July 11, 2008: U.S., British, Canadian and Dutch diplomats are leaning hard on other NATO members to provide more meaningful support in Afghanistan. This is not the first time such complaints have been made, but because U.S., British, Canadian and Dutch troops are doing nearly all the fighting, while most of the 50,000 NATO troops (particularly the Germans and French) stay in the north, where there is very little action, tempers are getting short. What particularly irritates the four "fighting nations" are the 70-80 "special instructions" the other NATO nations have attached to the use of their troops in Afghanistan.
This pressure has had some effect. France is moving some of its combat troops to eastern Afghanistan, where there has been an increase in the number of Pakistani Taliban crossing the border. Some nations have offered to send much needed helicopters and medical units, but even this will take time. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, most European nations have sharply cut their military spending (as a percentage of GDP), and just let their armed forces quietly fall apart. This has become embarrassingly obvious as they are now called on to step up to help out in Afghanistan. Many politicians said yes, only to find themselves caught short by the realities of their decrepit armed forces.
The U.S. has been trying to supply more troops, but this is unpopular in the face of other NATO members shirking their responsibilities. Some 2,200 American marines are leaving in November, and the U.S. Army is reluctant to send another brigade to Afghanistan, after they just chased al Qaeda out of Iraq. Remnants of the terrorist organizations have fled to Pakistan, but the defeat in Iraq has hurt recruiting and fund raising worldwide. Even NATO politicians realize that this is an opportunity to deliver another crushing defeat to the Islamic terrorists, if only they have enough fighting troops in Afghanistan.
#1
but the defeat in Iraq has hurt recruiting and fund raising worldwide.
Poor Al Qaeda. Mr. bin Laden, assuming he yet lives, must be feeling terribly frustrated. He started this to force his god to take a hand in bringing forth the Caliphate, and his god gives him defeat. Clearly he is unworthy.
#2
What happens when you have people on welfare for generations? Same as when you have nations on military welfare for generations. They lack the attitude and will to actually carry the work. Surprise.
#5
As I recall from comments made by Swamp Blondie in the past, the neutering has indeed taken a while.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/13/2008 12:59 Comments ||
Top||
#6
You never know about the Germans, though. It's hard to say if they have gone totally pacifistic, or this war just isn't on a large enough scale for them.
#7
You never know about the Germans, though. It's hard to say if they have gone totally pacifistic, or this war just isn't on a large enough scale for them.
They're confused because the French are on their side.
India on Saturday claimed it had "a fair amount of intelligence on Pakistan's involvement" in Monday's suicide attack on its embassy in Kabul.
In an interview with a private TV channel, Indian National Security Adviser M K Narayanan vowed retaliation to such acts of terror. "I think we need to pay back in the same coin," he said, adding that the Indian government did not only suspect, but believed in Pakistan's role.
He said there were no insinuations about Pakistan's involvement, but facts backed by credible intelligence. "The people of this country deserve to know the facts rather than being carried away by people who claim these are insinuations. There are no insinuations," he said.
Four Indians, including an IFS officer and an Indian army brigadier, were killed in the blast when a suicide bomber rammed an explosive-laden Toyota Corolla into the Indian embassy in Kabul. Narayanan said the dialogue process aimed at improving relations between India and Pakistan had not worked so far, adding, "Dialogue is better than fighting, but so far it hasn't worked. In some way, we haven't taken the decision to fight, so lets talk for the moment."
On the US-India nuclear deal, Narayanan said India had not circulated documents to the IAEA, adding that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's meeting with US President George W Bush had nothing to do with the documents' circulation. He said the documents were made public soon after the Left allies withdrew support from Singh's government. He said certain scientists were "polluting" the minds of Left leaders to oppose the deal.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: ISI
A recent border clash that wounded several Pakistani and Afghan security personnel was sparked by insurgents in Afghanistan who fired at targets in both countries, apparently to stoke cross-border tensions, NATO said Saturday.
The alliance said it responded to the Thursday evening assault with artillery and a bomb, and had verified that its rounds had struck insurgent positions inside Afghanistan.
But the incident has prompted Pakistan to protest to NATO. On Saturday, Pakistan's army spokesman stuck to earlier statements implying that foreign or Afghan forces fired mortar rounds he said wounded eight Pakistani security forces and two civilians.
The clash came amid already high tensions between the neighboring nations, whose border areas have often been the scene of skirmishes between security forces as well as militants. It also occurred about a month after a high-profile border incident in which Pakistan said 11 of its soldiers died when U.S. aircraft bombed their post.
A NATO official said the alliance suspects insurgents deliberately tried to spark tension by aiming at targets on both sides of the long, poorly demarcated border. "Because it was very close to the border, we verified that the origins of the fire was within Afghanistan," NATO spokesman Mark Laity said. "And once we got that, we fired on the two points of origin, and aircraft also were called in and put one bomb on target. "Our assessment is that this was an attempt to create a border incident."
According to Pakistan's army, six mortar rounds appeared to have targeted a military post in Angore Adda in South Waziristan on Thursday, seriously wounding six Pakistani troops, lightly wounding two other troops and also injuring two civilians in a nearby market.
Pakistani forces immediately returned fire. The country also lodged a "strong protest" with NATO's International Security Assistance Force, Pakistan army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said. Details of the complaint were not immediately available.
Asked Saturday to respond to NATO's statement that militants were responsible for the incident and that NATO had not struck Pakistani positions, Abbas insisted that Pakistan still had its suspicions. "It was a precision engagement which destroyed the post," Abbas said. "It doesn't make sense that anybody else was fighting."
NATO said it had reports that four Afghan border police were also wounded in the incident. Afghan and Pakistani troops have skirmished repeatedly along the border over the years, despite urgings from U.S. officials that they improve their coordination.
The border areas are considered havens for Taliban and al-Qaida-linked militants who often travel between the two countries. Pakistan has been accused of not doing enough to crack down on militants operating on its side.
Posted by: ed ||
07/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Somebody from Nato should tell the Paks that if they won't fight the Talibunnies, they surely won't fight us. And if they won't fight, they shouldn't waste breath protesting. It will only increase the carbon credits they have to buy.
Under pressure from fundamentalist forms of Islam and bursts of sectarian violence, the most populous Christian community in the Middle East is seeking safety by turning inward, cutting day-to-day social ties that have bound Muslim to Christian in Egypt for centuries, members of both communities say. Attacks this summer on monks and shopkeepers belonging to Egypt's Coptic Christian minority, and scattered clashes between Muslims and Christians, have compelled many of Egypt's estimated 6 to 8 million Copts to isolate themselves in a nation of more than 70 million Muslims.
Across much of Egypt, Muslims and Christians note a drawing apart of their communities, especially in the working class. Many say they mourn the loss. Others say the separation is for the best. "It's natural," Ayad Labid Faleh, a Coptic Christian, said in his auto parts store in the Shobra neighborhood of Cairo. In the dim, oil-slicked shop front, Faleh waited for customers, surrounded by boxed hoses and florid icons.
Faleh shrugged as he described his life and the lives of his Christian neighbors, who begin their days smiling at a Christian satellite program in which a Coptic priest needles Muslims for their beliefs. Faleh and his neighbors send their children to church schools, and the children belong to church soccer teams. Increasingly, Faleh said, they choose to spend their vacations on pilgrimages to holy sites with fellow Copts. "When we all go together as Christians on those things, we feel like we're one. We're secure, and we're able to relax," he said.
Violence between Muslims and Christians flares every few years. In the most dramatic confrontation this spring on May 31, settled Arab Bedouins attacked monks who have been reclaiming the 1,700-year-old monastery of Abu Fana from the desert in southern Egypt. Monks say the attackers fired on them with AK-47 assault rifles and captured some among them to torture. Attackers broke the legs of one monk by pounding them between two rocks. One Muslim man was killed.
A few days earlier, gunmen in Cairo killed four Copts at a jewelry store but left without taking anything. Strife over liaisons between Christian and Muslim men and women led to recent clashes between the communities in Egypt's countryside.
Egypt's government invariably denies that sectarian tension lies behind the violence. It blamed the violence at the Abu Fana monastery on a land dispute. Abu Fana's monks deny that.
"Is it a land dispute when they kidnap monks and torture them?" Brother Michael, 34, asked from a hospital bed in Cairo, where he cradled an arm hit by shrapnel in the attack. "Is it a land dispute when they tell you to spit on the cross, when they try to make you say the words to convert to Islam?" asked Brother Viner, 30, sitting on Brother Michael's bed. He wore a neck brace because of the beating he received in the attack.
When he was a boy, Brother Viner said, he and his neighbors played together without paying attention to who was Muslim and who was Christian. But recently, he said, his niece came home from her first day at school with tales of Muslim and Christian first-graders refusing to share desks with children of the other faith.
Sidhom said he has a simple rule for predicting where Muslim and Christian violence will break out. In a community where Muslims and Christians still live and work together, he said, there will be no problem. At another auto parts store in Shobra, where Copts and Muslims intermingle, clerks laughed at the idea of religious strife. "Any wedding, funeral, they will be there," Hussein Mohammed Negem said of his Christian friends. A black bruise on his forehead showed Negem to be a Muslim who regularly bows his head to the floor in prayer.
Nagib Emed Aziz George, a Christian shopkeeper from next door, smiled as he leaned on Negem, his arm and chin propped on the Muslim man's shoulder. Once, when a neighborhood mosque caught fire during prayers, Christians came running to douse the flames, the parts dealers said. And when a beloved Christian customer died recently, Negem's co-workers shut their store for a day to travel across Egypt for the funeral. "We feel like it is all one home," Negem said.
Invariably, Sidhom said, in communities where Muslims and Christians live separately, trouble comes. Such is the situation in parts of rural Egypt, including around the monastery at Abu Fana, where monks stood one day in bare concrete sleeping chambers blackened by fires set by the Muslim men in May's attacks. "I believe we will be the new martyrs," said one, Brother Shenouda, walking the desert road from his scorched church. Much more at link
The government is to sponsor a theological board of leading imams and Muslim women in an attempt to refute the ideology of violent extremists. The committee, to be announced this week, will issue pronouncements on areas such as wearing the hijab and the treatment of wives and is part of a government strategy to counter radicalism. It will rule on interpretation of the Koran and promote the moderate strain of Islam practised by most British Muslims. It will also comment on controversial issues affecting Muslims living in Britain, including whether or not they should serve in the armed forces.
Its members have been recommended by leading moderates in the Muslim community and will be technically independent, although the government is expected to provide civil service support, a secretariat and members expenses. Hazel Blears, the communities secretary, will announce the committee as part of an anti-extremism strategy called Prevent, devised following the 2005 London bombings. It tries to foster close contacts between Muslims and the rest of society to combat the glorification of terrorism.
The Muslim public affairs committee questioned whether the board would address issues relevant to Muslims lives. To be successful, this initiative must have credibility with the Muslim community as a whole. What matters is what happens at the grass roots in someones local mosque, said a spokeswoman. The government is concerned that extremist leaders who preach jihad have been able to radicalise young Muslims, partly because of the failure of leading Islamic figures to challenge them.
A committee of Muslim young people will try to ensure the policies are relevant to them and do not inadvertently lead to further radicalisation. The government also plans to support Muslim women by providing discussion groups and work placements. As part of the Prevent strategy, Blears will go on an international tour to learn the roots of British Muslims. A spokesman said: Hazel is going to the subcontinent to deepen her understanding of communities.
#1
More nonsense. Merely accomodating the conquerers. Obey British law or leave. That should be the only choice. No discussion, councils, or boards required. Just a stiff backbone to go with the upper lips.
July 11, 2008: The recent rescue of fifteen high-profile kidnapping victims in Colombia was, it turns out, a classic deception operation. In short, Colombian military intelligence had taken advantage of the recent death of the FARC founder, and Internet access to both the rebel group (led by a fellow called Cesar) that was holding the fifteen high value hostages, and the new FARC leader (Alfonso Cano). Colombian intel knew that Cano and Cesar had never met, and knew very little about each other. So the military intel took a chance and used a communications relay (a third party that passed on email messages, to make it more difficult for the government to identify and locate rebel leaders) they had taken over, to make Cesar believe that Cano had ordered him to move the hostages (to where they could be rescued), and keep Cano in the dark about what was going on.
The army was able to pull this off because, for the last six years, they had been hammering FARC, and caused much disruption to communications. The FARC has lost over half its people in that period, and much territory. FARC leaders have often never met some of their peers, and have to scramble to keep in touch with supreme headquarters.
The U.S. had contributed several billion dollars of military aid to Colombia during this period, including the services of electronic warfare specialists. As a result of that, FARC had stopped using cell phones for important communications, and were forced to use codes, "man in the middle" and all manner of tricks to keep from getting hunted down via their communications. But along the way, the government allowed some lines of communication they had tapped into, to stay active, so that they could monitor what the FARC leadership was up to. This is another old trick in the intel business, and the Colombian intel people were willing to sacrifice one of these valuable "monitored lines" in order to free the fifteen captives.
It's likely that the government has tapped into other types of FARC communication. That won't be known for a while, since the deception game is still going on. Once the fifteen captives were rescued, and the media was all over it, FARC figured out real quick the extent to which their communications had been compromised. But it got worse, since FARC had to consider that the degree of compromise might be even greater. Setting up new communications will take time, and will leave the FARC high command, and several dozen senior subordinates, out of touch with each other over the next few months. This gives the army yet another battlefield advantage. And the FARC realizes there's no guarantee that the army intel people have not infiltrated the new communications systems. This adds some more fear to the environment the FARC leadership has to operate in. That's another advantage for the army, and the Colombian government, which is urging many FARC factions to accept an amnesty deal (which many left and anti-left rebels have already done successfully.)
Thus the rescue of fifteen hostages (including a former presidential candidate and three Americans) was much more of a military victory than it first appeared to be.
Ms. El Aroud began her rise to prominence after her husband, two days before the attacks on September 11, 2001, carried out a bombing in Afghanistan that killed the anti-Taliban resistance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud at the behest of Osama bin Laden. Her husband was killed, and she took to the Internet as the widow of a martyr.
She remarried, and in 2007 she and her new husband were convicted in Switzerland for operating pro-Qaeda Web sites. Now, according to the Belgium authorities, she is a suspect in what the authorities say they believe is a plot to carry out attacks in Belgium.
Ms. El Aroud collects more than $1,100 a month in government unemployment benefits. "Her jihad is not to lead an operation but to inspire other people to wage jihad," said Glenn Audenaert, the director of Belgium's federal police force, in an interview. "She enjoys the protection that Belgium offers. At the same time, she is a potential threat'"
Posted by: ed ||
07/13/2008 06:57 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Her jihad is not to lead an operation but to inspire other people to wage jihad...
#2
Very sensible. Subsidize the one who tells you to your face that they are going to kill you. To do this, you ARE mentally defective, and, perhaps, deserve your coming fate.
SAN DIEGO (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama expects to be accompanied on his battlefront tours of Iraq and Afghanistan by two fellow senators who are military veterans and often mentioned as potential running mates. Sens. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., are experts on foreign policy, Obama told reporters while flying to California late Saturday. Hagel served as an Army sergeant in Vietnam and was twice wounded in 1968, earning two Purple Hearts. Reed, a West Point graduate, was an Army Ranger and paratrooper.
"They reflect, I think, a traditional bipartisan wisdom when it comes to foreign policy. Neither of them are ideologues but try to get the facts right and make a determination about what's best for U.S. interests _ and they're good guys," Obama said.
Obama planned to visit Europe as well, and he told reporters that he hoped to resolve concerns expressed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel about using Brandenburg Gate as a backdrop for a speech in Berlin. Merkel questioned the propriety of a foreign political figure using such a historic backdrop as that former Communist demarkation point to deliver a campaign speech.
"I want to make sure that my message is heard as opposed to creating a controversy," Obama said. "So, you know, our goal is just for me to lay out how I think about the next administration's role in rebuilding a trans-Atlantic alliance, so I don't want the venue to be a distraction. What I want to do is just work with folks on the ground to find someplace that's appropriate."
In other remarks during his first conversation with his traveling press corps in five days, Obama said:
_There is "little doubt we've moved into recession," which he said underscores the need for a second economic stimulus package, swift steps to shore up the housing market and a long-term energy policy to reduce reliance on foreign oil.
_Removing U.S. forces from Iraq won't be "perfectly neat," adding that a call from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for a withdrawal timetable supports his position more than the longer-term presence favored by rival John McCain or his fellow Republican, President Bush. Bush and the Arizona senator have chided Obama for proposing to withdraw U.S. forces within 16 months of taking office. McCain, a Vietnam War veteran, has even suggested it exhibits naivete by his rival, a freshman senator from Illinois.
"John McCain and George Bush both said that if Iraq, as a sovereign government, stated that it was time for us to start withdrawing our troops, then they would respect the wishes of that sovereign government," Obama told reporters as he flew from Chicago to California.
_He has been closely monitoring the financial health of mortgage providers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Concerns falling home values may require a government bailout prompted a Wall Street sell-off Friday before markets recovered. "There are a lot of different definitions of what a `bailout' would look like," Obama said. "There are issues related to the short-term liquidity _ can they borrow money? _ versus issues related to whether the underlying assets of the two corporations are really unsound. And I think we need to watch carefully and see how it plays out before we make a decision about which steps need to be taken."
_He hadn't spoken with the Rev. Jesse Jackson since the civil rights leader spoke into an open microphone that he wanted to castrate Obama for delivering a speech about fatherhood that Jackson thought spoke down to black men. "I had spoken to him before, a few days before what he said was released, and, we had actually discussed some of the concerns that he had raised about my fatherhood speech, and I told him that I absolutely believe that we have structural inequalities that have to be dealt with," the senator said.
1.) Selma Got Me Born - NOT EXACTLY, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in
1965. (Google 'Obama Selma' for his full March 4, 2007 speech and articles about its various untruths.)
2.) My Father Was A Goat Herder - NOT EXACTLY, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.
3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - NOT EXACTLY, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.
4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - NOT EXACTLY, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya . It is the first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Oba ma, is Odinga's follower. You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone.
Obama's cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the elections, his
followers have burned Christians' homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter.. Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started.
Google Obama and Odinga and see what you get. No one wants to know the truth.
5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.
6.) My Name is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language.
Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya , his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). From....and for more....go to.....
7.) I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31
years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.
4-3-08 Article "Obama was 'quite religious in islam'" http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559
8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - NOT EXACTLY, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making
faces (check your own book).
February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting
them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset." This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says "Obama's narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts."
9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - NOT EXACTLY, not one teacher says you could speak the language.
10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia , I Have More Foreign Experience - NOT EXACTLY, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons?
11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - NOT EXACTLY, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.
12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - NOT EXACTLY, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine.
13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - NOT EXACTLY, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - NOT EXACTLY, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It
doesn't, and never did, exist.
15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 - NOT EXACTLY, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.
16.) Voting "Present" is Common In Illinois Senate - NOT EXACTLY, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.
17.) Oops, I Misvoted - NOT EXACTLY, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.
18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - NOT EXACTLY, you didn't write it, introduce it, change it, or create it.
21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - NOT EXACTLY, it took just 14 days from start to finish.
22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - NOT EXACTLY, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation -
mainly because of your Nuclear donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.
23.) I Have Released My State Records - NOT EXACTLY, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released,
exposing all the special interests pork are still closed.
24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - NOT EXACTLY, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens . You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.
25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - NOT EXACTLY, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and
even YOU voted against your own bill.
26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - NOT EXACTLY, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.
27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - NOT EXACTLY, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a
fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.
28.) No One on my campaign contacted Canada about NAFTA - NOT EXACTLY, the Candian Government issued the names and a memo of the
conversation your campaign had with them.
29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - NOT EXACTLY, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction off Israel .
30.) I Want All Votes To Count - NOT EXACTLY, you said let the delegates decide.
31.) I Want Americans To Decide - NOT EXACTLY, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only
operate during small windows of time.
32.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - NOT EXACTLY, you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.
33.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - NOT EXACTLY, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.
34.) I Don't Take PAC Money - NOT EXACTLY, you take LOADS of it.
35.) I don't Have Lobbysists - NOT EXACTLY, you have over 47 lobbyists and counting.
36.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - NOT EXACTLY, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple
in one afternoon.
37.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - NOT EXACTLY, you weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time.
38.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - NOT EXACTLY, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don't have to buy it
"Qui non intelligit aut discat aut taceat"
Who does not understand should either learn, or be silent
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear smart, until you hear them speak!
July 11, 2008: In the last year, the U.S. Army has established 35 Warrior Transition Units (WTUs), to serve some 9,000 soldiers recovering from combat injuries. The WTUs look after the needs of soldiers requiring six months or more of medical care before they are well again. Most have combat injuries, but there are many with accident injuries, and a few recovering from diseases contracted overseas.
Each WTU is staffed with a few officers and 15-20 NCOs (platoon sergeants and squad leaders). In addition there are nurses and other medical professionals. The WTU staff sees to it that those under their care receive the proper medical treatment on a timely and sufficient basis. The WTU staff deal with any paperwork problems, helping the patients cope with the many bureaucracies that come out of the woodwork.
The WTU NCOs have the hardest jobs, because they are often combat veterans themselves, relate well to the patients, and they are the main problem solvers. This is particularly useful for WTU patients who are reservists, and are not familiar with a lot of the active duty paperwork and procedures. Because of the stress placed on the WTU NCOs, they initially received Special Duty Pay of $225 a month. This is sort of like combat pay, but given to any troops in particularly difficult jobs.
This is all good news/bad news. The good news is that the WTUs work, and are very popular with the recovering soldiers. The bad news is that it's rough on the WTU NCOs, and the word got around. It has become difficult to get NCOs to volunteer for this duty, especially ones who have done several tours in Iraq or Afghanistan, or have just gotten back from one. So the army has upped the Special Duty Pay to $375 a month, and eliminated the requirement that the NCOs have two years experience as either platoon leaders or squad leaders. This enables a large number of newly promoted NCOs to serve in WTUs, and is expected to solve the staffing shortages.
#1
In the last year, the U.S. Army has established 35 Warrior Transition Units (WTUs)
When the Army discovered during the Walter Reed debacle that the old [mainly peacetime] Medical Holding Company system worked like crap. When you had a draft and a million men, losing personnel accountability and pushing paper with troops dumped on the VA, it wasn't a big thing. When you have a much smaller professional force, they expect, well, professionalism, not the worst of bureaucratic paper pushing and finger pointing.
Now get your butt into gear in orienting the peacetime personnel promotion system towards warfighting. Reward the successful battlefield leaders and not the box checking managers.
Seeking an "out of the box" settlement to the Kashmir issue with India, Pakistan has said that the two countries need to go beyond the confidence-building measures and engage in serious dialogue to address the "real issues."
"We have to look out of the box...We have to look at innovative ways of resolution (to the Kashmir issue). We have our minds open to such issues," Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said on Friday, while delivering a lecture at the Brookings Institution. "It is now our hope that the leadership of the two countries would not shy away from taking such steps and move beyond the CBMs to engaging in a serious dialogue to address the real issues, not only the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir," Qureshi said.
He said that Islamabad has shown "flexibility," adding that there was "a general feeling and a public perception in Pakistan that a matching response should come from India."
Qureshi said that India-Pakistan dialogue should "now move from resolving conflicts rather than lingering with them".
All in Pakistan's favor, of course ...
Replying to question on whether the Kashmir issue could be sorted out by the two countries in the next three to five years, Qureshi said that it is a long-standing problem, where there are no quick fixes or solutions.
"We have to be honest. We have to be realistic. But the issue needs to be addressed. We cannot keep it under the carpet indefinitely," he said. "That is why we are building an environment of confidence for any resolution. But the most important thing is trust, belief. And that is what we are trying to do," he said.
Posted by: john frum ||
07/13/2008 08:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
How about India taking charge of the whole of Kashmir? That is sufficiently out of the box.
Posted by: john frum ||
07/13/2008 9:07 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I think they might mean "outside the box."
Posted by: Fred ||
07/13/2008 11:01 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I believe the old UN resolution actually called for a vote of the people, which never occured. Surprise, surprise. True democratic proposals from the people themselves, rather than have artificial tribal boundaries imposed from bureaucrats at the UN (or Britain) may just work this time around. Muslims can live and worship in their sector and Hindus in their historic lands.
#4
Actually it called for Pakistan to withdraw its troops and Pashtun tribal raiders. The Indian army was to take control.
Only when security was reestablished was a plebiscite on joining either India or Pakistan to be held.
Pakistan never withdrew. India held elections in its part where a majority voted for the Pro-Delhi party.
Since then, Pakistan has (a) never held elections in Kashmir (b) has settled Punjabis in Kashmir, changing the demographics. Hundreds of thousands of Kashmiri Hindus have also been ethnically cleansed from Indian Kashmir
By contrast, India does not permit non-Kashmiris to settle in J+K. It also holds regular elections.
About 3 years ago there was a poll by a Brit company on the option of India or Pakistan, most Kashmiris actually choose India (for economic reasons).
Since the instrument of accession (mandated by the UK's Indian Independence Act) was in favor of joining the Dominion of India, India's position is that it has legal claim to Kashmir.
Like the US, the Indian constitution does not allow secession from the Union.
Throughout prepartition India the Muslims and Hindu populations were intermixed. Partition was only possible by the massive ethnic cleaning that occured in the Punjab and Bengal.
Posted by: john frum ||
07/13/2008 15:04 Comments ||
Top||
Local Taliban will be held accountable if any harm is done to 29 kidnapped government officials, NWFP Information Minister Mian Iftikhar Hussain said on Saturday. A Taliban spokesman on Friday warned that militants would kill 29 kidnapped government officials, most of them security personnel, if security forces continued their operation in Hangu district. The minister said in a statement the government would have no other option except to pay in the same coin, if someone challenges its writ.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
#2
blah, blah, blah. Whatever. If the Paks really wanted to exterminate the islamo-cockroaches (and they do not), they would invite MNF's into the Waziristan's to eliminate the problem (which they will not).
Former interior minister Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao on Saturday sounded "serious" threats to the country's sovereignty and integrity, saying that the United States could attack Pakistan any time soon. "There is an imminent danger of [a] US attack on Pakistan," Sherpao told reporters at his residence.
His comments came two days after NATO attacked a Pakistani outpost on the Afghan border in South Waziristan. "The government should immediately call a joint session of parliament to discuss the situation and evolve a national consensus," the former minister said. "The country's security is apolitical issue and we must all be concerned about it," he added.
He however said it was difficult to say the US would land boots in the Tribal Areas or continue with airstrikes to target what Washington terms militants. "We don't know this ... they may be Iraq-like mercenaries."
Posted by: John Frum ||
07/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
I doubt there would be many tears shed by the city folk if some of these mountain tribes were decimated. And we could do a lot of pinpoint strikes without them even losing sleep over it.
Sovereignty means a lot more if you actually control your country.
#3
I like the San Francisco analysis. Seriously, if someone were to take San Francisco off our hands, can anyone explain why that would be a bad thing?
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
07/13/2008 10:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
yeh, bigjim, but how miffed would the San Franciscans be if China invaded Houston?
#7
g(r)omgoru, you're correct about Telegraph Ave. I miss browsing Moe's & Shakespeare's terribly. But I make do with Alibris and Abebooks. And it costs a lot less.
The harbor is useless because there are no more Navy bases and the USN isn't welcome. Seattle is a day closer to Japan and LA has better train connections.
Finally I'd contend that SF has been taken off our hands, they just didn't issue a press release.
#8
Since I don't speak either Chinese or Spanish, How would you ever know?
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/13/2008 15:56 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Houston would give China a port on the Gulf of Mexico, something I don't think would be tolerated. The situation is more that of Laos during the Vietnam War. We bombed it, but we didn't invade it. We tried to get the Vietnamese to do it, but they weren't very serious about it.
Taking the fight to the Taliban where they live would be a very good thing, IMHO. Wasting a half-dozen towns in Pakistan's NWFP might just get the idea across that we're serious about this WOT thing, and anyone that stands in our way, or helps our enemies, will pay a very heavy price. Bush needs to go out a winner, not a whiner.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
07/13/2008 17:22 Comments ||
Top||
#10
OP, I didn't mean to imply the Chinese would GET Houston (probably something like 5 million small arms in that town - not counting the ones held by gang members and other incompetents), merely that much of San Francisco would not care if they tried to.
Banned sectarian and jihadi organisations are flouting the government bar and are re-emerging in various parts of Karachi, a satellite television reported on Saturday.
Wow. Floored me. You too?
According to a report of Dawn News, sectarian slogans, flags and posters of defunct sectarian groups are visible on walls across the city, indicating re-emergence of the banned groups. Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan, Sipah-e-Muhammad and Mukhtar Force are the most conspicuous groups, the report added.
The channel quoted its sources as saying that the sealed offices of the organisations have reopened, working under different identities.
A common enough trick in that part of the world, requiring only a wink and a nod from the ISI ...
Some of the groups held meetings in Qayyumabad, North Karachi and Soldier Bazaar, the sources said. Jihadi groups have also enhanced their activities, disguised but towing the familiar jihadist agenda, the report said.
Leaders of the organisations have termed the ban unjustified, saying their viewpoint was never impartially heard.
And theirs is the only viewpoint that matters. You could look it up.
Sindh Information Minister Shazia Marri, however, told the channel that these organisations were still banned and illegal. The organisations are not allowed to carry out any activity in the city, she said, adding the government would take immediate action if it found any actionable information.
The re-emergence of the groups is causing fear among the people about impending sectarian violence in the city, the report said.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan
#1
Pakistan is falling apart. Soon it will be time to seize the nukes and then wall the place off.
Two American-born teenagers forced by their father to attend a madrassa in Pakistan for nearly four years have returned home to Atlanta after a documentary filmmaker pushed for their release.
Noor and Mahboob Khan, now 17 and 16, arrived in Atlanta late on Thursday from Jamia Binoria, a madrassa in Karachi. The boys are featured in a new documentary "Karachi Kids" by filmmaker Imran Raza, due to be released next week.
The boys' father, Fazal Khan, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution he sent them to the madrassa because he wanted them exposed to Islam. He said he had tried to bring his sons home but the boys could not get exit visas. "I sent a ticket. But I couldn't get the paperwork," he told the Journal-Constitution on Wednesday.
Role: Raza had been working to get the boys home when US Rep Michael McCaul, a Republican from Texas, got involved. In a July 4 visit to Pakistan, he asked President Pervez Musharraf to release the Khan brothers. The teens were sent home just a few days later. So they're back? And with their Pakistani madrassa educations? That's just...great.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
The two will need a lot of unfucking that 4 years of the madrassa have indoctrinated. Unfortunately I don't think the amount the of resources required is worth an uncertain payoff. Not that any contact with dear old dad will help matters. Quarantining the entire family to Pakiwakiland is the most cost effective and safe strategy for America.
Posted by: ed ||
07/13/2008 6:43 Comments ||
Top||
#2
A fabulous opportunity for the FBI to watch for madrassa bred jihadi dysfunction and then pounce.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
07/13/2008 8:55 Comments ||
Top||
A JUI-F jirga has completed its negotiations with the leaders of the Lashkar-e-Islam (LI) and the Ansarul Islam (AI) in the remote Tirah Valley of the Khyber Agency on Saturday. The jirga left for Tirah Valley on Friday to bring an end to the ongoing fighting between the LI and AI. The jirga members met AI chief Qazi Mahboob and LI chief Mangal Bagh and asked them to stop fighting for a temporary period so that a permanent solution to the problem could be found. Midnight basketball?
Posted by: Fred ||
07/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Lashkar-e-Islami
Local militants in the restive Bajaur Agency have warned criminals against kidnappings. The warning came from leader of local Taliban Maulvi Niamatullah in the Salarzai tehsil of the agency on Saturday. He said those involved in kidnappings were trying to defame the Taliban. He said stern action would be taken against such people. The militant leader said they had assigned their activists in the agency to point out those involved in kidnappings. So Maulvi, does it have to be the actual guys or are you gonna tell us who it is?
Posted by: Fred ||
07/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
Chief of Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Kayani has told US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen that border violations by US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan would no longer be acceptable to Pakistan, a private television channel reported on Saturday.
According to Dawn News, the two officials discussed the prevailing security situation in north-western Pakistan during their meeting at the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi. Kayani also maintained that such military "adventures" were counterproductive and might impact Pak-US bilateral co-operation in the ongoing war against terrorism, the channel said.
Mullen was on a surprise, one-day trip to Pakistan. US embassy officials confirmed the visit but said they had no details on Mullen's itinerary.
According to the channel, Gen Kayani told the visiting US official that Pak-Afghan border security was the responsibility of all stakeholders. He said Pakistan's security forces were capable of fighting militant outfits in the restive tribal belt near the Afghan border. Mullen praised Pakistan's performance in the war on terror.
Mullen had recently remarked that militants were flowing into neighbouring Afghanistan more freely this year compared to last year because Pakistan's government and military were not putting enough pressure on insurgents.
During his stop in Pakistan, Mullen also met President Pervez Musharraf, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and National Security Adviser Mehmood Ali Durrani, said Mullen's spokesman Capt John Kirby.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
So when are the Paki gonna desist?
Posted by: ed ||
07/13/2008 7:14 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Half the troops they sent would get lost or captured by the Taliwhackers on their way to the border.
#3
I hope Mike Mullen said something like this: "Clean up your mess in the Tribal Agencies, or we'll sterilize them for you. You have 60 days". Doesn't sound like he did, though. The border violations ARE unacceptable, but it's the taliban whose movements are unacceptable. If you don't want the wrath of the US military coming down on your neck, do something about it but spew propaganda. Remember, WE have nukes, too, and the means to deliver them ANYWHERE. Just keep that in mind. I think the belief that the US will "never" use its nuclear arsenal for anything may be a bit off base. If I were CnC, you'd all be glowing a bright blue right now.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
07/13/2008 18:02 Comments ||
Top||
AHMEDABAD -- A 36-year-old under-trial lodged in the high-security central jail here after the Godhra train carnage in 2002, has sought the permission of the special Pota (Prevention of terrorism Act) court to immolate himself.
Does he need gas money?
I've got an antique Zippo to donate to the cause ...
In his application, Farooq Shaikh, an accused in the ISI conspiracy case, has said that he wishes to spend a fortnight with his 'traumatised family but he is not being granted bail for the past six years. Shaikh had attempted to kill himself earlier but was saved by cell inmates.
Denied him his 72 virgins? How cruel. Pro'ly only got a lacerated larynx; he can still breathe if he takes it real slow ...
His application stated that his mother died a year ago and his brother was now on the death-bed.
Put 'em both into the same death-bed ...
Meanwhile, the Pota court allowed a 24-hour parole to three Godhra train burning case convicts to visit their families. The trio included Ruhulamin Hathila, a prominent advocate of Godhra, who had filed at least 50 bail applications soon after his arrest. Hathila had said in his parole application that his son Rameez had secured first class in Class X and, as a responsible father, he wanted to congratulate him.
"Thanks pops! How's the martyrdom in prison going?"
"Well my son. Now you make sure you learn your lessons at the madrassa next term!"
Investigations had proved that Hathila had helped Hussain Umarji in hatching the Godhra conspiracy to torch a train packed with devout Hindus, 59 of whom were roasted alive, triggering three-month-long communal riots in Gujarat that claimed 1,500 lives.
He seems to have a "thing" for fire.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He seems to have a "thing" for fire When he dies I do believe he will get more fire than he bargained for.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
07/13/2008 10:06 Comments ||
Top||
#2
If he wants to Die by fire OK With me, Just be sure he gets NO painkillers beforehand, See if he still wants death by fire THEN.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/13/2008 15:46 Comments ||
Top||
Just as soon as they're done populating Britain ...
ISLAMABAD Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani has said that his government would bring down the annual population growth rate to 1.55 per cent in the next five years as it would further improve the poverty ratio in the country.
Speaking at a World Population Day seminar here Gilani said the government is committed to launching the Population Welfare Programme. He said that planning a family was not just a duty but also one of the fundamental rights that every citizen needed to exercise in the present-day world.
The seminar was informed that at present growth rate in population, Pakistan would rank third most populous country in the world in next few decades.
Since there is no prosperity, few prospects, lots of disease, no education, no life for women, a need for cannon fodder and emigration as the only outlet, yup, might as well make a bunch of babies ...
Gilani said the current annual net addition of 2.9 million people was too much and if it continued to go like this it would cause a major gap between the available resources and population and it would eat up all the achievements. Therefore, strategic planning for population management was among the top most priorities of the government, he said.
Speaking on the occasion, United States Ambassador Anne Peterson appreciated the Pakistan government's efforts being undertaken to control the population explosion.
Did her lips fall off? She can't be serious. The things you have to say as a diplomat ...
She said the Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey Report offers a solid foundation for making profound changes in the way that people in Pakistan receive health care services.
Just as soon as they fix that polio problem ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
LAHORE: Chief of Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Kayani has told US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen that border violations by US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan would no longer be acceptable to Pakistan, a private television channel reported on Saturday.
According to Dawn News, the two officials discussed the prevailing security situation in north-western Pakistan during their meeting at the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi.
Kayani also maintained that such military adventures were counterproductive and might impact Pak-US bilateral co-operation in the ongoing war against terrorism, the channel said.
Mullen was on a surprise, one-day trip to Pakistan. US embassy officials confirmed the visit but said they had no details on Mullens itinerary.
According to the channel, Gen Kayani told the visiting US official that Pak-Afghan border security was the responsibility of all stakeholders. He said Pakistans security forces were capable of fighting militant outfits in the restive tribal belt near the Afghan border. Mullen praised Pakistans performance in the war on terror.
Mullen had recently remarked that militants were flowing into neighbouring Afghanistan more freely this year compared to last year because Pakistans government and military were not putting enough pressure on insurgents.
During his stop in Pakistan, Mullen also met President Pervez Musharraf, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and National Security Adviser Mehmood Ali Durrani, said Mullens spokesman Capt John Kirby.
Posted by: john frum ||
07/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Don't sell them the Allan damned targeting pod.
Don't give them any money.
No weapons.
NEW YORK - Pakistan's top diplomat said Saturday there are no U.S. or other foreign military personnel on the hunt for Osama bin Laden in his nation, and none will be allowed in to search for the al-Qaida leader.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said his nation's new government has ruled out such military operations, covert or otherwise, to catch militants."Our government's policy is that our troops, paramilitary forces and our regular forces are deployed in sufficient numbers. They are capable of taking action there. And any foreign intrusion would be counterproductive," he said Saturday. "People will not accept it. Questions of sovereignty come in."
The United States has grown increasingly frustrated as al-Qaida, the Taliban and other militants thrive in Pakistan's remote areas and in neighboring Afghanistan, and has offered U.S. troops to strike at terror networks. Critics in Washington also have expressed frustration with the new Pakistani government's pursuit of peace deals in the region. Bin Laden is believed to be hiding somewhere along the rugged and lawless Afghan-Pakistan border region.
Pakistan's newly elected civilian government is negotiating with tribal elders to secure peace with militants along the Afghan border in hopes of curbing a surge in violence. It is a step back from the heavy-handed tactics pursued by the previous government led by supporters of President Pervez Musharraf.
Tension between the U.S. and Pakistan have been high after Pakistan said U.S. aircraft killed 11 of its soldiers at a border post in June. U.S. officials have said coalition aircraft dropped bombs during a clash with militants.
Despite Pakistan's previous statements that it does not allow U.S. forces on its territory, villagers in the border region that is a haven for al-Qaida and Taliban fighters have reported seeing U.S. drones fire missiles at suspected militant targets on several occasions in recent years.
Qureshi said he tried to reassure Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at their meeting Friday that his government was doing everything it can to combat militants in lawless tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. Pakistan and Afghanistan regularly exchange criticism about not doing more to fight extremists operating along their long, remote, mountainous border that is seen by the U.S. as crucial to stopping terrorism.
Qureshi acknowledged "there are some infiltrations" still occurring, but there are no covert U.S. military operations trying to catch al-Qaida figures and its chief, Taliban members or any other suspected militants. "There are none," he said. "It will create such an anti-U.S. feeling in Pakistan that I would say would mar the atmosphere of cooperation that exists between us."
Qureshi described Pakistan's counterterrorism as a "grassroots" approach."Our strategy is that the military option alone is not enough," he said. "This war has to be fought besides the armies, with the help of the people, by winning hearts and minds."
Does he believe bin Laden is in Pakistan? "I don't think so. I'm not sure," he said. "Nobody's aware of that. Nobody can speak with certainty. But our policy's very clear. We are allies in this war. And if Pakistan has actionable information vis-a-vis Osama bin laden or any other high value target, Pakistan will immediately take action."
Qureshi also met Thursday with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who agreed to Pakistan's request to establish an independent commission that will investigate former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's killing.
On Saturday, Qureshi declined to repeat the accusations by Musharraf's government and the CIA that Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, a Pakistani militant commander often blamed for suicide attacks, had orchestrated the Dec. 27 killing. "We cannot jump to conclusions before the investigation is started," Qureshi said. "You cannot rule it out that he was responsible, but you cannot say with certainty that he is responsible. Only the inquiry will determine who was or was not responsible."
Qureshi also ruled out any future investigation into whether his nation's military helped disgraced Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan spread nuclear weapons to rogue nations. "What had to be found out, was found out," he said. "A.Q. Khan, as far as we are considered, is history. A.Q. Khan no longer has any official status. The network that he put together has been effectively broken."
India on Saturday said it has a fair amount of intelligence about Pakistan's involvement in the Monday's suicide attack on its embassy in Kabul.
"We not only suspect but we have a fair amount of intelligence (on the involvement of Pakistan)," National Security Advisor M K Narayanan told Times Now news channel when asked whether India suspects Pakistan's involvement in the attack. "The people of this country deserve to know the facts rather than being carried away by people who make statements that these are insinuations. There are no insinuations," he said.
Four Indians, including an IFS officer and a Brigadier of the Indian Army, were killed in the blast caused by a suicide bomber driving an explosive-laden Toyota Corolla.
The NSA said there was a need to retaliate to such acts of terror. "I think we need to pay back in the same coin. We are quite clear in our mind," he said. When asked who should be paid back, he replied, "Those who are responsible."
And I'll bet the NYT won't hear about it afterwards, either ...
Narayanan said India-Pakistan relations were sought to be improved through a comprehensive dialogue mechanism. "The anti-terror mechanism was one piece of this picture. The hope was that in course of time both sides would share whatever information they have and come up with a holistic idea of what was going on," he said. "Talk-talk is better than fight-fight. But it hasn't worked so far. In some way, we haven't arrived at the decision that we should go for fight-fight so let talk-talk continue for the moment," Narayanan said.
Posted by: john frum ||
07/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It needs to be paid back in Zimbuck quantities and a foreclosure on the house of islam.
Posted by: ed ||
07/13/2008 7:02 Comments ||
Top||
WASHINGTON: Iraq's national security adviser on Sunday denied a report that Washington and Baghdad have abandoned efforts to conclude a deal on the status of US troops in Iraq before the end of the presidency of George W. Bush. Muwaffaq al-Rubaie said a Washington Post story Sunday was "missing the point" and that the two sides were still aiming to achieve a pact.
The Post reported that in place of the formal status-of-forces agreement negotiators had aimed to complete by July 31, the two governments are now working on a "bridge" document that would allow basic US military operations to continue beyond the expiration of a UN mandate at the end of the year, the report said. "I don't think this is true, to be quite honest," Rubaie told CNN. "We are trying very hard to get to this [July] timeline, and I believe that there is still hope," he added.
The failure of months of negotiations is being blamed on both the Iraqi refusal to accept US terms and the complexity of the task, the daily said.
Although Bush has repeatedly rejected calls for a troop withdrawal timeline, "we are talking about dates," acknowledged one US official close to the talks, according to the Post. Iraqi political leaders "are all telling us the same thing ... Iraqis want to know that foreign troops are not going to be here forever," the official was quoted as saying.
Unlike the status-of-forces agreements with South Korea and Japan, where large numbers of US troops have been based for decades, the document now under discussion with Iraq is likely to cover only 2009, the report said. Negotiators expect it to include a "time horizon," with specific goals for US troop withdrawal from Baghdad and other cities and installations such as the palace that now houses the US Embassy, the Post said.
Rubaie used similar language when discussing possibilities for agreement on troop withdrawal, saying "it is the right time now to start talking about planning a time line horizon" for an exit of foreign troops.
Last week in Najaf, Rubaie said Baghdad would not reach any security pact with Washington unless it sets a "specific date for a complete withdrawal of foreign troops," a proposal turned down by Bush.
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush long has vowed that the United States would leave Iraq if asked by Baghdad's leadership, but now that the request has been made, Bush is in no hurry to exit, analysts say.
Iraqi leaders have pressed for a withdrawal timetable as part of negotiations over the US military role beyond December 31, when the UN mandate which provides the legal basis for a foreign troop presence in Iraq expires.
The request was made first by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who last Monday said he was seeking a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops as part of a security agreement, which both sides were striving to conclude by July.
National security advisor Muwaffaq al-Rubaie followed on Tuesday by asserting Iraq would reject any security pact if it does not give a specific date for a complete withdrawal of foreign troops.
For Bush -- who said on May 24, 2007: "We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. ... If they were to say 'leave,' we would leave" -- it would appear Iraq's request for a US departure date has been made loud and clear.
But the White House has remained opposed to any set date for US pullout on the basis it could hand insurgents a victory, resisting attempts by foes in Congress to impose a withdrawal date.
The White House reacted to Maliki's comments by saying it was not negotiating a "hard date" for a US withdrawal from Iraq but it did not rule out discussions on "time-frames" with Baghdad.
Eventually, the administration will have "basically no choice" but to exit, according to Iraq expert Anthony Cordesman at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"Iraq is a sovereign nation. The United States has repeated that point constantly. This is a government in Iraq that makes its own choices, and the US will have basically no choice," he said.
However, he warned that Iraq's leaders may not be as steadfast as they appear in calling for a withdrawal date.
"We ought to be very careful not to read too much into a report or an agreement nobody has seen, with conditions which may be surprisingly vague," Cordesman said.
A departure of combat troops, he stressed, could still leave behind large numbers of advisors to help in the fight against Al-Qaeda.
The Bush administration is playing on this uncertainty by publicly assuring that Iraq's call for a withdrawal date indicates an improvement of the situation, while sticking by its opposition to any fixed pullout schedule, experts say.
The White House has indicated it is open to what spokeswoman Dana Perino has called "aspirational time frames," but has repeated that any decisions must be based on conditions on the ground.
In a further sign that the two sides are far from a deal, a Washington Post report Sunday suggested the negotiations to conclude a so-called Status of Forces Agreement between the United States and Iraq by the time Bush leaves office have been abandoned, effectively leaving talks over the US military presence in Iraq to the next US administration.
The two governments were now working on a "bridge" document that would allow basic US military operations to continue beyond the expiration of a United Nations mandate at the end of the year, the Post reported, citing unnamed senior US officials.
Behind the scenes, US officials acknowledge that Iraqi leaders are ramping up calls for control of their own affairs because Iraqi sovereignty is a key campaign issue ahead of provincial polls in October.
The radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has likened any long-term US military presence to "eternal slavery."
Bush, who has often said he envisions a prolonged military presence in Iraq citing the South Korean situation as an example, was not being sincere when he said the United States would leave if asked, according to analyst Lawrence Korb, former assistant secretary of defense to president Ronald Reagan.
"He said it but he didn't mean it, he never thought they would ask for it," Korb said, adding it is unlikely, in his view, that anything more than a "target date" could be proposed before Bush leaves office in January 2009.
"Basically what Bush is going to do and Maliki is going to do is kick the can down the road to see who gets elected," Korb said.
U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have abandoned efforts to conclude a comprehensive agreement governing the long-term status of U.S troops in Iraq before the end of the Bush presidency, according to senior U.S. officials, effectively leaving talks over an extended U.S. military presence there to the next administration.
In place of the formal status-of-forces agreement negotiators had hoped to complete by July 31, the two governments are now working on a "bridge" document, more limited in both time and scope, that would allow basic U.S. military operations to continue beyond the expiration of a U.N. mandate at the end of the year.
The failure of months of negotiations over the more detailed accord -- blamed on both the Iraqi refusal to accept U.S. terms and the complexity of the task -- deals a blow to the Bush administration's plans to leave in place a formal military architecture in Iraq that could last for years.
Although President Bush has repeatedly rejected calls for a troop withdrawal timeline, "we are talking about dates," acknowledged one U.S. official close to the negotiations. Iraqi political leaders "are all telling us the same thing. They need something like this in there. . . . Iraqis want to know that foreign troops are not going to be here forever."
Unlike the status-of-forces agreements between the United States and countries such as South Korea and Japan, where large numbers of U.S. troops have been based for decades, the document now under discussion with Iraq is likely to cover only 2009. Negotiators expect it to include a "time horizon," with specific goals for U.S. troop withdrawal from Baghdad and other cities and installations such as the former Saddam Hussein palace that now houses the U.S. Embassy.
The fixed dates will likely include caveats referring to the ability of Iraqi security forces to take over from U.S. units, but without them, U.S. negotiators concluded that Iraqi acquiescence was doubtful. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his political allies have come under intense domestic pressure to reject any perceived infringement on Iraqi sovereignty. Maliki, who last week publicly insisted on a withdrawal timeline, wants to frame the agreement as outlining the terms for "Americans leaving Iraq" rather than the conditions under which they will stay, said the U.S. official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because U.S.-Iraqi negotiations are ongoing.
The idea, he said, is to "take the heat off [Maliki] a little bit, to rebrand the thing and counter the narrative that he's negotiating for a permanent military presence in Iraq."
The most contentious unresolved issue is the legal immunity of U.S. troops and Defense Department personnel from Iraqi prosecution for any alleged crime. "We're trying to come onto the same page," a second U.S. official close to the negotiations said. "But with U.S. forces in potential combat situations, we have some real bottom lines.
"But even on that question, it's one thing on immunity if in the Iraqi mind it's an agreement for U.S. troops forever," he said. "It's another thing if these immunity arrangements are temporary because U.S. forces are temporary."
Largely cosmetic compromises have been made on other difficult questions, such as the formation of joint U.S.-Iraqi commissions to oversee all unilateral U.S. combat and detainee operations and provide a veneer of Iraqi control. Washington has acquiesced to Iraqi refusal to grant immunity to private contractors, an issue that is controversial because of incidents in which American security contractors have killed Iraqi civilians.
U.S. and Iraqi officials also hope the new, bare-bones agreement -- called a "temporary operating protocol" in Washington and a "memorandum of understanding" in Baghdad -- will allow them to sidestep significant political roadblocks that have impeded completion of a broader agreement.
The status-of-forces negotiations have been sharply criticized by Democrats, and some Republicans, as an attempt to tie Bush's successor to the president's policy in Iraq. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, supports the administration position. He has said he hopes to bring U.S. combat troops home by 2013 but has insisted that any timeline or lessening of U.S. control over its own operations would undercut recent military gains and aid U.S. enemies.
Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), the presumptive Democratic nominee, has said he would immediately begin withdrawing combat troops at a rate of one or two brigades a month, a pledge he has softened recently by saying he would consult with U.S. commanders on the ground. But he has said that after 16 months in office, the U.S. presence in Iraq would be far smaller than the 144,000 troops there now, with only a "residual" number remaining.
Lawmakers have also objected to Bush's insistence that a status-of-forces agreement -- and a separate strategic framework outlining broad economic, political and security cooperation -- can be enacted with his signature alone and does not require congressional approval.
With some U.S. troops expected to remain in Iraq no matter who becomes president, administration officials said they anticipated that negotiations over a long-term status-of-forces agreement would continue. But with the end of the U.N. mandate looming, one official said, "we need a bridge which allows us to have some measure of authority to continue operations" after December.
Protest over the agreement has been far more vociferous in Iraq, where Maliki's government -- heading toward provincial elections this year and a parliamentary election in 2009 -- has been scrambling to show that it is reclaiming Iraqi sovereignty from the Americans. Just one month after discussions on the status-of-forces agreement began in March, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari warned in an interview that a U.S. draft was unacceptable.
In May, Iraqi and foreign media published U.S. negotiators' demands that one administration official now describes as "frankly unrealistic," including unilateral control over U.S. combat and detainee operations, immunity for U.S. personnel from Iraqi prosecution, and control over Iraqi airspace. Additional accounts outlined a list of 58 separate military installations that would remain under U.S. control.
Maliki's political competition, led by radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, deemed the absence of a timeline a deal-breaker. Iraq's top Shiite leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, warned against any agreement that violated Iraqi sovereignty and was not approved by the Iraqi people.
In late May, Maliki told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the negotiating process "was not working," one U.S. official said. Beneath the public controversy over major issues, negotiators were locked in the minutiae of arrangements over things such as environmental regulations and license plates for U.S. vehicles -- standard items in formal status-of-forces agreements with other countries -- and "we weren't having the strategic level conversation we needed to be having," the official said.
Bush subsequently instructed U.S. negotiators to "be more flexible and open-minded," one official said. But it was becoming clear that the July 31 deadline for completion -- set to ensure a deal was in hand before the August Iraqi parliamentary recess, the month-long observance of Ramadan in September, and the final stretches of the U.S. presidential campaign -- would not be met.
"What we're doing now is more . . . a bridge to have the authority in place so we don't turn into a pumpkin on December 31," the official said. Neither country wants an extension of the U.N. mandate. Iraq has rejected its explicit limits on sovereignty, and the administration believes that a limited extension would only postpone the need for a bilateral accord and potentially leave U.S. troops with "our backs against the wall."
According to U.S. officials, Maliki also hopes that a temporary protocol would circumvent the full parliamentary review and two-thirds vote he has promised for a status-of-forces agreement. "He is trying to figure out, just as we did, how you can set up an agreement between the two and have it be legally binding," one official said, "but not go through the legislative body."
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Bush administration is considering withdrawing additional troops from Iraq beginning in September, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions, citing administration and military officials. The withdrawal, which the Times said would constitute a marked reversal from the war's darkest days of 2006-2007, stemmed partly from the need for more U.S. troops in Afghanistan to fight the rising insurgency by the Taliban and other fighters. U.S. and allied casualties there have outpaced those in Iraq in recent months.
And mostly from the fact that the fight has gone well in Iraq. But count on the NYT to find the gray cloud in the silver lining ...
No final decisions have been made, but at least one and as many as three of the 15 combat brigades now in Iraq could be withdrawn, or slated for withdrawal, by the end of the administration in January, the Times said, citing officials.
The White House declined to discuss the withdrawals, but spokesman Gordon Johndroe told the newspaper that while the president hoped to bring more troops home, he would await the recommendation in September of Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, the Times said. "For now," Johndroe said, "we will continue discussions with the Iraqis on our shared goals of a reduced U.S. troop presence," it quoted him as saying.
Despite consensus among officials that fewer forces are needed in Iraq and more in Afghanistan, one senior administration official also cautioned that President George W. Bush would resist deep or rapid reductions if that threatened the prospects for a stable, democratic government in Iraq, the Times said.
Bush is right to be careful. Any slip or regression in Iraq would be a PR disaster, and we can't afford that right now. Keep the screws on AQI, make sure the Iraqis continue to recover, and keep working with Maliki on security issues.
"There hasn't really been any discussion of numbers, and it's definitely based on conditions on the ground," the Times quoted a military officer in Baghdad as saying. Conditions "are a lot more favorable than in December or April or even two months ago," he added.
But Petraeus, who leaves Iraq in September to head the U.S. Central Command, which also has oversight over the Afghanistan war, and has already begun the review of security and troop levels, is expected to be more cautious than some administration and Pentagon officials might want, the Times said. Officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said Petraeus would more likely recommend a smaller reduction.
The most optimistic course would be 120,000 to 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, the Times said, which would be down from the peak of 170,000 in 2007 after Bush ordered the troop increase. As of July 9, there were 146,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.
Iraq is a major issue in November's presidential election battle between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama. McCain supports the Bush administration's current strategy there, while Obama has called for a timetable for withdrawal.
Let's bring home a brigade in late September. Let's throw a parade for them. In, say, Washington. March down Pennsylvania Avenue, get a key to the city, have a ceremony on the Mall. Invite Senators McCain and Obama.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
NYT and Al Reuters. Last check I had was that Petraeus determines pull out.
#2
an accelerated pullout would not be in Iraq's best interest, but this could also be a reminder to Maliki that Iraqis aren't the only ones who decide when the Americans withdraw.
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/13/2008 9:49 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Hey, while they're on that parade down Pennsylvania Avenue, do ya' think they could maybe take the time to make about 650 arrests over at Capitol Hill?
#4
HMMMM, HMMMMM, another one for 2008-2012 [2016?] POTUS Period = ISLAMIST NUCLEARIZATION vv CENTRAL ASIA, + also another good background sign for the ISLAMIST HIDDEN IMAM-MAHDI, perhaps even PRE-IMAM/MAHDI?, to make his Appearance in the ME, AS PER MOUD + OSAMA etal.???
The government is aiming to pull the vast majority of British troops out of Iraq by the middle of next year, defence sources have revealed. While there are no plans to withdraw before George W Bush hands over to the new American president at the turn of the year, the decision is now expected to be made in the first half of 2009.
That's fine, southern Iraq is doing better and as long as Maliki can stay tough the Brits should be able to go. Perhaps they'll move some troops to Afghanistan.
Only troops training Iraqi military or police and special forces are likely to stay, unless there is a sharp change for the worse.
In an indication of Britains keenness to withdraw, Des Browne, the defence secretary, emphasised last week that Iraqi troops were better able to keep southern Iraq peaceful than British soldiers.
That turns out to be true ...
The Iraqi military had broken the grip of militias controlling the southern city of Basra, he said on a visit to the United States. If British troops had tried to oust the militias, we would still be fighting, Browne told the Brookings Institution in Washington.
His comments followed the leaking of an army report that criticises the Treasury for fuelling unrest in southern Iraq by failing to fund reconstruction quickly enough. The paper, written in 2006 and overseen by Lieutenant-General Bill Rollo, now deputy coalition commander, said too few resources, both human and financial, were allocated.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Perhaps they'll move some troops to Afghanistan.
At the rate Brown is handling them, they're probably best left at home for Margaret's funeral. One last great gesture before Britain closes shop and fades away into international socialist bureaucratic nothingness.
Hamas yesterday rejected Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's call for Palestinian reconciliation.Fawzi Barhoum, a spokesman of Hamas in Gaza, told reporters that Fayyad was implementing a US-Israeli agenda rather than Palestinian one.
He also described Fayyad as "the most dangerous man in the history of the Palestinian cause because of his US-backed ideas that he has tried to implement. Fayyad's call is far away from any national proposal ... he is a part of the Israeli and American equation." Salam might wanna buy a remote car starter.
Barhoum was reacting to Fayyad's interview to a pan-Arab newspaper in which he has said that "the home must be reunited because this is the way to respond to the Israeli actions."
Hamas does not recognize Fayyad's government based in the West Bank city of Ramallah and formed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in June 2007 when Hamas ousted Abbas and seized Gaza. Hamas rules the Gaza Strip with a government headed by Ismail Haniyeh.
"Hamas is too great to listen to a man who destroyed the Palestinian cause. Hamas is a great Palestinian faction which once formed a unity government and led the Palestinian people, said Barhoum.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salaam Fayad on Saturday called for the establishment of a unity government with Hamas, saying it was time to reunite the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Referring to the recent IDF crackdown on Hamas-affiliated institutions in the West Bank, Fayad said: "The response to the Israeli measures should be the immediate reunification of the two parts of the homeland [West Bank and Gaza Strip]. We must end the division and restore unity immediately."
Fayad's remarks were published in the London-based Al-Hayat daily.
Calling on Hamas to accept PA President Mahmoud Abbas's initiative for "national unity," Fayad said he was prepared to form a transitional government to run the affairs of the Palestinians and prepare for new elections.
Addressing Hamas, Fayad asked: "Why are you reluctant? We must not keep the homeland hostage to political differences.
We must agree on a transitional government." Fayad expressed outrage over the IDF measures and accused Israel of seeking to sabotage his government's efforts to enforce law and order in the West Bank.
Last week Fayad visited Nablus and urged residents not to comply with the IDF orders to shut down several Hamas-affiliated institutions. Fayad also paid a solidarity visit to the Hamas-dominated Nablus Municipality, which was also raided by IDF troops who confiscated files and equipment.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
July 12, 2008: The U.S. Army has activated its first Network Warfare Battalion. The unit will not operate together, but mostly as many detachments, supporting combat forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, counter-terror operations throughout the world, as well as in joint Cyber War operations with other services and foreign countries. The battalion belongs to the 704th Military Intelligence Brigade, which is in turn subordinate to INSCOM (the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command).
All the services are making a major effort to develop defensive and offensive Cyber War weapons. The U.S. Air Force has established a major command (involving over 20,000 specialists) for this, and is attempting to become the lead for all Department of Defense Cyber War activities. The other services oppose this attempt to take over, although they appreciate air force efforts to develop new tools and capabilities. The army and navy both have thousands of troops, in many different units, working on Cyber War activities. Creating major units (battalions and larger) dedicated to Cyber War, is a new development.
A covert war against the LTTE is underway as India deepens its military engagement with Sri Lanka
SETTING ASIDE domestic Tamil sensitivities, the Indian government appears to have involved itself in a full-fledged proxy war in Sri Lanka. While claiming to have adopted a hands-off policy with regard to its neighbour's continuing ethnic conflict between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the forces of the Sinhalese government, India is extending the latter its covert support. This was revealed by Sri Lanka's army chief, Lieutenant General Sarath Fonseka, last week during an interaction with members of the Foreign Correspondents' Association in Colombo. "Eight hundred of our officers are trained (in India) every year; free of cost," Fonseka is reported to have said. "India gives them an allowance for the duration of their courses there. The support from India is huge."
Fonseka's remarks came on the heels of a high-level Indian delegation's visit to Colombo at a time when the government troops and the LTTE are locked in a fierce battle in northern Sri Lanka. The Indian officials' trip was kept a close secret. According to media reports, even the Lankan foreign ministry came to know about the visit of India's national security adviser, MK Narayanan, defence secretary Vijay Singh, and foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon only hours after they landed in Colombo on an Indian Air Force plane.
Fonseka, who survived an assassination attempt last year, has vowed to achieve a military victory against the LTTE. His confidence stems from his military success against the rebels in the Eastern provinces last year and covert Indian support to his war efforts. Fonseka, President Mahinda Rajapakse and his brother and defence secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse together form the powerful Colombo triumvirate that advocates a military solution to the ethnic strife that has claimed over 70,000 lives in the last three decades. In March, Fonseka made a six-day state visit to India, during which he met with top defence officials.
Military relations between India and Sri Lanka have developed over recent years even though the two countries have not entered any formal cooperation agreement. While many in Delhi support such an agreement, it has not seen the light of day due to stiff opposition from political parties in Tamil Nadu. At present, however, India appears to have cast aside all neutrality in the Tamil-Sinhala conflict, and adopted a policy best encapsulated by an unnamed military officer to a news agency on the eve of Fonseka's Delhi visit: "India wants to ensure that the Sri Lankan army maintains its upper hand over the LTTE."
India's training of Sri Lankan army personnel has never been officially confirmed by either country, until Fonseka's boast last week. More details of the military cooperation are, however, emerging. According to a July 1 report in The Times of India, in 2008-2009 alone, over 500 Lankan army personnel are to be trained in Indian institutions like the Counter-Insurgency and Jungle Warfare School at Vairengte in Mizoram and the School of Artillery at Devlali in Maharashtra. According to the report, about 100 gentlemen cadets will receive training at the Indian Military Academy at Dehradun, 39 officers at the College of Military Engineering at Pune, 15 in the School of Artillery at Devlali, 29 in the Mechanised Infantry Regimental Centre at Ahmednagar, 25 in the College of Materials Management at Jabalpur, 30 in the Electronics and Mechanical Engineering School at Vadodara, and 14 at the Military College of Telecommunication Engineering at Mhow.
Support does not stop at training alone. India has been supplying 'defensive' military equipment to Sri Lanka, including the indigenouslymanufactured Indra radars. Officially, India claims it does not supply offensive weapons to Sri Lanka, but there are strong possibilities of a secret arrangement being in place already. However, in June last year, when MK Narayanan publicly cautioned Sri Lanka against purchasing arms from China and Pakistan, he also said it could approach India for any help it required. Narayanan's statement could have meant only one thing, that India was ready to meet Sri Lanka's arms demands.
India's relations with Sri Lanka is seen by many from the perspective of the Chinese geopolitical strategy in the region. Sri Lanka has moved closer to China in recent years, and Rajapakse, who came to power in 2005, has been particularly adept at playing the China card against India. Sri Lanka figures prominently in Chinese naval strategy, being part of China's "string of pearls" (or strategic bases) starting from the South China Sea and extending through the Strait of Malacca, Indian Ocean and on to the Arabian and Persian Gulfs.
Security experts like B. Raman, a former additional secretary of the Government of India, have been expressing concern about the Chinese threat. In a recent column, Raman noted: "The semi-permanent presence, which the Chinese are getting in Sri Lanka, will bring them within monitoring distance of India's fast-breeder reactor complex at Kalpakkam near Chennai, the Russian aided Koodankulam nuclear power reactor complex in southern Tamil Nadu and India's space establishments in Kerala."
WHILE INDIA'S need to counter this threat is beyond doubt, sections of those sympathetic to the Lankan Tamil cause see striking similarities in the present developments to the situation in the 1980s, in the run-up to the signing of the Indo-Sri Lanka accord in 1987. In that period, the then Sri Lankan president, JR Jayawardene, got India embroiled into fighting the LTTE. The consequences of that flawed intervention, and the immense suffering it caused Tamils at the hands of the Indian army, are yet to be erased from the bruised memories of Tamils all over the world. Discontent over the Centre's policies in Sri Lanka continues to simmer in Tamil Nadu, with various parties urging the Indian government to stop military aid to the country. The LTTE has also made appeals. Following Fonseka's visit to Delhi in March, the outfit issued a statement against India's growing military aid to Sri Lanka, saying: "While proclaiming that a solution to the Tamil problem must be found through peaceful means, India is giving encouragement to the military approach of the Sinhala State. This can only lead to the intensification of the genocide against the Tamils."
A pro-LTTE Sri Lankan Tamil MP said recently, "We are optimistic even during this darkest hour. The Sri Lankan government will ditch India in favour of the Chinese in due course. Then India will have to change its policy and support the Tamils as Indira Gandhi did during her time." Whatever may be the future twists and turns in South Asia's highly unpredictable diplomatic world, as of now India cannot disown responsibility for its part in the Eelam tragedy.
Posted by: john frum ||
07/13/2008 09:19 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Looks like MK Narayanan has decided to play hardball...
Posted by: john frum ||
07/13/2008 11:27 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Didn't the LTTE assassinate Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi?
Posted by: ed ||
07/13/2008 11:42 Comments ||
Top||
TEHRAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he met two military commanders from US-led forces on his trip to Iraq in March and that they even took souvenir pictures to commemorate the encounter. His claims were published on Saturday in reformist newspapers and the conservative Jomhouri Eslami, which said the comments came in a speech he made over a month ago that was first broadcast by state television late Wednesday.
There was no immediate confirmation of the comments from the Iranian presidency or any further reaction on Sunday.
Ahmadinejad has also said he was the target of an assassination plot during his historic visit to Iraq. "When I was in Iraq ... I was told that one of the occupying commanders wanted to see me," Ahmadinejad was quoted as telling commanders from the volunteer Basij militia. "Apparently, he was due to leave on vacation but he had delayed his vacation to see me and I agreed. When he saw me, he told me that he was proud of me and said 'you are in our hearts.' Then he asked me to take a souvenir picture with me. And he and his deputy did just that." Probably Photoshopped.
"So I patted him on the shoulder and I encouraged him and told him to protect Iraqi people," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.
He did not say which country the commanders were from, although the context of his comments suggested that they were supposed to be American.
Jomhouri Eslami, a newspaper close to Iran's hard-line establishment, reacted with skepticism to the reported comments. "If the American commanders [in Iraq] are with Iran then how come the Americans wanted to abduct the Iranian president there?" it asked.
Ahmadinejad's remarks were also published in the reformist Aftab-e Yazd, Etemad-e Melli and Sarmayeh newspapers and a video of his speech has been posted on the YouTube video-sharing website.
Ahmadinejad said in June that enemies had planned to kidnap and kill him in Iraq but the plot was foiled. Some newspapers openly ridiculed his suggestion, with one saying that if the Americans had wanted to kidnap him they would have done it during his annual visit to the UN General Assembly in New York.
His envoy to Rome also said that Ahmadinejad was the target of an "X-ray radiation plot" during his trip to Rome for the UN food summit in June.
Syria and Lebanon have agreed to open embassies in each other's capitals, French leader Nicolas Sarkozy has said. The announcement came after Mr Sarkozy held talks with Lebanon's President Michel Suleiman and then Syria's leader Bashar Assad in Paris.
Lebanon and Syria broke off diplomatic ties after former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri was assassinated in 2005. Beirut accused Syria of involvement.
Mr Assad's welcome in Paris marks his return to the world stage. "I would like to say what a historic step forward it is for France that Syrian President Bashar Assad is determined to open a diplomatic representation in Lebanon, and that Lebanon should open a diplomatic representation in Syria," Mr Sarkozy announced after meeting both men.
There has been no announcement by either Syria or Lebanon, but Mr Sarkozy said their leaders had authorised him to speak on their behalf. Relations between Syria and Lebanon have been tense since the forced withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon in mid-2005 after Mr Hariri's assassination. But the two nations have not had diplomatic relations at ambassadorial level since they became independent in the 1940s.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said U.S. President George W. Bush was not interested in the Middle East peace process and as result he did not expect direct talks with Israel until Bush leaves office next January.
Ending years of isolation from the West, Assad on Saturday met French President Nicolas Sarkozy on the eve of a major EU-Mediterranean summit and signalled his willingness to improve relations with both Syria's neighbours, Israel and Lebanon.
Assad said he did not believe Iran was seeking atomic weapons, but he wanted a political solution and would convey Sarkozy's doubts about Tehran's nuclear programme to Iranian leaders, with whom Syria has close relations.
The Syrian president also said he wanted France to play a role in any eventual face-to-face talks with Israel, but added that it was essential for the United States to also be present.
"Quite frankly, this American administration is not interested in the peace process, so the question (of direct talks) won't arise before the arrival of a new American administration," Assad told a news conference.
The United States elects a new president in November and President George W. Bush will step down in January 2009.
Syria launched indirect peace talks with Israel this year under Turkish mediation over the return of the Golan Heights captured by Israel in 1967.
The last direct talks between the Israel and Syria under U.S. sponsorship broke down eight years ago and Washington has been reluctant to re-engage with Damascus because of its role in Lebanon and close ties with Iran.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
U.S. and Israeli officials Friday denied reports that Israel is using U.S. airbases in Iraq to prepare for a possible attack on Iran. Several Mideast media outlets reported an Iraqi minister as saying Israeli airplanes were in Iraqi airspace and landing at U.S. airbases in preparation for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, "I find that report inconceivable, and clearly someone is either misinformed or intentionally trying to create mischief," Press TV of Iran reported.
An Israeli military spokesman also played down the report, describing it as "utterly baseless."
Meanwhile, officials of an unnamed Arab country told Israeli officials that they and representatives from other countries would not oppose an Israeli strike against Iran, sources told Haaretz. The representatives said they were concerned about Iran's growing influence in the region, creating potential Shiite-Sunni rifts.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak Thursday said Israel was the "strongest country in the region," the Post reported, and has "already proved it did not shy away in the past from acting when it fears its vital interests are at stake."
Posted by: Fred ||
07/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
Taken together, Iraq and Israel could pretty well clean the clocks of their neighbors. The I and I Coalition.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
07/13/2008 10:36 Comments ||
Top||
A U.S. military official says Iran fired only one missile Thursday, not a full round, based on U.S. intelligence assessments. Iranian media reported the country's military conducted a second day of test-firing missiles, but the U.S. military official told CNN U.S. radar and satellite imagery don't support the claim. The military official said it was possible that Iran tested short-range missiles.
U.S. diplomatic and military officials said they believe Iran did fire seven missiles -- including one long-range Shahab-3 -- Wednesday, as it said. But the source talking to CNN said one missile failed to launch and the Iranians fired it the following day.
The Iranian exercises came a month after Israel conducted a military drill in the eastern Mediterranean. Tensions between Iran and Israel have been growing. Iran has accused Israel of trying to weaken Tehran while Israel hasn't ruled out a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.
Israel was expected to unveil an advance aircraft its military said is capable of spying on Iran. Israeli Army Radio told CNN the Eitam airplane is a "practical answer" to recent Iranian "threats."
Posted by: Fred ||
07/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
I'm personally wonderin' why, besides whatever missles were indeed test-launched, Iran also didn't put up an air show wid some its its tacair?
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.
India on Saturday claimed it had "a fair amount of intelligence on Pakistan's involvement" in Monday's suicide attack on its embassy in Kabul. 
Under pressure from fundamentalist forms of Islam and bursts of sectarian violence, the most populous Christian community in the Middle East is seeking safety by turning inward, cutting day-to-day social ties that have bound Muslim to Christian in Egypt for centuries, members of both communities say. Attacks this summer on monks and shopkeepers belonging to Egypt's Coptic Christian minority, and scattered clashes between Muslims and Christians, have compelled many of Egypt's estimated 6 to 8 million Copts to isolate themselves in a nation of more than 70 million Muslims.
The government is to sponsor a theological board of leading imams and Muslim women in an attempt to refute the ideology of violent extremists. The committee, to be announced this week, will issue pronouncements on areas such as wearing the hijab and the treatment of wives and is part of a government strategy to counter radicalism. It will rule on interpretation of the Koran and promote the moderate strain of Islam practised by most British Muslims. It will also comment on controversial issues affecting Muslims living in Britain, including whether or not they should serve in the armed forces. 
Two American-born teenagers forced by their father to attend a madrassa in Pakistan for nearly four years have returned home to Atlanta after a documentary filmmaker pushed for their release.
U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have abandoned efforts to conclude a comprehensive agreement governing the long-term status of U.S troops in Iraq before the end of the Bush presidency, according to senior U.S. officials, effectively leaving talks over an extended U.S. military presence there to the next administration. 
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Bush administration is considering withdrawing additional troops from Iraq beginning in September, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions, citing administration and military officials. The withdrawal, which the Times said would constitute a marked reversal from the war's darkest days of 2006-2007, stemmed partly from the need for more U.S. troops in Afghanistan to fight the rising insurgency by the Taliban and other fighters. U.S. and allied casualties there have outpaced those in Iraq in recent months.
The government is aiming to pull the vast majority of British troops out of Iraq by the middle of next year, defence sources have revealed. While there are no plans to withdraw before George W Bush hands over to the new American president at the turn of the year, the decision is now expected to be made in the first half of 2009.
TEHRAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he met two military commanders from US-led forces on his trip to Iraq in March and that they even took souvenir pictures to commemorate the encounter. His claims were published on Saturday in reformist newspapers and the conservative Jomhouri Eslami, which said the comments came in a speech he made over a month ago that was first broadcast by state television late Wednesday.
A U.S. military official says Iran fired only one missile Thursday, not a full round, based on U.S. intelligence assessments. Iranian media reported the country's military conducted a second day of test-firing missiles, but the U.S. military official told CNN U.S. radar and satellite imagery don't support the claim. The military official said it was possible that Iran tested short-range missiles.
