The son of a British man held hostage in Iraq has urged Tony Blair to help save his father's life following the murder of a fellow captive. A website thought to be linked to the group holding Ken Bigley and two Americans features a video showing one of the other men being beheaded. On BBC News 24 Mr Bigley's son Craig urged Mr Blair to "meet the demands... two women for two men".
The video showing the killing of one hostage also appeared to announce a 24-hour extension to the deadline when the two remaining hostages would be killed. The nine-minute long video tape - which has not been verified - showed five militants dressed in black behind the sobbing man, blindfolded and wearing an orange jumpsuit. After reading a statement, the man in the centre, believed to be Mr Zarqawi himself, appeared to pull what looked like a knife and cut the man's throat. The speaker warned that the next hostage would die in 24 hours unless their demands were met. Following the broadcast of the killing, the US recovered a body which it named as Eugene Armstrong.
Tawhid and Jihad has demanded the release of women it says are held by coalition authorities in the Abu Ghraib and Umm Qasr prisons in Iraq. But the US has said no women are held at either jail, although two female "security prisoners" are held elsewhere. They include Dr Rihab Rashid Taha, a senior scientist who worked on Saddam Hussein's bacterial weapons programme and was nicknamed Doctor Germ.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Bulldog ||
09/21/2004 5:44:31 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Why is it a demand for something that supposedly the coalition doesn't have, women prisoners? The Iraqis may have some but the US and U.K. claim they have none. Are they holding some high value recent captures? The Iraqi goverment is holding 2 female scientists as war criminals Dr. Germ and Mrs Anthrax I bet the homosexual, child molester and, defiler of the Koran and sacred rasins Zarqawi would love to get his hands on those 2.
Sad fact is if as a civilian you are going to go to a place like Iraq you take your life in your own hands. Has the US Department of State of U.K. Home Office told people it's safe to travel to Iraq? I don't think so. You get your ass in a sling over there and you are on your own, just as it always has been. Only John Kerry, LLLs, girly men and, moonbats think otherwise this group includes the terrorist supporting media.
I hate to see these familes put through hell but their loved ones were not coerced to go to Iraq.
#2
Even if the demands are met, these killers would never let a non-muslim go free. They would claim there are more than 2 women being held in captivity, then kill the hostages. I feel so bad for the families that are going through this torture right now. God bless them. The next time we go to Fallujah, we better not be fucking around, and let these killers escape justice ...again.
#3
Why is it a demand for something that supposedly the coalition doesn't have, women prisoners?
How do you know, the coalition (in this case Americans only) claimed it didn't torture too. In fact the coalition (Americans) claimed a lot which did not come out true in Irak.
Posted by: Murat ||
09/21/2004 6:25 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Well, Murat, get some gas in the tank and go check.
I hope tht your "millitant" buddies would kidnap you on the way and provide some life-long excitement like they've done to the 3 unfortunate Turkish victims--in your case it would be much more deserved.
Why do I always get the feeling that with you, as you loath the US, you also expect more from her than you ever would whatever little hellhole, errrrrrr country you reside in?
Posted by: RJB in JC MO ||
09/21/2004 6:49 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Murat supports Islamofacism to the hilt. End of story.
#14
She never denied being an Ozi-ist either, living on looted ground and fattening herself up on witchety grubs harvested in the pastures her predecessors stole from dispossessed aborigines.
#15
Note that Murat is also presenting an argument from authority. When dealing with terror-apologists and Hate America cultists, always, ALWAYS look for the appeal to authority and its many variations.
We saw this in the media conformist defense of CBS and it fraudulent documents. To them it was a matter of professional, glamourous journalists against pajama-clad internet posters, as though facts themselves did not matter at all. This is the true basis of the political left and the mutual affinity of authoritarians is the real reason for the left bias of mass media.
#16
Ahhhh Antiwar and Murat drag themselves from their sewers to demonstrate their depravity, idiocy, and general anti-American disposition. The festering pustule of hate.....
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/21/2004 10:55 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Bulldog, the witchety grubs remind me of a story I read once in Reader's Digest: A National Geographic photographer is on location in some small African village at Christmas time. He's sharing the standard evening meal of grubs and greens. He looks into the bowl and sighs, thinking of roast turkey with all the trimmings. His translator notices his expression, leans over and says, "I know what you mean. The grubs in my village are better too."
#18
Seafarious - LOL! I've never tried grubs before, but I would do given the chance (I think I'd want them cooked first, though). After all, who doesn't like prawns, langoustines, lobsters etc? Crabs, too - they're all arthropods, and biologically not much different. Let's face it - which ought to look less 'edible' - an uncooked prawn, or a witchety grub?
#21
AC - you're missing out big time! Crab would be on the menu for my condemned man's last meal. To die for! High protein, too. Insects and crustaceans must be 100% Atkins compatible.
#22
Frank, please don't denegrate sewers by dragging Murat and Aunty War through them. Veddy veddy bad. **wags finger** BTW, I am reading all the threads with great amusement while being fueled by my friends famous homemade coleslaw.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/21/2004 16:38 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Seafood wouldn't be my first choice on the menu, when there are hooved critters to be had.
I draw the line at bugs and internal organs. I think I'd rather eat a cat than eat liver or a cockroach. I was fooled once and ate tongue tacos, though. Pretty tender.
Most Britons want Prime Minister Tony Blair to set a date for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, according to a poll for the Guardian newspaper on Tuesday. Seven out of 10 of those polled by ICM said Blair should set a deadline for a pullout of the 8,500 British soldiers in Iraq. By contrast, an ICM-Guardian poll in May found 45 percent of voters believed British troops should remain in Iraq "for as long as necessary". Blair, who is U.S. President George W. Bush's strongest nitwit ally in the Iraq war, said on Sunday that British and U.S. forces would only leave once Iraq is stable.
More than 300 Iraqis have been killed in a surge of violence in the last 10 days. The unrest has cast doubt on whether elections planned for January can go ahead, and a series of kidnappings of foreigners has put pressure on the countries operating in Iraq. American hostage Eugene Armstrong was beheaded and a video of his killing was posted on the internet on Monday. A militant groups led by Al Qaeda ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has also threatened to kill Armstrong's fellow hostages—American Jack Hensley and Briton Kenneth Bigley. Their captors have called on the U.S. authorities to free women prisoners in Iraqi jails. Bigley's son Craig appealed to the British premier on Monday to meet the kidnappers' demands. "I ask Tony Blair personally to consider the amount of bloodshed already suffered," he told BBC News 24 television. "Please meet the demands and release my father." Blair told a news conference on Monday that Britain's response "has got to be to stand firm". ICM interviewed 1,005 adults aged 18 and over between Sept. 17 and 19 for the Guardian poll.
Posted by: Murat ||
09/21/2004 3:53:23 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I am not spamming people. It is just that more people must be on this as Bush is trailing American offers his vote to Malaysiakini readers which means all the Bush haters in Malaysia will vote for Kerry, right now Kerry is leading. Could you guys at LGF please upset the polls in this lefttist news online. Eric Ossemig, an ex-soldier with the US Army, feels so strongly about this that he is letting readers of malaysiakini determine who he should be voting for in the Nov 2 American presidential election. Vote here top left hand corner for Bush, so that Bush get this guy's vote. Polling period: Sept 20 - Oct 15
Posted by: Eric Mudasi ||
09/21/2004 4:07 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Typical worthless Guardian agenda-pushing poll, Murat. When's the deadline the respondents had in mind? Six months? A year? Two years? Five years? Fifteen years? Anyone with any of those timescales in mind might have answered 'yes' to the question 'should a deadline for withdrawl of British forces be set'. Tool.
#3
Al-Grauniad has as much credibility as Jihad Unspun in this regard. A joke!
Posted by: Howard UK ||
09/21/2004 4:25 Comments ||
Top||
#4
It's all a bunch of noise cause by Labors "convention" I suspect.
Here is a grand Laborite idea. They know everyone in the U.K. is lining up behind paying a consumption or energy tax to fund the UN. I know the peole of the U.K. are just going to be so excited to do so, I read it on the Beeb website in my dreams.
Mister Mudasl Bush is not trailing. He is stomping John Kerry arse. The only place it looks like Bush is realy trailing is in the MSM and at communist party DNC headquarters. Over at Kerry campaign headquarters they are wetting themselves and crying in their weak US piss like beer.
Saddam declared he wants to be candidate in the Iraqi elections, his Italian lawyer Stefano told they expected Saddam could get 42% of the votes. (actually that is a bit down from the last election results 99.9% but still good I guess)
Posted by: Murat ||
09/21/2004 6:33 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I think his campaign may be prematurely 'terminated'.
#7
typical Murat - he's voting for a murderous despot who raped children in front of their parents and sent their body parts home in plastic bags. Says lots about you, Murat. But those of us here on Rantburg were already aware of your hollow soul.
#8
besides, I'm guessing these EeeUwww guys are looking at the results from the German elections and realizing that bashing America may be fun, but it doesn't get the votes.
#10
Terminated yeah, good description Bulldog.
But no kidding, I would have liked it to see Saddam being candidate, as I am really curious if he could get any votes at all.
Posted by: Murat ||
09/21/2004 6:44 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I am glad you have put yourself forward to check out whats really going on with your muslim brothers in Iraq Murat. Keep in touch with us and let us know how it works out in Iraq OK. We will be pulling for your survival.
#12
ICM interviewed 1,005 adults aged 18 and over between Sept. 17 and 19 for the Guardian poll.
enough said apart from most of Guardian readership aint worth knowing , associating with , or even having reasoned debates with .
We stay in Iraq till the jobs done . Dont care if PM has to resign . We have a task to do to make the world a better place for our children to inherit . One of the jobs is to eliminate all that would harm the children in future
STAY IN IRAQ gets my vote every time
On a side note , pull your ill informed weak statistical links from somewhere that gives a wide unbiased account , and not 1005 people from a crap newspaper Murat u silly little retard .
#13
What's that Ralph Peters said of Putin, that he looked into Russia's soul and found it weak and willing to be subjugated?
Sounds like the unfortunately wide majority of Brits. :|
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
09/21/2004 8:11 Comments ||
Top||
#14
It's all in the psychology folks. If you offer people the certainty of a specific date rather than an indefinitely long war, they will say they want it. Like asking if you prefer peace or war.
Posted by: V is for Victory ||
09/21/2004 8:21 Comments ||
Top||
#15
When I was a member of Amnesty International, this is one of the things the left likes to do: parse an issue until they find an opening then just pound away at the parsed issue like it owes you money.
When a question is posed: Do you prefer to turn back communism in Central America, the overwhelming answer would be yes and the left knows it, and they would never ask that question in a poll and publish the result.
But when the question is posed, if a communist government in Central America has a good human rights record would you be opposed to it: the respond would be less against a communist government.
So, another question is posed: would you be in favor of a communist government in Central America if a western hemisphere government recognized and supported it. The response would be even more favorable for the communist government.
And so it would go until the left found an answer that could totaly change the political dynamics, and therefore the debate; and undermine the basic premise: all communist governments are despotic.
Now replace the term communist with Muslim and you have some idea of the kind of fight we are in with the left.
#16
In Africa there's a strange little creature, the 'dung beetle'. This little fellow is attracted to droppings that drop from the rear ends of bigger things like elephants and buffalo. He homes in on one and forms a little piece of his prize into a ball. Then he scurries triumphantly away with it, pushing it over little mounds of earth and around obstacles like tufts of grass.
What he does with it afterwards I wont go into here. Suffice it to say that the Guardian's journalism reminds me of the dung beetle.
#1
Way off topic but the site reminded me that reading "Pravda Means Truth" by Robert A. Heinlein set me on the road to conservative libertarianism.
Well him and Lazrus Long and Libby Long.
The Federal Security Service is receiving information about possible whereabouts of Chechen terrorist co-leader Shamil Basayev, representative of the regional headquarters for the anti-terrorist campaign in the North Caucasus, Maj. Gen. Ilya Shabalkin, told Interfax on Monday. "The Russian Federal Security Service has received several reports on possible locations of persons who looked like Basayev. Some of the reports came from places outside the Chechen Republic," he said. The information is being verified, Shabalkin said.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
09/21/2004 2:15:46 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Shamil Basayev,
I give him a shelf life of less than a month. Of course, even if they catch/kill him tomorrow, it will be at least 3 months before we hear about it.
Critical private remarks by the British ambassador in Rome about US President George W Bush have been leaked by the Italian media. A leading daily newspaper has quoted Sir Ivor Roberts as calling Mr Bush "al-Qaeda's best recruiting sergeant." Sir Ivor reportedly made the comment at a yearly meeting of British and Italian political and business leaders on Sunday. Remarks at the conference are usually considered off the record. The paper said the comments confirmed members of Tony Blair's government were beginning to have second thoughts about the war in Iraq.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom ||
09/21/2004 03:40 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Self-reliance, fellow 'mericans. No guarantee that Blair won't wobble--already doing so on Iran. Time to put aside sentiment and recognize that no nation is completely reliable. Best to start forging more bilateral relationships founded on cold hard mutual interest, esp with crucial Eurasian and Asian powers like Russia and India.
#4
The ties the US and U.K. have are strained at the moment. Reading the U.K. press one has to realize there are a huge number of citizens of Britain who hate the US. It isn't just Iraq. The US is the great satan to them. Sir Dipstard just gave voice to that.
A U.S. State department employee or ambasador could have said the same thing. BFD.
#5
The ties the US and U.K. have are strained at the moment.
At the moment, and as ever. There's no greater groundswell of anti-US sentiment than the was this time two years ago, in fact it's probably abated significantly. The UK Government is decidedly pro-US (although decidedly idiotarian in other respects of foreign policy), as is the main opposition (despite considerable bizarre affection for John Kerry, it remains firmly hardline re the WoT). There are as many anti-American idiots in the UK, especially in the media as there are in the US. Which is, I think, what you mean, SPoD. Anyone who expects a more pro-US populace in most other countries, including those in lex's Coalition of the Moonbats, is sadly deluded.
#6
lex: Best to start forging more bilateral relationships founded on cold hard mutual interest, esp with crucial Eurasian and Asian powers like Russia and India.
lex must not have talked to any Russians or Indians lately. The ones I know in the NY metro area are firmly anti-American and anti-Bush. Ditto for the Indians. And these are the ones who would presumably be more anti-American. Not so for the Brits and Australians in this country. I'm not prejudiced against either Russians or Indians. They just have a different worldview, one in which Uncle Sam is responsible for most of the world's problems - the product of decades of conditioning by the government and the local media.
#7
Bulldog I expect the relations to be as ever, in each countires best interest. To paraphrase one of my countrymen who said early in our self seperation from the crown: It's better to hang together than hang seperately. I think that statement describes the relationship we have had as allies since early in the 20th century. The U.K. has more in common with the U.S. than most of the continet. The U.K. owns a hell of a lot of the US as well. We are bound by more than language and religion.
#8
UK Government is decidedly pro-US...as is the main opposition (despite considerable bizarre affection for John Kerry, it remains firmly hardline re the WoT).
Bulldog, don't the Brits see Iran as a terrorist harboring, terrorist supporting country? I think torn on the WoT rather than hardline is more accurate. Don't get me wrong-thank God the Brits have been there to help us when so much of the rest of the world sits on its pompous a**es. But "hardline" against terror and tolerant of Iran seem opposite stances.
#9
Could it be that the global media are typically anti-American partly because the United States leads the world in the break down of hierarchical, centralized media authority and media culture?
In the UK, the LLL media are operating to an organized, centrally directed program provided by the trotskyite National Union of Journalists, which furnishes standard talking points to its members, sponsors many LLL activities and uses the power of the closed shop to enforce sanctions against political deviation.
#10
...don't the Brits see Iran as a terrorist harboring, terrorist supporting country?
I think what's happened re Iran is, in the absence of clear US aggressive military intent regarding Iran, Blair's fallen back onto his default passive response to international threats. If the US (and UK) had been overflying Iran for years and been poised to move, and the US obviously so, then you'd proably see a much more beligerent attitude from Number 10. You've got to remember that Blair's a third way man by choice who needs to be spurred to commit to decisive action, which translates to inaction most of the time. Blair's also aware that British armed forces are stretched at the moment and provoking Iran unilaterally would probably result in embarrassment as Iran call's the UK's bluff (recall the Marines held hostage a few months ago). He's also aware of how difficult taking an aggressive stance against Iran would be domestically. He'd be out of office in no time, most probably pushed by his own party. He's also keen to mend fences with our appeasenik European neighbours. However, if Bush announced an ultimatum against Iran, I'd expect something like a replay of the 2002/2003 situation. Blair would side with Bush morally, though he'd have less left to offer materially. I'm sure, though, he'd prefer the situation simply didn't arise.
There's also the fact that Iran is not perceived as anything like the rogue state that Iraq was in the UK. Which is odd given that it is now certainly more of a threat. It gets relatively little coverage in the media, and I think few people 'understand' Iran at all. Popular revolt against Britain's invading Iran would be worse than Iraq.
Blair probably hopes something or someone will deal with Iran without him having to get his hands dirty - an attack on Iran's nuclear sites by the US or Israel, for instance, or a popular revolution.
#11
lex must not have talked to any Russians or Indians lately
Grasshoppa know betta than to derive policy judgment from man on stweet. Especially when that street is about 7,000 miles from Moscow or Mumbai.
I don't particularly care about anyone's "worldview". There were massive marches in London, Berlin and Central Park against Reagan during the INF brouhaha; more marches 18 motnhs ago; and there will be plenty of marches in the future. But these have zip to do with the calculations made by a Schmidt or a Thatcher or a Blair.
The point is where other nations' interests-- as they define them-- converge with ours. In the middle east, our interests and those of the Europeans, including the Brits, are diverging sharply. But our interests and those of Russia and India in that region, having been diametrically opposed throughout the Cold War, are finally beginning to converge on at least one crucial point: Russia and India are frontline states that are directly and imminently threatened by the jihadist arc. Britain, France and Germany are not. Russia and India have both begun to tilt toward Israel and have evinced real determination to destroy the jihadists.
Britain has less to offer us than Russia in the way of local assets to be used in containing Iran. And Russia is in danger of collapsing. So there's much more downside to Russia from not thwarting Iran, and much more upside potential--assuming Putin can finally rein in and professionalize his security services-- to reverse it.
Russia is far more important to the US today than any west European state, Britain included. This is because the repository of the FSU's nukes is a collection of failing (in Ukraine's case, failed) states. In these pathetic states, the government cannot protect its borders, secure its nukes, collect taxes or pay pensions, pass laws or enforce them, raise an army and create even a halfway competent fighting force, rein in its criminalized and incompetent security services, or put down a mickey mouse rebellion in Chechnya. Putin is Musharraf in whiteface.
I would dearly love to believe that the UK will always take our side in this war but as we've seen with Iran, Jack Straw's fanciful errand is undermining the cause of containment. WIll this change? Doubt it (see comments above about national interests as nations define them). Our task now is not to indulge in misty-eyed romantic notions of brotherhood or solidarity but to apply some cold logic and ruthlessness to the task of bringing around Russia and India regarding isolating, pressuring, containing a nuclear Iran. Nothing is more important now. If we fail with Russia and India, we're screwed.
#12
I can appreciate his pragmatism, given his assets and the liabilities involved in such a confrontation. I am somewhat surprised, though (and I am only inferring this from what you've written) that the British people would prefer to put their heads in the sand regarding a.) the relationship between Iran and the WoT or b.) make nationally compromising deals with Iran in order to avoid confrontation (there would be no guarantee of a more secure Britain through such deals). Is this really just a case of playing the odds? If Blair would suffer popular support if he took a "hardline" stance with Iran, in the WoT, the British people have more in common with the French than I would have imagined.
#13
Blair blew all his pro-US political capital on Iraq. If he's seen by his party and the UK public as supportive of any kind of military action against Iran, then his government will fall. Which means that vis-a-vis Iran, Tony's of no use to us. The best we can hope for is a low profile from him and an end to the Straw charade.
#14
If Blair would suffer popular support if he took a "hardline" stance with Iran, in the WoT, the British people have more in common with the French than I would have imagined.
jules and lex: It's more a question of perception. Do you think Bush's approval ratings would climb, or fall, were he to announce an intention to invade Iran tomorrow? Is the US public sufficiently wary of Iran in the context of the WoT to support an invasion of it at short notice? I'm sure Bush would lose himself the election there and then. You can't expect from Blair what you wouldn't expect from Bush.
#15
In the middle east, Britain defines its national interest differently than we do. Blair's support for us vs Saddam was an exception.
A majority of Brits, like most Europeans, detest Sharon, would probably like to see Israel divest its nukes, and in any case percieve large market opportunities in that very young and wealthy country of 75 million that is Iran.
We should not expect Britain to support military action by us or Israel against Iraq. To do otherwise would be to repeat Anthony Eden's colossal blunder.
#16
When did you have the opportunity to consult the majority of Brits and find they harbour a visceral hatred of a man most of them probably couldn't even name, lex?
#17
Russia and India have both begun to tilt toward Israel and have evinced real determination to destroy the jihadists.
Britain has less to offer us than Russia in the way of local assets to be used in containing Iran. And Russia is in danger of collapsing. So there's much more downside to Russia from not thwarting Iran, and much more upside potential--
nonetheless i have yet to see any evidence that Russia percieves Iran as a threat, beleive that AQ is supported by Iran, etc. As far as I can see Russian policy toward Iran is similar to EU, or even more pro-Iranian. Russia has cooperated with Iran in the Caucasus (in favor of Armenia and against pro-Turkish and pro-US Azerbaijan) and in Afghanistan (where both support Northern Alliance warlords, and are hostile to even pro-US pashtuns like Karzai)
I note Russian Israeli security cooperation, but do not see this reflected in Putin statements on Arafat, etc, which continue to line up with the EU, AFAIK.
And neither Russia nor India have lifted a finger to help in Iraq, where Iran is currently aggressively trying to take advantage, while of course UK has helped to the point of overstretching its forces.
#19
Do you think Bush's approval ratings would climb, or fall, were he to announce an intention to invade Iran tomorrow? Is the US public sufficiently wary of Iran in the context of the WoT to support an invasion of it at short notice?
Agreed, BD. But this is all the more reason that we must do everything in our power-- bribe, bully, horsetrade-- to enlist crucial frontline states in the task of containing Iran. As I say, Russia's support is everything. Especially if they and the Indians ramp up their nascent cooperation with Israel. Surround Iran and box them and their proxies in.
Buy off Putin's nuclear industry, whatever the price (I should think $5B would do it-- perhaps in tandem with a variety of other carrots such as WTO fast tracking, market access for Russian steel imports, investment guarantees for XOM and ChevronTexaco to explore the Sakhalin and other oil deposits etc). But please stop wasting so much time and bandwidth over the Straw errand and the IAEA. We don't have much time left.
#20
In fact UK position on Israel, while definitely less sympathetic than US, is different from France. On banning EU aid to civilian wing of Hamas, UK joined with Germany in supporting the ban, and disagreed with France. I would say however that on Israel UK is no closer to US than Germany is.
#21
liberalhawk: Russia's non-resource export industries are limited to the nukes and weapons. Each can be bought off for a relatively small sum. And trust me, anything in Russia can be bought if the price is right.
But there's no way you can buy off the FTSE or DAX or CAC-40 multinationals.
#22
lex: Russia and India are frontline states that are directly and imminently threatened by the jihadist arc.
You and I know that. But the Russians and Indians don't think that. You are superimposing American views on these two countries. They don't share your views. If they did, Iran wouldn't be the kind of problem it is today. You may think we have a common interest in containing Iran. Russia and India don't. They think the US is a bigger threat than Iran, and are jockeying for advantage. Worldviews matter, because they color a nation's interpretation of the facts.
#23
Why, in this discussion about Iran, is it presumed that military action is the only way for Britain, or any other brain-utilizing nations, to counter Iran in the WoT?
#24
so far russias policy on Iranian nukes IS to support the EU initiative.
NOw this MAY be because the US isnt pursuing aggressive enough diplomacy, but I doubt that. I really dont think Putin, or the Russian street that Putin still relies on (he aint no dictator, not yet anyway) really takes the same view we do on Iran.
Note how when they attack islamists in their press their careful to call them wahabis. Now theres truth to that, but I think the Russians use it in part to focus not on Saudis and Pakis, who have for the last 30 years been their opponents in south and central Asia - and they very much resent the US relationship with both states. Iran is a counter to Paki, KSA AND the US. Which they still resent for our actions in the Balkans (on the side of the UK, btw).
Note UNSC res on Sudan, where US and EU were together, and where Russia and China abstained and threatened veto.
#26
Why, in this discussion about Iran, is it presumed that military action is the only way for Britain, or any other brain-utilizing nations, to counter Iran in the WoT?
We won't pay tribute, we won't engage in a decapitation (for the same reasons as Iraq) and containment's practically already in place, and ineffective. A revolution would be nice (for Christmas, please!), but has been mooted for years without result. Unless I'm missing something, military invasion, or at least the real threat of it, is the only credible alternative to neutralising Iran's nuclear ambitions and letting them stew in their own froth.
#27
You may think we have a common interest in containing Iran. Russia and India don't. They think the US is a bigger threat than Iran, and are jockeying for advantage
I doubt that a majority of the hardline hindu BJP party would agree with the above. I also doubt that Putin and his circle share this view. Putin, like every Russian leader since Brezhnev, is presiding over a dying Russia whose boundaries will, if this decline is not reversed, inevitably revert to a Muscovite core surrounded by bandit fiefdoms and a Chinese-dominated Far East. Doesn't that dire prospect demand a rethinking of Russia's relations with the mullahs' jihadist bandit state?
#28
Maybe the Brits can lead by contributing some good ideas on how to weaken Iran without a direct invasion. I am a complete novice at this sort of thing, but WTH, I'll throw out a couple of ideas anyway...trade embargos? Freezing assets? It seems like we should target what Iran relies on the West for most. Or are we going to be victimized by a timetable of inaction, leading to a nuclear-armed, theocratic Iran across the diplomatic table?
#29
Why, in this discussion about Iran, is it presumed that military action is the only way for Britain, or any other brain-utilizing nations, to counter Iran in the WoT?
Some form of military pressure-- at a minimum the credible threat of military action-- will be necessary. This need not be a direct strike, certainly not by the US. It would probably be in the form of enforced no-fly zones, joint border patrols, and the like. But without such pressure, no diplomatic solution to this mess will have any impact at all.
#30
From http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/en/laenderinfos/laender/laender_ausgabe_html?type_id=12&land_id=63
Excerpt-The economy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is predominantly in the hands of the state and religious foundations. The Government formulates economic goals in five-year plans. Under the current Third Economic Plan, which entered into force on 21 March 2000, 30% of the business sector is to be privatized by the year 2005. Iranâs gross domestic product (GDP) amounted to USD 117 billion (+6.5%) in the business year 2002/2003. Based on a population of approximately 66 million, this was equivalent to a per-capita income of approximately USD 1,500. The most important sectors of the Iranian economy are the oil and gas industry, the petrochemical industry, agriculture, the metal industry and the motor-vehicle industry. Iranâs economy is struggling with a high inflation rate (15.8%) and high unemployment (approximately 17%) as well as widespread corruption and a sizable underground economy. Investment conditions for foreigners have markedly improved, however, as a result of investment protection legislation, tax reform and the unification of exchange rates.
Foreign trade
Thanks to high oil prices and the recent relaxation of import controls, Iranâs current account and balance of payments have developed positively.
Current account
(in billion USD, 1 USD = 8,000 rials)
The EU won't sign up to the above. In any case you misread the mullahs' priorities. They're kleptocrats. They don't give a sh*t about national economic growth or expansion; their only interest in economics is in lining their own pockets, which can be done even more handsomely in a sanctions environment. Dubai's next door, and there are plenty of bankers in Lugano and Geneva willing to help siphon and stash the mullahs' millions as well.
The mullahs are not "pragmatists." They launched a war against us twenty-five years ago, and they wish to continue battling us with as many weapons and proxies and allies as they can summon. The goal is to reduce their access to weapons, wean away their allies, and crush their proxies ruthlessly wherever they venture forth.
#32
Ok, lex, given what you say, and the fact that the Brits' military is overstretched, the US's is pretty stretched, and the rest of the world is fiddling while Iran approaches the last stage of its nuclear program, do you support continued inaction/indecision or a US invasion of Iran (alone)?
#33
Look, I don't want to minimize this challenge. Of course Russia has sought to counter us in the middle east. But this is a different century, and in this century a nuclear Iran crawling with AQ and other jihadist proxies is an existential threat to all nations targeted by the jihadists.
If what I propose is a diplomatic revolution, so be it. Wouldn't it be nice to see our leaders ahead of history's curve this time around?I don't see that we have much choice but to try to win over India and Russia. The 9/11 effect is over, and the hard fact is that most of Europe is not and will not be a reliable ally in the middle east.
#34
Consider the source of these comments. Just once I'd like to see them quote a pro-US or pro-Iraq comment from someone. The little pigs just keep rooting around for comments just like this one - and when the find one - they give it full court MSM press. Big deal.
#35
do you support continued inaction/indecision or a US invasion of Iran (alone)?
Won't happen. No better way to destroy the pro-US sympathy of young Iranians than to invade their country (and don't kid yourself that a "moderate" or "pragmatic" Iranian administration would not pursue nukes as well, for nationalist ends.)
Also, no popular US support-- we're facing battle fatigue at home and are up to our ears trying to subdue a country one-third Iran's size. Let Israel do the mokriye dela.
#37
I don't know what mokriye dela means. So, since we can't do an invasion, is inaction the answer?
Obviously not. So we need to stop thinking in terms of our failed attempts to deter countries in the past and shape more targeted deterence that focuses on those in power in Iran.
#38
mokriye dela lierally means "wet work". Old Spook can provide details.
As to what the mullahs value most, that's pretty clear: 1) preserving their grip on power and thwarting potential rivals at home; 2) lining their pockets, which depends almost entirely on #1); 3)striking directly at Israel and annoying and harrassing the US elsewhere in the region; and 4) establishing shi'a proxies in southern Iraq and elsewhere in the middle east.
Iranian Objectives (contributions of lex, paraphrased):
Monopoly of power
Money
Aggression against Israel and the US [this strikes me more as a tactic or a strategy, but ok]
Shia promotion/alliances
Strategies:
Thwarting political rivals
??? What are the main avenues for them to make/keep money???
Acquiring/amassing nuclear weapons & other WMDs
Infiltrating Iraq to consolidate Shia base, others???
If those are the objectives (that's what they value), that's what we sabotage. Any ideas on counterstategies?
#6
"to immigrants who have fled from military barracks to escape the current war in Iraq"
Now I have no problem with canada wanting to celebrate Draft Dodgers, especially now that Carter has already given them all amnesty, but celibrating folks that volunteered for military service, took the money as long as they were safe, then deserted? Well that's another ball of wax, in my humble opinion. Shame on these fools.
#7
I've never forgiven Jimmy Carter for letting these bastards back into the country. A man who deserts his country in time of war and lets other men take his place in the line, lets other men run the risk, lets other men die in his place, has no country. For them there can be no forgiveness. They do not deserve the liberties and freedoms that other men bought with their blood. The ones that returned should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law and thrown into the darkest hole in the federal prison system. Let them live out their miserable lives in Canada. If the Canadians like them, that's their prerogative. The kindest thing that can be done is to let them fade from the American public consciousness.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/21/2004 22:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
United Airlines Flight 919 had already taken off from London en route to Dulles International Airport when the match was made between the passenger and the watch list, said Nico Melendez, a spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration.
The plane took off before the system matched a name to a list?? What the hell are they using, an IBM XT???
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/21/2004 22:26 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Not the Abu Moon Shadow! Allan, say this is not so!
Oh, I'm bein' followed by allan's moonshadow, moonshadow, moonshadow
Leapin and hoppin' on a moonshadow, moonshadow, moonshadow
And if I ever lose my hands while bulding a bomb, lose my plough, lose my land to those zionist monkeys,
Oh if I ever lose my hands opps, boom!, Oh if.... I won't have to work no more.
And if I ever lose my eyes, if my colours all run dry,
Yes if I ever lose my eyes, Oh if.... I won't have to cry no more.
And if I ever lose my legs, I won't moan, and I won't beg,
Yes if I ever lose my legs, Oh if.... I won't have to walk no more cause Allan gimme some good nubile virgins.
And if I ever lose my mouth, all my teeth, north and south,
Yes if I ever lose my mouth, Oh if.... I won't have to talk...
Did it take long to find me? what, I was on WHAT list???I asked the faithful light.
Did it take long to find me? And Am I are you gonna stay the night?
#7
B-a-R: The angle I heard is that the airlines screen the passengers at the airport. The only reason anyone knew he was aboard is that it was coming from London so the manifest was given a once-over by US immigration.
#9
Kill them all!! Every last one of the religion of peace must be done away with! How much longer are we going to let this happen? MOAB Fallujah!!
Kill everything insight with a weapon of your choice! Kill them all!! Find a local Mosque, map the exists, next time one American dies kill 200 of them! I want to start gunning them down. I want to terrorize them like they have never been terrorized! I am through being tolerant. Let's start cutting throats our selves!!!
Do you not feel the anger? Load up on weapons and ammo my fellow Americans. Soon with NO help from our government we will all be subjected to the Mullahs!!
EFL
Little doubt remains that Florida Republican Rep. Porter Goss (search) has the votes in the Senate to be confirmed as the new director of the CIA, but three Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee held Goss' feet to the fire Tuesday, questioning his past partisanship...
Rockefeller was joined by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., in pressing Goss to explain how he plans to separate his past life as a congressman from a new role as CIA director. Goss would be only the second congressman, behind George H.W. Bush, to head the spy agency. The three asked if Goss planned to clear up misstatements by Bush administration policy-makers about mistaken intelligence. Democrats have repeatedly said officials' statements on prewar intelligence on Iraq turned out to be wrong, including Vice President Cheney's statement that a meeting between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta (search) and Iraqi intelligence in Prague was "pretty well confirmed."
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/21/2004 12:42:27 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The last gasp of a flailing campaign.
in 2005, with 55-58 seante seats, and new filibuster rules in place, this kind of pontification will pe passed off as flatuance.
Committee Chairman: "Are you through Senator? Good. We shall continue..."
#4
I would be shocked, shocked I tell you, if Rockefeller, Levin, and Wyden, didn't pontificate about Goss when they had the chance. It wouldn't be natural.......heh heh.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/21/2004 21:45 Comments ||
Top||
#5
how he plans to separate his past life as a congressman from a new role as CIA director.
How about: "For example, I'll use my intelligence for the security of America above my own"?
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/21/2004 22:09 Comments ||
Top||
Excerpt from a longer article that doesn't make me very optimistic that the Oil-For-Food scandal is going to be a "come to Jesus" moment for the UN.
[...]It is therefore surprising to discover that the official spokesman for the Commission, Anna Di Lellio, is a former United Nations official. Moreover, Ms. Di Lellio, who is Director of Communications for Paul Volcker, has publicly expressed contempt for the U.S. president. In an interview with the London newspaper The Guardian on the first anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Ms. Di Lellio launched into a vicious tirade against the U.S. and Italian governments, implicitly comparing President George W. Bush and key U.S. ally Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to Osama bin Laden:
What I do feel is a sense of powerlessness against the changes which are potentially lethal for our civilization. But I see the major threats coming from ourselves, rather than the east. I find deeply unsettling both the ascendance of George Bush and his puppeteers to the U.S. government, and the mix of self-serving hypocrisy and incompetence prevailing in European governments.
I don't like it that the two nations whose citizenship I hold, Italy and the U.S., have leased their institutions to a couple of families. With defenders like W and Berlusconi, largely unchecked by a sycophantic media, who needs Bin Laden to destroy culture, personal freedom, respect for other human beings, integrity, and the rule of law—all the things that make our lives worthwhile?[6]
Such extreme opinions do not sit well with the Volcker Commission's claim to impartiality and will impede the establishment of a constructive relationship between the Commission, the U.S. Congress, and the executive branch of the United States...
In meetings on Capitol Hill on July 13, Paul Volcker "rejected requests from members of Congress for access to review documents and to interview United Nations officials being scrutinized by his panel," reports the New York Times.[7] Congressional sources have confirmed that the Volcker Commission refuses to grant access to internal reports on the Oil-for-Food program produced by the U.N.'s Office of Internal Oversight Services and is unwilling to share documentation that it holds in Baghdad. It also refuses to guarantee that it will release documents relating to the Oil-for-Food program even after it has filed its final report. This hostile approach seriously undermines the credibility of the Independent Inquiry Committee.
No source on this...
Posted by: Anonymous4828 ||
09/21/2004 3:22:43 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Sorry, I missed the link when I posted. It was late.
I have been disappointed in the lack of movement on Oil-for-Food. I saw only part of the Fox News report on the scandal on Sunday and hoped the ball would start rolling again.
With respect to the debates, it would be interesting to see how Kerry would respond to being asked whether he agrees with Kofi's "illegal war" statement. I think that Kofi really meant "inconvenient interruption to my cash flow."
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/21/2004 16:59 Comments ||
Top||
#3
the biped shipman couldn't figure out a non-linear thought, wouldn't last 10 minutes in the big tank.
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Monday, September 20th, 2004
LONDON — The International Atomic Energy Agency has rejected a U.S. effort to set a deadline for an end to Iran's uranium enrichment program.
Instead, the IAEA expressed concern over Iran's intention to introduce 37 tons of yellowcake, a milled uranium oxide regarded as the first element in the enriched uranium process. But the resolution did not threaten any measures against Teheran, Middle East Newsline reported.
The United States protested the decision.
"To wait until the IAEA finds the nuclear weapons is to wait until it is too late," U.S. chief delegate Jackie Sanders told the IAEA board.
"With every passing week, Iran moves that much closer to reaching the point where neither we, nor any other international body, will be able to prevent it from achieving nuclear weapons capacity."
The resolution set a Nov. 25 deadline for a review of Iran's nuclear program and called for the suspension of Teheran's uranium enrichment activities.
The resolution regarding Iran, a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, was passed unanimously by the agency's 35-nation board of governors.
The resolution on Saturday called on IAEA director-general Mohammed El Baradei to submit a report in advance of the November board meeting regarding Iranian compliance. The El Baradei report would also address previous resolutions that called for a "full suspension of all [Iranian] enrichment-related and reprocessing activities."
"It [IAEA at November meeting] will decide whether or not further steps are appropriate in relation to Iran's obligations under its NPT Safeguards Agreement," the resolution said.
The latest resolution, which marked the end to the agency's board of governors meeting in Vienna, called for a halt to a range of Iranian nuclear activities.
"...Iran [should] immediately suspend all enrichment-related activities, including the manufacture or import of centrifuge components, the assembly and testing of centrifuges," the resolution said. "[The resolution] calls again on Iran, as a further confidence-building measure, voluntarily to reconsider its decision to start construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water."
At the same time, the resolution failed to set an automatic trigger that would send the Iranian nuclear issue to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions. The agency, over U.S. objections, also insisted that the resolution contain a clause that reiterated Iran's right to administer a civilian nuclear program.
Iran has pledged to continue its nuclear program as well as uranium enrichment. But Iranian officials said Teheran would decide over the next week whether to temporarily suspend uranium enrichment.
For his part, El Baradei said inspectors have not found evidence that Iran was producing nuclear weapons. But the IAEA's latest report said inspectors required further study of Iran's nuclear program, including such issues as enriched uranium contamination, the scope of the P-2 centrifuge program and the timeframe of Iran's plutonium separation experiments.
U.S. officials said the resolution could mark a turning point in diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program. They said the agency was being ordered to end nearly two years of investigation by determining whether Teheran has been in compliance with the NPT.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/21/2004 1:29:26 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
For the US to even bother wasting time with the UN is beyond my comprehension. It should be so painfully clear by now that it is nothing but an anti-American debating society and no action will ever come out of it unless its trying to prevent the US from protecting itself.
Secondly, El Baradei couldn't find his ass with both hands. Maybe he ought to ask the Israeli's where to look.
How in the world is it possible for a Arab to be in charge of making sure an Arab country doesn't acquire nukes? ( I know how that sounds, but guess what?, it is us against them).
This sort of delusional nonsense from a those assholes in the UN almost ensures this war is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.
#3
It should be so painfully clear by now that it is nothing but an anti-American debating society and no action will ever come out of it unless its trying to prevent the US from protecting itself.
GWB's administration seems to be like the abused wife that can't bring herself to cut loose her wife-beating husband.
The road to recovery starts with admitting that there's a problem.
#4
This UN and IAEA stuff is just BS and window dressing. The REAL planning and response to the situation is taking place behind the radar screens at this time. That's my take.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/21/2004 17:07 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I mean, UNDER the radar screens.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/21/2004 17:07 Comments ||
Top||
#6
No Deadlines!
No RedLines!
Freedom for Chevies!
Free Mumia!
Free Huey!
Free Lunch!
And everyman a Bomb!
Sep. 20th, 2004
- The Jerusalem Post.
By MARGOT DUDKEVITCH
Last week's arrest of two female suicide bombers from Assira A-Shamaliya, near Nablus, was an unusual event as families of the Jawabra clan turned in their daughters Lina and Adilah. Following the killing of a suicide bomb dispatcher of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the families turned their daughters over to soldiers at an IDF checkpoint, after being warned that their houses would be demolished if the two girls go ahead with plans to blow up in Tel Aviv.
Unlike the families of the Jawabra clan, the majority of females recruited to carry out suicide-bomb attacks are arrested in raids and not handed over by their families.
According to Shin Bet officials, terrorist organizations continue to perceive that women are less susceptible to checks by security forces and are therefore more likely to enter Israel without raising suspicions.
Only in some instances where officials have knowledge of a pending attack and reach the realization that the only way to thwart it is by vesting pressure on family members are such tactics used.
Since the outbreak of violence four years ago, 40 female terrorists were recruited to carry out suicide bomb attacks. Of that number, seven actually blew up, and security forces arrested 33.
The Fatah were responsible for recruiting 21; the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Islamic Jihad recruited six; and one was recruited by the Hamas in Gaza and blew up at the Erez crossing earlier this year.
Thirty-four of the women were not married; three were divorced; two were married with children; and one was a widow. Between January and July this year 10 female suicide bombers were recruited by terrorist organizations compared with 14 for the entire year of 2003.
Most of the women recruited to the cause are in their mid 20s, and represent a cross section of Palestinian society, ranging from the well educated to the poor and uneducated. Of the 33 arrested since 2000, 16 had completed high school education, and 11 were university students.
In order to avoid being noticed the women usually change their external appearance, adopting a more modern way of dressing that blends in with local Israeli fashion. In some instances, they have posed as pregnant women, stuffing a pillow underneath their garments.
Another worrying development relates to the increased use of children by the different terrorist organizations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These children are dispatched not only with explosive belts or to transfer bombs between operative, but are also used to compile information on troop movements in preparation for attacks - a tactic used often by terrorists in the Gaza Strip.
So far this year a total of 109 Palestinian minors were arrested for their involvement in terrorist activities compared to a total of 102 in 2003, 54 in 2002 and 27 in 2001.
The youngest children sent by terrorists to launch an attack were two boys arrested in January 2003 by security forces in the Gaza Strip. Both carried knives and said they had been sent to place bombs in the area. One was eight years old and the other was 13.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/21/2004 1:34:41 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
THE three main Southeast Asian Islamic terrorist groups have had a strong, secret alliance for almost 20 years, which continues to train Jemaah Islamiah's bomb-makers, intelligence documents reveal. The documents, compiled from interviews with a senior JI defector and other sources, confirm long-held suspicions that two training camps of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in the southern Philippines are the nerve centre of regional terrorism. The former JI leader's admissions defy claims by the Philippines Government and the MILF that militant training in the camps ceased four years ago, at the start of delicate negotiations about autonomy for the Muslim minority in the country's south. But the JI man Mohammed Nassir bin Abbas, formerly a leader of the main camp, has told foreign agents that links have instead strengthened, in particular with the infamous group Abu Sayyaf, renowned for beheading Westerners.
Nassir's first-hand account is seen as a missing link in decades of suspicion about the potential threat posed by the camps and their infiltration by terrorists. "As long as the JI training camps are intact in Mindanao, JI will replenish its human losses and material wastage and continue the fight," said Rohan Gunaratna of Singapore's Institute of Strategic and Defence Studies. "JI's strategic base is the southern Philippines."
The information was provided about the same time an Australian white paper declared that militancy in the southern Philippines posed potentially the biggest security threat to Australia. It also surfaced as John Howard yesterday announced the possibility of pre-emptive strikes against terrorist bases that threaten Australia. Over the past two months, the Department of Foreign Affairs and its spy service, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, have made the region a primary focus of their intelligence gathering. "Initially, the Australian authorities refused to believe that MILF was hosting and training JI members," Professor Gunaratna said. "Today, there is overwhelming proof that JI has been training in the southern Philippines for over 10 years."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
09/21/2004 2:20:12 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It became secret when the Philippine Government and Arroyo closed their eyes -- I think they expect a deep passionate kiss from the MILF -- just as soon as the MILF gets done tying their hands and feet together and bend them over the chair.....
#2
Any body forget that JI is also active in Pakistan, where Qazi Husain Ahmad is the head. Spewing jehadi idiots for last 20 or more years. Would you believe it that they tried their own version of moral police in Pakistan when they used to throw acid on faces of women not wearing a burka
Posted by: Fred ||
09/21/2004 4:33:36 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Amazing. This goof is like a spoiled 12-year old boy. Thinks he won't be spanked. Do ya REALLY want Israel looking at you as an existential threat?
I bet Mossad and the IDF is now in high gear and have told the US to clear a little airspace over Iraq running from Jordan to the Iran border. The only thing lacking is a time and a date.
EFL Syrian forces start major Lebanon redeployment
More than 1,000 of the estimated 20,000 Syrian troops in Lebanon began dismantling bases near Beirut Tuesday in preparation for redeploying closer to the Syrian border or leaving Lebanon, a senior Lebanese military official said. - Beirut is center of anti Syrian civilian groups. However, Syria is leaving enough troops to continue to collect bribes and fees from the drug trade. This move might impress some weinies in the UN.
Posted by: mhw ||
09/21/2004 7:48:11 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/21/2004 00:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Huh, Syria has acted as a sanctuary for the head sawing butchers. The only military-to-military cooperation I can see is convincing the SYrians to stay in one place so our MOABs are more effective.
Posted by: Douglas De Bono ||
09/21/2004 8:56 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Why does this read to me like "US, Mafia Unite to Reduce Organized Crime"?
Syrian forces positioned in Lebanon since the 1975 Lebanese civil war will commence a major redeployment toward the Syrian-Lebanese border Tuesday, and Syrian and U.S. troops will partake in joint security operations along the Syrian-Iraqi border, official sources in Damascus told United Press International Monday. "This is official," said Imad Mustapha, Syria's ambassador to Washington, speaking from Damascus. "Tuesday morning there will be a major redeployment of Syrian forces in Lebanon toward the border," he said in a telephone conversation.
The ambassador also confirmed earlier reports of joint U.S.-Syrian military cooperation intended to thwart terrorist operations in Iraq. Mustapha is in Damascus for consultations before returning to the United States with Syria's Foreign Minister Farouk Sharaa where they will attend the U.N. General Assembly meeting in New York later this week. Sharaa is also scheduled to meet with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, Mustapha said. The Syrian diplomat told United Press International the military redeployment -- a long-standing demand by the United States -- came about as a result of "Syria having greater confidence in the situation."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
09/21/2004 1:53:20 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
hmm...what's up with all of this sudden cooperation from Syria?
#2
2B, Nov 2 is around the corner. Looking a bit forward in time, it is almost certain that "4 more years" is written in stars. Baby Assad undoubtedly knows that Syria has been in crosshair. He is not a suicidal maniac, in contrast to mullahs in Tehran with their black rags wrapped rather too tight. On one hand, he is a pragmatic man, on the other, he made several political blunders, namely his support for Saddam, thus gambling away any good relations with US before the Iraq war.
The porosity of the Syrian/Iraq border may have been a gamble that paid off. The more malcontents were pouring into Iraq and getting killed there, the less they were a problem domestically. However, the US crosshair started to appear too close for comfort. Better to make ammends. "We are not the bad guys, really, look east!"
#5
Baby Assad better come around with Israel on one side and Marines on the other. Yassssssssss, that and the sale of a metric butt-load of smart bombs to Israel makes for a real nice incentive. I think Baby Assad went through more than a couple of diaper changes before coming aboard.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
09/21/2004 13:37 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The Syrian diplomat told United Press International the military redeployment -- a long-standing demand by the United States -- came about as a result of "Syria having greater confidence in the situation."
U.S. intelligence agencies concluded recently that al Qaeda — fearing its credibility is on the line — is moving ahead with plans for a major, "spectacular" attack, despite disruptions of some operations by recent arrests in Britain and Pakistan.
Officials said recent intelligence assessments of the group, which is blamed for the September 11 attacks, state that an attack is coming and that the danger will remain high until the Nov. 2 elections and last until Inauguration Day on Jan. 20.
"They [al Qaeda] think their credibility is on the line because there hasn't been a major attack since 9/11," said one official familiar with intelligence reports on the group.
A second official said: "There isn't reason to believe that the recent arrests have disrupted their plans."
Authorities in Pakistan and Britain recently arrested key al Qaeda leaders, but the group uses tight "compartmentation" of its operations. The process, used by intelligence services, keeps information about operations within small "cells" of terrorists to protect secrecy.
Thus, details of the possible attack remain murky, but analysts say it is planned to be bigger and deadlier than the September 11 attacks, which killed 3,000 people.
Potential targets include the White House, Pentagon, U.S. Capitol and congressional buildings, as well as landmarks and business centers in New York, the officials said. The officials said that there is no specific information about targets.
Intelligence officials say a key figure in al Qaeda's North American operations is Adnan Shukrijumah, who is being sought by the FBI for the past several years.
One official said Shukrijumah recently was seen in Mexico and earlier had been in Canada near a university with a nuclear reactor, leading to concerns that he was seeking radioactive material for a radiological bomb.
The Mexican newspaper Proceso, quoting Mexican officials, reported earlier this month that Shukrijumah was being sought in northeastern Mexico after being tracked to Sonora in August.
Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin told a Senate hearing last month that al Qaeda's ability to keep its operations secret is a "strategic weapon."
Mr. McLaughlin told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the group "compartments secrets down to a handful of people in a cave somewhere."
"It's very well-documented in the 9/11 report how few people knew about that," he said Aug. 17. "They use secrecy as a strategic weapon. It's a strategic weapon for them because it asymmetrically works against us because we don't keep secrets very well."
One major intelligence "break" was the arrest in June of Musaad Aruchi, who was captured in Karachi. Aruchi was a senior al Qaeda member who provided information that led to other key arrests within weeks.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
09/21/2004 1:50:46 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I don't doubt AQ is planning attacks; but it is apparently very hard to put togther the people and resources to do it when you are wondering in the back of your mind if a Global Hawk or a MOAB isn't already on its way.
And I believe that it will be some cop in Waco Texas, or some other small town stopping a vehicle for a violation of some kind that could well lead to unraveling any operation AQ may have in motion.
AQ can't miss once.
I really believe Bush et al has rocked Al Qaeda so badly, they may well never recover. And the problem for Bush, politically, is to keep the pressure on, else the Moose Limbs may take another crack at us civilians.
EFL from CS Monitor; reassuring in that military is more conservative, but troubling that it's not a stranglehold and that Fahrenheit 9/11 is taking effect
The film's prevalence is one sign of a discernible countercurrent among US troops in Iraq - those who blame President Bush for entangling them in what they see as a misguided war. Conventional wisdom holds that the troops are staunchly pro-Bush, and many are. But bitterness over long, dangerous deployments is producing, at a minimum, pockets of support for Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry, in part because he's seen as likely to withdraw American forces from Iraq more quickly.
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
09/21/2004 1:17:08 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
This reporter Ann Tyson has a litany of left-wing propaganda pieces that go off as "reports" This truly should be called "Dire scavenger hunt for soldiers who will say something provocative about Bush"
Just do a google search on her, and you will see she's not only a card carrying moonbat, but a charter member of the association.
#5
"I almost puke every time I hear him spew his oil-patch/faith-based notion of 'freedom.'"
Thank you very much for giving such credit to the oil patch. But, with all due modesty, I think us oil-patchers have to share the credit with some guys with names like Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Lincoln. Also, there's this big statute of a lady with a torch that, oddly enough, is in New York Harbor rather than Galveston Bay. But hey, I appreciate the effort.
Posted by: Matt ||
09/21/2004 17:02 Comments ||
Top||
#6
What a LOON I live in the "oil patch" It has just as many LLLs as any place else. But I wouldn't expect some one who couldn't make it outside of the "big city" to understand that. One thing is for sure however you will get the shit pounded out of you here for being stupid so I suggest you stay far away.
#7
this is b.s., military members *while in uniform* & especially in a war zone are barred from speaking ill of the c-in-c or any other dignitary covered by the UCMJ - this is well known and doubt anyone would speak ill of him to some reporter, we tend to distrust the media. Most Marines I know from the E-5 paygrade and below do not have too many political interests or opinions. Mostly due to their age and experience level. I'd say most enlisted vote republican just like the officer ranks minus some minority members due to family voting history.
#9
A6334: Americans went for Nixon in 1972, even though the Vietnam war was unwinnable. Why? Lots of American lives were lost there, and Americans couldn't bring themselves to believe that it was for nothing, which exactly describes that unwinnable fiasco.
The guerrilla war was won. The Democrats made sure that the Communists won a conventional blitzkrieg 3 years after American troops withdrew, by withholding military aid and air support even as North Vietnam charged south with billions of dollars of brand-new tanks, artillery and Mig's supplied by China and the Soviet Union. Why do liberals love America's enemies so?
perhaps because they agree? Self-destructive self-hate... maybe we need to give them razors and encouragement so they don't take anyone else down with them? Naahhhhh - it also has to do with dissatisfaction with themselves, their lives, and they blame it on those not in their control. Ergo: the Nanny State
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/21/2004 20:58 Comments ||
Top||
#11
A reporter records soldiers griping - I don't think that was news even during the time of Alexander. She effectively avoided all soldiers with patriotic notions who remeber 9/11 and don't want there to be a Beslan tragedy in Nebraska.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/21/2004 21:11 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Nope, it's "next New York".
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
09/21/2004 21:22 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Americans went for Nixon in 1972, even though the Vietnam war was unwinnable. Why? Lots of American lives were lost there, and Americans couldn't bring themselves to believe that it was for nothing, which exactly describes that unwinnable fiasco. Currently, a bare majority of American voters favor Bush, notwithstanding the 7 Iraq cities, and huge sections of Afghanistan, that the Moron-in-Chief has handed to the Islamofascists. I almost puke every time I hear him spew his oil-patch/faith-based notion of "freedom." Screw Bush; Screw Kerry; Screw Nader.
Violence continues to spread throughout Algeria, 12 years after the army aborted elections Islamists were set to win, prompting an uprising by Islamic extremists and a conflict which has killed up to 150,000 people, mostly civilians. In spite of the mobilization of the country's security forces and a policy of national reconciliation aimed at reintegrating former extremists into society, insecurity still lingers in most of the country, and the presence of al-Qaeda-linked groups in North Africa has attracted increased international attention, especially from the United States.
Security sources on Monday said Muslim extremists killed four civilians and kidnapped a woman in an ambush in eastern Algeria. Gunmen posing as army troops set up a checkpoint on a main road in the province of Boueira, 120 kilometers east of Algiers, stopping cars and robbing their passengers. The gunmen opened fire on one car that failed to stop, killing four of its passengers. One survivor, a woman, was kidnapped by the gunmen and taken to their hideout in a nearby rugged mountain.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
09/21/2004 11:46:36 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Edited for the conclusion.
Another well written DaniEl Pipes column
... More broadly, Anjana Malhotra notes that of the 57 people detained as material witnesses in connection with terrorism investigations, "All but one of the material witness arrests were of Muslims." In the murky area of pre-empting terrorism, in short, it matters who one is. So, yes, profiling emphatically does take place.
Amnesty International has laid down the gauntlet, placing a higher priority on civil liberties than on protection from Islamist terrorism. In contrast, I worry more about mega-terrorism say, a dirty bomb in midtown Manhattan than an innocent person spending time in jail. Profiling is emerging as the single-most contentious issue in the current war. Western governmental authorities need to stop hiding behind pious denials and candidly address this issue.
Posted by: badanov ||
09/21/2004 8:08:42 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taleban have held a series of meetings in Pakistan to discuss how to disrupt Afghanistan's upcoming elections, the US military said on Monday. "Relatively high-ranking" members of both groups as well as rebel Afghan faction Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin have held several meetings on how to derail the Oct. 9 vote, spokesman Maj. Scott Nelson said. Citing intelligence reports, Nelson said the meetings were marked by growing alarm at intensifying efforts on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border to root out their activities. "There have been several meetings between Taleban, Al Qaeda and HIG members in Pakistan where they've raised serious concerns" about efforts to track them down as well as how best to attack the election, Nelson said.
Nelson said the participants in the meetings were "relatively high-ranking," but wouldn't elaborate or specify where they took place. He said it was "certainly" possible that Osama bin Laden and other leaders of Al Qaeda were in the rugged border region. Maj. Gen. Eric Olson, the operational commander of the US-led force in Afghanistan, said this month that he had no fix on where bin Laden or his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, were located. But he said he believed the Al Qaeda leaders were still pulling some of the strings in the stubborn Afghan insurgency.
Nelson said the militants were divided over how best to thwart the election, which US-backed interim President Hamid Karzai is widely expected to win. "They talk, but I don't know how cohesive their strategies are," he said. He said militants were also debating how to counter muscular operations by both the Pakistani military and Afghan and US forces. Nelson praised the Pakistani military for "very aggressive operations in the areas where we think these senior leaders are hiding. They've had quite a bit of success."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
09/21/2004 2:00:07 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The key to successful elections, and the hopeful message of individual empowerment that they convey is to keep the terrorist leaders on the defensive.
I hope that Pakistan keeps up the heat in Waziristan. Hek and Zawahri keeping their plates full battling Pakistanis will keep them bottled up and very limited in the ability for offensive operations.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/21/2004 15:08 Comments ||
Top||
Israel's 2003 cabinet decision to remove Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat at the appropriate time has not been rescinded and remains the government's policy, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom told his Tunisian counterpart Habib Ben Yahia at a meeting in New York Monday morning.
Shalom began a week of meetings with dozens of statesman who poured into New York over the weekend for the 59th meeting of the UN General Assembly.
Shalom was slated to take part in a Seeds of Peace symposium later Monday chaired by former US Secretary of State James Baker, and including Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath, Arab League chairman Amr Moussa, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit, and Omani Foreign Minister Yusuf bin Alawi.
Israeli diplomatic officials said that during Shalom's meeting with the Tunisian foreign minister, their third in the last 18 months, Ben Yahia inquired about what Israel plans to do with Arafat. The sources said that the Tunisian foreign minister also felt Shalom out about the possibility of holding talks with Palestinians in Tunisia.
Shalom, according to Israeli sources, did not rule out the idea, and said that Israel is always prepared to hold dialogue with moderate Palestinians.
Tunisia froze its diplomatic ties with Israel shortly after the outbreak of violence in September 2000, and the issue of bilateral relations was discussed in Monday's 90-minute meeting.
Shalom, who is slated to address the General Assembly on Thursday, is scheduled to meet US Secretary of State Colin Powell on Tuesday.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/21/2004 1:40:58 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sounds pragmatic maybe.
Posted by: Info for You. ||
09/21/2004 1:52 Comments ||
Top||
#4
typical BBC. They headline that "Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri is the highest-ranking former regime official still at large", but if you read the article, he's been "reportedly" captured.
#5
The Beeb haven't managed to update that link since the initial reports of al Douri's arrest came out. It's probably too depressing for them to look at.
#6
Here is who is left:
I'm betting that the Republican Guard commander and a few of those security chiefs either turned or were snuffed.
-Hani abd Latif Tilfa al-Tikriti, Special Security Organisation director
-Sayf al-Din Fulayyih Hassan Taha al-Rawi,Republican Guard forces commander
-Rafi Abd Latif al-Tilfah. Director of general security
-Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti. Internal intelligence services director
-Abd al-Baqi abd Karim al-Sadun. Baath Party chairman and Baghdad militia commander
-Muhammad Zimam Abd al-Razzaq al-Sadun, Baath Party chairman, Ta'mim and Ninawa Governate
-Yahya Abdallah al-Ubaydi. Baath Party chairman, Basra Governate
-Nayif Shindakh Thamir, Baath Party chairman, Salah al-Din Governate
-Rashid Taan Kazim, Baath Party chairman, Anbar Governate
-Rukan Razuki abd al-Ghaful Sulayman al-Tikriti, Chief of tribal affairs
-Sabawi Ibrahim, Baath Party, Saddam Hussein's maternal half brother
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.
