Saudi Arabia has vowed to continue to provide "enough" oil supplies, but called on leading consumer countries to cut taxes on petroleum products to alleviate hikes in world prices. "The policy of the kingdom is based on reaching a reasonable and fair price for oil and to provide enough supplies to all the consumers," King Abdullah bin Abdel Aziz said. "But all the efforts of the producing countries will not bear fruits if they are not met with a positive position by main consumer states," he said at the opening of the permament seat of the International Energy Forum in Riyadh. "These states should alleviate the ordeal of their citizens by cutting taxes on petroleum products when prices increase," he said.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/22/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Never expected to find myself in agreement with an official Saudi position.
#2
Translaeion, "We're going to keep prices good and high, you'll have to suffer losses in revenue, we won't"
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
11/22/2005 8:05 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The burden of a tax is shared between consumers and producers. The consumers bear more of the burden, the less responsive is demand, and producers, the less responsive is supply. While demand is not very responsive to price, I doubt that supply is, either. Higher taxes on oil might transfer wealth from producer countries to consumer countries. Such taxes can be made revenue neutral by reducing taxes on other sources of income.
Posted by: Curt Simon ||
11/22/2005 9:30 Comments ||
Top||
#4
boy are we screwed, the Saudies demonstrate once again how the Gasoline Addicted society of the USA ie: "higher civilization"is at the mercy of a totalitarian monarchy. ie : "lower civilization" We need to get off the Saudie/Exxon gasoline dole and figure out how to NOT be dependent on a culture that we share nothing in common with, except that we both LOVE money.
Posted by: bk ||
11/22/2005 10:00 Comments ||
Top||
#5
This irks me. Neither republicans nor democrats *ever* suggest that when oil prices are high, the gas tax should be lowered.
Here are the numbers:
US federal gas tax: 18.4 cents per gallon.
The State taxes:
http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp
In my State, this amounts to 36 cents per gallon tax!
#6
I know my home state (Georgia) cut the State tax on gasoline for like 30 days, and then extended it a little longer. I think it's now back being collected. The downside was, that it appeared that the stations weren't lowering the total price, but were keeping the money they normally collect for the State for themselves. Add to that Hurricane Katrina, and the so-called "gas crunch" (very small) about a week later, and people around Atlanta were going nuts for gas!
Posted by: BA ||
11/22/2005 10:11 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The burden of a tax is shared between consumers and producers.
The producers pass their tax burden on to the consumer in the form of higher costs.
#8
In my State, this amounts to 36 cents per gallon tax!
Sounds like California.
Quite frankly, gas tax money funds too many other things besides transportation projects, so it's very unlikely any meaningful reduction would ever be in the works.
#9
"suggest that when oil prices are high, the gas tax should be lowered...In my State, this amounts to 36 cents per gallon tax!"
Oh it gets better. Those gas taxes are PER GALLON, and with the number of gallons sold down due to people conserving due to high gas prices, tax REVENUES are down. They can't have that. Guess what's about to happen. States are planning to RAISE per gallon gas taxes to replace "much needed lost revenue" as well as "to further encourage people to conserve" And somehow, as reported in the media, this will be all the fault of "BIG OIL"
Posted by: Dave ||
11/22/2005 11:52 Comments ||
Top||
#10
California's tax is around 32 cents. Factor in the federal taxes and it goes up to around 50 cents.
#12
High gasoline cost to the consumer - whether through high taxes or high profits to producing governments, or high profits to oil companies, or high costs of production - will all lead to the apparantly desired outcome of reduced dependence on oil. Until the public - consumer or investor - truly believes high prices are 'here to stay', there will not be a major shift in auto buying patterns or development of alternative, more costly sources (e.g. oil shale).
#13
The producers pass their tax burden on to the consumer in the form of higher costs.
It's not quite that straightforward. If you consider production within the US you're talking about tens of thousands of small and micro-producers who sell to wholesalers based on spot pricing. They have *NO* control over how much they're paid, they can merely choose to sell or not at the current market price.
Taxes on the consumer side are significantly lower than those on producers. E.g., last year my folks paid an state & federal taxes at an aggregate rate of 51% on their production and that's *after* the state lopped off nearly 10% in mineral severence taxes on the primary gross production. $0.35-0.40 / gallon is dirt cheap compared to that.
#16
There's a cardinal rule of supply and demand that is involved here: If you want less of something, tax it. If you want more of something, subsidize it. There are calls to increase gas taxes in order to artifically accellerate conservation, which would depress demand, and consequently prices. A cut in taxes is an effective subsidy, and so would maintain demand, and prices with that.
Saudi Arabia is too rich to be a proper recipient of foreign aid, no matter in what form it takes.
#17
BK-I can't believe I'm in agreement with you on this one! Please don't tell anyone on the other coast! Now I feel guilty and have this urge to go to Sun Valley and go skiiing!
Posted by: 49 pan ||
11/22/2005 15:44 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Or if you're really frightened by the big oil companies, you might forego your big screen TeeVee or PB360 and buy into one.
#19
Saudi Arabia is too rich to be a proper recipient of foreign aid, no matter in what form it takes.
Straight to the bottom line, Ptah!
Time to cut off the Saudis like some someone doing who's 40MPH in the fast lane. Our BILLIONS in aid have gotten us nothing more than the 9-11 nineteen a thumb in the eye. Let the royals pay their own way and start sharing the pain. There's no chance of them switching military suppliers after all the expensive kit we've sold them. If these oil-soaked Midases can't kick down, they can go f&%k a rock.
#20
#5 This irks me. Neither republicans nor democrats *ever* suggest that when oil prices are high, the gas tax should be lowered. Here are the numbers: US federal gas tax: 18.4 cents per gallon.
The State taxes:
http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp
In my State, this amounts to 36 cents per gallon tax!
Posted by Anonymoose 2005-11-22 10:06|| Front Page|| ||Comments Top
The taxes you mentioned are just what you see at the f***ing PUMP! The gov't taxes it at the well head (both oil and natural gas by the way), at the refinery, at the distributor, then the pump. I've probably missed a step or two, but believe me the gov't won't miss any.
#21
Excluding retail excise & (in some states) sales taxes at the pump, direct and indirect regulatory compliance costs are probably a bigger cost component in the oil industry than are taxes.
BOGOTA, Colombia -- Colombia has assured right-wing paramilitary leaders they won't be extradited to the United States if their troops continue to disarm. The group is the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, or AUC, formed in April 1997 as an umbrella paramilitary organization to combat the country's leftist guerrillas. AUC currently has an estimated 20,000 members.
AUC is on both the United States' and the European Union's lists of terrorist organizations and Washington wants to extradite several leading AUC members on drug charges.
Since the beginning of the year the government of President Alvaro Uribe has been involved in disarmament discussions with the AUC. Approximately 10,000 AUC members have handed in their weapons and joined government "re-insertion" programs. Seeking to allay AUC leaders' extradition fears, Interior and Justice Minister Sabas Pretelt said, "Those who fulfill their commitments (to demobilize) have nothing to worry about."
According to EFE news agency, AUC leader Ivan Roberto Duque said that his organization's willingness to abide by the government's Dec. 31 deadline for completing demobilization is contingent upon the government eliminating the risk of extradition.
Much as I'd like to see their leaders sharing a jail cel next to 'Pineapple Face' Noreiga, this is the right way to handle this.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/22/2005 00:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Security officials here in Karachayevo-Cherkessia, a restive republic on Russia's mountainous southern border, have a secret list of people who are kept under scrutiny. Those on it have committed no crimes, but are considered suspect because they are Muslims who practice Islam outside of the state's sanctioned mosques. Ovod Golayev is on that list. He lives in Karachayevsk, a city nestled in the foothills of the Caucasus, where he works for a tourism company that organizes skiing and hiking excursions. He wears his hair and beard long. He prays five times a day. He fasts during Ramadan, which is unusual here. In recent weeks, he said, the police have detained him four times, twice in one day. Mr. Golayev, 36, said the Islam he observes is opposed to violence, but he warned that the mistreatment of believers was driving men like him to desperation.
"They will pressure me enough," he said, "and then I will blow somebody's head off."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
11/22/2005 13:06 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"They will pressure me enough," he said, "and then I will blow somebody's head off."
As much as I would love to make fun of this guy, I have said the same thing about California's government about a thousand times.
November 22, 2005: For years, Al Qaeda has been aggressively trying to recruit terrorists from among Moslem populations in Europe. Itâs hard to get numbers, but the effort has not been very successful. Nine British Muslims are known to have died in Iraq, while serving the terrorist cause. Three of them died as suicide bombers. At least 40 are believed to have gone to Iraq, and perhaps a hundred, over the last five years, have gone off to be active terrorists around the world. Thatâs about ten people per million British Moslems per year.
Most of those are actually not British, but men born in the Middle East or Pakistan, and seeking political asylum in Britain. Many of these men were found to have had a terrorist background, and had fled from their native countries, and sought refuge in Europe. Until recently, most European countries, and particularly Britain, were quick to grant asylum to these terrorists. While most of the terrorist ârefugeesâ simply lied about their backgrounds, some admitted to their disagreements with their home governments, and got asylum anyway, or simply refused to show up when the immigration authorities called them in to explain exactly what they were fleeing from.
Although many Europeans still back easy asylum policies, the trend is towards taking a closer look at those trying to get in. When this is done, it is often found that many of the refugees are basically criminals or terrorists looking for a place to hide out.
Posted by: Steve ||
11/22/2005 09:54 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Although many Europeans still back easy asylum policies, the trend is towards taking a closer look at those trying to get in.
Looking the chicken coop after the weasels got in?
CNN management has launched an internal investigation into how a giant black 'X' mark appeared over Vice President Dick Cheney's face -- as he delivered a speech from Washington on Monday! "We are taking this matter very, very seriously, and I can assure you no one at this network would ever deliberately place an 'X' over the vice president's face," a top CNN source, who asked not to be named at this time, said from New York.
A well-placed CNN insider claims a control room staffer "laughed" when the image appeared shortly after 11 am. A careful review of the tape now shows a white colored 'X' was also transposed over Cheney's face during the speech, it appeared for less than 1/15 of a second, creating a startling flash effect.
Someone was messing around, having a laugh with his buddies in the control room, and mistakenly put it on the "Program" bus instead of "Preview". Fecal matter then hit rotary air circulation device.
CNN spokeswoman Laurie Goldberg emails: "We concluded this was a technological malfunction not an issue of operator error. A portion of the switcher experienced a momentary glitch. We obviously regret that it happened and are working on the equipment to ensure it is not repeated."
Yeah, right. Equipment error.
A rival network news director asks: "When has an 'X' ever aired on CNN before? Who had the graphic sitting in the key signal? Who generated the 'X'?"
What he said
The vice president himself is said to have brushed off the incident, a White House source said early Tuesday morning.
Posted by: Steve ||
11/22/2005 09:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
like Dick gives a rats ass.
Posted by: bk ||
11/22/2005 10:06 Comments ||
Top||
#2
An error or not, when you generate an atmosphere of hate and loathing, people are unlikely to buy your excuse when stuff like this happens. When you hammer other people to be PC and exempt yourself from the same standards you've declared for them and when people in your own house commit the same acts in form or substance, you've buried yourself. Now live with it. Its not like this will be a wakeup call about how you need to seriously change the atmosphere of behavior within your own organization. An even bigger hammer is waiting down the road.
#3
Right... a glitch in a switcher. The only glitch I see is the switcher didn't cycle fast enough to hide the "X" and make it truly subliminal. I would suspect CNN does this quite often.
#4
The most trusted name in network news. There, I said it with a straight face.
Posted by: Curt Simon ||
11/22/2005 11:04 Comments ||
Top||
#5
What are the odds of this happening when Hillary is giving a speech?
Posted by: Matt ||
11/22/2005 11:30 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Right. A large dark X appears directly centered on the face of a high official in an administration that CNN openly undermines at every opportunity, and it is just a random accident. Give me a break. The odds against that happening "accidentally" are astronomically large.
#8
CNN spokeswoman Laurie Goldberg emails: "We concluded this was a technological malfunction not an issue of operator error...... she said with an almost straight face, as her office cheered and did high-fives in the background.
#9
This is baloney. I have worked in television studios for 15 years and have never seen a generic "X" like this produced from any piece of eqipment including the grass valley switchers, routers and source switches. It was designed by a control room staffer showing off, put on preview to look at and the Grass Valley Switch Tech "accidently" hit the key and quickly cut it off. The CNN staff got caught doing something they probably joke about on a daily basis. I hope heads roll. If it was equipment, it would have not been superimposed in the key bus.
(CNSNews.com) - A democrat front liberal advocacy group plans to air a new TV ad over the Thanksgiving holiday attacking Republicans for "failing to offer a plan" to end "the U.S. occupation of Iraq."
We have a plan. It's called "Win".
MoveOn.org Political Action said its new ad "echoes Democrats' calls for an exit plan."
The ad will run nationwide on CNN -- the cable network that flashed a big black X over Vice President Dick Cheney's face during a live feed of Cheney's speech to the American Enterprise Institute on Monday.
Oh, that's OK then. No one will see it.
The 30-second ad opens with a family seated around the Thanksgiving table, heads bowed in prayer. "Some folks won't be home this holiday season," the announcer says. "Cut to a shot of forlorn soldiers in Iraq with mess kits," the press release said. The announcer says 150,000 American men and women are "stuck in Iraq."
Enter President Bush and Vice President Cheney: "Their president misled America to send them in and has no plan to get them out," the script says, adding that "Democrats in Congress are leading the way home."
How'd that vote on pulling the troops out go?
The video returns to the Thanksgiving table, focusing on one empty chair: "Where are the Republicans?" it asks.
Fighting Islamofachism, where are the Dimocrats?
The tag line urges Americans, "Tell your representative. Support our troops. Bring them home."
In his speech on Monday, Vice President Cheney urged Americans to remember why we're fighting in Iraq. Debate is welcome, Cheney said. But he called it dishonest and reprehensible to suggest -- as some Democratic senators have -- that the president or anyone in the administration purposely misled the American people on prewar intelligence.
Posted by: Steve ||
11/22/2005 09:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This brings to mind the term "reinforcing defeat".
#2
If there are any orgs similar to MoveOn but on the opposite side of the spectrum, they should make an opposing commercial. These MoveOn ads must NOT go unanswered.
#3
Its called Sedition guys when are we going to get a leadership that has the balls to not only win the war and rally the people keep them rallied?? Then when are we going to get a leader ready to break the status quo and handle the LLL problem to hate your own nation means you shouldnt have citizenship. We are a dying nation guys EU is pretty freekin dead look at France and thats our future a gov so PC all they can do is watch as foriegn radicals cough"angry youth" burn thier nation down and soon will begin carving out huge swaths of the French home territory. We got to turn it around their is a war to be fought here aswell.
#5
Very well stated, tu! And I, for one, as a resident of GA am COMPLETELY embarassed by Cynthia McKinney (D-Looneyville, GA). I just praise God every day that I don't live in her district (she was 1 of the 3 yes votes)!
Posted by: BA ||
11/22/2005 10:21 Comments ||
Top||
#6
We have a plan. It's called "Win".
win what?
A big cash giveaway for Haliburton?
Posted by: bk ||
11/22/2005 11:15 Comments ||
Top||
#7
A big cash giveaway for Haliburton?
LOL! good 'un BK.
#8
Tar and feathers. On an earlier thread, a commenter said that humiliation was not enough, but it is a start. He wanted harsher measures.
If the moonbats began to experience a personal cost they might reconsider. The right needs to speak out. The moonbattery has been unanswered for too long. If it continues the way it has, it will culminate with civil war, an outcome that we don't want.
#11
I remember something about a challenger to McKinney...our only hope is for another competitor in the primaries (that was how Denise Majette won McKinney's seat, then she got greedy and wanted a Senate seat - which will NEVER happen again in GA). That District is a definite Democrat every time, so unless McKinney's challenged at the primary level, she won't lose. I'm kind of with Neal Boortz on this one....we do need to keep a few moonbats around, just to be able to quote their dementia and show people how batty their ideas really are.
Posted by: BA ||
11/22/2005 13:14 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Your soul mate will arrive in 13 hours bgrebel9
#13
I think that it is wonderful how MoveOn tacks so closely to the statements of the Dem party. These positions are not consistent with those of the average American. They will not further the Dem's lust for power. Instead, they will continue to marginalize the Dems. Keep it up MoveOn. Traitorous swine.
taken from Sunday's NY Sun. HT to Powerline and Democracy Project
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/22/2005 19:42 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sadly, the party of Henry Jackson and Franklin Roosevelt has become the party of retreat - from the Iranian Hostage Crisis to the retreat from Mogadishu; to opposition to the 1991 Gulf War; to the failure to avenge the 1993 World Trade Center bombing or the USS Cole bombing or the murder of our own troops and embassy personnel around the world. Indeed, this past Thursday night, the nation watched the bizarre spectacle of a Democratic Party speaking in favor of immediate withdrawal but too afraid to even cast a vote recording for posterity these convictions.
#4
Don't let Kerry get away with both making a verb of "Swiftboat", *and* pretending that is in some way unfair, dishonest, or a smear.
It was not. It was men who were appalled at what Kerry had been and was. Honest and honorable men who could not abide the possibility that Kerry might become the President of the United States.
Men who stayed silent when he slandered them, when he accused them of inhuman acts, even when he betrayed them and gave comfort to the enemy. Into their old age they did not damn him because they were gentlemen, and saw no purpose in justified vengeance.
But they could not tolerate that this traitor, this amoral swine, could do what he did to them to another generation. And this is why they spoke up. Even so, they did not curse him, they only spoke of what they knew, and the truth.
And like an unholy creature, he shied and still shies from the light of truth. He still tries to turn the truth into lies yet again, to play the victim to some twisted conspiracy. The baldface liar.
Do not let him. Over the lives of those men who he betrayed, do not let him. Despise the verb "Swiftboating" as a shallow attempt to once again hide his treason from the light.
#6
What has always amazed me was the lack of attention paid to the wounded Viet Cong soldier Kerry allegedly dispatched with a pistol. I guess "prisoner abuse" had not been invented yet back then eh?
Senator McCain is arguing for a U.S. policy against the use of torture. Among his arguments is that torture is ineffective and that the Israelis and Russians have learned to obtain information without torture by use of "psychological methods".
The Israelis DO use torture. Perhaps McCain should read the new book by Norman Finkelstein which documents this fact. Perhaps more importantly, a policy statement makes good political theater, but would not in and of itself necessarily means that torture was not carried out. It would just mean that keeping secrecy regarding use of torture would be facilitated. ...
The excuse that pending attacks could be prevented and lives saved by gathering timely information are disingenuous. If torture must be used to save lives and prevent attacks, then the government itself should never be allowed to hold information that could prevent attacks. We know that Franklin Roosevelt had access to all Japanese military and government radio the communications traffic, and he could have prevented the attack on Pearl Harbor by counterattacking the Japanese fleet well away from Hawaii. Roosevelt held his information tight and kept his awareness secret so that the attack could occur and America could be provoked into war against the Axis powers. The U.S. military developed ability to intercept and understand German military communications as well, and could have prevented any number of military battles in which soldiers were lost. But, for strategic reasons, American lives were sacrificed by the American government. Morals definitely took a back seat to military strategy.
If morals are to be used as a reason to torture prisoners in the War on Terror, then morals must require that the U.S. government prevent all preventable deaths of U.S. citizens and military personnel and must not hold secrets that cost American lives. There is plenty of solid evidence to demonstrate that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were known in adequate detail to high officials of the U.S. government (and to others) prior to those attacks and the attacks could have easily been thwarted. Even Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco knew enough to avoid flying on that day, and he cancelled a trip to New York and avoided risk by his knowledge.
The reality is that torture is and probably always will be standard operating procedure of the American military and government. Senator McCain is trying desperately to hide public knowledge of torture by erecting a barrier, a shield to public awareness. McCain wants to be able to say, "We don't torture anyone, we have a firm policy against it" and then perfect methods of keeping actual torture secret. The fact that McCain approves of Israeli methods means he is not sincere in stopping torture.
#2
I don't condone torture. On the other hand, to get any kind of information out of an unwilling suspect there has to be some type of coercion allowed. The Left is doing its damnedest to make certain that we have absolutely no options, violent or non-violent, with which to deal with these terrorists. The only logical assumption I can draw from that is that they want our side to lose and are waging "lawfare" against us. I don't believe we can allow this to continue and still win this war.
Posted by: mac ||
11/22/2005 5:53 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Historical revisionism and anti-semitism wrapped up in a wad of bile.
(Finkelstein is a Holocaust denier and Chomskyite. But I repeat myself.)
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/22/2005 7:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Earth to those bastards. Jane Fonda supported torture. When exerted by commies. Earth to those bastards. You supported torture. When exerted by Saddam or the islamo-nazis. Earth to those bastards: Suicide.
There is plenty of solid evidence to demonstrate that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were known in adequate detail to high officials of the U.S. government
Last time I have seen "solid evidence" provided by those people it was the documents about Bush service: documents written in 197x with MS-Word and fonts who didn't exist before 1990.
#5
hey dont f*ck with his talkin points. McCain is a victim of torture. Victims of crimes are not allowed to sit on jury's of such crimes becuase it is just humanly impossible to be impartial and non-biased. McCain has no buisness talkin about torture and should be considered biased from the start. Whatever happended to common sence and seeing the obvious in this Country.
#8
There is plenty of solid evidence to demonstrate that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were known in adequate detail to high officials of the U.S. government (and to others) prior to those attacks and the attacks could have easily been thwarted. Even Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco knew enough to avoid flying on that day, and he cancelled a trip to New York and avoided risk by his knowledge.
Wow, even Willie Brown? I'm sold!
Stan Moore sounds like he might be a big Larouche guy.
#9
"Even Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco knew enough to avoid flying on that day, and he cancelled a trip to New York and avoided risk by his knowledge."
Wow, so Willie Brown had better intel than the Solicitor General of the USA? The dude's got some serious juice.
#11
And as another point, FDR did NOT have information to prevent Pearl Harbor -- that's an old revisionist lie peddled by disreputable people ever since the end of WWII. We had broken the Japanese code 'Purple' but did not have enough info to know where the Imperial Fleet was or what they were planning. The writer of this piece is a moonbat, pure and simple.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/22/2005 14:18 Comments ||
Top||
#12
IIRC, FDR did expect an attack, but thought it would be at the Phillipines, and was flabbergasted it was at Pearl.
#13
So, was the main point to deconstruct McCain's demand for a no-torture policy, or to come up with a surreptitous means of planting the discredited meme that top US officials knew of 9/11 ahead of time?
This guy talks a big talk about secrets, but even he is aware that there are secrets, and there are SECRETS. Secrets are classified by level: our knowing that the Japs were going to attack Midway was definitely a secret worth keeping so we could get the drop on them. HOW we knew they were going to attack Midway was also a secret, but MORE worth keeping. Some battles are not worth fighting because they would use resources essential to win the battles that ARE worth fighting. Clearly, this guy wants morals to triumph over long-term strategy, because he knows that it is long-term strategy, not morals, that will DEFEAT the causes HE SUPPORTS in the long run.
Another thing to point out is the typical Liberal "some=all" mis-argument: the fact that SOME secrets were kept rather than used to protect human lives does not mean that ALL secrets of this sort will be kept and NO human lives protected. Some secrets have limited life-times and are simply not strategic, so acting on them to save lives is a moral imperative. Allowing the bombing of Coventry in order to preserve the secret that we knew how to crack the German military codes was justified because it was a STRATEGIC secret. There is NO long term value in keeping secret the secret location of where a car bomb assembly factory that was extracted from a terrorist.
And that's ANOTHER thing: the moral equivalence issue. The guy is so intent on equating us to terrorists that he ignores the fact that the secrets kept by a terrorist to enable an attack against civilians is NOT AT THE SAME LEVEL as the secrets kept by us to maintain our ability to track down said terrorists.
Dr. Victor Davis Hanson has amply documented the fact that Western armies fight fiercely and devastatingly, and I do not support any call to make OUR army less so. However, he also has documented the fact that Western armies, being so dangerous, need to be held accountable. Despite his ass-itude, Aris DID touch the other day on what I feel IS a solution: we should keep assiduous, detailed, and complete records of who we capture, interrogate, and "torture", with some sort of two-level decision making structure that analyzes the circumstances of capture and the initial interrogaton (no "torture"), with some reasonable guidelines that indicate when "torture" is NOT appropriate. I would further recommend the use of Voice Stress analyzers during the initial interrogation: they have been shown to have no false negatives, so passing a VSA would qualify one for release, although failing a VSA should not be automatic permission to use "torture".
Detailed and assiduous records should be kept not only over what we do, but the outcomes: we need to know what works and what doesn't, and be able to credit good interrogators/"torturers" and eliminate the bad ones. They should be allowed to pick from an approved menu of methods, AND be allowed to propose personal additions to the menu that only THEY would use and only after multi-level review and approval. If a guy thinks a 20 amino acid diet may work, let him at it. If a guy thinks that being made to watch 50's beach boy movies starring Elvis with their eyes lashed open for 20 hour stints will do the trick, by all means let him conduct the experiment. Let the Supreme court decide whether listening to "Puff the Magic Dragon" for 50 hours straight at 88.67 decibels is Cruel and Unusual punishment after reviewing the documented success rate. Let's keep track of this information, figure out who's good enough to crack who within how many hours, and let's just get RID of what doesn't really work. If we have a sadist who keeps pushing the limits and isn't getting anywhere, we shouldn't let his job rating be determined by his bullshitting, but by his lack of success, and get rid of him. If a late blooming 60's flower child can make Al Qaida lieutenants crack in less than 88 minutes flat, then give that man a raise.
There are several aspects to the use of "torture" that we CAN demonstrate to ourselves and to our descendants if we use some form of accountability: We "tortured" only when we were reasonably sure the stakes were high enough, that we were careful in making sure we "tortured" the right people, and that we made active and vigorous attempts to abandon methods that were not productive.
#14
Darn, I forgot to explain why I put "torture" in quotes: I have no respect for people who deny the existance of absolute morals that arbitrarily and without due announcement, rip up the goal posts, move them, plant them down, and THEN assert the violation of a sacred moral principle. They damn well know what were acceptable interrogation techniques in the past THEY, and THEY ALONE, are declaring as "torture" today.
Closing arguments were given on Monday in the case of a Pakistani accused of aiding al Qaeda, with the prosecution and defense debating whether prolonged questioning by FBI agents produced a false confession by the accused man.
Uzair Paracha, 25, is charged with agreeing to smuggle travel documents and pose as al Qaeda member Majid Khan, who prosecutors believe was planning to blow up gas stations in the United States.
If convicted in U.S. District Court, Paracha faces a maximum of 15 years on each of the five charges he faces.
Paracha testified that he confessed to FBI agents that he helped Khan after three days of questioning in March 2003 because he was scared and wanted to go home.
Prosecutors say Paracha attended several meetings with his father Saifullah Paracha and al Qaeda members Khan and Ammar al-Baluchi and that he agreed to mail travel documents to Khan in Pakistan, knowing the men were al Qaeda members.
"He (Paracha) decided to help an al Qaeda operative get into the United States, and he did so knowing that that terrorist was coming with one purpose -- to kill Americans," prosecutor Karl Metzner said during closing arguments.
The prosecutor said "the heart of this case comes down to one question" -- whether Paracha knew Khan and al-Baluchi were al Qaeda members.
"The answer is simple. He knew. He wasn't lying," said Metzner. "What he said on that witness stand doesn't change that fact one little bit."
Defense attorney Edward Wilford called Paracha a "dupe in every sense of the word."
"His street smarts and common sense were not that sharp," his attorney said. "He told you he did not know, did not participate, was not a part of any al Qaeda plot."
Paracha was strip-searched and deprived of food, sleep and contact with his family during the three days of questioning, the attorney said.
"These conditions were ideal to create a false confession," he said.
The defense attorney urged jurors to believe statements made by Khan and al-Baluchi to U.S. authorities, submitted during the trial, that said neither Paracha nor his father knew either one was an al Qaeda member or knew of a chemical attack plot.
Both Khan and al-Baluchi are being held in U.S. custody in undisclosed locations, and Saifullah Paracha has been held for two years in U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after being arrested in Bangkok in 2003.
Jurors are expected to begin deliberations on Tuesday.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
11/22/2005 12:39 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Malaysiaâs Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi yesterday urged Israeli authorities to be âcautiousâ amid fears the walls of the ancient Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalemâs Old City were crumbling. âThe Al-Aqsa is sacred to Muslims, considered a world heritage,â Abdullah was quoted as saying by the official Bernama news agency. âTherefore the Israelis need to be cautiousâ given that Muslims were angry over the poor condition of the mosque, he said.
Ummm... Isn't it the Moose limbs that won't let let them do anything to fix it?
Malaysia, as chair of the worldâs largest grouping of Islamic countries, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), demanded Israel take Muslim views and concern over the mosqueâs condition into consideration, he said.
In other words, don't do anything, but take the blame when it falls down.
Abdullah said a United Nationsâ resolution states any conflict between Israel and another party should not lead to destruction of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Israeli media reported last week that large sections of the 16th century walls surrounding Jerusalemâs Old City were in danger of collapse unless they underwent immediate restoration. Israeli authorities have repeatedly called attention to a bulge in the southern supporting wall of the Al-Aqsa mosque compound, provoking tensions between the Jewish and Muslim communities. Palestinian Muslim leaders have urged the OIC and UNESCO, the United Nations Scientific and Cultural Organization, to intervene to protect Islamic heritage including the compound in the Old City.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/22/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
Actually, whoever runs the mosque decided to do some major undermining just before 2 million pilgrims descended on it. The Israelis freaked out, knowing that they would be blamed if the floor caved in and killed hundreds. However, they were obstinate, yet despite their best efforts there was no disaster.
The irony was that much of the undermining was done in an archeological search for Jewish artifacts underneath the mosque, that could then be destroyed, to deny the Israelis any tool they could use to "prove" that their temple had been there.
#5
These morons can't even build their own refineries, so how can they be trusted to understand structural engineering? One thing is certain. If this shrine collapses, it won't be Allah's will, the Jews will be given all the blame. These twisted f&%ks dick causality around like a light switch and expect people with IQs above room temperature to take them seriously.
At some point, Islam as a whole needs to be told to assume responsible accountability or be denied all further participation in this world's ongoing affairs.
Reaching out to the Sunni Arab community, Iraqi leaders called for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces and said Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance.
The communique â finalized by Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders Monday â condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens. Have any of the attacks fallen in that category?
The leaders How many leaders? WHo do the polls say? agreed on "calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation" and end terror attacks. Now there's a plan! Why didn't we think of that?
The preparatory reconciliation conference, held under the auspices of the Arab League, was attended by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani Did he support the plan? Was he one of the leadersand Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers as well as leading Sunni politicians.
Sunni leaders have been pressing the Shiite-majority government to agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops. The statement recognized that goal, but did not lay down a specific time â reflecting instead the government's stance that Iraqi security forces must be built up first.
On Monday, Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr suggested U.S.-led forces should be able to leave Iraq by the end of next year, saying the one-year extension of the mandate for the multinational force in Iraq by the U.N. Security Council this month could be the last.
"By the middle of next year we will be 75 percent done in building our forces and by the end of next year it will be fully ready," he told the Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera.
Debate in Washington over when to bring troops home turned bitter last week after decorated Vietnam War vet Rep. John Murtha called for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and estimated a pullout could be complete within six months. Republicans And nearly all the Demsrejected Murtha's position.
In Egypt, the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution.
"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said. It's nice they can make the distinction. I'm not sure Zarq can.
The final communique also stressed participants' commitment to Iraq's unity and called for the release of all "innocent detainees" who have not been convicted by courts. It asked that allegations of torture against prisoners be investigated and those responsible be held accountable.
The statement also demanded "an immediate end to arbitrary raids and arrests without a documented judicial order." WHo's making arbitrary raids?
The communique included no means for implementing its provisions, leaving it unclear what it will mean in reality other than to stand as a symbol of a first step toward bringing the feuding parties together in an agreement in principle.
"We are committed to this statement as far as it is in the best interests of the Iraqi people," said Harith al-Dhari, leader of the powerful Association of Muslim Scholars, a hard-line Sunni group. He said he had reservations about the document as a whole, and delegates said he had again expressed strong opposition to the concept of federalism enshrined in Iraq's new constitution.
The gathering was part of a U.S.-backed league attempt to bring the communities closer together and assure Sunni Arab participation in a political process now dominated by Iraq's Shiite majority and large Kurdish minority. The conference also decided on broad conditions for selecting delegates to a wider reconciliation gathering in the last week of February or the first week of March in Iraq. It essentially opens the way for all those who are willing to renounce violence against fellow Iraqis.
Shiites had been strongly opposed to participation in the conference by Sunni Arab officials from the former Saddam regime or from pro-insurgency groups. That objection seemed to have been glossed over in the communique. The Cairo meeting was marred by differences between participants at times, and at one point Shiite and Kurdish delegates stormed out of a closed session when one of the speakers said they had sold out to the Americans. Ah, politics! Ain't it wonderful?
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/22/2005 06:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sunni leaders have been pressing the Shiite-majority government to agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops. The statement recognized that goal, but did not lay down a specific time â reflecting instead the government's stance that Iraqi security forces must be built up first.
Sounds more like they support Bush's plan, which is to withdraw US troops as Iraqi troops can take over the job.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/22/2005 8:32 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Right, RC. It depends on whether you believe the original headline - "Iraqi Leaders Call for Pullout Timetable" - or mine (a variation of the original, with a touch of irony/sarcasm), or if you read the whole article and form your own opinion!
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/22/2005 8:44 Comments ||
Top||
#3
At this point, we should all remember that many of the Iraqi "leaders" are basically self-appointed, based on being connected insiders.
In about a month, for the first time, Iraq will have a fully democratic government. And I suspect that it will have some major policy differences from the government in place right now.
This is not to say that the current leaders are no good, that is not true, just that they cannot truly claim to represent "the Iraqi street".
With a loose analogy, you could say that the current government are like a "blue state" government in the US; whereas the soon-to-be-elected government will be a "red state", government.
This is especially true in the Sunni areas, where I will not be surprised if after the elections, Sunni organizations like "the influential association of Muslim scholars", win no power at all.
#5
1) What's the source for this? The link is circular.
2) This is the Cairo conference, under the aegis of the Arab League. As such, it is in no way authoritative or binding, as I understand things.
3) Talabani has been a little shaky on the whole occupation thing, which is essentially harmless because he's a head of state, and doesn't have any day-to-day power as I understand things.
4) Whoop de fucking do. A bunch of self-appointed clowns sponsored by the Arab tyrants sorta agree that it'd be nice if there weren't Americans and British and other icky types in Mesopotamia. What, you expected them to agitate in favor of a long-term committment? The Sunni haven't figured out that they're going to all kick heels if we leave them alone with a mostly-Shia-and-Kurdish army. The Kurds and the Shia, on the other hand, are starting to twig to this eventuality.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
11/22/2005 13:07 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Reaching out to the Sunni Arab community, Iraqi leaders called for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces and said Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance.
#7
RC is correct. This is closer to the GOP Senate resolution than to an exit timetable.
Its important to the Sunnis to get a promise that there wont be a PERMANENT US presence. The Iraqi govt is ready to offer that, but not a promise for a withdrawl until Iraqi forces are ready.
A leading Shiite lawmaker suggested Monday that he will pursue a federal region in southern Iraq after next month's elections, pushing forward demands for Shiite autonomy that Sunni leaders fear could tear the country apart. "We have major missions ahead," Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, who heads the largest bloc in the interim parliament, told a gathering of tribal leaders. "The central and southern regions should be achieved after the elections" set for Dec. 15.
According to Iraq's new constitution, the country's 18 provinces — except for Baghdad — can combine to create self-ruled areas. Kurds have such a region in the north and Sunni Arabs fear that a similar Shiite-run mini-state in the south would deprive them of a share of the nation's oil wealth — concentrated in those two areas. Sunni Arabs also fear the system would tear the country apart.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/22/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Shiite autonomy that Sunni leaders fear could tear the country apart. And leave the Sunni's holding a bag full of desert.
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/22/2005 8:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
If it weren't for the Iranian influence I would think this would be a good thing.
#4
Ah, but what does it all mean really? I donât see confederation or devolution as necessarily a bad thing for a Middle Eastern country; itâs just another form of federalism, after all. So long as Iraq has a common currency, federally selected foreign representation, and a high court safeguarding some sort of basic individual rights, a âthree nations, one countryâ situation isnât necessarily a disaster. We can certainly maintain enough military bases in Iraq to discourage the Iranians from outright invading. The only reason that the Sunni even give a damn about âself-ruled areasâ is because of oil money, not out of some kind of patriotism. Let the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds go their own ways so long as they keep up federal appearances and keep the violence to a minimum.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani began a landmark visit to Iran yesterday, the first by an Iraqi head of state in nearly four decades, in a clear effort to win more help in battling the insurgency raging in his country. Iranian officials said Talabani was to spend three days in the Islamic republic for a series of high-level talks centered on security issues. Iranian media said his delegation includes Iraqi national security adviser Muwaffaq Rubaie.
Ties between Iran and Iraqâs new authorities have been relatively close, with Baghdadâs new government dominated by Kurdish figures like Talabani and Shiites once backed by Tehran during Saddamâs rule. But relations remain clouded by allegations of Iranian support for insurgents fighting US and British troops in Iraq. Iran denies meddling, and blames the violence on the very presence of foreign forces. Talabani is scheduled to meet President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, top national security official Ali Larijani and Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. Iranian media said he is also expected to meet supreme leader Ali Khamenei. The last Iraqi head of state to tour Iran was Abdel Rahman Aref, Iraqâs president between 1966 and 1968. Talabaniâs visit comes hot on the heels of a trip to Tehran by the Iraqi national security adviser last week, which ended with the signing of a memorandum of understanding with Larijani.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/22/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
November 21, 2005: The Serbian battery commander, whose missiles downed an American F-16, and, most impressively, an F-117, in 1999, has retired, as a colonel, and revealed many of the techniques he used to achieve all this.
Wonder if he would be interested in giving a lecture at the Air War College or Air Defense School at Ft. Bliss?
Colonel Dani Zoltan, in 1999, commanded the 3rd battery of the 250th Missile Brigade. He had search and control radars, as well as a TV tracking unit. The battery had four quad launchers for the 21 foot long, 880 pound SA-3 missiles. The SA-3 entered service in 1961 and, while it had undergone some upgrades, was considered a minor threat to NATO aircraft. Zoltan was an example of how an imaginative and energetic leader can make a big difference. While Zoltanâs peers and superiors were pretty demoralized with the electronic countermeasures NATO (especially American) aircraft used to support their bombing missions, he believed he could still turn his ancient missiles into lethal weapons. The list of measures he took, and the results he got, should be warning to any who believe that superior technology alone will provide a decisive edge in combat. People still make a big difference. In addition to shooting down two aircraft, Zoltanâs battery caused dozens of others to abort their bombing missions to escape his unexpectedly accurate missiles. This is how he did it.
--- Zoltan had about 200 troops under his command. He got to know them well, trained hard and made sure everyone could do what was expected of them. This level of quality leadership was essential, for Zoltan's achievements were a group effort.
--- Zoltan used a lot of effective techniques that American air defense experts expected, but did not expect to encounter because of poor leadership by the enemy. For example, Zoltan knew that his major foe was HARM (anti-radar) missiles and electronic detection systems used by the Americans, as well as smart bombs from aircraft who had spotted him. To get around this, he used landlines for all his communications (no cell phones or radio). This was more of a hassle, often requiring him to use messengers on foot or in cars. But it meant the American intel people overhead were never sure where he was.
--- His radars and missile launchers were moved frequently, meaning that some of his people were always busy looking for new sites to set up in, or setting up or taking down the equipment. His battery traveled over 100,000 kilometers during the 78 day NATO bombing campaign, just to avoid getting hit. They did, and his troops knew all that effort was worth the effort.
--- The Serbs had spies outside the Italian airbase most of the bombers operated from. When the bombers took off, the information on what aircraft they, and how many, quickly made it to Zoltan and the other battery commanders.
--- Zoltan studied all the information he could get on American stealth technology, and the F-117. There was a lot of unclassified data, and speculation, out there. He developed some ideas on how to beat stealth, based on the fact that the technology didnât make the F-117 invisible to radar, just very to get, and keep, a good idea of exactly where the aircraft was. Zoltan figured out how to tweak his radars to get a better lock on stealth type targets. This has not been discussed openly.
--- The Serbs also set up a system of human observers, who would report on sightings of bombers entering Serbia, and track their progress.
--- The spies and observers enabled Zoltan to keep his radars on for a minimal amount of time. This made it difficult for the American SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) to use their HARM missiles (that homed in on radar transmissions.) Zoltan never lost a radar to a HARM missile.
--- Zoltan used the human spotters and brief use of radar, with short range shots at American bombers. The SA-3 was guided from the ground, so you had to use surprise to get an accurate shot in before the target used jamming and evasive maneuvers to make the missile miss. The F-117 he shot down was only 13 kilometers away.
Zoltan got some help from his enemies. The NATO commanders often sent their bombers in along the same routes, and didnât make a big effort to find out if hotshots like Zoltan were down there, and do something about it. Never underestimate your enemy.
Posted by: Steve ||
11/22/2005 10:05 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Also helps to have a French officer in NATO HQ handing over the flight plans.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
11/22/2005 10:23 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I dunno, I'd still call this a luck shot. Seventy eight days worth of bombing and one F-117 was brought down?
#3
Now let's see if Colonel Zoltan can build an F-117.
Posted by: Matt ||
11/22/2005 11:28 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The Serbs had spies outside the Italian airbase most of the bombers operated from. When the bombers took off, the information on what aircraft they, and how many, quickly made it to Zoltan and the other battery commanders.
Hmmm...spies.
Just like the MSM whores that parked outside of the British bases when Iraq was being bombed. As soon as the B-52's started taking off they began reporting to the whole world that Bagdad was going to be bombed 9 hours later.
That was driving me crazy, they really are on the other side.
BTW I think Zoltan was the carny attraction that made Tom Hanks Big, no wonder he could splash a F-117.
#6
...Everything besides the spies, spotters and the French is bullsh*t. I'd like to also know how MANY missiles he salvoed that night - it sure as hell wasn't one shot/one kill.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
11/22/2005 12:11 Comments ||
Top||
#7
His battery traveled over 100,000 kilometers during the 78 day NATO bombing campaign, just to avoid getting hit.
There must have been a large complement of field pieces in Zoltan's battery, or else the above numbers don't add up. Some 100,000 klicks in 78 days boils down to 769 miles per day. Even spread out over four field pieces, that's still nearly 200 miles per day. So, something's screwy with these numbers.
Regardless, even if cut in half, what the numbers show is that these guys were constantly on the run. Source guided missiles are good for that. These chaps were in constant motion just to avoid being cratered. Nailing one F-117 and a few other aircraft in exchange for an eternity of heavy lifting does not represent a strong ROI.
 Now let's see if Colonel Zoltan can build an F-117.
Matt's statement encapsulates much of what needs to be remembered here. The ability to break things does not confer any skill at building them.
It's a lesson we need to remember about our terrorist foes and their accomplices in the media. Their focus remains on bringing down what they cannot themselves construct. Whether out of jealousy or incompetent rage, we are confronted with those who seek to deconstruct a world that has advanced well beyond their comprehension or ability to manage.
While Zoltan's fortuitous accomplishment is worthy of passing mention, the fact that the Balkans remain a complete and total hellhole is more indicative of what to expect from that quarter.
#8
He claims to have shot down two planes. OK. And I'll buy in to the notion that his unit was among the best trained in the Serb Army. Remember, the Serb Army.
The NATO planes often travelled the same routes. He had spotters and TV tracking. OK, so he got two planes.
The better question is: how many shots did he take? It looks like nearly all his time was spent running.
#9
Y'all are missing the point. He nailed two more aircraft than anyone thought the Serbs could hit. He figured out how to do it and make it work. He was a leader in a country that didn't have many genuine leaders.
And the article points out that his tactics forced Allied aircraft to abort some missions. That's not as good as a kill (as far as he's concerned), but it's useful.
Green Steve is right: this guy ought to give our guys a lecture or two. Besides hearing about the tactics, they'd meet an officer who cared about his men and worked hard to be a leader. That's always helpful.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/22/2005 14:25 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Some 100,000 klicks in 78 days boils down to 769 miles per day. Even spread out over four field pieces, that's still nearly 200 miles per day. So, something's screwy with these numbers.
Wonder if it's not total vehicle miles. Four launchers is for vehicles, plus one or two radar trucks (or maybe four), plus the trucks carrying reloads, plus the maintenance vehicles, plus the command truck, plus personnel transport . . . twenty trucks driving fifty miles a day (a typical round trip between two county seats in rural Ohio) is a thousand vehicle-miles a day.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/22/2005 14:50 Comments ||
Top||
#11
As far as I can tell by my persoanl knowledge and by this article the shots that took down the F117 were ballistic, unguided, and damn lucky to hit anything. The tactics he used make good sense given he couldn't use his missiles otherwise. The minute he turned on a radar it was essentially dead. BTW we did kill a few SA-3 radars during the campaign. I suspect the reason he didn't use them is because he didn't have them or could convinvce the crews to turn them on.
#12
Sounds like he was using info-tactics taken from Claire Chennault's (bamboo line?) 100 million pairs of eyes and 100 radios. Enough eyes, ears and cell=phones along the flight path take away a lotta stealth.
Oh, THAT'll give Assad the credibility and respectability he yearns for, now won't it?
Former US Louisiana Representative David Duke on Monday expresses solidarity with Syria in face of the pressures and threats against the country.
Traded his hood for a turban
Duke told a news conference at the 'Nation's Tent' at Rawda Square in Damascus that "I have come to Syria to express my support to the Syrian people and their just stances...it's the duty of every free man to reject the conspiracies and threats Syria is exposed to."
He added that the pro-Israel neoconservatives in the US have influence on their country's foreign policy and have been working behind the scenes through their mass media in the US to hide "the reality of Israeli terrorism against the Arabs."
Trust a Klansman to stick to the "It's the Jooos fault" party line.
On the war on Iraq, the former US Senator said the war has created a crisis in the world, adding that those who advised the American administration to go into this war have been working to widen the scope of the crisis to spread it to other countries in the region.
That would be me.
Former Representative Duke said Iraq war cost the US 300 billion dollars, more than 2000 dead, and between 20,000 to 30,000 wounded, pushed America into a real crisis and raised hatred against its foreign policy in the world. He added that Israel has been practicing state terrorism against the Arabs, and the American people know this reality which "Zionist-controlled mass media seek to distort."
Duke questioned why nobody has so far talked about the Israeli mass destruction weapons and its violation of more than 50 UN resolutions while it continues to occupy Arab territories and increase the number of its settlements in the West Bank. He added that Iraq was invaded under false allegations, that the country had WMD which never existed.
Duke expressed appreciation of Syria under the leadership of President Bashar al-Assad, saying he would do his best to convey "the real peace-loving Syrian" stances to peoples across the world.
Oh, I'm sure he will
The news conference was attended by President of the World Charity Fund for Cooperation and Tolerance Among Religion and member of the Russian Union of Writers Valerie Borokhova, Professor of the Diplomatic Relations at the Academy of politics in Moscow, Director General of Islamic Furqan in Moscow Mohammad al-Rashid, several members of the Syrian Parliament and Arab and foreign correspondents.
Posted by: Steve ||
11/22/2005 13:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Nice to see Arabic News convieniently doesn't mention his membership in the Klan. Also see they've promoted him to US Senator.
The guy who wrote this might have a future at the Times.
#8
The red-brown alliance is becoming more and more open, just as it was after the Ribbentrop/Molotov pact of 1939. We all know how well that worked out, maybe history will repeat itself.
Some years ago, klan-nazi hood-winks and communist moonbats shot it out on the street in North Carolina, leaving five of the latter dead. I wish I had been there, to pass out ammunition to the outgunned Reds, sort of an informal repetition of lend-lease to Stalin.
The Katrina aftermath featured an interesting example of red/brown collaboration. Veteran communist agitator Randall Robinson claimed that black people in NOLA were so desperate they had started eating the dead, after just four days.
The knuckle-draggers on Duke's message board seized on this as evidence of black depravity and whooped it up for days, especially since the report was "from a black."
What's a little barbarism and slander among friends, when the higher goal of Jew hate and authoritarian presumption unites such disparate forces?
#9
AC, I remember the shoot-out in Greensboro. I was going to Duke at the time and several of the commies were either graduate students or had some affiliation to Duke. Oh the wailing that ensued amongst the gentle lefties on campus. Most people agreed with you...give both sides more bullets so they could kill one another more effectively.
#10
2b, yea, ironic to the power of 2. But you underestimate the LLL capacity for cognitive disonance. We may live in a closed universe, but stupidity (and its offspring--moonbattery) knows no boundaries--it is one thing that I am convinced is almost eternal. Does not mean there is no recourse or that it should be tolerated.
#13
So now Jesse Jackson, David Duke and Farrakan are all on the same side. Go figure it would be the Joooos to root out the aliances! God this is better than TV. I see it now: The Klan, Black Panthers, and NDC all meet in Berkley for a peace conference. The guest speaker could be Jane Fonda, and Patty Hearst.
Posted by: 49 pan ||
11/22/2005 14:44 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Duke has incontrovertibly proven himself to be an enemy of the state. Invalidate his passport, prohibit his re-entering the United States and begin to root out all of his supporters here as well. Enough of this Nazi male bovine fecal matter.
#18
They don't have to pay their own airline fares. People who spew his (and other) brands of bullshit are paid well by others to do so, and their expenses are covered.
Posted by: Phil ||
11/22/2005 15:18 Comments ||
Top||
#19
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin el-Husseini was a Nazi supporter during WWII. The "Hanjar (Saber) Division" was a unit of the Waffen SS which he personally recruited for Hitler.
Maybe David Duke aspires to be a modern day Grand Mufti of Syria.
#20
I have for a long time advocated the removal of Duke from the land of the living. This isn't much in the way of anything new for him. I just wonder how we let a felon travel out of the counrty?
#23
Duke expressed appreciation of Syria under the leadership of President Bashar al-Assad, saying he would do his best to convey "the real peace-loving Syrian" stances to peoples across the world.
I suspect Bashar had better re-look his PR campaign.
Syrian economic and political sources yesterday affirmed that the government has completed preparations to combat the worst possibilities as regards the open encounter with the USA. Sources pointed out that the German city Cologne is a likely location to interrogate the six Syrian security officials, who are wanted to the international investigation committee as suspects in the assassination of the ex-Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri.
In this respect, Syrian sources said that a "crisis cell" has been formed by the Syrian Council of Ministries which has branches in all ministries and working around the clock in preparation for forthcoming events. According to deep and an all- out studies, sources added that the Syrian official estimations stressed Syria's ability to steadfast from two years to three years if the USA succeeds to issue a resolution from the Security Council as regards imposing a comprehensive besiege against Syria . According to sources, the Syrian self-reliance regarding food, power and a large number of transformed industries will enable Syria to curb the American schemes. "It is clear that the Syrian policy which depends on steadfastness and flexibility did not reach a dead lock, on the contrary it is a fruitful policy as Mehlis accepted to interrogate the Syrian officials in a place the Syrian governments approved.
Furthermore, President Al-Assad's speech was absolutely defined Syria's choices and put the Lebanese forces (of Arab trend) to meet its duties and also Arab countries and the world", Sources added. Sources believed that Damascus's openness to the most influential capitals in the world has resulted in changing the attitudes of Mehlis who fears any confrontation with the UN General Secretariat. Sources said that Mehlis's retreat to interrogate Syrian witnesses in Beirut as a big blow Washington received.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/22/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Damascus's openness to the most influential capitals in the world" That would be Moscow, Paris, Berlin and Bejing.
#3
...the government has completed preparations to combat the worst possibilities as regards the open encounter with the USA.
I seriously doubt that. In a hard-core "encounter" with the US military, the only options are "run awaaaaaay" and "die in place". Ask the Republican Guard.
Britain insisted on Monday that Iran meets obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty after Iranian lawmakers voted to block snap U.N. checks of nuclear sites if it is referred to the Security Council. "We'll be considering what the Iranian parliament said yesterday," British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told reporters as he arrived for a European Union foreign ministers' meeting. "Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It's got clear obligations. It was declared non-compliant with its obligations because of its failure to meet various undertakings in the safeguards agreement," he added. Iran has signed but not ratified the so-called Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty which provides extra safeguards such as snap inspections. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said the vote was "not good news" but stressed there was still time to consider Iran's case before the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meets in Vienna on Thursday to decide possible further action.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/22/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
No, you really must do as we say... sheesh.. Give it up Jack.. they only fear Allan and realise not the consequences of their actions. Bombs away...
Posted by: Howard UK ||
11/22/2005 5:56 Comments ||
Top||
The Iraqi government has promised Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that it will stop its public criticism of Syria's border control efforts, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said in an interview published on Monday. Talabani said Iraqi officials had been wrong to attack Syria. "I did not agree to that or to this open conversation. In fact I was in favour of a closed conversation with Damascus and I never uttered a single word against Syria," he said.
In other words, if you back 'em against the wall in public they get all belligerent and do stoopid things. Better to beat them up in private. I guess so. See if it works. I doubt if it will, though.
"The Egyptian President asked for an end to the campaigns against Syria and we promised him that, so I will not speak about accusations or documents (against Syria)," he added. Iraqi officials have openly accused Syria of not doing enough to stop militants crossing the border into Iraq to join the insurgency against U.S. and Iraqi government forces. Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, said last week that nearly all the suicide bombers who had carried out attacks in Iraq were Arabs who crossed from Syria. "We want a political decision by the Syrian security agencies to stop the penetration of suicide bombers from Syria to Iraq ... it is very important that this decision is taken on the highest political level in Syria," he added.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/22/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Cut our $2 Billion in aid and post Egypt as reason #4,509 why the internet and its' free expression should remain in US hands. Egypt demands that nobody speak of Syria's cowardly perfidy? Truth in the net, "trust us"
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/22/2005 0:19 Comments ||
Top||
Chief UN investigator Detlev Mehlis rejected a proposal from Damascus to use offices in the Golan Heights to question Syrian officials about the killing of an ex-Lebanese prime minister, Lebanese sources said yesterday. With the clock ticking for Syria to fully cooperate with the inquiry or face further action, Mehlis and Syria were contemplating conducting the interviews in a "neutral country", the political sources said.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/22/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
THE war on terror is likely to continue for decades, according to a top United States counter-terrorism official.
But Henry Crumpton, US ambassador for counter-terrorism, remains confident that the war against terrorism was being won.
"This is going to be a fight that will last a couple of decades, a generation longer â and we've got to think in those terms," Mr Crumpton said.
In Canberra yesterday for talks on security co-operation, the former CIA officer said Australia was well placed to play a key role because the conflict was much less about "big muscle movements and big armies" and more about speed, agility, precision, stealth, intelligence, expertise, courage and leadership.
"Australia has all that in great abundance," Mr Crumpton said.
He said that the question of progress in the war on terror depended on whether al-Qaeda and its south Asian counterpart, Jemaah Islamiah, were recruiting more members than security forces were capturing and killing.
He said that he did not know the answer to that but he would guess that "we're holding our own right now. In some areas I think we are making progress."
Mr Crumpton praised Malaysia for brokering the peace deal between the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Philippines, which had eased tension in the region.
Moves to ease tensions in the Indonesian province of Sulawesi were also crucial, Mr Crumpton said.
"You look at the southern Philippines and the Sulawesi scene â that is a major issue, perhaps the major issue right now in South-East Asia because there the enemy have the opportunity to gather and train and build cohesive groups, and from there deploy outward," he said.
Mr Crumpton said weeding out terrorist leaders â such as the recent killing of JI bombmaker Azahari Husin â and removing "safe havens" for terrorists were only the first steps.
"It's not only about denying safe haven but replacing it with something, with liberal institutions and civic society and economic opportunity. If you don't do that you only do half the job," he said.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
11/22/2005 12:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Its a war that must be fought. By fighting it over the next 20 years, i think it will ensure our safety for the next 80 years. The war on terror would take far less time had it been fought earlier and the terror threat not been appeased for so long.
#2
I agree, bgrebel. And, as a member of the younger generation (early 30's), count me in for a "long, hard slog." This is 1 war we can't (literally) afford to lose; not that that doesn't keep the LLL from trying from within. It does give me hope that the vote on pulling out of Iraq was whacked so hard the other day...maybe we have learned our lessons from Vietnam. Pulling out WILL have consequences, ones we don't want to face.
Posted by: BA ||
11/22/2005 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#3
At our current expenditure rate of a bazillion dollars a day, we most definitely DO NOT have 20 years to solve this problem. Other significant issues, like protecting human rights plus the fighting of things like disease, famine, illiteracy and the abuse of women all demand that terrorism be quashed post haste.
This is why I have floated such notions as taking the Islamic shrines hostage and agree with Mrs. Davis's suggestion that all proliferators, rogue nations and terrorist sponsors be put on notice that a single nuclear terrorist attack upon American soil will result in all of them being reduced to smoking glass.
I heard a statistic that some 500 security personnel are hired for ever terrorist. This represents a ridiculous diversion of assets that are desperately needed elsewhere. These Islamist psychotics have no right to sideline our globe's progress in such fashion.
It is high time that those of us who are actively opposing terrorism recognize its true cost and act upon that knowledge in a more appropriate manner. THOUSANDS of people are dying each day, the equivalent of 9-11 every 24 hours because we are obliged to go after these religious fanatics.
Enough of this crap. We must begin decapping the governments of terror sponsors and rooting out the dens where terrorists have situated themselves. The sovereignty of nations harboring these murderous thugs means zip, nada, zilch and those who say otherwise are engaging in spineless moral relativism (see Chris Matthews' article posted yesterday) that will only result in getting all of us killed.
Repeat, we DO NOT have 20 years of this financial hemorrhaging to spare. Much more efficacious methods and means must be employed if we wish to see this world make an iota of progress in the face of such genocidal insanity.
#5
We have to get the money away from the radical Islamists. The rise of all these nutcases is directly related to oil revenues. That means:
1. Changing the governments of Iran, Saudi Arabia one way or another.
2. Developing alternative oil and fuel sources to the ME.
3. Take over ME oil fields by a group effort and keep the money in a trust fund.
4. Any or all the above.
We have to get the money away from the MMs and other nutcases. Otherwise, it will be our defensive war, burning up treasure like Jack the Bear.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/22/2005 15:16 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I say we start with AP's #2 first. Then the pain to our economy will be small when we start to do the rest. I see this as a war that will still be going when I die. It's been going on a few centuries already.
#7
I've said gefore, we can't win the WoT. What we must ensure is that we don't lose it, because that takes us down the France road of a death from a thousand cuts.
The cost is manageable and over time will get less as better identity and information systems are put in place.
The terror sponsoring states of Syria and Iran must go and the countries themselves must be dismembered into ethnic states that do not need external enemies to hold them together. Syria first and hopefully soon.
#8
Like hell it will. Under a US President - lacking the faith-based sandbag - Russia, China, India, Christian Africa, South America, South East Asia, etc will unite and crush the Muslim enemy. The present myopia cannot last forever. Cheney is even hinting at hardening the war effort. Rummy has long been held back by Powell-Rice Rainbow Coalitionism.
Think of the planet as your home, and Muslims like unwanted pests. I love the smell of charcoaled Iranians in the morning.
#9
Alaska Paul:
Let me address one initiative. Last I heard there was about 80% Kurdish support for the US occupation of Iraq (the occupation is only token in Kurdish areas). Most of the deep oil pools are in proto Kurdistan (only 15% of Iraq territory has been explored for petroleum deposits). If US made an agreement with Kurds to carpet bomb uppity Sunni and Shiite areas while assisting ethnic cleansing of pro-Iran or Saudi elements, Kurds would gladly assist in extending Kurdistan to the Gulf. US allies would then hold 100% of Iraq oil deposits and Kurds would no longer be a landlocked people. Where do the Sunnis and Shiites fit in this scheme? No where!!! That's the point. Those pigs write off Americans, ergo: quid pro quo.
I recall Rantburg denial when the Telegraph (and you should know that the Tely is a rightwing pro-US daily), reported 65% Iraqi support for attacks on US forces (much higher if Kurd opinion is excluded). Would anyone who supports continued nation-building in Iraq, in context of both Iraq opinion and the couple of hundred billion in US counter terror equity, please tell me your plan? If you are a Republican, then you should ask yourself if stay-the-course retains support.
#10
FarkiFazo, there is no chance of a Greater Kurdistan extending south to the Gulf. A more feasible plan is to extend it west into Syria with a corridor to the Med south of the Turkish border. This also makes far more geopolitical sense and gives an export route not threatened by Iran.
We shall see what happens when the Syrian regime collapses.
#11
Hey Farki - your friends Nancy and Murtha helped answer that question with a resounding 403-3.
All of the tizzy tantrums - all of bluster, all of the hype, and then they just tucked their tails and dined on crow pie. Spent the last few days telling us how good it tasted too. ummmmm... yum,yum.
403 - 3. Suck it up. I know it's tough for someone of your linear thinking ability to fathom - but it's clear that the majority of their constituents, ie: Americans, support the war.
Sucks when reality slaps you in the face like that, doesn't it.
#12
oh I know, Farki boy. It's all about plans. About meeting and discussing the plans over lunch. It's working well in France.
Tell me again, cause I'm not sure I ever knew it - what is the Democratic plan for fighting terror? Ah, yes. It's "diplomacy". It's working well in France.
Which of course, is why you all got your face slapped with that 403-3. Most Americans aren't as stupid as you are.
[le rant]
I have suggested, several times in the past, that a day will come when the paradigm will shift - i.e. we will finally recognize that we can't be Pollyanna and still survive. A debate that is missing is an honest one regards what we are and aren't willing to do to survive.
A small deviation to get something out that always sticks in my craw...
Most of the Hue & Cry⢠has been about interrogation and torture, and a faux sense that we each know what we would or would not do in a given circumstance. Then that gets summarily slapped down by the one-size-fits-all PC arguments. Some of that body of thought is distilled from experience, granted, but it's based upon a conflict between "warring powers" - nation-states conducting war as signers of the Geneva Conventions. Within that paradigm, the arguments hold.
But it's all an academic / rhetoric exercise, of course, since that is NOT the situation we face regards Islamofascism - plus you can't possibly know what you would do until you face it.
The absurd pretenses (read: the smug certainty of a fixed unchanging "position") fall away when it's personal - i.e. when it becomes REAL - to YOU. An example I introduced into a thread the other day serves (it certainly sent the one who shall not be named into a tizzy) - your family's safety. If the question is your family's survival vs not "torturing" the person(s) who can get them back safely, what would you be willing to do? Unless you've been there, you can only guess. Beyond that, it would evolve, as well, if not met with success. If A doesn't work, you'd move to B, then C. You'd have to - and arguments to the contrary are, as I said, absurd pretenses of zero substance. In war with the jihadis, where your fellows are your family, there are obvious parallels. Judging from afar is okay, we're Americans and anyone can say anything, but don't be upset if some people do not take it seriously.
The closest most people have come to torture is having their wardrobe dissed in public.
Back to the main point: survival. There will be a divide - some people will accept that we can't maintain our membership in the Order of the Garter and survive, and some won't. Chivalry, fair play, the thin thin candy shell we call civilization is a fiction we've all agreed upon - it's one of society's tenets and you'd better pass it along to your progeny or society will fuck you. It serves as a convenient means of taking the high road over opponents in debate. Nothing more. We're the Good Guys. The Bad Guy is open to demonization. I used to think, and believe, back in the days when I was someone who could vote for Jimmuh Cahteh, that the US played by the rules at all times, against sinister folks who had no rules, and we still won - in spite of it. Wow. Big-time pride. It was, in a general sense, true. Some (most?) of the military of Western powers did, indeed, play by the rules. But many individuals found that the rules must be bent or broken to succeed, to survive, so they were. Those who faced that choice and couldn't do it aren't here to explain the mistake. A famous businessman I know personally used to have a rule that I found hysterically hypocritical: "Get it done and don't tell me how you did it. Ever." Then it dawned on me that he was playing realistically - simple plausible deniability, which has an evil connotation, but isn't inherently so except for the second-guessers who want to sit in judgment upon those who actually do the heavy lifting. Parasites and political whores, mostly.
Honesty with ourselves is the pivot point that will be needed to shift the paradigm. One day, we will summarily kill those who oppose our freedoms. We will do it and move on. No MSM bitch will be there recording, second-guessing, blathering on about one tiny instant taken out of the truth of the larger context: individual survival which sums to societal survival. The fact is, they, our freedom-loving fellows, will want it done and they won't want to know how it was done - unless they're assholes seeking political advantage. And every war is followed by politicians holding investigative commissions featuring the worst of our society manipulating the well-intentioned but openly accessible levers of our system.
The paradigm of what's acceptable will shift - or we won't survive. There is an assumption that the paradigm, the ruleset, is static, Lol. Wotta total load of bullshit. It has been under construction since Day One. Hell, look at PCism - that's a ruleset change game. It has always been thus. I'm just saying some undoing is called for - some of the changes of the last century or two (lol) will get us killed. Today's collection of opponents - and we face internal seditionists as well as jihadis, work against us in many ways. PCism is a classic example visible to almost everyone. On the "battlefields" of their choosing, which include buses, weddings, pizza parlors, stopping for gas in Maryland, fragging their offices in a tent in Kuwait, etc., the jihadi types kill innocents. Those sabotaging us from within, such as the endless acts of the Dhimmidonks (e.g. Murtha), the incessant MSM memery, ANSWER, CAIR, et al. are just as dangerous and will succeed if we employ LE methods and play by the rules we've set for ourselves. They don't have any. Even these supposedly civil internal opponents, the American Surrender Monkeys, have jettisoned the rules. We might laugh and think of them as insane, but they are merely desperate. The first victim was the truth, now there's no pretense of that anywhere to be found in the dissembling of PR or the MSM. Nope. No rules. Not any. At all. We will, indeed, lose, if we stay the current course.
To take the steam out of the jihadis, as AP said, we can take away their funding. It would dry up maybe 75% of that threat in relatively short order, months, I'd guess. And we take on the banking system, with the power of sanction force where needed (Can you say numbered Swiss account?), which allows laundering and funneling "charity". At the very least, for once, we force Yagouv (Joe) Average Muzzy pay directly for the whole thing. Pretty damned hard to kill infidels if they can't afford to get out of Goatfuckistan and haven't arms or ammo or a well-funded support system. This will cut the heart out of their game and make them restart from scratch with a fraction of what they had. Note that that it is clearly the modern rise in oil revenues in the hands of Wahhabists (and their ilk) that has brought on this wave of Islamic aggression. We can't do this "by the rules". Our cherished rules. We have to give 'em up. Or else die by a thousand cuts, from within and without. China's waiting for us to bleed out.
We can't defeat the seditionists in our midst, either, by the current ruleset. They're fucking everywhere. They damned-near got J F'n Kerry elected. Man, that boggles. Not since McGovern, with the possible exception of Dukakis, have we had such a total asstard running for President. And a 1.5% swing would've done it. The rules are their protection - so the change won't come easy. Look at the strident screeching regards the Patriot Act, and the current campaign to pull what few teeth it has, if you're in doubt. They'll win, too. It will come down to throwing off the rules, by force, someday, to rid ourselves of these tools of socialism and communism. Even if we survive the Islamonutz, the Moonbats may well succeed in destroying America. They are the greater long-term threat, in fact, IMHO.
America is one whopping juicy prize. Those who make it what it is, and it's one helluvalot more than the latest ruleset, those who love and will fight for freedom are on notice.
Just my take. Sorry for the windiness - my craw's gettin' crowded, lol.
[le rant]
#15
nice rant PD - If my family's safety was at stake? Hand me the saw, blowtorch and cordless drill. I will get what I need and address my maker later. No question. Someone, let's call him Mahmoud, holding back info affecting their imminent safety has already accepted his fate. I'm just fulfilling that fate
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/22/2005 19:39 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Honesty with ourselves is the pivot point that will be needed to shift the paradigm. One day, we will summarily kill those who oppose our freedoms. We will do it and move on. No MSM bitch will be there recording, second-guessing, blathering on about one tiny instant taken out of the truth of the larger context: individual survival which sums to societal survival.
Preach it, .com! For quite a while you've been shouting about how important it is that words and deeds match with precision.
This is the other side of the same coin. Personal integrity and honesty are the honorable side of plausible deniability, a thing that is too often used for weaseling but can just as easily be part of ensuring reliable action is taken in times of danger. It manifests in trusting those you delegate tasks to that the job will be done with common sense, if not honor. We already do this with our military and it's high time both our politicians and even everyday people start toeing the line on this.
Only a small percentage of Americans remotely comprehend the peril represented by Islamofacism. Not enough people still clearly remember the Nazis and what sort of horrors they portended for our world.
The Holocaust's monstrosities are similarly forgotten and so it is that the Islamist's hunger for genocide is met with simple disbelief instead of the instantaneous revulsion and grinding boot-heel it deserves.
Few understand the depravity of Islamism and thereby cannot possibly conceive of what will be required to expunge it from the face of this green earth. We will do it now, with dirty, filthy covert killings and decappings, or we will do it later with nuclear weapons. Failure is not an option and those who facilitate any lack of success, at some point, will become known as the enemy.
This is where the PC faction in America will be required to confront the superfluous nature of its contributions to society's actual foundations. If they persist in compromising this nation's survival with demands for niceity and diplomatic dilettantism, they must be shown the door, be it to some other country or hell itself, that will no longer matter when this country's continued existence is on the line.
Your last post is one of the very best I've seen from you, .com. Your points are largely shorn of any strident partisanship and instead deal with the pure and simple facts of how this country must go about surviving Islamofacism. I thank you for it.
#17
Very well said, .com. I think to some degree the paradigm has already shifted. Not to harp it, but the 403-3 shows the dems understand that it has. I also agree and disagree with Zenster Only a small percentage of Americans remotely comprehend the peril represented by Islamofacism. That's true on one level - but on another level but I think most Americans do understand. I think the press hypes that very small percentage who seek political gain or self-esteem from bashing Bush. I say small percentage because they couldn't even float Air America and the house voted 403-3. Bottom line is that most Americans do understand - though I agree that they don't comprehend the level of evil and danger that faces us.
One point I've been hoping to make - that at first seems a no-brainer, but is actually a point that I can't seem to verbalize to properly call attention to its merit - is that the Islamofascists are not like many of the other foes. The whole idea of the Kerry/French/UN ideal is that you can tame the little brown folk by giving them beads, whiskey and welfare. But it won't work with the Islamists. The Islamists will bow to no one - especially not a bunch of limp wristed intellectuals who the Islamists disdain for their weakness and ungodliness. The libs expect Iran to play the game of going out to lunch and after a few drinks, the leaders will all scratch each other's backs and make a few deals to the benefit of all present - but that's not what the Islamists have in mind. They wish to rid the earth of its pests - infidels. They have no desire to soil themselves by dining with infidels.
Well - I see that once again I have failed to properly verbalize my point. But I wish I could, because once the Bobos/moonbats/Kerry's realize that the Islamofascists intend to be the masters of the game, not the recipients of anyone else's largess, perhaps they will realize the extent of the danger we face.
#18
Only a small percentage of Americans remotely comprehend the peril represented by Islamofacism. Not enough people still clearly remember the Nazis and what sort of horrors they portended for our world.
Unfortunately very, very true. A terrible thing to say, but 9-11 was not bad enough to awaken most Americans. Fifty or sixty years ago it would have. Today we're a different nation.
#19
Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival. Sir Winston Churchill, 1940 House of Commons
#20
2b - I think I follow you. It is my take that Islam is an ideology, not a religion. It sports the trappings of religion, for public consumption, but in practice is no less than a model of conquest - an implacable foe to all other belief systems. It has more in common with Nazism than any religion. It simply seeks world dominion and that no other system will be allowed to coexist with it, except under its rule and thumb. Is that sympatico with your take?
This is why I have described it as a human pathogen. I posted about in short form here - I can't find the original, but I have the .DOC file, which I repost about once a year, lol.
That's the essence of it. Societies try to have the best set of rules and safeguards consistent with addressing the problem. If the rules seriously impede addressing the problem, then some of them get ditched, as we are seeing at the moment in Australia and the UK.
The problem particularly on the Left is maintaining the rules and safeguards becomes the objective.
For me it doesn't have to be personal. If we need torture to win or reduce harm to our side, then I'm fine with torture (and BTW screw so called 'international law').
Democracies move slowly and incrementally, that's the way it's meant to work. Terrorism would need to get worse, before we see the pace and scope of change increase.
Much more likely in my opinion is a major terrorist sponsor (read Syria, Iran) will miscalculate and do something that brings the house down on them (read a non-proportionate response).
The Maldivian government appears to be trying to implicate detainee Ibrahim Asif in links with the terror network, al-Qaeda, Asif's family have stated. Two police officers entered Asif's home â where he is currently detained â on the 20th November without notice and took him to the Male' police headquarters. The police held him in an open area for a few minutes and then transported him to the Criminal Court, family members have said. The police reportedly asked the judge in court to extend Asif's period of detention on the grounds that "the Indian police had said he was connected to al-Qaeda." Asif fervently denies the allegations.
Asif said that the police produced no evidence that the Indian police had made such a communication or what evidence the Indian police purportedly had to link him al-Qaeda. Asif explained to the judge that he did not know anyone from al-Qaeda but the judge extended his detention period by a further fifteen days under house arrest. Asif says the police told him that although there was no evidence against him, they had orders to arrest him. He believes the police have deliberately labeled him as a terrorist in order to either cover up their own incompetence or frame him in order to help convict political prisoners who have been accused of terrorism. Although the government has never produced any evidence to link Asif to terrorism, they have made a number of allegations in the international and local media and to foreign diplomatic missions that Asif is a terrorist linked to senior members of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP). The MDP has strongly dismissed the allegations, accusing the government of using Asif as an unwitting pawn in a campaign to try and undermine the political opposition of President Gayoom.
Following Asif's initial arrest in April this year, the government accused Asif of being an terrorist agent who mission was to buy arms and explosives to target government buildings in Male'. Pro-government website FactMaldives added that Asif was working for MDP's Mohamed Latheef and family members of Mohamed Nasheed (Anni) and that three British nationals (a Minivan News reporter, the MDP's human rights lawyer and FOM's David Hardingham) were also involved. Shortly after the article on FactMaldives - which at the time appeared to be acting as the mouthpiece of the Maldivian government - the British High Commission in Colombo was informed that the three British nationals were barred from entering the Maldives â suspected of involvement in Islamic terrorism. Analysts have said that even though the accusations of Islamic terrorism against the MDP members and the British nationals are met with hoots of laughter in the diplomatic community, the MDP should not underestimate the resolve of the government to break Gayoom's political opposition.
"Gayoom is absolutely desperate to secure a conviction against MDP head Mohamed Nasheed (Anni) [who is currently being tried for 'terrorism']. Even though these allegations sound preposterous, if the government can somehow successfully brandish Asif a terrorist and then find some way to link him to the MDP, they will do so."
"The MDP should not underestimate the determination of the government to sentence Mohamed Nasheed and put him away for a very long time," Minivan News was told.
Is this this just local politix or a al-Q issue?
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
11/22/2005 12:39 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
The US State Department on Monday rejected media reports that Washington is holding indirect talks with Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders as âtotal fabrication.â The department also rejected another report that an NWFP politician, Ibrahim Piracha, met US Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes during her recent visit to the quake-hit areas of Pakistan.
The report said that Ms Hughes had asked Mr Piracha to mediate between the US and the Taliban and Al Qaeda movements.
Ms Hughes, who is responsible for promoting a better image of her country in the Muslim world, ânever met Mr Piracha,â a State Department official said. âThis report too is a fabrication of somebodyâs fertile imagination. She never met this politician, so she could not have asked him to do anything for the USâ, the official said.
When contacted by Dawn, some members of the ruling Republican Party also said that they could not imagine Ms Hughes meeting âan obscure politician,â as one of them put it, to discuss âsomething as sensitive as opening links to Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders.â
The official added: âRemember, she is a close personal friend of President Bush. If she wants, she will have better channels available.â
Media reports, however, insist the Bush administration is looking at various options for reaching out to the Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders because the two militant movements show little sign of abating even after four years of unrelenting US pressure.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
11/22/2005 12:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
November 22, 2005: Killing Iraqi terrorist leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi could be a defeat in the war on terror. On November 20th, a raid on a house in Mosul, Iraq, resulted in a number of terrorists blowing themselves up rather than be captured. It was thought that al Zarqawi was in the house. His death would be a mixed blessing. While heâs certainly been an effective terrorist leader, able to inspire the suicide-happy wackos to some spectacular atrocities, heâs also been, in some ways a liability for al Qaeda, and the Sunni Arab groups fighting their government. Attacks on women, children, mosques, clerics, have been PR disasters. Operations like these appear to have put al Zarqawi on the outs with at least part of al Qaedas more senior leadership, including Osama bin Laden.
Also, Zarqawi is a threat to their leadership because he's out fighting while Osama & Co. remain in hiding. It's that Strong Horse thing.
So, do we gain more from his death because his organizational and leadership skills are no longer directing the religious elements in the terrorist organization, or do we lose because the al Qaeda leadership asserts more control, and curbs the bloodier attacks on women, children, mosques, etc?
We gain, all they have left is attacks on soft targets
As the old saying goes, âchoose your friends carefully, and your enemies even more carefully.â Al Zarqawi's bloody minded attitude towards Shia Arabs (because Islamic conservatives consider Shia to be heretics), and Iraqi civilians in general, has made him the most hated man in Iraq. Because of al Zarqawiâs tactics, al Qaeda has seen its âapproval ratingâ plunge throughout the Arab world. The recent bombing of a wedding in Jordan, which al Zarqawi took credit for, turned many pro-al Qaeda Jordanians against the terrorists. Al Zarqawi sensed his gaffe a few days later, and released a video of him trying to explain what really happened, and that his suicide bomber actually hit a secret meeting of Israeli and American secret agents. That did not go over well with grieving, and very ticked off, Jordanians. Itâs only a matter of time before Arabs start insisting that al Zarqawi is really an Israeli agent, working from the inside to destroy al Qaeda. Meanwhile, letâs try and keep our guy ali, er, on the run.
Nah, kill him. Or better yet, catch him and give him to the Jordanians as a Christmas present. Let them kill him.
Posted by: Steve ||
11/22/2005 09:35 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
some truth to this, but al Qaeda in Iraq will still exist after he is officially dead. The benefits of getting this piece of sh*t dead would be major. And there would still be plenty of pyschos left in the organization for us to kill and for the rest of the Iraqis to still hate
#2
We have been seriously attriting Zarq's organization of leadership. It is a continuing, ongoing thing. The more successes we build and the more failures Zarq's outfit has, the faster the tide turns. Nobody wants to back losers except losers.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/22/2005 15:19 Comments ||
Top||
After terrorists attacked U.S. troops in Mogadishu, Somalia 12 years ago, anti-Iraq war Democrat, Rep. John Murtha urged then-President Clinton to begin a complete pullout of U.S. troops from the region.
Clinton took the advice and ordered the withdrawal - a decision that Osama bin Laden would later credit with emboldening his terrorist fighters and encouraging him to mount further attacks against the U.S.
"Our welcome has been worn out," Rep Murtha told NBC's "Today" show in Sept. 1993, a month after 4 U.S. Military Police had been killed in Somalia by a remote-detonated land mine.
The Pennsylvania Democrat announced that President Clinton had been "listening to our suggestions. And I think you'll see him move those troops out very quickly."
Two weeks later, after 18 U.S. Rangers were killed in the battle of Mogadishu, Murtha visited U.S. forces in Somalia. Upon his return he proclaimed to the world that the Mogadishu defeat had a devastating impact on the Rangers' morale.
"They're subdued compared to normal morale of elite forces," Murtha said. "Obviously, it was a very difficult battle. A lot of Somalis were killed, but it was a brutal battle."
Murtha said the U.S. had to no choice but to pull out now, explaining, "There's no military solution. Some of them will tell you [that] to get [warlord Mohamed Farrah] Aidid is the solution. I don't agree with that."
The comments were eerily similar to Murtha's assessment of U.S involvement in Iraq last week, when he declared, "the U.S. cannot accomplish anything further militarily. It is time to bring [the troops] home."
Taking Murtha's advice back then, however, turned out to have deadly consequences for U.S. security. In a 1998 interview with ABC's John Miller, Osama bin Laden said that America's withdrawal from Somalia had emboldened his burgeoning al Qaida force and encouraged him to plan new attacks.
"Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows," the terror chief recalled. "America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."
#1
Murtha seems to have a rather narrow view of how or when to use US forces. Clearly he is not a nation-building guy. Yet he seems to have no sensitivity to the long-term impact of the "get out now" strategies he advocates. This doesn't make him a coward, it just makes him dumb.
#2
Anyone know if he voted to cut off aid in 1974 to South Vietnam while the North was bursting its seams with Soviet and Chinese tanks, trucks, missiles, and ammo?
Posted by: ed ||
11/22/2005 14:09 Comments ||
Top||
#3
He and the Dhimis are stuck on stupid and stuck in Vietnam. They are desparately trying to find defeat and believet ath if they chant it enough it will happen. Don't dismiss these loon because the MSM is in cahoots and loves painting a sad picture of the WOT.
#5
Aye, yee sonofbitches. It ain't much of a fuckin war but it's the only one we got. Grow a set of balls and get on with the fuckin war. Let's win one for a change. We can do it. We are winning now--don't pull out ye Washington cowardly Dhemi bat bastards. Stay the course. Don't listen to all those nattering nabobs of defeat on the left. They are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They think failure is just deferred success or cutting and running.
TRIPOLI, Libya -- Egypt is proposing Cairo as the seat and administrative base of a North African force agreed upon at a recent meeting by army chiefs of five countries. Egyptian Assistant Minister of Defense Maj. Gen. Mamdouh Abdel Hak made the proposal at a two-day meeting in Libya by the chiefs of staff of Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt and the Republic of Western Sahara.
The five North African states agreed to set up a "Standby African Force" in line with the resolutions of the African Union. Egypt went further, proposing to place "its military training facilities at the disposal of the force within the framework of peacekeeping in the area," Abdel Hak was quoted as saying.
"We want it under our thumb at all times!"
The joint force will be operating under the supervision of the Council for Peace and Security of the African Union. The chiefs of staff who signed a memorandum of understanding defined the objectives of the joint force as keeping peace and security in their area and depending entirely on African resources in the fields of defense and security.
There was no information about the size or armament of the force that will include in its structure an executive secretariat, a department for planning, a general command, and two administrative bases.
Everything you need for a military command. Except soldiers. And equipment. And logistics. And intel. But they got everything else, by gum!
According to a strategy adopted by the African Union to build a united Africa by 2030, the organization divided the black continent into five provinces -- the north, south, east, west and center. Each province was entrusted with the mission of setting up a joint force in accordance with the bylaws of the Union's Council for Peace and Security.
The various provincial standby forces will have permission to interfere at any time to settle conflicts between states as well as internal conflicts. According to the Council's bylaws, the forces will interfere only if the committee of arbitrators affiliated with the Council fails to settle conflicts.
Libyan Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Ahmed Aoun underscored the need to boost collective action for achieving the aspired objectives of the African Union. He noted that "a main objective of the force is to ensure a permanent stability and security for the present leaders of the countries involved. "The issue of security was and still is a priority at the national, regional and continental levels and the aim is to make the African continent a region of peace and stability, free from pressures and threats," Aoun was quoted as saying. "We still have a great deal of serious and continued work ahead which necessitates absolute commitment to our goals and aspirations," he said.
Like, for example, build something.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/22/2005 00:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
All things considered, in a decade or two the south side of the Mediterranian could very well take on the north side in a war.
#2
More and more in the Middle East, and due in large part to the help of the US, and democratization, I am seeing what could be called a "proto-union"--not on the model of the old Ottoman empire, but more like the EU or the FTAA.
These countries are realizing that there could be tremendous value to them in an economic, if not political, union. In this case, military cooperation is a different type of one of these formative "proto-unions".
This particular association is especially important, as it is sort of the western branch of how such a union would be formed. The nexus of such a common market would most likely be with Iraq and possibly Turkey, with the Emirates, Arabia, Yemen, Oman, etc., joining over the course of many years, as they too had democratized and liberalized.
Not ironically, the character of such a union would almost have to be secular. Various religions and sects fighting among themselves just wouldn't be good for business.
#3
Egypt is strategically located to (a) threaten the closure of the Suez (b) threaten Israel. They will not say so but these thoughts will be on everyones mind when they decide.
#4
(a) threaten the closure of the Suez
Tolls for transit thru Suez are a major source of income for the government, threaten away.
(b) threaten Israel.
SEE: 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973
Posted by: Steve ||
11/22/2005 11:54 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Didn't some of those stranded merchant ships in the canal maintain a 2 or 3 man crew for the duration? I guess for security or so they weren't deemed to be abandoned. Some weird stories.
Pakistani nuclear facilities and storage sites in the Northern Areas have suffered "15 to 20 per cent damage" in the recent mega quake and the local populace faces the risk of contamination, a report said. Claiming that these sites and facilities had suffered serious damage, the European website Newsinsight reported that "the local population faces the risk of contamination, but a curfew has been imposed and they are being actively prevented by the authorities to leave the area". "There is 15 to 20 per cent damage to Pakistani nuclear facilities and storage sites in the Northern Areas, especially in Skardu and Chitral," it said, adding, "While Western sources did not say that reactors had been damaged in the October 8 earthquake, they confirmed that missile silos had developed cracks and storage facilities had taken a hit". Pakistan government turned away international relief teams "because of the serious damage to the nuclear facilities in the Northern Areas". The report said Pakistan had not allowed Indian Army relief work or IAF supply drops besides withdrawing consent for Israeli assistance fearing infiltration by Mossad agents "who would destroy the atomic establishments". "Since the epicentre is likely to be seismically active for another two years, they expressed fear of further collapse of the nuclear establishments," the website said. "To prevent leak of this massive nuclear destruction, Pakistan bottled up the local population by imposing curfew and did not permit international inspection of the disaster-hit areas," it added.
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.
Saudi Arabia has vowed to continue to provide "enough" oil supplies, but called on leading consumer countries to cut taxes on petroleum products to alleviate hikes in world prices. "The policy of the kingdom is based on reaching a reasonable and fair price for oil and to provide enough supplies to all the consumers," King Abdullah bin Abdel Aziz said. "But all the efforts of the producing countries will not bear fruits if they are not met with a positive position by main consumer states," he said at the opening of the permament seat of the International Energy Forum in Riyadh. "These states should alleviate the ordeal of their citizens by cutting taxes on petroleum products when prices increase," he said.
Malaysiaâs Prime Minister 
A leading Shiite lawmaker suggested Monday that he will pursue a federal region in southern Iraq after next month's elections, pushing forward demands for Shiite autonomy that Sunni leaders fear could tear the country apart. "We have major missions ahead," 
Iraqi President 
Syrian economic and political sources yesterday affirmed that the government has completed preparations to combat the worst possibilities as regards the open encounter with the USA. Sources pointed out that the German city Cologne is a likely location to interrogate the six Syrian security officials, who are wanted to the international investigation committee as suspects in the assassination of the ex-Lebanese premier 
Britain insisted on Monday that Iran meets obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty after Iranian lawmakers voted to block snap U.N. checks of nuclear sites if it is referred to the Security Council. "We'll be considering what the Iranian parliament said yesterday," British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told reporters as he arrived for a European Union foreign ministers' meeting. "Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It's got clear obligations. It was declared non-compliant with its obligations because of its failure to meet various undertakings in the safeguards agreement," he added. Iran has signed but not ratified the so-called Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty which provides extra safeguards such as snap inspections. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said the vote was "not good news" but stressed there was still time to consider Iran's case before the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meets in Vienna on Thursday to decide possible further action.
The Iraqi government has promised Egyptian President 
Chief UN investigator Detlev Mehlis rejected a proposal from Damascus to use offices in the Golan Heights to question Syrian officials about the killing of an ex-Lebanese prime minister, Lebanese sources said yesterday. With the clock ticking for Syria to fully cooperate with the inquiry or face further action, Mehlis and Syria were contemplating conducting the interviews in a "neutral country", the political sources said.
Pakistani nuclear facilities and storage sites in the Northern Areas have suffered "15 to 20 per cent damage" in the recent mega quake and the local populace faces the risk of contamination, a report said. Claiming that these sites and facilities had suffered serious damage, the European website Newsinsight reported that "the local population faces the risk of contamination, but a curfew has been imposed and they are being actively prevented by the authorities to leave the area". "There is 15 to 20 per cent damage to Pakistani nuclear facilities and storage sites in the Northern Areas, especially in Skardu and Chitral," it said, adding, "While Western sources did not say that reactors had been damaged in the October 8 earthquake, they confirmed that missile silos had developed cracks and storage facilities had taken a hit". Pakistan government turned away international relief teams "because of the serious damage to the nuclear facilities in the Northern Areas". The report said Pakistan had not allowed Indian Army relief work or IAF supply drops besides withdrawing consent for Israeli assistance fearing infiltration by Mossad agents "who would destroy the atomic establishments". "Since the epicentre is likely to be seismically active for another two years, they expressed fear of further collapse of the nuclear establishments," the website said. "To prevent leak of this massive nuclear destruction, Pakistan bottled up the local population by imposing curfew and did not permit international inspection of the disaster-hit areas," it added.
