Once her son is off to school, Laura Mansfield settles in at her dining room table with her laptop and begins trolling Arabic-language message boards and chat rooms popular with jihadists.
Fluent in Arabic, the self-employed terror analyst often hacks into the sites, translates the material, puts it together and sends her analysis via a subscription service to intelligence agencies, law enforcement and academics.
Occasionally she comes across a gem, such as when she found a recent Osama bin Laden video before al-Qaida had announced it.
"I realized, oh my gosh, I'm sitting here, I'm a fat 50-year-old mom and I've managed to scoop al-Qaida," said Mansfield, who uses that name as a pseudonym because she receives death threats.
She sometimes spends 100 hours a week online, and she often finds items after word has begun spreading on the Arabic forums of an imminent release. . . .
There have been times when an impending video release has kept her from a planned shopping trip with her daughter. "It gets really challenging when you're trying to do that and cook spaghetti at the same time," she said.
God love her!
Posted by: Mike ||
09/22/2007 07:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
An anti-Taliban commander who fought alongside US forces during the 2001 invasion predicted that proposed peace talks would be a "long and complex process" but likely would be snubbed by hard-liners and foreign fighters in the Islamic militia.
The comments by Gen. Bismillah Khan - made during a visit by the most senior US military chief for the region - appeared to reflect a more cautious approach by some in the Afghan military toward a push by President Hamid Karzai to open talks with the Taliban. "This could be a beginning," Khan said following meetings with Adm. William Fallon, the head of US Central Command. "But it's a long and complex process. It's not something that will have a significant effect in the short term."
This article starring:
Adm. William Fallon, the head of US Central Command
Bismillah Khan
Posted by: Fred ||
09/22/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
#1
This stinks. We are setting the stage for the revival of the Taliban. The leftist website, fanonite.org has an article on the effect of democraticization on Muslim dominated countries. Under the Carter presidency, "human rights" promotion was central to US foreign policy. The result? Revolutionary Iran. Democracy is perverted if it produces dictatorships. Frankly, I cannot deny this Guardian comment:
"Six years after 9/11, throughout the Muslim world political Islam is on the march; the surprise is that its rise is happening democratically - not through the bomb, but the ballot box. Democracy is not the antidote to the Islamists the neocons once fondly believed it would be. Since the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, there has been a consistent response from voters wherever Muslims have had the right to vote. In Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey and Algeria they have voted en masse for religious parties in a way they have never done before. Where governments have been most closely linked to the US, political Islams rise has been most marked."
#3
"Six years after 9/11, throughout the Muslim world political Islam is on the march; the surprise is that its rise is happening democratically - not through the bomb, but the ballot box.
I don't think Karzai or Maliki are terrorists. They were elected through a democratic process, with only minimal intimidation and vote-rigging. We're beginning to see truly democratic reform taking place in Iraq, with the Sunnis turning on Al Qaeda and deciding they need to take part in the political process. The Kurds have been on board from the beginning. Some Shia tribal leaders are beginning to figure out that any government NOT based on power-sharing and democratic principles will result in another tyranny, and are cooperating with the Maliki government.
Democracy is not the antidote to the Islamists the neocons once fondly believed it would be.
It takes time for ideas to settle in and people to get comfortable with them. It's only been six years. The United States government tried one form of government (Articles of Confederation), and found it didn't work. The Constitution of the United States, creating a Federal government, wasn't accepted until 1789. Why should we expect the Iraqis to "get it right" in only about three years, in the midst of constant war?
Since the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, there has been a consistent response from voters wherever Muslims have had the right to vote. In Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey and Algeria they have voted en masse for religious parties in a way they have never done before.
The Lebanese government has been a "work in progress" for the last 70 years. Most of its problems are caused by manipulation by Syria and Iran, a "refugee" population of almost a half-million people, and an active insurgency by Hezbollah. Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, and Algeria cannot be called "democratic" by anyone with two operational brain cells. Iraq has NOT elected a totalitarian or strictly religious government, although religious meddling has played a major part in its current situation. Turkey is in the midst of learning what happens when you let mullahs have unlimited power to undermine your secular government. They have a choice to make. We'll have to wait and see how THAT turns out.
Where governments have been most closely linked to the US, political Islams rise has been most marked."
It's not only POLITICAL Islam, but also RELIGIOUS Islam that is causing the problems. When mullahs stand in the pulpit and declare the only form of government that is acceptable to muslim believers is a theocracy run by the mullahs, there's going to be a problem. There MUST be separation of Church and State for secular governments to survive. If the State is run by the Church, the church leaders have "divine powers" to declare how people should vote, as well as how they will live. That's the major drawback to Islam as a religion - it demands obedience to the clerics at the price of personal freedom. When you're told HOW to vote by the clerics, with the threat of death for not following orders, it's kind of hard for democracy to take root. The biggest mistake we made in Iraq was in not capping the more radical clerics at the very beginning. Our continued mistake is in letting the more obnoxious clerics live, both in Iraq and in Iran.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/22/2007 15:07 Comments ||
Top||
Benedict XVI attacked Muslim nations where Christians are either persecuted or given the status of second-class citizens under the Shariah Islamic law. He also defended the rights of Muslims to convert to Christianity, an act which warrants the death penalty in many Islamic countries.
His comments came almost exactly a year after he provoked a wave of anger among Muslims by quoting a Byzantine emperor who linked Islam to violence.
Yesterday, near Rome, the 80-year-old pontiff made a speech in "defence of religious liberty", which, he said "is a fundamental, irrepressible, inalienable and inviolable right". In a clear reference to Islam, he said: "The exercise of this freedom also includes the right to change religion, which should be guaranteed not only legally, but also in daily practice."
Addressing the problem of Islamic extremism, he added: "Terrorism is a serious problem whose perpetrators often claim to act in God's name and harbour an inexcusable contempt for human life."
Pope Benedict is particularly concerned about the persecution of Christians in Iraq since the invasion of 2003. Before then, there were about 1.2million Christians in the country. But the number has dropped to below 600,000.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/22/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
While laudable in no uncertain terms, Benedict's pronouncement is long overdue.
#3
Hey- ease up on the lateness. The chrch is noted for taking it's time. Only 400 years to admit that Galleleo(sp?) had a point. ~1000 years to resolve a political spat with the Orthodox. Whats a few centuries, when you have eternal rammifications to worry about.
At least pope benny is willing to call a spade a spade.
Any bets on how long untill the next muzzy assassanation attempt?
Posted by: N guard ||
09/22/2007 6:28 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Actually, he has been talking in this direction since he becaem Pope. Its taken him this long to beat down the liberals in the Vatican's version of the State Department.
I guess all State Departments are filled with the same types of morons.
#7
Whats a few centuries, when you have eternal rammifications to worry about.
At few other times in history has inaction carried such a high price tag. Should the Vatican maintain this sort of glacial pace it will likely disappear in an Iranian nuclear fireball. The Catholic Church and Christians in general had better ally themselves with this world's other peaceful religions in order to present a united front against Islam. A Vatican sponsored drive to provide financial and moral support for Thailand's beleaguered Buddhists would be a fine starting place for creating this sort of inter-faith unity.
#10
"Before then, there were about 1.2million Christians in the country. But the number has dropped to below 600,000."
So 600,000 Christians have disappeared in Iraq since 2003? Benedict must get his statistics from The Lancet or Senator Harry Reid.
#11
So 600,000 Christians have disappeared in Iraq since 2003? Benedict must get his statistics from The Lancet or Senator Harry Reid.
That number appears to be about right. Most of the 600,000 left for Syria, Iran, and other places for safety. Various militias have been blowing up churches, kidnapping/killing priests, and kidnapping Christians for cash.
#12
What makes that number appear to be about right? If I told you it was 300,000, would that number appear to be about right too? Do you have a source?
#14
Less than one year ago:
"Estimates of the resulting Christian exodus vary from the tens of thousands to more than 100,000, with most heading for Syria, Jordan and Turkey."
[NYT: "Iraqs Christians Flee as Extremist Threat Worsens"; October 16, 2006.]
As many as 50 percent of Iraq's Christians may already have left the country, according to a report issued Wednesday by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a federal monitoring and advisory group in Washington D.C.
"These groups face widespread violence from Sunni insurgents and foreign jihadis, and they also suffer pervasive discrimination and marginalization at the hands of the national government, regional governments, and para-state militias," said the report.
Islamic extremists have also targeted liquor stores, hair salons and other Christian-owned businesses, saying they violate Islam, the report said.
"This is not the culture of Iraqis or the nature of Iraqis. We have lived during centuries together in a respectful attitude and friendship," said Luwis Zarco, the Catholic archbishop of Kirkuk.
In much of the Middle East, Christians are a largely tolerated minority that have achieved a measure of business and professional success, but they are sometimes viewed with suspicion by their Muslim neighbors.
In Saddam-era Iraq, the country's 800,000 Christians many of them Chaldean-Assyrians and Armenians, with small numbers of Roman Catholics were generally left alone. Many, such as Saddam Hussein's foreign minister and deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz, reached the highest levels of power.
Iraqi Christians have responded in the only way possible: running away. Roughly half of the pre-war Christian community, possibly 750,000 people, is thought to have fled Iraq.
That Iraqi Christians have fared poorly in the midst of Muslim radicalism, whether Shia or Sunni, comes as no surprise.Christians possess no military forces, no militias organized for their defense. Nor are their enclaves large enough to offer protection.
Less expected was Kurdistan's mistreatment of the Assyrians. Indeed, writes BetBasoo, the "systematic campaign of persecution ... began in the Kurdish regions of north Iraq shortly after the first Gulf war and spread to Baghdad and Basra after the liberation of Iraq in April of 2003. In the last three months it has intensified and is now openly declared in some areas of Iraq."
Unfortunately, there is little hope that the violence will abate. To the contrary, contends BetBasoo, "since Assyrians are not capable of defending themselves and are targeted as a class because of their distinct identity, what is now unfolding in Iraq can be termed an incipient genocide."
Now, I've read from these sources (and others) that up to 50% of the Christian community had been driven out of Iraq. So, I saw your 1.2 million and figured that 50% was about, oh, say, 600,000.
#17
Firm population numbers in a chaotic country, formerly ruled for 30 years by a ruthless dictatorship, are hard to come by.
From the CIA World Factbook:
Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%
I'm not sure where the Daily Mail got its 1.2 million Christians figure, the sources I've read fall between 700,000 and 850,000. In any case, within the last year, Iraq's Christian communities have been pummeled, and I think a 50% evacuation rate is not an unreasonable estimate.
#18
Darrell, a friend of mine (not a close friend, but someone I've known for about 5 years) has been active and respected in international banking for many years, primarily in the middle east. He was brought in by the CPA to advise on the setup of Iraq's new currency, banking laws etc. Guy's in his mid 70s & went through a 2 week refresher course on things like shooting an M-16 ... shared a trailer in the Green Zone from 2004 through the elections. Still spends about 1/4 of his time in Amman, Baghdad etc. while his wife tries not to worry until his flight gets back each trip.
So ... someone who is a closeup observer and knows the people & culture. He used to worship in one or another of the Iraqi churches when there. He can't find one, even quasi-underground, in Baghdad now (and he knows the community, if they were there he'd hear about if even if they asked him to keep away for security reasons).
It's been very very bad for Christians there since the Sunnis triggered the sectarian violence with the shrine bombings. Very few still alive and in the country, so far as he can tell.
#19
Not disputing that, lotp, but 600,000 is one heck of a lot of dead bodies and refugees. Where are the living now? Camps in Syria? I don't see Syria tolerating that. It just doesn't seem to add up.
#21
a LOT of Chaldeans here in San Diego County - quite the family network. They show up requesting asylum, and have a good local rep of working hard and causing no problems
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/22/2007 21:19 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Muslims demand special treatment here, while they abuse minority religions in their own countries. Why do our leaders buy their snakeoil
Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero on Friday downplayed the latest threat against Spain by the terrorist organisation Al Qaeda, saying the government was working hard to prevent attacks against Spanish interests. "We've been receiving more or less explicit threats for a long time now (and) it's nothing new although this time it's gotten a lot of press play," he said in a radio interview.
He has to downplay it, otherwise it calls into question his wimpy response to Islamicist terrorism since the day he took office.
In a video released this week, Al Qaeda's number two, Ayman al Zawahiri, urged Muslims to "clean the Islamic Maghreb of the sons of France and Spain." Al Zawahiri was apparently referring to Spain's two enclaves, Ceuta and Melilla, located on the coast of North Africa which is known in Arabic as the Maghreb.
He was also referring to every European currently in North Africa.
Spain, the premier said, has been working for some time "to prevent radical Islamic acts instigated by Al Qaeda" and lauded the actions of the Spanish intelligence services and police in North Africa in countering such threats.
Catholic bishops in Belgium have protested a TV ad depicting a pot-bellied, hippy Jesus performing miracles and picking up scantily-clad girls up in a nightclub, a church spokesman said Friday. "We have expressed our disapproval to the president of RTL's administrative council" Jacques Santer and the ethical advertising body, demanding the withdrawal of this publicity campaign, Father Eric de Beukelaer told AFP.
RTL, one of the biggest media groups in Europe, is running the ad on its main Belgian channel to promote Plug youth television, portrayed in the offending item as the coolest thing that even Jesus, with all his powers, could hope for. "The Belgian Church is used to retaining a sense of humour on religious subjects," De Beukelaer said. "In the name of freedom of expression, it avoids attacking cartoonists, but advertising is different," he added.
"An advert for cheese or pate featuring gourmet priests or nuns is one thing, but to turn Jesus into a walking billboard, that crosses the line," he said, stressing that along with tolerance must be respect for the sensitivities of believers. "To see Jesus depicted as a good-for-nothing, backwards adolescent, that crosses the limits of respectability," he added.
The advertisement ends with God admonishing his son Jesus for demanding a subscription to Plug TV, thundering "you still want more!"
Plug TV and RTL-TVI defended the advert, also being shown in cinemas, arguing that it was not blasphemous but contained a message about a "laid-back Jesus addressing youth."
De Beukelaer said that neither RTL nor the ethics panel had responded to a letter from the bishops, adding that the Catholic Church wanted to make its point without having to resort to legal measures.
#2
What about the bombs? We hear ad nauseum that Christianity can be invoked as an incitement to violence every bit as much as Islam, and whenever there is any cartoonish depiction of Muslim sanctities there are always riots and bombs. So we can expect Christian violence worldwide, right? Trashing of Beligian embassies, boycotts of Belgian goods, trampling on the Belgian flag by Christian "activists" everywhere, to be followed by abject apologies for any offense given by the instigators of the insult, right?
Posted by: Baba Tutu ||
09/22/2007 3:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The raising of the dead deal would have impressed the chicks.
#5
Looks like the current Pope's example is filtering down and the Church is beginning to confront those in Europe who are happy to trash Christianity and western culture while facilitating the Islamification of the old world.
#8
I've been boycotting Belgian products for 20 years now, and this won't change my mind. Belgians have an unwarranted high opinion of themselves that I find grating. Their "holier-than-thou" act never has impressed me much. This sounds exactly like something they would do.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/22/2007 16:21 Comments ||
Top||
#9
But OP - we NEED the Belgians. After all, as their defense minister sniffed, the US military "isn't very professional". Maybe if we're lucky they'll give us a few pointers for improvement.
The netroots are hopping mad over the Senate's vote to condemn MoveOn's 'Gen. Betray Us' ad. However, even some Beltway types are weighing in for the netroots. Paul Begala blogs at The Huffington Post: "Too many Democrats still think Mr. Bush's presidency is on the level. Let's be clear. Mr. Bush is not leading a serious, sober discussion about public discourse during a war. He wants to divide progressives and score political points. We should not let him. Throughout his career he's been willing to tolerate and benefit from vicious lies about military men. We should not concede that he is legitimately angry now." Netroots reactions include:
Open Left's Matt Stoller: "We already know that Republicans are a gang of psychotic criminals. The lesson I'm drawing from this episode is any non-progressive Democrat may and often will betray us at any time."
Talking Points Memo's David Kurtz: "Correct me if I'm wrong here. But by my calculation, more U.S. senators (72) voted today to condemn a newspaper ad attacking Gen. Petraeus than voted yesterday (56) to lengthen the time off troops get from the frontlines in Iraq, thereby reducing individual soldiers exposure to actual attacks. Am I missing something, or is that about right?"
Rabid Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher: "It's not just MoveOn that is having their wrists slapped, it's all of us. All of us who stood together and had the temerity to fight their precious comrade in comity, Joe Lieberman."
Open Left's Mike Lux: "I know that not everyone in the progressive movement was totally comfortable with the MoveOn ad about Gen. Petraeus, but whatever you thought, the right wing is now coming for them with all their hounds baying. This censure resolution in the Senate is a load of crap, designed to intimidate and silence strong dissent on the war."
Reno and Its DiscontentsMyrna Minx: "Today, our dear senators easily managed to vote against an ad run in the NYTimes by MoveOn.org, but yesterday they couldn't muster enough votes to rescind habeas corpus or demonstrate their support and care for our troops by giving them more time between tour of duties, because the price the troops are paying is so small that they would be demeaned by such efforts to relieve them. How can you get more cowardly?"
The Huffington Post's Ian Welsh: "The fact of the matter is that Petraeus's testimony to Congress was based on statistics that are, effectively, lies. ... By lying to Congress Petraeus effectively betrayed the US. He also betrayed his men on the ground. ... The honeymoon is over, and the Democrats who did this will reap what they sowed. Both they, and the netroots will be worse for it, but there is no way out - the real betrayal, in the end, was of the base, by these Democrats."
Working Assests' Justin Krebs: "The Senate is filled with cowards, many of whom have just -- in the words of the controversial ad -- betrayed us. McCarthyism is back...who wants to be censured next?"
The Huffington Post's Lane Hudson: "MoveOn has done more than anyone else in this country to bring an end to the war. Anyone. ... But, the Democrats in Congress didn't take the time to look past the baseless finger pointing and elementary name-calling. Instead, they gave in to cowardly instinct and said a big "F@*# YOU" to the millions of Americans who call themselves a part of the Netroots Movement and have worked side by side with MoveOn to end the War."
Daily Kos diarist Mike Stark blogged: "I've been waiting for this moment - it's been a long time coming. In preparation, I registered the domain names, WeAreYourBase.com, SpeakWithOneVoice.org [and] .net and I've researched the cost of purchasing NotOneRedCent.com." Stark goes on to explain his plan: "We are forming a donors' union and going on strike. ... each donor will promise to give NotOneRedCent to elected Democrats or organizations that give money to elected democrats. Instead, they will promise to use their money to contribute to progressive organizations and candidates that, as proved by their record, support the furtherance of progressive ideals. Yes! That's just what the Democratic Party needs: a purge!
Let's demonstrate to the Blue Dogs that the Democratic Party isn't their home after all. Senator Webb will be pleased.
Crooks and LiarsNicole Belle seconds Stark's idea: "In fact, I'm going to take the money I would have donated to Democratic campaigns and donating it to MoveOn so that they can redouble their efforts. Let those gutless Democrats in the Senate who once again caved to Republican framing know, 'I will fight back.'" You GO, girrrrl!
More here
Nice to know that the nutroots appreciate how the Blue Dogs gave them the Congress in the first place.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/22/2007 08:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yes! That's just what the Democratic Party needs: a purge!
Cause we all know how well that worked with Lieberman.
Maybe because they've never understood what real 'democracy' is about, that they're having such a hard time with this all. Watch their totalitarian streak start to come out. There is but one true god and it is theirs, all others are false and must be destroyed. No wonder they have so much in common with the Islamists. And like the Islamists they've already declared everyone else to be the 'enemy'. There's no concept of others having a legitimate difference of opinion. Watch what the unquenched thirst for POWER does to people.
#2
Netroots Movement Nutroots Movement. There that's fixed.
The far left is foaming at the mouth. They have a tantrum when they don't have their way. Spoiled adolescents. If they have a meltdown and engage in fratricide; what's the down side? How do you know the left is humorless and angry? They are humorless and angry all the time.
#4
this is delicious. We need to provoke these nuts to tear the Dem party in two. Continue to make the Donk politicians vote on the nut's positions in front of the nation: they are faced with Cut and Run/Bashing the military (I think it was DepotGuy who nailed that yesterday) or getting their votes thrown in their faces in the general elections. What works in the Donk primaries won't fly with the mainstream of America, and the blogs won't let them lie about their votes like the MSM would've in the past.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/22/2007 9:25 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I don't think there's any cause for gloating over this. The extreme Left has done a damn good job of taking over the Democratic Party lock, stock and barrel, and I see no signs-- none whatsoever-- of their stranglehold being loosened anytime soon.
As for the American voting public's imminent rejection of these liberal lunatics... you've gotta be kidding me. The Democrats lost in the 2002 midterm elections and decided it was because they weren't extreme enough in their opposition to Bush; they got a lot more extreme in 2004, and damn near won the Presidency; and then they went DEEP into the fever swamps of anti-American, anti-GWoT, Republican-hating lunacy in 2006, and promptly won both houses of Congress.
The more extreme they've become, the more elections they've won. Is there some sort of magic that's supposed to change things around-- other than pure wishful thinking? If so, I want to know WTF it is; because the way it looks to me right now, we're in for a massive Republican defeat next year.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/22/2007 10:12 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Stop whining, and go start the Progressive Party, already.
How about OnToTheShowTrials.com? Nope. Ready to buy.
Showtrials.com is taken tho.
Posted by: Thomas Woof ||
09/22/2007 10:22 Comments ||
Top||
#8
DD - IMNSHO, teh great middle of America will be turned off by teh extremists. Up til now, the Donks have been able to hide their ugly sides. I'd posit that the Lieberman win could be the model for coming elections: the nutroots and their bought-and-paid-for pols so turn off the voters that they lose, big. Let's see who turns out right? Making the pols condemn (or not) the nuts is a win-win
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/22/2007 10:24 Comments ||
Top||
#9
teh? PIMF
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/22/2007 10:25 Comments ||
Top||
#10
"Making the pols condemn (or not) the nuts is a win-win."
That much, I agree with. I hope you're right, Frank, I really REALLY do. But I'm not counting on it.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/22/2007 10:29 Comments ||
Top||
#11
In preparation, I registered the domain names, WeAreYourBase.com, SpeakWithOneVoice.org [and] .net and I've researched the cost of purchasing NotOneRedCent.com."
How much research does this take? Does somebody already own NotOneRedCent.com? If so, ask them what they want for it.
#13
We really need to keep this up. Keep the dhimocrats and the nutroots in the news. This, along with Billery's awful negative view numbers will sink any chance of the dhims getting the presidency. Congress as well has a good chance of falling away from their control as well.
#14
The Republicans got in deep trouble last election because they had 6 years to get it right and fell on on their fat a$$es. The nutcase Left is filling the vacuum. The solid, middle of the road, patriotic American has nowhere to go.
I would like to see independents get in on government and clean it up, but honest, hardworking, patriotic Americans do not want to enter the septic tank of Washington politics (with no disrespect intended toward the hard-working septic tanks of this country).
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/22/2007 11:03 Comments ||
Top||
#17
The more extreme they've become, the more elections they've won.
Which neatly explains how a barking mad loon like Hillary is their frontrunner.
Is there some sort of magic that's supposed to change things around-- other than pure wishful thinking? If so, I want to know WTF it is; because the way it looks to me right now, we're in for a massive Republican defeat next year.
The republicans need to get on topic and on message and do it damn soon. Stupendous betrayals of the American peoplelike the immigration billhave rightfully disenchanted a huge number of their stalwart voters. They need to focus on issues of substance, like securing the nation's borders. That's one issue the democrats won't even touch. More importantly, beating the war drum is not the same as clearly delineating the threat of Islam. When Christian America finally is made to understand the real goals of our Muslim colonists they might snap out of their delusions regarding peaceful coexistence.
Likewise with the fence-sitters and centrists. The mainstream media consistently has downplayed the implications of Islam colonizing the West. The republicans have a golden opportunity to create an exclusive rallying point the democrats simply cannot touch. Conservative politicians can ignore this fact but only at their peril.
#20
Republican voters, be aware, there is an organization Counsel on Foreign Relations that supports members of both parties. These are the NAFTA people who push for the North American Union and no fence. Bush, Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Dole, Thompson, Romney, Richardson, Obama, Edwards, and McCain are a few of its members.
We must elect a non-CFR republican and push for inclusion into the everyday workings of our gubmint via petition, inititive and referendum.
As it stands today, the MSM create issues which divide republicans like abortion and gay whatever, then the CFR ushers in a new member president for four more years of deceit. If abortion is actually an issue then why have none of the last 5 or 6 presidents done nothing for or against abortion ?
Get a grip, voters. Vote for a non-CFR republican. My word on the democrats is all corruption all the time. They can never do us any good and must be destroyed like the MSM.
Keep the discussion going...take America back.
Sen. Jack Reeds measure to set a deadline for troop withdrawals from Iraq failed to win a majority yesterday, capping a week of defeats for antiwar forces in the Senate and dimming Democratic hopes of imposing a strategic shift on President Bush.
On a 47-to-47 vote, the Senate blocked an amendment by Reed and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., that would pull most American troops out of Iraq within nine months. The proposal lost ground on both sides of the aisle since it won 52 votes in its last Senate floor test about two months ago.
Reed said the defeat of his troop-withdrawal plan showed that Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, has managed to buy some time for Mr. Bush to continue his strategy. I dont think he made a huge impression on the public at large, Reed said of Petraeus, who last week warned Congress against an early reversal of the surge of U.S. troops that the Army general credited with significant security gains in Iraq this year.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the purpose of the surge is to have the Iraqi military take over more and more of the responsibilities as U.S. troops begin to leave. You have to establish the military security environment in order for the political process of move forward in Iraq, McCain said.
Reed, a graduate of West Point, has long maintained that the surge cannot continue beyond next spring because maintaining it would disrupt the Pentagons system of troop rotations.
Reed said that Petraeus and Mr. Bush have effectively bowed to Democratic pressure by announcing plans for some troop reductions later this year. The president last week said he would reduce U.S. forces to roughly the level about 130,000 troops where they stood early this year when he ordered a surge of new troops to reduce violence, particularly in Baghdad. Reed, a graduate of West Point, has long maintained that the surge cannot continue beyond next spring because maintaining it would disrupt the Pentagons system of troop rotations.
Still, this weeks Senate votes on Iraq were a letdown for Democrats, who only last month appeared to have made inroads in Republican support for Mr. Bushs policy.
Only three Republicans Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine supported the measure. Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who voted for Levin-Reed in July, criticized Democratic leadership for refusing to seek compromise language to draw GOP moderates.
For Immediate Release
Date: September 21, 2007 Allies Statement in Support of MoveOn.org
The resolution condemning MoveOn.org yesterday sponsored by Senate Republicans was nothing more than a distraction from the real issue at hand: their unpopular support for a failed war in Iraq that is dragging on without end. Regardless of ones position on the ad in question, Senator Cornyns resolution and the Republican assault on MoveOn.org represented a frightening attack on free speech and an outrageous attempt to intimidate an organization, its allies and the popular movement in America they have helped lead to end the war in Iraq. Rather than intimidating MoveOn.org or the coalition which is working to bring a responsible end to the war in Iraq, we are confident that such attempts to stifle debate will only further energize the progressive movement and the effort to end the war.
#2
U.S.-IRAQ: Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge
By Gareth Porter*
WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) - In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.
Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.
That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon's mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders.
Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus's recommendation for continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during the summer.
The enmity between the two commanders became public knowledge when the Washington Post reported Sep. 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq. The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to "bad relations" between them is "the understatement of the century".
Fallon's derision toward Petraeus reflected both the CENTCOM commander's personal distaste for Petraeus's style of operating and their fundamental policy differences over Iraq, according to the sources.
The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress.
In a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet taken command of a war, Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early February just before the Senate debated Bush's troop increase. According to a report in The Washington Post Feb. 7, senators were then approached on the floor and invited to go McConnell's office to hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.
Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia -- the area for which Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible.
The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. "He is very focused on Pakistan," said a source familiar with Fallon's thinking, "and trying to maintain a difficult status quo with Iran."
By the time Fallon took command of CENTCOM in March, Pakistan had become the main safe haven for Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda to plan and carry out its worldwide operations, as well as being an extremely unstable state with both nuclear weapons and the world's largest population of Islamic extremists.
Plans for continued high troop levels in Iraq would leave no troops available for other contingencies in the region.
Fallon was reported by the New York Times to have been determined to achieve results "as soon as possible". The notion of a long war, in contrast, seemed to connote an extended conflict in which Iraq was but a chapter.
Fallon also expressed great scepticism about the basic assumption underlying the surge strategy, which was that it could pave the way for political reconciliation in Iraq. In the lead story Sep. 9, The Washington Post quoted a "senior administration official" as saying that Fallon had been "saying from Day One, 'This isn't working.' "
One of Fallon's first moves upon taking command of CENTCOM was to order his subordinates to avoid the term "long war" -- a phrase Bush and Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates had used to describe the fight against terrorism.
Fallon was signaling his unhappiness with the policy of U.S. occupation of Iraq for an indeterminate period. Military sources explained that Fallon was concerned that the concept of a long war would alienate Middle East publics by suggesting that U.S. troops would remain in the region indefinitely.
During the summer, according to the Post Sep. 9 report, Fallon began to develop his own plans for redefine the U.S. mission in Iraq, including a plan for withdrawal of three-quarters of the U.S. troop strength by the end of 2009.
The conflict between Fallon and Petraeus over Iraq came to a head in early September. According to the Post story, Fallon expressed views on Iraq that were sharply at odds with those of Petraeus in a three-way conversation with Bush on Iraq the previous weekend. Petraeus argued for keeping as many troops in Iraq for as long as possible to cement any security progress, but Fallon argued that a strategic withdrawal from Iraq was necessary to have sufficient forces to deal with other potential threats in the region.
Fallon's presentation to Bush of the case against Petraeus's recommendation for keeping troop levels in Iraq at the highest possible level just before Petraeus was to go public with his recommendations was another sign that Petraeus's role as chief spokesperson for the surge policy has created a deep rift between him and the nation's highest military leaders. Bush presumably would not have chosen to invite an opponent of the surge policy to make such a presentation without lobbying by the top brass.
Fallon had a "visceral distaste" for what he regarded as Petraeus's sycophantic behaviour in general, which had deeper institutional roots, according to a military source familiar with his thinking.
Fallon is a veteran of 35 years in the Navy, operating in an institutional culture in which an officer is expected to make enemies in the process of advancement. "If you are Navy captain and don't have two or three enemies, you're not doing your job," says the source.
Fallon acquired a reputation for a willingness to stand up to powerful figures during his tenure as commander in chief of the Pacific Command from February 2005 to March 2007. He pushed hard for a conciliatory line toward and China, which put him in conflict with senior military and civilian officials with a vested interest in pointing to China as a future rival and threat.
He demonstrated his independence from the White House when he refused in February to go along with a proposal to send a third naval carrier task force to the Persian Gulf, as reported by IPS in May. Fallon questioned the military necessity for the move, which would have signaled to Iran a readiness to go to war. Fallon also privately vowed that there would be no war against Iran on his watch, implying that he would quit rather than accept such a policy.
A crucial element of Petraeus's path of advancement in the Army, on the other hand, was through serving as an aide to senior generals. He was assistant executive officer to the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Carl Vuono, and later executive assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen.
Henry Shelton. His experience taught him that cultivating senior officers is the key to success.
The contrasting styles of the two men converged with their conflict over Iraq to produce one of the most intense clashes between U.S. military leaders in recent history.
*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in June 2005.
#3
One of Fallon's first moves upon taking command of CENTCOM was to order his subordinates to avoid the term "long war" -- a phrase Bush and Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates had used to describe the fight against terrorism.
Based on his posture towards China, I was afraid fo this. Fallon was a mistake for CENTCOM, a serious mistake.
Gareth Porter challenged the main rationale offered by U.S. President Richard Nixon in 1969 for continuing the Vietnam War, and argued that there would not be a Communist "bloodbath" in South Vietnam after the U.S. withdrew its forces from Vietnam. He wrote a series of articles and monographs on the bloodbath argument.
His first monograph was The Myth of the Bloodbath: North Vietnams Land Reform Reconsidered in 1973. He challenged the account of mass killings in North Vietnam's land reform (see Land reform in Vietnam) by Hoang Van Chi, Bernard Fall and others. Instead of tens or hundreds of thousands killed, Gareth Porter claimed that only a few hundred people died. His arguments were disputed by several critics in special hearings before Congress. Gareth Porter replied to these critics in another hearing.
He also wrote a detailed exposé in 1974 of an account by U.S. Information Agency official Douglas Pike on what has been called the "Huế Massacre" by Vietnamese Communists during the Tet Offensive of 1968. Porter alleged that Pike manipulated the official figures for civilian deaths in the destruction of Huế during Tet, primarily by U.S. bombing and artillery, to arrive at his figure of nearly 4,000 civilians murdered by the Viet Cong, and that Pikes hypothesis about the Communist policy during the occupation of Huế was contradicted by captured Communist documents and other evidence.
In 1976-77, continuing his challenge to the bloodbath argument, Gareth Porter rejected early accounts of the mass killings by the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. With George Hildebrand he wrote a book, Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution, which accepted the Pol Pot regime's rationale for the deportation of millions of people from Phnom Penh and other cities. Critics have argued that the book's sources included official statements by the Pol Pot regime. Testifying before Congress in May 1977, Gareth Porter said that "the notion that the leadership of Democratic Kampuchea adopted a policy of physically eliminating whole classes of people" was "a myth fostered primarily by the authors of a Readers Digest book." Senator Stephen J. Solarz was so shocked by this testimony that he compared Gareth Porter to those who deny the murder of 6 million Jews in the Nazi Holocaust. Gareth Porter rejected this comparison.
But in an appearance on The Today Show in August 1978, Porter agreed that the Khmer Rouge regime was guilty of mass killings and mass starvation. He reiterated that view in articles during the 1980s in The Guardian, The Nation, and Foreign Affairs among others.
#5
MoveOn Unmoved By Furor Over Ad Targeting Petraeus
The furor isn't really intended to make MoveOn.org (a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton, Inc.) "feel bad". They will do what they do.
The furor was righteous in that David Petraeus is an eminently honorable man. It also happened to neatly show which Dems will stand under MoveOn's banner and which ones will slink away when the wider public shows their disapproval.
Posted by: Thomas Woof ||
09/22/2007 10:24 Comments ||
Top||
#7
When you have no honor, not even a point of reference for honor, cannot even define the word in a traditional sense, then of course you do not see honor in anyone else.
This used to be confined to the "fringe" elements of the dem party, but it's now the core. An entire party without honor, eschewing their responsibilities as Americans in order to score a few cheap political points against a man they have built up in their minds as Satan himself.
#8
Military sources explained that Fallon was concerned that the concept of a long war would alienate Middle East publics by suggesting that U.S. troops would remain in the region indefinitely.
I don't give a rat's ass how alienated "Middle East publics" become just so long as they know one thing: Fear. The sooner they become petrified with the fear of pissing off American even one more time, the better off things will be.
Fallon's conciliatory attitude towards China and refusal to consider an attack on Iran make him a dubious source of criticism against Petraeus.
#9
I wonder how much of what Gareth Porter "reports" is actually true. All we have are the words of more "anonymous sources". I do know there's a lot of infighting among senior officers, but I doubt even an Admiral would make such PUBLIC statements about a subordinate. Things like that have gotten more than one senior officer fired.
"MoveOn" needs to move on - preferably to somewhere in the Aleutians that doesn't have Internet access.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/22/2007 17:00 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I'm hoping you're right, OP. But what I've read about Fallon in other press accounts leaves me a bit uneasy.
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) - Attorneys for at least 40 Guantanamo Bay prisoners have been barred from visiting or writing their clients because of a judge's order dismissing legal challenges to the men's confinement, the U.S. Department of Justice said Friday.
A Justice Department lawyer informed the attorneys of the new restrictions in an e-mail that cited Thursday's dismissal of their cases by District Court Judge Ricardo Urbina in Washington. ``In light of this development, counsel access (both legal mail and in-person visits) is no longer permitted,'' Justice Department lawyer Andrew I. Warden said in the e-mail.
Urbina's ruling, which covered 16 legal petitions filed on behalf of 40-60 detainees, invalidated an order that establishes rules for contact with detainees, Warden said.
Challenges are still pending for dozens of other detainees with the Supreme Court set to consider whether Congress had the right to strip the prisoners of the right to contest their confinement with petitions of habeas corpus.
The Justice Department letter outlined a series of legal steps that would be required before the attorneys could resume contact with the detainees. But attorney Wells Dixon said he would most likely not be able to complete those measures in time for a scheduled visit with a Libyan client in October. That visit is crucial, Dixon said, because he is in the midst of trying to prevent the government from transferring the client back to Libya, where his lawyers fear he will be tortured.
So you don't want your client shipped to Libya, but you don't want him at Gitmo. Sounds like a transfer to Ice Station Zebra is in order ...
"This is just the latest example of the government's efforts to frustrate counsel access to detainees,'' he said.
A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, said the U.S. was following the laws that govern the legal rights of Guantanamo detainees and officials were pleased with Urbina's ruling. ``We have afforded detainees at Guantanamo with greater access to attorneys than any other combatants in the history of warfare,'' Gordon said.
The U.S. holds about 340 men at the detention center in Cuba on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida or the Taliban. Most of the prisoners have filed petitions of habeas corpus, a legal challenge to their confinement. Last year, the U.S. Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which stripped all detainees of the right to file habeas petitions - a fundamental legal right under the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has said it will consider the law in its next term.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/22/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Sounds like a transfer to Ice Station Zebra is in order ..." I vote for transfer to the space side of the airlock.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
09/22/2007 11:26 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Oh, yeah, with nothing more on than those snappy orange jumpsuits...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
09/22/2007 11:27 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Hey, how come Klink never let Col. Hogan see his lawyer?
#4
Well, tu, Hogan was a legitimate prisoner of war under the terms of the Geneva Convention, which both the US and Germany largely followed. The detainees at Gitmo are illegal combatants under the Geneva Convention. They can be given a summary hearing to determine their status and then shot if found to be illegal combatants. If the supporters of these prisoners really understood the Geneva Convention, they wouldn't be bleating so much about the US enforcing it.
(KUNA) -- Indian Army chief Gen. J J Singh Friday asserted that insurgency had declined in the country's Northeast and peace was making a comeback in the region. "There is a groundswell of support for peace in India's Northeast," Gen Singh told reporters today on his farewell visit to the Indian Army's Eastern Command headquarters at Kolkata, news agency Indo Asian News Service reported. Kolkata is the capital of India's Eastern state of West Bengal. Gen Singh is retiring on September 30 this year.
"Insurgency has come down drastically in the Northeastern states of Assam, Manipur and other states in the region. In Assam, the Indian army has been able to break the backbone of the outlawed United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA)," the Indian Army Chief stressed.
"Many of ULFA's cadres have either been caught or killed," Gen Singh said. "The commander of ULFA's 28th battalion has recently been arrested. The outfit is also gradually losing the support of the people and differences have cropped up within the leaders of the organisation. The Indian government has been carrying on a dialogue with insurgent outfits in the Northeast and it has been fruitful so far. With the return of peace Guwahati in Assam will become the main centre of the Northeast region," he opined.
This article starring:
Indian Army chief Gen. J J Singh
United Liberation Front of Asom
Posted by: Fred ||
09/22/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
But the last time they were this close, the politicians demanded a ceasefire so negotiations could commence.
The ULFA used the period to rearm and reorganize. They then broke the ceasefire, inflicting more terror than before...
Posted by: john frum ||
09/22/2007 7:12 Comments ||
Top||
Pro-Taliban cleric Maulana Fazlullah asked his followers on Friday to hit official targets, after the government ignored a demand to release his supporters, eyewitnesses and security sources said.
Abduction of government officials was part of the targets that the cleric said should be achieved. I ask you to attack the targets, he told a council at Iman Dheri outside Mingora city, his headquarters. Now I will show the government what I can do, he was quoted as telling the council.
The cleric, believed to be in his 30s, is the son-in-law of Tehreek-e-Nifaz Shariah Muhammadis jailed leader Sufi Muhammad and enjoys widespread support among the rural people of Swat.
Since July, Swat has been experiencing Islamists-linked violence, attacks on police and security forces and bombing of audio and video shops. Meanwhile, local police arrested three persons in connection with the Patham Hotel explosion, and moved them to Peshawar for interrogation. Maulana Fazlullah declared the three arrested persons as his followers and demanded their immediate release but the police had ignored his warning.
This article starring:
Tehreek-e-Nifaz Shariah Muhammadi
Maulana Fazlullah
Sufi Muhammad
Tehreek-e-Nifaz Shariah Muhammadi
Posted by: Fred ||
09/22/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: TNSM
#1
Isn't this where a death squad usually enters the scene? If not, why not?
#2
Nothing will change in the Muslim world until we show this bunch of rag-tag ragamuffin mullahs just how mean, evil, wicked, bad, nasty, cruel and heartless we can be. Striking a half-dozen targets in the Tribal Areas with a dozen B-52s each, fully armed with a mix of high explosives, napalm, and cluster munitions, would go a long way toward getting that message across. The United States will not succeed against "terrorism" until we can prove to the people living there that we can be more of a danger to them than the terrorists are.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/22/2007 17:07 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The United States will not succeed against "terrorism" until we can prove to the people living there that we can be more of a danger to them than the terrorists are.
Word, OP. Disproportionate retaliation is the only answer to terrorism.
Permit me to elaborate:
We can be more of a danger to them than the terrorists are to us.
#4
We already are, I suspect. Chuck Simmons has been keeping count of those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan as much as can be done, but that doesn't count everywhere else anti-terror forces are operating, nor all those arrested quietly since Al Qaeda got our attention in 2001.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/22/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda
#1
I'm sure they do! They haven't rejected his presence, in fact are down right harboring and nurturing Binny. Pakistanis would probable 'elect' Osama Head of State, if they knew for sure, a Hellfire® wouldn't come a callin the next day!
#3
Maybe so Pappy, but to say so many people 'of the street' are alittle perturbed with Binny's decrees lately, why not get rich doing it by tipping off Uncle Sam every now and then. I get the impression, none of those 'dust bowl eaters' can use $25 million!!
Hundreds of Islamists chanting slogans against Pakistan's military leader rallied outside the Supreme Court on Friday as judges heard petitions challenging President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's right to run for re-election.
Right on cue, after Binny declared war on him...
Opposition parties, who claim it would be illegal for Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup, to contest the vote, staged street protests across Pakistan, but the turnout was low in most major cities. In Islamabad, about 1,000 flag-waving supporters of Pakistan's biggest religious party, Jamaat-e-Islami, gathered outside the grand, white marble court house, shouting "Go, Musharraf, Go!" They were joined by supporters of exiled former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.
"We will not tolerate Musharraf. We will continue our campaign against him," lawmaker Hanif Abbasi told protesters. "We will not tolerate him in or out of uniform." Scores of police with riot gear blocked the road in front of the court and surrounded the rally. After several hours, the protesters dispersed peacefully.
In the eastern city of Multan, about 400 people rallied and burned a portrait of Musharraf. In Karachi, police detained about a dozen opposition supporters to foil a planned protest. Only a few dozen people rallied in Quetta, Peshawar and Lahore.
On Tuesday, Musharraf signaled that he would step down as army chief if he is re-elected president restoring civilian rule eight years after he took power but opposition parties say that for him to contest the election would still violate the constitution. A nine-member bench of judges in the Supreme Court continued Friday hearings of a slew of petitions before adjourning until Monday. A ruling that could determine Musharraf's eligibility for the election is expected early next week. An electoral college comprising all federal and provincial lawmakers is to choose the next president on Oct. 6. Parliamentary elections are to follow by mid-January.
Perv set it up so that he can be elected by his parliament, rather than taking a chance on his PML-Q and allies losing control with new elections.
Musharraf's popularity has dropped since he made the botched effort to sack the chief justice earlier this year.
Biggest mistake we've seen him make...
His administration is also struggling to contain an upsurge in Islamic militancy amid unpopularity over Pakistan's alliance with Washington. Underscoring the threat to his government, al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden urged Pakistanis to rebel against Musharraf in a new audiotape released Thursday, saying his military's siege of a militant mosque stronghold in July makes him an infidel.
Most of the country was in favor of leveling the place, however. The Islamists are scrambling to rewrite that little bit of history now...
In a preliminary shuffling of the army's top ranks announced by the military on Friday, Musharraf appointed Nadeem Taj, who was his military secretary in the 1999 coup, as director-general of the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency. He replaces Ashfaq Kiani who is among the top generals tipped by analysts as a possible successor to Musharraf as army chief. The military did not say whether Kiani will be promoted or retire.
Even if Musharraf restores civilian rule, the top post in the army would remain a key position in Pakistan, which has alternated between weak civilian governments and military rule during its 60-year history. On Oct. 7, Musharraf's two top deputies in the army are due to retire. In all, Musharraf promoted six top commanders to the rank of lieutenant general. Another possible successor, Tariq Majid, was replaced as the corps commander of Rawalpindi by Mohsin Kamal. The military also gave no details about Majid's future role.
This article starring:
Inter-Services Intelligence agency
Jamaat-e-Islami
Ashfaq Kiani
lawmaker Hanif Abbasi
Mohsin Kamal
Nadeem Taj
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif
Tariq Majid
Posted by: Fred ||
09/22/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[13 views]
Top|| File under: Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal
#1
Somebody please find Rage Boy. This calls for world class seething and he sets the standard.
Posted by: Baba Tutu ||
09/22/2007 3:21 Comments ||
Top||
Opposition leader in the National Assembly Maulana Fazlur Rehman said on Friday that the All Parties Democratic Movement (APDM) had decided to resign from the assemblies without consulting him. Talking to Geo news, he said he was surprised to know that the APDM had decided to resign from the assemblies in his absence. If the APDM has decided to resign from the assemblies, then the APDM should be questioned on the details, the channel quoted Rehman as saying.
Fazl's an upright holy man. He can't be bought. But he can be rented, and since Perv has a few months left on his lease that'd be why Qazi didn't bother running it by Fazl.
This article starring:
All Parties Democratic Movement
Maulana Fazlur Rehman
Posted by: Fred ||
09/22/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Jamaat-e-Islami
Israel has rejected an offer by Hamas to renew a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip, Israel Radio reported Friday. Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh's office reportedly contacted a senior diplomatic source in Jerusalem through a third party before the cabinet decided on Wednesday to declare Gaza a "hostile territory."
After the cabinet decision, the source responded to Hamas's proposal, saying Israel would not hold talks with the group at this time. On Thursday, Haniyeh met with representatives of the Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committees in Gaza and asked them to abide by any cease-fire agreement Hamas would strike with Israel. The groups expressed willingness to assent, but wanted to wait for Israel's response.
Meretz chairman Yossi Beilin said Friday that if Israel has in fact rejected Hamas's proposed cease-fire, it is an irresponsible decision both for the residents of the western Negev and for kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. "Israel has no other real solution to these problems, and it must reach a cease-fire with Hamas," Beilin continued. "Israel can do so through a third party, parallel to the diplomatic process with the PLO," Beilin said.
Meanwhile, diplomatic sources in Jerusalem denied on Friday a report in Asharq alawsat that government officials had approached Hamas leaders via a Norwegian proxy and proposed starting direct talks, Army Radio reported. Diplomatic officials told the station that Israel was not holding any negotiations with Hamas.
This article starring:
Islamic Jihad
Popular Resistance Committees
Gilad Shalit
Ismail Haniyeh
Hamas
Meretz chairman Yossi Beilin
Posted by: Fred ||
09/22/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
#1
Cease-fire, smease-fire. How about a nice rousing game of Deathmatch? I'll wager 200 quatloos on the Jews.
There are two fundamental obstacles to peace. One is that no single entity or political group speaks for all the Paleos. You might make a treaty with the Judean People's Front, but the People's Front Of Judea will be launching glorified bottle rockets across the border at the nearest kindergarden that afternoon.
The other issue is that the Paleos have sworn to exterminate the Israelis. Not much common ground for negotiation there, eh?
One of two things is going to happen: either the Paleos come to their senses and decide to live peaceful, prosperous lives, or they will get such an ass-kicking that leaves them either unwilling or unable to be a nuisance. Place your bets!
Israel and the United States collaborated on intelligence ahead of an alleged IAF raid on a suspected Syrian nuclear site on September 6, the Washington Post reported Friday. According to the report, Israel informed the US this past summer that North Korean personnel were in Syria to help the country's nuclear program. The intelligence in question reportedly included satellite imagery. In return, the US provided some sort of corroboration.
According to US sources, the raid - which Israel has yet to officially confirm or deny - took place overnight to minimize casualties, and secrecy was maintained at such a level that the pilots on the mission were not briefed until after they were in the air.
Brookings Institutions analyst Bruce Riedel confirmed that the target of the raid had been "extremely important." "The decision was taken despite [Israel's] concerns it could produce a war," Riedel told the Washington Post.
This article starring:
Brookings Institutions analyst Bruce Riedel
Posted by: Fred ||
09/22/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
#1
CIA retiree and 29 year veteran of the "intelligence community" discovers water is wet and raid was "extremely important." I hope we hear more from Mr. Riedel very soon!
Bruce Riedel
Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Foreign Policy StudiesExpertise
Counter-terrorism; Arab-Israeli issues; Persian Gulf Security; India and Pakistan.
Current Projects
The progress of transition by examining effective diplomacy, conflict management, and counter-terrorism tactics.
Education
M.A., Harvard University, 1977; B.A., Brown University, 1975
Awards
Department of State Meritorious Honor Award, 2006; Distinguished Intelligence Medal, 2001; Secretary of Defense Distinguished Service Medal, 1997; Intelligence Medal of Merit, 1991
Background
Previous Position(s): Special Advisor, NATO, Brussels, Belgium (2003-2006); Member, Royal College of Defense Studies, London, UK (2002-2003); Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs, National Security Council (2001-2002); Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs, National Security Council (1997-2001); Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Near East and South Asian Affairs, Office of the Secretary of Defense (1995-1997); National Intelligence Officer for Near East and South Asian Affairs, National Intelligence Council (1993-1995); Director for Gulf and South Asia Affairs, National Security Council (1991-1993); Deputy Chief Persian Gulf Task Force, Central Intelligence Agency (1990-1991); Various assignments, Central Intelligence Agency (1977-1990)
#2
According to US sources, the raid - which Israel has yet to officially confirm or deny - took place overnight to minimize casualties, and secrecy was maintained at such a level that the pilots on the mission were not briefed until after they were in the air.
...What's Hebrew for 'bulls*it'?
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
09/22/2007 5:10 Comments ||
Top||
#3
...What's Hebrew for 'bulls*it'?
Cue Mel Brooks 'reading' Lonestar's medallion in "Spaceballs." :)
A day after the cabinet defined the Gaza Strip as "hostile territory," The Jerusalem Post learned Thursday that the IDF is working on a proposal that calls for a "complete disengagement" from the Gaza Strip - involving the closure of all border crossings with Israel and the transfer of all responsibility over the Palestinian territory to Egypt.
The proposal, defense officials said, was recently raised by Deputy Chief of General Staff Maj.-Gen. Moshe Kaplinsky during a series of meetings within the defense establishment. While Israel removed its military positions and settlements from the Gaza Strip in 2005, it has maintained a certain level of responsibility for the Palestinian population there, including coordinating the Gaza-based activities of humanitarian organizations such as UNRWA, the World Bank and the International Committee of the Red Thingy Cross.
According to the proposal, which officials stressed was in its early stages, Israel would completely disconnect from Gaza by closing off the Erez, Karni, Sufa and Kerem Shalom crossings and instead directing humanitarian organizations to work with Egypt. "The idea is to finalize what was started with the 2005 'disengagement,'" explained a senior defense official. "No matter how much we try and what we do, the humanitarian organizations consistently blame us for the humanitarian situation in Gaza. This way they will no longer have a case against us, since we won't be involved."
The official said the proposal was being pushed strongly by Kaplinsky, who has said in a number of meetings that there is no longer a need for Israel to take responsibility for what happens in the Strip. The parallel being suggested is southern Lebanon, which is home to Hizbullah guerrillas and their weapons but, following Israel's withdrawal from its security zone there to the international border in 2000, is plainly no longer under Israel's responsibility.
Under the proposal, it is possible that the Palestinians would be able to rebuild the Dahiniye Airport and construct a naval port. "The terrorist groups are anyhow smuggling explosives, missiles and weapons into Gaza through tunnels along the border with Egypt," an official said. "If they get an airport or a naval port, it will not make such a big difference."
A spokeswoman for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Thursday night that he had not seen the proposal. Spokeswoman Miri Eisin said she had no comment about whether he was likely to support it. In any case, before the plan could be implemented, she said, "it would have to be brought to the full cabinet" for a vote.
Meanwhile Thursday, defense officials met to discuss the practical implications of the security cabinet's decision on Wednesday to designate Gaza as hostile territory, paving the way to curbing Israel's provision of electricity, fuel and other supplies to the Strip. Under the cabinet decision, Defense Minister Ehud Barak is now authorized to impose humanitarian sanctions following Kassam attacks against Israel.
One equation being considered is that every time one of the Gaza crossings is shelled or attacked, it will be shut down for several days. "Until now, we risked our lives to keep the crossings open," an official from the Defense Ministry explained. "From now on, if they attack we will just close the crossing for several days."
Israel plans to begin immediately restricting the amount of fuel it allows to enter the Strip. Diesel will be allowed in to fuel ambulances, sewage pumps, generators and garbage trucks, but gasoline will be restricted.
Some defense officials voiced opposition on Thursday to the cabinet decision. The coordinator of government activities in the territories, Maj.-Gen. Yosef Mishlav, voiced staunch objection to the plan, the Post has learned, apparently for not being sufficiently decisive, and even appeared before the security cabinet after asking Barak for special permission. Mishlav told the ministers that the cuts to electricity and fuel supplies would be ineffective in stopping Hamas's rocket attacks. He added that by not cutting off supplies altogether, Israel was still allowing Hamas to govern - albeit under slightly greater economic pressure. Mishlav said the only way to really pressure Hamas was to completely cut off supplies and allow a humanitarian crisis to develop. He did not say, however, that he favored this course of action.
This article starring:
Defense Minister Ehud Barak
Deputy Chief of General Staff Maj.-Gen. Moshe Kaplinsky
International Committee of the Red Cross
Maj.-Gen. Yosef Mishlav
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
Spokeswoman Miri Eisin
World Bank
Posted by: Fred ||
09/22/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
#1
"This way they will no longer have a case against us, since we won't be involved."
Dude, you're Israeli. They're going to blame you. Haven't you figured that out yet?
Posted by: Baba Tutu ||
09/22/2007 3:29 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"From now on, if they attack we will just close the crossing for several days."
Why not forever? That would give Hamas the choice of protecting the approach to the crossing or permanently losing the crossing.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/22/2007 21:50 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Obviously a meeting in order, to shore up any mutual 'weak links' in any eventual future transfers, and to get 'the story' right, should all of this wind up in the Security Council later! I'm watching to see what becomes of the ship that moved the goods.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and French counterpart Bernard Kouchner will discuss Iran's nuclear ambitions and turmoil in Lebanon Friday during his first official US visit, a US spokesman said. The two chief diplomats, whose countries have worked closely together on Lebanon and Iran, will also discuss the humanitarian crisis in Sudan's western region of Darfur, State Department spokesman Tom Casey told reporters Thursday.
They will also discuss ongoing international talks on the final status of Serbia's breakaway province of Kosovo, Casey said. "Certainly I expect they will have a discussion about Iran and about our joint efforts at the (UN) Security Council and elsewhere to thwart Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions," he said.
The UN Security Council's permanent members -- the United States, France, China, Britain and Russia -- plus Germany will meet in Washington Friday to discuss tighter sanctions on Iran over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment. France has taken an increasingly strong line in the dispute over Iran's uranium enrichment program, which the United States and its allies fear is an effort to build an atomic bomb.
Kouchner caused a diplomatic storm in a television interview on Sunday when he said "we have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war." But he later insisted his comments were take out of context, and offered in a newspaper interview Thursday to visit Iran for talks on the nuclear standoff.
Lebanese Christians said on Friday that the murder of yet another Christian MP was aimed at reducing their community's historically prominent role but balked at being dragged into another civil war. "There is a general feeling that we are targeted as Christians," cried a mourner who did not wish to be identified during the funeral of Antoine Ghanem, the anti-Syrian MP who was killed in a car bombing on Wednesday. "I am convinced that those who carried out this assassination wanted it to be a trap in order to push the Christians to react violently," she said, as pallbearers carried the coffins of Ghanem and his two slain bodyguards. "They want to plunge the country into another civil war, but we will not let them do that," she said, wiping a tear from her face.
Ghanem was the eighth anti-Syrian politician to be assassinated since the February 2005 murder of Sunni Muslim prime minister Rafik Hariri. Six of them were Christians.
Rabih, a 30-year-old member of the Lebanese Forces party, stood in anger as he watched pallbearers carrying the coffin into the nearby Sacred Heart church. "They are specifically targeting the Phalange (Christian party) and the Lebanese Forces," he said. "We are always the first ones to say 'no,' so they are making us pay the price of our battle for an independent Lebanon," he said while nervously crumpling a Lebanese Forces flag.
This article starring:
Antoine Ghanem
Posted by: Fred ||
09/22/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
The U.N. Security Council strongly condemned Wednesday's "terrorist attack" in Sin el-Fil that killed six people, including Lebanon MP Antoine Ghanem, and demanded an end to intimidation of Lebanese elected officials. In a presidential statement read out by Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert of France, which holds the rotating presidency this month, the Council also called for the holding of free and fair presidential elections "in conformity with Lebanese constitutional norms and schedules and without any foreign interference."
The 15-member body reiterated its condemnation of all targeted assassinations of the country's leaders that have taken place, including those since October 2004. It appealed for an "end to the use of intimidation and violence against representatives of the Lebanese people and institutions."
"Any attempt to destabilize the country, such as through these targeted attacks, must not be allowed to impede or subvert Lebanon's constitutional process," Ripert said.
The statement also commended "the determination and the commitment of the Government of Lebanon to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of this and other assassinations." Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement that he was "shocked by the brutal assassination" of Ghanem. "Such acts of terrorism aim at undermining Lebanon's stability and are unacceptable," he said. "Lebanon has suffered far too many such attempts."
This article starring:
Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert of France
Antoine Ghanem
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
Posted by: Fred ||
09/22/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
#1
Pony is too much to ask for, perhaps a couple of kittens?
Lebanon's Phalange Party called for a two-day strike Thursday, a day after a powerful bomb blast in Beirut killed an anti-Syrian lawmaker and four other people. The bombing was the latest in a series of attacks targeting prominent anti-Syrian figures. The explosion, widely blamed on Damascus, killed Phalange member Antoine Ghanem, 64, an anti-Syrian Lebanese parliamentarian and Christian Maronite. Along with the Phalange Party, known for its anti-Syrian stance, the bankers' union and the Ministry of Education backed the strike.
Wednesday's bomb exploded in a huge fireball that ripped through an upscale Christian neighborhood during evening rush hour. The attack wounded at least 70 people in addition to the five slain, Lebanese security sources said. The bombing threatens to deepen the country's political turmoil days before a key presidential vote.
Walid Jumblatt, head of Lebanon's Progressive Socialist Party and a parliamentarian, called the killing "a bloody message" as it comes ahead of elections, reducing government supporters' parliamentary majority bloc from 69 to 68 and increasing the difficulty of electing "a free president for Lebanon." Prime Minister Fouad Siniora vowed that the attack would not derail Lebanon's attempts to choose a president, according to The Associated Press. "The hand of terror will not win and will not succeed in subduing us and silencing us," he said in a statement late Wednesday reported by the AP. "The Lebanese will not retreat and will have a new president elected by lawmakers, no matter how big the conspiracy was."
Former Lebanese President Amine Gemayel called Ghanem a "very close friend of mine," adding that his assassination is "very, very dangerous for the future of democracy in Lebanon." Gemayel's son Pierre, a Lebanese anti-Syrian parliamentarian, was assassinated last November.
Telecommunications Minister Marwan Hamadeh accused the Syrian regime of "using its terrorist skills to assassinate, one after the other, the MPs belonging to the Lebanese independence movement majority ... in order to deplete the majority of its numbers and to impose a comeback of Syria over Lebanon."
But an unidentified source with the state-run SANA news agency, which speaks for the Syrian government, condemned the killing. "This criminal act targets the efforts and endeavors exerted by Syria and others to achieve the Lebanese national accord," the source told SANA.
President Bush called the incident a "horrific assassination." "Since October 2004, there has been a tragic pattern of political assassinations and attempted assassinations designed to silence those Lebanese who courageously defend their vision of an independent and democratic Lebanon," Bush said in a statement Wednesday.
Three months ago, anti-Syrian parliament member Walid Eido was killed along with nine others, including his son and two bodyguards, in an explosion in western Beirut. Former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated in Beirut in February 2005, sparking widespread protests that led to the ouster of Syrian forces from Lebanon.
advertisement
U.N. investigators concluded last year that Hariri's death may be linked to high-ranking Syrian officials. Syria has denied any involvement in the killings and said the U.N. tribunal investigating Hariri's death is a violation of its sovereignty. Siniora asked the United Nations to include Ghanem's killing in its investigation into the Hariri slaying, the AP reported.
This article starring:
Antoine Ghanem
President Amine Gemayel
Prime Minister Fouad Siniora
Telecommunications Minister Marwan Hamadeh
Walid Eido
Walid Jumblatt
Posted by: Fred ||
09/22/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
The March 14 majority alliance on Thursday called on the Arab League and the United Nations to protect Lebanon's forthcoming presidential elections from alleged Syrian attempts to block it, including the slaying of MP Antoine Ghanem. The alliance also demanded that Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri "shoulder his responsibilities" in shepherding the presidential elections by working to dismantle the tent city opposition protest, which is a few meters from parliament headquarters.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Fouad Saniora presided over a ministerial meeting which stressed that the "terrorist" slaying of MP Antoine Ghanem would only reinforce its demand that a parliamentary vote to choose a new president goes ahead on time. "We do not fear terrorism and this will not break our will. It will only reinforce our determination to prevent the terrorists from succeeding," said Information Minister Ghazi Aridi.
"This is a terrorist act similar to the terrorist acts against the lives of members of the majority" over the past three years, Aridi told reporters after a ministerial meeting chaired by Saniora. "It cannot be separated from the presidential election... or from attempts to plunge the country into chaos," he said. "But we are determined to hold the election on time," he said, confirming that Berri had said the September 25 date still holds for a parliamentary session to choose a successor to President Emile Lahoud. Aridi said the ruling majority "keeps its hand extended to everybody," in an apparent reference to the country's opposition. "We have to save Lebanon."
The March 14 alliance also urged the Hizbullah-led opposition to adopt a "moral stand by supporting the victim and refraining from covering the Syrian regime with justifications."
Parliament is due to convene next Tuesday for the first time in nearly a year amid an almost total deadlock between the pro-Damascus opposition and the Western-backed ruling majority which has accused Syria of Ghanem's murder. The majority alliance said it was the MPs "duty" to take part in the parliamentary session to elect a new head of state. It called on the Arab League, the United Nations and the U.N. Security Council to "take all the resolutions and adopt all arrangements in all spheres to guarantee the holding of presidential elections and protecting the republic."
It also urged foreign nations to adopt a "decisive stand" regarding the Syrian regime. Ghanem, killed along with four others in a car bombing on Wednesday in a Beirut suburb, was the eighth member of the anti-Syrian majority to be assassinated since the 2005 murder of former billionaire premier Rafiq Hariri. The majority accused Syria of "physically eliminating the deputies in order to prevent the presidential vote. "The Syrian regime has taken the decision to destroy Lebanon by blocking government actions, preventing the presidential election, creating chaos and resuming its hegemony over Lebanon," the majority statement said. It called for "massive participation" in Ghanem's funeral on Friday, a day of national mourning.
This article starring:
Antoine Ghanem
Arab League
Information Minister Ghazi Aridi
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri
President Emile Lahoud
Prime Minister Fouad Saniora
Posted by: Fred ||
09/22/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
#1
Lebanon means more to me than any other arab nation.
The letter in which Saudi preacher Dr. Salman Al Ouda attacked Al-Qaeda's Bin Laden on the "cornerstone" program broadcast by the "MBC" channel has caused a wide range of reactions in Islamic circles.
A number of fundamentalist websites sympathetic to or supportive of Bin Laden saw in Al Ouda's letter as a deviation from the "neutrality" he had been known for. Other websites said Al Ouda was late in taking his stand opposing "terrorism" and "the harm (it's done) to the image of Islam and Muslims."
The letter coincided with the sixth anniversary of the 11 of September attacks about which Al Ouda says, "My brother Osama, what happened on 11 September was the killing of several thousands, while you will find unknown callers, which many people perhaps do not know, by whose hands God has guided tens and even hundreds of thousands and they converted to Islam and became guided by its light."
Al Ouda highlighted in his letter the regret he feels as a result of the negative image many have of Muslims because of those events and explained that, "The image of Islam today is not at its best.
People all over the world say that Muslims kill those who do not believe in their religion. They also say that Salafis kill non-Salafi Muslims.
People all over the world say that Muslims kill those who do not believe in their religion. They also say that Salafis kill non-Salafi Muslims. My brother Osama, the Prophet, may the blessings and peace of God be upon him, refrained from killing the hypocrites, whom God says they are the lowest level of Hell, lest the people say: Muhammad is killing his followers."
Al Ouda said when Asharq Al-Awsat contacted him by telephone yesterday that he has received many positive reactions backing his stand and his appeal to Bin Laden and also received reactions from some whose messages he said carried "hidden" sympathy for Al-Qaeda and in which they said they were emotionally affected by the call.
According to Al Ouda, these reactions disagreed with the Islamic preacher for calling Osama Bin Laden "my brother Osama", but the Saudi Muslim cleric said he has no problem with this and added, that "We are all humans. No matter how much we disagree with any person regardless of his approach, we cannot remove him from the circle of Islam, unless he commits a sin of unbelief."
Al Ouda asked Bin Laden in the letter about the value of the acts of violence committed by Al-Qaeda since the September 11 attacks, emphasizing the message that "God, we are innocent of what Osama is doing."
Al Ouda asked Bin Laden in the letter about the value of the acts of violence committed by Al-Qaeda since the September 11 attacks, emphasizing the message that "God, we are innocent of what Osama is doing."
Al Ouda went on to say in his letter, "The Muslim nation has not given anyone the right to take war stands or be its spokesman." He then asked Al-Qaeda's leader: "My brother Osama, how much blood has been spilt? How many innocent people, children, elderly, and women have been killed, dispersed, or evicted in the name of Al-Qaeda? Will you be happy to meet God Almighty carrying the burden of these hundreds of thousands or millions on your back? Who is responsible for many young Muslim men and youths in their early years who in their enthusiasm embarked on a road whose end they do not know and lost their way?"
In his remarks to Asharq Al-Awsat, Al Ouda rejected the view that the letter is the first stand he expressed toward Al-Qaeda's policy of violence and said, "I was among the first who condemned the 9/11 attacks and among the first who condemned the acts of violence in many Muslim countries, foremost of them Saudi Arabia." The Saudi cleric stressed that there is a small group here among the young leaders who refrain from condemning the acts of violence even though they do not condone them.
Al Ouda believes that the reason for refraining from condemning violence is the wish that the other parties do not benefit from these condemnations but he underlined at the same time the need for condemning all acts of violence "clearly and coherently."
Addressing Bin Laden, Al Ouda asks: "What have we reaped from the destruction of an entire people as is the case in Iraq and Afghanistan? These wars have even brought on civil wars portending misfortune and destruction for these countries and those neighboring them. Who benefits from transforming Morocco, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and other countries into frightened ones in which one does not feel secure for his life? Is reaching power an aim? Is this the solution? Is there insistence on reaching power even if this is over the dead bodies of thousands and hundreds of thousands of Muslims? Who is responsible for activating the ideas of takfir and killing until they have spread within the one family and led to estrangement, disloyalty, and rupture? Who is responsible for youths who went to fight leaving behind them mourning mothers, sad wives, and orphans waiting with bafflement the return of their father? Who is responsible for the hunting down of charities, the suspicions of every Islamic project, and the hunting down of preachers everywhere on the charge of violence and terrorism? Who is responsible for overcrowding prisons with youths until they became a breeding ground for a new wave of takfir, extremism, and violence?"
This article starring:
Salman Al Ouda
Learned Elders of Islam
Posted by: Fred ||
09/22/2007 10:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda
#2
"We are all humans. No matter how much we disagree with any person regardless of his approach, we cannot remove him from the circle of Islam, unless he commits a sin of unbelief."
The reek of hardline Islam's fear of apostasy is strong.
Al Ouda asked Bin Laden in the letter about the value of the acts of violence committed by Al-Qaeda since the September 11 attacks, emphasizing the message that "God, we are innocent of what Osama is doing."
Nice try, thank you for playing. Those who support shari'a law and seek to establish a global caliphate through jihad are all equally to blame. So far, that definition includes the vast majority of Muslims and belies all false claims of innocence. While Ouda might even have decent intentions, he is still part of a barbaric organization from whose avowed goals he deviates not one whit.
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.
An anti-Taliban commander who fought alongside US forces during the 2001 invasion predicted that proposed peace talks would be a "long and complex process" but likely would be snubbed by hard-liners and foreign fighters in the Islamic militia. 
Benedict XVI attacked Muslim nations where Christians are either persecuted or given the status of second-class citizens under the Shariah Islamic law. He also defended the rights of Muslims to convert to Christianity, an act which warrants the death penalty in many Islamic countries.
Catholic bishops in Belgium have protested a TV ad depicting a pot-bellied, hippy Jesus performing miracles and picking up scantily-clad girls up in a nightclub, a church spokesman said Friday. "We have expressed our disapproval to the president of RTL's administrative council" Jacques Santer and the ethical advertising body, demanding the withdrawal of this publicity campaign, Father Eric de Beukelaer told AFP. 
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) - Attorneys for at least 40 Guantanamo Bay prisoners have been barred from visiting or writing their clients because of a judge's order dismissing legal challenges to the men's confinement, the U.S. Department of Justice said Friday.
Hundreds of Islamists chanting slogans against Pakistan's military leader rallied outside the Supreme Court on Friday as judges heard petitions challenging President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's right to run for re-election. 
Opposition leader in the National Assembly 
Israel has rejected an offer by Hamas to renew a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip, Israel Radio reported Friday. Hamas Prime Minister 
Lebanese Christians said on Friday that the murder of yet another Christian MP was aimed at reducing their community's historically prominent role but balked at being dragged into another civil war. "There is a general feeling that we are targeted as Christians," cried a mourner who did not wish to be identified during the funeral of 
The letter in which Saudi preacher Dr. 
