maggot needs to take the dirt nap but fast. Abu Bashir is a picture perfect example of why the war on terrorism will probably become a war on Islam.
#2
"I think America's invasion of Iraq is a mistake. If Australia defends America that is also a mistake. That's my opinion. So it would be better if Australian troops pulled out."
Compared to "Wrong war, Wrong place, Wrong time" -- notice the sameness?
Posted by: Capt America ||
09/15/2004 3:23 Comments ||
Top||
Cinemagoers in the Iranian capital were given their first glimpse of 'Fahrenheit 9/11' this week, but appeared to enjoy more the rare chance to watch an American movie than its assault on their regime's arch foe George W. Bush.
Michael Moore's Bush-bashing polemic may have cruised through Iran's unforgiving censors thanks to its indictment of US policy, but the premiere of the film also had the side effect of making some viewers relate the same questioning to their own state of affairs.
"The authorities obviously gave the film the green light for political reasons, in that anything against the United States must be good," quipped one of the hundreds of mainly young people who flocked to Tuesday night's opening screening.
The prize-winning documentary has been allowed out on release here to coincide with the third anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States -- which kicked off a chain of events that has seen Iran surrounded by US troops and lumped into an "axis of evil".
"They are showing this film to erase from our minds the idea that America is the great saviour," said Hirad Harandian, another cinemagoer at the uptown Farhang cinema.
The hall is one of only two cinemas in the country to be screening 'Fahrenheit 9/11'.
On Tuesday night the film was sold out and the theatre packed with close to 380 people, most of them young. Many admitted they were just out to watch an American film, and not that one in particular.
"I love to see foreign films on the big screen, and I never miss Farhang cinema shows no matter what is on," said Sima Gharavi, a 24-year-old dressed in a short bright blue coat rather than the more conservative all-black attire.
But she hastened to complain that "out of all the films people would love to see, the authorities had to go for this one -- just because this film is in line with the view of the Islamic regime."
And despite sporadic laughs here and there, most of Moore's sardonic humour appeared to fall flat. The end of the film was also greeted with some half-hearted clapping.
"The problem is the subtitles," said Sogol Zand, an English teacher. "The jokes are not as funny."
Others, obviously out for a rare taste of Hollywood entertainment, disagreed.
"It was just too political. I was bored from the middle, and I wished we had gone to see "Kill Bill" instead," said one young man, referring to the trendy Quentin Tarantino flick also being shown.
But those of the older generation appeared to relate well to the film, which succeeded in sparking some vigorous after-show chatter.
"I saw it as an Iranian who has also lived in America," said Kourosh Amini, a man in his 50s.
"It perfectly depicted the realities of American life, and they have to learn what war really looks like."
And even though his twenty-something son quipped in to say he was "disappointed" by the film and asserted "politics is not as important" for Iran's younger generation, he did envy Moore's position.
"It sure is a great country, where someone like Moore trashes the president and gets away with it -- and makes so much money!" he laughed.
Another woman said she was impressed with the scene where Moore chases US congressmen to ask them if they would send their children to Iraq (news - web sites).
"How many top officials here sent their offspring to fight in the Iran-Iraq war?" asked the woman, one of several who directed their frustrations at Iranian authorities -- and not President Bush
The first benefit will be for our troops serving in Iranian infested Iraq. No massive amounts of OPEC Iranian oil profits to bankroll Shi'ite agents of terrorism the world will become a safer place once the other principal financial backer is also removed, the Wahhabi cult state of Saudi Arabia.
Let us hope both source of heavy funding for the two branches of Islamic fanatics will be swiftly dealt with right after Bush secures a second term.
---------------------------------------------------------------
9-15-04
TEHRAN (MNA) -- Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh said Iran deserves "logical" right to take up the post of the upcoming OPEC'S secretary general.
Zanganeh who was speaking on the sidelines of the 132nd Ministerial Session of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) on Tuesday in Vienna told the Mehr News Agency correspondent that negotiations between the Islamic Republic of Iran's delegation and all the influential groups in OPEC had started before commencement of the session.
Encircled by foreign journalists, Zanganeh declined to make any comment on Iran's reaction if a non-Iranian national were elected as the organization's secretary general however, he added, "In that case, Iran's reaction would be appropriate and effective".
OPEC ministers on Wednesday agreed increasing oil production by 1 million barrels a day later this year.
OPEC decided Wednesday to increase its official output by one million barrels per day from November 1, Iranian oil minister and his Algerian counterpart Chakib Khelil said here.
"We have decided to raise the quota by one million barrels per day from November 1," Khelil said at the close of the cartel's ministerial meeting here.
Zangeneh told AFP the increase to 27 million barrels per day was meant as a signal to the oil market that the cartel plans to maintain its current output.
"OPEC is producing two million (barrels) over the official ceiling. Now we have legitimized half of it," he said.
The minister added that the cartel believed the market was well-supplied and the quota was largely a sign of goodwill towards petroleum consumers. "I think it is a signal for the market, not more, probably we will witness no change in the total output. We believe there is not any shortage in the market but we wanted to prove this issue that we want to satisfy the consumers and consumer countries." Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Ali al-Nuaimi told reporters the quota hike was decided upon "to narrow the gap between the real production of 28 (million barrels per day). Instead of being at 26 we will be at 27."
OPEC has for the past two months been exceeding its quota in response to record prices driven by terror fears and rising demand in China. According to market sources, the 10 OPEC members in the quota system have since August already been pumping at least two million barrels per day above the current ceiling
Asked why the cartel did not choose to raise the ceiling to 28 million barrels per day, Nuaimi said the new figure was chosen to enable consensus between member states.
"It does not make any difference really," he said.
Nuaimi said the new quota would only come into effect in November as producers had already allocated their output for October.
OPEC president Purnomo Yusgiantoro told reporters the cartel hoped the quota increase would bring down the price of the OPEC basket of seven crude oils to around 30 dollars from current levels of about 38 dollars.
"The signal we would like to give out is to drop the price because the price we see today is too high," he told reporters.
The correct price for the basket would be "30-something," Yusgiantoro said.
OPEC also decided Wednesday to keep its price band steady at 22 to 28 dollars per barrel, according to Saudi Arabia's Nuaimi.
But Zangeneh said the 11-member cartel was likely to take another look at the matter at its next meeting, which will take place in Cairo on December 6.
He said the members were expecting feed-back from a panel of experts who have been studying changing the band, which has been at 22 to 28 dollars since it was created in March 2000.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/15/2004 4:10:25 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Israeli PM plays down prospect of pre-emptive strike on arch-foe Iran's nuclear facilities.
JERUSALEM: 9-15-04 - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Iran and its nuclear ambitions represent "a very great danger" to the Jewish state but played down the prospect of a pre-emptive strike on its atomic facilities.
"Iran constitutes a very great danger, due to its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and means of launching them," Sharon said in an interview with the Yediot Aharonot daily published Wednesday.
"This is a country where the moderates speak in terms of destroying Israel and the Jewish people, and in fact engage in terror."
Tehran insists its nuclear programme, currently being scrutinised by the UN nuclear watchdog, is strictly limited to meeting energy needs.
But the head of Israel's military intelligence, General Aharon Zeevi, claimed earlier this week that Tehran could be in a position next year to develop nuclear weapons without outside help.
Asked if that meant Israel needed to carry out a pre-emptive strike against Iran, similar to the one launched against Iraq's French-built Osirak reactor in 1981, Sharon said that times had changed and instead called for the threat posed by Iran to be addressed by the United Nations.
"Menahem Begin (the Israeli prime minister at the time of the Osirak bombing) made a very brave decision," Sharon said. "I had great influence on that decision.
"In the meantime, things have changed. Israel is not leading the campaign against Iran's nuclear armament.
"What Israel needs are protective means and deterrent ability. The world must put heavy pressure on Iran, economic and diplomatic pressure. We have not yet reached the point of no return. We must bring this matter to the UN Security Council."
Israeli deputy chief of staff General Dan Halutz also called for more international pressure to be exerted on Iran but said a time could come when Israel had to take matters into its own hands.
"We will rely on other parties for the moment but only up to a point when we will have to rely only on ourselves," Halutz told the paper.
Sharon's government has come to regard Iran as its greatest enemy since the downfall of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq last year.
Israel itself refuses to confirm it has a nuclear arsenal but is estimated to possess some 200 warheads. Unlike Iran, it is not subject to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency as it has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/15/2004 7:23:44 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#5
Hello, UFOOL. I'm still here. A name change. How slick. How did we ever catch on? You can try to run, but you can't hide. No one should know that better then you, right?
Posted by: The Mossad ||
09/15/2004 10:38 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Boris, why can't you use your real name? Are you ashamed of being Serb? Do the girls laugh at you because you live in Simi Valley? Is your drooling subnormality such a turn-off that you think you ought not be identified?
#7
The Jew haters & rabid anti-Americans hide behind "Anonymous".
If they are asked would they be in favour of a nuclear Iran attacking Israel, or the U.S. of course the answer will always be 'YES', but only behind the coward's mask of "Anonymous".
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/15/2004 10:48 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Sharon: "We are not planning any attacks, therefore Iran needs no antiaircraft alerts or hiding of facilities. We will be sure to notify you when we are ready to attack, thanks, bye now"
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/15/2004 10:56 Comments ||
Top||
#10
A pre-emptive attack is not in the cards. If Israel could have taken out Iran's nuclear facilities they would have done so long ago. We've long known of Iran's intentions, and Israel has means motive and opportunity to carry out the strike. The only logical conclusion is that such a strike is not feasible or practical.
#11
Logic is a matter of perspective. Iran should be very afraid - they are betting on a weak response from the Israeli government. Israel has the means and the will to defend itself if the US can not mediate.
Israel will do what they must to survive - that is the only logic that matters. This matter has not reached its conclusion.
WASHINGTON, Sept 14 (Reuters) - Iran could acquire a nuclear bomb in the next one to four years and would become more willing to aid terrorist groups once it has an atomic capability, according to a U.S. study released on Tuesday.
The study by the Non-proliferation Policy Education Center, which was partly funded by the Pentagon, said U.S. talks with Iran on the nuclear issue -- which the Bush administration opposes -- would be "self-defeating."
Instead it proposed steps like pressing Israel to freeze its own atomic capability, raise the cost of Iran going nuclear and dissuade other countries from following Tehran.
"Iran is now no more than 12 to 48 months from acquiring a nuclear bomb, lacks for nothing technologically or materially to produce it and seems dead set on securing the option to do so," said the thinktank's study, headed by Henry Sokolski.
"As for the most popular policy options -- to bomb or bribe Iran -- only a handful of analysts and officials are willing to admit publicly how self-defeating these courses of action might be," it added.
The study addresses a thorny problem confronting the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog.
Washington accuses Iran of pursuing a nuclear bomb, while Tehran insists it is developing a peaceful energy program.
After two years of investigation, the IAEA, cannot rule out a secret Iran bomb plan but has no concrete proof, its director general, Mohammed ElBaradei, said on Tuesday.
During talks in Vienna this week, Washington urged the IAEA to ratchet up the pressure on Iran by referring the nuclear issue to the U.N. Security Council.
Secretary of State Colin Powell ruled out direct talks with Tehran, saying in an interview with Reuters "we just don't want to make it a U.S. and Iran issue."
As for when Iran might acquire a bomb, Powell said: "I don't think they are days or months away from such a development," suggesting there is still time for diplomacy to work.
The report, based on research papers and meetings with experts on Iran, the Middle East and non-proliferation, said if Iran gets the bomb it would pose a heightened threat in three key areas.
Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Turkey and Algeria might move to develop their own nuclear options.
Oil prices would increase dramatically, forced upward by Iranian threats to freedom of the seas.
And "with a nuclear weapons option acting as a deterrent to U.S. and allied actions against it, Iran would likely lend greater support to terrorists operating against Israel, Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Europe and the U.S.," the study said.
Because eliminating Iran's nuclear option "may no longer be possible," Washington and its allies must take other steps to curb Tehran once it got the bomb, the study said.
These include persuading Israel to initiate a nuclear restraint effort that would close down its Dimona reactor and isolate Iran as a regional producer of fissile materials.
It is also recommended that the U.S. offer Russia some sort of compensation for ending its nuclear cooperation with Iran.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/15/2004 6:34:56 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
eliminating Iranâs nuclear option "may no longer be possible," Washington and its allies must take other steps to curb Tehran once it got the bomb, the study said
I don't know how much weight the Non-proliferation Policy Education Center carries, but they are full of shit in my professional opinion.
That is very distressing to read written by a bunch of knuckleheads apparently. Last I heard both the US and Israel said they wouldn't tolerate a nuclear Iran.
#2
Cut the funding on that worthless think tank. Israel has issues -- like self-preservation. The IAEA is worthless -- take North Korea for example. Powell is just doin' the Foggy Bottom dance -- it's his job, poor guy. This is a good time for Putin to come to the ranch and be told that his "compensation" will be getting his technicians out alive.
Posted by: Tom ||
09/15/2004 8:59 Comments ||
Top||
#3
tinfoilhadtmode==on
One thought I've had repeatedly is that we're waiting for Iran to declare themselves a Nuclear Armed State, then we invade and crush them militarilary. Conventional defeat by the U.S. of a middling-large nuclear armed state. Think about it. (evil grin) Imagine the panicHysteriacold sweatfilled diapers reaction of other nuclear and wanna-be nuclear armed states. All the money and effort, and yet there is still no protection from the evil bushhitler chaney haliburton conspiracy! Bwahahaha.
tinfoilhadtmode==off
Posted by: N guard ||
09/15/2004 9:19 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I fear that neither the US nor Israel will use a military option against Iran, and am pretty certain that is the way things are heading. The result will be that Iran will develop a nuke. It will then become the HQ for international Islamic terrorism for many years to come (if it isn't already), and will become increasingly bellicose towards its Arab neighbors. I suspect that the US finds the idea of deterrence and containment more attractive than war ("sufficient unto the day are the evils thereof"). The idea would be that Iran would be told that a nuke detonating in either the US or Israel would trigger an automatic nuclear strike against Iran. On the other hand, I don't see how a policy of deterrence would do anything to restrain Iran's support for terrorism.
Posted by: V is for Victory ||
09/15/2004 9:19 Comments ||
Top||
#5
V, Are you assuming a Kerry victory in November?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/15/2004 9:29 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"It will then become the HQ for international Islamic terrorism..."
V, where have you been? Remember the Americam Embassy hostages, remember Lebanon, remember the ship full of arms for the PA...? We could nuke them for the events of the last 25 years alone.
Posted by: Tom ||
09/15/2004 9:36 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Mrs Davis, no, and I'm not advocating the passive approach either. I'm just reporting the vibes I'm getting living in DC, with relatives and friends in the govt and military grapevines. I would really like Dan Darling to comment on this, since he spent time at AEI with Michael Ledeen.
Tom: Yes, I did qualify my statement, "if it isn't already". I meant that they will become even more bold than they are now, and more terrorists will choose to operate from there.
Posted by: V is for Victory ||
09/15/2004 10:04 Comments ||
Top||
#8
V, sorry to hear that, especially the military part.
I suspect attitudes may change in proportion to the magnitude of W's victory.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/15/2004 10:12 Comments ||
Top||
#9
US study says a nuclear Iran would aid more terror
All the more reason to crush their capabilities at the first available opportunity.
#10
A 7th century Khomeni Islamic mindset........ with nukes, tell me this is not a living nightmare which must not be allowed to manifest...ever.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/15/2004 11:05 Comments ||
Top||
#11
A war vs Iran will not happen, even after Bush's re-election.
First, our installations abroad have already been attacked, multiple times, by Iran and its proxies, and we did zip. Reagan did zip, Bush 41 did zip, Clinton did zip.
Second, we're having enough trouble subduing a neighboring country that's barely a third of Iran's size and that was prior to our invasion far, far weaker.
Third, the Iranian people are already clamoring for regime change and are pro-US. Attack their country and of course they'll immediately become as violently anti-US as any ba'athist. If you don't believe this, talk to some Iranian-americans.
Fourth, as I understand it the Iranian facilities are far more dispersed and concealed than the Osirak facilities were. If they were an easy target, it's reasonable to expect that Israel would have destroyed them by now-- we've long known of the Iranians' intentions, and the Israelis have long had the means motive and the opportunity to take them out. It's logical to conclude that the only reason that this has not occurred is that it's not practical.
Bottom line: I will happily wager any sum to any poster here that the US will not take pre-emptive military action against Iraq post-November, regardless who wins the election.
#12
Reason number (3) is a big factor, and I think is the reason that Michael Ledeen does not advocate the military option, even though he does advocate regime change. (IMHO, regime change via fomenting internal revolution, which is Ledeen's approach, will not work.)
Posted by: V is for Victory ||
09/15/2004 12:38 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I don't think we should assume that any post-mullah regime would not pursue its own nukes program out of sheer nationalist pride.
All the more reason to have a long-term containment strategy that relies on crucial powers in Iran's backyard. Russian and Indian support are key here.
#14
No mullahs, no nukes. I don't care which, but one or the other. I don't trust the turbans not to use the bomb if they get it. And if they stay, it's just a matter of time.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/15/2004 14:00 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Nobody's suggenting another ground war.
We are to fear the Iranian people if we strike? The Iranian people can't even topple their own leadership at will. You think they're going to rise up and topple "The Great Satan" just because "The Great Satan" denies nukes to that leadership?
Why should Israel strike now? Why not let Iran sink lots of money and resources into the project and then strike? Besides, it will be clearer then that it was necessary. Sort of like Bush playing the hopeless U.N. game before attacking Iraq.
Posted by: Tom ||
09/15/2004 14:25 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Should Iran be allowed to construct even one nuclear bomb such a decision will, quite possibly, go down in history as the single worst military blunder of the entire 21st century.
However much I disagree with Tom's advocacy of using the nuclear option against Iran, I would sooner see Iran attacked with atomic weapons than to have it become a nuclear power. How anyone can think that Iran would not immediately go about distributing nuclear devices to proxies who plan terrorist attacks upon America is beyond comprehension.
By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent Tue Sep 14, 2004 07:39 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran could acquire a nuclear bomb in the next one to four years and would become more willing to aid terrorist groups once it has an atomic capability, according to a U.S. study released on Tuesday. The study by the Non-proliferation Policy Education Center, which was partly funded by the Pentagon, said U.S. talks with Iran on the nuclear issue -- which the Bush administration opposes -- would be "self-defeating." Instead it proposed steps like pressing Israel to freeze its own atomic capability, raise the cost of Iran going nuclear and dissuade other countries from following Tehran.
"Iran is now no more than 12 to 48 months from acquiring a nuclear bomb, lacks for nothing technologically or materially to produce it and seems dead set on securing the option to do so," said the thinktank's study, headed by Henry Sokolski. "As for the most popular policy options -- to bomb or bribe Iran -- only a handful of analysts and officials are willing to admit publicly how self-defeating these courses of action might be," it added. Just wait and see how "self-defeating these courses of action might be" once Iran has nuclear weapons. Dolts!
Oh, but enough about John Edwards!
The study addresses a thorny problem confronting the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog. Washington accuses Iran of pursuing a nuclear bomb, while Tehran insists it is developing a peaceful energy program since as everyone knows it's about to run out of oil. After two years of investigation, the IAEA, cannot rule out a secret Iran bomb plan but has no concrete proof, its village idiot director general, Mohammed ElBaradei, said on Tuesday. During a twelve course haute cuisine dinner with vintage French wines before talks in Vienna this week, Washington urged the IAEA to ratchet up the pressure on Iran by referring the nuclear issue to the U.N. Security Council.
Secretary of State Colin Powell ruled out direct talks with Tehran, saying in an interview with Reuters "we just don't want to make it a U.S. and Iran issue." As for when Iran might acquire a bomb, Powell said: "I don't think they are days or months away from such a development," suggesting there is still time for diplomacy to fail utterly work. The report, based on research papers and meetings with experts on Iran, the Middle East and non-proliferation, said if Iran gets the bomb it would pose a heightened threat in three key areas. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Turkey and Algeria might move to purchase develop their own nuclear options.
Oil prices would increase dramatically, forced upward by Iranian threats to freedom of the seas. And "with a nuclear weapons option acting as a deterrent to U.S. and allied actions against it, Iran would likely lend greater support to terrorists operating against Israel, Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Europe and the U.S.," the study said. Yet these dire possibilities still do not provide the least motivation to impose any threat of military action. Morons!
Y'urp-peons are hoping they'll be nuked last.
Because eliminating Iran's nuclear option "may no longer be possible," Washington and its allies must take other steps to curb Tehran once it got the bomb, the study said. These include persuading Israel to initiate a nuclear restraint effort that would close down its Dimona reactor and isolate Iran as a regional producer of fissile materials. I say, brilliant Holmes. How do you do it?
Yeah, let's force the threatened party to disarm, that'll stop the bully. Classic PC enabling behavior.
It is also recommended that the U.S. offer Russia some sort of compensation for ending its nuclear cooperation with Iran. If Russia cannot disengage with Iran, they deserve every new atrocity coming their way. I pity the children who will bear the brunt of it.
You'd think Vlad would be thinking about the consequences of his actions, wouldn't you.
Posted by: Zenster ||
09/15/2004 12:55:54 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"we just donât want to make it a U.S. and Iran issue. -- RealPolik for, "we just don't want to make it a U.S. and Iran issue, until after November 3, when we start kicking some serious tail"
Posted by: Capt America ||
09/15/2004 3:19 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Because eliminating Iranâs nuclear option "may no longer be possible,"
Really? I imagine that two or three hundred well placed nuclear weapons from the US strategic arsenal would end Iran's nuclear abilities for at least a century or three.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
09/15/2004 23:25 Comments ||
Top||
By Louis Charbonneau Tue Sep 14, 2004 12:31 PM ET VIENNA (Reuters) - It is unclear if Iran's nuclear ambitions are entirely peaceful, but there is still no firm evidence that Tehran is secretly developing atomic weapons as Washington asserts, the U.N. nuclear lapdog watchdog said Tuesday. The only perfectly clear thing in this whole matter is that el Baradei is a useless sack of sh!t.
"Have we seen any proof of a weapons program? Have we seen undeclared (uranium) enrichment? ... Obviously until today there is none of that," International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters before entering a goat for some quick relief prior to a closed-door session of the IAEA board of governors. "But are we in a position to say that everything is peaceful? Obviously we are not at this stage," he said, summing up a two-year IAEA investigation of Tehran's atomic program.
And remember, death is not an opion: is ElBaradei the new Hans Blix, or was Hans Blix the new ElBaradei? Discuss.
Although ElBaradei's inspectors have uncovered many potentially arms-related activities in Iran, it has found no "smoking gun" to back U.S. charges of a covert bomb program. One of the main items on the board's agenda this week is a resolution drafted by Germany, France and Britain calling for the IAEA to make a "definitive determination" in November on Iran's nuclear program. U.S. negotiators have also proposed issuing an ultimatum to Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program, open up all facilities to U.N. inspectors and answer all outstanding questions about its nuclear activities by Oct. 31. Washington hopes this "trigger mechanism" will set the stage for a U.N. Security Council report in November and possible economic sanctions. The Russians and the European trio oppose issuing an ultimatum, diplomats say. F&%k you Thank you very much, RasPutin.
Russia has also proposed amending the European proposal to call on the IAEA to make a "judgment" rather than a "definitive determination" about Iran's nuclear program, according to a revised draft obtained by Reuters. Diplomats said this milder wording would undermine the U.S. push to have Iran hauled before the U.N. Security Council in November.
NO NOVEMBER GUARANTEE
ElBaradei said there was no guarantee he would be able to complete his investigation ever by November, implying that the demand for a "definitive determination" by then might be premature. "There is no artificial deadline whereby I can say that in November ... everything will be completed," he said. Iran's chief delegate to the IAEA meeting, Hossein Mousavian, told Reuters that Tehran wanted to nuke Israel tomorrow and then bring the standoff to a head in November and was confident Iran would be cleared of the U.S. charges. Iran has been negotiating with France, Britain and Germany since October 2003, when Tehran promised to suspend its uranium enrichment program in exchange for their promise to commit suicide a wide range of carrots, including non-military nuclear and other technology and a guarantee that it could keep a peaceful atomic program.
ElBaradei also said that a South African investigation into a ring of suspected nuclear black marketeers might shed light on Iran's nuclear programs. Last week, South Africa announced several arrests in connection with an investigation of Germans and South Africans believed to be involved in a Pakistani-run black market that supplied nuclear technology to Libya, Iran and North Korea. South Africa linked the arrests only to Libya's nuclear weapons program, which Tripoli agreed in December to dismantle. "I think we're getting a good deal of information from South Africa," ElBaradei said. "There's a lot of information that could have an impact on both our understanding of the Iranian program and the Libyan program," he told reporters. Once again, el Baradei is unable to find his @ss in a Turkish prison with both hands, a flashlight and a roadmap.
Posted by: Zenster ||
09/15/2004 12:47:16 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Three blind mice (Annon, Blix, and ElBaradei).
Posted by: Capt America ||
09/15/2004 3:06 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"ElBaradei said there was no guarantee he would be able to complete his investigation ever by November... "
Watching this is like viewing a rerun. Glad to know that ElBaradei is available if we wish to rehire him to continue this mess.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/15/2004 4:17 Comments ||
Top||
THE 2 MAJOR SUSPECTS INDICTED IN TURKEY FOR THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN THE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE 2 JEWISH SYNAGOGUES AND THE HSBC BANK IN ISTANBUL ADMITTED IN COURT THAT THEY ARE MEMBERS OF AL QA'IDA AND THAT THEY GOT $150,000 FOR THE ATTACKS FROM A SYRIAN MEMBER OF AL QAEDA. THE SYRIAN ACTIVIST ARRANGED FOR THE MONEY, AND 50K CAME FROM EUROPE AND 100K CAME FROM IRAN. THE SUSPECTS ARE: ADNAN ARSUZ AND HARUN ILHAN. THE ACCOMPLICES ARE: YOUSEF BULAT (RENTED CAR FOR THE BANK BOMBING) AND HABIB IKTAS (FLED TO IRAQ AND WAS INVOLVED IN TURKISH WORKER KIDNAPPING IN THE LAST YEAR). (AL-SHARQ AL-AWSAT, LONDON, 9/15/04)
This is one of the better primers on Zarqawi that I've seen, especially since when I was in DC Schanzer was regarded as one of the few people who actually knew what they were talking about with respect to Zarqawi. The 1,400 figure refers to the actual number of al-Tawhid members inside Iraq, not the much larger Baathist faction commanded by al-Douri or the Islamic Scholars' Front that have also allied themselves with Zarqawi.
Kidnappings? Zarqawi. Church bombings? Zarqawi. Beheadings? Zarqawi. Truck bombs that slaughter Iraqi civilians by the dozen? Zarqawi.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is behind a small percentage of the bombings and terrorist attacks in Iraq. But his have been the bloodiest. This week has seen some of the worst: On Sunday, an orchestrated series of bombings and shellings rocked the U.S. headquarters in Baghdad and killed 37 across the country. On Tuesday, a crowd at a police recruiting station was ripped apart by a suicide car bomb, killing 59.
All this has made Zarqawi the face of jihad in Iraq and the most-wanted terrorist after Osama bin Laden.
Ahmad Naeem Khan
The custodial death of a Christian accused of blasphemy in Pakistan last week has highlighted the harassment of religious minorities, who often face attacks from fanatics and apathy from authorities. Samuel Masih was attacked with a brick cutter in a hospital in the eastern city of Lahore. Ironically, the assailant, police constable Fariad Ali, had been deputed to guard Masih when he was sent from prison to hospital for tuberculosis treatment. Farid, who had told his colleagues about his hatred for Masih, has been arrested and charged with murder. Assures Senior Superintendent of Police for Investigation Chaudhry Shafqat Ahmad, "The prosecution will ask for the maximum sentence for the constable and the case will be sent to a court of law within two weeks."
Masih was imprisoned in August last year under section 295 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) that deals with blasphemy. Many argue that the law is discriminatory and is often misused by Pakistanis to settle personal scores. Charges of blasphemy are made against people from all faiths in Pakistan, where 96.28 percent of the 150 million population is Muslim, 1.59 percent is Christian, 1.6 percent Hindu and the remaining 0.22 percent a Muslim sect called Ahmadis. Charges Lahore Archbishop Lawrence J Saldanha, head of the NCJP, "The blasphemy laws have been widely used for personal grudges. Forced migrations, the murder of innocent people, litigation and destruction were the outcome of these laws."
Continued on Page 49
Ron Synovitz
Islamabad's recent efforts in the war on terrorism have focused on Al-Qaeda fighters. But now there are growing calls from Western diplomats, the Afghan government and the United Nations for Pakistan to rein in Taliban militants who have fled from Afghanistan into Pakistan since late 2001. Barnett Rubin -- the director of the Center on International Cooperation at New York University -- is among many South Asia analysts who think Pakistan's security forces are intentionally overlooking the presence of Taliban militants on their territory.
Most experts agree that Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency helped create the Taliban and gave it the military and financial support it needed to take control over most of Afghanistan in the mid-1990s. Islamabad has repeatedly denied those allegations and insists that it cut all ties with the Taliban when it joined the U.S.-led war on terrorism after the attacks 11 September 2001. But like many independent analysts, Rubin insists that Pakistan's security services have fostered religious fundamentalism for years in order to promote Islamabad's foreign-policy goals. He said the key motivations include strategic concerns about India, as well as the dormant "Pashtunistan" question -- that is, the fear in Islamabad that ethnic Pashtun nationalists might take power in Kabul and make territorial claims on Pakistan's ethnic Pashtun border regions.
"Supporting some antigovernment forces in Afghanistan is something that Pakistan has done for decades in order to have some leverage over the government of Afghanistan," Rubin said. "They did have a long-term commitment toward supporting ethnic Pashtun religious extremists in Afghanistan in order to assure that an Afghan government would side with Pakistan against India and would not raise the issue of the Pashtun territories. [That's because] the Pashtun Islamists -- unlike the Pashtun nationalists -- do not support that kind of ethnic issue against a fellow Muslim country." Senior Western diplomats in Kabul told "The New York Times" this week that Pakistan's security services are allowing Taliban fighters to operate training camps in Pakistan and cross back into Afghanistan to conduct terrorist attacks aimed at undermining presidential elections there in October.
Continued on Page 49
China is threatening to veto a revised US draft resolution that would consider UN sanctions against against Sudan's oil industry if Khartoum does not rein in marauding militia fighters in its Darfur region, diplomats reported yesterday. Pakistan and Algeria also oppose the new UN Security Council draft and Russia and Brazil have some objections, the envoys said after initial negotiations. European nations back the resolution. The United States wants a vote by Friday and probably has 10 sure votes. Washington has to decide whether to make further changes or risk a veto, should Beijing carry out its threat. A resolution in the 15-member council needs a minimum of nine votes in favor and no veto from a permanent member — China, Russia, Britain, France and the US.
On Tuesday, the United States softened the text that now says the council "shall consider" measures "such as actions to affect Sudan's petroleum sector" if Khartoum does not end atrocities by Arab militia against African villagers or fails to cooperate with an expanded mission of the African Union. The earlier draft last week declared the council "will take" punitive actions, including against the oil industry. Meanwhile, Sudanese Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail yesterday rejected a proposed new UN Security Council resolution on the country's war-torn Darfur region, calling it "illogical and unbalanced." "It is an illogical and unbalanced resolution," Ismail told a press conference here. "Sudan is open to an increase in the number of observers and to the creation of a fact-finding commission, or that the United States sends observers" to the region. These measure would be on top of the "African observation mission," said Ismail, who had been attending an Arab League meeting here. The US-inspired draft warns the Sudanese government that if it does not meet its promise to re-establish security in Darfur, then the UN Security Council would consider sanctions.
#1
In other words; China so desires the start of Sudan's oil flow that they would cheerfully ignore the horrendous genocide which is taking place in that country.
China already craves Iranian oil to the point where they have no compunctions about destabilizing the entire Middle East so long as they get their petroleum.
When will people realize that China is willing to countenance to most revolting sort of tyrants and crimes against humanity so long as it does not impede their own economic juggernaut?
The remaining world, especially the United States, is left cleaning up the mess that China leaves in their wake as they saunter off in search of some new horror to keep us distracted from their evildoing.
#3
Zen, I read the Chinese policy as pro-genocide. Remember, in China George C Scott's line about greasing the treads of tanks with people isn't a threat, it's preventive maintenance.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/16/2004 0:33 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Fred ||
09/15/2004 16:29 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Libya's ambassador in Berlin has told the German Foreign Ministry that the $15 million installment, scheduled for Sept. 8, was held up by banking difficulties, said Sven Leistikow, who helped negotiate the settlement
"I'm sure the check will arrive soon - I put it in the mail, uh......yesterday. I was out of postage stamps and..."
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/15/2004 16:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"I had to board up my house for the hurrica..."
Thy used to solve this sort of problem with a blindfold and a cigarette...
Russian police investigating the deadly Beslan school siege are looking inside their own squad house: One of the attack organizers was allegedly a former cop who disappeared six years ago.
He wouldn't be the first to turn traitor. Turncoats have appeared in the highest ranks of law enforcement in the Caucasus. Police have been implicated in kidnappings for ransom and accused of allowing Chechen rebels free passage through checkpoints motivated by either money, sympathy for the fighters' cause or family ties, or a combination of all three. Vyacheslav Izmailov, a former army major who has worked to resolve kidnappings in Chechnya, said one example of a high-ranking turncoat is a former interior minister of Ingushetia, a Russian region neighboring Chechnya. Daud Korigov, minister from 1997-98, gave rebels the use of a house he owned in the Chechen capital Grozny and was even seen there among captives, Izmailov said.
How many turncoats are there among law enforcement? "It's not a few," Izmailov told The Associated Press. Russian authorities say one of the plotters behind the attack in Beslan, where more than 330 people died, was Ali Taziyev, a policeman from Ingushetia. Taziyev was allegedly abducted with another officer in October 1998 while guarding the wife of a government official. The woman was freed in 2000, and the body of Taziyev's partner was found in Chechnya. Later that year, a court in Ingushetia declared Taziyev dead. Now, Russian officials believe he actually went over to the rebel side, changing his name to Magomed Yevloyev and taking the nom de guerre "Magas" after the new Ingush capital, the Vremya Novostei newspaper reported. Taziyev, a Muslim, is accused of becoming an adherent of the extreme Wahhabi sect of Islam the same as al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and forming his own small band of fighters. Taziyev allegedly also spearheaded a June raid in Ingushetia that targeted police and security forces and killed 88 people. There were conflicting statements at the time about whether he died in the attack. Several other police officers were arrested for involvement. So far, Taziyev's participation hasn't been confirmed in the attack in Beslan, North Ossetia _ which shares borders with both Ingushetia and Chechnya _ and his body wasn't among the attackers who died there after Russian forces stormed the building Sept. 3.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/15/2004 4:24:13 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Russian state is criminalized, rotten to the core. Pakistan North. Only with white faces and black shirts. Heaven help Putin; his position's only slightly better than Musharraf's.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/15/2004 16:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The money quote: Sharon said that as long as there is no significant shift in the Palestinian leadership and policy, "Israel will continue its war on terrorism, and will stay in the territories that will remain after the implementation of disengagement."
There is no road map when there is nobody responsible on the other side to talk to. The faster the wall is completed and Israelis withdrawn from Gaza and the West Bank, the sooner the Paleo terrorists can have their autophagic party and be gone.
Posted by: Alaska Paul in McGrath, AK ||
09/15/2004 16:39 Comments ||
Top||
Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf backed out of a pledge to step down as army chief, slamming the door Wednesday on this key Washington ally's slow progress toward democracy five years after his bloodless coup.
Now watch Sami and Fazl and Qazi turn themselves inside out...
Posted by: Fred ||
09/15/2004 4:18:08 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
The Mandikhel tribe, a sub-tribe of the Ahmadzai Wazir tribe, has raised a 300-strong lashkar here on Tuesday and pledged to flush out foreign terrorists from their territory in the North Waziristan tribal agency.
I can hear the drums from here...
The lashkar made frightening faces and vowed to wipe out foreigners hiding in the tribal agency and announced that anyone sheltering a foreigner would be liable to pay a fine of one million rupees and his house would be demolished. The armed volunteers of the Mandikhel tribe demolished two houses belonging to an alleged militant, Hizrullah Khan, and conducted raids for his arrest. Earlier, the political administration and the tribal elders reached an agreement in jirgas held separately at the Datakhel, Razmak and Mir Ali areas and the agency headquarters, Miramshah. According to the agreement, tribal elders assured the political administration that there was no foreign terrist on their territory and they pledged that they would not harbour foreign terrorists and hand them over to the political administration.
"No, no! Certainly not!"
They assured that would not shelter anyone involved in terrorist activities, adding that they would not allow anyone, local or foreign, to disturb the law and order situation in the tribal agency. Earlier, it was believed that the Mandikhel tribe was sheltering foreign elements and a notice was served on them by the political administration after four people were killed during a military operation on Aug 23 in the Mandikhel area, 18 kilometres from Miramshah. Three of those killed in the operation were local tribesmen while the fourth one was an Afghan national. Two suspected terrorists had been caught and were sent to Islamabad for interrogation. I GUESS BOMBING REALLY CURES THEM. F-16 IS A GOOD BOMB TRUCK. HAHAHA
#5
Damn right RJ! Now if I was wanting to form my own lashkar, would I first go to my neighbors, my cousins or to the armory? Is there in money in running a lashkar? Are drums derigor or optional? (that could be a show stopper).
#6
Well Shipman all you gotta do is bring an Arab a day (dead or alive) and you are fine. Drums are optional. You can dance too, but only in appropriate "Islamic" fashon
Pakistan on Monday decried that the attempts to "identify terrorism with Islam are unfair and counter-productive," noting that "unwittingly, they accord terrorists an ideological respectability they do not deserve."
Except for the fact that most terrorists nowadays are Muslims, committing acts of terrorism in the name of Islam...
"They intensify hostility. They weaken those who propagate moderation, enlightenment and cooperation", underscored Pakistan's Ambassador to the United Nations Munir Akram while addressing the United Nations Security Council which discussed a briefing by its Chairman on Al Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committee." Saying that the global cooperation against terrorism has been highly successful, Mr Akram asserted that "determined and collective action had contained and disrupted the violent agendas of the terrorists." However, he said that the immediate anti-terrorist response must be accompanied by a clear, long-term strategy for success in ensuring an end to this murderous tactic.
Here come the talking points...
He proposed that such a strategy must include the following elements:
a. A consensus on a definition of terrorism,
That means an elaborate definition of terrorism has to be worked out that excludes the slaughter of civilians in Kashmir and Paleostine and maybe Chechnya, preferably including the governments of Israel, India, Russia and the U.S... I prefer a simpler definition, myself: if you target non-combatants you're a terrorist. If you confine your attacks to military targets, you're a guerrilla. If you wear a uniform, you're a soldier, even if you're untrained cannon fodder.
b. De-legitimizing the terrorist's cause by addressing issues such as foreign occupation, the denial of self-determination, military intervention and the use of force.
You can't occupy a rogue state after dismantling its government. For that matter, you can't even dismantle its government that violates the principle of self-determination, since bloody-handed dictatorships by tin-hat megalomaniacs are strictly internal affairs, no matter how many bodies are in the mass graves.
c. Addressing the broader and structural issues including political and economic injustices.
I think he means we should give them money. He certainly doesn't mean we should intervene militarily, with the use of force, to ensure that the populace gets the benefit of the state's economic productivity, if any...
d. Ensuring that counter-terrorism does not violate fundamental human rights or provoke a clash of cultures.
This is predicated on the assumption that terrs have human rights, even though their victims don't.
Noting that terrorism perpetrated by individuals, groups or states, poses an ever present threat to many countries, Mr Akram pointed out: Today, terrorism also threatens Pakistan's vital national interests and objectives. We have participated actively in the unprecedented global campaign against terrorism. "Pakistan has led the way in capturing the majority of leadership of the Al Qaeda and over 500 terrorists. Our campaign against the terrorists is ongoing on the Afghan-Pakistan border, in bilateral cooperation with major powers, and within the United Nations. Our actions have naturally attracted increased terrorist attacks including against our president and prime minister," he said. "The campaign against terrorism must be pursued with full comprehension of the threat and a clear strategy for success. Terrorism continues to be a global threat requiring a coordinated international response. The monitoring teams report indicates that Al Qaeda has evolved into a global network of groups - unbound by structure but held together by a set of overlapping ideological goals." It appears from the report that this evolving network generally avoids using conventional means of finance, travel or arms acquisition. This underscores the need for a matching response to prevent future terrorist attacks," he added. HE FORGOT THE FIRST PRINCIPLE, KILL ALL TERRORISTS, KILL EVERY ONE RELATED TO TERRORISTS ALL THEIR TEACHERS, STUDENTS, BLOW UP EVERY MADRESA AND MAKE THEM SURRENDER UNCONDITIONALLY. THEN WE TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEM (OOPS IT IS ALREADY SOLVED). YOU NEED TO MAKE THE TERRORISTS PAY SO HEAVILY THAT THEY START LOOKING AT OTHER MEANS OF CIVILIZED PROTEST LIKE NON VIOLENT CIVIL PROTESTS MAYBE (IF ANY ARE LEFT)
#2
"unwittingly, they accord terrorists an ideological respectability they do not deserve"
if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck. Protesting that fact doesn't change the basic fact.
so if it hates in the name of Islam, kills in the name of Islam and preaches in the name of Islam, well, you know.
A consensus on a definition of terrorism:
I'm sure attacks on Israeli civilians would conveniently be excluded from this definition.
Addressing the broader and structural issues including political and economic injustices
yes. the injustices perpetrated on Mohammed Atta, a student in Germany, were simply unconscionable. How could anyone live with such humiliation!? (i.e., Germany not being an islamic state).
Ensuring that counter-terrorism does not violate fundamental human rights or provoke a clash of cultures.
I would suggest just the opposite. fight fire with fire. Kill them and theirs as they kill us and ours. Clash of cultures? Heck... we need a clash of cultures -- theirs is sick and depraved and maladapted to exist in the world today.
Welcome to the safari capital of the world. Palm-fringed, white sandy beaches, breath-taking views and abundant wildlife have made Kenya one of the finest adventure spots on the globe. Straddling the equator on the east coast of Africa, Kenya boasts a vibrant multi-ethnic and multi-religious culture. Roughly twice the size of Nevada, it has a Christian majority and a historically peaceful Muslim minority. For the most part, the two faith groups have lived together peacefully here in Kenya. The one exception was in 2000, when clashes between Christians and Muslims led to the destruction of one mosque and two churches.
But nothing has divided Kenyans, particularly along religious lines, as much as the events of September 11, 2001 and afterwards. One Muslim commented, "America just wants to conquer the whole world. That's what this war on terror is all about -- a war against Islam." Muslims and Christians, who once lived peacefully side-by-side, now find religious tensions rising to levels not seen here before. Another Kenyan Muslim added, "When the Christians say they want to convert every person in Kenya to be a Christian, nobody complains. But if we say as Muslims that we want everybody here to become a Muslim, everybody is up in arms!"
A growing number of Muslims are turning towards the more radical and militant expressions of Islam. Sheikh Al-Hajj Yussuf Murigu, a prominent Islamic leader in Kenya, says he is more comfortable obeying Allah's laws than Kenya's man-made laws. We asked him, "Do you believe in Sharia law?" Murigu replied, "Yes, of course! How can I be a Muslim and not believe in Sharia law?" So it came as no surprise to Christians when Sheikh Murigu and others began demanding that Sharia courts be included in the country's new draft constitution.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: TS(vice girl) ||
09/15/2004 9:46:45 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Send them to Dafur. See how they like it When Arab Muslim's rule over them.
#3
"When the Christians say they want to convert every person in Kenya to be a Christian, nobody complains. But if we say as Muslims that we want everybody here to become a Muslim, everybody is up in arms!"
That's because Christians don't kill you if you don't dhimmi convert
#4
That's because Christians don't kill you if you don't convert
And we also don't kill you even if you decide to stop being a Christian and be something else instead.
Its called liberty and in most Christian dominated countries today it is the norm. (Note: This does not say that all Christian dominated countries enjoy perfect liberty nor does it say that Christian dominated countries have never done anything wrong)
There isn't a single muslim country that enjoys full liberty in law or in practice nor has that ever been the case in any muslim dominated land in any time or place.
#5
This article perfectly outlines the tactics of deconstructionism, which I have mentioned in other posts. Hereâs how it works (and BTW, theyâre doing it in Canada, too):
The Islamistsâ goal is to make Africa "the first Islamic continent of the world â by securing the following objectives:
1) Eradicate all non-Muslim religions
2) Appoint Muslims to key national and international positions
3) Implement Sharia (Islamic law) across the continent, and
4) Push for Kadhis courts in the constitutions of African countries.
Step by step they worm their way in:
1) âTo date, 12 of Nigeriaâs 36 states have adopted Sharia law.â
2) âMuslims say Sharia courts bolster their status as a minority . . .â
3) âMuslims initially sought to widen the powers of the Islamic courts to include criminal law. (Criminal prosecutions under Sharia law allow for stoning and amputations) . . .â
Those who oppose this âtakeoverâ discovered:
âthat the Islamic religion had been given a very special treatment in the (constitution) document, which was not given to any other religion. This was the only religion that was mentioned specifically, extensively and expressly in the document." and that â . . . the battle over Sharia has only emboldened Kenyan Islamists . . . a top radical leader and supporter of Osama bin Laden, warned that Muslims around Kenya will mobilize for Jihad if anyone tries to stop Sharia law from becoming a reality.â
Drip, drip, drip . . . and soon the bucketâs full.
âBut opponents of Kadhi courts argue that Kenya is a secular state, and all citizens should be subject to the same law . . . This is one reason why many Christians are working to stop what they see as a dangerous turn from a free democracy to a federal Islamic republic."
We can all hope and pray that theys are successful at stopping Islam in that part of Africa.
In another post today (at this link), we see the same basic thing going on, albeit especially âtoned-downâ for the American social context. In that instance acceptance of Islam as a special class, and recognition and legitimacy for Islam as an minority entity are the objectives. This paves the way for greater inroads into the legal system, and is a tactic all deconstructionists use.
As controversy continues to trail the Bauchi State government's proposal to establish an Arabic and Islamic Education Board for the state, Christian women across the state have condemned in strong terms, the move and other government's policies inimical to the interest of Christians in the state. The women under the aegis of the ECWA Women Fellowship, Bauchi District Church Council have also registered their protest against some government programmes and actions which according to them "tended to clearly show favouritism and preference to one religion over the other." They expressed fear over government's "hidden agenda in the area of religious matters in the state."
In a letter titled: 'Protest Against Government Policies Adverse to Christian Interests' and signed by Mrs Ladi Inusa and Mrs Ramatu Japhet, Women Leader and Deputy respectively, the group said "our members and the generality of the Christian community have increasingly been agitated over the fate of christians within Bauchi state because of what has been happening in recent times against our religious faith across the state." The group also said part of its worries was derivable from the government intention to make Arabic Language compulsory in all the public schools in the state irrespective of the pupils' religious affiliation or preference.
Others, they added include, the refusal of some local government councils, especially Bauchi Local Government to employ christian religious teachers in primary schools and to promote existing ones despite the great need for them. "Instead, there is over-employment and regular promotion of Arabic and Islamic religious teachers," the group said. "The moves to establish a separate Board for Arabic and Islamic studies, to promote Islamic religion with public funds, without a co-related board for christians was against the christians interests in the state," the group added. It urged the state governors to take immediate steps to redress these issues and to restore the confidence of Christians, "who are increasingly agitating against preference for one religion over the others."
Islam's bloody border, coming soon to a nation near you!
Posted by: TS(vice girl) ||
09/15/2004 9:35:11 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I was almost hoping the word "flay" was being used literally.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
09/15/2004 10:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
eLarson: Yes there still are Christians in Europe. In addition there are several Christian missionary organizations (some from Africa) evangelizing there. Returning the favor, so to speak.
Posted by: James ||
09/15/2004 13:13 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Not just in Europe but also our very own Left Coast. I heard today that an Episcopalian (Anglican) denomination in LA had cast off its liberal bishop and adopted a conservative bishop from Nigeria. (seriously)
Perhaps we should make it easier for MoveOn.org and Hollywood idiots to emigrate to the EU? And for EU scientists and technology whizzes to emigrate to the US in exchange? That's a trade we can use.
#6
Perhaps we should make it easier for MoveOn.org and Hollywood idiots to emigrate to the EU? And for EU scientists and technology whizzes to emigrate to the US in exchange? That's a trade we can use.
Actually that is a great idea. When France and Germany were being so stubborn about the Iraq resolution and everyone wanted to bust their chops some pundit suggested we liberalize our quota of green cards for the French and Germans. Nothing like a full scale brain drain to send the right message.
Posted by: Jack is Back ||
09/15/2004 14:24 Comments ||
Top||
#7
How about this: no limits at all on immigration by anyone with a hard science PhD who passes a security check?
And free one-way first-class tickets from LAX and JFK to Paris or Berlin for any registered MoveOn or Hollywood idiotarian?
#8
I think worldwide we are going to be seeing more and more of this-Muslims who won't work under Christians or Jews, Muslim men who won't work for women bosses or with women period, and just plain ol fashioned Muslim-favoring nepotism. It will surely test our laws.
ELF
Read the article. It is a copybook in anarchist politics.
With its 37 ports under the control of clan warlords, Somalia is a land where "tax" is only a word in the dictionary. But its Indian Ocean coastline extends for more than 3,000km, much longer than that of South Africa. Says Mr Hussein Farah Aideed, leader of the faction that controls Mogadishu, the capital: "Historically, no Somali government has controlled more than seven ports, not even Siad Barre's military regime." He says that Somalia is only second to Iran in terms of goods shipped from the United Arab Emirates' (UAE).
Somali traders are the luckiest in the world as they unload goods at ports and hardly pay tax to the clans manning them. The goods are then sent all the way to Nairobi, Addis Ababa in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa - even as far as South Africa. Mr Aideed adds that, historically, Somalis are traders who control transport in eastern and central Africa, but it is now difficult to install a government in Somalia as Somalis have tasted freedom" in a free-market economy.
Posted by: tipper ||
09/15/2004 7:16:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I wonder what the Vegas line is on Solamian prosperity.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/15/2004 17:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
same as Salamian sandwiches
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/15/2004 17:04 Comments ||
Top||
A Chechen politician has claimed that both Chechnya and Islam are innocent in the massacre of civilians at a school in Beslan, Russia. Badr Al-Din Bino, who lives in Jordan, said in a television interview on Dubai's Al-Arabiya TV that Russia will continue to implicate Muslims but that it was "intelligence agencies" that are responsible for the carnage.
Does that make him a politician in Jordan of Chechen descent? Or does it make him another of Maskhadov's mouthpieces, a junior version of Zakayev?
The Middle East Media Research Institute TV Monitor Project, or MEMRI TV, features a video clip and translation of the interview with Bino.
"I am surprised that Putin refuses to conduct an investigation into this issue," he said.
Terrs took over a school and slaughtered kiddies. What's to investigate?
"Even stranger ⊠is that they initially said the leader of this group was from Ingushetia and later they said those who carried out this operation were Arabs or people from al-Qaida, and that 15 of them escaped.
I wasn't aware they admitted anybody escaped...
I am absolutely certain that just like in Qatar, when they assassinated the president, they will put on a show and release four or five Arab or Chechen prisoners and conduct a show as though they are the ones who carried out this operation.
They didn't bump off the president of Qatar. They offed Zemlikhan Yandarbayev, who was for a short time president of Chechnya. I'm assuming by "release" the speaker means "trot out" four or five Arab or Chechen prisoners. The only one I know about is Kulyaev, who was begging for his life on Russer TeeVee, and who seems to have been one of the Bad Guys...
Therefore, the Chechen and Islam are innocent of this operation, which was planned by intelligence agencies.
We're missing a causation chain on that statement. The "therefore" doesn't go with the guy said just before, even if what he said was true.
"Where are the Russian forces? Either there is a failure and the Russian forces cannot secure this region or there was Russian collaboration."
It's a possibility, I suppose. Or it could simply be that in a country that's relatively free people can move around and do all sorts of things without having to answer to the authorities. Things are tighter in Chechnya, since the terrs have made life such a mess there...
Continued Bino: "I ask, what was the terrorism: The taking of hostages or the operation to release them?
No doubt in my mind: the taking of the hostages. Terrorism by definition. And the fact that the hostages were kiddies makes it even worse.
I am surprised at Moscow. ⊠They used BZ gas, which is internationally banned and is a new substance manufactured by Russia.
I think taking a theater full of hostages might be internationally banned, too. If it's not, it should be...
They refused to give it to the hospitals in order to produce the antidote. Suddenly, the kidnappers acted with such ease, even though it is known that the Beslan school area is surrounded by tanks and planes.
Known to whom? It seems the Beslan area wasn't particularly bristling with military hardware, since it was at peace, not expecting any kind of attack...
"I am surprised at the Russian media and surprised that the Arab media repeats what is said in the Russian media. They always accuse the Arabs and claim there are Arab elements, but as of yet, we have not seen on TV Arab faces who participated in the operation."
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/15/2004 7:09:09 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[13 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I cannot understand this. The Islamists take hostages and Russian security is responsible. This guy Bino is seroiusly fucked up Continued Bino: "I ask, what was the terrorism: The taking of hostages or the operation to release them?
Man get some education.Hostage taking is the most cowardly act but has a long and colorful history in Arab culture.
Sorry Chechyna - blather and bluster isn't going to cut it anymore. In case you didn't notice - Putin is headed your way - and it doesn't look like he's in the mood for a he/said she/said. I suggest you get rid of your terrorists yourself or it's pretty clear you are going to get annihilated.
Plenty of muslims though... and a pretty good rendition of an arabic prayer captured in their own footage.. Maybe that footage was filmed by the Joooooooos?!
Posted by: Howard UK ||
09/15/2004 9:02 Comments ||
Top||
#8
They celebrate Sept 11 as a great day, yet claim it was Mossad who was behind it.
They glorify suicide bombers, claiming they are martyrs who act out of hopelessness and desperation (as if Atta was "desperate" or any bomber in Iraq is "desperate")
They praise bin laden, who personally broadcast the fact that he was behind the attacks.
Then, they blame their atrocities on a convoluted, baseless conspiracy. And see no inconsistency.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
09/15/2004 14:07 Comments ||
Top||
#13
The attack went over badly as far as Islamic public opinion is concerned so they are trying to deflect blame using the tried and true method of asking the Islamic world to believe in wacky conspiracies.
Need I remind you folks that a lot of Muslims still deny Al Queda had anything to do with Sept 11 despite Bin Laden admitting it and Al Queda using the attacks in their recruiting videos.
#14
rjschwarz - the problem is they keep buying that same load of sh*t. Just give them a few days and they will believe that no, Muslims had nothing to do with it.....it was Mossad/CIA/MI6/the Camp Fire Girls.....the only difference is they won't celebrate this like they do 9/11. I guess killing schoolchildren is beyond the pale, even for them.
#15
Who is Badr Al-Din Bino and why is he wasting our precious airwave bandwidth and oxygen? This maggot does not even show up on Google. What gives his statements any credibility, besides the fact that they confirm what all Arabs want to believe?
Once again, we need wetwork teams to seek out blathering mouthpieces like Al-Din Bino and silence them. There should be a very dear price for disseminating flat-out lies that distort the trail of evidence surrounding terror atrocities. We need to make every attempt at misdirection and obsfucation of terrorist involvement carry a price tag. Al-Arabiya should enjoy at least a 48 hour period of jammed transmissions. Continued production of such terrorist coverups should result in physical damage to their studios.
Many people continue to blat about how we need to "win the hearts and minds" of the Arab street. We will have no chance to do so until these outlets for terrorist propaganda are either shut down or destroyed. If avoiding any human death is an imperative, then use an e-bomb to fry their transmission and studio production equipment.
Al-Arabiya and al Jazeera are nothing but the equivalent of another Wahhabi cleric spewing anti-American pro-terrorist propaganda. The big difference is that these broadcasters can reach MILLIONS of information-starved viewers in a completely controlled media market. There is no difference between these outlets and Tass or Pravda during the Soviet era. They need to be read the riot act post haste. Either produce fact based and reliable reporting or face the consequences. Arab media outlets such as these are effectively inciting terrorism by making it seem as though Islamist terrorists are blameless and the retaliations against these murderers are uncalled for. That needs to change right away.
#16
Desert Blondie, the problem is the Muslim mindset somehow allows complete disconnected logic. One can think Bin Laden is a hero for standing up to the US, while also believe he's innocent of wrong doing and probably working for Mossad. That slippery relationship with logic has kept them primitive.
If they weren't misogonyst, homophobic, murders with a penchant for pedophilia I would almost feel sorry for them.
Sent thank-you note to family of terrorist who killed 21, injured 120
Yasser Arafat paid $2,000 to the family of a Palestinian suicide bomber who attacked the beach front Dolphinarium dance club in Tel Aviv in 2001 and then sent the terrorist's father a letter in which he praised his son's murderous act, according to documents captured in a recent Israeli operation that were released yesterday.
The attack on the Dolphinarium was one of the most brutal massacres of the Palestinian intifadah, killing 21 people, mostly teens, on a Friday night in June 2001. More than 120 people were injured in the powerful blast carried out by Hamas terrorist Hassan Khutari.
It was disclosed in documents published yesterday by the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism unit at the Center for Special Studies that the Palestinian Authority transferred $2,000 to Khutari's father, who resides in Jordan. The documents, seized from the Institute for Caring for Victims' Families a division of the Palestinian Welfare Ministry were captured during Israel's Operation Defensive Shield in March 2002. Israel National News reported the funds were transferred to the family through a branch of the Arab Bank, in El-Bireh, near Ramallah. The bank is known to be the preferred channel of the PA and terrorist groups for funneling money to the families of imprisoned and dead terrorists and to terrorist operatives themselves.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/15/2004 7:06:48 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In response, Arafat deputy and chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat told WorldNetDaily Sharonâs comments are really intended to prepare the public for the killing of the PLO leader.
Hey, these guys aren't so stupid afterall. Even they can see the writing on the wall!
#4
Yasser's up there with Keith Richards, Hunter S Thompson and Fidel in the unexpected longevity stakes. Can't be long before he pays Allan a natural visit? Wouldn't want him to earn the raisin treatment and vilify Israel further would we? Okay mebbe we would.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
09/15/2004 8:54 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Howard, that's "allan", not "Allan". It's a matter of respect.
Yasser and the Iranian nuke facilities can go at the same time -- that way the press won't have to spend as much time on the Arab street. What the heck, do it late on November 2 just for fun.
Posted by: Tom ||
09/15/2004 9:06 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Somebody should have used Arafats mufti wound mellon for major target practive a long long long time ago. Let's see 168 grain boat tail at 400 yards... up 2 clicks...
Posted by: Douglas De Bono ||
09/15/2004 9:09 Comments ||
Top||
#7
These documents don't mean a damn thing. As long as Arafart is treated as if he's "needed", then he could be proven to have eaten babies for lunch and nothing will happen to the guy; he'll still be the Palestinians' so-called "leader".
#9
And when Arafat finally goes, whatever the cause, the OT will still be full of the same death cult hardcores and their supporters/vassals. He's scum, but he's not the problem, and his departure won't solve a thing.
#10
VAMark, true, but one by one or few at the time, they are being removed. I think that with Arafish gone, the reordering of pecking order would ensue on full throttle. Removal from the gene pool would accelerate without much of an external pressure.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell warned Russia yesterday that broad new anti-terrorism moves announced by Russian President Vladimir Putin could harm the country's still-struggling democracy. Mr. Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage criticized Mr. Putin's plan to fight terror by centralizing political power. Mr. Powell said it marked a "pulling back on some of the democratic reforms" in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union. "You have to find a balance between fighting terrorism in an aggressive way and also making sure that we don't undercut the institutions of state that are based on the foundation of democracy," Mr. Powell told Reuters news agency.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/15/2004 6:38:11 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"But Mr. Powell reiterated yesterday that the Kremlin must seek a political settlement with separatist rebels from Chechnya, thought to be behind the Beslan atrocity and other strikes on Russian military and civilian targets."
I call bull shit. No settlements with baby killers. No settlement with islamo-fascists.
No settlment with the Jihadi. Only death and distruction is their due.
#3
This is typical of Powell. Sometimes I wonder how he ever got to Chairman of the JCS. Before you can have the niceties of the rule of law, you have to tame the jungle. To do that Putin is going to have dig deep into the old KGB playbook. That means there are going to be a lot more dead jihaddists.
Posted by: Douglas De Bono ||
09/15/2004 9:03 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Let the Russians do their thing for a while. This Belsan thing was so nasty I frankly have little sympathy for the Chechens.
#5
Forget democracy. Right now, Russia = Pakistan North. A criminalized, key border state whose security services are so disloyal and out of control that the best option for us is to help Putin succeed in reining them in.
On September 13, US Ambassador Richard Miles unexpectedly stated that "few international terrorists" are still present near Georgia's north-eastern mountainous Pankisi gorge at the Russian border. The statement was later denied by the spokesperson of the U.S. Department of State, but it caused confusion among the Georgian officials. Speaking at the joint news briefing with the Georgian Interior Minister Irakli Okruashvili on September 13, Richard Miles surprised the reporters by his critical remarks towards the Georgian government on Pankisi gorge issue.
Miles stated that there are "some arguments" with the Georgian side over this issue. "I don't want to get into that big argument here today, but the short answer is yes, there are still a few international terrorists in the vicinity of the Pankisi Gorge," Ambassador Miles said, while answering the journalist's question whether there are terrorists in Pankisi.
The U.S. Ambassador's statement dealt a diplomatic blow to the Georgian officials, which maintain that following the anti-criminal operation that started in 2002 the gorge was cleansed of the Chechen fighters and foreigners suspected of terrorism links. The sensitivity of Tbilisi to the statement increased in the light of the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's announcements made earlier last week, in which he linked the North Ossetian hostage tragedy and Georgia. In the wake of this statement the Russian media speculated that one of the terrorist suspects, allegedly behind the hostage-taking in Beslan school, is hiding in Kodori gorge, which is the only territory of breakaway Abkhazia under the Georgian authorities' control, or in Pankisi.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
09/15/2004 1:52:56 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"And now, here's Vladimir with our AccuWeather⢠forecast for the Pankisi Gorge."
"Thanks, Richard. Tomorrow's forecast: overcast with a 100% chance of heavy ordinance. Tough break for you golfers and jihadis."
#2
Will you take spitballs with that ordinance, Omar?
Posted by: Capt America ||
09/15/2004 3:08 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I think what some diplomats and officials in other countries do not understand is that occasionally US Ambassadors will say what they think rather than what Foggy Bottom instructs them to do or say. The price of that is the occasion loose cannon but the gain is the occasional Ambassador that can tell FB or the WH that they are wrong in thier assesment of a situation
#4
CN, would that overcast be Aluminum Overcast by any chance? As in "an all up Aluminum Overcast Alpha Strike straight out of 1969"? That phrase popped up in my head for some reason...
Posted by: N guard ||
09/15/2004 8:57 Comments ||
Top||
It's from the NY Times, but it's pretty good and provides a lot of information on Basayev's origins and how he became Russia's version of Zarqawi.
The most loathed man in Russia moves in secret along the edges of a nation whose security services were once thought to be all-knowing. It should be hard for him to hide, having only one foot, a shaved head, and a beard reminiscent of the Taliban.
He did not start this way. Shamil Basayev, the man accused of plotting the attacks that have terrorized Russia this summer and killed hundreds, including more than 170 children in a school in the town of Beslan, has always had a flair for spectacular attacks. But once he was also capable of restraint.
His first terror act was in 1991. Mr. Basayev, then 26, seized a passenger plane with hijackers armed with pistols and grenades. He forced the jet to Turkey and then Grozny, the Chechen capital. Having made his point - Chechnya is sovereign, he said - he let 171 hostages go. Mr. Basayev held his fire and commanded attention, always one of his aims. "We wanted to show that we would resort to anything to uphold our sovereignty," he said on Moscow television.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
09/15/2004 1:37:46 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Pakistani forces have been battling al Qaeda fighters in an ongoing operation to rout terrorists in a tribal area near the border with Afghanistan, Pakistani intelligence sources said. Tuesday's fighting left two Pakistani soldiers dead and seven others wounded in South Waziristan, where a large number of al Qaeda fighters are believed to be holed up. The sources said a heavy toll had been inflicted on the al Qaeda fighters, but it was not immediately known how many were killed.
"The toll was heavy, though!"
"How heavy?"
"Very heavy!"
Eight civilians were killed in the crossfire, the sources said. The Pakistani army was using artillery and gunship helicopters to attack. In the remote town of Shakai, sources said the Pakistani army recovered a large stash of weapons, CDs, computers and other material from a suspected al Qaeda hideout. The sources said there were two separate attacks Tuesday on Pakistani forces. In a second incident on Tuesday, two rockets were fired on an army camp, killing one soldier and wounding two others.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
09/15/2004 1:14:36 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
The following address was delivered by George W. Bush to the people of Iraq on Monday, November 8, 2004. It was broadcast on prime-time TV and radio with a running translation in Arabic. It was also printed, in English and Arabic, as a leaflet, which was then widely distributed in Iraq.
... I am appearing before you tonight to tell you that the U.S. component of that expeditionary force will soon be withdrawn from your country. It is the judgment of the U.S. government that the principal aim of those U.N. resolutions — namely, that Iraq no longer be a threat to the peace of this region by the fact of possessing weapons of mass destruction — has been fulfilled. It now seems possible, in fact, that Iraq was no such threat even at the time our troops landed in your country. However, the Saddam dictatorship gave us every reason to believe otherwise, and we acted accordingly, with full justification. We do not, and never shall, apologize for our actions.
It is the further judgment of the U.S. government that Iraq no longer represents any threat to our country and her interests; or, at any rate, no threat that requires our continued presence in your country. Other nations in the Coalition must make their own judgments; but we believe your country will soon be free of foreign troops altogether... Iraqis must choose their own future. The number of possibilities from which you can choose is small, and the United States reserves the right, in our own interests, to foreclose some of them.
One. You may become a prosperous modern nation, enjoying freedom under a constitutional government. That is, and has always been, our hope for Iraq.
Two. You may return to dictatorship under the rule of gangsters. While we hope you will not choose this path, we will accept such a choice calmly and without interference, provided that your new gangster-dictatorship is not hostile to the United States or our interests. A dictatorship that is hostile to us and our interests, we shall not tolerate. It will meet the same fate as Saddam Hussein's.
Three. Your country may degenerate into chaos, with a prolonged civil war, and perhaps ultimate disintegration. So long as you restrict yourselves to assaulting each other's lives and property, this state of affairs will be acceptable to us, though we shall regret your choice. Should Iraq disintegrate and separate nations arise in her place, under coherent governments, we shall urge international acceptance of those nations, as we have in previous cases of national disintegration — most recently Yugoslavia — and shall work with the U.N. to bring them under the scope of the U.N. Charter, preserving them from predatory neighbors, while reserving always the right to act in our own interests if we believe those interests threatened.
Four. A neighboring power may invade and attempt to annex part or all of your country. This will not be acceptable to the United States, and it will of course be a clear violation of the U.N. Charter. We shall seek U.N. authority to end any such adventure by concerted action on the part of the community of civilized nations; or, if that community is unwilling to act, we reserve the right to act unilaterally, subject to our calculation of our own interests, and to the approval of our people through their elected representatives.
Its a column in NRO - Conservative bastion. And it shows an exit strategy for the US from Iraq. Only flaw: doesn't cover the elimination of terrorism and its support inside Iraq. Other than that, very plausible. Read the whole thing
Posted by: OldSpook ||
09/15/2004 1:12:08 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is pretty good. If Iraquis were rational, this might even work.
Iraquis will get the kind of government they deserve. Therefore - it will most likely be ruthless and violent. Its a shame, after so many coalition soldiers shed their blood in that dismal place.
Pull out, and let the Iraquis sort things out. Later, once it is confirmed that Iraq is a rabid dog - put it down. Leave only the dazed, peaceful, disoriented few still standing, somewhere off on the fringes.
Iraq has had its chance. They need to grow up quick - or depart the gene pool.
#2
The following address was delivered by George W. Bush to the people of Iraq on Monday, November 8, 2004.
Thieves! Return my time machine!
Posted by: Alexander Hartdegen ||
09/15/2004 1:47 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Non-sense! Why on earth would we withdraw our troops who are on the doorsteps of Iran at a time when a ticking nuclear crisis is underway and the insurgency on the rise?
While we are seeing the gradual transitioning of military operations (on small scale today) from Coalition to Iraqi forces, this force is no where need self-sustaining, now or on November 8th.
A proclamation of this sort is conceivable say in April 2005 under certain conditions; namely (1) that Iraqi miitary reaches 200,000 and are fully trained and equipped, and (2) the Iranian nuclear threat has been eliminated.
Otherwise, we stay beyond April 2005 and possibly start knocking down a few of the neighbors doors.
Posted by: Capt America ||
09/15/2004 2:56 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Guys, look at the date. This is not a speech Bush gave, or delivered. I have no idea where Derbyshire got this, but I suspect this is merely his suggestion.
Posted by: Ben ||
09/15/2004 5:27 Comments ||
Top||
#7
A simialr speech will have to be given in the very near future if events in Iraq continue to cause heavy losses to the US army
Posted by: Susan ||
09/15/2004 7:45 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Heavy loses? 1000 over 18 months?
Don't get me wrong, every life lost is a bad thing...
If things were done without interference from PC civilians, the figure would be, very likely, different.
You need to get some perspective about losses during the time of war. Read some WWII figures.
Statistically, the losses in Iraq are only slightly higher than occurences of all fatal accidents in US.
#10
The US lost 1,000 men during a rehearsal for D-Day. And didn't release the details of the incident for twenty years.
When the USS Indianapolis was sunk while travelling under orders of strict radio silence, almost 900 men died. Many died because the order for radio silence kept a distress call from being made.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
09/15/2004 8:28 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Just to put things into perspective.
On the eastern front during WWII, the Red Army lost an average of 7,400 combatants per day for each and every day the war was fought, while the Axis lost an average of 6,400 combatants per day. That is just on the eastern front.
I am not trying to quantify our own combat losses, but everything the media has tried to convey about the war in Iraq; the war is a quargmire, heavy combat loses, the people hating the US, just doesn't wash.
#12
The point's been made before but 1,000 over 18 months seems a lot better than 3,000 in one morning.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/15/2004 9:08 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Read a history of WW1(can't remember title),seems the German High Command figured loss' at 10 men/meter ground siezed.Talk about"Slaughter on a massive Scale".
#14
Folks this is a "speculative fiction" column by John Derbyshire on how Bush can force the issue in Iraq.
The problem now is that the Iraqis seem to be more busy with taking potshots at us than they are with fixing their country.
This is Derbyshire's solution. Basically its a "F**k you Iraq, we tried to help and you refused to rise up as a people and help us help you".
My estimation is that if this sort of thing did happen, it would result in a nightmare. But it would be a nightmare for a lot of people. Because Iraq would split into 3 nations. A Sunni dominated nation in the center and west, which Syria and Saudi Arabia would contend to dominate by proxy (Saudi nightmare), a Shia nation in the south whichthe US and Iran would contenf to dominate by proxy (US nightmare if we fail there), and the biggest nightmare of all:
Kurdistan comes into existence with a fully secular democratic government, a functional capatilistic economy, a ton of oil revenues to float them, and a long history of solid military performance.
Iran, Turkey and Syria immediately will have active, well trained and well financed guerilla movments supported from right across the border, and the US would guarantee the safety and integrity of the Kurdistan national borders - possibly by acquiring basing rights there and putting a brigade of US troops and an Airforce base up around Mosul.
Both Iran and Turkey would be horrified if this were to happen - because the Kurds will eventually win independence for large chunks of territory inside both those countries. And they will completely destroy the current governments of both Turkey and Iran in the process.
#15
Washington, DC, with about 600,000 residents, had 262 murders in 2002. The population of Iraq is about 25 million. At the Washington, DC murder rate, Iraq would have had 16,375 murders in 18 months. Our troops in Iraq are probably safer than Washington, DC residents.
Posted by: Tom ||
09/15/2004 10:29 Comments ||
Top||
#16
OS, are you really that worried about the Shia? It seems like Sistani is back in the saddle and the Turbans of Tehran gave it their best shot with Sadr and fell short. Give the Kurds their blue water port in North Syria, support the Shia in the south and where is the US nightmare that is worse than what we have today? I also think smacking Turkey would be good for every other U. S. "ally" thinking about going wobbly.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/15/2004 10:38 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Whoa! Murat baiting!
Posted by: Tom ||
09/15/2004 10:45 Comments ||
Top||
#18
This sounds like a MEMO TO FILE, SUBJ: CYA.
:D
I think this might be a proposal on record to have of an exit strategy. But I don't think it's legit.
#20
With Sistani around, the likelihood of the Iraqi Shia going to Iran is remote - as long as the US helps them stabilize their economy and close their borders to Iranian infiltrators. thats why this is a contest between US and Iran - IF Sisanti ends up (indirectly) leading the oil-rich southern areas into an independant nation, and it does not knuckle under to Iran, then Sistani ends up being the Head Honcho for Shia Islam - because he holds BOTH of their highest Shia mosques. Thats what worries the Iranians - the lose the ability to be The voice of authority for Shias even inside Iran. Thats why they are fighting this hard - they lose the ability to use Shia/Islam as a government force - when the guy next door at the Shrine of Ali can come out and directly contradict them, publicly.
Thats why Iran cannot allow the Iraqi Shia to succeed - if they do then the current government if Iran will lose its religiosu shield, and when that happens, the mask will be off and they will be defeated by their own population (with plenty of covert support from the US) as being just another dictatorship of thugs.
And the current Murat is not the same one, I think. All Turks had better get used to the idea of Kurdistan - or else help the US keep Iraq in one piece. Thats their choice. Think how many Kurds are in Turkey. Now think of them well armed, trained and sheltered and financed by oil revenues from Kurdistan next door in what used to be former Iraq, around Mosul. Turkish nightmare. (and yet again, more pressure on Iran as well as a bonus).
If Turkey has chosen to oppose the US, so be it. Our relationaship witht hem was for the cold war, and now for basing help in Arabia and Iran. With Kuwait, Iraq (and Kurdistan in this scenario) open for us to move our bases to, we don't need them if they do not want us there.
The Turks will soon realize that the USA is (as the Marines say) "no better friend, no worse enemy."
#22
lex: As I've said before, isolationism runs deep in America. As deep in Republican as Democrat veins.
This isn't isolationism. He's not proposing foreign base closures - just rapidly speeded up Vietnamization. As long as the US is willing to provide air support, no US-supported Iraqi government can fall, either to domestic or foreign enemies.
#23
The hypothetical problem with getting out would be a reduction in our leverage with Iran. Of course, this leverage has bought us very little with respect to Iran's nuclear program. A more serious problem with a withdrawal is that it would deprive us of a base from which to invade either Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia, if that becomes necessary.
#24
If our goals include establishing a US base long-term, and a reasonably stable, normal, somewhat democratic Iraq in the near term, then the logical course of action would be to partition Iraq and establish a US base in Kurdistan.
Sorry that sort of fear-mongering won't wash here. Too many folks on this site are too historically oriented to fall for it.
Also, a high percentage of us are vets, active, reserve or retired.
We mourn our brave dead, but we know that what they are doing is essential to a future where we don't have to eyeball every passenger when we board an airplane.
#28
Susan? Susan Estrich? Hey, I guess you had to go somewhere when Fox News stopped using you for color commentary.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
09/15/2004 13:46 Comments ||
Top||
#29
The pseudo speech said American troops would be gone by 2009, which gives plenty of time to deal with Iran and Syria.
I would imagine such a withdrawal would start by the US pulling back into bases in Kurdistan. As Iraq fell apart in civil war and eventually into three countries we could be in position in the only semi-stable, democratic, region and ensure the Kurds don't get overrun by Turkish special forces.
It's not a bad idea because it makes it clear we're not occupiers, it ensures the US doesn't look like its running when we finally leave after some hard knocks, it makes the Iraqis fully responsible for thier own nation, and it could help the Kurds get their own state without breaking any promises. Such a move should only occur after Falluja is cleaned out and Sadr is dead though, and hopefully when the US is ready to take on Iran.
#31
F THEM, If they're unwilling to take their destiny and future in their hands and work towards a better Iraq for all peoples
I'd say this is about as accurate a summary of what a majority of Americans feel right now as I've seen anywhere. Forget bloggers, or MSM talking heads or OpEd writers.
Most Americans, unlike myself and most Rantburgers, do not care about grand strategy or democracy-promotion or national greatness or the outside world generally; they care mainly about being left alone. If they are not shown a clear path toward victory in Iraq, and soon, then the demands to bring the boys home will become overwhelming.
#32
For those who doubt, look to Kuwait. They run theirown affairs and are even liberalizing .. cautiously.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/15/2004 22:38 Comments ||
Top||
#33
Looking at the totality of comments, I am surprised at how little consideration is given to the fact that this war is not optional choice. This is the front line in the war on terror. If not in Iraq, if not now, where? when? Perhaps in the US and perhaps very soon.
Moreover, Iraq is not a place to withdraw from anytime soon. It is a staging ground for the ME region during the war on terror.
Posted by: Capt America ||
09/15/2004 23:24 Comments ||
Top||
Court Denies 'Sex Bail' for Prisoner
An Indian court has refused to release a Muslim, charged over the train torching that triggered Gujarat's Hindu-Muslim rioting two years ago, so he could go home to have sex with his wife. The special court in Gujarat's main city, Ahmedabad, said if it granted bail in this case, many other prisoners would ask for the same thing, officials said on Tuesday.
Um yeah, I'd 'pect so.
Firozkhan Zafarkhan sought bail last month, saying he and his wife suffered mental trauma because they had not had sex for a long time.
That's why they all it "prison", Firoz.
He has been in jail more than 30 months, charged under a tough anti-terrorism law with being part of a mob that torched a train in Godhra, in western Gujarat state, in February, 2002, burning alive 59 Hindu pilgrims, including women and children. That attack triggered days of communal bloodshed, some of India's worst, in which rights groups say more than 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, were burned and hacked to death. Zafarkhan had told the court his religion and India's conservative culture forbade him from having sex with anyone but his wife.
Well shoot, he could always get "married" again, whereas she'd just be stoned to death. What's the problem?
"We opposed the bail plea because granting of bail to one would have opened the floodgates of such requests from other prisoners. There is also no provision in law," prosecutor Sudhir Brahmbhatt said. But the judge did order longer visiting hours. But my balls are truly turning blue!!
Posted by: Weird Al ||
09/15/2004 1:02:07 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
The Bush administration asked Congress on Tuesday for permission to transfer nearly $3.5 billion from Iraqi water, sewer and electricity projects to pressing security, economic and electoral programs, acknowledging that increasing violence has forced a sharp shift in its rebuilding effort.
Including previous reallocations, the administration hopes to redirect more than 20 percent of $18.4 billion in reconstruction funds to cope with an escalating insurgency and the glacial pace of rebuilding. With two weeks left in the fiscal year, and 11 months after Congress approved the money, only $1.1 billion of it has been spent, because of attacks, contracting problems and other unforeseen issues, according to figures released by the State Department.
Marc Grossman, the U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, concluded that "without a significant reallocation of resources for the security and law enforcement sector, the short-term stability of Iraq would be compromised and the longer-term prospects of a free and democratic Iraq undermined." The redirected money would be used for, among other things, 82,000 more Iraqi security personnel, including an increase of about 65 percent in police forces and a near-doubling of the number of border agents.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/15/2004 12:32:35 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
PML-N demands end to Wana operation
The PML-N Chairman Raja Muhammad Zafarul Haq, while expressing grave concern over the situation in Waziristan area, has said that the situation has seriously endangered the security and solidarity of Pakistan.
Excellent. Pray, continue.
In a statement issued here on Tuesday, he demanded an immediate end to the operation and restoration of peace through a process of dialogue. "No terrorist activity was reported from the area before military action in March, but similarly as the United States relied on baseless and now proven wrong intelligence regarding presence of weapons of mass destruction to attack Iraq, Pakistan was fed with wrong information about presence of terrorists in tribal areas, and was forced to use military might against its peaceful and patriotic citizens," the PML leader said.
So, ummm... Where'd the terrs come from?
He said that the people of Pakistan were perturbed over the Waziristan operation. He said that a nation could earn worldwide respect only when its government protects the life, property and honour of its citizens without worrying about costs, but nobody in the world would respect Pakistani citizens if their own government were involved in ruthless killing of own people. Too bad, Wahhabi, I hope they bomb and nepalm some more Wannah Bastards. Just because your sponsor Saudia cannot come out and say it in public so you are the pussyâs mouthpiece
Posted by: Fawad ||
09/15/2004 12:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I saw a good Waziri once. He was dead.
Posted by: Bill Sherman ||
09/15/2004 0:42 Comments ||
Top||
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.
