Posted by: john ||
08/10/2005 17:29 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sheesh! Gen'l Beg musta been paid by the word for this schlock. He's got a mighty bright outlook for someone from PakiWakiLand writing about a US - India joint defense agreement. I thought he was bitching, at first, but nope, not really. Why, he's got silver linings, rosy outlooks, and trite DU-style memery to burn! PakiWakiLand is so bold and enlightened and pragmatic and geopolitically strategic that it's simply breathtaking! Who'da thunk it?
*golf clap*
Now ease off on the meds, Gen'l, they're probably addictive.
The Nation... john, I'm worried about you! Spend too much time there and you'll see them go blind! Fascinatingly weird post, Thx!
By Daniel Pipes Excerpt:
But I forecast a very different outcome. Given that some 80 percent of Palestinians continue to reject Israelâs very existence, signs of Israeli weakness, such as the forthcoming Gaza withdrawal, will instead inspire heightened Palestinian irredentism. Absorbing their new gift without gratitude, Palestinians will focus on those territories Israelis have not evacuated. (This is what happened after Israeli forces fled Lebanon.) The retreat will inspire not comity but a new rejectionist exhilaration, a greater frenzy of anti-Zionist anger, and a surge in anti-Israel violence.
Palestinians themselves are openly saying as much. Ahmed al-Bahar, a top Hamas figure in Gaza, says that âIsrael has never been in such a state of retreat and weakness as it is today following more than four years of the intifada. Hamasâ heroic attacks exposed the weakness and volatility of the impotent Zionist security establishment. The withdrawal marks the end of the Zionist dream and is a sign of the moral and psychological decline of the Jewish state. We believe that the resistance is the only way to pressure the Jews.â
Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, says likewise that the withdrawal is âdue to the Palestinian resistance operationsâŠand we will continue our resistance.â
Others are more specific. At a mass rally in Gaza City last Thursday, some 10,000 Palestinians danced, sang, and chanted, âToday Gaza, tomorrow Jerusalem.â Jamal Abu Samhadaneh, commander of Gazaâs Popular Resistance Committees, announced on Sunday, âWe will move our cells to the West Bankâ and warned that âThe withdrawal will not be complete without the West Bank and Jerusalem.â The Palestinian Authorityâs Ahmed Qurei also asserts, âOur march will stop only in Jerusalem.â
Posted by: ed ||
08/10/2005 01:59 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sliced salami approach to the dismemberment of Eretz Israel.
#2
There's no surprises here. I may well be proved wrong - but I think that Israel is better off finishing the castle walls and moving inside where they can better control who comes and goes and be free to lob missles at anyone who shoots arrows at them. Besides, I think the Paleos will soon be really busy killing each other and may actually begin looking to their Arab neighbors to get some of their land back. It's like The Club - make it a little difficult and the thiefs will often move on to the next car.
But I may very well be proved wrong. At least they are doing something to see if they can make it work, which IMHO is a better option than just maintaining the unmaintainable status quo. Besides, with the settlers gone, they can always take back the land, raze it, and make a nice buffer zone, if that's what they really need.
#3
oh..and btw PR - your analogy of Mexifornia (yesterday) is absurd. A better analogy would be if we gave back a bit of farming land out by El Centro (that's populated by only 8,000) and in exchange for that got secure wall to restrict the free flow of illegal immigrants that cross our border specifically to blow up discos and busses. It seems a fair exchange to me.
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/10/2005 8:40 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Dont forget that the Palistinians also lose any 'alledged justification' for their acts (at least for the Euros and the left). The next bombing should be viewed more for what it really is deliberate and intentional murder of innocents.
Not that it actually will by the left who will make up any 'justification' for the murders.
I don't think my analogy is absurd and I am not alone. I don't understand your mindset. You are willing to give up U.S. land (El Centro) to build a wall. The difference between my thinking and your thinking is that, I will build a wall alright, I will build it on the BORDER. I will give up nothing and reward no one, for breaking the INS laws. I will make no deals with illegals.
In the case of Israel, they should never reward terrorism. There is no denying that Israel is moving the settlers under constant rocket barrage. Even if I agree on the pullout, which I won't, I would set a mandate. The mandate states that not one rocket lands in settler land for at least two years. Being the pigs that they are, they can't even stop launching a rocket for two days much less two years. Hamas and PLF, have already coregraphed their victory parade.
Your mindset states that, once the settlers leave, the Pali's are going to destroy each other. I am saying that is, absurd thinking. We may have the popcorn bowl on our lap, but we will never get to enjoy one popped kernel. Hell, I've waiting to enjoy some popcorn concerning Judea, Samaria, and Golan but, as predicted, my popcorn is stale now and lost its flavor.
I don't know if this is true, but I have been getting some emails that says that Sharon has purposely denied IDF protection, for several months now in the settler area, in order to "motivate" the settlers to move out. If it is true, this is one despicable man.
The simple truth is that, as long as Israel exists, the PLF and Hamas are not going to destroy each other. We will not be able to enjoy mutual destruction until Israel disappears and no one at RB wants that.
#7
The problem, PR, is that Israel cannot take the steps necessary to annex Gaza. They really have only have one option.
That is to build the fence / wall around what they consider Israel to be, and ethnically cleanse the area of "Palestinians".
The only way they could keep Gaza (or sections of the West Bank) was to formally annex the land and kick out anyone who didn't like it.
Once they have established their borders, any incursion, either human or ordnance, is a casus belli and they can respond appropriately.
A better analogy would be the US relation to Peurto Rico. Imagine that the vast majority of PRs wanted nothing to do with the US. But, the settlers from NY or FLA or Kansas wanted to stay.
The US should say fine stay, but, PR is no longer a part of the US. Never really was, never will be.
Have fun, and don't forget to write.
There is one minor glitch to your viewpoint. The U.S. didn't tell the settlers from NY or FLA or Kansas to move to Puerto Rico and the U.S. will take care of you (militarily & financially) even, under the threat of terrorism. If the settlers from NY, FLA, Kansas, move to Puerto Rico under their own cognizance without gov't knowledge or approval, then I can maybe understand your point. As a Christian, I can't Biblically, compare the Israeli land situation with other land, such U.S. or British land. Every other land situation is different from a Biblical point of view.
Yes, the previous administrations of Israel promised the settlers protection and funding and told them to move to Gush Katif. Now, all of a sudden a new administration comes along wants to destroy the promise/agreement. This is wrong.
#9
I don't buy any historical or biblical arguments about who should own what cause there's no way to know when to stop.
Re Israel encouraging the settlers it doesn't change any facts on the ground. Fine they were told they could go, they went, the gov't now says oops my bad; come on back. This goes directly to my point, the only option for Israel was to say this land (all of Gaza, some of Gaza, whatever) is ours; all you Paleolithians go back to Egypt and Jordan, etc. AKA ethnic cleansing.
Re: the analogy, you can push any analogy to the breaking point, but, if you don't think that the US govt has encouraged mainlanders to set up in PR you haven't been paying attention. The economics of the situation greatly encourage business to move in, and that means people.
What do you think will happen if the PRs voted for independence instead of the status quo? Do you think that the US would still protect people that wanted to stay there? At best we'd evacuate them from a hostile crowd.
Since the July 7 bombings in London, Pakistan's military ruler, President Pervez Musharraf, has again come under severe international pressure to clamp down on local extremist groups linked to Al Qaeda, bring extremist religious schools under control and stop the Taliban from using Pakistan as a base for attacks in Afghanistan. As a result, serious cracks are developing in the 35-year alliance between Pakistan's army, its intelligence services and Islamic fundamentalist parties.
Musharraf has parried international criticism of Pakistan by accusing Prime Minister Tony Blair of allowing Islamic extremism to flourish in Britain, but since July 7 he has arrested 800 militants and is expelling 1,400 foreign students studying in the religious schools, or madrasas.
For decades, Islamic fundamentalist parties in Pakistan have provided manpower and ideological support for the military intelligence services' forays in Afghanistan and Indian Kashmir. Under outside pressure, however, the inherent contradictions in this relationship are coming to the fore.
In an unprecedented broadside on Sunday, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the head of an alliance of six Islamic fundamentalist parties and leader of the opposition in the National Assembly, accused the army of helping militants to attack Afghanistan, supporting "jihadi" training camps in Pakistan and deceiving the West in its commitment to combat terrorism. ''We will have to openly tell the world whether we want to support jihadis or crack down on them - we cannot afford to be hypocritical any more," he said.
For nearly two decades, Maulana Rehman has been one of the strongest Islamic leaders in the country. He heads Jamiat-e-Ullema Islam, or JUI, the most powerful fundamentalist party in the Pashtun tribal belt bordering Afghanistan. Since the 2002 elections, the JUI has dominated the provincial governments of North West Frontier Province and Baluchistan. Working closely with the intelligence services the JUI has spawned numerous virulently anti-Western, violence-prone extremist groups who now work for Al Qaeda. In the 1990s, the JUI helped the army provide arms and manpower to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States, JUI mullahs have allowed Taliban leaders to recruit Afghan and Pakistani students from JUI-run madrasas.
Now there are severe tensions between the army and the JUI. Under considerable American pressure to explain the Taliban resurgence, Lieutenant General Safdar Hussain, the Corps Commander in Peshawar, said on July 25 that the Taliban "are getting public support in Pakistan, especially from some Pakistani religious parties." He was clearly pointing the finger at the JUI and Maulana Rehman was furious.
On Aug. 1, Maulana was detained in Dubai International Airport while on his way home from Libya and promptly deported, with officials in the United Arab Emirates hinting that he was on a terrorist list. Maulana Rehman accused the Pakistan government of not doing enough to save him from humiliation.
Musharraf's declaration that he would send home foreign students was seen as another attack on the JUI, who control the largest number of madrasas. Rehman and other leaders from his six-party alliance mounted a tirade against Musharraf and have threatened to start a campaign to unseat the government. The fundamentalist leaders don't like Musharraf's liberal stance and are determined to protect their parties and institutions. But they are also furious with the army for trying to make them a scapegoat for all of Pakistan's ills, when they have only been a junior partner to the army's own past policies that have encouraged Islamic extremism to flourish.
Rehman is now defying the army by declaring that it bears responsibility for the fruits of its past policies, and that it should not seek to parry American pressure by blaming Pakistan's Islamic parties. At one level, such statements are part of the kind of political wheeling and dealing that can be expected before local council elections later this month and general elections scheduled for 2007, when Musharraf wants to get himself elected as president. The fundamentalist parties feel threatened because they know that Musharraf may be trying to reduce their influence. But the danger is that Rehman and others could divulge more details of the intelligence services' links, which might diminish the military's credibility at home and abroad.
Musharraf is in a difficult position. Since Sept. 11 he has successfully ridden two horses, placating the West with promises of reform and crackdowns on extremists while pandering to the Islamic parties in order to retain their support. But now that Pakistan's political system is in danger of slowly unraveling as he loses support across the political spectrum, Musharraf could fall off altogether.
(Ahmed Rashid is the author of ''Taliban'' and, most recently, ''Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia.'')
Posted by: john ||
08/10/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Has push finally come to shove?
Since 9/11 there has been lots of slop the Perv could clean up that would appease us and not piss off the Mullahs too much. Now, the issues left are the real ones.
He's cleaned up all that gorilla poop so all that's left is dealing with the 800 lb. beast itself.
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.
Since the July 7 bombings in London, Pakistan's military ruler, President Pervez Musharraf, has again come under severe international pressure to clamp down on local extremist groups linked to Al Qaeda, bring extremist religious schools under control and stop the Taliban from using Pakistan as a base for attacks in Afghanistan. As a result, serious cracks are developing in the 35-year alliance between Pakistan's army, its intelligence services and Islamic fundamentalist parties.
