AL-JAZEERA television announced today that it would launch an English-language satellite channel in late 2005 to rival established 24-hour international news stations. "Our target now is to launch al-Jazeera International by November 2005," said managing director Nigel Parsons of the service that, like its Arabic-language service, would be based in the Qatari capital, Doha. "The HQ will be in Doha, the Asian bureau in Kuala Lumpur, the European bureau in London and the American bureau in Washington," he said. Initial staff would number "around 300", he said, and would be recruited for their professional experience and mastery of English, with no consideration for ethnicity or nationality. Mr Parsons refused to comment on the budget, which he said had not yet been drawn up, but said the channel would be totally independent of al-Jazeera's Arabic service.
Launched in 1996, the satellite channel quickly achieved global notoriety for exclusive coverage during much of the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 and for broadcasting alleged tapes made by the al-Qaeda terror network. As well as al-Jazeera International, the group has drawn up plans for a sports channel in 2005, as well as launching a documentary and children's channel.
Posted by: God Save The World ||
11/24/2004 5:08:49 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Gulf Arab states angered by Bahrain's decision to sign up to a free-trade pact with the United States say it should back away from the deal and honour a regional agreement, a Gulf official said yesterday. Washington and Bahrain signed a deal in September abolishing external tariffs, giving it trade advantages over fellow Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states which had signed a customs union fixing tariffs at 5 per cent. Foreign and finance ministers of the six-nation AGCC will discuss the deal, which is yet to come into force, at a meeting early next month after finance ministers failed to resolve the issue in Jeddah in October. "The Bahrain-US agreement is in clear violation of the AGCC economic agreement, whether in doing away with the AGCC customs union common tariff or in granting the US more favourable treatment than it grants AGCC member states," said the official involved in the talks, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity.
"Why would they deal directly with the world's superpower when they could deal with pissants like ... um, ... oh never mind."
The official said all member states — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain — were also committed to collective rather than bilateral negotiations with trade partners. A 2001 Gulf Arab regional agreement prohibits members from "granting preferential treatment exceeding that granted to member states" or from concluding any deal which violates any part of the agreement. "Everyone, including Bahrain, agrees that this is what is required from the treaty, but political opportunity pressures (on Bahrain) proved to be too inviting strong," the official said.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/24/2004 12:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
More, please. Bilateral deals needed with Iraq, Australia, maybe Indonesia. Also throw the Euros off stride by proposing a NAFTA-EU Free Trade Area.
#3
Maybe the Gulf Cooperation Council is misnamed. Should be the Gulf Intimidation Council. I think that side deals like the free trade with the US gets another Gulf country off of the Good Old Boys network and into a truly global economy.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/24/2004 11:27 Comments ||
Top||
Has-been, second-rate Celebrity anti-war campaigners who belong on the other side will join MPs in Westminster to call for Prime Minister Tony Blair's impeachment. Some 23 MPs have signed a Commons motion calling for the Prime Minister to be thrown out of office for "gross misconduct". Author Iain Banks, playwright Harold Pinter and musician Brian Eno are due to join them for a photocall in Parliament.
Ahah! The Brit equivalents to Barbra Streisand. That'll work well. Can we loan them Michael Moore? How about Whoopi Goldberg?
It is the first attempt in 198 years to impeach a British Prime Minister. The addled group says Blair misled Parliament and the country over the case for war, destroying "the fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy".
That was the vote that got a majority in the Parliament, right?
It is demanding a select committee of MPs be set up to examine the PM's conduct in relation to the war and decide whether there are grounds to impeach him on charges of gross misconduct.
I thought this was settled, why do they need a committee?
Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price, who started the campaign, also wants a Commons debate on the Prime Minister's conduct. "We must make a stand or watch the democracy we have fought so often for against foreign enemies be subverted from within," he said.
But enough about George Galloway!
"The rules of constitutional conduct have been brushed aside. The Cabinet table has been replaced with the sofa, Cabinet minutes with email and the facts replaced with belief. People say politicians do nothing and are all alike. Today we make a stand for parliamentary democracy. We ask our colleagues and the people to help us restore the accountability of the Government to Parliament."
They could start by tossing these guys.
Posted by: God Save The World ||
11/24/2004 12:28:49 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Jihadee celebs are like hemorrhoids. The affect the same bodily area and flare up every once in a while. I recommend Tony rub Celeb-B-Gone on his bee-hind every so often.
Posted by: Capt America ||
11/24/2004 2:00 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I'm not sure it's such a bad thing. This bunch of loonies haven't a hope of succeeding; all they're likely to do is get Blair's actions officially vindicated.
#3
Dunno, Bulldawg, I just am of the opinion that the fcuking celerbrites should MTOB and keep their silly utterances, outshining each other, to their parties.
There were times when actors were considered real lowlifes, not too many a century ago. Seems that kept them in check and they were doing just their job, acting. I miss those times.
#4
Iain Banks and Brian Eno although geniuses in their respective spheres are also both acid casualties par excellence - bring 'em on - let's hear em burble.. bwahahaha!
Posted by: Howard UK ||
11/24/2004 4:09 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The word that comes to mind when I think of Iain Banks is - mediocre.
#6
Hardly celebs as such . And I agree with BD , these monkeys , and thats all they are , will be more likely to do Blair a favour . They are just after some much needed publicity , seeing as their books , plays , and music have been faltering since their *cough* bestsellers et al grabbed the headlines years ago .
Brian who ?
#7
Damn - I really like Iain M. Banks (SciFi books). Harold Pinters days have been and gone and as for Plaid Cymru (Welsh Nationalists) involvement! - well, it's a laugh a minute.
And really, what is it about celebrities that make them think people will listen to them on issues that are totally divorced from the reason for their celebrity? (wow, that was convoluted).
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
11/24/2004 8:45 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Forgot to add , they are the darlings of al guardian . Says it all really .
Useful idiots is popularly credited to Lenin, but I could not find a definitive atribution.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/24/2004 10:55 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Can we trade their "Useful Idiots" for ours? They'd still be "idiots" and just as useLESS, but we'd at least get to hear stupidity in a different accent!
I freely admit that this would be a bad idea of Anglo-American relations. Since after 20 minutes of Streisand's nasal twang the Brits would probably declare war on us.
#14
This crowd is a slow learner, that's for sure. John Howard won in Australia with an increase in his majority. Dubya won in the States with an increase in his majority. Maybe they should try a new tactic, or even have a new idea for once.
Completely useless political party. If anyone wants see how bad a political party can get PC wise you need only look at what they are involved in and pushing on others. Left wing bigots with a Welsh face.
#17
Useless arrogant idiots is a good descriptive phrase for the so-called celebs. These celebs (ours and theirs) are a part of the self-annointed crowd who have mistaken the rest of us for someone who really gives a damn about what they have to say. This bunch is still trying to figure out why the Dems lost the election.
#18
Fifteen was chosen because he was dumb,
Seven because he was blind:
I got the job because I was so mean,
While somehow appearing so kind.
Drifting about through the cauliflower trees
With a cauliflower ear for the birds,
The squadron assembled what senses they had
And this is the sound that they heard....
(please mentally insert bong noise)
- Brian Eno, Back In Judy's Jungle (from Taking Tiger Mountain by Strategy)
#19
Double damn. Banks, writing SF as "Iain M." has one of the more interesting universes going. "The Player of Games" and "Consider Phlebas", for example, or the latest - "Excession".
His other stuff (notably "The Bridge") was, well, mediocre...
#20
Bulldog, Howard, and other respected cousins:
Don't worry there is a cure for Celeburtus-Herroidious! Usually it disappears after the people have an election and firmly reject them. Unforutantely, it will flare up about a year from the next election cycle. While irritating, it will not affect your health over the long term. After the election you will see a flare up of: Politicus-Blamus. Usualy this only affects the LLL but it can be tranfered to selected conservative entities (with little affect).
#2
Sher Khan, a spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain... recognized it is as a âtwo-way processâ and that British Muslims âhave got to build bridges and be proactive in terms of integrating with the rest of society.â
Bingo - and that means NOT chanting the Koran on the tube on a Friday morning at 8.00 a.m. A fair proportion of the Muslim community have no intention whatsoever of joining a multicultural society due to their inherent prejudice and racism. Inbred fascists.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
11/24/2004 5:53 Comments ||
Top||
#3
agreed Howard. At least Sher Khan gets the picture , albeit 10 years too late *shrug*
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has revealed crime and terrorism will be at the heart of his Government's program in the lead-up to the next general election. The Blair Government's plans to combat terrorism, drugs and anti-social behaviour have drawn accusations from opposition parties of scaremongering. However, Home Office Minister David Blunkett says the legislative proposals are aimed at making people feel more secure. Among the Government's priorities for the next parliamentary session are the introduction of national identity cards and the establishment of an FBI-style crime-fighting agency. The Government says it will also continue to address the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
How 'bout allowing your citizens to arm themselves with something more substantial than a rolled-up copy of the Grauniad, Tony?
A general election, tipped for next May, could prevent many of the bills from becoming law.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/24/2004 10:54:19 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
An Iranian envoy on Wednesday said he had received Chinese support in Tehran's diplomatic campaign to block Washington from having the dispute over Iran's nuclear program referred to the U.N. Security Council. Seyed Hossein Mussavian, Iran's envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, visited Beijing on the eve of an IAEA board meeting that is to review an investigation of suspect Iranian activities. The United States contends that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons — an accusation that Tehran denies. Nope,not us.
According to Mussavian, Chinese Foreign Ministry officials told him that Beijing wants to see Iran's nuclear program handled by the Vienna-based IAEA. ugh..El Baradei, couldn't find his ass with two hands.
They are against referral of the Iranian issue to the Security Council," he told reporters. Iran could face sanctions if the investigation is turned over to the council. Kofi must be salivating at the thought of the sacks of cash that would be ripe for the picking if that ever happens.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the meetings with Mussavian. Are the Iranians lying maybe?
But Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing has said previously that Security Council involvement could hinder efforts to resolve the dispute. China is an IAEA member and holds one of five permanent Security Council seats, with power to veto U.N. actions, making it a potential key ally in any decisions about the Iranian nuclear dispute. Iran announced Monday that it had met a demand by the IAEA to freeze its uranium enrichment program. The step fell short of meeting U.S. and European demands to scrap the program permanently, but appeared likely to rob the United States of a possible reason to argue that Iran should be referred to the U.N. Security Council. The time for arguing is over, especially in front of that useless debating society. Time to lay the law down.
Mussavian said the freeze is temporary and meant as a "confidence-building measure." He said Iran was prepared for "full cooperation" with inspections under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty but insisted on being allowed to carry on peaceful nuclear research. Why?, Iran is floating on a sea of oil.
Mussavian denied U.S. accusations that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell repeated that claim on Tuesday, pointing to Tehran's development of long-range missiles that he said would be of little use without atomic warheads. "Everyone knows that not only does Iran not possess any nuclear bombs yet , Iranian activities have never had diversion" of nuclear material for weapons, Mussavian said. The Iranian envoy also criticized the United States for targeting Iran's nuclear program while not challenging Israel, which some experts say could have several hundred nuclear warheads. Well then I guess he's stupid if he can't figure that one out.
"They are supporting the mass-destruction weapons of Israel, and they have no criticism of Israelis, (who) possess hundreds of nuclear weapons and they ... have no cooperation with IAEA," he said. blah, blah, blah the Israelis have never stated they wanted to wipe you off the map either.
Posted by: JerseyMike ||
11/24/2004 7:30:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
China will veto any UNSC resolution so the UN thing is dead in the water except the talktalktalk. China gets much of its oil from Iran and is getting a strong position in Iranian oil infrastructure. A few nukes going against Israel, the EU or the US is no skin off the Chicom's fore. Really.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/24/2004 11:35 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Well, that settles things doesn't it. If the big red machine doesn't want the UNSC to be involved, os be it. Pay no attention to the big commerical and oil deals China has established with Iran. Surely, those interests had no bearing, right?
Posted by: Capt America ||
11/24/2004 11:47 Comments ||
Top||
#3
China Doesnât Want U.N. in Nuke Dispute...
Yeah, the incompetent and corrupt El-Baradei might accidently blow himself up, take thousands with him, and make large stretches of land uninhabitable for 50,000 years.
#4
Remember that China is also one of the major proliferators of nuclear weapons and weapons technology. While Pakistan and Khan have had direct connections to Iran's nuclear weapons program and have recently made it back into the news cycle China is probably Iran's main supplier of nuclear technology (http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/iran.htm). China is also probably the worst proliferators and was behind much of Pakistan nuclear program as well as much of the ballistic missile technology that is being used by Pakistan, North Korea, as well as Iran. While the Khan network has been a massive mess and problem looking carefully at his network you can see that not only was Pakistan directly involved in that network so was Chine. Some have even stated that China would like a nuclear enabled Iran with strong ties to China which would further isolate India and make China the clear regional power.
Prime Minister John Howard has suggested Indonesia and Australia are entering a new era of cooperation and friendship, after his first official meeting with new Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. The leaders met on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in the Chilean capital Santiago. Mr Howard says both countries have expressed a genuine desire to improve the relationship.
He says he and Dr Yudhoyono discussed a range of issues, including economic cooperation, counter-terrorism and the educational links between the two countries. Mr Howard has also invited the Indonesian leader to visit Australia. "There is a determined view from both of us that relations between the two countries will be strengthened," he said. "He is very anxious to reinvigorate the ministerial forum, as I am. I've renewed my invitation to him to visit Australia." Mr Howard says that the two did not discuss a possible security treaty. Mr Howard has also met with the leaders of Singapore, New Zealand and Chile.
Meanwhile, Chilean anti-riot police have fired water and tear gas at bands of masked protesters in a massive rally against the APEC summit. Tens of thousands of activists had marched peacefully in the police-authorised demonstration through Santiago. But as the procession culminated with a concert in a central park, small knots of masked protesters destroyed telephone cabins, smashed lamps and lobbed stones at police and through the windows of a closed McDonald's restaurant. In other developments: Prime Minister John Howard has welcomed a move to set up a study to look at a free trade agreement involving all Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
Posted by: God Save The World ||
11/24/2004 12:35:52 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
He starts with a quotation from Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, emphasising the need for the republican democratic model to have the support of religion: "Despotism can live without faith, but freedom cannot." For Sarkozy, "religious freedom is the freedom to hope". Spirituality is called upon to rescue the values of the Republic. Values are threatened by the failure of the institutions of the state to instil them. This failure is epitomised by France's inability to integrate 5m Muslims. This leads to a sense of exclusion and humiliation, and in turn provokes intolerance, if not violence. The old tools of successful integration - the conscript army, the school system and the churches - are no longer able to fulfil that role. The army is professional, teachers are demoralised and congregations are dwindling.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: anon ||
11/24/2004 8:44:02 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
Let the state help them build decent places of prayer and pay for the training of religious teachers who speak French and would become spokesmen for a tolerant and open Islam
Right problem, wrong solution. This is essentially a corporatist approach of the sort applied by Mussolini and Hitler: the state divides society into different blocs or groups and then co-opts each one by infiltrating their leadership and setting limits on appropriate activity.
The Euros simply cannot get it through their heads that the key to solving this problem is economic liberalization. Give real opportunities to people who want to launch small businesses, small banks, create real economic engines of prosperity. Encourage entrepreneurial strivers. Deport resenters. And respect religious minoritiesenough to get the f*** out of their internal religious affairs.
France is the closest to a corporatist-fascist state in Western Europe. It's not going to change anytime soon, because all of their leaders --both in politics and business-- are the product of their National State Schools, where they learn to value and protect that system.
The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration. The re-election of President Bush is prompting the exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, pray and agree with Bill O'Reilly. Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal-rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at night. ''I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn,'' said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota. The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. ''He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn't have any, he left. Didn't even get a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?''
In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. So he tried installing speakers that blare Rush Limbaugh across the fields. ''Not real effective,'' he said. ''The liberals still got through, and Rush annoyed the cows so much they wouldn't give milk.''
Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive them across the border and leave them to fend for themselves. ''A lot of these people are not prepared for rugged conditions,'' an Ontario border patrolman said. ''I found one carload without a drop of drinking water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley cabernet, though.''
Continued on Page 49
Ah, the pinnacle of Canadian diplomacy.
Canada named a new ambassador to Iran on Tuesday, hoping he'll be able to find some answers in the killing of photojournalist Zahra Kazemi....Four months ago, the government withdrew Philip MacKinnon as the country's top diplomat in Tehran to protest against the Iranian government's handling of the inquiry into Kazemi's death.
Posted by: Rafael ||
11/24/2004 2:01:34 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
wow did canada deliver the ultimate bitch slap..
Posted by: Dan ||
11/24/2004 16:48 Comments ||
Top||
#2
wow did canada deliver the ultimate bitch slap..
Posted by: Dan ||
11/24/2004 16:49 Comments ||
Top||
The French aspect of the Canadian personality kicks in as the reasonable Canadians are all in the political opposition....
Canada to Iran: Please pretty please don't piss off the cowboy Bush any further.... You know how he is, and Rumsfeld too! Colin Powell is going away, and at least he was a nice fellow. Now Condoleeza Rice is in their State Department. She's as nasty as the Bush and Rumsfeld... We don't want to be downwind of any act you might be contemplating. Please pretty please....
Two weeks ago, the National Post and I were served with a notice of libel by the Canadian branch of the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR. The Post and I are not alone. Over the past year, CAIR's Canadian and U.S. branches have served similar libel notices on half a dozen other individuals and organizations in the United States and Canada. Each case has its own particular facts, yet they are linked by a common theme: That we defendants have accused CAIR (in the words of the notice served on me) of being "an unscrupulous, Islamist, extremist sympathetic group in Canada supporting terrorism."
Lawyers for individuals and newspapers served with libel notices will normally urge their clients to avoid any comment on the matter--to avoid even any acknowledgement that they have been served. This is usually good advice. A notice of libel is not a lawsuit, but a warning of a lawsuit to come. If the potential defendant keeps quiet, the potential plaintiff will often drop the suit altogether. But wise legal advice often comes at a cost, a cost in public information. So I was heartened that the National Post's lawyers have encouraged the paper and me to continue with this important story.
CAIR is understandably protective of its reputation. Until recently, it has had considerable success winning acceptance in the United States and Canada as something close to an official spokesman for local Muslim communities. CAIR has been influential in advocating for a sharia court to arbitrate divorces and other family-law matters in the province of Ontario. CAIR's strong criticisms of Canada's anti-terror legislation have won respectful hearing in Ottawa. Any reporting or commentary that cast doubt on CAIR's carefully cultivated image would deeply threaten the group's mission.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper ||
11/24/2004 3:10:05 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
With all due respect to David Frum, he will have to directly address the question of whether CAIR as an organization, as a body, is "an unscrupulous, Islamist, extremist sympathetic group in Canada supporting terrorism." Here he's just cherry-picking bad acts of various individuals who are only associated, albeit prominently, with CAIR.
It would have been helpful if Frum would have specified what statements of his were cited in CAIR's lawsuit. If, for example, he wrote something like "CAIR supports terrorism", then much of what he writes here well might be excluded by a judge as irrelevant.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/24/2004 9:13 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Mike, Smart people save their legal arguments for the court room and make their political arguments in the paper. People without an argument try to change the subject.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/24/2004 9:21 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It would have been helpful if Frum would have specified what statements of his were cited in CAIR's lawsuit.
There is no lawsuit. Did you bother reading what Frum wrote?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/24/2004 9:28 Comments ||
Top||
#4
There is no lawsuit. Did you bother reading what Frum wrote?
Yes, I read it. There is a lawsuit.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/24/2004 9:49 Comments ||
Top||
#5
If there's a lawsuit, it is not indicated in the article; to the contrary:
Lawyers for individuals and newspapers served with libel notices will normally urge their clients to avoid any comment on the matter--to avoid even any acknowledgement that they have been served. This is usually good advice. A notice of libel is not a lawsuit, but a warning of a lawsuit to come.
Provide links!
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/24/2004 9:55 Comments ||
Top||
#6
D'oh! MS - Esquire fails another test
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/24/2004 10:08 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I know that theer is no such thing as guilt by association, as a Catholic I would not want to be associated with the molesters posing as clergy. However, I am reluctant to give any Islamic organization a pass after 9/11. They were too slow to denounce the hijackers and too quick to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon. If they wanted to help out this (an other western countries) they would be on Al Jiz telling the truth. but they won't beause it doesn't fit into their islamic agenda.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan will open a seminar on "Islamophobia" at UN headquarters on December 7. The seminar entitled 'Confronting Islamophobia: education for tolerance and understanding' will be the second in a series entitled 'Unlearning Intolerance,' organised by the United Nations Department of Public Information (DPI). According to an announcement, the series aims to examine different manifestations of intolerance and explores ways to promote respect and understanding among peoples and to discuss how intolerance, wherever it exists and for whatever reason, can be "unlearned" through education, inclusion and example.
Prof Seyyed Hossein Nasr of George Washington University will deliver the keynote address, followed by panel discussions on Islamophobia today, the role of education in fostering tolerance and understanding and ideas for confronting Islamophobia more effectively. Panelists will include writers, scholars, theologians and experts on Islamophobia and other issues relating to tolerance and education. This discussion session will be chaired by Shashi Tharoor, Under Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information. The first seminar in the series was held in June this year and dealt with ways of confronting anti-Semitism. Via Lucianne.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/24/2004 19:53 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Hmmmmm I recall Kofi has higher priority (IMHO) items on his agenda? Hello Mike S?
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/24/2004 20:06 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Frank, I don't know exactly what you are implying about Dear Secretary General, but it isn't true. And, yes, he did get the title from Kimmie. If you persist in these attacks on Kofi, you'll be challenged to show your links! Clean up your act!
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/24/2004 20:10 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Is Dhimmitude item #1, Mikey? You seem to have the inside scoops on agenda, info, protocols, help me out here? Mrs. D is challenging my Islamo/UNphobia
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/24/2004 20:22 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Geez, how about just directly giving me the money being spent on this? The outcome wouldn't be any different.
#6
Geeez, I leave for two days and come back to find you begging, Frank G. Won't Mikey come out to play?
Posted by: Tom ||
11/24/2004 20:24 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Mikey's got a lot of splainin to do. He left a lot of questions unanswered this morning and Enquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/24/2004 20:28 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Since the UN has money galore to host these brunches, er conferences, and since it starts on December 7, why don't we have a conference on Days of Infamy, too? We can tie it in with the Islamophobia, September 11, the whole works! Cause it all ties in together.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/24/2004 20:30 Comments ||
Top||
#9
LOL Tom - Mikey's had his ass handed to him last coupla days - news has been bad and so have I
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/24/2004 20:44 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Let me guess: this circle-jerk will NOT involve teaching Muslims why they should be more tolerant of us kuffrs, only the reverse. Right?
I thought so...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
11/24/2004 21:01 Comments ||
Top||
#11
that's very racist of you, pointing that out, Dave
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/24/2004 21:10 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I've had it up to here with Kofi's Klowns. I'll start believing we're serious about demanding reform at the U.N. when I see the column of tanks rumbling down 1st Avenue toward U.N. Plaza. And I'll know we're REALLY serious when they open fire.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
11/24/2004 21:18 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Dave D. Right. The UN has outlived its usefulness and needs to be replaced Kofi is only the most prominent thief and (by negligence) killer. I dont think 'reform' is possible anymore.
Tear down the building, salt the earth it sat on. And then turn it into a sewage treatment plant.
US General James Jones, NATO's supreme allied commander, said today the refusal of nearly a dozen military allies to participate in the trans-Atlantic alliance's training mission in Iraq was "disturbing". It is important to recognise that once the alliance gets involved in an operation, it is important that all allies support the operation," General Jones said during a luncheon in Washington. "With ... nine or 10 or 11 countries in the alliance who will not send forces into Iraq to participate in the mission, the burden falls then on the remaining 15 or 16 nations or 14 nations to shoulder that burden," he said. "This is disturbing," the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's top military officer said. "I hope it is a one-time event, because it really will be a limiting factor in the long term in terms of generating forces and successive rotations."
Why, we'd be forced to conclude that we can't trust some of our allies.
Last week in Brussels NATO ambassadors adopted an "operation plan" for an Iraq mission foreseeing the dispatch of 200 to 300 military instructors to the embattled country under heavy guard to train about 1000 Iraqi officers a year. For some NATO allies to vote for a mission but then refuse to participate in it "makes it difficult for the operational commanders to be successful", General Jones said. At a news conference, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld described the situation as a "problem". "It's kind of like if you've got a basketball team and you have five people train together, week after week after week, it comes to be game time, and two of them stick up their hands and say, 'Gee, I don't think I'm going to play this week'," Mr Rumsfeld said. "It would be better if they were on the bench and somebody else had been training for the last period of weeks," he said. Senior US officials said on Saturday Washington was growing increasingly frustrated with the refusal of five NATO members, particularly Germany, to allow their military officers assigned to alliance bases to be deployed in Iraq. Germany, along with fellow anti-war NATO members Belgium, France, Luxembourg and Spain, went along with the decision to set up the Baghdad training mission but have refused to permit their officers stationed at NATO's two operations bases to participate, the officials said.
Is there a reason why we still have NATO?
Posted by: God Save The World ||
11/24/2004 12:22:33 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Since the Germany defense ministry first allowed homosexual soldiers to conduct sleep overs together in their barracks, they have been far too preoccupied.
Posted by: Capt America ||
11/24/2004 1:52 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourge, Spain, there ya go, don't some of them owe us a ton of debt!
#4
Just kick out any country that refuses to abide by the commitments of the Organization. Pretty simple. I believe Mr Trump has popularized the words to be used, e.g. "France, you are disloyal. France, you're fired. Now get out of here."
EFL - redefines chutzpah, no? HT to Captain Ed Iraq has protested a U.N. decision to use $30 million in revenue from the U.N. oil-for-food program for Iraq to help pay for the investigation of alleged corruption in the humanitarian effort. Mike S - please provide....awwww just forget it - it's beyond description
In a letter obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, Iraq's U.N. Ambassador Samir Sumaidiaie argued that Security Council resolutions don't support the use of oil-for-food money "for an investigation into the internal practices of the United Nations in carrying out its duties." "My government believes that the use of such funds has no legal basis," he said in a letter dated Nov. 19 to U.S. Ambassador John Danforth, the current Security Council president. Last month, Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the council that money for the probe headed by former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker would come from an account earmarked to pay U.N. administrative and operational costs for the embattled humanitarian program. Volcker said in August he doesn't know how long the investigation would take, but estimated it would cost at least $30 million in the next year.
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/24/2004 9:57:04 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
*------------------------------*
Bank of Iraq
Pay to the order of:
.....Secretary-General Kofi Annan
The amount of:
.....30 million f*ck yous
*------------------------------*
#7
It seems to me that this funding source for the investigation is entirely appropriate. The problem was created by Iraq, so it should be paid for by Iraq. I think most people would agree about that.
As for the $30 millions, that's what an investigation like this will cost. Compare it to the costs of our various independent-prosecutor investigations here in the USA.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/24/2004 8:47 Comments ||
Top||
#8
You people who are criticizing: how do you think the investigation should be funded?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/24/2004 8:48 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Well, we could start with the Annan family's swiss bank accounts, for starters. Then there's the lewt that the arafish collected. And don't ferget Chiraq's cut of the take. The list of possible sources of money is long and distinguished.
Posted by: N guard ||
11/24/2004 9:12 Comments ||
Top||
#11
The problem was created by Iraq, so it should be paid for by Iraq. I think most people would agree about that.
A lot of times you make arguments that I disagree with. In this case you are making an argument that has tenuous contact with reality.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/24/2004 9:15 Comments ||
Top||
#12
UN investigations shouldnt even be allowed yet alone funded . All that happens is the money gets fizzled away by the different departments within the UN , a little nepotism here , a little backsheesh there , and hey presto 30million squandered by a bunch of inept , hypocritical , spineless , lying weasels .
Either you must work for the UN , or have no comprehension of how the differnt bodies within the UN work .
#14
The problem was created by Iraq, so it should be paid for by Iraq. I think most people would agree about that.
You're a disgusting piece of work, Mike.
I know this is a tough one, but try to keep up:
Saddam is not Iraq.
The UN is not Iraq.
The problem -- the bribery, the diversion of funds -- was created by Saddam, aided and abetted by the UN. Particularly by Kofi "We Can Do Business With Saddam" Annan.
The Iraqi people -- the ones who were NOT getting the medical supplies the money was supposed to buy -- should not have to pay for the corruption Saddam and Annan created.
The UN has an administrative budget, right? Take the money from there. If they have to let go a bunch of staffers, all the better.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/24/2004 9:43 Comments ||
Top||
#15
How about the guilty pay?
Mainly that's the former government of Iraq.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/24/2004 9:44 Comments ||
Top||
#16
All that happens is the money gets fizzled away by the different departments within the UN , a little nepotism here
Ha! Mac! You are a man of little optimism. It's all about lunch. Let leave early and enjoy our regular table.
#20
MS,you like possing hypothetical questions.You ask me and I answered,but you have not reciprocated when a ask you the same question.Will you answer today?If you were Secretary General of the UN,what would you do to stop terrorisam/genocide?
#22
I don't know about Mike, but if I was SG I would change the working hours to include a longer Siesta, then I'd think about forming up a Blue Ribbon Panel. I'd legalize Brunch.
#23
Do you think Iraq should have to pay compensation to Kuwait for the destruction it caused when it invaded that country?
And that has what to do with the UN's corruption?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/24/2004 9:52 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Mike - you are truly a Kofi -loving POS when you can't see the problerm here. Beyond help or argument. I just loved posting it to see you take the bait like a frigging carp!
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/24/2004 9:55 Comments ||
Top||
#25
This should come out of the UN general fund.
No excuse for it not to. This just shows how rotten the current UN leadership is.
#28
"You people who are criticizing: how do you think the investigation should be funded?"
There doesn't need to be funding, we already know Kofi & his boy are up to their ears in it. I say make an example out of them, have them do the rope dance right next to Saddam.
#29
I think Mike is saying: "If the UN doesn't control Volker's investigation by holding the purse strings tightly, he might actually make headway in finding things out, and NOBODY at Turtle Bay wants that to happen", right Sylwester?
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/24/2004 10:24 Comments ||
Top||
#30
On my way out the door,will return at about noon.I look forward to reading Mike's definative,detailed answer to my simple question.That is if he has the cajones,since he keeps ignoring me I may have to presume not.
#31
Mikey S is a typical dodge and run liberal - he refuses to flatly answer a question, poses hypotheticals with false pretenses, and replies with more questions.
All of which are designed to let him run away from having to actually back up anythign he says, use any sort of reason, and actually take a position, and to avoid him admitting he is wrong.
Is somewhat of a mental illness that Liberals like Mikey have. Avoidance behavior, and self-delusional edifices they construct and then contort themselves to avoid destroying.
I'm beginning to think Liberalism may be related to psychosis.
#33
I think we should pay the bill for this investigation - if it comes up with sufficient evidence for the indictments of all the guilty parties involved.
#34
I'm beginning to think Liberalism may be related to psychosis.
Modern psychaitry won't recognize it, but spoken as a man of experience, Marxism/Liberalism is definately a mental disease, a disease of the ego if you will, debilitating, hostile and ultimately self-destructive. Witness this new fad, PEST. A definitive pointer to mental disability.
#36
Because him who pays the piper calls the tunes. Let's just leave the whole thing to Coleman and Spitzer. Banking laws were broken, that's where the records are that won't be destroyed. Go get 'em.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/24/2004 13:16 Comments ||
Top||
#38
Spitzer, indeed. Any Dem with any political sense would want to be way out front in investigating OFF. Spitzer's a comer. Let's hope he knocks Hillary off her perch when she's up for reelection.
#39
Actually, it should come out of the UN's budget (Sec. Gen.'s "tap" prior to making allocations to lower levels) since it couldn't have happened without the UN's corruption. Or else, how about charging those countries whose twits took bribes from Sammy? France, Germany and Russia should pay a large portion.
#40
Just-curious-other than in terms of manpower and debt reductions promises, what have the financial contributions of the coalition partners been in the war to remove Saddam?
I understand your argument, Mrs D, but doing so reinforces the rest of the world's notion that anytime there is a problem, the US will pay for it, no problem. There is no bottom to our wallet.
#41
What's the point of an investigation anyway? Saddam is in jail, charged with much more serious crimes than this one, and Kofi is on his way out, right? Does anyone seriously believe that any punishment will be meted out to anyone at the conclusion of the investigation? Saddam is gone. The point is moot. Just save the 30 million for the next UN scandal.
#42
The point of the investigation is to get to the truth and throw some bankers in jail. Besides, it's better theater than Brian Peterson.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/24/2004 13:53 Comments ||
Top||
#43
Helluva deal for the UN. Investigating their own scam with 30 mil of somebody else's money in another scam which they can run for years for kickbacks, limo's, hookers, five star hotels, five star restaurants, etc. only to come to the conclusion that they've done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG.
They can then turn around, scam more money to investigate the corruption in the Great Investigation of the Corruption in the Oil for Food Program of 2004-05 and run that one for years. You gotta think crooked. Big time, UN crooked.
#45
The investigation is worthwhile if it shows that certain parties opposed the Iraq war for fear of the payoffs becoming known and their asses thrown in jail.
#46
Liberalism and psychosis: I don't think liberals are psychotic, but the PEST thing is clearly a case of some people living in a world of abstraction, of mistaking their own ideas for reality. A person who wakes up on the day after the election, and nothing in their personal life has objectively changed, yet suddenly experiences depression, is living in a thought-created world.
#50
Mikey S is a typical dodge and run liberal - he refuses to flatly answer a question, poses hypotheticals with false pretenses, and replies with more questions.
All of which are designed to let him run away from having to actually back up anythign he says, use any sort of reason, and actually take a position, and to avoid him admitting he is wrong.
Is somewhat of a mental illness that Liberals like Mikey have. Avoidance behavior, and self-delusional edifices they construct and then contort themselves to avoid destroying.
I'm beginning to think Liberalism may be related to psychosis.
#51
Mikey S is a typical dodge and run liberal - he refuses to flatly answer a question, poses hypotheticals with false pretenses, and replies with more questions.
All of which are designed to let him run away from having to actually back up anythign he says, use any sort of reason, and actually take a position, and to avoid him admitting he is wrong.
Is somewhat of a mental illness that Liberals like Mikey have. Avoidance behavior, and self-delusional edifices they construct and then contort themselves to avoid destroying.
I'm beginning to think Liberalism may be related to psychosis.
A rightwing group has launched a nationwide campaign on Monday, November 22, to kick the United Nations out of the United States, accusing its Secretary General Kofi Annan of failing to support Washington in its "global war on terror" by opposing the Iraq war. The California-based Move America Forward group called in a 60-minute commercial for expelling the UN staff and shunting down the New York headquarters, accusing it of impeding "freedom" for the Iraqi people, Agence France Presse (AFP) reported Monday, November 22. "The UN has become an apologist and defender of terrorist organizations and their agents," said the TV commercial.
Well, that part's certainly accurate...
The anti-UN campaign comes amid US anger over the role of the world body over the Iraqi war. Eighteen months after Iraq had been invaded and occupied, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan had called the US-led onslaught "illegal" and contravened the UN charter. Former Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said the Iraq invasion was illegal as the United States and Britain "hyped" intelligence to attack the oil-rich country. The ad further urged the Americans to sign up a petition calling for booting off the world body out of the American soil.
"Pack your shit and get out!"
It also calls for a review of the American financial contributions to the world body, under claims the US aid were sent by UN to "terrorists in Iraq and the Palestinian territories".
Ummm... Yeah. That part's pretty well documented, too...
"It's time we sent a message to the UN: We are not going to tolerate your conduct anymore. We tell other countries not to harbor organizations that support terrorists, why then do we harbor the UN here in America?" The Move America Forward describes itself as a "non-partisan, not-for-profit organization committed to supporting to supporting America's efforts to defeat terrorism and supporting the brave men and women of our Armed Forces." It is run by former Republican party member Howard Kaloogian and talk show host Melanie Morgan.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/24/2004 11:31:22 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
My offthewall prediction for 2005 is a UN accredited diplomat gets caught trying to smuggle WMD into the USA. In response the USA 'temporarily' withdraws all UN accreditations and instigates its own system. The UN refuses to comply with new system and leaves temporarily. Said situation becomes permanent.
#5
"Short sided wackos"? Do you mean "Supply side wackos"?
For that matter, what the hell is a "former Republican party member"? Kaloogian seems to be the Republican equivalent of Al Sharpton - an unelectable if entertaining media-clown who's more useful as a scarecrow for the other side than in advancing the interests of his own side - but I can't find any indication that he's left the party.
My best guess is that a semi-literate French reporter or editor came across a description of him as a "former Republican state legislator" and mangled that into "former Republican party member".
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
11/24/2004 8:10 Comments ||
Top||
#8
since when? In afghanistan, where they helped with elections, original formation of Karzai govt, et al, in the Balkans, in Cambodia and East Timor. That much of this work has been INCOMPETENT, or hindered by CORRUPTION, or as in Iraq, by COWARDICE and opposisition from CERTAIN members of the UNSC, does NOT mean that they havent to SOME extent been helping - and in a few instance (im thinking East Timor here) been relatively competent at doing so. Which is not to mention the technical agencies, which are head and shoulders ABOVE the political side of the UN. Whether this is worth the BS that comes out of the UN Gen Assembly, and in some instance the UNSC is a matter which can be debated. All in all I think its pretty clear we're better off IN, using it where we can, and restraining it where we need to, than being outside of it.
#9
This reminds me of Patrick Buchanan's presidential campaign. As I recall, he received one-third of one percent of the vote.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/24/2004 9:16 Comments ||
Top||
#10
BS, LH, BS.
The UN is a waste of money, brains, and time. The "technical" agencies are "head and shoulders" above the rest of the UN only in that they are slightly less corrupt. Anytime you can point to a success in which the UN has been involved, the success has been DESPITE the UN, not BECAUSE of it.
The entire world would be better off without the UN, if only because it would end the disastrous fiction that all the world's governments are equal in legitimacy.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/24/2004 9:22 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/24/2004 9:25 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Re #10 (Robert Crawford): it would end the disastrous fiction that all the world's governments are equal
All the countries in the UN aren't equal. Only a few belong permanently to the Security Council and can veto resolutions.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/24/2004 9:28 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Mike, you left a word off what I said. Leaving off that word changed the meaning, and changed it quite drastically.
My meaning was clear in the original statement. Yet you decided to build a strawman by misquoting me. WTF?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/24/2004 9:34 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Re #10 (Robert Crawford): it would end the disastrous fiction that all the world's governments are equal in legitimacy
All the countries in the UN aren't equal in legitimacy. Only a few belong permanently to the Security Council and can veto resolutions.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/24/2004 9:42 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Your amended post makes no sense.
Which isn't surprising; you cannot defend the idea that Mugabe's government is as legitimate as Howard's, yet both are members of the General Assembly and given equal standing in the UN.
But why the heck am I bothering with you? This is the same kind of dishonest crap you always pull.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/24/2004 9:57 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Kaloogian is still a CA - Republican pol - he lost inb the senate primary to Jones (who lost in teh general to Boxer). He's strongly conservative, which along with his Rep party creds, makes him a "whacko" to the MS/MSM UN-lovers. Like Sylwester, attack the messenger when you can't defend against the message
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/24/2004 10:18 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Amen, RC. MS, what he's getting at is their (gov't's) legitimacy ON THEIR OWN, not in light of the UN. Thus, you get countries like Libya and Syria on the "Human Rights Commission" (give me a F*ck*n' break) and Iran on the Commission for non-proliferation (Can't remember the exact name of it, but that's what they're supposed to do). AND, don't give me this only a certain # of countries on the S.C. and have veto power B.S., those countries should be changed too (especially in light of their "legitimacy" issues).
Posted by: BA ||
11/24/2004 10:29 Comments ||
Top||
#18
I was looking for an anti-UN group to join; there are so many of them it's kind of difficult to choose.
#19
The only really valuable benefit we get from the UN is the badge of legitimacy for our interventions. Extremely valuable, yes. Necessary, even.
But we need to ask whether we could not get that legitimacy from another, parallel organization that would over tiem make the UN redundant. Time to set up super-regional collective security groups with the US at the hub of each, IMHO. Include only democracies and responsible nations that are willing to deploy real and significant assets overseas in the effort to end WMD proliferation, rogue state mischief, terrorism, piracy etc.
#20
Kaloogian is a condescending buffoon. He is the poster child for the type of politician that has marginalized the Republican party in California. He and Tom McClintock would rather sit and sputter about how pure they are than try and do something like Schwarzenegger. I pretty much turn off the radio the minute I hear Kaloogian's unctious sanctimonius voice.
#22
lex, Legitimacy is becoming an in word, like gravitas was in 2000. What is it really and why do we have to get it from other countries instead of our own actions?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/24/2004 12:44 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Legitimacy's always been in style. Any state that throws its weight around in regions where it's resented by powerful local interests requires a presumption of good faith. Otherwise, you run the risk of being seen as another Wilhelm II who's dangerous to the world order. Legitimacy allows us to poke our nose into all manner of regions and conflicts and issues without causing other powers to gang up against us. Robert Kagan has interesting thoughts on the consequences and sources of this:
http://www.cis.org.au/Events/JBL/JBL04.htm
#24
RWV has got it exactly right - Our Terminatin' governor is shrewd enough to pick the right fights, particularly concentrating on economics. Of course the MSM kool-aidists are aghast when Arnie acts truly GOP-like, for example in his opposition to minimum wage hikes because of the bad effect on small business... (Larry King was absolutely dumfounded a week ago in the interview, wasn't he?) He He He
#25
It's the U.S. that helps the un apply it's policies araound the world, not the other way around. Simply put, if the U.S. doesn't support the measure in the un, it aint getting done. The U.S. has more success when it excludes the un and simply takes matters into it's own hands. Think of Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua and compare them to Bosnia, Kosovo, and Haiti. I may be labeled a "Right-Wing Nut" over this, but I think the un has outlived it's usefulness in the world. just ask yourself how many resolutions have been passed condeming suicide bombers, beheadings, or jailing of Democracy proponents in Cuba? And if there are any, how affective have they been?
#26
I was thinking of that paper as well and found it equally unpersuasive. I'm afraid my realist antecedents show up strongly in this legitimacy discussion. I'm with Sarge
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/24/2004 14:45 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Just saying something aloud gives it life. It's no secret that I believe the UN is long overdue for retirement - I've just quit repeating myself so often over the last year. Whether replaced with an improved model (we've read and discussed democracy orgs) or with simple bilateral agreements (which Mrs D has made an excellent case for - and sold me) is TBD, heh. But the UN itself has finally been put on the debate menu. Actions like this may not have any "legitamcy" (lol), but they do plant another seed that it has lost its sacrosanct status.
Add the stonewalling of the US Senate & House investigations of the OFF-Scam, the internal mgmt SNAFU's, more stonewalling of those who question the lack of transparency - which should absolutely be its SOP, the cost, the list of institutional failings (LH's is a pretty good starting point), and Kofi's arrogance per recent public mumblings -- and you have a core set of issues which will facilitate the growth of those seeds of doubt.
Eventually it will become a simple issue: What does it cost us, the US taxpayers, how does it serve or disserve US interests, and what does it accomplish? The answers will be sufficient to shut it down.
#28
I would not discount Kaloogian and Morgan. They were, after all, the ones that started the ball rolling to get Gray Davis recalled. .Com is absolutely right in that this is a seed and an increasingly visible one at that. If it contributes to a discussion where MAF's goals are considered as a possible eventuality, it will have been a success.
#29
The recall was far from Mel's only success. There was MTBE and the car tax as well as another I can't remember. She's connected, bright and sassy; and she's married to the boss. I wouldn't put it past her. It's funny how adversity grows leaders like Mel and Lee.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/24/2004 15:52 Comments ||
Top||
#30
Mel was also in on stopping the original Smog Check II IIRC. The opposition keeps underestimating her, and she keeps knockin' em down. Next!
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
11/24/2004 16:14 Comments ||
Top||
#31
Right. Thanks Rex.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/24/2004 16:15 Comments ||
Top||
#32
and in a few instance (im thinking East Timor here) been relatively competent at doing so. Well over a thousand deaths resulted from this piece of UN competance. It seems UN involvement inevitably results in a large pile of corpses.
#33
All the UN needs to make it more effective is a massive infusion of funds. The US owes it a fortune and the dough should be taken out of Uncles hide by a Belgian Love Hornet.
Can we set up a paypal account to help move Kofi Anan's bony ass out of New York?
I know he livin' well off the money stolen from Iraqi kids in the Oil for Bribes scandal, and it may not make a difference to him, but it's worth a try...
#39
Frank---Leave the hysteric, er historic 75 lb rail out of it. You can get in trouble taking out something like that. Get a 4 x 4, some tar from La Brea and some feathers (I'll supply the chicken feathers) and we'll get ourselves a UN bureaucrat. Yar!
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/24/2004 18:17 Comments ||
Top||
#40
Yar! Meet me at Turtle Bay!
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/24/2004 18:22 Comments ||
Top||
A new report from the Central Intelligence Agency says the arms trafficking network led by the Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan provided Iran's nuclear program with "significant assistance," including the designs for "advanced and efficient" weapons components. The unclassified version of the report, posted Tuesday on the agency's Web site, www.cia.gov, does not say explicitly whether Mr. Khan's network sold Iran complete plans for building a warhead, as the network is known to have done for Libya and perhaps North Korea. But it suggests that American intelligence agencies now believe that the bomb-making designs provided by the network to Iran in the 1990's were more significant than the United States government has previously disclosed.
In a recent closed-door speech to a private group, George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, described Mr. Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, as being "at least as dangerous as Osama bin Laden" because of his role in providing nuclear technology to other countries. A tape recording of the speech was obtained by The New York Times. Until now, in discussing Iran's nuclear program, American officials have referred publicly only to the Khan network's role in supplying designs for older Pakistani centrifuges used to enrich uranium. But American officials have also suspected that the Khan network provided Iran with a warhead design as well.
The C.I.A. report is the first to assert that the designs provided to Iran also included those for weapons "components." The report to Congress is an annual update, required by law, on countries' acquisition of illicit weapons technology. The posting of the unclassified version on the agency's Web site comes two days before a meeting in Vienna of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear monitoring group, is scheduled to review the status of Iran's weapons program. The "Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions" is the first to be issued by the agency since November. Its focus is the period from July to December 2003, but it also discusses broader trends.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
11/24/2004 12:16:07 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The fact that the A. Q. Khan helped Iran is old news, brought up several months back with the discovery of the Khan network.
What is noteworthy is the timing of this re-release of news under the banner of the reforming CIA.
Posted by: Capt America ||
11/24/2004 1:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"The C.I.A. began to infiltrate Mr. Khanâs network in the late 1990âs, according to the account Mr. Tenet is now spelling out in his speeches. That operation led to the unraveling of the networkâs ties to Libya and the unmasking last year of Libyaâs illicit weapons program."
1. This claims that AQ Khan led to Libya, NOT the other way around. So per this its not Oper. Iraqi Freedom (opposed by CIA) led to turning Libya - led to AQ Khan network (which CIA missed) ergo Oper Iraqi Freedom broke the Khan net, and made a major contribution to security. Rather, its competent and aggresive work by CIA (!!!!) infiltrated AQ Khan net, which led to turning Libya, and Iraq played no role. Both lessens the importance of Iraq, and boosts the "old" CIA. This maneuvering may be as important as the claims wrt Iran, which will have a hard time getting through the resistance against any US intel based WMD claims.
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran has banned the sale of National Geographic Society publications to protest the use of the term "Arabian Gulf" alongside "Persian Gulf" in its new world atlas, an Iranian official said Tuesday.
My my, touchy, ain't they?
Mohammad Hossein Khoshvaght, an official at Iran's Culture and Islamic Guidance Ministry, told The Associated Press that the atlas also must be corrected to remove a reference that says Iran has "occupied" several Gulf islands. Both Iran and the United Arab Emirates lay claim over the Gulf islands of Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunbs.
National Geographic's chief cartographer, Allen Carroll, defended the atlas, which was released in October. "We do, and will continue, to recognize 'Persian Gulf' as the primary name," Carroll said on the publication's web site. "But we want people searching for 'Arabian Gulf' to be able to find what they're looking for and not to confuse it with the nearby Arabian Sea."
Identification of the Gulf region and various parts within it has long been a sensitive topic for Iran, which says the area has been historically known as the Persian Gulf, but believes that since the 1950s, pan-Arabists led by late Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and followed by deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein have tried to re-categorize it as the "Arabian Gulf." "Both the distribution of the (National Geographic) publications and the activities of its journalists are banned until the publication corrects the atlas that used the phrase of the Arabian Gulf (in parenthesis) next to the Persian Gulf," Khoshvaght told The Associated Press.
He said the ban includes all magazines published by the National Geographic Society, which publishes five different magazines and has many subscribers in Iran.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/24/2004 12:14:51 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Why don't we just rename it the "Gulf of Rumsfeld?"
#2
Ironic, considering that the name "Persia" is otherwise out of fashion in "Iran." But yes, I know ancient Fars/Parsa/Persia is actually the southwestern part of the country (the part along the gulf coast).
That said, Persia is such a beautiful, history-laden name, and I wish they would resurrect it. For the entire country, I mean. But that would tick off the Azeris, Kurds, Baluchis, Khuzhestani Arabs, Lurs, Qajars, Bakhtiaris, Turcomans, and anyone the hell else I'm forgetting. (I should be ashamed of myself for remembering that much.)
SHARM EL SHEIKH — The United States told Syria yesterday it should try harder to stop fighters, weapons and money crossing the Syrian border into Iraq, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said. Powell had talks in Egypt on Tuesday with Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Al Sharaa on border security. "The Syrians have taken some steps recently but we think there is a lot more they can do," Powell said in the Red Sea resort of Sharm El Sheikh.
A masterful understatement...
Sets up Condi nicely, doesn't he ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/24/2004 12:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I hope Colin told the Foreign Minister with a nervous twitch in his eye! Farouk will be worrying about that 'twitch' all the way up to his talk with 'Baby Assad"!
More Iranian Rope-a-Dope with EU-3 Proposal 48 hours Ahead of IAEA Meeting The compromise also protects Iran from the United States, which has accused the Iranians of secretly trying to assemble a nuclear bomb and wants the regime to be referred to the UN Security Council for possible punitive sanctions. Iran announced on Monday that it had suspended its enrichment programme and allowed IAEA inspectors to visit nuclear sites, but British officials said yesterday that Tehran had raised objections about the wording of the freeze on enrichment and how the suspension would be monitored. In particular, Iran wants to avoid "an automatic trigger" that could lead to the country being referred to the Security Council if it were found to be in breach of the resolution. "We have 48 hours of hard work to do," a British official said.
Posted by: Capt America ||
11/24/2004 10:44:15 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Looks like the Mullahs want a buffer against the probability of another damaging "walk-in" or "leak" in the future. Look for continuing stall tactics from the Iranians as they fight to avoid the old Reagan "Trust But Verify" pressure the US will insist on!
#2
Yes, however the "trust but verify" Reagan doctrine would would only apply when nuke weaponry is known to already exist.
We are playing the dance of the seven veils here, a proverbial shell game if you like. The EU-3 are playing the flutes and tambourines.
Posted by: Capt America ||
11/24/2004 1:49 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Somehow I believe that the idea is to make the Europeans drag out the negotiation process until the U.S. is ready to intervene. At this time, Iraq needs to be pacified first.
I don't think the Iranians have nukes already, they have at least one or two years to go. If we can delay them even further and Iraq stabilizes, 2006 might spell out the end of the mullahs, after they broke the deal and genuinely pissed off the EU-3.
#6
Everything coming from Turbanland is designed to buy themselves time. Not even worth reading about the matter. A lotta BS.
Posted by: Wo ||
11/24/2004 8:36 Comments ||
Top||
#7
In particular, Iran wants to avoid âan automatic triggerâ that could lead to the country being referred to the Security Council if it were found to be in breach of the resolution.
Umm Said: "Allah be praised, I am very happy. On the contrary, I am crying out of happiness. This is a blessed day, the day my son gave me reason to hold my head high..."
Mothers of Other Martyrs Praise Their Sons' Acts
Martyr's mother #2: "We cherish the memory of the martyrs' blood. I'm proud of my son's martyrdom."
Martyr's mother #3: "I am prepared to sacrifice my life. All I want is martyrdom. I'm willing for all my children to become martyrs. May my husband also become a martyr, and Allah willing, may I die as a martyr."
Martyr's mother #4: "Compared to others, what I sacrificed is nothing. It's true I sacrificed a son, but others have sacrificed two or three. I hope more of my sons will become martyrs."
Martyr's mother #5: "Allah be praised. I thank Allah for all the good He has bestowed upon us. He has blessed us with martyrdom. Allah willing, we too will be martyred, just as they did."
I'll be giving thanks for a Mom of a different hue tomorrow
THE US is losing the war of ideas in the Islamic world, failing to elucidate its policies to Muslims wary of American intentions and "self-serving hypocrisy", a Pentagon advisory panel has found. The Defence Science Board, in a report made available today, urged the creation of a "strategic communication" apparatus within the White House and an overhaul of public diplomacy, public affairs and information dissemination efforts by the Pentagon and State Department. "If we really want to see the Muslim world as a whole and the Arabic-speaking world in particular move more toward our understanding of 'moderation' and 'tolerance,' we must reassure Muslims that this does not mean that they must submit to the American way," the report stated.
What's that mean? They're free to kill each other, but not us? I don't think they're gonna buy it. Without freedom of thought, which includes freedom of religion, they're going to remain backwards and unproductive. Period.
The toughly worded report said that while America's efforts to explain its policies have failed, improved public relations efforts cannot sell faulty policies. "Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies," the panel stated. "The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states."
Muslims — Wahhabis, Deobandis, Hanafis, and other allied schools, plus the Shiites — hate our idea of freedom because it includes religious freedom. It's anathema to them. Bumping off apostates is bedrock. Support for Israel's a matter of policy, and Arabs and Moose limbs could oppose it to their hearts content, even while instituted individual liberty within their own borders. There's nothing stopping them. They're the ones who get out and riot on command, not us.
"Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy," the report stated.
Oderint dum metuant. Where does it say we have to please them, and they have no obligation to please us?
The Bush administration has portrayed the war in Iraq launched last year as a mission to bring democracy to that country in the hope that it could serve as a model to others in the Middle East. US intervention in the Muslim world, including wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, had actually elevated the stature of radical enemies of America, the report stated. "In the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. US actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination," the report stated.
A little difference of opinion, then? They were just bitching and moaning about how we support authoritarian regimes, and then they bitch and moan about us dismantling authoritarian regimes. No pleasing them, is there? So why bother trying? We should pursue our own interests relentlessly; when it benefits them, that's gravy.
The Defence Science Board is made up of civilian experts appointed by the Pentagon, and offers the department advice on scientific, technical and other matters. There has been a debate inside the US government on what actions are permissible in providing information intended to influence allies and foes alike. In 2002, the Defence Department shut down its new Office of Strategic Influence after critics accused the department of creating a propaganda office to spread lies around the world under the premise of misleading US enemies. "The information campaign - or as some still would have it, 'the war of ideas' or the struggle for 'hearts and minds' - is important to every war effort," but was crucial in the US-declared global war on terrorism, the report said. "In this war, it is an essential objective because the larger goals of US strategy depend on separating the vast majority of nonviolent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists," it said.
Seems like the approach we're taking toward that end in Afghanistan and Iraq aren't appreciated.
"But American efforts have not only failed in this respect. They may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended," the report said. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said no decisions have been made on the report's recommendations, but added that "the Pentagon will not deviate from its guiding principle of making information available in a timely and accurate manner".
Toss it in the round file. Now, what about dismantling the authoritarian regime in Iran? When do we start?
Posted by: God Save The World ||
11/24/2004 4:56:39 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Unfortunately, the ongoing war between Islam and the West is a battle of annihilation, with no middle ground or compromise solutions applicable.
The Islamacists know that, and have been waging the current campaign of this war accordingly for at least 25 years (perhaps 2,000 years).
We just don't get it. This war will end when either the last Muslim, or the last westerner, lets out their final dying gasp. The sooner we get on with the unpleasant task of "cleansing" the planet, the better. The alternative is being cleansed.
I wish it were otherwise - I'm not happy being a proponent of genocide.
#2
"In the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. US actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination," the report stated.
In other words, we're not getting the message across. It doesn't matter what our policies really are, the Muslims are hearing that we're villains, and this fits very nicely into their pre-existing religious categories. We have to provide alternative (and accurate) sources of information.
And why aren't we getting our message out better? We can't rely on the MSM. Is it that we don't have an adequate supply of Arabic-speakers, an adequate number of reporters, or is somebody afraid of the the word "propagana?"
Posted by: James ||
11/24/2004 21:32 Comments ||
Top||
#3
US losing the war of ideas in the Islamic world
apparently that's the fault of the US? Hmmmm no women's rights, honor killings, beheadings of civilian aid workers, suicide bombings....why, oh why, can't we compete??? Looks like we're offering an inferior societal image, huh?
*choking on my sarcasm*
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/24/2004 21:35 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"The US is losing the war of ideas in the Islamic world..."
Right, no doubt that would be because the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are so inferior to Mullah Fadullah's latest fatwa on the need to flog errant teenagers to death.
What are the ideas we "warring" against, Science Board dudes, and how many of my tax dollars did it take you to figure all this out? Was it enough to buy another Abrams?
Posted by: Matt ||
11/24/2004 21:38 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Headline: US âlosing war of ideasâ
Typical hyperbole. We were never going to change their minds, anyway, any more than propaganda campaigns defeated the Soviet Union. In Europe, many people thought we were a greater danger to peace than the Soviets.
The funny thing is this - if we're losing the war of ideas, then it seems that even angry Muslims don't have the stomach for jihad. In Iraq, we're looking at perhaps thousands for foreign jihadis out of a population of 1b Muslims. They don't like us, but they're too scared to do anything about it. Which suits me just fine. Sounds like angry Muslims are just a bunch of blowhards.
#6
I wouldn't be so fast to give these birds any credibility, just because they are under the Pentagon umbrella. The military hires large numbers of also-rans from academia, to be Pentagon "historians" and "analysts"; which is why they often crank out Brookings Institute-quality leftist bulldada. Make no mistake, their "analysis" of the Islamic world is most likely firmly grounded in what they read in Moslem-government-approved publications, having never been outside the US for any length of time. On top of which, often they are "-files" or "-phobes" of whatever axe it is they are grinding, and have no compunction about slanting their studies to their own personal prejudices. But then, blast it, they publish with a Pentagon letterhead, making the military out to be naive at best.
#10
What this shows is that it is WE, the westerners that need to undergo a thought transformation. Islam is a cancer to our free society. They use the freedoms provided their host to kill their host.
It's a catch 22 that we are currently unable to cope with.
#12
I'm with Matt -- can't believe precious taxpayer DOD dollars were wasted producing a "study" the gist of which could have been obtained by a 10-minute conversation with any conventional clueless MidEast "expert" in DC.
Natrually the thing echoes every stupid bit of unexamined conventional wisdom tossed out by "critics" and others without responsibilities -- our efforts have only alienated Muslims, our efforts for democracy are considered insincere, etc. What's the data to back this up? I recall the more intelligent looks at Arab opinion suggesting that beneath the boiler-plate many Arabs were watching Iraq with fascination and even anticipation.
I could never force myself to read such a waste of trees, but I wonder if it ever crossed their minds that any info efforts by the US are bedeviled by, uh, that little problem of gross distortion, anti-US bias, and incompetence by the media -- OUR media? Not to mention the lurid propaganda-fest that passes for "news" in the Arab and much of the Third World. How about a "study" that actually takes into account Muslim/Arab ignorance, irrationality, and information deficit, and major media distortion throughout the world, and then suggests new ways to combat same and get a message across?
#13
I don't totally comprehend the source of this report. I did a search of members of this group and for the most part it's a fairly to very conservtive bunch that are in charge. I'd like to read the actual report before passing judgement but they hadn't posted it on their website last I checked.
#14
I have an idea. Drain the swamp of the Islamofascists then pitch ideas. Oh, by the way, here's another idea, pick your most favored choice: theocratic tyranny and torture or democratic polls? (select one)
Posted by: Capt America ||
11/24/2004 23:06 Comments ||
Top||
#15
War of ideas....this is all so much bullshit. Forget the notion of democracy at gunpoint. If a Muslim isn't interested in what the U.S. has to offer and prefers to wallow in the past, that's perfectly fine. They can just look elsewhere when deciding who to blame for whatever problems they have.
And don't even think of trying to kill more of us...
From East-Asia-Intel.com, subscription req'd
China's largest state oil group, CNPC, has decided to develop its second oil field in Sudan. While the West worries about genocide in Darfur, the Chicoms get the oil to slake their appetites, thus keeping the Sudan thugocracy in power.
Industry sources said trial production began in July 2004 at Block 6 and the facility was already pumping 10,000 barrels per day. The sources said CNPC plans to develop a bigger oil field in 2005, termed Adar/Yale. CNPC would have a 41 percent stake in the field, while the Malaysian state oil firm Petronas owns 35 percent, Middle East Newsline reported. The Adar/Yale field is projected to produce 10 million tons of oil a year or 200,000 barrels per day. The oil field is said to consist of Block 3 and Block 7 and is scheduled to be online in mid-2005. Sudan and Iran supply the Chicoms with 20% of their oil needs. Like with Iran, there will be no UN sanctions, as long as the Chicoms have a dog in this one. See previous RB article HERE.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/24/2004 5:00:16 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Cool, this makes it quite consistent: Chicoms ink deals with Sudanese, ink deals with Iran, and make love to Fidel.
And, oh, by the way, Saddam was a cuddle bug too.
---- Notice the pattern here
Posted by: Capt America ||
11/24/2004 23:09 Comments ||
Top||
EFL
A 72-year-old great-grandmother is preparing for deployment to the war zone in Iraq and will become one of the oldest Department of Defense civilian workers in the war zone. "I volunteered," said Lena Haddix of Lawton, who has five children, eight grandchildren and three great-grandchildren. "I wanted to do something for the country, because I was always left behind taking care of the children." ...'nuff said. Get this women a tin of Skoal.
From The New York Times, an opinion article by Michael A. Newton, a lieutenant colonel in the Army's Judge Advocate General's Corps and a teacher of international law at the United States Military Academy.
.... Last month I spent a week in London working with the group of judges and prosecutors who form the core of the special tribunal [the Iraqi Special Tribunal to try Saddam Hussein, et al.]. They are a distinguished group of patriots who know more than any outsider how critical the rule of law will be for the future of their country. Yes, just like other inexperienced judges on previous tribunals elsewhere in the developing world, they have much to learn about conducting complex trials in accordance with the most modern nuances of international law. But they are dedicated to doing so. As one Iraqi told me, "My job is to judge, not to murder."
Unfortunately, their pleas for assistance are going unanswered. For example, some of the most experienced practitioners from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia had initially agreed to participate in the London sessions. At the last minute, however, the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, lamely insisted that these experts were all too busy in The Hague to help the Iraqis, and he ordered them to stay home.
Similarly, Amnesty International has issued a press release insisting that the "trial of Saddam Hussein must draw on international expertise," but has failed to provide any such help. Human Rights Watch took testimony from Iraqi victims who thought they were helping develop cases against Iraqis suspected of crimes. But according to American officials, the organization, without consulting the witnesses, refused to provide all the statements or to give all the victims' identities to the special tribunal. Human Rights Watch has even taken issue with the statute's ban on former Baath Party members sitting in judgment of the accused. Would the group have wanted Nazis passing judgment at Nuremberg?
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/24/2004 9:40:50 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Oh well. Guess the Iraqis will have to try Saddam themselves without any special international expertise. Guess they'll have to hang him, too, without any special international expertise.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/24/2004 12:26 Comments ||
Top||
#2
But then the trial and the hanging won't be "legitimate"...because of the lack of international imprimatur.
#3
I'd guess that without special international expertise, hanging might be the best thing that could happen to Sammy
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/24/2004 12:41 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I suppose the tribunal might get a bit more respect if the presiding judge wasn't named "Rodney al-Dangerfield." [:-)]
Posted by: Mike ||
11/24/2004 13:32 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Just send Saddam to Paris for a medical checkup. We may never find out of what killed him.
Posted by: john ||
11/24/2004 14:48 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Could the "human rights" community have delegitimized itself any more thoroughly or despicably if they tried over the last few years? Any Marine in the field has done more for human rights, and has exercised better judgement under much more difficult conditions, than all of these moral narcissists put together. Here's to hoping that Iraq deals with Saddam w/out a lick of "international expertise". Never too early to start learning.
I agree with the headline. Al-Qaeda's PR is offensive.
The gist of their messages hasn't changed much. But the frequency of them has. Since Sept. 11, 2001, members of Al Qaeda have released an audio- or videotape about once every six weeks. But the communication is hardly limited to the airwaves. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi alone has posted messages on the Internet to his followers in Iraq several times in the past week, urging them to resist the US campaign in Fallujah. The routine appearance of these tapes and Internet postings, despite tighter security, highlights Al Qaeda's growing sophistication in producing and airing messages for internal communication as well as for shaping global opinion. They also show how, in an era of satellite television and the World Wide Web, it is nearly impossible to stop boutique terror groups - small homegrown cells that can reach mass audiences with just a videocamera and a few stylish graphics.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
11/24/2004 12:21:57 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
The al-Qaeda terrorist network is fully capable of building a radioactive "dirty bomb" targeting the United States and other Western nations and "has crude procedures" for producing chemical weapons, the CIA warned today. In an annual report to Congress on proliferation threats, the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) also repeated its insistence that Iran was pursuing "a clandestine nuclear weapons program". But it remained silent about charges, made earlier this month by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who accused Iran of seeking to adapt its missiles to carry nuclear warheads. Instead, the agency used its strongest terms to alert lawmakers to the threat of terrorist organisations using chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials to harm the United States and its allies, saying the danger of such an attack "remained high".
"One of our highest concerns is al-Qaeda's stated readiness to attempt unconventional attacks against us," the report said. The CIA said analysis of an al-Qaeda document recovered in Afghanistan in the summer of 2002 "indicates the group has crude procedures for making mustard agent, sarin, and VX". The group founded and led by Osama bin Laden, the admitted mastermind of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, is also keenly interested in radiological dispersal devices, or "dirty bombs," the spy agency warned. It added that construction of such a device "is well within its capabilities as radiological materials are relatively easy to acquire from industrial or medical sources".
Documents recovered by US forces in Afghanistan show that bin Laden and his associates were engaged in what US intelligence officials described as "rudimentary nuclear research". But the CIA cautions that the true extent of al-Qaeda's nuclear program "is unclear," suggesting it could be more advanced than originally thought. Outside experts, such as Pakistani nuclear engineer Bashir al-Din Mahmood, may have provided assistance to al-Qaeda's nuclear program, according to the report. Bashir reportedly met with bin Laden and discussed nuclear weapons with him, the CIA asserted.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
11/24/2004 12:13:05 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
No one should doubt the truthfulness of this report
#2
I would never, ever, doubt it.
One of these quack - bastard al-Qaeda operatives is going to walk over our southern border with one of these " dirty bombs " strapped to his back and manage to inflict heavy damage unless we seal off our borders.
#3
A dirty bomb is possibly an economic weapon, but not a mass-casualty weapon. Having crude procedures for making toxic chemicals is also not a very impressive capability. I would want to know more about the supposed chemical dispersion bomb that was intercepted in Jordan to make a judgement on the level of sophistication of their chemical warfare efforts. OTOH, I think the goal of detonating a nuke in the US has become a kind of holy grail for lots of folks, "because it's there", and that threat will continue to grow over the years even if no one now has the capability to carry it off.
#4
As with anything else the CIA has put out in recent history. Why this recycled news? and, Why now?
The Afgan "discoveries" are over two years old. Rather than report the news, what is the CIA doing to prevent the news? I believe that falls under their domain.
Posted by: Capt America ||
11/24/2004 11:51 Comments ||
Top||
#5
What the Cap'n said. I want the CIA to stop telling us that the sun rises in the east and start developing assets in southern Iran and Pakistan that can infiltrate the hundreds of AQ who are operating there under protection of the mullahs and the ISI. We don't pay you for Googling, boys. Get your hands dirty.
#6
I do not doubt the truthfullness of the report. I do note that it breaks nothing new, same ole' same old. Referencing docs and interviews from '01 and '02. Could have found that stuff hereon RB and sent out link and be done.
Interim Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas has told parliament that he will follow in Yasir Arafat's footsteps and demand that Israel recognise the right of return of Palestinian refugees. Abbas spoke a day after a small group of leaders of the ruling Fatah movement chose him as its candidate for 9 January elections for Palestinian Authority president, despite demands by Fatah's young guard that a primary be held. The speech marked the first time since Arafat's death on 11 November that Abbas outlined his views on the conflict with Israel. Abbas appeared to be sending a message to Fatah's new guard that he would stand tough in future talks with Israel, despite his pragmatism and opposition to violence. Abbas' ideas about a peace deal with Israel have always been close to those of Arafat: a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as a capital, and Israeli recognition of the right of return of roughly four million refugees and their descendants.
I still haven't quite gotten it: if you've got your own state, why do you need somebody else's?
'cause their own state won't be as big as they want.
The refugee issue has contributed to the failure of previous peace talks. Israel has said it is willing to repatriate a few thousand refugees as a good-will gesture, but that absorbing millions would destroy the Jewish character of the state. At a memorial ceremony for Arafat at the Palestinian parliament, Abbas said he would walk in the footsteps of the late Palestinian leader. "We promise you [Arafat] that our hearts will not rest until we achieve the right of return for our people and end the tragic refugee issue," he said.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/24/2004 11:05:43 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Because it says so in the Quaran,any land that was Muslem at any time in history(1 year ago or 5000 years ago,makes no difference)is foreever Muslem.
#2
It's simply amazing that paleo "leaders" (there's an oxymoron for ya) never make the harder decisions -- the ones that have to be made to move the process forward. It would be reasonable (and refreshing) if a paleo would echo the notion that "the facts on the ground have changed, and we must live with the new realities."
The "right of return" issue is a nonstarter for Israel, for all sorts of historical and practical reasons.
#3
Right of Return. Chuckle...just after the Silesian Germans get a right of return back to lands and property absorbed by Poland in the post WWII central Europe. They've got you by at least three years. Get in line.
Posted by: Don ||
11/24/2004 11:07 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"Right of Return" would spell the end of Israel, so what he's really saying is "No peace with Israel". I'd say fire up the death-ray, but I think he'll be gone before it works anyway.
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi says his country has been poorly recompensed for pledging to renounce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. He says this offers little incentive for other countries to follow suit. Libya pledged to abandon the weapons in December, ending its international isolation. Mr Gaddafi told French newspaper Le Figaro he was disappointed that the United States, Europe and Japan had not given Libya more security guarantees in return. "If we are not recompensed, other countries will not follow our example and dismantle their programs," Mr Gaddafi said on the eve of a two-day visit to Libya by French President Jacques Chirac.
The interview is to be published in Le Figaro on Wednesday. "When we have spoken to North Korea and Iran, which are suspected of having nuclear programs, they said: 'But what recompense have you had? What have you received from the international community? So, why do you want us to dismantle our program?'" Mr Gaddafi, who has patched up relations with Europe and the United States after decades of hostility, says Libya should receive 'peaceful technology' in compensation for pledging to abandon military technology. The European Union agreed in September to lift all sanctions on Libya - just days after Washington revoked a broad US trade embargo.
Looks like Muammar's thinking of changing sides yet again, as long as the Frenchies can come up with a side. I wonder what Junior's opinion is?
Nice fruit salad in the pic. Which one is for running from his tent in the bombing episode?
Posted by: Fred ||
11/24/2004 10:42:43 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Someone needs to give Muammar a 'ninny' to nurse on!! This instant 'Utopia' he's envisioning must come slow and with building trust from the west. My advice to Gaddafi, is to continue to sing like a canary, be a yes man...and more scraps will be thrown off the table for him to gobble on!
#2
Well, Muammar, in 5 years, Iran may be a glow zone and NorKs may follow the suit. While Lybia may live long and prosper, if you don't change your mind.
Just nurture your patience, wait a coupla or quattro, and then you may see the ligth and it all would become very crystal clear to you.
#3
He doesn't need any security guarantees... just his security detail. Come to think of it, I could go for 'em, too...
All he needs to know about his security is to check the public aspects of our policy debates... he's not in 'em, so he's pretty secure (from us, anyway).
#6
I have never trusted the weasel , full stop . Last time I posted on here about him I got flamed by a lot of folk , I feel vindicated :)
The meglomaniac wants a united africa with him as the head . ooohh I wonder where that would lead . Great idea on paper but alas wouldnt work and he couldnt lead a plug to a socket .
#7
ooh on a side note , i must confess to being a little jealous of him . I would love to be able to pick and choose which female bodyguards I have . Yummy , i'll take 3 saucy blondes , a brunette , and a ginga for my off moments .
#12
#1: upper left of chest - Attacked Egypt and got whipped commoration medal
#2: top one on green sash - attacked Chad and got whipped, by the French! commoration medal
#3: bottom one on green sash - sole survivor of F-111 strike commoration medal
#4: largest one on lower right chest - punched the King of Saudi Arabia in the nose commoration medal
#13
Chuck S. : You forgot the designer shades!
Awarded by the Libyan parliament when he personally avoided being hit by Bubba's cruise missile strike on the aspirin factory....
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.
Prime Minister John Howard has suggested Indonesia and Australia are entering a new era of cooperation and friendship, after his first official meeting with new Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. The leaders met on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in the Chilean capital Santiago. Mr Howard says both countries have expressed a genuine desire to improve the relationship.
Iraq has protested a U.N. decision to use $30 million in revenue from the U.N. oil-for-food program for Iraq to help pay for the investigation of alleged corruption in the humanitarian effort. 
The compromise also protects Iran from the United States, which has accused the Iranians of secretly trying to assemble a nuclear bomb and wants the regime to be referred to the UN Security Council for possible punitive sanctions. Iran announced on Monday that it had suspended its enrichment programme and allowed IAEA inspectors to visit nuclear sites, but British officials said yesterday that Tehran had raised objections about the wording of the freeze on enrichment and how the suspension would be monitored. In particular, Iran wants to avoid "an automatic trigger" that could lead to the country being referred to the Security Council if it were found to be in breach of the resolution. "We have 48 hours of hard work to do," a British official said.
THE US is losing the war of ideas in the Islamic world, failing to elucidate its policies to Muslims wary of American intentions and "self-serving hypocrisy", a Pentagon advisory panel has found. The Defence Science Board, in a report made available today, urged the creation of a "strategic communication" apparatus within the White House and an overhaul of public diplomacy, public affairs and information dissemination efforts by the Pentagon and State Department. "If we really want to see the Muslim world as a whole and the Arabic-speaking world in particular move more toward our understanding of 'moderation' and 'tolerance,' we must reassure Muslims that this does not mean that they must submit to the American way," the report stated.
Interim Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas has told parliament that he will follow in Yasir Arafat's footsteps and demand that Israel recognise the right of return of Palestinian refugees. Abbas spoke a day after a small group of leaders of the ruling Fatah movement chose him as its candidate for 9 January elections for Palestinian Authority president, despite demands by Fatah's young guard that a primary be held. The speech marked the first time since Arafat's death on 11 November that Abbas outlined his views on the conflict with Israel. Abbas appeared to be sending a message to Fatah's new guard that he would stand tough in future talks with Israel, despite his pragmatism and opposition to violence. Abbas' ideas about a peace deal with Israel have always been close to those of Arafat: a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as a capital, and Israeli recognition of the right of return of roughly four million refugees and their descendants. 
Libyan leader 
