Five years ago Kwame James was a hero, subduing the Shoe Bomber. Life hasn't been the same since ... From SI, full story at link ...
The irony was, in retrospect, striking. But if your life keeps turning on quirks of fate, eventually you take the world for one big funhouse mirror. So it was that Kwame James shrugged and didn't say a word when he -- handsome, well spoken, well dressed -- was yanked from the security line at Charles de Gaulle Airport outside Paris and given the full pat-down-and-wand treatment while an unkempt fellow passenger carrying only a backpack and muttering to himself in Arabic passed through the checkpoint without a problem. Now, why would that be a problem?
James, a dual citizen of Canada and Trinidad & Tobago and a recent graduate of a college in the U.S., has what he calls "an extreme dislike" of racial profiling. However, it was Dec. 22, 2001, barely 100 days into the "new reality" of life after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, and if you were subjected to one of those exhaustive airport security searches, you smiled through clenched teeth and took one for the team. "I just figured, Oh well, my bad luck," James recalls. In more ways than one ...
At the time, James was a 23-year-old center for AS Bondy, a pro basketball team in France's B League. After being frisked he boarded his flight to Miami, where he would meet his girlfriend, Jill Clements, and take her to his family's home in Trinidad for the holidays. When you're 6-foot-8 and can only afford coach class, international flights are brutal. James had deliberately stayed up all night so that, after folding his frame into his seat like so much origami, he would zonk out for the journey's duration. The flight, American Airlines 63, was packed and there were lots of screaming kids, but James went right to sleep.
Three hours later he was roused by a frantic flight attendant. "We need your help in the back!" she said. "Now!"
#1
Nice story, shoulda 'terminated' his flight though.
Posted by: Captain America ||
09/06/2006 2:03 Comments ||
Top||
#2
How is it that our country can bend over forwards backwards to soothe insatiable Muslim demands for special treatment and yet cannot find a job for this young hero? This is a national disgrace.
#4
Unfortunately, he's a large, muscular black man, and even in this day that scares too many people. One of the movers who packed me up for Europe in 1991, and then unpacked me again when we moved back in 1996 was in the same pickle, a degreed physical therapist. He couldn't get a job in his field, he said he was told, because of concerns that he would frighten the patients.
We can only hope Mr. James will get something positive as a result of this article. Goodness knows he's earnt it.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Tuesday characterised as not "entirely positive" Sudan's decision to expel African Union peacekeepers from Darfur if their mission is placed under UN control. A US and British-backed United Nations resolution, which passed last Thursday and was immediately rejected by Khartoum, says 20,000 UN troops should take over peacekeeping duties from AU forces, which have been unable to end the violence that has ravaged Darfur for 3-1/2 years. AU troops were to fill the gap until the arrival of the UN troops and be absorbed into the UN operation.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/06/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The lad does have a way with words, doesn't he?
Posted by: Captain America ||
09/06/2006 2:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Every utterance is a product of the Tranzi Mince-O-Matic. Surely there's a late-night infomercial for it... Oh wait, it gets primetime MSM endorsement, my bad.
DUBAI - Some 300 members of Saudi Arabia's Ismaili community, an offshoot of the Shiite branch of Islam, rallied in the southern city of Najran Tuesday in protest at "repression" by authorities, one of the protesters said. The protest, a rare occurrence in the kingdom, was held near the city's airport amid a heavy security presence but dispersed peacefully after around four hours, said Said al-Yami by telephone.
He said the protesters demanded an end to the "pressures" on their community and the release of 30 people jailed since unrest broke out in the Najran region six years ago. They also pressed for an apology from a cleric and judge from the dominant Sunni Wahhabi community who recently labeled the Ismailis "infidels," he said. A statement by organizers accused local authorities in Najran of seeking to seize lands from Ismailis in order to settle Yemeni tribesmen who were given Saudi citizenship in them. Those Yemenis are Sunnis, Yami said.
A number of people -- 120 according to Yami -- were arrested and jailed for their involvement in trouble in Najran in 2000 when a Saudi security officer died and several others were injured. According to the authorities three foreigners were also hurt during unrest which followed the arrest of a Yemeni "sorcerer" practising black magic in Najran. According to witnesses in Najran, close to the Yemeni border, hundreds of Ismailis took to the streets to protest against Saudi religious police closing one of their mosques.
In December 2002, authorities said that King Fahd pardoned an unspecified number of Ismailis sentenced to prison for their role in the unrest after halving the jail terms of 70 of them. He also commuted the death sentences of 17 others to 10 years in jail. Diplomats estimate that tens of thousands of Ismailis live in the kingdom's mountainous southwestern region which was controlled by Yemen until the start of the 20th century.
The Najran Ismailis known as Makarima are a separate branch of the broader Shiite sect and do not follow the Aga Khan who heads the mainstream Ismailis scattered across the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent and central Asia.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/06/2006 08:34 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
BEIJING - Efforts to drive North Korea back to stalled nuclear talks are in big trouble, the top US negotiator said on Wednesday after meeting a senior Chinese official to try and forge a breakthrough. I think clearly we are in a very difficult moment with the six-party talks process because the DPRK (North Korea) is not giving the signals it wants to return, Christopher Hill told reporters in Beijing.
Hills latest trip to the region comes amid media reports that North Korea could soon test a nuclear bomb. Pyongyang said in February 2005 that it was a nuclear power but is not known to have tested an atomic weapon. The US envoy, who is on a regional tour, said he had spoken with Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei about the danger that the DPRK could take additional, provocative steps. We talked about the need to make very clear to the DPRK that this would be a very, very unwelcome development, he told reporters, when asked directly about a possible nuclear test.
The North agreed in principle in September last year to give up its nuclear weapons program in exchange for aid and security guarantees. But Pyongyang walked out of talks two months later to protest US sanctions on a Macau-based bank accused of laundering and counterfeiting money on behalf of the impoverished regime. The six-nation talks -- involving China, the United States, the two Koreas, Japan and Russia -- were further waylaid when North Korea tested ballistic missiles in July. The tests resulted in a UN Security Council resolution which called on the global community to work together to prevent North Korea from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and urged Pyongyang to return to the six-party talks.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve ||
09/06/2006 10:44 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
FRESH evidence emerged yesterday that reclusive North Korean leader Kim Jong-il has boarded his special luxurious train to Beijing in an attempt to smooth troubled relations with his country's only significant ally - while China is determined to stop him testing a nuclear bomb.
With the Stalinist dictator reportedly crossing into China yesterday, pressure is again building from the other members of the six-party talks - formed to prevent North Korea going nuclear - to push Pyongyang to join talks after a year of refusing to co-operate, and two months after a tough UN resolution criticising North Korea.
You know, I don't think all that many people in NKor-land would be upset if the Chinese refused to let Kimmie go home. Maybe he could slip and fall in front of the train? I'm just saying ....
US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific affairs Christopher Hill flew to Beijing yesterday from Tokyo, and will go on to Seoul, to throw American weight behind new efforts, led by China, to bring North Korea back to the table. Stories circulating in South Korea about Mr Kim preparing to visit Beijing gained fresh credence yesterday with reports that the leader's special armoured train was at Sinuiju station, across the Yalu River from the Chinese town of Dandong.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/06/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Blow his d@mn train right off of the rails. Untold tens of thousands of lives would be saved from starvation and cannibalism. This maggot had lead his charmed life for waaaaaaay too long. Much like Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, there is absolutely nothing worse that could be sucked into the power vacuum Kim's death would leave behind.
A device used to push an errant, wayward, unconrolled vehicle off the track and onto the ground before it can do damage to the innocent and unsuspecting.
It's perfect!
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/06/2006 7:50 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Yes indeedy Bobby, you are correct. This one is 800 yards from the Minnesota River where the train bridge by default is open...
JERUSALEM - Planes from Israels flagship carrier El Al carrying military equipment to Israel are barred from landing in several European countries to refuel, according to a high-ranking pilot at the airline.
In a letter to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday, the pilot said Britain, Germany, Spain, Italy and Portugal wouldnt let El Al planes on special cargo flights stop over during the recent war in Lebanon. The ban was driven by political considerations, said Itai Regev, the head of El Als pilots union.
As a result, much fewer arms than needed reach Israel because the planes, which depart from US bases, have to fly with much lighter cargoes, to conserve fuel, the pilot said. El Al refused to comment on the letter.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/06/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And this is a surprise? Various Euro countries have denied the U.S. access for military transport (France, Austria and Switzerland come to mind).
I am surprised that France isn't on this list, actually.
#6
Bush should push NATO to sign a peace treaty with Israel. NATO = US military protection, and leaving NATO now to go it alone is probably not a smart option. So, Bush can make some demands on those twits and bring them in line defending Israel.
#7
Yes, and as a result of flying the extra miles, the poor, tired pilots accidentally bombed the French embassy.
Another result was that a couple years later afew dozen French civilians who had nothing to do with France's tortuous policy were murdered in the bombing of an airplane. Unfortuantely no French politician was on board.
Some fellow passengers are questioning why an Orthodox Jewish man was removed from an Air Canada Jazz flight in Montreal last week for praying. The man was a passenger on a Sept. 1 flight from Montreal to New York City when the incident happened.
The airplane was heading toward the runway at the Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport when eyewitnesses said the Orthodox man began to pray.
"He was clearly a Hasidic Jew," said Yves Faguy, a passenger seated nearby. "He had some sort of cover over his head. He was reading from a book. "He wasn't exactly praying out loud but he was lurching back and forth," Faguy added.
The action didn't seem to bother anyone, Faguy said, but a flight attendant approached the man and told him his praying was making other passengers nervous.
Making other passengers nervous or making the attendant unhappy?
"The attendant actually recognized out loud that he wasn't a Muslim and that she was sorry for the situation but they had to ask him to leave," Faguy said. The man, who spoke neither English nor French, was escorted off the airplane.
Air Canada Jazz termed the situation "delicate," but says it received more than one complaint about the man's behaviour. The crew had to act in the interest of the majority of passengers, said Jazz spokeswoman Manon Stewart. "The passenger did not speak English or French, so we really had no choice but to return to the gate to secure a translator," she said.
The airline is not saying if the man was told he was not allowed to pray, but a spokesperson said the man was back on board the next flight to New York.
Jewish leaders in Montreal criticized the move as insensitive, saying the flight attendants should have explained to the other passengers that the man was simply praying and doing no harm.
Hasidic Rabbi Ronny Fine said he often prays on airplanes, but typically only gets curious stares. "If it's something that you're praying in your own seat and not taking over the whole plane, I don't think it should be a problem," said Fine.
The Jewish group B'nai Brith Canada has offered to help give Air Canada crews sensitivity training.
#2
I've had several "dealings" with Air Canada, and on every one of them they have done something(s) so stupid it would make you want to tear your hair out. They don't care, they don't have to! They seem to have a culture that seems to get their rocks off on this kind of stupidity. Little Tin Gods. Their behavior needs far more media exposure, but sadly they'll probably never get it. I doubt that any passengers were complaining, and even if they were there is something called an "explanation". Duh. Pinheads.
#3
Canada has it's own sick strain of anti semitism. I have encountered it, but they always try to hide it behind anti Israel's treatment of the Paleos or some other specious drivel. This is just more of the same.
#5
The terrorism terror-mongering has turned some power-hungry flight attendants into little Atillas. You hear lots of horror stories about flight attendants weilding power over hapless passengers. Recently heard one about a flight attendant trying to get the air marshall to throw a man off a plan for allegedly calling him an asshole, even though the man had not even spoken to him. When the man asked to take his 13 yo old who was fearful of flying off with him, the air marshall told him he should have thought of that before calling the flight attendant names. Fortunately, he was rescued by another passenger who insisted on speaking up in his behalf. He was told this was a federal crime of intimidation. This self-inflicted BS is only helping to accomplish bin Laden's goals, which were not military victory, but economic demise and disillusionment/deterioration from within.
#7
This self-inflicted BS is only helping to accomplish bin Laden's goals, which were not military victory, but economic demise and disillusionment/deterioration from within.
Good catch, Sheesh. Terrorism has its most significant impact, right at the bottom line, exactly where it intends to. The fact that, every day, it causes the needless deaths of another 9-11 full of 3,000 people whose lives we might have saved were we not so busy spending uncountable treasure and so much military blood interdicting Islamofascists needs to be more keenly highlighted.
#1
Hey, speaking of conspiracy theory, I might inform you that the "Planète" cable/satellite french documentary channel (probably the most well-known one) has just finished airing "loose change 2nd edition this evening, prime time event for the 9/11 anniversary special programming.
This was completed by the obnoxious talking head of the limousine-liberal-leftist channel i-télé commenting about how this documentary was thought-provoking, saying how The Man tried to suppress it (what I understood), and restoring the Balanced Viewpoint(Tm) by following with an another non-PCT documentary.
#2
Dems Nominate 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist for Congress in Florida
Sort of balances out with Katherine Harris' bilious spewing, now doesn't it?
Among other things, she was criticized for calling separation of church and state "a lie," and angered Jews and others by saying: "If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin."
An upcoming TV mini-series about the origins of the Sept. 11 plot is provoking angry complaints from Democrats about the portrayal of the Clinton administration's response to terrorism. "The Path to 9/11," a five-hour dramatization laying out the history of the Sept. 11 plot from the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, will be aired over two nights on the anniversary of the attack next week by ABC Television.
The movie is billed as a dramatization based on the report of the U.S. commission that investigated the events of Sept. 11 and circumstances leading up to it. According to a disclaimer shown at the beginning of each episode, it "has composite and representative characters and incidents, and time compressions have been used for dramatic purposes."
But a portion of the film showing an aborted effort to capture al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden before the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa has aroused the ire of some of the officials portrayed.
A statement from Samuel "Sandy" Berger, who was national security adviser to President Bill Clinton at the time, calls the scenes involving him "complete fabrications."
And Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., called on ABC to show disclaimers throughout each episode, not just at the beginning. "ABC has a responsibility to make clear that this film is not a documentary, and does not represent an official account of the facts surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks," she said.
In one scene, CIA operatives working with Ahmed Shah Masud, the charismatic Afghan mujahedin leader who fought al-Qaida and their Taliban sponsors, are assembled on a hillside above bin Laden's residence at Tarnak Farms. "It's perfect for us," says "Kirk," a composite character representing several of the CIA operatives and analysts involved in the hunt for the terrorist leader.
But the team is forced to abort the mission when Berger hangs up on them in the middle of a conference call, after telling them he cannot give the go ahead for the action. "I don't have that authority," he says.
"Are there any men in Washington," Masud asks Kirk afterwards in the film, "or are they all cowards?"
"The incidents depicted did not happen," said Berger in the statement. "They are not contained in the Sept. 11 Commission report, which is the most authoritative review of the events before and after the attack."
Now we know what was in his socks.
Indeed, the commission's report -- although it reveals the Clinton White House was concerned about the possible repercussions of a failed capture effort -- says that it was CIA Director George Tenet who nixed the capture plan, which would never have involved U.S. personnel in the assault, and which was canceled before being put into operation.
Officials from both the White House and the CIA have characterized the back-and-forth about the plan as a breakdown of communications. The White House believed that they were authorizing the killing of bin Laden, but those at the CIA charged with carrying out the operation itself saw their authority limited to a capture operation that might result in his death.
"There were shouting matches" between senior officials about the plan, said one senior member of the Sept. 11 commission staff who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is now working in a sensitive government position. However, the staffer said, the scene at Tarnak Farms "didn't happen, and frankly it's silly."
But former GOP Governor Thomas Kean of New Jersey, the chairman of the Sept. 11 commission and a consultant to the production, defended the film, saying it showed "a colossal failure of government." "If you portray that accurately," he added, "people from both (the Clinton and Bush) administrations will complain."
"I would say it's balanced," Kean said.
The film does paint a rather unflattering portrait of the incoming Bush administration -- showing how they demoted White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, ...
... which was a good idea ...
... and failed to act against al-Qaida even after their responsibility for the November 2000 attack on the USS Cole became clear. The difference is, the stuff they show the Bush administration doing actually happened," said Jay Carson, a spokesman for former President Clinton.
And the Bush administration actually did stuff about terrorism.
Posted by: Captain America ||
09/06/2006 13:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Berger's a known liar and a convicted criminal, who also happens to be the one person in the Clinton Administration most responsible for the failures prior to 9/11. This is a truly epic scumbag. Why would anyone give a d*mn what he says?
#10
I did'nt hear the Dems bitchen about Moore's 911 movie that blamed it all on Bush!
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
09/06/2006 14:58 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Anything that besmirches their Golden Era in any way generates this screeching response, LOL. They're all posturing for a position in the next Dhimmicrat Admin.
#13
Hi Sandy! Stolen any classified documents lately? Oh, you mean the former National Security Advisor to the POTUS didn't know the red classification "Secret" and "Top Secret" stamp at the top meant you couldn't steal them from the archives and take them home to destroy them...and feat most Americans would get 20 years in Leavenworth for.
And tell me again why anyone should listen to you?
#14
The film does paint a rather unflattering portrait of the incoming Bush administration
I think the dhimmi's in the Senate still need to answer for holding up virtually all of Bush's cabinet picks. It set the administration back a good 6 months (and may have led to keeping Tenet onboard). If Bush's picks had been in place in a timely manner there's a chance the "chinese wall" between intelligence and law enforcement would have been lowered in time to stop 9/11.
As the former president of Iran, Mohammed Khatemi, yesterday attended a U.N. meeting designed to minimize the clash between Islamists and the West, Turtle Bay was abuzz about Prince Zeid of Jordan, who publicly announced his candidacy for the post of secretary-general, and who is well-positioned to bridge that post-September 11 clash.
Mr. Khatemi, who a decade ago launched a concept known at the United Nations as "dialogue among civilizations," declined to address reporters as he left a meeting of "eminent persons" who were working on a non-binding declaration of a U.N.-sponsored body now known as "alliance of civilization."
The "alliance" was embraced last year by Secretary-General Annan, and represents to many the failure to move from empty rhetoric to addressing real current international problems. Zeid, on the other hand, is seen as someone who has his feet well-planted in both the Muslim and the Western worlds, and who may be able to make the U.N. relevant to them.
The candidacy of Prince Zeid Raad, the first Middle Easterner and first Muslim in the race, was announced by Jordan yesterday. A second cousin of King Abdullah, the 42-year-old Zeid currently serves as Jordan's ambassador to the United Nations. He is the sixth man announcing his candidacy so far to replace Mr. Annan, whose term ends December 31. Well respected at Turtle Bay yet not tainted by it, Zeid told The Associated Press yesterday that it was time to consider "a Muslim candidate who is familiar with the U.N. but not of the U.N."
Zeid is well suited to "talk to both sides," a former U.N. official, Thant Myint-U, told The New York Sun yesterday, referring the West and Islam. The Burma-born Mr. Thant, whose grandfather, U-Thant, was U.N.secretary-general during the 1960s, served alongside Zeid when the prince was posted by the U.N. in Bosnia. The U.N. has changed since its early, hopeful days, Mr. Thant said. Its founders envisioned "an impartial, first rate, international bureaucracy," he said. "We don't have that today." The organization, he added, needs is to rid itself of "so many utopian exercises."
The contents of the talks among 15 men and women during the day-long meeting was kept secret yesterday for some reason, and attendants said they would not comment prior to a press conference today and the publication of a joint declaration. One of two Americans present, the New York-based Rabbi Arthur Schneier, also declined to comment on the presence of a former leader of the Tehran regime, which calls for eradicating the Jewish state.
As a member of the Hashemite Royal family, which traces its roots to the prophet Mohammed, and which also has traditional strong ties with America and Europe, Zeid seems much better positioned to bridge conflicts between Islam and the West than Iranians like Mr. Khatemi.
While Tehran is planning to conduct a new seminar this fall on Holocaust denial, Zeid was the only Arab ambassador who attended the first ever Turtle Bay Holocaust memorial held earlier this year. Keeping strong ties in the Arab world, he maintains relations with many Israelis, and unlike some Arab colleagues is unafraid to do so openly.
Speaking of the West and Islam, Zeid told AP yesterday that "A United Nations that understands the sources of these schisms, where they occur, and can speak to all sides with experience and credibility, can play an important role in resolving these dangerous conflicts."
While Washington would "never comment" on its position regarding candidates, America's U.N. ambassador, John Bolton, told reporters yesterday that Zeid's investigation of peacekeepers' sexual exploitation in Africa was "well respected," and that America will consider his candidacy "very carefully."
A heartbreaking story. If you're a New York Times reporter, that is.
One widow has more than $2 million but walks or rides the bus everywhere, terrified of drawing attention. Another millionaire widow stopped going to 9/11 support groups because she feared that families of police officers and firefighters might betray her. A widower has enough money to start a business building houses, but cannot buy himself a home.
All three lost a husband or a wife when the World Trade Center collapsed. Like thousands of others, they were beneficiaries of the federal Sept. 11 Victim Compensation Fund, which awarded millions of dollars to families whose loved ones died in the attacks.
Waitaminute! The Feds didn't withhold for Federal Income Tax?
Missed a helluva opportunity, there.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/06/2006 10:44 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Might as well give here a green card. She can afford to live here and pay taxes. Our imigration policies are all broken and based on contribution $$$ and she can certainly do that. Otherwise the legal sharks will take it all. Oh wait, she's brown and we don't take brown people into this country, no matter how much money she has. She need to change her name to goldstien or Johnson, that would help.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
09/06/2006 13:40 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"the officials who drafted the funds rules explicitly stated that foreigners and illegal immigrants would be eligible"
(Not really - illegals should have NEVER seen a dime. After all, if they had followed the LAW, as did the legal foreigners, they wouldn't have been there to die.)
As for the rich widow, why not take her money, bank it, go back home, live frugally, and apply to come here the right way? Then she'd be rich and legal.
Obviously she'd rather whine. Must be a Democrat.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/06/2006 14:32 Comments ||
Top||
The day before......
Governor Mitt Romney today ordered all Massachusetts state government agencies to decline support, if asked, for former Iranian President Mohammed Khatamis September 10 visit to the Boston area, where he is scheduled to speak at Harvard University. State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel, said Romney.
Romneys action means that Khatami will be denied an official police escort and other VIP treatment when he is in town. The federal government provides security through the U.S. State Department.
Romney criticized Harvard for honoring Khatami by inviting him to speak, calling it a disgrace to the memory of all Americans who have lost their lives at the hands of extremists, especially on the eve of the five-year anniversary of 9/11.
Said Romney: The U.S. State Department listed Khatamis Iran as the number one state sponsor of terrorism. Within his own country, Khatami oversaw the torture and murder of dissidents who spoke out for freedom and democracy. For him to lecture Americans about tolerance and violence is propaganda, pure and simple.
Romney cited a litany of hateful actions by Khatami, including his support for violent jihadist activities:
During the period of time he was in office, from 1997 to 2005, Khatami presided over Irans secret nuclear program. Currently, the Iranian Government under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is snubbing the international communitys request to cease nuclear weapons production.
In the recent conflict along the Israel-Lebanon border, Khatami described the terrorist group Hezbollah as a shining sun that illuminates and warms the hearts of all Muslims and supporters of freedom in the world.
Khatami has endorsed Ahmadinejads call for the annihilation of Israel.
During Khatamis presidency, Iran refused to hand over the Iranian intelligence officials who were responsible for the attack on the Khobar Towers that killed 19 U.S. military personnel.
In his own country, Khatami oversaw the torture and murder of Iranian students, journalists, and others who spoke out for freedom and democracy. Khatami relaxed freedom of speech laws giving democracy reformers a false sense of security only to engage in one of the largest crackdowns in the countrys history.
In Khatamis Iran, there was no religious tolerance. According to the U.S. Office of International Religious Freedom, Iran was one of the worst offenders of religious persecutions. Minorities, such as Evangelicals, Jews, Catholics and others, have suffered.
Khatami pretends to be a moderate, but he is not. My hope is that the United States will find and work with real voices of moderation inside Iran. But we will never make progress in the region if we deal with wolves in sheeps clothing, said Romney.
This is good, but better yet: challenge Khatami everywhere he goes. Demonstrations. Protests. Courageous speakers who question the man openly. Let Khatami see what a real democracy is like.
#3
It's about time someone over here got up on his hind legs about this terrorist leader being allowed to set foot on our shores. That this monumental turd should be on American soil while we grieve for the thousands lost on 9-11 is a little too much. I hope Romney's denial of official protection leads to some "interesting" consequences for Khatami.
#4
Matriculated at Stanford, Harvard MBA, JD cum laude from Harvard Law. Obviously bought his degrees, like someone recently told me President Bush must have done.
#7
We know what cesspools these liberal Ivey League institutions have become, the question should be, why in the hell do we let this worthless muzzie bastard (Khatami) into the US in the FIRST PLACE!
#12
I like the Romney/Guliani ticket! I saw this guy on O'Reilly and he has his shit squared away. I don't like the Northeastern flavor of that ticket but I think they would do well against just about any combo Dhimmis I could conjore up.
WASHINGTON -- Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday said they hoped the committee will vote later this week to keep John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, as Bolton picked up public support from one of two wavering Republicans.
"We expect a party line vote to take place on Thursday morning, with no change in schedule," said Andy Fisher, spokesman for Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the committee chairman. Lugar later told reporters "it appears that way" that all committee Republicans would back Bolton.
A spokesman for Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said the senator held "a direct and honest conversation" with Bolton Tuesday and would support him. A spokesman for Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island earlier Tuesday said the senator had not reached a decision.
Committee Republicans will aim to stick together against Democrats' opposition to Bolton, who has served as U.N. envoy for the last year after President Bush bypassed the Senate and appointed him during a congressional recess. The appointment expires in January when this Congress ends, and the White House wants him confirmed by the Senate to keep him for the rest of Bush's term, which ends in January 2009.
About 60 retired diplomats who served in Republican and Democratic administrations signed letters to Foreign Relations Committee members calling Bolton unfit to keep the job and urging his rejection. The former diplomats, who also opposed Bolton's nomination last year, said in their letter that Bolton's conduct "has confirmed our misgivings about his probable ineffectiveness and his tendency to alienate others."
They said Bolton's "hard core, go-it-alone posture" has hurt the United States in the world body, and said "with so much at stake, our country cannot afford to permit John Bolton to continue his destructive course during the next two years."
But Republicans, citing the need for a strong hand at the United Nations during the Middle East crisis, have pushed for Bolton's quick confirmation.
Bush could reappoint him during an upcoming congressional recess, but Bolton could not receive a salary and he would be viewed as being in a weakened position.
Democrats said they would decide after the committee vote on whether to try to block a Senate vote on Bolton's nomination, as they did last year. They contend Bolton bullied intelligence analysts to conform to his hawkish views in his last job as top U.S. arms control negotiator and his harsh criticisms of the United Nations made him unsuitable for the job.
But Bolton was getting help from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful lobbying organization that has publicly praised him as a "strong advocate for the U.S. on issues that matter to the pro-Israel community."
Democrats are going toe to toe with Republicans on national security in the final months before November's elections, calling for the ouster of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and claiming that America is less safe today than before the September 11 terrorist attacks. "Under the Bush administration and this Republican Congress, America is less safe, facing greater threats and unprepared for the dangerous world in which we live," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said yesterday.
Republicans responded that Democrats simply want to "cut and run" from the war in Iraq and pointed out that there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil in nearly five years. "We are in a very serious war with an enemy who wants to end our way of life," House Majority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said yesterday. "The 'Defeatocrats' want to bring the troops home, want to put their tails between their legs. What message does that send to terrorists all over the world?"
Mr. Boehner and other Republicans accused Democrats of simply picking apart Republican strategies for fighting the war on terror without offering any of their own solutions.
But House and Senate Democrats yesterday endorsed a national security report penned by the Third Way National Security Project, a group founded by Democrats who support gun control. The report, which Mr. Reid called a "stunning indictment," concluded that the Bush administration's foreign policy has failed in Iraq, the war on terror, Afghanistan and other countries. The number of terrorist attacks and terrorist recruits is up worldwide, many enemy countries are now stronger and have better weapons, and America's influence with allies has weakened, according to the report.
While the report offered no specific suggestions for fighting the war on terror, the Democratic leader said it "makes a clear case for the new direction we need." At a press conference yesterday, Democrats said the administration should use more diplomacy and fully implement the recommendations by the September 11 commission.
Mr. Reid and Senate Democrats will introduce today a resolution voicing no confidence either in the administration's Iraq strategy or in Mr. Rumsfeld. "Time and time, he's been wrong about Iraq. And time and time again, he's responded to his own mistakes by playing politics," Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, said yesterday in a stinging floor speech on Iraq. "He needs to go." Sure, Harry and Babs, I trust ya to death.
Posted by: Captain America ||
09/06/2006 01:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Let's see. How many attacks against US soil and US interests around the world on Clinton's watch? The only attack in the last 5 3/4 years was 9/11...which the Clinton administration can be held, at a minimun, equally responsible with GW's.
#2
The Clinton-led DemoLeft is waiting for Amer Hiroshima(s) - "Less safe" > Dem-speak for "justified", PC Totalitarianism and Hyper-Govt everywhere against everyone, and ultimately OWG + anti-sovereign America.
#3
Blabbity blah blah blah. So eloquent and clueless are the comments I have seen. GW has probably forgotten more than these guys will ever know.
The MMs and Defeatocrats seem to long for power at any price. The MMs are cognizant of and Defeatocrats are unaware that someone else pays and all the chaos happens after they die. Deciet, ostracism, taking advantage of ignorance and instilling hatred seem to be both groups favorite tools to accomplish this. What they would do with power if they were to get it, maybe God knows. About the only reason I don't despise Defeatocrats is that the MMs do what they do to create an evil, inhuman system with them at the helm, and Defeatocrats do what they do out of what seems to be a combination of fear and the clueless but sincere belief that their policies will make the world such a happy place that nobody will ever desire to lift a gun again. With them at the helm.
#5
I heard that one of their main gripes is that OIF was a wasted diversion away from the real war on terror.
For the 50th time, I would encourage the Republicans to pull out the most horrendous footage of Saddam's murders/tortures of his citizens and build a counterattack around it.
Something to the effect of a Dem leader saying: "Saddam was a tyrant but there are lots of tyrants in the world. We had no busiess removing him", then show footage. Show several stupid Dem quotes and several footage examples of truly barbaric acts of Saddam. Finish the Dems off by asking who really cares more about people in the international community-the Dems' self-assigned claim to fame.
I think the Republicans would do well by marrying this counterattack with one demonstrating how Dems always complain but don't offer substantial and practical solutions to real problems. There should be a lot of money quotes for that, too. You can find MANY pieces of media in which major Dem leaders are asked HOW they would solve the problems in Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, etc., and to a man/woman, they all revert back to talking about the past-what was done wrong before, what conditions were-never about their plans of what to do now. Build this counterattack in a similar way-using their own footage against them. You know that they will be doing that to the Republicans in the next elections anyway, right? Beat them to the punch.
Whether the Pubs actually decide to do something like this or not, I hope that there are folks out there with access to these little gems of footage who are preparing them for re-airing. Americans-the whole world for that matter-need reminding.
Posted by: Jules in the Hinterlands ||
09/06/2006 7:59 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Of course they feel less safe, now that they're forced to notice that the world is full of meanies. Truly amazing -- throughout the latter half of the 1990s the experts warned of a new and unexpected kind of terror attack by radical Arab Muslims. There was talk of smuggled nukes, deliberately infected carriers of smallpox or ebola riding international airplane flights or the New York City subway, suicide bombings at the Olympics, or a computer attack that would shut down the West. There was an entire sub-industry of successful films and television shows exploring the possibilites. The only surprises on 9/11 were the simplicity of the method used and that it had taken so long to actually happen.
#9
I don't want to sound oversimplistic, but here goes: The left hates America. The left wants it defeated, humiliated and crushed, so they can reform it into a leftist utopian socialist state that plays by their rules.They are, quite simply, the enemy. You can tell when they lie because their lips are moving.
#10
Simplistic? I think you've hit the nail on the head mcsegeek1.
If I were to add anything it would be this; the left hates "the idea" of America, that is the concept that people are free to do what they want unencumbered by those who believe they are their betters and should therefore be 'running' the show.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
09/06/2006 11:04 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Of course the Dems are going for the votes, so they'll say anything. But it is some excellent political gaming: if the US is attacked, they'll say "SEE, we told you (vote for us)," and if we're not attacked they can go on bitching and accusing to their little black hearts' content (vote for us).
How stupid for people to believe that because there is an increase in aggressive acitivity on the part of the Islamic movement, that it's because of Bush-Hitler somehow "making it worse." Now, every time they perpetrate some violence, the Dems "credit" it to the Bush administration.
The point is, the ISLAMOFACIST underground war has been being constructed for more than forty years, and it's just now catching up with it's ambitions. It wouldn't matter who was in office, cuz' the Islam-icks would go on doing the same thing, and more so if the Dems were in power.
What matters is to vote for the party that's doing something about it in a proactive, rather than reactive context, even if it's not perfect. Put another way, I'd rather have a bad pitcher who is at least trying to win the game, than a whiny baby who puts the ball in his pocket and goes home . . .
#12
What matters is to vote for the party that's doing something about it in a proactive, rather than reactive context, even if it's not perfect. Put another way, I'd rather have a bad pitcher who is at least trying to win the game, than a whiny baby who puts the ball in his pocket and goes home . . .
Thank you, ex-lib. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Via Drudge Gotta give this round to the White House
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
528 Hart SOB
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Reid:
Thank you for your September 4 letter to the President. I am responding on his behalf.
A useful discussion of what we need to do in Iraq requires an accurate and fair-minded description of our current policy: As the President has explained, our goal is an Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself. In order to achieve this goal, we are pursuing a strategy along three main tracks political, economic, and security. Along each of these tracks, we are constantly adjusting our tactics to meet conditions on the ground. We have witnessed both successes and setbacks along the way, which is the story of every war that has been waged and won.
Your letter recites four elements of a proposed new direction in Iraq. Three of those elements reflect well-established Administration policy; the fourth is dangerously misguided.
First, you propose "transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection." That is what we are now doing, and have been doing for several years. Our efforts to train the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have evolved and accelerated over the past three years. Our military has had substantial success in building the Iraqi Army and increasingly we have seen the Iraqi Army take the lead in fighting the enemies of a free Iraq. The Iraqi Security Forces still must rely on U.S. support, both in direct combat and especially in key combat support functions. But any fair-minded reading of the current situation must recognize that the ISF are unquestionably more capable and shouldering a greater portion of the burden than a year ago and because of the extraordinary efforts of the United States military, we expect they will become increasingly capable with each passing month. Your recommendation that we focus on counter-terrorism training and operations which is the most demanding task facing our troops tracks not only with our policy but also our understanding, as well as the understanding of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, that Iraq is a central front in the war against terror.
Second, your letter proposes "working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources." You are once again urging that the Bush Administration adopt an approach that has not only been embraced, but is now being executed. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is pursuing a national reconciliation project. It is an undertaking that (a) was devised by the Iraqis; (b) has the support of the United States, our coalition partners and the United Nations; and (c) is now being implemented. Further, in Iraq's political evolution, the Sunnis, who boycotted the first Iraq election, are now much more involved in the political process. Prime Minister Maliki is head of a free government that represents all communities in Iraq for the first time in that nation's history. It is in the context of this broad-based, unity government, and the lasting national compact that government is pursuing, that the Iraqis will consider what amendments might be required to the constitution that the Iraqi people adopted last year. On the matter of disarming militias: that is precisely what Prime Minister al-Maliki is working to do. Indeed, Coalition leaders are working with him and his ministers to devise and implement a program to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate members of militias and other illegal armed groups.
Third, your letter calls for "convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort." The International Compact for Iraq, launched recently by the sovereign Iraqi government and the United Nations, is the best way to work with regional and international partners to make substantial economic progress in Iraq, help revitalize the economic reconstruction and rebuilding of that nation, and support a fair and just political settlement in Iraq all while preserving Iraqi sovereignty. This effort is well under way, it has momentum, and I urge you to support it.
Three of the key proposals found in your letter, then, are already reflected in current U.S. and Iraqi policy in the region.
On the fourth element of your proposed new direction, however, we do disagree strongly. Our strategy calls for redeploying troops from Iraq as conditions on the ground allow, when the Iraqi Security Forces are capable of defending their nation, and when our military commanders believe the time is right. Your proposal is driven by none of these factors; instead, it would have U.S. forces begin withdrawing from Iraq by the end of the year, without regard to the conditions on the ground. Because your letter lacks specifics, it is difficult to determine exactly what is contemplated by the phased redeployment you propose. (One such proposal, advanced by Representative Murtha, a signatory to your letter, suggested that U.S. forces should be redeployed as a quick reaction force to Okinawa, which is nearly 5,000 miles from Baghdad).
Regardless of the specifics you envision by phased redeployment, any premature withdrawal of U.S forces would have disastrous consequences for Americas security. Such a policy would embolden our terrorist enemies; betray the hopes of the Iraqi people; lead to a terrorist state in control of huge oil reserves; shatter the confidence our regional allies have in America; undermine the spread of democracy in the Middle East; and mean the sacrifices of American troops would have been in vain. This new direction would lead to a crippling defeat for America and a staggering victory for Islamic extremists. That is not a direction this President will follow. The President is being guided by a commitment to victory and that plan, in turn, is being driven by the counsel and recommendations of our military commanders in the region.
Finally, your letter calls for replacing Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. We strongly disagree.
Secretary Rumsfeld is an honorable and able public servant. Under his leadership, the United States Armed Forces and our allies have overthrown two brutal tyrannies and liberated more than 50 million people. Al Qaeda has suffered tremendous blows. Secretary Rumsfeld has pursued vigorously the Presidents vision for a transformed U.S. military. And he has played a lead role in forging and implementing many of the policies you now recommend in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld retains the full confidence of the President.
We appreciate your stated interest in working with the Administration on policies that honor the sacrifice of our troops and promote our national security, which we believe can be accomplished only through victory in this central front in the War on Terror.
#1
The key to successful politics is to identify what your opponent is doing or going to do before the general public does, then with great publicity demand that he do just what he was already doing, so you can then claim credit for causing it to happen.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/06/2006 10:59 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I had trailing daughter #2 read this as an example of effective communication, since she wants to be a business manager someday. She giggled all the way through and pronounced Fred, "Friggin' brilliant." We followed up with a discussion of why it is unwise to end such a missive with, "P.S. You are a shithead. Please shut up now." I do so enjoy these little teachable moments!
A woman whose actions aboard a London-to-Washington flight provoked a security scare will be held indefinitely at a residential mental health facility in New Hampshire, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.
"Here ya go, lady! A nice, comfy rubber room!"
Catherine Mayo, 59, of Braintree, Vt., has been in federal custody since Aug. 17, when United Flight 923 was diverted to Boston after Mayo urinated on the floor of the cabin and made statements that the pilot and crew believed were references to al-Qaida and the Sept. 11 attacks.
"Captain! There's a lady out here peeing on the floor and muttering stuff about al-Qaeda!"
"Okay, Harriet! I've armed the net."
"We'll try and herd her into it!"
We in the medical profession prefer the Haldol tear-gas cannisters ...
At a hearing Tuesday, U.S. Magistrate Timothy Hillman agreed with a defense request that Mayo be taken to the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H., and be put in the official custody of her 31-year-old son. Mayo waived her right to a probable cause hearing on a charge of interfering with a flight crew. Her attorney, public defender Page Kelley, has said Mayo has a long history of mental illness.
"Yer honor, my client's a nut! She can't be held responsible for her actions!"
"Uhuh. And how long has she been a nut?"
"'Bout as long as she can remember!"
"And how long's that? At least."
"Ummm... About a half hour."
Mayo said little during the hearing and did not audibly answer when the judge asked "Ms. Mayo, how are you today?"
"Like, wow man! Listen to the colors!"
During a break, as her lawyer was explaining the conditions of her detention, Mayo repeatedly interrupted her and said: "I did not commit any criminal act. I am not responsible for the federal government arresting me."
"Ain't no law against peeing on the floor! You show me in the law books where there's a law against peeing on the floor! And I had nothin' to do with the gummint arresting me! I wudn't even there!"
Mayo was to be held at the facility until her doctors determine it is safe for her to leave. At that time, her travel would be restricted to New Hampshire, her home state of Vermont and Massachusetts, if she has meetings with her lawyer. She would be subject to arrest if she leaves the center before treatment is finished.
"You're not allowed to go to Connecticut, Ms. Mayo! Sorry!"
"Open the toll gate or I squat!"
The scare on the flight from Heathrow to Washington's Dulles airport came just a week after London authorities said they foiled a terror plot to blow up trans-Atlantic flights. Federal officials have said they have no indications that Mayo had any links to terrorism. Joshua Mayo has described his mother as a peace activist and said she had been returning from several months in Pakistan when she was arrested. He said she has traveled there often since making a pen pal before Sept. 11, 2001.
Important safety tip here: Recreational pharmaceuticals and Lahore just don't mix.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/06/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They're coming to take me away
ha ha ho ho hee heee
#2
Joshua Mayo has described his mother as a peace activist and said she had been returning from several months in Pakistan when she was arrested...... she became so excited about returning to the big PX she simply pissed herself.
The Haldol tear-gas cannister is wonderful on airplanes. Pop it and everyone goes into peaceful muttering mode for an hour, and that's all the pilots need to land the plane (they have masks, of course). Awfully hard to bring a plane down (or pee on the carpet runner down the center aisle) when the voices in your head are off to nappy-nap time.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/06/2006 1:46 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Oh. If the pilots have masks I withdraw my objections.
(Does everybody (including me) have that damned film memorized?!?)
#7
Dr. White, some of your colleagues thought it would be best to inject me with Haldol a couple of years ago. They got a case of the ass because they thought I didn't appreciate the high doses of prednisone they were forcing me to take. How was I to know that it was unreasonably anti-social of me to be grappling with the nursing staff and the security guards fighting to escape the hospital.
#8
(Does everybody (including me) have that damned film memorized?!?)
Let's face it. This world would be a much better place if so many people dedicated themselves to memorizing "Airplane!" instead of the Koran.
The ending of the "I speak jive, stewdress" scene with Barbara Billingsly sashaying back down the plane's aisle flippantly retorting, "Chump don wan no help, chump don git no help. Jive ass dude don got no brains anyhow." had me gasping in total hysterics.
SIDEBAR: Does anyone remember the uncensored version of this scene when the movie first hit the theaters? Billingsly most definitely did not say "dude."
"Airplane!" was easily the finest bit of American feature length comedy since the Marx Brothers.
Trivia question: Who was the only regular star from the lengthy "Airport" series of films that did not defect over to the "Airplane!" cast?
#12
I can take out a whole plane full of folks with my Haldol tear gas cannister whilst you're whacking them one at a time with the O2 cannister. However, the Haldol cannister does not produce the soul-satisfying 'thud'. Caveat emptor.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/06/2006 11:05 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Or the pilots can simply dial down the cabin pressurization: whilst wearing their masks and all the cabin creatures go lights out ( only down side is that the cabin crew does too, unless they get the word and step out to the crew rest compartment and slip into theirs first.) and no complaints about txins of anything. and yes i picked a helluva time to quit drinking / smoking / sniffing glue....
#14
Hey, we are all now educated about how hazardous liquids can be on a plane. Maybe she was suspected of some kind of bladder smuggling of liquid explosives
#16
Damn your eyes, DMFD. I don't know how I missed that one, especially seeing as how it occurred to me when this article first surfaced.
Having previously worked in a delicatessen, all through Airplane!'s "Mayo Clinic" scene, I could just see that line coming, it was only a matter of when. The only thing missing was some sort of "Mission Impossible" tie-in with Peter Graves.
President Bush used terrorists' own words Tuesday to battle complacency among Americans about the threat of future attack, defending his record as the fall campaign season kicks into high gear. Quoting from letters, Web site statements, audio recordings and videotapes purportedly from terrorists, as well as documents found in various raids, Bush said that despite the absence of a successor on U.S. soil to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the terrorist danger remains potent. "Bin laden and his terrorists' allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them," the president said before the Military Officers Association of America and diplomatic representatives of other countries that have suffered terrorist attacks. "The question is `Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?"'
One document Bush cited was found in 2000 by British police during an anti-terrorist raid in London, which included a chapter called 'Guidelines for Beating and Killing Hostages.'
Bush said that al Qaeda has been weakened, with its leaders finding it harder to operate freely, move money or communicate with operatives. But, he said the terrorist network has adapted to U.S. defenses by increasingly using the Internet to spread propaganda, recruit new terrorists and conduct training. In addition, the movement has become more dispersed, with local cells more self-directed and responsible for more attacks.
One document Bush cited was what he called "a grisly al Qaeda manual" found in 2000 by British police during an anti-terrorist raid in London, which included a chapter called "Guidelines for Beating and Killing Hostages." He also cited what he said was a captured al Qaeda document found during a recent raid in Iraq. He said it described plans to take over Iraq's western Anbar province and set up a governing structure including an education department, a social services department, a justice department and an execution unit. "The terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, are men without conscience, but they're not madmen," he said. "They kill in the name of a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs that are evil but not insane."
His speech came after the White House released a strategy paper proclaiming the nation has made progress in the war on terror but that al Qaeda has adjusted to U.S. defenses and "we are not yet safe."
Posted by: Fred ||
09/06/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So the statement from Pakiwakiland on Binny would tend to be aligning themselves with the Axis camp.
#3
This really was GWB's best speech yet. Even better than the megaphone. Very clearly spoken with good inflection, no stuttering, lots of passion. You could tell he meant it. Should have done it sooner, is all.
I believe the President will be giving 3 more speaches before he lectures the UN on the 19th. This is a series, and will signal a change in WOT. The Sunni Triangle is out of control, and won't cool down until the Shiites are squelched. Someone is getting taken to the Texas woodshed.
#6
I sure hope so. I hate it when he gets off message.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/06/2006 8:01 Comments ||
Top||
#7
But if Bin Laded = Hitler and we know that Bush = Hitler, then does Bush = Bin Laden? And what does that leave for an Israeli lader (i.e., not Olmert)?
#8
Rep. John Murtha, a hawkish Democrat who voted in favor of the war but now favors withdrawing troops, said the administration has so badly botched the war that a draft might be necessary.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/06/2006 14:08 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I watched James Olberman's commentary on this speech last night (just to torture myself). What a freakin putz that guy is. He was incensed at the references to Nazi Germany that the administration is so accurately making. Typical liberal talking point that the president is just trying to make the American populace scared so that they are malleable. Did I say he was a putz. Well, he is.
#12
But if Bin Laded = Hitler and we know that Bush = Hitler, then does Bush = Bin Laden? And what does that leave for an Israeli lader (i.e., not Olmert)?
Jackal, please leave the caplock equations to our resident expert, Joe. Life will be a lot less confusing for you. Trust me.
US Army chief of staff General Peter J Shoomaker will be in town from Thursday to discuss ways to further strengthen the growing military relationship with India.
Scheduled to meet defence minister Pranab Mukherjee, Admiral Arun Prakash, General J J Singh and Air Chief Marshal S P Tyagi, Gen Shoomaker will be briefed about India's security concerns in the neighbourhood, including continuing support by Pakistan to cross-border terrorism, sources said.
After a bitter estrangement following the 1998 Pokhran-II nuclear tests, the Indo-US military-to-military engagement has grown rapidly. The two armed forces have held 35 exercises in the last five years to build "inter-operability".
Posted by: john ||
09/06/2006 18:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
Lawmakers from a coalition of six Islamic groups threatened on Tuesday to vacate their parliamentary seats if Pakistan's government changes a rape law criticized by human rights activists.
A walkout by the 68 lawmakers could destabilize the government of President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, criticized by Islamic parties since his ruling party last month presented a bill to amend the law in a bid to protect women's rights.
Pakistan's National Assembly has 344 members. A walkout could force by-elections.
Under the current law, approved by a former military dictator in 1979, prosecuting a rape case requires testimony from four witnesses, making punishment almost impossible because such attacks are rarely public.
A woman who claims she was raped but fails to prove her case can be convicted of adultery, punishable by death.
Maulana Fazalur Rahman, a leader of the Islamic coalition, said Tuesday that lawmakers in his group would vacate their seats in the National Assembly if the government tries to get the assembly's approval to change the law.
"We will render every sacrifice for the protection of the Shariah (traditional Islamic) laws," he said at a news conference.
However, the ruling Pakistan Muslim Party which has a majority in the assembly has praised Musharraf for taking steps to amend the law and end the four-witness requirement. This is a well-calculated gambit on Perv's part, and using it he has bitch-slapped the Islamist opposition, costing them much 'face', and strengthening his parties' control of the Pak parliament.
#1
This also explains why he suddenly made the "peace" deal with the Wazoos. This political ploy is just risky enough so he doesn't want to get distracted while he is pulling it off. If he is successful, then he can deal with the Wazoos later.
And when President Bush was asked about the Wazoo deal, he feigned lack of knowledge of it, then expressed his desire for Perv to consolidate his power in Pakland, so that Perv "and democracy", can rule over all Pakistan, while sounding annoyed that Perv was doing something Washington didn't approve of.
This fits into the theme of Perv focusing on one of the many problems his country faces at a time, in each methodical step, being subtly supported by the US. Every time he "wins", he becomes stronger, and gets a stronger grip.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the US didn't draft this legislation with the intent of provoking his political enemies to support something terribly unpopular.
#2
Six Islamic Groups do not want to protect women with a fair rape law, so let "his group" vacate their seats. It's no surprise anymore what they'll do afterwards-destroy God's creations, it's what they always do. Murder and torture and executions and rape, all debasements in the name of Allah's sharia. What matters is what we do about it-specifically, Musharraf.
Posted by: Jules in the Hinterlands ||
09/06/2006 10:36 Comments ||
Top||
#3
This also explains why he suddenly made the "peace" deal with the Wazoos. This political ploy is just risky enough so he doesn't want to get distracted while he is pulling it off. If he is successful, then he can deal with the Wazoos later.
BS. Perv is as much a jihadi as any other Pakistani.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
09/06/2006 12:45 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Rob, of late you've become rather intolerant, intransigent and intractable.
#5
Rob, of late you've become rather intolerant, intransigent and intractable.
Rob has probably just read enough WoT stuff to realize that all the "Pakistan is a valuable ally on .." is BS.
It's a WTF moment. You read local Pakistani newspapers, articles written by Pakistanis, and the truth is right there. They're jihadis. The more you learn about pakistan, the more you realize they're jihadis and suddenly, the talking heads on TV and the articles in the western press and revealed to be nonsense.
Posted by: john ||
09/06/2006 16:09 Comments ||
Top||
#6
If he is successful, then he can deal with the Wazoos later.
He Perv destroys the jihadi infrastructure, he destroys Pakistan's only hope for obtaining Kashmir and dismembering India.
He destroys any hope of Pak colonization of Afghanistan and strategic depth.
It is a weapon he cannot give up.
Posted by: john ||
09/06/2006 16:12 Comments ||
Top||
#7
It is a weapon he cannot give up.
john, Perv also rides the tiger of facing international intervention should he continue to support ISI's terrorist sponsorship and nuclear proliferation, yet as you said, he will only face more attempts on his life if he backs away from driving jihadism in Kashmir and fanning the anti-Indian flames. The spillover of surplus Kashmiri jihadists into the international terrorist arena is, quite possibly, the biggest single threat to Pakistan.
Perv is screwed nine ways to Sunday and it is a direct result of Pakistan's overall national impetus in the direction of jihadist war and destruction. If Pakistan, as a nation, cannot subdue such antagonistic behavior, they will eventually face nuclear annihilation.
#8
All: don't be so pessimistic. Evidence #1, you DON'T hear the White House complaining about Perv except in all but the most mildest of ways. Why?
It is because he is doing what we want him to do, which also happens to be for his own, and Pakistan's own good.
A lot of you respond in a downright silly way.
Think of Perv as one guy in a packed bar with just one buddy, George Bush, who know that everybody else in the bar hates his, Perv's, guts. Your strategy seems to be that he should fight everybody all at once and get his ass kicked.
But George tells Perv that if he just takes out some of the weaker guys first, then George will give him a knife. He does so.
Well, then a bunch of big guys say to him, "You want to fight us?", and on George's advice, Perv says "No." Then George tells him to fight some of the guys he knows Perv can beat with a knife.
And Perv beats them. So George gives Perv a gun.
NOW, and ONLY NOW, can Perv challenge the big guys in the bar, as long as there are fewer than six of them for the bullets in his gun.
This is called "gradualism". How Perv can end up beating everybody in the bar. Which is what the US wants, and what is good for Pakistan.
But dammit, it takes time. And if Perv doesn't follow George's advice he is going to get his ass kicked and some Islamist or other general is going to take his place. One who probably won't be as cooperative.
So c'mon, don't be like democrats and think that George, and Condi Rice for that matter, are idiots willing to put up with some two-timing dictator, because they don't have your rare insight that Pakistan should just be nuked and be done with.
We have one of the best and most complex foreign policies the US has ever had, right now. Trust that they are doing what will work, and hope that our leaders aren't replaced with dumbasses in the next two elections.
#9
An interesting and instructive metaphor, 'moose. It still doesn't change the fact that Pakistan is one of the principal exporters of global terrorism. How many more atrocities must this world suffer for the sake of Perv prevailing in your "bar fight" scenario?
While I'm confident that international diplomats will not agree with me, just a single new major atrocity should get a sizeable portion of Pakistan's madrassahs dropped on the heads of their occupants. We cannot sit around and endlessly wait in the hope of incremental improvements with respect to what is nearly an intractable problem.
Look at where a "wait and see" attitude has gotten us with Iran. It will only be more of the same if Iran gains cover behind a shield of nuclear weapons. They will sponsor and export even more terrorism than they do already. This is precisely what Pakistan has done and we do not need any further object lessons in what to expect.
Punitive measures need to be visited upon Pakistan. The West's generosity has largely been abused that the hands of Perv and his cronies. Relief aid going to terrorists that sought to blow numerous airliners out of the sky was the last straw. Again, how many more atrocities must we endure while awaiting change in Pakistan?
#10
I believe that is precisely why we are seeing the west cozy up to India. When the Pakiwakis finally go fully seething rad, at least there will be a buffer state close by and fully armed to deal with them. General Musharraf has used up at least 11 of his 9 lines. I suspect it is just a matter of time until they get him and all hell breaks lose with a nuclear, muzzie armed radical state.
#11
Zenster: Most of the crapola we have to deal with we can thank Perv's predecessor, Zia, for. However, Pakistan is not unto itself, and you must remember this too.
China and India are natural enemies. So China was seriously kissing up to Pakistan. They might be more than willing to stand in the way if the US wants to attack Pakistan directly. So while Pakistan is *annoying*, as long as Musharraf is in charge, we will methodically get what we want. And keep China the hell out. And keep India on our side.
George Bush, Sr., would call looking at the big picture "linkages"; but by paying attention to the big picture, you don't get just one satisfying win--you sweep the board.
And I agree it is aggravating that while Musharraf is doing his thing, we still have the Madrassas cranking out terrorists. Fortunately, they are sending most of them to Afghanistan to die like flies.
A while back, Perv passed a law clamping down on the Madrassas, and they were politically powerful enough to just blow it off. And there wasn't a damn thing he could do about it. But with our help, he has schemed, and is now getting his Islamist opposition to kick themselves out of the government. This will give him a LOT more power.
Most likely, North Wazoo will be the last great nut for him to crack. And it will be hella violent. But that will, in effect *annihilate* the Taliban for good, and end any major HQ left for al-Qaeda, short of Somalia.
And here is the important part: if we ever get into hostilities with China, Pakistan and India would be major, major allies in any dispute. To this end, I hope that Musharraf goes down as "The Father of Unified Pakistan, ally to the US."
#12
'moose, I always enjoy your commentary and this is no exception (and without a "but" to follow). I just feel that, in Pakistan's case, for one more time we are not sufficiently learning to abandon the old Arab leitmotif of "My enemy's enemy is my friend".
While I tend to agree with your assessment regarding any cumulative South Asian alliance against communist China, such garbage as Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan's tacit confirmation that Pakistan will (continue to) shelter bin Laden really hacks me off. It tends to make an abject farce out of whatever ostensible progress we are making otherwise.
India's spy network, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), has been blamed for the troubles in Balochistan province at a meeting chaired by President Pervez Musharraf.
"It's a Zionist Hindu plot!"
Media reports on Tuesday did not directly quote Musharraf, except saying he "did not rule out a foreign hand" in the developments in Balochistan, the country's largest province where the situation reached a flashpoint August 26 with the killing of rebel leader Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti in a military operation. "The Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) pumped huge money, into the province, transferred arms and ammunition via Kishan Garh into Dera Bugti, from various routes, all of which have now been sealed," it was disclosed at the meeting, The News International said.
The accusation came amidst a low-key announcement by the foreign office of a possible meeting between Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the NAM (Non-Aligned Movement) Summit in Havana, Cuba later this month. Significantly, Islamabad ruled out any meddling in Balochistan by Kabul, where Musharraf is scheduled to travel later this month to confer with his counterpart Hamid Karzai.
Foreign office spokesperson Tasnim Aslam said territories in Iran and Afghanistan were "being used" to foment trouble in Balochistan. It was alleged that Indian consulates in Kandahar and the Iranian city of Zahidan were being used to send arms and ammunition to certain parts of Balochistan for creating disturbance through anti-Pakistan elements, the newspaper said, not citing any source in particular.
Musharraf said the problem existed only in small pockets of the province as most parts remained peaceful. "The government will ensure its writ as it is very important to bring law and order under control for the safety of the people of the province," Musharraf was quoted as saying. "All arms supply routes have been sealed both from India and Afghanistan and it is the key reason that Bugti's 'farari' (rebel) commanders started surrendering," military spokesman, Major General Sultan Shahin, said.
He said that surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), 107mm rockets and other lethal weapons were recovered by the law enforcement agencies in the province.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/06/2006 09:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
RAW would have to be terminally stupid not to take an advantage of such a low cost, high deniability, opportunity to weaken a deadly enemy of their country.
#2
RAW has been periodically defanged by various Indian prime ministers.
One PM, Gujral, ordered RAW to dismantle all networks in Sindh and Baluchistan in exchange, get this, for a Pakistani promise to cease supporting insurgencies in the Punjab and North East areas.
Posted by: john ||
09/06/2006 16:17 Comments ||
Top||
The United States wants Pakistan to extend its control to tribal areas in the country so as to deny Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist groups safe havens to plan and launch terrorist attacks against Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"It is in the interest of Pakistan and the Pakistani people that the government be able to exercise its sovereignty throughout all of Pakistan," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters in response to a question about a reported peace agreement with pro-Taliban militants in the North Waziristan region.
What a novel idea
He was unaware of the agreement, he said but noted, "This is an area that traditionally has not been under the control of the central government, so this is a historical problem, I think, in Pakistan. Certainly everybody understands the importance of not having safe havens where you can have these ungoverned areas where Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, other terrorist groups can plan and launch terrorist attacks not only against Afghans and international forces in Afghanistan but against Pakistanis and Pakistan."
"President Pervez Musharraf has a healthy appreciation for that. Certainly we want to be as supportive as we can in his efforts to build up those democratic political institutions in Pakistan," he said.
State Department spokesman have years of training in order to say things like this with a straight face
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had talked to President Musharraf about his approach in the tribal areas during their last meeting.
...and didn't leave any visible wounds
He then told her how he was going to bring about an integrated civilian military-political approach to the tribal areas to try to work with them, work on development in the tribal areas as well as on the security aspect. So, it was a Pakistani proposal.
"Afghanistan and Pakistan have a shared interest in seeing that that border is controlled. Like I said, it's in everybody's interest if they're not being safe havens along that border."
Unless you're running the safe havens as a rest camp
"So I know that has been a source of tension in the past between Afghanistan and Pakistan," McCormack said.
Ya think?
"What we have done -- what we have tried to do is encourage them to talk and to work together and to solve problems as opposed to -- and solve them privately as opposed to trying to do it in public, which is sometimes a little bit harder," he added.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/06/2006 08:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
President General Pervez Musharraf arrives in Kabul today (Wednesday) to tackle the tenacious problem of militants using the two countries. Musharraf will meet Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the Afghan Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday.
Militants often cross the two countries' long, porous border. "Afghanistan is expecting Pakistan to take effective action against terrorism," said Afghan Foreign Ministry spokesman Sultan Ahmad Baheen. Musharraf will likely give Karzai evidence that individuals have used Afghan territory to destabilise Pakistan's Balochistan province, a Pakistani government official said on condition of anonymity. During Musharraf's visit, he will also inform Karzai of steps Pakistan has taken to curb militancy, drive Taliban and Al Qaeda remnants from border areas, and control weapons and drug smuggling, the official said.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/06/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
LOL. This will be singularly pointless. Now if the ISI "leaders" were to visit...
September 6, 2006: The sharp increase in civilian deaths over the Summer is largely the result of towns and neighborhoods organizing their own self-defense forces. These local militias, often formed around criminal gangs, Mosque guards or tribal forces, will attack as well as defend. This is especially true if Shia and Sunni communities are adjacent to each other, as they often are in central Iraq, especially in Baghdad. The militias have not stopped the Islamic terrorists, who are still responsible for most of the deaths. The terrorists have come to rely less on suicide car bombs, and more on blowing up buildings.
They do this by renting an apartment or shop in a large building, filling the space with explosives, and then detonating it by remote control. Sometimes the terrorists also arrange to have snipers or crews of gunmen to attack after the explosion, killing survivors and those rushing to help. This sort of thing exhibits a high degree of hatred and callousness, but that has been characteristic of Iraqi politics for a long time, especially since the royal family was rounded up and massacred in 1958. That sort of set the tone for the next half century. Saddam excelled at cruelty, and developing novel ways to kill people.
Old habits are hard to lose, but Iraqis are trying. The Sunni Arab towns and neighborhoods are being cleansed of Islamic radicals, sometimes more than once. No matter how long this takes, it has been grinding down the old school killers. Iraqi and American commanders see the end coming in a year or less.
At the same time, the government has been moving against Shia militias, especially in the south. The ones in central Iraq at least provide some security from Sunni Arab terrorists. But in the south, the Shia gangs are there mainly to benefit themselves. The militia chiefs often set themselves up as local satraps and spend an increasing amount of time getting rich. Others serve God, and try to impose conservative religious lifestyles on everyone. The militias are not particularly popular, but they have guns, and agenda, and determination.
There were 3,500 civilian deaths in July, compared to 62 Americans. An increasing proportion of the dead Iraqis are Sunni Arabs. Kurds and Shia Arabs have been killing Sunni Arabs ever since American troops entered the country in early 2003. But this killing has accelerated as Sunni Arab militias and terrorists have been weakened over the last three years. Keeping Iraq under Sunni Arab control is a very popular cause throughout the Arab world (which is 90 percent Sunni). This does not get a lot of publicity in the West, but it has caused thousands of Sunni Arab men to go to Iraq to fight for the cause. It's seen as a lost cause now. Most of those foreign Sunni volunteers were killed, or sent home disillusioned. Iraq, it turned out, was mostly a matter killing civilians, both Shia and Sunni Arabs (who backed the new government). Killing children was particularly distasteful, but the more extreme Islamic terrorists saw no problem with killing anyone.
As the number of Sunni Arab refuges (for terrorists) shrinks, the terrorists get more vicious. The Islamic terrorists (including al Qaeda and those determined to put Sunni Arabs back in control of Iraq) see their goal as victory, or nothing. So the diehards have to be reduced to nothing, one terrorist at a time.
Along those lines, the government announced that they had captured the number two man in al Qaeda-in-Iraq last week. It took a while to get a positive identification. Al Qaeda promptly denounced this, saying their leadership was fine, everything was great. But things are not so great for al Qaeda. The number of tips from citizens has been increasing over the Summer. More lower ranking terrorists have been rounded up. This doesn't get much publicity, because most of these guys are former Saddam thugs fighting to get their power back. Al Qaeda wants to establish an international Islamic dictatorship. The captured al Qaeda leader, Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi, used to be a commander in Saddam's secret police.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/06/2006 09:54 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I read it here a long time ago: Fewer and fewer baddies will get more and more vicious - and the MSM will lap it up - Quagmire! Unwinnable! Civil War! - and then, suddenly, it'll be over.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/06/2006 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Bobby, it makes sense, logicallly speaking. I hope to God you're right (or whoever originally said it).
I'm sick and tired of all the negative, pessimistic filth being spewed by the MSM. Can't we for once just say that, all things considered, we're kicking ass and taking names? That despite how bad things might look, we're actually winning? That while it may take awhile, America and the common Iraqi will come out victorious?
I'm surrounded by defeaticrats and liberals who lament non-stop on how Iraq is the biggest foreign policy blunder in modern history and that Bush will go down as the worst President ever. And I'm finding it harder and harder to defend our actions and the President. Not because I've lost confidence in our strategy. Quite the contrary, in fact. It's just the public evidence seems to go from bad to worse. This, I hope and believe, is a good sign. As I've told all the naysayers from the beginning that it will get a lot worse before it gets any better. And right about now, it seems a lot worse.
Could we possibly be at that point? God damn it would be nice if we were.
Baghdad, Sept 5, (VOI) In a new statement issued on Tuesday evening, Ambassador Zalmai Khalilzad said that decisions concerning the Iraqi national symbols should be taken by the whole Iraqi people through constitutional procedures.
The original statement said one-sided steps in this issue by provinces and individuals were inappropriate and did not have the support of the United States.
In the revised statement, received by the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI), Khalilzad said that article 12 of the Iraqi constitution provides for a road map for issues related to the Iraqi flag.
The United States once more confirms its commitment to the unity of and integrity of Iraq, he added
The decision of Massoud al-Barazani, President of Iraqi Kurdistan, last week to remove the official Iraqi flag from the government buildings in Kurdistan has stirred a storm of protests and criticism in Iraq.
Posted by: Bruce ||
09/06/2006 06:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
BAGHDAD, Iraq- Iraqi parliament voted on Tuesday to extend the countrys state of emergency for 30 more days. The measure has been in place for almost two years and grants security forces greater powers. It affects the entire country apart from the autonomous Kurdish region in the north. In the 275-member parliaments first session after a summer recess, deputies voted 161 in favour of extending the measure and 19 against out of 180 attending.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/06/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We gotta clean this shit up before the Iranian regime, faster
Posted by: Captain America ||
09/06/2006 2:08 Comments ||
Top||
BAGHDAD - A legal investigation into the 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Husseins Iraq is gaining momentum and the former strongman may face charges for the alleged execution of Kuwaiti prisoners of war. US officials close to the Iraqi High Tribunal trying Saddam on charges related to various alleged atrocities committed during his 24-year rein told AFP that Kuwaiti officials had filed a formal complaint with prosecutors.
In the Kuwaiti complaint, filed earlier this year, Saddam stands accused of illegally invading the country, killing and torturing its people, destroying its oil wells and other infrastructure.
The complaints have been filed and the court has started an investigation, an American legal expert said, briefing AFP on condition of anonymity because he is not permitted to speak on behalf of the Iraqi body.
Useful probe to have though they can only hang Sammy once.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/06/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
One of those teaching moment thingies showing the semi-free world how that rule of law thingy works. Take as long as you need, Iraq -- you've got the rest of Saddam Hussein's life to do it right.
#2
Might be BS, might not. But while talking to a young Marine who had been stationed at one time at the Kuwait embassy told me that the Kuwaitis had started to secretly drill horizontally across the border into Iraq, which help precipitate the invasion. Anybody ever hear this before?
#3
I have to disagree, TW. As long as he's breathing I worry that he'll escape the noose. IMHO it was a huge mistake to take him alive. The sooner he takes that 'short drop, sudden stop,' the better.
#9
I'm gonna have to agree with PBMcL. They should have put a bullet in his head the second they dug him out of his hole. Not just because he 'might escape the noose', but because his very existence is one of the reasons the insurgency has gone on this long. His immediate and summary execution would have saved hundreds and maybe thousands of American lives.
Of course, I'd prefer a noose to a bullet, but dead is dead.
#10
I have to side with trailing wife on the intended impact in and beyond Iraq. With the delusional state of most Arabs here and elsewhere you sometimes wonder whether any teaching is possible, but I think there is evidence that some are absorbing some lessons, even if unconsciously.
Given the timetable, Sammy's availability for a Kuwait trial is dubious. Even if he doesn't get a death sentence for Dujayl, it's hard to imagine any other outcome for Anfal. Kuwait would have to be next up, and the 1991 intefadeh case has more political traction here (of course) than Kuwait.
As for slant-drilling, I doubt it. Recall the brutal Kuwaiti-Iraqi oil meeting in summer '90 was about oil prices - anything else was probably the crudest of pretexts for the Iraqi barbarians.
I vote for taking care of this guy the old fashioned way. Little wasted effort and expense, and people can start focusing on the future right away! There are some people who deserve to be killed outright. This guy is one of them. I don't think there is much he will tell us, but we know he did lots of bad stuff. Far beyond the usual bad stuff someone in his position "needs" to do. Be gone and good riddance. Don't forget to peek through the pearly gates on the way by so you'll know what you're not gettin' when you head off to "receive" your eternal reward, Mme Hussein!
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani told British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett on Tuesday that her country's troops will be able to go home at the end of next year, voicing confidence that order will have been restored in war-torn Iraq by then. Asked at a joint news conference with Beckett in the Iraqi capital when the last of the 7,200 British troops battling to keep the peace in southern Iraq could head home, Talabani replied: "By the end of 2007".
"I don't think fighting will continue until then if the steps of national reconciliation go according to plan. If some groups are still fighting then, our forces will be able to take care of it," he said. "We've achieved good success in building our forces and equipping them with the neccessary arms."
Beckett was cautious however. "The president (Talabani) is not setting a deadline" for a withdrawal, she said. "That is the president's personal opinion... the circumstances will be the judge of everything. If the president is right about the accelleration off the peace process no one will be more happy than us," she said.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/06/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This time tabling is embarassing, juz say it depends on the facts on the ground and be done with it.
Posted by: Captain America ||
09/06/2006 2:12 Comments ||
Top||
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has decided to appoint his former special adviser Lakhdar Brahimi to mediate a possible agreement for swapping Lebanese prisoners in return for freeing the reservists Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, The Jerusalem Post has learned. Brahimi recently publicly expressed his support for talking directly with Hizbullah. Annan announced his intention of taking on the prisoner swap mediation during a visit to Saudi Arabia Monday. "I will appoint a person to work secretly with the two sides... I will not announce his name today or tomorrow," Annan said.
The Post has learned from UN sources that the person will be Brahimi, one of Annan's most trusted advisers. Although Israeli officials repeated Tuesday that they did not ask Annan to appoint a mediator, and that Israel expected the unconditional release of the two soldiers as called for by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, they also did not rule out having talks with him. "We support the fact that the UN can bring about a resolution to the issue," one official said. Hizbullah officials did not turn down the UN's mediation offer and said they are willing to discuss a prisoner swap.
In an op-ed article published in The New York Times after the end of the war, Brahimi called on the international community to open talks with Hizbullah, arguing that it would be a much more effective policy than ignoring the group. A truly "effective policy" would involve killing them.
In a separate interview during the war, he claimed that Israel had killed more Lebanese children than Hizbullah fighters and said that Israel "can't say this is collateral damage." Deftly ignoring the Hezbollah emplacements and bunkers located in residential areas.
Brahimi was the foreign minister of Algeria in the early 1990s and later served in several senior UN roles, among them special representative to Afghanistan after the war. He also compiled a report in 2000 dealing with the problems of the UN peacekeeping missions. A UN spokesman in New York, Farhan Haq, would not address the question of the identity of the special envoy, saying he would have no comment on the issue. "The secretary-general made it clear he would not give the name of the envoy in order to enable him to do his work discreetly," Haq said.
#1
the Army brass considers the Israeli system a threat to an Army program to develop an RPG defense system .
.
.
. The $70 million contract for that program had been awarded to an Army favorite, Raytheon. Raytheons contract constitutes a small but important part of the Armys massive modernization program called the Future Combat System (FCS), which has been under fire in Congress on account of ballooning costs and what critics say are unorthodox procurement practices.
.
.
. Raytheons system wont be ready for fielding until 2011 at the earliest.
#3
This debate has nothing, zero, to do with capability or timeliness. Its about money and politics. Youve got a gigantic program [FCS] and contractors with intertwined interests.
Welcome to the beltway. Hope the COL enjoys his post-retirement Ratheon job.
#4
"Reported" by Lisa Meyers. I would not believe a would she says.
The fact is the Stryker already has a passive system that protects pretty well against RPGs. There are reactive armor systems that can be used on tanks, Bradleys and LAVs.
When you add the fact that the Jihadis can't hit what they aim at, do we really need to spend $300,000 per vehicle?
I suspect that the Israelis are more interested in the anti-ATGM capabilities of the system. Something we have not encountered in Iraq.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
09/06/2006 13:06 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I don't know that the Israeli system has the ability to counter an incoming RPG without pretty devastating effect on any dismounts or infantry in the area. I can see where there would be application for it, but not as a general operating condition.
Given the cost of the vehicle and the troops inside, $300,000 is a bargain if the system actually performs, so I don't see this being about the money - or at least not about THAT money. If it's about contracts and graft, and not about combat utility, then I'd say charges of treason would be in order.
#6
How long does it take an RPG to travel 50 yards?
If a system can respond fast enough, how close will the explosion be at intercept?
The Navy has had CIWS for years; couldn't it hit an RPG, if fired far enough away? Of course, with the 6 - 20 mm guns, there would be a modest amount of collateral damage, I suppose ....
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/06/2006 14:16 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The Raytheon system is not the only counter-RPG system being evaluated. There are others. Now whether those other systems get to program or not is another story.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/06/2006 21:14 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Israeli systems tend to be designed to fit the uniquely limited needs they face. Within those parameters, they are often quite good -- but they don't always scale up for the size and the range of operations we need a system to support.
Their Tactical High Energy Laser is a case in point - too large to be mobile, high use of chemicals to charge the laser, but potentially it might have been of use near their border. The systems we went on to design support a much wider set of uses.
That's why I call BS on this article as written.
That said, US Army commanders are taught to seek and utilize an 80% solution on the battlefield rather than wait for perfect info/solutions. So I'm sure there are some who want to get their hands on this system to try it out.
Deploying it for real, and especially deploying it instead of a defensive capability designed to fit into the big FCS picture, is a whole 'nuther story however.
September 1, 2006: The U.S. Army has received the first of its MGS (Mobile Gun System) vehicles. This is a Stryker wheeled armored vehicle with a special turret that mounts a 105mm gun. There are two machine-guns (7.62mm and 12.7mm). The 12.7mm machine-gun is controlled from inside the vehicle. The 105mm gun is a modified version of the one used on the M-60 series of tanks. This gun has an autoloader, and carries 18 rounds of ammo. There are four types of ammo available; Sabot (armor piercing, using a depleted uranium penetrator that can take out most tanks) HEAT (anti-tank, using a shaped charge, like ATGMs and RPGs), HEP (a high explosive round that either blows a hole through thick walls, or causes concrete or metal to comeat high speed-- off the inside of the wall) and canister (like a shotgun shell). The most useful round in Iraq would be HEP and SABOT, for blasting buildings or bunkers the enemy is in. The vehicle carries 400 rounds for the 12.7mm machine-gun and 3,500 for the 7.62mm machine-gun.
The 21 ton MGS is otherwise similar to other Stryker vehicles. There will be three MGS assigned to each infantry company. In effect, the MGS is a return of the assault gun, a turretless tank developed during World War II for infantry support. After World War II, the assault gun was dropped by most armies, to be replaced by tanks or self-propelled artillery. But that has not worked out as well as the assault gun, because during World War II, the assault gun was considered an infantry weapon, and "belonged" to the infantry. The MGS "belongs" to the infantry company it is a part of, will train regularly with the infantry, and thus be a lot more useful to the infantry.
The MGS had a lot of development problems, and is over a year late. The 105mm gun makes a whole lot of noise (bad for any nearby infantry), and initially caused lots of vibration problems inside the MGS when the gun was fired. The MGS contains a lot of electronics, and a very capable fire control system. MGS gunners regularly put 105mm shells through window size targets at 1,000 meters or more.
More info here; this sucker has some serious weight problems related to its 'neither fish nor fowl' development.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/06/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
One addition I would make: add an under-barrel for a low-explosive round. With very limited range, an LER does not blow a hole through a wall, it pushes the wall over--sometimes very useful to infantry.
Being used to seeing the effect of HE, LE is something else to see. There is a real difference in the battlefield if you want to blow a building up, or bowl it over.
Ironically, it is so exclusively used by Engineers, that most other combat people have never seen it used--but when you want that effect, only LE will do. But in past, it was so valuable that the Engineers had unique armored vehicles to use it. Very recognizeable because of their oddly short barrels.
#3
The Germans made a lot of assault guns for WW II. They were essentially field guns (artillery used in direct fire as opposed to indirect fire) mounted on tracked chassis. They were most useful.
The problem was, when the Krauts ran out of tanks, or needed to do one of their doctrinally-required immediate counterattacks and swept whatever they could find, they ended up using assault guns in the tank role.
This had a number of problems, one being the assault guns didn't have turrets and so their field of fire was limited unless they moved the entire vehicle and the other was that they were lightly armored and sometimes open topped.
The Stryker's downsides would be less of a problem as long as they were used as assault guns and not in place of absent tanks. The RPG is, as the article says, everywhere and in large quantities. But if you can keep the RPG guys more than a couple of hundred yards from the Stryker--which is to say keep the thing in its intended support role--it should be okay.
The old Sheridan had a gun/launcher which fired a great big ol' whump-gun shell of 152 mm. If you made that a shaped charge, it might take out practically every tank around, and its HE use would be substantially increased.
I don't know why they didn't ask me.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
09/06/2006 7:52 Comments ||
Top||
#4
This report has the slow insidious stench of ordure. Not that I know, but ask the grunts.
#8
This had a number of problems, one being the assault guns didn't have turrets and so their field of fire was limited unless they moved the entire vehicle and the other was that they were lightly armored and sometimes open topped.
What you are describing is self propelled artillery not assault guns. Self propelled artillery stays way behind the front lines and uses indirect fire. Assault guns accompany the tanks and infantry, have closed tops and use direct fire. The weight and cost saved by the lack of turret allowed to have more powerful guns and thicker armor than on tanks based on the same chassis (see Panther vs Jagdpanther or Tiger vs Jagdtiger, ditto for the Soviet AGs) but they have a slower reaction time, fare poorly in rough terrain (teh need of shifting the entire vehicle really sucks there) and are more vulnerable to assaults by enemy infanry (cf Kursk where the nearly invulnerable Elepehants where easily dispatched by a few soviet soldiers armed with flmethrowers)
#9
JKM. You obviously have productive things to do with your time. If you spent more of it looking at WW II pix, you'd see the Germans had field pieces mounted on tracked chassis early on the Eastern Front.
Field artillery used to be considered direct-fire, while heavy artillery and howitzers were indirect fire weapons. Today, all field artillery is indirect fire. One reason is the Brits' experience in WW I. Their 25 pounder was to be employed in direct fire at infantry using shrapnel from forward, exposed positions. The German howitzers, hiding behind terrain features, wiped them out.
The first assault guns were field guns mounted on some kind of chassis.
The US had a 90mm TD named the Scorpion which looks as if they'd taken a 90mm towed and welded it on a tractor chassis.
As time went on, the assault guns got armored all over, as you point out.
They differed from self-propelled artillery, but all were used when tanks were scarce. My father was an Infantry platoon leader in the ETO and says he saw all types up close and personal. His platoon took severe casualties when an SP fired at a range of about zero, putting the muzzle directly into the window of a building where the guys were sheltering.
The point is the Germans used anything that rolled as tanks when they needed tanks and didn't have them. The temptation will be strong to do the same with the Stryker, and if it happens, a lot of people are going to be sorry.
#10
A lot of Rangers died in Somalia because the US lacked an intrinsic infantry support weapon such as this. While it is true that the MGS is not designed to go head to head with a M-1 Abrams, as an ex-infantry anti-tank missle gunner, I can tell you that I would have felt a hell of a lot safer with the Stryker armour around me, than the open-backed jeep I got to use for a missile platform. Also, this is absolutely perfect for COIN in MOUT operations : light, fast, relatively quiet, survivable, and makes a big mess on the other end.
#11
Shield. When I was a grunt, the company antitank weapon was the 106mm recoilless rifle. It was mounted on a M113 for the mech guys, a jeep for the legs(they lost a lot of vehicles by cornering at over about 2mph on the way to the range), and on the mechanical mule for the airborne. The mechanical mule was a large motorized coffee table.
I got temporarily--about eighteen hours--and informally drafted into the 82d in 1970 for the Jordan alert. We didn't go. I heard the Syrians had sent 500 tanks and a reasonable number of SPs and mech infantry. I think we would have had about twelve 106s. I don't think we'd have had 500 rounds.
Yeah, the Stryker is a good idea if they keep it some hundreds of yards back. If any clown with a RPG can whack it, it needs to be back someplace. The Sovs had a 14.5mm MG for armor, and as far back as WW II, they had a heavy rifle on a bipod chambered for that round for infantry antitank work.
Churchill once supposed a lightly armored TD could prevail by "speed and cunning manuvers". I think it did, by having lots of replacements, too.
I'm just thinking about the possibility of making this a fat target.
The best antitank weapon is a good tank.
The Stryker is using a high velocity gun, not the best for bringing HE on troops in the open. Sometimes the round won't even explode, hitting the ground at too shallow an angle.
I hope they tried the 105 howitzer when they were putting this idea together, and the 152, and the previously mentioned engineer gun.
Apparently the main weapon against infantry in the open is the 7.62, same as the M1, and if they have it connected to that good fire control, it would be terrific. Maybe that's the plan.
Look up NLOS. They don't have much armor, since the active defenses are going to shoot down even sabot rounds incoming. Maybe the next generation assault gun will have the same thing.
Beginning to sound like Hammer's Slammers.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
09/06/2006 22:04 Comments ||
Top||
September 5, 2006: Another valuable intel capability has been weakened by exposure in the media. But this time, it wasn't the New York Times, but several Israeli newspapers, covering the escapades of an Israeli Internet entrepreneur, and his flight from prosecution in the United States for stock fraud, that did the damage. The story was all about how a shady Israeli private investigator claimed to have traced the fugitive, Jacob Alexander, via a VOIP phone call, to Sri Lanka.
This was big news for many terrorists, because they generally believed that VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol), or phone calls made over the Internet, were not traceable. The calls are also encrypted, with a cipher that is believed very hard to decode. The VOIP geeks know that VOIP calls can be traced, and the encryption geeks continue to discuss how easy it would be (especially if you were the NSA) to decrypt those calls. But until this recent flurry of publicity over the hunt for Jacob Alexander, the general public (which includes many Islamic terrorists) were unaware of the situation. Now Islamic terrorists may use VOIP less, or perhaps not at all. That's bad news for intelligence agencies, who have had a lot of success collecting information about Islamic terrorists via the Internet.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/06/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Good Lord -- at the rate their options are disappearing, pretty soon the terrorists are going to devolve to in-person group meetings, and then how will we find them.
VIENNA, Austria - Talks meant to give Tehran a last chance to avoid U.N. sanctions over its nuclear defiance were postponed Wednesday, with a senior Iranian envoy saying "a procedural matter" had caused a delay of several days.
"We will not have the meeting today in Vienna," Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, the chief Iranian envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency told The Associated Press. "Both sides are arranging for a couple of days later."
The talks had been tentatively set for Wednesday in Vienna as a final attempt to see if there was common ground to start negotiations between Iran and the six nations that have been trying to persuade Iran to curtail its nuclear program.
But while the European Union's Javier Solana had been ready to fly to the Austrian capital at short notice, the talks had been left hanging by uncertainty over whether Iranian nuclear envoy Ali Larijani would come.
There was no immediate comment from Solana's office in Brussels. Although Soltanieh said the decision to postpone any meeting had been mutual, it appeared that Iranian reluctance to attend had scuttled the chance of Wednesday talks.
Soltanieh said "a procedural matter" had led to the postponement, but offered no details. In Tehran, Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki said only the time and place of any meeting was still "under discussion by both sides."
Iran defied an Aug. 31 deadline by the U.N. Security Council to freeze uranium enrichment. Still, the five permanent council members and Germany the six powers attempting to entice Iran into negotiating on its nuclear program had decided to hold off work on imposing sanctions until the outcome of any talks between Solana and Larijani. Senior negotiators of those six countries were to meet in Berlin on Thursday to plan their further Iran strategy.
Iran's unyielding stance appears to be based on the calculation that sanctions will be opposed by Russia and China, both veto-wielding Security Council members that have major commercial ties with Iran. The United States and key European allies Britain and France had agreed to wait for the result of talks between Solana and Larijani in an attempt to mollify both Moscow and Beijing.
In Moscow on Tuesday, a top Kremlin aide said Russia remained reluctant to impose sanctions on Iran, although this did not imply support for a nuclear-armed Iran. "We could suffer more than anyone else if they built nuclear weapons," said Igor Shuvalov, a senior aide to President Vladimir Putin.
But he cautioned that introduction of economic sanctions could further increase global oil prices and have a negative impact on regional stability. He added that Russia's location next to Iran and former Soviet Muslim republics in Central Asia made it particularly vulnerable. "We don't mind using a stick, but we don't want that stick to hit us or our partners over the head," he said.
China's premier Wen Jiabao echoed Shuvalov's sentiments, saying the six powers had to be cautious about moving toward sanctions because they may prove counterproductive.
But U.S. officials on both sides of the Atlantic suggested the time had already come for punitive Security Council action. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in Washington the Security Council had made clear in a resolution that it was prepared to vote for sanctions if Iran failed to meet the Aug. 31 deadline to suspend enrichment.
McCormack said Tuesday the United States intended to proceed "down that pathway." Echoing those comments, Gregory L. Schulte, chief U.S. delegate to the IAEA, accused Iran's leaders of making "a strategic decision to acquire nuclear weapons." "The time has come for the Security Council to back international diplomacy with international sanctions," he added.
Iran insists it has a right to enrich uranium for generation of nuclear power. But suspicions are growing it wants to develop the technology to enrich uranium to the weapons-grade level for the fissile core of nuclear warheads.
In a further sign that Iran is ready to defy the international community, its parliament took the first step Tuesday toward blocking international inspection of the country's nuclear facilities in case of U.N. sanctions. The measure would need approval by other bodies before it could take effect.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/06/2006 08:55 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They can't get the time of day from the Iranians.
What's it gonna take to snap them out of this dream world and make them realize that the ranians are playing them for rubes.
ANKARA - Turkeys parliament was expected later on Tuesday to approve the deployment of hundreds of troops to join a UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon, but thousands of protesters took to the streets to oppose the mission.
Many in the Muslim but secular country are concerned the UN force, due to enforce an Israel-Hezbollah truce, would mainly serve Israeli and US interests and that troops may have to fire at fellow Muslims. The left was also vehemently opposed. We will not become Israeli soldiers and Murderer USA get out of the Middle East chanted leftists protesting in a street near parliament. Several demonstrators were detained by police.
To be thumped by leather-handled, hard-wood truncheons.
But there was not the scale of public opposition seen in 2003 when legislators rejected a government plan to allow US forces to use Turkey as a staging post to invade Iraq.
Lebanon, the United States and Israel want NATO member Turkey to contribute troops and see soldiers from Muslim countries improving the UN forces image in the region. Opposition parties accused the government of being a US and Israeli stooge and said Ankara should concentrate on crushing separatist Kurdish rebels, many hiding in north Iraq.
Something they haven't been able to do which the opposition knows; it's the old "you can't do B until A is done, and A is impossible to do" trick.
Turkeys close ties with Lebanon and Iraq as well as Israel make it unique in the region, and Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan is keen to boost his countrys role as a powerbroker in the Middle East. Erdogan has campaigned hard to win support for the deployment, designed to help the United Nations police the ceasefire that halted Israels 34-day war against Hezbollah on Aug. 14. His AK Party holds 355 seats in the 550-seat assembly.
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul told legislators that sending troops to Lebanon would help bring peace and stability to the region, a move which would ultimately benefit Turkey. Turkey is seeking to join the European Union and diplomats say any Turkish involvement in the UN force would be welcomed in Brussels.
The French will take your offer and not leave change on the night table.
Tuesdays vote comes amid a rise in anti-Israeli sentiment in Turkey. Members of the AK Party, whose leadership has roots in political Islam, have lambasted Israel for its war against the Lebanese Hezbollah guerrilla group.
Turkey plans to contribute a naval force to patrol waters off Lebanon and to help train the Lebanese army. Gul has said the troops would probably not number more than 1,000 and would not be a combat force.
Which makes them pretty much useless, which he knows.
Wary of alienating his partys conservative base before national elections next year and the rise in nationalist sentiment, Erdogan has said Turkish troops would pull out if asked to disarm Hezbollah.
Because they can't disarm fellow Muslims.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/06/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Okay, who is carving up the turkey?
Posted by: Captain America ||
09/06/2006 2:13 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"Many in the Muslim but secular country are concerned . . . troops may have to fire at fellow Muslims . . ."
Seriously? "Many" in Turkey are concerned about this? And in the very next paragraph, "Ankara should concentrate on crushing separatist Kurdish rebels".
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Tuesday he was hoping for "positive" news in the next 48 hours on whether Israel would lift an air and sea blockade on Lebanon. "I don't want to raise any false hopes, but I hope that in the next 48 hours we will have some news on that, constructive, positive news," he told reporters after holding talks with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in the port city of Alexandria.
Israel has kept an air and sea embargo on Lebanon since its 34-day war with Hizbollah ended on Aug. 14. Israel says the blockade is aimed at preventing Hizbollah from re-arming. Annan's announcement of an imminent end to the crippling nearly eight-week air and sea blockade was the latest result obtained by the UN secretary general on his marathon tour of the Middle East.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/06/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think Rod Serling devoted a whole season of "Twilight Zone" to Kofi
Posted by: Captain America ||
09/06/2006 2:15 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Koffee, take an enema and call us back in 48 hrs if you don't feel better.
A fresh and very different view of Iran - from the Travel Section of WaPo. Gee, I wonder why it differs so much from their front page "reporting", LOL. H/T to PowerLine and NRO. Despite the Politics, an American Finds Hope in a Forbidden Land
As a journalist, I've spent considerable time over the years in places where America was not always popular. In the bad old days, that meant Russia, China and Vietnam; more recently I've reported from such human-rights black holes as Uzbekistan and North Korea. Then there were the destinations with elements of danger: Israel, the southern Philippines, Northern Ireland. None of those ever gave me pause.
But I wouldn't be truthful if I didn't admit being slightly uneasy about going to Iran -- now in the United States' cross hairs because of its developing nuclear technology -- when a U.N. contact invited me to join a group of international reporters on a trip in May.
The United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran haven't had diplomatic relations in 26 years, since students in Tehran seized 66 American hostages inside the U.S. Embassy and held some of them for as long as 14 months. Neither nation has an embassy in the other's capital, and the U.S. State Department has a travel warning on Iran. Meanwhile, the U.N. Security Council is pressuring Iran to stop its uranium enrichment, and the Bush administration is talking sanctions.
I applied for my visa in a room on the second floor of a nondescript building in upper Georgetown marked "Iranian Interests Section." This facility is technically part of the Pakistani Embassy (which handles Iran's affairs in the United States), but Pakistan's embassy is actually two miles away. What I saw here didn't ease my mind. Inside were a dozen Iranian Americans waiting for their own visas. As they waited, they gazed at videos on a large plasma television. On the screen was the classic image that most Americans have of Iran: a bearded, red-faced mullah wagging a bony finger at a stadium of young people. For what, I didn't know.
Continued on Page 49
#1
Also posted Sunday, direct from the WaPo - here
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/06/2006 6:18 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Did he ask them "If you like America so much and are so tolerant, what do you think of your government supporting terrorists, calling us the Great Satan, demanding we convert to Israel, building nuclear weapons, demanding the eradication of Israel?"
#3
"Everywhere I went, however, Iranians -- from high school students to middle-aged taxi drivers -- repeatedly asked me: "Why does America call us Evil Axis?" Then they would indignantly add: "We are good people -- we are Persians! Iran is a good country, some are bad, but most people here are good." They seemed genuinely wounded by the political rhetoric of the White House."
Well, yeah. This is an ongoing problem with GWB. If he had only said the GOVERNMENTS of Iran, etc., it would have been a lot better.
#5
Unfortunately, Zenster is right. Just like in Nazi Germany, most Germans were decent people and not involved with the Holocaust. However, hardly anyone was willing to bring down the regime. Therefore, the only way to get rid of the war criminals was to bomb the cities into rubble and kill several million people.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
09/06/2006 15:35 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"Most Germans" joined the Nazi party, whether for professional advancement or personal beliefs. Most of their children joined the Nazi youth groups. Most did not protest when the Jews were expelled from their jobs, freeing up spots for hiring and promotions; when Jewish children were expelled from the schools, freeing up places for the Aryan offspring; when Jewish businesses and properties were expropriated by the State and sold to Aryans for pennies on the Reichsmark; and when the personal possesions (furniture, decorations, clothing, toys, eyeglasses, hair for mattress stuffing and ashes to improve the soil on the farm) were sold cheaply to the Aryans -- they just happily paid with their improved wages from their politically protected jobs while their childrem took advantage of their schooling. Of course they didn't fight against their "hated Nazi overlords".
LEBANON "permitted" Hezbollah to use its territory ahead of the Shiite militia's war on Israel in July-August, a senior counter-terrorism aide to US President George W. Bush said today. "Lebanon permitted the use by Hezbollah of their territory, and Hezbollah used that territory to provoke Israel with the kidnapping of two soldiers," said Mr Bush's homeland security and counter-terrorism adviser Fran Townsend.
In the past, US officials from Mr Bush on down have said that Hezbollah declared war on Israel "without the knowledge" of the government in Beirut, and stressed that Beirut simply lacked the power to evict the militia. "Was the Lebanese Government complicit? No. But the Lebanese Government had to have known that Hezbollah controlled a large portion of their sovereign territory and engaged in this type of behavior," a senior White House official on condition he not be named.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/06/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sheesh, how naive the Bushies can be. The Hezbos run the country.
Posted by: Captain America ||
09/06/2006 2:19 Comments ||
Top||
Hitting Iran now with sanctions over its nuclear work could drive it "away from the civilized world," a Kremlin official said on Tuesday, in a hint of strong Russian opposition to punitive steps backed by Washington.
Some of us would say it's already there.
China said earlier it still wanted major world powers to negotiate with Iran even after it defied a U.N. Security Council deadline of August 31 to stop enriching uranium. The Chinese and Russian stances underlined the obstacles to a U.S.-led push to consider sanctions against Iran this month in the Council, where Beijing and Moscow wield vetoes.
We had no doubt it would work out this way.
Washington's EU allies, also hesitant about sanctions, were looking to talks this week to explore hints by Iran that it could negotiate over the extent of its nuclear fuel program, which the West fears is a disguised bid to build atom bombs.
And we knew the EU would be weak as water, too. We've spent all this time letting things play out to demonstrate that there's nothing to be gained by continuous jaw-jaw.
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana was tentatively expected to meet Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani in Vienna on Wednesday. But diplomats said the day and venue for the talks could still change and nothing had been finalized by late on Tuesday.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/06/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#5
IOW Russia is peddling the snakeoil that Iranian islamofascism is appeaseable. Whatta put-on by Put-in. Mollycoddling rabbles because of Roubles. Forgetting the case of Beslan turned into Beastland.
US President George W. Bush branded Iran's president a tyrant and compared leaders in Tehran to Al-Qaeda terrorists who cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. "America will not bow down to tyrants," he said in the second of a series of election-year speeches defending his handling of the war on terrorism and Iraq. "The world's free nations will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon."
America will not bow down to tyrants...
Bush accused Iran of funding the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah and other groups "to attack Israel and America by proxy" and said Hezbollah was second only to Al-Qaeda in the number of US citizens it has killed. "Like Al-Qaeda and the Sunni extremists, the Iranian regime has clear aims. They want to drive America out of the region, to destroy Israel, and to dominate the broader Middle East," said the US presidents.
But, he said, Shiite extremists have done something Al-Qaeda only dreams of by taking over Iran in 1979, "subjugating its proud people to a regime of tyranny and using that nation's resources to fund the spread of terror and to pursue their radical agenda."
"The Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies have demonstrated their willingness to kill Americans, and now the Iranian regime is pursuing nuclear weapons," said Bush.
The US president quoted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying, in an August 15 speech, "If you would like to have good relations with the Iranian nation in the future, bow down before the greatness of the Iranian nation and surrender."
"If you don't accept to do this, the Iranian nation will force you to surrender and bow down," he quoted the Iranian leader as saying.
"America will not bow down to tyrants," he replied.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/06/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I know the speech writers changed it to tyrant, but I preferred the earlier line " f**ing pissant dwarf".
Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Tuesday for a purge of liberal and secular teachers from the country's universities, urging students to return to 1980s-style radicalism. "Today, students should shout at the president and ask why liberal and secular university lecturers are present in the universities," the official Islamic Republic News Agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying during a meeting with a group of students.
Ahmadinejad complained that reforms in the country's universities were difficult to accomplish and that the educational system had been affected by secularism for the last 150 years...
Ahmadinejad complained that reforms in the country's universities were difficult to accomplish and that the educational system had been affected by secularism for the last 150 years. But, he added: "Such a change has begun."
The president, in his role as head of the country's Council of Cultural Revolution, does have the authority to make such changes. But his comments Tuesday seemed designed more to encourage hard-line students to begin a pressure campaign on their own, thus forcing universities to oust the teachers. Iran retired dozens of liberal university professors and teachers earlier this year. And last November, Ahmadinejad's administration for the first time named a cleric to head the country's oldest institution of higher education, Tehran University, despite protests by students.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/06/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He's calling for a "Cultural Revolution?" Why stop there? I double dog dare 'im to throw in a Great Leap Forward on top of it!
Posted by: Mike ||
09/06/2006 0:18 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Keep up the polarization, Nej. We need to know who's who when we take over your loony bin posing as a country. First we eliminate the missile threat, then we take Teheran.
#6
Iranians must be fantastically pliable people. Look at the hell people raise here over our petty little differences. Why don't they rise up and lynch this hairy little turd?
#8
His internal opposition comes from the university and from the younger Iranians that are tired of his repressive crap. He is not having a cultural revolution, he is crushing his opposition. This, by the way, was our last hope for internal regime change leaving us with only a military solution to his lunacy.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
09/06/2006 9:44 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Iranians must be fantastically pliable people. Look at the hell people raise here over our petty little differences. Why don't they rise up and lynch this hairy little turd?
Whoa, big jim. I've met alot of Iranians, and I work with 5 of them. Most of these have entered the US within the last 2 years. Every one of them says the same things. The Iranian people HATE the government. They despise Ahmadinejad and the mullahs. They long for freedom. They only go to the rallies, etc because if they don't they could face persecution or even death. Every one of my Iranian friends believe that the US should do everything it can to fuel a resistance within Iran. They tell me that given a little help, the resources, communications and weapons, they would be able to overthrow Im-a-nut-job.
US policy should reflect this reality. We make the mistake of thinking the average Iranian is a blind follower of this guy. Such is not the case, at least with every Iranian I've spoken to about it.
#11
We make the mistake of thinking the average Iranian is a blind follower of this guy. Such is not the case
Perhaps not, but that doesn't make them a resistance group ready to kick his a$$ out. If the Iranians were that unhappy they'd do something about it. And apparently what they do is escape to America. I hope you work at NSA, mcsgeek1, cause they need Farsi speakers.
#12
The Iranian people HATE the government. They despise Ahmadinejad and the mullahs. They long for freedom. They only go to the rallies, etc because if they don't they could face persecution or even death. Every one of my Iranian friends believe that the US should do everything it can to fuel a resistance within Iran. They tell me that given a little help, the resources, communications and weapons, they would be able to overthrow Im-a-nut-job.
Heard that about Iraq. The problem is, an awful lot of them do support Ahmanutjob, and just because the rest don't like him doesn't mean they like us.
The mullah problem needs to be dealt with by Iranians. If they're not ready to stand up, then we're wasting our time helping them.
#13
If they're not ready to stand up, then we're wasting our time helping them.
I don't really care about helping them. I care about the security and future of America and MY family. If most or all of Iran was suffering I could give a shit! This jerk wants to take our freedoms, my familys freedoms, and shove it into some mullah vision. He also wants to destroy the infidels, meaning you and me. I don't care if they hate him or not. They have absolutely no relevance to the USA and our security. He is planning on eroding our freedoms and destroying hundreds of years of democracy in some blurred vision of Islam, which by the way most of Islam is in silent agreement - meaning complicit in the process. Again, we must destroy their capability to do us harm. If their population gets hurt in the process to God D%&n bad!
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
09/06/2006 12:51 Comments ||
Top||
#14
All kidding aside this peice of crap runs a country that is at war with mine and has been since Jimmy Carter screwed the pooch. ( You think the dems can win and we will be safer?)
I am not into wating for or supporting Iranian "internal forces' What part of we are infidels do people not get? "Meet the new boss; same as the old boss."
Iran needs to get it's crap together. There are enough of us who refuse to allow another nuclear islamic state to exist let alone one run by nut jobs like the MMs and Ahmadinejad. We can make sure they will suffer something very bad before they do have nuclear weapons.
#15
The mullah problem needs to be dealt with by Iranians. If they're not ready to stand up, then we're wasting our time helping them.
Therein lies the problem. Ever since the US became a superpower folks have found it easier and safer to suffer and wait for us to do the dirty work.
Why risk life-and-limb when the Yanks will spend a fortune, fix your problems, put you back on your feet and then you can blame them for not establishing utopia within a year?
After the world* turned on the USA for liberating Iraq from a tyrant I think you will find a lot of genocides and tyrants are 'talked about' in a meaningful way with much 'feeling of pain' without anything being done about it.
#16
Better to have liberated Iran . . . but that's another story.
"Iran retired dozens of liberal university professors and teachers earlier this year."
Hope that doesn't mean permanently
retired, (as in dead).
The majority of Iranians are nominal Moslems and don't give a rip about jihad. Persians first, Moslems a weak second. The problem is arming a resistance that can stand against the military machine in Iran.
The fact that Neggie is wanting to "purge" outside influence is indicative of his insecurities at present. It's funny that he wants a return to the '80s so he can feel more comfy in his own country. What an idiot.
#18
Therein lies the problem. Ever since the US became a superpower folks have found it easier and safer to suffer and wait for us to do the dirty work.
Yep, that's the problem. When you're strong enough to get involved, you're responsible whether you do something or not. Invade Iraq? Responsible. Don't invade Sudan? Responsible. Support Israel? Responsible. Don't stop the Tutsis & Hutus from killing each other? Responsible. Can't win.
What:
Rally in Commemoration of 9-11, on Sunday 9-10-2006. There will be a public hanging from gallows of bin Laden effigy.
When:
Sunday, September 10th
Time: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM
Where:
Culver City, California
(West Los Angeles area) in front of the radical King Fahd Mosque.
10980 Washington Blvd. Culver City, CA
[MAP IT]
Why:
Two of the 9-11 terrorists were from the King Fahd Mosque. In addition to that, this mosque has produced other terrorists and has had numerous individuals indicted on terror charges including the former Immam leader of the mosque. They continue to preach hatred against America and non-Muslims. For more info See the press release about this event.
Let's commemorate 9-11 in the grassroots spirit of our forefathers on Sunday September 10th in front of the radical King Fahd Mosque in Culver City, California as we hang Osama bin Laden in effigy from gallows. As always, pro-democratic Muslim Americans are more than welcome to join us.
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.
Five years ago Kwame James was a hero, subduing the Shoe Bomber. Life hasn't been the same since ...
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Tuesday characterised as not "entirely positive" Sudan's decision to expel African Union peacekeepers from Darfur if their mission is placed under UN control. A US and British-backed United Nations resolution, which passed last Thursday and was immediately rejected by Khartoum, says 20,000 UN troops should take over peacekeeping duties from AU forces, which have been unable to end the violence that has ravaged Darfur for 3-1/2 years. AU troops were to fill the gap until the arrival of the UN troops and be absorbed into the UN operation.
FRESH evidence emerged yesterday that reclusive North Korean leader Kim Jong-il has boarded his special luxurious train to Beijing in an attempt to smooth troubled relations with his country's only significant ally - while China is determined to stop him testing a nuclear bomb.
An upcoming TV mini-series about the origins of the Sept. 11 plot is provoking angry complaints from Democrats about the portrayal of the Clinton administration's response to terrorism. "The Path to 9/11," a five-hour dramatization laying out the history of the Sept. 11 plot from the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, will be aired over two nights on the anniversary of the attack next week by ABC Television. 
WASHINGTON -- Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday said they hoped the committee will vote later this week to keep John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, as Bolton picked up public support from one of two wavering Republicans. 
Democrats are going toe to toe with Republicans on national security in the final months before November's elections, calling for the ouster of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and claiming that America is less safe today than before the September 11 terrorist attacks. "Under the Bush administration and this Republican Congress, America is less safe, facing greater threats and unprepared for the dangerous world in which we live," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said yesterday. 
But House and Senate Democrats yesterday endorsed a national security report penned by the Third Way National Security Project, a group founded by Democrats who support gun control. The report, which Mr. Reid called a "stunning indictment," concluded that the Bush administration's foreign policy has failed in Iraq, the war on terror, Afghanistan and other countries. The number of terrorist attacks and terrorist recruits is up worldwide, many enemy countries are now stronger and have better weapons, and America's influence with allies has weakened, according to the report. 
A woman whose actions aboard a London-to-Washington flight provoked a security scare will be held indefinitely at a residential mental health facility in New Hampshire, a federal judge ruled Tuesday. 
President Bush used terrorists' own words Tuesday to battle complacency among Americans about the threat of future attack, defending his record as the fall campaign season kicks into high gear. Quoting from letters, Web site statements, audio recordings and videotapes purportedly from terrorists, as well as documents found in various raids, Bush said that despite the absence of a successor on U.S. soil to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the terrorist danger remains potent. "Bin laden and his terrorists' allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them," the president said before the Military Officers Association of America and diplomatic representatives of other countries that have suffered terrorist attacks. "The question is `Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?"' 
President General Pervez Musharraf arrives in Kabul today (Wednesday) to tackle the tenacious problem of militants using the two countries. Musharraf will meet Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the Afghan Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday.
BAGHDAD - A legal investigation into the 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Husseins Iraq is gaining momentum and the former strongman may face charges for the alleged execution of Kuwaiti prisoners of war. US officials close to the Iraqi High Tribunal trying Saddam on charges related to various alleged atrocities committed during his 24-year rein told AFP that Kuwaiti officials had filed a formal complaint with prosecutors.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani told British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett on Tuesday that her country's troops will be able to go home at the end of next year, voicing confidence that order will have been restored in war-torn Iraq by then. Asked at a joint news conference with Beckett in the Iraqi capital when the last of the 7,200 British troops battling to keep the peace in southern Iraq could head home, Talabani replied: "By the end of 2007".
ANKARA - Turkeys parliament was expected later on Tuesday to approve the deployment of hundreds of troops to join a UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon, but thousands of protesters took to the streets to oppose the mission.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Tuesday he was hoping for "positive" news in the next 48 hours on whether Israel would lift an air and sea blockade on Lebanon. "I don't want to raise any false hopes, but I hope that in the next 48 hours we will have some news on that, constructive, positive news," he told reporters after holding talks with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in the port city of Alexandria. .JPG)
LEBANON "permitted" Hezbollah to use its territory ahead of the Shiite militia's war on Israel in July-August, a senior counter-terrorism aide to US President George W. Bush said today. "Lebanon permitted the use by Hezbollah of their territory, and Hezbollah used that territory to provoke Israel with the kidnapping of two soldiers," said Mr Bush's homeland security and counter-terrorism adviser Fran Townsend.
Hitting Iran now with sanctions over its nuclear work could drive it "away from the civilized world," a Kremlin official said on Tuesday, in a hint of strong Russian opposition to punitive steps backed by Washington. 
US President George W. Bush branded Iran's president a tyrant and compared leaders in Tehran to Al-Qaeda terrorists who cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. "America will not bow down to tyrants," he said in the second of a series of election-year speeches defending his handling of the war on terrorism and Iraq. "The world's free nations will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon." 
Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Tuesday for a purge of liberal and secular teachers from the country's universities, urging students to return to 1980s-style radicalism. "Today, students should shout at the president and ask why liberal and secular university lecturers are present in the universities," the official Islamic Republic News Agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying during a meeting with a group of students. 
What:
