A circle defining international energy security is now being drawn. The artist is Russia, which is steadily pulling into this circle all the resource-rich corporate states around the globe. These countries have a profound political affinity for one another and a simultaneous collective disdain, and even a hatred, for US-led unipolar dominance. The multinational oil companies of the West are being marginalized as a direct result.
More...
#1
It's hard to take Thomas Barnett's pipe-dream of a world divided between "Core" and "Fringe" seriously when most of his "New Core" is working to relegate the US to the Undeveloped Fringe.
#2
Saudi Arabia, for example, continues its "Look East" policy of diversifying its markets away from the US
Hard to take an article seriously when it has something like this in it.
1. According to EIA figures, Saudi Arabia accounts for 15% of our imports.
2. Also from the EIA, we account for 14% of Saudi's exports (roughly 1.5 million barrels/day out of 11 million b/d produced).
Obviously, 15% of your total business is important, but the notion that all these countries are working together to freeze us out of the oil market is absurd.
#3
It is a fact that Russia is working to secure Iran' dependence on its nuclear and other technology. Iran still imports most of its refined oil products from Saudi Arabia. Without refinery dependence, Iran would become the dominant regional power. One more reason why we have no choice but to destroy the Ayatollah dictatorship. The Russian gamble has to fail.
Ah, the summer of 1944. I remember it well. The French countryside was alive with the sounds of birds and turning coats. Flowering baskets and collaborators hung from every lamp post. And a beautiful young woman named Lilli Marlene bade a tearful farewell to her beloved Otto, and prepared to welcome her beloved Hank, just as her mother had a generation before.
I wrote that two years ago, to mark this occasion, the anniversary of the Liberation of Paris. The French have spun a myth over the generations of how General LeClerc and the forces of Free France entered the city in triumph. The facts are somewhat different and show that the French owe that event to the Fourth Infantry Division of the United States Army and to the Spanish expats of the French Second Armored Division.
When commanded by officers with skills and backbone, the French soldier can fight as well as any. They are demonstrating that in Afghanistan today. In the Second World War, that type of officer was less prevalent and far too many French soldiers died because of it. The Resistance, equally covered with myths, spent as much time fighting among its various political flavors as it did fighting the Boche.
"The 4th [division] bivouacked 12 miles south of the city as Germans retreated hastily across the Seine River. The 22nd set out in pursuit. That evening, 2nd French Armd. met strong opposition between Versailles and Paris. At midnight, the 12th was ordered to move into the city.
EARLY Aug. 25, while the 8th and 22nd crossed the Seine, the 12th advanced north on Boulevard dOrleans, ready to take on all comers. For once, doughs found the job nearly accomplished before they arrived. [The} Third Bn. reached Notre Dame Cathedral at high noon, first Allied military unit to see the famous square for more than four years."
. . .
Moving to the north suburbs of Paris, the [4th] division cleared the city.
Maybe we should order the 4th division to clear those same suburbs again!
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
08/25/2006 11:48 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Nimble: there was a good article in MHQ several years ago entitled "The Myth of French Resistance." Like anything in MHQ, it was superb.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/25/2006 14:21 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Maybe we should order the 4th division to clear those same suburbs again!
Put our troops at risk for a thirdtime to rescue what has to be the most phenomenonal bunch of governmental ingrates ever assembled? I don't think so!
Rush in to confiscate France's nuclear arsenal just before they fall into Muslim hands? Yes. But not a minute sooner.
I've corrected the NYT Title. Original: Wanted: Scarier Intelligence Now you'd better sit down - the spin will leave you dizzy...
The last thing this country needs as it heads into this election season is another attempt to push the intelligence agencies to hype their conclusions about the threat from a Middle Eastern state. That there was a "first" one was disproven, but please, do carry on.
Thats what happened in 2002, when the administration engineered a deeply flawed document on Iraq that reshaped intelligence to fit President Bushs policy. And history appeared to be repeating itself this week, when the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, released a garishly illustrated and luridly written document that is ostensibly dedicated to helping the American people understand that Irans fundamentalist regime and its nuclear ambitions pose a strategic threat to the United States. They don't repeat the "16 words" meme, just allude to it. Another disproven lie from the Left. As for "garish" and "lurid", I detect jealousy. That is your gig, after all. You are, ostensibly, a news organization. That a nuclear Iran poses a threat, should be apparent even to you.
Its hard to imagine that Mr. Hoekstra believes there is someone left in this country who does not already know that. But the report obviously has different aims. It is partly a campaign document, a product of the Republican strategy of scaring Americans into allowing the G.O.P. to retain control of Congress this fall. It fits with the fearmongering weve heard lately like President Bushs attempt the other day to link the Iraq war to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. More alternate universe BS mixed with obvious good sense on the part of the Pubbies. BTW, Bush said no such thing. If he had, they would've cited when and where. I've seen each and every televised Bush speech and news conference. Didn't happen. Lying liars.
But even more worrisome, the report seems intended to signal the intelligence community that the Republican leadership wants scarier assessments that would justify a more confrontational approach to Tehran. It was not the work of any intelligence agency, or the full intelligence panel, or even the subcommittee that ostensibly drafted it. The Washington Post reported that it was written primarily by a former C.I.A. official known for his view that the assessments on Iran are not sufficiently dire. Pure speculation and hypocritical scare-mongering. They stand the real issue on its head: The President of the United States, wants to know the truth, not an amped-up or watered down pile of the usual half-assed political crap. You assholes want the politically-acceptable version for your political ends.
While the report contains no new information, it does dish up dire-sounding innuendo, mostly to leave the impression that Iran is developing nuclear weapons a lot faster than intelligence agencies have the guts to admit. It also tosses in a few conspiracy theories, like the unsupported assertion that Iran engineered the warfare between Israel and Hezbollah. And it complains that Americas spy agencies are too cautious, that they shy away from provocative conclusions. If it's full of the innuendo, they learned the art from you. As for Iran and Hezb, only tools like the NYT could doubt that Hezb acts at the command of its Masters in Iran. As masterful purveyors of conspiracy theories, once again you play the hypocrite's hand of charging your opponent with your own lies and schemes.
Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, put it even more bluntly in explaining some Republicans dissatisfaction with the C.I.A. reporting on Iran: The intelligence community is dedicated to predicting the least dangerous world possible. Oops, how did that inconvenient truth slip in? Gee, it sounds logical and honest.
All in all, this is a chilling reminder of what happened when intelligence analysts told Vice President Dick Cheney they could not prove that Iraq was building a nuclear weapon or had ties with Al Qaeda. He kept asking if they really meant it until the C.I.A. took the hint. Another favorite meme - Evil Cheney demanding the assessment be changed. Disproven and laughable, yet repetition is the key since most people are lazy shits.
Its obvious that Iran wants nuclear weapons, has lied about its program and views America as an enemy. We enthusiastically agree that the United States needs every scrap of intelligence it can get on Iran. But the reason American intelligence is not certain when Iran might have a nuclear bomb is because the situation is so murky not because the agencies are too wimpy to tell the scary truth. It's murky, alright, because the CIA and other agencies are full of asshole seditious agenda queens who conspire with NYT reporters in hopes of cashing in on the book and lecture circuit. Integrity has been largely jettisoned. A prudent persona should consider the real question: On which side of the wildly varying estimates should we err?
If the Republicans who control Congress really wanted a full-scale assessment on the state of Irans weapons programs, they would have asked for one, rather than producing this brochure. Since the MSM, such as yourselves, can't be trusted to report facts, they decided to publish themselves to make sure people know what they think without your spin and BS.
The nation cannot afford to pay the price again for politicians bending intelligence or bullying the intelligence agencies to suit their ideology. Actually, the nation can't afford to underestimate the threat, you morons. The intel is, most likely, incomplete - and only a bunch of Tranzi fuckwits would take your approach. The March of the Memes continues unabated. Die, NYT, die.
#1
Keep up the good work, Pinch! I'm proud of you and the staff!
Posted by: The Ghost of Walter Duranty ||
08/25/2006 9:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
WTF is wrong wqith these people. Hezbollah has long been known as Iran's proxie since 1982
Even the major networks since that time has said and it has never been disproven that Iran is Hezbollah's sugar tit.
It is incredible that anyone would try to press the contention that Iran being identified as a strategic threat as overblown.
Iran started the whole Islam thing during the Crater years, has not backed off of it even once and is now on the verge of a using nukes and has said that it will nuke Israeli and anyone who gets in its way.
NY Times is engaging in willful ignorance. And this is a dangerous path to take in the face of an armed and hostile enemy.
#4
This is a really queer editorial. (Love the in-line commentary - no question at all what Shung Phinetle2153 thinks!)
The writer says things like Irans fundamentalist regime and its nuclear ambitions pose a strategic threat to the United States. ...Its hard to imagine that Hoekstra believes there is someone left in this country who does not already know that. In other words, Iran is a strategic nuclear threat.
And then he says dire-sounding innuendo, mostly to leave the impression that Iran is developing nuclear weapons a lot faster than intelligence agencies have the guts to admit. But by definition anything the intelligence people are aware of is less than the reality; opening the files in Eastern Europe, and in Iraq post-invasion, demonstrated conclusively that the bad guys are much further along than suspected... but that the only way to be certain is to win the war so that the analysts have all the files to examine at their leisure. Spy agencies produce probabilities, not trial-usable proof.
The subtext here is that we all (including the writer) know that Iran has the ambition and enough of the stuff to be a real threat, but we absolutely mustn't do anything about it.
#5
And then he says dire-sounding innuendo, mostly to leave the impression that Iran is developing nuclear weapons a lot faster than intelligence agencies have the guts to admit.
Given the history of sanguine intel assesments versus scary reality, I think it's only proper for Hoekstra to have this attitude.
#6
First the shoddy analysis piece yesterday followed by this adolescent opinion piece today. Sheezus the NYT doesnt even pretend to be impartial anymore.
#4
TR - As in William Gibson's Neuromancer, IIRC. Wireheading was the human equivalent to the rat studies we've all heard about - probes are placed in the pleasure centers of the brain and the rat is offered the choice of zapping himself / herself into orgasmic oblivion by hitting lever A - or eating by hitting lever B. The majority starved themselves to death.
BOOK REVIEW
Deadly double game
The True Face of Jehadis: Inside Pakistan's Network of Terror by Amir Mir
Reviewed by Sreeram Chaulia
Pakistan's status as the frontline state for worldwide jihad is central to its governmental institutions and their absolute command over society. The role of the establishment in injecting religious fanaticism and hatred is a classic case of ideological
mobilization of society in the name of God. Journalist Amir Mir's new book uncovers the overt and covert roots of Pakistan's
descent into intolerance and terrorism and its deadly impact on South Asia and beyond.
In the Foreword, Khaled Ahmed of The Friday Times describes how the jihad in Kashmir had a deleterious effect on Pakistani society. Massive state-sponsored public indoctrination in favor of holy war against India produced "a society deeply influenced by the rhetoric of jihad". The denial mode and "fantasy for jihad" among ordinary Pakistanis today is the result of decades of brainwashing and deficit of objective information about terrorism.
After the Afghan war, Kashmir's "liberation" became the sole agenda of thousands of Pakistani terrorists. By 1995, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) collaborated with the Jamaat-e-Islami to raise a Taliban-type force of young Pakistani students to fight Indian forces in Kashmir. Since September 11, 2001, Islamabad has been "struggling hard to control the jihadi monster it created". (p 6) With the state's active connivance, Pakistani support structures continue to breed more jihadis. The leaders of Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM), Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT), Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HuM) and Hizb-ul-Mujahideen (HM) "enjoy full freedom of movement and speech despite an official ban". (p 8) Terrorist training camps flourish with renewed vigor on both the Indian and Afghan borders of the country.
The suicide bombers who tried to assassinate Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf in December 2003 belonged to JeM and Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HuJI). They colluded with Pakistani air force, army and military intelligence personnel, an indication that "jihadi tentacles have spread far and wide" and boomeranged on their own masters. (p 21) Since the soldiery hails from the ranks of the urban and rural poor, it is practically impossible for it not to be infected by the virus of Islamist bigotry being propagated by thousands of deeni madrassas (religious seminaries). Musharraf's half-hearted attempts to give the army a liberal outlook acceptable to the West barely ruffle the deeply ingrained zealotry that runs in its veins. Pro-jihad officers occupy the top echelons of the military, making a mockery of the so-called "purges" in favor of moderation.
The murder of journalist Daniel Pearl in Karachi in 2002 was masterminded by Sheikh Omar Saeed, a double agent of the ISI and JeM who was previously involved in terrorist attacks on high-profile targets in India. Musharraf himself admitted that Pearl had been "over-intrusive" in his investigations. Saeed had foreknowledge of the September 11 terrorist strikes and immediately informed Lieutenant-General Ehsanul Haq, then ISI director and corps commander for Peshawar. Saeed's capture spurred ISI higher-ups to intervene and obstruct his interrogation findings from being made public. Holding him in an isolated cell "helps Musharraf keep a key witness out of American, British and Indian hands". (p 43)
Since the end of 2003, JeM seems to have lost the favor of ISI because Washington is convinced of its links to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Abdul Jabbar, the former right-hand man of JeM chief Maulana Masood Azhar, was released by security agencies in 2004 to set him up in open conflict with his mentor. LeT founder Hafiz Muhammad Saeed is now in the good books of the establishment since he is "agreeable to waging a controlled jihad in Indian Kashmir whenever asked to do so". (p 66) The government cooperates fully with LeT fundraising, public rallies, recruitment and training. The terror outfit's sprawling 80-hectare headquarters in Muridke has been transformed into a "mini-Islamic state" where uninterrupted jihad is planned.
Hafiz Saeed's confidants are convinced that Musharraf will abandon neither terrorism nor the military option on Kashmir. The military regime is avoiding any action against LeT on the pretext that it has no links with Jamaat-ul-Dawa, the powerful political patron whose hand has been revealed in terror as far afield as Indonesia and Iraq. Mir notes that as LeT focuses on "global jihad outside Pakistan, it has a free hand to operate within the country". (p 72)
HuM's al-Qaeda connections are second to none. The naib ameer (commander) of the group, Muhammad Imran, announced openly in a courtroom that it was a brainchild of the Pakistani rangers and intelligence agencies. When HuM supremo Maulana Fazlur Rahman was taken into custody in 2002, Pakistan refused to oblige US demands for a debriefing. As soon as international pressure eased off, he was set free. Unlike Qari Saifullah Akhtar's HuJI, Rahman is still allowed to call the shots on jihadist foreign policy.
Notwithstanding splits and desertions in HM, its leader Syed Salahuddin remains fully in control because of the ISI's backing. At present, he operates from Rawalpindi with "instructions to wait and see". (p 91) He has received clearances from Jamaat-e-Islami to assume a new role as a politician in Indian Kashmir. The Jamaat's own cadres and office bearers are aiding al-Qaeda's surviving members and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hizb-e-Islami across Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Tableeghi Jamaat, supposedly a preaching organization, is clandestinely assisting jihadist forces with the blessings of Pakistan's elite bureaucracy, military, scientists and intelligence agencies. HuM, LeT and HuJI recruit through Tableegh in the guise of spreading Islamic theology. US intelligence believes that Tableegh is the fountainhead of the Pakistan-based jihad infrastructure.
Dawood Ibrahim, a billionaire gangster and Islamic extremist, lived with Pakistani government protection in Karachi for several years. Islamabad's claim that he is no longer around is discounted by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as "a face-saving exercise because it is in its interest not to give the don up". (p 109) Mir discloses that Ibrahim may have moved to Islamabad after the September 11 attacks.
On the monster of sectarian violence, Mir comments that "fundamentalist Islam remains at the heart of the Musharraf establishment's strategy of national political mobilization and consolidation" (p 114) The former head of the anti-Shi'ite Sipah-e-Sahiba (SSP), Maulana Azim Tariq, maintained a cozy working relationship with the ISI for more than a decade before being mysteriously killed in 2003. The SSP not only ran amok against minorities in Pakistan but also sent thousands of jihadis to fight in Indian Kashmir. The Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, a spinoff of the SSP with highly vicious killers, might be working as al-Qaeda's "Delta Force" in Karachi.
The surprise rise of the religious right in the 2002 elections in Pakistan was attributable to the encouragement of the Musharraf regime. The Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) has a special relationship with the military by sustaining the latter's Afghan and Kashmir policies. The MMA provides Islamabad an alibi to argue that it cannot moderate its policies in Kashmir to the degree that Washington desires.
The 10,000-odd deeni madrassas of Pakistan continue to churn out radical terrorists by the dozens every day. The government is unwilling to act against the madrassas for fear of unsettling its religious allies. The army sees in the large number of madrassa-trained jihadis a valuable asset for its proxy war against India. Mir asserts that "the Pakistani military dictator's priority has never been eradication of Islamic extremism". (p 147)
Sectarianism and virulence are not limited to madrassas alone. Public schools in Pakistan instruct students on jihad and martyrdom to construct "a national chauvinistic mindset". (p 152) Jihadist journalism committed to pan-Islamic discourses receives state subsidies and jihadist publications thrive on government advertisements. Thanks to this propaganda barrage, al-Qaeda enjoys in Pakistan a virtually bottomless pool of ad hoc members, donors and harborers, particularly in Karachi. Many within the Pakistani security apparatus bear direct responsibility for the resurgence of the Taliban, which masses in the Waziristan, Chaman and Kurram Agency areas to cause mayhem across the Afghan border and then retreat to the safety of Pakistani territory.
Mullah Omar himself is said to be hiding in the tribal areas close to Quetta. In April 2004, the Pakistani army made peace with Taliban commander Nek Mohammad in an amnesty agreement mediated by two MMA parliamentarians. Abdullah Mahsud, the most wanted commander of the Taliban in South Waziristan has a brother and four cousins in the Pakistani army. According to the US 9-11 Commission Report, Pakistan benefits from the Taliban-al-Qaeda relationship as Osama bin Laden's camps trained and equipped fighters for the insurgency in Kashmir. Mir remarks that the United States' "reluctance to act against Pakistan and make it pay a prohibitive price for helping jihadi terrorists encouraged the Musharraf regime to keep the jihadis alive and active". (p 186)
Al-Qaeda's Abu Zubaydah, captured in 2002, claimed that the late head of the Pakistani air force, Mushaf Ali Mir, had prior knowledge of the September 11 terrorist plot. Mir had allegedly struck a deal with al-Qaeda in 1996 to supply arms and offer protection, a pledge that was renewed in 1998 in the presence of Saudi intelligence boss Prince Turki. Mir's plane crashed in 2003 without explanation and it is speculated that the US forces carrying out anti-Taliban operations had shot it down near Kohat because of his links with al-Qaeda.
Investigations into the September 11 plot revealed that ISI's then-head, hardliner pro-Taliban Lieutenant-General Mahmood Ahmad, ordered Sheikh Omar Saeed to wire US$100,000 to Mohammad Atta, the chief hijacker. In October 2001, Musharraf forced Ahmad into retirement after the FBI displayed credible evidence of his involvement in the terror attacks and knowledge that he was playing a "double game". So frustrated was the FBI with the calculated blockading of counter-terrorist operations by the ISI that it formed its own secret Spider Group of former Pakistani army and intelligence operatives to monitor fundamentalist activities through the length and breadth of Pakistan.
For all of Musharraf's denials, his government "clearly seems guilty of exporting terror to different parts of the world". (p 257) British and Indian intelligence have nailed down proof of the ISI's jihadist mafia imprint in several terrorist attacks of the past two years. The "real problem is sympathy for Islamic extremism in Pakistan's military and intelligence establishments". (p 261)
Banned Islamic charities such as Al-Rashid Trust, Al-Akhtar Trust and Ummah Tameer-e-Nau took full advantage of the October 2005 earthquake in Pakistani Kashmir and resumed their so-called welfare activities, with deadly consequences. Confident about their future as covers for jihadist funding and nuclear trading, they freely admit that "despite the US action, the Pakistani government has not imposed any restriction on our working". (p 275) Musharraf does not want to hack at his own feet and deny himself the force multipliers from jihadist ranks by genuinely ending their stranglehold over Pakistan's resources.
The evidence compiled by Mir in this book throws light on the real reasons Musharraf manages to stay in power in spite of ostensibly reversing Pakistan's Taliban and Kashmir policies after September 11, 2001. But for his great "double game" of cooperation with the US and simultaneous obstructionism to help jihadis, a political typhoon would have long swept him out of the top seat.
The True Face of Jehadis: Inside Pakistan's Network of Terror by Amir Mir. Roli Books, New Delhi, 2006. ISBN: 81-7436-430-7. Price: US$8.75, 310 pages.
Posted by: john ||
08/25/2006 16:48 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Al-Qaeda's Abu Zubaydah, captured in 2002, claimed that the late head of the Pakistani air force, Mushaf Ali Mir, had prior knowledge of the September 11 terrorist plot. Mir had allegedly struck a deal with al-Qaeda in 1996 to supply arms and offer protection, a pledge that was renewed in 1998 in the presence of Saudi intelligence boss Prince Turki. Mir's plane crashed in 2003 without explanation and it is speculated that the US forces carrying out anti-Taliban operations had shot it down near Kohat because of his links with al-Qaeda.
Investigations into the September 11 plot revealed that ISI's then-head, hardliner pro-Taliban Lieutenant-General Mahmood Ahmad, ordered Sheikh Omar Saeed to wire US$100,000 to Mohammad Atta, the chief hijacker. In October 2001, Musharraf forced Ahmad into retirement after the FBI displayed credible evidence of his involvement in the terror attacks and knowledge that he was playing a "double game". So frustrated was the FBI with the calculated blockading of counter-terrorist operations by the ISI that it formed its own secret Spider Group of former Pakistani army and intelligence operatives to monitor fundamentalist activities through the length and breadth of Pakistan.
Posted by: john ||
08/25/2006 17:00 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Amir Mir, the former editor of Weekly Independent and a reputed investigative journalist of Pakistan, started his career in 1988 with Tthe Frontier Post, Lahore. In his journalistic career spanning over 17 years, he has worked with scores of the quality newspaper organisations in Pakistan as well as abroad: The News, The Nation, The Friday Times, Newsline, Gulf News, Arab News, Straits Times, Inter Press Service, Indian Weekly Outlook and India Abroad. Having a Masters degree in Political Science from the University of the Punjab, Lahore, Amir Mir is presently working with the Monthly Herald of the Dawn Group of Newspapers as Senior Assistant Editor.
Posted by: john ||
08/25/2006 17:04 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Very interesting review (I had forgotten about the Spider group, and I'm very confused about the pakistani terror outfits beyond their names).
I hope intelligence-savvy types here will take note and add this to their reading list.
#4
I'm very confused about the pakistani terror outfits beyond their names
Rule of thumb -- they're all violent, all Islamic, and all connected to the ISI.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/25/2006 18:13 Comments ||
Top||
#5
All run with ISI money. Without transfers from the Pak treasury they would not exist.
From the Pakistani magazine "The Herald" - Cover story - "The Waiting Game"
Inquiries made by the Herald reveal that although major jihadi organisations have various sources of funds, official funding traditionally made up the bulk of their financial inflows.
Knowledgeable sources confide that until recently, small organisations such as the Tehrik-e-Mujahideen, al-Fatah, al-Jihad, al-Barq, Tehrik-e-Jihad, Islamic Front and Harkat Jihad Islami were receiving between 4,00,000 to 7,00, 000 Pakistani rupees a month whereas larger organisations such as HM, LT, JM, ABM and others received more money, ranging between two to three million Pakistani rupees. This was in addition to funds that paid for the logistics, communication equipment, weapons, explosives, food and trekking kits for the thousands of militants, guides and porters who infiltrated into India every year.
According to insiders, the official funds were largely used by the recipient outfits to meet the expenses of offices, vehicles, camps and manpower. The cessation of these funds has jeopardised the entire infrastructure. The smaller organisations are the worst hit by this decision. Even major groups such as the HM, LT and JM cannot sustain themselves without government support beyond a year, says a Muzaffarabad-based observer.
As regards operations inside Indian Kashmir, militant commanders say they have arms and ammunition in the region that may last for two years. If our pipelines remain dry, the freedom movement in Kashmir will grind to a halt by 2008, adds one Muzaffarabad-based commander.
Posted by: john ||
08/25/2006 19:03 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The 10,000-odd deeni madrassas of Pakistan continue to churn out radical terrorists by the dozens every day.
Nothing that 10,000 JDAMs can't fix.
Mir had allegedly struck a deal with al-Qaeda in 1996 to supply arms and offer protection, a pledge that was renewed in 1998 in the presence of [then] Saudi intelligence boss Prince Turki.
I hope you all remember Prince Turki, the (now) newly-appointed Saudi ambassador to the United States. Here's some background from a March 2003 edition of the Guardian that I post here from time to time:
Turki is not what he seems. Behind him lies a murky tale of espionage, terrorism and torture. For, while Turki has many powerful friends among Britain's elite, he is no ordinary diplomat. Turki has now been served with legal papers by lawyers acting for relatives of the victims of 11 September.
They accuse him of funding and supporting Osama bin Laden. The Observer can also reveal that Turki has now admitted for the first time that Saudi interrogators have tortured six British citizens arrested in Saudi Arabia and accused of carrying out a bombing campaign.
The revelations throw a stark light on Turki's appointment late last year as Saudi Arabia's new ambassador to Britain. They also cast doubt on the suitability of Charles's relationship with senior Saudis. A year ago Charles had dinner with bin Laden's brother, Bakr bin Laden, and regularly hosted meetings for Turki's predecessor, Dr Ghazi Algosaibi, who was recalled after writing poems praising suicide bombers.
[snip]
Now, after papers were served on Turki several weeks ago, the Saudi ambassador will be at the heart of it. Legal papers in the case obtained by The Observer make it clear that the allegations are serious and lengthy. Many centre around Turki's role as head of the Saudi intelligence agency. He held the post for 25 years before being replaced in 2001 just before the attacks on New York.
Turki admits to meeting bin Laden four or five times in the 1980s, when the Saudi-born terrorist was being supported by the West in Afghanistan. Turki also admits meeting Taliban leader Mullah Omar in 1998. He says he was seeking to extradite bin Laden at the request of the United States.
However, the legal papers tell a different story. Based on sworn testimony from a Taliban intelligence chief called Mullah Kakshar, they allege that Turki had two meetings in 1998 with al-Qaeda. They say that Turki helped seal a deal whereby al-Qaeda would not attack Saudi targets. In return, Saudi Arabia would make no demands for extradition or the closure of bin Laden's network of training camps. Turki also promised financial assistance to Mullah Omar. A few weeks after the meetings, 400 new pick-up vehicles arrived in Kandahar, the papers say.
Kakshar's statement also says that Turki arranged for donations to be made directly to al-Qaeda and bin Laden by a group of wealthy Saudi businessmen. 'Mullah Kakshar's sworn statement implicates Prince Turki as the facilitator of these money transfers in support of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and international terrorism,' the papers said.
Turki's link to one of al-Qaeda's top money- launderers, Mohammed Zouaydi, who lived in Saudi Arabia from 1996 to 2001, is also exposed. Zouaydi acted as the accountant for the Faisal branch of the Saudi royal family that includes Turki. Zouaydi, who is now in jail in Spain, is also accused of being al-Qaeda's top European financier. He distributed more than $1 million to al- Qaeda units, including the Hamburg cell of Mohammed Atta which plotted the World Trade Centre attack.
Finally the lawsuit alleges that Turki was 'instrumental' in setting up a meeting between bin Laden and senior Iraqi intelligence agent Faruq al-Hijazi in December 1998. At that meeting it is alleged that bin Laden agreed to avenge recent American bombings of Iraqi targets and in return Iraq offered him a safe haven and gave him blank Yemeni passports.
Prince Turki is not America's friend. That he is allowed on American soil is a national disgrace. Like a bad penny, his name continues to turn up wherever international terrorism rears its ugly head. Pakistan's role is far more obvious and worthy of even greater retribution
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, if he ever became the supreme decision maker in his country, would "sacrifice half of Iran for the sake of eliminating Israel," Giora Eiland, Israel's former national security adviser, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.
At present, Eiland stressed, the ultimate decision maker in Iran was Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 67, whom he said was "more reasonable." But, Eiland went on, "if Ahmadinejad were to succeed him - and he has a reasonable chance of doing so - then we'd be in a highly dangerous situation."
The 49-year-old Iranian president, he said, "has a religious conviction that Israel's demise is essential to the restoration of Muslim glory, that the Zionist thorn in the heart of the Islamic nations must be removed. And he will pay almost any price to right the perceived historic wrong. If he becomes the supreme leader and has a nuclear capability, that's a real threat." A-man promoted from politician to top mullah? How could that be possible? Maybe declare him a prophet? (Great pic!)
#1
A-man promoted from politician to top mullah? How could that be possible? Maybe declare him a prophet?
Wouldn't getting Yazdi (already an Ayatollah) to replace Khamenei accomplish the same thing? I seem to remember an article speculating that that's what A-man is ultimately trying to do.
The way much of the Western media tells the story, Hezbollah won a great victory against Israel and the U.S., healed the Sunni-Shiite rift, and boosted the Iranian mullahs' claim to leadership of the Muslim world. Portraits of Hassan Nasrallah, the junior mullah who leads the Lebanese branch of this pan-Shiite movement, have adorned magazine covers in the West, hammering in the message that this child of the Khomeinist revolution is the new hero of the mythical "Arab Street."
Probably because he watches a lot of CNN, Iran's "Supreme Guide," Ali Khamenei, also believes in "a divine victory." Last week he asked 205 members of his Islamic Majlis to send Mr. Nasrallah a message, congratulating him for his "wise and far-sighted leadership of the Ummah that produced the great victory in Lebanon."
By controlling the flow of information from Lebanon throughout the conflict, and help from all those who disagree with U.S. policies for different reasons, Hezbollah may have won the information war in the West. In Lebanon, the Middle East and the broader Muslim space, however, the picture is rather different. . . .
Go read the whole thing; there's a lot of interesting stuff in there that the MSM doesn't bother reporting. The last paragraph is worth highlighting:
Having lost more than 500 of its fighters, and with almost all of its medium-range missiles destroyed, Hezbollah may find it hard to sustain its claim of victory. "Hezbollah won the propaganda war because many in the West wanted it to win as a means of settling score with the United States," says Egyptian columnist Ali al-Ibrahim. "But the Arabs have become wise enough to know TV victory from real victory."
Posted by: Mike ||
08/25/2006 07:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In the Arab mind if you're still alive you won and if you're stain somewhere your buds will claim victory. The only true win is silence.
#2
Ask the hezzies if they want a few more "victories" just like this one. heh.
"But the Arabs have become wise enough to know TV victory from real victory."
It depends what you mean by "arabs." arab governments were happy to see damage inflicted on Iran's proxy. The arab street, I'm sure, is convinced the hezzies won.
#3
Hezbo victory condition was to prevent Israel from achieving its goals. Hezbos are still in power and the Israelis have made themselves look like the Keystone Kops. Iran and Syria will ship in more and better missiles. 500 new martyrs are in training in Iran as we speak. Tehran will develop a nuke and deploy to Hezb'Allah. How is this a defeat?
Taheri spends a lot of the article giving non-pro-Hezb'Allah quotes from various Lebanese commentators and politicos, but the fact remains that Hezb'Allah is still where it was in Lebanon and no Lebanese is doing anything about it. If Israel ever demolishes Hezb'Allah, everybody in Lebanon will have been anti-Hezbo, just like everybody in France was in the Resistance. I guess the Lebanese did learn something from their colonial masters.
#8
Sorry, but this article is just spin. Was it Mao who said "the Guerilla wins if he doesn't lose; the regular army loses if it doesn't win." Hez still exists, therefore they won.
#9
My rule of thumb is, if you have to write a detailed analysis explaining the nuances that demonstrate you're the clear winner, then you're probably not the clear winner. Which doesn't mean you're the loser, of course.
#10
Hey people, IMHO, the most important result of this war is the reversal of IDF's last dec policies re reservists' training etc... (Anybody advocating "professional armies should be reminded of the aftermath of Manzikert) and
Why Italy shouldn't lead the U.N. mission in Lebanon.
There's an old joke that goes something like this: In heaven, the policemen are British, the mechanics are German, the lovers are French, the cooks are Italian, and everything is organized by the Swiss. In hell, the policemen are German, the cooks are British, the mechanics are French, the lovers are Swiss and everything is organized by the Italians.
#1
Under a socialist government, I wholeheartedly agree. However, under a conservative government, the Italians have the confidence of a government that both respects them as soldiers, and only directs them to do things within their power to do.
What does Moscow have to do with the recent war in Lebanon? By Ion Mihai Pacepa
The Kremlin may be the main winner in the Lebanon war. Israel has been attacked with Soviet Kalashnikovs and Katyushas, Russian Fajr-1 and Fajr-3 rockets, Russian AT-5 Spandrel antitank missiles and Kornet antitank rockets. Russias outmoded weapons are now all the rage with terrorists everywhere in the world, and the bad guys know exactly where to get them. The weapons cases abandoned by Hezbollah were marked: Customer: Ministry of Defense of Syria. Supplier: KBP, Tula, Russia.
#1
Pacepa's Red Horizons was extrordinarily informative in many ways, but I was particulary struck at the time the section dedicated to Arafat and the PLO. Ceausescu would send his jet for Arafat, and after his entourage deplaned they'd have to sterilize the aircraft due to the stench. Also, Ceausescu would provide young boys for Arafat to rape while visiting Romania.
#3
Sounds good but was it not the muzzies that handed them their asses in Afghanistan????
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
08/25/2006 15:19 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The Afghanis weren't a pet terrorist organization, 49 Pan. They started as a legitimate native uprising, even if they did go on to become a tool of Pakistan's ISI, funded for a while by the CIA under the mistaken heading of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
#5
For "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" alone, the Soviets have much to answer for. The rest is so damning that a significant portion of this world's woes are a direct byproduct of Soviet communism. May they all rot in everlasting hell.
#6
Your right TW, my point, or poor snark, was the Afghans were a formidable threat and really put it to the Russian military with or without our help. Karma in a sad way, being it was muzzies that did it. This whole article really upset me. To think the Russians really had something to do with this terrorism problem other than selling guns is disturbing. I know Im naive. I worked at a junk yard and the owner fed the dogs flairs and gunpowder. At night they tortured the dogs. This made for dogs that would kill anything at night and hide during the day. If this is true the Russians did the same thing with the Muzzies, fed them hate and tormenting until there is no cure. The only way to cure the dogs was to kill them, like the muzzies there is no way to get them to integrate into the world society peacefully. Our options are limited, crush them or live like they do and enter their circle of violence and hate. If this is really a second order effect of the cold war we should hold the Russian leaders accountable in the world court.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
08/25/2006 20:04 Comments ||
Top||
The New York Times talks a good game about treating workers well. Wal-Mart does not get good press in the Times and elsewhere for its alleged sins of low wages and benefits. Still, thousands showed up in Oakland and Chicago recently to apply for jobs at new Wal-Maret stores.
But when it comes to its own employees, and rhetoric is replaced by action, the game plan shifts radically. Bill Sanderson of the New York Post reports:
Fed-up employees at The Boston Globe say their bosses at the New York Times Co. are even less welcome in Beantown than the Yankees.
Thats because managers at the Times Co., which owns the Globe, are coming across in contract talks as pay and health insurance cheapskates, the Boston papers main union charges in radio spots to start running today.
Management wants to shift even more health care costs to workers, say the ads explaining that the company would do so by freezing its own contributions to the health plan.
On top of that, the union says the Times is proposing no pay increase for the next four years.
Of course, Pinch Sulzberger, the genius who doubled-down the companys bet on the failing newspaper industry with the acquisition of Affiliated Publications, publisher of the Globe and other New England properties, is feeling no pain in the wallet. Despite the crash i the companys share price, he has pulled down huge bonuses the past couple of years.
The Times editorial board remains completely silent on the matter of big bonus for the boss and effective pay reduction for the workers, what with no raise and increased health care costs. If Wal-Mart or Halliburton were to undertake such moves, can you imagine the sorts of editorials they would publish?
Of couse, it is clear that the Globe is getting close to a death spiral rate of circulation decline:
In the six-month reporting period that ended in March, the Globes weekday circulation dropped 8.5 percent dipping below 400,000 for the first time.
That translates into a 17 percent annual decline. Very few business survive very long with that rate oif decline in sales. But of course, very few CEOs survive bad decisions like the purchase of Affiliated.
Meanwhile, construction proceeds on the Pinch Mahal, the lavish new state-of-the-art skyscraper being built by the company. The hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to complete this status symbol, not to mention the overhead to run it once completed, have to come from somewhere. And the employees are learning that means them.
#1
anyone who hasn't yet sold off their stocks yet isn't paying attention. Pinch will jump from the death spiral with a golden parachute. Thousands of employees and little old ladies stuck with worthless stock and will be the ones who take the hit. As for the rest of us - yawn. Good riddance to a waste of paper.
None of the other papers will report it cause they are in the same state of denial that the NYT folks are in.
more at link on the (tongue in cheek?) delights of being unburdened by carry-on baggage, but here's what matters:
And so Im with Rushdie and Amis as I read all the sympathetic coverage in the liberal press about the poor, puzzled Muslims who feel that they are being picked on in airports and flights.
If the parents of the young men who are attracted to this murderous martyrdom have lost control of their sons, then they must shoulder part of the blame. If the Muslims who choose to live in our society, with all its so-called tempting freedoms, do not protest against those who wish to destroy it, then how can they expect our tolerance? Personally, I'm tired of tolerating the intolerant.
Why are the moderates not, in their hundreds and thousands, standing outside those mosques that are known to preach hatred, shouting Not in our name down their megaphones or One, two, three, four, no more terror anymore? um....maybe because they don't feel that way?
And where are the voices of the ordinary mothers and daughters and aunts from the Muslim community saying, Enough. No more violence. No more deaths, as did all those courageous women who helped to bring peace to Ireland? And if they, our Muslim sisters, are mute slaves to or, worse, themselves in thrall to the siren call of the death-wish culture, is there any hope for the rest of us? No other religion IN THE WORLD has such a glaring absense of introspection, self criticism, dialogue and debate. If they can't/won't speak out because it's "unislamic," that's simply another indictment as to how bankrupt a religion islam truly is.
Instead, the muslim community does absolutely nothing to end this horror. All I see is victimhood, blame and rationalizing (e.g., "We have to understand the root causes of terror.....what drove these men to do what they did. . . "). Lunacy. Absolute lunacy. Appeals, appeasment and negotiation, seen through their twisted filters, is seen as weakness.
For a while now, I've "jokingly" said that the mosque on 96th street in Manhattan is the safest place in the city. Perhaps if muslim mothers and children in western countries experienced the fear nonmuslims do, that would stir them to outrage.
Probably not, though. Given the muslim track record, it would only increase their blaming and victimhood.
#2
"No other religion IN THE WORLD has such a glaring absense of introspection, self criticism, dialogue and debate."
Islam's not too hot in the "teaching right from wrong" department, either. As far as I've been able to tell, it provides absolutely NO ethical foundation other than "Muslim = good, non-Muslim = bad, NO MATTER WHAT."
And the answer to the question in the title is, "there aren't any."
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/25/2006 17:41 Comments ||
Top||
#3
As far as I've been able to tell, it provides absolutely NO ethical foundation other than "Muslim = good, non-Muslim = bad, NO MATTER WHAT."
Yeah, that's all I can find, too.
At least Christianity recognizes the possibility of the "virtuous heathen" -- someone who doesn't follow the faith, but still lives a moral life. Granted, they still go to Hell, but suffer the least.
Islam is, frankly, not a religion in the sense of it being a way to explain the origins of the universe and the whys and wherefores of morality. It's an imperialistic program, intended to found an ever-expanding rule of bandit over-men. The morality bits within Islam are structured to maintain the allegiance to the empire -- on pain of death -- and the superior position of the over-men.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/25/2006 18:12 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The best term for Islam I've found so far is "cult." A totalitarian, hate-worshipping, death-worshipping, murder-worshipping cult. And like other totalitarian cults, once a person joins they can never leave.
Islam is nothing more than a Roach Motel for souls.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/25/2006 18:16 Comments ||
Top||
#5
My vote goes to Dave D. for Islam is nothing more than a Roach Motel for souls.
MARK STEYN Earlier this year, I chanced to be at a public meeting with the great Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post. Afterwards, a gentleman from the audience casually made some allusion to some or other aspect of the Jewish calendar, at which I looked momentarily befuddled. And so Caroline helpfully explained to him that Marks not a Jew, but he plays one on TV.
By which she meant that, as I publicly defend Israel (which is, in itself, a curious formulation, implying that the issue is the legitimacy of the Zionist Entity) and as I have a suspiciously Jewish-sounding name, Ive been routinely assumed, at least since 9/11, to be a Jew. Im honored to be so mistaken. And, in truth, even if I werent, theres not much I could do about it. Someone asked me on the radio in Australia, two-thirds into a long, long discussion, about how Jewish I was, and I answered that the last Jewish female in my line was one of my paternal great-grandmothers and that both my grandmothers were Catholic. I then filled in a bit of remaining family background for the two or three Aussies who hadnt yet expired from total boredom. And, of course, Id only been off the air for ten minutes before I was deluged with e-mails triumphantly announcing, Ah-ha, something to hide, have we, Steyn? Or should I say Stein? Or is it Goldstein? Why so defensive about being Jewish, eh? How come you dont have the guts to declare your Jewishness every time you write about Israel? Or do your Jewish media masters encourage you to lie to your readers?
#4
[i]It never occurred to me to think about such a thing.[/i]
This isn't really anything new to me. Back in college, in '91 or '92, we had a Usenet system that was restricted to campus. Got into a lot of arguments there, and one particular argument was over Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism. A particularly fervent lefty, coming to the defense of the poor, oppressed Palestinians (who would have murdered this fellow for how he lives his life and for what he believes), called me a Jew because I thought it was a good thing to fight against people who shoot up buses, grade schools, etc.
So here's a fellow who would declare himself completely free of racism, bigotry, etc., yet unable to separate support for Israel from being Jewish. It's as if you assumed anyone who had opposed apartheid was black, or that anyone who wants a free Tibet is a Tibetan.
If anything, the crap's gotten worse over the last fifteen years. The left (and the Buchanan right) has rendered itself incapable of thinking in regards to Israel; to the point where they not only accept, but defend even the clumsiest propaganda and conspiracy theories.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
08/25/2006 8:03 Comments ||
Top||
#5
You can't tell anything by last names anymore. One of the local synagogues regularly posts the names of their newest bar mitzvah boys and bar mitzvah girls on their billboard as congratulations messages. Latest one was a kid named Zachary Antonelli or something like that.
But, like Steyn, the Tsar and I consider it an honor to be occasionally mistaken for Jews even though we're not (the Tsar's last name sounds Jewish and we live in an area in Florida with a few synagogues scattered around).
so if being a Jew disqualifies someone from having a valid opinion on Israel, shouldn't being a Muslim do the same?
Nah, that makes his argument valid, since obviously he's been oppressed by the evil Jooooos, even if he grew up a spoiled rich kid in California or London and barely speaks any Arabic.
#7
Color me Jewish, then. BTW Rob, what's the 'Buchanan right'? He's no more right than I am left. He's just a neo-nazi holocaust denier, who for some reason has been allowed to pose as right-wing on talking head shows.
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.
Earlier this year, I chanced to be at a public meeting with the great Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post. Afterwards, a gentleman from the audience casually made some allusion to some or other aspect of the Jewish calendar, at which I looked momentarily befuddled. And so Caroline helpfully explained to him that Marks not a Jew, but he plays one on TV. 
