Hi there, !
Today Sat 06/21/2003 Fri 06/20/2003 Thu 06/19/2003 Wed 06/18/2003 Tue 06/17/2003 Mon 06/16/2003 Sun 06/15/2003 Archives
Rantburg
531689 articles and 1855967 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 30 articles and 183 comments as of 11:29.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area:                    
Paks nab two Qaeda men
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 1: WoT Operations
4 00:00 Old Patriot [] 
0 [] 
1 00:00 Old Patriot [1] 
6 00:00 Tibor [] 
3 00:00 ColoradoConservative [] 
4 00:00 raptor [1] 
3 00:00 PD [] 
2 00:00 Steve White [] 
1 00:00 PD [] 
0 [1] 
2 00:00 patrickpayne [] 
11 00:00 Secret Master [] 
4 00:00 Matt [] 
11 00:00 Cyber Sarge (VRWC California Chapter) [1] 
12 00:00 Frank G [] 
18 00:00 Anonymous [] 
4 00:00 RW [] 
5 00:00 Alaska Paul [] 
10 00:00 raptor [1] 
1 00:00 The Marmot [] 
2 00:00 liberalhawk [] 
11 00:00 raptor [] 
2 00:00 Frank G [] 
12 00:00 Alaska Paul [] 
0 [] 
5 00:00 tu3031 [] 
4 00:00 Ri'Neref [] 
7 00:00 Frank G [] 
1 00:00 tu3031 [] 
37 00:00 True German Ally [] 
Arabia
Saudi Arabia Says Mecca Group Linked to Al Qaeda
Shucks. Who'da ever guessed that?
Saudi Arabia said on Wednesday 12 suspected Muslim militants arrested after a shootout with police in the holy city of Mecca were linked to al Qaeda. Interior Minister Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz told al-Yaum newspaper that more than 40 suspects had been arrested or killed throughout the kingdom since the May 12 bombings. Asked if the Mecca group were linked to the Riyadh bombings, which officials have blamed on al Qaeda, the prince said: "In terms of (belonging) to the group, yes. As for direct connection (with the Riyadh bombers) the investigation is just beginning."
That's reasonable, they were most likely a seperate cell.
Stung by U.S. charges that it had not done enough to prevent the bombings of three Western compounds in Riyadh which killed 35 people, Saudi Arabia has gone on the offensive against suspected militants, raiding houses and combing areas where they might be hiding.
More likely it was the direct threat to the Saudi royals
He said that Saudi Arabia was still seeking "about six suspects" wanted by authorities. The Interior Ministry said on Tuesday 12 people, including seven Saudi nationals, were arrested in Mecca after Saturday's shootout. Their flat in the middle class al-Khalidiya district was "booby trapped and ready to explode" it said. Police seized 72 pipebombs and a number of booby trapped copies of the Koran, the ministry said, as well as rifles, revolvers and ammunition.
Booby trapped copies of the Koran, huh? Those may have been intended for other members of the Religion of Peace(tm). They could also have been for the suicide boys.
Prince Nayef told the newspaper it was not clear whether the threat of further attacks had diminished. "Perhaps it has declined, but we cannot be absolutely certain of this," he said.
Agreed, keep looking. Try a few mosques.
King Fahd told a cabinet meeting Monday that his country was "facing fierce attacks" against the kingdom and vowed to crush the militants with an iron fist. Saudi newspapers showed pictures on Wednesday of security forces stopping cars on the outskirts of Mecca for security checks. In Riyadh, cars queued for half an hour to pass a police checkpoint outside the city's diplomatic quarter.
Posted by: Steve || 06/18/2003 09:55 am || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  This may be the key to revising Wahabism into something more akin to the rest of Islam. If so, it's a good thing. If not, it's a good thing, because the different groups may become so involved with one another, they'll ignore the rest of us.
Posted by: Old Patriot || 06/18/2003 16:12 Comments || Top||

#2  When will they start raiding the Royal palaces? Follow the money...
Posted by: tu3031 || 06/18/2003 10:06 Comments || Top||

#3  Booby trapping Korans certainly sends a message.
Posted by: Pink & Fluffy || 06/18/2003 12:39 Comments || Top||

#4  Good point, AP. The way you attack a crime family is from bottom to top. Pick off the soldiers, find out what they know, and work your way up the ladder. How fast do they want to climb the ladder to where we all know it's going to end up? That's the 64 dollar question.
Posted by: tu3031 || 06/18/2003 22:31 Comments || Top||

#5  My off-the-cuff idea on what the Saudi g-men are doing right now is that they are going after the gunnies and boomers, and maybe some of the lower leadership. tu3031 brings up ye olde "follow the money" bit of wisdom. That, of course, leads to members of that very large bunch of overfed and under worked members of the Saudi royal family. I am sure that many g-men see where they have to go. I am not so sure that the top leadership is ready to bang heads of the royal family yet, though that is where they (AND WE) need to go to get their (AND OUR) terrorism issues solved.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 06/18/2003 18:25 Comments || Top||


Britain
I was in Iraq on day alleged in memos, admits Galloway
George "Who has threatened to sue the Telegraph" Galloway confirmed for the first time yesterday that he was in Iraq on the day that documents found by The Telegraph allege he met an Iraqi intelligence officer there to discuss "continuous financial support". The suspended Labour MP also admitted that he was "not yet" in a position to disprove the documents, which he claimed were forgeries and which were discovered in the looted foreign ministry in Baghdad. The papers purport to show that Mr Galloway received money from Saddam Hussein's regime - a slice of oil earnings worth at least £375,000 a year.

One of the documents was a memorandum suggesting that on Boxing Day 1999 Mr Galloway met an Iraqi intelligence agent in Baghdad and laid out his demands for a larger slice of the revenue from the sale of three million barrels of oil every six months. It also purported to show him as asking for "exceptional" commercial opportunities. Saddam Hussein's office rejected these alleged requests for more money, explaining that they were unaffordable. Mr Galloway originally maintained that he spent one Christmas in Iraq but could not be sure which one. When The Telegraph first published the story earlier this year the MP was at his holiday home in Portugal. He claimed he could not verify where he was on Boxing Day 1999 because he did not have his passport with him for that year. He also said that if he discovered from his own records that he was not in Iraq at Christmas that year this newspaper "will come down in flames".
Heh
Yesterday, however, in an interview with the Radio 4 programme On The Ropes, he said: "I was in Iraq on Boxing Day of 1999 and I spent Christmas Day with Tariq Aziz." But he added: "If I had spent all day with the second most important man in Iraq, why, the next day, would I meet a junior intelligence officer who has to write a memo to his boss, who has to write a memo to his boss, asking for financial support? If I had wanted financial support from Iraq I would have asked Tariq Aziz on Christmas Day."
Guess there was more paperwork than you had hoped for. Or perhaps Tariq wasn't in the Xmas spirit you anticipated.
Mr Galloway also said that experts had already proved that documents uncovered by the Christian Science Monitor, the Boston-based newspaper, suggesting he was paid substantial sums by the Iraqi regime were "crude forgeries". "The fact that two out of three sets of documents about me are forged tells you something, tells you at the very minimum that there is a market in forged documents about me and money and the Iraqi regime," he said. "I don't have to prove anything. The Daily Telegraph has to prove that the allegations they published about me are true. I am not yet in a position to say they are forgeries but I am in a position to say they are false and that the information in them is false."
My feelings, as usual, we will disprove them all!
When contacted by The Telegraph yesterday he maintained that this was not the first time he had said he was in Iraq on Boxing Day 1999. He added: "I have got nothing to say to the Telegraph."
Not even a "see you in court!"?
Posted by: Bulldog || 06/18/2003 06:25 am || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  He, he, heh...

I wonder how the folks in his district feel about reeclecting him, come the next election?
Posted by: Chuck (not Taylor) || 06/18/2003 8:36 Comments || Top||

#2  It wasn't me though, it was......a body double!....yeah! that's the ticket!

George should shut up, resign, and slink off to that Portugal home he set up with all the cash taken from starving Iraqis' mouths....slimeball
Posted by: Frank G || 06/18/2003 9:48 Comments || Top||

#3  Will this be an annnual BBC Holiday Special? "George Galloway's Christmas in Iraq".
BTW, how's the Mariam Fund going? Anybody know?

You haven't done bad for some stiff who used to work on a Michelin assembly line. Quit while you're ahead, and crawl back under your rock.
Posted by: tu3031 || 06/18/2003 10:04 Comments || Top||

#4  Somehow, I don't think Gríma Wormtongue's George Galloway's constituents will take kindly to being represented by a traitor. Also, treason is a crime, isn't it? Galloway is well and truly screwed.
Posted by: Ri'Neref || 06/18/2003 10:45 Comments || Top||


Europe
James Lileks: France is living down to our expectations
After this, there is nothing else to say:
After years of being abused by the French, Americans are returning the favor.
Tourism is down — 15 percent to 20 percent fewer visitors. Parisians are reduced to sneering at each other, just to keep in practice. Trade has plummeted — wine sales were off almost 18 percent in March as Americans discovered that Aussie vin makes you giggly or sleepy, too. France once had a trade surplus with the United States and now has a $240 million deficit.
To woo Americans back, the French government decided to hire a celeb to speak on France's behalf. Did they get Arnold Schwarzenegger? ("Ahl be bach -- for de crepes!") Did they get Paula Abdul? ("I don't care what Simon says, France is incredibly talented.")

No, they got Woody Allen. Most Americans regard Woody as a wrinkly creep who makes movies you no longer regret missing. Even on video. "I don't want to have to freedom-kiss my wife," Allen says in the ads, "when what I really want to do is French-kiss her." Eewww. You might recall that Allen is 391 years older than his wife, and that his wife was his previous girlfriend's adopted daughter. Why him? Roman Polanski wasn't available?

They also got George Plimpton to appear in an ad, making it official: French understanding of American culture is taken entirely from a 1968 issue of Playboy.

France's opposition to the Iraq war isn't the reason Americans are turning away from the glories of Gaul. No, it was the manner in which France conducted its opposition — high-handed, cheerfully duplicitous, brazenly self-serving, with a generous ladle of contempt for this boorish nation of unsophisticated cowboys. One got the impression they were peeved that America did not realize what it meant to be graced by a stream of French spittle. Why, it was an honor. Most nations France ignores. To be spit on by France is a mark of some distinction. Here is a cloth. Wipe it off. Not with that hand! What are you, a Pole? The other hand! Left to right! Now fold the napkin into the shape of a dying swan!

France is a beautiful country. The food's good. The pre-World War II artistic legacy of the country is worth a pilgrimage for anyone who wants to understand the promise of Enlightenment and the perils of Revolution. If France pulls through, it'll be important again. And if it doesn't, which seems increasingly likely, it will tear itself apart with strikes. Its economy will be consumed by the rapacious demands of its welfare state. Its restive, unassimilated Muslim population might demand a parallel legal system based on Sharia law. These possibilities should please no one.

We wish the French the best. But their days as the moral avatar, the champion of humanity, are long gone. That reputation — unearned for decades — will die in the Congo, where French troops are behaving as effectively as, well, French troops. The painful fact is that no one expects much of them anymore beyond good food, bribery and honeyed hypocrisy. One liberated Iraqi summed up the American promise like this: "Democracy, whiskey, sexy!" One could say that beats Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite.

One might suggest that it already has.
Posted by: Steve || 06/18/2003 02:17 pm || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Democracy, whiskey, sexy, but not a penny for Frogs.
Posted by: Anonymous || 06/18/2003 14:34 Comments || Top||

#2  Lileks is definitely one of the funniest and most talented writers in the blogosphere. He writes a regular column for the Minneapolis Tribune and is a member of the "Northern Alliance of Bloggers" which also includes Powerline. Thanks for the posting.
Posted by: ColoradoConservative || 06/18/2003 14:38 Comments || Top||

#3  Perfect.
Posted by: PD || 06/19/2003 4:28 Comments || Top||


Kafkablogging with the Council of Europe
This has been making the rounds lately. Typical Euro-repression of free speech in the guise of "fairness" Edited for length
Why Europe still doesn't get the Internet
By Declan McCullagh
One of the finest days in Internet law dawned on June 12, 1996, when U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell wrote an opinion that was remarkable for its clarity and prescience. At the time, Dalzell was serving on a three-judge panel that rejected the absurd Communications Decency Act as a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of free expression. Dalzell recognized that the U.S. government's true fear of the Internet was not indecency or obscenity, but hypothetical worries about how "too much speech occurs in that medium." Dalzell and eventually the Supreme Court realized that the best way to foster the soon-to-be spectacular growth of the Internet was to reduce government regulation—not to increase it.

Unfortunately, Europeans still haven't quite figured that out. The Council of Europe—an influential quasi-governmental body that drafts conventions and treaties—is meeting on Monday to finalize a proposal that veers in exactly the opposite direction. (It boasts 45 member states in Europe, with the United States, Canada, Japan and Mexico participating as non-voting members. Its budget is about $200 million a year, paid for by member governments.) The all-but-final proposal draft says that Internet news organizations, individual Web sites, moderated mailing lists and even Web logs (or "blogs"), must offer a "right of reply" to those who have been criticized by a person or organization. With clinical precision, the council's bureaucracy had decided exactly what would be required. Some excerpts from its proposal:
  • "The reply should be made publicly available in a prominent place for a period of time (that) is at least equal to the period of time during which the contested information was publicly available, but, in any case, no less than for 24 hours."
  • Hyperlinking to a reply is acceptable. "It may be considered sufficient to publish (the reply) or make available a link to it" from the spot of the original mention.
  • "So long as the contested information is available online, the reply should be attached to it, for example through a clearly visible link."
  • Long replies are fine. "There should be flexibility regarding the length of the reply, since there are (fewer) capacity limits for content than (there are) in off-line media."
Pall Thorhallsson of the organization's media division explained this move by arguing that bloggers and their brethren are becoming influential enough to be regulated as are their counterparts in the offline world. A 1974 Council of Europe resolution says "a newspaper, a periodical, a radio or television broadcast" must offer a right of reply. Most European countries have enacted that right, with a German law—compiled by the U.K. nonprofit group Presswise—that offers a typical example: A publisher is "obliged to publish a counter-version or reply by the person or party affected."

"Some online publications run by nonprofessionals can be very influential and therefore damaging to the reputation of other people," Thorhallsson told me. "It may be precisely against these (kinds) of publications that there is a need to grant a remedy. It's true that it may look burdensome for a blogger to be obliged to grant a right of reply. Some have suggested that a solution could be that individuals could make a deal with their service providers to administer the right of reply."
[snip] This is all the more reason why fascistic punks like Orrin Hatch have to be stomped on here in the US. The Council is an important "stalking horse" for the Bureaubots of the EU apparatus, running up trial balloons for later unilateral implementation
The United States once had a similar rule, which applied only to broadcasters, called the Fairness Doctrine. In a 1969 a Supreme Court case called Red Lion v. Federal Communications Commission, the justices gave liberal author Fred Cook the right to reply to criticism from a conservative broadcaster on Pennsylvania radio station WGCB. Eventually, President Ronald Reagan nixed the idea in the mid-1980s, citing the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech and the rule's possible "chilling effect" on controversial speech. (When faced with the onerous requirement of providing a right to reply, many broadcasters shied away from anything controversial.) In a unanimous decision in the 1974 case, Miami Herald Publishing v. Tornillo, the court struck down a Florida law that gave politicians a right of reply if a newspaper criticized them.

Perry de Haviland at Samizdata replies:
We will not comply

We have a comments section on samizdata.net in which people can and do comment about what we write, but access to that comment section is at our capricious discretion. If we decide we want to IP ban someone or want to delete their remarks from our comments section because we think they are offensive, or even if they are not offensive but we just bloody well feel like doing it because we have a headache, then we bloody well will. This is our private property...

We utterly reject political moderation of free speech in civil society. This is not about giving people a voice but rather about replacing social interaction (which is what true free speech is), with political interaction mediated and mandated by the state.
I couldn't have said it better myself

Rantburg extends a "right of reply" via the comments section, but only because I damned well feel like it. If I choose to turn the comments off, that's my decision. I won't have the government tell me I have to do it if I want to have a website. I'd shut down first. Like Perry, I reserve the right to delete postings to or block access to my property. When there's a bureaucrat posting articles, another one editing, and another bureaucrat sitting next to me writing code, then I'll think about changing my opinion.

I almost forgot: And salary. To tell me what to do with my site, they'll have to write me a check every week. And I don't come cheap. And pay for my hosting. And software...

And I want a pony.
Posted by: Ernest Brown || 06/18/2003 10:35 am || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Tried to get a comment on this from TGA (on another thread last night the "revisionist" one)would still be interested in getting his read.
Posted by: Hodadenon || 06/18/2003 13:31 Comments || Top||

#2  "The Council is an important 'stalking horse' for the Bureaubots of the EU apparatus"

I'm not certain what 'stalking horse' means, but just to make it clear - the Council of Europe has no connection whatsoever with the European Union, other than that they both include European states.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 06/18/2003 14:03 Comments || Top||

#3  stalking horse - n. 1. a horse, a figure of a horse, behind which a hunter hides in stalking game. 2. anything put forward to hide one's true plans; pretext. 3. a political candidate put forth to conceal the candidacy of another person or to draw votes from a rival. [1510-1520] - Random House Webster's College Dictionary Rev. 1995.

via VikingPhoenix
Posted by: Frank G || 06/18/2003 14:28 Comments || Top||

#4  "right of reply" to those who have been criticized by a person or organization."

This is of course absolute nonsense. This kind of "right of reply" doesn't even exist in the classic professional media. I can criticize anyone the way I see fit. He has the right to get a reply published if I say something which (the person says) is untrue. Let's say if I criticize someone for a policy he follows, no right to reply. If I print a fact about something that is not true, that person has a right to reply. Like: Mr. B met Mr. C on April 1st and he did not, right to reply (the editor might correct an "error" on his own or say he stands by his opinion (as long as it is not slander, no further right to reply).

If I say this person slept with his secretary than he can sue me for slander and if I can't prove it I'm in trouble.

Now I do believe that the same rights should be applied to professional online media. But to force a private website to publish replies is bogus. It might even be against the law (another law). German law says that you have to check your guest books periodically and remove illegal postings or you become liable for them (that makes sense if somebody posts a link to child pornography for example). In Germany you also must not link to sites that deny the Holocaust (U.S. fredom of speech goes further in that respect). Now if I published a harsh criticism of some neonazi who denies the Holocaust he would have the right to post a reply on my website? Yeah right.

Now if I post infamous lies about a person he can still sue me and rightfully so. Let's say I post an information that somebody regularily abuses his children and it's not true he can sue me. Private site or not, fair enough. (He could do the same if I said it loud in a restaurant.) That's where freedom of speech ends. I don't think we need a new law for that (he can already do so now and there is no anonymity that protects the poster). This draft has no chance of passing.

Btw the Hatch proposal was the most stupid one I have heard from an US senator in years. Somebody better explain this guy how computers work.
Posted by: True German Ally || 06/18/2003 15:54 Comments || Top||

#5  Btw the Hatch proposal was the most stupid one I have heard from an US senator in years. Somebody better explain this guy how computers work.

Somebody needs to tell Hatch to re-read the 4th Amendment, too. Senatorial stupidity like that (and the recent comments of the junior Senator from NY) is why many Americans are learning NOT to trust their Government. A govenment of free people cannot stand without the people's trust. That's why the 2nd Amendment was included.
Posted by: Old Patriot || 06/18/2003 16:35 Comments || Top||

#6  Well, the Euros have Bill O'Reilly on their side...

For what nothing it's worth.
Posted by: someone || 06/18/2003 11:15 Comments || Top||

#7  Sent an email to Fred about this last night, would like to hear his take on this. I bet it'll be something like: "Cold day in hell"?
Posted by: Frank G || 06/18/2003 11:29 Comments || Top||

#8  Ernest Brown> All I'm saying is that the Council of Europe has no official connection to the EU. Whether it has "inordinate sway" or whatever, as a "think-tank"... that's beyond my knowledge.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 06/18/2003 21:48 Comments || Top||

#9  Aris,

(Sigh) Yes, I know that the Council of Europe is not the same animal as the Council of the European Union, which -is- the EU's main decision-making body. However, the two organizations work together, as the following press release (note the date!) shows.




Posted by: Ernest Brown || 06/18/2003 22:28 Comments || Top||

#10  True German Ally,


Orrin Hatch has a long history of this stupidity. As for the Council of Europe's nonsense not getting enacted, I think that you are placing too much faith in the common sense and classical liberal leanings of EU bureaucrats, like the ones who brought us mandatory "pig toys."
Posted by: Ernest Brown || 06/18/2003 22:50 Comments || Top||

#11 


Aris,


Perry de Haviland at
Samizdata makes the relation of the two clear here:

"The proposed EU regulation of blogs and other forms of Internet speech being suggested by the Council of Europe (a quasi-governmental think-tank whose views have inordinate sway with the EU's policy making elite) is very revealing about what lies at the heart of The Great European Project."

Are you arguing that the Council of Europe's policy recommendations are -not- taken seriously by the EU?

The actual draft is here.
Posted by: Ernest Brown || 06/18/2003 20:49 Comments || Top||

#12  a pony? How about a stalking horse?
Posted by: Frank G || 06/18/2003 21:12 Comments || Top||


Germans Put Off from Visiting U.S. by Iraq War
Germans have been put off visiting the United States due to the U.S.-led war against Iraq and are more likely to visit France because of its anti-war stance, a poll showed on Tuesday. The survey of almost 3,000 German, Dutch and British conducted in May by NFO Infratest showed Spain as the most popular holiday destination for all three nationalities. 45 percent of Germans surveyed said they were discouraged from taking a trip to the United States by Washington's decision to go to war in Iraq, compared to just 28 percent of Dutch and 16 percent of the British polled. Meanwhile, 20 percent of Germans said they would be more likely to visit France due to its anti-war position.
Germans "visiting" France, Dad must have left them the maps. "Just drive west, turn left at Belgium."
Posted by: Steve || 06/18/2003 10:28 am || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Well, at least this will help alleviate the parking problems in our National Parks.
Posted by: Michael || 06/18/2003 13:03 Comments || Top||

#2  We're apparently going to Spain in lieu of going to France.

The Germans are going to Spain in lieu of visiting the US.

This has potential.
Posted by: Hiryu || 06/18/2003 14:04 Comments || Top||

#3  Ah polls...
First of all to see this as a choice between USA and France is ridiculous.
"Darling, let's go shopping in New York, the dollar is cheap. - No dear, I rather go to Paris, Monsieur de Villepin is a man."
If some Germans prefer not to travel to America this year it has a lot more to do with the fact that air travel isn't what it used to be and oranges are less tasty when they appear in Homeland Security Alerts. (I couldn't care less because shit tends to happen where you don't expect it.)
I doubt that Germans will go to France because they like French politics (I hear that Marseille is smelly this summer).
A lot more Germans travel to France than to the USA anyway (obvious, it's much closer and you can go by tank car etc.
Polling the average German in the street who had no U.S. plans this summer anyway and ask him whether he's less likely to travel to the USA is just bogus. You need to poll people who have travel plans and ask them whether they changed them because of Iraq. Well, it's still bogus probably.
Spain and Italy are far more popular travel destinations for Germans. If I remember well both nations supported the Iraq war?
If there are really more Germans in Paris, well maybe it's because it's finally possible to get a decent hotel room in a flash because the Americans stayed away.

That said I'm seriously considering a U.S. trip this summer/fall. It's a great country and people are damn friendlier than in France. Even the bears in Yellowstone are.
Posted by: True German Ally || 06/18/2003 15:18 Comments || Top||

#4  German tourists can be a punishment in and of themselves. I don't envy the French.
Posted by: Scooter McGruder || 06/18/2003 10:44 Comments || Top||

#5  I remember the last time the Germans came to visit France. The Germans wore gray, Ilsa wore blue. . . .
Posted by: Mike || 06/18/2003 10:47 Comments || Top||

#6  You mean there will be smaller crowds at Yellowstone this year? I'm so heartbroken I can't stand it. Maybe the French should establish a new tourist office for the incoming Germans...in Vichy.
Posted by: SPQR 2756 || 06/18/2003 11:01 Comments || Top||

#7  Useless poll. How many said they were more likely to visit the US?
Posted by: someone || 06/18/2003 11:16 Comments || Top||

#8  Many we should run a commercial on Germany with David Hasseldorf.
Posted by: Mike N. || 06/18/2003 11:21 Comments || Top||

#9  Donald Rumsfeld?
Posted by: Bulldog || 06/18/2003 11:24 Comments || Top||

#10  Go to Little Green Footballs and check the part about Germans likely to visit France. Hide you coffee or you'll wreck you keboard.
Posted by: Michael || 06/18/2003 11:45 Comments || Top||

#11  I would lobe to hear Rummy saying "I don't want to eat Old Europe chocolate, I want to eat German Chocolate."
Posted by: Mike N. || 06/18/2003 11:48 Comments || Top||

#12  More Germans in Paris? I hadn't thought that worked out too well in the past, but maybe that's just me.
Posted by: tu3031 || 06/18/2003 12:55 Comments || Top||

#13  TGA, ditto if you get anywhere near Chicago (which you have to do to go most anywhere in the US, seeing as we have O'Hare Airport).
Posted by: Steve White || 06/18/2003 21:57 Comments || Top||

#14  Ummmm did I mention that it's a great country and people are damn friendlier than in France?
Posted by: True German Ally || 06/18/2003 22:00 Comments || Top||

#15  TGA, if you come to the States this summer, and end up anywhere near Colorado Springs, give me a call - I know a couple of GREAT German restuarants in town... 8^)
Posted by: Old Patriot || 06/18/2003 19:37 Comments || Top||

#16  Come to Roosevelt,Arizona TGA.We'll go fishing(small&large mouth bass,crappie,catfish).Throw some steaks on the BBQ,and maybe hunt a Jackalope or 2(ain't no such thing).
Posted by: raptor || 06/18/2003 20:00 Comments || Top||

#17  Thank you, Old Patriot and raptor, both options are very enticing!
Posted by: True German Ally || 06/18/2003 20:19 Comments || Top||

#18  True German Ally
Hell come to Kentucky, we keep the horses heads and asses connected and race them. Then there is the country ham and bourbon.

dorf
Posted by: Anonymous || 06/18/2003 21:27 Comments || Top||


Iranian Sets Herself on Fire in Paris
break out the lemongrass
An Iranian set herself on fire Wednesday during a protest in Paris against a major raid at the offices of an Iranian opposition group. The woman, 42-year-old Marzieh Babakhani, was rushed to the hospital after other protesters put out the flames, said Shain Gobadi, of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. Police said Babakhani suffered serious burns to her upper body, including her face, after dousing herself with a flammable liquid and lighting a match.
"Koobideh?"
"I'd love some, thanks"

The Paris demonstration, which drew about 50 people, took place outside the headquarters of France's counter-intelligence agency, known as the DST. It was the third dramatic protest in Europe against Tuesday's crackdown on the Mujahedeen Khalq, which is accused of terrorism by the United States and the European Union. On Tuesday, a 38-year-old man in London set himself on fire during a protest outside the French Embassy. About 50 protesters in Hamburg, Germany, were detained after some entered the Iranian consulate, kicking over furniture.
hmm, how'd they get in?
During the Tuesday raids outside of Paris, French police detained 159 members of the Mujahedeen and seized several suitcases of hundred-dollar bills amounting to $1.3 million, police said. The sweep came a month after the Mujahedeen Khalq's armed wing was disarmed by U.S. forces in Iraq. The group has fought to topple Iran's clerical regime.
They're old-fashioned commie-style krazed killers...
French officials accused the activists of trying to establish a base of support in France and possibly planning attacks on French soil. The raids were ordered by France's top anti-terrorist judge, Jean-Louis Bruguiere.
Since when did that become a crime in France? Remember Khomeini?
The move against the Mujahedeen also comes as Iran's conservative Muslim government is being rocked by widespread protests calling for greater freedoms and democracy. It was unclear whether the raids, which France said were planned a month ago, were connected to the recent unrest inside Iran. But the crackdown could hinder the group's ability to benefit from any weakening of the Tehran government.
Posted by: Frank G || 06/18/2003 07:57 am || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I must be insensitive. I found the fact that the French "recieved" 1.3 million in cash from the crackdown to be far more intriguing than the news of another nut committing suicide for "The CauseTM".
Hmmm... maybe my sympathy meter was knocked out of wack on 9-11.
Posted by: Becky || 06/18/2003 14:17 Comments || Top||

#2  The French govt has the most to gain monetarily with the existing Iranian regime, just like they did with Sammy and Co. in Iraq. The resistance group is a turd in France's punch bowl and the French govt does not want this bowl of punch to go sour. So the French are going to stomp any serious wiggling of Iranian resistance groups out like bugs.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 06/18/2003 16:00 Comments || Top||

#3  Too bad Marzieh wasn't just trying to gain membership at the Augusta country club. If she had the liberals would have taken up her cause.
Posted by: mhw || 06/18/2003 9:24 Comments || Top||

#4  WHOA!!! Holy Frijole!!

During the Tuesday raids outside of Paris, French police detained 159 members of the Mujahedeen and seized several suitcases of hundred-dollar bills amounting to $1.3 million, police said.

Heh! That was their big mistake. Suitcases full of cash will always get the attention of ChIraq and Villanpinhead. Galloway must be jealous.
Posted by: Becky || 06/18/2003 9:55 Comments || Top||

#5  tap-tap,sympathy meter busted!
Posted by: raptor || 06/18/2003 9:59 Comments || Top||

#6  notice how these guys and gals set only THEMSELVES on fire - no walking into crowded nightclubs or buses and blowing people up. Yet France insists that Hamas which does such things is a "partner for peace" while these guys are terrorists who must be rounded up.
Posted by: liberalhawk || 06/18/2003 11:54 Comments || Top||

#7  Excellent point Alaska. I don't, maybe I'm just Resistance-Movement unsavy and 1.3 million, in a suitcase, is just par for the course rather than enough money to fund an entire movement.

Either way, it seems unlikely that they just stumbled onto the cash and more likely that some serious, intelligence work was involved. I mean, where does one get suitcases full of that kind of cash, that they can afford to just give to a cause?

But as you paint it, it makes sense that Chirac and Villipin are just stomping on this bug, hard and fast to protect more lucrative interests with the current Iranian regime.
Posted by: Becky || 06/18/2003 17:04 Comments || Top||

#8  Becky---The cash deal got me thinking also. I wonder if there is any Company money as part of the 1.3 million in cash in the suitcase. It would be the logical thing to do to fund these movements. It is, however, foolish to move that quantity of money around in one container. Also, remember the news source. The French govt could be planting this item also in order to discredit the resistance movement. It does make sense.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 06/18/2003 17:25 Comments || Top||

#9  Sir! We found ten er, I mean, five suitcases full of cash!

Glenn Reynolds links a BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2999652.stm that says

"Well over $3m in cash as well as computers and communications equipment were also seized in the raids.

France says the raids on the People's Mujahideen - part of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) - were the result of a three-year investigation.

Must have had a slight counting error the first time around.
Posted by: Becky || 06/18/2003 21:59 Comments || Top||

#10  The three who set themselves on fire are no laughing matter. LGF has a link to pictures, and it's rather horrifying.

Neither LGF nor the Yahoo comments make clear who exactly these three were. But notice they didn't strap on a bomb belt, as LiberalHawk noted.

My sympathy meter twitched big for them. For the others arrested, no reading.
Posted by: Steve White || 06/18/2003 22:01 Comments || Top||

#11  Alaska, interesting points. It seems like the discovery of that much cash merits its own headline, rather than being buried in the text as a small aside, so maybe it is a plant. I don't know...but it sure seems odd.

Some one remind me again why we pretend the French are our Allies?
Posted by: Becky || 06/18/2003 18:50 Comments || Top||

#12  Becky---It's a holdover from State Dept. SOP. If they bomb us directly, then they are our enemy. However, if they bomb us indirectly, like 9-11 with their nationals but not directly like the nation, like Saudi, then they get a pass. If the country poses a threat, and enough of the President's cabinet feels that a serious enough threat exists, then they overrule State and that nation becomes an enemy. However, if another nation......................
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 06/18/2003 19:38 Comments || Top||


MEPs accuse commission of ’looting’ cover-up
Corrupt EU bureaucrats? Lack of accountability? Whatever next?!
Euro MPs accused the European Commission yesterday of trying to cover up a "vast enterprise of looting" by top officials in Luxembourg. Three European commissioners, including the vice-president, Neil Kinnock, were hauled up by the European Parliament's budget control committee, accused of ignoring warnings dating back to the 1990s of widespread corruption in Eurostat, the European Union's data office. Chris Heaton-Harris, a Tory MEP, said millions of pounds of public money had vanished into the hands of a clique of officals serving as directors of related companies. "I'm convinced this has been a huge cover-up and the commission never had any intention of solving any of these problems until forced to by allegations in the press," he said. Angry German MEPs accused the commission of disguising the extent of the scandal before the European Parliament signed off the EU accounts in March.

Pedro Solbes, the European economics commissioner, admitted for the first time yesterday that the suspected embezzlement of public funds was "very serious" and had been allowed to fester for too long. "New developments showed that the problems were far more significant than we had known. The commission is deeply concerned," he told the inquiry. Just weeks earlier he assured MEPs that there was no problem with the way Eurostat awarded contracts. But that was before the leak of a document from the EU's anti-fraud office describing the Eurostat scam as a "vast enterprise of looting".

The allegations centre on a network of sub-contractors used by the agency, which has a £102m budget and is licensed to make money selling data to the private sector. Two of Eurostat's top officials, including Yves Franchet, the French director-general for the past 16 years, are being investigated for alleged use of a private bank account in Luxembourg to cream off £650,000 of public money. Both deny any wrongdoing. The anti-fraud authorities in Brussels, Paris, and Luxembourg are now examining a network of sub-contractors suspected of submitting false invoices and possible "kick-backs" to Eurostat officials.
Posted by: Bulldog || 06/18/2003 06:36 am || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  This explains why Luxembourg was so quiet about the Liberation of Iraq. They were busy counting money.

This looks like a job for the Grand Ducal Police.
Posted by: Chuck (not Taylor) || 06/18/2003 8:41 Comments || Top||

#2  Does the ICC know about this? What about the ever vigilant Belgians?
Posted by: tu3031 || 06/18/2003 9:19 Comments || Top||

#3  Sounds like some enterprising DBMs. Does EU stand for Earning Underhanded?
Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC California Chapter) || 06/18/2003 10:54 Comments || Top||

#4  This looks like a job for the Grand Ducal Police.
What, all six of them? The larger the unaccountable European Union Government grows, the more frauds and scams like this will appear. Unfortunately, the people of Europe will have little to say about ending such fraud, or even investigating it. It's hard enough in the US, where we have a well-established system for investigating and eliminating fraudulent government activity.
Posted by: Old Patriot || 06/18/2003 16:41 Comments || Top||

#5  Coming up next on "GDP:Luxembourg City"...

"Did you hear that?"
"Hear what?"
"Nevermind. Want another doughnut?"
Posted by: tu3031 || 06/18/2003 17:05 Comments || Top||


Bomb attack is foiled
A huge Real IRA bomb discovered in the Irish Republic five days ago was about to be moved to England, police sources said yesterday. The target was not known, but the attack was probably intended to be co-ordinated with a 1,200lb primed bomb abandoned in Londonderry on Saturday. Six men have been arrested and charged with possessing explosives.

Detectives also fear that the Real IRA has dramatically improved its bomb-making ability after co-operation with the Provisionals. The police are searching for a Mark 19 timer power unit (TPU), the most advanced IRA detonator used in the Baltic Exchange and Bishopsgate attacks in London and seen more recently in Colombia. They believe that the bombers were waiting for the unit, which triggers the electrical charge that sets off a bomb, to arrive. When it did, they would have taken the 500lb bomb, found on a farm in Co Louth, across the border to Warrenpoint to catch a ferry to Heysham, near Blackpool. If the Real IRA possesses this technology, the security stakes have been substantially raised at a time when the Government wants to decrease the military presence in Northern Ireland to encourage Sinn Fein to bring about IRA disbandment. "The technology in these new TPUs matches the best the Provos have," a Garda source said. "We believe the people who are making them for the IRA are also making them for this crowd [the Real IRA]. They are definitely helping them out."
Posted by: Bulldog || 06/18/2003 06:22 am || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The boyos have been rather quiet lately. It's not good when the boyos are TOO quiet.
Posted by: tu3031 || 06/18/2003 22:39 Comments || Top||


Fifth Column
Coming soon! GoreTV!
Will We See Gore TV?The former Veep looks at creating a liberal alternative to conservative talk radio and television
By KAREN TUMULTY - TIME
EFL. I would encourage Al Gore, the Hollywood bloc and assorted liberal millionaires to throw their money into this project. It means less money going to Democratic candidates. And that is always a good thing.
" ... former Vice President Al Gore has been devoting considerable time to another dream, one he shares with many Democrats these days — creating a media enterprise that could challenge the dominance of conservative voices in cable television and talk radio. Numerous sources in Hollywood and Washington tell TIME that Gore has been quietly sounding out potential financial backers for a cable television network that would feature "progressive" viewpoints.
Lemme see ... Public Television, BBC, the 3 major networks, MTV ....
Additionally, Gore has helped arrange meetings between key Hollywood figures and a wealthy Chicago couple who have publicly announced plans to invest $10 million in a liberal radio network."
[Gore speaking in a dull monotone]
"The media is kind of weird these days on politics, and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party," Gore said. "Fox News Network, The Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh — there’s a bunch of them, and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations and the rest of the media."
Is anyone going to call Gore on the carpet for evidence of a slanderous statement such as this?
And while liberal commentators such as former Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower have made a stab at syndicated talk shows, they have by and large been unsuccessful.
I would have used the phrase "wholly unsuccessful".
I would have used the phrase "powerful soporifics" myself...
In March, the MSNBC cable news network canceled Phil Donahue's talk show after a disappointing
(disappointing? The guy was eviscerated and slaughtered in the ratings! That's like saying the British were disappointed by the Battle of New Orleans. Sounds like this writer is Tommy Daschle. )
six-month run against The O'Reilly Factor. However, some liberals point to the success of Hillary Clinton's just-released memoir as evidence that a marketplace exists for their viewpoint.
Wow. The self-delusion is really quite breathtaking. Can you imagine basing a business plan on an unrelated product's track record which has been artifically produced by bogus sales?
Posted by: ColoradoConservative || 06/18/2003 12:37 pm || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Of course there's a market. It's as large as the market for Al Sharpton Haircare© products
Posted by: Frank G || 06/18/2003 12:51 Comments || Top||

#2  I read somewhere just a couple of days ago that a fund-raiser for Gore, to encourage him to run for president in 2004, was cancelled because fewer than 100 people signed up. I think even I could convince 100 people to come hear me talk about strangling earthworms. Gore is politically dead, and only him and a few other idiots with argon in their heads instead of brains knows it.
Posted by: Old Patriot || 06/18/2003 16:46 Comments || Top||

#3  Considering the MAJORITY of American voters picked Gore (how soon we forget) and there is no other "liberal" network as rabidly partisan as Fox, I bet there would be a market for a liberal mainstream viewpoint. Slanderous CC? Ailes puts Limbaugh on the map--then does the same for Murdoch, now the Republican FCC votes to allow media concentration hmm. Sure there's NO quid pro quo
Posted by: Not Mike Moore || 06/18/2003 16:48 Comments || Top||

#4  problem is most left-liberals dont like Gore and never did - they supported him over Nader only cause they liked Bush less. Thats the problem with any "liberal" or "dem" network - the dems are too divided for anything like this to work. Hilary like her husband, is able to run as a moderate and still get support from liberals, out of their gut reaction to the hatred the Clintons get from the right. (see the New Republics blog) Most other moderate dems cant pull that off.
Posted by: liberalhawk || 06/18/2003 17:09 Comments || Top||

#5  A new network would require charisma, personality, and edgyness to bring it to the forefront of the mainstream liberal pack. Al Gore is an obvious choice to run this thing.
Posted by: Yank || 06/18/2003 17:52 Comments || Top||

#6  The Children of the Sixties, once known for their free and independent spirits, free love and their demonstrations for peace and freedom, have decided on a spokesperson to represent who they are and what they have become. "AL GORE is really hip" said one grey-haired grandma in tye dye. "Who better to bring the next generation on board with our dreams and ideals?"

"Only Al can express to the generation of tomorrow the clarity and logic on which our generation was founded" said Bob.

"We feel that the children of tomorrow will relate to Al, as we did to Lawrence Welk" said Frank, his long grey pony-tail in dire need of a shampoo. "He is the perfect icon for our legacy of rebellion, youthful spontaniety, diversity and multiculturalism."

Not to be outdone by the move of strategic Democratic brilliance...Republicans decided to prove that it is they, not the Democrats, who can woo the next generation of voters.

Responding with an announcement by Orin Hatch that they intend to support legislation to allow Big Business(TM) to implant a virus that can ruin the computers of college students sharing music files. Hatch said, "It is important for the young students of today to realize that it is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who want to uphold the American Values of Freedom and Liberty."
Posted by: Becky || 06/18/2003 18:10 Comments || Top||

#7  If Al wants to do something to benefit us all, why doesn't he go sit on one of the polar icecaps and keep us all posted on the melting due to that SUV, fossil fuel caused global warming.
Posted by: tu3031 || 06/18/2003 22:10 Comments || Top||

#8  Not Mike Moore

So I suppose you protested when Clinton was elected despite a MAJORITY of Americans voting for Bush I?

BTW Are you really sure you are not Mike Moore?
Posted by: JFM || 06/19/2003 4:20 Comments || Top||

#9  Re: Not Mike Moore's diatribe. More VRWC, eh? The left just can't let go.

Fox is fair and balanced. You only think it overly conservative because you have been fed a steady diet of liberal pablum since birth. You are reacting to the mild spice called "fair and balanced" in your otherwise bland diet.

Given that Nader got about 3% or so of the vote, a MAJORITY of Americans did not vote for Gore in 2000. In any event, the popular vote is irrelevant to who becomes president.

Also, given that Redstone's Viacom and Disney (owners of ABC) are two of the conglomerates that will benefit from the recent FCC vote, I don't think NewsCorp. is going to be the only beneficiary of further concentration.
Posted by: ColoradoConservative || 06/18/2003 18:19 Comments || Top||

#10  THANK GOD! I was having trouble sleeping and this is just the ticket. Although, I might want to just end it all after listening to that monotonic voice.ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz......Wow, just talking about it makes me fall ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz
Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC California Chapter) || 06/18/2003 18:51 Comments || Top||

#11  I'm not sure that I want to bring this up, but.... #takes a deep breath# Al Gore DID NOT recieve more of the popular vote than George W. The initial figures which showed Gore recieving more of the popular vote excluded all absentee ballots gathered in the state of California - some 100,000 or more. When they were finally counted, it turned out the W actually won more of the popular vote.
Posted by: Secret Master || 06/18/2003 19:51 Comments || Top||


India-Pakistan
Pakistan arrests two suspected al-Qaida men
EFL
Two suspected al-Qaida members — including one believed to be a longtime aide to Osama bin Laden — were arrested Wednesday in northwestern Pakistan, the information minister said. Pakistani authorities arrested Adil Al-Jazeeri of Algeria at a public swimming pool in the affluent Hayatabad neighborhood of Peshawar, the capital of Pakistan's North West Frontier Province. Intelligence sources said Al-Jazeeri was a longtime aide to bin Laden and was involved in the terror network's training. ''He is an important al-Qaida catch,'' Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told The Associated Press in a telephone interview in the federal capital of Islamabad. Ahmed said Al-Jazeeri was being questioned about his alleged links to al-Qaida. The second suspect, identified as Abu Naseem of Tunisia was arrested a short time later outside the Katcha Ghauri Afghan refugee camp on the western edge of Peshawar, according to an intelligence source. He said Naseem was ''highly expert in forgery and arranging fake documents for al-Qaida men.''
A busy man
Pakistani security officials conducted the raids, but it wasn't immediately clear if the two men were in Pakistani custody or handed over to U.S. officials. Sources said the two men were picked up after three Afghans were arrested a day earlier outside a Peshawar bank. The three men led them to Al-Jazeeri. Neither Al-Jazeeri nor Abu Naseem appear on the American FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list.
We'll take them anyway, thank you.
Posted by: Steve || 06/18/2003 01:26 pm || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:


Asia Times: "Musharraf cooks up an American banquet"
Found via the Brothers Judd.
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf's visit to the United States and his meeting with President George W Bush on June 24 are likely to lay the foundations for landmark changes in Pakistan's policies, including those on Israel, Kashmir, its nuclear program and the army. Sources in the Foreign Office familiar with the agenda say that key decisions likely to be agreed on by Musharraf and Bush at Camp David include the following:
  • A clear road map for resolution of the Kashmir conflict in which the "Chanab" formula, which envisages the division of Kashmir along religious lines, is likely to be adopted. Thus, the Muslim-majority areas would be allowed to join Pakistan, while the areas where Hindus and Buddhists are in the majority would remain with India.
    That would be rather amazing.
  • A rollback in Pakistan's nuclear and missile program pursuant to the resolution of the Kashmir issue.
  • Deployment of Pakistani troops in Iraq, subject to a financial deal to be agreed on by the US and Pakistan.
    Which would free up some US divisions for . . . other things.
  • Renewed assistance in Afghanistan to contain the burgeoning revival of the Taliban movement. Before the elections scheduled in Afghanistan later in the year, Pakistan will help the US to eliminate the power vacuum in the country by mediating talks with the various Afghan groups, including the Hizb-i-Islami Afghanistan of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the Taliban and other Pashtun factions.
  • Cutbacks in the Pakistani armed forces. Pakistan has already laid off 300,000 personnel.
    And to really gild the lily . . .
  • Recognition for Israel. Initially, the two countries would establish "track II" diplomacy, and once the grounds were prepared, Pakistan would announce its recognition of the Israeli state. In return, the US would waiver US$1.8 billion in bilateral debt. The US has already written off $1 billion in return for Islamabad's support after the September 11 attacks and for its reversal of support for the Taliban.
. . . All of the issues on the table in Washington, if agreed on and fully implemented, would dovetail with US aspirations for the South Asian region, and would significantly marginalize China, Iran and Russia. On the domestic front, though, Musharraf's reputation in some hardline Islamic quarters as a stooge for the US would be further damaged, raising the prospects of more internal strife.
Don't know if this is for-real, or just someone trying to sell someone else a bridge in Brooklyn, but if it's a for-real, it would be a major diplomatic coup for us and a brave move for Musharaaf.
The same writer had a piece on the U.S. turning to the Talibs to settle Afghanistan last week. Either he knows something none of the rest of us know, or he's thinking wishfully. It's an idea that stinks out loud. If that part of it smells, the rest of it's probably from the same source. The Kashmir deal would be unacceptable to the jihadis because it would give part of Kashmir to India, unacceptable to India because it'd give most of it to Pakland — because the Paks and their front organizations have killed or chased out the Pandits. Given the level of sweet reason prevailing in Pakistan, I'd call chances of diplomatic relations with Israel a pipedream. Having Pak troops in Iraq would also be a crummy idea; the biggest trouble areas we have are the Sunni areas (read wahhabi), so adding Sunni troops to the mix isn't the way to go. In fact, adding Muslim troops into the mix is probably a crummy idea in general.
Posted by: Mike || 06/18/2003 06:18 am || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Fred:

@#$%^& Netscape bunged up the formatting commands! Please fix the hilite.

First line should read "Found via the Brothers Judd." with an appropriate hyperlink to http://brothersjudd.blogspot.com
Posted by: Mike || 06/18/2003 6:31 Comments || Top||

#2  A clear road map for resolution of the Kashmir conflict in which the "Chanab" formula, which envisages the division of Kashmir along religious lines, is likely to be adopted. Thus, the Muslim-majority areas would be allowed to join Pakistan, while the areas where Hindus and Buddhists are in the majority would remain with India.

This would involve India handing over a large chunk of its Kashmir over to Pakland. I can say with a lot of assurance that nobody in India will ever agree to that. If the Islamofascist want to live under Sharia they are welcome to piss off to NWFP.
Posted by: rg117 || 06/18/2003 6:56 Comments || Top||

#3  This makes no sense. Large numbers of Hindus and Sikhs have fled Kashmir to escape Muslim terrorism. Chunks of what is now Pakistan were Hindu majority areas pre-partition. Will Pakistan now hand over those areas to India? Will India have to hand over to Pakistan areas that are majority Muslim?
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 06/18/2003 11:16 Comments || Top||

#4  Pakistani "diplomacy":

"For $ 1.8 billion we'll recognize Israel. For 1.6 we'll establish an embassy but only send a charge d'affaires, no embassador. For 1 billion we'll establish a consulate, no embassy. For 800 million we'll establish an economic and cultural office only. For 500 million we'll establish only an official tourism office. For 100 million we'll have a foreign ministry official go on vacation there every once in a while. On the other hand, for 3 billion we'll recognize Israel and establish an embassy in Jerusalem. For 5 billion Perv will address the Knesset. For 7 billion Perv will offer to pray at the Western Wall. For 50 billion Pakistani archaeologists and Islamic scholars will attempt to prove that the "farthest mosque" mentioned in the Koran was not on Temple Mount in Jerusalem, but was actually located in Karachi, and that Muhammed ascended to heaven from Pakistan"
Posted by: liberalhawk || 06/18/2003 11:50 Comments || Top||

#5  Raptor---Mecca is at Lat N21d29m Long E39d45m

The opposite side of the globe for the Farthest Mosque would be Lat S21d29m Long W140d15m, which is 180 deg from Mecca in longitude.

That puts you smack dab in the South Pacific between S America and Australia, roughly speaking. Put the mosque on a barge and park it out there. A good place for it, heh heh.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 06/18/2003 21:33 Comments || Top||

#6  You know,I keep hearing about this"Farthest Mosque"thing it seems to me the farthest mosque would be the closest Mosque 180degrees opposite Mecca.Anybody know where that would be?
Posted by: raptor || 06/18/2003 20:25 Comments || Top||

#7  Um...180 degrees in what direction? From Jerusalem to Mecca, 180 degrees would probably be out in the Indian Sea...any mosques on Diego Garcia? No? Good!
Posted by: Frank G || 06/18/2003 21:15 Comments || Top||


Iraq
UK Seeks Deals With Iraqi Prisoners, U.S. Reluctant
Replace "U.S." with "Bad Cop" and "Britain" with "Good Cop":
The U.S. has spurned repeated calls from its all-time war alley Britain to cut deals with top Iraqi officials, now in the custody of the Anglo-American forces, in swap for information on the whereabouts of ousted president Saddam Hussein and Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD), reported a leading British newspaper Wednesday. British officials told American colleagues that offering to free the detained Iraqis, who feature on the U.S.-drafted list of most wanted 55 members of the ousted regime, is the only way to extract information from them about Saddam and his weapons arsenal, reported The Times.
Bad Cop: "You're gonna fry, asshole!"
Good Cop: "Just give me something and I'll talk to the DA."

British officials told the daily that although frequently squeezed by the CIA and Britain’s MI6, none of the 31 former Iraq officials had divulged any information during intensive interrogation. They may be afraid of incriminating themselves, or scared of possible revenge by Saddam’s loyalists, British investigators argue. London is, therefore, proposing to offer them protection and a new life overseas if their information were decisive.
Good Cop: "Witness protection program, a nice flat in Oxford, free health care, just give me one chemical storage site."
Among the most important former officials in the U.S.-British custody are Tariq Aziz, the former Deputy Prime Minister, Zuhayr Talib abd al-Sattar al-Naqib, director of military intelligence, Amir Hamudi Hasan al-Sadi, a presidential advisor on scientific and technical affairs, and Rihab Taha, known in the west as Dr Germ. But the British appeals fell on deaf ears in Washington, with U.S. President George Bush’s administration adamant not to bargain with the Iraqis.
Bad Cop: "And it's up, against the wall, Bathist Mother!"
"We have been trying for ages to persuade the Americans but they have come up with all kinds of legal arguments," an unnamed British government official said.
"Something about trees and ropes, we're trying to get it translated."
According to The Times, a few top scientists have been flown out of Iraq, but most of the detainees are still being held at an undisclosed location in Baghdad. They all stick to one story, namely, that Iraq had no clandestine WMD program, British investigators told the paper.
"Ve know nuthing, nuthing."
Posted by: Steve || 06/18/2003 12:52 pm || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  "Say, Bertie, don't you need to go have a cuppa? I'll just have a little chat with Abdul here until you get back, eh? " (wink wink)
Posted by: mojo || 06/18/2003 14:34 Comments || Top||

#2  Lesson: Don't bring a rock to a gun fight. The reason for the gun is to enforce your will on others. We will never win this you start placing stupid and dangerous rules of engagement restrictions. Lesson is do as your told and don't confront soldiers with guns or you may end up getting shot!
Posted by: patrickpayne || 06/18/2003 22:57 Comments || Top||


Aces High! U.S. captures "Ace of Diamonds"
U.S. forces in Iraq have made their highest arrest so far from the list of 55 most-wanted Iraqis. Gen. Abid Hamid Mahmud al-Tikriti, the Ace of Diamonds in Central Command's deck of cards, was taken into custody, Pentagon officials told Fox News. Al-Tikriti was No. 4 on the most-wanted list, behind only Saddam Hussein and his sons Uday and Qusay. Al-Tikriti was Saddam's personal secretary, national security adviser and senior bodyguard.
Posted by: Mike || 06/18/2003 11:45 am || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Let's hope he leads the US to #1-3 and we find out what happened to the WMD so the Dems/lefties can be shut up
Posted by: AWW || 06/18/2003 13:29 Comments || Top||

#2  Don't think that the lefties will ever shut up: they'll just find something else to gripe about. Still, it would be nice to force them to scramble to find the next quagmire.

This guy WILL talk. No need to harm him at all: just offer to release him . . . . after spreading the word that he did talk and we're setting him up in his own guarded --- lightly --- villa as a reward.
Posted by: Ralph || 06/18/2003 15:18 Comments || Top||

#3  excellent - they also captured 50 baathist foot soldiers, weapons, money and jewels. Evidently this was either an organizing point for Baathist resistance, on the trail to Saddam and sons, or both.
Posted by: liberalhawk || 06/18/2003 12:00 Comments || Top||

#4  I hope this guy get's a good night's sleep.
Posted by: Matt || 06/18/2003 12:36 Comments || Top||


US troops fire on Iraqi protest
Breaking news from the Beeb
American troops have opened fire on a demonstration in Baghdad. There are reports of several casualties, with the AFP news agency saying that one man was shot dead. The demonstration — by sacked members of the Iraqi army — was taking place outside the main entrance to the former presidential compound which now houses the US-led military coalition running Iraq. Demonstrators started throwing stones at the US guards who responded with gunfire. The crowd also set upon a television crews and beat passing United Nations and television vehicles with their shoes, witnesses said. "Demonstrators began to scatter when the gunfire sounded," said AP photographer Victor Caivano. "Newsmen also retreated under a hail of stones." Mr Caivano said demonstrators told him that two or three people had been killed. But he said that could not be immediately confirmed and he did not see any casualties being taken away.
FoxNews this morning said two dead Iraqis, followed by a sniping that killed an American about an hour later...
The demonstration took place as US troops intensified their searches in the capital for illegal weapons and supporters of Saddam Hussein's regime. The military says about 400 people have been arrested since the latest operation, dubbed Desert Scorpion, began on Sunday. The searches have aroused widespread resentment, despite what the military says are efforts to show sensitivity without endangering the soldiers.
Posted by: Bulldog || 06/18/2003 04:37 am || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  RW> As usual you completely miss my point. You say that I somehow claimed that I have the power to judge if the use of force was justified or not? It was the very opposite. It's *badanov* that claimed to know whether it was justified or not (to the point that he called it a non-issue unworthy of the slightest discussion) and I disputed that claim of his.

Right now I'm watching scenes from certain riots in Michigan. I see people are throwing rocks to the police, yet would badanov call it a "non-issue" if police started shooting on the crowd as a response?

Don> I quite agree with you. But you also missed my point, which concerned how nowadays statehood is considered a permanent state of affairs. It seems therefore that Puerto Rico can keep on having referendums of whether it will become an American state or not, until "they give the right answer", after which the referendums with stop.

And, unlike JFM, I don't really see anything wrong with that. (Not that this will happen in the EU -- in the foreseeable future, all countries will retain right to depart)

JFM> Those few changes weren't just "technical", they included Denmark's non-participation in the EMU, non-participation in any common defense, pretty much all the sticking points that people and politicians seemed not to like.

You also forgot United Kingdom from your list. And Switzerland.

As a sidenote in this forum you are often said to belong to a nation of "asswipes", and people constantly wonder why I would want to be in the same union with you. Because supposedly Greeks are so much better than the French, you see. An idea I quite disagree with, mind you.

Nothing in common between our nations? Both Huntington and Kagan would disagree with you. Huntington would classify us both as "Westerners" (actually he places Greece in a different "Orthodox civilisation", but personally I see it as nothing more than a subdivision of the same "Western" civilisation, same as the division between Western-European and American varieties of the same)

And Kagan sees enough of a difference in the ways that Europeans and Americans see the world, that it seems to me saying we have nothing in common is quite a bit of a hyperbole.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 06/18/2003 14:21 Comments || Top||

#2  ari, arguably the UK works cause all of its components are essentially english speaking. Switz works cause its central govt is so limited. Neither of which are likely to be true for the EU.

Note wrt to Puerto Rico - its current status is a US "commonwleath" repeated referenda give it option of statehood, OR independence. It is NOT now a sovereign state, so its not quite the same thing.

Posted by: liberalhawk || 06/18/2003 14:48 Comments || Top||

#3  this whole discussion misses the oint. Of course if US troops fire on iraqis its not a "non-story" Whats objectionable is that the Beeb said that they fired on "protestors", burying the mention of the rock throwing, and not mentioning at all the accusation that members of the crowd were firing weapons. It is still a story, but a different one, and basically much less of a story. And if the police fire on protestors in Michigan, I certainly hope no paper will bury details about any rock throwing.
Posted by: liberalhawk || 06/18/2003 14:53 Comments || Top||

#4  heres the independents headline

"US troops shoot dead Iraqi protesters "

You'd think they would have gone after some live ones, no?

Posted by: liberalhawk || 06/18/2003 15:30 Comments || Top||

#5  Interesting that JFM points out the lack of democratic traditions in Europe. I believe THAT is the major reason that there is so much distrust of the U.S. in Old Europe. France's revolution was nothing like ours, why would we expect the result to be the same? So why are we surprised when they are flirting with impending Islamization? Just WHEN did they become a democracy, anyhow? Pre or post Emperor de Gaulle? Ditto, Germany. And they question our motives and attempts at bringing our version of freedom to Asian nations? I think Mexico might have a longer string of free elections than either. When the term 'democracy' is used by Americans and most Europeans, they're not talking about the same thing.
Posted by: Scott || 06/18/2003 15:57 Comments || Top||

#6  "If anything the nations who have a real democratic tradition (and that does not include Germany) should break of the EU and ask to become United States."

Now when did France start its "real democratic tradition"? With Robespierre who chopped off every dissenting head? Napoleon? Pétain?

Bulldog, you say "Political and social integration, however, is unnecessary, undesirable and dangerous.
So how about a Europe of hundred states? Catalonia, Bavaria, Britanny, Basque Country? Why an United Kingdom? Did Scotland ever peacefully and democratically join the UK?

Scott- The democratic tradition of Germany is much older than you think. In the late 18th century the Western parts of Germany (then not a state) embraced democratic principles à la francaise (which were stomped out by the German princes). In 1848 we had a democratic parliament in Frankfurt for a short time (the Prussian military ended that one). We had just less luck than others. Democracy in post WW2 Germany didn't flourish because it was forced upon us by the US and UK, but because it grew on democratic roots that where there way before.
Posted by: True German Ally || 06/18/2003 16:24 Comments || Top||

#7  The BBC has an outstanding reputation for twisting facts and slanting stories.

A reporter asking another reporter what was seen. This is the BBC's standard of journalism. Sorta like staying in a hotel and reporting the whole nation is descending into chaos all becuase some Iraqis are smart enough to go to the hotel where they are staying (and from which they will not venture) to stage demostrations.

What gets me is the headline: US troops fire on protestors. We only find out that rocks had been thrown at the US soldiers in the fourth sentance. Clearly this is a non-story, except the communists at the BBC saw fit to twist it into a Brutal US Troops Fire on Poor Unarmed Civilians story.
Posted by: badanov || 06/18/2003 7:29 Comments || Top||

#8  In most European countries, people throwing rocks isn't considered a really adequate excuse for armed forces to shoot them dead.

A non-story? It depends on what level of violence you consider as justifiable self-defense.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 06/18/2003 7:59 Comments || Top||

#9  While this is certainly not good, there's no point in encouraging people to be morons.

People move on from rocks, to molotov cocktails, to guns, etc.
Posted by: Hiryu || 06/18/2003 8:16 Comments || Top||

#10  You seem to have a thing for the BBC even though other news channels have a similar headline. Sky News which is owned by your beloved Rupert Murdoch, sister station of you even more beloved FoxNews has the headline TROOPS OPEN FIRE ON DEMO. Not too different, do you belive Murdoch has been hiring Commies too?
Posted by: rg117 || 06/18/2003 8:19 Comments || Top||

#11  Badanov's point is that BBC is relying on secondary sources (and probably tertiary, quaternary, etc.). Of course, I'm sure many media organizations share similar shoddy standards.

Aris, I would imagine US troops are empowered to confront deadly force w. the use of deadly force. Can you tell me why a (barrage of) 5 lb. rock(s) is less deadly than a well-placed .223 round?

Perhaps you're referring to the upcoming debut of sharia within the EU. In that case, you are correct, the throwee is not often empowered to defend themselves against the throwers, as they are buried up to the waist. Viva mullah chirac!


Posted by: mjh || 06/18/2003 8:34 Comments || Top||

#12  Last time I heard, stones could be used as lethal weapons. Use potentially lethal force against armed men, and what do you expect? Them to wait until one of them falls to the ground? And last time I heard, Iraq wasn't a European country. It's an Asian one, and unstable following a war in which its ruling regime was overthrown by foreign forces. The situation's a little different from downtown Athens on a Saturday night.

I agree badanov's criticism of the BBC in this case is a little harsh. To be honest the reporting of this story didn't raise my eyebrows at all. But then, I apply my mental 'BBC slant-adjustor' without even thinking about it nowadays.
Posted by: Bulldog || 06/18/2003 8:36 Comments || Top||

#13  For some hypocritical greeks just let's remember that Danish police forces opened fire on their own citizens who were demonstrating against the EU. They killed two. And it has not been the only time demonstrators against the EU had been killed.

Significant differences: these were not civilians and probably not ordinary (ie conscript) Iraqui military. They were far more probably former Republican guard who instead of demonstrating should be rejoicing for having been spared (notice that the mistake can be mended. Another point is that there is probably some sort of martial law in Iraq. Still another one is that these are not US citizens so there is no reason US soldiers should show the same restraint. Finally, soldiers are neither trained or equiped to deal softly with demonstrators: if you throw rocks at them you know that you are likely to get a bullet.

Now go tell the EuroNazis to be softer on demonstrators.
Posted by: JFM || 06/18/2003 8:36 Comments || Top||

#14  VIOLENT DEMONSTRATION LEADS TO TWO DEATHS

BAGHDAD, Iraq – U.S. forces from the 204th Military Police Company responded in self-defense to a demonstration outside of the Office of Coalition Provisional Authority compound this morning when it became violent.

A military convoy was entering the compound when demonstrators began throwing rocks. One demonstrator pulled out a weapon and began shooting. U.S. Forces responded killing two of the demonstrators.

The two Iraqis were evacuated to 1st Armored Division Battalion Aid Station and confirmed dead.

The demonstration, at a site of regular gatherings, was being held to protest the lack of jobs.

From Central Command
Posted by: Chuck (not Taylor) || 06/18/2003 8:44 Comments || Top||

#15  "For some hypocritical greeks just let's remember that Danish police forces opened fire on their own citizens who were demonstrating against the EU. They killed two. And it has not been the only time demonstrators against the EU had been killed."

I'd like more information about that. Because I somehow seriously doubt it was treated as a "non-issue" by people based only on the excuse that "they were throwing rocks".

If the US forces fired in self-defense, that's fine. But don't call it a non-issue just because some people were throwing rocks. There exist enough weapons in Iraq that had people wanted to use lethal force on Americans they'd have used *guns* instead of rocks -- as this latest report by Chuck seems to indicate may have indeed happened.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 06/18/2003 9:06 Comments || Top||

#16  It was the day of the second Danish referendum about the Maastricht treaty. European democracy at work: if people vote yes then, like in France they are not allowed to change minds but if they vote no kee calling referendums until they give the right answer.
Posted by: JFM || 06/18/2003 9:17 Comments || Top||

#17  If I remember correctly Denmark received four or five opt-outs from the treaties before it went on to the second referendum. Until they give the right answer? The question was rather different.

They're not allowed to change minds? Yes, your absurd arrogance not withstanding, nothing stops them for voting for a different government that'll put forward a new referendum on any issue it desires.

Where are you from, JFM? If you're from America I'd like to call you when was the last time that certain states in the South were allowed to vote on the matter of secession.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 06/18/2003 9:38 Comments || Top||

#18  Ari - they didn't ask first. They just rebeled. Or as Congress is/was empowered - To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. Nothing on the books stopped them from submitting a Constitutional Admendment to permit legal succession. Their problem [as it was for the Japanese nearly a hundred years later] was that they attacked a federal installation. Once the bombs started flying [in both cases], the issue would be resolved by force. Lesson - don't shoot first unless you're damn sure you're going to come out on top when its over.
Posted by: Don || 06/18/2003 10:02 Comments || Top||

#19  Folks folks. Remember that Aris thru his powers of bi-location was there standing next to the US troops in Baghdad during the demo, so he is well qualified to comment on what level of force should have been used. In his opinion it was too much. Let's accept it and move on.
Posted by: RW || 06/18/2003 10:14 Comments || Top||

#20  I am from France. Our election was tilted by a massive pro-euro campaign funded by public money. And I am sorry but forcing another referendum very shortly after the first one even with a few technical changes is like trying a person two times for the same crime (until you find a judge who gives the right answer). And if you want my whole opinion the so-called EU is only a conglomerate of countries who have nothing in common and are hold together only by a system of subsidies amounting to corruption of the electorate but who implode at the first shock. It will be as weak as all conglomerate nations: the Austrian empire, Yougoslavia. Or the Persians. If anything the nations who have a real democratic tradition (and that does not include Germany) should break of the EU and ask to become United States. Yes, those United States. :-))))))))
Posted by: JFM || 06/18/2003 10:22 Comments || Top||

#21  Well, Bonjour JFM! It's always good to hear some sanity from France.

You're bang on as regards the EU. There's nothing whatsoever wrong in principle with the EU as a simple trading bloc. Political and social integration, however, is unnecessary, undesirable and dangerous. IMHO, those who advocate it are either deluded through slavish adherence to unworkable ideology, incapable of visualising the inevitable consequences, gullible, or power-crazed transnationalists. Vive la difference!

PS You missed the Ottoman Empire and the USSR off your list.
Posted by: Bulldog || 06/18/2003 10:43 Comments || Top||

#22  A soldier, which has picked up a rock to throw at another soldier. These were not women and children protesting the Evil USA (TM) for food. These were soldiers demanding they be paid and subsequent to not getting paid, resort to physical violence to express themselves.


All of which means that violence must be met with violence. I don;t know the full facts of the story, but I do know that commanders in the field cannt even take a dump in the open without checking with military lawyers. I have every faith in the US Military an appropriate amount of counterforce was applied to the situation.

And yes I have a HUGE thing for the BBC. Where I work I am daily forced to listen to these Marxists spout their opinion on virtually every news story they broadcast. It is not such a great leap that the facts of this story have been twisted to suit their own ends, as has obviously been done. But for me the corker was interviewing another reporter.

Holy Lord! Are journalists so fully qualified to report on a story they can't get for themselves that they must consult another reporter who was actually there, and with no clear corroboration? This is the HIGH standard for those communists and it is with great justification I will continually pillory this dangerous Marxist inspired news organization.
Posted by: badanov || 06/18/2003 11:32 Comments || Top||

#23  A situation with ten of our guys vs two hundred demonstrators is an extremely dangerous situation for our guys, especially if they're only, say, ten yards apart. Note that people in the crowd could have concealed weapons that enable them to open fire at any moment. What we have in Iraq is a condition of martial law, until all resistance is wiped out. Demonstrations should be forbidden as a matter of policy. Until Iraq is pacified, let them say what they like in private.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 06/18/2003 12:16 Comments || Top||

#24  france's democratic tradition goes back to 1871 and the fall of Napoleon III. Theyve had uninterrupted democratic governance, except for the Vichy interlude. And while Vichy certainly reached to undemocratic roots in France, it was also a result of their interaction with an invading country, which it is more polite not to name. Many here will deny that France is democratic anyway, because of the relative autonomy of its civil service, and the elitist nature of entry into officeholding - im not eager to start that debate - im not sure the Bundesrepublik is so much superior to France on those grounds.

Germanys democratic traditions pre-1945 are shakier than your comment implies. The young people of 1848 accepted Prussian militarism with surprising ease - and German liberals managed to compromise with it for the life of the second reich - and the democratic experience under Weimar was also difficult. Now there is of course a debate as to whether this was due to intrinsic aspects of German culture, Germanys situation of uniting late, or simply due to the geopolitical situation in which imperial germany found herself (the Caleo thesis) However it is glossing over things to pretend that Germanys pre-1945 roots are as strong as those of the states to Germanys north and west.

Posted by: liberalhawk || 06/18/2003 17:20 Comments || Top||

#25  tga - of course scotland never joined the UK - england and Scotland joined to form the UK, under the act of Union in 1707(?). the suffrage was not democratic, but then that was normal for 1707. It was certainly peaceful and legal. And generally accepted by Scots to this day.
Posted by: liberalhawk || 06/18/2003 17:23 Comments || Top||

#26  a europe of a hundred states is probably desirable to the Catalans, basques and brittons, for whom acting in France or Spain means loss of their own language - their democratic opportunities in europe may be no worse. For Bavarians and english-speaking scots i suspect its another matter. Bavarians seem to be willing to go with europe for the same reasons as other germans - the intrinsic problems of german statehood, rather than bavarian subnationalism. The scots seem willing to chance europe - though not all are keen are full integration into a superstate. I would assume that Scotty nats and LDs are willing - but that Scots Labor voters follow Blair in a slightly cooler enthusiasm for Europe. But not many tories in Scotland.
Posted by: liberalhawk || 06/18/2003 17:29 Comments || Top||

#27  liberalhawk, no doubt that Scandinavia and Britain have deeper roots and a longer democratic traditions. The decisive point is: Germany is a stable democracy now. And will remain so.

Many European nations were actually put together of pieces that didn't match: France is an excellent example for that: Occitania, Basque, Britanny, Alsace... yet there is no doubt that they all feel very French now. This was achieved by force btw.

Why shouldn't it work for Europe when it's a free democratic choice?
Posted by: True German Ally || 06/18/2003 17:54 Comments || Top||

#28  My, my, my.

When I say democracy, I'm referring to a form of rule by law that merely acknowledges the innate rights that all human beings should have. Our founders said those rights were God-ordained, and were so obvious as to be 'self-evident'. They may have been giving us too much credit. Or maybe not, because the system has enough power checks in it to prevent rule by despot or mob. But it's true genius is shown that when those "poor masses" get engrafted, they receive a higher view of the dignity of all men, not just themselves. Therefore, democracy (at least American-style democracy) is more an attitude toward the governed than a style of governance. (and we may be finding that that cannot be imposed) The American birthright is to believe that ALL men should be free, and that as Americans, we should maybe do something to see that it happens. For this, the western world thinks we're "cowboys" and the east has no grid for it. Have you not noticed that Americans bristle when people in other lands are oppressed? Who else worries about such things?Why do we do that? Who are they to us? Just potential customers? Or dangerous savages that need babysat lest they produce better spears? No. It's that we don't see ourselvers as fundamentally any better than them. Or more precisely, we see ourselves IN them. That makes us want to act. France, Germany, Russia, all had empires. To what end? The domination of others. We defeat nations and make them better. Who does that?

Are Americans arrogant? Yeah. Humility and power are hard to balance. But much of Europe and Japan bear our ideological imprint, and it's a dang sight different than what Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin and Tojo were exporting.

Democracy, like any truth, must be struggled with or it's never truly received. There are no grandchildren. Americans are just lucky (blessed, I believe) to have been given a good framework that we could struggle within and not spin out of control.
Posted by: Scott || 06/18/2003 21:36 Comments || Top||

#29  TGA, you forgot von Humboldt.
Posted by: Brian || 06/19/2003 0:47 Comments || Top||

#30  TGA

I think it is fair you have your deutschmark back. And I think it is fair the ECB being dissolved and we get back our Franc.

About the partnership in leadership things have changed since 1991. Perhaps you haven't noticed but while Frnace is not in very good shape Germany is the "sick man of Europe" with growth rates who have been consistently inferior to the French ones during a whole decade and a demography who will make the French problems for pension funding look like a triffle by comparison.

Now we have a problem in the bad will Chirak and the pro-Europe press have built between the USA and us in order to please their German masters.
Posted by: JFM || 06/19/2003 4:08 Comments || Top||

#31  TGA, don't you agree at all with the "dangerous" aspect of European integration I mentioned earlier? ;) Let's be realistic.
Posted by: Bulldog || 06/19/2003 4:24 Comments || Top||

#32  Okay, Aris,; My turn to twist your words against you.

I said this was a non-story because it was clearly written by someone who was not there; relying upon what another reporter saw. I don't know about how the Euros run their papers but the first time a reporter working for me files a story in which the main witness is another reporter, that reporter will be walking the streets trying to find new work.

The writer didn't even bother talking to the site commander for the US or anyone else. Just took what a photographer was saying, and filed that as the gospel truth.There are plenty of reason to suspect this story and for me to call it a non-story.

What the writer did is typical of the crap BBC spews forth daily in the name of journalism. And the funny thing is, they not only never get it right, they almost alway favor the the enemy.

I post these things against the BBC, so they sound shrill. You want me to shut up? Let me witness the BBC start telling the truth and filing stories that tell the whole truth; not what the Marxists at the BBC want you to believe.

So this can get personal. I promise I will not call it a non-story if protestors get shot. However,if you personally get shot throwing rocks at soldiers, this will definately be a non-story for me. Deal? Deal!
Posted by: badanov || 06/18/2003 18:12 Comments || Top||

#33  TGA france spent several hundred years forcefully destroying the local languages.

Thats the real question? doesnt a true vibrant democracy require a common dialogue - politicians statements, party platforms, etc that all can understand in a common language?? Will a multilingual state necessarily be a bureaucratic one, removed from the people (aggravated perhaps, by the existing bureaucratic tendencies of many european states) The histories of Belgium, Canada, and India are mixed,Im afraid. Switzerland is not meaningful example.

I can certainly see that there are reasons FOR further integration - though i'll let you point those it - but i think its a mistake to not see the potential for some tradeoff in political democracy. and I see valid concerns on that point from brits, danes, etc. And while i certainly dont think the US should in any way interfere with the process, i dont think we need to be in the cheering section either.
Posted by: liberalhawk || 06/18/2003 18:24 Comments || Top||

#34  Scott

Calling De Gaulle an emperor is positively stupid. He was ever uncompromising about the Republic, he abolished Vichy's laws against the Jews (as a side note they had been keept in vigor after Torch by Roosevelt's minions ie Darlan and Giraud) and last but not least he resigned in 1969 after a reform about Senate's powers was rejected by the people. Had he been a Chirac he could have climbed to power for three additional years but he didn't want to rule without people's approval.

About Mexico's democracy you have to be joking. Why they have had a string of elections, a string of free, untamperedelections is a different thing. Just consider the following Mexican joke:

-American: "We are a very modern country. We know the name of the new President just five minutes after the closure of the election".
-Mexican: "That is nothing. We know our new President six months before the election"


True Geman Ally:

What I menat is that French and Germans have nothing in common: our languages are completely differnt (and French is much closer to English than to German), we don't eat the same things, we don't have the same vision of world or the same attitude vto life and death. In about everything we are closer to the Anglo-Saxons than to you (you could object that you are still closer to them but that is not tyhe point) and sooner or later either you or us will begin to wonder what we are doing togzether in the EU. Not to mention when French discover they gave their independence and that you rule the EU. About France's democratic roots: an undemocratic royalty was forced down our throats in 1815, in 1830 the bourgeois cheated the people in accepting constitutional monarchy, democracy in 1848 for two years, Napoleon III (who abolished fortune-based restrictions to vote) and full democracy after 1870 except for a dictatorship of four years due to German interference. While we are at French history believe it or not Robespierre was one of the few members of the Constituante who were for democracy, all others wanted to keep the vote for the rich. He also was againt the war because he foresaw it would lead to tyranny (he didn't foresaw the tyrant would be himself). Notice too that the Terror proper had a body count in the low thousands and that France was under invasion in several of its borders. Counterinsurgency operations at Lyon or in Vendee were bloodier but still nothing comparable with what the Bolsheviks did.

Liberalhawk:

Sorry but you know little about history and geography in Europe. Let's take the example of Catalonia. It happens I lived there. It is not poor opressed Catalans against eeeeeevil Castilian opressors, it is region who is richer than the remainder of Spain and now snobs the others. Why are they richer? Because during XIXth century the Spanish state was protectionnist a thing who was good for Catlonia and Basque country but who empoverished Castilia and the Southern half of Spain. An additional reason is that it benefitted from cheap labor coming from South of Spain and the rason it was cheap was Franco's police was ensuring they didn't unionize. When democracy came the people whio had come from Aragon or Andalucia were about nearly as many as Catalans but the left let them down, they couldn't vote for the national right who was too close to Franquism at those times and the people who tried to make a party for representing them in Catalonia got a bullet in the kneecap. Today Catalonia is in a state of semi-apartheid with the Spanish speakers being treated as second rate people.

Also there is a nation in Europe who sees itself as reatively homogeneous and has been trying to fan nationalisms in order to make implode its neighbours. This nation is Germany. There is a powerful German society who has been funding seperatist movements everywhere in Europe (except Germany of course). A couple years ago Arte (a Franco-german TV) had a special about Scotland consiting in a series of dccumentaries all of them negative about Scotland's relationship with England and all of them German. (Arte's programs are half German and hamf French).

About Basques: They have had a first class writer in all of their history: Unamuno. But he wrote in Spanish (BTW the instiators of Basque naionalism didn't speak Basque). In fact he was a Spanish nationalist despite being Basque. His name is banished from their streets.
Posted by: JFM || 06/18/2003 18:58 Comments || Top||

#35  Reading JFM I guess he DID in fact look up the photo posted on LGF!
If we have nothing in common with France... well, can I have my Deutschmarks back, Monsieur Mitterand? Maybe the Rantburgers are right and Europe won't work. Not with that attitude.
Maybe Germany has more in common with the United States after all.
We should have been more keen to accept the "partner in leadership" offer George Bush made us in 1991.

Je crois que ça ne vous aurait pas amusé, JFM?
Posted by: True German Ally || 06/18/2003 20:31 Comments || Top||

#36  Saw some photos on Yahoo news the ones I saw showed the protesters and soldiers within 2 feet(1/2 meter) of each other.That close you don't need to throw a rock to kill.
Posted by: raptor || 06/18/2003 20:46 Comments || Top||

#37  Bulldog- yeah I see it now, you were right :-)

JFM- German economy has problems for the following reasons:
- reunification drained ressources much more than expected as we took over a country in dismal shape
- rampant bureaucracy and inflexibility (job market, investors etc.)
- growing "cheap" competition from Eastern Europe
- demographic factors (too many rather "young" pensioners, not enough young working people to pay for the pensions; well you French have all the young Islamic families to pay for your pensions, right?)
- bureaucratic and too expensive health care system
- Unflexible money market due to fixed ECB interest rates (which should be lower for Germany and higher for Ireland)
- (too high farm subsidies for France?)

Schroeder's Agenda 2010 is a step in the right direction to reforms but way not enough. I hope the next government will finally push for radical reforms.
German masters? Oh come on now. Hand over your veto right to us now, will you?
Posted by: True German Ally || 06/19/2003 14:49 Comments || Top||


Southeast Asia
Filipino police arrest alleged bombing suspects
Police in the Philippines have arrested four suspects - including three Indonesians - for allegedly planning bomb attacks in the country's south. The suspects are being questioned about possible links with Jemaah Islamiah (JI), which has been blamed for the Bali bombing. The men allegedly attempted to bomb sites in two cities in the southern Philippines. The Philippine military claims a loose alliance between JI and local rebels. Police say the suspects were found carrying an improvised bomb and some explosive materials. Immigration authorities say Indonesian and Pakistani members of JI are hiding in the southern Philippines to train local Islamic militants.
Kind of puts a crimp on this statement from the MILF:
The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) on Wednesday denied claims that the group had trained Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) militants on trial for deadly bombings in Indonesia. The MILF also rejected an allegation that the group had contacts with JI leader Abu Bakar Bashir, a detained Indonesian cleric on trial in Jakarta. "We deny any involvement or any contact between the two organizations," MILF spokesman Eid Kabalu said on ABS-CBN television. Kabalu said there was no need to have contact with JI members because their objectives were different.
"Yes, our objectives are different. We want an islamic state in the Phillipines, and they want a islamic state in Indonesia. See, we have nothing in common."
Posted by: Steve || 06/18/2003 01:34 pm || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Bravo to the Phillipine Gov't. These guys (apologies to Prez Arroyo) are, easily, our most effective, dependable, and productive allies in the WoT. If only Frawnce (not to mention the rest of Old Europe) had a real Prez... well, on second thought, with their populace(s) happily swallowing a pathetic self-aggrandizing rear-view-mirror view of everything, it couldn't happen. Cast in amber and centuries out of date.
Posted by: PD || 06/19/2003 3:30 Comments || Top||


Philippines Links Jemaah Leader to 2000 Bombings
An Indonesian leader of the al Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiah network funded Muslim militants blamed for deadly bomb attacks in Manila in 2000, Philippine prosecutors said on Wednesday. They said they were collecting more evidence to see whether Riduan Isamuddin — also known as Hambali — could be prosecuted over the deaths of more than 20 people in the bombing of a train and other targets in the Philippine capital on December 30, 2000. The allegations coincided with the trials in Indonesia of cleric Abu Bakar Bashir, Jemaah's alleged spiritual head, for treason and of two other Islamic militants over the blasts on the resort island of Bali in October 2002 that killed 202 people.

Also on Wednesday, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) — the biggest Muslim rebel group in the Philippines — denied allegations made at Bashir's trial that Jemaah militants trained at its camps on the southern island of Mindanao. Philippine state prosecutor Peter Ong said Hambali's alleged involvement in the Manila bombings was revealed to investigators by self-confessed Jemaah member Fathur Rohman al-Ghozi, an Indonesian, and local Muslim militant Hadji Onos, alias Moklis. Al-Ghozi and Moklis, both in Philippine custody, are also being investigated over the attacks in Manila. "We cannot subpoena (Hambali) because we do not know his whereabouts," Ong told reporters. He said the pair had also named a Malaysian, Faiz Abu Bakar Bafana, as one of their financiers. "Based on the sworn statements of al-Ghozi and Moklis, Hambali and Faiz gave financial support to the bombing," he said.

Al-Ghozi is serving a 17-year prison term in the Philippines for possession of explosives and falsifying his travel papers. He has admitted in writing to being a member of Jemaah, which intelligence agencies have accused of plotting to bomb Western targets as part of a campaign to establish an Islamic state embracing parts of Southeast Asia. Al-Ghozi and Moklis were manacled and heavily guarded when they were taken to the Department of Justice building for a pre-trial hearing. "Yes, I admit it, even if I die here now," Moklis told prosecutors when asked whether he took part in planning the Manila train attack in 2000. Al-Ghozi was merely asked to sign his name and put his thumbmark on statements he had previously given to police admitting his involvement in the bombings. There was an emotional moment at the hearing when Moklis asked to talk alone with al-Ghozi. The two clasped hands before Moklis broke down and cried.
Let them hold hands when they count muzzle blasts.
Western intelligence agencies say Jemaah has links to al Qaeda. Singapore and Malaysia have rounded up dozens of alleged Jemaah members. There are also suspicions that the MILF has ties to Jemaah — a charge the Philippine rebels repeatedly deny. A witness at Bashir's trial told a Jakarta court on Tuesday he and other Indonesian militants had trained in handling explosives at an MILF camp in the southern Philippines in 1997 and 1998. "We do not allow Indonesians or any other foreigners to train in our camps," MILF spokesman Eid Kabalu told Reuters by telephone. "Our training camp is exclusively for the MILF and we train our people in guerrilla techniques and not in using explosives."
Sure you don't.
Posted by: Steve || 06/18/2003 10:10 am || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  "MILF" Great, so are you telling me that American Pie was a front to promote these guys?
Posted by: Paladin_six || 06/18/2003 13:39 Comments || Top||

#2  "Philippines Links Jemaah Leader to 2000 Bombings"

And how's that for a misleading headline?!
Posted by: Bulldog || 06/18/2003 10:54 Comments || Top||

#3  thought the same thing, Bulldog. The Philippines seem to be taking the terrorism thing seriously for a change
Posted by: Frank G || 06/18/2003 11:28 Comments || Top||

#4  2000 bombings?? holy crap!!
Posted by: RW || 06/18/2003 12:23 Comments || Top||


International
A new way of projecting American power - The number of troops based abroad will be reduced
This is at Jane's which is generally a reputable source.

Little is being said in public and, for the moment, most of the changes are imperceptible. Yet they amount to an extraordinary reassessment of the way US forces will be positioned around the world. Washington will continue to plan for wars anywhere around the globe. However, most troops will be positioned in the US, rather than in forward bases on various continents.
Posted by: SamIII || 06/18/2003 09:30 pm || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Sorry about the link. Here is the proper link.
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr030618_1_n.shtml
Posted by: SamIII || 06/18/2003 21:34 Comments || Top||

#2  Mobility is the name, flexibility is the game.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 06/18/2003 21:37 Comments || Top||

#3  What kind of Empire is this?! Shouldn't the global hegemon be increasing the number of troops stationed in foreign lands? This must be some devious plot by Bush to extend world domination by....
Posted by: Tokyo Taro || 06/18/2003 21:44 Comments || Top||

#4  This is an old story, just making another round. I worked on a project in 1989 whose goal was to develop a working plan to put a full division on the ground, anywhere in the world, with all its logistical train, in 72 hours. I'm sure that the plan has been refined substantially in the last 14 years.

There's a big difference between a plan and reality. The reality of accomplishing something like this requires a lot of hard work, phenominal amounts of coordination, and the right equipment in the right places. I hope the Pentagon is doing a better job of that now than they were in 1989. I think the slowness of our positioning troops for the war in Iraq had more to do with costs than the lack of planning or capability.
Posted by: Old Patriot || 06/18/2003 23:57 Comments || Top||


Iran
America will not tolerate Iranian nuclear arms, warns Bush
EFL and News
n his sternest warning yet to Iran, the United States President, George Bush, declared yesterday that he and other world leaders would not tolerate the development of nuclear weapons by the Islamic republic. He also demanded that the clerical regime treat "with the utmost respect" the pro-democracy protesters taking daily to the streets of Tehran.

After the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Iran and its suspected nuclear programme have moved to the top of the Bush administration's worry list. Though Iran insists its nuclear activities are purely for civilian purposes, US analysts believe Tehran could have a nuclear bomb as soon as 2006. "The international community must ... make it very clear to Iran that we will not tolerate construction of a nuclear weapon," Mr Bush said yesterday at the White House. There had been "near-universal agreement" at this month's G8 summit in Evian, France, to prevent that, he added. Washington says as well as seeking nuclear weapons, the clerical regime is sheltering al-Qa'ida operatives and sponsoring anti-Israeli terrorism. Washington hopes international pressure and the latest student-led protests against the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, will change the regime's ways. Reformists warn explicit support by the US may undermine the protesters' cause.
Think they've learned yet that when Bush says something is not gonna be tolerated, that he means he'll do something about it?
I doubt it
Posted by: Frank G || 06/18/2003 07:32 pm || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


Caucasus
US Troops To Be Deployed in Azerbaijan
It's dubious, it's barely coherent, it's PRAVDA!
The presidential election is to take place in the republic of Azerbaijan on October 15th. The closer the date, the stronger the intrigue. At first it was rumored that incumbent Azeri President Geydar Aliyev was going to refuse to participate in the election and nominate his son, Ilkham Aliyev. However, the president has recently announced that he is strongly determined to run for the presidency.

In fact, the 80-year-old president of Azerbaijan does not have any serious opponents at the election. But the intrigue has not vanished yet. Azeri mass media have recently reported that 15,000 American servicemen might soon be deployed from Germany to Azerbaijan. The corps, newspapers wrote, would be stationed in the country on a permanent basis. The Nezavisimaya Gazeta wrote with reference to Wall Street Journal that American military men would guard the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and take part in the struggle with the international terrorism. These goals are not really clear. Pipeline perspectives are rather vague at present, although it has been said and written a lot about this project lately. The struggle with the international terrorism is not clear either, because Azerbaijan has not been listed as a country, where terrorists exercised their activities. The neighboring republic of Georgia has been mentioned in this connection instead, but it has not been reported yet that American troops were going to be deployed there. It was said, though, that American instructors would train Georgian servicemen. What stops the Pentagon from doing the same in Azerbaijan?

There is an opinion that the deployment of the American military contingent will pursue another objective - to guarantee the stability of the current political regime in Azerbaijan. It is very important for the American administration both from the political and economic point of view - the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline and the access to the Caspian oil.

It is an open secret that Azerbaijan takes an extremely important strategic position in the region - it borders on Iran. Nevertheless, all Caucasian republics can boast of their strategic positions, but it does not mean that American army bases will be situated on their territories. There are a lot of problems and conflict zones in the region, both internal and foreign ones: Karabakh, Abkhazia, South Osetia. If the American administration is seriously interested in the US military presence in the Caucasus, it means that American military men will have to deal with those issues sooner or later. Is the game worth the candle? To all appearance, Washington does not have all answers yet. At least, the US ambassador to Baku Ross Wilson stated that the American administration did not have any plans to deploy troops in the republic. Plans can change very quickly, though.
Posted by: Bulldog || 06/18/2003 04:32 pm || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I see no compelling reason to station American troops in Azerbaijan - or even in Georgia, for that matter. I can see establishing rights of passage, training of local forces to provide force protection and protection of vital installations the United States might use in an emergency, but to actually station US forces there would not make a lot of sense. There is no easy connection between anywhere and Azerbaijan, except through another country - through the Straits of Bosphorus into the Black Sea then overland through Georgia, or through Iraq and Turkey into Georgia and Azerbaijan. Neither route makes much sense.

It DOES make sense to have contingency plans to use facilities in these two countries if there's a need to deal with Iran. Both Georgia and Azerbaijan are excellent places to launch a northern assault from. At the same time, the terrain over which military forces would have to move isn't the best, especially for armored units. A much more probable scenario is that this is information taken out of context and used to attempt to manipulate the upcoming elections.
Posted by: Old Patriot || 06/18/2003 21:10 Comments || Top||


East/Subsaharan Africa
Boeing, Boeing, Gone
My favorite African soap opera, "As The Boeing Turns" continues, edited for new info:
The Boeing 727 had not budged from its parking place at the airport in Angola's capital city for 14 months, so when the jetliner started taxiing down the runway, the men in the control tower radioed the pilot for an explanation. There was no reply from the cockpit, even after the plane rumbled to a takeoff into the African skies. The plane has been missing since it took off from the Luanda airport around dinnertime on May 25, setting off a continent-wide search for its whereabouts that includes the CIA, the State Department and a number of African nations. It has been a commonplace for decades in Africa for the paperwork on commercial aircraft, especially small and mid-sized planes, to be dodgy, and for regulation to be extremely lax, industry officials said. Planes continually change ownership, and the aprons of some African airstrips are littered with wrecked aircraft stripped for parts.

U.S. spy satellites have snapped pictures of remote airstrips throughout Africa, starting with ones that are within half a fuel tank's distance from Luanda's "4 de Fevereiro" International Airport. The 28-year-old 727 had taken on 14,000 gallons of A-1 jet fuel shortly before it departed. According to the private Airclaims airplane database, the 727's current owner is a Miami-based firm called Aerospace Sales & Leasing Co., which bought it in 2001 after it was flown by American Airlines for decades. In 1997, Aerospace Sales's president, Maury Joseph, was barred from running any publicly traded firm after he was convicted of forging documents and defrauding investors by exaggerating the profits of another company he ran, Florida West Airlines. Joseph's son, Lance Joseph, said the company has committed no wrong. He said a firm that had leased the plane from Aerospace Sales — a company whose name he said he couldn't recall — had removed the seats and replaced them with fuel tanks. It flew the 727 to Luanda with a plan to deliver fuel to remote African airfields, he said. According to the Airclaims database, a company called Irwin Air had planned to buy the 727 last month. No more information could be learned about the company. Helder Preza, Angola's aviation director, told the Portuguese radio network RDP that the plane arrived in Luanda in March 2002, but that authorities prevented it from flying on because "the documentation we held did not pertain to the aircraft in question." Angolan officials also demanded stiff ramp fees as well as settlement of private liens on the 727, Joseph said. Aerospace Sales was settling the disputes and planning to repossess the aircraft and fly it away when the 727 — one of about 1,100 worldwide — disappeared, he said.

Joseph also said that in recent months a former Aerospace Sales associate with whom he has had bitter financial disputes, Miami aircraft broker Mike Gabriel, had been in Africa stating that he planned to stop the plane's repossession and make a claim on it. In the 1980s, Gabriel was convicted of importing 5,000 pounds of marijuana. He did not return messages left at his office requesting comment, and his attorney, Jack Attias, declined to comment. Preza said that "the owner of the aircraft contacted us saying he wished to fly out of Angola." Then, he added, a man who presented himself as "the legitimate representative of the aircraft's owner'' — a man Preza described as a U.S. citizen but whom he declined to name — entered the aircraft. Moments later, Preza said, the man flew the plane away. "The person who flew out the plane was no stranger to the aircraft," Preza said. Another twist in the case is that the State Department is asking its diplomats in Africa, in searching for the 727, to ask host governments whether they have any information about two men that its cables say "reportedly" own the plane — Ben Padilla and John Mikel Mutantu. The men are not listed as owners on any public database, and no other information about them was available. Aviation expert Yates said the plane might never be located. "I suspect it's disappeared into the murky world of African aviation," he said.
Sounds more and more like I was right, either repo'ed or the last guy to own it (whoever that is) moved the plane to avoid repo man. It's either cut up for parts or getting a new paint job and phoney ID numbers.
Posted by: Steve || 06/18/2003 03:02 pm || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Maybe some enterprising African needs it to start "Air Despot". They'll fly out any corrupt African demogouge dictator and their plunder anywhere, anytime for a substantial sum. He already has a decent sized customer base.
Posted by: tu3031 || 06/18/2003 15:32 Comments || Top||

#2  With the addition of a mustachio and truncheon this would make a fine logo for Air Despot.
Posted by: Dick Saucer || 06/18/2003 16:36 Comments || Top||

#3  Fly Air Despot, when you have to leave the country overnight!
Posted by: Steve || 06/18/2003 16:46 Comments || Top||

#4  oops, that link should have gone to the Edward Low design, sorry to send you astray. There are some funny designs if you browse.
Posted by: Dick Saucer || 06/18/2003 16:49 Comments || Top||

#5  oops, that link should have gone to the Edward Low design, sorry to send you astray. There are some funny designs if you browse.
Posted by: Dick Saucer || 06/18/2003 16:49 Comments || Top||

#6  I wonder if Ben Padilla is related to Jose Padilla, the alleged Al Qaeda "dirty bomber."
Posted by: Tibor || 06/18/2003 17:59 Comments || Top||


Home Front
Instapundit Plugs Rantburg
Glenn Reynolds discusses what makes a good blog. Rantburg gets a mention (albeit brief) as a specialty blog.
Posted by: Raj || 06/18/2003 02:56 pm || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Duck! Here comes an Instalanche!
Posted by: Chuck (not Taylor) || 06/18/2003 15:00 Comments || Top||

#2  Good for Fred.
I hear Reynolds buys exclusively from Amazon.
Posted by: Scott || 06/18/2003 15:16 Comments || Top||

#3  This is like getting annoited by the Pope.
Posted by: ColoradoConservative || 06/18/2003 18:11 Comments || Top||


Abizaid nominated to head US Central Command
Jpost - Reg Req'd
An Arabic-speaking Army general of Lebanese descent has been nominated to replace Gen. Tommy Franks as head of U.S. Central Command, the Defense Department announced Wednesday. The nomination of Lt. Gen. John Abizaid, currently second-in-command under Franks, was widely expected since Franks announced last month he would retire this summer. Abizaid must be confirmed by the Senate before taking the reins at Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations from the Horn of Africa to Central Asia, including Iraq and a large swath of the Middle East. Abizaid, a grandson of Lebanese immigrants, speaks fluent Arabic, which he studied at a university in Jordan. He also holds a master's degree in Middle East studies from Harvard and has said he loves the region's people and culture.
Abizaid is supposed to be a soldier's soldier and all around capable guy
Abizaid referred to that background during a news conference at the height of combat in Iraq. "I'm a soldier and I do my best, but I would say, as a person who has studied the Arab world and loves the Arab world, that the majority of educated Arabs that I talk to know that Saddam Hussein has been a plague on the Arab world and on his own people, and they welcome his removal," Abizaid said March 23. If confirmed, he will take control of the ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the hunt for terrorists in the region which has been the home base of al-Qaida. "You begin with the fact that he's a great soldier," retired Army Gen. Bill Nash said about Abizaid in March. "And then you add to that the fact that he is savvy to the world of political military affairs. And of course, in this particular case, his unique qualification is that he is fluent in Arabic and understands that region extremely well." Nash has known Abizaid for more than 20 years. They worked together most recently in Kosovo. Before becoming the No. 2 general at Central Command, Abizaid held two top positions for the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon. He also has served as commandant of the military academy at West Point, commander of a battalion providing humanitarian relief in northern Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War and company commander during the 1983 invasion of Grenada.
He was also supposed to be the model for Clint Eastwoods' Gunney Highway in "Heartbreak Ridge"
Posted by: Frank G || 06/18/2003 02:36 pm || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  good luck to this guy - i hope he can put to rest the idiotarian claim that the US is anti-arab, as well as the far right wing claim that Arabs cant be patriotic Americans.
Posted by: liberalhawk || 06/18/2003 16:48 Comments || Top||

#2  The claim isn't that all Arabs are unpatriotic, but that a significant minority of them are. In an age of WMD proliferation and nihilistic mass murder by Arabs/Muslims, limiting Arab/Muslim immigration is a matter of life and death for the residents of large American cities. John Abizaid is not the typical Arab - he is Lebanese Christian, whereas the vast majority of Arabs (including the ones eligible to come here) are Muslim.

The far right wing doesn't have any problem with Arabs. After all, Arabs are doing what white supremacists have always wanted - snuffing out Jews.

*Other prominent Lebanese Christians who have worked for the Federal Government include Donna Shalala and Spencer Abraham.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 06/18/2003 17:56 Comments || Top||

#3  There is a significant number of Lebanese at least between the Christian who remind they are the descendant of Phenicians and NOT Arabs.
Posted by: JFM || 06/19/2003 1:27 Comments || Top||

#4  Congratulations,
Good Hunting,
Good luck,General.
Posted by: raptor || 06/18/2003 20:03 Comments || Top||


Federal Officers Banned from Racial Profiling
Well, not really...
The U.S. Justice Department on Tuesday issued guidelines that ban federal law enforcement officers from racial profiling in routine police work but allow the use of race and ethnicity to identify terrorist suspects.
So when you FBI guys are working a speedtrap? No profiling, okay?
With the approval of President Bush, the department sent all federal law enforcement agencies the guidelines forbidding officers from using race as a factor when they are conducting routine investigations. "Today's guidance ... is the clearest and most comprehensive statement and guidance regarding the consideration of race and ethnicity in law enforcement activities from any administration ever," said Ralph Boyd, assistant attorney general for civil rights. The guidelines forbid racial profiling in regular police work, even where such profiling would otherwise be permitted by the U.S. Constitution. For example, under the new rules, federal officers cannot use race or ethnicity when deciding which motorists to stop for traffic violations.
So what takes precedence here? Federal guidelines or the US Constitution? That's an easy answer. And I've yet to be pulled over by a Fed for a busted tail light.
But the rules allow race or ethnicity to be used when there is "trustworthy information" that links persons of a particular race or ethnicity to a criminal incident or organization. There is also a caveat for officers who are trying to prevent future attacks like those of Sept. 11, 2001. "The racial profiling guidance, therefore, recognizes that race and ethnicity may be used in terrorist identification," the Justice Department said in a statement.
...in that case, totally ignore these guidelines. Forget we even brought it up.
"Federal law enforcement officers who are protecting national security or preventing catastrophic events (as well as airport security screeners) may consider race, ethnicity and other relevant factors to the extend permitted by our laws and the Constitution," the guidelines said. Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the principle behind the new rules was good but there were too many loopholes. "Whenever you're talking about terrorism, that seems to be a code word for Muslims and Arabs," he said. "We're obviously pleased that they are trying to prohibit profiling but there seem to be loopholes. It might make one believe profiling will be prohibited except when it has to do with Muslims and Arabs."
Gee, wonder why that is, Ibby?
Civil rights organizations had complained that members of minority groups have been unfairly targeted by many police departments for searches and stops, constituting harassment. Shortly after taking office, Bush vowed to take measures to end racial profiling -- the practice of using a person's race as a reason to suspect them of breaking the law. He ordered Attorney General John Ashcroft, whose own nomination was opposed by many civil rights leaders and Democrats in Congress on grounds he was insensitive to racial issues, to address the problem. Nearly two years later, the Justice Department finished the guidelines and ordered the approximately 70 federal agencies that have a law enforcement role to follow the new rules.
So they wasted 2 years and how much money on figuring out these "feelgood" guidelines?
The guidelines are for federal officers only, but officials hope they would also be a model for state and local police.
Which is what I think was the whole aim of the thing in the first place. How much litigation would this be setting up the locals for? It's an ambulance chasers dream. Thanks, but no thanks.
Posted by: tu3031 || 06/18/2003 01:38 pm || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  "Whenever you're talking about terrorism, that seems to be a code word for Muslims and Arabs,"

Three words, Ibby - high positive correlation.
Posted by: Raj || 06/18/2003 14:32 Comments || Top||

#2  There are federal law enforcement officers that would be working the equivalent of a speed trap. Park rangers, wildlife officials, all have jurisdiction on federal land for even minor crimes. This will apply to them.

The guidelines/regs seem to be pretty common sense: no profiling unless there's a really, really good reason (terrorists).
Posted by: Steve White || 06/18/2003 18:17 Comments || Top||


What Liberal Media? More fawning coverage for Hillary.
The following excerpts are taken from today's Rocky Mtn. News' review of Hillary Clinton's book:
The first lump in your throat comes when Hillary writes of a little Mexican girl whose mom worked the fields to pay for her daughter's First Holy Communion dress. When Hillary's own mother - abandoned at an early age by her mother - heard the story, she purchased the dress and a grateful mother wept.
Is the author of this review a paid Clinton staff member?
Hillary Clinton's story opens with her Happy Days childhood in the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge. Early on she followed her father's Republican ideologies, even becoming a Goldwater Girl in the 1960s. But it was her mother's heart for all human beings that transformed her into the Democratic leader she has become.
Wow, this is a doozy of a statement. The inference, of course, is that us troglodyte Republicans just can't stand human beings.
Posted by: ColoradoConservative || 06/18/2003 11:32 am || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Ha! Nice, liberalhawk. They always say brevity is the soul of wit.
Posted by: mjh || 06/18/2003 13:13 Comments || Top||

#2  Hillary is one slippery Femi-Nazi. Do not underestimate.
Posted by: Anonymous || 06/18/2003 14:49 Comments || Top||

#3  Is it listed as non-fiction? lol
Posted by: Frank G || 06/18/2003 11:50 Comments || Top||

#4  I hate all Humans - including babies, puppies, kittens, Dolphins, trees, clean air, clean water, fish - Salmon particularly, frogs and all sorts of amphibians.
Posted by: Troglody || 06/18/2003 11:54 Comments || Top||

#5  Republicans ARE against the vast number of people and only favor the wealthy and protecting its constituents from the "great unwashed".
Posted by: anonymous || 06/18/2003 12:50 Comments || Top||

#6  The first lump in Hillary's throat probably occured sometime during her first date with Bubba...
Posted by: tu3031 || 06/18/2003 12:51 Comments || Top||

#7  peshawar.
Posted by: liberalhawk || 06/18/2003 12:55 Comments || Top||

#8  1st Anon poster: If, by "the vast number of people" you mean beef-witted, mouth breathers like yerself, then the answer would be "yup".
Posted by: Rex Mundi || 06/18/2003 17:26 Comments || Top||

#9  CC - bad link - that's from april 3rd
Posted by: Frank G || 06/18/2003 22:32 Comments || Top||

#10  The book reviewers not too subtle inference of Republicans vs. Democrats is the type of ingrained shading (i.e., bias) that permeates "news". It could be an exhibit in the rebuttal case against Eric Alterman's desperate defense "What Liberal Bias?". See foxy Laura Inghram's take on the book: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0403/ingraham1.asp
Posted by: ColoradoConservative || 06/18/2003 18:23 Comments || Top||

#11  Don't discount this fat ankle/butt shrew. She has a LOT of sympathy in the U.S. for being married to Hillbilly Bill. She is about the only person that can mount a serious challenge to Bush. Look for a HUGE 'Draft Hillary' Campaign after the first couple of pirmaries. Right or wrong she has painted herself a 'victim' and Americans love a victim.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC California Chapter) || 06/18/2003 18:59 Comments || Top||


Muslim Sympathy Said to Prompt Kuwait Camp Attack
A sergeant accused of a deadly attack inside his U.S. Army camp in Kuwait acted out of sympathy for Muslims who he reportedly said Americans had come to "kill and rape," an investigator testified on Tuesday.
Don't forget the part about eating babies...
Special Agent David Maier said his team was told of Sgt. Hasan Akbar's statements by the man's commanding officer on arriving at Camp Pennsylvania a few hours after the March 23 attack that killed two officers and injured 15 other people. Maier, assigned to the Army's Criminal Investigation Division, said Col. Ben Hodges told investigators that Akbar admitted the attack in the early stages of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Hodges indicated that Akbar "made spontaneous statements to the effect that he had done this act because they were going to kill and rape Muslims," Maier said."

Akbar, 32, is assigned to the 101st Airborne Division in Fort Campbell, Kentucky. He is a Muslim who grew up in Southern California and Louisiana. Maier testified in the second day of a weeklong hearing to determine whether Akbar should face court-martial, and a possible death penalty, for the attack in which grenades were rolled into three tents. Another witness testified on Tuesday that one of the officers killed was shot in the back at close range, but said he was not sure it was Akbar who did the shooting. "I saw him run from the darkness and shoot him in the back and run away," First Sgt. Rodlon Stevenson said of the attack that mortally wounded Army Capt. Christopher Seifert, 27. "I knew that as close as he had got shot he was in a bad way." Not long after that, he added, an alert was sounded for Akbar. Later that day, Stevenson said, he saw Akbar and perceived him as heavier-set than the man he saw attack Seifert and dressed slightly differently. It led him to believe Akbar was not the man who carried out the attack, though he conceded that he might have had time to change clothes. The hearing is being held before Col. Patrick Reinert, an Army reserve officer on leave from his post as an assistant U.S. attorney in Iowa. He has until June 27 to recommend whether Akbar should face a court-martial on two counts of premeditated murder and three counts of attempted murder.

And this additional information from The News-Enterprise, Hardin County, Kentucky:
The serial number on an M-4 rifle found at the crime scene matched that of a gun checked out to Akbar, testimony shows. Bullet fragments found in Seifert's abdomen were fired from the rifle at the scene, said Special Agent David Maier of the unit's Criminal Investigation Division. Other evidence points to Akbar, according to testimony. Akbar's chemical gear bag contained three empty grenade canisters and two pulled safety clips when they were found after the attack, Maier said. Three grenades were also discovered next to a gas mask in the same bunker in which Akbar was found after the attack. The bag and the mask are traceable to Akbar. The defense again tried to establish that Fort Campbell soldiers discriminated against Muslims and their beliefs. Capt. David Storch testified that Sgt. 1st Class Timothy Means once asked Akbar what he would do if "he came over a ridge and saw a raghead." Akbar's response, according to Storch: "It would depend on what level of jihad I was on." Storch said Akbar at that moment didn't sound like he understood the religion; he also said Means was just checking to find out if Akbar and other soldiers trusted each other. Means is scheduled to testify later in the week. Akbar, a 32-year-old combat engineer with the division's 326th Engineer Battalion, continued to listen calmly Tuesday as others [discussed] his common sense and his usefulness to his unit. After Sept. 11, 2001, his performance became worse and his credibility with subordinates plummeted, Sgt. Wesley Lafortune testified. He didn't ensure his subordinates were prepared for work and began showing up unprepared himself, Staff Sgt. James Vanreenen said, leading to Akbar's firing as a team leader within his platoon. It was also around Sept. 11 that Akbar changed his name from Mark Kools, Lafortune said.
OK, this may be considered discrimination, profiling, or whatever, but shouldn't this have raised a little red flag?
Posted by: Steve || 06/18/2003 09:24 am || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  And once again, I am Fed UP!!!!
Posted by: Fed UP || 06/18/2003 13:35 Comments || Top||

#2  More testimony from today:
Sgt. 1st Class Daniel Kumm testified said he had asked his company commander to reassign Akbar to prevent his deployment to Kuwait, citing his "inability to lead soldiers and incompetence in his ability and skills as a combat engineer."
Kumm said his commander replied, "You will take him, we need the numbers. We need to take full strength into Iraq."

Yeah, just what I figured.
Kumm, in testimony similar to that of others who served closely with Akbar, said today that Akbar had few close friends in the unit. "To my knowledge, he had one or two friends," Kumm said. "At night, I would find him at the gym or leaving a message that he'd be at the gym. Other than that, he was at home on the computer or just keeping to himself."
Posted by: Steve || 06/18/2003 15:36 Comments || Top||

#3  Do I hear that tried and true device of "victimization" raising its tired head?
Posted by: Highlander || 06/18/2003 10:20 Comments || Top||

#4  Highlander, a good ploy if it were not just a military hearing. They are judging the evidence that a crime was committed. Anyone with an IQ above 50 can tell that a crime has been committed, but it's a military procedure thing. I know that the fact he was fired doesn't mean too much to civilians but in the military it means that Mr. Akbar was probably on his way out. They probably had to keep him on duty due to a stop/loss that came into effect after 9/11. Not sure about the Army procedures, but if you were 'fired' from an Air Force position it was time to hang up your BDUs. If he was fired from supervisory duties, they probably have some dirt on him. This may have been the time that Akbar experienced the 'racism' that he is trying paint.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC California Chapter) || 06/18/2003 10:37 Comments || Top||

#5  "if you were 'fired' from an Air Force position it was time to hang up your BDUs"
Yup, If you were removed as a supervisor, your career is over. Most likely you would be parked in a job where you counted paper clips all day until your enlistment was up. Then the commander would deny re-enlistment if you were stubborn enough to try and you were gone. Less paper work than trying to throw somebody out.
Posted by: Steve || 06/18/2003 11:07 Comments || Top||

#6  You have to remember that only white Christian men commit crimes. All others are merely victims of white Christian men and their actions must be seen in that light. Its too bad too: in days gone by they would have already tried and shot the bastard. But since he's a Muslim they'll have to go easy on him I guess.
Posted by: SPQR 2756 || 06/18/2003 11:11 Comments || Top||

#7  One hot needle...coming up!
Posted by: tu3031 || 06/18/2003 12:29 Comments || Top||

#8  Some more details:
Sgt. First Class Daniel Kumm said Akbar had been brought to his platoon on a "rehabilitative transfer" to get a fresh start because of past problems such as not arriving at out-of-state training with his bags. Kumm said he still had problems, and he did not want him to go to Iraq.
"I didn't want him to deploy, sir, and if there was a job back at Fort Campbell that's where I would have preferred him to be," Kumm said.
Kumm said he didn't want Akbar to go to Iraq because of "his inability to lead soldiers and incompetence in abilities and skills."

"rehabilitative transfer", AKA dumping this dirt bag in someone else's platoon.
Posted by: Steve || 06/18/2003 16:42 Comments || Top||

#9  Well, I was "fired" from not one, but THREE different Air Force jobs. Ended up working for a full bull, because my people were too loyal to me - I treated them right, instead of like dirt. Spent a year doing "make-work" - most of which turned out to be VERY important a couple of years later, then was given my old job back when the Major that was my former boss, and who fired me, PCS'd.

I came from a very poor family. My dad and mom both worked, just to meet the bills. Of course, Dad was also supporting his mother, and helping out with a disabled younger brother. Still, I got an appointment to the Air Force Academy, and have "made something" of myself through hard work and raw intelligence. Akbar wants an easy ride "because I'm Black, and I'm Muslim". So freaking what? The only way to get ahead is to work at it. There's nothing quite as dramatic as the "'dot.com' bubble" to illustrate this. The companies where the people used intelligent thinking, cared about what they were doing, and worked HARD to succeed, usually did. Those that tried to catch a free ride bumped their noses. The ones you hear about are the crybabies that yell and scream that life isn't fair. Hell, it's NEVER been fair.

Akbar is an idiot, did something only an idiot would do, and needs to pay the price for his idiocy. No sympathy, no excuses - just hang the little ba*****, and get it over with. Maybe, just maybe, it'll keep somebody from being the "next Akbar".
Posted by: Old Patriot || 06/18/2003 23:26 Comments || Top||

#10  Knew it was just a matter of time before someone threw out the race card.
I'm so damn tired of hearing"My Mamma was a drug addict,my Daddy ran off with a stripper,and the White man's keeping me down.That's why I killed those people."You get no sympathy from me,asshole!
Posted by: raptor || 06/18/2003 20:15 Comments || Top||


Korea
Don’t Talk Down the West Sea Clash
On June 29, 2002 six members of the ROK Navy were killed in a clash with North Korean forces northwest of Incheon just south of the Northern Limit Line. The following shows how pathetic the government of South Korea is.
The resentment and fury felt by the families of the six naval officers killed in the West Sea clash a year ago make us wonder whether we live in a country that fulfills its basic duties for its people. The families say that the government has not kept one promise - and that it has failed to send even one letter or make even one telephone call of condolence. "But the commanders of the UN forces, the U.S. forces in Korea and the 7th U.S. squadron all sent letters," one father said. "Which country did my son die fighting for?" No one can answer him.

A country must continuously embrace and lead its people if it wants them to develop feelings of attachment and loyalty. When soldiers or veterans from the Korean War passed away, the government sent letters of kind regards and sympathy to their families; that practice continued until the 1970s. Although the letters were similar to form letters, many families still keep them, and are proud of them. But a year has passed since the battle in the West Sea, and the government has not comforted the families of the victims with a single word. Who would give their lives for a country that won't even carry out a simple formality to let the dead souls rest in peace?

To make matters worse, the government and some parts of society are making absurd claims that the South bears most of the responsibility for the battle, or that it was accidental. They are trying to discount the men's deaths. In a telling anecdote, it is said that Condoleezza Rice, the White House's national security adviser, asked a Korean government official if he knew the names of the two middle school girls killed last year by a U.S. armored vehicle. He answered yes right away. Then she asked if he knew any of the names of the sailors killed in the West Sea battle. The official stuttered, unable to answer the question. This embarrassing incident shows us how ridiculous our country may seem to the world.

Why does a nation exist? To protect the people. If the families of those who sacrifice their lives for a country feel like their children or their brothers are forgotten, then that country has failed, and the country can no longer expect the loyalty of its people. On the coming anniversary of the West Sea battle, June 29, we must properly console the families of the young souls that died a heroic death while standing up to the North's provocation. It must be an opportunity for Korea to show that it is indeed a country worthy of its name and that it does not forget the sacrifices that its people have made.
Posted by: Michael || 06/18/2003 09:05 am || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Nice to see your blog again - for some strange reason, it's not showing up on my office computer.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that the above piece makes me sick (I read it earlier this morning). Last Friday, we had massive anti-American demonstrations in Seoul over those two middle school girls who died. Six sailors get killed while defending the nation's freedom, and Comrade Noh doesn't even send the families one single letter. Unfortunately, this is getting a whole lot of press here - the Chosun Ilbo and the Joongang Ilbo aside - lest the Korean people learn just who the real "enemies of the people" are.

Not a single friggin' letter. Why should anyone put their lives on the line for this friggin' country when the government shows its soldiers such open contempt.

Sickening. Truly sickening.
Posted by: The Marmot || 06/18/2003 21:27 Comments || Top||


Iran
Iran’s regime take aim at its defenders to restore order
In a bid to stamp down on a week of student-led anti-regime protests in Tehran and Iran's main cities, Iranian authorities have for the first time targetted their most determined defenders: hardline vigilante groups. While rounding up student leaders, dissidents and scores of people who have taken to the streets to shout virulent slogans against the ruling clergy, the extremists previously called out to silence such demonstrations have suddenly found themselves out of favour. Until now, stick, chain and knife-wielding vigilantes have enjoyed free reign over anyone daring to criticise supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

When the latest protests kicked off on Tuesday, groups such as Ansar Hezbollah were quick to display their zealous loyalty to the nearly 25-year-old Islamic republic. Whizzing around on motorcycles, they chased demonstrators and beat, stabbed or bludgeoned anyone they could lay their hands on. Student dormitories were wrecked, while residents seeking to join the protests by car had their windscreens smashed in. But the authorities appear to have been quick to realise that rather than dampening student resolve, the hardliners were only making the task of containing the protests even harder. On Saturday, after a vicious assault on a Tehran university dormitory, police detained several members of the extremist grouplet Dakhmeh (the Cave), including their leader Said Asghar — convicted but released well before his jail term was up for attempting to assasinate a close aide to reformist President Mohammad Khatami in 2000. Between June 10 and 16, more than 250 people were arrested in connection with the unrest in Tehran. According to Deputy Interior Minister Ali Asghar Ahmad, 35 percent were "counter-revolutionaries" or "hooligans", while many others were people trying to "disguise themselves as Basij (an official hardline volunteer army) and Revolutionary Guards." And Iran's police chief, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, called on the conservative judiciary to "vigorously" handle the cases of detained extremists "so as to show that there is no discrimination in the application of justice."

While no official figures have been given on the number of extremists arrested, they have all but disappeared from the streets during the protests — which in Tehran at least have been winding down. The driving force behind the decision to rein in the hardliners appears to have been lessons from the clashes around the university in July 1999, when hundreds of students took to the streets for three days of unrest that saw at least one student killed and hundreds of others detained. The memories of that unrest and the activities of vigilantes remain bitter among students and reformists. "If four years ago we had arrested those who attacked and ransacked the campus, we wouldn't be seeing the same thing again today," reformist MP Fatemeh Haghighatju told parliament Tuesday. "In the past few years, these groups have committed the most violence on the streets, and at the same time some students arrested four years ago are still in prison," she complained.

Mohammad Reza Khatami, reformist party leader and brother of the president, described such hardline groups as "rogues", lumping them into the same category as protestors who have chanted insulting slogans at regime leaders. But even though they may be out of favour for the time being, the groups still have clout. "We are in a very sensitive situation," commented a reformist journalist, who asked not to be named. "The authorities are trying to neutralise the extremist Islamist groups and the more radical protestors."
Putting a leash on their attack dogs and keeping them in the kennel. They'll let them out again if it looks like they are losing the fight.
Posted by: Steve || 06/18/2003 09:05 am || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  or maybe the Mullahs are arguing amongst themselves or maybe the thugs took some unexpected hits and are training/rearming for more serious thugery later this week
Posted by: mhw || 06/18/2003 13:37 Comments || Top||

#2  or maybe khatami is trying to keep control of the police for a potential 3 way game with the protestors and the reformers. If he does nothing the police may go over to the protestors - in any case they look weak. If he lets them hit the vigilantes, he shows his strength against the mullahs, while at the same time keeping the police loyal and so weakening the protestors. Just a theory.
Posted by: liberalhawk || 06/18/2003 12:53 Comments || Top||


Home Front
Report: Terror System Flags David Nelsons
David Nelson is not an easy name to have these days. Across the country men with this name say they have been pulled off airplanes, questioned by FBI agents and harassed when traveling by air.
Good God! They're profiling David Nelsons! Abdul Aziz Jihadi, however, reports no problems boarding.
It's probably an alias for Dicicco...
The nationwide dragnet for terrorists has caused the name to raise red flags on airline screening software, but some federal officials say the problem is essentially a computer glitch, the Los Angeles Daily News reported Sunday. David Nelsons in at least four states, including California, Oregon, Alaska and South Dakota, have reported getting stopped. Even the former child star of ABC-TV's "The adventures of Ozzie and Harriet," was stopped by a ticket agent at John Wayne Airport in December while en route to visit his daughter in Salt Lake City.
"Ozzie", huh? Sure that's not short for... "Osama"! Up against the wall!
Now a Newport Beach film producer, David Nelson, 66, told the Daily News that after airline ticket agents stopped him, two police officers quickly recognized him, and he was allowed to board his flight. "I don't think (terrorists) have the middle name 'Ozzie,'" he recalled telling an agent.
Yeah... that's just what they want you to think.
For other David Nelsons, the experience was more difficult. Actor David Nelson, 35, of Hollywood said that on a recent trip to Hawaii, a ticket agent at Los Angeles International Airport took one look at his driver's license and said, "Oh boy. Here's another David Nelson." Nelson said the ticket agent told him the name brings up a "red flag" for terrorists. A few months before on a New York-bound airplane, he had been told to exit the plane and was searched by FBI agents before reboarding. "When you get back on the plane, people look at you funny," he said. After agents requested to search him several times before the Hawaii flight, Nelson said he turned around and went home.
Just try getting up to use the can. People jump you and beat you to a pulp.
A so-called "no-fly" list was introduced after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and is meant to prevent potential terrorists from boarding planes. The TSA gets names from law enforcement officials and hands the list over to airlines to screen passengers. In April, Transportation Security Administration spokesman Nico Melendez said those on the no-fly list pose, or are suspected of posing, a threat to civil aviation and national security.
Nico Melendez? Hmmmmmmmm?
"We do not confirm the presence of a particular name of an individual on a list," he said. "It's security information that we just won't do." Melendez told the Daily News that the "David Nelson" problem is due to a name-matching technology used by many airlines. He said it's not the name but letters in the name that are randomly flagged by the software.
I also believe Mullah Omar was a big fan of Ozzie's show in the 50's before he went insane. Mullah Omar, not Ozzie.
But David Kennedy, director of research services for TruSecure Corp., a Virginia-based firm that specializes in intelligence security, said he thinks it's more likely the name is on the no-fly list. "I'm more inclined to believe there is a bad David Nelson out there they're looking for," he said.
Why didn't they tag guys named Ricky Nelson? He's the one who brought down a plane by lighting it up with his freebase pipe right? Sounds like Ricky's more of a threat to a plane then Dave.
Except that he's dead now. Maybe they're going after the leftovers?
Either way, since there is little to identify those on the list other than their names, it is difficult for many to get their names removed. In response, TSA has established a hot line for those who feel they were wrongly selected.
Hello? TSA? Yes, My name is Uday Hussein....
Posted by: tu3031 || 06/18/2003 08:47 am || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Frank G: Dave's still in the process of figuring that out.
Posted by: tu3031 || 06/18/2003 13:27 Comments || Top||

#2  Well this sucks.
Posted by: David Nelson || 06/18/2003 9:09 Comments || Top||

#3  Bwahahahahahahaha!
Posted by: Bad Davis-Nelson || 06/18/2003 9:15 Comments || Top||

#4  Oh. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HA!
Posted by: Bad David-Nelson || 06/18/2003 10:06 Comments || Top||

#5  David Nelson, isn't that the guy who plays acoustic guitar and doesn't pay taxes...??
Posted by: RW || 06/18/2003 10:25 Comments || Top||

#6  OK, I've seen this for weeks. Who is the David Nelson that they are really looking for?
Posted by: Chuck (not Taylor) || 06/18/2003 11:13 Comments || Top||

#7  "Paging Mr. Kafka. Please use the white courtesey phone..."
Posted by: mojo || 06/18/2003 11:17 Comments || Top||

#8  i guess its not time to shorten my name, huh?
Posted by: David Nelsonofsky || 06/18/2003 11:41 Comments || Top||

#9  Google searched "David Nelson":
David Nelson Band, former member New Riders of Purple Sage, hung out with Jerry Garcia. Received Lifetime Achivement Award from "High Times Magazine". I'll bet DEA has him on their hit list which is why it showed up in the "no-fly" listing.
Posted by: Steve || 06/18/2003 12:05 Comments || Top||

#10  jeebus! How much smoke do you have to partake in to get a "Lifetime Achievement" award from High Times?
Posted by: Frank G || 06/18/2003 12:40 Comments || Top||

#11  "Lifetime Achievement" award from High Times?
Damned impressive to put that on you reume'.
Posted by: raptor || 06/18/2003 20:21 Comments || Top||


East/Subsaharan Africa
Liberia: Chuck waffles on leaving
Liberia's President Charles Taylor pledged Tuesday to yield power as part of a cease-fire with rebels. But his government quickly hedged on the resignation.
surprise meter not registering...
In Monrovia, Taylor's spokesman suggested within hours of the signing in nearby Ghana that the cease-fire was the only binding part of the accord.
the rest was speculation and theory
"Chuck had his fingers crossed when he promised, see? It don't count if yer fingers are crossed."
''It's a political discussion, including the issue of the stepping aside of President Taylor,'' spokesman Vaanii Paasawe said. ''What we were successful in doing in Accra was to separate the cease-fire issue from the political questions.'' The government signed the truce as insurgents in Liberia's latest civil war, dating from 1999, were at the edge of Monrovia, prevented from overrunning the capital only by fierce fighting with Taylor loyalists.
Saved his ass, and the rest of him with it. Now he'll try to regroup and go on the offensive, victoriously driving the rebels before him, raping their wimmin and children and stealing their stuff. The rebels, on the other hand, will ignore the ceasefire, just as most Third World ceasefires are ignored, and try to snuff him.
Taylor, 54, made no public comment on the pact, and his radio station announced only the cease-fire, not the rest of the pact—which calls for further negotiations to work out a full peace deal and a new government without Taylor. If the president does step down, it would end the rule of a warlord who threw his country into years of civil war and drew UN sanctions for gunrunning and diamond-smuggling that allegedly supported rebel movements elsewhere. Taylor faces the prospect of trial at a UN-backed court for alleged war crimes in neighboring Sierra Leone, where he supported rebels in a 10-year insurgency. The indictment was announced June 4.
That's the easy way out. He also faces the prospect of being killed and eaten...
After the cease-fire was signed in Accra, a court spokesman insisted Taylor still would have to face justice. ''Whether he's president or not, he's indicted by the special court, so he should have his day in court,'' David Hecht said. State Department deputy spokesman Philip T. Reeker spoke of Liberians' suffering under Taylor and said those responsible for atrocities in West Africa's conflicts should be held accountable.
He probably realized he had no place to go without being arrested, or even better, killed
Posted by: Frank G || 06/18/2003 08:03 am || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  As soon as I get that hotmail account up and the scam letter finished, I am outta here! Expect to hear from me soon.
Oh, one more thing. Is there any country out there that won't either extradite or shoot me?
Posted by: tu3031 || 06/18/2003 14:13 Comments || Top||

#2  and, of course, gov't troops violated the ceasefire just hours after it went into effect
Posted by: Frank G || 06/18/2003 9:53 Comments || Top||


Iran
UK seeks EU ultimatum on Iran arms
Britain is pressing Europe to give Iran a two-month ultimatum to comply with western demands to halt its nuclear programme and cut off support for terrorists. The sanction would be the loss of a valuable trade deal with the European Union.
And sanctions proved their worth against Sammy. Riiiight. But then, what else do you expect the EU to threaten with?
With America turning up the heat on the mullahs' regime in Teheran, Britain wants to avoid a repetition of the rift between Europe and America over the war in Iraq. Whitehall sources said that ministers were trying to convince Europe and America to play a co-ordinated game of "good cop, bad cop".
Or "corrupt spineless cop, cop".
A Foreign Office message to diplomatic posts and some Whitehall departments expressed concern that "the United States is increasingly impatient and favours a more confrontational approach, preferably isolation but, failing all else, conceivably military [action]". Britain believes that isolation will allow Iranian hard-liners to play the nationalist card. It and other European countries are wedded to a policy of engagement with the reformists in the regime. "We do not think isolation will work," the Foreign Office message says. "But if the US presses this hard, we risk an EU / US clash over Iran, placing us in the invidious position of having to choose sides." The message, sent last week, lists six possible responses to avoid a rift. They range from no change to reluctantly joining America in isolating Iran.

British ministers had decided on a middle course, the message said. This was to "ratchet up European Union pressure on Iran" and to issue a private warning that the EU would cut off trade talks and reconsider its dialogue with Teheran if the mullahs did not take action on key issues within "a clear short deadline (eg. two months)". These issues included halting the development of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction; ending support for terrorist groups, including factions that sought to undermine Israeli-Palestinian peace talks; and an end to harbouring members of the al-Qa'eda network. The message said: "A sharp shock now, reasonably early might act as a salutary warning to the Iranians that, as we must listen to them, they must take our concerns seriously."

The attitude of Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, who has visited Iran three times in two years, is in marked contrast to President George W Bush's forthright support for students who have led nightly demonstrations in Teheran for the past week. He argued: "The thing that would most derail the process towards the establishment of a better democracy in Iran would be suggestions that the opposition there was being orchestrated from the outside, which happily so far it has not been." So far the British tactics seem to have been at least partially successful.

This week European foreign ministers delivered a double warning to Teheran. They told the mullahs to accept intrusive inspections of their nuclear facilities and raised the possibility of the use of force if diplomacy failed to stop countries from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. It was unclear last night whether the EU had agreed to issue the two-month ultimatum that Britain is advocating. Russia and the International Atomic Energy Agency have also urged Iran to accept the inspections.
Posted by: Bulldog || 06/18/2003 06:47 am || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:



Who's in the News
30[untagged]

Bookmark
E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Thugburg
Gulf War I
The Way We Were
Bio

Merry-Go-Blog











On Sale now!


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.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Seafarious
tu3031
badanov
sherry
ryuge
GolfBravoUSMC
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Gloria
Fred
Besoeker
Glenmore
Frank G
3dc
Skidmark

Two weeks of WOT
Wed 2003-06-18
  Paks nab two Qaeda men
Tue 2003-06-17
  Taylor sez he'll step down
Mon 2003-06-16
  Second shootout in Mecca since Saturday
Sun 2003-06-15
  Shootout in Mecca
Sat 2003-06-14
  Hamas rejects ceasefire
Fri 2003-06-13
  "Hundreds killed" in Liberian ceasefire
Thu 2003-06-12
  Israel, Hamas at war
Wed 2003-06-11
  French cops gas heroes
Wed 2003-06-11
  Bus atrocity in Jerusalem
Wed 2003-06-11
  French cops gas heroes
Tue 2003-06-10
  Rantissi survives missile attack. Damn.
Mon 2003-06-09
  Mauritania rebel leader killed as coup fails, maybe
Sun 2003-06-08
  Islamist coup in Mauretania
Sat 2003-06-07
  Algeria attacks kill 21 in two days
Fri 2003-06-06
  Liberian rebels moving on capital
Thu 2003-06-05
  Boomerette Kills 15 in North Ossetia
Wed 2003-06-04
  Afghan Gov Troops Zap 40 Talibs

Better than the average link...



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.
18.232.185.167
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
(0)    (0)    (0)    (0)    (0)