Hi there, !
Today Wed 11/22/2006 Tue 11/21/2006 Mon 11/20/2006 Sun 11/19/2006 Sat 11/18/2006 Fri 11/17/2006 Thu 11/16/2006 Archives
Rantburg
446949 articles and 1579249 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 86 articles and 537 comments as of 21:29.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Operations    Non-WoT    Opinion    Local News        Posting Order
SCIIRI bigshot banged in Baghdad
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 2: WoT Background
29 00:00 Leigh [699] 
10 00:00 Old Patriot [480] 
5 00:00 Nimble Spemble [283] 
0 [304] 
10 00:00 RWV [319] 
0 [295] 
3 00:00 gromgoru [319] 
5 00:00 SpecOp35 [279] 
15 00:00 Frank G [415] 
0 [278] 
0 [297] 
2 00:00 trailing wife [316] 
0 [281] 
9 00:00 Perfesser [269] 
1 00:00 trailing wife [279] 
4 00:00 Mick Dundee [300] 
0 [294] 
2 00:00 trailing wife [278] 
4 00:00 Mick Dundee [284] 
0 [279] 
7 00:00 Deacon Blues [271] 
1 00:00 mhw [271] 
47 00:00 Slereper Ulosing9249 [617] 
0 [309] 
1 00:00 ed [264] 
3 00:00 Captain America [342] 
9 00:00 Anguper Hupomosing9418 [262] 
3 00:00 Frank G [308] 
4 00:00 wxjames [266] 
4 00:00 Thinemp Whimble2412 [286] 
3 00:00 Jesing Ebbease3087 [284] 
1 00:00 Frank G [267] 
1 00:00 JosephMendiola [313] 
Page 1: WoT Operations
2 00:00 Zenster [493]
11 00:00 Rob Crawford [520]
1 00:00 twobyfour [326]
4 00:00 Anguper Hupomosing9418 [312]
2 00:00 pihkalbadger [318]
50 00:00 crazyhorse [491]
2 00:00 pihkalbadger [323]
8 00:00 Rob Crawford [308]
0 [480]
7 00:00 Elmert Crosh5077 [288]
10 00:00 ed [381]
2 00:00 Mike Kozlowski [295]
0 [311]
0 [357]
2 00:00 gromgoru [880]
1 00:00 Sneaze Shaiting3550 [303]
7 00:00 Zenster [466]
0 [307]
3 00:00 Dar [447]
21 00:00 gorb [819]
6 00:00 anonymous5089 [318]
0 [295]
0 [405]
6 00:00 Scooter McGruder [491]
Page 3: Non-WoT
2 00:00 twobyfour [283]
6 00:00 Old Patriot [509]
5 00:00 Shieldwolf [272]
21 00:00 Zenster [704]
1 00:00 gromgoru [258]
10 00:00 DMFD [476]
1 00:00 anonymous2u [282]
3 00:00 bigjim-ky [288]
1 00:00 JosephMendiola [273]
2 00:00 Sneaze Shaiting3550 [299]
2 00:00 SteveS [283]
1 00:00 Pappy [280]
3 00:00 Thinemp Whimble2412 [288]
4 00:00 Glenmore [294]
9 00:00 DMFD [483]
Page 4: Opinion
9 00:00 Sock Puppet of Doom [492]
11 00:00 FOTSGreg [366]
0 [283]
17 00:00 SR-71 [391]
Page 5: Local News
13 00:00 Deacon Blues [293]
27 00:00 .com [605]
12 00:00 trailing wife [473]
2 00:00 bigjim-ky [293]
2 00:00 Charles [285]
9 00:00 SpecOp35 [458]
19 00:00 Jackal [1249]
1 00:00 Sneaze Shaiting3550 [264]
16 00:00 Zenster [614]
1 00:00 anonymous5089 [279]
Afghanistan
Canadian general urges NATO to let more troops in south Afghanistan
KANDAHAR AIRFIELD, Afghanistan - The NATO-led force in Afghanistan would be more effective if member countries lifted restrictions that prevent their troops from fighting insurgents in the country’s restive south, a senior Canadian officer said on Saturday. Brig. Gen. Tim Grant, the commanding officer of Canadian forces in Afghanistan, said that if the commander of the NATO-led force had more flexibility in the deployment and the use of all the troops here I think it would be better for everyone.’
It would also help if the other NATO troops would fight at night and on weekends.
The issue is not necessarily having more troops stationed here on a permanent basis,’ Grant told The Associated Press in an interview at this sprawling southern military base. But if there are situations ... when it is important to have different capacities, different capabilities on the ground, that is when (the NATO) commander needs to be able to move troops,’ he said.

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer on Friday, speaking at a meeting in Quebec City, urged lawmakers from the alliance’s member nations to lean on their governments to remove troop restrictions.

Many of the 37 troop-contributing nations currently serving with the 31,000 strong NATO-led force in Afghanistan have refused to join the fight against Taleban and other insurgents in the country’s south, leaving the task to Canadian, American, British and Dutch forces. The French, German and Italian forces patrol relatively quiet sectors in the north under self-imposed limitations, known in NATO as caveats, that keep them out of combat operations.
Which allows them to say that they're helping -- gosh, can't help elsewhere since they're max'd out in Afghanistan -- without actually doing anything. This is called, I think, 'lip service'.
This year alone 34 Canadian soldiers have been killed in clashes and attacks.

I think Canada has always realized that the southern part of Afghanistan would be a difficult chore,’ Grant said. This is the home of the Taleban.’

The situation in the south will determine the course the country will take, he said. 'People say how goes Kandahar goes Afghanistan,’ Grant said. 'I do not think we are in any danger of losing the south,’ Grant said.

Creating a secure environment in which reconstruction can take place remains the crucial element of the alliance’s mission, he said. 'At the end of the day we are making tremendous progress here in the south and Afghanistan is not in danger,’ Grant said.
Thank you Canada, and may you continue to embarrass the French with your fortitude.
Posted by: Steve White || 11/19/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [278 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I went to get a coffee this morning met a young reservist on his way in for weekend training. My heart swells with pride when see see Canadian Forces personnel. It is humbling to think of the work they are doing as I stumble along in an office job.
Posted by: Excalibur || 11/19/2006 9:09 Comments || Top||

#2  Homefront support is important, too, Excalibur, so you did your bit this morning. And you're right to be proud -- the Canadian troops are quite something! :-)
Posted by: trailing wife || 11/19/2006 22:08 Comments || Top||


Africa Horn
Islamic Leader Urges 'Greater Somalia'
MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) - The leader of the Islamic group that controls much of southern Somalia has revived the idea of a "Greater Somalia" that would incorporate regions of Kenya and Ethiopia - a move that could further stoke tensions with the neighboring countries.

Sheik Hassan Dahir Aweys, chairman of the Council of Islamic Courts, told Shabelle Radio in an interview late Friday that his group would work to unite ethnic Somali peoples, but he did not say how it proposed to achieve a "Greater Somalia."
"Ein volk ..."
This is the first time that Aweys has spoken about expanding the influence of the Islamic courts outside Somalia since his group seized control of the capital, Mogadishu, in June and then consolidated its control over most of southern Somalia. "We will leave no stone unturned to integrate our Somali brothers in Kenya and Ethiopia and restore their freedom to live with their ancestors in Somalia," he said.
Wait til he finds out that an ancient map shows that Somalia was once part of China ...
After present-day Somalia was formed in 1960 from Italian and British colonies, the country's leaders began pushing for the unity of all Somali-speaking peoples. Somalis live in Djibouti, northeastern Kenya and eastern Ethiopia. Somalia launched an invasion of Ethiopia in 1977, which was quickly repelled. Since then, Somali nationalists and Islamic fundamentalists have continued to advocate the idea of a "Greater Somalia," and a minor ethnic-Somali insurgency continues in eastern Ethiopia.
Posted by: Steve White || 11/19/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [300 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Good ones, Steve.
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 11/19/2006 0:11 Comments || Top||

#2  Neither Kenya nor Ethiopia are major military powers BUT they do have some major sponsors : the US, Great Britain, Israel, and oddly enough Libya. Libya wants to be the great "African" power and has been making backdoor moves on Ethiopia and Kenya. If Ethiopia strikes from the north and Kenya from the south, the Islamists will be fighting a two front war against actual militaries.
Posted by: Shieldwolf || 11/19/2006 1:29 Comments || Top||

#3  Good ones, Steve.
!
Red letter day.
Posted by: Shipman || 11/19/2006 13:53 Comments || Top||

#4 
Wait til he finds out that an ancient map shows that Somalia was once part of China ...


Hey, I found this map of early China, pre-Continental Drift Era!



Posted by: Mick Dundee || 11/19/2006 19:51 Comments || Top||


Arabia
Aljazeera notices: What are the four U.S. Carriers doing in the Gulf?
As the American President George W. Bush steps up threatening rhetoric against Iran to force it suspend its nuclear program, calling for worldwide isolation of Tehran until it “gives up its nuclear ambitions,” experts predict that the coming days would see a much violent step by Washington against the Islamic Republic.

What asserts the experts’ fears is the fact that on October 31, two nuclear-powered carriers, the USS Eisenhower and USS Enterprise, arrived in Bahrain, accompanied by their carrier strike groups. And on November 9th, the USS Iwo Jima, and the USS Boxer also arrived.

Is President Bush up to something? Asked Rense.com

More, mainly quotes from recent news reports from a variety of sources, plus pretty pictures of the carriers, and a comment thread.
Posted by: trailing wife || 11/19/2006 00:52 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [415 views] Top|| File under:

#1  American Hiroshima(s), i.e. Decapitation-Assassination disguised as Terror + MSM
"justified" anti-US retaliation, still looms.
"Justified" Socialism, "justified" Communism, "justified" Totalitarianism + Anti-Sovereignty. AMERICAN ANTI-AMERICANISM = ANTI-AMERICAN AMERICANISM???
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 11/19/2006 1:15 Comments || Top||

#2  On October 11, American officials announced that the U.S., Bahrain and other states will hold their first naval exercise in the Gulf to practice interdicting ships carrying weapons of mass destruction and missiles.

Weak! The four CBGs are just tagging along to watch the destroyers do their job? Hmm. Still, it seems to me it's probably just a little sabre rattling. But as TW said yesterday, it doesn't hurt to hope. Keeps me going, anyway! :-)
Posted by: gorb || 11/19/2006 1:29 Comments || Top||

#3  They have been there since mid October, and one group that will be nameless, has trained intensely on joint operations with Rapid Deployment Forces. I would guess that they are enjoying the Indian Ocean while conducting a little planning.
Posted by: Sneaze Shaiting3550 || 11/19/2006 1:37 Comments || Top||

#4  There's a trip wire being laid, and the longer the CBGs linger the closer the Irantians bravo comes to tripping over it.
Posted by: Captain America || 11/19/2006 2:37 Comments || Top||

#5  mainly quotes from recent news reports from a variety of sources

Er, if rense.com is considered a 'news source'...
Posted by: Seafarious || 11/19/2006 3:58 Comments || Top||

#6  Well, it IS, at least on rods and cattle mutilations.
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 11/19/2006 7:30 Comments || Top||

#7  What are the four U.S. Carriers doing in the Gulf?

We call it diplomacy there Aljiz. Ya see when nations forget to act civilized we send the fleet as a gentle reminder to act like adults. If they still refuse to listen and politics fail, well, we will force you to behave. You should feel special, you have our undivided attention. Don't blink!
Posted by: 49 Pan || 11/19/2006 8:27 Comments || Top||

#8  Read the article. The headline is misleading. They're careful to say ships came in at the end of Oct. But are the ships still there??

US Navy website says there's ONE carrier (the Eisenhower) in the Arabian sea. The Enterprise is listed as being in the Atlantic. Might be just off of Gibralter for all I know, but unless the Navy is deliberately misinforming us it's not in the Gulf.

The Boxer expeditionary group is listed as in the Gulf. We don't call it a carrier (it's smaller and supports Marine helicopters, not jet fighter bombers) but even if we accept that designation the Iwo Jima group is listed as being in the western Mediterranean.

In other words, we came for the exercise and pulled back -- a little.
Posted by: Murpling Argeon0987 || 11/19/2006 8:34 Comments || Top||

#9  I do apologize. I didn't post this so much for the information in the article, which we here know already, so much as for the fact that Aljazeera noticed and is concerned... and is sharing that concern with its worldwide readership. And if Rense.com is as rinkydink as all that (thanks, a5089! I'd wondered who they were), surely it's amusing that those illustrius journalists who came from the BBC and other prestigious news agencies consider them an appropriate source. Again, I apologize for being confusing.
Posted by: trailing wife || 11/19/2006 8:48 Comments || Top||

#10  Battleship Row Part Deux.

Instead of forcing the immediate threat to travel all the way across the Pacific to do its dirty work, let's just set up real close to them. Politically mandated ROEs will make these guys too much of a target. Just look at the politically driven ROEs have done in Iraq.
Posted by: Cheating Angeaque9874 || 11/19/2006 8:54 Comments || Top||

#11  Your not confusing there TW. I find it interseting that they are now reporting it and see it as a threat. This justifies one of the reasons we have a fleet, or four, LOL. the fleet could be in Hawaii for all I care, as long as they think it is right over their horizon ready to kill them all.

This reminds me of the Khadafi event where he boarded a speedboat to go and go battle with the fleet. He came back a changed man.
Posted by: 49 Pan || 11/19/2006 8:58 Comments || Top||

#12  Hey, shortie, duck.

BRUHAHAHAHA!!
Posted by: DarthVader || 11/19/2006 9:00 Comments || Top||

#13  Al Jizz knowz whereever 90,000 tons of US sovreignity and the most powerful weapons system ever built shows up, bad guys get hurt...
Posted by: badanov || 11/19/2006 11:52 Comments || Top||

#14  I once viewed the Carrier' "Ranger" at sea from about 5 miles distance. It looked huge from that distance.
Posted by: Sneaze Shaiting3550 || 11/19/2006 12:18 Comments || Top||

#15  visit San Diego - there's at least one berthed and sometimes two at North Island (it has three berths). There's a cool museum on the (retired) Midway. They are huge
Posted by: Frank G || 11/19/2006 12:25 Comments || Top||


Saudi cleric slams Egypt official's veil remarks
Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti, Sheik Abdul-Aziz al-Sheik responded in a statement aired Saturday by Al Majd television, a religious channel, to comments by the Egyptian Culture Minister Farouk Hosni expressing nostalgia for Egypt in the days when women didn't feel compelled to don headscarves. "It is a calamity that struck Islamic lands and contradicts the teachings of the Quran," al-Sheik said of Hosni's comments. "It is truly painful to hear such declarations from within Islamic lands, from people who are considered Muslims," he added.

Muslim leaders roundly criticized Hosni's remarks, with some saying that officials should not make such comments.
Posted by: Fred || 11/19/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [284 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Infighting......
Posted by: anonymous2u || 11/19/2006 1:58 Comments || Top||

#2  "It is a calamity that struck Islamic lands and contradicts the teachings of the Quran," al-Sheik said of Hosni's comments. "It is truly painful to hear such declarations from within Islamic lands, from people who are considered Muslims," he added.

Yeesh. If this is a rebuke, you don't leave much room for more strongly worded language, do you?

As for the veil, I am against them, too. Except in the case of Mufti Abdul-Aziz-al-hypen-al-Sheik.
Posted by: gorb || 11/19/2006 2:03 Comments || Top||

#3  Actually this guy could use a viel on his teeth.
Posted by: Jesing Ebbease3087 || 11/19/2006 21:58 Comments || Top||


Britain
West fighting terrorism properly now, Blair says
Western allies in Iraq and Afghanistan are now giving more weight to reconstruction and wider political issues alongside military force to fight their war on terrorism "properly," British Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Sunday.

Blair met Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in Lahore to discuss how to beat the Afghan Taliban, pool counter-terrorist intelligence and quell militancy in Pakistani religious schools. He announced a doubling of British aid, some of it to boost Pakistan's moderate Muslim schools to counter Islamic extremism.

"We begin to win when we start fighting properly, and I think we are now fighting properly," Blair told a news conference. "But we've got to do more."

Asked to clarify Blair's remarks, his spokesman added later: "This is all about learning as we go in the war against terrorism. First, the world recognizes the global threat of this extremist ideology, second it takes security measures to address that and thirdly it has to recognize issues like Palestine."

Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper || 11/19/2006 09:26 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [319 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Is he for real?
Posted by: gromgoru || 11/19/2006 10:30 Comments || Top||

#2  "Global extremism is based on an ideology that exploits grievance, so what we've got to do is -- at the same time that we are taking on that ideology -- we've got to take away the opportunity to exploit a grievance."

There is a sure way--take away the ideology and you'll take away the grievance industry, but I don't think Tony has that on his mind.

If muzzies did not have a grievance to exploit, they would create one on the fly.
Posted by: twobyfour || 11/19/2006 10:51 Comments || Top||

#3  Ah, now I get it.
Posted by: gromgoru || 11/19/2006 10:53 Comments || Top||


China-Japan-Koreas
Bush: US will not tolerate nuclear proliferation by N. Korea
WASHINGTON - US President George W. Bush warned Saturday that the United States and its allies will not tolerate transfers of nuclear technology by North Korea to hostile regimes and terrorist groups.

In his weekly radio address, Bush said he intended to continue to cooperate on the North Korean nuclear issue with his counterparts in China, Russia, South Korea and Japan. ‘In my meetings with leaders in the region, we discussed the threat of proliferation from North Korea. After North Korea’s recent nuclear test, the United Nations Security Council passed a unanimous resolution imposing sanctions on North Korea’s regime, and America is working with our partners to enforce those sanctions.

‘We will also continue working with Japan, China, South Korea and Russia through the six-party talks,’ Bush added.

And ‘our nations are speaking with one voice: North Korea must abandon its nuclear weapons programs, and we will not tolerate North Korea’s proliferation of nuclear technology to hostile regimes and terrorist networks,’ the president said.
Posted by: Steve White || 11/19/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [271 views] Top|| File under:

#1  US President George W. Bush warned Saturday that the United States and its allies will not tolerate transfers of nuclear technology by North Korea to hostile regimes and terrorist groups

Unfortunately official actions means this is nothing more than the Western version of Arab seething and ranting, without rioting or demonstrations in the streets, or film at 11.
Posted by: Cheating Angeaque9874 || 11/19/2006 8:48 Comments || Top||

#2  "Seething and ranting" is exactly right. If President Bush is the most bellicose leader the West can manage then we are in serious trouble.
Posted by: Excalibur || 11/19/2006 9:05 Comments || Top||

#3  Just more BLAH³ from the CinC Cowboy! Sell "Wolf Tickets®" long enough and no one buys it anymore.

Posted by: Mick Dundee || 11/19/2006 9:42 Comments || Top||

#4  The guy just can't win. First folks holler they want to hear him say the Baddies shouldn't win and we won't let 'em, y'know - that Bully Pulpit thingy, then when he does, they whack 'im and say he's said it too often.

Some, myself included, think he's done purdy well dealing with the NorKies, considering the shit sandwich that was left on the plate when he arrived. But hey, that doesn't sell newspapers or make the bloggers happy. Nope.

Only smokin' holes, delivered on the personal schedule (er, that's today's schedule, forget yesterday, k?) of the loudest dog, will do.

Sorry Bush, you wimp.
Posted by: .com || 11/19/2006 10:59 Comments || Top||

#5  If he's such a hot shot cowboy how come we never see him on horseback? I mean gee, he can't do anything right. And he walks funny too. Got that weird palm-in thing going that creeps out the Anchormens. And I'll bet he ain't much of a fisherman either.

Posted by: Shipman || 11/19/2006 13:08 Comments || Top||

#6  I'm afraid, despite my having supported W twice, that his foreign policy is having the same effect on national security as his No Child Left Behind initiative is having on the production of physicists and engineers.
Posted by: Perfesser || 11/19/2006 16:08 Comments || Top||

#7  I don't know, Ship, he looks like a pretty good fisherman here. But I bet he couldn't ride Apache.
bushvacation
Posted by: Deacon Blues || 11/19/2006 20:23 Comments || Top||


North Korea and Iran seek to boost friendly relations
Posted by: Thinemp Elmaviter2566 || 11/19/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [313 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Cabbages + Plutonium to go, please.
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 11/19/2006 0:16 Comments || Top||


Europe
Turkish confiscation bill stirs anger
ISTANBUL -- The reasons courts gave for confiscating eight properties belonging to an Istanbul Armenian church between 1987 and 1993 were always the same. According to the deeds, the buildings belonged to St. John and the Archangel Gabriel. But who were these people? Judges sent inspectors out to find them, but they came back empty-handed. Now, a new European Union-backed bill on charitable foundations is due to set the record straight.

Passed earlier this month by parliament and awaiting presidential approval, the legislation gives foundations 18 months to apply for the restitution of state-confiscated property. It also foresees the appointment of a non-Muslim member to the state department that oversees foundations.

"These are positive steps towards wiping out the effects of 1974," said Diran Bakar, a Turkish Armenian lawyer, referring to a Turkish Appeal Court decision to cancel real estate acquisitions made by non-Muslim foundations since 1936. Coinciding with the war on Cyprus, the ruling led to the confiscation of at least 4,000 properties belonging to Turkish Greeks, Jews and Armenians. "Its aim was to dry up the minority communities' economic resources," said political scientist Elcin Macar, who thinks that the "founding philosophy of the Turkish Republic never had any space for non-Muslims."

Brussels has long warned that discrimination will have to stop if Turkey's EU bid is to succeed. In its annual report on Turkey, it criticized Ankara for limitations to religious freedom. The bill, however, continues to maintain a distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim foundations.

"This is my country, I see my future here," said Lakis Vingas, a businessman and one of 3,000 in Turkey's Greek community. "Yet, when I turn on the TV, it's immediately clear that I'm seen as a foreigner." He is referring to the furious disputes that surrounded parliament's discussion of the foundation bill. Some deputies insisted the legislation would enable the Greek Orthodox Patriarch to build an Orthodox Vatican in central Istanbul. Others worried that it would involve handing Istanbul's famed Agia Sophia -- once a church, then a mosque, now a museum -- over to Greece.

For opposition deputy Bayram Meral, prejudice took a less whimsical form. "What's this law about? It's about giving Agop his property back," he railed, using a common Armenian name. "Congratulations to the government! You ignore the villagers, the workers and the farmers to worry yourself with Agop's business."

Baskin Oran, an analyst who follows minority issues, said he thinks such sentiments are worryingly representative of an increasingly nationalistic parliament. "Not only will this law not satisfy Europe, it's highly likely to damage relations further, as just another example of the half-hearted reform process Turkey was criticized for in the report," he said.
Posted by: trailing wife || 11/19/2006 10:12 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [304 views] Top|| File under:


Lawyer To Appeal Custody Order Against 9/11 Terrorist Motassadeq
The lawyer for convicted terrorist Mounir al-Motassadeq said Saturday he would lodge an appeal against his client's detention for assisting the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. Motassadeq, 32, was arrested on Friday when judges at the high court in Karlsruhe cancelled his bail, one day after the same court convicted him but referred the case to a lower court for sentencing. Calling the detention order "incomprehensible," lawyer Ladislav Anisic said he would file a complaint with Germany's constitutional court.

Motassadeq, a Moroccan student, had been free on bail but under police monitoring since February as the German courts reviewed his case. He had been given seven years in jail last year for being a member of the Hamburg terrorist cell that provided three 9/11 pilots. On Thursday, German High Court judges added a second conviction: for being an accessory to the murder of 246 occupants of the hijacked planes that crashed in New York, Washington DC and Pennsylvania.

Anisic said his client had fulfilled all the bail requirements in the past and there was no danger of him fleeing the country. Judges in Karlsruhe said the fact that Motassadeq's wife and offspring had left Germany for Morocco created an increased risk that he would try to leave Germany before a sentencing hearing that was likely to be "to his disadvantage." He was arrested at his Hamburg apartment on Friday evening "without any difficulty," said a police source. Motassadeq has been in and out of Hamburg jails since he was first detained the month after the 2001 attacks, when he claimed he had no advance knowledge of the strikes.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred || 11/19/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [309 views] Top|| File under:


Fifth Column
Two Boston Imams arrested for fraudulent religious worker visa scheme
Hat tip Little Green Footballs. Follow up on the recent article about the thirty-three Muslims arrested by Homeland Security for visa fraud after being brought in as religious workers. The Muslim community is apparently highly incensed. For our foreign readers, please note that this is the American meaning of scheme: an underhanded or illegal plot
Federal immigration agents arrested imams from two Boston-area mosques Wednesday, alleging they were involved in a scheme that provided religious worker visas to immigrants who used them to enter the United States and work instead as gas station attendants, truck drivers, and factory laborers.

Hafiz Abdul Hannan, imam, or leader, of the Islamic Society of Greater Lowell in Chelmsford, and Muhammed Masood, imam, or leader, of the Islamic Center of New England in Sharon, were among 33 people taken into custody nationwide after a multi-year investigation led by agents in Boston and New York, said Paula Grenier, a spokeswoman for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"This was a nationwide religious worker visa fraud scheme designed to help illegal aliens," said Grenier. "These people had to be solely engaged in religious employment, and in many cases were not."

Under the Religious Worker Program, started in 1990, ...
That would be on President Clinton's watch, as I recall
Umm, no, that's GWHB ...
... churches, synagogues, and mosques can ask the government to approve visas for foreigners to fill vacant positions. Each year, several thousand visas are issued each year that permit immigrants to enter the United States exclusively for religious employment. To obtain the visa, immigrants must have religious training and experience in their native country. Once here, they are not allowed to hold secular jobs. The religious worker permits can ultimately lead to green cards, or permanent residency.

Under the scheme, described by federal authorities, the immigrants, who were mostly Pakistani, paid a fee to US religious organizations, which then sponsored them for the visas. Some of those arrested did legitimate religious work, but had filed false paperwork to win their own visas, or once here, to sponsor others, said Grenier.
Phony papers from a Pak, who'd believe that?
Because the investigation is ongoing, she would not say whether the imams are alleged to have sponsored the visas for others or violated their own visas by working secular jobs.
Posted by: trailing wife || 11/19/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [279 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Thanks for the correction, Dr. Steve. I guess my memory is more porous than I remembered.
Posted by: trailing wife || 11/19/2006 13:49 Comments || Top||


Home Front: Politix
Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft
Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars and to bolster U.S. troop levels insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year.

In 2003, he proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.

Democrats will control the House and Senate come January because of their victories in the Nov. 7 election.

At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," said Rangel, who also proposed a draft in January 2003, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Standby Reserve, said he agreed that the U.S. does not have enough people in the military.

"I think we can do this with an all-voluntary service, all-voluntary Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. And if we can't, then we'll look for some other option," said Graham, who is assigned as a reserve judge to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.

Rangel, the next chairman of the House tax-writing committee, said he worried the military was being strained by its overseas commitments.

"If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," Rangel said.

He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.

Graham said he believes the all-voluntary military "represents the country pretty well in terms of ethnic makeup, economic background."

Repeated polls have shown that about seven in 10 Americans oppose reinstatement of the draft and officials say they do not expect to restart conscription.

Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress in June 2005 that "there isn't a chance in the world that the draft will be brought back."

Yet the prospect of the long global fight against terrorism and the continuing U.S. commitment to stabilizing Iraq have kept the idea in the public's mind.

The military drafted conscripts during the Civil War, both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. An agency independent of the Defense Department, the Selective Service System trains, keeps an updated registry of men age 18-25 _ now about 16 million _ from which to supply untrained draftees that would supplement the professional all-volunteer armed forces.

Rangel and Graham appeared on "Face the Nation" on CBS.
Posted by: .com || 11/19/2006 14:11 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [699 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I'd go along with him if it was 'universal service', not a draft lottery, and if they would de-wussify the training again (fat chance). The yoots of this country could sure use a little discipline and PT.
On the other hand, there's a bunch of 'em I don't want learning real marksmanship - better they learn to make little rocks out of big ones.
Posted by: Glenmore || 11/19/2006 14:25 Comments || Top||

#2  Chollie Rangel is a piece of shit. He keeps spouting this racist crap that the military is built on an overwhelming use of minorities and poor. Fact is, the logistics chain does have a representative quantity, but the point of the spear is primarily middle-class whites, who had other opportunities and joined out of sense of duty and patriotism. That's why he doesn't understand it. He was in Korea IIRC, but likely not a volunteer, hmmm? Another tax-and-spend pimp in a three piece suit.

Here's hoping his health isn't great
Posted by: Frank G || 11/19/2006 14:33 Comments || Top||

#3  The last time Charlie's draft bill came up for a vote, even he voted against it. A clam has more backbone. Given that the military guys are against a draft, it's amusing that the Party of Peace and Love wants to force people to join the army.

On the other hand, if there was a draft, we could go back to resisting it just like in the '60s. Fight the Power, man!
Posted by: SteveS || 11/19/2006 15:13 Comments || Top||

#4  America would be synonymous with youth slavery If the draftyouth-slavery was to be re-introduced.

I would help ANY American escape and fight using any means for freedom against any state that tried this.

The welfare state is the evil twin of the draft state. Both must be destroyed.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles in Blairistan || 11/19/2006 15:49 Comments || Top||

#5  I agree. New York has been attacked 2 times now. The only solution is to draft 10% of New York's total population (like the Good War) and send them to fight the Saudis.
Posted by: ed || 11/19/2006 15:58 Comments || Top||

#6  Nuts
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom || 11/19/2006 16:03 Comments || Top||

#7  BPiB - the draft isn't youth slavery - more like indentured servitude. And certainly not like chattel slavery - back in the 1600-1700's slaveowners wouldn't risk valuable assets like slaves on hazardous tasks (like blowing up log jams) - they'd have short-time indentured servants do it.
Posted by: Glenmore || 11/19/2006 16:03 Comments || Top||

#8  We need to reinstate a draft so we won't be able to muster the political support for using the military.
Posted by: Perfesser || 11/19/2006 16:04 Comments || Top||

#9  Oh please, please, please bring it to a vote. Please? I'm mean really, I'm seriously asking Lord, Please........? And hearing? Can we have hearings too? Please, please, please? Okay, Sunday Skool in July, I'm so there.
Posted by: Shipman || 11/19/2006 16:09 Comments || Top||

#10  LOL - If Pelosi were smart (not a given) they won't...
Posted by: Frank G || 11/19/2006 16:33 Comments || Top||

#11  I think it's a cynical plan: by re-instituting the draft, the Dems can drive a wedge between the youth of the country and the military and Republicans. They are trying hard to get us back to the civil discourse we had at the time of the Viet Nam war.
Posted by: KBK || 11/19/2006 16:48 Comments || Top||

#12  *BINGO* KBK has it!
Posted by: Frank G || 11/19/2006 16:50 Comments || Top||

#13  Idiot Linseed Graham did not read the memo. McCain is going hawkish to solidify himself with the trunk base. Instead, Linseed is playing footsie with a guy who may have spent too much time in Manchuria.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 11/19/2006 16:56 Comments || Top||

#14  I wonder how that Gang of 14 is going to blow back in 2008.
Up for re-election in 2008
* Susan Collins, Maine (May make it; Olympia Snowe did, but she was the only one)
--> Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
* John Warner, Virginia (Likely retirement)

Gone in 2006
* Mike DeWine, Ohio
* Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island
Posted by: eLarson || 11/19/2006 17:33 Comments || Top||

#15  Why isn't JosephMendiola all over this? I told him once before he would have to wait til Hillary takes over before we get a draft. My theory is that Democrats are more likely to reinstitute the draft because they tend to be more totalitarian in nature and what is more totalitarian than the draft? What better way to have the government interfere in your life than to get conscripted?

We are more likely to end up with a big, out of control war with the Democrats because they will appease Ahmadiwhackjob until he's out of control.

But do they ever stop to think that by encouraging our enemies by calling for early withdrawal and appeasing the whackjob that they are actually prolonging the war and making it more likely that some time down the road we'll really need the draft? Do you really think they give a rat's ass as long as they can use Iraq as a club to beat Republicans?

BTW I don't think we need a grand army to deal with Iran. Just bomb the f*ck out of them and let the survivors seethe. Do try to occupy it. Do NOT try to rebuild it. If anything, send in enough guys for long enough to secure the nuke sites but then get 'em outta there. Then blockade the bastards until they starve.
Posted by: Elmereter Hupash6222 || 11/19/2006 17:49 Comments || Top||

#16  The late great economist Milton Friendman once had a discussion with Major General William (?) Westmoreland regarding the draft. Friendman was arguing for a volounteer force.

(paraphrased from memory)

Westmoreland asked "So, you want me to lead a company of mercenaries into battle?"

To which Friedman replied, "That would be preferable to leading a company of slaves would it not?"

Posted by: FOTSGreg || 11/19/2006 18:20 Comments || Top||

#17  That is what has to be hammered home draft = slavery not draft = patriot.

The Dems will make sure their and all the elites kids get deferments service waved. The draft needs to remain unpopular.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom || 11/19/2006 19:30 Comments || Top||

#18  The Democrats want soldiers to be human shields between the Government and America's enemies.
Posted by: Grunter || 11/19/2006 19:52 Comments || Top||

#19  I am not for the draft but I am for some sort of universal service as part of the price of citizenship in this great country. 2 years after high school. Military would be only one option. Our college professors would be rapidly marginilized when 20 year olds who had actually been doing something for a couple of years came into their midst.
Posted by: Remoteman || 11/19/2006 20:33 Comments || Top||

#20  Rangel has to be an idiot to think that this will play well for the Democrats : even hearings on the draft will turn into a nightmare for them. None of the JCS want a draft, none of the field commanders want a draft, and if you want the youth vote to suddenly become energized, try to force a draft down the throats of 18-21 year olds. Less than 25% of the 18-21 bracket who bother to register ever vote, push the draft and see what happens to those numbers.
Are we sure that Rangel is not on the payroll of Rove, because this certainly sounds like a way to insure Republican control of the House, Senate, and White House for the next 12 years.
Posted by: Shieldwolf || 11/19/2006 20:38 Comments || Top||

#21  I agree w/Remoteman on the universal service. 2 yrs of mil, or 3C's type stuff or whatever.

Yes, Rangel is an idiot. I hope he puts his bill forth and watch him drag the dems through even more embarrassment like the the Pelosi/Murtha crap this last week.
Posted by: Broadhead6 || 11/19/2006 21:09 Comments || Top||

#22  The business world won't stand for it, and they are big, big political donors. With unemployment hovering slightly above 4%, which is apparently as close to total employment as the US gets, there just aren't any surplus bodies to take. As has been discussed here, Germany has that kind of universal conscription (of young men, anyway), with the choice of armed service or community service, mostly to keep the unemployment numbers a bit lower. Around here in the outer suburbs of the Midwest, almost every single high school kid old enough to legally hold a paying job is doing so, and the job notices on the board in front of the guidence office are still tacked three deep.
Posted by: trailing wife || 11/19/2006 21:49 Comments || Top||

#23  Pretty please, let him do it. I'd love the smell of smoked Rangell (and dhimicrats in his vicinity) in the morning after.
Posted by: twobyfour || 11/19/2006 21:52 Comments || Top||

#24  I think a draft is a stupid idea in cases where we're not fighting a major enemy. It made sense to have a draft in Vietnam because the Vietnamese were a major enemy. We lost 100,000 dead in Korea and Vietnam. A draft made sense then. We're not anywhere near those numbers in the War on Terror.

A draft is something you only use in the event of a manpower crisis. We don't have a manpower crisis today. We have a funding crisis. We're fighting significant military campaigns on a peacetime budget. During the Vietnam War, we had a high single digit (%) defense budget. With another $100b in the defense budget, we could easily add the divisions we need to carry out Iraq-style military occupations.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 11/19/2006 21:54 Comments || Top||

#25  Although to be clear, I do think doing some sort of mandatory service would be a good thing all around -- allow those who want to help a period in the midst of all the self-centered things like getting a career started a time to do so, and confronting all the cause junkies with unavoidable reality, always a good thing. I would have loved the chance to do something like that when I was young and even sillier than I am now.
Posted by: trailing wife || 11/19/2006 21:58 Comments || Top||

#26  TW: Although to be clear, I do think doing some sort of mandatory service would be a good thing all around -- allow those who want to help a period in the midst of all the self-centered things like getting a career started a time to do so, and confronting all the cause junkies with unavoidable reality, always a good thing. I would have loved the chance to do something like that when I was young and even sillier than I am now.

Compulsory military service is a major drain on the economy because it involves having a major segment of the population engaged in non-productive activities*. If Israel weren't a tiny country surrounded by hostiles, its economy would be much better served with an all-volunteer military. Apart from the economic issue, there's also the political issue that no citizen should be compelled to work for the state except in times of dire national need. Israel's geopolitical situation, coupled with its tiny size and small population, is one of perpetual dire national need. Uncle Sam's is not.

* And I mean non-productive in the literal sense - military people don't add anything to the economy.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 11/19/2006 22:51 Comments || Top||

#27  The continued SECURITY, SURVIVABILITY, + EXISTENCE of the American nation is beyond GOP-DEM, LEFT vs RIGHT, FEDERALIST vs CENTRALIST, etal.
As argued before in the mid-late 1990's, RUSSIA-CHINA > "ASSASSIN'S MACE" = Iff IMMEDIATE NUCLEARIZED ESCALATION fails to either protect the STATUS QUO, where Amer's enemies lose little to nothing of what they already have or control; or else fails to destabilize America to the advantage of Amer's enemies, "BOLT-FROM-THE-BLUE" = ATTACK OF ANNIHILATION agz America remains a viable option. FREEDOM > means that people whom wish to selfishly or maliciously exploit any kind of situation for there own agenda will be wid us, "LIKE BAD WEATHER=STDS" as some bloggers have put it. WHAT MATTERS IS NOT SOMUCH THE SIZE OF OUR ARMY BUT THAT OUR ARMIES BE USED FOR VICTORY + NATION'S SAFETY, WHAT MATTERS IS THE KIND OF SOCIETY + GOVT WE HAVE AFTER VICTORY IS WON, i.e. what the Waffle-happy Lefties + Commies-Socialists-Governmentists give back. THAT GIVES THEM WHATEVER FREEDOMS + WEALTH THEIR OWN PERSONAL IDEO DOES NOT OR CAN NOT BY VIRTUE OF ITS OWN MERITS.

IMO Mainstream America wants its Armies to achieve VICTORY, NOT "PC FOREVER" OR "SOCIALISM, ETAL. [-iSMS] WITHOUT THE CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE PEOPLE". Both Russia-China had already stated that btwn Year 2014 - 2020 [2018], NUCLEAR WAR IS NOT ONLY POSSIBLE BUT DESIRED AGZ AMERICA. IOW, iff America does NOT adopt OWG + Failed and Failing Socialism, America will be destroyed - RADICAL ISLAM > SUBSTITUTE RADICAL ISLAM + GLOBAL MUSLIM/ISLAMIST STATE FOR SECULAR SOCIALISM > DA THREAT IS THE SAME. 9-11 WTC Towers Collapse > It doesn't matter what ANY AMERICAN BELIEVES, HE = SHE = IT = ANY = ALL = EVERY = TINY TIM BUTTERFLIES + PET DOGS/TURTLES + PET ROCKS > JUST AS DEAD OR DESTROYED IN THE END. The only issue is whom/which gets to die first. Just a few days ago that CHINA > iff "the Enemy" cannot be CRIPPLED FROM AFAR SO THAT DOMINANCE + CONTROL BE EXERTED UPON SAME, TRADITIONAL "OCCUPATION OF THE ENEMY'S HEARTLAND/TERRITORY" IS DESIRED.
Why can Amer's enemies have contingency, BUT NOT America??? TOO MUCH vs TOO LITTLE > TOO LITTLE presumes one's enemy(s) think + behave like you do, or act/decide in the the ways you want them to. AT LAST CHECK, I DON'T RECALL RUSSIA, CHINA, IRAN, + NORKORS, ETC BEING CONTROLLED OR GOVERNED FROM WASHINGTON, DO YOU??? Amers need to do what is necessary to protect our country + way of life - its gonna be too late come 2018 or 2020, and ICBMS start raining on AMerica but America has neither NO GMD, nor sufficient domestic milfor-levels to offset the Motherly Commie Airborne ASSASSIN'S MACE + WAR/BATTLE/LOCAL ZONE > TAKE-AND-HOLD backed up by [MULTI-LEVEL] IMMEDIATE NUCLEAR ESCALATION, TACTICAL thru STRATEGIC thru GEOPOL, with POLITICAL-DIPLOM VICTORY emphasized over MILITARY. IOW, USA's SURRENDERS LEST ITS ENEMIES DESTROY THE USA ALONG WID THEMSELVES.
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 11/19/2006 22:52 Comments || Top||

#28  ZF: It made sense to have a draft in Vietnam because the Vietnamese were a major enemy.

For anyone who doubts the Vietnamese were a major enemy, we lost 52,918 men fighting the Japanese during WWII, and something like 58,000 dead fighting the Vietnamese Communists.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 11/19/2006 22:58 Comments || Top||

#29  I served voluntarily - and I am absolutely against a draft in any shape or form.

So what if "your" version of the draft doesn't force military service but give a choice between military and social service. In either case it's basically slavery.

I believe Heinlein said something like "A country that must depend on a draft is unworthy of fighting for." Patriotic volunteers are the backbone of the army of a democracy - and if they are not the country is not worth fighting for or the war being fought is probably being fought for the wrong reasons.

With respect to "social service" as an alternative to military service: If you won't PAY or tax and PAY enough to get your damned social services done and you have to enslave the youth of the nation to force them into social service - then you should probably revisit your thinking about the positive value of social service.
Posted by: Leigh || 11/19/2006 23:28 Comments || Top||


Backgrounder on Robert Gates: not a Bush 41 Realpolitiker
RARELY HAS THE PRESS gotten a story so wrong. Robert Gates, President Bush's choice to replace Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, is not the point man for a boarding party of former national security officials from the elder President Bush's administration taking over defense and foreign policy in his son's administration. The media buzz about the realists of Bush 41, so cautious and practical, supplanting the idealists of Bush 43, whose grandiose, neoconservative thinking got us stuck in Iraq, is wrong.

President Bush--the current one--decided to hire Gates two days before the November 7 election. He didn't consult his father. He didn't talk to James Baker, his father's secretary of state and now co-head of the Iraq Study Group, whose official advice on Iraq is expected in December. Nor did he tell Rumsfeld that he was lining up someone to take his job.

Before hiring him, Bush had to make sure Gates didn't think America's intervention in Iraq was a mistake and wasn't deeply skeptical of Bush's decision to make democracy promotion a fundamental theme of American foreign policy. With Gates, it came down to this: "The fundamental question was, was he Brent Scowcroft or not?" a Bush aide says.

In Bush 41, Scowcroft was the national security adviser, Gates his deputy. Scowcroft, a realist, is a sharp critic of both Bush's Iraq strategy and the democratic thrust of his entire foreign policy. And Scowcroft has gone public with his strong opposition in articles and interviews.

Continued on Page 49
Posted by: trailing wife || 11/19/2006 00:22 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [316 views] Top|| File under:

#1  We will see. Fred Barnes bats about .350 these days
Posted by: Captain America || 11/19/2006 2:31 Comments || Top||

#2  Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal agrees with you, Captain America. It's just that Fred Barnes writes in this article as if he has inside information on what's been going on recently. And I'd be much happier if Mr. Gates isn't a Bush 41 retread...
Posted by: trailing wife || 11/19/2006 9:42 Comments || Top||


Home Front: WoT
US bars Muslim surfer
Brazilian surf champion Jihad Khodr's bid to remain in the World Cup Tour (WCT) series next season could be scuppered, after he was stopped by United States immigration officials today (AEDT). According to media reports here, Khodr, a Muslim whose parents are Lebanese, was travelling via Dallas to Hawaii for a major competition but was stopped by immigration officials in Dallas and sent home.

The Hawaii competition is vital to his chances of retaining a place on the WCT for next season. It is the second time he has been denied entry to the US. Three years ago Khodr was stopped in Washington.
Moderators - I have been having trouble being able to post under my normal nick, "ryuge". I tried a re-set at the O-Club and tried posting a comment as "ryuge" (which worked), but my posts still end up under the nick "Grotch Flaviling7365". If this can be fixed on your end it would be much appreciated. Thanks.
I'll forward this onto the Editors' net. AoS.
Posted by: Grotch Flaviling7365 || 11/19/2006 11:15 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [283 views] Top|| File under:

#1  the Editors' net.
I have this vision.... I must advise that thorazine is safer for you and the animal.
Posted by: Shipman || 11/19/2006 13:11 Comments || Top||

#2  Maybe the WCT reconsidered the WTC and decided that it wasn't cool with Jihad.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/19/2006 13:23 Comments || Top||

#3  Muzzies don't surf!
Posted by: Lt Col Kilgore || 11/19/2006 15:56 Comments || Top||

#4  Probably the only guy for whom The Big Kahuna means TNT charge.
Posted by: Jackal || 11/19/2006 19:58 Comments || Top||

#5  I wonder if his name was a tip off to ICE
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 11/19/2006 20:11 Comments || Top||


Bombs That Won't Go Off: uranium stocks secured around the world
With North Korea testing a nuclear bomb and Iran suspected of heading in that direction, one might be forgiven for thinking there's nothing but bad news these days about the spread of nuclear weapons.

But behind the scenes, one piece of good news has been unfolding: While there's a great deal more to do, much of the world's potential nuclear bomb material, scattered in hundreds of buildings in dozens of countries around the world, is notably more secure than it was before Sept. 11, 2001, which means that it's harder for terrorists to steal. And the critical effort to remove such material entirely from the world's most vulnerable sites is picking up steam.

Remarkably, more than 130 research reactors around the world use as their fuel highly enriched uranium (HEU) -- the easiest material in the world for terrorists to use to make a nuclear bomb. Many of these sites have very little security and pose serious risks of nuclear theft.

For decades the U.S. Energy Department has had several small programs working on aspects of the effort to reduce this civilian HEU danger, but each was plodding along in its own stovepipe, without the resources or political leadership needed to get the job done rapidly.

So in 2004 the Bush administration launched the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, an integrated effort to convert these reactors to low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuels that cannot be used to make a nuclear bomb; to ship the HEU back to secure sites; and to beef up security at vulnerable sites in the meantime.

Now these efforts are producing some real payoffs. In August the Energy Department helped return 40 kilograms of HEU from Poland to Russia. In July a cooperative project airlifted three kilograms of it from Libya to Russia (following some 16 kilograms shipped in 2004). Libya's reactors have been converted and will never again need highly enriched uranium. In April the Energy Department and Russia finished shipping roughly 62 kilograms of lightly irradiated HEU fuel out of Uzbekistan -- home of an armed militant movement closely linked to al-Qaeda. Work on converting Uzbekistan's reactors to LEU and getting the last HEU out of that country continues. Next step presumably to keep the Russians, whether for the government or on their own, from selling some to bad guys.

The Energy Department has collaborated with a French company to remove about 85 kilograms of HEU from several European facilities, and Canada returned 23 kilograms to the United States in April. Even in the United States, the Global Threat Reduction Initiative completed the conversion of reactors at the University of Florida and Texas A&M University in September.

The pace of these efforts -- both converting reactors and removing HEU -- has picked up substantially since the Global Threat Reduction Initiative was created. The people at the Energy Department and elsewhere who have made these and similar successes possible deserve credit for real contributions to world security.

Every building that has all its nuclear bomb material removed means one less possibility that thieves and terrorists can get their hands on a bomb's essential ingredients. The successes of the past two years represent bombs that will never go off. But these successes, though real, are only the beginning. The world needs to move as quickly as possible to ensure that security upgrades and material removals get to all of these nuclear stockpiles before thieves and terrorists do.

The writers, Anthony Wier and Matthew Bunn, have served in government positions dealing with nuclear security and nonproliferation, and now are with the Managing the Atom Project at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. They are co-authors of "Securing the Bomb 2006."
Posted by: trailing wife || 11/19/2006 00:09 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [281 views] Top|| File under:


Islamic militancy 'can lead to third world war'
The top US general in the Middle East said yesterday that if the world does not find a way to stem the rise of Islamic militancy, it will face a third world war.
We're already in it.
Army General John Abizaid compared the rise of militant ideologies, such as the force driving Al Qaida, to the rise of fascism in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s that set the stage for the Second World War.
Kinda hard to miss, if you're paying attention. We've commented on it enough in these pages, literally over the years.
"If we don't have guts enough to confront this ideology today, we'll go through World War Three tomorrow," Abizaid said in a speech titled The Long War, at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge.
"Pay me now, pay me later. Yer gonna pay me either way."
If not stopped, Abizaid said extremists would be allowed to "gain an advantage, to gain a safe haven, to develop weapons of mass destruction, to develop a national place from which to operate. And I think that the dangers associated with that are just too great to comprehend".
"If you pay up front, you get a discount. If you pay later, you pay interest, late charges, and penalties. Read the fine print."
Abizaid said the world faces three major hurdles in stabilising the Middle East region: Easing Arab-Israeli tensions, stemming the spread of militant extremism, and dealing with Iran. "Where these three problems come together happens to come in a place known as Iraq," said Abizaid. "The sacrifice that is necessary to stabilise Iraq, in my view, must be sustained in order for the region itself to become more resilient," Abizaid said.
Posted by: Fred || 11/19/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [617 views] Top|| File under:

#1  WW3 is on. And this time there are huge 5th column and appeasement movements within the democracies.
Posted by: Sneaze Shaiting3550 || 11/19/2006 4:57 Comments || Top||

#2  Nuke 'em. It's the only way to be sure.
Posted by: MU || 11/19/2006 5:32 Comments || Top||

#3  Not a very original thought, General John Abizaid reasoning is a carbon copy of the reasoning that led the “Soviet Union” to invade Afghanistan all those years ago……
It a pity that the west didn’t leave them to do the job instead of training / financing & arming Bin Laden to combat the Soviet Unions troops in Afghanistan ………
Posted by: Burry || 11/19/2006 6:29 Comments || Top||

#4  We're in the market for a House Troll. From the quality of your work I'd say you come cheap. I'll check with management.
Posted by: Shipman || 11/19/2006 7:25 Comments || Top||

#5  Reposting some quotes

John F. Kennedy School of Government, recognized the reality of souring public opinion in America about the war, but hastened to add, "We have not failed yet."

"I think we can win this fight," he said. "I think we are winning this fight."

Sarah Sewall, director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, which sponsored the talk, introduced the general. She described Abizaid's "uniquely valuable perspective" and cautioned against blaming military leaders for executing decisions made by political leaders.

Referring to the way the Vietnam War polarized the country and crippled the military, she said: "We have been down that road before."

At his address at the Kennedy School forum, Abizaid was asked on several occasions why American public opinion had turned so decidedly against the war, and he consistently said that the despair he felt in Washington was not reflected in the field among American or Iraqi soldiers and officials.

He pointedly blamed the American media for its criticism of the US military in Iraq and said coverage of the war had led to the perception of a failed policy.

"We can't worry about the 24-hour news cycle; we've got to worry about where we come out in history," he said.

"We absolutely are in the stage where we have got to make this work," he said. "We need to start having better effect against the sectarian violence within six months."

Abizaid said the stakes were high in Iraq and in the global struggle against the rise of violent Islamic extremism, which he has dubbed "the long war."

"I believe our failure to address the major problems of extremism can lead to World War III," he said.

At the end of a grueling week in which he was barraged on Wednesday by the Senate Armed Services Committee on Capitol Hill with questions and criticism about the war, Abizaid joked with the audience about why he wore camouflage fatigues instead of his green dress uniform for the evening.

"I usually wear my green uniform," he said to a polite round of laughter. "But there was so much blood on it, I had to come in this uniform."

As he spoke, a knot of several dozen protesters gathered outside the gates of the Kennedy School. As Abizaid prepared to exit, the crowd chanted louder: "Abizaid is a liar. No more war for empire."

"Put on the shields, boys," Abizaid quipped to his fellow officers as they bounded into the vehicle and drove through the crowd.

One of the protesters, Nick Giannone, 31, of Quincy, who works for Boilermakers Union Local 906, said: "I am against this war. I came here to remind the world that Abizaid has a lot of blood on his hands."
Posted by: KBK || 11/19/2006 9:47 Comments || Top||

#6  We are already in it. Countries are falling and no one seem to be paying attention. Somalia is gone to them, Thailand is fighting the beginnings of the end, as are the Filipino's. France and England are battle grounds of insurgency growth. Even his statement of safe haven is a bit late. Iran, Somalia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc... are safe havens and training grounds for both their soldiers and propagandists. In my opinion he is ten years too late for the "pay me now or pay me later" speach. We are in the paying later and deep into WWIII and we won't even admit it. Abizaid is a great general, but he is not being as straight, or blunt, as he needs to be.

Wait! Let me stick my head back in the sand, maybe it will all go away.
Posted by: 49 Pan || 11/19/2006 10:14 Comments || Top||

#7  He pointedly blamed the American media for its criticism of the US military in Iraq

But didn't reproach academia for its rampant anti-Americanism that instructs the media? He should have blasted the eggheads with both barrels when he had the chance.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 11/19/2006 11:50 Comments || Top||

#8  Abizaid said the world faces three major hurdles in stabilising the Middle East region: Easing Arab-Israeli tensions, stemming the spread of militant extremism, and dealing with Iran.

All three of these issues converge at a single answer; Killing a large number of Muslims, doing it quickly and in a fashion that the remaining ummah cannot ignore.

One adaptation of this might be to green-light Israel on expelling all Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank. Simply kill them or send them to Egypt and Lebanon or Jordan, respectively. Declare the conflict over and tell the Arab world that it must now proceed to resolve the many issues whose resolution were made contingent upon the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict's outcome.

With this one festering sore out of the way, many other issues could be forced into the open for examination. The MME (Muslim Middle East) has relied upon the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a whipping boy for far too long. That ruse must be ended permanently.

The one single titanic balloon payment looming in our future is Iran. Never has "pay me now or pay me later" been writ any larger. Tehran's theocratic regime must be taken offline along with its nascent nuclear weapons program. No occupation, no boots on the ground, just a crushing meatgrinder of an aerial assault which leaves their weapons R&D, military and government in total ruins.

By comparison, Syria could be addressed at our leisure. With these two huge issues addressed, Iraq would almost resolve itself. Lacking the constant influx of Iranian weapons and recruits, the Iraqi conflict would be reduced to more managable terms.

More importantly, a vital message would have been sent to the remaining MME that this "death of a thousand paper cuts" strategy of theirs is over with for once and all. Either begin demonstrating genuine dedication to resolving your own domestic terrorism issues of face immediate intervention of a most nasty kind.

If we cannot summon the courage to do this, Iraq must be abandoned and our focus redirected upon some sort of isolationist "Fortress America" scheme, however doubtful the value of such a stopgap policy might be.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/19/2006 18:17 Comments || Top||

#9  It all boils down to another clue as to why so many have no awareness of the mess happeniong around the world every day.
He never mentioned Algeria, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philipines, Australia, Chechnya, Paris, London or Denmark.
World War 3 is upon us and our leaders can't even make that statement.
Are they waiting for us to kick their ass in a full blown takeover ? Fucken awaken poleeze ! Do your job, but first figure out what you are doing.
Posted by: wxjames || 11/19/2006 18:19 Comments || Top||

#10  Lotsa "must"s in there.
Posted by: .com || 11/19/2006 18:20 Comments || Top||

#11  What do you prefer, .com, the death of a thousand paper cuts? That's what is happening right now and it sure as hell isn't a roadmap to victory.

tell the Arab world that it must now proceed to resolve the many issues whose resolution were made contingent upon the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict's outcome.

The MME (Muslim Middle East) has relied upon the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a whipping boy for far too long. That ruse must be ended permanently.

Tehran's theocratic regime must be taken offline along with its nascent nuclear weapons program.

If we cannot summon the courage to do this, Iraq must be abandoned and our focus redirected upon some sort of isolationist "Fortress America" scheme, however doubtful the value of such a stopgap policy might be.


All four (three really) of these imperatives are just that and widely regarded around here as essential to obtaining some sort of stability in the MME.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/19/2006 18:35 Comments || Top||

#12  "a single answer; Killing a large number of Muslims"
Wrong answer. The correct answer is, as you propose, "a crushing meatgrinder of an aerial assault [on Iran] which leaves their weapons R&D, military and government in total ruins."

"expelling all Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank. Simply kill them..."
Big on genocide, aren't you.

"...or send them to Egypt and Lebanon or Jordan, respectively"
Righto. Like that will make all the problems go away. You'd inflame the whole region instead of just the West Bank and Gaza. Brilliant.

I do agree with you that if we don't whip Iran and do it soon, then we may as well redirect to some sort of isolationist "Fortress America" scheme. Iran has been provoking us for over a quarter of a century and they're on the path to H-bombs and ICBMs. If we can't deal with that and deal with it sooner than later, we are doomed.

Posted by: Darrell || 11/19/2006 18:35 Comments || Top||

#13  You forgot to play the race card.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/19/2006 18:54 Comments || Top||

#14  Been there about a "thousand" times, now. Your message is pungent old hat "around here" and Bush has said he will not allow Iran to have nukes. The only problems, as far as reality intrudes upon your endless repetitive pneumatic lectures, are:

1) You're not in charge, so you have to watch and wait, which you're apparently not equipped to handle.

2) Your personal list of actions and timetable haven't been met.

Same here on the latter. The former requires meds.
Posted by: .com || 11/19/2006 18:55 Comments || Top||

#15  Forget the race card -- genocide is your biggest character flaw.
Posted by: Darrell || 11/19/2006 18:56 Comments || Top||

#16  Last night I posted a request that anyone interested should go to Atlas Shrugs blog to view pictures of Christian's heads. These are pictures of the heads of once living Christian men, women, and children.
Genocide.
Zenster is just fed up with the unilateral slaughter going on in the world. So am I. I don't know what to do about it, but I do know nothing is being done. It is frustrating to sit by and wait and read as chatoic debate circles the issue. Islam is actively killing civilians around the world, but only a few people give a shit.
I thank Zenster for attempting to awaken you to the horrors of Islam. I support the conclusion that Islam must be eliminated. If there is a devil, Islam is the devil's religion. What is gained by allowing Islam to continue, to florish, to expand ? Some fucking oil ?
What is to be gained by ducking this debate ? Time does not favor civilization, it favors Islam.
Posted by: wxjames || 11/19/2006 19:11 Comments || Top||

#17  If you would resort to genocide, you're no better than they are.
Posted by: Darrell || 11/19/2006 19:16 Comments || Top||

#18  "It is frustrating to sit by and wait and read as chatoic debate circles the issue."

I believe I pointed out, in #1, where circle-jerking leads - and the resolution.

When, pray-tell, has the world worked perfectly to anyone's satisfaction?

And when, pray-tell, will the repetition stop?
Posted by: .com || 11/19/2006 19:24 Comments || Top||

#19  How many Christians have been beheaded this year? I dare say that killing thousands of Muslim clerics or hundreds of millions of people in the Muslim Middle East is, shall we say, overkill. Yet Zenster pushes these two options routinely.

What you and Zenster are embracing is genocide. We didn't have to resort to that with the Nazis, we didn't have to resort to that with the Japanese, and we don't have to resort to that with Islam. Wiping out Iran's nuclear facilities, military, government, and theocracy will make it clear to the world that we are not submitting to Islam.

Now take your evil genocidal fantasies, shove 'em where the sun don't shine, and join the rest of us in the real world.
Posted by: Darrell || 11/19/2006 19:27 Comments || Top||

#20  To defeat an enemy you MUST meet him on the battlefield, you MUST defeat him, we are doing neither. You must make the cost of fighting higher than any reward, again, we are not. If our enemy is a genocidal group of people that have no problem using their own people as shields and weapons, their own wives and kids, then the death of those women and kids is not killing of innocents and it is not genocide, it is just war. This group of people are bent on eleminating the West, not conquering it, they want us dead. In WWII we burned Dresdin to the ground, killed everyone there with very little military gain except to raise the ante for the enemy to the unacceptable level, read we will commit geonicide to win this war. We did the same by fire bombing Japan, and then to nuke Japan not once but twice. The point is we have tried to wage war against radical Islam in a "managed" manner, and are failing. They don't care for their own and we must win. Raising the level of war to total war is something we must do. We do not want to kill every believer of Islam. But every person that is supporting this war in Teheran will deserve the burning fury of the nuke when it arrives. Then and only then will the leaders of Islam stop this progression of hate and murder. The alternative is stay the course, more of the same, further decline of our freedoms, and another attack on US soil.
Posted by: 49 Pan || 11/19/2006 19:40 Comments || Top||

#21  I dare say that killing thousands of Muslim clerics or hundreds of millions of people in the Muslim Middle East is, shall we say, overkill...We didn't have to resort to that with the Nazis, we didn't have to resort to that with the Japanese, and we don't have to resort to that with Islam.

We did kill thousands of Nazis and about 10% of the German people were killed in WWII. We killed somewhat fewer Japanese, due, primarily, to the use of atomic bombs on population centers that theretofore had not been considered military targets worthy of aerial bombardment.

You may not call that genocide. I know I call it war. But the same measure applied to the MME would result in about 100 million casualties. Lots of them clerics. I'd call that war also. And it's what they're going to get. Because we won't take effective measures now, they'll kill a lot more American civilians for raisins, and then the rage of the American people will be so great they will forget genocide is a word. That's the way we fight our wars every 80 years. And the muzzies are pressing in right on schedule.

Zenster is just at the front of the wave. He has a low threshold for dingbattery. But it's coming.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 11/19/2006 19:46 Comments || Top||

#22  Zenster is just at the front of the wave

I don't know NS. I think WX and Frank can give him a run for his money. Besides Muzzies don't surf!LOL
Posted by: 49 Pan || 11/19/2006 19:50 Comments || Top||

#23  So what do you do Darrell, to stop the killing of innocents in Nigeria or Indonesia ? I don't want to kill them all, I just want to kill their religion. In fact, I would kidnap the kids and attempt to save their souls. I would do the same for the women, but many would go nuts. Some of the men may also be saveable, but without labels, it would be dangerous to trust them.
This death cult thrives on brainwashing the kids into accepting the word of the Imam as law. They beat it into them. We have known this for some time, but we do not force the closing of their madrasses.
Our politicians are looking for a negotiated way out. They are our biggest enemy. They will sell us down the river for their own aggrandizement.
But don't forget Islam intends to kill ALL of the jooos. We should be ready to act in kind.
I can't say I'll feel good about it, but I'll show up.
Posted by: wxjames || 11/19/2006 19:53 Comments || Top||

#24  "Tehran...nuke... the alternative is to stay the course."
[sigh] What is it with you all-or-none people? Another alternative is to wipe out Iran's nuclear facilities, military, government, and theocracy. But no, you feel a compelling need to kill as many civilians as possible.

You think your approach will spare us another attack on U.S. soil? Nonsense. You will provoke attacks from within and attacks from every part of the Muslim world that you do not incinerate. You will kill hundreds of millions, be no better than they are (worse, in fact), and provoke extensive retaliation. Brilliant.

Here I am, lingering in a thread with people who want to save the Judeo-Christian world by tossing all of its values to the wind and murdering hundreds of millions -- because thousands have died. You guys need Prozac.

Posted by: Darrell || 11/19/2006 19:58 Comments || Top||

#25  people who want to save the Judeo-Christian world by tossing all of its values to the wind and murdering hundreds of millions

People like Roosevelt, Stimson, and Marshall?

You guys need Prozac.

I don't know. We're not the one's afraid to deal with the reality that confronts us.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 11/19/2006 20:09 Comments || Top||

#26  Now now, stay with the arguement and back off my mental health, doc says I'm fine, and its lithium not prozac. LOL Saying that taking out the terrorist headquarters will incite more violence is a bit innocent. It will stop the funding, leadership, training etc... It will also let the rest know we will deal with them in as violent a fassion as they do and will work as a deterent. I do not want to kill one single child, or woman, or man for that matter. Killing is not a game to me or anyone here at the Burg. Neither is our democracy and our way of life. But if you don't believe our nation is at stake here you are as mistaken as the Jews that stayed in Germany because they thought the Nazi party was passing fad. The radical Islam attacks have stripped us of our freedoms, some minor and some major. Airports and cameras being minor and the Patriot act as a major. The death toll to Americans is over 6,000 already and if we stay the course it will certainly climb. There are not many left from my OBC class, most lost here and there to radical Islam. If you have a better plan let it out. Tell us please.
Posted by: 49 Pan || 11/19/2006 20:19 Comments || Top||

#27  We're not the one's afraid to deal with the reality that confronts us.

Yeah okay, easy now, killer. Because you are the only ones with a firm grasp on reality? And the rest of us dumb folk just don't get it.

Consider that if you commit unprovoked genocide, you will have to deal with Muslim sympathizers as well. It's up to you to figure out what unprovoked genocide is if you don't understand the distinction.

What is it with you all-or-none people?

It's usually those who've never had a taste of humble pie in their life.
Posted by: Slereper Ulosing9249 || 11/19/2006 20:29 Comments || Top||

#28  Because you are the only ones with a firm grasp on reality?

I didn't start handing out the psychiatric diagnoses, but it's not a solo game if you want to play.

As 49pas says, If you have a better plan let it out. Tell us please.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 11/19/2006 20:37 Comments || Top||

#29  If you have a better plan let it out. Tell us please.

How about...learn to live with it? Isolate yourself if you feel it will work. Halt immigration. Ban the practice of Islam. Re-write the Constitution.
Posted by: Slereper Ulosing9249 || 11/19/2006 20:38 Comments || Top||

#30  That's the better plan you're advocating or something you think might stick to the wall?
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 11/19/2006 20:41 Comments || Top||

#31  How about...learn to live with it?

Why should we learn to live with the constant threat of violent death?

Isolate yourself if you feel it will work.

Oh sure, run and hide under the bed. That's a workable solution! And what do you do when the monster drags you out and eats you?

Halt immigration. Ban the practice of Islam.

Wouldn't we love to! Our moonbat politicians though gasp in horror at the thought!

Re-write the Constitution.

NO! Why should we have too? You must be an European! You sound like one.

Posted by: Mick Dundee || 11/19/2006 20:49 Comments || Top||

#32  What is it with you all-or-none people?

We're facing an "all-or-none" culture, that has stated bluntly that it intends to destroy us. What it is with you "head-in-the-sand" types? Huh? What do YOU not understand?

Posted by: Mick Dundee || 11/19/2006 20:52 Comments || Top||

#33  Gentlemen, this is getting a bit silly. If we were solely genocidal, we would launch a large nuclear attack on multiple targets including Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and probably Somalia...as starters. Obviously we are not going to do that and I don't think anyone here is advocating that.

But what is being advocated is the use of the non-nuclear force that we have at hand. We should arc-light the Paki tribal areas. We should be hitting major military, government and theocratic targets in Iran. We should hit Damascus. And, of course, we should find Tater and drag his ass behind a HMMWV for about 10K then hang him in a public square. Now that is being serious. And yes, it could provoke a bigger attack on the US.
But the underlying problem is that the US and the West have not been hit hard enough for the population to take this seriously. We won't fight hard until we are hit hard. That is a reality that Zen, 49Pan, WXJames, me and many others are just going to have to accept.
Posted by: Remoteman || 11/19/2006 20:53 Comments || Top||

#34  That's the better plan you're advocating or something you think might stick to the wall

I think it's something you might like. There's no point in discussing my plan because: 1) we have different belief systems 2) I'm not at the same point you are, I'm still dhimmi-free, you seem to think you've already lost.

Why should we learn to live with the constant threat of violent death?

Because violent death can come in the form of an asteroid tomorrow but you don't seem too worried about that, are you? The only time I live in constant fear is when I'm flying. That's because I don't trust airport security and airlines' maintenance practices and catering companies.

Oh sure, run and hide under the bed. That's a workable solution! And what do you do when the monster drags you out and eats you?

Are you saying you won't defend yourself when that monster comes? You'll let yourself be eaten? I won't let myself be eaten. I don't taste good. Too much fat.

Wouldn't we love to! Our moonbat politicians though gasp in horror at the thought!

Then you have weak powers of persuasion (or your argument just sucks). But I'm sure you can find someone to represent you. Work on electing people who share your stance.

NO! Why should we have too?

To ban Islam of course! And to create a new republic in your own image.

You must be an European! You sound like one.

You sound like a person born yesterday.
Posted by: Slereper Ulosing9249 || 11/19/2006 21:09 Comments || Top||

#35  What it is with you "head-in-the-sand" types? Huh? What do YOU not understand?

We understand probably more than you, that's why it seems to you we have our head in the sand.

Otoh, you don't seem to understand that words are just words unless backed up by action. I don't give a fuck if someone shouts "death to everyone" all day. I prefer to react to actions rather than words. If they act on their irrational hate then they better be prepared to lose. Simple as that.
Posted by: Slereper Ulosing9249 || 11/19/2006 21:17 Comments || Top||

#36  I personally support the selective anihilation of certain islamic government and religious officials in the most expeditious yet brutal manner possible. In the mean time I'll still beat the dead horse about many mesopatamian tribes needing to be eradicated. Play the rest off each other, divide and conquer it. They grudingly respect that and prolly wonder why we have not done it. The west calls it having a sense of "decency", the muzzies look at it as "weakness."
Posted by: Broadhead6 || 11/19/2006 21:17 Comments || Top||

#37  If we were solely genocidal, we would launch a large nuclear attack on multiple targets...Obviously we are not going to do that and I don't think anyone here is advocating that.

I disagree. I think many people here want that. That's the impression I get. Otherwise you'd see a much more varied discussion here on Rantburg. The preface "if they attack us first" is only a smokescreen.
Posted by: Slereper Ulosing9249 || 11/19/2006 21:29 Comments || Top||

#38  I see, Darrel has cloned himself. ;-)
Posted by: twobyfour || 11/19/2006 21:43 Comments || Top||

#39  There's more than just two of us, unfortunately for you.
Posted by: Slereper Ulosing9249 || 11/19/2006 21:48 Comments || Top||

#40  Slereper Ulosing9249, withing a decade, you would deny your own words in #37. Unless you happen to be at the time on more sublime pastures or utter shahada.
Posted by: twobyfour || 11/19/2006 22:00 Comments || Top||

#41  I disagree. I think many people here want that. That's the impression I get. Otherwise you'd see a much more varied discussion here on Rantburg. The preface "if they attack us first" is only a smokescreen.

Then you should hang around here more often. Perhaps then you would understand that the comments about using nuclear weapons only have a first-strike tone to them when it comes to Iran.
There are several who think islam should be eliminated, but that does not necessarily go hand in hand with elimination of the people who follow the "religion".
Posted by: Remoteman || 11/19/2006 22:13 Comments || Top||

#42  You will provoke attacks from within and attacks from every part of the Muslim world that you do not incinerate.

Equals: Killing terrorists will only make more terrorists. Equals: Bullshit!

Here I am, lingering in a thread with people who want to save the Judeo-Christian world by tossing all of its values to the wind and murdering hundreds of millions -- because thousands have died.

Equals: If we fight the terrorists on their level, we become the terrorists. Equals: Again, BULLSHIT. We fought the Nazis using collective punishment and disproportionate retaliation and, somehow, DID NOT become the Nazis. Defeatist logic is just that, defeatist.

Darrell, when you stop using outright lies in your arguments, I'll take time to respond to you. Otherwise, I'll just ridicule you like you deserve.

.com, take a minute and think about how important it is that some people here are gathering critical tools and verifiable facts that can be used to go out and change public opinion. One person at a time. Sure, maybe it's boring for you. Guess what? This site is not all about you. Too boring? Permit me to suggest that you stop wasting your time by posting in this thread. Wandering in periodically to yawn open-mouthed says more about you than it does those who participate in this ongoing process.

Posted by: Zenster || 11/19/2006 22:21 Comments || Top||

#43  There's more than just two of us

Chew toys for everyone. Yipee!!!
Posted by: Zenster || 11/19/2006 22:23 Comments || Top||

#44  zenster, if you cared about anyone else, you would cut to the chase and save the puffery for your soufflés.

If you were introducing something new, I would certainly not begrudge the effort, the requisite volume, to make it clear. BUT... You haven't had anything new, anything that hasn't been posted by 10 other people numerous times before, in ages. That you keep repeating your opinion is not For The Children™ - it's for your massively over-inflated sense of self. You post mountains of shit. Must be because you have so fucking much to spare, since no one prompts you with, "Well, I wonder what Zen the Grate has to say about it?" They know. Everyone knows. The whole fucking world knows. Already. Long ago.

"Guess what? This site is not all about you."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Coming from you, that's simply beyond precious, lol.

"Permit me to suggest that you stop wasting your time by posting in this thread. Wandering in periodically to yawn open-mouthed says more about you than it does those who participate in this ongoing process."

Permit me to suggest that you get your own blog and "pontificate" there 40 or 50 times per day, or whatever you call your chronic self-aggrandizing onanism.

What it says about me to post here is that I am unimpressed with the New Aris. And you owe Fred big-time for the wasted bandwidth. And that it would be novel to hear what others, besides you, think. For a fucking change. You're the most diarrhetic dipshit EVER, lol.

I remember when. I've watched you evolve. It's ben ugly. Should've killed you in your crib back in the Shrub Daze.
Posted by: .com || 11/19/2006 22:49 Comments || Top||

#45  Perhaps then you would understand that the comments about using nuclear weapons only have a first-strike tone to them when it comes to Iran

Again, I think this is only a smokescreen.

There are several who think islam should be eliminated, but that does not necessarily go hand in hand with elimination of the people who follow the "religion".

I agree, but I think this is just another smokescreen because there doesn't seem to be much discussion here about how to go about taming Islam (or reacting to it), other than killing Muslims on a massive scale.

Someone asked for a workable solution. I'd suggest declaring Islam incompatible with western civilization and acting accordingly, i.e. bans on building mosques, etc. But how do you do that and still keep your western values? You can't, or it's damn near impossible. That's why you focus on actions, as lotp argued not too long ago.

My other suggestion is to introduce little "compatibility tests" into western culture. For instance, I'm not sure how many of you have noticed, but the citizenship exam has changed in the US, just the other day. Instead of a trivia-based exam (dates and historical facts), you now have to answer questions like "How does the elecion system work and why is it important in a democratic society?", "What kind of values are representative of a free democracy?" etc etc. If at some future time you find a person incompatible with western values, then you have grounds to do whatever you like with them, perhaps send them to Gitmo.
This covers the newcomers to the country. For internal converts to Islam, you have the rule of law, unless you change the Constitution to deal with Islam in some other way.

That's for the internal threat. For outside threats the case is even simpler.
Posted by: Slereper Ulosing9249 || 11/19/2006 22:54 Comments || Top||

#46  Preserving Judeo-Christian purity in lieu of victory is overrated. Just ask the Jews and Christians of Arabia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Byzantine empire, the Balkans, the Levant, Egypt, Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers, Rabat. Ask the Buddhists of Afghanistan, the Indus Valley and the Spice Islands (Indonesia). Oh, you can't? They don't exist anymore.
Posted by: ed || 11/19/2006 22:58 Comments || Top||

#47  Preserving Judeo-Christian purity in lieu of victory is overrated.

Good point. Then make your case to the people. You might even convince me once certain conditions are met. Right now though, you won't find a large enough following (I hope) because we're not at that point yet. Right now, there are other, smaller steps that can be taken.
Posted by: Slereper Ulosing9249 || 11/19/2006 23:06 Comments || Top||


US Plans War Crimes Trial Compound At Guantanamo
The US government plans to build a large compound at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to host war crimes trials, the Miami Herald reported Saturday. The proposed compound would cost up to 125 million dollars (98 million euros) and provide housing and working places for up to 1,200 people. Equipped with two courtrooms, it could be ready by next July if the plans are approved.

Human rights activists have strongly criticized the plans. "Once again, the Defence Department seems to be operating in - even constructing - its own universe," said Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International's US division. New York civil liberties lawyer Michael Ratner said the compound would be used to carry out unconstitutional "kangaroo trials."

The plans must still go before the US Congress for approval. The Democrats won control of both houses in November 7 elections and the new Congress meets for the first time in January. The Guantanamo Bay prison camp holds around 450 prisoners which the Pentagon classifies as "enemy combatants."
Posted by: Fred || 11/19/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [264 views] Top|| File under:

#1  "Once again, the Defence Department seems to be operating in - even constructing - its own universe,"

Damn right. A tree and rope won't waste $125 million. $125 million will buy near 500,000 500 pound aerial bombs to lay waste to any trace to post 620 A.D. Arabs.
Posted by: ed || 11/19/2006 15:28 Comments || Top||


Abu Zubaydah ratted out Padilla from CIA prison, prosecutors say
Posted by: Thinemp Elmaviter2566 || 11/19/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [267 views] Top|| File under:

#1  well now...how would an Al-Qaeda big cheese/mastermind know a Chicago gang members' name? Hmmmmm?
Posted by: Frank G || 11/19/2006 14:21 Comments || Top||


India-Pakistan
61% Pakistanis see negative US role in terror war
Although 76 percent Pakistanis think that terrorism is a major threat to the country, some 61 percent believed the US is playing a negative role in the fight on terror, according to a Gallup International survey. According to the survey of 63 countries including Pakistan, only Israelis (82 percent) and Danes (58 percent) think that the US is playing a positive role in the terrorism war. In Pakistan, 13 percent of the people questioned did not consider terrorism a threat. Only 14 percent believed that the US role was positive in the war on terror, 13 percent said the US had played a neutral role and 12 percent did not know about it. The survey said that around 44 percent of the global population believed the US had played a positive role, whereas 36 percent considered its role negative, while 15 percent maintained that the US’s role had been neutral.
Posted by: Fred || 11/19/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [262 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Post 9-11 ROBIN WILLIAMS > before the GERMANS invade, PATOOEY/BLAH TO AMERICANS; after Germans invade, VIVA/WELCOME = WE LOVE YOU, AMERICANS. Wait until the PAKIS re-discover CHINA isn't only after Indian regions.
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 11/19/2006 0:21 Comments || Top||

#2  61% Pakistanis see negative US role in terror war

In other breaking news: 61% Pakistanis directly involved in terrorism.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/19/2006 0:55 Comments || Top||

#3  61% Pakistanis are the enemy. I am shocked the number is not closer to 99%.
Posted by: Excalibur || 11/19/2006 9:10 Comments || Top||

#4  Well, that's ok. If you took an honest poll of Americans you'd probably find that 80% believed wakiland was doing NOTHING to help with the war on terror. The other 20% probably have never heard the word Pakistan, and couldn't point out the United States on a globe.
Posted by: bigjim-ky || 11/19/2006 9:15 Comments || Top||

#5  Good. The Pakis should see that we're negating their terrorism.
Posted by: regular joe || 11/19/2006 9:43 Comments || Top||

#6  And the other 39% couldn't be reached for a comment?
Posted by: gromgoru || 11/19/2006 10:37 Comments || Top||

#7  In the field Grom.
Posted by: Shipman || 11/19/2006 16:11 Comments || Top||

#8  All polls like that do is reflect the method and quality of their public information system.
Useless numbers, unless you're in the business of information media or analysis.
Posted by: wxjames || 11/19/2006 18:29 Comments || Top||

#9  The other 39% told the pollster, "Death to America!" and threatened to cut off his head.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 || 11/19/2006 18:53 Comments || Top||


Pakistan not helping Taliban: Musharraf
Pakistan is not a banana state and the allegations that a Pakistani intelligence agency is helping the Taliban and other militants are baseless, President General Pervez Musharraf said in an interview with a German magazine, Focus, here on Saturday. “Pakistan is not a banana republic. Our army is well organised and loyal.
But loyal to what?
"Army personnel constitute the major chunk of the intelligence agency. Intelligence personnel have been changed from two to three times since 1990,” he said.
Merely changing the faces doesn't say that the policies have been changed.
To a question, President Musharraf said that Pakistani Pushtoons may be supporting the Taliban and other militants in Afghanistan, but such allegations against Pakistani intelligence were baseless and incorrect.
"Controlling them" isn't the same as "supporting them." It's a subtle difference, but it's there, I suppose.
He said that the strategy in Afghanistan should be reviewed. He said that the Taliban could generate a new movement if Pushtoons were not stopped from helping them.
... which isn't gonna happen on the Pak side of the border.
The president said that the Afghanistan issue should be resolved politically. He said that the war against the Taliban could be won by recruiting them into the Afghan army.
... which would then make the Afghan army the Taliban and vice versa.
He said that infiltration of Taliban and Al Qaeda members could be stopped by laying landmines on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
Posted by: Fred || 11/19/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [308 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Would I lie?
Posted by: Pervez || 11/19/2006 10:38 Comments || Top||

#2  What's not to like about the landmine idea?
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 || 11/19/2006 17:54 Comments || Top||

#3  no problem - we clearly know the infiltration routes
Posted by: Frank G || 11/19/2006 18:08 Comments || Top||


International-UN-NGOs
Israeli diplomatic source - "France: An Arab extension" (it hurts coz it's true)
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 11/19/2006 09:34 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [319 views] Top|| File under:

#1  France needs to pull its collective head out of the sand.
Posted by: 49 Pan || 11/19/2006 10:24 Comments || Top||

#2  All EUros are "anti-zionist".
Posted by: gromgoru || 11/19/2006 10:30 Comments || Top||

#3  All EUros are "anti-zionist".

What's an EUro?

If by that you mean EUcrats, yes, you're right, they're antizionist (mostly, some MP aren't, for example, but the powers-that-be clearly are).

But the european man on the street couldn't care less about the "zionists", if this wasn't forcefed to him by the Establishment (because the "paleostinian cause" is at the center of both the eurabian and the leftist agenda).

Gromgoru, come on, bar the rightwing leftovers and the "usual suspects", no europeans wish to see the jooooos genocided again, even if the msm really do their best to make the sweaty masses "antizionist".

What's crack me up is that the europeans are educated in the cult of the Shoah/Holocaust, supposedly the defining moment of european History, for all ages.
I mean, that's a State-religion, a guilt-inducing burden we're told by the PC priests we never will be able to let go off our collective back.

Yet, we're supposedly all horrid antisemites. Go figure.
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 11/19/2006 11:13 Comments || Top||

#4  Gromgoru, just in Lyon, there's been two attacks/arsons against a church in the last couple week, one sidenote in a growing trend of churches attacks and desacration in France and elsewhere (in Switzerland, 5 muslim kids have been arrested after soiling the altar with their feces, muslim kids from the area have the habit of going in the local church to relieve themselves).

Starting in 2000, this was the synagogues first, now it's churches.

Rightwingers in France are very happy, because they argue, with some reason, that the self-loathing and the immigrationist policies of the last decades have mostly been spearheaded by liberal jews... the same intellectuals who now are increasingly worried about the behavior of their "muslim pals".
Payback's a bitch (though the same goes for the anti-israeli bias of the french Establishment, now fueling the frenchifada)...

Should I turn antisemite?
Should I blame the jooooos for being the intellectual vanguard of multiculturalism and of the rejection of anything seen as "french" (la "France moisie" de bernard henry-levy)?

No, I won't. But when you start gleefully going off about the coming destruction of Europe and all, I can't help feeling totally indifferent about Israel, even if I do think we're all in the same boat here, europeans, israelis, and americans. If Europe croaks, I don't give a sh*t about Israel, believe me.

We have the same ennemy, even before taking islam into account, IE the Enlightened Elites who sold Europe and had it self-destruct, and their israeli equivalents who have been passing out the kool-aid since the 90's.
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 11/19/2006 11:31 Comments || Top||

#5  the self-loathing and the immigrationist policies of the last decades have mostly been spearheaded by liberal jews

Oh, that powerfull jewish cabal! /sarc

That is a half a meter long piece of merde.

No, it is simply liberals, whether jewish or otherwise.
Posted by: twobyfour || 11/19/2006 13:48 Comments || Top||

#6  No, it is simply liberals, whether jewish or otherwise.

I agree, and that's the point I try to make when confronted with that argument. The families reunion law which changed a work immigration into a settlement immigration was for example passed by valérie giscard "d'estaing" and his prime minister yacoub ben shiraq, not by the Elders of Zion.
This is my point, by the way, the very same people are responsible for the "immunitary system breakdown" of our societies, in Europe, USA, or Israel, and they're not jewish or catholic or wasp, they're *ideology-driven*.
They're tranzis or gramscists or leftists before any other identity (that's why many jews among them are antizionist and/or "pacifists-pieces-for-landers"), exactly like paleocommies were commies before everything else (true believers in a gnostic religion, really).

I understand this, I think this is a correct explanation, but I can also see why nationalists may be wary of jews too (for them "jews = liberals").
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 11/19/2006 14:07 Comments || Top||

#7  No, it is simply liberals, whether jewish or otherwise.

Btw, two good resources :
The Oslo Syndrome

Politely eliminating Israel
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 11/19/2006 14:11 Comments || Top||

#8  If it's from the French elites it's the actions of low life slime and outright perfidy against the west.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom || 11/19/2006 16:11 Comments || Top||

#9  "immunitary system breakdown" of our societies,

Dang! Was that original 5089? Superior phaseology.
Posted by: Shipman || 11/19/2006 16:14 Comments || Top||

#10  49 Pan, the place from which France needs to pull its collective head is not sand.
Posted by: RWV || 11/19/2006 21:28 Comments || Top||


Bolton in extraordinary outburst against United Nations
The U.S. Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, launched a scathing attack on the United Nations Friday. Bolton was furious over the adoption by the General Assembly of a resolution which said the assembly regretted the deaths of 19 civilians in an attack by the Israeli military in the town of Beit Hanoun last week.

Despite the resolution being significantly watered down at the behest of the United States, and being passing by 156 votes to seven, Bolton launched a blistering attack on the UN, and many of its members. "Many of the sponsors of that resolution are notorious abusers of human rights themselves, and were seeking to deflect criticism of their own policies," he said. "This type of resolution serves only to exacerbate tensions by serving the interests of elements hostile to Israel's inalienable and recognized right to exist."

"This deepens suspicions about the United Nations that will lead many to conclude that the organization is incapable of playing a helpful role in the region," Bolton continued. "In a larger sense, the United Nations must confront a more significant question, that of its relevance and utility in confronting the challenges of the 21st century. We believe that the United Nations is ill served when its members seek to transform the organization into a forum that is a little more than a self-serving and a polemical attack against Israel or the United States."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred || 11/19/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [342 views] Top|| File under:

#1  What he said.
Posted by: Hyper || 11/19/2006 2:08 Comments || Top||

#2  Bolton is doing a horrible job! He must speak respectfully about the wonderful UN! He must be replaced with someone more tactful and diplomatic!
Posted by: Fearful Liberal || 11/19/2006 2:15 Comments || Top||

#3  The donks like to say admirably, he (she) speaks truth to power, so let's see if he gets some donkey love.
Posted by: Captain America || 11/19/2006 2:29 Comments || Top||


Iraq
Kissinger: Military victory no longer possible in Iraq

Military victory is no longer possible in Iraq, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in a television interview broadcast Sunday.

Kissinger presented a bleak vision of Iraq, saying the U.S. government must enter into dialogue with Iraq's regional neighbors – including Iran – if progress is to be made in the region. "If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible," he told the British Broadcasting Corp.

But Kissinger, an architect of the Vietnam war who has advised President Bush about Iraq, warned against a rapid withdrawal of coalition troops, saying it could destabilize Iraq's neighbors and cause a long-lasting conflict. "A dramatic collapse of Iraq – whatever we think about how the situation was created – would have disastrous consequences for which we would pay for many years and which would bring us back, one way or another, into the region," he said.

Kissinger, whose views have been sought by the Iraqi Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James Baker III, called for an international conference bringing together the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Iraq's neighbors – including Iran – and regional powers like India and Pakistan to work out a way forward for the region. "I think we have to redefine the course, but I don't think that the alternative is between military victory, as defined previously, or total withdrawal," he said.
This is the man who thought we had lost the Cold War to the USSR, and if we had followed his policies, we would have.
Posted by: Jackal || 11/19/2006 12:12 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [480 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I thought he was dead already.
Posted by: Unique Battle || 11/19/2006 12:45 Comments || Top||

#2  Essentially, he is. He just does not know it yet.
Posted by: twobyfour || 11/19/2006 13:30 Comments || Top||

#3  But Kissinger, an architect of the Vietnam war

And that qualifies him as an expert on snapping defeat from the jaws of victory.

Thats it in a nutshell. Once a loser always a LOSER.
Posted by: CrazyFool || 11/19/2006 13:50 Comments || Top||

#4  So he's worried about destablizing Iran and Syria.

Is he suggesting we go back to his old policy of backing despicable strongmen and turning a blind eye?
Posted by: Danking70 || 11/19/2006 15:30 Comments || Top||

#5  Angling for another Paris gig?
Posted by: ed || 11/19/2006 15:45 Comments || Top||

#6  But Kissinger, an architect of the Vietnam war . . .

'Nuff said.

I find it interesting to listen to him, lots of good points on small and medium-sized stuff, but for some reason he apparently doesn't see the huge stuff very well.
Posted by: gorb || 11/19/2006 17:53 Comments || Top||

#7  Not even interesting to listen too, he has no good advise to give to Republicans or the US of A.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom || 11/19/2006 19:18 Comments || Top||

#8  Many have described this guy as a realist. I think he was, but of a very specific school. Kissinger was a declinist. He saw a United States in decline. His job, while Secretary of State, was to manage this decline with as much grace as humanly possible. Three decades later, he still sees Uncle Sam in decline. Once again, he believes the task at hand is to manage this decline. What a surprise...
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 11/19/2006 20:24 Comments || Top||

#9  Kissinger reminds me of a triangle player in an orchestra. Every so often, he strikes up with a single note. "Ding". This was his moment in the sun.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 11/19/2006 20:28 Comments || Top||

#10  There are some people who once were considered great, but who, in reflection, deserve only to be shot for their idiocy. Add Henry Kissinger's name to that list. The list is getting extremely long again, and will require the Grim Reaper to shorten. I just hope that not TOO many innocents perish with them.
Posted by: Old Patriot || 11/19/2006 22:59 Comments || Top||


Hopeful Iraqis Taking Lead in Kirkuk
A voice crackles through a two-way radio as U.S. soldiers patrol the dusty streets of this northern Iraqi city: A roadside bomb has exploded downtown, and there are casualties. It's a routine call across Iraq, but one thing is different in Kirkuk: The voice on the radio is Iraqi, not American.

Iraqi forces are gradually taking the lead in policing Kirkuk, where sectarian violence is scant compared to places like Baghdad 156 miles south. The transition gives the American troops training them hope that they are closer to going home.

U.S. soldiers transferred authority to one Iraqi unit in Kirkuk in early autumn, and two others are scheduled for mid-January. By the time the Army's 2nd Battalion, 35th Infantry heads home to Hawaii next summer, about half the Iraqi forces in Kirkuk — army and police — will be under Iraqi command, said Lt. Col. Michael Browder, a 45-year-old Clarksville, Tenn., native in charge of training the units. "They're in the lead, but they still have on their training wheels," Browder said with a wry smile. He left this week to lead a mission organized and executed by Iraqi forces, going after a suspected terrorist group south of Kirkuk.

The city's ethnic diversity — a mix of Kurds, Sunni Arabs, Christians and Turkomen — helps insulate it from the Sunni-Shiite conflict battering other Iraqi cities, the capital especially.

But Kirkuk is not without violence. In the past three months, the city has seen about 20 car bombs that have killed or wounded 300 people — mostly Iraqi police and civilians, said Col. Khattab Omar Aref, commander of the Kirkuk police's best-trained group, the Emergency Services Unit. Aref, 50, has survived six assassination attempts — including one in which a suicide bomber jumped onto the windshield of his car and exploded himself. "Kirkuk is my life, and I hope the rest of Iraq can use our example. We're the only ones who do attacks on the terrorists and not the other way around."

The Iraqi army is made up mostly of Shiites, so ethnic and sectarian balance is a concern in places like Kirkuk. "I organized my men so that when we go out, we make sure there are Kurds, Christians, Arabs and Turkmen on each patrol," said Col. Samir Taher Rashid, 43, who commands Iraqi police on Kirkuk's north side. "I support federalism in Iraq, and in my units too."

U.S. officials say Kurds, who claim they are majority in Kirkuk, are more comfortable with the ways of democracy after 15 years of self-rule in the north since the first Gulf War. "They've had a 10-year head start in getting themselves organized and looking at how a democratic type system can work. They've had the ability to see beyond what the Iraqis right now are facing — the violence. They've seen that there can be a better way of life," Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, commander of the Army's 25th Infantry Division, said in an interview this week.

But U.S. and Iraqi officials say the key to their success in Kirkuk is that citizens here see themselves as Iraqis first, and members of ethnic or tribal groups second. "All the people came under my command — Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen. I told them they must work together as brothers," said Aref. "We are all policemen, and the reason we became police is to save our city," he said in an interview at his office, where ornate gold-embroidered curtains hide sandbagged windows. A photo of him shaking hands with outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld hangs prominently under a crystal chandelier.

Wind whips across Kirkuk's dusty plains, crisscrossed by verdant riverbeds, and it carries the acrid smell of oil byproducts burning at facilities on the horizon. It's a reminder of what could make this city prosper once violence recedes. "It's not the time for retribution or payback — there's too much to lose," Browder said.

U.S. and Iraqi officials have established a telephone hot line for Kirkuk's residents to report insurgent activity or government corruption. "They're not able to mount large scale terror operations because someone would tell on them here," said Capt. Rob Wolfe, a 37-year-old company commander from Amarillo, Texas. Wolfe logs time every day sipping tea with Iraqi police commanders, going over training plans and listening to their concerns. He believes such "soft" training pays off. "These guys are heroes to their people. Some of them came from Kurdish peshmerga militias and they've been fighting all their lives for their country," he said. "They're certainly not going to stop now."
Posted by: trailing wife || 11/19/2006 00:47 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [278 views] Top|| File under:


UK offers $190m aid package for Iraqi reconstruction
Chancellor of the Exchequer James Gordon Brown, the British cabinet minister responsible for all economic and financial matters, said in a visit with British troops in Basra the money would create "jobs in the area and will continue to offer that security and also to ensure greater prosperity of the area," Sky News reported.

Britain has already committed more than $1 billion to Iraq by the end of this year.
Posted by: trailing wife || 11/19/2006 00:33 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [297 views] Top|| File under:


Iraqi Sheiks Assail Cleric for Backing Qaeda
Sunni Arab sheiks from volatile Anbar Province denounced a powerful Sunni cleric on Saturday, calling him “a thug” for supporting the terrorist group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and urging the Iraqi government to issue an arrest warrant against him. The sheiks, the founders of a group called the Anbar Salvation Council, which they formed in September to resist foreign militants in Iraq, were reacting to statements that the cleric, Harith al-Dhari, had made in interviews last week in which he criticized Sunni tribal leaders who had recently decided to take a stand against Al Qaeda.

Anbar, a vast western desert province with Ramadi as its capital, is the heartland of the Sunni Arab insurgency, with various militant groups working to topple the Shiite-led government and end the American presence in Iraq. But as the fundamentalist members of Al Qaeda have tried imposing Taliban-like rule on areas of Anbar, some Iraqi tribes have turned against the group, leading to a further fracturing of what at least initially seemed to be a united resistance to the American invasion.

Mr. Dhari leads the Muslim Scholars Association, a group of conservative clerics that is outspoken in its criticism of the American occupation and the Iraqi government. In the interviews last week, he accused the Anbar council of trying to cozy up to the Iraqi government in return for money. “We, on behalf of the Anbar tribes council, say to Harith al-Dhari: If there is a thug, it is you; if there is a killer and a kidnapper, it is you,” said Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, leader of the Rishawi tribe.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Thinemp Elmaviter2566 || 11/19/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [294 views] Top|| File under:


Brown makes surprise trip to Iraq
BASRA, Iraq — Britain’s Treasury chief Gordon Brown made an unannounced visit to Iraq on Saturday to meet with British forces and Iraqi officials. Brown, who is expected to replace Prime Minister Tony Blair when he steps down next year, was accompanied during his first visit to Iraq by Britain’s chief of the armed forces Sir Jock Stirrup. “I am here to see and pay tribute to the important work our forces are doing and to meet with Iraqi ministers to discuss the challenges ahead,” Brown said in a statement upon arrival.

“We are committed to supporting the Iraqis in building a democratic nation which brings security and prosperity to its people and plays a full part in the region and the world economy.”

Brown was scheduled during his daylong trip to Iraq to meet with British soldiers; Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh, who was visiting Basra; and other Iraqi officials in the region.
Posted by: Steve White || 11/19/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [279 views] Top|| File under:


Arab League plans summit amid grim security situation
Arabs are stepping up their efforts to hold a summit on the Iraqi situation, while European countries are working towards organising an international conference on Iraq. Behind the scenes, the US is attempting to search for a political exit from the Iraqi quagmire. Mukhtar Lamani, the Arab League Envoy to Iraq, told Gulf News: "Serious movements are under way by the Arab League to hold a summit on the Iraqi issue."
The Arab League is in the habit of holding summits. To date, nothing has come from one of them.
There are also European efforts to organise an international conference on Iraq. "Both conferences may be held simultaneously, because of the increasingly deteriorating security situation in Iraq. Everyone in the Iraqi government and outside, are extremely angry at the level of deterioration," he said.
But they're the ones who let it happen.
"The international and regional solution is an open option now, not to save the US from its predicament in Iraq, but to save Iraq from very serious repercussions," he said.
I still think the U.S. should give some serious thought to actually conquering the Sunni Triangle, at the very least.
The envoy stated that deploying Arab and Islamic forces in Iraq is being seriously considered in the event of a US withdrawal from Iraq. "Arab and Islamic forces will be accepted by Iraqis, instead of the US and foreign forces present in Iraq today," he added.
Mmmm... Right. They'll take right to Algerians and Egyptians running things.
The envoy also said that an Iraqi reconciliation conference will not be held anytime soon, because of the current situation.
Since nobody particularly wants to be reconciled.
Foreign spectators in Iraq say that a US withdrawal might take place, but the US influence will remain, and the last word concerning the Arab or international solution in Iraq will be that of the US.
It doesn't work like that. If we withdraw, our word in Iraq will mean squat, maybe somewhat less.
Iraqi armed groups connected to Al Qaida organisation warned of any Arab or Islamic presence, saying: "These forces will be under fire, because they will be assisting the occupational forces in one way or another and will be the continuation of the political forces which entered Iraq with the invading forces."
That sounds like a more reasonable interpretation of what's gonna happen. It applies not only to the Qaeda hard boyz, but also to the Baathists and to the Mahdi Army.
Some leaders in the disintegrated Baath party in Baghdad said that the existence of Arab and Islamic forces in Iraq will be supported by the Baath leadership, inside and outside Iraq.
They may say it, but they won't do it unless the Arab and Islamic forces are busy putting Baathists back into power.
These leaders told Gulf News that certain Arab countries have in fact asked the Baathists about their stand only to find a positive response. This Islamic-Arabic deployment will be in Sunni cities where the Baath party still has a lot of influence.
Posted by: Fred || 11/19/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [271 views] Top|| File under:

#1  a lot of the Arab League verbage is obvious drivel; however, it is designed especially to piss off Iran
Posted by: mhw || 11/19/2006 20:20 Comments || Top||


Israel-Palestine-Jordan
Israel should kill Hamas leaders, walk away from road map peace plan: deputy PM
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 11/19/2006 07:33 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [279 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Sounds like someone finally came up with a workable solution.
Posted by: JerseyMike || 11/19/2006 9:11 Comments || Top||

#2  Provincial thinking. Israel will not be safe until both Dar & EUrope are no longer factors in World politics.
Posted by: gromgoru || 11/19/2006 10:32 Comments || Top||

#3  And Condi should stand aside while Israel removes the obstacles to peace. Hamas tore up the Road Map, however noble that plan was.
Posted by: Sneaze Shaiting3550 || 11/19/2006 12:23 Comments || Top||

#4  Give that man a Kewpie doll!
Posted by: Zenster || 11/19/2006 12:41 Comments || Top||

#5  Damn, I like this Leiberman. If Halutz & Ohlmert were pushed aside, I believe this man could provide the leadership to allow Israel to survive. Bullshit time is over. Time to move out, double time. If we bail out of Iraq, you just know the scumbags will light the fuse for Israel. Israel will have to fight for its life and it needs someone like this to lead. If this guy gets his way, we need to back him 100%. He'll need our support.
Posted by: SpecOp35 || 11/19/2006 21:54 Comments || Top||


Hamas: Change US's Palestinian policy
The United States must change its policy on the Palestinians, and force Israel to do likewise, Hamas government spokesman Ghazi Hamad said Saturday. According to Hamad, the US shouldn't attempt to force Hamas to comply with Quartet conditions for the recognition of its government.

In a related development, some Western nations have expressed concern over the US's proposals to arm Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah security forces, the British Times reported. Some US officials believe that should attempts to establish a unity government in the PA prove futile, Abbas should be supplied with "deterrent capability" against Hamas. Specifically, US proposals include doubling the size of Abbas' Force 17 presidential guard and shipping weapons into the Gaza Strip, a move that would have to be approved by Israel. In addition, Fatah officials have requested that over 1,000 exiled members of the PLO's Badr Brigades be allowed back into the PA from Jordan.

Opponents of the US approach feel that the international community had accepted the results of the PA elections in January 2006 that put Hamas in power, and therefore should support efforts to put together a unity government in the strife-ridden PA.
Posted by: Fred || 11/19/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [286 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I'd sensd an extra JDAM shipment to Israel with one earmarked for that little squeaking twit, Ghazi. Paint "STFU" on the nose
Posted by: Frank G || 11/19/2006 2:40 Comments || Top||

#2  Shipping weapons into the Gaza Strip?

I should think by now that you couln't walk down the street for all the weapons littering the sidewalk. There have been weapons flooding into the territory for 40 years, where the hell are they all now? They simply couldn't have a shortage of arms, it's impossible.
Posted by: bigjim-ky || 11/19/2006 9:36 Comments || Top||

#3  Or else.
Posted by: gromgoru || 11/19/2006 10:39 Comments || Top||

#4  Let's review those horrible, incomprehensible, mind-numbing conditions:

Renounce violence ("But, but... we VOTED for violence fair and square.")

Recognize Israel ("But, but... we VOTED to drive Israel into the sea. All on the up and up. It's our platform. You can read it in our Objectives. And we VOTED too.")

Keep your agreements. ("But we never keep agreements, that's just stupid. It goes against our nature. And we VOTED for taqiyya. All fair and square")

Boggling how the muslim mind cannot grasp the simplest, most straight-forward statement. Simple reasonable truths to the western mind are beyond the ken of the blinkered, psychotic and robotic programming that passes for islamic "thinking".

They will never understand or accept the Quartet's conditions. They can't becuase the conditions are the polar opposite of their desires. And nothing keeps a muslim from the violent expression of his genocidal desires.
Posted by: Thinemp Whimble2412 || 11/19/2006 10:57 Comments || Top||


Southeast Asia
Enhancing global supply chain security important in fight against terrorism: PM Lee
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong says it is important to enhance the security of the global supply chain to prevent terrorist attacks. A more secure supply chain – a system where goods are moved from suppliers to customers – would also make it resilient to recover from an attack.

Mr Lee was speaking at the end of the two-day APEC Summit in Hanoi. A terrorist attack, Mr Lee says, could cause trade and economic activities for countries to come to a standstill, resulting in huge losses for all. From a study just released, he says 12 APEC economies, excluding the US, would suffer a loss of some US$160 billion in exports over three years, based on a scenario where all US ports are closed for 30 days because of a terror attack.

The Singapore-commissioned study also shows significant impact on GDP over the three-year period, with it getting worse if trade continues to be disrupted.

Mr Lee says senior officials at this APEC meeting have supported Singapore's idea for a small group to study the recovery of international trade after a major terror attack. He says the group will work out key points of a common response and recovery plan like information sharing. So if something happens, countries would be ready to facilitate the continued flow of trade in the region.

Mr Lee also touched on local and regional environmental challenges, saying there is scope for international cooperation. He said Singapore does its part for environmental protection as a small country, but hopes global rules would be fair to countries like Singapore, which faces constraints and limitations.
Posted by: tipper || 11/19/2006 09:29 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [295 views] Top|| File under:


Syria-Lebanon-Iran
French UN troops prepare guns against Israeli jets in Lebanon
French UN anti-aircraft batteries have taken "preparatory steps" to respond to Israeli jets violating Lebanese airspace, despite global criticism of such incursions.

"The anti-aircraft unit of the (French) battalion took initial preparatory steps to respond to these actions," Milos Strugar, spokesman for the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) told AFP on Friday. "UNIFIL observed and reported 14 Israeli air violations this morning, on November 17, 2006, and 11 of these violations occurred in the area of operation of the French battalion with UNIFIL."
Posted by: trailing wife || 11/19/2006 00:04 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [269 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The IDF won't let harm visit its aircraft but it will bring HARM to Frog AD missiles.
Posted by: badanov || 11/19/2006 0:43 Comments || Top||

#2  ISRAEL has the right to use air recce to verify whether agreements or treaties are being followed.
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 11/19/2006 0:44 Comments || Top||

#3  They'll only do it once.
Posted by: .com || 11/19/2006 0:49 Comments || Top||

#4  "Say, Pierre, did you hear that we are supposed to shoot at Israeli planes flying over Lebanon and taking pictures?"

"Jacques, stop talking and do your job. The driver of that truck full of Iran's latest missiles would like to know which road to take to get to the southern border."
Posted by: gorb || 11/19/2006 1:18 Comments || Top||

#5  Meanwhile, the missile redeployment that Froggie is obliged to prevent, goes on.
Posted by: Sneaze Shaiting3550 || 11/19/2006 4:51 Comments || Top||

#6  Pull my finger!
Posted by: Cheating Angeaque9874 || 11/19/2006 8:50 Comments || Top||

#7  According to the Metula news agency, both incidents where french troops were "2 seconds away from firing on israeli jets" are complete fabrications by the french gvt.
Link in french.

JFM may be right, sadly, yacoub ben shiraq is perhaps preparing the ground for an incident with Israel to be able to run for a third term, and hopefully win, riding on a wave of anti-israeli feelings from the left & muzzies.

This is crazy, but french politics are getting crazier and crazier.

The Nation is melting down, and those dwarves are jockeying up for power... wonder why?

A new book confirms shiraq actually had that $60 millions secret bank account in Japan, the budget allowed for the Elysée presidentail palace has increased 9x since shiraq became president (officially 32 millions euros a year, but probably 90 millions),... and it's not new, during the mitterand reign, there were $500 millions of GWI compensations that got lost (not for everybody), the infamous Taiwan arms deal had $ BILLIONS of backschich, and was only the tip of the iceberg (arms deal with... soody arabia were the bulk of that).

Truth is, for 30 years France has been systematically looted by a new nobility made of technocrats, and literally sold to foreign powers (Eurabia).

Well, at least the enarchs got rich, good for them I guess...
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 11/19/2006 9:16 Comments || Top||

#8  Guys come on we are talking about FRANCE HERE.

France is not going to do a dam thing to Isreali warplances short of maybe paint them with radars at the MOST. All this is is France trying to buy favor with Lebanese by being the big brother. The French are hollow they talk good game but when it comes to doing the dam thing the p*ss out.
Posted by: C-Low || 11/19/2006 10:31 Comments || Top||

#9  Meeoowww! Meeowwww!
Posted by: Perfesser || 11/19/2006 16:07 Comments || Top||


Iran to shut down nuclear reactor in Teheran
TEHERAN - Iran will shut down its five megawatt light-water research reactor in Teheran as soon as the 40-megawatt reactor in Arak goes operational, the news agency ISNA reported on Saturday. The head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, Gholam-Reza Aqazadeh, told ISNA that the Teheran reactor should be shut down after almost forty years as soon as the Arak heavy-water reactor in Arak, south-east of the capital Teheran, becomes operational in 2009.

The heavy-water reactor in Arak was inaugurated last August to be, according to Iranian officials, mainly used for medical research purposes. The Arak project is one of Iran’s controversial nuclear sites, mainly because heavy-water reactors can also produce plutonium which can be used to make a nuclear bomb.
Or to make plutonium for medicinal purposes. Everybody knows that.
Aqazadeh said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is fully aware of the activities in Arak and also supposed to even assist Iran in the project, but due to pressure by some Western states the IAEA might revise its promised assistance. With or without IAEA assistance, Iran would finish the Arak project as scheduled, said Aqazadeh.
Posted by: Steve White || 11/19/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [284 views] Top|| File under:

#1  For comparison, North Korea is producing A-bomb cores using a 20MW (thermal) graphite reactor.
Posted by: ed || 11/19/2006 15:19 Comments || Top||

#2  perhaps they will both shut down - and not on schedule. I can hope
Posted by: Frank G || 11/19/2006 15:25 Comments || Top||

#3  Does Iran have well-thought-out plans for dealing with Pu waste?
Posted by: gorb || 11/19/2006 15:30 Comments || Top||

#4  Does Iran have well-thought-out plans for dealing with Pu waste?

No worries, the 12th Imam will take care of it as soon as he exits the well.

Posted by: Mick Dundee || 11/19/2006 16:19 Comments || Top||


Home Front: Culture Wars
US paper deplores Dutch ban on burqas
But we already knew which side the LA Times is on, didn't we?
The Netherlands’ decision to seek legislation banning the wearing of a burqa or niqab has been criticised by a leading American newspaper as a “spectacularly bad case of overreaching”.

In an editorial, the Los Angeles Times on Saturday noted that five days before a national election, the Netherlands’ centre-right government announced that it would introduce legislation to ban the wearing of burqas, veils and similar garments in public places. It said, “Should it pass, the most famously accepting country in Europe would have the most restrictive anti-Muslim laws on the Continent. This is a spectacularly bad case of overreaching, even if you believe - as we do - that it’s unfortunate that some women are forced by their culture to cloak themselves in anonymity before going out in public. Also, there are some Muslim women who feel exposed without covering up.”
Posted by: Fred || 11/19/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [266 views] Top|| File under:

#1  So does this mean that the LA Times supports the same concept of identity concealment that the Klan enjoyed for so many years?
Posted by: Cheating Angeaque9874 || 11/19/2006 8:44 Comments || Top||

#2  I assume this means the LA Times is in favor of sexually mutilating two-year old girls with a pair of scissors.
Posted by: Excalibur || 11/19/2006 9:13 Comments || Top||

#3  even if you believe - as we do - that it’s unfortunate that some women are forced by their culture to cloak themselves in anonymity before going out in public.

It's not "unfortunate", it's unacceptable. As Holland insists.
Posted by: Thinemp Whimble2412 || 11/19/2006 10:44 Comments || Top||

#4  Women can choose to stay inside, or disguise themselves before leaving home, or much better, quit the religion of death, murder and dhimmitude and join the human race. Applications not necessary.
Posted by: wxjames || 11/19/2006 18:33 Comments || Top||



Who's in the News
86[untagged]

Bookmark
E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Thugburg
Gulf War I
The Way We Were
Bio

Merry-Go-Blog
Hair Through the Ages










On Sale now!


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.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Seafarious
Pappy
lotp
Scooter McGruder
john frum
tu3031
badanov
sherry
ryuge
GolfBravoUSMC
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Gloria
Fred
Besoeker
Glenmore
Frank G
3dc
Skidmark
Alaska Paul

Two weeks of WOT
Sun 2006-11-19
  SCIIRI bigshot banged in Baghdad
Sat 2006-11-18
  UN General Assembly calls for Israel to end military operation in Gaza
Fri 2006-11-17
  Moroccan convicted over 9/11 plot
Thu 2006-11-16
  Morocco holds 13 suspected Jihadist group members
Wed 2006-11-15
  Nasrallah vows campaign to force gov't change
Tue 2006-11-14
  Khost capture was Zawahiri deputy?
Mon 2006-11-13
  Palestinians agree on nonentity as PM
Sun 2006-11-12
  Five Shia ministers resign from Lebanese cabinet
Sat 2006-11-11
  Haniyeh offers to resign for aid
Fri 2006-11-10
  US Rejects UN Resolutions on Gaza Violence as One-Sided
Thu 2006-11-09
  Indon Muslims on trial over beheading young girls
Wed 2006-11-08
  Israeli Forces Pull Out of Beit Hanoun
Tue 2006-11-07
  Al Qaeda terrorist captured in Afghanistan
Mon 2006-11-06
  Pakistani AF officers tried to kill Perv
Sun 2006-11-05
  Saddam Sentenced to Death

Better than the average link...



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.
3.235.45.196
Paypal:
WoT Operations (24)    Non-WoT (15)    Opinion (4)    Local News (10)    (0)