The info's not new, but finding it in the Independent is interesting.
Six years on from the atrocities of 9/11, in which 19 terrorists, 15 of them Saudi nationals, flew jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with the fourth plane crashing in a field Saudi Arabia is still a major obstacle in the fight to crack down on terrorist financing.
Saudi Arabia, the Middle East's economic powerhouse and major US ally, only criminalised money laundering and terrorist financing in 2003, after the kingdom itself was the target of terrorist attacks.
It claims it is clamping down on terrorist financing, but just one major report has been carried out into how effectively the kingdom is implementing legislation. This was in 2004 by the OECD's Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a global body overseeing anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing initiatives.
Recent information on the kingdom's efforts is almost non-existent, which the US State Department considers a problem as it "impedes the evaluation and design of enhancements to the judicial aspects of its anti-money laundering system".
The FATF said: "We don't have any current information on Saudi Arabia." It recommended getting in touch with the International Monetary Fund and the Middle East/ North Africa FATF, a regional body based in Bahrain.
However, the IMF did not respond to queries and Mena-FATF could not provide any information not even the central bank's phone number on the kingdom's progress. Such a lack of detail raises questions about the organisation's claim that money laundering and terrorist financing have fallen by 90 per cent in the Middle East in recent years.
The private sector was also of little help in shedding light on Saudi Arabia's compliance with FATF and UN recommendations. The head of financial crime investigations at a leading Saudi bank said: "Rules within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia prevent me from discussing what Saudi Arabia or the bank has achieved in relation to anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing."
Such a glaring lack of transparency is not unusual. Saudi Arabia is secretive about its internal workings and press freedoms are non-existent. The Saudi media made no mention of the recent exposé by the British press of BAE paying a sweetener to Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan.
But the information blackout on terrorist financing is alarming as Saudi Arabia is considered a "moderate" Arab state by the US and UK governments and an ally in the "war on terror".
Moreover, Saudi Arabia's brand of Islam, the ultra-conservative Wahhabism, has been exported globally and is followed by al-Qa'ida and other Sunni fundamentalist groups responsible for terrorist attacks around the world.
Funding for such groups comes from charitable organisations and wealthy individuals in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. Exactly how much cash flows through or from Saudi Arabia is difficult to tell due to the country's cash-based society and because no personal income records are kept for tax purposes. Additionally, under the five pillars of Islam, Muslims have a religious obligation zakat to donate money to charity, which is often done anonymously.
Such donationscan be, knowingly or unknowingly, used to finance terrorist organisations. In the decade up to 2002, according to a report to the UN Security Council, al- Qa'ida and other Islamist bodies collected between £150m and £250m, mostly from Saudi charities and private donors. This practice is still occurring, with Saudi Arabia linked to funding Sunni jihadists in Iraq.
Posted by: lotp ||
09/30/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#4
If a trace is made to an individual, then that individual should be sanctioned. Nothing obvious, just a fatal heart attack or something like that.
It is a process. You take out financiers until there is nobody left willing and able to give the terrorists major money. By keeping it accidental and subtle, you can take down large numbers without being obvious.
In such a case, you might even come up with some novel disease that only seems to afflict the problem children. Even if the disease shouldn't be fatal, it gives the pathologists something to focus on, instead of what is really killing them.
#5
Moose is onto something good. While there are plenty of knuckleheads out there who can roll their eyes, growl fiercely and march off to their deaths (helllooooo, Taliban!), the positions that require real talent in terrorist organizatins are generally undersubscribed.
Financiers. Bomb-makers. Communications specialists. Number threes.
Identify those guys and whack 'em. Heart attacks. Ricin-tipped umbrellas. Drives into the desert. Mr. Hellfire and his related friends. Whatever it takes, just get rid of them and let the terrorists flail about.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/30/2007 12:14 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I suspect we could do well with a few "muzzie hunters" with the dedication of Simon Wiesenthal.
#8
I think a 10Mt nuclear sunrise at midnight in Riyadh would put an end to a LOT of the Saudi-funded islamic nonsense. The rest of the world will get a clue, whether they want one or not. Until we do, they will continue to think of us as a nation of "all hat, no saddle".
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/30/2007 17:18 Comments ||
Top||
... left the Czech Republic Tuesday for the USA, where he is suspected of involvement in terrorism, after Czech Justice Minister Jiøí Pospíil decided to extradite him, ministry spokeswoman Zuzana Kuncová told ÈTK.
The Prague High Court on July 17 upheld the April verdict by the City Court in Prague saying that Kassir's extradition is admissible. The decision was confirmed by Pospisil on September 18. "The minister decided in harmony with the Czech Republic's commitments in the field of international cooperation in fight against criminal activities," Kuncova said.
However, Kassir's lawyer Umar Switat said previously that international agreements on the basis of which Kassir can be extradited do not apply to any of the accusations against him.
That argument worked well, didn't it.
"The USA has provided the Czech Republic with the highest possible guarantee, in the form of a diplomatic note issued by its embassy [in Prague], that Oussama Abdullah Kassir will not be detained or imprisoned in other than civilian facility after his possible extradition to the USA," Kuncova said. "This means he will not be imprisoned at the Guantanamo base and will not be put before the military commission," Kuncova said.
We'll drop him into Ice Station Zebra and wait for global warming ...
Kassir, 41, was detained at Prague-Ruzyne airport on his way to the Middle East on the basis of an international arrest warrant during a stop-over of his Stockholm-Beirut flight in December 2005. He has been in custody in the Czech Republic since then.
Kassir has been charged in the USA with conspiracy aimed at providing material support to terrorists, for which he faces life imprisonment in the USA. According to the accusation, Kassir attempted to build up a terrorist camp in the state of Oregon. Along with other conspirators, Kassir allegedly planned to set up a training camp for the "Jihad" holy war in an estate in Bly at the end of the 1990s. After the training, Muslims would leave the camp for Afghanistan.
The group allegedly also planned to hold up lorries and kill their drivers in order to obtain money for their activities. Kassir allegedly also operated several websites advising "mujahedins" on how to produce bombs and poisonous substances.
Kassir has dismissed all accusations, saying he is not a terrorist and has no contacts with terrorists. He has said he fears he may be tortured and given death penalty if extradited to the USA.
"Lies! All lies! And don't touch that number seven truncheon!"
However, when still in Sweden, Kassir did not hide his admiration for Osama bin Laden and his approval of the 2001 terrorist attacks on the USA.
The Swedish daily Expressen wrote some time ago that Kassir had asked for political asylum in the Czech Republic. In his letter to his family in Stockholm Kassir wrote that Sweden had abandoned him, the daily said. The Czech daily Pravo reported recently that Kassir had not been granted asylum in the Czech Republic.
The Czechs do seem to be a sensible people. Perhaps their historical experiences have something to do with that ...
#1
Lest we fergit > NEW SOVIET WW3 PLANS DISCOVERED -Czechies and likely other East Euros = WARPACT forces would had bought the nuclear/radioactive glow-worm, BIOWAR + CHEMWAR affects included, for comprising the initial Soviet tactical first-strike and likely large parts of the second, agz NATO. FOLLOW-ON SOVIET/RUSS SECOND- OR THIRD-STRIKE PLUS FORCES WOULD HAD SUFFERED MUCH LOWER RATES OF COMBAT POISONING/TOXICITY.
#1
Great catch, 3dc! Jeffrey Imm nails this issue dead on. Truly, a "must read".
Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai offered "to meet personally with Taliban leader Mullah Omar for peace talks and give the militants a high position in a government ministry as a way to end the rising insurgency in Afghanistan.
Got that? Not "arrest" but "meet" with one of our most wanted enemies who bears direct responsibility for the 9-11 atrocity. Weren't we offering a $10 MILLION reward for this terrorist maggot?
This echoes comments this week by the UK Defense Minister that "the Taliban will need to be involved in the peace process".
This constitutes tacit acceptance of terrorism as a political tool.
In February 2007, the Afghanistan parliament granted immunity to the Taliban's Mullah Omar and other Mujahideen for 25 years worth of activities.
Which is more than enough reason to disband the current Afghan government and replace it with our own military dictatorship. Karzai has shown himself willing to countenance terrorism and shari'a law. Both of which are wholly unacceptable outcomes of America liberating his country.
But isn't the Taliban "the enemy" of the United States of America?
Only for those with a brain.
And if the Taliban are "the enemy", how can Americans accept the Taliban or the Taliban ideology in any political organization of an "ally" nation, let alone ones that American taxpayers provide millions of dollars to?
We can't and anyone who says we can is part of the traitor elite that are lulling our world into complacency over the threat of Islam.
Where is the outrage from American political leadership on this? Why is there no outrage among American political leaders at offers to "legitimize" the same Taliban that helped Al Qaeda in its Jihadist camps to kill 3,000 Americans?
Need I make it any more clear why I continue to be so outraged?
As previously discussed, the lack of clarity in identifying the enemy in this war is precisely what allows such disturbing realpolitik considerations.
Just as with how Bush continues to spew his Kool-Aid about Islam being the Religion of Peace [spit].
What do such "peace at any cost" negotiations with an enemy of the United States mean to Jihadists in justifying the use of political terrorism?
In what should be a criminal act, it legitimizes terrorism as a political tool.
If the Taliban regain political power in Afghanistan, does American leadership agree that we should lose the Afghanistan war to end the fighting? Isn't that what, in other words, we call "surrender"? Or has our ambiguity about the identity of the enemy gotten so dense that American leadership can now rationalize the Taliban itself?
The mere existence of shari'a law in Afghanistan's constitution is positive proof that the Taliban never entriely lost their grip.
Earlier this month, Karzai called for peace talks with the Taliban, but the Taliban rejected such talks until "foreign troops" leave Afghanistan. This is a demand that Karzai has rejected on the basis: "[i]t should be very clear until all our roads are paved, until we have good electricity and good water, and also until we have a better Afghan national army and national police, I don't want any foreigners to leave Afghanistan". Is Karzai saying that he just doesn't want western aid to stop, as it did for Hamas?
This is nothing short of ruthless parasitism. Either Karzai lives up to his signature on the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), or he must be removed from office. He is demonstrating the exact same duplicity as Musharraf and the results promise to be no different.
President Musharraf reflected that as "Taliban are a part of Afghan society", and "all of them are not diehard militants and fanatics"
Only another Muslim could reach such a conclusion.
Realpolitik negotiators may believe that there is a "bad Taliban" and a "good Taliban".
Which shows the worth of Realpolitik in fighting Islam. The concept of negotiated peace only works with sincere participants. Muslims will never qualify in that respect. If the Palestinians and Musharraf have not taught us this, then Karzai's betrayal had damn well better.
In Presidents Karzai and Musharraf's views, the "bad Taliban" is violent, and the "good Taliban" is well, just simply "fundamentalist" in their Islamist view of the world.
None of which precludes their continued use of terrorism or enforcement of shari'a law. Ergo, ZERO net change from the previous tyranny of Islamic theocracy.
Realpolitik negotiators may believe that bringing the Taliban into a "democratic" political process will end the conflict and fighting in Afghanistan.
Which only demonstrates the bankruptcy of Realpolitik in dealing with Islam.
Did bringing Hezbollah into the Lebanon government end fighting in Lebanon?
Did Hamas' election to the Palestinian government bring peace to the Palestinian territories?
Did the Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic government in Iran bring peace to Iran and its relations with the world?
Has the growing influence of Islamist political and other groups in Pakistan brought stability and peace to Pakistan?
Will there ever be any peaceful coexistence with Islam?
Yet NATO, UN, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the US are all tolerating the idea of peace talks with the Taliban to bring them back into political power in the Afghanistan government.
All of which represents a fundamental betrayal of humanity for the sake of totally sham "progress" in fighting global terrorism.
We have already seen what the Taliban did when they held political power in Afghanistan. Our national homeland was physically attacked and thousands of Americans died as a result.
It is already revolting how American democrats can ignore this. That Bush has somehow deemed this an acceptable solution is outright malfeasance of office.
We know who and what the Taliban are and what they plan to do if they regain power. Yet still, American leadership is not denouncing talks to allow the Taliban to return to Afghanistan government power.
#2
"In February 2007, the Afghanistan parliament granted immunity to the Taliban's Mullah Omar and other Mujahideen for 25 years worth of activities." This never appeared on Rantburg, did it?
With any luck, the Taliban will either kill Karzai or take him hostage, although with many of his supporters, or maybe he'll be killed trying to escape them. Sheesh.
#4
I think much of the problem lies in exactly what a "Taliban" is. Is a Taliban:
1) A Pushtun?
2) A member of the old government?
3) A religious conservative?
4) Someone who rejects the Afghan government and calls for its overthrow?
5) Any armed militia or individual who attacks foreigners or works for a warlord?
6) An armed tribalist who smuggles across the border?
7) Anyone who calls themself a Taliban?
Any particular one of these groups may or may not be called Taliban and fought. Much of the NATO and Afghan Army fighting is reactive, for this very reason.
Omar becomes foreign minister of a unity government?
Will he be received as a diplomatic guest in NYC, attend UN functions, visit Ground Zero under the protection of the secret service, maybe together with Bin Laden as his UN ambassador?
The truth is that neither the American nor the European political class is even remotely serious about this war...
#6
"The truth is that neither the American nor the European political class is even remotely serious about this war... about anything but where their next champagne and caviar soirée (and photo-op) is coming from."
There - fixed that for ya', #5 OL.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/30/2007 17:51 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Anyone in the Taliban closely linked to Osama + ZAWI, etal. can and should be considered an enemy of America, TALIBAN or other.
Freedom's Watch, a conservative group led by two former senior White House officials, made an audacious debut in late August when it began a $15 million advertising campaign designed to maintain congressional support for President Bush's troop increase in Iraq.
Founded this summer by a dozen wealthy conservatives, the nonprofit group is set apart from most advocacy groups by the immense wealth of its core benefactors, its intention to far outspend its rivals and its ambition to pursue a wide-ranging agenda. Its next target: Iran policy.
In October, Freedom's Watch will sponsor a private forum of 20 experts on radical Islam that is expected to make the case that Iran poses a direct threat to the security of the United States, according to several benefactors of the group.
Although the group declined to identify the experts, several were invited from the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington research group with close ties to the White House. Some institute scholars have advocated a more confrontational policy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, including keeping military action as an option.
Last week, a Freedom's Watch newspaper advertisement called President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran "a terrorist." The group is considering a national advertising campaign focused on Iran, a senior benefactor said, although Matt David, a spokesman for the group, declined to comment on those plans.
"If Hitler's warnings were heeded when he wrote 'Mein Kampf,' he could have been stopped," said Bradley Blakeman, 49, the president of Freedom's Watch and a former deputy assistant to Bush. "Ahmadinejad is giving all the same kind of warning signs to us, and the region he wants the destruction of the United States and the destruction of Israel."
With a forceful message and a roster of wealthy benefactors, Freedom's Watch has quickly emerged from the crowded field of nonprofit advocacy groups as a conservative answer to the nine-year-old liberal group MoveOn.org, which also started as an attempt by wealthy political donors to shape debate in Washington.
The idea for Freedom's Watch was hatched in March. Next week, the group will move into a 10,000-square-foot office in the Chinatown section of Washington, with plans to employ as many as 50 people by early next year.
One benefactor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the group was hoping to raise as much as $200 million by November 2008. Raising big money "will be easy," the benefactor said, adding that several of the founders each wrote a check for $1 million. Blakeman would not confirm or deny whether any donor gave $1 million, or more, to the organization.
Since the group is organized as a tax-exempt organization, it does not have to reveal its donors and it cannot engage in certain types of partisan activities that directly support political candidates. It denies coordinating its activities with the White House. However, many of its donors and organizers, including Ari Fleischer, the former White House press secretary, are well connected to the administration.
"Ideologically, we are inspired by much of Ronald Reagan's thinking peace through strength, protect and defend America, and prosperity through free enterprise," Fleischer said.
Among the group's founders are Sheldon Adelson, the chairman and chief executive of the Las Vegas Sands Corp., who ranks sixth on the Forbes Magazine list of the world's billionaires; Mel Sembler, a shopping center magnate based in St. Petersburg, Fla., who served as the ambassador to Italy and Australia; John Templeton Jr., the conservative philanthropist from Bryn Mawr, Pa.; and Anthony Gioia, a former ambassador to Malta who heads an investment group based in Buffalo, N.Y.
For years, the group's founders lamented MoveOn's growing influence, derived in large part from its grass-roots efforts, especially on the debate about the Iraq war.
Over the summer, Fleischer and the other founders recruited a president, choosing Blakeman, who served as a deputy assistant to the president in charge of scheduling and appointments. In 2000, Blakeman led the Bush-Cheney campaign's public relations effort during the 36 days of the deadlocked election. He left the White House in January 2004.
Blakeman and Fleischer said they intended to turn Freedom's Watch into a permanent fixture among advocacy groups, waging a "never-ending campaign" on an array of foreign policy and domestic issues. They also hope to build an active, grass-roots support network.
But Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn.org, which was founded in 1998 by two Silicon Valley venture capitalists, said he doubted the group's ability to meet that goal.
"This is the fourth or the fifth group that intends to be the right-wing MoveOn," Pariser said, naming other fledgling groups like TheVanguard.org and Grassfire.org. "So far, it's not clear that this group is anything other than a big neoconservative slush fund. They are a White House front group with a few consultants who are trying to make a very unpopular position on the war appear more palpable."
#2
"If Hitler's warnings were heeded when he wrote 'Mein Kampf,' he could have been stopped," said Bradley Blakeman, 49, the president of Freedom's Watch and a former deputy assistant to Bush. "Ahmadinejad is giving all the same kind of warning signs to us, and the region he wants the destruction of the United States and the destruction of Israel."
Finally, some plainspeak to cut through all the politically correct BS.
John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, told Tory delegates today that efforts by the UK and the EU to negotiate with Iran had failed and that he saw no alternative to a pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities in the country. Mr Bolton, who was addressing a fringe meeting organised by Lord (Michael) Ancram, said that the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was "pushing out" and "is not receiving adequate push-back" from the west. Whoever promises to make him Secretary of State gets my vote regardless of all other positions.
"I don't think the use of military force is an attractive option, but I would tell you I don't know what the alternative is. Because life is about choices, I think we have to consider the use of military force. I think we have to look at a limited strike against their nuclear facilities."
He added that any strike should be followed by an attempt to remove the "source of the problem", Mr Ahmadinejad. "If we were to strike Iran it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change ... The US once had the capability to engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back."
The fact that intelligence about Iran's nuclear activity was partial should not be used as an excuse not to act, Mr Bolton insisted. "Intelligence can be wrong in more than one direction." He asked how the British government would respond if terrorists exploded a nuclear device at home. "'It's only Manchester?' ... Responding after they're used is unacceptable."
Defending the decision to invade Iraq, he mocked the Foreign Office's "softly softly" approach to Iran's imprisonment of 15 British sailors accused of straying into Iranian waters in April this year. They were released after Mr Ahmadinejad announced he was making a "gift" to the British people. "They [Iran] got no response from the UK or the US. If you were the Iranian leader, what conclusion do you draw?"
Raising the spectre of George Bush's "axis of evil", Mr Bolton said that Kim Jong-il's regime in North Korea was akin to a "prison camp" and that he would "sell anything to anyone". Those who thought North Korea would give up its nuclear capability voluntarily were wrong, he said.The regime had made similar promises during the past decade. Only reunification between North and South Korea could resolve the problem. That could be achieved "if China were to get serious" and cut off fuel supplies to Mr Kim, but the country feared a reunited Korea.
Mr Bolton told an inquiring delegate that he was not and had never been a neoconservative: "I'm not even a Reagan conservative. I'm a [Barry] Goldwater conservative. They [neocons] have somewhat - I would say excessively - Wilsonian views about the benefits of democracy."
#2
He added that any strike should be followed by an attempt to remove the "source of the problem", Mr Ahmadinejad. "If we were to strike Iran it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change ..."
That odd squeaking sound you hear in the background is Ahmadinejad and the Iranian mullahs all puckering up at once.
The US once had the capability to engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back.
If the West has any intention of overcoming global terrorism, this will necessarily change. Targeted killings of Islam's clerical, academic and financial elite are the first step in this process. Any and every nation that incorporates shari'a law in their legal system must undergo regime change. Theocratic Islam cannot be allowed to exist on earth.
Responding after they're used is unacceptable.
This is the bottom line. The consequences of inaction are not just unacceptable, they are intolerable.
#3
"They [neocons] have somewhat - I would say excessively - Wilsonian views about the benefits of democracy."
Not true. Wilson tried to prevent the Germans from attacking us via letters and diplomacy. The German U-Boats hit our fleets any way. Wilson then had to set up a war machine, implemented the income tax, the war industries board, etc., and sent our troops to war.
Conservatives today know that the same approach is too cumbersom. That we must stop war before it begins with pre-emptive strikes on those who are gearing up to strike us. If we go the route of Wilson and today's Democrats, in ten years we will be in another major war, with tens of thousands of our children dieing on battle fields again.
#5
"Targetted killings..." > unless Amer Hiroshima or new 9-11's, etc is imminent, ITS STILL TRUE THAT MOST MAINSTREAM AMERS ARE NOT READY OR WILLING TO ACCEPT SUCH ACTIONS BY USA REGARDLESS OF THE MERITS, OURS OR AS PER AMERICA'S ENEMIES.
In any case, any covert attempt to remove/eliminate Moud must also remove Radical Mullahs aligned wid him. *ISRAEL > KHAMEINI IS THE POWER = BIG CAMEL BEHIND MOUD. IRAN > any attack by ISrael or the USA invites Iranian "eyef-r an eye" retaliation, either by National military response andor by Terror agz US-Allied interests anywhere in the world, including inside the USA.
According to The Washington Post, anyway. Front page Sunday, first of a four-part series. Short excerpt:
As early as 2003, Army officers spoke of shifting the counter-IED effort "left of boom" by disrupting insurgent cells before bombs are built and planted. Yet U.S. efforts have focused overwhelmingly on "right of boom"-- by mitigating the effects of a bomb blast with heavier armor, sturdier vehicles and better trauma care -- or on the boom itself, by spending, for example, more than $3 billion on 14 types of electronic jammers that sometimes also jammed the radios of friendly forces.
For years the counter-IED effort was defensive, reactive and ultimately inadequate, driven initially by a presumption that IEDs were a passing nuisance in a short war, and then by an abiding faith that science would solve the problem. At least as far as those in the MSM are allowed to see. Consider the Israeli incursion into Syria. Did the MSM see that one coming?
"Americans want technical solutions. They want the silver bullet," said Rear Adm. Arch Macy, commander of the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Washington, which now oversees several counter-IED technologies. "The solution to IEDs is the whole range of national power --political-military affairs, strategy, operations, intelligence."
The costly and frustrating struggle against a weapon barely on the horizon of military planners before the war in Iraq provides a unique lens for examining what some Pentagon officials now call the Long War, and for understanding how the easy victory of 2003 became the morass of 2007.
This introduction and the four-part narrative that follows are drawn from more than 140 interviews with military and congressional officials, contractors, scientists, and defense analysts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Washington and elsewhere. Most agreed to speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity, because of the sensitivity of the subject, or because they are not authorized to comment. Ten senior officers or retired officers, each of them intimately involved in the counter-IED fight, were asked to review the findings for accuracy and security considerations. Sufficiently teased?
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/30/2007 08:22 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What? Nobody wants to read more WaPo front-page hand-wringing? What else do you expect them to print on Sunday when there are not hundreds killed in bombings?
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/30/2007 16:23 Comments ||
Top||
#2
LOL Bobby, sorry I don't care to read enemy propaganda :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/30/2007 16:29 Comments ||
Top||
At JFK the procedure was similar to Germany, 3 troops stayed on the plane to guard weapons while the rest deplaned. At the gate we were each given a re-boarding pass and spent about 1.5 hours in the terminal, at which time we re-boarded and flew to Oakland.
As we came in for the final approach to Oakland a Lieutenant who served in Afghanistan with the same unit in 2006 mentioned how when they landed in Oakland they were not allowed in the terminal. He said, "they made us get out by the FED EX building and we had to sit out there for 3 hours". He also indicated he was almost arrested by the TSA for getting belligerent about them not letting the Marines into the terminal.
Well the same thing happened again. This time we did not park by the FED EX building, instead we were offloaded near the grass that separates the active runway from the taxi ramp, about 400 yards from the terminal. When we inquired why they wouldn't allow us in the airport they gave us some lame excuse that we hadn't been screened by TSA. While true, the screening which we did have was much more thorough than any TSA search and was done by US Customs.
Additionally, JFK didn't seem to have a problem with our entering their terminal, nor did security in Germany.
It felt like being spit on. Every Marine and soldier felt the message loud and clear, "YOU ARE NOT WELCOME IN OAKLAND!"
Chaplain Brandon Harding 1ST BN 3D MARINES It's unfortunate because Oakland used to be a very nice airport to fly through to avoid SFO. If I were still in the Bay Area, I'd fly SJC. But thankfully I'm finished living with those lunatics.
I just used the Contact Us page on their website to send them a copy of the post and request a response to the chaplain's letter. Maybe a few more of you might like to do the same...
Posted by: Nimble Spemble ||
09/30/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#2
Two marines each with a belt can clear out a bar with thirty men in it.
Airports who spit on Marines...form up the Marines. march them right through the Airport end to end. If you get stopped bounce the guys who stop you. Keep Marching. march all over the place and then if they give you any guff see who the Police support...the airport stooges or the Marines. make it political. Dont hurt 'em too bad. Just lay 'em up for a day or two.
Marines dont have to be PC. Dont like that? Suxj a hotchie.
#3
The San Francisco Bay Gay Area:
back during Vietnam was the worst. Unspeakable. But ever since, there have been insults aplenty.
Mayor Art Agnos and his fellow Lefty travelers blocked battleship Missouri..
They continued to scheme on the Navy/Army/Coast Guard/Marine Real Estate so the Navy & Army finally realized that the SF Bay Area Pols would never negotiate in good faith and decided to dump the Prime stuff.
TI, Treasure Island.
Hunters Point [micro weather is great]
Presidio
Ft Mason
etc.
etc.
What sticks in my craw is that our federal Gubmint HAS NEVER Clobered the a$$hole politicians out here even once.
Of course it would burn/cost we citizens but HEY then these sheep out here NEED a wake up CALL!
Posted by: Red Dawg ||
09/30/2007 6:05 Comments ||
Top||
#4
gorb,
I thought it smelled fishy too, but it came from a credible source and had a name and unit so if someone can disprove it, it should be easy. On the other hand, it is a scurrilous story, if true. I knew the burg would debunk it if false. Enquiring minds want to know.
#6
Couple this with the refusal of SF to allow the Marines to film a recruiting video, where the city said they could film as long AS THERE WERE NO MARINES VISIBLE IN ANY OF THE PICTURES!
Yes indeed, Pelosiland and Ron Dellums Commune are alive and well, enjoying the safety the rest of us provide while they piss on our leg every day.....
Marilyn Sandifur
Media and Public Relations
(510) 627-1193
msandifur@portoakland.com
or
Harold Jones
Director of Communications
(510) 627-1564
hjones@portoakland.com
#10
Oakland Airport has made some typical excuses, to the effect that the military charter failed to properly communicate that the flight had cleared the equivalent of TSA screening. It may even be true, but is still an inadequate reason to deny terminal access to the troops.
One wonders, when (not if) the next earthquake hits the Bay Area, the authorities will deny access by the troops unless they have cleared TSA screening.
It sounds to me like the politicians are grandstanding for their base - and that's how the system works. Don't blame them, blame the people who continue to elect the Lees, Boxers, etc.
#11
sorry Glenmore, we can blame both: their asshole moonbat constituents, and their whoring anti-American politicians, who (one would hope) know better, but pander to the diminished intellect of their constituency.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/30/2007 17:14 Comments ||
Top||
#12
What is ludicrous to me is the idea that armed Federal Soldiers are considered less trustworthy than TSA losers thugs - and require the "blessing" of the TSA.
Would Oakland "quarantine" a planeload of armed FBI or Secret Service agents? Or a planeload of police SWAT team members? Or even a planeload of big game hunters?
The plane's movement commander who certifies a planelod of troops as "safe" should be esteemed higher than some lowly TSA slug. Actually, he should be esteemed higher than the Oakland Airport Director.
I can almost visualize the same scenario at hurricane Katrina - "Oh, I'm sorry, your troops are not allowed within the city limits - beacause, they are, well, you know, they are DANGEROUS...."
The Interior Ministry has directed all law enforcement agencies to remain alert as there is a possibility of terrorist attacks in Islamabad and Rawalpindi during the coming few days, a private TV channel reported on Saturday. According to Geo News, the National Crisis Management Cell suspects that terrorists might attack Islamabad Club, Islamabad Police Lines, Rawalpindi Police Lines and other law enforcement agencies offices.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/30/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda
#1
Nice to see Pakistan finally begin domestic consumption of its biggest export.
#2
It's how we finally got Mexico City to pay attention to the cross border Apache traffic. Made raiding so painful and bloody on this side of the Rio Grande that the Apache turned on lower hanging fruit around their Mexican 'hoods'. Couldn't happen to better people.
[watching from a distance as Apaches torture gunrunners who cheated them]
Captain Nathan Brittles: [to Sgt. Tyree] Join me in a chaw of tobacco?
Sgt. Tyree: No, sir. I don't chaw and I don't play cards.
Captain Nathan Brittles: Chawing tobacco is a nasty habit. Been known to turn a man's stomach.
2nd Lt. Ross Penell: I'll take a chaw if you please, sir.
A new UN report says 80 percent of suicide bombers in Afghanistan came from the Waziristan agencies.
Reforms doing a little in FATA: According to an analysis by Hassan Abbas in Terrorism Monitor, a publication of the Jamestown Foundation, while the Pakistan government has offered to introduce reforms in the Federally Administrated Tribal Areas (FATA), little has been done. Political agents continue to dole out funds to handpicked people, often in an attempt to buy peace. The $750 million worth of US aid for development in FATA is in the pipeline, but there is no publicly known strategy in place on how to channel the funds, leading to apprehensions and uncertainty.
The Taliban and their sympathisers are becoming entrenched in the region and aggressively expanding their influence and operations. The military impasse is exacerbated by the combination of President General Pervez Musharrafs political predicament and declining public support, a significant rise in suicide attacks targeting the army and the reluctance of soldiers deputed in the area to engage tribal gangs.
According to Abbas, many militants associated with local Pakistani militant groups have moved to FATA to benefit from the sanctuary available. The election season is descending upon Pakistan and Musharrafs survival prospects are diminishing. This scenario has consequences for Pakistans policy in the FATA region, which will predictably revert to peace deals in the short-term, leading to a lowering of the number of military checkpoints in the area.
The report says this will help Talibanisation in the region and provide more opportunities to the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) to indirectly support some Taliban commanders sympathetic to Pakistans objectives. Overall, this will likely reduce trouble in Islamabad city, but the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area will remain on fire. The author lists as important variables the poor coordination between the Pakistan army and NATO/ISAF, Hamid Karzais failure to make Afghanistan a functional state and the abundance of drug money in southern Afghanistan.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/30/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
The Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazls (JUI-F) 42 members in the NWFP Assembly on Saturday submitted their resignations with JUI-F NWFP President Senator Maulana Gul Naseeb. NWFP Chief Minister Akram Durrani is also among them.
All the 42 JUI-F members in the NWFP Assembly have submitted their resignations to me following the All Parties Democratic Movement (APDM) and the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) Supreme Councils decision to oppose President General Pervez Musharrafs re-election, Gul said, adding that NWFP Education Minister Maulana Fazl Ali Haqqai and NWFP Irrigation Minister Hafiz Akhtar Ali submitted their resignations before going abroad. He said Durrani would advise the NWFP governor to dissolve the NWFP Assembly on October 2 as per the APDM-MMA decision. JUI-F is an MMA and APDM component.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/30/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Jamaat-e-Ulema Islami
Saudi Intelligence chief Prince Muqrin Bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud met Maulana Fazlur Rehman in Jeddah after the latters meeting with former premier Nawaz Sharif and requested him to persuade Nawaz to reconcile with President Musharraf, claims Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Haidri, a close aide of Fazl. Haidri, who accompanied Fazl during his visit to Saudi Arabia, quoted Nawaz as telling Fazl that Saudi King Abdullah had conveyed to him serious unease over the widespread anti-Saudi sentiments among Pakistanis. He further said that Nawaz refused to reconcile with Musharraf and insisted that he be allowed to return home unconditionally.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/30/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under: Jamaat-e-Ulema Islami
State Minister for Information Tariq Azeem and MQM leader Dr Farooq Sattar were thrashed in two separate incidents. Journalists outside the ECP spotted Azeem hiding in an ambulance that was called to take injured journalists to hospitals. They dragged Azeem out of the ambulance and beat him up. Sattar was injured when some wounded lawyers attacked him at a local hospital. Azeem and Sattar lodged FIRs against journalists and lawyers for attacking them.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/30/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Elsewhere in Islamabad...
Posted by: john frum ||
09/30/2007 9:48 Comments ||
Top||
#2
hmmmm - a lot of uncracked heads....typical Pak inefficiency
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/30/2007 10:06 Comments ||
Top||
#3
A bunch of sissy boys....
Posted by: john frum ||
09/30/2007 11:43 Comments ||
Top||
To summarize, an Iraqi citizen claims to have been assaulted and threatened with death by an employee or agent of the New York Times. He appears to have witnesses. He brought this to the attention of the NYT Baghdad Bureau chief, who does not appear inclined to do anything about it
RTWT
Fascinating story of New York Times bureau/office in Baghdad learning the harsh realities and brutalities involved in everyday life in Baghdad.
Follow the link to the next installment: "Europe should help Iraq but not follow US lead" too.
Of course not. It's the US' job to do the heavy lifting and the job of the civilized Euros to have a civilized life afterwards while those uncouth Yanks go take a shower and veg out in front of their redneck TV sets.
#1
You got to understand. They're the 'stay behinds'. They're not the bloodline that took the chance with what little they could carry and make something out of themselves. For good reason. There were a lot that didn't make it. Of course as the 20th Century in Europe demonstrated, there were a lot of 'stay behinds' that didn't make it either. At least the ones who headed here did so because they wanted to get at least some control over their lives as opposed to sitting around and mucking through responding to environmental stimuli. Which is why one of the major differing traits in cultural ethos is that 'We', as in "We the people of ...", believe government exists for the people rather than the people exists for the government. Government is a tool, not an end. It is to solve a problem, not be one. That's why we 'do' and they 'accommodate'.
#3
P2k- I've heard that arguement before; it fails to explain Massachusetts, or Chuckie Schumer, or San Francisco, or Dennis Kucinich.
In any population there are and always have been those who thrive on challange and those who need security. It's obvious why the former exist, but there must be some reason for the latter as well, or we would not have them anymore.
#4
Most of the core coastal elites are, in this country, where the remaining Europeans are: the descendents of doers who have had sufficient privilege and power long enough to be jaded, complacent and lazy in thought. Much of the east coast bears the mark of the Unitarians, in spirit if not in name.
#5
Glenmore: The dividing line in the US is and has been, for a long time, geographical and philosophical. The New England States have long been dominated by Calvinist doctrines emphasizing both idealism and pessimism. But the Tidewater States and points West have been dominated by optimism and realism.
Only in the last few decades has the West Coast drifted left into idealism and pessimism, but again, inspired to a great extent by those from the northern East Coast. And this is the red State/blue State division we see today.
Ironically, "old Europe" can at times get along with either the idealist and pessimist parts of the US or the realist and optimistic parts; but the fit is never entirely comfortable. This is because old Europe is realistic, like middle America, but it is also pessimistic, like the coasts.
Old Europe has difficulty with either idealism, which 1500 years of war burned out of it, or optimism, for the same reason. Their philosophy is one of resignation and slow decline into misery. This is why Americans cannot abide miserable French dramas, where at the end, everybody remains miserable.
To compound the ironies, Russians are both idealistic and optimistic, which completes the circle, I guess. It is hard to see beneath their sometimes morbid exterior, and the communists did much to dampen down both moods.
#9
P2k, your "stay behinds" theory makes increasing sense. It also explains why, instead of quitting making asses of themselves, the Euros want to "stay behinds".
#10
See also TURKISH DAILY NEWS > USA VS EU: TIME FOR NEW OPTIONS, as per TURKEY + TURKEY's future + relations wid both, e.g. Turkey as "part of Europe/West", NATO, etc.
DAMASCUS, Syria - Iraqs vice president said Saturday that his country will not be used as a base to launch attacks against Iran or Syria. Adel Abdul-Mahdi said he discussed security and other regional issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad during their meeting Saturday.
In response to a reporters question about a possible US military strike against Iran, the Iraqi vice president said: Iraq does not accept that its territory be used for any aggression against any neighboring country. Iraq has an (Arab) identity which it is keen on and will defend, he told reporters at the Damascus Airport at the end of a three-day visit to Syria.
Except for the Kurds ...
Abdul-Mahdi said he discussed security issues with Assad adding that Assad stressed Syrias support for the political process in Iraq. He said Syria had an important role to play in the political process of Iraq due to its weight in the Arab world.
Assad has this remarkable quality to talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and keep his lips attached. Amazing, really.
Abdul-Hadi predicted the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq by the end of 2008. He did not elaborate.
Suits me if the place can hold it together at that point.
He reiterated the Iraqi governments rejection of a US Senate proposal to divide Iraq. We dont accept any division of Iraq. ... We dont accept any system under any name that adopts sectarianism or ethnic (division) Abdul-Mahdi said.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/30/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
So it's OK if we leave him to the tender mercies of the Mad Mullahs? Does he understand that when we bomb Iran, no matter where we bomb them from, the Iranians will attack Iraq?
#2
He's one of the Shi'ite party that sheltered in Iran for a long time. Trained / worked in French think tanks as an economist. Is not and has never been friendly to the US.
Reconstruction work will begin next month on a revered shrine in the Iraqi city of Samarra blown up in the current conflict, UN cultural body Unesco says. The al-Askari shrine, one of Iraq's most sacred Shia sites, was partly destroyed in two attacks over two years by suspected Sunni militants.
The rebuilding work will be carried out by a Turkish company, and is being funded mostly by the EU and Unesco The project is expected to cost $16m (£7.9m), of which $8m will come from the EU, $5m from Unesco and $3m from the Iraqi government.
Remember Ali? He was the Iranian general who went missing in Turkey earlier this year. Single-sourced from one Kuwaiti newspaper, but plausible enough to be interesting. 72-hour rule and salt disclaimer in effect:
Iranian former deputy defense minister Ali Rheze Asgari supplied intelligence sources in the West with information regarding the sites that Israeli jets allegedly attacked on September 6, the Kuweiti Al Jareeda reported Friday. Asgari defected from Iran several months ago and moved to an undisclosed location in the West.
#1
This story has fallen into a black hole, hasn't it? No mention of Ali in a long time.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/30/2007 13:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
No mention of Ali in a long time.
No surprise there. Ali is an incredibly high value asset and no way in Hades would we admit having him or attribute any military action to information gleaned from him. To do so would be entirely counterproductive. Far better to keep Iran guessing. Short of flat-out war, uncertainty is the best weapon to keep trained upon the mullahs and Ahmadinejad.
From Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty
The Iranian "blogosphere" is full of criticism of Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's activities and remarks during his visit to New York City this week. From both inside and outside Iran, the criticism has been strong. By comparison, conservative Islamist bloggers in Iran who usually support Ahmadinejad have been relatively quiet -- posting few details ....
Former Iranian Vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi maintains a website called "webneveshteha" ... a Persian-language blog that claims to have some 20,000 regular readers. Abtahi writes: ... "Unfortunately, Mr. Ahmadinejad, instead of trying to find solutions for our main problems and improving Iran's relations with world leaders, has conducted a propaganda trip. And he was insulted by the media that oppose him. .... Our nation expected that President Ahmadinejad wouldn't put himself in a position to be insulted. In the world, political perspectives are different." Abtahi says he "wishes that Ahmadinejad's advisers would have helped him to plan his trip and his answers to questions. People expect the Iranian president to help solve their political and economic problems on these trips."
An anonymous blogger based in Iran who calls himself "Jomhour" (Republic) ... writes: "Maybe we can consider Columbia University as a sister of Amirkabir, the Polytechnic University in Tehran. There, in the last year, [Iranian] students criticized Ahmadinejad and protested against him." ....
Another anonymous blogger in Iran who writes in Persian under the title "Khyaban No. 11" asks readers to imagine U.S. President George W. Bush traveling to Tehran University to make a speech. Khyaban No. 11 writes: "Can we even imagine that George W. Bush could come to Tehran and criticize the Islamic Republic's policies? .... Can George W. Bush come to Tehran and talk about exporting democracy to Tehran? Can we even imagine that George W. Bush would have enough security in Tehran to prevent Ansar Hizbullah from attacking him?"
... a blogger who lives in Europe and identifies himself as "Balouch" reacted unsympathetically to news that Ahmadinejad's request to visit the site of the World Trade Center ... was refused by authorities in New York. Balouch invokes Iranian tragedy and the Khavaran Cemetery where thousands of executed political prisoners were buried in Iran in 1988 to praise U.S. officials' approach. Balouch says that "if I were the police, I would have sent this note to him: 'From the New York Police Department to Mahmud Ahmadinejad: Mr. President, with all due respect, our office cannot accept your request for several reasons. But you can kindly go to Khavaran Cemetery. You don't need any visa to go there. But in our opinion, forget flowers. Just stop killing U.S. soldiers [in Iraq] with roadside bombs.'"
... a 29-year-old Iranian-born citizen who identifies himself as "Mr. Behi," now purportedly living in Libya, describes himself as a man who "tries to be a person with a free mind" and "a world citizen." He writes: "There is a proverb in Persian saying: 'This coat is too big for you.' .... Since Ahmadinejad became president, we started having feelings of regret because this proverb started to make sense about him. To me, [Ahmadinejad] is so politically immature that he rarely thinks about what he puts himself into and what future outcome his remarks might have. That or he does think about it but his framework of thinking is so far from reality. He is a simple man for whom the presidential chair is too big -- so big that after two years, he still could not come to comprehend his own position and has never learned to abide by the normal diplomatic behavior that is expected from a president. .... Why has he put himself and his country in such position by talking before thinking?" ....
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
09/30/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
Our nation expected that President Ahmadinejad wouldn't put himself in a position to be insulted.
This is a toughie. Ahmahdinejad is a walking insult to Persians and the West alike. The only position he can put himself in so as to avoid such problems is inside a coffin.
In the world, political perspectives are different.
Unlike Ahmadinejad's own views, they tend to bewith some notable exceptionsreality based.
People expect the Iranian president to help solve their political and economic problems on these trips."
Fear not, Ahmahdinejad is going to "solve their political and economic problems". After all, there are not too many political or economic issues that can arise from rubble.
This coat is too big for you.
Not only that, the sleeves are nowhere near long enough.
He is a simple man for whom the presidential chair is too big
I'd have to agree, that booster seat he uses is really undignified.
Posted by: Jack Rubenstein ||
09/30/2007 10:51 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I still think it would be hilarious for someone to do a faux analysis of his speech, pointing out a large number of "homosexual code words" and his use of phallic imagery, which can be seen everywhere, if you are looking for it.
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.
At JFK the procedure was similar to Germany, 3 troops stayed on the plane to guard weapons while the rest deplaned. At the gate we were each given a re-boarding pass and spent about 1.5 hours in the terminal, at which time we re-boarded and flew to Oakland.
State Minister for Information Tariq Azeem and MQM leader Dr Farooq Sattar were thrashed in two separate incidents. Journalists outside the ECP spotted Azeem hiding in an ambulance that was called to take injured journalists to hospitals. They dragged Azeem out of the ambulance and beat him up. Sattar was injured when some wounded lawyers attacked him at a local hospital. Azeem and Sattar lodged FIRs against journalists and lawyers for attacking them.
