#1
Where Africa is concerned, Dubya needs to intensify US efforts at democratization, plus modernization, there for his successor after 2008. Where the Radical Islamists begins, Black Africa is the endgame.
Egypt's opposition Islamists increased their seats in parliament nearly six-fold after an election marred by violence, but President Hosni Mubarak's party retained a big majority, official results showed on Thursday. A rights group said at least eight people were killed on Wednesday in clashes with security forces who cordoned off polling stations in areas with strong Muslim Brotherhood support. The Brotherhood says it won 11 seats, bolstering its parliamentary bloc in the month-long elections to 87 -- its strongest showing ever. The results were nearly six times its strength in the outgoing chamber and more than double its wins in its previous strongest showing in 1987. "There are results which were rigged," deputy Brotherhood leader Mohamed Habib told Reuters. But "it is an achievement despite these dramatic conditions," he told Reuters.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/09/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
A banned Islamist terrorist militant group blamed for a series of bombings in Bangladesh has threatened to kill women, including non-Muslims, if they do not wear the veil, a statement said.
The statement by the Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen came hours after Thursday's suicide bomb attack in a northern town that killed at least eight people, the latest of a series of blasts blamed on terrorist militant groups in their campaign for an Islamic state. "Women will be killed if they are found to move around without wearing burqa (veil) from the first day of Jilhaj," the Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen said in the statement sent to a Dhaka newspaper office.
Jilhaj refers to the Arabic month beginning early January. "Women, including non-Muslims, are hereby advised not to go out of home without burqa. Seclusion has been made compulsory for you," said the statement in Bangla language, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters on Friday.
The group, which wants the introduction of sharia laws in mainly-Muslim Bangladesh, also ordered women students at Dhaka University not to step out after sunset, prompting police to increase security around the campus.
Earlier, a police officer said 30 suspected members of the Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen and another outlawed group, Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh, were arrested for involvement in a wave of bomb attacks that have rattled the impoverished nation this year.
"These bombers are enemies of Islam and must be stopped," said an official at the Ministry of Religious Affairs, adding the government had asked clerics to spread the message from the nation's 250,000 mosques. Actually, they represent the true form of this devil-worshipping cult.
#2
Sounds like it's time for Bangla women to start carrying, and using, knives. Just put out a discreet police notice that non-burqua'ed women found to be carrying knives are not to be stopped for it, nor have their anti-rape device confiscated.
This could be accompanied by the suggestion that women who, in number, castrate men that scream epithets and threats at them, or otherwise menace them, will be treated with the same concern that the police have previously shown to victims of rape.
Society becomes a *lot* more polite when you don't know who is carrying a weapon or not.
#4
'moose, what's needed are guns AND knives. Guns to stop the sons of bitches. Knives - preferably slightly dull ones - to slowly castrate them after they are wounded.
#5
Guns are an ideal, and take an awful lot to popularize as a means of self-defense in an ordered way. Short knives, however, are a natural for women, who are usually brutalized at close range.
In the case of Bangla, what would evolve would be women in public in groups, now able to stop harassment cold with a few pokes.
And when women assert themselves this way, it drastically and quickly forces men to behave themselves. Soon, women learn that knives are useful tools, and that other tools can be used in place of knives, if need be.
This is a breakthrough realization. And when it happens, violence against women drops like a rock. Many men who would otherwise be violent against women now avoid them, and the great majority of men learn that they have to treat women well, if they expect to be treated well themselves.
#6
this so blows me away.
Don't these guys have access to porno sites online? What's the big deal about making the women wear this nonsense. Do they feel they are that weak as to be tempted? I don't think I will ever understand this type of thinking.
I like the gun and knife combo here ;)
Posted by: Jan ||
12/09/2005 18:06 Comments ||
Top||
#7
This could be accompanied by the suggestion that , or women who, in number, castrate men that scream epithets and threats at them otherwise menace them, will be treated with the same concern that the police have previously shown to victims of rape.
Timur Mamayev was repeatedly beaten by police, who insulted his religion and harassed his children, his wife says. He appealed for help to the authorities but got no answer.
Mamayevâs patience snapped in mid-October when, as part of a group of 150 young Muslims, he attacked government buildings in the southern Russian town of Nalchik.
âIt was a protest. They did not want to win independence, 150 people would not win anything. They sacrificed themselves in an attempt to change things,â said his wife Fatima, 32. She says she has not seen her husband since the day of the attack.
To Russian officials, her husband is a terrorist who tried to overthrow secular rule. To his relatives, he was just a desperate man trying to make his point the only way he could.
Some 24 police officers and 93 rebels died in the clashes in Nalchik, a grid of dusty, tree-lined streets with ramshackle single-story houses in the Kabardino-Balkaria region.
Russian officials saw the assault as further proof of the insidious spread of international terrorism across the poor south, and President Vladimir Putin called the crushing of the revolt a victory.
Separatists from nearby Chechnya said they staged the raid with support from local anti-Kremlin insurgents.
But Nalchikâs residents saw the uprising as part of a pattern in the Muslim North Caucasus, from Dagestan in the east to Kabardino-Balkaria in the west.
They say that young men exhausted by police harassment and frustrated by official corruption were following the example of their fellow Muslims in Chechnya and taking the fight into their own hands â not to win independence, but to get even.
âThe police declared war on Muslims. And these lads gave up thinking they could achieve anything peacefully, so they took up their guns so people would hear them,â said Larissa Dorogova, a lawyer who describes herself as representing âbelieversâ.
âThis is not a war between religions, or between nations. It is between police and believers.â
Islam is one of Russiaâs four official religions, and the countryâs approximately 20 million Muslims have their right to worship enshrined in the constitution.
Officials have repeatedly emphasized that the Chechen war, which has ground on for 11 years with tens of thousands of casualties, and operations in neighboring regions like Kabardino-Balkaria are not aimed at Muslims, but at terrorists.
But analysts said oppression and harassment of Muslims, and the closure of mosques â Nalchik has only one official mosque after the others were shut â had sparked the revolt.
âWhat happened was caused on the one hand by Islam, and on the other hand by the inept behavior of the local authorities and police who provoked the population,â said Alexei Malashenko, a scholar from the Moscow Carnegie Centre think tank.
âThe security problem was a result of the stupid policies of the local government ... I think there is no link to international terrorism.â
Nalchikâs Muslims have many theories about police behavior â some say they are targeted because they do not give bribes.
Attitudes towards Muslims among Russiaâs security forces and officials have hardened under the influence of the Chechen war and linked attacks, like the Beslan school siege.
âIt is clear that there is a massive repression (of Muslims) throughout Russia, which is scary,â said Tatyana Kasatkina, executive director of human rights group Memorial.
âForce of arms achieves nothing. Our work in the North Caucasus shows that people who are attacked by police are not just bandits but ordinary people, and this just helps the people who we call terrorists.â
Chechen separatist leader Abdul-Khalim Sadulayev claimed his commanders helped organize the Nalchik attack. Chechen rebels, keen to bolster anyone who can put pressure on Russian troops, have offered help to guerrillas elsewhere.
âToday the forces opposed to Russia, not finding other ways of fighting tyranny, come to us and that is a great help for us,â Sadulayev said after the Oct. 13 bloodshed in Nalchik.
Officials have accused the Chechens of wanting to set up an Islamic state between the Black and Caspian Seas.
âAnyone who picks up arms, threatens the life and health of our citizens and the integrity of the Russian state will be dealt with in the same way (as in Nalchik),â Putin said after the attack on the city.
âOur actions have to be commensurate with all the threats that bandits pose for our country.â
Activists say Putinâs tactics merely spur more rebels to take up arms, stoking the very problem they are meant to solve.â
Relatives of the dead in Nalchik said what angered them most was the stateâs refusal to release the bodies for burial.
Authorities said that since the dead men were suspected of terrorism they would be buried in unmarked graves.
Fatima Mamayeva used her mobile phone to show a film of the vans used to store the bodies of those killed on Oct. 13. She failed to find her husband among them. In the gloomy vans, naked bodies lay piled on top of each other. Necks and arms were twisted at impossible angles.
âI went into the wagons three times before I found the body of my son. He was lying on his face, so I turned him over to see him, and his insides just fell out,â said Said Tishikov, whose 25-year-old son Ruslan was among the dead rebels.
Relatives of the dead said Moscowâs failure to win over devout young Muslims was just storing up trouble for the future.
âWhy should this not repeat itself? They are going after children and wives now. Some people will bear this, but others will take up their weapons again,â said Mamayeva, her face drawn and serious beneath her tight head-scarf.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/09/2005 02:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Simple answer. Muslims are disloyal to the regime. They can either show they've changed by demonstrating excessive loyalty, a la the Cossacks, or move to Iran. Or die in a hail of Russian bullets. Besides, if they're griping about how tough these Russkies are, how do they think Uncle Joe would have handled them?
Posted by: mac ||
12/09/2005 8:16 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I like it that Russia is the only Christian country gutsy enough to take it to its Muslim minority, whatever the "civilized" West says. Funny how no one makes a big stink about Russian human rights violations - not even Muslim countries - violations that far exceed any of the kinds of wartime measures that the Israelis have taken.
#3
ZF, the Russians haven't given up one of the big advantages they enjoyed during the Cold War; the ability to tell world opinion to go take a flying leap at a cement mixer. They don't give a damn what anyone else thinks. They'll act in what they perceive to be their national interest and anyone who doesn't like it can lump it. Our pols, on the other hand, vacillate like wind vanes. Especially the Democratic ones.
Posted by: mac ||
12/09/2005 9:33 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Mac, if Russians actually performed 1/10 of the things they're accused of by Dhummis Int., the Caucasus Jihad would be long over.
TOKYO â Passwords needed to enter restricted areas of 16 Japanese airports, including Narita and Haneda, and Guam airport have leaked to the Internet from a virus-infected personal computer of a Japan Airlines copilot, JAL said Thursday.
The passwords enable entry to sections near the passenger loading bridges without passing the security check areas, and in cases at some airports, to the aprons and taxiways, officials of the airline said.
The war in Iraq is inciting and spreading Islamic extremism, making the world a more dangerous place, but the United States and its allies should not withdraw their troops until the country is more stable, European government leaders and analysts say.
There is broad public opposition to the war in many parts of Europe and support for an immediate pullout, fueled in part by a belief that the presence of U.S. troops is itself creating upheaval. Public opinion against the war also is growing because of what many Europeans see as dubious U.S. tactics in the broader fight against terrorism, including the use of secret prisons and abusive interrogations, analysts said.
Questions about tactics have dogged Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on her trip through Europe this week.
But among policymakers and politicians, there is a consensus that a quick withdrawal of troops from Iraq would only make matters there worse. Such a move could hand a victory to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups and plunge the country into civil war, many have said. It could also create an Iranian client state, or a theocracy run by the country's majority Shiite Muslims, or a breeding ground for Islamic extremism that could spread through the Middle East and beyond, the analysts said.
"I think most Europeans are against the war in Iraq and feel that the U.S. is part of the problem now and is causing more damage by staying and should just admit it got things wrong and leave," said Daniel Keohane, a research fellow at the Center for European Reform in London. "But when you talk to leaders, it's more maintenance," he said, explaining that to leaders who feel Iraqi forces are not ready to control the country, "it makes sense for the U.S. to stay there and finish the job."
In an interview last month with CNN, French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin was asked whether he believed the United States should set a timetable for withdrawal. "The real timetable is the Iraqi situation," he replied. "We should avoid at all costs the chaos in Iraq, which, of course, will be disaster for the whole region." As foreign minister, Villepin helped lead international opposition to the invasion in 2003.
"There is 100 percent, across-the-board support for fighting terror in Europe, but Europeans see Iraq as a distraction in the fight against terror at best, and at worst, they think it is making the fight against terror more difficult," said Gilles Andreani, a professor at the University of Paris II. "Lots of Europeans are afraid that Iraq might now become a training ground for terrorists the way Afghanistan was 20 years ago."
Numerous analysts said hotel bombings that killed 60 people in Jordan on Nov. 9 and an attack on U.S. forces in Baghdad the same day by a female suicide bomber from Belgium were the most recent evidence of Iraq's evolution into a jihadist training ground.
In addition, U.S. troops' use of white phosphorus in combat in Iraq has generated considerable attention in Europe, though little in the United States.
Dario Valcarcel, editor of Politica Exterior (Foreign Policy) magazine in Madrid, noted that while Spain withdrew its troops from Iraq in April 2004 in the face of popular opposition to the war, it has expanded its military role in Afghanistan. "This may well have been a way of sending a message that having exited Iraq does not mean we are a country that has washed its hands of the fight against extremists or Islamic terrorists," he said.
But "once you invade a country, you have to stay there until you can find a way out," Valcarcel added, referring to the United States. An abrupt withdrawal," he said, "would have an immense risk, especially in such an exceedingly flammable region, with neighbors like Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran. The U.S. cannot blithely walk away."
That seemed to be the attitude reflected in a September poll by the Sunday Express newspaper in London. Sixty-three percent of those surveyed said the Iraq war had made the world a more dangerous place, and 46 percent said the presence of British troops in Iraq was "doing more harm than good." But only 38 percent favored an immediate withdrawal of British troops, as compared with 52 percent who favored a pullout "when the situation has settled."
Even left-leaning politicians and opinion shapers are conflicted about whether the United States should stay in Iraq. In a recent editorial, Spain's left-of-center newspaper El Pais said that while the U.S. presence "nurtures" the insurgency, "a withdrawal could lead to a civil war on several fronts and the eventual rupture of Iraq. The United States cannot decide how to stay or how to leave. That is the tragedy of this mistaken war."
Francois Heisbourg, a defense analyst and director of the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris, said revelations about questionable U.S. tactics -- particularly disclosures that the CIA transported terrorist suspects through European countries to secret prisons in Eastern Europe -- were making it increasingly difficult for European politicians to support U.S. military operations in Iraq and elsewhere.
"If there is a dark side in the war on terror, by definition you want to keep it dark, and if you are unable to do so, then you shouldn't be doing these things," Heisbourg said. Either the United States did not inform its allies of its secret activities, he said, or it persuaded them to join in and then talked about it to the media. "It's either nastiness or incompetence, but either way it's a breach of trust."
Several diplomats and analysts said Europe's attitude and approach to Iraqis were colored by World War II experiences.
"After World War II, there was a feeling in Europe that things could be done through international law, but America doesn't feel that way," said Sergio Romano, a former Italian ambassador to Moscow and now a columnist for Corriere della Sera, a Milan daily. Romano cited as evidence the controversy over alleged secret prisons run by the CIA, which he said had increased opposition to U.S. military operations in Iraq.
Heisbourg also said World War II had heightened Europeans' sensitivity to human rights. "They don't want to go back to the bad old days," he said, "and I must say, there is something deeply disappointing about the things that are happening with human rights in the U.S. as seen from Europe. I can't believe the manner in which the Americans have lost their bearings."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/09/2005 02:05 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Typical socialist clap trap. The prols in Europe believe what the socialist press wants to to believe.
They missed that with us or against us message I reckon.
#2
The prols in Europe believe what the socialist press wants to to believe.
It's only those proles that support Bush who are good-thinking proles, the others are all misled by the doubleplusungood socialist press.
They missed that with us or against us message I reckon.
Oh, no, in my experience the anti-American press gave that "message" extra emphasis. It played VERY well in portraying a government arrogant enough to think that anyone who disagreed with its policies must be by definition evil. And its seeming appeal for "allies" vs an implication of threat was doomed to annoy.
#5
I agree Aris. The With us/Against us statement played right into the hands of the anti-American crowd. But let us be honest about that crowd it has been there LONG before Bush threw his hat into the political ring. But I also think that many European governments understand that we cannot un-invade Iraq and restore Saddam to power. Given that reality they really have to be on the side of seeing the formation of a democratic Iraq to its conclusion.
#6
Public opinion against the war also is growing because of what many Europeans see as dubious U.S. tactics in the broader fight against terrorism, including the use of secret prisons and abusive interrogations, analysts said.
And if some analyst didn't say that, they should have.
Posted by: Bobby ||
12/09/2005 8:00 Comments ||
Top||
#7
And if Europe had not subverted the sanctions on Saddam to turn a corrupt buck here and there - lots of them, in France, Germany, Russia and elsewhere - then just maybe the US wouldn't have to resort to these harsh measures to contain a situation that never should have been allowed to occur in the first place.
I am past disgust with Europe and on to active disdain.
Posted by: anon on this one ||
12/09/2005 8:23 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Right on Anon. Sanctions could work if the people who signed up for them followed them. As long as they don't, the UN is useless except to bide for time as Sadamn did.
#9
The Euros have their MSMâs to deal with. The vast majorities of people there watch and believe the press; to a larger scale they follow the press as gospel, as compared to even the US. This creates real issues for their leadership. To stand up and say America was right and justified would be political suicide. They would be tossed and then true anarchists would take office. The realities of politics are: They have to publicly straddle the fence to stay in office and privately support us. If the politicos were really not in support of the US then they would have denied the CIA flights back when we needed their help, do we really think they had no knowledge of the renditions? Letâs not get too wrapped up in their speeches to the public and fence walking, letâs look at their continued support and chuckle at their claims of no knowledge when MSMâs out them for support.
Posted by: 49 pan ||
12/09/2005 8:53 Comments ||
Top||
#10
AK: It played VERY well in portraying a government arrogant enough to think that anyone who disagreed with its policies must be by definition evil.
Actually, he did not say that - he said anyone who isn't with us is with the terrorists. Evil doesn't come into it. You are either for us or against us. Neutrality - i.e. allowing the terrorists to operate on your soil against us - will be regarded as an act of war. That's all there is to it. If Europeans don't like it, they can always pull out of NATO. What I don't get is why Greece hasn't signed up to a new Warsaw Pact-type treaty with Russia.
#11
49, is'nt that what we were doing with the leadership of the Arab Countries and the Palestinians. Let them say one thing in public, (and hope when they told us in private, that was for show,) that they meant what they said in private. Did'nt work to well.
#12
Trusting an Arab is a fatal mistake in any case. Your right about the Arab leaders, never to be trusted. But I think the Euros are a different lot. The realities are they are so economically tied to us they are forced to support us, if not publicly then privately.
Posted by: 49 pan ||
12/09/2005 9:07 Comments ||
Top||
#13
The realities are they are so economically tied to us they are forced to support us
Sounds like 1913 thinking to me. Look at WWI or WWII. Do you see rational thought at work there? The Euros blew their wad in the 20th century. They are now suffering from a cultural PTSD. They believe nothing, they stand for nothing and they think nothing is worth dying for. That's why every life is so precious to him whose name must not be mentioned. They are fertile ground for the Islamists to sow. They are not on our side.
#14
It has been said before: nations do not have allies, they have interests. HP is correct. Our interests currently do not coincide with the EU's. We should pursue our national interests and not be overly influenced by Euro public opinion. The EU's Arab policies will inevitably bring them into opposition to the US. This may change later if they realize that the cost of dhimmitude is too high.
#15
The war in Iraq is inciting and spreading Islamic extremism, making the world a more dangerous place, but the United States and its allies should not withdraw their troops until the country is more stable, European government leaders and analysts say.
Oh yeah, like Islamic extremism wasn't spreading anyway before then. While it may have been a creeping infestation previously, it's now under full illumination.
Now after all this, if Europe wants to go back to its head-in-the-sand mentality, they can go right ahead. The problem can be tackled now or later, and if they decide to go the latter route, I'd prefer that they do it on their own. (read: don't call us)
#16
so how long has NATO been dead? Get any troops out of Europe, including the Balkans. Poland and Romania will welcome our investments and bases. F*&k Euro sentiments. They aren't our intellectual, moral, ethical, political, or military superiors. Weak little anklebiting parasites. Democrats with accents....
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/09/2005 11:09 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Get any troops out of Europe,
We've paid for this territory twice, I don't think we need to chance a third. We should not leave Europe. But we should stop treating NATO as if it were a group of equals. Our troops in Europe should be recognized for what they are, an army of occupation preserving the peace. And we should act a bit more like one. We should withdraw from the Balkans and let the Europeans use their own force to settle their problem, which would be fine, or fail in the attempt, which would also be fine as it would reveal them before the world for what they are.
Part and parcel of this degradation of NATO should also be the degredation of the UN. It too has metastasized into something that is no longer of sufficient value to justify its existence. It is time to build the new global alliance of (classically) liberal peripheral powers (US, UK, Japan, Taiwan, Israel and India) to safeguard commerce until the continental powers can catch morally and politically or return themselves to the stone age as Africa, and perhaps Russia, seems to wish.
#19
Bravo to HP for the observation of a "cultural post traumatic stress disorder."
(Rant)
WWI was planned and fought by a bunch of fat old generals and politicians whose tactics were 40 years behine the weapons development, egged on by the Krupps and other profiteers, and blamed on the Jews by the grunts in the front. See Kate Seredy's children's book, "The Singing Tree. It was published in 1935, describes the horrors of the war on the Eastern European home front, and expresses what must have been the heart cry of many who saw Hitler's rise to power and couldn't understand why anybody would want to put their people through war. "Russko, Magyarsko, li'l German--all same!" said the Russian POWs in the story, who then went home to their family farms, where Stalin starved them to death.
Europe has been saying, "Can't we all just get along" for decades. They keep thinking, thanks to Rousseau and others, that "everbyody is basically good, it's just society that corrupts them" (and what, pray tell, is society made up of? Gerbils?) and they keep wondering why people just don't exert their natural goodness. Answer: we are a fallen race, there is none righteous. Europe is emotionally and spiritually drained, and they don't recognize why.
#20
Apologies to phil_b et al for my error in #17. Australia should be listed first among the equals with whom we should ally as they have always stood by us so well.
"...is time to build the new global alliance of (classically) liberal peripheral powers (US, UK, Japan, Taiwan, Israel and India) to safeguard commerce until the continental powers can catch morally and politically or return themselves to the stone age as Africa, and perhaps Russia, seems to wish."
The fascism-appeasing filth in Europe love to grovel before mass murderers and justify themselves through the most pathetic tu quoque arguments. You can see their love for terrorism and tyranny by their support for such filth even in the face of naked aggression and utter contempt for "trans-national" institutions, Saddam merely being the tip of the iceberg.
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
12/09/2005 13:02 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Mom,
"Europe is emotionally and spiritually drained, and they don't recognize why."
As our own little Greek Tartuffe brilliantly illustrates.
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
12/09/2005 13:18 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Zhang Fei was the only one that caught my satirical misstatement. But Soilder boy jumped right on it.
The EU press and propaganda arm is busy as we speak distracting the prols from reality. The EU is more screwed than any place on the planet is in this whole war. The prols rabidly eat it up the propaganda. The EU defends their lack of involvement in legalistic jingoism and false concerns over human rights while they negotiate with real lawbreakers and human rights abusers.
#24
"There is 100 percent, across-the-board support for fighting terror in Europe ...
Yeah, sure. You betcha. Just look at France's handling of the riots. Galloway is giving them a standing ovation.
... but Europeans see Iraq as a distraction in the fight against terror at best, and at worst, they think it is making the fight against terror more difficult," said Gilles Andreani, a professor at the University of Paris II.
Which is why Europe is rapidly descending into Eurabia. They do not seem to grasp the fact that the fight must be taken to the enemy on all possible fronts. Sitting back and thinking that such evil, once it rears its ugly little head, can merely be combatted at home is suicidal lunacy.
Lack of intervention = Lack of will to survive.
See Kate Seredy's children's book, "The Singing Tree.
Great book, mom. People should also be sure to read its prequel, "The Good Master." Both are excellent children's stories.
#25
Would I be wasting my time if I pointed out yet again that the phrase is NOT "You're either with us or against us" but "You're either with us or with the terrorists"? [emphasis added]
There is no neutrality possible here. Whatever else you may think of the U.S., WE are against terrorists and the evil they inflict. You cannot be neutral about that. So, you are either with us (against terrorists) or you are in fact with the terrorists.
It's unfortunate that far too many people (including so-called "leaders"), both in Europe and here, think they can remain neutral by feeding the crocodile of islamic terrorism. What they forget is that even if the islamic crocodile eats them last, it will still eat them.
Feet first.
Slowly.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/09/2005 18:08 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Would I be wasting my time if I pointed out yet again that the phrase is NOT "You're either with us or against us" but "You're either with us or with the terrorists"? [emphasis added]
Barbara, I understand you see some kind of difference between the two phrases, but I can't see it. The point remains that either of these two phrases seems to label everyone who disagrees with US policy to be an enemy allied with the terrorists.
Ofcourse Bush *could* have meant "You are either with the democratic, freedom-loving world, or you are with the terrorists." (and I'd have agreed with him in that case) but the way the sentence felt was that he portrayed *agreement towards the United States* to be the one and only criterion that defined sides.
#28
AK - A distinction without a difference. At some point the West will realize that GWB was exactly correct. I just hope that there is enough left in Europe to defend.
#30
Ofcourse Bush *could* have meant "You are either with the democratic, freedom-loving world, or you are with the terrorists." (and I'd have agreed with him in that case) but the way the sentence felt was that he portrayed *agreement towards the United States* to be the one and only criterion that defined sides.
Feelings!
Nothing more than....
Feeelings!
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/09/2005 19:53 Comments ||
Top||
#31
or...as they sing in Manila:
"Peeelings...."
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/09/2005 19:58 Comments ||
Top||
#32
Aris,
Your description of what Bush *could* have meant is exactly what he *did* mean. Itâs just that you and many others in Europe choose to perceive anything that comes out of the US with contempt and disdain.
#33
Bush is responsible for what he said, not for how a person feels about what he heard. The misinterpretation is the fault of the listener not the speaker.
Posted by: Scott R ||
12/09/2005 20:19 Comments ||
Top||
From Victor David Hanson's Private Papers The idea that we are going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong.
â Howard Dean
And there is no reason⊠that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the â of â the historical customs, religious customs.
â John Kerry
The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home.
â John Murtha
Howard Dean, the head of the Democratic party, assures us that we cannot win the struggle for democracy in Iraq. He predicts, as proved true in Vietnam, that the United States will inevitably fail. So it makes better sense to flee now, admit defeat, and thus lessen our inevitable losses.
To Dean, the constitutional evolution in Iraq and the growth of its democratic security forces follow the doomed model of Vietnamization â another sham transition bound to implode.
In this regard, irony is lost on Dean: After terrible sacrifices, mistakes, and government dissimulation, Vietnamization between 1971 and 1975 finally was working. The American military had largely rid the south of the Viet Cong; a peace treaty had established two sovereign nations; and American ground troops were withdrawn.
Yet the war was later lost mostly because a partisan antiwar Senate, emboldened by Watergate and in hatred of a duplicitous Nixon, cut off most material and military aid to the south Vietnamese. That precluded as well American air support to deter an opportunistic conventional invasion from a calculating northern army that had quickly sized up the politics of the U.S. Congress.
Dean seems to evoke Vietnam without any inkling how close the United States was, after a decade of ordeal, to achieving many of the goals originally envisioned â something like a viable South Korean government that, unlike its Communist counterpart, might have a chance to evolve into a truly consensual society. Much less does he cite the millions who perished, were incarcerated, or sent into exile following the establishment of a cruel Stalinist regime, or the effect of that defeat on the security of the U.S. and its allies, as later demonstrated in Cambodia, Iran, Afghanistan, and Central America.
Not long ago, John Kerry was on a Sunday talk show. Without much of a warm-up, he was soon alleging that Americans were terrorizing Iraqis in their homes. Apparently such unproven criticism was meant as a critique of U.S. policy by a former (and future) candidate for president â but it unfortunately came just days before a critical election that may at last smooth the way for democracy in Iraq. One can imagine Sunni rejectionists hoping to derail the elections by proclaiming that even a former American presidential candidate admits that the infidels are âterrorizing our women and children.â
Like Dean, Kerry appears insensitive about the irony: He just lost an election in part because too many Americans recalled his Vietnam-era record of trying to score cheap political points by trashing brave American troops in the field, thanks to his own constant evocation of Vietnam on the campaign trail.
Kerry also called breezily for the resignation of secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in the midst of the war. Unfortunately, Kerryâs subsequent exegesis of why the secretary should be sacked only proved why we are lucky to have Rumsfeld and not Kerry or Howard Dean in a position of administrative responsibility.
Despite the stentorian intonation, Kerryâs new suggestions for what to do in Iraq simply outlined what the United States is in fact already doing: training Iraqis, providing protection for the ongoing constitutional process, talking to regional neighbors, trying to get the Europeans involved in the Middle East, and hunting down terrorists on the Afghan borders. Kerry then admitted â though he did not during the election of 2004 when the war polls were more iffy â that he now regrets his vote authorizing the war against Saddam. All that was missing was a George Romney moment in which Kerry might have revealed that he had been brainwashed â and that almost came when he blamed the administration for giving him misleading intelligence briefings.
Sadder still for Kerry, not long after his embarrassing call for Rumsfeldâs resignation, the secretary of Defense offered a review of Iraq and answered questions at a televised news conference at the School for Advanced International Studies at John Hopkins. Where Kerry blamed others for his apparently now-embarrassing vote, Rumsfeld took responsibility for going to war. He pulled no punches in explaining its ongoing difficulty, and answered tough questions by explaining why and how we are winning.
Contrast the Democratic reactions to respective advice offered by Congressman Murtha and Senator Joe Lieberman. The former is a respected but not nationally known Democratic figure; the latter ran for the vice presidency of the United States. The Democrats gushed over Murthaâs bleak Dean-like assessment that the war is essentially lost and that we must leave as soon as possible. But then when a vote was called on the issue, they voted overwhelmingly not to follow the congressmanâs prescription.
In contrast, when Lieberman returned from Iraq and gave a cautiously optimistically appraisal that our plan of encouraging elections, training Iraqis, and improving the Iraqi economy is working both inside Iraq and in the wider neighboring region, he was shunned by Democrats â who nevertheless by their inaction essentially agreed with Lieberman and so made no move to demand an immediate withdrawal. How odd to be effusive over the Democrat whose advice you reject while ignoring the spokesman whose advice you actually follow.
Howard Dean, John Kerry, and Congressman Murtha represent the Democratic mainstream. And thatâs the problem. None of them can be characterized as embracing the Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan fringe, and none are even prone to the wacky grandstanding of Jimmy Carter or Barbara Boxer.
Yet what we get from the national chairman, the former presidential candidate, and the new popular icon â on the verge of the third and final election in Iraq â is a de facto admission that we are losing and must leave.
In the background, old Vietnam-era themes provide the chorus for the growing antiwar sentiment: apparent disdain for the Iraqis, mirroring the way that liberals pooh-poohed anti-Communist Eastern Europeans, Cubans, and Vietnamese; endemic pessimism that does not match the rapidly evolving events on the ground; and political opportunity that an American embarrassment abroad might reverse a long-term and ongoing unfavorable political realignment at home.
When Saddam was removed in a brilliant three-week campaign, few anticipated that the subsequent effort to craft democracy in his wake would evolve into a conflict for the very heart of the Middle East. Most feared that postbellum Afghanistan would be the harder task â given the wealthier and more secular nature of Iraqi society.
Instead the war, as wars almost always do, has morphed into something quite different than expected â a regional referendum on Lebanon, the future of Syria, reform movements in the Gulf and Egypt, about-faces in Pakistan and Libya, and continued pressure on a soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. And despite the heartbreak of 2,100 deaths, we are not just winning in Iraq, but on the verge of something far larger, and more permanent: not a return to the ancient caliphate or another dictatorship, but the real chance for the birth of a new Middle East that takes its place at last among responsible nations.
All that was impossible to envision without the prior American removal of Saddam Hussein â now reduced to a pathetic deposed tyrant, railing against his victims and in his misery calling those âterroristsâ who did not give him clean underwear. He plays the role of the dying thug right out the pages of Plutarch; all that is missing are Sullaâs worms.
Dean, Kerry, and Murtha are bright and good men who rightly worry that more Americans will die in a far-off place for a cause that they think is now hopeless. But to follow their apparently popular advice would lead to an abject national disaster as well as calamity for their own party. In short, they have become metaphors of why even Democrats are uneasy about voting for Democrats.
More importantly, the Democrats spent the last quarter century, following Vietnam and Jimmy Carter, trying to reestablish their lost fides on national defense (which were once unquestionable in the age of FDR, Truman, JFK, and senator Henry Jackson). If Joe Lieberman cannot save mainstream Democrats from themselves, perhaps the Iraqis who vote on December 15 can.
Visit the site - read all the recent archives, you'll be glad you did!
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/09/2005 20:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Took 'em long enough. Still, I'm glad this is out there.
Posted by: too true ||
12/09/2005 16:23 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Dhimmicrats keep saying to bring the troops home. Truth is, they'll rue the day they do. Those men and women will remember the treasonous behavior of the donks and there will be hell to pay at the polls.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
12/09/2005 16:47 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Yee-haw!
Note to Ken Mellman: Put this on network TV - and KEEP ATTACKING THE DEMS WHERE THEY DESERVE IT- and I might start giving you some money again.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/09/2005 17:48 Comments ||
Top||
#5
It appears that the GOP has a spine on order. Can't wait till it arrives and gets installed.
The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.
The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition.
The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of Qaeda members and others detained as part of American counterterrorism efforts. The Bush administration used Mr. Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda included training in explosives and chemical weapons.
The fact that Mr. Libi recanted after the American invasion of Iraq and that intelligence based on his remarks was withdrawn by the C.I.A. in March 2004 has been public for more than a year. But American officials had not previously acknowledged either that Mr. Libi made the false statements in foreign custody or that Mr. Libi contended that his statements had been coerced.
A government official said that some intelligence provided by Mr. Libi about Al Qaeda had been accurate, and that Mr. Libi's claims that he had been treated harshly in Egyptian custody had not been corroborated.
A classified Defense Intelligence Agency report issued in February 2002 that expressed skepticism about Mr. Libi's credibility on questions related to Iraq and Al Qaeda was based in part on the knowledge that he was no longer in American custody when he made the detailed statements, and that he might have been subjected to harsh treatment, the officials said. They said the C.I.A.'s decision to withdraw the intelligence based on Mr. Libi's claims had been made because of his later assertions, beginning in January 2004, that he had fabricated them to obtain better treatment from his captors.
At the time of his capture in Pakistan in late 2001, Mr. Libi, a Libyan, was the highest-ranking Qaeda leader in American custody. A Nov. 6 report in The New York Times, citing the Defense Intelligence Agency document, said he had made the assertions about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda involving illicit weapons while in American custody.
Mr. Libi was indeed initially held by the United States military in Afghanistan, and was debriefed there by C.I.A. officers, according to the new account provided by the current and former government officials. But despite his high rank, he was transferred to Egypt for further interrogation in January 2002 because the White House had not yet provided detailed authorization for the C.I.A. to hold him.
While he made some statements about Iraq and Al Qaeda when in American custody, the officials said, it was not until after he was handed over to Egypt that he made the most specific assertions, which were later used by the Bush administration as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons.
Beginning in March 2002, with the capture of a Qaeda operative named Abu Zubaydah, the C.I.A. adopted a practice of maintaining custody itself of the highest-ranking captives, a practice that became the main focus of recent controversy related to detention of suspected terrorists.
The agency currently holds between two and three dozen high-ranking terrorist suspects in secret prisons around the world. Reports that the prisons have included locations in Eastern Europe have stirred intense discomfort on the continent and have dogged Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her visit there this week.
Mr. Libi was returned to American custody in February 2003, when he was transferred to the American detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, according to the current and former government officials. He withdrew his claims about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda in January 2004, and his current location is not known. A C.I.A. spokesman refused Thursday to comment on Mr. Libi's case. The current and former government officials who agreed to discuss the case were granted anonymity because most details surrounding Mr. Libi's case remain classified.
During his time in Egyptian custody, Mr. Libi was among a group of what American officials have described as about 150 prisoners sent by the United States from one foreign country to another since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks for the purposes of interrogation. American officials including Ms. Rice have defended the practice, saying it draws on language and cultural expertise of American allies, particularly in the Middle East, and provides an important tool for interrogation. They have said that the United States carries out the renditions only after obtaining explicit assurances from the receiving countries that the prisoners will not be tortured.
Nabil Fahmy, the Egyptian ambassador to the United States, said in a telephone interview on Thursday that he had no specific knowledge of Mr. Libi's case. Mr. Fahmy acknowledged that some prisoners had been sent to Egypt by mutual agreement between the United States and Egypt. "We do interrogations based on our understanding of the culture," Mr. Fahmy said. "We're not in the business of torturing anyone."
In statements before the war, and without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state, and other officials repeatedly cited the information provided by Mr. Libi as "credible" evidence that Iraq was training Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons. Among the first and most prominent assertions was one by Mr. Bush, who said in a major speech in Cincinnati in October 2002 that "we've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases."
The question of why the administration relied so heavily on the statements by Mr. Libi has long been a subject of contention. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, made public last month unclassified passages from the February 2002 document, which said it was probable that Mr. Libi "was intentionally misleading the debriefers."
The document showed that the Defense Intelligence Agency had identified Mr. Libi as a probable fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda involving illicit weapons.
Mr. Levin has since asked the agency to declassify four other intelligence reports, three of them from February 2002, to see if they also expressed skepticism about Mr. Libi's credibility. On Thursday, a spokesman for Mr. Levin said he could not comment on the circumstances surrounding Mr. Libi's detention because the matter was classified.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/09/2005 01:57 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
would egypt really have tortured Libi to make the Iraq-AQ link? Not the torture im questioning but the motive for the linkage - I dont think Mubarak was to keen on having US go into Iraq. So hed have to have been pressured to do this - but by whom, when CIA and State were both skeptical of the link. Did DoD exert its own pressure on Mubarak?
#2
is it me, or does the NYT just suck at propaganda efforts? This is almost cute in the fact that the eager little beaver reporter prides himself in his ability to get it all in one piece.
-bad intelligence on Iraq
-prewar claims tying Iraq and AQ now discredited
-a prisoner fabricated to escape harsh treatment torutre.
-evils of rendition
-secret prisons/ Rice "dogged"
-loss of confidence by our allies
-cover-up by officials to hide the mistakes made by the fabricated evidence caused by the evils
of renditon, covered-up by Evil Bush administration led to the mistaken war.
It's all a part of the NYT's "Mistakes were Made(TM)" campaign that favors political cheap shots at Bush over or our national security. They just aren't very good.
#3
The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of Qaeda members and others detained as part of American counterterrorism efforts. The Bush administration used Mr. Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda included training in explosives and chemical weapons.
Oh, that's right - The New York Times! Actually, 2b said what I wanted to!
Posted by: Bobby ||
12/09/2005 16:03 Comments ||
Top||
#4
First off, this is not news per se, as the Al-Libi matter has been bantered about for months if not years.
So, you have to question the motive and timing of it being published as news now. Obviously, the motive is to damage the Bush Administration foremost and Condi's mission in particular.
It also promotes McCain's just say no to torture self aggrandizement campaign.
Posted by: Captain America ||
12/09/2005 19:32 Comments ||
Top||
Yeah, yeah, it's Drudge but what the heck. We ran it yesterday but it was posted late so we're running it again.
The DRUDGE REPORT has learned from a top GOP operative that the Republican National Committee will provide state parties with a web video prior to release tomorrow afternoon that shows a French battle ensign white flag waving over images of Democrat leaders making anti-war remarks.
The ad is in response to the controversial comments Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean and 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry (picture, right) made earlier in the week. A Democratic strategist who had the web ad described to her said, âThis is way over the top but we have no one to blame but Dean, Kerry and others who continue to pander to the anti-war activists within our party.â
Now there's a sensible strategist. Actually understands cause and effect.
The web video advances the Republican contention that the Democrats only have a âretreat and defeatâ message on the war in Iraq. The video highlights the effect Democrats can have on the morale of U.S. soldiers.
One Republican strategist familiar with the ad said, âThe Democrats, especially Howard Dean have a way of trying to turn the tables and say âthatâs not what I meantâ â its just those âevil Republicansâ This video will make them crazy â it reinforces what they really believe with what they actually said â and that is devastating for the Democratic Party.â
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/09/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
I commented last week on rantburg that "White Flag party" would fit nicely on a bumper sticker.
This IS gonna drive the left crazy...
Now if the right can come up with a clever large puppet we can hold a rally...
#5
The ad is in response to the controversial comments Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean and 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry (picture, right...
The pix can't be Kerry, as there is no flower doo-dad hanging from the clothing...
#6
BUGS BINNEY: "Of course you know this means Retreat, Appeasement, Concession, and Payout", i.e. new US Taxpayer-subsidized International $$$$ Appropriations; in the name of anti-Americans and non-Americans, and for the sake of a OWG where America is a mere anti-sovereign,suborned, "Third Party Arbitrated" SSR. THe Federal-level of Gummint must take over and control everything and anything, so that it can start cutting back in the name of everyone and anyone and no one, in the name of righteous Govt-driven national poverty and regression. The only thing better than US-specific national poverty and regression is International and Global Poverty and Regressions.
And so it begins. As we knew it would...
MIAMI - The airline passenger shot to death by federal marshals who said he made a bomb threat was agitated even before boarding and later appeared to be desperate to get off the plane, some fellow travelers said. One passenger said he "absolutely never heard the word 'bomb' at all" during the uproar as the Orlando-bound flight prepared to leave Miami on Wednesday.
Federal officials say Rigoberto Alpizar made the threat in the jetway, after running up the plane's aisle from his seat at the back of the jetliner. They opened fire because the 44-year-old Home Depot employee ignored their orders to stop, reached into his backpack and said he had a bomb, according to authorities. Strike one. Strike two. Strike three.
Alpizar's brother, speaking from Costa Rica, said he would never believe the shooting was necessary."I can't conceive that the marshals wouldn't be able to overpower an unarmed, single man, especially knowing he had already cleared every security check," Carlos Alpizar told The Orlando Sentinel. Will they send my share of the settlement in Costa Rica? This "mental anguish" is killing me.
Some passengers said they noticed Alpizar while waiting to get on the plane. They said he was singing "Go Down Moses" as his wife tried to calm him. Others said they saw him having lunch and described him as restless and anxious, but not dangerous. "Go Down Moses"? He was a religious man, a quiet man...
"The wife was telling him, 'Calm down. Let other people get on the plane. It will be all right,'" said Alan Tirpak, a passenger. If I hear this sitting on a plane, my antenna goes way, way up.
Some passengers, including John McAlhany, said they believe Alpizar was no threat to anyone. McAlhany, a 44-year-old construction worker who was returning home from a fishing trip in Key West, said he was sitting in Seat 21C when he noticed a commotion a few rows back. And he'd know that, being a construction worker and all...
"I heard him saying to his wife, 'I've got to get off the plane,'" McAlhany said. "He bumped me, bumped a couple of stewardesses. He just wanted to get off the plane." Alpizar ran up the aisle into the first-class cabin, where marshals chased him onto the jetway, McAlhany said. McAlhany said he "absolutely never heard the word 'bomb' at all. The first time I heard the word 'bomb' was when I was interviewed by the FBI," McAlhany said. "They kept asking if I heard him say the B-word. And I said, 'What is the B-word?' And they were like, 'Bomb.' I said no. They said, 'Are you sure?' And I am."
Added another passenger, Mary Gardner: "I did not hear him say that he had a bomb." I think he was screaming out The Lords Prayer.
Officials say there was no bomb and they found no connection to terrorism. Witnesses said Alpizar's wife, Anne Buechner, had frantically tried to explain he was bipolar, a mental illness also known as manic-depression, and was off his medication. Sure, lady. Let me stop chasing this nut and write up the report. The National Alliance on Mental Illness called on the Air Marshal Service and other law enforcement agencies to train officers if they don't already in responding to people with severe mental illness. Great. How about sensitivity training? Giving them tranquilizer guns instead of real guns? You know, like on "Wild Kingdom"?
Others said Alpizar's mental health didn't matter while marshals were trying to talk to him and determine if the threat was real. Shooting to maim or injure â rather than kill â is not an option for federal agents, said John Amat, national operations vice president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, which includes air marshals in its membership. "The person was screaming, saying he would blow up the plane, reaching into his bag â they had to react," Amat said. The sad part is that he has to defend this.
"The bottom line is, we're trained to shoot to stop the threat," said Amat, who is also a deputy with the U.S. Marshals Service in Miami. "Hollywood has this perception that we are such marksmen we can shoot an arm or leg with accuracy. We can't. These guys were in a very tense situation. In their minds they had to believe this person was an imminent threat to themselves or the people on the plane." Ben Affleck could've talked him down I'll bet.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the two air marshals appeared to have acted properly when they shot to kill.
Both air marshals were hired in 2002 from other federal law enforcement agencies and were placed on administrative leave, said Brian Doyle, spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Miami-Dade Police were investigating and the medical examiner's office was performing an autopsy on Alpizar, who was from Costa Rica but became a U.S. citizen years ago. He lived in Maitland, an Orlando suburb.
Neighbors said the couple had been returning to their home from a missionary trip to Ecuador. Buechner works for the Council on Quality and Leadership based in Towson, Md., a nonprofit organization focused on improving life for people with disabilities and mental illness, the organization said in a statement.
David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association, said he thinks the shooting may prove more "reassuring than disturbing" to the traveling public his organization represents. "This is a reminder they are there and are protecting the passengers and that it is a seriously deadly business," he said.
Armed police boarded the aircraft after the shooting, with some passengers in hysterics. McAlhany said he remembers having a shotgun pressed into his head by one officer, and hearing cries and screams from many passengers aboard the aircraft after the shooting in the jetway. "This was wrong," McAlhany said. "This man should be with his family for Christmas. Now he's dead." Maybe if he actually had a bomb, you'd all be dead. Too bad the marshals couldn't call time out.
Our chemicals, with valence seven, Hollowed be thy shell.
Thy fuse is run. Thy primer set, in semtex as it is in C4.
Give us this day our daily boom. And forgive us our work accidents,
As we forgive nothing of those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into confusion, But deliver us from red wire â blue wire mix-ups.
For thine is the wingnut, the nuclear power and the mad pursuit thereof, for ever and ever. A-bomb.
#4
Oh, goody, here starts the Monday morning quarterbacking....
I don't know what the National Association of the Mentally Ill has been smoking, but I'd be willing to bet that the air marshals had gone through training on how to handle crazy people. Hell, I got that kind of training, and I was only a civilian in a relative backwater.
The mentally ill are a huge percentage of the people that law enforcement/paramedics/fire personnel deal with every day. They're kind of the first responders' "frequent flyers". It seems like at least a third of the people they come into contact with are insane, and it goes up over the holidays. Some days, it seems like everyone they contact is stark raving mad.
Anyone with mental illness who is off of his or her meds is extremely unpredictable. If he was already freaking out about going on the plane, he was primed to hurt himself (most likely) or others. I'm amazed the gate agent even let him past, unless he was able to hold it together until he got on the plane.
Besides, if he said "Bomb!" in the jetway, I don't care how good your hearing is, you aren't going to hear it back in seat 21C. Not even if you are a Canine-American.
#7
The airline passenger shot to death by federal marshals who said he made a bomb threat was agitated even before boarding and later appeared to be desperate to get off the plane, some fellow travelers said.
What's up with the TSA gate personnel? Didn't they notice this guy?
And so what if the guy didn't say the word "bomb"? His odd behavior was reason enough to warrant suspicion and take necessary action. If people have a problem with the way this situation was handled then maybe mental cases shouldn't fly, period.
#8
So why hasn't anybody asked the new widow why she didn't give the dearly departed his meds before the flight? Seems to me that a nagging spousal unit will cause a reflexive " OK I give up and will do whatever you wnat, just STFU already." reaction.
Can you say 'probing?'
#9
So why hasn't anybody asked the new widow why she didn't give the dearly departed his meds before the flight? Seems to me that a nagging spousal unit will cause a reflexive " OK I give up and will do whatever you wnat, just STFU already." reaction.
Can you say 'probing?'
#10
USN, people refusing to take their meds is actually pretty common. There may have been some side effect he didn't like, or he might have started to think that he could wean himself off of them once he felt better. It's like once they get "normal", they forget how messed up they were before they took the pills.
I'm more amazed that his wife would have dragged him on the plane, seeing how the whole thing was freaking him out. I mean, she couldn't have gotten a rental and driven him home from Miami? Taken the bus? Got a friend to help come get him?
(Plus.....never underestimate some men's abilities to ignore nagging....especially if they start pretending to suddenly not understand English. My dad was a past master at that one. ;) )
#13
Look, people, even if you think that the officials/employees in the airport did everything 100% right, don't you think that it's utterly utterly vile and inhumane to make fun of an innocent person dying? Shouldn't there be some regret instead of calling him a "nut" and having jokes at his death? Or is regret considered too effeminate over there, not nearly macho enough?
At times like this it's not your opinions over the action required ("kill him"), but rather your attitude about them ("hee, hee, kill him and then make fun of him and laugh over his death, and then mock everyone who even raises the point of necessity") that indicates your contempt for the lives of the innocent.
#16
If people have a problem with the way this situation was handled then maybe mental cases shouldn't fly, period.
And this, folks, is what it has come down to. Making fun of disabled people.
But don't get me wrong, it's good to air out the dirty laundry. So how about it? Who else will join this revered list?
Pathetic losers.
Posted by: Rafael ||
12/09/2005 17:03 Comments ||
Top||
#17
That's no overreaction, it's dead on accurate.
Posted by: Rafael ||
12/09/2005 17:05 Comments ||
Top||
#18
He's supposed to take his pills. He didn't take his pills. He was stupid. His wife was stupider for not making sure he took his pills. Now he's dead.
You wanna come down on somebody, Aris, save a little for them.
#19
Tu and the rest, there's a way to defend the marshal's actions without making fun of mentally ill people.
Posted by: Rafael ||
12/09/2005 17:16 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Looks like the Gringos are dialed into the you all pysche again. Must be a gift, an understading of threads inside threads, a brilliance known but to few.
#21
Mr. Alpizar's mental illness is not relevant to the marshal's decision to shoot. There was no way to make such a determination without presenting an unacceptable risk to innocent people, a very large number of them in fact.
"'I can't conceive that the marshals wouldn't be able to overpower an unarmed, single man, especially knowing he had already cleared every security check,' Carlos Alpizar told The Orlando Sentinel."
Nobody said they were unable to overpower him. However, they were unable to do so without an unacceptable risk that a. the security checks had failed (which has been known to happen) b. there really was a bomb and c.He was reaching to detonate it.
If a person without a diagnosed mental illness had done this, would or should the response have been any different?
The utterly predictable demonization of the authorities is understandable when we see it from the family. When it comes from the media, however, it can only be designed to inhibit the proper and necessary response in similar situations in the future.
That is, the media spin is conciously designed to empower future terrorists. To the institutional media, the world is a movie and the terrorists have the James Dean role.
#22
Mr. Alpizar's mental illness is not relevant to the marshal's decision to shoot. There was no way to make such a determination without presenting an unacceptable risk to innocent people, a very large number of them in fact.
#23
Mr. Alpizar's mental illness is not relevant to the marshal's decision to shoot. There was no way to make such a determination without presenting an unacceptable risk to innocent people, a very large number of them in fact.
#24
Bravo, AC - sad story, no happy ending, the Air Marshals deserve praise, our greek dickhead should STFU
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/09/2005 18:10 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Frank, for a supposedly "sad story" it's caused lots of laughs over here. "Blessed are the Cheesemakers" indeed.
And I'm glad I (and Rafael) didn't choose to "STFU" over this. That's an immoral instruction: To laugh along when one should stay silent, to be silent when one ought to speak in protest.
#27
I am humbled by being in the presence of the self-righteous. It's so refreshing. I no longer feel unclean. Perhaps I can skip the 700 Club tonight.
#28
This is almost certainly a righteous shoot whether he said the magic word or not. He was acting erratic, didn't follow the instructions of the marshalls and reached into the bag. That tends to make bad things happen.
One of the other passengers says the wife told him (while he was trying to calm her after the shots) that he was AFRAID there was a bomb on the plane - a fragment of that might have been what the marshalls heard.
But if he didn't say it and the authorities just threw it in like a drop weapon to make the thing look better, that should be a problem to anyone.
Your self-righteousness is over-riding your cultural knowledge. That comment is a reference to "Life of Brian", when someone hears "blessed are the peacemakers", from a distance and over a crowd, and repeats it as "blessed are the cheesemakers".
Good God, are you and Rafael utterly unaware of the idea of "gallows humor"? Yeah, it's a shitty thing this guy had to die. But to expect us to rend our shirts over it is expecting a bit much. The only people I feel sorry for are the air marshalls.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/09/2005 19:48 Comments ||
Top||
#30
LOL RC - quit teaching American/Brit humor!
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/09/2005 19:53 Comments ||
Top||
#31
Many people with bipolar syndromes also deal with strong social anxiety, usually in public situations where they are closed in. Physical or emotional stress of any kind also triggers panic attacks in many bipolars, of an intensity it's hard to imagine if you haven't experienced it yourself or in a loved one. And sometimes the result is a psychotic break in which everything that runs through the patient's mind - including imagined conversations - is experienced as externally real and compelling.
Imagine being frightened about terrorism, stressed and wondering if anyone around you is a threat. Now slow down the mental dialogue, and imagine *experiencing* as real every passing thought. The mental shouting is overwhelming. I haven't experienced it myself, but I've been next to a loved one who has.
I believe the marshalls did what needed doing, but I am sad for this family. Mr. Alpizar himself set up the potential for a serious problem by not taking his medications -- a common and sometimes deadly choice that bipolars often make. Either they dislike the side effects or things get better on the meds and then one day they make the dangerous decision that they don't need them. Or - and this is also very common - they may feel that their past problems aren't neurochemical at all but rather (having seen the impact on their families of past actions) is a moral / ethical / spiritual issue. More than one bipolar patient has gone off meds specifically because they feel that staying on them is a cop-out, that they can/should be able to live a better life if only they tried hard enough to be good.
It is an incredibly painful process to watch and try to influence in a loved one. And so I feel deeply with his family - but disagree with his brother's assertion that the marshalls should have known he could be overpowered without danger to them or to the rest of the passengers.
#32
lotp, I don't think his brother's statement is something to be disagreed with. It is simply the blind striking out of someone in intense grief. I am sure each one of the family is questioning what they could have done to prevent the tragedy and seeking to find a reason or cause other than the painfully obvious. Before the press turned into pond scum, or perhaps before they had the capability to show us so clearly what they are, his grief could have been kept in private where it belongs.
#33
GF, yes ... a searing grief and unless I miss my bet, grief for all of it including his brother's years of illness and its impact on both his brother and the family.
I meant no insensitivity to that grief, just a gentle reminder that there is not magic wand in bipolar, some stabilize and live rich, productive lives, many don't and noone can predict for sure which will be the case for any one person. But a refusal to stay on medication is not a good sign and often leads to tragedy in one way or another: sometimes suicide, sometimes a manic high that does major financial or other damage to those around him, sometimes the latter followed by the former. No doubt Mr. Alpizar knows this but one way in which the families of bipolar sufferers help each other is to remind ourselves - gently - not to push responsibility for the tragedy onto those who did not cause it.
#34
And this, folks, is what it has come down to. Making fun of disabled people.
How so? I don't see where the "humor" is in what I posted. Someone with mental problems that results in uncontrollable behavior might be better off avoiding flying. Four years back and before, this sort of thing happening on a flight probably wouldn't have been a problem. Now it could have deadly consequences.
#35
I did recognize the Monty Python reference, Robert. And you may have seen it as "gallows humour", I saw it as mere indifference and cruelty. I hope you are right and that I was wrong.
"The only people I feel sorry for are the air marshalls."
Next time, feel sorry for the innocent dead as well. Or is your pity so limited that to give it to one means you must deprive it from the other? The quality of pity is not strained; do you recognize *this* intentionally misquoted reference?
#36
I feel bad that the air marshalls are on sabtical. This means that they aren't on the planes doing their jobs protecting us.
I also hope that all of this talk of mental illness doesn't slow the response of the marshall for the next incident that may occur. Bad things are allowed to happen by delaying a response.
No one likes that a mentally ill person had his life ended in this manner, but what is more important here is the fact of safety for all the passengers. In these times with terrorists we need to be ever vigilant, and trust in our marshalls that they are doing their job in the best way.
To be the one involved and there during this situation, VS all of the folks analyzing it after the fact, is a big difference. It's not an easy task having to assess a situation quickly and disarm a probable disaster from happening.
Posted by: Jan ||
12/09/2005 23:35 Comments ||
Top||
#37
Next time, feel sorry for the innocent dead as well. Or is your pity so limited that to give it to one means..
#38
Some of the responses given on this thread freighten me to the bone. If winning the war on terror means taking us back to the middle ages, I'd rather take my risks and jump from a burning office tower when the time comes. In the end, the result is the same. Think about some of the comments made here.
Posted by: Rafael ||
12/10/2005 0:01 Comments ||
Top||
TNR. Reg Req. EFL RTWT. From a Harvard Professor who clearly chokes when he has to say good things about what W has done and who therefore botches why we got into this war, but nonetheless gets to the correct answer through his own circuitous route.
What does this history teach us? Three things: First, that Victor Davis Hanson is right--wars often change purposes after they begin. Second, that sometimes the new purpose is vastly better than the one it replaces. Few nations choose up front to sacrifice their sons for the sake of others' freedom. When such sacrifices are made, they usually flow not from design but from accident and error--just as the North's military blunders prolonged the Civil War, and thereby made it a struggle to bring that new birth of freedom to the war-torn land over which the soldiers fought.
The third lesson is the most important. Brief wars rarely produce permanent results, but long wars often do.
Today our forces and Iraqis are fighting together and, slowly, winning a good and noble war that holds the hope of bringing to millions a measure of freedom they never knew before. And yet today, America seems ready, even eager, to concede defeat and withdraw: a sad twist on the famous George Aiken formula for extricating American soldiers from Vietnam. It sounds bizarre--why would anyone want to throw away the chance of such a great victory, when victory seems within reach? But it isn't bizarre. On the contrary, it has happened before.
Again, consider the politics of the Civil War. In 1863 the Northern street--the term didn't exist then, but the concept did--rose, and New York saw the worst rioting in our nation's history. The rioters' cause was ending the draft on which Lincoln's war depended. A year later Lincoln seemed headed for electoral defeat, even as Grant's and Sherman's armies seemed headed for decisive military victories. Victory often seems most elusive to civilians when it is most nearly within soldiers' grasp. And noble causes often do not sound noble to the nation whose sons must fight for them. (Those who do the fighting understand: Lincoln had the overwhelming support of soldiers in the field, and I would bet my next paycheck that today's soldiers overwhelmingly support fighting through to victory in Iraq.) In many American towns and cities, then as now, the cause of freedom for others did not seem a cause worth fighting and dying for.
But it is, partly because--as Lincoln saw better than anyone--others' freedom helps to guarantee our own. A world where Southern planters ruled their slaves with the lash was a world where Northerners' rights could never be secure; if birth and privilege and caste reigned supreme in the South, those things would more easily reign elsewhere, closer to Northern homes. Lincoln had it right: Either democracy and freedom would go on to new heights or they might well "perish from the earth." So too today. A world full of Islamic autocrats is a world full of little bin Ladens eager to give their lives to kill Americans. A world full of Islamic democracies gives young Muslim men different outlets for their passions. That obviously means better lives for them. But it also means better and safer lives for us.
None of this excuses the bungling and bad management that have plagued the Iraq war. The administration has made some terrible mistakes that have cost precious lives, both among our soldiers and among Iraqi civilians. But bungling and bad management were far more evident in Lincoln's war than they have been in Bush's. Most wars are bungled; battle plans routinely go awry. Sometimes, error gives rise to larger truths; nations can stumble unawares onto great opportunities. So it was in the 1860s. So it is today in the Middle East at least for liberals. I believe W has known what he was doing from day one, as did Lincoln. It was only a question of hwo much truth they could tell the people because they knew the people couldn't handle the truth. .
Two-and-a-half years ago, our armed forces set out to fight a small war with a small objective. Today we find ourselves in a larger war with a larger and vastly better purpose. It would be one of history's sadder ironies were we to turn away because that better purpose is not the one we set out to achieve. Either we fight the fight our enemies have chosen until they are defeated or (better still) dead, or millions of Muslim men and women may lose their "last, best hope"--and we may face a mushroom cloud over Manhattan, the work of one of the many Mohammed Attas that Middle Eastern autocracies have bred over the last generation. The choice belongs not to the president alone, but to all of us. Here's hoping we choose as wisely as Lincoln's generation did.
Though the author is loathe to admit it, we already chose wisely when we re-elected W. We just have to keep doing so, because as W. said, it's going to be a long war.
#1
This is bogus political BS. It is quite evident that we are stretched just occupying Iraq. We could not fight another war with the forces we've got. We are underfunding and undermanning defence and this should be made an issue by this administration if it wishes to fight this war credibly. That is also the point a smart donk would make if they wanted to win in 2008. I would not be surprised to hear Hildebeast say it when the QDR is published.
Could someone please tell them that we have Saddam in custody! And that the Iraqis will be voting in mass for the third time this year on the 15th, ANNNNNNNNDDD that they do not want the Dems plan involved, cuz after the 15th the Iraqis will have their own fully functioning government!
Congressional Democrats were quick on Wednesday to criticize President Bush's latest speech citing progress in Iraq. But Democrats are having trouble coming up with a plan of their own...
#1
NYT must be at the threshhold of bankruptcy to start running stories like this. It only took them 35 years to figure out that people don't want to hear that defeatist bullshit all the time.
Although the Democratic party had broken apart in 1860, during the secession crisis Democrats in the North were generally more conciliatory toward the South than were Republicans. They called themselves Peace Democrats; their opponents called them Copperheads because some wore copper pennies as identifying badges.
A majority of Peace Democrats supported war to save the Union, but a strong and active minority asserted that the Republicans had provoked the South into secession; that the Republicans were waging the war in order to establish their own domination, suppress civil and states rights, and impose "racial equality"; and that military means had failed and would never restore the Union.
Peace Democrats were most numerous in the Midwest, a region that had traditionally distrusted the Northeast, where the Republican party was strongest, and that had economic and cultural ties with the South. The Lincoln administration's arbitrary treatment of dissenters caused great bitterness there. Above all, anti-abolitionist Midwesterners feared that emancipation would result in a great migration of blacks into their states.
As was true of the Democratic party as a whole, the influence of Peace Democrats varied with the fortunes of war. When things were going badly for the Union on the battlefield, larger numbers of people were willing to entertain the notion of making peace with the Confederacy. When things were going well, Peace Democrats could more easily be dismissed as defeatists. But no matter how the war progressed, Peace Democrats constantly had to defend themselves against charges of disloyalty. Revelations that a few had ties with secret organizations such as the Knights of the Golden Circle helped smear the rest.
The most prominent Copperhead leader was Clement L. Valladigham of Ohio, who headed the secret antiwar organization known as the Sons of Liberty. At the Democratic convention of 1864, where the influence of Peace Democrats reached its high point, Vallandigham persuaded the party to adopt a platform branding the war a failure, and some extreme Copperheads plotted armed uprisings. However, the Democratic presidential candidate, George B. McClellan, repudiated the Vallandigham platform, victories by Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman and Phillip H. Sheridan assured Lincoln's reelection, and the plots came to nothing.
With the conclusion of the war in 1865 the Peace Democrats were thoroughly discredited. Most Northerners believed, not without reason, that Peace Democrats had prolonged war by encouraging the South to continue fighting in the hope thatthe North would abandon the struggle.
Source: "Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War" Edited by Patricia L. Faust
Just as they abandoned the blacks who'd lose their civil rights for nearly a hundred years by withdrawing the troops and ending Reconstruction, just like the Cambodians who'd lose over a million souls in the third Holocaust of the 20th Century by the withdraw of troops and cutting of the funding provided to defend themselves, the Dems will carry on their destruction of basic human rights and dignity, this time in the ME. They choose dishonor. It will not stop the war anymore than the withdraw from Mogadishu would keep the terror away.
No not the President. Tell Harry Reid that his Sam Drucker schtick ain't workin and he's got to go. Yeah he's clearly a dipshit but his "Principle before Politics" charade is tranparent to even the most casual observer. Politely advise (She thinks of herself as a lady yaknow) Nancy Pelosi that stepping aside might not neccessarilary be a bad thing. It's that credibility thing. (or lack there of) Finally tell Howie Dean that he has stepped on your collective dick one to many times and has become a liability. Whats the worst that could happen? Maxine Watters may get a serious case of the vapors?
Just doing what a Secretary of State is supposed to do.
BRUSSELS: European allies of the United States declared themselves satisfied on Thursday with new assurances by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that US treatment of detainees was within international law.
Rice repeated her defence of US practises at a dinner late on Wednesday for NATO and EU foreign ministers on the eve of a one-day NATO meeting. Several emerged satisfied after what a source described as a frank but respectful exchange.
NATO chief Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said talks between US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her European counterparts on a row over alleged CIA secret prisons had âcleared the air.â âIt was a good discussion. I think it cleared the air. Secretary Rice made a strong intervention,â he said, referring to closed-door dinner Wednesday night gathering rice with her NATO and EU colleagues.
âI think NATO and EU ministers were able to raise their concerns that we should not diverge from one another on the interpretation of international law,â German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told reporters. âSecretary Rice promised that international agreements are not interpreted any differently in the United States than they are in Europe. That, at least, is a good statement,â he told reporters as he arrived for the meeting on Thursday.
And everyone had a good time.
Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot, who signalled earlier this week that the Netherlands would raise the matter during the talks, said he was âvery satisfiedâ with Riceâs responses.
A source briefed on the dinner, which was tightly restricted to foreign ministers, said Rice repeated arguments made earlier on her trip that Washington had respected international law. A NATO spokesman said the discussion had cleared the air and that those present appeared to have been reassured. âThat seems to be the flavour of the (dinner) meeting. Todayâs (Thursdayâs) discussions till now have concentrated purely on NATO business,â he told a news briefing.
The Euros must have sent the adults to the dinner and left the children at home.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/09/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"And if you guys don't behave yourselves, I'll wring your necks myself..."
WASHINGTON (AP) - Lawyers asked the Bush administration on Thursday why a German citizen, taken prisoner by the CIA in a case of mistaken identity in 2004, was not allowed into the United States last weekend. Khaled al-Masri was seeking entry to publicize the lawsuit he filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., against former CIA Director George Tenet and 10 ``John Doe'' CIA employees involved in his abduction to Afghanistan.
In letters to the U.S. government, the American Civil Liberties Union also asked whether Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice apologized to the German government during her trip to Berlin this week. ``Was an official apology made, and if so would Secretary Rice be willing to make a similar apology directly to the victim?'' asked Ann Beeson, the ACLU's associate legal director.
In one word? No.
Al-Masri was thrown into the CIA's ``rendition'' program for terror suspects, beaten and held in a cell for four months, the last two while U.S. officials debated how to handle his release after discovering he was the person he said he was. The CIA had suspected he was an associate of the Sept. 11 conspirators, a man with a similar name.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/09/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If somebody was suing me.. why would I want them to just wander about in my house?
#2
If there's no national security basis to bar him, I think Supreme Court decisions on the Alien Tort Claims Act may require the US to permit his presence as a plaintiff. Happily, those same decisions ought to give the government a slam-dunk defense. If I recall correctly, constitutional protections do not apply to foreigners for acts committed by US agents on foreign soil.
Posted by: ST ||
12/09/2005 1:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Assuming for just a second that some State Dept seditionist doesn't figure out how to screw us and let this clown in...
We don't need a national security basis to deny entry - it's still our country and he's obviously not welcome. I don't much care for Tenet, I think he's about the biggest flop as CIA #1 since its founding, but fuck it - this guy's a tool of the wankers. Neener-neener twit. Put on yer best lederhosen and yodel in Arabic, bitch.
When the ACLU and AlG finally get their OWG Socialist Miracle, then they can pontificate about who gets into the US and who doesn't. I'm hoping we can "cure" the ACLU's current ills by more, um, "direct" means than employing a bunch of opposing lawyers. That's much too civil. AlG and all of the Tranzis can kiss my very hairy American ass, methinks. They've meddled enough, already.
#4
Agreed on all points, .com -- I'm jus' sayin, the Supreme Cow doesn't like snatch'n'grabs abroad, and executive branch be damned, often rules in favor of douchebags like this more often than not. Access to justice, notice & opportunity to be heard, yada yada. Hamdi is an especially outrageous example. Anyway, I'm sure the ACLU's next move will be to forum-shop till they find a judge who says we have to let plaintiffs in. OWG and tranzis already run the show. If some State seditionist doesn't let him in, I'm sure a judicial one will. Meanwhile, you could always send this hapless "German man" a nice Christmas ham!
Posted by: ST ||
12/09/2005 4:31 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Lol, ST. A fine Bavarian, spiral-sliced? And yep, you're right - some "judicial" politician will be located who can fuzzy-up some wheretofore's 'n howsoever's and declare this Muzzy Deutschlander has US standing.
#6
ST, wouldn't the Alien Tort Claims Act only come into play when the case goes to court (assuming he gets permission to sue)? Right now he's only publicizing the case.
#7
Looks like the lawsuit was filed Tuesday. Hafta state a cause of action when you file, and I'd bet the ATCA forms the basis of some or all of his claims. Standing may be an issue, but if he claims abuse at the hands of US agents -- regardless of his citizenship or the location -- that's prolly good enough to get in the door. And I don't see why it can't be litigated in his absence. I'm sure the ACLU cares more about eroding US security in any way possible than they do about the specific fate of Herr Al-Masri, but getting him into the country would further that as well.
Posted by: ST ||
12/09/2005 9:41 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Just shoot him and pay is wife off. It will be cheaper.
In a step up of service-to-service engagement, India and the United States will conduct the biggest-ever army level exercises near Ranikhet in Uttaranchal in January, as American officials on Friday indicated that Washington was working to open doors to high-technology transfers. A company force of the US army will conduct joint exercises with a thrust towards anti-insurgency operations in the mountainous terrain near Choubhatia, US officials said adding that, in the coming year, armed forces of the two countries would participate in 'more complex, patterned war games'.
"The US Pacific Command wants to expand its military-level innteraction with India over a broad front to enable the two armed forces to share experience in doctrines and higher formation-level exercises," officials said.
"Oh, and China? PakiWakiLand? President Bush has a message for you: 'Neener neener'."
Officials said though Indo-US defence trade stood at $287 million, they expected a big jump in arms sales through major deals with the Navy, special forces and Air Force in the offing. They said American armament giants like Boeing and Lockheed Martin were in the reckoning for India's plan to acquire 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft, spy planes and mine-hunter ships and Sea Hawk Helicopters for the Navy. India will also buy specialised armaments worth $29 million for special forces to enhance its counter-terrorism capabilities.
Posted by: john ||
12/09/2005 15:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
share experience in doctrines and higher formation-level exercises,
Latest Indian doctrine calls for "cold start" and integrated battle groups with C4I (no more slow mobilization of the Strike Corps). The Indian battle groups are large - 20000 strong, bigger than an armored division, with organic artillery - > a hundred guns and aviation and ready to move immediately.
Indian formation level exercises involve a Strike Corps or larger - several armored divisions. The very largest exercises have had about three hundred thousand troops in the war game.
Posted by: john ||
12/09/2005 16:44 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The Indian battle groups are large - 20000 strong, bigger than an armored division,
Any clue how they split the logistics? I'd worry about support for a fighting force that size.
This has some funnier than usual spelling in it. Sorry. They're from Asharq al-Aswat, not from me...
Most dialogue in Pakistan presently concentrates on the reconstruction and relief efforts following the 8 October earthquake, which claimed the lives of approxiametely 73,000 people, caused injuries to a similar number of people, and the displacement of about 3.5 million people from Muzaffarabad, the capital of the Pakistani administered Kashmir, and other cities such as Sinjar and Bagh. General Shaukat Sultan, the official spokesman for the Pakistani president, held a meeting with a number of representatives of Arab and international media outlets at the army headquarters in Islamabad. He spoke about dealing with the challenges posed by the earthquake and said that this is the greatest task that the country is currently facing. He denied claims that Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Ladin was killed in the earthquake.
After showing a documentary entitled "A Nation Rising," General Shawkat Sultan said that the earthquake hit nine governorates and destroyed 400,000 homes, and that the area covered by the devastating earthquake was 28,000 square kilometers. He also said that despite the enormity of the catastrophe, the Pakistani Army forces handled the situation very rapidly. The first Pakistani helicopter arrived in Muzaffarabad 20 minutes after the earthquake, and the first injured was admitted to the military hospital in Rawalpindi after having been transferred from Bagh within 45 minutes. Moreover, he said that the Western media was very interested in the collapse of a residential tower in Islamabad and did not pay attention to the size of the catastrophe in Kashmir and in nearby cities.
Sultan hailed Saudi, UAE, and US relief efforts. He said that the first aircraft carrying relief materials arrived on the night of the earthquake, 8 October, from the UAE. He noted that the second country in terms of aid offered to Pakistan is Saudi Arabia, as it offered $573 million. He also noted that the Islamic Development Bank has offered $500 million in aid to the earthquake stricken people. Moreover, he said that the United States has donated $510 million, France has given $124 million, the European Union has offered $110 million, Turkey has offered $150 million, and the UAE has offered $100 million. Furthermore, he noted that 47 countries are involved in the relief effort and in alleviating the suffering of the earthquake survivors; foremost among these countries are the United States, Britain, France, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, China, and Japan.
Sultan noted that the main challenge that faced the Pakistani Forces and the relief teams was opening roads to reach the high Bal (mountainous) areas and the isolated villages to search for survivors. He said that the greatest service that was offered by the United States was providing a number of Chinook helicopters that rapidly arrived from Afghanistan to assist in transferring aid to the stricken areas, in addition to setting up makeshift US military hospitals to accommodate the casualties. Sultan added that 40,000 tents could not accommodate all the earthquake survivors because many farmers who left their destroyed homes have not yet returned to the valley. He expressed his belief that the Pakistani Government will be able to build about 400,000 new homes for the stricken people by wintertime. Moreover, he stressed that the challenge faced by the Pakistani Government is maintaining the earthquake survivors in the camps before the harsh winter begins. He also stressed that the situation in northern Pakistan at present is catastrophic, because the earthquake claimed the lives of more than 50,000 people there and displaced 2.5 million people who are currently living in those areas without shelter. The World Food Program estimates that half of the stricken people have not yet received any food supplies.
The General told Asharq al-Awsat that his country's government is aware of the danger that fundamentalist groups such as the banned "The Army of Muhammad," [Jaish-e-Mohammad] "Askar Tibah," [Lashkar-e-Taiba] and "Al-Da'wah Group," [Jamaat ad-Dawa] considered terrorist organizations, could exploit the earthquake catastrophe. He revealed that some fundamentalist groups have asked to offer aid "but we are monitoring them," and "no one in the stricken areas other than the army forces and the Pakistani police is allowed to carry weapons." General Shaukat Sultan denied reports that Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Ladin was killed in the earthquake. He added that he does not know where Bin Ladin is hiding, "but perhaps he is in the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan."
Regarding reports that Al-Qaeda leader Abu-Musab al-Suri was arrested in Kuita on the border with Afghanistan last month, General Shawkat Sultan said that the Pakistani Army has so far not confirmed such reports. He added that the fact that Pakistan is currently preoccupied with relief operations does not mean that it has abandoned its efforts to achieve security and stability and to chase Al-Qaeda remnants.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/09/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"no one in the stricken areas other than the army forces and the Pakistani police is allowed to carry weapons."
So the armed jihadis the Indians keep killing at the LOC are Pak police?
Posted by: john ||
12/09/2005 16:48 Comments ||
Top||
Christmas seems to have come early to some employees at the United Nations, claim several veteran staffers. Sources inside the U.N.'s Staff union have privately criticized U.N. chief Kofi Annan's decision to offer a number of "selected" employees "generous" retirement packages. More curious, is the fact, say U.N. sources, that those selected for the "early termination" offers were not based on departmental seniority, a common norm for such decisions.
The sources claim that "many" of those "retiring" may be currently or potentially involved in a whole host of internal investigations, ranging from embezzlements to work place harassment. Earlier this week, Carla Pirelli, who directed the U.N.'s oversight of several international elections, was summarily fired by Annan for charges of sexual harassment. Pirelli is challenging the secretary-general's actions to an appeal panel. That move came after Annan was forced to reinstate another staffer who successfully challenged his firing.
Joseph Stephanides, who oversaw Security Council interests in the scandal plagued Iraq Oil-for-Food Program, not only saw almost $100,000 in back salary reinstated, but got a U.N. appeals board to criticize Annan's decision to terminate him in the first place.
All of this comes as Iraq Oil-for-Food investigator Paul Volcker concludes his year and a half inquiry at the end of the month. The investigation, which cost the world body in excess of $30 mil., has so far recovered leas than $16 mil. While published estimates claim that as much as $20 billion may have been stolen from the U.N. program, Volcker could only track down approximately $2 billion actually missing from the operation itself. The remainder, it is believed, was pilfered in outside activities associated with, but not part of the aid program.
Annan however, has made it clear to reporters that he does not foresee any additional measures by the U.N. to recover any of the missing funds.
"It is time to move on," he has repeatedly said. It is also unclear whether any U.N. member states may proceed with their own independent investigations.
On Captiol Hill, Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) has made it clear that his investigations into U.N. corruption will not be halted. Rick Grenell, a spokesman for U.S.-U.N. ambassador John Bolton, has said Washington will seek to have Coleman's investigators given access to the Volcker files if need be. If that was not enough, Annan, who had planned an Asian tour of China, Japan and Korea through the holiday season, had to cancel his "voyage" at the last minute. "Budget problems," claimed Annan spokesman Stephane Dujarric, kept the Secretary General in New York.
"It wouldn't look cool if he (Annan) were seen floating around the Pacific while we are trying to tackle serious budget matters here in NYC ... You don't look too involved in managing the organization from photo ops in Tokyo and Beijing," complained one U.N. staffer. Annan's 10 years as secretary-general ends December 31, 2006. No potential successor has surfaced as yet.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/09/2005 09:41 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It wouldn't look cool if he (Annan) were seen floating around the Pacific while we are trying to tackle serious budget matters here in NYC...
#6
The UN should be allowed to continue but I believe the US should pioneer a new alliance a Democratic Alliance that will garantee support of eachother either by military force, money or, other, everyone does their part. Mutual protection and participation. Agree to certian standards of human rights, free enterprice, and free gov, ect.... Benifits would be free trade so instead of our wealth being siphened off by a communist light china it would at least be empowering a fellow ally. Such a alliance would rather quickly be the most powerfull superpower in the world by far and membership was open to all if certian standards were met. The alliance could have a core group who are full compliance with standards then transition members who have less vote but are working their way to core group status with clear cut markers and progress dates. Set it up like the US gov a House & Senate that way all have a fair say. This would keep one or a small group of nations from stoping a process like Nato is suffering from. Also by voting in a block the alliance could have major sway within the UN. I can think of many who would sign up quickly some for protection some economic some both to name a few, Ukraine, Kuwait, Qutar, UAE, Poland, Lituania, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Japan, Australia, Britian, probably some stans and others.
Islamists across the Arab world have taken heart from the Muslim Brotherhood's strongest ever showing in Egyptian elections, saying this could weaken the appeal of violent ideologies.
The Brotherhood, the Arab world's oldest Islamist movement, managed to win nearly a fifth of the Egyptian parliament seats in the legislative elections despite a state crackdown.
Islamists from Tunisia to Syria see the gains in the elections, which finished this week, as a victory for the Brotherhood's strategy of gradual and peaceful steps towards a more Islamic state and society.
They also say the showing should encourage the United States to recognise the influence of political Islam across the region.
Militant ideologies that have inspired groups such as al Qaeda hold Arab governments are infidel and can only be changed through force, at odds with the Brotherhood's belief that it was possible to bring about change from within.
''This gives very strong momentum in the region -- that the method of patience and endurance is not a dead end, as some claim.
That in the face of despotism, the armed solution does not work,'' said exiled Tunisian Islamist Sayyed Ferjani.
Along with other opposition groups, Islamists have had few, if any freedoms, in most Arab countries.
Tunisia banned Ferjani's Islamist Nahda Party in the early 1990s, the Brotherhood is still officially banned in Egypt and membership of the group in Syria is punishable by death.
Islamists who share the Egyptian Brotherhood's approach say governments must give them more space to marginalise militants.
''Arab regimes should deal transparently with the Islamic movement and deal with it in a way that allows it to shield society from radical views'', said Abdul Majid Thunaibat, head of Jordan's Muslim Brotherhood yesterday.
That echoes the view of former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright who said last month that making room for peaceful views was the best way to marginalise violent groups.
''It would be a mistake to exclude Islamist parties on the assumption they are inherently undemocratic or prone to violence,'' she said.
The current U.S. administration, which has called for more freedom in the region, supports the Egyptian government's ban on the Brotherhood and has exerted little public pressure on Cairo over the arrests of Islamists during the elections.
''It wants to see democracy, although it likewise wants the democrats who win not to be Islamists,'' Ferjani said. The Brotherhood opposes much of U.S. policy in the Middle East.
ISLAMISM ON THE RISE But the Brotherhood's showing in Egypt adds weight to the argument that political Islam is a force the United States must come to terms with across the Arab world, where Islamists have shown their electoral strength when given the chance.
Algeria's army cancelled an election which Islamists looked set to win in 1992 and the country descended into civil war.
As in Egypt, the Brotherhood in Jordan is the country's strongest opposition force. Hamas is expected to mount a strong challenge to the ruling Fatah faction when it contests its first Palestinian parliamentary elections in January.
''There is a phenomenon which cannot be ignored in the Arab world and it is the clear growth of the moderate Islamic current,'' said Ali Bayanouni, the exiled head of Syria's Muslim Brotherhood.
''It is in the interests of all, including the United States, not to be the cause of the oppression of the Islamic movement and not to support tyrannical leaders who oppress this movement,'' he said.
Hassan al-Turabi, one of the Muslim world's most prominent Islamist ideologues, said the Brotherhood's success in Egypt would give hope to Islamists pushing for a role in government.
The Brotherhood's showing was a sign that ''more pressure through the masses is better than hitting back through force'', said Turabi, once the ideological force behind Sudan's Islamist government, which came to power in a coup in 1989.
Turabi, who was close to militant Islamist dissidents in the 1990s, said militancy would ''gently wither away'' if more political freedoms were accompanied by withdrawals of U.S.-led forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/09/2005 02:09 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
MECCA: The Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) on Thursday rejected extremism and urged member states to fight terrorism in every possible manner. The OIC also pledged to develop an educational curriculum to promote tolerance, understanding, dialogue and diversity.
A joint communique issued here at the end of two-day meeting of kings, head of states and governments from the 57-member organisation adopted the Mecca Declaration and a 10-year Programme of Action. The meeting gave its full support to Kashmir, promising political and diplomatic support for the Kashmiri people. It said the Kashmiri people should be allowed to decide their future and asked the parties concerned to respect human rights.
Which can only occur by giving the Kashmiri terrs more guns, of course ...
The summit said the Palestinian issue was its âcentral concernâ and urged Israeli forces to withdraw from Palestinian lands occupied since 1967, the Syrian Golan Heights and Lebanese lands. They also stressed the importance of preserving Jerusalemâs Islamic and historic identity. Member states were also urged to cooperate with the international community to dismantle Jewish settlements and stop the construction of Israelâs separation wall.
All of which is going swimmingly well for them ...
The OIC proposed the establishment of a free-trade zone for its member states and emphasised the importance of increasing trade among Muslim nations. The meeting welcomed the proposal to form an international Islamic institution to finance commerce. It said that member states should allocate resources to preserve Al Aqsa Mosque, support Palestinian institutions and establish an Al Aqsa University somewhere near in Jerusalem wherever the Israelis will let them build.
The summit praised Iraqâs national reconciliation conference and denounced terrorist attacks against Iraqis. It reaffirmed its support for the Iraqi political process and reconstruction efforts.
So the conference wasn't a total loss.
The OIC supported the Somali government should it ever find one in its efforts to restore security and stability in the country and denounced Armeniaâs defending itself âaggressionâ against Azerbaijan. It also supported the Turkish Cypriot people to achieve a comprehensive solution through the UN. The leaders reiterated their approval of Sudanâs peace agreement should it ever happen and the resolution issued by the 10th OIC conference to establish a fund for the countryâs rearmament reconstruction.
The conference proposed establishing an independent Islamic human rights institution to monitor the human rights situation in member states.
Which would be busy if it were actually allowed to do anything ...
Earlier, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal told reporters that Muslim leaders were united in the need to combat terrorism and defend Islamâs image.
One would lead to the other, but it's a connection Faisal seems to have missed ...
âAll leaders agree on combating terrorism and extremism and stressing the moderate nature of Islam,â said Faisal. He said leaders of Muslim countries, at their two-day meeting in Mecca, stressed the need to stop blaming outside forces for problems in the Muslim world and focus on cooperation.
He'll save the codswollop about crusaders and infidels for the home crowd ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/09/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They can't define it - at least not publicly, smart folks would note all the Jooo references - but they be agin' it, by gum. I guess they'll know it when they see it... in their own cities... it has a reddish-orange afterglow.
#2
Meanwhile, on the environmental front, Sheik Abdulledge al-Sphincteri announced, "The solution to pollution is ablution". Celebratory ululation could be heard clear back in Medinaâ¦
#3
It said the Kashmiri people should be allowed to decide their future and asked the parties concerned to respect human rights
Kashmiris have the right to vote unlike most OIC subjects. They run their own affairs. They freely choose their own leaders, several of whom are/were powerful Indian federal ministers (Home minister, Foreign minister, Prime Minister - Nehru) They voted overwhelmingly in the first post partition election, signalling approval of the local legislature and their state consitution (unlike in countries of the OIC).
Their state enjoys protected status under the Indian constitution in order to maintain their demographic status and unique culture.
No law passed by the Indian parliament is valid in Kashmir unless also passed by the Kashmiri legislature. This includes taxes.
Representation without taxation. Kashmiris have it.
Other Indians may not settle or buy land in Kashmir.
Funny that in the 1960s, the Beatles and many others stayed in a peaceful Kashmir. No talk of war then, or in the 50s or the 70s. Only during the last stages of the Afghan jihad, did Pakistan have the jihadi manpower, finances and weapons to destabilize Kashmir, launching the jihad in 1987.
Posted by: john ||
12/09/2005 15:43 Comments ||
Top||
Iraq's Kurdistan region has achieved a degree of self-rule that Kurds in neighboring states like Turkey and Iran can only dream about. That is making Irbil a magnet for Kurdish writers and intellectuals from around the world. They come here to meet, publish books and, some say, get inspired to press for similar freedoms at home.
There is an orchestra on the stage playing a traditional Kurdish anthem as writers from the Kurdish regions of Turkey and Iran and the Kurdish diaspora meet in Irbil.
The occasion is to award a medal to Kurdish novelist Mehmed Uzun, who currently lives in Sweden.
"The Iranian Kurds are [becoming] more courageous. They come to the streets. There is a big movement among the Kurds for having some federation, some federal system in Iran."
But just as importantly, the event offers the Kurdish intellectuals the chance to enjoy a freedom of national expression unheard of in other parts of the region.
Here and across Kurdish-administered northern Iraq, the government actively supports Kurdish writers by subsidizing the publication of their books. That makes Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region the center of a cultural resurgence that could have significant repercussions in Kurdish areas of neighboring states.
Ahmad Ghazi is a Kurdish writer in Iran. He says Kurds there are closely watching what is happening in Iraq's Kurdistan region.
"What is happening here in Iraqi Kurdistan has a great effect on all sides of our lives in other parts of Kurdish regions --
in Iran, Turkey, Syria, and elsewhere, especially from the point of view of culture," he said. "Really, the Kurdish people in Iran are mostly looking at this side of the world, not at that side. I mean, we are mostly dependent on Iraqi Kurdistan, not on Tehran."
Writers say the number of books and newspapers published in Kurdish-administered northern Iraq has burgeoned since the region fell out of Baghdad's direct control in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War. The books not only find readers among Kurds in Iraq but also move with travelers across the borders of Turkey, Iran, and Syria.
Now, following the U.S.-led toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003, Iraqi Kurds are determined to maintain their current degree of autonomy within a new federal Iraq. That autonomy -- which some here describe as semi-independence -- is marked not only by self-government but also by five state universities teaching in the Kurdish language.
All that is in contrast to the much more tightly controlled situation of Kurds in Turkey and Iran.
Ghazi says the Iraqi Kurds' success is now encouraging Iranian Kurds to press for changes: "The Iranian Kurds are [becoming] more courageous. They come to the streets. There is a big movement among the Kurds for having some federation, some federal system in Iran. The latest news that I can give you is that a front of all the [Iranian] Kurds is coming into being. The parliamentarians, the intellectuals, the poets, the writers are coming together little by little to make a big front."
Hundreds of Iranian Kurdish students demonstrated at the University of Tehran on 4 December, shouting slogans supporting the "right to self-determination for Kurdistan."
Tehran permits Kurdish-language publishing, but cracks down on journals it considers as "upsetting public opinion or spreading separatist ideas."
In Turkey, the use of the Kurdish language in publishing and broadcasting had been banned until recently, when parliament passed constitutional reforms to enhance freedom of expression.
But rights groups such as the PEN American Center say writing in Kurdish or about Kurdish subjects remains a sensitive activity in Turkey and can lead to arrest if the writing is considered separatist.
Ankara battled with the secessionist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in the 1980s and 1990s, during which more than 30,000 people died.
Tosine Rashid, a Kurd from Armenia who now lives in Australia, agrees that many Kurdish intellectuals now view the Kurdistan region of Iraq as a new cultural beacon: "Here we get support from the government to publish our books. That's the reason for us that it is much easier to publish here. You know, this center for Kurdish culture is a good example for all Kurdish people to follow -- you know, the political system, the cultural development. They are all a good example for us."
He notes that Kurdish writers in Armenia enjoy the freedom to publish in their language but lack a sufficient audience to distribute their work to. In recent years, he has made repeated trips to publish his work in Irbil instead.
Irbil, 10 December 2005 (RFE/RL) -- There is an orchestra on the stage playing a traditional Kurdish anthem as writers from the Kurdish regions of Turkey and Iran and the Kurdish diaspora meet in Irbil.
The occasion is to award a medal to Kurdish novelist Mehmed Uzun, who currently lives in Sweden. But just as importantly, the event offers the Kurdish intellectuals the chance to enjoy a freedom of national expression unheard of in other parts of the region. Here and across Kurdish-administered northern Iraq, the government actively supports Kurdish writers by subsidizing the publication of their books. That makes Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region the center of a cultural resurgence that could have significant repercussions in Kurdish areas of neighboring states.
Ahmad Ghazi is a Kurdish writer in Iran. He says Kurds there are closely watching what is happening in Iraq's Kurdistan region. "What is happening here in Iraqi Kurdistan has a great effect on all sides of our lives in other parts of Kurdish regions -- in Iran, Turkey, Syria, and elsewhere, especially from the point of view of culture," he said. "Really, the Kurdish people in Iran are mostly looking at this side of the world, not at that side. I mean, we are mostly dependent on Iraqi Kurdistan, not on Tehran."
Writers say the number of books and newspapers published in Kurdish-administered northern Iraq has burgeoned since the region fell out of Baghdad's direct control in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War. The books not only find readers among Kurds in Iraq but also move with travelers across the borders of Turkey, Iran, and Syria. Now, following the U.S.-led toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003, Iraqi Kurds are determined to maintain their current degree of autonomy within a new federal Iraq. That autonomy -- which some here describe as semi-independence -- is marked not only by self-government but also by five state universities teaching in the Kurdish language. All that is in contrast to the much more tightly controlled situation of Kurds in Turkey and Iran.
Ghazi says the Iraqi Kurds' success is now encouraging Iranian Kurds to press for changes: "The Iranian Kurds are [becoming] more courageous. They come to the streets. There is a big movement among the Kurds for having some federation, some federal system in Iran. The latest news that I can give you is that a front of all the [Iranian] Kurds is coming into being. The parliamentarians, the intellectuals, the poets, the writers are coming together little by little to make a big front."
Hundreds of Iranian Kurdish students demonstrated at the University of Tehran on 4 December, shouting slogans supporting the "right to self-determination for Kurdistan." Tehran permits Kurdish-language publishing, but cracks down on journals it considers as "upsetting public opinion or spreading separatist ideas."
In Turkey, the use of the Kurdish language in publishing and broadcasting had been banned until recently, when parliament passed constitutional reforms to enhance freedom of expression. But rights groups such as the PEN American Center say writing in Kurdish or about Kurdish subjects remains a sensitive activity in Turkey and can lead to arrest if the writing is considered separatist. Ankara battled with the secessionist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in the 1980s and 1990s, during which more than 30,000 people died.
Tosine Rashid, a Kurd from Armenia who now lives in Australia, agrees that many Kurdish intellectuals now view the Kurdistan region of Iraq as a new cultural beacon: "Here we get support from the government to publish our books. That's the reason for us that it is much easier to publish here. You know, this center for Kurdish culture is a good example for all Kurdish people to follow -- you know, the political system, the cultural development. They are all a good example for us."
He notes that Kurdish writers in Armenia enjoy the freedom to publish in their language but lack a sufficient audience to distribute their work to. In recent years, he has made repeated trips to publish his work in Irbil instead.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/09/2005 09:31 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
WASHINGTON: The top US general in Iraq was aware in June of reports that Iraqi security forces had abused prisoners in their custody, months before US forces in November found a bunker filled with detainees badly beaten by Iraqi personnel, a memo obtained on Wednesday showed. âOver the past several months, I have received reports of serious physical abuse of detainees by ISF (Iraqi Security Forces),â Army Gen George Casey, commander of US forces in Iraq, said in a June 22 memo obtained by Reuters.
âI have forwarded those reports to the Iraqi ministries of defence and interior for appropriate action,â Casey added. The memo did not state the nature of the abuse. During a raid at a secret Baghdad bunker, US forces on Nov 13 found 173 men and teen-age boys, many of them malnourished, beaten and showing signs of torture.
So he gave the Iraqi government an opportunity to fix it and they didn't. That's when our troops went to that prison and pulled out the prisoners.
After the Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabor days later played down the incident, the US Embassy in Baghdad said such abuses will not be tolerated and, âThe Iraqi government must take measures to ensure this kind of thing does not happen again.â Casey added that abuse of detainees by the American-trained Iraqi security forces âis a violation of Iraqi law and counterproductive to all of our intended efforts here.â
"And it had better not happen again."
In his memo, Casey said he expected US personnel in Iraq to be proactive in encouraging, training and mentoring Iraqi security forces on the respect for human rights in the treatment and interrogation of detainees. The memo stated that US personnel also had the responsibility to âpromptly report the details through their chain of command so those acts can be appropriately addressed with Iraqi government officials.â Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wants to nail down specifically what Casey meant by saying âall reasonable action.â
Rumsfeld has asked military commanders to devise clear rules for how US personnel worldwide should take action if they see detainees being abused by foreign forces outside the United States. âItâs for him to better understand what the policies and procedures are, and to also make sure that we understand that the sergeant, the private, the lieutenant, the captain on the ground have a clear understanding of what theyâre responsibilities are,â Whitman said.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/09/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A new title suggestion for the PakiWaki Daily Times:
US General in Iraq Confronts Iraqi Govt Over Prisoner Abuse
#2
So they're saying they've never had detainees badly beaten by Pak personnel while in Pak custody? And if they had, would the local US military representative be aware of it? And if so what should have he/she done?
WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday he expects some 20,000 U.S. troops to return home from Iraq after next week's elections, and he suggested that some of the remaining 137,000 forces could pull out next year. ``If conditions permit, we could go below that,'' he said in the latest administration hint of at least a modest reduction next year.
Rumsfeld made his comments between closed-door meetings on Capitol Hill with House members, part of an effort by the Bush administration to communicate better with Congress about the war. Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also attended. Facing diminishing public support on Iraq and pressure from constituents, lawmakers from both parties have complained that the administration must give them more information on Iraq.
Rumsfeld said if next week's elections in Iraq go well he expects U.S. troop levels, which were boosted to nearly 160,000 this fall for elections, to return to the 137,000 level of summer. ``The hope is that the conditions will permit some drawdowns in troops,'' he said.
The Pentagon chief said the number of forces could fall below 137,000 next year depending on conditions, the recommendation of senior U.S. commanders and the president's final determination.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/09/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Well, it's good to see that Rummy is finally listening to the Dims.....uh, Dems.
They'll try to take the credit, when it's all over. "Well, it turned out all right, luckily, - just pure and simle luck - but only due to our insistent whining."
Posted by: Bobby ||
12/09/2005 8:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The mission is to be defined by the elected officials, however, the implementation and execution of that mission should be done only by the theater commander. Take all the blowhards out of the process. Time for some uniform military to publically rebuke them all by declaring - Quit Screwing with My Troops. KISS. Any pol who whines or bitches identifies himself/herself as one in fact screwing with the troops.
Israel has suspended talks with the Palestinians on allowing bus convoys between Gaza and the West Bank, despite a deal brokered by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Israeli political sources said on Thursday. Widening its response to a suicide bombing that killed five Israelis, Israel notified the United States of its decision to pull out of the negotiations until Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas acts against militants, the sources said. The agreement reached during Rice's visit in November led to the Palestinians taking control of the main Gaza-Egypt border crossing and also called for bus convoys to start next week and truck convoys to begin in January using a "safe passage".
Posted by: Fred ||
12/09/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
..Israel notified the United States of its decision to pull out of the negotiations until Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas acts against militants, the sources said.
The Israelis need to stick to that firmly - the Paleos must take solid, concrete action against terrorist groups on their soil before they receive any perks of any kind. Nothing happens until then. No Paleos working in Israel, no Paleo vehicles crossing Israeli territory, nothing.
The seemingly constant expectation that Israel should make all the goodwill gestures and good faith moves in the absence of reciprocal action by the Paleos has to stop.
#3
Hey, I see no problem with Paleo bus convoys from Gaza and the WB. Load 'em full, send them to Egypt and announce at the border that only the buses get to come back. The passengers have to stay. Repeat as needed until both Gaza and WB are empty.
Posted by: mac ||
12/09/2005 8:23 Comments ||
Top||
#4
our busy little burrowing Paleos will just have to dig longer, deeper, and harder ....watch out for that aquifer!
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/09/2005 18:39 Comments ||
Top||
The Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) will set up its own air unit for search and rescue, surveillance and intelligence functions. MMEA Director-General Vice Admiral Datuk Mohammad Nik said the unit would operate from five stations.
The number of fixed wing aircraft and helicopters for the unit had not been decided... the agency might initially rent the aircraft it needed before buying its own later. MMEA now has 10 boats operating in the Strait of Melaka and another 62 will be transferred to the agency next year from the Royal Malaysian Navy, police, Marine Department, Customs Department and Fisheries Department. It will also receive in stages 38 rigid inflatable boats under construction in Terengganu.
Mohammad said the Melaka Strait is the current focus of the agency because of the perception that the waterway is unsafe and pirate infested. Wonder where that perception came from?
"In fact, the strait is safe for shipping and fishing. There is some misconception because of several incidents which caused alarm," he said. "Everything is fine - REMAIN CALM!!!!"
Mohammad said MMEA planned to have a force of nearly 7,000 personnel but would initially take in 4,035 on secondment from other existing agencies.
Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the Iranian Resistance, condemned the threatening and demagogic remarks in the name of Islam and under the pretext of support for the Palestinian people by the clerical regime's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, at the summit of the Organization of Islamic Conference.
Mrs. Rajavi called for the expulsion of the clerical regime from the OIC. She recalled the murderous record of the mullahs against the Iranian nation and its avowed policy to export terrorism and fundamentalism to the whole region and the entire Islamic world.
"Such a regime is not worthy of membership in the international community and in the OIC," she said, adding: âAhmadinejadâs remarks come at a time when the regimeâs Revolutionary Guards and agents are spreading repression and brutality to vast segments of the brother nation of Iraq and have moved to create centers of espionage, terrorism, detention and torture. They have imposed an undeclared occupation of Iraq and strive to influence the election in that country through conspiracies and fraud.â
In his speech to the OIC today, Ahmadinejad revealed the expansionist goals of the clerical regime. He openly called for the establishment of a world Islamic order and abolition of national borders under the pretext of âUnion of Islamic Countriesâ and supported the creation of an âIslamic Arbitration Tribunalâ to implement âa complete Islamic judicial system.â The Islamic fundamentalists in Tehran consider Islam and its edicts as nothing but a means to rob the Iranian people of their liberty, prosperity and equality. The "Islamic Arbitration Tribunal" would be merely an instrument to impose torture, execution, and massacre of political prisoners, rape of women prisoners, amputations and draining the blood of defenseless prisoners before execution, as well as the suppression of civil liberties, and banning of newspapers; crimes which the regime has carried out against the Iranian people for 27 years.
The revolting gestures of Ahmadinejad in support of Palestine comes as the regime has proven to be an enemy of the people of Palestine and peace and tranquility in the region and delivered the greatest blows to and committed numerous crimes against the Palestinian people. The mullahs ruling Iran seek to escalate war and hostility in order to pave the way for their evil domination of regional countries. They know full well that peace in the region would deliver a major blow to their demagoguery and false championing of Islam and that they would be the biggest loser of peace.
Underscoring that the policy of appeasing the clerical regime had emboldened the mullahs in continuing and stepping up their suppressive and terrorist policies, Mrs. Rajavi called for the adoption of a decisive policy vis-Ã -vis the ruling theocracy and for the immediate referral of its nuclear, terrorist and human rights file to the United Nations Security Council for the imposition of comprehensive sanctions.
A gunbattle erupted Dec. 8 in the town of Maaret al-Nouman in Edleb province north of Damascus, Syrian state news agency SANA reported. Eight Sunni militants were reportedly killed in the clashes, three of whom killed themselves with explosive belts. While Syrian security forces were battling militants, Syrian officials attending the summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference discussed with fellow Arab and Muslim leaders how to resume peace negotiations with Israel that crumbled in 2000.
These efforts constitute part of the bulwark of military and diplomatic maneuvers Damascus is using to counter the wave of allegations of Syrian involvement in the Feb. 14 killing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri. Adding urgency to Damascus' efforts is the Dec. 15 deadline for lead U.N. investigator Detlev Mehlis to release a follow-up report on al-Hariri's assassination. Damascus might find its efforts complicated, however, by the actions of Hezbollah and of Sunni militants operating out of Lebanon.
Reports of Syrian security forces clashing with Islamist militants are nothing out of the ordinary. Since April, SANA has reported 10 alleged firefights between security forces and militants across Syria. Most of the reports fail to specify who these mystery militants are, and what faction they belong to, though they have referred several times to the obscure radical Islamist group Jund al-Sham. Jund al-Sham has portrayed itself as a jihadist group, but we have called its legitimacy into question based on several dubious claims by the organization.
The inclusion of one key detail made the Dec. 8 report particularly intriguing -- namely, that a cache of explosive belts was uncovered when security forces launched a raid against the group, and that three of the militants blew themselves up using such belts during the firefight. Though no name was given to the alleged Sunni Muslim extremist group, the mention of suicide belts indicates the militants belong to the jihadist strand of militant Islam.
Syria has a strategic interest in making itself appear as victim of jihadist activity. Though the Mehlis investigation has pretty much fizzled out, and though Syria has held its ground against the U.S.-led campaign to isolate Damascus, Washington continues to demand that Syria play a more active role in stemming the flow of militant traffic into Iraq -- a flow that has continued to fuel the insurgency. Just as the battle against "terrorists" at Mount Qassioun in July was staged by the Syrian Republican Guard, the latest reports of clashes represent the same intent to demonstrate Syria's vulnerability to terrorism, thus countering allegations that Damascus would sponsor foreign militants.
The latest report also raises the question of the identity of the militants that the Syrian security forces are going after. We see three possible culprits.
1. Opponents of the Alawite-Baathist regime that the Syrian Republican Guard has decided to target and label as "terrorists." These are indigenous radical dissenters who are not actively taking up arms against the regime.
2. Affiliates of al Qaeda in Iraq chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who have used Syria as a staging ground for infiltrating Iraq. These are militants to whom Damascus has largely turned a blind eye as a part of the Syrian regime's tacit support for the Iraqi resistance.
3. An al Qaeda node trying to establish itself in Syria. This is the theory Damascus wishes to promote to deflect pressure from the regime.
Though the Dec. 8 report likely embellishes what actually took place, sources have indicated that several small radical Sunni Islamist groups are operating in the Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp near Sidon and in Sunni areas of Lebanon. The unconfirmed report maintains that an al Qaeda node has set up a special command unit in several Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, such as Burj al-Barajinah in the south, Biddawi near Tripoli and Mar Elias in Beirut, and military training takes place in Ain al-Hilweh. Should this fledgling Sunni militant movement decide to target the Alawite-Baathist regime indirectly in Lebanon and directly in Syria, a major military crackdown ordered by the Syrian regime should come as no surprise. The increasing number of reported clashes with militants may constitute a means for the Syrian regime to legitimize an imminent clampdown, and to help bring Washington to the negotiating table.
Syria's concerns may not end there. In neighboring Lebanon, Shiite militant Islamist group Hezbollah may complicate Syria's efforts to reduce external pressure. The recent flare-ups between Israel's armed forces and Hezbollah along the southern Lebanese border were Hezbollah's way of raising its profile and reminding its constituency of the movement's military prowess. An intense debate is taking place within Hezbollah as to how to maintain the group's image as a resistance movement while becoming a more legitimate part of the Lebanese government now that Syria's protective umbrella is gone. Though Damascus has retained a tactical relationship with Hezbollah, it has an interest in ensuring that the militant group refrains from provoking a major conflagration with Israel, especially at a time when Syrian President Bashar al Assad is attempting once again to restart negotiations with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
For his part, Sharon is far from interested in talking to the Syrians now. While Israel is not about to write off the Syrian military threat, it views Syria as a problematic neighbor that could be whipped into shape with relative ease through a conventional military operation, should the need arise. Sharon would like to resolve the dispute over the Golan Heights, but would first like to beat the Syrians militarily one last time to create the ideal (from the Israeli perspective) political atmosphere for final negotiations over the territory. Al Assad is unlikely to do Israel the favor of provoking the Jewish state into launching a swift conventional war against Syria, a move that would galvanize Israel's right wing and would cripple Damascus' negotiating position. Hezbollah's handlers in Tehran will thus help restrain the militant group to prevent this scenario from becoming a nightmarish reality for Syria.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/09/2005 09:17 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
The U.S. "does not have plans for any sanctions at the moment, but will certainly continue pressure on Syria to show more cooperation with the investigations" into the assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri, according to a high ranking U.S. diplomat in New York. The official who wished to remain anonymous told The Daily Star: "It is still hard to know what UN Chief Investigator Detlev Mehlis will say in his final report."
Or what Kofi will try to have cut out of it...
He added the U.S. "does not have any specific names or suggestions as to who will take Mehlis' place;" but said: "We would like there to be as small a gap as possible when the process of transition takes place." According to diplomatic sources quoted in An-Nahar newspaper, Mehlis' report will accuse Syria of violating its commitments by not cooperating with the probe and will recommend creation of an international court to try the perpetrators. They said the report will include three main elements: Strong evidence that Syria has been uncooperative, thus violating its commitments and pledges; a recommendation for the questioning of Syrian and Lebanese officers and politicians; and the creation of an international court to try suspects in the Hariri murder.
The paper added, quoting a diplomatic document, that senior U.S. diplomats had said that as a consequence of the Syrian stance, the Security Council might impose sanctions on Syrian officials: the president, members of the Syrian Parliament, the prime minister, the defense minister and the foreign minister. Mehlis, who is scheduled to leave Lebanon in the next 48 hours, "is currently adding the final touches to his report which he will then present to the UN before a December 15 deadline; maybe around December 13," security sources said. The UN Secretary General Kofi Annan "is currently looking at a small number of names to take over from Mehlis when his mandate is over," UN spokesperson Farhan Haq told The Daily Star Thursday.
For my money, and I could be wrong but I'm not, this is the most important story we've got going now, and it's totally ignored by the ace newshounds of the MSM. There isn't much blood and gore, it's not good teevee, and the moves are so Byzantine that the ghost of Anna Comnena keep sighing in admiration. You actually have to pay attention to follow it, and they're showing they don't have the attention span. If it's not Worse than Watergate™ or Just like Vietnam™, they're not interested.
Baby Assad has dug himself a hole and he's trying to pull it in over himself, and all the U.S. has to do is nudge occasionally. Even the Frenchies are on our side, at least mostly, when nobody's looking. This is a brilliant piece of diplomatic work, with far-reaching implications for the Arab world as a whole and for Iran especially, which is pulling the Syrian strings. When Syria topples â and I continue to stand by my prediction that it'll be prior to 9-11-06 â we're going to be down to only two adversaries: Iran and Soddy Arabia, the Shiite puppet masters and the Wahhabi puppet masters. And the pieces for the moves against the ayatollahs are being positioned while Syria's shoved into the hopper.
I'm watching this little dance with something like awe. And I'm also feeling greater contempt for the press every day, because they're missing it. When the Syrian domino falls they're going to be standing around, staring stupidly and wondering where it came from. Then they'll get to work digging dirt to see what we did underhanded that we can be cirticized for.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/09/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Nice heads-up, Fred. It is easy to dismiss pencil neck as a sideshow pawn, but without Syria, Iran's proxies have lost their main base of Opns - and Fudlullah Da Mullah becomes their pointman (do you agree?), there is no sanctuary for Ba'athists outside the Sunni Triangle, the support and distraction assets for the Paleos are severely reduced - putting them in the spotlight 24x7, and the overall terr equation does, indeed, become much simpler - at least regards primary funding... :-)
The future of Lebanon "is guaranteed as Syrian tutelage has ended and all of Lebanon has reconciled," according to Progressive Socialist Party leader and MP Walid Jumblatt on Thursday.
Words to live by, from the Sage of Chouf...
Jumblatt visited Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir at his residence in Bkirki in the first meeting for two of the most influential figures in Lebanon since the withdrawal of the Syrian troops. After the meeting, Jumblatt called for a united gathering to celebrate when the final report by the UN probe into former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri's assassination was released.
"We should have a party! Really!"
"Today, all of Lebanon reconciled for the sake of its sovereignty, independence and respect of human rights," said Jumblatt. "Where were we then, and where are we now? ... The tutelage ended and they left and left, and now we have to be patient... as Lebanon is now on the right path," said Jumblatt, whose meeting comes a day after the Maronite Church released a strong statement urging an international probe into the latest scandal of the unearthed mass graves in Anjar.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/09/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Wally would make a fine circus clown. Oh, heh, he already is in a M.E. sort of way, my bad.
Previously unpublicized segments of an al Qaeda videotape made in September hit the news media early Dec. 7, when the tape (featuring Ayman al-Zawahiri) was posted in its entirety on a jihadist Web site. The statements being aired struck an industrial nerve center: For the first time, a senior al Qaeda leader was heard to be calling specifically -- and offering ideological justification -- for strikes against energy infrastructure in the Persian Gulf region. Because the region's oil wealth is considered to be the patrimony of the Muslim world, it long has been believed that attacks of this sort would be anathema to al Qaeda and its long-term political goals in the region. The group's leaders, including Osama bin Laden, have made remarks about the need to halt the theft of Muslim oil many times in the past, but no one of al-Zawahiri's stature before has been known to discuss so directly the value of striking at energy targets in the Middle East.
The rationale for doing so is clear enough. As al-Zawahiri says in the tape: "I call on mujahideen to concentrate their attacks on Muslims' stolen oil, from which most of the revenues go to the enemies of Islam, while most of what they leave is seized by the thieves who rule our countries."
It is important to note the audience for this statement: Al-Zawahiri is not issuing a warning to the oil industry or the West, but rather is giving targeting guidance to al Qaeda's supporters in the Middle East. In other portions of the 40-minute videotape, he emphasizes that bin Laden is alive and continues to lead the jihadist war, claims credit in al Qaeda's name for the July 7 train bombings in London and rails against Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf. It is, if you will, a motivational speech al-Zawahiri is making -- but the strategy he espouses is one with inherent risks.
Considering that oil is viewed by al Qaeda as the blessing of Allah upon Arabs and Muslims, the jihadist leadership does not seem to be in any danger of committing ideological cannibalism, provided attacks are staged in a way that cripples export infrastructure and the economies of specific countries -- rather than, for example, setting fire to oil wells -- since the oil would remain in Muslim hands under the strategy being urged. Al-Zawahiri's statement plays on long-standing divisions within the Arab world, where those from non-oil states might refer to the wealthy Gulf countries (and their frequently well-off citizens) as "Khaleejis" -- a word that technically means "from the Gulf" but has come to connote, in common slang, something more along the lines of "rich, lazy and spoiled." And any attacks that cause instability in countries with hated regimes, like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, are in al Qaeda's interest.
The problem is that, if there should be follow-through, the effects of such strikes might not be easily contained. Poor Arab countries like Yemen and Jordan could feel the pinch long before the United States did -- and while that still might bring about the sought-after political instability, it also could hurt al Qaeda's standing among the masses, as other attacks waged on Arab soil have before. That is no small consideration; al-Zawahiri himself has urged other leaders, notably Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, to avoid operations that would needlessly alienate other members of the ummah (such as the Shia). Clearly, the leadership is well aware of the risks involved -- but given the way al-Zawahiri's statement came to light this week, it seems equally clear that al Qaeda places a great deal of emphasis on ensuring this guidance is heard and heeded.
The issue of how the statements came to light made news itself, since initial reports from wire services and broadcast agencies on Dec. 6 mistakenly said the al Qaeda tape was new. It was, in fact, recorded and released in mid-September, marking the fourth anniversary of the World Trade Center attacks. Arab satellite television broadcaster Al Jazeera was the first to receive the tape, and aired segments of it on Sept. 19. But it was not until another Web site, one known to be used by Islamist militants, made the video available Dec. 7 that the targeting guidance -- among the final statements made in the 40-minute recording -- was picked up by world media (including, in a circular fashion, Al Jazeera).
In explaining the discrepancy, Al Jazeera said it had aired all the portions of the tape the editorial staff believed to be significant upon its receipt in September -- having judged statements about the oil sector "not newsworthy" at the time. Though perfectly logical, this explanation raises more questions than answers. For one thing, the video was released shortly after Hurricane Katrina struck in the United States and world attention was focused on record-high energy prices -- something that would tend to raise the news value of any threats to Persian Gulf oil assets. Moreover, Al Jazeera is known worldwide as the primary distribution point for key al Qaeda statements; we would not expect any statements made in a videotape of this sort to be considered lightly. That said, of course, the news media are peopled with humans, and human error -- a lapse of news judgment or an editorial oversight -- is always a possibility.
Another explanation is that Al Jazeera's editorial decision-makers indeed were aware of the call to action but chose not to broadcast it, having weighed several issues of which news value is merely one. Several factors, including ethics and politics, play into the editorial process.
It must be remembered that the Qatar-based satellite channel's privileged source-media relationship with al Qaeda has given Al Jazeera considerable cachet in the media industry. It also has made Al Jazeera an object of interest for intelligence agencies hoping to trace the locations of al Qaeda leaders or gather forensic evidence, such as fingerprints, from the tapes themselves. And it has brought considerable political pressure to bear on some editorial decisions, such as whether to broadcast graphic footage of beheadings and other material that -- in addition to being newsworthy -- was viewed as fueling the risks of violence to Westerners or otherwise aiding al Qaeda's cause. At each juncture, there were ethical issues at stake and nuanced business decisions to be made.
But while it is one thing to air sensational footage of violence that already has been carried out against foreigners or to broadcast statements warning of possible attacks abroad, it can be quite another to carry the rallying cry that urges attacks against the economic backbone of one's own country, region or primary commercial market. For an editorial decision-maker serving a certain geographic market, the political and economic consequences could make this a very different decision indeed.
Whatever led to it, the situation at the end of the day is this: Al Jazeera had an opportunity to air al-Zawahiri's targeting guidance in September, and did not -- nor was the message made widely known through other venues. An alternative Web site believed to be used by Islamist militant groups -- which could thus be surmised to have links to al Qaeda and access to its materials -- brought matters to a head after a significant time lag. The targeting call then was covered almost as a matter of routine by other media outlets in response, and oil markets spasmed predictably.
In the classic whodunit sense, it seems that someone was keenly interested in making sure the targeting guidance was distributed -- and the list of suspects is extremely short. Since Al Jazeera did not oblige by broadcasting the statement initially, al Qaeda chose another outlet -- and possibly the timing of the release as well. The key question is why.
It has been noted that the scare to the oil markets came only days before an OPEC meeting, scheduled to take place Dec. 12 -- enough time for cartel members to consider the threat and adjust production strategies accordingly. Al Qaeda is well aware of the economic repercussions of its statements and actions, and oil prices recently have dropped again. Making sure the threats were made public at this juncture -- when cold weather and heating fuel are also concerns for Western buyers -- theoretically would be one way of reinflating prices and thus harming al Qaeda's main enemies.
Upon closer examination, however, there are deeper implications to al-Zawahiri's exhortations.
Al Qaeda in the past has made only vague references to striking at oil infrastructure; with al-Zawahiri's statements, that changed. There have been indications that al Qaeda is in financial difficulties -- to the point that the leadership might be having to divert funds from some areas to sustain key operations in others. Historically, the bulk of al Qaeda's funding is believed to have come from Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. The financial downturn could be the result of donor fatigue or other factors; however, not striking at oil infrastructure in the region has been a way of protecting major donors' interests.
Thus, the shift in al Qaeda's rhetoric -- which has been hinted for some time but takes on an emphatic note when clearly stated by a top strategist -- might be a way to either punish former donors for their laxity, or otherwise achieve significant goals. It is in the areas where financial support for the group has been greatest that ideological sympathies also tend to run quite high -- even from those without the means to contribute funds -- so al-Zawahiri in essence could be calling on core supporters to "act locally" under the operational guidance.
And this underscores yet another significant implication: If al Qaeda's leadership knows it retains a serious ability to strike within the United States or other Western countries, logic dictates that it would marshal those forces and draw attention to key targets in those places. With the Sept. 11 attacks, al Qaeda took its war against "crusaders" into the enemy camp -- a strategy intended to demonstrate its strength and build support and morale among the oppressed Muslim masses. Ordering strikes against the patrimony of the Muslim world -- even as a way of crippling the West and wounding the "apostate" regimes that al Qaeda opposes in the Middle East -- is doing almost the exact opposite, and is so controversial that even sympathizers might be expected to balk.
In all likelihood, that is why al Qaeda statements have only hit around the edges of this issue up to this point. The guidance is tactically efficient, in the sense that it is viable guidance concerning a region where both high-value targets and al Qaeda supporters are numerous -- but strategically and politically, this is an option of last resort.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/09/2005 09:36 ||
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.
Egypt's opposition Islamists increased their seats in parliament nearly six-fold after an election marred by violence, but President Hosni Mubarak's party retained a big majority, official results showed on Thursday. A rights group said at least eight people were killed on Wednesday in clashes with security forces who cordoned off polling stations in areas with strong Muslim Brotherhood support. The Brotherhood says it won 11 seats, bolstering its parliamentary bloc in the month-long elections to 87 -- its strongest showing ever. The results were nearly six times its strength in the outgoing chamber and more than double its wins in its previous strongest showing in 1987. "There are results which were rigged," deputy Brotherhood leader Mohamed Habib told Reuters. But "it is an achievement despite these dramatic conditions," he told Reuters.
TOKYO â Passwords needed to enter restricted areas of 16 Japanese airports, including Narita and Haneda, and Guam airport have leaked to the Internet from a virus-infected personal computer of a Japan Airlines copilot, JAL said Thursday.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Lawyers asked the Bush administration on Thursday why a German citizen, taken prisoner by the CIA in a case of mistaken identity in 2004, was not allowed into the United States last weekend. Khaled al-Masri was seeking entry to publicize the lawsuit he filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., against former CIA Director George Tenet and 10 ``John Doe'' CIA employees involved in his abduction to Afghanistan.
Most dialogue in Pakistan presently concentrates on the reconstruction and relief efforts following the 8 October earthquake, which claimed the lives of approxiametely 73,000 people, caused injuries to a similar number of people, and the displacement of about 3.5 million people from Muzaffarabad, the capital of the Pakistani administered Kashmir, and other cities such as Sinjar and Bagh. General 
WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday he expects some 20,000 U.S. troops to return home from Iraq after next week's elections, and he suggested that some of the remaining 137,000 forces could pull out next year. ``If conditions permit, we could go below that,'' he said in the latest administration hint of at least a modest reduction next year.
Israel has suspended talks with the Palestinians on allowing bus convoys between Gaza and the West Bank, despite a deal brokered by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Israeli political sources said on Thursday. Widening its response to a suicide bombing that killed five Israelis, Israel notified the United States of its decision to pull out of the negotiations until Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas acts against militants, the sources said. The agreement reached during Rice's visit in November led to the Palestinians taking control of the main Gaza-Egypt border crossing and also called for bus convoys to start next week and truck convoys to begin in January using a "safe passage".
The U.S. "does not have plans for any sanctions at the moment, but will certainly continue pressure on Syria to show more cooperation with the investigations" into the assassination of former Premier 
The future of Lebanon "is guaranteed as Syrian tutelage has ended and all of Lebanon has reconciled," according to Progressive Socialist Party leader and MP 
