Hi there, !
Today Sun 03/12/2006 Sat 03/11/2006 Fri 03/10/2006 Thu 03/09/2006 Wed 03/08/2006 Tue 03/07/2006 Mon 03/06/2006 Archives
480656 articles and 1695351 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 90 articles and 561 comments as of 19:11.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Background    Non-WoT    Opinion            Posting Order
Qaeda fugitive surrenders in Kuwait
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 1: WoT Operations
9 00:00 Frank G [6510] 
6 00:00 Frank G [6547] 
55 00:00 Alaska Paul in Hooper Bay, AK [6570] 
4 00:00 trailing wife [6542] 
10 00:00 Frank G [6548] 
4 00:00 C Clay [6503] 
0 [6502] 
10 00:00 Chuck Simmins [6506] 
0 [6574] 
2 00:00 john [6525] 
0 [6507] 
1 00:00 anymouse [6503] 
31 00:00 Alaska Paul in Hooper Bay, AK [7363] 
8 00:00 6 [6492] 
1 00:00 .com [6494] 
2 00:00 Zenster [6492] 
0 [6494] 
2 00:00 mhw [6518] 
0 [6488] 
3 00:00 DepotGuy [6513] 
7 00:00 Clolutle Slans5753 [6492] 
82 00:00 .com [6549] 
0 [6497] 
6 00:00 Chuck Simmins [6521] 
0 [6491] 
0 [6530] 
1 00:00 RD [6505] 
1 00:00 mojo [6483] 
0 [6498] 
8 00:00 gromgoru [6487] 
17 00:00 mhw [6502] 
Page 2: WoT Background
0 [6498]
5 00:00 GK [6522]
1 00:00 Darrell [6504]
4 00:00 Frank G [6550]
30 00:00 gromgoru [6488]
15 00:00 Al Gore [6534]
2 00:00 doc [6490]
0 [6493]
5 00:00 ex-lib [6513]
7 00:00 SPoD [6505]
8 00:00 Barbara Skolaut [6485]
3 00:00 2b [6495]
2 00:00 DMFD [6484]
2 00:00 phil_b [6479]
0 [6511]
0 [6485]
1 00:00 .com [6485]
1 00:00 raptor [6484]
1 00:00 2b [6492]
1 00:00 trailing wife [6488]
1 00:00 ed [6490]
11 00:00 Frank G [6528]
3 00:00 liberalhawk [6483]
18 00:00 .com [6534]
10 00:00 wxjames [6488]
0 [6486]
0 [6485]
1 00:00 gromgoru [6485]
0 [6491]
0 [6481]
0 [6485]
18 00:00 DMFD [6490]
Page 3: Non-WoT
1 00:00 Korora [6499]
8 00:00 Pappy [6534]
9 00:00 Croque Gravise4518 [6482]
3 00:00 2b [6503]
9 00:00 Frank G [6500]
11 00:00 2b [6491]
2 00:00 Penguin [6490]
1 00:00 Visitor [6493]
20 00:00 Zenster [6491]
4 00:00 trailing wife [6489]
3 00:00 trailing wife [6488]
29 00:00 badanov [6554]
1 00:00 Deacon Blues [6488]
5 00:00 .com [6486]
5 00:00 Korora [6489]
6 00:00 tu3031 [6481]
1 00:00 Listen To Dogs [6481]
2 00:00 gromgoru [6485]
0 [6486]
0 [6485]
Page 4: Opinion
4 00:00 Frank G [6496]
3 00:00 Anonymoose [6500]
5 00:00 gromgoru [6499]
0 [6491]
0 [6484]
3 00:00 DepotGuy [6483]
6 00:00 Listen To Dogs [6487]
Canadian troops head out in force to show their presence in Taliban country
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - Canadian troops have launched a major operation deep into insurgent country in southern Afghanistan, where local authorities fear to tread and Canadians have already come under attack.
Hundreds of troops from two companies of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry moved out this week by air and road, supported by armoured vehicles, helicopter gunships and artillery.
The aim of the mission, which will last for much of the rest of March, is to show local residents and insurgents that Afghan authorities and Canadian troops can control the rural, isolated area despite the presence of Taliban insurgents.
Over the last month, Canadian troops have encountered ambushes, including rockets, roadside bombs and an axe attack that left a Canadian in critical condition, in the mountainous region north of Kandahar city.
The ongoing violence here has forced Canadians back home to pay attention to their country's beefed up mission in Afghanistan, says Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of defence staff. "Last week they really did wake up to this mission and what you are doing here," Hillier said during a chat with troops at the Canadian-run provincial reconstruction team in Kandahar. "I've been telling them for some time, but people don't really listen to words."
Canada's top soldier paid a visit to the team after meeting with Kandahar's governor and used the opportunity to rally the troops. "You've had a tough week or so, I know. You have a tough mission, I know that too," he said, referring to the overall mission in Afghanistan.
Several small pockets of insurgents, numbering in the dozens according to departing U.S. commanders, still operate in the area. In the spring, they often gather and organize larger offensives. Six U.S. soldiers and 18 Afghans, including police, soldiers and civilian leaders, died in operations in the area last year.
"If we meet these bad guys, we destroy them. Simple as that," said Capt. Martin Larose, the acting commander of Company A, during a briefing for platoon commanders.
Larose warned his troops to watch out for the commonly known arsenal used by insurgents: roadside bombs, AK-47 assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades.It's the biggest mission so far for the Canadian contingent of 2,200 troops based in Kandahar who have arrived in the region over the past month. Smaller units have patrolled in the northern part of the province since they started arriving in early February.
The mission coincided with a big anti-narcotics operation in neighbouring Helmond province, where hundreds of Afghan police and soldiers backed up by coalition troops have been plowing under illicit poppy fields.
Canadians moved into a forward operating base near Gumbad, 60 kilometres north of Kandahar, several weeks ago. They almost immediately came under rocket-propelled grenade attack, which was answered by a barrage of Canadian howitzers.
Most recently, Capt. Trevor Greene, a civil-military co-operation officer, was attacked by an axe-wielding youth while on a visit with local elders in Shingai village. Capt. Kevin Schamuhn, Greene's platoon commander who was among three soldiers who killed the attacker and repelled a subsequent ambush, briefed his troops for their return to the region to again meet elders and collect intelligence.
"The locals might feed you a bunch of bullshit," Schamuhn told soldiers in a briefing. "We're spending a lot of time trying to sort out the truth. Call them on it directly, it seems to get much better information."
The push into rural areas comes one week after a spate of suicide bombings and ambushes in Kandahar that injured eight Canadian soldiers. Two others were killed and six injured in vehicle accidents around the same time.
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/09/2006 16:22 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6547 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Good fightin', Canucks, and God speed.
Posted by: Captain America || 03/09/2006 16:34 Comments || Top||

#2  Good luck chaps.
Posted by: mmurray821 || 03/09/2006 16:42 Comments || Top||

#3  Ditto. Perhaps Canada can be turned around, which would be a real victory in the long war.
Posted by: trailing wife || 03/09/2006 16:47 Comments || Top||

#4  The Canadian military have never needed to be conviced. The Canadian government has. I say good on the CAF.
Posted by: SPoD || 03/09/2006 20:36 Comments || Top||

#5  Hundreds of troops from two companies of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry moved out this week by air and road, supported by armoured vehicles, helicopter gunships and artillery.

British Harriers on CAP, American helos, Canadian boots on the ground...it's a team effort :-)
Posted by: Rafael || 03/09/2006 23:29 Comments || Top||

#6  always has been, Raphael :-)
Posted by: Frank G || 03/09/2006 23:40 Comments || Top||

Suspected Taleban, bystander killed in Afghan shoot-out
JALALABAD, Afghanistan - A suspected Taleban fighter and a woman were killed in a roughly six-hour clash with security forces in eastern Afghanistan overnight, police said on Thursday. Another fighter, a bystander and two police were also wounded in the shoot-out that erupted in a village in eastern Nangarhar province late Wednesday, a provincial security forces spokesman said.

Police assisted by US troops cornered six suspected Taleban into a house in Chaparhar district, near the border with Pakistan, district police deputy security chief Mohammad Asif said Wednesday. US military planes patrolled overhead, he said. The fighting continued until about midnight, security forces spokesman Ghafor Khan said Thursday. When police were able to enter the house, they found one dead man and a wounded man. The others appeared to have escaped.

Khan said the men were “the opposition”, a term often used to mean fighters from the ousted Taleban government who are waging an anti-government insurgency with their Al Qaeda allies.

Intelligence led security forces to the house in Chaparhar’s Khandibagh village, which is 25 kilometres (15 miles) from the provincial capital Jalalabad and close to the border with Pakistan. The US-led coalition media office in the capital Kabul could not immediately confirm the incident.
Posted by: Steve || 03/09/2006 09:06 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6507 views] Top|| File under:

Africa Subsaharan
Nigeria militants fight military
The Nigerian military says it has fought a fierce gun battle with heavily armed militants in the Niger Delta. Thirty speed boats each carrying 15 militants attacked a petrol tanker demanding fuel, an army spokesman says.
Didn't I see this in "Waterworld"?
Yes you did.
Somebody actually saw Waterworld? Who knew?
The group, which is demanding a greater share of the region's oil wealth, says the military initiated the attack. Wednesday's incident took place in an area known as a militant stronghold and near where it is suspected three foreign hostages are being held.

In a statement, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (Mend) said their forces were out patrolling the rivers and creeks when they were attacked in the Escravos River by a total of seven navy patrol boats near the village of Okerenkoko in the western Niger Delta. The militants, who were armed with rifles, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, said the gun battle lasted for 45 minutes. They claim to have killed 13 Nigerian soldiers in the confrontation and say none of their fighters were lost.

However, a military spokesman and Ijaw leader says the militants attacked a petrol tanker because they needed fuel. The vessel, which had a military escort, then sent out a distress signal and military reinforcements were despatched.

Six hostages seized during a series of raids on the oil industry last month were released by Mend last week. But two US citizens and one Briton are still being held and have now spent more than two weeks in captivity. These attacks have led to a 20% drop in Nigeria's oil exports.
Posted by: Steve || 03/09/2006 07:56 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6492 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Having been Navy, the Government story is bullshit.
Tankers transport crude, or "Bunker" which is Ship fuel.
They do NOT carry Gasoline or Diesel Except a small amount if the ship also carries a fwe boats aboard, something most civilian ships do NOT do.
Crude, or Bunker, will not fuel small craft.

Now had they stated that the Rebels had attacked an Oiler, that does carry refined oil products.

Sounds like Government Disinformation to me.
Posted by: Redneck Jim || 03/09/2006 8:18 Comments || Top||

#2  Tankers transport crude.....They do NOT carry Gasoline or Diesel

Does Nigeria have any refineries in the Delta region? This could be a small tanker carrying refined product for use in country or for sale to other African countries.
Posted by: Steve || 03/09/2006 8:41 Comments || Top||

#3  That's enough of that...
Posted by: Kevin Costner || 03/09/2006 12:11 Comments || Top||

#4  God help us if these "militants" saw The Postman too! *shudder*
Posted by: Dar || 03/09/2006 13:47 Comments || Top||

#5  If you think they're pissed off now, shove a copy of "3000 Miles to Graceland" in the VCR...
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/09/2006 13:52 Comments || Top||

#6  You know, the residents of the areas where the oil is extracted really do have valid complaints against the government. Hell of a way to argue though. Read The Sore of a Continent, by Wole Soyinka, for details.

If you read that book, you may find the story of Walter Ofonagoro amusing. He was one of my old instructors at Brooklyn College; he really did deserve his unique treatment at the hands of his old students. I was not one of his assailants, though.
Posted by: Eric Jablow || 03/09/2006 15:30 Comments || Top||

#7  I kinda liked WW, thought it was a insanely budgeted yet cheap knock off of "Mad Max 2/The road warrior", with more water (obviously), and less mohawks and feral kids. Anyway, it's alway nice to have mr. Costner graces this blog.
But this brings us far from Nigeria, doesn't it?
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 03/09/2006 15:32 Comments || Top||

#8  Yes, I doubt we'll see Nigeria again today. Sad, noone wants a nice long discussion about Nigeria and it's promise for the future.
Posted by: 6 || 03/09/2006 17:14 Comments || Top||

Al Qadeda fugitive surrenders in Kuwait
KUWAIT - A man sentenced to 10 years in jail in absentia in Kuwait for belonging to Al Qadeda has handed himself in to authorities, security sources said on Thursday. They named the fugitive as Meshal Al Shimmari, sentenced to 10 years in jail in December for belonging to the Al Qadeda-linked Peninsula Lions group, which staged several bloody attacks in Kuwait last year.

Shimmari, 35, showed up at the Court of Appeals on Wednesday, the sources said. A former Kuwaiti army conscript, he is one of several stateless Arabs who were part of a group of 37 Islamists tried for belonging to Osama bin Laden’s Al Qadeda in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
"former Kuwaiti army conscript, he is one of several stateless Arabs" Is that new-speak for a Kuwaiti of Palestinian desent, or do they have roaming press-gangs rounding stray people up and forcing them into the Army?
The sources said Shimmari was a low-level member of the Peninsula Lions group, which Kuwaiti authorities said carried out four shootouts in January 2005, which killed nine Islamists and four members of the security forces. Six members of the group were sentenced to death at the December trial for belonging to an “extremist” group, calling for attacks on state facilities and trying to kill Kuwaiti security forces and foreign forces in the country.

Kuwait, which hosts up to 30,000 US troops, has cracked down on Islamists opposing the foreign military presence there. Diplomats say radical Islam is taking hold among Kuwaiti youth.
Posted by: Steve || 03/09/2006 09:19 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6574 views] Top|| File under:

Soddy jihadi obit released
In the ninth issue of the al-Qaeda in Iraq publication, “From the Biographies of the Prominent Martyrs,” the writer, Abu Ismail al-Muhagir, tells the story of Al-Hazbar al-Nahdi. Al-Nahdi, aka "Stumpy" , a Saudi Arabian from a financially secure family, is written to have heeded the calls of Muslim scholars to join the jihad in Iraq, despite his partial paralysis preventing the use of one leg and rendering his left hand “semi-inoperative”. Al-Muhagir tells that al-Nahdi was often delegated the task of guarding his companion mujahideen, and he would bring a weapon light enough for him to carry and use.

A month after his arrival in Iraq, al-Muhagir notes that Al-Hazbar al-Nahdi told his fellows that he would become a “martyr” the next day, a vision at which was scoffed. However, at the date and time al-Nahdi states he would be martyred, during an operation in which members of the group set out to burn two vehicles, a tank fired a shell, the shrapnel of which killed al-Nahdi. Al-Muhagir states: “He is one of those who did little but were greatly rewarded".
Posted by: Dan Darling || 03/09/2006 00:21 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6492 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The Abrams - making GOOD JIHADISTS everyday!
Posted by: 3dc || 03/09/2006 0:57 Comments || Top||

#2  Oh brave lions cripples of Islam..
Posted by: Howard UK || 03/09/2006 4:49 Comments || Top||

#3  "So, if you've got some cripples or idiots in your family that are just taking up space, give us a call at..."
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/09/2006 10:34 Comments || Top||

#4  “He is one of those who did little but were greatly rewarded".

Look, a tank!
Send in... the spaz!
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/09/2006 12:21 Comments || Top||

#5  Run, Forrest, run!
Posted by: Chuck Simmins || 03/09/2006 15:08 Comments || Top||

#6  Dead cripples are fun, in a sick kind of way, *especially* if they are jihad boyz. It's a bit like midget porn, actually. I would like to see midget porn involving the violation of Lions of Islam(tm), and lard, lot of lard.
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 03/09/2006 15:28 Comments || Top||

#7  I just love these bedtime stories with happy endings :)
Posted by: Clolutle Slans5753 || 03/09/2006 19:54 Comments || Top||

Smaller fry arrested in Sylhet
A Sylhet court yesterday remanded Islami Bank Manager Abu Walid Chowdhury, Union Parishad Member Nurunnabi Deshi and mason Abdul Haque for four days to find their links with the JMB, reports our staff correspondent in Sylhet. The police said Deshi and Haque helped Abdur Rahman's men rent the East Shaplabagh house in Sylhet where the JMB chief was arrested on March 2 along with his accomplices and family.

While serving as the third officer at Islami Bank's Laldighirpar branch in Sylhet in February 1999, Walid introduced former Habiganj district Jamaat-e-Islami ameer Saidur Rahman for opening a bank account. After recovering Saidur's chequebook from Rahman's den, the law enforcers now suspect that Saidur was the medium of JMB's funding in Sylhet. The Rab and police raided several places in Habiganj, Sunamganj and Sylhet over the last few days in search of Saidur in vain.
Posted by: Fred || 03/09/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6497 views] Top|| File under:

Bangla Bhai Recovering, Dammit
Bangla Bhai has begun talking from March 7 but his sentences are not totally understandable. But his words are not being recorded as no-one is staying inside his room. Only doctors go to the room and come out after examining him and giving him medication. "He is shouting at the hospital staff," said a source.

A board of 18 doctors -- six of the BDR hospital and 12 from others -- are examining him. There are more beds in the cabin but no-one else, leave alone a patient, is staying in the room, which is kept under lock and key. "Although he is improving, he'll take time to make complete recovery," Inspector General of Police (IGP) Abdul Quayyum told reporters at the home ministry yesterday. The police boss said they do not want to quiz Bangla Bhai right now. "It may cause infection if he comes in contact with people."
Sounds like a setup for a Daring Escape™ to me.
"Hey, where you from, screw?"
Posted by: Fred || 03/09/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6521 views] Top|| File under:

wonder who gotter the hat?

/hat back on, squeeze until all networks and cells pop out. yes!
Posted by: RD || 03/09/2006 0:31 Comments || Top||

#2  Eighteen Paki sawbones poking at him? He's a goner for sure...
Posted by: PBMcL || 03/09/2006 0:39 Comments || Top||

#3  Heal him up good. Then, start the interrogation.
Posted by: gromky || 03/09/2006 0:40 Comments || Top||

#4  but his sentences are not totally understandable.

Were they in the first place?...

Posted by: Mike Kozlowski || 03/09/2006 7:41 Comments || Top||

#5  Hope he heals up good for his late night RAB roadtrip...
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/09/2006 12:24 Comments || Top||

#6  "He is shouting at the hospital staff,"

Remember that one Johnson in Blazing Saddles?

Posted by: Chuck Simmins || 03/09/2006 15:06 Comments || Top||

Cops set to hunt for 2 top JMB militants
Investigators are working out an operation plan to arrest the two fleeing Majlish-e-Shura members of outlawed Jama'atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) Salahuddin and Khaled Saifullah. The investigators are scrutinising the information squeezed out of JMB chief Abdur Rahman, Shura members Ataur Rahman Sunny, Abdul Awal, Hafez Mahmud and Bangla Bhai's wife Fahima Khatun for clues to trap them. Sources said Rahman has given the investigators detailed information about the JMB network, funding, connections in and outside the country and bank accounts and transactions. But they declined to disclose the information "for the sake of investigation".

JMB second-in-command Bangla Bhai, who is undergoing treatment at Bangladesh Rifles hospital for burns and bomb injuries he suffered during his capture, meantime, is recovering. Hospital sources said his bomb injuries will be cured in seven to 10 days but he would take some more time to recover from burns. Interrogators will start quizzing him only after he recovers totally, said sources, adding, no high official of Rab or BDR visited him until yesterday noon.

His wife Fahima told the investigators Bangla Bhai went to Mymensingh after the August 17 countrywide blasts and was staying there under the arrangement of Shura member Salahuddin, who was JMB in-charge of Sylhet-Mymensingh region. Bangla Bhai stayed in four hideouts before his capture from the last one at Rampur village in Muktagachha on March 6. Sources said the Task Force Interrogation Cell comprising members from police, Special Branch, National Security Intelligence, Directorate General of Forces Intelligence and Rapid Action Battalion (Rab) is interrogating the arrestees except Bangla Bhai in Uttara.
Posted by: Fred || 03/09/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6491 views] Top|| File under:

NJ Co. Exports Toxins To NorKs - Privileges revoked 20K fine
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) assessed a civil penalty of $22,000 on Dolphin International, Ltd. of New Delhi, India (Dolphin) and a civil penalty of $19,800 on Orcas International, Inc. of Flanders, New Jersey (Orcas) for conspiracy to export toxins to North Korea. Both companies are also prohibited from participating in any transactions involving the export of goods subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EARs) for four years.

BIS alleged that Dolphin conspired with others to export toxins, including Aflatoxin (M1 , P 1, Q 1) and Staphyloccocal Enterotoxin (A and B), items subject to the Regulations and classified under export control classification number (“ECCN”) 1C351, from the United States to North Korea without the required Department of Commerce license. BIS further alleged that Dolphin solicited violations of the EARs by enlisting others to acquire the toxins. Specifically, BIS alleged that Dolphin asked a co-conspirator in the United States to acquire the toxins from the U.S. manufacturer and then ship the toxins to a co-conspirator in the Netherlands, who would forward the toxins to North Korea.

BIS alleged that Orcas also conspired with others to export toxins, including Aflatoxin and Staphyloccocal Enterotoxin from the United States to North Korea without the required Department of Commerce license. BIS further alleged that Orcas attempted to export toxins to North Korea without obtaining an export license from the Department of Commerce.

BIS also prohibited Vishwanath Kakade Rao and Graneshawar K. Rao, presidents of Dolphin and Orcas respectively, from participating in any transactions involving the export of goods that are subject to the EARs for a period of four years for their alleged role regarding the solicitation and conspiracy or attempt to export toxins to North Korea without the proper license.
Posted by: DepotGuy || 03/09/2006 15:41 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6542 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Anything for a buck.
Posted by: wxjames || 03/09/2006 20:06 Comments || Top||

#2  The real danger - Faustian assholes... only that's actually a step up.
Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 20:26 Comments || Top||

#3  $19,800 and a four year slap on the hand. Oooooh, aren't we tough! Grrrrr... how about visits from the INS, the IRS, and some serious jail time?
Posted by: Darrell || 03/09/2006 21:06 Comments || Top||

#4  Ok, so these are forbidden toxins. But are they, or can they be made into, the kinds of things that will give me nightmares later? Remembering that even water is fatal when administered in a large enough dose... and it's even more dangerous if it is completely unadulterated -- screws up the electrolyte balance something awful!
Posted by: trailing wife || 03/09/2006 21:39 Comments || Top||

Two killed in blast in eastern Turkish city
DIYARBAKIR, Turkey (Reuters) - Three people were killed and 16 wounded on Thursday in an explosion possibly caused by a suicide bomber in the eastern Turkish city of Van, officials said.

Police said the blast was near the office of Van's governor. They said an investigation was under way into the cause of the explosion but gave no further information.

"We think it may have been a suicide bomber targeting a vehicle belonging to the municipality in the center of Van at 9.06 am (0706 GMT)," the deputy governor of Van, Mustafa Yavuz, told CNN Turk television.

He added that two of the dead had been identified but the identity of the third remained unclear.

Tensions have been running high in Van, a city with a mainly ethnic Kurdish population near the Iranian border.

A Van-based state prosecutor triggered a crisis this week between Turkey's powerful military and the civilian authorities by accusing a top general of abusing his position and setting up an illegal group he said was trying to foment unrest in the Kurdish southeast in order to harm Ankara's EU membership bid.

His claims have outraged the military and embarrassed the government, which has distanced itself from the prosecutor's allegations and defended General Yasar Buyukanit, who heads Turkey's land forces.

Buyukanit, tipped to become the next chief of the military general staff in August when incumbent Hilmi Ozkok is due to retire, served in southeast Turkey between 1997 and 2000.

Turkish troops and security forces have been battling separatist Kurdish rebels in the region since 1984 in a conflict which has claimed more than 30,000 lives.

There is much less violence now than at the height of the conflict in the 1980s and 1990s. But a series of bomb blasts in the region in recent months has stirred fears the conflict could be rekindled.

The European Union, which began membership talks with Turkey last October, has urged Ankara to do more to relieve poverty in the southeast and to bolster the cultural rights of its large Kurdish population.
Posted by: ryuge || 03/09/2006 05:48 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6494 views] Top|| File under:

Home Front: Politix
Dubai threatens to hit back - (No Free Lunch, Folks)
Dubai is threatening retaliation against American strategic and commercial interests if Washington blocks its $6.8 billion takeover of operations at several U.S. ports.

As the House Appropriations Committee yesterday marked up legislation to kill Dubai Ports World’s acquisition of Britain’s Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation (P&O), the emirate let it be known that it is preparing to hit back hard if necessary.

A source close to the deal said members of Dubai’s royal family are furious at the hostility both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have shown toward the deal.

“They’re saying, ‘All we’ve done for you guys, all our purchases, we’ll stop it, we’ll just yank it,’” the source said.

Retaliation from the emirate could come against lucrative deals with aircraft maker Boeing and by curtailing the docking of hundreds of American ships, including U.S. Navy ships, each year at its port in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the source added.

It is not clear how much of Dubai’s behind-the-scenes anger would be followed up by action, but Boeing has been made aware of the threat and is already reportedly lobbying to save the ports deal.

The Emirates Group airline will decide later this year whether it will buy Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner or its competitor, Airbus A350. The airline last fall placed an order worth $9.7 billion for 42 Boeing 777 aircraft, making Dubai Boeing’s largest 777 customer.

Dubai in mid-February also established the Dubai Aerospace Enterprise, a $15 billion investment to create a company that will lease planes, develop airports and make aircraft parts to tap into growing demand for air travel in the Middle East and Asia.

The family-ruled sheikhdom may buy as many as 50 wide-body aircraft from Boeing and Airbus during the next four years, according to Aerospace Enterprise officials.

The UAE military also bought Boeing’s Apache helicopters. Meanwhile, Boeing has been in talks with the emirates to try to sell its AWACS planes.

An industry official with knowledge of Boeing’s contracts with Dubai said that the company has been involved in the emirate and that it would take a lot “to knock” those relationships.

“Nothing about the [ports] controversy diminishes our commitment to the region,” said John Dern, Boeing’s corporate spokesman. He added that at this point the company has no indication that there is or will be an impact on the company.

Any repercussion to Boeing could put House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) in a delicate position. Boeing’s decision to move its headquarters to Chicago has been seen as calculated to facilitate a close relationship with Hastert. He is against the ports deal, and his office did not return calls by press time.

Several businesses have expressed concern that the controversy over the $6.8 billion ports deal could damage trade with the UAE. Dubai is one of the seven emirates. The United States and the UAE are meeting next week for a fourth round of talks to sign a free-trade agreement. The American Business Group of Abu Dhabi, which has no affiliation with the U.S. government, said that Arabs may hesitate to invest into the United States, according to a report by Reuters.

A Republican trade lobbyist said that because the ports deal is a national-security issue blocking it would not be in violation of World Trade Agreement rules.

“In terms of them retaliating legally against the U.S. … I don’t think there are many options there,” the lobbyist said.

But when it comes to the emirates’ cooperation in the war on terrorism and in intelligence gathering, there is concern that some help may be pulled.

“If we reject the company in terms of doing the [ports] work, they are going to lose a lot of face. In the Arab culture, losing face is a big deal,” a former government official said. “We risk losing that help. It is not an empty threat.”

Posted by: Captain America || 03/09/2006 16:13 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6570 views] Top|| File under:

#1  That's no big deal. We can get along without anybody.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/09/2006 16:22 Comments || Top||

#2  That's right. Now the price must be paid. And all you had to do is bend over.

Bin Laden is smiling :-)
Posted by: Wholurt Cruter5525 || 03/09/2006 16:25 Comments || Top||

#3  Paranoia and pay back is a bitch.

Paranoia = the term paranoia is usually used to describe excessive concern about one's own well-being, sometimes suggesting a person holds persecutory beliefs concerning a threat to themselves or their property and is often linked to a belief in conspiracy theories.
Posted by: Captain America || 03/09/2006 16:30 Comments || Top||

#4  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
Posted by: Gromoter Snearong7571 || 03/09/2006 16:34 Comments || Top||

#5  Captain said: excessive concern about one's own well-being, sometimes suggesting a person holds persecutory beliefs concerning a threat to themselves or their property

True. "9/11 is a myth. Never happened."
"Muslims. Why do they hate us?"
Posted by: Ulereque Ebbaiper7291 || 03/09/2006 16:35 Comments || Top||

#6  Don't look now, there's someone behind you will a large curved knife. Boo!
Posted by: Captain America || 03/09/2006 16:36 Comments || Top||

#7  "Muslims. Why do they hate us?"

I believe we are fightin and dying in Iraq and Afganistan protecting Muslims. Shouldn't we agree that there are good ones and bad ones?

Or, are we experiencing generalized paranoia?

Me thinks so
Posted by: Captain America || 03/09/2006 16:39 Comments || Top||

#8  This short-sighted paranoid witch hunt has accomplished several things:
  • Given both Republican and Democrat Congress members short-term poll boosts
  • Angered one of our best--no, not perfect, but certainly one of the best--allies in the Muslim world
  • Sent a message to our remaining Muslim allies in the region that we don't trust any of them, so they needn't bother siding with us or even pretending to side with us
  • Risked financial backlash against Boeing and several other large American industries
  • Likely curtailed further easy access to the UAE's oil reserves--as I recall, the 3rd-largest known reserves on the planet

    Brilliant move! We should all be proud.
  • Posted by: Dar || 03/09/2006 16:47 Comments || Top||

    #9  It was smart of Bush to okay the deal -- non-extremist friends in that part of the world are really important. Especially with the Iran thing heating up.
    Posted by: ex-lib || 03/09/2006 16:48 Comments || Top||

    #10  Dubai remains with us on the Iranian issue. After all, there's no where else to go.
    I find it embarrassing, however for the Congress to act as they have, rather than debate the issue and write realistic laws controlling the ports. Instead, we got a feeding frenzy. Disgrace !
    Posted by: wxjames || 03/09/2006 16:53 Comments || Top||

    #11  Sent a message to our remaining Muslim allies in the region that we don't trust any of them, so they needn't bother siding with us or even pretending to side with us.

    In the long run, will we notice the difference? Even our "best" allies in the Muslim world are hostile to Israel, allow and/or encourage their media to bombard their citizens with anti-American propoganda, etc. Without significant reform to the underlying teachings of Islam, can we ever say that we have "allies" in the Muslim world to begin with?
    Posted by: Crusader || 03/09/2006 16:57 Comments || Top||

    #12  Without significant reform to the underlying teachings of Islam, can we ever say that we have "allies" in the Muslim world to begin with?

    How about, no?
    Posted by: Zenster || 03/09/2006 17:01 Comments || Top||

    #13  Dar: Angered one of our best--no, not perfect, but certainly one of the best--allies in the Muslim world

    You're right. And we've all seen what Muslim or Arab anger is capable of. Run to the hills! Hide!

    Dar: Sent a message to our remaining Muslim allies in the region that we don't trust any of them, so they needn't bother siding with us or even pretending to side with us

    Like they care if you trust them or not. Business is business. Who is UAE's protector in the region? Who guarantees the cash keeps flowing? Who will give them aid if Binny's thugs decide to disrupt things? You make it sound like the USA is UAE's bitch. Ever hear of symbiotic relationships?

    Dar: Risked financial backlash against Boeing and several other large American industries

    Keyword: risked.

    Dar: Likely curtailed further easy access to the UAE's oil reserves--as I recall, the 3rd-largest known reserves on the planet

    And that's probably a good thing in the long run.

    Dar: Brilliant move! We should all be proud.

    Actually it is. Bush came out on top, which is good, and used you for the tool that you are.
    Posted by: Thrack Ebbeting6306 || 03/09/2006 17:09 Comments || Top||

    #14  Has anybody asked them to buy Proctor & Gamble ....instead of the ports deal .....?? Let's take charge of our own entry points.
    Posted by: Cha_Ching2805 || 03/09/2006 17:18 Comments || Top||

    #15  Well said Dar!

    Stirred up a few no-seeums looks like.
    Posted by: 6 || 03/09/2006 17:20 Comments || Top||

    #16  I believe any backlash is a good thing. Contacts with muslims should be reduced to zero and any future meetings can be resolved on the battlefield. The Iraqis and Afghans, Kurds, Pakistanis, Dubaians et. al. will turn on us infidels the minute they perceive they can derive greater benefit by doing so. Actually even before that point (e.g. Saudis).

    Unfortunately our leaders have got the sequencing of events backwards. First reduce our vulnerability to any energy cutoff. Seize the Persian Gulf fields and drive the those assholes out. If we don't have the stomach to do that, then reorient our defence budget and expoint our own reserves. Initiate a crash program to exploit drilling, shale oil and coal gasification plants, mass build thermal N-plants. Approve all viable projects and guarantee a profit. Even the low yield wind and solar to bring the greenies on board, but make the granola crowd pay the full cost for them with long term power subscriptions. It will be much cheaper than what we are currently paying. That's not counting the 100% surcharge we pay, even in "peace time", on middle east oil imports though military expenditures to guarantee worldwide access.

    We don't need to spend our dollars and lives in the middle east. For instance, just what has been spent since Sept 11 waging welfare-as-warfare would have funded enough mass produced N-plants to substitute all foreign oil, including Canadian and Mexican. Then we have the option to go battery, hydrogen, synfuels or any other route.

    Deport all who wish to remain muslims and let them fight it out amonst themselves for who gets to sit on the calipate throne. We will also save many billions going to internal security. Limit ourselves to selling our outdated weapons and cheering all sides. Eventually, we are going to have to fight them, but I would rather fight them when they are much poorer, bloodied, and from a secure home base.
    Posted by: ed || 03/09/2006 17:47 Comments || Top||

    #17  No one in recorded memory has ever managed to underestimate the sagacity of our political class. Bunch of stupid f**ks, one worse than the other. These are basically the same jerks who ran for student council in jr high, just older, fatter, and greedier.
    Posted by: RWV || 03/09/2006 17:48 Comments || Top||

    #18  Advocating a variant of Fry US Up, ed?

    You said it better, methinks.
    Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 17:51 Comments || Top||

    #19  These are basically the same jerks who ran for student council in jr high, just older, fatter, and greedier.

    I told my children this the whole time they were growing up. By Jr. year in high school they finally realized I was correct. When they admitted this they had very worried expressions on their faces. Then I explained that the kids on student council were to the guys in Congress as the kids on the football team were to the NFL. That cost them their last meal.
    Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/09/2006 17:54 Comments || Top||

    #20  LOL, NS.
    Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 17:57 Comments || Top||

    #21  ed - Oops, except for that Buchanan thingy you stuck in there. Isolationism is sooo WW-II. This world ain't that world. Period.
    Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 17:59 Comments || Top||

    #22  Re #13:
    You're right. And we've all seen what Muslim or Arab anger is capable of. Run to the hills! Hide!

    Yes--it's been capable of killing innocent people on numerous airliners, several cruiseships, and a couple of grand buildings that used to crown the New York City skyline. Not to mention it's responsible for the deaths of American servicemen and -women in Beirut, on the USS Cole, in Mogadishu, the Pentagon, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

    I, for one, am damn sick of it. But I'm not ready to cast every single one of the billion-plus Muslims as evil--especially as long as there are several million of them working along side us in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    We HAVE to work with Muslims--and this slap-in-the-face Congress just gave Dubai has just set back our relationship by years.

    Business is business. Who is UAE's protector in the region? Who guarantees the cash keeps flowing? Who will give them aid if Binny's thugs decide to disrupt things? You make it sound like the USA is UAE's bitch. Ever hear of symbiotic relationships?

    Good God--do you really think the USA is the only alternative these people have? Do you really think how we treat the UAE is not going to have any repercussions in the rest of the Muslim world?

    Yes, I have heard of a symbiotic relationship. Have you heard of an atlas? Would you care to look at the proximity of the UAE and the rest of the Muslim world to China, Russia, and India? Do you think for a moment any of them wouldn't be more than happy to take our place as Dubai's best buddy, trading partner, and protector? Can you see how much easier and cheaper it would be for them to secure trade routes in what is practically their own backyards, while we have a logistical trail extending over two oceans?

    Bush came out on top, which is good, and used you for the tool that you are.

    WTF?! What does Bush care about coming out "on top"?! He's done campaigning for re-election! Do you think maybe he realizes that alienating our few Islamic allies in the region is not a viable long-term strategy if we ever want to see our troops come home victorious and safe? What message have we just sent to the fledgling democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq we're trying to build? That we think they're lepers?
    Posted by: Dar || 03/09/2006 18:20 Comments || Top||

    #23  I don't advocate classical isolationism .com. I have no problems with relations with most of latin America, Asia, Europe (pre-caliphate), non-islamic Africa. I advocate isolating ourselves from islam and securing the homefront and in the meantime causing as much internal mayhem as possible in islamic lands. Then we can go forth and place the fear of (insert your favorite diety here) into the Mohammed worshippers. The Mohammedians tenet is to kill, convert or enslave the rest us. I advocate turning the tables and do to them, before they do to us.

    We have a huge weakness in thinking and treating others as our equals. That is a fatal weakness that a supremist islam is well tuned to exploit both from the outside and within. it's already too late for uch of western Europe. We, in it's early stage, have already seen this in the huge spending for homeland defence and security, Saudis buying government leaders, government infiltration to sell off Boston land for a song to build the largest US mosque, islamic groups dissemblimg, deflecting and outright lying to weaken our resolve, feeding false information and advocating war to benefit one side (Chalabi and the Shiites).

    The cost to engage the islamic lands is costing the US hundreds of billions a year. Cut that off and use the wealth to strength and prepare ourselves.
    Posted by: ed || 03/09/2006 18:29 Comments || Top||

    #24  especially as long as there are several million of them working along side us in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    And as American citizens, in our armed forces.
    Posted by: lotp || 03/09/2006 18:30 Comments || Top||

    #25  Very very well said. I'm there.

    Destabilizing them, sans nation-building, hits the sweet spot. Iraq and Afghanistan will be invaluable for doing it, but I do not want to repeat the experience of Iraq, ever again.

    I subscribe to the build a bad thing and we'll break it school of foreign policy. And they can rebuild it themselves. If they don't get it right, break it again. We know that the nation-building thing doesn't work worth warm spit with Arabs - Arab Logic refuses rationality. Now we find out if they're even trainable.

    Excellent post, sir. :-)
    Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 18:36 Comments || Top||

    #26  lotp - Islam, at the level of Muzzy First™, has to be ended - utterly. No more taqiya. No more using our institutions and civility against us. No changes to suit Islam. Shoot the camel's nose off, once and for all.

    American First™.

    And no apology for it.
    Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 18:40 Comments || Top||

    #27  Islam, at the level of Muzzy First™,

    and that's the rub, isn't it? Because there are Muslims I know in the service who are loyal to this country and its values.
    Posted by: lotp || 03/09/2006 18:41 Comments || Top||

    #28  Do you really think how we treat the UAE is not going to have any repercussions in the rest of the Muslim world?

    *laughs* Come on! The "rest of the Muslim world" spends as much time lying to its citizenry about the "shaytan America" as they do pretending to be our buddies. Until they're ready to deal with us honestly, what does one trashed deal in regard to ports really matter?
    Posted by: Crusader || 03/09/2006 18:46 Comments || Top||

    #29  Then, according to their most respected scholars, they are not good Muzzies. The fact that they all agree, at least I have never seen a single case where this is in dispute, that the Haddiths trump the Suras is where I think the rub actually lies. That and the myth that it is the verbatim Word of God and is, thus, unchangable, unreformable. ;-)

    This is very much like the Kurds. They are "lousy Muzzies" - because they are reasonable, rational, industrious, trustworthy, and *gasp* peaceful when not directly threatened.
    Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 18:48 Comments || Top||

    #30  You know, .com, we're going to have an uphill battle if we're always telling our friends that they're _bad_ Moslems and our enemies that they're _good_ Moslems. A proper propagandist would turn things around.

    We've got to stop respecting the implicit moral authority of our enemies.
    Posted by: Phil || 03/09/2006 19:20 Comments || Top||

    #31  The "rest of the Muslim world" spends as much time lying to its citizenry about the "shaytan America" as they do pretending to be our buddies. Until they're ready to deal with us honestly, what does one trashed deal in regard to ports really matter?

    "Honestly"? How honest was our deal with them?

    "Yes, we have no problem with foreigners like the Brits running our ports. Oh, you're Muslim, you say? Well now, let me run that deal past some grand-standing, bloviating gasbags in Congress first! They don't like doing business with your type--especially when they can score cheap political points at your expense.

    "Oh, but we expect to continue buying your oil, docking and re-supplying our ships in your ports, and mocking your religion. Thank you and have a nice day."
    Posted by: Dar || 03/09/2006 19:43 Comments || Top||

    #32  Phil - This strike me as a rather nuanced objection - a very Western objection.

    We'll have an uphill battle no matter WHAT position we take. You do understand this, no?

    They aren't upset by cartoons, lol, they're only a convenient (highly manipulated and enhanced) tool, a means toward the end of Islamic conquest. They get excited on cue. They disperse on cue. They are the sheeple of NMM infamy. They don't care what we do - it will be "wrong". Full stop.

    When you disengage your Western mind and think like a Muzzy, you'll begin laughing. You won't win any propaganda war with symbols and nuanced arguments - or any other facet of Western logic.

    You "win" a temporary arrangement when it's convenient for them to agree to one - and they realize you're the strong horse with a deadly kick - such as the web of deals we've had with the UAE up to today. As long as the equation is advantageous to them, or a win-win, they're there. When you kick them in the face, you'd better be ready with another kick, locked and loaded, cuz that is the only tool left to you.

    I have zero respect for Islam - I view it precisely the same as Nazism. It is an opportunistic ideology of slavery, barbarism, hatred, and dominion.

    ed has zeroed in on a workable plan of action. I like it, cuz it addresses the threats faced now and looks down the road to where we're going. That he has his eyes wide open and most are dead asleep is what impresses me most. He's got this puppy nailed.

    The only system that makes sense, assuming human progress is your goal, is embodied in the US Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. We got it as right as has ever been achieved. Period. I don't apologize to anyone who's offended or takes issue with this view. Fuck 'em.

    The real issue seems to be how BEST to fuck 'em. IMHO.

    But you can keep thinking Western - I'm not offended, lol.
    Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 19:50 Comments || Top||

    #33  "Oh, but we expect to continue buying your oil, docking and re-supplying our ships in your ports, and mocking your religion. Thank you and have a nice day."

    Its no different than the position THEY take with us at every turn. They sell to us when its in THEIR interests to do so, they allow use of "their" ports when its in THEIR interests to do so. And they avert their eyes when folks from their own country or from their neighbors do something that harms us or our interests. They are not our "friends" in that their death-cult religion prevents them from ever truly viewing us that way.

    Today they got screwed. Big deal. We were never "lovers" to begin with--it was (and will continue to be) a relationship that works when they believe it to be beneficial for them.
    Posted by: Crusader || 03/09/2006 20:03 Comments || Top||

    #34  no big deal

    That, to put it mildly, underestimates the relative weakness of the dollar if petro money is withdrawn in large amounts quickly, while we have so much debt outstanding.

    Sure, we can monetarize that debt. It's called 'major inflation' and has long and lasting consequences for our national wealth and our kids.

    But hey - it feels good to flip Dubai the bird, no?
    Posted by: lotp || 03/09/2006 20:17 Comments || Top||

    #35  ed and .com are right it is not turning into a war against terror. It is turning into a war against muzzies. We see on MSM every extremist muslim there is and people don't give a shit about good muzzy or bad muzzy they are beginning to want them gone.
    Posted by: djohn66 || 03/09/2006 20:18 Comments || Top||

    #36  Today, they have all the oil they need and we have little. Tomorrow, we will have oil made from corn, and they will have no corn.
    But, we are still all people of the same world. and for some of us to act as if we are anointed by Allan to rule all others, is to buy no corn.
    Bullets will change all this long before the oil from corn process does.
    Posted by: wxjames || 03/09/2006 20:19 Comments || Top||

    #37  Crusader --- Hmmm.

    I disagree with you because the political whores decided which battle to add to our list and, more importantly, when. None of the political game afoot was about security, it was purely political posturing and pandering.

    Had the politicians educated America as they should've done, do you recognize we should have chosen to put this aside, since the "issue" was totally fucking bogus to begin with, and use our arrangements with the UAE as long as they served our interests?

    If you are aware of all of the benefits we enjoy from the arrangements, and that there was no legitimate change to our security with the DPW deal, then you should be damning the entire lot of political asstard whores who've turned this tiny bit of nothing into a shitfest.

    Who has been harmed by it?

    If anyone, it's us - and us alone. I hope that they continue with the other arrangements we had, which our military highly values. But that isn't the pure clean equation it was before this flap arose... remember Muzzy First™? Now we have put that on the table.

    This has already hit the Saudi papers in editorial form. Where do you think it goes from here?
    Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 20:22 Comments || Top||

    #38  But hey - it feels good to flip Dubai the bird, no?

    There's always Doha.
    Posted by: Grolusing Omaviting2745 || 03/09/2006 20:28 Comments || Top||

    #39  Reading further down article, "Dubai is a critical logistics hub for the U.S. Navy and a popular relaxation destination for troops fighting in the Middle East. On many occasions since the ports story erupted, the Pentagon has stressed the importance of the U.S-UAE relationship.

    Last year, the U.S. Navy docked 590 supply vessels in Dubai, plus 56 warships, Gordon England, deputy secretary of defense, said in a Senate hearing last month. About 77,000 military personnel went on leave in the UAE last year, he added."

    Boys and girls, if Dubai was so fucking treacherous, why and the hell would we be docking or ships there? Particularly after the Cole.

    Moreover, why would we be permitting our best and most honorable soldiers to rest there?

    This whole issue is political pony games, and if I see that greasy Schumer smile any more broadly over it, I'll gag.

    Posted by: Captain America || 03/09/2006 20:37 Comments || Top||

    #40  Boys and girls, if Dubai was so fucking treacherous, why and the hell would we be docking or ships there? Particularly after the Cole.

    Maybe that's the idea. These (hack, spit) Congressvarmints and Senators are going to prove to themselves how tough they are by getting all the sailors and soldiers to resupply in Yemen instead of Dubai.
    Posted by: Phil || 03/09/2006 20:40 Comments || Top||

    #41  It's too late, CA. Schumer, Clinton and their ilk have won big with this one - and it was the total hysteria minus any facts from the right that handed it to them.

    Boy, most people don't have a clue what this one will cost us.
    Posted by: lotp || 03/09/2006 20:41 Comments || Top||

    #42  Amen, I fear.

    Politicians. *spit*
    Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 20:46 Comments || Top||

    #43  Boy, most people don't have a clue what this one will cost us.

    ...speaking of hysteria.
    Posted by: Grolusing Omaviting2745 || 03/09/2006 20:47 Comments || Top||

    #44  Lol.

    You're retarded, GO.

    HAND, lol.
    Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 20:49 Comments || Top||

    #45  Dubai backs out - hmmmm who would be the appropriate American firm? Halliburton Cartage™?

    heee heeee
    Posted by: Frank G || 03/09/2006 20:57 Comments || Top||

    #46  Great threads at the Burg today.

    My only comfort in this disaster is to recall that Bismarck said God looks out only for children, drunks and the United States. I hope he's still right. Somehow the wisdom of crowds must be at work and the American people must see something I don't. Maybe this is what we needed to do to let the world know we're getting serious. I can't figure it out but I pray it works out.
    Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/09/2006 21:06 Comments || Top||

    #47  I thoought of the same thing, Nimble Spemble.

    Grolusing Omaviting2745, it is never wise to insult a lady who's been hitting that little black circle in the middle since she counted her age in single digits. Just sayin'...
    Posted by: trailing wife || 03/09/2006 21:18 Comments || Top||

    #48  Cha_ching, Procter&Gamble is in large part owned by current and retired employees -- the retirement policy has accomplished by an annual donation of Company shares since, I believe, before World War II. The father of a schoolmate of mine had left P&G for other pastures before she and I were born; as of a few years ago he was still going to the annual retiree reunion weekend. So you needn't worry about P&G and it's ilk; not enough shares are available for a takeover to be achieved. ;-) (In this case, we do own P&G stock)
    Posted by: trailing wife || 03/09/2006 21:47 Comments || Top||

    #49  UAE buys American stuff because doing this buys them insurance against the Iranian menace across the Gulf and the Saudi and Iraqi menaces right next door. They could stop buying American stuff, and we could equally levy a financial and trade embargo against them for harboring al Qaeda. And they know it. I understand GWB has a soft spot for Muslims. But as far as I'm concerned, if Muslims can get all worked up about a few comic strips, we are allowed to get worked up about port security.

    Note that I don't have a problem with the deal. But if Dubai decides to stick it to us, and GWB doesn't poke their eyes out, then it's clear that GWB was merely the lesser of two evils during the 2004 election. *China* can get its foreign adversaries to backtrack and start running back where they came from. If Uncle Sam cannot compel its "allies" to back off, then what kind of "allies" are they? Remember - the only reason the UAE exists as an independent entity is because of these United States.
    Posted by: Zhang Fei || 03/09/2006 21:48 Comments || Top||

    #50  Well it's going to cost the House of Representatives come next voting cycle for one thing lotp.
    Posted by: SPoD || 03/09/2006 22:42 Comments || Top||

    #51  I firmly believe that USA shouldn't offend its Muslim allies.
    Posted by: gromgoru || 03/09/2006 22:56 Comments || Top||

    #52  Ya wanta have a good fight in Congress? Then let us get a real energy plan in place and start to get us and our allies off the ME oil tit, or at least make a significant reduction in our ME oil consumption.

    Nations work in their own self interest. The UAE needs our protection against Iran. We need their bases. Etc etc.

    We are involved in this ME psycho sandbox because the world needs its oil. There is too much wealth going to psychopaths. I am sick to death of all this bullsh*t talk in Congress and the Executive about energy policy and no action. People want action and want to do their part in more efficient and independent use of energy. We need leadership and we need a plan and we need to impliment that energy plan. Then we won't have to deal so much with whether we trust these overpaid, lying, hypocritical, ME SOB dictatorships. It's -15F and 15 kt wind here and I am still hot.
    Posted by: Alaska Paul in Hooper Bay, AK || 03/09/2006 23:30 Comments || Top||

    #53  It's -15F and 15 kt wind here and I am still hot

    Ima tellin Sjofn!
    Posted by: Frank G || 03/09/2006 23:36 Comments || Top||

    It won't cost us a thing! The UAE and other non-Sowdie 'burgs know their bacon is fried if
    Iran becomes a nuclear power.

    They'll make some noises, and do some token payback,
    but in the long run they'll play ball. This was part of their calculus I'm sure. They seem to be much better than us at playing these games.

    All in all, this is a good thing. This should never have been on the table in the first place.

    Posted by: Nana || 03/09/2006 23:44 Comments || Top||

    #55  Frank G---By hot I mean angry, not erotically aroused by the Dubai Bruhaha. Got it? OK, still don't shell Shofn....LOL!
    Posted by: Alaska Paul in Hooper Bay, AK || 03/09/2006 23:52 Comments || Top||

    Home Front: WoT
    Dubai Company to Give Up Stake in U.S. Ports Deal
    WASHINGTON — After Republican leaders warned President Bush that the House and Senate appeared ready to block Dubai Ports World from taking over some U.S. port terminal operations, the company said it would give up its management stake in the deal. The Thursday announcement was a blow for Democrats, who were pushing for a Senate vote on an amendment that would halt the deal. If they succeeded in that vote, Democrats could then claim a big election year win in the area of national security — an area Republicans generally have a stronger track record on.

    Sen. John Warner, R-Va., read a statement from DP World executives on the Senate floor Thursday, announcing the concession.

    "Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operation of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity," DP World's chief operating officer, Edward H. Bilkey, said in the statement.

    With the latest DP World news, many members of Congress who thus far have been critical of the deal may be much more positive toward it. Because the GOP-led House Appropriations Committee passed a bill blocking the deal on Wednesday, Democrats were scrambling to get a similar bill passed in the Senate by attaching it to a lobby reform bill. Bush has vowed to veto any measure halting the deal.

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - State-owned Arab company Dubai Ports World confirmed on Thursday an announcement by U.S. Sen. John Warner that it would transfer operation of U.S. ports it has acquired from the British company P & O.

    "Sen. Warner has made our statement for us. His announcements says everything we have to say at this point," a spokesman said.
    "We can say no more"
    Posted by: Steve || 03/09/2006 14:08 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6548 views] Top|| File under:

    #1  .... and enter Hallibuton!
    Posted by: Sherry || 03/09/2006 14:25 Comments || Top||

    #2  Are those heads I hear popping?
    Posted by: mojo || 03/09/2006 14:58 Comments || Top||

    #3  From Mark Levin at NRO

    "Reid is demanding a vote on a deal that no longer exists and Schumer is insisting on seeing the details of the now defunct deal. It's not easy being a weak-on-defense liberal."
    Posted by: Sherry || 03/09/2006 15:29 Comments || Top||

    #4  The donks can and are expected to be fools on defense. The limp wristed Reps who lined up behind them are disgusting.

    Ever fighr a war when you give away your strategic advantages? We are (Iraq/Afganistan)and will (Iran).
    Posted by: Captain America || 03/09/2006 16:25 Comments || Top||

    #5  I wonder where Slick Wille fits in to this. He is heavily involved in "advising" the UAE on this, for a fee of course, so it wouldn't surprise me if he comes out as one of the principles in the "United States Entity".
    Posted by: Deacon Blues || 03/09/2006 16:36 Comments || Top||

    #6  Slick Willie's Big Boat Loadin and Unloadin Company.
    Posted by: tu3031 || 03/09/2006 16:39 Comments || Top||

    #7  Slick Willie could be a big loser. He was supposedly an advisor to DPW. Some advice. On the other foot, guys like him do seem to land on their feet. Maybe he'll start endorsing rigged elections like Jimmah.
    Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/09/2006 16:40 Comments || Top||

    #8  Likely Mr. Clinton went in knowing there were very good odds that the initial deal would blow up.
    Posted by: Pappy || 03/09/2006 18:42 Comments || Top||

    This is a good thing!
    Posted by: Nana || 03/09/2006 23:40 Comments || Top||

    #10  like you'd know? I saw your dribble earlier.

    "Feeeeeelings! nothing more than feeeeelings!"
    Posted by: Frank G || 03/09/2006 23:42 Comments || Top||

    SOCOM Spies Succeed
    March 9, 2006: After some trial runs, the Department of Defense is now regularly sending teams of Special Forces troops (and other Special Operations types like SEALs and Delta Force) to perform espionage missions in foreign countries. The U.S. Army Special Forces are uniquely qualified for this kind of work, as they regularly study foreign cultures, know foreign languages, and have often already traveled to these countries on Special Forces business. While the CIA was shrinking it's force of field agents before 911, the Special Forces maintained their skills and numbers. The CIA has long hired retired Special Forces troops (or anyone who got out before retirement) as field agents. After September 11, 2001, the CIA put that recruitment effort into high gear, especially for Special Forces troopers who knew Arabic or languages used in Afghanistan. But many of these men returned to work for SOCOM instead.

    In the past, the CIA has sometimes used Special Forces troops to help out with espionage efforts, so the SOCOM operators are not unfamiliar with this kind of work. Initially, the Special Forces were operating, as they have in the past, outside control of the local American embassy. This caused some problems with the State Department, when the presence of the Special Forces was discovered. The Special Forces, apparently, kept their presence secret from everyone. But now, the SOCOM agents operate like the CIA and FBI ones, with the knowledge of the local American ambassador, and usually out of the embassy.

    There have been some complaints, from politicians and pundits, about the SOCOM espionage efforts. But these criticisms are misplaced, for SOCOM operators have long done this sort of thing, and are regularly trained for it. With the increase in counter-terrorism work, it's only natural that SOCOM is putting more effort into intelligence work. The official title of these operators are Military Liaison Element (MLE), and the number out there is, of course, a secret.
    Posted by: Steve || 03/09/2006 09:38 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6506 views] Top|| File under:

    #1  If you are looking for them in your local mosque, it could be the guy with the beard.

    But you didn't hear it from me.
    Posted by: eLarson || 03/09/2006 10:01 Comments || Top||

    #2  The henna-stained beard.
    Posted by: Steve White || 03/09/2006 10:15 Comments || Top||

    #3  And big turbans (to hide the surveillance equipment;)
    Posted by: Spot || 03/09/2006 12:04 Comments || Top||

    #4  Is it true that over 30% of all mullahs get paid by SOCOM?
    Posted by: Matt || 03/09/2006 12:24 Comments || Top||

    #5  speaking fluent farsi/pashtun/arabic (pick one) and the "holiest" man on the premises.
    Posted by: Frank G || 03/09/2006 12:26 Comments || Top||

    #6  I mean, not including the ones who work for British intelligence.
    Posted by: Matt || 03/09/2006 12:27 Comments || Top||

    #7  After some trial runs, the Department of Defense is now regularly sending teams of Special Forces troops (and other Special Operations types like SEALs and Delta Force) to perform espionage missions in foreign countries.

    Says something about how much DoD trusts CIA.

    the CIA put that recruitment effort into high gear, especially for Special Forces troopers who knew Arabic or languages used in Afghanistan. But many of these men returned to work for SOCOM instead.

    Cause they want to fight the enemy in the field as effectively as possible, not fight the administration at home. With few exceptions the SOCOM people are team players. Mission and results oriented on the battlefield.
    Posted by: Gromoter Snearong7571 || 03/09/2006 12:37 Comments || Top||

    #8  Matt, :>
    Posted by: Seafarious || 03/09/2006 13:12 Comments || Top||

    #9  #4 Is it true that over 30% of all mullahs get paid by SOCOM? ............that's a lot of mullahs.
    Posted by: cha_ching5944 || 03/09/2006 13:55 Comments || Top||

    #10  Doesn't the necessity to wear a green beanie give them away?
    Posted by: Chuck Simmins || 03/09/2006 15:07 Comments || Top||

    Moussaoui trial told of 'dream' to destroy White House
    Zacarias Moussaoui told a Muslim militant he dreamed of crashing a plane into the White House, according to testimony at the al-Qaeda conspirator's death penalty trial in the US.

    Singapore-born Faiz Abu Bakar Bafana, a member of the radical Indonesia-based group Jemaah Islamiah, said in testimony recorded in 2002 that he hosted a man he knew only as "John" in Kuala Lumpur in mid-2000, who told him of the dream.

    Jurors in the Virginia-based trial later saw Bafana assert during cross-examination that "John" was Moussaoui.

    Moussaoui is the first person tried in the United States in connection with the September 11, 2001 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people, and he has admitted conspiring to fly planes into US buildings for al-Qaeda.

    Though he was in detention at the time of the attacks, prosecutors argue Moussouai should be executed, because he knew Osama bin Laden's group planned to use airliners as weapons, but did not tell US authorities.

    A video recording of prosecutors and Moussaoui questioning Bafana in 2002 was played at the trial. In it Bafana identified Moussaoui as the man who told of the dream.

    The witness, who gave testimony while he was in jail in Singapore, was asked to relate a conversation he had with "John" in his house. "He told me he had a dream, flying an airplane into the White House," Bafana said.

    During his cross-examination Moussaoui asked Bafana to describe "John". "He looks exactly like you," Bafana replied.

    Moussaoui asked Bafana if he was sure and he replied: "Certain, I am sure it is you."

    He went on: "There is no doubt it is you. We always referred to you as John among the JI members."

    Bafana said "John" attempted to get flying lessons in Kuala Lumpur, but they were expensive, so instead he busied himself trying to find ammonium nitrate and aluminum powder for explosives.

    He said he was later told by "John" that he was leaving Malaysia after a conversation with "brothers" in Europe.

    "He said he had managed to get some brothers to assist him for flying training in the US because it would be cheaper in the US," he said.

    The US commission which investigated the September 11 attacks concluded that Moussaoui was ordered to undergo flight training in Malaysia in late 2000 by September 11 mastermind Khaled Sheihk Mohammed, but was unable to find a school he liked.

    The prosecution must prove that acts by Moussaoui directly contributed to deaths on September 11 for him to be eligible for the death penalty.

    If jurors unanimously agree he is guilty, they will be asked to consider recommending capital punishment. The alternative sentence is life in prison, without possibility of parole.

    Moussaoui pleaded guilty last year to six counts of conspiring to fly airliners into US buildings - but maintains he was involved in a follow-up plot to September 11, not the attacks on New York and Washington.

    Hang him NOW!
    Posted by: Elmolunter Glereper9896 || 03/09/2006 07:12 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6492 views] Top|| File under:

    #1  I, too, have a dream, Zacarias. Mine is almost infinitely more likely to come true than yours.
    Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 8:38 Comments || Top||

    #2  Me too. One with a nice big needle. Shriveled corpse to follow. Too bad we can't build an outhouse over his grave, at a nickle a shot we'd pay off the national debt in less than a year.
    Posted by: Zenster || 03/09/2006 11:11 Comments || Top||

    Moussaoui's 2002 statement returns
    A bizarre legal misstep by confessed al Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui came back to haunt him Wednesday as he helped confirm for jurors at his sentencing trial that he had said Osama bin Laden ordered him to fly a plane into the White House.

    Moussaoui's action emerged on a poor quality videotape shown in federal court, but it produced a gust of laughter from the packed audience, which is normally dead silent under fear of expulsion.

    The legal damage, however, may have been negligible because Moussaoui made the same admission last April when he pleaded guilty to conspiring with al Qaeda to fly airplanes into U.S. buildings.

    The unusual development came when prosecutors showed a barely intelligible four-hour-long videotape of a deposition taken in November 2002, when Moussaoui was acting as his own lawyer. Tiring of his constant insults and invective, Judge Leonie Brinkema put his defense back in the hands of court-appointed lawyers 17 months ago.

    The videotape showed a prosecutor, Moussaoui and a standby court-appointed defense lawyer questioning Fauzi bin Abu Bakar Bafana. He has admitted he was treasurer of a Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, cell of Jemaah Islamiyah, an Asian terrorist group linked to al Qaeda.

    The video linked the judge, Moussaoui and lawyers in the U.S. with lawyers and Bafana in Singapore, where he has been imprisoned since late 2001. The global hookup littered the tape with technical difficulties, including sound often too faint to hear and an echo effect.

    In addition, Moussaoui and Bafana were forced to speak in English, which is not their first language.

    The result was a video in which the most frequently uttered line was, "Repeat please."

    After three difficult hours of video, six jurors were using their hands to prop up their heads — a sharp contrast to the day before when prosecutors dramatically read accounts of the Sept. 11, 2001, plane crashes and had every juror wide-eyed and leaning forward.

    Prosecutor Kenneth Karas got Bafana to describe how Jemaah Islamiyah had him provide lodging in 1999 to a visitor he knew only as John. Bafana apparently misspoke; both sides agree Moussaoui's Malaysia visit was in 2000.

    "He told me he had a dream to fly an airplane into the White House," Bafana said. "He told me he told his dream to the sheik and the sheik told him to go ahead." Bafana explained the sheik was al Qaeda chief bin Laden.

    Although he had elicited descriptions that fit known events in Moussaoui's life, Karas rested his direct questioning without having Bafana identify John as Moussaoui. But that government omission was remedied once Moussaoui cross-examined Bafana.

    Moussaoui asked Bafana what John looked like.

    "He looks exactly like you," Bafana replied.

    Moussaoui: "Looks like me or are you certain it's me?"

    Bafana: "Certain."

    Scrambling to recover, Moussaoui dug himself deeper.

    "Maybe somebody looks exactly like me," Moussaoui offered.

    "I confirm that it's you," Bafana replied.

    Bafana also testified that Moussaoui rejected a flight training school in Malaysia as "too expensive" and asked the group for $10,000 to bankroll his flight training in the United States. But Jemaah Islamiyah's leader told Bafana to give him only $1,200 and send him back where he came from. The leader thought Moussaoui was cuckoo, Bafana said.

    As a lawyer, Moussaoui was constantly objecting to the prosecutor's line of questions, but Brinkema overruled him most of the time. Moussaoui tried to discredit Bafana's testimony with a long line of murky questions about his account of a trip to Afghanistan.

    Frank Dunham, Moussoui's standby court-appointed lawyer, had more success. He got Bafana to acknowledge that he was skilled in "funding travel, lying to the authorities and planning operations to kill people."

    Several other witnesses took the stand that day, reports CBS News' Beverley Lumpkin.

    Brenda Keene, admissions director at the Airman Flight School in Norman, Oklahoma, painted a picture of the tempestuous argumentative student. He may not have been the very worst pilot ever, Keene testified, but apparently he was close.

    The final witness, Lumpkin reports, was Pablo Hernandez Jr. a former Airman student who admitted he went there because it was "pretty much the cheapest school in the country." He said he had several conversations with Moussaoui during his time there in 2001 and recalled that "he told me he worked for a rich family in England and they had purchased a large plane and he wanted to learn how to fly the big plane." Hernandez said he told Moussaoui that would take a long time, that he'd have to work his way up, and it would cost a lot of money. Moussaoui "just told me he was going to fly for the rich family in England." He also told Hernandez he was a businessman, but "when I asked what kind of business, he told me I asked too many questions."

    Moussaoui claims he was not part of the Sept. 11 plot but rather a possible later assault on the White House. The government argues that if Moussaoui had not lied about his terrorist links and flight training when he was arrested in Minnesota in August 2001, the FBI would have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks.

    Defense lawyers say the FBI already knew more about Sept. 11 beforehand than did Moussaoui and still was not able to stop it.
    Posted by: Dan Darling || 03/09/2006 00:56 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6513 views] Top|| File under:

    #1  Moussaoui's 2002 statement returns

    Posted by: RD || 03/09/2006 1:08 Comments || Top||

    #2  Bafana also testified that Moussaoui rejected a flight training school in Malaysia as "too expensive" and asked the group for $10,000 to bankroll his flight training in the United States. But Jemaah Islamiyah's leader told Bafana to give him only $1,200 and send him back where he came from. The leader thought Moussaoui was cuckoo, Bafana said.

    so he was dissed by the leader of JI because he's a wacked out nut. Man, oh, man. How cuckoo do you have to be for that. Sounds like they gave him just enough money to send him to the US and get him out of their hair. So we spend millions to question this cuckoo and send him to jail. Jeesh.
    Posted by: 2b || 03/09/2006 6:23 Comments || Top||

    #3  "The leader thought Moussaoui was cuckoo, Bafana said".

    I had the occasion to meet Moussaoui’s former landlord. He described him as particularly lucid, somewhat friendly, and not a total whack-job. Which leads me to speculate that Moussaoui recognizes that he’s caught flat-footed and is using his training to dissuade the perception of a rational person complicit with a complex operation. Perhaps he believes his erratic behavior and his constant outbursts will portray him as misguided as easily manipulated in an attempt to garner sympathy.

    BTW: The landlord also said Moussaoui wasn’t always a loner and on occasions had numerous guests. I can only hope the Feds didn’t hose up surveillance on those individuals.
    Posted by: DepotGuy || 03/09/2006 12:07 Comments || Top||

    US lawmakers vote to block ports deal
    A Republican-run US House of Representatives committee has voted overwhelmingly to block a Dubai-owned company from taking control of some US port operations in an election-year repudiation of the president. The House Appropriations Committee voted by 62-2 on Wednesday to bar DP World, run by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, from holding leases or contracts at US ports.

    The vote underscored widespread public opposition to the deal and Republican fears of loosing its edge on the issue of national security in November's elections. The panel's vote came as across the Capitol, Democrats clamoured for a vote on the same issue in the Senate. George Bush, the US president, has promised to veto any legislation that would stymie the deal.
    Posted by: Fred || 03/09/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6549 views] Top|| File under:

    #1  That one wasn't hard to predict.
    Posted by: 3dc || 03/09/2006 0:20 Comments || Top||

    #2  Podhoretz predicted this 10 days ago. Political cowardice runs amok, now. November looks bad.
    Posted by: hunter || 03/09/2006 4:35 Comments || Top||

    "November looks bad."

    No. November looks good. The Majority Public opinion is dead set against this port deal. The only thing the Republicans can do now is kill the deal or risk looking like they're rewarding a Terrorism supporting country.

    The fact that Bush was kept in the dark or misinformed or misread the publics reaction, and the possible political and PR consequences is sad.

    However, it is one more example of his failure to communicate with the public in a timely fashion, or accurately gauge public sentiment.

    I've looked at the reasoning and facts on both sides of the argument over the ports deal, bottom line, it stinks and does not feel right from a gut standpoint. Let it die.

    Posted by: Nana || 03/09/2006 7:35 Comments || Top||

    #4  Nana - You've looked at the facts?

    Right. Name a major US port with no berths under foreign management. Go ahead, I'll be around to read your dazzling command of the facts.

    Fact: Port berth management collects fees from shippers. They pay the longshoremen who handle the cargo.

    Fact: Security is handled, at ALL US Ports, by the Coast Guard and Customs. Period.

    Okay, where did we lose you?

    Rational people decide based upon the available facts. Intelligent people also seek to verify them as best they can.

    You have made an emotional decision (i.e. your "gut") and no inconvenient facts will dissuade you, now. Sadly, you're as common as sand on a beach. Emotions are easily manipulated and you're today's prize fool.

    Good job, Citizen Nana.

    Hunter was dead right. See comment #19 in this thread for a fact-based exposition of this bogus issue.
    Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 8:25 Comments || Top||

    .com, I'm opposed to ALL foreign operation of US ports. Does the UAE allow American operation of their ports, or, can Americans own businesse in the UAE without having a UAE citizen as majority owner?

    I have looked at All the facts that have been listed here and elsewhere, plus all of the arguments pro and con, and I still say this is a bad idea.

    That is my opinion, you have a different one, great! However, you exhibit a tendency to belittle and call names when someone does not share your opinion.

    Rational people also examine facts and make decisions on what is right. Example: Abortion is legal, that's a fact! Doesn't make it right.

    I think you're just a dried up old fart that used to work in the "patch" and you miss your faded glory days.

    My decision was made because I do not believe that the UAE are our friends, any more than the Sowdies are. I see no reason to reward them with a juicy port management deal. Also, they still have under the hood connections with terrorists.

    And, last but not least, the majority of the American people do not want this. For my part, I have informed my representatives that if this isn't killed, they won't be too much longer in office. The port deal is real bad JUJU!

    If you don't like my opinion, go pound broken glass up you a$$, sonny boy!

    Posted by: Nana || 03/09/2006 8:42 Comments || Top||

    #6  I do have a tendency to belittle stupidity and emotional bullshit parading around as considered opinion. Guilty, indeed.

    You have NO facts to support your brain fart, do you?

    I'm opposed to all the things I think are bad things and in favor of all the things I think are good! So There!


    Btw, did you bother to read the thread link? Can you answer the question I posed? Do you actually know fuck-all about any of this?


    Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 8:50 Comments || Top||

    #7  From HuffPost: According to the New York Times, foreign-based companies own and/or manage over 30% of US port terminals. According to Time Magazine, over 80% of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles are run by foreign-owned companies, including the government of Singapore. In fact, APL Limited, controlled by the Singapore government, operates ports in Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle and Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Chinese government-owned companies control terminals in the Port of Los Angeles and other West Coast ports, as well as both ends of the Panama Canal.

    They at least got one part correct, this deal is about terminals, not ports. Ports are owned by cities or states. They lease space for terminals to load and unload cargo. It doesn't look like U.S. companies are interested in operating to many terminals, I don't know why.

    Next paragraph may reveal a motive for the outrage:

    Senators Clinton and Menendez have announced that they are introducing legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from purchasing port operations in the United States. But they should go one step further. Profit-making corporations, foreign or domestic, should not be allowed to own key strategic infrastructure. Corporation's responsibility is to their shareholders, not to the nation. If there's a conflict between security and profits, profits will come first. Strategic infrastructure should be owned and controlled by institutions that put the interests of the American people above profits. This could take the form of government ownership, or more likely ownership by non-profit joint government/private entities.

    And we know how efficent those are.

    In the end, the issue comes down to the Bush Administration's ideology of privatizing everything from social security to port ownership.

    Funny, I thought port terminals had been privately owned for decades.
    Posted by: Steve || 03/09/2006 8:58 Comments || Top||

    #8  Goddamnit, Steve! This isn't about facts, it's about how we feeeeeeel!

    Wave that goddamned magic wand and fix it!


    There! That's better!
    Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 9:03 Comments || Top||

    #9  The port operators also handle hiring the rent a cops on site. They track the shipping.

    It doesn't take a genis to figure out that these arabs could have a container shipped in and routed to avoid general inspections then smuggle the terrrorist or bomb out via the rent a cops. At least one container in the past was found with used suppies from a former smuggling trip.

    All that aside who in their right mind would want to put any country whose national religion calls for our dead, conversion or dhimmitude in charge of any part of our ports? THe UAE has in the past smuggled nuclear parts for Iran! Hello? Would you want these arabs in charge of luggage at any of our airports?


    This is another Harriet Meyers mistake. Except this one is dealing with the very desert religion that brought us 9-11. And they will try again.

    I love our President but I love my families, our nation's security more. We have muslim terrorist crossing our mexican border and he wants to hand over a port without fixing the boarder problem? I don't think so. This is insane.
    Posted by: Icerigger || 03/09/2006 9:33 Comments || Top||

    #10  Sigh. Read the comments #10 & #19 in the link I provided.

    As for the assertion about rent-a-cops being hired by the terminal operator - prove it. Let's see the link. Then explain how the Port Authority is circumvented by your rent-a-cop.

    Port Authorities have their own police forces.

    When you're ready, got your links and proof all lined up, post it -- tell Oldspook he's full of shit and you've got the goods on his dumb ass.
    Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 9:42 Comments || Top||

    #11  Okay. I'm done. There ain't no fixing it once people "decide" - they ignore everything else that's said, any and all proof to the contrary, and simply cast further and further afield for something, anything, to make a case - no matter how rickety or silly.

    No system is perfect. One thing is certain: people are the key. Corrupt people are just as dangerous as ideologically driven people.

    This is insane, alright, it's also downright embarrassing.
    Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 9:50 Comments || Top||

    #12  .com, Take a deep breath, relax and look at this from a different perspective.

    Since day 2 the facts have been apparent that this deal is not objectionable on national security grounds. The opposition is not based on rational thought. It is based on irrational fear aroused by the mo-toon circus.

    People are fed up with and afraid of the muzzies. That's good. Demonstrating it on this issue is not particularly good, as it is irrational. But it is good that people are flipping their bits to make the Arabs the bad guy as opposed to buying the PC ROP garbage. It is a necessary step on the path to being prepared for the conflict that has to come with the MM (even though they're Persians).

    It's not rational. Getting ready to accept significant economic disruption and military action are not strictly rational activities either. Especially for the civilian population not directly involved in planning or executing them except to pay the price in dollars and blood.

    The people are now getting ahead of Bush on calling the enemy the enemy. Bush needs to redirect these negative vibes to the MM. He's not doing a great job at that, as far as I am concerned. Fortunately, Kofi, al-Baradei and Atamydinnerjacket will pick up the slack for him.

    This signals to me that Bush, if he lays out the case properly, should not have trouble getting congressional approval for whacking the MM before November. All these critters are going to have a hard time expalaining to these irrational voters why they are such hawks with Arabs who want to deal with the stevedores at our ports but wimps with mullahs who want to send nukes to those ports.
    Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/09/2006 10:10 Comments || Top||

    #13  All these critters are going to have a hard time expalaining to these irrational voters why they are such hawks with Arabs who want to deal with the stevedores at our ports but wimps with mullahs who want to send nukes to those ports.

    Not a problem. Opposing the ports deal doesn't require them to do anything, or to put anything on the line. Chuckie Schumer and the Hildebeast get to sound tough without actually taking a stand on anything.

    Whereas nailing the MMs entails risk, blood and treasure. You'll never find Chuckie and Shrillary anywhere near that.
    Posted by: Steve White || 03/09/2006 10:18 Comments || Top||

    #14  They may want to pass a law the forbids foreign owned terminals, but that would severly damage our ports capability. FYI the UAE already runs terminals that are shipping crates/cargo/goods to U.S. ports. If they are such a security threat why not forbid shipments coming from those terminals? You see how this can digress into a chicken/egg argument very quickly and I think the committee was wrong and the President is right. Remember the balyhoo about "domestic spying"? After the dust settled they (Congress) made sure that activity could continue with their stamp of approval. It may take longer but they will soon see the errors of their ways.
    Posted by: Cyber Sarge || 03/09/2006 10:18 Comments || Top||

    #15  You've found a silver lining.

    It's sad that most people will never even hear the facts.

    It's embarrassing that even among those who do, some (many? most?) aren't up to the task of rational analysis, sans knee-jerk emotions.

    You've got to admit it's a mixed bag, lol.
    Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 10:21 Comments || Top||

    #16  Whereas nailing the MMs entails risk, blood and treasure. You'll never find Chuckie and Shrillary anywhere near that.

    Depends on what their polling results are.
    Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/09/2006 10:33 Comments || Top||

    #17  "nailing the MMs"

    No problem there, just trot out the old film clips of the blindfolded US Embassey personnel being taken hostage in Tehran in '79. Pick some of the juicier NightLine bits. Slap 'em together with some appropriate music.

    You'll have a campaign that will trip every emotional knee-jerk trigger in America in a jiff.

    Bombing starts 5 minutes later with the usual 8%-10%. paper-mache giant puppet / pink-tank crowd being the only ones who object.

    Silver lining.
    Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 10:36 Comments || Top||

    #18  Bad decision, guys. Bad, bad, bad.

    Posted by: mojo || 03/09/2006 10:42 Comments || Top||

    #19  Coulter said it best.

    There are at least 3,000 reasons why a company controlled by a Middle Eastern Muslim emirate should be held to a different standard than a British company. Many of these reasons are now buried under a gaping hole that isn't metaphorical in lower Manhattan.

    Side note: The Port Authority, which patrols the W.T.C. site and the adjoining PATH station, contracts a battery of security guards.


    There is your link. If you feel good about that why no lobby to have CAIR hire security at your local nuclear plant. How freaking stupid can the defenders of this mistake be? On your planet it would have been a good idea to turn over 22 of our ports to the kriegsmarine during WWII.

    If you can't see a problem with turning over any part of port work to our muslim terrorist funding, nuclear smuggling enemies then you need to visit the hole in New York, brush up on your arabic, and then tell us what part of sharia law and dhimmitude you like best.
    Posted by: Icerigger || 03/09/2006 11:04 Comments || Top||

    #20  Which decision is bad?
    Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/09/2006 11:14 Comments || Top||

    #21  The simple fact that the UAE was a conduit for some of the 9-11 highjackers, a transshipment point for Khan's nuclear proliferation and today remains a country where nearly 20% of its population admires bin Laden first and foremost plus over 60% of that same population declares themselves to be Muslim first and foremost has to stand for something. Top it off with how the UAE will not be required to maintain a complete set of books stateside and this begins to reek.

    As much as I detest the communist Chinese operating any of our ports, they have much more to lose by starting a nuclear exchange and, more importantly, do not participate in an overtly death-cult religion. The martyr instinct is simply too strong in Muslims in general to entrust them at this point in history.

    However contrary to my own position, Nimble Spemble's post is a tour de force on why it may not be such a bad thing for the American public to go with this particular rejection of Arab ownership.

    I'll repeat, all it takes is one relatively small nuclear device detonated in one of our major harbors to kill untold thousands and set back our economy TEN YEARS to the tune of a QUADRILLION dollars. Tell me how this is worth the risk.
    Posted by: Zenster || 03/09/2006 11:32 Comments || Top||

    #22  The MOST SIGNIFICANT thing about the port deal is this: Bill Clinton has been acting without authority behind the scenes to put the deal through because he somehow makes a profit personally. Meanwhile Hillary is bitching, moaning, and throwing around the PC theatrics against the ports deal, but she benefits from the same private profit deal Bill has going. As usual, they're working both sides.

    I don't know what's going on, because, on one hand, I agree with .com and Cyber Sarge that the port deal is NO BIG DEAL, in the world of international commerce/business, but then, there's the Clinton involvement aspect, which has not come to full light just yet. Of course Bill and Hillary are up to something, and it's probably something more than trying to raise money from Arabs for Hillary's campaign. The other thing that's really bothering me is that the UAE is accepting Bill's unofficial forays into the (illegal) deal-making.

    So, something's up, and it has nothing to do with the legitimacy/advisability issue regarding the ownership of foreign ports by foreign interests.

    Posted by: ex-lib || 03/09/2006 11:39 Comments || Top||

    #23  I mean "other than the issue of the ownership of US ports BY foreign interests."
    Posted by: ex-lib || 03/09/2006 11:41 Comments || Top||

    #24  I am not a longshoreman, but someone who was one explained it to me like this: They aren't "taking over a port" they are taking over the operation at one or several piers. The port is "owned" by the city where is exists and they inturn lease/sell piers to PRIVATE firms. The firms charge each ship that wants to load/unload goods at their pier. The managers of the pier use the fees to pay the longshoreman and fees to the port authority that controls security. Shipping lines dock at your pier depending on what type of pier you have and what services you provide. Given that DPW would do nothing except collect fees and pay people someone explain the security risk? I mean you can pay off longshoremen or security at any pier and you wouldn't have to spend millions of dollars buying one. If the bad guys wanted to send bombs/people/arms into the country they picked teh MOST expensive way to do it.
    Posted by: Cyber Sarge || 03/09/2006 12:35 Comments || Top||

    #25  .com, I think you're missing something: blocking the ports deal lets a lot of people in government and regress pretend they're doing something when in fact they aren't doing anything but pissing off the major transshipment point we have for military supplies going to our forces in Iraq.

    It doesn't matter that it actually hurts us more than it helps us, they can pretend they're doing something. They can also bitch about foreign involvement in our ports while not reversing any of their policies that have screwed up everything from the oilfield to metalworking industries and everything else. They finally figured out a solution to the fact that they've been screwing American businesses out of business: ban foreign investment.

    It isn't going to work _either_, but this whole issue isn't about how things actually work, or getting them to work.
    Posted by: Phil || 03/09/2006 12:47 Comments || Top||

    #26  Unfortunately, this is largely a political issue when it shouldn't have been.

    My best advice would be for the Reps to pull the carpet out from under the donks. Why?

    (1) Because Dubai, a great ally in the WoT, will respond to this farce by withholding future support. We rely on the graciousness of Dubai for docking, intel, etc. There will be a backlash.

    (2) Because the donks couldn't hold themselves for two weeks into the 45-day review; in short, they are wetting all over themselves to be the first to pull the plug on the deal.

    In a Senate committee meeting today, Sen. Dorgan, a principle in the march of the lemmings, tried to safeguard an adverse Senate vote by asking Condi what the ramifications would be from Dubia, Rummy interjected that there is no way of knowing how such a highly supportive ally would respond.

    Dorgan was not pleased.
    Posted by: Captain America || 03/09/2006 12:53 Comments || Top||

    #27  The bright side is that this whole thing is going to backfire.
    The UAE is going the retaliate, and that means with their money. They are going quit shopping from us. And that is not a drop in the bucket. The are already the number one purchaser of the new Boeing jets, a deal that is soon to be cancelled. They'll be flying Airbus. And many of our shipbuilders will also soon be out of work. And all those union workers will soon know who to blame. ALL of congress. Not just the Ds and Rs.
    And forget about our ships berthing in Dubai (a great place to stop by the way). Nope, now maybe we can berth in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.
    Good move congress.
    Screw a semi-friendly country so then we have to deal with truly unfriendly countries.
    Posted by: Urako || 03/09/2006 12:58 Comments || Top||

    #28  They were talking about this very issue on CNBC this morning. And mentioned in passing was something I thought important: all this talk can change nothing. When the UAE company bought P&O, they also acquired the contracts P&O holds. And we're stuck with them until the contracts run out, however many years down the road. I don't know if it's true, but in my youthful experience as an eeeeeevil landlord (actually, it was Mr. Wife who was the evil landlord; I was the good one), properties purchased with existing tenants meant the rents couldn't be raised until those tenants moved out... or the lease came up for renewal.
    Posted by: trailing wife || 03/09/2006 13:00 Comments || Top||

    #29  they aren't doing anything but pissing off the major transshipment point we have for military supplies going to our forces in Iraq.

    Yup. So all you folks who are really really concerned about our security better start digging bunkers in your backyards. Because as a result of your pissing and moaning about this deal, it will get a lot harder to deal with Iran etc. OVERSEAS and we will be reduced to fighting here.

    Bet on it.

    You guys have broken the first rule of military defense: defense IN DEPTH. Layers. Fighting there and then backing it up here too.

    Posted by: Slavique Shinenter9520 || 03/09/2006 13:50 Comments || Top||

    #30  DPW just pulled out of the deal so all for not.
    Posted by: Cyber Sarge || 03/09/2006 13:57 Comments || Top||

    #31  The deal is dead. DPW is saying it will sell the contracts to a US company. Probably at a substantial discount as the only company to bid will be....Halliburton?

    Anyway, we can bet that's not the only pain we will suffer. Thanks to all the idiots who were so scared of furners "opwning" our ports. I feel so much safer.
    Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/09/2006 14:00 Comments || Top||

    #32  quote: The are already the number one purchaser of the new Boeing jets, a deal that is soon to be cancelled. They'll be flying Airbus.

    They already fly Airbus. They have 50 Airbus planes and 40 Boeing. They were one of the first customers for the A380.

    quote: the major transshipment point we have for military supplies going to our forces in Iraq.

    And they do all this for free, right? And derive no economic benefit to boot?
    Posted by: Snerenter Ebbavitch1623 || 03/09/2006 14:05 Comments || Top||

    #33  quote: Anyway, we can bet that's not the only pain we will suffer.

    Oh the Pain! The sky has just fallen! ...on my poor, poor head. Feel the pain! Feel my pain!
    Posted by: Angogum Slumble8908 || 03/09/2006 14:08 Comments || Top||

    #34  Frankly, I'm glad it was canceled. Not that the government of Dubai is hostile towards us, but that its people are. I'm sick of us treating the Muslim world with respect -- much more than they deserve -- and getting shit and bullets back in response.
    Posted by: Robert Crawford || 03/09/2006 14:14 Comments || Top||

    #35  As I see it this was a perfect opportunity to nail the Democrats as untrusting the patriotic American Union Longshoreman who are the only ones who would get near the cargo and the Republicans couldnt' get their message out/lined up.

    This was not about port security and the fact that so many people thought it was, will continue to thin it is, just goes to show how bad the Bush Administration is at getting their message out.

    On the bright side perhaps Halliburton will take over the docks and really drive the Dems to distraction.
    Posted by: rjschwarz || 03/09/2006 14:22 Comments || Top||

    #36  I have said this before, the cartoon sh*t did it for the muslims, people are like f*ckem now, they get no ports they get nothing. I knew this is going to go this way and now the hatred will begin. It is going to get ugly.
    Posted by: djohn66 || 03/09/2006 14:28 Comments || Top||

    #37  Frankly, I'm glad it was canceled. Not that the government of Dubai is hostile towards us, but that its people are. I'm sick of us treating the Muslim world with respect -- much more than they deserve -- and getting shit and bullets back in response.

    Gotta agree with you on this one aspect (and one which I have already alluded to). Nowhere in the entire Arab world does America get a fair shake. The Saudis are supposed to be our bestus ally. Need I say more? Everywhere we go, the bywords are betrayal, deceit, perfidy and backstabbing in general. Good points have been made about our need for local berthing vis the Iraq campaign. From what I've seen, none of these smaller Arab domains are going to shut their doors if we continue to dump millions into their laps. And that is the real jist here, these @ssholes are our friends only so long as the money flows. There is absolutely no ideological, political or etchical concord driving any of this. Just the buckaroos. Remove all cash from the equation and watch what happens.
    Posted by: Zenster || 03/09/2006 14:39 Comments || Top||

    #38  Regardless of the outcome of the ports deal it is not in the best interests of the UAE to blow up their relationship with the US. The leaders there are not stupid. They have to deal with internal politics just as we do over here.

    The US Govt. will do other things to make nice to them. Sure, they might have to do some symbolic tit for tat, but that is all that will come from this. They are not going to turn our ships away, nor turn down the huge amount of money they are getting to recieve our military equipment.

    And don't forget that they are a lot more worried about Iran than we are since they are so close and so dependent on the Straits of Hormuz being kept open.

    Personally, I think this whole brouhaha is bullshit and I don't beleive our security would have been affected one iota. But I absolutely agree that this is blowback from the cartoon seeth-fest. More and more people in the US are starting to see Muslims as freaks, rightly or wrongly. DPW is paying the price for that.
    Posted by: remoteman || 03/09/2006 14:43 Comments || Top||

    #39  And that is the real jist here, these @ssholes are our friends only so long as the money flows.

    So long as we shovel over the jizya, you mean. No doubt our "diplomats" do enough abasement to satisfy that part of the requirement. Though I suspect it won't be enough pretty soon.
    Posted by: Robert Crawford || 03/09/2006 14:49 Comments || Top||

    #40  The horrors keep piling up.

    Did you know that foreign investors own at least 14 power generation plants in the United States? Power plants! At any moment power generation could be cut to hundreds of thousands of customers--homes and businesses--and we would have no say! To say nothing of foreign ownership of car manufacturing facilities in the United States. The Japanese get angry with us? Expect Toyota and Honda plants to close. And until they do close them expect them to watch our Native Manufacturers like hawks, examining how our Good American companies make cars...just to do it themselves!!!

    And it doesn't end there. How many billions of dollars have the Canadiens invested in this country, putting to risk housing developments, apartment complexes, all under the evil thumb of the Foreigner!!!!!!!

    Foreign investment in the country has to stop. We have to let Uncle Pierre, or Uncle Achmed, or Uncle Bruce know that they have no rights to American investment.

    Only after we remove all foreign investment from this country will we be safe. And if they don't sell cheap...we nationalize!

    What a great time to be a True, Blue American. We don't need people with different faiths, creeds or nationalities to invest here. All we need is to have Congress pass a law and America will becomd safe again.

    (/btw, sarc off)
    Posted by: OregonGuy || 03/09/2006 14:50 Comments || Top||

    #41  .com

    Even if security is handled by Coast Guards I think it is much better to have the ports in hands of people who will not turn a blind eye if they accidentally learn of a jihadist plot, let alone if ports are in the hands of people who will actively help jihadis with their plots.
    Posted by: JFM || 03/09/2006 14:50 Comments || Top||

    Icerigger, Zenster, .com has his own set of facts and reasoning that he goes by. Any other facts or reasoning that conflicts with his chosen opinion is invalid.

    You can tell by the way he hurls insults and invective, as though that might intimidate you into seeing things his way.

    Posted by: Nana || 03/09/2006 14:58 Comments || Top||

    #43  I wasn't that furriners was going to run the ports, It is because muslims' was going to run the ports. If they would have said India was going to run the ports nobody would have said nothing.I am not codoning that activity, but that is how it is
    Posted by: djohn66 || 03/09/2006 14:59 Comments || Top||

    "I'm opposed to all the things I think are bad things and in favor of all the things I think are good! So There!"

    So am I! But your attitude is that what you think is always right, and if anyone disagrees, they're wrong. Some of us might see you the same way you say you see us.

    Posted by: Nana || 03/09/2006 15:00 Comments || Top||

    "There ain't no fixing it once people "decide" - they ignore everything else that's said, any and all proof to the contrary, and simply cast further and further afield for something, anything, to make a case - no matter how rickety or silly."

    The exact same case could be made and applied to you!

    Posted by: Nana || 03/09/2006 15:02 Comments || Top||

    #46  Chuck S. got what he set out to do. If any here trusts this Senator you are a fool. You just gave this gun banning bastard a win that hurts the WoT.
    Posted by: SPoD || 03/09/2006 15:02 Comments || Top||

    #47  I wasn't that furriners was going to run the ports, It is because muslims' was going to run the ports.

    ChiComs running ports is OK, but not muslims. Okay.
    Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/09/2006 15:05 Comments || Top||

    "...do nothing except collect fees and pay people someone explain the security risk?"

    And send the profits home to the UAE where they are off the books, and/or cannot be scrutinized by us as to where they go.
    Posted by: Nana || 03/09/2006 15:09 Comments || Top||

    #49  :] You just gave this gun banning bastard a win that hurts the WoT.

    Oh my God! Run for the hills! Run for the hills! They have won!
    Posted by: Ben Dover For Islam || 03/09/2006 15:10 Comments || Top||

    #50  Hey I didn't say it was fair, I am just saying when a whole hell of a lot of Americans don't want something, it is not going to happen
    Posted by: djohn66 || 03/09/2006 15:10 Comments || Top||

    #51  :> You have made an emotional decision...Emotions are easily manipulated and you're today's prize fool.

    I concur!!! ...er, I mean, I concur.

    Posted by: Spock || 03/09/2006 15:13 Comments || Top||

    #52  You don't know where the profits from all the Hutchinson-Wampoa-controlled facilities here go.
    Posted by: Phil || 03/09/2006 15:15 Comments || Top||

    #53  Maybe, just maybe, Michael Moore was correct about the Bush family and their releationship with the Arabs.
    Posted by: Just Curious || 03/09/2006 15:16 Comments || Top||

    #54  Cutting to the chase, Port - or Pier - operators would have comprehensive knowledge of Port security systems, thus, allowing a terrorist infiltrator to bypass same. All Muslims are subject to jihad recruitment, and studies reveal that middle and upper class Arabs form the bulk of al-Qaeda membership. The unholy Koran says: "Jihad is prescribed to you." You can take the Muslim out of jihad, but you can't take jihad out of the Muslim. However, you can put a leash - or a noose - on them.
    Posted by: Listen To Dogs || 03/09/2006 15:24 Comments || Top||

    #55  You don't know where the profits from all the Hutchinson-Wampoa-controlled facilities here go.

    That's riiiight! Follow the money!!
    Posted by: ][e || 03/09/2006 15:25 Comments || Top||

    #56  Just Curious:
    You don't like the President? Some do:
    Some don't:
    (pardon my cut-and-paste browser)
    Posted by: Listen To Dogs || 03/09/2006 15:52 Comments || Top||

    #57  Hey I didn't say it was fair, I am just saying when a whole hell of a lot of Americans don't want something, it is not going to happen

    Well, there's an old saying, want in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one fills up first.
    Posted by: Phil || 03/09/2006 16:03 Comments || Top||

    #58  "The is a 10 foot tall Penguin behind you!"
    Posted by: SPoD || 03/09/2006 16:11 Comments || Top||

    #59  LTD:

    In Farenheit 9-11, Michael Moore went into great detail about the relationship between the Bush family and and the Arabs.

    In light of President Bush's support for this deal while everyone else is denouncing it, you telling me you dont think its a coincidence?
    Posted by: Just Curious || 03/09/2006 16:19 Comments || Top||

    #60  Nana and Just Curious are leftist agenda types. Just FYI.
    Posted by: ex-lib || 03/09/2006 16:29 Comments || Top||

    #61  Hey screw you , if you don't like the way it went down, not my problem. I do not give a shit one way or another, but 80 percent of the people did not want the deal live with it.
    Posted by: djohn66 || 03/09/2006 16:46 Comments || Top||

    #62  80 percent of the people don't, or are incapable of, understanding the complexities of the deal--thanks to the MSM, in large part.
    Posted by: ex-lib || 03/09/2006 16:51 Comments || Top||

    #63  And if the UAE gives us a big "Screw You" with respect to

    1) basing rights
    2) intelligence passing

    will that be a net gain or net loss in the view of the "80%"?

    --80% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
    Posted by: eLarson || 03/09/2006 16:54 Comments || Top||

    #64  Incidentally, the deal seems to be off. The UAE is reportedly going to transfer the terminal management to a US company.

    link to more links
    Posted by: eLarson || 03/09/2006 16:57 Comments || Top||

    #65  Look I can agree all day with you, but it was not me to convince. Bush did not convince a majority of the people, a big majority said no, guess what no deal.
    Posted by: djohn66 || 03/09/2006 16:58 Comments || Top||

    #66  Right dj. I think it's tough to get the message out, since the conduits of information have their own agenda (the MSM). BTW, the MSM really get their rocks off if they can manipulate the public into this or that direction. Power addicts, mostly.
    Posted by: ex-lib || 03/09/2006 17:00 Comments || Top||

    #67  So, let's agree that all of the people need all of the facts in order to draw logical conclusions about security. And, that the MSM have never and will never supply all the facts on any issue. Now, with about 5,000 people crossing the borders every day, shouldn't the same level of debate force immediate action by the phuckan Senate ?
    Posted by: wxjames || 03/09/2006 17:05 Comments || Top||

    #68  Oh a lot of people don't like the illegal immigrant stuff either, I think it is going to be a big campaign issue this november
    Posted by: djohn66 || 03/09/2006 17:11 Comments || Top||

    #69  80 percent of the people don't, or are incapable of, understanding the complexities of the deal--

    We're just too stupid. Forgive us.
    Posted by: Wheatch Glick3121 || 03/09/2006 17:15 Comments || Top||

    #70  Looks like the pitchfork pat wing wins a round.

    /wop wop wop wop
    Posted by: 6 || 03/09/2006 17:34 Comments || Top||

    #71  The razor blade sez there are two major groups.

    1) Some people "decide" based upon emotions. The IQ curve is in play - obviously - dismiss them out of hand.

    2) Some people decide based upon facts.


    The razor blade sez Group Two splits into two subgroups:

    a) Some people restrict themselves to reality. A constant re-assessment and re-balancing based upon changing facts and circumstances - and experience. It's a lot of work and requires one to evolve - as reality evolves.

    b) Some people speculate outside of reality. The primary persuasion tool is fear. Fear of black helicopters, OWG, CAIR providing security at the local nuke plant, fear of the boogeymen under their beds, fear of, well, just about everything. I think of them as turtle-people.


    The razor sez subgroup b splits into two subsets:

    i) Some people fear-monger using facts but not experience or rationality. They are very careful about which facts they feature - and which must be minimized - to generate the desired accolades for their position.

    ii) Some people fear-monger without any impediments whatsoever, such as facts or reality.


    Observations from a Group 2a member:

    I am embarrased by Group 1, but recognize how the IQ curve applies and emotion is all they have going for them. Oh look, Sesame Street is on!

    I am fascinated by the gyrations of 2b(i). Maybe there's something there, but probably not. Experience dictates that hollering does not equal substance and worst case extrapolation is primarily useful for bounding an argument. In the end, they are also embarrassing for their tenacity despite the lack of actual supporting evidence.

    I am laughing my ass off over the BDS-addled subset 2b(ii). "Maybe, just maybe", lol, they are totally insane. The droll troll nym chameleon actually thinks it can weasel in and snarf up a few weaklings to join the Kool Aid Brigades. Lol - please, anyone who is tempted is encouraged to go. Please. Hurry. *giggle*


    Icerigger: That was your proof?
    "The Port Authority, which patrols the W.T.C. site and the adjoining PATH station, contracts a battery of security guards — as well as police officers — to patrol the property."

    There are regular cops mixed in there, I see.

    And, once again, I direct you to Oldspook's comments - especially the parts about politics and funding.

    You make yourself look like a moron to jump to the most extreme idiocy you could dream up to "drive your point home" - that's not logic, that's proof you belong in 2b(i).


    Fallout: This mindless exercise has weakened precisely those who would defend you and yours. The political process, the whore of whores, has won the day. Truth was murdered. Again.
    Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 17:41 Comments || Top||

    #72  djohn, the borders will be a big deal in November ?
    It's March for Jake's sake. It should be a big deal now. 5,000 per day equals about 1,200,000 chances to become an illegal between now and then. Why wait ? Why allow waiting by the phuckan Senate ?
    Posted by: wxjames || 03/09/2006 18:22 Comments || Top||

    #73  wxjames, I've seen more and more articles about the border issue, starting when the Minutemen began their patrols -- including items on NPR, which means the Progressives are no longer pretending it's not an issue. I've also started noticing letters to the editor on both sides of the issue, here in Cincinnati, which is about as far from all the borders as can be gotten in the continental U.S. I'd say that the peepul have noticed that illegal migration has reached unacceptable levels, and given that even Hillary Clinton has started to speak on the subject, we won't have to wait until November for things to start happening in DC. It was only the other day that the governor of Arizona (?) announced that she wants to put her units of the National Guard along the border to supplement the Border Patrol.
    Posted by: trailing wife || 03/09/2006 22:13 Comments || Top||

    #74  Yes, yw - it was Arizona. And 'November' has a lot to do with Governor Naplitano's actions. Come 2007 and her re-election, it'll be back to the same ol' same ol'.
    Posted by: Pappy || 03/09/2006 22:51 Comments || Top||

    #75  I've also started noticing letters to the editor on both sides of the issue, here in Cincinnati,

    That's probably because papers are actually pringing the ones they've been receiving all along but never printed before. Why are they printing them now? Probably because the democrats are delusional that they can suddenly make this their issue. Dream on.
    Posted by: 2b || 03/09/2006 22:54 Comments || Top||

    #76  I can't help being naive, 2b. It's the way I was drawn. ;-)

    And anyway, why have the papers suddenly noticed that it's an issue? Possibly because the number of letters to the editor on the subject?
    Posted by: trailing wife || 03/09/2006 23:09 Comments || Top||

    #77  ROFL, tw!
    Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 23:18 Comments || Top||

    "Nana and Just Curious are leftist agenda types. Just FYI."

    For myself, I've voted Rebublican my whole life. You're an idiot. You cast about accusations without knowing the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground.

    Posted by: Nana || 03/09/2006 23:47 Comments || Top||

    "80 percent of the people don't, or are incapable of, understanding the complexities of the deal--thanks to the MSM, in large part."

    Doesn't matter! This is still a mojority rule country. Enough Americans wrote their Reps. and said this is BS, we don't want it. On both sides. And they were listened too, you don't like it! Tough titty!

    Posted by: Nana || 03/09/2006 23:50 Comments || Top||

    #80  I'm, still parsing the broken glass bit.

    Now it's titties.
    Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 23:53 Comments || Top||

    "Now it's titties."

    I was looking for the lowest common denominator! I guess I wasn't far off the mark. I'm amazed at how quick you responded, though I shouldn't have been.

    Do you actually have a job, or do you just draw SSI for whatever mental illness you have?

    Posted by: Nana || 03/10/2006 0:00 Comments || Top||

    #82  Lol, I'm retired, Nana.

    I can always go back to work, if I want to, but I don't have to.

    You're stuck with being a fool forever.
    Posted by: .com || 03/10/2006 0:04 Comments || Top||

    Kashmir outfit claims blasts in Indian Hindu holy city
    VARANASI, India -An unknown militant group claimed responsibility on Thursday for blasts that killed 23 people in India’s holiest Hindu city of Varanasi as grieving relatives cremated victims. The group Lashkar-e-Kahar told a news agency in Indian Kashmir, where an Islamic revolt is raging against New Delhi’s rule, that it staged on Tuesday’s blasts. “We have carried out the attacks,” a man identifying himself as Abdul Jabbar, the group’s spokesman, told Current News Service in a telephone call. He threatened more attacks if “India does not stop atrocities against Kashmiri Muslims.”
    "We own the copyright on atrocities in Kashmir!"
    Police in Indian Kashmir’s summer capital Srinagar said they had never heard of the group, whose name translates as “Army of the Imperious,” but were taking the claim seriously and had begun an investigation.

    Police released sketches Thursday of two male suspects in their twenties.They said the suspects were believed to be of Kashmiri origin and had planted a bomb at a store which failed to explode. “From eyewitness accounts, we think up to five people were behind the attacks and we’re trying to ascertain the involvement of a woman terrorist,” police chief Navneet Sikera said.

    One Islamic militant suspect was shot dead Wednesday near the state capital Lucknow. Police identified him as the chief of the state wing of the pro-Pakistan Lashkar-e-Taiba or “Army of the Pious” guerrilla group. Police were deployed in strength across Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state, to prevent Hindu revenge attacks against Muslims.

    Prominent local Muslims appealed for the bombings not to destroy good relations between the two religious groups. “Hindus and Muslims have been living in perfect harmony in Varanasi for centuries ... so we cannot afford a rift now,” said Muslim leader Anjum Madani.
    "We're kind of out-numbered here"
    Muslim leaders also wrote a letter to city authorities demanding ”the sternest possible action against the perpetrators,” said Varanasi’s chief civilian administrator Ramesh Gokad.

    The city saw street protests and a strike Wednesday but no violence and the situation had “more or less returned to normal,” Sikera said. But he said militants could target other Hindu shrines in Uttar Pradesh. “It was Ayodhya last July, then it was Varanasi ... It is just a matter of time,” hesaid.

    Last July Muslim rebels stormed a makeshift temple built on the rubble of Ayodhya’s Babri mosque, demolished by Hindu zealots in 1992. The raiders were killed by troopers guarding the site. The mosque demolition triggered communal riots in 1992 that left 2,000 people dead across India. Attacks on religious sites in India, where Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and Buddhists have lived side by side since time immemorial, always fan fears of violence.
    Cuz they've been killing each other since time immemorial, with a pause now and then.

    The last major bloodshed was in early 2002 in western Gujarat state where Muslims were blamed for torching a train and killing 59 Hindu activists.
    An inquiry later ruled the blaze accidental but at least 2,000 people, mainly Muslims, died in the ensuing bloodbath. “We are ready to guard against instigation” of such violence, state home secretary Alok Sinha said.
    Posted by: Steve || 03/09/2006 09:08 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6525 views] Top|| File under:

    #1  oh yeah, let's just yell "Yoo-hoo! Ovah heah!" at 50 million pissed-off hindus, there's a good idea.
    Posted by: mojo || 03/09/2006 10:40 Comments || Top||

    #2  I'm waiting for an Indian muslim politician to announce a 51 million rupee bounty on the heads of those responsible for the death and maiming of their fellow countrymen... but bounties are reserved for Danish cartoonists

    I'm waiting for the Jaamaat-e-Islami-e-Hind to bring out fifty thousand madrassah students to protest this terror attack....but mass protests are reserved for George W Bush

    Posted by: john || 03/09/2006 15:54 Comments || Top||

    Two soldiers killed in attack by militants
    MIR ALI, Pakistan - Tribal militants launched rockets on a military post on Thursday in a volatile Pakistani region near the Afghan border, killing two paramilitary soldiers and wounding another, a security official said.

    The attack happened before dawn on the outskirts of Miran Ali, a town in North Waziristan where military raids have killed an estimated 100 pro-Taleban fighters in the past week, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to media. The attack sparked a two-hour gunbattle in the village of Anghar, the official said. The assault on the base in Anghar - located on the edge of Miran Shah, the region’s main town - brought the toll of soldiers killed in the recent violence to eight.

    It came a day after a delegation of elders urged President Gen. Pervez Musharraf to end military operations and give them a chance to pacify tribesmen who have accused the military of killing innocent people. Musharraf’s spokesman, Gen. Shaukat Sultan, said the president had promised to consider the proposal and sought the elders’ help in evicting foreign militants and their local supporters from the region. The elders promised “full support.”
    Posted by: Steve || 03/09/2006 08:58 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6503 views] Top|| File under:

    #1  "full support"!!!!
    Posted by: anymouse || 03/09/2006 9:57 Comments || Top||

    Locals still fleeing Miranshah
    THOSE who fled came across the hills with tales of terror: bombed hospitals, beheaded government officials, helicopter gunships and indiscriminate bombings.

    The survivors escaped in pick-up trucks — their frightened women and children crying in the back — to make the 15-minute journey to the Afghan border and safety.

    When they arrived in Ghulam Khan yesterday, they described a ferocious five-day battle between Taleban insurgents and the Pakistan military for control of the town of Miran Shah in the tribal lands of Waziristan.

    Akram Zahid, a 24-year-old Afghan who lived in the town, said: “So many people were killed. The Government destroyed a mosque and bombed hospitals. They were bombing the whole city with their Cobra helicopters.”

    The engagement at Miran Shah is at the centre of a furious row between Pakistan and Afghanistan — both key US allies in the War on Terror. More than 120 pro-Taleban militants and five Pakistani soldiers are said to have died during the fighting in the past week.

    President Karzai of Afghanistan pleaded yesterday for greater co-operation from his neighbour, President Musharraf, who the previous day had accused elements within the Afghan regime of maligning Pakistan.

    Commander Karim, the leader of an Afghan Special Forces unit tasked with securing the frontier between the Afghan province of Khost and North Waziristan in Pakistan, looked across the border. “We could see helicopters bombing and hear mortar shells. We heard one only half an hour ago,” he said.

    Ashraf Khan, 23, held a crying child in his arms as he described why he had fled. “The Taleban were arresting people, government employees or those supporting them, and beheading them. The Army came and we were watching them, they were fighting, they came in Jeeps and helicopters and they were bombing the area,” he said.

    The region is notoriously wild and is inhabited on both sides of the border by Pashtun tribesmen, a proud warlike people who defend their guests to the death.

    It is in these tribal belts that many of the senior Taleban, who were made homeless by the American-led invasion of 2001, are believed to be living.

    The fighting started last week as President Bush flew into Pakistan to meet President Musharraf. In a show of strength, the Pakistani Army attacked a militant stronghold killing 45. Pro-Taleban insurgents responded by seizing government buildings in Miran Shah and unleashing the terror.

    The violence has come when relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan are strained. Last month President Karzai gave Pakistan a list of Taleban and al-Qaeda insurgents who he said were hiding in Pakistan. President Musharraf said that the intelligence was outdated.

    The tension is such that America has sent General John Abizaid, Central Command Chief, to Pakistan to smooth things over. In Afghanistan, however, there is a feeling that finally Pakistan is addressing the problem of militants.

    “This fighting has a positive impact on the security of Khost. Pakistan has decided to chase and fight the terrorists. Of course the terrorists are based there,” said Mirajuddin Pathan, the governor of Khost, whose punishment for suspected terrorists is to parade them through the streets and allow his townsfolk to pelt them with tomatoes. “Mr Musharraf said that the information given by Mr Karzai is three months old, indirectly he is admitting they have terrorists there.”

    Back on the border Yassin Tajik, 40, wearing a white turban and a smile, was obviously happy to be back on Afghan soil. “I am Afghan, now there is peace here and violence there — why would I stay?”
    Posted by: Dan Darling || 03/09/2006 01:01 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6488 views] Top|| File under:

    Farmers shoot at team sent to destroy poppy
    The assistant political agent and Khasadar Force personnel came under fire from angry farmers in Prang Ghar tehsil of Mohmand Agency on Wednesday when they tried to destroy the poppy crop of a local farmer. Farmer Mukhtadin was arrested on Monday for growing poppy and APA Ahmad Jan Afridi and tehsildar Salim Gandapur, accompanied by Khasadar Force personnel, went to destroy his poppy crop in the Yousaf Baba area on Wednesday.

    However, soon after the team started destroying the crop, farmers started shooting at them. The officials and their guards left the area. The political administration later released Mukhtadin after he promised to destroy his poppy crop. Locals complain that the political administration has started the destruction of poppy without consulting them.
    Posted by: Fred || 03/09/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6530 views] Top|| File under:

    Indian police kill Varanasi bomb suspect
    LUCKNOW: Indian police on Wednesday shot dead an Islamic militant suspected of links to a triple bombing that killed 23 people in Hinduism's holy city of Varanasi and sparked a nationwide alert. Counter-terrorism forces gunned down the wanted man just hours after the blasts, which also wounded 68 people, rocked the ancient city and raised fears of a Hindu backlash. "Probably he was involved in the Varanasi blasts," police superintendent Rajesh Pandey said.

    The authorities said they suspected "terrorists", a euphemism for Islamic extremists, were behind the carnage late Tuesday. The suspect was found with a pistol and 2.5 kilogrammes of explosives after he was shot on the outskirts of the Uttar Pradesh state capital Lucknow, 300 kilometres (190 miles) north of Varanasi. Named as Salar, the man was believed to be a member of the Islamic militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is fighting Indian rule in Kashmir, and had been wanted for several years. "Police had tracked Salar from Kashmir where he also operated, Tiku added.
    Posted by: Fred || 03/09/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6483 views] Top|| File under:

    #1  The authorities said they suspected "terrorists", a euphemism for Islamic extremists...

    Uh, no. Merely a description of people who deliberately cause terror.
    Posted by: mojo || 03/09/2006 11:53 Comments || Top||

    Security forces shell militants in North Waziristan
    Security forces shelled suspected militant hideouts in North Waziristan on Wednesday after a senior government official survived an ambush on his convoy. The government’s top official in North Waziristan, Zaheerul Islam, told Reuters one of his bodyguards was killed in the late Tuesday ambush as he was travelling from curfew-bound Miranshah, the main town in N Wazristan, to Peshawar. Islam said four of the attacking gunmen had been killed as his guards fought back. Later, security forces shelled suspected militant hideouts in the area. “Miscreants’ hideouts were destroyed and this operation will continue,” Islam said by telephone from Mir Ali.

    Dozens of residents of Naurak, a village near the scene of the attack on Islam, were fleeing on Wednesday, fearing fighting between troops and militants, an AP reporter saw. Authorities using explosives demolished 10 homes of suspected militants in a village near Miranshah. The homes were empty and no one was hurt. Residents of the area said artillery fire resounded all night and more people were joining the thousands who had already fled.

    Islam said security forces had on Tuesday destroyed a madrassa that had been run by a prominent militant cleric. “It appeared to be a madrassa but terrorists were being sheltered there and a lot of weapons were also found there,” he said. The whereabouts of the cleric were not known.
    Comes as a surprise, huh?
    Two civilians died by firing from a helicopter in Miranshah on Tuesday, said Shirin Khan, a town resident. The military did not confirm the civilian deaths.

    A delegation of 16 tribal elders travelled to Rawalpindi on Wednesday where they met with President Gen Pervez Musharraf. Army spokesman Gen Shaukat Sultan said the elders promised to extend “full support to the government” in evicting foreign militants and their local supporters from the tribal areas.
    "Oh, yasss! Just as we always have, sahib! We shall get together some tribal lashkars and drive them into the sea!"
    Posted by: Fred || 03/09/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6498 views] Top|| File under:

    In a first, Iraq executes 13 insurgents
    Iraq hanged 13 insurgents Thursday, marking the first time militants have been executed in the country since the U.S.-led invasion ousted Saddam Hussein nearly three years ago, the government said.

    The Cabinet announcement listed the name of only one of those hanged, Shukair Farid, a former policeman in the northern city of Mosul, who allegedly confessed that he had worked with Syrian foreign fighters to enlist fellow Iraqis to carry out assassinations against police and civilians.

    "The competent authorities have today carried out the death sentences of 13 terrorists," the Cabinet said.

    It said Farid had "confessed that foreigners recruited him to spread the fear through killings and abductions."


    In September, Iraq hanged three convicted murderers, the first executions since the 2003 ouster of Saddam. They were convicted of killing three police officers, kidnapping and rape.

    Iraqi authorities reinstated the death penalty after the end of the U.S.-led occupation in June 2004 so they would have the option of executing Saddam if he is convicted of crimes committed by his regime.

    He and seven co-defendants are on trial for allegedly massacring more than 140 people in Dujail, north of Baghdad, after an alleged assassination attempt against him in 1982.

    Death sentences must be approved by the three-member presidential council headed by President Jalal Talabani, who opposes capital punishment. In the September executions and again in Thursday's hangings, Talabani refused to sign the authorization himself but gave his two vice presidents the authority.

    Posted by: Frank G || 03/09/2006 12:35 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6503 views] Top|| File under:

    #1  It will always make me think of the 'Tumbleweeds' comic strip character "Hogarth Hemp", the hangman.
    Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/09/2006 12:42 Comments || Top||

    #2  oops - thought I'd cleaned up the formatting. damit
    Posted by: Frank G || 03/09/2006 12:45 Comments || Top||

    #3  "A start ..."
    Posted by: doc || 03/09/2006 16:05 Comments || Top||

    #4  Indeed 'mooseman
    Posted by: C Clay || 03/09/2006 17:35 Comments || Top||

    18 bodies found in Iraq
    The bodies of 18 men, bound, blindfolded and strangled, were found in a Sunni Arab district of Baghdad, apparent victims of sectarian turmoil gripping Iraq and threatening the formation of a coalition government.

    Three years after U.S. troops invaded to topple Saddam Hussein, the U.S. State Department said killings by the U.S.-backed government or its agents had increased in 2005 and that members of sectarian militias dominated many police units.

    Iraq's Shi'ite interior minister, a hate figure for many Sunnis who accuse him of condoning death squads, escaped an apparent assassination attempt when a roadside bomb blasted his convoy. Minister Bayan Jabor, however, was not in his car.

    In its annual report on human rights abuses worldwide, the State Department said: "Police abuses included threats, intimidation, beatings, and suspension by the arms or legs, as well as the reported use of electric drills and cords and the application of electric shocks."

    Dozens of Iraqi private security guards were seized at their compound by men in police uniform on Wednesday, but in typical confusion Iraqi security officials contradicted each other over whether they were arrested or kidnapped.

    Three senior officials in the Interior Ministry insisted no raid was authorised on the company in Baghdad. Two other officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the private guards had been arrested by genuine police commandos.

    The bombing of an important Shi'ite shrine in Samarra on Feb. 22 has pitched Iraq towards civil war, unleashing reprisal sectarian killings and deepening the mutual suspicion between the country's majority Shi'ite Muslims and minority Sunnis.

    The violence has complicated faltering efforts to form a government of national unity three months after elections. Iraqi leaders, struggling to agree on who should hold the top posts, are due to meet President Jalal Talabani on Thursday to decide on a way forward. Parliament is supposed to meet by Sunday.

    The dumping of bodies bearing signs of torture and killed execution-style is a feature of the violence.

    The 18 bodies discovered by U.S. troops in western Baghdad late on Tuesday had all been garrotted and had their hands bound with plastic ties, police and hospital officials said.

    The victims, a mixture of middle-aged and young men in civilian clothes, carried no identifying papers, police said.

    A policeman at the Yarmuk hospital morgue pointed to their clothing and long hair as an indication some may have been religious extremists linked to al Qaeda. Reuters reporters who saw the bodies said many appeared to be Iraqis.

    Police sources said only one had so far been identified by a relative. He was a guard at an oil refinery in southern Baghdad.

    The policeman at the hospital said many of the bloodied bodies appeared to have been beaten while some had small burn marks, suggesting they were tortured before being killed.

    Senior officials, aware of the potential for sectarian anger if it becomes clear all are either Sunni or Shi'ite Muslims, made no formal comment on the religious identities of the dead.

    Iraqi police said the bodies were dumped near the Amriya district, a stronghold of Sunni insurgent groups.

    Sunnis have accused the Shi'ite-led government's police and other security forces of abducting and killing Sunni civilians -- an accusation Interior Minister Jabor and the police deny.

    Interior Ministry vehicles normally used to transport Jabor and his aides were attacked as they left the ministry on Wednesday. A roadside bomb destroyed one car in the convoy, killing two and wounding five, a police source told Reuters.

    It follows the assassination of the top Iraqi general in Baghdad, a Sunni, by a sniper in the capital on Monday. More than 500 people have been killed since the Samarra bombings, according to the most conservative official figures.

    Despite the daily bombings and shootings there is a relative lull in the violence and officials have said the immediate crisis seems to be over -- for the time being at least.

    But the U.S. ambassador conceded on Tuesday Iraq could still descend into civil war, saying Americans "opened Pandora's Box" when they toppled Saddam in 2003 and another incident like that in Samarra could push it to the brink of war again.

    In political negotiations, Sunnis and Kurds refuse to accept Shi'ite Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari should stay on. His critics say he has failed to bring security or prosperity during the year in which he has been interim prime minister.
    Posted by: Dan Darling || 03/09/2006 01:06 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6518 views] Top|| File under:

    #1  "the U.S. State Department said killings by the U.S.-backed government or its agents..."

    Classic Reuters.
    Posted by: hunter || 03/09/2006 6:37 Comments || Top||

    #2  by this slip of language, Reuters makes tater an American agent
    Posted by: mhw || 03/09/2006 8:47 Comments || Top||

    Pak arrested for Qaeda link
    US troops have arrested a Pakistani in Iraq for having alleged links to Al Qaeda, Online reported on Wednesday. The detained Pakistani, Muhammad Jehangir, a resident of Abbottabad, was serving in an Iraq-based American construction company in the area of Taji in Baghdad for the last three years. His brother Abdul Jalil told reporters on Wednesday that Jehangir sent Rs 12,000 to him through the Western Union bank in January 2006 and later went missing. He said that when the family contacted the company to ask for Jehangir, the company’s director said that US intelligence agencies had arrested him because “he had sent Rs 12,000 to his brother (Jalil)”.

    “The company director told me that a man namely Abdul Jalil was wanted by US intelligence agencies and this was the reason that Jehangir was arrested for sending the money to me as my name is Abdul Jalil.” Online reported that the Foreign Office has called an explanation from the US Embassy. However, Foreign Office Spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam told Daily Times that her office had not contacted the US Embassy so far.
    Posted by: Fred || 03/09/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6505 views] Top|| File under:

    Muhammad Jehangir, from Abbottabad to Abbottaworser.
    Posted by: RD || 03/09/2006 0:37 Comments || Top||

    Southeast Asia
    Bomb Explodes At Home Of Thai Royal Adviser
    Bangkok, 9 March (AKI) - Amid mounting political tensions in Thailand, a bomb has exploded in the capital Bangkok at the home of a former prime minister and advisor to the king. Two people were injured in the blast Thursday including a British tourist. Reports say that the explosion occurred near a security post outside the home of Prem Tinsulanonda, a chief advisor to King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Prem was believed to be at home at the time of the blast and according to the police there was no warning given before the explosion. Prem, a former army commander-in-chief, was also Thai prime minister between 1980 and 1988.

    Last month, in a speech about the king's guidelines on good governance, Prem is said to have slighted the Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra which angered Thaksin's supporters. Tension is high in Bangkok with rallies virtually every day calling for Thaksin's resignation.

    The anti-Thaksin campaign has grown stronger since the Shinawatra family's 1.9 billion dollar sale of its controlling stake in telecommunications giant Shin Corp. to a Singaporean state-owned investment company in January. The deal angered the middle class in Bangkok, where protestors have demanded Thaksin's resignation over the tax-free sale of strategic assets, such as satellites.

    However Thaksin - who has been accused of nepotism, corruption, conflict of interest and a despotic tendency in his methods of governing - still enjoys the support of the majority of the rural Thai population, and observers say that any election would probably end with his victory. In last year's election Thaksin's right wing populist Thai Rak Thai party, won 376 of the 500 seats. He also won the 2001 election. The Thai prime minister has called for snap elections for 2 April in an attempt to regain authority in the country. However some of the main opposition parties have already said that they would boycott the poll.
    Posted by: Steve || 03/09/2006 07:32 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6494 views] Top|| File under:

    #1  Hmmm. Was it Toxin's boys - or his enemies - who did this?

    What would happen if the King personally takes offense, which he most certainly will?

    Toxin's toast.

    I'd say that this indicates Toxin's foes are more likely the culprits in this bomb thingy. I'm sure the King & Friends know this far better than I do. And the myriad layers involved. How many permutations will be taken? An odd number means the end of Toxin, and even number means he stays.

    I do not know if there's anyone in Thai politics who isn't corrupt, I seriously doubt it, but Toxin's definitely corrupt - and arrogant - and undeserving of the PM slot.

    That bit about the rural Thais supporting Toxin would go *poof* if the King comes out against Toxin. Period. Bhumibol is utterly and totally revered -- for good reason.
    Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 19:11 Comments || Top||

    Iran's supreme leader orders resistance in nuclear dispute
    Oh, Grand Poo-Pa: Your resistance is futile.

    Tehran - Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Thursday ordered resistance in the nuclear dispute.

    'We will resist and continue the path of progress and pride by relying on God and wisdom,' state news television IRIB quoted Khamenei as saying.

    'If we give in this time, then the Europeans will come up next with new excuses to deprive us from scientific achievements,' said Khamenei, who has the final say on all state affairs in accordance with the Iranian constitution.

    The Ayatollah accused the United States for having taken the nuclear dispute to start a 'psychological war' against Iran with the final aim to prevent any progress in the Islamic state.

    'What makes Islamic Iran unbearable for the Americans is the impact of Iranian policies in recent elections such as in Iraq and Palestine where the results were in favour of Islamic groups,' Khamenei said, referring to the victory of the Shiite groups in Iraq and the Hamas movement in Palestine.

    The supreme leader termed nuclear technology as a 'genuine necessity' for the country's energy sector in future years when oil and gas reserves would gradually come to an end.

    'Considering this genuine necessity, all officials in Iran are obliged to continue the path of nuclear technology and not surrender to any pressures,' said Khamenei, who since 1989 has been successor to the late leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

    He called on the Iranian nation not to consider the current situation being just limited to the nuclear dispute, but rather as Western efforts to deprive Iran from progress in general.

    'The issue will affect our future destiny and we have therefore to show unity and resistance and despite some probable difficulties ahead of us, we will upon God's will gain victory like in other phases of our Islamic revolution,' Khamenei said.

    Earlier Thursday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Iran would resist political pressure on its nuclear programmes and not accept humiliation.

    'We knew that in our path towards progress we would face such hindrances and we also knew that we have no other way than resistance,' ISNA news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying during a speech in Pole-Dokhtar city in the western Lorestan province.

    The president's remarks were made after the United Nations Security Council finally took charge of the Iranian nuclear dispute.

    'We follow the slogan of our beloved Imam Hussein and say 'Hey Hat Mena Zelah' (I will be damned if I give in to humiliation),' Ahmadinejad said.

    He was referring to the famous remark by Imam Hussein, the Prophet Mohammed's grandson and believed by Shiites to be the Third Imam, before battle in the Karbala desert in southern Iraq 13 centuries ago, where he rejected a peace offer from his main opponent Yazid.

    Hussein was eventually killed in the battle as he attempted to implement Islam in the region.

    In a meeting Wednesday with families of people from Lorestan province who died in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, Ahmadinejad said that 'the Iranian people would even sacrifice their lives to realize their rights.

    'The sacrifice mentality of the Iranians is the drive behind the nation's power of resistance,' the president said.

    Ahmadinejad further said that he discussed with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan about the nature of international bodies and asked him whether the UN was created to defend the rights of nations 'or to deprive them of their rights.

    'They (the West) are however perfectly aware of the fact that they cannot harm Iran because they are fragile and will be harmed more (by possible sanctions),' he added.

    Chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani last week did not rule out that pressure or sanctions against Iran would lead to an international oil crisis and hence hurt not only Iran but also the West.

    Ahmadinejad had said Wednesday that even the UN Security Council could not stop the continuation of Iran's atomic programmes.

    'The path of the Iranian nation is clear and neither an international body nor a specific country can hinder the country's progress (in the nuclear field),' ISNA news agency quoted the president as saying during a speech in Lorestan.

    Posted by: Captain America || 03/09/2006 16:43 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6510 views] Top|| File under:

    #1  'We follow the slogan of our beloved Imam Hussein and say 'Hey Hat Mena Zelah' (I will be damned if I give in to humiliation),' Ahmadinejad said.
    He was referring to the famous remark by Imam Hussein, the Prophet Mohammed's grandson and believed by Shiites to be the Third Imam, before battle in the Karbala desert in southern Iraq 13 centuries ago, where he rejected a peace offer from his main opponent Yazid.
    Hussein was eventually killed in the battle as he attempted to implement Islam in the region.

    There's a lesson in there, Mahmoud. Ya might wanna learn it.
    Posted by: tu3031 || 03/09/2006 16:49 Comments || Top||

    #2  He doesn't plan on learning from it. He plans on repeating it. Learning is inconsistent with Islam. Doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different outcome is the islamic way.
    Posted by: Hupomoger Clans9827 || 03/09/2006 17:35 Comments || Top||

    #3  "May the Blessings of the Bomb Almighty, and the Fellowship of the Holy Fallout, descend upon us all. This day and forever more. "

    Beneath the Planet of the Apes
    Posted by: doc || 03/09/2006 18:04 Comments || Top||

    #4  Hello, Middle East Dominos? This the Ayatollah.


    "TOLLAH", not toilet, fool. Deliver to me a large Resistance.


    Of course with extra seething! Plus a nice side salad.
    Posted by: Hyper || 03/09/2006 18:19 Comments || Top||

    #5  It is a well known fact that excessive heating dramatically increases the resistance of most materials. I remain astonished at how desperate Iran is to reaffirm this well known electrochemical property.
    Posted by: Zenster || 03/09/2006 19:42 Comments || Top||

    #6  he needs to jump up on the targetting order
    Posted by: Frank G || 03/09/2006 20:28 Comments || Top||

    #7  Frank, I'm guessing that the UAE port crap here means there's a lower chance of ANY targeting order in that part of the world.
    Posted by: lotp || 03/09/2006 20:39 Comments || Top||

    #8  I'm not sure it's that bad, yet.
    Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/09/2006 21:16 Comments || Top||

    #9  I'm not either. If I was a mil advisor to the MM's, my AM briefing would be: Cheney said "knock it off or we'll kill you. hard."
    Posted by: Frank G || 03/09/2006 22:45 Comments || Top||

    Iran Launches Baby Sub
    DEBKAfile’s Gulf sources disclose that Tehran accompanied the 35-member International Atomic Energy Agency’s decision Wednesday, March 8, by launching a new, locally-built submarine, the Nahang (whale) in the Persian Gulf. With the capability to carry multipurpose weapons, the sub is especially adapted to Gulf waters. Military experts report Iran also has six Russian-built SSK or SSI Kilo class diesel submarines patrolling the strategic waterway.
    Picture of sub at link. Judging scale from the size of the guy standing in front of the conning tower, it's about 40-50 feet long with a 8-10 foot beam. More of a swimmer delivery vehicle or mine layer than a attack sub. Possibly designed to sneak into another Gulf countries port and attack anchored vessels. Worst case, they could install a crude nuke in it for a suicide mission.
    From MEMRI: Following are excerpts from footage of the new Iranian Nahang 1 submarine, aired on the Iranian News Channel (IRINN) on March 8, 2006.

    Reporter: The Nahang 1 ("Whale") sumarine has joined the navy of the Iranian army. This submarine was designed and manufactured with Iranian knowledge, and it is one of Iran's largest defense programs.

    Navy Commander of the Iranian Army, Admiral Sajjad Kouchaki: Nahang 1 is the result of the labor of the navy's scientists, scholars, researchers, and experts. It took a long time, but fortunately, we've managed to design this submarine.

    Reporter: The Nahang 1 is fully compatible to conditions in the Persian Gulf. In terms of maintenance and repairs, there is Iranian knowhow. It provides the navy with unique options for its use. Its design and construction involved 220 experts, and 1.2 million hours of scientific and industrial work.
    Posted by: Steve || 03/09/2006 08:01 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [7363 views] Top|| File under:

    #1  And right now the USN is listening to the sound of the Nahang's captain chewing his cornflakes.
    Posted by: Matt || 03/09/2006 8:39 Comments || Top||

    #2  oh this is about as scary as the over hyped kilo class subs, wonder how many hours it'll take for us to find and track it from when it was launched - i'd take a guess at half an hour or so. lol 1.2 million hours of work put into it eh - only take about 10 mins to sink too!
    Posted by: ShepUK || 03/09/2006 8:44 Comments || Top||

    #3  just looking at it i wonder if its some kinda lame 'suicide sub' , reminds me of bath time toys when i was a kid with the little crappy plastic submarine :)
    Posted by: ShepUK || 03/09/2006 8:47 Comments || Top||

    #4  I presume our satellites are monitoring the baking powder factories...
    Posted by: Seafarious || 03/09/2006 8:51 Comments || Top||

    #5  But will Kouchaki be demoted for failing to mention Allan's input into the project?
    Posted by: Howard UK || 03/09/2006 8:56 Comments || Top||

    #6  I'm sure the same level high tech - stealth designs used were similar to their buildings designed by their structural engineers....chosen by their faith and loyalty rather than competence....
    Posted by: Frank G || 03/09/2006 8:56 Comments || Top||

    #7  Not to be a killjoy, but one of these loaded with a crude, first-generation Iranian nuke, snuck into the harbor in Dubai, could truly ruin someone's day.
    Posted by: Steve White || 03/09/2006 9:29 Comments || Top||

    #8  Plans for Iranian submarine revealed:

    Posted by: doc || 03/09/2006 10:02 Comments || Top||

    #9  The've been running things of this sort for years.

    Only news is they copied the designs well enough to do one on their own.

    They have yet to show they can maintain these things in seaworthy condition for any amount of time.

    Typicallyt hey cannot - they can "surge" to get it ready with extra effort, but thats a telltale that they're up to something, since they cannot maintain it in that state for long.

    Logistics: its what sets apart the pros from the wannabees.
    Posted by: OldSpook || 03/09/2006 10:06 Comments || Top||

    #10  Baby sub, you say? Well, I predict crib death.
    Posted by: Zenster || 03/09/2006 11:04 Comments || Top||

    #11  Can run drugs, too.
    Posted by: anonymous2u || 03/09/2006 11:05 Comments || Top||

    #12  I bet it's got the smallest prayer room in the Caliphate.
    Posted by: Screaming Nun || 03/09/2006 11:13 Comments || Top||

    #13  Does the Iranian Navy ever go to sea, let alone their submarine fleet?

    I don't know, but I do know that without constant seagoing, a Navy is worthless.

    Posted by: Penguin || 03/09/2006 11:18 Comments || Top||

    #14  The last time the Iranian Navy took us on, they didn't do so hot:

    Iran: 2 platforms destroyed, 2 ships sunk, one more crippled, 6 speedboats sunk, hundreds dead.

    US: 2 people lost in a helicopter accident (bodies recovered), plus numerous complaints of tintinnitis from all the Iranian things blowing up.
    Posted by: Carl in N.H. || 03/09/2006 11:50 Comments || Top||

    #15  prepare to be pinged 'round the clock
    Posted by: macofromoc || 03/09/2006 11:58 Comments || Top||

    #16  rofl, 24 hour pinging would really screw the crews heads up,be like someone ringing your doorbell every 10 seconds! Perhaps we could make a musical 'pinging tune' ,hmm i'm thinking a barny the dinosoar ping tune and perhaps some evil western pop music. suppose they have to stop to pray every hour or so anyway which isnt to good for combat - i remeber reading about Saudi AWACS crews that used to stop everything they were meant to be doing like reading sht from the radar and the pilots would switch to auto pilot and fckin prey for 10 mins! hahaha
    Posted by: ShepUK || 03/09/2006 12:07 Comments || Top||

    iranian subs,
    wots that banging sound 5 times a day?

    /forehead deadgiveaway
    Posted by: RD || 03/09/2006 13:00 Comments || Top||

    #18  Thanks for the great link, Carl! I can't believe I forgot so much about that episode... I wasn't as news-aware then though.

    And a big thanks to Mr. Gore for the Internet!
    Posted by: Dar || 03/09/2006 13:49 Comments || Top||

    #19  i'm thinking a barny the dinosoar ping tune

    Evil! I like it.
    Posted by: Slavique Shinenter9520 || 03/09/2006 13:51 Comments || Top||

    #20  Muzzie "Boomers" so wats nu?
    Posted by: Visitor || 03/09/2006 15:17 Comments || Top||

    #21  This submarine was designed and manufactured with Iranian knowledge... Yeah, right.
    Posted by: Listen To Dogs || 03/09/2006 15:31 Comments || Top||

    #22  This submarine was designed and manufactured with Iranian knowledge

    And thus will sink like a lead balloon
    Posted by: mmurray821 || 03/09/2006 16:03 Comments || Top||

    #23  Awww, how cute!

    Allow me to introduce you to this Los Angeles-class hunter-killer...
    Posted by: mojo || 03/09/2006 16:52 Comments || Top||

    #24  Isn't that the same sub that used to be at Disneyland?
    Posted by: tu3031 || 03/09/2006 16:55 Comments || Top||

    #25  The Japanese lost a couple of this design outside Pearl about 65 years ago. Never had a chance.
    Posted by: 6 || 03/09/2006 17:40 Comments || Top||

    #26  Its design and construction involved 220 experts, and 1.2 million hours of scientific and industrial work.

    Maybe. Likely it's an adaptation of an existing design. There were reports the new sub resembles the Nork SANGO-class sub here. It also has some of the physical features of the KILO class. Odds are some of those experts are expatriates.
    Posted by: Pappy || 03/09/2006 19:07 Comments || Top||

    #27  Re #23: Heh, mojo, my thoughts exactly. This little toy is going out on a mission some day soon, never to be heard from again. This little toy and the mobile Shahab 3 missiles and President Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will all be history within a half hour span.
    Posted by: Darrell || 03/09/2006 20:46 Comments || Top||

    #28  If Iranian sailors could float around for 10 days before the Navy stumbled upon them, who's to say they haven't managed to export these baby subs under our noses to where they could be used against us, in say Lake Michigan? Saddam had a little sub to putter down river, that even had an escape hatch and could launch from a yacht. Never trust them and expect the worst case scenario.
    Posted by: Danielle || 03/09/2006 21:25 Comments || Top||

    #29  Ping them with this pattern:

    Hava nagila, hava nagila Hava nagila venis'mecha Repeat Hava neranena, hava neranena Hava neranena venis'mecha ...
    Posted by: OldSPook || 03/09/2006 21:50 Comments || Top||

    #30  Oh, dear. I almost fell off my chair, Old Spook. Not at all what I was expecting.

    Have I mentioned how comforting I find it that you poke your head periodically? :-)
    Posted by: trailing wife || 03/09/2006 22:19 Comments || Top||

    #31  OS---That made my day! ROFLMAO!
    Posted by: Alaska Paul in Hooper Bay, AK || 03/09/2006 23:47 Comments || Top||

    UN Watchdog Refers Iran To Security Council
    A report on Iran's nuclear programme is being forwarded to the Security Council for it to consider possible punitive action, after a crucial meeting of the UN's nuclear watchdog in Vienna. The US says the council will debate Iran's "flagrant threats and phoney negotiations," but Iran has vowed to continue its nuclear work regardless, threatening the US with unspecified "harm and pain" for its opposition. Meanwhile, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohammed ElBaradei, has said there is still the chance of a settlement, urging all sides to "lower the rhetoric."

    The sending of the report on Iran's nuclear programme to the UN'S top decision-making body opens a new phase in the standoff . The Security Council is expected to review the case as early as next week, but ElBaradei insisted that diplomatic efforts are still continuing. The council has the power to impose sanctions, although it is not clear that all key members would agree to do so. While admitting disappointment that a solution had not been found this week in Vienna, "I am still optimistic because all the parties involved know that there is no other option," said ElBaradei. "What we need is for everyone to keep calm and to lower the rhetoric," he added.

    The debate by the UN watchdog - the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - in Vienna of the long-awaited report came amid heated accusations traded between Iran and the US. "The United States may have the power to cause harm and pain, but it is also susceptible to harm and pain," said a statement issued by Iran's delegation at the talks.

    "There is full consensus on the fact that Iran must be more transparent in its cooperation with the agency," said ElBaradei at a press briefing.
    What's more "transparent" than threats and bluster?
    Posted by: Fred || 03/09/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6487 views] Top|| File under:

    #1  Iran today warns the USA will suffer harm and pain - no matter what, Dubya & Admin + GOP + GOP-led Congress need to continue watching their sixes. MadMoud's war rhetoric is nullifying any gains the Dems may have achieved in recent weks vv the MSM, and is intensifying domestic/
    mainstream Amer recognition that America either "wins or dies", "rules or will be slave"and that anything other than per se America victory in any region will be induced unto long-term defeat. The DemoLeft = Amer enemies = ON ALL SIDES, AND NO SIDE; FOR EVERYONE AND NO ONE.
    Posted by: JosephMendiola || 03/09/2006 0:19 Comments || Top||

    #2  Endless threats, yes, and for even longer direct military actions in Iraq. The case is there, but the political will isn't. The donkeys will do anything to thwart the President, security of our nation, Israel, our troops in Iraq and even our worthless European allies notwithstanding, and Iran will be an example. More dead American soldiers and a belligerent Iran with nukes serves the donkeys agenda, no matter what public statements they may make.
    Posted by: hunter || 03/09/2006 4:42 Comments || Top||

    #3  The watchdog forces its owner to play 'fetch'.
    Posted by: Ulaigum Ebbereck6419 || 03/09/2006 7:50 Comments || Top||

    #4  I noticed that Iran's american mouthpiece (the MSM in the form of ABC News) have started giving "Dire Warnings" of what would happen if we don't bow down before Iran....
    Posted by: CrazyFool || 03/09/2006 8:12 Comments || Top||

    #5  Here's the IAEA and UN doggies in action...
    Posted by: .com || 03/09/2006 10:13 Comments || Top||

    #6  Tell each of these UN wankers to cut to the chase, give them a five pound tin of caviar to make up for all the missed luncheons and then push them through the ineffectual decision gate that is six months downstream. It'll save everybody lots of time and money plus, we'll be able to start the bombing just that much sooner.
    Posted by: Zenster || 03/09/2006 11:41 Comments || Top||

    #7  the plan advances.
    Posted by: liberalhawk || 03/09/2006 15:06 Comments || Top||

    #8  The show must go on.
    Posted by: gromgoru || 03/09/2006 22:49 Comments || Top||

    Iran's Shab 3s are ordered to move every 24hrs
    Iran moves its Shahab 3 units
    By Ed Blanche
    Reports attributed to Western intelligence services said that on 19 January the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), which controls Iran's ballistic missile forces, was ordered to change the location of its mobile Shahab 3 batteries every 24 hours as a precautionary measure.
    I would bet we are watching these real close
    This was apparently done, for at least two weeks, with the batteries remaining within a 35 km radius, presumably to stay within range of their command-and-control centres. These reports said that the IRGC has moved Shahab 3 units to Kermanshah and Hamadan provinces in the west of the country, with reserve batteries deployed in Fars and Isfahan provinces further east.

    Iran is believed to have six operational Shahab 3 brigades, the first of which was established in July 2003. These are mainly equipped with standard variants, but with others described as 'enhanced Shahab', with ranges of 1,300 km-1,500 km and 2,000 km respectively.
    It's a Janes article and I don't have a subscription sorry. Maybe someone who does can re-post? Either way sounds like the Iranians are getting worried.
    Posted by: C-Low || 03/09/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6502 views] Top|| File under:

    #1  Same or similar claims as for Saddam, and we all know how well that worked - NOT!?
    Posted by: JosephMendiola || 03/09/2006 0:09 Comments || Top||

    #2  The m2s are running scared.
    Posted by: Scooter McGruder || 03/09/2006 0:16 Comments || Top||

    #3  Iran's Shab 3s are ordered to move every 24hrs

    re: from Iran

    ....waiting....for the "MOTHER" woid.
    Posted by: RD || 03/09/2006 0:44 Comments || Top||

    #4  Seems to me that if they are staying within a 35 mile radius, presumably to remain within range of the C & C center, then the center of the circle is where we want the iron rain to fall first, then go after the individual launchers.
    Posted by: USN Ret. || 03/09/2006 0:56 Comments || Top||

    #5  Hmmmm, I wonder if this represents a level of operations that will be difficult to maintain over time. Will readiness and maintenance suffer?
    Posted by: SteveS || 03/09/2006 0:58 Comments || Top||

    #6  With the US using spy satellites capable of 1 centimeter per pixel resolution,, they had better be reading their Koran when bean jumping! That image would be better than the one in the header above!!
    Posted by: smn || 03/09/2006 1:34 Comments || Top||

    #7  Moving them actually assists the analysts.
    Posted by: Visitor || 03/09/2006 6:49 Comments || Top||

    #8  Any bets there are J-STARs in the area?
    Posted by: Robert Crawford || 03/09/2006 7:36 Comments || Top||

    #9  Visitor & RC-
    You are exactly right. And after analyzing the movements I bet we can locate their C&C centers too.
    Posted by: Spot || 03/09/2006 8:16 Comments || Top||

    #10  QUACK quack QUACK quack QUACK pop clink quack
    quack quack pop clink.
    Posted by: wxjames || 03/09/2006 9:22 Comments || Top||

    #11  What are Shahab missles and what do they do exactly?
    Posted by: ex-lib || 03/09/2006 11:43 Comments || Top||

    #12  JSTARS just cleared up any mystery about there the launchers might be.

    What maroon came up with the idea that MOVING them frequently helps to hide them?
    Posted by: Chuck Simmins || 03/09/2006 15:19 Comments || Top||

    #13  One can imagine they are sited in eastern Iran so as to be able to reach Israel, and later Europe. Let's just show them how a couple B2s can make a hole r=35km right quick...
    Posted by: M. Murcek || 03/09/2006 16:13 Comments || Top||

    #14  Ex-lib, I think the Shahab missiles are the ones being fitted for Iran's nuclear warheads. The ones whose range has been increased from able to reach Israel to able to reach most of Europe.
    Posted by: trailing wife || 03/09/2006 16:23 Comments || Top||

    #15  Thanks tw.
    Posted by: ex-lib || 03/09/2006 16:30 Comments || Top||

    #16  We need to take Iran a bit more seriously, I think. They have a lot more thatn these Shahab batteries, air defense, air force and minisub which would make them only a regional power if we left the region.

    Their options include the ability to make trouble for us in Iran and Afghanistan and the ability to scuttle ships in the Straits. They may include nukes for all we know.

    My sense from reading the [probably inaccurate] news is that Iran plans to do some clever out of the box things and has probably grown over confident. There has been some speculation we're expecting a move by them in Iraq pretty soon.
    They have had a chance to study the US up close for 4+ years so they will have some ideas of where to attack.

    Still, I think they overestimate their strength and our vulnerabilities. Even if they deliver a nuke we can vaporize them. I also think they underestimate how world attitudes about the need for 'peace' will change if they use the 'oil weapon'.

    I'd like to see the more informed rantburgers start to outline the order of battle with Iran and what they could do to us in the region including our bases and in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the feasibility of tactics like mining the Straits of Hormuz or scuttling a large ship there.

    From there we can speculate as to what moves we need to make (BDM capabilities to the theater, moving our own stuff around, shutting down GPS, moving B2s to Guam, etc). I suspect that anythign we do in Iran is a Navy/Air Force with our ground forces on defense in theater. I'm not a military guy, so I hope others post on this.

    Not sure about the rest of you, but I've pretty much given up on the Mayday, "velvet revolution" scenario whereby the Mullahs are pushed aside. I wish we Americans could be friends with the great Persian civilization, but it's not in the cards. We may have to erase that civilization before this thing is over now that Ahmadinejad has nukes.
    Posted by: JAB || 03/09/2006 16:31 Comments || Top||

    #17  Might be a feint.

    The Shab 3 missile can reach Israel but not if it carries a heavy warhead.

    The Shab 4 missile could probably reach Israel with a heavy warhead or Europe with a light warhead.

    The mullahs may be thinking that if concentrate on taking out the Shab 3s, we might ignore the Shab 4s.
    Posted by: mhw || 03/09/2006 16:43 Comments || Top||

    Terror Networks
    Sign anti islamofascism manifesto
    Usually, these kinds of petitions are a waste of time.

    Maybe this is also. But maybe not.


    MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism

    After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.
    We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all....
    Posted by: mhw || 03/09/2006 10:06 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6502 views] Top|| File under:

    Who's in the News

    E-Mail Me

    The Classics
    The O Club
    Rantburg Store
    The Bloids
    The Never-ending Story
    Gulf War I
    The Way We Were


    On Sale now!

    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.
    Click here for more information

    Meet the Mods
    In no particular order...
    Steve White
    Scooter McGruder
    john frum
    Bright Pebbles
    trailing wife
    Frank G
    Alaska Paul

    Two weeks of WOT
    Thu 2006-03-09
      Qaeda fugitive surrenders in Kuwait
    Wed 2006-03-08
      N. Korea Launches Two Missiles
    Tue 2006-03-07
      15 Dead, Dozens hurt in blasts in north Indian temple town
    Mon 2006-03-06
      Bangla Bhai bangla nabbed
    Sun 2006-03-05
      Ayman issues call for more attacks
    Sat 2006-03-04
      EU3 Begin To Realize They Were Duped
    Fri 2006-03-03
      Leb Army seals Syrian border
    Thu 2006-03-02
      JMB chief Abdur Rahman nabbed
    Wed 2006-03-01
      US journo trapped in Afghan prison riot
    Tue 2006-02-28
      Yemen Executes American Missionaries’ Murderer
    Mon 2006-02-27
      Saudi forces clash with suspected militants
    Sun 2006-02-26
      Jihad Jack Guilty
    Sat 2006-02-25
      11 killed, nine churches torched in Nigeria
    Fri 2006-02-24
      Saudi forces thwart attack on oil facility
    Thu 2006-02-23
      Yemen Charges Five Saudis With Plotting Attacks

    Better than the average link...

    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.
    Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
    WoT Background (32)    Non-WoT (20)    Opinion (7)    (0)    (0)