Afghan authorities have arrested a Pakistani man in eastern Afghanistan, accusing him of spying for his country, officials said Sunday. The man, Sayed Wali, was arrested Wednesday by border guards on charges of illegally entering Afghanistan in eastern Nangarhar province, a police official in the regional capital, Jalalabad, said. Wali, an Afridi tribesmen, told investigators he was a former border guard in the Pakistani town of Torkham, the police official said. He was arrested in the Shinwar district near Torkham. Afridis, a Pashtun tribe, live mainly in Pakistani areas near the Afghan border. Looks like, if the Paks won't close of their side of the border, the Afghans are at least trying to control theirs...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/03/2003 01:38 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
illegally entering Afghanistan in eastern Nangarhar province
can anyone in Afghanistan say this with a straight face?
U.S. forces on 2 March arrested a commander of the Hizb-e Islami named Ezatullah in the Sorobi District of Kabul Province, Hindukosh news agency reported. Hindukosh cited reports that Hizb-e Islami leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar has been trying to block the Kabul-Jalalabad highway in order to carry out attacks against U.S.-led coalition forces in Afghanistan. The news agency added that during the Afghan civil war in the 1990s the same man was assigned to block this highway. "Yup. Yup. I'm blockin' the highway, just like I always block the highway..."
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/03/2003 01:29 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
The regime of Libyan leader Moamer Gadhafi poses more of a threat to the Arab world than foreign powers and must be toppled, a leading Saudi daily said Monday. The Saudis seem to be a bit upset with old Moamer.
"The continuity of this regime and others like it will pose a real and crushing danger to this Arab nation ... more than arrogant foreign powers," Okaz newspaper said in its editorial. "When we say it is time to remove the 'suspicious' regime of Gadhafi and regimes like it, we affirm there is no way to face potential dangers without this courageous and essential step," it added. "Dealing with the madness of Gadhafi and others like him must be the first point on the agenda of a programme to reform the Arab situation, otherwise this nation will go from bad to worse." Gee, are they calling for "regime change"?
Saudi newspapers on Sunday accused Gadhafi of serving the enemies of Arabs following his spat with Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz at an Arab summit in Egypt to review the Iraq crisis. Serving the ememies of Arabs? Does this mean Gadhafi is a zionist tool now?
Saudi newspapers continued to lash out at the Libyan leader on Monday with hard-hitting editorials, accusing him of deliberately causing a rift among Arabs. Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal was quoted by Al-Jazirah newspaper on Monday as saying that the "era of comity and flattering is over and every Arab official should be held responsible for practices which may harm Arab world interests." Quite a tiff they got going now.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/03/2003 09:42 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
and your grave awaits you,â
Sounds like a sierious threat to me!
#2
Here's some more ranting from Riyadh: â(Qaddafiâs) mission at the summit has revealed his real intentions and his secret role of serving the enemies of the (Arab) nation,â Al-Riyadh daily charged in a front-page editorial.
The previous track record of Qaddafi indicates âthat this personality needs to be treated by psychiatrists,â the newspaper added.
The paper said that Qaddafi was brought to power in Libya in 1969 âby an American tankâ and has exploited the Libyan people under various slogans.
âWho exactly brought you to power?â Crown Prince Abdullah asked the Libyan leader, alluding to suggestions that his 1969 overthrow of the British-backed monarchy had US support. âYou are a liar and your grave awaits you,â the crown prince said. Al-Watan newspaper described Qaddafi as a âcomedian heroâ, a âpeacock who rides on lies, deception and forgeryâ of history, and said the âbiggest catastropheâ was for the Libyan people.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/03/2003 8:57 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Wow, what got them so peeved? Or is it just that royalty isn't used to being treated that way?
#5
LGF of all places has lots more details. Apparently MO got on the Sauds case for letting US forces in in 1990 and 1991. Said some nasty things about Saud not really being independent. Not sure what game Mo is playing, but the Saudis were quite justified in getting peeved if I read what going on correctly.
#6
The Saudis are peeved because Mo has those foxy bodyguards and they feel that this precident could spread throughout the Islamic arab world. And then what would happen?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/03/2003 9:53 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Why is it I keep getting flashbacks of the "arab council" in Damascus from "Lawrence of Arabia"?
#9
I think his elite group of female bodyguards is just as offensive to the Saud's as his colonialism comments.
Posted by: Jon ||
03/03/2003 13:33 Comments ||
Top||
#10
This is what UPI is saying caused it: But Gadhafi's charge that during the 1991 Gulf War, "King Fahd told me that his country was threatened and that he would cooperate with the devil to protect it," was too much for the Saudis. For any good Muslim, let alone the custodian of Islam's holy places, to cooperate with the devil is serious blasphemy. So Crown Prince Abdullah interrupted to tell Gadhafi to shut up, and went on to charge that Gadhafi was installed 35 years ago as a colonial puppet. The Crown Prince concluded: "Your lies precede you, while the grave is ahead of you." An everyday story of Arab diplomacy, with the usual results of angry demonstrations outside the Saudi Embassy in Libya and ambassadors recalled "for consultation."
Posted by: Steve ||
03/03/2003 13:58 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Boy the Saudis can be quick with regime change! Can't we get Saddam to call Abdullah names?
Tony Blair was warned again yesterday that he would need Tory backing in any Commons vote if he went to war against Saddam Hussein without UN support. Fortunately, the Tories will stand for their country.
As Mr Blair sought to rally support at the start of the most important fortnight since he became prime minister, his ex-cabinet colleague Chris Smith, one of the leaders of last week's rebellion, signalled that if the next two weeks failed to achieve a majority in the UN for action, there could be worse to come. "There will be a lot more than 199 members of parliament very unhappy about that happening, and prepared to voice their piffle concern again in the division lobby," he said. But the rebels are increasingly sceptical about whether there will be another chance to vote until after British troops are in action, when most MPs would fall into line with the government rather than appear to undermine military action.
And assuming we're successful in dumping Sammy, after the war they'll point proudly to their support...
Mr Smith, speaking on GMTV as President Saddam started to comply with weapons inspectors' demands to destroy missile stocks, accused Mr Blair of having made up his mind to go to war regardless of the UN. He's right, Tony will back us.
"I worry that what seems to be emerging from the leaderships of both countries, America and Britain, is an attitude that — almost — Saddam Hussein can do nothing to demonstrate that he's actually complying with the world's wish to see disarmament," he said. Because he hasn't done anything to date.
Tam Dalyell, the longest-serving MP in the Commons and an opponent of war, wrote to Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, to ask him when he would judge that President Saddam was cooperating. He asked: "How can you say Saddam must disarm and, when he does, you dismiss it as a cynical trick and playing games? Simple, Tam, Saddam has yet to disarm.
Do you ... wake up at night asking yourself, have we tried everything? Is it necessary? Is inspection working?"' Yes, yes, and no.
But Peter Hain, the Welsh secretary, acknowledging that he wanted a second resolution, denied that any decisions had been made. In a Sky TV interview, he said it was "quite clear that military action would only follow if Saddam is seen to be defying the United Nations as he is already doing". As day follows night.
He said that if there was a "gratuitous" veto in the face of overwhelming evidence that President Saddam was out of compliance with the UN resolutions, "we'll have to face that situation because the worst thing to me ... would then be to back off entirely".
He's not going to do anything without the pressure on him. My guess is that he'll do the absolute minimum he thinks he can get away with with the pressure on him. Being Sammy, he'll miscalculate what that absolute minimum is, which'll lead to him getting whacked and doing a Ceaucescu...
Graham Allen, another of the organisers of the putsch revolt, called for a period of calm to offer Mr Blair the chance to change his mind — something he has indicated in his week-long media offensive, which culminates in an MTV interview on Thursday, that he has no intention of doing. But that's ok, stay calm, guys.
There is more evidence today that the crisis has cut Mr Blair's popularity rating, with only three courageous people in 10 saying they are satisfied with the job he is doing as prime minister, according to a Mori poll for the Financial Times. The biggest fall, nearly 20%, is among Lemming Party Labour voters. Only 49% are satisfied, against 67% last month. Mori's figures are worse reading for Mr Duncan Smith. The poll puts Tory support on 25%, behind Labour on 44%. The Lib Dems are on 22%
I'm still surprised that Tony's doing what's right, rather than what's popular, but after a year and a half, I've come to the conclusion that he's a better man than I thought he was. You'd think Brits would come to the same conclusion, since we all have access to the same facts...
Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, hit back at Mr Blair for drawing a correct parallel in his Guardian interview on Saturday between opponents to war now and the appeasers of the 1930s. Speaking on the BBC's politics show, he said Mr Blair was inflaming the situation unnecessarily. "If you take the use of the word appeasement in the context of the late 30s, Hitler was steadily invading other countries and the appeasers were not willing to challenge him," he said. This time it's Saddam getting ready to make and use WMD's, and the appeasers are not willing to challenge him.
"The last time that Saddam Hussein invaded a sovereign state, Kuwait, we as a party, and the country as a whole, supported the international action that was taken." Which is why it's a shame he won't see what's happening now.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/03/2003 09:51 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Kennedy is full of it. At the time of the Munich conference in 1938, Hitler had only invaded Austria, and that operation wasn't much of an invasion as the Austrians didn't mount any resistance. In 1939, when Hitler actually started invading countries, appeasement was no longer the official policy, at least not in Britain, which started to rearm. The French are a different matter entirely, but they like foul smelling dictators as much as they like stinking cheese.
Posted by: Peter ||
03/03/2003 5:03 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The result of the US pre-emtive strategy is that Saddam must go not primarily for what he has done in the past or present (which is reason enough in itself) but what he might do in the future. This theoretical and probable threat to America's security is paramount. Not only must Iraq be destroyed, but the message of Iraq must be a clear warning to any other state (Iran, or PDRK if they are capable of paying attention) that the USA has a zero tolerance for terrorism and WMD.
The irony is that as the anti-war movement grows and becomes more vocal, it can only reinforce the will of the United States to make Saddam's regime a sentinel example.
The rigidity in position that this creates results in the diplomatic turmoil that we see within the UN, EU, and NATO, as nations struggle to adjust to the new world order: Conclusion of the Gulf War is simply not negotiable. Denial is not an option.
"You are with us or with the terrorists". Bye bye Saddam. Who wants to be next?
Posted by: john ||
03/03/2003 6:26 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I don't think that Blair's comparison with appeasement of Munich 1938 is accurate. At this time Britain and France were already facing a very powerful adversary. A war against Germany would have been extremely risky and would already have caused WWII and millions of deaths. You don't "appease" an enemy because he is weak but may become stronger, you appease him because he is already too strong and you hope he might just spare you if you let him have his way with others.
The situation now is closer to 1933-35, when Hitler (illegally) pushed the militarization of Germany, entered demilitarized Rhineland. At this time he broke the Versailles Treaty (unjust as it may have been but a treaty Germany signed), so the allies would have had a legal cause to invade Germany and disarm it. A pre-emptive strike in 1935 would have made a difference (probably not considered because Britain and France were still war weary). In 1938 a pre emptive strike would not have had a wide backing in France and Britain (people desperately wanted to keep the peace). America would not have joined (remember the U.S. had to be attacked by Japan and declared war by Germany to join the war). In 1940 the U.S. (while helping Britain) still did trade with Germany and would not be dragged into the war.
If we believe that Saddam will regain his power and be a real danger in a few years then acting time is now, not later. It's 1934, not 1938.
#4
America would not have joined (remember the U.S. had to be attacked by Japan and declared war by Germany to join the war). In 1940 the U.S. (while helping Britain) still did trade with Germany and would not be dragged into the war.
Well... not quite accurate. By Dec. 7th 1941 the US was doing everything but firing the gun. The notion that they had to be dragged into it isn't true. Military cooperation between Britain and the US began as early as Jan. 1941, which included discussions on how to "handle" Germany and the agreement that Germany was to be defeated first. In Jul. '41 troops from General Marston's 1st Marine Brigade landed in Iceland relieving the British forces stationed there. At the same time USN aircraft started regular antisubmarine patrols from bases in Newfoundland. Not to mention Lend-Lease and all that other stuff they were sharing with Britain.
#5
Well.. I said 1940. And my point is that Britain and France could not have counted on the U.S. had they led a "pre-emptive strike" against Germany in 1938.
Appeasement was certainly wrong then but understandable. It's a lot easier to rally your own people behind you if you are attacked.
Without 9/11 its highly unlikely that the U.S. public would approve a full scaled invasion of Iraq now, even if Saddam had broken some more UN resolutions.
Italian anti-terrorism experts scrambled Monday to determine the possible target of two suspected Red Brigades fugitives involved in a deadly shootout with police, amid fears the far-left group was preparing to strike again. The Red Brigades, which terrorized Italy in the '70s and '80 with attacks on politicians, businessmen and military officials, resumed killings a few years ago. On Sunday, after a gunfire exchange on a train about 50 miles south of Florence, police arrested Red Brigades member Nadia Desdemona Lioce, 43. She is wanted for the 1999 slaying in Rome of labor ministry adviser Massimo D'Antona, the first suspected Red Brigades attack in 11 years. Her companion, Mario Galesi, 37, died after surgery for his wounds. A policeman also was killed in the shootout, and another wounded. Investigators were concentrating on the contents of a bag the couple carried on the train, which included a tiny video camera tucked into a cigarette pack; floppy disks; a road map of central Italy; notebook pages with names and phone numbers; and a palm-held computer. Ooh, sounds like a intel goldmine.
Italian news reports also said the bag contained articles from a financial newspaper about the labor reform guidelines drawn up by Mario Biagi, a government consultant gunned down in Bologna last year. Clippings about one of their targets, most likely.
Florence Prosecutor Francesco Fleury, who is leading the investigation, said the pair had one gun, making it unlikely they were about to stage an attack. But, he said, they could have been preparing a terrorist strike. "The alarm remains high because they surely weren't isolated. It's not just those two terrorists," and it is possible they planned to meet with accomplices, said in a television interview. As a precaution, police guarded the home of an undersecretary in the labor ministry, Grazia Sestini, from Premier Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia party. She lives in Arezzo, near where the shootout happened. Enzo Bianco, the head of the Italian Parliament's oversight committee on secret services, expressed concern that the Red Brigades and an associated terrorist group, the Fighting Communist Party, might target military figures in view of a possible war in Iraq, a prospect widely opposed by the Italian public. Investigators also considered the possibility the couple was planning a robbery to help bankroll their group. Terrorists / normal thugs = same thing
Galesi was arrested in 1997 for robbing a Rome post office. He disappeared a year later while on a leave from prison. The shootout Sunday began after two policemen on the train asked the couple for identity documents, permitted under laws dating from terror crimes of the '70s and '80s. "Papers, please!"
The Red Brigades' most notorious strike was the 1978 kidnapping and slaying of former Christian Democrat Premier Aldo Moro, and the kidnapping of U.S. Brig. Gen. James Dozier, who was freed in a police raid.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/03/2003 11:41 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Most of the British human shields who traveled to Baghdad in red double-decker buses are returning home before a gunshot has been fired because of "safety fears," organisers say. Many of those returning are concerned for their safety after the Iraqi authorities began dictating which sites they could "protect," said Christiaan Briggs, a co-ordinator for the action group in Baghdad. Briggs told the UK's news agency Press Association: "Now we are being told we cannot go to certain sites, such as hospitals, so we are reassessing our strategy.
"Run away! Run away!"
"I must stress the people on the bus were always intending on going back. The aim was always a mass migration and if we had had five to ten thousand people here there would never be a war. "We do not have those numbers and a lot of people were always intending to go back before the bombing campaign started." "You didn't really expect us to live up to our word, did you?"
The two buses, which left Baghdad Saturday, are thought to be heading towards Syria. Abdul al-Hashimi, head of Saddam Hussein's Peace and Solidarity Organization, ordered the volunteers to disperse to nine sites in Baghdad or leave, Britain's broadsheet newspaper, Daily Telegraph reported. Most of the activists thought they would be "shielding" schools or hospitals, but instead found themselves assigned to power stations, oil refineries and water purification plants. "We had been told we would go to humanitarian sites, specifically hospitals," Ken O'Keefe, the former U.S. marine who led the activists, told the newspaper. "But we've now been told that we can't go to those places. The human shields strategy will not work under these circumstances. The level of trust is not present now."
"Actually, we never did give a fig about what happened to a bunch of Iraqis, but we did manage to get our names in the papers, didn't we? That means we must be important..."
Nine of the 11 British human shields in the bus convoy had left Baghdad, the Telegraph said. Among them was 68-year-old Godfrey Meynell, a former High Sheriff of Derbyshire, who was assigned to protect Baghdad South power station but admitted that he was leaving out of "cold fear."
At least he's an honest coward...
A 22-year-old student from Pennsylvania assigned to an oil refinery told the paper: "The people staying there sleep 50 yards from stacks billowing black smoke. "And it's sinister: twenty minders are there for eight shields. There are three security gates, including one manned by plain-clothed guards carrying AK47s." Heh, heh, heh.
U.S. officials have said that it is a "war crime" to use civilians as human shields and that there is no way of guaranteeing their safety.
"Matter of fact, any of them that stay are toast..."
Briggs estimated around a dozen remained in Baghdad and said he and others may now act as witnesses rather than human shields. "I said right from the start, I was prepared to die but when I knew I had a chance of affecting change," he said.
When you make those stoopid "prepared to die" statements, you have to ask yourself, "Am I prepared to be maimed for life for what I believe?" If more people asked themselves that question, rather than imagining A Hero's Deathâ¢, there would be fewer wars, and a hell of a lot fewer people rolling their eyes and waving AK47's...
On Friday, the head of Sweden's largest peace organization urged human shields to leave Iraq, saying they were being used for propaganda purposes by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. You just figured this out?
Bravo! Brilliant!
Maria Ermanno, chairwoman of the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society, cited reports that Iraqi officials were arranging transportation, accommodation and news conferences for the human shields. "To go down to Iraq and live and act there on the regime's expense, then you're supporting a terrible dictator. I think that method is entirely wrong," Ermanno told Swedish Radio.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/03/2003 10:05 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[12 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
we decided there's not enough of us to make a decent fish fry cause of those "other" lying bastages......now that there is a very good chance we could get hurt in our new job as human shields (HEY WE COULD GET SHOT!!!) we quit and want someone to come get us because we are bla bla bla citizens.............got 2 words for ya......eat me.........couldn't resist.....and pretend I'm a big ole ham!!!!!!
#3
Somebody cue the soundtrack from "Monty Python's Holy Grail". You know, the one with Sir Robin's Minstrel. Start at the measure that begins with "He very bravely runs away..."
Brave Sir Robin ran away,
Bravely ran away, away.
When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly, he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/03/2003 11:39 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Hey, running away is for other countries. Brits don't run away, we "strategically withdraw".
See Afghanistan 1842, France 1940, etc.
Posted by: A ||
03/03/2003 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Thanks Mike! Strangely appropriate at this time, no?
#9
we decided there's not enough of us to make a decent fish fry cause of those "other" lying bastages......now that there is a very good chance we could get hurt in our new job as human shields (HEY WE COULD GET SHOT!!!) we quit and want someone to come get us because we are bla bla bla citizens.............got 2 words for ya......eat me.........couldn't resist.....and pretend I'm a big ole ham!!!!!!
FBI and CIA experts dug through computers and piles of other information Monday from the Pakistani home of alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, searching for clues that new terror strikes might be imminent.
In addition to his capture on Saturday, government officials said authorities had caught Mohammed Omar Abdel-Rahman, a son of the blind Egyptian sheik accused of inspiring the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
The younger Abdel-Rahman was caught several weeks ago in Quetta, Pakistan, the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. Pakistani officials have suggested the Quetta arrest helped lead authorities to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, although American sources disputed that.
As for the separate capture of the younger Abdel-Rahman, government officials said he ran a training camp in Afghanistan before the Sept. 11 attacks. He was considered a senior al-Qaida operative, perhaps one tier below Mohammed. He is known as Asadullah, "the Lion of God." His father, Omar Abdel-Rahman, is in a U.S. prison for a 1994 plot to bomb landmarks around New York City. Another son of the blind sheik, Ahmad, was captured in Afghanistan in late 2001.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
03/03/2003 07:36 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/03/2003 20:19 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Star Wars:co-starring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as jar-Jar Clinks.(also,look for him in biopics playing such roles as Ron Jeremy,the Dunkin Donuts guy and the guy from that Stooges short who hid the microfilm in the watermelon)
Amir of Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan and parliamentary leader of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, Qazi Hussain Ahmed has said that the future of the Muslim world is linked to the Islamic movements. "In other words, to me."
"These movement are the true representatives of the sentiments of the Muslims," he said while delivering an indoctrination a lecture to the officers of Foreign Office here on Saturday. This was the first time that such kind of briefing was arranged in which the parliamentary leader of any political or religious party addressed top bureaucrats of the Foreign Office. The lecture was attended by the Foreign Minister Khursheed Mahmood Kasuri, Foreign Secretary Riaz Khokhar and other high officials of the Foreign Office. I hope Nancy's keeping an eye on this trend. If I was her, I'd be howling...
Qazi said that Islamic movements could never be ignored while formulating policies and warned any such effort of sidelining these movements would cause instability. That means that if Perv doesn't do what Qazi and Fazl and Sami want, they're going to riot...
He said Pakistan was supporting US while putting our own interests at stake. Muslims were victims of the brutalities of the oppressive states. "No one talks of the brutalities unleashed against the Palestinians, Kashmiris and Muslims of many other countries," he added. Unless you're literate and read the papers...
The US would not spare Pakistan after destroying Iraq and some other Muslim countries, Qazi made it clear. He said that Pakistan should free its policy from US pressure to save its sovereignty. He lauded the stance taken by the Malaysian PM, Saudi Arabian FM, Prince Abdullah and Iranian President, Muhammad Khatami over Iraq issue. Two out of three of them are on the poop list, one of them on the public poop list. Qazi discounts the very idea of Pak changing its ways and not being a terrorist state. That's the only way off the poop list...
He said the Quaid-e-Azam, in his first speech to the nation, took very clear stance on Palestine and said that the creation of the state of Palestine was as important as the creation of Pakistan. Qazi urged that Pakistan should play a leading role for the survival of Muslim world. By providing lots of cheap muscle and a few bearded, beturbanned lunatics to lead them...
He said sovereignty of the country must be guarded at every cost and this goal can only be achieved through achieving self-reliance. "We cannot make independent policies without leading simple lives," Qazi said adding that the rulers should reject luxurious style of life," he added. Not that it's desirable for holy men to follow that advice, mind you...
Regarding the Legal Framework Order, he said the military ruler imposed it and it cannot become the part of the Constitution without approval of the elected parliament. "The MMA is working for the supremacy of the parliament and the Constitution," he said. "If Perv likes it, we're against it..."
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/03/2003 03:56 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Let's see, under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, any law that is contrary to the "injunctions of Islam" is without force and effect. Ergo, the LFO, which permits "islam's enemies" (kufrs) to uses military bases in Pigistan, and gives Mushy a free hand at killing Islamic jihadis, is legally dead-letter. And the present Islamist Parliament has no intention of placing the LFO in the constitution. Therefore U.S. troops should vacate the terror state at the earliest opportunity, and end the kid's gloves treatment of the Pashtuns. The U.S. policy of "containment" of the jihad, is not reflective of the position of strength that the U.S. retains. Theatre operants should put away the smart bombs, and bring out: anti-personnel mines, napalm and pliers (viz POWs)
Osama bin Laden's terrorist network lost a key operative with the arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, but Taliban fugitives and al-Qaida allies said Sunday the arrest will not cripple the organization. "There is not just one person there. For every one Khalid Shaikh there are 10 others. There are lots of people who can do his work," said an Afghan rebel who gave his name as Ahmed but who also goes by Abu Bilal. Yeah, yeah. And for every bin Laden we kill, ten will rise up. Cannon fodder, like Ahmed or Abu Bilal or Clifford, or whatever his name is, is cheap and easily replaceable. International criminal masterminds aren't...
Since the Sept. 11 attacks, Mohammed's main work for al-Qaida was to move money and recruit operatives, said Ahmed, a fund-raiser for the Afghan rebel commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Ahmed said he had known Mohammed since the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in the 1980s. Back then, Mohammed and his brother ran a Saudi-funded Islamic charity in Peshawar, Ahmed said. Ahmed said Mohammed never would have been arrested had he stayed along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. On the Afghan side are mountains with plenty of places to hide. On the other is a semiautonomous region known as Pakistan's tribal region. That's where the Paks keep their subversive groups that they use against Afghanistan...
Another man interviewed in this northwestern city on the edge of the tribal region said there were several Arabs in the area. The man, Qayyum, described himself as loyal to the Taliban. He said he did not know if any of the Arabs were top al-Qaida suspects but he is sure bin Laden is not among them. Qayyum said al-Qaida and its allies continue running small training camps in the rugged peaks of eastern Afghanistan and he recently returned from one of them. He quoted others at the camp as saying bin Laden is hiding in the mountains, changing locations daily and traveling with only four or five confidants. Everybody's heard about it, nobody's seen it...
Qayyum also handed over a recording of a voice purported to be that of bin Laden. He offered the cassette as proof bin Laden is alive and active. The tape was a sermon given by bin Laden last month to mark the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha. He got it in Afghanistan from his al-Qaida instructors, he said. "More than 100 percent I know that Osama Sheikh is in Afghanistan. Listen. This is his voice," said Qayyum, a native of Afghanistan's eastern Paktia province. Qayyum popped the audiocassette in the tape player of a white pickup truck as the vehicle weaved past stubborn donkeys and motorized rickshaws blocking the narrow streets of ancient Peshawar. Qayyum said both the Taliban and Hekmatyar recently received a large sum of money from bin Laden. In a soft whisper he calculated: $1.8 million for the Taliban. I wonder if that came direct from Soddy Arabia, or through some intermediaries...
It was impossible to independently confirm the information but Western intelligence sources say al-Qaida, Hekmatyar and the Taliban are aligned. A European intelligence agent said more money has been coming into Pakistan and Afghanistan in recent months, which would corroborate Qayyum's claim.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/03/2003 03:45 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Although it could be confirmed by reading Rantburg. Rantburg: Doing the CIA's job on a shoestring budget.
Posted by: Brian ||
03/03/2003 17:11 Comments ||
Top||
Pakistani officials reconfirmed Monday that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is in U.S. custody and being interrogated by a team of CIA and FBI agents. "Not only that he is no (longer) in our custody, he is also out of Pakistan," a senior Pakistani security official told United Press International. The "CIA or FBI did not participate in the raid that led to his arrest but took (him into) custody less than six hours after his capture," he added. "For us? Oh, you shouldn't have. Well, yes, you should, but thanks awayway!"
On Sunday, Pakistan's Information Minister Shaikh Rashid Ahmad told Radio Pakistan that Mohammed was still in Pakistani custody. "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is in the custody of Pakistan's law enforcement agencies and until we have satisfied ourselves, after the interrogation process, of the nature of his activities in Pakistan, there is no question of handing him over to anyone," Ahmad said. His remarks are in contrast with statements made by senior officials at the Interior Ministry, who told United Press International that the CIA had taken Mohammed out of Pakistan, probably to Bagram Air Base in neighboring Afghanistan. "We handed him over to the Americans on Saturday who later flew him out of the country," one senior Pakistani official said. "The Americans did not tell us where but we have reason to believe that he has been taken to Bagram." Bagram is nice this time of year. The truncheons are in bloom.
Asked to comment on the minister's statement, Pakistan security officials, who did not want to be identified, said "that would be the official position for some time." "And we're sticking to it!"
They said that the U.S. and Pakistan governments had agreed not to discuss the suspect's whereabouts until the investigation is complete. "Nobody would know his whereabouts for the next few months," said a senior official. "He is too valuable to be fed to the media for wild speculation," he added. "Being fed to wild dogs piece by piece is another matter"
Another senior Pakistani official called the suspect "a mine of information who can tell us all we want to know about al Qaida operatives and can also lead us to other key al Qaida operatives, if not Osama bin Laden himself. If anyone knows where the body is, it's Khalid.
"We believe the investigation may take eight months or more," he added. Sucking his brain dry.
Mohammed was arrested Saturday in an early morning raid on the residence of a local religious leader in Rawalpindi, which is near Islamabad. The son of religious leader Ahmad Abdul Qudus was also arrested, as was another suspect. Initial reports identified the third suspect as an Arab but Pakistani intelligence officials told UPI on Sunday that he is "a mid-level Somali operative of al Qaida." They did not disclose his name. Mid-level is a step above cannon fodder.
On Sunday, Pakistan's military spy agency Inter-Service Intelligence also detained an army major, Adil Qudus, who is related to the Pakistani suspect held with Mohammed. ISI is interrogating the major at a military facility in Kohat, a northwestern city near the border with Afghanistan. It isn't yet clear whether he is linked to al Qaida. A Pakistani newspaper has linked [Khalid Sheikh Mohammad] to the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. It said investigators believed Mohammed was the man who slit Pearl's throat in front of a video camera after the reporter disappeared in Karachi in January 2002 while investigating a story on Islamic extremists. Mohammed narrowly escaped capture in a raid about a week ago in the town of Quetta in southwestern Pakistan, said Pakistan's Jang newspaper. During that raid, a Middle Eastern man, possibly of Egyptian origin, was arrested. The unnamed Egyptian, wonder who he really is?
Pakistani security officials say that computers and discs seized from the house where Mohammed was hiding had already provided useful information about al Qaida, include possible terrorist attacks the group might have been planning.
Pakistani officials said that Mohammed was much senior to Abu Zubaida in the al Qaida hierarchy. Abu Zubaida, another close aide of bin Laden, was arrested last March, also in Pakistan.
I'm not too sure I'd agree with that. Zubaydah was designated as Binny's successor in the event he bought the small farm. I thought Khalid was his replacement as OPS officer...
Although Mohammed had both Pakistan and Kuwait passports, after consultation with legal experts, Pakistani and U.S. officials declared him a Kuwaiti national and flew him out of Pakistan, the officials said. Kuwaiti officials were also consulted, they said. See, all those passports are good for something!
Mohammed's family originally came from a Pakistani tribal belt in the southern Balochistan province but â like many among Baloch tribes with close ties to Persian Gulf states â later migrated to Kuwait where Mohammed was born and raised. Had Mohammed been determined to be a Pakistani national, the extradition process would have taken longer. Pakistani laws require permission from a court before extraditing a national. Mohammed is the uncle of one of the attackers in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and one of 22 men listed along with al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden on the FBI's most wanted terrorist list. He is considered one of bin Laden's top lieutenants and the U.S. government had offered $25 million for information leading to his arrest. Mohammed was born in Kuwait in the mid-1960s: one of two birth dates listed for him on the FBI terrorist list is March 1, 1964. Bob Baer, a former case officer in the CIA's Directorate of Operations, told UPI Mohammed also has been a member of al Qaida's consultative council and its military committee. Other former CIA officials also credit Mohammed with helping to set up al Qaida's decentralized structure and a two-tiered system to handle agents without exposing upper layers of the organization. "He's the primary brains of the (Sept. 11) plot," one counter-terrorism official told the British Broadcasting Corp. "He planned this whole operation." Sources have also identified him for UPI as the current operations chief for al Qaida.
See. Toldja so...
Mohammed was one of two al Qaida leaders who appeared on al Jazeera television, the Qatari-based news network, in a secretly taped and highly publicized interview last September. In it he and Ramzi Binalshibh discussed plans for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, which killed about 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. His brother, Zahid Mohammed, reportedly has run an organization called Mercy International out of Peshawar, Pakistan. U.S. officials have linked the group to al Qaida. And Ramzi Yusuf, his nephew, is serving a life sentence in a U.S. prison for his role in the first World Trade Center bombing, on Feb. 26, 1993. Another episode of "Family Jihad".
Baer also said Mohammed was the one who "gave the order" to kill Pearl a year ago. Baer told UPI that he and Pearl were working on a project about Mohammed when the journalist was kidnapped and killed in Karachi, Pakistan. The newspaper has said Pearl was working on a story about Richard Reid, the so-called shoebomber. The Washington Post reported Sunday Mohammed is also known as Muktar Baluchi and graduated from North Carolina A&T University. A master of languages and disguises, he's known for living lavishly and patronizing dance clubs during a period in the Philippines. A truly religious man.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/03/2003 03:07 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Bagram is nice this time of year. The truncheons are in bloom."
Gee, thanks Steve for the comment. More spittle to clean of the screen. LOL.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/03/2003 14:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
but bagram IS nice this time of year.
oh and yes, the truncheons ARE indeed in bloom.
you see there's this kinda wharehouse looking building on disney drive sorta by the flightline that....
Pakistan has detained an army officer on suspicion of ties with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks arrested at the weekend, military officials said on Monday. Major Adil Quddus -- a relative of Pakistani Ahmed Quddus arrested with Kuwait-born Mohammed and another al Qaeda suspect on Saturday -- was detained at the weekend in Kohat, a city in the North West Frontier Province bordering Afghanistan. Military officials said Adil was Ahmed's uncle, but his sister told reporters they were brothers. "Or his father, we're not quite sure, there's so much inbreeding."
"I'm my owwwwwn Grampawwww!"
The military officials said the major, from an army signals regiment, was detained to investigate his dealings with Ahmed and Sheikh Mohammed and was being interrogated by intelligence agents. Signals officer, huh? Maybe giving them help on communications?
His sister Qudsia Khanum said Adil had not been allowed to leave Kohat, but had not been arrested. Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat told reporters the third man detained with Mohammed was a Somali, but gave no details.
Mohammed's arrest has been described by Pakistan and the United States as the biggest catch so far in the war on terror launched in 2001 after the attacks on New York and Washington. Pakistani officials say they expect more arrests following Mohammed's arrest and interrogation. Giggle juice flowing, and they are warming up the pliers.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/03/2003 10:25 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Electrodes on the balls for this maggot.Dear God,please let the FEds have him do a perp walk for the cameras,if only for a minute.......
Kuwait said on Monday it would consider accepting U.S. troops which Washington intended to deploy in Turkey after the Turkish parliament refused to allow them into the country, the Kuwaiti defense minister said. "If they (United States) present a formal request we are willing," Defense Minister Sheikh Jaber al-Hamad al-Sabah told reporters. "There has been no formal request. If they present a formal request it will be presented to the leadership and if they agree then there will be no problem." You don't suppose somebody mentioned that such a statement right now could help change Turkeys mind, do you?
Kuwait currently hosts 100,000 U.S. troops and 20,000 U.S. soldiers, Sheikh Jaber said. They are training for a possible war against neighboring Iraq. In a setback to U.S. plans for a "northern front" against Iraq, Turkey's parliament on Saturday narrowly rejected a motion to allow as many as 62,000 U.S. troops to be deployed in Turkey. The United States is consulting with Turkey on future steps after the decision, a U.S. official said on Sunday. A top U.S. military official said a U.S. presence in Turkey would give the United States an advantage but added that a war would still be successful even without a northern front. "I don't think it's absolutely a showstopper in terms of whether you have a northern front or not," said General James L. Jones, the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, and the Commander of the United States European Command. "We're going to be successful regardless of what we're limited to," he told a news conference at EUCOM headquarters in the southwestern German town of Stuttgart.
"But to have a presence in the northern part of Iraq -- we would definitely have an advantage, and they would have to pay more attention to the North." Yup.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/03/2003 01:50 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It's good of Kuwait to make the offer, but I have to think that it's at least partially a political maneuver designed to (as noted in the comments) help Turkey change its mind, for the simple reason that Kuwait is already stuffed to the maximum with U.S. and British troops, not to mention Kuwait's own army and the Peninsula shield contingents.
I have to confess that I'm kind of bewildered as to just what the current status of the Turkish matter is. The Istanbul stock market tanked today, but the government in Ankara keeps saying it has no plans to resubmit the agreement for a new vote, and the Turkish army has been silent so far - at least in public. In the meantime, I have no idea whether the ships that have been hovering offshore are still there or are moving toward Suez, and I don't have the foggiest as to what's going on with the materiel and personnel that have already been offloaded.
Then again, perhaps the whole thing is a gigantic, deliberate disinformation operation that would make the greatest Russian masters of maskirovka turn green with envy.
Posted by: Joe ||
03/03/2003 17:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I doubt it, joe. I profoundly wish it were true, but I doubt it.
#3
Well, if things all work out, we just might TELL the world afterwards that it was all a big show. I mean, we couldn't say it too loudly, or no one would believe us, but we would leak a whole bunch of "hints."
Posted by: Michael Levy ||
03/03/2003 23:33 Comments ||
Top||
Every day for the past two weeks, frustrated servicemembers have prepared to move equipment to forward locations as they waited for Turkey to give the OK to start unloading supplies.
Sunday was no different, as events in the Turkish parliament Saturday only served to confuse things. On Sunday, a long U.S. military convoy stretched the length of the seaport in Iskenderun, which is squeezed full with camouflaged trucks, Humvees and engineering equipment. With the port filling up with U.S. military equipment, 1st Infantry Division logisticians remain eager to move it out to make room for more.
Whether additional U.S. forces will land in Turkey is up in the air. A rancorous day in the Turkish parliament Saturday ended when there were not enough votes to approve a 60,000-strong U.S. combat force coming through Turkey to bolster a northern front against Iraq.
As politicians continue to haggle, dozens of U.S. military vehicles â many of them lashed atop locally hired big rigs â lined up behind the main gate at the port Sunday morning. A horde of photographers and TV cameramen stood by to record the first U.S. military movement out of the port. Soldiers wearing the Big Red One 1st Infantry Division patch made final preparations, some loading aboard buses, others coordinating with Turkish authorities. But like Saturdayâs vote, the convoyâs trip was over before it began.
U.S. officials are still pessimistically hopeful that permission could eventually come for combat units to enter Turkey. If the light does turn green, they say, thereâs still a lot of critical site preparation work left to do and they are getting little help. Indeed, U.S. military officials have been bemoaning the sluggish cooperation theyâve received from the Turkish military and parliament, according to military sources close to the situation who asked not be named. Even with Turkeyâs approval, officials say the U.S. military will still face a massive uphill logistics battle to unload dozens of cargo ships carrying mountains of supplies and hundreds of combat vehicles to equip a force in time for any attack.
U.S. war planners had hoped to begin laying the groundwork for that race weeks ago by bringing in eight cargo ships full of engineering equipment, trucks, fuelers and tank-haulers, along with medical and communications gear. So far, only three of those cargo ships have been allowed to unload.
âWe have five site prep ships still waiting to come in,â said Dave Field, deputy operations and readiness officer for the Military Sealift Command in Europe and part of small Navy team in southern Turkey preparing for the massive influx.
Two of those ships â the Progress and Prodigy â were turned away because they were Greek Cypriot-flagged vessels, said Field. With long-standing tensions between Turks and Greeks - especially when it comes to the contested island of Cyprus â Turkish authorities simply refused to allow the ships entry. Oops!
Field said officials are looking at either reflagging the ships â a bureaucratically intensive process â or in a more sweat-intensive solution, crossing-loading all the gear to more politically acceptable ships. That problem is one of many that has slowed preparations, said Field. Deliberations over taxes on fuel, which ports are available and how much space at those ports will be dedicated to the military are still ongoing, he said. âIt has been very frustrating,â added Navy Capt. Steve Treacy, deputy commander of the MSC team in Iskenderun, where the bulk of the U.S war gear is to be unloaded. âWeâve been here 14 days, and weâve just been waiting and waiting.â
Meanwhile, already backing up behind those remaining five site prep ships, say the two MSC logisticians, is an armada of 40 more vessels carrying the go-to-war hardware of the 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized). âAbout half of those ships are ready to come ashore right now,â said Field.
In addition to the seaport in Iskenderun, officials want to start bringing gear to Mersin, Turkeyâs largest port just across the bay. The Navy hopes to use a third nearby facility, away from population centers, to bring in tons of ordnance and other explosives. A team of about 100 soldiers is based at Mersin preparing to manage that logistics effort.
Officials were hopeful that after Saturdayâs vote the pace of unloading would kick into high gear. But with a final decision on combat forces still undecided, officials say the waiting game will continue. And wait, and wait, and wait. I think they need to start reloading our supplies on those ships. Repaint the shipping labels: Forward to Republic of Kurdistan. That might get somebodys attention!
Posted by: Steve ||
03/03/2003 01:03 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It's time for the US to really put the hurt on someone. Iraq's already a forgone conclusion, but there's still plenty of room for Turkey on our Shit List. Hell, today even than Pakistan is looking more like a real ally than Turkey!
#2
Unload everything in the nearest "friendly" country and airlift everything to the Kurdish north.
Posted by: Jon ||
03/03/2003 13:41 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Isn't Cyprus on the way south? Maybe the U.S. could "help" the Turks to "repatriate" their troops there?
The Greeks would so love it. And remember it was a Greek who took Babylon a few milleniums ago.
#4
It was apparent two weeks ago that Turkey, for multiple reasons, is too conflicted to be a reliable partner. Cut the losses and move on....nothing will get better here, only more problems and headaches await.
First there was this story in the Guardian about a football game:
It is well known in Iraq that the country's most devoted football fan is none other than Uday Hussein, President Saddam's eldest son. Unfortunately for Iraq's hapless sportsmen, Uday is also known for torturing players who fail to perform on the pitch. So it was hardly surprising that when a football team from Baghdad made a rare trip yesterday to opposition-controlled northern Iraq they expressed their complete support for Uday's beleaguered father. "We love President Saddam very much. We will stay with him to the end," Baghdad's 20-year-old goalkeeper, Saif Aldin Zammer, explained before yesterday's match with the Kurdish side Irbil.
"If there is war we will go and join the fidayeen Saddam [the Iraqi president's volunteer militia]," Mista Qalan, a defender, said in the away team dressing room. "We will fight to the death." Saif's team is Al-Nafid, the Oil team. Their opponents yesterday, Irbil, are the best Kurdish side in Iraq's national league. The country may be divided into two distinct chunks, but Kurdish and Iraqi sides play each other most weekends. Then, burried in the middle of the story was this line:
To reach Irbil, the Baghdad players had to travel across a reinforced Iraqi frontline, past freshly dug army trenches filled with oil, and up into the mountains of Kurdistan.
Now, the Iraqi blog, Where is Raed ?, explains:
blink and you miss it. You still didnât see it? listen: Freshly. Dug. Army. Trenches. filled with oil.
Story time:
A week ago on the way to work I saw a huge column of blackest-black smoke coming from the direction of Dorah refinery which is within Baghdad city limits, thought nothing of it really. A couple of weeks earlier to that a fuel tank near the Rasheed army camp exploded and it looked the same, stuff like that happens. My father was driving thru the area later and he said it looked like they were burning excess or wasted oil. Eh, they were never the environmentalists to start with; if they didnât burn it they would have dumped it in the river or something. The smoke was there for three days the column could be seen from all over Baghdad being dragged in a line across the sky by the winds. During the same time and on the same road I take to work I see two HUGE trenches being dug, it looked like they were going to put some sort of machinery in it, wide enough for a truck to drive thru and would easily take three big trucks.
A couple of days after the smoke-show over Baghdad I and my father are going past these trenches and we see oil being dumped into the trenches, you could hear my brain going into action, my father gave me the (shutup-u-nutty-paranoid-freak) look, but I knew it was true. The last two days everybody talks about it, they are planning to make a smoke screen of some sorts using black crude oil, actually rumor has it that they have been experimenting with various fuel mixtures to see what would produce the blackest vilest smoke and the three days of smoke from Dorah was the final test. Around Baghdad they would probably go roughly along the green belt which was conceived to stop the sandstorms coming from the western deserts. I have no idea how a smoke screen can be of any use except make sure that the people in Baghdad die of asphyxiation and covered in soot. I think I will be getting those gas masks after all.
Remember that story about the explosion and fire at a Baghdad oil refinery that the Iraqi's said was just a accident? If you believe Raed, it sounds like thay have been testing a smokescreen to provide cover for their troops. Sorry, Sammy, our night vision devices using infrared see through smoke. And satellite guided bombs don't care. Might cause problems with laser guided bombs.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/03/2003 11:44 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
actually, no they do not.
I'm not so sure about flir since it uses heat and smoke, is HOT. but flir is very sensitive so maybe it will still be able to discern body heat from smoke as for the ir stuff.
negative, smoke of that nature has parafinic qualities which produce particles in the air. which will block our lasers from getting to targets (again it was used in the former yugoslavia)
and our NVG's only amplify ambient light, we couldn't use them in the first gulf war, and if it's thick enough we wouldn't be able to use them here.
#3
Not all that smart.
After the first couple hours, the only air defenses that will be left around Baghdad will be the flak. Once those fires start, the flak will be essentially useless. It will effectively be permanent nighttime in Baghdad.
Also, this is likely to cause incredible health problems down the road.
#4
I don't think Sammi and the rest of the Baath party structure are really concerning themselves much lately with long-term health issues ...heh heh
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/03/2003 17:43 Comments ||
Top||
#5
and if you have the GPS co-ordinates of everything that stands upright in the entire country, what difference does it make how much oil smoke you hide it behind?
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
03/03/2003 23:55 Comments ||
Top||
It is too soon to say whether France will use its veto in the UN Security Council to block any US-backed resolution paving the way for war in Iraq, the spokesman for President Jacques Chirac's party said Monday. "Tactically, the threat is more important than the act," said Francois Baroin, spokesman for the ruling Union for the Presidential Majority. "To brandish the threat" is equivalent to using it, given the current situation, Baroin told reporters. "What we say we might do is more important than what we do, if we do anything, or we don't!"
France's line is "to leave all possible margin of maneuver and freedom of maneuver for the president (Chirac) to choose, when the moment comes, on the basis of a text, what needs to be done," Baroin said. "Waffles, anyone?"
France is one of five permanent members of the Security Council, and each has a veto right that gives added weight to its opinion. France also has taken the lead among nations trying to resolve the Iraq crisis peacefully a stance that runs counter to that of the United States. Many in Washington and elsewhere are wondering whether France would use its veto to block an eventual US-backed resolution paving the way for military action to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. Reading this statement, I'd say they won't.
Russia and China, nations which back the French effort to give UN inspectors more time and means to seek out weapons, also have veto power. I can just hear the debate now: "You vote first." "No, you vote first!" "I insist, you first!" "What do you think I am, crazy? You vote first!"
The United States, Britain and Spain have put forth a draft proposal to open the way to war but that has yet to translate into a resolution ready for a vote in the 15-member body. The United States and Britain are the other two veto-wielding countries. "Why ask the question about veto rights on a text that, today, we have (not seen)," Baroin said. Standing firm on not taking a stand on taking a stand.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/03/2003 10:28 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I thought the UNSC had seen the US/UK resolution.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/03/2003 10:55 Comments ||
Top||
#2
they've seen the resolution US/UK have introduced - what they haven't seen is the resolution that will ultimately be voted on - this implies that a change in wording (like the Canadian proposal) could give them the "out" to change their minds.
#3
The Canadian proposal might have got some support until Carolyn Parrish opened her big mouth. Chirac and Chretien may as well be the Bobsie Twinks.
The issue at the UN is time wating diversion. I suspect that the US and UK are using the old NBA strategy: the thirty second coundown is in effect an if France wants the ball, they are going to have to foul somebody.
Posted by: john ||
03/03/2003 19:36 Comments ||
Top||
#4
These little weasel moves remind me of the US Senate. The UNSC should be known as "the Terrarium of Weevils".
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/03/2003 20:22 Comments ||
Top||
US Air Force B-52 bombers began landing in Britain Monday, with 14 expected throughout the day as part of preparations for a possible war with Iraq, the government said. Britain last week gave the United States permission to fly the bombers into the Royal Air Force's Fairford base in western England as part of Britain's contribution to possible military action in the Gulf, the Ministry of Defense said. Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon told the House of Commons that 14 of the bombers plus support personnel were arriving. There are no B-52s regularly based in Britain, the Ministry said. It wouldn't say whether the bombers would stay in Britain or head to a British base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia. The Ministry last week said it expected B-52s to come to Britain, but hadn't given a date for their arrival. B-52 bombers have used Diego Garcia as a base for operations in Afghanistan, where they were used to pound suspected enemy positions. Tick..tick..tick..
Posted by: Steve ||
03/03/2003 10:21 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I thought that BUFF was a reference to a C-130 gunship. BUFF = "Big Ugly Fat F*****". Gotta love the name!
#2
the AC-130 gunship is called "Spectre",BUFF has been reserved for the B-52's for years. Another good one is the FB-111(aardvark)
and my all time favorite is the "bone" bomber or B-1. It got the name because some reporter wrote down b-one, in their notes and didnt notice the mistake when they wrote the article.
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
03/03/2003 19:00 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The c-130 was called puff the magic dragon, i think
Two different reports on this meeting. One in Press Scan and one in Press Review.
OZKOK VISITS GUL TO DISCUSS RECENT DEVELOPMENTS ON IRAQ
Chief of General Staff Gen. Hilmi Ozkok yesterday visited Prime Minister Abdullah Gul to evaluate Parliamentâs decision rejecting the proposals on Iraq. During their meeting, Ozkok briefed Gul on the recent situation of the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK). âIf Turkish troops enter the northern Iraq, this would cost to Turkey,â he said. âIt wouldnât be appropriate for the TSK to enter the northern Iraq under these conditions as it didnât get enough support from the US.â Gul stated that the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government asked for the US administration to warn the Iraqi opposition leaders who declared that they would consider Turkish troops as enemy if they enter northern Iraq, but that it wouldnât get a positive response from the US. And then there is this:
OZKOK: WE SHOULD GO TILL BAGHDAD IN CASE WE ENTER NORTHERN IRAQ
Chief of General Staff Gen. Hilmi Ozkok paid a surprise visit to Prime Minister Abdullah Gul on Sunday. Ozkok wanted an additional budget for a possible intervention against Northern Iraq. Gen. Ozkok said, ''we should go till Baghdad if we enter Northern Iraq. We can not have the right to speak if we fail to go till Baghdad. Budget of defense should be reinforced in this respect.'' Interesting
Posted by: Steve ||
03/03/2003 09:37 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The military delivering their perspective ultimatum.
Crack US airborne units are pouring into Kuwait, boosting American military might in preparation for a potential war against Iraq, military officials said Monday. Major Michael Miller, an executive officer of the 101st Airborne Aviation Brigade, said the majority of troops from its parent Air Assault Division had now been deployed to Kuwait. The remainder would arrive shortly, he said. They have travelled largely by commercial airliner over the past week from their base at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to five camps in Kuwait, including Camp Udairi in the north of the country, the division's public affairs officer Major Hugh Cate said. Miller, speaking at the desert camp, said his troops would boost their training with the imminent arrival of major equipment by sea, but he stressed the division was ready to go to war. "We are prepared for further combat operations," Miller said. The 101st Airborne has about 20,000 troops and more than 270 helicopters. The division's Apache helicopters launched the air assault on Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War over Kuwait and its troops penetrated closer to Baghdad than any other US military unit. Miller would not outline any upcoming battle plans for the 101st Airborne but said the division's normal role was to attack armour from the air. "Generally the role of this brigade is to destroy enemy armour," he said. The 101st Airborne has three air attack battalions, all of which use the AH-64 Apache helicopters. Its 17th Cavalry regiment provides rescue and security reinforcements, and uses Kiowa OH-58 Warrior helicopters as well as the Apaches. Tick..tick..tick...
Posted by: Steve ||
03/03/2003 10:07 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
That's where the 101st went. I thought they were headed for Turkey.
ANKARA, Turkey -- Early last month, Vice President Dick Cheney phoned Turkey's prime minister with an urgent message: The Bush administration wanted the country's parliament to vote within days â just before the Muslim holiday of Bayram â on a request to base U.S. troops in Turkey for an assault on Iraq.
The timing of the pressure struck a raw nerve here, one that was still aching when Turkish lawmakers finally took up the request Saturday and dealt it a surprise defeat. As Turks offered explanations Sunday for this stinging defiance of their strongest ally, tales of American insensitivity were high on the list.
Religious feelings run deep here before and during Bayram. It was going to be hard enough for Washington to persuade one predominantly Muslim country to join in a war against another. But Cheney was making his pitch to a government led by an Islamist party as its lawmakers were about to head home to join pious constituents
for several days of feasting and prayer.
Prime Minister Abdullah Gul, a reluctant supporter of the U.S. request, told Cheney that a vote in parliament would have to wait, according to Turks familiar with the conversation. But word got around, adding to a series of blunders by the Bush administration and Gul's 3 1/2-month-old government that now seem to have doomed the Pentagon's goal of a northern front against Iraq's Saddam Hussein.
"We don't like the way we were pushed around by the Americans," said Emin Sirin, one of dozens of lawmakers from the ruling Justice and Development Party who defied its leaders and voted against U.S. deployment.
"The Americans kept giving ultimatums and deadlines, asking Turkey to jump into a barrel of fire," he said. "They seemed to think we could be bought off, but we had real security concerns about what Iraq would look like after Saddam. They never addressed those concerns."
Really stupid and without tact, the US thinks it can fight terror by arming up local militias. By doing that you create terror which Bush apparantly doesn't care about, all he cares about is his personal vendeta
Saturday's vote, which fell three short of the majority required by Turkish law, was a study in miscalculation. The ruling party's leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, joined Gul in endorsing the deployment resolution, and they had good reason to predict its passage. The party had swept 363 of the parliament's 550 seats in November elections.
But the party managed just 264 votes in favor. The rebellion by more than a quarter of its deputies, whose support had been taken for granted, and a unified stand by the opposition yielded 250 votes against the plan and 19 abstentions. The other 17 lawmakers were absent.
The plan would have authorized 62,000 U.S. troops, 255 warplanes and 65 helicopters to move through Turkey to bases along its border with Iraq, creating a force that could advance on Baghdad from the north while a larger U.S. force based in the Persian Gulf region moved up from the south. Such a two-pronged assault, American officials say, would shorten any war to disarm Hussein, minimizing U.S. casualties.
American officials said Sunday that they would keep an armada of U.S. warships waiting off Turkey with tanks and equipment, in the hope that Turkey will soon reverse its decision. They warned, however, that the Pentagon is running out of time to decide whether the vessels â and the troops they would supply â should change course and head for the gulf.
Relax, don't hurry keep it cool man.
Parliament's decision left the Turkish government stunned and discredited. Some analysts said a rush to a new vote would be risky because a second defeat would further weaken the government's hold on power.
"The proposal has been delayed for an open-ended time," Eyup Fatsa, the Justice and Development deputy chairman, said Sunday after a closed meeting of the party's governing board.
The government has been under relentless U.S. lobbying since taking office, forced to choose between Turkey's powerful benefactor and a public that opposes war on Iraq by a 4-1 margin in surveys. Turks historically are averse to large numbers of foreign troops on their soil and fear a repeat of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when half a million refugees poured across the border from Iraq and Turkey's economy was devastated. Some analysts say antiwar rallies across Europe last month hardened popular sentiment here.
Does Bush care, Turkey is an ally who is supposed to make a harakiri jump to please the American taxpayer, right?
Turkey's armed forces, which usually dictate policy behind the scenes but are divided over the prospect of war, left the decision to the civilian leadership.
Gul and Erdogan responded with mixed signals. After making no secret of their distaste for American war plans, the two men began arguing in recent weeks that Turkey might benefit by cooperating in a war â for example, by gaining influence in the affairs of postwar Iraq and by being able to restore trade with a neighbor freed from international sanctions.
"Their U-turn came too late," said Mehmet Ali Birand, a leading Turkish columnist and television commentator. "They failed to bring the public and their own party with them. It was a classic case of miscommunication between leaders and the grass roots."
American officials believed that the Turks could not afford to turn them down. On the assumption that Turkish leaders thought the same, U.S. officials led by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz kept pressing hard for a decision. When Turkey balked, American officials, in private comments to reporters, often questioned the country's value as an ally.
Arrogance?
"The disinformation campaign against Turkey played a big role in upsetting national feelings," Erdogan said Sunday.
In the end, Washington tried to bargain for Turkey's loyalty with the promise of a $15-billion aid package that would include $6 billion in grants. The deal nearly fell apart last week when Turkey balked at one of the conditions â that it agree to strict International Monetary Fund guidelines for reform of its economy.
By week's end, the government had accepted the condition, but it had no time to explain and sell the accord to lawmakers, many of whom felt that Turkey had been shortchanged.
"The time pressure put on Turkey did not help the Americans' case," a senior Turkish diplomat said, because it forced the government to call a vote prematurely.
Posted by: Murat ||
03/03/2003 02:54 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The stupid, arrogant, tactless ones are the legislators who -- absent quick reversal -- will soon watch their economy crater and their Kurdish population get restless or worse.
#2
Can anybody tell me what it means when the US have distributed so many weapons to the militias, that you can buy hand grenades for $2 on the market in Arbil (North Iraq). What is Bush doing, fighting terrorism or creating terrorism? Those same hand grenades the Kurds will use soon or later on the American GI's (and suddenly they will become terrorist in American terms)
Posted by: Murat ||
03/03/2003 4:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Nobody can deny the road to Bagdad has it's share of potholes. But we will travel there.
Posted by: john ||
03/03/2003 6:45 Comments ||
Top||
#4
How dare you lecture us, Murat? Your nation has made their choice, and now I hope they are prepared to reap what they sow. And let's just see where those calls from Ankara to Washington go...
Posted by: Brian ||
03/03/2003 7:10 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"Might" is not "will", Murat, a subtlety in the english language that perhaps is escaping you. You're neither a prophet, seer, or genius, and nor is anyone else, so neither you, nor anyone else, can say with 100% certainty what will or will not happen. "It might, it might, it might" may be successful against the insecure who want cradle to grave security and 100% guarantees, but it's lost on people used to evaluating the risks and taking action in view of known threats. The ability to take risk is an american cultural thing, so YOU be multicultural about it and LIVE with it.
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. A world with one less WMD-seeking and using dictator is a better world, regardless of the bogey men you see in the shadows that MIGHT leap out to bite us.
I don't like the idea of multiplying nations that just add up to more demands on American taxpayer generosity. At the same time, the Kurds have proven to run their little world a hell of a lot better than most other, more established arab countries.
#6
Turkey's motivations are a jumble. Different members of the legislature have diffirent reasons for what they do.
Also, the Kurdish motivations are not unified. Although most Kurds are very willing to live in a unified Iraq, there are some who aren't, and a few or the latter are potential terrorists.
Still, as pointed out, the number and scope of open democratic institutions the Kurds have created in the last ten years is worthy of praise. I hope that as they get more power, it doesn't corrupt them.
#7
I think many parliamentarians just signed their own resignation letters. Caving to populism and ignoring economic reality is a surefire means of destabilization. Turkey looks to be losing its secular appeal. If Turkey alienates both the EU and the US, it does not bode well for its future.
One question is whether this is an attempt to cozy up to the Axis of Weasels and strengthen Turkey's bid to enter the EU. If so, I believe they're pumping a dry well. Old Europe has proven that it does not remember nor stand by its friends, whereas the US has a very long memory, and the means to help its friends.
Another question is how the Kurds will use this to their advantage? My thinking is that they just became more valuable to the US. I wonder if an independent Kurdistan could ever emerge?
I have no doubt that the US will cross that bridge, it will take a bit longer but she will cross.
I do however disagree about the Kurds running their little world, I would ask you how if it where not the 13% share of Iraqi oil enforced by the UN sanctions and the UN administrated projects that runs that sub-sub artificial 36th parallel entity in northern Iraq.
Thank you for asking, this morning the stock market showed a sharp dive but it is stabilizing now with a light rise.
Posted by: Murat ||
03/03/2003 7:44 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Dissapointing post and comments by Murat. Turkey is a "democracy" and we should respect their decision. However to turn around and blame the negative decision on US pressure is infantile and smacks of anti-Americanism. As mjh notes if this decision stands it will hurt Turkey, for the US it complicates the war effort a bit but is not a show stopper. And the US saves $15-$30BN.
#10
I agree with Brian and Ptah. Perhaps finally in all this the US will come to see who its true allies really are. We are so sorry we did not ask for your help as politely and sensitively as we should have, Murat. You see, we are under a wee bit of stress here as each day we wait to see whether a WMD will be set off here in our own country. That might cause us to be a bit testy now and then, but at least as long as GWB is president our true friends (Blair, Howard) will not be forgotten.
If my views are more pro fatherland than pro American, which disappoints you thatâs not a pitty, so be it Turkey is a billion times more precious to me than the US, but this is not anti-Americanism.
I really doubt this saves anything to the US, that $15-$30BN you mention are balloons as empty as the promises of 1991, but anyway thatâs not to the point or as important as some media stories try to balloon it. Whatâs important is the after war prospects in which the US give no guarantees, the words of Bush are not enough as Powell and ambassador Pearson want to make us believe, experience from the Gfwar 1 did teach that. To be short the US asks Turkey to jump in an internationally unapproved war without giving any solid assurances. One of the UN guidelines says that no country should allow a second country to use its territory for attacking a third country without UN authorization (one that has been signed by the US as well).
Posted by: Murat ||
03/03/2003 8:50 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Rigggghhhtt ....the U.S. is acting like a cowboy - insensitive to others' high principles and religious pieties. Of course, this could have been overcome for a few billion more...
reminds me of the joke with the ending:
"sir...what do you take me for?"
"I think we've already established that ma'am, now we're just negotiating a price"
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/03/2003 8:52 Comments ||
Top||
#13
The US has supported Turkey's desire to join the EU and Turkey's defense by NATO. The US was willing to pay an ally for assistance and work with Turkey's concerns about its own Kurdish problems. That is arrogance?
Turkey has not shown sensitivity to American concerns about Iraq. It is hypocritical for Turkey to condemn American insensitivity.
Many commenters here have observed that playing politics with vital American interests is foolish and short-sighted. This is not a proud moment for Turkey.
Posted by: Arthur Fleischman ||
03/03/2003 8:58 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Typical media and Euro blather where the Turks are not responsible for their own indecision and waffling, Dick Cheny is. You think they'd get it by now. After 9-11, we aren't playing with words anymore and the enemy never was. This is not a game. We intend to kill the terrorists and protect our freedom at ANY cost, though we'll do our very best to limit the suffering.
Just as we misunderstood the character of the Turks (they'd rather hurt us than help themselves) they misunderstood OUR character. You are either with us or against us in this fight. The Turks chose their position - as is their right - now they need to live with the consequences instead of blaming the US because we forgot to ask for the cherry when we said, pretty please. Americans are so waaay beyond playing that little game.
#15
Murat -
I have no problem with you being more pro-Turkey than pro-US, I'd be surprised if you weren't. My dissapointment came in the "it's America's fault" analysis of the Turkish vote - it sounds eerily familiar to the "they deserved 9/11" rant.
Granted that Turkey suffered from GW1 but to assume they will screwed again after this war, after the US has gone to great lengths to help Turkey (noted above) is an assumption. As for the UN we have seen over the past 6 months how useless this organization is.
I enjoy your posts and insight Murat so I don't want to get into a p*ssing match with you - I just believe this was a strategically poor decision by Turkey that will hurt them in both the short run and long run.
#16
AWW -
I will be the last one ever to say anything like "they deserved 9/11". As I think the US didnât deserve that, I think also we donât deserve terrorism after another gulfwar. How many Americans suffered terror, 3000, 4000? In my country more than 30.000 suffered that evil, mainly trough American failures of GW1 and their wildly arming up of the local Iraqi militias, those weapons eventually exploded in my country.
Agreeing that it might be a strategically poor decision by Turkey (in economical aspect), it sets however the final wish to give a sign that we want very solid assurance that GW2 will not take another 30.000 lives in my country. None of the billions of losses you hint at can match that. As long as the US doesnât firmly assure disarming the Iraqi militias after a war, I think that the Turkish government was right in not passing the bill.
If we are talking about fighting terrorism it must not be limited to terrorism against the US, which saddles an ally with mess after wart. Itâs really up the US officials once they ensure that a second motion can pass the next day.
Regards,
Posted by: Murat ||
03/03/2003 9:49 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Let's all admit that there's blame for everyone here.
The Turks need to understand how important ridding the world of Saddam is. They also need to understand the importance of having a say in post-war Iraq, and how they WON'T have a say if they don't work with us.
The Turks also need to understand that the US has stood up for them in the past; EU membership, NATO, and an even-handed approach with the Greeks (e.g., Cyprus) are but a few examples. We don't like being dissed after putting ourselves on the line for someone.
We could certainly be more understanding of Muslim religious holidays, if the story is correct. There are times when the US isn't especially good at quiet diplomacy, and dealing with the Turks strikes me as something where quiet diplomacy is the best option.
After all, the goal is for each side to get what they need so that we can get moving.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/03/2003 10:54 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Murat, I agree with AWW: I'd have been surprised if you DIDN'T regard your homeland with fierce patriotism and want to do what's needed to be done to establish the security of your nation. I even recognize your right to whine when equally motivated and equally patriotic Americans, with a similar regard for America, act in a similar self-interested manner. Fair's fair, right?
#19
If this is halfway accurate, it's time we keep Cheney away from anything that even looks like diplomacy. I recall that we had to send Powell out to mend fences when the VP made his grand tour of the Middle East.
To put it another way, if we have essentially returned to pre-World War II norms of diplomacy it's time to relearn the niceties.
More hands to be played in this game for sure though
#20
Whine about us being heavy-handed w/them, yet how heavy a hand do the Turks want to use against the Kurds?
Maybe if Turkey got its act together and made itself attractive/prosperous for the kurds, it might change a few minds and hearts. Or let got of the tribal aspect. Which is what we're seeing in the rest of the world.
#22
Turkey is holding up the invasion. Had this been settled long ago, we would've seen the vote at the UNSC, followed by Bush telling Chiraq "Vas t'faire foutre!", followed by the scream heard 'round the world as Saddam gets his balls yanked off by an M1A1, just before he gets hacked to pieces by his own people and fed to the lions at the Baghdad Zoo.
But that's ok Turkey, go ahead and side with your real friends the Europeans. It was a tough choice, EU membership or US loyalty, wasn't it?
#23
Well, ships move at X speed and there comes a point when we need to know their destination. So putting pressure on people for a time to decide isn't bad. Keeping up the schedule is a good thing. Sh*t or get off the pot.
Posted by: Lord Ben ||
03/03/2003 14:35 Comments ||
Top||
#24
A light rise is not a 12.5% decline. A light rise isn't a 5% depreciation in the currency. A light rise is not the Prime Rate soaring past 60%. Nevertheless, let's see how tomorrow's trading session goes. I'm sure that Erdogan can blame it on the Jews (read Soros). After all, we decadent Western Capitalists are the root of all evil and not poor economic planning...
Posted by: Brian ||
03/03/2003 17:18 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Murat's points are valid. The aftermath of Gulf War I sucked for them... they had a lot of dead people too, and the economic hit was equally harsh. All of which could have been avoided if we'd just taken Saddam out the 1st time, but that's another rant. Bottom line, we weren't there to pick them up in a public way (quiet help via the IMF is nice but a mixed blessing).
Now we want their help again, and they're suspicious. I have no time for the Euros, but reverse the circumstances - wouldn't you be? They wanted guarantees we couldn't give, or couldn't be seen to give, and there was too much distrust to get a meeting of minds. That's too bad, and it will cost us both unless some miraculous diplomatic save can be made. But sometimes that's the way the world works.
I'm all for putting the French in our sights, and the Germans too. I'm all for doing everything we can to make the EU's life hell over their conduct on the Iraq issue. But I have zero animosity for Turkey, even though I wish they had decided differently.
Posted by: Joe Katzman ||
03/03/2003 18:23 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Interesting perspective. The Germans DO allow the U.S. to use their bases in Germany at will for this war, even without UN authorization.
You might belittle this fact but actually this could get Germany into trouble. The German constitution (Grundgesetz Article 26 (1) forbids actions helping the "preparation of an offensive war" ("Handlungen, die geeignet sind und in der Absicht vorgenommen werden [...] die Führung eines Angriffskrieges vorzubereiten, sind verfassungswidrig. Sie sind unter Strafe zu stellen").
An US attack on Iraq without U.N. authorization would qualify (at least leading legal analysts say so). Schroeder could technically end up at court for allowing the U.S. to prepare war from German soil. Technically he could even end up in The Hague. Germany adopted the treaty of the International Criminal Court (the U.S. did not).
Sure, not very likely that this will happen. But if the U.S. strike without U.N. backing things could get messy.
#29
TGA, I thought the use of some of the US bases in Germany was the result of the post-WW II Four Power Agreements, which gave us unhindered basing rights. I know some of the bases aren't covered by this, but I thought some were.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/03/2003 22:31 Comments ||
Top||
#30
whats not mentioned here is that Turkey has been trying to enter the EU for a long time. This might be negotiations for more cash, or a nod to the french.
Frankly, paying a bribe of $15 billion is unreasonable. The missile strikes can be extended long enough for us to bring troops in through kuwait.
Makes for a bad logistics problem. Hope they got plans for no Turkey participation...
It does mean the campaign needs to begin earlier though, if we are to avoid the summer. Also, we will have a large bottleneck that will need protecting.
Iraq said yesterday that it had nothing more to declare to the UN on its weapons programme and warned that it might stop the destruction of its al-Samoud 2 missiles if America continued to threaten it with war. "We ain't got nuttin, and we ain't ditchin' any of it either!"
Lieutenant-General Amer al-Saadi, the chief weapons adviser to Saddam Hussein, accused George Bush and Tony Blair of trying to engineer "a war driven by greed". General Saadi said Baghdad might cease scrapping the missiles if it believed Washington was going to ignore the UN Security Council. "If it turns out at an early stage during this month that America is not going to behave in a legal way, why should we continue?" he said. Always enjoyable to listen to an Iraqi hood general talk about legalities.
Iraq has destroyed 10 missiles out of over 100 in two days. But stopping the process will almost certainly be seen by America and Britain as a "material breach" of UN resolutions, and provide the trigger for an invasion. Yep, sure would. Hence the squawking.
The claim that Iraq has fulfilled all its UN obligations is also likely to be used by Washington and London as evidence that President Saddam is not prepared to "fully disarm". Yep, sure would.
General Saadi said: "Practically all the areas of concern to Unmovic [the UN inspection team] and the subjects of remaining disarmament questions have been addressed." "Fine, you won't mind us then bringing in about 225,000 inspectors and advisors for a look-see, now would you?"
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/03/2003 01:58 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
..Watched the films of the Al-Samouds being destroyed on CNN this morning. I told my son a few days ago that if you gave me some paint, plywood, and some aluminum ductwork, I could make all kinds of missiles to destroy for the cameras - and it looks like I wasn't that far off. All they were showing were empty casings - no indications that there had ever been a solid rocket motor in there, no plumbing for wiring and control systems, nuttin. On top of that, they were doing it in what looked to be an alleyway between two buildings, using a skiploader. Not even the Iraqis are that dumb. (Full Disclosure - I did 20 years in the USAF as a munitions specialist, working on air to air and air to ground missiles.)
Mike
Posted by: Mike ||
03/03/2003 12:12 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Powell: "Where's the proof that they have destroyed these rockets?"
Blix: "Stupid idiot! It was on CNN!"
Tony Blair's problems over Iraq deepened yesterday when France and rebel Labour MPs said that Saddam Hussein's decision to destroy some al-Samoud missiles showed the UN inspections regime was working. I think we all saw this coming.
As the Prime Minister continued his telephone diplomacy in an attempt to win the support of other countries, Dominique de Villepin, the French Foreign Minister, widened the gulf between Paris and London by accusing the US and Britain of making "war on a timetable". "You cannot say 'I want Saddam Hussein to disarm' and at the same time when he is disarming say they're not doing what they should," he told the BBC's Breakfast with Frost programme: 10 missiles run over so far. There's a lot left.
M. de Villepin dismissed Mr Blair's comparison between the Iraq crisis and the appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s. "We are not a pacifist country," he said. Spew!
"We are ready to take full responsibility. And, we said, if the use of force at one point is absolutely needed, then of course we might take these decisions. "Then again, we might not. We are French, you know!"
"But the question is â and sometimes at night I wake up thinking [it] — have we tried everything? France says no ... Are we going to oppose a second resolution? Yes."
We never doubted that. In a way, we can count on France...
In a further setback to Mr Blair and President George Bush, the Turkish parliament unexpectedly blocked the deployment of 62,000 American troops to its bases.
"Yeah. And we didn't count on that...
Meanwhile, Labour MPs warned that failure to win a fresh UN mandate would fuel the rebellion which saw 121 of them vote for appeasement against Mr Blair's strategy last week. Tony might need the Tories.
I hope he keeps thumping the appeasement tub, day in and day out...
But, despite the mounting opposition, there were strong signals that Mr Blair would back military intervention by America without a new UN resolution. Peter Hain, the Secretary of State for Wales, said that Britain "would have to face that situation" if there was overwhelming evidence that President Saddam had not complied with UN demands. "The worst thing for me, having got to this position where we have got him [Saddam Hussein] to some extent on the run, to some extent complying very late in the day but not enough â would then be to back off entirely," Mr Hain said.
Momentum lost, weather crummy, Bush and Blair with egg on their face... Yep. You could forget about doing anything about Iraq for another dozen years, or until he invades Soddy Arabia...
Labour MPs seized on M. de Villepin's remarks. Tam Dalyell, the longest-serving MP, wrote to Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, saying: "How can you say Saddam must disarm and, when he does, you dismiss it as a cynical trick and playing games?" So the Parliament also has a Strom Thurmond!
Chris Smith, a former cabinet minister, said that dismantling al-Samoud 2 missiles showed that the inspections process was starting to work. "If it's working, let it carry on working. Don't truncate it, don't cut it short," he said on GMTV's Sunday programme. Care to explain, Chris, just how it was that the 'inspections process' got to work this far?
But Mr Smith "sensed" that Mr Blair had already made up his mind to take military action. If Britain went to war without a new UN resolution, a "lot more" MPs than voted against the Government last week would voice their concerns in the division lobby. And Tony might go.
Mr Blair spoke about the Iraq crisis yesterday with Ricardo Lagos, the President of Chile, a members of the 15-strong UN Security Council yet to declare its position. The Prime Minister also spoke to two European leaders, Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark and Jan Peter Balkenende of the Netherlands. Downing Street insisted that Iraq's move on missiles "falls several miles short of the full, immediate and unconditional compliance" demanded by the UN. British ministers were furious at M. de Villepin's intervention, saying privately that it would "play into Saddam's hands". Almost seems ... coordinated, doesn't it?
Charles Kennedy, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, said: "Are we really arguing at this stage, before the UN process is complete, that the best thing to do is to start slaughtering people in their thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, as well as losing British and American and Australian lives in the process? I don't think so." Sounds like he's reading the script from the Afghanistan invasion. I'm waiting for a reference to the cruel Afghan winter.
No, no. This time it's the unforgiving Iraqi summer...
But, answering questions from Independent on Sunday readers, Mr Blair said: "I would never go to war if I thought it was morally wrong." Asked how he could reconcile a pre-emptive attack on Iraq with his Christian beliefs, he replied that after sending British troops into action in Kosovo and Afghanistan, he could "look at myself and say that we did the right thing". He's right, we did.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/03/2003 11:52 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This war is not about today. It is about tommorow.
Posted by: john ||
03/03/2003 6:47 Comments ||
Top||
#2
In other news, France vetos railway operation by timetable. "Zee train will be there when it gets there..."
The odds are not looking good for Saddam Hussein.
The Iraqi leader has a two-to-one chance of still being in power by the end of June but it is three-to-two that he will be either captured by the US or dead. Those, at least, are the odds offered by online bookmakers Tradesports. Wonder if Uday is laying off?
Thousands of armchair punters have staked money on a variety of possible outcomes from the tensions in the Middle East, ranging from the timing of a US invasion to whether the UN security council will pass a second resolution authorising force against Iraq. "I'll put $2 on 'Mother of Enduring Freedom' for the 7th."
Detailed bets are also offered for, say, the length of time between the start of a war and the ground attack. Trade is brisk - more than $1m of wagers have been made. Tradesports alone has taken $620,000 in war-related bets. David Curruthers, the chief executive of BetonSports, said he didn't think it was in bad taste to bet on war, but admitted there are limits. "I wouldn't put up a bet on how many casualties there will be," he said. Neither would he put up a bet on the next act of terrorism.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/03/2003 10:08 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Britain and the United States have all but fired the first shots of the second Gulf war by dramatically extending the range of targets in the "no-fly zones" over Iraq to soften up the country for an allied ground invasion. As Baghdad threatened to stop destroying its Samoud 2 missiles if the US presses ahead with its invasion plans, allied pilots have attacked surface-to-surface missile systems and are understood to have hit multiple-launch rockets. Targets hit in recent days include the Ababil-100, a Soviet-designed surface-to-air missile system adapted to hit targets on the ground, and the Astros 2 ground rocket launcher with a range of up to 56 miles. These would be used to defend Iraq in the event of an invasion or to attack allied troops stationed in Kuwait. The latter is the reason they're getting hit now.
Britain and the US insist publicly that the rules for enforcing the no-fly zones over the north and south of Iraq have not changed — that pilots only open fire if they are targeted. But privately defence officials admit that there has been an aggressive upping of the ante in recent weeks to weaken Iraqi defences ahead of a ground invasion. Analysts confirm there has been an intensification of what is known as "the undeclared war". The allied action will prompt allegations that Britain and the US have unilaterally changed the rules of the no-fly zones. These zones were established after the last Gulf war to protect Shias in the south and Kurds in the north.
The UN said back in November that the no-fly zones weren't a UN creation, but a U.S.-British. If we made them, guess we can do what we want with them...
John Warden, a retired US air force colonel who was an architect of the 1991 Gulf war air campaign, gave a taste of the change in tactics when he said: "We have added a new category of targets, and those were some of the Iraqi multiple rocket launchers and some of their relatively short range surface-to-surface missiles." Which could also be used against the Kurds and Shi'a, just in case we need any justification.
Loren Thompson, a defence analyst with the US Lexington Institute, told Reuters: "The US military is taking advantage of the no-fly zones to prepare the battle space for war. There's been a sporadic war occurring in the air over Iraq for a dozen years now. This merely ratchets up the intensity."
Just more of the same, but more of it...
The intensification of the Anglo-American attacks is likely to be seized on by Iraq, which has long complained that Britain and the US have abused the no-fly zones. Believing that its hand has been strengthened by its decision to comply with UN demands to destroy its Samoud 2 missiles, Iraq said that it would call a halt to the destruction if the US presses ahead with its invasion plans. Sammy's not keen on destroying these anyway, so this is as good a pretext as any.
Speaking after the destruction of 10 missiles over the weekend, Saddam Hussein's scientific adviser, Lieutenant General Amer al-Saadi, said: "If it turns out at an early stage during this month that America is not going the legal way, then why should we continue?" This is like a mafioso complaining about his rights being violated.
The intensification of the attacks in the no-fly zones appears to show that Britain and the US are determined to follow the military route, despite the continuing debate at the United Nations. The bombing is likely to cause renewed tension with the Axis of Weasels France and Germany, which have both argued that it is inappropriate to prepare for war until the UN has decided that military action is necessary. We've decided that it's necessary, so now the preparations are necessary.
Even if we're not planning on war, letting Sammy know that would be pretty stoopid, since the only way he's complied at all has been with the credible threat of it...
Dominique de Villepin, the French foreign minister, told BBC's Breakfast with Frost: "It is for the inspectors to write a report saying 'We can't work any more'. Are we in such a situation? No. Do we need a second resolution? No. Are we going to oppose a second resolution? Yes, as are the Russians and many other countries." Hmmm, wonder what he thinks the current count is?
Figures released by the US central command show that British and US aircraft have stepped up their bombing over the past few weeks. This year alone they have attacked Iraqi targets more than 40 times. In the past week, they have attacked Iraqi targets three times. On Thursday they attacked a missile site and communications system near Basra. On Friday they bombed three mobile air defence early warning radars and a surface-to-air missile system near An Nasiriyah, approximately 170 miles southwest of Baghdad. On Saturday, British and US aircraft attacked military communication sites and a mobile radar in the same location. Sammy's losing a lot of hardware. Wonder how much of this can be replaced?
Last month British and US aircraft attacked the Ababil-100 missile site near Basra, where surface-to-air missiles adapted to hit ground targets were located, according to US central command. The US says that they bombed the targets in response to the Iraqis moving the missiles and air defence below the 33rd parallel marking the northern end of the southern no-fly zone.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/03/2003 04:11 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Turning a surface-to-air missle into a surface-to-surface missle? That's an odd one.
So far the Iraqis claim they've destroyed ten missles. Do you suppose they had ten laying around that weren't working, hanger queens, that they could spare for crushing?
#2
Supposedly they did another 7 today - all the while threatening to quit if the U.S. still prepared for war. Sammy doesn't understand that it isn't a Catch-22 if we don't play along
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/03/2003 9:32 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Hanger Queens? LOL that is a very true Air Force statement that I recognize.... As a HH-60 Pave Hawk crew Chief with 3 days left here in Korea a.k.a. the Sea Of Fire.
#4
Well, there's another explanation, and that is perhaps we are not destroying what we think we are destroying. Beyond just hangar queens.
During the campaign in the former yugoslavia we conducted some quite heavy bombing runs. However, once we actually got in on the ground to take a look we realized that milosovic and his military had conducted a successful deception campaign to our air assets and we did not actually destroy a whole lot of anything important.
we also know that iraq had "advisors" in the former yugoslavia at the time.
The reports of the trenches around baghdad that are to be filled with oil and burned are pure yugo tactics.
So perhaps some of saddam's cockyness comes from the fact that he knows something most of us don't
we are not bombing anything really important anyway.
President Bush is planning to reward Tony Blair for his unswerving support on Iraq by agreeing to place thousands of American marines under the direct command of a senior British officer. In a highly symbolic move, which has not been seen since the second world war, up to 2,000 marines are expected to be commanded by the British in a joint operation to take the key southern Iraqi city of Basra. This isn't a symbolic move, it's an operational one. The Brit commander is tasked to do a job, and he's being given the resources to do it.
Under plans being drawn up at the US central command in Qatar, the US 15th marine expeditionary unit will join about 4,000 royal marine commandos in an amphibious assault to seize Iraq's only port and protect nearby oil wells. Britain declined to comment on the plan yesterday because officials refuse to discuss military details ahead of a possible conflict. But defence officials did not rule out a report in yesterday's Washington Post that a Briton would command an attack on Basra. "It would be very unusual, extremely unusual," a British defence official said. "Basil, we have another pesky reporter here."
"Blimey, what now, Toby?"
"He wants to know about those yank marines."
"Tell him that 'it's unusual.'"
"Right-o. Why not just tell him, 'sod off?'"
"We are, Basil, we are. But this way hizzoner won't even know it."
Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman, who is well connected in Washington, said that such a move would be highly symbolic. "It would be a matter of very considerable political significance for the United States to place a substantial number of its forces under the operational command of a senior British officer," he said. "It would be seen as some thing of a reward for Tony Blair and the British for their support." Once again, boys, it's an operational move.
Washington is usually reluctant to place its troops under foreign control because the US constitution stipulates that ultimate command must always rest with the president in his role as commander in chief. The convention would not be breached in this case because the British officer would fall under the command of US general Tommy Franks, who will command the air and land attack on Iraq from his base in Qatar. Handing the British a key role in capturing Basra, which would allow the US to concentrate on capturing Baghdad, is likely to prove a mixed blessing for the prime minister. It would strengthen the hand of critics who fear that Britain will not be able to pull the plug on an invasion of Iraq. Not that Tony has any intention at all of pulling the plug.
But such a role would also strengthen Mr Blair's hand against critics, led by the Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy, who have raised doubts about allowing British forces to fall under US command. Even Mr Kennedy was forced to laugh last week when the former Tory leader William Hague replied that "British and American forces have been familiar with a shared chain of command since D-day in 1944 and before". They were laughing at you, not with you, Mr. Kennedy.
But it is not since the days of Field Marshal Montgomery that so many American troops have been commanded by the British. As deputy commander of allied forces in Europe under General Eisenhower, Montgomery commanded thousands of American soldiers in Europe in the last years of the war. But we're not holding Monty against the Brits :-)
The 15th marine expeditionary unit, described as America's "premier amphibious force", fought in Afghanistan. Based in California, it arrived in Kuwait last month. Tick, tick, tick.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/03/2003 01:17 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Exactly. Operational command of the marine units(s) is British, but the Marines have their own officers. They just take ops orders from the Brits.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A U.S. Air Force RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft was intercepted over the Sea of Japan on Sunday by four armed North Korean MiG fighter jets, one of which locked its weapons-targeting radar onto the U.S. plane, U.S. military sources said. Your guess is a good as mine whether or not its a Rivet Joint, JSTARS or any other type of reconnisance aircraft. I doubt anyones going to release that specific info, but if the do, post away!
At least two of the planes were MiG-29s. The two other fighters were thought to be MiG-23s. Whos the pinhead that sold them a Mig-29? Is this for real or typical news media aircraft misidentification?
U.S. military sources said Monday that the Air Force plane was in international airspace about 150 miles [240 kilometers] off the Korean peninsula when the MiGs approached and flew alongside for 20 minutes, at some points coming within less than 400 feet of the U.S. plane. Id imagine thats one US flight crew that had new button holes eaten into their seat cushions.
The RC-135 is a modified version of the military C-135 cargo plane, which is based on the Boeing 707 commercial airliner.
The Air Force plane returned to its base in Okinawa, Japan, without incident. U.S. officials say it was the first incident of a U.S. plane being intercepted by North Korean aircraft in more than 30 years.
The previous incident occurred in 1969, when a North Korean fighter shot down a U.S. EC-121 reconnaissance aircraft over the Sea of Japan, killing more than 30 U.S. airmen, according to a Pentagon official.
Tension has been rising on the Korean Peninsula since North Korea disclosed in October that it had renewed efforts to develop nuclear weapons it swore off in a 1994 agreement.
Last week, North Korea fired a short-range missile at sea during naval exercises, and on Friday, Japanese newspapers reported that Pyongyang had tested a rocket booster for its Taepo Dong ballistic missile at a launch site on the country's east coast in January.
Boy, you'd think the NKOR's didnt want us to see what was going on over there.
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
03/03/2003 05:50 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The plane was apparently a Cobra Ball....a modified Rivet Joint used to hunt for and track missle launches. Li'l Kim has upped the anti with this one. Looks like the oatmeal has run out.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
03/03/2003 19:01 Comments ||
Top||
Terrorists linked to al Qaeda have targeted U.S. military facilities in Pearl Harbor, including nuclear-powered submarines and ships, The Washington Times has learned. Intelligence reports about the terrorist threat to the Hawaiian harbor were sent to senior U.S. officials in the past two weeks and coincided with reports of the planning of a major attack by Osama bin Laden's terrorist group. Officials said the reports were one of the reasons that led to the recent heightened security threat alert. The alert status has since been lowered. Sounds like somebody's imagination's running wild...
According to officials familiar with the reports, al Qaeda is planning an attack on Pearl Harbor because of its symbolic value and because its military facilities are open from the air. The attacks would be carried out by hijacked airliners from nearby Honolulu International Airport that would be flown into submarines or ships docked at Pearl Harbor in suicide missions, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. They could also recruit flying monkeys and have them drop pots of boiling oil on our sailors' heads...
In 1995, al Qaeda terrorists were found to have planned a series of attacks using bombs planted on commercial airliners departing from Asia. The plan, known as Project Bojinka, was thwarted by the arrest of one of the plotters in Manila. However, U.S. officials said a key feature of al Qaeda is its determination to carry out unfinished attacks, as the strike on the World Trade Center towers showed. The first attack in 1993 was unsuccessful in knocking down the two skyscrapers. I'd take this with a large grain of salt. It sounds like barracks-room BS, or Qaeda-kiddies fantasizing on some chat room. And if there's ever another planeload of passengers flown into something, I'll be really surprised...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/03/2003 02:30 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Flying commercial airliners into a submarine? I suppose that takes more than a few flight lessons in Florida...
#4
They'd have to catch them in dock, and it's not that easy. Sub movements aren't publicized, anyone hanging around with binoculars wearing a turban and beard might be invited for an extensive Q&A... lol - this is crap - a pipe dream
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/03/2003 20:18 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Does anyone else see the irony of choosing Pearl Harbor as a target for its "symbolic value?" Seems to me, the last time we were hit there, we opened up a major can of whoop-ass.
Posted by: Johnny ||
03/03/2003 21:16 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I've stood on top of a sub, and watched the airplanes fly overhead (the base is within walking distance from the airport), and been really really frustrated that I couldn't do a damn thing about the helicopter flying right over my damn boat taking pictures.
It could happen.
Posted by: Chap ||
03/03/2003 21:38 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Sounds fishy to me. Why go to all that trouble when there are plenty of high rise hotels near by? I think there's some chain yankin' going on here!
Posted by: Steve ||
03/03/2003 22:31 Comments ||
Top||
Dow Jones News Services Via Drudge:
Military sources say as many as four North Korean MiGs intercepted a U.S. reconnaissance plane over international waters during the weekend, MSNBC reported Monday. Better start escorting those missions.
According to the sources, the MiGs came within 500 feet of the U.S. RC-135 plane but didn't act aggressively, MSNBC said. Hopefully, the Pentagon won't react with it's usual, "They wouldn't dare!" attitude.
The network said the incident — the first such intercept since 1969 — happened in international air space over the Korean peninsula. For the historicly minded, January of '68 was when the U.S.S. Pueblo was shot-up, boarded, and captured.
#3
UPI pentagon correspondent paints a different picture - that the MiGs (29s and possibley 23s) were very agressive, with one of the jets arming its fire control radar and coming within 50 ft of the Recon flight. Apparently we only have 3 of these Cobra-Ball aircraft, so this was not a pretty picture. Anyone with additional info?
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
03/03/2003 16:58 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Sorry about the dual post fred, I need to refresh my browser prior to posting. I didnt see this one in the list before I started.
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
03/03/2003 17:59 Comments ||
Top||
The headquarters of the People's Movement for Withdrawal of the U.S. Troops in South Korea owned and operated by Kim Jong Il Inc.
reportedly issued a commentary on Feb. 24 to denounce the "Grand National Party" for holding a "meeting for opposing the pullback of the U.S. troops," resorting to pro-American flunkeyism. Anybody want to look up "flunkeyism"?
The commentary said:
The "GNP" clan betrayed its treachery by absurdly saying that because of the U.S. troops a war has been prevented on the Korean Peninsula and the South Korean people live in peace. That we haven't sent the people's army down to visit in 50 years has nothing to do with this.
If the party truly worries about "security" it should not invent such a meeting for opposing the pullback of the U.S. troops but hold a meeting for the withdrawal of the U.S. troops to follow the desire of people and strive to vent their pent up grudge against the united states. THEN the people's army will be happy to come visit.
In world history imperialists have never sent their troops to protect other countries and people for over five decades. In particular, the United States has sought pleasure in killing people since its emergence. Its history is recorded with aggression of weak and small countries. The U.S. troops can never defended and protect us. For 50 years, they haven't done this. Please, hold us back! The U.S. troops are the brigands who inflict only disasters and misfortune upon the Korean people. However, the assemblymen from the "GNP" want the continued presence of the U.S. troops in South Korea. They cannot but be called U.S. cat's paws. What's the deal with the "cat's paws"? Is that some big time Korean insult?
#1
Nah, "cat's-paws" is an English insult. See. Not really commonly used, though.
Posted by: John Thacker ||
03/03/2003 13:48 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I think that's because the NKors wore it out...
Posted by: Fred ||
03/03/2003 15:26 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"Flunkeyism/Toadyism" (Kor. 'sadae' +ism) is the reputed Korean tendency to rely on great power sponsors: China for millennia, Japan during the early modern era, and (for SK) the U.S. since WW2. "Flunkeyism" is the exact opposite of NK's Juche ('self-reliance') philosophy. You can see why the latter has some (abstract) appeal, even in SK.
The government of Uganda will not train Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA) for waging war against the Sudanese government. Defense Minister Amama Mbabazi made the remarks when he was speaking in parliament on Thursday evening in his statement to brief MPs on the security situation in northern Uganda. Mbabazi said the government of Uganda will not allow SPLA to train forces and also transit guns through Uganda. He said the Ugandan government has worked tirelessly to improve relations with its neighbor, adding that he recently met Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and assured him full cooperation to phase out the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) rebels. Minister Mbabazi recently paid an official visit to the Sudan and delivered a message from President Yoweri Museveni to President al-Bashir. The Sudanese government agreed recently to extend the existing protocol for Ugandan army operation in southern Sudan from Jan. 31, 2003 to May 31, 2003. At one point it looked like the Sudanese were dumping that protocol, since the Ugandan army wasn't achieving what you might call a famous string of victories...
The Ugandan army launched Operation Iron Fist in southern Sudan and northern Uganda against the LRA rebels in March last year with the support from the Sudanese government.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/03/2003 01:09 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Thirteen people have been killed and 12 others wounded in clashes between armed tribesmen and government forces that began Wednesday in the province of Darfur, 1,800 kilometers west of the capital Khartoum. The casualty toll could not be independently confirmed Friday, the Muslim sabbath. "These militias have used mortars and rocket-propelled grenades," police Gen. Sidiq Mohammed Ahmed in Nyala, Darfur, said. The government said "important security breaches are currently taking place" in the mountainous Jebel Mara area of Darfur. But the government denied reports that armed men had taken over a town in Jebel Mara. Tribes have been fighting each other for years in Darfur, a province that is home to a fifth of Sudan's 30 million people and one of the least developed. The clashes are believed to have begun as tribes competed for grazing land. This week's fighting broke out a day after the end of a government-sponsored conference of tribal elders in el-Fasher, Darfur. The state had brought the chiefs together in a bid to quell the violence. That worked well, didn't it?
SUNA quoted the governor of northern Darfur, Gen. Ibrahim Suleiman, as saying Thursday that "reconciliation committees are touring areas that have seen a deterioration in security." Suleiman said that in one incident last week an armed group raided a police station and stole firearms. The group then ambushed the soldiers who pursued it, killing and wounding some of them, SUNA reported. Sudan might have the best of intentions, but they're real crummy on execution...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/03/2003 01:02 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
News that makes you go hmmmmmm........
France and Algeria on Sunday signed a declaration designed to improving their troubled ties, on the first day of a historic visit by President Jacques Chirac to the former French colony. Hundreds of thousands of cheering Algerians took to the streets of the capital Sunday to welcome Chirac, with crowds lining the 15-kilometre (10-mile) route from the airport to Algiers city centre, jamming the footpaths and hanging from balconies, trees and lamp posts to wave and clap as Chirac's motorcade passed.
The three-day trip - the highest-ranking French visit since Algeria gained independence 41 years ago - began with the signing of a declaration of friendship intended to seal a new era of cooperation between the two countries... The declaration pledges efforts to improve travel conditions for citizens of the two countries and stresses that the two million Algerians living in France have a "rightful place in French society". A working group will try to resolve the tricky questions of visas for more Algerians to enter France and the return of Algerians who supported France in the colonial war. As Chirac walked through central Algiers surrounded by bodyguards, youths among the 1.5 million Algerians who turned out to greet him called out: "Visas! Visas!"
Police struggled to keep back youths demonstrating against the threat of a US-led war on Iraq, which France also opposes. "The army and the people are with Saddam" and "No war on Iraq", they chanted.
During dinner with Bouteflika the French president reiterated his opposition to the use of force to disarm Iraq of its alleged weapons of mass destruction. "The use of force can only be used as a last resort. There is an alternative to war," said Chirac. He also said it was "essential" for Baghdad to "cooperate fully and actively with the inspectors", who are due to submit their next crucial report to the UN Security Council on Friday.
Chirac was accompanied on the visit by his wife Bernadette and a large delegation of ministers, business leaders and artists. He was due later in his visit to address the Algerian parliament. expatica.com provides very interesting European news and advice in English for expatriate Americans living in France, Germany, Holland, and Belgium
#2
"The army and the people are with Saddam"... they chanted.
Okay Algeria, we'll keep that in mind!
Posted by: Tom ||
03/03/2003 20:08 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I am glad that the Algerians have such a love for the Mother of All Appeasers France. Go ahead M. Chiraq, give 'em all visas and welcome wagon baskets to your Algerian dependents friends and let your oil suppliers dictate your foreign policy. Beware of parasites killing the host. You have been warned.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/03/2003 20:39 Comments ||
Top||
North Korea's Communist party newspaper urged the country's people on Monday to redouble their courage and sing the song "Long Trip for Army-based Leadership" more loudly at a time of tension with the United States. - Reuters
Top 10 Songs for the Duration of the Staunch Struggle Has The Guardian been reading Rantburg?
1. Good Riddance to the Expelled Inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Commission. This should be sung sonorously in order to bolster spirits for the coming conflict. Be advised that verse four, which begins, "Nuclear reprocessing is our birthright," goes up a half-step. Do not forget this.
2. Your Evil Food Aid Cannot Destroy Our Faith In Juche. To be sung twice through while abstaining from lunch. Our cherished philosophy of self-reliance must burn vigilantly in our hearts at this testing time. Second chorus is ladies only.
3. Dear Leader, How Do You Stay So Slim? This is a new one, so you will need to learn the words without delay. For maximum efficiency and the convenience of all citizens, it is sung to the tune of Let's Farm Well This Year As Asked by the Rural Theses.
4. Pyongyang In Springtime Is So Impregnable. This was number one last spring, so there are no excuses for lack of lyric- knowledge or inharmoniousness. It's going on heavy rotation from next week. Just start singing when your hear it on the loudspeakers.
5. Juche, Juche, Juche (Everybody Dance). From Tuesday this is number four on the official karaoke list, replacing Let's Enrich The Communist Economy First With Rice.
6. Bush the Evil Cretin. The words are on the back of your ration book. The decadent capitalist drug dirge Puff the Magic Dragon will be temporarily unbanned so that all Koreans may become accustomed to the appropriate melody. Do not attempt to translate the words. Those citizens with harmony parts will be notified by telegram.
7. Please Me by Dying for the Motherland, Soldier-Husband. Very appropriate for weddings. The CD is in Department Store Number One now.
8. Come on, Fill the Quota (for Annual Anti-Tank Missile Production). Words and music by the Dear Leader. A debut performance by the Sea of Blood Opera Company will be televised at the weekend. Don't-miss television at its most punishable.
9. Give Me More of That Delicious, Nutritious Soup Made From Grass. Careful, it's in swing time, so it needs to be sung with plenty of juche. There will be fines for all who do not successfully follow the appropriate rhythmic clapping procedure.
10. Me and Bobby McGee. Still hanging in there.
Posted by: Pink & Fluffy ||
03/03/2003 11:54 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Wow... the Guardian satirizing a Stalinist regime. What is the world coming to? Did we win the culture war while I was asleep or something?
#2
Just wait until the US threaten sanctions/ a blockade/ or war, then we'll suddenly hear how wonderful North Korea really is and it's all the fault of the evil Yanks. (No blood for food??)
Posted by: A ||
03/03/2003 12:22 Comments ||
Top||
Libya is to recall its ambassador to Saudi Arabia for consultations following a clash between the two countries' leaders during Saturday's Arab summit. The decision was taken by the Libyan parliament which expressed its discontent at what it called Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz's "aggression" towards Colonel Muammar Gaddafi at the talks being held in Egypt. Tripoli's relations with Riyadh would be reviewed, as well as Libya's membership of the Arab League, an official statement said. Thought Libya was going to drop out anyway, they have been calling themselves an African country as opposed to an Arab one.
The exchange - which was broadcast live on television - began when the Libyan leader accused the Saudis of having been ready to "strike an alliance with the devil" when US troops were deployed to protect the kingdom after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. Crown Prince Abdullah retorted: "Who exactly brought you to power? You are a liar and your grave awaits you." This would be the first thing Abdullah has said in a long while that I agree with.
After this, Egyptian state television pulled the plug on the broadcast. Crown Prince Abdullah is said to have stormed out of the room after Colonel Gaddafi refused to apologise. Threw a hissy fit, did he?
The conference was suspended for about half an hour while other participants calmed the two men down, news agencies reported. Thousands of Libyans are reported to have demonstrated outside the Saudi embassy in Tripoli. Pity they don't have a common border, middle east wars have started over less.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/03/2003 10:11 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/03/2003 10:49 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Of course Libya's going to drop out of the Arab League. African countries get to fight the French while Arab countries will be squaring off against the US.
Posted by: B. ||
03/03/2003 23:47 Comments ||
Top||
Israeli troops raiding a Gaza refugee camp arrested a Hamas founder Monday, targeting the political leadership of the Islamic militant group for the first time in 29 months of fighting. Eight Palestinians, among them a pregnant woman, were killed in clashes in the camp. Troops also blew up four homes in the Bureij camp, including that of Hamas co-founder Mohammed Taha, 65, who was wounded in clashes with soldiers, the army said. Several adjacent houses and a mosque were damaged by the blasts. Taha's five sons - all senior Hamas activists - were also arrested. One son, Ayman, who was also wounded Monday, is the assistant of the top Hamas bombmaker and No. 1 on Israel's wanted list, Mohammed Deif, the army said. Following in Dad's footsteps.
The arrests signaled a turning point in Israel's dealings with Hamas, which has killed hundreds of Israelis in shootings and bombings. Since the outbreak of fighting in September 2000, Israel has killed scores of Hamas militants and rounded up hundreds of activists, but left the political leadership in Gaza alone. "This is a continuation of the escalated aggression against our people and our holy places," Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat told The Associated Press. His Cabinet minister Saeb Erekat called for U.S. intervention to stop Israel's actions, saying that "silence to these crimes is an encouragement for their reoccurrence." Mohammed Taha founded Hamas in 1987, along with the group's spiritual leader, Sheik Ahmed Yassin. Since then, the group has emerged as Arafat's biggest political rival. Yasser's crying on the outside, laughing on the inside.
Mohammed and Ayman Taha were among about 400 suspected Islamic militants Israel deported to Lebanon for a year in 1992. An Israeli army spokeswoman, Maj. Sharon Feingold, said Taha "is one of the most senior Hamas activists and terrorists, and I am happy to say he is in our hands." She said the raid "is a clear message to the terrorists that ... there's a price to be paid." Hamas said Taha's arrest was a serious blow, but that the group would continue attacking Israelis. "Israel will pay a high price for its crimes," said a spokesman, Abdel Aziz Rantisi. No doubt planning dire revenge, etc.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/03/2003 10:15 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hamas had a slight exemption, because they were more of a pain in the butt to Arafat than they were to Israel. With the escalation in the Gaza area, the bye given to Hamas goes out the window. And, hey, Gaza is a lot smaller than the West Bank, making it somewhate easier to find the riff raff.
Police in Zimbabwe arrested 20 church pastors yesterday for staging an illegal peace march, witnesses said. Funny, clerics aren't arrested in Europe or the US for staging peace marches. Wonder if any Western clerics will take notice of the difference?
Nah, probably not.
The clerics had marched to the police headquarters in the capital, Harare, to deliver a petition protesting against state-orchestrated political violence and strict laws prohibiting demonstrations. Brian Kagoro, an official with the reform group Crisis in Zimbabwe, said the representatives of the multidenom- inational National Pastors Conference were arrested while waiting to hand in their petition. He said they were held and questioned under the Public Order and Security Act, the law they oppose. All 20 were released after eight hours according to Jonah Gokova, an official with the charity Ecumenical Support Services. Photographed, fingerprinted, questioned, maybe roughed up a little. Too bad western clerics won't take notice.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/03/2003 09:52 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
nope - black africa can do anything - just like the Arab dictatorships, they're not expected to meet civilized standards. Racism by lowered expectations
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/03/2003 9:34 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"Racism by lowered expectations": best comment about a certain kind of left I've seen in a long time.
#4
Bush referred to "the soft bigotry of low expectations"
Daniel Moynihan's phrase, AFAIK
Posted by: Brian ||
03/03/2003 16:21 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Wonder about how low expectations can go?
Saudi Arabia escapes religion blacklist    Â
 AGENCE FRANCE PRESSE
The Bush administration, in a move likely to anger both conservatives and human rights activists, has decided not to blacklist Saudi Arabia over the issue of religious freedom, Newsweek reported in its edition to be released today.
     Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is expected to shortly release a list of "countries of particular concern" that the United States says engage in "systematic, ongoing and egregious" violations of religious freedom, the weekly reported.
     But after contentious debate with the administration of President Bush and against the recommendation of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Saudi Arabia will be conspicuously absent from the list.
     The commission found that with the downfall of the Taliban, Saudi Arabia "is probably the worst oppressor of religious rights in the world," according to Newsweek.
     "I'm appalled and disappointed," commission Chairman Felice Gaer is quoted as saying about the omission. "But I'm not surprised."
     Lawmakers and religious conservatives have been increasingly vocal about their displeasure with Saudi Arabia of late, and the magazine said White House aides have described religious freedom there as "a high-priority item for evangelical Christians."
     But the administration decided that it would be counterproductive to criticize the Saudis on the issue now, and that such a move "might interfere with broader U.S. interests in the region."
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
