Saudi Arabian Ministers held emergency security talks with Western diplomats yesterday to discuss evidence that expatriate workers are still being targeted by terrorists. Al-Qaeda spies are reported to be stalking airports to spot Westerners arriving, and British workers claim that their cars have been marked so they can be attacked later. Investigators say the three Americans killed this month were all identified by al- Qaeda reconnaissance teams and ambushed after being followed from work.
Yemen said on Sunday two days of talks aimed at persuading a rebel anti-U.S. cleric to surrender after a week of violent clashes had failed and the government would use force to defeat him. At least 51 supporters of Shiâite cleric Hussein al-Houthi have been killed by government troops besieging them in mountainous northern Yemen since June 20. More than 50 have been arrested. The Interior Ministry said late on Saturday the government was targeting Houthi because he had set up and trained militia in secret, cut off roads and attacked mosques and preachers in Saada, 240 km (150 miles) north of the capital, Sanaa. Forty-six of Houthiâs supporters were killed 35 wounded in clashes last week with security forces backed by helicopters. A government source said security forces surrounding Houthi had held fire during the two days of talks. But nine of his followers were killed at least two separate confrontations elsewhere in Saada late on Saturday, the source said. Another nine were arrested including his brother Abdulsalam, the government source said. A source close to Houthi told Reuters only five were killed on Saturday.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/27/2004 2:15:32 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
as someone else noted, it seems the Yemenis (aside from the jailers) are a tenacious bunch
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/27/2004 19:13 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Maybe they're just not using language he can understand.
Send in a Hellfire.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/27/2004 22:31 Comments ||
Top||
Families of victims killed by Muslim militants who surrender to Saudi Arabian authorities could decide if they will be executed, Riyadhâs envoy to London said in an interview to be aired on Sunday.
I'm sure that idea's gonna make them comes swarming out of the desert to surrender...
This week Saudi Arabia gave militants a final chance to surrender under a one-month amnesty after authorities killed an al Qaeda leader in the oil-rich kingdom. "The state will drop its claim on these individuals if they give themselves in, but the private claims of the families of those who were killed or who were assaulted or who were wounded will remain for them to decide and not for the state," Turki al-Faisal said, according to a transcript released ahead of broadcast. Asked by interviewer Jonathan Dimbleby on Britainâs ITV television if the families of Westerners killed could demand militants faced the death penalty, Faisal said: "It is up to them. They will decide."
Can I vote as a proxy?
Wonder how hard it is to get an absentee ballot?
Al Qaeda has waged a year long campaign of violence in Saudi Arabia, targeting Westerners, government sites and oil workers and has vowed its holy war will continue. Faisal denied statements by al Qaeda that Saudi police had colluded with militants by giving them cars and uniforms to dupe security authorities and help them kidnap Johnson. "These people are indiscriminate killers ... they want to show that they have support from the police and from other organizations, which is absolutely not true," he said.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/27/2004 12:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Families of victims killed by Muslim militants who surrender to Saudi Arabian authorities could decide if they will be executed, Riyadhâs envoy to London said in an interview to be aired on Sunday.
Whatever they're smoking in the magic kingdom these days, I want some.
#2
It's bullshit 'face saving' grandstanding ah la muslim brotherhood. Remember that the SA royals base their lotus pad upon some sort of connection to the greater god. Something like that! Dragons methinks, or bigfoot.
A BLACK WATCH soldier has been cleared of a shooting which cost a comradeâs leg in Iraq. An appeal overturned a negligence charge against Scot Thomas Henderson, 37, after experts blamed an electrical fault in a weapon. Witnesses said the chain gun on the Warrior armoured personnel carrier could fire âundemandedâ. However, the gun is still being used in the Gulf. Last night, sources claimed unsuitable weapons were being relied on in Iraq because they have âdamn all elseâ. But an Army spokesman insisted that the Warrior was âhighly effectiveâ. Sergeant Albert Thomson had to have his leg amputated after the âfriendly fireâ incident as he recovered the body of a fallen colleague in March last year.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/27/2004 12:13:42 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Argh! What is this gun? :(
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
06/27/2004 1:33 Comments ||
Top||
#2
hmmm strange the rarden 30mm gun is highly regarded.
#3
...The Rarden has an excellent reputation - but the desert does strange things to high-tech equipment. Stuff we've fielded for years suddenly develops faults we've never seen before, and this might be the problem.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
06/27/2004 9:44 Comments ||
Top||
The Saudi ambassador to London has reinforced controversial claims by the kingdom's royal family of a link between "Zionists" and recent al-Qaeda terror attacks in the country. In a television interview, to be broadcast today, Prince Turki al-Faisal is asked about comments made by Crown Prince Abdullah, Saudi Arabia's de facto leader, that "Zionist hands" have been behind the attacks. The ambassador replies: "When you're under attack by people who come and kill your countrymen and visitors to your country, and you see at the same time an attack on the kingdom from the outside, from Zionist circles, it is natural to make a connection."
This is what passes for Saooodi logic.
He declined to expand on his remarks yesterday but his comments were condemned by Lord Janner of Braunstone, the former Labour MP. "In my view it is highly offensive and he must realise that the statement is totally unfounded." "No terrorism serves the interests of Zionism. The allegation by the Crown Prince was rubbish and he must know that."
Of course he does.
Prince Abdullah made his original remarks when he addressed a conference of leading Saudi officials and academics last month after an attack on contractors at the Yanbu oil facility that left six Westerners - including two Britons - dead. "Zionism is behind it," he said. "It has become clear now. It has become clear to us. It is not 100 per cent, but 95 per cent that Zionist hands are behind what happened." In his interview today, Prince Turki contends that Saudi Arabia has been subjected to concerted attacks by "so-called 'experts' with Zionist connections" for 50 years, and particularly since the terror atrocities of September 11, 2001. "Is it beyond any comprehension or understanding that such attacks come at us from the Zionists on one side and from al-Qaeda on the other side and not make connection between them?" he asked.
Um, yeah.
He insists that the regime is doing everything it can to root out terrorists and rejects claims that the Saudi royal family's days are numbered.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/27/2004 12:09:27 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
MR KIM Jong Il likes to eat sashimi carved from a live fish. He hates anchovies on his pizza. He insists that the grains of his rice be absolutely uniform in size and colour. The North Korean leader might be one of the worldâs most enigmatic figures, but thanks to a growing and eclectic body of books and articles that detail his epicurean habits, more is known about what he eats than nearly any other head of state. In what might be labelled cook-and-tell literature, two of his former chefs have written about their experiences and revealed the secrets of the most important part of any Kim Jong Il residence - the kitchen.
Three years ago, Italian Ermanno Furlanis wrote a series of confessional magazine articles titled I Made Pizza For Kim Jong Il. A more recent entry in this genre is a book published last year in Japan and South Korea by a sushi chef who worked for the reclusive dictator from 1988 to 2001 and now lives in Japan. North Korean defectors and even Mr Kimâs family members have also been sufficiently impressed by his eating habits to dwell on food in their memoirs. What can be gleaned from these accounts is that Mr Kim, 62, is becoming one of the worldâs most legendary gourmets - so much so that North Korea watchers believe the way to his psyche is through his stomach. âHeâs the biggest foodie in Asia,â said Mr Michael Breen, the British author of a recently published biography of Mr Kim.
While his countrymen scrounge for food in barren forests, Mr Kim has spent an incalculable chunk of his nationâs limited wealth feeding himself. His wine cellar reportedly contains nearly 10,000 bottles, his library thousands of cookbooks and texts on gastronomy. Chefs have been flown in from around the world to cook for him. An institute in Pyongyang, staffed by some of North Koreaâs best-trained doctors, is devoted to ensuring that he eats not only the most delectable, but also the most healthy foods, all the more important for the 1.53m Mr Kim, whose weight once pushed 90kg. âThe purpose of the institute is 100 per cent to prolong the life of Kim Jong Il,â said Dr Seok Young Hwan, a physician who worked there and later defected to South Korea. He said 200 professionals were working just in the division that handled Mr Kimâs diet.
So insistent is he on eating the best of everything that he sends trusted couriers on shopping missions around the world. His sushi-chef-turned-author, who writes under the pseudonym Kenji Fujimoto, revealed that he made trips to Iran and Uzbekistan to buy caviar, to Denmark to buy pork, to western China to buy grapes and to Thailand for mangoes and papayas. Once, on a whim, Mr Kim sent him to Tokyo to pick up a particular herb-scented rice cake. Mr Fujimoto calculated that each bite-size cake ended up costing about US$120 (S$205). Former North Korean diplomats who were stationed abroad have told South Korean intelligence that they were asked to send each countryâs delicacies to Pyongyang for Mr Kimâs consumption - among them exotic items such as camelâs feet, said South Korean biographer Sohn Kwang Joo. Mr Kim insists that his rice be cooked over a wood fire using trees cut from Mt Paektu, a legendary peak on the Chinese border, according to a memoir written by a nephew of his first wife. He has his own private source of spring water. Female workers inspect each grain of rice to ensure that they meet the leaderâs standards.
Mr Kimâs refined palate is not merely a matter of idle gossip, but the subject of serious study by political psychologists trying to understand the North Korean leadership. Mr Jerrold Post, a psychiatrist who founded and was the longtime director of the CIAâs Centre for the Analysis of Personality and Political Behaviour, said Mr Kimâs obsession with eating the best food comes from being the son of North Korean founder Kim Il Sung, revered by the propaganda machine as a god-like figure. For most of his adult life, Mr Kim has been renowned for his profligate lifestyle. In the early 1990s, trade figures leaked to the media revealed that he was the largest single consumer of Hennessy cognac, importing more than US$650,000 worth of top-of-the-line stock a year for his private collection. He is believed to have moderated his ways on the advice of his doctors. He reportedly quit smoking in 1999 and lost weight. He switched from cognac to red wine.
Admittedly, some of his tastes might be considered unappetising. He apparently relished some foods so fresh that they were still wriggling. His former sushi chef boasted that he was able to slice a fish, artfully sparing its vital organs, so that it would still be alive when served to Mr Kim as sashimi. âHe was loud in his praises, saying it was extremely delicious,â chef Fujimoto wrote.
Mr Post diagnosed the younger Kim as a malign narcissist in large part based on information about his eating habits. âThis is how you prepare food and water for a god. Nothing remotely imperfect should cross his lips. He has this special sense of self so that there is no contradiction between the exquisite care that goes into his own cuisine and the fact that half his population is starving,â he said. Mr Kimâs biographer is equally critical. âThis kind of spoiled elitist behaviour is not so unusual. You see it in South Korea in some of the sons of the rich and famous,â Mr Breen said. âBut for such a person to be head of a country in dire need of leadership is nothing less than tragedy.â A South Korean analyst, however, finds some comfort in Mr Kimâs epicurean tastes. âKim Jong Il loves life. He is a drinker, a womaniser, a gourmet. To start a war requires an ascetic like Hitler, who doesnât care if he lives or dies. But I canât see Kim starting a war that he will surely lose,â said Mr Kim Kyung Won, a former South Korean ambassador to the United States.
On the other hand, if he considers himself omnipotent, he probably can't conceive of losing a war...
Posted by: tipper ||
06/27/2004 9:50:40 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/27/2004 10:39 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Mr Kimâs refined palate is not merely a matter of idle gossip, but the subject of serious study by political psychologists trying to understand the North Korean leadership.
I can save the shrinks some time and effort in their "serious study": HE'S NUTS.
Otherwise known as two cabbages shy of kimchi.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/27/2004 13:56 Comments ||
Top||
#4
So, um, does Dear Leader have any male heirs? Do they have the same pouffy hair? Is one being "groomed" to be Lovable Leader?
#5
No heirs to my knowledge. His chromosomal makeup allows him to successfully mate only with certain species, generally, Sea-Monkeys and Ring-Tailed Lemurs
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/27/2004 14:14 Comments ||
Top||
#6
1 May 2001
Kim Jong Nam, son of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, is detained at passport control in Narita international airport for attempting to enter Japan with fraudulent identity papers. The 30-year-old arrived from Singapore with two women and a 4-year-old boy, as well as a set of forged passports from the Dominican Republic. Kim Jong Nam claims that he just wants to check out Tokyo Disneyland. Photo, upper left
Also "Dear Mother": http://www.freenorthkorea.net/archives/freenorthkorea/000624.html
Posted by: ed ||
06/27/2004 14:19 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I rest my case :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/27/2004 14:27 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Lol! - Thx, ed!
Sorta jowly and chunky - definitely not one of the lowly NorKs - and not enough hair to pouf.
Why is it that the wymyns always look soooooo much better than the myns?
#11
Lol, Frank - Is the Dear Leader vein rich or what? Hell, if it didn't exist we'd be hard-pressed to make such great shit up as what flows au naturel from NorK.
This must be one of those farm-raised NorK ducklings... it might make Mucky feel better...
#13
From the Free North Korea article there are 3 known sons:
Kim Jong Nam
Son of the dictator with the movie actress Sung Hae Rim, Kim Jong Nam had a bizarre upbringing lavished with toys but rarely allowed out. Previously seen as the heir apparent, he was arrested in Japan in 2001 as he attempted to travel to Tokyo Disneyland on a forged passport.
Kim Jong Chol
Possibly the favourite to succeed Kim Jong Il, this 22-year-old is Kim's son with the former dancing girl Ko Yong-Hi. He was educated in Geneva. His younger brother Kim Jong Woon was recently renamed "Morning Star King" by his mother, according to some defectors' reports, suggesting he may be her choice.
Posted by: ed ||
06/27/2004 14:49 Comments ||
Top||
#14
They left out that part about how a substantial part of Jong-Il's kitchen budget covers the hiring and heavy attrition of his food tasters.
More than one-third of the Dutch are afraid of Muslims and nearly three-quarters have little or no contact with people from that cultural background, according to a poll published yesterday. Long known for its multicultural tolerance, the Netherlands has tightened its immigration policy since the 2002 general election, in which the party of murdered far-right politician Pim Fortuyn came second. The survey of 813 Dutch adults by TNS NIPO pollsters for De Volkskrant newspaper found that 36 per cent of the Dutch feel threatened by Muslims in the Netherlands and only 15 per cent regard the culture positively. Half of the respondents fear the Netherlands â which is home to an estimated 900,000 Muslims, or about 5.5 per cent of the population â could become the target of an attack by Muslim fundamentalists such as the Madrid train bombings. Such worries are so strong that 48 per cent of people said they would move house should their neighbourhoods become home to a significant Islamic community. Those who regarded Islamic culture negatively cited Muslim attitudes to homosexuals and women as reasons for their concern, and feared fundamentalists might try to impose their values on Dutch society. The poll found that only 33 per cent of people had regular contact with Muslims and just 20 per cent said they would like to have more.
Posted by: TS(vice girl) ||
06/27/2004 2:10:18 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ah. That explains Srebrenica.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/27/2004 2:35 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It's too bad that most, if not all, internal and politcal discussion of these fears gets de-legitimized and un-addressed. It would be great if everyone could be drawn into a real (though bitter) politial fight about these issues. Otherwise, the Islamists win the battle inside the Muslim community, and the native population misses the chance to integrate the normal Muslims, which could turn their religion into something we can all live with.
Yes Steve, it does explain. But think about who would have the most weapons in der Nederlanden.
#5
#3 Capt - Mr. Blix wouldn't live anywhere near "those" neighborhoods. In fact, I'll bet no person with any modicum of power or influence lives near, or interacts with, their Muslim immigrant community.
More than one-third of the Dutch are afraid of Muslims
The other 2/3 are either moslems themselves, or Dutch with their heads up their asses.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/27/2004 10:35 Comments ||
Top||
#7
More than a third of Dutch are afraid of Muslims. then we get The poll found that only 33 per cent of people had regular contact with Muslims. Could it be the same people? The numbers are too close to ignore. Dutch that have contact with Muslims are afraid of Muslims.
Posted by: Abu A Dyke ||
06/27/2004 18:10 Comments ||
Top||
#10
This is just the start of more troubles for multiculturalist 'nuanced' Europe. God help them.
The West had better get its shit together both for our sake and the sake of moderate Muslims.
Posted by: Les Nessman ||
06/27/2004 23:27 Comments ||
Top||
The FBI long has contended that not a single al-Qaeda operative in the United States collaborated with the 19 hijackers in the Sept. 11 attacks. Yet the commission investigating the attacks has identified two Muslim men who may have had advance knowledge of the plot. The commission found that two hijackers got substantial help from Mohdar Abdullah and Anwar Aulaqi after settling in California in 2000. The bipartisan panel created by Congress said it cannot discount the possibility the men knew the hijackersâ plans. Abdullah, who recently was deported to Yemen, helped the hijackers get driverâs licenses. He bragged, while in U.S. custody after the hijackings, that he had known the attacks were coming. Aulaqi, a cleric who left the United States shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, introduced the two hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, to other people who helped provide living arrangements in this country.
The previously undisclosed information about Abdullah and Aulaqi was contained in one of the commission reports released this month. The FBI is seeking to find and interview Aulaqi about his contacts with al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. It is unclear if U.S. officials know where Aulaqi is. FBI spokesman Mike Kortan said the Sept. 11 investigation is "ongoing and active" and that any new evidence will be examined closely. A congressional investigation has concluded that the discovery of al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar in the United States probably represented the best chance for the FBI and CIA to disrupt the plot. Much of the commission report is derived from classified interrogations of Mohammed and another senior al-Qaeda planner also in custody â Ramzi Binalshibh. In general, the 19 hijackers were told to blend in while in the United States by avoiding mosques and fellow Islamic extremists. But al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were different.
"Recognizing that neither Hazmi nor Mihdhar spoke English or was familiar with Western culture, KSM instructed these operatives to seek help from the local Muslim community," the report said. Mohammed told the men to settle in San Diego. So they went there in February 2000 from Los Angeles with help from Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi who had an apartment complex there. Although Bayoumi helped the hijackers settle in San Diego, there is no evidence he knew they were terrorists, investigators say. Al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar made friends in San Diego with some foreign students at the Rabat Mosque in suburban La Mesa. One was Mohdar Abdullah, who the report said was among those students who "appear to have held extremist sympathies." Abdullah helped al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar get driverâs licenses and enroll in schools in California. Shortly after the attacks, Abdullah told FBI agents in an interview he knew nothing about the plot. But later, while held on immigration charges, Abdullah bragged to follow inmates that he had advance knowledge of the Sept. 11 mission and even had instructions to pick up plot operatives at Los Angeles International Airport before the attacks, according to the commissionâs report. A fellow inmate wrote the Homeland Department last spring about Abdullahâs claim, according to Jacqueline Maguire, an FBI agent working on the Sept. 11 investigation. The FBI could not corroborate the inmateâs story, she told the commission during its public hearing two weeks ago. "Another inmate gave another story and the details differed quite significantly," Maguire said. Ultimately, the FBI chose not to seek criminal charges against Abdullah. The bureau did have Abdullah deported to Yemen in May. Maguire said the CIA was aware of the decision and knows he is in Yemen.
According to the commission report, Al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar also established a relationship with Aulaqi, an imam at the Rabat Mosque. Aulaqi later moved to Virginia and worshipped at the Dar al-Hijra mosque in Falls Church, Va. Early in 2001, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar drove across the country, settled in Alexandria, Va., and began attending Dar al-Hijra. The commission report cited information that Aulaqi had "extremist ties, and the circumstances surrounding his relationship with the hijackers remains suspicious. However, we have not uncovered evidence that he associated with the hijackers knowing they were terrorists." At the Falls Church mosque, the imam introduced the hijackers to a Jordanian, Eyad al Rababah, who helped them find an apartment. In May 2001, al Rababah suggested that al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar move with him to Fairfield, Conn. The three eventually traveled to Paterson, N.J., where they rented an apartment with two other al-Qaeda operatives. The commission report said that despite this assistance, there is "insufficient basis" to conclude that Rababah knew that al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were terrorists.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/27/2004 2:12:06 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The FBI long has contended that not a single al-Qaeda operative in the United States collaborated with the 19 hijackers in the Sept. 11 attacks. Yet the commission investigating the attacks has identified two Muslim men who may have had advance knowledge of the plot. The commission found that two hijackers got substantial help from Mohdar Abdullah and Anwar Aulaqi after settling in California in 2000. The FBI is seeking to find and interview Aulaqi about his contacts with al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. It is unclear if U.S. officials know where Aulaqi is. FBI spokesman Mike Kortan said the Sept. 11 investigation is "ongoing and active" and that any new evidence will be examined closely...The bureau did have Abdullah deported to Yemen in May.
Let me get this straight...Mohdar Abdullah got deported by the FBI[bye, bye see you, have a nice flight!]even though an inmate wrote Homeland Security about Abdullah bragging that he was a terrorist enabler and Anwar Aulaqi is now being investigated 3 years after 9/11. Mueller should be the next guy joining the unemployment line, right behind Tenet.
Posted by: rex ||
06/27/2004 23:00 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The FBI could not corroborate the inmateâs story, she told the commission during its public hearing two weeks ago. "Another inmate gave another story and the details differed quite significantly," Maguire said.
And a third inmate told yet another contradictory story, I heard an FBI official testify to the Senate committee.
Basically, the FBI decided the prison informant's story was not trustworthy. The prison informant was being deported and had a strong motive to concoct a story that might allow him to stay in the USA.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/28/2004 0:16 Comments ||
Top||
#3
No, #2, I'd err on the side of caution/suspicion re: Abdullah, rather than letting that slimeball get on the big silver jet to Yemen, where he will get recycled into the terrorist circuit. And what about letting Aulaqi disappear into the woodwork? The both of them should have been thrown into the Guantanamo slammer to let them cool their heels for a while. I suspect there are too many affirmative action hires in the FBI who may have poor judgement.
Posted by: rex ||
06/28/2004 2:06 Comments ||
Top||
EFL
As the July 4 holiday approaches, Bush Administration officials are bombarding the nationâs police, fire, emergency and corporate-security offices with another round of terrorism warnings. Although there are no plans to raise the threat level from yellow to orange, a senior Justice Department official says, "thereâs very serious intelligence thatâs corroborated, thatâs multiple sourced, that indicates that al-Qaeda is intent on hitting us and hitting us hard this year." The official concedes, however, that "we donât have specific information." The 4th is always a good time for a beer and BBQ!
Along with this now familiar general warning, the FBI has introduced the specter of a new terrorism threat: booby-trapped beer coolers. Okay. Now they are messing with the wrong guys. Donât mess the RBerâs beer. Next they will be messing with our popcorn and coffee!
A lightly classified bulletin sent to 18,000 state and local agencies last week advised local authorities to look out for plastic-foam containers, inner tubes and other waterborne flotsam commonly seen around marinas that could be rigged to blow up on contact. If the inner tubes donât have women with bathing suits on, sink them.
Also, the bulletin warned, terrorists might attach bombs to buoys. Hey the Paleos attach bombs to boys all the...time, er, ah...ooh he said bouys.
FBI and Department of Homeland Security officials say no such devices have actually been discovered, nor is there any current intelligence that terrorists are hatching plots involving floating bombs. But just in case: secure your beer coolers. In fact, just tap a keg and you will have done your part for national security. Cheers!
From The Washington Post, an opinion article by Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch
"I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to four hours?" .... With his characteristic cut-through-the-bull bluntness, Rumsfeld raised a valid question. If interrogators can use methods designed to inflict pain on prisoners, why should they be made to stop before the pain becomes difficult to bear? After all, forcing a prisoner to stand, so long as itâs only for a short time, is a bit like allowing the use of hot irons, so long as theyâre only slightly above room temperature. The contradiction Rumsfeld noticed may help us understand how decisions made by senior officials and military commanders led to the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib.
The policymakers apparently tried to have it both ways, approving highly coercive interrogation techniques, but with limits designed to assuage their consciences and satisfy their lawyers. They authorized or proposed painful "stress positions," but said that no one position could be used for more than 45 minutes. They allowed forced standing, but only for four hours; sleep deprivation, but only for 72 hours; exposure to heat and cold, but with medical monitoring; hooding, but not in a way that limits breathing; and nudity, but not the stacking of nude bodies.
Once these methods were applied in the field on prisoners considered to be hardened terrorists, however, interrogators did not respect the lawyersâ boundaries. Indeed, they could not have respected them while still achieving their aim of forcing information from detainees. For by definition, these methods, euphemistically known as "stress and duress," can work only when applied beyond the limits of a prisonerâs tolerance. Torture works only (if ever) when it truly feels like torture.
Perhaps one reason these stress and duress techniques were approved at all is that they sound innocuous. But as anyone who has worked with torture victims knows, they are the stock in trade of brutal regimes around the world. For example, the Washington Times recently reported that "[s]ome of the most feared forms of torture cited" by survivors of the North Korean gulag "were surprisingly mundane: Guards would force inmates to stand perfectly still for hours at a time, or make them perform exhausting repetitive exercises such as standing up and sitting down until they collapsed from fatigue."
Binding prisoners in painful positions is a torture technique widely used in countries such as China and Burma, and repeatedly condemned by the United States. Stripping Muslim prisoners nude to humiliate them was a common practice of the Soviet military when it occupied Afghanistan. As for sleep deprivation, consider former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Beginâs account of experiencing it in a Soviet prison in the 1940s:
"In the head of the interrogated prisoner a haze begins to form. His spirit is wearied to death, his legs are unsteady, and he has one sole desire: to sleep, to sleep just a little, not to get up, to lie, to rest, to forget. . . . Anyone who has experienced this desire knows that not even hunger or thirst are comparable with it. . . . I came across prisoners who signed what they were ordered to sign, only to get what the interrogator promised them. He did not promise them their liberty. He promised them -- if they signed -- uninterrupted sleep!"
Rumsfeld eventually rescinded his approval of these cruel methods for Guantanamo. But they still ended up being authorized by commanders and used on prisoners throughout Afghanistan and Iraq. Former detainees report being forced to stand, sit or crouch for many hours, often in contorted positions, deprived of sleep for nights on end, held nude, doused with cold water and exposed to extreme heat. Itâs not likely anyone was holding a stopwatch during this treatment or making sure that only "mild" pain and suffering resulted. Why would they have? For the limits that might have made the treatment more humane would also have rendered it ineffective in the eyes of interrogators.
Stress and duress interrogation techniques were invented in the dungeons of the worldâs most brutal regimes for only one purpose -- to cause pain, distress and humiliation, without physical scars. When Bush administration officials and military commanders told soldiers to use methods designed for that purpose, while still treating detainees "humanely," they were being naive at best and dishonest at worst. They should have known that once the purpose of inflicting pain is legitimized, those charged with the care and interrogation of prisoners will take it to its logical conclusion.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 10:31:53 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Once again, Human Rights Watch shows that it is objectively on the side of the terrorists. And Mike Sylwester validates my opinion of him as a jihadi lover.
#2
Zhang Fei, Too right.
But don't forget the WaPo's role in all this as the terrorists' enabler, too.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/27/2004 10:47 Comments ||
Top||
#3
OK HRW - we'll just shoot them with our Jooooo bullets. Happy?
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/27/2004 10:50 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Frank G - works for me.
Really, I wonder how much useful intelligence we're getting out of these guys. Except in (possibly) a few cases, it might just be better to help them to their 72 raisins and get it over with. It's not like they'd show any mercy if the tables were turned.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/27/2004 10:59 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Human Rights Watch .... objectively on the side of the terrorists; Mike Sylwester ... a jihadi lover; WaPo ... the terrorists' enabler.
Last Sunday it was the BBC and Gen Karpinski who were on the side of the terrorists who behead Americans. This Sunday the focus shifts to other traitors.
We should all be glad, I suppose, that there are at least a few people, such as Zhang Fei and Jen, who truly oppose terrorism while so many other people are on the terrorists' side and love and enable them.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Uh, Mike, that wouldn't be me on Gen. Karpinski.
But yes, the BBC has done more than their share of carrying the water for the IslamoFacists.
In fact, they're starting a new Arabic channel to compete with Al Jazeera.
And you're quite right about Zhang Fei and I--we're doing our bit for the war effort, on the Right side.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/27/2004 11:15 Comments ||
Top||
#7
BBC has done more than their share of carrying the water for the IslamoFacists
I don't agree with your judgement about The Washington Post or about the BBC. You ought to moderate your accusations.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 11:45 Comments ||
Top||
#8
they have an agenda that the Islamofascists would appreciate, what's to moderate?
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/27/2004 11:52 Comments ||
Top||
#9
That's not going to happen, Mike, and there are lots of clear-thinking right-minded people that share my views of the BBC and the WaPo.
Plus, they go beyond mere accusations.
The BBC was proven to have lied in the Andrew Gilligan/David Kelly case as an attempt to bring down Blair's government.
The WaPo brought us the bloodless coup that took down Nixon and it's clear that they'd like to do the same to Bush if they try hard enough.
If either media wants to sue me for my "accusations," I'm not that hard to find.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/27/2004 11:54 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Jen, I didn't know there was a difference between the BBC and Al--Jitzz. I guess you learn something more everyday.
Its organizations like HRW (and the media) who also enable the terrorist organizations with their weeping and gnashing of teeth over every little inconvience the prisoners of the west endure (Oh my! This soldier farted the the presence of a murdering terrorist! The soldier must be punished!) while completely ignoring the real torture and pain and death dealt out on a daily basis by Iran, North Korea, Sudan, etc....
#11
while completely ignoring the real torture and pain and death dealt out on a daily basis by Iran, North Korea, Sudan, etc....
Whatever you say, CrazyFool.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 12:11 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Ok Mike, perhaps not 'completely ignoring' but they do their best to 'bury' it in paragraph 20 on some obscure page in the neither regions...
I'm sorry but having some prisoner wear women's panties on their head (while quite bad - on the other hand some guys might like it.. no accounting for taste...) is not equal to gang rapes, murders, and the killing of newborn babies in front of their mother (N. Korea). Did any of the mainstream media give 1/50th the coverage to these as they did the Prisoner mistreatment?
#13
Did any of the mainstream media give 1/50th the coverage to these as they did the Prisoner mistreatment?
The mainstream media (and Human Rights Watch) have reported plenty about problems in Iran, North Korea, Sudan, etc. Right now the issue of prisoner mistreatment is prominent. At other times, other issues have been and will be prominent.
Before the photographs of the Abu Ghraib prisoners were published, the mainstream media reported relatively little about the treatment of prisoners. Back then, it was HRW reports about prisoner treatment that were buried back on page 20.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 14:01 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Mike, if you hadn't established a record of dishonesty on this issue, people would take you more seriously.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/27/2004 20:46 Comments ||
Top||
From The Washington Post
The CIA has suspended the use of extraordinary interrogation techniques approved by the White House pending a review by Justice Department and other administration lawyers, intelligence officials said. The "enhanced interrogation techniques," as the CIA calls them, include feigned drowning and refusal of pain medication for injuries. The tactics have been used to elicit intelligence from al Qaeda leaders such as Abu Zubaida and Khalid Sheik Mohammed. ... The decision applies to CIA detention facilities, such as those around the world where the agency is interrogating al Qaeda leaders and their supporters, but not military prisons at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere. "Everythingâs on hold," said a former senior CIA official aware of the agencyâs decision. "The whole thing has been stopped until we sort out whether we are sure weâre on legal ground." A CIA spokesman declined to comment on the issue.
CIA interrogations will continue but without the suspended techniques, which include feigning suffocation, "stress positions," light and noise bombardment, sleep deprivation, and making captives think they are being interrogated by another government. ... The suspension ... is related to the White House decision, announced Tuesday, to review and rewrite sections of an Aug. 1, 2002, Justice Department opinion on interrogations that said torture might be justified in some cases. ....
The legal debate over CIA interrogation techniques had its origins in the battlefields of Afghanistan, secret counterterrorism operations in Pakistan and in President Bushâs decision to use unconventional tools in going after al Qaeda. The interrogation methods were approved by Justice Department and National Security Council lawyers in 2002, briefed to key congressional leaders and required the authorization of CIA Director George J. Tenet for use, according to intelligence officials and other government officials with knowledge of the secret decision-making process.
When the CIA and the military "started capturing al Qaeda in Afghanistan, they had no interrogators, no special rules and no place to put them," said a senior Marine officer involved in detainee procedures. The FBI, which had the only full cadre of professional interrogators from its work with criminal networks in the United States, took the lead in questioning detainees. But on Nov. 11, 2001, a senior al Qaeda operative who ran the Khaldan paramilitary camp in Afghanistan was captured by Pakistani forces and turned over to U.S. military forces in January 2002. The capture of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a Libyan, sparked the first real debate over interrogations. The CIA wanted to use a range of methods, including threatening his life and family. But the FBI had never authorized such methods. The bureau wanted to preserve the purity of interrogations so they could be used as evidence in court cases. Al-Libi provided the CIA with intelligence about an alleged plot to blow up the U.S. Embassy in Yemen with a truck bomb and pointed officials in the direction of Abu Zubaida, a top al Qaeda leader known to have been involved with the Sept. 11 plot.
In March 2002, Abu Zubaida was captured, and the interrogation debate between the CIA and FBI began anew. This time, when FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III decided to withhold FBI involvement, it was a signal that the tug of war was over. "Once the CIA was given the green light . . . they had the lead role," said a senior FBI counterterrorism official. Abu Zubaida was shot in the groin during his apprehension in Pakistan. U.S. national security officials have suggested that painkillers were used selectively in the beginning of his captivity until he agreed to cooperate more fully. His information led to the apprehension of other al Qaeda members, including Ramzi Binalshibh, also in Pakistan. The capture of Binalshibh and other al Qaeda leaders -- Omar al-Faruq in Indonesia, Rahim al-Nashiri in Kuwait and Muhammad al Darbi in Yemen -- were all partly the result of information gained during interrogations, according to U.S. intelligence and national security officials. All four remain under CIA control.
A former senior Justice Department official said interrogation techniques for "high-value targets" were reviewed and approved on a case-by-case basis, based partly on what strategies would work best on specific detainees. Justice lawyers suggested some limitations that were adopted, the former official said. ... The administration concluded that techniques did not amount to torture if they did not produce significant physical harm or injury. However, interrogators were allowed to trick the detainees into thinking they might be harmed or instructed to endure unpleasant physical tasks, such as being forced to stand or squat in stress positions. ....
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 10:17:31 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is a serious mistake, and will lead to unnecessary American deaths. If another major terror attack occurs, and it is found that some of the planners involved were in American custody, I will blame GWB and "human rights organizations"* for making it possible. The unfortunate thing is that butt-covering and political correctness has taken the place of effective policy.
* These organizations do not apparently view the right not to be killed by terrorists to be a basic human right.
#2
ZF, I won't blame Bush--I will blame the Left and the Dimocrats who beat this story to death and made it a "story" as a sheer political tool resulting in the further tying of our peoples' hands.
Don't you blame Bush either--that's what they want.
You gonna vote for sKerry, a U.S. Senator who helped promulgate the Ho Chi Minh-founded government of Vietnam which still to this day violates the human rights of its citizens?
The Left has no problem with their governments (Stalin's Russia, Kim Jong Il's North Korea, Red China) that violate their peoples' rights on a daily basis, yet let members of the American military put ladies' underwear on a POW's head to get him to talk and we're "inhuman."
Posted by: Jen ||
06/27/2004 10:57 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The CIA may have suspended THIER stress interrogations,but not those of countries we have sent terrorist prisoners for interrorgation.And there are many.
#4
If another major terror attack occurs ... I will blame GWB .... for making it possible.
Now GWB is objectively on the side of the terrorists too?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 11:14 Comments ||
Top||
#5
GWB was president when Gen Karpinski was assigned to command Abu Ghraib. It's all starting to add up.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 11:16 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Here's a must read from the WSJ on how the memos released by the White House show that the Abu Ghraib abuse was not "systemic" or ordered from above by Bush or the Pentagon but was the personal misconduct of a few bad apples like Karpinsky: Tortured Arguments
Posted by: Jen ||
06/27/2004 11:20 Comments ||
Top||
#7
GWB was president when Gen Karpinski was assigned to command Abu Ghraib. It's all starting to add up.
Last I heard Gen. Karpinski was so in the dark about what was going on in her command, it is impossible to believe her commanders knew what was going on.
And we are talking about the CIA's intention to put more Americans in danger, not some Byzantine plot to humiliate murdering thugs.
I guess we now know which side in the War on Terrorism the DoJ is now on.
My observation about the story at hand is: why did the CIA find it necessary to broadbcast to the world its intention to help the USA lose the war on terrorism.
#8
Jen: Don't you blame Bush either--that's what they want.
I will blame GWB, but vote for him anyway, since Kerry the appeaser is going to be much worse. But in terms of stature, where I thought GWB could have reached Reagan's level, it is becoming apparent that I may have been wrong.
#9
CIA's intention to put more Americans in danger ... we now know which side in the War on Terrorism the DoJ [Department of Justice] is now on ... the CIA ... broadbcast to the world its intention to help the USA lose the war on terrorism.
So far today (it's 11:49 a.m.) I've seen accusations that the CIA, Department of Justice, George W. Bush, the BBC and Walter E. Williams are objectively on the side of the terrorists.
We all should be grateful that a few vigilant Rantburgers are able to expose all these secret traitors in the War Against Terrorism.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 11:53 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Mike Sylwester: GWB was president when Gen Karpinski was assigned to command Abu Ghraib. It's all starting to add up.
Actually, what's starting to add up are Mike Sylwester's pro-jihadi sentiments, which may be why he spends so much time reading Jihad Unspun.
#11
#9: I forgot to include The Washington Post in my list.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 11:55 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Mike Sylwester: So far today (it's 11:49 a.m.) I've seen accusations that the CIA, Department of Justice, George W. Bush, the BBC and Walter E. Williams are objectively on the side of the terrorists. We all should be grateful that a few vigilant Rantburgers are able to expose all these secret traitors in the War Against Terrorism.
Actually, the only parties who've been exposed as such are Mike Sylwester and the BBC. But MS should feel free to extrapolate all he wants to - when Jihad Unspun and WaPo form essential parts of his daily reading, it's pretty clear that he is interested in enemy propaganda more than the truth.
#15
Jihad Unspun and WaPo form essential parts of his daily reading
My major reading every day is Rantburg. Don't you think it's suspicious, Zhang Fei, that Fred Pruitt allows me to post these articles? Maybe he's objectively on the side of the terrorists too!
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 12:00 Comments ||
Top||
#16
I don't appreciate RBers being denigrated and summarily dismissed in a sneering, sarcastic tone for being "vigilant" warriors.
I think of myself as such and I'm proud to do so.
I dare say it's why Fred maintains this site.
The internet war of memes, ideas, hearts and minds is a valid front in this war.
In addition, given the pro-Islamofacist, Leftist agenda of the Main Stream Media, sites like RB, as well as its non-idiotarian posters, are vital sources of information for our fellow Americans (and friends and allies) they won't get anywhere else.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/27/2004 12:01 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Mike Sylwester: My major reading every day is Rantburg.
That can't possibly be, given all those long Jihad Unspun and WaPo articles that MS posts unedited.
Mike Sylwester: Don't you think it's suspicious, Zhang Fei, that Fred Pruitt allows me to post these articles? Maybe he's objectively on the side of the terrorists too!
Fred has a high tolerance threshold for jihadi-lovers. I wouldn't.
#18
Don't apologize, Jen. Throughout history, many societies have been saved by the vigilance of a few true patriots who are quick to identify and accuse the secret traitors and their treasonous organizations.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 12:06 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Mike Sylwester: Don't you think it's suspicious, Zhang Fei, that Fred Pruitt allows me to post these articles? Maybe he's objectively on the side of the terrorists too!
Note also that perhaps 90% of the articles in WaPo and the BBC provide favorable (but false) coverage of enemy progress or agitate in favor of initiatives that aid the enemy, whereas 90% of articles on Rantburg (excluding Mike Sylwester's) provide the converse information and opinions. Only to someone as obtusely pro-jihadi as MS could confuse Rantburg and the pro-jihadi media.
#23
Actually, maybe MS should be banned from Rantburg.
If I'm not, then that might indicate that Fred Pruitt is objectively on the side of the terrorists after all.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 12:13 Comments ||
Top||
#24
"Maybe he's objectively on the side of jihadi lovers."
Are you trying to be funny?
You must have him mixed up with Atrios.
"...a few true patriots "
Actually, there are more than a few of us.
It's just that some of the more vocal and articulate ones come here like ZF, Dotcom, B-a-r, Frank G., Long Hair Republican, Deacon Blues, ex-lib, Old Spook and Cyber Sarge.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/27/2004 12:15 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Damn straight!
oh, yeah and Al-Aska Paul lol
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/27/2004 12:18 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Re #21 (Jen): Whittaker Chambers identified specific people who committed concrete acts of Soviet espionage. You accuse the BBC of "carrying water" for terrorists.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 12:19 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Mikey - they're a NEWS organization that has willingly distorted and misled about the Arab world, the war on Terror, Bush and Blair' war on Iraq, etc, etc. - that's not a innocent mistake, that's abuse of their position that provides aid to the enemy. I call that an act of treachery by fucking lefty pacifists who'd do anything to further their antiwestern, antiamerikkan agenda. Slap a burka on and join em
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/27/2004 12:23 Comments ||
Top||
#28
"Actually, maybe MS should be banned from Rantburg"
I don't agree, I would aplaude it however if you guys decide to continue this little flamwar of yours in a private Email exchange, this thread is neither infromative or amusing to read.
Posted by: Cardinal Fang (Evert V. in NL) ||
06/27/2004 12:23 Comments ||
Top||
#29
Yes, Mike.
Did you just wake up this morning?
The BBC started the whole sneer quotes thing around the word "terrorists."
Yes, the BBC is on the side of the terrorists.
Could we make our position any clearer?
And Frank, yep. Forgot Paul and Atomic Conspiracy and Jarhead and Howard UK and Bulldog and.... LOL!
Posted by: Jen ||
06/27/2004 12:24 Comments ||
Top||
#30
#19 (Zhang Fei): 90% of the articles in WaPo and the BBC provide favorable (but false) coverage of enemy progress or agitate in favor of initiatives that aid the enemy
Zhang Fei, since you are such an expert on the content of The Washington Post and BBC, how much time do you spend immersing yourself in their propaganda, which is objectively on the side of the terrorists? Aren't you afraid that you yourself will be misled and begin to objectively support the terrorists?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 12:25 Comments ||
Top||
#31
Sorry, Evert. (Forgot to put you in the Roll Call, too!)
I don't know what got into MS.
The Left, pro-Islamofascism bias of the Main Stream Media has been known and taken for granted here at RB almost since the war started.
Yet he chooses to make it issue on this thread today--who knows why?
Posted by: Jen ||
06/27/2004 12:28 Comments ||
Top||
#32
ok Evert.....I'm sorry :-(
damn, the adults showed up
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/27/2004 12:29 Comments ||
Top||
#33
Sorry, Evert. (Forgot to put you in the Roll Call, too!) I don't know what got into MS. The Left, pro-Islamofascism bias of the Main Stream Media has been known and taken for granted here at RB almost since the war started. Yet he chooses to make it issue on this thread today--who knows why?
Jen, we are going to see a lot more of this sort of behavior in the coming months. A lot of folks on this forum formerly counted on as allies are turning on us because they cannot stomach supporting the war any more. This is going to happen more and more in the blogosphere and it is happening here.
And it is their God-given right to cross the lines: I just hope MS is comfortable with the character of folks he is about to ally with.
And I don't know what f*ck is wrong with him to begin with. I post that the CIA is throwing the war and the DoJ is signing off on it. Why is this a positive development in the WoT? What element of this story could possibly make me think it can be used to win a War against Civilization Islam has declared on the west?
Is there something I missed. Something which has been codified while I wasn't looking that only throw pillows and comfy chairs can be used against murdering thugs?
#34
badanov, too right.
I unjustifiably left you, off too, for which I apologize as you do yeoman's work over here.
I fear you are right about the Left--maybe it's because we're ultimately winning both the real war at the front and the Culture War here at home, but whatever the reason, the Left is having to face the fact that their propanganda war is failing miserably and they can no longer use sly attacks of disinformation to keep people from supporting President Bush and the war and from preventing them from siding with what is right, true and just and that is our President, our country and this righteous war on Evil.
Once again, battle is joined and people must choose sides, if they haven't already done so, in which case it becomes time to remove the pretender's mask.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/27/2004 12:54 Comments ||
Top||
#35
sigh
my planet right or wrong
my country right or wrong
my region right or wrong
my state right or wrong
sounds about right
there is no room for compromise or even argumentation
what's right is right!
#36
A lot of folks on this forum formerly counted on as allies are turning on us because they cannot stomach supporting the war any more.
Another interpretation is that some people are falsely accusing others of supporting terrorism.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 13:13 Comments ||
Top||
#37
Agree, Badanov, more and more people can't stomach the war, and this war is still at the level of what the military calls low intesity conflict. Imagine what it would be like if we ever get into a real war. With the massive propaganda campaign by the left, I'm not sure the US can fight wars anymore.
#39
Fer chrstsakes! I'll say it again: Some people are falsely accusing others of supporting terrorism.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 13:21 Comments ||
Top||
#40
Mike, let the chips fall where they may.
The WaPo almost singlehandedly drove the Abu Ghraib "story" and what has resulted?
It took even more tools away from our interrogators so that they are almost forced to mollycoddle enemy combatant detainees to get intell.
Who does this help?
Particularly given the fact that the mild form of abuses wasn't really hurting anyone and was only being done by a few out-of-control soldiers...It helps the Enemy.
The Post also implied that Bush and Rummy were complicit in the abuse by their orders.
Who does that help by eroding confidence at home in the Commander in Chief and our war effort?
The Enemy.
The Culture War being waged at home (and by this I include Britain, Australia, and every other democracy on this planet, really) between the Left and the Right is every bit as much of a war as the military one.
The BBC and the WaPO, among others, have thrown in with the Left, which is also the side of Islamofacism.
While they have different end goals in mind, they must feel that joining common goals will get them closer to their victory which is Socialist government on the part of Western Leftists and shari'a government on the part of the Islamofascists.
And the Left (as well as the right) has its adherents.
Why be so afraid to fly your colors in Year 3 of the war, even if it is the green flag of IslamoNazism?
Posted by: Jen ||
06/27/2004 13:24 Comments ||
Top||
#41
Will you at least admit that micro-managing matters such as how a prisoner is interrogated will not help us in the War on Terrorism?
Who is micro-managing interrogations? The CIA? That's what the article is about. The CIA decided to suspend some methods.
You are the one who is declaring how the CIA and the Department of Justice should and should not conduct its interrogations. You are the one who declares that the "CIA is throwing the war and the DoJ is signing off on it."
Why may you express an opinion about this issue, but others may not?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 13:26 Comments ||
Top||
#42
Jen, you're a good debater. You would be even better, though, if you would moderate your accusations about other people's motives.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 13:31 Comments ||
Top||
#43
Because we're right and you're wrong.
The Left is trying to derail the war--just like they did in Vietnam and they used those same tactics to bring down Nixon--because with every day that passes, America gets stronger in every way and Americans (and now people around the world) come to the conscious realization that they love Liberty and Freedom and they love America and everything it stands for and they're sick to
death of the failed promises and misery of the Liberal (Left) agenda.
You posted this and the WaPo has this as a feature because this is one small victory for the Left and they helped make it possible.
If they can get a Useful Idiot to post it on a VRWC website like RB, even better.
I personally wanted my government's interrogators left alone to deal with enemy detainees as they saw fit to get information so that me and my fellow Americans WOULDN'T GET MURDERED.
But maybe that's just me...
Posted by: Jen ||
06/27/2004 13:33 Comments ||
Top||
#44
Who is micro-managing interrogations? The CIA? That's what the article is about. The CIA decided to suspend some methods. You are the one who is declaring how the CIA and the Department of Justice should and should not conduct its interrogations. You are the one who declares that the "CIA is throwing the war and the DoJ is signing off on it." Why may you express an opinion about this issue, but others may not? .
Mike, I am not going to get into a super-threaded pissing match with you like I did last Sunday.
I will let you declare victory and let you continue whistling passed this graveyard. Don't ask me to endorse a kinder, gentler means of dealing with suicidal thugs.
I will leave you with this thought before I have to go back into the shop: I have absolutely no influence over matters of intelligence. I am in fact just a dumb machinist. I am not micro-managing anything.
But I believe in tying the hands of our intel agents worldwide does in fact endangers more Americans, and it makes prisoners more resistant to extracting intel from. That cannot be a good thing, unless you no longer support the War on Terrorism, as I believe you have reached that point.
#45
badanov: Don't ask me to endorse a kinder, gentler means of dealing with suicidal thugs.
It's not suicidal thugs that bother me - it's mass murdering thugs. 9/11 occurred because we couldn't even get into Zaccarias Moussaoui's laptop, let alone torture him for information. I am not willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands of Americans in exchange for the well-being of captured terrorists. If GWB agreed to this, it's on his head. (MS clearly has a simplistic good-and-evil view of the world, where he goes to sulk in the corner if not everything goes his way. Not me. I'll support GWB in spite of my disagreements with specific policies because the alternative, Kerry, is much more dangerous).
#46
#45 (Zhang Fei): MS clearly has a simplistic good-and-evil view of the world,
I think that the issue of prisoner treatment is complex, with several conflicting considerations. One consideration is that prisoners are a potential source of tactical intelligence. Among other considerations are that we want our tactical intelligence to be reliable, that we want to encourage our opponents to surrender, that we want to convert our opponents to our side, that we want our opponents to treat captured Americans properly, that we want to develop international support for our side, and that we want our policies to be clear to the soldiers who implement them.
We try to weigh these considerations and develop a well-balanced policy. Public discussion of these issues is not treasonous. Posting an informative article about the subject is not pro-jihadi. Suggesting that various considerations be weighed together is not being "objectively on the side of the terrorists."
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 14:15 Comments ||
Top||
#47
MS: Among other considerations are that we want our tactical intelligence to be reliable, that we want to encourage our opponents to surrender, that we want to convert our opponents to our side, that we want our opponents to treat captured Americans properly, that we want to develop international support for our side, and that we want our policies to be clear to the soldiers who implement them.
Word salad. My bottom line isn't any of these considerations - it's what will keep Americans from getting slaughtered in the thousands by these thugs. And micro-management of interrogation methods because of political correctness is not the way to go. If a terrorist has to be hacked to pieces to get life-saving information, I'm all for it.
MS: Public discussion of these issues is not treasonous.
Discussion isn't treasonous. Siding with the enemy is.
MS: Posting an informative article about the subject is not pro-jihadi. Suggesting that various considerations be weighed together is not being "objectively on the side of the terrorists."
We get enough enemy propaganda in the news pages of the major media (through their Baathist and Arab handlers). Spare me the platitudes about all viewpoints being equally valid.
#48
I think that the issue of prisoner treatment is complex
Prisoner treatment should no be at all complex. Its simple - tell us what you know and you'll be executed without suffering. Hold out, and we'll throw you in a room with some family members of a 9/11 murder victim for an hour first, force feed you pork and garrot you slowly.
Say what you will, but I know enough to understand there is an entire culture dedicated to my families death - that's enough.
#49
Badanov: I will leave you with this thought before I have to go back into the shop: I have absolutely no influence over matters of intelligence. I am in fact just a dumb machinist. I am not micro-managing anything.
You're not micro-managing anything. You're just saying, as I am, that torture should remain a weapon in the toolkit of CIA interrogators. We're not saying that CIA personnel must torture prisoners. We're saying that they should have the authority to torture prisoners. It's people like MS who want to micro-manage the CIA, by taking away methods they had previously been allowed to use.
#50
we can bury the next round of terror victims on Mike's Moral High Groundâ¢
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/27/2004 15:10 Comments ||
Top||
#51
Ahem, cough cough
Outraged. Outraged, I am! An "honorable RB roll call" that leaves off my three personal faves:
1) Mucky
2) TGA (wherever he is now), and
3) our very own intern in "Neocon/Zionist World Headquarters" the inimitable Dan Darling ("yeoman's work," indeed)
(cloaking deviced reenabled)
Posted by: Another Dan ||
06/27/2004 15:29 Comments ||
Top||
#52
You're right, of course, AD...and yourself, too.
And JFM, Barbara Skolaut, Verlaine, and...?
Posted by: Jen ||
06/27/2004 15:31 Comments ||
Top||
#53
I've got a list of 200 RBers who are known doubters and compromisers! They are soft on the red, white and blue! They buy commie textiles! They watch Marx brothers movies and they sometimes forget the party line!
Posted by: joe and roy ||
06/27/2004 15:43 Comments ||
Top||
#54
joe and roy: I've got a list of 200 RBers who are known doubters and compromisers! They are soft on the red, white and blue! They buy commie textiles! They watch Marx brothers movies and they sometimes forget the party line!
What party line? The (Republican) party line is that illegal immigration is a good thing. Most Rantburgers oppose this. The (Republican) party line is that torture is a bad thing. Most Rantburgers disagree. The (Republican) party line is that Islam is religion of peace. Most Rantburgers disagree. The (Republican) party line is that China is a constructive force in the North Korea situation. Most Rantburgers disagree.
The Democrats have one party line - whatever the problem is, America is to blame. The Dems believe that whatever others (Dems don't believe in enemies) have done, Americans have done far worse. Dems believe that America needs to be punished, and that 9/11 was just a small downpayment on a well-deserved round of punishments.
#55
Thank you for your insight Mr. Fei!
The party linie will be along between 4 and 5 eastern. Stay tuned.
Posted by: joe and roy ||
06/27/2004 15:51 Comments ||
Top||
#56
Who are "joe and roy?" One of America's new "married" gay couples?
You're certainly good Lefties to make fun of Conservative principles and trivializing them ("They buy Commie textiles.") on this thread which is about saving American lives.
Now that you've "come out," it's time to go back in.
One thing most GOPers and RBers are together on is the Defense of Marriage Act.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/27/2004 15:57 Comments ||
Top||
#57
I'd be a repubilcan, if they were even remotely right wing anymore.
I'd have to agee with ZF, and add that we have nukes, and if the US determines you have sided with the terrorists you cease to exist - that is the only statement we need to make on the matter.
That's right wing.
#59
Who are "joe and roy?" One of America's new "married" gay couples?
Probably a reference to Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohen.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 16:28 Comments ||
Top||
#60
.com: Jersey Mike - Aha! A "closet" Bull Mooser, eh? I knew it! Lol! *offers secret handshake*
If only we had a Teddy Roosevelt in the ring. The Navy today is far more powerful than Roosevelt's Great White Fleet. If only we had someone with the charisma and will to use it effectively.
#62
MS: Probably a reference to Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohen.
It's pretty funny that liberals do a fair bit of gay-bashing with respect to Roy Cohn, who spared no prisoners in his pursuit of the enemy within - language that they would consider prejudiced if applied to any other gay person.
ZF - I'm afraid that no matter WHO is sitting in the big chair right now is bound hand and foot by the current political idiocy combined with everything that has transpired since the Khobar bombing. If you swapped Teddy with George, you'd prolly only see more crocodile smiles vs. PR smiles as November draws nearer. Nothing new, such as the Congressional approval for action in Iraq, would be forthcoming for any other theaters or threats, such as Iran, regardless of the evidence or danger.
Even given the incredible Iranian cassis belli I believe Congress would do nothing more than form 50 "commissions" (read: multi-ring circuses) all scheduled for open public sessions - for lots of TV face time, with no intention of bringing any crisis to a vote. I enjoyed AC's plan to force them to take responsibility, yesterday, He's got some great ideas! Sigh. We are, regards any new venture, at least as stymied by politics are we are by the "shortage" of boots. This environment sucks like an F5, IMHO.
#64
damn, I missed by this much!
Party shrike was at 3.57 eastern loving time.
Posted by: Joe and Roy ||
06/27/2004 18:14 Comments ||
Top||
#65
Ah yes! The Defense of Marriage Act!
Let's built up our Morale Armies and face the
foe faggot with a thousand nuptuals hetro!
Let's draft for Sex!
10,000 blonde babes marry up on 12,300 Greeks!
Sabine Women done right!
Posted by: Joe and Roy ||
06/27/2004 18:17 Comments ||
Top||
#66
Re #62 (Zhang Fei): It's pretty funny that liberals do a fair bit of gay-bashing with respect to Roy Cohn, who spared no prisoners in his pursuit of the enemy within - language that they would consider prejudiced if applied to any other gay person.
I don't think you'll find many liberals who fault Cohn just because he was homosexual.
Roy Cohn was dispicable because smeared people as traitors with little thought about whether his accusations were true. The fact that he himself was homosexual is relevant to the story because many of his actions were motivated by a desire to obtain special favors for his homosexual lover David Schine, with the cooperation of Joe McCarthy.
President Eisenhower collected a secret file on these shenanigans and intended to use it to discredit McCarthy, but McCarthy self-destructed before it was necessary. There's a very good book on this subject, but I can't find a link to it at the moment.
Here's an interesting article on the subject of McCarthy, Cohn and homosexuality. Search down to the text "Was McCarthy himself gay?" and read from there.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 18:27 Comments ||
Top||
#67
This thread reminds me of a chapter in one of Chesterton's books called The Flag of the World. Here is a relevant quote:
And what is the matter with the anti-patriot? I think it can be stated, without undue bitterness, by saying that he is the candid friend. And what is the matter with the candid friend? There we strike the rock of real life and immutable human nature.
I venture to say that what is bad in the candid friend is simply that he is not candid. He is keeping something back -- his own gloomy pleasure in saying unpleasant things. He has a secret desire to hurt, not merely to help. This is certainly, I think, what makes a certain sort of anti-patriot irritating to healthy citizens. I do not speak (of course) of the anti-patriotism which only irritates feverish stockbrokers and gushing actresses; that is only patriotism speaking plainly. A man who says that no patriot should attack the Boer War until it is over is not worth answering intelligently; he is saying that no good son should warn his mother off a cliff until she has fallen over it. But there is an anti-patriot who honestly angers honest men, and the explanation of him is, I think, what I have suggested: he is the uncandid candid friend; the man who says, "I am sorry to say we are ruined," and is not sorry at all. And he may be said, without rhetoric, to be a traitor; for he is using that ugly knowledge which was allowed him to strengthen the army, to discourage people from joining it. Because he is allowed to be pessimistic as a military adviser he is being pessimistic as a recruiting sergeant. Just in the same way the pessimist (who is the cosmic anti-patriot) uses the freedom that life allows to her counsellors to lure away the people from her flag. Granted that he states only facts, it is still essential to know what are his emotions, what is his motive.
Posted by: Joe and Roy ||
06/27/2004 19:25 Comments ||
Top||
#69
Thanks for your Chesterton quotation, Virginian. I hope Zhang Fei and Jen read it! Maybe they'll learn something!!
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 19:43 Comments ||
Top||
#70
I had an uncandid candid friend once. They still haven't found the body
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/27/2004 19:46 Comments ||
Top||
#71
Chesterton: An overweight author, poet, playright, and novelist who lived during the socialization of Great Britain
THAT Chesterton?
Chesterton, whose sentiments helped pave the way for the modern day left in UK, politics?
That Chesteron?
Isn't that cute little quote sounding a little like the wit and wisdom of Michael Moore?i
An antti-patriot is actutally a patriot. A traitor is actually someone who is loyal? Isn't that the essence of a fifth column?
I would say that Chesterton is a recursive charicature of himself and today's modern leftist: the worship of slogans and short conclusions based upon little more than a smarmy self introspection, displayed as some great and memorable wit yet with no substance, and nothing based on events of the day.
#72
If the CIA has suspended use of torture for its field agents, you have to wonder about the dynamics at work in Washington. Right now the CIA is without a director. This can't possibly anything other than a 'leak' by someone related to the CIA who has an axe to grind with Bush.
I read the parts that MS quoted. No one is named as a source.
What a surprime.
Wishful thinking being passed off as journalism.
Somehow I get the idea.
If it is in fact the case that this is not actually policy I hope whomever gets in to the CIA cleans this rat's nest out. The same with the DoJ.
#73
I read the parts that MS quoted. No one is named as a source.
Par for the course of Mike's crap. Unsourced leaks intended to hurt the administration and impede the war. Anything to defeat the home front, eh?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/27/2004 20:52 Comments ||
Top||
#74
Here's the only part of the quote that we all need to concern ourselves with:
"And he [the anti-patriot] may be said, without rhetoric, to be a traitor;..."
It's clear that you are the anti-patriot, the "candid" "friend", Mike and the other 3 Leftist poster, but then where does that live you?
Headless in Gaza, I'm afraid.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/27/2004 20:59 Comments ||
Top||
#75
When I read that Chesteron quote, I felt he was speaking out from his grave to sting Badanov with his words. Badonov obviously felt the target had been hit accurately.
Jen and Zhang Fei, I hope you too will read Chesterton's words and take them to heart!
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 21:05 Comments ||
Top||
#76
When I read that Chesteron quote, I felt he was speaking out from his grave to sting Badanov with his words. Badonov obviously felt the target had been hit accurately.
Sometimes I like to make sure my mommy knows I won without telling her I really lost badly, too but I only tell Mommy, not all of Rantburg.
Why was it necessary for you to declare victory and run away from your personal defeat in this forum without dealing with your personal mendacity concerning the WoT?
#77
What's to take to heart?
Chesterton is nothing but a Leftist trying to justify his treason and disloyalty to Britain by taking some sort of cynical, intellectually aloof "high ground."
The whole thing is soulless and wrong and there's nothing of the heart about it.
Although you should have it put on a plaque in your home to be your Contrarian's Prayer.
And as Frank G. said awhile back, we can bury the victims of our next Islamist terror attack on Mike's Moral High Groundâ¢.
Leave badanov alone--he's good.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/27/2004 21:18 Comments ||
Top||
#78
This is getting a bit insane. So, we won't torture terrorists for information anymore. Instead, drop them alive into vats of molten glass, let it cool, then put them on display in Mecca with a sign saying "This could be you."
And someone explain to me why we're still bothering to take prisoners? If we can't beat the information out of them, let's just stop taking them.
#79
badanov, if there's no named source and it isn't official policy, does this mean the story's bullshit and just wishful thinking on the part of the WaPo (and Mike and his little pinko friends)?
Can we hope?
Let's hope that CIA interrogators have a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in place about sweating enemy detainees.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/27/2004 21:25 Comments ||
Top||
#80
A more relevant quote:
from the film "Mississippi Burning"
Mr. Anderson: Don't put me on your pedestal, Mr. Ward!
Mr Ward: Don't drag me into your gutter, Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Anderson: These people crawled out of the sewer, Mr. Ward! Maybe the gutter is where we should be!
#81
I hear the voice of Chesterton crying out from his grave:
And what is the matter, Jen, with the anti-patriot? I think it can be stated, Jen, without undue bitterness, by saying that he is the candid friend. And what is the matter, Jen, with the candid friend? There we strike the rock of real life and immutable human nature, Jen. ...
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 21:27 Comments ||
Top||
#82
What drivel, Mike.
As badanov said, you refuse to deal with your own "nuanced" views on the WOT and your tacit approval of the Enemy's position by your silence on important issues like this one under the cloak of being some variation of a Chesterton-like Ãber-patriot/Anti-patriot.
What's an "anti-patriot?" A traitor, that's what. Even Chesterton admitted it.
The persons crying out to me from their graves are George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, Paul Johnson, Barbara Olson, my ancestor who fought in the Revolutionary War, my ancestor who was massacred at Goliad, Texas and my own father who served with the U.S. Army in WWII for 3 years in Europe.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/27/2004 21:34 Comments ||
Top||
#83
badanov, if there's no named source and it isn't official policy, does this mean the story's bullshit and just wishful thinking on the part of the WaPo (and Mike and his little pinko friends)? Can we hope? Let's hope that CIA interrogators have a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in place about sweating enemy detainees.
I have no doubt some elements of the story is real but without anyone willing to talk, we just don;t know which is the lie and which is the truth. And neither does Mike and his little pack of lies either.
It appears there are elements within the CIA who want to see the US fail in the war on terrorism, and thus they leak and fabricate news try to further influence events.
And Silentbrick, I think at would be the natural progression. When our spooks, (May God Bless the field guys fighting this thing for real, BTW) capture an intermediate level terrorist operative, I think that man should disppear into the dark night, never to be seen, with whatever could be extracted in the way of information safely in our hands and the terrorist discarded like the used tampons they are.
#84
Wow, you guys have interpreted the quote in the opposite of the way I did. I thought it was pretty obvious that Mike is awfully close to being this candid friend. Mike's posts remind me of someone who says "I'm sorry to say we are ruined", when he is not sorry at all. Badanov: I am about as right wing as you can get, and I love Chesterton.
#85
I am sorry to say, Virginian, that you are presumptious.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 21:42 Comments ||
Top||
#86
Badanov: I am about as right wing as you can get, and I love Chesterton.
I am as right wing as you can get too but I like Nirvana as well as Bob Wills' music from the 30s. So, go figure.
And as for Chesterton: I have found that satire which is relevant for the day it was originally uttered can usually be turned to reflect the opposite view. Espically for leftwing authors. I read the quote as opposite as Mike wanted it read because frankly, not only was the quote irrelevant, but also it could be turned to my own meaning.
Sorta like Chesterton.
And unlike Chesterton in his time, we now know what happens to great nations which become infected with socialist sentiments which are intended to become policy.
#88
virginian> Why would most people here not disagree with that quote? That quote you used, has Chesterton say among other things: "A man who says that no patriot should attack the Boer War until it is over is not worth answering intelligently; he is saying that no good son should warn his mother off a cliff until she has fallen over it. "
Did you really think that a person like e.g. Jen and others here, who believes that anyone criticizing the administration or the war is immediately an enemy, would have liked something like this?
#89
Badanov: I've read several of Chesterton's books, and I've found nothing resembling leftism in them. I don't know much about his politics. He may have been socialist as you say.
Mike: I don't think I'm presumptuous, since lots of folks here read your posts the same way -- they project a "gloomy pleasure in saying unpleasant things". They make people wonder what your motives are. "Granted that he states only facts, it is still essential to know what are his emotions, what is his motive." (Chesterton)
#90
Did you really think that a person like e.g. Jen and others here, who believes that anyone criticizing the administration or the war is immediately an enemy, would have liked something like this
We have in this country people, all over the nation who have volunteered to place their very lives at risk for everyone's right to live and thrive in freedom.
And these brave people have families and friends here at home who fear for the lives of those patriots. These people deserve all the support every person can give them, and that include attacking leftwingers who are opposed to the mission those people are on.
And as long as they are willing to fight and as long as they are defending freedom and capitalism, anyone who opposes their mission will be attacked, fiecely and without rest or relent.
#91
Mike's problem is that he, at best, states only half the facts. He leaves out any facts that don't fit the Sy Hersh storyline.
That makes his motives suspect.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/27/2004 22:14 Comments ||
Top||
#92
Badanov: I've read several of Chesterton's books, and I've found nothing resembling leftism in them. I don't know much about his politics. He may have been socialist as you say.
I don't know his politics, but I figure that an author in ascendency during the period of his adulthood was praised and supported by the leading socialists of the time, and all this during a time of great decline in Great Britain.
#93
Aris: Yes some people will disagree with THAT ONE SENTENCE, but that sentence is OBVIOUSLY NOT the main point of the quote. Jeez, do I have to spell it out for you people?
#94
badanov> My point exactly. You can't even *comprehend* the idea that people may object to the war exactly BECAUSE we don't want to see those brave heroic people who volunteered their lives die in a meaningless Charge of the Light Brigade.
You'd rather the child leave his mother fall off a cliff rather than shout a warning.
#98
My point exactly. You can't even *comprehend* the idea that people may object to the war exactly BECAUSE we don't want to see those brave heroic people who volunteered their lives die in a meaningless Charge of the Light Brigade
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Soldiers die in war. It's part of it. So is sacrfice. So, as long as these folks are willing to fight, they deserve every chance to survive the war they can get.
Their loved ones are not encouraged when the left or the 'anti-patriots' think their humanitarian is so real they must make those soldiers' loved one also feel this fear. It's ugly and its unnecessary. It is also an expression of sentiment of an element of our society that knows nothing and is quite unwilling to do anything nor make any scarifice for this nation to win this war. And if they make the relatives of soldiers in the field afraid enough to demand their return before the mission is done, then they have accomplished nothing more than futher engander the country and its citizens.
#99
Aris, the main point of the article is a certain psychology which takes a gloomy pleasure in saying unpleasant things, who says I'm sorry to say we are ruined when he is not sorry at all. That sums up just about everything that comes out of the BBC and the WaPo.
#100
The Charge of the Light Brigade wasn't a sacrifice in the sense of giving lives for a purpose. It was a stupid waste of lives, people who died for nothing.
Don't you think that people have an obligation to speak against the administration whenever they feel that they are leading your country's troops into such "sacrifices"?
Regardless of whether you think THIS war is such a case, don't you think that people have a right to complaint against their government when they feel a war is either unjust or meaningless or stupidly fought or whatever?
virginian> I don't know about WaPo -- I've never read it. I don't know about BBC -- I've never had the chance to watch it. You may be right about them and whether they are gleeful about it or not.
#101
Aris, re #97, Western Civilization is a big place, and I don't see a whole heck of a lot of countries doing much to defend it. There does seem to be a plentiful supply of critics, though.
#102
Badanov makes a good point; I'm slated for my Iraq rotation next year. I get different relatives calling me all worried & stuff from the b.s. they see on the nightly news. I tell them about all the good we're doing over there (i.e. schools, orphanages, infrastructure renewal), how it's a small percentage of hardliners who are creating havoc, and that most of my buddies who have returned say it's not nearly as bad as people think. They (some of my family and friends) simply don't comprehend how I (& so many others) want to go there and pull our share. There are no consripts in our military, this is what we do, we train for this stuff every day, we are professional warriors. Going to Iraq w/my Marines will prolly be the capstone of my life as a fighting man. My biggest fear is not being killed or maimed or any of that shit (which would obviously be horrible on my family), my biggest fear is seeing our nation and it's people succumb to having no stomach for the dirty un-popular work that needs to be done. If we cannot see this through as a nation then I will wonder if a lot of Americans are really worth fighting for. I do not want my little boy doing this thing again in 20 years over there, I'd like my generation to finish this now and move on. Iraq is one part of the WoT imho, this whole WoT is going to be long, hard, ugly, and unpopular. If the average American cannot bear the burden of this then we are destined to be hit again and again by those who wish to kill us.
#103
virginian> Really? I see the whole bunch of them doing lots to defend it. But I think it depends on what we believe Western civilisation consists of, and whether human rights are part of it.
E.g for me the person who *doesn't* defend human rights is the true traitor -- other people see the idea of human rights themselves as treasonous when they interfere with the wishes of the government.
#107
You know every poll taken on the subject of torture shows that a strong majority (60%+) are in favor of it. It not a good thing to do but sometimes it is necessary. If you have time then you can use slower methods of interorgation, but sometimes you need info PRONTO. Case in point was that LtCol last year that fire that 38 next to that cops head. Next thing you know Abdul was REAL cooperative and saved some lives. This crap about treatment of our guys is PURE BS. Hell they are beheading people over there! Marine, before you go can I send you a St. Christopher Medal?
#109
Thanks Virginian, but we're just like anyone else, I don't think I'd call it 'amazing', just maybe a different mind set (thanks to good Corps training) then the average joe. Either way, thanks for the compliment.
Sarge> sure you can send me the Medal. I'd be much obliged. I already have a Cross and Miraculous Medal taped to my dog-tags but far be it from me to turn down any good will from the Almighty. (no atheists allowed in a fighting hole :)
#110
I think it's silly, presumptive, and rather mean spirited for some posters to claim to know so much about a person's patriotism based on the articles he posts on a political discussion forum. Some of us, perhaps even the majority of us, participate on this forum to read the news about WOT events not easily found in MSM and to debate issues relating to the WOT. How can a forum have any intellectual debates if everyone just mirrors the other guy's viewpoints and there some self-proclaimed Thought Police who say that Washingtomn Post articles are too left or Newsmax are too right, whatever, and if you post them, you're as much a jihadist/Kerry/Moore supporter as the reporter who wrote them.
Reading and debating the contents of an article from the Washington Post or the NYR will not "infect" or corrupt" us, you know. Sometimes it's interesting to learn the latest jab the MSM is taking at the WH. Sometimes the WH is wrong on an issue and why can't a poster say that as an opinion without having shrill voiced value judgments made on that person's ulterior motives or political leanings?
Most of us are conservatives but we are not clones of one another. Most of us, I imagine, are more right or more centrist on a host of issues, but we would still view ourselves as overall conservative. A few posters like Aris are not conservative, but his posts and arguments are consistently thoughtful and well articulated and even if I don't agree with them, I sure learn alot and appreciate reading his posts.
I don't see the problem about thinking independently and disagreement makes for animated debates/discussions. Actually, I see a greater problem with mindless group think, because that's what leads to "empty" posts whose thrust is in the main just name calling and generally obnoxious exchanges.
Posted by: rex ||
06/27/2004 23:39 Comments ||
Top||
#111
I think it's silly, presumptive, and rather mean spirited for some posters to claim to know so much about a person's patriotism based on the articles he posts on a political discussion forum.
Wrong. Leaving out parts of an article everytime lead me to believe the poster is trying to hide something, in other owrds is being dishonest. In order for the debate to be a dabate, both sides must be honest or it ends up in ad hominiem attacks, such as the Gen. Karpinski super-hread last Sunday.
Some of us, perhaps even the majority of us, participate on this forum to read the news about WOT events not easily found in MSM and to debate issues relating to the WOT. How can a forum have any intellectual debates if everyone just mirrors the other guy's viewpoints
You sound like you know there are plants in this forum placed here just to mirror others' views. If you know something about that, speak up. I am not a plant. Are you?
and there some self-proclaimed Thought Police who say that Washingtomn Post articles are too left or Newsmax are too right, whatever, and if you post them, you're as much a jihadist/Kerry/Moore supporter as the reporter who wrote them.
Go to hell, rex. Washington Post is a liberal publication. Identifying it as so does not make it such, I agree except for the very fact that it is. Witness the article MS posted: Full of innuendoes and no sources. How can anyone know what is the truth; named how can anyone debate in the face of such dishonesty?
Reading and debating the contents of an article from the Washington Post or the NYR will not "infect" or corrupt" us, you know.
Nor will identifying a news article from a known liberal publication as agenda laden and not factual.
Sometimes it's interesting to learn the latest jab the MSM is taking at the WH. Sometimes the WH is wrong on an issue and why can't a poster say that as an opinion without having shrill voiced value judgments made on that person's ulterior motives or political leanings?
Maybe 20 years of leftwing mendacity and constant attempts to undermine the national security of the nation through the press and through political policy-making, as our experience causes that.
Most of us are conservatives but we are not clones of one another. Most of us, I imagine, are more right or more centrist on a host of issues, but we would still view ourselves as overall conservative. A few posters like Aris are not conservative, but his posts and arguments are consistently thoughtful and well articulated and even if I don't agree with them, I sure learn alot and appreciate reading his posts.
Aris is so thoughtful he can't detect a joke if it bit him on the ass.
I don't see the problem about thinking independently and disagreement makes for animated debates/discussions.
I encourage you to think independantly. I encourage you to debate, too but when you state facts from a news source which is questionable or you leave out facts in the article which do not bolster you views, we do not have a debate. We have a liar trying to advance an agenda.
Actually, I see a greater problem with mindless group think, because that's what leads to "empty" posts whose thrust is in the main just name calling and generally obnoxious exchanges
I have a problem with mindless conclusions reached based upon a personal prejudice.
And, rex, sing the term 'groupthink' does not make you a great intellectual in my view. It just makes you sound ignorant especially in view of the fact I am not dealing with anyone else with my views. I am simply stating them, some agree, others have other views and I disagree. If that is group think maybe you should re-read Orwell.
I agree with people in this forum who want to kill terrorist. I disagree with those people who would hamstring that effort.
#112
Very well said Rex. I've found that dissecting an opponent's argument and not their character usually leads to a better understanding of the issue and an effort to get at some truth. (Though I've certainly fallen short and have been guilty of the occasional personal attack). Plus, you can also at least walk away from the exchange w/some sort of respect for each other's view.
I also disdain left/right labels but they are so easy to use it's hard to get away from. Though some of us do not fall wholly into either category. Heck, for example, the LLL would prolly despise me because I love guns (NRA life member), hunting, the outdoors, smaller gov't, lower taxes, nascar/country music & am a quasi-isolationist. However, the Christian right would prolly not like my general view on matters pertaining to *organized* religion and abortion. I'm also pro environment and would prolly argue w/the stereotypical Republican (label again) when it comes to matters of business versus environment. I would also piss off a lot of people because I don't think it would be a bad idea to legalize & regulate both prostitution and marijuana. BTW - I think we should seal the borders and stop all immigration for about 10 years until we find out just who the hell we have in the country illegally & whether or not to retain, detain or deport them. So after putting all my cards on the table one can certainly argue my logic on any aforementioned issue but questioning my patriotism or anyone's patriotism as in the case of Mike S. (who, I believe as an intel officer served in the USAF or Army for 12 years) is beneath most RB posters. Though I don't always agree w/Mike S I do read his posts. Sometimes I chime in but usually don't. As a caveat though, if I felt I was wrongly attacked ad hominem style then I'd prolly hit back in kind as well.
#113
Jarhead, you described yourself pretty much as I see myself [except I like R&R better than country and I do not hunt for sport but I don't begrudge anyone who does]and other conservatives ie. people holding views that represent variations of "rightness" depending on the specific issue, but nonetheless identifying overall with conservatives.
Badanov, I don't see myself as an intellectual - if I did, I sure would not be particpating on an internet discussion forum. But I think a conservative political discussion forum should allow for differences of opinion without having one's patriotism being called into question. As for posting from the Wash.Post, MS provided the link,you are not forced to only read MS's cut and paste, so how is MS being dishonest? On the issue of interrogation rules of POW's, I happen to agree with you 100%, but I don't think MS is a traitor or unpatriotic for holding the opinion he does about the Geneva Convention nor do I think MS is committing a sin for posting an article from Wash. Post. Who knows...maybe MS is far more right than you with regards to border control, which is a national security issue and if you post a loosey goosey open borders article from WSJ, [yes, that's the WSJ's position on immigration] does MS get the right to call your patriotism into question?
Posted by: rex ||
06/28/2004 1:52 Comments ||
Top||
A former Boston cabdriver who allegedly admitted training in an Afghanistan terrorist camp was charged yesterday in federal court in Minnesota with lying to the FBI about helping a convicted terrorist get a Massachusetts driverâs license. Mohamad Kamal Elzahabi, 41, a Lebanese national, is charged with lying about providing support to Raed Hijazi in 1997 and 1998, when both were working as taxi drivers in Boston, according to a complaint and FBI affidavit unsealed yesterday in US District Court in Minnesota. Hijazi was later convicted in Jordan of the failed millennium bombing plot that targeted American and Israeli tourists in that country. The complaint also charges Elzahabi with lying to federal agents by denying he had shipped radios and other communications equipment to Pakistan between 1995 and 1997. Elzahabi, who has been held in New York since his arrest in May, will be transferred to Minneapolis to face the two counts of making false statements to federal investigators. Elzahabi, who lived at 15 Appleton St. in Everett from 1997 to 1998, was placed on an FBI "watch list" of 300 people in the weeks after the 9/11 terrorist attacks because of his relationship with Hijazi, the Globe reported in October 2001. He was not among the seven suspected terrorists sought by US authorities in May.
The affidavit unsealed late yesterday details a relationship between Elzahabi, Hijazi, and Bassam Kanj, who allegedly had links to Osama bin Laden. The relationship began in Afghanistan and continued when all three came to Boston in the late 1990s and worked as cab drivers. In January 2000, Kanj was killed leading an attack by Lebanese militants against an army division in the mountains outside Tripoli. Two days after the battle, Al Safir, a leftist newspaper in Beirut, identified Kanj as a bin Laden operative who had recruited 200 young men to his network during 1999 alone. When questioned April 18 by the FBIâs Joint Terrorism Task Force about his relationship with Hijazi when they worked in Boston, Elzahabi first said that "he saw Hijazi sleeping in a cab, but denied knowing him very well," according to the affidavit. Elzahabi told agents that he had joined a jihad military training camp and fought in Afghanistan in 1988 and 1989 and that while he was there he met, Hijazi, Kanj, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian Al Qaeda associate who is believed to be directing terrorist attacks against US and coalition forces in Iraq, the affidavit says. Elzahabi said that he and Hijazi "were not close friends or associates" and denied helping Hijazi get a Massachusetts driverâs license or letting him live at his Everett apartment and collect his mail there, according to the affidavit. But records from the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles show that Elzahabi was listed as Hijaziâs sponsor when he obtained his driverâs license Oct 10, 1997, the affidavit says.
There's a loophole that Jamie Gorelick will have to close!
Another resident of the Everett apartment building where Elzahabi used to live told investigators that he accidentally opened a letter in the fall of 1997 that was addressed to 15 Appleton St. and found Hijaziâs license inside. The affidavit says the resident was going to send it back to the Registry, but Elzahabi told him that Hijazi was using his address. Although the affidavit says Elzahabi lived in Everett between 1997 and 1998, a Boston cab company official said Elzahabi had been issued a Boston hackney license in 1995. The license remains active, which would allow him to still rent a taxi. During his interviews with the FBI, Elzahabi said he came to the United States in 1984 on a student visa and paid a Houston woman to marry him so he could obtain legal permanent residency. They were divorced in 1988. After attending a religious conference in the Midwest in 1988, Elzahabi told agents, he traveled to Afghanistan via Pakistan to train at the jihad military camp, the affidavit says. Between 1991 and 1995, Elzahabi admitted, he worked in Afghanistan as a sniper in combat and "an instructor in small arms and sniper skills for other jihadists attending the Khalden training camp in Afghanistan," the indictment says.
Well-travelled mook, ain't he?
Elzahabi admitted personally knowing Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, who later became Al Qaedaâs leading operation planner and organizer, according to the affidavit. In 1995, Elzahabi said, he returned to the United States because he needed medical care for an abdominal gunshot wound he suffered in combat.
Rats.
He lived in New York City for the next two years. Between 1999 and 2000, he served as a sniper in Chechnya, reentering the United States in mid-August 2001, when he moved to Minneapolis, according to the affidavit. Elzahabi denied that he shipped communications equipment to Pakistan while working at a business called Drive Axle Rebuilders, but acknowledged that he had accepted shipments for other people without knowing what was inside the packages, the affidavit says.
Just a simple distributer!
The complaint charges that Elzahabi had large quantities of walkie-talkies "suitable for communications in extreme rural locations without regular or even cellular telephone service" shipped to him at the New York business. Elzahabi is accused of then shipping the equipment to Pakistan. The affidavit says some of the equipment was recovered in Afghanistan by US military forces after Sept. 11, 2001. Gail Marcinkiewicz, a spokeswoman for the FBIâs Boston office, declined to comment on the investigation being handled by the FBIâs Joint Terrorism Task Force in Minneapolis. "Itâs an ongoing matter," she said.
"I will say no more!"
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/27/2004 12:19:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And the connection with Zacarias Moussawi? Hmmmm
Posted by: Capt America ||
06/27/2004 2:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Interesting possibility with Zarqawi-Elzahabi-Moussaoui, given that both Elzahabi and Moussaoui were in Minnesota at same time, Moussaoui had inquired about starting a crop dusting business while in Oklahoma, and Zarqawi is the mastermind of chemicals. Just coincidence?
Posted by: Capt America ||
06/27/2004 2:40 Comments ||
Top||
#3
During his interviews with the FBI, Elzahabi said he came to the United States in 1984 on a student visa and paid a Houston woman to marry him so he could obtain legal permanent residency. They were divorced in 1988.
This is a loophole that should be closed. And the woman should be publicly identified and prosecuted.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/27/2004 11:23 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Calling all Arab/Islamic 'students' 40 through 50 years of age.
Have you finished your 'homework'?
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/27/2004 22:08 Comments ||
Top||
Thai police said on Sunday that a bomb blast killed a Marine and injured six others in Narathiwat province, the Thai News Agency reported. The soldiers were playing football when a time bomb was exploded, the police said, adding the explosion occurred at about the same time Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was presiding over the inaugural match of a new football league in Yala. Thaksin visited the southern provinces of Pattani and Yala Sunday to help boost morale among the residents and kick off the inaugural match of a new football league in Yala.
A former deputy village chief in southern Thailand was decapitated by local insurgents a few hours before Thai prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra toured the region on Sunday. The victim was found beheaded by knife on Sunday morning around 6:00 a.m. in the Saiburi district of the Pattani Province, which lies some 1,000 kilometers south of Bangkok and close to Malaysia to the south. Authorities were now carrying on related investigation and suspected the crime was from hands of insurgents responsible for the regionâs violence in the past months, local police said.
#1
Of course, the US Press will never pick up an story like this one. Somebody must find a way to gather this type of information and present it to the American public on a daily basis.
The military confirmed yesterday that another Abu Sayyaf group led by one Wajan Asman is now holding captive three crewmembers of a tugboat kidnapped in waters close to Tawi-Tawi last April. This, after Abu Sayyaf leader Ayub Bakil, whose group was earlier holding them captive, was killed along with two henchmen, both his relatives, in a clash with a Navy special warfare group in a remote village in Languyan, Tawi-Tawi last Friday. Navy Capt. Feliciano Angue, chief of Naval Task Force 62, an anti-terror unit, said Indonesian Walter Sampel, 53, skipper of tugboat M/L Ocean 2, and crewmembers Toh Chiu Tiong, 48, and Wong Siu Ung, 52, both Malaysians, are now in the hands of Asmanâs group. Angue said Asman, along with Albader Parad, another Abu Sayyaf leader, leads some 40 armed followers on the mountains of Languyan Island. "The group has been very mobile so we need the cooperation of the villagers to monitor their movements," he said. Bakil and his men were apparently looking for new hideouts in Languyan when soldiers, tipped off about their presence, surprised the bandits. Angue said the bandits managed to procure new firearms using ransom paid for the release of six divers seized last year from a resort in the nearby eastern Malaysian state of Sabah.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/27/2004 2:21:38 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Government troops killed a local commander of the Abu Sayyaf who allegedly orchestrated a raid on a tugboat earlier this year and took three crewmembers hostage, the military said yesterday. Two of his supporters were also killed. Elements of the Naval Task Force 62 clashed early Friday with about 30 guerrillas of the al-Qaeda-linked Abu Sayyaf in a remote village outside the town of Languyan in Tawi-Tawi, Capt. Feliciano Angue, the special warfare groupâs commander, said. Ayub Bakil, a local Abu Sayyaf leader, was killed, along with his brother, Jaber, and his nephew, Basil. Superintendent William Usman, Tawi-Tawi police director, positively identified the slain men.
"Ugly cur? Sloped forehead? Big hole in his abdomen? Yep, that's him!"
Angue said Bakil and his men may have been looking for new hideouts in the village of Maraming when soldiers, who were informed by civilians of their presence, surprised the guerrillas. The other guerrillas ran away escaped following the hour-long gunfight. Two civilian informers were wounded. Bakilâs men allegedly took two Malaysians and one Indonesian hostage after raiding the tugboat M/L Ocean 2 on April 11 in waters close to Tawi-Tawi. The captives - Indonesian skipper Walter Sampel, 53, and Malaysian crewmembers Toh Chiu Tiong, 48, and Wong Siu Ung, 52 â were not with Bakilsâ band during the clash, Angue said.
Angue said the Navy is closely coordinating with Malaysian forces in Sabah to rescue the hostages and prevent the gunmenâs escape. Angue believes that the captives are being held in one of the islands near the island-town of Languyan. Usman confirmed that the Abu Sayyaf band has demanded P10 million in exchange for the captivesâ release. "We are not privy to any negotiations. If there are any negotiations, we will stick to the governmentâs no-ransom policy. We will go after the kidnappers at all cost," he said. Tawi-Tawi governor-elect Sadikul Sahali said the kidnappers initially demanded P45 million but later lowered it to P10 million. Last month, Bakilâs group freed three Indonesians and a Filipino whom they kidnapped in October from a resort in the nearby eastern Malaysian state of Sabah after a private Malaysian negotiator reportedly paid an undetermined amount of ransom. Angue said some of the funds were used to buy more arms for the Abu Sayyaf, which is on the United Statesâ list of foreign terrorist organizations.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/27/2004 12:27:45 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#8
Its sloppy construction. Lots of tailings and excavation dirt piled up with no real order to it - and look at the lack of guardhouses and other shelter areas for a guard force. You can bet the place is wide open to infil any time the weather sets in. Wondering what those drums are in the SE area, and all the trailers in the yard nearby. One other thign to note: - quick glance for me doesnt reveal any standby generators of any substantial capacity.
#9
I dont see much anything that would be a storage area with proper containment other than the buildings ot the E of center of the fenced in area.
Also, you'd generally see a rail spur leading in to the storage area: you dont move large quantities of fissiles by truck unless you have no functional rail system that can reach.
#10
And yes, that does look like a very much fire damaged building in the center.
And a HQ/Engineering building in the NE, and a secured storage area in the E-center.
Consider this is a 1m image. Consider that we had 1m imagery during the Cuban Missle crisis. Consider how far things have come with that. Consider the types of stealthy recon aircraft and capable satellites we have now.
Consider all that and think what we know versus what we can tell.
#11
Oldspook: Now this is why I frwquent Rantburg.
Thanks.
Posted by: Cardinal Fang (Evert V. in NL) ||
06/27/2004 17:33 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Is this supposed to be an nuclear powered electrical generating facility? Where are the cooling towers/cooling pond/river/lake? Any power plant rejects 2/3 of the heat it generates. Where is the turbine builidng? They tend to be 4-5 stories tall. Where are the power lines? Where are the substations with transformers? Where did you get this Mark?
#2
Lol! The lead (first sentence) just might be the stupidest sentence ever published by The Telegraph - I'll defer to our UK colleagues on that - but it certainly must rank right up near the top.
This article is like a series of pop-politics snapshots - a real smorgasbord of posibilites and speculations and assumptions. For the most part it's just silly - with the exception that, for the first half of the article they make a fairly solid cassis belli for toppling the Iranian regime... then pretend that the Mad Mullahs aren't the duplicitious and determined foes they just described by saying the EU3 are handling the situation while the US's hands (troops) are tied (up).
And, be still my beating heart, they worry about ME "stability" - what is this shit? A phreakin EU "mantra"? Stability is over-rated when the status quo is a shitload of dictatorships and thugocracies and mullahcracies and certifiably insane people using oil as an economic weapon against the West. Can I get a 'f**kin duh', children? Lol!
I note that if it all goes bad they postulate that it could "suck the US into an all-out war with Iran" - but Iran would not face anyone else, I see. Then there's a little speculation of an Israeli or US airstrike - no conclusions drawn - which is amazing - consider all of the juicy speculations they could've inserted! Wow - self-restraint.
Then they assert it's a EU3 "sanctions" thingy which is keeping things under control (ha!) at the moment - and they nuance this turd with the notion that the right pkg could sway the Mad Mullahs to behave. Then they say incentives are necessary. A reward, it seems, for the Black Hats following the Non-Proliferation Treaty they signed. Right. Then it devolves into the NorK game of assurances from attack in exchange for more rope-a-dope. Sheesh! What a friggin mess!
I guess they covered every possible avenue and theory - except one:
The US doesn't need to free up a lot of boots to effect regime change -- if the Iranian populace is as ready for their ovethrow as their recent demonstrations suggest. Huh. The one approach that makes long-term sense is the only one they missed. Who'da thunk it?
ZoGg - regards a blockade, have you played out the economic ramifications of even suggesting it by moving the requisite naval forces into the immediate area, much less doing it? Blockades are slow-motion war - and a blockade is, indeed, an act of War. What do you believe the effect of this tactic would be? Abdication by the Mullahs? Or, and much more likely since they are insane and already wealthy beyiond your wildest dreams and unconcerned with the effect on their populace, an even more determined effort and non-coop stance to make their deliverable nuke? In effect, applying whatever measure of acceleration they have left to them?
Benefits? I see none. Zero. Zip. I see large oil price increases and increased risk that, before November if possible, the Black Hats will try to nuke Israel - with whatever they can put together at their first opportunity.
If willing to do the blockade, why not go ahead with an airstike on every known nuke facility - and toss in their missile storage & launch facilities as well, if fixed positions? That is an imminently defendable action - per the article and common sense. A blockade would make it much more likely necessary, anyway.
If you have some special insight / intel, lay it out there, (if that doesn't compromise some source) bro!
#3
I think the affect on the populace is actually the reason a blockade would be used. It would act as a tipping point to get the Reformers in Iran along with Shia in Iraq to move against the hardliners. Once they know they have our backing, along with some air cover the dominoes would fall in Iran.
#4
Lol! Love the "movie plane" image - I snarfed that one up, too! I'll bet the deck crew had a good laugh!
It comes down to one simple question:
Is the populace ready to do it?
Yes - tip the regime, and that's largely an air-attack and SForces operation, IMHO.
No - Hit as much of the infrastructure involved in a deliverable nuke pkg as can be identified - merely putting off the tip-regime response for another day.
The intel agencies should be able to do a better job of prepping the way to a tip-regime response without damaging the world economy to such a large degree. 8% of World Supply is very significant since almost everyone's peak-producing already - and a blockade is such a slow results-generator. Iran supplies quite a bit to Japan and EU countries (e.g. Italy) - these real allies will have a major bone to pick with this approach!
We shall see... Note that there is an incredible dearth of links for this topic, lol! The 2 I found of substance...
Notes:
1) OPlan 1002-04 needs updating, heh.
2) A nascent "blockade" against missile tech, the Madrid Initiative, is already on the books for missile and other proscribed weapons proliferation. Been a big success, heh. Blocking oil via maritime, of course, would be a no-brainer. Pipelines? Plans, yes, to China, but existing? Only one to Caspian port of Neka.
#5
The lead (first sentence) just might be the stupidest sentence ever published by The Telegraph - I'll defer to our UK colleagues on that - but it certainly must rank right up near the top.
Most stupid opening sentence perhaps. Mr. la Guardia certainly threw in quite a few howlers.
In all honesty, I'm not sure a total blockade as proposed by ZoGg would work. The difference between reformers and hardliners is a matter of degree, and not large one at that. A restive, disillusioned, but disorganized population might not... appreciate how a blockade would help them.
The one approach that makes long-term sense is the only one they missed.
More like the only one they refuse to consider. However, I think that one is already in the early stages, and not by the usual party.
#6
I am not proposing it happen, I think it is going to happen; North Korea and Iran both at the same time. I believe it was agreed to at the G-8 summit, and the players in the blockade will surprise people. I don't think the U.S. or the World in general has a choice when it comes to Nukes. Iraq had been at war with the U.S. for over 10 years, the only thing left was invasion. With Iran and Korea, you won't see the same road being followed.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/27/2004 12:27:45 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hmmmmmm. Verrrrry interrrrresting.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/27/2004 0:55 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I know, when I started reading this, which was just posted when I caught it, I said ,,yo..wooo, brother, what do we have here?!
I believe, but not positive, this is a London Daily Telegraph exclusive, thus, other media outfits should be picking up this news over the next 24 hours and possibly expanding upon these intriguing details involving the North Korea aspects.
Historical the Telegraph has been a press leader in breaking a number of explosive headline news stories, and this may be another in the making.
The way Iran has been acting as of late, like a rabid dog on a real hot & humid day, a news item such as this one only focuses more attention on the leader of the Axis of Evil. The mullahs have to be wondering 'how long do we have?' :)
(check out this other link)
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/27/2004 2:06 Comments ||
Top||
#3
A re-hash rant. Is Iran making a play against Israel and SA sunni. It has been stated, grapevine, that Iran will nuke the dome of the crock, sacrificing the paleos to allan, depose the keepers of the cheese, and attempt to bring the dragon unto themselves.
But what I'm currious about is the nuking of Jerusalem, the sacrificing of paleos, that would put Judaism at an end. Vs an attack upon Mebka and Meriena that would, perhaps, set free a bunch of fed up, brain tired, politically backward...
That the mistics who spake(spoke, speak) for the greater god allan, they will have the world order of mu-slave under threat of death, with peace for sure, and all.
#4
Yea, I believe what's interesting is the new sanitizer their using, Jerk-Nukeoff, authorized by the IAEA no doubt.
Posted by: Capt America ||
06/27/2004 3:07 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The accident allegedly caused Teheran's new £260 million international airport to be sealed off by Revolutionary Guard commanders within hours of its official opening on May 9.
The Skating Rink is glow-in-the-dark too!
Posted by: Charles ||
06/27/2004 3:10 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Their attitude changed, however, after inspectors working for the United Nations-backed International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) uncovered evidence in June 2003 that Iran had secretly enriched uranium to weapons grade at the Kalaye electric centrifuge plant, on the outskirts of Teheran. Iran had previously denied having the necessary technology.
The Kalaye revelations embarrassed Revolutionary Guards' commanders, who are responsible for protecting Iran's secret nuclear facilities. The findings prompted the IAEA to intensify pressure on Teheran for a full disclosure on the extent of Iran's nuclear programme, which Iranian officials continue to insist is being developed for purely peaceful purposes.
Posted by: Capt America ||
06/27/2004 3:14 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Intensify pressure......now we're really really upset, guys. Here's a 30-page document, did I here you cry, "Uncle" yet?
Posted by: Capt America ||
06/27/2004 3:16 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"During the delivery, a container slipped and cracked on the Tarmac."
Jeeze. You'd think they would at least put that nasty stuff in something a bit stronger. What happened to all that high-tech rock the Norks were developing? Or did they use a traditional, biodegradable grass rattan?
#9
The airport will remain closed until Russian nuclear experts can examine the site of the spill and make sure that no traces of the illegal shipment remain.
This doesn't make much sense. A decon job does not take that long. Any damn fool with a radiac can tell you if there is radioactive contamination. If you can operate a full set of radiacs (neutron detector, gammma/beta detector, alpha detector which I assume they can - they're smart enough to build car bombs, then they're smart enough to run a meter), you are already on your way to being an expert at decontamination. If it is an airport, they probably spilled on concrete. If the contamination is embedded, rip-up the concrete and bury it somewhere. Survey again. Lay down new concrete. Spill oil on top. Good to go. The spill is too radiactive to approach? No problem. These guys are ruthless, they'll do a Russian-style cleanup. They'll grab the population from one town, let them do the above rip-up/clean-up, then bury the peasants with the concrete. "Now arriving at gate 34, Monsieur Jacques." "Ahh, c'est magnifique!"
#10
Duh. Read more carefully. Throw out my previous comment. They did decontaminate. There must be better detection tools available to the IAEA than simple radiacs. Perhaps they discovered the Kalaye centrifuge Uranium via portable mass spectrometers like our soldiers are using instead of via radiacs. The Iranians maybe don't have these tools.
#11
hmmm could we get those in the carryon luggage :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/27/2004 12:24 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Actually these guys have done a pretty good job of maskirova to date by feigning (not to hard for them) incompetence and graft as the reason for delaying opening of this airport.
While it found no operational ties between al-Qaida and Iraq, the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has concluded that Osama bin Ladenâs terrorist network had long-running contacts with Iraqâs neighbor and historic foe, Iran. Al-Qaida, the commission determined, might even have played a âyet unknown roleâ in aiding Hezbollah militants in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia, an attack the United States has long blamed solely on Hezbollah and its Iranian sponsors.
We at Rantburg have known differently for a while.
The notion that bin Laden might have had a hand in the Khobar bombing would mark a rare operational alliance between Sunni and Shiite Muslim groups that historically have been at odds. That possibility, largely overlooked in the furor of revelations released last week by the commission, comes amid worsening relations between the United States and Iran. The Sept. 11 panelâs findings on Iran have been eclipsed by the continuing political debate over Iraq, which the commission said had not developed a âcollaborative relationshipâ with al-Qaida despite limited contacts in the 1990s. That appeared to conflict with previous characterizations made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other administration officials in their justifications for launching the war against Saddam Hussein.
In relation to Iran, commission investigators said intelligence âshowed far greater potential for collaboration between Hezbollah and al-Qaida than many had previously thought.â The commissionâs Republican chairman, former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, also said in a TV appearance last week that âthere were a lot more active contacts, frankly, with Iran and with Pakistan than there were with Iraq.â But perhaps most startling was the commissionâs finding that bin Laden may have played a role in the Khobar attack. While previous court filings and testimony have indicated that al-Qaida and Iranian elements had contacts during the 1990s, U.S. authorities have not publicly linked bin Laden or his operatives to that strike, which killed 19 U.S. servicemen. A June 2001 indictment of 14 defendants in the case makes no mention of al-Qaida or bin Laden and lays the organizational blame for the attacks solely on Hezbollah and Iran. Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert who heads the Washington office of Rand Corp., said that although bin Ladenâs then-fledgling organization was an early suspect in the blasts, âthe evidence kept pointing to an Iranian connection, so people tended to discount a bin Laden connection.â
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/27/2004 12:27:45 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So I guess that means we have a green light for the first Iran War, right?
#4
Oh come on Fred. Why did you delete Bootlicker? I thought his website was kind of funny.
By the way, I clicked over to one of your sponsors, Islamic Jewellery World. Do you, or anyone else, know what the significance of "786" is? It's on a couple of their items, but there's no explaination. Is it the foundation year of Islam or something?
I assume it's not a good luck charm for blackjack.
#5
beer_me,
http://forums.gawaher.com/index.php?showtopic=5295 The innovation of writing '786' replacing 'Bismillaah al-Rahmaan al-Raheem' ("In The Name of Allah, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful") has been adopted for a long time and the majority of the Ummah is still indulged in it inadvertently.
#6
Thanks Rev. Interesting thread you posted there. The moderator got a bit snippy when answering the question. He wasn't too pleased to see the reduction of the Quran or anything Islamic. My favorite quote:
"It is a conspiracy against the Holy Book of Allaah."
Always with the conspiracy. I had no idea the word of God was so easily corrupted.
Also interesting was the injuntion against nicknames. It's pretty funny that the moderator who describes nicknames as a sin calls himself "the_rocky_tract". I guess there's nothing in the Quran about hypocrites.
#10
Leading sentence tells all. WaPo now refers to "no operational ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Last week it was "no connection found," Iran-al-Qaeda is old hat.
Posted by: Capt America ||
06/27/2004 14:21 Comments ||
Top||
#11
At first I thought you were right, Capt America, and the Comission was coming on strong in regards to Iran. Then I re-read the article and realized that the comission is just pulling that old bait-and-switch routine. They're not really saying that Iran is in league with al Qaida, they're only using those "unconfirmed" ties to contrast the "lack" of Iraq-al Qaida ties.
For instance:
"Iran. Al-Qaida, the commission determined, might even have played a âyet unknown roleâ in aiding Hezbollah...[with the Khobar bombings]."
That sound like plausable deniability from the Comission to me. If some unfavored President were to use that as an excuse to attack Iran, you'd see some backpedaling real quick like. I can hear the cries of "faulty intelligence" and "[blank] lied, people died" even now.
Again:
"In relation to Iran, commission investigators said intelligence âshowed far greater potential for collaboration between Hezbollah and al-Qaida than many had previously thought.â"
Potential, huh? Not proved. No reason for war. Move along. Nothing to see here.
#12
They are just trying to confuse the issue. Cheney and Bush have already decided that Iraq is Al-Qaida. People should stop investigating this and kill non-Americans! Rush was right (as usual)!
INMATES released from the US-controlled Abu Ghraib prison had joined anti-US rebels in Iraq, along with officers of former leader Saddam Hussein, Time magazine said today. Militants were turning anti-US resistance into an international jihad, or holy war, the weekly news magazine said in its latest issue. Time interviewed insurgents, tribal and religious leaders as well as US intelligence officials. Officers of Saddamâs feared intelligence service and of his Republican Guard, who founded the Battalions of Islamic Holy War, told Time that some of their members had once been detained at Abu Ghraib prison. Former military officer Abu Mustafa told Time that the jail had effectively become a religious school. "We studied hard every day and often into the night," he said. "There was one man who didnât even know how to pray. When he got out he was like an imam, and is one of our most ferocious fighters on the front line."
The United States released hundreds of inmates after determining they posed no danger. But some of the former detainees and former Saddam security forces had joined forces with Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, Time said. The United States blames Zarqawi for many of the bloodiest attacks in Iraq. Commanders told Time that Zarqawi did not personally direct the attacks, but set long-term strategy. The recruited former regime officers, once known for their wayward behaviour, were no longer drinking or smoking, they told Time. They said they wanted to turn Iraq into another Afghanistan, as it was before the 2001 US invasion - a place for groups like al-Qaeda to flourish.
#1
I hope real hard lession has been learned in terms of allowing any further 'releases' of killers of American & allied troops no matter where.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/27/2004 22:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Former military officer Abu Mustafa told Time that the jail had effectively become a religious school. "We studied hard every day and often into the night," he said."There was one man who didnât even know how to pray."When he got out he was like an imam, and is one of our most ferocious fighters on the front line."
a. Call me a crazy but why were POW's allowed to have access to Islamic religious studies in Abu Prison, when our troops were fighting Islamic extremists outside Abu?
b. Here's a perfect lesson that demonstrates the perils of the Koran - it appears to lend itself too easily to mis-interpretation. Example: Saddam's secular intelligence/military officers came into Abu as dissolute ho-hum slobs and a few months later after religious studies became transformed into ferocious fighters.
3. I wonder who determined or what was used to determine that a POW "posed no danger" and therefore, qualified for release.
Posted by: rex ||
06/27/2004 22:28 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Quelle surprise.
Whooda thunk it?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/27/2004 22:29 Comments ||
Top||
#4
It's time for The United States, to "release the dogs". These filthy muslim sons-of-bitches, need to be hit like something out of their nightmares. TOTAL WAR!! Make them BEG for peace. KILL everything that moves......bomb 'em back to the stone age.....FUCK 'EM!
Destroy 'em, and they'll not be back. If they want to die so damn bad....KILL 'EM ALL.
Posted by: Halfass Pete ||
06/27/2004 22:34 Comments ||
Top||
#5
(dusting himself off) Well, they'll need more than "ferocious fighters" if they want to turn Iraq into Afghanistan under the Taliban. There are about 23 million Iraqis who might not be real wild about the idea.
And recall that if they "fight ferociously," it'll be over quicker. The only tactics they have that work at all involve concealment and avoidance of combat.
That no one was killed in Sunday nightâs bombing of a Gaza IDF outpost is the result of the LORD Godâs divine protection, said one Israeli soldier from the scene of the attack. "There were angels guarding us tonight as we stood guarding Israel. We can feel it,â the soldier told Arutz 7. Five Israeli soldiers were wounded in the blast, one seriously. Palestinian Arabs from the nearby town of Khan Yunis apparently managed to tunnel the approximately 350 yards to the outpost and planted a 150-kilogram bomb beneath it. But the casualties could have been much higher had the terrorists succeeded in placing their explosives under the outpostâs barracks rather than its parking lot. âThank God, they seem to have dug [the tunnel] under where they thought our barracks were, but instead blew up the parking lot... It is really a miracle that they didnât succeed in blowing up the barracks,â the thankful soldier told his interviewer.
A captured Qaeda commander who was a principal source for Bush administration claims that Osama bin Laden collaborated with Saddam Husseinâs regime has changed his story, setting back White House efforts to shore up the credibility of its original case for the invasion of Iraq. The apparent recantation of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a one-time member of bin Ladenâs inner circle, has never been publicly acknowledged. But U.S. intelligence officials tell Newsweek that al-Libi was a crucial source for one of the more dramatic assertions made by President George W. Bush and his top aides: that Iraq had provided training in "poisons and deadly gases" for Al Qaeda. Al-Libi, who once ran one of bin Ladenâs biggest training camps, was captured in Pakistan in November 2001 and soon began talking to CIA interrogators. Although he never mentioned his name, Secretary of State Colin Powell prominently referred to al-Libiâs claims in his February 2003 speech to the United Nations; he recounted how a "senior terrorist operative" said Qaeda leaders were frustrated by their inability to make chemical or biological agents in Afghanistan and turned for help to Iraq. Continuing to rely on al-Libiâs version, Powell then told how a bin Laden operative seeking help in acquiring poisons and gases had forged a "successful" relationship with Iraqi officials in the late 1990s and that, as recently as December 2000, Iraq had offered "chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaeda associates."
But more recently, sources said, U.S. interrogators went back to al-Libi with new evidence from other detainees that cast doubt on his claims. Al-Libi "subsequently recounted a different story," said one U.S. official. "Itâs not clear which version is correct. We are still sorting this out." Some officials now suspect that al-Libi, facing aggressive interrogation techniques, had previously said what U.S. officials wanted to hear. In any case, the cloud over his story explains why administration officials have made no mention of the "poisons and gases" claim for some time and did not more forcefully challenge the recent findings of the 9-11 Commission that Al Qaeda and Iraq had not forged a "collaborative relationship."
The debate, however, is far from over. Vice President Dick Cheney has sought to more vigorously defend the Iraq-Qaeda link, even reading to one TV interviewer from a U.S. intelligence report recounting a meeting between an Iraqi intel official and bin Laden on a farm in Sudan in the summer of 1996. (One possible problem: bin Laden had left Sudan for Afghanistan in May of that year.) Meanwhile, Newsweek has learned, Pentagon officials are culling through captured Iraqi documents they say will provide hard evidence of multiplecontacts between Iraqi officials and Qaeda members over a decade. Current plans call for a massive "document dump" before the election. But officials acknowledge ultimate proof may prove elusive. "It all depends on what your definition of a relationship is," said one.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/27/2004 2:08:13 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
the goal posts move again.....sure, intel guyz are revealing all they know to Newsweak, rrriigghhht
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/27/2004 19:10 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Tenet in Oct. '02 told the Senate, among other things:
"We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." (emphasis added)
Wonder if al-Libi's recantation -- if it's borne out, however that might be done -- covers the conventional bombs part as well. Cheney in at least one TV interview specifically referred to the Tenet letter. And haven't I seen somewhere that "forgery" technical assistance to AQ from Iraq was also involved?
Of course, contrary to the unnamed official's quote, it most certainly does NOT depend on one's definition of "relationship". Contacts and a common enemy (us) were not in doubt, nor were Iraqi WMD capabilities and recklessness: regardless of the details and precise contours of any AQ-Iraq relationship, those factors were more than sufficient to force a decision on whether Iraq's potential menace as armorer to AQ or its ilk could be contained/managed or must be elminated pre-emptively. We know which way that was decided -- I have yet to see a detailed and serious alternative decision and plan be presented, 15 months since the war was launched.
#3
Verlaine: "regardless of the details and precise contours of any AQ-Iraq relationship, those factors were more than sufficient to force a decision on whether Iraq's potential menace as armorer to AQ or its ilk could be contained/managed or must be elminated pre-emptively. We know which way that was decided -- I have yet to see a detailed and serious alternative decision and plan be presented, 15 months since the war was launched."
Sheer simplisme, Verlaine. By the well-known rules of the game of Gotcha, the admin errs when it connects dots which, retrospectively, maybe should not have been connected-- just as it errs when, retrospectively, it appears that it failed to connect dots that should have been connected. Your so-called "analysis" therefore ignores the essential elements of Gotcha: (1) that it's played by looking at the rear-view mirror, not through the windshield, and (2) the outcome must always be that the admin screwed up.
Is that really too complicated for your feeble freeper brain to grasp?
#4
wuzzalib....you "gotcha" a bad case of the smartass there...."doncha"?
Posted by: Halfass Pete ||
06/27/2004 22:22 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Wuzzalib -- excellent!
Though technically, "gotcha" doesn't work in this case, because the threat being pre-empted was acknowledged to be prospective. It can't be proved or disproved conclusively. Though it is now possible to scratch that potential problem off the list, conclusively ....
U.S. national security advisor Condoleeza Rice said Sunday links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida go back for more than a decade. "We know that going back for more than a decade, there have been contacts and connections between security personnel from the Iraq security services and al-Qaida," she said. In an interview on FOX News Sunday, Rice also said NATO-has approved training missions in Iraq, in response to Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawiâs request for more aid. She said trained army personnel not yet engaged in the security forces will train the Iraqi forces. On connections between al-Qaida and the former Iraqi ruler, Rice said al-Qaida also had provided expertise in "bomb-making and document forgery" to the Saddam regime. She said the U.S. security agencies knew that terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was was "operating out of Iraq."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/27/2004 2:17:25 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
An Algerian Islamic militant group with ties to al Qaeda claimed responsibility for a blast that rocked a power plant in the capital Algiers last week. The Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) said its "Vulcano Brigade" used a van loaded with explosives for Monday nightâs attack in which 11 people were wounded, one day after the army announced the killing of the rebel group leader. "The mujahideen used a van full of explosives to execute the strike. They put it near the external wall of the plant and returned safely to their bases," the group said in a June 22 statement published on its web site.
GSPC, the only major rebel group still fighting the secular government, warned of more attacks to come. "This operation is part of a series of skirmishes to provoke the bull before slaughtering it," it added. Reuters could not verify the statementâs authenticity and Interior Ministry officials were not available for comment. The group made no reference in its statement to the killing of its leader Nabil Sahraoui and his main aides in a military operation last week. Sahraoui established links with al Qaeda after taking over, a year ago, what is believed to be North Africaâs largest militant group. Formed in 1998, the group has focused on targeting authorities rather than civilians. The blast, near a luxury hotel in central Algiers, was powerful enough to leave a huge crater, burned-out cars and shattered windows. The government said the cause of the blast was unclear, while security experts and newspapers said it bore the hallmarks of a car bomb, not seen in Algiers since the late 1990s at the height of an Islamic militant insurrection.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/27/2004 2:04:03 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - When Israel killed its most wanted man in the West Bank, it may also have removed a headache for Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Unfortunately, Arafatâs own migraines have not yet been removed in a similar fashion.
As the most senior commander for the al-Aqsa Martyrsâ Brigades in its West Bank heartland, Nayef Abu Sharkh had led a drive to unify the disparate bands of the armed faction within Arafatâs Fatah movement. My finest contribution to the catalog of classic oxymorons; "Arab unity."
But he was also at the vanguard of calls for Arafat to clean up corruption, jettison a generation of politicians seen as discredited by many young Palestinians and to hold elections. In your dreams.
"Abu Sharkh had threatened Arafat that if the Brigadesâ demands for democratization were not met, the armed groups which form the bulk of the younger generation would leave Fatah or carry out elections in defiance of the old guard," a senior Fatah official said. Abu Sharkh, 38, was killed at his hideout in Nablus on Saturday with five other militants. He had been in the job for two months. Didnât even have time to change his underwear.
The Israeli army said Abu Sharkh was behind a suicide bombing that killed 23 people in Tel Aviv early in 2003 and numerous other attacks. Not any more.
"He activated terror against Israeli civilians, Israeli defense forces and also local Palestinian residents," it said. Abu Sharkhâs death was undoubtedly a severe blow to the al-Aqsa Brigades, one of the main groups carrying out suicide bombings on Israelis since being formed near the start of a Palestinian uprising in 2000. But despite the official expressions of fury from Palestinian leaders, Abu Sharkhâs death might not be unwelcome for some top Fatah members. Arafat sometimes appeared embarrassed at bloody al-Aqsa attacks on civilians, similar to those carried out by Islamist militant factions, while he denied Israeli and U.S. accusations of fomenting violence. Â Yasser hates being outdone.
But Abu Sharkhâs recent threats of mutiny if Arafat did not radically reform Fatah had put the veteran guerrilla leader in a particularly difficult spot with his local powerbase too. "We know all the strings are in his (Arafatâs) hand and we hope he will make the necessary changes," Abu Sharkh told Reuters recently. While the traditional calls rang out for "earthquake-like revenge" after the killing of a top militant, the only thing certain about Abu Sharkhâs successor was that he would be far less visible. Itâs the new and improved Hamas-style "stealth successor!"
A senior al-Aqsa official said Abu Sharkhâs former deputy had been chosen to replace him "but this time we will not announce the name of our leader, in order to protect him." Lotta good your discretionary measures do. Just get him in front of the cameras so his photo can be circulated, thank you.
Militants set off a large explosion Sunday near an Israeli army base in the Gaza Strip, and Al-Jazeera television reported that five soldiers were killed. The Israeli military said there were 20 casualties. The blast apparently was set off by explosives planted in a tunnel dug near the base, said Israeli TV reports and Yeruham Mendola, a spokesman for the Magen David Adom rescue service. "There are a lot of people injured at the scene," said Mendola. At the same time, the base came under fire from mortars and assault rifles, TV reports said. Al-Jazeera television, monitored in Cairo, said five soldiers were killed in the blast. Al-Arabiya reported that six soldiers had been killed and at least 30 people injured. The Israeli military reported 20 casualties but would not say how many were dead and how many wounded. Israel TV's Channel Two reported that Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, linked to Yasser Arafat'sFatah movement, claimed responsibility.
Wonder who gets helizapped for this one? Yasser?
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/27/2004 15:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
From the newswires: Around 30 Casualties in Attack on Israeli Army Post (12 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!)
GAZA (Reuters) - A blast by Palestinian militants under an Israeli military post in the southern Gaza Strip (news - web sites) on Sunday caused about 30 casualties, rescue workers said. It was not immediately clear how many were killed or wounded in the blast, caused when Palestinian militants detonated explosives in a tunnel dug under an Israeli military post in the southern Gaza Strip. Scores of soldiers were trapped in the rubble, rescue workers said.
Classic mining operation. Pretty impressive, overall. Tough for the Israelis and a one-time- only success for the Palestinians, but impressive nonetheless.
#5
The jihadee death cultists are on yet another rampage across the entire Near & Middle East.
Israel needs to take very strong counter-terrorist measures, including maybe digging huge trenches filled with water, coupled with the existing national security walls & fences which have been extremely effective in keeping the insane cultists from Israeli soil.
What protective actions would any another nation be forced to enact if confronted with mentally unbalanced zombies which sole purpose is a ritual of death & chaos.
Those national leaders within the civilized world, still sitting on the political fence, better wake up to the fact 'jihadism' is indeed an alarming dangerous cult which is threatening the very existance of the free world, and treated as such, a cult.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/27/2004 18:02 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"huge trenches filled with water"
make that salt water and apply an electric current.....
The White House says it is working with Libya to find a new route to get relief supplies to refugees of violence in western Sudan. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told Fox News Sunday the talks with Libya are aimed at helping conduct a $100 million operation in Sudanâs Darfur region. Meantime, two U.S. lawmakers, Senator Sam Brownback and Representative Tom Wolf, arrived in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, Sunday to study the humanitarian crisis. Tuesday, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell are due in Sudan. They are expected to press the government to disarm Arab militiamen accused of atrocities against black Sudanese in Darfur. Odd how we have to beg Muslims to do something to help their Muslim brothers and sisters facing genocide. These refugees need some panties on their heads, post haste!
Furious Palestinians called for swift seething in light of ineffective revenge attacks as they paid their last respects to seven resistance fighters shot dead by Israeli troops. Around 30,000 people packed the streets of Nablus on Sunday chanting demands for revenge in the heart of Israel after the killings on Saturday that were strongly condemned by Palestinian premier Ahmad Quraya.Â
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who was heard cheering lustily, meanwhile, hailed the armyâs so-called Operation Full Court Press as an "impressive success in the fight against terrorism". All schools and shops were closed in Nablus as the bodies of the seven began their journey from the cityâs hospital to the densely overcrowded Martyrsâ Cemetery at around 10:30am (07:30 GMT).
Sea of white flags
Scores of masked fighters from all the main Palestinian armed resistance groups fired volleys into the air amid a sea of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades flags. Spent bullets falling back to earth killed several Palestinian children playing out of doors but, hey, whoâs counting?Â
Among those who were being laid to rest was Nayif Abu Sharikh, the senior commander in the West Bank of Al-Aqsa Martyrsâ Brigades, an offshoot of the mainstream Fatah movement. They left out the part about coordinating dozens of mass murders within Israelâs borders.
Fadi al-Bahti, a local leader of Islamic Jihad, and Jafar al-Masri, a commander of the armed wing of Hamas, were also buried. In America, we call that; "Icing on the cake." Israel probably calls it; "Icing a bunch of murderous @ssholes."
"Our revenge will be tonight," the crowds chanted in unison.Â
Many of the mourners went to the site of a hideout in Nablusâs Old City where the seven were killed in a shootout with Israeli
troops on Saturday. And that evening, many of these same seething Palestinians returned to their foodless, ill-constucted homes and unemployed mates to spend another uncomfortable night entirely uncontaminated by financial wealth while still refusing to make any connection between the bodies they just buried and their own misery.
âSavage actâ
Israeli forces withdrew from Nablus and a curfew was lifted at dawn on Sunday although the funerals were brought forward slightly for fear that the soldiers could soon return. "You see, they drive these big scary bulldozers and everybody gets a major case of the heebie-jeebies if they show up."
Quraya condemned the killings of the "freedom fighters" as a "savage" act. "Our terrorist infrastructure has been savaged yet another time. It must cease immediately. I have repeatedly told the Israelis that I no longer need to set my watch with such precision!"
"This savage and ugly crime, which targeted a number of Palestinian freedom fighters after a four-day siege on Nablus, signifies that Israel is continuing its plan of killings and assassinations of all the freedom fighters," Quraya told reporters outside his offices in the West Bank city of Ram Allah. And your point is?
"Itâs a clear message to the whole world that Israel can either remain above the law or can be deterred and stopped," the premier said. And since youâre neither deterring nor stopping them, the big money is on Israel continuing to do so with astonishing regularity.Â
Israeli reaction
Israel deputy defense minister Zeev Boim said the operation had dealt a major blow to the "terrorist infrastructure" in the northern West Bank amidst thundering applause. "It (the operation) was directed in a pinpoint manner, according to intelligence information, against the people and infrastructure of terror in Nablus, which has been the manufacturing center of terrorism in the recent period," he told public radio.Â
Many of the mourners also condemned the prospect of security cooperation between the Palestinian Authority and Arab countries such as Egypt and Jordan to help ensure stability after the planned withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip and four settlements in the northern West Bank. "Weâve been seething managing just fine without these foreign interlopers!"
"Why is there security cooperation while we are under bullets?" they asked. Because one side has got to stop and it wonât be the Israelis. (Note to self: Buy stock in ammunition manufacturers.)
âMassacreâ
Speaking to Aljazeera, Taysir Nasr Allah, a member of the Palestinian National Council, said: "Nablus has lost, in a massacre, the best leaders." [M. Burns] Exxxcellent! [/M. Burns]
"The rage, prevailing Nabulsians and Nablus, is very strong. The rage is directed at the media, the Palestinian Authority and the international community which comes and goes without finding a solution to Israeli terrorism," he said.   All this "rage" but no "humiliation?" Go figure.
He went on to say that the Nablusians had suffered grave (operative term: "grave") casualties and losses. "There have been nine martyrs and 55 wounded; houses have been demolished, and humanitarian situation is deteriorating but no one cares." Any of this getting through that thick skull of yourâs, boy? [/Foghorn Leghorn]
"In Ram Allah, the Palestinian prime minister was holding talks with a US envoy while Nablus was under fire. What have the Nabulsians got to benefit from the talks?" How about, "continued breathing" for starters?
A young college woman and three men killed in an alleged shootout with police in Gujarat were linked to a terrorist group, but Indian intelligence had infiltrated their operation, a report said yesterday. The Hindu newspaper said in a front-page story that the June 15 killings in Ahmedabad city followed an elaborate intelligence operation that was linked to terrorist groups operating in Jammu and Kashmir.
A storm of protests broke out after the Gujarat Police claimed the four, also including two suspected Pakistani men and an Indian man besides the young woman, were shown killed on a highway while plotting to assassinate state Chief Minister Narendra Modi. Some politicians even alleged that the killings were stage-managed and probably done by a trigger-happy police to bolster the standing of a politically beleaguered Modi amid a rebellion from party colleagues.
But the Hindu said while the police claims may have been overblown, âthe group was indeed engaged in reconnaissance for a suicide squad attack on Hindu fundamentalist leaders. âBut the mission was monitored by intelligence agencies at each stage and infiltrated from its outset.â The Gujarat Police had said all four were linked to the Pakistan-based Laskher-e-Taiba, which is part of a separatist campaign raging in Jammu and Kashmir. Among the dead were two suspected Pakistani terrorists who had been operating in Jammu and Kashmir for about a year. The June 15 killings followed a four-month-long covert operation by the Intelligence Bureau, the Hindu said. The operation was sparked by a letter discovered on the person of a Lashker commando killed with six other terrorists by Indian security forces in the Poonch area of Jammu and Kashmir on February 20. Among other things, the letter, authored by an inmate of a prison in Ahmedabad, revealed the identity of an Indian lawyer who had helped the Laskher in the past. After some persuasion, the Hindu said, the lawyer began cooperating with Indian intelligence, which began using him to lure Lashker cadre to Gujarat. The lawyer was instructed to tell Javed Sheikh, an Indian who was among the four killed on June 15, that âthe infrastructure was in place to execute an attack on Modi. âMuch of their subsequent dealing was conducted through Ishrat Jahan, (the) Mumbai (woman) college student whose killing sparked off furious protests. âPolice officials in Ahmedabad now have in their possession records of several calls she had made to Javed from a public telephone centre in Mumbai.â
By early May, Javed had requisitioned two suicide squad members to launch the actual attack, the Hindu said. Consequently, the Border Security Force intelligence wing picked up signals of the movement of terrorists from Jammu and Kashmir to interior India. Laskher asked the terrorists, in coded language, to report to a handler in Udhampur town, near Jammu, and then proceed to Ahmedabad via New Delhi. The two dead Pakistani terrorists had hoped to reach Ahmedabad days or hours before the intended assault on Hindu leaders. But the police intercepted the group on Ahmedabadâs outskirts and shot them dead.
Arab television broadcast videotape Sunday of two men taken hostage by militants, one described as a U.S. Marine lured from his base and the other a Pakistani driver for an American contractor. Insurgents threatened to behead them both. The U.S. military confirmed that a Marine had been missing from his unit for nearly a week. It said it was unclear if he had been taken hostage, but his name was on a Marine "active duty" identification card shown by militants in the videotape aired by the Al-Jazeera network. In the video, the hostage had a white blindfold covering his eyes. He wore military fatigues, and his mustache was trimmed. The U.S. military said he was of Lebanese descent, though the Al-Jazerra report said the hostage's origins were Pakistani. The kidnappers claimed to have infiltrated a Marine outpost, lured the Marine outside and abducted him. Al-Jazeera said the militants demanded the release of all Iraqis "in occupation jails" or the hostage would be killed. They identified themselves as part of "Islamic Response," the security wing of the "National Islamic Resistance -- 1920 Revolution Brigades." The name refers to the uprising against the British after World War I. The group, which has claimed responsibility for previous anti-American attacks, first surfaced in an Aug. 12 statement claiming the United States was hiding its casualty tolls in Iraq to help President Bush's election chances.
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/27/2004 14:06 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Link broken. No mention on Fox yet.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/27/2004 14:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
FoxNews TV is where I got it. I put the link in correctly...dunno why it adds the rantburg prefix....
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/27/2004 14:29 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Link and rather predictably they're threatening to behead him.
#7
Lux; according to my friend, they're one and the same. (Cross-checked with Drudge; the linked-to article from Drudge said that the "Marine" was of Pakistani descent, blindfolded, and gave no confirmation that he had any sort of US ID or that his uniform was that of a Marine.)
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
06/27/2004 16:56 Comments ||
Top||
#8
They sure never learned the lesson 4-legged wild animal knows - never crap in your own den.
(With apologies to forest animals everywhere.)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/27/2004 16:57 Comments ||
Top||
#9
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - An Arab satellite TV network broadcast a videotape Sunday showing a blindfolded man in military uniform it said was a U.S. Marine taken hostage in Iraq.
There was no immediate comment from the U.S. military, but the video showed a card identifying the man by a Pakistani name and as an "active duty" Marine.
The Al-Jazeera newtork said the group claimed it infiltrated a U.S. Marine outpost, lured the man outside and abducted him. The station said the group demanded the release of all Iraqis "in occupation jails" or the man would be killed.
The group identified itself as "Islamic Response," the security wing of the "1920 Revolution Brigades" referring to the uprising against the British after World War I.
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/27/2004 17:20 Comments ||
Top||
#10
The Marine Corps has reported they had a Marine missing,for over a week.They said he was of Lebanese orgin.Al Jazeera has stated he was Pakistani.Some confusion here.
The head of the UNâs nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei, says Israel should start discussions on ridding the Middle East of nuclear weapons. He said such dialogue would help reduce frustration in the region about "what is seen to be a widespread imbalance in Arab brain chemistry". Mr ElBaradei is scheduled to travel to Israel next month to discuss making the Middle East a nuclear-free zone. He said everyone knew that Israel had a nuclear capability - even if Israel has always refused to admit it. And itâs a solid reason for why Israel is still here today.
"We need... to rid the Middle East of all weapons of mass destruction," he told reporters on a visit to Russia. Fine, now sit down and STFU until you get some results in Iran, you remember them donât you, the one remaining Middle Eastern nation that still publicly avows the destruction of Israel?
"Israel agrees with that, but they say it has to be... after peace agreements. As in how big shall be the largest peace piece left remaining of Iranâs bombed out nuclear power weapons program.
"My proposal is may be we need to start to have a parallel dialogue on security at the same time when weâre working on the peace process." Iâm confident that, for starters, Israelâs reply probably centers upon ElBaradei doing something a bit more substantive than just "rebuking" Iran.
Mr ElBaradei said he would like Israel, along with other Middle East countries, to open up nuclear facilities to inspections by the UNâs International Atomic Energy Agency. A demonstration of IAEA resolve to actually get something done elsewhere might be an Israeli prerequisite.
But he would not be insisting Israel admits to having nuclear weapons, when he visits the country in early July. "I think everybody takes it as a given that Israel has a nuclear capability, if not nuclear weapons," he said. "So whether they would like to come in the open, whether they maintain... ambiguity, itâs for them to decide." Ambiguity has worked real for Israel well so far. Unlike so many neighbors of theirs who are entirely unambiguous about Israelâs destruction.
Israel has a policy of "strategic ambiguity" - neither admitting nor denying it has nuclear weapons - but analysts believe it has more than 100 nuclear weapons. Its Arab neighbours have frequently accused the international community of double standards for requiring them to be free of nuclear weapons while doing little, in their eyes, about Israel. Israel isnât calling for anyoneâs destruction and, whatâs more, has mosques within its borders. Build some synagogues in neighboring countries first, then come back and begin talking about "double standards.
Mr ElBaradei said it was "not sustainable in any region or even globally to have some [people] rely on nuclear weapons and others being told they should not have nuclear weapons". Which is why ElBaradei continues to fatally compromise any authority he might have by benignly neglecting to ever mention how his own home country of Egypt has a covert nuclear weapons program. I call, bullsh!t!
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/27/2004 13:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
El-Baradei should concern himself with doing his job. After all, they've been so productive in stopping Khan from spreading his weaponry. Iran really needs a bitch-slapping, taking away their toys
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/27/2004 13:32 Comments ||
Top||
#3
There's really only one answer for this stupidity.
Where's Cheney when we need him? ;-)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/27/2004 13:35 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Mr ElBaradei and Clinton's Madame Halfbright should get together. I think they would make a 'cute' couple.
Both are patently naive to think that {Iran | North Korea} would simply stop developing nuclear weapons just because they said 'pretty please'.....
I expect Israel to give Mr El a good of fashoned 'Cheney' :).
#8
Here's the deal,
the Arab states around Israel stop inciting hatred, recognize Israel, recognize boundaries, arrest hatred and violence inciters and absorb the Palestinian refuges from 1948,
#9
mhw - I don't know, giving up the bomb is a pretty big step considering the situation in the ME. It's probably require going back to the original LON mandate. ;)
#10
The U.N. must think this is International Joke Day....
Israel to the U.N; 'we were not born yesterday.'
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/27/2004 18:28 Comments ||
Top||
#11
His filthy muslim name, tells me all I need to know, about his intentions. elbaradei, is a filthy muslim and should be treated as such.
Posted by: Halfass Pete ||
06/27/2004 22:48 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Maybe Israel should dispose of their weapons tactically. Fire one at Lebenon, Syria, Iran, etc until they are out of weapons. BS I agree, wher is Cheney when you need him.
#13
Someone needs to do an informal study to quanitfy percentages of how often prominant and/or infamous 'slims that are clearly aiding the jihad are named Muhahahammud. Just curious. There are so many.
Suspected Taliban gunmen killed at least 10 men in southern Afghanistan after finding that they had registered for national elections, local officials said Sunday. Rozi Khan, the Uruzgan police chief, told The Associated Press that assailants stopped the van on a road about 20 miles from the provincial capital, Tirin Kot. The gunmen opened fire after they searched the documents of the 12 men inside and found that they had registered to vote. Two men escaped and alerted police, who found the 10 bodies but have made no arrests. Obaidullah Khan, the top political administrator in Uruzgan district, confirmed the attack but said 16 people had died, and just one man had survived. It was impossible to immediately account for the discrepancy. Obaidullah Khan said about six or seven attackers had launched the assault, while others hid in rocks nearby.
Al-Rooters; EFL
Turkey rejected Sunday the demands of militants threatening to behead three Turks held hostage in Iraq during President Bushâs visit to Turkey and on the eve of the formal start of Iraqi self-rule. Militants loyal to suspected al Qaeda ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said in a statement to Al Jazeera television on Saturday that the three hostages would be executed within 72 hours unless Turks stopped working with U.S.-led forces in Iraq. "Militants" huh?
"Turkey has been fighting terrorist activity for more than 20 years," Turkish Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul told reporters in Istanbul. "They ask many things, they demand many things. We never consider them with seriousness." I need to remember that line, thatâs great!
Jazeera showed footage of the three hostages crouching in front of masked gunmen and holding up their passports. Turkey is not part of the U.S.-led force in Iraq but many nationals work as drivers and support staff for U.S. forces. As has been said before here - killing other Muslims will be remembered as AQâs biggest, and fatal, mistake
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/27/2004 12:16:28 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi may be establishing his own strategy outside and independent of AQ's.
#2
I still cannot believe that Al-Zarqawi and crew are that stupid. Why would they continue using a strategy that it is clealy backfiring on them?
Desperation, perhaps?
FORMER president Saddam Hussein is to be moved at the start of July to a new jail with Iraqi guards and limited support from the US-led military, interim prime minister Iyad Allawi said today. "He will be kept by Iraqis ... We may ask a multinational force to be involved in the protection of the outside, of the outskirts of the prison, but definitely he will be under the jurisdiction of Iraq," he said. "You will see him move and you will know where he is," Mr Allawi told a small group of reporters.
Posted by: tipper ||
06/27/2004 10:20:54 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'd feel better if he had some C4 and a remote-control detonator implanted in his skull....
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/27/2004 10:53 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Make sure there are plenty of women's underwear and dog leashes available.
With american fighter jets and helicopters buzzing the skies overhead, an officer in Iraqâs new police force approaches a group of fighters on Fallujahâs front lines with an urgent call to arms. "I need a man who can use an RPG," says Omar, who wears the uniform of a first lieutenant. Four hands shoot up and a cry rings out: "We are ready." He chooses a young man, Bilal, and they drive to an underpass on the outskirts of the city. There, on Highway One, an American Humvee is driving east. Bilal aims and fires his rocket propelled grenade, turning the vehicle into a smoking, twisted, metal carcass. The fate of its occupants is unknown. First Lt Omar is sworn to uphold the law and fight the insurgency that threatens Iraqâs evolution into a free and democratic state. Instead, he is exploiting his knowledge of US tactics to help the rebel cause in Fallujah. "Resistance is stronger when you are working with the occupation forces," he points out. "That way you can learn their weaknesses and attack at that point."
An Iraqi journalist went into Fallujah on behalf of the Telegraph on Wednesday, a day on which an orchestrated wave of bloody rebel attacks across the country cost more than 100 lives. Inside the Sunni-dominated town, he met police officers and units of the countryâs new army who have formed a united front with Muslim fundamentalists against the Americans, their resistance focused on al-Askeri district on the eastern outskirts of the town. That morning, US marines had taken up "aggressive defence" positions on one side of Highway One. On the other side, militant fighters were dug in, ready for battle. Their preparations were thorough. Along the length of a suburban street in al-Askeri, they had dug foxholes at the base of every palm tree. Scores of armed men lined the streets. Most had scarves wrapped around their heads but others wore the American-supplied uniform of Unit 505 of the Iraqi army, and carried US-made M-16 rifles. Yet more were dressed in the olive green uniforms worn by Saddam Husseinâs armed forces. Since April, when a US offensive failed to crush an uprising by Islamic fighters and Baâathist loyalists, Fallujah has been effectively a no-go area for American troops.
A newly formed, 2,000-strong force known as the Fallujah brigade, led by a Saddam-era general, Mohammed Latif, was supposed to disarm the rebels. Instead, the town remains a hotbed of resistance. Now, once again, US military pressure is being brought to bear. Three separate air strikes have been launched on houses in the town in recent days, aimed at killing an al-Qaeda leader believed to be based in Fallujah. The Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is believed to be behind the wave of kidnappings and terror attacks across Iraq. US officials say that they narrowly missed their target on Friday, in their most recent strike on a house where he was suspected of hiding. Up to 25 people were killed.
On the ground in al-Askeri, tension was once again rising under the US attacks. Strangers had to seek permission from the "district commander", a local imam called Sheikh Yassin who controls a broad coalition of Saddam loyalists and Islamic radicals, to move beyond the rebel lines. The sheikh, who has emerged as the neighbourhood strongman since the uprising against American occupation, has used his following to unite all strands of resistance under his leadership. His radio buzzed constantly as scouts, moving incognito in private cars, sent in reports about US positions around the suburb. The ground shook as F-16 Falcons dropped precision-guided 500lb bombs on rebel positions near the football stadium, half a mile away.
US commanders have spoken of their frustration over the Fallujah Brigadeâs failure to rein in rebels, and the ineffectiveness of the political deal struck with local tribes in April. "Weâve been prepared to pull the plug on it three or four times, but each time we detect a faint heartbeat," a senior marine officer said. To Sheikh Yassin, the supposedly anti-rebel brigade is a useful tool, providing support for his fighters. "We respect the Fallujah brigade - it never interferes against us," he says. He openly acknowledges that his coalition was a marriage of convenience, bringing together the secular Saddam faithful and Muslim fundamentalists. The imam, who wants Iraq to be governed by Islamic law, points to one of his companions - a colonel in the disbanded Iraqi army - and asks why he is still fighting. The colonel is blunt. "Fallujah is the starting point of the return of the Baâath Party," he says. "Our comrades in Baghdad and other provinces are joining our struggle. Here already we are free. No one can touch us."
Posted by: tipper ||
06/27/2004 10:16:22 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
nice guys. Kill.Them.
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/27/2004 10:31 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Fight fire with fire. Find an iraqi in the police who is loyal to the iraq/US/coilition. Dress him up
like Omar and have him recruit insurgents like Omar. Give each of the recruits an AK-47 with a couple of rounds. Have the loyal iraqi drive the recruits somewhere where he then makes an excuse to leave for a second. US Marines kill recruits, all perfectly legal. Rinse and Repeat a few dozen times.
Make sure everything is caught on film and release films. The next disloyal iraqi police who tries this is killed by prospective recruits.
#3
This adds support to the argument that Fallujah should be leveled.
Posted by: Canaveral Dan ||
06/27/2004 11:08 Comments ||
Top||
#4
It seems that Fallujah is being used as a Honey-Pot to give the Islamist Fighters a base. The marines could have leveled this city months ago but didn't because of a political decision. At the time there was a alliance forming between the Mahdi Army and the Sunni's in Fallujah. Two months later the Mahdi Army has been defeated leaving only Fallujah. Attacks throughout the country are now emanating from this city. There is clarity as to who is responsible. Every time there is a terrorist attack in other cities, Fallujah will now be blamed.
Maybe the political decision that was made was to let the Islamist become there own worst enemy.
#5
You got it exactly right Zog. The honeypot strategy has been proven to work elsewhere. Create a false "safe haven," concentrate the bad guys, then wipe them out. This isn't accidental.
#6
Fallujah is not going to be a healthy place to be come Thursday. I don't think that Alawi is of a mind to let Fallujah become the starting point of a Baathist takeover. Fallujah is going to become a parking lot and the new Iraqi government is going to be driving the bulldozers.
#7
Fallujah could be a honeypot I suppose, but my first reaction to this is one of incredulity.
I really hope there is a reckoning, and that all these 'resistance' fighters are shown no mercy.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
06/27/2004 15:13 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The Fallujah truce made sense. In retrospect, the theme seems to have been to fight one (Sadr's men), hold one (Fallujah's forces), since there was no particular hurry about finishing either off - they get weaker every day as they run out of funds (through making payroll) and weaponry (through weapons cache discoveries by coalition forces). Now that Sadr is pretty much a spent force, it's time to take another look at Fallujah.
Several Muslim organisations, including the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, today criticised terrorists for âmisusingâ the term jihad and stressed the need for clearing the air on the âholyâ word that had nothing to do with terror. âIt is very unfortunate that we have reached a point where we need to clarify that jihad has nothing to do with terrorism. It is a holy word in the Quran meaning action done to further the cause of god,â said board vice-president Maulana Kalbe Sadiq at a conference on Terrorism and Jihad: an Islamic perspective. Leaders of all religions should be involved in a discussion on the issue and people should be made to understand the difference between jihad and terrorism, he said.âWidespread misuse of the word jihad as a synonym for terrorism might confuse the people,â warned Kalbe Sadiq. T.A. Rehmani, president of the Muslim Political Council of India, underscored the need for eminent Islamic scholars and the secular intelligentsia to take an âunanimous, just, firm and clear standâ on jihad, âwhich is of paramount importance to the whole worldâ.
Posted by: TS(vice girl) ||
06/27/2004 2:13:05 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
Not that I disagree with what Mr. Sadiq is trying to say, but I think he's being a bit evasive. When he says, "It is a holy word in the Quran meaning action done to further the cause of God", there are many "reasonable" interpretations, a la Sayyid Qutb, of the Quran that posit terroristic actions as proper. There are many passages written down by the Prophet, as well as the extra stories written by his later followers, that guide and sanction a lot of the Islamic numbwits working in the world today. What Mr. Sadiq should do is acknowledge these facts, then work towards a re-interpretation of these enabling passages. Otherwise, it's just too easy for the Islamist pushers of jihad to dismiss non-violent voices such as Mr. Sadiq as unauthentic, thus irrelevant.
Second point: WTF is he talking about about, "Leaders of all religions should be involved...". This ain't anybody's issue to resolve but Muslims'. The rest of us are only involved in arresting and killing the "misguided" Islamists. It's not us that need to understand the real meaning of jihad. The day Islamists resolve jihad and the more violent teachings of the Prophet as metaphors for spiritual struggle is the day the war stops.
Plus, I want a pony.
And some beer that doesn't make me fat in the gut.
We just want the moderates to win the battle for the intellectual direction of Islam.
We want the ones who follow Qutb's interpretations to LOSE and the ones who ignore the warlike tendencies and consider Jihad an inner struggle ONLY against vice to WIN.
when that day comes there will be no more planes flying into towers.
You are definitely right on Point 2: it is a muslim issue to resolve. Other religions got nuttin to do with it.
But we can and will interfere to hinder the Qutb's (islamofascists) and to promote the ROPs.
#6
Oh yeah, Anon1. That's our main contribution to this whole mess: By removing the nutjobs by any means possible.
Except by putting panties on their heads. Can't do that. Wouldn't be prudent. Otherwise, where would those Japanese pervs, er, "differently aroused", get their supply?
#8
A few passages from the Quran: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah" (Surat At-Taubah 9:29). "I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them" (Quran 8:12). "The unbelievers among the People of the Book(Bible), and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures" (Quran 98:1-8). "Fight against those who believe not in Allah, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (Islam), until they are subdued" (Surat At-Taubah 9:29).
Posted by: Halfass Pete ||
06/27/2004 4:37 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Thanks HP. There's a whole crapload of jihad in the Quran. I have no idea how anyone can convincingly explain the references away. I'm sure it can be done, but it is an awesome task. I keep wondering if it can take one well-written, charismatic superstar, or will it require generations of hard-working scholars.
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
[4.71] ...go forth in detachments or go forth in a body [to war].
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off
[8.65] O Prophet! urge the believers to war
[9.05] ...slay the idolaters wherever you find them...take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush...
[47.04] ...when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them
And my personal favorite:
[3.125] Yea! if you remain patient and are on your guard, and they come upon you in a headlong manner, your Lord will assist you with five thousand of the havoc-making angels.
#14
It seems that allan does provide....I wonder if he'd give me a blowjob, I'm feeling a little randy today.
Posted by: Halfass Pete ||
06/27/2004 13:04 Comments ||
Top||
#15
lol
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/27/2004 13:08 Comments ||
Top||
#16
know what? "Gay" doesn't mean what it used to mean either. Fact is, Kalbe, baby, you guys need to find another word, cuz whatever you think "jihad" should mean, it don't.
I think it's ironic that terrorists "hijacked" the word "jihad!"
#17
This is from India. Nothing is official or is taken seriously in Islam until it comes out of Mecca. Even a peace treaty is not official unless it is signed in Mecca, per the Koran.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/27/2004 12:19:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I wonder if the next step is a clusterbomb with individualy guided submunitions, but where the canister stays attached to the airframe? like the old SUU series clusterbombs.
Posted by: N Guard ||
06/27/2004 8:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This will happen. I have read some other SDB stories which stated that there are plans for ever smaller bombs as accuracy improves and component miniaturization evolves, as long as the ordnance effects are sufficient to destroy important types and numbers of targets. Bombs of 100lb and 50lb were suggested as next steps.
Keep in mind that the Army is accelerating development of infantry mortar ammunition with GPS guidance. They are talking about production in two years! Imagine an aircraft cruising out of manpad range with a load of tiny -- mortar round sized --GPS glide munitions wacking terrorists or enemy ground forces at will. While not as effective as an AC130 gunship, it will provide most of our combat aircraft inventory with a significant part of that offensive power.
#3
The BAT, produced by Northrop Grumman ,is an acoustic and infrared (IR) guided submunition that autonomously searches for, tracks and defeats armored and critical mobile targets. The BAT is a propulsionless, aerodynamically controlled vehicle (glider). The BAT is delivered to the target vicinity by the Army Tactical Missile System (Army TACMS), which is launched from the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS).
#4
I know it's a difficult concept, but imagine instead of small bombs think big bombs and how that might significantly augment the striking power of US aircraft.
Posted by: Eddie Teller ||
06/27/2004 15:35 Comments ||
Top||
AGM-154B (Anti-Armor) The warhead for the AGM-154B is the BLU-108/B from the Air Force's Sensor Fuzed Weapon (SFW) program. The JSOW will carry six BLU-108/B submunitions. Each submunition releases four projectiles (total of 24 per weapons) that use infrared sensors to detect targets. Upon detection, the projectile detonates, creating an explosively formed, shaped charge capable of penetrating reinforced armor targets.
Tom Clancy wipes out a Chinese armored division with these, I believe.
#6
This is all very cool, but I rather prefer the large bombs. How the hell are you supposed to kill all the orphans and baby ducks in collateral damage with these tiny things?
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
06/27/2004 16:53 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Big booms is cool,but there is something sweet about seeing an area devastated by a couple hundred small explosions.
#8
Wonder how many of these we could load on a B-52H? One of the limitations on the load the BUFF can carry is the width of the bomb bay doors. The bomb bay doors were widened on the B-52Ds so that the entire width of the bomb bay could be used and the load increased to 84 500 pounders in the bay and 24 more on the wings. Imagine how many of these cute little things the H could be made to carry.
#9
This is all very cool, but I rather prefer the large bombs. How the hell are you supposed to kill all the orphans and baby ducks in collateral damage with these tiny things?
Good thinking. Especially those baby ducks, evil bastards that they are!
#10
Well the difference is if you're accurate enough and if you change the explosive mixture a to a higher energetic one you can actually potentially do MORE damage than say a JDAM or other 2000lb bomb. Of course quite probably the ultimate version of this idea might be the LOCASS units. These types of units just reinforce the theme of the "killer swarms" type of tactic.
#1
Scare quotes belong to al-Beeb. (Who are they quoting anyway?)
Feels like al-Zarqawi's gang is ignoring the first law of holes. Going after private Turkish citizens has got to be counter-productive on a number of levels. I think an al-mighty smackdown is coming their way first half of July.
#2
These clowns are truly too stupid to live. Beheading fellow moslems, even if they are working for us in Iraq, has got to make a lot of other moslems question them and their motives.
And how do they think the Turkish government can force all Turks to leave Iraq? It's not as if the Turks there are with the government. Do the embassy staff have to leave or be killed too?
Just just a suggestion, assholes, but I don't think you want the Turkish government pissed at you; they're liable to be not quite as nice as we are.
The mind boggles at their incredible stupidity.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/27/2004 1:09 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I think the press here in the US has convinced them that all they face is getting panties put on their head and having to frolic about in the nude. While the Turks /might/ do those things...I'm of the opinion they might just thrown a few power tools as well for their own amusement.
#5
This is a good illustration of exactly WHY we don't want to go around slandering Islam in general and saying all muslims are our enemies (which I have noticed on a few articles here recently).
Turks are helping us here. Muslims are about to be beheaded by Islamofascists.
They WILL behead them muslim though they are if they are satisfied that they are not Islamofascist muslims.
Because they consider them apostates/strayed sheep. If they are not Islamofascists then they do not consider them truly muslim.
We should make the MOST of this propaganda opportunity when it happens to drive a big fat wedge between moderate Muslim potential allies and Islamofascists.
Barbara is right that beheading fellow muslims is going to make a lot of other muslims alienated from their cause.
#6
I'm in favor of just a light trim along the sides, just an inch off the top. But, let's keep the heads on.
Posted by: Capt America ||
06/27/2004 3:05 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Anon1, good thought. All muslims though are caught. But your post reminded me of a certain propogand thread that I think would be advantages.
"Iraqies, the foreigners in your country are Palistinians, they are here to kill anybody that is not for the old way. The old way where saddam supported the Palistinian cause agaisnt Israel. Until you Iraqies go back to supporting the paleo cause, we Paleos will kill hundreds of Iraqies.
#8
1. The Turks can be vicious (look how we have been subjected to Murat's "logic"). Ask the Kurds in the east. That is, the ones who have not had there heads spiked on poles as an example.
2. I do not care for popcorn. Gets in my teeth. I will grab a bag of Dunkin Dounuts, and begin brewing a pot of coffee.
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.
