Fuck with this guy, New Yorkers. I'm dead serious. Give him the full-bore "buisiness" as only New Yorkers can. Tell him that the palatial digs Bandar was living in have been rented out to a family of poor Hasidic Jews. The only accomodations left in the entire city are a cold-water flat in Brooklyn and a basement apartment in the Bronx. Take your pick, and sorry about that.
A powerful explosion ripped through a half-empty carriage of a commuter train near the Dagestani town of Khasavyurt Sunday, killing a young woman and wounding several people.
Police announced the apparent terror bombing as an almost routine event, the latest of nearly 80 deadly attacks by Islamic extremists that have rocked the multiethnic mountain republic of Dagestan so far this year. The Kremlin insists the wave of attacks that threaten to unhinge Russia's mainly-Muslim Caucasus region is being orchestrated by the same global jihad groups that have struck in London and Sharm-el-Sheikh in recent days.
Many experts, however, dispute this interpretation, arguing that Moscow's handling of the still-smoldering war in next-door Chechnya, as well as local poverty and corruption, have more to do with the roots of violence here. But most agree that there has been an alarming influx of foreign jihadis into Russia's vulnerable southern underbelly over the past year.
"Our forces have captured or killed citizens of 52 countries operating with the terrorists in the north Caucasus," says Sergei Markov, a Kremlin adviser. "The enemy brings an ideology of radical Islam that seeks political power through terrorist methods."
Recent incidents, including a bath-house bombing that killed 10 Russian soldiers in the Dagestani capital of Makhachkala two weeks ago, suggest the attackers have absorbed sophisticated tactics used by jihadis in Iraq and elsewhere. A report issued last week by Igor Dobayev, an expert with the official Academy of Sciences, found that as many as 2,000 Islamist insurgents, many belonging to the Al Qaeda-linked Sharia Jamaat, are behind the wave of roadside explosions, car bombings, and assassinations.
Dagestan, with just over 2 million inhabitants belonging to 37 fractious ethnic groups, is the largest and potentially most volatile piece of the Russian Caucasus. The main pipeline for Russia's share of Caspian oil runs through the coastal city of Makhachkala. The republic governed since 1991 by Magomedali Magomedov, has an estimated 60 percent unemployment rate and salaries half the Russian average.
President Vladimir Putin made an emergency visit to Dagestan last week - kept secret until after his return to Moscow - where he ordered security to be beefed up on the southern border with Azerbaijan, but offered no public criticism of Mr. Magomedov.
"The authorities are unable to deal with the situation in Dagestan, and the state is close to panic over it," says Timur Muzayev, a regional expert with the Center of National Politics, a Moscow-based think tank. "The inner conflicts in Dagestan have now attained crisis proportions."
A secret report by the Kremlin's special envoy to the north Caucasus, Dmitry Kozak, leaked to a Moscow newspaper earlier this month, warned of the emergence of "Islamic Sharia enclaves" amid the high Caucasus peaks."Further ignoring the [social, economic, and political] problems and attempts to drive them deep down by force could lead to an uncontrolled chain of events whose logical result will be open social, interethnic, and religious conflict in Dagestan," Mr. Kozak wrote.
Many experts say the Chechnya war, which began almost 11 years ago in a bungled military effort by Moscow to put down a separatist rebellion, remains the key destabilizer of the region. Violence in Chechnya has been rising. In the past week alone a military helicopter crash killed eight soldiers, and an ambush on security forces in a previously "peaceful" town, claimed by Islamic rebels, killed 14. In recent days four Russian police have died in apparent terrorist attacks in the nearby mainly Muslim republic of Kabardino-Balkaria. "The Chechnya war is a bomb that we [the Russians] set off, and now it is exploding in all of our faces," says Anna Politkovskaya, a top Russian journalist. "Nowadays we live from one terrorist attack to the next, and in between we pretend that everything is OK."
The first Chechnya war, 1994-96, was effectively won by the nationalist, independence-seeking rebels. But experts say that since rebel president Aslan Maskhadov was killed by Russian security forces earlier this year, the Chechen insurgency is led by Islamic radicals such as Shamil Basayev, architect of a mass hostage-taking in a Moscow theater two years ago and last September's bloody school siege in Beslan. "We are no longer talking about Chechen secessionists challenging Moscow," says Mr. Markov. "Now it's radical religious ideologues who aim to destroy the unbelievers and establish an Islamic caliphate."
Mr. Basayev, along with a small army of jihadis, invaded Dagestan in 1999, but was driven back after local militias mobilized in large numbers to support Russian forces. Experts are not sure Moscow could hope for that kind of popular backing in any future emergency.
"In the [north Caucasus crisis] we can see the complete failure of Putin's policies," says Andrei Piontkovsky, director of the independent Center for Strategic Studies in Moscow. "It is a fairy tale to explain it as the work of outside factors, Islamic terrorists from the Middle East, or whatever. The truth is that internal problems are generating social unrest, which leads people to turn to Islamic ideas."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
07/25/2005 11:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"But experts say that since rebel president Aslan Maskhadov was killed by Russian security forces earlier this year, the Chechen insurgency is led by Islamic radicals such as Shamil Basayev, architect of a mass hostage-taking in a Moscow theater two years ago and last September's bloody school siege in Beslan."
MYTH of the moderate Maskhadov. The atrocities and the lion's share of guerilla activity were always Baseyev's. Maskhadov had no power and only played "good cop" to Basayev's "bad cop." He couldn't control Basayev before or after the second war began. His death didn't change the jihadi element which has dominated the chechen efforts in the second war. In large part it all started with caliphate monger Basayev and his dear departed hairy arab buddy Khattab in Dagestan. Russia is certainly fighting it's own demons and creations in the caucus but that is not to say it is not also fighting global jihad there too. Chechnya was always a favorite among the jihadi crowd before 9/11. Alot of UK and French jihadis spent their holidays in Chechnya. Alot of the old Chechen jihadi web presence orginated from the UK and europe. Chechnya was and still is a big selling point for jihadis even though in the post 9/11 world it gets a lower billing and secondary slimelight. Baseyev is one frustrated chechen Zman who doesn't get the respect or funding of his sunni arab peers. Maskhadov was his willing tool.
Delegations from North and South Korea, meeting in Beijing on Sunday, said they wanted to see "substantial progress" in this week's six-party talks aimed at ending Pyongyang's pursuit of nuclear weapons. The two sides said they also wanted the participants to come up with a framework for a nuclear-free Korean peninsula.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/25/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I wonder iff Kimmie knows how thin and frail looking, besides sad and unhappy, his own sidekicks are looking lately, and do his Generals, Admirals, and Commissars know where their wives and children are tonight - If eating grass, robbing graves, and aborting/
stewing babies, etc. for stew goes on, Kimmie himself will start looking to his own DPRK as appetizing as the stereotypical "walking
or headless turkey/meat leg" of Ameri cartoon fame!?
Posted by: Fred ||
07/25/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Host the little meeting - and serve something very very rich and fatty. Something that will cause his digestive system to simply go into shock. Send him back to his delegation - in a bag, with a permanent smile on his face.
Westerners must leave Muslim lands if they want to safeguard themselves against terrorist attacks, says the Sydney leader of the global Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir, Wassim Doureihi.
By the same reasoning, Muslims should immediately pack up and leave Western lands if they want to safeguard themselves. See, this one's a tit, that one's a tat. It's the difference between having your cake and eating it.
Although Mr Doureihi says his group espouses non-violence, he warns Australia to "stop interfering in Islamic land, stop enforcing rules over Muslims and allow the Muslims to assume their own political destiny ⊠If we are really serious about protecting the lives of the people in Australia, if you want to remove the possibility of these actions occurring within these countries, then remove the original injustice."
And if you want to remove the threat of eventual mass deportations, take the sign off your collective ass that demands to be kicked...
Hizb ut-Tahrir came under scrutiny yesterday after a report it was launching a recruitment drive in Sydney and was linked to one of the London bombers. But Mr Doureihi, 28, an accountant, vehemently denied a London link. "The Islamic position is very clear - that is, Islam condemns the killing of innocent non-combatants whether it's in London or Iraq," he said at the rented room at Greenacre where his group meets on Friday nights. However, leaflets handed out to members refer to the "war on Islam being reignited", leading to accusations of inflammatory language. "It's very ironic," Mr Doureihi said, "that certain groups can be targeted with words they use, when at the same time bombs are being dropped on entire villages and yet the world hasn't arisen to condemn that."
And they were being bombed for no reason whatsoever? Is this another example of the disconnect between cause and effect? Or merely disappointment that having the armed and dangerous set surrounded by innocents doesn't protect them?
He does not believe Muslims can co-exist with Western society. Asked, then, why he chose to stay in Australia, he said: "I was born in this country. I don't choose where I was born ⊠I consider myself as a Muslim first and foremost."
Lots of people come to Australia. There's no reason you can't leave it. Probably there are lots of people who'd be happy to help you pack, some of them even those people who've come to Australia.
Hizb ut-Tahrir supports a transnational regime under Sharia law. It is banned in a number of Middle Eastern countries, but it is not a proscribed terrorist organisation in Australia, the US or Britain.
... even though it should be, and eventually will be.
The president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, Dr Ameer Ali, said: "Whenever we come across any groups like this, who are openly, blatantly advocating violence, we bring them to the notice of the law-enforcing authorities." However, Keysar Trad, a founder of the Australian Islamic Friendship Association, said the group was "non-integrationist but not violent".
"Non-integrationalist" seems to be a term of art that'd translate loosely as "irrational."
Posted by: Fred ||
07/25/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
"Non-integrationalist" means segragationist. So this bigoted asshat is a typical tool, strip him of his citizenship and deport him to some Malay island.
#8
"These uninhabited, barren, sub-Antarctic islands were transferred from the UK to Australia in 1947. Populated by large numbers of seal and bird species, the islands have been designated a nature preserve."
No reason to disturb the seals. I'll go with Maralinga. Hope that doesn't anger the Aborigines though.
#10
"[Wassim Doureihi] does not believe Muslims can co-exist with Western society."
Many of us Westerners are coming to that conclusion, too, and that we were foolish to allow Muslims among us in the first place. And every attack on us by Muslims who don't appreciate that tolerance must go both ways or there'll be no tolerance at all, only reinforces that conclusion.
It's time to start thinking-- and openly talking-- about forced expulsion as an option.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
07/25/2005 6:57 Comments ||
Top||
#11
He does not believe Muslims can co-exist with Western society. Asked, then, why he chose to stay in Australia, he said: "I was born in this country..."
Posted by: Captain America ||
07/25/2005 12:59 Comments ||
Top||
#13
GIve them an island south of the antarctic circle and watch as they avoid eating during daylight hours during Rammadan, waiting all month for the sun to go down.
Or does Rammadan hit during winter in which case they could eat all month? That would screw up the test.
More than 42,000 Spanish emigrants return to Spain every year, according to the latest statistics.
The department of employment and social services announced that 42,731 Spaniards decided to come home in 2004, with more than half returning to Galicia, Andalucia, Catalunya, Madrid and the Canary Islands.
The secretary of state for immigration and emigration said the figure is similar to those of recent years.
Of those who returned last year, 19,356 had been living in South and Central America; 13,190 had been living in the EU; 5,082 in the rest of Europe; 2,388 in the US.
Every year, more than EUR 9 million is spent on programmes aimed at helping
returning emigrants.
Posted by: too true ||
07/25/2005 19:44 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
A plane crash in the heart of Berlin's government quarter and the series of deadly terrorist attacks in the Red Sea resort of Sharm al-Sheikh and London have triggered a debate about security risks to Germany just as the nation gears up for an election.
While Germany Transport Minister Manfred Stolpe has announced plans to ban flights by private planes over central Berlin, the government and opposition have been battling it out over whether the army should be deployed within the country to help tackle terrorist threats.
After a weekend of attacks in Egypt, Istanbul and Iraq, German Interior Minister Otto Schily warned in an interview with the daily Bild against
hysteria resulting from the series of explosions but conceded that Germany too faced threats from Islamic terrorists.
"If we allows ourselves to be moved by fear and concern, then the terrorists would have already achieved their goal," Schily said. "Watchfulness and calmness are the best means against terror."
"Germany also faces threats from Islamic terrorism," Schily said, adding that the security authorities have already uncovered and as a consequence prevented several attempts at mounting attacks in the country.
The move to introduce the small aircraft ban came after a single-engine plane crashed Friday evening on the expansive lawn between Berlin's historic Reichstag parliament building and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's office.
Officials quickly ruled out a terrorist link in the crash.
But coming at a time of heightened terrorist alert, the incident immediately raised questions about planes flying into such highly sensitive areas in the German capital and as a result provoking calls for additional security measures.
Police say the 39-year-old pilot committed suicide and have linked his death to the disappearance of his wife.
"We will introduce a no-fly zone for recreational planes over the government quarter," German Transport Minister Manfred Stolpe told reporters Sunday.
"This will prevent hobby pilots and private planes from flying over the area near the Reichstag and the Chancellery," he said.
But with an election now looming over the country, the plane crash and the bombings means that a debate about what action needs to be taken to head off the risks posed by terrorism threatens to hijack the campaign for the September 18 poll.
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's Social Democrat-led (SPD) government has announced plans to create a special anti-terrorist file.
However, a controversial call by the opposition Chancellor Angela Merkel to use the army to prevent terrorist attacks has sparked criticism, in particular from within the ranks of Schroeder's ruling SPD-Green coalition.
Rejecting Merkel's proposal, German Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries said in an interview with the daily Die Welt on Monday there were good reasons why there was a separation betweeen the military and the police.
Moreover, she said "our police have their tasks under control and do not need the support of the army."
Posted by: too true ||
07/25/2005 19:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The problem is: Terrorists will ignore the no fly zone and two airports are so close to the city center that it's nearly impossible to enforce.
A plane cleared for Tempelhof could slam into the Reichstag in two minutes.
Some 400 Belgians converted to the Islamic faith in 2004, three-quarters of whom were women.
The Islamic Centre in Brussels said public interest in the Muslim faith has increased since the 11 September attacks in the US.
A total of 300 people converted to the Islamic faith in 2003.
"People are discovering that we are different from the picture that the media has portrayed," Islamic Centre spokesman Abdel Kadet said.
However, the centre was unable to explain why 300 of the 400 Belgian converts last year were women, news agency 'Belga' reported on Monday.
"It is definitely not because these women become Muslim to be able to marry a Muslim. Muslim men may actually marry women of another faith," Abdel Kadet said.
The Islamic Centre, however, was more definite when it explained the motivation of men to become a Muslim.
"There is often a Romeo and Julia theme as the base: the Belgian man is head over heels in love with a Muslim girl."
Posted by: too true ||
07/25/2005 19:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
so their propaganda seems to be working....on gullible women, mainly.
#4
Not a lot methinks. When a man marries a Muslim girl he might do a nominal conversion to keep the girl's family happy. He is unlikely to bow to Mecca 5 times a day.
Women are more likely to do real conversions but when the Muslim Prince Charming turns out to be Prince Beating and Cheating many wisen up".
Suppose those figures aren't available at the Islamic Centre.
The recent terrorist attacks in London and Egypt have plunged the world into a state of "permananent conflict" against a Islamist "globalised guerrilla" whose ultimate defeat hinges on the spread of democracy in the Arab world and a peaceful resolution to the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and the Palestinian territories. "The conflict is a global one because the organisations that use al-Qaeda as their reference point, apply the concept of international jihad," says Dominique Thomas, a Paris-based Islamic terrorism expert, and author of several essays and books on Islamic radicalism.
Thomas, speaking to Adnkronos International (AKI) following Saturday's deadly bombings at the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, attributes the development of the "international jihad" strategy to a top al-Qaeda leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
The Egyptian born al-Zawahiri, considered to be Osama bin Laden's right-hand man, developed the strategy as a two-pronged approach.
"On the one hand attacks target the 'nearby enemy', that is the Arab states whose political power al-Qaeda considers illegitimate; on the other hand the target is the West, with the aim to drive it out of Iraq and Afghanistan and to halt its support of Israel" Thomas explained.
While many of the jihadist groups look to al-Qaeda for inspiration, "they lack a unitary political direction," says Thomas.
But, he adds, they do have a distinct advantage that makes them difficult to combat: "They don't regard a single territory as their battlefield. The attacks can, and in fact do, occur anywhere. It's difficult if not impossible to predict where the next strike will take place. That's the strength of al-Qaeda."
Despite this glum outlook, Thomas believes that the jihadists can be vanquished, but it will take time.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
07/25/2005 10:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
whose ultimate defeat hinges... peaceful resolution to the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and the Palestinian territories.
A nice example of appeasement at work: we have to give Muslims what they want so they let us alone.
Sorry but the key in terrorism is the perception of the Muslim (and specially the Arab) as a superior man entitled to others having to bow before him, entitled to do what he wants to lesser beings.
It is this concept who explains Muslims indifference to say the Sudanese problem (it is only Christians and Blacks) or to atrocities perpetrated by Muslims against other Muslims, along with seething when the infidels dare to fight back (cf the reaction when America fought back after 9/11) or retake land who once was Muslim (Israel, East Timor or even Spain).
Rushing to solve the Palestinian or Tchetchnyan problems (specially if it is solven in their favour) without asking them to first punish the criminals/indemnify the victims/give back the stolen lands in Soudan, Kenya, Thailand and even Kurdistan (as an example of first class Muslims ie Arabs predating on third class Muslims ie Kurds) would only strnegthen the basic postulate of Muslim as an ubermensch entitled to jihad on the infidels.
Just like when a child picks a tantrum and the correct response is NOT giving him what he wants even if he was entitled to it, the correct response to a Beslan is to make clear that the Tchechnyans will get less than what they would have got without it. (1)
And that the harrassing of Non-Muslim populations alongside the "border" has to stop befotre we even consider teh problems of Muslims.
(1) At tyhe beginning of the Korea negotiations the Norks had the standard practice of launching a massive attack on American positions on the day they knew they would be negotiated then accuse the Americans of lying about holding the position. It worked once or perhaps twice then the Americans adopted as a standard practice not merely of repelling teh attack (they were no longrer surprised) but to advance for one mile as punishement.
#4
It's also difficult to predict where our SSBN's will strike.
Re JFM's fine comment, IIRC correctly the Eisenhower Museum's oral history collection contains a tape by a German officer captured in the Normandy campiagn. The officer recalls having asked his interrogator why the US is making war on Germany, to which the American interrogator replied, "To free you from the fantastic [in the German sense] idea that you are a race of supermen."
Posted by: Matt ||
07/25/2005 12:40 Comments ||
Top||
Article reorganized for sense, and edited for length.
Hundreds of centrist Democrats gathered in Ohio for the annual meeting of the Democratic Leadership Council. Al From, founder of the DLC, and DLC President Bruce Reed argued that Democrats should be more aggressive in pushing values issues and take an unrelenting, hard-line stance against terrorism. "A Democrat has to show the toughness to govern," said From. "People don't doubt that Republicans will be tough."
From argued that national security and safety are threshold issues for swing voters who increasingly are trending Republican. Centrists who contend Democrats cannot retake the White House until voters trust the party to protect them said Sunday the Army should expand by 100,000 soldiers and that colleges should open their campuses to military recruiters. "No political party deserves to win unless it lays out a plan for Americans to win," said From.
During the meeting, party moderates were hearing from some leading Democratic figures, and some were echoing From's call for a shift in direction. New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton addresses the group Monday, as does Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh. followed by names of other Democrat politicians who will speak.
There were few who quibbled with the argument that the party needs to move toward the middle. "I think this country is becoming more and more moderate and more and more conservative," said Leroy Comrie, a councilman in the New York City borough of Queens. From said the simple math of elections means Democrats must do better among moderates. "We have to win about 60 percent of the moderates to break even," he said. "There has never been a time when there were more liberals than conservatives in the electorate."
#1
These aren't centrists - they're just liberals who are looking for a loophole that will weaken America's military while making them look good. Increasing the troop count without increasing the military budget is one way to do that - this would mean decreasing the budget for new generations of military equipment. As Rumsfeld once said - the advantages of improved equipment are with us for decades but R&D can take years or decades - whereas troops can be hired and trained up in less than a year.
#3
Bingo, Zhang Fei. And it might bring in a draft, which the military doesn't want but Dems do, in the name of "fairness".
Posted by: too true ||
07/25/2005 9:02 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The draft does not deliver seasoned or veteran officers or [even more important] NCOs. It takes years to develop a cadre large enough to handle any significant increase in force structure. Them's the price of gutting the military after Gulf War I. The Army went from 750,000 to under 500,000. When did the President or the Dem leadership complain about that from 1992 to 2000?
Further, you don't need more troops if all they are really going to do is look nice and aid in natural distaster relief. The enemy has to believe you will really use them in order for the military to be effective. To paraphrase Napoleon - Its better to have a lion at the head of an army of deer, than a deer at the head of an army of lions.
#5
too true, I think the reason the Dems want a draft is so that they can arouse anti-war sentiments among those of darft age. In other words, a page out of their old Vietnam era playbook.
Posted by: jolly roger ||
07/25/2005 10:07 Comments ||
Top||
#6
the DLC did not call for a draft, but for an expanded military.
and as we found in Iraq, you CANT just increase the size of the military on a dime. In particular you cant increase the number of middle officers and non-coms on dime.
They will have to explain how they will pay for it. But so far theyve gone along with increased military expenditures, and i think the DLC would support that.
Im also not sure every high tech weapon system on the Pentagon list is focused on the war on terror.
#7
"Increased military"=stealth draft.
The Dhimmicrats say it's not a draft, but it is. "Im also not sure every high tech weapon system on the Pentagon list is focused on the war on terror."
And you would know this because...?
Why is that the Dems here--people like LH and Mike S.--are always "in the know" about high level or even Top Secret intell?
Or at least they pretend to know.
Are they moles at the highest levels of our government?
Were they beneficiaries of Sandy Bergler's pants-stuffing mission?
Or are they just arogant a$$holes?
I'm picking Door #3.
#8
sorry to disappoint, but no, im not a secret source. This is all publicly available, in books, articles, etc. You can find the whole issue of China vs the WOT and Pentagon procurement discussed in Thomas Barnetts "The Pentagons New Map", by James Fallows, etc. For a viewpoint more focused on the China threat, the military coverage of the Washington Times is very good.
#9
I agree with LH on this one. It's not a stealth draft.
I've argued in the past that we should increase the size of the Army -- carefully, with full regard for the need for trained NCOs -- by about a division. That division should be light infantry, mobile, with beefed up civil affairs units and strong peacemaking (not peacekeeping) abilities. We'd use that division, or brigades from that division, in various spots where we need peacemaking done in such a way that the locals behave. As one example: Kosovo.
It would take several years to get such a division trained, equipped, and ready to roll. I'd start today.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/25/2005 11:11 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Bill Gertz's hysterical screeds in the WashTimes, along with Arnauld de Bouchgraves's op eds, are the 2 aspects of the Washington Times beat that I completely ignore.
Otherwise, their coverage is pretty solid.
Gertz has never been right about an American security issue yet.
And you're not going to read about our Top Secret weapons or what enemy they're designed to tackle in any press source.
Or if they are written about in the MSM, they shouldn't be unless it's just enough information or disinformation to really frighten the enemy.
#11
what hysterical about Bill Geertz? I dont always agree with his viewpoint, but he seems to have a pretty good idea of whats going on in the Pentagon.
#12
Steve, if we do need larger armies, that decision should come from Rummy, not the DLC.
And Rumsfeld keeps saying that the size of our forces is just fine.
Some of our force size depends on recruiting, also.
Between bashing the military about Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and subjecting our soldiers to domestic criminal trials for combat deaths and Liberal universities, colleges and high schools barring military recruiters from coming on their campuses to recruit, it's a wonder we have any troops at all.
#13
"And you're not going to read about our Top Secret weapons or what enemy they're designed to tackle in any press source."
Top secret weapons? You mean ones so top secret its not acknowledged they are in development - well of course we dont know about them, and they might well all be focused on the WOT. You are correct.
I was thinking more along the lines of things that are a matter of public record, like air superiority fighters. The only conceivable reason to spend money on a new, more advanced air superiority fighter, is against an adversary who can contest control of the air. The only adversary that can do that in the next few decades is China.
#14
"Steve, if we do need larger armies, that decision should come from Rummy, not the DLC.
And Rumsfeld keeps saying that the size of our forces is just fine."
actually that decision is upto the commander in chief, and the congress, NOT the SecDef. And its not at all impossible that a future commander in chief could come from the DLC.
Are you suggesting that it was wrong for Republicans to advocate for higher expenditures on Ballistic Missile Defense in the 90's, cause Bill Cohen was SecDef?
#15
"I've argued in the past that we should increase the size of the Army -- carefully, with full regard for the need for trained NCOs -- by about a division. "
Well Steve, I guess those of us who dont agree with St. Donald on everything are expected to just shut up and get with the program.
#16
"The only adversary that can do that in the next few decades is China."
"Bull hockey!" as MASH'es Colonel Potter would say.
That incident in Summer 2001 aside, neither the Chinese nor any other power on the globe can touch us in the air.
Do yourself a favor, LH: Google Bill Gertz and check out his track record on "predictions." Not too hot.
On the Chinese "threat," compare Gertz's and Mark Steyn's informed opinions on Chinese domination.
Zhang Fei, can you weigh in on this one?
How we got to arguing about China on this thread, I have no idea, but if we're trying to win a numbers game with the Chinese Army, forget it.
I've been to China. Trust me, their soldiers, while strong in numbers are not very frightening.
#17
I like to see moderates distance themselves from the ultra-libs. I'm still not going to vote for the lying spineless bastards, but I think they are moving in the right direction.(right)
#18
LH - those calling for a Draft are Democrats...helloooo Chollie Rangel! They don't do so to make a more effective military. It's to weaken the military and yet appear that they support it. Traitorous scum
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/25/2005 11:31 Comments ||
Top||
#19
"neither the Chinese nor any other power on the globe can touch us in the air."
then you tell me - why the hell ARE we spending billions of dollars on developing a new air superiority fighter? Money which COULD be going to expand the army?
#20
"LH - those calling for a Draft are Democrats...helloooo Chollie Rangel"
Yes, but Rangel is not a member or supporter of the DLC, which is the group we're discussing. Are you familiar with the DLC? You didnt happen to confuse it with the DNC, did you?
#21
How we got to arguing about China on this thread, I have no idea
that would explain alot then. Let me review.
DLC calls for more troops. ZF suggested this would weaken the military, as the $ would come out of high tech weapons. I suggested the high tech weapons were not all focused on the WOT. I later explained this more fully, that many are focused on China. There is in fact a debate about the relative prioritization of the WOT and preparations wrt China. ZF has added valuable info to that debate here, and i respect him for that.
#22
You brought up China, not ZF, even though he has lots of knowledge on that subject.
You're going around in circles, LH, because you have nothing to say.
And even if you try to put me down by saying that you "respect" ZF and thereby imply that you don't respect what I have to say, that's cool.
I think you're an ass and any "respect" from you would be worthless.
#24
LH, lies, innuendos, half-truths and misinformation have to be met with facts and truths.
America is at war and yet you like to discuss top secret military matters as if we were discussing baseball scores.
That and the fact that you talk as if the DLC, and not SecDef Rumsfeld and the Pentagon, is leading our military cannot be allowed to stand without refutation.
Hillary Clinton isn't president yet and with God's help and mine, she never will be.
#25
LH - I'm well aware of the faction the DLC comprises - they're the ones out of power, even in their own party, with little of the money-raising force that MoveOn and Soros comprise. How many of their candidate's won last election? Rangel's a senior in the Donk party, and a winner forever. McKinney just got back in office, even Carl Levin's been stabbing the troops with Abu Grahib. Down in flames, and no adults on hand to stop it
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/25/2005 12:10 Comments ||
Top||
#27
I've argued in the past that we should increase the size of the Army -- carefully, with full regard for the need for trained NCOs -- by about a division. That division should be light infantry, mobile, with beefed up civil affairs units and strong peacemaking (not peacekeeping) abilities.
Steve the Army is way ahead of you - but you're a bit behind the evolution of doctrine. Take a look at the new emphasis on smaller units of deployment, with soldiers who rotate units far less frequently. Divisions are for major land battles. Deployable brigades are for the sort of mission you envision.
That said, I'm not sure light infantry quite describes the ideal focus. One reason that there are a lot of autonomous vehicles and smart weapons at the center of Future Combat System plans.
#28
They have exceeded the 4-hour boner limit on Viagra, call the doc.
Posted by: Captain America ||
07/25/2005 13:06 Comments ||
Top||
#29
LH, has it ever occurred to you that the reason American weaponry is so superior to that of other countries is because it keeps being improved? Countries that decide their stuff is good enough for now end up like France in WWII.
Liberals don't understand prosperity and the power of capital accumulation in free markets. Neither do they understand military superiority and the power of advanced weaponry in a volunteer citizen army.
The "Democratic Leadership Council" is irrelevant of the future of America. They have lost all branches of federal government and won't be back. Asserting that the US Army needs an extra 100k soldiers is as useful as asserting that the police need an extra 100k officers, or the economy needs an extra 1m jobs... It's power-lust made visible through wishful thinking unconnected to cause and effect.
#30
"America is at war and yet you like to discuss top secret military matters as if we were discussing baseball scores.
nothing ive posted here refers to top secret matters. I was discussing questions of strategy, on web site devoted to strategy. Thats what we do here at RB, isnt it? I hate to appeal to the owners again, but am i really out of bounds here in dicussing military procurement issues and their relationship to resources and the size of the army. If JT is correct, and I am out of bounds I will cease to discuss these matters here. Though in that case i probably wont come here much at all, as im not interested in coming here to discuss most of the other issues people here are focused on.
"That and the fact that you talk as if the DLC, and not SecDef Rumsfeld and the Pentagon, is leading our military cannot be allowed to stand without refutation."
We live in a democracy, where citizens are allowed to discuss and critique the policies of the govt. Republicans did that under Dem admins (as was their right) and will do so again in any future Dem admin (and of course people can and do criticize admins of their own party as well).
#31
The favoring of a troop increase is that they're a disposable (acquisition-wise) and relatively inexpensive asset.
Buying weapon systems and support equipment takes years and money to develop, support and maintain, even in mothballs.
Troop increases are a cheap way to 'boost' the military. Unlike weapon systems. troops have no constituency. No one complains when there's a reduction-in-force. One can even claim that one has reduced the size of government by doing so.
#32
" LH - I'm well aware of the faction the DLC comprises - they're the ones out of power, even in their own party, with little of the money-raising force that MoveOn and Soros comprise. "
In the past the DLC faction was much stronger on fundraising than the left. I think the left would be unwise to count on a trend of the last two years lasting forever.
"How many of their candidate's won last election?"
I dont have numbers handy. AFAIK they did reasonably well in the last couple of rounds of congressional elections.
" Rangel's a senior in the Donk party, and a winner forever."
Cause hes in a safe seat. Note well, when the GOP does well, and more swing seats switch to Reps, that means fewer centrist Dems. Of course it means more "RINO" Repubs, and you guys dont seem to like them much either.
#34
You're going around in circles, LH, because you have nothing to say. And even if you try to put me down by saying that you "respect" ZF and thereby imply that you don't respect what I have to say, that's cool. I think you're an ass and any "respect" from you would be worthless.
I'd say JT has gone ad hominem, LH. Ignore it at no risk.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
07/25/2005 13:24 Comments ||
Top||
#35
There are NO de facto "centrist Dems";
Lieberman's still around, but he's not allowed out in public much.
Gebhardt's out and so is Zell Miller, by choice.
Rangel's no centrist, nor is Hillary.
The party has swung irretrievably to the Left.
In the Dhimmicrat party, there's only Left and Far Left.
"Increasing the size of the military" is Dem speak for "We're weak, our military leaders are stupid and we can't win."
Highlighting the "threat of China" is another DNC talking point which implies that Bush is ignoring the menace of looming Chinese military might and over-focusing on his "folly" of Iraq where the Dems say we're in an unwinnable quagmire.
And if we are developing new, wonderful weapons, they're "not being used in the WOT."
In helping the enemy win the war, the Dhimmicrats motto is: Leave no talking point behind.
#36
Not all, Mrs. D.--see my post above this one.
Non-specific critique as to person, specific only to the Democrats/Liberals/"Progressives."
Hardly ad hominem.
#37
The post above is debate, JT. The one I qoted is ad hominem.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
07/25/2005 13:35 Comments ||
Top||
#38
Actually, personnel costs constitute the largest single slice of DoD budget. Just not pay, but housing, feeding, and sustaining eat up a lot. What Rummy has to look at is the long term costs. Regardless of whether you're Rep or Dem, its "Show me the Money!".
There's a lot in the budget people do not consider. Rising medical costs and expansion of health benefits for retirees, Guard and Reserve members, and their families, are putting a strain on the military health care system. Dr. William Winkenwerder, Asst. Secty of Defense for Health Affairs briefed Congress on 21 April. Winkenwerder said that TRICARE expanses have doubled over the past five years from $18 billion to nearly $36 billion. If the trend continues, the program's budget could top $50 billion within five years. Windenwerder estimated that by 2010, about 70% of the health budget will be spent caring for retirees. [Army Echos, May-Aug 2005, DAPE-RSO, Alexandria VA].
Now back in the 70s and 80s those joining the service were given the impression by their recruiters that medical care would be provided in retirement, and it was. However, since the 90s, the retirees have been charged for services which previously were free and have seen other services terminated. New charges are being added as we discuss this now. If you can not or will not sustain the existing force today, why are you call for more bodies requiring more support tomarrow? So, I repeat, "Show me the Money".
#40
Neither is deserving of being ignored, Mrs. D.
And after a heated exchange with me over a dozen or more posts then saying that he/she "respects" ZF's post, the first one on this long thread, isn't likewise an attack on me, who dares to point out the many problems with that one person's posts?
If what I said to LH sounds "ad hominem," that's because there are exactly 2 known Democrat/Leftist trolls on this site: LH and Mike S (neither of which seem to post at the same time. Coincidence?).
Ergo, refuting their incorrect, untruthful talking points tends to sound personal and "ad hominem."
#42
"Rumsfeld: China's Military Buildup a Threat
Associated Press | June 5, 2005
SINGAPORE -- China's military buildup, particularly its positioning of hundreds of missiles facing Taiwan, is a threat to Asian security, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Saturday.
Rumsfeld rebuked China at a regional security conference here, saying it was pouring huge resources into its military and buying large amounts of sophisticated weapons despite facing no threat from any other country.
The Pentagon chief's remarks signaled a harder line against China from the Bush administration, which has criticized Beijing over trade and human rights issues but not directly challenged its military buildup.
The director of the Asia bureau of China's foreign ministry, Cui Tiankai, was in the audience for Rumsfeld's speech and reacted strongly.
"Since the U.S. is spending a lot more money than China is doing on defense, the U.S. should understand that every country has its own security concerns and every country is entitled to spend money necessary for its own defense," Cui told The Associated Press after Rumsfeld's remarks.
Rumsfeld said the Pentagon's annual assessment of China's military capabilities shows China is spending more than its leaders acknowledge, expanding its missile capabilities and developing advanced military technology.
China now has the world's third-largest military budget, he said, behind the United States and Russia. He did not say how large the U.S. believes China's military budget is.
"Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment? Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases?" Rumsfeld said at the conference organized by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, a private, London-based think tank.
Cui responded sharply to Rumsfeld during a question-and-answer session.
"Do you truly believe that China is under no threat by other countries?" Cui asked. "Do you truly believe that the U.S. is threatened by the emergence of China?"
Rumsfeld said he does not think any country threatens China and that the United States does not see China as a threat.
Central to the disagreement is Taiwan, a self-governing island Beijing regards as a renegade territory.
China has said it will attack Taiwan if the island tries to declare independence, and it repeatedly calls on the United States to stop selling weapons to Taiwan. Beijing denounced a joint U.S.-Japan statement earlier this year saying the two allies shared the objective of a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue.
The United States is urging the European Union to keep in place its ban on selling weapons to China. Washington argues that any European weapons sold to China could be used in a conflict over Taiwan.
"I just look at the significant rollout of ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan, and I have to ask the question: If everyone agrees the question of Taiwan is going to be settled in a peaceful way, why this increase in ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan?" Rumsfeld said.
#44
"then saying that he/she "respects" ZF's post, the first one on this long thread, isn't likewise an attack on me, who dares to point out the many problems with that one person's posts?"
I pointed out that I respect ZF, so no one could interpret what I post about China as representing disrespect for what ZF posts about it. Period. Saying "I respect X" is NOT an ad hominem against Y. Well maybe to the supersensitive in this hyper PC age.
"If what I said to LH sounds "ad hominem," that's because there are exactly 2 known Democrat/Leftist trolls on this site: LH and Mike S"
Does anyone else here think im a troll?
" (neither of which seem to post at the same time. Coincidence?)."
Yup. Ive never posted as "mike S" perhaps we're just on different schedules.
#45
"So we can maintain our air superiority in any and all theaters we are or will be involved in, be it China, Iraq, Iran, you name it."
The Iranian air force, and any air force the Iranians could conceivably field, could be easily defeated by current US aircraft types. Ditto for any other middle eastern country or Islamic country. IF we're focused on mid eastern and Islamic countries, than expanding the ground force is almost certainly a higher priority than developing a superior fighter.
Red China is a threat. Nobody denies it. Only Democrats who believe they can score points against Bush like to change the subject and interrupt adults with questions such as "what about China?" when the current War is against Islamofascism.
Or are you now claiming that the DLC wants to add 100k soldiers in order to attack China?
The Democrats are the dead party of slavery, socialism and multi-culturalism. What they call for is mere interference and distraction. Watching them should be done for entertainment purpose, not to try to learn something important from their political posturing.
The future of America has nothing to do with what Democrats say. The game is over.
#47
As long as the Chinese behave themselves and keep their mitts off Taiwan, our policy is to pretend that they're great guys with whom we can "get along."
What would you have us do, LH, call them out?
Pre-emptively nuke 'em?
I don't think the ChiCom leadership itself knows what they want or what they're doing, they just love all the $$$s they're getting from making and selling us everything and they don't want that to stop anytime soon.
Do us a favor, Libby: Google the topic and do some reading on the topic, especially Mark Steyn.
There's no excuse for having an uninformed opinion, much less to go hauling off demanding military action based on that poorly-formed "analysis."
And, "you know," Hillary Clinton is *engaged* with the problem, too;
her big response to the threats to this country is to have the video game "Grand Theft Auto" more heavily censored because it has links to porn.
She would know this because she probably caught Bill playing with it.
Furthermore, if China has made such great strides militarily of late, it's all down to her hubby, too.
So we owe you Liberals a lot, really--your bitching and moaning about the Bush Administration is just a bonus.
Again and again, military men have seen themselves hurled into war by the ambitions, passions, and blunders of civilian governments, almost wholely uninformed as to the limits of their militiary potentials and almost recklessly indifferent to the military requirements of the wars they let loose. Aware that they may again be thrown by civilians into an unforseen conflict, perhaps with a foe they have not visaged, these realistic military men find themselves unable to do anything save demand all the men, guns, and supplies they may possibly wring from the civilians, in the hope that they may be prepared or half prepared for whatever may befall them. In so doing they inevitably find themselves associated with militaristic military men who demand all they can get merely for the sake of having it without reference to end. [History of Militiarism, Introduction, Vagts, Alfred, Free Press, NY]
Have to ask if anyone envisions a campaign on mainland China? and why? A Taiwan adventure would destroy the American market resulting in an economic depression with resultant social disruption and loss of centralized control by Beijing of its existant territories. How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Shanghai?
#49
False LH alternative of the day: either we add 100k soldiers as the Democrats say, or we waste money making better fighter jets we'll use in the Middle East only.
Neither is a reasonable plan. Thanks for demonstrating your irrelevance. I'm glad you, and your Democrat friends, don't control the US military.
" Only Democrats who believe they can score points against Bush like to change the subject and interrupt adults with questions such as "what about China?" when the current War is against Islamofascism."
Let me review again. The DLC wants to increase ground troops, for the WOT. ZF suggested this would detract from high tech weapons. I pointed out that high tech weapons are largely directed against China, not the WOT. Now there happens to have been a debate IN the Pentagon, that started way back in the '90s and grew more intense after 9/11, between the "small wars" people and the "near peer competitor" people. I was trying to point that out, and put the debate (ground troops vs high tech) in context. Now we have people who seem to deny that any such debate has taken place, despite it being a commonplace around the defense community AFAIK. Apparently cause the serious debate about strategy now taking place doesnt interest them as much as "St. Donald vs the Evil Dems".
"Or are you now claiming that the DLC wants to add 100k soldiers in order to attack China?"
No, i was implying the exact opposite. The DLC seems to be more focused on the WOT (for which the ground troops are important) and less focused on China (for which the high tech is more important) I was expected ZF to respond that the DLC is foolish and naive for neglecting China, and to explain why, a POV that I could have learned from. Instead I get people who think im some kinda spy for repeating the conventional wisdom about the strategic debate in the Pentagon.
#51
"What would you have us do, LH, call them out?"
if theyre not an imminent threat, as you say, I would have us focus on expanding the ground forces, not building weapons systems only of use against China. OTOH if they ARE threat, then we SHOULD develop the high tech weapons systems.
#52
Lessee... who to believe regards needs, threats, best actions for present and future security of US interests...
Bush / Rummy --or-- DLC / China / Lh
#53
"False LH alternative of the day: either we add 100k soldiers as the Democrats say, or we waste money making better fighter jets we'll use in the Middle East only"
But that is the debate thats underway, and not just among Dems, either. Lots of folks - dems (at least the DLC ones), Repubs like McCain and Kristol, Pentagon consultants like Barnett, and apparently a large section of the Pentagon brass think we SHOULD expand the ground forces. IF we do, the fear on the part of others is that we will short change the high tech weapons programs, SOME of which, like the fighter program, ARE of use only against a near peer competitor.
Im lost - when did China suggest that the US needed a larger ground force?
Do you really think its only me and the DLC who think we need a larger ground force?
"I've argued in the past that we should increase the size of the Army -- carefully, with full regard for the need for trained NCOs -- by about a division. That division should be light infantry, mobile, with beefed up civil affairs units and strong peacemaking (not peacekeeping) abilities. We'd use that division, or brigades from that division, in various spots where we need peacemaking done in such a way that the locals behave. As one example: Kosovo.
It would take several years to get such a division trained, equipped, and ready to roll. I'd start today.
Posted by: Steve White 2005-07-25 11:11"
lol!! haaahhhaa (sniff, sniff, wipes tear) Thanks Liberal Hawk. That's a good one. And exactly where is it that they plan to take the fight? Not Iraq, of course. Or are we now back to, I voted for it (before Bush lied and people died). We don't need the troops in Afghanistan.
Or do they just need to troops to prevent more atrocities in Gitmo? Are they planning on invading Turkey? Maybe they want to invade Iran.
Tell me liberal hawk..just where exactly is it that the DLC wants these troops to go. Don't tell me where YOU want them to fight, I want to hear where they claim they intend to send them. And a source please. I look forward to hearing where the DLC says they need to actually take the fight.
#57
I think the comments in this thread are pretty tough on LH, who is not a troll or anything close to it. And I seem to recall a number of comments over the last couple of years to the effect that having another 2 or 3 divisions would be pretty helpful right at this point. While I'm surely not qualified to comment on force structure, we are at the point where the same troopers are going to be pulling their third tour in Iraq or Afghanistan. That's a lot to ask of even the most professional of soldiers.
Posted by: Matt ||
07/25/2005 14:15 Comments ||
Top||
#58
Unless and until Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld tells the President that we need a larger military, I'd urge the Dems to leave it alone.
Ditto with the weapons system and development.
*Most* Americans are content to let the Pentagon handle the war.
That's why we pay them the big bucks.
("Fools rush in where angels fear to tread..."
Why are Lib Dhimms always so ready to mess with stuff that the American public either doesn't care about or shouldn't care about, like the problems raised by their resident troll here ["We're going to be killed by the mighty Chinese!"" Our armies are tiny!"...and what goes on at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and who told the press that visible Beltway socialite and mother of toddler twins Valerie Plame was an undercover spy on black ops?)
#59
From the website of the Project for the New American Century
"Dear Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Speaker Hastert, and Representative Pelosi:
The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume. Those responsibilities are real and important. They are not going away. The United States will not and should not become less engaged in the world in the years to come. But our national security, global peace and stability, and the defense and promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world require a larger military force than we have today. The administration has unfortunately resisted increasing our ground forces to the size needed to meet today's (and tomorrow's) missions and challenges.
So we write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative branch to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years.
There is abundant evidence that the demands of the ongoing missions in the greater Middle East, along with our continuing defense and alliance commitments elsewhere in the world, are close to exhausting current U.S. ground forces. For example, just late last month, Lieutenant General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, reported that "overuse" in Iraq and Afghanistan could be leading to a "broken force." Yet after almost two years in Iraq and almost three years in Afghanistan, it should be evident that our engagement in the greater Middle East is truly, in Condoleezza Rice's term, a "generational commitment." The only way to fulfill the military aspect of this commitment is by increasing the size of the force available to our civilian leadership.
The administration has been reluctant to adapt to this new reality. We understand the dangers of continued federal deficits, and the fiscal difficulty of increasing the number of troops. But the defense of the United States is the first priority of the government. This nation can afford a robust defense posture along with a strong fiscal posture. And we can afford both the necessary number of ground troops and what is needed for transformation of the military.
In sum: We can afford the military we need. As a nation, we are spending a smaller percentage of our GDP on the military than at any time during the Cold War. We do not propose returning to a Cold War-size or shape force structure. We do insist that we act responsibly to create the military we need to fight the war on terror and fulfill our other responsibilities around the world.
The men and women of our military have performed magnificently over the last few years. We are more proud of them than we can say. But many of them would be the first to say that the armed forces are too small. And we would say that surely we should be doing more to honor the contract between America and those who serve her in war. Reserves were meant to be reserves, not regulars. Our regulars and reserves are not only proving themselves as warriors, but as humanitarians and builders of emerging democracies. Our armed forces, active and reserve, are once again proving their value to the nation. We can honor their sacrifices by giving them the manpower and the materiel they need.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power and the duty to raise and support the military forces of the United States in the hands of the Congress. That is why we, the undersigned, a bipartisan group with diverse policy views, have come together to call upon you to act. You will be serving your country well if you insist on providing the military manpower we need to meet America's obligations, and to help ensure success in carrying out our foreign policy objectives in a dangerous, but also hopeful, world.
Respectfully,
Peter Beinart Jeffrey Bergner Daniel Blumenthal
Max Boot (respected neocon, author of "Small Wars") Eliot Cohen (former Reagan admin official) Ivo H. Daalder
Thomas Donnelly Michele Flournoy Frank F. Gaffney, Jr. (hardline pundit, published in WOT)
Reuel Marc Gerecht (Weekly Standard, AEI) Lt. Gen. Buster C. Glosson (USAF, retired)
Bruce P. Jackson Frederick Kagan Robert Kagan (AEI, neocon)
Craig Kennedy Paul Kennedy Col. Robert Killebrew (USA, retired)
William Kristol (Weekly Standard) Will Marshall Clifford May
Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey (USA, retired) Daniel McKivergan
Joshua Muravchik Steven J. Nider Michael O'Hanlon
Mackubin Thomas Owens Ralph Peters Danielle Pletka (AEI)
Stephen P. Rosen Major Gen. Robert H. Scales (USA, retired)
Randy Scheunemann Gary Schmitt
Walter Slocombe James B. Steinberg R. James Woolsey (ex CIA head under Reagan, hardline neocon)
I can't think of a prominent neocon outside the admin whose name is NOT on the above list.
#61
Saying you want to enlarge the military is like saying you are going to "fix" social security or provide free health care for everyone. It sounds very nice, but it's typical liberal flash and no substance.
You can't just "provide free health care" you have to fund it, find a way to distribute it and make it work. It's not just about getting up there and saying you want to hire 100,000 new health care workers. Yeah..great. So I just hired 100,000 new health care workers. Where shall we put them and who'se going to pay them, and where does the money for their equipment come from.
If the dems really meant that they wanted to add more troops - they'd work with the Pentagon to find ways to fund it - but they do not.
#62
"Tell me liberal hawk..just where exactly is it that the DLC wants these troops to go"
Well IF the insurgency is in its last death throes, then not Iraq, cause in that case by the time these troops are ready the Iraqis will be handling their own defense. OTOH, its possible we will still be in Iraq more than 3 years from now, and we will need a larger ground force so that commitment stresses our ground force less. We need troops available in the event of many possible contingencies - just cause one isnt currently calling for war with country X, doesnt mean its responsible to ignore the dangers and undercertainty that pervade the world. Esp with the WOT, one doesnt know which country will act in such a way with respect to harboring terrorists, or developing WMDs, that it will be necessary to go to war. Theres also the possiblity that AQ could take over a muslim state again.
#63
"So I just hired 100,000 new health care workers. Where shall we put them and who'se going to pay them, and where does the money for their equipment come from. "
theres no shortage of bases in which to put soldiers. And the DLC has plenty to say about the budget in general, IIUC.
#64
You quoted "The director of the Asia bureau of China's foreign ministry, Cui Tiankai" extensively - by posting the text of an AP "story" - as if his view was part of this debate. BTW, just do the link, next time.
This is simple, you're a Donk. You promote Donk shit and do so using strawmen at least as often as anyone here on RB. Donk shit stinks to many of us. Many, perhaps most, of those who support increased troop levels are NOT military experts nor do they know all of Rummy's global force consolidation plans nor are they always honest brokers regards the best interests of the US - the Pentagon has a fair number of fuckwits just like any other large US agency, they all need serious cleaning to get rid of the Donk shit deposited everywhere during the Fuck the Military Campaign of Clinton's Camelot II era of idiocy. McCain? LOL, right.
I'll take Bush / Rummy, since they are on the line for doing it right and will, therefore, actually try to do it right.
Most certainly the Donk-led efforts to shove a troop increase down Rummy's throat is nothing more than that - transparent political wanking. They should concentrate on those things they know something about. What is that? Well...
It's all OPINION, anyway, mostly uninformed and politically motivated, so Who do you trust? is the real question.
#65
niiiice sidestep LH. I didn't ask you if you thought more troops was a good idea - I asked you to show how the DLC intended to use the troops they are asking for. So you give me a list of neo-cons who write that they think it should be considered. Bzzzt. wrong answer.
#66
"You quoted "The director of the Asia bureau of China's foreign ministry, Cui Tiankai" extensively - by posting the text of an AP "story" - as if his view was part of this debate. BTW, just do the link, next time."
I was mainly trying to post Rummys views, to show he considered China a threat (which JT seemed not to realize) Im sorry if i didnt snip enough for you. (Ive had difficulty posting links in the past)
#67
I'll tell you what LH. I'll go for a nice swim. Enjoy my afternoon. You busy yourself looking for where the liberal dems have put themselves on record for wanting to send these additional troops. Not just a platitude here or there, but you hunker down for me and find me a realistic, meaningful proposal by the dems to take the fight to the terrorists. Have fun.
#68
" niiiice sidestep LH. I didn't ask you if you thought more troops was a good idea - I asked you to show how the DLC intended to use the troops they are asking for. So you give me a list of neo-cons who write that they think it should be considered. Bzzzt. wrong answer."
the neocon list was NOT in response to you 2b, but in response to those who think only Dems are calling for this increase.
Where does the DLC think they should be used? I dont know, and you can check their site as easily as I can. I suspect they take the same position i do on this - they DONT have a hit list in mind, but realize that the WOT is likely to require more US interventions in the future.
I DO trust Bush and Rummy - they've done more in the ~4 yrs since 9/11 than I could've ever hoped for - and infinitely more than any Donk putz would've done. They've earned my trust the hard way - by actions.
#71
So long as the Dems provide money to the campaigns of Byrd, Rangel, Durbin, etc, there is no "center" to the party. Merely a "far left" and a "loony left".
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/25/2005 14:45 Comments ||
Top||
#72
well how typically liberal. Just demand and you can make it so. Free Health Care! More soldiers! Increased minimum wage! Someone to mow your lawn for you when you stub your toe or get old! Someday we might need more soldiers! Hire 100,000 more!! What's that? Where are we going to send them? hell if I know - somewhere! What more do you need for justifcation than that. Budgets, bean counters (bah, boring) we'll just tax the peasants and tell them the health care is "free".
#73
I didn't say that China wasn't a threat, it's just not THE threat.
As Rummy himself said, "You fight the war you've got."
Right now, we've got troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan (and sometimes Syria and Pakistan), as well as having troops stationed at various hotspots like the Horn of Africa, Haiti, the Sinai,South Korea and Germany.
If your sole rationale for increasing troop strength is to meet a Chinese buildup, you're sh*t out of luck--we'll never be able to match the Chinese in numbers.
But they can't touch us in any other way.
The ChiComs completely reorganized their army after they saw US take Iraq in OIF--they were shocked that we kicked Saddam's butt and marched to Baghdad in 3 fricking weeks!
What we're trying to tell you, is that the Libs aren't talking facts, numbers and truths--they're just looking for a new way to criticize the Bush Administration.
And you're no exception.
Why do you persist in making post after inane post as if there's substance and truth to what you're saying, when there isn't?
Rummy wants to win this war as much as anyone--and NO. He didn't get where he is today by ignoring any Chinese threat!--if he says we need more troops or if one of his generals says so, then we'll pay attention and so will President Bush.
(BTW, Bill Kristol is anything but a "neo-con."
Are you aware that calling someone a "neo-con" is an anti-Semetic slur and is Lib code for "Jew?")
Fred gives you a button and/or HTML code to post links, LH.
Could it be any easier?
#74
RC - if theyre sending national Dem money to Rangel or Byrd, theyre utter idiots. Youre supposed to spend your money on swing races, not safe seats.
#78
JT - i never said that China was the rationale for increasing troop strength. If you dont understand what ive been saying, after all these posts, theres no point repeating it.
as for neocons - no, it doesnt always mean "jew". There really is a neoconservative movement, that has advocated a lot of distinctive and interesting policies. If you read the above list, you will notice that at least two of the individuals i referred to as neocons, Woolsey and Gaffney, are NOT Jewish. And of course i was using neocon not in a derogatory fashion, but positively as a credential.
Im confused that you think Bill Kristol is anything but a neocon. are you aware that his father, Irving Kristol, founded the neocon movement, and, IIRC, wrote a book about it? Im quite sure Bill has called himself a neocon - ill have to find a cite.
in this thread we've got people who
A. Think that theres no debate within the pentagon about grand strategy
B. People who think that Bill Kristol is NOT a neocon
C. People who think that only Democrats want more troops
D. People who think that you can only justify a military expenditure if you are advocating war against a particular country
Why do some of these threads have such an air of unreality?
#89
Matt: While I'm surely not qualified to comment on force structure, we are at the point where the same troopers are going to be pulling their third tour in Iraq or Afghanistan. That's a lot to ask of even the most professional of soldiers.
WWII infantry, most of whom were draftees, fought until they were killed or too severely wounded to continue. Liberals haven't even addressed what we need to make our recruiting numbers (which is probably radically increased pay, and an expanded defense budget), and they want to increase the number of infantrymen.
The reason we always need the latest equipment is because our potential opponents certainly never stop developing theirs. And we never really know what their capabilities are. Until the unexpected happens, and war breaks out. Our equipment is what keeps our military from sustaining big casualties. You can talk all day about training, but against a determined and somewhat capable opponent, equipment is what gives you the edge. Just ask the Brits about the Falklands War, where they lost 257 dead and 6 ships against an American-trained and -equipped opponent.
#90
it's a slur against jews, that you use it just shows how willing you are to align yourself with the left at any cost - even with them mocking you in your own presence. The fact that jews also use the term doesn't change it's underlying vile intent when aimed at the Bush administration. An administration controlled by the Neocon Jewish cabal. Jeesh 6 million dead and you still can't grasp the danger in promting that lie.
#91
2b did you actually read my post - i was trying to show that most neocons actually supported the DLC position on this issue more than the admin position. How is that supporting the notion of a neocon admin cabal??? Just cause idiot lefty antisemites use neocon to mean jew, doesnt mean neocon isnt a perfectly legitimate word with a perfectly legitimate meaning.
#92
yes I did read your post. And someone pointed out to you it is used as a slur - which you dismissed and I felt disgusted by.
perfectly legitimate word with a perfectly legitimate meaning.
I suppose using your logic, ni*&er is a perfectly legitimate word with a perfectly legitimate meaning when referring to a black person who, for whatever reason, is not worthy of ones respect. Even so, you won't find me using it.
#93
"WWII infantry, most of whom were draftees, fought until they were killed or too severely wounded to continue."
Its not clear that the level of exhaustion relative to conventional warfare is the same as that wrt to counterinsurgency. In any case we were willing to allow the training levels of the military to decline - this was total war, with the expectation that once Germany was defeated, wed be at peace, and there was no one else we were likely to fight. If we exhaust our troops in Iraq, or somewhere else, and dont allow them adequate time to train (on all that new equipment you want) will they be ready for the next front of the WOT?
Also, WW2 involved total mobilization of the economy, which undoubtedly changed soldiers expectations.
We have a semi-professional apologist who believes the Donks are more interested in protecting US interests and national security than political games. Yewbetcha.
I'm happy I don't pay your salary. I'm retired, so I can post all day - and no one is cheated. You?
#95
ZF, this is neither here not there to the main point of the thread (whatever that is), but I agree that the Brits were not optimally equipped for the Falklands War (and I think the lesson there is to avoid being too focused on one scenario, i.e., ASW in the North Atlantic.) But neither were the Brits optimally trained for Falklands War: IIRC the largest single loss of life was among the Scots Guards on the Sir Galahad, who needed to get ashore before the Argie airstrike arrived.
But they did win.
Posted by: Matt ||
07/25/2005 15:19 Comments ||
Top||
#96
RC - if theyre sending national Dem money to Rangel or Byrd, theyre utter idiots. Youre supposed to spend your money on swing races, not safe seats.
Forget money -- how about party affiliation and endorsement? When David Duke tried to run as a Republican, the Republicans endorsed his Democrat opponent!
Yet the Donks kiss the ass of every extremist who slaps a 'D' after his name. See also, Sharpton.
Why do some of these threads have such an air of unreality?
Because you're here?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/25/2005 15:23 Comments ||
Top||
#97
liberalhawk you switch topics and ignore facts faster than Clinton says "is, isn't".
Where is the list of specific War conditions and objectives that the DLC is enumerating to justify an extra 100k soldiers? if you can't, or won't, produce it, that settles the case.
Don't argue anything else. Don't quote anybody else. Don't hypothesize. Just give us the detailed DLC justification and budget for an extra 100k soldiers, beyond the increases already approved, in terms of the current War.
#98
Matt: ZF, this is neither here not there to the main point of the thread (whatever that is), but I agree that the Brits were not optimally equipped for the Falklands War (and I think the lesson there is to avoid being too focused on one scenario, i.e., ASW in the North Atlantic.) But neither were the Brits optimally trained for Falklands War: IIRC the largest single loss of life was among the Scots Guards on the Sir Galahad, who needed to get ashore before the Argie airstrike arrived.
The main point of the thread is the question of whether it makes sense to sacrifice new equipment to hire new troops. My argument is no. The problem with the Brits is that they never thought they would have to defend their overseas holdings - the mere threat of the British navy appearing over the horizon would do. We shouldn't have any such illusions - we have more "mutual" defense treaties (and thus, threat scenarios) than you can shake a stick at.
If we need to get new infantry in a hurry, we can do it - far better to get green troops into combat with air cover than have to field experienced troops without air cover. If we need new air superiority aircraft in a hurry, it simply can't be done. Folks like Ralph Peters assume that air cover is America's birthright and that the F-22 is superfluous. The reality is that it is won by American technological superiority that requires the continued funding of new generations of airplanes, ordnance and avionics. Our potential adversaries aren't standing still, and we don't know everything we'd like to know about their capabilities.
Note that India was able to explode a nuke, which requires massive infrastructure, without anyone in the Clinton administration knowing beforehand. And this is in a country, India, that is relatively open, and the penalties for spying aren't particularly draconian. Note that the CIA had to send Joe Wilson the bozo into Niger to determine whether they were selling uranium to the Iraqis. What other things don't we know about our potential adversaries?
#99
Uh oh, you're talking about "unknown unknowns" - you're penalized 10 points and have to move backwards 3 spaces. Rummy's persona non-grata, y'know. Check with Charlie I Support the troops! Honest! Wrangler regards the remainder.
#102
it makes sense to sacrifice new equipment to hire new troops.
I found that comment interesting in that the thrust of our Pentagon right now is to come up with smarter technology to decrease the need for troops. And they have been very sucessful.
So what do we get - the usual suspect Donks immediately doing an about face and demanding more troops! Not just a few more, but 100,000 more. Which would of course, mean that money for the superior technology would not be available.
What's most interesting about this is that it isn't even going to cross a serious person's mind that these sleezy Donks have the best interests of our country in mind. Yeah, the sheep, who were yesterday saying "bring our troops home" will bah, bah, and say, "we need more troops", cause that's what sheep do. But the true believers are a small percentage of the population, as Air America proved. Most Americans indeed support our troops and efforts to fight this war.
But what is interesting to me is that the majority of Americans (who are paying attention) will simply realize that this is just another effort by this group of sleezy Donks to weaken our military. And what is even more interesting than that is that we just sort of accept that - that their goal is to weaken the US military. WoW! If you think about it, the fact that these exposed frauds remain in the halls of congress, when their goals are so transparent, is really quite strange.
#103
which after thinking about it, is really what's going on here. The budgets have been passed - the bean counters have justified the new projects to be funded.
So this whole "more troops" is just more obstructionist donk dealings. Since they can't say - "you can't have the money that was already allocated for the war effort" they will say, "you can't spend that money on technology, we need it for more troops".
#104
Robin pointed out to me, a long ways back in this thread: Deployable brigades are for the sort of mission you envision.
Thanks, I could never say that I'm 'up' on all the military doctrine. Yes, deployable brigades of light infantry (or whatever works best) for these peacemaking missions would be very helpful, and I wouldn't object to carefully-planned growth there.
I also understand the point about developing weapons systems that decrease the need for troops -- all for it since that will also keep our people alive. I wonder if such systems will be as useful in a post-conflict situation like Iraq or Afghanistan, where the need for people undoubtedly will be greater. Hence my thought on additional troops. I wouldn't put a number on it since I'm not smart enough to know how many we need, but I do wonder if some additional regular army troops would be helpful.'
A final note: it's getting mighty personal on this thread. No need for that.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/25/2005 16:34 Comments ||
Top||
#105
A few points.
First, two tactical - but very critical - issues wrt increasing the size of the Army. a) To train new troops you need to pull experienced NCOs out of deployment. Senior NCOs are the heart and glue of our armed forces - pulling them out for training duties would significantly degrade the Army. And using lesser NCOs would do the same, it would just take longer. b) The Army is NOT experiencing problems with recruiting people for the combat arms. Recruitment shortfalls have been developing in support specialties where a fair number of people have joined in the recent past as a way to have a job / education without the dangers and rigors of the combat arms. To a fair degree, if we need to, we can outsource those jobs to contractors. There are downsides to doing that, but upsides as well.
Second, if you expand the armed forces now you guarantee that you will be making a huge investment in yesterday's Army, in the face of tomorrow's wars and missions. Even our incredibly professional, agile military in place today sometimes feels like they are risking whiplash as they adjust to uncertain missions, new fighting doctrines -- being evolved as we speak in places like Iraq -- and a whole generation of new weapons and support systems that are just rolling out for test and deployment.
In short, this is -- according to experienced battle commanders and leaders I've talked with -- the exactly WRONG time to be talking about expanding the Army.
#106
That's a good moderating post Steve. The idea of discussing more troops v/s modern technology is a worthy discussion and the baby should not be thrown out with the bath-water.
The problem is that we all know that this particular group does not have the good of the country in mind.
So, in the sense that this group is promoting it, we need to look and see why they are promoting it, rather than to just agree or disagree that more troops are or are not needed. Because if their intentions are to obstruct - then we need to know how and why.
#109
I've carefully stayed out of this thread because I've nothing intelligent to add to the upstaffing discussion beyond posting the original article for your delectation.
However, just for the record, it was only yesterday that I identified myself as a neocon -- in exactly the sense Liberalhawk and the self-identified Neocons use the term (a born and bred Liberal mugged by reality... although the original guys were Red Diaper Babies, and my evolution wasn't nearly so dramatic).
I triple dare any of you to tell me I'm an antisemite for doing so. And then be prepared to take it outside.
#110
I'd never call you an anti-Semite, Jen (LOL) but I fear even you have misunderstood the term "neo-con."
Actually the word has very little meaning.
It doesn't really mean a Liberal mugged by reality or the reality of 9/11 who's become a Conservative, although we're glad to have you aboard.
It's used, generally by the Left/Dems/Libs to connote a "certain type" of RightWinger--it was and is code for "Jew" or "Jew-lover"(in my case) because Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz were its original proponents.
All we "neo-cons" are supposedly warmongering RightWingers (usually GOPers) who heartily believe and endorse the Bush Doctrine of preemption.
It's really a meaningless term, only used by Leftwing idealogues to denigrate and label their political enemies.
Don't fall for it or claim it.
#111
I'm a ConNeo. I thought his acting was wooden and stilted, as usual. I gave it 1.5 stars cuz Carrie Ann Moss looked pretty hot in black leather riding a scooter.
#112
LH, I'm a little disturbed: first you say that noone's talking about cutting weapons programs to pay for the troops, but then you go ahead and imply that we need to cut aircraft development to pay for the troops.
The problem is that weapons development has become an expensive and long-drawn-out process. As far as I am concerned, too much has already been cut from procurement: specifically, the Comanche helicopter and (in the earlier administration) the M-8 tank, and the XM-8 rifle (Although there were implementation problems with the latter).
The Pentagon has gotten into the habit of developing weapons platforms from scratch and then after getting the factory set up, cancelling the thing to pay for some need-for-the-moment... that's what happened with the M-8 tank, for instance.
It will be even more expensive, over the LONG term, to do this to the F-22; if we cancel it, we won't be able to rush a replacement project into service cheaply or quickly in the event of a war with China or Russia, which also has an advanced air force.
(Another good example would be the Stealth Bomber, where we built a factory capable of building hundreds of them, ran twenty off the assembly line, and shut it down.)
A quick note about the F-22 fighter: it's not meant for use against _just_ an enemy's air force. A bunch of F-16's would be "good enough" to deal with, for instance, Iran's Air Force, if Iran were cooperative enough to send up their air force and never try to use the SAM installations they have.
The Russian-supplied militaries throughout the world use their SAM systems as cheap force-multipliers for their air forces; they use the same missiles the Russians use as an anti-ballistic missile system around Moscow. They're very fast, much longer-ranged than any currently existing western system, and fly ballistic trajectories outside the atmosphere. I imagine they're good enough to handle any F-16 that isn't flying nape-of-the-earth, but if you send a F-16 down there, guess what? It's a sitting duck for any obsolete fighter aircraft that has a non-obsolete radar-guided air-to-air missile.
The F-22 is meant to fight in an environment where the postulated opponent not only has an air force but hypersonic missiles and phased array radars tied together with their air force using a large computer network.
Iran has purchased that above-mentioned missile system, BTW.
Finally, it's bothersome that the Democrats, who cut the army by four active divisions and two reserve divisions, or about 28%, or 200,000 people, during the 1992-2000 time frame, are offering to restore _some_ of them IF they get to cut one or more of the other services at the same time, and pretending that that makes them strong on defense.
Finally, these cuts weren't performed by some Democratic administration lost in the mists of history; they were performed by the Democratic administration of the husband of the putative nominee, who's trying to pretend she's a hawk now.
But she wants to talk about this expansion as if these cuts never happened on her husband's administration's watch, and they just happened without being the decision of anyone she was connected with.
It appears very dishonest to me.
Frankly, I'm dissatisfied with the funding levels for the military from both parties, but the Democrats for the moment appear to be more dishonest to me, wanting to move money around from recapitalization to manpower in a way that will be _very_ expensive (and probably costly to manpower further down the road) and pretending that's a funding increace. It isn't.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
07/25/2005 21:58 Comments ||
Top||
#113
Some other time I'll come back and read all this, but it's bedtime. I have enjoyed reading Liberalhawk, from time to time, and hope y'all haven't driven him away. Mike S is even O.K. but not quite as reasoned as LH. If you want a single point-of-view, you're on the wrong (as in 'not right') side of the aisle.
Good night! 11+ posts? Wow. Civil discourse.
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/25/2005 21:58 Comments ||
Top||
#114
To put it another way: during the late 90's, they moved money from recapitalization to operations to pay for Bosnia.
This is the main reason the US Army didn't have the M-8 tank during the Afghanistan campaign. When Clinton ordered Bosnia without asking for special supplementary funding, it was what got cut.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
07/25/2005 22:36 Comments ||
Top||
#115
I live in Colorado Springs. Fort Carson, with the 3rd ACR, is on the south. Peterson and Schriver AF Bases are to the east. The Air Force Academy is on the north, and Cheyenne Mountain is on the west. In addition, there are more than 40,000 military retirees in the area. You hear a lot of "stuff" around here, and some of it even makes it into the Gazette, the local (non-liberal) newspaper.
Troop strengths for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force have increased incrementally every year since 2002. The increases are small - on the average of about 300 per service per year. In addition, more than 270,000 Guard and Reserve slots are being added, again only a few at a time. Most, if not all, of the slots are being added in combat arms and intelligence areas. It was all but IMPOSSIBLE to find this information - it took looking through over 4000 pages of government budget information online. Needless to say, it took me most of two weeks, doing little else.
Bush is doing what needs to be done, with Rumsfeld's help. We WILL add an additional division - over a ten-year period, unless the Democrats stop the process. We will also add another active Marine brigade, two Army Reserve support battalions, and at least fifteen independent regiments within the Reserves, and who knows what within the Guard. There are about 4000 slots I couldn't find anything on, half active, half Reserve. Part of the Base Closure program is being pushed to free up more funds that can be used to increase troop strength.
As one general officer politely told me, many years ago, technical superiority is a "force multiplier" - the greater the technical superiority, the fewer number of troops that have to be put in danger. That's why we're working on laser weapons, new fighters, better ships, tactical robots, local reconnaissance capability, and who knows what else. To do anything else would be considered criminal among a sane, intelligent population.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
07/25/2005 23:19 Comments ||
Top||
#116
More PC bywords this week for Socialism and Big Govt - "shared sacrifice", "measured security/response", and "certainty"!?
A total of 147 foreign-born US military personnel serving in Iraq gathered inside a former Saddam Hussein palace to be granted US citizenship. In a mass ceremony the soldiers, sailors, and airmen, along with one marine and a navy medic, simultaneously raised their right hands and swore to "support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Those sworn in as US citizens came from 46 countries, with the single largest group born in Mexico (27), followed by the Philippines (15), Jamaica (nine) and Nicaragua (eight) and Nigeria (five). Other nations of origin included China, India, Taiwan and Vietnam. There was even one Iraqi-born soldier.
The ceremony, in the giant indoor rotunda of the Al-Faw palace, in Baghdad's Camp Victory military base, was led by Lieutenant General John Vines, the commander of the Multinational Corps in Iraq. Three officials from the naturalization branch of the US Department of Homeland Security were also present. "Welcome into that exclusive club called American citizenship," Vines told the group.
Army Specialist Maridel Cardona-Herrera, 31, who was born in the Philippines, could only find one word to describe both the event and the giant rotunda inside ornate palace where the event took place: "fantastic." The event was the largest such ceremony overseas since citizenship rules were modified in November 2003 to make it easier for US military personnel to become citizens in times of war. Military officials require recruits to be permanent US residents to join the military, but citizenship is not a requirement. There are 45,000 non-US citizens currently serving in the US military, said Linda Dougherty, one of the US government civilian officials at the event.
Posted by: too true ||
07/25/2005 19:46 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#5
Article: Military officials require recruits to be permanent US residents to join the military, but citizenship is not a requirement.
And for US permanent residents (i.e. green card holders), military service is not a requirement for citizenship*, even though the media strives to give the erroneous impression that these people are signing up so that they can become citizens. Permanent residents also do not require citizenship for employment in the US. These folks are becoming citizens because they want to be citizens.
* 5 years of residence on American soil is all that's required.
#11
Max Boot has been suggesting offering a quicker route to citizenshiop through the military in order to make the recruitment goals. Seems like a good idea to me.
#12
But, but we are bad! Dont they realize that the U.S. is the bad guy in the world? Good show Citizens WELCOME HOME! Wonder why this didn;t get more play inte the MSM, oh yea thats why.
Haroon Rashid Aswat, the man accused of masterminding the London suicide bombings is also being hunted by the FBI, who say he tried to set up an Al-Qaeda training camp in America.
The 30-year-old, whose parents hailed from Gujarat, was named last week as the 'Mr Big' who authorities believe was behind the London attacks. Many newspapers even reported he had been arrested in Pakistan.
The Mail on Sunday quoted FBI sources saying they suspected Aswat to be the "main man" behind the July 7 attacks, although highly placed British security sources dismissed his involvement.
Aswat, according to the report, was a follower of a radical Islamic cleric in London, who cannot be named for legal reasons.
According to FBI sources, Aswat first came to the attention of the Americans in 1999 when he arrived in Seattle with another man, Oussama Kassir, a Swede of Lebanese descent who once bragged about being Osama bin Laden's 'hit man'.
The FBI claimed that the pair met James Ujaama, 36, who proposed an Afghanistan-style training camp near the sleepy town of Bly, Oregon, with a population of 500.
The dilapidated 160-acre ranch earmarked as the jihad training site was owned by a relative of Semi Osman, a man who worshipped in the same Seattle mosque as Ujaama.
But the plan quickly descended into farce. According to sources familiar with the case, Aswat was frustrated when, on arriving at the Dog Cry Ranch, he found that Ujaama did not have a key to open the locked gate.
The men then discovered they had to share a dilapidated trailer with no bathroom or running water. There was no food and they were forced to hunt quail and rabbits to eat. Things went from bad to worse when Osman was driving with Aswat near the ranch one morning and they were stopped by police for jumping a red light.
Police officer Morrie Smith told The Mail on Sunday: "It was just a last-minute traffic stop before my shift ended. The men in the car were wearing long, black trench-coats with camouflage trousers underneath. They were of ethnic origin and were sweating profusely. The driver was nervous.
"The man in the front passenger seat, who I now believe was Aswat, looked Indian and had a beard. He was clutching a briefcase and he appeared very protective of it. Every time I looked at him, he pulled it closer to his chest. It threw me because you don't get sights like that on the roads here in Bly.
"I booked the driver for not having a licence and then allowed the car to go. I could have arrested them, but did not as I had a gut feeling there was something very strange and dangerous about these men. It was a traffic stop which I now realize could have gone very bad indeed."
The FBI said Aswat and Kassir left Oregon in disgust and returned to Britain dismissive of the Bly training camp proposal.
Ujaama was indicted by federal authorities in Seattle in 2002 for offering support to the Taliban. Because he cooperated with FBI, Ujaama was sentenced to just 24 months in jail. He is believed to have helped American officials identify a photograph of Haroon Aswat taken in London.
Last night, senior Whitehall security sources said Aswat was not wanted in connection with the current terrorist attacks.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
07/25/2005 09:49 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Article: I could have arrested them, but did not as I had a gut feeling there was something very strange and dangerous about these men. It was a traffic stop which I now realize could have gone very bad indeed.
That's right - it could have prevented this cop from making it to the donut store at his normal appointed time.
#2
"I booked the driver for not having a licence and then allowed the car to go. I could have arrested them, but did not as I had a gut feeling there was something very strange and dangerous about these men. It was a traffic stop which I now realize could have gone very bad indeed."
This cop still thinks that he did a good thing. Truly amazing.
Posted by: Formerly Dan ||
07/25/2005 18:51 Comments ||
Top||
True effort or taqqiya? I'm not clever enough to venture an opinion. EFL.
American Muslim leaders say they have already taken up the challenge facing British Muslims after this month's deadly suicide bombings, helping law enforcement root out extremists. But their efforts face a similar problem - getting support from all the faithful.
The Muslim Public Affairs Council, an advocacy group based in Los Angeles, last year started the "National Anti-Terrorism Campaign," urging Muslims to monitor their own communities, speak out more boldly against violence and work with law enforcement officials. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based civil rights organization, is running a TV ad and a petition-drive called "Not in the Name of Islam," which repudiates terrorism. And Muslims in New York and several other cities have joined FBI advisory committees to resolve complaints about law enforcement and educate government agents about the religion.
But winning broader support for these undertakings among the nation's more than 2 million Muslims has been difficult since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Muslim leaders say.
#1
Different moslems think differently so, yes, it is obviously difficult to determine the sincerity.
A lot of secular moslems are very frightened because they came to the US to escape their more violent coreligionists. Some such people have admitted to me that they feel Islam is a bad religion and they are sick about it. Others hope that Islam can be rescued somehow.
I'd assume taqqiya untill some MM hedz are offered as token of sincerity.
Posted by: N guard ||
07/25/2005 8:17 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based civil rights organization, is running a TV ad and a petition-drive called "Not in the Name of Islam," which repudiates terrorism.
Given the number of CAIR officials who have been convicted of actively supporting terrorism, this is meaningless. I'd be more impressed if CAIR itself were repudiated.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/25/2005 8:18 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"Not in the name of islam"
They forgot the asterisk
Not in the name of islam*
*except where muslims perceive themselves as being oppressed or where there are factions who will provide plausible explanations for the "militancy"
#6
They have to think of themselves as AMERICANS first and muslims second and they are getting little traction. They held a peace rally in Washingtom for muslims against terrorism and the turnout was pityful. I say OK you have chosen sides deal with the consequences of that. I don't want to hear any muslim/arab/paki/etc complain about being "targeted" but TSA or any law enforcement agency. You want to support terrorism then we will just have to treat you as such.
#8
You have to remember that before the act, they are muslims, and after the act they are muslims.
But while they are murdering, torturing, or raping innocent people they are not really muslims - kind of a temporarily vacation from Islam.. and afterwards they are back to being muslims in good standing again....
Any rational definition of terrorism would include the violence perpetrated against Israeli civilians. The UN hates Israel and has too many factions who benefit from continued paleo terror. Therefore, they'll stall and twist and do everything else... EXCEPT define terrorism.
#5
"... efforts to write a global anti-terror treaty have been at an impasse since 1996, bogged down in the UN's legal committee as member states wrangle over the definition of terrorism..."
--------------
One sentence, actually written by a UN apologist, illustrates the futility of the UN.
LONDON, July 23 (IranMania) - The deputy director of the Qeshm Free Trade Zone Organization said that a tourist and recreational complex for non-Muslims will be established on the Persian Gulf island of Qeshm. Islamic law and some restrictions will not be enforced at the tourist complex, Ali-Akbar Einollahi told the Persian service of the Cultural Heritage News (CHN) agency. He said that an agency named Marina, owned by an Iranian Christian woman, has obtained a license for the complex and a beach to be shared by men and women, which would be the first of its kind in Iran since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
I'd wager that "license" cost her a pretty penny and she has a few "unlisted partners" wearing turbans.
Iranian Muslims will not be allowed to enter the complex.
But they'll know all about it. Some will wonder why they can't do the same and a few will try to stop it.
"We can promote tourism through this action by preventing Iranian non-Muslims as well as foreign tourists from spending their money at tourist resorts of nearby countries like Dubai (UAE)," Einollahi explained.
Greed, it's a beautiful thing
"The land for the complex has been transferred to the agency, and the plans are being prepared. Part of the cost will be covered by a long-term loan from Iran's Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organization," he said in conclusion.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/25/2005 16:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
shure. rownd up em infedels on litle tinee iland. shades of vlad teh impailer. 79 were such a long long time ago...
#2
Greed, indeed. This belongs in the truly bizarre category. Consider what they do, daily, in Iran to those who breach any one of the conventions of Shari'a.
Some restrictions will not be enforced.
Gee, who gets the booze concession, I wonder. Resorts without booze are DOA. I love the transparency of the MM's. Truly uniquely hypocritical.
#5
Seems only fair. We have a resort for Muslims -- Gitmo.
Posted by: Neutron Tom ||
07/25/2005 20:02 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Hmmm interesting... shall we do some tourism 101?
Ok, it might be appealing for Christian Iranians but only if it's A LOT cheaper than Dubai or Antalya, where they enjoy a heck more freedom. (Lots of Iranian Muslim tourists in Turkish Antalya, with lots of Russian hookers).
Western tourists? Nah. What could they offer what Dubai doesn't have and better? Beaches? Booze? Boobs? Thought so.
Foreign Muslim tourists? (The article doesn't make it clear whether they would be allowed). These folks love their freedom, too. The first thing Saudi women rip off when they board a plane is their veil (husband permitting, of course). I guess "Aicha, let's enjoy the beach in Iran" will be met with a blank stare.
Molla Hassani, the Friday sermon leader of Oroumieh is known to most Iranians because of his fiery sermons and the ridiculous statements he makes during the sermons. In fact his sermons are followed eagerly by many as a source of entertainment.... In his latest book of his memoirs, Hassani describes in detail how he helped the capture of his son and his execution...
"...My eldest son, Rashid, fought against the Shah. He was at the Tehran University then and was arrested on a couple of occasions too... After the revolution however he joined the Fedayeen Khalq Marxist organisation...
At the time I was an MP in Tehran , I heard Rashid had come to Tehran too. I found out where he was staying. I asked Ayatollah Mahdavi Kani to send a few armed units to where Rashid was staying. I didn't say my own son was involved. I said if he gives himself up, arrest him otherwise shoot to kill. Rashid was arrested and sent to Tabriz . There he was handed over to Ayatollah Mossavi Tabrizi, who appointed his son-in-law to try Rashid.
Rashid was quickly sentenced to execution. I never even got his body. I was not even upset. Even now if any of my other sons become enemies of the state I would do the same. Of course Rashid hadn't killed anyone and his crime was his thoughts. He should have been sentenced to life. But I am not bitter; no one gets everything they deserve in this world. That is why Allah has created Heaven and Hell and the judgement day
From BBC News
The Iranian judiciary has said that human rights abuses have been taking place in the country's jails. A report drafted over several months says prison guards have ignored a legal order banning the use of torture by blindfolding and beating detainees. It also criticises police for arresting people without sufficient evidence.
Meanwhile lawyer and Nobel prize-winner Shirin Ebadi has complained that she has not been allowed to visit her client, jailed journalist Akbar Ganji. She has warned that his health is failing. Relatives of Mr Ganji, Iran's most prominent political dissident, say he has been on hunger strike for about 40 days. He was admitted to hospital last week.
There has not yet been an official response to Ms Ebadi's comments, but the Iranian government recently denied that Mr Ganji was on hunger strike, saying he had been taken to hospital for treatment to his knee. US, EU and international human rights organisations have all called for his release.
The judicial report was carried out over several months by the head of Tehran's justice administration and has been widely reported in the state media. The BBC's Tehran correspondent Frances Harrison says it is highly unusual for the Iranian authorities to admit the failings of the judicial system in this way. But the head of the judiciary said the problems had already been dealt with.
"We've taken steps and we can proudly state that all these failings have now disappeared," Abbas Ali Alizadeh told AFP news agency. "Iranian prisons are among the best in the world."
The report found that some suspects were held in undeclared detention centres run by a plethora of different security organisations. Inspectors were not allowed access to detention centres operated by the elite Revolutionary Guards, it said.
Among the examples of abuse was the case of a 13-year-old boy jailed for stealing a hen, and another of a woman imprisoned because her husband was on the run. The report also called for an inquiry into why so many women had committed suicide in one jail. ....
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
07/25/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
except for female canadians, eh?
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/25/2005 0:03 Comments ||
Top||
#1
So is this the beta release of the Zionist Death Ray(TM)? If so, Mwahahahaha!
Posted by: Jonathan ||
07/25/2005 15:34 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Microwave a Mullah
Sung to, "Itsy Bitsy Spider"
The not so itsy Mullah got hit by microwave.
His beard then started to curl, he said, "Ain't I brave".
When his brain a-started frying, a scream, "This cannot be".
"What could let this happen to a Mullah such as me?"
#4
So is this the beta release of the Zionist Death Ray(TM)?
Sssshhhh...
Posted by: Halliburton - Zionist Death Ray Division ||
07/25/2005 18:28 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I hope this is not deployed in an idiotic boffin manner. A vehicle of this type *must* have anti-anti-armor protection, that is, park it between a couple of tanks, with snipers and infantry around to protect it from some dummy with an RPG. Or you get a very expensive piece of equipment blasted to smithereens. Future versions should be put on the body of a Stryker.
#8
Shipman: I know you're sort of overwhelmed by the idea of lots of robots, so maybe you could surf a little bit and see what they might, and might not, be able to do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_robotics
http://www.ieeeswarm.org/
US Navy SWARM project:
http://www.dt.navy.mil/pao/excerpts%20pages/2001/UAV3_01.html
As far as naval mines go, I proposed that small UAVs would be an excellent way to mine a large stretch of ocean. This is an extrapolation of the already available land "intelligent minefield", where the mines interact to insure maximum coverage (you could surf that one, too). A single UAV might drop several mines, or might intentionally crash into the water and become a larger mine itself. Such UAVs acting with swarm AI could overwhelm the defenses of a fleet, or could mine a shipping lane or harbor. However, this microwave weapon is obviously not an appropriate application for such technology.
#10
Could the thousands of tiny little robots each have their own ray gun? Then they could each pick a different target, say a set of testicles. That would limit the persons exposure to harmful microwave radiation.
A giant fence running along the Mexican border -- similar to the one being constructed around Israel -- could help reduce the threat of domestic terrorism, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca said Friday.
"They have a big fence, and it works," Baca told a gathering of the Los Angeles County Lincoln Club, a group of politically conservative Republicans. "The fences we have down on the border don't work."
Israel's fence, still under construction, is as high as 25 feet in some areas. It is constructed of barbed wire, electrified metal and concrete, and contains watchtowers and sniper posts.
"What's wrong with that?" Baca said of building a similar one along the Mexican border.
The sheriff also complained that the federal government lacks the political will to stop illegal immigration, which he said puts U.S. security at risk and leads to overcrowded jails and overtaxed public resources.
"What we need is a national movement for a constitutional amendment on the security of the American border," Baca said. "We're not being prejudiced, we just want people to come here legally."
He said the United States helped contribute to the tide of illegal immigration when it began granting amnesty to refugees fleeing civil wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador during the 1980s. As a tide of Central American political refugees moved north, Baca said, they helped accelerate the influx of Mexicans into the United States fleeing poverty.
Businesses and consumers have come to tolerate the tide of illegal immigration, he said, because it provides a pool of cheap labor that keeps down the cost of goods and services.
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/25/2005 12:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
A fence is politically a hot-issue. Again I would suggest a different tact.
I suggest a giant stone "mural" over 25 feet high and 10 feet thick that stretches from San Diego to the Texas Gulf coast. This grand art project could be paid for out of the National Endowment for the Arts budget and would serve to beautify the deserts of the Southwest with culturally sensative murals and art and graffiti.
A prize could be given out for the best works along the "mural".
Judges could patrol along the top of the 'mural' to ensure no foreign artists try to cheat and join the competition. That is how the ancient Chinese tamed the wild artists of Mongolia long ago and their great 'mural' still serves as a toursist attraction to this day.
#8
Create a mile-wide strip of radioactive glass, followed by a 40-yard minefield. The mines should be set to blow people BACK onto the radioactive strip. Border crossings would drop drastically, but probably not to zero. Of course, the ones that made it across would be sterile, so the problem would resolve itself.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
07/25/2005 22:46 Comments ||
Top||
In the wake of the London attacks, Pakistanâs madrassas, or religious schools, are back in the international spotlight, and the Pakistani government is under renewed pressure to reign in organizations that preach hatred and militancy.
Since the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, the United States has sought Pakistanâs cooperation in cracking down on madrassas that are ideologically, and sometimes militarily, aligned with Taliban and al-Qaida remnants in the region. Now Britain, reeling from the July 7 terror attacks on the heart of London, is also piling pressure on Pakistan. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in a recent statement, condemned madrassa leaders who espouse extremist views and impart them to young students. âThese roots are deep,â Blair said at a recent Downing Street meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. âThey are coming about by people indoctrinated at a very, very early age ⊠(who) go to some of these schools, these madrassas, and they get extreme teaching taught at them.â Blair said the madrassa students âend up in a situation where they actually believe that they are committing the will of god by killing innocent people.â
The madrassa issue has boiled over again, largely because of reports that bomber Shehzad Tanweer visited a religious school in Lahore, in eastern Pakistan, that is linked to a banned Islamic militant group. Officials at the madrassa say they have no record of Tanweer studying there. And if he did visit, itâs unclear how his stay influenced his decision or ability to detonate a bomb in London.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
07/25/2005 11:05 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And if he did visit, itâs unclear how his stay influenced his decision or ability to detonate a bomb in London.
O.K., assume the 'school' didn't help with the means to be a boomer. What about the motive?
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/25/2005 12:44 Comments ||
Top||
#1
If we only had statements of what the politicians really believed, rather than their public pronouncements. That would be truly enlightening...
Having been raised without manners, and believing its OK to be insensitive to anyone who disagrees with me politically, I felt it was my duty to attend this event and insult the family of this military fatality because as we all know our soldiers very bad people. -Pa. Lt. Gov. Catherine Baker Knoll
#2
Hopefully the Lt. Govs job in PA meets John Nance Garner's description of the VP as not being worth a bucket of warm spit. If she really said the bit in BigEd's post she not only needs to be impeached she needs to be forced to move to San Francisco. At least there she'd be lost in the backround noise
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/25/2005 12:16 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Here's my two cents worth - sent to the first women Lt. Governonr in PA. Apparently never a mother.
I read that you dropped in on a Marine's funeral and told folks the government was against the war. Your government? The entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania? Or just you?
Assuming that's true, in whatever context, please tell me how that little tidbit of information helped to comfort the bereaved family? Or was it only supposed to make you feel better?
My son served in Iraq last fall with the Marines and his Mother and I completely support all the troops, who over the past 229 years have fought and died to give you the freedom to say hurtful things to grieving families. Unfortunately, good taste is still an individual matter.
My wife and I do not live in your state, but we had planned to visit this fall. Not much chance of that, now, unless itâs to campaign for your opponent.
A loud and well-publicized apology would be a good start. What were you thinking?
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/25/2005 12:32 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Dang, Bobby, that was 'nice'?
Remind me not to get a 'nasty' letter from you :-)
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/25/2005 12:37 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I took out all the 'bad' words, didn't I?
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/25/2005 12:40 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Bobby: well done! Forceful, uncompromising, well phrased, persuasive to neutral observers; wholly lacking in nasty words, yet absolutely devastating.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/25/2005 12:59 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Bobby--Damn fine letter!
Posted by: Dar ||
07/25/2005 13:16 Comments ||
Top||
"America incarnates the devil for Muslims. When I say Muslims, I mean all the Muslims in the world."
--Hassan al-Turabi, Saddam Hussein's close ally, Osama bin Laden's friend and one-time benefactor, as quoted in an interview with the Associated Press (1997)
WHEN SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE visited Sudan last week, much of the press's coverage focused on the rough treatment her senior advisors and NBC's Andrea Mitchell, who was among the reporters traveling with the Secretary, received. Mitchell had questioned the Sudanese president, Omar el-Bashir, about his government's role in the current battle raging in Darfur, where an ongoing humanitarian crisis has drawn considerable attention. For this, she received Khartoum's version of hospitality: She was roughed up by Bashir's henchmen.
Absent from much of the discussion in the press, however, is any mention of Hassan al-Turabi. This is curious since late last month the arch-terrorist was freed from his prison home by Bashir's government. His supporters have been accused of being directly involved in the Darfur crisis, which raises important questions about Bashir's willingness to end the carnage. But Turabi's freedom is disturbing for a variety of other reasons. Not the least of which is the fact that he is, in many ways, a founding father of the Islamist terrorist network we currently face. It was Turabi's apocalyptic vision for confronting the West, after all, which brought together Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden against their common enemy: the United States.
At first blush, Turabi's role as an international terrorist leader would appear to be an unlikely outcome of his educational background. Born in 1932, Turabi studied law at the University of Khartoum, then at the University of London and, finally, at the Sorbonne in Paris. Multilingual, charismatic, and western-educated, Turabi at first espoused a much more lenient version of Islam. According to Turabi, women deserved a greater degree of equality throughout the Muslim world and democracy was not inconsistent with the fundamental teachings of the Koran. But such comparatively moderate views were part of a superficial veil covering Turabi's deeper, more radical beliefs.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
07/25/2005 10:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"The New York City bomb plot mentioned by the State Department was, of course, the first attack on the World Trade Center in February 1993". I believe the plot mentioned was actually the Day of Terror plot which followed the WTC bombing. Members of the Sudanese UN mission provided the plotters license plates and parking passes which would allow the delivery of a bomb laden van into the parking lot below the UN.
Al Qaeda seeks to strike at Israel but there is no concrete indication such an attack is imminent, a senior Israeli official said on Sunday.
Bombings in Britain and the Egyptian Sinai have stirred speculation the Jewish state, which Osama bin Laden has long vilified, could be high on the group's hit list.
But Danny Arditi, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's top counter-terrorism advisor, said: "We have no information, for now, on intended al Qaeda operations against Israel."
"My assessment is that we are slowly coming into their sights," he told Israel's Army Radio. "They are getting closer, but they are not yet close."
With Palestinians fighting a 4 1/2-year-old revolt, some have asked whether al Qaeda could be drafted in. The speculation gained momentum when al Qaeda blew up an Israeli-owned hotel and tried to shoot down an Israeli airliner in Kenya in 2002.
But while Islamic militants in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip share al Qaeda's hatred of Israel and use suicide tactics to kill and maim in the same way, experts say doctrinal differences preclude cooperation between the groups.
Al Qaeda operates worldwide, targeting non-Muslims and moderate Muslims alike.
By contrast, Hamas and kindred Palestinian factions limit their attacks to Israeli Jews and have sought political accommodation with more secular compatriots.
Hamas was quick to disavow al Qaeda-style bombers who killed at least 88 people, most of them Egyptians, in the coastal resort of Sharm el-Sheikh on Saturday. It and other Palestinian factions also condemned the recent London bombings.
The Abdullah al-Azzam Brigades, a group claiming links to al Qaeda, said it was behind the bombings in the Egyptian resort, but experts cast doubts on the authenticity of the claim.
"We demand that Muslims and Arabs unite in their efforts against the Zionist enemy and not to waste their efforts here and there," said Mushir al-Masri, Hamas spokesman in Gaza.
A senior Israeli intelligence analyst, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Israel fears Hamas hardliners, unhappy with signs the group could shift towards the Palestinian political mainstream, might break away in favour of al Qaeda.
"We will be looking to Egypt to help stop al Qaeda elements reaching Gaza after our withdrawal," the analyst said.
But Efraim Halevy, a former director of Israel's spy service Mossad, saw another external agent keeping al Qaeda out -- Iran.
"You could say the Iranians beat al Qaeda in terms of reaching the Palestinians," Halevy said, repeating longstanding Israeli charges that the Islamic republic has encouraged attacks by some Palestinian factions opposed to Middle East peace moves.
"Apart from that, Hamas rules the roost and will not give ground to an outside group like al Qaeda," Halevy said.
Iran, which does not recognise Israel's right to exist, says it is not involved in attacks from the West Bank and Gaza. But Iranian-linked Hizbollah guerrillas in Lebanon have acknowledged giving some support to Palestinian militants.
Israeli officials have also accused Hizbollah of trying to recruit members of the Jewish state's Arab minority, which makes up almost 20 percent of the population. But there have not been similar allegations of an al Qaeda presence among Israeli Arabs.
After the attacks on Israeli targets in Mombasa, Sharon ordered Mossad to hone the hunt for al Qaeda abroad.
A few months later, a militant accused by Israeli security sources of running an al Qaeda cell was killed by a car-bomb in Ein el Hilwa, a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon.
Lebanese security sources have said they believe there are two groups linked to al Qaeda operating in Ein el Hilwa, but denied that support is widespread.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
07/25/2005 10:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Maybe they have tried. Haven't the Israelis stopped 92 attacks? I guess ALQ only pulls off successful (and devestating!) attacks.
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/25/2005 12:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
A few years back there was a spate of kidnappings of tourists in Indian Kashmir.
The terorists (led by Omar Saeed Sheik - guy who killed Dannny Pearl and who wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta on orders of ISI general Ahmad) grabbed a pair of Israelis one day.
Indian electronic intercepts of the communications from their ISI handlers across the border were quite revealing.
"They're Israeli ... you idiots, you've killed us all!"
Posted by: john ||
07/25/2005 21:33 Comments ||
Top||
This is pretty good, but also pretty stupid ...
As Britain and Egypt struggle to absorb the effects of terrorist attacks on their soil and determine who was responsible, both countries are asking the same two questions: Were the attacks linked, and was Al Qaeda involved?
On the face of it, there are a number of similarities: two well-coordinated attacks, carried out in scattered locations nearly simultaneously by suicide bombers.
In both cases, this line of thinking goes, the bombers struck targets that represented support for Western or American policies they saw as anti-Muslim.
Indeed, London could have been chosen at least in part because of Britain's unflinching support of the American-led war in Iraq and the military campaign against the Iraqi insurgency. Or Afghanistan. Or the destruction of the Ottoman Empire or a host of other Ummah-wide grievances ...
Sharm el Sheik is Egypt's leading tourist resort as well as a symbol of the halting American-led process to make peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
But several senior intelligence and counterterrorism officials based in Europe and the Middle East said that they would be surprised if the two attacks were operationally or directly linked.
They also stressed that it is much too early in the inquiries in both countries to determine conclusively whether a resurgent Al Qaeda, possibly with a newly installed group of operational commanders, had organized or financed either of the two groups of men who attacked the London public transportation system on July 7 and July 21 or the bombings of an upscale hotel, a local market and a parking lot in Egypt. That's not what they told WaPo the other day, but that's okay. My guess is that we're seeing two dueling lines of analysis here that are both trying to get their views floated to the press.
"Egypt is not at all the same political universe as London," said a senior diplomat based in Cairo who has decades of experience in the Middle East. "It's much too early to draw a link between the two. It's also a little bit artificial to say they were supported or inspired by Al Qaeda at this point." Saying a number of scenarios are possible, he added, "There are a lot of people here in Cairo insisting it is not Al Qaeda, that it's a local operation, locally inspired." Hosni has a pretty good reason to say it's not al-Qaeda to protect his tourist trade and even if it's not, what does that make it, Gamaa or EIJ? Both of them are signatories to Binny's declaration of war.
The head of one European intelligence service who has long monitored Al Qaeda said, "It sounds very strange that there could be a link between London and Sharm." As for finding a connection to Al Qaeda, he said, "It's too soon; we are still trying to determine the origin of March 11," referring to the terrorist train attacks in Madrid last year that killed 191 people. That sounds a lot like Spanish intel, they've been trying to downplay the al-Qaeda connection to 3/11 for awhile now (in contrast to Garzon and the Spanish police/judiciary).
That said, there is the conviction among intelligence agencies in Europe and the Middle East that terrorism inspired by Al Qaeda's ideology, carried out in the name of a violent interpretation of Islam, has entered a new, dangerous and global phase.
Those officials point to a surge in terrorist attacks in both Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the recent attacks in London and Sharm el Sheik that could be part of a new mandate to set off devastating, multiple bomb attacks to punish Western governments for their foreign policies.
A document that some intelligence services see as a kind of road map for the new, more aggressive strategy is a 1,600-page treatise written last December by Mustafa Setmarian Nasar, a Syrian-born militant who operated in London for many years and who authorities believe is the mastermind of the Madrid bombings, the head of a European intelligence service said.
Titled "The International Islamic Resistance Call," it outlines future strategies for the global jihad movement, dividing the enemy into sectors: "Jews, Americans, British, Russian and any and all the NATO countries as well as any country taking the position of oppressing Islam and Muslims."
Only by carrying out terrorist attacks and decentralized urban warfare will the jihadi network win, the treatise said.
There has been a tendency, particularly since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, to immediately blame Al Qaeda after a terrorist attack of unknown origin, even if there is little proof an outside group was involved. It is less terrifying if the terrorists are an amorphous outside enemy rather than one that is based internally. Why can't al-Qaeda be "based internally?" The whole idea is that it's a global network made up of a bunch of local organizations.
But Al Qaeda is almost certainly on the minds of British and Egyptian officials as their investigators sift through the evidence of the bombings on their soil.
From the beginning, there was a strong suspicion that the initial London attack that killed 56 people might have been an operation inspired by Al Qaeda.
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said on the afternoon of July 7 that the attacks in the London Underground and on a double-decker bus carried the hallmarks of Al Qaeda. Less than a month before the London attacks, Britain's top intelligence and law enforcement officials said in a confidential assessment that the threat from Al Qaeda's "leadership-directed plots has not gone away."
Investigators have actively pursued one theory that the suicide bombers in the July 7 attacks might have met a mastermind in Pakistan, possibly connected to one of two Qaeda-inspired groups, the Jaish-e-Muhammad, meaning Army of Muhammad, and Lashkar e-Toyba, meaning Army of the Pure.
Lashkar e-Toyba is believed to have established a recruitment and fund-raising foothold in Europe in the past few years, senior intelligence and counterterrorism officials said. "I have worried about Lashkar possibly trying to do something like the London bombings," one senior intelligence official based in Europe said, adding that he had seen no evidence of a direct link between the group and the London attacks.
Another possible Qaeda link under investigation in London is a hunt for a potential suspect, 30-year-old Haroon Rashid Aswat, who authorities accuse of attending two Al Qaeda training camps and trying to establish a camp in Bly, Ore., in 1999.
Because Mr. Aswat is believed to have arrived in Britain two weeks before the July 7 attacks, and have left either the morning of the attacks or the day before, investigators want to know if he had any contact with any of the four suicide bombers.
However, several American officials have said that it is still not confirmed that the Mr. Aswat who arrived in Britain prior to the attacks was the same Mr. Aswat who attempted to establish the training camps in Oregon.
In the Sharm el Sheik bombings, some officials have already pointed to Al Qaeda.
But Al Qaeda's true form these days is a question mark. A majority of the officials interviewed call it a badly hobbled, barely functioning organization. Its top commanders have been captured or killed, and its two top leaders - Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri - have been in hiding for nearly four years. I tend to disagree with that assessment for the reasons I listed in here
One senior counterterrorism official said, "Al Qaeda is finished. But there is Al Qaedaism. This is a powerful ideology that drives local groups to do what they think Osama bin Laden wants."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
07/25/2005 10:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A resurgent al Qaeda would be an al Qaeda that can carry out 9/11-style operations on a production-line type basis, with each attack killing thousands on a day-to-day basis. That was the real fear after 9/11 - could they keep up that operational tempo on American soil? The answer was no. The only place where it can approximate those numbers is in Iraq, but that is mixed in with an ongoing civil war between Sunnis and Shias, and an environment in which perhaps 20% of the population supports al Qaeda. I don't think you have anywhere near those numbers in any Western country, including Turkey.
#2
dan, I think sometimes it is useful to step back and look at things in a cold and aloof manner as to what point is attempting to be made, rather than if the point is actually true or logical or possible.
This reads like poorly written propaganada to me. Clearly the writer is attempting to get the reader to view things in a manner other how it may seem to appear, leading down a garden path of, "though it may seem"
Here is the writers ultimate point: But Al Qaeda's true form these days is a question mark. A majority of the officials interviewed call it a badly hobbled, barely functioning organization. Its top commanders have been captured or killed, and its two top leaders - Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri - have been in hiding for nearly four years.
One senior counterterrorism official said, "Al Qaeda is finished. But there is Al Qaedaism. This is a powerful ideology that drives local groups to do what they think Osama bin Laden wants."
Now, step back for a moment and say you are a jihadi. You may just be asking yourself that same question. Where is Bin Laden? Where is Zawahiri. Is Zarqawi dead? All of our top leaders seem to be AWOL or in jail. Where are they? What exactly is the goal we are fighting for?
I don't have time to ponder this but I can't help wondering if this isn't written for you or me...but rather for the jihadi who might be asking himself that very question, "is AQ finished".
Five years ago, during a visit to Cairo, I was told by an employee of the U.S. government that Egypt's internal security services are among the best-informed in the world -- because so many Egyptians are on their payroll. So how is it that on Saturday, terrorists managed to penetrate one of the country's most isolated towns, the Red Sea resort of Sharm el Sheikh, surrounded by hundreds of kilometres of empty desert, and kill close to 90 people? Well, the Sinai desert is not as empty as one may think. Soon after the bombings, Egyptian authorities arrested more than 70 suspects, many of them local Bedouin. This set of tourist-targeted bombings in Sharm may be connected to last October's hotel bombing in Taba, another Sinai resort. In that attack, too, Bedouin are accused of involvement. Some of the locals apparently, have become radicalized allies of al-Qaeda.
The Bedouin of Sinai are a congeries of tribes that moved into the Sinai desert with the rise of Islam many centuries ago, as nomads and semi-nomads. They are distantly related to the Hashemite Bedouin of the Hijaz, who fought with Lawrence of Arabia, and whose urbanized and Westernized descendants now hold the throne in Jordan. Many engage in camel, goat and sheep rearing, combined with contraband smuggling, oasis agriculture and desert trade. Despite their poverty, the Bedouin have always felt themselves to be superior to the settled townspeople and tillers of Egypt's villages. They believe they are the true sons of Ishmael, and that their way of life is somehow purer than that of city-dwellers. They also speak a different dialect of Arabic than do the settled Egyptians, and follow customs that are more egalitarian and less hierarchical.
After the First World War, when the British were the stewards of Egypt and the Sinai, the Bedouin were allowed to live their lives without much harassment. But things changed when the British left. The Egyptian government sees the indigenous Bedouin as backward and economically irrelevant, and has run roughshod over their rights in its bid to develop the Sinai. Many of today's Bedouin fondly remember the period of Israeli control following the Six-Day War, from 1967 to 1982. The Israelis reverted to the British mode of hands-off governance. Like the Israelites of old, the tribes wandered the peninsula, smuggling whatever they could to whomever they could, as they have done from time immemorial.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve ||
07/25/2005 09:46 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So the Egyptian invasion of the Sinai is the root cause of the recent bombing?
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/25/2005 10:09 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Many engage in camel, goat and sheep rearing
So that's what they're calling it nowadays.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/25/2005 10:11 Comments ||
Top||
#3
When the Israelis held Sinai, the coastal resorts had clothing optional sections, to accommodate the Scandinavian tourists (as well as Israelis looking to try something that just wasnt done in Israel proper) The young Bedu men liked to come down withing viewing range to get a sense of what Western Civilization had to "offer"
To care for (children or a child) during the early stages of life; bring up.
raise
v. raised, rais·ing, rais·es
v. tr.
To breed and care for to maturity: raise cattle.
My old high school english teacher drilled this set of definitions into us: you raise cows (makes milking motion), you rear children (makes spanking motion).
#5
Interesting. Where I came from the lesson was that one raised corn and reared children. The introduction of kids muddied the waters as one doesn't rear the offspring of goats.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
07/25/2005 11:23 Comments ||
Top||
#6
News this AM said they were looking for 6 Pakis - linked to AQ, not bedouins...
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/25/2005 11:24 Comments ||
Top||
Shocking pictures of senseless iraqi brutality by the US hegemon, from the excellent site http://thepeoplescube.com/ made by the selfless progressives of "Communists for Kerry" and "Protest warriors". Check at least their glossary.
I have to report an error (?) on the pics, the "british" (or "australian") soldier tourmenting an helpless kitten appears isreali (excuse me, zionist) to me, weapon, boots, helmet,... but I'm not 100% sure.
#2
Brutal. Simply brutal. Who could have known, from the mindlessly patriotic news coverage we've been inundated with, that this is how our soldiers really behave over there?
Posted by: Dave D. ||
07/25/2005 10:28 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Notice in the first photo how the Iraqi has restrained the American soldier from moving further toward the innocent Iraqi children.
And it's truly disgusting that anyone would behave the way that's clearly illustrated by the second batch of photos.
Posted by: Neutron Tom ||
07/25/2005 10:59 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Much to my shame, a unit of my state's national guard has set up a special site dedicated to the torment of Iraqi children. What will Jane Fonda say?
Posted by: Matt ||
07/25/2005 13:21 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I loved Communists for Kerry!
This site and your post ROCK--thank you,anon 5089!
#11
Wasn't there a photo of an American GI simply talking to an Iraqi girl in Al-Jitzz a while back. The caption they chose to run with was something like 'American propositions innocent Iraqi girl for sex'?
I was suprised it wasn't carried on NewsWeek / We hate Good Morning America / NYT / etc....
July 25, 2005: Despite initial success, the U.S. Marine Corps Dragon Eye UAV has been a victim of its own success. The marines found the tiny (5-6 pound) UAV invaluable in combat. The problem was that the system was, literally, rushed into service. The laptop computer, and wearable electronics, used to control the UAV, often failed, and there was no quick way to get them fixed. Then there were the special batteries the UAV used, which were also hard to replace. The elastic chord used to launch the UAV was also prone to breakage. The aircraft itself, made of plastic and the lightest of the micro-UAVs used by American forces, was often damaged when landing (which was done by simply flying the UAV low and slow, and turning the power off, for a crash landing.)
The manufacturer said each UAV would be good for about 40 landings, but marines in the field quickly exceeded that, and were exasperated because the beat up UAVs were then falling apart (as predicted). Efforts to get more spare parts, more rugged components and better support, have kept many of the Dragon Eyes flying, but not enough considering how active the marines have been. Nearly a hundred systems have been bought so far (each with three UAVs and one ground controller computer, plus spare parts). Each system costs about $120,000. The marines have used Dragon Eye heavily, and quickly bumped into the systems limits (45-60 minutes in the air per sortie, max range from ground controller of 10 kilometers, lightweight makes UAV unstable in high winds). The troops want a more rugged UAV, that is also lightweight and easy to use and has greater endurance (2-3 hours) and range (20 kilometers). A new and improved UAV has not appeared, and the troops are not happy.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/25/2005 09:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
July 25, 2005: While Afghanistan is no longer available for terrorist training camps, this has not stopped the training programs of organizations like al Qaeda. Even before Afghanistan became a center for terrorist training, such activities were openly carried on in Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon and Syria. Less open training programs were conducted in Gaza, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia. Clandestine training was conducted in many other nations, but it was the more open camps where the most effective training was carried out. Thatâs because to be really effective you have to have weapons training areas (for rifles, machine-guns and RPGs), as well as setting off bombs put together by trainees.
However, things are not so simple in the world of international terrorism. Most terrorist groups are not interested in supporting attacks on the United States. The American campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq has made an impression, and the impression is that actions have consequences. Also, not every Islamic terrorist group has the same strategy and plans. For example, the terrorists in Iran and Lebanon are Shia Moslem. The Shia Islamic radicals believe in the establishment, by force, of a worldwide Islamic government (the âCaliphateâ), but under Shia leaders. Most Islamic terrorists, especially al Qaeda, are Sunni Moslems, and believe the Caliphate should be run by Sunnis. The Shia and Sunni Moslems have been arguing, and sometimes fighting, over these differences for over a thousand years. Itâs sort of a âCatholic/Protestantâ thing that has been kept in the background by most senior clerics of both sects. But many less amiable clerics, especially among Sunnis, preach hatred for the other group. Al Qaeda makes no secret of its desire to destroy the Shia, whom they consider heretics.
Iran, the major Shia nation on the planet, is the major supporter of other Shia terrorists, like the Hizbollah organization in Lebanon, and smaller groups throughout the Persian Gulf. While the Iranian Islamic radicals have loudly preached âdeath to Americaâ for over two decades, they have not gotten behind major terrorist attacks against American targets. Iran feared retribution from the United States, and after September 11, 2001, they became even more nervous. Al Qaeda has received some support from Iran, given reluctantly and very quietly, because al Qaeda despises the Shia and has persecuted them. But some of the more radical Islamic conservatives in Iran were powerful enough, and hateful enough, to provide some support to an outfit that was making a major effort to hit the âGreat Satanâ (the United States).
The three places where al Qaeda can train openly, and most effectively, are Pakistan, the Philippines and Palestinian controlled Gaza. None of these areas are perfect for al Qaeda. Pakistan is officially at war with al Qaeda, but the Pakistanis also support Islamic terrorist operations against India. Actually, that support is supposed to have been withdrawn, because of current peace talks with India. But the covert war against their larger, and non-Moslem, neighbor, is very popular with most Pakistanis. So many of the camps are still tolerated, even as the government insists to the United States and India that Islamic terrorism has been shut down. Some Islamic terrorists are under attack, because al Qaeda has declared war on the Pakistani government, and made many attacks on senior officials. Sounds pretty bizarre, doesnât it? It is. But in Pakistan, the bizarre is what often passes for normal. The terrorist training camps along the Indian border insist that they are only training killers for missions inside Indian occupied Kashmir, just across the border. The government insists that this is the case, and that these camps along the Indian border have been shut down anyway.
In the Philippines, the government is negotiating a peace deal with a Moslem separatist organization, the MILF, which maintains thousands of armed men in the Moslem southern Philippines. The MILF has been fighting, for decades, to establish a separate Moslem state. This campaign has failed, and most MILF leaders want a peace deal with the government. But some MILF factions are not willing to settle, and support Islamic radicals like al Qaeda, and similar organizations in Southeast Asia. These MILF factions have been supporting clandestine al Qaeda training camps in the southern Philippines. These camps have to stay hidden from the government troops, as well as MILF gunmen. Some of the camps have managed to stay hidden, and train a dozen or so terrorists at a time. This is known from the reports of gunfire and explosions in remote mountain areas of the southern Philippines.
In Gaza, Palestinian terrorist organizations have received assistance from Sunni and Shia terrorist groups. The Shia Hizbollah, and Iran, have provided instructors, weapons and bomb making materials. Sunni terrorist groups in Egypt have helped with smuggling weapons and bomb making material into Gaza. The Palestinian terrorists have established dozens of bomb and rocket making workshops in Gaza. The weapons produced are used against Israeli targets. However, Israeli counter-terrorism efforts have been effective, and the bomb making workshops, and the terrorist staff and students, have a high attrition rate. But if you survive the bomb making schools in Gaza, you are one tough, resourceful, and lucky Islamic terrorist. Recent terrorist bombings in Egypt are believed to be made possible, in part, by the availability of the terrorist training in Gaza. While Islamic terrorist training camps continue to function, none of them do so without the risk of being shut down, often with great violence.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/25/2005 09:31 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Most terrorist groups are not interested in supporting attacks on the United States. The American campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq has made an impression, and the impression is that actions have consequences.
Duh, I think they are just now starting to "get it".
Global Islamic war against Western influences or a local grudge may have motivated the terror attacks that rocked an Egyptian Red Sea resort over the weekend, analysts here said on Monday. Egyptian police were looking for at least six Pakistani citizens on Monday. Press reports said they may have played a key role in the worst terrorist attack in Egypt in decades. Egyptian authorities said they found passports belonging to the six in another hotel in Sharm el-Sheikh but the men who owned the passports had disappeared.
If they were Pakistanis, they'll have more than one passport.
One of the six may have died in the bombings, reports said. Ninety-five people have been arrested so far. Sixty-four people have been confirmed dead in the attacks early Saturday morning, but other reports put the toll higher, at 88. Two car bombs and a suitcase bomb exploded at three different locations -- including the lobby of the Ghazala Garden hotel, a parking lot and an open market in Sharm el-Sheikh early Saturday morning.
Sharm el-Sheikh is a luxury resort along the Red Sea Coast in the southern Sinai. It has hosted a number of Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking efforts, including in the one in February involving Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. "With the current global atmosphere of Islamic militancy, the high tide of attacks against Western targets spilled over to Egypt," said Professor Ariel Merari, head of the political violence research unit at Tel Aviv University. "Islamic militancy finds encouragement in general in the Middle East picture -- fighting the American crusaders. Their motivation [has been] rejuvenated," said Merari.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve ||
07/25/2005 09:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I didn't know Egypt invaded Iraq.
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/25/2005 9:56 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Around 1400 BC. And they're still pissed, I guess.
If you "have no other option but brute force, you don't have a lot of options," Col. Joe Anderson says.
More than two years after the invasion of Iraq, Pentagon officials say they are speeding deployment of non-lethal weapons that give troops more choices. Iraq is becoming the proving ground for devices, some radically new, that can protect troops without harming the people they were sent to help.
Yes, it is USA Today, but an interesting article on practical non-lethal toys for the troops.
#1
I'm all for the development and deployment of non-lethals. Anything that gives the local commander and the troops on the ground more options should be a good thing. But I am also afraid that with the development of mature non-lethal technologies we will see highly restrictive ROEs that hamstring troops on the ground and lead to casualties that could be avoided. I've got a son-in-law in the sandbox now and I want to see him come home in one piece just like every one else with loved ones there. I also don't want to see any innocent Iraqi or Afhgans killed or wounded either
USA today is on a roll! EFL
When Sondos' sister was murdered by insurgents for working with the Iraqi army, the 30-year-old exacted her revenge: She signed up for the military.
Sondos is part of a class of 29 female recruits who recently completed the Iraqi army basic training course at Camp Justice in Baghdad, home to the Iraqi army's 1st Brigade, 6th Division. Although female soldiers have previously completed the two-week course and joined the army, Saturday's graduating group was the first all-female class of recruits trained by female trainers on an Iraqi-run base. Smaller groups of women have trained in Jordan and held military police jobs.
"The Iraqi army is actively recruiting women," said Lt. Col. Fred Wellman, spokesman for Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in charge of equipping and training Iraqi security forces. "They need them. There are certain jobs absolutely necessary to women."
The Khawla Bint al-Azwar Class â named after a female warrior in the time of the prophet Mohammed who disguised herself as a man to fight in Muslim wars â will join 120 other female soldiers attached to different units at the 1st Brigade. They represent a small step toward the future look of the Iraqi army, says Brig. Gen. Jaleel Khalaf, commander of the 1st Brigade and top commander of Iraqi troops in Baghdad. The women will take on a number of roles, including administrative, medical and public affairs duties, he says.
They'll also go on combat missions, particularly cordon-and-searches, where they'll search females in suspected insurgents' homes. And they'll interrogate and look after female suspects in the brigade detainee facility. They earn the same starting salaries as male soldiers, about $330 a month.
"This is the reality: We need female soldiers," Khalaf says. "If I have a female prisoner, what do I do? If I have to search a female and can't do it with a male, it'll be a catastrophe...If I had the power of hiring, I'd have a female battalion."
"I want to fight alongside the men," Sondos says. "I want to fight against the terrorists who are taking over my country."
#3
I think it will bug the hell out of the bad boyz to have active public recruitment of women. They should pitch things like: "If you join up today, we may even let you guard captured insurgents." Plenty of women would go for that.
EFL The United Arab Emirates is to build a new town for Palestinians on the site of demolished Jewish settlements once Israel withdraws from the Gaza Strip, state news agency WAM said on Sunday.
It said the development, to be named the Khalifa bin Zayed City after UAE President Sheikh Khalifa, would house 30,000 to 40,000 Palestinians at a cost of at least $100 million.
A new neighborhood opened in the northern Gaza Strip earlier this year where the UAE spent some $55 million to house Palestinians whose homes had been destroyed by the Israel Defense Forces since 2000. I s'pose this is a less harmful way to get rid of those oil profits than directly sponsoring terrorists.
Israel has agreed with the Palestinian Authority to demolish all the homes in its Gaza enclaves. 'Cause Israelis have cooties!
#1
Buiding them a town? When that's done, be expecting to hear from them again. God forbid these people get off the international tit and do something for themselves.
EFL
The US Defense Department announced over the weekend that it may sell Israel jet engines and other equipment for the air force worth up to $600 million.
The sale would be for management of the IAF's F-15 and F-16 A/B fleets and include mainly Pratt & Whitney F-1000 model engines. It also includes spare parts, support equipment, technical documentation and personnel training and other services over the next 10 years, a statement said. The funding would likely come from some of the $2.2 billion in annual military aid Washington grants Israel, most of which must be spent in the US.
According to the Americans, the engines and other parts of the maintenance package are to ensure a 95 percent flying hour capability for the existing IAF fleet of 202 Pratt & Whitney F-1000 engines used by both the F-15 and F-16.
By law, once notified, Congress has 30 days to block proposed foreign military sales, but rarely does so.
Winds Of War discussion here
President Gen Pervez Musharraf on Tuesday warned Pakistan would not tolerate future violations of its frontiers and would thwart infiltration into its controlled areas on the pretext of war of terror.
Talking to Gen Abizaid, the chief of US Central Command, who called on him at Army House in Rawalpindi, the president said Islamabad was offering every possible support and cooperation to the US and the international community for fighting terrorism and extremism, however it could not allow anyone to violate its borders under the pretext of anti-terror campaign. "Our forces are vigilant against terrorists and are doing every possible for purging Pakistan and the region of them. Their successes against militants are indubitable", he said.
"Now, we want our borders to be respected in war of terrorism. We will not put up with border breaches in future ", he said. He said Pakistani security forces had successfully destroyed hideouts of foreign militants in Northern and Southern Waziristan.
The president, however sought more technical support from the US for Pakistani intelligence and law enforcing agencies, saying this would help them for completely freeing rugged tribal areas from al-Qaeda militants and Taliban remnants.
Gen Musharraf said Washington must help out Islamabad in fulfilling Islamabad's military and defence needs for maintaining balance of power in the region. He said, "We want close ties defence and military ties with the US."
The president also emphasized the need for enhanced Pak-US strategic ties and long partnership in all fields, saying the US must take care of the Pakistan's security and military needs as a non-NATO ally.
Gen Abizaid, the chief of US Central Command, praised Gen Musharraf's part and courageous decisions in war on terror and said the US would continue cooperating with Pakistan for maintaining peace and stability in South Asia and fighting terrorism at home.
Current Pak-US relations, war on terror, operations against al-Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan, situation on Pakistani borders and Indo-US defence cooperation deal also came up for discussion in the meeting.
#2
I wonder how he'd react to an arclight in the NWFP.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/25/2005 8:20 Comments ||
Top||
#3
He's been harassing imams recently and getting flak from the UK so while sortof cooperating he has to placate the local nutjobs with a little display of the ol Paki verbal machismo. I've always been amazed by the fact that he has not yet been whacked on the job by the dozen or so factions that have no use for his survival dog and pony show.
OTOH what Perv actually does [WOT]is something less than satisfactory. Dismantling the Mad schools/mullahs and terror infrastruture for instance. He still holds them to be an effective weapons of state, an asset.
The good thing about Perv is that some Mullah could be much worse. that ain't saying much.
Posted by: Red Dog ||
07/25/2005 9:38 Comments ||
Top||
Hearts and minds and the Marine small wars manual.
URGUN, Afghanistan (AP) - With escalating violence threatening Afghanistan's future, the U.S. military has a new focus: employ as many of the poor as possible to rebuild schools and medical clinics so they don't join the Taliban or al-Qaida.
The U.S. military operational commander in Afghanistan, Maj. Gen. Jason Kamiya, believes that the more Afghans being put to work helps take away some of the enemies' ability to recruit. "I'd rather have an Afghan national working on a road or helping build a clinic than getting three to five bucks or whatever the Taliban or al-Qaida-associated movement pays him to plant an IED (improvised explosive device)," he told The Associated Press on Saturday. "We are hiring as many Afghans as we can."
As part of the strategy, an ambitious string of reconstruction projects are on the drawing board for fall and winter, when militants here are normally quiet, in an attempt to prevent an insurgent offensive next spring, when snows melt on high mountain passes used by the rebels. Most building projects in past years have slowed down during the winter months when the freezing temperatures make construction difficult. But this year, the military is determined to push ahead with them, U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Jerry O'Hara said Sunday.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/25/2005 00:45 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Rummy is fed up with reconstruction progress. It now falls under him directly. Expect big time construction types to come in and organize this into something that brings immediate results.
Posted by: Donald Trump ||
07/25/2005 5:35 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Roads are key to controlling the country. Uncle Sam can go anywhere anytime in Afghanistan regardless of road conditions because his military is set up to do it. The Afghan military will need good roads to effectively control the countryside. Just like railroads were the key to winning the West and roads were key to the building and maintenance of the Roman empire, good roads will be the key to the central government's control of Afghanistan. If that's what we want.
#3
The irony is that we could employ most of the country for $1B. If it was done intelligently, to turn the Afghans "development crazy", it would be the ultimate tool to crushing the Taliban. Small business employ most of the people in a capitalist country; so we should spend most of the money making every 10th Afghan a small businessman. For the totally untrained, set up a CCC-type organization and pay them a good wage to do things like plant trees, improve and make new farmland, farm and market crops, canalize their water system to support rural growth, road building, and every kind of wholesale and retail imagineable. After a couple of years, Afghans should consider it their patriotic duty to be gainfully employed and living a much better life.
#4
Lol - they'll import Lh to keep that CCC program running - and he'll likely expand it, doncha know, and then they'll form unions, and then...
Progress, heh.
There's a solid truth in your post, Moose. People that have never had a govt that did more than steal from them, oppress them, and shoot wymyn in the soccer stadium would slowly, but surely I agree, be won over by one that actually performed public works. And yeah, a couple of billion per year could go a long way among the majority who aren't on a warlord or druglord payroll, if managed well.
#5
2nd Choice, thousand of tiny robots grinding down the boulders and building roads. Course we may have to wait for the Satans Engineers to build the tiny robots but hey! Think long term!
#6
I'm sure HRW will claim we are exploiting the poor Afghans by giving them jobs at a decent so that they can support their families and get them off the NGO's rolls.
#7
Just setting up NGOs for their own sweet sake is a waste of money. The idea is not to keep them on Uncle Sugar's payroll, but present them with an idea like "We'll pay you 50 guys to turn this 10,000 acres into good farmland. We'll give you the tools, fertilizer and seed, you give us the labor. You clear the rocks, dig irrigation canals, plant the seed, fertilize it and pull the weeds. When the crop comes in, you sell it, use some of the money to buy more fertilizer and seed, and you get to split the rest. If the crop is good, all 50 of you will be rich men next year. But those who work not shall not get rich. Get to work. For now you'll be paid every day at the end of the day."
They're getting ambitious
Over 165 Maoist cadres are being trained in Bhutan at present, as Bhutan has been included in the future Maoist country, âDandkaranya Desamâ. The United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) and Kamtapur Liberation Organization (KLO) are imparting the training. A senior leader of the Standing Committee of a Maoist outfit confirmed this to the South Asia Tribune. The next meeting of the Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organizations of South Asia (CCOMPOSA) is likely to be held in Bangladesh by the end of this year to chalk out the future strategy. Bhutan has been included in âDandkaranya Desamâ, a Maoist El Dorado in South Asia. Maoists in Bhutan have already formed Bhutan Communist Party against the imperative rule of King Jigme Singye Vancgchuk. A meeting between KLO Chief Sunil Biswas and the Maoist source of the South Asia Tribune was held somewhere in the Jalpaiguri region a few months ago for the training of the Maoist recruits in Bhutan. According to the sources, 3-4 days training capsules are being provided to the Maoist recruits in guerilla warfare, bomb-manufacturing techniques and arms training. The militiamen of the ULFA and KLO are imparting the training.
Maoist sources say that the combined strength of the Indian and Nepali Maoists is gradually increasing, and they are trying to raise armies in Bangladesh and Bhutan. At present there are about 16,000 Combatants, 32,000 Militia, 14,000 Cadres, 70,000 hardcore followers and 600,000 Sympathizers. They have also united more than a dozen ethnic and regional classes, such as Bhutanese of Nepali origins (refugees in Nepal), dalits, majhis, kols, etc. These are the classes that work as informers. India, particularly the Northeastern region, has become the hotbed of insurgency. The Maoist forces of Bhutan, Nepal, India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh held a meeting with the communist leaders of Nepal and Bangladesh during the 18th Congress of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) that took place in April 2005 at New Delhi. Indian Maoist sources told the South Asia Tribune that the Maoist leaders met some of the world communist leaders for their support and help. Though these leaders do not reconcile with the extremist approach of the ultras, yet they have sympathies with ultra outfits as both of them have the same goal of âsalvation of the massesâ.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
07/25/2005 00:15 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And subsist on what, pray tell? Failed economic systems must prey upon capitalism, else they freakin' starve.
Sigh. Liberation Fronts always mean indentured slaves / peasants are making a comeback. The Great Leap Backward.
#2
I think NEWSMAX's Charles R. Smith said it best, in paraphrase - to accomodate China's ambitions, the West must give back everything "east of Warsaw". INDIA, NEPAL, ... to SHANGRI-LA, despite the rise of the "Red-Star Turbans", all roads and POTUS Hillary-Chelsea inevitably lead back to Beijing-Moscow? EVEN IFF THEY SUCC IN SAVING SOCIALISM AND OWG FROM AMERICA, CAN THEY SAVE THE REMNANTS OF THE WORLD FROM EACH OTHER???
Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz on Sunday pledged âseamless cooperationâ with Afghanistan in fighting terrorism and extremism. Aziz made the comments during a one-day trip to Kabul to discuss security and trade issues with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has urged international support for his country ahead of key legislative elections in September.
Some Afghan officials have demanded Islamabad do more to check the activity of the Taliban and suspected militants in tribal regions near the Afghan border. âTerrorism knows no borders,â Aziz told reporters. âSo if there is trouble in Afghanistan, it affects Pakistan and vice versa. So what we have agreed is to have seamless cooperation in the security area, to enhance it substantially.â
On a more positive note, bilateral trade had boomed and was expected to top $1 billion this year, Aziz said. âItâs a win-win for both countries,â Aziz told reporters. Aziz announced that Pakistan would give Afghanistan $100 million for development to supplement an earlier grant of the same amount.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/25/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
DUBAI: The daughter of a wealthy Indian fugitive accused by Washington of links to Al Qaeda married the son of a top Pakistani cricketer in Dubai on Saturday, in a high society wedding with all the trappings of a Bollywood film.
I saw this in a movie once. See, the bride's brother, Mike, he's just home from the war. His sister, Connie's marrying Carlo, who's a pretty boy. His older brother, Sonny, is boffing Lucy, the bridesmaid...
Indian businessman Dawoud Ibrahim, whose whereabouts are not known, was said not to have attended the ceremony.
The Don, see, he's inside, with his consigliere, Tom, and he's meeting with his paisans, 'cuz it's his daughter's wedding day, so by tradition he has to honor their requests...
Former Pakistani cricket captain Javed Miandad confirmed earlier this month that his son Junaid would marry ConnieMahrukh Ibrahim, whose father is accused by India of a wave of bomb attacks in Bombay in 1993 that killed 260 people.
The Don's put off meeting with Solozzo, the Turk, see? That's 'cuz he doesn't want to have to tell him "yes"...
Police with sniffer dogs patrolled the grounds of the Dubai five-star hotel where a small crowd of media and onlookers gathered on a balmy night after news of the venue was leaked.
But the feds are out front, writing down the license numbers of the people who went to the wedding and maybe taking some pictures, too...
News of the exact location had earlier been kept secret.
It was at the Don's estate on Long Island...
The toll booth? Nothing to worry about ...
Ibrahim, put on a US Treasury list of global terrorists in 2003, would have risked arrest by turning up. One person at the ceremony said Ibrahim had not attended, at least not during the first hours of a long night. The stream of guests arriving including Javed Miandad, dressed in a white suit. The hotel management cordoned the area off and refused to comment on the guest list. Junaid met Mahrukh in London, where he is studying.
Suddenly I'm craving cannoli...
Posted by: Fred ||
07/25/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
North Waziristan tribesman on Sunday threatened to stop supporting the Pakistan Army if the army were to undertake any search operation in the agency without informing them. Malik "Mahmoud the Weasel" Qadir Khan, a tribal chief, said at a grand jirga that army officers were disrespectful of the sanctity of the tribesmen's homes while conducting search operations. He said tribesmen had agreed to cooperate with the government in its drive against terrorism only after the assurance that elders would be informed against raids in advance.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/25/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Has napalm been outlawed?
Posted by: Howard UK ||
07/25/2005 5:23 Comments ||
Top||
Original, unexpurgated headline. Sounds like an asterisk on the pages of the War on Terror, doesn't it?
Tossed out at what altitude? ...
A Pakistani national who boarded the special plane carrying Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz from Kabul to Islamabad has been detained at Kabul airport, Geo news channel reported on Sunday.
"Stick 'em up, Chaudry! Yer under arrest!"
Security officials accompanying the prime minister detained Shafiullah, who was sitting in the premierâs plane as it prepared to leave Kabul for Pakistan, the channel reported. There was no official word on the incident.
Ummm... Chief? We seem to have an extra on the headcount..."
Shafiullah introduced himself as a staff member at the Pakistan Embassy in Kabul and told security agents in the plane that he had brought in the luggage of ministers and officials and could not get out of the plane as the doors had been shut on him, Geo reported.
"So I'll just have to go back to Pakland with you!"
"Mahmoud! Throw him out!"
The man was asked to jump out of the plane, as the stairs had been taken away, the report said, adding that Pakistan Embassy officials in Kabul took the man into custody for questioning. The luggage belonging to ministers and officials were also thrown out of the plane, the report added. The bags were lying at Kabul airport and were being checked, the channel said.
"Whoa! What have we here?"
"Explosives?"
"No, this!"
"Wow! See-thru! And crotchless! Hubba hubba!"
Later, a government spokesman called reports of the incident incorrect.
"That ain't the way it happened!"
"Who's tellin' this story? Me or you?"
âThe man in question is a regular employee at the Pakistan Embassy in Kabul and could not leave the plane in time, as the stairs had already been removed from the aircraft,â the spokesman said.
So that is the way it happened?
The embassy official had boarded the aircraft to drop some luggage off, he said, adding that since the stairs were removed by that time, the official got out of the aircraft with the help of the ground crew.
"Yo! You there! The ground crew! Here! Catch!"
"Aaaaaiiiiieeeee!"
The spokesman also called reports of âsuspicious luggageâ being found in the aircraft âtotally baselessâ.
"Nope. Nope. Wudn't see-thru at all!"
Posted by: Fred ||
07/25/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I had hopes a MMA big-fez-wig was the subject...damn
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/25/2005 0:06 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I thought Galileo's Leaniing Tower of Pisa experiment called for TWO OBJECTS of different weights...
Accoring to prison officals, Ahmed Omer Saeed Sheikh is dangerous and charismatic. The British-born Islamist murderer of the American journalist Daniel Pearl has managed to convert the first four constables that were stationed outside his cell. This has moved prison authorities to rotate the guards staioned outside his cell almost every day. âHe is capable of converting the entire jail staff,â said one official.
The convict paid tribute to Osama Bin Laden and condemned his victim as an âinformer/spy of Americaâ in an interview conducted by smuggling notes in and out of his cell, says a Telegraph report. Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh said that he had met Bin Laden twice in Afghanistan and admitted to The Sunday Telegraph that he had been âinvolvedâ in the kidnap of Mr Pearl, a Wall Street Journal reporter who was beheaded on video in 2002 after being lured to a meeting in Karachi.
Sheikh rejected the âpillars of Western civilisationâ, pledged allegiance to the one-eyed fugitive Taliban leader Mulla Omar and declared that jihad would never cease, even if Bin Laden and Omar were killed. âIslamic resurgence will continue even if all the better-known leaders are martyred or captured,â he said. His uncompromising pronouncements came as Mr Pearlâs parents, Judea and Ruth, noted with âsadness and disappointmentâ the failure of Pakistan to carry out Sheikhâs death sentence, imposed three years ago after he was tried for their sonâs kidnap, and suggested that he could be implicated in planning bombings in London and elsewhere. âUsing the protection of his jail cell, [Sheikh] reportedly keeps in touch with his friends and followers in Pakistan and Britain, and advises them on future courses of action,â they wrote in the Journal.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
07/25/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The British-born Islamist murderer of the American journalist Daniel Pearl has managed to convert the first four constables that were stationed outside his cell. This has moved prison authorities to rotate the guards staioned outside his cell almost every day. âHe is capable of converting the entire jail staff,â said one official.
#2
âIâm trying to prepare myself to be of real service to the âUmmahâ [Muslim nation] if I get another chance.â
Woomp..there it is. worm food chance.
Posted by: Red Dog ||
07/25/2005 1:51 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Perhaps they should consult with the Hindus - you're supposed to charm the snake, not the other way around. Hey, Pervy / PakiWakis - get on with it and prove you're not total asstards -- kill the little fucker. Do it now. He's been breathing far too long.
#4
Geez, can't they just take his pocket watch away.
"You are getting sleepy, very, very sleepy. Soon you will be my slave. When you wake you will know nothing, nothing at all except to obey all my orders. At the snap of my fingers - awake".
#5
yeeeeah, that's right, we didn't purposely place sympathetic guards on this guy to slip him cigarettes and porn magazines and deliver his personal mail...they were...um...converted by him. Yeeeaaah...that's it, that's the ticket! They were converted by this dangerous and charismatic mastermind!
At least two dozen people were injured on Sunday when supporters of sacked Nepali prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba clashed with police when he appeared before an anti-graft body hearing corruption charges, witnesses said. Police used batons to push back about 200 activists of the Nepali Congress (Democratic) Party who were protesting against the anti-graft body, demanding it be abolished as it was illegal.
The protesters, some of them carrying placards, threw stones and bricks at the heavy security cordon as Deuba arrived for the hearing at the office of the Royal Commission for Corruption Control, which is investigating charges of graft against him. The sacked premier and Prakash Man Singh, a minister in the ousted cabinet, are in police custody since April. They are accused of embezzling $5.3 million while awarding the contract for a section of a $464 million water supply project.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/25/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Captain America ||
07/25/2005 1:38 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I was laughing quietly until I hit HOSNI #5. Then I really whooped! Uh, that's the CORINTH canal, dividing the upper part of Greece from Pellenopolis, the "Spartan" portion of Greece, with its three fingers. Of course, how many people in the world would know that? Only a stamp collector... 8^)
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
07/25/2005 21:53 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.
Delegations from North and South Korea, meeting in Beijing on Sunday, said they wanted to see "substantial progress" in this week's six-party talks aimed at ending Pyongyang's pursuit of nuclear weapons. The two sides said they also wanted the participants to come up with a framework for a nuclear-free Korean peninsula.
Westerners must leave Muslim lands if they want to safeguard themselves against terrorist attacks, says the Sydney leader of the global Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir, Wassim Doureihi.
WHEN SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE visited Sudan last week, much of the press's coverage focused on the rough treatment her senior advisors and NBC's Andrea Mitchell, who was among the reporters traveling with the Secretary, received. Mitchell had questioned the Sudanese president, Omar el-Bashir, about his government's role in the current battle raging in Darfur, where an ongoing humanitarian crisis has drawn considerable attention. For this, she received Khartoum's version of hospitality: She was roughed up by Bashir's henchmen.
Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz on Sunday pledged âseamless cooperationâ with Afghanistan in fighting terrorism and extremism. Aziz made the comments during a one-day trip to Kabul to discuss security and trade issues with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has urged international support for his country ahead of key legislative elections in September.
DUBAI: The daughter of a wealthy Indian fugitive accused by Washington of links to Al Qaeda married the son of a top Pakistani cricketer in Dubai on Saturday, in a high society wedding with all the trappings of a Bollywood film. 
North Waziristan tribesman on Sunday threatened to stop supporting the Pakistan Army if the army were to undertake any search operation in the agency without informing them. Malik "Mahmoud the Weasel" Qadir Khan, a tribal chief, said at a grand jirga that army officers were disrespectful of the sanctity of the tribesmen's homes while conducting search operations. He said tribesmen had agreed to cooperate with the government in its drive against terrorism only after the assurance that elders would be informed against raids in advance.
A Pakistani national who boarded the special plane carrying Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz from Kabul to Islamabad has been detained at Kabul airport, Geo news channel reported on Sunday.
Accoring to prison officals, 
At least two dozen people were injured on Sunday when supporters of sacked Nepali prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba clashed with police when he appeared before an anti-graft body hearing corruption charges, witnesses said. Police used batons to push back about 200 activists of the Nepali Congress (Democratic) Party who were protesting against the anti-graft body, demanding it be abolished as it was illegal. 
