KUWAIT CITY - Kuwait said on Sunday it has approved a new "strategy" to combat terrorism following gun battles with militants and vowed to crush terrorists.
I have a simple strategy for you, call on me, me, pick me ...
The cabinet reviewed during its weekly session a "strategy to deal with the phenomenon of terrorism and extremist ideology," prepared by Kuwait's National Security Council, an official statement said, without giving details. "The cabinet asked the council to ... coordinate with other concerned authorities to formulate practical programmes necessary to combat the ideology of extremism and violence at all levels with the aim to uproot this scourge."
You could call it, "killing terrorists".
The cabinet also approved the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and referred it to Emir Sheikh Jaber Al Ahmad Al Sabah before sending it to parliament for endorsement. The treaty was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1999 in a bid to drain sources of funding terrorists. Interior Minister Sheikh Nawaf Al Ahmad Al Sabah said the number of terrorists being hunted by Kuwaiti security forces was "small" and would be crushed. "The gang of terrorists is small and will be wiped out completely ... Criminals and wanted men will not escape the hand of justice," the minister told the state KUNA news agency.
He seems to have the right idea.
He said security forces were still hunting for Mohsen Al Fadhli and Khaled Al Dosari, the two most wanted men who have been at large for months and whose names re-emerged after the latest clashes. Local media and everyone else have linked the two with the Al-Qaeda network and Saudi militants. Islamic Affairs Minister Abdullah Al Maatuk on Sunday formed a panel of religious scholars and academics with a mission to "strengthen moderate (Islamic) ideology and confront extremism".
They've also established a dancing school for dogs.
This article starring:
KHALED AL DOSARI
Peninsula Lions
MOHSEN AL FADHLI
Peninsula Lions
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/06/2005 12:58:06 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[13 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And we'll still go to MEMRI and be completely unsurprised to find this is for Western consumption only...
#2
It's possible that the Al Sabahs are looking at the predicament of the Saudi royals and trying to avoid slipping into a similar mess.
Posted by: Tom ||
02/06/2005 13:49 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I think the Al Sabahs are serious about this, for 3 specific reasons : 1) There is only an independent Kuwait because of the U.S.; 2) They have seen the declining popularity of the Saudis since 911 and wish to remain in our good graces {Kuwaitis do not trust Persians}; and 3) A muscular constitutional monarchy {stronger than the UK's but much more restricted that Nepal's} would be an acceptable political outcome for the West, and would permit the Kuwaiti Royals to continue to enjoy all the goodies they presently have.
Just curious, but would anyone recommend sharing information and tips on terrorists with all of the attendees of the conference?
Considering that there is absolutely zero chance that this collection of 50+ countries, which includes Iran and Syria, would not even be able to agree on the definition of the term, this strikes me as yet another MSM-UN-style fashion show.
CP Abdullah is perfect for the role of host, though Supreme Leader Mad Mullah Extraordinaire Khomeini would serve equally well in the role.
Any guesses as to whether or not the country which has suffered from terrorism longest, is undoubtedly the most knowledgeable about tracking and stopping terrorists, and has the most obvious need for international entities to shut down the funding, sponsorship, arming, and support of terrorism was even invited, much less in attendance?
Posted by: Me TROLL ||
02/06/2005 12:21 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"Me" - IMHO .com was referring to the MSM's fascination with summits and meetings in which nothing really substantive occurs, a la UN. Think the NY Times will call it illegitimate because the Joooos were turned away?
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/06/2005 12:34 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Locate the World Center in the Jewish Quarter of the old city.
#10
.com ,amazing that you managed to weave the bogeyman"MSM"into a thread concerning Saudi Arabia.Ridiculous as their proposal is,it has nothing to do with the MSM,which has become the the reflex response when tapped on the knee by a hammer of any subject.By the way,does the MSM include the 3 columnists on the Bush administration payroll or is that someone else?
Posted by: Me ||
02/06/2005 12:21 Comments ||
Top||
Security at ports and airports as well as military and police bases in Northern Ireland has been strengthened following IRA statements last week warning the British and Irish governments about a crisis in the peace process. Special Branch officers have reappeared at entry points from Ireland into Britain in recent days. Anti-terrorist officers have contacted agents who worked for the security forces inside the IRA. The informers living in hiding have been warned to step up their personal security. Surveillance of republican suspects on either side of the Irish border has also been intensified as London and Dublin try to determine if the IRA's implicit threat contained in the two statements will be backed up with force.
Last Thursday the IRA withdrew last December's offer to decommission vast amounts of arms as well as tonnes of Semtex explosive in order to boost a deal that would see Gerry Adams sitting down in government with Democratic Unionist leader the Reverend Ian Paisley. Since that deal broke down the atmosphere in Northern Ireland has been toxic. On 22 December an elite IRA unit is believed to have carried out the largest bank heist in European history. The theft of an estimated £26 million from the Northern Bank led to the fresh crisis in the peace process, which is set to deepen later this week when the international body set up to assess the state of paramilitary cease-fires publishes its next report. The Independent Monitoring Commission is expected to concur with Chief Constable Hugh Orde's judgment that the IRA was behind the heist in Belfast. Security chiefs fear that an IMC recommendation of financial or political sanctions against Sinn Fein over the Northern Bank robbery might act as a 'tipping point'.
A security briefing given to Irish leader Bertie Ahern said the robbery was a 'bloodless spectacular', an alternative to bombing Britain. Ahern was told that after the political talks failed, a minority in the IRA leadership believed the British should have been taught a lesson, The Observer has learned. Instead of bombing Britain, potentially a political disaster in the post-9/11 world, the movement chose instead to pull off the biggest cash theft ever.
The IRA's former southern commander turned informer Sean O'Callaghan said yesterday: 'We are entering a new phase of the struggle, a post-peace process world, that they are thinking post-Blair and the implications of his departure from the scene'. 'I don't think they are going back to outright war but rather will adopt a policy of destabilisation in Northern Ireland. The IRA cannot afford to allow Northern Ireland under direct rule from London to be stable and prosperous. At the same time they cannot go back to bombing Britain because that puts them in the same camp as Bin Laden. But they may consider a policy of street disorder, winding things up in the loyalist marching season.'
The police have been less alarmist about the implications of the IRA's two statements. 'There is no imminent threat of the IRA going back to what they call "war",' Hugh Orde said this weekend. Yesterday Gerry Adams insisted he did not want to see war return, although earlier the Sinn Fein leader pointedly refused to interpret what those IRA statements meant.
#1
This article is very interesting. A few excerpts:
The Muslim Boys, they say, are notorious for intimidating imams into opening their mosques in the early hours of the morning so that they can pray, often right after committing crimes, and for their "forced conversions", carried out at gunpoint, of black youths to Islam. At least one local young man, Adrian Marriott, thought to have resisted such a conversion, is believed to have been murdered "as an example to others". ....
This is how gang member Winston describes "conversion". "You got to be Muslim to be in our group," he tells me. "If you not down [cool] with Muslim, we visit your home, maybe strip you naked in front of your f***ing mother, we put a gun in your mouth. We give you three days [to change your mind], then, if you not down with it, we f* * * ing blow. ...
Abdul Haqq Baker, chairman of Brixton mosque, said: "What we are seeing is a new phenomenon that I have not seen in my 15 years as a Muslim." He added that TV scenes of militant uprisings in the Middle East are presenting a distorted view of Islam that appeals to criminals. "Keep away from our mosques," he pleaded.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
02/06/2005 8:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Keep away from our mosques," he pleaded
Unless you can keep quiet and have money.
#4
Well it sounds pretty Islamic to me. I don't see much difference between these punks and Mulholland's exploits. Convert or die, thats Islam at it's core when they can get away with it IMHO.
It also sounds like the UK police is ill-equipped for and perhaps even avoiding dealing with this gang. It's going to come back and bite hard. On police officer already shot in the legs with a MAC-10. These punks are running 3 housing estates. How can the UK government even think of allowing that?
The money is the key here. Where is it going? Just because they say they are down with Osama doesn't mean much. They could be doing something much worse with the money. What that is needs to be determined quickly.
Situation normal (you know the rest.) Perhaps some press coverage will initiate some action.
LONDON - Only skilled professionals will be allowed to permanently settle in Britain under measures to be announced on Monday by Prime Minister Tony Blair's government, it was reported on Sunday. Only "desirable" professionals, such as doctors and teachers, will be granted leave to remain, and even then only if they pass English tests, The Observer newspaper said. Others who come to Britain on work permits will not be able to apply to remain indefinitely, and will be forced to leave once their time in the country has run out.
The measures are not expected to affect citizens from other European Union countries who, under EU rules, are free to seek work and remain in Britain—though under some conditions in the case of those from eastern Europe. The Observer said the measures would be announced on Monday by Home Secretary Charles Clarke, three months before an expected general election in which immigration will be a major issue.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/06/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Wow, hopefully they can enforce this. Sounds good to me on face value.
#4
Of course, we could do the same thing by outlawing wire transfer of funds from the US to Mexico.
Hah, as if. Lately, banking firms have been jumping on the bandwagon to make it easier to transfer funds to Mexico. All in the name of catering to "Hispanics". (including illegal aliens, no doubt)
#6
I just wonder how many of us would be here if they would have applied that same standard to our parents or grandparents. Economic times weren't any better then than they are now, and sometimes, they were even worse.
I have no problem with poorer people coming here, as long as they are willing to work and raise their kids to be Americans, not part of the (insert-ethnic-and/or-religious-group-here) diaspora.
Some of the greatest Americans in our history have been either those who came here with nothing, or the children of those immigrants.
#7
Desert Blondie: âI just wonder how many of us would be here if they would have applied that same standard to our parents or grandparents.â
Far more stringent standards were applied in the past, including strict quota systems. Travel was more expensive and more limited. Border controls were more restrictive.
The economic system was also very different. No welfare system and limited public services. Many jobs required only a strong, willing back instead of language, education, and computer skills.
There was no multi-culturalism. Immigrants were expected to learn English and follow the local laws.
The world today is far different.
What does the future hold?
I believe we are in the early stages of merging Canada, the US, and Mexico with other Latin American and South American countries to follow. I donât mean that those nations will become states in the US. I mean there will be a merging of cultures, economies, and communities.
In the past it mattered in what US state you were born. Today it doesnât matter. History has many examples of smaller political units combining to form a large political community. It is happening with the EU today. (There are also examples of breakups, e.g. Soviet Union. However I believe the long-term trend is globalization.)
I donât believe the process can be stopped. Nor do I believe it is in the long-term interests of the US to do so. Population numbers do matter. In the next decades the US will face China and India whose economies have greatly advanced and whose people will become much better educated and productive. Both countries have over a billion citizens.
If the US canât stop it and stopping it isnât in the best interest of the US, what should be done?
As citizens we should decide what type of culture we want. I want a law abiding, English speaking, non-socialist culture that values personal responsibility and Western liberal values. I believe our immigration policies should deter illegal immigration and encourage mainstream assimilation of new immigrants. Our policies should strengthen our nation by encouraging skilled immigration while discouraging unskilled immigration and stopping criminal immigration.
#8
Desert Blondie, I suspect that most of our ancestors came here legally. Certainly mine did, which meant that their 10-year wait on the list led to my grandparents hiding in a fraternity house in Amsterdam during the war, and a 2-week stint lying in a roof gutter for my mother. For my father, it meant moving to Palestine, because there was nowhere else to go. The issue is not immigration, it is illegally and selfishly jumping the queue.
#9
I doubt most of my ancestors came here without protection of the law as there was none. Further, I have strong reason to believe most were attempting to escape the law from whence they came. Sort of like Australians. Interesting what sprouted from such seeds. (Yes, I know most Aussies have no transport blood, but it's in the attitude.)
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/06/2005 16:31 Comments ||
Top||
Rumors about the death of separatist leader Shamil Basayev are being circulated in Chechnya, but this information will be confirmed only after law enforcement agencies produce evidence proving his death, the republic's State Council Chairman Taus Dzhabrailov told Interfax by phone on Friday. "Rumors about Basayev's death are being spread in Chechnya. But only law enforcement agencies can confirm his death by showing this man's body or some video tapes to the public," Dzhabrailov said.
Basayev's death would deliver a blow to all remaining guerrilla groups in Chechnya, he said. "He is such a major figure that in the event of his death, any vigorous terrorist activities on the territory of the republic or outside it will be out of the question. If Basayev's death is confirmed, [separatist leader] Aslan Maskhadov will take rapid steps to search for various opportunities to surrender to law enforcement agencies," the official said.
This article starring:
ASLAN MASKHADOV
Chechnya
SHAMIL BASAIEV
Chechnya
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
02/06/2005 12:21:11 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
i doubt he is dead or that Maskadov would surrender too authorities if he was.
The presidents of the United States and South Korea agreed yesterday to push for an early resumption of six-nation talks to end North Korea's nuclear weapons programmes. Bush called South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun to discuss the importance of restarting six-nation talks to rein in North Korea's nuclear ambitions. "President Roh said the six-party talks must resume soon for a peaceful resolution of the North Korean nuclear problem," the presidential Blue House said. "South Korea and the US must co-operate and all participants of the talks must boost their efforts to this end." Bush shared that view during the 10-minute phone conversation, and suggested that he and "President Roh closely co-operate for the peace of the world," it said.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/06/2005 11:25:54 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
ITALIAN police are investigating allegations that American intelligence agents kidnapped an Islamic militant in Milan and transported him to Egypt, where he was tortured. Osama Moustafa Nasr, an Egyptian dissident with alleged links to Al-Qaeda, disappeared in Milan on February 16, 2003, after eyewitnesses saw him being approached by three men as he walked to a mosque. A kidnap inquiry was opened in Italy after Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, was temporarily released from custody in Egypt last year and telephoned his wife and friends to tell them what had happened. He claimed he had been tortured so badly by secret police in Cairo that he had lost hearing in one ear. Italian officers who intercepted the call believe he has since been rearrested.
Although details of the inquiry remain confidential, the Italians are thought to be investigating claims that Nasr was taken by US intelligence agents to Aviano airbase and flown to Egypt in an American plane. If confirmed, the case would be one of the most controversial instances of the American policy of "rendition" sending prisoners for imprisonment and questioning in other countries. Since September 11, 2001, dozens of prisoners have been transferred by America to countries such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia where interrogation techniques may be harsh. As The Sunday Times disclosed last November, US agents have repeatedly used civilian executive jets to transport prisoners to the Middle East, including a Gulfstream that was a frequent visitor to British airports. The plane was sold two days after the Sunday Times article appeared.
Imam Imad, the head of Viale Jenner mosque in Milan, an alleged centre of Islamic militancy, said Nasr had described how he tried to resist as he was stopped in the street and forced into a car before being taken to a military base. "He can't be sure if it was the Italians or Americans who took him," Imad said. "He was blindfolded. But they were western people. It was certainly not the Egyptians who captured him and took him to Cairo."
Armando Spataro, the deputy chief prosecutor of Milan, would not confirm whether there was any evidence of US involvement but said he was conducting a far-reaching inquiry. If Americans had played a part, "it would be a serious breach of Italian law". Spataro and other Italian prosecutors are particularly angry about Nasr's disappearance because they were preparing to prosecute him in Milan. They had bugged a conversation that appeared to suggest he was colluding in the establishment of a new terrorist network in Europe. The CIA and other US government departments refuse to discuss rendition publicly, except to insist that all transfers are conducted legally. Privately officials say they have guarantees that prisoners sent to other countries are well treated.
Michael Scheuer, a former senior CIA official who once played a leading role in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, has confirmed that the agency has been involved in the rendition of close to 100 terror suspects. The policy of "capturing people and taking them to second or third countries" was developed after the CIA was told to dismantle terrorist cells across the world, said Scheuer, who resigned last November. Official documents released recently in Sweden revealed that the CIA provided a Gulfstream jet that took two Egyptian terrorist suspects from Sweden to Cairo in December 2001. Both claimed they were brutally tortured.
This article starring:
ABU OMAR
al-Qaeda
OSAMA MUSTAFA NASR
al-Qaeda
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
02/06/2005 12:18:03 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They were the lucky ones. The Egyptians only tenderized them. Next time these clowns won't be allowed back. Or maybe they were allowed back to let the others know what happens to people who pal around with al Q's.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/06/2005 0:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
...the wild coho that roared up the streams following the long-awaited post-Christmas rains have been busily spawning, females digging nests and bright red males muscling each other out of the way, wrestling and biting to be the first one up to fertilize the eggs...
We're just helping them return to the spawning grounds. Rendition is very Green and Eco-Friendly. Hey, it's just the kind of people we are - no thanks necessary. You're welcome.
#4
Hang on....so now were not allowed to send em back to their sh*thole of origin and subjected to the local form of Justice? But to do otherwize, wouldn't we be disregarding the will of the locals? I mean, weren't all those people against the war saying that we shouldn't get involved in local business? So why should we project our human rights values on foreign countries in this circumstance?
Posted by: Mark E. ||
02/06/2005 11:05 Comments ||
Top||
#5
While I don't disagree with repatriating the bad guyz to their countries of origin -- I don't see why they should be entitled to demand questioning by civilized torturers -- the issue is removing them from a third country against the express will of that third country. Especially an ally.
#6
Mark E., how would you feel if it were the Mukhabarat kidnapping Kurds who had moved here?
Not saying the situations are totally parallel, but it does give me pause ....
Posted by: too true ||
02/06/2005 13:30 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Read the article. He only knows that the people who kidnapped him were "western people" -- possibly even Italian. All else is speculation. If the CIA is involved and doing its job properly, that's all that will ever be known.
Not that I will shed any tears for an Islamic militant Egyptian dissident being shipped "home".
Posted by: Tom ||
02/06/2005 14:02 Comments ||
Top||
#8
...how would you feel if it were the Mukhabarat kidnapping Kurds who had moved here?
IMNSHO - You'd never hear about it. Because it would never 'make the news'.
#9
Pappy - Agreed. And my first impulse when I read a story like this is "Great! We got one!"
But then I think about the fact that we have maybe 10-20 years' worth of work to do to change things so that the Islamofascists and their successors die away. And I very much want us, when it is over, not to have lost some of the characteristics that make America what it is.
After WWII, people got on with their lives and most of them coped fine with e.g. nuking the Japanese. That's because the enemy was clearly identified and the connection between those cities and the willingness of Japanese forces to continue to fight was clear.
It's not so clear in this GWOT. So we will have to live with a lot of moral ambiguity. But we should be clear that that is what it is.
Posted by: too true ||
02/06/2005 16:24 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Good point, Tom. I didn't read closely enough to note that it is only suspected that the CIA was involved. Nonetheless, unless it is an Eichman type case, where the egregiously guilty are being sheltered, I would hope we avoid kidnapping from allies.
#11
unless the allies, while publicly bitching, tacitly approve and encourage the "repatriation"?
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/06/2005 16:35 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Italian Police not the Italian Foreign ministry are ivestigating. Leftist prosecutors possibly trying to beat up on the US and the elected Government of Italy may be the actual story. It well could have been Italian state security personnel who handed him over to Egypt.
#13
"how would you feel if it were the Mukhabarat kidnapping Kurds who had moved here?"
Well, don't you think that they would do that if they could? So how do I feel about it? I think we should win.
And wouldn't a better analogy be that some experts from one country, help apprehend an international criminal wanted in a second country, found plotting in a third country, and assist in sending the criminal back to the second country, where they are wanted? Which is what is alleged to have happened (at worst). Are our intelligence services allowed to operate overseas or not?
Moreover, don't you think that you just equated morally the US intelligence services and the Iranian ones?
Posted by: Mark E. ||
02/06/2005 21:00 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Nope. But neither do I think we are immune from descending farther down the moral scale than we might like.
There's rather a big difference between gathering information and kidnapping people to be tortured. Now, I'm not saying we were involved or even that this guy was in fact tortured. Nor am I saying we never should engage in dirty ops.
I AM saying that when we do it, it costs us more than might be obvious. And if you don't think that's true, go read some of the work on just war theory and the bombing of Hiroshima -- and I do mean the just war theory that is on our side.
I have.
Posted by: too true ||
02/06/2005 21:05 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Well, the fact that he was breathing to give an interview to a UK paper indicates he was not given the real treament. In the real deal, disappeared is the operative term. This is as much Islamic SOP (I was tortured!) as anything else. It's odd that everyone is buying into the pure speculation as to who did what. The paper even says that "the Italians are thought to be investigating claims" -- that's weaker than a 3-pass tea bag. Let's wait for something of substance, not just another Islamotwit being iconized by a UK paper.
Solana thinks everything we do is a mistake, so this isn't exactly news.
A shock military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would be a "mistake", the European Union's foreign policy chief Javier Solana said on Sunday in a British television interview. Speaking on ITV's Jonathan Dimbleby programme, the EU's high representative for foreign and security policy said that such unilateral action would be counter-productive.
Especially for the Iranian nuclear program.
Asked about US Vice President Dick Cheney's warning last month that Israel might attack Iran's nuclear facilities without warning, Solana said: "I think that would be something I would not like to see taking place. That would be a mistake. That will complicate enormously the situation."
We like to think of it as simplifying our situation, but you think what you like.
"Unilateral action of that nature I don't think will contribute to what is the aim of everybody," he added. "I don't think at this point in time that it is worth thinking about that." Asked if he agreed with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw that US military action against Iran is "inconceivable", Solana replied: "I think at this point in time military action... is very difficult to conceive."
Ah, leaving the door ajar, eh?
"I don't think that the United States has at this point of time the wish or the will or the capability to do that."
Asked whether he agreed with US President George W. Bush's description of Iran as "the world's primary state sponsor of terror", Solana said: "Well it's very difficult to say who is the first, or the second, or the third".
Who's on first?
"But there is no doubt that Iran has... in its territory and financially it helps organisations which are terrorist inclined," he said, adding: "I don't know that is being done directly by the most important people in the country."
Does this guy take a stand on anything?
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/06/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He's the Straw Man, Steve, we can expect nothing else.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/06/2005 0:27 Comments ||
Top||
#2
First, I thought this was s-face.
âWell itâs very difficult to say who is the first, or the second, or the thirdâ.
-I believe the question was - are they the world's primary? This guy didn't even do a good politician dodge - first, second, third? What a douche.
âBut there is no doubt that Iran has... in its territory and financially it helps organisations which are terrorist inclined,â
Kind of like saying a fish is "aquatically inclined". What a puss.
#6
Javier Solana has a taste for fine clothing and being made to feel important. Guess what. Here the the USofA he is just another Euro clown. No one really spends a lot of time to thinking about how he "feels" about the middle east. He would sell us out for a new suit. Enjoy your leadership position in a toothless, feckless waste of energy. Stay the hell out of our way you back stabbing clown.
#8
Let's rephrase that in 1936 terms "Military action if the Germans reoccupy the Rhineland or annexes Austria would be a mistake." That certainly led to peace, happiness, puppy dogs and baby ducks.
#9
I donât think will contribute to what is the aim of everybody
Just what is "the aim of everyone"? Has the EU proposed any action? The EU is a bunch of limp dicks and all the bad guys know it. Go away and don't come back until you grow a pair.
#10
"Unilateral action of that nature I donât think will contribute to what is the aim of everybody"
Let's see... did so-called "unilateral" action in Iraq "contribute to what is the aim of everybody"?
It worked for me. It worked for the better part of 25 million Iraqis -- especially the Shiites and the Kurds. Of course it didn't work for France or the EU in general. No more weapons and technology sales to Saddam. No more loan paybacks by Saddam. No more Oil-for-Food kickbacks from Saddam. No more monopoly of food sales to Iraq. Rinse, repeat for Iran.
Posted by: Tom ||
02/06/2005 11:31 Comments ||
Top||
#11
"A shock military strike against Iranâs nuclear facilities would be a âmistakeâ
A shock military strike against Hitler would be a mistake. Do I hear a echo that took 66 years to travel?
Several hundred people demonstrated in Ankara yesterday amid tight security measures against US policies in the Middle East and the occupation of Iraq ahead of a visit by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. About 100 riot police, some armed with automatic rifles, cordoned off the US embassy in downtown Ankara, deploying armoured vehicles to guard the building. "No to war. US, get out of the Middle East. Rice, get out of Turkey," said a large banner at the head of the procession of some 300 demonstrators.
"Get out of Turkey"? Hey, not a bad idea. You can invite the French in to protect your interests.
Security forces stopped the crowd from marching to the embassy, although it allowed several of their members to lay a black wreath outside the mission. Earlier in the day, a smaller group also demonstrated near the mission. "Murderer Rice, get out of Turkey," their banners read. "The Iraqi people are not alone," "Down with US imperialism," the protesters chanted.
Cheez, they musta cobbed some left-over banners from the 1980's.
No incidents were reported. Rice was to arrive in Ankara for a two-day visit expected to focus on Turkish concerns over the situation in neighbouring Iraq.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/06/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
So in a city of six million (mostly Muslim) people, several hundred protested. BFD. There could be more than that in San Francisco any day of the week. I was in Ankara a couple of weeks ago. There was no overt anti-Americanism that I saw. There were several comments made exhibiting concern on the spread of Wahhabism. There is far more in Turkey we should be working with than against in my opinion.
In a Brooklyn courtroom, the Yemeni sheik and his assistant sit in seats at a defense table occupied in thousands of past cases by mobsters, drug dealers and con artists. But if the lives of those defendants may have been exotic to the judges and jurors who decided their fates, these two men, charged with financing terrorism, sometimes seem to be from a different world entirely. The sheik, in his silk hat and flowing robes, has been heard in hours of secretly recorded videotapes talking in a convoluted style seldom heard in America. His meanings are elusive. His style is indirect.
Out of the blue, sometimes, will come tales from the Koran or sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, the applicability of which can be obscure. In a conversation about a man who seemed to be offering a big donation to Muslim causes, the sheik, Mohammed Ali Hassan al-Moayad, started a discourse on a battle from the time of the prophet. "The reason for the conquest of Badr is this," he said to a visitor in a bugged hotel suite in Frankfurt, "because the prophet, may the peace and the blessing of God be upon him, took the camel herd of Quraysh." In the courtroom, no one has yet offered to explain the relevance of the taking of the camel herd.
The unfamiliar, combined with a staccato presentation by prosecutors, has meant that the sheik and his lover assistant, Mohammed Mohsen Yahya Zayed, remain enigmas.
Hard to get inside the mind of a lunatic, isn't it?
As the third week of their trial begins tomorrow, they are mysterious figures, much as they were nearly two years ago when Attorney General John Ashcroft made worldwide headlines by announcing that the two Yemeni men had been charged with funneling money to Al Qaeda and Hamas, much of it raised in Brooklyn. In the courtroom, they are solitary, hooked to the trial by earphones feeding them Arabic translations of the proceedings. Other than their lawyers and a single Yemeni diplomat, there is never anyone in the public rows for them.
Continued on Page 49
This article starring:
MOHAMED ALI HASAN AL MOAIAD
al-Qaeda
MOHAMED MOHSEN YAHYA ZAIED
al-Qaeda
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
02/06/2005 12:12:13 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I expect that this trial will end as a huge embarrassment for the US Justice Department.
Why were these two guys ever allowed to come into the USA and allowed to remain here? Why weren't they simply deported a long, long time ago?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
02/06/2005 8:37 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I expect it could. But there's a chance it won't. If it doesn't I'll know who to blame.
#3
"The reason for the conquest of Badr is this," he said to a visitor in a bugged hotel suite in Frankfurt, "because the prophet, may the peace and the blessing of God be upon him, took the camel herd of Quraysh." In the courtroom, no one has yet offered to explain the relevance of the taking of the camel herd.
In another era, it was said the capitalists would sell the rope the communists would use to hang them.
Posted by: ed ||
02/06/2005 15:50 Comments ||
Top||
At Los Angeles International Airport two weeks ago, FBI agents arrested an Irish businessman they had spent a week tailing all over California's Silicon Valley, from the offices of two electronics manufacturers in Sunnyvale to a hotel in Mountain View and down a quiet cul-de-sac to a suburban house in San Jose. The technology exporter, according to court papers, had purchased sophisticated computer components in the U.S. to send to Russia through Ireland. He now stands to be charged in mid-February with "unlawful export of 'defense articles.'"
U.S. officials point to this little-noticed case as one manifestation of a troubling reality: although the cold war is long over, Russia is fielding an army of spooks in the U.S. that is at least equal in number to the one deployed by the old, much larger Soviet Union. Russia runs more than 100 known spies under official cover in the U.S., senior U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement officials say. And those are just the more easily spotted spies working under the classic guise of diplomat. An unknown number of so-called nocs—who work under nonofficial cover as businessmen and -women, journalists or academics—undoubtedly expand the Russian spy force. The number of Russian spies in the U.S. is especially surprising, given that it was less than four years ago that the Bush Administration expelled 50 of them in retaliation for the humiliating discovery that FBI counterintelligence agent Robert Hanssen had been spying for Russia for 21 years.
In a high-level meeting late last year, officials tell TIME, the National Security Council instructed the FBI, CIA, State Department and other agencies to get a better handle on the Russian espionage threat. While the U.S. might like to eject suspect diplomats to force the Russians to send in their "rookies," as a U.S. official put it, Moscow would probably respond in kind, denting the CIA's corps in Russia.
Officials say the Russians are after secrets about American military technology and hardware, dual-use technology such as the latest lasers, and the Administration's plans and intentions regarding the former Soviet states, China, the Middle East and U.S. energy policy, among other matters. Russia also wants to learn as much as possible about its biggest strategic worry: the U.S.'s ramped-up commitment to missile defense, which could eventually threaten Moscow's nuclear deterrent. Asked about the Russian spy surge, Russian embassy spokesman Yevgeniy Khorishko replied, "We do not comment on any of the issues concerning intelligence."
David Szady, the FBI's assistant director for counterintelligence, who is in charge of keeping tabs on foreign spies on U.S. soil, told TIME that in the next five years he wants to double the number of agents chasing spooks. Already, the FBI has placed counterespionage squads of at least seven agents in all 56 of its field division offices over the past year. What about the chance that damaging U.S. moles are helping Russia today? Says one U.S. senior intelligence official: "There's always evidence of another mole because there are always unexplained events. There are always unexplained losses. There are always enough dots that look strange."
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
02/06/2005 12:04:46 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Given Putin's background, how could we expect anything less?
Posted by: Tom ||
02/06/2005 11:52 Comments ||
Top||
US senators have launched a review of US intelligence on Iran to try to avoid pitfalls that marked the path to the invasion of Iraq, the Los Angeles Times said. "We have to be more pre-emptive on this committee to try to look ahead and determine our capabilities so that you don't get stuck with a situation like you did with Iraq," Republican Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was quoted as saying.
Fine, as long as it doesn't get leaked all over the place.
"The aim of the Senate review, Roberts said, is to ensure that any weaknesses in American intelligence on Iran are being disclosed to policymakers, and that US spy agencies have adequate resources to fill gaps in collecting information on the Islamic republic," the Los Angeles Times said. Sen John Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the committee, said in a statement cited by the paper: "One of the lessons we learned from Iraq was not to take all information at face value and to ask more questions in the beginning than in the end."
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/06/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Read through the list of Dems on the Intelligence Committee, and we're doomed, doomed, I tell ya.....
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/06/2005 0:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Read through the list of Dems on the Intelligence Committee, and we're doomed, doomed, I tell ya.....
In the event of a future attack on U.S. soil, if a full investigation afterward reveals that the SIC had a hand in watering down or dismissing a key intelligence report, hold them accountable, no matter what their party affiliation.
For the last couple of years you might have been forgiven for thinking the United Nations was a cesspit of corruption, that billions of dollars had been lifted by bent officials involved in the Iraqi oil-for-food programme, designed to relieve Iraqis' suffering during sanctions. If you listened to the ideologically motivated US right, you might be under the impression that the organisation was riddled with wrongdoing, from Kofi Annan down.
But now that the former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker, has delivered his interim report into the oil-for-food programme, what do we have? Wrongdoing, certainly, by Benon Sevan, the man in charge of the programme, who by Volcker's account - if not by his own persistent denials - benefited to the sum of $160,000 by encouraging the Iraqi authorities to give a friend oil allocations under the scheme.
Volcker's report does not reveal any systematic corruption. But what it has shown is the massive scale of Iraq's smuggling of oil during the sanctions period with the knowledge of members of the Security Council's permanent five, including the US.
Talking to Mark Malloch Brown, Annan's new British chief of staff, this weekend I sensed a new sense of resolve that the UN was ready to take the fight back to its detractors. Indeed, Malloch Brown, who was behind the reshaping of the demoralised UN development programme, sees the current probe as allowing a long-overdue restructuring, improving the accountability of what he admits is an 'old fashioned' organisation.
'It is a lot easier to make changes amid a crisis. It means entrenched positions are more malleable,' he said. 'We have to go for a broader rebuilding of management structure and accountability, particularly when we are so much under the spotlight.'
Despite the continuing, and separate, investigation into Annan's son Kojo's involvement in the oil-for-food programme, whatever might be uncovered, Malloch Brown is certain that Annan will be found in the clear, allowing him to spend the final two years of his job as secretary-general to push through reforms.
There is a wider sense in the UN that perhaps the moment of danger from right-wing ideologues in the US who would destroy it has passed. The new US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has reaffirmed her view of the importance of the organisation. And now, believes Annan, the opportunity is ripe to win back the middle ground of US opinion it feared had turned against it.
Presented straight-faced, without comment, edited for length. My ability to make witty comments wilts in the face of all these screamers.
#1
I didn't even realize yet that I am "confounded" and that the probes are faltering: this is really cutting edge journalism.
Posted by: Tom ||
02/06/2005 15:28 Comments ||
Top||
#2
al-Guardian moves in on Scrappleface territory. WillÃÂ Scott Ott sue?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/06/2005 15:32 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The Guardian is whistling past the graveyard. The investigations have just begun. The real fun will start when subpenia and search and seizure powers are excercized.
Posted by: ed ||
02/06/2005 16:15 Comments ||
Top||
#4
And now, believes Annan, the opportunity is ripe to win back the middle ground of US opinion it feared had turned against it.
There couldn't possibly be a poorer reading of the tea leaves than this comment.
Kofi had best hope that the tranzi leftists in the US hold enough sway to keep him from getting bit in the ass and the UN run out of the US.
#6
I'd like the investigation to take place by persons with agendas, the Iraqis. Bet they've got some interesting corrobarrating evidence. Perhaps extradition can be arranged after we pick him up.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/06/2005 17:18 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Or a blindfold and a quick trip to a mysterious white plane...
Bwahahahahaha!
Posted by: Tom ||
02/06/2005 17:23 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I think JerseyMike nailed it: if Kofi thinks he's going to "win back the middle ground of US opinion," he's outta his mind.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
02/06/2005 17:28 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I doubt he thinks he can - or perhaps that meeting with top Democrats a while back convinced him otherwise?
At a minimum, however, he needs to give his supporters enough official cover so they can hold off financial and other punishment.
Posted by: too true ||
02/06/2005 17:56 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I'm sure with the help of Ted Turner, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, and the usual suspects from the NYT and Hollywood - Kofi can regain the trust of Red State America. Yeah, about the time Ice Rinks of America opens a branch in hell.
Iran is believed to be years away from having a nuclear weapon and the United States has decided to use diplomacy, not military action, in dealing with the issue, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Sunday.
"It's fairly clear from the public statements of the Iranians that, that they are on a path of seeking a nuclear weapon and don't have it at the present time," Rumsfeld said in a taped interview with CNN's "Late Edition."
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rohani said in an interview with Reuters on Sunday that Iran would retaliate and accelerate its nuclear program if attacked.
The Bush administration has been severely criticized for going to war against Iraq in 2003 by using the justification that Baghdad had weapons of mass destruction, when none have been found since the invasion.
Rumsfeld was cautious about the accuracy of intelligence estimates on Iran's nuclear program.
"I don't make estimates, that's the business for the intelligence community. But they're (Iran) some years away according to the estimates, but I don't know if the estimates are correct or not," Rumsfeld told CNN.
"The president handles Iran policy, he's decided on a diplomatic route," he said. "They're on a diplomatic path."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) last week during a visit to Europe stressed diplomacy as the road to dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions and said the United States had no immediate plans to attack the Islamic republic.
"...There's a good-faith effort under way by our European allies to try to resolve this issue diplomatically. We support that effort," Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) said earlier on "Fox News Sunday."
Cheney urged Iran to prove to the world it was not seeking a nuclear weapon and said Iran was "a potential source for instability" in the region.
"It's a regime, obviously, that we've got major problems with, not only because of their search for nuclear weapons, also the fact they've been a prime state sponsor of terror over the years," Cheney said.
"The Iranians, I think, should do the right thing, and they should, in fact, agree to transparency, reassure the outside world that they are not trying to acquire nuclear weapons," Cheney said.
#1
"The CIA has assured me that the Iranians are totally incapable of targeting Paris and Moscow with the missiles carrying the nuclear weapons they don't have. And there is absolutely no indication that they are planning to launch their missiles within a month or two, so our European allies can rest assured that nothing has come from their efforts to provide the Iranians with critical, dual-use components for nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon capable missiles. And the Pentagon would like to announce that it is holding a free, all expense paid ice cream party in Washington, D.C., for any Americans currently living in Paris and Moscow. Attendance is mandatory."
#3
State Department Travel Advisory: American tourists are cautioned to avoid travel downwind of Qom, Iran until further notice. Don't even look in that direction without sunglasses.
Posted by: Tom ||
02/06/2005 20:18 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Well, I'm glag I and my family are in the US of A
#5
In 1946, the CIA said the USSR was 8 years away from developing an atomic bomb. They were only off by 50%.
Even if they were 100% accurate, that makes it all the more important to strike while we can. In 1935, Germany was years away from an army that could conquer France. In 1940, they had one.
Should we wait until Iran is months away from developing a nuclear weapon with delivery system? Weeks? Or do we wait until they actually have something then say, "well, there's nothing we can do now?" That would be the approach of the moral cowards afraid to take a stand.
#6
Rumsfeldt has said absolutely nothing. He just said what people want to hear. We are gathering intelligence and making warplans. It doesn't mean we will attack tomorrow, but we will have full contingency plans. To do otherwise would be irresponsible. The EU and Russia AND the Chicoms have too much economic at stake to piss off the MMs, so they will jaw with the MMs and sell the world out. THAT is the bottom line.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/06/2005 22:22 Comments ||
Top||
Iran would both retaliate and accelerate its drive to master nuclear technology if the United States or Israel attacked its atomic facilities, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator warned on Sunday. Hassan Rohani, secretary-general of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, also told Reuters there was nothing the West could offer Tehran that would persuade it to scrap a nuclear program which Washington fears may be used to make bombs. Asked about a possible attack by the United States or Israel, which have both said a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable, Rohani said: "If such an attack (against Iran's atomic facilities) takes place then of course we will retaliate and we will definitely accelerate our activities to complete our (nuclear) fuel cycle." Speaking in a rare interview, Rohani said Iran's ability to produce its own nuclear parts had made it "invulnerable" to attack since it could simply rebuild whatever was destroyed. And so on, ad infinitum
"But I do not think the United States itself will take such a risk ... They know our capabilities for retaliating against such attacks," the mid-ranking cleric added. "We're protected by Allan!"
Rohani said even the removal of U.S. sanctions on Iran or security guarantees from Washington would not be enough to tempt Tehran to give up its nuclear drive. "Uranium enrichment is Iran's right, based on the NPT's (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty's) article four ... I do not think anyone in Iran would exchange or swap this right for anything else."
EU diplomats have voiced frustration at Iran's refusal to give way on what it calls its "red line" -- developing a full nuclear fuel cycle -- saying Tehran's stance is "unacceptable." Rohani complained the EU talks, due to resume in Geneva this week, have yet to result in anything concrete thus far. "Our expectations were higher. We believe the Europeans should be more serious," he said. Rohani said Iran would review progress in the talks in mid-March before taking any decision on whether to resume uranium enrichment which it froze in November. "If we witness considerable progress in the talks our patience will increase, if we observe no progress, it will shorten our patience. But, as I have said before, the period of (enrichment) suspension is limited to some months, not a year."
EU diplomats in Vienna have told Reuters Iran is breaking the spirit of its agreement to freeze enrichment by conducting quality control checks of enrichment centrifuge parts. But Rohani insisted Iran was sticking to the deal it made with the EU in Paris last November. "We are fully committed to whatever we have agreed with the Europeans ... I can tell you that we have not contradicted the Paris agreement at all," he said. Could Iran's playing of the EU-3 for suckers be any more obvious?
#1
Lol! Well, the answer depends, BD... If you're a Eurocrat, there's still room for negotiating - from a 5-Star hotel... If you're anyone else, anyone on Planet Earth, this sorta sums it up, methinks.
#2
The Mullahs' are going nuclear and the US is going to do exactly squat about it.
We are pinning our hopes on internal strife in Iran and EU negotiations? That is a bad bet.
#3
There is no reason to attack yet. Soon, but not yet. The Eurocrats are fools, but they are fools who are buying us advantageous delays to stabilize things in Iraq, regroup, gather more intelligence, etc. Rohani presumes that we may strike nuclear facilities and leave retaliatory capability intact -- he's not too bright either.
Posted by: Tom ||
02/06/2005 14:17 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Good point Tom, what makes the Mullahs think that the U.S/Israel will leave anything behind to "accelerate" further nuclear development.
Overnight storage of their turban, every night, in the freezer may promote logical thinking. Riiiiight!!
#5
Guys, have some pity on those poor Pentagon Generals who have to plan the logistics and support. I am reminded of General Schlieffen, who gave the German General Staff a major homework assignment on Christmas Eve morning. Then, probably senior Colonel, later to be General Ludendorff, managed to complete his before the day was through. Schlieffen rewarded his hard work and initiative by giving him a new assignment, even more challenging, lest he not be idle on Christmas Day.
There are plans being updated as rapidly as new data comes in and is assimilated, prioritized for every aspect deemed essential and all lesser items addressable by the resources available. The working list of objectives is rejustified and the resources reverified with every rev update. Few things are as intense for the people assigned than a developing war plan under the microscope of the skittish civilians in the chain of command.
I'd wager that the very strong civilian desire to collaborate with the Persians (overthrow vs strikes) is at center stage of the planning. How involved we are with the dissent groups, their reliability, dedication, numbers, capabilities, resourcefulness, access, geographic location, needs, and what we can do to improve the entire range is probably second only to hard GPS coordinates for the nuke facilities - especially bottlenecks / chokepoints in the process, regards focus. I would not doubt that Bush's SOTU speech opened the doors a bit - and bumped up the pressure on all the intel, clandestine, and military agencies tasked.
As always, it comes down to the time available. We do have some luxuries at our disposal that would've made Moose's Generals positively green with envy, such as tech advantages and resources. I am amazed by how little faith there is in our capabilities and determination. This isn't Kennedy or Johnson, this is Bush.
Oh, and Israel can't afford to fail to act, can they? I would say they have a fairly capable planning and military prowess, wouldn't you?
Doom & Gloom. I must be one of those posters you skip over - I sure don't share your outlook. We shall see, eh?
#7
.com you most certainly are not one of the posters' that I skip, quite the contrary I'm usually interested in what you have to say. However, I do believe what I've posted, there is no doubt that we've covered every single possible scenario regarding th use of force with Iran. I happen to believe that there isn't anyway aside from an Iranian first strike that we will do anything.
Don't confuse what I think will happen with what I want to happen. I would have glassed that whole friggin mess on 9/12.
I hope you're right but, I just don't see how we can pull it off, not militarily but politically.
#8
JM, don't fall into the trap of believing that it's only military action if we roll a few divisions across the border or drop a dozen JDAMs.
Posted by: too true ||
02/06/2005 18:01 Comments ||
Top||
#9
JM - Well, I'm glad you don't skip me, but I am very puzzled by your thoughts. Have you looked at this (obviously the newer, more limited plans, aren't up there, lol) - if not, you might be surprised by Pike's take - the countdown being one thing that is striking.
I have a soft spot for the Persian people - mainly because I know several who live in the US. Sadly, for me, none are recent emigrants. As for their very youthful population and desire for modern democracy, that's very clear, but unfocused. I do not want to be forced into alienating them, but timing may not permit anything more than explaining our reasons why and proceeding. I would prefer that we do the strike, if a nuke facility hit is all we have. The Israelis are already blindly hated - for the usual knee-jerk indoctrination reasons.
The key difference at this moment in time is Bush. He's determined, means what he says, and follows through methodically. Looking back at the Iraq War should provide everyone with a clear picture of how he works. He checked off every box along the way, leaving no room for rational opposition. The fly in the ointment was the WMD intel failure - otherwise, he did everything by the book. Congress, UN, direct appeals and warnings, action.
I see the same process occurring now. The very same. And I trust him. So. Anyway, we'll see if he continues. E3 fails, Go to IAEA. That fails, go to UNSC. Probably vetoed there, but with threats to strike Israel and many other stupidly transparent Mad Mullah mistakes, he's got clear casus belli and a black brush for China, Russia, and France vetoes. I think we go with the best we can manage when the clock runs out.
#10
Will we, or won't we? Can we, or can't we? Not much point in arguing, since whatever will be, will be. And unlike Iraq, very little of what we do will be known in advance.
Until I decided that Rantburg suited me more, I used to hang out at dailypundit.com, Bill Quick's website. Month after long month during late 2002 and early 2003, Bill would post items nearly every day on the general theme, "Bush is chicken! He's NEVER going to invade Iraq! It's all just a lot of talk!" And then we invaded Iraq.
I'm inclined to trust Bush. We will prevail. The waiting sure is a bitch, though...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
02/06/2005 18:24 Comments ||
Top||
#11
The recent days have been very exciting and educating for me. Iran is definitely overplaying its card and may be in for a rude awakening. The Europeans are slowly but certainly running out of patience.
The United States are playing it smart right now... let the mullahs sink themselves. Europeans are very hung up on International Law and Iran is breaking it.
Iran signed the Non-Proliferation-Treaty. In order to get international help in developing a peaceful nuclear energy program, the Shah signed away Iran's right to develop nuclear arms. The mullahs have no choice in that matter: Pacta Sunt Servanda (treaties have to be kept and cannot be reneged just because government changes).
We cannot deny Iran the peaceful development of nuclear energy. But we have the right to ensure by inspections that this program remains peaceful. Any steps the Iranians take to provoke doubts in that matter can and must be met with extra scrutiny. This is our right and we will enforce it.
Iran claims that it doesn't develop nuclear arms, yet does everything to raise doubts. Let's put the threats against Israel aside for a while. The most important reason to suspect foul play by the Iranians is not the nuclear program (of which we haven't sufficient info yet) but its missile program, which doesn't get the public exposure it deserves. It simply makes no sense to develop missiles that can reach targets 3000km away (which means European capitals) without simultaneously developing warheads that carry WMDs. A long range missile without WMD makes no sense. Against which target could it be directed? The destructions would be minor compared to the enormous costs the development of these missiles entail. You wouldn't stock them with biological agents because those, if you were crazy enough, can be delivered easily in a suitcase. Chemical warheads fired 3000 km far don't make much sense either. Sure they would kill a few thousand people but provoke a devastating response. The only reason to develop these missiles is to stock them with nuclear warheads.
We can't stop the Iranians (at least according to International Law) to develop these missiles. But since the Iranians can't provide a satisfying explanation for the fact that they are spending so much money on developing them without a nuclear purpose, we can very much accuse them of foul play and insist on even more stringent controls of the nuclear program.
The Iranians think that this is negotiable. As a matter of fact, it is not. If Iran gets away with breaking the Non Proliferation Treaty, everyone will and we'll get the blue screen of death. And that is why America will act militarily, if it comes to that. European politicians should make no effort to convince Iran otherwise. Iraq may not have gone as smoothly as predicted, but that doesn't mean anything if America believes its vital security threatened. And Iran is slowly but certainly reaching that point of no return.
I believe that Bush will involve the UNSC, if just to give it a chance to redeem itself. Should the UNSC fail to act (due to Chinese and Russian vetos), we can as well dismantle it entirely. It would simply and truly be irrelevant then.
In order to achieve results with Iran, we should slap every politician speaking out against military action. Military action may never come but if you wilfully throw away the ace don't expect to win the poker game.
Condi Rice had the right comment on military action. It's not on the agenda.
#12
We cannot deny Iran the peaceful development of nuclear energy.
Why?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
02/06/2005 18:52 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Thank you, TGA, that was interesting. I don't know why I didn't get that angle about the missiles before (if no nukes, then why are the mullahs developing long range missiles?), but now that you lay it out so clearly, it's obvious.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
02/06/2005 18:52 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Were there flys on the wall recently? LOL
Good to have you commenting on this, TGA. My take is similar.
Posted by: too true ||
02/06/2005 18:53 Comments ||
Top||
#15
I'd like to challenge one prevalent assumption in the MSM that bombimg would alienate the Iranian population. After Belgrade was bombed I didn't see an outbreak of Serbian anti-Amercanism. IMHO Serbia has become noticeably more pro-American.
#16
Beautiful, TGA. Your logic on the missiles certainly makes a case that no one can ignore. Of course, I agree - Bush & Co are waiting in the wings, though I doubt they'r resting, lol!
Perhaps it's a classic good cop / bad cop game playing out. I hope the two are allied against the perp when the final hand is played.
#17
TGA, Glad to hear it and I know the direction you laid out reflects your perspective. But didn't Powell believe he had the Europeans on board at the UN when he started after Iraq? This time I hope the ball gets left in the European corner to push through the UN. Then we'll know their true colors.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/06/2005 19:13 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Iran is not thinking clearly. They think all we would attack is their Nuclear program. We in fact may not attck that all. We may go after things even more dear to them.
I also think the MMs may not grasp the fact we can destroy their entire civil infrastructure and potential to derive income from their natural resources without ever setting foot in their country.We can do it in a very short time. The wars they have seen us fight have restrained uses of military power. If we decide to act it may well be in a totally unrestrained way. We will do that because we will be acting alone. When one acts alone they can be unrestrained.
#20
the American-Iranians I work with have travelled back to the homeland and report it is rife with hate for the mullahs. The MM's support came from the uneducated lower classes, susceptible to the mullah's "revolutionary" jingo. They now see things have gotten worse, not better, for all but the Mullahs....
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/06/2005 19:49 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Robert Crawford, to answer your question first: The sentence should read, we can't deny Iran the right to develop a peaceful nuclear enregy program as long as it plays by the international rules it signed. If Iran refuses to comply with these rules it could very well forfeit its right to nuclear energy which it developed with the help of the West.
Mrs Davis: I think that in fall 2002/winter 2003 a lot of things went wrong and Powell is not entirely innocent. He was certainly lacking precision and - may I add - conviction, when it came to explaining the current Bush politics. Quite a few things to comment on that but I'll desist.
As for the future dealing with Iran, they should not only focus on eliminating the nuclear threat from Iran but on making sure that this country develops into a strong stabilizing democratic force in the Persian Gulf. Iran will be the most important power in the region: It has the ressources and the people for it. So the best solution would be to achieve regime change by empowering the progressive forces. This is in the interest of both the U.S. and Europe.
Destroying the Iranian infrastructure would not be the best option and should only be considered if other means fail. Most Iranians hate the mullahs but they also love their country. Many people think that without Saddam's attack on Iran the mullahs would have been ousted in the 80s already. Many Iranians who cheered for the mullahs in 1979 already felt betrayed by them in 1981.
Oh, and I think I have an idea about the next President of the United States now.
#22
The sentence should read, we can't deny Iran the right to develop a peaceful nuclear enregy program as long as it plays by the international rules it signed. If Iran refuses to comply with these rules it could very well forfeit its right to nuclear energy which it developed with the help of the West.
Fair enough.
By by all the evidence we have, Iran has already violated those rules.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
02/06/2005 20:17 Comments ||
Top||
#23
I knew it! A natural born tease! How many guesses do we get? Lol!
#26
"Oh, and I think I have an idea about the next President of the United States now."
Gosh. I simply cannot imagine, for the life of me, who you could possibly be talking about. Oh, dear, I'm going to be awake wondering about it all night long... :-)
Posted by: Dave D. ||
02/06/2005 20:23 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Robert Crawford, the better the evidence, the easier joint action on Iran will be.
A lot of money and many lives are on stake. I think we still have the necessary time to get the best evidence.
#28
phil_b, I don't think that we want fragments in this region, what we want are stable democratic states. Let's not forget that the big Asian player is China. We need some counterbalance. Iran and India are the two countries that can provide that.
#29
Beware pre-emptive action by Iran. Recent military manuevers by Iran revealed the capacity to move 10 divisions to their western border in good order.
They watch our actions in Iraq and learn our limitations (tactical limitations). Are we in the same place that Israel was shortly before the Yom Kippur War? Flush with success and underestimating our enemies?
Strategically Iran has no idea what we can do to them. They wish for a tactical conflict which we are not prepared for. The Iranian population hates the mullahs, but will not take matters into their own hands. It is dangerous to make any assumptions.
#30
While I recognize your point - assuming we always have the offensive is arrogant... A 10 Division move toward Iraq would be fertilizer in 2-3 hrs. That WW-II mindset will not survive longer in a WW-IV theater.
#32
Gotta agree -- they may be able to put 10 divisions on their border, but the moment they crossed into Iraq, they would be toast. Their supply lines would be cut, their troops would be trying to move while B-52s freely move overhead, and they'd not just be facing the US military, but pissed-off Iraqis in front of them and pissed-off Iranians behind them.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
02/06/2005 21:22 Comments ||
Top||
#33
It would be a validation test of MOABs and the new Just in Time delivery...
#34
Stop It! You guys are just trying to cheer me up...
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/06/2005 21:28 Comments ||
Top||
#35
Once again you make the mistake of assuming that only the US has the ability to initiate a conflict. Iran sits astride our line of communication into the SWA AOR.
I agree that IF we are prepared for a 10 division push into Iraq we can make the Iranians respect our airpower. But, do not confuse them for the enemy we invaded two years ago. Iran is not a weakened Iraq. They DO have WMD and would employ it.
Iran and North Korea came to a mutual strategic agreement in 1994 to support each other in a time of conflict. What is the best scenario to defeat the US? Divide our forces - will the NKors miss the opportunity to force the issue as well?
#36
phil_b---243 dams and they don't even fix Bam. The MMs are spending the Iranian people's wealth on expensive toys like U235 concentration, Reactors, and missiles. They have a f**ked up new airport, etc etc. We and the Iranian opposition need to expose and exploit this mindless waste of resources by the MMs. Sorta like negative campaigning with truth instead of repeated lies, like a certain party we know...
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/06/2005 22:57 Comments ||
Top||
#37
TGA, I would argue that allowing groups to seceed from existing states is the single biggest thing we could do to make this world a better place. Making borders sacrosanct was intended to stop interstate wars but became a screen for repression of minorities (internal wars) and not infrequently majorities as in the case of Iraq. The list is a long one.
#38
phil_b, you may be right in many cases, but most of those would apply to non democratic, dictatorial states.
The borders of Iraq were drawn as artificially as can be. Maybe you can have the Kurds seceeding but separating the Sunnis from the Shiites (which is not so much a ethnical thing) would prove difficult.
In some cases it makes sense but in many the seceeding creates more problems than it solves.
Australia had become a mediator in a nuclear stand-off between Iran and the United States, Prime Minister John Howard said today, in a move that mirrors Australia's role in the North Korea nuclear crisis.
Howard said Australia had been able to use its close alliance with the United States and diplomatic ties with Iran to act as a go-between for the two nations -- a role illustrated when US President George W Bush called him on Friday.
''I was able to talk at some length with President Bush about the substance of my discussion with the Iranian Foreign Minister (at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland),'' Howard told Australian television.
''I think all of that helps ... There are a number of countries around the world that we talk to that the Americans don't talk to in the same way and we are able to pass on information,'' he said.
Australia has used its diplomatic ties with North Korea to also act as a mediator between the reclusive communist state and the United States in a bid to break a deadlock over Pyonyang's nuclear ambitions.
Oil-rich Iran insists its nuclear programme is aimed at the peaceful generation of electricity, but the United States has alleged the country is developing nuclear weapons.
Howard urged Iran to negotiate on its nuclear capacity with Britain, Germany and France -- who have taken the lead in persuading Iran not to build a nuclear bomb -- and said he does not believe the United States would attack the Islamic republic.
''I don't believe the Americans are getting ready to have a go at them,'' he said.
In his State of the Union speech on Wednesday, Bush promised to ''stand with'' the Iranian people in what he sees as their quest for liberty, but US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Friday in Berlin there were no immediate plans to attack Iran.
Posted by: tipper ||
02/06/2005 7:19:42 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
Both the Paleos and the MSM start to get a clue, and right about at the same time. From the Sunday Chicago Tribune.
An hour after Fatima Daraghmeh heard the first report of a suicide bombing at a mall in Afula, Israel, her 5-year-old son ran excitedly into the kitchen. "My sister's picture is on TV!"
Three Israelis were dead and dozens wounded and, miles away, the Daraghmeh family found itself caught in the horror. Their 19-year-old daughter Hiba was the killer. Israeli authorities interrogated the girl's parents, Fatima and Azzem. Soon reporters crowded their West Bank home. Fatima Daraghmeh recalled that they asked her if she felt a "mother's pride" in sacrificing for the Palestinian cause.
She couldn't bear the words. "They kept asking and asking and then, finally, they could tell: I wasn't going to praise the operation," Daraghmeh said. "There was no way I was going to say I was proud. The only one who supports such a thing is the person who hasn't seen her child die."
For years, suicide bombings have proved to be a potent and popular tactic in the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. But a new era in politics--the death of longtime leader Yasser Arafat, the election of Mahmoud Abbas and a summit this week in Egypt -- will likely mean a reckoning over the use of armed violence and suicide killings in the name of national aspirations.
Recent opinion polls by the respected Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found growing misgivings about the violence as the intifada, or rebellion, moves into its fifth year.
Palestinian support for armed attacks against Israeli citizens dropped from 54 percent last September to 49 percent in December. Opposition to such attacks rose to 48 percent, another 5 percentage-point change, and the number of Palestinians who believe they are winning the armed conflict dropped 5 points, to 35 percent.
Nowhere has the impact of the wanton killing been more debated and, at times, damned than in the homes of the suicide bombers themselves.
Their children can be counted among the region's most determined killers. Since the beginning of the intifada in September 2000 through the most recent attack Jan. 18 at a Gaza checkpoint, Palestinian suicide bombings have left more than 4,000 victims--533 killed and 3,523 injured--in 98 separate attacks documented by the Israeli Foreign Ministry.
Israeli lives were shattered by the killings. At the same time, the bombers tore apart their own families' prospects. Israel, invoking national security, sent troops and tanks into Palestinian cities after the attacks to search for militants. In 2002, Israel began building a mammoth and controversial concrete-and-barbed wire barrier around the West Bank to stop the flow of bombers.
For this story, the families of eight killers were interviewed. Some of the families, interviewed soon after the bombings and then repeatedly in the past year, asked not to be identified for fear of reprisal from Israelis as well as Palestinians. The eight Palestinian bombers tracked by the Tribune accounted for 82 dead and 628 wounded Israelis.
The bombings, many of the killers' relatives now concede, fed a national passion at a terrible cost.
In the days after his daughter's deadly attack in May 2003, Azzem Daraghmeh, a thick-waisted, towering man, barely spoke when friends came by the traditional mourning tent to offer congratulations. He was overwhelmed by harsh realities. Israeli soldiers blasted their house into rubble, and he was forced to sell 40 sheep so he could clean a two-room animal pen and call it home for his wife and two young sons in the village of Tubas.
More than a year later, Daraghmeh agonized, with words familiar to other Palestinian parents, over the dark-eyed daughter he lost. "Those guys who set my daughter up--they took advantage of her age and her ideas of the world. What has happened has turned my life upside down," he said. "If I knew who set up Hiba, I'd kill him. Why didn't he send his own daughter or wife or mother?"
`Passover Massacre'
Soccer teams are named for Issam Odeh's younger brother. So are newborn babies. But Issam Odeh, a 37-year-old father of six, now stumbles over the word "hero" when his children ask about their uncle, Abdel Bassat Odeh, a Hamas operative who one Passover night in 2002 killed Israelis by the dozens. "All these people say he's a hero. They claim him as a hero. Well, we're the ones who lost him," said Issam Odeh as he stood in his meagerly stocked food store in Tulkarem, a Palestinian city barricaded by Israel's security wall. "He did what everyone here thinks is great. But look what happened then and look what happens now. The whole world views what he did as something unacceptable."
Issam Odeh once spoke with pride about the brother who triggered the conflict's single deadliest bomb. "We have lost a brother, but we are left with pride," he said in an early interview. But last summer, with Israeli soldiers in control of the West Bank and Palestinian fighters dead or underground, Odeh wondered whether the feverish days of 2002 and his brother's suicide bombing were worth the ruin around him. "Now we are in a chaotic situation," he said. "We don't know what works and what doesn't work. I look at it this way now: The solution is peace."
His brother's attack was painful for Issam Odeh in ways older Palestinians and in particular his parents, fruit traders from a coastal village lost to Israel in 1948, might never understand. Odeh and his brother were educated and, in their youth, worked at hotels in Tel Aviv and Herzliya. As a young waiter, Odeh enjoyed mastering English and Hebrew. He liked foreigners and dated some. He counted Israelis among his friends. But by the coldest months of 2002, neither Odeh, his brother nor many other men from Tulkarem had good thoughts about Israelis. More than a year had passed since hard-line politician Ariel Sharon had visited a holy site--known as the Temple Mount to Jews and the Noble Sanctuary to Muslims--and touched off bloody clashes.
Tensions were boiling. The peace talks arranged by President Bill Clinton at Camp David were a sour memory. Suicide bombers hit a Tel Aviv disco and a Jerusalem pizzeria, and snipers targeted Israeli roads and settlements. On orders from Sharon, who had become prime minister, troops sought militants in densely populated Palestinian areas and ended up killing Palestinians, the fighters and the innocent, in numbers nearly four times those of the Israeli dead.
In March 2002, as the Israeli army raided militant hideouts in Gaza and the West Bank, seven bombers blasted a cafe, buses, bus stops, a market. Then on March 27, Abdel Bassat Odeh donned the dark suit of an Orthodox Jew and pushed the carnage higher. The handsome 25-year-old detonated an explosives-wired valise amid a crowd gathered on Passover eve for a seder at the Park Hotel in Netanya, Israel. Thirty Israelis were killed and 180 wounded.
Within 24 hours, the Israeli commanders called up 20,000 reservists, the largest emergency order since the Lebanon war of 1982. Tanks rolled into Tulkarem, Jenin, Nablus and Ramallah. The Odeh family huddled in its apartment, about 8 miles from the bombed hotel, uncertain what to do. Weeks later, Israeli soldiers took over the Odeh home and packed dynamite into its walls. The explosion blew up both the Odehs' building and a neighboring one. Dozens of people, mostly relatives, were homeless.
Many of the Odehs eventually resettled in a small building they renovated. Odeh's mother, Nawal, and father, Mohammed, waved off questions about the bloody consequences of Abdel Bassat's action. They wanted to talk instead about what led Abdel Bassat to kill himself. They didn't blame him. They didn't blame any Palestinian. They blamed Israel.
Israeli security, months before the bombing, had named their son a wanted man based on suspicions that he funneled money into Hamas militant activities. Their son viewed the arrest warrant as a death sentence, the parents said, and he went underground. Hours after the bombing, crowds milled around the Odeh home to celebrate what they called martyrdom. Some family members found the acclaim soothing. Nawal Odeh, who expressed pride during media interviews that day, later said she was raging behind closed doors. "I kept shouting, `Shut up, shut up. You don't know what we're going through.' We knew the Israelis were after him. What is better--to just be killed or to be a martyr? They did this to him. I think it was better to be a martyr."
Wasn't she pained that her son killed people gathered for a cherished religious event? "I assume the Jews feel the same pain I feel," the 58-year-old woman said. "There is pain on one side and there is pain on the other."
Issam Odeh, the bomber's brother, shrugged at the idea that he might have known some of the Israeli dead. Compassion, he said, cannot blur loyalties. "When the soldiers come to Tulkarem and kill us, at the end of the day, their families say `Welcome home.' They don't worry about how many they killed," he said.
Still, Palestinians lost ground with the attacks, he acknowledged, and his own four sons and two daughters suffered. His business, like much of the Palestinian economy, collapsed. Entire cities were placed under Israeli military control and, for months, Issam Odeh's family was turned back at every Israeli checkpoint when it tried to move beyond Tulkarem. "Children look at you to protect them. Mine still talk about their old home, their toys," he said.
One son speaks about the dynamited home as a bad dream. The child sees him as a failed father, Odeh said. "It's like he's thinking: Couldn't you have done something?"
The bombing by Odeh's brother, which was dubbed the Passover Massacre, came to symbolize the worst of the senseless violence in the Middle East. "We feel the whole world turned against us," said Odeh, who watches Arab and Western media.
Does that change how he or anyone else remembers his brother? Is he still a hero? "We are all victims," he countered. "The other day, my 7-year-old kid, in 1st grade, asked me: Daddy, is an Israeli soldier a human being, like us? . . . I couldn't figure out how to answer," Odeh said. "I knew if I did, after one question, he'd ask another difficult question. And how do I keep answering the questions? Because the last question leads where? Who is a human being?"
In the half-light of his grocery, Issam Odeh considered his future. His store is bankrupt. His only hope for work now is driving a taxi. "I loved my life before this all started," he said. "I pray day and night now that I can leave, move my children from this place, go to Europe, anywhere. . . . The reality now is pain. I said, one time, I am proud of my brother. I said it. My mind now is somewhere else."
The English major
When Dareen Abu Aisheh blew herself apart at an Israeli checkpoint, her father, Mohammed, likened her death to an act of God. "No one wants to see a daughter die, but we cannot change God's will," the retired laborer said. "All I can do is accept this."
Her mother, Wafika Abu Aisheh, never did. Two months after Dareen's suicide, when a relative pointed out a leader of Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades who set up suicide missions for the military arm of Yasser Arafat's Fatah political group, Wafika charged over and demanded to know how he had manipulated her daughter to die. "I was shaking. I was arguing," the mother of 10 said about the heated exchange that erupted at a social gathering in Nablus. "He kept saying, `Don't blame me. She wanted to do it.'"
Dareen Abu Aisheh, 21, an English major at An-Najah University, was the only person killed Feb. 27, 2002, when she set off an explosion at a roadblock near the Israeli town of Maccabim. Three Israeli police who stopped her taxi from the West Bank were injured, and her Palestinian driver was shot and wounded in the aftermath. Abu Aisheh was headed to Tel Aviv but apparently panicked as police checked her documents. She blasted her body into pieces.
Years later, Abu Aisheh's deed stirs passions and debate among those who loved her. "I'm furious with them. I curse them," her mother said about Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades' role in the attacks. She and other family members said they never viewed Dareen, even in the worst times of 2002, as anything more than idealistic about Palestinian independence. The girl intensely debated the conflict--as all Palestinians do --but she also wrote poems about resistance and taught Koran classes as a catharsis. "She was my flesh. Do you think I would have allowed her to kill herself in a thousand pieces? What mother--only an insane mother would want that for their child," Wafika said.
But Abu Aisheh's father and sisters describe her as an adult with strong convictions who made a choice based on how she saw Israelis control Palestinians. "Israel has made us older faster," said 18-year-old sister Ikram. "We bear responsibility beyond our years. . . . What is happening on the ground here is more important than anything else."
Ikram, now a high school senior, said she will follow her sister to an-Najah University. But Ikram will study a different field--architecture--and use her anger toward an ideal. "They destroy," Ikram said about the Israeli incursion into Nablus in 2002. "And we will build. I decided: For every building that falls, save the bricks. I will learn an effective form of resistance that keeps giving and giving and building up society."
The young bomber's mother seems tortured most by the memories of her daughter's final hours--and the lies she told. Dareen Abu Aisheh awoke early that cold February morning to pray. Her mother made coffee, returned to bed and heard Dareen rustle in. Her daughter, reading the Koran, snuggled next to her until about 8:30 a.m., when she left for school. By noon, for reasons the mother cannot explain, she began to feel "odd, like a fire inside" and tense about her daughter. She went to visit her oldest son, Tawfik. His greeting was startling: "Where's Dareen?"
The mother said Dareen was at school. That's a lie, Tawfik said. She wasn't even in Nablus. She had just phoned from a checkpoint and told him cryptically: "Go stay with Mom."
The daughter phoned again, this time to her mother. "Where are you?" her mother said. "Don't make my heart ache."
Stop crying, Dareen told her, and "stay firm with God." The line went dead.
Wafika and Tawfik Abu Aisheh tried in vain the next day to find out where she had gone. Mother and son were watching television the next night when the news flashed by. The mother, numb, switched from channel to channel to hear the reports. A Palestinian woman had set off an explosion at a checkpoint near Maccabim.
The mother barely needed to hear the name. "What could I have done?" she said. "Who could I have called? Could I call the Palestinian Authority? Could I call the Israelis? . . . In every case, Dareen would have been taken from me."
Tempting the desperate
Both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can agree on one thing: Suicide bombing tempts the most desperate. Jihad Msemi, a strategist for Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades who escaped an Israeli missile strike in 2002, maintains that suicide bombers never need to be persuaded or coerced to kill. "I assure you, when a 20-year-old comes forward and wants to be a martyr, we discuss it," Msemi said. "We try to give them a gun and let them fight that way. But . . . most of the young people who want this are driven by emotions. It becomes uncontrollable. The suicide bomber seeks it--and keeps working on it. You know he'll do something, if just throw himself in front of a tank. That's when you say: Give him the suicide belt."
Even Israeli security sources who track such attacks find a kind of logic among the young killers. For the most part, as one security source said, the bombers are "normal people with mostly normal problems" and motivations. "As Palestinians, they fight for a cause, and a cause to them that is just. Who can convince them that it's not right?" the Israeli security source said. "As long as the situation is bad, it can be exploited."
Fatima and Azzem Daraghmeh said they always tried to warn their children that the Palestinian militancy offered no future. Fatima, who finished six grades of school, said she and her husband encouraged the children to pursue education. Her daughter Hiba turned down two offers of marriage so she could earn a college degree. One son, Bakr, went to vocational school in Nablus and found the militants there intoxicating. Soon Bakr and his mother were arguing over his late hours. She feared he was becoming a resistance fighter, one who believed guns and fury could end occupation. "He was always talking Palestine. I said, `Forget Palestine. I care about you,'" the mother said.
Hiba would play peacemaker to offset Bakr's impudence, but she, too, could baffle her mother. The pretty teen began wearing a full-length veil that covered all but her eyes. Her mother tried to tease her out of the extreme dress, seeing it as an expression of devotion to Islam but also shyness. "Only donkeys are that covered," her mother would tell her. "Who's going to marry a girl they can't see?"
It all began unraveling in 2001 for the family. During a fractious march in Nablus, Bakr was shot by Israeli soldiers. He was recuperating at home in 2002 when Israeli soldiers arrested him on charges of planning a suicide bombing. He was later sentenced to 22 years in prison. Hiba was inconsolable after that army raid on their house. Soldiers shredded the notebooks she needed for school exams, family members said. She cried about the chaos and told her parents she hated the Israelis. Still, the parents said they never expected her, within a year's time, to seek deadly revenge. "I sit here and try to figure it out and, sometimes, I think my head is going to explode," said Fatima Daraghmeh, 48, the mother of eight. "I don't have any answers to why they did this. To know, I'd have to be able to get into their hearts."
The Daraghmehs later discovered that they still might not know the depth of their children's deceit. Another daughter, Jihan , was arrested days after Hiba's suicide bombing. For months, Jihan was held by the Israelis. On July 27, 2004, she pleaded guilty to giving West Bank militants--the same Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades linked to her sister's bombing--the name of another woman willing to be a suicide bomber.
Jihan, 29, and a mother of five children, was sentenced to 13 months in jail. Several months later, given credit for time served, she was released. Jihan told her parents that, despite her plea in court, the Israelis exaggerated her ties and she's not involved with the resistance. The Daraghmehs say they want to believe their daughter.
This article starring:
ABDEL BASAT ODEH
Hamas
DARIN ABU AISHEH
Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades
FATIMA DARAGHMEH
Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades
JIHAD MSEMI
Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades
JIHAN DARAGHMEHS
Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/06/2005 12:45:52 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
"Palestinian support for armed attacks against Israeli citizens dropped from 54 percent last September to 49 percent in December."
The roadmap still leads down a dead-end.
Posted by: Tom ||
02/06/2005 15:15 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I am wondering how the Palestinians ever thought this would lead anywhere? How about the daily indoctrination the kids get in school? Are the parents blind to that too? You teach your kids to be haters don't be surprised at the result.
Did they honestly believe that turning their territories into occupied rubble wouldn't be the out come of the intifada? That Israel would some how pay attention to the opinions of the outside world when it comes to self defense and survival? In the rough neighborhood that is the part of the world they live in, did they expect anything but a harsh unyielding response?
Pardon me if I don't feel sorry for your stupidity or it's results.
#5
This is a vindication of Israel's approach in handling the Paleos' Tantrum II. It also goes to show that perseverance pays dividends, especially when you're undoubtedly on the right side.
#6
Agreed, SPoD, that this kind of thing should have been obvious from the outset, but remember, Arabs don't get cause and effect the way we in the West do (although to be fair I should note that a growing number of us here don't, either). I've shaken my head for years; the Paleos are only shooting themselves in the foot by sending their best and brightest to commit suicide. They get a state, woo-hoo for them, but who's going to be running it? Who's going to take the jobs? Who's going to help put together the infrastructure needed to make a decent, civilized society? The very people that the Paleos are twisting and killing - their own sons and daughters.
I can only hope we hear more of this kind of thing - and that these statements are repeated as often as possible. To have any kind of future, the Paleos need to break through and discard the brainwashing that's poisoned their society for decades.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
02/06/2005 16:38 Comments ||
Top||
#7
There is a whole generation plus change that has swallowed the poison pill that the Arafish and similar cohorts in crime have fed them. I do hope that they continue waking up. The IDF could just have well wiped them off the map but did not. The Paleos make their own news. I hope that they start making good news, instead of what they have done to the past 2 generations of their children.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/06/2005 17:56 Comments ||
Top||
#8
the disengagement by Sharon has exposed tehir tantrum as what it is: a distraction by the thugs running the corruption for their own enrichment. Wanna bet, regardless of the success in advancing the "proces", that Abbas dies a WEALTHY man?
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/06/2005 18:12 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Every now and then the Chicago Tribune gets a clue.
At least the Palestinians are starting to question this stupid strategy that they were refusing to give up. Maybe they'll stop doing this some time in our lifetime. It's just sad it took this many pointless and stupid deaths to do it.
#10
The "poison pill" is the killer. Once indoctrinated, how do you undo the blind hatred? How can they possibly join the rational while living inside the Hate Machine? This won't be anywhere near as straight-forward as denazification - the Paleos are a mercenary populace with zero redeeming value - vastly different from the Germans who were under a spell that lasted less than a generation. This society is sick and twisted from start to finish, every molecule infected - and external forces like it that way and are willing to pay to keep it that way. They're screwed. Self-screwed with a support system.
But I also still remember being on the west bank back in 87, the arrogance of 18 yr old Israelis with rifles watching Palestinain women draw water from old wells and carry it home on donkeys while the brand new Israeli settlements on the hill had air conditioning, modern conveniences - and a swimming pool.
I have some real sympathy for those on both sides who are just trying to get through a horrid life. And that includes a bunch of Palestinians who are caught in a deadend situation.
The sons of bitches who keep blowing people up, and the mothers who encourage them -- them, I would hang up by their balls (for the men). The mothers deserve what they get.
Posted by: too true ||
02/06/2005 19:24 Comments ||
Top||
#12
tt - Good point - and heartfelt, obviously. Personally I don't blame the young Israelis for feeling superior, if I caught your meaning correctly, they were centuries ahead. I've had that same feeling - and there was nothing I could do to bring the others up, they were fully indoctrinated Wahhabis who smiled only to my face, only choose not to be dragged down.
If the Saudis, et al, would stop funding the merc elements and giving money to the PA until they clean up their act and begin to serve those people with open auditing, it's absolutely hopeless. All they have is the Hate Machine, as it is.
So let me understand this; because the Israeli's have constructed a society that can produce settlements with airconditioning, running water and a swimming pool and the Paleo's have put the majority of their resources into teaching lies, hate, and lining the pockets of slime like Arafat, they're both victims?
Sorry, if the Paleo's are caught in a dead end situation, it's their own damn fault time and time again. They could have a real peace with Israel within 3 months, and have a standard of living that would rival most other arab states within a decade if they chose that path.
But's it's hard to reign in the anarchy and hatred they've been breeding for several generations...
Sorry, my sympathy meter is pegged at ZERO for the Paleo's. Long before the current intafada, we've had airline hijackings, Leon Klinghofer, Olympic murders, etc. etc. etc.
Now that the dimwitted savages are starting to realize they've pretty much destroyed their society, they're starting to feel maybe it wasn't a good idea to blow up the Jews... Not because it's immoral and wrong, but becuase the consequence is counterproductive to their goal of pushing all the Jews into the sea.
fuck em.
Posted by: Francis ||
02/06/2005 19:48 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Most aid to the Paleos comes through the UN and the USA is the largest single contributor. I suggest you follow John Howard's lead and bypass the UN. At least you will know its not being stolen before it gets to the Paleos.
#15
At least you will know its not being stolen before it gets to the Paleos.
A side benefit of this sort of arrangement is that conditions can be slapped on the aid. Revise the textbooks, and remove the Jew-hating references, lest the assistance be cut off.
#16
too true, a large part of the reason the Palestinians do not have the modern conveniences you mention (and many others, as well) is that they repeatedly turn down Israeli offers to hook them up to the nets: sewage and water systems, electricity, the internet. Their self-selected rulers have chosen as a matter of patriotism to remain disconnected from those Joo things; after all, they will get it all for free when they reconquer what they choose to call their Zionist-occupied territories. In case you were uncertain, that means all of it... to the pre-1948 borders.
HISTORY repeats itself, Karl Marx said, "first as tragedy, second as farce."
In the days immediately following Iraq's historic election, two videotapes from "insurgent" groups were distributed to the news media. One purported to show an American soldier being held hostage. The second purported to show that a British C-130 transport aircraft, which crashed on election day, had been shot down by a surface-to-air missile.
The "American soldier" was Cody, a G.I. Joe action figure. This is obvious from the picture, but the Associated Press and CNN bit hard.
The cause of the C-130 crash is still being investigated. But experts at Jane's Defence Weekly have doubts about the claim of "insurgents."
"The missile footage has just been grafted onto the front," said editor Peter Felstead. "And it looks like a surface to surface missile to me."
Other experts note the wreckage footage was shot in daylight, while the C-130 crashed just before nightfall. It is highly improbable "insurgents" could have been on the scene before the sun set, and there were British soldiers all around the next morning.
Media outlets that were quick to report the insurgents' claims had little to say about the hoaxes. Nor did they speculate on what the hoaxes might mean.
Last Sunday's election demonstrated the massive support of the Iraqi people for democracy, and the relative impotence of the "insurgents." The "river of blood" they promised was barely a trickle.
Eight suicide bombers killed 36 Iraqis besides themselves. Of these, seven were foreigners (six Saudis and a Sudanese). The only Iraqi suicide bomber was a child suffering from Down syndrome. That is, as the Iraqi writer Nibras Kazimi put it, "eight against 8 million." And on what basis, one might ask, do the media call seven foreign terrorists "insurgents"?
The terrorists had to do something to revive their plummeting prestige. That they resorted to clumsy frauds is not a sign of strength.
"The captured toy story could be pretty significant," said the Web logger John Hinderaker (Power Line). "The terrorists need, more than anything else, to be seen as awesome, terrible figures. If they stop inspiring fear, they are finished. So the one thing they cannot stand is ridicule. Their pathetic effort to pass a doll off as a captured American soldier will [make] them laughingstocks throughout the Arab world."
It's also interesting that the terrorists turned to the news media to recover lost momentum. Journalists who fell for these hoaxes may merely be idiots, and their silence about the implications of the hoaxes may simply be the by-product of embarrassment. But more to the point, why are major media so quick to disseminate anything that a terrorist group, or purported terrorist group, releases? For the terrorist, it is like being given millions of dollars in free advertising.
The major media have from the beginning exaggerated the strength and popularity of those they mislabel "insurgents," to the disgust of American soldiers.
"I'm tired of hearing the crap, the whole, well 'We are barely hanging on, we're losing, the insurgency is growing,'?" Marine Sgt. Kevin Lewis told Dan Rather, in Iraq for the election. "It's just a small amount of people out there causing the problems. It's a small number, and we're killing them."
The scandalous remarks of Eason Jordan, CNN's top news executive, last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and the failure of the major media to report them suggest the distortions are deliberate.
Mr. Jordan told a panel that the U.S. military had killed a dozen journalists in Iraq, and that they had been deliberately targeted. When challenged, Mr. Jordan could provide no evidence to support the charge, and subsequently lied about having made it, though the record shows he had made a similar charge a few months before, and also earlier had falsely accused the Israeli military of targeting journalists.
Mr. Jordan's slander has created a firestorm in the blogosphere, but has yet to be mentioned in the "mainstream" media.
Gee, I wonder why not.
Posted by: tipper ||
02/06/2005 9:01:32 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Back when I went to college, there was only one difference between the drama students and the broadcast journalism students.....at least the drama students could remember their lines. The broadcast journalism ones needed their scripts for even "impromptu" remarks.
#2
The thing I find the most enjoyable, in watching the media self-destruct, is the fact that AP, Reuters, Eason Jordan, etc, just don't grasp that they are yesterday's news.
There is still a market for good reporters - the type that can accurately portray an event that transpired. But as for "framing" the news, the blogosphere can interact with interested experts in a matter of moments. Reporters can't compete with this body of expertise. The day of talking heads "framing" the news, is long over.
#3
The day of talking heads "framing" the news, is long over.
That may be true here. It's probably less true in, say, the middle East.
Posted by: too true ||
02/06/2005 13:28 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Whether it is framing the news or even the emergence of a particular event, the MSM are no longer in power. The Jordan slander is an excellent example of how the MSM still do not understand that someone with a computer can go and transcribe what was said and in no time it will be seen by millions. They are being taken down a peg at a time.
#5
As an engineer I've always found it teeth-grindingly frustrating to read MSM articles having anything to do with science: the illiteracy (like referring to "kilowatts per day" as a measure of energy) and the innumeracy (like talking about an aircraft that weighs "80,000 tons" instead of 80,000 pounds) are just stunning. Even as a kid, during the early days of the space program, I would grit my teeth while listening to Jules Bergman or Walter Cronkite try to talk about science.
But for some reason, it never occurred to me until just a couple of years ago to wonder if these people might be just as ignorant about everything else, too.
I have hopes for the blogosphere: it brings publishing technology, and bandwidth, to people who have something to say and know what the hell they're talking about. It sure is a damn sight better than being lectured to by a bunch of idiots who couldn't get into Drama School (good point, DB).
Posted by: Dave D. ||
02/06/2005 13:59 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Dave, I even have to grit my teeth at a lot of technical articles in engineering trade magazines. Having now written a few in recent years, I have worked with the editors and found out that they are as much a part of the problem as the solution. I've concluded that many engineers who drift into technical magazine editing do so because they are justifiably insecure with their engineering capabilities.
Posted by: Tom ||
02/06/2005 14:09 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"Dave, I even have to grit my teeth at a lot of technical articles in engineering trade magazines."
I'm in electronics, mostly the design of sensors for pressure, force and acceleration, and I no longer subscribe to ANY of the trade journals. In my opinion, they're almost worthless. The articles are poorly written, they're riddled with errors, and they focus almost exclusively on the latest whiz-bang video game technology instead of dealing with basic engineering issues. I get far better info over the Internet from manufacturers' websites.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
02/06/2005 14:50 Comments ||
Top||
#8
General Rule: If a publication carrys advertising, the purpose of the publication is to deliver readers to the advertiser. If there is no advertising in the publication, its sole purpose is to deliver information to the subscriber.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/06/2005 14:55 Comments ||
Top||
#9
There are in-betweens such as some professional society monthly magazines.
Posted by: Tom ||
02/06/2005 14:59 Comments ||
Top||
#10
in my engineering freebies they are paid for by ads, but that's a good thing since the newest and cutting edge stuff is usually in the ads....
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/06/2005 15:09 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Let's not minimize the power of broadcast and print media. The vast majority in the US, and even higher percentage in the rest of the world, get the vast majority their info by these sources. Their viewpoint is broadcast day-in day-out without refutation, and form the foundation of most people's knowledge of the wider world.
For instance, what percentage of the US population has heard the story behind Jordan's slur? 5%? What has the rest of the world heard besides "CNN Editor says Amercian soldiers shoot journalists."?
While we actively search out primary sources of news stories in this war, those who do are still a small minority. The greatest impact I can have is to gather enough knowledge to be able to point out family and friends the errors, ommissions, and biases fed to them each and every day by the media.
Posted by: ed ||
02/06/2005 16:11 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Dave D you can add 'scientific experts' to the list. I regularly find myself shouting 'That's not true' at the TV. While the problem is worst with politicized issues like climate change, a recent example was a siesmologist explaining how the Sumatra earthquake caused the tsunami that was directly contradicted by the video (of the tsunami) shown 30 seconds earlier.
#13
We have a full generation whose education was ... wait, let me think of the correct technical term for it ... shitty. These people are now in jobs, including in the media. And the next generation isn't getting anything better.
We have got to insist on some rigor in our school curricula. The idea of a "fact" should not be foreign to our students, even as we also distinguish fact from opinion. It would be nice if they had even a passing familiarity with statistics and how to use them correctly. Some history -- you know, those facts again -- would be nice. So would some science.
Posted by: too true ||
02/06/2005 16:29 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Eight suicide bombers killed 36 Iraqis besides themselves. Of these, seven were foreigners (six Saudis and a Sudanese).
We need to work on securing a border. For training and to gain lessons learned, the Military should be praticing by securing our borders.
Iraq's Shia leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani and another top cleric on Sunday staked out a demand that Islam be the sole source of legislation in the country's new constitution.
One cleric issued a statement setting out the position and the spiritual leader of Iraqi Shia made it known straight away that he backed demands for the Koran to be the reference point for legislation.
The national assembly formed after last month's historic elections is to oversee the drawing up of the new constitution.
The role of Islam has been at the heart of months of debate between rival parties and factions as well as the US-led occupation authority which administered Iraq until last June.
Sistani leads the five most important clerics, known as marja al-taqlid, or sources of emulation, who had portrayed a more moderate stance going into the election.
The surprise statement was released by Sheikh Ibrahim Ibrahimi, a representative of Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Ishaq al-Fayad, another of the marja.
"All of the ulema (clergy) and marja, and the majority of the Iraqi people, want the national assembly to make Islam the source of legislation in the permanent constitution and to reject any law that is contrary to Islam," said the statement.
A source close to Sistani announced soon after the release of the statement that the spiritual leader backed the demand.
"We advise the government not to take decisions which would shock Muslims, such as the conscription of Muslims and the publication of their photos with foreign instructors," said Ibrahimi.
"We warn officials against a separation of the state and religion, because this is completely rejected by the ulema and marja and we will accept no compromise on this question.
"If they (the government) want the stability and security of the country, they must not touch the country's Islamic values and traditions," the sheikh said.
The role of Islam was a particular sticking point when an interim constitution was drawn up under the US-led occupation.
After often acrimonious debate and the threat of a veto by US administrator Paul Bremer, the final version completed in March last year said that Islam should be "a source" of legislation.
No law that "contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam" would be accepted, said the final draft of the so-called "fundamental law".
Sistani and the other top clerics mainly live in the central holy city of Najaf.
On top of Sistani and Fayad, there are the ayatollahs Bashir al-Najafi and Mohammad Said Hakim. A fifth, Ayatollah Kazem al-Hairi, lives in Iran.
Posted by: tipper ||
02/06/2005 8:50:36 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I suspect that this is a "pro-forma" declaration. Sistani realizes that only a tiny minority, around 3%, want a religious government, but they could be really pestiferous if they want to be. So the solution is to eventually create "blue law" towns, much like what used to be in the US, where the retentives can go and there will be no alcohol, no prostitutes, etc. Then make it clear that they can have things their way if they live in Hickville, but if they try any nonsense in "the big city", they will get seven bells stomped out of them.
#2
I have no problem with their position as long as it is backed by the elected parliament and the heads of government continue to be chosen in fair elections. I sure wouldn't make that choice, but it is THEIR choice.
Posted by: Tom ||
02/06/2005 10:46 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Amen Tom, as long as the 'basis' of their laws respects the rights of other to whorship this should not be a problem. Sistani is not going to follow the Iranian model, he knows they are ripe for revolution from the younger crowd. It's only a matter of time until they have had enough and plunge the country into civil war. Sistani would face an instant civil war (by the Kurds and the Sunni) if he tried to install a Theocracy. But I bet the LLL and MSM are looking for any sign of a Mullacracy so they can yell "We told you so!"
#4
You don't usually start negotiations with your fall-back plan. (Unless a reporter publishes it first.)
Prediction: The democratic give and take in Iraq is going to be very noisy and rude, sort of along Israeli lines, and is going to scare the bejabbers out of the MSM who will regularly report that all parties are intransigent and the sky is falling. And the Iraqis will manage to back-room compromise their way along OK.
Posted by: James ||
02/06/2005 12:59 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Lol - my first take on this was to back off, go do something else for awhile and then come back to see if it still made me want to spit, heh. KhaleejTimes, of course, is pushing its agenda... Excellent commentary folks (Thx!) - puts this in perspective.
#6
Noise and invective are normal for young democracies. It's part of the people exploring their new freedom and its limits. Coupled, of course, with a culture drunk on words. Not to worry, they should calm down in a decade or two, just like the U.S. did back in the day. Actually, it's quite endearing that the Iraqis are so enthusiastic about the whole thing.
#7
"The democratic give and take in Iraq is going to be very noisy and rude, sort of along Israeli lines, and is going to scare the bejabbers out of the MSM..."
I think it's gonna scare the bejabbers out of me, too. But I figure I've got no choice but to suck in my gut, grit my teeth and cross my fingers while watching the Iraqis try to make this thing work.
I sure as hell hope it does. Because if it doesn't, the consequences are too horrible to contemplate.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
02/06/2005 13:43 Comments ||
Top||
#8
To my mind, Sistani is the classic ward politico per Chicago : make a lot of noise for the press, and cut deals in the backroom. The noise is for public consumption and pressure on the other side, what is actually decided involves goodies all around : people get reconstruction contracts with built-in 1% "add-on" costs, family and supporters get jobs, services are provided with only a little padding of costs, and everyone gets something to take home to the voters.
#10
#3 Cyber Sarge: I presume you mean "rights of others to WORSHIP?"
#8 I hope and Sistani's backroom deals actually do work out for the public good. The comparision to the first Daley Regime gives me the willies: the ward heelers' inability to make real policy and their fudging the books and their neglect of minorities ruined Chicago's schools and played merry hell with the infrastructure.
The people the Iraqis elect need to learn how to run things properly really fast. I hope most Iraqis realize that whatever respect they may have for clerics, The Turbans probably don't know how to get the garbage picked up on time.
Nawab Muhammad Akbar Bugti, the chief of the Bugti tribe and chairman of the Jamhoori Watan Party (JWP), has again ruled out dialogue with the government on the Balochistan situation and said he would not talk to members of a committee lacking decision-making powers. Talking to Madni Baloch, the JWP Punjab vice president, on the phone on Saturday, Bugti said dialogue with a "toothless committee" on Balochistan was futile. He said he respected the army as an institution but the use of force would further deepen the Balochistan crisis, damaging Pakistan.
Bugti said he was prepared to face severe punishment if a commission consisting of senior journalists and intellectuals found him guilty of damaging Sui gas plants and creating law and order problems there. He said the government was trying to cover up the gang-rape of a woman doctor and was not sincere in punishing those responsible. He demanded that Captain Hammad, the main accused in the rape case, be arrested and put to a fair trial. Bugti said the use of force and media trial would not help the government hide the 'truth'.
This article starring:
Jamhoori Watan Party
Posted by: Fred ||
02/06/2005 4:01:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
as someone else noted: isn't Foster Brooks dead?
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/06/2005 14:18 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Reincarnation -- it's not just for Hindus and Shirley McLain anymore.
Posted by: Tom ||
02/06/2005 14:30 Comments ||
Top||
Somalia's government approved the deployment of at least 5000 foreign troops to help restore the first national administration in 14 years, but powerful tribal chiefs balked, officials said.
"Hey! No way, man!"
"The ministers approved between 5000 and 7000 troops to help stabilise Somalia," a government minister who did not wish to be named said. The plan was put to a vote at a cabinet meeting chaired by President Abd Allahi Yusuf Ahmad in the Kenyan capital, but it will have to be taken to the country's parliament for final approval. Thirty-eight out of 47 ministers voted in favour of the deployment, but nine of them voted against, including powerful tribal leaders in the cabinet, the minister added.
At the AU summit in Nigeria last week, leaders said that the regional Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD), which groups Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda, Djibouti and Sudan, will initially provide troops and equipment for the mission. "The contentious issue in the deployment plan is the participation of troops from neighbouring countries that have geopolitical interests in Somalia," the minister said. Somali factions have repeatedly accused neighbouring states of supporting their rivals in the past. Ahmad, himself a former tribal leader and president of the northeastern region of Puntland, is backed by Ethiopia, a fact that irks Mogadishu tribal chiefs.
The timetable for deployment will be prepared after parliament approves the decision, according to Somali officials. The mission, which will be the first multinational force in Somalia since the end of a failed UN-mandated intervention in 1995, is expected to help install the country's transitional government, so far based in neighbouring Kenya for security reasons. A team of Somali lawmakers this week outrightly rejected the planned deployment when they travelled to the war-torn capital Mogadishu to ease the way for the government's eventual relocation from Nairobi. "We reject the deployment of foreign troops in Mogadishu. Therefore you should create a peaceful environment for the relocating Somali government," faction leader Muse Sudi Yalahow said on Wednesday, voicing a position widely held by faction leaders, even those in cabinet. "Please do not create reasons for the need for outside forces to pacify Mogadishu," added Yalahow, who's faction controls areas of southern and northern Mogadishu.
Ordinary Somalis, who have borne the brunt of years of bloodshed, have expressed discomfort at the propects of foreign troops patrolling their neighbourhoods. President Ahmad, elected last October, and his government led by Prime Minister Ali Muhammad Gedi, have been based in Nairobi amid continued fears of instability in post-anarchic Somalia. Ahmad has faced mounting pressure from Kenya and the international community to return to Somalia and has mounted three cabinet-level missions to arrange the relocation.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
02/06/2005 12:32:50 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
African armies planning the first foreign military presence in Somalia in a decade know they are taking risks in a state that humbled U.S. forces but must act, and soon, to end chaos there, according to an organiser.
Mr. Rooters is starting from a false premise: Somalia "humbled" U.S. forces only because of political failure at the presidential level.
East African countries agreed at an African Union (UN) summit in Nigeria this week to send a peace support mission to Somalia to help a fledgling administration return from the safety of Kenya where it was created at peace talks last year. It is a bold move by Sudan, Uganda, Djibouti, Kenya and Ethiopia, not just because of peacekeeping's sorry record in the volatile state but also because some members of the government it is meant to support believe it is unnecessary, diplomats say. "There is a risk, but contributing countries are prepared to live with this risk. The pressure is on to have the force deployed as soon as possible," Peter Marwa, a soldier-turned diplomat who works for the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) mediation group, told Reuters on Saturday. "We hope meanwhile that attempts will be made to continue reconciliation in Somalia," he said in an interview, adding the force would seek an AU mandate and AU help in seeking funding.
Marwa is Head of Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution at IGAD, an organisation of East African governments that manages peace negotiations in Somalia and southern Sudan. Marwa's latest assignment is to organise a meeting of East African defence ministers and army chiefs in Kampala next week to set the terms and mandate of a Somali peacekeeping mission. "We will work out a mandate, size and terms of engagement and develop a concept of operations," he said.
Marwa is aware of some hostility to the idea of foreign troops, especially among a small group of radical Islamists in Mogadishu, but is not overly worried by dissension in the called Transitional Federal Government over the use of foreign forces. President Abdullahi Yusuf is a supporter of an African peacekeeping force, saying he will not return to Mogadishu unless one is deployed. And many Somalis say they will welcome any force irrespective of nationality that can guarantee peace. But some of Yusuf's colleagues believe only a token force is needed, or none at all, since Mogadishu's main warlords are all ministers in the government and will be able to impose security provided they can work as a team, Somali watchers say. "In peacemaking it's not easy to get everyone aligned together and speaking as one. It takes time," said Marwa.
Diplomats say Somalis should have no problem with Sudanese and Ugandan troops since they have no history of intervention in the country. Sudanese troops, provided they are Muslim Arabs from the north, may be welcomed by Muslim Somalis. But "frontline" states of Kenya, Djibouti and Ethiopia, all of whom have a history of conflict with Somalia or Somali-based insurgents, may raise hackles, diplomats say.
And everybody worries about raising the hackles of a prototypical failed state...
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
02/06/2005 12:30:23 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I suspect the real issue here is that the UN is trying to impose a new government under the UN's existing borders are sacrosanct dictum becuase Somalia has effectively split into two states based on the old British and Italian Somalilands. The enforcers are African despots of various shades whose own populations (large parts of) would succeed given the chance.
A Sudanese soldier shot an aid worker in the West Kordofan region, underlining the danger facing those trying to help 1.8 million people displaced by conflict in neighbouring Darfur, an aid agency said on Saturday. CARE International said in a statement its clearly marked vehicle was fired on without warning on Thursday morning during a visit to a water and sanitation project in West Kordofan, which borders the troubled Darfur area. "The bullet, fired by a Sudanese soldier, struck and wounded a CARE staff member who received medical treatment and is in good condition," the statement said. "Sudanese military authorities subsequently apologised to CARE for the incident."
CARE said it was the only agency working in the Kordofan region. "CARE is currently reviewing the implications of the incident for its staff safety and security in this area, where we have evacuated our staff twice during the past six months due to rebel activity, including a direct attack on a CARE office."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
02/06/2005 12:28:53 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
A FORMER close associate of Osama Bin Laden is to sue the film-maker Michael Moore for using his footage of the Al-Qaeda chief in the documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. Essam Deraz, an Egyptian, spent almost four years in Afghanistan filming Bin Laden at training camps and fighting, gaining unprecedented access to the terrorist leader. He was the only person to film Bin Laden during the late 1980s and has the only footage of the Saudi exile in battle in Afghanistan.
Deraz has started legal action in Egypt and America to seek compensation for use of his footage in Fahrenheit 9/11, the biggest-grossing documentary in cinema history. Deraz claims he had not signed a distribution agreement with Moore or anyone else. "I was the only cameraman with the Arabs. All of those shots of Bin Laden talking in the cave, talking into his walkie-talkie, they were all my work. "I was there from 1986-89 and was in contact with Bin Laden on many occasions. I saw him in Peshawar in Pakistan and in Jalalabad in Afghanistan. The film clips in Fahrenheit 9/11 five of them were mostly shot in March and April 1989. I was wounded twice and on one of those occasions Bin Laden arranged for me to be taken to hospital in his vehicle. These are the only film clips ever taken that show Bin Laden on the battlefield."
Film of the Arab mujaheddin fighting against the Russians in Afghanistan is rare because they did not take part in many large-scale engagements. The fighting around Jalalabad, shortly before the Russians withdrew, is one of the few occasions where Arab fighters were involved in large numbers. Deraz, who worked for the BBC in the 1970s and lived in London, said he had no sympathy with Al-Qaeda, which had not yet come into existence when the footage was shot. At the time it was Egyptian policy to support the uprising by Afghans against the Soviet forces that had invaded the country. Following his return to Egypt, he wrote a number of books about the anti-Soviet jihad and made three films.
Continued on Page 49
This article starring:
ESAM DERAZ
al-Qaeda
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
02/06/2005 12:16:20 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Well, I am for this guy suing the skin off Moore's ass (or appropriate chunk of moolah--$1000 per square millimeter). Same, as Al-Jihadiyya is concerned.
#5
Moore's defense: The Images are so far in the Public Domain and subscribed to posterity, that compensation to Essam Deraz would be tantamount to "fining history for it's own revelations". Even the Zapruder film could only be sold for viewing only once!
#6
Moore is full of bullshit if he is claiming Public Domain. The stuff was copyrighted under international and US law the second Deraz filmed it. Using it without permission, attribution or compensation will get you in a world of hurt. Mr Moore is about the find out that his lawyers are wrong. He may have a deal with Al Jiz but if they don't own what he claims he gave them he is double plus screwed. I am keeping my fingers crossed.
#7
Well...sounds like the guy should really take his case up with al-Jazeera. Though, suing them in an Egyptian and Qatari court could prove...troublesome. Much better to use the American system to go after a target with lots of money.
And jeez, the movie's been out for a good while now. Couldn't he have said something a bit earlier, like, say, two days before the DVD release date?
At a conference on the future of al Qaeda sponsored by Los Alamos National Laboratory last month, I posed a dark question to 60 or so nuclear weapons scientists and specialists on terrorism and radical Islam: How many of them believed that the probability of a nuclear fission bomb attack on U.S. soil during the next several decades was negligible -- say, less than 5 percent?
At issue was the Big One -- a Hiroshima-or-larger explosion that could claim hundreds of thousands of American lives, as opposed to an easier-to-mount but less lethal radiological attack. Amid somber silence, three or four meek, iconoclastic hands went up. (More later on the minority optimists. They, too, deserve a hearing.)
This grim view, echoed in other quarters of the national security bureaucracy in recent months, can't be dismissed as Bush administration scaremongering. "There has been increasing interest by terrorists in acquiring nuclear weapons," Mohamed ElBaradei, the Egyptian director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the world's chief nuclear watchdog, said in a recent interview, excerpts of which were published in Outlook last Sunday. "I cannot say 100 percent that it hasn't happened" already, he added, almost as an afterthought.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
02/06/2005 12:09:07 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Thank you, Dan Darling. This article epitomizes why I participate at Rantburg. As mentioned here already, America needs to put all rougue regimes on notice that a nuclear attack on American soil will result in every single one of them being glassed over, one and all.
This horseshit about the threat of nuclear terrorism must carry with it consequences of massive proportion. Terrorist regimes must be served notice that their participation in global attacks means the complete and total destruction of their population and culture. Yeah, I feel sorry for the innocent life lost, but better it be someone else's innocent life lost than America's helpful populace.
#2
Maybe I didn't read it closely enough but the writer seems to confuse 'acquiring' with 'building'.
It is a fact that no non-governmental entity has build a nuclear bomb for the very simple reason it takes a lot of time, money and resources. If a bunch of Jihadis become the first, then it will be the most significant Arab first ever.
Acquiring a government built bomb is an entirely different matter and hence the emphasis on stopping governments that might allow a bomb to get to jihadis acquiring them in the first place.
Most of this article is garbled crap and too long to bother sifting out what makes sense (if any).
even if Al Q acquired a real nuclear bomb, it is far from certain that they would be able to deliver it before it went stale
on the other hand, there is a good chance that if AlQ acquired a dirty bomb they could transport it to this country without damaging the bomb itself -- we actually have a fairly decent rad detection system but something could be missed
#4
I agree with the last paragraph, especially this sentence: "They suspect jihadism has hit its high-water mark, that it is in decline even if we cannot see it clearly yet."
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
02/06/2005 9:05 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I am more concerned about North Korea because their leadership is totally nuts, Iran because theirs is too, and Pakistan because they have multiple bombs and seem to be politically unstable. All three are already doing more missile development than I find tolerable. I expect to see a terrorist dirty-bomb attack here in the next five years, but I don't think it's as serious as the North Korea/Iran/Pakistan problem.
Posted by: Tom ||
02/06/2005 11:47 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Now that we've won I suggest turning to the UN to help transform the post-war world. Perhaps an infusion of cash would help. San Fransico is nice even in February and it is semi-hysterical.
#9
#6 was making fun of Mike's suggestion that the WOT is downhill from here.
#7 again obliquely makes fun of Mike by suggesting that the U.N. could again be the grand solution that it was in 1945. In 1945, representatives of 50 countries met in San Francisco to draw up the United Nations Charter.
Posted by: Tom ||
02/06/2005 15:10 Comments ||
Top||
#10
"They suspect jihadism has hit its high-water mark, that it is in decline even if we cannot see it clearly yet."
A dying snake still has venom, a mortally wounded wolf its teeth.
As reflected in CIA classified studies last month, U.S. military and intelligence officials are still trying to understand the various Iraqi insurgency groups that they expect will continue to fight, even after last week's election. The CIA studies included a detailed look at an at-large Iraqi fighter who is motivated to fight because the United States is occupying his country, a senior intelligence official said. "This person, with a tribal background, has a mix of motives including a family grievance, someone was hurt by coalition forces," said the official, who asked not to be identified because the reports are still classified. "There is also [in this Iraqi insurgent] religion and nationalism that results in a view he must fight on to get non-Muslims out of Muslim territory." In looking in depth at one insurgent, the agency was able to describe the group to which the fighter belongs and how it operates, the official said.
The CIA last month also updated its analysis of the breadth of the Iraqi insurgency, including Iraqis that are not only former Baathists, "dead enders," but also newly radicalized Sunni Iraqis, nationalists offended by the occupying force and others disenchanted by the economic turmoil and destruction caused by the fighting. Foreign fighters associated with Abu Musab Zarqawi and his al Qaeda-affiliated insurgent group, who once were seen as the prime opponents along with tens of thousands of criminals freed by Saddam Hussein before the war began in 2003, are now described as lesser elements but still a source of danger.
Michael Scheuer, the former CIA analyst who ran the agency's Osama bin Laden section in the 1990s, said yesterday, "The administration doesn't seem to have thought through the continuing danger from foreign fighters." He said countries such as Saudi Arabia and Algeria in the 1980s released imprisoned Islamic radicals to go fight the Soviets in Afghanistan "hoping they would die in the process." Now, Scheuer said, "Iraq is a more attractive fight for those radicals, and the Saudis currently want to unload the firebrands they have at home." The Sunni government in Riyadh is also unhappy with the prospect of a Shiite state on the border, he added, "so they think it is a great thing for their people to do."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
02/06/2005 12:04:34 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It would seem to me that if you wanted to undo the Iraqi insugency, dealing with the various tribes first is the way to go. It appears from what I have read that any number of foreign elements can bribe these tribes to keep fighting even if it no longer io the tribes' interest to continue fighting.
Please note that since all the above is purely speculation based just on what I read, kindly answer it in that spirit unless you have links to prove any point you're trying to make. I am not willing to challenge anyone's expertise in this area, with some obivous exceptions. So, follow the above and you can stay sober reading the rest of the thread. ;o)
The final result of Iraq's historic election will be announced within five days, the electoral commission said yesterday. "We will announce the final results before February 10," said commission official Farid Ayar.
After the final result "appeals can be made for nine days. Afterwards, the commission will validate the final results" having taken appeals into account, said Ayar. The final vote count continued yesterday, although no new partial results were given. Speculation as to when final results would be announced has been rife in recent days, with commission officials citing several different dates.
According to results announced on Friday, the United Iraqi Alliance list backed by Iraq's Shi'ite spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, has over 2.2 million out of the 3.3m votes counted. That gave the Sistani list 67 per cent of the vote and a commanding lead over Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's list, which won 579,708 votes, or 17pc.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/06/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
KHARTOUM, Sudan (AP) - The government will not send Sudanese citizens or officials suspected of committing war crimes in the western province of Darfur to any international court, Sudan's vice president said Saturday. Earlier this week, a report to the United Nations recommended 51 Sudanese - including high-ranking government officials, rebels and Arabs who served in the militia known as the Janjaweed - stand trial at the International Comedy Criminal Court on war crimes charges related to the two-year Darfur conflict.
I guess they're gonna have to send The Man from Interpol to arrest them...
The report by a U.N. commission also said government-backed militias were still involved in rape, mass killings and wanton destruction in Darfur, a region the size of France. Vice President Ali Osman Mohammed Taha told a rally in the North Darfur capital of El Fasher that anyone found to have committed human rights-related crimes will be dealt with by Sudanese authorities. ``What is being reported about a trial of some individuals or officials in courts outside the Sudan is something we will not accept as a government,'' Sudan's state-run news agency quoted Taha as saying.
"Which is why we'll kill anyone who reports these acts," he added.
Italian law professor Antonio Cassese, the chair of the panel that produced the Darfur report, said a sealed envelope containing 51 names of senior officials, security force members and other citizens accused of serious war crimes has been sent to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. The identities of about 40 more individuals accused of similar abuses, but with less evidence gathered against them, have been sent to the U.N. Commissioner for Human Rights for possible further investigations, Cassese told The Associated Press in Egypt in a telephone interview.
Send for Carla del Ponte! That'll get them shaking in their shoes.
None of the names have been made public to ensure due process is carried out and to protect witnesses.
Not that the U.N. is particularly concerned about the witnesses.
Cassese's panel recommended the U.N. Security Council immediately refer the situation in Darfur to the International Comedy Criminal Court, the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal, something the U.S. government has objected to and could use its veto to block. The court, in The Hague, Netherlands, is supposed to handle cases involving genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity when the countries involved cannot work out a solution on their own. The Bush administration has objected the court could be used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American troops. Washington is lobbying Security Council members for a new tribunal to prosecute alleged crimes from Darfur which would operate with the African Union.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/06/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And that looks like a big "bite me" from the Sudanese.
President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan called yesterday for Kashmiri leaders to be involved in talks with India to resolve their main dispute over Kashmir. Musharraf said the Himalayan region was of "vital national interest" to Pakistan and would never compromise on this point. "Pakistan will accept only that solution of the Kashmir problem which is according to the wishes and aspirations of Kashmiris," he said in a message to legislators of Pakistan-ruled Kashmir.
"And they'll do the right thing, or else," he added.
Musharraf's message was read out to the legislative assembly because rains had prevented him from flying to the region to attend the annual Kashmir Solidarity Day. He said Pakistan had told India as well as the international community that the peace process between the nuclear-armed rivals could not move forward without the settlement of the Kashmir dispute and involvement of Kashmiris in the dialogue process. Musharraf said on state Pakistan Television that his country was ready to give up its decades old position of calling for a UN-sponsored plebiscite to resolve the Kashmir dispute if India responded in kind. "Pakistan's stance on the Kashmir issue remains the same original one," he said. "The only change is that we are ready to show flexibility if India also shows flexibility in its stance." Last year, Musharraf suggested demilitarising the territory while a compromise is sought over its status. He said this could include joint control, some form of UN control, or independence. But India rejects any redrawing of its borders or further division of territory.
Since they have a clue of what 'Islamic compromise' is really all about.
Speaking in Islamabad, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, head of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) alliance of six Islamic groups, said India must end its "illegal occupation" of Kashmir to resolve the lingering dispute. "Until this illegal occupation is brought to an end, no amount of confidence building measures can bring peace between Pakistan and India," he said
This article starring:
QAZI HUSEIN AHMED
Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal
Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/06/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
KATHMANDU: Nepal's new government vowed yesterday to crack down on corruption and ensure good governance but said multi-party democracy would only be restored and elections held once it had defeated Maoist rebels.
No, democracy and elections help you to defeat Marxism.
A cabinet meeting chaired by King Gyanendra adopted a 21-point socio-economic programme focused on "good governance and economic growth", state-run radio announced. "Property amassed through abuse of authority, smuggling, tax evasion, illegal contract and commission will be seized and nationalised," it said, announcing the decisions of the cabinet.
Especially if it's owned by people out of favor with the king.
"Strong action against the guilty will also be taken." He also named a loyalist cabinet under his "chairmanship", declared a state of emergency and pledged to restore multi-party democracy in three years. The government would also accelerate the process of decentralisation by gradually according villages political, economic, social, administrative and semi-judicial powers, a newspaper report said. The government would set up a land bank and make "judicious distribution of land" to squatters, the landless, peasants and freed bonded labourers. A long-term programme would be instituted to modernise farming, implement irrigation schemes and boost the production of horticulture, cash crops and livestock. The government also had plans to develop tourism and provide free education to a percentage of needy students.
"Oh Clive, where shall we take the children for spring holiday?"
"I thought of Nepal, ducks, the Maoists are especially colorful in the spring."
"Oh Clive, really! Such a treat!"
It would launch housing schemes "to narrow the existing gap between the rich and the poor in Kathmandu and other big and small cities." Jobs would be created for those "who have suffered from terrorism and also those who had gone astray by following the path of violence but have shunned violence or are willing to return to normal lives", the report said.
"A chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage!"
"But, yer majesty! I ain't got no garage!"
After seizing power, King Gyanendra called on the Maoist rebels to engage in peace talks to end the insurgency. There has been no rebel response to the king's call for talks but after he seized power, Maoist leader Prachanda denounced him as a "national betrayer" and called for a broad political front with those opposing "feudal autocracy." Nepalese soldiers arrested two leaders of a media rights group, after authorities suspended Press freedoms and warned it would take action against those who criticise it. Taranath Dahal, president of the Federation of Nepalese Journalists, was detained yesterday and Bishnu Nisthuri, the group's general secretary, on Friday, the organisation said. The two men had been critical of the suspension of Nepal's Press freedom.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/06/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
Lady doctor Shazia Khalid has denied reports that she was gang-raped in Sui and said only one person was involved when she was also being beaten and tortured in her bedroom the whole night. In an e-mail message sent to a prominent anchor of a TV channel which he broadcast, Dr Shazia said she continues to face immense pressure to term the incident as a dacoity. The authorities have done nothing to ensure justice to her. She disclosed that one month after the incident, the Naseerabad police have contacted her saying they have recorded voices of about 200 people for her to identify the culprit. The lady doctor gave her telephone numbers in the e-mail message to the anchor who then talked to her and her spouse Khalid, an engineer by profession. Dr Shazia told him that Khalid was under intense pressure from his parents to divorce her but he had vowed to stand by her even though he had also lost his job in Libya.
Maybe we should give the doc and her family asylum in the U.S.
Graphically describing the incident on the nights of January 2, Shazia said she had returned from hospital and went to bed at about 10 evening after locking her house and bedroom. At night, she was suddenly woken by somebody who pulled her hair and blindfolded Dr Shazia. When she resisted, the man beat her, wounding the lady doctor in the process. He remained in the bedroom the whole night. The intruder said he was not an ordinary person and threatened her he would burn her alive if she raised an alarm. On occasions he also called somebody named Amjad. She said that after her tormentor left the house, she freed herself and went to hospital seeking help. She was simply administered injections to keep her unconscious most of the time. Her pleas for informing her brother in Karachi were ignored. After two days she was driven to another town and then flown to a mental asylum in Karachi next morning. She was treated for so-called psychological disorder while she needed treatment by a physician.
The lady doctor regretted that her case had been politicised while no body had tried to ensure justice. "My entire social life and honour has been destroyed. I have thought of committing suicide a number of times. I would have done so, had my husband not stood by me at this critical hour," she added. The e-mail found its resonance in the Senate as well where Overseas Minister Tariq Azim read it out. He said the lady doctor has not implicated army captain Hammad by name. Though she remained blindfolded all the time and could not see her assailant, it has emerged from the account narrated to others that he was a bearded and tall man. Hammad is cleans-shaven and shorter in stature. "It is apparent that Hammad has been unfairly implicated and the institution of the army maligned without waiting for findings of an inquiry that is underway," Azim said. Senator Mushahid Hussain conceded that massive cover-up had aggravated the situation but quoted President Musharraf as declaring at a meeting with top commanders and aides that no one guilty would be spared irrespective of the fact whether he is in khaki or mufti.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/06/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
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.
Rumors about the death of separatist leader 
The presidents of the United States and South Korea agreed yesterday to push for an early resumption of six-nation talks to end North Korea's nuclear weapons programmes. Bush called South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun to discuss the importance of restarting six-nation talks to rein in North Korea's nuclear ambitions. "President Roh said the six-party talks must resume soon for a peaceful resolution of the North Korean nuclear problem," the presidential Blue House said. "South Korea and the US must co-operate and all participants of the talks must boost their efforts to this end." Bush shared that view during the 10-minute phone conversation, and suggested that he and "President Roh closely co-operate for the peace of the world," it said.
ITALIAN police are investigating allegations that American intelligence agents kidnapped an Islamic militant in Milan and transported him to Egypt, where he was tortured. 
A shock military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would be a "mistake", the European Union's foreign policy chief Javier Solana said on Sunday in a British television interview. Speaking on ITV's Jonathan Dimbleby programme, the EU's high representative for foreign and security policy said that such unilateral action would be counter-productive. 
In a Brooklyn courtroom, the Yemeni sheik and his assistant sit in seats at a defense table occupied in thousands of past cases by mobsters, drug dealers and con artists. But if the lives of those defendants may have been exotic to the judges and jurors who decided their fates, these two men, charged with financing terrorism, sometimes seem to be from a different world entirely. The sheik, in his silk hat and flowing robes, has been heard in hours of secretly recorded videotapes talking in a convoluted style seldom heard in America. His meanings are elusive. His style is indirect.
At Los Angeles International Airport two weeks ago, FBI agents arrested an Irish businessman they had spent a week tailing all over California's Silicon Valley, from the offices of two electronics manufacturers in Sunnyvale to a hotel in Mountain View and down a quiet cul-de-sac to a suburban house in San Jose. The technology exporter, according to court papers, had purchased sophisticated computer components in the U.S. to send to Russia through Ireland. He now stands to be charged in mid-February with "unlawful export of 'defense articles.'" 
US senators have launched a review of US intelligence on Iran to try to avoid pitfalls that marked the path to the invasion of Iraq, the Los Angeles Times said. "We have to be more pre-emptive on this committee to try to look ahead and determine our capabilities so that you don't get stuck with a situation like you did with Iraq," Republican Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was quoted as saying. 
Nawab 
African armies planning the first foreign military presence in Somalia in a decade know they are taking risks in a state that humbled U.S. forces but must act, and soon, to end chaos there, according to an organiser.
A Sudanese soldier shot an aid worker in the West Kordofan region, underlining the danger facing those trying to help 1.8 million people displaced by conflict in neighbouring Darfur, an aid agency said on Saturday. CARE International said in a statement its clearly marked vehicle was fired on without warning on Thursday morning during a visit to a water and sanitation project in West Kordofan, which borders the troubled Darfur area. "The bullet, fired by a Sudanese soldier, struck and wounded a CARE staff member who received medical treatment and is in good condition," the statement said. "Sudanese military authorities subsequently apologised to CARE for the incident."
A FORMER close associate of Osama Bin Laden is to sue the film-maker Michael Moore for using his footage of the Al-Qaeda chief in the documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. 
At a conference on the future of al Qaeda sponsored by Los Alamos National Laboratory last month, I posed a dark question to 60 or so nuclear weapons scientists and specialists on terrorism and radical Islam: How many of them believed that the probability of a nuclear fission bomb attack on U.S. soil during the next several decades was negligible -- say, less than 5 percent?
As reflected in CIA classified studies last month, U.S. military and intelligence officials are still trying to understand the various Iraqi insurgency groups that they expect will continue to fight, even after last week's election. The CIA studies included a detailed look at an at-large Iraqi fighter who is motivated to fight because the United States is occupying his country, a senior intelligence official said. "This person, with a tribal background, has a mix of motives including a family grievance, someone was hurt by coalition forces," said the official, who asked not to be identified because the reports are still classified. "There is also [in this Iraqi insurgent] religion and nationalism that results in a view he must fight on to get non-Muslims out of Muslim territory." In looking in depth at one insurgent, the agency was able to describe the group to which the fighter belongs and how it operates, the official said.
The final result of Iraq's historic election will be announced within five days, the electoral commission said yesterday. "We will announce the final results before February 10," said commission official Farid Ayar.
KHARTOUM, Sudan (AP) - The government will not send Sudanese citizens or officials suspected of committing war crimes in the western province of Darfur to any international court, Sudan's vice president said Saturday. Earlier this week, a report to the United Nations recommended 51 Sudanese - including high-ranking government officials, rebels and Arabs who served in the militia known as the Janjaweed - stand trial at the International 
President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan called yesterday for Kashmiri leaders to be involved in talks with India to resolve their main dispute over Kashmir. Musharraf said the Himalayan region was of "vital national interest" to Pakistan and would never compromise on this point. "Pakistan will accept only that solution of the Kashmir problem which is according to the wishes and aspirations of Kashmiris," he said in a message to legislators of Pakistan-ruled Kashmir.
KATHMANDU: Nepal's new government vowed yesterday to crack down on corruption and ensure good governance but said multi-party democracy would only be restored and elections held once it had defeated Maoist rebels.
Lady doctor 
