A top figure in the al-Qaeda linked terrorist group in Saudi Arabia was gunned down in the capital Wednesday during a shootout that also killed a policeman, a security official said. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Abdullah Mohammed Rashid al-Roshoud, believed to be the chief ideologist for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, died in the clash in the al-Quds neighborhood in eastern Riyadh. Earlier, Saudi officials said two militants and one policeman were killed, but the number of slain militants was revised to one by the Interior Ministry.
The incident occurred during an amnesty offered last week in which King Fahd said fugitive terrorists who surrendered to police within one month would not face the death penalty. An Interior Ministry statement said one policeman was killed in the clash and six other security personnel were injured. Three bystanders, including one Saudi citizen, were also wounded in the attack that occurred at 3:30 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/30/2004 4:22:36 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
Security forces killed al Qaeda's leader in Saudi Arabia, Abdulaziz al-Muqrin, and three other senior militants on Friday, hours after the militants beheaded U.S. hostage Paul Johnson.
Saudi authorities later announced they had arrested 12 militants. One Saudi security source said among them were prominent figures on the kingdom's list of its 26 most-wanted suspects, including senior ideologue Abdullah al-Rushoud.
Posted by: Robert Stevens ||
06/30/2004 16:54 Comments ||
Top||
#3
So...was "shot while trying to escape?" Or was that just a stunt double?
#5
Y'know, I've been wondering what happened to all the Al Ghamdis that were scooped up back in the early days... There were oodles of them - sorta mid-level management types. I'll bet they serve the right brand of tea at the palaces.
#6
From my profiles of the 26 most wanted to be posted to alphabet city later today.
Shaykh Abdullah Muhammad Rashid Al-Rashoud CAPTURED? DEAD
Rumored to have been captured in the June 18, shootout that bagged Muqrin, Faisal al-Dakheel, Turki bin Fuhaid al-Mutairi (one of three terrorists who escaped the Khobar rampage), Ibrahim bin Abdullah al-Draihem (suspected of helping plan the bombing of a Muhaya residential compound in Riyadh last November.
Former teacher at Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University located in the Malaz district of Riyadh. A top young al-Qaida ideologue in who spoke out strongly against the government's recent removal of the administration of girls' education from the religious authority. Wrote the communique "Young Mujahideen Seek Martyrdom As You Seek Life" in Voice of Jihad, Issue Nine.
Posted by: Robert Stevens ||
06/30/2004 17:23 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I'm confused. I thought Mohammed (pblah) was supposed to be the chief ideologist for these guys ?
Posted by: Carl in N.H ||
06/30/2004 17:42 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Hey! That's purdy deep Parabellum!
I advise you to ask for a mekka grant to examine the meaning on inner, outer, eastern, western and northern jihad.
Yemen released 184 repentant Muslim militants including members of al-Qaida who were not involved in criminal or terrorist action, reports said Tuesday. "As many as 184 young Yemenis were released after declaring their repentance and promising to honor the countryâs laws," the pro-government daily September 26 quoted Higher Court Judge Hammoud al-Hattar as saying. He said many were accused of belonging to al-Qaida or having Islamic militant thoughts but were not incriminated in any crimes. Al-Hattar, also member of a committee for ideological dialogue, said the militants repented after four sessions of open discussions and dialogue to show them how they strayed from the right way.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/30/2004 11:32:30 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#5
As many as 184 young Yemenis were released after declaring their repentance and promising to honor the countryâs laws," the pro-government daily September 26 quoted Higher Court Judge Hammoud al-Hattar as saying.
#7
If the Islamist perceives that his fellow Muslims are wrong, then lying through his teeth is OK and everyone else can go to hell. Literally a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card. And you think that we have problems with our Supreme Court and judicial system.
One lesson learned from all of this nonsense. This will force our troops to go into the Weed-Eater Modeâ¢. Enemies get mown down. Our courts will kill us, just like the Yemeni courts will kill them.
Ima go for camel-meal tea run.....**staggers out of room**
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/30/2004 14:55 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Gosh, they're freeing al Queda street soldiers, and besieging a Shia "moderate" in a hill fortress.
Tell me again how this advances the WOT?
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
06/30/2004 15:21 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Pray tell, what cost benefit ratio is there for giving Yemen $10 million in U.S. annual economic support (2002 figures and up from $5 million in 2001)as well as a new $2-million grant for training and equipment to stop infiltration by terrorist groups linked to al-Qaeda when Yemen pulls off this subversive action against America's WOT? Any thoughts on this matter would be welcome.
Posted by: rex ||
06/30/2004 15:53 Comments ||
Top||
#10
..what cost benefit ratio is there for giving Yemen $10 million in U.S. annual economic support as well as a new $2-million grant for training and equipment to stop infiltration by terrorist groups linked to al-Qaeda when Yemen pulls off this subversive action against America's WOT?
I wouldn't necessary think that this action is subversive; there's a possibility that they could simply be terribly naive. If any of the released individuals end up actually committing acts of terrorism and are subsequently caught, what the gov't does with them afterward might provide a clue.
#11
there's a possibility that they could simply be terribly naive
NAIVE? Say what? There were avowed Al Queda members in the group Yemen released. Do you think Al Queda in Yemen are a book club spin off from the Al Queda of terrorist fame in Saudi Arabia?
If any of the released individuals end up actually committing acts of terrorism and are subsequently caught...
But, but...that's crying over spilled milk...it will be too late AFTER the terrorist act...and there's a 150% likelihood that the terrorist act will be committed against our troops or us, not the Yemeniis. After all, all 184 men who were released promised to honor Yemen's laws, not anyone else'd laws. Bomb, you need to get some sleep. You are not thinking clearly today. No offense, but you are usually quicker.
Posted by: rex ||
06/30/2004 18:35 Comments ||
Top||
#12
The only thing those "184 repentant al-Qaeda suspects" are sorry for is being caught.
Yemen's foreign aid should be cut in half over this. It might make them a bit more reluctant to repeat such outright treachery in the future.
It's exactly this sort of "our Muslim brothers can do no wrong" mentality that is going to get the Arab nations glassed and Windexed. At some point, the revolving door of Middle East anti-terror "justice" will require servicing with wide application fusion sterilization.
#13
They are all in Riyadh right now. After a rampage here, they will all turn themselves in, pardoned and sent back to Yemen. Then, well you all know how this game is played.....
A shootout in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, on Wednesday killed two militants and one policemen, a security official said, adding that at least one other militant fled. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the shootout and police chase occurred in the al-Quds neighborhood in eastern Riyadh.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/30/2004 11:23:01 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Another Soddy shootout...so it continues.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/30/2004 11:30 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Dan if the "spiritual guide" that has been killed is one of the 26 most wanted it could be Isa Saad Muhammad ibn Aushen (variation: Oshan) who is the son-in-law of Sheik Abdullah Bin Jebreen(variation: Jibreen). Jibreen is the Saudi shaykh that caused such a stink last year when he was scheduled to speak at a Muslim conference in Houston.
Other candidates for today's kill are Faris Al-Zahrani and Shaykh Abdullah Al-Rashoud (both Islamist clerics and on the 26 most wanted list), although both are rumored to have been captured during the June 18 shootout that killed Muqrin, Faisal al-Dakheel, Turki al-Mutairi (one of three terrorists who escaped the Khobar rampage), and Ibrahim al-Draihem (suspected of helping plan the bombing of a Muhaya residential compound in Riyadh last November).
Posted by: Robert ||
06/30/2004 15:32 Comments ||
Top||
QATARâS criminal court today sentenced two Russian intelligence agents to life in prison for the murder in Doha of a Chechen rebel leader last February and accused Moscow of involvement in the assassination. Judge Ibrahim Saleh al-Nisf jailed Anatoly Bilashkov and Vassily Pokchov for 25 years - the life term in Qatar - for killing of Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev, a former Chechen president who lived in exile in Doha, in February this year. Reading out the verdict during a brief public hearing, the judge accused the "Russian leadership" of being behind the killing. The umma sticks together
Posted by: Anon1 ||
06/30/2004 10:30:26 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This must have the ex-KGB hard boys back in Moscow pining for the old days.
Ten more supporters of a besieged Islamic preacher were killed Wednesday as the army stepped up its offensive against the insurgents in Yemenâs mountainous northern region, local authorities said. Clashes since June 19 in the area, which lies within Saada province near the border with Saudi Arabia, have left at least 78 dead, including 12 soldiers, according to an AFP count. "Ten supporters of Hussein Badr Eddin al-Huthi were killed in a morning bombardment against the insurgentsâ hideouts" in Saada, a local official said. "The army concentrated its bombings on the fortifications and trenches" used by the hundreds of Huthiâs supporters in their stronghold in the rugged Maran region, the official added.
Guess they didn't get the memo that strongholds are a thing of the past. Gathering all your forces in one place just means it's easier to kill you.
At the same time, he said, "units of foot soldiers are moving towards the supporters" of the preacher, who is from the Zaidi community, a moderate Shiite sect dominant in northwest Yemen but in the minority in mainly Sunni Yemen.
Pin them down with artillary and move infantry in to mop up. Somebody has been paying attention to their training.
Mediation attempts led by MPs, including Huthiâs brother Yahia, to end the clashes were called off as the preacher allegedly refused to negotiate.
"I'll never give up, you'll have to kill me first!" "Ok"
The defence ministry said Tuesday that Yemeni troops killed the militantsâ deputy commander, naming him as Zaid bin Ali Moslah al-Huthi, a brother of the self-styled "Emir al-Mumineen", or Prince of Believers. "The armed forces also succeeded in inflicting more losses on the ranks of his followers," the ministry said. "Several of Huthiâs followers have been arrested and large quantities of arms, ammunition and cars seized, along with documents of a subversive nature which were clearly calculated to fan sectarian strife," it added. Residents of the area said Wednesday that dozens of families had fled the region since the army intensified its bombing campaign, and that numerous wounded soldiers were evacuated from the combat zone. More than 60 of Huthiâs supporters, including another of Huthiâs brothers, Abdul Aziz, have been captured since the fighting broke out. But one of the MPs involved in the abortive mediation effort accused elements of the army of undermining efforts to resolve the crisis peacefully.
Well, the dead guys look real peaceful to me.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/30/2004 10:09:20 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
is from the Zaidi community,
am i the only one who gets a smile from this? (zaidi = grandpa in Yiddish)
Yemeni authorities have ordered the closure of all unregistered religious schools. The country has also commissioned a review of what is taught in class, to ensure students receive what it terms a moderate interpretation of Islam. The move comes as fighting continues in the north of Yemen between government forces and rebels. Correspondents say the order to close the schools could affect hundreds of private institutions across the nation. The rebels are led by Hussein Badr al-Din al-Huthi, a member of the minority Zaidi Shia sect who runs a religious school in Saada province. The government accuses him of using Friday prayers to organise violent anti-American protests.
Who the hell wrote this? They're closing unregistered schools. Got that. They're shooting it out with al-Huthi. Got that. Are the two connected? Are they shooting it out with him because he runs a school? Are they closing the schools because he runs one? Is there life after 40? Am I dead?
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/30/2004 9:56:49 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
A Qatari court has accused Russia of being behind the murder of a former Chechen leader there in February. The judge made the charge as he handed down life sentences to two Russian agents convicted of killing Zelimkhan Yanderbiyev in the capital Doha. He said the men had been acting on orders from the Russian leadership.
And they did a outstanding job, till they got caught.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has denied the men were involved in the killing, and said their lawyers would appeal against the decision. Defence lawyer Dimitri Afanasiev told Reuters news agency that the men would also seek a transfer to Russia.
That will most likely happen quietly after the press moves on to the next story.
Qatari prosecutors had called for the death penalty during the closed-door trial, which began in April. A life sentence in Qatar usually means 25 years.
It just seems longer.
The men were arrested shortly after Yanderbiyev was killed when a device placed under his car exploded as he left a Doha mosque after prayers. His son was injured in the attack. Russia insists the two men were in Qatar in order to gather anti-terrorism intelligence.
"We didn't do it, honest!"
Correspondents in Moscow warned the trial threatened to cause a diplomatic breach between Qatar and Russia, particularly after allegations that the two agents were tortured to make their confessions.
Just trying to make them feel right at home.
Qatar expelled the first secretary of the Russian embassy in March over alleged involvement in the killing.
Posted by: Steve ||
06/30/2004 9:46:19 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
Read between the lines on this one - it looks to me like al-Awaji and the other clerics who were the first ones calling for "dialogue" in the wake of the initial Riyadh bombings have won the day, hence the amnesty offer.
The recently announced appointment of a "relatively mild" figure to lead Al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia and the repeated Saudi crackdown on the group will lead to a breakthrough in the crisis that has destabilized the kingdom, according to an Islamist engaged in efforts to end the violence.
"Relatively mild"? What's he do? Sedate his victims before cutting their heads off?
Mohsen al-Awaji, who has been meeting with extremists in efforts to restore security and stability in the kingdom, said he expected an easing in tensions in Saudi Arabia due to Saleh al-Oufiâs "calm" personality.
"Calm for a wahhabi, of course..."
Osama bin Ladenâs Al-Qaeda network has announced on its websites that Oufi, a former police officer, would succeed Abdel-Aziz al-Muqrin, who went toes-up was killed with three of his aides by security forces in Riyadh almost two weeks ago, as the new leader Al-Qaeda cells in Saudi Arabia. "I know Oufi in person and I have met him three times long before Muqrin was killed," Awaji told The Daily Star. "His personality is not like that of Muqrin." Muqrin was a hardened militant, who fought in Bosnia against the Serbs and Croats from 1992 to 1995, frequently traveled to Afghanistan between 1990 and 1994 and took part in the fight against the Americans during the US-led war on Afghanistan in November 2001. He was imprisoned in Ethiopia in 1995 after allegedly belonging to a hit squad that tried to assassinate visiting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. "He was harshly tortured ... and developed a desire to satisfy a thirst for revenge," said Awaji, who made it clear he was not representing the Saudi government in his talks with extremists despite its "blessings" for efforts to reach a solution. "Oufi fought abroad but has no such vengeful personality, and was never imprisoned," said Awaji about the 38-year-old man, who is ranked No. 5 on a Saudi list of 26 most-wanted militants. "I think there will be a breakthrough in the crisis."
But Oufiâs perceived milder personality did not convince others that he would make a significant change in the way Al-Qaeda operates in Saudi Arabia. "Whether in Afghanistan, Iraq or Saudi Arabia, Al-Qaeda has one method: terrorizing Westerners and Americans," said Khaled Mutrafi, the director of the Dubai-based Al-Arabiyya channel in Saudi Arabia. "I donât think the method will really differ now," said Mutrafi, who has been covering Al-Qaeda for Saudi newspapers since it was established in Afghanistan in 1988. Abdel-Aziz al-Qassem, a lawyer close to Islamist circles, argued that Oufi, Muqrin and the previous two figures who headed the group in Saudi Arabia before they were killed by security forces were merely "field commanders" and lacked the qualities of leaders.
That's why he was replaced as soon as he was bumped off. The real commanders aren't named. They live in mosques.
Muqrin took charge of Al-Qaeda in the kingdom after his predecessor, Khaled Haj, was killed in March this year. Haj succeeded Youssef al-Ayeeri, who was killed in a raid on the Qaseem Province near Riyadh in June 2003.
Not a real good life expectancy in that job, is there?
"They (Al-Qaeda leaders) failed to come up with clear objectives, which was why they were carrying out vengeful attacks rather than ones that would lead to political gains," said Qassem. "Thatâs why they do not constitute a political threat as much as a security threat."
Rumor had it — and it was discussed on these pages — that Binny or his successors disagreed with the tactics of an offensive in Arabia at this moment...
The blow to Al-Qaeda with the killing of Muqrin and his aides on June 18 has not destroyed the group, according to Mutrafi. "There is no way that the last strike against them has resulted in finishing the group. We shouldnât rule out that they will come back again," Mutrafi said. But Awaji said the killing of Muqrin and his deputy Faisal al-Dokheil, have deprived the group of significant experience in fighting and planning. In addition, continued Saudi efforts to clamp down on militants have resulted in the seizure of huge caches of weapons, such as rifles, pistols, hand grenades, mortars, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and tons of explosives.
Plenty more where those came from, though. Weaponry never seems to be a problem, does it?
Saudi authorities say weapons are mainly smuggled across the kingdomâs porous southern mountain border with Yemen. "Oufi is now a leader of the remnants of this damaged ship and those in it need help to survive. Thatâs why the Saudi amnesty offer came at the right time," said Awaji.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/30/2004 9:51:35 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Between the lines, I think I get the message that if the Bad Boyz will return to just killing infidels outside the Magic Kingdom, a return to pre-May 12, 2003 conditions, then the Saudis will look the other way.
Dan? Care to put your between-the-lines thoughts out there?
My guess is that al-Muqrin and Co moved to fast, the rest of the leadership knows it, so they reached another agreement with the princes using the holy men as in-betweens and now there's an amnesty and everything's just peachy again. This also provides the Saudis' a nice way to publicly say the threat of terrorism was ended by the amnesty while going back to the good old days when the princes did, well, pretty much what they're doing now, just more covertly ...
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/30/2004 11:12 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Thx, Dan. That's the most cogent description I've seen - thx!
So Nayef sacrificed a few pawns when his game began to infringe upon the turf of others. Being a Royal means never having to say you're sorry, heh.
There is nothing to compare to the Saudi PR machine. Just one month's outlay would make everyone at RB independently wealthy.
When this domestic political insanity finally passes the Nov election, not that the screeching will actually dissipate (I'm not anywhere near that optimistic) - just shift gears - then (if re-elected) Bush can ratchet up the pressure on the Saudis. Anyone actually believing that Skeery would do it is dreaming, IMO.
Sooner or later, the reckoning will come. Sooner works for me. Saudi's Byzantine internecine squabbles are expensive - in money, lives, security - for everyone but the Royals. As with the UN, it's time to kill off the Special Relationship, used against us since 1973.
#5
To imagine what a Kerry administration would do, just remember the Clinton administration. The one thing that the Clinton years taught us was that although you could buy a Democrat, you couldn't be sure he wouldn't sell you out if he got a better offer. Kerry would do whatever the highest bidder wanted while denying it vehemently. Weasels don't change their ways.
#6
I actually think that Nayef and Saif al-Adel are running parallel to one another on this one. Both want the clown prince out and Nayef controls the security forces, while al-Adel controls the al-Qaeda org in the Magic Kingdom. There's a good deal of overlap between the two, since in many cases the security forces and the al-Qaeda cannon fodder are the exact same people.
Remember, al-Adel's original plan for Riyadh in May 2003 was for the assassination of some princes, including perhaps Abdullah. That part didn't work but the expat boomings happened and it was too overt for even the Saudis to just dump off on alk runners. That led to the faux "crackdown," which netted just enough baddies for the rank-and-file like al-Muqrin (who isn't even the real capo in the Kingdom and neither is al-Oufi, that honor belongs to Louis Attiyat Allah) to start booming places like the Lebanese Christian compound and more recently the attacks on Yanbu and al-Khobar. When that didn't produce the Revolution b/c Louis and Nayef still had their deal (hence the reason none of the moneymen or clerics have been jugged), al-Muqrin started kidnapping Westerners and really causing the shit to hit the fan for the princes. So he got whacked and now there's a new deal on thanks to the holy men, abeit an odd one given today's events.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/30/2004 12:13 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I've posted that I figured Abdullah had better proceed with a coup or the conspiring Sudairis (Nayef + Turki + ?) will bring him down - and then hope to pick up the pieces successfully. IIRC Sultan, as Fahd's closest ally and personal choice to succeed him - in spite of making (allowing?) Abdullah the CP, doesn't seem actively complicit.
So a time estimate and winner prediction? Wanna venture that far out into the void? Lol!
I admit I thought the Royals would "fall" by now - I told expat friends I predict 18-24 months - about 18 months ago, so I'm obviously off the mark regards the resilience of the Royals in spite of this little family squabble.
So Muqrin was forward leaning too much?? So he used no outside resources I presume? While this makes more sense grand strategically (concentrate on Iraq) its hard for me to see from here how Muqrin controlled the Saudi AQ resources to do all the attacks if the real Mr. Big was someone else who had a different plan.
Quite confused - but then both AQ and KSA are byzantine, so im not ashamed:)
#10
Talk, talk, blab, blab.
A deal is in... sheesh.
Didn't you dinks go to school?
It' the FIX, the FIX is in.
deal, shmeal.
Posted by: Mayor D ||
06/30/2004 13:30 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Nayef and Sultan are in cahoots, IIRC.
As far as Louis (sometimes spelled Lewis) goes, there's not much on the guy except that he's a Western-educated Saudi cleric, a member of the Supreme Council of Global Jihad, and does the real deep thinking while folks like al-Oufi and al-Muqrin handle the dirty work of killing infidels.
As far as al-Muqrin's relative status within al-Qaeda, he knew where all the cells were inside the Kingdom, was chummy with the rank and file security forces, ect. Positions aren't too fixed within al-Qaeda and he had a lot of clout within the network because he part of the hit squad that had nearly whacked Mubarak. All the same, bad as al-Muqrin was he didn't come even close to what al-Adel or Louis could call upon at a moment's notice.
To give you an idea, here's a look at what al-Adel was originally planning to take place along with the first Riyadh bombings.
I hope that puts things in perspective.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/30/2004 14:31 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Far as I can tell, it's all old news. The only thing remotely different is that the Royals have been slightly more open about their opposition to al Qaeda, but that is all PR. Big money is still changing hands and going straight into al Qaeda's pockets. Amnesty offers demonstrate what sort of "resolve" we can expect from the Saudis. The Wahabbist clerics are still spewing their anti-American bile and it remains open season on all Westerners. What's any different?
#13
rabidfox: Sounds like the Saudis are pulling back when they should be attacking.
The Saudis aren't fighting al Qaeda because they like us and hate the jihadis. In reality, they hate us and love the jihadis, except when the jihadis are threatening them. But fundamentally-speaking, we, not the jihadis, are perceived as the enemy. The current violence is basically a temporary falling-out between friends. Given the media's spin that Americans deserve to be killed by jihadis for what the media perceives to be American transgressions, it's only a matter of time before Saudi-sponsored terrorists renew their terror campaign on American soil. Saudis probably think that like the media, Americans will be so guilt-ridden that they will blame GWB instead of fingering the appropriate culprits - terrorists supported by Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries.
British police said on Wednesday they had detained a Moroccan national facing terrorist allegations reportedly linked to both the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States and the Madrid train bombings. "Farid Hilali, a 35-year-old and a Moroccan national, appeared at Bow Street Magistrates Court on June 28, Monday, on a European arrest warrant alleging that he committed terrorist offences," a Scotland Yard spokeswoman said. "He has been remanded in custody till July 5," she said. She was unable to provide details of the charges against him. The Times newspaper said Hilali was suspected of helping to plot the September 11 attacks and was an alleged accomplice in the Madrid train bombings on March 11 this year. Hilali, also known as "Shakur", is believed to have telephoned the alleged head of an al-Qaeda cell in Madrid shortly before the September 11 attacks, it said. The name "Shakur" appeared alongside those of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and 33 others on an indictment in Spain last September. The suspects are alleged to have used the country as a base to plot September 11, the newspaper said. A Home Office spokesman said that Hilali could be extradited to Spain under the newly introduced European arrest warrant, designed to improve cross-border cooperation.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/30/2004 10:11:48 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
The wife and brother of an Algerian pilot who was once accused of training some of the September 11, 2001, hijackers launched legal action to sue British police today. Lotfi Raissi was detained near London on September 21, 2001, after he was indicted by a federal grand jury in the US state of Arizona. US prosecutors described him at the time as one of their prime terrorism suspects. A British judge refused to extradite Raissi, however, and he was released from custody. The judge said US authorities had provided no evidence to link the 27-year-old with terrorism.
Lotfiâs wife, Sonja, and his brother, Mohamed, today began High Court proceedings in London against London Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens, claiming they were wrongly arrested by anti-terrorist police on September 21, 2001. According to a statement from their lawyers, Sonja was held and interviewed for five days and Mohamed for two days before they were released without charge. âSonia and Mohamedâs claims against the commissioner are for false imprisonment in relation to their unlawful detention and assault in respect of the unlawful or excessive force used on them,â said lawyer Jules Carey. âThey are also asking the court to award damages for the humiliation and loss of dignity that they suffered and a punitive award for the arbitrary, oppressive and unconstitutional conduct of the police,â he said. The Metropolitan Police had no immediate comment on the case. Shortly after extradition proceedings were refused in 2002, Raissi said he would resort to the courts if he did not receive public apologies from the FBI, London police and the Crown Prosecution Service. Carey said Raissi would begin legal proceedings in âdue courseâ. âLotfiâs claim is significantly broader and more complex than those of Sonja and Mohamed, and involves claims both in the United States and the UK,â he said.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/30/2004 1:22:42 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
A MAN believed to be a member of al-Qaeda plotted to blow up the Panama Canal, a spokesman for the Honduran security ministry told AFP today. Leonel Sauceda confirmed Security Minister Oscar Alvarezâs comments to local media that the 38-year-old suspect - identified as Adnan Guishar El Shukrijumah, or Jafar al-Tayar, who was in Honduras late last month - "planned to plant explosives in the Panama Canal to hamper boat traffic in the area." Mr Alvarezâs remarks were published in the daily La Tribuna today, along with four photos of the suspect. International intelligence officials have offered a $US5 million ($7.25 million) reward for information leading to his capture. Mr Alvarez did not say when Mr Shukrijumah entered or left the country, nor through which country he had travelled. But Sauceda said he was in Honduras on May 27. Mr Shukrijumah holds passports from Trinidad and Tobago, Canada and Guyana, according to the authorities.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/30/2004 4:27:12 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
B-a-R: LOL, I had the same thought. Don't these guys read the papers anymore ?
One comment about his passports: Hmm, only 3 of them, he must be pretty far down the totem pole...
Posted by: Carl in N.H ||
06/30/2004 17:45 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Mr. Shurkrijumah was then turned over to representatives of Hutchison Wampo (AKA the Army of the People's Republic of China and a main operator of the canal) and has not been heard from (oh, except for the screaming) since.
Posted by: remote man ||
06/30/2004 18:02 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"1... The US may not own it but it sure does use it... mostly for grains.
#4... Hutchinson Wampoa does not operate the Canal... it has concessions in Balboa and Cristobal ports as other US companies do in the same area (KC RR, SSA). The Canal is controlled by the Panama Canal Authority... a Panamanian Government agency
FYI the US and Panama signed a treaty in 1979 (no expiration date...ugh) for the defense of the waterway. If the US thinks the Canal is in danger, it can legally and unilaterally (what else is new) decide to protect it, invading Panama if necessary, what a cheerful prospect!
A recent survey showed that the Korean peopleâs anti-communism has decreased while anti-Americanism has notably increased. Prof. Koh Sang-doo of Yonsei University cited the joint questionnaire report on Koreaâs policy toward North Korea and the U.S., which is produced by Research & Research and Gallup Korea in coming up with the above analysis. In 2004, Research & Research carried out a survey to find out which country is the key enemy of Korea. And according to Koh, people aged between 20s to 40s picked the U.S. (57.9 percent in their 20s, 46.8 percent in their 30s and 36.3 percent in their 40s) as Koreaâs biggest enemy, but people over 50 said North Korea (52.5 percent) is the key enemy.
All generations agreed that National Security Law must be reformed (72.4 percent in their 20s to 30s, 70.2 percent in their 40s and 49.8 percent in those over 50s). In addition, Gallup Korea ran a survey in 2001 and 2003 to investigate what people thought about the possibility of North Korea invading the South, and that there was no big change in the reply for people over the age of 30 (30.6 percent to 31.1 percent in their 30s, 32.6 percent to 32.0 percent in their 40s and 26.8 percent to 30.5 percent in those over 50), but there was a significant decrease in younger generations (52.3 percent to 30.9 percent in their 20s). "The Korean peopleâs structure of consciousness has become very flexible so that it cannot be identified with the concept of anti-communism and many Koreans treat the U.S. as the number one enemy, which tells us that anti-Americanism is notably increasing," added Prof. Koh.
Posted by: tipper ||
06/30/2004 11:19:14 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Wait 'til Lil' Kimmie puts them on a rice patty collective at the point of a gun. Quite instructive about who the enemy really is.
#2
Best way to keep a kid from smoking is to give him a cigarette. If they want to see what it's like, remove our troops and let them go play with Kimmie Dung-hill.
#3
Amen BigEd. Let them play with the North then and pull our boys out. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth when the North overruns their stupid asses.
#4
This is the natural result of our foreign policy. The US has traditionally been the Bad Cop to the regional allies good cop. Those that were around when the policy began understand clearly (those over 50 in this case) and those that are younger and less educated in the world tend to see the Bad Cop as beligerant.
Same thing with Europe more or less. The routine seems to have a lifespan of a few decades, after that we need to get the good cop to stand on their own. In both cases we failed to do that and defended them long after they were capable of defending themselves, leading them to become fat, drunk and stupid which is no way to go through life.
#5
Why do we insist on pretending that countries are our friend when the population of those countries hate us? Pull out of Korea and tell Kim we won't interfere as it's not our business. I'll enjoy the fireworks while eating a bag of popcorn.
#6
A recent survey showed that the Korean peopleâs anti-communism has decreased while anti-Americanism has notably increased.
All the more reason to remove our personnel and equipment from Korea and leave them to their fate, whatever it might be. If it's something good, great. If not, well......tough.
#7
It's a cultural problem. There is no word in the Korean language for "idiotarian", and now you see the results.
Posted by: Chris W. ||
06/30/2004 13:09 Comments ||
Top||
#8
It's more or less mandatory for young Koreans to spend two years in the military with a follow-on reserve commitment. The rapidly increasing standard of living and the concomitant appearance of hedonism amongst the young has sparked sort of a Korean variant of the 60's peace movement that resents and protests the obligation. America represents a reality they reject, so they protest against us as well. Unfortunately for them, it's not a perfect world and it's unlikely to get better after we leave. So, young Koreans of flexible consciousness, call us after the war is over and we may help you put the pieces back together, and then again, we, also having a structure of consciousness that has become very flexible, may not.
#9
It does make it far easier to walk away when the benifactors of our assistance turn against us.
They should have moved the capital of South Korea south, south, south after the war and before South Korea really industrialized and let Seoul be a provincial town. Its foolish to have your only real city within artillery range of the DMZ.
#10
yank: They should have moved the capital of South Korea south, south, south after the war and before South Korea really industrialized and let Seoul be a provincial town. Its foolish to have your only real city within artillery range of the DMZ.
During the Cold War, the West Germans moved their capital to Bonn, which is about as far west as you can get without ending up in Belgium. Since the Korean War ended, the South Koreans have been milking the mutual defense treaty for all it's worth. We just have to start being smarter about the things we ask for in exchange for keeping them under America's nuclear umbrella.
#11
This is the chauvinistic, narcissistic behavior you get when parents (Korean and US gov.) coddle and spoil their children. Get out and leave them to their fate.
Posted by: ed ||
06/30/2004 21:43 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Good point, ed! We have similar problems here, all right. It will take a generation or two to un-f**k the damage done by the liberals since the 60s.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/30/2004 21:47 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Gents, would love nothing more then to bring our lads home from SKor, but since they're a big trading partner - I'm doubtful at best it would ever happen. We have 37k troops there right now, I'd drop it down to about a 3k regiment and move them to pusan for easy charter out when the Nkors start pummeling Seoul.
An Australian intelligence officer is being sent home from Washington after he temporarily misplaced a briefcase containing classified US documents. It is understood the briefcase was accidentally left in an office at the US Congress building and was later returned to the Australian embassy.
"Yo, mate! Lose something?"
The Department of Foreign Affairs says the man works for the Office of National Assessments (ONA) and will return to Australia shortly because of the security breach. The department says while the incident was serious, the classified material was not compromised. The head of the Australian Defence Association, Neil James, says it is another embarrassment for Australiaâs intelligence agencies. "It certainly isnât an incident that would engender further confidence," he said. "Letâs face it: our major intelligence sharing agreements are with the Americans and particularly after embarrassing incidents like the [former Australian intelligence officer Jean-Philippe] Wispelaere case and our persecution of [former Australian intelligence officer] Merv Jenkins, thereâs obviously a crying need to reassure the Americans that we do take things like this seriously."
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/30/2004 1:32:01 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
The Madrid train bombers were planning other attacks on targets including a British school and two Jewish centres, Spanish media said on Wednesday, quoting a police report. Investigators found documents detailing the targets in the wreckage of a suburban apartment where seven prime suspects in the train attacks blew themselves up on April 3 when police cornered them, the reports said. Police have handed the information to a parliamentary commission investigating the bombings that killed 191 people and injured 1,900 on packed commuter trains on March 11, news agency Europa Press said. As well as a British infant school in a suburb of Madrid, targets included a Jewish hostel and a recreation centre used by Jewish families, the agency said. A parliamentary spokeswoman said she had no information on the police report.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/30/2004 4:23:45 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that terrorism was currently a menace to the humanity.
Noticed that, did you?
Speaking on Turkish Radio and Television (TRT) late on Tuesday, Erdogan assessed his meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush. Replying to a question which said, ââespecially Turkeyâs sensitivities to PKK problem were stressed during your meeting with the U.S. President in Ankara. What was his response?ââ Erdogan said that Bush and he had previously held several meetings and an understanding had developed between them. ââMr. Bush does not ignore this understanding. He stated before he arrived in Turkey that he would meet me at the official residence. I thank him for this courtesy. It was meaningful to me. It was also a display of respect to our people.ââ
Erdogan said that Bush and he had discussed especially Iraq, Afghanistan and Cyprus issues in addition to relations between Turkey and the United States. Stating that they had also discussed the PKK problem, Erdogan said, ââMr. Bush even told me that they have al-Qaeda problem and Turkey has PKK problem. And I told him that we have both PKK and al-Qaeda problems while they have only al-Qaeda problem. Terrorism is now a menace to the humanity. Terrorism is a phenomenon. Its target, reason and where and when it hits are not known. We have to form a joint fight against it. Because it does not have religion, race, nation and motherland. We think that terrorism should be condemned and we should protect our peoples against it by taking every measure.ââ
Regarding the Cyprus issue, Erdogan said leaders admitted that Turkey was right, adding that especially Turkeyâs attitude during referenda process was appreciated. He stressed, ââthey said they would take every necessary step.ââ Erdogan noted that there were two important matters, that were adjustment and implementation, regarding Turkeyâs EU membership process. He stressed that they almost completed issues concerning adjustment, adding that they were closely following the implementation process. Erdogan stated that they would make a change in mentality, noting that countries which became full member of the EU did not fully complete the Copenhagen criteria. Noting that after Turkey won a date for opening of membership negotiations with the EU, there would be a long time to be a full member of the EU, Erdogan stated that when all members of the EU approved membership of Turkey, then the country would be a full member of the EU. By then, Turkey would continue implementation, he stressed and noted that the country would rapidly put into practice the articles included in EU adjustment package one by one.
When asked whether or not Greek Cypriot administration would create any problem during Turkeyâs EU membership process, Erdogan said that both Turkey and also Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) overcame it. He noted that Turkey said âyesâ to the United Nations (U.N.) Secretary General Kofi Annanâs plan on Cyprus.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/30/2004 10:00:01 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that terrorism was currently a menace to the humanity.
Welcome to the planet Earth. Thanks for dropping by. Hope you can stay for a while.
Posted by: Chris W. ||
06/30/2004 11:31 Comments ||
Top||
#2
yea as long as it was our embassies, troops, ships, people..being blown up terrorism was not a threat to humanity..but now it is...
just thank god that Bush brought the battle to our enemies...better this than what we had in the 90's.
Posted by: Dan ||
06/30/2004 13:12 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/30/2004 04:31 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Since they would actually have to have a force in order to deploy one. Maybe they'll get around to it after ponying up for the commitments in Afghanistan they still haven't fulfilled?
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
06/30/2004 8:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
nah. See, when the Germans and French decide to build a real military it will be sooooooo much better than the American one. They're going to do it any day now ....
Pfah. I spent the 80s and 90s listening to arrogant Germans tell me that their engineering was miles ahead of America's and that as soon as they decided to put in the effort, they would dominate the high tech world.
Uh huh.
They're all too busy taking long vacations and paying for big pensions.
Posted by: too true ||
06/30/2004 9:30 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Chris W. ||
06/30/2004 12:07 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I didn't think my opinion of Francermany could sink any lower, but there impotent, feeble contribution to NATO and the head-in-the-sand we-don't-see-any-genocide-in-Africa stance actually surprised me. Useless turds.
#6
Not a problem. Just document all of Phrance's and Germany's involvement with Saddy's regime and give all the information to the current Iraqi leadership. I'm sure appropriate measures will be taken...
President Bush urged the Muslim world on Tuesday to put aside suspicion and hatred toward the West and embrace democracy, saying that does not mean Arab nations have to accept American pop culture. A day after an interim government took political control in Iraq, Bush said "freedom is the future of the Middle East." Mideast leaders, including "some friends of the United States, must recognize the direction of events," he said. Bush spoke outdoors at Galatasaray University under a bright sun on the shore of the Bosporus. Acknowledging a clash of cultures, Bush said, "Some people in Muslim cultures identify democracy with the worst of Western popular culture and want no part of it. And I assure them, when I speak about the blessings of liberty, coarse videos and crass commercialism are not what I have in mind." He added: "There is nothing incompatible between democratic values and high standards of decency." Similarly, Bush said democratic values do not require people to abandon their faith. "No democracy can allow religious people to impose their own view of perfection on others, because this invites cruelty and arrogance that are foreign to every faith," the president said.
Bush decried prejudice and fears in America as well as the Middle East. "When some in my country speak in an ill-informed and insulting manner about the Muslim faith, their words are heard abroad and do great harm to our cause in the Middle East," Bush said. "When some in the Muslim world incite hatred and murder with conspiracy theories and propaganda, their words are also heard by a generation of young Muslims who need truth and hope, not lies and anger," he said. Bush said democratic countries can have their own traditions and cultures and do not have to agree with each other. "Free governments have a reputation for independence, which Turkey has certainly earned," Bush said. "That is the way democracy works."
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/30/2004 12:23:09 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sadly, GWB believes this crock. It's speeches like this that make me want to gag because of his genuflecting to the Muslim world and even going so far as putting down our culture. What was he thinking when he derides our "coarse videos" ?? Excuse me, Mr. President but I think the Islamic world wins the prize in the contest of "coarse videos." Or when he puts on the same footing:"When some in my country speak in an ill-informed and insulting manner about the Muslim faith..." with "When some in the Muslim world incite hatred and murder with conspiracy theories and propaganda..." I find that type of moral equivalence objectionable quite frankly. What Al Jazeera does with its yellow journalism and the Saudi Princes do by funding hate schools is hardly the same as hunorous comments on conservative websites and on talk radio. Give me a break.
And puhleaze don't make excuses for GWB with "he's only saying these things because he is trying to win over friendly Islamic countries..." GWB can be gracious to the Muslim leaders without putting our culture and values down and groveling.
What "high standards of decency" does GWB see in the Muslim world...is it the polygamy? is it stoning of gays? or perhaps is it torture of children? Which of this short list of Stone Age behavior constitutes "high standards of decency", Mr. President, enquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: rex ||
06/30/2004 5:36 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I reckon Bush is fighting them on the beaches. He is in the trenches doing his goddam best to further the cause.
GO, BUSH GO!!!!
That man is MUCH smarter than anybody gives him credit for. That he can still be underestimated after all he's done amazes me, and gives me hope that he can win the election in November.
Doctor Who, if you're out there, I replied to your post from yesterday.
#3
'I find that type of moral equivalence objectionable quite frankly.'
So objectionable that you did the same, the very next breath!!!!
'What Al Jazeera does with its yellow journalism and the Saudi Princes do by funding hate schools is hardly the same as hunorous comments on conservative websites and on talk radio'
#4
President Bush is elevating Turkey at this particular juncture of time because it's a secular democracy with a Muslim majority that is doing better all the time in the modern world.
(He takes full aim at the EUro's tacit complacent policy of "White Man's Burden" in regard to countries that aren't in Western Europe.)
Bush is most definitely not promoting IslamoFacist values--quite the contrary.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/30/2004 11:46 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Come on Rex, lighten up. It's called sweet-talking. And the real message is directed at the EU: Must be Thanksgiving soon, cause Turkey's at the door. Knock, knock, Chirac.
#6
I will not "lighten up", #5, until the WH takes off its rose colored glasses and recognizes the dangers posed by the religion of Islam. If this WOT is supposed to be a war of ideas, then there has to be a realistic clue about the ideology we are up against or the solutions we come up with will not do the job to allow us to prevail.
#3...I'm sure you are trying to be the best you can be.
Posted by: rex ||
06/30/2004 15:47 Comments ||
Top||
CNN loves these Bush bashing news items.
French President Jacques Chirac, clashing with U.S. foreign policy for a second day, says the isolation of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat would hinder Middle East peacemaking.
This is what's known as the "counterintuitive" approach. He's simply not big on empirical observation...
Chirac said the U.S. policy was "not very prudent or compatible with a strategy of restoring peace" in the region.
How do you restore what hasn't been?
"People can have whatever opinion they like of President Arafat or any other president," Chirac said on the sidelines of the NATO summit. "But legitimacy cannot be contested if a different legitimacy is not proposed." He said it was normal for France to have contacts with the Palestinian leader who was "probably the only person who could impose compromise on the Palestinian people."
Mad cow disease hits the French.
French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier left the NATO summit in Istanbul Tuesday for the Palestinian territories. He was scheduled to meet Arafat in his compound in Ramallah, where the veteran leader has been cowering holed up for around two years. Israel says Arafat is free to leave but would risk not being allowed back if he did so. "We have reiterated our policy that basically meeting Chairman Arafat is counterproductive as he continues to be an obstacle, a part of the problem and not part of the solution," an Israeli Foreign Ministry official told Reuters. "We recommend not to meet him, and most European foreign ministers have basically respected Israelâs policy. But every country is free and entitled to act as it sees fit," said the official. Barnier had been due to visit Israel after meeting Arafat but Israel scheduled a separate visit by the French minister for September instead.
They shot up Jordan, shot up Lebanon, tried to shoot up Tunisia, and now they're on their second round of shooting up Israel up close and personal. And that's the best hope for peace?
Senior Palestinian official Yasser Abed Rabbo said Barnierâs visit reflected the view in Europe that the key to peace was driving the Joooos into the Sea an Israeli-Palestinian partnership -- not security measures. "The Israelis use the issue of Arafat and accuse him of being an obstacle (to peace) as a pretext to impose their unilateral solutions. The whole world understands this and the French foreign ministerâs visit is a clear message to Israel," he said.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/30/2004 12:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Lessee, when will Mssr Chirac's Presidency end? And his trial begin? Just wondering - all this finger-wagging is becoming tiresome.
And whatever Chirc (plus whichever EU gov'ts agree with his continuing pandering to Arafish) has to say regards the "Palestinian" issue is of no consequence because they won't do anything, just talk. They don't have the cash, the will, or troops to spare. They are bankrupt in every applicable way and Fishy is fried.
#2
You should watch CNN International., You would toss your TV out the window.
Were do the Euro's get off saying anything about what goes on in the Middle East? They fucked it up and continue to fuck it up. We would be better off if they would just shut the fuck up.
What an idiot Chiraq is, remember this is the guy that said "History never repeats itself". The Gaul's are useless, they are an environmental hazard that should be part of Kyoto for elimination for wasting the world resources or whatever the hell it is that makes Algore get all hot and bothered...
#3
The French have never been interested in solving the palestinian "problem." It is one of the most valuable weapons they have to keep Europe and the Middle East virulently anti-American. Economic concessions from Middle Eastern oil producing countries is their aim. Playing, "we feel your pain" game, is one way to realize their dream of being economical and political power brokers in this region of the world.
"They are bankrupt in every applicable way and Fishy is fried."
This, meanwhile, is typically ridiculous (Rabbo):
"The Israelis use the issue of Arafat and accuse him of being an obstacle (to peace) as a pretext to impose their unilateral solutions."
No, fuckwit, the Israelis use the obviously real issue of Palestinian barbarism and murder of Israelis as a perfectly good reason to impose interim security measures such as the barrier. Have fun with your French guest. Ask him about Haiti, another place he must know -- he might be able to give you some idea of what to expect in the way of economic and social development if you morons stay on your present course. Enjoy!
#7
Cut Chirac some slack. He's just following French instinct; it's an almost reflex reaction: when a little smelly guy who loves killing Jews comes along, the French just have to snuggle up to him.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/30/2004 7:21 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Lucky -
I look forward to your book, and showing the title off proudly and doing a loud and boisterous read out at a pinko commie tree hugging druid book store near me!!
Chirac's babble on legitimacy, his only remaining gossamer attachment to / fantasy of "power", is classic - and I notice no one answered the question about when his trial will begin - I'll try to find out. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I am very surprised and pleased by the Iraeli policy (I jus' loves no-nonsense folks!) to not allow entry to anyone who visits Arafish. Sweeet, heh.
#14
"People can have whatever opinion they like of President Arafat or any other president," Chirac said on the sidelines of the NATO summit. "But legitimacy cannot be contested if a different legitimacy is not proposed."
Hence, Chirac's justification for supporting Saddam's "Little Shop of Tortures" regime. For Chirac, even a "leader" like Saddam, a mass-murdering psychopath responsible for the deaths of 100s of 1000s of innocents, is ok to do business with, as long as France gets the revenue.
#17
Happily, Bush had the last word (le mot dernier) over Jacques!
While ChIRAQ is bellicose and obstructionist to Bush in public (to keep the Socialist voters back home happy), in private the reality's a different story: Schroeder Says Germany, France to Back Turkish EU Bid
One thing Schroeder has learned is that it doesn't pay to bash Bush!
Posted by: Jen ||
06/30/2004 11:17 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Hey Shipman, Our long haired friend inspired me as I'm easily lead.
Ulrich is suppose to be in shape, He won the Tour de Suise and thats a tough climb warm up to the Tour. But he's from the last century and he can't beat Lance. If you've ever been a cyclist, it's tough to overcome the pain you feel when everytime you've tried to match someone you get beat, ala Lance.
No, the new young guys are the thing. If Cunago (Saeco) rides the Tour, with Simone as his LT, he may be the guy. He sure looked the part in the Giro. But Lance is a giant lung with two legs attached. I'm frothing for it to begin and I hope for complete chaos.
#19
He said it was normal for France to have contacts with the Palestinian leader who was "probably the only person who could impose compromise on the Palestinian people."
The operative word here is "could". The fact is, Arafart hasn't, and there's no reason to think that he ever will.
#20
Ulrich is suppose to be in shape, He won the Tour de Suise and thats a tough climb warm up to the Tour. But he's from the last century and he can't beat Lance. If you've ever been a cyclist, it's tough to overcome the pain you feel when everytime you've tried to match someone you get beat, ala Lance.
Ulrich is a complete monster when he's in shape.
What does from the last century mean? He's what... 30?
The last para! Hey! Never been a cyclist, I will be watching that aspect very damn close. I bought a DVD burner just for the tour.
I get the idea you're looking for someone fresh out of the blocks!?
#22
Yep Shipman, The clock turns and youth must be served. I think great drama this year. I hope Lance can take it to the the end. But it's not going to be a coronation. No, it will, I hope, be a total, all out, bodies by the side of the road, complete chaos, mayhem, vomit, Agincourt blood bath.
Remember when you were thirty? The young punks, who do they think they ar', hey wait up!
#2
does newsweak hire these guys from anti-american marxisism 101 or GQ--goes on about brenner's desert boots--which are of course tres stupid to wear in the DESERT--he should wear john lobb kicks like the gucci schmuck reporter--i'm with fred/steve--put a contract out on these fuckface scumbag hotshit reporters--feed 'em to zarquari--86 the newsweak journalists in pairs--these guys---must have gone to the sorbonne they're so simplistically stoopid,venally arrogant and morally bankrupt
Posted by: SON OF TOLUI ||
06/30/2004 2:15 Comments ||
Top||
#3
These buttwipe reporters are getting so desperate of things going well that they have resorted to delusional reporting.
Posted by: Capt America ||
06/30/2004 2:29 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I must say, I don't think I've ever read an article that started off with such a nasty tone. I had to stop after the second paragraph. What's wrong with this asscork?
#6
Sound like Baath propaganda, doesn't it? One doesn't even know where to begin. Whoever wrote this is so ignorant that he doesn't even know why there is a problem with gas prices in Iraq -- Saddam kept prices artificially low and psychologically, the Iraqis can't cope with the 10x price jump required to bring prices to market levels. The gas shortage logically follows. If you keep charging socialist prices in an open market, yes you will have severe shortages.
It's a racist, ignorant piece. I imagine it's "retaliation" for Wolfowitz's remarks about reporters being a bunch of lazy wusses, reporting from hotels.
#9
Its not just retaliation for Wolfowitz remarks, its retaliation for jumping the gun on the changeover and leaving the media in the dark about it. This guy probably had an assignment to cover the changeover and he missed the whole thing and dag-nabbit Bremmers gonna pay.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/30/2004 12:24 Comments ||
Top||
#11
There is a need to understand an underlying premise of the current left: It is postmodern. This is how one understands the world: One has a certain set of "preferences" (stuff you want), you are permitted to do or say anything you want, because there is nothing true or false, right or wrong. There are only things which achieve my ends or prevent my ends. Hence, the left is extraordinarily illiberal. Postmodernism tends quickly towards violent control and suppression, because that it the quickest way to obtain one's ends. There is no need to be consistent.
Someone like Bush, the "right", et cetera are the most dangerous threats, because they are holding to outmoded ways of understanding.
Think about it this way: SH was a terrible murderer. Even if the intelligence was completely wrong, a very bad, very dangerous thug was taken out of power. Freedom is much better than material goods (which the writer of the story simply cannot understand). Shouldn't "liberals" be happy that SH is gone? Why so glum? Because he doesn't matter, and the people of Iraq don't matter. All that matters is Bush being gone.
Perhaps the question is why is Bush such a thorn in their side? What does he want that they hate so badly? It does not seem to be much more than abortion or some sort of 'sexual rights' or some such.
#14
Sounds like a large group of media are positioning themselves. Now that Iraqii are in charge and things are not as bad as the press originally thought, "It was all Bush's Fault!" becomes the headline.
The press are never wrong. Brokaw says so.
Posted by: john ||
06/30/2004 16:11 Comments ||
Top||
#15
does newsweak hire these guys from anti-american marxisism 101
If by that you mean "Journalism School", then, yes. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy... more like birds-of-a-feather flocking together.
EFL & via Instapundit
Iraq veterans often say they are confused by American news coverage, because their experience differs so greatly from what journalists report. Soldiers and Marines point to the slow, steady progress in almost all areas of Iraqi life and wonder why they donât get much notice â or in many cases, any notice at all. Why is that, Devil Dog?
Part of the explanation is Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the Baghdad bureau chief for the Washington Post. He spent most of his career on the metro and technology beats, and has only four years of foreign reporting, two of which are in Iraq. The 31-year-old now runs a news operation that can literally change the world, heading a bureau that is the source for much of the news out of Iraq. OHMYGOD! They sent a dot-com-boy to do a manâs job. Bwawawawa. Candy asses. And, ...cutting to the chase:
Since I saw Rajiv Chandrasekaranâs integrity up close, I havenât believed a word he writes, or any story coming out of the bureau he runs. You shouldnât, either. You are not alone!
You will not be let down by the entire article. Coffee, check. Donuts, check.
Posted by: Dragon Fly ||
06/30/2004 12:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The only problem is - almost NOBODY (save those of us who spend way too much time both at home and at work haunting the blogosphere) will read this article, or the many similar articles, op-eds, etc. written by Iraq veterans trying to be heard over the 24/7 roar of the fifth-column major media. The only media outlets where I've seen any positive - or at least not uniformly negative - coverage of the war have been on the Web sites of small-town newspapers. Damn near any major-market paper or TV station? It's "All Abu Ghraib, All The Time".
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
06/30/2004 0:57 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I used the link at the previous article(newsweek)it ended-up going to the post.But it still holds true.
"What the hell is this crap!
Is this news reporting or an opinion piece?
Has your reporter bothered to talk to the troops on the ground?
Have you bothered to talk to a broad spectrum of Iraqi's?
My reading of Iraqi,and Troopers blog sites paint a far different picture.
Tell this hack you have working for you to stop reporting only what supports his personal opinion.This butt-head needs to put down the Scotch,get off his bar stool,and walk out the front door of the Palistine Hotel."
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/30/2004 04:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Canadian Jews hope election tally
wonât undermine support for Israel". Hey, hope instead that Canada's continued pro-Islamic social policies don't undermine support for Jews in Canada. At least the border is a short drive for y'all if the Islamohammer comes down. The Jews in France have a long goddamn swim if they get driven into the English Channel.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
06/30/2004 8:45 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"Canadian Jews hope election tally
wonât undermine support for Israel"
So why did they vote for status quo (the Liberals)?
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/30/2004 10:02 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The Canadians now have sharia courts.
Only a short drive from there to islamic neighborhoods that routinely beat and rob Jews and (much more often) non conformist Muslims (as in France).
#4
I hope that they're not 'tikkun olam' types like some American Jewish liberals ... repairing the world would be better done by wiping the Islamists off the face of the earth.
#5
Tikkun Olam (healing the world) also includes visiting the sick, helping the poor etc.
Sadly, many people confuse the concept with the 'passive response to terror' philosophy of Michael Lerner (editor of Tikkum Olam in the US). This is Lerner's desire and thus, I think, Lerner's fault.
#6
mhw - it's not true that Canada now has Sharia courts. Ontario, one of ten provinces, has recently accepted arbitration tribunals based on Islamic religious tenets, for civil matters only. Participation is voluntary - both parties to a dispute must agree to participate in order for the tribunal to resolve a dispute. And no decision of the tribunal can violate Canadian or Ontario law. These tribunals are formed on the same principle as tribunals based on Jewish religious tenets, which have been used in Ontario for a long time. In the past, Rantburgers have replied to me on this score that the Jewish tribunals are different because "Jews don't go round beheading people" and "Jews don't treat women like property." I understand that argument, but I'm not ready to have society run on religious grounds, saying there are favours "good religions" can have and "bad religions" can't have. They do that in Saudi Arabia, not in Ontario.
FWIW, a number of Ontario women's groups, chiefly Islamic ones, have lobbied the Ontario government on this issue, and the Premier (equivalent to state governor) has said that they will investigate charges that Muslim women will be forced to participate in tribunals. So, it's not exactly "Islam run wild."
Posted by: Patrick ||
06/30/2004 11:55 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Yes, Shipman, we have ordinary courts that deal with criminal matters, just like you do in the U.S. And by the way, you also have these religion-based tribunals in the U.S. - at least, the Jewish ones, called Beth Din. Link. There are, of course, other non-religious tribunals in both the U.S. and Canada.
The basic idea is to keep civil matters out of the court system - to have ordinary people sort out their disputes with the help either of a trained arbitrator or a priest/rabbi/imam. This actually works to everyone's advantage, particularly in freeing up the courts for dealing with criminals.
Posted by: Patrick Brown ||
06/30/2004 14:27 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Thank you Mr. Brown I will inform my sis of these breakthroughs. I am certain they can enforce most civil orders?
#11
they can only decide ship, not enforce. The way it works is say, when you sign a contract, you agree to follow the rulings of your local bet din in any contract disputes. Same as in most contracts, except instead of invoking the American Arbitration Association,like most contracts, youre invoking a buncha rabbis. Which is preferred if you want the contract settled based on jewish law, which AAA is probably not expert in. But the secular authorities will have to enforce any remedy for breech, same as they would with the AAA.
For marriages, I presume you could go sign a prenup - Orthodox jews generally dont, IIUC. They count on opinion within the community to do so. This is a big deal, as a woman cant file for divorce in Jewish law. The rabbinic court can direct the husband to grant a divorce, but what if he ignores it? Well, he gets ostracized in the Orthodox community. Fine. What if he decides hes an atheist, and runs off to Hawaii? Well then weve got ourselves an "agunah" - "a chained woman" who can't remarry. Conservative Jews have responded by making it MUCH easier to get an annulment (if he wouldnt follow a jewish court, than he was insincere in his wedding vow, which pledges to marry in "the laws of Moses and Israel") Orthodox think this trivializes annulment. I think theyre tossing around prenups as an alternative.
#12
I've heard about some nasty stories of what happened in agunah cases. People being beaten up by thugs (that was an early episode on the Sopranos but I've heard about it in real life too.)
Given that honor killings and genital mutilation are already occuring in Europe, even w/o formal Sharia courts, I shudder to think what will happen in Canada.
#13
mhw - the guy in the case is typically denying his wife a religious divorce as blackmail, to get money, custody, etc. Its nasty the way those things go. I could imagine somebody feeling justified in beating somebody up (not that i would consider violence outside the law justified). Men beat their wives - is that a reason to abolish marriage?
#14
Men beat their wives - is that a reason to abolish marriage?
The fact that people have violent or abusive instincts is not a reason to abolish marriage.
However, it is a reason to seriously worry about Sharia courts giving a moral sanction to honor killings, female genital mutilation, involuntary servitude, etc.
Frankly, in the case where a Beth Din has been involved in soliciting enforcers to beat a husband who is blackmailing a wife, I would hope the local Vad would put that Beth Din ought of business but if they didn't, it would be grounds for a civil court or legislature doing so.
#15
So why did they vote for status quo (the Liberals)?
Good question. No one seems to have the answer. On a related note, Michael Savage, a popular Jewish conservative talk show host, has repeatedly touched on this puzzling loyalty of Jewish voters to the DNC and he says he cannot understand it.
Anyways,the Canadian Muslims sure got their act together before the election and encouraged fellow Muslims to vote on how well the political parties ACTED[not just talked]in relation to important Muslim issues. Frontpage Magazine had a wonderfully informative article just before the Canadian election that laid out their strategy quite clearly, perhaps hoping that some Canadian Jewish voters might pursue the same approach. Who knows? Unfortunately it did not happen. I recommend everyone take the time to read this piece full text because it shows how certain blocs are focused and as a result can further their agenda quite nicely through their votes, while other voting blocs vote according to ideals and not reality and thusly and therefore are self-defeating/counter productive at the polls. http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13803
"Is there a Muslim Vote in Canada?" By David Ouellette/FrontPageMagazine.com/June 21, 2004
Two weeks ahead of the Canadian federal elections, Islamic lobby groups are multiplying their efforts to consolidate the âMuslim vote.â Building on the results of the latest national census published in 2003, which ranks Islam as the third largest religion (after Catholicism and Protestantism and ahead of Judaism) for the first time in Canadaâs history, Islamic groups are struggling on many fronts to make Canadaâs 600,000 Muslims aware of their potential electoral weight. Last April, almost two months prior to the declaration of general elections, the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) published a report named âElection 2004. Towards Informed and Committed Voting.â Based on an analysis of public statements, electoral objectives and legislative voting records of each of Canadaâs 301 elected parliamentarians, the CIC evaluates each oneâs record on 20 issues that would promote the development of closer economical ties to Muslim countries and the Arab-Israeli conflict. The average scores were based on the following marks:
A : in agreement with the CIC;
F : in complete disagreement with the CIC
B : partially in agreement with the CIC The overwhelming majority of the outgoing Liberal (center-left) governmentâs deputies scored an average of A or B, which silently implies the CIC wishes the so-called "Muslim vote" would reelect the Liberal Party. Widely perceived as the champion of multiculturalism, Canadaâs national doctrine, immigration and a foreign policy based more on the U.N. than on Canadian national interests, the Liberal Party has traditionally garnered the vote of âNeo-Canadians."
However, 68 out of 71 deputies of the official opposition, the Conservative Party (center-right), a party known for having supported the American intervention in Iraq, a more strict immigration policy and Israelâs right to defend its citizens from Palestinian terrorism, scored a F average.At the other end of the political spectrum, deputies of the New Democratic Party (far left), a party strongly opposed to American foreign policy and overly critical of Israel, all score Aâs...Moreover, the CIC report identifies 101 electoral ridings where Canadian Muslims hold a 1.8% to 13.5% swing vote. 55 of these ridings are located in Ontario and Quebec, Canadaâs most populous provinces....
Posted by: rex ||
06/30/2004 16:54 Comments ||
Top||
#16
"Given that honor killings and genital mutilation are already occuring in Europe, even w/o formal Sharia courts, I shudder to think what will happen in Canada."
Don't shudder too much on our account, mhw. Genital mutilation has certainly occurred in the North African immigrant community in Ontario - enough that there is now a specific law against it, as there has been in the US since 1996. And genital mutilation does occurs in the United States. Here's a story about it from 1995. Another link. Here's the Female Genital Cutting Education and Networking Project in Tampa, Florida. In other words, in Canada as in the US, female genital mutilation happens. So does bank robbery. So does murder. We have laws against all these things, and the laws are enforced. Female genital mutilation has nothing to do with the arbitration tribunals and, in my view, your bringing it up in this context is regrettable.
Posted by: Patrick Brown ||
06/30/2004 17:21 Comments ||
Top||
#17
rex: On a related note, Michael Savage, a popular Jewish conservative talk show host, has repeatedly touched on this puzzling loyalty of Jewish voters to the DNC and he says he cannot understand it.
The unfortunate thing is that Jews dislike Christianity more than they fear Islam, frequently equating religious Christians with the Taliban, and seeking to roll back Christian institutions of all kinds. What they don't realize is that people need to believe in something, and if it's not Christianity, it's going to be Islam, given that Judaism really isn't into proselytizing.
#18
The unfortunate thing is that Jews dislike Christianity more than they fear Islam, frequently equating religious Christians with the Taliban, and seeking to roll back Christian institutions of all kinds.
Thank you for your insight Zhang Fei always a delight.
In a case that has angered the art world and raised concerns about academic freedom, the federal government obtained mail fraud and wire fraud indictments Tuesday against University at Buffalo art professor Steven Kurtz and the chairman of the University of Pittsburghâs human genetics department. Kurtz, 46, and Robert E. Ferrell, 60, are accused of illegally scheming to use Ferrellâs position with the University of Pittsburgh to obtain two bacterial agents that were found last month in Kurtzâs home laboratory on College Street. [snip] Cambria said Kurtz was using the bacteria for research for his work with the Critical Art Ensemble, a performance art group that has been critical of government policies in biotechnology.[snip]
Do-it-yourself biowarfare as performance art? Do you get many repeat audiences?
The two biological agents seized from Kurtzâs home were bacillus atrophaeus and serratia marcescens, which are not alleged to be highly dangerous substances. But prosecutor William J. Hochul Jr. said the substances were purchased under false pretenses by Ferrell, who said they were going to be used in research at his university. Some e-mails exchanged last December between Kurtz and Ferrell provided "significant evidence" in the case, Hochul said.
"Hi Bob. Well it looks like my bacteria is not as harmless as I previously thought," Kurtz allegedly wrote in one e-mail, quoted in court papers. "While not wildly dangerous, it is associated with pneumonia and urinary tract infections . . . Seems to be hardest on kids and people with compromised immune systems. Do you know what kind of strain we are getting, and how toxic it is?"
[snip] The FBI investigation began May 12, the day after Kurtz's wife, Hope, died from what police believe are natural causes.
A infection, perhaps?
Emergency first responders called to Kurtzâs Buffalo home found what they considered unusual items in the home, including a laboratory and petri dishes with bacterial cultures in them. When asked if authorities believe the bacteria kept in the home could have contributed to the death of Hope Kurtz, prosecutors declined to comment.
Still doing tests on the late Mrs. Kurtz, I'll wager.
Remember the Chocolate Pudding performance artist who got a grant from the National Endowment for Humanities for smearing it all over herself?
(Pudding was supposed to represent poop)
Poop Chocolate Pudding in art would be better than stuff which might be used for WMDs.
#4
Kurtz was using the bacteria for research for his work with the Critical Art Ensemble, a performance art group that has been critical of government policies in biotechnology.
Seeing how his old lady might be dead from his little performance art props, bacteria boy might want to review his own policies concerning biotechnology.
#5
Maybe there is a market for "Snuff Water-colors" that I am unaware of. This must have been their back up business plan once they found out that salacious pictures of Barbie had already been done.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/01/2004 2:24 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Ignorance abounds on this board. The bacteria in question is the kind of ecoli you find in your anus, unless you're a tight-wad republican and you insist on an enema every night. But don't worry, you have your fascist friends the FBI to make sure that, if they don't like someone's pilitics, and if they can't find anything illegal in his project, they can always trump up a mail fraud charge. Heil Hitler.
EFL & Hat tip to NRO
The blind sheik who plotted to blow up New York City landmarks has been whining about the brand of tea heâs forced to endure in prison, the prosecutor who put him away testified yesterday.
Now where did I put that nanoviolin?
Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman complained often about the way he was treated in prison â demanding either Tetley or Lipton tea, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said. He couldnât recall which of those two brands the blind cleric favored.
Must be that old "blind guy with supersensitive senses" thing. I mean it's not like he can read the label.
The sheik even threatened to eat M&Ms or stop taking insulin for his diabetes if he didnât get his teabag of choice, Fitzgerald said.
So if we give him instant generic tea, he's gonna stop taking his meds and die? Promise?
The editors with all the cool colors...have at it!
#7
Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman complained often about the way he was treated in prison â demanding either Tetley or Lipton tea, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said. He couldnât recall which of those two brands the blind cleric favored.
He probably drinks lipton, because Tetley has good taste. ..
#9
I say we send him a case of Nestea. At least, if I get to push him into the pool when he takes his first sip.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/30/2004 15:29 Comments ||
Top||
#10
"Loss of choice in teas"
I guess the blind sheik didn't manage to cover all the points on his balance sheet when it came to planning crimes against America.
Doesn't caffeine and tannic acid aggravate diabetes? Can't we find some quack "professional medical witness" who will testify to this?
More than anything, can't they make arrangements to run out of synthetic insulin so that we are forced to administer pig based insulin to this waste of skin? Sh!theads who plot to murder thousands of innocent people and then whinge about the quality of their federally subsidized "room service" should have their privileges restricted for frivolously wasting prison administration time.
he needs to be held to the same criteria of the rest of his inmate friends..which he probably calls one 'Bubba'..but being blind it could be Bubba and his friends...
Posted by: Dan ||
06/30/2004 18:55 Comments ||
Top||
#12
just tell him it's pig insulin - he won't know the diff - he's friggin blind!
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/30/2004 20:00 Comments ||
Top||
Attorney General John Ashcroft warned metro Atlanta on Tuesday to be alert this summer for a possible al-Qaida attack. "We face serious challenges, imminent danger," said Ashcroft, speaking in downtown Atlanta. "Al-Qaida wants to hit us and hit us hard, especially sometime during this year â summer or fall." Because of its importance to the countryâs economy and air traffic system, Atlanta could be a target, the attorney general said. "This leads us to believe we should do everything we can to mobilize our resources and cooperate, particularly in conjunction with state and local authorities."
Credible intelligence indicates al-Qaida has plans that "are largely in place" to attack the United States soon, Ashcroft said, listing as possible targets July Fourth holiday celebrations or the upcoming Democratic and Republican conventions. So far, Ashcroft said, authorities have broken up terrorist cells all across America. "But al-Qaida has shown an ability to adapt as law enforcement has been changing its way of pursuing them," he said. Ashcroft made his remarks at the federal courthouse after meeting with the Atlanta Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council, a group of local law enforcement officials dedicated to gathering intelligence and disrupting terrorist cells. Ashcroft also appeared before Atlanta reporters with rows of uniformed law enforcement officials standing behind him so they could be photographed with the attorney general. Addressing Mondayâs U.S. Supreme Court rulings, which denounced the Bush administrationâs denial of due process rights to detainees designated as "enemy combatants," Ashcroft said Justice Department lawyers were working to "determine how we would adjust or modify our processes to satisfy those rulings."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/30/2004 11:26:28 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Interesting! Being here in metro Atlanta, this raised my neck hairs some. Don't know how much of this was reported (more attention paid to Florida and San Diego areas), but supposedly Mohammad Atta and a couple other 9/11 goons flew some small aircraft here for "training" from a local County airport (right near my house), not Hartsfield Int'l airport. The guy at the airport they flew out of said (after 9/11) it was strange b/c they wanted to fly over downtown Atlanta, and this airport is 35+ miles away (there are other small municipal airports closer to downtown). Wonder what we know? Atlanta is the hub for Delta and is always either #1 or #2 (bouncing back and forth with O'Hare in Chicago) airport as far as traffic goes. Also, a big banking industry here for the entire SE.
Posted by: BA ||
06/30/2004 11:39 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Got to be the Coca-Cola HQ. Those bastards are trying to hit us where we live, now.
#3
Maybe Ted Turner should demand that the UN use some of the BILLION dollars he gave them to send help with Atlanta security. Maybe get his wife to ask the VC for help.
Posted by: Chris W. ||
06/30/2004 11:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
A sad article to have read-it brought back the WTC attack in all its horror. I was living in NY in 2001; on the morning of 9/11, I was in a taxi heading towards the airport for a flight to Atlanta. I lived because the terrorists used Boston, not NY, as their launch pad; I lived because of chance. It could have been me in one of those planes. Since that day, I have never been the same, and have never since had a doubt or confusion about who the bad guys are, at least in terms of my own survival.
#6
#2, BH: Yeah, they are! Coca-Cola is as American as apple pie in my book (sorry, you Pepsi fans)! I was also thinking the Bank of America building downtown (large skyscraper representative of our financial might) or even of the Westin Hotel (tallest hotel east of the Mississippi River).
Posted by: BA ||
06/30/2004 12:21 Comments ||
Top||
#7
lets just hope the swing voters can see through the meaning of an attack between now and november. it would really be sad if our election was swayed by terrorist actions. the poli commentators are already all over the place saying a major attack in iraq could change the polictical landscape..in this we are a bunch of morons..we are scripting to our enemies what their next moves should be..
.com thanks for the pict..this one is going up in my cubicle...
Posted by: Dan ||
06/30/2004 12:59 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Bad news. Methinks 5 Points would be the likely target.
#9
#8: One could argue that would do good for the city. I work right across the street from 5 points, and it never fails to provide humor/fear from all the panhandlers/homeless. Funny thing is, a few months back the Atlanta Journal-Constitution printed photos front page showing the homeless lining up for a soup line...guy first in line was decently dressed and had a cell phone on his hip! guess its the whole "army of the homeless" that was supposed to show up when Bush took office.
Posted by: BA ||
06/30/2004 19:07 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Hey! Was that Ron Rico in the upper right hand corner?
U.S. intelligence agencies are warning the federal government to be on alert for a terrorist attack around the July Fourth holiday, especially at military facilities and large gatherings, according to U.S. officials. Officials familiar with an internal report outlining the concern said it indicates that an attack might take place from a high vantage point, although there was no further explanation. One method of attack could be a car or truck filled with explosives, the officials said.
It'll come, eventually...
Homeland Security Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson yesterday said there was no intelligence that warranted an increase in the color-coded terror-alert warning system from its current level of "yellow," designating an "elevated" risk of attack. U.S. officials have said since April that they were worried the Islamist militant group al Qaeda might take advantage of holidays or gatherings of political leaders over the summer to attack the United States or U.S. interests.
We worried about that last year, too. And the year before...
One official said last weekâs report provided only a general warning of an attack and contained no specifics of where or when terrorists might strike. The FBI is expected to mention the July Fourth terrorist threat in a bulletin to law-enforcement agencies this week. FBI spokesman Bill Carter said he has not seen "anything specific or credible at this time" relating to the July Fourth weekend. "The potential [for an attack] is certainly there," Mr. Carter said. "Whenever you have large gatherings of people for a celebration, a terrorist group could use that as a platform to commit an attack."
Other recent intelligence reports indicate that al Qaeda terrorists continue to seek commercial-pilot training, an indication that the group has not given up plans to use hijacked airliners as missiles, the official said. There also is a concern that al Qaeda terrorists have infiltrated the United States in the past several months, including one key al Qaeda leader who is being sought quietly by U.S. intelligence and security officials. Seven suspected al Qaeda terrorists were identified last month as posing what Attorney General John Ashcroft said was "a clear and present danger" to the United States. One official said al Qaeda generally plans attacks "on its own timetable and not necessarily on a date significant to us." Mr. Ashcroft said in a press conference on May 26 that al Qaeda is planning an attack in the United States in "the next few months." He noted that the intelligence "indicates al Qaedaâs specific intention to hit the United States hard." The terrorist group has said, "Itâs almost ready to attack the United States," Mr. Ashcroft said. FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III said July Fourth, along with the Democratic and Republican nominating conventions "are seen by terrorists as possible opportunities for attack."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/30/2004 11:16:19 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Couple of thoughts. First, they have to warn us "just in case" just like they have to keep the color code elevated. If they say all is well and we actually get hit they'll be in big dog-doo. Second, how many warnings have we had, time and time again. Sure Al Queda might be fogging up the system with false warnings, but they also might simply be redirecting so we look here while they attack there. Third, an attack on US soil will jump Bush's ratings through the roof.
My prediction, no attacks in the US, at least until after the election. I expect the Olympics, probably a truck bomb somewhere in Athens where the media can get to with ease. Probably a hotel far enough away from the festivities to allow for some sloppier security but close enough for the worlds media to get to with ease so that a smoking column can appear on all broadcasts around the globe.
#2
Alright, let's start a pool. What method will the osamanauts use this time ?
1. Planes
2. Bombing a crowded place
3. Bombing infrastructure
4. Poison/chem/bio weapon
5. Other
#3
Yank I disagree: an attack on US soil will jump Bush's ratings through the roof.
An attack just before the election will allow the partisan media to begin to formulate a narritave based on the following myth: The liberation of Iraq was a distration from The War on Terror. Once they have a lead to further shape the narrative they can draw freely (as they already do) from the LLL. You can bet that the above the fold feeders (within days of an attack) will all scream: Bush Failed.
#4
They might scream that (depending upon what/where was attacked) but I don't think it will resonate with the people just as attempts to blame American foreign policy for 9/11 had zero effect on the public. Americans tend to rally around the President after an attack and most Americans tend to blame the attackers for the attack.
#7
eLarson is right regarding the dates IMHO. Still, if there is an attack, let's hope it will be more in the lines of the 4th july el al shooting than anything else.
#8
If there's a succesful attack on the 4th, the date will have meaning for us both. I expect it will go down as the big nackba, the nackba where no choice was given, just orders.
#9
"But this part is tenuous given the tone of the left: Most Americans tend to blame the attackers for the attack..."
The far-left would side against Bush even if he cured cancer and aids and found an environmental friendly alternative to oil. Its best to ignore them. Its the center-left and center in general that concerns me, and attacks on the President after a terrorist attack will cause the left to lose credibility all around.
U.S. officials may move hundreds of prisoners from a base in Cuba to facilities within the United States after Supreme Court rulings that granted military detainees access to U.S. courts, the Los Angeles Times reported on Wednesday.
Maybe Barbra Streisand can put them up?
Pentagon and Justice Department officials said they were considering moving all the prisoners from the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to a conservative judicial district within the United States, according to the newspaper.
I'd do just the opposite. Marin County should do it. Let the 9th Circuit deal with them.
Consolidating the proceedings in one court would avoid transporting prisoners and government lawyers to federal courts across the country, the report said. Mondayâs Supreme Court rulings rebuffed President George W. Bushâs assertion of sweeping powers to indefinitely hold "enemy combatants" after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Administration officials told the newspaper they were unprepared for the ruling. "They really didnât have a specific plan for what to do, case by case, if we lost," a senior Defense Department official was quoted as saying in the report. "The Justice Department didnât have a plan. State didnât have a plan. Itâs astounding to me that these cases have been pending for so long and nobody came up with a contingency plan." U.S. officials said the Bush administration could ask Congress to designate a federal court to try the cases, the report said. A third option would be to allow prisoners to demand legal justification for their imprisonment at a makeshift court at Guantanamo, a possibility the Supreme Court left open.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/30/2004 10:03:46 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Straits of Florida mighty dangerous this time of year.
#2
Welcome to USP Marion, gentlemen. We hope you enjoy your stay. It is up to you whether you elect to toss the salad or not... we don't endorse such behavior, but then we can't be everywhere at once.
#4
I have no desire to see these killers turn up within the territorial US and I'll bet that millions of Americans feel the same way.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/30/2004 14:18 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Does anyone see the lunacy of our government caving to the Supreme Court decision[Congress has the constitutional right to vote to over ride this decision]and moving terrorist suspects closer to their targets[us]so that terrorist suspects can have their rights respected???
This is shameful. These same elected officials purport that they want to prevail in the WOT, well, as long as they themselves take no risk like making sensible, albeit unpopular decisions that may interfere with their re-election hopes.
Posted by: rex ||
06/30/2004 14:30 Comments ||
Top||
#6
... to a conservative judicial district within the United States
Senior Bush administration officials are considering moving hundreds of detainees from a facility in Cuba to prisons within the United States in response to Supreme Court rulings this week that granted military prisoners access to U.S. courts, officials said Tuesday. As attorneys for detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, began preparing the first of hundreds of expected lawsuits demanding that the government justify the detentions...To avoid ferrying prisoners and government lawyers to federal courts across the country, as might be required, Pentagon and Justice Department officials said they had discussed moving all detainees to a military prison in a conservative judicial district within the United States to enable the consolidation of all the proceedings in one court. They said possible locations could be Ft. Leavenworth, Kan., where there is an Army base with a military prison, or Charleston, S.C., home of the Charleston Naval Weapons Station, which houses the Navy brig.
Or you could move them to a undisclosed location in a unknown country...
Another option would be to allow prisoners to file for writs of habeas corpus â a demand for legal justification for their imprisonment â at a makeshift court at the base in Cuba. The Supreme Court left open the possibility of such an option. Under a third proposal offered Justice Department officials and discussed at a high-level interagency meeting Tuesday, a senior administration official said, the administration would ask Congress to designate one federal court district to try the cases â most likely Washington, D.C., or the Eastern District of Virginia, whose jurisdiction includes the Pentagon. Because Guantanamo Bay is not within any federal court jurisdiction, prisoners held there would be allowed to seek redress from any U.S. district court, officials said. "We do expect that people will file in every district in the country. The question is: Is that within the parameters of the Supreme Courtâs ruling?" said Corallo of the Justice Department. "Thatâs what weâve got to figure out â would we then be forced to respond in 94 different district courts?" I am very peeved. Not only is this going to cost us taxpayers big bucks in legal fees, but now the scum might be moved to the mainland. Does anyone see the irony of this lunacy? The government is ensuring that terrorists are being transported closer to their targets in the name of upholding "rights" of the former. Nice...
Posted by: rex ||
06/30/2004 3:56:28 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
The FBI identified Mohamad Elzahabi as a suspected terrorist well before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and more than 2Âœ years before his arrest last week, law enforcement officials said Tuesday. Yet officials of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety said they had no clue that Elzahabi was suspected of having Al-Qaida connections when he applied for, and in early 2002 received, a commercial driverâs license to drive a school bus and to haul hazardous materials. Before the Minneapolis man got final approval for the commercial license, the FBI ran Elzahabiâs name through a database and cleared him on Jan. 18, 2002, said Pat McCormack, interim director of the departmentâs Division of Driver and Vehicle Licensing. Since Sept. 11, the FBI and U.S. Transportation Department have focused on tightening restrictions and procedures to prevent terrorism suspects from gaining licenses to haul hazardous materials.
But, McCormack said, Elzahabiâs driverâs license was still valid for toxic materials Tuesday. Elzahabi applied for a federal operating license for his business, but not to carry hazardous materials. McCormack said Elzahabiâs school bus driverâs license was cancelled in February but did not say why...Elzahabi applied for a carrierâs license for general freight for Moe Hauling in September 2003. He bought $750,000 worth of insurance from Occidental Fire and Casualty Co. of North Carolina as was required to operate his business, according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrationâs Web site. The insurance took effect on April 16 of this year -- the same day FBI agents confronted him in Minneapolis and put him in a local hotel while conducting a series of interviews. Elzahabi was arrested May 4 and later was flown to New York. But on June 2, he was granted a license to be a household goods contract carrier. On June 25, the Motor Carrier Safety Administration placed Elzahabiâs name on a long notice list stating that his license would be revoked if he failed to update his insurance. Long article with scary twists. All I can say is Sheesh!
Posted by: rex ||
06/30/2004 4:58:16 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
The Coast Guard will board every foreign-flagged vessel that sails into a U.S. port beginning Thursday to check whether it is complying with rules aimed at foiling terrorists. A maritime treaty signed by about 150 countries requires each ship to have a security officer, alarm system, automatic identification system, access restrictions to the engine room and bridge, and a method of checking IDs of people who board. Each ship must have a certificate signed by the country that flags it saying it is in compliance with the treaty. Rear Adm. Larry Hereth said that 700 Coast Guardsmen, including about 500 reservists, will be part of the effort to board all ships as they enter the ports. "We're going to take a pretty hard line," said Hereth, the Coast Guard's director of port security.
Joe Cox, president of the Chamber of Shipping of America, which represents U.S. ship owners, said he expects the Coast Guard to enforce strictly the requirement that each vessel has a signed certificate saying it complies with the standards. "I don't think there's a ship around here dumb enough to come into U.S. waters without the certificate," Cox said.
Many foreign-flagged ships and overseas ports won't meet the standards, according to statistics provided by the International Maritime Organization, the United Nations agency that monitors shipping safety. According to the IMO's most recent figures, 71 percent of tankers, 89 percent of cruise ships and 56 percent of cargo ships had certificates. Only 32 percent of port facilities had approved security plans required under the treaty. Although ships and ports in most of Europe and Japan have complied, maritime facilities in some developing countries remain problematic, the IMO says. The agency has no enforcement powers, however, and relies instead on the implicit economic threat to governments that don't comply with the new International Ship and Port Facility Security Code.
Yeah. That's working well...
Hereth said the Coast Guard would pressure non-U.S. ports to tighten security so they meet the new standards. Coast Guard spokeswoman Jolie Shifflet said ships sailing into U.S. waters increasingly were reaching the standards. On Tuesday, 78 percent of the 192 foreign-flagged ships calling on U.S. ports were in compliance, up from 65 percent the previous two days. "We're projecting that to continue to rise," Shifflet said, adding that 142 of the 150 ships that plan to enter U.S. ports on Thursday said they have the certificates.
I'm betting that the Pakstani flagged ships have forged certificates.
Thursday also is the deadline for U.S. ports to comply with a maritime security law passed by Congress in November 2002. All but a handful of the thousands of port facilities and vessels will be up to U.S. security standards, Shifflet said.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/30/2004 12:19:30 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is the kind of news which makes Osama cry in his cave.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/30/2004 0:54 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Rantburgers are encouraged to read The Outlaw Sea to understand how flags of convenience, hidden ship ownership and decades of experience in feigned compliance with the regulations, will make a mockery of what the Coast Guard has been charged with.
This is a very serious issue. You can inflict enormous damage with a ship carrying the right cargo. The explosion of the Mount Blanc in Halifax harbor in 1917 leveled much of the town and killed over 1900. It would take surprisingly few resources to buy (or hijack) a beater ship, turn it into a massive fertilizer bomb and sail it right into a crowded port.
Not too many Pakistani flagged ships in the merchant fleet. (The top seven flags are Panama, Liberia, Bahamas, Malta, Cyprus, the Marshall Islands, and St. Vincent and The Grenadines) But there are Pakistani crew everywhere. I wonder if the Coast Guard will also be checking for "minor injuries such as 'rope burns,' 'unusual bruises' and 'scars' possibly suffered while training in terrorist camps in that ally Muslim country."
#3
Where I live C-L it's is 'the' thing I worry about. Early on, after 911, there was a Washington Ferry service bru-ha-ha about whether a captain of the ferry had the right to search any vehicle on his ship. A good friend, prone to LLL media slant, was very upset about the possible search of his motorcar, nice car.
I told him I was scared about one of those cars going boom and even worse about a ship attack.
I'm glad that USCG is going about this in the obvious way but only in that I'm hoping they are thinking much deeper.
I would like to see a massive blimp force patroling our ocean searoutes. Or a technology that could do it better.
#4
Very interesting historical data concerning deadly explosion of the Mount Blanc.
The Coast Guard has an incredible task before them.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/30/2004 4:26 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I worry most about the small harbors. The Coast Guard is checking everything going into the big ports. For example, you could sail a medium sized freighterpacked with ANFO, into Marina del Rey or Newport Harbor near here, detonate it, and have killed tens of thousands before USCG could react. The Islamists would be much more interested in killing 20K innocents than knocking over a few cranes and a couple of thousand port workers.
#8
C_L you can add to your list of flags of convenience a new one - the first Islamic flag of convenience. Here's the story.
And if you'd like to have some chilling news for breakfast, how about this item from the port of Los Angeles - where a container actually exploded on the dock and nobody did anything about it:
"The accidental explosion of a container on the dock of the Port of Los Angeles on April 28 underscored the problem. Gasoline fumes from a pickup truck inside the container were apparently ignited by a spark from a battery, blowing the locked steel doors open and spilling the contents, which included 900 bottles of LPG butane gas, according to Michael Mitre, Coast Port Security director at the International Longshore and Warehouse Union.
âThere was virtually no response,â Mitre told a House panel on maritime security last week. âThere was no evacuation. There was no shutdown of work ⦠It could have been something that was a biological or chemical release; it could be a radioactive release. No one knew. But at the time, the terminal was absolutely not prepared.â
Mitre said the explosion also highlights a major deficiency in container inspection. âExport cargo is not treated the same way as import cargo,â he said. âWe have cargo coming in through the gates that is not having to show what the contents are." As a result, terrorists inside the U.S. would have a much easier time loading a container on an outbound shipment, he said."
By the way, C_L, in the Halifax explosion of 1900, which was the largest man-made explosion before Hiroshima, the main reason so many people died was that the Mont Blanc burned for hours and lots of people went down to the dockside to watch it burn. The crew had abandoned ship, knowing what it was carrying, so the vessel drifted. When it blew, all the people, including many children, watching on the dock were killed. So, if you see a burning ship full of gun cotton drifting in a port, don't stare at it for hours.
Posted by: Patrick ||
06/30/2004 12:10 Comments ||
Top||
#9
"Rope burns, unusual bruises and scars", sounds like they will be detaining a lot of people from West Hollywood.
#10
Hey Lucky, are you up here in the Puget Sound area? If you want to have ferry nightmares read about the sinking of the the Estonia in The Outlaw Sea.
#11
aren't all ships required to have harbor master pilots board/steer them? I know in San Diego bay they do.... this should be frosting on the inspection cake
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/30/2004 21:46 Comments ||
Top||
Digging deeper for help in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army is recalling to active duty about 5,600 people who recently left the service and still have a reserve obligation. It is the first sizable activation of the Individual Ready Reserve since the 1991 Gulf War, though several hundred people have voluntarily returned to service since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Unlike members of the National Guard and Reserve, individual reservists do not perform regularly scheduled training and receive no pay unless they are called up. The Army is targeting its recall at those who recently left the service and thus have the most up-to-date skills. The Army is pinpointing certain skills in short supply, like medical specialists, military police, engineers, transportation specialists and logistics experts. Those selected for recall will be given at least 30 days' notice to report for training, an Army statement said.
The men and women recalled from the Individual Ready Reserve will be assigned to Army Reserve and National Guard units that have been or soon will be mobilized for deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan, unless they successfully petition for exemption based on medical or other limitations. Those in the Individual Ready Reserve are former enlisted soldiers and officers who have some nonactive-duty military service obligation remaining, under terms they signed when they signed on but who chose not to fulfill it in the Guard or Reserve. Members of Congress were notified Tuesday and a formal Army announced was scheduled for Wednesday.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/30/2004 12:16:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The full AP story has more than a little bit of snide editorializing in it.
One thing that isn't noted here, IRR call-ups in '91 didn't start 15 months after the beginning of hostilities. If I remember correctly, the bombing of Iraq started on January 15, 1991, a couple days after that I received a telegram from Prez Bush telling me to report to Ft. Benning on January 31! I don't know if that means anything, other than perhaps dampening somewhat the "digging deeper" theme.
It might also be worth noting that, as the longer version of this article says, Bush has had the authority to order these call-ups since 2002. A reasonable question might be, why did he wait so long? I can't answer that, but I think we can assume the reason he's using this option now is because he doesn't have to go back to a Congress which is in full election year mode to ask for these troops. And of course, these guys and gals are fully trained already, they just need a quick bit of refresher training, then they'll be good to go.
It looks like a smart move to me, not at all like the "scraping the bottom of the barrel" slant this writer is trying to put on it. But what do I know, I'm not a journalist.
I do not support a draft for a variety of reasons including that a draft is unconstitutional ie.forced servitude and unfair and discriminatory due to its gender and age specificity. When I read this article I initially thought this was one step closer to re-instituting the draft and my hackles went up. So I'm glad you put this decision in proper context.
Posted by: rex ||
06/30/2004 3:34 Comments ||
Top||
#4
If Congress says so and the President signs off on it Rex, it's constitutional and it's been done already.
But until specific changes to what our military is, it's components, how gender and marriage problems are figured out to give the best "bang for the buck", I can't go with a draft. To costly. But If smart patriots can hash it out....
Bill Clinton's "National Service thingy" could be a tool into PCing national service but, national defense?
#5
If Congress says so and the President signs off on it Rex, it's constitutional and it's been done already.
Slavery was done before; women did not have the right to vote before; past practice does not ensure that that things will not be challenged in the future.
Besides, how would the great liberating USA look to the world as we try to take the high moral ground, claiming to "liberate" voiceless peoples around the globe like Shiites in Iraq and women in Afghanistan and then we turn around and disenfranchise our own young American men, ages 18-26? Rather hypocritical, I'd say.
Posted by: rex ||
06/30/2004 4:36 Comments ||
Top||
#6
All this fretting about a draft is rather pointless: from the end of the Vietnam War until the collapse of the Soviet Union, the size of the Army was kept at a constant 780,000-- about 70% higher than its present, post Cold War level-- without any draft.
It is the President and Congress, not the availability of willing volunteers, that limit the number of available troops. And if they want to make a long-term increase in the size of our forces-- even to the point of doubling them-- all they have to do is authorize the expenditure and set higher recruiting levels. And right now no one wants to do that because of the economic impact.
Until we start hearing talk of an Army of well over a million, I wouldn't lose any sleep about a draft. It ain't gonna happen.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
06/30/2004 6:25 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Who needs a draft? If Congress would raise authorized troop numbers the recruiters would do the rest.
#8
The primary reason for a draft today is not the needs of the military, but the philosophical desire on the part of many in Washington to have one.
Many see the draft as America's most perfect socialist institution. In that regard, "training for the herd" is the end in itself, not what the herd actually does.
Paradoxically, they *hate* the military, for it was "the enemy" in the 'golden' days of the 1960s. And yet they feel that maybe that fear of "the enemy" could restore the glorious togetherness of their idealized youth.
Please note down and repeat a verbatim statement given by Hillary Clinton on Jun-28-04: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
#10
Slavery was done before; women did not have the right to vote before
and might i point out that those things WERE Constitutional until amendments were passed to change them? Not everything thats bad is unconstitutional, as I must sometimes point out to my liberal friends.
The Congress that passed the 13th Amendment banning involuntary servitude was largely composed of members who had supported the civil war draft, only a few years before. Its hard to beleive they expected the 13th amendment to ban conscription.
#11
Rex, I will forgive your naïve and misguided attempt to tie conscription to slavery. I have not be recalled to service (yet) but if called I will report. I may bitch a little and but my Mortgage company will cry louder as I will have to forgo some payments while I serve on active duty. Nobody is asking you to serve but what makes you so special that you think you deserve special consideration against service to YOUR country? Do you not live in the country under an umbrella of protection provided by your government? Are you not free to work, live, play, and worship how you see fit? Do you not cherish these rights enough to protect them against those that will take them away? Is there anything you would fight for? I am curious at what point you would take up arms and defend something. And before you ask I have a nephew serving right now and I would not counsel my kids against joining the Armed Forces.
#12
To further elaborate on what Cyber Sarge said, rex, there would be no "disenfranchisement" of Americans should there be a new draft.
It would have to be enacted by Congress, who vote the voice of the American people.
And "forced enlistment" was one of the things our Constitution was designed to protect against as impressing colonists into military service was something the British did with impunity before we threw them out.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/30/2004 12:46 Comments ||
Top||
#13
This is the first I've heard about these retired soldiers being volunteer resevers in the event that they are needed.
Even Fox News Channel was reporting that the military was planning to pull up "recently retired and discharged" troops, with NO reference to the fact that the soldiers were fully aware of this possibility and had volunteered for the program.
I hate to say it, but... thanks to the AP for giving me... (deep breath)... the TRUTH of the matter. (ouch. that hurt.)
Posted by: Chris W. ||
06/30/2004 12:56 Comments ||
Top||
#14
The reporting on this has been extremely shoddy at best and mostly disengenuous. My understanding is that his was also done during the Persion Gulf war, so it shouldn't be such a huge surprise to anyone. It's the smart thing to do.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
06/30/2004 12:59 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Actually, #6, #7 and #9, as reported here last week, there are 2 bills making their way through the House and Senate that include a salary raise for troops and money for recruiting approx. 30,000 new soldiers/marines over the course of the next 3 years.
"Senate Passes $447 Billion Defense Bill " June 24, 2004
In addition to paying soldiers better and recruiting new soldiers, I think we should give hazard pay to combat troops in areas which have them face enemy action. Furthermore, the 750 US bases we maintain around the world and our current UN peacekeeping ventures should be re-examined for cost-benefit as it applies to our national security and decisions in our country's interest should be implemented a.s.a.p. For example there is no reason why we continue to have troops in Kosovo or why we maintain a troop strength of 40,000 in Japan or 66,000 in Germany or 36,000 in S.K. That is a waste of manpower.
Posted by: rex ||
06/30/2004 13:08 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Nice to see you off that erroneous draft=slavery tangent and thinking like a patriotic adult again, rex.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/30/2004 13:09 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Chris, when they give you your DD 214 and your retired ID they also explain that you will remain in the ready reserve for a period of five years. I think most retirees would report if called upon with little fuss.
Rex, pay raises are nice but few people stay in the military for financial purposes. I didn't get rich during the 20 years I served and I doubt few people do. The exception would be the odd man that marries a millionare heiress. ;-)
#18
Digging deeper for help in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army is recalling to active duty about 5,600 people who recently left the service and still have a reserve obligation.
What's noteworthy here is that this article doesn't go so far as to claim that discharged and retired soldiers are being called up.
#19
1. I have not be recalled to service (yet) but if called I will report
By using the word "recalled" it means that you voluntarily joined the service or National Guard at some point. It is different than being mandated to serve in the military.
2. there would be no "disenfranchisement" of Americans should there be a new draft. It would have to be enacted by Congress, who vote the voice of the American people.
And this is why we have a bill of rights and constitution so that individuals, minorities can be protected from the TYRANNY of the majority who benefit from discriminating against a minority group of individuals.
Jen, I would suggest to you that a draft that focuses on a specific age group and on only one gender to expose them to risk for the benefit of the majority of all ages and 2 genders is unfair and discriminatory. What risk would you or your gender ever take on the front lines if a draft were reinstituted? ZERO. It's easy to talk patriotism when you will never be expected to risk your life on the front lines to demonstrate that patriotism.
3. Is there anything you would fight for? I am curious at what point you would take up arms and defend something.
I would take up arms after Congress made a declaration of war against a NAMED ENEMY who attacked our country.
I would not take up arms in a war against an un-named enemy and when there was no formal declaration of war by Congress. I would not take up arms to fight on behalf of an airy fairy experimental war of liberation in some far off land that has zero to do with "defending" our country. I would not take up arms to fight an ambiguous enemy abroad while Congress has not taken extreme measures to secure our borders and or sovereignity at home.
Because unless the President and the Congress take some "risks" themselves to secure the nation from attack, as unpopular as those decisions may be, I see no tangible "sharing" of risk across the spectrum of our nation, only focused risk assigned by others to a small minority of Americans, specifically young men ages 18-26.
4. While all of you merrily uphold the merits of the draft, has it crossed your minds that young American Muslim men might use religion to avoid the draft to "liberate" Muslims around the world? http://www.news14charlotte.com/content/local_news/?ArID=67438&SecID=2
"If you fight another Muslim brother and you kill the other one, both will be punished in hell."
If you will note, there has been next to zero support by the broad sector of Muslim Americans for the Iraq war of liberation. Isn't that odd?
5. The Congress that passed the 13th Amendment banning involuntary servitude was largely composed of members who had supported the civil war draft, only a few years before. Its hard to beleive they expected the 13th amendment to ban conscription.
It matters not what you believe, LH. It matters how the current activist Supreme Court will interpret the constitution if the draft is challenged. If this same court can see "rights" for Gitmo detainees, I see no reason why they might not see rights for young men ages 18-26 who are being forced into poorly paid servitude in an undeclared war with no enemy named.
As for your screen name and your arguing the merits of the draft, I am curious, LH...
a) did your hawkish self ever serve America and demonstrate your obvious patriotism per previous military service or in the National Guard?
b) do you have male children or male extended family members who would be affected by a draft if it were re-instituted next winter?
Posted by: rex ||
06/30/2004 14:01 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Jen, I would suggest to you that a draft that focuses on a specific age group and on only one gender to expose them to risk for the benefit of the majority of all ages and 2 genders is unfair and discriminatory. What risk would you or your gender ever take on the front lines if a draft were reinstituted? ZERO. It's easy to talk patriotism when you will never be expected to risk your life on the front lines to demonstrate that patriotism.
I've never been big on military service as a sign that women are liberated.
I think it's fine that women serve as nurses and aides in offices that aren't on the front lines.
(I actually believe in ladies being ladies.)
And when put in actual practice, putting women in combat areas hasn't been a sterling success, viz. Lyndie England and Jessica Lynch.
In that we have an Enemy that thinks nothing of raping women, it's most unwise.
But just because a woman chooses not to serve on the front lines--and I think all women should be given that option--that doesn't mean that there aren't many, many ways for ladies in the service to serve.
And even though I'm a woman and middle-aged, I consider myself and my blog weapons in the GWOT and in the Culture War also (same war).
That is why I chose Rosie the Riveter as the symbol for my warblog.
And as a soldier on the Web front, I feel beholden to tell you, rex, that you sound like the worst kind of Lefty with your "chicken hawk" talking points!
Clearly, the fax from the DNC has gone out to the faithful.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/30/2004 14:17 Comments ||
Top||
#21
I would take up arms after Congress made a declaration of war against a NAMED ENEMY who attacked our country.
This, in point of fact, is the second DNC talking point that is making the rounds, that the war "isn't declared."
(Everyone remember this from the old Vietnam days?)
Actually, war has been declared twice: once on Sept. 22, 2001 on (Islamist) Terrorism wherever in the world was necessary--Congress wasn't specific--and secondly on Iraq itself in the fall of 2003.
In fact, the Dims pulled this old chestnut out of Vietnam mothballs to make Congress vote on OIF.
Boy, is their stuff tired.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/30/2004 14:31 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Look, Jen, I have already served as a whipping boy this past weekend for your character assassination posts. As the mods have recently reminded us, if you have nothing pertinent to the discussion thread but only want to flame another poster, don't.
Please focus. One does not have to be a DNC sympathizer to see the unfairness and discriminatory issues surrounding the issue of SELECTIVE[ahem]service. Many libertarians view the draft as a violation of the 13th amendmentment. Furthermore, there are a good number of conservatives who see the draft as yet another example of government being too controlling and and violating an individual's freedom of choice. That you do not recognize the other possibilities for my criticism of the draft is a reflection on you not me.
The whole nonsensical leap in flawed judgement of linking patriotism to support of the draft was brought up by others and not me, which is why this thread went off on this tangent. There is no link between the 2 issues whatsoever.
Postscript: if women "fight" tooth and nail to be considered equal to men during peace time and take advantage of the perks of equality like preference in college admissions and government employment, then women can darn well put their lives in danger on the front lines to defend the nation that grants them this equal status and benefits thereof during peacetime. And no, Jen, being a nurse in Kuwait is not the same contribution[ie putting your life at risk]as fighting Arabs in Fallujah or driving a Humvee through Baghdad. Give me a break.
Death on the battlefield does not discriminate between a skinny 18 year old male and an 18 year young woman of equal or more weight[as is often the case these days]or middle aged women with a spread or a man who is 30 years old. To be selective about about this "mandatory work" is morally if not constitutionally inappropriate for a nation that prides itself as being a role model for freedom and equality. Fyi, under the 13th Amendment of the Constitution, slavery or indentured servitude is not allowed unless it's part of punishment for a crime.
As for rape -got news for you -a favorite "violation" against Russian POW's by the Afghans was anal rape. In fact,there are certain cultures, who shall remain nameless, that view vaginal intercourse with women as necessary for reproduction but anal sex with men, on the q.t. of course, as a source of pleasure. Typically these are chauvinistic cultures that view women as second class...I'll let you fill in the dots.
Posted by: rex ||
06/30/2004 15:17 Comments ||
Top||
I don't think the higher pay would attract people ("Join the Army and be a millionaire"), but it might stop some NCOs and such from relucantly leaving the service because they can't afford to take care of their families.
#25
"there are a good number of conservatives who see the draft as yet another example of government being too controlling and and violating an individual's freedom of choice." Name them?
If you feel that you are the 'whipping boy' of this thread then you are missing my point entirely. I also find your " would take up arms after Congress made a declaration of war against a NAMED ENEMY." As typical panzy liberal answer. Did we not fight Austrians, Czechs, Ukaranian, and Korean forces in WWII? Was there a 'formal' declaration for each group? Wake up and see the Islamofacists threat for what it is: The Enemy! A lot of people better wake up and realize that or we are in BIG trouble.
#26
If you include me in "screechers", #23, I do not believe defending oneself against flamers is inappropriate. However, I've said my peace. I won't waste bandwidth in this thread any further. "Screechers", it's all yours. Flame away to your heart's content.
Posted by: rex ||
06/30/2004 15:35 Comments ||
Top||
#27
I guess some of you do not know,but it is part of your contract that you are part of the Ready Reserve.The only way to get out of it is to do an 8 year hitch.
One does not have to be a DNC sympathizer to see the unfairness and discriminatory issues surrounding the issue of SELECTIVE[ahem]service.
I'm afraid one does, rex.
Furthermore, there are a good number of conservatives who see the draft as yet another example of government being too controlling and and violating an individual's freedom of choice...The whole nonsensical leap in flawed judgement of linking patriotism to support of the draft was brought up by others and not me, which is why this thread went off on this tangent.
I know of no such Conservatives and I know plenty.
The only ones talking about a draft are Liberal Dims.
Postscript: if women "fight" tooth and nail to be considered equal to men during peace time and take advantage of the perks of equality like preference in college admissions and government employment, then women can darn well put their lives in danger on the front lines to defend the nation that grants them this equal status and benefits thereof during peacetime.
What are you talking about?
You sound like Hillary Clinton.
While I'm glad I got into college and grad school in the 1970's, I had to earn my grades, same as the men, as did my mother in the late '30's and early '40s.
I had no idea that we got into institutions of higher learning because of Gloria Steinhem and Pat Ireland.
And as for equality in the military, I could have lived without Billary's earth-shaking reforms as could most other women.
Women in combat is a "no go"--ask our soldiers.
Men are just physically (and I think emotionally) more naturally equipped to handle battle.
I'll be happy for women to run into combat when AQ sends out their first All Girl All Burka Brigade.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/30/2004 17:01 Comments ||
Top||
#29
Rex -
FWIW, I support a limited draft, but only after the IRR, Guard, and Reserves are exhausted. And for the record, myself, my brother-in-law, and my best friend are all liable to USAF IRR callbacks, while my son will probably be enlisting in the SC Air National Guard - which routinely deploys to the ME - next week.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
06/30/2004 17:18 Comments ||
Top||
#30
I do not support a draft for a variety of reasons including that a draft is unconstitutional ie.forced servitude and unfair and discriminatory due to its gender and age specificity.
Postscript: if women "fight" tooth and nail to be considered equal to men during peace time and take advantage of the perks of equality like preference in college admissions and government employment, then women can darn well put their lives in danger on the front lines to defend the nation that grants them this equal status and benefits thereof during peacetime.
#31
Could someone explain to me, how folks are seeing this as a "back door" draft?
If service people know, they can be recalled, how does this support this "back door" draft. I need some "discussion" words. I just can't grasp that idea.
#32
Sherry-
I think what the 'back door draft' refers to is this gives the Army (and for that matter, all of the services) the ability to ramp up manpower quickly and easily...and the people involved all agreed to be called back. We're talking literally tens of thousands of already trained, qualified, and background-checked personnel who could be called up within the next 12 months - enough to outfit a brigade or two at least.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
06/30/2004 18:01 Comments ||
Top||
#33
Dear Jen, rex,
Cool it, guys! From what I've read on Rantburg, it looks like the Armed Forces new enlistments and re-enlistments are higher than expected, and units sent out from Germany and Korea will be not be returning there after taking their turn on the front lines. In fact, all the talk of reinstating the draft is coming from left-wing-of-the-Dem-Party Congresscritters hoping to relive their glorious anti-war youth. Ain't gonna happen, especially if the number of youngsters volunteering from my upper middle class neighborhood is typical for the U.S. as a whole.
As for women fighting on the front line: Special Force types that I've spoken with hate the idea, but then most of the men they meet are weaker/less effective warriors than they. On the other hand, my tiny little mother (5'0" and 95 lb. soaking wet in her winter coat) spent her teenage years during WWII running messages for the Dutch Underground, right under SS noses. Around the same time the Jewish poet Hannah Senesh parachuted into Nazi territory to support the Resistance, and ended her life in a concentration camp. WACs, WAVs and other female auxilliaries voluntarily gave their lives in every war America has fought, as have a great many under age kids. (Heartfelt thanks to them all, may their souls rest in peace!)
So not being formally on the front lines does not equal huddling safely at home while our brave menfolk protect us, draft or no draft. And, as Jen pointed out, there are ways to fight the enemy that are done far from the smoke of battle.
#34
Cyber Sarge, Mike K.and you unnamed lurkers ;-),
Thanks to you and yours for protecting my freedom to natter on from my keyboard!
And Jen, I have to disagree with you about female temperment. Historically, "Give him to the women!" was about the most frightening, and certainly the most final, sentence a male POW would hear. And from what I saw back in my corporate days, women (as opposed to ladies such as you and I) can be just as focussed and deadly as their male counterparts.
#35
trailing wife, God bless your Mom--what a woman!
And yes, we ladies can be vicious and if women want to serve in combat, OK, but...we're always gonna have a hard time with upper body strength and testorone levels.
I don't know how girls are socialized now, but don't know if the "warrior" mentality comes easily to us and given all the stress on non-competitive sports even for boys, let's hope all of our young males aren't metrosexuals, either!
Posted by: Jen ||
06/30/2004 23:06 Comments ||
Top||
#36
I have nothing but great respect for gals that serve. Brewing coffee, working 24/7 ops, doing staff, packing bags, showing how, frying bacon, taking names. That is, IS, top quality service. Serve in the way that helps us not you.
By rethinking the way we build our military, less PC, more security, we can all be happier. I'm not into the "I can do anything you can do, only better" unless it is really true.
#38
Also...when I enlisted and then went to the OCS program in the Army the IRR, as I was told and read in the recruiter's office, was a force reserved for national emergencies. It has been almost three years that we have been fighting this war and the SecDef, CJCoS, and Congress refuse to add a sizable contingent of troops to the rolls to fight this war (30,000 in FY '04) or any other possible conflict. Troop levels are at an emergency level because the SecDef refuses to admit that his idea was wrong that we could do it all with 10 divisions and more technology. We have strung out the Active Duty soldiers and families, the Guard, the Reserve and now the IRR. Time to add the 8-12 divisions back into the equation and forget George H.W.'s and Billy C's so called "peace dividend" drawdowns.
As for the current call back--increase the size of the AD force and give a new volunteer a chance to go and fight. I am in the Army IRR and really have no interest in being called upon any more even though I know it is possible. I haven't seen my wife in 9 months (Iraq) and am not looking forward to a potential two year hiatus when I get deployed (again). Bottom Line--more active duty slots, more benefits, more volunteers, happier troops, happier families and less screwing of the NG and Reserve--let us remember what they really signed on for.
#39
Thank you for your service, Freedom and thank your family for their sacrifice, but...we are at war and war is hell (a platitude, but true nonetheless.)
We appreciate you ensuring our security here at home by fighting the bad guys over there!
You're right about enlarging the Army.
I heard a clip of Clintoon talking about that "peace dividend" and nearly lost my lunch!
I have a strong feeling that President Bush will address this issue in the campaign and as part of his second term, because we not only have to hold the line in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we have Iran looming on the border...and then there are the other neighbors Syria and Saudi Arabia.
I'll include you in my prayers--I've been praying for our troops for 2 and 1/2 years now--God Bless you and come home to us safe, sound and victorious!
Posted by: Jen ||
07/01/2004 14:01 Comments ||
Top||
The U.S. military has formed a five-member military tribunal to preside over the first trials of terror suspects held at its naval base in Guantanamo Bay, officials said Tuesday. An Australian and two alleged bodyguards of Osama bin laden will be the first defendants. The Pentagon announcement came a day after the Supreme Court ruled that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay can appeal their detention to civilian courts. That ruling was a blow to President Bush's stance that the United States can jail terror suspects without judicial review and that the Cuban base was outside the reach of U.S. courts. Relatives and advocates are now planning hundreds of lawsuits to challenge the detainees' captivity.
Same ruling said that Bush had the right to hold him. Don't plan on seeing Junior this Ramadan, folks.
The trials - of an Australian, a Sudanese and a Yemeni - would be the first military tribunals convened by the United States since the end of World War II. "This is an important first step," Air Force Maj. John Smith, a lawyer who helped draft the tribunal rules, said in a telephone interview from the Pentagon. "We'd like to have a case tried by the end of the year." Smith said the trials would be held at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay. The first to be tried will be David Hicks of Australia, Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al Bahlul of Yemen and Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi of Sudan - the only detainees charged to date, and three of only four allowed access to lawyers. The men have been charged with conspiracy to commit war crimes and other offenses that carry sentences of up to life imprisonment, the Pentagon has said, ruling out death sentences for the three.
Smith said Monday's Supreme Court ruling did not affect the tribunals. "The Supreme Court decision right now doesn't directly affect military commissions at all," he said. "Everyone would like to move this cases forward as quickly as possible." But Tuesday's move likely was aimed at assuring people that detainees are not being held arbitrarily following the Supreme Court ruling, said Neal Katyal, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University. The military could also have been waiting to see how far the Supreme Court would go, said Thomas H. Lee, a Fordham University law professor and former Navy intelligence officer. "There's nothing in the ruling that says a military tribunal is inadequate," he noted.
"Please don't throw us into the briar patch." Heh.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/30/2004 12:10:28 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Violent pirate attacks from Indonesiaâs northern Sumatra island have soared, with seven kidnappings of crews for ransom from their ships in the past 90 days alone, the International Maritime Bureau said on Wednesday. However, there was no sign of links between the pirates and international terrorism, said Captain Pottengal Mukundan, director of the ocean crime watchdog, addressing one of the greatest fears of countries in the region. "There has been a serious problem in the northern Sumatra coast," Mukundan said at an IMB conference focusing on security in the Strait of Malacca, one of the worldâs busiest sea lanes.
"Yar! There ain't no links, an' I'll keelhaul the swab what sez there is!"
He cited seven attacks in the past 90 days in a small area off the coast of Indonesiaâs northernmost island, Sumatra. "The purpose of the attacks had been to abduct senior crew members of the ships for ransom," he told reporters. The Indonesian authorities had been alerted, he said. "We wait to see if these attacks have come down. The next 10 days will tell us if thatâs the case or not." Policing the narrow sea lane between Malaysia and Indonesia that carries more than a quarter of world trade has come into sharp focus after warnings from Singapore of the danger of an attack by militants who could turn a tanker into a floating bomb. Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore agreed on Tuesday to launch a task force to patrol the 805-km (500 mile) long strait.
Good idea...
Indonesia, hampered by a shortage of funds and with a huge coastline to patrol, remained the weakest link in the three-nation effort to combat piracy, Mukundan said. Singapore has suggested links may exist between pirates and regional terror groups such as Jemaah Islamiah. This month, Indonesiaâs navy chief ordered commanders to shoot on sight armed terrorists or pirates, an edict he said applied to the Malacca strait in particular.
"String 'em up from the yardarm, Mr. Muslim!"
Mukundan said the Malaysia meeting, attended by 187 delegates from 34 countries, had found no link between commercial piracy and international terrorism.
"Oh, certainly not!"
"Itâs clear that piracy and terrorism are not converging, which is a good thing. But the big problem in this region is Indonesia. If we can solve the problem in Indonesia, there is no problem in Southeast Asia. There will be no piracy problem or threats to shipping at all."
If I was a foot taller, I'd have a great career in basketball, too...
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/30/2004 9:55:30 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ray! Ima dysleckic primate!
Posted by: Dr. Sprooner ||
06/30/2004 11:11 Comments ||
Top||
#1
That's what you get for driving a high-end piece of military hardware. Next time patrol in a Sunfish.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/30/2004 16:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I don't see why this happened in the first place. Iran is NOT to be trusted, and as such, any military craft or vehicle operating in close proximity to a border area needs to be either covered by a heavily armed escort, or its personnel should be heavily armed. And if there are any threatening moves by Iranian forces, vaporize 'em.
No more of this trying to put on a non-threatening face; this is only being interpreted as a sign of weakness, and is being exploited accordingly.
Mr Hoon said the Iranians had failed to comply with Tuesday's deadline to return equipment carried by the men including three boats, radios and navigational equipment, weapons and ammunition.
#4
The GPS unit will be returned in very small pieces that have been rubbed with large magnets. The real bottom line is that the 40 boomers were not returned to their Revolutionary Guard units. Depending on who ends up holding custody of the pre-booms, the next step may involve Iran trying to rattle the Iraqis. As border guardians we should be able to do much more damage to the Iranians than Sadaam ever did during the Iran-Iraq war. As long as we don't invade and just aim to cripple their revolutionary guard we may be able to tip over their regime - if they let us.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/01/2004 2:22 Comments ||
Top||
I donât have a link for this but I do have the sourceâs web page - I heard it on 850AM KOA in Denver around 7:35 today (30Jun04)during the Bob Newman report. He is their Military Analyst and has "sources" in DC that give him this info and for the most part it turns out true. He said the two Iranian just deported for videotaping/photographing NYC transportation facilities were members if the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and all their comms (phone, email, etc) have been monitored by the US for quite some time. They were going to send the info back to the IRG who would then forward it to Hezbollah. Hezbollah was going to try to pull off a mass casualty attack in NYC and make it look like Al Qaeda did it. He said in response to this "several carrier BGs" were steaming towards Iran for a possible blockade of all Iranian ports. They havenât received the green light for that yet - they are just getting into position.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
06/30/2004 10:09:41 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A blockade is covered by international law. The administration is going to have to get some kind of finding better than "we caught some Iranian guys videotaping the Holland Tunnel" to justify that sort of thing.
Posted by: Jonathan ||
06/30/2004 10:32 Comments ||
Top||
#2
If there is any truth to the blockade report, I have no doubt that there is a LOT more to the story than two guys videotaping.
#3
Jonathan - absolutely true - it's a clearly defined Act of War... so it should require a trip back to Congress for authorization - utterly impossible until after November, and utterly moot if Skeery is elected. If we go ahead and do it anyway, I'll have to eat my hat - but it would be worth it 10x if it resulted in the fall of the Mad Mullahs. I just don't believe it will have that effect.
#4
I heard on another radio show that much of the US fleet has been dispatched to the Korean Peninsula area and the Arabian Peninsula area for "exercises." This is consistent with a report on RB a few weeks ago about 7 carrier battle groups rapidly deploying as part of an exercise. The earliest an Iranian blockade can come is after the September IAEA meetings (if the IAEA recommends sanctions to the UN Security Council). Not sure about the timing of a Nork blockade.
Posted by: Tibor ||
06/30/2004 10:50 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Please define several carrier BGs for those of us on the learning curve program.
#7
.com: Maybe W has prepared an October surprise? As in, "If anything happens in the US that looks anything like terrorism, the mullahs are going to be in for a surprise this October."
Posted by: Jonathan ||
06/30/2004 10:54 Comments ||
Top||
#8
1. lite Jonathan said - taking pictures isnt an act of war. This is NOT to defend the fascist regime in Teheran - its merely to make the point that there HAS to be something we havent heard about yet if the above is anything but another rumor.
2. In any case, NO admin official has said anything in public about the expelled diplos - youd think theyd start building a case.
3. Seven carriers? To do what? For an invasion youd need a lot of troops. Which we dont have available, unless we're willing to use troops deployed in Iraq, and just forget about keeping order in Iraq. Which makes sense IF you think Iran is the source of ALL problems in Iraq, I suppose. But youd think we'd see at least some evidence of redeployment to the border, in Iraq. If its a raid only, you dont need 7 carriers - which is just about every deployable carrier I think. Hell we fought the OIF with only what, 4 carriers?
Whole thing doesnt make sense. give this one 48 hours, folks.
#10
jonathan - then the deployment is too early. Carriers have a regular deployment cycle, involving repair,training, etc. A massive deployment disrupts that, and is a BAD thing. There are certain carriers that ARE deployed to the Med, Arabian Sea, Pacific, etc. Adding more is NOT something you do till theyre needed.
I suggest Globalsecurity.org "Where are the Carriers?"
Jonathan - Pre-November it sounds like the UNSC, via an IAEA Report truly damning the Iranians for their duplicity and Non-Proliferation violations, is the path being worked. I just don't have any faith / confidence that Elbarradai would actually call a spade a spade. He's certainly waffled all around doing this - and managed not to do it - for a long time, now. Even if the IAEA finally does its duty, will Russia, et al, sign on to anything more than some EU3-styled sanctions? I doubt it...
But maybe. But then, assuming serendipity strikes and the UNSC generates a resolution with teeth, will it have any real salutary effect? I don't see the Mad Mullahs giving up their gravy train voluntarily. So many pieces have to fall into place, some quite unlikely, for this to succeed in actually removing the threat.
But I'll keep my fingers crossed and salt my hat, just in case!
#12
Like pd/dot com, i assume the UNSC would at most impose economic sanctions, but no blockade - UN members would be expected to police their own trade. I cant see it going further till there is abundant evidence of sanctions busting - expect Irans friends on the UNSC to drag that out.
But lets suppose the UNSC does the very unlikely, and authorizes say a "quarantine" - stop and search for nuclear materials only, lets say. Do you really need 7 carrier battle groups to do that? Hell its gonna be the tincan boys doing the stopping and searching, not the flattops. You only need the flat tops for Combat Air Patrol - one or two should suffice.
#13
From Navy Newsstand: USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) arrived in Pearl Harbor Tuesday to participate in exercise Rim of the Pacific Maritime 2004, the region's largest international exercise involving seven Pacific Rim nations. The 1,092-foot long aircraft carrier deployed from its homeport in San Diego May 24 as part of Summer Pulse '04. Summer Pulse '04 demonstrates the Navyâs ability to surge forces around the globe, with seven aircraft carrier strike groups deployed simultaneously, introducing the first test of the Navyâs Fleet Response Plan (FRP).
----snip-----
The six other aircraft carriers involved in Summer Pulse '04 include: the Norfolk-based USS George Washington (CVN 73) CSG and Yokosuka, Japan,-based USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63). The Mayport, Fla.,-based USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) CSG will begin a combined and joint exercise early this month, followed by a scheduled overseas deployment. The Norfolk-based USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) CSG will conduct a scheduled training exercise, followed by overseas operations with the Norfolk-based USS Enterprise (CVN 65) CSG, beginning early this month. USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) will conduct operations in the U.S. Northern Command and U.S. Southern Command theaters during the shipâs interfleet transfer from Norfolk, Va., to its Pacific Fleet homeport of San Diego.
The exercise is scheduled to run through August.
Looks like the USS George Washington is the only one on station right now.
Posted by: Steve ||
06/30/2004 11:22 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I can see one group to cover the Arabian Sea - but there's no access to cover the Caspian. So overkill is the operative word regards Iran. Much of this must be either NorK-related or just an exercise. As LH pointed out, breaking the maint schedules, etc. has some potentially serious consequences.
Whassup? is still an open question, it seems. I'm no swabbie, but common sense prolly comes into play somewhere in this gig, right? Lol!
#17
From Globalsecurity.org:
Kittyhawk - Yokosuka
Enterprise - North Atlantic
JFK - Med
Nimitz - San Diego
Eisenhower - yard
Vinson - yard
Roosevelt - left Norfolk yard
Lincoln - P. Gulf
Stennis - Pearl Harbor
Truman - Atlantic
Reagan - San Diego
So the Lincoln is on station and the Enterprise and Truman are somewhere in the Atlantic.
Posted by: Steve ||
06/30/2004 11:41 Comments ||
Top||
#18
DF - So he's consistent, Lol! Does he get a chateau next to Blixie's in Provence?Russian Beluga and Belgian chocolates?
Ship - Amen. Air lift and Sea lift shouldn't be susceptible to political shenanigans (i.e. leasing commercial) given the current state of affairs. Some things are just too critical...
#19
... and all their comms (phone, email, etc) have been monitored by the US for quite some time. They were going to send the info back to the IRG who would then forward it to Hezbollah. Hezbollah was going to try to pull off a mass casualty attack in NYC and make it look like Al Qaeda did it.
If true there's definitely more to this than we know. There's always lots more to these things than we know. What amazes me is that these dopes were dumb enough to say incrimintating things on the phone and/or in email. Do they really have so little concept of our capabilities? Or are the mullahs bright enough to try to force a confrontation ahead of the election?
But let's assume that the report is true. It makes perfect sense to me. Bush isn't completely a political animal, if he sees a threat to our nation he's going to go after it personal consequences be damned. In Iran today we find all of the mullah's historical lunacy, their current amazing level of bellicosity, their statements that they're going forward with a nuclear program no matter what, spies in the US planning a "mass casualty attack" to be carried out by Hezbollah, etc. I doubt anyone here needs any help connecting those dots. They're certainly far more clear than anything we've found out about the planning of 9/11 after the fact.
#20
I wish I had more to add - I've been listening to the radio and surfing but I can't find anything else. I'll post more if I learn anymore.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
06/30/2004 12:00 Comments ||
Top||
#21
(As a woman who never served in the military, I am mil intell challenged, but one thing I learned from Tom Clancy's books is that it takes a while for our carriers to get into position.)
If there's going to be trouble with Iran--and everything points to that--then this report makes me feel better!
Posted by: Jen ||
06/30/2004 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Giggle, giggle...From www.irna.ir ....
"We catagorically deny that they ever took any photos af anything of a security or sensitive nature.
"Millions of foreigners, be they on leisure or business trips, visit New York every year, and foreigners with cameras across the metropolitan area are quite familiar with these scenes everywhere.
"It is a very unfortunate that a regular sightseeing and shooting session by two guards of this misson who were on holiday became so contentious and controversial," the press release said.
#24
"It is a very unfortunate that a regular sightseeing and shooting session by two guards of this misson who were on holiday became so contentious and controversial," the press release said.
Er, because we're pissed off and no longer inclined to take their continual stream of BS??
#25
#22...and yes, what "holiday" would that be? The religion of pieces holy day to protect their newest aligned holy site (the UN)? Yes, we here in the States are now very contentious and controversial about "two guards of this mission" being on holiday snapping pics! Sounds like there's a LOT more to this story than what irna.ir is saying, eh?
Posted by: BA ||
06/30/2004 13:04 Comments ||
Top||
#26
This is too much like the reports of Arab men taking pictures of the WTC before 9/11...
I'm sure the holiday they have in mind is July 4.
I just pray that NYC isn't the site of another attack, much less any other American city!
Posted by: Jen ||
06/30/2004 13:07 Comments ||
Top||
#27
If these jokers do manage to attack the US on July 4, I've got just the firecrackers to send their way...
I mean, what would the response of the American people be to an attack of 9/11 proportions on their independance day? (that's a rhetorical question by the way).
If these rumours of another mass casualty attack are true, then truly the Mullahs are clinically insane.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
06/30/2004 15:39 Comments ||
Top||
#30
Iran has been pushing a lot lately. Supporting Sadr and then grabbing the Brits and now guys poking around NY. Odds are this is simply a scare the crap out of them tactic. I don't see a blockade.
It will be nice to have the carriers in the area when its time to bomb the Iranian nuclear sites. They have lots of sites to hit after all.
#31
I seriously doubt the mad mullahs are this smart but...
One possibility that hasn't been mentioned, although its a bit off the charts, is a sneak attack, maybe with a nuke, on any carrier groups that come sniffing around. I am definitely no military expert and I have more imagination than is really good for me, but what if the whole plan were to get several battle groups into place and then explode a nuke above or close nearby in some kind of Pearl Harbor type decapitation strike. It couldn't be good to have several of our air carriers bathed in toxic levels of radiation.
Now having said that, I await the good news from those who know better that such a thing would be impossible to carry off, right? It would make me feel alot better and I could put at least one nightmare to bed.
#32
you wouldnt have the carriers that close together. Whatever nukes Iran has - if they have any - arent that big. killing one or two battle groups in exchange for having the regime destroyed (and yes, in these circumstances it would be much easier than Iraq - total world support, etc) doesnt seem like a worthwhile tradeoff.
#33
Remote possibility Administration/Pentagon/State believes Iran Regime is so shaky,devestating initial airstrike/cruise missile attack on Regimes' power base could lead to popular revolt w/no need for US ground troops.Most likely this is exercise to work out kinks for real thing in 2005,w/side benefit of warning Iran.If someone reports major deployment of F-117s to MidEast,then I'd think something is afoot.
Posted by: Stephen ||
06/30/2004 17:07 Comments ||
Top||
#34
I mean, what would the response of the American people be to an attack of 9/11 proportions on their independance day?
I know it's a rhetorical question, but given the current political climate here, there's always the possibility that there will STILL be people who think that it'll be all our fault. Again. Matter of fact, I'm almost certain of it.
#35
B-a-R, you can count on the fact that the blamers would be on Bush immediately. I live in Marin County, CA. Commie/asshat density here is very high. Most are looking for another reason to point the (middle) finger at Bush (because he's affected their lives so much??? NOT!)
Posted by: remote man ||
06/30/2004 17:59 Comments ||
Top||
#36
remote man: I feel your pain. Luckily for me I'm up in Sonoma, so I don't have it as bad as you, but it's still bad. A percentage of the folk here are true believers. I cringe everytime I see a Volvo. As for the carriers I'm thinking dry run too. The timing is all wrong in regards to the election.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
06/30/2004 18:44 Comments ||
Top||
#37
As for the carriers I'm thinking dry run too. The timing is all wrong in regards to the election.
That's the scary part. This is either an exercise and exactly what it appears to be (we can all hope) or the situation is far more dire than we know. With the election looming, Bush can't really risk an aggressive bluff so this must be either nothing serious or something so dangerous that it's worth his throwing the election. We'll know in pretty short order.
#38
Bless his heart, Gunny Bob is still just a Marine.
1) Navy is changing doctrine - and using this deployment doctrine change as an opportunity to put the carriers to sea.
2) Center of gravity is moving away from the Atlantic: the Gulf and Straits of Mollucca are more important - and more reachable from PACFLT.
3) THe chinese and NORKs have been making noise too - another reason for the change in center of gravity (THe Reagan is changing homeports - from one coast to the other - somethign not done lightly).
So moving all these carriers at once is a great exercise, and the need to change homeports and opeartional procedures present a one-time opportunityto truly command a "Full War" deployment for the upper echelons of command.
#40
Guys, it's an exercise. Having just left an air wing, I can tell you it's part of a major change in the way the Navy does business, still unproven, but it does away with the traditional 18-month deployment cycle and replaces it with a sort of "just in time" surge plan. Time will tell if it works.
Old Spook--you're right about center of gravity shift, but the Gulf is much more accessable from the East Coast so long as Suez remains passable.
#41
Something else to consider: Why do you think we're in Iraq now? I mean, bottom line, really and truly. (Forget Bush anger towards Saddam.) Do the words "foothold" and "beachhead" come to mind? They should.
The Russian Navy has the Caspian Sea Flotilla, and a tiny sea command consisting of a Krivak-class missile frigate, several missile boats (Nanuchka class maybe?) and some fast attack boats. Their land compliment consists of a naval rifle battalion, with BTRs. They have no naval air support in that area, but my guess air support in the event of hostilities would immediayely would have to come from the Trancacusus front, already established and conducting operations in Chechnya and elsewhere. If I rememeber right, Astrakhan is a defense node for the Russians in that area, and is where the naval base to support Caspian Sea operations is; and I think there is a major air field nearby.
The Russian navy routinely makes port calls on Iran's side of the sea. Not sure why though, maybe someone beter informed than me can explain the wherefores
#43
I think there are some splendid data elements above that are important to estimates of the situation, but I believe the area today needs analysis with increased emphasis on the psycho-soc-religio dimensions of this war and its likely playouts. With these in mind, I for one would argue that the timing for massive alteration of the M.E. and Central Asia has arrived, and that that timing viz the November elections is most propitious. 9/11 had no nefarious U.S. hand behind it, but in the future retrospective its timing and the U.S. response will also have been more clearly delineated in linear terms. As for the present, there is no "going back," whatever that might mean, but the going forward in geopolitical terms, especially from today's starting point in Iraq, seems frought with less ambiguity and incertitude. I would see the carrier battle groups through those lens, refracted through the heavier emphasis on the psych-socio-religous elements. In my opinion, that's the more important center of gravity shift. Watch for something big, and soon.
#2
Plus, Iran, with the world's second-largest natural-gas reserves, wastes enough gas each year to generate four 1,000-megawatt nuclear reactors' worth of electricity.
This quote says it all. The billions being dumped into nuclear power weapons development could serve Iran's people so much better than exposing them to certain war. As a proponent of choking off all Iranian exports and imports, I can only hope this is what America's carrier groups have been deployed for of late.
Once again, Europe will prove to be of essentially zero use in combating this critical threat. Does anyone with an IQ greater than their hat size actually think Iran will hesistate more than an instant to provide nuclear weapons for terrorist operations?
Sooner or later the Mullahâs names will be Mud.
Americaâs military commander in Iraq ordered British troops to prepare a full-scale ground offensive against Iranian forces that had crossed the border and grabbed disputed territory. An attack would almost certainly have provoked open conflict with Iran. But the British chose instead to resolve the matter through diplomatic channels. "If we had attacked the Iranian positions, all hell would have broken loose," a defence source said yesterday. "We would have had the Iranians to our front and the Iraqi insurgents picking us off at the rear."
The incident was disclosed by a senior British officer at a conference in London last week and is reported in todayâs edition of Defence Analysis. "Some Iranian border and observation posts were re-positioned over the border, broadly a kilometre into Iraq," a Ministry of Defence spokesman said. The incident began last July when Revolutionary Guards pushed about a kilometre into Iraq to the north and east of Basra in an apparent attempt to reoccupy territory which they claimed belonged to Iran. Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez then ordered the British to prepare to send in several thousand troops to attack the Revolutionary Guard positions. The Revolutionary Guard Corps has 125,000 soldiers, making it 25 per cent larger than the entire British Army, and is equipped with 500 tanks, 600 armoured personnel carriers and 360 artillery weapons.
Sammy used to have the fourth largest army in the world. I think it was second in barracks-square ferocity. Iraq and Iran fought to a stalemate before Sammy decided to gobble up Kuwait, which barely had an army.
The incident is reminiscent of the exchange during the Kosovo conflict between the American general, Wesley Clark, the supreme allied commander Europe, and Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the British commander. The Iran-Iraq incident lasted around a week and was resolved by a telephone conversation between Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and Kamal Kharrazi, his Iranian counterpart, British officials said. "It did look rather nasty at the time," one official said. "But we were always confident it was a mistake and could be resolved by diplomatic means. We got in touch with Baghdad and said, âDonât do anything silly; we are talking to the Iranians.â " While Mr Straw was trying to resolve the issue peacefully, British military commanders on the ground were calming their Iranian counterparts, the ministry said.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/30/2004 1:00:26 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Dammit, that was our in and the Brits blew it! :)
#2
Anyone who buys this story as written is off his meds. There is no possible way this is the whole story, how it transpired, nor accurate regards US and UK military commands. Sanchez, not exactly my favorite, is NOT the looneytune Weasley Clark. In fact, it is that he is so careful and correct that I have bones to pick with him. Recall Fallujah and ask yourself if that Gen Sanchez is the same Gen Sanchez described in this wacky mud-raking hit piece. Pfeh.
#4
Yeah, I doubt this transpired the way the article says, too. However, why would our guys on the ground have to do the fighting? Our boys in the air could have gotten some work in. Fixed positions like these would have been like target practice.
#5
Every now and then the Telegraph throws out some red meat to that part of their Tory base that delights in looking down the end of their noses at the Americans.
#6
Love the way the article listed the IRGC's order of battle, comparing it to the British Army --- as to imply that Iran would dare engage in conventional conflict with the coalition. Hilarious. If only. And the whole bit about the risk of "provoking" conflict with Iran, but (hallelujah!) the cool Brits "resolved things diplomatically". What clueless b.s.
The Brits are great but there is a weird strain running through some of their military and diplomatic types that seems ever desperate to paint the US as their less sophisticated cousins. This reached its preposterous apogee with all the stupid stories about Brit troops going without helmets or body armor, and how this and their comparative savvy were making things easier in Basra than the Triangle. Which the idiotic US media lapped up, of course. As if there were the remotest comparison between the snarling nitwits in Saddam-friendly Sunni territory and the compliant if rough-edged folks in Basra.
And what's this nonsense about "two fronts"? At no time has there been anything approaching an insurgency in the south that might have "picked off" British forces from the rear. And in July '03, there was barely anything going on anywhere outside jihadi car bombings of a few prestige targets and the beginnings of trouble up north.
Every one of these sorts of articles leaves the Brits looking a bit less impressive than I like to think of them.
#7
This Sanchez is top-notch, give the guy another star.
Posted by: Capt America ||
06/30/2004 2:23 Comments ||
Top||
#8
In Kosovo the Russians were a semi-cooperative force - that had nukes.
In Iraq, the Iranians are an infiltrating force that is facilitating the killing of Iraqis and Coalition troops - British troops, as well, unless one chooses to believe that the Shiites in Basra were inciting themselves. If I plan to "negotiate" with the Revolutionary Guard, I would certainly not make my first step granting all my forces a long weekend my first step.
It is my belief that the Americans deal correctly with the Mahdi army, an Iranian surrogate. Step number one in negotiations with Iran is to demonstrate a willingness to kill Persian fanatics in large numbers. If Regan hadn't demonstrated his willingless to obliterate the entire Iranian Navy, escorting Kuwaiti tankers past Iranian Silkworm sites in 89' might have been more difficult work for me. As it was the most interesting part of my happy four months of sailing back and forth through the Staits of Hormuz, was listening to the Brits torment the Russian captains over the bridge-to-bridge radio.
Note: don't read this as a statement of support for the Vincennes fragmenting the Iranian airbus at high altitude. Non-Islamokook Iranian civilians are not our enemies.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/30/2004 2:29 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Verlaine, that sounds about right to me. Way to go. Superhose too.
B52s aside, a massing of troops is sort of 20th century. But if Iran sends in quick response brigades, for whatever reason, then what?
Are the mullahs ready to make a bold move. Or are they faking a strong public support. Me thinks they have several million supporters.
#11
#10 If the US army can not control a single city in Iraq, How is it that they will be able to start a war woth Iran?
We aren't trying to control Iraq, we're trying to make it Sovereign! And it's quite easy to start a war with Iran.
Dr Evil: You take the "Nooclear" bomb here, put it on this "missle", and launch it at the target. Simple, yes?
Posted by: Charles ||
06/30/2004 7:48 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Anonymous466333: If the US army can not control a single city in Iraq, How is it that they will be able to start a war woth Iran?
Let me demonstrate the faultiness of this analogy by putting out my out - if Iran cannot control drug trafficking within its own borders, how can it start a war with the US? Guerrilla warfare and conventional warfare are two different things. This is why Arab armies haven't attacked Israel even though it can't prevent Arab terrorists from killing about 500 Israelis a year. Conventional Arab armies would be squashed by Israel, even as it continues to fend off Palestinian terror attacks.
#13
While Mr Straw was trying to resolve the issue peacefully, British military commanders on the ground were calming their Iranian counterparts, the ministry said.
Excellent job they've done 'calming' them, what with these same goons grabbing those sailors while continuing to feed terrorists across the border.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
06/30/2004 8:39 Comments ||
Top||
#14
#6, the Brits went without body armor in part because they didn't have enough to go around. The US had some supply issues, but not nearly as severe as the Brits.
Spoke recently to a US Army officer who's spent a lot of duty time in Europe. He thinks we made a mistake not creating the appearance that the Euros and Brits were more involved in Afghanistan, as it humiliated them. OTOH, he admits they could not plug into our ops except in the most limited ways because they simply didn't have the equipment, doctrine and training to keep up.
There are several reasons IMO the Brits were asked to manage the south of Iraq. Some of it is due to Bush sr. and the CIA's sellout of the Shia a decade ago. Some is due to British ties there. And a lot is due to the fact that they could manage that role without too much strain but, except in some special ops, simply couldn't contribute to the force-on-force fighting without severely limiting the US forces.
Worth keeping in mind that the Brits are not Americans ... We have a lot more in common with the Aussies than the Brits, who at heart are Euros with historic ties to the US and Australia.
They also hate us, in some cases, for their lost Empire and the fact that we have an unsought-after one instead. What they dislike most about the direct US use of force (of all kinds) is that it makes it hard for them to avoid admitting their relative lack of capabilities in some of these areas.
Funniest, and saddest, evening I've ever spent was at a British B&B run by an accountant who made a bunch of money in Rhodesia (when it was Rhodesia and the blacks knew their place) ... his sense of moral superiority over us clumsy, pushy Yanks was pathetic, given that the money that built his fancy place in the Cotswolds came from his role as a privileged white in a segregated ex-colony. I saw a lot more of that in Britain, especially in England, 2 yrs ago than I'd seen a decade before when visiting. Sad ..... but it opened my eyes to what Britian has become.
Posted by: too true ||
06/30/2004 8:41 Comments ||
Top||
#15
The Iranian Army, systemwide, has about 1,000 tanks, every last tread of which are considered obselete, ranging from the T-55 to the Brtitish Chieftain.
The IRGC (the Pasdarans)while it may well be 125,000 in size, does not reflect how the Mullahs would most likely use them. The Pasdaran are mainly a cadre force to be drawn from in times of war. I read somewhere that the Pasdarans are an agrregation of independant units, mostly rifles, some armor, and some AAA.
In order for a unit to be designated Pasdaran, it must have at least of battalion size Pasdaran force attached to the unit, usually a brigade or a division.
The Mullahs would not deploy the Pasdarans as a concentrated force but would disprese them in active army units to 'stiffen' them. And by stiffen, make sure the commander of whatever brigade or division they are in follows orders.
The Pasdaran's strength will not be in those units designated as Pasdaran, but in the 'recruiting' drives they will most likely conduct on the eve of war, about 3 million strong, replacement units for the losses they expect in a war.
I don't think the Iranians are girding for war because we haven't seen reports of desertions or recruiting drives, a surefire sign of war, IMO.
And the Mullahs know what is in store in the event of war. They are not likely to give up what they have by going to war against the west, but if they think the end is near, they will have no problem in sacrificing the Army, the Pasdarans and the 3,000,000 'recruits' they have before they do fade from the scene.
#16
I can toss in a little episode which, perhaps, provides another glimpse into the British psyche...
In Saudi I made friends with a Brit who had a home in Birmingham and one in Thailand. His Thai wife occupied the home in England - racking up time towards her UK Passport, and her parents occupied the teak home in TL. One day (this was in 1992) he pulled out a bottle of Sid (siddiqi - home-brew alcohol) and proceeded to pot himself. Since I didn't drink, he was the only one flushing IQ points. After a good while (he could hold a LOT) we hit the point where he felt obliged to trash the US. He moaned and groaned about all of the Brit inventions which America had "stolen" and capitalized upon via commercial production. This went on for about an hour - some probably true, some most likely not. Anyway, when he began to wind down, I made the observation that he sounded just like American limp-dicks who complained about Japan. This started him giggling, so it ended well. He was pleased and placated that we had been given our due. Such is life in the Int'l community, no?
#17
Another true stroy to illustrate how the Brits think. When I was doing the MFO (not part of the UN, contrary to what some here have posted) thing during the first Gulf War, we decided it would be a good thing to have chemical alarms and protective suits in case Saddam started lobbing SCUDs at Israel and we were downwind. Logistics were a bear. Given that here was a war going on, we were not a high priority. But thanks to the hard work of a lot of people, we got the suits out to the troops about 48 hours before the first SCUDs landed.
Of course, before then, the Brits on the force thought we were a bunch of paranoid fools and were openly laughing at us. "Fucking Yanks. Busting their asses for this paranoid fantasy." After the first SCUDs started falling, the Brits and all of the other assorted international riff raff on the MFO literally spent the next 24 hours distributing, fitting, and training on the protective gear without sleep. I was relieved that our men had their gear. But I was laughing my ass off at the Brits and their 24-hour cluster fuck.
#18
#10 If the US army can not control a single city in Iraq, How is it that they will be able to start a war woth Iran
you work mmore???? twisting half truths as real....the US army does have a decent control of the country and can focus on any city that happens to be taken over (really a few dozen or hundred hard boys with guns - but can cause havoc)..we take it back. You must remember we do not have enough troops on the ground to cover a country the size iraq. But without a draft we have few options to this..
but as far as iran is concerned are hands are not tied militarily..the dems here have tied our hand politically (unless iran makes a bold and stupid move in the interm).
we could start the process of destroying the revolutionary guards leaving the regular army intact..this would help the hand of the moderates..
just watch 2005 it should be a very interesting year.
Posted by: Dan ||
06/30/2004 10:52 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Whoa serious pom hating going on!
Wish I had some angry Brit stories but I have none.
The Brits are fine fellas who just need reminding every so often that they're Brits, not EUropeans. From the Empire upon which the sun never set to a second-ranked player in the EU is not exactly something to celebrate. Unfortunately, they're adjusting a little too quickly to being EUropeans than is healthy for either British interests or self-esteem. Reduced to carping like the Irish isn't how I like to think of the Brits.
#21
I agree, Zhang Fei (as usual!:-) )
When the Brits get on this tear where we're the trigger-happy American "rubes" who must be restrained by their more refined and collected Brit allies, I become ready to fight the Revolutionary War all over again!
And as someone pointed out, the Brits had the humiliation of their sailors being snatched for minding their own business.
Airing this incident just shows the IslamoNazis that Britain doesn't have the balls mettle to respond accordingly when acts of war are committed upon them.
And Sanchez is most certainly no Weasley Clark and Iraq ain't Kosovo!
Posted by: Jen ||
06/30/2004 11:41 Comments ||
Top||
#22
"The incident began last July when Revolutionary Guards pushed about a kilometre into Iraq to the north and east of Basra in an apparent attempt to reoccupy territory which they claimed belonged to Iran." Wasn't Tommy Franks still in charge in July?
But the real question is, if Sanchez was in charge why would he tell the Brits to do anything when newly constructed listening posts in Iraqi territory could easily be blasted from the air. He should have been telling the Brits to stay away from the area. Something wrings false about the entire story.
#24
And another question? Isn't the border between Iran and Iraq in the center of the river down there in the South? Even if you take the Iranian claims that its the West bank of the river moving posts onto the far bank is clearly an invasion and logistically somewhat questionable. Again, something rings false about the entire story.
#25
Hi Shipman: I don't hate Brits. The main thing that I got out of my experience in the Sinai, is not so much that the Brits have a psychological hang up against us, but rather that they have a hang up about contingency planning in general. I bet dollars to your dime that Sanchez merely asked the Brits to do some contingency planning for a _possible_ assault on the Iranian positions. They didn't really understand what he wanted and got their panties in a twist (just as long as they didn't have to put them on their heads, right?). As others here have pointed out, we probably have contingency plans to attack Andorra. I don't believe that the Brits do business that way. I think that they are much more reactive. It was put to me another way on by a O-6 who headed a combined staff. If it had been done before, he gave it to the Brits. If it had never been done before, he gave it to the Yanks.
BTW, if the USBAT hadn't been so insistent on bringing in the chem gear, there would have been none at all for our international colleagues to distribute during their little panic. Incidents like this are the reason that whenever one of these international peace keeping missions go in, the US or a US firm like DynCorp provides the logistics.
Last word. If you want to gain a good understanding about how the US and Europeans differ in attacking and solving large scale problems, read The Path Between the Sea about the building of the Panama Canal.
#28
What I know, Shipman, is that it is just as important to know your allies' weaknesses as it is to know your own and your enemies'. I also think that the most loyal friends identify those weaknesses to one another rather than sitting back and waiting for one another to stumble.
If I were a Brit, I would accuse Americans of overplanning and micromanaging and I'd be right. Those are two of our grave weaknesses. Unfortunately, this thread isn't about that.
Iranâs powerful former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani asserted Tuesday that the Islamic republic would press on with its nuclear programme "to the end" and not even the United States would be able to stop it. (Insert maniacal laughter here.)
Posted by: Anonymoose ||
06/30/2004 12:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"To the end", huh?
Oh, and I could think of a couple of thousand ways we could stop it.
#2
We should tell the Iranians, "We accept. We'll start things off by firing our nukes at you and then you can reply. What? You don't have any yet? Oh, well, that's just too bad, we have lots."
#4
Of course, if Curtis LeMay were still leading the USAF, he'd plan for nuking any city in Iran with more than three buildings. Good old carpet nuking.
#5
I have it on pretty good authority (Weekly World News?) that ol' Curt did not in fact die in 1987. Instead, he has been placed in suspended animation in a special chamber beneath the Pentagon, ready to be revived and unleashed if the occasion warrants.
At least, that's what I want the Iranians to believe.
#12
C'mon DBT, you witless twit, many here have walked the walk. You've never experienced anything more threatening than having your threads dissed. FOAD, pretender.
Not one contribution, ever. Not one original thought. Not one constructive post. Not one attempt to engage. No experience. No knowledge. No viewpoint, just drivel and DU dirt. Fred, you're just tooooooo nice bro, lol!
#13
Iran must be prevented by any means necessary. Israel could help here.
If the Iranians get the bomb they'll be happy to use it since they don't fear death (due to the whole 72 virgins thing) they'll be happy to sacrifice a million of theirs for a million of ours.
It's not like Russia where you can have a policy of MAD and expect it actually to be a deterrent.
#14
Anon1 - Do you really want to rock 'n roll? Are you really so insecure that someone who disagrees with your opinions must be bowed? Well, if that's the case, you're both a fool and welcome to compare knowledge and experience. Your call.
Anon1 - All this buttering up you're engaged in, is that substance? You're just trying to horn in on the Hot Buttered Grub Clusters concession. Others here are not so shallow as to miss your intentions.
Just reply to the posts, stick to the topic, and leave your self-aggrandizing ad-hominem attacks in the bit bucket. You are (classically) guilty of what you blame on others.
#17
early 2005 will be the time we either confront the iranians seriously or they will in fact move on to be a nuke state...and god help us if kerry is in office..we would automatically have our security dictated by his foriegn "friends"....
Posted by: Dan ||
06/30/2004 10:37 Comments ||
Top||
#18
I love it. Trolls are calling regulars "trolls." "GAZE" was something frequently used at Charle's place before registration was required. I wonder if this troll wandered from over there.
#20
Anon1 couldn't be more wrong--MAD "worked" for the USSR because their people didn't know they were at risk of being annihilated but the Kremlin elite was more than happy to gamble their lives because they had shelters!
The Iranians are a different story--they wouldn't be told anymore than the Russians, but they hate the government and enough news gets through to them (unlike the Russkis) for them to fear and abhor the idea that the mullahs would risk their own lives for their jihad.
No matter, the Iranians must be confronted and "regime changed" one way or another.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/30/2004 11:27 Comments ||
Top||
#21
I dunno about Anon1, but DBT was a longtime lgf troll ("Nastification Agenda"/"Camel Prophet").
#23
What happened to the Iranian protests and rioting in the streets. Who can the US assist the protestors and the uprising without getting too involved?
#24
Yahnk, those protests are ongoing but are not reported. The admin has done precious little to support domestic resistance in Iran, military or otherwise. They can and should be doing much much more, at least from what I can see. Perhaps the team at Foggy Bottom is restraining our actions there. More likely it is the preoccupation with Iraq.
Know that Iran is the next target and is one that the Pentagon has their sights upon. When and how we will really engage them has yet to be seen.
Posted by: remote man ||
06/30/2004 13:46 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Possible timeline:
1Q2005: Bush re-inaugral/S.O.U. Speech "Iran is close to functional nuke, U.N. must act". UN dithers. Bush/Blair brief Allawi on "alternatives"
2Q2005: Allawi (secretly) grants overflight to IAF airstrikes. Begin "Operation Jericho" Massive airstrikes on key installations. Iranian counterstrikes disorganized.
Allawi/Bush/Blair move troops to border. Covert action teams within Iran begins insurrection. Multi-faction Iranian civil war begins.
3Q2005: Iran pleads w/U.N. More dithering. Covert action able to decapitate mullah leadership. "Rebel" leaders sue for cease-fire. Bush/Blair/Allawi bring in armed "humanitarian" assistance.
4Q2005: Iran becomes "protectorate" of U.N.
#31
MAD worked with the USSR because they were rational. MAD will not work work with Iran because they are Mad Mullahs. They have publicly said that they will annhilate Israel with a nuke mounted on one of their Shahab-3's.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/30/2004 18:50 Comments ||
Top||
#32
NS Kursheve said he'd bury us. He was bluffing.
The Mullahs are bluffing. All gawds chillun who have power want to live and enjoy their power... nuclear blasts tend to remove your power structure. It holds for Mullahs else they'd already have strapped on a bomb.
#33
Alternative Timeline 1Q2005: Kerry inaugurated/SOU speech reveals that the US is the true threat to mideast peace. 2Q2005: Realizes that Iran shold be pacified. 3Q2005: Sends special ambassador Bill Clinton to negotiate with Iran. 4Q2005: US begins construction of advanced nuclear power plants in Iran.
Hey - this did work with North Korea --- in an alternative reality.
Al-Qaeda reportedly planned to target Spain as the weakest link of the coalition in Iraq to force its troop pullout, according to a document from the terror network. "We consider that the Spanish government cannot suffer more than two to three strikes before pulling out (of Iraq) under pressure from its own people," said the document obtained Wednesday by AFP from Raido France Internationalâs regional office in Beirut. "If these (Spanish) forces remain after the strikes, the victory of the socialist party would be near-guaranteed and the pullout of Spanish forces from Iraq would be on its agenda," said the document, distributed ahead of the March 11 attacks in Madrid.
The document has apparently been issued in late February, as it refers to the early days of the Islamic new year which fell on February 21. Made-up of 54 pages in Arabic, the document has been authenticated by western experts of the Islamic radical terror network of Saudi-born fugitive Osama bin Laden. The document, entitled "the Iraq of Jihad (holy war): hopes and dangers," was prepared by the "information agency for the support of the Iraqi people -- office of services for the Mujahedeen (holy warriors)." A lengthy chapter of the document focuses on "the main allies of the United States in their aggression against Iraq: Britain, Italy, Poland and Spain, as well as some Arab countries." But most of the chapter is about Spain, considering that the pullout of Spanish troops would "constitute a pressure on the British (military) presence that (Prime Minister) Tony Blair would not be able to bear."
"It will not take long for pawns to fall, but the headpiece (US) still has to be knocked down," it said. It called for striking US forces in Iraq on a daily basis in order to force them "to disperse on the territory, weaken their efficiency and strike the morale of the soldiers... The operations should be concentrated on the Arab Sunni sector... (given) the absence of motives for the explosion of the situation in the Shiite southern regions and the Kurdish north." The booklet, presented as a handbook for the "Mujahedeen," called on the "Iraqi resistance (to form) a movement which gathers the factions of the Jihad... and unite in the same objective, as currently they are not united in the same organisation."
"The Mujahedeens in Iraq should now concentrate on the complete pullout of all foreign forces from all Iraqi territory," it said. "They should not carry out any operation targeting the daily life of the Iraqi people or its future, such as the basic services or education, except for oil which should not be exploited under occupation. Oil exports are the main American hope to gain the financial resources necessary for the occupation." The document also contains a chapter on the economic situation of the United States, seen from the angle of the occupation of Iraq. It said the US plan was "to build an Iraqi state as conceived by the United States...and enslave Saudi Arabia politically, fight against Islamic proselytism as a salafist and jihadic movement. This would be (for the US) the first step toward the eradication of hardline Islam in the entire world."
The can see that easily enough. Somehow the Dems continue to claim to miss that point...
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/30/2004 4:25:36 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Nice to be known as the weakest link - now shut up and hide while the rest of us fight for your future existence. We'll tell you how you made out when we're done.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/30/2004 16:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Isn't this the same document as the one that surfaced a few days after the Madrid bombing? It seems authentic. I recall that the suspects originally arrested by the Spaniards were held incommunicado for a few days. When they finally got to meet with a lawyer, their first question was "who won the election?"
Posted by: Tibor ||
06/30/2004 16:56 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"This would be (for the US) the first step toward the eradication of hardline Islam in the entire world,"
#4
Tibor: Yep..this is the same document. This would be (for the US) the first step toward the eradication of hardline Islam in the entire world,"
Actually, Afghanistan was, but they get the picture.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
06/30/2004 17:20 Comments ||
Top||
#5
""We consider that the Spanish government cannot suffer more than two to three strikes before pulling out (of Iraq) "
Wow, you know you're lame when even the Islamoloonies overestimate your scrote.
Posted by: Carl in N.H ||
06/30/2004 18:17 Comments ||
Top||
Debate raged on Islamic Web sites about the propriety of killing fellow Muslims who work for coalition forces in Iraq, after militants released three Turkish hostages they had threatened to behead. The Tawhid and Jihad movement of terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi announced Saturday it would kill the three Turks within 72 hours unless Turkish companies stopped doing business with American forces in Iraq. On Tuesday, however, the movement released them "for the sake of Muslim brothers and mujahedeen in Turkey," according to a statement broadcast on Al-Jazeera television. That contrasted starkly to the treatment of several non-Muslims recently. Al-Zarqawiâs movement claimed responsibility for the beheading of Kim Sun-il, a South Korean who worked for a company delivering supplies to American forces, and Nicholas Berg, an American businessman. al-Qaeda-linked militants in Saudi Arabia decapitated American engineer Paul Johnson Jr. and posted pictures of his severed head on the Internet.
Most people who post messages on several Islamic Web sites known for their extremist bent believe those are justified. But the issue of whether it is proper kill Muslims taken captive because of their links to the U.S. military has been a hot topic. Opinions are mixed. Some people appealed on the kidnappers to spare the Turks because they were "fellow Muslims." Others urged militants to decapitate them. "Turkish Muslims should be the first to demand that those hypocrites be beheaded, as they are allied with the devil," meaning the Americans, one person wrote on a Web site that has published al-Zarqawi statements and claims of responsibility for other killings. "They should serve as an example to every apostate."
Another contributor who identified himself as "enemy of the foreign infidels" said he supported the decapitation of hostages â but not Muslim ones. "Slaughtering is something you started with the infidel Crusaders and their allies, and we hope you wonât deviate from that path," he wrote. But "theyâre Muslims, so donât kill them ... as long as they didnât cause direct harm." Yet another writer suggested that if Muslims must be killed, their deaths shouldnât be filmed. Muslims should be spared from decapitation, the writer said, because "beheadings should only be for the Crusader invaders as a lesson for them that we donât bow our heads."
The practice of publicizing such killings appears aimed at increasing the shock value of the militant campaign against Westerners, especially Americans. Islamic scholars and newspaper commentators throughout the region have condemned the practice, although the Web postings suggest that at least some Muslims believe the tactic is justified. "There is a lot of confusion concerning this beheading issue, and more so in the case of beheadings of Muslims," said Diaâa Rashwan, a Cairo expert on Islamic militants. Rashwan, whose book the Electronic War is to be published soon, said militants use car bombs, machine guns, and rocket-propelled grenades in their real war against Westerners, "but resort to swords and knives in the symbolic media war theyâre waging on the Internet."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/30/2004 10:02:12 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is exactly the kind of division we want in the Islamofascist world.
I am happy for the hostages that they are free, but I cannot help but admit that I wish the jihadis would have been stupid enough to lop their heads off.
If only because it would save more lives in the future by encouraging Muslims to question and reject the Islamofascists.
#4
This is an astonishing debate to those of us in the civilized world who find such conflict tactics unthinkable. In terms of equivalent shock, you would have to see major "experts, commentators, authors, and scholars" in the US debating on whether anesthesia-less castration was ok for Muslims only or ok for both Christians and Muslims.
(I thought the âTreasure of Allahâ was Oil?)
Lebanonâs Hezbollah guerrilla movement is siphoning profits from West Africaâs diamond trade, in part by threatening Lebanese diamond merchants, U.S. diplomats charge.
Blood diamonds, a terrorist's best friend.
"One thing thatâs incontrovertible is the financing of Hezbollah. Itâs not even an open secret; there is no secret," said Larry Andre, deputy chief of mission for the U.S. Embassy in diamond-rich Sierra Leone. "Thereâs a lot of social pressure and extortionate pressure brought to bear: âYou had better support our cause, or weâll visit your people back home,"â Andre told The Associated Press. More than 100,000 Lebanese live in West Africa, where they have made up the core of the merchant class for over a century and have long handled much of the diamond business. Only 6,000 Lebanese are thought to remain in Sierra Leone after this countryâs 1991-2002 war for control of the eastern diamond fields surrounding Koidu, West Africaâs richest-known deposits. West Africaâs so-called blood diamonds helped buy arms and fighters in insurgencies that roiled the region in the 1990s. With the end of fighting and the advent of an industry-backed certificate of origin program, Sierra Leone estimates its legal exports of diamonds have soared from $1.4 million in 1999 to $76 million last year. The U.S. Embassy in Sierra Leone says between $70 million to $100 million worth of rough gems still are smuggled out of the country each year. Itâs due largely to the illegal trade that Hezbollah can extract cash by threats, beatings and destruction of property, analysts say. Victims, many of whom may have business dealings they do not want exposed, have little legal recourse. "Theyâre (Hezbollah) asking for contributions and theyâre going to use the culture card and the nationality card," says Joseph Melrose, former U.S. ambassador to Sierra Leone. "Will they use threats? Sure." The amount of money is huge: in December 2003, an airliner that crashed off Benin had a courier on board carrying $2 million in Hezbollah-bound funds, diplomats and news reports said. One of Sierra Leoneâs top diamond exporters denied any ties to Hezbollah. "This is a lie. Thereâs never been any connection between these people and Hezbollah," said Kassim Basma, who was born in Sierra Leone to a Lebanese family. "For me, I couldnât support them. For what? To cause myself problems?"
"No, no! Certainly not!"
Matthew Levitt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy says stepped up enforcement in South America drove some Hezbollah hard boyz activists to West Africa. As a result, the groupâs illegal fund-raising efforts in the region - including protection rackets and threats - may be on the rise, said Levitt, a former FBI agent. "As we crack down on one part of the world, things will crop up elsewhere," he said.
You can't squeeze the balloon, you have to pop it.
In Koidu, indigenous Sierra Leoneans make up only about 35 of the roughly 200 legal diamond buyers, said Prince Saquee, chairman of the Diamond Dealers Association. Most of the rest are Lebanese, he said. Many in the State Department and officials at U.S. embassies in West Africa have long played down any West Africa conduits to Hezbollah, saying any contributions to Hezbollah appeared to be voluntary donations by individuals. Alex Yearsley, of London-based Global Witness, alleges that the CIA and FBI long had tried to publicly minimize links between conflict diamonds and Islamic militant groups, including al-Qaida. The U.S. security agents feared exposure of their own longtime links with Charles Taylor, the ousted Liberian leader who played a main role in West Africaâs insurgencies and blood diamond trade, Yearsley said.
"Liars and thieves, all of them!"
Taylor received CIA payments until January 2001, Yearsley claimed in a telephone interview. Diplomats and some independent experts have questioned some of Global Witnessâs allegations about links between West Africa diamonds, al-Qaida and Hezbollah, saying they are short on proof.
"What proof? The witnesses are all dead!"
The fate of West Africaâs diamonds ultimately bridges faiths and rivalries: Sold by the Lebanese merchants, many of the gems are brokered via Jewish or Israeli traders in Antwerp, Belgium, and Tel Aviv, ending up in the United States. "To us, we donât see Christian or Muslim or Jew," said Basma. "Weâre businessmen."
"It's all blood money to us."
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/30/2004 12:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Oh, I forget to include Hizballah's profitable naro-trade in central Lebanon's Bekka Valley, with 'oversight' with Jr, 'Dr' Assad and his 30.000 plus Syrian troops, making sure all those drug shipments make it on time to southern French ports of call, and other locations.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/30/2004 0:52 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Well they are the Party of God after all, and extortion, theats, beatings, and destruction of property just shows how pious they are.
U.S. forces attacked and destroyed what they said was a "safe house" belonging to the Jordanian militant Washington views as its top guerrilla target in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. "On June the 30th, multinational forces conducted another strike on a known Zarqawi network safehouse in southwest Falluja based on multi-confirmations of Iraqi and multinational intelligence," Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, deputy director of operations for the U.S. military, said in a statement.
Falluja again, huh? Well, even if he's not home I'm sure someone will be there to receive the "package".
There was no indication Zarqawi, who has claimed responsibility for several suicide attacks and the beheadings of an American and a South Korean hostage, was in the building. Ok. Missed. Try another building.
Witnesses said four bodies had been pulled from the house in a southwest suburb of the city after a warplane fired a missile at it. Residents were looking for DNA survivors. "The house was completely destroyed," said one resident in Falluja, a potential hotbed of resistance to the new government and to coalition forces backing it.
If at first you don't succeed, carpet bomb the place.
#2
Can we borrow a Tech Rep from the Mossad to improve our sucess rate? This is reminescent of the Monty Python Sketch at the camoflage school. Anyone remember that one? I especially liked the "poser" where the student hides one of three bushes and refuses to stand up when called. All three bushes were exploded in series, of course.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/30/2004 23:09 Comments ||
Top||
Jordan (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein will not get a fair trial and his captors have already decided his fate, the deposed Iraqi presidentâs defense lawyer said Wednesday. "This is a mockery of justice. We are facing clear legal violations. ... The allegations that this is going to be a fair trial is baseless," said Mohammad Rashdan, one of a 20-member legal team appointed by Saddamâs wife to represent him.
A U.S. official said the United States formally transferred Saddam and 11 of his top lieutenants before an Iraqi judge as Iraq took legal custody of them. Saddam will remain in the physical custody of U.S. forces. He and his top aides are to be charged Thursday. "Any trial of the president is illegal and unjust and it follows from the aggression that took place against Iraq. The trial is a farce and the guilty verdict had been issued even before the trial has begun," he added.
Rashdan said he and his legal associates in the United States filed suits against the U.S. authorities for not allowing them access to Saddam. The defense team was not given any of the tons of documentation prepared by a special tribunal that will try the former Iraqi leader, he added. He said the team, which includes lawyers from the United States and France, had been threatened by Iraqi officials and feared for their lives if they came to Baghdad to defend Saddam without international protection.
"They should provide us with international protection. ... Do they want to slaughter all the lawyers? If the court is not capable of ensuring a proper defense, is this is the justice they are thinking of delivering?" Rashdan said. "On what basis was the court set up and who appointed the judges and what laws it is subject to?," Rashdan asked, adding the tribunalâs judges had been bribed to take on the task. The now defunct U.S.-appointed Governing Council set up a war crimes tribunal and chose judges to try Saddam, who was captured in December. Some Arabs still see him as a nationalist hero who stood up to U.S. military might.
Saddamâs aides and others among the 55 most wanted Iraqis on a U.S. list are seen as witnesses who could help prove a chain of command linking Saddam to crimes against humanity. Saddam will be charged with ordering the 1988 massacres of Kurds, the 1990 invasion of Kuwait and the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, according to Chalabi. "They are afraid of a bringing out the truth because a fair trial would be an indictment of (President) Bush. He has to first prove whether his entry into Iraq was legal or not," Rashdan said. Lawyers, is there any form of hypocrisy they cannot countenance?
#2
I expect Saddam will get a fair trial and I am sure with a proper defense. Heck the whole world will be watching and the Iraqi people are no fools.
But just because he gets a fair trial is no reason not to hang him. Actually the point of the trial is to document the reason for hanging him.
Could it be that terms of employment for him and his 19 buddies is no pay if Saddam gets the high jump? Or does he fancy himself as sort of a Johnny Cocran with Camel?
Regarding slaughter of lawyers, I withold comment....
Posted by: Michael ||
06/30/2004 16:38 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I don't think that Sadaam's guilt is in doubt - taping all the regime torture was certainly not a good idea - but his punishment is definitely in doubt. I'm sure the UN, France and the WWP will all attempt to browbeat and threaten the Iraqi people with ostracization if they execute him. Whatever the court decides, I recommend the full Kevlar suit option for prudent citizens that venture outside for a month or two after the verdict.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/30/2004 16:46 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Mais ou se trouve l'avocat francais? L'un qui defend toujours les terroristes?
#11
The trial may well be a mockery of procedure and legality, in that the outcome will be known before it starts.
That's not to say the subsequent hanging won't be justice. "Law" and "justice" are not always synonyms.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/30/2004 17:12 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Remember, justice is getting what you deserve. If he deserves to be found guilty, then by definition he has had a fair trial. Then hang his sorry ass!
#16
#4 Jules 187, you mean Jacques Vergès? IIRC, he proposed himself, but one of Saddam's daughters rejected him (must be humiliating when you're not good enough for defending Saddam...). I think he will represent Tarek Haziz.
#17
Do they want to slaughter all the lawyers?
Just the ones we don't like...Maybe we can get the ACLU to go over there?
Some Arabs still see him as a nationalist hero who stood up to U.S. military might.
You mean the murders crooks and the ones who oppress with fear right?
Just fucking shoot them all, as soon as they get out of there cars shoot Saddam and the parasites that are defending him and just get it over with. No drawn out trial no leftist sympathy that I am sure Dan Blather will spew...Come to think of it, maybe Dan Blather can be part of the machine gun spray that I am hoping is awaiting Saddam.
#18
"They are afraid of a bringing out the truth because a fair trial would be an indictment of (President) Bush. He has to first prove whether his entry into Iraq was legal or not," Rashdan said.
There was no formal treaty closing hostilties, merely a ceasefire that Saddam constantly violated. On top of that, the Kuwaiti claims were never settled. Thus, this was a legal resumption of military action.
#19
"Your Honor, my client has been called a dictator and a butcher and a rapist by news organizations within the wonderful country he once ruled! No mention of the baby ducks he used to raise! Why, he's being tried by the people who replaced him after he had his ass kicked by the Marines! They want to make him face those he ruled! This cannot possibly be fair!"
Posted by: The Doctor ||
06/30/2004 23:13 Comments ||
Top||
#20
An Open Lettedr to Sadaam's Lawers
You are perhaps the lowest of the low as far as legal attorneys go. You know full well that there will be elections long before you ever get to try this case, and you also know that this man was worse than Hitler. You are using public sentiment, especially in Iraq to get a change of venue. Those who print your drivel are either devoid of intelligence or as corrupt as you are. I have many people praying against any success and hope that all of his Swiss funds are frozen and that you won't receive one dime of the blood money Sadaam received from the European Corruption (France and Germany) nor from the blood of the Iraqi people. Those Iraqis who suffered these last ten years....who cooperated with Desert Storm, are proof that the average person in that country wanted our help and that it is any countries legal right to interfere when there is a threat to their own security. You are the scum of the earth...worse than Sadaa,. The soldiers who found him should have put a bullet in his brain....the money in that Swiss account belongs to the Iraqi people, not to you bloodsuckers
EFL....Hard to believe that French once was the language of diplomacy. Vive lâarrogance!
Michel Barnier has urged Israel to end the isolation of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in the West Bank town of Ramallah. After meeting Mr Arafat in Ramallah, Mr Barnier said the living conditions were "not dignifying" for the elected Palestinian leader. Translation: Heâs out of baby wipes.
"We consider that this situation cannot last," Mr Barnier added. Well, yeah.....eventually heâs gonna keel over.....hopefully soon.....
Israel played down Mr Barnierâs Ramallah talks, which ran against a standing Israeli request to visiting top foreign officials to refrain from meeting Mr Arafat. yes....but the French are special!
"Considering what he [Arafat] represents, terror, murder, bombings....
[his situation] is not dignifying for him and is not dignifying for the Palestinian people he represents," Mr Barnier said after the talks with Mr Arafat on Tuesday. Mr Barnier said brining an end to Mr Arafatâs isolation was one aim of his visit - the first by a top Western official in more than a year. Along with negotiating some arms sales, no doubt....
"We think that this situation should come to an end because he [Arafat] is the legitimate and elected president of the Palestinian people," Mr Barnier added. "Looks like we locked up the Sarcelles vote in the next election with that....whew!"
He also said that he "transmitted...a social disease? a message of friendship and solidarity" during his talks with the Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei.
#1
Now that Bush doesn't have to kiss up to France in the (fruitless) hope that France will back NATO troops for Iraq, couldn't Bush really turn this around and expose Chirac for the terrorist-serving mope he is?
This France-US rift is still alive and wide open, despite mealy-mouthed, bald-faced-lying tributes from Chirac on D-Day.
#2
You know there are many Israelis that would like to make the living conditions in Ramallah more dignifying. First they want to line up about 30 or so D-9s and improve the grade of the buildings in Arafat's compound. After the buildings are sufficiently level, they want to blacktop the area and put up a amusement park complete with a Yasser Arafat Memorial Merry-go-round and a petting zoo with a French kissing booth for the goats.
The 1st Armored Division, of which the 16th Engineers are a part, led the charge against Muqtada Al-Sadrâs uprising. The 16th was in the front in all this in Karbala, Najaf, Kufa and Baghdad. And contrary to the negative news coverage, the reality is that we have won some major victories that are having dramatic impact region-wide. I donât think most Americans are aware of the seriousness of the threats we confronted and defeated.
Sadrâs Mahdi Army was backed by extensive foreign fighters and a huge amount support. Iranâs formidable Al-Quds Army (named for the conquest of Jerusalem, Israel) directly assisted their attacks against us. They trained some 1,200 of Sadrâs fighters at three camps they ran along the Iran-Iraq border at Qasr Shireen, âIlam, and Hamid. This was backed by what one Iranian defector to us has said was $70 million dollars a month given by Iranian agents to our enemies -- from which Sadrâs forces were directly funded in just the past few months by up to $80 million more. The Iranian Embassy distributed some 400 satellite phones in Baghdad to Sadrâs forces, while 2,700 apartments and rooms were rented in Karbala and Najaf as safe houses. Sadrâs ability to influence the Iraqi people was further enhanced by 300 "reporters" and "technicians" working for his newspaper, radio and television networks -- persons who are actually members of the Al-Quds Army and Iranâs elite Revolutionary Guards.
We also faced Chechen snipers in Sadrâs forces who were being paid anywhere from $500 to $10,000, depending on differing accounts, for each American soldier they hit. One sniper hit five soldiers in less then a minute-and-a-half, killing one with a shot in the neck. These mercenaries were sending this money back to Al-Qaeda-allied guerrillas in Chechnya to fight the Russians.
We also have constantly faced Lebanese and Palestinian Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon mixed in the fighting. Their claim to fame for the killing of 241 U.S. Marines in Beirut in 1983 is something we have had to consider every day and on every mission.
Najaf and Karbala are the two most important Shiite cities in the world. They are very densely packed and overcrowded tightly around the mosques that dominate the center of each. Baghdadâs Sadr City has a population of over 2 million even more densely populated. Do you see what Iâm getting at? The odds against us were extreme and it looked for a while like all of Iraq would collapse in an orgy of violence and chaos that threatened to erupt the entire region. The enemy tried constantly to force us into killing innocent civilians. This didnât work.
The people of Najaf and Karbala were extremely friendly. Kids poured out at times to greet U.S. soldiers because it was the first time many of them saw us. They knew the Mahdi Army was an alien outside militia, backed by foreign fighters, seeking to hijack their holy sites and force a larger regional conflict upon the U.S. When our patrols would go into the cities to clear schools where the militia hid weapons, or to secure government buildings, the Iraqis were very helpful and welcoming, giving much information to us to find and destroy Sadrâs forces.
#1
LMAO, this guy is a moron. I'm loving the wacked out conspiracy theories these lefties are putting out. These panicked attacks on the new Iraqi gov't are a strong indication of their desperation. I'm loving watching these moron lefties and their disgsuting ideology go down in flames... writhing, ranting and screaming all the way :D
#2
Btw, did you notice this morons pre-emptive attack on the elections he KNOWS are gonna happen by saying "But letâs not pretend heâs a nascent democrat, even if he manages to hold some cosmetic elections."
LMAO, silly me... I thought elections were what democracy was about. I didn't realize that they were only valid if the US didn't help them occur! What a bufoon this guy is... I just can't get over it.
#6
This is what happens when people who can't get published in the Nation (the left-wing rag) are let loose in America's mass circulation "news" magazines. Newsweek was way too left-wing for me a decade ago, when I was a conservative Democrat. Today, I don't actually see what function the Nation serves - everything it says is echoed in the mainstream media by left-wing anti-American whackjobs who call themselves newsmen.
A radical Islamic activist went on trial Tuesday in Dagestan, the southern Russian region where he is charged with inciting ethnic hatred and attempting to overturn the constitutional order. Magomed Tagayev, one of the spiritual leaders of the regionâs strict Wahhabi Islamic community, was an active participant in the fighting between Russian and Muslim rebel forces in Dagestan in August-September 1999 that helped begin the second war in Chechnya in a decade. He had been on the run for four years before capture in April 2004 on Russiaâs border with Azerbaijan. Tagayev, 56, had already been imprisoned for five years in Soviet times for agitating for independence for Russiaâs Caucasus region. He has pleaded guilty to three charges: using forged documents, assaulting police officers in June 1999 and inciting ethnic hatred. He has denied calling for the overthrow of the constitutional order in two books he had published in Chechnya.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/30/2004 11:45:33 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Some law enforcement agencies disputed Tuesday that federal troops had killed the man believed to be a leader of last weekâs attacks in Ingushetia, saying a militant was slain but not the senior fighter whom authorities sought. Authorities claimed Monday that Magomed Yevloyev, known as Magas, had been killed when he put up armed resistance to Ingush and federal troops trying to seize him. Yevloyev, 32, was believed to be the leader of the strict Wahhabi sect of Muslims in Ingushetia, which borders Chechnya. Colonel Ilya Shabalkin, the spokesman for federal forces in Chechnya, told Interfax on Tuesday that he had "no doubt" that special forces had killed the right man, saying other reports "donât correspond to reality." But acting Ingush Interior Minister Beslan Khamkhoyev said "to put it simply, it was not that Yevloyev" who was killed, Interfax reported.
"Now we think it was some guy named Herb. Or Wally..."
"The person who killed was a member of a militant group and a relative of Magomed Yevloyev," Khamkhoyev said. The man killed had participated in the attacks in Ingushetia, but "he was not the head." "Do you even know how many Magomed Yevloyevs there are in Ingushetia?" an unidentified Federal Security Service official was quoted by Interfax as saying. "It is a very popular last name. We know of at least seven." The FSB official said the man killed had participated in the Ingush raid.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/30/2004 11:43:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
no stake in the heart? Fools!
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/30/2004 12:12 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Wonder if any of the Saudi security service people were on loan for this particular operation . . .
Posted by: The Doctor ||
06/30/2004 23:00 Comments ||
Top||
OUSTED Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein would get the death penalty if he was found guilty of the serious crimes levelled against him, Iraqâs interim Justice Minister Malek Dohan al-Hassan said in a newspaper interview last night. He told the Italian daily Repubblica that the new interim government in Baghdad had just approved a decree reinstating the death penalty, which had been abolished by Paul Bremer, who until Monday was the US civil administrator in Iraq. "We are reinstating the death penalty. We are a sovereign state ... We have the right and the duty to re-establish the instruments which we deem the most useful," Mr Hassna said. "If the evidence proves the serious crimes that he (Saddam) is accused of, then the special court set up during the occupation could sentence him to death," the minister said. "For crimes against humanity, genocide, use of chemical weapons, we can use capital punishment," he stressed. "We are in in an emergency situation. We are facing a ferocious enemy which wants to destroy (our) budding democracy and freedom." Iraqâs interim government took legal custody of Saddam and 11 top members of his ousted regime earlier yesterday from the US-led military. The 12 are due to appear before the Special Iraqi Tribunal today.
Posted by: tipper ||
06/30/2004 11:13:11 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Once they get Irag straightened out may they could come over here and give us a hand.
Posted by: Michael ||
06/30/2004 12:27 Comments ||
Top||
#3
There will always be some loonies who oppose the death penalty, but for someone like Saddam, it's a more merciful end than some of the ones he ordered.
#4
I can't wait to see how many Idiotarians decry this as "inhumane." Execution of people guilty of heinous crimes is a violation of their human rights.
Meanwhile, anti-American dictators can kill all the dissenters they want. No problem there.
#5
There will always be some loonies who oppose the death penalty, but for someone like Saddam, it's a more merciful end than some of the ones he ordered.
Hey, just slowly winch him down into the rotating jaws of his favorite shredder. Sauce for the gander and all that. There does not exist a single form of conventional capital punishment which remotely approaches the unusual cruelty inflicted upon nearly each and every one of Saddam's victims. He could be flayed alive and it would still represent a kindness.
#6
Yesterday the Iraqi Justice Minister gave a new conference. A journalist asked if Sadam would be allowed to represent himself and referenced the debacle of the Milosevic trial at the world court. If the Iraqi Justice system is as feckless as the world court Sadam will be running for president from his prison cell. However, I think the Iraqi court will be straightforward with only three steps: list crimes, prove guilt, and execute.
Posted by: Canaveral Dan ||
06/30/2004 16:00 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Insert ObLLLComment linking Bush, Texas and the Death Penalty. Oh yeah! And oil! And... and...
Hat tip nzpundit
Iraq veterans often say they are confused by American news coverage, because their experience differs so greatly from what journalists report. Soldiers and Marines point to the slow, steady progress in almost all areas of Iraqi life and wonder why they donât get much notice â or in many cases, any notice at all.
Part of the explanation is Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the Baghdad bureau chief for the Washington Post. He spent most of his career on the metro and technology beats, and has only four years of foreign reporting, two of which are in Iraq. The 31-year-old now runs a news operation that can literally change the world, heading a bureau that is the source for much of the news out of Iraq.
Very few newspapers have full-time international reporters at all these days, relying on stringers of varying quality, as well as wire services such as Reuters and Agence France-Presse, also of varying quality. The Postâs reporting is delivered intravenously into the bloodstream of Official Washington, and thus a front-page article out of Iraq can have major repercussions in policy-making.
This effect is magnified because of the Postâs influence on what other news organizations report. While its national clout lags behind the New York Times, many reporters look to the Post for cues on how to approach a story. The Post interprets events, and the herd of independent minds bleat their approval and start tapping on their keyboards with their hooves.
Chandrasekaranâs crew generates a relentlessly negative stream of articles from Iraq â and if there are no events to report, they resort to man-on-the-street interviews and cobble together a story from that. Last week, there was a front-page, above-the-fold article about Iraqis jeering U.S. troops, which amounted to a pastiche of quotations from hostile Iraqis. It was hardly unique. Given the expense of maintaining an Iraq bureau with a dozen staffers, they have to write something to justify themselves, even if the product is shoddy.
This week, Chandrasekaran has a Pulitzer-bait series called "Promises Unkept: The U.S. Occupation of Iraq." The grizzled foreign-desk veteran -- who until 2000 was covering dot-com companies -- now sits in judgment over a world-shaking issue, in a court whose rulings echo throughout the media landscape. He finds the Bush Administration guilty. Such a surprise.
Before major combat operations were over, Chandrasekaran was already quoting Iraqis proclaiming the American operation a failure. Reading his dispatches from April 2003, you can already see his meta-narrative take shape: basically, that the Americans are clumsy fools who donât know what theyâre doing, and Iraqis hate them. This meta-narrative informs his coverage and the coverage of the reporters he supervises, who rotate in and out of Iraq.
How do I know this? Because my fellow Marines and I witnessed it with our own eyes. Chandrasekaran showed up in the city of Al Kut last April, talked to a few of our officers, and toured the city for a few hours. He then got back into his air-conditioned car and drove back to Baghdad to write about the local unrest.
"The Untouchable âMayorâ of Kut," his articleâs headline blared the next day. It described a local, Iranian-backed troublemaker named Abbas Fadhil, who was squatting in the provincial government headquarters. He had gathered a mob of people with nothing better to do, told them to camp out in the headquarters compound, and there they sat, defying the Marines of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade.
Chandrasekaran was very impressed with the little usurper: "âWe thank the Americans for getting rid of Saddamâs regime, but now Iraq must be run by Iraqis,â Fadhil thundered during a meeting today with his supporters in the buildingâs spacious conference room. âWe cannot allow the Americans to rule us from this officeâ....Fadhil has set up shop in an official building and appears to have rallied support across this city of 300,000 people.
"The refusal of Marine commanders to recognize Fadhilâs new title has fueled particularly intense anti-American sentiments here," Chandrasekeran continued. "In scenes not seen in other Iraqi cities, U.S. convoys have been loudly jeered. Waving Marines have been greeted with angry glares and thumbs-down signs."
Readers must have concluded that Kut was on the verge of exploding. The entire city was ready to throw out the despised American infidel invaders and install their new "mayor" as their beloved leader.
What utter rubbish. In our headquarters, we had a small red splotch on a large map of Kut, representing the neighborhood that supported Abbas Fadhil. When asked about him, most citizens of Kut rolled their eyes. His followers were mainly poor, semi-literate, and not particularly well-liked. They were marginal in every sense of the word, and they mattered very little in the day-to-day life of a city that was struggling to get back on its feet.
We knew the local sentiment intimately, because as civil affairs Marines, our job was to help restore the provinceâs water, electricity, medical care, and other essentials of life. Our detachment had teams constantly coming and going throughout the city, and Chandrasekeran could have easily accompanied at least one of them.
Since he didnât, he couldnât see how the Iraqis outside of the red splotch reacted to us. People of every age waved and smiled as we rumbled past (except male youths, who, like their American counterparts, were too cool for that kind of thing.) Our major security problem was keeping friendly crowds of people away from us so we could spot bad guys.
None of those encouraging things made it into the article. Nor did anything about how we had been helping to fix the cityâs problems as soon as we arrived. Just a quick-and-dirty sensationalistic piece about a local Islamist thug bravely going toe-to-toe with the legendary United States Marines. The general reaction to Chandrasekeranâs article was either laughter or dumb bewilderment.
Soon afterwards, a Marine commander met privately with Fadhil and told him he would be forcefully removed if he did not leave the government building. Fadhil, chastened, asked if he could slither into exile without the appearance of coercion, so he could save face. The commander agreed. Suddenly faced with a real confrontation, the "mayor" had backed down, and he left without any riots or bloodshed. The Americans took over the office that Fadhil said we should never occupy. The Post didnât cover any of that, either.
Donât take my word for it that the Postâs reporting is substandard and superficial. Take the word of Philip Bennett, the Postâs assistant managing editor for foreign news. In a surprisingly candid June 6 piece, he admits that "the threat of violence has distanced us from Iraqis." Further, "we have relied on Iraqi stringers filing by telephone to our correspondents in Baghdad, and on embedding with the military. The stringers are not professional journalists, and their reports are heavy on the simplest direct observation." Translation: we are reprinting things from people we barely know, from a safe location dozens of miles away from the fighting.
Bennett flatly concedes that they have a âdim pictureâ of what is happening in Iraq, (not that you would know it from the actual news articles he approves for publication.) "The people of Iraq...are leading their country, and ours, down an uncertain path. This is a story waiting to be told."
Waiting to be told? They have four or five full-time reporters there at any given time. What are they doing, if theyâre not telling the story of Iraqâs new birth?
Bennett might have added that not only are the reporters "distanced" from Iraqis, theyâre distanced from Iraq itself. Covering it from Baghdad is like covering California from a secure bunker in south-central Los Angeles. Sure, a lot happens in L.A., but youâre going to miss important things if you donât go to San Diego or San Francisco, or even Bakersfield once in a while.
Chandrasekeranâs meta-narrative admits of no ambiguity. For him and his reporters, they report in straightforward, declarative sentences, with none of the caveats that Bennett mentions. The Americans are still bumbling, the Iraqis continue to seethe. So it shall be in the Washington Post, until Iraq succeeds and they can no longer deny it, just like journalists were forced to admit reality at the end of the Cold War. Or else their words will have their effect, and Western journalists have to flee the country as it disintegrates.
Since I saw Rajiv Chandrasekaranâs integrity up close, I havenât believed a word he writes, or any story coming out of the bureau he runs. You shouldnât, either.
Eric M. Johnson, a writer in Washington D.C., participated in Operation Iraqi Freedom as a Marine Corps reservist.
Posted by: tipper ||
06/30/2004 10:56:18 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
Hopefully this gets picked up by Fox, Rush and others. I'll bet this crappy "reporting" process is not restricted to the WAPO either. It is just garbage filling in the blanks of pre-conceived notions.
Posted by: remote man ||
06/30/2004 14:36 Comments ||
Top||
Taliban-led militants are still launching operations against American and other forces from safe havens in Pakistan, US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said on Tuesday. Khalilzad said a Pakistani crackdown this month which killed 100 foreign militants and allied tribesmen in South Waziristan border region "really has disrupted" al-Qaeda and Taliban militants there. But he said there were other areas of Pakistan from which Taliban crossed into Afghanistan. "In that regard, there hasnât been any change. Theyâve dealt with part of the problem, but the problem is obviously larger than that," Khalilzad said. Khalilzad said some Taliban elements were trained and equipped outside the country, and retreated there between attacks - another apparent allusion to Pakistan. But he insisted the vote (Afghan elections) should go ahead on time to prove that it was possible to build a peaceful, democratic state with equal gender rights in the region. "This is a very, very important struggle," Khalilzad said. "Itâs a real test of will, itâs a test of endurance, itâs a test of commitment."
Khalilzad declined to comment on whether an extra 3,000 troops pledged by Nato leaders on Monday at a summit in Turkey would be enough to safeguard the vote. He said a plan to disarm militias to prevent warlords and drug barons from intimidating voters and candidates needed to be drastically scaled back. Instead of the official 100,000 irregular fighters in the country, the number of men under arms was probably lower than 40,000, the ambassador said.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/30/2004 10:39:33 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Thanks, Zalmay. We had no idea.
Smart guy. Must be why he's the ambassador.
Three Turkish hostages held in Iraq by an extremist group that had threatened to behead them have been freed, a Turkish official and a statement from the group carried by the Arabic television channel Al-Jazeera said. The hostages were held by the armed Tawhid wal Jihad (Unity and Holy War) group, led by the Jordanian Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi. "In view of your honourable attitude ... we are freeing these hostages and releasing them after they pledged to no longer help the infidels," a spokesman for the group said in a videotape aired by the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera. Addressing "Muslims and Mujahedeen in Turkey", the group was referring to recent demonstrations in Turkey against the United States and its policy in Iraq. I am happy for the people released, but I must admit, it is a loss of a great propaganda opportunity. If the Jihadis had been dumb enough to behead Muslims we could have made HUGE political capital out of it.
Posted by: Anon1 ||
06/30/2004 10:10:22 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
The case of a suspected member of al-Quaeda was postponed in the Pretoria Magistrateâs Court on Wednesday pending presidential permission for the court to accede to the extradition request from Libya. The accused, Ibrahim Ali Abubaker Tantoush, was arrested in Pretoria in February for allegedly being in possession of a fake South African passport. Libya has requested his extradition for charges of gold theft but alternatively house breaking. Its alleged that Tantoush stole the gold to finance al-Quaeda operations, but local authorities have refused to comment. Public prosecutor advocate Albie Leonard said that although all the documents pertaining to the extradition had arrived, the State had yet to obtain presidential permission to accede to the extradition request.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/30/2004 9:52:45 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
The US is stepping up its anti-terrorist efforts in west Africa amid continuing controversy over alleged links between al-Qaeda and the smuggling of Sierra Leonean diamonds through Liberia. Washington has begun looking more closely at terrorist financing in a region where the US military is increasingly active in efforts to disrupt terrorist networks, according to government officials and a leading Congressman. A US Congressional panel on the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks concluded this month there was "no persuasive evidence" that al-Qaeda funded itself through trafficking in diamonds from African states experiencing civil wars. But a US government official covering west Africa told the FT the US authorities had started to examine more deeply alleged financial links between the regime of Charles Taylor, exiled former president of Liberia, and groups such as Hizbollah and al-Qaeda. "We want to find out the infrastructure," the official said. "Taylor has ties to things other than whatâs happening in Liberia. We want to find out who and what."
A Federal Bureau of Investigation team this year found "pretty definite" evidence of a link between al-Qaeda operatives and the smuggling of Sierra Leonean diamonds, according to the head of the House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees the FBI. In an interview, Frank Wolf, chairman of the House commerce-justice-state and the judiciary appropriations subcommittee, expressed surprise at the September 11 committeeâs scepticism about the tie and said he would check that it had access to FBI reports on the issue. Mr Wolf said he asked the FBI team to visit Liberia to investigate concerns about alleged dealings in diamonds by radical Islamic groups groups such as Hizbollah in Lebanon. The investigation established that al-Qaeda operatives visited Liberia to buy diamonds, although Mr Wolf warned that confidentiality laws prevented him from giving details. "I can tell you that, to my satisfaction, there is a connection to al-Qaeda," Mr Wolf said. "Now the question is how much, how extensively, is it still going on?"
Global Witness, a UK-based campaigning group, claimed this month that classified briefings given to congressional members by the FBIâs terrorist finance team had confirmed that al-Qaeda operatives visited Liberia and Sierra Leone in order to gain access to the diamond trade. "The FBI should release an unclassified version of their report as soon as possible," said Alex Yearsley, a Global Witness campaigner. The FBI declined to comment on the alleged al-Qaeda visits.
The smuggling of "conflict diamonds" from Sierra Leone became a big international issue after the rebel Revolutionary United Front took over the countryâs main diamond mining areas during the 1991-2002 civilwar. Proceeds from diamond sales helped fund the RUF, which was notorious for chopping off civiliansâ limbs and abducting children to serve as fighters. The US government has never officially confirmed claims that al-Qaeda earned about $20m (?15.5m, £11.1m) from selling west African diamonds, although officials say a connection with Hizbollah is possible. Diplomats in the region insist a link with al-Qaeda has not been proved despite official investigations of claims first reported in the Washington Post in 2001. A US intelligence official said it was easy to point to plausible potential financial links between al-Qaeda and west Africa but much harder to find evidence. The official said that Liberiaâs Mr Taylor dealt with a Senegalese intermediary who had also met Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, an al-Qaeda operative on the FBIâs list of 22 most-wanted terrorists. "We never found anything specific, although when you start looking at links you can make any sort of assumption," the US intelligence official said. Mr Mohammed and two other senior al-Qaeda operatives on the most-wanted list - Mohammed Atef and Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan - are reportedly under investigation internationally over visits to Liberia between 1999 and 2002. Mr Atef is believed to have been killed in Afghanistan during the US invasion in 2001. Aafia Siddiqui, believed to be al-Qaedaâs only senior female leader, is also reported to be under investigation.
Liberiaâs Mr Taylor, who is prohibited from talking to the media under the terms of his exile in Nigeria, has also denied involvement in diamond smuggling and helping terrorist groups. Some observers have suggested the US is reluctant to admit that it failed to spot links between al-Qaeda and Liberia before the September 11 attacks. Mr Taylor was indicted last year for crimes against humanity by the United Nations-backed Sierra Leone war crimes court. David Crane, the courtâs chief prosecutor, has on several occasions publicly alleged links between al-Qaeda and west African conflict diamonds. In an interview, Mr Crane said he believed there was a terrorist presence in the region but declined to go into details. "There are all sorts of things going on that are outside our mandate and we do not pursue," he said.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/30/2004 9:44:49 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sans infiltration of the African diamond network or turning several of the middle men, confirming absolute connections seems nearly impossible. Of course, without the smoking gun, the extracted bullet, the corpse, and a signed affidavit by the victim that he was, indeed, killed by Al Qaeda, the 9/11 Circus Staff will pooh-pooh any connection. Not on the Agenda? Not in the Report.
Fellow Americans - Does anyone think the 9/11 "Commission" will contribute, in any way, to becoming more secure against terrorism?
#2
The U.S. should request help from Israel in its investigation of the Al-Qaida-conflict diamond connection. Most diamonds go through Israeli and/or Jewish hands before they make it to Europe and the United States. The Jews/Israelis are the diamond wholesalers/middlemen between the West Africans and the buyers in the West. I'm sure that the Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, has more extensive information about conflict diamonds than the American intelligence agencies. It is an extensive black market, though. It is similar to the drugs trade. My college roommate was a Liberian and he was almost seduced into the conflict diamond trade. One can profit tens of thousands of dollars by smuggling one large diamond that can be hidden in a pocket , or sewed into one's underwear! And it will be very difficult to investigate and determine if any Al-Qaida members have even visited the region...I don't expect that the local governments to keep great Customs Service entry-exit records of foreigners. I don't know if they even have computers there at their airports...Can anyone shed some light on this? Maybe I'm underestimating the developement of Africa. I've never been there, so I don't know...
#3
I am doing a bit of research for a work of fiction and want to incorporate the issue of conflict diamonds in one section of the book, linking up al Qaeda, Latin America, and the trade of conflict or blood diamonds. Can you refer me to any great sources for more info? Much gratitude. Anonymous Author. August 9, 2004.
Thailandâs troops will be withdrawn early from Iraq if unrest worsens following the handover of power by the U.S.-led coalition, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said Tuesday. He said Thailand wanted to complete its scheduled one-year deployment by late September as planned but "if there was no security or no one needed our help we can withdraw immediately," he told reporters.
Thailand posted a 450-strong contingent including engineers and medics to Iraq last September after remaining neutral during the U.S.-led invasion. They are due to be withdrawn by September 20 after a controversial stint and constant calls for them to be brought home, particularly after the deaths of two Thai soldiers in a car bombing in December in the Shiite holy city of Karbala. Thaksin said the government was monitoring the situation after U.S. overseer Paul Bremer officially handed over control to the interim Iraqi leadership on Monday. Chettha Thanajaro, Thailandâs defense minister, said in a radio interview that commanders on the ground would make the decision to pull out if attacks got worse. "I have instructed the task force commander to make his decision if security worsened and slipped to a dangerous level," Chettha said. He said troops would start to move out from as early as next month to ensure all men and equipment were out by the deadline date.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/30/2004 1:28:08 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Which security, Toxin? Iraq's or Thailand's?
The "constant call" come from their Left-of-Trotsky newspapers. Check out the editorial pages of The Nation and The Bangkok Post - the two national English papers.
#3
Thailandâs troops will be withdrawn early from Iraq if unrest worsens following the handover of power by the U.S.-led coalition, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said Tuesday.
Geez, suck it up, you little sissy. I mean, it's not like you're there alone....
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/30/2004 04:49 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Excellent piece, SH, thx! This explains why the Zarqawi killers felt compelled to set off a bomb there - one of their self-defeating intimidation exercises. Cloning guys like Qizwini would magnify Iraq's chances dramatically. If only Sistani was half the man.
#3
Sometime last week, antiwar pointed out that things were much more peaceful in Fallujah before the Americans invaded. This one for her:
"This lady, this poor lady came to every grave," said Qizwini, pointing to a photo of a woman in an abaya sitting, her arms reaching forward over a mound of earth. "At each excavation she would sit by the grave and say, 'Is this my son? Is this my son?' and no one answered her."
Qizwini started to move on, but Bremer slowed him. "Did she ever find her son?" he asked.
"No, she did not," Qizwini answered.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/30/2004 17:08 Comments ||
Top||
Saddam Hussein could be tried after other members of his ousted regime, Iraqâs ambassador to the United States has said. Saddam will be handed over to Iraqi justice on Wednesday, two days after the country regained sovereignty from Washington, but US soldiers will still guard him to ensure he does not escape. Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said on Tuesday that Saddam and up to 11 top members of his ousted government would appear before Iraqi judges to be charged on Thursday, although a trial was still months away. "I have always believed that the sooner Saddam Hussein was brought in the courtroom, the better for Iraq", Iraqi ambassador Rend Rahim said. "Weâre approaching that trial," she said at a conference called at a conservative Washington think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute. "It could happen in the coming weeks, it might start with the trials of lesser persons, like Ali Hassan al-Majid (known as Chemical Ali)". She called the trials "a cleansing, reconciliation process" and "a kind of reverse trauma the Iraqis need to go through". "Itâs an important part of working out their legacy." Saddam would be charged with crimes against humanity for a 1988 massacre of Kurds, the 1990 invasion of Kuwait and the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, said Salem Chalabi, a lawyer leading the work of a tribunal that will try the former Iraqi leader.
Hummm, wonder if the Iranians will send witnesses?
French lawyer Emmanuel Ludot, one of a 20-strong team appointed by Saddamâs wife to represent him, said the former president would refuse to acknowledge any court or any judge. "It will be a court of vengeance, a settling of scores," Gee, ya think?
Mr Ludot told France Info radio, saying any judge sitting in the court would be under pressure to find Saddam guilty. Mr Ludot said he expected Saddam to say last yearâs US-led war was illegal.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/30/2004 1:34:37 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Saddam trial âmay not be firstâ
Great idea. The first individual to be put on trial should be the most heinous next to ol' Saddy himself. When the guy is found guilty and sentenced (to probably some sort of death), make his punishment a public affair and make sure Saddy sees it on the tube.
Mr Ludot told France Info radio, saying any judge sitting in the court would be under pressure to find Saddam guilty.
Given all that has been known and documented to have occurred under Saddy's reign, how could he NOT be found guilty??
The American marine who is being threatened by his kidnappers with beheading had deserted the military because he was emotionally traumatized, and was abducted by his captors while trying to make his way home to his native Lebanon, a Marine officer said Tuesday. The officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said he believed that Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun was betrayed by Iraqis he befriended on his base and ended up in the hands of Islamic extremists.
This officer should not be talking off the record or on it unless he can prove these accusations. I don't like the way this marine's name is being dragged through the mud on rumor alone. After all, he's most likely already dead.
The officer said Corporal Hassoun, a 24-year-old Marine linguist who was born in Lebanon, was shaken up after he saw one of his sergeants blown apart by a mortar shell. "It was very disturbing to him," the officer said. "He wanted to go home and quit the game, but since he was relatively early in his deployment, that was not going to happen anytime soon. So he talked to some folks on base he befriended, because they were all fellow Muslims, and they helped sneak him off. Once off, instead of helping him get home, they turned him over to the bad guys."
Can you prove this? Have you arrested these "friends" of his and "asked" them where he is? No? Then STFU!
Corporal Hassoun, a fluent Arabic-speaker who had been living with his family in West Jordan, Utah, outside Salt Lake City, joined the Marine Corps to work as a translator. About two months ago, he told a cousin that several American deserters had escaped by bribing Iraqis to help get them out of the country.
I wonder if this is true or if it's a urban myth he read in a muslim paper, or the NYT?
"He said a lot of soldiers, they donât want to die, especially when they see someone dying in front of them," said the cousin, Tarek Hassoun, who lives in Salt Lake City. When Corporal Hassoun was first shown in captivity on video Sunday, Marine officials were reluctant to confirm that he had been kidnapped. On Monday, they acknowledged that they were now classifying his status as "captured."...
From another article, US Muslimsâreactions. Interesting to read: Link
...Jibril Hough, spokesman for the Islamic Center of Charlotte,said the Quran is clear: "If you fight another Muslim brother and you kill the other one, both will be punished in hell." So Muslims are not allowed to kill one another. Not good for us.
I think that's more of a guideline than a rule. They don't seem to pay much attention to it.
Posted by: rex ||
06/30/2004 4:24:15 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Would a Marine officer peddle this story on an anonymous basis? Would a good Marine officer? Or is this likely to be NYT BS?
#6
I smell BS. I'm not quite sure what NYT has to gain by inferring that the Marine was a deserter, since "their side" has more to gain if a respectable Marine gets killed instead of a "deserter".
"Anonymous Marine officer", if he even exists, is a piece of shit for speaking out of turn and for presenting no evidence to back up his claims. For one thing, no Marine would slander his brother in such a way, especially when his brother will likely show up on TV getting his head chopped off in the near future. This is not the first time I've heard the AWOL label attached to the soldier in question, however.
This is a bogus non-story, IMO. Until somebody goes on the record with the AWOL claims, I'm not buying.
Posted by: Chris W. ||
06/30/2004 11:40 Comments ||
Top||
#7
EFL
From that other bastion of fine reporting, the WaPo:
SALT LAKE CITY, June 29 -- Two days after Islamic militants released a video of Marine Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun in captivity with a curved sword held over his neck, the Marine Corps Tuesday officially changed its view of Hassoun and declared him to be a captive, not a deserter.
Hassoun's friends and relatives in the Salt Lake City suburbs had expressed consternation when the Pentagon had designated the vehicle operator to be on "unauthorized absence" after disappearing from his base in Iraq on June 20.
After complaints from the family and Utah officials, the Marine Corps Tuesday changed Hassoun's official status.
"While his absence initially prompted investigators to believe he was missing, the video shown on international television depicted the Marine being held against his will by masked captors," a Marine Corps statement said. "[I]n light of what we have observed on the terrorists' video, we have classified him as captured."
A Marine Corps spokeswoman, Capt. Amy Malugani, said, "The circumstances surrounding his absence are still being investigated."
Hassoun, a native of Lebanon, moved to the United States six years ago, according to members of his mosque here. They said he is a U.S. citizen and joined the Marines two years ago.
When Hassoun was found missing from his base, military officials initially told the press that they considered him a deserter. Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the deputy operations chief in Baghdad, told reporters that Hassoun had gone "on an unauthorized absence," the Associated Press reported. "Based on his personal situation, there was reason to suspect that he was heading over to Lebanon." Hassoun's father is in Lebanon.
#8
I thought the situation was odd from the get go. The military was loathe to declare this marine translator "kidnapped" or a "hostage" for days. They were tight lipped about it except to say he was missing or had taken an unreported absence. As well the picture of the guy, released after several days of absence unless it was taken on the very first day he was apprehended showed a clean person in an unsoiled, pressed uniform with a blind fold.
I think many of you miss the salient point of this article in your rush to defend the honor of a marine. Marines are honorable warriors, to be sure, but was this guy worthy? IOW, I would not take insult so much with the NYT as I would with the belief of Muslims in what the Koran says, if the latter is fact. If this is true, then we have screwed ourselves big time thinking that Iraqis will eventually fight back against the "holy warriors." And if there is ever a draft, you can bet that there will be a certain sector of our society who will claim an exemption due to religious reasons.
Posted by: rex ||
06/30/2004 11:58 Comments ||
Top||
#9
rex, the Marine's a captive hostage.
And even with his Muslim sensibilities, he signed up for the WOT.
Maybe he thinks that the Bush Doctrine of spreading democracy throughout the Middle East and the deposing of Islamist dictators (either with the help of the US military or without if the people can pull it off) is a worthy goal for "his" people, both Muslims and Americans.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/30/2004 12:02 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Not sure if this guy might have suffered from PTSD regarding the gruesome death of his CO, which he witnessed--even more probable if he wasn't a Marine, because he wanted to "be a Marine."
"Corporal Hassoun, a fluent Arabic-speaker who had been living with his family in West Jordan, Utah, outside Salt Lake City, joined the Marine Corps to work as a translator."
I think it's better to join the Marines specifically "to kill people and break their things" (with honor), in defense of something truly believed in. This guy moved here only six years ago (not that someone who moved here six weeks ago wouldn't make a great Marine--it's just that maybe he didn't really understand what he was getting into.) His ideals (if Jen is correct) may not have matched the realities of war (against people of his same type.) Or perhaps he may have tried being a Marine as a "career."
In any case, rex makes an interesting observation " If this is true we have screwed ourselves big time thinking that Iraqis will eventually fight back against the "holy warriors." And if there is ever a draft, you can bet that there will be a certain sector of our society who will claim an exemption due to religious reasons."
Most important point: Shows you what kind of bastards the terrorists are--won't even help "one of their own."
#11
Actually, ex-lib, I was hoping for the best and winging it.
The real story gets a lot weirder:
The New York Times, citing a Marine officer who spoke on the condition of anonymity, reported on its Web site Tuesday night that Hassoun had been traumatized after seeing one of his sergeants killed by a mortar, and was trying to make his way back to Lebanon. The officer told the paper that Hassoun sought the help of Iraqis on the base, was betrayed by them, and was handed over to the extremists.
My guess is that he will most certainly be beheaded and made an example of as a "traitor who helped the kaffir."
Even weirder is the fact that his American (and presumably Muslim) family has chosen to live in Mormon-dominated Salt Lake City.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/30/2004 13:04 Comments ||
Top||
#12
"Even weirder is the fact that his American (and presumably Muslim) family has chosen to live in Mormon-dominated Salt Lake City."
Yeah. Probably thought the name (West Jordan) meant something else. Oops.
#13
I'm at work, I don't know if this'll go through. I already posted a comment earlier today, but don't see it...
If the mamrine in question had family still in Lebanon, the terrorists may have blackmailed him into "defecting" by threatening them, and then held him hostage.
I don't think we're getting the whole story from the NYT, and don't want to speculate on whether the parts we're getting are true.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
06/30/2004 13:39 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I don't think we're getting the whole story from the NYT
As well, I'd say we are not getting the full story from the military.
Posted by: rex ||
06/30/2004 14:17 Comments ||
Top||
#15
rex, some of us trust the U.S. military.
And have you forgotten--There's a war on?
This Hassoun walks a dangerous line in that he's both a U.S. Marine, a Muslim and an alleged immigrant from an unfriendly country--IOW, a very delicate situation for our military.
We don't live in a CNN "OJ trial" world anymore where people just talk their heads off to the press and tell them more than we ever wanted to know because it wasn't important.
Loose lips sink ships and cost lives.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/30/2004 14:24 Comments ||
Top||
#16
rex, some of us trust the U.S. military.
Why is every post of yours always laced with smug arrogance and judgmental innuendoes? Back off. My point was that the military is not telling us everything because they don't want to be brow beaten by the PC crowd into characterizing this marine as a "hostage" when there are so many questions about his "disappearance." Duh. I'm on the side of the military and I never have posted anything other than support.
Posted by: rex ||
06/30/2004 15:26 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Quite frankly, the New York Times long ago forfeited its right to be believed. It is a propaganda broadsheet masquerading as a newspaper. Marines may be jarheads, but no Marine officer would be dumb enough to issue a statement like this off the record or not. The Corps is too small for any source to stay anonymous for long and the official censure and unofficial shunning that would ensue would be decidedly unpleasant.
All in all, I think this is just another NYT propaganda piece in their ongoing attempt to elect John Kerry and any truth that might be contained therein is coincidental. At least Jason Blair wrote interesting fiction. This is just BS.
#18
And have you forgotten--There's a war on?
This Hassoun walks a dangerous line in that he's both a U.S. Marine, a Muslim and an alleged immigrant from an unfriendly country--IOW, a very delicate situation for our military.
We don't live in a CNN "OJ trial" world anymore where people just talk their heads off to the press and tell them more than we ever wanted to know because it wasn't important.
Loose lips sink ships and cost lives.
#19
The guy was possibly a deserter, if someone's gone from duty for 24 hrs much less 48, we know right away the next morning - he's in a UA (unauthorized absence) i.e. awol status. Desertion is technically being gone w/out permission (i.e. gone over the hill) for 30 days or more. My gut instinct tells me this Cpl was trying to take off and was using local Iraqi's for help and got double crossed. My head tells me to wait for the final investigation.
BTW- Not sure how the NYT got any officer to speak in anonymity, we have PR people for record speaking, we don't do shit off the record w/the press or on condition of anonymity. This officer needs his ass chewed.
#20
No Muslims should participate in this pre-emptive war against the Iraqi people. It is time for America service (men and women, Muslim and non-Muslim) to re examine their involvement in this fiasco by the Neocoms and their pet stooge, "dubya".
#21
muslims first, Americans second, huh "Jibril" confirms what a lotta people think. Reactivate Manzanar
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/03/2004 18:39 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Ofcourse Muslim first and American second. Just as any good Christian (or Jew) is a Christian/Jew first and American second. If a good Muslim (and you are good Christian) we will all be good Americans. What happened to "In God We Trust"? When you die you will have to answer to God, not Caeser, or Bush.
#23
Now that Hassoun has thrown off his mask, and that he is safe (anyhow this is good) and hidden somewhere in Iraq with his Iraqi friends, who can still doubt that he is a traitor, a coward and a deserter ?
#25
The world has had its fill of Islamic justice and legality. That's what you get when you base your legal and moral codes on the whims of a 7th century caravan raider and pedophile.
Posted by: ed ||
07/06/2004 12:46 Comments ||
Top||
#26
I donât know any word, other than COWARD, that, since the dawn of mankind has been given, always with infamy, shame and contempt, by every people, in every age and civilization (including the Islamic ones), to a soldier that runs away from the war field because frightened for his life.
#27
My "coward" reference was towards the terrorists that have been doing the beheadings. Perhaps Hasoun had a change of heart and realized that this war is wrong and wanted to be a part of it, no more. he was wrong for going there in the first place.
#28
Your reply sounds so naive (about Hassoun) that or you are in good faith - and really you should get the Nobel prize for naivity - or you are in bad faith and you don't deserve even an answer with your provocative hypotheses (are you able to read the mind of Hassoun ?)
Since ever and in every Country and war, when one soldier, who has has sworn on HIS HONOR to serve his Country, runs away in the night, like a thief, because (he said) frightened by the death of a comrade, this fact, my friend, has since ever and everywhere only one name: COWARDICE.
If you like you can also add a second word: Treason, of his Country and of his comrades, who remained there, fighting and dying for us and ALSO FOR HIM.
If Nassoun will ever return to US, I hope that he will pay with infamy for both his crimes.
#29
why don't you go and take his place? Maybe someone will be here to spit in your face when you return. Again, he should not have participated in this unjust, illegal war in the first place. May God show him the light.
#30
Rex may have something...doesn't sharia forbid a muslim to fight another muslim in the service of the infidel? Can anyone get the exact quote in sharia? I'll try and come up with it.
Posted by: jawa ||
07/08/2004 23:02 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: jawa ||
07/08/2004 23:07 Comments ||
Top||
#32
jibril,
you are only a filthy supporter and likely a spy of arab terrorists.
I have my brother in Iraq and I'm proud of him.
He hasn't run away after having seen his comrades dying.
Certainly you wouldn't have the bravery to openly fight there against US troops (as you would certianly like).
You are here and the bravest thing that you are able to do is spreading your filthy messages and perhaps helping in secret the ones who are preparing the next terrorist attack against this Nation.
#34
you are saying yourself the fanatic and terrorist you are.
This is the most monstruous lie you islamic terrorists are spreading to deceive first of all your arab brothers and sisters: THIS IS NOT A war against muslims; this is a war against a dictator called Saddam who killed millions of muslims.
Everyone who talks as you talk, is only trying to stir up a religious war between Christianity and Islam.
Beware, jibril, what you are doing: Internet is MUCH less anonymous than a coward like you may believe.
With your messages you are leaving a lot of traces and soon someone will succeed in finding who you really are and in which sewer you are trying to hide.
#36
my Anonymous name is as anonymous as your jibril, no more no less.
But for you, the anonymity is not far from ending.
Continue to contact this Forum and you'll make easier the task of who's chasing you.
EFL - Washington Post has a front page article that does not cover up Arab racism.
GENEINA, Sudan, June 29
...six men grabbed them, yelling Arabic slurs such as "zurga" and "abid," meaning "black" and "slave." Then the men raped them, beat them and left them on the ground, they said. "They grabbed my donkey and my straw and said, âBlack girl, you are too dark. You are like a dog. We want to make a light baby,â " said Sawela Suliman, 22.... The Organization of Islamic States was quick to denounce Sudan and send aid to Dakar -- oooops, thatâs from an alternate universe.
Posted by: mhw ||
06/30/2004 8:13:07 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This sounds suspiciously racial in it's overtones.
#3
Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte, Congressional Black Caucus...where are you??? Probably not going to point attention to this issue since it would be impossible to say it was Bush's fault. Hypocrite assholes!
Posted by: remote man ||
06/30/2004 13:50 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Have been watching updates on CNN-Sudan vows to crack down on militia...
If that weren't enough nonsense to swallow, there isn't word one from Colin or Annan about prosecuting the RAPISTS AND MURDERERS FOR CRIMES THEY'VE ALREADY COMMITTED.
EFL Brokaw: I know that you and others like you are grateful for the liberation of Iraq. But canât you understand why many Americans feel that so many young men and women have died here for purposes other than protecting the United States? Sssssssslant! Lips...are falling...off. Allawi: We know that this is an extension to what has happened in New York. And â the war have been taken out to Iraq by the same terrorists. Saddam was a potential friend and partner and natural ally of terrorism. Sssssssslam! Brokaw: Prime minister, Iâm surprised that you would make the connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq. The 9/11 commission in America says there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and those terrorists of al-Qaida. I am shocked I tell you! Allawi: No. I believe very strongly that Saddam had relations with al-Qaida. And these relations started in Sudan. We know Saddam had relationships with a lot of terrorists and international terrorism. Now, whether he is directly connected to the September â atrocities or not, I canât â vouch for this. But definitely I know he has connections with extremism and terrorists. Brokaw:But,...but,...but the 911 Commission says that...hey where did my lips go?
Posted by: Dragon Fly ||
06/30/2004 7:18:29 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Brokaw: Do you get an erection every time an American soldier dies, just like me?
Posted by: Charles ||
06/30/2004 7:40 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I wonder what the rest of the interview was like.. Kind of telling that they cut it off after just two questions
#4
It's one helluva stretch to call this an interview - and the abrupt cut-off does, indeed, indicate that what followed was judged to be too far off the editorial agenda. Some "news" organization.
But then the truth wouldn't be very interesting to slugs who live in the distant past and thrive on conspiracy tripe and their BushHatred.
Allawi should talk to a real journalist (there's bound to be 4 or 5 of them surviving), preferably an independent, I would very much like to hear more from this man. He seems to be a tough guy and straight-shooter. What a concept.
#5
Anonymous42321: If recall correclty, Saddam was a friend of the US during Regan's administrtion and was paid a number of visits by Rumsfeld!
If I recall correctly, Stalin was a friend of the US during Roosevelt's administrtion and was paid a number of visits by Hull. Actually, the US was much more of a friend to Stalin than it was a friend of Saddam's. The US sent tens of billions of dollars in food and material aid to the Soviets, back when billions of dollars actually meant something. And the Soviets repaid this friendship by spending hundreds of billions of dollars to finance, train and supply Communist insurgencies around the world and preventing free elections in liberated Eastern Europe, just as Saddam repaid American friendship by invading Kuwait. It just goes to show that ingratitude runs among both Russians and Arabs. (Of course, Saddam's greatest friends were the Soviets, the French and the Chinese, as evidenced by the fact that most of his armory came from these three countries - he had no American weapons systems at all, not even the M-16).
#6
.com ...I agree with your thoughts. However, the abrupt cut-off may have more to do with the fact that this was a package for the nightly news. We may see a more extended version of the "interview" on one of the weekend shows.
"In December Dr. Allawi commented on a recently discovered Iraqi intelligence document placing lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta in Baghdad two months before the attacks.
"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda," he told the London Telegraph. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks.' "
#8
Anonymous42321: The word "friend" is subjective, and friend to the US, vague. Number of visits by Rumsfeld doesn't mean anything, what does mean something is what was said and done, information you don't have and this causes you to have a messy left-wing fantasy.
As for NBC - to advertise their "exclusive" interview and puff themselves up, then do a whack-job on it is more than just a packaging problem, IMO. If they didn't have time to shoe-horn it in between their BushHatred, Abu Crap Abuse, quagmire, and Skeery softcore pieces - and the obligatory dog rescue closer, then they should've teased for a special - with the whole thing broadcast uncut. Pfeh. Disingenuous and deceptive butchery for political ends.
I heard a recent telephone interview with Mike Wallace that made my blood boil so much that I literally had to turn it off. Never, in my life, have I heard such a biased and politically bigoted stance from an MSM "institution.". Truly appalling. Which leads me to wonder...
What keeps coming to mind as I read example after example, some so egregious that they're breathtaking, I can't help but wonder how much of what I lived and witnessed as "history" is actually "packaging" by the CBSNCBABC cabal prior to the advent of CNN (back when they weren't even worse, heh) and other cable news outlets, not to mention online access to thousands of newspapers and finally the bloggers who work so hard to keep everyone honest. Do I need to add in the textbooks which were force-fed to us? Boggles.
#10
Yes .com the major partisan media outlets have had great gains in defining the meta-narrative. I am frightened when people I know explain why they voting for Kerry using almost verbatim the script from the nightly news, Wash Post, et al. Tragic.
#11
The unabashed loyalty to dead tree news and the glazed over religious dedication to the CRT's talking heads has most of our country under a heavy dose of anti American drivel. How the American public seems to get it right most of the time is a complete mystery to me with all of the misinformation they are inundated with.
How anyone can look me in the eye and tell me sKerry and the Democrats are better for our country and our future with a straight face is a complete and total moron. These people scare the hell out of me.
#12
Anonymous42321: If recall correclty, Saddam was a friend of the US during Regan's administrtion and was paid a number of visits by Rumsfeld!
The left specializes in compound lies. The implication here is that the Rumsfeld visit was somehow an extraordinary event. The reality is that that visit (with Rumsfeld in his capacity as a private citizen drafted as an envoy) was preparatory to the US resuming full diplomatic relations with Iraq, long after just about every UN member had recognized the government (and the reality of Baath Party supremacy) in Iraq, including China, the Soviet Union and France, all of which scrambled to recognize (and arm) the new dictatorship pretty much as soon as it took power in the early 1970's. The US, by contrast, held out on recognition until the mid-80's, resuming diplomatic ties (and re-establishing an embassy in Iraq) only when it appeared that Iran was on the verge of overwhelming Saddam's armies.
#14
"If recall correclty, Saddam was a friend of the US during Regan's administrtion and was paid a number of visits by Rumsfeld!"
If I recall France was a friend of the US once and we still visit them from time to time.
I would say the ex-friends have an additional responsibility to set things right when the old friend goes psycho (or you finally realize they've gone psycho). France and Russia can you hear me?
#15
Zhang,
Two very concise replys.
.Com,
"History" vs "Packaging" frames up and simplifys a lot of the problems I spot in media coverage too. Consider the thought stolen!
#16
How the American public seems to get it right most of the time is a complete mystery to me with all of the misinformation they are inundated with.
Most of the American public doesn't follow the news on TV or read the daily papers. At one point I thought of those folks as mainly ignorant. Now I think most of them are just exercising common sense.
#17
Capsu78 - Credit to DF - I know the print game (via Ex-Spousal Unit), but DF's characterization of the broadcast time issues sourced 'package', lol! I'm just boggled by how susceptible we all are - and have been all our lives - to this little cabal of self-appointed truth police called the press. Brings to mind the Firesign Theater routine where the guy is entering Turkey and the Immigration Officer asks, "Have you seen the past? You'd better hurry - they're cleaning it, you know."
#18
Saddam a "friend" of the US, et cetera. Problem here is the use of the word "friend". Saddam did receive support from the US for the purpose of fighting with Iran. At the time, Iran posed the more important threat. If we could use the Iraqis to limit the Iranians, we were able to achieve an end without direct loss of American loss and a limited loss of American resources.
However, we were also careful not help Iraq beat the Iranians. We often provided the Iraqis with false intelligence so that we could injury Iraq's position.
As Kissinger said during this time, "It's a shame they both can't lose."
#19
.com, Zhang, yank, DF, C. Lib. -- great stuff. And not just because great minds think alike. Did you see the Brokaw interview of Dubya at Normandy? Now this with Allawi -- very similar. I just wish one of them (or another figure subjected to his nearly insulting dumb, loaded, and falsely-premised questions) would tear his head off -- great video, and would help alert some less attentive folks that these people long ago went off the shallow end. (trademarked phrase)
I also marvel (and now, fret) over the amazing common-sense gyroscope that seems to guide most Americans. How more than a small minority can think clearly or realistically about international issues, given the distortion and falsehood they're relentlessly fed, is a mystery.
... [an] officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said he believed that Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun was betrayed by Iraqis he befriended on his base and ended up in the hands of Islamic extremists. The officer said Corporal Hassoun, a 24-year-old Marine linguist who was born in Lebanon, was shaken up after he saw one of his sergeants blown apart by a mortar shell. "It was very disturbing to him," the officer said. "He wanted to go home and quit the game, but since he was relatively early in his deployment, that was not going to happen anytime soon. So he talked to some folks on base he befriended, because they were all fellow Muslims, and they helped sneak him off. Once off, instead of helping him get home, they turned him over to the bad guys." ....
About two months ago, he [Hassoun] told a cousin that several American deserters had escaped by bribing Iraqis to help get them out of the country. "He said a lot of soldiers, they donât want to die, especially when they see someone dying in front of them," said the cousin, Tarek Hassoun, who lives in Salt Lake City. ...
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/30/2004 7:13:24 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
From the New York Crimes? I would take this information with a pound of salt....
#2
About the only thing that rings true without any spin is that:
1) He thought he had made some friends
2) He snuck off-base with them
3) They sold him to some jihadis
The "we're all Muslims first" meme does have the mercenary limitation, at least with Arabs.
#4
Anon4617 -- anonymously sourced New York Times story. In other words, about as believable as a Grimm Fairy Tale.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/30/2004 8:10 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Alternate explanation: they tried to blackmail him into defecting by threatening family still in the ME, and then grabbed him when they could.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
06/30/2004 9:04 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I'm willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt so far until rock-solid details are provided. After all, he is a Marine, and that achievement isn't something to dismiss lightly.
#7
The NYT has gone downhill since Jason Blair left. At least he could write interesting lies. This is just another propaganda piece from the remains of what used to be America's Paper of Record. The NYT is on a par with al Jazeera as just another anti-American voice in the media chorus united by anti-Americanism and a fervent desire to elect John Kerry. Mike, I thought you knew better than to read this fishwrap.
In a major breakthrough, a Lashker-e-Taiba module was busted here with the killing of two militants and arrest of 18 who had planned attacks on Bombay Stock Exchange, strategic places in Delhi and elsewhere and had links with the four militants killed in an encounter in Ahmedabad on June 15, a top police official said today. One of the four militants killed in Ahmedabad, Babar, a Pakistani national, was sent from here, the DGP said. The militants arrested from various parts of the city in the past three days, including an auxillary police constable, were involved in several high profile killings including that of Maulvi Mushtaq Ahmed, uncle of Hurriyat leader Mirwaiz Umer Farooq, blasts and suicide attacks, he said. The DGP said of the 20 militants arrested, two, both Pakistani nationals, were killed when a police team leading them for recoveries came under fire from a hideout in Rawalpora area last night. Five policemen were also injured in the shootout. With this breakthrough, Sharma said the security forces have not only worked out several cases that took place over the past one year but also prevented many others which the module had planned.
On the modus operandi of the module, the DGP said Hizbul Mujahideen, Al Umar Mujahideen and LeT had for the past six months pooled their resources including manpower, information and weaponry to work under the new umbrella organisation called Save Kashmir Movement. The outfit dominant in a certain area would help out logistically other outfits to carry out attacks, he said. Asked if busting of the module signalled an end to the presence of militants in the city, Sharma said some militants may still be around but we expect to go further in our probe.
"Mukkerjee, bring me The Probe!"
"Not... Not... Not The Probe, sir?"
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
06/30/2004 2:20:51 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
An explosive device and two firebombs were hurled at a motorist traveling near the community of Tekoa, in the eastern sector of the Gush Etzion district. No injuries were reported. Soldiers responding to the incident were also attacked with an explosive device. Once again, no injuries.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/30/2004 12:56:27 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
This bugger is even more likely than Saddam to swing from a rope.
Britain is today expected to hand over its highest profile Iraq war detainee, Ali Hassan al-Majid, or "Chemical Ali", as Iraq's new government prepares to bring charges against former dictator Saddam Hussein. A special Iraqi tribunal has issued arrest warrants for Mr Hussein's top lieutenants, including Mr Majid, who is accused of ordering chemical weapons attacks on Iraqi Kurds, and Tariq Aziz, the former deputy prime minister. British officials said they had little choice other than to deliver physical and legal custody of Mr Majid to Iraqi authorities, in spite of the risk he could face execution. The interim Iraq government has retained the death penalty. The UK's powers of detention over prisoners captured during the Iraq war ended with the handover of sovereignty, so Mr Majid would either have to be set free or custody must be transferred to the Iraqis. Iraq's government will bring formal charges against Mr Hussein tomorrow, after taking legal custody of the notorious strongman but leaving him physically in American hands. In his first move since the Monday handover of sovereignty, Iyad Allawi, the prime minister, said Mr Hussein would be charged in an Iraqi court tomorrow, an event that could provide the first appearance of Mr Hussein since he was captured in December.
Sure hope they didn't barber him.
The announcement appeared designed to rally support for the new government by reminding Iraqis of Mr Hussein's brutal rule. The former president's trial, which will be public, may not begin before next year. "We will show that justice will prevail," said Mr Allawi. "We want to put this bad history behind us and to move with the spirit of national unity and reconciliation." While the interim Iraqi government will take legal custody of Mr Hussein and 11 other high-profile prisoners, the US-led multinational force will remain responsible for guarding the prison where he will be held. "At our request, the multinational forces will continue to maintain physical custody of them until Iraq's correction service receives an order from the Victoria's Secret catalog is fully capable for providing for their safety and secure detention," Mr Allawi said.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/30/2004 12:38:20 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
While the interim Iraqi government will take legal custody of Mr Hussein and 11 other high-profile prisoners...
Alrighty, .com. Now this article makes it look like they've got Al-Douri since he is one of the numbered "other eleven".
#2
Quana - Well, if they have him, then we BOTH missed it! And I have not missed a day of blog reading in a year. I find TONS of stories of the $10M reward and an apparent close call back in December - but nothing about his actual capture.
#3
I don't know why the Brits are so worried about the death penality. Chem Ali is probably going to get panties on his head! Dirty panties! Oh, the humilation!
Posted by: Capt America ||
06/30/2004 2:31 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Quana, .com, I think they've charged Aizat Al Dori in abstentia. I guess they figure there's enough evidence to get the ball rolling. Plus, I figure most of the regular folk want to see him hang anyways, so a trial would let them re-hash all the evidence they have. Closure and all that.
#6
"chemical" ali? since we all know that BUSH LIED and there were no chemical weapons, did he get this nickname when he toured as a bassist with foghat in the 70's?
Oh, thats right, cousin ali killed people en masse. Damn those uncomfortable facts, they do so get in the way of what we want to believe, dont they?
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
06/30/2004 3:14 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Ali Hasan al-Majid GEN
Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) / Commander, Ba'ath Party Regional Command / Inner Circle/ Presidential Advisor/ Head Of Central Workers Bureau In custody Aug 21
They caught him last year. There was a lot of confusion because he was declared dead several times, but he got better.
Posted by: Steve ||
06/30/2004 9:37 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Steve...my confusion is over Ibrahim Al-Douri. There was some news he was captured about three days after Saddam, back in December. Then Centcom said "nope, we ain't got 'im" or something to that effect and he was back on the "not captured yet" list.
These articles (yesterday's here) refer to Al-Douri as if he is in custody but notably describe his date of capture as "date of detention unknown". I think that's a weird thing to say if they have him.
I think .com and beer_me may be right...this may be an "in absentia" kinda "dentention". If they don't have him, why don't they just say "In absentia". It's not as if it isn't a legal term or anything.
#11
So the Brits are willing to hand this guy over to the Iraqis who are sure to hang him, but they won't extradite to the US "if there's a chance the death penalty might be imposed?" Somebody explain to me the double-standard?
You see, the UK signed the Geneva convention, which requires them to return all POWs to their host country after hostilities end.
This is completely different from the situation with the US, where the UK signed an extradition treaty that requires them to hand over indicted criminals.
The Security Council voted unanimously Tuesday to extend the U.N. peacekeeping mission along the Israeli-Syrian border for six months.
Did they point with pride at how successful it's been?
In a recent report to the council, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that during the past six months, the area remained "generally quiet."
Except for a bit of artillery from Hezbollah, and a few air strikes back...
"Nevertheless, the situation in the Middle East is very tense and is likely to remain so, unless and until a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problem can be reached," he said. Under the circumstances, he said the continued presence of the U.N. force is "essential."
I'm sure there's a reason why it's essential, but for the life of me I can't think of one...
The resolution adopted by the council extends the 1,050-strong U.N. Disengagement Observer Force for six months until Dec. 31. The force was established in 1974, following the 1973 Yom Kippur war, to monitor the disengagement of Israeli and Syrian forces in the Golan Heights. Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in 1967.
Yup. They've been there for thirty years now. I was a young man when they showed up and began doing the wonderful things they do. Whatever they are.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/30/2004 12:27:58 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is important, to be sure, but what the hel* is the matter with these morons at the UN? They find time to vote for extending a peacekeeping border mission, but can't spit out the words "what's happening in Darfur is genocide and we are passing a resolution today to demand that Sudan immediately release food and medical help to help the thousands will will OTHERWISE DIE in the next month"?
The United States is providing an additional $14 million in emergency support for humanitarian assistance in eastern Chad and the Darfur region of western Sudan. A statement on the aid was issued June 25 by Adam Ereli, deputy State Department spokesman, who said the United States has provided more than $110 million in support of the people of Darfur since the beginning of the crisis. He said that international relief effort is urgently needed on both sides of the border, where the situation remains dire.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/30/2004 12:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
How about a few million in humanitarian arms aid? We got plenty of old weapons I'm sure would be appreciated. We could call it Guns for Genocide Victims, or something.
#2
$8M to the UN
$5M to the Intl Red Thingy
$1M to NGOs & Admin Costs
How much will reach the intended recipients? You have to wonder - as well as wonder at the people who constantly criticize the US - $110M thus far and all through the "acceptable" channels - all this happening under the radar. We are soooo bad and evil.
They require that all 'aid' be provided through the government, delivered in government trucks and in government marked sacks (the sacks cannot say 'U.S. AID' or have any NGO markings.).
Actually most of the 'aid' will probably end up in the militants hands..... dont want them to get too hungry between gang-raping little girls and murdering the men.....
But I do like the Guns for Genocide Victims plan... And the UN and media would hate it which is all the better.
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.
