Supporters of former king Mohammad Zahir Shah announced the formation of a movement to press for the restoration of the Afghan monarchy on Saturday, hours after their 88-year-old champion returned from medical treatment abroad.
He's 88 years old. I don't imagine he'd last too terribly long, assuming he's still coherent. On the other hand, I'm sure there will be somebody waiting to take over as soon as he departs this vale of tears...
The âNational Unity Movementâ, led by one of Shahâs cousins, Sultan Mahmoud Ghazi, invited other royalists to join it. âApart from forming the movement today, participants also asked for the return of the constitutional monarchy,â Hakim Noorzaye, deputy head of the newly formed group, told reporters. âBut we want a democratic system without imposing our wish on people. We call on the government to launch a referendum and to let people decide what sort of government they want.â
Actually, the monarchy would probably be the best course for Afghanistan, no matter how hard Hek and his boyz tried to screw it up.
In announcing the new movement, Noorzaye also resigned from his post as deputy head of intelligence in the government of US-backed President Hamid Karzai. He criticised the administration as âa tool of warlordsâ and charged that a commission it appointed had already opted for a presidential system in new constitution being secretly drafted. The constitution is supposed to be put to a Loya Jirga, for approval in October to allow for general elections to be held next June.
The fix is in, huh? Wotta surprise.
The nine founding members are either close relatives of Zahir Shah, like his sons Mirwais Zahir and Mustafa Zahir, or those who served the monarch during his 40-year rule. One, Professor Rasoul Amin, said about 1,800 supporters of the ex-king had come to Kabul from all over Afghanistan for the launch of the movement. The restoration call came just hours after the frail former king, twice-rumoured to have died in July, arrived in Kabul from France, where he had been recovering from a broken leg. It is the strongest call yet since he returned to Afghanistan last year after nearly three decades in exile that followed his overthrow by a cousin in a bloodless 1973 coup. Seen as a symbol of unity in a highly fractious country, Zahir Shah was given the title âFather of the Nationâ by Karzai last year, but aides have said he would accept a leadership role if chosen in next yearâs polls.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
08/10/2003 00:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We in the West have in my opinion the fault of seeing a country on a map and thinking that there is a nation of the same name. Sometimes there is. Most times there isn't. How well did the monoarchy work in pre 1973 Afghanistan? If it came to work now maybe it would be a good model for Irag and a few other places. It least monarchies hae a tendency to think about the future.
Posted by: Someone who did NOT vote for William Proxmire ||
08/10/2003 10:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"It's good to be King." - or something similar according to Mel Brooks. But King of What?
Okay, a show of hands: Who wants to be King?
Of Afghanistan?
Of Iraq?
Of Iran?
...insert roll call of all Arab & Islamic "nations" here
...
Of Egypt?
Of Malasia?
Of The Izzoid World?
I dunno if what you suggest is true or would / could / should work, but it certainly sticks in my American craw. Sorry! ;-)
#3
I think that monarchy is the natural state of a society before it reaches a certain point of complexity. Trying to stop those societies from being monarchies simply doesn't work -- witness the number and variety of hereditary "presidencies" in the world, from Kim Jong Il to Azerbaijan to Saddam. Mubarak's grooming Junior to take over in Egypt, and the Ghandi/Nehru clan's still working toward a comeback in India. When Fidel kicks it, I think Raul's supposed to step in. and I think Turkmenbashi's kid is supposed to assume the reigns when he achieves the Great Beyond. Muammar's trying to set up a dynastic marriage for his little boy. And then we had the president of Equatorial Guinea, who's announced he's God. The more I think about it, the less difference I can see between Charles Taylor and, for instance, Merwig. It's not until societies actually grow up that monarchy ossifies and dies a natural death, occasionally even in its sleep.
Monarchy's greatest advantage is that the next head of state is known, in a world ruled by flood, fires, mudslides, volcanos, drought, and the pleasure of God or the gods. Sonny (in very few cases Little Missy) is trained to assume the job from birth, which provides stability. In societies where wealth is based on land ownership, dynastic marriages provide alliances with other, similar states.
I think the trick here would be to recognize the facts of life. Put crowns or jewelled turbans or other funny hats on the heads of the Presidents for Life, and try and influence the structure of the states internally. Not everybody's going to get to be Louis XIV; some are going to be Nicholas II. Some are going to be King Abdullahs or Hassans, and Morocco and Jordan and most of the Gulf States should probably be the model to adopt. While we support them, we should also push them toward parliamentary control of the purse strings -- rather than a deep involvement with policy. For quite a few years, the English, French and Dutch kings made policy and their respective parliaments concerned themselves with raising the money to support it.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/10/2003 16:03 Comments ||
Top||
#4
A constitutional monarchy (with the king/queen's power severely limited) could be a good compromise for countries that are accustomed to, or hoping for, someone to look up to. The English system works fairly well. The "head of state" does all the silly stuff (ribbon cuttings on bridges, showing up at social functions...) while the government does the real work.
Posted by: Kathy K ||
08/10/2003 20:12 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Yeah but look what happens when some of these countries post colonial non-entities vote--Algeria elected a bunch of Islamonutz--in Turkey we have Islamo lite and we saw how supportive of the US they were.
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
08/10/2003 23:12 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"The English system works fairly well. The "head of state" does all the silly stuff (ribbon cuttings on bridges, showing up at social functions...) while the government does the real work."
I hope that you are an American with a comment like that. I'm not in any way a royalist but I do understand that the Queen and her family are involved a lot more than "the silly stuff" - Often this isn't seen by people but she (Queenie) has given up her life, her family (to an extent) and all her personal dreams to lead Britain forward. When she took over fifty or so years ago, she took over an empire and has continued to rule as fairly and justly as the empire crumbled around her. Her devotion is worthy of note and should in no way be interpreted as"doing teh silly stuff" ---- America has a warped understanding of this. You can see by the Californian Governor elections that they are more likely to vote for a name they've heard of than anyone with decent policies - eg Schwarzenegger, Flynt or George Bush !!! I liked Clinton, I respected George Bush 1 but the new president is an idiot who has scraped by on having the same name as his father. His idiocy is obvious to most of the rest of the world and yet through clever media representation, a lot of America still respects him. His logic in explaining the Iraq war is flawed at best and at the worst, downright criminal.
I have lived in and love America but believe (as many other US citizens have told me) that Americans are often trapped in a bubble of security unaware of the horrific events being caused by their own government - The spin on the Iraq war being the worst - Yes, something had to be done about Saddam but the way Bush did it was criminally wrong. The fact that some idiots like Tony Blair etc jumped on his bandwagon doesn't make it right (especially as some things have come to light recently proving that the British government were lied to about the reasons for waging war.) Thousands of people have died as a result of Bush's stupidity and he doesn't care because they are not American.
Oh, and if I hear him quote 9/11 one more time I'm going to scream - terrorist attacks have happened all over the world for many years not least in Northern Ireland and yet Bush has done and said nothing - one attack on the US and he invades a country - terrorism is not the same as war and yet his warped logic has convinced himself it is.
He is IMHO the most dangerous man in the world and not dangerous in the way that clever people like Napoleon or Hitler is dangerous - dangerous in the way a small child is dangerous with a knife.
Posted by: Chris ||
08/10/2003 23:27 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Yo, chris, you have the advantage of posting late, and thus risking little of the wrath of Rantburg.
You'll hear no royal- nor brit-bashing from me, nor will I take the cheap shot about Hitler (would you had done the same).
It would be nicest to assume that you're smarting from the offense to the queen, but then you're not a royalist.
That leaves some room for plain old Chris-bashing. For you to baldly state that GWB is an idiot is simply... well, let's say, a "misunderstanding".
We are well aware of terror around the world over the years. It is not allowed here. 3000 people and two buildings plus the Pentagon in a day is definitely too much, and nothing you have seen in Belfast or London or Palestine or Israel in the last 60 years comes close.
We have had enough shit from that part of the world and so we have nakedly aggressed the most deserving country of all their deserving asses and established a presence on their goddam front porch and we are now leering menacingly around in all directions. And we are armed and fucking dangerous and very angry that some people take all the advantages of the last 500 years of progress and instead of putting it to work for their own good, use it to make others' lives as miserable as their own.
And it's not about oil.
So.
To be fair you state that Tony Blair is an idiot, too, so obviously your own genius knows no national prejudice. I'm sure you have a solution to all the world's ills, something very clever and sophisticated that involves waiting a lot, explaining why we must understand that innocent people die in our cities, and hoping that the world's MOST dangerous children will grow up before they get to your block.
Bummer, man, nobody voted for you. Reckon they didn't recognize your name. World leaders are idiots. Chris for Emperor. No doubt your detailed peace plan will follow. I'll put it right here with all the others.
Have a nice night, and may there always be an England. With a Queen.
Posted by: Mark IV ||
08/10/2003 23:56 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Chris - "idiot"? "criminal"? You're going to scream? Sigh. Talk about living in a bubble... One more mention of 9/11, eh? It takes a special kind of stupid to fail to see that America knows that any kind of terrorism is reprehensible - and that the Izzoid version is much more serious because it is global, well-funded, implacable, deadly, and directed at the entire civilized world - not just a band of provincial renegades. Geez - where to begin? It's all a typical IndyMedia Muddle⢠of invective sans logic... Re: N. Ireland - last time I checked, that was your purview and we would not have been welcomed if we'd shown up with the 3rd Infantry. Your implication that we should've done something, but didn't, is egregiously stupid when examined in reality, but you obviously live in phantasy, else you wouldn't have used it for an example. You know the US cooperated on precisely the level the British wanted - probably FBI surveillance and allowing British watchers into America for similar purposes. I won't take pleasure, but there will come a British 9/11 for you to scream about... when Buckingham or Parliament or Westminster is blown sky high - full of Brits and (Phrench, I hope) tourists by your own local Izzoids. You are willfully blind and beneath contempt for it. Take a hike - go play with your royals. Get drunk. Dream of lost empires. Phuck off.
#9
Chris, from your comments about Queenie ruling over her crumbling empire, you sound like quite a rooyalist to me, albeit possibly a closet one. I, too have no desire to see the monarchy consigned to the dustbin of history partly because I'm of a conservative at heart, a sentimental romantic and also a pragmatist (or so I like to think). Once removed, there will undoubtedly be no return for a royal familty in our country. We may bitch about them and deride them, but most acknowledge at some level that they do provide a unique form of national entertainment. These are not people who arrived at ther positions by merit, purely an accident of birth. Anyone who likes to play the lottery should have no truck with the monarchy, IMO, as they enjoy a fortune flutter. The royal circus is also a lace curtain between us and the career politicians who represent the sharp-clawed cynicism of real politics. Having a benign figure like our current Queen at least notionally holding power over the likes of Blair and the opposition, feels something like a safety net and adds an air of stability to government. Additionally, the royal family do undoubtedly pay for themselves, and some, in terms of attracting visitors to the UK. They are probably our greatest single tourist magnet and therefore it makes good financial sense to keep them in place.
I quite disagree with your assessment of Bush as an 'idiot'. If you want to dismiss those you disagree with as idiots (inc. Blair), that's up to you, but no one should consider that sort of insult an argument worthy of attention. True, his communication skills are below par for the international statesman, but you should pay more attention to the results of his actions rather than what he says and how he says it. Responding as the US did to 9/11 was folly? Then what alternative would you suggest? Was removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan a mistake? Who would have benefitted from leaving them there? Do you think another 9/11 would have happened by now if they were left alone?
Have you forgotten that more Britons died in the twin towers attacks than have died in any other single terrorist attack, anywhere? It was no ordinary terrorist incident, and justified an uncompromising response.
And you complain about the Iraq war. I'd like to hear your alternative way of dealing with Saddam. Do you have one? One that doesn't involve allowing to continue his reign of terror on his own subjects? Did you approve of the UN-imposed sanctions stalemate, which made the lives of ordinary Iraqis harsher than before and allowed Saddam and his cronies to continue their business of oppression, rape and murder unabated? You wanted the inspections to continue, right? For how long? Are you sorry that Saddam's gone?
"...dangerous in the way a small child is dangerous with a knife." That's a pretty perfect way to describe any one of the murderers of 9/11, IMO.
A bomb exploded outside the office of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoganâs political party Sunday, just hours before his son was to be married. No injuries or damage were reported at the Justice and Development Partyâs office in Istanbul, and the Turkish news agency Anatolia reported it was meant to make noise rather than cause harm. Earlier, police found and safely detonated two more bombs in a bustling commercial neighborhood, Besiktas. KADEK, anyone?
Police were on alert and looking for suspicious packages before Erdoganâs son Bilal was to get married to Reyyan Uzuner in the city. About 10,000 people were expected to attend, including Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi and Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul. Some 5,000 police officers blocked streets near the wedding site in a convention center and sharpshooters were posted on nearby rooftops. Metal detectors were set up on streets near the site. Police also detonated two other suspicious packages near the party building, but no explosives were inside, Anatolia said.
There went the toaster and the blender I sent...
No one claimed responsibility for the bombs. Militant Islamic, Kurdish, and extreme leftist groups are active in the city and have carried out attacks in the past. I have a funny feeling that the House of Truncheons⢠is going to get a big order soon.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/10/2003 8:36:41 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Hat Tip: LGF
A judge in Pakistan has sentenced a 60-year-old man to death after finding him guilty of making derogatory remarks about Islam and its prophet, Muhammad, a police official said today. A Holy Man has accused you - so you are guilty. Q.E.D.
Chaudary Bashir was convicted yesterday under Pakistanâs controversial blasphemy laws, said local police official Hamid Mukhtar. Off with his head!
He was accused in 2001 by Maulana Mohammed Qasim, a cleric in Bhawalnagar, 190 kilometres southwest of Multan, in the eastern province of Punjab. Qasim claimed that Bashir was preaching his own version of Islam and saying he had the same status as the prophet. But since he is a Holy Man the claim is more than sufficient. We will kill him twice. And his children, too — spawn of Satan!
The conviction will automatically be appealed against in the high courts. A Hat Tip to civilization.
Under Pakistanâs blasphemy law, it is an offence punishable by death to offend Islam, its prophet or its holy book. Little Mo is very sensitive and easily offended... So watch what you say, infidels.
The laws have been criticised by international and Pakistani human rights groups. They say that they are easily abused and that the burden of proof is on the accused to prove their innocence. Only the word of an accuser is needed to prosecute a suspect on blasphemy charges. This is the beauty of the Stasi Islam.
Hundreds of people are believed to be in Pakistani jails under the blasphemy laws. It doesnât pay to piss off anyone - especially Holy Men.
Posted by: ·com ||
08/10/2003 10:22:30 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ahhh the religion of peace. Civilization as it was meant to be - before the invention of the wheel. In the long run, breding Islam into a majority is a recipe for a loser - if the people aren't educated, and the last thing Islamic clergy wants is an intelligent educated (and willful) population. This century will see the collapse of major islamic societies, bloodshed, uprisings and civil war among the faithful. As long as there's alternative sources of energy that we can obtain, we should grab a chair, make some popcorn and watch the action from afar
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/10/2003 11:28 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Whoa - you opened the BIG Can O' Worms!
Stupid is as stupid does, springs to mind thinking about Izzoid "nations." They are certainly dependent upon at least 2.5 things:
1) Indoctrination from birth with no outside interference - can you say "maddassah"?
2) Keeping them in the dark and fed nothing but 'Slamic BS. Picture a Revival Tent show every Friday at noon prayers...
.5) Maintaining a crop of asshat Imams and Mullahs to reinforce the dogma (this one's too easy - instant power and status - so I didn't count it as much of a challenge)
Break the chain anywhere in there, and there are problems. I posted a thing once about Islam as a disease - long bitch, too - which gave a LOT of detail. Bottom line is that the Internet, bluejeans, TV, Wayfarers, movies, Lakers t-shirts - all vestiges of the Western "culture" can weaken the grip to a degree. Islam is totalitarian because it has to be. We can whup it's ass, if we really wanna. Just break the chain, baby, break the chain - oh, and profile the escapees wery wery cawfully!
#4
I don't think the chain is so easy to break. To simplify the situation: Islamic leads to economic suffering which leads to resentment of others which leads to more Islam. It is a pretty strong chain.
#5
Any stable society has to have a large middle class--the kleptocrats in Islamic countries preclude that from happening. As long as there is an underclass with no hopes and aspirations, and the only form of dissent is Radical Islam--which the dictators have to leave alone--nothing will change in the Islamic countries
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
08/10/2003 23:23 Comments ||
Top||
Indiaâs prime minister called for an end to bloodshed between Pakistan and India in a statement read Sunday before a peace conference in the Pakistani capital, saying the two nations must heed the will of their peoples and learn to live side by side. ``Violence and bloodshed cannot provide any solutions. We can live together only if we let each other live,ââ Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee said in the statement, read aloud by an Indian delegate at the conference. ``Cooperation, rather than confrontation, is the answer to our common problems.ââ In unrelated news this morning, Qazi had a seizure and choked on his spittle.
The conference, organized by a prominent journalistsâ group with branches in both countries, is the latest effort to ease tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbors. It brings together Indian and Pakistani parliamentarians for two days of talks at Islamabadâs Marriott hotel. Oh look! A Marriott hotel in an Islamic country thatâs still standing!
The 59-member Indian delegation — 33 lawmakers and 26 journalists — crossed the Indian-Pakistani border on Saturday afternoon, receiving a warm welcome from Pakistani political parties and human rights workers, who shouted slogans of peace and showered them with rose petals. On Sunday, Pakistani and Indian parliamentarians sat facing each other in a brightly lit ballroom at the hotel, each taking turns speaking about their nationsâ future. As some gave long-winded, boring speeches that no one listened to, others exchanged pleasantries over cups of tea. Some Sikhs on the Indian side had flowing beards, while leaders of a Pakistani religious alliance wore Islamic turbans over their eyes. ``We have come here with a message of love and brotherhood,ââ Indian lawmaker Laloo Prasad Yadav said in a speech. ``Everyone should play their role in tearing down the wall of hatred.ââ "We, for example, are willing to tear down all the Pakistani walls of hatred."
After the opening session, the meetings were closed to reporters. During the conference, the delegates will encourage both governments to resume stalled peace talks. They will also discuss Kashmir. They should be able to fix the Kashmir thing in about, oh, an hour or two.
Vajpayee said in the statement, written from the Indian capital of New Delhi, that the conference provided hope for the future. ``The meeting and the themes for discussion are a forceful reiteration of the popular desire in both of our countries for a normal, peaceful, friendly and cooperative relationship with us on top,ââ he said. ``We cannot deny our people their right to peaceful and cooperative economic development right after we replace all those crummy MiGs.ââ M. Ziauddin, the Pakistani president of the South Asia Free Media Association, which organized the conference, said he hoped it would serve to bring better understanding. ``These are exciting times for Pakistan and India. There is a peace process going on and I hope this conference provides participants the right kind of atmosphere to air their ideas and thoughts without inhibitions or being knifed to death,ââ he said.
"But it's probably just another exchange of wind. Guess we gotta try, though..."
Relations have improved in recent months, since a call by Vajpayee for renewed peace talks. India and Pakistan have restored diplomatic ties and resumed bus links. The two countries are also discussing re-establishing air and train links. Thatâll help the crucial hijacking industry which has been in a real slump over there.
Still, progress has been slow and no dates for formal peace talks to begin has been announced. Politicians on both sides have continued to make faces fire off weapons inflammatory statements from time to time. The issue of Kashmir remains a thorny one, and is not likely to be solved anytime soon. More than 63,000 people have died in Kashmir since 1989. Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, the head of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Q party, said that any peace talks must include the issue of Kashmir, and noted that progress on other fronts would lack substance if the flashpoint issue is not addressed. Thus putting the kabosh on progress anywhere. Same old, same old.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/10/2003 8:45:27 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Do Hindus/other ethnic Indians ever take the Bus to Pakistan. Do they flock there or just trikle in and out?
#2
Please stop making the Marriott jokes! Both my wife and my daughter work at one here in Colorado, and it wouldn't be much of a stretch for some Islamofascist to decide they'd make good targets. That's especially true with somebody making comments about one every other day. Can you say "brainwashing"? Remember who we're dealing with here - People with Very Little Brain - less than Winnie the Pooh.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/10/2003 19:29 Comments ||
Top||
#3
OP, my apologies.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/10/2003 23:05 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Besides--the Hilton twins would make a much better target
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
08/10/2003 23:24 Comments ||
Top||
A fight over a box of cookies killed two women and injured seven others in a remote area of northwestern Pakistan, police said Friday. The fight broke out Thursday in the small village of Bafa Maira, 160 miles north of Peshawar after a teenage boy snatched a box of cookies from a young girl, said police officer Fiaz Khan, who did not know their exact ages. The girl ran home crying and complained to her older brother, who went out to fight the boy. The boy later returned armed and accompanied by two friends who stormed into the girlâs house and opened fire, killing the girlâs mother and grandmother. Seven other relatives were injured and taken to a hospital, where one woman was in serious condition, Khan said. Police are searching for the boy and his friends. The three have been charged with murder, Khan said.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
08/10/2003 1:14:49 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
You know, you've think you've seen it all and then the world up and surprises you again.
#2
That's what we ge for alowing the Girl Scouts to sell cookies door to door. some of them simply go to far. Although I've heard pepeole say they'd kill for a box of Thin Mints
Posted by: Someone who did NOT vote for William Proxmire ||
08/10/2003 10:07 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Christ. Paging Dr. Hobbes, Dr. Hobbes, please call your office.
Posted by: (lowercase) matt ||
08/10/2003 10:12 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Cookies, Air Jordan's, leather jackets, what's the diff?
#5
This takes "losing your cookies" to a new level. Hmmmm.....I think that there are other issues. No connection in the brain between emotion and judgement. Neural pathway desert here.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/10/2003 17:54 Comments ||
Top||
#6
And the women in this nation say our kids are out of control? Ha!
Posted by: Charles ||
08/10/2003 19:39 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Umm, this story is not much different from this one in the good ol' USA.
Anti Terrorism Court Special Judge Mehmood Maqbool Bajwa on Saturday sentenced six people to death for the murder of a man and his son and sentenced eight others to five years rigorous imprisonment for absconding from the trial. The convicts were accused of murdering Ibrahim and his son Zafar on June 22, 2002, when they opened fire in a mosque in Manawan area. Shahzad, Abdul Hameed and Lal Din were injured in the incident. The judge handed the death sentence to Ilyas, Hanif, Khalil, Idrees, Saleem and Munir and fined them Rs 100,000 each. They were also asked to pay Rs 200,000 each to the heirs of the victims. They were sentenced to another three years in prison and fined Rs 20,000 each for ârioting while armed with a deadly weaponâ. The judge handed them another two years in prison with a fine of Rs 50,000 each for injuring three men. The judge sentenced Javed, Muhammad Saleem, Johar, Yaseen, Hafiz Sultan, Aslam, Nisar and Abdul Rehman to five years in prison and issued permanent arrest warrants for them.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
08/10/2003 00:09 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Lessee the vics were Sunnis? Or Shi'a? It's hard to tell which ones are the "good" Muslims, without a program. Is this one of those things where the correct answer depends on what day it is? I get confused.
Nine people, including an elderly Muslim and his son, were killed on Saturday and overnight in separatist-linked violence in Indian-held Kashmir, where the residence of a state lawmaker was also attacked, police said.
Police said a group of suspected militants barged into the house of Mohammed Khursheed, 60, in the village of Kasblari in south-western Poonch district on Saturday morning, shooting dead both him and his son Shamim Ahmed, 30. âThe immediate motive for the killing was not known,â a police spokesman said. No group has claimed responsibility.
The spokesman said Indian troops overnight shot dead three militants who belonged to Hizbul Mujahedin in the Doori Mal forests of another southern district, Rajouri.
In Poonch, a security force soldier was killed in an ambush on Saturday.
In southern Doda district two more militants died and four security personnel were injured in incidents.
Militants in the village of Targali in northern Kupwara district also killed an Indian army soldier in an ambush on Saturday, police said.
Meanwhile, police are searching for militants who are believed to be trying to enter Srinagar to launch suicide attacks on Indiaâs Independence Day, the regionâs police chief said.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
08/10/2003 00:09 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Pakistan has declared Al Rasheed Trust âan organisation suspected of terrorismâ, possibly involved in Al Qaeda operations. Its name has been put on the United Nations Consolidated List under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
Finally got around to it, huh? Guess they've changed the letterhead and all the signs by now.
The notification follows a Sindh High Court verdict holding that the federal government and not the State Bank of Pakistan had the authority to classify the organisation. As a result the bank accounts of the organisation will not be defreezed. According to a notification dated August 7, 2003, the government had reasons to believe that Al Rasheed Trust was involved in terrorism. The Sindh High Court had declared on Monday that the State Bank of Pakistanâs direction to freeze the accounts of the trust with the foreign exchange branch of Habib Bank was unlawful. The court also ordered Habib Bank to honour the cheques drawn on the account and make payments accordingly.
Guess they got overturned. Doesn't hardly even pay to buy a judge anymore.
The trust has the largest relief network in the four provinces of Pakistan, the Northern Areas, Azad Kashmir and Afghanistan. It was established during the Afghan war by Maulana Abdul Rasheed of Karachi. After 9/11, the US had requested Pakistan include it in the list of organisations and individuals suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. Seven Pakistani organisations have already been declared as terrorists.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
08/10/2003 00:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Rashid trust published the newspapers of the Taliban called "Zarb-e-Momin", and was one of the main fronts for the funding of the Taliban and the Pak Jihadi parties.
It's founder was actually a Mufti Rashid Ahmed, who is one of the Deobandi 'elders' that collectively sit in one the Majlis-i-Shoora religous councils of the Jaish-e-Mohammad, Harkut-ul Mujahideen and the JUI, among others. These important Mullahs, Muftis and Maulanas are the people who give religous legitimacy to the Jihadi militias and political parties that identify with the Deobandi sect, and arbitrate disputes between them.
Other elders include Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai, Mufti Jamil Khan, Dr. Abdur Razaq, Dr. Sher Ali Shah and Maulana Yousuf Ludhianvi (before he was assassinated).
This info is from an article on the background of the Jaish-e-Mohammad located here
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
08/10/2003 0:56 Comments ||
Top||
Gunmen on motorcycles opened fire on a van in the southern port city of Karachi early Sunday, killing five people. The attack happened just after midnight in central Karachi, police officer Sayyaz Qureshi said, and the three gunmen all escaped. The motive was unclear.
Maybe they wanted to kill somebody?
Four of the victims died at the scene, and a fifth died about an hour later at a hospital, Qureshi said. He said that two of the victims appeared to be brothers. A witness, Naeem Yaqoob, told The Associated Press he came upon the van shortly after the shooting, and helped pull the bodies out of the vehicle and get the critically wounded man to the hospital.
The author of a book on rebuilding Iraq was arrested at Kennedy International Airport for allegedly smuggling stolen 4,000-year-old Mesopotamian artifacts out of Baghdad, authorities said yesterday. "What? This olâ thang?" Joseph Braude, author of The New Iraq, was released on a $100,000 bail after a preliminary appearance yesterday in federal court. Braude, 28, brought the priceless artifacts into the U. S. on June 11, U.S. Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf said. He was arrested Friday night after arriving at the airport on a flight from London. Braude bought the three cylindrical stone seals, made of marble and alabaster, for $200 US during a visit to Baghdad in June, authorities said. nice deal Braude! with the fines thatâll be $100,200
Braude faces up to five years in prison if convicted of smuggling the artifacts. He did not immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment. A Columbia University professor called in to examine the seals determined they were of the Akkadian period, dating back to 2340-2180 BC. They were apparently swiped from the national museum, authorities said. by a member of the Eliteâ¢!
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/10/2003 3:36:45 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
The Israelis see this kind of stuff all the time, but our guys are probably not accustomed to seeing it. I suspect the AP reporter wasnât actually at the scene, that she is relying only on the word of the dead Iraqisâ family members and local people, who may be either pro-Saddam or too afraid to tell the truth. The family members says US troops took the bodies — I wonder whether any bodies actually exist — is this another ploy to collect American compensation? These questions, and more, always come up whenever I read one these newswire stories, given that theyâre not known for their neutrality or even their basic competence. It remains an open question whether this incident was completely imaginary or simply a terrorist strike gone awry for the perpetrators.
By SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The night air hung like a hot wet blanket over the north Baghdad suburb of Slaykh. At 9 p.m., an electrical transformer blew up, plunging the neighborhood into darkness. American soldiers, apparently fearing a bomb attack, went on alert. Within 45 minutes, six Iraqis trying to get home before the 11 p.m. curfew were shot and killed by U.S. forces. Anwaar Kawaz, 36, lost her husband and three of four children. "We kept shouting, âWeâre a family! Donât shoot!â But no one listened. They kept shooting," she told The Associated Press. When asked about the shootings, Lt. Col. Guy Shields, coalition military spokesman, said, "Our checkpoints are usually marked and our soldiers are trained and disciplined. I will check on that. That is serious." Confronted by daily guerrilla attacks that have claimed 56 American lives since May 1, U.S. troops are on edge. Iraqis complain that many innocent people have died at surprise U.S. checkpoints thrown up on dark streets shortly before the curfew. Drivers hurrying home say they donât see the soldiers or hear their orders to stop. The Kawaz family left the home of Anwaarâs parents on Bilal Habashi Street at 9:15 p.m. for the 10-minute drive home. They had traveled only a half-mile when they reached the intersection where they said the American bullets took their terrible toll. A few yards in front of them, two soldiers standing near two Humvees were shooting at the familyâs white Volkswagen, she said. Two other soldiers near a Humvee to the right of the car also fired, she said.
Oops - Make another batch of that Donk Kool-Aid - theyâll be drinking soon
The British government is soon to present new evidence that Iraq had produced biological weapons, it was reported.
"Nope. Nope. Prob'ly forged. An' they didn't know about it in February, so it doesn't count..."
Intelligence officials were producing another dossier on Iraqi arms, and "there is said to be hard evidence of cover-up programmes designed to conceal weapons of mass destruction", the British magazine "The Economist" said in its latest issue. "We would hope to be able to demonstrate in the fullness of time that almost all the information in the dossier (published by the government last September) was accurate", a government insider told the magazine.
"Nope. Nope. Just another bunch of disinformation. An' Bush ain't really president 'cuz Gore won the popular vote and Clare Short sez Blair's nasty..."
Government sources "say that several new bits of information will emerge including evidence based on interviews with Iraqi scientists that biological weapons had been produced in quantity", the Economist said.
"Nope. Nope. Anything less than... ummm... 20,000 doesn't qualify as 'quantity.' More lies..."
Britain was the staunchest ally of the United States in the war against Saddam Husseinâs regime launched in March. Both countries used Baghdadâs refusal to give up its alleged weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for military action.
"But it wuz lies, all lies! We know better!"
No such weapons have yet been found, while a September 2002 dossier on Iraq published by Britain has prompted hotly disputed claims that the government beefed up intelligence reports to justify war. Taking the offensive, Tony? When the Beeb runs a similar story, you can count on it that theyâve got the goods
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/10/2003 1:59:04 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Bush should announce this using a 16-word release ;-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/10/2003 13:59 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Frank G - 16 - kinda werdy, doncha think? Lessee... Fuck off? No, too short. Kiss my hairy ass? Naw, still too short. How about "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on you gutless back-stabbing multilateralist Phroggie-lovin' wannabee Nancy-boys!" Something like that, mebbe?
#3
I was referring to the "uranium from Niger" 16 word hoopla, but throwing the intel package on the Joint House-Senate session floor during the State of the Union and saying "OK? Happy? Now STFU!" would be satisfactorily satisying as well heh heh
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/10/2003 19:56 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Frank G - So was I (re: infamous 16 werdz) - I thought this would be OK for the Sept press conference - and directed TO the press. Anyone else who wanted to be offended badly enough, well, they would be welcome to do so, of course... "Obscenity? Who really cares? Propaganda - all is phony." ;->
#5
So the British are claiming there were WMD's and scientists are cooperating--then where the Hell are they? Look under Assad's bed! There is no way they are still in Iraq--i'd bet on the Port of Newark Syria or Iran
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
08/10/2003 23:34 Comments ||
Top||
Named provincial governor of Iraq's Wassit province, Lt. Col. David Couvillon of Baton Rouge is using a personal approach and a genuine fondness for the locals to forge ties with the people he is trying to help. As the Marine humvees cruised through the city grids at midday, children braved the scalding heat to run alongside, shouting, "Hello, mister!"
"Hi, y'little brats!"
"Asalam aleykam," responded the commander riding shotgun. The Iraqis seemed a bit nonplussed by the greeting, although the traditional "Peace be with you" expression is employed by many Marines. "That's because of my accent," Lt. Col. David Couvillon said. "I speak Arabic like a Cajun."
Used to know a fellow who spoke Vietnamese with a North Carolina accent. It was pretty horrible...
In truth, the 47-year-old reservist isn't fluent in Arabic. But the Brusly native has picked up a phrase or two after a summer in the Iraqi desert with the mercury holding strong at the 130-degree mark. What's more, a passing familiarity with the tongue is required of anybody in Couvillon's rarely held but powerful post: provisional military governor. Couvillon arrived in Kuwait in April a bit uncertain about his duties beyond those of heading the 3rd Battalion, 23rd Marine Regiment. It was only after landing that he learned he would essentially be a real-life Lord Jim in Wassit province, an area about the size of New Jersey running southeast of Baghdad and to the border with Iran. That means he's responsible for not only some 1,000 leathernecks, many of them from Louisiana, but the daily needs of more than 1 million Iraqis. He is one of five U.S. military governors in southern Iraq. "When they told me I was governor, I was like, 'What does that mean?' and they said, 'Anything that happens, it's up to you,'" he said.
Posted by: Matt ||
08/10/2003 11:56:36 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Kingfish Couvillon?
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/10/2003 14:12 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The Coot Ass from Al Kut.
Posted by: Gator Boy ||
08/10/2003 14:19 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Yeah, somebody told him that Baathists were in season, and the bag limit was two.
Posted by: Matt ||
08/10/2003 14:29 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Having grown up just a few miles north of Alexandria, Louisiana, and living and going to school with Cajuns, don't underestimate 'em! Any group that sends its young people out 'gator hunting with a two-by-four and a piece of rope shouldn't be messed with, except by experts. Unfortunately, there are darned few of them, as ex-Governor Edwards found out! BTW, the rumor is, he'll be out on parole in another year or two...
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/10/2003 19:38 Comments ||
Top||
#5
OP - is he laying odds on that? :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/10/2003 19:57 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I wonder if the colonel has read Lawrence. Hope he does one day, if not. Sounds like he's making a difference. And thus making history. Stories like this need to make the big networks news shows.
I was an acting director for a school for handicapped in Morocco run by UK NGO; was in Peace Corps at the time and after 2 months of only speaking Arabic, when I went back to my regular site afterward, everyone remarked on the improvement of my Arabic. Although my experience doesn't compare to the colonel, I'm sure he and I could compare notes. I understand why he'd miss being governor.
Posted by: michael ||
08/10/2003 20:33 Comments ||
Top||
#7
BTW, the rumor is, he'll be out on parole in another year or two.
They should let him out early for all the entertainment value he's provided over the years.
Via Drudge
Former international weapons inspector David Kay, now seeking Iraqi weapons of mass destruction for the Pentagon, has privately reported successes that are planned to be revealed to the public in mid-September. Kay has told his superiors he has found substantial evidence of biological weapons in Iraq, plus considerable missile development. He has been less successful in locating chemical weapons, and has not yet begun a substantial effort to locate progress toward nuclear arms. Senior officials in the Bush administration believe Kayâs weapons discoveries should have been revealed as they were made. However, a decision, approved by President Bush, was made to wait until more was discovered and then announce it — probably in September. Sounds likely, since Bob Novak has never wanted us to be in Iraq. This is grudging admission for him
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/10/2003 11:06:48 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Novak sees his opposition as the measure of a true conservative. Regime change is nation-building. He never bought the argument that any weapon Saddam might have had was an imminent threat to the U.S.
He believes he is being consistent with the ideology of the original conservative, and I agree with that description. Hard to argue that this intervention doesn't fly in the face of the Republican opposition to nation-building that Bush hit Gore with so effectively in the past campaign.
Justifying this war against Iraq has stretched the conservative ideology to encompass the more extreme support from the nuke em' and scrape em' off wing. It's a long way back from shock and awe to noble ideals like a democratic and free Iraq that Bush claims to want.
Wonder if the Novak conservatives will stay on board for the rehabilitation of the Iraqi people who they so despise and would rather exterminate.
I personally have no interest in rehabilitating any government there. Maybe some restitution for collateral damage. I'm even weak in supporting that. Pull out and bring our soldiers home. No Arab there will ever represent or serve any worthwhile interest for the U.S..
Shite, Sunni, Pashtoon, or whatever caste or clan that digs itself out of the ruins.
I wonder how much of the policy there is driven by fringe interests or other countries allied in this.
What's in it for Russia. Are we waiting for them to pony up the 88 billion owed to Iraq for oil contracts?
Does calling the Iraqi attackers Al-Qaida make any more sense of our involvement there?
#2
Gong! True conservative?? Bob also supports the Arabs in any issue or conflict with the Jews. I agree with many of his ideas, but disagree with him on Iraq, Israel, and a few other issues. Does that make him a "better" conservative? Nope. In my mind that makes him wrong on a few issues. Iraq is a done deal now, an insertion of the camel's nose of Democracy (yeah, I know, long term...) in the region and a base to whack Iran and Syria. At a loss of less than we lost in some VN (oooooh Quagmire!) battles, we have effective control of a country that was a vicious, psychotic enemy - I call that a good move. By the way, "neocon", "true con" etc. are cute labels....Chris Matthews is making a sinking career outta them
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/10/2003 12:44 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Regime change/nation build doesn't matter if Saddam were allowed to go on his merry way, we'd be dead.
As to imminent, whose definition? And against American interests where? You assume here and now. Our enemy does not think that way.
Besides, was Iraq complicit on Oklahoma City? And maybe WTC 1?
Colonel Tong Viet Duong - the 80-year-old veteran of Vietnam's long independence struggle - now lives in a very different Vietnam from the one he fought for.
"It's difficult to avoid having very rich people in Vietnam today," Mr Tong said.
"But the main target of our Communist Party now is to create prosperity, a strong nation and an equal society - so sooner or later I hope the people will be equal," he said.
#6
What a fantasy to believe that we can create a muslim democracy.
About as much of a fantasy as the idea that we could build a German or a Japanese democracy, both of which were dictatorships when we got there.
By the way, Vietnam is still Communist. The only influence we have there is a stake in the buisness and oil dealing.
Vietnam is communist because we pulled out at the insistence of the liberals in 1973. We could have provided air support to South Vietnam in 1975 when North Vietnam launched its Soviet- and Chinese-financed artillery, tank and Mig assault on South Vietnam. The Vietnamese are still paying back the debt from all loans they took out for North Vietnam's massive conventional thrust even today. That's the problem with the liberals - losing China wasn't enough for them - Vietnam was just another notch in their campaign to help America's enemies and hurt America's friends.
#7
Ideology has to match reality. I am opposed to foriegn intervention too, but in this case I believe that we have begun "draining the swamp". Unfortunately, it will cost US lives. Lives which to me are worth far more than European, Arab, Asian, etc.......lives. This is a chance to change to political dynamic in an entire troubled region. Flame away, but I'll put my conservativism against any others.
#8
It would indeed be nice if we could retreat back to Fortress America, but our enemies won't allow it. I too do not support nation-building except when it benefits our national interests. One big reason why I do not support intervention in Liberia (it's only to placate liberal guilt and NAACP carping). I consider myself a libertarian conservative, but as big a hawk as they come on defense. Does that make me less than a "true conservative"? Do I care? nope and nope
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/10/2003 14:38 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I am opposed to foriegn intervention too, but in this case I believe that we have begun "draining the swamp".
Same here. The ability to just avert our eyes went away with the invention of A-bomb, the long range bomber, ballistic and cruise missiles. Even without the sophisticated delivery mechanisms, an enemy could conceivably smuggle the parts of a bunch of A-bombs into the country and then re-assemble the bombs in-country.
#10
He never bought the argument that any weapon Saddam might have had was an imminent threat to the U.S.
That's good, because no one made that argument. It's a strawman put together by know-nothings and lunatic isolationists.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/10/2003 15:49 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Go to any "browse" page on Rantburg, or to the Archives. Pick 3/21/03. Just start reading, going back a day at a time. It'll refresh your memory.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/10/2003 16:08 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Fred, if you're responding to me, let me point to the State of the Union address. Bush specifically said Iraq was not an imminent threat. I have never heard anyone in the administration contradict that -- if you have, let me know.
The point wasn't that Iraq could attack us at any moment, but that Saddam was working on that ability, and his associations with terrorism made it likely he would use his weapons and contacts to attack us in a way we wouldn't be able to predict. Heck, some say that already happened.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/10/2003 16:42 Comments ||
Top||
#13
About as much of a fantasy as the idea that we could build a German or a Japanese democracy, both of which were dictatorships when we got there.
So, we built the German and Japanese democracies. They are still primarily socialist. Did we encourage that also?
Vietnam is communist because we pulled out at the insistence of the liberals in 1973. We could have provided air support to South Vietnam in 1975 when North Vietnam launched its Soviet- and Chinese-financed artillery, tank and Mig assault on South Vietnam. The Vietnamese are still paying back the debt from all loans they took out for North Vietnam's massive conventional thrust even today.
Vietnam is still communist because socialism is still popular there. Don't ask me why. But the notion that one can install a democracy is fantasy doublespeak.
...losing China wasn't enough for them - Vietnam was just another notch in their campaign to help America's enemies and hurt America's friends.
I may have missed something, but I thought Vietnam was about checking the Soviet influence in the region. Now the Russians and Puti Put (Putin) are favored U.S. house guests(count the silverware before they leave). No liberal president ever ever kissed commie butt like our current prez.
#14
The point wasn't that Iraq could attack us at any moment, but that Saddam was working on that ability, and his associations with terrorism made it likely he would use his weapons and contacts to attack us in a way we wouldn't be able to predict. Heck, some say that already happened.
If it's proliferation that you're talking about, some say that if the weapons were there and were moved, then it was the invasion that caused them to be dispersed, possibly to Al-Qaida.
How can it be ignored that most of Saddam's arsenal was destroyed after the last war, through UN inspections, not by occupying forces. We may have been successful at regime change, but as for any WMD's, we may have made their discovery impossible.
Although, I admit, It's still hard for me to believe Saddam had anything that directly threatened the U.S. that he wouldn't use at the first opportunity.
Not one chemical or biological attack against our forces. I wonder why. . .
#15
So, we built the German and Japanese democracies. They are still primarily socialist. Did we encourage that also?
I never said we were responsible for everything that's happened in those countries since the war - just democracy. What preceded democracy was dictatorship. Was it apparent that we could build democracy in Japan and Germany in 1945? No. But it happened because of American tutelage. And get your facts straight - neither Germany nor Japan are socialist states - Germany is a social welfare state, while Japan has even less of a social welfare structure than the US.
Vietnam is still communist because socialism is still popular there. Don't ask me why.
First, you are confusing totalitarian communism with the social welfare states in Europe. Second, Vietnam is a communist country because liberals abandoned it in 1975. Third, it continues to be a communist country because the totalitarian leadership suppresses dissent with long jail sentences and executions.
But the notion that one can install a democracy is fantasy doublespeak.
Like I said, we replaced dictatorship with democracy in Japan and Germany. If you believe that Japan and Germany were democratically-inclined before we occupied them, you might want to back up your assertion with facts. Simple assertions are not good enough.
I may have missed something, but I thought Vietnam was about checking the Soviet influence in the region.
And at liberal insistence, we really fell down on the job. In one fell swoop, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia fell to the Reds. American credibility was not restored until the Reagan administration, when we administered to the Russians in Afghanistan a small dose of what they did to us in Korea and Vietnam. (And unlike the Soviets, who provided billions in arms to the Koreans, the Chinese and the Vietnamese as loans in order to gain a hold over them, we provided weaponry to the Afghan mujahideen as an outright grant).
Now the Russians and Puti Put (Putin) are favored U.S. house guests(count the silverware before they leave). No liberal president ever ever kissed commie butt like our current prez.
Actually, Clinton, just like Carter, appeased the Russians, in both word and deed, by promising a nuclear test ban and agreeing to all kinds of arms control pacts. In public, Bush is saying all kinds of good things about Russia. In private, Bush is constraining Russian ambitions at every opportunity by: (1) attacking Iraq, a traditional Russian ally, (2) repudiating various arms control pacts with the Russians, (3) pretending to sign new arms control pacts that are easily repudiated at a moment's notice, (4) setting up American bases all over what Russia considers its sphere of influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia, (5) making Afghanistan a major American base to counter Russian imperial ambitions.
One thing I've learned from everything Bush has done in the face of almost impossible odds is that Bush is much much more canny than anyone understands. He recasts the terms of the discussion by setting the goals deep in the opposition's territory. Then he wins his original unstated target by compromising at a point that his opponents started out being unwilling to concede. This is why they hate him - he is brutally effective and they can slow him down, but they can't stop him.
#16
Probably because he knew we would still win, and still be justified. If Sadaam has used the weapons, the entire world would have done a 180 and gone against him.
Sadaam knew he never had a chance, so he did the next best thing. Hurt our reputation by hiding and destroying the WMD's. And now, he's like Al-Queda did in Afghanistan. He's hoping that we will bend under pressure from everyone and leave, then he retakes control.
I'm grateful that Bush has the character to stand up to all the pressure.
Posted by: Charles ||
08/10/2003 19:52 Comments ||
Top||
#17
HA! Zhang beat me to it and slaughtered my response!
Posted by: Charles ||
08/10/2003 19:53 Comments ||
Top||
#18
It's still hard for me to believe Saddam had anything that directly threatened the U.S. that he wouldn't use at the first opportunity.
Not one chemical or biological attack against our forces. I wonder why.
It's more and more likely that he may never have had them, and his subordinates were lying to him. Lying about production figures in totalitarian states is not unprecedented - the 20 million dead during China's Great Leap Forward mass campaign was triggered by lying about production figures by lower level cadres - the alternative was to be accused of counter-revolutionary sabotage and shot. Soviet apparatchiks routinely lied about production figures - the result was that the CIA projected that the Russian economy was much more robust than it actually turned out to be - the economic and political collapse of the Soviet Union came as a complete surprise to the Agency.
Saddam was known for not tolerating failure - the penalty was typically summary execution. This held even for suggestions that displeased him. In one notorious instance, one of his cabinet members suggested peace overtures, as coalition forces were massing for Desert Storm. He took the guy aside to the next room. A pistol shot rang out. If that's the penalty for saying something out of turn, it's hard to imagine what he would do to someone who did not attain WMD production targets because of lack of funding, corruption, et al.
Why were our intelligence agencies unable to see through these lies? For the same reason that the CIA never saw through the lies propagated by layers upon layers of Soviet cadres - we assume what they say to each other* on a routine basis is true. His WMD program may turn out to be a hollow shell, like the Soviet Union's economy. But knowing we did before we went in, not going after Saddam would have been a big mistake.
What we did was comparable to a cop taking down a known criminal who pulls out a realistic-looking toy gun while being frisked on the street. Saddam could have opened up Iraq to rigorous arms inspections, and avoided all this, but he did not. He made his choices and must now live with them.
But all of this carping over WMD is irrelevant. Whether or not Saddam had WMD, the fact is that the conquest of Iraq will intimidate all of the Muslim countries that have sponsored not-for-attribution terrorist attacks against us. The caterwauling from various Muslim countries is a good thing. It's a sign that they now see this new American assertiveness as a threat to their ability to continue sucker punching us through the indirect route of sponsoring Muslim terrorist groups against us. The more they fear discovery and retaliation, the less they will be inclined to play these murderous games and the more secure Americans at home will be.
* Which we get from a variety of independent sources.
#19
we assume what they say to each other* on a routine basis is true.
And this is key - in Saddam's Iraq, the spies were everywhere - brother betrayed brother, father betrayed son, and son betrayed father. Someone in charge of WMD could not say one thing to Saddam and say another to his family members - he never knew who he could trust. Even the lies were internally consistent.
I hope you are right. I hope our enemies are smart enough to be intimidated. I saw a report today that claimed that special forces actually persuaded some of the Iraqi regulars to stand down by giving them warning of the coming attack. No doubt they saved many lives. You can always count on Special Forces.
#21
Discussion seems to have veered from Novak. IMHO, the guy's not worth following. I had heard him spout gibberish about Iraq and WOT, and I didn't agree with him, so I discarded paying attention to him EXCEPT for domestic politics. Then he went and pissed me off when he predicted that the Lott-Thurmond birthday affair would blow over and Lott would remain as Maj. Leader. So, what good is he now. I hope his story is true, but I'll hold my applause when I see Kay's report.
Two, saw Lieberman on TV, and he's acting disingenous on Iraq. He even said that Bush didn't need to overstate the case of going to war. For Joe, there was already enough evidence in '98 (Protects his ass, see? to say that) Therefore, Bush didn't need to exaggerate evidence about WMD by inserting the "16 Words"TM. But Russert/or was it ABC? made it an eeasy interview on Joe, and we never heard what Joe would do as president with the situation in Iraq. BTW, this should become a standard question to all the Dem candidates. Separate the men from the boys. I think Joe has decided the one clear way to set himself apart from the others is his approval of war; might strike a cord in some working Dems who are naturally patriotic in a more mainstream Republican way than Democratic way.
Posted by: michael ||
08/10/2003 20:51 Comments ||
Top||
#22
fullwood: Good stuff Zhang Fei.
I'm glad some of this stuff is getting through. Let me reiterate this - Bush is not a dove on Russia. From what I can understand, everything Bush knows about foreign policy, he learned from Condi Rice. Rice was a Russian specialist at Stanford before she joined the administration. I've read quite a few of her academic papers and I can tell you, from what I seen, that she's very hawkish on Russia (unlike Strobe Talbott, the dove who was Clinton's advisor on Russia).
#23
Rice was a Russian specialist at Stanford before she joined the administration. I've read quite a few of her academic papers and I can tell you, from what I seen, that she's very hawkish on Russia
She was a hawk before she became emeshed in this administration's foreign policy muddle. She was twisting the Russians into signing a new ABM treaty so the Pentagon could proceed with missle defense (a Lockheed boondogale).
#24
And unlike the Soviets, who provided billions in arms to the Koreans, the Chinese and the Vietnamese as loans in order to gain a hold over them, we provided weaponry to the Afghan mujahideen as an outright grant
Stinger missiles for Bin Laden and his gang. Not a good thing.
#25
But she also makes statements like this which make me wonder what her game is: ...we're trying to manage Russia from a declining Communist superpower to hopefully a market-oriented, democratically-oriented basis that would be a useful partner in international policy. Fantasy or just wishful thinking?
You're obviously not cut out to be a diplomat. What do you expect her to say - that Russia is falling apart, and we encourage the Russian republics to secede from the Russian empire? It's eyewash - watch we do, not what we say.
She was twisting the Russians into signing a new ABM treaty so the Pentagon could proceed with missle defense (a Lockheed boondogale).
Don't see how that's a problem. The allegation here seems to be that she's pro-ABM in order to get kickbacks from the defense industry. Well - you can also blanketly say that people who are for social programs are looking for kickbacks from private contractors. Which is easier to justify? Which is bigger? Which wins more votes? Social programs every time. There are much easier ways to get kickbacks.
But ABM can stand on its own - it takes up about $11b of our $85b annual procurement budget. Taken over 10 years, that's $110b. The toppling of the World Trade Center complex alone cost us almost $100b in damage and lost economic output. Saving an entire city from destruction would probably save us hundreds of billions of dollars. (Saving NYC from destruction would save us a trillion dollars, easy). And that's just the property damage. If I put the price of 1 life at a paltry $500,000, saving 1 million lives is worth at least $500b, isn't it? And yet we'll be spending just north of $100b over 10 years.
Now, it's true that ABM systems won't save us from a terrorist nuke assembled in-country. But neither will our Air Force, Army, Navy or Marines. That's why we have border controls and a Customs service, to make sure they don't get in.
The reason an ABM system is needed is for the same reason that we don't just buy fire insurance for our homes, we also get flood insurance, break-in insurance and liability insurance. Together, they protect us from all the different dangers that our homes may encounter. In fact, an ABM system is even even more important than our conventional forces. If our conventional forces fail, all that happens is that we either withdraw from our bases or at worst, suffer invasion from abroad. If we have no ABM system in place when some lunatic launches nukes against us, hundreds of millions will die. Fundamentally, ABM is about saving lives.
#26
Fullwood, I think Rice's statement was one meant for public consumption.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/10/2003 23:19 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Stinger missiles for Bin Laden and his gang. Not a good thing.
The enemy of your enemy is your...? Bin Laden wasn't on the radar screen at the time. And you've got remember that Reagan had an ecumenical view of religion - back then it seemed as if Muslims and Christans should get along just fine - like Mormonism, Islam is basically just another Christian sect, albeit a little strange in its liturgical requirements. The followers got a little excitable at times, but hadn't really engaged in large scale atrocities against American civilians. We're looking at bin Laden in the rear view mirror, but if you look at him the way he was then, he was just another devout Muslim trying to recover Muslim land from Russian invaders. We figured he was content with recovering Afghanistan from the Russians, not understanding that he was a pathological killer with murderous instincts against all non-Muslims and dreams of empire. But it wasn't only bin Laden who fought the Russians - what is now the Northern Alliance also fought them, as well as other Afghans who did not join his group after the Russians left, and we financed them all.
Besides, all of our funding was routed through Pakistan, which was our only conduit to the mujahideen. Unfortunately for us, the Pakistanis favored the most religiously fanatical of the mujahideen, and that meant Gulbuddin Hektamayar and Osama bin Laden, among others. If blame attaches to anyone for funding bin Laden, I would say that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are the principal culprits. But neither could have known what he was really like at the time they funded him. There is literally no terrorist quite like bin Laden - no one has ever tried to kill tens of thousands of civilians in one go in a time of peace.
#28
The allegation here seems to be that she's pro-ABM in order to get kickbacks from the defense industry
Rice and her assistant Stephen Hadley were hired by Rumsfeld Commission Rummy to give support to his findings on the subject in 1991. Others, it appears, were brought aboard for this purpose
One of these is undersecretary of the Air Force Peter Teets; chief procurement officer for all of military space, controlling a budget in excess of $65 billion, a figure that includes $8 billion a year for missile defense and $7 billion annually for NRO spying. Teets, is the former president and chief operating officer of Lockheed Martin who retired from the company in late 1999.
To date, it is believed that the NRO has provided slightly more than $500 million each to Lockheed Martin and Boeing.
Teets is a firm believer in the conclusions of the Rumsfeld Commission's January 2001 report on the military in space, which warns of a "space Pearl Harbor" if the U.S. does not thoroughly dominate all aspects of space.
In addition, key lobbyists for Lockheed-Martin, Bruce Jackson, vice president of corporate strategy and development at Lockheed Martin and our intrepid flunky bungler, Stephen Hadley, played central roles in developing space policy for the U.S. http://portal.lobbyliberal.it/article/articleprint/271
"I wrote the Republican Party's foreign policy platform," declared Jackson. His corporation has given over $391,000 to the Republican Party since 1998. Lockheed Martin vice- president Bruce Jackson, who served as chairman of the US Committee to Expand NATO along with Stephen Hadley, was overheard by one of the authors at an industry gathering bragging about how the industry's troubles will be over if GWBush was elected. http://www.webnetarts.com/socialjustice/laertes.html
âSpace is going to be important. It has a great feature in the military,â Stephen Hadley, introduced as âan advisor to Governor George W. Bush,â told the Air Force Association Convention in a speech September 11 in Washington. Hadley worked in the past for a law firm that represented Lockheed.
For it (MD) or not, the fix is in. Watch the lobbying push in the next few months, especially if events settle in Iraq.
Didn't Lockheed miss the first two targets and fake the third successful firing by heating the target? Or was that Northrup Grumman?
Limited missle defense makes sense, if it works.(Patriot is amazing) Contractor crap from defense industries should be prosecuted as treason.
#29
I don't understand the point of the statements you quoted. The numbers appear to be large to someone who has no idea how big the federal budget is, but are infinitesimal compared to social programs that involve a lot of purchases from private contractors. For example, do you know we just added $40b a year to federal expenditures on prescription drugs?
Defense contractors also don't make a lot of money, so all this talk of treason is just ridiculous. Whatever these guys say has to be put in context - conservative lobbyists, like liberal lobbyists, know more about particular subjects than the staffers of the congressmen involved, who tend to be generalists. When a liberal president gets into power, liberal lobbies will write the bills, typically to lower defense expenditures and increase social expenditures.
Jackson is bragging about winning out over the other defense contractors, not about convincing the administration about the importance of the subject - that was already decided before he was chosen. The problem with a lot liberal think tanks is that they imply that defense expenditures are motivated by profiteering, probably because they can't imagine anyone being interested in fighting the nation's enemies. In their view, we have no enemies, or if we have them, we brought it upon ourselves. The prosaic truth, however, is that a lot of the people in defense are there because they're interested in armaments and want to find new ways to defend the country. These think tanks can insinuate all they want, but I can also insinuate that they are doing this on behalf of foreign powers, since it would be in their interest to weaken the US.
#30
For it (MD) or not, the fix is in. Watch the lobbying push in the next few months, especially if events settle in Iraq.
What fix? That makes no sense - how about if I start saying that the fix is in on civilian contracts? The guy makes a case about the importance of a subject, convinces the administration, and you say the fix is in? What are you talking about? All politicians meet privately with officials from various industries to get soundings on topics of interest to them. They're not all committee hearings because each politician may have a different interest and hearings can't possibly cover every topic of interest to every politician. What stands out here is a lack of knowledge about how the business of government is carried out.
Didn't Lockheed miss the first two targets and fake the third successful firing by heating the target? Or was that Northrup Grumman?
All tests are like this. You never get a hit on the first, second or even third try. For the Apollo space program, although our target was a man on the moon, it took us many years before we were able to achieve that. Orville and Wilbur Wright tried for ages before they were able to get their plane off the ground.
Limited missle defense makes sense, if it works.(Patriot is amazing)
Limited missile defense is useful only for defending our troops. National missile defense is ultimately going to be necessary if we are to lift the sword hanging over the heads of our people. Bin Laden gave us a taste of what a fanatic can do with just a few commercial airplanes. He is a non-entity because he has no organic resource base and no real strategic assets.
If a murderous personality like him becomes the leader of China or Russia, we are in big trouble. This is the unspoken reason that we have to persevere with National Missile Defense - the survival of the American people must not rest on the decisions of foreign leaders who may or may not be well-disposed towards us.
In an apparent softening of Germanyâs stance on Iraq, the defense minister said he could see a role for NATO in the country and did not exclude the possibility of German troops participating, according to remarks released Saturday. Schroeder must really want that invitation to the ranch.
The remarks, to be published in Sundayâs Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, come after President Bush on Friday praised Germanyâs efforts at the head of peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan, thanking Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder for providing support that was "more robust than we would have anticipated." Schroeder was among the most vocal opponents of the U.S.-led war on Iraq, a stance that cooled relations between the two countries. In the newspaper remarks, Defense Minister Peter Struck said he could see a possible role for NATO and Germany as peacekeepers. He still emphasized Schroederâs previous assertion that Germany would only consider sending troops to Iraq if there were both a U.N. mandate and a request from the United Nations or the interim Iraqi government. "If U.N. resolutions are present and NATO is asked to take over a larger responsibility," then Germany would not have "a reason to contradict the commitment of the alliance to Iraq," Struck told the newspaper. No real movement yet, but theyâre at least talking about it. Good.
He did not exclude the deployment of German troops, adding that if "NATO resolutions are present, it could mean that we are asked" to send peacekeepers and it would then be up to "the government to give an answer."
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/10/2003 8:54:29 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He still emphasized Schroederâs previous assertion that Germany would only consider sending troops to Iraq if there were both a U.N. mandate and a request from the United Nations or the interim Iraqi government.
They've been talking about this since day one. There's no change in the German position - they're just restating it. A UN mandate means the UN takes over the administration of Iraq. I don't think so.
#2
Zhang Fei, the German papers do not say that. They say if the U.N. ask NATO to assume a bigger role in Iraq, Germany doesn't exclude taking part in that NATO role and that includes sending troops. Nowhere can I read a demand for UN administration of Iraq.
They key to it is U.N. "legitimizing" NATO action. I do see this as a rather important shift of opinion. That does sound different to Schroeder's "no troops under any circumstances" a year ago.
Call it German pragmatism: "We toldya so" won't help much. Even leftist German politicians seem to wake up to the fact that Iraq MUST NOT FAIL... for our own good.
You might notice the deafening French silence...
Steve, it doesn't have to be Crawford, the White House would do. Bush and Schroeder won't become friends but they need to get it going. And both seem to realize that. America cannot wait for a new chancellor, and Germany not for a new president.
#3
America cannot wait for a new chancellor, and Germany not for a new president.
why not? life will go on, and a tigers' stripes don't change. I see no reason to forget. Forgive? Sure, but that implies a request for forgiveness, and I'm sure Fischer feels absolutely no need for that. NATO is effectively a dead alliance with the French, Belgians French Poodles, and Fischer in place.
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/10/2003 11:52 Comments ||
Top||
#4
TGA Isn't Fischer a compromise candidate for the position? Can Schroeder get rid of him? And would he to mollify the US?
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
08/10/2003 22:56 Comments ||
Top||
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - British forces in the southern city of Basra patrolled gas stations Sunday after clashes with people angry about increased fuel prices and power outages. About 1,000 angry residents burned tires and hurled rocks and bricks at British soldiers on Saturday, complaining of frequent power cuts and black-market fuel prices, British military spokesman Capt. Hisham Halawi said. Sounds like Detroit on a Sunday afternoon.
He said that the power outages were the work of saboteurs, thieves who have taken down cables to sell the copper inside, and temperatures of more than 120 degrees Fahrenheit. There were long lines at gas stations, and ``tempers flared up,ââ Halawi said. British troops were deployed at major gasoline stations ``to ensure people get fuel at right price, not black-market price,ââ he said. Makes you wonder how Iraq is going to fare when the US/UK does pull out -- people there canât even wait in line without fighting amongst themselves.
Halawi said coalition forces were investigating reports that Saddam Hussein loyalists and members of his Baath party might have taken advantage of the situation to instigate the riots. No, you think?
He said that British soldiers suffered minor bruises in the melee. Iâll bet the protesters got the worst of it.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/10/2003 8:33:28 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"temperatures of more than 120 degrees Fahrenheit"
They're sitting in their cars running the AC to escape the heat.
"thieves who have taken down cables to sell the copper inside"
It wasn't nailed down, so it was fair game. Pyramids, hospitals, power lines - everything except Mosques are fair game - to Arabs. And the local Mullahs never leave the Mosques unattended.
#2
He said that the power outages were the work of saboteurs, thieves who have taken down cables to sell the copper inside
This is no surprise - the Brits are releasing the people who commit petty crimes almost immediately. The lax style of British criminal justice is one export that's not doing well in Iraq. So much for the touchy-feely style of occupation. Seems to me what they need to do is to demolish Saddam's prisons and build temporary new ones to hold all the miscreants who are causing all this trouble. Clearly not everyone's a criminal, or the place would be stripped bare. But they do need to crack down on the people who are criminals, and that's not happening, from all accounts.
#3
ZF - a tiny point: "Clearly not everyone's a criminal, or the place would be stripped bare."
It was stripped bare - I saw it on the BBC - so it must be true, right? Did they take everything they could get their hands on? Yep. Did everyone partcipate? Everyone that was physically able. Was there any reason not to? Nope. I saw innumerable BBC / CNN / SkyTV / MSNBC reports while in Saudi (don't know for certain what you were seeing) that were designed to convey lawlessness. Street interviews and lots of film of everything imaginable being carted down the streets, including kitchen sinks - the whole nine yards. Immediately after the fall of each city, the Beeb was there pushing it for all it was worth. Gotta be true, man. They had film and interviews with regular Iraqis and everything! They were amazingly consistent, in fact, in their stories. You don't think the interviewees were screened for those with this story - or who guessed what the Beeb reporter wanted to hear and gave it to him, do ya? You mean old cynic you! ;->
... Last month, townspeople say, [in DHULUAIYAH, Iraq] tribal leaders gave a farmer named Salim Khaldoun a sobering choice: Kill your son, or watch your entire family be killed. His son Sabah, 29, had committed a terrible crime. Eager for money, he had tipped off the Americans to a house where he said Saddam Hussein had stayed. U.S. soldiers raided the house, finding no trace of Saddam but killing a 12-year-old boy. Sabah, neighbours say, accompanied the soldiers on the raid. His face was covered with a sack, but locals recognized him easily. "Sabah also gave information about former intelligence and military officers," neighbour Ahmed Ibrahim confided. "He did it for money." Dhuluaiyah is a one-street town 85 km northwest of Baghdad in the "Sunni Triangle" where U.S. forces have met the fiercest resistance. A month after Sabah Salimâs death, few people are willing to discuss how he died. "I donât know how he was killed, but he deserved it because he was a traitor," Ibrahim said. The head of the townâs tribal council, Sheikh Hussein Ali Saleh, refused to discuss it and described the incident as "mere family business."
Police Maj. Mehdi Saleh said nobody had asked for an investigation or even a death certificate. He said no probe was being conducted because it "could be sensitive in the community." Outside, a police captain jumped inside a reporterâs car to give a fuller story. The tribal council, he said, went to Salim Khaldoun with a message: "Kill your son, or the whole family will be wiped out." The next day, Sabah was found dead in his familyâs farm, the officer said. The father hasnât been seen since. A relative confirmed that Salim Khaldoun had killed his son.
Posted by: Raphael ||
08/10/2003 7:48:08 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is ridiculous. We've got to get a witness protection program going for people who give over a certain number of useful tips. If the locals see that the reward for helping our guys is an early death, no one's going to cooperate. This is the time to be dangling green cards and relocation assistance in front of these guys. Set up a quota of 10,000 visas, and watch the tips roll in.
It's pretty obvious that the Sunni Triangle is going to need a LOT of attention in the next couple of years. I pity the father, Salim, since he committed no "crime" yet he was coerced into killing his own son and then fleeing - or hiding, which I'd guess is closer to the truth.
Ibrahim ("I donât know how he was killed, but he deserved it because he was a traitor.") and the head of the Town Council ("mere family business") are probably fairly representative - and they demonstrate a mindset that has persisted for centuries.
What do you do with a situation like this? Do you try to enforce your own code - rule of law as you know it? This is an obvious form of vigilante justice, pure and simple, and we had it for a short period on America's Western frontier. The "West" as depicted in movies and novels lasted only about 20-30 years. Settlers demanded better and got it, eventually. Is there a really a parallel here? Does it matter?
My 2 cents: I'd guess that Iraq will get a much newer code of laws - and enforcement will have to be so strict that the Sunnis come to think of the new Govt in the same way as they did Saddam - uncompromising and imminently dangerous to the scofflaws. They will accept the code - anyone can adjust - if the consequences are unacceptable... even better if they begin to see benefits. But this is where the pro's need to be stationed. Here's where the professional MP / SP units should begin - with some very serious backup and no hesitation to use it.
#3
It's pretty obvious that anyone assaulting our troops needs to be put down like a rabid dog, and publicly so. Ten thousand of these idiots aren't worth one of our soldiers. I would clamp down harshly as well on the demonstrations, burning Iraqi police stations, and witness protection is on the mark. We need to quit saying that we have to accept and "work with" their primitive societal values, honor killings and theivery, all the while being restrained from cracking appropriate heads - that's one of their values too. Screw it - do as the British did and impose our western laws/values system - they'll thank us later
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/10/2003 12:00 Comments ||
Top||
#4
ZF - I agree with Frank on your idea - Witness Protection strikes me as a Great idea for this situation. Just getting them out is all we have to do as there won't be any Iraqi hit squads roaming the US looking for them anytime soon - no one is organized to pay for that service -- yet, anyway. Never put it past the Saudis, however.
Frank G - I agree with your view regards troops - that has to be dealt with as hard and as fast as possible - this is anarchy vs order. Crush resistence to the troops - as viciously and relentlessly as Saddam, if you want it to ever stop.
BBC was crowing all day yesterday (I couldn't stomach watching today) about the US adopting a new "softer" approach and that the sweep operations were over. If true - and it will take more than one of the pro-idiot services to convince me - it's a monumental mistake. Arabs see this as weakness, period, full stop. That will lead to far more deaths of the troops than harsh suppression of Ba'athist or jihadi support.
Now as for them thanking us later, c'mon, bro, they're Arabs and they never thank any infidel for anything. Ever. ;->
#7
ZF - Speaking of deserved, nothing is req'd of us - he's on the road to nowhere already. A far more cruel fate than what we might dream up. (snicker)
#8
ZF - I was just whipping up some breakfast burritos and a thought hit me - wanna do stevey some real damage a favor?
Find some NJ boys who've been serving in Iraq and are rotating back - like 1st Marine. Clip a few of stevey's slimy tidbits (any of them - they all contain "he deserved it" or "US soldiers died - hahahaha" stupidity) and his website addy and pass it along. BTW, what was that URL? I'm sure a simple WhoIs query would help 'em out a bunch in locating him.
Nothing like a heart-to-heart talk with someone holding a differing opinion. Just a thought.
#9
just google "Steven Robinson" - it's a geocities page
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/10/2003 15:02 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Nothing like a heart-to-heart talk with someone holding a differing opinion.
Maybe they'll organize a blanket party for Stevey.:-) Still, if we can tolerate the Islamic preachers in this country who actually raise funds for al Qaeda, we can tolerate Stevey. The moment he makes like al Qaeda Johnny, in the sense of doing rather just talking, the Feds can always clamp the bracelets on his wrists.
#11
just google "Steven Robinson"
What if that's not stevey's website though?
we can tolerate Stevey
WW2 in Poland, you know what they would do to people like stevey who sympathized with the enemy? They even had a name for people like him, but I don't wanna offend our good friend TGA so I won't mention it ;) Stevey's lucky. The rest of the world might not be as tolerant. But I believe what goes around comes around. The "ahahaha"'s might come back to haunt him.
#13
As Kipling said, "Death is too good for 'im, throw the ***** out".
Killing someone is quick, relatively easy, and over with. There are many, many more ways to give someone what they deserve. One good way is to shun them. Pretend they don't exist. Have Fred write a simple little script to delete his BS. If someone is really, really good at programming, write a small C++ routine to re-route anyone trying to access his web page to www.whitehouse.com (porn link, not the good site, www.whitehouse.org, the President's temporary home). Write a brief program to spam his email address a hundred times a day with untraceable email return addresses (it's possible -I've got a friend that can do it. Might discuss it with him...).
It's better to make a bas$$$$'s life miserable, than killing him and ending his suffering. Most people like Stevie are the way they are because they hate even themselves. Give him some encouragement in that direction - totally ignore him as the little pimple he is.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/10/2003 20:13 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Don't feed a troll. Let's do witness protection, yes. This type of shit happens always in Saudi, but only daughters who are no longer virgins. Saudi cops find body in desert, father says he doesn't know a thing, she just never came back one day. Cop makes report. Report filed and everybody saves face and Saudi tradition and customs go on.
Posted by: michael ||
08/10/2003 21:02 Comments ||
Top||
#15
This is an old story, a couple of weeks or so. The guy killed was ALSO an informer for the former regime. While I feel bad, it's not quite so bad. This story is the media's attempt to show that we are not protecting our informants. So, it's slanted.
INDONESIAN authorities have made a link between a dead suspect in the Jakarta bomb blast and the cleric accused of leading the Jemaah Islamiah terror organisation, Abu Bakar Bashir, who warned the Government yesterday not to "discredit Muslims wanting to perform their religious duties". Like blowing up infidels â donât talk bad about them â itâs their duty Asmar Latin Sani, 28, who police believe was in the car that blew up outside the Marriott hotel last Tuesday and had helped plan the attack, had attended a hardline Islamic school headed by Bashir. Just another reason to walk this piece of crap into a public square and kill him...slowly...Iâm thinking: feed him to pigs a la Hannibal Lector
Without citing its sources, Indonesiaâs Antara news agency said yesterday that Latin Sani, whose severed head was found on the fifth floor of the shattered hotel, was a graduate of the Ngruki Muslim boarding school in Solo, Central Java, co-founded by Bashir. nice... thatâll be a gold medal in the high jump
The school is the centre of the "Ngruki network", boasting alumni such as Mukhlas, now on trial in Bali for co-ordinating the bombings last October that killed 202 people; the recently escaped explosives expert Fathur Rohman al-Ghozi; and Asiaâs most wanted terrorist, Hambali, who has been called Bashirâs right-hand man. The link was made as Foreign Minister Alexander Downer confirmed yesterday that Australian Federal Police had been told by Indonesian police before the Jakarta bombing of an email intercepted in June that warned of a possible terrorist attack in the area of the capital where the Marriott was located. "The Indonesians picked up that there was possibly going to be an attack in Jakarta but they didnât pick up the exact time and the exact location," he said. And didnât much care
Prime Minister John Howard, meanwhile, has warned that the Australian embassy in Jakarta is a potential terrorist target.
And has been, from day one...
In a message sent from his jail cell yesterday, Bashir urged Muslims to adhere to their faith without fear of being labelled "terrorists". Prosecutors tomorrow will almost certainly demand a heavy jail sentence for the elderly cleric, who faces a maximum penalty of life behind bars for plotting insurrection and for a string of church bombings across Indonesia on Christmas Eve 2000 that killed 19 people. Death not an option? Get serious
Bashir sent word to 3000 believers gathered in a stadium in Solo for a congress of the Mujaheddin Council of Indonesia, or MMI, thought to be the public face of JI. "Muslims are now being cornered by various parties as trying to topple the Government and as terrorists," Bashir said in an address read by MMI executive chairman Irfan Awwas. truth hurts - especially for islamics
"I say: do not be afraid of being labelled as trying to overthrow (the Government) or as terrorists when you are carrying out Islamic sharia (law) in full," Bashir said. "The Indonesian Government must not discredit Muslims wanting to perform their religious duties and should not arrest clerics, religious leaders or religious teachers because that will anger God." Talk to him lately Bashir? Soon....
All are, of course, above any man-made law, answering only to God, whose will is interpreted by clerics, religious leaders and religious teachers...
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/10/2003 3:53:30 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Death not an option? Get serious
I really miss the old dictator Suharto. If it was up to Suharto, there would have been no arrest, let alone a trial. Bashir would have just disappeared, never to be found. No body, no martyr. (Not that martyrdom has any particular significance - Saddam's rosters were filled with martyrs against his rule, but they never did topple him, did they?)
#2
Every time I read something like this, I'm more and more convinced that radical Islam is a communicable mental disease, and needs to be dealt with as we would any other deadly communicable disease.
Whack 'em and stack 'em. As tall as it takes. Let the "meek" inherit the earth where these turds once walked. If they cannot live in peace with us, they will not live with us. Period. Do it now.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/10/2003 21:21 Comments ||
Top||
Pakistan on Saturday did not dispute Indonesian allegations that the perpetrators of the car bombing at Jakartaâs Marriott Hotel were trained in Pakistan, but the Foreign Ministry complained that Jakarta has not shared the intelligence with Islamabad. The Foreign Ministry was addressing comments made late Friday by Indonesian Defense Minister Matori Abdul Djalil. He told reporters that the people behind Tuesdayâs hotel attack in Jakarta had trained with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The bombing killed 10 people and injured 150.
Golly. I am so surprised.
In a brief statement, Foreign Ministry spokesman Masood Khan did not dismiss the possibility that those involved in the Marriott attack could have been trained by Al Qaeda in Pakistan. The statement added, âIf the Indonesian government has a lead on the training of the terrorists, they should share it with us so that we could further intensify our action.â
"Yep. We'll get to it. Don't you worry."
The Foreign Ministry said Indonesia has not shared its suspicions about terrorism training in Pakistan and its alleged link to Tuesdayâs bombing. âPakistan strongly condemns the terrorist attack at Jakartaâs Marriott Hotel,â the statement said.
Earlier, Indonesiaâs defense minister said there were many more terrorists still in the country. âEach one of them has special abilities received from training in Afghanistan and Pakistan,â Djalil said late Friday. He said the bombers were linked to a group of people arrested last month in Semarang and alleged to be members of the Al Qaeda linked terror group Jemaah Islamiyah (JI). âThere are many more JI members on the loose in Indonesia ... Because of this I am sure that JI is behind all of this,â he said. Matori said the terror group was behind both Marriott blast, and the Bali nightclub bombings last year.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
08/10/2003 00:09 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Myanmarâs foreign minister said on Saturday officials needed more time to study a Thai plan for democratic transition in the country, which has earned worldwide condemnation over the detention of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
Yeah. Can't rush these things, y'know. They've only been in power since, what? 1963?
âHome grown solution is the best to solve domestic problems. But we donât reject the roadmap,â Myanmar Foreign Minister Win Aung said when asked by Reuters what the Myanmar government thought of the plan. âHowever, it is rather complicated and we need to take time to study it,â he said.
"We're not real clear on this 'democracy' stuff..."
Aung said Myanmar was studying the plan. The Thai government has not publicly released details of the plan but diplomats say it involves the immediate release of Suu Kyi and talks between Myanmarâs military rulers, Suu Kyiâs party and ethnic groups.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
08/10/2003 00:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
EFL - Chuckâs Farewell... rriiigghhttt LOL - he still adds caveats - it wonât end until heâs dead
In a farewell address to his wartorn nation, President Charles Taylor declared Sunday he would "sacrifice my presidencyâ to stop bloodshed in Liberia, but added "God willing, I will be back."
Oh, Gawd! He thinks he's Arnold...
Taylor, sitting solemnly with folded hands, recorded the address before a Liberian flag at his home. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the recording before its broadcast to the nation, expected later Sunday. He has pledged to resign as of Monday. "I love this country very much," said Taylor, wearing his standard dark safari suit. "This is why I have decided to sacrifice my presidency. As I look at people dying, I must stop fighting." Conscience all the sudden huh? Call me a skeptic
The statement marked Taylorâs first formal word to Liberiaâs people that he was quitting power. "I stop now, because above all else, you the people count," Taylor said. The 15-minute address made no sense mention of Taylorâs earlier acceptance of an asylum offer in Nigeria â and ended with a declaration: "I say, God willing, I will be back."
You said that twice and it might be redundant, too. Also.
Taylor also accused President Bush of forcing his departure. The United States and West African nations have demanded Taylor cede power in a bid to end 14 years of conflict he shares the blame for. "The solution to the problem in Liberia cannot be for the president of the United States to ask the president of Liberia to leave," Taylor said. He really wasnât "asking" Charles
"If that is a challenge, I challenge George Bush, with due respect as a president â please, you are a man of God. Do something for our people," he said. "If they could spend, or attempt to spend, $100 billion in Iraq, we need only a few here," he said.
"And make it quick, because I'm leaving and I don't want to run short of cash..."
Few in Taylorâs cut-off capital, under siege by rebels for two months, would be able to hear the address â with batteries, fuel for generators and all else, especially food, scarce on the government-held side of Monrovia. Late Saturday, Vice President Moses Blah told the AP that Taylor would make good on his pledge to turn over power at a ceremony Monday. Taylor has promised to cede power and go into exile but has backed off similar statements before. "President Taylor is relinquishing power for the sake of peace," Blah said. "Taylor is surely leaving; heâs leaving the country in my hands."
"I get to be president! I get the keys to the treasury! Oh, frabjous day!"
Blah appealed to rebels besieging the capital Monrovia to stop fighting and help restore order. The rebels vehemently oppose Blahâs succession, demanding that a neutral figure be appointed to preside over a transition government. "I am telling my brothers out there ... lay down your arms, leave the bushes and come letâs build the country," Blah said. Rebels remained skeptical of any promises from Taylorâs administration.
"And we're telling you to pack your shit and get out! What part about 'rebels' don't you understand?"
"Until Taylor resigns, I wonât believe it. He is a criminal," said a rebel civilian official, A.L. Hadjia Sekou Fofana. Fofana allowed that if Taylor indeed fulfills his vow to cede power, "it will be a step in the right direction."
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/10/2003 4:04:36 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Maybe Charlie & 'friends' should will start spreading the word that Prince Johnson's coming home & intends to run for president? "Hmm, suddenly Chuck doesn't seem so bad after all... He may be a mass murderer but at least he doesn't share Johnson's taste for human ears or his penchant for making rather uh...disturbing home movies.
Posted by: David ||
08/10/2003 16:46 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Lets send over the NAACP! Surely they can talk some sense into there 'brothers'. Or even better, send over Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson!
Posted by: Charles ||
08/10/2003 19:32 Comments ||
Top||
#3
send over Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson!
One to each side? Sounds good to me, but you'd better tell the "peacekeepers" about your exporting that kind of dynamite! Not that it wouldn't be poetic justice - Jackson was a major player in keeping Charlie-boy in power this long.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/10/2003 19:56 Comments ||
Top||
#4
MONROVIA, Liberia (AP) ? In a farewell address to his wartorn nation, President Charles Taylor declared Sunday he would "sacrifice my presidency? to stop bloodshed in Liberia, but added "God willing, I will be back."
...And who - besides those urban-legend guys at NSA who record every broadcast everywhere 24/7 - is watching or listening to Charlie do his MacArthur impression? It sure ain't the poor SOBs who live there without power or radio/TV, and I seriously doubt that even the Liberian army is gathering together in easily targeted little groups to listen.
This is Charlie's legacy...spurring on his equally mosntrous supporters to hold on and hold out until I get back...and BTW, whack the peacekeepers, 'cause they're keeping me from returning.
#5
Would someone please explain to me what the Hell our US interest is in this shithole of a country?
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
08/10/2003 23:16 Comments ||
Top||
#6
NMM - You got me. I don't see any US interests at stake either, but Liberia's always been a hottie 'round here. I read the stories for a couple of weeks, but I just don't see it. I guess it's really about Chuck's high entertainment quotient - he is a pistol.
The political furor which led to the resignation of Admiral John M. Poindexter and forced the Pentagon to abandon launching an online futures trading market in which anonymous speculators would bet on possible terrorist events should not eclipse what was an unprecedented attempt to understand terrorism by synergizing the profit motives of financial markets with innovative management practices and advanced technologies. India should immediately establish a similar multi-disciplinary experiment to obtain fresh insights into predicting terrorist attacks on India.
The Pentagon developed Policy Analysis Market (PAM) as âpart of our search for new ways to prevent terrorist attacks...Futures trading has proven effective in predicting events as diverse as oil prices, elections and movie ticket salesâ. A senior Pentagon official elaborated: âResearch indicates that markets are extremely efficient, effective and timely aggregators of dispersed and even hidden information. Futures markets have proven themselves to be good at predicting such things as elections results; they are often better than expert opinions.â
According to its websites http://www.darpa.mil/iao/FutureMap.htm [Note: appears defunct] and http://www.policyanalysismarket.org [ditto], PAM would âtrade on economic, civil and military futures of Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey and the impact of US involvement with each...â What got PAM into trouble were the events it was taking bets on â assassinations of Yasser Arafat and King Abdullah II of Jordan, a biological weapon attack on Israel, a nuclear missile strike by North Korea, etc. PAM was an initiative of Admiral Poindexter, USAâs National Security Advisor during the Reagan presidency, who was appointed head of the Pentagonâs Terrorism Information Awareness program after 9/11. It was to be launched on 01 August 2003 and was slated to be fully operational by 01 October 2003.
PAM was conceived by Robin Hanson, professor of economics at George Mason University, and was a joint program of USAâs Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and two private companies â Net Exchange, a San Diego-based market technologies company, and the Economist Intelligence Unit, a unit of the British magazine Economist. According to Brendan I. Koerner, Fellow, New America Foundation, PAM was based on existing futures markets such as Iowa Electronic Markets, in which investors trade futures contracts on US presidential candidates and the US Federal Reserveâs interest rates; Wahl$treet, a futures market on German politics; the Irish betting portal TradeSports.com, which correctly predicted the date of Saddam Hussein's ouster; and Foresight Exchange Prediction Market where traders bet on several types of events, such as the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld by October 2003. Registered traders would deposit money into an account and buy and sell futures contracts on assassinations and coups in the Middle East. Holders of a futures contract that came true would collect the proceeds of investors who predicted wrongly.
PAMâs websites gave some blood-curdling examples:
Suppose a trader believes that Jordanâs King Abdullah will be assassinated within the year. Since she holds a minority opinion, she can buy a futures contract on Abdullah being killed at a low price, say 5 cents. As more people follow her example, the price of the killed-king future goes up, to say 35 cents. The payout if the king is killed within the year is a dollar, otherwise nothing. If the king is killed, the early investor makes a profit of 95 cents. The later investors make a profit of 65 cents.
Yasser Arafat is more likely to be assassinated than Abdullah. You may buy an early futures contract on this, at say 55 cents. As more people begin to think like you that Arafat is going to be assassinated, the cost of the Arafat contract would go up, to say 85 cents. The payout if he is killed is a dollar, otherwise nothing. So you could make a profit of 45 cents and the others who followed you could make 15 cents if Arafat is killed.
On Monday, 28 July 2003, two Democratic senators, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Ron Wyden of Oregon, denounced PAM as âgrotesqueâ and âmorally repugnantâ. They added: âThis encourages terrorists to participate, either to profit from their terrorist activities or to bet against them in order to mislead US intelligence authorities.â
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz terminated PAM and its websites were deleted. Poindexter resigned after Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat from California, demanded that Congress âend the careers of whoever thought this up.â
Several experts criticized the termination of PAM. James Surowiecki, financial columnist of New Yorker magazine and MSNâs slate.com opined that America would regret canceling PAM: âSimilar markets have proven surprisingly good at predicting elections and box-office sales. Orange-juice futures do a better job of predicting the weather in Florida than weather forecasts do⊠Even when traders are not experts, their collective judgment is often remarkably accurate because markets are efficient at uncovering and aggregating diverse pieces of information⊠It doesn't matter much what markets are being used to predict. Whether the outcome depends on irrational actors (box-office results), animal behavior (horse races), a blend of irrational and rational motives (elections), or a seemingly random interaction between weather and soil (orange-juice crops), market predictions often outperform those of even the best-informed expert⊠It is reasonable to think a prediction market would add to our understanding of the Middle East.â Surowiecki added: âPAM would also have been effective because traders have no incentive other than making the right prediction for profit -- there are no bureaucratic or political factors influencing their decisions -- so they eliminate the hurdles that limit information flow within organizations. That's especially important in intelligence. In 9/11 there was lots of relevant information available before the attack took place. What was missing was a mechanism for aggregating that information in a single place. A well-designed market might have served as that mechanism.â
Senators Dorgan and Wydenâs contention that betting on assassinations is morally wrong is specious since existing currency, stock and commodity markets implicitly factor in such political risks. Also, in a life insurance policy, the policy issuer is betting that you will die later than you think you will, while for an annuity, the issuer is betting that you will die sooner than you think you will. It is also specious of Wolfowitz to terminate PAM on the moral grounds that it was betting on assassinations when the Pentagon has frequently simulated the deaths of Indian leaders in Pakistani-sponsored terrorist attacks. India should immediately establish an exchange similar to PAM, combining the desi genius of Dalal Street brokers with cricket match bettors and IITian mathematical modelers and geopolitical and defence pundits, in order to obtain fresh insights into predicting terrorist attacks on India. Establishing such an exchange would not be expensive. DARPA spent only US$600,000 to develop the PAM software and budgeted US$ 8 million for operational costs for running the futures exchange for two years. The benefits to India of getting Dalal Street to perform undha badla on Hafeez Mohammad Sayeed or Mohammed Azhar or Dawood Ibrahim would greatly outweigh such low investments.
I won't be posting much for the next few days... I have... ummm... an idea.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
08/10/2003 15:35 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Is it legal? I mean the CFTC will have to clear your efforts to create a new bourse but other than that, I see no real objections. I'd ask the Volokh Conspiracy though before I went off and bought land in Chicago...
Posted by: Brian ||
08/10/2003 17:06 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Yes, please go, Fred. I thought it an excellent idea â it was one of the few 'outside of the box' ideas I've heard in a while.
We've got to stop thinking traditionally. And Wolfie should have stood up for this one. As much as I distrust Poindexter, this was a good idea.
Posted by: Kathy K ||
08/10/2003 20:40 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Is it too early for the rest of us to invest? You need a capital partner? I'm happy to invest all of PD's pension into this, so let me know!
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/10/2003 22:57 Comments ||
Top||
#5
SW - All? Uhhhhh. How about $50K, Fred? Steve will match it, right Steve? And now that I'm on the other side of the table, I get to be the hardass and demand the biz plan meets some insane margins, right? ;->
Israelâs foreign minister demanded Sunday that Syria and Lebanon restrain Hezbollah militants from attacking its northern border, but did not specify the steps his country would take if they failed to comply. So writes a reporter with no imagination. Silvan Shalomâs comments followed Fridayâs exchange of artillery fire between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas over a disputed area near the confluence of the Syrian, Lebanese and Israeli borders — the first such exchange in eight months. On Saturday, Hezbollah fired anti-aircraft shells over the northern Israeli town of Kiryat Shemona. One building suffered minor damage, but no injuries were reported. Where was the counter-battery fire?
The Lebanese militant group, which is backed by Iran and Syria, routinely responds to Israeli air force flights over Lebanon with anti-aircraft fire. After which the Israelis bomb the AA guns.
Shalom held Lebanon and Syria — which dominates Lebanon — responsible for Hezbollahâs actions. ``We say to Syria and Lebanon as responsible parties for Hezbollah behavior ... that if Hezbollah activities continue and constitute an undermining of security of the citizens of Israel, we will have no choice but to defend ourselves,ââ he said in a radio interview. Shalom declined to elaborate on what he meant.
"Go ahead, suckers. Guess."
``We donât want to use the language of threats now and say what we will do and how we will do it,ââ he said. ``I think the regime in Syria knows very well what our capabilities are, and I donât think itâs worthwhile for it to put us to the test.ââ Ah, so he DID say what theyâd do; the reporter just missed it.
Israelâs ambassador to the United Nations sent a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan holding the Syrian and Lebanese governments responsible for Hezbollahâs ``acts of terror,ââ Foreign Ministry spokesman Yonatan Peled said Saturday. American diplomats also told Lebanon and Syria that the administration was concerned about the ``calculated and provocative escalationââ by Hezbollah, State Department deputy spokesman Philip T. Reeker said. Israel withdrew its forces from a self-declared security zone in southern Lebanon in May 2000, following more than a decade of low level warfare with Hezbollah, including frequent Hezbollah rocket attacks on northern Israeli towns. Since then violence between the sides had all but disappeared. Except for the shelling and the rockets, you mean.
Hezbollah mythology has it that they heroically drove the Israelis out, rather than that the withdrawal was the result of long and complicated negotiations and relentless UN pressure. There's a UN "peacekeeping" force in the area (UNIFIL) which doesn't seem to do much and Hezbollah tough guyz occasionally beat a few up. The perils of believing one's own mythology can include having false memories pointed out the hard way.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/10/2003 8:50:09 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Clamoring for revenge, thousands of Hamas supporters Saturday buried two militants killed in an Israeli raid, and a senior Palestinian official urged the United States to intervene to prevent the unraveling of a six-week-old truce. The militants and an Israeli soldier were killed Friday when troops raided a bomb lab in a West Bank refugee camp, sparking a gunbattle. A Palestinian stone-thrower also was killed by troops.
"Yeah! You Merkins gotta make 'em stop it!"
At their funerals in the West Bank city of Nablus, masked gunmen fired in the air, and mourners waving Hamas flags chanted slogans demanding retribution. The Web site of Hamas' military wing, Izzedine al Qassam, called on militant cells to exact "a quick response to this crime to teach the enemy a deterrent lesson." Mahmoud Zahar, a Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip, said the statement "doesn't need any explanation. It means they will retaliate."
"We gotta kill somebody quick!"
The group's leaders, however, stopped short of saying the incident would wreck a cease-fire declared June 29 by Hamas and other militant groups.
"Killing people wouldn't violate any ceasefire agreement. Ever'body knows that."
Palestinian Cabinet minister Yasser Abed Rabbo said Saturday that Hamas "promised it will not respond to the Israeli attacks." He warned, however, that more such raids could endanger the truce. Israel continues to send forces into West Bank towns and refugee camps to arrest Palestinian terror suspects.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
08/10/2003 00:09 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The killing and Dire Revenge⢠cycle has served up a steady stream of stories like this. I find most of the factual bits could be from any day since September, 2001, when the current lunacy known as the "intefada" began anew.
What's so damned telling, IMHO, is the insistence of the press on pretending there is a truce or cease fire - and that it has been in effect for 6 weeks. This story could have come from almost any day of the last 6 weeks - and it would be just like any other day. Endanger the truce? What truce?
On a side note, it's plain that Rabbo's 'net connection is down - or Zahar strayed from the script.
And, the final bit of irony comes in the closer: the clear implication that it is Israel who is endangering the imaginary truce because it apparently received intelligence of a bomb-making lab and didn't just ignore it - and let them make bombs. Who would have? The "reporter" doesn't say - or even address the bomb lab aspect... I guess that wasn't on the edtorial agenda. Big surprise. The press at its best: mind-bogglingly pro-Pal / pro-Terrorist.
#2
I have a solution into the "pro-Paleo" attitude of reporters. The next one that shoots off his/her mouth is grabbed by Israel, manacled, and forced to sit in an Israely hospital emergency room, taking down vital information about those being brought in - for three months. After that, if they still shoot off their mouth, pull their visa. They have no credibility, and can't think but in pro-paleo terms. If they come back after their visa's been pulled, whack and stack 'em.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/10/2003 13:36 Comments ||
Top||
Iranâs intelligence minister has said detained Al Qaeda members whose citizenship has been revoked by their native countries will be tried in the Islamic Republic, a newspaper reported on Saturday.
âThe detainees whose citizenship has been withdrawn and there is no possibility to hand them over to other countries, will stand trial in Iran,â the Entekhab daily quoted Intelligence Minister. âTheir trial will follow normal legal procedures,â he said. Iran finally acknowledged last month that it was holding key Qaeda members who fled Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban, but refused to name them. Tehran has already said it will not hand over any detained Qaeda members to Washington and denied reports that it was trying to strike a prisoner exchange deal with the US.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
08/10/2003 00:09 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This "story" will be worth following - just for the entertainment value. Anybody setting up & taking bets?
#3
they'll delay the trial with constant promises, yadda yadda. In the mean time we should find the gov't safehouse they're luxuriating at and take it out.
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/10/2003 14:58 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
