Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdullah said here Tuesday that the Islamic Republic of Iran has a high status in the region.
As a target
Crown Prince Abdullah made the remark in his meeting with Iran's Minister of Science, Research and Technology Ja'far Tofiqi.
Ja'far, I picture a dark man with a black turban plotting behind the golden throne.
At the meeting, Abdullah conveyed his warm greetings to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and President Mohammad Khatami, calling Iran as Saudi Arabia's friend and a brotherly country.
He said through clenched teeth, keeping his back to the wall.
"To Saudi Arabia, Iran is of high importance as the next target for the American's a major regional country," he said, adding that Riyadh does its best to promote its brotherly relations with Iran.
Leaving aside those little Sunni - Shiite "disagreements"
Referring to the problems the world of Islam is facing, he expressed hope that the problems will be solved under the joint efforts of Tehran and Riyadh.
It's those joint efforts we're worried about.
At the meeting, Tofiqi stated that Iran is ready to transfer scientific experiences to Saudi Arabia.
Funny, I always thought Pakistan was building the Saudi bomb.
He expressed satisfaction with the expansion of bilateral relations and stressed Iranian authorities' determination to promote Iran-Saudi Arabia all-out relations.
With Iran on top, of course.
Tofiqi conveyed the warm greetings of President Khatami to the Saudi crown prince.
Posted by: Steve ||
11/30/2004 3:43:18 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So in the end it comes down to two big Axis of Evil players---Saudi Arabia and Iran. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, at least for now. It is inevitable that the West will have a showdown with these clowns. They are flush with petrodollars and Euros. They are about to get nuclear weapons. They think that they are in the catbird's seat with the EU's appeasement.
If Iraq is cleaned out of terrorists enough for the country to start turning around, then Iran is doomed. If Iraq is maintained in a destabilized state through Iranian and Saudi (with Syrian proxies, too) resources, then Iraq is doomed and we have one hell of a situation on our hands.
Failure in Iraq is not an option. We need a successful Iraq. And then we need to dismantle Iran and Saudi, one way or another. What makes this war tough is that we are fighting against our own money, so to speak.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/30/2004 16:37 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Quick! The Royal Knee Pads!
Posted by: Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdullah ||
11/30/2004 16:44 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"And we are then agreed. There shall no more be any mention of that unfortunate goat incident." (Ha, by the hairs on my mother's nose, you eater of dogs and infidel dweller of a dung heap, to the twelfth generation of your idiot offspring.)
This clearly demonstrates the Muslims First Rule... It's funny as hell, but also an amazingly transparent object lesson regards Islam. Keep this unthinkable (a mere 2 or 3 yrs ago) meeting in mind when someone begins blathering about Mythical Moderate Muslims or pretends to understand how to play the Shi'a off the Sunni in a triangulation ploy. Beware - quicksands ahead.
Fourth part of a series. Other parts and videos can be found at the link.
He's called Sheik Terra. With a Koran in one hand and pistol in the other, the British rapper calls for the murder of non-Muslims, including several world leaders, on a videotape. The video is well known in one London mosque, whose imam — or leader — is accused of setting up a terrorist training camp in Oregon and whose followers don't like Western media. Abu Hamza, who lost two hands and an eye in Afghanistan, is in jail now but other extremists from among Britain's two million Muslims continue to preach violence, veiling the message to take advantage of some of Europe's most liberal freedom-of-speech laws. "We cannot tolerate a crocodile in our bedroom," said Sheik Omar Bakri. "U.S. forces in Muslim countries are crocodiles in our bedrooms. So we are not going to give them ice cream."
In that case, pack your ragged Islamic ass back to the Muslim rathole that spewed you out and stay the hell out of civilized countries. Muslim colonists in Europe and America are crocodiles in our bedrooms.
Bakri says the terrorists who staged the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States are magnificent and Westerners in Arab lands need to be killed by any means necessary. He makes the threats with a smile. "If we use violence, you will forget the name of your mother and father," he said.
When we use violence, you'll be calling for your mommy.
That's what they do every time a civilized country institutes some measure to bring the problem under control.
The drawing power of the extremists, especially among the youth, has posed a challenge for mainstream Muslim leaders across Europe. Part of Britain's problem is that it can't provide native-trained imams; more than 90 percent are foreigners with very limited training or, some like Hamza, have none at all.
So what you're saying is that any idiot can set up as a holy man, and many do...
To prevent more mosques from being hijacked, London's Muslim college is trying to educate home-grown British imams but the voices of moderation struggle to be heard over media-savvy terrorists. When a hostage gets beheaded in Iraq, the images spread through this community almost instantly. It is a real mix of barbarity and technology.
And the Faithful lap it up, don't they? Seems reasonable that they bear the consequences of doing so...
The beheading of British engineer Kenneth Bigley in Iraq went from videotape to the Internet, then from cell phone to cell phone, bringing a smile from one young British Muslim who says he knows who the real killers are. "They are not Muslims. They are Jews," the young man said.
They always are, aren't they? Never some ignorant thug with a turban.
An old message of hatred for a new generation of consumers who can spread murder across a continent with the push of a button, or a song and a laugh.
Posted by: ed ||
11/30/2004 2:03:04 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Can someone do humanity a favor, and put a bullet into this guy's skull? Please?
He says in one breath. I'm sure in the next (or perhaps the one after that) he says something like "that kuffir deserved to be beheaded for soiling muslim land"
I have never seen such an ability to hold two contradictory thoughts in one head and not be troubled by the contradiction. They did the same with Sept 11 ("Joooos did it" yet they celebrated the event as a muslim victory), and they do the same with Hitler/WWII ("the holocaust never happened" yet they claim that "Hitler should have finished the job").
Ignorance. Hate. Unquestioning followers of those who are especially ignorant and hateful. Do we really think this will ever change?
#3
Dan - I have faith that we in America will rise above the PC police and take care of it here. Overseas? I have no idea, but a sinking feeling that the populace will awake too late. It will be a bloody chapter (as usual with Islam) but I think we will be victorious
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/30/2004 20:46 Comments ||
Top||
#4
You think!!! This isn't even close. The only question is when we start to play as seriously as they do. That 9/11 wasn't sufficient to supply that motivation still astounds me.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/30/2004 20:53 Comments ||
Top||
#5
ok - I know.....Musta been feeling my sensitive side for a second... *Harrummpphh*
I'm ok now
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/30/2004 20:56 Comments ||
Top||
EFL.Abe Lincoln? Abe Simpson? Abe, acting secretary general of the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan, let loose a string of balderdash seriously getting on the nerves of the DPRK, raving that the working-level talks between the governments of the DPRK and Japan held in Pyongyang some time ago was "meaningless," thus displaying his true colors of worst type. Branding him as a political dwarf, a Rodong Sinmun analyst Monday says: You're on our nerves dammit!!! Get off our nerves!!!
We have regarded from long ago Abe, an ultra-right conservative steeped to the marrow in inborn sentiments of negation of the improvement of the DPRK-Japan relations and hostility to the DPRK, as a political hysteric. And we know our "political hysterics".
As for the "abduction issue" it was an abnormal and separate case caused against the backdrop of the most acute anti-Japanese feelings of the Korean people resulting from the prolonged hostile relations between the two countries and the malicious anti-DPRK policy of Japan. It had already been settled with the Pyongyang visit of the Japanese prime minister. Move it along. Nothing to see here...
However, Abe is so wicked as to play down the sincerity and efforts of the DPRK and render the situation more complicate. So throw him in the shark tank with Blixie.
What he seeks in kicking up the row is to incite the sentiments of national confrontation and hostile feelings toward the DPRK among the Japanese and win popularity. In other words, he is set to use the "abduction issue" for his political strategy. By reversing white and black with distortions and lies, he is trying to impair the authority of the DPRK and scuttle the implementation of the DPRK-Japan Pyongyang Declaration. He is making free with rigmarole about the DPRK, not knowing anything about it. He is a regular political dwarf. It is a disgrace to Japan that such a wretch is trying to exert influence at an important post of the ruling party. Yeah, Abe. You better watch the free rigamarole, ya wretch ya! We have ways of dealing with the likes of you!
No one knows what would happen, if such fellows as Abe are let alone to drive the DPRK-Japan relations in a more dangerous direction while resorting to political provocations against the DPRK. They would be held fully accountable for the ensuing consequences. No White Slag for you!
Posted by: tu3031 ||
11/30/2004 11:59:02 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
ROFL!!!
I'm available for those pesky English translations, heh. They come up with some amazing Engrish, sometimes...
The Secretary General of the Liberal Democratic Party
Shinzo Abe was born into a distinguished political family. His father was Shintaro Abe, former secretary-general of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), and his grandfather was former Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi. Following graduation from the Department of Political Science of the Faculty of Law at Seikei University in 1977, Mr. Abe studied politics at the Universtity of Southern California. On his return to Japan, Mr. Abe began work at the Kobe Steel Ltd., and continued there until 1982. He then served as executive assistant to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, private secretary to the chairperson of the LDP General Council, and then as private secretary to the LDP secretary-general. After his father's death in 1991, Mr. Abe established a network of Shinzo Abe supporters' office. In 1993, Mr. Abe received the highest vote count in the Yamaguchi 1st District in his fast run for the House of Representatives. He was appointed to the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, and also served as director of the LDP Social Affairs Division, where he focused on the pension and the social security systems. He has served as deputy chief cabinet secretary from 2000 to 2003 Sptember in the Mori and Koizumi Cabinets. Then he has appointed to the Secretary General of LDP. He was recently re-elected in the general election for a forth term under the 2003 general election.
Mr. Abe has been active as chief negotiator for the Japanese government on behalf of the families of Japanese abductees who have placed their trust in his efforts.
The Federal Government has issued a warning to Australian companies exporting technology that may inadvertently be used to create weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Defence Minister Robert Hill says some organisations dealing in areas such as nuclear technology are closely monitored when they develop dual use products for export. Senator Hill says the Government will reject applications to export dual use products that have the potential to be used in weapons of mass destruction programs. "There have been suggestions that some may have been exported from Australia innocently that have been used within WMDs, at least research programs and that's something that we watch very carefully," he said. Senator Hill says current international non-proliferation regimes are ill-equipped to stop weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists. He says the Government wants to see all other countries in our region adopting the same restrictions on exports.
Posted by: God Save The World ||
11/30/2004 9:31:53 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
[extra wild-eyed ranty rant full of excess - lotsa fun, heh]
Well hell. If the technologies are just too tough to track and the "dual use" issue would be just too tough on business, well, that leaves just one option... Let them have nukes. Nuke them all - every goddamned last one of them. Fry 'em up. It won't solve the lost business issue, they won't be buying anything - ever again - but it will solve the "someday they'll nuke you for your stupidity" issue.
[/extra wild-eyed ranty rant full of excess - lotsa fun, heh]
F**kin Duh. Support Hill - who has a pair and is telling it like it really is, rather than how some wish it was.
Anybody want some of this barbeque? I can't eat it all...
THE terrorist known as Carlos the Jackal is again refusing food to protest against conditions in prison, where he is serving a life sentence, one of his lawyers said today. The Venezuelan, whose real name is Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, stopped eating last Wednesday and said he will continue the strike "as long as necessary," attorney Isabelle Coutant Peyre said by telephone. She said he is protesting against being kept in isolation, "provocative and unjustifiable" body and cell searches, and authorities' refusal to let him access his prison bank account for food and other necessities. He is imprisoned at a high-security prison in Fresnes, a southern suburb of Paris. In May, Ramirez went on a hunger strike for two days to protest against being moved to a new cell.
Two days? Two entire days? Amazing. Incredible. Unheard of.
Nurse, give him an enema!
Posted by: Fred ||
11/30/2004 3:37:13 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
...attorney Isabelle Coutant Peyre...
Attorney and squeeze. (Do read the part about their lovely "marriage" ceremony.)
#2
Quick get the International Committee of the Red Cross! It's torture I tell you, torture. Quick he is imprisoned at a high-security prison in Fresnes, a southern suburb of Paris. Huh? Paris? Ah...nevermind.
Posted by: Don ||
11/30/2004 17:12 Comments ||
Top||
#3
'Carlos the Jackal' quits food
Araphat the jackal recently did too, but he hasn't said much about it...
#4
The first thing that comes to mind about this article is, "Promises, promises, promises..."
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
11/30/2004 17:20 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Next step: quit breathing, you worthless piece of s--t!
Posted by: Dar ||
11/30/2004 17:58 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Next time he sneezes on French food they should sent him to a British prison to have a heavy diet of boiled beef in mint sauce with warm ale. That would teach him.
Guess they changed their minds...
French broadcast regulators announced Tuesday they were seeking to pull a television station linked to the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah off the satellite beaming its programmes within the European Union because of licence violations. The High Audiovisual Council (CSA) said it would ask France's superior administrative court to order the Eutelsat satellite company "to cease transmitting the station". The decision, which aims to cancel the licence the CSA gave to the Al-Manar station less than two weeks ago, came after several "serious defaults regarding the contractual agreements" the channel is subject to.
Hmmm. Let's take a look at the "default", shall we:
Most notably, on November 23, the station showed a person speaking during a regular press roundup programme on Al-Manar who made comments that "were of a nature to disturb public order and to attack the fundamental principles of audiovisual law which prohibit any incitation to hatred or violence," the CSA said in a statement.
Ah...incitement to violence.
Al-Manar was granted its licence on November 19 despite appeals by Jewish groups claiming it put out anti-Semitic content, although the CSA stressed the station would be held to the highest standards. The head of the station, Mohammed Haidar, said last week the aim of Al-Manar was to support the Palestinian cause, and it had always distinguished between Israel's policies as a state and the Jewish religion.
"But it would be much easier to distinguish between them if all the Jooos were bobbing about in the sea."
"We are ready to respect French law and will submit to it," Mohammed Haidar told Le Figaro newspaper, adding that previous programming perpetuating false accounts about Jewish history were a "mistake".
"Rats. The cassette was marked 'The Bourne Identity'. How were we to know it was really the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'?"
Haidar denied that Al-Manar was owned by Hezbollah but acknowledged that it defended Hezbollah's activities and views, notably with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Posted by: Seafarious ||
11/30/2004 10:44:32 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And TV5 will be taken off the air across the Middle East...
Former Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar said yesterday that Islamic militants had tried to use the Madrid train bombings to oust the pro-US ruling party from power, but not because of its support for the Iraq war. "These attacks were being prepared long before the Iraq war. They were not the result of the Iraq war even though many people said so," Aznar said in combative testimony to a parliamentary commission probing the attacks. The March 11 bombings aboard four packed commuter trains killed 191 people and wounded 1,900 three days before a general election, and Aznar's mistaken placing of blame on the Basque separatist movement ETA was widely believed to have helped the anti-war Socialist opposition on polling day. Had ETA been responsible, it could have helped Aznar in the election by seeming to justify his hard line against the group. The Madrid bombers — mostly North Africans who investigators say were waging a holy war against the West — made videotapes claiming the attacks in the name of Al-Qaeda in Europe and said they were seeking revenge for Spain's dispatch of troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/30/2004 11:20:25 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm generally very pro-Aznar but I think he's not being as forthright as he ought to be. He bumbled the Atocha bombing by claiming publically in the aftermath that it was probably ETA when it had all the hallmarks of a Jihadist operation.
The question isn't whether it had to do with Iraq. It did. The question is whether that means that backing out of Iraq is a good way to appease the terrorists and whether appeasing terrorists is a good thing to do in Iraq or in the larger scheme of things. The answer is obviously not but nobody seems willing to admit that this is the issue.
Posted by: John in Tokyo ||
11/30/2004 2:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
In the immediate aftermath of the Madrid bombings EVERYONE was saying it was ETA. I recall it well because I (and I recall Barbara S.) got attacked at RB (by several prominent contributors) for pointing out it was a jihadist MO.
"He defended his decision initially to blame the train bombings on ETA and said his political opponents had yet to turn up a âsmoking gunâ to prove that his government lied. Aznar testified repeatedly that police commanders all believed ETA was the prime suspect until the election eve. âMy conscience is clear...we told the truth about what we knew,â he said."
According to the Telegraph, Aznar still believes there may have been ETA participation:
"When asked if he still believed Eta was connected to those responsible for the attack, Mr Aznar replied: 'I am not the only one who thinks it from what I hear and read. Today we know enough for me to say in this commission: I ask for this connection to be investigated.'"
And apparently in Spain you can rock the Government by merely stating the blindingly obvious:
"The claim of a link between the bombings and the election outcome was an attempt by Mr Aznar to 'destabilise' the new government, the Socialist deputy, Diego Lopez Garrido, said. 'That's an enormously serious accusation.'"
#4
The question isn't whether it had to do with Iraq. It did.
AFAICR, the planning for the Madrid murders began LONG before Iraq. I suspect the bombing had much, much more to do with the "occupation" of Andalucia than Iraq.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/30/2004 8:26 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Whatever happened to Bambi's promise to withdraw Spanish troops "unless power is transferred to the Iraqis"? Seems we upheld our part of the deal in July. So where's the parliamentary investigation into Bambi's patent breach of faith?
#6
To people who don't speak Spanish. Here are some things who are generally not known out of Spain
To summarize it: Aznar didn't lie, Socialists and MSM did and manipulated public opinion. It also appears that elements of Spanish spolice knew before hand something was going on.
1) EVERYONE in Spain thought initially it was ETA. Even its closest sympathisers. BTW: ETA has made several tries at mass terrorism. One of them involved the sinking of a ferry with 1400 persons on it. Until now it has ever failed but not for lack of trying.
2) The police fed the government pointing towards ETA. One of them being the kind of explosives (Titadyine used by ETA who has several tons of it) later it told it was Goma-2 (no longer used by ETA). Problem. It seems they smell completely different so it is very strange the explosive experts didn't make the differnece
3) The government told the press about the islamist clues less than three hours after discovered by police.it.
4) The Cadena SER (a radio and TV network linked
to the socialist party) got important informations from the police well before the government.
5) I told about islamist clues. It was a white van with explosives in it and tapes of "Initiation to Coran". But the van had been already been searched by town police (ie not state police), sniffed by a trained dog and nothing had been found
6) The Cadena SER hammered and hammered that one of the bodies showed the marks of a suicide bombing. It was false. But it was repeated continuously.
7) The Cadena SER made a special about "spontaneous" demonstrarions in front of the Popular Party building. They weren't spontaneous of course but the off voice repeated and repeated and repeated it was. Until it convnced the Spnaih people.
8) The guy who provided the explosives (a non-Muslim common criminal) and most people involved in the bombing were police informants.
It is known that several of these informants had told their controllers about having provided important quantities of explosives and a big bombing in preparation. Now the interesting part is that their controllers were close to the Socialist party, had been involved in the GAL (illegal assassinations of people vclose to ETA during a precedent socialist government) and had been promoted since 3-11
9) In the afternoon of 3-11, two very important members of the socialist party (I think they are ministers now) travelled 100 miles out of Madrid to meet the former director of the Guardia Civil who is serving aprison time for corruption and involvement in the GAL. With the elections three days away and jsu a few hours after the bombings they spent severla hours in a trip to visit a prisonner, a very special prisoner who has been involved in black operations.
#9
You can find an English relation of the disturbing facts related to 3/11 at http://barcepundit-english.blogspot.com/2004/11/former-prime-minister-jose-maria-aznar.html
and at
ttp://barcepundit-english.blogspot.com/2004/09/march-11-commission-will-have-extended.html
For those you who can read Spanish, the better source is at http://elmundo.es (Main stream newspaper, who is not specially conservative) but
you will have to dig in the site. Also in Spanish you have http://libertaddigital.com (conservative pro-US and pro-Bush) but it is second hand and in fact it bases its articles about 3-11 on the papers published by El Mundo.
Ah, use the Spanish tell 11-M when referring to that day so use this string when searching in the El Mundo or Libertad Digital sites.
#11
Many thanks indeed, JFM. This looks like it's developing into a very hot topic.
Barcepundit links to this Guardian piece I missed last Sunday. Categorises the claimed ETA-links as a 'right-wing conspiracy theory' but does at least cover the story.
#12
I forgot to mention that many leads point towards a joint operation between ETA and Islamists. Testimonies of prison guards also point towards
friendly contacts between ETA and Islamist immates.
#13
Why not? The IRA had close ties to Colombian rebels, trained if I'm not mistaken in Libya as well. Make no mistake: terrorists are political whores. Their political agenda is always secondary to the agenda of hatred and violence.
HALIFAX — A woman who helped stranded passengers after 9/11 says she doesn't accept U.S. President George W. Bush's thank-you.
In that case, kiss our collective ass, bitch.
Bush is expected to express his gratitude to people such as Anne Derrick, who put up a New Jersey family for several days after flights were diverted to Halifax on Sept. 11, 2001. But Derrick denounces Bush's visit to Halifax as a simple "photo opportunity." "I hope he gets the message during his visit here that we will not be cheerleaders for his administration's brutal foreign policies," she said at a news conference held by the Halifax Peace Coalition.
I hope Ms. Derrick gets the message that we don't give a rat's patou what she thinks.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/30/2004 3:34:21 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
May the long nights of the Halifax winter blow a chill up your knickers and freeze your ass cheeks together until the warm breezes of the spring thaw sprout crocuses from your toes..
PS Photo Ops are for first termers, you pacifist sperm recepticle... W don't need no stinkin' photo ops with losers like you.
#2
"I hope he gets the message during his visit here that we will not be cheerleaders for his administration's brutal foreign policies," she said at a news conference held by the Halifax Peace Coalition.
Please.
Can someone put this person on a list of persona-non-grata that, should they try to come to the U.S. for whatever reason, would get an instant rejection notice?
#4
I took a trip to the Maritimes about 10 years ago and found it a beautiful and friendly place where my dollar was exchanged at a much more favorable rate than in Quebec or Ontario. There is little industry and tourism is important to the economy. I never ran into Ms Derrick's type though they're everywhere. I'm certain, now, I'll never run into Ms Derrick, even by accident.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/30/2004 21:52 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Ms. Derrick, FOAD. Wanted to extend your 15 seconds of fame for at least one news cycle. How pathetic.
#6
Sez here that Ms. Derrick is a "prominent local lawyer".
A little googling on Anne Derrick Halifax truns up several legal references mentioning her, involving leftish issues like death penalty (anti of course) and wrongful conviction.
Well, I'm gobsmacked. Anyone else ?
/sarcasm
Posted by: Carl in N.H. ||
11/30/2004 22:54 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Something I just noticed, too; what does kindness in putting up people who were stranded by diverted 9/11/2001 flights have to do with "cheerleading" GWB's foreign policy? He wants to thank people over there for being considerate, not looking for agents or employees to carry out his agenda.
[Canadian] Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew has fired back at Iran's warning that Canada's new ambassador could face "trouble" for meddling in the case of Zahra Kazemi.
Don't send him. Tell them to go to hell.
"We will not accept any kind of threats under one form or the other," he told the Commons foreign affairs committee. "This is a Canadian citizen who was murdered in a prison in Iran, and we will continue to raise it independently of what they think or what any spokesperson will say."
Then why send an ambassador back, if you're going to withdraw him again? Or are you going to leave him in place to take the abuse?
Canada pulled its ambassador to Iran five months ago in protest over the case, but announced last week that Gordon Venner would be assigned to the post. Venner would make the Kazemi case a priority, Pettigrew insisted in announcing the appointment. On Sunday, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry in Tehran warned Canada's new ambassador to butt out of the Kazemi affair. "If anyone enters Iran on this mission, they get themselves into trouble," spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi had told reporters. "This is a domestic issue of the Islamic Republic of Iran."
That involves a Canadian citizen...
Pettigrew's spokesman said Venner will pursue redress "as far as possible."
Hopes for early mass protests in the streets of Ottawa on the eve of Tuesday's visit by US President George W. Bush fizzled out, as journalists outnumbered demonstrators. A loose coalition of groups opposed to just about everything Bush supports had promised two demonstrations hours before Bush was due to jet into Ottawa Tuesday aboard Air Force One. The first demonstration -- of Palestinians and sympathisers of the Palestinian cause opposed to Washington's support of Israel -- attracted less than 40 demonstrators. According to a quick head count by journalists, the protest attracted 39 demonstrators, 42 journalists and television crew members and three police officers. A second, ostensibly larger, demonstration scheduled for the midst of the evening rush hour -- was called by a group calling itself Students Against Bush. Nobody turned up. Further protests however were expected on Tuesday. Efforts to contact protest organizers were unsuccessful, with the phone numbers listed by organizers remaining unanswered.
Posted by: Seafarious ||
11/30/2004 10:23:32 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hopes for early mass protests in the streets of Ottawa on the eve of Tuesday's visit by US President George W. Bush fizzled out, as journalists outnumbered demonstrators.
How could they tell the journalists from the demonstrators?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/30/2004 11:10 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I've read reports of this happening before. A few years ago there was a story about a KKK rally where there were more undercover journalists than actual Klansmen.
I believe the paper was The Onion. And beating the stuff they make up is quite an accomplishment.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
11/30/2004 13:31 Comments ||
Top||
#5
There's hope for Canada after all.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/30/2004 13:37 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I was planning to show up on Parliament Hill with my own placard:
W PLEASE INVADE
No Snow for Oil
Posted by: john ||
11/30/2004 13:55 Comments ||
Top||
#7
While in Canada, President Bush might as well get a flu shot, since none are available down south.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
11/30/2004 14:06 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Hey, man - it's cold in Ottawa this time of year!
And to hell with the flu shot. The only time I ever got one, it gave me the flu. Screw that, I'll take my chances.
#10
FoxNews just ran some live shots of the Police putting on their gas masks - and there's some shoving and scuffling going on between the wankers and the Cops...
I think the Looneys are asking for it and the Cops are willing to accomodate them.
#11
A year ago last April there was supposed to be a huge KKK rally in Greeneville, Tennessee. Only 41 showed up. 6 robed members of the KKK showed up at a Civil War reenactment one week later and another trooper and I confronted them. We told them if they didn't leave we would have them arrested. They left without saying a word. It would be nice if these loonies would leave peacably as well, but them being loonies it probably won't happen. "Moonbats of the World Unite!"
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
11/30/2004 15:28 Comments ||
Top||
#12
6 robed members of the KKK showed up at a Civil War reenactment one week later . . .
"Twentieth Maine! Volley fire by sections; ready! . . . Aim! . . ."
Posted by: Mike ||
11/30/2004 15:38 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Medvid has some Canadian lawyer on that filed charges against Bush in BC. She seemed disappointed that Bush will flee the country before the DA can act upon them. Canada should be proud!
#14
From me on IRC: wonder if stup is about to get his ass gassed in Ottawa? I just saw the cops putting their gas masks on via TV :p He prolly had to work instead.
#15
LOL Mike! That's exactly what all of us felt like doing, but since Rusty and I were on horseback we got to them first and saved them from the rest of the troops. It could have gotten ugly. I was surprised by the story in the Greenville Sun the next day that said we "asked" them to leave. We didn't ask, we told.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
11/30/2004 19:02 Comments ||
Top||
#16
.com, it's probably more of an accomodation than you realize.
"Pulezze, put the masks on, OK officers? Otherwise we'll look so stoooopid!"
Posted by: Darth VAda ||
11/30/2004 19:37 Comments ||
Top||
#17
I like the part in the story where the journalists are on the phone calling the protest organizers - "Where are you all at?"
#18
I imagine a talking head US reporter on TV who asks reporter in Canada why there were so few protesters?
The Canadian reporter relies "It's fooking cold eh."
"Intelligence reform" is, as they used to say of the Moral Majority, neither. The intelligence-reform bill that has at least temporarily been scuttled on Capitol Hill despite its endorsement by all the great and good of Washington — from Democratic congressional leaders to President Bush — is neither intelligent nor is it real reform. It is a meaningless, and perhaps even counterproductive, bureaucratic reshuffling that has garnered such across-the-board praise exactly because it is such an empty gesture.
The idea behind the reform bill — pushed primarily by the 9/11 Commission — is that what ails U.S. intelligence can be fixed by the creation of a national intelligence director, centralizing vast powers over the intelligence community's budgets, policies and procedures. This is supposedly a bureaucratic magic bullet. Of course, if the bill passes and if — God forbid — there's another major terror attack a few years hence, the complaint will immediately go up that U.S. intelligence is "too centralized."
The fact is that measures to make us safer usually aren't uncontroversial — for instance, taking the fight to the enemy overseas as aggressively as possible, or offending the civil-liberties lobby by implementing the Patriot Act. Since many Democrats don't endorse these steps (in fact, routinely howl about them), they are always looking to get onboard window-dressing tough-on-terror measures, which is what makes the intelligence-reform bill a perfect cause for them.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper ||
11/30/2004 3:43:03 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ahh...fine sausage is being made. It will be of excelent flavor, with just the rightr amount of spice, salt, sugar, and fat. I suggest that you avert the eyes while it's being made.
Posted by: N Guard ||
11/30/2004 9:36 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The part I like the best about this whole fiasco is the standard anti-Bush anti-GOP line...the Patriot Act was Bad Law because none of the legislators read it before they passed it. And the intel reform bill is Bad Law because the legislators *did* read it before passing it, and decided it needed some tweaking. Bad Rethuglicans!
#3
I watched Sen Susan Collins "debate" my rep Duncan Hunter on Fox sunday. All she could say to his specific concerns was that "I'm sure the President wouldn't sign it if it was bad law". Hunter's doing the stand up thing, protecting the intel process priorities that saves US lives on the battlefield
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/30/2004 10:38 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Clowns. The most obvious fixes-- tightening immigration and hiring real spies who can actually penetrate AQ et al-- are precisely the ones avoided. This is our democracy at its worst.
The only remedy here is strong leadership from Bush. Spend some of that capital, now.
While many questions concerning Oil-for-Food remain unanswered, one conclusion has become abundantly clear: Kofi Annan should resign. The decision to call for his resignation does not come easily, but I have arrived at this conclusion because the most extensive fraud in the history of the U.N. occurred on his watch. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, as long as Mr. Annan remains in charge, the world will never be able to learn the full extent of the bribes, kickbacks and under-the-table payments that took place under the U.N.'s collective nose.
Mr. Annan was at the helm of the U.N. for all but a few days of the Oil-for-Food program, and he must, therefore, be held accountable for the U.N.'s utter failure to detect or stop Saddam's abuses. The consequences of the U.N.'s ineptitude cannot be overstated: Saddam was empowered to withstand the sanctions regime, remain in power, and even rebuild his military. Needless to say, he made the Iraqi people suffer even more by importing substandard food and medicine under the Oil-for-Food program and pawning it off as first-rate humanitarian aid.
Since it was never likely that the U.N. Security Council, some of whose permanent members were awash in Saddam's favors, would ever call for Saddam's removal, the U.S. and its coalition partners were forced to put troops in harm's way to oust him by force. Today, money swindled from Oil-for-Food may be funding the insurgency against coalition troops in Iraq and other terrorist activities against U.S. interests. Simply put, the troops would probably not have been placed in such danger if the U.N. had done its job in administering sanctions and Oil-for-Food.
This systemic failure of the U.N. and Oil-for-Food is exacerbated by evidence that at least one senior U.N. official -- Benon Sevan, Mr. Annan's hand-picked director of the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food oversight agency -- reportedly received bribes from Saddam. According to documents from the Iraqi oil ministry that were obtained by us, Mr. Sevan received several allotments of oil under Oil-for-Food, each of which was worth hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars.
To make matters worse, the actions of Mr. Annan's own son have been called into question. Specifically, the U.N. recently admitted that Kojo Annan received more money than previously disclosed from a Swiss company named Cotecna, which was hired by the U.N. to monitor Iraq's imports under Oil-for-Food. Recently, there are growing, albeit unproven, allegations that Kofi Annan himself not only understands his son's role in this scandal -- but that he has been less than forthcoming in what he knew, and when he knew it.
As a former prosecutor, I believe in the presumption of innocence. Such revelations, however, cast a dark cloud over Mr. Annan's ability to address the U.N.'s quagmire. Mr. Annan has named the esteemed Paul Volcker to investigate Oil-for-Food-related allegations, but the latter's team is severely hamstrung in its efforts. His panel has no authority to compel the production of documents or testimony from anyone outside the U.N. Nor does it possess the power to punish those who fabricate information, alter evidence or omit material facts. It must rely entirely on the goodwill of the very people and entities it is investigating. We must also recognize that Mr. Volcker's effort is wholly funded by the U.N., at Mr. Annan's control. Moreover, Mr. Volcker must issue his final report directly to the secretary general, who will then decide what, if anything, is released to the public.
Therefore, while I have faith in Mr. Volcker's integrity and abilities, it is clear the U.N. simply cannot root out its own corruption while Mr. Annan is in charge: To get to the bottom of the murk, it's clear that there needs to be a change at the top. In addition, a scandal of this magnitude requires a truly independent examination to ensure complete transparency, and to restore the credibility of the U.N. To that end, I reiterate our request for access to internal U.N. documents, and for access to U.N. personnel who were involved in the Oil-for-Food program.
All of this adds up to one conclusion: It's time for Kofi Annan to step down. The massive scope of this debacle demands nothing less. If this widespread corruption had occurred in any legitimate organization around the world, its CEO would have been ousted long ago, in disgrace. Why is the U.N. different?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/30/2004 8:18:22 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
wow! My surprise Mrs D! - I figured Mike S posted this ;-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/30/2004 20:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
That's OK, Frank, lots of people confuse us. We've both got a mouth.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/30/2004 20:28 Comments ||
Top||
#3
hopefully Mr. Davis can make the distinction :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/30/2004 20:30 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Yaaah-hoooo! I do believe I hear the whistle as the train picks up speed coming down that "fuck-you" track.
Buh-bye, coffee.
Heh. Pass the popcorn. :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
11/30/2004 20:32 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Senator Coleman's statement is concise, well written, and right to the point. The way you deal with this corruption, as well as the stonewalling, is to steadily move ahead and not let all the obstructions stall you. Senator Coleman's committee WILL get to the bottom of this, and any obstruction on the part of the UN will just make it worse.
Kofi---how does it feel to be in a REAL Quagmire? Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!
Hats off to Senator Coleman and his investigative committee. Keep up the pressure.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/30/2004 20:40 Comments ||
Top||
#6
How about taking it one step further, and getting the whole UN organization out of New York?
#7
Amazing. Coleman succintly wraps up what the New York Times has never been able to do with one of the greatest stories of the year, if not the decade.
Interesting that the only paper to do anything serious with this scandal has been the Wall Street Journal and the estimable Claudia Rossett.
If she doesn't win a Pulitzer for her work, the prize is a total sham.
But back to Coleman. He's got it exactly right. It is Annan who must take the blame for this mess and, it is Annan, who has on his hands the blood of the Iraqi people who suffered unnecessarily because of Saddam's perfidy. Our soldiers too are suffering and dying because of Kofi Annan's miserable stewardship of the Oil-for-Food program.
#8
Good idea, B-A-R, but Senator Coleman is laying the groundwork first. Like building demolition. Weaken the main supports at the core and the building's mass will fall inward on itself. Heh heh. Barbara, pass the popcorn, please. This will be a total entertainment package.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/30/2004 21:52 Comments ||
Top||
#9
...the most extensive fraud in the history of the U.N....
LOL, $20 plus billion??? Its the most extensive fraud in the history of fraud!
Posted by: Darth VAda ||
11/30/2004 22:12 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Here's the real reason to ditch the poxy bastards:
Technical Subgroup on the
Movement of Natural Persons - Mode 4
The Technical Subgroup (TSG) on the Movement of Natural Persons - Mode 4 was established by the Statistical Commission at its thirty-fifth session in 2004 (2004 Report of the Task Force on Trade in Services to the Statistical Commission). The TSG consists of experts from international organizations and national statistical offices. UNSD holds the Chair and Secretariat of the group. The first meeting of the TSG was held in September 2004 in Paris.
The objectives of the work of the Technical Subgroup comprise:
* Development of a conceptual framework for the measurement of the Movement of Natural Persons and, in particular, of Mode 4;
* Proposals of indicators/variables which provide a measure of the impact of the movement of natural persons in the host and home countries;
* Preparation of data collection guidelines.
The TSG will work in close cooperation with international organizations and existing expert groups to provide input in the revision and update processes of economic and social statistics standards, namely the revision of the IMF 5th Edition of the Balance of Payments Manual (BPM5), the update of the 1993 System of National Accounts (1993 SNA), the revision of the Tourism Satellite Accounts (TSA) and the revision of the Census recommendations.
The framework for the measurement of the movement of natural persons, currently being developed by the TSG, will serve as a basis for
* An annex or a chapter in the revised Balance of Payments Manual,
* A chapter in the revised Manual on Statistics of International Trade in Services,
* A dissemination paper for trade negotiators.
Yeah guys, but don't ya think those Un-Natural Persons (particularly those pesky Mode 1 & 2's) need lots more studyin'up on?...
#11
Let's not forget that Norm Coleman is the Republican who won the contest for Paul Wellstone's seat in 2002 against Walter Mondale.
This was the contest made infamous at places like Rantburg by the Wellstone funeral that turned into a Get Out Your Rage rally, as well as the MSM's apparent assumption that Mondale would win and complete shock that he did not.
Thank God Coleman won.
Posted by: Carl in N.H. ||
11/30/2004 22:45 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Kofi going would be really bad. It would nicely wrap up the whole thing and all would be back to business as usual. Much better for a showdown with Kofi and the UN vs congress... ending in a bill to leave the UN and start a new organization.
I don't want the UN to cooperate in the investigation. I don't want Kofi to step down. I don't want them to work with us. I want this situation to EXPLODE.
#13
I'm with you, D-A-P, and as a corollary I do not want someone I respect like Vaclav Havel replace him. The UN is rotten through and through, nothing that someone like Havel can "cure" -- he would only be tainted by it.
Posted by: Carl in N.H. ||
11/30/2004 23:15 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Among those mentioned as possible candidates for Ridge's replacement are Bernard Kerik [interim Minister of the Interior for Iraq and former New York City police commissioner], Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Joe Allbaugh and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Mike Leavitt and White House homeland security adviser Fran Townsend. Others are also believed to be interested in the job, including Asa Hutchinson, undersecretary for border and transportation security in the Homeland Security Department.
Asa Hutchinson would be a terrible choice. I'm not even sure he knows that we have a southern border.
#10
Zell would be my choice just for entertainment value. Jamie Gorelick jumping on a table, rending her garments in a snarl while Pelosi's eyes actually bug so far out they drop...whooo boyyyy that would be fun!
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/30/2004 16:00 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I would imagine a calm, sure, steady demeanor, on top of the rest of the list of qualifications, would be a requisite characteristic for a person in this position.
#12
Amit Yurin the DHS cyberczar leaves, now tom ridge, my company tries to do some work with DHS but all the funding has been canceled, basically DHS has no clout without money, their basically laying off people to stay operational, most of the security money is went to the military.
Islamic extremists do play a minor role in violence in southern Thailand, but the Buddhist nation risks sparking a full-blown religious insurgency with its heavy handed tactics, Muslim community leaders say.
"So when a bunch of guys in turbans cut a few people's heads off, don't do nothin'"...
They blame increasing attacks on Thai security forces in the mainly Muslim south on criminal gangs and foreign-trained Islamic preachers preying on youths to oppose the government.
So why don't you help root the bastards out?
Razalee Kayamat, village chief of Kayahmati, a tiny settlement of rubber tappers and vegetable farmers, said foreign-trained Islamic preachers were exploiting the situation by spreading extremist teachings among youths. âThe extremist preachers have returned from Indonesia, Pakistan and Libya and are going around spreading lies among the youths,â he told Reuters on Monday.
Interesting that Libya's included in that list. Indonesia and Pakland were expected, of course...
Imam Hussain Azam Haji Talib
Oooooh...he's a pilgrim and a scholar...bet his beard is long 'n' flowing too...
of the Narathiwat Central Mosque told Reuters there were a few extremist preachers in the area, but their influence was limited to young teenagers left to fend for themselves while their parents traded rubber and other goods in Malaysia. âThere is no religious crisis here yet, but the situation is explosive,â he said before lighting the fuse on the powder keg leading evening prayers on Sunday.
In that case, I'd suggest having a heart-to-heart talk with the young teenagers and beating the living crap out of them...
Revenge is also a powerful motive after last monthâs death of 78 Muslim protesters in military custody, killed by suffocation or crushed to death after more than a 1,000 people were arrested and crammed into army trucks. Muslims and minority Buddhists had lived in peace for years in the south, Imam Hussain Azam said, but he worried that hardline preachers and tough military action were a recipe for religious conflict.
No, the hardline preachers are. The tough military action is an effect, not a cause. They don't teach you that in Koran school, of course...
There are only causes in the Koran, never any effects.
Thai soldiers say they feel under siege in the three southernmost provinces, where Buddhists account for just 20 percent of the 1.8 million population. Motorbike-riding militants carry out almost daily shootings and arson attacks at roadblocks.
Have you thought about moving in more Buddhists? Maybe some Shans and Meos, and a bunch of those guys with the pointy shoes you find hanging around street corners in Bangkok?
Thailand blames radical Muslim teachers for the violence and has even offered free pilgrimages to Mecca for Muslim informants.
Oh, that should help...
... powder looks dry to me, how 'bout a match?
But Muslim leaders said criminal gangs stage some violence as a decoy, trying to distract security forces from normal policing. âThey have made us Muslims the scapegoats, but we are the victims.
It's always that way, isn't it? I just can't figure why...
You prolly need one of the Learned Elders of Islam to 'splain it all to you...in Arabic, of course.
"Now the Buddhist Thais and Chinese are also the victims of this situation,â said Imam Hussain Azam, speaking fluently in Thai and the Malay dialect of the region.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/30/2004 10:08:42 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
There are none so blind as those who will not see...
A top Iranian official has claimed a "great victory" over the US after the UN said it would not punish Iran's nuclear activities with sanctions. Hassan Rohani said Iran would never give up its right to nuclear power. He stressed its freeze in uranium enrichment was only temporary during talks with European countries. Hey! It's like it's 1938/39 all over again! That's an excellent Chamberlain impression you've got going there, Jack.
The UN atomic agency IAEA has welcomed Iran's offer to freeze enrichment in a statement on Monday that did not mention any threat of future sanctions. Washington had been pushing for Iran to be censured by the UN Security Council. Mr Rohani said the "whole world had turned down America's calls". "We have proved that, in an international institution, we are capable of isolating the US. And that is a great victory," Mr Rohani said. He added that the US representative at the IAEA meeting in Vienna "was enraged and in tears, and everybody said that the Americans had failed and we had won". "[Sniff] And we couldn't have done it without France. Thanks France! And Germany - we owe you sooo much, Germany! We love you! And Britain! Who'd have thought we could count on you to help us out in our time of need? You three have been rocks!"
It was Iran's first direct comment on the nuclear controversy since the IAEA resolution on Monday. According to Mr Rohani, Iran's offer to suspend uranium enrichment would only apply for the duration of talks with the EU. "We are talking months, not years," the cleric and head of Iran's top security body said. Officials from the UK, Germany and France are trying through a totally, utterly, discredited policy of shameless appeasement to get Iran to renounce its nuclear fuel enrichment programme for good. BBC correspondent Frances Harrison says Iran is hoping to be able to offer Europe objective guarantees to prove it is not diverting nuclear material for a secret weapons programme. "And in addition to confirming that our new technologies and installations which could be used for military purposes, won't be, absolutely not, no, we can reassure you that we have no territorial ambitions beyond reunification of the Sudetenland with - oops! Wrong notes!"
Talks between the Europeans and the Iranians are due to resume on 15 December. Mr Rohani said "the length of negotiations must be rational and not too long". But, he added, the talks were a "historical opportunity for Iran and Europe to prove to the world that unilateralism is condemned".
Iran maintains that its nuclear programme is solely for peaceful purposes and rejects accusations that it is working towards technology which could eventually be used for the production of nuclear weapons. US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Iran had repeatedly broken promises over its nuclear activities in the past 18 months. Tehran stepped back from a similar offer to freeze uranium enrichment six months ago, sparking the current round of negotiations over its atomic ambitions.
Posted by: Bulldog ||
11/30/2004 6:57:15 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think we are going to have to reconcile ourselves to the fact of a nuclear Iran.
The mullahs are very aware that once they go nuclear they have nothing more to fear from the US. Nothing is going to stop their headlong rush for a bomb, the Europussies and that cesspool the UN are delusional, corrupt and inept. I'd wager they actually believe that the Mullahs take them seriously.
The US probably should just state its new policy is if a nuke goes off anywhere in the world, the middle east and the Norks get glassed, period end of story.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/30/2004 8:16 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I have little doubt Iran will go nuclear and Europe will again be under nuclear target. How is that EU missile defense research going? When the missiles fly, they will be aimed from Iran at Jerusalem, Berlin, Paris, London, Moscow and points in between. I have learned since Sept 2001 that mutual defense treaties with most of Europe aren't worth the paper they are written on. So every man for himself and America first. Attack Iran with everything and complete ferocity before their nuclear armed missiles can reach North America. And so sorry for the collateral damage.
Posted by: ed ||
11/30/2004 9:09 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I think we are going to have to reconcile ourselves to the fact of a nuclear Iran.
The question is, would you like those nukes under the stewardship of a free country that is friendly to the West or a theocracy hostile towards "infidels" and a known sponsor of terrorism?
#5
What a complete farce. Is there any doubt here that the two sides in this episode are not Iran and the West, but Iran allied with the EU Dwarves against the US?
#6
Or it could be Iran versus the EU with the US on the sidelines. Don't forget the other half of this is the economic package with the EU, i. e. the tribute. The EU has assummed a position of dhimmitude to Iran. The Iranians have good reason to believe they will continue to do so in the future.
The Iranians cannot threaten us but they can threaten other states in the Gulf whose behavior could threaten us. That's why our continued presence there is so important to prevent them from buckling to the mullahs.
Europe now has the problem of what to do when Iran announces its nuclear capability. Munich redux.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/30/2004 11:20 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The only thing I find surprising here is that it seems most have "given up" that any military action will be taken against Iran.
[candy coating]
It's about time, of course. The lead time on the intel and when it occurs will determine the scope of the pre-emptive action.
If Dubya fails to keep his word on Iran, and he has said that a nuclear-weapons armed Iran will not be allowed (I've posted the link collection multiple times), then it will be the first time he has failed to do so.
I think the evidence at this point is that action will be undertaken. By whom and the scope are the only questions I have, personally.
[/candy coating]
I hope I'm right and you guys have candy-coated everything you've said, too, heh. ;-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/30/2004 11:27 Comments ||
Top||
#9
"If Dubya fails to keep his word on Iran, and he has said that a nuclear-weapons armed Iran will not be allowed..., then it will be the first time he has failed to do so."
Exactly. He has said we will not tolerate nukes in Iranian hands, and I think it's a safe bet he really, REALLY means it.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
11/30/2004 11:32 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Or it could be Iran versus the EU with the US on the sidelines. Don't forget the other half of this is the economic package with the EU, i. e. the tribute.
I think not. It's the EU that's been bribed here, not the Iranians. The mullahs couldn't care less about their people's economic prosperity; they've lined their own pockets nicely-- all of the members of the government are millionaires-- and don't need or desire any more carrots. It's the stagnant EU economies that, in view of the euro's rise and their own pitiful growth prospects, desperately need to export more to Iran.
#12
I wouldn't too quick to declare defeat...we still have a military option, which there is a very real chance of us using.
As for #1 comments about it being over if the mullahs have the bomb. How exactly is that? If they do get the bomb it would be more of a reason to take action and create some glass out of iran before they could get a trully potent force built.
Posted by: Dan ||
11/30/2004 11:37 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Bush has said we will not tolerate nukes in Iranian hands, and I think it's a safe bet he really, REALLY means it.
Except that in the recent weeks when he has spoken to the issue he as pointedly not reiterated the intolerance statements and the absence has been commented upon publicly. Instead we're getting leaks about getting the troops out of Iraq before mid-term elections. I hope I'm wrong but I fear I'm not.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/30/2004 11:44 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Bush is caving. He's calculating that his "capital" will get a higher return in domestic areas such as SCOTUS nomination battles and tort reform than in standing up to the Iran-Three Dwarves Bund.
#19
You're still working - so you can replace $10K. I'm "retired" so it would hurt a LOT more - as things stand now, anyway.
Let's wait and see what happens. Then you can do the "I told you so", if inclined. I'll pass if it goes the other way - I'll be too busy ululating, heh.
#20
The only thing I find surprising here is that it seems most have "given up" that any military action will be taken against Iran.
The other option is that unrest from within, and fanned with outright American public support and clandestine material help, would cause the Persians to take care of the Mullah Problem themselves.
Our forces took Afghanistan, then Iraq. They need a little rest.
I suggest a combination is in order - and will occur if time permits. I believe that George Tenet and the other slackers / seditionists in the CIA may have made one of the greatest blunders in history in this regard. If there is insufficient time to develop the links and coordinate with the disaffected Persian populace, then they have, indeed, set us up and failed us beyond what mere words can express... I believe that, without this collaboration and given the present circumstances, it will be a "close run" thing to de-nuke / topple / whatever. Time. It's all about time.
#22
BAR has hit on the strategy. Unfortunately, it was adopted too late. Iran is too close to their bomb and the CIA has to clean house before it can do anything helpful. State still thinks Iran is the most democratic country in the ME, except for that shitty little one, and it's not clear Rice wants to or can clean the sewerage out.
Maybe they could send Goss to Foggy Bottom if he cleanses Langley well and then Rice could run for DiFi's seat or the Governator's if he steps down in '06. Unfortunately, I think the Governator is having way too much fun, to the delight of all resoanable Caliphornians.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/30/2004 12:27 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Hey Ho, just a minute everybody.
You are all forgetting one very important fact.
Dubia or no Dubia (and I personally tend to trust he knows what he's doing and he means what he says), The state of Israel cannot afford even a single Iranian nuke prototype !
While the USA can take the loss of a couple of cities and survive, a single well placed nuke in Tel Aviv will devastate us beyond repair.
I therefore predict that it would be very logical to expect some large scale "Candy coating/accidents/ end candy coating" to occur
at Natanz or other similar sites.
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
11/30/2004 12:45 Comments ||
Top||
#26
That smoking gun link you provided .com is damning and should give everyone an idea of whats being faced here. But I believe that once Iran has verifiable nuclear ability, the US will not strike unless we get hit first. No amount of political capital earned would cover the cost of a nuke going off if we miss one. There is a short window of maybe a year or 2 at the outset to get something done and I just don't see it.
There isn't any diplomatic solution to this but the Euro's and the UN and the fifth column in this country will be up in arms if this isn't debated before the world ad nauseum.
A suprise strike would set off a firestorm in Europe and here. I don't know what will happen, but I think our bolt has been shot.
#27
Regards the debate, note in this old article that the House has already approved "all appropriate means" to stop Iran's nuke pgm. The last time I looked, it was stalled in the Senate (intel Cmte, IIRC) - I don't recall the SR #, sorry - and that was pre-election. I'll bet it gets new impetus, now.
#29
Good thread. One point I'm kind of curious about is why the Iranians (or at least Rohani) would be publicly rubbing Bush's face in this. Annoying George Bush tends to have fatal consequences, and the Iranians ain't stupid. Other than the obvious (it feels good) the two motives I can think of are (1) appeasing the hardliners in Iran who I assume did not want this deal and (2) telling the reformists in Iran that the EU supports the regime.
Posted by: Matt ||
11/30/2004 13:49 Comments ||
Top||
#30
JM - It's House Res 398 (there are several forms - all designated H.Con.398xx - with the xx varying according to the author.
The status says the Senate committee agreed to it, with some trivial (typical Senate) change to the title and has "messaged" back to the House...
lex - your point is fully contained in my comment #21 and you've voiced the same negativism before (comment #11 - "any amount"), then withdrawn it (sorry, you said a gentleman could change his mind, so I saw no need to save a bookmark, since you're a gentleman), and now reiterated it. Cool. I get it, you're pessimistic. Fine.
I dunno about that. The Taliban were stupid. Saddam was stupid. I can't think of any reason to believe the Iranians aren't just as stupid, and plenty of reason to believe they're even more stupid: these are Shiite fanatics who have a large part of their pride invested in thumbing their noses at the Great Satan, dating all the way back to November 4, 1979.
Their creed seems to be, We exist, therefore we must taunt.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
11/30/2004 14:02 Comments ||
Top||
#32
I'm a realist, not a pessimist. I would love nothing more than to see a full-court press against the mullahs with an eye toward their overthrow within 18 months.
But I simply don't see the prerequisites for such in place: No real assets on the ground, and a distracted CIA to boot. No willingness on the part of the Dwarves to countenance real sanctions and/or a blockade. Finally, Bush has announced the most ambitious goals for his second term that we've seen since the Great Society: reforming Social Security and the tax code. Does his admin have the bandwidth, let alone the capital, to manage these enormous overhauls and Iraq and strikes on Iran?
#33
Good job, Lex. We'd all love to see it happen, but it isn't going to. Three year old empty taunts aren't going to make Bush do anything he doesn't think is in the US national interest.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/30/2004 14:17 Comments ||
Top||
#34
Sigh. Well, in answering JM, my point was that he has to expend NO capital to get the US Congress onboard - they already are.
Too much on his plate? Pfeh. You knock 'em down as they pop up - that's his style. He's surrounded by a core of people who are not stressed out and have served him damned well, for the most part.
Bush has already demonstrated some damned amazing things in 4 years - or 3 yrs, rather - think of all he's changed in 3 years and tell me he can't do what he's setting out to do... 3 yrs of extraordinary activity, historic policy-making, bold pre-emptive actions, and remarkably bold initiatives. He hasn't shirked anything - and shown he will go it alone, after checking off the boxes, whenever it is required. US interests are what he keeps in focus. That's what I respect about him.
He certainly doesn't look like he's slowing down nor have I seen any of the indications you see he's caving on anything - anything at all. If you insist upon saying that's the case, maybe you should pony-up the links. I have.
Have you acquired a case of Gloom & Doom Disease? Where the hell did that come from? Lotsa shit happening, sure, but I see no reason to lose faith without solid evidence - and if you have that, please share it.
#36
Have you acquired a case of Gloom & Doom Disease?
No, just a vivid memory of LBJ's overstretch. He tried to escalate the Vietnam War while also launching the most ambitious domestic reform agenda since the New Deal, and he failed miserably for the simple reason that, contrary to the old Michelob ads, You can't have it all.
The biggest problem here is that we simply cannot put much faith in the intelligence we're getting from an incompetent, if not actively compromised, CIA. Without good intel no US overthrow or direct strike action will succeed.
#37
In the press conference in progress with Kanadian PM Martin, Bush just said it again in his jocular style that "it would be best if Iran did not have a nucular [sic] weapon." Though there was some jesting going on, he was clear enough that the PM Martin has a clear vision of what he believes should be done and that the E3 have invested a hell of a lot of hours in negotiating a freeze of their program. The US believes they should terminate the program. Caving? This is Bush. When he smiles, you'd better watch yer ass, bub.
#38
I predict we are going to see a lot of history in a short period and the world will look substantially different as early as the end of 2005. I think Bush will do something about Iran. As .com points out he has said so very explicitly. I don't know what it will be, but I'm certain it won't involve a long drawn out UNSC process. A couple of hundred of those nifty mini-cruise missiles could make a real mess of your electricity distribution system (for example).
#40
It's great isn't it - the way it's ok for the US and Israel to have nukes, but not anyone else? From all the comments above, is it any wonder the Iranians and other nations don't like the US?
"The 300 men filling out forms in the offices of an Iranian aid group were offered three choices: Train for suicide attacks against US troops in Iraq, train for suicide attacks against Israelis, or train to assassinate British author Salman Rushdie."
Morons still haven't figured out how to get Rushdie.
"Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters recently that the group's campaign to sign up volunteers for suicide attacks had 'nothing to do with the ruling Islamic establishment.'"
...
"Samadi claimed 30,000 volunteers have signed up, and of those 20,000 have been chosen for training, and he said volunteers had already carried out suicide operations against military targets inside Israel. But he said discussing attacks against US troops in Iraq 'will cause problems for the country's foreign policy. It will have grave consequences for our country and our group. It's confidential.'"
#3
why aren't we recruiting these guys? Why aren't we whipping them up into a frenzy and then loading them on busses to Iraq where we can neatly explode them all in one spot?
#4
No, no, no, 2b! That would be interfering with their right to self determination! Besides, how much more efficient to let them do all the work, and just pick them off when they've crossed the border. A few snipers like the one in today's story, armed with night scopes, cell phone, and lots of caffeine should do the trick... and a good time will be had by all involved.
TEHERAN — A dissident Iranian journalist has been barred from leaving the Islamic republic after trying to fly to the Netherlands for a conference, the student news agency Isna reported yesterday."I was told at the airport that I am banned from leaving the country by a Revolutionary Court order," Isa Saharkhiz, a former culture ministry official and editor of the banned pro-reform monthly Aftab, was quoted as saying. The Islamic republic's hardline judiciary has recently renewed its crackdown on reformist journalists, with the operation extending to contributors to Internet sites.
Meanwhile, Canada hit straight back after Iran warned its new ambassador to Teheran would get into "trouble" if he pursued the case of a murdered Iranian-Canadian photographer, which has already sparked a diplomatic crisis. The killing of Zahra Kazemi last year, after she was arrested in Iran, sent relations between Ottawa and Teheran into turmoil. But amid signs the tension was easing, Canada last week named a new envoy to Iran, to replace one recalled during the crisis, in a move which now seems only to have reignited tensions. Iran on Sunday warned the new ambassador Gordon Venner not to raise the Kazemi case.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/30/2004 12:46:46 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
The UN nuclear agency agreed on ways to police Iran's suspension of some nuclear programs, but a US official said Washington might still try to take the case to the Security Council.
"Okay Mr. Weasel, this here's the henhouse, you patrol this every night."
"What about him?" [points to fox]
"Oh, that's just a fox, he comes by often. Pay him no mind!"
The International Atomic Energy Agency board passed a resolution authorizing its head, Mohamed ElBaradei, to monitor Iran's commitment to freeze uranium enrichment activities that can produce either low-grade nuclear fuel or the raw material for atomic weapons. But US chief delegate Jackie Sanders listed more than a dozen open questions about Iran's nuclear intentions still before the agency despite a nearly two-year investigation of almost two decades of covert activities. "This makes it clear that the IAEA cannot ... offer the necessary assurances that Iran is not attempting to produce nuclear material for weapons," she told the board.
France, Germany and Britain, who negotiated a Nov. 7 agreement with Iran on suspension, came to the meeting saying the deal meant that all equipment used for enrichment must come to a standstill. Iran had demanded that it be allowed to run 20 centrifuges for research purposes. Seeking to avoid tough measures by the board that could have led to referral to the Security Council and possible sanctions, Iran appeared to give up its demands Sunday, delivering a letter to the agency pledging "not to conduct any testing with these sets of components." But a pledge by Hossein Mousavian, the chief Iranian delegate to the meeting, that "we are not going to introduce material or any gas" into the centrifuges" appeared to fall short of the European demands. Later, Iranian delegate Cyrus Nasseri appeared to move closer to the European interpretation, telling reporters that Iran "will not" run even empty centrifuges. The lack of a "trigger mechanism" beginning the referral process in case of violations disappointed the United States - which insists Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons.
We might need our own "trigger".
Sanders, the chief US delegate, told the meeting Tehran could not be trusted. "We believe Iran's nuclear weapons program poses a growing threat to international peace and security," she said. "Any member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the Security Council any situation that might endanger the maintenance of international peace and security," she said, alluding to the possibility of a unilateral US push. Set to start in mid-December, the deal with the Europeans commits the Iranians to the freeze only during negotiations with France, Germany and Britain on EU economic, political and technological aid. And even that was cast into doubt, with Iran appearing to reserve the right to renegotiate the suspension - its letter to the IAEA, as quoted by an official from a board member country, said Tehran would "discuss further" the freeze once those talks begin.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/30/2004 12:42:42 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
ROFL!!!
Bush to Elbaradai (via intermediates, of course): "What part of FOAD did you fail to comprehend?"
Jordanian officials said Syria has agreed in principle to revise its southern border with Jordan in the first such move since 1970. Officials said Syria agreed to honor a recommendation by a joint Syrian-Jordanian committee that met last week. The committee, which met in Damascus, determined that Syria seized 125 square kilometers of Jordanian territory since 1970 when the regime of then-President Hafez Assad sent tanks and warplanes to attack the Hashemite kingdom. The panel also found that Jordan should return about 2.7 square kilometers to Syria. Technical teams from the joint panel have completed a draft of the revised Jordanian-Syrian border. Over the next few months, the governments of Jordan and Syria were expected to ratify the draft of the joint committee.
I'm starting to think Syria's actually starting to reluctantly fall in line. I'd also guess they'll remain there until Iran jerks their chain.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/30/2004 10:52:45 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
2.7 sq km = face saving for Syria
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/30/2004 9:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
1970 when the regime of then-President Hafez Assad sent tanks and warplanes to attack the Hashemite kingdom
connected to civil war between Jordanian Army and PLO, in which Syria supported the PLO and Israel supported the Jordanian Army.
#4
I remember reading someplace (Rantbburg, perhaps?) that the UK intercepted a request from Jordan to Israel for help in turning back the Syrians in that 1970 incident, though nothing came of it.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
11/30/2004 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The Jordanian airforce pounded said tank force into scrap, while the Syrian airforce stayed on the ground. Its likely they didn't fly cos it was clear Israel would shoot them down. Otherwise Assad is a lame duck and everyone knows it. He's just manouvering to delay his ceuacescu moment.
#6
What I have heard (BBC documentary) is that Israel sent four Phantoms to overfly the advancing Syrians. No bombing, just overfly and show their Israeli markings. The Syrians understood the hint and turned back.
Syria and Turkey have completed military cooperation talks. Officials said a Turkish military delegation held talks with Syrian commanders on Nov. 24 in Damascus. They said the talks concerned border security, training and regional issues. The Turkish military delegation was led by Lt. Gen. Farouq Joumart. Joumart has been commander of the Turkish military academies. Officials said Joumart and his delegation met Defense Minister Hassan Turkmani. They said the talks focused on bolstering military cooperation.
"Hey, Your Excellency."
"Yes, General?"
"Do you hear something?"
"Hear what? Oh, that high, droning sound? I'm certain that can't possibly be the Americans. Well, mostly certain."
Posted by: Fred ||
11/30/2004 11:02:39 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
A group of 38 Shiite Muslim political parties broke off negotiations Tuesday with backers of Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric, claiming a candidate list under discussion was dominated by religious extremists. "We don't want to be an extension of Iran inside Iraq," said Hussein al-Mousawi, spokesman for the Shiite Political Council. "We found out that the top 10 names in the list are extremist Shiite Islamists who believe in the rule of religious clerics." Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has assigned a committee of six of his aides to try to put together a unified Shiite ticket for the Jan. 30 national election, during which Iraqis will select a 275-member assembly. Under Iraq's election laws, there will be no electoral districts; instead, voters nationwide will cast ballots for the same candidates. A party will gain seats based on the percentage of votes it receives, meaning the top positions on the list are the most assured of victory.
That was a dumb move. Somebody gave away the farm on that one.
Al-Mousawi said the committee putting together the list allocated only 10 names from his coalition for the 275 spots on the ticket. The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq — known for its ties with Iran — was given 33 places on the ticket and the Islamic Dawa party got 27. Those two groups also won places on the ticket for independents who share their views, al-Mousawi said. He also said followers of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr have been promised at least 27 places and were negotiating for more. The rest of the slots are supposed to go to independents, he said. "We will appeal to al-Sistani because we believe that the ayatollah is looking for an assembly that represents all Iraqis and is not dominated by extremists," he added. The Shiite Political Council is a coalition of 38 political parties including the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad Chalabi, the former Pentagon-backed exile, Hezbollah, the Islamic Democratic party and the Free Republicans. Hussain al-Shahristani, a nuclear scientist who heads the al-Sistani committee, could not be reached. Shiites form about 60 percent of Iraq's nearly 26-million strong population and it is widely assumed they will dominate the new government.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/30/2004 7:32:48 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
hmmmm - doesn't sound like a recipe for success
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/30/2004 21:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Thank goodness this government is only temporary. This is the kind of idea Lani Guinier pushed and is very big with the tranzi crowd. Helsp the party to maintain control of the apparatchiks.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/30/2004 21:08 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Lani Guinier? Voice from the past! AG candidate under "BJ" Clinton, wasn't she? Til her writings caught up with her?
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/30/2004 21:20 Comments ||
Top||
Here comes the Brutal Afghan Winter™. Our guys just can't take it. They'll be... Oh. Wait. That was three years ago.
Thousands of U.S. soldiers are preparing an operation against Pakistani Taliban insurgents to preempt an expected spring offensive which could upset plans for Afghan parliamentary elections, a senior American general said in an interview Tuesday. The operation will begin within days of the Dec. 7 inauguration of Hamid Karzai as Afghanistan's first directly elected president - an event that itself is a potential target, Maj. Gen. Eric Olson told The Associated Press. "There could be an unhappy coincidence between the enemy's spring offensive and the parliamentary elections," Olson said at the main U.S. base at Bagram, north of Kabul.
He said the aim is to tighten the Afghan-Pakistan border by sending special forces on raids against rebel leaders. Olson said the offensive - which will cover the entire U.S.-led force of about 18,000 - would attempt to disturb militants in their "winter sanctuaries" so that they will be in no shape to move against the parliamentary vote slated for April. The military will be "attempting to attack him in those sanctuaries while he's resting and refitting, staging and planning," said Olson, the operational commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
I'm afraid there going to hit nothing, because Mahmoud's going to be home strutting for the folks back in Peshawar and Quetta.
The new operation, dubbed Lightning Freedom, follows Lightning Resolve, a security push begun in July to protect the October presidential election, the first vote since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Forty people were reported killed on election day, Oct. 9, but Taliban holdouts failed to make good on threats to assault polling stations across the country. More than 8 million Afghans voted, handing Karzai a majority that foreign donors bankrolling the country's democratic rebirth hope will bring stability after more than 20 years of fighting.
Still, violence continues to plague the area close to Pakistan south and east, where militants are strongest. A roadside bomb killed two U.S. soldiers in Uruzgan province last week, and American officials say Pakistanis militants continue to cross to and from neighboring Pakistan. To reinforce the frontier, Olson said the U.S. military would establish several new camps close to the border. He said Afghan forces would also reposition "along and astride" routes used by militants. And he promised to strengthen cooperation with Pakistani forces across the border. U.S. special forces already have been moved to near the main Torkham border crossing in Nangarhar province, where the U.S. military recently conducted raids on suspected al-Qaida targets, Olson said. He said there was concern militants could attempt a "spectacular act" during Karzai's inauguration. The event is expected to attract officials from around the world, though it is unclear who will represent the U.S. government. Still, the general said the military had no information on any specific plans to attack the ceremony. Afghanistan in winter is a close approximation of Hell. Godspeed to those brave men.
#1
Is this the same Brutal Afghan Winter that has stymied us so little in the past?
I sure hope our guys keep their GPS tuned so they don't accidentally wander into the parts of Waziristan the Pak Army is no longer patrolling. Somebody might think it was a free fire zone.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/30/2004 18:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Mrs. D - you beat me to it. :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
11/30/2004 20:33 Comments ||
Top||
#3
While General Winter will complicate operations for us, the General is neutral and will also complicate operations for the otherside too. Logistics is not our opponent's strength. It already has become harder with political developments for them to sustain local supply and remain mobile, it will become even more difficult in the winter. Time to leverage our relative strength against their weakness. Regardless of great stories about native resistance to local environments, the basic human body still requires a certain level of food consumption for strength and to ward off cold. If the enemy has learned anything, they should have learned that the US military is not the Soviet military. Our forces will not withdraw into towns and cities to hunker down for the winter.
Posted by: Don ||
11/30/2004 21:20 Comments ||
Top||
#4
One major advantage the United States forces have is mobility. We've developed insertion/extraction missions to the point where we can put people just about anywhere, let them fight, then bring them home quickly. The Taliban and Al Qaida have to depend on donkeys and shank's mares. We can hit them twenty times in ten days, and sleep quietly and warm in bed at night - or during the day, while operating at night. We'll have to wait and see, but I believe the "insurgents" are about to run into some very nasty surprises.
Two Islamic extremist groups are trying to recruit commandos in Angola to carry out suicide missions outside the southwest African country. The head of Angolan intelligence, Gen. Fernando Garcia Miala, commented that at least two internationally known terrorist groups are present in Angola. According to Miala, the two groups are not only trying to recruit members, they also raise funds and hide fugitives. Miala added that the Muslim fundamentalists were especially keen to recruit former soldiers who specialized in engineering.
Read - bomb making
According to Miala, however, the recruiting efforts were less than successful. "No candidate with the desired experience was signed up because the suicide mentality doesn't exist in our culture, especially not when it's for a foreign cause," he said. "We have also learned that some Angolans have been awarded scholarships by a so-called religious organization, but they were somewhere in Egypt in a center where they were learning Muslim fundamentalist doctrine."
Couldn't get into a good Saudi school, huh?
Posted by: Steve ||
11/30/2004 2:42:56 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
No candidate with the desired experience was signed up
Getting damned hard to re-up hardened suicide bombers.
Some of the more ominous speculation inside the Beltway concerns the Bush administration's policies towards Iran, including the possibility of an attack. Bolstering Iran's paranoia about being surrounded is the fact that U.S.-led coalition forces in Afghanistan are building a 741-acre military base near the country's western border with Iran. The base is being built in the Holang desert area in Ghorian district Herat province a scant 28 miles from the Iranian frontier. The Combined Forces' Command in Kabul and the Afghan government insist that the base is being built for the Afghan National Army. A press official for the Combined Forces' Command commented, "The U.S. government is building a military base in Ghorian in order to provide transportation facilities for the Afghan National Army."
"Nothing to see here, move along."
The U.S. Provincial Reconstruction Team in Herat maintained that the base would be used for training Afghan National Army soldiers. Iran's consul in Herat Mohammad Ali Najafi said only, "We will express our view after contacting relevant authorities inside my country, who will assess this issue."
Translation: "This is above my pay grade."
Some Afghan military officials are more candid about the implications of the base; ANA General Nader Azemi said, "Creation of a base in a place completely dominating Iranian airspace could provoke an argument from Iran."
Gee, he sez it like "completely dominating Iranian airspace" is a bad thing.
Posted by: Steve ||
11/30/2004 2:32:25 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
ROFL! It's hard to see how the Mad Mullahs can "ratchet up" the screech to include this new development, I thought they were banging against the ceiling already, but they've never let me down before, so... let a new round begin! LOL!
#4
Don't the Iraqis need a base 28 miles from the other Iranian border? I think they DO! This would be useful "in order to provide transportation facilities for the Afghan IRAQI National Army"
#12
I'll bet they've still got a whole lot of B-52's. First time I drove by DM it was in the summer and it loked like a sail boat regatta till I got to the fence and saw they were tails of BUFFs.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/30/2004 18:13 Comments ||
Top||
#13
This base, if it was square, would be 1.1 miles on a side. if it was more rectangular than square, then it would be more of the shape for an airfield. So I would see the base as more for troops and tactical aircraft. I would think that you would want an airfield at least 5000 ft long. You need some room for a perimeter and security, too.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/30/2004 18:25 Comments ||
Top||
#15
10-12,000'...I see an expansion in their future...and hey! Any news on H1, H3, et al in the Western Iraq desert...seems like just this last year they were an Iraqi air base...hmmmm
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/30/2004 19:19 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Small base. Probably just a base from which the Afghan National Army can do border patrol to halt the mad mullah stampede when the cruise missiles start raining down.
Posted by: Tom ||
11/30/2004 19:25 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Wasn't H-1 or one of those H-s a base for special ops, like the Aussies, and possibly US forces? It was vewwy vewwy quiet out there newswise, while we were a-rollin' up to Baghdad.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/30/2004 19:27 Comments ||
Top||
#18
yep - captured first thing
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/30/2004 19:46 Comments ||
Top||
From Jihad Unspun (pdf) This comprehensive report documents incidents and confessions on how American occupying forces disposes of many of its dead soldiers, that is, by dumping them from aircraft into rivers and desolate desert locations in the hope that the corps will be eaten by wild animals or will be decomposed in rivers and canals. ....
American officers were shocked when bodies (of dead soldiers) that were supposed to have been "taken care of" were returned to them by Iraqi farmers and fishermen. It is obvious that Allah has decided to expose this crime. Modest and down to earth Iraqis, who found the American corpses, collected them from rivers and desert locations and buried them in mass in graves. .... Iraqis have buried dead Americans in various areas such as Diali river shore, Tharthar area, near Sammara, and Hiran valleys in Ratibah area, depending on where the bodies were uncovered. ....
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/30/2004 12:19:59 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
gee thanks Mike. Any particular reason you put JihadUnspun lies on Pg 1? Cripes - you don't get it, do you?
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/30/2004 8:37 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It's called comic relief. Only jihadupspun is goofier than the democratic underground.
#4
Mike is just showing us what then enemy is spouting. There are many muslims who believe this crap and it's useful to know what the enemy is saying/thinking.
#10
Man...if this don't remind me of ole 'Baghdad Bob'! When he would declare: "Don't believe them...!" and "...The Infidels or not in Baghdad, no not a one" and "We will certainly roast their bellies, should they come..."!
From Jihad Unspun More than 100 Resistance fighters have managed to gain access to Fallujah, joining up with hundreds of other fighters that have flooded into the city in recent days and joined the ranks of the city's defenders. According to a report filed at 12:50pm Monday local time by Mafkarat al-Islam in Fallujah, the US presence in the city is now limited and the Mujahideen now control more than 70 percent of the city. Fighters from ar-Ramadi have joined up with the fighters inside al-Fallujah and these fighters are said to be experts in urban warfare.
#3
put your propaganda on pg2 or opinion, Mike. We don't share your fascination for anti-american arab news fabrications. Since it has NO bearing on reality, leave it out or at least post it in an appropriate place, or, better yet, keep it only on your own bookmark list so you can masturbate in privacy
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/30/2004 9:05 Comments ||
Top||
#4
You sure you didn't lift this from al-Jazeera?
Posted by: ed ||
11/30/2004 9:10 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Reminds me of the fake broadcast by the Germans on Christmas Eve in 1942 - "This is Stalingrad".
Posted by: Don ||
11/30/2004 9:22 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Mr. Slywester: so nice of you to post these fantasies compliments of Jihad Unspun. However, we wait with baited breath for your defense of Kofi in light of Juniors's documented behavior.
Posted by: Mark Z. ||
11/30/2004 11:36 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Why is Mike S obsessed with defending corrupt Kofi Annan, excusing UN fraud, justifying traitors at the CIA, and promoting lies of the Fallujah barbarians?
#9
Why is Mike S obsessed with defending corrupt Kofi Annan, excusing UN fraud, justifying traitors at the CIA, and promoting lies of the Fallujah barbarians?
Too much money or not enough meds.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/30/2004 12:41 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Man...if this don't remind me of ole 'Baghdad Bob'! When he would declare: "Don't believe them...!" and "...The Infidels or not in Baghdad, no not a one" and "We will centainly roast their bellies, should they come..."!
EFL
A federal appeals court barred the government Monday from blocking funds to colleges and universities that deny access to military recruiters because of the Pentagon's policy banning openly gay men and women. In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said a 10-year-old federal law that allows the government to block such funds violates the schools' First Amendment right to prohibit on-campus recruiting in response to the Pentagon policy.
Posted by: Dragon Fly ||
11/30/2004 8:02:56 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is a perfect example of where the legislature should not sit on its ass and accept what the courts have done.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/30/2004 8:23 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This is a perfect example of why an unchecked Federal judiciary must be held accountable via the abolition of life tenure and the introduction of elected judges.
#4
ZF, Do you really think the people of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, true blue states all, would vote in judges who would rule any differently? This is a problem for Congress to address. I think we'd get wackier judges if we left it to the whim of the people. Can you imagine Al Sharpton running for the Secound Court of Appeals?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/30/2004 8:41 Comments ||
Top||
#5
In typical liberal fashion, the court denies the Free speech rights of the Army...
#6
exactly Ptah! : the free speech rights of the University liberals trump the free speech rights of the military recruiters? Remove all Federal funding from these ivory-tower assholes. Let their supporters make up the difference. This won't stand
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/30/2004 9:02 Comments ||
Top||
#7
To paraphrase Jackson - the court has made its decision, now let it enforce it. Don't think Congress would impeach Mr. Bush anymore than it would impeach these modern royals who issue such a decree if Mr. Bush tells his executive branch officers not to cut the checks.
#8
What a Fed Appeals Court decides means little. Something like this will definitely be appealed to the Supreme Court. There are other gov funding than direct funding funding via gov grants and scholarship money. For instance, research money (including military) is a big chunk of spending and virtually funds the graduate programs. No grad students = no teaching/research/low level and laboratory instructors = death of the university. There are other many ways to screw with the faculty such as not inviting them to prestigious gov sponsored conferences and decling to publish their papers for those conferences.
Posted by: ed ||
11/30/2004 9:29 Comments ||
Top||
#9
sad , sad , sad . totally agree with Ptah and Frank on this one . Far too much pot smoking in them new courts anyway :)
#10
I bet this gets overturned very quickly. The court overstepped it's jurisdiction on this one. It's Congress that has the power to raise Armies and not the Court. A strong argument can be made that they court cannot restrict how Congress performs that duty. Of which these college recruitments are one. Kind of makes me wish I was still in. I would make it a point to have a beer or two every Friday in some campus watering hole in uniform. I did that in Maryland once and nobody (except the bartender) said two words to me.
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has told official media to avoid broadcasting material Israel could view as incitement against it, a senior official said on Monday about a move demanded by Ariel Sharon. Radwan Abu Ayyash, head of the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation, said Abbas issued the instructions last week when he met PBC officials and told them to review programmes before they are aired. "He said that he prefers self-censorship of the broadcast material to ensure that programmes do not include material that might be interpreted (by Israel) as so-called incitement," Ayyash said. "We already started watching out for anti-Israeli incitement in our programmes and our news bulletins. As of now, we have not found anything that could be seen as inciting," Ayyash said. Since an uprising began in 2000, Palestinian media have constantly aired nationalist songs, funerals of Palestinians killed by Israeli troops - the men and women are described as "martyrs" - and the demolition of homes by the Israeli army. "The ball is in the Israeli court. If they stop killing, television will stop showing these pictures," a Palestinian official said.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/30/2004 10:25:01 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
How very clever! Why didn't Arafat ever think of doing that?
The Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) is chalking out a strategy to mobilise 50,000 people in its upcoming rallies in Multan on December 5, Lahore on Dec 12, and Rawalpindi on Dec 19. Some MMA leaders have suggested to change the venues of rallies, sources within the party told Daily Times on Monday. Sources said that some MMA leaders felt that the first protest rally was not successful because of a low turnout and had asked the party command to devise a new strategy to guarantee greater attendance in the rallies. The leaders pointed out that only workers from the Jammat-e-Islami (JI) and the JUI-F had participated in the rallies, while members of other parties in the MMA coalition had not. JI leaders told Daily Times, "We have proposed that Qazi Hussain pressurise Maulana Fazl in helping mobilise the people because he is in a position to stage a good show in the NWFP and Balochistan". The leaders said "we have suggested that the party leadership nominate new locations for these rallies, and we believe that we can do much better if the up-coming rallies were held in the NWFP or Balochistan.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/30/2004 9:57:14 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
The Bush administration has been quietly laying the groundwork for the start of a military withdrawal from Iraq.
I wonder how thumping Iran fits into those plans...
If the troops start withdrawing in an easterly direction we'll have our answer...
Those close to the administration said the White House envisions the start of a troop pullout in late 2005. They said the administration would begin discussions on the feasibility of a significant reduction in U.S. troops following Iraqi national elections, scheduled on Jan. 30, 2005. "I think elections in Iraq are going to be one more step on the path towards a stable and secure and a democratic Iraq," Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Nov. 23. "It won't be the final step, but it will allow us to start then looking at, if events dictate, how we can rearrange ourselves, the coalition, and Iraqi forces, for that matter." The administration has been quietly urged to consider a withdrawal of the more than 140,000 troops as a priority for the second Bush term. These advocates have included Defense Department officials and consultants who supported the war to topple the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003, but who have concluded that the U.S. military presence in Iraq has become counterproductive.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/30/2004 10:48:35 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I dont think the US can afford to wait that long. It will be sooner.
Free the Kurds from Turkish oppression. Make Turkey pay for the Armenian genocide. And reward them for backstabbing the Northern front during the liberation of Iraq.
#4
who have concluded that the U.S. military presence in Iraq has become counterproductive.
I am confused. I thought the problem was that we need more troops there (draft, draft, draft!), to effect the forcible establishment of peace and tranquility in the still-restive Sunni triangle region. Are peace and tranquility no longer considered necessary?
#5
Even if the insurgency is quelled by then, Iraq could not defend itself against Iran by then. This would therefore appear to be a strategy of cut and run.
#6
A good, albeit not so secretive, timeframe: (1) gives the Iraqis some sense of urgency to get their house in order, and (2) conforms nicely to the other "gathering threats."
As always, it does (or should) include one huge caveat: it depends on the facts on the ground.
Posted by: Capt America ||
11/30/2004 8:08 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Airbase rights remain......
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/30/2004 8:40 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The "pullout" will most likely be a changeover to the new Iraq Command structure. That is, the US forces will "retreat" to kaserns like it did in Germany, no longer needing to participate in Iraqi internal affairs. Troop draw-downs will probably be to new bases in eastern Europe, with orderly personnel rotations back to the US--leaving equipment in place. Basically, Iraq becomes the new Germany model.
#9
Those close to the administration...
I suppose that means the WaPo and NYT reporters sitting in the press room at the White House.
Posted by: Don ||
11/30/2004 9:15 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Those close to the administration = future resignees from the CIA
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/30/2004 9:18 Comments ||
Top||
#11
The "insurgency" will continue for a decade or more, at least as a spontaneous, semi-organized, ragtag grouping of head-choppers and carbombers. Anyone can become a martyr, and there are no shortage of wild-eyed and shtoopid sunnis, sadrites and other haters who can be persuaded to propel themselves to heaven.
If Baghdad and the sunni triangle are to avoid So Africa's fate, then the Iraqi government must step up. It's not our task to eliminate this sort of quasi-organized violence any more than it was the west's task to end all violence in South Africa post-apartheid. Johannesburg today is only marginally safer than Baghdad. However we can and should provide training plus perhaps aerial recon and other sorts of assistance to the Iraqis, esp along Iraq's borders.
To the military pros here: what sort of forward deployment would make sense? I'd guess the main goal should probably be to cut the ratline running from Syria through Fallujah to Mosul. Kurds can help greatly; perhaps we could have a permanent base in Kurdistan?
#12
It's not our task to eliminate this sort of quasi-organized violence any more than it was the west's task to end all violence in South Africa post-apartheid.
This isn't about obligations, this is about *goals*. Is it still a US goal to make Iraq into a model democratic state in the Middle-east, one that may lead to a so-called "democratic domino" across the region?
Or has that goal been abandoned as hopelessly utopian under the given circumstances?
#15
Freedom to be raped (1/3 of all SA women, much higher for black SAfrican women)?
To be unemployed (50% of the population)?
To have AIDS (20% of the population)?
#16
I would gladly bet you any sum you wish, Aris, that Iraq in 10 years' time will be far safer, freer, more prosperous and with an unemployment rate that is a fraction of South Africa's current rate, than South Africa today.
Utterly no need for our troops to remain in alrge numbers there beyond another year or two.
#17
It's not our task to eliminate this sort of quasi-organized violence any more than it was the west's task to end all violence in South Africa post-apartheid...However we can and should provide training plus perhaps aerial recon and other sorts of assistance to the Iraqis, esp along Iraq's borders.
Well it certainly isn't in perpetuity. It will end up in the Iraqis hands, 2005 or the following year. It can turn out no other way.
We have been doing our very best to help out the region and the Iraqis-digging deep into our pockets (where is the rest of the "altruistic" world?), risking our reputation, and shedding blood, limbs, and lives (where is most of the rest of the "caring" world?), but if the Iraqis don't recognize and seize this chance, THEY will have abandoned THEMSELVES to a bleak future. What's it to be, Iraq? A permanent diagnosis of Middle Eastern scapegoat-o-phrenia or something more hopeful and promising?
You can't make someone grateful or savvy, nor can you make a people see it's their best chance, but you can try. After that, it's up to them.
HOW HOW HOW MUCH DIFFERENT Iraq could have turned out had our allies worked with us in good faith and support.
#18
Let's try a counterfactual thought experiment.
Suppose John Kerry had won the election and less than a month later started leaking that he would unilaterally have all troops out of Iraq by the next general election. What would the Rantburg reaction have been?
This haste to leave is unseemly. We have occupied German for nigh onto 60 years. One tenth that does not seem unreasonable for Iraq. AM's suggestion that forward basing in Eastern Europe is in any way comparable to what we did in Germany is ludicrous. We should stay in Iraq as long as the Iraqi people and their government wish us to and not a moment longer.
Just so I don't appear to be agreeing with Aris again, this is about obligations. Part of why we went there was to set the Middle East on the path to leave the 12th century for the 21st. To walk out prematurely would be to fail in our obligation to those who have joined us and those who died trying. It would be as black an episode as the betrayal of the Vietnamese in 1975. We owe it to the Iraqis, the Israqelis, the Iranians and others in the Middle East waiting for freedom, and most of all to our children to finish this job properly.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/30/2004 16:13 Comments ||
Top||
#19
It wasn't 60 years of violence against American soldiers, however, or a 60-year endurance of a people who side with a rabid religious cause. I am not saying abandon them, Mrs. D. But thinking 1) that American people will put up with long-term beheadings and suicide bombings on OUR fighters while Iraqis seem to be sitting on the fence silent in large numbers, or 2) that Americans would support the notion that we will do other's heavy work for them as far as the eye can see, out of guilt or obligation, while they are free of responsibility, would be a misreading both of the American people's will and their beliefs of personal responsibility in freedom. It is what some would like to see: America suffer interminably for imagined or real slights.
#20
And what did the Germans do during the Cold War aside from sit on the fence while we went through Korea, Viet Nam etc.? Americans will do what is in their best interest and that is to establish a working democracy in Iraq, not to cut and run after 3 years.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/30/2004 16:53 Comments ||
Top||
#21
You may be right. Time will tell. I am making the point not so much to promote a policy stance, but as a consideration of probabilities.
#22
Mrs D, I take yourpoint about our obligation to the Iraqis but I don't think it requires 150,000 troops staying >3 years for Iraq to establish a working democracy. Our enormous contingent in Germany was not there to establish democracy so much as to prevent the Soviets from pouring into the Fulda Gap.
Likewise, we should have as many troops as are necessary to suppress major threats to the integrity of the Iraqi state, namely Zarqawi and other foreign jihadists primarily and Saddamite deadenders secondarily.
Any other sources of violence, such as sadrite kids and other thugs, must necessarily be dealt with by the Iraqi security forces themselves. A government that cannot suppress unorganized mobs is not a serious government at all. Allawi knows this and most Iraqis do as well. We should stay long enough and in such numbers and deployments as are needed to suppress organized, major threats and allow the Iraqi government enough time to get on its feet. Anything more will hurt Iraqi democracy and feed arab paranoia about US domination or Iraq for purposes of controlling Iraq's oil.
#23
Our enormous contingent in Germany was not there to establish democracy so much as to prevent the Soviets from pouring into the Fulda Gap.
Then why is it still there 15 years after the Soviet Union disappeared?
I agree with your verbal definition of how long we should stay. But it will take a lot more than 3 years to suppress organized, major threats and allow the Iraqi government to get on its feet. Especially when the major threat to the Iraqi government is the Iranian government.
Why do we still have troops in Japan? Korea?
As to the paranoia that we're there for the oil, the CPA made a big mistake not setting up a mechanism to pay the Iraqi oil royalties to the Iraqi people without interference from the government. That would have made the Iraqi's the envy of the Middle East and made the government tax the people to get funds to operate. As it is now, the Iraqi government will be swimming in oil revenue and will look like Mexico at best.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/30/2004 18:06 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Troops should have been drawn down from Germany long ago. Probably were not because of lack of alternative European bases near the mideast theater. now we have them (Bulgaria, Romania), and now the drawdown's occurring.
As to the timetable, I don't know how many years are necessary-- not sure anyone does-- but I do know that our job is to smash the biggest obstacles to Iraqi democracy, not to do police work. Fine line between the two? Maybe, but the distinction's crucial. If we do police work, then we're propping up a puppet regime. I don't want to be in that business.
As to the Iranian threat, I should think we could counter it from Afghan and perhaps with a long-term depoyment in friendly Kurdistan. I think that's totally reasonable and should not incite conspiracy fears among the more lucid, rational muslims. But I can't imagine it requires more than 30,000 troops max.
Agree totally that it was stupid not to go the oil revenue-sharing route. But that can still change.
#25
Agree about the policing, but it's a fine line when you've got the chimpanzee (sub-guerilla) warfare that's going to be going on there for at least a couple of years. It loks like this was part of Saddams plan and that's why executing him is part of bringing it to an end. We should establish an unofficial policy of never taking the head of state of any nation we go to war with alive. At least in the ME.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/30/2004 18:41 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Dubya, CENTCOM, and America/Allies aren't going anywhere until a pro-Western/US democratic government is firmly established and terror destroyed. If they go anywhere it'll be to IRAN, SYRIA, NORTH KOREA-TAIWAN, etc. The Failed Left wants America to wage war and be warred against - no matter the rhetoric, the Clintons and Left will not want America to leave precisely because there are still many rogue states out there which they want Dubya and America to handle at Bush. GOP, and American expense which will be usurped later.
The Bush administration has been " quietly urged to consider a withdrawal of the more than 140,000 troops as a priority for the second Bush term. These advocates have included Defense Department officials and consultants who supported the war to topple the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003, but who have concluded that the U.S. military presence in Iraq has become counterproductive."
So there are DoD "officials" and "consultants" who think we should leave? Who are "urging" Bush to pull everyone out? Wow! What a scoop! How about this one: there are officials and consultants who are urging Bush not to leave prematurely because of the message that would send to the terrorists. In a government of our size every option is being considered and "urged,"
it's normal business...but I forgot: no one ever, ever dares disagree with Bushitler so this MUST be a big story...
Bush is not going to abandon the goal of bringing Democracy to Iraq and ultimately to the Middle East and one election isn't going to do that. Democracy is the absolute key to damping down terrorism and it's a cornerstone of his policies. He'll pull SOME of our people out when the situation warrants. There is no timeline.
An imprisoned Fatah leader has been pledged a key role in the Palestinian leadership. Palestinian Authority officials said Marwan Barghouti, Fatah secretary-general in the West Bank, has been granted a role in the Palestinian leadership. They said PLO chairman Mahmoud Abbas has decided that Barghouti would be involved in every strategic decision by the PA and PLO. "He will be one of the important pillars in the Palestinian regime, Fatah and the PLO and must be partner to every important decision on the strategic level," PA Minister of State Qaddura Fares said.
"He can come to all the meetings by, er...videoconference. Or webcam."
Fares traveled to an Israeli prison in the southern city of Beersheba on Nov. 26 to relay Abbas's offer decision to Barghouti. Barghouti, 46, had been considering running for the post of PA chairman in the first significant challenge to Abbas. Elections have been scheduled for Jan. 9.
That got him out of the way, I guess. The question remains whether Mahmoud will actually be able to control the hard boyz...
Posted by: Fred ||
11/30/2004 10:56:16 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And when does his parole hearing come up, 2056?
Posted by: ed ||
11/30/2004 9:52 Comments ||
Top||
"Hey, Nabil! Howzit goin'?"
"How're they hangin', Silvan?"
Israel's foreign minister met his Palestinian counterpart on Monday for the first time since the death of Yasser Arafat and hailed new chances for peace in the Middle East as the EU promised to support their efforts. "Both of us agreed that we are having a window of opportunity. It might even be a door of opportunity," Silvan Shalom told a news briefing after talks with Nabil Shaath. "I believe that in the new era we might have a new pragmatic, responsible and moderate Palestinian leadership. It is very important to translate words into actions."
Posted by: Fred ||
11/30/2004 9:51:22 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Former Prime Minister 
Jordanian officials said Syria has agreed in principle to revise its southern border with Jordan in the first such move since 1970. Officials said Syria agreed to honor a recommendation by a joint Syrian-Jordanian committee that met last week. The committee, which met in Damascus, determined that Syria seized 125 square kilometers of Jordanian territory since 1970 when the regime of then-President Hafez Assad sent tanks and warplanes to attack the Hashemite kingdom. The panel also found that Jordan should return about 2.7 square kilometers to Syria. Technical teams from the joint panel have completed a draft of the revised Jordanian-Syrian border. Over the next few months, the governments of Jordan and Syria were expected to ratify the draft of the joint committee.
This comprehensive report documents incidents and confessions on how American occupying forces disposes of many of its dead soldiers, that is, by dumping them from aircraft into rivers and desolate desert locations in the hope that the corps will be eaten by wild animals or will be decomposed in rivers and canals. .... 
Palestinian leader 
An imprisoned Fatah leader has been pledged a key role in the Palestinian leadership. Palestinian Authority officials said 
