Ramadan in 2008 will start on Monday, the 1st of September and will continue for 30 days until Tuesday, the 30th of September.
Based on sightability in North America, in 2008 Ramadan will start in North America a day later - on Tuesday, the 2nd of September.
Note that in the Muslim calander, a holiday begins on the sunset of the previous day, so observing Muslims will celebrate Ramadan on the sunset of Sunday, the 31st of August.
Although Ramadan is always on the same day of the Islamic calendar, the date on the Gregorian calendar varies from year to year, since the Gregorian calendar is a solar calendar and the Islamic calendar is a lunar calendar. This difference means Ramadan moves in the Gregorian calendar approximately 11 days every year. The date of Ramadan may also vary from country to country depending on whether the moon has been sighted or not.
The dates provided here are based on the dates adopted by the Fiqh Council of North America for the celebration of Ramadan. Note that these dates are based on astronomical calculations to affirm each date, and not on the actual sighting of the moon with the naked eyes. This approach is accepted by many, but is still being hotly debated.
Malian officials and Tuareg rebels agreed Friday in Algiers to begin implementing a recently-signed peace accord and to resume peace talks in early September, APS said. Diplomatic sources said "a consensus" was reached between Bamako and the Tuaregs on ways to "reestablish confidence and create favourable conditions for resuming dialogue in the near future on substantial questions," the Algerian news agency reported.
The meeting, which took place Thursday and Friday, focussed on consolidating a July 21 peace agreement that Algeria brokered between Bamako and the Tuaregs. That agreement aims to put into effect the 2006 Algiers peace accord to end hostilities between the parties. Under the peace deal, the Tuaregs were to give up their claim for regional autonomy, while the Malian government was to speed up development in the northern regions.
This week, both sides agreed on "the creation of conditions favourable to the liberation of detainees, the return of displaced people and the clearing of mines," according to APS.
At least 28 Malian soldiers and three police officers were freed by the Tuaregs since the July peace agreement. Negotiators also agreed that the circumstances surrounding the deaths of some members of the Tuareg rebellion would be brought to light, APS reported.
The two sides will reportedly resume negotiations by September 10.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/30/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
ABUJA - Iran is ready to share its nuclear technology with Nigeria to help the energy-starved west African powerhouse boost electricity generation, a senior Iranian official has said. Junior trade minister Mohammadali Zeyghami made the comments in a press conference late Thursday after three days of talks between officials of the two oil-producing nations.
Both sides emphasised that any atomic energy deal they would strike would be for civilian purposes only. "Nigeria is never entering into any agreement with Iran for any matter that has to do with weapons," Nigeria's deputy foreign minister Tijjani Kaura said.
"There shouldn't be a misunderstanding between exploration or uses of energy to provide power and the uses of energy for weapons," said Kaura, adding that the distinction was necessary "so that our relationship with Iran will not be misconstrued by Nigerians and the entire international community."
Zeyghami said: "We not only consider it Iran's inalienable right but also the Nigerians' so that they could use this clean source of energy and nobody can limit the use of knowledge anywhere in the world."
Kaura added that Nigeria was seeking cooperation on nuclear energy "in order to move our industrial ambition forward," in an economy whose development has been hamstrung by a lack of adequate electricty supply.
Despite huge oil and gas resources, Nigeria's electricity supplies are woefully inadequate due to decades of corruption and infrastructural neglect. Nigeria currently generates 3,300 megawatts of electricity according to officials who claim the country's current demands stand at around 20,000 megawatts.
So rather than fix the corruption ...
In the continent's most developed country, South Africa, around 38,000 megawatts are used to supply a population roughly a third of Nigeria's 140 million people.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/30/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Nigeria's electricity supplies are woefully inadequate due to decades of corruption and infrastructural neglect.
#2
The best comment ever about Noam Chomsky is that he has so hated America that he should be denied the right to be buried on American soil. In fact, he should have been buried in some other country decades ago.
#4
Claiming that he has heard only "twitters of protest" in the UK , the emeritus professor of linguistics also asks British "thinkers" to be more conspicuous in their opposition to the erosion of civil rights since the 9.11 attacks on the US.
Geez, pahfeesah, sounds like they don't give a fuck about Guantanamo either.
A British court says the United States has agreed to hand over documents critical to the defence of a Guantanamo Bay detainee -- but only if he goes on trial. Lord Justice John Thomas wrote that US officials have promised to provide 44 documents sought by Binyan Muhammad's lawyers. Muhammad says he was tortured while in US custody. His attorneys sought the documents from the British government. But Foreign Secretary David Miliband fought disclosure on national security grounds. On Friday, the court gave him a week to disclose the documents. Muhammad, who was captured in Pakistan in 2002, is accused of conspiring with Al Qaeda leaders. Neither the US nor Britain has disclosed information about his time in custody until he arrived at Guantanamo Bay in 2004.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/30/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda
#1
Consistent wid the recent US Fed Courts decision. COURT > INTERPRETATION - THE USDOD NEEDS TO EITHER BEGIN FORMALLY PROSECUTING = LITIGATING THESE GITMO DETAINEES, AND WIN TO PUT IN LT IMPRISONMENT; OR ELSE TURN THEM OVER TO IMMIGRATION + STATE FOR DEPORTATION AS THEY'RE ACCUMULATING ENUFF TIME IN GITMO TO QUALIFY AS US NATIONALS = RESIDENTS DUE TO THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES [Fed-DOD failure to reasonably prosecute within reasonable time = getting the US in truble vv UNO-Internat Human Rights accords]???
The Landi Kotal political administration summoned two jirgas on Friday to discuss law and order after the advent of the Lashker-e-Islam (LI) into the area.
In the first jirga, Landi Kotal Assistant Political Agent (APA) Muhammad Tuhab Khan asked elders of the Zakha Khel tribe to expel LI chief Mangal Bagh from the Khyber area where he had captured a mosque after expelling its prayer leader.
The APA said military action would be inevitable if the elders failed to convince the LI chief to vacate the area.
Lauding some of the steps of the LI such as its action against criminals in Bara tehsil, Tuhab said the militant organisation had started to force its decisions upon people after gaining roots in the area.
Zakha Khel chief Malik Abdul Haleem Khan told the APA that the administration had failed to protect the main road from criminals.
No action: He said tribesmen would never "raise weapons against their own people who are struggling to spread virtue and curb vice in society". He rejected the APA's claim that the LI had captured any mosque in Landi Kotal.
Tribal elders Malik Abdul Haleem and Malik Hasan Khan assured the administration that LI men would leave the area in a few days. They said the people could not afford a military operation, adding that law and order could be improved through consultations.
While talking to elders of the Shinwari tribe, Tuhab criticised some tribesmen for inviting the LI chief to the agency. The jirga of the Shinwari tribe was postponed until Saturday (today).
Posted by: Fred ||
08/30/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Lashkar-e-Islami
Pakistan's presidential front-runner has moved into a tightly guarded government compound over security fears, officials said Friday as a militant campaign against the government led to more violence in the country's volatile northwest.
The party of Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of slain ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, has sought to assure the U.S. since Pervez Musharraf's ouster as president that it is committed to battling terrorists.
The country has been hit by a string of suicide bombings this month, including one last week that left 67 dead, many of them civilians.
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani told reporters Friday that Zardari _ who is widely expected to win a Sept. 6 presidential election by lawmakers _ was staying at a hilltop mansion in Islamabad's government quarters "for security reasons." He did not elaborate, but an intelligence official said there had been reports that the presidential hopeful could be the target of an attack and that he had switched locations after Musharraf's Aug. 18 resignation.
Pakistan's 5-month-old civilian government initially sought to calm militant violence by holding peace talks, something Musharraf briefly tried as well. But it has increasingly intensified military action against al-Qaida- and Taliban-linked militants in the northwest, especially in the tribal regions along the Afghan border _ a rumored hide-out of Osama bin Laden _ reportedly killing hundreds in recent weeks.
Late Friday, the Pakistani army said it had killed "several" militants, possibly including a top commander, in a strike in the Swat Valley area, a one-time tourist destination that has been besieged by insurgents. Major Nasir Ali, a spokesman, did not have an exact death toll but said it was in the double digits. He said F-16 jets were used to pound the militant positions.
Militants have threatened more suicide bombings unless the operations cease. They have hit one of the country's largest military installations, a hospital and a police station in the last week.
Paramilitary troops foiled a suicide attack aimed at a building housing security forces near a vital tunnel in the northwestern region of Kohat on Friday. The troops fired on an explosive-laden car after the driver sped through a checkpoint, said Rasheed Khan, a government official.
Four civilians were killed in the explosion, he said, and 28 people were wounded, most of them security forces. Suspected militants also blew up two bridges in the area, said Kohat district administrator Mohammad Siraj Khan.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/30/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
A SENIOR military commander warned today that any attack on Iran would start a new world war, as Tehran pressed on with its controversial nuclear drive despite the risk of further UN sanctions. "Any aggression against Iran will start a world war," deputy chief of staff for defence publicity, Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri, said in a statement carried by the state news agency IRNA.
"The unrestrained greed of the US leadership and global Zionism... is gradually leading the world to the edge of a precipice," Brig Jazayeri said, citing the unrest in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and Georgia. "It is evident that if such a challenge occurs, the fake and artificial regimes will be eliminated before anything."
Iran does not recognise Israel, which is often described by officials in Tehran as a "fake regime" and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has provoked international outrage saying it should be wiped off the map.
Another top military commander said Iran was prepared to "take the enemies off-guard" and would unveil more weapons in case of an attack. "Some of the equipment of our armed forces have been announced but there are important things hidden whose effect would be shown on the day (of any attack)," deputy army commander Abdolrahim Mousavi told Fars news agency.
"Offensives are part of the strategy of defence and if a country confines itself to its borders it has set a limit and eliminated part of its capability."
During war games in July which stoked international concern, aides to the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned that Iran would target US bases and US ships in the Gulf as well as Israel if it was attacked. Iran also test-fired its Shahab-3 missile which it says puts Israel within range.
#1
Yawn... Saddam already did the "mother of all battles" bit.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/30/2008 15:20 Comments ||
Top||
#2
But we thought Nutjob was desperate to create a world war so that his precious 12th Imam antichrist would arise and magically turn him into a tall blond handsome guy or something.
#5
You want your country to be ALL smoking, radioactive green glass? You started the talk about "wiping off the map." Don't start trouble you can't back up--and you can't back this up.
Posted by: ed ||
08/30/2008 19:36 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Wouldn't that be nice! Line up all the nations which support Iran on one side, and all the nations who will stand with the US on the other. Let the issue resolution phase run its course. Presto, it's a much better world.
TEHRAN - Iran has 4,000 working nuclear centrifuges, an official said in remarks published on Friday, in line with a number verified by the U.N. atomic watchdog but lower than a figure cited by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Ahmadinejad said last month Iran had more than 5,000 centrifuges running but the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which routinely checks Iranian nuclear sites, later said he appeared to have overstated the number by at least 1,000.
"There are currently close to 4,000 centrifuges active at Natanz enrichment facility. ... Another 3,000 centrifuges are being installed," Deputy Foreign Minister Alireza Sheikh Attar told state television, the official IRNA news agency reported.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/30/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The image of 4000 atomic centrifuges conjures up the image of a large bee or ant colony in Iran.
WASHINGTON - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama could open talks with Iran on its nuclear program early next year if he wins the White House, one of his senior foreign policy advisers said on Thursday. Former re-tread U.S. national security adviser Tony Lake suggested Washington needed to give Tehran a sharper choice between the consequences of continuing its suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons and the benefits of giving it up.
So Obama will talk to the Mad Mullahs, giving them exactly what they want: time to push their plans forward.
The Bush administration accuses Iran of seeking to develop atomic weapons and has sought to persuade Iran to give up its sensitive nuclear work through a carrot-and-stick approach of incentives and sanctions. After refusing to talk directly to Iran on the nuclear issue unless it first suspending uranium enrichment, Bush in July changed policy and sent a top diplomat to join a meeting of major powers -- Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia -- with Iran.
Obama strongly backed that move. He has said that if elected he would pursue a policy of greater engagement aimed at persuading Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambitions but has not been specific about the timing.
The United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany presented a new package of incentives to Tehran last month, offering to hold off on further sanctions if Iran froze expansion of its nuclear work. Iran has not accepted the offer. The United Nations Security Council has already passed three resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran.
Obama hopes the administration makes progress before Bush steps down in January, Lake said, but he believes the United States and its allies needed to devise tougher potential sanctions to increase its leverage over Tehran. "He (Obama) is saying that as soon as he takes office that we have to have a very serious set of negotiations with the Iranians in which we in effect present them with a choice," Lake said in a panel on the sidelines of the Democratic convention in Denver, broadcast by C-Span television.
The United States needed to make clear that there "will be consequences" to the pursuit of nuclear weapons, Lake said.
Like what?
"We have to work with other nations now in increasing the leverage that we have for that negotiation and increasing the sanctions that could be placed on the Iranians," he said.
Lake said the United States needed to make clear to the Iranians they would benefit if they changed direction. "It is a course that will help them build up an economy that is showing considerable strain," he added.
"Everybody in this room should pray that they make that latter choice," he said. "This is an extremely important issue, an extremely serious issue and an extremely urgent issue. It could well lead to the worst crisis that we will see over the next five years because the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon will present a huge threat to the security of Israel, to others in the region, to the Europeans, including the Russians, and many others."
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/30/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
U gotta luv the headline. Obama could open "early" Iran nuclear talks.
Then we find out that we have been talking to thems since July. So how is early next year if he wins the White House going to be earlier than now?
oh wait.... here's the key: Washington needed to give Tehran a sharper choice between the consequences of continuing its suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons and the benefits of giving it up.
Ahhh... benefits. And what would those benefits be?
the Iranians they would benefit if they changed direction. "It is a course that will help them build up an economy that is showing considerable strain," he added
Translation? Hey Iran and radical Islamists, throw money to me now and I will throw money to you later.
#7
If BO wins and he has early negotiations with Iran, Why do I have this feeling of being screwed royally and sold out? Negotiations from a position of weakness and naivette?
Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Tehran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb, the Sunday Telegraph reported on Friday.
The British newspaper reported that US Central Command and Strategic Command planners had been identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation. "This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," the newspapers quoted a senior Pentagon adviser as saying. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months."
Possible conflict: The report said the prospect of military action could put Washington at odds with Britain, which feared that an attack would spark violence across the Middle East, reprisals in the West and may not cripple Tehran's nuclear programme. It said the steady flow of disclosures about Iran's secret nuclear operations and the anti-Israeli threats by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had prompted the fresh assessment of military options by Washington. The most likely strategy would involve aerial bombardment by long-distance B2 bombers, each armed with up to 40,000lb of precision weapons, including the latest bunker-busting devices, the newspaper reported.
Attack, a good defence: Reportedly, Tehran has dispersed its nuclear plants, burying some deep underground, and has recently increased its air defences, but Pentagon planners believe that the raids could seriously set back Iran's nuclear programme.
Iran was last weekend reported to the United Nations Security Council by the International Atomic Energy Agency for its banned nuclear activities. Tehran reacted by announcing that it would resume full-scale uranium enrichment -- producing material that could arm nuclear devices. President George W Bush has refused to rule out military action and reaffirmed last weekend that Iran's nuclear ambitions "will not be tolerated".
Posted by: Fred ||
08/30/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
As per ISRAELNN on Israel's new decision to NOt allow Iran to go nukular, Artic UN-NAMED SECURITY SOURCE > allegedly claimed to Author that THE USA HAS BASICALLY ACCEPTED THAT IRAN WILL [eventually]BE A NUCLEAR POWER".
IMO I don't think this unnamed personage means ENERGY - US-APPROVED NUCLEAR-ARMED IRAN???
#5
I'm excited to hear what's said about Iran at the trunk convention.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
08/30/2008 1:21 Comments ||
Top||
#6
What's not said will be more interesting, Mike.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/30/2008 1:26 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I personally don't think selling a little wheat under the Bush administration means anything to the McCain administration. Or to the Bush administration, for that matter.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
08/30/2008 1:32 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The United States has a long history of separating humanitarian needs from military goals and differences. Even during the US civil war food was sent from the Union to the Confederate states.
We supply food and fuel to North Korea. We have no argument with the North Korean people. It's their government that needs to modify its stance.
We have no argument with the Iranian people. It's their government that needs to modify its stance against us.
If people need food, the US sends them food - often for free or with no expectation of receiving anything for it in kind.
#9
On second thought, I think we sold them the wheat to throw everyone off the trail. Wouldn't want to arouse any suspicion.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
08/30/2008 1:46 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Mike N, you seem to be a member of that philosophical school that adheres to an inverted occam razor: the most complex scenario is the most likely one.
#16
As conservative blogs began to grow they became a poplular target of the whining left. Two things that communism and the left cannot abide, free speech and an armed citizenry. Guns and newspapers are always the first targets of anarchists.
#18
Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Tehran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb, the Sunday Telegraph reported on Friday.
We also updated the old War Plan Red - an invasion of Canada - until the early 50's. Planners PLAN, that's their job.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
08/30/2008 9:14 Comments ||
Top||
#19
No nation building. That's all I ask. Let the survivors figure out what to do with the rubble. Let the Russians and the Chinese help them. Let the world see the consequences when out of control dictators threaten their neighbors with nukes. If we have to send troops to verify the nuke sites are disabled then get them out of there as soon as that job is finished.
Posted by: Abu Uluque6305 ||
08/30/2008 10:43 Comments ||
Top||
#20
So if they retaliate we hit em again, and again, and again, ad infinitum, until they do see it our way. They can only take so many hits, since they only have so much infrastructure. And since they have decided to spend so much of their pathetic little GPA on very expensive things like nuclear facilities, there are a limited number of sites as well. Why are there people trying their damnest to convince us we cannot beat Iran?
#22
Why are there people trying their damnest to convince us we cannot beat Iran?
It's called "Propaganda".
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
08/30/2008 11:59 Comments ||
Top||
#23
We do not have the resources for nation building. Hell, we are running the current wars on borrowed money from our enemies. We are also financing most of the freedom of the seas resources to keep the shipping lanes open to critical resources, like the middle east oil areas.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/30/2008 12:35 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Say it isn't so. We are already over-extended.
Not really. The mass of the Navy and Air Forces aren't actually involved with Iraq or Afghanistan.
Iran has an elected government; we should not violate their sovereignty.
Iran has both sponsored terrorist groups and used its Al Quds Force throughout the Middle East. It has repeatedly threatened Israel. It has attacked the US through proxies. Its rhetoric is somewhat, shall we say, bellicose.
A nuclear-armed Iran, elected government or not, would be a destabliser. Sovereignty is a secondary.
We do not have the resources for nation building.
Nobody mentioned nation-building, AP. That wad was shot.
#25
So, Pappy, ya think we're gonna go? We've been hearing the rumor for a couple of years, now...
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/30/2008 14:48 Comments ||
Top||
#26
What doesn't spark violence in the Middle east?
The Zionist AF striking fron nowhereville. The Jooooooo AF is like Lucas McCain. Everything gets damn peacefull, damn quickly when it walks into the proceedings, even with Mr. H-Bomb playing with a marked deck with Wali.
#29
Iran has an elected government; we should not violate their sovereignty.
And we should remember that that QUDs, Revolutionary Guard, etc. don't answer to the government - just the Ultimate Imam du jour - not saying that the elected gov't is anything other than elected terrorists - just saying that there are other actors more powerful than the gov't and they ain't nice.
Posted by: Elmock Darling of the Faith4396 ||
08/30/2008 17:17 Comments ||
Top||
#30
So, Pappy, ya think we're gonna go? We've been hearing the rumor for a couple of years, now...
I look at the Middle East and I see whole countries full of people in need of hobbies. Maybe we should send in Mattel instead of the Marines. Assuming the sales reps don't mind working around smoking rubble.
Beirut- There was unanimity Friday that Hezbollah was behind the gunfire attack on a Lebanese army helicopter that killed an officer over Sojod hills in south Lebanon yesterday but the group denied any involvement.
There were conflicting reports about the incident which took place around noon Thursday. Among the worst reports was that the helicopter was attacked while it was still on ground and that the assailants, after killing 1st Lt. Samer Hanna, assaulted another officer.
The semi-official report, however, said that the helicopter came under gunfire upon take off from a hilltop.
A Lebanese army communique, however, has said that a Lebanese army helicopter came under gunfire from unidentified "armed members" killing Hanna.
The pro Hezbollah daily As Safir gave another version on Friday. It cited poor coordination between Hezbollah and the Lebanese army regarding the helicopter overflight and the tension among Hezbollah ranks as a result of Israeli threats and intensified Israeli overflights over the past few days as reasons for the confusion that led to the helicopter shooting.
The independent An Nahar newspaper, on the other hand, quoted well-informed sources as saying that the helicopter was not shot down but was forced to make an emergency landing after it was hit by gunfire from gunmen and that the co-pilot landed the chopper at a rugged terrain between Sojod and Armati.
The Central News Agency (CNA), for its part, reported that the gunmen opened fire at the helicopter only 10 meters away, causing an emergency landing. It added that three army helicopters dispatched to the area to assist the chopper that was hit were denied entry and that the crew was informed that no one can approach the area without Hezbollah permission.
CNA quoted Hezbollah sources as saying the group knows nothing about the shooting.
Another report said that the helicopter came under fire as it flew over Sojod and that after making an emergency landing it came under gunfire, killing Hanna.
A different version of the story was put this way: After the helicopter landed in Sojod as part of a routine mission and as it attempted to take off again it came under gunfire, killing Hanna.
Al Manar television, mouthpiece of Hezbollah, reported that a helicopter came under gunfire from "unidentified" gunmen.
A joint committee from the Lebanese army and Hezbollah opened an investigation into the incident.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/30/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
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.
