Russian President Vladimir Putin began a visit to Germany on Monday by saying was he open to talking about ways to solve the conflict in Chechnya. Putin's remarks as he started two days of talks with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder seemed designed to dampen criticism in Germany and elsewhere of Russia's campaign against secession-minded extremists in Chechnya. Boosting German-Russian economic ties was high on the agenda for the talks -- the first between the two leaders since tension flared between Moscow and the West over Ukraine's presidential elections.
Schroeder and Putin agreed to respect the results of Sunday's repeat of Ukraine's presidential runoff vote, a German government official said on condition of anonymity. Putin irritated the West by congratulating Moscow-backed candidate Viktor Yanukovych on winning the Nov. 21 runoff, only to see Ukraine's supreme court void the result following allegations of fraud. Putin also hinted to Schroeder he would offer to speed up Russia's debt repayment to Germany, promising a "big Christmas present," the German official said. Western creditor nations have been pressing Moscow to repay its Cold War-era debts to ease their budget deficits.
On Chechnya, Putin said he had received proposals involving Germany and the European Union and "would like to accept these proposals fully." He did not elaborate, but German officials said Putin was referring to a German government envoy's suggestion last month to discuss reconciling the fight against terrorism with democratic norms.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/21/2004 12:35:04 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Islamic extremists with links to international terrorist organizations are likely to be operating in New Zealand, NZ Security Intelligence Service (SIS) says. In an annual report to Parliament published Tuesday, the SIS has revealed publicly for the first time that it suspects terrorists or terrorist sympathizers are operating in New Zealand. SIS Director Richard Woods said in the report that the international successes in targeting al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden had raised the security threat level for New Zealand. "From the service's own investigations we assess that there are individuals in or from New Zealand who support Islamic extremist causes. The service views these developments, most of which have come to attention within 2003-04, with considerable concern. They indicate attempts to use New Zealand as a safe haven from which activities of security concern elsewhere can be facilitated and/or the involvement of people from New Zealand in such activities," Woods said.
Woods said the SIS had investigated cases like information from a foreign national in New Zealand relating to the security of another country, apparent links between individuals in or from New Zealand and international terrorist activities, individuals in New Zealand seeking to raise funds for terrorist organizations, links in New Zealand to overseas programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and foreign intelligence organizations conducting covert activity in New Zealand. He said the SIS was investigating "several people" in or from New Zealand who were apparently linked with international terrorist activities. There was a need for increased vigilance andeffort to ensure the country was neither the victim nor source of international terrorism. He said the SIS was now devoting "significant effort" to determine if security threats existed inside New Zealand. But Woods said it was an intensive and time-consuming process and it could be some time before a definitive assessment could be made.
The release of the report comes at the end of a year in which the SIS has been subjected to unprecedented public scrutiny. It was roundly criticized for its role in the detention of Algerian refugee Ahmed Zaoui, who has been freed but still subject to a security risk certificate, and implicated by the Sunday Star-Times newspaper in the illegal bugging of Maori organizations.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/21/2004 12:11:12 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yours Truly, Al-Aska Paul,Your Rantburg On-the-Spot Reporter will get to the bottom of this next week, heh heh. We're on the case.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
12/21/2004 1:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The NZ "Shecret Shervises" does not have any time to deal with the new Al Qaeda network sprouting in their country.
They cant be bothered 'cus they are buzzy catching, trying, and deporting all the thousands of Mossad agents which infilterated NZ in order to track the same AQ activities.
Duh.........
"And One Ring To Rule Them All"
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
12/21/2004 4:27 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Paul,
BTW have you considered "Al-Aksa" as a "Nom De Guerre"?
#4
EoZ. Al-Aska was a word play on Alaska and Al-Aksa. I was given the title of Al-Aska by someone in RB when I started writing hare-brained fatwas. And that is the rest of the story....
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
12/21/2004 10:58 Comments ||
Top||
#5
it also sounded "tougher" than 'Abu Paul'
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/21/2004 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Have they interrogated Ms Clarke?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/21/2004 12:08 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Oh, Helen......think you're clean? You may well not be...
Premier Silvio Berlusconi said Tuesday that Italy would discuss a phased withdrawal of its troops with the Iraqi government that will be formed after the January elections, but he added that no dates have been set, Italian media reported. Berlusconi insisted that "Italian troops will stay in Iraq for as long as needed" — reaffirming a long-standing government position. The Italian troops' withdrawal from Iraq "in stages can certainly be imagined and maybe can even be pinned down precisely with dates as soon as the new (Iraqi) government is in place," Berlusconi said in Sicily, according to the Apcom news agency and other reports. "There are no dates because we'll set them with the upcoming Iraqi government," Berlusconi was quoted as saying. He pointed out that the new Iraqi government will have to engage in the formation of police forces and soldiers.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/21/2004 10:26:37 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Spanish justice authorities have denied that one of four people arrested by anti-terrorist police last week is suspected of ordering the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. A spokeswoman for the Spanish judiciary said there was no evidence that the suspect, identified as Hassan al-Haski, gave the order to kill Van Gogh, Dutch news service nu.nl reported. The denial comes after Spanish media reports claimed Dutch police had informed Spanish authorities of their suspicions about al-H. But the public prosecutor's office in the Netherlands denied the claims on Sunday.
"Nope. We said nothing of the sort."
Spanish police arrested four Moroccans on Friday for allegedly planning terrorist attacks on the island of Lanzarote. The suspects are suspected of trying to set up a base in the archipelago, off the coast of northwest Africa. Al-Haski has been identified as the leader of the group. He had reportedly been in Amsterdam and was said, according to media reports, to have been in contact with Mohammed B., the suspected killer of Van Gogh. He was described in various media reports as the man who ordered the murder. The Dutch intelligence service was said to be highly interested in al-Haski's arrest. The four men held by the Spanish police were also said to be under investigation for alleged links to the Hofstadgroep (Main City Group), which, in turn, is under investigation for possible involvement in Van Gogh's murder in Amsterdam last month.
Al-Haski may be the brother of terror suspect El Haski, 29, of Maaseik in Belgium, who is being detained in Belgium, the newspaper Het Belang van Limburg reported. The main Spanish suspect's last name has also been spelled similarly to that of the Belgian suspect in some reports. The four Moroccans arrested in the Canary Islands are accused of being members of the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, the GICM, which has been linked to the bloody attacks in Casablanca in 2003 and Madrid in March this year. Spanish authorities have confirmed that al-Haski is also accused of involvement in the Madrid attacks.
Posted by: Seafarious ||
12/21/2004 10:48:24 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Talks to free two French journalists, who were abducted in Iraq exactly four months ago, are making no headway, the media watchdog group Reporters without Borders (RSF) said Tuesday. "Despite laudable efforts by French diplomats, it looks like there is nothing new," said RSF secretary general Robert Menard in an interview published Tuesday by the daily newspaper Le Parisien. "The negotiations are getting nowhere," he said. Foreign Minister Michel Barnier earlier said he believed the two reporters, Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot, were still alive and in good health. "We regularly receive news, and according to what we hear we are convinced that they are alive and in good health," Barnier told the private radio station RTL on Monday. Chesnot and Malbrunot were seized on a road south of Baghdad on August 20. Menard said France's Arab policy "has been overestimated, we bypassed the acting Iraqi interim government and France is suffering from its worsening relationship with Syria which backs the resistance in Iraq".
France's Arab policy has been overestimated? What does that mean?
He added that there did not seem to be any precise demands by the kidnappers.
Other than a request for more film and better editing equipment for the documentary they are producing.
Posted by: Seafarious ||
12/21/2004 10:11:34 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Surely, no one believes that these two are being held against their will. You could write a script off this stuff. Malbrunot is âa pro-Arab extremist." Hell, he probably was wearing his "I (heart) Palestine" T-shirt when he and Chesnot disappeared. Allegedly, they "disappeared" right outside the US Camp...and a little while later were given a camera supplied by French State TV (supposedly confirmed on 9/18 by an IAI Com.).
All the verbal support from varying perverted sources that rarely agree on anything (Qaradawi; Sheikh Mahdi al Soumaydai; etc) leads one to believe that it is orchestrated to give these two Francos cover for when they take their shot at the pulizer and the Academy Award in the name of supporting the cause of terrorists.
The side bet is how they will get a nice 3 by 5 cell if it comes out that they are complicit in the ransom process as a way of compensating their Bruddahs in Arms...
Cheers
IR
Posted by: IR ||
12/21/2004 10:56 Comments ||
Top||
#2
DEBKA is reporting they have been released: Two French journalists kidnapped by Islamic Army of Iraq four months ago released Tuesday afternoon. Christian Chesnot of RTL and Gerges Malbrunot of Le Figaro were handed over to French embassy.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/21/2004 12:15 Comments ||
Top||
#3
AP confirms: PARIS (AP) - Two French reporters held hostage for four months in Iraq were released Tuesday and handed over to French authorities. "I have a profound joy in announcing to you that Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot have just been freed by the Islamic Army," Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin told the Senate, which erupted with applause.
Chesnot's brother, Thierry, said the two men were in good health. "It's the best Christmas present we could get," he said of the release. Foreign Ministry spokesman Herve Ladsous said the two men were expected in France on Wednesday. They were handed over to French authorities in the Iraqi capital, he said.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/21/2004 12:53 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Sounds like the price for French to terrorist ass kissing has gone down, deflation if you will.
Obviously, with the French flooding the ME market with terrorist smooches, it has become nothing more than a cheap commodity.
Posted by: Capt America ||
12/21/2004 13:02 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Prolly a dispute over whether the fellatio will be done using strawberry flavored condoms or bareback with strawberry flavored oil.
This is sure to turn those frown upside down in the local Mosque.
I'm from the Netherlands . I left Islam and wanted to share my story with you and other apostates. I'm from Morocco and like many Moroccans I immigrated to Holland . I used to be a very passionate Muslim but a few years ago I began to question Islam.
Before it I had found many contradictions in the Quran, but I was blind and decided not to think about it.
Then I met a Dutch woman and it was love at first sight. She was a feminist and strangely enough I agreed to tolerate it. But I loved her intelligence and her self-esteem...
Then my baby girl was born. My father said I didn't have to speak to my wife for some weeks [this sect of Islam believes a female first born is due to the sin of the mother or the weakness of the father and if the father stays away from the mother it shows he is not weak and thus... - it gets more involved at this point].
I was astonished. I looked at my baby girl and promised she would never suffer like other Muslimahs. She will be independent and self-sufficient like her mother. I left Islam the day my daughter was born...
Posted by: mhw ||
12/21/2004 9:32:12 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Biology rules! Triumph of the genes over 5000 years of cultural brainwashing.
Ontario Muslims should have the same rights as other religious groups in the province to seek arbitration based on religious laws for family disputes and inheritance cases, concludes a report by former attorney general Marion Boyd. Some Muslim groups called Boyd's report "naive," [Ms Boyd attempts to make a distinction between Sharia and Islamic legal principles]
and said she fell victim to pressure from right-wing [the LLL always calls it right wing if they don't like it]
fundamentalists who want to use the 1,400-year-old Sharia law to settle divorces and custody disputes for Muslims in Ontario... [the report is to be reviewed by the Ontario govt then the govt will issue an administrative ruling then there will presumably be either a law introduced or an executive addendum to statutes --- and then... assuming the worst - women bullyied into genital mutilation, honor killings, etc.]
Posted by: mhw ||
12/21/2004 9:08:22 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
YIKES!!!!
What is that Photo? And when was it?
Shouldnt it be with the Sitzpinkler story above?
Posted by: N Guard ||
12/21/2004 11:27 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I didn't place that image. I don't know who it is but with long hair, makeup, some uh..uh.. grooming and a bikini, it might be OK.
#7
LH
yes we've been over the pros and cons of allowing Islamic arbitration -- also the same people who were against it before the Boyd report are still against it and the people who were for it and still for it
however, what is different is that the process has gone another step (which is why I titled it as I did)
also different are the moobs but that's not my doing
Secretary-General Kofi Annan reiterated Tuesday he has no intention of resigning over allegations of corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program and plans to move ahead with sweeping changes at the United Nations. He told a year-end news conference the oil-for-food allegations "have cast a shadow over an operation that brought relief to millions of Iraqis" and expressed hope that an investigation led by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker would "find out the truth as quickly as possible." The oil-for-food program permitted Iraq under Saddam Hussein to sell oil - despite an economic embargo - provided that the proceeds were used for food and medicine for the hard-pressed Iraqi people. Addressing questions about calls for his resignation in Congress, Annan said, "I have the confidence of member states" and will move ahead with preparations for a summit in September 2005 where world leaders will consider major U.N. reforms to address global security threats. Nonetheless, the secretary-general said, "I'm relieved this annus horribilis (try Kofi is a horrible asshole) has come to an end," using the Latin words for a "horrible year." He used the same term that Britain's Queen Elizabeth II did in describing the troubles the royal family suffered in 1992. Annan disclosed that Volcker's first report in January would be accompanied by reports of U.N. internal audits of the oil-for-food program, which have sought by congressional investigators also looking into the corruption allegations. "I see important openings for peace," Annan said, but he added that continuing violence in Iraq could influence voter turnout in the Jan. 30 election. What do you think Kofi will get Koko for his Christmas present?
Posted by: Capt America ||
12/21/2004 1:56:27 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"I see important openings for peace,"
The member states obviously need a b*tch.
Posted by: john ||
12/21/2004 14:09 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Well of course he's not going to resign - why give up a job in which a loser like Goo-fi can be practically useless, yet still be paid for it?
Posted by: Radio Guy ||
12/21/2004 08:55 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
IMHO, neither practical nor conservative: The right to vote was once restricted to landowners because they DID pay taxes. I think this would cut the relationship between those with the biggest stake in good, stable government and those who are elected to run that government.
#2
Perhaps I'm missing something but I thought that most property tax revenues go not to the state but to the locality. Starve the localities of this revenue and you'll get shitty schools and California-style absurdities in public finance and property values. Not to mention declining school quality, as Calif has also shown...
#3
not so fast. As someone who is not paying local property taxes, I was quick to consider voting for all kinds of goodies that I wouldn't have been willing to pay for myself.
In high density areas, where most properties are rentals, the majority population will always vote "yes" (and why not) on those useless goodies that overburnden the average homeowner, who is forced to pay for the whims of those who do not have to pay. And, no, the average homeowner, who lives in his home, can not just "increase the rent".
#4
Lex, more and more states are implementing the same court decision that crippled California Schools reuqiring that per pupil expenditure in every district within the state be equal. The difficulty is that this is a hard conclusion not to reach since most state constitutions guarantee a right to an education.
This effectively separates the link between property tax burden and local school quality. I don't know in how many states this is now court imposed law, but it's coming son if it's not there yet.
But this problem, too, goes away with vouchers. It is amazing how many problems disappear when the state goes from producing education to purchasing it.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/21/2004 12:51 Comments ||
Top||
#5
It is amazing how many problems disappear when the state goes from producing education to purchasing it.
well said.
#6
I agree, 2b! Well said, Mrs. D! Maybe this resolves our dispute over the CAIR article on the kid's T-shirt, eh?
Posted by: BA ||
12/21/2004 13:28 Comments ||
Top||
#7
BA I tried to make that point in comment 9 of the thread.
Almost every problem with education goes away with the adoption of vouchers. Actually the problem, whatever it is, doesn't go away; responsibility for its resolution is simply transferred from the government to the parents. And it's amazing how much more concerned parents are about their children's education than is the government. Don't forget, we let these parents choose what the children eat. Which is more important to the survival of the child, its diet or its education?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/21/2004 19:58 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Given the number of fat crap kids running around the parents decisions about what a lot of these kids eat seems to be pretty poor. I hope that they would do better with the education decision.
Kidding aside, Mrs D is right. Vouchers make sense. Public education is a defact local monopoly. Monopolies deliver terrible service and deteriorating results over time. Only real competition will shake the education system adequately to fore real change.
US President George W Bush has given his backing to Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who has been criticised for his handling of the conflict in Iraq. By whom? Anyone that mattered? I thought not.
Leading Republican senators have asked whether Mr Rumsfeld still has the trust of the military after he admitted using a machine to sign condolence letters. So they haven't revealed that they, too, use the same type of machines themselves? How, uh, disingenuous and Dhimmidonkish of them.
Earlier this month, Mr Rumsfeld faced questioning from marines over alleged inadequacies in their kit. A sham which, as fact turns out, was a red herring (the armoring was almost completed)... and no one has paid much attention to the fact that Rummy has the stones to stand in front of his people and take their issues, questions, hot grief, and even barbed sham put-up staged bullshit, like a man.
President Bush has praised Mr Rumsfeld for doing "a really fine job". Agreed.
He told reporters during his end-of-year address that he asked the defence secretary to continue in office for his second term because he had faith in his ability to perform a complex job. Offensive and Defensive Coordinator for the most demanding team on the planet. Yeah, he's good.
"It's complex in times of peace. And it's complex even more so in times of war," Mr Bush said. Well said and thank you for honoring a man with brains, guts, and a work ethic that would shame anyone but an Intern busting ass for an MD.
Posted by: .com ||
12/21/2004 1:34:09 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Interesting segment on Fox this morning. A commentor for the Democrats was spouting the dogma of Rumsfield must go because "our troops don't have the armoured vehicles they need". No mention of the planted question and the really bogus issue of armoured vehicles. Why let facts get in the way of a good attack on Rumsfield? Disgusting.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
12/21/2004 8:03 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Earlier this month, Mr Rumsfeld faced questioning from marines over alleged inadequacies in their kit.
I thought they were Army National Guard, not Marines.
Hmmm... a quick check says I'm right, and the BBC screwed up another story. It's such a basic matter, why can't reporters get the simplest of things right?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/21/2004 8:16 Comments ||
Top||
#3
They lost the election. Now they want Rummy as a consolation prize.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/21/2004 8:47 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Rummy the bad boy. Our Mommies at the MSM are telling us how bad it will be if we date him. Hmmm...why does he suddenly seems so much cooler than before?
#7
In a related news story on Drudge, a "poll" said that 52% of Americans wanted Rumsfeld to go. (I suppose 54% of Americans would want Bush to have his dog groomed by a different dog groomer, too.) But seriously, the only response to this is for Rumsfeld to give fewer press conferences--which accomplish nothing, anyway--for a time. Let the Pentagon spokesman do it, it makes him less a target for the "ambitious men". He's one of the best Secretaries of War since Stanton.
#8
To paraphrase Lincoln, upon being told that Grant drank heavily - Find out what the man drinks and send a case to the rest of the generals.
How ironic, considering that Grant largely originated the "American way of war" going in with massive force to overwhelm the enemy, the very approach that the military transformation championed by Rummy is trying to overturn. Which makes sense in SOME places (and worked well in Afghanistan) but has been problematic in Iraq.
Grant after the war, as Chief of Staff (or whatever the title was) then Sec of War, then Prez presided over a decade long occupation of the South, one which was long, costly, and messy.
#9
ironic, isn't it LH, that those post-war reconstructions tend to be long, messy and costly. Whoda thunk it?
I'm confused, are you saying that Grant's "overwhelming force" was ironic in that it was what Rummy did wrong, or was Grant's "overwhelming force" responsible for the South's long messy reconstruction?
#10
2b - yes, the absence of such was what Rummy did wrong, and if he had studied Grant better he might have EXPECTED and BEEN PREPARED for a long messy occupation.
I give you this, from one of the guest bloggers at Sullivans site.
'WHAT RUMSFELD MEANS: David Ignatius seems to be missing something about the debate over Rumsfeld's future, calling him "a convenient scapegoat" for the administration's mistakes in Iraq. But why, on the heels of an electoral victory that vindicated the president's Iraq policy, would Republicans be trying to save face? For the victors, post-election recriminations are about the future rather than the past -- and Rumsfeld is associated with a particular post-election agenda. As Bill Kristol, who initiated the anti-Rumsfeld movement, said of the secretary: "His theory about the military is at odds with the president's geopolitical strategy. He wants this light, transformed military, but we've got to win a real war, which involves using a lot of troops and building a nation, and that's at the core of the president's strategy for rebuilding the Middle East." As Ignatius sees it, the debate over troop levels "is partly a rear-action battle against Rumseld's ideas about military 'transformation.' Advocates of the old, heavyweight Army have never forgiven Rummy for advocating lighter, more mobile forces, but Rumsfeld was correct." Evidently, however, not everyone agrees. As Andrew put it:
Rumsfeld came into the Pentagon with an admirable agenda of forcing the military to become leaner, to maximise the use of technology and to move away from the large numbers and heavy armaments of the past. But his wars showed that the old methods were still valid.
So Rumsfeld's critics "see a clear mismatch between Americaâs goals and its means" and "recognize in Rumsfeld an obstacle to victory rather than an asset." Whatever the details regarding armor in Iraq, the fact remains that Rumsfeld favors air power and light forces rather than large numbers of armored troops. This leads, some argue, to American deployments unprepared for the security situation on the ground. But it also means an American military ill-equipped for political reconstruction and nation-building, the sort of democracy-promoting missions Rumsfeld doesn't like. "Donald Rumsfeld has articulated a strategy of nation-building 'lite,' involving a rapid transition to local control and a tough-love policy that leaves locals to find their own way toward good government and democracy," Francis Fukuyama has written. "This is a dubious approach, at least if one cares about the final outcome." So it's not surprising that those who want the U.S. to promote democracy or rebuild failing states would like a future administration Rumsfeld-free. And it also explains why Rumsfeld isn't simply a scapegoat for the president: On nation-building and democracy, Bush and Rumsfeld disagree.'
"You know, rarely have we faced such mediocre political leadership around the globe, alas. Both sides of the aisle are consumed by so much group-think. Pelosi, Dean, Moore and Co. go on about how awful it all is and how the Chimp-in-Chief is taking us towards some quasi-fascist state and, basically, running around killing people for oil. And there is too rarely the appetite to confront square-on the full gamut of challenges Iraq presents in the amen corners of the self-congratulatory American right (though Bush did admit, more forcefully than before, some of the challenges in his press conclave of yesterday). Mavericks (how dare they disagree with the infallible and saintly Rumsfeld!) like Hagel and McCain are roundly derided as showboaters and worse. But perhaps arguably the best leader on the world stage today, Tony Blair, fits this more maverick mold. Who can imagine another Labour PM, faced with such a groundswell of public opposition, standing shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. through 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq?
I repeat: a morally defunct exit strategy, where we declare victory and leave a too hastily trained, under-qualified Iraqi "army" to be slaughtered like lemmings, will be the final straw for war supporters like me. I still believe Bush will see this through. But his Ljubljana-like 'sense of his soul' defense of Rummy yesterday doesn't give me comfort that the President fully gets it. Am I too pessimisic about the strength of the post-elections insurgency? Perhaps. I hope so. But we're probably lying to ourselves if we are making policy assumptions (again!) that are so overly rosy. I'm hearing that some in the Pentagon are, quite amazingly, contemplating troop draw-downs in '05. That is too premature and would likely prove a disaster. "
#13
LH, let me ask you and other Rumsfelfd critics this: where do you think Rumsfeld would have gotten his "overwhelming troop levels" to "properly" occupy Iraq?
#14
You've tripped yourself up in post #8, LH. Grant used the overwhelming force that you say Rumsfeld lacked, and still endured a long and messy occupation. So, what that shows is that "overwhelming force" during the war phase would not necessarily have prevented a long and messy occupation.
Oh, and Rumsfeld would have been really, really smart to base his assumptions on what would happen in a post ruthless, bloody, dictatorship, surrounded by hostile middle eastern, muslim countries - on what happened in our fight over states rights and slavery...almost 150 years ago. Brilliant, Holmes, just Brilliant!
#15
Rumsfeld came into the Pentagon with an admirable agenda of forcing the military to become leaner, to maximise the use of technology and to move away from the large numbers and heavy armaments of the past. But his wars showed that the old methods were still valid.
Pardon me while I say cough*bovine manure*cough. How would Crusader have helped in Iraq?
This was a disagreement with the Army about whether the emphasis should be on mass per troop or information and precision per troop. The performance of the military in Iraq demonstrates that we need a balance with more information, not more mass.
The other question that is not Rummy's alone to decide is how big a military do we want? If folks want to expand the Army by X0,000 troops how do we pay for it? If we do it, we should do it for at least a decade, if not two. Why do we want to expand the military for two decades by X0,000 troops?
What Rumsfeld is trying to do with the Army is generally correct at the high level. If he makes errors at the lower levels, they can be corrected after the correct high level direction is set. But getting the high level direction to change is hard to do, particularly in peace time.
One thing Rumsfeld refuses to do is admit mistakes in public. The way the press has twisted the comments of the President on the Iraqi forces from yesterday's press conference is a demonstration of why errors should never be admitted or allies criticized when the media has become aligned with the enemy. Rumsfeld should treat the MSM like the enemy force it is. Rumsfeld should also learn lesons from mistakes. If the record indicates he is failing to do so, he should go.
I submit again, Rummy is a consolation prize for losers.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/21/2004 11:17 Comments ||
Top||
#16
2b - so youre agreeing that the Grant analogy is not apt? So are people going to stop citing it whenever Rummys resignation is called for?
joeblow - 1. The US army had 10 divisions, and the USMC 3 divisions, in March 2003, not counting Guards and Reserves. Certainly using more than we did would have been costly, in limiting our ability to act elsewhere, and in straining the Guard, but not nearly so much as the occupation since has done. IF (and i realize some disagree) a larger force in the first two months of occupation would have made the rest of the occupation easier, this would have relieved our forces in the long term, and REDUCED overstretch.
2. He could have gotten them from the divisions he would have started organizing in September 2001, a full 18 months before we went into Iraq, IF he had decided that a larger ground force was necessary for the WOT. Which he did NOT decide.
#17
The other question that is not Rummy's alone to decide is how big a military do we want? If folks want to expand the Army by X0,000 troops how do we pay for it?
1. Had he expanded the army in 2001, and had this led to better results in the occupation, we would have saved money in Iraq, and in the long term with a better strategic position. We couldnt afford those divisions, but we CAN afford to fix things in Iraq, then watch them be blown up, and then fix them again. Not enough money to do it right, but enough to fix it later.
2. From weapons systems, particularly the fighter systems, according to some. But Im sure arguments can be made for each of them, so I wont belabor that.
3. From not cutting taxes quite as much. People here quote Lincoln in the ACW, when the US imposed an income tax for the first time. They refer to Churchill, who raised taxes, imposed rationing, etc. This is an attempt to fight war on the cheap. I dont know if Bush and the White House would have turned Rummy down, if he asked for more troops funded out of higher taxes. My impression is that never came up, cause Rummy didnt WANT more troops, as a matter of principle.
#22
I submit again, Rummy is a consolation prize for losers
And i remind you again, that many of the people calling for Rummys head, are folks who voted for George Bush, and some of them are people who actively campaigned for him (John McCain, and other GOP Senators) or actively supported him in their publications (the Weekly Standard). I myself did NOT vote for Kerry, as I feared he would cut and run.
Grant and Sherman DID use overwhelming force _during_ the Civil War, but it didn't help a damn bit when Reconstruction went south after the war, which suggests that if we had the extra divisions going into Iraq (which we couldn't have supplied through Kuwait, according to the military logistics people I've talked to, and which Turkey wouldn't let us deploy through them) it wouldn't have helped much either.
Keep in mind that in spite of Grant and Sherman's overwhelming force during the war, Reconstruction ended with the Federal troops withdrawing from the South and the imposition of de jure segregation.
This wasn't because of force or a lack of it, but because of internal political divisions in the North (sound familiar?) and the concept that any groups committing terrorist acts (as many of the "resistance" groups in the South did) must have been some sort of freedom fighters.
Also, Liberalhawk, IF the people now calling for Rumsfeld's head, both liberal and republican, had wanted a larger military, they could have offered to fund one in September 2001. Heck, they could have simply not cut the divisions in question back in 1991, or in the 1993-2000 period. A lot of those Senators and Congressvarmints, both Democrat and Republican, are the people who made the cuts that determined the size of the army today.
(And I'm still pissed off at the cancellation of the M-8. The Republicans, John McCain among them, helped cancel that; the Stryker AGS is a poor substitute, IMHO).
(And Sen. McCain is still proud of the fact that he's managed to stop any attempt to upgrade the roughly forty year old tanker fleet... and I'll bet he's going to be the first one to gripe about insufficient funds spent on airlift, never mind that the C-17s have short legs compared to the plane they replaced and NEED tankers in order to be utilized properly. Just as one example...)
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
12/21/2004 11:36 Comments ||
Top||
#25
A hostile press is different from a press that abets the enemy.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/21/2004 11:37 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Ironic that the attacks on Rumsfeld come from both those who say we did too much and too little in Iraq. Liberals and paleo-cons who always opposed the war attack Rumsfeld with the same arguments used by other liberals and neo-cons who support a massive nation-building effort: too few troops, not enough security for the Iraqis, and Abu Ghraib Abu Nauseam.
Somebody's not arguing in good faith here. Who might that be, LH?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/21/2004 11:39 Comments ||
Top||
#28
LH, if you're coming to the Rantapalooza, and I hope you will, we may need a private room, 'cause I'll bet it gets loud.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/21/2004 11:44 Comments ||
Top||
#29
If Rumsfeld did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Bush must not be allowed a success in Iraq.
Of course, successes are occurring, despite the violence, and if our idiot MSM and the anti-democracy coalition in Washington would focus on Jan 30 instead of the last 12 hours, they'd realize that Iraq is about to take an enormous step forward. Breathtaking, really. In the presence of which all the anti-Rumsfeld blather is just so much background noise.
#33
McCain is a grandstanding pimp - remember Keating Five? Trent Lott is a spineless puss that only votes for Navy contracts that pork his state. These and Kristol (whose claim to fame is being the son of Irving Kristol) are who LH poses as the serious anti-Rummy's? This is only a niggling first step to get a whack at Bush before he implements his agenda. Second-guessing by those who didn't authorize higher forces is "a politican" by definition
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/21/2004 11:54 Comments ||
Top||
#34
Bullshit indeed. Let's see Rumsfeld's critics debate the real issue here: are they or are they not in favor of a massive escalation of our presence in Iraq and a multi-year engagement there at a level of >200,000 troops?
#36
More to the point, Lex, are they willing to make the decision to increace the defense budget to make an increace in the size of the Army possible?
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
12/21/2004 12:40 Comments ||
Top||
#37
It may well be that some of Rumsfeld's critics are indeed in favor of increasing force strength and going the whole nine yards on nation building. Perhaps this is LH's position; probably Kristol's view.
But I seriously doubt that Chuck Hagel favors a 100,000 troop increase in the Army, or a 50k increase in the Iraq contingent, or a commitment to five years+ in Iraq. And I'm pretty certain that no one at the NY Times aside from maybe Tom Friedman favors this. Does McCain favor this kind of engagement?
So what is it exactly-- aside from tearing down Bush by proxy-- that these folks seek to achieve by replacing Rumsfeld? What policy do they expect a successor to follow?
#38
"Also, Liberalhawk, IF the people now calling for Rumsfeld's head, both liberal and republican, had wanted a larger military, they could have offered to fund one in September 2001. Heck, they could have simply not cut the divisions in question back in 1991, or in the 1993-2000 period. A lot of those Senators and Congressvarmints, both Democrat and Republican, are the people who made the cuts that determined the size of the army today."
The GOP, when calling for increased Defense $ in the 90s, wanted more for missile defense not more troops. NOBODY expected 9/11, and a different strategic situation. The question was what to do after 9/11. The admin simply DID NOT come to congress with proposals to increase ground forces after 9/11 - you can hardly blame congress for that.
#39
"Ironic that the attacks on Rumsfeld come from both those who say we did too much and too little in Iraq. Liberals and paleo-cons who always opposed the war attack Rumsfeld with the same arguments used by other liberals and neo-cons who support a massive nation-building effort: too few troops, not enough security for the Iraqis, and Abu Ghraib Abu Nauseam.
Somebody's not arguing in good faith here. Who might that be, LH?"
In fact thats not quite true. Ive seen references to lefties saying that the attack on Rummy is a crock, since it implies that IF wed done things the right way, Iraq would be a success, whereas (according to them) Iraq was doomed to failure anyway.
It is true that folks like Pelosi, etc are attacking Rummy. So? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
I can vouch for no one other than myself - and i dont expect you to believe some electrons sent through the internet, but for what its worth, I will say that I want victory in Iraq, and I AM arguing in good faith.
#41
"Bullshit indeed. Let's see Rumsfeld's critics debate the real issue here: are they or are they not in favor of a massive escalation of our presence in Iraq and a multi-year engagement there at a level of >200,000 troops?
Truth time, folks. No more funnin'"
1. I am. I am sure Kristol and his associates are. I THINK McCain is. I think Warner and Lugar might be. I dont know about the others.
2. Its NOT JUST about policy going forward. There are ALSO issues of accountability for past mistakes. But I agree, those are secondary.
#42
McCain is a grandstanding pimp - remember Keating Five? Trent Lott is a spineless puss that only votes for Navy contracts that pork his state. These and Kristol (whose claim to fame is being the son of Irving Kristol) are who LH poses as the serious anti-Rummy's? This is only a niggling first step to get a whack at Bush before he implements his agenda. Second-guessing by those who didn't authorize higher forces is "a politican" by definition
william kristols claim to fame is as an aide to Dan Quayle, and an influential Republican thinker and journalist (with whom i disagree on a broad range of issues, BTW). Hes quite influential on his own, in ways his father never was.
John McCain is probably the most popular Republican Senator in the country. Trent Lott is a conservative Republican Senator. Warner is chair of the Armed Services Committee, IIRC. Hagel, Lugar, Collins are also GOP Senators.
But Im sure you can find a way to diss and insult every one of them.
#44
No, rescind the tax cuts and go back to recession. It makes it easier to elect Democrats.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/21/2004 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#45
2b
Im not the one who wrote the following
"Heck, they could have simply not cut the divisions in question back in 1991, or in the 1993-2000 period. A lot of those Senators and Congressvarmints, both Democrat and Republican, are the people who made the cuts that determined the size of the army today"
It was in response to that that I discussed the past, and blaming congress. It would really help if you followed the complete discussion, rather than just replying to me out of context.
This stuff about "blame games" from the people who spend hours blaming everyone from Clinton to 60s liberals for everything wrong in this country, and whose ideology emphasizes personal responsibility, is laughable.
Anyone remember Max Cleland - we, disabled veteran, was attacked as unpatriotic, and defeated. Why? cause he objected to Dept of Defense reform legislation, which would have reduced Civil Service protections for DoD employees. IE which would have made it easier to fire folks who screwed up (among other things). And here when the discussion comes to whether or not a particular DoD employee should be fired for screwing up, its a nasty finger wagging blame game!!!!!! Rummy at least, deserves iron clad civil service protection, I see.
#47
mrs D - he wouldnt have had to rescind the tax cuts, he could have delayed them or made them smaller. As for fiscal stimulus from them, that would have been compensated for by the fiscal stimulus from higher defense spending. As for cutting domestic spending, that would have been worthwhile too, though sharing the sacrifices by also increasing taxes would have made that more palatable. Thats what Lincoln did, what Churchill did, what FDR did. Of course they were all really committed to WINNING their wars.
#48
i have posted here for a couple of years, and i think those who have seen my post can vouch that i post on many other subjects.
I DO happen to think that the admin made serious mistakes in Iraq. This effected my thoughts about the election, which is now over. I also think it would be appropriate for Rumsfeld to resign, if not now, then in the next few months. Some people take issue with that. I respond. Im sorry if that looks like Im engaged in the blame game. When I discuss Israeli or Iraqi politics, say, not many folks here violently disagree, so i naturally dont post many followups. Its natural, therefore that you will notice more of my posts that disagree with the majority opinion here, and this is the one area where Im in substantial disagreement with most here (i think even on the issue of moderate muslims there are more who agree with me than on Rummy, etc)
#49
what a shame he didn't listen to you LH. I'm sure everything would have just turned out perfect, flawless and it would be nothing but roses in Iraq right now.
#50
what a shame he didn't listen to you LH. I'm sure everything would have just turned out perfect, flawless and it would be nothing but roses in Iraq right now.
A statement that could be used against anyone who criticizes any govt official over any screwup. I suppose official decisions make no impact on outcomes.
#51
you just don't get it do you? It's one thing to have a discussion about that play, back in 2004, during the 4th Quarter, when the coach should have made the call that you just know would have won the game.
That's ok. It's ok to bring it up every now and then. But... after awhile, ...I mean get a clue. Your like a freaking broken record. Rummy is bad, Rummy is bad. Bad Rummy, Bad Rummy. He should have listened to me, he should have listened to me.
#52
Make no mistake, the MSM, the Euros, and Dummycrats are going after Rummy to get to President Bush. They don't dare attack Bush directly, since he just won a decisive victory.
As always, the MSM, the Euros, and Dummycrats are on the wrong side of history. Given a choice between tyranny and freedom, as in Iraq, people aways go for freedom.
Posted by: Capt America ||
12/21/2004 13:40 Comments ||
Top||
#53
well said, Capt. A. And I liked Mrs. D's take on it too: They lost the election. Now they want Rummy as a consolation prize.
Maybe this is all just another Bush/Rove rope a dope. He's getting the likes of Liberalhawk and McCain and maybe even Pelosi to demand he increase the troop levels and the defense budget.
#57
someone else whos tired of the blame game, and of dwelling on the past ;)
"Secretary-General Kofi Annan reiterated Tuesday he has no intention of resigning over allegations of corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program and plans to move ahead with sweeping changes at the United Nations. "
#58
Nice try, but Kofi is about corruption, cover-up, bribes and being the captain of the ship. Rumsfeld is about your belief that if he had only done what you said, then there would have been no insurgency in Iraq...that they'd all be singing Kumbaya right now.
Kofi is the head of the UN, and thus the Captain of the ship, and thus the one that should resign for the corruption he knowingly allowed.
Remember the election, the one we just had? The population voted, and said that they didn't think Bush, the leader, should resign.
#59
Fair enough, LH. Thanks for your sincere and intelligent posts.
I have my doubts about McCain's sincerity. I could be wrong but I believe that Hagel, Lott and other midwestern and southern Republicans would revert to isolationism in a heartbeat and have little interest in democracy promotion in Iraq or elsewhere.
In my militarily ignorant opinion, though troop size would have to be at the top of the list of considerations, it isn't the most important dart in the quiver. The PR damage is about the (lack of) armor.
What do you all think-was the fact that many vehicles weren't armored a financial problem, a manufacturing/timing problem, some other kind of logistical problem or was it something else?
#61
jules...there was an article on powerline the other day that revealed that 784 out of 208 vehicles were armored. The National Guard unit was in Iraq and thus unaware that most of the vehicles had already been armored. Rummy stumbled on the question, it's true. But the real story was that the MSM, once again, played fast and loose with the real facts for partisan purposes.
#62
Thanks, 2b. I am guessing you mean 184?
So based on what you say, these widely covered IED-caused injuries are happening DESPITE the armoring vehicles?
#64
I don't have time for everything, but on the note of Missile Defense... I refuse to accept blame for the small size of the Army just because I don't want to see the funding for strategic defense (or, for that matter, the Air Force, or the Navy, which a lot of people seem to want to see done) flushed down the toilet. (See my comments re: McCain and tankers, which directly affect our airlift).
By the time we're actually IN the battle in the straits of Taiwan it's going to be _too late_ to pass a budget increace resolution.
When you (and the Senators in question) are serious enough to propose increacing the fraction of the federal budget that goes to Defense past 25% I might bother listening to statements that the tax rate is too low.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
12/21/2004 14:46 Comments ||
Top||
#65
cant' find my key's ...jules..I think I meant 804. No, the army had just finished armoring them around the time Rumsfeld spoke, but the orders were in before he spoke. The story has fallen off Powerlineblogs screen - don't expect the MSM to correct it anytime soon.
#66
Great thread. I'd take liberal out of your moniker, LH. You're OK.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/21/2004 14:59 Comments ||
Top||
#67
Funny, Liberalhawk, I never said that Rumsfeld shouldn't be "held accountable," just that he hasn't made the mistakes, or is entirely responsible, for the mistakes you said and the politicians who actually made them have said he's made.
Jules: past a certain point, there isn't much armoring can do to counter IED's. It can help more against small arms fire, but IED's are essentially mines and it's hard to turn a jeep or truck into a mine-proof APC.
The whole criticism of Rumsfeld is based on the idea that if we'd done one or two things differently, the conflict would be over by now.
I think this idea itself is wrong; the country isn't fighting an enemy that can be overwhelmed with sheer numbers.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
12/21/2004 15:01 Comments ||
Top||
#68
The neocons/RINO's have thrown in their hats with the Dems to take down Rummie because the enemy of my enemy is my friend. As a Jacksonian, Rummie is more a typical Republican. RINO's like McCain, Collins, Hagel, Warner and that "famous" non-elected neo-con talking head Kristol are more typically associated with the Democrat party, being Wilsonians at heart, so it's no surprise they're on Rumsfeld's case. Rumsfeld has no plans to do any more transforming or nation building.
LH, do you think GWB would have been re-elected if he didn't give the tax cuts but rather ratcheted up troop build up to nation build abroad? I doubt it.
The RINO/neocon component of GOP voters is miniscule and they're the only ones who would have stuck with GWB. In fact if GWB had given a speech to the American people that the reasons for the invasion of Iraq was nation building and ME transformation and that their taxes might even increase to pursue this noble goal, I'd bet that 50% of traditional registered GOP voters would have turned off their TV sets instantly.
#69
Jules, 7884 out of 808 vehicles had been armoured and the rest were armoured within the next couple of days. This was a red herring by the reporter that put the National Guardsman up to asking the question. Yes, the injuries from IED's are happening in spite of the up-armouring. I lost a great youn soldier named Reed a few weeks ago to a roadside bomb. He was in the gun turret of an armoured truck when the bomb was detonated and he didn't have a chance. There are some things even armour can't help with. Besides, all the extra armour restricts vision and slows down vehicles. I'm not saying it's not worth it but there are trade-offs.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
12/21/2004 15:09 Comments ||
Top||
#70
Dopey me, 784 out of 808.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
12/21/2004 15:10 Comments ||
Top||
#71
Oh, something else comes to mind: LH, you mentioned Roosevelt... read about this:
The exercise involved 3,000 ships and 30,000 men. Only one British corvette provided escort for the slow-moving convoy of U.S. Navy ships to Slapton Sands. Nine fast-moving German torpedo boats happened upon the convoy, sank two ships and badly damaged a third. The attack killed nearly four times as many men as the division later lost in the D-Day landing, June 6, 1944.
The survivors were warned to keep it secret, and the casualties were not announced until nearly two months after the Normandy invasion. Full details were not known until 1974, when the records were declassified.
They lost about 750 people from that one mistake. That's a big fraction of as many US soldiers have been lost in this entire war.
They classified the deaths for six months. They kept the details secret until 1974. (I don't know if they picked a slow news day to release it then, or waited until Friday, or whatever).
AFAIK neither the sec. of war nor the sec. of the Navy were sacked.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
12/21/2004 15:29 Comments ||
Top||
#72
What joeblow said. The subtext here is that Bush is holding together a very uneasy and tenuous coalition of OTOH Wilsonian neo-cons and OTOH realpolitikers aligned with traditional midwestern and southern Republican isolationists. Cheney was a member of the latter group in 1991 but got Wilsonian religion post-911. Wilsonian Democrats who urged intervention in Bosnia got isolationist religion in late 2002.
It's all very confusing, mainly because the world situation is so confusing. We depend on imported mideast oil, but we can no longer rely on a balance-of-power approach to corrupt mideast oil-rich powers that are attacking us via proxies. We want legitimacy in the world's eyes, but we cannot rely on the UNSC to do the right thing regarding rogue state threats. We're fighting an amorphous enemy on a dozen fronts across Africa, the middle east and Asia, but we also need a massive, concentrated force to crush ba'athist fascism in Iraq.
Americans want desperately to go back to the carefree days of dotcoms, blowjobs, and 20%+ increases in the Dow each year, but we know the world is burning and that the Euros and Russians cannot and will not put out the fire. So we have a lot of schizoid criticism of Rumsfeld and a lot of incoherent hatred of Bush and the big bad post-911 world. But nothing like an intelligent strategic worldview with which to oppose Bush.
In light of the above, I think Bush has actually done an amazing job in keeping public support as high as it is for this war effort. A bit like Roosevelt during the 1930s. Note that the most difficult travails are yet to come. Nuclear Iran and Chinese expansionism will be even more difficult than Iraq.
#73
I backed Rummy at Belgravia Dispatch and repeat that backing here.
Iraq, to my mind, has had two distinct operational phases: conventional invasion and unconventional foreign internal defense (FID). I specifically use FID rather than occupation and therein lies my disagreement with those who argue for increased troop levels and their take on the situation in Iraq and Rumsfeld.
The invasion of Iraq was crafted to defeat a large, conventional military on the defense. Baathist Iraqâs force structure was conventional, mainline armor and infantry. To defeat this force, we massed armor and mechanized infantry, with its speed, firepower and attendant logistics; used strategic and tactical airpower and massed artillery fires to conduct a brilliant campaign winning in short order with minimal casualties. This, for better or worse, was a surgical campaign against the Iraq military and political structure and not a campaign of total war. The second phase is Iraqi stability and transition in the face of a Sunni-Baathist insurgency. This is the current phase. The opposition is diffuse, not massed, has little firepower or mobility and its target is other local nationals rather than the US military.
Different military operations require different numbers of forces and different types of forces because they seek different outcomes.
Those who argue for drastically increasing troop levels are using an Army of Occupation model like that used in Germany and Japan post-WWII with hundreds of thousands of US and allied troops policing the country while allied forces created new governments from whole cloth.
That was never logistically in the cards. We conducted the Iraqi campaign with fewer forces than a single WWII Army Group, and we had multiple Armies in WWII (90+ US divisions, 30+ British, 250+ Russian?) with which to occupy the defeated nations after a campaign of total war. Occupying a country of 25 million inhabitants for several years would take more troops than we could conceivably field. Politically, as evidenced by the push for elections in January, the US wants to turn control over to local nationals as fast as possible. Occupation was never a viable option and is not the current strategy.
Since the prime target of the Sunni-Baathist insurgency is other Iraqiâs, the Iraqiâs have to create institutions and forces that can successfully compete with the insurgents across the political-military spectrum. This force structure has to be predominately local national and heavily paramilitary and police rather than military. Our job is to promote, accelerate and professionalize this process. Putting another brigade of infantry in the Sunni triangle will not solve the problems there. In fact, their mission training, to win massed wars, and their minimal language and cultural training, explicitly make them not the type of troops to deploy. An effective Iraqi paramilitary and police, stiffened with US advisors and backed by US air and firepower, seems a more compelling solution than more US troops. And, without being repetitive, the more troops you have the more troops you have to protect.
The solution is an active and aggressive foreign internal defense with appropriate forces not an occupation.
#74
Great thread. I'd take liberal out of your moniker, LH. You're OK.
thanks for your kind words. As for the L, theres a reason i avoid posting here about DOMESTIC politics (on which im considerably to the left of McCain AND Bill Kristol)
#75
LH, do you think GWB would have been re-elected if he didn't give the tax cuts but rather ratcheted up troop build up to nation build abroad? I doubt it.
absolutely, and with bigger margins. I have great faith in my fellow americans willingness to sacrifice when its asked of them, for a large cause. My liberal pals will think im nuts for saying this, but i think Bush pushed through tax cuts cause he REALLY beleived in them, more than for reasons of presidential politics.
#76
The liberal freakazoids will next form a group and threaten to hold their collective breaths until Rummy goes. Just when it is starting to get cold out and they want to withhold all the hot air!
The joke is on them because (1) Rummy is tougher than they are on their best day, and (2) President Bush is an honorable man who recognizes the many virtues of Rummy.
The Caldron is boiling over while the witches stir the kettle for the next Senate hearing with Rummy. Bring on the protesters, bring on the dishonorable senators Clinton, McCain, Biden and Hagel (Bagel), let them stew in their own juices.
Posted by: Capt America ||
12/21/2004 16:27 Comments ||
Top||
#77
Very good, Dk, but ive got some issues with it.
"Occupying a country of 25 million inhabitants for several years would take more troops than we could conceivably field."
But that is precisely what we are doing. The arguement is that a larger force earlier would have averted the lengthy occupation.
" Politically, as evidenced by the push for elections in January, the US wants to turn control over to local nationals as fast as possible. Occupation was never a viable option and is not the current strategy.
Since the prime target of the Sunni-Baathist insurgency is other Iraqiâs, the Iraqiâs have to create institutions and forces that can successfully compete with the insurgents across the political-military spectrum."
I dont think anyone, certainly not Bill Kristol, and certainly not myself, disagrees that the long term solution is the building of Iraqi forces and Iraqi institutions. The problem is how you do that. Right now, according to an artile, I think it was in the WAPO, the city council in Sammarra has not met. Throughout the Sunni triangle, councilmen, mayors, police chiefs have been killed. To the point where large numbers of Iraqis (in those areas) are afraid to take on such positions. Others who do take them, quietly cooperate with the insurgency, often for self preservation. The argument is that you need sufficient force to enable the building of Iraqi institutions, which is constrained by the security situation.
"This force structure has to be predominately local national and heavily paramilitary and police rather than military. Our job is to promote, accelerate and professionalize this process. Putting another brigade of infantry in the Sunni triangle will not solve the problems there."
But weve brought the IP and the ING forward before they were ready, such as in April of this year. IN some instances for classicaly military roles, in other instances for other roles. The point is that the security situation is interfering with their development to some extent, and to a greater extent with the supporting political institutions.
" In fact, their mission training, to win massed wars, and their minimal language and cultural training, explicitly make them not the type of troops to deploy."
1. IIUC, the Marines specifically have counter insurgeny "small wars" doctrine and are trained in it
2. There are many "conventional" tasks that are going undone, such as sealing the borders, IIUC.
3. Nonetheless you are largely correct, most of our forces are not trained for the most of the tasks here. Two thoughts though A. Reports from the field indicate they are improvising and doing a tremendous job at these tasks anyway, and are less constrained by their training than their numbers. B. Rummy has NOT been supportive of improving this kind of training, to my knowledge, at least not in massive numbers. Which gets to my point, perhaps Rummy doesnt really agree with the grand strategy of the WOT.
" An effective Iraqi paramilitary and police, stiffened with US advisors and backed by US air and firepower, seems a more compelling solution than more US troops."
But is it, and was it ever, a realistic solution in the short run? It takes time to build local police and military forces and political institutions largely from scratch. WHICH WE KNEW pre-war. The call for a larger force is NOT a call to not build local forces, but to provide adequate security in the interim.
" And, without being repetitive, the more troops you have the more troops you have to protect."
We are going from 138,000 troops to 150,000 troops now? Is that a mistake? Do we not have the troops available? What if we had not let troop numbers go down to 120,000, and kept them up at 150,000 EARLIER, might we need less now?
#78
B. Rummy has NOT been supportive of improving this kind of training, to my knowledge, at least not in massive numbers. Which gets to my point, perhaps Rummy doesnt really agree with the grand strategy of the WOT.
can't help yourself, can you. At least you admit it's all just a thought bubble floating in your head and not based on any reality.
#80
Americans want desperately to go back to the carefree days of dotcoms, blowjobs, and 20%+ increases in the Dow each year
see im not so sure about that. They would LIKE to wish away the Jihadis, but I think they know quite well that they cant. Even many who disagree with you and me about Iraq, are quite convinced of the seriousness of the struggle. I think the Chomskian side of elite opinion has very little on the ground support outside of a few bastions. But you cant get sacrifice if you dont ask for it. I think it Freedom House, or somewhere, that during the cold war, talked about the gap during the cold war between the large issues at hand, and the small sacrifices that were asked of people and how to better link them. Look at how National guardsmen and their families have responded, and how people have willingly put up with security delays, etc. And the support for the troops abroad, for charity programs in afghanistan, etc. Theres a huge reservoir out there, thats largely untapped. No war bonds, no victory gardens, "go shopping, or the terrorists win". The sacrifices are so unbalanced. HUGE if you happen to be in the national guard, or the regular army and USMC, largely trivial for most of the rest of us. There is, I think, an opening, for someone to call, not for cutting and running in Iraq, or a quasi pacifist withdrawl, but for a fuller mobilization, a renewed and more resolute effort. The Dems failed to rouse that in 2004. They hinted at more troops - but that was hollow, as the place where more troops are needed is IRAQ, and Kerry said the new troops would NOT go to Iraq. And he failed to say a word about democratization in Iraq and the region, and THAT is the project that demands the sacrifice - and we KNOW IT - so all his patriotic rhetoric rang hollow. The one man who seems to "get" it, is McCain (well maybe Lieberman, but hes largely played out at this point).
#83
LH, McCain does not get it. He is a carpper about what we did wrong but has no plans for what we should do. I don't hear about him proposing legislation to increase the size of the military. That is absolutely the appropriate thing for a legislator who thinks we need more soldiers but tankers twice as old as a new recruit to do. He's in the right place, the Senate, the Worlds Greatest Gabfest. McCain. Could he even be Governor of Arizona?
One of the reasons that the Greatest Generation produced such failures as President was that most of them came from the Senate. I suspect every Senator lusts after the Presidency, but none of the Presidents who served two terms in the last century ever served there
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/21/2004 17:14 Comments ||
Top||
#84
none of the Presidents who served two terms in the last century ever served there
#86
Which gets to my point, perhaps Rummy doesnt really agree with the grand strategy of the WOT.
I don't think there's any doubt, LH. Rummy is clearly a Jacksonian Republican and as such he does not believe in the neocon-RINO grand strategy of the WOT that involves multiple, sequential bouts of wars in the ME followed by nation re-building in the faint hope that all this humongous effort, costs in US GI lives and taxpayer $, might make America safer. So the neocon-RINO faction in the GOP want Rumsfeld out and one of true believers in as Secty of Defense be it McPain or Wolfowitz. Unfortunately they run across a surprising stumbling bloc - GWB's loyalty to Rummy and perhaps, even GWB's own discomfort with the practical ramifications of the neocon-RINO vision of neverending wars abroad. GWB strikes me as a pragmatist and he cannot be too pleased with the the neocons who promised him 25 million Iraqis who would be cheering America as their savior once Saddam was removed. The neocons did not deliver. Rumsfeld is an old family friend who has delivered - he's got the Taliban routed out of Iraq with minimal US forces still there and Rumsfeld got Saddam taken out in a matter of weeks. The occupation has not gone according to plan because the neocons screwed up with their predictions. Also as DaveK said the more troops you have in Iraq, the greter risk to US lives and the more resentment conjured up in the minds of ordinary Iraqis. And as lex said GWB has cobbled together some unlikely GOP factions, and there is no way that traditional GOP's would have stuck with him unless tax cuts were put in place. As for increasing recruitement to the military, Iraq is not exactly a Japan or Germany threat to our country. Recruiting without big big big signing bonuses during a war that has US contractors burned alive and strung up from bridges would not have happened. And both Rumsfeld and GWB are totally against conscription-GWB went on record during the debates that there would never be a draft on his watch and Rumsfeld as a young Congressman introduced legislation to get rid of the draft.
The neocon/RINO factions in the GOP don't have much of a following with actual voters whose support they can threaten the GOP and GWB they'd withdraw if they didn't get their way. Many of the neocons are unelected theoriticians like Wolfowitz or an unelected yakking head like Kristol or a dinosaur cabinet minister like Jeanne Fitzpatrick. RINO's like McCain, who supposedly was thinking about joining the Kerry campaign at one point, is not popular outside of his own puny state. Ditto for Hagel and Collins, saywho? Rumsfeld is far more popular with GOP voters then any of the high profile neocon/RINO contingent. It's no secret that traditional GOPers have been po'd with GWB's previous term of spending like a drunken sailor. Tax cuts and a promise to bring down the deficit and unstated promise to transform the Supreme Court were major issues that got them to come out and vote GWB 11/04. Increasing spending to make a better life for nationals in the ME was not a high priority, for many American voters, and in fact those Americans who have relativesor ties to ME countries ie. Muslim and Jewish Americans actually voted against GWB-these 2 groups should have been the big boosters of regime change in the ME, one would think, if your claim that GWB would have won in a landslide if he put his nation building cards on the table had any validity.
#87
"Senate Backs Increase in Army Troop Strength
By Vicki Allen | June 17, 2004
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Despite resistance from the Pentagon, the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to boost the Army by 20,000 troops to relieve stress on soldiers forced into extended duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"I regret that we're here on the floor having to force an increase in the size of the Army," said Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who blasted the Bush administration for "a fundamental error" of not fielding sufficient troops in Iraq.
The Senate action echoed the House of Representatives, which last month passed a bill authorizing defense programs that expands the Army by 30,000 and the Marines by 9,000 over three years and is moving a spending bill to pay for that."
#91
He is a carpper about what we did wrong but has no plans for what we should do. I don't hear about him proposing legislation to increase the size of the military
this sounds like present tense, not a question about what McCain should have done in 2003.
He has THIS year proposed legislation to increase the size of the army and USMC. Which the pentagon (read Rummy) opposed, as LATE as June 2004. "You go to war with the army you have, and which you will oppose enlarging at every step of the way"
#92
He is a carpper about what we did wrong but has no plans for what we should do. I don't hear about him proposing legislation to increase the size of the military
this sounds like present tense, not a question about what McCain should have done in 2003
wow, LH. For a smart guy, that's really a really incoherent statement. I guess it is present tense in the sense that he is presentlycarping about what should have been done in the past.
#93
Jeanne Fitzpatrick. who she? Perhaps you meant Jeanne KIRKpatrickTyping fast without spell checking creates errors, but so what, LH, you knew exactly whom I meant.
McCain, who supposedly was thinking about joining the Kerry campaign at one point, is not popular outside of his own puny state. Er, New Hampshire, 2000
That was 4 years ago, LH, before 9/11 when a young former Texan governor showed his mettle to GOP constituents. OTOH since the 2000 primaries, McCain has continued to show himself to be his usual flip flop mouthy loose cannon doginthe manger self. These days McCain would be hard pressed to be elected dog catcher outside Arizona.
he's got the Taliban routed out of Iraq hmm?
I'm not sure what your hmmm is supposed to mean, LH. As I recall Afghanistan just held their elections and I don't think any Taliban candidates were candidates for office. Perhaps I am mistaken and you know better that the Taliban is still the ruling party there as they were pre-Rumsfeld military campaign.
LH, if you think your nitpicking about tiny spelling errors and making nonsense hmmm type comments gets you off the hook for responding in a serious fashion to the major points I raised in msg. #86, you're only fooling yourself.
#95
So he proposed it this year... which would mean that we'd eventually get the troops on line for 2007 or so, since according to everyone I've talked to, it would take about three years to build the divisions from scratch.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
12/21/2004 19:51 Comments ||
Top||
#96
Folks, let me put the finishing touches on this beast. (1) Rummy is locked in for four more years, (2) the Dummycrats, MSM, and Eurofreaks have been trying like hell to get on top of the Iraq War situation because they realize that the president calls the shots during war, (3) They have been trying to get on top of Iraq since the beginning, first voting for the war and then bitching like hell about it, and (4) Bush sees this and is not about to bow to any pressure to dump Rumsfeld.
Expect the Dummycrat/MSM meter to register "extremely high" until the bitter end.
Expect extremely heated Senate hearings in which Rumsfeld seeks approval for his $90B supplemental.
Posted by: Capt America ||
12/21/2004 22:44 Comments ||
Top||
#97
Getting intell in an insurgency situation means protecting your sources, and THAT requires mass.
How does a Crusader help with that?
Had he expanded the army in 2001
By how much for how long?
From weapons systems, particularly the fighter systems, according to some.
So you want to face the Chinese in 20 years without the F-22?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/21/2004 11:32 Comments ||
Top||
#98
Getting intell in an insurgency situation means protecting your sources, and THAT requires mass.
How does a Crusader help with that?
Had he expanded the army in 2001
By how much for how long?
From weapons systems, particularly the fighter systems, according to some.
So you want to face the Chinese in 20 years without the F-22?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/21/2004 11:32 Comments ||
Top||
Border Patrol agents assigned to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) identified and arrested 23,502 persons with criminal records nationwide through a new biometric integrated fingerprint system during a three-month period beginning in September, CBP officials said yesterday. Most of those arrested were foreign nationals.
Do tell
"This 21st-century biometric identification technology is a critical law-enforcement tool for our CBP Border Patrol agents," said CBP Commissioner Robert C. Bonner. "It allows CBP Border Patrol agents to quickly identify criminals by working faster, smarter and employing technology to better secure the nation." Mr. Bonner has described the new system as "absolutely critical" to CBP's priority mission of keeping terrorists and terrorist weapons out of the country, adding that it gives the agents the ability to identify those with criminal backgrounds "we could never have identified before."
The program, known as the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), is a biometric identification technology enabling Border Patrol agents to search CBP's Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) and the FBI's criminal fingerprint database simultaneously, CBP spokesman Mario Villarreal said. It allows Border Patrol agents to rapidly identify people with outstanding warrants and criminal histories by electronically comparing a live-scanned 10-fingerprint entry against a comprehensive national database of previously captured fingerprints, he said. The IAFIS/IDENT system went on line this year at all 148 Border Patrol station throughout the country. It began as a pilot project in San Diego, where it was employed at the Border Patrol's Brown Field, Calif., station, and at the Calexico, Calif., port of entry.
During the three-month period this year, the agents identified and detained 84 homicide suspects, 37 kidnapping suspects, 151 sexual assault suspects, 212 robbery suspects, 1,238 suspects for assaults of other types, and 2,630 suspects implicated in dangerous narcotics-related charges.
Not bad, but how many were really who you thought they were and how many are still in the jug?
CBP is the unified border agency within the Department of Homeland Security charged with the management, control and protection of the nation's borders at and between the ports of entry. CBP is charged with keeping terrorists and terrorist weapons out of the country while enforcing hundreds of U.S. laws.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/21/2004 12:35:31 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
None of this technology crap means a damned thing if illegal aliens get off scot-free once they get past ten or twenty miles from the border. Dangerous people can't be identified if they haven't been taken into custody.
CBP is the unified border agency within the Department of Homeland Security charged with the management, control and protection of the nation's borders at and between the ports of entry.
What about doing something about the undesirables that are ALREADY IN? Who covers that?
#2
Criminal aliens already in the U.S. are the job of ICE, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE was formed from the old INS, plus some Customs personnel. It retained the dysfunctional procedures, computers and managers of the INS and is, by some accounts, as bad as the INS was -- which is to say, very bad indeed.
Posted by: Steve Johnson ||
12/21/2004 15:29 Comments ||
Top||
#3
One reason ICE/INS enforcement was so lackluster was short manpower, of course, but just as important, IMHO, was the clear perception that the President didn't want the immigration laws enforced. Ditto the Congress (for the most part, with occasional mavericks like Sensenbrenner and Tancredo), the mayors of New York and other big cities, CAIR, etc.
The enforcement guys I worked with at INS/ICE were bright, vigorous, motivated guys who felt demoralized by the mass of stupid managers over them. When they got to get out in the field and actually enforce the freakin law, they were overjoyed and worked like frantic demons before being brought back to headquarters for a mandatory diversity lecture. I kid you not.
Posted by: Steve Johnson ||
12/21/2004 15:32 Comments ||
Top||
EXTREMIST cleric Abu Bakar Bashir told a key Jemaah Islamiah operative that he had visited Osama bin Laden in his cave hideout in Afghanistan, a Jakarta court heard yesterday.
In the first evidence of a direct link between the two men, the key prosecution witness, Nasir Abbas, told the court he had been with Bashir at a passing-out ceremony at a JI training camp in the southern Philippines, an event that is a central plank in the prosecution's case against Bashir. Abbas said he complained to Bashir about living conditions in the camp, where Bashir was visiting for 2-3 days to witness the graduation of 17 operatives at a camp in Mindanao.
Bashir was not sympathetic. "He told me that on his trip to Afghanistan he met with Osama bin Laden," Abbas said, and then quoted Bashir saying: "We should be thankful because they live in a cave with minimal facilities and we are more comfortable."
The brother-in-law of Bali bombing mastermind Mukhlas and a one-time senior Jemaah Islamiah operative, Abbas has apparently cut a deal with the police, and he has been seen around Jakarta accompanied by an armed escort.
His damning testimony plunged the court into chaos yesterday, as one defence lawyer was overtaken with emotion, shouting and gesturing, and 300 or so of Bashir's extremist supporters yelled and flung their fists in the air. Finally, the microphones were turned off and Abbas was hustled out by police through a rear exit in the makeshift court in the Agriculture Department auditorium in south Jakarta as the trial's five judges fled the fighting.
Abbas earlier had told the panel of judges that Bashir inspected four lines of graduates at the ceremony at Hudaibiyah camp in The Philippines. Abbas and another operative, Mustofa, flanked the cleric, and the trio were followed by two guards, Abbas explained. "And then we had a demonstration of fighting and bombs," he added. "Bashir headed Jemaah Islamiah. He gave a speech in front of the students, and stayed there for two or three days," Abbas said.
Abbas, then an instructor at the camp after fighting in Afghanistan with the anti-Soviet mujaheddin, said Bashir told the recruits the military training was necessary. "It is part of the jihad. This is good," he said, according to Abbas.
Many of the earlier witnesses in the trial of the accused cleric have failed to provide effective testimony, with a number alleging they had forgotten events, did not know of Jemaah Islamiah and had no idea whether Bashir was a JI leader. One other witness, in an earlier hearing, testified that he too had seen Bashir at the training camp in The Philippines, accompanied by Abbas.
The preacher has been accused of inciting terrorism in relation to last year's bombing at Jakarta's Marriott Hotel, which killed 12, and on lesser charges in connection with the 2002 Bali bombings which killed 202 people, including 88 Australians.
Two jailed Bali bombers scheduled to appear yesterday, Mubarok and Ali Imron, sent a letter to the court saying they would not attend since they had given evidence at Bashir's trial last year.
Another jailed Islamic militant, Mohammad Rais, told the court in an earlier hearing that he conveyed a message from al-Qaeda leader bin Laden to Bashir in 2001, inviting the cleric to Afghanistan if he felt uncomfortable in Indonesia. Bashir, 66, has flatly denied any involvement in terrorism, denies JI even exists and has denied he went to The Philippines in 2000, as the prosecution alleges.
A key witness in the trial of Indonesian cleric Abu Bakar Ba'asyir has backed prosecution claims that he headed a radical Islamist group. Nasir Abbas, a Malaysian who says he is a former member of Jemaah Islamiah (JI), said Ba'asyir was the regional leader for the militant network. Mr Abba's statement is the first testimony in this trial which appears to support the prosecution's case. Ba'asyir denies any link with JI, which is accused of a string of attacks.
Mr Abbas told the court that in 2001 he had been sworn in as a regional commander of JI by Ba'asyir, whom he identified as the amir or spiritual leader of the organisation. He said he had been an instructor at a militant camp in the southern Philippines when Ba'asyir paid a visit there, to witness a graduation ceremony. Mr Abbas said the defendant had given a speech to new recruits in which he said that everything they were doing was part of a jihad or holy war.
"Ba'asyir headed Jemaah Islamiah. He gave a speech in front of the students and stayed there for two or three days," Abbas said. The cleric, reading out a written statement, denied all of Mr Abbas' accusations. "Regarding his statement that I was an amir, I was never one. I never attended the ceremony, nor was I appointed as the amir. I will not accept that statement as correct," Ba'asyir said.
"Lies, all lies!"
Defence lawyers accused Mr Abbas of being an unco-operative and unreliable witness, at which point, BBC correspondent Rachel Harvey says, Ba'aysir's supporters in court started jeering and yelling while the defence continued to shout accusations at Mr Abbas.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/21/2004 9:14:58 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Iran is sticking by its demand that Iraq should pay substantial reparations for the war between the two countries, the Iranian Foreign Ministry said Sunday. "The demand for war reparations and indemnities is one of our rights and there is no question of renouncing them at the moment," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said when asked about a US decision to forgive $4.1 bln of Iraqi debt, according to AFP. "Wiping off (war reparations) is not on the agenda," Asefi said, estimating that Iran affirmed $1,000 bln of damages as a result of the war.
"Plus a pony. They definitely owe me a pony."
Tehran says that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein started the 1980-1988 war against Iran and ordered the Iraqi military to use chemical weapons against Iranian troops.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/21/2004 17:35 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I think that without agreeing to anything, the Iraq government should ask the Iranians to itemize their demands for reparations, writing a "business case"-style justification for each, say, $10 worth of alleged damages. In triplicate. Originals only, no copies.
#8
I don't think this situation is very funny. If Iran does not back down on the reparations bill it says is owed to Iranians by Iraqis, that's quite a large debt burden for Iraq to cope with. Actually Iran might have a legitimate case for winning at least 50% if not more of the bill it is presenting Iraq with. Saddam was the "legitimate" ruler of Iraq at the time Iraq started the war with Iran. Some of the evidence that will be used now against Saddam in his war crimes trial is that chemical weapons were used against Iran by Iraqi soldiers under Saddam's command.
Posted by: Mark Z. ||
12/21/2004 18:32 Comments ||
Top||
#10
In a few years when the Iraqi army is outfitted with the latest shiny American weapons, the Iraqis will want to personally deliver to Tehran what the mullahs have comming to them.
Posted by: ed ||
12/21/2004 18:44 Comments ||
Top||
#11
"Wiping off (war reparations) is not on the agenda,"
But, wiping off Iranian Mullahs, is on our agenda.
Jesse Jackass:
"Did somebody say reparations. The thought of reparations makes my mouth water."
#15
What some of you may not realize ( Mark Z.)is that no matter how nasty Saddam was and no matter how unfair it is that he accumulated debts in Iraq's name for personal gain ( loans to feather his Swiss bank accounts) or for wacko ego trips as in the case of his invasions of Iran and Kuwait, in the eyes of the international community and Iraq has signed on to play by IMF rules, debts accumulated under Saddam's rule are now Iraq's debts. It's only at the discretion of the individual debtor nation that debts are reduced or forgiven. Kuwait won reparation debts for Saddam's invasion to the tune of $67.9 Billion. What makes Iran's reparations bill any more laughable than Kuwait's? Personally I don't think it will be so easy as some of you may think for the new Iraqi government to dismiss Iran's reparations claim because Saddam was the aggressor with Iran like he was with Kuwait. This is serious because Iraq needs economic stability in order to move forward and to be burdened with huge debts will not be helpful to that end.
Very clever move by the Mullahs to make the Iraqis understand why they want to keep the U. S. Army in the neighborhood
What does this have to do with Iran's reparations claim? The validity of the claim will be judged by the UNCC (UN Compensations Commission)and if Iran's claim is found to be just, the IMF will recognize it too and then Iraq will need to either pay Iran reparations or negotiate with Iran - its lethal enemy - to forgive the debt. US troops in Iraq will not deter Iran from presenting its case before the UNCC.
Posted by: ed ||
12/21/2004 20:50 Comments ||
Top||
#17
What is the enforcement mechanism?
I'm not sure exactly. The UNCC was established as a legal entity by the UN Security Council after the first Gulf War, so I assume that its judgements would be enforced by the UN Security Council Nations if Iraq chose not to honor the UNCC's decisions. Iraq of course wouldn't do that especially now because it wants to take its rightful place along with other UN nations and no longer be an outcast. Also, Iraq needs to get the okay from the IMF and the IMF is closely connected to the Paris Club, which is comprised of G8 countries and others that are creditor nations, so it appears to be a big concentric circle and Iraq needs to play ball with one organization in order to be in good standing with the other. Or at least that's my impression of how the UNCC's decisions would be "enforced."
#18
not gonna happen, Joe. The regime that fought/settled that war is no longer in power. The Kuwaitis will settle their claim for what's been paid, as well, after the elections IMHO
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/21/2004 22:03 Comments ||
Top||
#19
This just in....Jesse Mohammad Jackson offers to conduct a protest march on behalf of the Mullahs for reparations.
Posted by: Capt America ||
12/21/2004 22:13 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Joeblow, reparations are something extracted by the victors in a conflict from the loser. The UN and other noninvolved parties to the dispute don't get to say squat, let alone decide who pays whom what, when, and how. The Iran Iraq war was fought to a draw with Iraq agreeing to accept the terms of a 1975 treaty with Iran and withdraw from Iranian territory. Since nothing was ever signed between the two countries, they could still be considered to be at war, like North and South Korea. I suppose the mullahs could try and force the issue by invading. Would be interesting to watch the mullahs finest find out about US firepower.
I assume this is a fairly standard diplo report, but still...
Zimbabwean Minister of Foreign Affairs Stanislaus Mudenge met with his Iranian counterpart, Kamal Kharrazi, [in Tehran] Monday to discuss ways of consolidating bilateral ties. In the meeting, Kharrazi referred to the importance Iranian foreign policy attaches to Africa and said the Islamic Republic of Iran gives special priority to the expansion of ties with African countries, including Zimbabwe, and is ready to boost economic and trade cooperation with them.
Mudenge, for his part, expressed satisfaction with the upward trend in bilateral ties and expressed his country's desire to share Iran's experiences that have made it one of the most progressive (!) countries in the region. He pointed out that Zimbabwe has a high potential in the agricultural field and wants to enter into joint investment projects with the Islamic Republic in order to avail of Iran's cutting edge in agricultural facilities and machinery.
Expediency Council Chairman Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani also in a meeting with Mudenge referred to the importance given to African countries by Iranian foreign policy. He called for expansion of bilateral ties and urged implementation of signed agreements. Mudenge, who discussed briefly the political and economic situation in Zimbabwe, said the main obstacles to development work in his country were the interventionist policies of the U.S. and UK.
"Yeah, we can't develop anything other than malaria right now, on account of those stupid Western interventionists."
"Land reform and processing of raw materials such as minerals and agricultural crops to achieve added value is the primary goal of the Zimbabwean government," he added. To achieve that goal, he said, "we need Iran's serious cooperation and experiences."
#1
Land reform? Oh, they mean killing off the Boers and their field hands then not doing anything with the land afterwards. That's land reform Zim style!
#3
...."Mudenge, who discussed briefly the political and economic situation in Zimbabwe, said the main obstacles to development work in his country were the interventionist policies of the U.S. and UK."
Yeah, like we sent a cricket team there, whilst you send agents to exploit the lax UK immigration system, and seek out mdc people. Mugabe is a kaffir worse than Binny, 'cos he's a wannabe. Keep your eye on him, folks, he's going to walk himself straight into some big trouble soon.
#4
Note to Stan: when your country was known as Rhodesia is was also known as "The Breadbasket of Africa." Now everybody is starving to death. Bragging that Zim "has a high potential in the agricultural field" is liking Donald Trump bragging that he's got 20 bucks in his pocket.
Iran will continue preparing raw "yellowcake" uranium for enrichment, a process that can be used to make nuclear weapons, until the end of February, despite a recent pledge to freeze all such activity, diplomats said. "The Iranians have decided to continue UF4 (uranium tetrafluoride) production until the end of February," a diplomat told Reuters. Two other diplomats in Vienna, where the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is based, confirmed the report.
UF4 is the precursor to uranium hexafluoride (UF6), the gas that is fed into centrifuges which spin at supersonic speeds to purify it for use as fuel in civilian nuclear power plants or in atomic weapons. Iran recently pledged to freeze all activities linked to uranium enrichment as a confidence-building gesture.
In September, Iran announced it would process 37 tonnes of yellowcake for enrichment, an amount that nuclear experts said could yield enough material for up to five weapons if it was later enriched to weapons-grade purity. When Iran made the suspension pledge to the EU big three last month, it agreed not to convert any uranium that was not already inside the conversion facility. However, Tehran changed its plan and decided that none of the 37 tonnes of uranium would be left in raw yellowcake form, the diplomats said. "This goes beyond the agreement to only convert what was absolutely necessary," one diplomat said.
Earlier on Tuesday, Hossein Mousavian, Iran's chief delegate to the IAEA, told the official IRNA news agency that it was natural for Iran to continue with its nuclear program. "It is natural that the Islamic Republic continues all its nuclear activities. Iran has only suspended the fuel cycle voluntarily in the framework of its policy to build trust without any legal obligations," he said.
I guess it all depends on how you define "suspended", doesn't it.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/21/2004 9:28:28 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Five, four, three, two...
Posted by: Tom ||
12/21/2004 9:56 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Dear World:
Yellowcake with white frosting a presume, using our favorate recipe.
Yours truly,
Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaradei
Posted by: Capt America ||
12/21/2004 13:18 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Translation:
"We think the Europeons have more money in their pockets."
#4
IRAN + NK STILL NUCLEARIZING, and will do so no matter what internat agreements they make, for anti-US Global Socialism and OWG, and for Hillary in 2008 - what are the gambling odds on the Net for war and invasion again this year!? In true Left dialecticism, alternatism, and alteriorism, IRAN and SYRIA will likley be PC "QUICKIES" save for preplanned anti-USA "insurgency", whilst NORKOR-EAST ASIAN WAR will be ENDURING AND PROTRACTIVE - read, CHINA needs time to wipe out the several major-minor non-American/Amerikan Western dmeocracies in Asia!
Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said here on Monday that the recent remarks of certain colonialist agents in Iraq criticizing the Islamic Republic of Iran are meant to create disputes between Shia and Sunni Muslims.
Addressing a group of Hajj ceremony directors, the Supreme Leader said that the recent bombings in Najaf and Karbala should make Muslims aware of the conspiracies, adding that fostering dissension between Shia and Sunni Muslims is the main aim of the United States.
However, he stressed, their hopes will be frustrated due to the vigilance of Iraqis and Muslims across the world.
Ayatollah Khamenei noted that the Islamic Ummah (community) should act vigilantly at this sensitive juncture and attempt to neutralize the plots of the global arrogance by remaining unified and cohesive.
He went on to say that the Israeli and U.S. intelligence agencies are undoubtedly behind the recent unfortunate disasters in Iraq's holy cities.
This is a plot to distract the Iraqi people and make them lose the opportunity to hold elections, the Supreme Leader observed.
Ayatollah Khamenei also said that the U.S. and Britain, despite their sloganeering, do not intend to hold a real election in Iraq. He added that both countries are trying to install their own agents in Iraq by staging a fake election "therefore the Iraqis should act with complete vigilance."
Elsewhere in his remarks, the Supreme Leader called the Hajj pilgrimage an exceptional opportunity for man to discover his true nature and for Islamic nations to unite.
Warning about a possible conspiracy to divide Muslims during the Hajj ceremony, Ayatollah Khamenei stressed that the U.S. is making efforts to gain access to the region's human and natural resources through various plans including the greater Middle East initiative.
He described the Islamic nation as a living and able body, stressing that the various plots of the global arrogance should motivate the Muslims to take further action.
The Islamic Ummah has proven that no power can resist its will, Ayatollah Khamenei said in conclusion.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/21/2004 12:05:13 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Deja Vu all over again, heh. Of course the Jooos are behind the attacks. Everyone knows this.
I can't resist the Ummah...
Must resist...
I can't resist the Ummah...
Must resist...
I can't resist the Ummah...
Must resist...
I can't resist the Ummah...
Must resist...
#2
The showdown between the Ummah(TM) and
the rest of the world is getting nearer and nearer...
How come I have this feeling that cant be explained that as a result of the showdown "supreme leader" is going to be dangling from a rope, courtessy of his own trodden-down people ?
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
12/21/2004 3:23 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I think we need to throw off this "colonialist" image. Let's be known as "aerial-nuclearists" from now on.
Posted by: Tom ||
12/21/2004 8:40 Comments ||
Top||
#4
It's the Islamic Ummah! Don't look at it! Don't...look...at...it!
UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. General Assembly criticised Iran on Monday for public executions, torture, arbitrary sentencing, flogging, stoning and systematic discrimination against women. Sponsored by Canada, the human rights resolution was adopted by a vote of 71 in favor, 54 against with 55 abstentions in the 191-member assembly.
The measure also rebuked Iran, a Shi'ite Muslim country, for discrimination against minorities, including Christians, Jews, Sunnis and especially the Bahais, who are subject to arbitrary arrest and detention. The resolution also said there was a "worsening situation with regard to freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of the media and noted the the "targeted disqualification" of reformists in Iran's parliamentary elections.
But the resolution welcomed Iran's invitation to human rights monitors and hoped it would carry out recent legislation against torture.
'cause legislation is so important in an islamic democracy.
"We brought forward this resolution because we believe that concerted international attention was necessary to send the message to Iran that change is necessary and that it must meet its human rights obligations." Canadian Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew said in a statement from Ottawa.
Photojournalist Zahra Kazemi, a Canadian citizen of Iranian descent, was murdered died in custody in Iran in June 2003, from a blow to the head, seriously damaging relations between Ottawa and Teheran.
Iran made no comment on Monday. But in November when an assembly committee passed the draft resolution, Iranian envoy Paimaneh Hasteh called the charges baseless. She accused Canada of introducing the measure in response to a domestic outcry over the death of Kazemi.
Murder does tend to upset people.
The Geneva-based U.N. Commission on Human Rights has adopted annual resolutions on Iran's human rights record from 1984 to 2001, and the assembly followed suit. But in 2002, the draft was narrowly defeated in Geneva and not revived by the assembly until last year when Canada insisted on a measure. Nevertheless, the vote showed a majority of nations either abstained or opposed the resolution, a trend on rights measures targeted at individual nations.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/21/2004 12:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hmmm. These abuses are Shari'a being applied as per usual in Islam - this shit happens wherever Shari'a is enforced - definitely standard fare in much of PakiWakiLand, all of Saudi, undoubtedly Yemen, etc. - wherever the fever holds the state.
Look at the vote... Love all those "abstentions" - that's phriggin' priceless, or, rather, those "nations" abstaining are prolly hoping it won't cost 'em, since the oil-tick states include some of the more egregious Shari'a practitioners, advocates, and active manure spreaders supporters of Islam.
So we apply a little band-aid to the gaping wound, assuage a few fevered brows and inflamed consciences, and pretend we've tweaked the nose of one of the monsters within Islam. This is a "show trial" form of PR - obviously a joke. Shari'a has been around for a millenium. So it has been in practice for the entire existence of the UN. And they just noticed, huh? Happy Days are here again. Knob polishing. Right-e-o.
On a less visible or slightly less visceral level, perhaps only 20 yrs in prison instead of stoning the woman who was raped, Shari'a will continue with minor grumbling from the unbelievably decadent and vicious old men who are empowered in Islam to apply it. Yup. This fixed it. All hail the "effective" UN and the Global Conscience Game of the Human Rights Orgs... Excellent work, boys & girls. Nothing to see there now, we slew the dragon. Move along. Pfeh.
#2
The Geneva-based U.N. Commission on Human Rights has adopted annual resolutions on Iranâs human rights record from 1984 to 2001, and the assembly followed suit.
Move along, Rantburgers. Nothing to see here. Move on. Don't even think about it.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/21/2004 2:28 Comments ||
Top||
#3
from 1984 to 2001
WOW, that's impressive. I didn't know they cared. It was so effective, too.
#4
What on earth is a rebuke from a toothess multi-national talking shop going to do to dissuade the Mullahs from doing whatever the Hell they like?
Poor Canada, a nation that fought so valiantly in WWII, is now reduced to this - relying on the UN to seek justice for its citizens. And what political capital did they have to piss away to get those 71 in favour? (with 54 against - the usual kleptocracies, thugocracies and beneficiaries of aid no doubt)
Very sad indeed.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
12/21/2004 3:17 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The Canadian FM better keep quiet. Iran will have nukes soon. What then, Mr. Pettigrew? Still opposed to the US missile defense shield? No? Good.
Posted by: Rafael ||
12/21/2004 3:30 Comments ||
Top||
#6
But, but , but
don't they know it's all the falt of the Joooos ?
After all Abraham begot Ishmael who founded the Ummah(TM), who brought forth Muhammad (PBUHA), who invented the Sharia, and the rest is history....
It'a all a plot by the Joooos, we need a new UN resolution denouncing the Jooooos and Israel for
criminally and negligently failing to kill Ishmael when he was young.
I also suggest a new UN commitee to investigate the treachery of the Joooos in allowing this situation to develop... of course there will be more appointed high salaried officials (payed for by US taxmoney), a lot of meetings and conferences in high-class hotels, as well as a special allocation of funds for paying for whores for the
EU commisioners (after all they get tired of wanking all the time, and their wives are ugly).
P.S. is Libia still heading of the UN human rights comission, or is it Idi Amin ??
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
12/21/2004 3:40 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I really hope it's Idi. The stink when they roll him into the room would be enough to make even the UN-weenies run out holding their noses.
As an aside, when I found out that turd had kicked the bucket - I raised a glass to his foul shade as he took the long walk down to Hell!
EoZ? I totally agree about the EU commissioners - wankers all of them.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
12/21/2004 4:28 Comments ||
Top||
#8
aaah the good old UN , 71 in favor, 54 against with 55 abstentions in the 191-member assembly.
hehe 55 abstentions ! classic . If u abstain against denouncing public executions, torture, arbitrary sentencing, flogging, stoning , systematic discrimination against women , and discrimination against minorities, including Christians, Jews, Sunnis and especially the Bahais, who are subject to arbitrary arrest and detention , then you aint worth shit yourselves .. scum ..can anybody find a list of how the votes were cast please ? I expect a few suprises in there really
Article #1 - All countries must act as impotently as possible
Article #2 - All brains and intelligence should be left outside the UN building
Article #2 - All members to the UN should be over paid , under worked , and ineffective as possible
Article #4 - Keep head firmly embeded in the sand whilst letting its members apply a serious amount of lube .
#10
Seventeen years of "resolutions" and nothing's been accomplished. Is that supposed to impress us, Mikey?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/21/2004 8:20 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Ah..mikey. So predictable. Look away, mikey, look away. It's so unpleasant to look directly at all those abused women and children...just shake those shiny UN keys and look away.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/21/2004 9:05 Comments ||
Top||
#13
The UNGA is only a talk shop. Its up to the UNSC to take action. But lets recall that its not standard practice for the UNSC to take action for domestic human rights abuses. As its not generally the practice of states to do to each other.
Are the majority of states in the world screwed up, that they wouldnt vote for this. Sure, so what else is new.
That Canada did get 71 votes for, and so many abstained, is a GOOD thing. Though I do hope they didnt have to expend a lot of "capital" to get the 71 votes.
Give credit where credit is do. The action, ultimately, will be by the people of Iran. Keeping attention focused on them is good.
#14
Mike-As noted yesterday and everyday-the problem hasn't been in supporting the ideals of the UN (although the fact that 61% of the body is not willing to vote for the most basic rights, as in the case above, SHOULD have us questioning some members' ideals), it's in the execution. Talk is cheap-do you do what you say.
#15
The 55 abstentions thing fry's my arse. To prove how ineffective, corrupt, foolish and utterly idiotic the UN really is. To think that Bushy has to go to these pinheads for their approval for military action against Iraq (to provide backbone to their own useless Mandates) when a majority of the members of this discussion group have the same rights issues as Iran. Why do we even put what the UN does in the paper. Oh ya it gives the liberal peace pots something to attack the US with. Puke, Puke, Gag. Hey Iran bite me hard you ragheaded wife beaters and by the way save some for the Saudi's.
#17
I'm sorry LH, I usually agree with you. But dude, 71 out of 191 is NOT a good thing. That means the MAJORITY of the UN is opposed to even making a meaningless gesture at rebuking Iran. Like you said the UNGA is only a talk shop, so 109 member states won't even talk mean to Iran about human rights violations! Sad. And this is the organization the Mikey champions. Speaks volumes of his character, or lack there of.
#19
Oh come *on* LH! - this is *not* a good thing, 71 nations voted for the motion (knowing *full* well they wouldn't be called upon to do anything), and 109 couldn't even be bothered to do that.
LH, you talk some fine stuff here, under sometimes extreme provocation, and I respect that and read your words with not a little consideration, but honestly, this time, there's nothing good about this denunciation.
It is no wonder that the reputation of the UN is so poor at the moment.
For myself, I think its served its time, which was really a pressure valve during the cold war. There is simply no need for it anymore.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
12/21/2004 19:53 Comments ||
Top||
US President George W. Bush yesterday cautioned Iran and Syria not to interfere in Iraq's internal politics, saying the US had a variety of ways to retaliate if the two countries failed to heed his warning. The message is the second within a week from the US president to Teheran and Damascus to refrain from "meddling" in Iraq. "When I said the other day that I expect these countries to honor the political process in Iraq without meddling, I meant it. And hopefully those governments heard what I said," Bush said at a news conference. "We have sent messages to the Syrians in the past and we will continue to do so. We have tools at our disposal — a variety of tools, ranging from diplomatic tools to economic pressure," he said.
Wonder if Doc Assad's lips can get any thinner?
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/21/2004 12:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
Too many warnings makes Bushie look weak. Okay, they have heard the warning and don't give a rip. Now what?
Posted by: Capt America ||
12/21/2004 13:24 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Steve, lips are sized to fit given his ass is on his shoulders.
Posted by: Capt America ||
12/21/2004 13:25 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The last sentence was changed at the last minute from what Bush wanted it to be, here's the original: "We have tools at our disposal - a variety of tools, ranging from diplomatical tools to economical pressure to big ass bombs to blow your ass up. Don't mess with Texas and don't mess with Iraq."
The central executive committee of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazlur Rehman (JUI-F) on Tuesday recommended that the supreme council of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) should start the next phase of its protest campaign against President General Pervez Musharraf with the cooperation of Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy (ARD). Maulana Fazlur Rehman, leader of the opposition, said that the CEC of the JUI-F had decided to recommend to the supreme council of the six religious parties' alliance to take the ARD into confidence before starting the second phase of a protest campaign against General Musharraf on the uniform issue. The supreme council is scheduled to meet on December 24.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/21/2004 9:08:51 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Could this be hazardous for Fazl's health? I'd think Perv's gotta establish himself here, or face a really shortened life span
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/21/2004 21:36 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I think this is mere infighting. Think of it as similar to the intricate steps of the Polonnaise, only with turbans and scimitars. It'll be interesting to see if Fazl stays bought. My guess is that he won't, but I think Perv can handle it...
Posted by: Fred ||
12/21/2004 22:21 Comments ||
Top||
From Jihad Watch, translation in comments:Tariq Ramadan is the world's most famous "moderate Muslim." He was slated to take a professorial job at the University of Notre Dame this year, until his visa was revoked by DHS. DHS hasn't explained why, and his case has become a cause celebre for the anti-anti-terror Left, but here is a French-language story (from the Swiss Le Temps, via proche-orient.info, with thanks to Phil), that gives a hint as to why Ramadan may have been kept out of the U.S.
According to the bill of indictment, Djamel Beghal, preacher accused of having prepared an operation commits suicide against the American embassy of Paris, prepared speeches of ***Tariq Ramadan***
« January 3rd of this year is going to open in Paris an action which will allow to understand the functioning of one of these " parallel societies».
On the dock: a computer scientist, a social helper, a coach driver, a cleaning woman, some unemployed persons... In all six persons, Arabs or Frenchmen converted to Islam, who would have prepared a murder attempt against American interests in Paris. The bill of indictment of 219 pages, that " The Time " obtained, researches their amazing centreboard.
In July, 2001, the authorities of Dubaï, in the Persian gulf, stop a certain Djamel Beghal. For some years, this travelling preacher put his nice paces in the service of a radical Islam which advocates violence against faithless and a comeback to the way of life of first Muslims. He began in 1994, in the contact of a brotherhood of Corbeil, the group " Dawaa et Tabligh ", considered as fundamentalist but apolitical.
In this epoch, according to the bill of indictment, « it notably made responsible for preparing speeches of Tariq Ramadan ». The intellectual genevois, who has never allowed to have met or to remember Djamel Beghal, did not answer messages left by " The Time " in its domicile.
The interviewers thinks that Djamel Beghal, Nizar Trabelsi and Kamel Daoudi accepted the direct boost of Ussama ben Laden to lead an operation commit suicide against the American embassy of Paris. But, according to declarations of their friends, their first target was to live in a society indeed Islamic ».
It seems that Tariq Ramadan has connectections to some very unsavory characters indeed.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/21/2004 2:42:18 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Former Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz was the sophisticated, intelligent face of a thuggish regime. He was known for his elegant English suits and a fondness for Cuban cigars. But photos, obtained exclusively by NBC News, for the first time show Aziz as he lives now, in custody. It's a strikingly different image — Aziz appears frail in orange prison garb and plastic handcuffs.
Looks good on him. if you ask me.
David Kay — a former U.S. adviser in Iraq — spent months questioning Aziz and others. He says Aziz quickly turned on Saddam and could testify at any trial. "He talks about direct orders to murder, to assassinate, to kill," says Kay. NBC News has learned U.N. investigators probing corruption in the U.N. oil for food program were scheduled to question Aziz last week. That session was delayed for security reasons.
Good idea, I'd do a backround check and full-cavity search before I let the U.N. anywhere near him.
The U.N. investigation — led by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker — is looking into Saddam's alleged diversion of oil money that was supposed to go for food to U.N. officials and politicians in key countries. U.S. officials say Aziz already has implicated the French and others, claiming payoffs were made with the understanding that recipients would support Iraq on key matters before the U.N. "He pointed to specific individuals in Russia and France, in the United States — that received favorable treatment," says David Kay.
He'd be the one to know all the secrets
Now, sources tell NBC News that Aziz has indicated he's finally ready to talk about alleged bribes to U.N. officials. U.N. investigators refuse to comment. Former Secretary of State James Baker says Aziz has an incentive to be helpful to the U.S. "He may very well be inclined to cooperate with us thinking that he could receive some sort of leniency or get a better deal," says Baker. Once Saddam's tireless defender, Aziz is now singing a very different tune, to please his new keeper.
Aziz got used to the finer things in life. Now he's staring at a noose and he doesn't like what he sees. If he spills his guts on everything and everyone, I'd have no problem letting him keep breathing.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/21/2004 2:20:14 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I hope he can make a difference. The gallows, as they say!
#2
What's the chance that there was some "pressure" on the part of Hussein? Aziz is supposedly a baptized Chaldean, so commonality of religion doesn't come into play here.
[Ansar al-Sunnah] first appeared with a claim that it staged dual suicide bombings at the offices of two Kurdish political parties that killed 109 people last Feb. 1. Some experts speculated the group was an offshoot of Ansar al-Islam, a militant group operating in Iraq's Kurdish north, and suggested the new name was designed to appeal to the country's Sunni Arabs. In a statement issued last month, Ansar al-Sunnah said it had begun working with two other terrorist groups, Al-Qaida in Iraq, led by Jordanian Musab al-Zarqawi, and the Islamic Army in Iraq.
Some actions claimed by Ansar al-Sunnah over last four months:
*Dec. 21: Claims to be behind rocket attack on U.S.-Iraqi base near Mosul that kills at least 20 and wounding more than five dozen.
*Dec. 5: Claims responsibility for machine gun attack in Tikrit that kills 17 Iraqi civilians employed by U.S. military.
*Dec. 1: Claims to have abducted and killed three Iraqis working for U.S. Marines.
*Nov. 25: Claims responsibility for rocket attack on Baghdad's Green Zone that kills four Nepalese security guards and 12 others.
*Nov. 20: Posts video on Internet showing fatal shooting of two hostages identified as members of Kurdish political group in Mosul.
*Nov. 4: Puts video on Internet showing beheading of man it says was Iraqi army major captured in Mosul.
*Oct. 28: Claims it killed 11 Iraqi soldiers taken hostage south of Baghdad.
*Oct. 18: Claims responsibility for killing of nine Iraqi policemen returning from training in Jordan.
*Aug. 31: Takes responsibility for killing of 12 kidnapped Nepalese construction workers, shown in video posted on Internet.
From the Dept. of Same Old Sh**, Different Day:
Sudan's government and Darfur rebels agreed to formally end faltering talks on Tuesday and the African Union urged both sides to stop fighting so peace efforts could resume in January, mediators and delegates said. "The talks will be formally closed today at 4 p.m., to resume sometime in January if the Sudan government complies with the AU chairman's request for them to stop the offensive and withdraw their troops to their former positions," said Tajeddin Bashir Niam of the rebel Justice and Equality Movement (JEM).
The break up of peace talks in the Nigerian capital came as British aid agency Save the Children announced it was pulling all 350 of its staff out of Darfur after the killing of four of its staff and renewed clashes in the western Sudanese region. Aid community sources in the region say rebels have been attacking aid and goods convoys along the Nyala to El-Fasher road, where two Save the Children workers were killed recently.
"How can we have a decent genocide if all you goody two-shoes keep giving the villagers food & medicine?"
Posted by: Capt America ||
12/21/2004 12:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Maybe Sudan's trying to make a case that they should be the first repeat host for the 2008 Genocides (http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4050).
#4
"The talks will be formally closed today at 4 p.m., to resume sometime in January if the Sudan government complies with the AU chairman's request for them to stop the offensive and withdraw their troops to their former positions," said Tajeddin Bashir Niam of the rebel Justice and Equality Movement (JEM).
Given the rate of death for Darfurian refugees this year, and using December 21 as the start date and anywhere between Jan 1 and Jan 31 as the end date, that adds an additional 2129-8129 dead people successfully genocided under the nose of the UN.
Do nothings at the UN: "Genocide on target; stay on course".
#5
It's the EUs fault! Europe has failed! The eternal shame of it all. OK so I am being a SNARK. It's but it's true. This genocide is the fault of Saudan and the EU.
The German government is funding and helping to produce daily radio programmes for the upcoming Iraqi elections, the German Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday in a statement.
Color me pleased. Thanks, Germany!
A team of 25 young Iraqi reporters has been trained to produce election stories under a programme by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, which has close links to German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's Social Democratic Party (SPD). The reporters, based across Iraq, produce radio news casts that are sent via internet to Berlin where they are put together into 30 minute radio packages by a German-Iraqi team and then sent back to Iraq via satellite, said the statement. These news packages have been broadcast since Monday by Radio Dijila, the Voice of Kurdistan and Kerbala FM. Germany has provided EUR 150,000 for the radio programming which will run five days a week in the run-up to Iraq's planned elections on 30 January. Berlin is sending aid to Iraq and played a leading role in winning a deal last month to forgive 80 percent of Iraq's USD 39 billion of foreign debt owed to the Paris club of creditor nations. Germany is also training Iraqi police and military officers under a programme being run in the United Arab Emirates.
Posted by: Seafarious ||
12/21/2004 10:20:23 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Just goes to show that there's a whole lot more going on than what is making it in the MSM. Thnx TGA. Some of the most obnoxious states may in fact be doing a lot behind the scenes, but cannot admit it for domestic reasons.
Posted by: N Guard ||
12/21/2004 11:17 Comments ||
Top||
James Nixon's fashion statement did not go unnoticed on Sept. 1 as he stood at his locker at Sheridan Middle School in Perry County.
The front of the seventh-grader's black T-shirt proclaimed in white block letters: "INTOLERANT: Jesus said . . . I am the way, the truth and the life. John 14:6."
The back of the T-shirt read: "Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!"
Spotted by a guidance counselor after third period, the 12-year-old was sent to the vice principal's office, where he was asked to remove the garment or turn it inside-out, James' family says in a lawsuit filed Dec. 3.
School officials that day told the boy that the wording was offensive and disruptive. After he politely refused to remove the shirt, according to the lawsuit, his parents were told to take him home and James was threatened with suspension if he returned to school wearing it.
The lawsuit accuses the Northern Local School District of violating the boy's rights of free speech and free exercise of religionâŠ
The school district's code of student conduct forbids clothing "that disrupts the educational process," including dress with "suggestive, obscene or offensive gang-related words and/or pictures..."
Executive directors of groups representing Muslims, abortion-rights supporters and gays questioned Nixon's choice of attire.
Jad Humeidan, executive director of the Ohio office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, saw dozens of people wearing the same shirt declaring "Islam is a lie" when Operation Rescue/Operation Save America rallied in Columbus in July, principally to protest abortion.
"To me, the shirt is very offensive. We have to be careful about hate speech and making sure the civil rights of other students are not violated by persons bringing hateful material into schools," he said
Posted by: tipper ||
12/21/2004 9:16:54 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
what a little brat - and his parents seem so proud. Apple doesn't fall far from the tree, as they say. One more reason to demand school uniforms at public schools.
#2
2b: Why do you call him a brat? Seems to me that he has as much right to express his opinion as the gays, Muslims and (aborted) babies. And it says he was polite when he refused to take it off. To quote the article:
The school districtâs code of student conduct forbids clothing "that disrupts the educational process," including dress with "suggestive, obscene or offensive gang-related words and/or pictures..."
None of the language on his shirt was "suggestive (assumed sexually), obscene (assumed cursing) or offensive gang-related words or pictures," unless you consider Christianity "gang-related".
Posted by: BA ||
12/21/2004 10:04 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Yes, he is no less of a brat than others, trying to be offensive, but that makes him no less of a brat.
Expressing one's free speech to offend is a right, but doesn't mean that one isn't acting like a jerk in the process.
He can wear it after school....like all of the other brats should.
#4
You failed to answer how any of the language on his shirt violated the school's policy. Personally, and I'm a Christian, I wouldn't have worn it, but the fact remains that this is no less offensive than (to some) wearing certain rap artists shirts, etc. That's the problem with many school district's "zero tolerance" policies...one size DOES NOT fit all, and instead of taking on the one or two students causing problems, they punish the whole bunch. Forcing them to all wear uniforms may be one of a variety of solutions, but I lean toward the "individualistic/libertarian" stripe of letting people wear what they want within reason. The gov't shouldn't be in the business of mandating UNIFORM (meaning applies to everyone) codes, which belittles our individuality. Of course, when parents fail to do their job, what course do you have left but to make policies like we see now. But making everyone wear the same thing b/c 1 or 2 kids caused problems is a communist/socialist answer to me.
Posted by: BA ||
12/21/2004 10:21 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I'd be really unhappy if I was a parent and someone in my kid's school wore a shirt like that.
#6
You failed to answer how any of the language on his shirt violated the school's policy
I never said it did. I just said he was a brat, which clearly he is. I support school uniforms, you support something else. Do we really have a difference of opinion here?
#7
We have to be careful about hate speech and making sure the civil rights of other students are not violated by persons bringing hateful material into schools," he said
Does "hateful material" include the Koran?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/21/2004 10:42 Comments ||
Top||
#8
You failed to answer how any of the language on his shirt violated the school's policy I never said it did. I just said he was a brat, which clearly he is. I support school uniforms, you support something else. Do we really have a difference of opinion here?
OK, true, you never stated that it violated the school's policy. But, then, if it did not violate that policy, are you OK with them threatening suspension? I'm with RC on this one...does "hateful material" include the Koran? Like yesterday's article on the 2 preachers in court in Australia under their "hate crimes" laws, they were not even allowed to quote (directly) the verses in the Koran which allowed (basically) women as property. They were only allowed to quote the citation (Surah? and verse), not what the verse said. That was basically all they had posted on their website, which led to the "hate crimes" charges, and, yet, they couldn't even quote (again, verbatim) the Koran to defend themselves (because the Muslims were "offended")! This event, in a US school, is just a precursor (think: slippery slope) of what Australia's now facing, and Political Correctness can lead to the death of our nation. When we fail to properly call out who our enemies are, we're in trouble! We have a difference of opinion on the uniforms issue, we agree on the violation of the school's policy, so my question to you now is...is it OK to suspend a student if he/she did NOT violate the letter of the school's policy, only that he/she ACTED like a brat? If you say that's o.k., then we have a BIG difference of opinion.
Posted by: BA ||
12/21/2004 11:21 Comments ||
Top||
#9
This kind of BS disappears if you have vouchers.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/21/2004 11:27 Comments ||
Top||
#10
wow, BA..take a pill. No need to go into orbit over what we all agree was an intentionally offensive T shirt.
I agree with Mrs. D. If you have school vouchers, then parents can choose what level of BS they want their kids to put up with.
#11
"Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!"
The amusing thing is that if the T-shirt had been saying "Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder, and eating shrimps is an abomination unto the Lord", it would be no less accurate biblically-speaking but the T-shirt would have then been a sarcastic attack on religious conservatives instead.
#17
2b: I don't think I need to take a pill. Maybe it was INTENTIONALLY offensive, but that's what the PCers want...for all of us to think there's a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to NOT be offended. Again, I myself (or my child) wouldn't wear it, and the kid was probably looking for trouble, BUT we don't KNOW his intentions, and THAT is the problem with "hate crimes" laws and/or one size fits all "zero tolerance" policies...they try to get in the head and punish WHY something happened, not just the fact that it did happen.
Posted by: BA ||
12/21/2004 12:03 Comments ||
Top||
#18
I believe that Islam is a lie and that I have the right to say it when and where I choose to within the bounds of legal local policy.
To me, the issue is whether or not the shirt violates the school policy and "disrupts the educational process". If another student complained, fine. But as I read it, the shirt was "Spotted by a guidance counselor after third period". No disruption, other than by the guidance counselor to the education of the wearer.
If "offensive" is indeed the unofficial school policy, I wonder if the school has a gay students group, which James Nixon would find to be offensive. If so, they need to close it down
Posted by: Tom ||
12/21/2004 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Tom sums it up. If you are to have these "policies", they need to be enforced across the board...not selectively. I, for one, wish schools would go back to teaching the "Three R's" (and I'm fairly young) and not get into the realm of social issues (with the exception of things that keep other students from learning). Since when should a school have any "clubs" (gay, religious or otherwise)? My neighbor (who is from Mexico) explained it this way..."I've never seen a country where a minority can RULE like in the U.S." If we're a democracy (which I'd argue, we're not, but a Constitutional Republic), then "majority rules," no? Then how can 1 student (or for that matter, one teacher) be "offended" and cause everyone to be punished?
Posted by: BA ||
12/21/2004 12:14 Comments ||
Top||
#21
I'm sorry about the pill reference, but this just doesn't excite me. This is really a tempest in a teapot, if you ask me. But if you want to turn this into an example to ponder the limits of free speech, I won't interfere.
I think it highlights another more problematic issue, that children and their parents think they can "sue" anytime a teacher tries to enforce even the smallest measure of decorum or discipline. The community/country enables the brats and their brat-enabling parents, because we are all so hung up on promoting our own poltical agendas.
I guess we can use this to make the case for free speech, but what will we use to make the case for allowing the public schools to enforce mild discipline of intentionally offensive or bad behavior?
#22
#21. Agree, oh boy, do I agree. Several issues lhere: first, where do people get the idea that it's OK to be a "brat" in school? If you follow that line, then it's OK to be an open gang member, sell drugs, etc on school grounds. The bottom line isn't just the schools, it's the fact that discipline in this country is a lost practice. Uniforms in school are communistic? Please. Tell that to the nuns. It's a manifectation of discipline, nothing more. We can sue over everything? Another prime example of our narcassitic (sp?) selves. No one should tell us what to do. "No boundries" as they say in the Outback ads. Bring on the guy with the baseball bat, and maybe we could get rid of some of the metal detectors.
Posted by: Weird Al ||
12/21/2004 12:50 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Another random thought: the right to be offensive should be considered pretty much as an absolute right of free speech, as long as the people around you have an equal right to ignore you &/or walk away, neither of which is true in a school setting.
Posted by: Weird Al ||
12/21/2004 12:55 Comments ||
Top||
#24
I see absolutely nothing wrong with using the courts to protect free speech, and I don't think the use of baseball bats to attain discipline would be an improvement.
Posted by: Tom ||
12/21/2004 13:00 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Bring on the guy with the baseball bat, and maybe we could get rid of some of the metal detectors.
What a great movie! And the sequal wasn't bad either!
#26
soo, when your daughter goes to school, and the boys start calling her a &^^%, and a ^%$# ...and everytime she walks by they say, "I want to *(*&(*&(*&(&(!!!, and she comes home crying every night because they are mean to her - you don't have a problem with that? What if they scream in her face, is that ok? Still free speech?
#27
Another random thought: the right to be offensive should be considered pretty much as an absolute right of free speech, as long as the people around you have an equal right to ignore you &/or walk away, neither of which is true in a school setting.
Who says you can't ignore &/or walk away from you in a school? That's the student's choice to either confront or walk away. My point on the uniforms and communism is, again, it's a one size fits all approach (and, in the school's case, probably wouldn't be a bad thing), when our system of gov't is based on individuals, not the "collective whole." I think we'd ALL agree that the parents failed in this situation, which is where the fault (along with the kid) lies, but my argument is, gov't shouldn't be in the businees of enforcing the "right" to not be "offended" if it DOESN'T affect the learning environment, which, as Tom noted, was not the case (no students complained that I could tell according to the story). So, to sum up, one size fits all "punishments" are not the answer (we are individuals) and the fact remains that he DID NOT violate the letter of the school's policy, so why should he be punished? THAT gets into the "rule of law" vs. "the rule of man" (or school personnel in this case). I'm NOT arguing that anyone have the "right" to act like an idiot in school, just that if you can stop someone from wearing something "offensive" it's subjective as to what "offensive" is. I guess we are where we are now, though, when parents DON'T do their jobs, then you have to "enforce" manners somehow. I just long for a day that people act civilized and we DON'T have to have laws for everything (which results in excessive lawsuits).
Posted by: BA ||
12/21/2004 13:13 Comments ||
Top||
#28
#26, 2b: Is that a question to me or to Weird Al's post in #23?
Posted by: BA ||
12/21/2004 13:19 Comments ||
Top||
#29
I'm gonna drop out of this discussion, BA. You make some very valid points, and there are no easy answers to the problems here. But it seems to me that you are working waaay to hard to turn minor give and take events from everyday life in a headline for a Sean Hannity show.
#30
soo, when your daughter goes to school, and the boys start calling her a &^^%, and a ^%$# ...and everytime she walks by they say, "I want to *(*&(*&(*&(&(!!!, and she comes home crying every night because they are mean to her - you don't have a problem with that?
Hopefully a talk with the boys' parents will convince them they need to teach their kids some manners. If not, well, everyone has to learn that people suck and you have to deal with it.
What if they scream in her face, is that ok? Still free speech?
I wouldn't be surprised if screaming in someone's face doesn't qualify as assault. And, no, it doesn't matter what's being said, it's the ACT -- and the implied threat of "screaming in the face" -- that makes it so.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/21/2004 13:28 Comments ||
Top||
#31
I'm gonna drop out of this discussion, BA. You make some very valid points, and there are no easy answers to the problems here. But it seems to me that you are working waaay to hard to turn minor give and take events from everyday life in a headline for a Sean Hannity show.
2b: We agree to bury the hatchet! I guess it personally gets me riled (mostly) b/c the Muslims are "offended" (although, again, the article doesn't say any students complained) and the school kow-tows to them (I assume they're "offended" b/c the article is LINKED at CAIR's website). I'm NOT saying all Muslims are our enemies, but almost all our enemies are Muslim, eh? See my response in the "do away with all property taxes" article. Maybe, just maybe, vouchers and uniforms are the answer! And, I'm also riled up about this, because the policy's being enforced against the very beliefs this country was founded upon! I WHOLLY believe in the "slippery slope" theory...if we let this go, what's next? We can't QUOTE the Koran in response to Muslim's covering up of what their religion "o.k.'s" in light of the infidels? This just makes us appear weak (and, again, this was linked at CAIRs website, so the Muslims know about it, even though the public at large may not).
Posted by: BA ||
12/21/2004 13:37 Comments ||
Top||
#32
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
THe kid was within rights.
1) Everything on that TShirt was true to a Christian.
2) It was a free exercise (however inapporpriate) of practice of his religion to state those things.
3) The school was singling out this incident and making a prohibition.
So its wrong.
The only mitigating factor is that this is a child, not an adult and therby does not have the full use of his rights in a public school.
And Aris is correct when he points out that if somone wanted to make fun of the Jewish (old testament) religion, they could wear a tshirt with a line about not eating crustaceans or pigs (plenty of oddities to choose from in the pentateuch).
Bottom line, unless they ban ALL shirts with slogans (as my son's school does), regardless of the content of the slogan, as part of the "School Dress Code", then this kid is within their rights. WHen they get into hairsplitting and making the school the arbiter of which words willb e allowed on Tshirts, then you get "arbitrary" prohibiitions liek this and get the usual anti-authoritarian reactiosn as well as the knee-jerk accusations of "discrimination".
In the case of a school, better to ban them all then do it subjectively. During school, no child has a need for political or religious expression of that sort in school, especially at that age.
As far as the Muslims being offended? TOugh. Welcome to America. If you dont like what we say about your religion, the either deal with it or change your religion: the Koran is farily barbaric in its literal descritptions of how to handle women and unbelievers as sub-humans and unworthy of respect. Catholic immigrants have been dealing with it for over a hundred years, from the KKK in the south to Catholic bashing that goes on in the "Blue State" areas of the country.
#34
I agree, OS. Either transform your religion, or deal with it. I'm so sick of everyone being "offended" that they get their way. And now, courtesy of CAIR, they know to claim they're offended to silence the opposition. OS summed it up better than I could...he was within his rights, did not violate the letter of the school's policy, and when it gets down to it...this became a "rule of man" (or school official) vs. the "rule of law" (the policy). Our country was founded on the rule of law, and I don't see how one person's opinion (as the kid was a Christian) keeps a Muslim, abortionist or homosexual from practicing what they believe in.
Posted by: BA ||
12/21/2004 14:21 Comments ||
Top||
#35
I'm with 2b on this one. Different standard for 12 year-olds in a school setting than for adults. School's nasty enough; there's no reason to burden the normal, dreary round of bullying and spitballs with political and religious wars.
#36
Sorry, BA and OS, but having endured scatalogical, asinine attacks on my own religion (shit-smeared "madonna" paintings, the "piss Christ" etc) I can sympathize with CAIR and the muslim parents on this one.
Arguments about religion's validity? Fine, bring 'em on. Name-calling and insults in the form of T-shirt slogans? That's not the way we want our children to form and express arguments.
#37
The kid sounds like a punk; but he has a right to be punk if he wishes so long as he is not physically harming others. I don't care if somebody got offended. Too bad.
#38
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
THe kid was within rights.
1) Everything on that TShirt was true to a Christian.
2) It was a free exercise (however inapporpriate) of practice of his religion to state those things.
3) The school was singling out this incident and making a prohibition.
So its wrong.
The only mitigating factor is that this is a child, not an adult and therby does not have the full use of his rights in a public school.
And Aris is correct when he points out that if somone wanted to make fun of the Jewish (old testament) religion, they could wear a tshirt with a line about not eating crustaceans or pigs (plenty of oddities to choose from in the pentateuch).
Bottom line, unless they ban ALL shirts with slogans (as my son's school does), regardless of the content of the slogan, as part of the "School Dress Code", then this kid is within their rights. WHen they get into hairsplitting and making the school the arbiter of which words willb e allowed on Tshirts, then you get "arbitrary" prohibiitions liek this and get the usual anti-authoritarian reactiosn as well as the knee-jerk accusations of "discrimination".
In the case of a school, better to ban them all then do it subjectively. During school, no child has a need for political or religious expression of that sort in school, especially at that age.
As far as the Muslims being offended? TOugh. Welcome to America. If you dont like what we say about your religion, the either deal with it or change your religion: the Koran is farily barbaric in its literal descritptions of how to handle women and unbelievers as sub-humans and unworthy of respect. Catholic immigrants have been dealing with it for over a hundred years, from the KKK in the south to Catholic bashing that goes on in the "Blue State" areas of the country.
#39
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
THe kid was within rights.
1) Everything on that TShirt was true to a Christian.
2) It was a free exercise (however inapporpriate) of practice of his religion to state those things.
3) The school was singling out this incident and making a prohibition.
So its wrong.
The only mitigating factor is that this is a child, not an adult and therby does not have the full use of his rights in a public school.
And Aris is correct when he points out that if somone wanted to make fun of the Jewish (old testament) religion, they could wear a tshirt with a line about not eating crustaceans or pigs (plenty of oddities to choose from in the pentateuch).
Bottom line, unless they ban ALL shirts with slogans (as my son's school does), regardless of the content of the slogan, as part of the "School Dress Code", then this kid is within their rights. WHen they get into hairsplitting and making the school the arbiter of which words willb e allowed on Tshirts, then you get "arbitrary" prohibiitions liek this and get the usual anti-authoritarian reactiosn as well as the knee-jerk accusations of "discrimination".
In the case of a school, better to ban them all then do it subjectively. During school, no child has a need for political or religious expression of that sort in school, especially at that age.
As far as the Muslims being offended? TOugh. Welcome to America. If you dont like what we say about your religion, the either deal with it or change your religion: the Koran is farily barbaric in its literal descritptions of how to handle women and unbelievers as sub-humans and unworthy of respect. Catholic immigrants have been dealing with it for over a hundred years, from the KKK in the south to Catholic bashing that goes on in the "Blue State" areas of the country.
That question has confounded the U.S. military for more than a year. U.S. and Iraqi officials insisted for months that the most wanted man in Iraq was hiding in the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah. But after recapturing the city last month, U.S. forces did not find al-Zarqawi there.
Since they didn't find him, does that mean he was never there? Or that he left before they got there? What do you think, Occam?
The Jordanian-born militant has achieved mythic status as a master of disguise and escape. Although al-Zarqawi has claimed responsibility for scores of kidnappings, suicide bombings and beheadings of foreigners, many Iraqis believe that al-Zarqawi does not even exist. They say he was invented by the United States to justify its raids and bombing campaigns.
That's why we and the Zionists are cutting people's heads off, y'know...
Al-Zarqawi's influence on the Iraqi insurgency is more complicated than both the U.S. military and al-Zarqawi make it out to be, according to Kurdish security officials. They say al-Zarqawi is likely moving around central and northern Iraq alone, finding shelter in Sunni Muslim areas dominated by former members of Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime. "He can move around any number of Iraqi areas. He can change his appearance, he can change his papers," said Dana Ahmad Majid, head of security for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, one of two parties that control the autonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq. "He could be moving around alone without any problem. Al-Zarqawi is a single man, and it's always extremely difficult to capture a single person."
On the other hand, you only have to capture him once, unless he's captured in Europe or Pakistan...
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/21/2004 12:40:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In one day, Nov. 9, they gave them control of two-thirds of the police stations in the city.
gosh..the little band of thugs scored a victory! Author didn't say, but how many of those stations do they still control?
which once had about 700 members Wow! Now that's an army to be feared! And, author didn't say, how many members are there now? And just look how strong this little band of mafia thugs are, their leader is able to sneak about, in disguise, unaware of what his little band of less than 700 is up to now.
#2
that is, if they actually have a leader. They aren't really sure. But, it's a sign of the insurgency's strength that no one knows for sure if they really have a leader or not.
#4
I don't know how this little slime ball can evade Iraqi National and Coaltion troops for so long.
Someone somewhere has seen this little turd.
Posted by: Capt America ||
12/21/2004 13:10 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I don't know how this little slime ball can evade Iraqi National and Coaltion troops for so long. Someone somewhere has seen this little turd
There are 138,000 US troops (only the brits among the other coalition troops venture into the Sunni Triangle). I dont recall the latest figure of ING, but its less than 90,000 effective troops, Im quite sure (in fact i doubt theres more than 25000 really reliable top line troops among them)
Mullah Omar, the elusive one-eyed head of Taliban, is not only alive but fully in-charge of his hard-pressed guerilla movement, a media report said on Monday. However, despite his efforts, the Taliban's three-year-old guerrilla campaign against some 18,000 American troops and Kabul's ragtag military may be in danger of collapsing, the 'Newsweek' magazine said. According to the magazine, interviews with Taliban fighters, commanders and officials show that the mysterious Emir is alive and touring the countryside on a motorcycle in a bid to resuscitate his ebbing movement. "Mullah Omar has never been more active," Taliban spokesman Mufti Lutfullah Hakimi told 'Newsweek' in a secret meeting along the Pakistani-Afghan border. "Anyone who thinks he's isolated, hiding in a cave and fearing for his life couldn't be more wrong."
One of the problems for him is that the Taliban seems to be getting less funding from Al Qaeda, largely because bin Laden is believed to feel that Mullah Omar's guerrillas are not putting up an aggressive and effective fight, the magazine said. "We are not getting as much money as we used to from Al Qaeda," Mullah Hai, a former close aide to Mullah Omar who lives near Quetta, was quoted as saying. "The Arabs complain that we lack organisation and solid battlefield results," he said.
Yeah, there's that. Plus, the primary battlezone has moved to Iraq, that's where the money and manpower are going.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/21/2004 12:28:24 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
ah, Newsweak, gotta love em. Why don't they just say what they really mean? "Mullah's alive, boys. He's been riding around with Hek on his Hog. Oh, sure, things look bad, but if you just fight harder then more money will come our way.
#2
I can see it now. Mullah Omar gets a brain fart for making money by producing a TV show on the Discovery Channel called, Jihad Choppers. Only trouble is, the market is saturated.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
12/21/2004 10:54 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Why don't they trace his address through the Afghan motorcycle registration database? Seems obvious to me.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
12/21/2004 11:18 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Keep the motor running
Head out on the highway
Lookin' for adventure
And whatever A-10's come my way...
Posted by: Matt ||
12/21/2004 11:42 Comments ||
Top||
#5
They'll fire all guns at once
And I'll explode into space...
Posted by: Matt ||
12/21/2004 11:52 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Mullah Omar, the elusive one-eyed head of Taliban
That's a clever way for a journalist to call him a dick and get away with it.
Featured Quote: "Here in Basra they are clearly blaming Sunni Iraqis, not foreign fighters, for the attacks... If that is the case, people say, there will be some kind of Shia reaction, and the calls for calm and no revenge attacks from Shia leaders will not hold."
- Shehab Ahmad, Journalist in Basra
Fears of civil war in ethnically divided Iraq have again been voiced after the twin attacks on Shia cities Karbala and Najaf on Sunday. Tension is building in the run-up to the election at the end of January, because the vote is expected to be dominated by Shia leaders. The tactical thinking behind attacks on Shia Muslims by suspected Sunni militants is clear. The aim is to stir up and strengthen sectarian divisions, by provoking violent Shia reaction to attacks. The attackers hope to make Iraq ungovernable through a civil war along religious lines.
Engrained in the Wahhabi Sunni militancy that has emerged in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein, of which Jordanian Abu Musad al-Zarqawi is believed to be the leader, is a deep hatred of Shia Muslims. Less driven by religious hatred are the insurgents believed to be linked to the regime of Saddam Hussein. They have seen their traditional dominance of Iraqi politics evaporate, and the election can only set this in stone. They therefore see the undermining of the electoral process as in their interest. Violence and the lack of government control some in mainly Sunni areas, and the threat of attacks on polling stations, have raised fears of serious Sunni disenfranchisement in the 30 January election. ...
Posted by: .com ||
12/21/2004 1:41:27 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Wahhabi Sunni militancy that has emerged in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein, of which Jordanian Abu Musad al-Zarqawi is believed to be the leader, is a deep hatred of Shia Muslims
Tic-toc, tic-toc... as the Shia wait for the elections to be done with so they can finally gain the electoral power they have been patiently waiting for all these months to finally give the Sunni a taste of what it means in democracy by the saying, majority rules. Tic-toc. Sistani is probably keeping the official tally sheet of how many of his folks have been blown up by the Sunnis - added to the running total of the hundreds of thousands that Saddam, mr big sunni, muredered, of course. Now the only tiny thing to get rid of are those know it all Geneva Convention guys of the us uk military. Sistani is thinking...
On the face of it, a little-noticed report in a London-based Arabic-language newspaper last week seemed to signal a major victory in the Bush administration's international campaign to crack down on alleged financiers of Islamic terrorism. According to the Nov. 11 edition of Al-Sharq-al-Awsat, the Muslim Brotherhood Organization, an international fundamentalist movement that spawned many of the world's key Islamic extremist and terrorist groups—including Al Qaeda—recently held a secret conference at which its leaders discussed whether to dissolve their organization in the wake of Washington's moves to crack down on some of its leading members and corporate organizations.
But like other developments in what the administration calls the global war on terror, the alleged move by the Brotherhood to abolish itself may have less substance than meets the eye. Indeed, it may even mean that efforts by the U.S. and its allies to move against financiers of Islamic terror groups will become more difficult. U.S. intelligence and diplomatic sources point out that some Arab nations banned the Brotherhood years ago. Notable among those countries is Syria, where former president Hafez Assad's brutal crackdown against the Brotherhood in the early 1980s left thousands of militants dead. Instead of driving the brotherhood out of business in Syria, however, the crackdown there forced some of its leading members into exile in countries like Germany, where Syrian Brotherhood expatriates ultimately helped to recruit to the cause of Islamic jihad a group of Hamburg polytechnic students who later became 9/11 hijackers. Other Brotherhood activists in Syria simply went underground for years, only to resurface later inside Syria with new organizational names, under which the current Syrian government of the current Syrian president, Bashar Assad, son of Hafez, allows them to operate under the watchful eye of security agencies.
U.S. government experts acknowledge that if the Brotherhood does dissolve itself, its local branches will probably just lie low for a while and then resurface under new names. The Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928 as a religious and quasi-political counterweight to the corrupt and increasingly decadent royalist and colonial governments dominating the Islamic world, always has had two faces: one a peaceful public, proselytizing and social-welfare oriented wing; the other a clandestine, paramilitary wing. The militant arm has engaged sporadically in violent campaigns to resist or overthrow what the Brotherhood regarded as corrupt local tyrannies, like the Egyptian monarchy.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/21/2004 12:19:06 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What's in a name? Would shit not smell as rank...
#2
As an Elder of Zion I must confess I am amazed by the exploits of the Muslim Brotherhood...
On a second thought and as a subtle counterstrike, I hereby declare the official disbanding of the venerable "Elders of Zion" institution and the beginning of a new organization: the "Dhimmi Brotherhood".
Membership candidate forms for the new organization may be obtained in every Masonic temple in your neighbourhood.
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
12/21/2004 4:16 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Shipman
As we (the Joooooos) have been dispersed once
to our detriment (See: Diaspora) I intentionally chose the word disband at the risk of commiting
a mistake.
I now stand corrected as well as dispersed, methinks :)
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
12/21/2004 5:19 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I love this! It has all the elements of a typical NPR or BBC piece (except sound effects) and is a classic 20th Century propaganda, - fit for the museum. I'd fisk the whole thing, but I don't have time - but here are some main elements.
1. Underneath the happy surface lurks a dark and sinister plot. Although it would appear to be good thing that the Muslim Brotherhood is disbanding, if you look closely, it is actually a bad, bad, very bad thing, very dark, very sinister...ooooh
2. Doom awaits if anything is done to solve the problem. It would be better to do nothing, because if you do anything, it will just make it worse and you will be really, really, sorry.
3. Lame example using one freak incident to prove the norm, like: "capitalism is evil, because one time, a lady didn't have any food, and she starved to death". Or in this case, the last time they tried to break up the Muslim Brotherhood, it resulted in 911.
4. No matter what's going on, it's the fault of an evil government and thus 3 steps to being the US govn'ts fault. If you are smart and you look closely, you'll see the bad guys are really not to blame.
5. Acknowledges that the accused may be guilty, but, if you are smart and look closely enough, they really aren't so bad, and perhaps they are just being persecuted by the governmentâ¦oooooh
6. Authors have seen/obtained "secret" documents that show the government is working behind the scenes and should be presumed to be up to no good!
7. Contains good information, if you know how to read it.
KOLKATA — A sudden announcement by the banned United Liberation Front of Assam (Ulfa) that its commander-in-chief, Paresh Barua, is severely ill has taken the Assam and federal governments by surprise. Ulfa chairman Arabinda Rajkhowa's faxed statement claimed yesterday that Barua, the outfit's supreme military commander, will undergo surgery for a serious ailment at an undisclosed location.
Lead poisoning? Dioxin?
The statement said that Barua is totally incommunicado at present because of his health condition. "He is not in touch with anyone outside the organisation, including mediator Mamoni Raison Goswami", the statement added.
Similar to the way Arafat was out of touch at the end.
Earlier this month, Ulfa rejected Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh's offer to hold peace talks on the grounds that the PM was unwilling to discuss its key demand of independence. Goswami — a well-known Assamese writer who teaches in New Delhi — is the intermediary between Ulfa and Dr Singh. After Ulfa's refusal to hold talks, Goswami said she would urge the PM to invite Ulfa for unconditional talks as demanded by the outfit.
"Gee, PM, I guess we should just appease them!"
Senior government officials in Guwahati and New Delhi say they are trying to verify reports of Baruah's illness as he is a key player in the ongoing negotiations between Ulfa and the federal government. An analyst said that Barua's reported illness might be an excuse for delaying the long-awaited talks with New Delhi until the federal government gives in to Ulfa's demand to discuss the highly-sensitive issue of sovereignity. Assam Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi reacted to Rajkhowa's statement calling it "nothing but a ploy to divert the government's attention from the unending violence unleashed by Ulfa".
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/21/2004 12:09:58 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
AC - Are you putting your ideas to work already? Lol!
Iyad Allawi yesterday said he had held meetings with supporters of Saddam Hussein's former regime now backing a violent insurgency against his interim government.
Iraq's prime minister also said that coalition forces' successful assault on the rebel stronghold of Falluja had separated Sunni former supporters of Mr Hussein's regime from "terrorists" such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda operative, who had formerly acted together to attack his government and the coalition.
"We are seeing a line of division between insurgents and terrorists," Mr Allawi said yesterday. "This is the distinction we have to make," he added, noting that his government was trying to "weaken" links between the two groups.
While declining to say how many meetings he had held, Mr Allawi said he had held "a lot of them", including with groups that had now dropped their claims against the new government.
In Jordan last month, Iraq's leader met Sunni tribal figures and other Iraqis to encourage members of the minority, which dominated Iraq's former regime, to participate in January 30's elections. At the time, he ruled out contacts with insurgent leaders or former members of Mr Hussein's regime.
But Mr Allawi yesterday sounded a conciliatory note on the Ba'athists, whose exclusion from key military and other positions in the new Iraq have been identified as a leading source of the insurgency. He distinguished between former Ba'athists who had committed crimes and those who "had to" join the party.
"What we have to do is bring those who committed these crimes to justice," he said. "The rest should be here in society serving as productive citizens."
A special tribunal set up to prosecute alleged crimes against humanity under Mr Hussein took testimony last weekend from two top Ba'athist officials, including Ali Hassan al-Majid, a cousin of the former dictator nicknamed "Chemical Ali". The two are the first of 12 "high- value detainees" from the former regime known to have been questioned in preparation for a future war-crimes trial.
Mr Allawi, who last week announced his candidacy for the election, is seeking to project the image of a tough leader to win votes from Iraqis fearful of sectarian tensions and insurgent violence. But he also wants to win votes from Sunnis, and has named tribal and others from the group on his ticket.
Mr Allawi yesterday repeated criticisms of the former US-led provisional authority's decision to take a hard line on low-ranking former Ba'athists. At the same time, he warned of his resolve to fight "terrorists". "Anybody who is willing to respect the rule of law, we respect them," he said. "Anyone who does not respect the rule of law, we will fight them, and we will break their backs."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/21/2004 12:09:13 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
But Mr Allawi yesterday sounded a conciliatory note on the Baâathists, whose exclusion from key military and other positions in the new Iraq have been identified as a leading source of the insurgency. He distinguished between former Baâathists who had committed crimes and those who "had to" join the party.
It's sad, but it seems to me that they need to imprison or execute those who committed crimes or cannot participate in the new govnt. It should be fairly clear by now, who is who in terms of those willing to participate and those who should be condemned.
#2
It should be fairly clear by now, who is who in terms of those willing to participate and those who should be condemned.
Seems to me that any offer to negotiate should only be made once. Those that try to hedge their bets by holding out to see how things turn out and wait for a second or third offer of "amnesty" aren't likely to be people that can be trusted.
#3
Big mistake and the Achilles Heel to success in the Iraq and the ME in general. So, Allawi is sending the message across the globe that violent resistance is a legitimate form of political engagement and that people who carry it out are worthy of meeting with the prime minister several months after they've sawed off contractors' heads and executed Iraqi enlistees. Israel and the US have been working so hard to communicate that terrorism is not legitimate political engagement. This will come back and haunt Iraq. Let's say Allawi works it out with them, lets them in, encourages their participation, and all stays calm for a while. Iraq has their elections, we reduce our forces, the rest of the coalition dissolves away, millions and millions of rebuilding and investment take place--and the insurgents are sitting in the perfect position to sabotage it all-they still have their connections and could bomb all that progress and trust to smithereens in a few seconds flat. Minister Allawi-you've been listening a little too closely to your Euro Paleo advocates. It's a mistake-don't do this.
#5
..between former Baâathists who had committed crimes and those who "had to" join the party.
Those that "had to" should be among the first to be receptive to the first chance at joining a peaceful political process then, since the implication is that they joined out of necessity, and not because Baathism appealed to them. Waiting for additional offers of amnesty tells me that these types are only opportunists, and aren't people worthy of investing any substantial amount of trust in.
#6
Iyad Allawi yesterday said he had held meetings with supporters of Saddam Husseinâs former regime now backing a violent insurgency against his interim government.
LONDON - Prime Minister Tony Blair's plan for a Middle East conference was rejected by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, reversing last week's positive statements from his government about attending. In a meeting with Czech Foreign Minister Cyril Svoboda on Monday, Sharon said: "We will not participate, but we understand the importance (of the conference).
"Nope, nope, ain't gonna happen, nope."
"We do not consider this event to be a political conference, and that is what we were told. There is an important opportunity here to solve economic problems and the issue of reform. Regarding issues of security, discussions will be only with Israel," Sharon said. Sharon ruled out Israeli participation in any multinational conference that touched on the nation's security. Palestinians have been pressing for a broader conference to revive stalled peace moves, but Britain says it wants to focus on building up Palestinian institutional and security capabilities in anticipation of an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. "This meeting (the proposed conference) is about Palestine and practical reforms within Palestine," Blair's official spokesman said Monday.
Let's not get all plural and everything, I'll settle for a reform.
"This has never been conceived of as a major peace conference," said a Foreign Office spokeswoman, speaking on condition of anonymity. Blair has said that reviving the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is a foreign policy priority. Diplomatic moves have intensified following the death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, who was shunned by Israel and the United States. Israeli officials have said they expected Blair to visit this week and also meet with Palestinian officials. Blair's office refused to comment on any travel plans. Palestinian officials want to take up final status issues like Jerusalem, refugees, settlements and borders - topics that have snagged previous negotiations. "We want to focus on reviving the peace process and resuming permanent status negotiations," Palestinian Cabinet minister Saeb Erekat said Monday. He called Sharon's decision "very unfortunate."
"We won't be able to squeeze and embarrass him with the help of our French friends," he added.
US President George W. Bush on Monday repeated his belief that the crucial next step in the Middle East is to build a democratic state in Palestine. "And I appreciate the fact that Prime Minister Tony Blair is willing to help that process by holding a conference with Palestinians that will help develop the state," Bush told a news conference in Washington. The British proposal for a conference has been vague about an agenda and a date. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said a conference is possible and would concentrate on practical arrangements for the aftermath of an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, set for next summer. To assist in building up Palestinian security forces, Britain announced Monday that it was giving 450,000 pounds' (Ã660,000; US$875,000) worth of bomb detection and disposal equipment to the Palestinian Authority.
'cause the Paleos are worried about Jooos exploding on them, ya know.
The equipment "will allow the collection of Palestinian munitions and explosive ordnance devices thus indicating the serious intent of the Palestinian Police to take these items out of circulation in compliance with the (Middle East peace) road map," the Ministry of Defense said.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/21/2004 12:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Why submit, in any way, to the perceived authority of some conference where the vast majority will show up just to pontificate, parade false moral superiority, and publicy castigate / bitch-slap you?
#2
No conferences, no negotiations, no nothing
until the fucked up Pali's publicly and practically denounce, jail and break up all the political and military organization that attack us.
Otherwise, we return to the Arafish method of saying one thing in English to the western press, while at the same time saying the opposite thing to his terror brigades and the Arab states.
Gererally speaking, Muslims cant be trusted, because their holy book prescribes lying, false truces and Hudna's as a means for the final goal of world dominance.
As we already have factual and undisputed proof that they are using the Kuran methods of duplicity, it is our duty to make sure they cant use it on us at their convenience.
The moment of truth has finally arrived for the Palestinians particularely and for Islam in general.
Show us first that you can be trusted and that there is a vast majority of moderate muslims who are willing to take action against extremists among themselves. If you can't, we are sorry but you will have to pay for the actions of your extremist brothers.
This is indeed a war of survival for Israel and the rest of western civilization, and I am afraid that Europe is very soon going down the drain because of their blindness and denial of the truth.
What britain really needs now is not LLL tactics of denial and political machinations and scheming,
the Brits really need another Churchil is they dont want to sink further in the self inflicted Islamic mud.
As for France, the Netherlands and the Nordic countries, I am afraid they are by now a lost case, and their unintegrated moslem masses cannot any more be dealt with by benevolent means. They will probably need a miracle or a blood bath to survive.
I am truely sorry for them but this is the price you pay for blindness and hypocricy.
To sum it up, if we do not stubbornly insist on seeing the Proof in the Pudding, the Pali's will slowly nibble at us and keep on their duplicitous
lies and promises.
Sorry Blair no summit until the Pali's deliver !
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
12/21/2004 2:24 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The British proposal for a conference has been vague about an agenda and a date
Thats the key. The Israelis are willing to go multilateral to discuss short terms issues - keeping the PA financed, getting through the PA election, and reducing terror - and medium term issues - dealing with the disengagement from Gaza - what they object to is a conference discussing the larger end of conflict issues, esp now, when Abbas is not yet in firm control of the PA, when hes still mouthing maximalist demands, when the Gaza withdrawl hasnt happened yet - in those circumstances, to go to conf with euros who are NOT sympathetic to Israel's negotiating position would be against their interests, and probably not serve peace - its a formula to try to impose a solution (might help Tony at home, but wouldnt do much else positive)
Now IF the Brits will LIMIT the agenda, then the Israelis have something to talk to them about.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/21/2004 9:56 Comments ||
Top||
#6
EoZ,
"As for France, the Netherlands and the Nordic countries, I am afraid they are by now a lost case"
Don't forget to put Greece in the "lost case" column. Greece have been receiving a HUGE influx of Muslims from Albania and other neighboring countries.
#8
and yet Albania has supported us in the Iraqi war.
as for saying another thing in arabic, IIUC there has been a reduction (end?) to incitement by PA organs, and this has been acknowledged by Sharon. If Abbas is saying different things in Arabic, does anyone have some recent Memri clips to that effect?
#10
PR,
I dont know about greece, though I have heard
that Albania has been infiltrated by a lot of Islamic extremist terrorists and has a clandestine
infrastructure that may cause a lot of headaches
in Europe in the future.
LiberalHawk,
your #3 post is a good 'right on the spot' analysis of why Sharon is not very enthusiastic about Blair's suggestions.
What makes anyone think that, once Albania is infilterated extremists, the Islamic terrorists won't use Albania as a base and spread/emigrate to neighboring countries such as Greece?
Aris,
You are a hopeless case suspended in Bizzaro world. Why don't you just recommend to your blind government to allow every Muslim seeking political asylum to enter your country without inspection? Then we will see how much freedom you will have to mock other religions, as you like to do so much. People like you won't realize the danger until your hanging like skinned goat in an Afgan butcher shop.
#12
Ball's in the Palestinians' court. Bush has it exactly right. Real democracy and a recognition of two-state solution, and we can discuss the details of that solution with a partner that can and will deliver on its promises. No real democracy and no recognition, then no agreement will have any meaning at all.
Palestinian resistance group Hamas has threatened to avenge a deadly weekend raid in the movement's Gaza stronghold with attacks inside Israel. In comments on Monday, the Islamic group's leader in Gaza, Mahmud al-Zahar, also poured cold water on calls for a ceasefire with Israel. "Aggression from Israel will be reacted by self-defence ... whether within the occupied territories or outside the Green Line," al-Zahar said.
His comments came after 11 Palestinians were killed over the weekend during an Israeli raid into the Khan Yunus refugee camp in southern Gaza, the deadliest offensive since the death of Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. Mahmud Abbas, Arafat's successor as Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) chairman, has been trying to persuade Hamas - responsible for most of the anti-Israeli attacks during the course of the four-year intifada - to call a new ceasefire. But al-Zahar said that only a complete end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and a release of all 8000 Palestinian prisoners would lead to such a move. "We have already declared our stand - it should be a bilateral stoppage. Israeli aggression first, the release of all Palestinian detainees, the opening of our borders, real withdrawals from our areas, not redeployment," he said. "The occupation is the cause. The elimination of the occupation will spontaneously stop this aggression."
Al-Zahar was speaking on the sidelines of a seminar on the Middle East where delegates appealed for an end to attacks on civilians. Alexander Kalugin, Russia's envoy to the region, said that it would be impossible to put pressure on Israel to tone down its activities as long as attacks against civilians continued.
Okay. Forget the Paleostinian state idea. They're not gonna let it happen. I expect Zahar will be eating a something with fins soon.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/21/2004 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Hamas vows revenge against Israel"
Well of course they did. What else could they say? "We're murderous hate-mongering fucktards who asked for it and they really kicked our Paleo asses." ??? That phase won't come until the money's dried up.
#2
.Com,
Sorry to disapoint you but the money will never dry up as long as European taxpayer money keeps flowing into the Pali coffers.
So I guess indeed that my tax money will soon have to meet with Mr. Zahar in a finned form
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
12/21/2004 2:31 Comments ||
Top||
#3
EoZ - Oh I get it, I think, as you can see in one of my posts on another thread about Abbas & Co.
I have a bit of advice you should pass along to the Israeli Gov't: do not sell any more equipment with US technology to anyone without our approval. No exceptions. I understand Israel "improved" it or whatever. Right. It's 50x harder to create the baseline product than it is to improve upon it - the accomplishment was incremental, no matter how impressed anyone is with it - so the tech is not Israel's alone to sell as it wishes.
Tell them to stop calculating America's tolerance and the bandwidth of our support. Every stupid act, such as the sale to China, makes it harder to garner support the next time. I don't give a flying fuck if this offends. It's fact. In principle, it is the action of a traitorous backstabber, not an ally. Period. Penny wise and pound foolish is the homily, but a more honest description is we were betrayed by that and other such sales. Practically speaking, someday we will meet China head-on. Every idea and tidbit of stolen or purchased US tech they can get their hands on will eventually cost us, and it jumpstarts them. Fair warning from some one who supports Israel wholeheartedly.
#4
.Com,
I wholeheartedly agree with you on that.
I an ashamed of what my government did here, even though I have zero control on this.
I think many people in the military and security
apparatus as well as the Israely arms industry are trying to work out some kind of relationship with China. I think this is wrong for many reasons. I think that the level of support and
financial and political support we receive from the US should preclude us from any transferring of any technology to China whatsoever (even if it was wholly developed in Israel). If it was up to me I would not sell the chinese even rivets, until they become fully democratic and stop their machinations and power building.
I also think there is a big faction in Israel mainly in the bussiness community and lefty circles who are still captive to the Idea that Israel should establish strong economical ties with Europe, even at the expense of taking unnecessary military risks.
I object to all of these ties and political intricacies, though I have no way of affecting or changing any of this appart from voicing my objection to these stupid and devious deals with China.
As I have studied and lived in the US for an extended period of time, I am a staunch supporter of American Democracy and there is no other place in the world I'd rather live if I was forced to live out of Israel. I personally have tremendous respect for the american people and your form of government.
Believe me, irrespective of what those politicians do, there is a nation-wide feeling of support and brotherhood with the US in my country.
So, If I was to decide about those deals with China I would definately not go along with it because this is not a way to treat a friend and an Ally.
Unfortunately I am not in a position to do anything about it, so you will have to accept my sincere appology for the schmucks who approved the deal.
I hope I am loud and clear about this.
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
12/21/2004 5:11 Comments ||
Top||
#5
EoZ - Perfect synch. You have a better chance of being heard than I do, heh. Everybody's playing fast and loose, these days - and there will be repercussions someday. Sigh. Thx, bro.
If you are correct in stating the left wing of Israeli government is making deals with Communist countries, then the Right needs stop sitting on their thumbs and do something about it. There is way too much PC, in a let's be nice to the Left mentality in Israel, by the Right.
We in the Right, in the U.S., had to put up with playing the submissive role to the Left for many years now. Not anymore. Ever since GW showed up, the U.S Right have first, shut down the MSM and second, no longer walking on rice paper in the fear offending a Left-Winger. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER AGAIN!!!!
Now getting back to the subject at hand. "The elimination of the occupation will spontaneously stop this aggression."
If I was a betting man, I am betting that this statement is a DECLARATION OF WAR! The IDF knows exactly where the snakes head is (Syria/Lebanon), cut it off NOW. Stop playing merry go round with these Jew killers.
#7
Sorry to disapoint you but the money will never dry up as long as European taxpayer money keeps flowing into the Pali coffers.
Then make it an expensive losing proposition. When Paleos mount their attacks, don't spare infrastructure in the process of going after the perpetrators and their leaders. If Euros feel it necessary to pour money into a hole, then at least make it a bottomless hole. At some point in time Europe is going to have to face reality, as futility is something that can't continue indefinitely.
#9
EoZ, a second to what .com says. God luck getting the message acros, cause it won't be pretty for Israel if you fail. The Dems will be more than happy to hang you out to dry when they get in office.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/21/2004 11:23 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I suspect the Dems would be kinder to Israel than anyone of the Bush41-Scowcroft-Baker crowd. Traditionally, Republicans have been closer to the Saudis than to Israel. I'd guess Giuliani would be pro-Israel but I'm not so sure about McCain.
PLO chairman Mahmoud Abbas has rejected as "unacceptable" Israeli Prime Minisier Ariel Sharon's latest assertions about limited return of Palestinian refugees and limited return of occupied lands, in a newspaper interview yesterday. "We will stick to our principles and hope to receive support from the world community till Sharon retreats from his stands," Abbas told the Times of Oman.
Abbas, a hot favorite to succeed late Yasser Arafat as Palestinian president in January election following the withdrawal of candidacy by Marwan Barghouti, was here as part of his Gulf tour during which he held what he called "fruitful" discussions with Omani ruler Sultan Qaboos. Answering a question whether he was carrying American or British ideas, Abbas said: "No doubt, there are Arab ideas focusing on the implementation of the road map. Israel is talking about withdrawal from Gaza and the Arab position is that this withdrawal should be part of the road map. Israel rejects and wants only to withdraw from Gaza, refusing to return to the pre-1967 war borders.'' He said: "The problem of refugees is integrated and the word (refugee) refers to any person who left his/her home or was forced to do so and not his/her nation. This means he/she who left Hai is is a refugee and who left all Palestine is a refugee.''
Haggling. The question is whether the Hamas idiocy is coordinated pressure to bolster the haggling, or if the Hamas idiocy is intended to derail the haggling.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/21/2004 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The inane asinine deal-killer has always been the faux "right of return" bullshit. Even if they weren't steeped in hate from birth and actually pretended to be engaged, the Paleos would always drag this joke out to cover their lack of progress, insincerity, and full intention to find a way of annihilating Israel.
There will not be a peaceful solution, Bush, Blair, whomever, notwithstanding. There is no reason to be optimistic, no reason to presume a way will be found, no justification for the continued support of the Road Map. Nothing has changed, IMHO. Thus, no point in any more meetings or conferences or talks. The fence is the only substantive change in 50+ years. Build it. Faster.
Each side is very clear on what it demands: one is simple and sensible and the other is utterly insane. Fin. When one side is wiped out or a means is found so that the Paleos can't effectively kill any more Israelis which means the Paleo funders have had their resources taken away, there will be peace. Olive groves, goats, sheep, haggling, and peace.
Prolly about 1.5 generations after the establishment of the Republic of Eastern Arabia and the Republic of Democratic Persia, the collapse of the economies of the EU countries who enable the survival of the Paleo hate machine, and the demise of the UN which is its sole form of legitimacy. Looking ahead, all of these events are coming, taking shape right before us -- unless something even more catastrophic / extraordinary (it's a POV thingy) occurs first.
#2
Here we go again,
these guys have learnt nothing, they are
hereditary morons incapable of adapting to reality.
Instead of trying to reach a realistic agreement
they are playing again the broken old record of the refugees.
Stupid assholes, take the money that went to buy explosives and finance hotel suites for Suha(TM) and build factories and housing for your refugees.
by insisting on the impossible you are leading your people into a second Nakba.
I guess this puts a whole new dimension into, and experimental proof of Darwinian theory.
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
12/21/2004 3:15 Comments ||
Top||
#5
âWe will stick to our principles and hope to receive support from the world community till Sharon retreats from his stands,â Abbas told the Times of Oman.
Iraq's Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi warned yesterday that insurgents were trying to foment a sectarian war in the country, as thousands of mourners attended funerals in the Shiite cities of Najaf and Kerbala a day after car bomb attacks killed 67 people. Allawi said the mainly Sunni insurgents, blamed for the deadly strikes Sunday against Iraq's majority Shiites, want to "create ethnic and religious tensions, problems and conflicts ... to destroy the unity of this country. These attacks are designed to stop the political process from taking place in Iraq." He added that he expected more such strikes as key Jan. 30 parliamentary elections get closer.
Illustrating continuing tensions in the region, a bomb exploded at a police checkpoint in Kerbala yesterday, causing damage to surrounding buildings but inflicting no casualties. Police said they cordoned off the area and arrested the attacker. Shiites, who make up around 60 percent of Iraq's population, have been strong supporters of the upcoming electoral process, which they expect will reverse the longtime domination of Iraq by the Sunni minority, the country's other main religious sect. The insurgency is believed to have been fomented by Sunnis, who made up the majority of Saddam Hussein's former Baath Party leadership. Shiite officials and clerics blamed the Najaf and Kerbala bombings — the worst carnage in Iraq since July — on Sunni insurgents wanting to ignite a sectarian war. The strikes appeared designed to cause massive casualties and eventual reprisals by the Shiites against Sunnis. "We always have said that we are going to fight and defeat terrorism," Allawi said. "We are going to win definitely and the political process would continue in Iraq."
Posted by: Fred ||
12/21/2004 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The frantic pace is burning up a lot of resources and cannon fodder, such as the caches recently discovered and the 50 arrests yesterday (I hope they were "real" and not a show-case round-up - man am I cynical, now), and the desperation is clear. If the Shi'tes are smart enough to focus on the problem: those who opposes the coming confederation and democracy -- and not on what flavor they are, their tribe, etc, then there's a good chance they'll pull this off. Every democratic birth has been violent and painful, mainly for those who sought it, at first, but later for those who opposed it. Just make it over the hump and remember who the real enemy is, guys.
#2
If the ultimate goal of the Sunnis is to cause a civil war, aren't they on the losing side? The Sunni Iraqis are a minority in their own country and their big brother Sunni back-up country is Syria, barf. The Shia are not only the majority in Iraq, but their big brother back-up country is Iran. Who would win in this theoretical match up of manpower, munitions, and zealous fighting spirit to settle old scores? I put my bets on the Shia if the Sunnis continue provoking them. The Sunnis are alive this very minute due to the coalition military presence. Otherwise, the existence of Baathist Sunnis ever occupying Iraq would be just an urban legend at this point in time.
Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki yesterday told the country's Muslims, who have long complained of police harassment, that the government would shelter them from unfair treatment stemming from the fight against terrorism, his office said. Kibaki said that "no Kenyan will be harassed unnecessarily in the pretext of fighting terrorism," according a statement released by his press office, after Kibaki held talks with Muslim leaders in the port city of Mombasa.
What about reassuring everyone else about harrassment from Muslims?
"As a government, we want to assure you that we treat all Kenyans equally and no one will be discriminated against on the basis of religion, tribe or otherwise," Kibaki said. Supreme Council of Kenyan Muslims (SUPKEM) says Muslims make up 35 percent of Kenya's 30-million-strong population. The last population census in 1989 put the figure at 23 percent. The Muslim leaders complained to the president that "innocent men" have been harassed by police, including an Algerian cleric, Ahmed Mohammed Haji, arrested early December on suspicion of involvement in terrorism activities, one of the leaders said.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/21/2004 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
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.
Islamic extremists with links to international terrorist organizations are likely to be operating in New Zealand, NZ Security Intelligence Service (SIS) says. In an annual report to Parliament published Tuesday, the SIS has revealed publicly for the first time that it suspects terrorists or terrorist sympathizers are operating in New Zealand. SIS Director Richard Woods said in the report that the international successes in targeting al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden had raised the security threat level for New Zealand. "From the service's own investigations we assess that there are individuals in or from New Zealand who support Islamic extremist causes. The service views these developments, most of which have come to attention within 2003-04, with considerable concern. They indicate attempts to use New Zealand as a safe haven from which activities of security concern elsewhere can be facilitated and/or the involvement of people from New Zealand in such activities," Woods said. 
Talks to free two French journalists, who were abducted in Iraq exactly four months ago, are making no headway, the media watchdog group 
Ontario Muslims should have the same rights as other religious groups in the province to seek arbitration based on religious laws for family disputes and inheritance cases, concludes a report by former attorney general Marion Boyd. Some Muslim groups called Boyd's report "naive," 
Secretary-General Kofi Annan reiterated Tuesday he has no intention of resigning over allegations of corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program and plans to move ahead with sweeping changes at the United Nations. He told a year-end news conference the oil-for-food allegations "have cast a shadow over an operation that brought relief to millions of Iraqis" and expressed hope that an investigation led by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker would "find out the truth as quickly as possible." The oil-for-food program permitted Iraq under Saddam Hussein to sell oil - despite an economic embargo - provided that the proceeds were used for food and medicine for the hard-pressed Iraqi people. Addressing questions about calls for his resignation in Congress, Annan said, "I have the confidence of member states" and will move ahead with preparations for a summit in September 2005 where world leaders will consider major U.N. reforms to address global security threats. Nonetheless, the secretary-general said, "I'm relieved this annus horribilis (try Kofi is a horrible asshole) has come to an end," using the Latin words for a "horrible year." He used the same term that Britain's Queen Elizabeth II did in describing the troubles the royal family suffered in 1992. Annan disclosed that Volcker's first report in January would be accompanied by reports of U.N. internal audits of the oil-for-food program, which have sought by congressional investigators also looking into the corruption allegations. "I see important openings for peace," Annan said, but he added that continuing violence in Iraq could influence voter turnout in the Jan. 30 election. 
UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. General Assembly criticised Iran on Monday for public executions, torture, arbitrary sentencing, flogging, stoning and systematic discrimination against women. Sponsored by Canada, the human rights resolution was adopted by a vote of 71 in favor, 54 against with 55 abstentions in the 191-member assembly.
US President George W. Bush yesterday cautioned Iran and Syria not to interfere in Iraq's internal politics, saying the US had a variety of ways to retaliate if the two countries failed to heed his warning. The message is the second within a week from the US president to Teheran and Damascus to refrain from "meddling" in Iraq. "When I said the other day that I expect these countries to honor the political process in Iraq without meddling, I meant it. And hopefully those governments heard what I said," Bush said at a news conference. "We have sent messages to the Syrians in the past and we will continue to do so. We have tools at our disposal — a variety of tools, ranging from diplomatic tools to economic pressure," he said.
Former Iraqi deputy prime minister 
