Yemeni police have clashed with followers of a rebel religious leader in the mountainous north of the Arab country, an official source said on Monday. The police were trying to arrest Shiâite leader Hussein al-Houthi in Saada, 240 km (150 miles) north of Sanaa. The source, who declined to be identified, said the clashes took place on Sunday and Monday. Opposition party reports said four men were killed and five injured, but the source could not confirm the deaths. Yemeni authorities believe Houthi, a leader of the Zaidi sect which is strong in northern Yemen, is also the leader of the rebel group âThe Believing Youthâ, which has led violent protests against the United States and Israel at mosques, the source said.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/21/2004 3:26:59 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
hopefully they weren't trained in "surrounding" by the Saudis
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/21/2004 19:50 Comments ||
Top||
Saudi security forces raided suspected terrorist hideouts in Riyadh at dawn yesterday amid fears of an al-Qaâeda backlash after the killing of the terrorist networkâs chief operations planner in the kingdom. Thousands of police in armoured cars backed by helicopters sealed off three areas of the capital, including the one in which Abdulaziz al-Muqrin was killed in a two-hour gunfight with police on Friday night.
The battle, in which three other prominent terrorists also died and 12 were arrested, was hailed by Saudi Arabiaâs rulers as a serious blow to the countryâs leading al-Qaâeda cell. "It is a very substantial setback for this organisation," said Mohsen al-Awajy, a lawyer who says he has worked with authorities to persuade militants to disarm. "Muqrin has been the most important target for security forces since the beginning of this violence." Muqrinâs death, while a breakthrough, has not ended the terror threat, the lawyer added. "We should be even more careful," he said. "The rest of this group may strike indiscriminately."
Ya think?
Militants have repeatedly managed to regenerate themselves after successive blows to their network from security forces. Kevin Rosser, of the London-based security company Control Risks said of Muqrinâs death: "I donât think it will make a big difference to the overall situation, which remains very dangerous." Muqrin and a few hundred others who had paramilitary experience from years of fighting in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Bosnia comprised only one side of the threat, said Mr Rosser. "More worrying is a second group who are getting into the game and mimicking the tactics. They are potentially more dangerous."
One of the 12 arrested is suspected of involvement in the bombing in 2000 of the destroyer USS Cole in Aden, which killed 17 sailors.
Have to add him to half the population of Yeman.
One of the three cars being used by the terrorists was said to have been used by gunmen who killed a BBC cameraman, Simon Cumbers, and badly wounded Frank Gardner, the BBC security correspondent, in Riyadh on June 6. The concentration of leading al-Qaâeda figures in such a small group travelling together through Riyadh during a security clampdown has astonished officials. "They were either so arrogant as to believe they could outsmart the deployment of 15,000 police on the streets of Riyadh - as they may already have been doing for several months - or the group we are dealing with is much smaller than we thought," said an intelligence officer.
Or they thought they still had official approval
But despite the arrest of about 700 suspected al-Qaâeda terrorists and sympathisers in Saudi Arabia over the past 15 months, security officials believe that there remain between 1,700 and 2,000 trained militants in the country willing to lay down their lives in terrorist attacks. Muqrin, like so many other Saudi terrorists, had returned home after participating in Islamist battles abroad to help lead a campaign aimed at toppling the House of Saud and replacing it with an Islamic caliphate.
And the difference would be, what, exactly?
Ramzi Khouri, a journalist on the Saudi Gazette newspaper, said: "Muqrin was a fantastic speaker and was becoming a hero to many people. If he had been able to keep going for a while he could have become another Che Guevara."
And now he get's to meet Che, in person.
And Himmler. Ooh! Ooh! And Torquemada, too!
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/21/2004 8:30:48 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And the difference would be, what, exactly?
1. the caliphate would remove all defense cooperation with the US.
2. The Caliphate would, presumably, expel all Christians from the Kingdom (how theyd run the oil industry, I dont know)
3. The Caliphate would overtly support the overthrow of every other current govt in the muslim world (with the possible exceptions of Sudan and Iran, and Yemen once that country is brought to heel)
4. The Caliphate would replace the current policy of oppresion of Saudi Shiites with one of forced conversion to Sunni Islam.
#3
naw--they would expel the mushrikhun shia grave worshippers of the eastern province to their iranian ideological homeland-or maybe to iraq--requires linear thinking so i wouldn't hold my breathe
Posted by: SON OF TOLUI ||
06/21/2004 14:53 Comments ||
Top||
A former Saudi police officer has taken over as leader of Al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia after the former chief was shot dead on Friday by Saudi securty forces. Saleh Mohammad al-Oufi, 38, who is number four on the kingdomâs list of most wanted men, "has been named Al-Qaeda chieftain in Saudi Arabia, succeeding Abdul Aziz al-Muqrin," the Londaon-based Asharq al-Awsat reported Monday.
The Saudi Institute, an independent news outfit based in Washington, quoted "intelligence" sources to confirm al-Oufiâs appointment. It said the former police officer, born in Medina, fought in Afghanistan and Bosnia where he was wounded and returned to Saudi Arabia in 1995. "Al-Oufi was in the shadows while al-Muqrin was in charge, because he was busy running the secret Al-Qaeda camps in Saudi Arabia. He was essentially responsible for training, recruitment, and logistics," the institute said in an e-mail. "Al-Oufi might be more dangerous than Al-Muqrin because he comes from the security ranks and the fact he is a Hijazi from the holy city of Medina where he can recruit from the most religious economically depressed areas of Saudi Arabia. Al-Oufi might also be a more effective Al-Qaeda leader because he is older, spent more time in the country than Muqrin, and is more familiar with Al-Qaeda network in Saudi Arabia as he was one of those who built it."
"Saleh al-Oufi is the most dangerous" of the Al-Qaeda lieutenants left alive in Saudi Arabia, said Al-Hayat newspaper. Oufi left school as a teenager and enrolled in the police but left in 1988 to spend four years in the prison service before being sacked, according to biographical details quoted by several Arab media. Al-Hayat said Oufi met Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan shortly before the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/21/2004 8:15:09 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A former Saudi police officer has taken over as leader of Al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia ...
This sort of sums things up right from the outset.
Please forgive for reversing the headers.
By Salah Nasrawi
RIYADH, Saudi-occupied Arabia, June 20 -- Rented Police cars and hired armored vehicles flooded the al-Malaz neighborhood in the Saudi capital Sunday as security forces ignored surrounded a house where suspected militants were believed to have taken a coffee break refuge after a daisychain shootout with police. The massive operation was underway in the same district that was the focus of a huge party security sweep against militants sought in the murder beheading of U.S. hostage Paul M. Johnson Jr., whose body has still not been found.
According to an account of the murder kidnapping posted by the al Qaeda cell on an Islamic extremist Web site Sunday, Johnsonâs kidnappers had encouragement help from sympathizers within the Saudi security forces. The sympathizers purportedly gave police uniforms to the militants, who then snatched the American engineer at a fake checkpoint in the city, the posting said. The account reinforced fears that some diplomats and Westerners in the kingdom have expressed, that militants have humped infiltrated Saudi security forces, a possibility that Saudi officials have said felt "delightful" denied. Saudi Arabiaâs ruler, King Fahd, vowed that terrorists militants in the kingdom would be stopped and given gift certificates.
"The perpetrators of these attacks aimed at shaking stability and crippling our already feeble minds security -- and it is a not so far-fetched aim, God willing," he said in a speech Sunday to the advisory Shura Council, according to the state-run Saudi Press Agency. "We will not allow harm to befall this destructive bunch, led by our own home grown deviant thought, to harm the security of this nation or affect its nonexistent stability," the king, who has been incapacitated for years by syphillis a stroke, was quoted as saying. Police barricaded off the al-Malaz district, where security forces ignored surrounded the house. Witnesses said they had seen not a bit of shooting between suspects and police before everybody some men fled on foot, seeking refuge in the royal palace house.
It was the same area where recently canonized Saudi patron saint Abdulaziz Muqrin, a key suspect in the kidnapping who was believed to be the leader of the House of Saud al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia, and three other militants were released killed in a shootout with Saudi security forces Friday, hours after Johnson was murdered killed and photos of his body and severed head were posted on a Web site. The foreign policy adviser of Crown Prince Abdullah in Washington, Adel Jubeir, said Saudi officials were still looking for Johnsonâs body. "We are still combing through our cheap toupees neighborhoods. And we hope that eventually weâll find a clue the body and restore it to life with Doctor Frankensteinâs help his family," he said on CNNâs "Late Edition." According to the purported al Qaeda account of Johnsonâs kidnapping, terrorists militants wearing voluntarily donated police uniforms and using rented police cars set up a checkpoint June 12 on a road, leading to the airport, near Imam Mohammed bin Saud University.
"A number of the cooperators who are sincere to their religion in the security apparatus gladly donated those clothes and the police cars. We ask God to reward them and that they use their energy to serve Shaitan Islam and the mujaheddin," the Internet posting said. When Johnsonâs car approached the checkpoint, the militants stopped his car, anesthetized him and carried him to another vehicle, according to the account. In a separate posting on the Web site, Muqrin justified the killing of Johnson, pointing to his work on Apache attack helicopters for Lockheed Martin and their remarkably effective attrition of terrorists in general.
Johnson "works for military aviation and he belongs to the American army, which kills, humiliates tortures and harms deserving Muslims everywhere, which supports terrorists enemies in Palestine, Philippines, Kashmir," the posting said. The articles appeared in Sawt al-Jihad, or Sphincter Voice of the Holy War, a semimonthly Internet periodical said to be excreted posted by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The Internet account, deposited posted Sunday, said the militants decided to murder behead Johnson when Jubeir declared that Saudi Arabia would not perform oral sex upon negotiate with the kidnappers.
Asked about the al Qaeda statement, Jubeir said Sunday on CNN: "We have never refused a single demand while we negotiated with terrorists. We donât intend to stop until they squirt do so. I believe what the al Qaeda people were trying to do is trying to justify the House of Saudâs existence a murder that is unjustifiable under any but our own faith or under any principle that we piss on of humanity."
Posted by: Zenster ||
06/21/2004 12:43:26 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hi Zenster:
I was going to post a variation of this article myself. Someone away from Rantburg emailed me the AP story...as kind as a slap up side my head for my defense of the House of Saud as being at least, nominally, a friendly government, and that it was the best that we were going to get at this time. As you know, I posted this argument yersterday on Rantburg. I thought it a good argument...but the AP article seemed to demand that I make a mea cupa for yesterday's post.
But as I look at it now, what is really interesting is how really different the three stories are (including CNN).
Your WPO article appears to hold the middle ground, saying in effect, "Maybe the Saudi's are dirty, but they're doing the best they can."
The AP piece, on the other hand, has the distinct slant that, "The Sauidi's are complicit, and dirty as all hell." This is maybe why my friend sent me this article rather than others. He wants me to feel bad...lol In any case here is the AP link:
Most interestingly, the CNN story seems to take the position that whatever uniforms were used, were bought w/o government help and that the Saudi's are clean. The CNN version is here:
#3
ahh..why I love Rantburg, even if the bj imagery was a bit much for me. I know, I know, this is rantburg and I should just 'STFU' if I don't like it. :-)
No really...love it when you write these Zenster- great read!
Two other thoughts anesthetized him ? That must be why they look so calm in the videos.
This contains the admission they don't have the body. The question was asked by Fred [at least I think it was Fred] on rantburg yesterday, but surprisingly remains unasked elsewhere.... whose body was it?
#4
if the entire KSA govt is in bed with Al Qaeeda, than who the hell snuffed Al Muqrin? Was that just for show, a pre-arranged sacrifice (with, say, Zarqawis, agreement?) to cover up the relationship?
Look even if Prince Nayef himself handed over the uniforms, does that implicate Crown Prince Abdullah? I guess I have a problem with people acting as if "the Saudi govt" is a single united entity. Ditto for the Pakland govt.
#5
LH -- The Saudis have been fighting a war of sucession for the last few decades. This is just another aspect of it, and the government is split according to which wing of the "royal" family they support.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/21/2004 9:15 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Traveller, thank you for your comments. I appreciate your open reassessment of perceptions surrounding this issue. This forum has helped me to do the same as well regarding other positions I have held.
I have long maintained a deeply cynical view of the Saudi royals. Their profligate lifestyles, intense nepotism and tolerance of violently anti-American Wahabbist clerics within their midst have always caused a strong sense of revulsion.
Revelations surrounding Prince Turki al-Faisal's complicity with al Qaeda, mullah Omar and 9-11 financier, Mohammed Zouaydi, forever changed my mind about the House of Saud being an American ally. These matters do not even address the preponderance of Saudis among the 9-11 hijack teams.
Rantburg's own Robert Crawford recently speculated that the Saudis have allowed al Qaeda to deploy within their kingdom as a form of disincentive for any serious reform. In light of details emerging about Paul Johnson's murder, I am compelled to give increased weight to such suspicions.
As can be seen from the almost legendary degree of internecine strife that is so prominent within Arab culture, there appears to be some deep seated inclination towards deception and betrayal. The House of Saud is evidently no exception to this nearly ironclad maxim.
As a nexus of the Haj, Saudi Arabia occupies a unique position in Arabian geopolitics. Each year, the royals' immense wealth has permitted them to fly in thousands of impressionable pilgrims who are summarily surrendered up to the not-so-tender mercies of resident Wahabbist fanatics. I hold the Saudis responsible for Wahabbism's spread, as it is their deal with the devil that gave this brutally repressive and morally corrupt "religion" a chance to take root.
The insidious tendrils of Wahabbism have spread across the globe and eradicating it will prove to be nothing short of another World War. All of this was made possible by Saudi financing. The massive toll in both human life and financial outlay necessary to combat this virulent strain of intolerance is unforgivable.
Consider for one moment how many other crucial foreign aid projects must be put on hold as civilized countries are obliged to divert their attention to combating terrorism. Once again, epidemics, famine, genocide and pestilence are flourishing while the powers that be are forced to address terror's mindless slaughter.
The Saudi royals are seated front and center in this theater of horrors and I lay the lion's share of blame squarely at their feet.
PS: B, no need to STFU at all. I'm glad you had fun with my bit of satire. On reflection, I probably should have used "stroked off" in place of my oral sex reference. In my outrage over this latest atrocity I managed to outpace my muse as I worked to submit the article.
#7
I guess I have a problem with people acting as if "the Saudi govt" is a single united entity.
Liberalhawk, this is a very valid point to make and one that many people overlook. However, I do not feel it ameliorates Saudi responsibility for Wahabbism's spread.
...if the entire KSA govt is in bed with Al Qaeeda, than who the hell snuffed Al Muqrin?
There's an old military saying - "There's always some SOB who doesn't get the word." This is a thought I've had for a couple days now - the guys who got Al Muqrin might not have known who they were shooting at.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
06/21/2004 10:02 Comments ||
Top||
#9
... the guys who got Al Muqrin might not have known who they were shooting at.
So, Mike, what you're saying is that al Murqrin's taking the dirt nap was a case of "friendly fire?" Man alive! This is really going to keep me awake during the long winter nights.
#10
Zenster -
That is exactly what I'm saying, and let me clarify it just a bit - the guys who nailed him either weren't the ones in on things, in which case they will soon be patrolling the camel dung storage bins, or even worse they were in on it and thought they were shooting at run-of-the-mill criminals, alk runners and the like.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
06/21/2004 11:58 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Dear Zenster:
You seem to be able to keep you humor on this dispite strongly held views. Let me play Devil's advocate here for a moment. If AQ is not really at this time not aiming at the US or the West directly, that will come later, but rather all of these recent outrages are directed toward its Arab base and audience to solidify its legitmacy as anti-western, and if its real short term goal is to bring down the House of Saud...
Then what better way acomplish this than to sow discord between the Saudi government and the United States by making it look as though the Saudi Security Service is complicit in the beheading of Johnson and at Kobar?
In other words, while the Saudi's have much to answer for as you correctly point out, it may remain true that you are being played by AQ like the proverbial fiddle...your anger at the Saudi Government is exactly what they want.
#12
As a Brit working in Saudi I am possibly more qualified than most to comment on this article.
I also knew Paul Johnson from a couple of BBQs on his compound.
From my experience (3 years on site, working with Saudis and having experienced the last six months at the sharp end) the majority of Saudis are tolerant and peaceful individuals. They are extremely concerned about the way the situation is developing here and have great fears that they will be caught in "Iraq 2", with fundamentalist terrorists on one side and right-wing US hawks and the jewish lobby on the other. If the US wants to win out in "the war on terror" on both a strategic and moral level then it has to occupy the high ground. The Iraq prison debacle and Guantanamo do nothing but fuel anti american feeling in this part of the world and will ultimately lead to a world that is unsafe for both westerners, jews and arabs. But I imagine that most of your contributers have little concern for such matters, as they seldom travel far from the trailer and fridge.
#13
Thanks for the insight, redsnapper. It is always nice to hear from people that have been or are in the heart of the beast...lol
If you are in SA, do take care, Okay? I'm not sure how to say this, but there is no way I'd ever go to Saudi Arabia at the moment. It is for this reason that I sincerely wish all the Foreigners, some 5 million of you as I understand, all the best. Really.
#14
"From my experience (3 years on site, working with Saudis and having experienced the last six months at the sharp end) the majority of Saudis are tolerant and peaceful individuals."
Posted by: redsnapper 2004-06-21 12:39:31 PM
Tolerant and peaceful, eh?
So, they are respectful of the various imported workers who come to the kingdom to do the various jobs that they are too lazy and/or uneducated to perform, right?
And they treat these workers as if they were equals while in the kingdom, right?
And they support women being able to drive and appear in public, right?
And they support the right of non-Muslims to worship in the kingdom as they wish, right?
And they don't harbor any animosity for Israel and the Jews, right?
What?
Well, perhaps they aren't really "peaceful and tolerant" at all!
#15
Redsnapper, I haven't seen you here before, so welcome to Rantburg. I am always happy to read from people "who are there". And I'm sorry for the loss of your BBQ acquaintance, Mr. Paul Johnson, who had his head sawed off with a knife and placed on his back for NO REASON AT ALL besides unreasoning, malignant hate. Hate that can never be assuaged. Don't you get it?
I was agreeing with your comments up to the part about the Joooos. That bothered me. So did your swipe at the netizens of Rantburg. Do you really divide your world into terrorists on one side and the neocons and "the Jewish lobby" on the other? Do you really think of the rest of the posters at Rantburg as trailer-dwelling, ignorant oafs?
#16
Redsnapper, can you also tell me wht your peaceful tolerant Saudi friends haven't told the Saudi Insecurity forces where to find Mr. Johnson's head and/or body yet?
#19
Therefore Bush-Powell shouldn't be planting their lips on Saud ass.
Therefore we should nuke Riyadh, Mecca and Medina, and repatriate the Anglo-American oil fields from the koranimal savages. Listen folks: you have a constitutional right to offer suggestions. At least that fat pig, Michael Moore, uses the tools of activism. Slugs spin in their slime. Therefore, anyone who doesn't end their post with therefore we... could be a scum-sucking, terrorist indulging, State Department spun troll.
#20
There is this idea that recent American actions are increasing Arab resentment of Americans. I am someone who HAS lived outside the US for extended periods of time, and who has many friends, relatives, etc who have worked in SA. In my experience anti-Americanism has been strong among a very large segment of foreign populations for a very long time (decades), and SA is no exception. Most people don't seem to remember the anti-Americanism during the cold war, which was just as strong then as it is now. The reasons people hate America have little to do with our policies, and everything to do with the neuroses of the individuals in question.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/21/2004 14:54 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Ummm, Mr. Redsnapper, sir...
Apparently you haven't been visiting this site long enough to notice that a great many of the posters are current/former military types, along with a large sprinkling of current/former expats and our fave non-Americans, like JFM (France), Murat (Turkey), Aris Katsaris (Greece), Bulldog and Tony (among others) from the UK, and True German Ally (Germany).
I, myself, have only lived in the U.S and several countries in Europe, unlike my husband who has had to replace several passports ahead of schedule because they were overfull and the extensions kept falling out -- but I couldn't join him, you see, because in tolerent Saudi Arabia, while it is illegal to openly practice Christianity, it is illegal to even be Jewish, and my husband thinks my head looks prettier attached to my shoulders, oddly enough.
Its clear from your post that you have gone native, or that you always were a bigoted ass, and have not improved your ignorance by your experience.
#26
red douchebag--how many friday kutbahs have you attended--infidel--what your sweet natured saudi friends told you is just more taqqiyyaa for the kufr--not that you know what that means--the whole country is a cesspool of incitement and jihad--al-taghallub--islamic supremacy is the by word--break it up--hashimites back to the hijaz--nejdis to the rub al khali--the al frauds back to dariyah to drink camel's milk-eat dates-and locusts for protein--restore the al rachid to reyhad--eastern province to the shia--bomb asir and quasam--stop smoking ikhwan cock--redfish
Posted by: SON OF TOLUI ||
06/21/2004 15:36 Comments ||
Top||
#27
POPCORN! PEANUTS! GET'CHER RED HOTS!
[/donnybrook]
#11If AQ is not really at this time not aiming at the US or the West directly, that will come later, but rather all of these recent outrages are directed toward its Arab base and audience to solidify its legitmacy as anti-western, and if its real short term goal is to bring down the House of Saud...
Then what better way acomplish this than to sow discord between the Saudi government and the United States by making it look as though the Saudi Security Service is complicit in the beheading of Johnson and at Kobar?
In other words, while the Saudi's have much to answer for as you correctly point out, it may remain true that you are being played by AQ like the proverbial fiddle...your anger at the Saudi Government is exactly what they want.
Interesting speculation there, Traveller. I just have yet to see anything remotely benevolent about the Saudi government. They come across as ruthlessly manipulative and not much beyond that.
Their support for al Qaeda merely has come back to bite their well padded arses in richly deserved fashion. "[S]owing discord" is precisely what the Saudis have been doing for decades. The ostensible amity they show towards America is just that, a façade and little else.
While al Qaeda may indeed be playing both ends against the middle, I believe that they are overestimating their popularity. The once comfortable Saudi people may go along with anti-American sentiment as spewed by their Wahabbist clerics, but when ordinary citizens begin to die in droves that will all change overnight. Witness the rapid erosion of support for Moqtada al Sadr in Iraq.
I'd enjoy seeing what other Ranters have to say about this interesting proposition.
PS: Watch your six, redsnapper. I think you underestimate the danger that is all around you.
#28
#12From my experience (3 years on site, working with Saudis and having experienced the last six months at the sharp end) the majority of Saudis are tolerant and peaceful individuals.
redsnapper, your statement beggars one simple but compelling question. If the Saudi people are such " tolerant and peaceful individuals," who were all those folks honking their horns and blaring sirens when Paul Johnson's brutal murder was announced in Riyadh?
My problem remains that I see nothing to replace the House of Saud...God knows that I don't want it to become a Democratic country...I think that possibility scares the bejusus out of me.
I can only hope that your premise that when blood begins to spill, the general Saudi populace will come around...but I just don't want to bet the whole farm on that idea.
Though we disagree, I still think it best to work whatever kind of accomondation that can be put in place with the current Saudi Government until some other option is ready to be put in place, (BTW, a general slaughter is an option, but not now, not yet, and hopefully never, but we will see).
Eventually, though not necessiarly this thread, I'd be curious on your opinion on how and what to replace the House of Saud with.
Maybe you have an idea on this. I just don't. But if you have written this out before, you could always cut and past.
I have a jewish lobby - it's in my italianate farmhouse. It's full of things I picked up from the Middle East, Asia and Africa - not to mention a bit of military bric-a-brac. I occasionally see it on my way "between the trailer and the fridge".
...if its real short term goal is to bring down the House of Saud... Then what better way acomplish this than to sow discord between the Saudi government and the United States...
Y'know, Traveller, your theory makes sense. However, I'm not sure if it's a case of "bringing down" the House of Saud. It may be more a case of "changing who's to be on the throne" of the House of Saud.
#33
Well, Pappy, that does make sense. It may simply be a question of who's sitting on the throne.
That works for me, and may well work within the context of Saudia Arabia also. But at this moment I am not on top of the in's and out's of palace politics...who is preferable to Abdulla, though there seems to be a consensus that we could all do without Prince Nayef.
Hmmm - The erstwhile Mr Snapper doesn't realize this is a blog well populated by us so-called "right-wing hawks", that is, r-w-h from HIS perspective. Does "red" Snapper color his political perspective? It is interesting to hear the point of view form an eyewitness, but, it seems that once someone is there long enough, ope starts to believe the anti-Wstern melarkey that comes from the official blather there.
My suggestion to Mr. Snapper is to take a deep breath look around you and see the wotld for what it really is. If he is in the same circle as Mr Johnson, he shouly be very very wary. . . . Those native Saudi associates of his are going to wait for their moment, and when it comes, then truly only God will help him, for he shall be out of reach of anyone else.
#35
Traveller, why do you fear the country becoming a democracy? Something to do with the number of fundies who might get the vote?
Posted by: The Doctor ||
06/21/2004 20:27 Comments ||
Top||
#36
Something to do with the number of fundies who might get the vote?
Dear Doctor:
Bingo and exactly! I am on two minds on this, on the one hand, I do thing that redsnapper's point is well taken (though being a bit defensive, he threw in a bunch of unnecessary verbage...to his grief...lol...though I hope he sticks around), in that the majority of Saudis are pretty decent people, yet terribly conflicted by all that is going on around them. As we circle the wagons to a perceived threat, so do they. They have pride as do we. (sometimes this is foolish in both of us).
I am a freedom of conscience man...this is what this war should be over, and I fault the bush Administration for framing the terms of the debate so badly. There were real and good reasons for going into Iraq without the WMD issue at all. But they just seemed determined to play that card...rather than the Freedom of Conscience card, which was the true winning hand.
Democracies make mistakes also...the great and grand benifit of democracy is that, over time, it is a self correcting system...but I'm not sure that we have time on this.
Let me put it this way, When I can carry or buy a Bible in Medina with the same ease that I can buy a Koran in Los Angeles, then, and only then will this war be over.
No, I don't want the fundies to have a vote. At least not yet.
#38
The thing is the house of saud is resented by their people. The people view them as manipulating their wealth & selling it off to the westerners. While the dozens of princes enjoy enormous wealth and luxury IE; cars, palaces, drugs,women,etc. the majority of the proleteriat is very, very poor and don't enjoy the proceeds of their oil wealth.Plus they have an extremely rigid form of Islam practiced on them which in fact is very un-islamic. As a result since it is a Monarchy and there are no elections really, the only alternative they have is extremist groups like Al Qaeda. That is why they enjoy 60-70 % support. Although that is not widely publicized. It's true.
#39
true comment, to a point:
"Plus they have an extremely rigid form of Islam practiced on them which in fact is very un-islamic"
If AQ had their way, a 7th century caliphate would be installed, which would keep the common Arab down even further. Nice try, though
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/21/2004 21:13 Comments ||
Top||
#40
Well yeah A.Q wants to set up a Taliban style regime. But the early days of Islam were not really rigid in the same sense as you think. In the early days of Islam for example a woman would go to mohammed the prophet to complain that her husband was not satisfying her in bed.It has nothing to do w/ modern day freekazoid interpretations of Islam. These extremist groups ae feeding on the frustration of muslims w/ what they view as american oppression. You're right though about what u said, however out of desperation they support them & in the hopes of at least getting to have control over their oil.It's an outgrowth of desperation and frustration, & Gulf War II has fanned the flames of this rage ten-fold.
Posted by: Ali Abdel Hafiz ben americani al ignorami aziz el alb mahmoud mustafa ben shoo bee doo ||
06/21/2004 21:24 Comments ||
Top||
#41
#30My problem remains that I see nothing to replace the House of Saud...God knows that I don't want it to become a Democratic country...I think that possibility scares the bejusus out of me.
I think the world is getting a good foretaste of what might happen in Saudi Arabia with the Iraqi situation.
I can only hope that your premise that when blood begins to spill, the general Saudi populace will come around...but I just don't want to bet the whole farm on that idea.
People tend to become a lot more pragmatic when it's their own @ss on the line. While it all looks good on paper, when al Qaeda's operations further depress the Saudi economy to the point where basic survival is compromised, a degree of backlash should manifest. I would tend to wager that Saudi society represents a hotbed of back-sliding apostasic practices and general hedonism compared to what al Qaeda has in mind for them. For a yardstick, merely compare Afghanistan with Saudi Arabia.
Though we disagree, I still think it best to work whatever kind of accomondation that can be put in place with the current Saudi Government until is ready to be put in place, (BTW, a general slaughter is an option, but not now, not yet, and hopefully never, but we will see).
The problem is that Saudi royalty has absolutely zero interest in "some other option." They are well-accustomed to farting through silk and see no immediate need for that to change in any way. A "general slaughter" is al Qaeda's "option," the Saudi people just do not happen to realize it yet.
Eventually, though not necessiarly this thread, I'd be curious on your opinion on how and what to replace the House of Saud with.
Smoking glass is an alternative that continues to arise ever more frequently in ongoing discussions of this subject. I would prefer that America exercise its technological might and simply delete it's reliance upon petroleum.
When you factor in the massive defense budget vis protecting American national interests in the Middle East, in addition to ancillary environmental and health risks associated with the pollution caused by fossil fuels, if such funds were diverted to a dedicated drive towards independence from oil, such a thing could happen in a relative short (5-10 year) time span.
Sadly, both big oil and the domestic automotive industry have no intention of seeing their huge investment in internal combustion technology go down the drain. Lobbying efforts by them are solid proof of their willingness to defy the American public's best interests.
Maybe you have an idea on this. I just don't. But if you have written this out before, you could always cut and past.
Some folks here have mentioned the increasingly attractive notion of simply appropriating the dense concentration of oil fields in Saudi Arabia's Eastern region.
Such a move would eliminate any significant economic prize for those seeking to usurp the Saudi throne. Additionally, it would serve to stabilize global oil supplies and suppress market fluctuations. While only a military pipe dream as of now, further duplicity by the House of Saud will surely drive such ruminations towards actual reality.
The Saudis have very little time to put their "House" in order. Evidence of official complicity in terrorist attacks is putting the lie to their publicly held positions. That an ex-Saudi police chief has become the new head of al Qaeda's Arabian operations is rather telling.
#42
As a result since it is a Monarchy and there are no elections really, the only alternative they have is extremist groups like Al Qaeda.
Oddly enough, when the US was run by a monarch, we did not turn to an al'Qaeda-like group. Neither did Britain, for that matter.
It's an outgrowth of desperation and frustration, & Gulf War II has fanned the flames of this rage ten-fold.
Yeah. Sure. They don't like the problem, so they get angry at us -- people completely uninvolved. We offer a way out, so they get even angrier at us.
Screw 'em. They can either pull their heads out of their asses and stop believing their the poor, beleaguered master race, or they can face the whirlwind they're starting.
In fact, neither did Britain.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/21/2004 21:29 Comments ||
Top||
#43
I would prefer that America exercise its technological might and simply delete it's reliance upon petroleum.
Yeah, let's just do that. It's so damned easy, after all.
such a thing could happen in a relative short (5-10 year) time span
It's not that simple, no matter what you've heard. SDB's written quite a bit about this; there really aren't any easy alternatives to oil, no matter how hard we wish there were.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/21/2004 21:35 Comments ||
Top||
#44
RC - by debating these points you've entered a universe where logic, facts, cause/effect do not apply....troll-land
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/21/2004 21:39 Comments ||
Top||
#45
If we are going to lay blame for current situation in Mid-East,the two seminal events were first the fall of Shah,resulting in a successful home for Radical Islam,and second Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.W/out Saddam's invasion,US troops would never have been stationed on Saudi soil,Osama would not have become infuriated w/US and Saudi Govt.,no Al-Q,no 9-11,no Iraq War.Iranian mullocracy emboldened other radical religious leaders to speak out and become active in public policy,as well as humiliating US,causing many to think they could defeat US,thus laying ground for Al-Q and the rest.W/out Hussein's invasion,Osama prob. would either have tried for power in Saudi or more likely would have joined/started jihad against Israel.None of this had anything to do with Bush,neo-cons or the VRWC.
Posted by: Stephen ||
06/21/2004 21:45 Comments ||
Top||
#46
RC - by debating these points you've entered a universe where logic, facts, cause/effect do not apply....troll-land
Apparently the laws of physics don't apply, either.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/21/2004 22:16 Comments ||
Top||
#47
Well, Frank G, I hope it's not trollandia, but like RC, I have also read SDB's energy writing, but I still think there is much that can be done with fuel efficency, eg I just read about Ford's Zero Emmision Ztec engine genting in excess if 35mpg, I believe, to be produced next year...but it is in a Ford Focus. There are things that can be done and I'd like to give kudo's to Anonymous5317 for doing the heavy thinking on a bunch of topics.
Mentioning Steven Den Beste, it is hoped that his article on how a general slaughter would be worse on the United States than even on all the Arabs killed. They would be dead, yes, but America as we know it would vanish also.
#48
I trust SDB's numbers- as another San Diego engineer, I've followed his (lengthy) writings (whew!). There's a lot of work and good results to come from hybrids, especially from the general population of cars.
From the moral blowback from a generational-clearing attack on SA,Iran, Pak, etc., I would suggest you query the general population how badly they feel for Dresden and Tokyo in WW2. It is strictly a survival-mode morality, which we haven't yet reached by any means. Should Baltimore or Long Beach disappear in a mushroom cloud, the muslims may find worshipping in Mecca or Medina without a lead vest life-shortening, and should chalk it up to poor reading of history
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/21/2004 22:33 Comments ||
Top||
#49
Sorry everybody, Anonymous5317 was me.
Traveller, it took a massive search, but I managed to find the reference cited previously:
After the news of Jonhson's decapitation, I got a call from a friend in Khobar. She reported that sirens were blaring and people were honking in celebration.
I am obliged to admit that I was incorrect about the location. It was in Khobar, not Riyadh. Also, this is a FOAF (Friend Of A Friend) sort of cite, as opposed to one found in the general media. Salt to taste.
You have been decent enough to maintain a consistent (and very polite) dialogue, so I felt obligated to make available the best reporting possible.
#50
I hung around a few trailer parks in my time. Kinda stuffy! The ones that don't blow away can get down right pretty in the spring.
Problem was with the brokered up cars. Once the hoods went up it'as usually a bad sign. I remember once when there be more cars with for sale signs than ones with current tabs. Everybody always piss'n and moan'n bout Social Security checks, or food stamps, spit and go to hell, it was poverty.
But it twern't all bad. There were summer nights that went on till daybreak, everybody get'n ignorant and all! Sent my cousin home one night and all he could comment on was how the pavement seemed to occilate kinda, ups and downs, yaknow?
#51
Lucky - as a friend I can only say - you are pleasantly disturbed :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/21/2004 23:01 Comments ||
Top||
#52
Frank G, I still maintain that America could wean itself of oil dependence if we somehow diverted the huge outlays required to protect our Middle East petroleum interests towards a concerted technology shift.
I fully well recognize the upheaval this represents, but at some point the oil is going to run out anyway and we'll eventually be confronted with a changeover no matter what.
Nowhere did I say it would be "easy." Yet, in light of the way petrodollars have been misused by our putative allies in spreading Wahabbism and other equally harmful doctrines, we would be well advised to begin a de-emphasis of our reliance upon oil.
If AQ had their way, a 7th century caliphate would be installed, which would keep the common Arab down even further.
I made a similar point earlier and could not agree with you more.
#53
Anwar open, domestic pumping (now that the economics work) til we find a suitable substitute for a portion of the needs, I'm with ya. I was a Radiation Physics minor at San Diego State, in addition to my Civil Engineering major, so I have no fear of nuke plants, done right, and open Yucca Mtn (my Nevada relatives will argue, but not with much gusto) to adequate waste security. That satisfies the energy nets, cars are the only users then
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/21/2004 23:39 Comments ||
Top||
#54
--While the dozens of princes enjoy enormous wealth and luxury IE; cars, palaces, drugs,women,etc. the majority of the proleteriat is very, very poor and don't enjoy the proceeds of their oil wealth.--
That's what happens when one doesn't have an inkling of history - Marie Antoinette and the Rominovs (sp).
I;m afraid this day's thread is going to disapear before I can have my last say.
Why shouldn't I be polite? You're smart, write really well, and I like reading you...on the other hand, recommending or saying something nice about the Ford Focus was cruel and unusal..lol
And I'm on the same page as Frank G...open Yucca Mountain, now, and yes eventually we will go nuclear and like france (small f), get 80% of electricity from reactors. Finally, sure, open Anwar.
Pacific Rim Bureau (CNSNews.com) - South Korean officials in emergency talks Monday rejected an ultimatum from Muslim terrorists who threatened to kill a Korean hostage within 24 hours if Seoul did not reverse a decision to send thousands of troops to Iraq. South Korea has around 600 non-combatant troops in Iraq, and plans to send another 3,000 in August to help the post-war reconstruction mission.
Kim Son-il, reportedly a translator employed by a trading firm, was kidnapped last Thursday near Fallujah. He appeared crying and pleading for his life, flanked by masked gunmen, in a video clip screened on the Arabic al-Jazeera television channel Sunday. The terrorists identified themselves as members of a group led by al-Qaeda leader Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, whom the U.S. holds responsible for numerous suicide attacks in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad. It was not clear exactly when the 24-hour ultimatum was due to expire.
On Monday, South Korean vice foreign minister Choi Young Jin told a news conference the government would send the troops to Iraq as planned, but would also do all it could to secure the Korean hostageâs freedom. A spokesman for President Roh Moo-hyun quoted him as calling the kidnapping a "very sad" incident, and stressing that Korean troops intended to "focus on reconstruction efforts without conducting hostile activities against Iraqi people."
Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon was to cut short a visit to China to oversee the crisis. The Yonhap news agency quoted him as saying in the Chinese city of Qingdao that Seoul would ask the United States, Middle East countries and international human rights and religious organizations to help. The government has also urged all South Korean civilians still in Iraq to leave.
Rohâs plan to contribute 3,600 troops to the Iraq mission would make the Korean contingent the third largest after the U.S. and British forces. The plan to send more troops to Iraq was only finalized last week, following delays attributed to concerns about security and uncertainty over where in northern Iraq the Koreans would be stationed.
Opposition to the dispatch has also grown, according to opinion polls, in part because parliamentary elections last April saw a swing to the left, with the liberal Uri Party tripling its representation to become the largest party in the National Assembly. Although Uri is the party closest to Roh - and the president has pushed for the deployment - there is considerable opposition within the party to involvement in Iraq. On Monday, a group of 34 Uri lawmakers were scheduled to release a statement condemning the war against Iraq and urging Washington to apologize for going to war "based on mistaken information," the conservative Chosun Ilbo daily reported.
Decapitation of victims appears to be becoming a grisly method of choice for Islamist killers.
Becoming?
In the video clip, the men holding the hostage identified as Kim were quoted as saying in Arabic: "We demand you withdraw your forces from our lands and not send more of your forces to this land. Otherwise, we will send to you the head of this Korean and, Allah willing, we will follow it with the heads of your other soldiers."
The Islamic holy book, the Koran, appears to justify the decapitation of infidels. "When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them (sura 8.12, Shakir translation).
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/21/2004 6:20:13 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They kill this guy, it would be their what, fourth? The only favor they're doing for us is that they're showing that they'll go after everybody. Awaiting an outraged response from the UN . . .
Posted by: The Doctor ||
06/21/2004 21:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
patience of Job, huh Doc?
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/21/2004 22:03 Comments ||
Top||
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - Deputy Foreign Minister Choi Young-jin said Monday there is no change in South Korea's plan to send troops to Iraq, despite the recent kidnapping of South Korean man there.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/21/2004 1:19:52 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Diplomats from the United States, North Korea and four other nations began low-level talks Monday on the North's nuclear program, amid warnings by host China against hoping for any major breakthrough. The two days of so-called "working-level" talks are meant to help create an agenda for a third round of high-level talks due to start Wednesday. In addition to China, other participants include South Korea, Japan and Russia. "The expectations for these negotiations should be rational and realistic," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue said last week. "In the process of settling this huge issue, difficulties and challenges still lie ahead."
He's expecting rational and realistic from North Korea? Either he's a goof or he's a better diplomat than I thought.
At the heart of the dispute are two countries that do not trust each other. China, the North's last major ally, has tried to draw its isolated dictatorship back to the international mainstream. Beijing says just getting North Korea to join the talks is a small victory. "We hope these negotiations can build on the achievement of previous talks and have more in-depth discussions on substantive issues ... and narrow down differences," Zhang told reporters last week.
"We will settle the shape of the table later, once we've decided upon the color of the tablecloth."
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/21/2004 1:14:15 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Having low level talks to set the agenda...sheesh! All the Norks are doing is finding ways to obtain and have other people pay for their lunch. What a waste of US time and money. If the Chicoms want to solve this problem, they can put the screws on the Norks. Now all they will achieve by having their little dog Kimmie dance is a nuclear armed Japan.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/21/2004 9:36 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/21/2004 1:30:40 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I like the Commissioners having to sign off on every word contained in staff conclusions - can't do a Kerry that way...
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/21/2004 14:15 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Safire's wrong. At least half-wrong. He absolves the media, but the media did in fact grossly distort the plain meaning of the staff report in relation to administration claims. By choosing, indefensibly, to to interpret "collaborative relationship" to include all contacts and possible cooperation, of whatever kind and supported by whatever level of evidence, and failing to point out that this contradicted not high-profile arguments for the Iraq war but the Tenet letter of Oct. '02, the media committed inexcusable distortion. All of Safire's points are well taken, but they stand IN ADDITION to the observation that the press tried to just make up the story line. Does Safire have to hold his tongue because of his relationships at the NYT? Look at the way he delicately handles the editorial page folks, who have put on one of their greatest displays of arrogant incompetence in this matter, with their ludicrous slander of the administration over justifications for the Iraq war, and demand for "apologies" for same.
He's a master of the language and specifically the column format, but sad to say Safire has dealt HIMSELF a major blow here. Too bad. One less voice to note the emperor's naked condition as the elite press spins off into a more distant orbit of distortion and unreality.
EAGLESWOOD TOWNSHIP, N.J. - The leader of an anti-discrimination group called for tolerance after a sign reading "Stamp out Islam" was posted in the hometown of an American contractor murdered in Saudi Arabia. Aref Assaf, president of the state chapter of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, issued an advisory to its members telling them to be vigilant following news reports of residents angered over the death of Paul M. Johnson Jr. His organization had not heard of any violence committed against Muslims or Arab-Americans in New Jersey.
"Itâs sad because we have lost a fellow American from New Jersey, but added to that our entire community is being castigated and blamed for the crimes of others," Assaf said Sunday. "Our patriotism has been questioned and suspect. Itâs a difficult feeling to have when youâre a citizen of a country and your loyalty is questioned by your fellow American citizens."
Phil Galasso posted the cardboard sign saying "Stamp out Islam" on a utility pole near his house in Eagleswood Township. It depicted a hand-drawn boot over a crescent and star. "Iâm getting a little fed up with the mindless violence against civilians who had nothing to do with the war in the Middle East," Galasso said.
Another sign hung on the mailbox of the house next to that of Johnsonâs sister, Donna Mayeux, in Little Egg Harbor Township. "Last night Islamics had a chance to speak up for Paul Johnson but today itâs too late," the sign read. "Islamics better wake up and start thinking about tomorrow."
One more major incident and we'll see signs like this all across the country.
The owner of the house where the sign was hung took it down Sunday morning and said he didnât know who had put it up. He added that he didnât know anyone in town who felt that way.
Joe Giberson, a police detective in nearby Stafford Township, said he was dismayed when he saw news reports of the sign in Little Egg Harbor. "I hope itâs not the feelings of the people," Giberson said. "We canât be the same way like what happened to Mr. Johnson." Among those urging tolerance was the minister at the church where Mayeux worships. Pastor Gene Huber noted Johnsonâs familyâs grief and struggle in the face of cruelty, but said turning to faith would "enable them to become champions of grace in a world of wickedness."
The phrase I was thinking of, Padre, was along the lines of "praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."
Members of New Jerseyâs Arab-American community had gathered over the weekend to condemn the murder, denouncing it as "repulsive" and "cold-blooded" during a rally in Paterson. Assaf told those at the rally it is "unfortunate" that perceptions remain that American Muslims share the same anti-American opinions that terrorists do. "Most of us left everything to come to this country," he said. "The last thing we want to see is America damaged, or vandalized or demonized."
You're going to have to speak up.
Posted by: Anonymous4617 ||
06/21/2004 8:15:04 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
but added to that our entire community is being castigated and blamed for the crimes of others," Assaf said Sunday
well if the muslim community would take a stand against these terrorists , or more loving called 'holy warriors' by the muslim community, there would be no worry. but the muslim community here in the states does not..so i have no sympathy.
Posted by: Dan ||
06/21/2004 13:34 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Itâs a difficult feeling to have when youâre a citizen of a country and your loyalty is questioned by your fellow American citizens.
It's also a difficult feeling when the best available information is that we have every reason to question the loyalty of some of our "fellow American citizens." When the first reaction to an Islamic atrocity is condemnation instead of "watch out for the bigots," and when we start to hear about AQ cells in quantity being outed by their Islamic brethren, I'll start rethinking my suspicions. Until then, I guess they'll just have to live with it.
#3
I OT'd that report. The concept of "freedom" has been so debased by Bush-Powell, that an American consensus is brewing, which identifies freedom from Islamofascist savagery with American security.
As soon as the oil-patch crooks are out of the way, we can dust off the nukes.
#5
well, ex-lib, since only Bush, Kerry and Nader are running, the Troll either wants Kerry or Nader. So which is it Mr Troll, is Kerry or Nader your man?
#6
I've been working with a Muslim engineer for the last 8 years. He came here just before the Shah was overthrown and will never go back to Iran, even if the Mad Mullahs are overthrown. He and I have talked extensively about radical Islam and I believe him when he says there really aren't very many muslims here in the US that support that kind of extremism. He likes to do things in his leisure time he would never be allowed to do in Iran. I asked him why Muslims here were not more vocal in their denunciation of the extremists but the only answer he could give me was that people have become complacent. It is not happening here, it is far away so why worry? "These things are being done by other people, not us".He then said people are beginning to wake up to the fact that if they don't take a firm and vocal stand they risk losing the freedom they now enjoy and also risk the enmity of other American citizens. I certainly hope this is true.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
06/21/2004 15:07 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"We canât be the same way like what happened to Mr. Johnson."
Well, signs communicating a community's anger and speaking out against barbaric crimes like that committed against Mr. Johnson is hardly the same thing as sawing off people's heads, is it?
People will try to stifle this justified anger, but it will build and continue to erupt until we get a nationwide consensus on fighting Islamofascism.
#8
Would have been nice if they'd signed up for the military enmass to support their new country in time of war. Sort of like a lot of Japanese-Americans, German-Americans, and Italian-Americans, in a time long ago.
No, its easier to live among the non-believers and complain about racism both real and fictional.
#9
Deacon Blues: The Iranians are different than the Arabs--just ask them :-) ! (also, they are Indo-Europeans, rather than Arab, and they often think Arabs are crazy and beneath them), so I would expect that answer from an Iranian. Most of the Iranians here are fine people busy making a living (rather than making bombs or plots to harm us here).
From The New York Times
... The New York Times has found that government and military officials have repeatedly exaggerated both the danger the detainees posed and the intelligence they have provided. In interviews, dozens of high-level military, intelligence and law-enforcement officials in the United States, Europe and the Middle East said that contrary to the repeated assertions of senior administration officials, none of the detainees at the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay ranked as leaders or senior operatives of Al Qaeda. They said only a relative handful â some put the number at about a dozen, others more than two dozen â were sworn Qaeda members or other militants able to elucidate the organizationâs inner workings.
The rest are innocents who were lost, looking for a ride home from church. So they flagged down these Americans, an'...
While some Guantánamo intelligence has aided terrorism investigations, none of of it has enabled intelligence or law-enforcement services to foil imminent attacks, the officials said.
I think most of them have been there for three years or so. They could probably provide information on what they had for breakfast...
Compared with the higher-profile Qaeda operatives held elsewhere by the C.I.A., the Guantánamo detainees have provided only a trickle of intelligence with current value, the officials said. Because nearly all of that intelligence is classified, most of the officials would discuss it only on the condition of anonymity.
Ummmm... All that intelligence is classified. That's why they call it "intelligence," instead of "news."
"When you have the overall mosaic of all the intelligence picked up all over the world, Guantánamo provided a very small piece of that mosaic," said a senior American official who has reviewed the intelligence in detail. "Itâs been helpful and valuable in certain areas. Was it the mother lode of intelligence? No." ....
Y'see, there are various kinds of intelligence. There's tactical — "They're gonna boom the Eiffel Tower tomorrow at 8 a.m.!" You normally don't get that from guys you've held for three years. Among the other types is theater — how the Bad Guys intend to take down, say, Indonesia or Pakland, f'rinstance. Then there's strategic, which concerns the organization's overall goals — such as planting the Flag of Islam™ over the White House, controlling the world's oil supply, and establishing a caliphate from Mindanao to Rabat, ruled by a fat guy in a jewelled turban with a Grand Vizier and dancing girls. Intel falling into the latter two categories involves tactics, training, order of battle, doctrine, all sorts of stuff that's much too boring for New York Times writers to concern themselves with. Intel's also usually not the entire sheet of paper, but a corner here, a few lines there, and something that was scribbled on the back of the sheet in crayon. Putting the pieces together is a long drawn-out process and usually you don't get the entire picture.
In interviews, officials at Guantánamo and in the Pentagon defended the intelligence-gathering effort and said it continued to produce useful information. "Every single day we get some piece of information thatâs relevant to now," said Steve Rodriguez, who oversees the interrogation teams at the base. Officials said the intelligence had allowed them to piece together a more detailed picture of Al Qaeda before Sept. 11, 2001, including how young jihadis were recruited and screened, how the organization moved funds and how it related to other militant groups. They said some were important Qaeda operatives, including financiers, a bodyguard for Osama bin Laden and â a recent discovery â a militant who they say helped recruit 9/11 hijackers.
No tactical intel, but lotsa order of battle, tactics, and such...
Yet even as he argued the importance of that information, the commander of the task force that runs the Guantánamo prison, Brig. Gen. Jay W. Hood, acknowledged disappointment among some senior officials in Washington. "The expectations, I think, may have been too high at the outset," he said. "There are those who expected a flow of intelligence that would help us break the most sophisticated terror organization in a matter of months. But that hasnât happened." ....
We probably started with a minor flood of information that dropped off. After three years we're feeding these goobers and not getting much out of them that's new. That's life in the intel biz. Guantanamo also keeps them out of circulation, so none of them have cut anybody's head off lately.
While refusing to discuss specifics, Pentagon officials called the interrogation methods used at Guantánamo humane and said they had applied more severe methods only sparingly. In at least one of those cases, they said, the techniques prompted an important Qaeda member to give up vital information. But new details of that case, which involved a 26-year-old Saudi man who apparently tried unsuccessfully to enter the United States as the 20th hijacker in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, call some of those assertions into question. Several officials familiar with the case said that for months, no one at Guantánamo even knew who the detainee, Mohamed al-Kahtani, was and that he was identified only after the Federal Bureau of Investigation stepped in. The officials also said that the harsher interrogation methods used against him were largely unsuccessful, that he had little sense of other Qaeda plots, and that he had been most forthcoming under more subtle persuasion. ...
So he's not top level, but he was willing to hijack a plane and kill people. What's the beef?
Even now, officials acknowledge that they have been unable to get any information from at least 60 detainees â including in some cases their identities. Those uncertainties, the officials said, leave open the possibility that more serious terrorists may be among Guantánamoâs detainees. ... A former secretary of the Army, Thomas E. White, who supervised a team of senior Pentagon officers at Guantánamo, said he was told by a senior military official at the base on an early visit that only a third to a half of the detainees appeared to be of some value and that sorting through them would be a considerable problem. ...
Most are battlefield captures, I believe. I've no doubt that only a third to half have overt intel value. Capturing a random sample of snuffies, gunnies, and other hard boyz isn't going to get you the top echelon — which isn't put up at Guantanamo.
Many younger Army interrogators had never questioned a real prisoner before.
That might have something to do with the fact that we were at peace when we were attacked. I'd never spoken to a Viet Bad Guy when I arrived in country. After I'd been at it for awhile I was pretty good at it. By the time I switched languages I was very good at it.
As in Afghanistan, interrogators at Guantánamo asked the same basic questions again and again, many former detainees recalled. "They asked me, `Do you know the Taliban? Do you know Mullah Muhammad Omar? Do you know bin Laden?â " said Jan Muhammad, 37, a farmer from Helmand Province who said he had been forcibly conscripted into the Taliban. "I said, `I have never seen bin Laden; I have not even seen bin Ladenâs car driving past.â " ...
Again, it's the random sample syndrome. And eventually you can think of more interesting questions to ask: who was your unit commander? What units were associated with yours? Who paid you? Where did your supplies come from? Who was responsible for supply? When was payday? The questions are repeated to check them for consistency...
One of the few American intelligence sectors to show any early interest in the detainees was an obscure defense intelligence unit that traced weapons around the world, one interrogator said. As a result, interrogators were required to question detainees about the serial numbers on rifles they had used and the markings on their bullets. "Of course, they had no idea," the interrogator said. .... But senior defense officials grew frustrated with the shortage of compelling information. "At the beginning, the process was broken everywhere," said Lt. Col. Anthony Christino III, a recently retired Army intelligence officer who specialized in counterterrorism and was familiar the Guantánamo intelligence. "The quality of the screening, the quality of the interrogations and the quality of the analysis were all very poor. Efforts were made to improve things, but after decades of neglect of human intelligence skills, it canât be fixed in a few years." ...
We weren't capturing a lot of Soviets and subjecting them to extensive interrogation, were we? In fact, such as we did get weren't interrogated at all; they were "debriefed." And the Soviet Union had been dead for nine years when this war started, with no major military actions in between.
Around the same time, faced with continuing resistance from many detainees, some military intelligence officers urged that they be allowed to take advantage of the suspension of Geneva Conventions to try more coercive methods â a step that led to bitter conflicts between military intelligence members and military criminal investigators assigned to prepare cases for the tribunals. ....
There are different techniques that are appropriate to different prisoners. And all the Amnesia International hangers-on in the world are looking over our shoulder, just waiting for something to point the finger at. Those are called "constraints."
For interrogators at Guantánamo looking to score a high-profile intelligence victory, Mr. Kahtani, the Saudi who was the so-called 20th hijacker, appeared to be their man. In the end, though, his case instead came to illustrate some of the problems they faced in determining who they were holding and what they knew. .... In July 2002, a routine check by F.B.I. agents matched his fingerprints to a thumbprint from a man who had been turned back by an immigration official after flying into Orlando International Airport in Florida from London on Aug. 3, 2001, without a return ticket or hotel reservation. ... On that same day in August 2001, they noted, toll records showed calls from a pay phone at the Orlando airport to Mustafa al-Hawsawi, a Qaeda member in the United Arab Emirates who served as a logistical coordinator for the attacks, the officials said. Checking surveillance camera recordings for that day, the agents found that a rental car used by the hijackersâ leader, Mohamed Atta, entered an airport parking lot shortly before Mr. Kahtaniâs Virgin Atlantic flight arrived from London, officials said. ....
That's good term intel work. You don't put all that together in an afternoon, at least not in a free country...
The bureau [FBI] sent a longtime counterterrorism specialist who is fluent in Arabic and worked extensively on investigations of Al Qaeda. .... Over a series of interrogations that extended into the fall of 2002, the agent slowly built a rapport with Mr. Kahtani, approaching him with respect and restraint ... Mr. Kahtani began to open up, officials said. He disclosed that he attended an important Qaeda planning meeting with two of the Sept. 11 hijackers in Malaysia, in January 2000. Mr. Kahtani also said he had a relative he thought might be living near Chicago. The relative, Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, is believed by officials to have been planted in the United States as a Qaeda "sleeper" agent. He was taken into custody as a material witness shortly after arriving in the country on Sept. 10, 2001, and was later confined to a Naval brig in Charleston, S.C., with two American citizens charged as "enemy combatants," Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi. One official said that Mr. Kahtani had admitted that he had intended to join the hijackers but that he had given up little or nothing about other Qaeda plans.
It's doubtful he knew anything about them...
To some F.B.I. experts, officials said, his ignorance seemed credible: he had been recruited to be what the plotters called a "muscle" hijacker, someone to subdue passengers rather than pilot a plane. Officials said such lower-level operatives were generally only minimally informed even as to the details of attacks in which they would take part. But military intelligence officials were skeptical, believing that new approaches to Mr. Kahtani might well reveal plans for attacks that were to follow the hijackings or that might have involved Mr. Marri. In late November 2002, Pentagon officials informed the F.B.I. that they would take over interrogations of Mr. Kahtani, an official said. A list of 17 new interrogation techniques ... was approved by Mr. Rumsfeld in early December. Ten of the techniques were used on Mr. Kahtani before complaints from some military officials prompted Mr. Rumsfeld to retract his approval for the more extreme methods, military officials said. ...
No word on whether or not they struck pay dirt. I'd guess not, but if they did they shouldn't be telling...
Last month, a senior Bush administration official told The Times that Mr. Kahtani had provided information to interrogators "about a planned attack and about financial networks to fund terrorist operations." But several other officials disputed that characterization, saying he had not given any new information about plots by Al Qaeda. ...
So he did or he didn't. My valuable intel might not be your valuable intel. Or he might have given something but it didn't fit with anything else anybody had. Very few things happen in a vacuum, and if there aren't any intersects with anything else the guy's probably lying...
In interviews, Mr. Rodriguez, the head of Guantánamoâs intelligence-gathering effort, and two interrogators said valuable information continued to be produced. ....
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/21/2004 8:36:44 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
blah, blah, blah...
Nobody believe the NYT anymore anyway. Which is a good thing for still-adoring Clinton fans these days.
#2
Somehow, I knew this was Mike's posting, just from the headline.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/21/2004 8:52 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I just got done watching the fox news story where the lawyers for the accused soldiers want the President to testify.
If we held FDR to this standard, trying generals and presidents each time it was revealed a bunch of allied troops had abused (or killed, which happened a lot more than everyone thinks) axis POW's, the Nazis would still be running Europe. And perhaps the rest of the world as well.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
06/21/2004 9:09 Comments ||
Top||
#5
If we could get intel from these guys, then great! The guys at gitmo now have dated intel to share. However, the other use for gitmo is a holding tank for some very miswired and dangerous people. What elsw would you have us do to them, push 'em out of a plane at FL250? Hmmmmmm....we won't go there today.....
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/21/2004 9:44 Comments ||
Top||
#6
all these unnamed sources! How many here doubt that any US Service member is unaware of the NY Times agenda, and would volunteer info on classified subjects? Bueller? *crickets*
the NY Times is full of crap, and should have to name sources to keep a shred of credibility
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/21/2004 9:54 Comments ||
Top||
#7
What elsw would you have us do to them, push 'em out of a plane at FL250?
Nuttin' wrong with that. A rather fitting barbaric end to a barbarian, I'd say. At the very least, go the environmentally correct way and make sure it's done over the open ocean, where the sharks can clean up the mess.
#9
Who wants to bet that whatever has been gleaned hasn't been shared, because the people involved know it'll be splashed all over the front page?
I've always had a bit of a bi-polar thing going with trust in the government: on the one hand, I think they can do a lot more than they tell us, on the other, well, like all of us I'm sometimes forced to wonder. All those Tom Clancy novels help with the first, I suppose . . .
Assuming that there's more competency than there appears, it puts the government in a bind. You've got the liberal press screaming that "the people should know," but today, telling the people gives a fair chance that the enemy is gonna find out, too; it ain't too hard to pick up a copy of a newspaper. So I'm forced to wonder if we aren't going for an image of incompetency/failure rather than have whatever we have learned broadcast to the whole damned world - because you know that's what would happen. For example, I seem to recall a few years back MSNBC reporting that if Saddam didn't back down by a certain time, the *secret* plan was to bomb him to hell - and, lo and behold, he backed down a little while later, when before it had seemed very unlikely.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
06/21/2004 14:22 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Reality Check: I have seen al-Qaeda's "Training Manual" and firmly believe that anyone who learned how to produce and use WMD - biological and chemical poisons - deserves to die. As many as 100,000 koranimals took that training in Afghanistan. Prior to 9-11, American Muslims openly bragged on the "Islamway" website, about having taken that training. I would torture the Gitmo pigs until they disclosed the names of each and every swine that they trained with, and then I would put bullets in their foreheads.
Interestingly, torture yields little result in interrogations--psychology of stress and fear (basic).
"I would torture the Gitmo pigs until they disclosed the names of each and every swine that they trained with, and then I would put bullets in their foreheads."
I understand you're upset, of course, but we want to GET information, not destroy our chances.
Your posts always seem very emotional to me--on the verge of "rabid." It's a complex world, and I think you should spend more time thinking and less time being so wound up.
#13
I wonder if any of this is a disinformation effort by the security agencies - an effort to persuade al Qaeda that its operatives are staying silent, when in fact they sang like canaries. Using the New York Times for an effort like this would be poetic justice, given that it generates so much fiction anyway.
Asaha Dajing, 19, appeared to be thriving at an Islamic college in Yala, 20 miles north of this remote village. He had just won a $125 creative writing scholarship, big money in these parts. His family was proud.
But Asaha had friends his parents didnât know about: Islamic radicals who were recruiting impressionable young men for a mysterious holy war here in the jungles of southern Thailand.
Asahaâs secret life was exposed only by his death. He was killed by police along with 13 other militants April 28 when they staged a suicidal assault on a government office near this village. Most were armed only with machetes.
"They used my son because he was young," says his father, rubber farmer Tama Dajing, 49. "He could be fooled very easily. ... I blame myself because I just worked. I went out in the morning and I came home at night, and I didnât know what was going on."
"Itâs still a witchâs brew. Itâs still incubating," says Paul Quaglia, a former CIA official now working as a security consultant in Bangkok with Pacific Strategies & Assessments. "Regional Islamic terrorists are looking at the area for a possible jihad (holy war). Disgruntled Muslim youth form a potential labor pool" for terrorists.
However, there is some evidence that Jemaah Islamiyah, which is on the U.S. terror list, has been active in Thailand. One of the groupâs leaders was captured in central Thailand last year, and some of the attackers in a wave of violence April 28 reportedly wore Jemaah Islamiyah T-shirts and in some cases showed knowledge of sophisticated military tactics.
The violence has killed nearly 200 people, most of them Muslim, in Thailand this year. It has shaken a country that is 95% Buddhist and best known as a place where foreign tourists carouse in the raucous bars of Bangkok, relax on the white beaches of Phuket or explore the temples and handicraft markets of Chiang Mai.
The Thai government of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has tried to downplay the violence and has sometimes blamed it on criminal gangs to protect the countryâs tourist trade. But the threat from Islamic extremism is becoming harder to ignore:
In Thailandâs deep south, the population is 80% Muslim. Militants have burned dozens of secular government schools, murdered Buddhist monks and attacked police posts.
"This is a volcanic area," says Panitan Wattanayagorn, a Thai expert on the security situation in the south. "From time to time, you have explosions."
The people of southern Thailand are distinct from the rest of the countryâs population. Their ethnic background is Malay, not Thai. Their religion is Islam, not Buddhism. Their language is a local dialect called Yawi, indecipherable to most Thais. And the southerners have a history of independence from the government in Bangkok. Until it was annexed in 1902, southern Thailand was part of an independent Malay kingdom with its capital at Pattani.
Many southerners have never accepted Thai rule. A violent separatist movement tore through the region in the 1960s and 1970s. The situation had settled by the 1990s, calmed by economic development and political changes that let local Muslims elect their leaders and send them to the national legislature in Bangkok.
But trouble continued to simmer. Government officials in the south were notoriously corrupt even by lax Thai standards. The local economy lagged the most prosperous parts of Thailand. A stricter, less tolerant form of Islam â related directly or indirectly to hard-line Saudi Arabian Wahhabism â began to gain influence.
A more potent form of Islam appeals to many Thai Muslims resentful of being left behind economically and inflamed by images of Muslims under siege by Israel in the West Bank and Gaza and by the United States in Iraq.
Even so, it is not entirely clear what is motivating the current insurgents: a revival of the separatist insurrection; local links with foreign terrorists seeking, as Hambali was, to establish a fundamentalist Islamic caliphate across Southeast Asia; or local power struggles.
The government declared martial law in three southern provinces â Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat â on Jan. 5, the day after the armory raid. It has begun joint border patrols with troops from neighboring Malaysia.
Tipped off that the insurgents planned a wave of coordinated attacks on 11 police and government posts across the three southern provinces April 28, Thai troops and police were waiting. They gunned down 108 insurgents, including Asaha Dajing, the teenage student. Critics question whether the lethal force was justified against attackers carrying mostly machetes, not firearms. "This is too many dead, absolutely too many," says Ambhorn Meesook, a member of Thailandâs National Human Rights Commission. Five members of the Thai security forces also died.
Among the dead that day were 32 militants who had taken refuge in the 426-year-old Kreu-Se mosque in Pattani. They declared over a mosque loudspeaker that they would die there. They did, wiped out in a seven-hour police assault. So many Muslim pilgrims now visit the site that the mosque has become a tourist attraction, surrounded by stalls selling items from Pringles to sarongs.
Dozens of Thai Muslims also have been taken away by armed men believed to be police or security forces. Disappearances and mysterious killings have become more common under the increasingly authoritarian rule of Prime Minister Thaksin. A nationwide crackdown on drug dealers last year left nearly 2,300 dead. Many were believed to be victims of extrajudicial killings by police.
Authorities appear to be using the same brutal tactics against Muslims they see as troublemakers. Prominent Muslim human rights lawyer Somchai Neelaphaijit vanished in Bangkok on March 12 and hasnât been seen since. Four police officers have been arrested in his disappearance.
Around midnight Jan. 26, two pickups pulled into Tohporka, a sleepy village of 200 people in Narathiwat province where stray cats and roosters roam the streets and sheets of recently harvested rubber hang to dry from wooden houses that stand on stilts.
The trucks stopped in front of the house being rented by Ibrahim Se, 38, a rubber tapper. Five armed men wearing masks piled out of the trucks, broke down the door and hauled Se away. His wife, Nurida Kamae, 28, ran after them but was warned off by a masked man with a shotgun who taunted her: "Where are you going? Are you going to Bangkok with him?"
She hasnât seen her husband since. She says she has no idea why he might be in trouble. The couple spent all their time working in the rubber forests, saving money to build a house of their own and teaching Islam to the children of the village.
Nurida says that she suspects â but canât prove â that a neighbor may have framed him for reasons she doesnât want to go into.
Some analysts fear that the governmentâs heavy-handed tactics will backfire.
"Over the long term, itâs going to further estrange the Muslim community," security consultant Quaglia says. "They donât like it when human rights lawyers disappear. It scares them. They could be next."
Perhaps the backlash has begun. On May 30, the decapitated body of a 63-year-old Buddhist rubber farmer was found a mile from his home in Narathiwat province.
Next to his body was a written warning threatening to kill more "innocent Buddhists" if police arrested more "innocent" Muslims.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/21/2004 8:42:02 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Next to his body was a written warning threatening to kill more "innocent Buddhists" if police arrested more "innocent" Muslims.
The very definition of proportional response in Islam: "arrest us and we'll kill you".
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/21/2004 14:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Critics question whether the lethal force was justified against attackers carrying mostly machetes, not firearms
Not to be picky, but a machete will get you as dead as any firearm, especially if you let its bearer get too close w/o employing "lethal force".
THE younger brother of alleged Southeast Asian terrorist mastermind Hambali went on trial today in the latest move against al-Qaeda linked militants. Supporters of Rusman Gunawan, 27, shouted "Destroy America!" as his trial on three charges of conspiring to commit acts of terrorism got underway amid tight security at the Central Jakarta District Court. Prosecutor Payaman said Gunawan had conspired with other Southeast Asian militants grouped in a Jemaah Islamiyah unit called the al-Ghurba cell in Pakistan last year "to take part in acts of terrorism."
I think it was a class project
Payaman, who goes by a single name, did not specify the nature of the alleged plots, but said Hambali asked Gunawan to send him US$80,000 ($116,000) via alleged al-Qaeda operative Abdul Karim al-Bukhory. Some the money was used to fund an attack last year on the J.W. Marriott Hotel in Jakarta that killed 12 people, Payaman told the court. Jemaah Islamiyah is believed to have carried out that attack. Gunawan was not required to enter a plea in todayâs court hearing. But he told reporters as he arrived at court that he underwent military training in Afghanistan in 2000 but denied sending any money to his older brother. "I disagree with the bombings that have hit Indonesia," he said, adding he last met Hambali in 2000 when they "discussed family affairs."
Of course, bombing is considered a family passtime for this bunch
Gunawan faces a possible death sentence if convicted. He was arrested in Karachi in December with five other Indonesian students. All were later deported to Indonesia. Four are now facing trial in Jakarta on terrorism-related charges. Lawyer Achmad Midan said the charges against Gunawan were very weak. "We are confident he will be freed," he said.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/21/2004 8:20:03 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Those mad mullahs are in for a huge surprise :)
Mossad agents and IDF Intelligence officers are working to infiltrate Iran through Kurdistan in northern Iraq to gather intelligence on the Shiâite stateâs developing nuclear program, New Yorker magazine investigative reporter Seymour Hersh told CNN on Sunday.
Sy thinks he's blowing up another secret operation.
Israeli special units were said to have hunted Scud missile launchers in the western Iraqi desert in the build-up to the Gulf War, and it has been rumored among intelligence circles that Israeli intelligence officers aided their American counterparts since the end of hostilities last May.
"Hundreds" of undercover IDF Intelligence officers and Mossad agents resurrected their cooperation with Kurdish militiamen in northern Iraq, with the aim of crossing the porous Iraq-Iran border in the North and establishing cells in Iran that might yield new intelligence on Iranâs nuclear program, Hersh told CNN. The Israelis are also providing an ancillary role to the Kurds and, according to Hersh, are aiding Kurdish elements in northern Syria. Kurdish riots and the seeds of a minor rebellion in northern Syria in recent weeks have rocked Syrian President Bashar Assadâs regime.
They're doing everything I'd do.
Israel has become increasingly pessimistic about the chances of a stable government forming in Iraq, and has thus moved on to "stage B" of its post-war campaign, establishing what amount to mini-intelligence stations, Hersh said.
During the CNN interview he quoted an "Israeli intelligence official" as his source. When asked about the report, a spokesman in the Prime Ministerâs Office did not deny the report. "I have no idea about the report," he said. "I also donât know if it is true or not. Weâve read the report and no one [in the Prime Ministerâs Office] is responding to it."
"I'm sorry, what was my name again? Forget you heard it."
An Israeli intelligence source, however, scoffed at Hershâs report, saying that infiltrating "hundreds" of agents into Iraq is both ludicrous and pointless. He said Israel makes use of satellite imagery to monitor Iranâs nuclear development, and only a high-level plant could provide relevant information on Iranian nuclear plants. While human intelligence is necessary, such a large-scale operation would be bound to fail, if only for the ease with which it could be detected, he added.
Notice how he buries the real thought in the reason of condemnation. Yes, it would take a high-level plant, wouldn't it?
Until the 1970s, Israel sold the Kurds arms and trained members of the Kurdish militia, the Peshmerga, for their guerrilla war against Iraqâs Baath regime.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/21/2004 6:10:50 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
...."Hundreds" of undercover IDF Intelligence officers and Mossad agents resurrected their cooperation with Kurdish militiamen in northern Iraq...
as Bill Clinton might say, I think this might be true depending on the definition of the word 'agents.
no doubt it is fairly easy to have one or two agents with cash and buy information from many others ... are the second group 'agents'?
The one advantage of being in Mossad is that the entire local region believes you can do anything. (Some of it even believes you rule the world.) That's quite a psyops advantage.
Posted by: Kathy K ||
06/21/2004 18:45 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Im hear a lot of these Mossard types are closet Joooos.
#5
Hersh has been full of it and full of himself for years. As nice it would be to believe this, why should we attach any credence to anytihng this cretin says?
#2
The obstinate, brazen political mullahs continue pushing right to the limit. They are about to go overboard concerning such phoney 'mistakes'.
Keep a close eye on Iran. The fuse has already been lite.
The screams of justice & liberty will become louder on their domestic front as well.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/21/2004 10:16 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Jeebus! when will the cruise missiles fly?
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/21/2004 10:19 Comments ||
Top||
#4
...Ya know, for people who are as obsessed with history as the Islamonazis, they sure don't seem to remember what happens when you screw with Her Majesty's Fleet or Her citizens in general - just ask the Argentines.
The good news here is that it looks like this is already on its way to a quick resolution, which also suggests that it might be a case of some local commander getting off the leash.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
06/21/2004 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"... for people who are as obsessed with history.."
Good point, MK. I guess that in the Islamic world, history stopped about a thousand years ago.
As an example, the other day, I came across a web site chronicling the Islamic contributions to the Western world in areas like astronomy, medicine and chemistry. Funny thing was, the web page had not been updated in something like 700 years!
Communications with three Royal Navy vessels and eight sailors seized by Iran have been lost. A British military spokesman said the craft, which entered Iran's territorial waters, cannot be contacted. Eight British sailors have been arrested by Iran. The seacraft were detained near the Iraqi border after, said Iran, they had entered its waters without permission. A spokesman for the officially-appointed Iranian Revolutionary Guards said: "We got news that a number of foreign vessels entered Iranian waters without permission. Three boats were guided to Iranian shores and more than five crew were arrested."
Iranian naval sources told the country's media eight British crew were arrested after their vessels were found to contain weapons and maps. One station said the crew had confessed to making "a mistake" and that the three vessels had been confiscated by the Iranian navy. The confrontation was said to have taken place in the Shatt al Arab stretch of water between Iraq and Iran. Sky News' Foreign Editor Tim Marshall said: "Iran is making a point to Britain probably, and that point is 'back off'." He added that Iran may be using the incident as a bargaining tool against British-backed UN demands on its nuclear programme. A spokesman for the British Ministry of Defence said it was investigating the reports.
#5
The mullahs are really flexing their muscles, aren't they? Looks to me like they're calculating that because of domestic political considerations, Blair won't be able to respond forcefully.
These people want war.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
06/21/2004 8:32 Comments ||
Top||
#6
this is the region where the Iranians have supposedly been adding troops. From the description above, these were inflatables or very small boats, used for patrolling for smugglers, etc.
I doubt this was ordered from above. A jumpy Iranian naval patrol officer and some Brit swabbies playing a little too close to the wrong shore.
What is this crap? Sky news "insight" into what the Iranians found aboard Her Majesty's Naval ships? Heaven forbid that the British military have maps and guns on board their ships! "When we outlaw maps, only outlaws will have maps!"
Posted by: BA ||
06/21/2004 9:17 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Good thing they didn't find any of those Page 3 (6?) clippings or then there would have been trouble.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
06/21/2004 9:32 Comments ||
Top||
#9
LOL! LotR. Yup, Page 3.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
06/21/2004 9:40 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I'm beginning to think that we've all been horribly mistaken. Those Iranian mullahs aren't actually praying five times a day. What they're really doing is getting down on their knees and begging for it. I hope these belligerent b@stards finally get their wish.
#11
Zenster ...you got it right, they are indeed 'begging' to have their diapers knocked off their heads!
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/21/2004 10:38 Comments ||
Top||
#12
time for maneuvers on the iranian border..and give them a taste of what real war is about...
we either defeat iranian and iranian inpsired terrorism or we must concede defeat in the WOT.
Posted by: Dan ||
06/21/2004 10:52 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I can't imagine this being done without approval from the top. The mullahs are pushing the envelope, probing the outer defenses. If Blair chooses a non-violent response, they will try something a little more provocative somewhere else.
#16
Things must be getting very dicey at home for the mullahs to poke a stick into this hornets nest. Iran doesn't have a navy to speak of, just a few submarines, three 30 year old frigates and two 40 year old corvettes. The rest are either coastal patrol craft or targets. There is no logic to trying to provoke a naval confrontation with the UK and the US. The Iranian air force wouldn't get to the border before being swept from the sky and recent history is replete with examples of what happens to ground forces when the enemy has air supremacy.
As usual, the thugs are counting on the fundamental decency of the Anglo-American forces rather than their military strength to prevent war. They know that we're not particularly interested in invading them and that we know they can't do anything to us but pinpricks like this. That could change in November.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/21/2004 11:30 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Possibilities:
1.Its some local Capt. Ahmed Hornblower, with no support from Teheran
2. Its support from Teheran, cause the Ayatollahs are, like, crazy dudes, ya know
Some other possibilities
3. Its a desperate attempt to distract from the June 30 handover in Iraq, to signal to the Iraqi insurgency that Iran cares, and dont give up, or something along those lines
4. Its an attempt to signal to the West that if Iran is pushed around on nukes, it will escalate, EVEN IF doing so is suicidal. "hey, need we remind y'all that we're totally crazy, so youd better not mess with us"
5. Its an internal struggle in Iran. With the pressure on nukes, there are moderates outside and maybe even inside the Mullacracy interested in stepping back from the brink - this i desperate attempt to create a crisis to head off the moderates.
#21
I believe the mullahs are trying to rally the people (who they know don't support the current regime) to nationalism by picking a fight with us..all in hope that they can delay long enough to get their nuke done
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/21/2004 11:48 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Wretchard is up with a post that basically sees this as another 1979-style hostage crisis, but with Blair not being Jimmuh.
Posted by: Matt ||
06/21/2004 11:49 Comments ||
Top||
#23
i am sure this incedent is being conducted by the revoulionary guards which is basically a secondary iranian govt..we really need mincing words with these asshats..it is not our fault that iran cannot speak in one govt voice..strong, determined action is needed to blunt iranian aspirations...
Posted by: Dan ||
06/21/2004 11:58 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Mr. D
You mean like a local SBS raid on some Iranian oil or naval installation? I cant see Tony risking that, for the limited gain.
Or infiltrating people to help Iran opposition - my impression is that there are easier infiltration routes.
#27
RC:
Mebbe. That would imply a degree of success on the part of coalition forces in closing off the land routes that Id love to see, but Im afraid I think is a long way off.
Learned later they were in Shatt-al-Arab, so SBS makes less sense and regular patrol probably is true, but one never knows. Time for a pool on how soon Tone responds?
Shipman,
Boats, not ships. One would think a shipman would know the difference.
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
06/21/2004 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#30
One needs to be watching for 3 Commando to begin loading at Southampton. I believe the mullahs have received a frantic phone call from Buenos Aires.
#33
He had bought a large map representing the sea,
Without the least vestige of land:
And the crew were much pleased when they found it to be
A map they could all understand.
"What's the good of Mercator's North Poles and Equators,
Tropics, Zones, and Meridian Lines?"
So the Bellman would cry: and the crew would reply
"They are merely conventional signs!
Sorry I'm soooo slow in replying to this one, but I was corrected (via e-mail) the other day, that those are NOT diapers, they're actually lil' sheets, so in the future, refer to them as "lil' sheet heads."
Posted by: BA ||
06/21/2004 14:47 Comments ||
Top||
#35
Course its also possible the Brits made a mistake and did drift across the border.
They were listening to the football soccer and became distracted (Euro Championship). Maybe they were celebrating the Solstice and just 'drifting'..
Posted by: Howard UK ||
06/21/2004 15:50 Comments ||
Top||
#36
Coming soon to a failed theocracy near you: The Blair Bitchslap Project.
#41
Hugh Hewitt reporting there were Iraqi trainees on the boats with the Brits, which would make sense.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/21/2004 18:16 Comments ||
Top||
#42
The key words are at the end of the article: "disputed waterway". I suspecy that this was a local, not a Tehran-directed, incident.
The Iranian navy is still a fairly professional outfit and not necessarily mullah-kissers (we'd gotten salutes from them as late as '92 and reports are that it still happens on occasion).
Given that it's a border region, I'd also suspect that there are maritime units of the IRG there as well. They tend to be a bit more... uptight.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/21/2004 20:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I guess New Hampshire is same until the fundie kooks in Massachusetts reach retirement age.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/21/2004 22:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Nice.
I notice Virginia's are all in northern VA. I guess they know where the guns aren't.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/21/2004 22:25 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Neither Peoria (AQ money man) or Columbus (apparent AQ plotters) are on the map.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/21/2004 22:45 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Portions of southern New Hampshire have already been infiltrated by liberal humanoids attempting to tax to death the native New Hampshirites.
The march northward shall be curbed! The enemy shall be routed at Concord! Live Free of Die :)
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/21/2004 23:16 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Excellent. However, some states with a Muslim Students Association presence, are not represented. In my opinion, the hub of the terror network is the University of Houston. The UH is riddled with MSA pollutants, and anti-Semitic Indie-dhimmis. For strategic reasons, jihadis abandoned the Oklahoma and New York bases. Too hot to handle. And Florida' anti-Islamofascists make State too cold for terror.
Information that lieutenant colonel in Saddamâs Fedayeen was âa very prominent member of al Qaedaâ has reached 9/11 bipartisan commission - according to member John Lehman in NBCâs Meet the Press. If confirmed, he said, Cheney was right and panel would modify final report to reflect evidence reversal.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/21/2004 10:53:42 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Doesn't that fly in the face of conventional NYT, LAT, Democratic Underground thinking? Hasn't the LCol read the 9/11 report?
What is the world coming to when we let truth get in the way of the liberal-think.
#4
Why in the hell is John Lehmen, et al even meeting with the media when they are in the middle of an investigation? The 9-11 commission should take testimony, evidence, etc, and sit down and think and deliberate, and issue a report. But of course the 9-11 commission is not really about finding answers, with all the media exposure junkies aboard.
**sounds of shotgun attacking chirping crickets**
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/21/2004 14:42 Comments ||
Top||
#5
AP, those damn crickets were getting to me to.
Thanks !
Posted by: Carl in N.H. ||
06/21/2004 19:42 Comments ||
Top||
#6
AK Paul & Carl NH -
Democrat spin : This Fedayeen individual had no links to al-Qaeda. He was a member of "Al the Cicada" singing insect fan club. The arrest is a horrible error.
This is no insurgent. He is a music fan. It's like someone here who likes Elton John. . . - Terry McAuliffe, DNC
John Kerry will spend $10 million in ads condeming the arrest of a man who only likes a music performed by a man whose nickname became , "Red Eyed Bug", hence the stage name "Al the Cicada".
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/21/2004 20:05 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Careful with this one. Lehman has a bad habit of spouting off. He could have simply read it in the WSJ article a few weeks back. I am not sure he is doing a service to the administration with this one.
Posted by: Capt America ||
06/21/2004 23:38 Comments ||
Top||
It shocked me too
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia helped set the stage for the Sept. 11 attacks by cutting deals with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden that allowed his Al Qaeda terrorist network to flourish, according to several senior members of the Sept. 11 commission and U.S. counter-terrorism officials. The financial aid to the Taliban and other assistance by two of the most important allies of the United States in its war on terrorism date at least to 1996, and appear to have shielded them from Al Qaeda attacks within their own borders until long after the 2001 strikes, those commission members and officials said in interviews. The officials said that by not cracking down on Bin Laden, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia significantly undermined efforts to combat terrorism worldwide, giving the Saudi exile the haven he needed to train tens of thousands of soldiers. They believe that the governmentsâ funding of his Taliban protectors enabled Bin Laden to withstand international pressure and expand his operation into a global network that could carry out the Sept. 11 attacks.
Saudi Arabia provided funds and equipment to the Taliban and probably directly to Bin Laden, and didnât interfere with Al Qaedaâs efforts to raise money, recruit and train operatives, and establish cells throughout the kingdom, commission and U.S. officials said. Pakistan provided even more direct assistance, its military and intelligence agencies often coordinating efforts with the Taliban and Al Qaeda, they said. Only after Pakistan and Saudi Arabia launched comprehensive efforts to take out their domestic Al Qaeda cells â as late as last year, in the case of Saudi Arabia â did the two nations become victims of terrorist attacks. And officials in both countries acknowledge that Al Qaedaâs fundraising, recruiting and training structure is now so firmly rooted that it will be extremely difficult to eliminate.
For years, there have been unsubstantiated allegations that the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia intentionally ignored Bin Ladenâs efforts in their countries or even cut deals with him, either out of sympathy with his efforts or to protect themselves from attack. That claim is made in a lawsuit by the families of Sept. 11 victims against Saudi Arabia. Both governments have strenuously denied this, and did so again Saturday. But commission investigators have come to believe that these allegations are credible, based on their exhaustive review of all of the classified intelligence data known to the U.S. government. The commissionâs 80 staffers also conducted thousands of interviews in the United States and abroad, and had access to the interrogations of Al Qaedaâs most senior operatives in U.S. custody, including accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. "Thereâs no question the Taliban was getting money from the Saudis ⊠and thereâs no question they got much more than that from the Pakistani government," said former Sen. Bob Kerrey, one of the congressionally appointed commissionâs 10 members. "Their motive is a secondary issue for us." Kerrey said the commission officials believed that the Saudi government had a mutually beneficial relationship with the Taliban that bought Riyadh safety from attack. "Whether there was quid pro quo with the Saudis, we donât know. But certainly the Pakistanis believed that there was. They benefited enormously from their relationship with the Taliban and Al Qaeda."
Now, the bipartisan commission is wrestling with how to characterize such politically sensitive information in its final report, and even whether to include it. Some commission members also believe that U.S. officials didnât do enough to force Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to sever their ties with Bin Laden and the Taliban. "All weâre doing is looking at classified documents from our own government, not from some magical source," Kerrey said. "So we knew what was going on, but we did nothing." The commission staff alluded to its findings, but only briefly, in a report issued last week during a hearing on the origins of Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 plot. That report said that it had no convincing evidence the Saudi government had directly supported the Sept. 11 attacks but that Riyadh had engaged in "very limited oversight" of the religious and charitable entities that have long been accused of being key financial backers of Al Qaeda. Pakistan, the report said, "significantly facilitated" the Talibanâs ability to provide Bin Laden a haven despite international sanctions against Al Qaeda, including the freezing of its assets and prohibitions on travel.
In interviews with The Times, the senior commission members said their investigation had uncovered more extensive evidence than the report suggested. In the case of Saudi Arabia, commission investigators believe that Riyadh made overtures to Bin Laden soon after his arrival in Afghanistan in May 1996. A formal delegation of Saudi officials met with top Taliban leaders, including Mullah Mohammed Omar, and asked that a message be conveyed to "their guest," Bin Laden. "They said, âDonât attack us. Make sure heâs not a problem for us and recognition will follow.â And thatâs just what they did," according to the senior commission staff member. More Saudi delegations followed, including several in 1998 led by Prince Turki at the request of the United States. U.S. officials wanted him to negotiate the surrender of Bin Laden. But Richard Clarke, the former Bush and Clinton counter-terrorism czar, and a second senior Clinton administration official said U.S. officials suspected that Turki merely ensured that Saudi Arabia would remain out of Al Qaedaâs crosshairs. Pakistanis, meanwhile, were in with the Taliban and Al Qaeda "up to their eyeballs," said the senior commission staff member. He said Bin Laden, for instance, negotiated his 1996 move to Afghanistan with Pakistanâs powerful military-intelligence leadership, which held considerable influence over the various warlords struggling for control of Afghanistan at the time. "He wouldnât go back there without Pakistanâs approval and support, and had to comply with their rules and regulations," the official said. He said Pakistan opened its airspace to Bin Laden and his flying flotilla of operatives. Pakistani intelligence officers also allegedly brought Bin Laden to meet Mullah Omar soon after his arrival in Afghanistan, and then helped forge an alliance between the men that enabled the Taliban to trample competing factions and take over much of Afghanistan. Pakistanâs Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, also was instrumental in helping Al Qaeda set up an infrastructure in its own country and in Afghanistan, and the two outfits jointly operated training camps along the border where militants were taught guerrilla warfare, the official said. "It started day one," the official said of Pakistanâs involvement. "They controlled the Taliban; they controlled the border."
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
06/21/2004 1:02:25 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In 1995, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan implemented a policy of territorial expansion, through economic and cultural integration with Afghanistan. The policy was called: "Pakistan in Depth." Saudi Arabia both recognized and financed the Taliban regime, while Pakistan provided military training and education resources for the Saud financed jihad-madrasas. Many graduates carried out Inter-Services Intelligence agency terrorism in Kashmir. Every major Wahabi and Jamaat Tablighi cleric fatwahed in favor of Taliban, and gave tacit support for al-Qaeda terrorism. Saud financing was ended only when Taliban integrated with Al-Qaeda, which challenged the "apostate" regime. Still, the Saud entity maintained recognition of Taliban/al-Qaeda after the 9-11 genocide. Pakistan altered course, only because of Bush-Powell bribery.
If Bush had chosen to attack Afghanistan from the North, and forced abject surrenders rather than the sham armistice arrangements, which facilitate current Pakistan based terror, a pro-American regime would be in power in Afghanistan. As it is, the Karzai government's sovereignty exists only in the shoes of the nominal President. Pakistan was nearly bankrupt on Sept. 11, 2001. Now they are thriving on US cash, while polls regularly reveal massive anti-American hatred. Not content to sow the wind in Afghanistan, Bush-Powell seeded the same indulgence of Islamofascism in Iraq, at a cost of $120,000,000,000 to American taxpayers.
Trolls:
Your ad hominems are deflective. If your beliefs cause you desperation, then alter your beliefs.
#2
And your man Kerry is going to fix all this, I take it? He's going to kick Pakistan and Saudi Arabia's asses? Funny, he hasn't said a thing about doing either of those.
So, what's your call DBT? You want to go to war with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia or are you just blowing smoke because you hate Bush? You ready to rumble? Is Kerry?
#5
NMM's Production Studio Name Play (Dog eats Dog Films is the name of MM's production studio) unlike others, I actually enjoy your posts. Thank you and NMM for being my morning clown show! You logic twisting show is better than a balloon show anyday. Thanks! It's cute, even if it is childish.
#6
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia helped set the stage for the Sept. 11 attacks by cutting deals with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden that allowed his Al Qaeda terrorist network to flourish, according to several senior members of the Sept. 11 commission and U.S. counter-terrorism officials.
It's an outrage! It proves Bush lied! Oh wait....it was during the Clinton administration. As we know from the NYT reporting of the 9/11 commission, there are NO LINKS here people.... move along.
#9
If Bush had chosen to attack Afghanistan from the North, and forced abject surrenders rather than the sham armistice arrangements, which facilitate current Pakistan based terror, a pro-American regime would be in power in Afghanistan.
Why is it that the anti-war folks always talk about what WOULD have happened instead of what is happening? From Kerry to Clark to Clinton, this naive world view is delusional fantasy.
Kerry-We will get international support (how can he guarantee how others will behave?)
Clark-There would be no more terrorist attacks in my adminstration (how can he guarantee that?)
Clinton-I supported the action but would hav waited until the inspectors had finished their work (presupposition that bad weather and a loooong heads up to Saddam wouldn't have caused greater casualties to the coalition and changed the sequence of events in Iraq).
DBT-you are assuming a lot-exactly how would America have attacked Afghanistan from the north? Why do you believe that countries bordering Afghanistan would have allowed it? Also, forcing abject surrenders might have resulted in even bigger violence and tainted the war with even more anti-American sentiment.
You have to play the cards you're dealt in this life, not live in the fantasy of what you project.
#11
If Bush had chosen to attack Afghanistan from the North, and forced abject surrenders rather than the sham armistice arrangements, which facilitate current Pakistan based terror, a pro-American regime would be in power in Afghanistan.
Waitaminnit. Last week Karzai was our stooge. Now he's against us?
And, wait. Bush did attack Afghanistan from the north. Anyone else remember that the people we worked with were called the NORTHERN ALLIANCE? Hell, I remember following the advance -- Mazar e Sharif fell before Kabul, and Mazar's NORTH of Kabul.
Odd. DBT's clearly visiting from an alternate reality. Either that, or he needs to stop drinking bong water.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/21/2004 14:41 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Waitaminnit. Last week Karzai was our stooge. Now he's against us? And, wait. Bush did attack Afghanistan from the north. Anyone else remember that the people we worked with were called the NORTHERN ALLIANCE? Hell, I remember following the advance -- Mazar e Sharif fell before Kabul, and Mazar's NORTH of Kabul. Odd. DBT's clearly visiting from an alternate reality. Either that, or he needs to stop drinking bong water.
I stand corrected Robert.
DBT-You might have a point that it would have been better to get Pakistan on the same page with us, but again we're back to the anti-war tendency to project that the assets which exist currently are fixed for the future. Had we stopped Pakistan in its tracks, how do you know those activities wouldn't have been pushed to some other bordering country and created an even more complicated scenario. It's backseat driving. Yes, there are probabilities, but we are not omniscient. If we could forecast exactly who would do what with 100% accuracy, we sure as hell wouldn't be living here on earth. You make the best judgments you can and go with them.
#13
Nothing against you, jules. I had to think a bit before I recalled how Afghanistan fell, and I only bothered because DBT's spew just seemed out of tune with reality.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/21/2004 15:04 Comments ||
Top||
#14
No offense taken. I usually learn something from what you have to say.
#15
And, wait. Bush did attack Afghanistan from the north. Anyone else remember that the people we worked with were called the NORTHERN ALLIANCE? Hell, I remember following the advance -- Mazar e Sharif fell before Kabul, and Mazar's NORTH of Kabul.
You don't get it, Mr. Crawford. Maybe DBT wanted an All-American invasion. You know, drums drumming, bugles blaring. Patton in his jeep ahead of the whole parade. Not a bunch of feelthy Afghani muslims, who should've been shot like like every other muslim.
Then again, we'd be hearing a whole new aria of wackiness.
#16
Paul Maloney:
Okay, I support a hardline Congress that lights an anti-Wahabist/Khomenist fire under the White House. Don't you ever wonder why Bush-Powell never pressure the Punjabi and Saud entities? Slaves know their place.
What part of Bush-doesn't-have-a-hope-in-hell don't you understand? Kerry - the jerk - hasn't even started his attack-ads yet. Get a copy of the Neo-Con White House insider book, "The Right Man," (by David Frum) and read the section where the reformed alcoholic brings Jews, Muslims and Christians into the White House to celebrate their alleged common-faith, and you tell me if GWB is playing with a full deck.
As for the Afghan war being fought from the north, USAF attacks were carried out from two airbases in the Punjabi-racist entity. Bush-Powell put heavy pressure on the Northern Alliance to make suicidal deals with Taliban/al-Qaeda elements. In October 2001, Bush went public with an exhonerating offer to Mullah Omar, to deliver bin Laden, or face war. Only a moron - or a Saudi stooge - could discern a separate identity between the Omar and bin Laden groups.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/21/2004 20:23 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
For the last 30 years, Iraqis inside Iraq had little knowledge of the full extent of Saddam Hussein's oppressive tactics. Many Iraqis who have documented his regime's history argue that Coalition authorities have not done enough to make this history known to the Iraqi people, and proponents of more stringent de-Baathification argue that until this education is completed, Saddam-era officials cannot be trusted with the rule of the new state.
- this is baloney. All these videos were best-selling rentals at the Baghdad Blockbuster. Iraqis aren't children. They understand that when cousin Bill disapppeared in '98, he hadn't snuck off to Vegas to get married.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/21/2004 22:25 Comments ||
Top||
France is prepared to take part in an "international presence" in the Gaza Strip following a planned Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian territory, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said Monday. "We have stated our availability to take part, at the appropriate moment, including through an international presence whose format remains to be determined", Barnier said, flanked by his Egyptian counterpart Ahmed Maher. Has Maher wiped the shoe prints off yet?
"Europeans as a whole are ready to prostrate commit themselves," said Barnier, pointing out that last Friday, the 25-member blocâs summit saw the Israeli withdrawal as an opportunity to relaunch the Middle East peace process. For his part, Maher said Egypt "needed" France and Europe to pay for stuff play a role in aftermath of the Israeli withdrawal, but said it was premature to say what that role might be. "It is a little early to specify what this role will be," he added. "We are in the middle of talks". "We havenât worked out the exact amount of baksheeshjizya tax protection money just yet."
Egypt has offered to send up to 200 personnel to the Gaza Strip to train a 30,000-strong police force to maintain security in the territory during and after next yearâs promised Israeli pullout. "The Egyptian commitment is definitely strategic," said Barnier. "We will support Egyptâs role after an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza". "Cuz we sure donât want the Paleostinians putting the moves on our wimmin."
After talks with Maher, Barnier met Egyptâs pointman on the Middle East, intelligence chief Omar Souleiman, before seeing Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa in the afternoon. And much tea was sipped along with the ritual batting of eyelashes and flirtatious, yet knowing, smiles.
#1
Two questions for the French Forces: How will you get there and what will you do when (not if) the Paleos launch a rocket into Israel? A followup question: Who is going to pay for this deployment? EU? UN? NATO? Surely not the US!
#3
I suspect they're thinking more about restraining Israel than the Palestinians or the Egyptians. Arafat has been calling for years for an international force to protect him, which also protesting he is unable to restrain attacks on Israel from his territory.
#4
pffft... the French will withdraw long before the Israeli's do. That's what French do, withdraw.
Posted by: B ||
06/21/2004 19:12 Comments ||
Top||
#5
What do they imagine they will be doing in Gaza? Protecting the poor Pals from the mean Israeli's? More likely protecing Pals from other Pals, and hiding when the shooting gets to bad.
#6
rkb's on the mark! The Paleos would be able to launch Qassams and Katyushas over the fence and the French would bear witness to the payback "atrocities" committed by that "shitty little country"
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/21/2004 19:16 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"'We have stated our availability to take part, at the appropriate moment, including through an international presence whose format remains to be determined', Barnier said..."
Stirring words. That's practically right out of the Battle Hymn of the Republic.
Posted by: Matt ||
06/21/2004 19:37 Comments ||
Top||
#9
The Israelis need help developing surrender techniques?
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
06/21/2004 19:41 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Let's see....French troopers surrounded by heathen leftists....sounds like Dien Bien Phu redux to me...'cept this time the Frenchies are aiding the heathens...
#12
Actually, Mr. D, if they're going to Gaza, they're probably going to end up working for free for losers on behalf of the Palestinians - in which case the terrorist threat to Israel's gonna go down real fast. Imagine it: the French teaching their favorite victimslosers cause how to do what they do best!
Either that, or the Paleos turn on the French. That should be a lot of fun.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
06/21/2004 20:22 Comments ||
Top||
#13
The French will only fire their weapons at Israeli's (unarmed Israelis citizens that is, not the IDF).
If this crap goes through, wait and see. They will "protect" Arab squatters against "vigilante Jewish mobs."
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
06/21/2004 20:23 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Will France be sensitive and recruit a brigade from the Muslim rings surrounding their cities? Those punks might be the hardest boys in France right now.
#15
French troopers surrounded by heathen leftists....sounds like Dien Bien Phu redux to me...'cept this time the Frenchies are aiding the heathens...
Legion Etrange in Dien Bien Phu, not regular Army.
Don't think France will put them there. That said, I wouldn't put it past France to do what RVW suggests. Gets rid of the hard-cases from around Paris, sucks up to the Arabs and massages the French institutional anti-semitism.
#17
I guess after the French government heard about so many Jews wanting to leave France, they decided to put their army where it could still be used against them.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/21/2004 22:51 Comments ||
Top||
#18
I wouldn't trust the Frenchies any more than I can spell crossant. Somehow, someway, there's money in it for Chirac. Moreover, wouldn't it be nice if they deployed in Afganistan?
Posted by: Capt America ||
06/21/2004 23:34 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Former French PM, Rocard (Member, European Parliament) says founding of Israel, a "mistake."
http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/ipc_e-1/e_News/news2004/2004_06/112.html
I post the entire article only because the Euro-financed IPC propaganda center, soon deadlinks their poison:
Former French PM: Creation of Israel by Balfour Declaration a Historic Mistake
GAZA, June 19, 2004 (IPC + Asharq Al-Awsat)-- The former French Prime Minister and current member of the European Parliament, Michel Rocard, blasted Israel as an "abnormal case in the world", describing its creation by the 1917-Balfour Declaration as a "historic mistake".
Rocard, who is also a well-known member of the French Socialist Party, was delivering a lecture at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina on June 16, in which he said that the Balfour promise England gave to the Jews to create a national homeland for them in Palestine was a "mistake".
He also described the Israeli state as a "unique and abnormal condition because it was created with a promise, and that millions of Jews gathered from all around the world, creating an entity that continues to pose a threat to its neighbors until today."
Rocard also drew attention to the fact that Israel was also historically created on a racist basis, depending on armed conflict to set its borders. Rocard referred to the colonization of the Arab world, of which his country was involved in, as the main reason behind the current state of violence and conflict in the Middle East.
However, Rocard warned that delaying a peace agreement between the Arab states and Israel would "greatly increase violence in the region," pointing out that the long-demanded reforms in the Arab states stemmed from the inside, not imposed by outside forces.
"Peace must spring from a religious base ⦠all reforms can be made possible through the teachings of our divine religions. To pray to God is accepted, but violence is not,â concluded Rocard.
A loud explosion was heard across the Algerian capital late on Monday night, but the cause of the blast was not immediately clear, witnesses said. Ambulance sirens were heard in the city of four million people. The blast occurred one day after Algeria announced security forces had killed the leader of the countryâs top militant group which is linked to al Qaeda.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/21/2004 6:31:40 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
The death of Algeriaâs top militant has robbed al Qaeda of a potentially key ally in north Africa and may pave the way for an end to the regionâs longest-running Islamic "holy war", an expert said on Monday. His death is significant because he radicalised Algeriaâs principal Islamic rebel group by aligning it to al Qaeda, kidnapped 32 European tourists in the Sahara last year, and declared war on foreign individuals and companies in Algeria. Analysts say in addition to Sahraoui, the head of the committee that picked GSPC commanders and the groupâs explosives expert were among seven militants killed on Thursday and Friday east of Algiers in an army sweep involving thousands of troops. "Al Qaeda has inevitably lost Algeria," said national newspaper LâExpression, adding that one of Osama bin Ladenâs post-September 11, 2001, strategies was to extend his network in north Africa.
Concern grew after the GSPCâs second-in-command, Amari Saifi, alias Abderrazak el Para, secured five million euros for the European hostages and used the money to buy arms. But Saifi is the only senior GSPC member still alive and he is being held by Chadian rebels who are negotiating his transfer to Algerian authorities. "Itâs the beginning of the elimination of a terrorist group which more or less remained the only organised Algerian Islamic force since 1992," said Mahmoud Belhimer, a professor at the University of Algiers and a newspaper editor. The surrender of thousands of rebels following a 1999 amnesty offer and an aggressive military campaign has all but paralyzed the Armed Islamic Group (GIA), which only a few years ago was the countryâs top rebel group. The GSPC was created in 1998 by disillusioned GIA members. It is believed to have some 500 armed members, but security experts and rebel sources say many are keen to surrender, a move Sahraoui opposed. "The success of the armed forces does not mean terrorism has immediately and definitely been extinguished...it can resurface, which is why pressure on these groups must be maintained and intensified," said newspaper Le Quotidien dâOran.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/21/2004 3:25:38 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A welcome blessing.
Still, I don't imagine human resource obstacles will prevent Osama from keeping the heat on in north Africa.
Doctors with the South Korean military contingent in Iraq have stopped treating Iraqis since the kidnapping of one of their compatriots. A Defense Ministry spokesman in Seoul says they stopped for safety concerns, but an Iraqi interpreter for the South Koreans told the French News Agency the doctors are refusing to treat the Iraqis to protest Kim Sun-ilâs kidnapping in Fallujah last Thursday. South Korea currently has a 600-member contingent, mostly engineers and medics, stationed in the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah.
#4
Howz about, instead of boycotting the little kids with dysentery and the pregnant women having complicated labors, the Koreans, uh, you know, DID SOMETHING to respond to the barbaric mistreatment of their national? I mean, they have MILITARY FORCES there, right? How about announcing that the Korean component of the multinational division, including the troops soon to arrive, will henceforth seek active offensive duties in Iraq (this may be hard to arrange, but it's worth looking at), not just humanitarian and other duties in the quiet south? Just an idea.
#5
I remember the ROK Marines were some of the baddest ass soldiers in Vietnam. Apparantly distance from the Korean war has made the political leadership and population soft.
#7
The same people who kidnapped their compatriot are the same people who on a daily basis kidnap, kill, or maim Iraqis. I'm afraid I agree with Verlaine.
They need to direct their anger in a more appropriate manner.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
06/21/2004 23:27 Comments ||
Top||
BAGHDAD: Attackers lying in wait for Iraqi troops detonated a bomb on the dangerous road leading to Baghdadâs airport yesterday, killing two Iraqi soldiers and wounding 11. US soldiers accompanying the Iraqis on the often-attacked airport road said the Americans had just passed a traffic circle with the Iraqis behind them when assailants set off the bomb.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/21/2004 3:09:19 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Four U.S. service members were killed Monday in an ambush in the Sunni Muslim city of Ramadi, witnesses said. Videotape delivered to Associated Press Television News showed the four, still in uniform, lying dead near what appeared to be a walled compound. There was no immediate comment from the U.S. military command.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/21/2004 8:13:23 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And Bush-Powell allow these koranimals to set up snipe sites and Road Side Bombs with total local complicity, and without any consequence whatsoever. Nevermind that polls reveal almost 70% support for al-Sadr, this indulgence of the enemy people goes on and on.
Who wants to be the first to defend this insanity?
#3
Nevermind that polls reveal almost 70% support for al-Sadr, this indulgence of the enemy people goes on and on.
Stop making shit up, bong-water boy.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/21/2004 14:58 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Since we don't need a city on the Syrian border, not being interested in importing any more syrian/hezbollah jihadis, why not just run the entire population out into the desert and raze the town?
A foreign worker from Thailand died Monday afternoon of wounds sustained earlier in the day when a mortar was fired at the Kfar Darom settlement in the Gaza Strip during an infiltration attempt by Palestinian militants. The man was hit in the chest by shrapnel from the mortar, as he worked in a greenhouse in the central Gaza settlement. The man was taken to Soroka Hospital in Beâer Sheva, after receiving emergency treatment at the scene.
Palestinian sources said a group of militants had fired submachine guns and anti-tank missiles toward the greenhouses. They said Israel Defense Forces troops returned fire, hitting two Palestinian terrorists workers who were concealed in the rubble live nearby. The terrorists workers received hospital treatement, medical workers said.
Troops using helicopters and tracker dogs searched the area for the gunmen, residents said. They also closed the main road in the area.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/21/2004 10:50:14 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Nearly 50 people were wounded when a bomb exploded on Monday at an opposition rally in Bangladeshâs northeastern district of Sunamganj, witnesses and private television networks said. The bomb went off after a senior leader of the main opposition Awami League party, Suranjit Sengupta, finished addressing the rally in his constituency of Dirai, about 350 km (210 miles) from the capital, Dhaka. Suranjit, a member of parliament, escaped unhurt, witnesses and media said. Suranjit, speaking by phone, told Reuters one man died in the blast but police did not confirm the death. Mondayâs blast comes one month after an explosion at a Muslim shrine in the nearby town of Sylhet killed three people and hurt nearly 60, including British High Commissioner Anwar Choudhury. Awami General-Secretary Abdul Jalil condemned the blast, saying, "It is part of a continuing persecution of the opposition by untamed radical groups." He did not elaborate.
WASHINGTON - Israel operates hundreds of agents in the Kurdish areas in northern Iraq, according to a report published in the upcoming issue of The New Yorker magazine. In an interview to CNN on Sunday, reporter Seymour Hersh said that hundreds of Israelis, some of them Mossad agents, are operating in the region in order to collect information on Iranâs nuclear program and monitor events in Syria.
According to the report, Israel in the past has had many ties with the Kurds, which with the fall of Saddam Husseinâs regime are currently being renewed. Israel is not confident of the success of the American program for the stabilization of the country, the report says, and that is why it is interested in setting up independent connections in the region. Israelis operating in the region are also attempting to assist Kurds living in Syria, the report says.
Heh, heh, heh.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/21/2004 2:40:01 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Prior to the rise of insanity in Iran, when Iran was the most advanced nation in the Mid-Eastern Gulf region. The Shah supplied 70% of Israel's imported crude oil needs.
Needless to say Khomeini's The 'Islamic Revolution' of 1979 resulted in a total cut off all Iranian oil to Israel within days of OPEC's #2 producer being dragged back to the 7th century.
'Persia's' long established Jewish presence since biblical times. There were 85000 Iranian Jews before 1979, almost half have emigrated mainly to USA. The largest exodus since Darius' time when 30,000 left joyfully to rebuild their temple. Their departure this time has not been a happy one!
Since Farsi is the national idiom of Iran, Persian Jews with fresh memories understand Iran poises the greatest danger to Israelis if the rouge terrorist producing state is allowed to produce nuclear weaponry.
The mullahs must go, one way or the other, and the sooner the better.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/21/2004 10:33 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Israel is not confident of the success of the American program for the stabilization of the country, the report says, and that is why it is interested in setting up independent connections in the region.
That comment is a little worrying (like Israelis have such a good track record of regional stabilization), but that said, I have a smile on my face thinking of how much this will humiliate and wound the Islamists.
#3
I would view the Israeli view as not being to continue counting on Washington (if) someone else becomes President in the upcoming election.
We hope the someone else goes away.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/21/2004 11:28 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I was under the impression that the entire Mossad only had a few hundred field agents. I understand that one agent can control a lot of local recruits, but numbers in the hundreds sound suspicious for OPSEC reasons if nothing else. Finally, with Hersh's reputation, I would take anything he says with a big grain of salt. This almost sounds like regurgitated Wahhabi/Baath propaganda: Those Kurds can't be trusted. Look! They're in bed with the evil Zionists!
#6
help me - isnt an the full time guy who works for CIA, KGB, Mossad, etc technically an "operative" while the locals he runs, whatever their motives, are "agents"?
Still it does strike me that hundreds of Mossad agents in Kurdistan would be overkill. An operative can only run so many agents and still keep careful track of them all, right? So it would still imply a huge Mossad presence in Kurdistan, relative to total Mossad capacity.
#7
1st of all there are no Mullahs in Iran. Second of all it's not up to you to decide who rules it's the Iranin people. 3rd of all Iran had a democraticaly elected president until the U.S assassinated him and placed the despotic Shah. Oh & that's why Iran is being bullied by the U.S for their oil and for your bosses Israel Sound familiar?
#8
Ladies and Gentlemen - I give you today's troll "Sammy Frobisher"
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/21/2004 13:59 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Wow such wit Frank 'G' At least I put my whole name. Too bad you have the I.Q of pillow drool or else you'd have maybe commented about the subject instead of just attacking my character.Tsk Tsk. No wonder american backpackers have to sew canadian flags on their bags when they leave the U.S.
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/21/2004 14:14 Comments ||
Top||
#11
1st of all there are no Mullahs in Iran.
Eh? That's simply not believable. Of COURSE there are mullahs in Iran. You'd have to be an idiot to believe otherwise.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/21/2004 14:19 Comments ||
Top||
#12
And LH, a network can be too big. You have to process and filter all of that information. Do you really want all of that overhead? And the bigger the network is, the more likely it is to be compromised. Every human being (even if he has no friends) has a circle of contacts: landlord, postman, mechanic, etc. They in turn talk to people. Eventually, commonalities occur and people compare notes. The odds of being found out go up rapidly as the network increases in size.
#13
There are no mullahs in Iran? What world is this idiot from? And I love that 'let the Iranian people pick their government' crack! I suppose since there are no mullahs, then there couldn't be any political prisoners. Nor intimidation.
Sammy, put down the bong and step away slowly. You've obviously been hitting the bong to hard.
#14
Mullahs are Afghanis strictly for the most part.u guys congregate here to reinforce and recycle the same narrow-minded right wing garbage. No new ideas are accepted no progress is ever made. G'head sit around 'n hate u some arabs. Y dont u wear sum bedsheets too.
#15
Hi Mr. Fisal! Are you in favor of help care for the pali peoples? I have fleur de lip sew on my pack to feel safe.
Mr. Frobisher do you think Likud should help pay for non faith based cruises for Tanzim?
I think it would be helpful and revitalize the ancient portalet of Gaza.
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/21/2004 15:48 Comments ||
Top||
#18
LMAO fleur de lip eh.I think that the likud should stop ethnically cleansing the palestinians. I also think the likud should stop draining the american peopl eof its' treasury.
#19
Go Sammy go! So Sammy, it is the Afghanis who rule Iran. Well, who knew. Or are you quibling over Imam vs Mullah terminology to show us all how smart you are. Guess what, the Iranian people are not able to do anything about the swine who hold sway over them. They need some help and we should be giving them a whole lot more than we have been to date. You are a typical liberal bonehead Sammy.
Posted by: remote man ||
06/21/2004 16:30 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Methinks Sammy is Junifer.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
06/21/2004 17:26 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Not hardly.
I'm not know what a schtick is....
But I know aMooorey when I smell it.
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/21/2004 19:29 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Sammy, are you a mullah, lurking in a back room, in Qom with a computer?
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/21/2004 22:27 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Sammy, 2 things the Afghani and Iranians have in common are Mullahs and a language rooted in Farsi (Dari is a dialect of Farsi). Shia version of Islam generally recognizes the Mullah and his lineage back to the great split between Shia and Sunni. Thats how they establish legitimacy and assemble their local religious base.
FYI - the accepted definition of Mulla is a Muslim trained in the doctrine and law of Islam; the head of a mosque. Sometimes they are known as Ayatollah for someone roughly in the position the same as a Cardinal in the Anglican Church.
And neither of them (Afghani or Iranian) are Arab, as either of them would tell you. So your "Hate an Arab" comment reinforces just how ignorant you truly are.
As for "Agent" - there is a difference between Agent, Operative and Operator. I know. Do you?
#25
Ah,Sammy you picked the wrong place to try to bullshit people about the Middle East.Some of the sharpest minds on the planet hang-out here.Stick around,ask questions,pay attention and you will learn alot.
Abdullah Shamil is what the Chechen Islamists call Basayev.
Commander (Amir) Hasan, Assistant of the Chechen Commander, Amir of Islamic Brigade of Shaheeds (Martyrs) Riyadh as-Saliheen (Gardens for the Righteous) Abdallah Shamil Abu-Idris, reported to Kavkaz Center news and information agency that last Sunday June 13 the Brigadeâs Command had a session under the chairmanship of Commander Abdallah Shamil. The progress of the combat objectives for the spring-summer period and the results of recent special operations by the Brigade against the occupying force and national traitors were on the meetingâs agenda.
Commander Shamilâs Assistant reported that the Brigadeâs Commander spoke highly of the special operation at the Dynamo stadium on May 9, when the head of the puppet administration Akhmad Kadyrov was removed. Commander Shamil pointed out that this special operation will go down in chronicles of the art of military sabotage. He stressed that the act of sabotage was carried out with meticulous attention to detail, which he said shows that the Chechen Mujahideen in charge of intelligence and sabotage activities are highly professional and are a force that has a serious potential.
Commander Abdallah Shamil personally thanked and congratulated the Mujahideen who directly served the sentence of the Shariah Court and who were also present at the session.
Commander Abdallah Shamil made a brief statement for Kavkaz Center, which was forwarded with the report about the session on Wednesday via e-mail, that Brigade of Shaheeds (Martyrs) Riyadh as-Saliheen (Gardens for the Righteous) has prepared a «series of special operations against the invadersâ forces, where the enemy will suffer serious casualties both militarily and politically».
Abdallah Shamil did no specify the location, nature or time of the combat operations. He only said that «our attacks will be very painful for the Putin regime and will take it by surprise».
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/21/2004 8:35:51 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Algerian security forces have killed seven armed Islamic extremists in the eastern Kabylie region as they hunted the killers of 12 security officers, the official news agency APS reported Saturday. Four Islamic extremists were killed on Thursday and three others on Friday, both in the mountainous Bejaia region, some 260 kilometres (160 miles) east of the capital Algiers, the agency said, without naming its sources. Papers earlier Saturday had reported four dead in the Thursday assault in the area, where units of the radical Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) are known to be based. At least 12 members of the Algerian security forces were killed early this month in the region when suspected Islamist rebels attacked their convoy, residents said.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/21/2004 8:45:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
At least six people have been killed in battles between rival members of militias in Somalia. The clashes are over control of the port of Kismayo, almost 500 kilometres south of the capital Mogadishu. The port generates a great deal of income for those who protect importers and exporters. Four of those killed were civilians.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/21/2004 8:43:40 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
From The Washington Post
A U.S. Army judge on Monday accepted a request by attorneys of soldiers accused of abusing detainees to question the militaryâs top commander in Iraq and all his subordinates. The order affectively compels Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. general in Iraq, and Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, the second-ranking commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and their subordinates to participate in a deposition with defense attorneys and Army prosecutors unless they invoke their rights against self-incrimination. The judge, Col. James Pohl, rejected defense requests for memos between justice department attorneys, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other Pentagon officials regarding the use of interrogation tactics. ...
A defense attorney for Davis, Paul Bergrin, said he wanted court members to see Abu Ghraib for themselves, the Reuters news agency reported. "We want the court members to smell the fecal matter and the urine that service members who worked inside that prison and who are accused in this case had to live with," he said.
The judge denied defense requests to change the location of the courts martial and legal proceedings but said he would reconsider his decision if defense attorneys could prove at a later date that their clients could not get a fair trial in Iraq. Pohl granted a request by Bergrin to declassify all of an Army investigative report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba. The 6,000-page report ...
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/21/2004 8:53:10 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A defense attorney for Davis, Paul Bergrin, said he wanted court members to see Abu Ghraib for themselves, the Reuters news agency reported. "We want the court members to smell the fecal matter and the urine that service members who worked inside that prison and who are accused in this case had to live with," he said.
Because the smell of shit and piss drives people to cruelty. That's why Graner was a wife-beater in the states, why he was doing things like putting pepper spray in people's coffee -- his septic tank kept backing up.
The smell of shit and piss is why England disobeyed direct order and kept screwing around, no doubt.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/21/2004 9:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Oh! More of Mike's creative editing! Why did you edit the end of that last sentence, Mike?
The 6,000-page report found evidence of what it called "sadistic" abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, a sprawling complex west of Baghdad.
Oh, and get a load of this gem:
Guy Womack, a civilian defense attorney for Graner, told reporters that his client is being made a scapegoat.
"No one can suggest with a straight face that these MPs were acting alone," Womack said.
Then they should NOT have gotten the Taguba report into the record. The psychologist's opinion that it's a CLASSIC EXAMPLE of an unsupervised group run amok is not gonna help their Nuremberg Defense.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/21/2004 9:12 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Mikey loves to creatively edit what others say. He can't find stuff to fit his weird views, so he makes them up!
There has got to be a term for someone who does that.
The Italian military based in southern Iraq is looking into an intelligence report that 300 Islamic militants, possibly from Chechnya, may have arrived in the area, the army chief of staff said Sunday. The Corriere della Sera newspaper said that in recent days British intelligence reported that 300 Chechen militants who had trained in Afghanistan were heading toward Nasiriyah after having broken into smaller groups. "Itâs a report that everyone has had. Now we will want to verify whether this report is followed up by a real explanation on the ground," Italian army chief of staff General Giulio Fraticelli told the Italian state television network RAI in Nasiriyah.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/21/2004 8:31:55 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Seems doubtful they'd leave the home front in that number. Anybody's specialist subject?
Posted by: Howard UK ||
06/21/2004 8:44 Comments ||
Top||
#2
There are certainly more than enough Chechen hard boyz to spare, as the Russians generally estimate their numbers at between 1,500-2,000 strong. Zarqawi is reputed to have called in reinforcements from Chechnya according to French intelligence.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/21/2004 8:56 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Roger that. Thanks Dan.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
06/21/2004 9:11 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Hard boyzes, Precious. Splodeydopeses. They booms us, my Precious, they booms us *gollum*
#5
Wouldn't Chechens stand out like bears at a carnival in Iraq?
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
06/21/2004 9:57 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Bit of fake tan and a tea towel - works wonders.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
06/21/2004 10:22 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Actually, the fact that they're Caucasians is likely one of the reasons that Zarqawi is so eager to get them on the ground there. Besides, some Iraqis are very light-skinned.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/21/2004 10:24 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Whoa! Purple flightless bird channels Mr. Lucky.
#9
If true, this is overall badnews; their ambush techniques and general hard-boyzness are well honed against russian troops. It always seemed to me that the chechen insurgents are very capable, wasn't the deathtoll around 4 russians a day at some times (compare this to the relative sizes of Irak and Chechnya)?
Russian authorities say terrorism may have been the cause of an oil pipeline rupture and fire in a region bordering the southern separatist republic of Chechnya. Officials say Sunday the Tikhoretsk-Baku pipeline ruptured and caught fire overnight Saturday in the republic of Dagestan. Firefighters extinguished the blaze by early morning. An estimated 60 tons of crude oil spilled from the pipeline, spreading over a 5,000 square meter area. Security officials say they have not ruled out terrorism, but that further investigation is needed to determine the cause of the incident. The Interfax news agency quotes a pipeline official as saying the rupture was caused by "external factors," a suggestion that foul play was involved.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/21/2004 8:27:04 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
The reason Europeans weren't originally in on the pool of Iraq contracts is no big mystery-they got shafted because they left us out to dry, to carry all the losses and blame. We take huge risks and sacrifice lives and money, and they get the benefits?
So now the Irqis want to give contracts to Europe? I guess I'm not surprised-apparently, the socialist world view has penetrated even Iraq: you don't earn a living based on your own labor and talents, you earn it based on OTHERS' labor and talents.
Looks like the Iraqis will reward the very people who wanted to see Saddam, Usay & Quday continue their torture games. Looks like they will do business with people who opposed Saddam's overthrow.
#3
This is an old map (2002) and does not conform to present reality. It does explain the reluctance of certain European countries to join us in 2003.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/21/2004 13:10 Comments ||
Top||
#4
jules> So now the Irqis want to give contracts to Europe? I guess I'm not surprised-apparently, the socialist world view has penetrated even Iraq: you don't earn a living based on your own labor and talents, you earn it based on OTHERS' labor and talents
It seems to me to be a quite *capitalist* point of view for the Iraqis not to give a damn about whether the Europeans helped them or hindered them in the past, and only care about whether it's *profitable* to deal with them *now*.
Looks like they will do business with people who opposed Saddam's overthrow. Clueless.
No, the word you are looking for is probably "ungrateful". But I doubt you will ever discover an economical system based on gratitude.
and they get the benefits?
I thought that the benefits were global security, putting your armies in the regional hub, preparing regime change for Syria and Iran, so forth? That's what I've been told about.
Now you are telling me that it's simply a case of blood for contracts? :-)
#9
It seems to me to be a quite *capitalist* point of view for the Iraqis not to give a damn about whether the Europeans helped them or hindered them in the past, and only care about whether it's *profitable* to deal with them *now*.
Makes sense to me. Countries should be going for what is in their interest. But Aris-that is equally true of every country, including the US. If you want to take this track, then don't come back later and complain about how the US is only acting in its self-interest.
Looks like they will do business with people who opposed Saddam's overthrow. Clueless. No, the word you are looking for is probably "ungrateful".
No, ungrateful would be complaining about the lack of security while you house your brother-in-law Abu who you know to be a buddy of Zaharqawi. It would be cheering as coalition soldiers who saved your a** are dismembered and strung from a bridge. If you don't like clueless, how about not very bright? No one is going to come in and save their a**es again if they make the same stupid mistake of prefering ruthless and sadistic autocrats over tolerant and fair leaders. They have power in their hands to determine their own future. No one will take the blame for them next time around.
I thought that the benefits were global security, putting your armies in the regional hub, preparing regime change for Syria and Iran, so forth? That's what I've been told about. Now you are telling me that it's simply a case of blood for contracts.
If your brother doesn't help you neutralize the thugs who are assaulting your wife, do you give him a special place in your will? Do you pay him to pave your driveway? You have to earn what you get in this life. France, Germany, Russia-these countries increased danger and deaths, increased the rift between America and the rest of the world by not doing the right thing. There should be some kind of price for their having done so. Perhaps Rumsfeld has started that process by reducing American troop presence in free-loading countries.
#11
You certainly got your ass handed to you. Interesting to see how deep your bigotry runs, though. And amusing to see how blind you are to your own hypocrisy.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/21/2004 14:48 Comments ||
Top||
#12
jules> Countries should be doing what is in their interest, as long as it's within certain moral boundaries, ofcourse.
Supporting dictators and fascism is bad. But offering contracts is a business agreement which is morally neutral (unless you know the other guy will be using slavelabour or something). And currently Iraq isn't in a position to do stuff that is NOT in their immediate interest. A secular democracy there needs the support of as many countries as they can get, even more so than Iraq needed the support of these countries. Thoughts of petty vengeance aren't actually helping Iraq get allies worldwide which (serving their own interest) will try to support the regime.
There should be some kind of price for their having done so.
What kind of price do you think should be exacted on USA for its own support of dictators throughout the world? This is a real question, btw, not a rhetorical one. USA still kept military bases in Greece many long years after the US-supported dictatorship ended. One or two of them still exist, like the one in Crete.
I do believe there does exist karmic justice on occasion. I think USA paid for its support of the Shah with the creation of the Islamofascist Iranian regime. I think USA paid for its support of the Greek junta, by it now having Greece have the most anti-American population in Europe. Earlier support of dictatorships in Latin America may perhaps be getting paid by the growing leftwinged-fascism throughout that continent...
Soviet Union paid for its own greater tyranny by its desctruction ofcourse.
But *contracts*? You think that contracts are the payment to be exacted by all this? You think way too small. If you do well by Iraq, you'll have a real philo-American democracy at your hands that will be allied to you for decades.
And as for France and Germany, they've not done anything in the case of Iraq, that the USA hasn't done elsewhere.
#13
Robert Crawford> Yeah, it's extremely interesting how I've been recently, and perhaps rightfully, attacked for resurrecting arguments from one day earlier, but there's seemingly nothing wrong with resurrecting arguments from a whole year ago.
As to whether I got my ass handed to me, Robert, that's ofcourse your privilege to think so, same as it's your right to think me a hypocrite -- but all I said about UK back then is still true. And I don't see you (or anyone in *that* thread either) managing to dispute most of the things I mentioned there, especially in regards to UK's relationship with the EU.
I wonder if I'll again be considered now to be the one who diverted this thread from it's starting point.
#14
Supporting dictators and fascism is bad. But offering contracts is a business agreement which is morally neutral (unless you know the other guy will be using slavelabour or something).
Morally neutral business contracts? How about if you know he tortures people to death? Worse or better than slave labor? This is part of the problem with the world. This is why there are girls sold as prostitutes across borders. This is why terrorists are able to so easily slip between countries.
I agree with you that it is critical that they get their country back on track.
I disagree with your consistent bashing of America. Do you actually imagine that, were the condition of peoples' lives in other countries up to Europeans, life for ANYONE on this planet would be prefereable to what America has fought for? You let us know when enough Americans have died, suffered, and outlaid enough hard earned money for you to be sated. We won't be holding our breath, because your animosity towards Americans through their foreign policy is bottomless.
#15
aretn y'all arguing over nothing? Per Steve White, this is a pre-invasion map, and doesnt reflect current contracts. I mean Id join in and all, with my usual centrist views, but its pretty pointless to debate air when theres no real data at hand.
#16
Aris -- your comments in that thread, particularly combined with this one, lay bare your bigotry and hypocrisy. It's actually quite amusing to see how blind you are to it.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/21/2004 15:23 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Jules> How about if you know he tortures people to death? Worse or better than slave labor?
Jules, are you intentionally trying to be thick? We were talking about contracts that the Iraqis offered to e.g. countries like France, and you seemingly thinking that they should have been offered to America. As far as I know neither of these countries tortures girls to death.
I disagree with your consistent bashing of America.
Stating facts is not "bashing". Saying that America hasn't acted better than how France or Germany has acted is not "bashing".
Choose jules! Am I bashing France and Germany, when I placed them on the same level as America or am I not? How can I have bashed only America about its support of dictators when I said they were as bad as France and Germany were in their support of Saddam?
Oh, yeah, I forgot. Anything negative I say about US is considered "bashing", anything negative I say about European countries, is completely ignored.
#18
Robert> Why don't you go off and masturbate in the privacy of your own home rather than in public? I offer arguments, but you simply state your own conviction as if it suffices.
Ooh, yeah, you are "amused". Well *that* shuts me up and convinces me to the truth of your words.
#19
The international community has taken a real fancy to the notion that there isn't enough dialog between peoples. Interesting how, when an anti-American person is involved in the very dialog the world wants, he does not accord the same amount of respect for or belief in the good will of his fellow conversationalist. Some people will never be satisfied--america is their favorite whipping boy, and like anyone with a scapegoat, they will find out the hard way that once the whipping boy is removed, they still have a problem.
#20
jules> I'm not an Anti-american except in the eyes who think that not believing USA is the best country in the world makes one automatically an anti-American.
And the "internaional community" really has nothing to do with our argument except through your cliched and faulted expectations of me.
I did ask you a question jules: If you think that France must pay for its support of a dictator, how do you think America must pay for its own support of dictators?
You still haven't answered. Or do you consider this question an anti-American one?
#23
Only problem with that answer is that you can't *both* call it "payment" for earlier wrongs commited and yet at the same time say that anyone should be grateful to you for doing it.
That's a bit like saying that Poland should be grateful to Germany for all the lands that Poland gained from Germany after WW2. That was a repayment, so no gratitude was owed.
And as a sidenote, lest someone again unintentionally "misunderstands" me, NO, I wasn't comparing USA to Nazi-era Germany.
#24
Like I said SEVERAL COMMENTS AGO, your only solution is America to suffer some more. Lay it out on the line so we know what you expect. 2000 more American dead bodies make it feel better? No? How about 5000-is that better?
#25
I don't want America to suffer *any*, because I have absolutely no interest in Karmic justice against either America *or* France. It's you jules, who followed that logic, and therefore it's *you* jules who needs to be consistent in it. Must countries suffer for their support of dictators, or mustn't they?
I don't want anyone to suffer. I'm not interested in Justice, except only when serving to protect Life. And Freedom. And Joy.
And even if I *had* wanted Carmic Justice, jules, my points above were that America has already suffered it through the rise of anti-americanism in former countries where the US favoured dictatorships.
#27
I offer arguments, but you simply state your own conviction as if it suffices.
Poor widdle Aris. Caught out on his bigotry and hypocrisy, all he can do is spew and whine.
Bigotry: The "gun in every household" isn't a problem when it's not accompanied by the belief many Americans have that said gun is the solution to every single problem in the world.
This is one of the typical beliefs held by anti-American bigots, that somehow Americans treat guns as magical talismans that make everything better. Oddly enough, that's not true, and your stating it reveals you to be Yet Another Bigot.
Hypocrisy:
You have no problem with France and Germany's backstabbing their allies in the lead-up to the Iraq war. Hell, you supported it, and apparently don't think they should ever have to pay for their duplicity. They were acting in their interests, so no harm, no foul, eh? Never mind what kind of monster they were supporting in Hussein.
But Britain? How dare Britain act in its own interests! How dare they not march along to the EU superstate like the rest of Europe? They've betrayed the most noble enterprise in the world!
You said: Why should I not despise the country that's warring on the greatest project currently taking place on the face of the earth?
You consider the EU a bigger deal than, oh, liberating Iraq from decades of tyranny? Or bigger than the meta-project of trying to bring healthy, stable societies to the Middle East?
Maybe you'd comprehend our positions a bit if you took that phrase and instead of meaning Britain and the EU, substituted France and the liberation of the Arab world.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/21/2004 16:21 Comments ||
Top||
#28
Aris, where the US supported juntas and dictators, it was usually a choice between two evils, non-communist or communist dictators. The notion of "supporting dictators" by itself is only a half truth. The support was in the context of a global war.
#29
Oh you've 'Liberated' Iraq?! From a man that YOU put into power. A guy that 'Rummy' referred to as 'our man'. I've been to Iraq a year before the invasion & I can tell you it will take 40-50 years for any semblance of normal life to take place. The only thing you 'liberated' is Iraqi oil.
#30
Virginian has it right. Many of our anti-war friends live in "the world as we wish it is", never willing to make the hard decisions between evil and lesser evil ON THE GROUND NOW, and never dealing with the same humble learning curve of everyone else.
Like a French existentialist said, "not choosing is also a choice".
#31
Sammy the troll moves threads, but the idiocy does not stop. Real regional expert are you Sammy? Yeah, the US put Saddam into power. Sure. Ever read history books Sammy?
Posted by: remote man ||
06/21/2004 16:37 Comments ||
Top||
#32
So Sammy, you were there a year before, eh? Tell me, how where the rape rooms? Did you have fun? Or were you more inclinded to watch the shredders at work?
Oooooh, did you get any oil vouchers?
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
06/21/2004 16:39 Comments ||
Top||
#33
God you're ignorant, you dispute whatever u don't like u throw a couple insults but you got nothing to say not a single thing. you must be part of the 72% of americans polled who couldn't locate Canada on a map of N.America.
#34
That's it Sammy. We are all just dumb, ignorant neocon-loving Joooooos. None of us have ever travelled any where nor done anything. Make a credible point and we will respond to it. Throw crap against a fan and see what you get back at ya.
Posted by: remote man ||
06/21/2004 16:46 Comments ||
Top||
#35
Don't be stupid Sammy, everybody knows Canaduh is next to France off the shore of China.
Now answer my questions, how did you like the shredder shows over in Iraq and did you get any of them UN-sponsered Iraqi oil vouchers?
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
06/21/2004 17:23 Comments ||
Top||
#36
Mr. Frobisher, I think the reason people are not taking the time to argue with you on substance is that your comments are so infantile. Let's see a real ARGUMENT from you instead of a bunch of slogans and perhaps people will beigin to take you seriously.
The "gun in every household" isn't a problem when it's not accompanied by the belief many Americans have that said gun is the solution to every single problem in the world. This is one of the typical beliefs held by anti-American bigots, that somehow Americans treat guns as magical talismans that make everything better
LOL. Sorry, Robert, but many Americans do indeed believe that most if not all problems can be solved through the barrel of a gun. An attitude which would be considered to belong on the fringes of the politics of most European countries, it is instead mainstream in America, judging from everything I've seen in American populated forums. Legalize guns and you reduce crime rate (even though US has more of a crime rate than Europe, even though most crimes happen with legally bought weapons illegally resold). Legalize guns and you ensure against dictatorships (even though every Iraqi home had an AK or two, that doesn't seem to have helped). Legalize guns and you ensure equality in freedoms between poor and rich (because the poor can shoot the rich, I guess).
Bigoted? Because I said that "many Americans" believe something that indeed many Americans do indeed believe? Check out this forum alone, and I'm guessing that most Republicans here think that gun-control is almost as bad as limiting freedom of expression itself.
"How dare Britain act in its own interests!"
Ah, you can't actually bring a *quote* for this one, so you paraphrase according to your desires your twisted mind.
No, actually it's "How dare Britain sabotage plans that wouldn't have influenced her at all, how dare Britain sabotage something simply because it doesn't want to see other countries prosper independent of its control. Even when it could have chosen to just leave, why does it remain to sabotage the others?"
I want it to "march along to the EU superstate"?
NO, I WANT UK TO LEAVE THE EU SUPERSTATE. I WANT UK TO LET THE REST OF US IN PEACE, AND STOP TRYING TO SABOTAGE EVERYTHING THAT ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE UNION WANT TO DO.
Who's the hypocrite now, Crawford? You attack France and Germany for something that they only tried and *failed* to do, prevent USA from going to war. I'm attacking UK for something it's been doing and so far succeeding for more than a decade now -- hindering, sabotaging, delaying.
You consider the EU a bigger deal than, oh, liberating Iraq from decades of tyranny?
Yes, I consider the EU a MUCH MUCH bigger deal, than the present-day fad that USA's current mini-project of choice represents, to be quitely likely forgotten and abandoned as soon as you change an administration or two. I consider the voluntary union of the democracies in an ENTIRE CONTINENT, and the system that for all intends and purposes prevents dictators from EVER arising in these countries again, a MUCH bigger deal than the uncertain eviction of a single tyrant from a small country in the Middle East. There's not that big a world of difference between the rule of Saddam and the rule of Sadr we'll get to see.
Or bigger than the meta-project of trying to bring healthy, stable societies to the Middle East?
LOL! And how are you gonna do that? Healthy and stable societies? No, healthy and stable societies are the EU's suceess, seen with my own eyes in Greece, slowly expanded to the entirety of Eastern Europe.
EU's bettering influence in Turkey *alone*, may perhaps outweigh all the quite uncertain, all the quite possibly transient, "benefits" USA achieved in Iraq.
Maybe you'd comprehend our positions a bit if you took that phrase and instead of meaning Britain and the EU, substituted France and the liberation of the Arab world.
It'd quite a bit more accurate to substitute *Iran* and the liberation of the Arab world, because France if anything has failed to alter your course one bit, while Britain has succeeded in hindering the EU almost as much as Iran has succeeded in hindering the "liberation" of Iraq.
virginian> Aris, where the US supported juntas and dictators, it was usually a choice between two evils, non-communist or communist dictators.
And quite often it wasn't. The junta in Greece for example. There was no chance of a communist dictatorship whatsoever at that point, such a chance had already been destroyed at the civil war of more than 20 years earlier.
#38
Emotion is in the air. That map of Saddam oil deals ain't a surprise. He wudn't going to deal with the US. We was policing no fly zones and such. I ain't seen a current map of Iraq oil deals, but I bet it don't look like Saddam's. I don't know what that says about Capitalism, Socialism or what - y'alls way ahead of me.
#39
Aris, I don't defend the US support for the junta, but from what I gather, the US perception, rightly or wrongly, was that they were supporting a government that was an ally in the cold war. I am sure the US would have preferred a nice democratically elected government, if that had been our choice. Or do you claim that the junta was engineered by the US?
#40
"I've been to Iraq a year before the invasion & I can tell you it will take 40-50 years for any semblance of normal life to take place." #29 above
Normal life in the Middle East? Is that what the WoT will determine - what normal life in the Islamic world will be? The choices they have had over there haven't been the best of all worlds have they? Let's see, there is a) the deranged dicator with even more deranged son's (Saddam model, Syria,); b) islamofascist theocracy (Iran and Taliban - a very popular chioce among women); (c) the friendly family Kingdom/dictatorship (Saudi Arabia and Kuwait); and (d) the totalitarian military/dictatorship (Pakistan); and (e) wildcard (the al Qaeda fanatical quest for an Islamic Caliphate). Is freedom a part of normal life over there under any of the choices they have had? If you add a choice - a government elected by the people that protects the freedom of . . . - no, freedom is just not a part of "normal life." They really don't want freedom - they prefer the old choices?
#41
I consider the voluntary union of the democracies in an ENTIRE CONTINENT, and the system that for all intends and purposes prevents dictators from EVER arising in these countries again, a MUCH bigger deal than the uncertain eviction of a single tyrant from a small country in the Middle East.
What in the EU constitution would prevent the rise of dictators? A resolution? A common agreement? Again, how do you KNOW that such a dictator wouldn't emerge in the near future? Looking at the EU voting results on BBCNEWS-votes which were all over the board, depending on the country involved, the results must have been shocking to the intellectuals in Europe. There is no one voice, just a scattering of countries nitpicking to find a coherent voice. Europe is starting to resemble the UN-conflicted in direction, toothless, hypocritical.
It may be a bigger deal in terms of assets, diplomatic accomplishment and geography, but let's see if it this EU lasts and whether your hopes for what it should be is what it will actually be.
#42
Aris, you karmic justice theory is interesting. So America is punished because the Iranian people have a brutal theocracy? America is punished by Latin American nations going socialist? America is punishe by Greek anti-American attitudes? This seems backwards, I would say the Iranian people living under a brutal theorcracy are the ones punished. I'd say those destined for poverty and foreign adventures in the socialist states in latin America (and their neighbors) are the ones being punished. I would say the hotels and restraunts in Greece watching the yanks (who overpay for everything) go to London or Rome are the ones being punished. Americans try to help, but we can only do so much when faced with folly, and self-inflicted harm. No its not America being Karmicly punished, its the nations that America tried to help from Fundamentalist Islam and Communism that are paying the Karmic price.
You do make good points, by the way, but you need to keep your posts a bit shorter.
#43
Or do you claim that the junta was engineered by the US?
No. The same way that Saddam's dictatorship wasn't engineered by France. Except more so. USA seems to have indeed attempted a coup, a coup by former king Constantine -- but the successful coup wasn't engineered by the USA, simply strongly supported by it.
I am sure the US would have preferred a nice democratically elected government, if that had been our choice.
Lyndon Johnson: "Fuck your parliament and your constitution,"
American 2-star general: "It's the best damn Government since Pericles"
In short -- no, the USA *didn't* prefer a nice democratically elected government. It very much preferred a friendly dictatorship than a democratic neutral country.
jules> What in the EU constitution would prevent the rise of dictators?
In the EU constitution or in the entirety of the EU system? The same thing that has helped every former dictatorship become stably democratic in the the EU. The mass of sewage that must form before a dictator takes power can now be combatted, the steady ever-much-stronger violations of rights that need exist before the complete overthrow of democracy, those are now actively opposed at the EU level before they become a real problem.
No dictator can arise at the national level because the EU courts would protect the human rights before such violations became widespread, before they become a defacto reality.
And no dictator can arise at the EU level for several reasons -- because there's no European nationalistic ideology that would overcome the smaller nationalisms if it became oppressive, because every country is free to depart from the EU whenever they want, because each country retains its own armies, because each country has its own courts and political systems and traditions.
There is no one voice, just a scattering of countries nitpicking to find a coherent voice
YES! Free people pull in all sorts of directions. It's only slaves that pull in the same direction.
And that's what will stop EU count from ever becoming a dictatorship itself. Such as America was, EU as a federation will be founded on principles first, on mutual ancestry *second*.
#44
Yank> Oh, sure peoples suffering are ofcourse themselves suffering. Karmic justice unfortunately cares more about punishing the wicked than helping out the innocent. :-)
But as two further important sidepoint -- this atheistic-leaning agnostic doesn't really believe in Karmic justice, I only see certain simple cause-and-effect reaction, e.g. if you wrong a population they will most likely not like you very much, which will in the long-term hurt you much more.
And secondly, ofcourse Greek society was far from innocent itself -- for internal dictatorships to survive you need to first have a deeply rotten society in advance. For example the support of the Greek Orthodox Church was probably atleast as important, possibly even more so, to the junta than the American support was.
Part of the reason I dislike the Greek Orthodox Church -- another reason was their support of the Bosnian Serbs -- a yet third one was the relatively recent hooplah about the religion being marked in the IDs.
And as for me babbling less.... uh, I will try, but I make no promises. Sorry.
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/21/2004 19:35 Comments ||
Top||
#46
And as a sidenote jules:
whether your hopes for what it should be is what it will actually be.
-- The EU already *is*. Even if it never progresses beyond this stage of half-assed confederacy, even if it never finds a strong voice of its own in global affairs, even if it gets stuck in this relatively weak state... it will already have been worth it and more than worth it.
For the current expansions of freedoms in the continent alone.
13 Robert Crawford> Yeah, it's extremely interesting how I've been recently, and perhaps rightfully, attacked for resurrecting arguments from one day earlier, but there's seemingly nothing wrong with resurrecting arguments from a whole year ago
Jesus... I just thought last year's thread was pretty good... Not near as good as this one tho. :)
#50
Sorry, Robert, but many Americans do indeed believe that most if not all problems can be solved through the barrel of a gun.
Bullshit, Aris. Utter bullshit.
Bigoted? Because I said that "many Americans" believe something that indeed many Americans do indeed believe? Check out this forum alone, and I'm guessing that most Republicans here think that gun-control is almost as bad as limiting freedom of expression itself.
Your inability to distinguish between believing that people should be able to defend themselves -- from crime and tyranny -- and "guns solve most if not all problems" is the source of your bigotry. You're constructing a strawman, Aris, or rather you're buying into the lie you've been fed all your life.
If you can ever get past that big blind spot you have, maybe you'll understand us a bit more. Until then, you should STFU about America.
Who's the hypocrite now, Crawford?
We all are, Aris. You just wear yours blindly.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/21/2004 22:13 Comments ||
Top||
#51
Your inability to distinguish between believing that people should be able to defend themselves -- from crime and tyranny -- and "guns solve most if not all problems
And what does your inability to distinguish between the tools that can helf defend your rights, and the alienable rights itself say?
What does it say when you think that guns are the only way to defend yourself against "crime and tyranny", to the point where you don't even know how you distort my words?
What does it say when you don't even understand that some people may disagree that gun proliferation is any more likely to bring security than nuclear weapons proliferation is?
Until then, you should STFU about America.
If you are gonna do it that way, then who first spoke about someone else's continent in this thread?
"Who's the hypocrite now, Crawford?" We all are, Aris. You just wear yours blindly.
You think that confessing to hypocrisy not only gives you a free pass to keep on doing it, but also gives you the right to judge others (people who don't want to reconcile themselves with hypocrisy) according to the choices of your own stupid persona.
Not only an unrepentant self-confessed hypocrite but a wimp as well.
#54
And what does your inability to distinguish between the tools that can helf defend your rights, and the alienable rights itself say?
??? I'm not having that problem. A gun and the right to defend myself are different things. The gun is merely an expression, an implementation of that right.
But removing guns is as much an impediment to that right as forcibly gagging a person is an impediment to free speech.
What does it say when you think that guns are the only way to defend yourself against "crime and tyranny", to the point where you don't even know how you distort my words?
You said Americans believe "most if not all problems can be solved through the barrel of a gun". How did I distort what you said? You said those words, didn't you?
Those words are simply wrong. Americans do NOT believe that. Most conflicts (99.9999999999999999999999999999%+) between people in the US are not solved with guns. Using guns is extremely rare in the US, despite what you've been taught.
What does it say when you don't even understand that some people may disagree that gun proliferation is any more likely to bring security than nuclear weapons proliferation is?
I understand that some people disagree. They're simply wrong. Certainly, merely adding guns doesn't do squat. You also have to have laws and an agreement to abide by those laws. The presence of guns helps in the "last ditch" defense; when someone's threatened and no law enforcement's around, for example. It also shifts the odds, making it riskier to commit crimes, particularly crimes against people.
(Of course, if you can't distinguish between a firearm and a nuclear arm, there's no point even talking to you...)
If you are gonna do it that way, then who first spoke about someone else's continent in this thread?
Jules, I believe. Followed by you proclaiming the Great Karmic Justice against the US.
My (clumsily made) point is that you have only the barest understanding of American culture and traditions. You're viewing us through a massively distorted lens, one that seems to be universal in Europe. Yes, Americans view Europe through our own distorted lens, too. You, however, defend your distorted view as if the picture were perfectly clear, as if you know the absolute truth.
You think that confessing to hypocrisy not only gives you a free pass to keep on doing it, but also gives you the right to judge others (people who don't want to reconcile themselves with hypocrisy) according to the choices of your own stupid persona.
Not only an unrepentant self-confessed hypocrite but a wimp as well.
You don't understand the point.
I realize I'm a hypocrite, and that I am on probably quite a few issues. I try to deal with it, but it's just human nature. Hell, there are some issues and subjects that I'll go on being hypocritical about, in full knowledge that I am. It's part of being a less than perfect being, one with emotions and attachments.
You, on the other hand, proclaim your moral perfection -- you have no hypocrisy! Yet you defend France's actions towards Iraq, even seek to equate it to US actions in the past; and when pressed on Britain, the spittle flys from you as if you were trying to water a lawn. Britain harmed no one; you yourself admitted that the EU members still have their own militaries, still have their own courts, are still free, that the EU is still happening -- yet you have infinitely more hatred for Britain than you do for the French who routinely ignore EU rules when it suits them, who treat other EU members as lesser beings, who treat the EU as an imperial extension of France. Which endangers the EU more -- Britain's reluctance or France's abusive arrogance? Which is more dangerous for what the EU could become?
Something else I don't understand: You've said you're not a nationalist, that you don't value any group of people over any others. But you think the EU is more important than trying to improve the conditions in the Middle East. Isn't that attitude a form of nationalism? Isn't that a statement that you value some people over others?
I don't get the "wimp" remark, either. I'm not saying I'm proud of my hypocrisy, or trying to hide behind it, but that I'm not blind to its existence. I'll admit that I give the US the benefit of the doubt much more often than I do any other nation; I know I have that quirk, bias, hypocrisy. I think it's a hell of a lot more honest a position -- the admission that I'm not perfect -- than the one you take.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/22/2004 0:03 Comments ||
Top||
#55
#28Aris, where the US supported juntas and dictators, it was usually a choice between two evils, non-communist or communist dictators. The notion of "supporting dictators" by itself is only a half truth. The support was in the context of a global war.
virginian, if we are to boil this down to any sort of "black and white" issue, this is it.
Aris, I always try to appreciate your own viewpoint, but I hope you understand this one's importance. Elsewise, there may be no middle ground, whatsoever. Communism was only equaled by Nazism in its threat to the civilized world's progress. Militant Islam is the only newcomer that can possibly rival the evil of those other two.
#56
Zenster, Thanks, I never thought I would reach the end of this page with all these views & comments. And I thought, ah maybe a few people might take a peek. :)
I shall continue to dig a litle deeper for a moor detailed map(s) concerning this issue .....AND also which nations at present are dealing with Iran for her OPEC oil,. Iran's mullahs have just stepped over the line which is made to order.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/22/2004 0:28 Comments ||
Top||
#57
Lots of my comments were erased, when my computer crapped out. Aargh. Tp keep it brief.
Raptor> I have said that it would very bad for the world if the USA stopped existing, I have said that it's one half of Western civilisation and to wish ill on one half of Western civilisation, is to diminish the chances this civilisation has of ending up victorious in the war against Islamofascism (and tyranny as a whole), I have said that USA is one of the few countries founded on principle rather than mutual ancestry, I have said that USA does more good to the world than ill.
But according to you the only positive comment that'd be strong enough to hear would be if I had said "USA is the bestest nation in the whole wide world, blessed by the angels, chosen by God, a paragon of moral perfection."
Sorry, no can do.
Come on, you tell me something positive about the EU instead. Go ahead.
Crawford> But you think the EU is more important than trying to improve the conditions in the Middle East. Isn't that attitude a form of nationalism?
When you are talking about "Middle East", you are in reality only talking about Iraq instead. EU is about improving the conditions in an entire continent, so on sheer size alone it's vastly more important than Iraq.
And *that's* ignoring the institutional attributes of the EU and the paradigm it represents, as the greatest and most varied voluntary union of democracies that ever existed. Do you *really* fail to see the importance of that?
And sa for your France-vc-England commentary, France is brought to court when it violates EU rules, and I'm really not that interested in how much it wounds the feelings of other countries -- that's bad ofcourse, but it hurts France itself more than it hurts anything or anyone else.
The actual sabotage that UK has been attempting is tons more important.
that the EU is still happening
We shall see, won't we? If it's still happening (which is far from certain given how Britain will proceed to act if it fails to ratify the constitution), it won't be thanks to Britain, it will be despite Britain.
Zenster> As I've mentioned, not all the capitalistic dictatorships that the US supported had overthrown communistic dictatorships -- occasionally they had overthrown quite innocent democracies instead.
#58
Is it just me... or do Aris' non-ending post marathons remind you of a child on a playground, hurling poo-poo face insults, in the eager hope of getting someone to play a lengthy round of the "I'm rubber, you're glue" game?
Iraq has began pumping more than a million barrels of crude per day to Basraâs loading terminal, a US based tanker company said. âCrude oil is being pumped to the Basra terminal at the rate of 42,000 barrels per hour, which is just slightly more than a million barrels a day,â said Mohammed Hadi, head of operations for Baghdad for Norton Lilly International. An official in Dubai from Inchcape Shipping Services said a pipeline damaged by insurgents last week had been repaired and had been pumping crude since yesterday. Key oil pipelines were damaged on Tuesday and Wednesday in separate sabotage attacks, resulting in a halt to Iraqâs oil exports from the Basra Terminal and Khor al-Amaya.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/21/2004 6:23:31 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Last Thursday night, a rocket fired by the Pakistani army arced across the sky of Waziristan and slammed into an adobe farmhouse, instantly killing five men, including tribal chieftain Nek Mohammed, its intended target. An ex-Taliban commander fond of flamboyant turbans, firearms and having his own way in the largely lawless region of Waziristan, Mohammed was wanted on both sides of the nearby border with Afghanistanâby U.S. forces and the Pakistani armyâfor aiding and giving refuge to fighters from Osama bin Ladenâs al-Qaeda.
The 27-year-old commanderâs days were numbered after he reneged on a cease-fire in April with Pakistanâs army. At the time, he agreed to disarm his own militia and to help the army track down wanted foreigners, including al-Qaeda members, who have made Waziristan their refuge since U.S. forces entered Afghanistan. He went back on both promises. Enraged, the army relaunched its offensive against Mohammed last week, deploying thousands of troops, helicopters and warplanes, and killing at least 69 suspected militants and destroying more than 20 houses and two mosques, according to an army spokesman. At least 17 soldiers also died in the fighting. Informants tipped off the army that Mohammed was hiding in the farmhouse, the army says.
After signing the truce, Mohammed had become a hero in South Waziristan. DVDs of him appeared in the bazaars, showing him presenting a rusty sword to Pakistani officers during the cease-fire ceremony, his only compliance with his promise to disarm. Mohammed rumbled around in a pickup truck mounted with a machine gun and appeared in public with a brace of Chechen and Arab bodyguards, on loan from al-Qaeda, say tribesmen. Two weeks ago, Mohammed took a second bride, a teenager. Al-Qaeda has an estimated 600 fighters in Waziristan, who may be forced to move on. But their options are dwindling. U.S. troops are tightening the watch across the border in Afghanistan. After Mohammedâs demise, tribesmen in Pakistan are grumbling that helping al-Qaeda may now be too risky.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/21/2004 8:18:08 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He went back on both promises. Enraged, the army relaunched its offensive against Mohammed last week, deploying thousands of troops, helicopters and warplanes, and killing at least 69 suspected militants and destroying more than 20 houses and two mosques, according to an army spokesman
Nek breaks word to Paki Army, Army comes down very hard (im sure some here will be impressed at the destruction of two mosques - again, this is something our muslim allies CAN get away with more easily than we can) Very good. Should do wonders for the credibility of the Pakland army in that "nek" of the woods. Pakistan is steadily asserting real authority over NWFP.
I guess the DVD in the bazaars wont be as popular. And his underage bride can go home to her Pa, while Nek gets to meet his Virginians.
#5
The Death of Nek Mohammed
/Nashville
Ima got the dee eee dead maaaaaan blues. Good Morning Texas! On Earth he'll shoot no more! Yup, flamboyant turbans and gun sex brought him down. But Ma said that he wasn't a bad boy.....
/Nashville
#6
Flamboyant turbans, firearms, a pickup with a machine gun mounted on the back, and an underage wife -- all the makings of a Muslim holy man. So much promise gone to waste...
NEW DELHI, India - India and Pakistan agreed yesterday to set up a hotline between their foreign ministries to reduce the threat of accidental nuclear war, giving a small but helpful nudge to a peace process that began with a meeting between their leaders in January.
"Hello, Perv? We've just declared your country illegal. Bombing begins in five minutes! Ha-ha-ha-ha! That Reagan, wotta card!
The announcement came at the end of two days of talks on nuclear confidence-building measures. Delegates from the two sides, who described the atmosphere surrounding the talks as friendly, also agreed to continue a moratorium on nuclear testing, except in what they termed "extraordinary" circumstances.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/21/2004 1:24:02 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
A lawyer for an American soldier charged in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal was expected to ask the judge to dismiss the case as three defendants returned to court Monday for a pretrial hearing. Paul Bergrin, lawyer for Sgt. Javal S. Davis, said last week that he would ask the judge, Col. James Pohl, to dismiss charges against his client because of "improper command influence" extending all the way to President Bush.
Bad move, counselor.
Bergrin also contends that senior U.S. military officers sanctioned harsh treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison and said he would look for evidence that Davis was simply following orders. Before leaving for Baghdad last week, Bergrin said that if the military judge refuses to dismiss the charges, he would try to have the trial moved from Iraq to the United States. The lawyer also said he would seek to interview current and former detainees at Abu Ghraib to "determine the extent of the abuse, whether military intelligence officers were present and gave the orders."
Very bad move; you're guaranteeing your client a conviction. More at the link.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/21/2004 1:06:48 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sylwester complains about female officers being scapegoated in 5.. 4.. 3..
#2
Gee, I wonder if the defendents will be permitted to snap off a few photos during the court proceedings?
Posted by: Capt America ||
06/21/2004 2:23 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Whether or not this is a good legal defense depends on how Sgt Davis himself explains his actions. If he indeed says that military officers were present and gave the orders, then I say it looks like a better legal defense than, than ..... than what?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/21/2004 7:44 Comments ||
Top||
#4
A military courts martial is significantly different than a civilian court. Unless the defendent elects to trial by judge only, the court martial board unlike a civilian jury, has the authority to call forth witnesses and ask questions of witnesses. Neither the prosecution nor the defense can hide information. If this lawyer plays this card, 'I was only obeying orders', the CM board can call and question each member of the chain of command, even if both sides of the lawyers do not or want not. If the defense is relying solely upon this arguement for their client, he'd better have good reason to believe that will stand before the CM board. There is no bluffing here. Been there, seen it, done it. Oh, and one option for the defense is to ask to have a third of the CM board made up of enlisted members. His right. However, my personal experience showed that the other enlisted were far less tolerant of behaviors than the commssioned officers.
Posted by: Don ||
06/21/2004 8:50 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Neither the prosecution nor the defense can hide information.
So far there has been one trial. In that case two military-intelligence officers and one contractor refused to answer questions, citing the Fifth Ammendment. Certainly Davis' lawyer will put them on the spot, and they again will refuse to answer questions.
I assume that Sgt. Davis approves of his lawyer's active defense. This lawyer is a civilian, probably paid for by Davis' family. If the key military-intelligence personnel do refuse to testify, then Sgt. Davis and his family will declare a moral victory even if he is convicted. And most of the public will probably agree.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/21/2004 9:01 Comments ||
Top||
#6
If he indeed says that military officers were present...
Then he would be lying. It's already been established there were no officers present, Mike.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/21/2004 9:02 Comments ||
Top||
#7
If the key military-intelligence personnel do refuse to testify, then Sgt. Davis and his family will declare a moral victory even if he is convicted. And most of the public will probably agree.
No, Mike. Not "most of the public". Just the people who want to turn Abu Ghraib into a witchhunt.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/21/2004 9:05 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Re #:
So far, Robert, what I have read does indicate that no military intelligence officers were present, and also that none were involved in the incidents of this case.
I don't know what Sgt. Davis told his lawyer. I can only speculate from this article that perhaps Sgt Davis told his lawyer that military intelligence officers were present and gave the orders. Maybe, though, the lawyer is just fishing.
I expect that the definition of the word "present" will be an important issue. Even if the military intelligence officers were not present right there in that room at that moment, the lawyer will still be able to argue that they were present in the sense that they were close by and frequently came in and out and directly supervised the guards' treatment of the prisoners and generally approved these methods.
The refusal of two military intelligence officers and one contractor to testify would suggest to many people that this defense has a lot of validity.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/21/2004 9:22 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I expect that the definition of the word "present" will be an important issue.
Only for people who have problems with the English language.
Even if the military intelligence officers were not present right there in that room at that moment, the lawyer will still be able to argue that they were present in the sense that they were close by and frequently came in and out and directly supervised the guards' treatment of the prisoners and generally approved these methods.
That's such a reach it's fair to call it a "lunge". I love how you glide effortlessly -- some might say "mindlessly" -- from someone merely being nearby to them directly supervising. They ain't compatible; you're either there or you're not, and if you're not, there's no direct supervision.
And, of course, there's the little problem of the psychologist's report:
He [Col. Henry Nelson, USAF Psychiatrist] determined that there was evidence that the horrific abuses suffered by the detainees at Abu Ghraib (BCCF) were wanton acts of select soldiers in an unsupervised and dangerous setting.
I find it fascinating that none of the defense teams have leaked Annex 1 of the Taguba report, the section which gives "a more detailed analysis" of this part of the investigation.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/21/2004 9:43 Comments ||
Top||
#10
If Sgt. Davis is tried in Bagdad he will not get a fair hearing. Why should Sgt. Davis be standing trial for following orders anyway? He was told what to do and how to do it by the CIA and now his family spend thousands of dollars to fight for his right to remain free. Because he followed orders, That the CIA told him to do so that their (CIA'S)hands would look squeeky clean. Sgt. Davis and his family suffers while fighting for the same freedom he(Sgt. Davis was sent to obtain in bgdad. Tell me where is the justice in that?
Posted by: A Loved One ||
10/13/2004 18:00 Comments ||
Top||
Iraq could execute former leader Saddam Hussein after trying him, the director of the country's war crimes tribunal system said Sunday. Salem Chalabi, who is in charge of setting up a special tribunal to try members of the ousted regime, said that once the Iraqi government gains sovereignty on June 30, it will have the power to end U.S. occupation chief L. Paul Bremer's suspension of the death penalty in Iraq.
Why y-e-e-e-s-s-s, yes, they could, couldn't they?
"The Iraqi government has to affirmatively take that step to lift the suspension," Chalabi told British Broadcasting Corp. television's "Breakfast with Frost" program. "If the suspension imposed by Ambassador Bremer is lifted then there is the possibility of the death penalty being imposed" on those convicted of murder or rape. Chalabi said tribunal officials were "negotiating quite intensively with the coalition forces" about taking custody of Saddam and detained members of his regime after the handover of power. He said the prisoners would probably be transferred to Iraqi custody "relatively soon after the transition." He said it could be as long as a year before trials can begin. Investigations must be launched first and charges filed, he said.
Mass graves must be photographed, and torture survivors interviewed.
Chalabi, who spoke from Baghdad, said "hundreds if not thousands" of Iraqis had come forward to give officials information about crimes by the former regime.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/21/2004 1:04:36 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Minor note: it would be better in headline like this to include the first name of young Salem Chalabi, to avoid confusion with his better known uncle, Ahmed. (BTW i heard Salem on NPR, and he was articulate, and sounded intelligent and persuasive.)
Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Leader of the Opposition and chief of the biggest component of Mutahidda Majlis-e-Amal, is a suave politician, much more so than other opposition leaders â for instance the PPP leadership â and definitely a cut above the Jamaâat-e Islami amir, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, who has emerged as the real hard-liner in the MMA. Consider Mr Rehmanâs press conference on June 19. Mr Rehman told the press that the slain Deobandi cleric from Banuri Town mosque, Mufti Shamzai, was killed because he had agreed to mediate between the government and the renegade Wazir tribesmen led by Nek Mohammad. Mr Rehmanâs argument becomes clear from what he had to say about the Wana operation in general. According to him, the Americans scuttled the deal between Islamabad and the tribesmen. Read in conjunction, this implies that the Americans first bumped off Shamzai and then took out Nek. This is in line with the rightwing thesis on not just acts of terrorism but also sectarian violence. At the extreme end of this reasoning lies the argument that Osama bin Laden is a mythical figure and the September 11 attacks were the doing of the Israeli Mossad. Is Mr Rehman then a chip of the old fundo block or is he different from others, including Qazi Hussain Ahmed? To understand that, look at his position on two other issues.
Mr Rehman, says a fly on the wall, has been co-opted by the British to mediate with the âmoderateâ Taliban. This British initiative, backed evidently by the Americans, also has Kabul and Islamabad on board. And Mr Rehman is smack in the middle of it. Which, incidentally, is why he is Leader of the Opposition. Smart gent, Mr Rehman, we say. But there is more. On the India-Pakistan peace process, Mr Rehman is clear that it is important for the process to continue and move forward. Last year when Mr Rehman went to India with a Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam delegation, his statements took the Indians by surprise. He was logical, rational, mild, eloquent and very convincing. He won hands down. It was no surprise that he had been briefed before he went to India; neither was it surprising that one could hear the JI gnashing its teeth and its leaders telling people privately that they did not agree with Mr Rehmanâs approach on the issue.
Mr Rehman, of course, has much to lose if this dispensation is packed off. His party is in power in the NWFP and is part of the coalition in Balochistan. And he has perfected the art of compartmentalising issues and taking each on its merit. On the Wana issue, he has to keep an eye on his Pashtun vote-bank in the NWFP and therefore will fulminate against the operation while doing nothing to stop it (the NWFP government says South Waziristan is federally administered tribal area and therefore outside its jurisdiction!). However, that does not stop him from trying to get the moderate Taliban to support Kabul. This is why his rival JUI leader, Sami-ul Haq is so peeved with him and thinks the MMA government in the NWFP has sold the Taliban down the river and done nothing to stop the federal government from cleaning up South Waziristan. As for the peace process, it helps Mr Rehman keep his linkages with Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, the parent Deobandi organisation of JUI. It also helps him retain the necessary link with the GHQ. Mr Rehman is a good strategist and it is important to see what he does, not just what he says. Maybe, Mr Ahmed also needs to draw a few lessons from Mr Rehman.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
06/21/2004 1:05:25 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Mr. Rehman will soon learn that when you try to please everyone, you acquire enemies as well as friends.
Israel Air Force planes on Sunday evening struck a Hezbollah position in south Lebanon in response to the organizationâs firing anti-aircraft shells earlier in the day which fell inside Israeli territory. The anti-aircraft shells had hit an Israel Defense Forces base, causing no casualties, security sources said.
At least they hit something, unlike Hek's boys.
The Hezbollah salvo came shortly after IAF warplanes flew over the frontier and violated Lebanese airspace. The Shiâite militant group did not immediately comment.
"As we are running for our lives, we have no time to say more!"
The IDF issued a statement saying the airforce attacked Hezbollah gunners that had fired a salvo of anti-aircraft shells into northern Israel. "Following the Hezbollah attack, the Israeli air force targeted and destroyed a Hezbollah outpost in the western sector of southern Lebanon, from which a canon was used to fire on northern Israel...under the guise of anti-aircraft fire," the army said in a statement. The attack, which resulted in shell fragments landing in an army base east of the border town of Shlomi, came amid heightened tensions between Israel and Hezbollah. There is no sign that Iran and its Lebanese surrogate are abandoning the friction along Lebanonâs border with Israel, which is still considered to be Hezbollahâs primary focus.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/21/2004 12:53:52 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It's about time for the UN to deplore the Israeli aggression. How dare they, mere Jews, protect themselves.
#2
I know what you mean, the Jews of Israel should put up with raving sick Islamonuts shelling their townships & farms.
Why can't the Israeli allow Hizballah to kill themsleves in private, through practing suicide bombing on one another? :)
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/21/2004 2:43 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"And this bomb run is for your taking lawyers, legal advisors, and movie directors and symbolically stoning the border>" Ka-Wumph!
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/21/2004 10:06 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Oh god they're such victims , they are defending themselves... That holocaust figure is due to rise, hasn't budged since '80. Them swiss still got money they havent given up. Israel is only in violation of some 100 or so U.N security council resolutions. Ever here of 'greater Israel'? You know on their flag , it's the Tigris(Iraq) & the Nile(Egypt).It's funny how internationaly, that land you speak of is recognized as 'occupied'.
#5
Sammy, you're cute when you're trollish! Get a clue and some facts and come back when you're all grow'd up, k?
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/21/2004 20:29 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Sammy, Yassir is seeking a good PR man.
If you strike out with AraFAT you could always try Hamas, Iran, Cuba, the Sudan. the Saudis, or even North Korea ...hint...hint.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/21/2004 20:36 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Thanks Frank i've been told that.I got the hint mark but don't list ALL the countries u americans hate! Allah forbid!! you'd only be left w/ the U.K. Hey Canada won't extend the deployement of their troops in Afghanistan, guess that makes them terrorists Why don't u start carpet bombing, lots of oil in the west!!
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.
