I am currently out of the Country and on my return home to England I am going to be arrested by British detectives on suspicion of Stirring up Racial Hatred by displaying written material" contrary to sections 18(1) and 27(3) of the Public Order Act 1986.
This charge if found guilty carries a lengthy prison sentence, more than what most paedophiles and rapists receive, and all for writing words of truth about the barbarity that is living in the midst of our children, which threatens the very future of our Country.
The cultural weapon in the hands of the modern Jihad within Great Britain, silencing the opposition using our own laws against us - The Dumb Filthy Kaffir's as the Moslem would say to his children behind closed doors.
What has become of my homeland, the land my forefathers fought and died for on the battlefields of the world when one of their children is forced into the position of facing years in prison for standing up for what is right and just within British society.
#2
slide down your link:
28 May 2008
The British State’s leash around my neck
An update on my situation with regards to my arrest on suspicion of stirring up racial hatred through written material on my blog.
I was arrested, and placed in a police cell for hours, then questioned over the police investigation into me and my blog several months back.
I was bailed without charge to attend the police station yesterday to answer bail to see whether or not I am going to be charged with the offence and put before a British Court, or whether they did not really have enough on me for this case against me to be in the public interest to be brought before a British Court and then released without charge.
Due to the charge, the case load has to go to the CPS and then to the Department of Public Prosecutions for them to decide whether or not to place me on trial.
I was re-bailed again yesterday to appear at the police station once again in two months time to see whether or not they are closer to making a decision on me and my case.
The police had the information on me since June last year, and then 6 months later over Christmas I get the call saying that they needed to arrest me over my blog. Then 3 months later I return and hand myself in for arrest and interview. So 9 months up until my arrest, and now a further 3 months to answer my first bail and they still have not decided whether or not they are going to charge me with anything, so I now have to wait a further 2 months to see whether or not to prosecute me is going to be in the public interest.
12 months and they have not decided on me.
My legal team have stated that they could have me on bail for anything up to a year, but if they have not got enough to charge me yet, then what is going to change in another 2 months or in a year?
I think I have been pretty consistent with my message on this blog over the past 18 months, so I cannot see that changing.
This is the British State’s leash around my neck.
I wonder who wants to pull that leash or who wants to set me free from it?
All I can say now is that I have to continue waiting while big brother decides whether or not I have upset ‘community cohesion’ enough in today’s British Nanny State to warrant placing me on trial for defending myself and my country from the 21st Century invasion of Great Britain.
Those people who prevent the British people from speaking out in defence of their Country and all that is happening in this generation are TRAITORS to the British people, there is no other word for it.
The Military wing of Islam is at War with us and we cannot even speak about it through fear of arrest and imprisonment.
The British State is allowing Islam to spread unhindered within our Nation, and passing laws to protect its growth within our society, and in turn tying the British peoples hands behind their backs whilst they face this Goliath that is seeking to destroy their way of life and enforce an Islamic one in its place.
I serve the same God as David the shepherd boy.
Put me on trial and if convicted send me to one of your over crowded prison’s for my words, or release me so that I can get on with my life, it is not a hard choice to make is it?
Either I am guilty in the eyes of those looking or I am innocent, and considering I have not been stripped of my right to use a computer or my blog being shut down, it cannot really be that serious a matter for it to be in the Public interest to take me through a lengthy and very costly Court case can it? But then again people are being hauled before the Courts over leaving their bin lid an inch higher than they are told they can, or for throwing apple cores to the Earth, so who knows what will happen in today's schizophrenic British society.
I hope they are not Moslem eyes looking, because we are all guilty in their eyes, and considering Islam has infiltrated every area of British life I would not put it past those within the halls of power to be conferring with God’s enemies who are now entrenched within the fabric of our Judeo/Christian Nation.
I know my life is safe in God’s hands though, He is watching my back in those areas I cannot see, because He sees all things and I am His son.
In service of the King – Jesus – The Lion of the tribe of Judah
Paul Ray
Posted by Lionheart at 2:27 PM 30 comments Links to this post
LGF reports that the Obama webiste had an article posted to it by an independent diarist calling him/her/itself "Socialists for Obama" entitled "How the Jewish Lobby Works." The title tells you everything you need to know about the contents.
Now, to be fair, Obama himself is not a rabid anti-Semite of a 9/11 "truther." These postings occurred in a section of the web page where anyone can sign up and post. Both postings were removed--as they rightly should have been. However, that removal only occurred after two months, and only after LGF called attention to them. As LGF notes:
A search of the official my.barackobama.com site for “Jewish Lobby” reveals an enormous amount of antisemitic hatred being posted. This is really shocking stuff, and shows beyond any doubt that this is no fluke.
There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of posts that refer to the “Jewish lobby” at the Obama site. I stopped looking at the results on page 10.
What's striking to me is the lack of any serious pushback--post something about the "Jewish lobby" or something "truthery" about 9/11 at any of the big Lefty sites, and nobody much objects or finds it distasteful. Wonder why that is?
Posted by: Mike ||
06/09/2008 10:21 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
nobody much objects or finds it distasteful. Wonder why that is?
Cause normally, people expect sh*t to stink...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
06/09/2008 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
To be specific, "sidelining" of Christianity at the expense of Islam It is "common sense" for Christianity to be sidelined at the expense of Islam, a Government minister claimed on Sunday.
Hazel Blears, the Communities Secretary, defended LabourÂ’s policy on religion after a report backed by the Church of England claimed that Muslims receive a disproportionate amount of attention. She said it was right that more money and effort was spent on Islam than Christianity because of the threat from extremism and home-grown terrorism.
Ms Blears told BBC Radio 4’s Sunday programme: “That’s just common sense. If we’ve got an issue where we have to build resilience of young Muslim men and women to withstand an extremist message.”
She added: “We live in a secular democracy. That’s a precious thing. We don’t live in a theocracy, but we’ve always accepted that hundreds of thousands of people are motivated by faith. We live in a secular democracy but we want to recognise the role of faith.”
"As we try to diminish and ridicule faith, scoff at believers for their antiquated and dangerous thought crimes, atomize our society and ensure that all subjects enjoy the goodness of the state," she added.
The Church of England bishop responsible for the report, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, Bishop for Urban Life and Faith, said afterwards: “She said we live in a secular democracy. That comes as news to me – we have an established Church, but the Government can’t deal with Christianity.”
As The Daily Telegraph reported on Saturday, the landmark report commissioned by the Church and written by academics at the Von Hugel Institute accuses ministers of paying only “lip service” to Christianity and marginalising the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches, while focusing “intently” on Islam.
However MalaysiaÂ’s Prime Minister warned yesterday that Muslim extremism in Britain will grow unless the Government and society convert learn to understand Islam. Abdullah Badawi claimed that the legacy of BritainÂ’s imperial past has hampered its ability to appreciate its Islamic population. July 7 should be named "Muslim Appreciation Day".
In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, the prime minister urged Gordon Brown to allow the countryÂ’s Muslims to live under Islamic law, but also said that they must prove their worth to society.
Mr Abdullah argues that the Government must do more to ensure Muslims do not feel discriminated against if it is to tackle the rise of radicalism. “The failure to understand Muslims is driving a divide between the communities,” he said. “Gordon Brown must encourage a better understanding because Britain must appreciate its Muslims.”
What the hell business is it of Mr. Abdullah what happens in Britain?
Mr Abdullah argued that Britain needs to come to terms with being home to immigrants from countries that it used to rule over. Malaysia - a land of tolerance, where everyone is identified by ethnicity and religion /s
“The British Empire expanded in Asia, everywhere, throughout the Muslim land, through the land of Hindus and the land of Buddhists.
“When they were ruling it was different because they wanted it to be peaceful and to keep it peaceful they had to use diplomacy.”
He said that Muslims in Britain were more likely to be radicalised because they feel ignored rather than due to religious reasons. “Is it because of poverty, social unrest, deprivation, feeling discriminated against, thinking people don’t care much because of the colour of their skin?”
Mr Abdullah, who was talking on the eve of a landmark summit of world leaders, echoed the calls of the Archbishop of Canterbury earlier this year for Muslims and dhimmis to be able to live under sharia. Thanks, Rowan.
The Malaysian Prime Minister also acknowledged that Muslims must also play their part in proving their value as immigrants. “If they want to be respected then they must do something for the community,” he said. “They must not be a liability. They have to be an asset.”
He means that differently than you and I would at first interpret it ...
#1
A greater argument in favor of disentanlging government from religion I can't imagine.
Posted by: Grenter Protector of the Geats4975 ||
06/09/2008 10:12 Comments ||
Top||
#2
“She said we live in a secular democracy. That comes as news to me – we have an established Church, but the Government can’t deal with Christianity.”
If only the Britons would rise up, led by the Defender of the Faith. But I think they are well and truly phuched.
#3
He said that Muslims in Britain were more likely to be radicalised because they feel ignored you don't bow down and be third-class citizens like good dhimmi's rather than due to religious reasons.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez urged Colombian rebels on Sunday to lay down their weapons, unilaterally free dozens of hostages and put an end to a decades-long armed struggle against Colombia's government.
Chavez sent the uncharacteristically strong message to the leaders of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, saying their ongoing efforts to overthrow Colombia's democratically elected government were unjustified.
"The guerrilla war is history," said Chavez, speaking during his weekly television and radio program, "Hello President." "At this moment in Latin America, an armed guerrilla movement is out of place." And raping a country under the guise of communism is back in.
Such declarations were unexpected from Chavez, a self-described socialist who earlier this year called on world governments to remove the FARC from terrorist lists and suggested the guerrillas should be recognized as a legitimate insurgent force. Gee, I wonder what precipitated this "change of heart".
Addressing new FARC leader Alfonso Cano, Chavez said, "I think the time has come to free all of the hostages you have. It would be a great, humanitarian gesture. In exchange for nothing."
In the past, the guerrillas have said they would be willing to release hostages in exchange for imprisoned guerrillas in Colombia and the United States.
Carlos Lozano, who in the past has acted as a mediator between the rebels and the government, told Caracol radio Sunday that he had re-established contact with the FARC in the hopes of facilitating hostage releases. Lozano, the editor of a communist newspaper, said that while he had not spoken directly with Cano, "everything is going the right way".
But a FARC statement posted Sunday on a sympathetic Web site suggested the group was far from considering laying down its arms. Written by rebel leader Luciano Marin Arango, alias Ivan Marquez, and dated June 5, the statement demanded that new elections be called to oust Colombia's government and Congress. The FARC's "strategic objective is the taking of power for the people," the statement said.
Marquez also claimed that Colombian President Alvaro Uribe is overseeing plans to kill Chavez and leftist Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa. The Colombian government did not respond immediately.
Recent efforts to free high-profile hostage Ingrid Betancourt and others have failed. The situation worsened when Colombia waged a cross-border raid on a rebel camp in Ecuador in March that killed a FARC leader. The raid prompted both Chavez and Correa to send troops briefly to their respective borders with Colombia. Ecuador went a step further and cut off diplomatic relations, which still have not been restored fully.
But on Sunday, Chavez apparently changed his tune. "You in the FARC should know something: You have become an excuse for the empire to threaten all of us," he said, using his frequently employed term for the United States. "The day that peace arrives in Colombia, the empire will have no excuses." Well, except for drugs and Chavez and his ilk.
The Venezuelan leader's comments could help improve diplomatic relations with Colombia, which have been strained for months due to Colombia's allegations that Chavez could be aiding the FARC. Chavez repeatedly has denied secretly supporting the FARC, saying his government's contacts with the guerrillas have been aimed only at securing the release of rebel-held hostages.
#1
Sr. Chavez may be a little concerned about those FARC bigwigs/laptops the Colombian Army got their hands on a while back (and have by now thoroughly 'perused'). Perhaps he may not want the Colombians chasing the FARC remnants all the way to Caracas which the Colombian Army is quite capable of doing and Hugo's "Peoples Army" is quite incapable of stopping.
Chavez offers in this statement a South American version of 'Hudna' only.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
06/09/2008 11:46 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Heh, running from the laptops. LOL Ima ever tell you where Hugolito was found in his 1st Coup attempt? And what he smelled like?
Posted by: George Smiley ||
06/09/2008 17:32 Comments ||
Top||
#4
IMO, HUGO > telling FARC to KEEP/HIDE YOUR GUNS, BUT GO POLITICAL.
WOT > MACKINDER'S WAR = MACKINDRIAN CONFLICT = The FOUR CORNERS AND BEYOND of the AMERICAS, espec CONUS-NORAM, is being SUBTLEDLY set up for OWG FREE TRADE-SPECIAL ECON ZONES, wid VENEZUELA = CUBA/QUBA at risk of being left out due to perennial unresolved national struggles.
NUTS!
A group of German and American civil rights attorneys on Monday sued the German government to demand that it pursue the extradition of 13 CIA agents sought in the alleged kidnapping of a German citizen.
The civil suit filed with a Berlin administrative court seeks to force the German Justice Ministry to pursue the extradition of the agents in the case of Khaled al-Masri, attorney Wolfgang Kaleck told reporters. ...
Posted by: ed ||
06/09/2008 10:48 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What, again? How many times have the idiots lost in these demands thus far?
(AKI - By Ahmad Rafat ) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to Italy was not a "missed opportunity", said Stefania Craxi, undersecretary for Foreign Affairs responsible for the Middle East and Iran.
Craxi spoke to Adnkronos International (AKI) about Ahmadinejad's visit to the United Nations-sponsored global food summit organised by the Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome. She also responded to criticism that the Italian government had missed an opportunity to meet the Iranian leader. "It would have been a missed opportunity if it had been presented," Craxi told AKI. “Ahmadinejad flew into Italy and repeated the usual complaints against Israel and the US, unacceptable positions for us. I have the feeling that the Iranian president is using these declarations for his re-election, trying to raise fanatical feelings from that section of the population that must re-elect him but forcing the West to look for every possibility of dialogue."
Speaking about the meeting that took place between Ahmadinejad and a group of Italian entrepreneurs, Craxi said "our voice cannot only be about business and Italian companies sooner or later have to face the political problem".
Posted by: Fred ||
06/09/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
Italian "entrepreneurs" had better be tracked down then, along with any Russian Mafia, or anyone else willing to profit from this A**holes' schemes. Apparently all roads lead out of Rome and little nuclear doggies could wind up on the trail through Texas, Kansas City, or Omaha.
I wonder what Time is going to do with the idea of a Purple Brain. Maybe play the useful fool in order to use it to milk the cash cow again by going through another litany of reasons against a war they don't seem to understand?
Yeah, this stuff can tough. That's why it's called war. But the vast majority get around/over it and get back into society. Liberal rags like Time using it to sow misplaced doubt doesn't help.
For every solder killed or physically wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan, some 10 others come home psychically scarred. The Pentagon has diagnosed roughly 40,000 troops with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) since 2003, and tens of thousands of others are dealing with it on their own or ultimately will be diagnosed. With the war taking such a heavy psychological toll, some inside the military are starting to ask if men and women who become mentally injured in the service of their country deserve the Purple Heart. To some traditionalists, the idea is absurd on its face, but it is not a theoretical debate - the Pentagon is now weighing a change in policy that would make PTSD, in a term only the military could invent, a "qualifying wound" for the medal. Did it occur to you guys at Time that the only reason this is being considered is because there is an effort going on right now to destigmatize mental illness? Whether or not they actually go through with this nonsense makes little difference as long as the idea gets out.
The Purple Heart, created by General George Washington in 1782, has historically been limited to those physically wounded or killed in combat. The Army classifies PTSD as an illness, not an injury, which means it doesn't qualify for the honor. But John Fortunato, an Army psychologist at Fort Bliss, Texas, argued in early May that PTSD affects soldiers by physically damaging their brains, making the condition no different than conventional wounds. Soldiers with PTSD often have suffered as much "as anybody with a traumatic brain injury, as anybody with a shrapnel wound," he said. Their ineligibility for a Purple Heart "says this is the wound that isn't worthy, and it is." Advocates of the change like Fortunato believe it would help encourage soldiers with symptoms of PTSD, many of whom are afraid of being blacklisted and having their chances for promotion limited, seek out the help they need.
The suggestion has garnered high-level Pentagon attention. "It's an interesting idea," Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently noted. "I think it is clearly something that needs to be looked at." The Defense Department's awards advisory group, which previously ruled that PTSD doesn't merit a Purple Heart, is now studying the issue again.
The traditional veterans' groups don't want the rules loosened. "We vehemently disagree" that PTSD is a physical wound that warrants a Purple Heart, says Joseph Palagyi, the national adjutant of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, who earned the medal in Vietnam on June 2, 1968. "We feel that the purity of the medal must be maintained." The American Legion agrees. "Unless PTSD crosses the line and is shown to be an injury - with a direct relationship to the enemy - we support the current policy," says Phil Riley of the Legion. Michael Wysong, the director of national security issues for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, likens PTSD to the Gulf War syndrome that afflicted troops following that 1991 war. "Not to diminish the illness or effects of PTSD," he says, "but it is the VFW's belief that awarding the Purple Heart for PTSD is not consistent with the original purpose and would denigrate the medal."
The Army surgeon general didn't venture into this minefield when TIME offered him the opportunity. "They haven't asked my opinion about it," Lieutenant General Eric Schoomaker said May 27 of the Pentagon panel reviewing the question. When pressed on the question - shouldn't the Army's top doc have an opinion on whether or not PTSD warrants a Purple Heart? - he punted. "Whether or not a medal should be awarded is not in my purview," he said. "The senior operational commander in the Army needs to decide that." It's evidence of the sensitivity of the issue that even the army's senior doctor suggests a second opinion.
#1
I am against that designation. All his life, my dad was hyper-reactive when amoken suddenly. That was caused by his service with the navy, during WW2, when vessels were being torpedoed. He treated it as an aspect of personality. Recognition of stress as a cause of permanent disability, is a real can of worms. I would bet that a Tylenol would solve most problems.
#2
agree with the VFW guys - it's not a physical wound. It is a recognizable mental ailment though, and needs adequate help and treatment, just not a PH. More self-esteem from the "everyone should get a beret" gang?
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/09/2008 8:45 Comments ||
Top||
#3
No No No.
I didn't earn one putting my body on the line (thoguh I do have scars from combat, its not enemy action), and I sure as hell don't want one for PTSD (which did cause me enough problems to be homeless for a while a year after I got back and got out the first time).
#4
Vets with PTSD have earned the award, but I doubt they want the label, at least I wouldn't. And I wonder about those who do. Perhaps it would help some and I'd be happy to see them get it if it would help, but it's a slippery slope. Difficult problem.
#5
Difficult indeed. Part of the problem is that we are seeing a huge increase (compared to previous conflicts) in brain injuries, mostly due to IEDs. Ironically. our better armor is part of the problem since many of these wonderful soldiers and Marines would have been killed in earlier wars.
Brain damage often doesn't show up on physical tests but has to be inferred due to behavioral etc. symptoms.
#6
I think there's some gray areas here that need to be discussed. I'd give a guy that suffered brain damage as the result of an IED a purple heart. I would NOT give a guy that has a series of behavior modifications (PTSD) as the result of combat a purple heart. My dad was an artillery spotter during WWII. He came back with some pretty serious problems, but worked his way through them on his own. My year in Vietnam left me with some problems (not as serious as OS) that lasted three or four years after I returned. I think that, in many cases, it's too hard to diagnose the exact problem, whether it's brain damage or behavior modification. Things like this will eventually have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
06/09/2008 14:50 Comments ||
Top||
#7
People need to face it. Killing another human, even a Jihadi (or for the WW2 bunch, a Nazi) or having them attempt to kill you flips a fundamental switch inside a person, and it takes some people a lot of time to adjust, and some never adjust well.
Thats why "seeing the elephant" is such a watershed in a soldier's life. You do NOT know how you will react until you are there and in the moment.
Bad, bad military doping up unsuspecting troops to continue Bush's war without end. O.K., so it doesn't come right out and say that, but that's what it means. For the first time in history, a sizable and growing number with hardly any facts to back up this statement of U.S. combat troops are taking daily doses of antidepressants to calm nerves strained by repeated and lengthy tours in Iraq and Afghanistan but certainly not the day-to-day stresses of combat, boredom, and lack of sleep. The medicines are intended not only to help troops keep their cool but also to enable the already strapped Army to preserve its most precious resource: soldiers on the front lines. Data contained in the Army's fifth Mental Health Advisory Team report indicate that, according to an anonymous survey of U.S. troops taken last fall, about 12% of combat troops in Iraq and 17% of those in Afghanistan are taking prescription antidepressants or sleeping pills to help them cope. Escalating violence in Afghanistan and the more isolated mission have driven troops to rely more on medication there than in Iraq, military officials say.
Several paragraphs later, we get this perspective -
The military's rising use of antidepressants also reflects their prevalence in the civilian population. In 2004, the last year for which complete data for the U.S. are available, doctors wrote 147 million prescriptions for antidepressants...
The increase in the use of medication among U.S. troops suggests the heavy mental and psychological price being paid by soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pentagon surveys show that while all soldiers deployed to a war zone will feel stressed, 70% will manage to bounce back to normalcy. But about 20% will suffer from what the military calls "temporary stress injuries," and 10% will be afflicted with "stress illnesses." Such ailments, according to briefings commanders get before deploying, begin with mild anxiety and irritability, difficulty sleeping, and growing feelings of apathy and pessimism. As the condition worsens, the feelings last longer and can come to include panic, rage, uncontrolled shaking and temporary paralysis. The symptoms often continue back home, playing a key role in broken marriages, suicides and psychiatric breakdowns.
The mental trauma has become so common that the Pentagon may expand the list of "qualifying wounds" for a Purple Heart — historically limited to those physically injured on the battlefield — to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on May 2 that it's "clearly something" that needs to be considered, and the Pentagon is weighing the change.
Using drugs to cope with battlefield traumas is not discussed much outside the Army, but inside the service it has been the subject of debate for years. "No magic pill can erase the image of a best friend's shattered body or assuage the guilt from having traded duty with him that day," says Combat Stress Injury, a 2006 medical book edited by Charles Figley and William Nash that details how troops can be helped by such drugs. "Medication can, however, alleviate some debilitating and nearly intolerable symptoms of combat and operational stress injuries" and "help restore personnel to full functioning capacity."
Which means that any drug that keeps a soldier deployed and fighting also saves money on training and deploying replacements. But there is a downside: the number of soldiers requiring long-term mental-health services soars substantiating data to be provided in a subsequent article with repeated deployments and lengthy combat tours. If troops do not get sufficient time away from combat — both while in theater and during the "dwell time" at home before they go back to war — it's possible that antidepressants and sleeping aids will be used to stretch an already taut force even tighter. "This is what happens when you try to fight a long war with an army that wasn't designed for a long war," says Lawrence Korb, Pentagon personnel chief during the Reagan Administration. In fact, the Army was 'designed' (downsized) by Clinton.
Military families wonder about the change, according to Joyce Raezer of the private National Military Family Association. "Boy, it's really nice to have these drugs," she thinks she recalls a military doctor but I can't remember his name, or where he was stationed, saying, "so we can keep people deployed." And professionals have their doubts. "Are we trying to bandage up what is essentially an insufficient fighting force?" asks Dr. Frank Ochberg, a veteran psychiatrist and founding board member of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies.
Such questions have assumed greater urgency as more is revealed about the side effects of some mental-health medications. The question now is whether there is a link between the increased use of the drugs in the Iraqi and Afghan theaters and the rising suicide rate in those places. There have been 164 Army suicides in Afghanistan and Iraq from the wars' start through 2007, and the annual rate there is now double the service's 2001 rate.
At least 115 soldiers killed themselves last year, including 36 in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army said on May 29. 31% in the war zones? Clearly there's a link there, somewhere!
That's the highest toll since it started keeping such records in 1980. Nearly 40% of Army suicide victims in 2006 and 2007 took psychotropic drugs — overwhelmingly, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) like Prozac and Zoloft. While the Army cites failed relationships as the primary cause, some outside experts sense a link between suicides and prescription-drug use — though there is also no way of knowing how many suicide attempts the antidepressants may have prevented by improving a soldier's spirits. So they have no way to measure the upside, but lots of worries about the downside."The high percentage of U.S. soldiers attempting suicide after taking SSRIs should raise serious concerns," says Dr. Joseph Glenmullen, who teaches psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. "And there's no question in my Harvard-indoctrinated mind they're using them to prop people up in difficult circumstances."
An expert on the radio this morning was worried, he said, about the troops being overloaded by the continuous recycling back into the front lines...
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/09/2008 05:55 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
12% of combat troops in Iraq and 17% of those in Afghanistan are taking prescription antidepressants or sleeping pills
Only 12 to 17%? The percentage in the general population is larger. Maybe the soldiers cope too well.
#2
It sounds like BS. However, after WW2 Medics reported that they would have liked to dose troops with tranquillizers, on rare occasions. America has never had a doped up army, and never will.
#3
Beer and hookers is the tradition remedy. Too bad the leadership is prissy to allow it.
Posted by: ed ||
06/09/2008 9:20 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I blame all the school teachers who jacked up the young boys with Ritalin back in elementary school. It undermined their adaptation skills to the environment they now face. Oh wait, that over prescription of the drugging of America is OK, never mind.
#5
The Israeli army is now regularly giving marijuana to soldiers with PTSD, and they believe that it works as well or better than prescription drugs, it is non-addictive, and has no significant withdrawl.
#7
This is much more a statement about the medical profession and the general culture than it is about the military. We overmedicate and undermoralize.
#8
It's a pharmaceutical conspiracy, battling for EXPENSIVE Rx $ to be had with the increased health care benefits for vets. I agree the military needs the benefit package, but these antidepressants have withdrawal symptoms, keeping people on them for years without doing the intensive therapy necessary to resolve the problems, often on the government tab. Still its better than the heroin many use to self-medicate, only to fund the Taliban and other narco-terrorists.
#10
about 12% of combat troops in Iraq and 17% of those in Afghanistan are taking prescription antidepressants or sleeping pills to help them cope
Numbers are useful tools but you always have to ask yourself "what does this mean?" We have already been through the scary military suicide numbers which, wonder of wonders, are less than their comparable civilian cohort.
Another trick to watch out for is making comparisons in different units. Like this:
In 2004 doctors wrote 147 million prescriptions for antidepressants
Is that more or less than 12-17 percent? You would need an actuarial table and a calculator to convert that to a percentage, but I'd bet a box of donuts it is greater than the military statistic they quoted. Note also that is only anti-depressants and does not include sleeping pills like the mil stat does.
#13
One is forced to conclude the answer is to significantly upsize the Armed Forces -- that way the fighting troops will get more time between deployments to recover. How brilliantly the Time journalist presented his case! ;-)
#14
I wonder are they including taking Modafinil as an anti-depressent/ sleep tablet?
Modafinil is an ideal combat aid. i.e. More awake, more alert, longer.
Exercise tends to help with depression, so I think these numbers are misleading.
p.s. I know what I'm talking about as I've found a medication (Escitalopram) that with exercise stops my mood-symptom depression. Hopefully Modafinil will help with the tiredness problems.
The decision last week by a federal judge to overturn convictions on the most serious charges against three officials of a defunct Muslim charity has been met with sharply different reactions. There is dismay by those who believe, contrary to U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IVÂ’s declaration in court, that the court should support the governmentÂ’s policies, especially a foreign policy designed to thwart terrorism. And there is elation among civil libertarians who see the courtsÂ’ role as stopping a government that is willing to prosecute Muslims even for perceived crimes when it believes they are aiding the countryÂ’s enemies.
Judge Saylor, who normally sits in federal court in Worcester, overturned a jury verdict that convicted a Shrewsbury man and two former Worcester men on a charge of conspiracy from 1993 to 2003. The conspiracy charge was to defraud the Internal Revenue Service by concealing information to get tax-exempt status for Care International Inc., a Boston-based Muslim charity. The Justice Department charged that Muhamed Mubayyid of Shrewsbury, Emadeddin Z. Muntasser of Braintree and Samir Al-Monla of Brookline failed to tell the IRS that it supported Islamic holy war and fighters by publishing a pro-jihad newspaper and fundraising. It also alleged that the charity concealed that it was the successor and outgrowth of Al-Kifah Refugee Center, which had been tied in news accounts to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
Judge Saylor freed Mr. Al-Monla after acquitting him of the charges on which the jury convicted him and threw out all of the charges against Mr. Muntasser except for lying to an FBI agent in 2003. However, the judge upheld all charges except the conspiracy charge against Mr. Mubayyid. Those charges are concealing material facts from the IRS, impeding the IRS and three counts of filing a false tax return in 1997, 1999 and 2000.
(AKI) - By Syed Saleem Shahzad - The latest wave of violence in Pakistan is a strategic campaign by militants to destabilise the government, a former senior intelligence official said on Friday.
How can you tell the latest wave from previous waves? They all blend together...
Police seized three vehicles filled with more than 1,000 kilogrammes of explosives near the capital, Islamabad, on Thursday night and detained six people. The suspects were believed to have been planning a suicide bomb attack on the official residence of President Pervez Musharraf in Rawalpindi, the city just outside the capital. The arrests came just days after a car bomb attack on the Danish embassy, claimed to be carried out by Pakistani jihadis affiliated with al-Qaeda, that killed six people, all of them Pakistani.
"This new wave of violence has nothing to do with the lawyer's movement. This seems to be a different mood and strategy," said the former head of Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence counter intelligence, retired Major General Shujaat Ali Khan in an interview with Adnkronos International (AKI). "Militants used the violence before elections as well. It appears that they want to make a choking point in a specific situation. They have selected Rawalpindi and Islamabad."
The latest threats from militants emerged at a time as Pakistan conceded to demands for the release of militants. On Thursday, the Pakistani government released 64 militants arrested during a military operation in the Swat Valley.
According to political analysts, the violence suddenly flared up after former Prime Minister and party leader, Nawaz Sharif, called for Musharraf to be accountable for his so-called "crimes" including what is known as the Lal Masjid Massacre, or the Red Mosque Massacre. The Red Mosque Massacre was a bloody conflict between Pakistani security forces and students who barricaded themselves inside the Red Mosque and demanded Sharia law in July 2007. At least 100 people died when security forces stormed the mosque in a bid to end the siege and flush out pro-Taliban militants from the complex.
Retired general Jamshed Gulzar Kiyani then demanded Musharraf's execution for using chemical weapons (phosphorous grenades) during the Lal Masjid operation and supporting the Bush Administration in its War on Terror.
The new wave of terror and political uncertainty sent the Karachi Stock Exchange plunging and the Pakistani rupee slumped to one of its lowest levels against the US dollar.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/09/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) on Sunday issued pamphlets to local journalists that cautioned the government to stick to their peace agreement. The pamphlet, singed by Commander Nazir of the TTP, was sent to local journalists and stated that if the government violated the treaty, the Taliban could open new fronts against the government. It said that the government should not consider them weak, as the TTP was an organised power that could not be thwarted easily. The pamphlet warned the government against fighting AmericaÂ’s war on terror in Pakistan, as its ramifications could be dangerous.
Govt not serious about talks: TTP Leader says group to continue crackdown on anti-social elements
GHALANAI: The government is not serious in its talks with Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Commander Umar Khalid, leader of the militant group in Mohmand Agency, said on Sunday.
“The government is delaying the release of our prisoners, although it is negotiating with the TTP at local as well as the central level,” Khalid told reporters in the Mian Mandi Gandhab area of the agency. “There are around 150 Taliban in government custody, while 70-80 government employees are under the Taliban’s detention,” he said.
Khalid said eight government employees were in Taliban custody in the Mohmand Agency, adding that the group was demanding the release of three Taliban prisoners in exchange for the government employees.
Anti-social elements: The TTP leader said the group would continue acting against anti-social elements in the Mohmand Agency. “We will soon take action against criminals in the Parang tehsil.”
Khalid said government employees were free to do their duty in the area. However, he asked female government employees to go to work in purdah (veil) according to Shariah law.
He also denied claiming responsibility for a rocket attack, which occurred in Ghalani this week, alleging that those who did not support talks between the government and Taliban were behind the attack.
Khalid said the TTP would not allow any non-government organisation (NGO) into the region because “they spread vulgarity and obscenity”.
Regarding semi-government agencies, he said such organisations would be investigated to ensure they were not spreading NGOsÂ’ missions in the area, adding that the TTP would continue to wage jihad, regardless of whether it reaches a peace deal with the government or not. staff report
Posted by: Fred ||
06/09/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
WASHINGTON — The leader of the tribal confederation that has fought to expel Al Qaeda from most of Iraq's Anbar province is offering his men to help gin up a rebellion against Osama bin Laden's organization along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
In an interview, Sheik Ahmad al-Rishawi told The New York Sun that in April he prepared a 47-page study on Afghanistan and its tribes for the deputy chief of mission at the American embassy in Kabul, Christopher Dell. When asked if he would send military advisers to Afghanistan to assist American troops fighting there, he said: "I have no problem with this; if they ask me, I will do it."
The success of the Anbari tribal rebellion known as the awakening spurred Multinational Forces Iraq to try to emulate the model throughout Iraq, including with the predominately Shiite tribes in the south of the country. Today, the tribe-based militias formed to protect Anbaris from Al Qaeda are forming a political alliance poised to unseat the confessional Sunni parties currently in parliament in the provincial elections scheduled for the fall and the federal ones scheduled for 2009.
During his nomination hearing for taking over the regional military post known as Central Command, General David Petraeus said one of the first things he would do would be to travel to Pakistan to discuss the current strategy of the government in dealing with Al Qaeda's safe haven in the Pashtun border provinces. A possible strategy for defeating Al Qaeda would be an effort there along the lines of the Anbar awakening to win over the tribes that offer Osama bin Laden's group protection and safe haven.
"Al Qaeda is an ideology," Sheik Ahmad said. "We can defeat them inside Iraq and we can defeat them in any country." The tribal leader arrived in Washington last week. All of his meetings, including an audience with President Bush, have been closed to the public, in part because the Anbari sheiks, while likely to win future electoral contests, are not themselves part of Iraq's elected government.
Of his meeting with Mr. Bush, Sheik Ahmad said he was impressed. "He is a brave man. He is also a wise man. He is taking care of the country's future, the United States' future. He is also taking care of the Iraqi people, the ordinary people in Iraq. He wants to accomplish success in Iraq."
When Sheik Ahmad's brother, Sheik Sattar, met with Mr. Bush in Anbar last fall, he told the president that he dedicated his victory over Al Qaeda to the victims of the attacks of September 11, 2001. On September 13, 2007, Sheik Sattar was assassinated by an improvised explosive device. Since then, his brother Sheik Ahmad has led the awakening movement.
Sheik Ahmad said he wanted Hollywood to make a movie about the life story of his brother, who was so revered after his murder that Iraq's interior minister dedicated a statue to him on the road from Baghdad to Anbar.
In his home province in Iraq, Sheik Ahmad's public addresses are preceded by two bugle players and an announcer proclaiming him as the "conqueror of Al Qaeda," and "friend of General Petraeus," among other formal titles. In Washington, however, he and his entourage stayed at the Hilton Hotel and were driven to meetings in a small bus. When this reporter first met him he was carrying a dog-eared paperback copy of Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack."
In Washington, Sheik Ahmad also met with some members of Congress. He said he told them that American soldiers should stay in Iraq for at least as long as it takes to rebuild Iraq's national army. The Democratic majority in Congress has tried and failed to mandate deadlines for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground.
"We have to rebuild a national Iraqi army, not built on sects, but the same way they built up the Anbar police," he said. "They must be well-armed, so they will be able to protect the country and all the American interests in the area. We also have to make a friendship treaty based on mutual respect between the two parties, and then the United States will be able to withdraw from Iraq, if they wish, and we will succeed in Iraq the same way America succeeded in Japan and Germany."
The Anbari sheik offered no comment on the details of the current negotiations on the American troop presence in Iraq between Prime Minister al-Maliki and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, saying he was not involved in the negotiations. But he also said he favored such a status-of-forces agreement. "With a diplomatic understanding we will be able to solve all the problems. We fully trust the Americans. We know the United States never in its history occupied a country. On the contrary, they were occupied and they were able to fight the occupier," he said, referring to the American rebellion against the British in 1776.
The sheik said he was leaving for Chicago in part to meet with agriculture experts in the hopes of learning new farming techniques for Western Iraq. He said he would like to meet Senator Obama though he has not asked for a meeting. He also said he would like to meet Mr. Obama's rival for the 2008 presidential election, Senator McCain.
"I would love to see both of them, McCain and Obama," the sheik said. "I have not asked though. If there is a possibility or opportunity I would love to see them. I know that both parties are really busy with the election now. That is why I have not asked for this."
#1
"We know the United States never in its history occupied a country."
Sheik Ahmad is more knowledgeable about US history than America's limousine liberals and the bumper-stickered-Volvo crowd put together.
Posted by: Grenter Protector of the Geats4975 ||
06/09/2008 12:53 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"We know the United States never in its history occupied a country."
Actually, we have. We occupied the Philippines from 1899 through 1946, and Puerto Rico (not necessarily a "country") since 1899. The difference is that we let both countries decide for themselves whether they wanted to continue to be a part of the United States, or independent. One chose independence, the other chose continued commonwealth status.
The United States also has incorporated into its territories Guam (1899), the Danish West Indies (US Virgin islands, 1917), Hawaii (1898), American Samoa (1918), and a few other small parcels here and there. The big thing is that we do not conquer and enslave territories, but assume control of them until their inhabitants can decide for themselves whether they want to continue the role (i.e., the Trust Territories of the Pacific, taken over from Japan after WWII, and granted considerable autonomy in 1986).
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
06/09/2008 15:08 Comments ||
Top||
Iran pledged on Sunday to help establish security in Iraq and visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki vowed his country would not be used to harm Iran.
Some Iraqi officials and the United States have accused Iran of trying to destabilise Iraq by financing, training and equipping Iraqi militias.
Iran blames the instability on the presence of US troops in Iraq.
During Al Maliki's three-day visit to the Islamic state, Iranian officials have insisted Tehran supports peace and security in the neighbouring country.
"Iran will always be on the side of the popular government of Iraq," the state news agency IRNA quoted First Vice-President Parviz Davoudi as saying in talks with Maliki on Sunday.
"Helping the establishment of security in Iraq has always been one of Iran's main policies."
The student news agency ISNA quoted Al Maliki as saying in Tehran: "Iraq's territory cannot be used by any country for harming Iran's security."
An Iraqi spokesman said last week Al Maliki wanted to discuss evidence of Iranian intervention in Iraq and the two countries' overall relationship.
Disagreements between Iraqi and US delegations over issues relating to "sovereignty" in a draft strategic agreement organizing relations between the two countries disrupted the negotiations between the two sides. A prominent Iraqi official said that Iraq is discussing "alternatives" to the agreement, including "staying under UN protection." UN Protection is about as effective as a screen door on a submarine.
Official Spokesman for the Iraqi Government Ali al-Dirtbag al-Dabbagh said, "Currently, there is open talk on the need to look for alternatives to the long-term security agreement between Iraq and the United States."
Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat by phone from his office in Baghdad, Al-Dabbagh said, "At its meeting today [3 June], the Council of Ministers discussed the objections to the provisions of the agreement. There should be agreement between two fully sovereign countries respecting the Iraqi people's rights and sovereignty or no agreement at all." He emphasized, "We do not need an agreement that compromises our sovereignty and harms our people's rights."
Al-Dabbagh said, "The Iraqi Government's vision differs from that of the Americans who think that the agreement will give them almost totally a free hand in Iraq and that, as a military force, they must have absolute powers. This stand contravenes Iraqi sovereignty and our people's rights. No Iraqi political force or party would accept this. The issue of the country's sovereignty and people's rights cannot be compromised at all. It is not subject to discussion or even mere talk." He added, "The agreement must respect Iraq and the Iraqis or there should be no agreement. We are not compelled to sign the agreement or submit to it. The agreement must respect our sovereignty and rights." The official spokesman for the Iraqi Government said, "Currently, there is open talk on the need to look for alternatives, if no plan is agreed upon. These alternatives include signing a cooperation agreement instead of a long-term security agreement and staying under the United Nations protection to protect Iraqi funds, in addition to many other alternatives that are under discussion. "Al-Dabbagh denied that the negotiations between Iraq and the US Administration on the agreement have been suspended. He explained, "The negotiators went back to their higher political authorities for consultation. We do not consider the negotiations as having been suspended. Iraq has not submitted and will not submit to any pressure or influence. As a matter of fact, the Americans did not press for accepting the agreement." Earlier, a leader of the Al-Da'wah Party announced that negotiations between the two sides came to an end.
Negotiations have been held between the United States and Iraq to reach agreement on the "status of the forces" with the aim of imparting a legal status to the presence of the US Army in Iraq after the 31st of December when a mandate under an international resolution organizing the presence of these forces in Iraq expires. The French News Agency quoted MP Abbas al-Bayyati who represents the ruling coalition assaying, "There are three points that need further discussions. They are the right to detain, the right to enter and exit, and the extent of the immunity granted to US soldiers and security contractors." He added that there are questions about "the fight against terrorism and whether the US forces will enjoy an absolute right to detain people or whether the Iraqi side will have a larger role."
The Political Council of the Iraqi National Security that consists of senior officials and political groups recommended that there is a need to continue the negotiations with the United States in order to reach an agreement that will "satisfy the Iraqi people and not harm their interests." Al-Bayyatiadds, "The other issues have to do with the forces' entry and exit. The entry and exit of the forces must be regulated by a clear mechanism, such as imposing entry visas and designating entry and exit points and airports." He continues, "As for the immunity, there is a question as to whether a [US] soldier or an employee of a security firm who commits a crime will stand trial at Iraqi courts or whether the immunity will be limited to the performance of duty."
On the other side, however, the Iraqi demands seem to be absolutely contrary to what the Americans are seeking. A source familiar with the draft agreement says, "The Americans demand to control the airspace, enjoy open facilities on land and at sea, have the right to arrest and imprison any Iraqi who they believe poses a threat, and carry out military operations against terrorism without consulting Baghdad." The source who refused to give his name adds, "The Iraqis demand that they be considered a sovereign government. Also, they assert that the Americans must not be granted facilities without their approval. They want the status of the American bases that will be established to be reviewed as is the case in Turkey." The source says, "The Baghdad government insists that US forces do not move from their temporary bases without its approval and knowledge. Also, it insists that the movement of the US Army funds be subject to the Central Bank and that a written approval by the Iraqi Government be secured for any military operation." The same source adds, "The Iraqis reject the arrest of any Iraqi without their consent. Also, they demand that the US forces be given limited corridors in the Iraqi airspace and that US soldiers' legal immunity be limited to military operations, on the condition that such operations be carried out after securing Baghdad's approval."
In response to Al-Dabbagh's statements that agreement between the two sides might not be reached, Mirembe Natango, spokeswoman for the US Embassy in Baghdad, said, "These are negotiations conducted between two sovereign countries that work together." In a statement to Asharq Al-Awsat, Natango added that the talk about disagreements or failure to reach agreement is premature. She explained, "No final agreement has been reached on any issue to date, and it is premature to say that agreement has been reached." Natango pointed out that negotiations are continuing between Iraqi and US officials at various levels. She said, "Several drafts are currently exchanged between the two sides, and no final draft has been formulated."
#1
These alternatives include signing a cooperation agreement instead of a long-term security agreement and staying under the United Nations protection to protect Iraqi funds,... Also, it insists that the movement of the US Army funds be subject to the Central Bank and that a written approval by the Iraqi Government be secured for any military operation."
The crux of the "sovereignty" issue is who controls the money pot, and the UN has its fist clenched. Guess the US military will have to pry it out of their cold, dead hand!
#4
Iraq's Iran friendly mob rulers want US subsidized body guards. And they want this in a US election year, where the public ahors waste. Not starter.
(VOI)-A renowned Iraqi Shiite cleric on Sunday warned that a popular uprising may erupt if Iraq signs the long-term agreement with the U.S . The proposed security agreement would cover the status of U.S troops in Iraq, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity for security contractors after United Nations resolution governing U.S forces in Iraq expires in December.
Speaking to reporters and clerics in Karbala, grand ayatollah Mohammed Taqqi al-Mudaressi said “the proposed security agreement between Iraq and the U.S lacks the overall and in-depth vision of Iraq’s general affairs”. The cleric expected “the agreement would fail if the details of the deal remained as they are in the current draft”, adding “ signing the agreement came while Iraq is deprived of sovereignty under chapter seven of (the Security Council charter). He branded the agreement as “ a sort of US blackmailimg and a sword strangling Iraqis”.
“Infringing Iraq’s sovereignty would not be in the U.S interests as a superpower because the agreement humiliates people’s dignity, pushing them to uprise and to start a new cycle of violence”, he pointed out.
Iraq's independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. Iraq has been considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. Influential Shiite clerics in Iraq and neighbouring Iran oppose the deal and have called it a move against their religion. They have vowed to stage protests to force the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to roll back the deal which is expected to be concluded by the end of July.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/09/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
However, as soon as the rumors of secret al-Sistani fatwahs against the SOFA arose, informants began directing Iraqi troops to arm caches. Someone is war weary. That is not to say that we have no cause for concern. Open war would really hurt Senator McCain.
#5
What did our leaders expect? Did they actually think their little experiment in regime change and democracy would change 1400 years of muslim indoctrination to kill, conquer and enslave the infidels? Did they expect anything but disdain, hate and spittle from those who are raised from birth to believe the kufr are worth less than barn animals, suitable only for extortion, slavery or the harem?
Churchill had it right when he said muslims are either at your feet or at your throat. Better their throats be under our feet than our throats under their knives.
Posted by: ed ||
06/09/2008 9:09 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I do think that we should sweeten the deal by encouraging the Iraqis to *use* their military outside of Iraq.
That is, Iraq is uniquely situated and populated to provide military services throughout the Middle East, to other Muslim nations.
For example, they are the one force that could deploy to Lebanon to keep Hezbollah under control, as they wouldn't threaten the local Shiites, Sunnis or even the Christians and Jews.
I'm sure that there are lots of other situations where the Iraqis could work as both a US and UN proxy military, to great honor for Iraq.
#7
You have to read these kinds of articles with a Arab hyperbole filter. Some people don't like the idea of US bases, but its the same on any issue in a democracy. If the government has the numbers in parliament then its a done deal.
#8
Damn! The SOFA negotiations are leading to US recognition of an Iraq veto over US policy on Iran, and US troops would be confined to barracks, unless Maliki ordered their assistance. Juan Cole's leftist opinions are crap, but he posts verbatim material from the US government's Open Source Center, which outline the SOFA farce. On the weekend, Maliki was in Teheran promising that Iraq wouldn't be used as a staging post against Iran.
I hope this sinks in with Senator McCain: religious based democracy, is dictatorship by other means.
Four thousand US troops died for something in Iraq; was it for a burgeoning Iran-Iraq super state, subsidized by US tax payers? And Der Spiegel is quoting Afghan President Karzai praising Taleban for their morality. Americans will eventually add this all up.
#9
Souk-style negotiations. They don't really want Coalition troops to leave -- that's all that's keeping them safe from the rampaging Medes and Persians, and they know it. Remember, we're still in South Korea, Germany, Japan, and a great many other places -- by continued invitation -- despite all the posturing by politicians and even student riots. Let the Iraqi politicians say what they must in public to satisfy their amour propre, then in private conclude the negotiation with a continuation of the status quo.
McZoid, Der Spiegel lies. I'd look for a second, third and fourth source to confirm anything they say with regard to the U.S.
Anonymoose, I don't like the idea of sending Iraqi troops abroad. For one thing, they will be busy enough cleaning up the mess at home for the next several years. For another, sending them off as a mercenary force will spark the idea back home of sending them off at the behest of the government. Saddam Hussein's little adventure in Kuwait was the execution of a common Iraqi (and elsewhere) idea of natural borders, which leads to all kinds of pernicious nonsense. Let them fight only defensive wars, but win those decisively... if that idea could filter out into the Muslim Middle East, the entire world would be safer, and our own entirely too busy troops would be able to take a bit of a break.
#11
Mohammed Taqqi al-Mudaressi lived for many years (34 years to be exact) in Iran and only came back to Iraq in 2003 in a convoy to Karbala. I would say that he is more loyal to Iran than Sistani is and he would be the one Iran would possibly attempt to leverage as "their guy" in Iraq. I would expect to see a power struggle at some point between him and Sistani.
US military personnel in Iraq briefly detained Islamic Action Organization spiritual leader Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Taqi al-Mudarissi and Secretary-General Ibrahim al-Mutairi on 22 April 2003. Al-Mudarissi, who had lived in Iran for 32 years, and his companions were in a four-vehicle convoy that was heading for Karbala. Grand Ayatollah Almodarresi was detained while on his way to his native city of Karbala by a checkpoint in an area under the control of coalition forces. Grand Ayatollah Almodarresi was taken to an undisclosed location along with his companions who included a number of prominent Iraqi scholars such as Ayatollah Sayed Ezzideen Mohammadi Alshirazi who is the grandson of the supreme Shia religious leader the late Ayatollah Sayed Mirza Hasan Alshirazi, as well as Sayed Allamah Ibrahim Shobbar, Sayed Radhawi, Dr. Ibrahim Moteri who is the secretary general of the Islamic Action Organization In Iraq, Mr. Mohammad Alsadeq, Ayatollah Hussein al-Rabadi, and Ibrahim Shubbar along with a group of other men totaling 60 people.
The above from globalsecurity.org
I am not familiar with the politics of the Islamic Action Organization but it would not surprise me to find some alignment with Iran since that is where most of its leadership lived for a good part of their adult life.
#12
Tater Tot was supposed to be Hezb'allah in Iraq for the Iranians - instead, he was shown to be impotent. This new group is the Hez in Iraq Mark II : the Iranians' bully boys that have not been stomped on YET.
#13
What I can't know but would love to get a sense for is if the local shiites see people like this cleric to be something of Shiite carpet-baggers who have shown up only recently after Saddam was knocked out.
But Iran is apparently paying people good money ($300 a month?) to support their guys. That is going to get harder to do as the Iraqi economy takes off.
(VOI) – A total of 3,000 displaced families have returned to their homes in Falluja, one year after the end of military operations conducted by Iraqi security forces and Sahwa (Awakening) councils in Anbar province, Falluja police commander revealed on Sunday. In a Baghdad-based joint press conference with the head of Falluja Judiciary Council and Falluja mayor, the city's police chief, Colonel Faisal Ismail Hussein said: "3,000 families, which had been displaced from Falluja when the city was under al-Qaeda organization's control, returned home. The military operations conducted by Iraqi police forces and the Sahwa councils in Anbar province have succeeded."
"I call on the government to increase the number of police forces in the city," Hussein said, noting "there are only 2,488 policemen in this big city."
Posted by: Fred ||
06/09/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Iraq
Part of a bigger debka article that needs lots of salt. This part is interesting
DEBKAfile’s military sources in the Gulf report that Iran, in contrast, is deep in preparations to sustain an attack and hit back. The all Qods commander Gen. Qassem Soleimani, they say, has been appointed to spearhead counter-action against the US and Israel, and Tehran has poured huge military and financial resources into the Brigades’ resources for retaliating against a strike against its nuclear installations.
These sources describe the general as a quiet talker but well capable of managing all al Qods’ various assets across the Middle East for reprisals against their sponsor’s enemies. Gen. Soleimani has been given sole command of this operation. Detached from the regular Revolutionary Guards Corps hierarchy, he defers directly to supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. So secretive are his activities that funding comes in cash from Khamenei’s bureau. Therefore, Gulf sources say, Soleimani’s tactics and targeting will take the enemy completely by surprise.
#4
I don't think it's ever a good idea to underestimate your enemy.
Especially when it won't play ball.
I'm not a military analyst, not even a military buff, but it wouldn't surprize me if iran had military capacity in the range of a western european country in the mid 80's (though I could severely overestimate them, but they do seem to have an arm race of their own, all ridicule apart from their blustering).
Also, I don't think they're deluded about their capacities, and they would try to use their strenghts against perceived weaknesses from the Us side.
I doubt they'd try to go toe-to-toe, they've probably been busily preparing themselves to respond "asymetrically". I don't know how efficient this would be, but yes, it would be foolish to wallow in hubris and think the US armed forces are invicible (even an iranian defeat on the ground where they can inflict casualties by lobbing missilesat Us troops, or shipping naval assets through ruskie/chicom tech, or reviving the "quagmire" meme in iraq and torpedo McCain, would be a victory), and that iranians haven't other means of responding (attacks on Us soil, Us interests).
I'm not saying they're undefeatable, not at all, but the Us military certainly take their capacities seriously enough to think about how countering/neutralizing them, bloogers should do the same IMHO. They've got money, they've got brains, they've got ressources.
#5
Non-military guy here so if this is really stupid just say so.
Question: It seems to me from all that I've been reading and seeing about the ME and asymetrical warfare, that an effective response would be to "chop the head off the snake".
If Gen. Salami and his Mullah Mentors ceased to be would the mostly untouched remainder of the force be willing and able to continue? Same question vis a vis Hesbis and Paleos (and Norks and Hugoistas)
We don't do mass causalty attacks like WWII anymore and it seems dumb to try patty cake measures against the dumb grunts and civvies. What's that gonna get you? But, if you take out the dictators and tyrants..............
#7
The fundamental problem remains that the typical Iranian on the street wants nuclear weapons.
Therefore, it would be a very good idea for the US to prepare asymmetrical warfare as well. Specifically to show them that nuclear weapons are not going to grant their wishes like a genie.
Optimally, the typical Iranian should become deeply afraid of nuclear anything. How this comes about is best left to the experts.
#9
Look at the map and tell me how you supply American forces in Irak. You know ammo and such tnings.
From ports in Israel, Lebanon, and Syria, JFM, shortly after Iran tries to close the Straits of Hormuz. That is, if someone with at least average intelligence and common sense was in charge. There are at least eight ports that could be used: Haifa, Tyre, Sidon, Beirut, Tarablus, Tartus, Latakia, and Baniyas. It would take about three weeks to destroy the Syrians and Lebanese, and another month or two to construct roads and rail lines connecting the Med with Baghdad and points south.
The problem is the lack of adequate troops and leadership to actually DO something instead of wringing hands. It might also take resorting to weapons of mass destruction, such as nuking Damascus (not really necessary to the supply of US military forces in Iraq), Bandar Abbas (the focal point of Iran's Persian Gulf strategy), and Qom (the "spiritual leadership" of Iran). We may need to slap Turkey a time or two, and hold a BIG stick over Russia's head (they practically own the port of Latakia). Still, it's doable, and would solve several problems at one time.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
06/09/2008 15:37 Comments ||
Top||
#10
But, if you take out the dictators and tyrants..............
Like we did with Saddam? It's a nice idea but the execution is a bit more difficult, especially when your paranoid enemy expects you to try. Not saying we shouldn't try, but we shouldn't depend on it working.
#12
Iran's asymetric response will be in the Gulf and Straits of Hormuz, reducing the flow of oil.
BTW, I think part of the US intention in trying to solve the Paleo issue is to get a land corridor across Israel and Jordan to Iraq. Syria would be better after regime change of course. This would reduce shipping times in both directions and remove the Strait of Hormuz risk.
IMO, the "real trap" lies in the likely NUCLEARIZATION includ STRATEGIC WEAPONIZATION of IRAN + RADICAL ISLAMISM 2008-2012, versus Barack's "DIVERSITY", etc agendums. IN THE "GREAT GAME" OF GEOPOLITICS, BOTH EAST AND WEST ARE EXPECTED TO USE THE ISLAMIST THREAT AS A HEDGE AGZ THE OTHER - AT THIS TIME, HOWEVER, DESIRE TO SAVE THEIR JIHAD + POTEN NUCLEARIZATIN > THE ISLAMISTS ARE POINTING SQUARELY/MOSTLY AT THE WEAKER EAST = RUSSIA, CHINA, CENASIA + PERIPHERALS, NOTSOMUCH THE US-WEST AS PER THE STRUGGLING INSURGENCY IN IRAQ-AFGHANISTAN.
Worse to worse, IMO the Mullahs in Tehran will consider the Paleos = Muslim brothers
"expendable" vv precluding or destroying Israel = IDF via "WAR OF THE SCUDS/MISSLES" [nuclearized]before Israel can destroy Iran. Unlike for geographically larger + more populous IRAN, even a LIMITED NUCLEAR WAR agz IRAN may prove nationally catastrophic for powerful but tiny Israel.
#14
OTOH, "Take the [Israeli] enemy] completely by surprise" > NET Posters = Wel-l-l, there's always WAR OF THE LAWYERS e.g. Copyright, UN World Court, etc.
Saudi King Abdullah and Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas on Sunday agreed that the Arab League should oversee truce talks between Fatah and Hamas, a Palestinian diplomat said. "The two sides agreed that all inter-Palestinian dialogue should take place under the supervision of the Arab League," Palestinian representative to Riyadh Jamal Shobaki told AFP.
Because nothing sez "competence" like the Arab League...
King Abdullah and Fatah leader Abbas also discussed the status of US-backed peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians during Sunday's meeting in the Red Sea city of Jeddah, Shobaki added.
Abbas last week called for dialogue with Hamas, which ousted his loyalists from Gaza in June last year, breaking with his previous policy of rejecting any opening until the Islamists cede control of the territory. Hamas responded favourably to Abbas's overture, raising hopes of reconciliation between the two sides although prospects of a peace deal with Israel before the end of the year look increasingly unlikely.
Saudi Arabia brokered an agreement between Fatah and Hamas in early 2007 that led to the formation of a Palestinian unity government but unbridled tensions between the two sides led to fierce fighting which resulted in the Gaza takeover only months later.
Abbas was late Sunday to travel to Cairo for talks on Monday with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Shobaki said. The meeting will focus on Palestinian seething anger over Israeli settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank, particularly annexed Arab east Jerusalem, and Abbas is expected to outline progress of his latest talks with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the official Egyptian MENA news agency said.
The Arab League oversaw a deal struck on May 21 in the Qatari capital of Doha between rival Lebanese politicians, ending an 18-month crisis that erupted into street battles which killed 65 people.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/09/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
Talks between Fatah and Hamas in the Senegalese capital Dakar this weekend had restored "an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect" between the Palestinian factions, a statement signed by both sides said on Sunday.
Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade, chairman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, offered his services in March as a mediator between the two parties, which clashed a year ago when Islamist Hamas militants ousted power from Fatah in the Gaza Strip in bloody coup.
A statement following the talks, which began on Friday, said Senegal would resume contact with both sides to organise future meetings with the aim of "reconciling the Palestinian family".
"The Palestinian representatives ... thank the mediator for managing to restore an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect, which allowed them to discuss the fundamental interests of the Palestinian people," said the communique signed by Hikmat Zeid for Fatah, Emad Khalid Alamy for Hamas and Senegal's Foreign Minister Cheikh Tidiane Gadio.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/09/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
(Xinhua) -- An armed wing of the Hamas movement on Sunday said it deals seriously with Israel's threats of invading the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. "All the necessary measures to face this possibility were taken," said Abu Obaida, a spokesman for Ezz el-Deen al-Qassam Brigades of Hamas.
The armed wing believes that "the military operation against Gaza has become imminent and so the Palestinian resistance has completed its preparations," he said, adding that the offensive may include "air strikes on Hamas targets and limited incursions on the ground." However, he ruled out the invasion of the whole Strip.
On Thursday, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Israel is likely to launch act against Palestinian militant groups in the Gaza Strip before ceasefire agreement can be reached. Hamas believes the threats are a result of pressure on the Israeli government by extremist settlers and in preparation for possible elections in Israel, given its Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's criminal probe.
If the offensive starts, Hamas will not accept a ceasefire with Israel, the spokesman said, referring to an Egyptian-brokered lull between the two sides. Israel imposed a closure on the Gaza Strip and stepped up attacks after Hamas seized control of the territories a year ago.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/09/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
#1
I do wish the US would "lend" Israel a wing of B-52s for 36 hours - just long enough to make one massive ARCLIGHT strike, north to south, over Gaza. I doubt we'd hear another peep out of Hamass, and Abbas would quake so hard he'd be picked up on a seismograph as a minor earthquake.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
06/09/2008 15:40 Comments ||
Top||
Members of a moderate Muslim sect were ordered by the government Monday to return to mainstream Islam or face possible imprisonment for insulting the country's predominant religion.
The vast majority of Indonesia's Muslims are moderate, but in recent years an extremist fringe has grown louder. The government, which relies on the support of Islamic parties in Parliament, has been accused of caving in to their demands.
The document signed Monday by two Cabinet ministers and the attorney general "orders all Ahmadiyah followers to stop their activities" or face up to five years in prison.
Indonesia's constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but many in the nation of 235 million consider it offensive that the sect does not recognize Muhammad as the last prophet.
(AKI) - The largest Muslim rebel group in the Philippines issued a warning on Friday threatening fresh violence against the government if peacekeepers withdraw from the south of the country.
People might take them more seriously if they had a different acronym
The rebels from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) said that war would be inevitable if the mandate of the International Monitoring Team was not extended.
Since 2004, the IMT has been monitoring a ceasefire in the southern region of Mindanao and its troops have helped create a climate for peace negotiations between the government and the MILF. The mandate for the peacekeepers expires on 31 August.
The warning was given by Mohagher Iqbal, the leader of the MILF committee in-charge of negotiating with the government. In a message published on Friday on the MILF website, Iqbal said that unless the IMT's mandate was renewed, its soldiers would go home, and the ceasefire would collapse due to "shattered trust and confidence" between the MILF and the government.
The IMT was responsible for reducing the number of clashes between the military and Muslim rebels from 700 in 2002 to less than a dozen last year. The peacekeeping force was originally composed of 41 soldiers from Malaysia, 10 from Brunei, two Libyan diplomats and a Japanese official.
However the first serious blow to the IMT came when Malaysia withdrew half its contingent last month with the other half due to leave by September. Malaysia made the decision to withdraw after the lack of progess in the peace talks.
Iqbal said that the MILF will not restart talks with Manila just to renew the mandate of the IMT. "If we do restart the talks, we will have to concentrate on the agreements of the ancestral territories," he said referring to the area covering Mindanao and the archipelago of Sulu.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/09/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Moro Islamic Liberation Front
#1
Muslims always seem to "demand". Maybe they need to learn to ask, instead. I'm not sure what it will take, but it needs to be done - soon.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
06/09/2008 15:45 Comments ||
Top||
#2
NEW PEOPLE's ARMY > seems they recently captured circa 14 guns and burned down an army detanchment area.
MP Boutros Harb criticized Hezbollah seizure of was Beirut and its attack against the Druze of Mount Lebanon saying Hezbollah has committed a historic mistake .
"Hezbollah has committed a historic mistake when it resorted to the use of weapons against the Lebanese people to protect its arms."
"Hezbollah has committed a historic mistake when it resorted to the use of weapons against the Lebanese people to protect its arms ." Harb told Voice of Lebanon. Harb added: "That was a departure from Hezbollah claims that its arms were for resistance purposes only and will never be used against the Lebanese people."
Harb said : "What is needed today is tending to the wounds, and I call on Sayyed Nasrallah , Speaker Nabih Berri and their allies in the opposition to work towards tending to the wounds. " Harb said the "Doha accord saved Lebanon from the brink of an explosion. But the Doha accord suffered a setback as a result of the security problems in Beirut " Harb was referring to the attacks by Hezbollah and Amal gunmen against the residents of West Beirut in the Tareek el jadeedah and Cornich el Mazraa, that prompted Parliament majority leader and head of the Future movement MP Saad Hariri to suspend all talks regarding the formation of the government
Harb emphasized that "the Lebanese system is built around consensus " and criticized the right of veto given to the opposition in the new government stressing that the Hezbollah led-opposition did not want the veto power to participate in the government decisions as a partner , but to block the decisions that do not favor the opposition and its allies.
This article starring:
Boutros Harb
Nabih Berri
Saad Hariri
Posted by: Fred ||
06/09/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
The move coincided with a call by Mustaqbal Movement leader Saad Hariri to his partisans to return to their apartments and businesses that they deserted since a Hezbollah assault on West Beirut on May 8. However, a security source said no such return has been observed.
Army and police patrols toured contested areas of West Beirut Sunday in an effort to defuse tension that had dominated the city and hampered efforts to form a new Lebanon cabinet. Helmeted troops manning armored personnel carriers were seen at key intersections in the districts of Ras al-Nabaa, Tareek el Jedeedeh, and Aisha Bakkar that had been the theater for clashes between Hezbollah-led elements and partisans of the Mustaqbal Movement. The security dragnet is to include the Corniche Mazraa and Mar Elias commercial thoroughfare as well as other residential districts of west Beirut, in line with a plan adopted by the Central Security Council.
The move coincided with a call by Mustaqbal Movement leader Saad Hariri to his partisans to return to their apartments and businesses that they deserted since a Hezbollah assault on West Beirut on May 8. However, a security source said no such return has been observed.
A senior security source told Naharnet that displaced families are apparently waiting for the new cabinet to be formed and for the security plan to be applied prior to returning to their homes. "They are adopting a wait and see attitude. They want to make sure the security plan is being effectively applied. The more confident they are, the more they would start returning to their homes and businesses," said the source who asked not to be identified.
Meanwhile, the Higher Sharia Islamic Council, in a statement, asked Hezbollah to apologize for having used weapons against Lebanese citizens. The apology, as outlined by the highest Sunni spiritual authority, is the necessary condition set by the community for accepting a national reconciliation in line with the Doha Accord.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/09/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
Former MP Tamam Salam joined other Lebanese leaders in expressing his disappointment in the last televised speech of Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah " I expected a gesture from Nasrallah to heal the wounds of Beirut but unfortunately it did not happen " Salam told 'Voice of Lebanon.
Salam criticized Hezbollah leader for " intimidating" the residents of Beirut and for boasting of another victory during his last speech. When I suggested to someone at Hezbollah that Nasrallah should have an initiative towards the residents of Beirut , he said: " Do you want us to apologize to Saad Hariri" Salam said.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/09/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
According to a report by the German newspaper Die Welt the Syrian military intelligence chief Shawkat attempted to seize power by force in February, but was arrested after Hezbollah military commander Imad Mughniyah informed Assad of the plot
An attempt to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad's government was thwarted without the international community's ever having noticed, Die Welt reported yesterday, citing international German intelligence sources. The report stated that Assef Shawkat, Syrian military intelligence chief and Assad's brother-in-law, planned to seize control of the government while the president was hosting a meeting of the Arab League in Damascus in February. Shawkat was detained along with a hundred other Syrian intelligence officers.
According to Die Welt the killing of Mughniyah had been planned by Shawkat's associates, as retaliation for the disclosure of the planned rebellion.
Two months ago former Syrian vice president Abdel Halim Khaddam told a Lebanese news network that Assad had decided to take advantage of Mughniyah's death in order to dismiss Shawkat and to appoint his nephew Hafez Makhlouf in his stead.
According to Khaddam, the reason for Shawkat's dismissal was that the latter, after having been chosen to lead the investigation following Mughniyah's murder, proved that the explosion that caused the Hezbollah leader's death had taken place inside the car, and that the killers had come from Syria.
According to Khaddam, the reason for Shawkat's dismissal was that the latter, after having been chosen to lead the investigation following Mughniyah's murder, proved that the explosion that caused the Hezbollah leader's death had taken place inside the car, and that the killers had come from Syria. This version contradicted the one that Assad had ordered published, according to which Mughniyah was killed by the explosion of a gas tank in his car.
Claims of Syrian intelligence officers' involvement in Mughniyah's death have been voiced recently. The Lebanese paper Al-Shiraa claimed that Syrian intelligence had broken into the homes of two of its officers on March 29, and killed them with shots to the head. The paper claimed the officers had been murdered due to their involvement in the targeted killing.
Saudi Arabia's Okaz newspaper reported on February 24 that Mughniyah's widow, who is Iranian was extremely angered by the murder of her husband and blamed it on "treason and treachery" without expanding what she meant and whom she had in mind as the traitors .
Mughniyeh's widow requested immediate departure from Syria to either Lebanon or Iran , but the Iranian embassy decided to take her to Tehran away from the Lebanese media. After reaching Tehran Mughniyah's widow, accused the Syrian regime of involvement in the murder. She said "This is why the Syrian regime has refused the help of Iran and Hezbollah in the investigation of the murder."
The General Secretariat of the Damascus Declaration also accused the Syrian regime on March 17 of involvement in the assassination of Mughniyah . A statement issued by the Damascus Declaration headed by former MP Maamun al-Homsi stated: "It is our duty to expose the crimes of the Syrian regime and specifically the killing of Imad Mughniyah and the deception that accompanied this crime."
Posted by: Fred ||
06/09/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
#1
Seems that Imad Mughniyah didn't die soon enough. Pity.
President Michel Suleiman on Sunday paid a "non-political" visit to Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir at the Maronite Church's seat in Bkirki and announced that forming the new cabinet is not facing difficulties.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/09/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
Lebanese President Michel Suleiman held a meeting Saturday with Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, at the Baabda Palace after French president Nicolas Sarkozy left the palace. No details were revealed to the media about the meeting.
The French president had stressed in a speech at the Beirut airport French solidarity with Lebanon and the Lebanese people. He said he came to congratulate President Michel Suleiman on his election as President of Lebanon, and reaffirmed France's support for him. He added that the election of President Suleiman meant hope for all the Lebanese people without exception. Sarkozy praised the efforts made by Qatar and the Arab League and France to resolve the political crisis and to achieve national reconciliation in Lebanon. He called on the Lebanese leaders to translate their commitments to Lebanon through dialogue.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/09/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
Democratic gathering leader MP Walid Jumblatt expressed his objection to the visit of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad to Lebanon in light of the current division among the Lebanese "If this visit is inevitable, let President Michel Suleiman meet Assad at the Lebanese-Syrian border, just as happened when the late Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser met with the late Lebanese President Fouad Chehab in 1958. This will be the first step toward Syria's recognition of Lebanon," Jumblatt told the Euronews Television.
He also renewed his accusations against the Syrian regime for the political assassinations in Lebanon, "for they only targeted those who objected to the extension of the term of former President Emil Lahoud, and those that demanded the independence of Lebanon and correcting our relations with Syria."
Jumblatt was asked if the assassinations will continue : Re responded "Everything is possible."
Jumblatt warned against any delay in the establishment of the Special Tribunal to try the killers of former PM Rafik Hariri . "Any delay in this regard means that the UN or another party is seeking a deal with the Syrian regime at the expense of Hariri ."
He also noted the lack of unified vision within the European Union over Lebanon and the Middle East. Jumblatt criticized president Sarkozy's invitation to the Syrian president to participate in the celebrations in the French National Day on July 14 during the meeting of the Heads of the Mediterranean countries. He said Assad's presence during such an occasion is an insult to the French people."
Posted by: Fred ||
06/09/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
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.
LGF reports that the Obama webiste had an article posted to it by an independent diarist calling him/her/itself "Socialists for Obama" entitled "
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez urged Colombian rebels on Sunday to lay down their weapons, unilaterally free dozens of hostages and put an end to a decades-long armed struggle against Colombia's government.
For every solder killed or physically wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan, some 10 others come home psychically scarred. The Pentagon has diagnosed roughly 40,000 troops with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) since 2003, and tens of thousands of others are dealing with it on their own or ultimately will be diagnosed. With the war taking such a heavy psychological toll, some inside the military are starting to ask if men and women who become mentally injured in the service of their country deserve the Purple Heart. To some traditionalists, the idea is absurd on its face, but it is not a theoretical debate - the Pentagon is now weighing a change in policy that would make PTSD, in a term only the military could invent, a "qualifying wound" for the medal.
The suggestion has garnered high-level Pentagon attention. "It's an interesting idea," Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently noted. "I think it is clearly something that needs to be looked at." The Defense Department's awards advisory group, which previously ruled that PTSD doesn't merit a Purple Heart, is now studying the issue again. 
For the first time in history, a sizable and growing number 
(AKI) - By Syed Saleem Shahzad - The latest wave of violence in Pakistan is a strategic campaign by militants to destabilise the government, a former senior intelligence official said on Friday.
Iran pledged on Sunday to help establish security in Iraq and visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki vowed his country would not be used to harm Iran.
Disagreements between Iraqi and US delegations over issues relating to "sovereignty" in a draft strategic agreement organizing relations between the two countries disrupted the negotiations between the two sides. A prominent Iraqi official said that Iraq is discussing "alternatives" to the agreement, including "staying under UN protection." 
