(KUNA) -- Nobel Laureate Jody Williams lashed on Friday at the members of the Human Rights Council who rejected the Drafur mission report and said that she will become a human rights activist on Darfur and is ready to head a fact finding mission to the Occupied Palestinian Territories (oPt). Williams, added in a news conference after a five hour discussion on the validity and legality of the report she submitted as head of the mission appointed by the President of the Human Rights Council to examine the Human Rights Violations committed in Darfur, that if she were to head a mission on the human rights situation in the oPt the roles would be reversed in the Council, those who rejected the Darfur report would support the oPt one.
She defended the mission and the report and described the mission of being true to the task assigned, and that the mission was focused on a report to help the people of Darfur. Williams defended the legality, credibility and objectivity of the mission, and that the mission was very comfortable of how it proceeded. "If they wanted to test our credibility I suggested they send the same mission, with the same secretariat and mandate to Palestine, I would like to see how the discussion in the room would flip flop from today," she stressed. She added: "I doubt that they would be following our suggestion but it would be certainly interesting".
Regarding credibility Williams said that this issue lies with the Council and not with the mission. "If the Council chooses not to consider our report it will have an impact on the credibility of the Council and not on this mission," she stressed. She expressed her hope that the Council would live up to its obligations as well.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/17/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
yes, begin the lashings
Posted by: Captain America ||
03/17/2007 0:14 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This socialist can yammer all she wants about Darfur, but intervention boils down to military capability and political commitment.
My view is that since all the nations of the world were such good world citizens in helping us attack and clear terrorist havens, we should reciprocate with regard to Darfur: do nothing.
#3
She sounds hungry. Feed her some pablum about "renewed commitment to binding nonviolent problem resolution."
Posted by: Fred ||
03/17/2007 16:08 Comments ||
Top||
#4
that if she were to head a mission on the human rights situation in the oPt the roles would be reversed in the Council, those who rejected the Darfur report would support the oPt one.
Not if it mentioned that 9 out of every 10 Pelestinians dying by violence, were killed by Palestinians.
The top US nuclear envoy said Friday that he felt a dispute over North Korean funds held in Macau that had possibly threatened international efforts to rid Pyongyang of its nuclear weapons had been resolved.
Washington promised to resolve its blacklisting of the tiny Banco Delta Asia and the freezing of $24 million in North Korean deposits as an inducement to Pyongyang to rejoin international talks on its nuclear ambitions. A US Treasury Department decision Wednesday ordering US banks to sever ties with Banco Delta Asia appeared to fall short of expectations. But US Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill said he was confident North Korea would fulfill its obligations to close its main nuclear reactor in exchange for energy aid and political concessions. "I think they want assurances that the Banco Delta Asia issues is resolved and we can give them those assurances that it is resolved."
Posted by: Fred ||
03/17/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
FOX/CNN/NET > NK will NOT suspend its nuclear enrichment efforts nor shut down reactor unless US$25.0Milyuhn is released from Banco Delta Asia.
STRATEGYPAGE > NORTH KOREA: THE LITTLE PEOPLE article > UNO Aid progs are allowed to stay in NK becuz the UNO pays them US1.0M in annual fees, most of which goes to pay for $$$ luxuries for ruling elites. *IONews, WAFF.com > NK may have at least one GOLF-class/type Ballistic Missle submarine [nuke?][unconfirmed].
#2
if there is this much wailing and gnashing of teath over a paltry (in international terms) 24 million dollars, then the north koreans are definately on the brink of colapse...
i say "screw em" if 24 million is so important, then they must be VERY close to collapse and maybe instead we should look for a lever to tip them over the edge and fix the problem permantly rather than put the problem on life support and keep them around and let the UN/msm have korea as an anchor to keep our foreign policy from making headway in other areas
Posted by: abu do you love ||
03/17/2007 13:49 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Anyone who believes the UN is good for ANYTHING needs to correct their rectal/cranial inversion. The United Nations may have started out with good intentions, but the only use it has now is to PROLONG conflicts so that it can continue to be seen as "needed". If we scrapped the UN and all its many factions, we'd find that conflict resolution would be greatly simplified. Using the "biggest stick" also works. Scrapping the UN would make it easier to use that stick.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/17/2007 14:49 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The $24 million is not important. Remember, the 1 million tonnes oil promised in the latest agreement is worth $500 million by itself. It is access to the banking system that is important. It allows payment of goods for Kimmie to buy off his supporters, payment for arms sales, and laundering of drugs and counterfeit currency.
Posted by: ed ||
03/17/2007 14:56 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I just have to wonder if that 24 Mil is in counterfeit 50's, in that case it represents pure profit, and releasing it is a direct effort to (Once Again) destroy America's Economy?
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/17/2007 20:48 Comments ||
Top||
#6
On second thought, have treasury officials "Examine" this 24 Mil, if any counterfeits are found, pull Macau's Banks Charter Permanently, and confiscate then destroy ALL AMERICAN CURRENCY in that bank, that ought to pretty well ruin them, no more screwing around, you handle Korean Counterfeits you lose ALL
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/17/2007 20:54 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Oh come now, Redneck Jim. $24 million won't "destroy America's Economy" -- that's just a year's pay for one or two middling CEOs.
Lawyers for Willie Brigitte are considering an appeal against the nine-year sentence imposed by a Paris court today on the French terrorist who plotted an attack in Australia. Brigitte, 38, received just under the maximum 10-year sentence applicable for the crime of criminal association with a view to committing a terrorist act - chiefly related to his activities in Sydney in 2003. The non-parole period is six years, but with Brigitte having already served three-and-a-half years awaiting trial and sentence, the former Sydney kebab shop worker could be freed in late 2009 if he serves the minimum non-parole term.
After the sentence was handed down in the criminal court at the Palais de Justice, Brigitte's lawyer Harry Durimel described the case against his client as a "witch hunt", saying: "I think we must appeal".
"Our client committed a thought crime. All he did was convert to another religion," said Mr Durimel. "Along the initiation journey that he took, he met with all kind of people, he is being accused of having met people that he should not have met. There is no formal proof, it is surrealistic, it is a witch hunt. There were holes in the case. The court did not recognise them."
Posted by: Fred ||
03/17/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
The Stiletto, a Twin M hull vessel, is 80 ft in length with a 40 ft beam providing a rectangular deck area equivalent to a conventional displacement craft 160 ft in length. The vessel's draft fully loaded is 3 ft and is designed for a speed of 50-60 kts. Its superior performance is based on M Ship Co.'s proprietary, globally patented technology, recapturing the bow wave using its energy to create an air cushion for more efficient planing.
M Ship Co. was responsible for the design and construction of the vessel made solely of carbon fiber for reduced weight and increased stiffness, the largest vessel ever built in the U.S. of this advanced material. It was delivered to the Office of Force Transformation to establish scalability of the M hull technology.
M Ship Co. has designed a family of such vessels to qualify for the full range of missions contemplated for operations in littoral or coastal zone. These will offer significant advantages over conventional displacement or planing craft based on the U.S. military's new littoral missions where efficiency, low cost, innovation, higher payload fraction, agility, shock mitigation, shallow draft and stealth are the new priorities for the next generation naval craft. One of the more interesting looking craft
A bit of WaPo retrospective
At home, the war had reached a turning point. For the first time, a majority of Americans believed the conflict was a mistake. U.S. involvement was nonetheless escalating. Many previous demonstrations had been held, but growing frustration with the political system prompted antiwar leaders to select a new target: the Pentagon.
The 1967 march on the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War became a touchstone event in American history, one that pitted U.S. citizens against "the true and high church of the military-industrial complex," as marcher and author Norman Mailer put it.
Tomorrow, according to organizers, tens of thousands of demonstrators protesting the war in Iraq will march on the Pentagon in what they are billing as "the 40th anniversary of the historic 1967 march to the Pentagon."
Tomorrow's march, which was scheduled to take place around the fourth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war -- March 20 -- comes as the Bush administration sends 26,000 additional troops to deal with the violence there. Buses, vans and caravans from across the United States are coming, organizers say, with veterans, soldiers and military family members marching in the first rank of the demonstration. Heading across the Arlington Memorial Bridge to the Pentagon north parking lot, the demonstrators will follow literally in the steps of the earlier protesters. A counter-demonstration in support of the war is also planned for tomorrow. And where do I go for that?
"The 1967 march wasn't the biggest, but in some ways it's the most historically significant because of the target," said Brian Becker, national coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition, the main sponsor of tomorrow's protest. "It represented a shift in public opinion." In tying their protest to the Oct. 21, 1967, march, organizers say they are capitalizing on a similar climate among angry voters who believe the results of November elections have been ignored.
Ramsey Clark, who as attorney general for President Lyndon Johnson helped oversee the administration's preparations for the march, said that day shifted the ground under the government. "From that moment, I got the feeling that we'd reached a turning point in the commitment of many people to ending the war in Vietnam," Clark said in an interview this week.
Whether today's feelings match those of 40 years ago is another question. Clark will be among the speakers tomorrow. "I can't tell you that we have the depth of passion or breadth of commitment today that we had then," Clark said.
The 1967 march still raises emotions at both ends of the political spectrum. On the left, it is remembered as a time when peaceful marchers were confronted by bayonet-wielding soldiers and beaten. On the right, the march is recalled as a disgraceful event during which military police were subjected to terrible abuse from protesters.
History shows that both views hold elements of truth. Soldiers manning the line in front of the Pentagon Mall entrance were taunted with vicious slurs and pelted with garbage and fish. Some defenseless protesters sitting peacefully were clubbed and hauled off.
Yet a more complex picture emerges in interviews with demonstrators, Army officers and Pentagon officials responsible for defending the building, as well as research papers in Army archives. Some of the interviews were conducted for a forthcoming book on the history of the Pentagon.
Ironically, Pentagon officials were so preoccupied with presenting a tolerant image that they kept thousands of soldiers hidden inside the building. During the critical early stages of the confrontation, a thin line of MPs outside the building was overrun, and the commander couldn't get reinforcements in place quickly. A subsequent Army report concluded that the low-profile strategy backfired and "may have developed an air of confidence on the part of demonstrators and encouraged violence."
Some protest leaders say they were trying to provoke a confrontation with soldiers in the hopes of escalating the situation. Each side miscalculated, contributing to a bitter confrontation that left a legacy of division.
By that day in October 1967, two years after ground troops were committed to Vietnam, more than 13,000 Americans had been killed and 86,000 wounded. The National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam -- an umbrella organization of peace groups and radical organizations -- vowed to shut down the Pentagon with the greatest antiwar protest in history.
Among their number was Abbie Hoffman, co-founder of the yippies, who announced plans to levitate the Pentagon 300 feet, using the psychic energy of thousands of protesters. I'm sorry I missed that!
In addition to 2,400 troops positioned in and around the Pentagon, a brigade from the 82nd Airborne was flown in from Fort Bragg, N.C., and held at Andrews Air Force Base in reserve. More than 12,000 soldiers, National Guard troops, federal marshals and civilian police officers were standing by in the region.
At the order of then-Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, commanders were operating under restrictions that kept much of the force under wraps. "It was a concern that events would get out of hand, and there would be violence on one side or the other that would lead to continued violence," McNamara recalled in an interview last year. So under McNamara's guidance, things got out of hand.
The march unfolded on a gorgeous autumn Saturday, with 50,000 demonstrators at the Lincoln Memorial. Although in the popular imagination marchers from that era are often recalled as bands of hippies, a large cross section of Americans participated. The majority of the crowd was young and many wore ties, but large numbers of middle-age and older demonstrators were included in the ranks.
Despite claims by organizers of 100,000 or more marchers, counts made by intelligence agencies put the figure of those who continued to the Pentagon at closer to 35,000. Army intelligence later concluded that the protest included "probably fewer than 500 violent demonstrators; however these violent types were backed by from 2,000 to 2,500 ardent sympathizers."
Indeed, much of the protest was peaceful, and the majority of marchers were far removed from any violence. Hoffman, dressed in an Uncle Sam hat and by his own admission tripping on acid, went about his efforts to raise the building by leading protesters in chants.
Shortly before 4 p.m., as the main body of demonstrators arrived on the Pentagon grounds, several hundred radicals raced toward the building. "Our specific goal was to create a confrontation -- a nonviolent one, because they were military and we were not -- and make a physical effort to get into the Pentagon," Walter Teague, a leader of the group, recalled in an interview.
Army documents show that the operational commander immediately asked for reinforcements from inside the building but had to wait 20 minutes while the request was reviewed by the Justice Department. By then, it was too late. The plaza in front of the Pentagon's Mall entrance was in chaos.
"Our kids were standing there and having all kinds of things thrown at them, to include feces," said Phil Entrekin, then an Army captain commanding a cavalry troop that reinforced the MPs.
In the ensuing melee, several thousand protesters occupied the Mall plaza. Spotting an opening in the Army defense, 30 demonstrators made a break for a Pentagon doorway at 5:30 p.m. The vanguard made it inside before being roughly ejected by troops.
I think we ought to get some cold steel and start using some gas," Army Chief of Staff Gen. Harold K. Johnson urged, Army records show. McNamara, after surveying the situation from the Pentagon roof, refused. "Let boredom, hunger and cold take their course," he said.
Nonetheless, late that night, soldiers and federal marshals began clearing the plaza, and many protesters were roughed up in ugly scenes of violence. Four dozen protesters, soldiers and marshals were injured; 683 people were arrested.
Forty years later, the chances of a similar confrontation appear slim. No soldiers will be deployed to defend the Pentagon this time. The building will be adequately protected by the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, a Pentagon spokeswoman said.
Nor are many protesters likely to get close to the Pentagon in the heightened security atmosphere of post-Sept. 11. Protest leaders, learning lessons from the 1967 march, said they are taking pains to show no disrespect to soldiers this weekend.
And the Pentagon is not likely to rise in the air. Said Amelia McDonald, a protest organizer, "We're not trying to levitate it."
Posted by: Bobby ||
03/17/2007 09:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"We're not trying to levitate it."
But our allies tried to destroy it with a jetliner.
#3
The Administration should not have busted heads. They should have shot the bastards down on the spot. They were America's enemies just as much as the Viet Cong in Vietnam's jungles. Actually, they were worse because they were traitors to the country that had raised and nurtured them.
I think if the Internet had existed in 1965 the Vietnam War would have turned out much differently because the MSM would have had competition rather than being the sole source of news. That's the primary reason we're still holding on in Iraq despite four years of total MSM negativism.
Posted by: Mac ||
03/17/2007 10:05 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I wonder if they'll have a battery brigade to jump start the electric wheel chairs with dead batteries.
#5
Mac, if we had an internet in 1965, we would not have had a Vietnam war. At draft age at the time, my friends and I discussed the conflict ad nauseum, and we couldn't figure why the US was involved there. We had no history with the place, and we didn't owe the French anything. In fact, Ho Chi Min approached the US for support against the French as a younger man, but was refused.
In the end, it was Lyndon Johnson's war toy, and that's what fed the greater anti-war movement. No Vietnamise or Buddist ever flew an airplane into one of our buildings. I was anti-war in the 1970s, but now, I just want to kill every muslim scumbag. I know the real enemy when I see it.
#6
As to Vietnam: in September, 1945, Ho Chi Minh and his organization declared the independence of Vietnam and wrote a declaration that aped, almost word for word in places, the American Declaration of Independence. He treated with American representatives who were arriving in Hanoi at that time to disarm the Japanese occupiers, and promised to work with America if we recognized he and his pals as the legitimate new government.
As it turns out, we'd already promised the French that they could have their Indochina back, so we refused Ho. Might have been the biggest mistake Truman made, in retrospect.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2007 11:57 Comments ||
Top||
#7
A friend of mine was part of a unit inside the Pentagon during the famous "levitation march". He says they had orders to kill any protesters who made it past the entryway.
The troops were wondering what it would be like to be inside a levitated building. The pentagon was also supposed to turn into an orange torus (lifesaver shape) and disappear.
"unfortunately" nothing like that happened, and the Pentagon (all 5 sides of it) is still with us.
I still think today's moonbats don't hold a candle to the 60's moonbats.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
03/17/2007 12:27 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Might have been the biggest mistake Truman made, in retrospect.
Helping the French was a mistake. Not helping Ho wasn't. He was a confirmed commie even then and ultimately would have caused us trouble in some other way.
#9
The Mrs. and I took our dog for a walk this morning in one of the local parks. It happened that there was a anti-war demonstration there. The group looked like an anachronism--out of step with reality and the times. My wife and I talked about the freedom that people will now experience in Iraq and Afghanistan despite the press and misguided protesters. We talked about what don't these people get about 911. The protest must have inspired the dog. She went about her business without much fanfare.
#11
JohnQC, i waz hoping the ending of your comment went something like thisn...
The Mrs. and I took our dog for a walk this morning in one of the local parks. It happened that there was a anti-war demonstration there. The group looked like an anachronism--out of step with reality and the times,so we steered fido right to the front of the barking moonbats and our pup gifted them with a great big steaming pile of ...
#12
Doc, don't blame it all on Lyndon. He was just trying to honor the chits his predecessors had given. I remember hearing JFK say "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledgeand more. " (1960 Inaugural Speech). Doesn't leave much room for maneuver, does it?
The Kennedy sycophants have done their best for twenty years now to try to persuade historians that JFK was really going to cut and run in Vietnam and would have done so quickly had he not met his fate in Dallas. Maybe they're right, but I doubt it. I've seen the memo that is their main supporting fact. I can't see Kennedy following through on it because widely publicizing that policy in the next election campaign (as the Republicans would surely have done) would have guaranteed he was a one-term President. The lefty sons of whores didn't have nearly the hold on the country they do now and showing cowardice in the face of communism like that would have gotten him kicked to the curb for sure. He wasn't all that popular a President anyway, particularly in the South.
Once we were IN Vietnam, we owed it to the people who had supported us to continue to fight. Our scuttle from Vietnam, just like the British and French backing down at Suez, emboldened our enemies and made what would have been a difficult task exponentially harder. When you get in a war like that, or Iraq, you have to do what needs to be done. If that means another Chechnya--or another Dresden--so be it.
Posted by: Mac ||
03/17/2007 17:57 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Mac, Kennedy did show cowardice to the face of Communism, in Cuba, at the Bay of Pigs. Kennedy withheld air support after the CIA and Cuban refugee units were on the beach. That's why some believe the CIA had Kennedy put down, which also explains why Teddy hates America like he does.
#14
Excellent point, WXJ. I didn't want to get into that but I also believe that the CIA got Kennedy assassinated for the Bay of Pigs. That cowardly act by itself would have been enough, but there were other things going on as well.
I think that's the reason the truth has never come out. The people who masterminded it were honorable men and some of America's most dedicated patriots. They acted, felt certain to their dying day they had done the right thing for their country, and took the secret to their graves.
Posted by: Mac ||
03/17/2007 19:11 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Certainly explains the huge outbreak of crop circles in 1964.
Adm. William J. Fallon took charge of United States Central Command here Friday replacing the retiring Gen. John P. Abizaid.
Fallon, the former chief of the U.S. Pacific Command, now leads more than 200,000 service members deployed in CENTCOMs area of responsibility, which includes 27 nations throughout Southwest Asia, the Middle East and the Horn of Africa.
Fallon is the first naval officer to assume command of CENTCOM, which began as the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force in 1980...
Fallon began his naval career in 1967 and has an impressive list of accomplishments since then. He flew the RA-5C Vigilante with a combat deployment to Vietnam , transitioning to the A-6 Intruder in 1974. He served in flying assignments with attack squadrons and carrier air wings for 24 years, deploying to the Mediterranean Sea, Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans embarked in USS Saratoga, USS Ranger, USS Nimitz, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and USS Theodore Roosevelt. He has logged more than 1,300 carrier arrested landings and 4,800 flight hours in tactical jet aircraft.
Fallons awards include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Distinguished Service Medal, the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Medal and the Navy Commendation Medal.
#1
NEWSMAX > Sec. GATES > USA despite seeming travails is ready for decades of defense of its own interests in the ME. Also, ABIZAID > reiterated that America is in a long war agz Terror that GOES BEYOND ONLY IRAQ + AFGHANISTAN, i.e. ARE BIGGER THINGS AT STAKE, NOT ONLY THE ME.
The US Department of Justice's civil rights division filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against the New York Department of Correctional Services alleging the city's prisons discriminated against Muslim officers by barring them from wearing visible symbols of their faith on the job.
The suit was filed Thursday in Manhattan on behalf of Abdus Samad N. Haqq, a prison guard from Brooklyn who was ordered in 2005 to stop wearing a kufi - a knitted skullcap that carries religious significance for many Muslim men - while at work. "Americans are not required to abandon their religious beliefs when they report for work," said Assistant Attorney General Wan J. Kim in a statement announcing the lawsuit.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/17/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Just curious: would a jewish officer be allowed to wear that beanie thing? If so, then I have no problem with the muslims wearing their kufti. I'm also fine if the decision is 'hats are not part of the uniform' as long as it's fair.
#4
Geoffro, if an Orthodox Jewish prison guard wore a yarmulke (Yiddish word) or kippah (Hebrew), it would be small enough to fit completely under the uniform cap. I'd always understood it as intended to be a private, rather than public, statement of faith. The Muslim kufi is intentionally both dimensional and large, and anyone wearing it would be visibly out of uniform.
#6
Let 'em wear their stinking kufis, just so long as they agree to forego all legal recourse if their lack of official headgear causes them to be mistaken for an escaped prisoner and shot on sight. There might be a whole mess of mistaken escape attempts after that, just sayin'.
WASHINGTON (AP) Two senators who watched Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confess to planning the Sept. 11 attacks and other plots said Friday that his allegations of mistreatment by U.S. captors should be taken seriously and investigated. To do otherwise would reflect poorly on our nation, Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in a joint statement.
To swallow codswallop makes us look pretty bad too, doncha think?
At a closed military hearing last Saturday at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. naval prison in Cuba, Mohammed claimed responsibility for plotting more than 30 attacks and personally beheading American journalist Daniel Pearl. He also gave military officials a written statement alleging mistreatment before arriving at Guantanamo Bay. He had previously been held by the CIA at Ice Station Zebra secret facilities.
Levin and Graham acknowledged Friday that they watched the proceedings on a closed circuit television in an adjoining room.
In that case, why not televise it so the rest of us can draw our own conclusions?
Allegations of prisoner mistreatment must be taken seriously and properly investigated, the senators statement said. According to the senators, the military officials hearing Mohammeds testimony said the allegations would be submitted to the appropriate authorities.
At which point several officers and personnel will waste a number of hours rebutting the charges, point by point, in a document that will be immediately discredited by all the correct thinkers, including Levin.
Levin and Graham said they were impressed with the tribunals professionalism, but did not rule out further changes to the system. The true test of the (tribunal) process is not a case in which the detainee admits the allegations against him, it is a case in which the detainee disputes those allegations, the senators wrote.
Well duh. Thank you Senators Obvious and Clueless. The detainees will dispute the allegations, the tribunals will rule, and that will be that.
Noting potential legal challenges to the law, we will continue to review the process and will explore possible ways to improve this process through congressional action, they added.
'cause it couldn't possibly be working right now, could it.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Senators Opie and Penguin (from Batman) should STFU
Posted by: Captain America ||
03/17/2007 0:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Okay, I'll bite, ala FOX > they allegedly saw KSM confess, yet they cannot confirm = deny that KSM was "tortured" to confess???
#4
How good of you Senators to provide cover to leftist nitwits like Rosie O'Donnell who automatically believe any accusation made against America by our deceitful, treacherous enemies. Great work, guys, thanks a ton.
#7
The true test of the (tribunal) process is not a case in which the detainee admits the allegations against him, it is a case in which the detainee disputes those allegations, the senators wrote.
So if someone admits to a crime, this means he did not commit it? Of course! No jihadi would be proud of murdering 3,000 infidels.
Is there no lower bound to the idiocy of the alleged senators?
"I dunnit, and I...would like a couple aspirin and an icepack A really big, really cold icepack."
THE admissions made by the mastermind of the September 11 attacks illuminated and transformed the cases against him and the 13 other al-Qaeda leaders transferred last year from CIA prisons to the US Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
In acknowledging his role in more than 30 terrorist attacks and plots, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed certainly simplified the case against himself and may have effectively signed his own death warrant when he eventually faces a military trial. But those same statements, released this week by the US Defence Department, may complicate the prosecution of his former colleagues.
Speaking to a military tribunal that considers just the narrow question of whether Guantanamo detainees were properly designated as enemy combatants, Mohammed was so expansive in his acceptance of responsibility that other defendants might be able to use his statements in their own defence.
In a transcript of the hearing, Mohammed also disavowed information he had told CIA interrogators about his accomplices, again potentially helping the other defendants. A revised version of the transcript released on Thursday added another chilling confession. Mohammed said he decapitated Daniel Pearl, a reporter for The Wall Street Journal, in Pakistan in 2002. The military said it had held back the passage about Pearl while it notified his family. "I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl in the city of Karachi, Pakistan," he said. "For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the internet holding his head."
It has long been known that a video of Pearl's slaying has circulated on a number of different radical Islamist websites and that Mohammed most likely committed this horrific execution. But Mohammed's chilling confession at Guantanamo that he decapitated Pearl was the first time he had publicly talked about Pearl's death. That confession could figure in the case of Ahmed Omar Sheikh, who is appealing his death sentence in Pakistan for his role in Pearl's abduction and murder.
Mohammed and the other al-Qaeda leaders will eventually face charges before military commissions that they are guilty of war crimes, many of which carry death sentences. Unlike the recent proceedings before Combatant Status Review Tribunals, these trials will largely resemble ones before civilian criminal courts. Officials have said they intend to charge the men this year and that those trials could start early next year.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/17/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"That confession could figure in the case of Ahmed Omar Sheikh, who is appealing his death sentence in Pakistan for his role in Pearl's abduction and murder."
#2
Daniel Pearl's parents don't believe that Mr. Mohammed was the one in the murder video. link I think some of his other confessions are equally suspect as an attempt to short circuit the search for the real culprits, or simply to take credit beyond his actual involvement. As someone said elsewhere, why would the Arab masters of al Qaeda let a Pakistani tribal lord over them the way Mr. Mohammed claims?
Defense lawyers want the word "terrorist" banned as too inflammatory in the U.S. trial of Jose Padilla and two other men charged with conspiring to aid Islamist extremists overseas. The word conjures up visions of someone with a bomb belt blowing up himself and others in a crowded cafe, ...
... well yes, that's one vivid image of a terrorist ...
... Jeanne Baker, an attorney representing co-defendant Adham Amin Hassoun, said during a hearing in the high-profile case on Friday. "The word terrorist has nothing to do with this case," Baker said. "The word terrorist is used to label an enemy."
Give Ms. Baker a prize, she's exactly right. Seeing as Mr. Padilla is on trial for exactly that, it does seem appropriate for the prosecution to allege that he's a terrorist and an enemy.
U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke, who has set trial for April 16, did not immediately rule on the request. But one of the prosecutors, Assistant U.S. Attorney John Shipley, noted during the hearing that "'Terrorist' has no standard definition."
It has several, in fact ...
Hassoun, Padilla and co-defendant Kifah Wael Jayyousi are accused of providing recruits and money to mujahideen warriors who conspired to murder, maim and kidnap people in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia and elsewhere during the 1990s. Mujahideen, or holy warriors, is a term for Islamic guerrilla groups. The word is used in the indictment but prosecutors want to call expert witnesses to explain the term and its relation to various groups, including al Qaeda.
Seems like Jose has managed to wiggle free of the post 9/11 charges, at least for now ...
Defense lawyers plan to call historians and a U.S. Army officer as experts to tell the jury that mujahideen groups are not synonymous with terrorists, and that their actions do not necessarily amount to murder.
It's just a Western construct, you see ...
They said the U.S. government has portrayed the Russian army as victims of mujahideen violence in Chechnya, and the Serbian and Croatian forces as victims of mujahideen "murderers" in Bosnia. Human rights groups and the U.S. State Department have criticized Russia's human rights record in Chechnya and the United Nations found that Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide against Bosnian Muslims.
Seems like the prosecution may be playing into the hands of the defense. If you buy that the Bosnian Muslims had a right to defend themselves, you can't get too upset that Jose is giving them money -- a mere technical violation. The more important point is that Jose is giving money and aid to people who want Americans dead, and to heck with the Bosnians, Russers, Chechers, etc. The issue is whether he was conspiring to kill his fellow Americans, and my understanding was that we had him dead to rights on that.
The defense lawyers want to tell the jurors about the 1995 massacre at Srebrenica, where Bosnian Serb forces killed thousands of Bosnian Muslim men and boys, and about crimes committed by Russian forces against Muslims in Chechnya. They suggested they would argue that the defendants had no intent to abet murders and that the groups they are accused of aiding may in fact have been fighting to defend fellow Muslims who were under attack. "You cannot just assume that when they killed, if they killed, it was murder," Baker said. "Defending Muslims is not committing murder."
Defending one's women and children isn't murder. But Jose isn't a Bosnian. We should be trying him for what he was planning to do to Americans.
Media attention on the case has focused largely on Padilla, a 36-year-old American citizen arrested in Chicago upon his return from Egypt and Pakistan in May 2002. He was accused of plotting to set off a radioactive bomb in the United States and President George W. Bush ordered him held as an "enemy combatant" in a military brig for 3-1/2 years.
While a challenge to Bush's authority to hold Padilla without charge was pending in the Supreme Court, Padilla was indicted in Florida on charges unrelated to any bombs. The judge has already ruled that Padilla is mentally fit to stand trial, but still must rule on a defense claim that the government's treatment of him was so outrageous the charges should be dropped.
Holding him in solitary isn't outrageous. If it is then there's plenty of guys in state pens who have a claim ...
Prosecutors contend that Hassoun recruited Padilla to attend an al Qaeda training camp, which Hassoun denies. All three defendants have pleaded innocent and would face life imprisonment if convicted on all the charges.
This article starring:
Adham Amin Hassoun
Jose Padilla
Kifah Wael Jayyousi
Posted by: Fred ||
03/17/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Holding him in solitary isn't outrageous.
ALL suspected and convicted terrorists should be held in solitary confinement. Especially so in light of how Islam is spreading like wildfire throughout America's prison populations. Islamists represent one of the single most dangerous breeds of psychopath in history.
How it is possible for the defense to seek curbs upon free speech in a court of law stands as conduct worthy of censure. It is as if they seek to ban the word "steal" at a thief's trial. Padilla has already been charged with unrelated terrorist activity and the fact that a pattern of conduct is emerging more than justifies describing him as a terrorist. Jeanne Baker must have apprenticed under Lynne Stewart.
#4
Its not what they call Padilla, its the facts. If the jury begins to say, "That kinda stuff ain't gonna happen in my neighborhood," or, "I don't want that happening around here" then bad boy Padilla is going down. Show'em the facts,and the jurors' bullsh*t detectors will allow them to smell it out.
#5
That's as may be, whatadeal, but this issue is far more important than the actual outcome of this single trial. Under no circumstances should it be permissible to "sanitize" the prosecuting bench's accusatory language in such a crippling fashion. This is Politically Correct Newspeak and it must be slapped down, and slapped down HARD, for the legal balderdash it is.
LUCKNOW, India - An Indian Muslim group has offered a 500,000 rupee (11,319 dollar) bounty for the beheading of controversial Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen.
The president of the All India Ibtehad Council said on Friday he had declared the reward for anyone who carried out the quatal or extermination of the notorious woman. Taslima has put Muslims to shame in her writing. She should be killed and beheaded and anyone who does this will get a reward from the council, Taqi Raza Khan said in a statement received in the northern city of Lucknow.
Perhaps the Indian government can comment on why the 'Council' hasn't yet been arrested for incitement?
The council, based in Bareilly town also in Uttar Pradesh state, is a splinter group of the influential All India Muslim Personal Law Board. Khan said the only way the bounty would be lifted was if Nasreen apologises, burns her books and leaves.
Nasreen has incensed conservative Muslims for writing a novel Lajja or Shame depicting the life of a Hindu family facing the ire of Muslims in Bangladesh. The book is banned in Muslim-majority Bangladesh along with her autobiographical works on grounds of being anti-Islamic.
The author was forced to flee her homeland in 1994 after radical Muslims decried her writings as blasphemous and demanded her execution. She is seeking permanent residence or citizenship in India.
I'd grant her asylum in the U.S. today.
Khans bounty was not a fatwa, as he was not a senior enough cleric to issue Islamic decrees.
Seems as if he's senior enough to advocate killin'.
But it drew swift condemnation from one of South Asias most powerful Muslim seminaries. Clergy of the Sunni seminary Dar-ul Uloom in Deoband in Uttar Pradesh, a state with a large Muslim population, said the call to behead Nasreen was un-Islamic and that clergy should not issue such fatwas. Unnecessary edicts increase friction in society and people of other religions start treating Islam as a barbaric religion, Mufti Arif, who sits on the board of the fatwa committee of Dar-ul Uloom, told AFP by telephone.
We non-Muslims do get a little uppity that way ...
But Arif backed Khans call for 45-year-old Nasreens expulsion from India.
So it's not all roses for Nasreen.
There was no immediate comment from Nasreen who has lived in self-exile in Europe and the United States, but has lately been living in India. Nasreen has been spending most of her time in Kolkata, state capital of the eastern state of West Bengal which shares the same language and much of the culture of Bangladesh.
But she has also faced problems in India. In 2004, an Indian Muslim cleric offered a reward of 20,000 rupees to anyone who blackened her face, an action considered a grave insult. Following the threat, Indian police have given her security.
Earlier this week, the writer made an impassioned plea to her second home India to grant her citizenship. I have been banished from my country. India is my second home. I have been granted a six-month visa but citizenship is being repeatedly refused to me, the author said. If I cant live in my own country, and if I have to stay close to home where I can speak my mother tongue, write in my own language, India is the second option. Where else will I go? she asked.
The writer said she will soon make a fresh application for citizenship. The Indian government has not commented on her request for citizenship.
I understand her wanting to be in her own culture and language. But if that doesn't work come here.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2007 11:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Above all, she should keep writing, especially about how murderous fatwas make Muslims murderous.
President of All India Muslim Personal Board (Jadeed) Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan announced a reward of Rs 5 lakh on Bangladeshi writer Tasleema Nasreen's head if New Delhi does not restrict her entry into the country.
Addressing the board's annual meeting in Bareilly, in Uttar Pradesh, Tauqeer alleged the Centre was deliberately hurting sentiments of Muslims by not banning her entry to the country, said a private Indian news channel "Zeenews."
Noting that Nasreen had made "derogatory references against Prophet Mohammad in her writings", Tauqeer said, "We demand that the government should ban her entry into the country. If it is not done, anyone who beheads her will be given a reward of Rs five lakh," he announced.
The board had earlier elected Maulana Tauseef Raza Khan as its new President.
Posted by: John Frum ||
03/17/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Quran does prescribe purdah. That doesn't mean women should obey it
By Taslima Nasrin
My mother used purdah. She wore a burqa with a net cover in front of the face. It reminded me of the meatsafes in my grandmother's house. One had a net door made of cloth, the other of metal. But the objective was the same: keeping the meat safe. My mother was put under a burqa by her conservative family. They told her that wearing a burqa would mean obeying Allah. And if you obey Allah, He would be happy with you and not let you burn in hellfire. My mother was afraid of Allah and also of her own father. He would threaten her with grave consequences if she didn't wear the burqa.
She was also afraid of the men in the neighbourhood, who could have shamed her. Even her husband was a source of fear, for he could do anything to her if she disobeyed him.
As a young girl, I used to nag her: Ma, don't you suffocate in this veil? Don't you feel
all dark inside? Don't you feel breathless? Don't you feel angry? Don't you ever feel like throwing it off? My mother kept mum. She couldn't do anything about it. But I did. When I was sixteen, I was presented a burqa by one of my relatives. I threw it away.
The custom of purdah is not new. It dates back to 300 BC. The women of aristocratic Assyrian families used purdah. Ordinary women and prostitutes were not allowed purdah. In the middle ages, even Anglo-Saxon women used to cover their hair and chin and hide their faces behind a cloth or similar object. This purdah system was obviously not religious. The religious purdah is used by Catholic nuns and Mormons, though for the latter only during religious ceremonies and rituals. For Muslim women, however, such religious purdah is not limited to specific rituals but mandatory for their daily life outside the purview of religion.
A couple of months ago, at the height of the purdah controversy, Shabana Azmi asserted that the Quran doesn't say anything about wearing the burqa. She's mistaken. This is what the Quran says:
"Tell the faithful women that they must keep their gaze focused below/on the ground and cover their sexual organs. They must not put their beauty and their jewellery on display. They must hide their breasts behind a purdah. They must not exhibit their beauty to anybody except their husbands, brothers, nephews, womenfolk, servants, eunuch employees and children. They must not move their legs briskly while walking because then much of their bodies can get exposed." (Sura Al Noor 24:31)
"Oh nabi, please tell your wives and daughters and faithful women to wear a covering dress on their bodies. That would be good. Then nobody can recognise them and harrass them. Allah is merciful and kind." (Sura Al Hijaab 33: 59)
Even the Hadis --a collection of the words of Prophet Mohammed, his opinion on various subjects and also about his work, written by those close to him-- talks extensively of the purdah for women. Women must cover their whole body before going out, they should not go before unknown men, they should not go to the mosque to read the namaaz, they should not go for any funeral.
There are many views on why and how the Islamic purdah started. One view has it that Prophet Mohammed became very poor after spending all the wealth of his first wife. At that time, in Arabia, the poor had to go to the open desert and plains for relieving themselves and even their sexual needs. The Prophet's wives too had to do the same. He had told his wives that "I give you permission to go out and carry out your natural work". (Bukhari Hadis first volume book 4 No. 149). And this is what his wives started doing accordingly. One day, Prophet Mohammed's disciple Uman complained to him that these women were very uncomfortable because they were instantly recognisable while relieving themselves.
Umar proposed a cover but Prophet Mohammed ignored it. Then the Prophet asked Allah for advice and he laid down the Ayat (33:59) (Bukhari Hadis Book 026 No. 5397).
This is the history of the purdah, according to the Hadis. But the question is: since Arab men too relieved themselves in the open, why didn't Allah start the purdah for men? Clearly, Allah doesn't treat men and women as equals, else there would be purdah for both! Men are higher than women. So women have to be made walking prisons and men can remain free birds.
Another view is that the purdah was introduced to separate women from servants. This originates from stories in the Hadis. One story in the Bukhari Hadis goes thus: After winning the Khyber War, Prophet Mohammed took over all the properties of the enemy, including their women. One of these women was called Safia. One of the Prophet's disciples sought to know her status. He replied: "If tomorrow you see that Safia is going around covered, under purdah, then she is going to be a wife. If you see her uncovered, that means I've decided to make her my servant."
The third view comes from this story. Prophet Mohammed's wife Ayesha was very beautiful. His friends were often found staring at her with fascination. This clearly upset the Prophet. So the Quran has an Ayat that says, "Oh friends of the prophet or holy men, never go to your friend's house without an invitation. And if you do go, don't go and ask anything of their wives". It is to resist the greedy eyes of friends, disciples or male guests that the purdah system came into being. First it was applicable to only the wives of the holy men, and later it was extended to all Muslim women. Purdah means covering the entire body except for the eyes, wrist and feet. Nowadays, some women practise the purdah by only covering their hair. That is not what is written in the Hadis Quran. Frankly, covering just the hair is not Islamic purdah in the strict sense.
In the early Islamic period, Prophet Mohammed started the practice of covering the feet of women. Within 100 years of his death, purdah spread across the entire Middle East. Women were covered by an extra layer of clothing. They were forbidden to go out of the house, or in front of unknown men. Their lives were hemmed into a tight regime: stay at home, cook, clean the house, bear children and bring them up. In this way, one section of the people was separated by purdah, quarantined and covered.
Why are women covered? Because they are sex objects. Because when men see them, they are roused. Why should women have to be penalised for men's sexual problems? Even women have sexual urges. But men are not covered for that. In no religion formulated by men are women considered to have a separate existence, or as human beings having desires and opinions separate from men's. The purdah rules humiliate not only women but men too. If women walk about without purdah, it's as if men will look at them with lustful eyes, or pounce on them, or rape them. Do they lose all their senses when they see any woman without burqa?
My question to Shabana and her supporters, who argue that the Quran says nothing about purdah is: If the Quran advises women to use purdah, should they do so? My answer is, No. Irrespective of which book says it, which person advises, whoever commands, women should not have purdah. No veil, no chador, no hijab, no burqa, no headscarf. Women should not use any of these things because all these are instruments of disrespect. These are symbols of women's oppression. Through them, women are told that they are but the property of men, objects for their use. These coverings are used to keep women passive and submissive. Women are told to wear them so that they cannot exist with their self-respect, honour, confidence, separate identity, own opinion and ideals intact.So that they cannot stand on their own two feet and live with their head held high and their spine strong and erect.
Some 1,500 years ago, it was decided for an individual's personal reasons that women should have purdah and since then millions of Muslim women all over the world have had to suffer it. So many old customs have died a natural death, but not purdah. Instead, of late, there has been a mad craze to revive it. Covering a woman's head means covering her brain and ensuring that it doesn't work. If women's brains worked properly, they'd have long ago thrown off these veils and burqas imposed on them by a religious and patriarchal regime.
What should women do? They should protest against this discrimination. They should proclaim a war against the wrongs and ill-treatment meted out to them for hundreds of years. They should snatch from the men their freedom and their rights. They should throw away this apparel of discrimination and burn their burqas.
(Nasrin, a Bangladeshi writer, currently lives in Calcutta, India)
Posted by: John Frum ||
03/17/2007 6:35 Comments ||
Top||
Saadoun Hammadi, a longtime ally of Saddam Hussein and one of the most senior Iraq Baath party leaders who also served as a rare Shiite prime minister under Saddam has died in a hospital in Germany, a Baath party spokesman and the party's Web site said.
Hammadi was released from a prison camp in Iraq in February 2004, after nine months in the custody of U.S. troops. He left Iraq for medical treatment in Jordan, Lebanon and Germany, but settled in Qatar in early 2005. He was believed to be suffering from leukemia.
Hammadi died late Wednesday in a German hospital, party spokesman Hisham Odeh told The Associated Press in Amman. The spokesman said he was told of the news by a friend of the Hammadi family in Qatar.
The Baath party Web site reported his death Thursday. There were no further details.
Under Saddam, Hammadi held the posts of foreign and oil minister, and was the last speaker of the Iraqi parliament up to the 2003 U.S. invasion.
He joined the Baath party in his Shiite home town Karbala in mid 1940s, climbing the party ladder steadily. He served as oil minister and foreign minister before becoming prime minister in March 1991, after Saddam crushed a Shiite uprising following Iraq's defeat in Kuwait. He was the parliament speaker from 1996 until the 2003 fall of Saddam's regime.
A U.S.-educated proponent of economic liberalization and reforms, Hammadi got a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Wisconsin in 1956.
In his drive to stay in power following Kuwait defeat, Saddam sought to portray himself as more politically flexible and relinquished the prime minister's post to install Hammadi in it.
But within six months Saddam had sacked Hammadi, after the new prime minister spoke up for reforms and democracy, and also publicly humiliated him by demoting him to the lowest party ranks. Hammadi accepted the move without complaint and continued to be loyal. Five years on, he was brought back to the limelight as parliament speaker.
(KUNA) -- The Turkish National Security Council has cautioned against a possible Turkish military invasion of north Iraq. The warning was made by the council in a classified dossier that would be discussed during the council's meeting in April, the C.N.N.Turk website said Friday. A Turkish invasion of north Iraq would cause serious human and material perils to Turkey, it said, quoting the report as urging the Turkish government to beef up its relations with all Iraqi factions, including north Iraqi Kurds.
Concerning Kirkuk, the report suggested that no one could allow Kurds to annex this city to their autonomy, believing that the reasonable approach is to give Kirkuk a special status just like Baghdad. It also ruled out that the US could continue its support for Kurds for good amid Turkish wrath at such a US position.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/17/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It also ruled out that the US could continue its support for Kurds for good amid Turkish wrath at such a US position.
Oh yeah. The last thing we want is to anger our close personal friends, the Turks, who have been sooo helpful. And what exactly is the 'special status' of Baghdad? Other than an infestation of human vermin at the moment, I mean.
WASHINGTON - The US Defense Department on Friday reaffirmed its finding that a British soldiers death in a friendly fire attack in Iraq was a tragic accident after a British coroner ruled it was criminal. British coroner Andrew Walker said he found no lawful authority for the air attack on a convoy in March 2003 that killed Lance Corporal Matty Hull. Walker criticized the US military for not cooperating with the inquest.
A Pentagon statement extended deepest sympathies to Hulls family but defended the finding of its own investigation and said it had shared all information developed during the probe with British military authorities. In addition, that report -- with the portions that are not releasable for security, privacy or other reasons redacted -- was provided to the MoD (Ministry of Defense) for release to the Hull family, it said. The US government has worked with the UK MoD to share information with the coroner that was not protected from release because it is classified or otherwise protected information, it said.
It said its investigation was thorough and conducted according to the same processes and same standards as would be used in the investigation of a friendly fire incident involving the death of an American military member.
The investigation determined that the incident took place in a complex combat environment, the pilots followed applicable procedures and processes for engaging targets, believing they were engaging enemy targets, and that this was a tragic accident, it said.
The high-profile inquest, in Oxford, south central England, heard how the pilot of one of two US A-10 tankbuster planes swooped and opened fire on Hulls clearly-marked armored vehicle convoy in southern Iraq on March 28, 2003.
It was unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it and in that respect it was criminal, Walker said.
It's bad because he says it's bad. We had a lawful reason -- we were at war. That's what he's getting at here; just another barking moonbat baying about the 'illegal' war.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
thanks Quincey, now STFU
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/17/2007 9:40 Comments ||
Top||
(KUNA) -- The Fatah movement on Friday condemned the attack carried out by unidentified gunmen on the director of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in Gaza John Ging. The movement called in a statement on the concerned security bodies to bring to justice those responsible for the attack as soon as possible. It hailed the tremendous role played by the UNRWA to the defiant Palestinian people.
Ging was traveling from the Erez border crossing to Gaza City when the attack happened. UNRWA, the largest UN agency with more than 25,000 employees, was established in the aftermath of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war to provide relief for upwards of 700,000 Palestinian refugees uprooted by the war.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/17/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
(KUNA) -- Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement of Hamas on Friday denounced the attack executed against the director of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in Gaza John Ging by unknown armed men.
Such acts contradict with the Palestinian people's ethics, as the movement oversaw the assassination attempt as of "great danger", Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum told reporters today. A statement issued by the movement said that people responsible for the assault were "planting seeds of destruction", as such actions would hinder efforts the agency was exerting in order to alleviate the suffering of Palestinians. The statement demanded all Palestinian factions to condemn the criminal endeavor, and contribute in the process of revealing who was involved in performing it.
UNRWA is a relief and human development agency, providing education, healthcare, social services and emergency aid to over 4.3 million refugees living in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/17/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
The US will maintain an unofficial communication channel with Salam Fayad, expected to be appointed to the position of finance minister in the new Palestinian Authority unity government, Israel Radio said on Friday.
US officials said they would maintain relations with Fayad even if the unity government would not recognize Israel, would not abandon its commitment to terror and would not condemn violent resistance to Israel. Anybody suprised, raise your hand
TEHERAN - The Iranian military has developed a new air defence system with a boosted ability to hit targets by firing two missiles simultaneously, state radio said on Friday.
This new air defence system which can shoot one or two missiles simultaneously... has been designed by army ground forces and tested successfully, the radio said. It has high mobility and flexibility, and can pursue aerial targets in any climate. Simultaneous firing increases the chances of defence missiles hitting their targets, it added.
LONDON - The exiled leader of Syrias outlawed Muslim Brotherhood on Friday called on President Bashar al-Assad to step down and allow free elections, saying the opposition would resort to civil disobedience if the regime failed to introduce democratic change.
Seven years of Bashars presidency is enough for him to present his resignation, leave power and make space for others to assume responsibility for the presidency through real competition, not a referendum, London-based Ali Bayanouni told Reuters in an interview. Bayanouni is a key founder of a united opposition movement -- the so-called National Salvation Front -- formed last year with secular, nationalist, liberal and Kurdish opposition parties with the aim of overthrowing Assad and installing democracy. The opposition, comprising 16 Syrian parties, includes former Vice-President Abdel-Halim Khaddam, a figurehead who broke ranks with Assad in 2005.
The opposition forces are moving towards applying pressure on the regime starting with demonstrations and moving to civil disobedience, said Bayanouni, who left Syria before Assads father crushed an Islamist revolt in the town of Hama in 1982 killing at least 10,000 people and perhaps twice that number. There could be protests, non-payment of taxes or demonstrations. The steps will be decided at the appropriate time by consultation among a unified opposition leadership.
All well and good but that's likely to result in bloodshed -- this won't be a Cedar or Orange Revolution.
Bayanouni said opposition parties were boycotting next months parliamentary elections, which were regarded as mere window dressing by Syrians. Assad, who succeeded his late father Hafez al-Assad in 2000, is also expected to run and win a referendum to be held before mid-July to appoint him to a second seven-year term.
The Muslim Brotherhood leader, whose members face the death penalty in Syria, said Western countries were making a big mistake by re-establishing contacts with Assad. He was referring to European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana who met Assad on Wednesday after France dropped objections to EU contacts with Damascus.
Nice going, Jaques.
When the EU is trying to end the isolation of the regime, this is at the expense of the Syrian people. The position of the West towards the Syrian regime goes against the interest of the Syrian people, Bayanouni said. I think they believe that it (the regime) will participate in ending the problems in Iraq and Lebanon. We believe that the regime is part of the problem and not part of the solution, he added.
He sees that pretty clearly. Too bad the Euros can't.
Bayanouni was reluctant to give details on how much backing the oldest Islamist political movement has inside tightly controlled Syria, fearing for its supporters safety. But he said there was dissatisfaction among the military and intelligence forces and that Syrians would move against the regime if they had international support. When there is a favourable international position sympathetic to the Syrian people, they will arise and move once they realise there is an intention to protect them if they move against the regime..., Bayanouni said.
And if someone were to give Assad a push, real quiet like ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The opposition forces are moving towards applying pressure on the regime starting with demonstrations and moving to civil disobedience.
WASHINGTON - The United States said on Friday it would expedite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejads request for a visa to address the UN Security Council when it votes on a new sanctions resolution against his country next week.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack urged Ahmadinejad to use the appearance to do an about face and announce the suspension of his countrys uranium enrichment program as demanded under previous UN resolutions.
He's more likely to demonstrate that he's both nuts and crazy, which would suit us just fine ...
McCormack said Iran had applied via the US embassy in Switzerland for visas for Ahmadenijad and his delegation to attend the UN Security Council session that will vote on a resolution toughening UN sanctions against Teheran. That meeting is expected sometime next week.
We are going to do everything that we can in accordance with our (UN) host country responsibilities to expedite the issuing of any such visas, he said.
You bet. Let Mahmoud come talk again. Let him rant and rave. He should wave a copy of Chomsky about followed by a Quran. Let him walk away thinking that he had another glow about him, and let the rest of the world see just what kind of man wants to have a nuclear button.
There are days when Karl Rove is still a genius ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Let him come. Just don't let him go back.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
03/17/2007 0:19 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Insist on an "Insepction" of his airplane when he lands. I'm sure the engineers know a way or two to discreetly sabotage it without anyone noticing. They could probably time it so he goes down right in the middle of the Atlantic. No recovery of the aircraft possible there I think.
Posted by: Charles ||
03/17/2007 5:21 Comments ||
Top||
#5
a few gallons of Holy Water in his tanks might help.
#6
Dear Rantburgians, permit me, if you will to propose the following facts:
1 - Ahmadinejad has repeatedly claimed holy fire was going to be brought to bear on the enemies of Allan.
2 - He has repeatedly offered a time-table starting about now for this fire to be made manifest.
3 - He is clearly doing his bit to immanentize his eschaton and has clearly seen himself as a kind of John the Baptist heralding the emergence of the Twelfth Imam.
4 - Given the right circumstances, i.e. grandstanding to top the Sunni massacre of Americans on Sept. 11, 2001, and his death cult ideology, it seems reasonable to believe he would seek personal "martyrdom". Certainly, the possibility could not credibly be ruled out.
Continue to indulge me with the following scenario:
Ahmadinejad addresses the United Nations and before the cameras of the world uses the key word that is the signal to his followers. In the last seconds of his life he sees a halo rise above his audience in the General Assembly followed by his gruesome death. Would it be shrapnel from the blast wave, over-pressure, building collapse or the fireball itself that kills him? I doubt many would think to ask as infrared pictures of the crater became visible through the smoke. And with over a hundred thousand dead and rising Iran's announcement of its nuclear weapons capability would be swiftly denied by all the usual traitors. Perhaps on that day even France could force itself to feign sympathy before reminding us of Hiroshima and the "red Indians" and of course the Great Satan George W. Bush.
#7
That's the kind of scenario that was suggested in comments yesterday, but it's also quite possible that the extra load left on the plane is just hostages to prevent a planned crash of the plane or a coup in his absence. Given Iran's record with plane problems, I'd be bringing all the mechanics with me if I were him.
#8
If that happened Bush would have no choice but to incinerate every major city and military installation in Iran as retaliation.
Posted by: Mac ||
03/17/2007 18:09 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Can't we start a windex drive? I mean wouldn't be the rantburg thing to do to help with the future clean up. After all if they do something funny they will need all the windex they can get.
Posted by: bruce ||
03/17/2007 18:43 Comments ||
Top||
In the wake of community criticism, Target Corp. is reassigning its Muslim cashiers who refuse to ring up pork products for religious reasons to other jobs at the stores. Target received a wave of criticism earlier this week after the Star Tribune reported in a front-page article that some Muslim cashiers at Target declined to scan bacon and other pork products.
Some customers called and wrote Target to complain about the practice; a few called for a general boycott of Target on the Star Tribune's community blog, buzz.mn.
After the story appeared, Target asked Muslim cashiers who refuse to handle pork to wear gloves or transfer to other areas of the stores. In some cases, Muslim cashiers will be given the option of transferring to other stores. "We are confident that this is a reasonable solution for our guests and team members," Target spokeswoman Paula Thornton-Greear said in a statement. It remains unclear whether wages would be affected by any job transfers; cashiers are generally entry-level positions at Target. Target's new policy is similar to ones at other grocery stores in the area. Spokespeople for the chains that operate Cub and Rainbow food stores said Muslims who share concerns about pork during the interview process are told of opportunities in departments such as dairy, floral or customer service that don't involve handling pork.
Each Target store appears to have some leeway in implementing the new policy. At the downtown Minneapolis Target, employees were called into one-on-one meetings Thursday and asked whether they were opposed to handling pork for religious reasons. Those who said yes were told they could no longer work as cashiers during the store's busiest hours, 12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., according to an employee at the store who requested anonymity.
At the SuperTarget off Hwy. 7 in St. Louis Park, which has a full grocery section, Muslim cashiers who said they refuse to handle pork were transferred Thursday to the sales floor to stock shelves or fold clothes. It remained unclear whether that change is permanent. Suhara Robla, a 20-year-old employee at the store, said more than a dozen Muslim cashiers were asked Thursday to do other jobs. "They told all of us who don't touch pork to go to the sales floor," she said. "They really didn't say why. They just said it was a new policy."
At Target stores, some Muslim cashiers opposed to selling pork had grown accustomed to waving over other employees whenever they came across bacon, ham or other pork products, even pepperoni pizza. In many cases, they simply switched on a little light above their registers and another cashier would rush to their side and swipe the product for them. The practice seemed to work well for Robla. She said she needed help scanning pork products only "about two or three times a day." In other cases, customers would volunteer to swipe the items themselves.
Occasionally, however, Robla said, people would get annoyed when she told them it was because of her religion. "Some people would say, 'If you won't scan it, then I don't want this thing,' " she said. "I don't understand it. Some people don't even want to wait a few seconds." No, no, Robla dear. It's called customer service -- not Muslim cashier service.
Mohamed Muse, who also works at the St. Louis Park store but not as a cashier, has no problems with the new policy. "If someone is trying to buy pork, you can't just say, 'Wait here,' " he said. "You can't put a hold on the work system." Muse, speaking to a reporter Friday afternoon at the Somali mall just off Lake Street, said when he applied for his job six months ago, a human-resources worker asked him whether he could handle pork. Muse, who arrived in the country eight months ago after immigrating with his family from Nairobi, Kenya, said no. "They said OK. So I work mostly with fruits and vegetables overnight," he said. "It was really no problem."Some people get it.
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/17/2007 13:37 Comments ||
Top||
#2
if you are refusing to perform the job functions, you should find another job after you are terminated. not coddled and transferred.
if i claimed a hangup as a bank teller and refused to cash welfare checks because i believe that money should be earned rather than transferred/extorted by the government i am sure i would be canned rather than transferred to another department or to a different branch.
you think handling pork is wrong, find a job where there is no pork to handle
Posted by: abu do you love ||
03/17/2007 13:58 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Many Muslims believe the pig is an unclean animal and consider it a sin to eat pork. The Qur'an has multiple passages in which Allah instructs believers to avoid eating pig flesh. It is so core to their beliefs that some consider it sinful to sell the meat, because that encourages others to participate in a sinful act.
In the Muslim world, there is even a stronger taboo against pork than alcohol, said Owais Bayunus, an imam at the Abu Khudra Mosque in Columbia Heights. Wearing gloves will not solve the issue, he said. "There is a school of thought within the Muslim community that if you sell pork or alcohol to someone, then you are contributing to the propagation of a sinful activity," he said. "Many Muslims do not want to see non-Muslims involved in a sinful product."
excuse me? I'll decide what I want to purchase, and I won't be limited by the twisted interpretations of a 7th century moon cult. In fact, I'd go back for an extra rack of baby back ribs and some Jimmy Dean's, beeeotch!
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/17/2007 14:23 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Conservative Christians don't get jobs working at strip clubs or adult bookstores, because they don't want to deal with that kind of activity. They don't get jobs there and then insist that the establishment change its business operations to suit their religious beliefs. I don't know why Muslims in Minnesota should be any different.
#5
Don't transfer them, FIRE THEM !!!! For christ sake we will all be praying to Allah pretty soon in an effort not to upset the Damn Muzzies!!!
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
03/17/2007 14:52 Comments ||
Top||
#6
To Mooslimbs:
Fuck off and die, you 7th century moon cult.
I have had it with your backwards lifestyle and your trying to force it on me and my country. You don't like what we do, fuck off and go home. We will even escort you to the border before we dropkick your ass across it. If you agree to live and let live, you are welcome to stay. Otherwise, fuck off and go home.
If you stay and keep trying to impose your cult on me, prepare to reap the wirlwind.
#9
Spot on Frank! And make sure they sniff the packages to make sure they aren't leaking!
I have fricking had it with the Minneapolis Muzzies and their Pedophile for Profit myth death cult. Keith Ellison is their Kaaba marching lap dog funded by the terrorist in CAIR and something has got to be done. The question is what? Hennepin County is overflowing with America hating moonbats that refuse to check into the backgrounds of non-citizen welfare suckers. That's why Minneapolis has so many.
Personally I stopped going to Target two years ago when they bent over and took it up the poop pipe and removed the Salvation Army Kettles. A local Minneapolis fudge packer (gays only cruise line promoter) demanded that this Christian group be removed from all of the Target Stores. Sickening. I wrote to a KSTP report and then Target spokes women Carolyn Brookter and told her how ashamed we were of her company. She must have felt the same because right about hen Greear popped up as the mouthpiece.
Customer: Heh you in the burka where are you're qurans?
Target burka: We don't have a book section.
Customer: Never mind I just remembered where you keep the toilet paper.
#10
If I ever encounter any of this kind of behavior, I promise I will insist that the manager come over, and I will make a big stink. I'll make 'em wish they never hired any sort of whacko muzzie idiot.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
03/17/2007 15:13 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Personally I'll just take the opportunity to evangelize on the benefits to the soul of a good BLT on white toast with mayo.
#12
IIRC - Target banned ALL solicitors (to eliminate the whackjobs) from their storefronts, but promised to give a significant donation each year to Salvation Army. If they keep that bargain, and continue to contribute corporately (try to say that or type it three times...yeeesh), then I understand their policy and am OK with it. In regards to checkout clerks who won't do their jobs if the product offends them? Behead them in the parking lot! But that's just me...and I am a known softy
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/17/2007 16:03 Comments ||
Top||
#13
We should see this trend as a great tactical opportunity in the War against Islam. A few people with a little time on their hands can drive any annoying Muslim in retailing out of a job, if not out of their mind.
#14
If I ever encounter any of this kind of behavior, I promise I will insist that the manager come over, and I will make a big stink. I'll make 'em wish they never hired any sort of whacko muzzie idiot.
This is the real solution. It is Target's legal right to transfer these miserable little whiners rather than fire them outright like they so richly deserve.
It is OUR RIGHT to loudly and pointedly complain when some Islamic facist is attempting to regulate our shopping habits by whingeing about our legitimate activities within a public store.
Be sure to elevate your voice and make special note of how this Muslim (be sure to identify their religion), is showing lack of concern for prompt, polite customer service then pointedly observe that they are attempting to foist their religion upon you in an inappropriate fashion.
Rinse and repeat as needed. Whenever possible, record the employee's name and file a written complaint so that their personnel file becomes littered with such negative comments. No human resources wonk can promote anyone with lots of complaints.
We need to thwart these subtle erosions of our right to live our lives as we see fit. I can only hope that the jobs Target transfers these wankers to involve the most heavy lifting.
#15
I like the part about not cashiering during the busy part of the day....what does that say about customerservice during the remainder of the day? I still think the best fix is to hit the checkout lines with a load of pork products and when they refuse, just leave. rinse and repeat.
#16
Sorry Frank that isn't what happened. I was tracking the Target BS because I knew Carolyn and have other Christian friends that work at the main office. They used the "ban all solicitors" as an excuse to give in to a gay cruise line business owner who was part of the Minneapolis business council. I watched the whole thing go down from the headquarters in Minneapolis.
The fact was that there were no other groups wanting to do anything like what the Salvation Army was doing. It was purely a case of gay activist going after a Christan Group. Been there, saw that.
Wal-Mart continues to support the Salvation Army and to this day they haven't had a single problem with other groups. Not one. Target's PR line was and is pure bullshit from the get go.
Contact Target at 1 (800) 440-0680. Let Target know you will stop shopping there unless they stop giving in to the Islam.
Other Target BS. Forbids employees from saying, "Merry Christmas"; Bans mention of Christmas in "holiday" ads and promotions.
* Bans Salvation Army bell-ringers; and
* Sells clothing made in terrorist-host state Syria and anti-American United Arab Emirates (and refuses to respond to inquiries regarding that)
This picture illustrates what Target sees as "the community" and how to "give back" to it. We noted not a single Christian or Jewish group in the four full-page ad spread. Why? We don't object to Target treating all religions equally, but this ad--and Target's outrageous "holiday" season behavior--suggests otherwise, that Target prefers one religion over the others. Why is it Target's official policy to de-Christmas-ize ads, but no problem making Islam front and central? Keep in mind that part of your Target purchase funds this, whatever it is.
#17
I'll accept your premise - I live in San Diego, and can only comment on my local store - we had every weirdo and petition-signature soliciter under the sun every weekend at the local Target entrance/exit. I have always dropped $ at the SA kettles, and still do at the grocery store locations that have them. If Target chose to ban all solicitors, yet contribute to SA, I have no problems with that. I do have issues if they let employees enforce their personal issues on customers...what next? They won't help me find an R-rated DVD? A BBQ I might use to smoke pork ribs?
bottomline: I can understand if they had to do a blanket-ban to stop other soliciters, fine. If they don't use "Christmas" in the manner you prefer, don't patronize them and send emails why.. their bottomline will suffer (as theirs and others have at Christmas due to similar boycotts), and hopefully the multi-culti execs will be out on the streets, looking for HR jobs with other cos.
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/17/2007 20:30 Comments ||
Top||
#18
I still think the best fix is to hit the checkout lines with a load of pork products and when they refuse, just leave. rinse and repeat.
Would it be insensitive and swinish to make oinking noises while waiting in the checkout line with all that porky goodness?
#20
Transfer them back to whatever Muslim rathole they came from.
As someone said, the pork prohibition is enforced with more severity than the alcohol prohibition. In fact, many Egyptian Muslims believe they may drink spirits except during war. Egypt is full of bars. Mohammed the pedophile-fraud banned drinking of intoxicants because drunkenness got in the way of his plunder and revenge scheme.
Surprise: a pre-prohibition mosque named after wine, stands to this day in Medina. Wahabis use it for propaganda purposes. They believe that jihad is constant, until only "allah" is worshipped worldwide.
Thousands of anti-war demonstrators plan to march to the Pentagon from the Mall today to mark the fourth year of U.S. occupation in Iraq...
...Counterprotesters with the group Gathering of Eagles will hold a 10 a.m. rally at Constitution Gardens before demonstrating along the march route...
#2
Rantburg News Service WASHINGTON, D.C. March 17, 2007
Your reporter arrived at the Vietnam War Memorial at 1:15 pm, having seen scores of departing vets, and a few protesters, on the way down from the Foggy Bottom Metro Station. Most of the protesters were under the age of 25, but two older gentlemen were carrying Impeach Him signs. Perhaps they naively expected everyone else to know who they wanted impeached.
War protestors left a mess of broken sign pickets and trampled signs as they pushed down a snow fence on their way to the Pentagon. Veterans and American flags were everywhere around the Memorial, and the Park Service had set up metal detectors to insure no one brought cans of any deleterious substance into the Memorial. Crowds at the Memorial proper were typical for a March day, but thousands of vets milled around outside the screening station.
Your intrepid reporter continued to thank vets for their service, including one distinguished-looking older gentleman at the Lincoln Memorial, who replied, It was my privilege. It was my responsibility. Most vets offered a simple, yet heartfelt, Thank you.
Shunning the large crowds headed toward Foggy Bottom, your reporter left the scene and traipsed up the Mall to the Smithsonian Metro Station, where a seat was easy to find. But the crowds seemed to have dissipated by 2:45, and few got on the Metro train at Foggy Bottom.
One young man got on the train at Foggy Bottom, on the way to Pentagon City, dressed in desert camouflage pants, and smiled when your reporters companion remarked about the numbers of protestors on the platform at Arlington Cemetery. They all seemed to be going back into the Capitol. The young man said, They bussed in a bunch of kids and just dropped them off.
Where there many at the Pentagon, we inquired? He shook his head, with an impish grin.
More vets than protestors?
Oh, yeah! I drove 13 hours from Massachusetts last night. I heard they were going to desecrate the Vietnam Memorial. I wasnt going to let them do that.
Did you serve?
Yes. I was with the 3rd Infantry Division on the initial push. We thanked him for his service, and he said he was going back to hotel to sleep, having been up all night to continue his service by honoring and protecting his Countrys memorials.
When he got off the train, a young women and her father got on, and sat in his seat, the father carrying an Impeach Bush sign. A women across the aisle asked the two how it went.
Oh, not too many, said the father, Probably less than a hundred thousand.
Quite possibly a lot less.
Posted by: Bobby ||
03/17/2007 17:38 Comments ||
Top||
#3
heh Thanks Bobby for the update and for putting up with protesting Krappy Krowd! ;-)
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.
Lawyers for Willie Brigitte are considering an appeal against the nine-year sentence imposed by a Paris court today on the French terrorist who plotted an attack in Australia. Brigitte, 38, received just under the maximum 10-year sentence applicable for the crime of criminal association with a view to committing a terrorist act - chiefly related to his activities in Sydney in 2003. The non-parole period is six years, but with Brigitte having already served three-and-a-half years awaiting trial and sentence, the former Sydney kebab shop worker could be freed in late 2009 if he serves the minimum non-parole term.
Defense lawyers want the word "terrorist" banned as too inflammatory in the U.S. trial of 
President of All India Muslim Personal Board (Jadeed) Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan announced a reward of Rs 5 lakh on Bangladeshi writer Tasleema Nasreen's head if New Delhi does not restrict her entry into the country.
Saadoun Hammadi, a longtime ally of Saddam Hussein and one of the most senior Iraq Baath party leaders who also served as a rare Shiite prime minister under Saddam has died in a hospital in Germany, a Baath party spokesman and the party's Web site said.
TEHERAN - The Iranian military has developed a new air defence system with a boosted ability to hit targets by firing two missiles simultaneously, state radio said on Friday.
LONDON - The exiled leader of Syrias outlawed Muslim Brotherhood on Friday called on President Bashar al-Assad to step down and allow free elections, saying the opposition would resort to civil disobedience if the regime failed to introduce democratic change.
