An upstate graduate student was charged yesterday with stabbing a beloved anthropology professor to death.
Saudi national Abdulsalam Al-Zahrani, 46, was held without bail for the murder of Binghamton University professor Richard Antoun, 77, an expert on comparative religion, authorities said.
Al-Zahrani, a cultural-anthropology grad student, allegedly pulled out a six-inch kitchen knife and stabbed Antoun four times in the chest in the professor's campus office Friday.
Student Devin Sheppard said the suspect was at the scene when cops arrived. "The police asked the grad student, 'Did you just stab him?' and he said, 'Yes.'"
Gov. Paterson said Antoun would "live on in his writing, his research, and in his students, whose lives he forever changed."
#9
Antoun was a peace activist who talked about the need for understanding and tolerance among cultures. He published "Understanding Fundamentalism: Christian, Islamic and Jewish Movements" in August 2001.
So, no second edition?
Appears that al-Zahrani understands fundamentalism, maybe he could take it over while he's waiting out his appeals.
In September, I rather cheekily requested a dialogue with a prominent Islamic militant. Egyptian-born Abu Walid al-Masri is a legendary figure in mujaheddin circles. A 30-year veteran of jihad, he was known during the Soviet-Afghan war for his prowess as a military strategist. Years later, he became the first foreigner to swear allegiance to Taliban leader Mullah Omar.
He counts among his old friends Osama bin Laden and the senior leadership of al-Qa'ida, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan as well as Taliban-linked military commander Jalaluddin Haqqani. He was once married to Sydney woman Rabiah Hutchinson, whom he wed in Afghanistan.
Abu Walid is also a prolific author. He began writing in 1978 after leaving southern Lebanon, where he fought against Israeli forces. When he joined the Afghan jihad in 1979, he reported on the conflict for several publications. He became committed to the idea of establishing an Islamic state in Afghanistan. When the Taliban came to power, Abu Walid became involved in its media activities, writing for its magazines and working as Kandahar correspondent for the al-Jazeera television station.
He has also written 12 books that give a candid history of foreign fighters in Afghanistan. They have generated controversy because of his criticism of al-Qa'ida, who he believes caused the downfall of the Taliban. When the Taliban regime fell after the 2001 US invasion, Abu Walid fled to Iran, where was he detained and put under house arrest. Unable to return to fight in Afghanistan, Abu Walid is instead conducting jihad using his pen.
Recently he provided strategic advice to the Taliban in their insurgency against coalition forces, suggesting they take foreign hostages to use as bargaining chips to secure the release of prisoners held by the US and to assist in forcing its withdrawal from the country. He has also returned to writing for its magazine.
When I asked to talk to him, I hoped he might share his views on the history of foreign fighters in Afghanistan and explain the nature of al-Qa'ida's relationship with the Taliban, as well as his relationship with these two groups. Asking him was a long shot. Especially since he was aware I am a former counter-terrorism analyst turned academic who specialises in al-Qa'ida. To my amazement, he agreed. For the past two months we have engaged in a dialogue, much of which has played out publicly via our respective blogs.
In the process, we have discovered we agree on some things: most notably that al-Qa'ida has done its dash in the Islamic world. Abu Walid believes al-Qa'ida's actions have caused more harm than good.
He laments that "jihad has become synonymous with the explosive belt and the car bomb . . . and this is a real disaster because war is not indiscriminate killing".
The terrorism war, he tells me, has proven "to be far from the mood of the Muslim people and the result has been popular hatred towards it". He laments that "jihad has become synonymous with the explosive belt and the car bomb . . . and this is a real disaster because war is not indiscriminate killing".
According to Abu Walid, the dominant mood within the jihadist milieu is that "guns and bombs are the only approved means for change". He questions this, asking "who said that carrying the weapon is the only choice and is inevitable?" And he says al-Qa'ida's reliance on suicide attacks leads observers to think it has "a surplus of fighters' lives and would like to get rid of them".
When I ask him about al-Qa'ida's objectives, he tells me it lacks strategic vision and instead relies on "shiny slogans" around which to rally its troops. He also thinks it is an authoritarian organisation, telling me bin Laden runs al-Qa'ida with "absolute individual leadership". This makes it "the first private sector jihad organisation in Muslim history". He is concerned the "extremely negative" outcome of this experience "may be replicated in the future" with other groups and draws an analogy of jihadi groups operating in the future in a similar way to Western mercenary organisations. Such criticism of al-Qa'ida is virtually unheard of among jihadists. Especially from someone who still considers its leaders his friends, has not been excommunicated by them and continues to write for Taliban's publications.
Abu Walid has also railed against allegations he has been a member of al-Qa'ida and that his criticism of the organisation represents a split in the movement. He does not deny his old friendship and activities with them but says he "was never a day within the al-Qa'ida organisation to break away from it". And he also acknowledges his advice and criticism of al-Qa'ida and other groups causes controversy and "makes the sound of loud bombs".
In his most recent letter to me, where he responded to an article I wrote for The Australian on al-Qa'ida's Afghanistan strategy, he dropped the loudest bomb of all. He tells me the Taliban will no longer welcome al-Qa'ida in Afghanistan. Their return would make matters more complicated for the Taliban because "the majority of the population is against al-Qa'ida".
According to Abu Walid, the differences between al-Qa'ida and the Taliban are greater now than they were before the war. Not only is al-Qa'ida unwelcome in Afghanistan but so are other salafist groups who previously operated in the country.
According to Abu Walid, the differences between al-Qa'ida and the Taliban are greater now than they were before the war. Not only is al-Qa'ida unwelcome in Afghanistan but so are other salafist groups who previously operated in the country.
He believes that disassociation is required. He tells me "if the link between the Taliban and al-Qa'ida is not broken the results will be bad for the Taliban and Afghanistan". And he thinks that the Taliban should also move away from the salafist movement so it can be liberated "from all of the restrictions that hinder its political options".
Last week, US special envoy Richard Holbrooke reiterated that the US would be willing to negotiate with the Taliban if it renounces al-Qa'ida. The Taliban is unlikely to renounce al-Qa'ida, but Abu Walid's letter indicates that it may disassociate. How much this counts for in the Afghan end game, and whether the Taliban will do so, remains to be seen. And, of course, this is not Mullah Omar's view, but Abu Walid's.
When I ask Abu Walid about negotiating with the Taliban, he replies with a quote by former US secretary of state George Shultz who said negotiations "are a euphemism for capitulation if the shadow of power is not cast across the bargaining table". The Taliban is all too aware of this. Omar's statement last week addressed the issue and rejected coming to the negotiation table.
He said the "invading Americans want mujaheddin to surrender under the pretext of the negotiation. This is something impossible". Abu Walid says the US is now trying to spread the shadow of power across Afghanistan, but that it has already "lost its lead and lacks the will and capacity to win the war".
While the US-led coalition is examining options to negotiate an outcome to the war, he says the Taliban's senior leadership trusts no one beyond its borders, not even the states who formerly recognised it: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates. This may explain the Taliban's recent statements where it portrayed itself as willing to establish friendly and responsible relations with its neighbours and other countries. These statements also mark a discrete but important move away from al-Qa'ida and militant salafist ideologies.
Pretty much a re-hash of the WaPo article we posted yesterday.
On the afternoon he held the eighth meeting of his Afghanistan review, President Obama arrived in the White House Situation Room ruminating about war. He had come from Arlington National Cemetery, where he had wandered among the chalky white tombstones of those who had fallen in the rugged mountains of Central Asia.
How much their sacrifice weighed on him that Veterans Day last month, he did not say. But his advisers say he was haunted by the human toll as he wrestled with what to do about the eight-year-old war. Just a month earlier, he had mentioned to them his visits to wounded soldiers at the Army hospital in Washington. "I don't want to be going to Walter Reed for another eight years," he said then.
The economic cost was troubling him as well after he received a private budget memo estimating that an expanded presence would cost $1 trillion over 10 years, roughly the same as his health care plan.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
Now as his top military adviser ran through a slide show of options, Mr. Obama expressed frustration. He held up a chart showing how reinforcements would flow into Afghanistan over 18 months and eventually begin to pull out, a bell curve that meant American forces would be there for years to come.
"I want this pushed to the left," he told advisers, pointing to the bell curve. In other words, the troops should be in sooner, then out sooner.
When the history of the Obama presidency is written, that day with the chart may prove to be a turning point, the moment a young commander in chief set in motion a high-stakes gamble to turn around a losing war. By moving the bell curve to the left, Mr. Obama decided to send 30,000 troops mostly in the next six months and then begin pulling them out a year after that, betting that a quick jolt of extra forces could knock the enemy back on its heels enough for the Afghans to take over the fight.
The three-month review that led to the escalate-then-exit strategy is a case study in decision making in the Obama White House -- intense, methodical, rigorous, earnest and at times deeply frustrating for nearly all involved. It was a virtual seminar in Afghanistan and Pakistan, led by a president described by one participant as something "between a college professor and a gentle cross-examiner."
Mr. Obama peppered advisers with questions and showed an insatiable demand for information, taxing analysts who prepared three dozen intelligence reports for him and Pentagon staff members who churned out thousands of pages of documents.
This account of how the president reached his decision is based on dozens of interviews with participants as well as a review of notes some of them took during Mr. Obama's 10 meetings with his national security team. Most of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, but their accounts have been matched against those of other participants wherever possible.
11 Afghan hours on Black Friday
Mr. Obama devoted so much time to the Afghan issue -- nearly 11 hours on the day after Thanksgiving alone -- that he joked, "I've got more deeply in the weeds than a president should, and now you guys need to solve this." He invited competing voices to debate in front of him, while guarding his own thoughts. Even David Axelrod, arguably his closest adviser, did not know where Mr. Obama would come out until just before Thanksgiving.
With the result uncertain, the outsize personalities on his team vied for his favor, sometimes sharply disagreeing as they made their arguments. The White House suspected the military of leaking details of the review to put pressure on the president. The military and the State Department suspected the White House of leaking to undercut the case for more troops. The president erupted at the leaks with an anger advisers had rarely seen, but he did little to shut down the public clash within his own government.
"The president welcomed a full range of opinions and invited contrary points of view," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in an interview last month. "And I thought it was a very healthy experience because people took him up on it. And one thing we didn't want -- to have a decision made and then have somebody say, 'Oh, by the way.' No, come forward now or forever hold your peace."
The decision represents a complicated evolution in Mr. Obama's thinking. He began the process clearly skeptical of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal 's request for 40,000 more troops, but the more he learned about the consequences of failure, and the more he narrowed the mission, the more he gravitated toward a robust if temporary buildup, guided in particular by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates
Yet even now, he appears ambivalent about what some call "Obama's war." Just two weeks before General McChrystal warned of failure at the end of August, Mr. Obama described Afghanistan as a "war of necessity." When he announced his new strategy last week, those words were nowhere to be found. Instead, while recommitting to the war on Al Qaeda, he made clear that the larger struggle for Afghanistan had to be balanced against the cost in blood and treasure and brought to an end.
Aides, though, said the arduous review gave Mr. Obama comfort that he had found the best course he could. "The process was exhaustive, but any time you get the president of the United States to devote 25 hours, anytime you get that kind of commitment, you know it was serious business," said Gen. James L. Jones, the president's national security adviser. "From the very first meeting, everyone started with set opinions. And no opinion was the same by the end of the process."
#3
Mark my words, he wants this "Surge" to fail miserably.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
12/06/2009 12:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"I don't want to be going to Walter Reed for another eight years,"
Finally something from Bambi I can agree with; I don't want him around for another 8 years, either. Anyplace.
#6
WE can guess how CHINA = CHIHN NETTERS feel about.
To wit, WMF > CHINA RE-DISCOVERS THE TASTE OF IMPERIALIST WAR WITH THE SMOKE BILLOWING FROM XINJIANG. OBAMA'S TROOPS SURGE SUPPORTS THE US ENCIRCLEMENT AND ISOLATION OF CHINA [Xinjiang = New Manchurian-Nanking/Sino-Japanese Incidents ala WW2]???
ARTIC > YEAR 2010 [2010-2012 = OBAMA first term] likely to be DECISIVE PERIOD FOR CHINA + ISLAMIST THREAT
* SAME WMF > JAPAN HAS NO LOVE FOR CHINA'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS: JAPANESE ARE A "SMALL PEOPLE" FOR NEVER HAVING TRUST IN CHINA [as based in Chin and NORTH KOREA, China's "East WInd-21" DF21 MRBMS can easily destroy Japan + US Okinawa. Mainland Japan Bases].
[Iran Press TV Latest] In France, a recent opinion poll suggests that a vast majority of the people are against sending more French troops to Afghanistan.
The poll conducted for the weekly Sud Ouest Dimanche (the South West Sunday) showed over 82 percent of French adults are apposed to the planned reinforcement of some 3,300 French troops already in the war zone.
The findings come as the United States prepares to send more than 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan. Washington's NATO allies have also pledged 7,000 additional troops.
France says it's waiting for an international conference on Afghanistan planned for late January, before making a decision on whether to increase the number of troops there.
With around 490 combat-related fatalities, 2009 has been the deadliest year for foreign troops in Afghanistan so far.
In France, like the UK and the US, public opposition to the Afghan mission is growing sharply due to the surge in troop casualties.
Or due to the surge in news media fussing.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
how long did it take for France too fall to the Nazis?? Or in some cases such as the Vichy just turn sides
Posted by: chris ||
12/06/2009 11:44 Comments ||
Top||
#2
how long did it take for France too fall to the Nazis??
45 days and 100 000 dead in the french army. Say, the brit army basically turned tail and ran away, fleeing back to the UK while the french fought the germans. In restrospect, they did the right thing, but how comes they're not stuck with that "surrender" thing? Brits fled, french stood their ground and got their collective ass handed to them.
Or in some cases such as the Vichy just turn sides
Vichy never turned sides, you must be thinking of WWI Italy; it began as a provisional gvt headed by a WWI marechal, a very popular man who had the utmost respect from the WWI vets, put in power by a quasi-unanimously vote by the (leftist) congress, who had authority only over the southern half of France, was seen as the legitimate representative of France by the Allied and actually tried to further french interests against germans bent on "taking revenge" for the Versailles treaty - ignoring that the german plan for post-WWI victory was to break France up and loot it beyond all the supposed "heavy-handedness" of Versailles (I can't remember right now, but I think that in something like two years the Vichy gvt had 300??? german spies court-martialed and executed)... all the while continuing the then one century and a half french civil war, and trying to drive a stake throught he heart of the Republic, with not a lot of success (Vichy was a "soft" dictatorship, but absolutely not a totalitarian nightmare).
As a funny note, about 2/3rd of the collaborating establishment was... from the left, soc9alists & disgruntled commies, while historically, the "interior" resistance mvts were started by stay-behinds from the french army led by rightwingers.
#3
Bambi does not want to win. You can't blame the French, or anyone, for not wanting to die on behalf of a cause the other guy isn't willing to pay the price to win.
#4
Btw, GB civilian losses were 70K, from the german bombings. French civilian losses were 270K, a very great chunk of it from ALLIED bombings.
Can you see why the Vichy propaganda about the anglo-americans was so easy.
And for people who think that french are subject to the "France liberated itself alone" delusion, they are DEAD wrong, this was the narrative from the gaullist era, but, nowadays, the narrative is "the french are an abject people of collaborators, Vichy is " The Darkest Hours Of Our History" against which everything is compared (hell, the swiss minaret ban is a throwback to TDHOOH), french are by nature antisemite, backward, reactionary, racists, "frenchy", IE "the moldy France"..., and besides, colonial troops fought on our behalf, in WWI, in WWII, muslim troops liberated France, post-war, they rebuilt France, during the independence wars, they kicked the racist french imperialists out (whose only actions were rapes & tortures),... this is what it's all about, this is the dogma of the national education, the Chattering Class, the Enlightned Elites, the entertainement complex,...
Again, WWII is a trap, it's a neurosis, it's the lock that held the whole 'new left' worldview together.
#11
There is an anecdote from D-Day that one house in Caen had a sign up that said, "Bomb us, there are Germans here". Unfortunately, most Americans get their impression of the French from Paris. There are some tremendous things to see in Paris, but I wouldn't want to spend as much time as it would take to see them in the city. The people in the countryside have the same feeling about Paris as I do, which places them highly in my esteem.
"President" O'Bumble has destroyed the cohesion and partnership between the US and NATO that was needed to succeed in Afghanistan. He's now beginning to reap the "rewards" of his behavior.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
12/06/2009 18:46 Comments ||
Top||
#12
OP, come on. W destroyed all our alliances with his cowboy go-it-alone unilateralism. That is why we are the only country fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. O singlehandedly restored our alliances, made friends with our enemies, apologized for all our wrong doing, and now everyone in the world loves us. Right?
/sarcasm
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
12/06/2009 19:30 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Sarc off/
If you a Pol, of any kind, WP and any kind of outlawed/prohibited anything can get you.
[Quqnoos] A senior US official Friday said "the US has no intention of leaving Afghanistan in the near future, certainly not in 2011."
Gen James Jones, US President Barack Obama's national security advisor, said what Mr Obama actually said was: "After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home."
"It's very important to use the right words where this is concerned," he told journalists. "The words 'US troops will leave in 2011' are inaccurate."
Gen Jones emphasised on the need for the additional 30,000 US troops in order to destroy "insurgent sanctuaries" along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
While unveiling his revised Afghan strategy last week, Mr Obama said the US troops "will begin to come home" in mid-2011, not clarifying whether all US troops will begin to leave or only the additional 30,000 he has authorised.
The new troops will bring the total of US troops to 100,000 in Afghanistan. Nearly 35,000 troops from other NATO countries are also stationed in the country.
The popularity of the Afghan mission in troop-contributing countries has significantly decreased due to mounting Taliban-led insurgency and high casualties of foreign troops this year.
President Obama also asked other NATO allies to pump in more troops on the ground and the alliance has apparently responded positively, vowing to send an extra 7,000 troops along the new US forces.
The Taliban called the new US strategy for Afghanistan "nothing new" and has vowed to further intensify their attacks against the foreign troops.
Afghan analysts say that the heavy military footprint is only effective in stabilising Afghanistan, if it is backed by a master plan to tackle corruption and improve good-governance.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda
#1
"After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home."
A subtle and lawyerly distinction that will no doubt be lost on the Taliban and pretty much everyone else.
[Asharq al-Aswat] Somalia's government called on Saturday for an international peace plan like President Barack Obama's new Afghan strategy, saying it would be more effective and far cheaper than current efforts to combat Somali piracy.
Fascinating. How was it that we decided to go into Somalia last time?
Because George H. W. Bush felt sorry for the wimmin and kiddies. Then we turned it over to the Paks who did a sparkling job of undoing all the good we'd done in '93. Then Butros Butros-Galli persuaded Clinton to go back in, obstensibly to fix the mess the Paks made, but in reality to bump off Aidid, a warlord, which we tried to do and failed -- hence Blawk Hawk Down. So instead of sticking it out we tucked tail and left. That's the short version.
"We accept that ... the situation in Somalia will appear beyond repair but the reality is very different," Prime Minister Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke said in a letter to The Times Newspaper in Britain.
Sharmarke's U.N.-backed administration controls only part of the capital, Mogadishu.
Obama's plan for Afghanistan marked a "sea change in international support to troubled countries", wrote Sharmarke. "What is so startling is that all the conclusions are as true about Somalia as they are about Afghanistan."
Obama announced this week that the United States would send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan to combat Taliban insurgency, as well as measures aimed at ending corruption and promoting local accountability before a U.S. withdrawal. "Piracy and the growth of Islamic extremism are not the natural state of being. They are but symptoms of an underlying malaise -- the absence of government and hope," Sharmarke said. "The irony is that it would cost only a quarter of what is being spent right now on the warships trying to combat piracy, to fund our plan and actually solve the problems rather than simply chasing them round the Indian Ocean," he said.
The Horn of Africa state hit the headlines again this week when a suicide bomber struck a medical graduation ceremony and killed at least 22 people, including three government ministers, several doctors, students and their relatives.
Western security agencies say Somalia has become a safe haven for militants, including foreign jihadists, who are using it to plot attacks across the impoverished region and beyond.
Fighting has killed at least 19,000 civilians since the start of 2007 and driven another 1.5 million from their homes, triggering one of the world's worst humanitarian disasters.
Sharmarke agreed regional stability was increasingly at stake, and said his administration first needed help to restore effective government and train its security forces.
Second, he said, the world must restore and enforce the nation's economic exclusion zone so it could use its own potential wealth of fish, oil and gas to fund its future.
"Our fishermen currently watch as other countries plunder our waters," the prime minister said. "Whilst we condemn it outright, it is no wonder these angry and desperate people resort to 'fishing' for ships instead."
Thirdly, he called for a large civil programme to train young Somalis and set up legitimate commercial livelihoods. He did not give any estimate of how much this might cost.
Sharmarke said the same principles had been used to great effect in other troubled places that harboured threats to UK national security such as Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked why they had never been tried in Somalia.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Islamic Courts
#1
"...asked why they had never been tried in Somalia."
Did the Men In Black get him with the flash thingy?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
12/06/2009 0:55 Comments ||
Top||
HT to Don Surber. Apparently nobody else responded? Cash talks, baby
Jordan has sent several hundred troops from its special operations forces to help the Saudi military with its many Shi'ite units contain the Yemeni Shi'ite rebellion, which has spread deep into the Arab kingdom.
Once upon a time, the Hashemites ruled Mecca and Medina. The Brits took that away to give to the Sauds, and somehow the Hashemites acquired Jordan and Iraq as consolation prizes. The branch that had Iraq lost it, but the Jordanian bunch have held on tight; no doubt they still dream of returning to the land they had ruled for several generations before the prophet Mohammed opened his eyes to the palm trees.
Western intelligence sources said Jordan's King Abdullah sent the SOF units to Saudi Arabia in November 2009. The sources said the Jordanian king was acting on an urgent request from his Saudi counterpart for elite soldiers who could hunt for Iranian-backed Shi'ite rebels in both Saudi Arabia and northern Yemen. "The Saudis are in a panic mode and don't have the troops or capabilities to stop the Yemeni Shi'ites," an intelligence source said.
The sources said Riyad's need for foreign forces stemmed from a refusal by Shi'ite-dominated Saudi units to fight the Believing Youth. They said this has led to the dismantling of several local security units familiar with the Saudi-Yemeni border.
Very interesting. Any bets the units will ever be reconstituted?
Saudi officials have not confirmed the assertion of the Western intelligence sources. But on Nov. 27, Saudi Deputy Defense Minister Prince Khaled Bin Sultan acknowledged that Yemeni Shi'ite fighters held at least two southern Saudi villages for nearly a month. Later, officials said 15,000 Saudis had been evacuated from their homes.
Golly -- what d'you suppose is the percentage of that 15,000 that is not Sunni?
The sources said Jordan has been the only Arab League state to respond to Saudi appeals for help in fighting the Iranian-backed Believing Youth movement. Believing Youth has been fighting an intermittent war in northern Yemen since 2004, but in November 2009 invaded southern Saudi Arabia and captured several border villages.
"The Saudi air force has been heavily bombing villages inside Yemen, but this has not made a dent in the capabilities of the Shi'ite rebels," the source said. "They have been well-trained by Iran and Hizbullah and have moved steadily north in Saudi Arabia."
The Saudi military has focused on trying to impose a blockade on northern Yemen. The Royal Saudi Naval Forces has bolstered its presence with at least four fast attack craft and missile boats and reported the destruction of weapons smuggling ships from neighboring Somalia.
It would be ironic were the House of Saud to fall, be replaced by a Hashemite -- perhaps the current king's uncle? -- only to find that the oil wells no longer produce anything like they did even a decade ago...
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
IMO, it's only a question of time before Saudis prevail upon their friend Obama to invole US forces.
#2
Cup of joe sez advisors are already there. The Soodis couldn't find their arses on a modern battlefield or even a 19 century battlefield without someone's help.
[Bangla Daily Star] Six special courts of Bangladesh Rifles will hold 50 trials for the February 25-26 mutiny in as many BDR establishments across the country.
The first of the trials began on November 24 at Rangamati sector headquarters. The second one will get underway tomorrow at Satkhira battalion headquarters.
The special court-1 there will try some 55 soldiers from 7 Rifle Battalion at Nildumur under Khulna sector, said sources in the border force.
"All six courts will be composed of three members each and headed by Director General Major General M Mainul Islam. As per the BDR law, they will try around seven thousand border guards on charges of mutiny at 50 rifles establishments," said an official involved in making arrangements for the trials.
Of the places where mutiny broke out, 10 are at Pilkhana headquarters in Dhaka and the remaining 40 are in 27 other districts, he added.
Two of the six courts will be devoted to trial of the ones charged with mutiny at the Pilkhana headquarters.
Dhaka sector headquarters, 24, 36, 13 and 44 Rifle Battalion, headquarters battalion, BDR hospital, Rifle Security Unit (RSU), Signal Sector and Rifles Sports Board are the 10 points at Pilkhana that saw 74 persons including 57 army officers killed in a 33-hour carnage.
Around eight thousand troops were at Pilkhana during the bloodbath on February 25-26. But all of them would not have to go on trial, said a BDR source. Some three thousand of them might have to stand trial on charges of mutiny. The rest would face departmental actions that could at the maximum cost them their jobs, added the source.
However, for those to be tried on mutiny charges, the conviction could carry up to seven years in jail, fine and dismissal from service.
Like at Pilkhana headquarters, mutiny took place in more than one place in some districts. For example, revolt spread among three of the five battalions in Rangamati sector. In Satkhira, jawans mutinied in 7 Rifle Battalion at Nildumur and 41 Rifle Battalion under Khulna sector.
Initially, the courts will sit for two days. On the opening day, charges will be pressed and arrest warrants issued, and on the second day, the accused will be produced before the court. After the second day's proceedings, the court will be adjourned for about a month as the BDR act prescribes giving the accused at least 27 days to consult lawyers and prepare for defence.
On the second day of the trial at Rangamati, the court adjourned its proceedings till December 27 so the nine accused and their lawyers could make preparations.
After initiating the prosecution in Satkhira, the BDR court might sit in Feni, said sources.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
About 500 protesters from the English Defence League (EDL), many with their faces covered with scarves and hooded tops, marched through Nottingham yesterday decrying Allah and shouting: "We want our country back".
Other protesters waved Union Flags, St George's flags and placards which read: "Protect Women, No To Sharia" and "No Surrender".
Mounted police used batons to keep back some of the demonstrators and police dog handlers were also deployed to contain the crowd.
There were brief scuffles between EDL members and a small group of Asian students who were waving a Pakistani flag.
Earlier in the day thousands of Christmas shoppers gathered to watch 500 soldiers from the 2nd Battalion The Mercian Regiment march through the city.
The homecoming parade followed a six-month tour of duty in the Helmand province of Afghanistan where the regiment lost five soldiers and dozens of its men were injured.
The EDL claims it is not a racist organisation and has no links with the British National Party, but a counter-protest was mounted by Unite Against Fascism.
James Newton, from Nottinghamshire Stop The BNP, said: "The reason we're here is because we believe the EDL is clearly a racist organisation."
One EDL member, a serving soldier who declined to be named, said of the student protest: "I look at their protest and there's a Pakistani flag flying with a Muslim symbol. They're protesting against the troops and it's anti-British. I'm not a fascist, I'm not a Nazi but I am British."
Posted by: Fred ||
12/06/2009 13:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
First pic shows vit-yoofs with a slow day on the fot-bol scene, second shöws middle-aged Brits against mounted Police. The Telegraff wants to get a grip and shöw a pic or two of that Pakistani flag/Muslim symbol referred to, neither of which are religous. For a minority here, strange to ask for ostrasisation.
(Do I mean The Telegraph is in the minority)?
#2
Well, ok, 500 folk from Nottingham, it's a start. I'm making my tools from car ariels and 180lb fishing wire, h/t: RedneckJim.
Believe me, we aren't finished yet.
[Kyodo: Korea] Members of an expert panel set up by the U.N. Security Council associated with sanctions against North Korea are set to make an inspection tour of Japanese and South Korean ports engaging in trade with North Korea, U.N. sources said Saturday. The sources unveiled a plan to send six members of the panel next week for interviews with officials of South Korean authorities in Seoul as well as fact-finding operations at Busan and other ports before they visit Japan for similar activities.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Japan and S Korea, where the great restaurants are, not N Korea? How UN of them
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/06/2009 8:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
ION WMF > COSCO CEO PROPOSES NUCLEAR-POWERED CONTANER SHIPS [enviro, energy-correct].
President Obama, seated at the head of a conference table strewn with papers in the White House Situation Room, stared at charts showing various options for sending additional U.S. troops into Afghanistan.
He and his top national security advisers had been debating the way forward for two full months. On this day, Nov. 11, the president scanned the choices with a trace of irritation. At a meeting more than two weeks earlier, he had asked for a plan to deploy and pull out troops quickly -- a "surge" similar to the one that his Republican predecessor had executed in Iraq, but with a fixed date to begin withdrawals. The One liked W's Surge?
What was in front of Obama - scenarios in which it took too long to get in and too long to get out - was not what he wanted.
After one revelatory discussion about the mission's goals, administration officials changed their chief objective from trying to eliminate the Taliban to making sure insurgents could no longer threaten the Afghan government's survival. The new strategy would include a closer relationship with Pakistan, along with a warning that the United States would step up its action against al-Qaeda camps in that country if the Pakistanis did not do it themselves. I'm sure that scares the bejeebus out of them.
In 25 hours of meetings that the president led over three months, participants reviewed in detail how complicated the Afghanistan conflict had become. The sessions were fluid, influenced by the ghosts of the failing wars in Vietnam and winning war in Iraq, as well as the imperatives of a soaring budget deficit brought about by the $787 billion pay-off.
"What was interesting was the metamorphosis," said national security adviser James L. Jones, the only senior official who agreed to discuss the deliberations on the record. "I dare say that none of us ended up where we started." But among a wide range of opinions as the process began, Vice President Biden was known to oppose a major troop buildup, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was publicly leery, and some of Obama's civilian advisers were privately opposed. When the president polled them on his final decision two days before it was announced, all endorsed it. He wore 'em out.
Posted by: Bobby ||
12/06/2009 13:54 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The One liked W's Surge?
Obama's surge is not like W's surge. Obama's surge is called an increase. Hmph.
#2
OTOH PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUMS > US AFGHAN SURGE SHOWS DEEPENING CRISIS [ POTUS BAmmer = USA sending 30K Troops becuz US-NATO-Local are slowly but certainly losing control = losing the anti-insurgent fight]???
8 SAME > LONG WAR JOURNAL [vee NYT] - TALIBAN CONTEST OR CONTROL LARGE PARTS OF AFGHANISTAN
[KABUL Govt control not certain as Talibs-Milits control or influence affect over 1/2 of the country + NWFP PAK]???
#3
In June, McChrystal noted, he had arrived in Afghanistan and set about fulfilling his assignment. His lean face, hovering on the screen at the end of the table, was replaced by a mission statement on a slide: "Defeat the Taliban. Secure the Population."
"Is that really what you think your mission is?" one of those in the Situation Room asked.
Silly, silly General. Your mission is to give the press cover to continue exalted worship of the Teh One. To do otherwise is racist.
Posted by: ed ||
12/06/2009 22:21 Comments ||
Top||
[Dawn] Funeral prayers for high-ranking officers, including Major-General Bilal Omar, who died in yesterday's Parade Land mosque attack, were held at the Chaklala garrison on Saturday.
Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani attended the funeral prayers.
General Kayani said acts of cowardice will not dent the resolve of the armed forces and the nation to fight against terrorism.
Meanwhile, funeral prayers for three of the victims of yesterday's mosque attack were held at the Racecourse ground in Rawalpindi.
Security was tightened in and around the ground with the military police, Punjab police and Rangers performing the task. Meanwhile, special traffic arrangements were made at the funeral services held in the Westridge-I area of Rawalpindi.
Relatives of the victims as well as high-ranking officers from the armed forces attended the services.
The Peshawar Road area was also put on high alert and cordoned off as intelligence personnel and the military police conducted investigations into yesterday's attacks.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Pakistan
[Bangla Daily Star] Top leader of United Liberation Front of Asom Arabinda Rajkhowa was taken on 12 days' remand for interrogation yesterday even as his elusive colleague Paresh Baruah said he was ready for dialogues with Indian government if "sovereignty" for Assam was on the agenda.
A court in Guwahati, Assam, sent Rajkhowa, his bodyguard Raja Bora and deputy Raju Baruah on 12 days' police remand, a day after they "surrendered" to Indian authorities in Meghalaya.
The three were produced before Kamrup Chief Judicial Magistrate Robin Phukan.
The Assam police had asked for a 14-day custody while the lawyer of the Ulfa leaders prayed for 10 days.
The Ulfa leaders were booked under the Unlawful Activities Act.
Huge crowds gathered before the magistrate's court to get a glimpse of Rajkhowa, Raju Baruah and Raja Bora.
Rajkhowa in handcuffs and Baruah claimed that they had not surrendered, that they would never do it, as they were taken back to the police van by personnel of the Special Operations Unit of Assam police.
Rajkhowa, who had been on the run from law for 17 years, accused Bangladesh of "betraying" him. He said talks with India cannot be held with his being in handcuffs.
Paresh Baruah, who is believed to be in Myanmar and asked Rajkhowa on Friday not to "fall into the government's trap" of dialogue, yesterday denied there was any split in Ulfa which has "full confidence" in Rajkhowa.
"We are ready for dialogue provided sovereignty for Assam is discussed," he said in an email to the media from an undisclosed location.
But Indian Home Minister P Chidambaram has ruled out talks with Ulfa unless it abjures violence and gives up the sovereignty demand.
Paresh Baruah said Rajkhowa had not surrendered but been arrested "following a deep-rooted conspiracy of the Indian government".
Extreme secrecy surrounds the place where Rajkhowa, Raju Baruah besides eight others were being held by the Assam police.
Rajkhowa, along with his wife and nine others, had arrived in Guwahati yesterday after they were handed over to the BSF reportedly by Bangladesh security forces at Dawki in Meghalaya.
Meanwhile, Ulfa General Secretary Anup Chetia was shifted to Rajshahi Central Jail from Mymensingh jail on Friday night, reports our correspondent in Rajshahi.
Sources said another leader of the United Liberation Front of Asom, Babul Sharma, was taken to Rangpur jail at the same time.
Acting Deputy Inspector General of prisons Tipu Sultan confirmed the reports of shifting, but he did not elaborate on the matter.
Security of Rajshahi jail was tightened after Anup Chetia was taken there.
Anup was arrested in 1997 in Dhaka. He was convicted in several cases and has since been in jail.
In the last few days, foreign media reported that Ulfa Chairman Arabinda Rajkhowa and a few other leaders were arrested in Dhaka and later handed over to the Indian authorities.
But on Friday, Bangladesh government dismissed such claims.
Terming the media reports baseless, Home Minister Sahara Khatun said, "Since we did not arrest him [Rajkhowa], there is no question of pushing him back."
The same day the Indian authorities formally announced that the Ulfa chairman surrendered to the Indian Border Security Force earlier in the day at Dawki in the northeastern state of Meghalaya.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Pakistan cannot oppose US drone strikes in Balochistan as Washington can do "whatever it pleases" because it is "paying money" to the country, Balochistan Governor Zulfiqar Magsi said on Saturday.
Talking to reporters after chairing a seminar at a local hotel, Magsi said Pakistan did not have an option in the matter. "You cannot oppose someone who pays you money. The US is paying money to Pakistan. How can we oppose it? It will do whatever it pleases," the governor said.
Magsi said lawlessness was no longer a Balochistan-specific issue, as the whole country was facing a deteriorating law and order situation.
The Balochistan governor said the reforms package offered by the Centre to Balochistan was being regarded as "charity" across the province and was unlikely to address the actual grievances of the people of Balochistan.
He said the situation in the province could only be resolved through the grant of maximum provincial autonomy and the province's control over its own natural resources. "Balochistan has never asked the federal government to provide it with a package. A package is viewed by the people of the province as charity given to them, which is not a solution to their problems. Balochistan's problem is related to provincial autonomy and control over natural resources," the governor said.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[Al Arabiya Latest] A deal to exchange hundreds of Palestinian prisoners for captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit could go ahead within two weeks, an Israeli MP said on Saturday.
In a rare public comment on the negotiations, which both Israel and the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas have kept under tight wraps, MP Daniel Ben Simon said an agreement was imminent.
The deal could go ahead in the next "week or two," he told a cultural event in the southern city of Beersheba.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
#1
They should have made this deal BEFORE the one with Hezb'shaitan. Once you trade so much for dead bodies, the price rises for an actual live prisoner.
#2
i thought the deal had been reached weeks ago. Then they will release the prisoners first and shoot him in the head before turning him over and say he died from lead poisoning doe too the embargo
Posted by: chris ||
12/06/2009 11:42 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I think the Israelis are damn fools to go for this trade UNLESS they innoculate all releasees with either a tracking chip, or AIDS, or both.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
12/06/2009 12:31 Comments ||
Top||
[Iran Press TV Latest] Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri says even if prisoner exchange negotiations are completed, Israel will not end the siege of Gaza.
Zuhri made the remarks on Saturday following Israeli media reports quoting officials close to the negotiations as saying that a prisoner exchange would not mean an end to Israel's three-year blockade of the Gaza Strip, the Maan news agency reported.
Many Gazans had believed that the release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit would bring an end to the blockade.
But Zuhri said that an end to the siege is not one of the conditions for the release of the captured soldier.
However, Israel's plan to continue the siege of Gaza even if its soldier is released is a continuation of the illegitimate regime's assault on the Palestinian people, he added.
"Hamas will not surrender to the continued Israeli siege and will keep on searching for alternative endings to the suffering of the Palestinians," Abu Zuhri asserted.
The Israeli blockade began in 2006 when Hamas won legislative elections, was intensified following the capture of Shalit in June of the same year, and turned into a total siege in 2007 when Hamas forces took control of Gaza.
The Israelis allow only a trickle of assistance into the besieged territory but are roundly condemned by human rights groups for the act of collective punishment, which is a violation of international law.
Jamal al-Khudari, the head of the People's Committee Against the Siege, said the blockade of Gaza should end immediately and not be conditioned on Shalit's release.
Al-Khudari called the siege illegal and insisted that Israel is obligated under international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention to allow the free passage of goods and people through their sovereign borders.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
#1
OK don't surrender, die instead, (Morons, they'd be considerably better off under Jewish Rule)
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
12/06/2009 12:34 Comments ||
Top||
#2
FREEREPUBLIC > ISRAEL NN Artic says that HAMAS has fired ground-launched [modified] ATG missles agz Irseali targets normally used by Mil Helos???
[Iran Press TV Latest] Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit says that Israel must respond to the demands of Hamas if it wants to see its captured soldier released.
"We told the Israelis that if you want your soldier, you must pay the price demanded by the Palestinians," Egypt's official news agency MENA quoted Aboul Gheit as saying on Saturday.
He went on to say that Israel should not "exaggerate its demands."
Hamas is demanding the release of 1,000 Palestinians incarcerated in Israeli prisons in exchange for Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier captured in 2006.
Indirect talks are continuing over a prisoner swap between Hamas and Israel with the mediation of Egypt.
Last month the talks gained some momentum, but Israeli objections to releasing certain prisoners led to an impasse.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
#1
He went on to say that Israel should not "exaggerate its demands."
Exchanging 1000 sociopaths for one soldier is a bargain! Don't screw it up.
#2
Some people say that if you blow the Aswan dam, most of Egypt will wash into the sea. Others say they're wrong. Obviously a question that can only be resolved empirically.
#4
I'm sure those countries would not undertake such a grievous action on another sovereign nation. It would cause ever so much international opprobrium.
If I were Egypt and China I'd worry about Acts of God though. Perhaps effected though stealth angels.
[Ma'an] The prisoners and ex-detainees' association Hussam shed light on the poor living conditions in the Etzion Detention Center, pointing to wide scale neglect of Palestinian detainees, the association reported on Saturday.
According to Hussam, Palestinian detainees lack suitable food, toilet facilities and hot water for bathing. Prisoners held in solitary confinement have been prevented from bathing, resulting in the appearance of sores and skin disease.
Additionally, the association reported cases of medical neglect, as well as verbal and physical abuse.
In letters sent to Hussam, prisoners elaborated on the harsh living conditions endured in the detention facility, including Israeli prison staff preventing the detainees from sleep and using the restroom facilities in addition to persistent complaints of malnutrition and medical neglect.
The prisoners also stressed that the detention center does not provide the prisoners with winter blankets in addition to lacking central heating.
The Etzion Detention Center has come under the scrutiny of many other organizations, who have reported cases of torture and of lacking basic requirements for the detainees during the winter months.
"We want our own Hanoi Hilton! If it was good enough for the Americans, it's good enough for us."
Posted by: Fred ||
12/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Prisoners Association? Do they have dues, cards, handshakes, etc....?
[Al Arabiya Latest] Iranian opposition groups are preparing to hold fresh protests against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday, several websites reported, as the nation marks the annual Students Day.
The elite Revolutionary Guards and other authorities have warned they will crack down on any attempt by regime opponents to hijack the event to mount further demonstrations against Ahmadinejad's hotly disputed June re-election.
Every year on December 7, Tehran campuses mark the 1953 killing by the shah's security forces of three students, just months after a US-backed coup toppled the popular prime minister Mohammad Mossadeq.
Opposition protesters have already taken advantage of a number of regime-sponsored events to organize demonstrations on the streets.
On Nov. 4, when Iran marks the anniversary of the 1979 seizure of the US embassy by radical students, thousands of protesters shouting "death to the dictator" clashed with security forces in central Tehran, who made more than 12D arrests.
On Sept.18, opposition protestors mixed with the massive crowds who marched through Tehran on the annual Quds Day display of solidarity with the Palestinians.
Several opposition websites have carried calls for new demonstrations near the main university campuses on Monday, although the two main opposition leaders -- Ahmadinejad's defeated challengers Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi -- have not joined the calls.
Petitions have been circulating on campuses calling on the two men to take part, student websites reported.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
ION ISRAEL NN > HARVARD SIMULATION: US WILL FAIL TO STOP TO IRAN NUKES, precipitating a serious US-ISRAELI CRISIS in relations. The US will contin to ask Iran to stop dev nukes or not use its nukes. POTUS BAMMER TO GET A COPY OF THE SIMULATION FINDINGS FOR REVIEW.
[Iran Press TV Latest] Iran has condemned a terrorist attack on a mosque near army headquarters in Rawalpindi, Pakistan that left scores of people dead and injured.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast offered condolences to the Pakistani government and nation.
At least 40 people were killed and 83 injured when gunmen detonated bombs and opened fire indiscriminately on worshippers who were attending Friday prayers in Rawalpindi.
A Press TV correspondent said a military parade was underway close to the scene of the deadly attack.
Pro-Taliban militants later claimed responsibility for the terrorist operation.
Mehmanparast also expressed hope that terrorism would be eradicated and security would be established in the region as soon as possible.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Pakistan
#1
Jan 9 or so is ashura, a shite holy day (martyrdom of Husayain) and a target of sunni rage
could be lots more like this
Posted by: lord garth ||
12/06/2009 0:27 Comments ||
Top||
the name of the mosque (askari) implies it is Shiite since askari was a son of one of the major revered shiite imams
Posted by: lord garth ||
12/06/2009 0:41 Comments ||
Top||
#3
VARIOUS NETTERS > opine that the RAWALPINDI ATTACKS are realistically meant to throw/divert the PAK Army from its Waziristan offensive + hopefully put the PAK Army on the strategic defensive.
Iran's Parliament (Majlis) Speaker explains why the UN nuclear watchdog is making a scene over Tehran's nuclear work despite knowing that there is nothing to worry about.
"The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is well aware that the Tehran power plant is simply a research facility with a nominal capacity of 5 megawatts," Ali Larijani told a group of reporters on Friday night.
"It also knows that the research facility is meant to produce radioactive isotopes for medical purposes and does not need a large amount of fuel to stay on-stream," added Larijani, who previously served as Iran's chief nuclear negotiator.
"This begs the question: Why does the IAEA continue to make such a fuss over Iran's enrichment activities despite knowing its peaceful purposes?" the Majlis Speaker asked.
"The answer is quite simple really; all they want and seek to do is to deceive Iran and force it to readily accept whatever offer they put forward."
Larijani added that examples of Western chicanery are not few in the history of Iran's nuclear relations with the West, one of which, was Washington's backtracking on a contract to provide the Tehran reactor with fuel plates.
"Prior to the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the United States was paid a handsome amount to provide fuel plates for the research reactor in Tehran. But not only did it revoke the contract later on, but it has also refused to give us back our money," he said.
"After US broke its promises and showed its ill intentions towards the Islamic Republic, Iran asked the IAEA to introduce countries from which it could buy the 20 percent enriched fuel needed for the reactor," he recounted.
Larijani said that although the agency could have easily introduced tens of countries to Iran, it only introduced two; hence Iranian officials were forced to buy the required material from Argentina as the country was running short on fuel.
"When the countries demanded Iran to swap its LEU with the fuel it needs, we understood that they have every intention of deceiving us," he said.
Larijani said the sheer dishonesty of these countries towards Iran was like a "big kick" to the rules and regulations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which oblige member states to provide fellow associates with the fuel they require.
"What use is there to be a part of the NPT when it cannot even defend the rights of its members? Those who seek peaceful nuclear technology should continue to do so without any attention to the treaty because it does nothing but complicate matters even more," he said.
With regards to the recently-passed IAEA resolution against Iran, Larijani said the Western media has hyped and publicized the importance of the resolution while in fact it is "insignificant and of no consequence."
"We believe the resolution was passed out of spite and in line with the West's longstanding carrot and stick policy," said the influential politician.
"What they demand of Iran has no legal or logical explanation. We have always adhered to international regulations and are still open for further negotiations on fuel supply," he said.
In order to keep the heat on Iran and force the country to accept a Western-backed offer on nuclear fuel supply, world powers drafted a German-sponsored resolution at the UN nuclear watchdog, demanding that Iran stop construction of its Fordo nuclear facility outside Tehran.
Floated by the Obama administration, the aforesaid fuel draft deal requires Iran to send abroad most of its LEU to be further processed and then returned to the country for use in the Tehran research reactor.
Iranian officials rejected the UN proposal, saying there are no guarantees that the country would in fact receive the fuel it requires, but later agreed to consider the offer if the nuclear swap takes place within the country's borders.
In an exclusive interview with Press TV on Friday, Head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization Ali Akbar Salehi said there was "no logic" behind the IAEA resolution as Iran has neither introduced "any nuclear material" nor "any centrifuge equipment" to the Fordo enrichment plant.
"It is only the basic infrastructure that has been constructed there," he said. "The IAEA resolution and prospect of further sanctions will not really disturb us to the extent that they think would make us relent to their wishes." he said.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
ION WAFF > AHMADINEJAD REVEALS: US PLANS TO PREVENT THE RETURN OF THE MAHDI [US desires to control not only to control Iran's + Muslim nations' oil + wealth, but also to preclude the rise of the MAHDI = "ENLIGHTENED ONE" whom is also proper HEIR TO HOUSE OF THE PROPHET MUHAMMED???
and
* WMF > CHINA'S ANTI-NAVAL CRUISE MISSLES HELP RAISE THE MORALE OF IRAN, THREATEN EXTERMINATION OF THE US FIFTH FLEET IN THE PERSIAN GULF.
US mulls early January as the time to push for a new round of sanctions against the Islamic Republic over the country's nuclear dossier, seeking Russia and China's support.
Associated Press quoted unnamed US officials as saying on Friday that the Obama administration is reaching out to its European Allies as well as Russia and China to win support for imposing UN sanctions against Iran.
The US Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, raised the issue with European foreign ministers at high-level meetings in Athens and Brussels this week ahead of a summit of European leaders, the officials added in condition of anonymity.
According to the sources, Clinton discussed imposing more sanctions against Iran with her Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov on the sideline of the NATO meeting in Brussels. The US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, William Burns, is also scheduled to visit China to win the Asian country's backing for the move next week.
The officials mentioned that the sanction package was not yet "coherent," as disagreements still loom in this regard.
Certain names of Iranian companies and organizations were highlighted in earlier drafts, while imposing sanctions on Iranian Oil companies still need more study as major sanctions on the oil sector could affect world markets.
Last Friday, the International Atomic Energy Agency passed a new resolution against Iran over the construction of the Fordo enrichment plant, located outside Tehran.
Iran branded the resolution as a "politically-motivated" move, harming "the constructive atmosphere of cooperation."
Tehran has maintained that it will continue cooperation with the IAEA but has also warned that attempts aimed at denying Iran its nuclear rights could force the country not to venture beyond its legal obligations.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/06/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
Last Friday, the International Atomic Energy Agency passed a new resolution against Iran over the construction of the Fordo enrichment plant, located outside Tehran.
Iran branded the resolution as a "politically-motivated" move, harming "the constructive atmosphere of cooperation."
Draw an imaginary line connecting and extending beyond Warsaw and Kiev, and to the East (with the exception of Finland, Israel, India and several smaller states), there has never been a "constructive atmosphere of cooperation" that has lasted more than a decade or so... This is the nightmare that is Islam on the Asian continent (as well as communism and all the corruption that that breeds). One wonders if we should pull out of our efforts at a "constructive atmosphere of cooperation" within Pakistan and Afghanistan, and just let these nice folks blast it out amongst themselves.
#3
Addendum to #1: Regarding our pals in Russia and China, should NATO pull out of efforts within Pakistan and Afghanistan, Russia would suffer the hardest, with destruction of infrastructure, transportation, etc., while China, a police state with summary executions, would probably be just fine.
THE United States does not know where al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden is and has lacked reliable information on his whereabouts for years, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates told ABC News.
Mr Gates made the revelation in an interview with ABC News' This Week program.
When asked if Pakistan was doing enough to apprehend the United States' most wanted criminal, he answered: "Well, we don't know for a fact where Osama bin Laden is. If we did, we'd go get him."
Asked when was the last time US intelligence had a fix on the master criminal's whereabouts, Mr Gates said: "I think it's been years."
Mr Gates also could not confirm reports about a detainee in Pakistan who claimed he had information on where bin Laden was earlier this year.
#1
It was said all the essential leaders fled before the Pakistani offensive in the tribal areas, going to other countries. Obama dilly-dallied long enough over additional troops in Afghanistan for the Taliban and any AQ to again flee, with the latest Marine offensive not meeting much resistance. I think Bin Laden is a special guest being harbored somewhere--Iran, Yemen, Syria, Venezuela??? Binny may be a Wahhabist and consider the Shia idolators, but he hates the Sunni Saudi Royal family, the descendents of ibn Wahhabi; his hatred of America and the West is worth setting aside his personal beliefs for awhile to use them to further jihad. One son was once under "house arrest" in Iran. He rode horses on a Syrian beach during his summer visits to his mother's clan. One wife was returned to her family in northern Yemen. He knows the desert as well as the mountainous regions yet he's spent some time on the docks and reportedly invested in his own fleet of ships. CIA pays the Taliban and State gives millions to ISI. For all they know, he has crossed over the US border! Should have sent Blackwater (Xe) years ago.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/06/2009 12:12 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Gee, I wonder if Gates and the US is really that naive, or do we have double and triple headfake going on? If we knew where he was, would we want him to know that?
If we didn't know, but wanted him to move, might we say we don't know, expecting him to think this was a signal that we did and were trying to calm his fears, so we could flush him?
If we know, but he's the guest of someone like....oh maybe the Paki ISI, maybe we want them to think we don't know so they remain calm, or perhaps they double think it and think we know and move him, or give a clue to his location...
the mind boggles at the wilderness of mirrors yet again. My father worked as a peer to Angleton and remarked once that he was "complex and odd". One can only imagine the gordian knot he saw daily!
#6
* "ALL WAR IS A COALITION/CONSPIRACY".
* "WAR IS POLITICS/ECONOMICS BY OTHER MEANS".
* To paraphrase FFDR on US Politics, "NOTHING IN WASHINGTON DC IS UN-INTENTIONAL".
We must remember that OSAMA is part of a larger GROUP/MOVEMENT, INSIDE + OUTSIDE OF ISLAM INCLUD RADICAL ISLAMISM e.g. collusory COMMIES-MAOISTS [MSM-Net News], dedicated to destroying the USA and imposing GLOBAL JIHAD-SHARIA "BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY".
As said times before, even iff the US did succeed in capturing or killing OBL, theres AYMAN ZAWAAHIRI, MULLAH OMAR, NOTORIOUS UNDEAD ZOMBIE "I died in Iraq ergo I founded the UIGHUR Islamist Movement in China years later" ABU MUSAB ZHARQHAWI, + OTHER BURQUA BOYZ.
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.
President Obama, seated at the head of a conference table strewn with papers in the White House Situation Room, stared at charts showing various options for sending additional U.S. troops into Afghanistan. 
"What was interesting was the metamorphosis," said national security adviser James L. Jones, the only senior official who agreed to discuss the deliberations on the record. "I dare say that none of us ended up where we started." But among a wide range of opinions as the process began, Vice President Biden was known to oppose a major troop buildup, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was publicly leery, and some of Obama's civilian advisers were privately opposed. When the president polled them on his final decision two days before it was announced, all endorsed it. 
