Al Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden is hiding in the Karakoram segment of the Himalayan range, Arabic television network Al-Arabiya quoted its sources as saying on Monday. According to the Dubai-based network, in the past few days United States (US) security and military officials had a top-level summit at a military base in QatarÂ’s capital Doha to plan an operation to hunt for Osama. US commander in Iraq General David Petraeus and US ambassador to Islamabad Anne Patterson were reported to have attended the summit.
Last week, Petraeus testified before a US Congressional committee about security in Iraq and warned that members of Al Qaeda based in Pakistan’s Tribal Areas were planning a new attack on the US. According to the channel, reports say the Central Investigation Agency (CIA) has located Osama in the “rooftop of the world”, the area of Pakistan that borders Afghanistan to the west, in particular the chain of mountains of Afghan province of Nurestan and China to the north.
The report says that support for Al Qaeda is broadening, not only among the Afghan Taliban and Pakistani tribes that deny Osama’s presence in the area, but also fundamentalists including the Muslim Brotherhood that has changed its strategy. Muslim Brotherhood leader Mahdi Akef has called Osama “a mujahid that sincerely fights against foreign occupation in order to be closer to Allah”. In an interview published on the Arab website, Elaph, Akef said he supported the activities of Al Qaeda against occupiers and not those against the people.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda
#1
Now that we know where he is I would expect Obama to be visiting and negociating with him soon.
#2
My name's Obama. Your's is Osama. Don't try to confuse me.
Posted by: BO ||
05/27/2008 11:07 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Pretty remote... I assume only a few bridges and passes provide access....
just thinking....
cutting it off might not be hard...
would make a good testing ground....
for ...
#4
Karakoram Range is one of the Greater Ranges of Asia, often considered together with the Himalaya, but not technically part of that range. Karakoram means "black gravel" ...
BRUSSELS - Italy plans to cut up to 300 troops from its 2,400-strong contingent in Afghanistan later this year, Italian Defence Minister Ignazio La Russa said on Monday. "Our intention is to make a decrease in September of between 250 and 300," La Russa told reporters at an EU meeting.
La Russa also said Italy planned to make its contingent better able to react quickly to requests from NATO to operate outside its main base in west Afghanistan, but stressed Rome did not plan to move its troops anywhere else permanently.
"We want to deploy in a few hours -- six hours -- our troops in zones where it is useful for logistical or military reasons," he said, adding that current procedures meant it took 76 hours for Italy to launch a deployment. "We intend to modify this hurdle without modifying our zone of deployment," he said.
Italian officials have in recent days said Rome wanted to make its deployment in Afghanistan more flexible, prompting speculation it would be ready to help bear the brunt of fighting against Taliban insurgents in the south.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
Sudan is on the brink of a new civil war following more than a week of north-south clashes in the disputed oil-rich town of Abyei, a senior southern official said on Monday.
Pagan Amum, secretary general of the southern Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), told reporters northern troops were building up around the remote central town, with southern troops likely to follow.
Amum said the way to avoid a full-scale conflict was for all troops to leave the town, to be replaced by a U.N. peacekeeping force or, eventually, joint north-south military units.
"We are on the brink of war as we speak. Clashes have already happened and forces are building up," he said before a news conference in Khartoum.
Sudan has witnessed sporadic, sometimes fierce fighting in recent weeks in the Abyei region, which is claimed by both Khartoum and the southern government.
Some 21 northern Sudanese army soldiers and an unknown number of southerners were killed last week in fighting that followed a week of skirmishes sparked by a local dispute. The clashes have displaced tens of thousands of people.
A two-decade-long civil war fought by Sudan's government and southern rebels and complicated by issues of ethnicity, ideology and oil ended with a 2005 peace deal and a coalition government formed by the SPLM and the northern National Congress Party (NCP).
But ties have been strained by the failure to agree on borders or a local government for Abyei. At stake are a nearby oil pipeline and installations that produce around half of Sudan's daily output of 500,000 barrels of oil, and grazing grounds and territory coveted by northerners and southerners.
Amum said northern government forces had been building up positions close to the town since last week's heavy clashes.
"I'm sure this will get a response from the SPLA," he added, referring to the armed wing of the SPLM -- now the army of Sudan's semi-autonomous southern government.
Amum said the south was doing all it could to avoid war. "For us, war is not an option ... Moving forces out of the area is the most important step now," he said.
"The only logical common sense is to demilitarise the area, deploy U.N. forces into the area, then after that we can proceed to deploy fresh joint integrated forces into the area."
"If the parties cannot agree to form a joint administration, let there be an international administration," he said.
Amum accused northern forces of starting the clashes to clear the area's population and claim the land as their own.
"(They) might have thought they could find a final solution to the problem of Abyei by replacing the population of Abyei."
He said the SPLM condemned "this barbaric act" by the Sudan government. "This was an act perpetrated by SAF (northern Sudan Armed Forces) under the direct leadership and command of the National Congress Party," Amum said.
Didiri Mohamed Ahmed, the NCP official in charge of Abyei, said he would not respond to Amum's comments ahead of a meeting of military officers and senior officials from both the north and south, due to take place in Khartoum on Tuesday.
He said he was also waiting for the results of a U.N.-led investigation into who sparked the latest clashes in Abyei. "When we know the culprit, hopefully both sides will have the courage to take the culprit to account," he added.
Sudan's ruling party last week denied southern accusations Khartoum was sending more troops to Abyei.
Posted by: anonymous5089 ||
05/27/2008 04:27 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Sudan
#1
surprised it didn't start over when the VP from the south quickly died with a strange plane crash.
Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood General Guide Mahdi Akif stressed that he rejects Al-Qaeda's use of violence against civilians. He said in a statement to Asharq al-Awsat that Al-Qaeda Organization is an American illusion; that the thought of Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden is based on violence; and that the Muslim Brotherhood does not support violence under any circumstance except against the occupier.
Akif said: "We (the Brotherhood) have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden... we are against violence except when fighting the occupier...When he (Bin Laden) fights the occupier then he is a mujahid, and when he attacks civilians, then this is rejected." He added that "the word Al-Qaeda (Organization) is an American illusion...Bin Laden has a thought ...his thought is based on violence, and we do not approve of violence under any circumstances except one and that is fighting an occupier. We have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden...we condemn any thought that leads to violence. When Bin Laden fights the occupier then he is a mujahid, when he attacks the innocent and citizens then this is rejected."
The general guide's statements come a day after religious men and politicians criticized him for statements he made which they believed praised Osama Bin Laden. The guide said that he did not doubt the sincerity of Bin Laden in "resisting the occupation to get closer to God almighty;" that Al-Qaeda Organization "came as a result of injustice and corruption" and is not US-made; and that he (the Guide) supports Al-Qaeda Organization's activities "against the occupier and not against the people."
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Muslim Brotherhood
#1
he rejects Al-Qaeda's use of violence against civilians
Of course, only muslims can be civilians, he forgot to say.
The al-Qaeda terrorist network urged Monday its supporters in Yemen to limit their attacks to 'effective' operations against US and foreign interests in the Arab county.
In a statement posted on the Islamic al-Ikhlas Network website, al-Qaeda has purportedly urged its loyalists to 'bring back the days of attacks, such as the one on the USS destroyer Cole and the French ship.' 'Those operations are bound to have an effect on people now,' the network said in the statement.
The network advised its supporters to focus on US targets and to avoid attacks on other targets for the time being. 'Targeting a house of (President) Ali Salih will not serve the purpose. Neither will the killing of a Yemeni soldier in a Yemeni village,' al-Qaeda said.
The Yemeni and Iraqi police forces are not similar because the Iraqi police serve as tools in the hands of the crusaders, the network said. Al-Qaeda sanctions attacks on Iraq's security forces and members of government and administration, saying they serve US occupation forces.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Yemen
"Polygamy is happening in Toronto; it's not common, but it's happening," said Aly Hindy, imam at Salahuddin Islamic Centre.
Hindy, hardly a stranger to controversy, is well known for his friendship with the family of Omar Khadr, the young Canadian detainee at Guantanamo Bay, and his outspoken views on the implementation of Islamic law. In the past five years, Hindy said he has officiated or "blessed" more than 30 polygamous marriages; the most recent was two months ago. Even some imams in the GTA have second wives, he added.
"This is in our religion and nobody can force us to do anything against our religion," he said. "If the laws of the country conflict with Islamic law, if one goes against the other, then I am going to follow Islamic law, simple as that."
#1
"If the laws of the country conflict with Islamic law, if one goes against the other, then I am going to follow Islamic law, simple as that."
I can think of no more truthful declaration of war between the West and Islam than that. Every person in the world should hear those words, and interpret them accordingly. No nation can survive with more than one legal system. Shoot him and hang his body in the center of downtown Quebec for all to see, with these words on a plaque at his feet.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
05/27/2008 14:48 Comments ||
Top||
#2
So Hindy has laid down the gauntlet. What are Canadians gonna do about it? Recent history gives no comfort.
Posted by: ed ||
05/27/2008 14:52 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Lucky for him he doesn't live in Texas, but then again, maybe the requirement to follow the law only applies to Mormons.
Republican John McCain on Monday sharply criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for not having been to Iraq since 2006, and said they should visit the war zone together.
"Look at what happened in the last two years since Senator Obama visited and declared the war lost," the GOP presidential nominee-in-waiting told The Associated Press in an interview, noting that the Illinois senator's last trip to Iraq came before the military buildup that is credited with curbing violence.
"He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq and he has wanted to surrender for a long time," the Arizona senator added. "If there was any other issue before the American people, and you hadn't had anything to do with it in a couple of years, I think the American people would judge that very harshly."
McCain, a Navy veteran and Vietnam prisoner of war, frequently argues that he's the most qualified candidate to be a wartime commander in chief. In recent weeks, he has sought portray Obama, a first-term senator, as naive on foreign policy and not experienced enough to lead the military.
The Iraq war, which polls have shown that most of the country opposes, is shaping up to be a defining issue in the November presidential election.
McCain, who wrapped up the GOP nomination in March, supports continued military presence in Iraq though he recently said he envisions victory with most U.S. troops coming home by January 2013 if he's elected. Obama, who has all but clinched the Democratic nomination, says he will remove U.S. combat troops within 16 months of taking office, though sometimes he shortens it to 11 months.
"For him to talk about dates for withdrawal, which basically is surrender in Iraq after we're succeeding so well is, I think, really inexcusable," said McCain, who has been to Iraq eight times, most recently in March.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton declined to respond directly to McCain, saying only: "Senator Obama thinks Memorial Day is a day to honor our nation's veterans, not a day for political posturing." Sounds like the words of a man with nothing to say. I'll bet Bill didn't serve, either.
Over the weekend, Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of McCain's top surrogates, laid the groundwork for McCain's criticism in a television interview in which he noted Obama's absence from Iraq and floated the idea that Obama and McCain should go together to be briefed by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Asked whether he'd be willing to take such a trip, McCain told the AP: "Sure. It would be fine." "Maybe Junior can make himself useful by carrying my Silver Star or something."
"I go back every few months because things are changing in Iraq," he said. McCain questioned whether Obama has ever been briefed by Petraeus. "I would also seize that opportunity to educate Senator Obama along the way." "The left shoe goes on the left foot, and the remaining shoe goes on the other."
Both McCain and Obama spent part of Memorial Day in New Mexico, a general election battleground that was decided by razor-thin margins in 2000, for Democrat Al Gore, and in 2004, for Republican President Bush. But Obama's presence should in no way be viewed as trying to politicize Memorial Day. Nosiree. He just happened to be there.
Obama addressed veterans Monday in Las Cruces while McCain used a speech at the New Mexico Veterans Memorial in Albuquerque to press his case against withdrawing troops from Iraq, saying they must continue their mission even though he's "sick at heart" by mistakes at the outset of the war. I'm sure you would have done much better against an unknown foe who eat their own and call it a victory.
McCain also defended his opposition to Senate-passed legislation that would provide additional college financial aid to veterans, a measure Obama supports. You mean like offering a free ride to college after three years service or something like that? It would be nice, but wouldn't retain vital skills long enough to get the most out of them. You just wait, Barack. That will eventually bubble to the surface and you'll have plenty of backpedaling or explaining to do.
The Republican made no direct mention of the Democrat but seemed to poke at him nonetheless. His "positions" are all over the place. It's hard to miss.
McCain said his opposition to the bill was the right rather than the politically expedient position, suggesting Obama was on the wrong side of the measure sponsored by Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia and approved by the Democratic-controlled Senate. Lawmakers blocked a more limited version that McCain supported. Again, Barack's supporters are prohibited from believing that his support of the bill is in any way motivated by politics or cluelessness.
"I am running for the office of commander in chief. That is the highest privilege in this country, and it imposes the greatest responsibilities. And this is why I am committed to our bill, despite the support Senator Webb's bill has received," McCain said. "It would be easier, much easier politically for me to have joined Senator Webb in offering his legislation." You mean like Barack? Who isn't motivated by political convenience to support the bill in any way, no matter what it looks like?
However, McCain said he opposed Webb's measure because it would give everyone the same benefit regardless of how many times they enlist. He said he feared that would depress reenlistments by those wanting to attend college after only a few years in uniform. Rather, McCain said the bill he favored would have increased scholarships based on length of service. Makes sense to me. But then again, I'm not politically motivated so I might not understand the "finer" points of this legislation.
McCain spent the early part of the holiday weekend at his retreat in Sedona, Ariz., where he entertained some two dozen guests, including three fellow Republicans who have been mentioned as possible vice presidential running mates: Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
"It really was just a social occasion," McCain told the AP. Asked whether he did any vetting of the three, McCain said: "None. Zero. There is plenty of time for that kind of thing." Too simple. Like something W might say. He must be lying. /sarc
#1
Obama spokesman Grima Wormtongue Bill Burton declined to respond directly to decorated war veteran McCain, saying only: "Senator Obama thinks Memorial Day is a day to honor our nation's veterans such as war hero John McCain, not a day for political posturing."
#4
how many of the veterans in his circle would bother to correct his misconceptions?
There are veterans in Obama's circle. Chief among them is that general that ran for president last time, can't remember (don't want to) his name. Of course, that man may not know the difference, either.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
05/27/2008 15:29 Comments ||
Top||
Republican John McCain on Monday sharply criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for not having been to Iraq since 2006, and said they should visit the war zone together.
"Look at what happened in the last two years since Senator Obama visited and declared the war lost," the Republican nominee-in-waiting told The Associated Press in an interview, noting that the Illinois senator's last trip to Iraq came before the military buildup that is credited with curbing violence. "He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq and he has wanted to surrender for a long time," the Arizona senator added. "If there was any other issue before the American people, and you hadn't had anything to do with it in a couple of years, I think the American people would judge that very harshly."
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Iraqi Insurgency
#1
Almost appears that McCain is bringing it, as he should. Only compounding the agony of the near-silence of the administration for, oh, I dunno, years and years.
The Messiah's last visit was my one and only exposure to him. He was accompanied by two colleagues, one Senate, one House. Some other folks said there was a buzz about Obama, so I made sure to be there when he did his little press gaggle in Bremer's old conference room.
Completely unimpressive. Just as empty and superficial and glib as he appears now, daily, on any topic. Pathetic. His Senate colleague snoozed in a chair in the far corner; his House colleague watched alongside me - and I have good reason to believe he wasn't very impressed, either. I was astonished that this unimpressive young guy created any sort of buzz whatsoever.
Then there was the time in the prior year where Hillary and others cleaned up a horribly ill-advised statement by McCain to a press conference. Of course, Gen. Casey and others were saying equally disastrous things at the time, so what the hell. But it was interesting to see how deep McCain could step in it, so deep that the Hildebeast (and I think Grahamnesty) had to jump in and muddy the waters for him.
But that was simply a low point for McCain. Obama, just as it appears, doesn't know or understand a tenth of the things one needs to work as an underling on the NSC, much less be the boss.
As Sgt. Joe Higgins patrolled the streets of Saba al-Bor, a tough town north of Baghdad, he was armed with bullets that had a lot more firepower than those of his 4th Infantry Division buddies.
As an Army sniper, Higgins was one of the select few toting an M14. The long-barreled rifle, an imposing weapon built for wars long past, spits out bullets larger and more deadly than the rounds that fit into the M4 carbines and M16 rifles that most soldiers carry.
"Having a heavy cartridge in an urban environment like that was definitely a good choice," says Higgins, who did two tours in Iraq and left the service last year. "It just has more stopping power." Good to have if you're a sniper. Not good if you need to lay down huge barrages of suppressive fire, which take a lot of bullets. Cartridges are heavy. You can carry way more M16 bullets than you can M14 bullets. And as a bonus, the M16 bonus tumbles through a target, shredding it much more effectively than a clean-through shot, which is way more survivable usually.
Strange as it sounds, nearly seven years into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, bullets are a controversial subject for the U.S.
The smaller, steel-penetrating M855 rounds continue to be a weak spot in the American arsenal. They are not lethal enough to bring down an enemy decisively, and that puts troops at risk, according to Associated Press interviews.
Designed decades ago to puncture a Soviet soldier's helmet hundreds of yards away, the M855 rounds are being used for very different targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of today's fighting takes place in close quarters; narrow streets, stairways and rooftops are today's battlefield. Legions of armor-clad Russians marching through the Fulda Gap in Germany have given way to insurgents and terrorists who hit and run.
Fired at short range, the M855 round is prone to pass through a body like a needle through fabric. That does not mean being shot is a pain-free experience. But unless the bullet strikes a vital organ or the spine, the adrenaline-fueled enemy may have the strength to keep on fighting and even live to fight another day.
In 2006, the Army asked a private research organization to survey 2,600 soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly one-fifth of those who used the M4 and M16 rifles wanted larger caliber bullets. Which mean four-fifths preferred what? Tank rounds?
Yet the Army is not changing. The answer is better aim, not bigger bullets, officials say. Tell that to the guys who survived the fight in the House from Hell in Fallujah.
"If you hit a guy in the right spot, it doesn't matter what you shoot him with," said Maj. Thomas Henthorn, chief of the small arms division at Fort Benning, Ga., home to the Army's infantry school.
At about 33 cents each, bullets do not get a lot of public attention in Washington, where the size of the debate is usually measured by how much a piece of equipment costs. But billions of M855 rounds have been produced, and Congress is preparing to pay for many more. The defense request for the budget year that begins Oct. 1 seeks $88 million for 267 million M855s, each one about the size of a AAA battery.
None of the M855's shortcomings is surprising, said Don Alexander, a retired Army chief warrant officer with combat tours in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Somalia.
"The bullet does exactly what it was designed to do. It just doesn't do very well at close ranges against smaller-statured people that are lightly equipped and clothed," says Alexander, who spent most of his 26-year military career with the 5th Special Forces Group.
Paul Howe was part of a U.S. military task force 15 years ago in Mogadishu, Somalia's slum-choked capital, when he saw a Somali fighter hit in the back from about a dozen feet away with an M855 round.
"I saw it poof out the other side through his shirt," says Howe, a retired master sergeant and a former member of the Army's elite Delta Force. "The guy just spun around and looked at where the round came from. He got shot a couple more times, but the first round didn't faze him."
With the M855, troops have to hit their targets with more rounds, said Howe, who owns a combat shooting school in Texas. That can be tough to do under high-stress conditions when one shot is all a soldier might get. Somehow I sorta doubt the guy who just got hit is going to do as well as usual with his return fire.
"The bullet is just not big enough," he says. "If I'm going into a room against somebody that's determined to kill me, I want to put him down as fast as possible." With a carefully-aimed single shot while the guy is spraying at me with an AK-47.
Dr. Martin Fackler, a former combat surgeon and a leading authority on bullet injuries, said the problem is the gun, not the bullet. The M4 rifle has a 14.5 inch barrel — too short to create the velocity needed for an M855 bullet to do maximum damage to the body.
"The faster a bullet hits the tissue, the more it's going to fragment," says Fackler. "Bullets that go faster cause more damage. It's that simple."
Rules of war limit the type of ammunition conventional military units can shoot. The Hague Convention of 1899 bars hollow point bullets that expand in the body and cause injuries that someone is less likely to survive. The United States was not a party to that agreement. Yet, as most countries do, it adheres to the treaty, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross. That's stupid.
The Hague restrictions do not apply to law enforcement agencies, however. Ballistics expert Gary Roberts said that is an inconsistency that needs to be remedied, particularly at a time when so many other types of destructive ordnance are allowed in combat.
"It is time to update this antiquated idea and allow U.S. military personnel to use the same proven ammunition," Roberts says. I disagree. It's past time this happened.
In response to complaints from troops about the M855, the Army's Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey assigned a team of soldiers, scientists, doctors and engineers to examine the round's effectiveness. The team's findings, announced in May 2006, concluded there were no commercially available rounds of similar size better than the M855.
But Anthony Milavic, a retired Marine Corps major, said the Army buried the study's most important conclusion: that larger-caliber bullets are more potent.
"It was manipulated," says Milavic, a Vietnam veteran who manages an online military affairs forum called MILINET. "Everybody knows there are bullets out there that are better." Yeah. For $2 each. If you're always in a sharpshooter situation.
Officials at Picatinny Arsenal declined to be interviewed. In an e-mailed response to questions, they called the M855 "an overall good performer." Studies are being conducted to see if it can be made more lethal without violating the Hague Convention, they said.
Larger rounds are not necessarily better, they also said. Other factors such as the weather, the amount of light and the bullet's angle of entry also figure into how lethal a single shot may be.
Heavier rounds also mean more weight for soldiers to carry, as well as more recoil — the backward kick created when a round is fired. That long has been a serious issue for the military, which has troops of varied size and strength.
The M14 rifle used by Joe Higgins was once destined to be the weapon of choice for all U.S. military personnel. When switched to the automatic fire mode, the M14 could shoot several hundred rounds a minute. But most soldiers could not control the gun, and in the mid-1960s it gave way to the M16 and its smaller cartridge. The few remaining M14s are used by snipers and marksman. Yeah, I guess control also has something to do with it.
U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., is buying a carbine called the SCAR Heavy for its commandos, and it shoots the same round as the M14. The regular Army, though, has invested heavily in M4 and M16 rifles and has no plans to get rid of them.
A change in expectations is needed more than a change in gear, said Col. Robert Radcliffe, chief of combat developments at Fort Benning. Soldiers go through training believing that simply hitting a part of their target is enough to kill it. On a training range, getting close to the bulls-eye counts. But in actual combat, nicking the edges isn't enough.
"Where you hit is essential to the equation," Radcliffe says. "I think the expectations are a little bit off in terms of combat performance against target range performance. And part of that is our fault for allowing that expectation to grow when it's really not there at all."
The arguments over larger calibers, Radcliffe says, are normal in military circles where emotions over guns and bullets can run high.
"One of the things I've discovered in guns is that damned near everyone is an expert," he says. "And they all have opinions." One weapon and one bullet is not the answer. For the most part, and from my armchair, I proclaim that a mix works best. I'd say let the squad commanders (or whatever) who have the most experience choose/say what they need and see how it works out.
#1
The debate about high velocity vs. heavy is one that has been going on a long time amongst all shooters, not just military. As a hunter, I can attest to the fact that ever since the invention of high powered modern rifle cartridges, this argument has raged in clubs and in the mags, most famously O'Connor (who thought you could kill everything with a .270 if you just pushed the bullet fast enough) vs Ruark (who thought the .270 was a high-powered varminter and didn't like to shoot any big game animal with a bullet less than 200 gr, and usually much heavier).
Bullet design has a lot to do with how any particular cartidge performs. When you are shooting small thin skinned game, you want a bullet which will penetrate and open quickly - a very fast round which gets past the skin and then opens up and fragments transfers all of its energy to the vitals, making for quick and sure kills. Against larger, thick skinned animals, a bullet which is designed primarily for penetration instead of expansion is the key - a close hit with a small, thinly jacketed hyperveolcity round may actually blow up when hitting a shoulder bone of a moose, for example, and leave the animal with an ugly but definitely nonfatal flesh wound. Unarmored humans fall into the first category, generally speaking.
And yet, there are guys who hunt deer in close cover where your shots are limited to 75 yds or less who opt for a third way, slow but very heavy. These guys will hunt with rifles chambered to take what are essentially pistol rounds, or modifications of old black powder cartridges from the immediate post Civil War era. Also falling into this category are shotguns with rifled slugs.
Various ways of altering the size and composition of the jacket of a bullet will affect the way bullets behave on impact. As the commentary pointed out, the military is limited to full metal jacket or solid lead or copper rounds. This greatly reduces options for what you can accomplish with a given weight round moving at a given speed. It might be a better idea to let soldiers and marines use more modern designs for bullets, they would certainly be more efficent at stopping the enemy than FMJ designs. However, these more modern types are more expensive to manufacture, so that has to be factored in.
In the end, I think it's true that multiple sizes and speeds of cartridges, as well as multiple designs for the bullet and its jacket, would allow the soldiers and marines to tailor their weapons to the mission at hand. This will definitely be more expensive, since the bullets are more costly to manufacture, and you lose the economy of scale of producing a whole lot of one type of cartridge.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
05/27/2008 6:17 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The 5.56 benefits and shortcomings long have been a flamewars stater, for the enlightement of non-gun-toting wannabes like myself, it's akin to the 9mm vs .45, or the whole "stopping power" debate. From an outsider pov, it's interesting, and sometime funny, to see problems that DO affect real persons in the Real Life™ be tackled with something of a religious fervor by each side. Jiahd!
Just to be marginally useful for once and add a ressource I found very interesting while first looking at that quite a few years ago, when my WWW journey (pr0n, rightwing websites and online shopping) began, cf.
Anyway, the 5.56 is here to stay, most probably, even with the 6.5 Grendel which will be a civilian round most likely, and the 6.8 SPC which will remain a niche cartridge... what could and should be done is look at better bullets, either a tad heavier, or prone to fragmentation at lower velocities, I mean the US civilian gun industry is expert at churning out hi-tech bullets that work very well. It's not like the US DOD lacks money, and boosting individual firepower should be important for small wars.
Regarding the M855/SS109, IIUC, it is flawed in a way from the start, having designed by FN to be better at piercing light armor (which it is, FN engineers are great at what they do) and to reach out a bit further than the bullets it was replacing, with the FN Minimi/M249 in mind; and its Nato adoption was due to the fact western armies were expected to eventually face the soviet, with helmets and body armors, and light-skinned vehicles.
OS or others ACTUAL end-users, not people who just read on the subject like bibi, will tell you other bullets types work pretty well, and that special forces types and otthers in the US forces use commercially available match grade bullets to fire at longer range, with a much longer fragmentation window (and thus the increased terminal ballistics).
#3
Shouldn't a sniper have a bolt-action rifle instead of an M-14?
And is the whole point of this article that the Army should switch to hollowpoints? Heck, hunters aren't allowed to use FMJ because they don't kill reliably.
But of course, if the US does decide to issue hollowpoints, the media will be up in arms the same way they were in the 80s with "baby-killing bullets". Link to text of relevant Hague convention.
The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions. The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.
So, the US isn't a Contracting Power, and this conflict isn't with another Contracting Power. Two reasons it doesn't apply. It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Powers, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power. The present Declaration shall be ratified as soon as possible.
Definitely qualifies under this clause as well. Nevertheless, the usual suspects will go crazy if the US issues hollowpoints.
It's true IIUC that 5.56 has a very poor penetration against barriers that most rifle calibers (even underpowered ones like the 7.62x39) go through like an hot knife in butter, but it has a good/better wounding potential if bullet construction & velocities are a-OK. Still, it's somehow amusing when one can read in Strategypage an (american) commenter lamenting "US troops are being thrown boulders at, and they throw back sand grains", there seems to be a lack of perspective.
What bullet type do israeli use, g(r)omgoru? Not the Nato one, but the original 55 gr.? (Note that IIRC, bullets used by the french army are bought from Israel). That one supposedly had good effects, at least in its intended range.
#5
Also, US SOCOM has a brown tipped round for the M-4 that is optimized for 14.5 inch barrels. SOCOM buys what it wants and needs, not what the rest of the US military uses. Perhaps what should be looked into is a large scale buy of the brown tip SOCOM 5.56 ammo.
Or perhaps simply a switchover to 6.8mm for the infantry. The US has had multiple calibers for rifles before in major wars : .30-06 for M-1 Garands and .30 Carbine for M-1 Carbine. No reason we could not do the same again.
#6
Didn't we have this debate about two years ago? Is the AP just catching up, or has it gotten new information, or did the Mullahs tell them to run it?
#7
We've had this debate several times, here at Rantburg. As anonymous5089 said, the subject is a flamewar starter. My uninformed opinion, worth what you just paid for it, is that different missions need different equipment, bullets included.
#11
I'm sorry, what was the point of the original article, again? Some bullets are ill-suited for some applications?
It starts with the M-14 round is better ("larger and more deadly"), but quickly gets worse ("steel-penetrating M855 rounds continue to be a weak spot in the American arsenal").
Lemme guess the author. AP?
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/27/2008 8:12 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Or perhaps simply a switchover to 6.8mm for the infantry. The US has had multiple calibers for rifles before in major wars : .30-06 for M-1 Garands and .30 Carbine for M-1 Carbine. No reason we could not do the same again.
The 6.8 will have some of the same problems as the 5.56, though, Shieldwolf. The bullet is larger and heavier (similar to a .270 in diameter) but the case is similar to the 5.56 and not large enough to hold a lot of powder. Although the bullet will have higher energy at close range due to its weight, it will actually be less accurate than the 5.56 at longer ranges and lose its energy more quickly, for any given bullet shape.
It's interesting that you bring up the '06, which could still be a very useful military caliber, if not for its high recoil. Smaller variants of the same case still pack a huge punch downrange with much less recoil. The .270 is basically a '06 slightly shortened and necked down to take a 6.8 mm bullet. The .280 Remington is a '06 necked down to take a 7 mm bullet. Both have a LOT more stopping power than any of the current rounds being carried by infantry. And production is already ramped up for '06 casings, which could be readily converted, as well as 7 mm bullets, which are extremely popular and come in a lot of different weights and jacket configurations. Granted, worldwide the 7.62, a .308 round, and its 7 mm variant, the 7 mm-08, are somewhat more commonly manufactured, but as has been pointed out, they are considerably less powerful.
I don't know the cost differential, maybe that's why they are not considering 6.8 or 7 mm variants of the '06.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
05/27/2008 8:19 Comments ||
Top||
#14
How the US came up with the 9mm round and pistol vs the very reliable old 45 cal would make a interesting point of discussion.
#15
Indeed. The simplistic answer would include the observation that European nations in NATO pushed for a round that would cause fewwer collateral casualties in peacekeeping sic roles.
#19
Personally, I've long thought that the infantry squad could do with an optional 20mm or greater "rifle-cannon":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9NxHj1R04g
Two points: the first is that 20mm was traditionally the dividing line between infantry weapons and artillery. But if we can make a practical 20mm+ infantry weapon, that tradition is unimportant.
The second is that the weapon portrayed on this video is too much for practical squad use. A 20mm+ weapon would have to be shorter and lighter, with an emphasis on recoil neutralization.
The advantage would be in its ability to penetrate a lot of concrete in an urban area. Importantly, in a lot of infantry duels, there is sufficient cover for most small arms, but this is not the case with one of these weapons.
Infantrymen are very comfortable with carrying several LAWs into urban combat, for similar reasons. There are lots of times when they are just the ticket. But the typical guy is burdened carrying four of them, yet could pack both a (smaller and lighter) 20mm+ weapon and 20 or 30 rounds without much problem.
#20
Having survived a hit from a 12.7 mm Soviet MG, I have my own perspective on stopping power.
Suffice to say that no projectile a human being could fire from a hand-held weapon will literally knock an enemy down by kinetic energy alone. If it could do that, the recoil would similarly knock down the shooter.
Even so, a larger bullet will simply do more damage from the larger volume it occupies and through which it passes. Various kinetic effects are problematical at best, at least without expanding bullets. I agree with Gorb, the latter are the real answer, but the media would go apeshit. This is yet another demonstration of the willfull idiocy of media beasts: It's ok to shred jihadis with canister shot or bomb fragments, but you better not shoot them with the kind of bullets police and private citizens use every day.
We might consider issuing a .45 sub-machinegun, like the WW2 M-3 "grease gun," and combining this with intensified marksmanship training. It is possible to hit a small target with a pistol round at ranges that would amaze many people, but it takes a lot of practice.
The M-3 cost peanuts to make, btw.
Many GIs carry shotguns these days, usually one to a squad. These are excellent in urban warfare and (like sub-guns) usable over ranges that many would find hard to credit. There is no doubting their stopping power. A lot of special ammo has been developed for them, mostly for the police market and this includes some fairly exotic items.
You can't arm every soldier with one, just as you can't arm everybody with a sub-gun or a sniper rifle. As Gorb says, though, some kind of mix is probably needed.
#21
The problem is you have 3 different tactical problems to solve, and each requires a different round.
Nobody seems to get that into their heads.
If they want the best possible bullt/weapon combo, the need 3 rifles of different caliber.
A slow heavy high volume round, like the old M3 grease gun would do for short short sharp urban ambush gunfights. Same goes for the 7.62x39 AK round. Both as combined arms with shotguns and a squad LMG. Basically the same setup the Germans and Russians used in Stalingrad.
For standard large scale organized military actions, something similar to the current M-16+556 (or 6.5) will do.
Long range patrols, counterinsurgency where you have brief shots ad few targets and plenty of range (think Afghanistan), you need something like the M-14/762NATO
There is *NO* one size fits all solution.
Its like hunting. In Virginia, in the thickets, slower heavy rounds win the day at 60m. Out here in Colorado, you need a big enough, high speed long range round at 250m.
Right tool for the job.
And its like a symphony - you need more than one instrument to complete the harmony for the squad leader (pistol, shotgun, sniper/counter-sniper, grenade launcher, maybe even a LMG).
#22
The fact that we were in the suck up to Euros mode vis a vis NATO probably had more to do with the choice of Beretta.
Once the 9mm was chosen, that came into play re: the selection of Beretta. But NATO people I've talked with were quite clear that the Euros pressed hard for a standard cartidge of less power geared mainly for peacekeeping.
#23
Larger rounds are not necessarily better, they also said. Other factors such as the weather, the amount of light and the bullet's angle of entry also figure into how lethal a single shot may be.
#24
Once the 9mm was chosen, that came into play re: the selection of Beretta. But NATO people I've talked with were quite clear that the Euros pressed hard for a standard cartidge of less power geared mainly for peacekeeping.
cartidges Bullets For Peace. [haz a lovely sound to it.. eh?]
We need to develope Cool Bullets to Combat Global Warming!
>:
#25
The beauty of the M-3 and its predecessor, the Thompson (known appropriately as a 'trench broom') was that they were cheap to manufacture and fired the same cartidge as the excellent 1911 Colt .45. That round was perfect for both of these applications and therefore afforded the military some cost cutting via economy of scale, as well as interchangeabilty between weapons platforms.
Bad move, switching to 9 mm. Why is it better to use a smaller round for peacekeeping vs regular combat? Dead is dead.
Shotguns also have a place. In the jungle wars in late WWII and in Vietnam, a lot of shotguns were used. Double-oh buckshot or pumpkin-ball slugs are great weapons in dense brush.
Some of each weapon should be present. Standardize cartridges across weapons if you can, realize that different cartridges may be necessary for some roles, and move on from there.
For those of you who care - Google .300 Whisper, and check out this cartridge. This is an interesting , relatively new round that is becoming popular amongst law enforcement. Could be a good close range round for the future for the military, as well, although it is hampered by limited range in some ways like the 6.8.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
05/27/2008 12:47 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Why is it better to use a smaller round for peacekeeping vs regular combat?
Both .45 and 9mm rounds are likely to over-penetrate, but the 9mm does less damage along the way. Lots of people have taken multiple 9mm shots and survived. Lots fewer have done so with .45 rounds.
#27
In the late 1890s when we were at war in the Philippines the Army had switched to a DA .38 Long Colt caliber revolver. We were facing a new type of enemy, the Muslin extremist, the Moro. They were known to use native drugs that inhibited the sensation of pain. This meant that when they went into battle with US soldiers and got shot by a rather anemic .38 caliber revolver it just did not reliably stop the Moro. After numerous US deaths, old Colt 45 revolvers, long in storage back in the States, were rushed to the Philippines and issued to the troops.
In the late 1890s when we were at war in the Philippines the Army had switched to a DA .38 Long Colt caliber revolver. We were facing a new type of enemy, the Muslin extremist, the Moro. They were known to use native drugs that inhibited the sensation of pain. This meant that when they went into battle with US soldiers and got shot by a rather anemic .38 caliber revolver it just did not reliably stop the Moro. After numerous US deaths, old Colt 45 revolvers, long in storage back in the States, were rushed to the Philippines and issued to the troops.
#28
In the 1980s the entire Department of Defense converted to a Beretta 9x19mm pistol and that was suppose to be the end of discussion on handguns in the military. Many special united such as Marine Recon or Army Delta Force kept right on using the 45. The Army has announced that it plans to buy 60,000 new 45 caliber semi-auto pistols for its front line troops. Most likely it will be a more modern handgun than the venerable old Colt 1911 but whatever is chosen it will be a 45 caliber round coming out the business end of barrel. Aim high, shoot big-bore.
#29
Which mean four-fifths preferred what? Tank rounds?
Well, yeah...
I'm a firm believer in "peace through superior firepower" or "there's no problem that the proper application of a sufficient amount of high explosive won't resolve".
If a tank round (or a 30mm HE round or a SMAW or other anti-armor round or 500-lbs delivered by an A10 or F15 or F16) will take out a nest of vipers without my personally getting into a firefight I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, firefights don't usually develop that way. Troops on the ground want and need a weapon capable of delivering a high volume of fire on specific targets. The M4 and M16 delivers (as does the AK47, the preferred weapon of our enemies, unfortunately, but so do many other weapons in the inventories such as the MP5, the G11, the FN/FAL, the Uzi, and about 200 others). The AP just wants to try to stir this old argument up to keep us at each other's throats rather than at the throat's of our enemies because "Hey, let's all just get along" is such a good way to live.
#31
The 5.56 will break in two when it yaws at high speed. Maybe the near term solution is to go back to the 55 grain (or even down to 50) bullet for the M4s and acknowledge that trying to hit anything at 500 yards with an M4 is a fantasy.
And jeebus, bullet prices have risen. I'm glad I laid down my stock (non 5.56) several years ago.
Posted by: ed ||
05/27/2008 14:30 Comments ||
Top||
#32
Are frangibles useful in combat?
See the linked pdf by Fackler earlier in the comments; ideally, 5.56 tumbles (like all spitzer bullets, but very early) and then fragments violently when traveling at the right velocity (that is, 2500 fps IIRC, meaning under 200 meters from the muzzle with a 20" barrel, between 100 and 150 m with a shorter barrel like a M4, 25 m with a 12", and nothing with shorter barrels like the subcarbines variants of the M16 family, which are basically glorified .22 Hornet); this creates a very large wound cavity, much larger than the Ak's 7.62 shortie, for example, which according to Fackler is more like a low-powered handguin caliber when it hits only soft tissues and doesn't hit bone (I remember an armored car guard who had his hand ripped of by an AK round a couple years ago, so I guess it remains a rifle's caliber, even then). At lower speed, it still tumbles and breaks up, causing additional wound channels, and at even lower speed, it is a .22 bullet that tumble. That's also why the 5.56 doens't penetrate barriers well IIUC, as it fragment/tumble/stop, unlike other rifle "full calibers" which just bull their way through most anything (see the linked vid).
Trouble with the now-in-use bullet type is that is is slightly heavier and optimized for light armor penetration, and that this optimum tumble/fragmentation simply doens't occur relibably enough, depriving the 5.56 of its wounding potential.
#33
Btw, while I'm lecturing total strangers with a subject I don't actually know (a specialty of mine), a couple more links I've found interesting and which actually are relevant to this thread :
Apparently the two above experimental calibers were two very successful intermediate calibers that were killed by bureaucratic inertia; today's equivalent would the 6.8 SPC, which had seen at least some combat use though not much has come out of that, optimized for wounding potential in a 5.56x45 rifle envelope, and the 6.5 Grendel, optimized for accuracy & long range shooting in the same envelope, both potential heirs which will most probably remain civilian calibers, due to that very same inertia.
#34
Actually, the decision to switch over to 9mm for pistols was made in the 1950s as part of the NATO standardization movement : the US would eventually drop the .45 pistol in favor of a 9mm. It has not been a popular decision among the troops and there have always been holdouts in the various branches of the military. Especially since it was the Beretta pistol that was chosen, instead of a design like the Browning High Power.
And the main reason that I suggested the 6.8mm is that it has been used in combat by Special Forces and has improved lethality in the 0-300 meter range that makes up so much of infantry combat. Also, all existing M-4 lowers can be used with just the uppers being switched out. That is one of the biggest issues for a new caliber right now : the bow wave of M-16/M-4 in the US inventory and the need for any new caliber to fit into the restraints of that design. So basically, we are limited to the 6.8mm or 6.5 Grendel for a replacement caliber, since both of those can use the standard M-4 lowers and require simply replacing the uppers, the magazines, and the ammo itself.
#35
FYI, for a shot time, the shotgun with a "deer slug" was called a "Falluja Door Knocker" (Or Iraqi Master Key), because the USMC used them to blow open dead bolted doors. Seems a deer slug does a nifty job of blowing the lock body completely out of the door, leaving the door on its hinge and in the frame (so the entry team can storm in more easily)
A Department of Homeland Security program to strengthen port security has gaps that terrorists could exploit to smuggle weapons of mass destruction in cargo containers, congressional investigators have found.
The report by the Government Accountability Office, being released Tuesday, assesses the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), a federal program established after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to deter a potential terrorist strike via cargo passing through 326 of the nation's airports, seaports and designated land borders.
Under the program, roughly 8,000 importers, port authorities and air, sea and land carriers are granted benefits such as reduced scrutiny of their cargo. In exchange, the companies submit a security plan that must meet U.S. Customs and Border Protection's minimum standards and allow officials to verify their measures are being followed.
A 2005 GAO report found many of the companies were receiving the reduced cargo scrutiny without the required full vetting by U.S. Customs, a division of DHS. The agency has since made some improvements, but the new report found that Customs officials still couldn't provide guarantees that companies were in compliance.
Among the problems:
_A company is generally certified as safer based on its self-reported security information that Customs employees use to determine if minimum government criteria are met. But due partly to limited resources, the agency does not typically test the member company's supply-chain security practices and thus is "challenged to know that members' security measures are reliable, accurate and effective."
_Customs employees are not required to utilize third-party or other audits of a company's security measures as an alternative to the agency's direct testing, even if such audits exist.
_Companies can get certified for reduced Customs inspections before they fully implement any additional security improvements requested by the U.S. government. Under the program, Customs also does not require its employees to systematically follow up to make sure the requested improvements were made and that security practices remained consistent with the minimum criteria.
"Until Customs overcomes these collective challenges, Customs will be unable to assure Congress and others that C-TPAT member companies that have been granted reduced scrutiny of their U.S.-bound containerized shipments actually employ adequate security practices," investigators wrote. "It is vital that Customs maintain adequate internal controls to ensure that member companies deserve these benefits."
The GAO urged Customs and Border Protection to require consideration of third-party and other outside audits and take steps to make certain companies comply with any additional security improvements requested. The report also calls for some technological improvements to help improve consistency and better information-gathering in Customs' security checks.
Responding in part, Customs officials in the report agreed they could do more to follow up on suggested security improvements but noted that employees often use their expert discretion in assessing the potential danger before certifying a company. The agency has also said the program overall has made the nation safer.
Congress has been working to improve port security after the independent Sept. 11 commission cited the potential dangers in its 2004 final report. The commission stated that compared to commercial aviation, "opportunities to do harm are as great, or greater, in maritime or surface transportation." DHS has said that while the likelihood of terrorists smuggling weapons of mass destruction into the U.S. in cargo containers is low, the nation's vulnerability and consequences of such an attack are potentially high.
Maine Sen. Susan Collins, the top Republican on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said the report shows the importance of the private sector's continued cooperation in helping improve port security. "I will continue to work with DHS and the private sector to ensure the effectiveness of the crucial port security program," she said.
The GAO study examined a sample of 25 company reviews by Customs and Border Protection from March 1, 2006 through Sept. 30, 2006. Investigators interviewed officials, reviewed documents and studied the agency's minimum security criteria to see if standards were being met.
The United States should target militant bases in Pakistan, an Afghan state-controlled paper said on Monday, reacting to a threat by a Pakistani Taliban leader to carry out attacks in Afghanistan.
And why not? Baitullah's hard boyz target our guys.
Afghanistan and Pakistan, while both U.S. allies, have had strained relations, with Kabul accusing Islamabad of harbouring Taliban and al Qaeda militants and allowing them to direct and carry out attacks from Pakistani soil.
Think "Cambodia," prior to Pol Pot...
The Hewad newspaper called on Pakistan's government to review its stance on negotiations with the militants and not allow such deals to threaten Afghanistan. "Similarly, the United States of America which heads now the international campaign against terrorism, needs to focus all its attention on the terrorists' genuine nests," the state-run daily said in an editorial, referring to militant bases in Pakistani tribal areas along the Afghan border.
Which'd be both Wazoos and... ummm... Chitral, where nothing ever seems to happen for some reason.
Faced with a wave of suicide attacks over the past year, Pakistan has surrendered to begun negotiations with Taliban militants who control much of the mountainous region on its side of the border with Afghanistan and many Pakistani troops have left the area. Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud has said he would carry on fighting Afghan and foreign forces in Afghanistan whatever the outcome of the peace talks. Mehsud's comments were clear testimony to the fact that certain circles in Pakistan did not wish to see a secure and stable Afghanistan, the Hewad said, without elaborating further.
How do you elaborate further on a bald statement of fact?
This article starring:
Baitullah Mehsud
Taliban
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
#1
If there was no problems on the border how would Pakistan survive without the big cqs from the West?
Posted by: Paul ||
05/27/2008 6:51 Comments ||
Top||
The Taliban are preparing to launch a propaganda offensive with greater (global) outreach by arming some of its members with requisite skills to upload videos on websites such as YouTube. “The real war is the media war,” Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan chief Baitullah Mehsud told Daily Times. “It is our desire to learn also how one should fight the media war.”
Mehsud paved the way for a media counter-offensive on Friday by inviting more than 30 journalists from national and international media organisations to North and South Waziristan.
This came on the heels of the army airlifting around 20 journalists to Speenkay Raghzai on May 18 to showcase the forces’ forward positions in areas from which militants were ousted during ‘Operation Zalzala’ in January.
It became apparent during the second visit that the militants had returned. Residents said they had done so on May 20 – a day after the army readjusted its positions to facilitate the return of displaced Mehsud families.
Mehsud sought to win over reporters by terming the murder of Express TV’s Bajaur correspondent ‘unforgivable’. He assured journalists that his organisation would “hang the killers” of Ibrahim if they were identified.
“The Taliban have not been very advanced as far as the media war is concerned. But we are making efforts to catch up with the latest methods, and we will soon be available on YouTube,” a non-Pashtun and non-combatant member of the Taliban’s media cell told Daily Times, his face covered up to evade the identifying gaze of invited lenses.
Access to the latest technology does not appear to be a problem for the Taliban; their media cell employed the latest digital video cameras and laptops to record every moment of the ‘biggest Taliban media show’.
Senior BBC Urdu reporter Haroon Rashid commented that the media show put on by the Taliban underscored the “completer control of the militants” over Waziristan.
The Taliban media cell has already been releasing video CDs showing horrific images, apparently with different aims. One such video, screened during an army media briefing on May 18, shows a boy as young as 10 firing shots at the head of a blindfolded man and beheading another.
“Such images leave a deep impact on viewers. It is part of Taliban psychological warfare to break down opponents psychologically,” a retired army expert on psy-ops warfare told Daily Times in Peshawar.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
#1
“The real war is the media war,”
The enemy gets it; Michael Yon gets it; even our media get it (though they're on the other side); past time the rest of the West figured it out.
Pakistan is determined to stop militants crossing its border to fight Western troops in Afghanistan and is activating tribal leaders to squeeze out the militants, NWFP Governor Owais Ahmed Ghani said on Monday.
Ghani defended the government’s efforts to bring peace to the Tribal Areas through talks, saying that Pakistan was committed to Afghanistan’s security. “Pakistan is fully committed to interdicting cross-border movement of terrorists,” he told Reuters in an interview. “In no way can we allow militant forces to use Pakistani territory as a base to operate in Afghanistan or anywhere.” A re-think was needed in the war against the Taliban, Ghani said.
“This war against these extremists ... has now entered the seventh year and I feel that we need to actively review our strategies,” he said. “What we need to do is to reduce the space available to these negative forces,” he added.
Many Al Qaeda and Taliban militants fled to PakistanÂ’s border lands, that have never come under the full control of any government, after US-led forces ousted the Taliban in 2001. There they were welcomed by the conservative Pashtun tribes who, since the war against Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s, had given refuge to Islamist fighters battling foreigners in Afghanistan. Winning over the tribes was crucial, Ghani said.
Isolate militants: The Pakistani government is not talking to the militants but to the Pashtun elders in the border areas in an effort to get them to exert their authority and isolate the militants, the governor said. “We are talking to the majority tribes, their leaders, because it is their area and they are citizens of Pakistan and we are activating them so that they take control of their area and they reduce the space available to these militants,” Ghani said.
Tribal leaders would be obliged to ensure militants donÂ’t launch attacks in Afghanistan and the government would have the right to take action in case of any violation, he added.
Expecting peace: Ghani said he expected a deal to be struck soon in the South Waziristan region, where the government has been negotiating with elders of the Mehsud tribe.
A militant chief from the tribe, Baitullah Mehsud, has emerged as Pakistan’s most notorious militant commander, accused by the government of a string of attack and suicide blasts, including the one in which Benazir Bhutto was killed in December. Mehsud, who leads an umbrella groups of Pakistani militant groups, said on Saturday fighting with the Pakistani government should end, but he vowed to carry on the jihad in Afghanistan. Another senior government official reiterated that any pact would aim to ensure an end to cross-border attacks. “No agreement will be signed without the provision of no cross-border terrorism,” the second official said.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
The federal government, in collaboration with the United States, has begun providing special training to 23,000 Levies personnel appointed in the Tribal Areas to help counter terrorism.
Under the first phase of the initiative, 30 personnel from three of the seven tribal agencies — Khyber, Mohmand and Bajaur agencies — would be trained at the Islamabad Police Academy with the support of US forces. Sources said that the federal government had decided to impart the Levies and Khasadar forces appointed in the Tribal Areas with military training in light of a possible rise in extremism following the proposed return of the Pakistan Army from the Tribal Areas.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
How many guys named Levy live in Pak Land anyway?
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - After living in fear for months, liquor store owners in Baghdad are proudly displaying everything from Iraqi Asriya Arak to Johnnie Walker Blue Label whisky, a sign that peace and stability may return.
Bombings, shootings and hand grenade attacks by suspected Muslim militants forced many alcohol salesmen to shut down but a security crackdown by U.S. and Iraqi forces have made it possible for them to re-open along one of the capital's busiest streets. "We are not that worried now because security has improved," said Samir Khaled, an employee of a shop that was shaken by a car bomb in December which killed three people in one of the capital's most heavily protected areas. It reopened a month ago.
Islam forbids the consumption of alcohol.
Violence has fallen to its lowest level in more than four years, according to figures released by the U.S. military at the weekend. Iraqi and U.S. officials say they have al Qaeda in Iraq, blamed for the worst bombings in Baghdad, on the run.
That may offer an opportunity for enterprising liquor store owners, mostly members of the Yazidi religious sect, to generate business in Iraq, where a drink can offer an escape from suicide bombings, shootings and kidnappings. The odds are stacked against them and Christians, the other minority involved in the alcohol trade.
Since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, both Sunni and Shi'ite Muslim terrorists militants have violently imposed their fundamentalist will in Iraq's chaos.
Yazidis, a pre-Islamic Kurdish sect who live mainly in northern Iraq, Syria and Turkey, have had it bad enough. Many Iraqis call them devil and fire worshippers. Some 800 were killed and wounded in a multiple suicide bombing in northern Iraq last year, the worst such attack seen in Iraq. It was the Women's Muslim Temperance Union.
Yazidis who run the alcohol shops said they fled from their traditional homes around Mosul to try to make a living in Baghdad after receiving death threats. They hope things are improving and they won't have to keep moving.
Khidr Karim left his shop in Baghdad's Mansour district after a hand grenade was hurled into his shop, killing a colleague and sending shrapnel into his uncle's stomach. Now he is trying his fortunes on Saadoun street, home to most alcohol shops. "I think I can operate safely here now. Things have quieted down a bit," he said.
Before fundamentalists came along, alcohol merchants faced the whims of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. After attracting international condemnation for invading Kuwait, he began portraying himself as a pious Muslim to improve his image at home as economic sanctions ravaged Iraq. In the mid 1990s he banned alcohol sales in hotels, bars and restaurants.
Even though the risks are higher these days, Khaled believes customers will brave the wrath of militants and take their time choosing from the spirits arrayed at his shop. "We are making money. We are happy," he said. The December car bomb attack outside his shop sent body parts flying onto the sidewalk, just a few meters (feet) from where he is standing.
"They used to open fire on the shop. They kidnapped me and beat me so I would tell them where my boss was located. It took me 14 days to recover," Khaled said.
One of Baghdad's many blast walls runs along Saadoun street. It gives spirits salesman Yassir Ismail a sense of security. But the heavy concrete barrier is a mixed blessing. "The traffic police don't let customers stop cars in front of the shop any more. They worry about more car bombs," he said. "How can we make money this way when they can't park nearby?"
(VOI) - A Kurdish lawmaker on Monday rejected the proposal to divide Kirkuk into four constituencies, branding it as “unconstitutional.” “The Kurdish Alliance bloc considers the proposal (of dividing Kirkuk into four constituencies) presented to the Parliament as categorically unconstitutional and unacceptable,” Saad al-Barazanji, Kurdish MP, told Aswat al-Iraq - Voices of Iraq - (VOI). “The proposal is in violation if the constitution as it will appoint a local government in Kirkuk through the proposed electoral percentages,” he noted.
Earlier, Mohamed Mahdi al-Bayati, Turcoman lawmaker from the Unified Iraqi Coalition (UIC) told VOI that more than 110 parliamentarians from different political blocs presented a proposal to the Parliament to divide Kirkuk into four constituencies. The amendment envisages granting Kirkuk a special electoral system and dividing it into four constituencies; 32 percent for Kurds, Arabs and Turcomans, and 4 percent for the remaining population. Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution is related to normalization in Kirkuk, an important and mixed city of Kurds, Turcomans, Christians, Arabs, and Assyrians. Kurds seek to include the city in the autonomous Iraq's Kurdistan region, while Sunni Muslims, Turcomans, and Shiites oppose the incorporation. The article currently stipulates that all Arabs in Kirkuk be returned to their original locations in southern and central Iraqi areas, and formerly displaced residents returned to Kirkuk, 250 km northeast of Baghdad.
The article also calls for conducting a census to be followed by a referendum to allow the inhabitants to decide whether they would like Kirkuk to be annexed under the autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan region, or have it as an independent province. These stages were supposed to end on December 31, 2007, a deadline that was later extended to six months.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Iraqi Insurgency
BAGHDAD - The judge at the trial of the former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz called Monday on all parties involved in the case to show self-restraint and maintain professional behaviour during the trial. The Iraqi High Tribunal resumed hearing the case against Aziz and seven co-defendants, who are accused of executing 42 Iraqi traders in 1992.
Judge Rauf Abdel-Rashid urged the legal teams, defendants and plaintiffs to refrain from mutual abuse and show appropriate behaviour in court.
On Sunday, there were sharp exchanges between Aziz and one of the witnesses, Mahir Rashid. Rashid said his brother, one of the executed traders, had been killed on the instigation of Aziz's son, who was involved in trading in foreign currencies and saw his brother as a threatening competitor. Aziz dismissed the accusations and insults were traded.
The merchants were accused by the government of former dictator Saddam Hussein of manipulating prices when the country was languishing under international sanctions.
Didn't make the right payments to the right toadies ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Rafael Advanced Defense Systems has received special rabbinic permission to work on Shabbat on the Iron Dome anti-Kassam missile defense system, defense officials said Monday.
'We'll keep firing until every Jew climbs back into the sh---- hole he came from'
By Aaron Klein
JERUSALEM – Terrorists in the Gaza Strip are rejoicing at an Israeli decision today to evacuate troops stationed at a major Gaza-Israel border crossing following repeated Palestinian attack against Israel's side of the border station.
"This retreat proves the Israeli army is a paper tiger. What we proved to the world in 2005 (when Israel evacuated its Jewish communities from the Gaza Strip) we are proving once again. We are reaching a new step and proving our Resistance™ and our rockets are working," Muhammad Abdel-Al, spokesman and a leader of the Hamas-allied Popular Resistance™ Committees terror group, told WND.
"Just as the Zionists™ are running from the border, they will also run from Ashkelon, Ashdod, Jerusalem, Jaffa, Haifa and Tel Aviv ... . We will keep firing until every Jew climbs back into the sh--ty hole he came from," said Abdel-Al, whose group took responsibility for scores of recent attacks against the Israeli border.
Abu Ahmed, a leader of the Islamic Jihad terror group in Gaza, called Israel's troop evacuation a "victory."
"We feel proud and determined," he said. "Israelis start to withdraw from bases that are well-fortified because the Palestinian Resistance™ proved that we are able to reach them at any point even if it is very fortified. We are proving once again that the myth of the unbeatable Israeli army is irrelevant," Abu Ahmed told WND.
Under instructions from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government, the IDF announced soldiers stationed at the Gaza District Coordination Office, the army's liaison office to Gaza, were set to be transferred from their facility just outside the Erez border crossing to a base further inside Israel due to the security threat in the Gaza border area.
Erez is the main commercial and humanitarian aid crossing between Israel and the Gaza Strip. It has been the target of several recent Palestinian terror attacks and attempted attacks.
Last Thursday, the Islamic Jihad terror group along with the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the so-called military wing of Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah organization, attempted to carry out a massive bombing at the Erez Crossing that, if successful, would have been the largest terrorist attack here since the Jewish state retreated from the Gaza Strip three years ago.
In last week's attempted attack, a truck reportedly carrying four tons of explosives detonated prematurely as it was approaching Erez. Even though the truck exploded hundreds of feet from the crossing, the explosion was large enough to rip a hole in a pedestrian passageway leading out of the Erez terminal and into Gaza.
Residents in the Gaza Strip who live more than 20 miles from the crossing told the Palestinian media they heard the blast.
"In terms of the amount of explosives used, Thursday's attack was the biggest since Israel pulled its settlers and troops out of Gaza nearly three years ago," Israel Defense Forces spokeswoman Maj. Avital Leibovich said.
IDF sources told WND that if last week's attack would have been successful, they estimate tens of soldiers and civilians would have been killed.
In response to Palestinian attacks, defense officials here have been petitioning the government to carry out a large-scale Gaza incursion to massively dent the territory's terrorist infrastructure.
An average of one dozen rockets and mortars per week are fired from the Gaza Strip into nearby Jewish communities. Earlier this month, during a visit by President Bush to Jerusalem, one terrorist rocket smashed into a large shopping mall in the coastal city of Ashkelon, seriously injuring 11 people.
The new decision to evacuate Israeli troops from the border station comes as Olmert is reportedly seeking to finalize an Egyptian-brokered cease fire with Hamas and other Gaza-based terror groups.
Amos Gilad, who heads the Israeli defense ministry's political-security branch, flew to Egypt today for talks with Egyptian Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman regarding the cease fire deal.
Defense officials here have been warning a cease fire in Gaza will likely be used by Hamas to transport weapons into Gaza, rebuild armies and infrastructure in the territory and train in combat against future IDF operations.
Alongside the evacuation of troops and brokering of a cease with Hamas, Olmert last week announced he commenced negotiations with Syria over an Israeli retreat from the Golan Heights – strategic, mountainous territory looking down on Israeli population centers.
The Golan negotiations are taking place as Olmert faces what is being described as a very serious criminal investigation in which the prime minister is suspected of bribery and corruption. Olmert has vowed to resign if he is indicted in the rapidly expanding case.
A survey conducted last week by Israel's Channel 2 found 70 percent of Israelis oppose relinquishing the Golan Heights for peace with Syria, compared to 22 percent in favor of such a move.
The poll found 57 percent of Israelis believe the timing of the negotiations with Syria is linked to the corruption case against Olmert.
Fifty-eight percent of those polled reportedly said Olmert did not have the legitimacy to negotiate with Syria.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert denied Monday that he had committed to withdrawing from the occupied Golan Heights, as a precondition set by Syria for renewing peace negotiations. 'All that I said to the Syrians was that I know what you want, and you know what I want. There is no commitment beyond that,' Olmert told an Israeli parliamentary committee on foreign and security affairs.
In a surprise, three-way announcement from Jerusalem, Damascus and Ankara, Israel and Syria said last week that they were holding indirect peace negotiations under Turkish mediation, the first such talks in eight years.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem had said that Damascus agreed to revive the peace talks, after receiving assurances via Turkey from Israel, that it was willing to withdraw fully from the Golan, to the border of before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told lawmakers Monday that Israel would not agree to open the Rafah crossing - explicitly rejecting a chief condition Hamas has set for any truce with Israel.
"We won't be willing to open the Rafah crossing at this point," a meeting participant quoted the prime minister as saying. Another official had no answer when asked if that meant the passage could be opened later. "We won't allow optimal conditions in Gaza, but we won't allow starvation, nor will we prevent medicines from entering Gaza," Olmert was quoted as saying.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
Likud chairman Binyamin Netanyahu never agreed to give up the Golan Heights to Syria, according to American businessman Ronald Lauder, who was Netanyahu's emissary to Syria when he was prime minister.
Lauder made the statement to Yediot Aharonot in April 2001 in an article that Netanyahu's aides distributed at the Knesset on Monday to counter claims to the contrary from Netanyahu's adversaries, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. "Prime Minister Netanyahu never agreed to withdraw to the June 4, 1967 borders or close to them, and never allowed me to make such an offer," Lauder said. "An agreement was not reached in the summer of 1998, due to Netanyahu's refusal to accept the Syrian demands and his insistence that the final border with Syria be a significant distance east of the June 4, 1967 lines and the 1923 international border."
At Monday's Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee meeting, Netanyahu revealed that in September 1996, the US State Department issued a statement at his request saying that Israel was not obligated to withdraw from the Golan Heights, despite commitments that former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin made to former US secretary of state Warren Christopher.
At the meeting, Olmert threatened to reveal documents proving that Netanyahu did in fact agree to give up the Golan Heights.
Netanyahu will convene the Likud central committee in Katzrin in the Golan Heights on Thursday to show solidarity with the region.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
"Anyone who acts to remove state territory from its control - his punishment is death," MK Arye Eldad (NRP) said Sunday at a meeting of the Golan lobby at the Knesset. "Giving away the Golan is treason," he stated.
MK Efi Eitam later said that "It must be clarified that the meaning is death by order of the courts."
You've been hanging around with Arabs entirely too long.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwan on Monday accused Israel of putting obstacles in front of Egyptian efforts to achieve a ceasefire between Israel and the militant group by refusing to open the Rafah border crossing with Egypt. "The Rafah border must be opened as part of the calm," Radwan said, repeating Hamas' demand that Egypt open the crossing if Israel doesn't.
Although the Rafah crossing lies on the Gaza-Egypt border, the passage has been closed because Europeans monitoring the crossing require Israeli security clearance to operate. That clearance has not been given since Hamas took over Gaza.
The Hamas statement came after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told a Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee meeting that Gaza's Rafah border crossing with Egypt will not be opened for the time being, according to a participant at the meeting.
Hamas wants the crossing reopened and a role in monitoring the border - a concession that would be tantamount to recognizing the Islamic group's rule of Gaza. Egypt has rejected that demand, and called for a return to the 2005 agreement that gives Israel and EU monitors a supervisory role.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
#1
Hamas: Israel must open Rafah crossing for truce talks to succeed
Been taking stall lessons from Kimmie?
Make unreasonable demands, whine "They don't want peace" when your shitty ideas get rejected.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
05/27/2008 0:18 Comments ||
Top||
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has said Israel holds at least 150 nuclear weapons, the first time a U.S. president has publicly acknowledged Israel's atomic arsenal.
Asked at a news conference at Wales's Hay literary festival on Sunday how a future U.S. president should deal with the Iranian nuclear threat, Carter put the risk in context by listing atomic weapons held globally. "The U.S. has more more than 12,000 nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union (Russia) has about the same, Great Britain and France have several hundred, and Israel has 150 or more. We have a phalanx of enormous weaponry ... not only of enormous weaponry but of rockets to deliver those missiles on a pinpoint accuracy target," he said, according to a transcript of his remarks.
Carter also condemned Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip as "one of the greatest human rights crimes now existing on Earth," according to the Agence France-Presse news agency.
Carter said in reference to the situation of Palestinians in Gaza that, "There is no reason to treat these people this way."
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Missiles" Dumbass, not "Rockets" they can hit a very small target by guiding while in flight.
I guess if it goes "Whoosh" when launched Prez Dumbass doesn't care what lifted off.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
05/27/2008 0:26 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Carter said in reference to the situation of Palestinians in Gaza that, "There is no reason to treat these people this way."
Yes, Jimmeh, there is a reason: they constantly attack Israel. They have done nothing but seethe and whine since Israel withdrew. They blame all their problems on Israel, and do nothing to help themselves.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
05/27/2008 0:37 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I'm curious where EX-President Carter got that number? Was and is it classified information from when he was the worst president? If so then wouldn't disclosing it be treason?
I wonder what other state secrets he might have revealed to his friends (the terrorists).
#7
His funeral will be a very interesting event. The MSM was forced to admit how much it had screwed up at Reagan's by the national outpouring of grief. I'd bet the peanut farmer's is private.
Sunset Boulevard, set in '50s Hollywood, focuses on Norma Desmond, a silent-screen goddess whose pathetic belief in her own indestructibility has turned her into a demented recluse.
We could only hope that Jimmy would become a silent and a recluse. Stick to your woodworking hobby Jimmy. Critical thought has long since left you.
#13
...The same President Carter who wanted to reduce the US ICBM force to a total of 100 missiles and reduce SAC to a couple dozen converted 747s carrying ALCMs.
Sir - SHADDAP AWREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
05/27/2008 17:43 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I'm guessing the kind that causes delusions, like the possibility of Achmed ever talking to a halter top wearing girl.
Posted by: ed ||
05/27/2008 14:40 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Weirdly enough, "Poison Mushroom" fit into a book the NAZIs had published for kids in the Third Reich. Saw it at the Holocaust Museum just yesterday, in fact.
Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah warned the Lebanese government Monday not to use military force against the Shiite Muslim militant group.
"Don't even mess with us!"
His warning, a day after a new Lebanese president was elected, appeared to draw the line for the new government.
"Ain't nobuddy tells us what to do!"
President Michel Suleiman said Sunday in his inauguration speech there needs to be a dialogue over the future of Hezbollah's arsenal but praised the guerrillas' fight against Israel.
Nasrallah spoke to supporters Monday for the first time since Hezbollah fighters seized several areas of Beirut earlier in the month, forcing the government to agree to a political deal that strengthened the group's role in the government. He pledged to comply with an article in the Arab-brokered agreement that forbids the use of arms to achieve political gains. But he said in the speech by videolink to tens of thousands of people in south Beirut that the state's weapons should not be used against Hezbollah or its opposition allies. "The resistance weapons should not be used to achieve political gains," he said.
Even though they obviously were in the very recent past.
But at the same time, he added, "the state's weapons should not be used to settle accounts with an opposition political party, or in favour of outside parties that weaken Lebanon's strength and immunity in confronting Israel." Celebratory gunfire erupted across south Beirut, a Hezbollah stronghold, as he spoke.
Nasrallah said his group was not interested in seizing power in this multi-sectarian nation of four million. "We don't want power. We don't want to govern Lebanon or impose anything on the Lebanese people because we believe that Lebanon is an exceptional, diverse nation," he said.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
Hizbullah leader hints to possible progress in negotiation for prisoner swap with Israel; Shlomo Goldwasser: I'm not aware of progress.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
#1
May God damn to eternal Hell anyone who lets this evil, evil monster out of his cage. Every breath he takes is an affront to the memory of the two little children he caused to die so horribly. He should have been executed long ago.
Posted by: Thaimble Scourge of the Pixies4707 ||
05/27/2008 18:21 Comments ||
Top||
Iran may be withholding information needed to establish whether it tried to make nuclear arms, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Monday in an unusually strongly worded report.
The tone of the language suggesting that Teheran continues to stonewall the agency - the UN nuclear monitor - revealed a glimpse of the frustration felt by agency investigators stymied in their attempts to gain full answers to suspicious aspects of Iran's past nuclear activities.
Addressing whether Iran was complying with agency requests, the report said that "Iran has not provided the Agency with all the information, access to documents and access to individuals necessary to support Iran's statements" that its activities were purely peaceful in intent.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
That lack of cooperation speaks volumes. It is sufficient for me.
#2
Gee, this is like deja vu all over again. Didn't we hear the same complaints about willful noncooperation about Iraq in 2002 (and 1 and 0 and 99 and 98)?
Must be all that soft power the Euros brought to bear, no?
Indirect talks on prisoner exchange between Israel and Hizbullah that are being sponsored by the UN have made "major progress," Reuters reported Monday. According to the report, Lebanese political sources stated that talks with Hizbullah officials, run by a German mediator, were held in Beirut last week, and "a breakthrough appeared close."
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
Western-backed ruling majority to get 16 cabinet seats and choose prime minister
Syrian-backed opposition to get 11 cabinet seats and veto power
Three cabinet seats to be nominated by president
The use of weapons in internal conflicts is to be banned
Opposition protest camps in central Beirut are to be removed
New law to divide country into smaller electoral districts
Hezbollah is not seeking to control Lebanon or impose its views on other political forces, the group's leader has told a large crowd in Beirut. Hassan Nasrallah addressed thousands of supporters via video link to mark the Israeli pullout from Lebanon in 2000. "Lebanon is a pluralistic country. The existence of this country only comes about through co-existence," he said.
He said Hezbollah would not use its arms to attain its goals. Lebanon saw fierce factional violence recently.
It was the first speech by Mr Nasrallah since Hezbollah gunmen seized several parts of Beirut, forcing the government to agree to a deal that has strengthened the Shia Muslim group's political role in Lebanon. "I reaffirm the Doha agreement clause that prevents the use of arms to attain political goals," said Mr Nasrallah, whose Syrian- and Iranian-backed group has Lebanon's most powerful military force.
The Arab-brokered deal, signed in the Qatari capital, paved the way for Sunday's appointment of a president after a six-month delay.
Earlier on Monday, former army chief Michel Suleiman took up residence in the presidential palace in Baadba. There are hopes that his appointment is a first step towards national reconciliation and away from possible civil war. But correspondents say Lebanon still harbours deep rifts that have resulted in political turmoil, economic stagnation and a string of political killings.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
#1
Be VERY VERY careful what you wish for. I don't know how many nukes Pakistan has (I suppose we could ask Jimmeh), but I'll be willing to bet that the US has a LOT more. And, IIRC, it is the policy of the US to respond to a nuclear attack - with a nuclear attack.
If you and all your jihadi brethren would like to become radioactive plasma, go ahead and try to attack the US with nukes.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
05/27/2008 18:30 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Just more evidencia/indica that OSAMA, RADICAL ISLAM, + IRAN, etc. are now pointing the ISLAMIST-JIHADIST SWORD SQUARELY AT RUSSIA, CENTRAL ASIA, + PERIPHERALS. Collectively, they're gambling that MSM-reported "LAME DUCK" DUBYA = USA WON'T INVADE IRAN AS HOPED/DESIRED BY OSAMA etal., NOR WILL RISK "GREAT POWERS" MIL CONFRONTATION IN SENSITIVE REGIONS, MORESO DURING A MAJOR US ELEX YEAR.
AFTER YEAR 2010 -2012 > THE ISLAMIST JIHAD WILL NOT ONLY ENDURE BUT WILL BE NUCLEAR [indigenous]["limited first strike" level?]. ANTI-US ARMS-NUKE = MILTECH TRANSFERS WILL STILL REMAIN AS "JUST-IN-CASE".
#3
WASHINGTON TIMES > US TERROR ATTACK [new] SEEN APT TO FOLLOW 2008 ELECTION. 9-11 occurred as the USGovt was debating on how to deal wid OSAMA BIN LADEN's organz terror network, which had declared war on the USA. OSAMA, AQ + RADICAL ISLAM may decide FUTURE COURSE9S) OF ACTION as dependent on whom wins the 2008 POTUS Elex.
#4
Would the use of Nuclear weapons on U.S. troops in Afghanistan trigger a nuclear response by a President Obama? Or will he weasel his way out of having to respond?
After all Carter was able to weasel his was out of responding to an outright act of war. That is a good part of how we got into this mess.
First, the White House spoke out against NBC News and its editing of Richard Engel's interview with President George Bush.
And, today, the White House takes on the New York Times editorial page for its editorial, "Mr. Bush and the GI Bill."
From the White House statement:
Once again, the New York Times Editorial Board doesn't let the facts get in the way of expressing its vitriolic opinions - no matter how misleading they may be.
In today's editorial, "Mr. Bush and the GI Bill", the New York Times irresponsibly distorts President Bush's strong commitment to strengthening and expanding support for America's service members and their families.
This editorial could not be farther from the truth...
Fact 1
Fact 2
etc...
Fact 6
Though readers of the New York Times editorial page wouldn't know it, President Bush looks forward to signing a GI bill that supports our troops and their families, and preserves the experience and skill of our forces.
Whee! I hope we can look for more of this as President Bush finishes out his term in office.
#1
Notice how calling them out on their lies and distortions is called "going after the media" as if the media were some innocent force that has done nothing to deserve contempt.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/27/2008 8:22 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The way to go after all these purported enterprises is with the commerce clause. Selling a product under false pretenses of content or selling a defective product is a commerce manner not a First Amendment issue. It's the standard the 'news' business all too often demands of any other corporation in the country. Of course if the product is properly labeled as to content that should not be construed as 'facts' but rather opinions and that the consumer is advised to use only for personal evaluation would probably give them adequate cover.
Had Bush found his cojones sooner we'd likely not be in such a jam. Its MSM/Press DIS-information that has cost us so much over the past several years.
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.
Al Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden is hiding in the Karakoram segment of the Himalayan range, Arabic television network Al-Arabiya quoted its sources as saying on Monday. According to the Dubai-based network, in the past few days United States (US) security and military officials had a top-level summit at a military base in QatarÂ’s capital Doha to plan an operation to hunt for Osama. US commander in Iraq General David Petraeus and US ambassador to Islamabad Anne Patterson were reported to have attended the summit. 
BRUSSELS - Italy plans to cut up to 300 troops from its 2,400-strong contingent in Afghanistan later this year, Italian Defence Minister Ignazio La Russa said on Monday. "Our intention is to make a decrease in September of between 250 and 300," La Russa told reporters at an EU meeting.
Sudan is on the brink of a new civil war following more than a week of north-south clashes in the disputed oil-rich town of Abyei, a senior southern official said on Monday.
The al-Qaeda terrorist network urged Monday its supporters in Yemen to limit their attacks to 'effective' operations against US and foreign interests in the Arab county. 
The United States should target militant bases in Pakistan, an Afghan state-controlled paper said on Monday, reacting to a threat by a Pakistani Taliban leader to carry out attacks in Afghanistan.
The federal government, in collaboration with the United States, has begun providing special training to 23,000 Levies personnel appointed in the Tribal Areas to help counter terrorism.
BAGHDAD - The judge at the trial of the former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz called Monday on all parties involved in the case to show self-restraint and maintain professional behaviour during the trial. The Iraqi High Tribunal resumed hearing the case against Aziz and seven co-defendants, who are accused of executing 42 Iraqi traders in 1992.
'We'll keep firing until every Jew climbs back into the sh---- hole he came from'
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert denied Monday that he had committed to withdrawing from the occupied Golan Heights, as a precondition set by Syria for renewing peace negotiations. 'All that I said to the Syrians was that I know what you want, and you know what I want. There is no commitment beyond that,' Olmert told an Israeli parliamentary committee on foreign and security affairs. 
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told lawmakers Monday that Israel would not agree to open the Rafah crossing - explicitly rejecting a chief condition Hamas has set for any truce with Israel. 
Likud chairman Binyamin Netanyahu never agreed to give up the Golan Heights to Syria, according to American businessman Ronald Lauder, who was Netanyahu's emissary to Syria when he was prime minister. 
"Anyone who acts to remove state territory from its control - his punishment is death," MK Arye Eldad (NRP) said Sunday at a meeting of the Golan lobby at the Knesset. "Giving away the Golan is treason," he stated. 
Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah warned the Lebanese government Monday not to use military force against the Shiite Muslim militant group.
