What to talk about? All-purpose answer: Jews. It always is. According to an EU poll last week, 59% of Europeans think Israel is the biggest threat to world peace. If that 59% sounds kinda low, donât forget itâs an average. 69% of Austrians and 74% of the Dutch think Israel is the worldâs greatest menace. Not bad for a country that at its narrowest point is barely wider than my rural township in New Hampshire. The Europeans are only a step away from that substantial chunk of the Arab world which manages simultaneously to rejoice in the slaughter of 9/11 and blame the Jews for it. Now that increased vigilance by America, Britain and others has made it harder for terrorists to gain access to their most sought-after targets and al-Qaeda has been reduced to massacring fellow Muslims in Saudi Arabia, itâs surely only a matter of time before that, too, is pinned on the Jews. Mark Steyn. No comment necessary.
#1
"..59% of Europeans think Israel is the biggest threat to world peace."
Yeah, me too! Many a night I have lain awake wondering if the fanatical Jews were going to put down their bowls of kimchee and press the button to launch a nuke towards Los Angeles. After all, they've already lobbed a ballistic missile over Japan. Oh, wait a minute. I'm thinking of the North Koreans. Sorry. Never mind.
Some believe that a rebirth of a Taliban-like organization is being witnessed:
Islamic Caliphate recalled
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hassan Al-Zaidi
Sanaa, November 11 - Amid slogans calling for the return of the Islamic Caliphate to the Arab and Muslim world, hundreds of scholars, sheikhs, and interested persons attended the conference organized by a political entity calling itself Hizbut-Tahreer âLiberation Partyâ in Sanaâa last Tuesday.
Organizers were able to gather many people from different sectors of the community, including prominent scholars such as Judge Abdulwahhab Al-Hitar, who attended the conference that called for the removal of current regimes and establishment of an Islamic Caliphate, which is believed by the organizers to be the âsole and only cure for the Ummaâ. Actually secularism would work wonders.
During the conference, a taped lecture was given by Sheikh Atta Abu Al-Rushta, the Emir of the Hizbut-Tahreer, who took over the post from Abu Yusuf Al-Shaikh, and Abdulquddoos Zalloom, who are staying in Palestinian occupied territories.
The lecture called for âthe liberation of Muslim nations from the current oppressive Arab regimes and replacing them by a just Islamic Caliphate.â And who carries out this "liberation?"
The lecture blamed the current regimes for the deteriorated conditions of Muslims in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan. Kashmir, and Chechnya and called upon Muslims throughout the world to exert extra efforts during the month of Ramadan.
Yemen Representation to be Formalized
On the other hand Dr. Abdullah ba Dheeb, a representative of the party in âthe state of Yemenâ told Yemen Times that the party will work on raising awareness among the public about the idea of reviving the Islamic Caliphate. âWe are mobilizing the idea of the party and soon will have an official representation in the state of Yemen and from thereafter apply the state system to various governoratesâ he said.
Ba Dheeb said that security authorities had launched a massive arrest campaign against members of the party last years, and he himself was just released from a prison in Mukalla last week.
Attendence Not as Expected
The attendance to the conference was less than expected. Except for Al-Hitar, none of the influential Islamic figures or other politicians from the opposition or the government attended the conference. Most of the attendees who were present at the conference were youngsters, who expressed their interest in the idea of the conference, and showed eagerness to promote the partyâs cause.
It was also concluded that despite the fact that the party is not legalized through the governmentâs licensing system, it was still given some margin of freedom to operate in the country and launch its activities, which are expected to continue in the months and years to come.
Mission Non-violent
Ba Dheeb said that the mission of the Hizbut-Tahreer, which has not been a licensed party by the government and never applied for one, comprises of Jihad and intellectual efforts based on financial and human assets available in different Islamic states. âWe do not call for violence, but rather for intellectual movements to promote Islam,â he clarified.
The aim of Hizbut-Tahreer as mentioned in their web site (www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org) is to âresume the Islamic way of life and to convey the Islamic daâwah to the world. This objective means bringing the Muslims back to living an Islamic way of life in Dar al-Islam and in an Islamic society such that all of lifeâs affairs in society are administered according to the Shariâah rules, and the viewpoint in it is the halal and the haram under the shade of the Islamic State, which is the Khilafah State. That state is the one in which Muslims appoint a Khaleefah and give him the bayâah to listen and obey on condition that he rules according to the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and on condition that he conveys Islam as a message to the world through daâwah and jihad. "Bayâah" = blood oath
The Party, as well, aims at the correct revival of the Ummah through enlightened thought. It also strives to bring her back to her previous might and glory such that she wrests the reins of initiative away from other states and nations, and returns to her rightful place as the first state in the world, as she was in the past, when she governs the world according to the laws of Islam.
It also aims to bring back the Islamic guidance for mankind and to lead the Ummah into a struggle with Kufr, its systems and its thoughts so that Islam encapsulates the world.â Ein Volk! Ein Reich! Ein Fuhrer!
Posted by: Anonon ||
11/15/2003 7:13:29 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Woule be interesting to know if they would agree on a Caliphate if Caliph was say a Malay and capital in say, Kuala Lumpur. I rememeber the Arabs were not too happy about a Turkish Caliph
#2
conveys Islam as a message to the world through daâwah and jihad; governs the world according to the laws of Islam; so that Islam encapsulates the world;
Hmmmm, I'm beginning to see a pattern here.
Posted by: Rafael ||
11/15/2003 7:33 Comments ||
Top||
#3
JFM:
Yeah, Wahabis despised the Ottomans. In fact, the current Saudi regime spent $50,000,000 in Bosnia, to Wahabize the Ottoman mosques.
The Hizbis operate like the "legal" wing of the IRA. They formally renounce violence, while financing their own bloody "provos," like al-Qaeda. Sheik (Captain Hook) Hamza's al-Muttonheads, is an HuT breakaway.
Posted by: Vlad the Muslim Impaler ||
11/15/2003 7:34 Comments ||
Top||
#4
sounds like the fourth reich is planning their rise...likely these guys fight like pussies and the inherent weaknesses of their culture condemn them to another 5 centuries of humiliation and shame...Oh boy, I can hear the seething already
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/15/2003 10:06 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"...these guys fight like pussies..."
Heh. Maybe one day the Evil Israeli Joos will all magically throw themselves into the sea and the Muslims can go back to fighting amongst themselves. At least that way they will not be fighting out of their weight class.
By DONNA ABU-NASR, Associated Press Writer The article goes on about how people are upset at a show that makes fun of islam... it shows how insane the religious fanatics are but at then end of the article comes this...
In Saudi Arabia, itâs not just TV shows that run afoul of the religious establishment. The kingdom regulates even the tiniest aspect of life in its role as the birthplace of Islam. For instance, the Commission for the Protection of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice â the formal name of the religious police â prevented one Saudi prince who owns a factory from registering the brand name of a new product because the commission didnât like its name, Explorer. The prince, Amr Mohammed Al-Faisal, reacted caustically in the Arab News. "The learned scholars of the commission rightly noted that the letter X in the name was a cross, and this aroused their delicate Islamic sensibilities," the prince wrote. "I am greatly relieved that thanks to the vigilance of the commission a great tragedy was avoided," he said. "Until then I had innocently and, I must admit, naively assumed that the letter X was just that, a letter of the alphabet, not as it turns out a cunning and dastardly plot by Christians to corrupt our Muslim faith." Ok itâs obvious that heâs being sarcastic here... at least I hope he is! But these religious "scholars" are even crazier than I thought they were!
#3
unlikely the commission members can read anything but the Koran - so they don't know anything about our alphabet....and these are the Ubermen of the Islamic Faith....LOL!
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/15/2003 14:43 Comments ||
Top||
Remember Mariam? George didnât...
George Galloway suffered a fresh blow yesterday when the Charity Commission announced it was extending its inquiry into his Mariam Appeal. Originally the commission was investigating how the appeal spent its money in the 12 months after it was launched in 1998. But now the inquiry will cover the spending of appeal funds over a five-year period, from 1998 until it was wound up this year. Mr Galloway, who was expelled from the Labour Party last month, launched the appeal when he flew a young Iraqi girl, Mariam Hamza, to Glasgow for treatment in a childrenâs hospital. She was suffering from leukaemia, for which Mr Galloway blamed uranium-tipped weapons used by the allies during the 1991 Gulf War, and the appeal paid for her care. Subsequently it also funded anti-war political campaigning.
The Mariam Appeal was never a registered charity. But the commission has the power to investigate organisations which raise money on an apparently charitable basis. If it rules that "charitable" funds were misused, it could freeze bank accounts or go to court to recover funds. The commission, which started its inquiry into the Mariam Appeal following a complaint from Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, is not expected to complete its investigation until next year. Attention was focused on the Mariam Appeal after The Daily Telegraph carried reports in April based on documents found in the Iraqi foreign ministry in Baghdad purporting to show that Mr Galloway received money from Saddam Husseinâs regime. Mr Galloway, MP for Glasgow Kelvin, has denied being paid by Saddam and is taking his time suing The Daily Telegraph for libel.
Posted by: Bulldog ||
11/15/2003 4:52:23 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
There is a guy named Dean that is still suing G Gordon Liddy for libel in his book about Watergate. Liddy has to show up at court on a regular basis but his accuser never shows.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
11/15/2003 9:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Damn... you know the G-man would make a good Viceroy of Iraq.
#3
Well, we know what a low-life Mr. Galloway is, but what has happened to Miriam Hamza? None of the news rags has answered that question that I have seen.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/15/2003 12:54 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Miriam was symbol of the evil of sanctions and depleted uranium; she was a prop to be cast away after her story was told.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
11/15/2003 13:39 Comments ||
Top||
Czech police arrested two Slovak nationals who attempted to sell nearly seven pounds of radioactive material to undercover officers working a sting operation, officials said Saturday. But we thought we were selling the material to an underground medical practices that provides free X-ray service to the poor.
The potential uses of the substance remained unclear pending an investigation, but an expert said initial tests revealed two components that could possibly be used in a dirty bomb. The suspects were arrested Friday in the Voronez hotel in the city of Brno, 125 miles southeast of Prague, police spokeswoman Blanka Kosinova said in a statement. Police said the men were detained as they were counting the more than $700,000 in cash that they received in the deal, in which officers posed as buyers. You got to wonder how many deals like this are sucessfully transacted.
Pavel Pittermann, a spokesman for the nuclear safety office, said that first checks of four parcels containing the substance detected traces of thorium and uranium. While cautioning against jumping to conclusions, he said those two components could be used in a dirty bomb. There is worldwide concern that terrorists might attempt to used smuggled radioactive material to build and detonate such a bomb, which uses conventional explosives to spread radioactivity over a wide area. Such a bomb would typically be packed with strontium, cesium or some other highly radioactive isotope used in medicine and industry. No such device has been used before, but the al-Qaida network is reported to have been interested in such a terror weapon. The content of the parcels will be thoroughly checked in the coming days at the Nuclear Research Institute in Rez, just north of Prague, Pittermann said, and results can be expected in the middle of next week. Officials at the Vienna, Austria-based U.N. nuclear agency said they were following up on the Czech seizure report.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
11/15/2003 1:49:10 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Interesting. But who were the undercover officers posing as? Arabs?
Posted by: Charles ||
11/15/2003 20:35 Comments ||
Top||
A fire has ripped through a Jewish school outside Paris, causing no injuries but destroying one building in what authorities said was most likely a racist attack. The fire, which started at 3:00 a.m. at a school in the Paris suburb of Gagny, was extinguished in the early morning hours by a team of about 100 firefighters. French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who travelled to the scene, said the fire appeared to be the result of a "racist and anti-Semitic" criminal act. Jewish groups have denounced France in recent years, saying the government has been slow to react to attacks against Jewish schools, shops and synagogues. The centre-right government of President Jacques Chirac has cracked down on hate crimes in an overall security drive that has been welcomed by a French Jewish umbrella group.
Posted by: Former CNN Watcher ||
11/15/2003 10:28:02 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
accidental fires rarely break out at the same time in two separate places...French antisemitism on parade
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/15/2003 12:28 Comments ||
Top||
At least 23 people have been killed by separate explosions near two synagogues in the Turkish city of Istanbul. The blasts rocked Istanbulâs largest synagogue, the Neve Shalom, in Beyoglu district and another synagogue nearby, shattering windows and damaging cars. Turkish officials said both explosions were caused by car bombs.
Eyewitnesses reported seeing body parts strewn on the street outside the Neve Shalom synagogue, the scene of another deadly attack in 1986. The blast at Neve Shalom destroyed the facade of the building, where worshippers were praying at the time, French news agency AFP reported. Minutes later, a second explosion rocked Beth Israel synagogue to the north, severely damaging the building. "We heard a deafening explosion. Then the electricity went out and it was mayhem," Mustafa, a local resident, told AFP.
At least 80 people are reported to have been injured in the blasts. There has been no statement from any group or organisation claiming responsibility for the explosions. Television pictures showed casualties being treated in the street outside Neve Shalom and being carried away on stretchers. The Neve Shalom synagogue was the scene of an attack in 1986, when Palestinian gunmen killed 22 worshippers and wounded six others during a Sabbath service.
Posted by: Bulldog ||
11/15/2003 4:47:31 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
more on attack
Car bombs rock Istanbul
Saturday, November 15, 2003 Posted: 6:07 AM EST (1107 GMT)
Dozens of people have been injured.
ISTANBUL, Turkey (CNN) -- At least 15 people were killed and 146 injured Saturday morning when two cars laden with explosives simultaneously detonated near two Jewish synagogues in Istanbul, according to the Turkish interior minister.
Turkish officials believe the explosions -- which took place early Saturday morning on the Jewish Sabbath -- were a coordinated terror attack.
Police are still investigating whether the explosions were the result of suicide bombers or remote controlled devices.
Turkish media reported the Islamic Great Eastern Raiders Front had claimed responsibility for the attacks, but government officials in Ankara suspect the attacks were carried out by terrorists outside the country, possibly al Qaeda
#2
Re. "possibly al-Qaeda": it's always al-Qaeda. The consensus is that they are a movement, rather than an organization. Wherever polls of al-Qaeda popularity are taken in the Muslim dominated countries, they usually receive 40-60%. Muslims are at war with the secular states, and the sooner we engage them on a global scale, the better.
Posted by: Vlad the Muslim Impaler ||
11/15/2003 7:23 Comments ||
Top||
#3
possibly al Qaeda
Yeah but why deny the Raiders a chance of making the shitlist. If they want it that badly...
Posted by: Rafael ||
11/15/2003 7:37 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Murat- If you are out there, I'm sorry to hear of this cowardly attack on your country. What is your take on this terrorism?
#5
Well crud. I guess they decided that Muslims weren't very good targets after Riyadh. Now while I feel sympathy for those injured and killed, I wonder if Murat is celebrating this attack on the 'Zionists'?
Posted by: Charles ||
11/15/2003 8:32 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I feel very saddened by this. My heart goes out to the Turkish people. What a senseless crime.
#8
B - my heart goes out to the wounded and killed, not the Turkish people. This is an attack by Turkish muslims targeting kuffars. Murat is probably celebrating this strike at the evil Zionists who live in his midst. Right, Murat?
#11
Turkey is one of the few countries in the Middle East that recognizes Israel's right to exist. The Turkish military has substantial ties to the Israeli military and they're probably going to pull out all of the stops to nail whoever did this.
Also, CNN Turk is reporting per a Turkish friend of mine that the Iranian-backed IBDA-C (the Raiders) weren't responsible for this, they just claimed responsibility for the sake of form.
My Turk friend says that the main suspects so far are al-Qaeda and Hezbollah.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
11/15/2003 13:06 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Al Q and/or associates are hitting relatively soft targets. They want to weaken the govt or cause dissention or a govt crackdown. NOBODY I mean NOBODY on this oblate spheriod is immune from the madness. The Islamist terrorists can cause havoc but they cannot win. Their victory will be their destruction, as their resource base will be destroyed, e.g. Saudi Arabia and the funding they get from there.
So now it boils down to how much destruction is the world willing to take from these Islamic a--holes before we collectively squash them like bugs.
My heart goes out to the people of Turkey for their loss in this sensless tragedy. The Jews in Turkey are equivalent to the canary in the coal mine. I hope that the Turks see it that way, too.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/15/2003 13:37 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Scooter: the insult to Murat is inappropriate. You should apologize.
Murat thinks very differently than us but my belief is that he's a decent Joe in a country very different from ours. We need to educate him at times (a lot :-) but he's fundamentally a good guy.
My condolences to the Turkish people and to all those maimed and killed in this attack.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/15/2003 13:38 Comments ||
Top||
#14
We're all in this together. Murat, my condolences.
#15
Terrorism is terrorism, no matter who it strikes; jewish followers or turkish bystanders, my sympathy goes to the victims and their family, and I sincerely hope the gvt will get the bombers, ottoman-style. As for Murat, I also think some comments are not appropriate, especially at that time. My condolences too.
#16
Any disagreements we may have with Murat and the policies of the current Turkish government have nothing to do with the innocent people who were murdered in Istanbul.
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
11/15/2003 14:59 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Imagine...
Christian radicals blow up a mosque with praying people inside and Western leaders say that the act was "inacceptable" but as long as the Arab states violated UN resolutions we'd see more of innocent Muslims die (which is pretty much what the Secretary General of the Arab League said today).
#18
Steve White: I see no denial from Murat, and certainly no need to apologize. He likes to take cheap shots, but conveniently never seems around to answer the hard questions. I find his silence speaks louder than words.
#20
the insult to Murat is inappropriate. You should apologize.
You're kidding right?? How about Murat apologizes for his 'raining Yanks' comment?
Posted by: Rafael ||
11/15/2003 20:32 Comments ||
Top||
#21
I'm not kidding. Murat's comments in the past do not permit me to in turn insult the people who died in the explosion today. Patrick is exactly right.
Scooter: today is Saturday. Murat generally (as far as I can tell) doesn't post on Saturdays. Especially today, when he may be glued to the TV.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/15/2003 22:15 Comments ||
Top||
another well written article by Ali Sina at http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31114.htm
I hope more people send the URL of this site to their friends.
EFL
How Islam became the darling of the western apologists
... why have so many western writers praised it?"
For example Prof. Michael Sells of the University of North Carolina wrote a benign version of the Quran, which omitted the violent verses that Muhammad wrote during the last decade of his life.... I wrote him a letter asking for explanation, but received no response.
I also invited Prof. John Esposito, the chief editor of the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World and The Oxford History of Islam to debate with me about the history of Islam and defend his position that Islam expanded peacefully. Dr. Esposito also did not reply.
The truth is not difficult to find. All we have to do is to read the original history of Islam written by the early historians, read the hadith for historical information, and read the Quran. When you do that; you get to know the true Islam. This is the pure Islam as taught by the Wahhabis and practiced by the Taliban. Then, when you read the books written by these modern apologists of Islam, you can see that they are concealing the truth.
To find the truth we have to go to the source. The sources are the original historis written by In Is-haq, al Waquidi, al Tabari and the hadith. These are the early books on the history of Islam written by Muslim historians. All the later scholars must, or should have, consulted these books. There are no other sources on the history of Islam. So if what the modern Islamic writers say is contrary to what the above books say, are they telling the truth?
Why would the experts on Islam lie? The answer is complex...
Muslims terrorize those who write books that reveal the ugly side of Islam. In such a repressive atmosphere, deceit is applied and truth is the casualty.
There is also another factor that has to be taken into consideration.
Political Correctness:
... The idea was noble; something that Muslims would not be able even to understand. However, the sad reality is that by doing so, the truth was sacrificed at the altar of Political Correctness. This provided the milieu for Islam to expand in the West. Islam thrives in an environment where truth is suppressed....
When Greenpeace activists illegally scrambled aboard the cargo ship APL Jade, it was the start of a pretty typical day. Convinced the ship was hauling contraband mahogany from Brazil, the environmentalists aimed to draw attention to it by unfurling a banner with this message: âPresident Bush, Stop Illegal Logging.â Their arrests by the Coast Guard were also part of a dayâs work. But the later use of an obscure 19th century law to charge the entire organization with criminal conspiracy has Greenpeace defenders claiming that they are the target of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroftâs attempts to stifle political criticism of the government.
THE GREENPEACE demonstration off the coast of Florida on April 12, 2002, was one of a series of similar âdirect actionsâ taken by the international organization near ports around the world as it attempted to draw attention to the mahogany shipment, which violated a Brazilian moratorium on mahogany lumbering in the Amazon, and violated the international treaty controlling trade in endangered species, CITES. It was standard practice for the international organization, which for more than three decades has used this in-your-face method to fight for causes it deems just. It is a method of civil disobedience that has been used by activists on both ends of the political spectrum, from civil rights campaigners to anti-abortion groups. In Florida, as in the mahogany protests elsewhere, a handful of individuals were charged with minor crimes and released shortly thereafter.
But 15 months after the APL Jade incident, the U.S. Justice Department in Floridaâs Southern District dramatically upped the ante. Drawing on an 1872 law, it filed criminal charges against Greenpeace USA for boarding a ship before its arrival in port, and with conspiracy to do so â in a case scheduled to be heard in December. Critics and some legal experts say the pursuit of an entire organization for this type of civil disobedience by its members is a break with 200 years of American tradition, and appears to be an attempt by the Bush administration to silence a vocal critic. In the words of former Vice President Al Gore, the legal move looks to be âaimed at inhibiting Greenpeaceâs First Amendment activities.â Because the case is pending, the Department of Justice declined any specific comment on this case. However, said Matthew Dates, special counsel for public affairs: âWe would evaluate the case like any other, based on the facts and the law.â If convicted, Greenpeace USA faces a statutory maximum penalty of five yearsâ probation and a fine of $10,000, according to a press release from the U.S. attorney general for the Southern District of Florida. Some observers say it is possible that Greenpeace could lose its tax-exempt status in the United States â a death knell for a non-profit organization. More broadly, say rights activists, a conviction could have a chilling effect on other organizations that practice nonviolent protest.
Despite taking place on a ship, the protest itself was nothing unusual. âIt was a classic sit-in in the sense that it was non-violent, overt, and non-threatening,â says George Washington University constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley. As is also typical of this type of protest, says Turley, âthe protesters want to be arrested.â But he says the response has been highly unusual. While organizations sometimes face criminal prosecution for the actions of their members, especially in racketeering, fraud and securities cases, it is extremely rare â if not unprecedented â for the government to pursue criminal charges against organizations in âthe free speech area,â he says. Also suspect, says Turley, is the use of an obscure statute of federal law in the case. Passed 131 years ago, Code 18, Statute 2779 was written to prevent organizations such as boarding houses from âsailor mongeringâ â which involved boarding ships before they had moorage, often using alcohol or prostitutes to lure the crewmen ashore, leaving the vessel unattended. His research indicates that the law has been cited in only two cases, most recently in 1890. Turley says these factors strongly suggest a campaign of selective prosecution as a means of silencing a vocal critic, which is prohibited by law.
The ACLU of Florida and People for the American Way Foundation, which on Nov. 7 weighed in with a brief to the court on behalf of Greenpeace, say the case is of âprofound importanceâ because it âimperils the core values of the Constitution.â âFor two hundred years, the United States government has refrained from prosecuting advocacy groups whose members occasionally engage in peaceful civil disobedience to convey a constitutionally protected message,â they wrote in their brief. âThe prosecution of Greenpeace indicates a sea change in that policy.â Greenpeace, which has led an aggressive pro-environmental campaign since its founding in 1971, has been at odds with the Bush administration since its earliest days in office, decrying the presidentâs position on the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, staging protests against the National Missile Defense Initiative and the opening of roads on national forest land. Just a few months after Bush took office, Greenpeace activists climbed a water tower near his ranch in Crawford, Texas, and unfurled a banner that read: âBush the Toxic Texan, Donât Mess with the Earth.â They were arrested after a two-hour stand-off during which they refused to climb down, ignoring demands by the mayor, the county sheriff and the Secret Service. âWe have been critics across the board,â says John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace. He says the organization has never before been challenged at this level in the United States, and characterizes it as the way the Justice Department operates under Ashcroft. âThe parallel I see is with the McCarthy era â the overreach by the government to stifle its critics,â he says. âIt is a fight we are willing to take on ... a fight for our right to dissent peacefully in this country in areas we think society is wrong.â
Greenpeace will seek additional discovery to lay out what went into the decision to charge Greenpeace, says legal counsel Tom Wetterer. âWe have found no previous examples of where the government has charged an organization for a political protest,â he says. âThe prosecution, if indeed it is selective, amounts to nothing more than an act of intimidation by the government, apparently directed at silencing political speech,â says the ACLU/PAWF brief. âIt is a fight we are willing to take on â a fight for our right to dissent peacefully in this country in areas we think society is wrong.â From the point of view of the activists, the events of April 12 were mostly unsurprising, but ominous signs emerged later on. In Coast Guard custody for most of the day, a Friday, the mood was relaxed and they were led to believe they would soon be released. âThey told us to order pizza,â says Scott Paul, Greenpeaceâs forest campaign coordinator, who was among those arrested. âLater in the day, the FBI got involved and the atmosphere changed dramatically.â He was one of 14 activists who ended up spending the weekend in a federal penitentiary before release the following Monday. Within two months, the case was resolved. Six people, including the two who boarded the ship, pleaded guilty under the âsailor mongeringâ law on condition that other charges would be dropped. Later, says Greenpeaceâs Wetterer, it was clear that the Justice Department had launched a separate federal grand jury investigation, which led to the criminal indictment in July of this year. Public affairs officer Dates declined to comment on what prompted the government to further pursue the case, or its âdeliberative process.â Speculating about that process, Turley of George Washington University says it seems âtruly remoteâ that the case was pursued independently by the DOJ in Miami. âDOJ guidelines give a great deal of decentralized powers to state offices, except when they use statutes in unusual ways,â he says. Since this is such an unusual prosecution, âthis had to be approved at the central level,â he says. Meanwhile, Greenpeace says it confirmed that the original target of the protest, the APL Jade, went on to Charleston, S.C., where it discharged its cargo of mahogany for shipment to a forest product company. In November 2002, the United Nations Environmental Program upgraded protection of mahogany under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), a move that places even stricter controls on trade in the wood. The United States is a signatory to the treaty.
#1
selective use of a 1800's law, huh? Well, I would guess that should their storming of a cargo ship have occurred in the 1800's they might have been lucky to have seen land again, ever.... this is a shot across the bow - take their tax-exempt status...and Jesse Jackson's too ...time to make the laws work for the right as well
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/15/2003 14:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
YES!
I love how these idiots commit crimes and then claim it's "free speech".
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/15/2003 14:53 Comments ||
Top||
#3
These idiots make a lot of us who actually truly care about the environment look bad. As soon as I saw the ACLU in there I had to post this crap.
#4
Why can't they be charged with piracy? Also, the article never mentions if the mahogany was onboard- was it? Doesn't sound like it, sounds like these assholes screwed the goat. And why aren't they protesting Brazil instead of the U.S.?
Oh, and burning down buildings and Hummers isn't 'free speech', it's vandalism bordering on terrorism.
#7
About 50 members of the political organization, The Sons of Liberty, boarded 3 ships in Boston Harbor. Some were dressed, not very convincingly, as Mohawk Indians. In a very orderly and quiet fashion, they plunked [sterling]9,659 worth of Darjeeling into the sea...
#8
TGA -- Sorry, there's no comparison. The Boston Tea Party was about eliminating a tyranny; the Greens are about instituting one.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/15/2003 16:06 Comments ||
Top||
#9
"Tread lightly here..."
Screw off. The green terrorists are always accusing the conservatives of 'wrapping themselves in the flag', but they sure do want to claim SOME KIND of legitimacy by doing the same, don't they? They consider murderous swine like Mao, Guevera, and OBL to be 'George Washingtons'. They can all go suck it.
#10
TGA - I have some doubt the Boston Tea Party would've been dealt with lightly like this had the perpetrators been caught
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/15/2003 16:16 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Frank G, I know. (The Bostoners did destroy property btw.)
Which is exactly the difference between a tyranny and a free democracy.
I'm not exactly a fan of Greenpeace but sometimes they do raise legitimate issues and a peaceful protest (as annoying as it may have been to some) may be something like a misdemeanour but please let's not place people who unfurl some banners on a ship with people who bomb skyscrapers and synagogues.
A non violent sit in is not a "criminal conspiracy" even if bending some dusty law makes it one.
#13
Which is exactly the difference between a tyranny and a free democracy.
I think that's a bit simplistic, TGA. "Democracy" doesn't mean politically-motivated individuals have the right to act as if a law unto themselves. That's more like anarchy. Whenever someone or some group's actions cause monetary harm to another individual, group or company, the injured party has a right to expect compensation from, and/or punishment for, the perpetrators. Boarding a cargo ship with intent to cause disruption is not a "victimless crime", and whatever the motivation, they have no right to complain if their saboteurial actions result in punitive consequences.
"Convinced the ship was hauling contraband mahogany from Brazil"... thats what the article says.
Now from what I read that ship DID carry contraband mahogany (and US authorities turning a blind eye to it?) so you argument of monetary harm might be a bit thin on the ground. Seems like a matter of priority to me.
Sometimes you have to chose between two evils. And look at the whole matter.
Nobody punishes a firefighter for knocking down a door in order to save a house. Greenpeace may not qualify for the comparison but as I said... tread lightly.
Shipman, whiskey would never have been tossed into the water, it would have been destroyed with a more "personal" effort!
#15
But TGA, a fireman isn't a vigilante. There may be a fine line between drawing attention to criminal activity in this way and committing criminal activity yourself, but what you seem to be propounding is a blurring of the line, or a nudging of the line, because of the motives behind the actions of this group. And I don't believe that 'good' motives excuse bad behaviour.
I sympathise with their campaign to stem the trade in endangered wood, but in carrying it out their in this way, when there are many other ways of doing it, they make themselves liable to prosecution. Perhaps they'd enjoy being 'martyrs' to their cause, but is it fair to honest shipping to allow Greenpeace's eco-pirates freeedom of the seas, to go boarding vessels at will?!
#16
First of all, was it contraband, or legitimately purchased? Brazil isn't the only nation that grows mahogany trees - most of South and Central America do also. Secondly, was it legitimately purchased, or black market. They "suspected", but did they know? IF they're just out to cause trouble, hoping to force someone to give up trading in a legitimate cargo because they don't want that cargo traded in, then they should all be hanged from the ship's railing as a warning to the next group. If it was indeed contraband, duly recognized as such by both the exporting and importing country, the US should have seized it and the ship. That didn't happen. Makes me wonder what all the particulars are in this case, and why they're not all being discussed. The article is written as if something illegal was being done. However, unless the laws of two nations involved were broken, it was Greenpeace that was the agressor, and should get their teeth handed to them on a plate. I'd want to know a lot more before I accepted the words in this article as 100% Gospel truth.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
11/15/2003 19:14 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Bulldog, as I said, I'm not exactly excusing them but asking to consider the whole case. To dig out a dusty law so you can whack them doesn't sound right to me.
Blurring the line, maybe. Sometimes it's hard to see the line, especially in a twilight zone.
Let's assume the ship was not carrying timber but... marihuana (and the authorities still turning their backs)... where is the line? Cocaine? (pardon the pun).
I'm a firm advocate of respecting the law (of free democratic societies). But then again even in the U.S. laws exist that are questionable and some of them have only been abolished because some people chose to break them in public.
All I'm asking for is not to put people in a boat with "terrorists" who clearly do not qualify. Saving the rain forest is saving the lung of our Earth... I think that beats the lost dollars of timber smugglers hands down.
Greenpeace's actions may sometimes be questionable (they seem to need these spectacular acts to get the attention), their political views might not be yours or mine but the basic idea that the Earth is a precious gift that we should not put to waste for some extra dollars is not a terrorist one.
#18
Old Patriot, as it seems Greenpeace did not board this ship out of a whim.. they have been monitoring illegal mahogany trade for years so you might at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they knew what they were doing. The Brazilian president Cardoso banned the mahogany trade and president Bush has publicly spoken out against it. So I think Greenpeace has a point, and unfortunately in our media society the point gets across more easily with a media friendly action.
Most of the (laudable) achievements of Greenpeace involved breaking (or bending) laws at some point. Remember how Greenpeace fought against French nuclear testing in Mururoa? Against whaling? Oh they boarded quite a few whaling ships and succeeded in protecting the whales because commercial whaling was banned after these spectacular (and at some point law breaking) actions.
The firefighter analogy isn't that far fetched. If you hear a child screaming in the neighbor's apartment and you have reasons to believe that the child is abused, then nobody will prosecute you for trying to stop it. Even if you break a law by doing it.
#20
TGA is full of it. All this talk about nonviolent protest for a great 'cause' is dung. Holding a pro life sign within 100 feet of Planned UnParenthood's abortion chambers during the Reno/Clinton reign of terror meant getting slapped with a felony charge under RICO and DECADES of jail time. And these panty waist perverts want to screw a precious mahogany tree. What dung! Here's an idea - let's apply the law equally. You don't look at someone's motive to decide whether to enforce the law!!
Posted by: Pro Life ||
11/15/2003 21:33 Comments ||
Top||
#21
TGA is full of it.
I disagree. I respect allefforts for environmental preservation. As a civil engineer/project manager I can attest to the ways those protections have been bastardized to stop projects/progress (IMHO); AP can tell a similar tale. These freaks are one step from the ELF bastards and should be slammed hard! They have a safe refuge in our courts system and I respect when they play by the rules, as I am bound to do.....otherwise, smack the trust-funds of these weasels and make them earn a living!
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/15/2003 21:45 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Remember action/consequences principle. Right or wrong, the Greenpiecers boarded a ship without permission. They may be protesters, they may be pirates. Action against them is up to the master and the owner. If the Greenpiecers are doing this on principle, then fine, they must face the consequences, which includes getting shot, arrested, jailed, and possibly losing their tax exempt status. They played their hand and they will have to live with it. They ought to lose their tax exempt status, and so should the ACLU.
The Sons of Liberty got away with the act. Great, but they could have got caught and jailed or hung. They took the chance and won against the Crown.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/15/2003 23:04 Comments ||
Top||
A roadside bomb believed planted by Nepalese rebels killed a brigadier general and three soldiers Saturday, the defense ministry said. The roadside bomb option is becoming a recurring theme throughout the world.
Brig. Gen. Sagar Pandey is the highest army officer to be killed by the rebels, who have been fighting since 1996 to end the monarchy in this Himalayan kingdom. Pandey and three soldiers riding in the same vehicle were killed near Bhaise, a town about 100 miles west of Katmandu, the ministry said. It gave no further details. Separately, gunmen on motorcycles shot and killed three policemen in a busy market in Nepalgunj, the main city in Nepalâs western region, the hardest hit by the insurgency. The attackers, thought to be rebels, fled on their vehicles, police said. The motorcycle attack another reccurrent tactic.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
11/15/2003 2:05:58 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Road side bomb.... are we talking about a mine? Or a bomb along side the road? Seems half the blast would be wasted if it was along side.
Maulana Azam Tariq 1961-2003
According to Jang, Maulana Azam Tariq, killed in Islamabad on 6 October 2003, was born in 1961 in Chichawatni but got his religious instruction under Maulana Manzur Ahmad Chinioti at a seminary in Rabwah. After that he was trained at the Banuri Town seminary of the Deobandis. He graduated from Punjab University but got his MA in Arabic and Islamiat from Karachi University. He knew six languages. He shifted to Jhang after the murder of the Sipah Sahaba leader Isarul Haq Qasimi. He was elected MNA three times and MPA once. He was married in 1979 to his cousin. In 1996 he was arrested for the murder of SSP Ashraf Marath and was jailed. Under chief minister Shehbaz Sharif he remained in jail. In all, he spent four years in jail. He was attacked 20 times, first time in 1987. In 1990 he was attacked with a revolver in his drawing room which wounded him. In 1994 he was attacked by rockets on the road but was saved by his guards. In 1994 he was shot at during a conference but was not hit. In 1997, he was blown up by a bomb at the sessions courts of Lahore in which he nearly died although the chief of Sipah Sahaba, Ziaur Rehman Farooqi, died on the spot.
Teachers abuse children in Peshawar
According to Nawa-e-Waqt, NGOs in Peshawar had disclosed that in a government-owned school in Peshawar the teachers were routinely sexually abusing children while there was no one to defend the childrenâs rights. They said that the pederast teachers were so powerful that they got principals dismissed if they took any notice of their evil practice. They also said that abuse of children had spread to many schools in the province. Peshawar city was shaken by the scandal.
Islamic states as petrol pumps
According to weekly Naya Zamana, information minister Sheikh Rashid said on the occasion of the anniversary of General Ziaâs death that Pakistan was the only state that was correctly Islamic; all the other Islamic states were petrol pumps. His remark was pointed at the Arab states that produce and export oil. After his speech the ministry went on to full gear to prevent the press from carrying the remark.
Citizen against cricketers
According to Khabrain, a pious citizen had moved the court in Lahore against selectors, Amir Suhail and Ramiz Raja, and players Shoaib Akhtar and Shoaib Malik for attending a fashion show on the pious night of Shab-e-Barat. He said that his emotions were greatly exercised by the cricketersâ impious act.
Maulana Samiul Haq accuses
Quoted by Khabrain, MMA leader Maulana Samiul Haq said that it was not certain whether his party JUI(S) would remain in the MMA or not, but he would always stand against the LFO. He said the MMA was a failure because it had become the handmaiden of Qazi Hussain Ahmad and Maulana Fazlur Rehman. He said his son had not been offered any ministry but that in the NWFP the Americans had increased their interference.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
11/15/2003 7:26:42 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"His remark was pointed at the Arab states that produce and export oil. After his speech the ministry went on to full gear to prevent the press from carrying the remark." He steps up to the podium and talks out of his butt, you got to love that in an Information Minister.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
11/15/2003 13:37 Comments ||
Top||
EFL
SHANGHAI, China (AP) - In a striking scene of cooperation, China and India united Friday for joint naval exercises off Shanghaiâs coast - the latest sign that the one-time enemies are abandoning decades of tense relations. Even as the maneuvers unfolded, China reassured longtime ally Pakistan, Indiaâs nuclear rival, that nothing had changed. "Of course I still love you!"
The exercises involved two Indian vessels, the guided-missile destroyer INS Ranjit and the guided-missile corvette INS Kulish. The vessels sailed into the East China Sea to rendezvous with the Chinese frigate Jiaxing and tanker Feng Chang. Drills included a simulated fire aboard the Chinese tanker that was fought by the Chinese frigate and Indian ships, according to a statement from the Indian Embassy in Beijing. A Ranjit-based helicopter also practiced evacuating wounded. ``The joint exercises were conducted successfully,ââ the embassy said.
Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Defense Minister George Fernandes - a frequent critic of China - made successful trips to China this year. The countries also recently pledged to open a highway to facilitate trade across the border in northeastern Indiaâs Sikkim region. Vajpayeeâs trip produced a statement in which the sides issued a joint statement saying they would no longer view each other as obstacles to their own hegemony a threat and would solve differences through mutual exchanges of blunt instruments peaceful means.
Chinaâs government did not immediately comment on the exercises. However, Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told reporters Thursday that China believed such cooperation would "string the Indians along til weâre ready to deal with them" ``further enhance friendly relations.ââ Wonder if Liu wants to rename the big body of water t the south the "Chinese Ocean"?
The day of drills followed similar exercises off Shanghai last month involving the Chinese navy and warships from Pakistan, Indiaâs nuclear neighbor and primary antagonist. Those exercises marked the first-ever joint naval exercises between Chinese ships and the navy of another nation since the founding of the communist Peopleâs Republic of China in 1949. Nicely playing both ends of the field.
The drills, nearly identical in content to the China-India exercises, may have been aimed at reassuring Pakistan that improvements in Beijingâs ties with India wonât undermine long-standing close relations with Islamabad. "But you CANâT consort with those Indian dogs!"
"Why the hell not?"
"Because theyâre infidels!"
"According to your book, weâre infidels as well."
"Well yeah, but thatâs different!"
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/15/2003 1:00:27 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hmmm, Germany and Russia were 'allies' in 1939. And Germany's biggest trading partner before WW2 was of course ...
... FRANCE! Stay tuned as further hilarity ensues.
#5
Looked through the web for info on the Chinese Navy. Looks as if the Indian Navy may be superior to it.
The drills that they conducted didn't really take any coordination.
You would think that the Chinese would be buying up WWII amphibious assault ships.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
11/15/2003 9:56 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The chinese navy isn't much - mostly formed to send forces to Taiwan in the "ineveitable" attack, and more recently as Spratley oil development is becoming a national goal, trying to develop a means to project force in blue water. Their national focus still seems to be boots on the ground, based on the quantity of people available
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/15/2003 12:58 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Maybe the Chinese want to develop tanker rescue capability after they run one aground on the reefs in the Spratleys.
"You're not usssing me, are yuuu?"
"No, I love ya, honey!"
"Hokay."
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/15/2003 12:59 Comments ||
Top||
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Nov. 15 â The U.S.-led occupation will end by June after the selection of transitional government, the Iraqi Governing Council said Saturday. After that, the U.S. Military status would change from an occupation force to a âmilitary presence,â the council president said. THE ANNOUNCEMENT WAS made following talks between the council and the chief administrator, L. Paul Bremer, who returned Thursday from Washington after talks with President Bush and senior national security advisers.
Council member Ahmad Chalabi, appearing at a news conference with other members, said the selection of a transitional government should be completed by May, âinternationally recognizedâ and with âfull sovereignty.â
Council President Jalal Talabani, speaking in Arabic, said the transitional administration would be selected after consultations with âall partiesâ in Iraqi society. Council members also said plans called for a permanent constitution to be drafted and an elected administration chosen by the end of 2005. âThe new government will be in charge of negotiating with the occupying forces over how to regulate their presence in the country,â Talabani said.
Sunni Muslim council member Adnan Pachachi said the current U.S.-appointed Governing Council will send a letter to the president of the U.N. Security Counsel to inform him of the timetable for the setting up of the new institutions. The United Nations had set a deadline of Dec. 15 for the timetable. âThe reason behind the setting up of this transitional government is to restore sovereignty, to end the occupation and to give a chance to a representative of the Iraqi people to represent Iraq,â Pachachi said.
Talabani said the new leadership would fully respect human rights and freedom of religion. It would also ensure separation of powers between executive, legislative and judicial branches, maintain civilian control of the armed forces and respect the countryâs Islamic identity.
SUPPORT DIMINISHES AS CASUALTIES RISE
The United States had insisted a new constitution be drafted and approved and a new government elected before the transfer of sovereignty. The Iraqis had been insisting on a faster transfer. But the sharp rise in U.S. casualties and declining public support for the Bush policy on Iraq apparently led to a decision to change the sovereignty timetable. Asked whether the Americans wanted to hand sovereignty because of rising death tolls, Pachachi said: âI think you should address this question to the special representative of the U.S. government.â Pachachi added that America was âresponding to our desireâ for political power.
President Bush said the accelerated timetable is essential to bringing democracy to Iraq and ensuring peace with its neighbors. âThe U.S. stands ready to help the governing council and all Iraqis translate this new timeline into political reality,â Bush said in a statement. He added that the development was âan important step toward realizing the vision of Iraq as a democratic, pluralistic country at peace with its neighbors.â But a senior White House official told The Associated Press that many details remain about how a new governing body will emerge from a nation with sharp ethnic and religious divides.
#1
Then again, a transitional government with "full" sovereignty could force a fair number of critics to find something else to carp about -- something more transparent to 2004 voters.
I worry about Talabani's comments on respecting freedom of religion and the country's Islamic identity -- aren't those two incompatible?
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/15/2003 14:58 Comments ||
Top||
#2
So we have elections first, rules for election later. Don't be surprised if you aren't happy with the results. Constitutions are written to protect peoples rights. Delaying this is just begging for BIG trouble. I suspect you willl find a state religion in place before the end of next year.
#3
It seems unavoidable that Iraq would have a state religion. There is only so much one can do to change societies. I have always thought that Iraq would be an explicitly Shi'a state ultimately. A relatively liberal one, with structural guarantees for the Kurds, hopefully, but a Shi'a state nevertheless.
#4
Whoa, you guys are drawing some strange conclusions. We never said Iraq would have elections. We said that we would turn over authority to a transitional government that we choose. Most likely we're gonna take some member of the GC that we think is the most responsible and assign him as president and allow him to build a cabinet with our approval.
MOSUL, Iraq -- Two U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopters crashed in this northern Iraqi city on Saturday, the military said. Witnesses said the two aircraft collided in mid-air.
A military spokesman said the two helicopters belonged to the 101st Airborne Division, which controls northern Iraq. The spokesman did not comment on the cause of the crash or possible casualties.
Witnesses said the helicopters came down in Borsa, a residential neighborhood in Mosul, Iraqâs third-largest city.
"I was leaving the mosque and I heard a boom," said Hani, a witness who only gave his first name. He said two helicopters collided in mid-air before one crashed onto the roof of a house. He said he did not know what happened to the other aircraft.
"The crash site has been secured by the U.S. military, Iraqi police and firefighters," said the military spokesman, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Increased optempo always results in a greater chance of an accident.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
11/15/2003 2:00:11 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is just great. Now they don't have to shoot us down, we'll do it for them!
And things were going so well.
Posted by: Charles ||
11/15/2003 20:28 Comments ||
Top||
#2
To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher: Don't go wobbly on us now, Charles!
LISBON, Portugal -- A Portuguese journalist abducted by gunmen in southern Iraq was released Saturday, news reports said.
Carlos Raleiras, a journalist with Lisbon-based radio TSF, said he was set free at a roadside about 36 hours after being abducted near Basra.
Raleiras told TSF he was not harmed. He did not say whether a ransom was paid.
Raleiras had been traveling in a convoy with other Portuguese journalists from the Kuwait border to Basra to report on Portuguese police officers who have been deployed to aid British forces when they came under attack.
Unidentified gunmen opened fire on the jeeps, wounding one Portuguese television journalist.
Raleiras went missing during the attack and later said he was captured when a journalist for Portugalâs state news agency Lusa contacted him on his satellite telephone.
Television journalist Maria Joao Rueala, who sustained a bullet wound in the leg, was treated in a British military hospital in southern Iraq. She was expected to be airlifted to Lisbon Saturday.
I would thin kink that area that he was grabbed by an organized crime group invovled in oil smuggling. Iâm sure that AQ or the Baathists would have blown his brains out.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
11/15/2003 1:55:57 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
EFL & Rubbing it in your face fun!
A U.S. helicopter crew wiped out a bunch of assclowns pro-Saddam artillery team that was about to launch a massive missile attack on an American base yesterday as GIs continued their blistering counter-offensive in Iraq. The New York Post sure knows how to write hardcore erotica!
The AH-64 Apache helicopter attack in Saddam Husseinâs hometown Tikrit killed seven terrorist fighters and led to the discovery of a huge stockpile of 900 missiles in nearby bunkers, the military said. What I really like is that the NYP does not call them âmilitantsâ or âcounter insurgentsâ. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.
The strike was part of an operation code named Ivy Cyclone, one of several [blistering] counterattacks launched by U.S. forces yesterday in an aggressive campaign to beat back terrorist attacks and reclaim the initiative following the bloodiest period in post-war Iraq. In Baghdad, the Armyâs 1st Armored Division hit five Baâathist targets with artillery fire and rockets launched from Air Force C-130 gunships last night on the third day of Operation Iron Hammer. Everytime I hear about a C-130 gunship working the crowd, I get goose bumbs.
#1
A U.S. helicopter crew wiped out a bunch of assclowns pro-Saddam artillery team that was about to launch a massive missile attack on an American base yesterday as GIs continued their blistering counter-offensive in Iraq.
This is what I want to hear. Not "captured", but killed. Where Saddam and his sympathizers are concerned, eliminating them entirely prevents other problems from cropping up later.
#2
" Sir, ducks sighted at 9 o'clock. Awaiting permission to engage. "
" Permission granted. Just save some roasted duck for the Intel boys, captain. "
Posted by: Charles ||
11/15/2003 14:31 Comments ||
Top||
#3
New York Post is the fucking bomb
Posted by: g wiz ||
11/15/2003 15:38 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Those 900 missiles? Isn't that what they are using to take down our helicopters, including the two today? That was a great hunt!
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Nov. 14 â Tires squealing, sirens wailing and adrenaline pumping madly, dozens of Iraqi police officers charged through central Baghdad to take back their city from bandits.
Pistols and Kalashnikov rifles at the ready, they sprinted up a narrow alleyway in the notorious Fadhil district on Thursday, pulling one car theft suspect from his bed in his underwear. Hardly pausing for breath, the officers burst into a billiard parlor, pushed the six young patrons against a wall and searched them for weapons. Glad to see they are finally getting their own weapons and cars. The more they patrol the streets the more we donât have to which means the less american soldiers die.
Women and children stared down at the ruckus from sheet-covered balconies. Startled peddlers stood frozen by their donkey carts.
"God bless the police!" shouted a shopkeeper as the men in blue passed by.
"What took you so long?" called out another. This is a good sign. The people are starting to gain faith in their own independence and their own government. They are rebuilding their pride in their establishments... without this they would never thrive and instead spend their time looking for scapegoats for their problems.
But there in person was the police chief of Baghdad, Hassan al-Obeidi, smiling as he walked with his troops past the ramshackle car repair shops with mufflers hanging from the doorways like sausages. Even more astonishing to the onlookers, Brig. Gen. Ahmed Ibrahim, deputy interior minister and boss of the Iraqi national police, strode along at the head of the procession, asking, even pleading, for people to help him fight crime.
"Help us to protect you and preserve security," General Ibrahim, wearing a black bulletproof vest and a black Gauloises cap, shouted through a megaphone above the din.
"Guide us, please," he said, buttonholing merchants along the sidewalks. "If you have suspicions about anything, tell us. Weâve been receiving complaints about gangs and hand grenades. Do you know anyone? Have you seen anything? Can you give us a name or an address?" The Iraqi police will get the population to help them far more than we ever could. They are proving to me that they are ready to handle the security themselves. We should start handing over the responsability to them as soon as possible.
#2
At first, the US was keen on time consuming training for the Iraqis and the first police took quite awhile to be trained (3-6 weeks) but now, the Iraqi police have reached the point where they can do OJT with new recruits. The only real problem is keeping out Baathist double agents.
68 freakinâ pages of about 12 pix each equals 816 pix?
Great collection, although not much in the way of descriptions. I assume the photographer is CPL Debbie Prieve of the 101st. You can send her a Care package and thank her for sharing--address at the link.
Posted by: Dar ||
11/15/2003 10:04:08 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Tell me again about the quagmire.
I like these pictures. Things are definitely looking up.
#4
Meh. I don't think its a government plant, if that's what you're getting at.
I think its a collection of personal photographs mixed with others, probably more professional that mean something to this person. There's a definate majority of non-pro photo's in there, centered around a few particular women in the military, but there's also a lot of shots taken with more expensive equipment and covering an awful lot of different episodes, in all sorts of differing techniques (night vision, black/white, telephoto, etc). Though, there is one black and white of the girl who dominates the photo gallery, so who knows.
As for the quagmire: Its obvious Don't you see it?
#5
I went through the entire collection and these were the photos that I liked best (everyone to their own opinion of course).
Debbies4 049 page 26; Debbies4 073 page 28; Debbies7 111 page 43; Superman 2&3 page 64; Sheik and Bake page 67.
SALAHUDDIN - Iraqi police are uncovering one planned attack after another every day in the central Iraqi region of Salahuddin, a governorate that includes Tikrit and Baiji. For Major General Mazhar Taha Aljuburi, the Police Commander of the Salahuddin governorate, who is charged with developing intelligence on the area, thatâs good news and bad.
The bad news is that the number of bombs being found is growing with each day. The good news is that the network of informants that Iraqi police have been building for the last two months is uncovering most of them.
"We now have good information about the resistance action in our area and we are beginning to limit their abilities," said Aljuburi. "Every day we discover a new resistance operation. For example, [last Wednesday] we discovered six landmines on the Tikrit -Kirkuk road, three more on the road between Baiji and Mosul, and two mines inside the Baiji area."
Aljuburi claims the recent success is down to the creation of two governorate special offices in September who collect information on followers of the former regime, coordinated from headquarters and staffed by only the most able police officers.
"We elect the clever members to work in [the special offices] and to collect the information which we need. In addition to getting important information to the police, they must also coordinate with the local tribal Sheikhs."
I posted a good section of the article because the source has a habit of making the articles subscription only after theyâve been up for a short period of time.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American ||
11/15/2003 3:18:08 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Some of this is coming from having so many people unemployed. Hopefully as the economy picks up fewer of the soft-core malcontents will be available for $100 hire.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
11/15/2003 9:28 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Correct SH, but don't forget all the prisons emptied in the fighting...a lot of hard boys are available for this, and generally are unemployable by character deficit. Kill them or throw their asses in deep black cells. Many here have decried the term "arrest" in lieu of "capture" and I totally agree. Rebels and criminals fighting in street clothes against our forces and Iraqi Police are undeserving of a judicial adjudication....a hole in the desert is what they deserve, or their heads on a pike...but hey, that's why Bremer's in charge, and not me ;-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/15/2003 13:07 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Like FDR appointing Joe Kennedy to run the SEC--the Major General from Military Intelligence knows who the baddies are, how bad they are, and which ones can be pumped for information and which must be pumped full of lead.
Posted by: John Bragg ||
11/15/2003 19:30 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Sorry about the double comment but I left out the BUT. Who Polices the Police? A "former" skullcracker cracking skulls for the Forces of Good leaves one suspicious, even if Order Is Restored.
Posted by: John Bragg ||
11/15/2003 19:33 Comments ||
Top||
CAIRO, Egypt - U.S. military prosecutors have decided to prosecute three American soldiers from Pennsylvania on charges of abusing Iraqi prisoners of war, a U.S. Army spokesman said Friday. Maj. Victor Harris, spokesman for the Kuwait-based U.S. Land Forces Component Command, said the three will be formally charged on Saturday in an arraignment hearing at Camp Doha, Kuwait, which is under the command of the Third U.S. Army.
The charges grew out of an alleged incident May 12 at a U.S. detention facility, Camp Bucca, in southern Iraq. The three soldiers, from the 320th Military Police Battalion, based in Ashley, Pa., are accused of punching and kicking Iraqi POWs while escorting them to Camp Bucca. Following an inquiry into the alleged incident, U.S. military investigators recommended bringing charges, which have since been filed by the Third Armyâs commanding general, Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan. Saturday will be the first time the charges are formally read out to the accused soldiers.
The soldiers have said they acted in self-defense, that conditions were chaotic at Camp Bucca, and that guards had been harassed and assaulted daily by unruly prisoners.
The three soldiers, Master Sgt. Lisa Marie Girman, 35; Staff Sgt. Scott A. McKenzie, 38; and Spc. Timothy F. Canjar, 21, are accused of dereliction of duty, cruelty and maltreatment of enemy prisoners of war, filling false official statements, obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice. A fourth soldier originally held on the same allegations, Sgt. Shawna Edmondson, 24, has received a discharge from the military, which she requested rather than face martial proceedings.
During Saturdayâs arraignment, the three soldiers will be able to enter pleas, and a date for the court martial is expected to be set. The court martial will be held at both Camp Doha and at Camp Bucca to allow Iraqi prisoners of war to testify. Iâm torn by this. I donât want POWs abused, but I also donât want a Breaker Morant situation.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/15/2003 1:08:09 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
This is a complete transcript of the Weekly Standard article that details US intelligence on the Iraq/al-Qaeda connection.
OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD. And there goes the "hyped intelligence" charge in regards to the Iraq/al-Qaeda connection. A lot of this stuff also comes from the early to late 1990s, long before Bush even thought of running for president.
The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of Americaâs most determined and dangerous enemies. Which would seem to annihilate the belief that secular and religious terrorist groups are incapable of collaboration. Why, itâs as outrageous as a right-wing American Republican president being in league with a left-wing British Labour prime minister! Their ideologies are completely incompatible.
According to the memoâwhich lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered pointsâIraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which in
some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis. Mmm! Yummy!
The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent "emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials." At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, "Iraq sought Sudanâs assistance to establish links to al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organizationâs capabilities through ties with Iraq." That would make General Bashir and Turabi the main drivers behind al-Qaeda hooking up with Iraq as well as Iran. Yet another reason to keep Sudan on the terrorist list.
The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front.
Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that "al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors." Do "proscribed weapons" include nerve gas? We saw Abu Khabab and Co testing it out on dogs at Darunta camp. The UN bright boys say that itâs only a matter of time till al-Qaeda carries out a chem/bio attack and that may well be what El Shukrijumah and his boss Jdey were sent over to the States for. Interesting that we first started looking for them about the same time that Sammyâs 48 deadline expired, donât ya think?
One such confirmation came in a postwar interview with one of Saddam Husseinâs henchmen. As the memo details:
4. According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meetingâthe first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were . Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.
Yet another benefit of having nearly collected the entire deck of cards. Hijazi is now in custody and the only Mukhabarat bad boy still at large is Habbush, IIRC.
A decisive moment in the budding relationship came in 1993, when bin Laden faced internal resistance to his cooperation with Saddam.
5. A CIA report from a contact with good access, some of whose reporting has been corroborated, said that certain elements in the "Islamic Army" of bin Laden were against the secular regime of Saddam. Overriding the internal factional strife that was developing, bin Laden came to an "understanding" with Saddam that the Islamic Army would no longer support anti-Saddam activities. According to sensitive reporting released in U.S. court documents during the African Embassy trial, in 1993 bin Laden reached an "understanding" with Saddam under which he (bin Laden) forbade al Qaeda operations to be mounted against the Iraqi leader.
The Islamic Army was an early name for al-Qaeda, though Binny didnât care much for it and so he stuck with the latter. The mention of differences over whether or not to align with Iraq among the al-Qaeda brass is interesting and could explain why both Zubaydah and Khalid said it never happened to begin with. May be yet another sign of the groupâs decentralization that not all the leaders were aware of the full extent of the groupâs allies. Or they could just be lying and in need of more giggle juice.
Another facilitator of the relationship during the mid-1990s was Mahmdouh Mahmud Salim (a.k.a. Abu Hajer al-Iraqi). Abu Hajer, now in a New York prison, was described in court proceedings related to the August 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania as bin Ladenâs "best friend." According to CIA reporting dating back to the Clinton administration, bin Laden trusted him to serve as a liaison with Saddamâs regime and tasked him with procurement of weapons of mass destruction for al Qaeda. FBI reporting in the memo reveals that Abu Hajer "visited Iraq in early 1995" and "had a good relationship with Iraqi intelligence. Sometime before mid-1995 he went on an al Qaeda mission to discuss unspecified cooperation with the Iraqi government." Salim got jugged after the Embassy bombings and stabbed a guard in the eye with a knife he made out of a comb. He was reportedly head of al-Qaedaâs WMD division, though I imagine that Abu Khabab has taken on that role these days. Makes sense that he would try to get technical help from the people with the most experience in that field.
Some of the reporting about the relationship throughout the mid-1990s comes from a source who had intimate knowledge of bin Laden and his dealings. This source, according to CIA analysis, offered "the most credible information" on cooperation between bin Laden and Iraq. This sourceâs reports read almost like a diary. Specific dates of when bin Laden flew to various cities are included, as well as names of individuals he met. The source did not offer information on the substantive talks during the meetings. . . . There are not a great many reports in general on the relationship between bin Laden and Iraq because of the secrecy surrounding it. But when this source with close access provided a "window" into bin Ladenâs activities, bin Laden is seen as heavily involved with Iraq (and Iran). Ties with the Black Hats isnât going to be surprising anybody, given that Binny himself may well be hanging out at an IRGC military base with Junior these days if heâs still alive. Be interesting to know where else he was racking up frequent flyer miles, though.
Reporting from the early 1990s remains somewhat sketchy, though multiple sources place Hassan al-Turabi and Ayman al Zawahiri, bin Ladenâs current No. 2, at the center of the relationship. The reporting gets much more specific in the mid-1990s:
8. Reporting from a well placed source disclosed that bin Laden was receiving training on bomb making from the IISâs [Iraqi Intelligence Service] principal technical expert on making sophisticated explosives, Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed. Brigadier Salim was observed at bin Ladenâs farm in Khartoum in Sept.-Oct. 1995 and again in July 1996, in the company of the Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti.
That "farm" was also al-Qaeda HQ as long as the group was based in Sudan.
9 . . . Bin Laden visited Doha, Qatar (17-19 Jan. 1996), staying at the residence of a member of the Qatari ruling family. He discussed the successful movement of explosives into Saudi Arabia, and operations targeted against U.S. and U.K. interests in Dammam, Dharan, and Khobar, using clandestine al Qaeda cells in Saudi Arabia. Upon his return, bin Laden met with Hijazi and Turabi, among others.
Iâm guessing that the Qatari royal in question is our good buddy Abdul Karim al-Thani, who also hosted Zarqawi and Khalid on occasion and poured millions into al-Qaedaâs coffers. My guess would be that heâs another link in the Golden Chain.
And later more reporting, from the same "well placed" source:
10. The Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti, met privately with bin Laden at his farm in Sudan in July 1996. Tikriti used an Iraqi delegation traveling to Khartoum to discuss bilateral cooperation as his "cover" for his own entry into Sudan to meet with bin Laden and Hassan al-Turabi. The Iraqi intelligence chief and two other IIS officers met at bin Ladenâs farm and discussed bin Ladenâs request for IIS technical assistance in: a) making letter and parcel bombs; b) making bombs which could be placed on aircraft and detonated by changes in barometric pressure; and c) making false passport [sic]. Bin Laden specifically requested that [Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed], Iraqi intelligenceâs premier explosives makerâespecially skilled in making car bombsâremain with him in Sudan. The Iraqi intelligence chief instructed Salim to remain in Sudan with bin Laden as long as required.
Ali Mohammed said court testimony at the Embassy bombing trials that Binny decided to outsource explosives expertise after the first WTC bombing and that Turabi hooked him up with the Black Hats, Mugniyeh, and Hezbollah. From the looks of things, he didnât stop there.
The analysis of those events follows:
The time of the visit from the IIS director was a few weeks after the Khobar Towers bombing. The bombing came on the third anniversary of a U.S. [Tomahawk missile] strike on IIS HQ (retaliation for the attempted assassination of former President Bush in Kuwait) for which Iraqi officials explicitly threatened retaliation.
And they did a little outsourcing of their own to do it. That also means that the Saudi cover story was bunk, whoâd of thought it?
IN ADDITION TO THE CONTACTS CLUSTERED in the mid-1990s, intelligence reports detail a flurry of activities in early 1998 and again in December 1998. A "former senior Iraqi intelligence officer" reported that "the Iraqi intelligence service station in Pakistan was Baghdadâs point of contact with al Qaeda. He also said bin Laden visited Baghdad in Jan. 1998 and met with Tariq Aziz." That fits with documents recovered by various newspapers from the old Mukhabarat HQ, including the UK Telegraph.
Since we have Tariq in hand, we've probably asked him about that...
11. According to sensitive reporting, Saddam personally sent Faruq Hijazi, IIS deputy director and later Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, to meet with bin Laden at least twice, first in Sudan and later in Afghanistan in 1999. . . .
14. According to a sensitive reporting [from] a "regular and reliable source," [Ayman al] Zawahiri, a senior al Qaeda operative, visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi Vice President on 3 February 1998. The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul Aziz.
Iâm guessing that this Jund al-Shams or whatever the prototype for Ansar al-Islam was called. Another possibility would be that itâs Komala Islamiyyah, which hosted one of Ansarâs chemical weapons factories at Khurmal before the war and got hit with US cruise missiles on the first night of the bombing. Abdul Aziz sounds like a Saudi name, though Iâm curious as to whether or not he was "Ghost," the name of the top terrorist trainer referenced by the two Iraqi defectors from Salman Pak in October 2001.
That visit came as the Iraqis intensified their defiance of the U.N. inspection regime, known as UNSCOM, created by the cease-fire agreement following the Gulf War. UNSCOM demanded access to Saddamâs presidential palaces that he refused to provide. As the tensions mounted, President Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on February 18, 1998, and prepared the nation for war. He warned of "an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals" and said "there is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein." And loathe as I am to admit it, he had a good point.
The day after this speech, according to documents unearthed in April 2003 in the Iraqi Intelligence headquarters by journalists Mitch Potter and Inigo Gilmore, Husseinâs intelligence service wrote a memo detailing coming meetings with a bin Laden representative traveling to Baghdad. Each reference to bin Laden had been covered by liquid paper that, when revealed, exposed a plan to increase cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda. According to that memo, the IIS agreed to pay for "all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden." The document set as the goal for the meeting a discussion of "the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." The al Qaeda representative, the document went on to suggest, might provide "a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden." Yep, it looks like Sammy wanted to be able to outsource al-Qaeda to hit back at the US without him actually having to do so, which fit with Binnyâs goals just perfectly.
Four days later, on February 23, 1998, bin Laden issued his now-famous fatwa on the plight of Iraq, published in the Arabic-language daily, al Quds al-Arabi:
"For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples."
Bin Laden urged his followers to act: "The ruling to kill all Americans and their alliesâcivilians and militaryâis an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it." This would be the formal creation of the International Islamic Front, IIRC correctly. CNN has the video up in the "Terror on Tape" section of their website.
Although war was temporarily averted by a last-minute deal brokered by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, tensions soon rose again. The standoff with Iraq came to a head in December 1998, when President Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, a 70-hour bombing campaign that began on December 16 and ended three days later, on December 19, 1998. According to press reports at the time, Faruq Hijazi, deputy director of Iraqi Intelligence, met with bin Laden in Afghanistan on December 21, 1998, to offer bin Laden safe haven in Iraq. CIA reporting in the memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee seems to confirm this meeting and relates two others.
15. A foreign government service reported that an Iraqi delegation, including at least two Iraqi intelligence officers formerly assigned to the Iraqi Embassy in Pakistan, met in late 1998 with bin Laden in Afghanistan.
16. According to CIA reporting, bin Laden and Zawahiri met with two Iraqi intelligence officers in Afghanistan in Dec. 1998.
17. . . . Iraq sent an intelligence officer to Afghanistan to seek closer ties to bin Laden and the Taliban in late 1998. The source reported that the Iraqi regime was trying to broaden its cooperation with al Qaeda. Iraq was looking to recruit Muslim "elements" to sabotage U.S. and U.K. interests. After a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with Taliban leader [Mullah] Omar, arrangements were made for a series of meetings between the Iraqi intelligence officer and bin Laden in Pakistan. The source noted Faruq Hijazi was in Afghanistan in late 1998.
18. . . . Faruq Hijazi went to Afghanistan in 1999 along with several other Iraqi officials to meet with bin Laden. The source claimed that Hijazi would have met bin Laden only at Saddamâs explicit direction.
Hijaziâs little trek to Afghanistan is pretty much a matter of public record when it happened ... and was roundly ignored by the press during the run up to war.
An analysis that follows No. 18 provides additional context and an explanation of these reports:
Reporting entries #4, #11, #15, #16, #17, and #18, from different sources, corroborate each other and provide confirmation of meetings between al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi intelligence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. None of the reports have information on operational details or the purpose of such meetings. The covert nature of the relationship would indicate strict compartmentation [sic] of operations.
Information about connections between al Qaeda and Iraq was so widespread by early 1999 that it made its way into the mainstream press. A January 11, 1999, Newsweek story ran under this headline: "Saddam + Bin Laden?" The story cited an "Arab intelligence source" with knowledge of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. "According to this source, Saddam expected last monthâs American and British bombing campaign to go on much longer than it did. The dictator believed that as the attacks continued, indignation would grow in the Muslim world, making his terrorism offensive both harder to trace and more effective. With acts of terror contributing to chaos in the region, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait might feel less inclined to support Washington. Saddamâs long-term strategy, according to several sources, is to bully or cajole Muslim countries into breaking the embargo against Iraq, without waiting for the United Nations to lift if formally."
The utter irresponsibility of the press here is what really gets me, given how many if not all of the same publications that wrote all of this stuff are now telling us that there was never any link between Iraq and al-Qaeda and that the very idea of a connection was "hyped up" by the administration to fool us dumb masses into accepting the war.
INTELLIGENCE REPORTS about the nature of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda from mid-1999 through 2003 are conflicting. One senior Iraqi intelligence officer in U.S. custody, Khalil Ibrahim Abdallah, "said that the last contact between the IIS and al Qaeda was in July 1999. Bin Laden wanted to meet with Saddam, he said. The guidance sent back from Saddamâs office reportedly ordered Iraqi intelligence to refrain from any further contact with bin Laden and al Qaeda. The source opined that Saddam wanted to distance himself from al Qaeda." Then there is still the issue of Zarqawi in Baghdad, indicating that perhaps Sammy didnât want to back off quite that much ...
The bulk of reporting on the relationship contradicts this claim. One report states that "in late 1999" al Qaeda set up a training camp in northern Iraq that "was operational as of 1999." Other reports suggest that the Iraqi regime contemplated several offers of safe haven to bin Laden throughout 1999. The northern Iraq training camp was probably actually the proto-Ansar al-Islam (at Khurmal?), though this was indicate that they were up and running by 1999.
23. . . . Iraqi officials were carefully considering offering safe haven to bin Laden and his closest collaborators in Nov. 1999. The source indicated the idea was put forward by the presumed head of Iraqi intelligence in Islamabad (Khalid Janaby) who in turn was in frequent contact and had good relations with bin Laden.
Some of the most intriguing intelligence concerns an Iraqi named Ahmed Hikmat Shakir:
24. According to sensitive reporting, a Malaysia-based Iraqi national (Shakir) facilitated the arrival of one of the Sept 11 hijackers for an operational meeting in Kuala Lumpur (Jan 2000). Sensitive reporting indicates Shakirâs travel and contacts link him to a worldwide network of terrorists, including al Qaeda. Shakir worked at the Kuala Lumpur airportâa job he claimed to have obtained through an Iraqi embassy employee.
Now that is interesting. Where exactly is Shakir these days, anyway?
One of the men at that al Qaeda operational meeting in the Kuala Lumpur Hotel was Tawfiz al Atash, a top bin Laden lieutenant later identified as the mastermind of the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole. Yet another one-legged al-Qaeda supremo ...
25. Investigation into the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 by al Qaeda revealed no specific Iraqi connections but according to the CIA, "fragmentary evidence points to possible Iraqi involvement."
26. During a custodial interview, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi [a senior al Qaeda operative] said he was told by an al Qaeda associate that he was tasked to travel to Iraq (1998) to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training. After the USS Cole bombing in 2000, two al Qaeda operatives were sent to Iraq for CBW-related [Chemical and Biological Weapons] training beginning in Dec 2000. Iraqi intelligence was "encouraged" after the embassy and USS Cole bombings to provide this training.
Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was on the top 20 list pre-9/11 (back when Khalid was assumed to be just Oplan Bojinka small fry), so if this is him talking under interrogation it be at least as credible as Zubaydah and Khalidâs.
The analysis of this report follows. CIA maintains that Ibn al-Shaykhâs timeline is consistent with other sensitive reporting indicating that bin Laden asked Iraq in 1998 for advanced weapons, including CBW and "poisons." Thereâs a comforting thought. Did he get an answer?
Additional reporting also calls into question the claim that relations between Iraq and al Qaeda cooled after mid-1999:
27. According to sensitive CIA reporting, . . . the Saudi National Guard went on a kingdom-wide state of alert in late Dec 2000 after learning Saddam agreed to assist al Qaeda in attacking U.S./U.K. interests in Saudi Arabia.
And then there is the alleged contact between lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. The reporting on those links suggests not one meeting, but as many as four. Whatâs more, the memo reveals potential financing of Attaâs activities by Iraqi intelligence.
The Czech counterintelligence service reported that the Sept. 11 hijacker [Mohamed] Atta met with the former Iraqi intelligence chief in Prague, [Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir] al Ani, on several occasions.
Al-Ani's in custody, too. I wonder what he's got to say...
During one of these meetings, al Ani ordered the IIS finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office.
And the commentary:
CIA can confirm two Atta visits to Pragueâin Dec. 1994 and in June 2000; data surrounding the other twoâon 26 Oct 1999 and 9 April 2001âis complicated and sometimes contradictory and CIA and FBI cannot confirm Atta met with the IIS. Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross continues to stand by his information.
Itâs not just Gross who stands by the information. Five high-ranking members of the Czech government have publicly confirmed meetings between Atta and al Ani. The meeting that has gotten the most press attentionâApril 9, 2001âis also the most widely disputed. Even some of the most hawkish Bush administration officials are privately skeptical that Atta met al Ani on that occasion. They believe that reports of the alleged meeting, said to have taken place in public, outside the headquarters of the U.S.-financed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, suggest a level of sloppiness that doesnât fit the pattern of previous high-level Iraq-al Qaeda contacts. Whether or not that specific meeting occurred, the report by Czech counterintelligence that al Ani ordered the Iraqi Intelligence Service officer to provide IIS funds to Atta might help explain the lead hijackerâs determination to reach Prague, despite significant obstacles, in the spring of 2000. (Note that the report stops short of confirming that the funds were transferred. It claims only that the IIS officer requested the transfer.) Recall that Atta flew to Prague from Germany on May 30, 2000, but was denied entry because he did not have a valid visa. Rather than simply return to Germany and fly directly to the United States, his ultimate destination, Atta took pains to get to Prague. After he was refused entry the first time, he traveled back to Germany, obtained the proper paperwork, and caught a bus back to Prague. He left for the United States the day after arriving in Prague for the second time.
But still no telling whether the money was transferred...
Several reports indicate that the relationship between Saddam and bin Laden continued, even after the September 11 attacks:
31. An Oct. 2002 . . . report said al Qaeda and Iraq reached a secret agreement whereby Iraq would provide safe haven to al Qaeda members and provide them with money and weapons. The agreement reportedly prompted a large number of al Qaeda members to head to Iraq. The report also said that al Qaeda members involved in a fraudulent passport network for al Qaeda had been directed to procure 90 Iraqi and Syrian passports for al Qaeda personnel.
How many of those 90 or so operatives turned out to be "North Africans" who showed up in Europe for Zarqawiâs chemical weapons plots in late 2002 and early 2003? Thereâs an imminent threat if you want one, IMHO ...
That would be a hell of a time to be doing it, though â just at the time Bush was throwing down the glove at the UN â unless Sammy intended to open a second, proxy front.
The analysis that accompanies that report indicates that the report fits the pattern of Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration: References to procurement of false passports from Iraq and offers of safe haven previously have surfaced in CIA source reporting considered reliable. Intelligence reports to date have maintained that Iraqi support for al Qaeda usually involved providing training, obtaining passports, and offers of refuge. This report adds to that list by including weapons and money. This assistance would make sense in the aftermath of 9-11. Colin Powell, in his February 5, 2003, presentation to the U.N. Security Council, revealed the activities of Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Reporting in the memo expands on Powellâs case and might help explain some of the resistance the U.S. military is currently facing in Iraq.
37. Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and close al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials. As of Oct. 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad. According to sensitive reporting, al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city, suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months. Such cooperation could include IIS provision of a secure operating bases [sic] and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible U.S. invasion. Al Zarqawiâs procurements from the Iraqis also could support al Qaeda operations against the U.S. or its allies elsewhere.
We seem to be to dealing with the aftermath of that deal right now. That also jives with press reports of al-Qaeda fighting alongside the Fedayeen during the war.
38. According to sensitive reporting, a contact with good access who does not have an established reporting record: An Iraqi intelligence service officer said that as of mid-March the IIS was providing weapons to al Qaeda members located in northern Iraq, including rocket propelled grenade (RPG)-18 launchers. According to IIS information, northern Iraq-based al Qaeda members believed that the U.S. intended to strike al Qaeda targets during an anticipated assault against Ansar al-Islam positions.
Yeah, that did them a lot of good ...
The memo further reported pre-war intelligence which "claimed that an Iraqi intelligence official, praising Ansar al-Islam, provided it with $100,000 and agreed to continue to give assistance." Thatâs interesting, the highest sum Iâd seen that the PUK reported from Iraq to Ansar was $35,000
CRITICS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION have complained that Iraq-al Qaeda connections are a fantasy, trumped up by the warmongers at the White House to fit their preconceived notions about international terror; that links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have been routinely "exaggerated" for political purposes; that hawks "cherry-picked" bits of intelligence and tendentiously presented these to the American public. Carl Levin, a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, made those points as recently as November 9, in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday." Republicans on the committee, he complained, refuse to look at the administrationâs "exaggeration of intelligence." Said Levin: "The question is whether or not they exaggerated intelligence in order to carry out their purpose, which was to make the case for going to war. Did we know, for instance, with certainty that there was any relationship between the Iraqis and the terrorists that were in Afghanistan, bin Laden? The administration said that thereâs a connection between those terrorist groups in Afghanistan and Iraq. Was there a basis for that?"
Seems like there was, doesn't it?
There was, as shown in the memo to the committee on which Levin serves. And much of the reporting comes from Clinton-era intelligence. Not that you would know this from Al Goreâs recent public statements. Indeed, the former vice president claims to be privy to new "evidence" that the administration lied. In an August speech at New York University, Gore claimed: "The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all, much less give him weapons of mass destruction." Really?
Oh, of course. All this mess, and all the corroboration in our links, that's just made up. Really. Never happened...
One of the most interesting things to note about the 16-page memo is that it covers only a fraction of the evidence that will eventually be available to document the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. For one thing, both Saddam and bin Laden were desperate to keep their cooperation secret. (Remember, Iraqi intelligence used liquid paper on an internal intelligence document to conceal bin Ladenâs name.) For another, few people in the U.S. government are expressly looking for such links. There is no Iraq-al Qaeda equivalent of the CIAâs 1,400-person Iraq Survey Group currently searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. Instead, CIA and FBI officials are methodically reviewing Iraqi intelligence files that survived the three-week war last spring. These documents would cover several miles if laid end-to-end. And they are in Arabic. They include not only connections between bin Laden and Saddam, but also revolting details of the regimeâs long history of brutality. It will be a slow process.
They'll also be showing links between Sammy's operation and other Bad Guy networks, with really long fingers reaching into the Paleo terror groups. There will also be other interesting links â wonder what the ties are to ISI, for instance, and who they owned in the Soddy heirarchy. We've already seem glimpses coming out about Kuwait.
So Feithâs memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee is best viewed as sort of a "Cliffâs Notes" version of the relationship. It contains the highlights, but it is far from exhaustive. One example. The memo contains only one paragraph on Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, the Iraqi facilitator who escorted two September 11 hijackers through customs in Kuala Lumpur. U.S. intelligence agencies have extensive reporting on his activities before and after the September 11 hijacking. That they would include only this brief overview suggests the 16-page memo, extensive as it is, just skims the surface of the reporting on Iraq-al Qaeda connections. Other intelligence reports indicate that Shakir whisked not one but two September 11 hijackersâKhalid al Midhar and Nawaq al Hamziâthrough the passport and customs process upon their arrival in Kuala Lumpur on January 5, 2000. Shakir then traveled with the hijackers to the Kuala Lumpur Hotel where they met with Ramzi bin al Shibh, one of the masterminds of the September 11 plot. The meeting lasted three days. Shakir returned to work on January 9 and January 10, and never again. Shakir got his airport job through a contact at the Iraqi Embassy. (Iraq routinely used its embassies as staging grounds for its intelligence held in Pakistanoperations; in some cases, more than half of the alleged "diplomats" were intelligence operatives.) The Iraqi embassy, not his employer, controlled Shakirâs schedule. He was detained in Qatar on September 17, 2001. Authorities found in his possession contact information for terrorists involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 embassy bombings, the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, and the September 11 hijackings. The CIA had previous reporting that Shakir had received a phone call from the safe house where the 1993 World Trade Center attacks had been plotted. The Qataris released Shakir shortly after his arrest.
That'd be Mr. Minister of Interior again...
On October 21, 2001, he flew to Amman, Jordan, where he was to change planes to a flight to Baghdad. He didnât make that flight. Shakir was detained in Jordan for three months, where the CIA interrogated him. His interrogators concluded that Shakir had received extensive training in counter-interrogation techniques. Not long after he was detained, according to an official familiar with the intelligence, the Iraqi regime began to "pressure" Jordanian intelligence to release him. At the same time, Amnesty International complained that Shakir was being held without charge. The Jordanians released him on January 28, 2002, at which point he is believed to have fled back to Iraq. Was Shakir an Iraqi agent? Does he provide a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11? We donât know. We may someday find out. But there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Husseinâs Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans. That pretty much sums up the whole article in a nutshell.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
11/15/2003 12:51:43 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Umm Dan, this is rather long. We need to respect Fred's bandwidth. If it's more than a screenful or two we should post the highlights and refer people to the link. We don't want to force Fred to knock over another bank :-)
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/15/2003 1:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
You're right, I didn't know that it was going to be this big. Is there any way that I can chop it down now that it's posted?
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
11/15/2003 1:08 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Hi Dan and Steve. I'm sure Fred will be along soon to decide how to use this article. It's important work and Dan I'm always glad to see your analysis.
My question would be, are the new travel warnings and embassy closings in Sudan related in any way to this leak? My guess is that things could get uncomfortable for some of the thugs-in-charge there...
It is good work and helps to further the issue that the old media wants to ignore -- just how deep was Saddam with al-Q? Too bad the NYT isn't running this down.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/15/2003 1:22 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Hehehe.
You'd be quite surprised to see what some very enterprising FReepers discovered that the NYT was running back on November 5, 1998:
But then, me and my fellow FReepers always did have too long of an attention span.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
11/15/2003 1:26 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I always pictured the relationship between SH and AQ as being similar to the leaders of various Mafia families...didn't like each other but would have meetings from time to time to discuss territory, "business issues", and in general, keep an eye on each other. There is no way they could avoid interacting...how else could they determine "the price of AK-47's in Peshawar?"
#7
Also like different mafia families, they had a common enemy - the cops.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
11/15/2003 1:31 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Um Fred could you keep this whole article up just a little while longer? Drudge linked to it and has been overloading weekly standard's site. it'd be nice to have a second place to quickly look at it ;). Oh and I'll be waiting for Murat to claim this doesn't mean Al-qaeda was involved in Iraq.
Posted by: Val ||
11/15/2003 1:40 Comments ||
Top||
#9
VAl, Murat won't right on this subject. There's just no way he can spin this one. Dn, you should also mail this to someone like Shawn Hannity or Bill O'Reilly. Or just someone at Fox News. That is, if you haven't already. :)
Posted by: Charles ||
11/15/2003 2:12 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I just heard about this article and Rantburg's still the only place I've been able to access it.
Kudos to Fred and Rantburg.
I'm still not fully awake and my brain's not working on full RPM yet, but can someone explain why Bush and Cheney said not just a couple weeks ago that there hasn't been any direct link between Hussein and Al-Queda shown, or Iraq and 9/11, if this analysis is accurate? Anyone?
Without looking at the original document, it seems that they've connected a lot of dots in that regard.
Posted by: Baltic Blog ||
11/15/2003 4:40 Comments ||
Top||
#11
The Administration continues to deny the connection because they don't have the "concrete" proof that the loony left requires. Intelligence sources and interviews don't cut it. And this is a battle that the Administration doesn't need to fight. The American people, overwhelmingly, believe that there is a connection.
#12
What Chick said. Besides which think about the fact that its still an ongoing investigation/war. We don't want to burn sources and methods, and thereby blind us to their next move.
The administration knows a lot more than we do. And can't tell us, because telling tells the bad guys as well.
Posted by: Ben ||
11/15/2003 7:04 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Just in time for the Sunday shows...but where is the demand for an investigation into the LEAK?
Posted by: john ||
11/15/2003 7:58 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I'm glad they proved the link, because it is the truth. I don't get excited because the left is wrong, they are usually wrong.Too many people get excited proving the left wrong.I get excited from the truth. I always believed the right based their decisions on Facts.Lets not Gloat it proves nothing
I think one reason the Bush official line isn't so quick to draw the obvious conclusions (that Saddam and Al Queda are cohorts) is thay they didn't have to. They were able to get the war on without going that route. As a bonus they played the UN like a fiddle and watched it self destruct (thank you France). But then the question becomes why is Bush not eager to link Saddam directly to 9/11, 2/26/93, (4/19/95?) or anthrax. I will answer that with another question - would a solid and undeniable link between the two make leaving Saddam in power after the first gulf war render GHWB a better or worse president. Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting that it was a realistic goal to get rid of Saddam at the time, I don't think it was. I'm just sayin'.
And it runs deeper than that methinks. 9/11 represents such a colossal failure of more than just intelligence. It was a failure of government in its most fundamental capacity. And the government is not in the business of advertising itself as a fraud and a failure (still capable of fixing itself). So if the problem can be fixed without completely exposing the fraud, its wise to do so.
And on a completely other (controversial) note. If it is true that Saddam was convinced by the Frogs that we were not serious about invasion, or that they held some sway to prevent/postpone it - and - becuase of this Saddam did not take care to destroy completely his intelligence paper-trail (what a decision that must be!) and we wound up with 9 miles of it (or whatever)... do we owe the French some gratitude? Was this a smart intelligence design - or just damn good luck?
#16
>>can someone explain why Bush and Cheney said not just a couple weeks ago that there hasn't been any direct link between Hussein and Al-Queda shown, or Iraq and 9/11, if this analysis is accurate? Anyone?>>
This is one of those "master narrative" moments.
The White House and everyone in it, including Colin Powell, has said all along that Saddam and al Qaeda ARE "linked." They've said it over and over and over again; they've said it until they're blue in the face.
Before the war Rumsfeld said the evidence of the link was "bulletproof" and George Tenet publicly agreed.
But it didn't "take." The master narrative (a term used by historians, I believe) was heavily influenced by Democratic Party talking points faxed to an elite liberal press. Remember the moment when the entire planet was talking about how Bush "politicized the intelligence"?
As I understand it, that meme originated with the Democratic Party, who chose "politicized the intelligence" as a talking point.
The Democrats did their job well, and the master narrative became "no evidence" & "no link." Even people sympathetic to the war believed that the President himself had said there was no evidence and no link.
When the White House has used the phrase "no evidence" (I don't think they've **ever** said "no link) they have been referring strictly to the events of 9/11. They have no evidence that Saddam specifically planned and carried out the attacks.
Thus when the President recently said "we have no evidence" this line was endlessly quoted out of context. What he really said was that there was "no question" (I think that was the phrase) that al Qaeda and Saddam were linked, but that they had no evidence that Saddam was involved in 9/11.
What Cheney said, when asked by Tim Russert whether Saddam was involved in 9/11, was, "We don't know."
I feel the White House has badly mismanaged the culture wars surrounding Iraq. For at least a year now the CIA has been calling Nicholas Kristof at the TIMES practically every week with new leaks about Bush-lied-people-died and the-White-House-politicized-the-intelligence, and the White House responded on the Sunday morning talk shows with clipped, articulate Condi Rice formulations like, "The White House has never maintained that Saddam had operational control over the events of 9/11 . . . . "
Fine, I get it, but a statement like that simply does not have the impact of "Bush lied people died." (And, btw, I love Condi Rice. I'm a fan. But she hasn't made the slightest dent in the master narrative.)
Bush is famous for being a good offensive player, but the White House has been playing defense on this forever.
My guess is that the combination of the leaked Democratic memo from the Senate intelligence committee, the NEWSWEEK trash of Cheney (all based on leaks from State & CIA), and the trip to England finally pushed them into going on the offense.
I'm glad they did, but my guess is it's too late. There's a reason why master narratives are called master narratives: they rule. The people who believe there was "no link" and "no evidence" have been living in the no link-no evidence world for a long time now. They aren't going to be moving to my world any time soon, I don't think.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/15/2003 10:38 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Re the comment: "I think one reason the Bush official line isn't so quick to draw the obvious conclusions (that Saddam and Al Queda are cohorts) is thay they didn't have to. They were able to get the war on without going that route."
If 9-11 was Saddam's revenge for the Gulf War, then we know what the anthrax letters were, right? That becomes a no-brainer. The threats were his way of saying "Here's what's next, if you call me on this." So, put yourself in Bush's position. Whatcha gonna do in that situation? Are you going to run around, shouting from the rooftops: "It was Saddam kicked our asses on 9/11, and now he's got a razor to our throats! Please bear with me while I figure out a way to get out of this mess." No. What's he's going to do keep the authorship of 9/11 ambiguous, invent a cover story to knock the anthrax off the front pages, and launch into a giant, high-stakes poker game to rid the world of Saddam Hussein without getting us all killed in the process. And that, my friends, is exactly what happened.
#19
It looks like you published the entire text of the article at least twice in this post. Was that intentional? Could you please post a single, commentary-free version?
Thanks for posting this while TWS is down.
Posted by: Michael Pollard ||
11/15/2003 13:05 Comments ||
Top||
#20
You're right and that was completely unintentional.
I'm gonna wait to see what Fred decides to do with this before I post a single version, if at all.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
11/15/2003 13:08 Comments ||
Top||
#21
This is one of the best Rantburg aticles and comments ever. It should be distributed far and wide (Hello, Mr. Hannity, Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Lileks?). I know Instapundit is already linking here.
THIS is what blogging is for. A lot of Lefties are going to be sore at Al Gore for inventing the internet.
#22
The Hatfill Project> Are you going to run around, shouting from the rooftops: "It was Saddam kicked our asses on 9/11, and now he's got a razor to our throats! Please bear with me while I figure out a way to get out of this mess."
Yes, that's exactly what you are going to do. When a country attacks you, you attack back shouting from the rooftops that they attacked you first. And then no country in Europe whatsoever would have raised an objection, same way they didn't object when you were going after Afghanistan. America wouldn't have needed to go *begging* for support and additional troops as they have been doing now.
If Bush knew of Iraq orchestrating the 9/11 attack and he intentionally kept the "authorship of 9/11" ambiguous, then he's the most catastrophic (and even traitorous) president that the American people *ever* had, diminshing the USA's popularity (and influence and power and safety) worldwide for nil benefit whatsoever.
Stop changing the excuses and justifications for this war with every passing week.
I've posted a single, comment-free copy of the text based on what you posted here.
http://www.learnedhand.com/alqaedamemo.htm
It looks like Drudge has also provided a copy:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash32.htm
Posted by: Michael Pollard ||
11/15/2003 13:40 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Aris's comments on The Hatfill Project : "Yes, that's exactly what you are going to do..." Uh, no, Aris. That's not what you are going to do, since it would embolden some of America's enemies into similar attacks on civilians on American soil. Unless you don't care about that...
Aris's comments on the actual article posted, which is a huge blow to the Anti-American protesters out there :
#26
"That's not what you are going to do, since it would embolden some of America's enemies into similar attacks on civilians on American soil"
Oh, yes, saying that Al Qaeda did it wouldn't embolden America's enemies; saying that Iraq helped them do it, would indeed embolden them.
And we shouldn't have said that Germany invaded Poland, because it might have emboldened them to invade more countries.
Whatever. Do you actually *care* about making sense anymore or do you just open your mouth and shallow the flimsiest justifications you can find, whether they make sense or not?
As for the comment on the actual "article" about the top-secret memorandum the newspaper somehow obtained and which mentions other "well-placed" sources, I've not read it yet in its entirety.
From the bits I *have* read, the most I'll say is that these continuous contacts it refers to as efforts to establish communication lines between Iraq and Bin Laden... don't they prove the very opposite, that if anything Iraq was only a *potential* ally to Bin Laden and a very weak connection to the Al Qaeda network indeed.
E.g. when Iraq is asking Sudan to help it establish links with Al Qaeda member, doesn't that mean that Sudan was a much stronger ally of Al Qaeda than Iraq was?
Nobody's in doubt that Al Qaeda has contacts in every single Arab country there exists. But that's not the issue is it? The issue isn't if Al Qaeda members made contact with Iraqi officials, it's whether the organization was receiving actual assistance from Saddam Hussein's regime.
#27
Didn't Saddam add an Islamic exhortation on the Iraqi flag (in his own handwriting)in a move widely considered cynical right after the Gulf War? Could this have been a (cosmetic) concession Bin Laden required to justify his cooperation with Iraq?
Posted by: C. Fahy ||
11/15/2003 14:26 Comments ||
Top||
#28
The arrival of the anthrax letters initiated a WMD standoff between the United States and Saddam Hussein. Once you understand that, you understand why we invaded Iraq, why we took such a long time going about it, and why the Bush administration has kept the true rationale for the invasion as fuzzy as possible. It really isn't rocket science, you know.
#29
"We have heard in the news, recently, that American officials think that the source of anthrax is probably the US itself. Is this conclusion or information just a tactic to divert the attention of those who were terrorized to hear that Bin Laden is the source of anthrax, and to hear insinuations to other accusations, that many Americans think that they should not persist in harming the people he cares for, because that would push him to a stronger reaction in this way or by other means? Or have they done this to divert attention from the incompetence of American official bodies in the events of September 11, and they find now that they have achieved their goal and consequently, the act and the actors should be buried?!"
Saddam Hussein
Open letter to the peoples of the United States, Western peoples and governments
October 29, 2001
#30
"From the bits I *have* read, the most I'll say is that these continuous contacts it refers to as efforts to establish communication lines between Iraq and Bin Laden... don't they prove the very opposite, that if anything Iraq was only a *potential* ally to Bin Laden and a very weak connection to the Al Qaeda network indeed."
-Several reports indicate that the relationship between Saddam and bin Laden continued, even after the September 11 attacks:
31. An Oct. 2002 . . . report said al Qaeda and Iraq reached a secret agreement whereby Iraq would provide safe haven to al Qaeda members and provide them with money and weapons. The agreement reportedly prompted a large number of al Qaeda members to head to Iraq. The report also said that al Qaeda members involved in a fraudulent passport network for al Qaeda had been directed to procure 90 Iraqi and Syrian passports for al Qaeda personnel. The analysis that accompanies that report indicates that the report fits the pattern of Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration: References to procurement of false passports from Iraq and offers of safe haven previously have surfaced in CIA source reporting considered reliable. Intelligence reports to date have maintained that Iraqi support for al Qaeda usually involved providing training, obtaining passports, and offers of refuge. This report adds to that list by including weapons and money.
37. Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and close al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials. As of Oct. 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad. According to sensitive reporting, al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city, suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months. Such cooperation could include IIS provision of a secure operating bases [sic] and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible U.S. invasion. Al Zarqawiâs procurements from the Iraqis also could support al Qaeda operations against the U.S. or its allies elsewhere. We seem to be dealing with the aftermath of that deal right now. That also jives with press reports of al-Qaeda fighting alongside the Fedayeen during the war.
-yeah, your right, they were never receiving any assistance whatsoever and to this day are not......bwhahaha
#31
Hatfill Project -- not to mention Uday's little letter after 9-11 saying that the "next phase" of the attacks on the US would involve biological weapons.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/15/2003 15:02 Comments ||
Top||
#32
Aris :"...shouldn't have said Germany invaded Poland..." - THIS is your response? THIS is the best you can do? hehehehe. It doesn't even make sense, Aris.
#33
Edog> *rolls eyes* Grow up. This isn't a pissing contest. And your argument about why you should "hide" Iraq's involvement in 9/11 (if it did occur), yes, it makes about as much sense as the Germany-Poland scenario.
When you have a real reason that justifies a war you state it. You don't use a different reasoning that *doesn't* convince people, and which only makes people from the whole world distrust and dislike your nation. You don't tear apart your allies and cause splinters and internal disputes in every single allied nation.
If you had such a reason and you didn't use it, then you couldn't and shouldn't blame other people one bit if they didn't trust you, if they believed you were lying (or hiding the truth, which amounts to the same thing) about your motivations.
Because if you had such a reason, then these people were *right* to believe the US was deceiving the entire world. They were *right* to say you weren't making sense in your argumentation.
Mind you, I personally don't think the US was lying -- I do think that their reasons in general were what they stated in the general outline at least, the claimed desire to weaken the "terrorist nations" and the so-called "axis of terror".
My own opposition to the war wasn't on the moral, but on the practical level, thinking it was a boneheaded maneuver that wouldn't actually hurt but help the islamofascists. The removal of a minor regional and isolated secular chauvinist with extremely peripheral links to any terrorist -- unlike e.g. the main islamofascist power of Iran, or the Lebanon-occupying, Hezbollah-supporting Syria.
#34
The removal of a minor regional and isolated secular chauvinist with extremely peripheral links to any terrorist -- unlike e.g. the main islamofascist power of Iran, or the Lebanon-occupying, Hezbollah-supporting Syria.
Okay Aris... not trying to be cute.. you would support US action against Syria and Iran?
#35
I just posted this comment at Oscar's entry on this topic:
It was some weeks ago that I came across an entry at some weblog mentioning a Weekly Standard piece that argued a connection between Hussein & the Iraqi government and bin Laden & al-Qaeda. I had thought of a possible response that I could have posted at that entry, but I do not recall at what blog that entry is at.
But since this entry is also about this topic - re: the Weekly Standard and the allegations of Saddam/Osama 'links' - I can post those thoughts here.
Out of many publications, the Weekly Standard has hardly any legs to stand on when it comes to allegations of links to bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
A few weeks ago (probably after I came across that aforementioned entry at that blog), I posted a comment at several blogs regarding entries that I had just posted at my own blog. This is one version of that comment that I posted. (As you can see, that blogger re-posted it in an actual entry.) I just did a Google search, and found that your blog was one of those where I posted [a different version of] that comment [it was at this entry...].
In that comment, I point to my blog entry (it is currently the 8th one down the main page, I think) which deals with Wesley Clark, and points out connections between the general, the Clinton administration, and Osama bin Laden terrorists.
In that blog entry, I also link to a comment that I posted awhile back at one of Patrick Ruffini's blog entries. In that comment, I asserted that out of many regimes and countries (including some that we are allied with right now), the Ba'athists of Iraq have had one of the weakest relationships with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. But also, as I indicate at my blog, if you scroll down past the first 10 paragraphs of that comment, you can see evidence of how the Clinton/Gore & Albright administration indirectly worked with Osama bin Laden to finance and support Islamic terrorists (and the neoliberals and the neoconservatives, such as those at the Weekly Standard, staunchly supported these policies). There is a lot more information available on the web - and in other places - about this subject.
These policies helped bin Laden, and they could be one of the reasons why we so far have been unable to find him. Check out the comment that I posted at this entry of Sgt. Hook's from a few weeks ago. That is one idea about where Osama bin Laden may be hiding out right now - I think that that may be one major 'blind spot' in our War on Terrorism.
#36
you would support US action against Syria and Iran?
I've said it before that I would have supported either choice more than I supported it against Iraq. Either one would certainly have made more sense to me. Syria supports terrorist groups for certain, occupies Lebanon. Iran is the center of islamofascism in the whole of the Middle-east.
Striking at the secular dictatorship in between, when you can't even be sure that it won't fall to Islamist hands the moment you leave... eh, makes the least sense of all. To me, atleast.
Words about "positioning" yourself for further battles mean nothing when you can't actually *use* said position because you don't have enough troops to both occupy Iraq *and* nation-build *and* expand the front.
#37
If you look to see which of the three states' regimes has had the most blood on its hands though, Aris, Saddam's Ba'athists win by a mile. So would I be right conclude that you favour strategic arguments for US wars in the Middle East over humanitarian ones?
#38
Bulldog> It's not that simple. I'd probably think the humanitarian reasons sufficient if I thought that Iraq can actually be made into a peaceful and stable democratic nation under the present conditions. My continuing fear is that it may eventually fall to civil war between Baathist-controlled Sunni regions and Iran-dominated Shia regions.
As it is, the humanitarian aspects are the only reason I was ambivalent about the Iraqi war, as it didn't make *any* sense to me on the strategic aspect.
If the humanitarian reasons had been the ones primarily put forward, I actually think fewer people worldwide would have objected to the attacks there -- like it or not, the justifications used and the reasons publicly expressed *do* matter in the way the public views an issue.
The justifications publicly used also matter in the future outcome. If you are making a vow to ensure democracy and freedom in Iraq, then more people might trust that'll be the result. If you mainly mention "WMDs and terrorists", then for all we know US will eventually accept a friendly dictator, no matter how brutal.
And not that many people worldwide actually feel WMDs on Iraqi hands as a threat to them personally, even if they believed they existed. But they can empathize (or pretend to empathize) with Iraqi suffering.
#39
If Bush had come out and said, "We have evidence that Saddam was behind 9/11" and "We have received communications from Saddam that the Anthrax attacks were an indication of what could happen", that would have been very, very bad.
It would have been a WMD attack by a foreign power inside the US.
Instaquack and the other gullibles who swallowed the Weekly Standard article which didn't even bother to release the actual memo... even though it was purportedly coming from Feith...
#42
Manyoso: I trust we'll hear back from you when the entire memo IS released? This memo is genuine. If it isn't the Weekly Standard no longer exists as one of the most important, and most read, publications in official Washington.
They aren't going to put their necks out for a hoax. And the DoD isn't going to issue a memo like this unless they can back it up.
Liberals bet most of the farm on the "Bush Lied" meme...now comes the payoff and it doesn't look good for those who took that bet.
#43
Um, Aakash, your narrative about posts is about as interesting as Sen. Bob Graham's diary...
As for the Crinton/Gore Administration and "neoliberals" (What are those? Is that their new name now? Guess "progressive" wasn't working) getting together to support jihadis and OBL, I could agree but when you decide to add "neocons," meaning those RightWingIdealogues (insert Leftist troll term for warmongers here) at the Weekly Standard into that mix, it's clear that your tin foil hat has gotten way too loose.
#44
Aris:"*rolls eyes* grow up.."
Yeah, THAT'S real grown up.
I've never said we should hide Iraq's involvement (if any). Show me where I said that. You can't.
We should do what's in our best inerest, period, whether that includes hiding facts or not hiding facts or anything else.
#45
The U.S. is the top gun, and there is always someone out there waiting to challenge us. Some people "say" they would support us invading on 'humanitarian' principles, but you know they wouldn't. Jealous and envious, some people are being anti-American just for the sake of being contrary. Face it, America is the adult, and most of the rest of the world are bratty teenagers.
#46
Four days later, on February 23, 1998, bin Laden issued his now-famous fatwa on the plight of Iraq, published in the Arabic-language daily, al Quds al-Arabi: "For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples." Bin Laden urged his followers to act: "The ruling to kill all Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."
This would be the formal creation of the International Islamic Front, IIRC correctly. CNN has the video up in the "Terror on Tape" section of their website. Although war was temporarily averted by a last-minute deal brokered by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, tensions soon rose again. The standoff with Iraq came to a head in December 1998, when President Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, a 70-hour bombing campaign that began on December 16 and ended three days later, on December 19, 1998.
Huh? What war? We're humiliating the Saudis..so they need to kill Americans. Bin Laden says so and the IIRC is created to do so.
Note this comment: "lthough war was temporarily averted by a last-minute deal brokered by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, tensions soon rose again."
What war? Was there a war in 1998? Are they saying that BL's statement was a declaration of war? Something is missing here. Are they saying that the Fatwa was a declaration of war? Soooo. Clinton commenced the Desert fox bombing campaign.....
Good article from al-Guardian about the city of Hilla. Too long to reproduce in full, so hit the link.
Two months ago Haider Latif gave up his job in a popular Baghdad restaurant and fled the violence that has gripped Iraqâs capital since the war. One night a carload of drunken armed men had driven past his restaurant and fired through the windows with Kalashnikovs and pistols. They injured one waiter in the leg and tore apart the furniture. "We ran inside and spent the night hiding in the restaurant," said Mr Latif, 27. "In the morning we decided we couldnât stay longer in Baghdad and so we left."
He returned to his hometown, Hilla, a small provincial capital an hourâs drive south of Baghdad on the banks of the Euphrates. There Mr Latif took a partnership in a modest restaurant. "There was no security at all in Baghdad," he said. "Here I still feel a little insecure, but it is many times better."
His sense of relief is shared by many of his neighbours. Hilla, a city of 300,000 people reputedly built from the clay bricks of the nearby ruins of Babylon, has emerged from Americaâs war with less violence and more hope than most places in Iraq. In Baghdad and large areas north of the capital, the violent guerrilla resistance is severely hampering attempts at reconstruction. But in Hilla, better security and the work of a group of forward-looking Iraqi officials have made the city one of the few successes of postwar Iraq.
More at the link, though the Guardian hacks as usual try to make this look like itâs the only success story in Iraq. My favorite quote:
We put up signs in the street that said âthe law is the lawâ," the governor said. "If you respect the law, you will succeed; if you donât, you will fail."
Now thereâs words to live by!
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/15/2003 12:51:02 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Iraq is the inverse of Afghanistan. In Afghanistan there is a small area where peace and order have been restored.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
11/15/2003 10:18 Comments ||
Top||
On what may or may not have been a Saturday, on what may have been March 1, in a house in this city that may have been this squat two-story white one belonging to Ahmad Abdul Qadoos, with big gray-headed crows barking in the front yard, the notorious terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was roughly awakened by a raiding party of Pakistani and American commandos. Anticipating a gunfight, they entered loud and fast. Instead they found him asleep. He was pulled from his bed, hooded, bound, hustled from the house, placed in a vehicle, and driven quickly away.
Here was the biggest catch yet in the war on terror. Sheikh Mohammed is considered the architect of two attempts on the World Trade Center: the one that failed, in 1993, and the one that succeeded so catastrophically, eight years later. He is also believed to have been behind the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and on the USS Cole two years later, and behind the slaughter last year of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, among other things. An intimate of Osama bin Ladenâs, Sheikh Mohammed has been called the operations chief of al-Qaeda, if such a formal role can be said to exist in such an informal organization. Others have suggested that an apter designation might be al-Qaedaâs "chief franchisee." Whatever the analogy, he is one of the terror organizationâs most important figures, a burly, distinctly modern, cosmopolitan thirty-seven-year-old man fanatically devoted to a medieval form of Islam. He was born to Pakistani parents, raised in Kuwait, and educated in North Carolina to be an engineer before he returned to the Middle East to build a career of bloody mayhem.
Some say that Sheikh Mohammed was captured months before the March 1 date announced by Pakistanâs Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Abdul Qadoos, a pale, white-bearded alderman in this well-heeled neighborhood, told me that Sheikh Mohammed was not there "then or ever." The official video of the takedown appears to have been faked. But the details are of minor importance. Whenever, wherever, and however it happened, nearly everyone now agrees that Sheikh Mohammed is in U.S. custody, and has been for some time...
Sheikh Mohammed is a smart man. There is an anxious, searching quality to his expression in that first post-arrest photo. It is the look of a man awakened into nightmare. Everything that has given his life meaning, his role as husband and father, his leadership, his stature, plans, and ambitions, is finished. His future is months, maybe years, of imprisonment and interrogation; a military tribunal; and almost certain execution. You can practically see the wheels turning in his head, processing his terminal predicament. How will he spend his last months and years? Will he maintain a dignified, defiant silence? Or will he succumb to his enemy and betray his friends, his cause, and his faith...
Isolated, confused, weary, hungry, frightened, and tormented, Sheikh Mohammed would gradually be reduced to a seething collection of simple needs, all of them controlled by his interrogators.
The key to filling all those needs would be the same: to talk...
e hear a lot these days about Americaâs over powering military technology; about the professionalism of its warriors; about the sophistication of its weaponry, eavesdropping, and telemetry; but right now the most vital weapon in its arsenal may well be the art of interrogation. To counter an enemy who relies on stealth and surprise, the most valuable tool is information, and often the only source of that information is the enemy himself. Men like Sheikh Mohammed who have been taken alive in this war are classic candidates for the most cunning practices of this dark art. Intellectual, sophisticated, deeply religious, and well trained, they present a perfect challenge for the interrogator. Getting at the information they possess could allow us to thwart major attacks, unravel their organization, and save thousands of lives. They and their situation pose one of the strongest arguments in modern times for the use of torture...
Describing the clandestine war, (Cofer)Black said, "This is a highly classified area. All I want to say is that there was âbefore 9/11â and âafter 9/11.â After 9/11 the gloves came off." He was referring to the overall counterterrorism effort, but in the context of detained captives the line was suggestive...
Candor and consistency are not always public virtues. Torture is a crime against humanity, but coercion is an issue that is rightly handled with a wink, or even a touch of hypocrisy; it should be banned but also quietly practiced. Those who protest coercive methods will exaggerate their horrors, which is good: it generates a useful climate of fear. It is wise of the President to reiterate U.S. support for international agreements banning torture, and it is wise for American interrogators to employ whatever coercive methods work. It is also smart not to discuss the matter with anyone.
If interrogators step over the line from coercion to outright torture, they should be held personally responsible. But no interrogator is ever going to be prosecuted for keeping Khalid Sheikh Mohammed awake, cold, alone, and uncomfortable. Nor should he be.
A very thorough and well-researched piece on interrogation and the questions it raises and answers
Posted by: John ||
11/15/2003 3:46:15 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Holy Cow, this article is AWESOME.
And if you don't think the cattle prods and field telephones aren't being applied to the testicles in hasty field interrogations, you should stick to PlaySkool.
#2
God help me I can't remember who, but one of the female bloggers (meryl?) called his outfit in the picture when he was captured - "the big ol' t-shirt of shame", something which has brought a smile to my face every time I remember it...I think it was in reference to the newly available action figures of the terrorists and US heroes...:-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/15/2003 16:38 Comments ||
Top||
#3
by the way - Khalid oughtta really invest in a good body waxing - at least his back hair :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/15/2003 16:40 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"the big ol' t-shirt of shame"
Haha! Most of the detainees looked like they had been in a mountain cave, starving. He looked like he had been hiding out in a Golden Corral buffet.
November 14, 2003 11:22 PM EST
UNITED NATIONS - The al-Qaida terror network has decided to use chemical or biological weapons in future attacks, and international efforts to halt the group are failing, a confidential report by a U.N. panel of experts has found.
The report, obtained Friday by The Associated Press, said the only thing holding al-Qaida back from using chemical and biological weapons is its lack technical know-how.
"They have already taken the decision to use chemical and bio-weapons in their forthcoming attacks," the report said. "The only restraint they are facing is the technical complexity to operate them properly and effectively."
The lack of technical ability is the reason the panel of experts believes that al-Qaida is focused on trying to develop new conventional explosive devices such as bombs that can evade scanners.
The report is the second by the expert group established in January by the U.N. Security Council to monitor implementation of sanctions against 272 individuals and entities linked to al-Qaida and Afghanistanâs ousted Taliban regime. The sanctions include freezing assets, a travel ban, and an arms embargo.
The experts participated in a serious of international and European discussions on efforts to curb trafficking in weapons of mass destruction. They didnât cite any specific new evidence, noting only the recent discovery of several canisters of unidentified chemicals and possible residues of a "tetanus virus-carrying chemical" and a bio-terror manual in a police raid on a Jemaah Islamiyah hideout in the southern Philippines.
"The risk of al-Qaida acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction also continues to grow," the report said.
In the report, the expert group said the al-Qaida ideology is spreading worldwide and has found "fertile ground" in Iraq, raising the specter of new terrorist attacks.
While "important progress has been made toward cutting off al-Qaida financing," the report said serious loopholes remain that enable the terrorist network to funnel money to operatives.
"Al-Qaida continues to receive funds it needs from charities, deep pocket donors Arab Nations, and business and criminal activities, including the drug trade," it said. The report says al-Qaida has shifted its financial activities to areas in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia that canât track such activity.
Sanctions are also failing because many governments refuse to add names to the sanctions list, even though some 4,000 individuals in 102 countries have been arrested or detained for their links with al-Qaida, it said.
Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen reported the arrest of individuals linked to al-Qaida and the Taliban yet in most cases they didnât submit the names to be put on the sanctions list, the report said.
Even when people are on the list, the experts said, they have been allowed to travel and evade sanctions.
The report cited an investigation of two men on the U.N. list of terrorist financiers, Ahmed Idris Nasreddin and Youssef Nada, whose bank accounts have been frozen but whose other assets including residential or commercial property in Campione dâItalia and Lugano, Switzerland, and Milan, Italy, has not been touched.
On Jan. 28, it said, Nada traveled from Campione dâItalia to Vaduz, Liechtenstein, in violation of the travel ban and applied to change the name of two of his companies that were on the sanctions list.
Their case reflects the "continued serious weaknesses regarding the control of business activities and assets other than bank accounts" of individuals on the sanctions list, the report said.
The expert group called on the Security Council to adopt a new resolution requiring all 191 member states to enforce sanctions. Otherwise, it said the U.N. role in fighting terrorism "risks becoming marginalized." Becoming? Becoming? Sonny-boy you ARE marginalized.
Posted by: CrazyFool ||
11/15/2003 12:24:52 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
the only thing holding al-Qaida back from using chemical and biological weapons is its lack technical know-how.
In other words it's all a pipe-dream for these boys.
Even when people are on the list, the experts said, they have been allowed to travel and evade sanctions.
Notice that the next three countries mentioned are all on the same continent.
The expert group called on the Security Council to adopt a new resolution requiring all 191 member states to enforce sanctions.
Attaboy, you eUNuchs. You can join your EUnuch friends with their importance.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/15/2003 0:44 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Well shit, I want to experience space travel, but the only thing holding me back is technical know-how. This isn't news, we've known AQ has been trying to get NBC weps since 9/11. This is just fear-mongering crap from the lefties.
#4
Actually I don't think it is fear mongering. I think Kofi might have finally woke up and realized that he is a target like everyone else. What this is saying is that more needs to be done. Are you listening France, Switzerland, Italy?
Posted by: Ben ||
11/15/2003 7:11 Comments ||
Top||
#5
So let me get this straight, alQ lack the 'technical know-how' for chembio weapons even with deep pockets, bone fide scientists and state supported intelligence. But an anthrax the likes of which no one has ever seen (or will admit to seeing) was managed by some asshole with rubber gloves and a bathtub.
#7
sure would be scary if they started collaborating with some crazy dictator with a bio-chem WMD program. you know, someone with a grudge against the US. someone immune to UN inspectors.
#8
It has been easy to travel within Western Europe for years. It would be interesting to see the UN try to tackle passport standards. Maybe require barcodes and a database of fingerprints for passport holders. There is a downside to this but it would be interesting to see Kofi try to bring about real change not aimed at busting the US in the nuts.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
11/15/2003 10:26 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Well, well, well, AQ threatens their wanting to rule the world, so they must be taken out.
Competition is good.
So after another 12 years and 18 resolutions, they might vote to do something. Hopefully by 2015, we'll know which way the wind is blowing.
#10
Anon - "...collaborating with some crazy dictator.."
AQ would NEVER do that! They're too pure! They would NEVER associate with someone like Saddam! Bush said they would, but he was lyyying! It's all about oiiiiily Jooooos!
#11
We should perform a scientific experiment. Let the UN go on holiday for, say, 6 months. No statements, no GA, no UNSC, no nothing, well maybe ICAO... Near the end, we should monitor average temps throughout the world, and check everything out. I will bet dollars to donuts that global warming will be stopped, corruption will be down, and the WoT progress will be greatly accellerated. And NY parking tickets issued will have a tremendous downward trend.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/15/2003 13:45 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Hopefully by 2015, we'll know which way the wind is blowing.
Hopefully by 2015:
1) The flesh on bin Laden's head will all be decomposed off of the pike he has been sitting since Nov. 2003, right next to Saddam Who's-InSane.
2) The UN enjoys their new world headquarters in Paris France, right next to the French Caliph's Palace.
3) The Baghdad University Flying Carpets women's college basketball team gets to the Sweet 16 of the NCAA tourney. The team is housed in the fancy renovated hotel at the UN building in New York.
4) Tony Blair, executive director of the 10 year old United Democratic Nations, gives a speech asking for the liberation of Europe from Islamists and socialists.
#13
Badanov: Don't forget about the golden statue of Bush in Firdos Square with the plaque reading "Boosh the Liberator - Eternal Friend of the Iraqi People", right next to the monument to the coalition soldiers who died in the Great Year 2003.
Posted by: Matt ||
11/15/2003 14:23 Comments ||
Top||
#14
The UN must immediately form a team of inspectors to disarm al Qaida and halt their weapons program. They should avoid this RUSH TO WAR at all costs. Diplomacy is the solution - military action should be the LAST RESORT.
#15
Anon, you mean someone like Iran or the NorKs?
(I actually slept a little better after we took Baghad. I know we're still fighting, but it was bliss knowing that one member of the Axis of Evil had been taken care of!)
Copts aggravated by Nour El Sherif
A center for protection of human rights in Egypt has accused Egyptian actor Nour El Sherif of offending Christian Copts through his Ramadan historical TV drama series âRajul Al Akdarâ (Man of Powers). The Copts have demanded from the Minister of Information to stop the airing of the series which revolves around the life of the great military leader Omar Al Aas. Be a Christian in Egypt; get bashed.
According to the UAE based daily, Al Bayan, head of the center, which protects the human rights of Copts in Egypt, lawyer Mamdooh Nakhleh, stressed that the series displays Christian religious men as condescending, deceiving, and not true believers. Mamdooh added that the series tries to paint a positive picture of Islam, while ruining that of Christianity. We ainât "true believers" in the hearsay rot that issued from your 7th century pedophile founder.
On his part Nour denied such accusations made by the Human Rights Center, stressing that if he had for one second felt that the series insults anyone in any way he would not have agreed to take part in it. He added that the main character in the series treats those who represent the religion of Christianity in a very civilized manner and does nothing to show any bias or prejudice. Muslims have real perception problems.
Recently, Nour left the ICU room at the Cairo Pyramid hospital and was taken home after surviving a Cobra bite while filming scenes from his upcoming historical drama series âRajul Al Akdarâ (Man of Power) in one of the deserts of Egypt. Numerous tests were made on Nour to ensure his heart was functioning properly, especially since the accident had caused his blood pressure to increase tremendously. The Cobra bite was no accident, Nour, the one-and-only Holy Ghost kicks Infidel butt. Wait until your maker opens the judgment day bottle of kick-ass.
Tests were also done on his kidneys and liver and all proved to be working properly and so the doctors allowed the actor to be taken home on the condition that he rests his body for a few days. Nour was rushed to hospital and placed in the ICU after he was bitten by the Cobra, which he was trying to place in a bag for one of the scenes, but the snake fell to the ground and bit him. The actor was bitten by the snake in his right arm and after he restlessly fought to remove the snake along with two other people from the cast who were also bitten and all three were rushed to hospital as they fell to the ground. Donât these dumbies watch "Crocodile Hunter?"
The bite was so severe that the actor fainted and was no longer conscious of his surroundings. Nour along with the two men are under observation and doctors are trying to determine how severe the poison from the cobra is in order to treat their bites in the proper manner. The snake, which is over a meter and a half long, was also taken to a veterinarian in order to try and figure out what kind of poison it inserted into its victims. "Fainted?" He was striken by the Holy Ghost. "What kind of poison"? Could it be cobra poison?
Nour has completed shooting most of the scenes for the series, which is due to be aired during the holy month of Ramadan. The series revolves around the life of one of the greatest legendary leaders Omar Bin El Aas, and is a historical story. A budget of over 10 million Egyptian pounds has been set aside for the drama and over a 150 actors are to take part alongside Nour. Perfect entertainment for Ramadan: Christians being slaughtered.
Nour has turned down an offer for a leading role in the new historical play "Al Qudsu Laman" (Jerusalem Belongs to Who?), directed by Ashraf Farouq and written by Jamal Aman. The series of events in the play will begin from the time the Jews came to Palestine and were given everything by the British. A likely story. Nour doesnât want to tangle with Yahwah. Once bitten, twice shy.
The play will also portray the sufferings of the Palestinian people under Jewish occupation and how they were stripped of their homes, land, and personal possessions by the Israelis with the help of the British, Americans and French. Nour justified his refusal for the part with the fact that he had already starred in a previous play "Lan Taskut Al Quds" (Jerusalem Will Not Fall), which proved great success around the Arab world and won many awards. The actor stressed that he is not interested in acting in a historical play that portrays the past, due to the fact that people already know it, but is interested in tackling the current situation in the occupied lands. Nour is hoping that a play showing how young Palestinian children are fighting for their lives and homes will one day be created, adding that he would immediately accept a role in it. The "French"? Nour should do an Arab version of "Dumb and Dumber."
Lard ass troll Sen. Ted Kennedy called President Bushâs judicial nominees "Neanderthals" on Friday, a group that includes Hispanic lawyer Miguel Estrada and African-American Judge Janice Rogers Brown. Boasting of his partyâs hatred for minorities resolve in the face of GOP attempts to stop the Democratsâ filibuster, Kennedy told the Senate, "What has not ended is the resolution and the determination of the members of the United States Senate to continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president of the United States for any court, federal court in the United States." Blacks and Hispanics as Neanderthals? It sound like Ted has been consulting with Julian Bond.
#1
Speaking of the outrage, WHERE IS IT?!?
The Lib media were trying to jump all over Sen. Zell Miller (to the Dims, the Traitor) for saying that Judge Janice Rogers Brown was being "lynched" in the Senate.
Which she was.
#4
sounds like a campaign ad....thanks Ted - drunk asshat...how's Mary Jo, by the way?
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/15/2003 14:52 Comments ||
Top||
#5
As a minority, intellectually I realize TK was probably speaking from a political perspective, the smugly superior "conservatives are ignorant scum" worldview of the 'enlightened liberal'. However, on a visceral level, the 'neanderthal' label makes me ill, ESPECIALLY coming from someone who's father was so VERY impressed with Adolf Hitler.
I've never been one to think the apple falls far from the tree, and as TK becomes older, and the scotch turns his brains completely into mush, I think this kind of hateful outburst will become more common. The booze tends to let/make people say EXACTLY what they think.
#7
The best way to register your outrage would be to contribute to the NRSC. Think Kennedy's nutty now? Imagine if the Democrats in the Senate are reduced to such a minority that they couldn't even filibuster effectively.
Even Old Ted might elect to slink out of the Senate to enjoy the slow slide into cirrhosis from home.
EFL
ALXEANDRIA, Va. (AP) - A federal judge Friday revoked the right of al-Qaida defendant Zacarias Moussaoui to represent himself in the only U.S. case arising from the Sept. 11 attacks. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said Moussaouiâs latest motions "include contemptuous language that would never be tolerated from an attorney and will no longer be tolerated from this defendant." What took you so long, Leonie?
The judge had warned Moussaoui last week that she would revoke his self-representation if he filed "further frivolous, scandalous, disrespectful or repetitive pleadings" or violated any court orders. She has repeatedly told him not to try to use his motions to contact al-Qaida sympathizers from his isolated quarters in the Alexandria Detention Center.
While Brinkema did not publicly release the two Moussaoui motions that led to her order, the last filing she did make public, dated Oct. 27, was typical of the French citizenâs rhetoric. Moussaoui said he wants "anthrax for Jew sympathiser only," called Attorney General John Ashcroft "the Democratic Jerk" and referred to Brinkema as "Leonie you Despotically Judge." al-Q boys probably think heâs gone soft in prison. He canât even insult Ashcroft properly!
Moussaoui, an acknowledged Osama bin Laden loyalist, is charged with participating in a broad conspiracy with the Sept. 11 hijackers to commit terrorism against the United States.
Brinkema named Moussaouiâs court-appointed defense team to represent him. While he has refused to cooperate with the experienced lawyers, the attorneys have been filing their own pointless and time-wasting motions on his behalf. Frank Dunham Jr., a Moussaoui defense lawyer and a federal public defender, said, "It was a front page story when he fired us, but itâs not a front page story that the court fired him." Though it would be a front page story if he boiled and ate you. Count your blessings.
Another of the defense lawyers, Edward MacMahon Jr., said, "I would think any defendant would benefit from competent counsel as opposed to trying to represent himself in a capital case." He said Moussaouiâs refusal to cooperate "is certainly not an optimal situation. It would be a lot better if we had a client who wasnât barking mad could cooperate, but apparently, thatâs not the way itâs going to be."
The Justice Department had no comment. Paraphrasing the old Chinese proverb, never stop your enemy from destroying himself.
From now on, Brinkema said Friday, she will accept only pleadings submitted by the lawyers, while any motion submitted by Moussaoui "will simply be received for archival purposes." She said Moussaoui had 10 days to file a written notice of appeal. Pass the popcorn, Fred, Iâm ready for the second feature.
The last straw for Brinkema apparently was a pair of recent motions. One requested a classified congressional report concerning Sept. 11 and the other asked for reconsideration of the judgeâs order imposing penalties on the government. The two pleadings "ask for relief after the court made clear that all action in his case was stayed" (postponed) pending an appeal by the government, which is trying to block Moussaouiâs access to three al-Qaida witnesses. Thus missing the point of his motions. Itâs Islamist theater, not law.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/15/2003 1:19:11 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sorry to be off topic but I see EFL at the top of rantburg articles alot....what does it mean?
Posted by: new to this bloging thing ||
11/15/2003 7:42 Comments ||
Top||
GENEVA â North Korean diplomats said yesterday the nation was willing to give up its nuclear deterrent, stop testing and exporting missiles and permit annual inspections as part of a grand bargain with its four neighbors and the United States.
In exchange, the diplomats said, the North expected written security guarantees and compensation for economic losses suffered by a decision to halt construction of two South Korean-made nuclear power plants in the North. What compensation? For the grass, oh I mean crops, that used to grow where the plants now stand?
What game is Kimmie playing here? I know heâs delaying, but for what? Does he have a plan or is he just flying by the seat of his pants? Btw, I wish I could get my hands on the original Nork statement about this. Would have been filled with all kinds of Juche and spittle... you can never get enough Army first as far as Iâm concerned... after Kimmie falls SNL needs to hire his writers, these guys have some brilliant material!
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American ||
11/15/2003 12:20:31 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/15/2003 0:27 Comments ||
Top||
#2
But Kimmie doesn't want a non-aggression pact. He wants South Korea (for starters...). The non-aggression pact is just to get us out of there so he can take it.
#4
Same song, different verse. He probably got those half-meter resolution pics of his little enrichment plants, not to mention his private bordello.
Amazing what a little fortitude and a no-bullshit attitude will get you. Too bad we'll be spending YEARS cleaning up Clinton, Albright, and Christopher messes.
#7
Tell him we'll need extra time to think about his proposal. reschedule the talks for next April. Make it a cold and hungry winter for him.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
11/15/2003 10:36 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Tell him we'll need extra time to think about his proposal. reschedule the talks for next April. Make it a cold and hungry winter for him.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
11/15/2003 10:37 Comments ||
Top||
#9
It is all up to the ChiComs and also the SoKors if they want to keep supplying Kimmie, and thus enable the continuation of the Kimmie regime. The Chicoms should write Kimmie off as a bad dream investment and go on. Is the PLA faction keeping Kimmie going as an ideological trip? The whole thing does not make sense, especially with the possibility or maybe reality of a nuclear armed Japan. The Chicoms have alot to lose if we have a Nork induced sea of fireâ¢.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/15/2003 13:24 Comments ||
Top||
#10
AP - especially depending on which way the wind is drifting lol... IF SK decides to pony up more funds, food, etc to keep NK going this winter we should unilaterally pull out.
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/15/2003 15:11 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Right Friggin On, Frank. If S Korea is going to prop them up, then we have Sorks! Both Koreas need to realize action and consequences.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/15/2003 23:13 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
