The Australian Greens say they are concerned that new anti-terrorism laws being debated in the Senate allow for the "political black-banning" of defence lawyers at terrorism trials. Greens leader Bob Brown says the bill gives bureaucrats in the Attorney-General's department the right to decide which lawyers are suitable to appear in some courts, by conducting background checks to ensure they do not pose a risk to national security. The legislation is expected to be passed with Labor's support. Senator Brown says aspects of the bill allow for the "extraordinary politicisation" of Australian courts, and should be stopped. "Release the list of prohibited lawyers - the black-banned lawyers," he said. "At least give the numbers of lawyers who have been put onto that list and the criteria for black-banning lawyers from Australian courts which is used by the Government to politically determine who is or who isn't suitable to come before Australian courts," he said.
Posted by: God Save The World ||
12/04/2004 4:35:44 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Well all the "Green" lawyers will be banned if anyone has a brain.
The Federal Government says that while torture is inappropriate, it has no intention of fighting plans by the United States Government to use evidence gained through torture in the trial of Guantanamo Bay detainees. A court in Washington has been told that military panels at the prison in Cuba can use evidence obtained through torture. Australia's Attorney-General Philip Ruddock says that while such evidence is not an accepted part of civilian trials, it is an approach used in military trials. He says it is also used in international criminal tribunals that the United Nations has established. "Military commissions, if allegations are raised that evidence was obtained inappropriately, its probative value, that is the weight you can put on it, is tested in the process," he said. "We've always known that that was the approach in the military trial arrangements."
Lawyers acting for Australian detainees in Cuba had earlier today called for the Government to renounce the practice. Two Australians, Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks, are being held at Guantanamo Bay. The lawyer for Hicks, Stephen Kenny, says the US Government's plan to use evidence resulting from torture will hamper any chance of a fair trial. He says any abuse of human rights by the US Government is unacceptable. "If you want to try people, give them the proper protection, give them the same rights you give your own citizens and put them before a proper court and give them a chance to defend themselves," he said. "Don't take them to a place where you're trying to hide them beyond the rule of law, which is what they did in Guantanamo Bay."
Mr Kenny says Saddam Hussein's regime was criticised for human rights abuses against defectors and the US Government should not be using the same tactics in the trial of Guantanamo Bay detainees. "For the Americans to start saying they'll do this, essentially what they are doing is behaving as a third world dictatorship and frankly that is a very great concern," he said. Mr Kenny has again called on the Australian Government to bring Hicks home and allow him to defend himself against allegations of war crimes before an Australian court.
Posted by: God Save The World ||
12/04/2004 12:47:13 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sticks and stones will break my bones,but whips and chains excite me!
#2
By all means, give them rights. Give them the rights of Hazaras who were skinned alive. Give them the rights of WTC workers who were crushed into dust or jumped from 1400 feet up. Give them the rights of Iraqis or Tibetian worker tied up and lined in a ditch as they are beheaded or shot. Give them the rights of Margaret Hassan pleading for her life before having her head blown off or Paul Johnson beheaded and his head stored in the family freezer. Give it to them.
Posted by: ed ||
12/04/2004 12:56 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Just stop giving them anti-malaria and anti-fungial medication and yellow fever immunizations. The Cuban jungle will do the rest.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
12/04/2004 15:16 Comments ||
Top||
#4
ed, that's a superior rant. OP, that's a very cost-effective solution.
Posted by: Matt ||
12/04/2004 15:23 Comments ||
Top||
#5
One more time: The interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo Bay are being CALLED torture. I invite someone to show which methods the US used that Saddam also used, while acknowledging that Saddam used methods that the US never will ever use.
#6
I've heard on one fo the radio talk show I listen to that the worst "torture" was to force them to listen to Barbara Streisand. I wonder if it's true.
Counter-terrorism and trans-national crime will top the agenda at this week's South-West Pacific Dialogue meeting in Adelaide, New Zealand Foreign Minister Phil Goff has said. The third annual dialogue will bring together senior ministers from New Zealand, Australia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines and East Timor. "Regional security will be the main focus of discussions. As we saw with this year's attack on the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, and the 2002 Bali bombings, terrorism is as much an issue in this part of the world as anywhere," Mr Goff said. "The meeting offers a chance to collectively consider the regional terrorism situation, and to assess regional cooperation on counter-terrorism measures, maritime security and capacity-building initiatives."
People smuggling, illegal fishing and piracy are all issues that threaten regional growth and stability, and are likely to be discussed in detail. The South-West Pacific Dialogue process was set up at Indonesia's initiative in 2002 to discuss the major political, security, economic, social and cultural issues of the region. The first dialogue was held in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in 2002, and the second was hosted by New Zealand last year on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/04/2004 10:07:51 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Too much talkin' not enough doin'
Posted by: Capt America ||
12/04/2004 9:58 Comments ||
Top||
#2
u can thank indonesia for that.
Posted by: God Save The World ||
12/04/2004 18:06 Comments ||
Top||
The armed Basque separatist group ETA showed it was not a spent force with Friday's coordinated attacks at five Madrid petrol stations, but it also further isolated the guerrillas' closest political allies, Batasuna. The attacks ended months of relative inactivity by ETA and were the first to hit Madrid in two years, signaling the group could still kill despite a fierce police crackdown. The bombs also dashed hopes for a Christmas truce or a distancing between ETA and Batasuna, the party accused of being ETA's political wing and banned for not condemning ETA violence. Batasuna also declined to condemn the latest bombs and said on Saturday it was sticking by its proposal for peace talks unveiled last month.
Mainstream parties said that refusal was a lost opportunity. "These attacks have once again shown up Batasuna," the Basque regional government, led by the moderate Basque Nationalist Party, said after the bombs. "(Batasuna) should react politically ⊠if they don't want their public pronouncement (on peace talks) to have been a waste of paper," the Basque government said.
Friday's attacks slightly wounded two police officers and snarled traffic for hours as Madrid people left the capital for a long holiday weekend. ETA forewarned of the blasts with a telephone call, allowing police to evacuate the five bomb sites. The political class in Madrid has no time for Batasuna. But non-violent Basque nationalists, though frustrated by the party, view it as needed if Madrid should ever decide to negotiate with a group it brands as terrorist. Batasuna's last grasp on power is due to run out in May, when its seven representatives in the 75-member Basque parliament will lose their seats unless the party can become legal again and present candidates. Batasuna on Nov. 14 called for peace talks to resolve Spain's Basque conflict, possibly with an eye toward the May elections. Batasuna leader Arnaldo Otegi declined to condemn the attacks on Saturday and told a news conference the party still held hope for a negotiated solution. "The message from these actions (the bombs) means that the conflict persists and our position (calling for talks) is more valid today than it was on Nov. 14," Otegi said. Otegi would need to clearly condemn ETA violence if the party were to have hopes of becoming legal again.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/04/2004 1:54:16 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Rocco Buttiglione, the Italian politician who was forced to withdraw as a candidate for EU commissioner, has confirmed to the BBC that he plans to set up a Christian coalition in Europe.
At the beginning of November, newspapers reported rumours that he planned to form a religious lobby group to "battle for the freedom of Christians". Senior aides to the Italian minister told the Sunday Telegraph that the new Christian network would not take the form of a political party, but would be a kind of "movement or association" committed to a greater role for Christian principles in public life.
They added that the political professor, who will remain in the Italian government, was inspired by the role of Christian voters in the US Presidential election. One close adviser said: "Mr. Buttiglione is thinking of a novel idea: a kind of resurgent Christian political movement in Europe. The success of President George W. Bush in mobilizing the Christian vote in America...is a sign of what can be done."
I suggest a name for the new party: the Christian Republicans.
The comments will raise fears of a European version of the US Christian Coalition or Moral Majority which has recently been revived by fundamentalist Jerry Falwell in a modified form. The group campaigns predominantly on issues of homosexuality and abortion.
Mr Buttiglione's nomination as EU justice commissioner came under fire after he expressed views condemning homosexuality and abortion, with opponents accusing him of bringing prejudices into the political process. But he told BBC World Service's Reporting Religion programme that he would now be forming a Christian lobby group dedicated to bringing 'Christian principles' into the European decision-making process.
And he claimed he had "enormous" support for this proposal. "When I resigned, my political career was over, and I was alone," he said.
"All of a sudden, I found an enormous number of people sending me e-mails, calling me by phone, clapping their hands when they met me in the street. "Some friends organised a moment to meet me in Milan - and there were thousands and thousands of people."
Mr Buttiglione also claimed he had support from many European countries, naming the Czech Republic, Poland, Germany and Latvia. "It is quite apparent that a free Europe is one in which homosexuals can do what they want - but also we are free to say that what they do is wrong," he argued. "A Europe in which one of these two pillars is missing is no longer a free Europe."
At the time of the controversy over Mr Buttiglione's nomination, fellow EU commissioner-designate Peter Mandelson said Mr Buttiglione was "unwise" to express his views on homosexuals at an EU committee hearing. Mr Buttiglione himself later seemed to apologise for his comments, saying, "I deeply regret the difficulties and problems that have arisen."
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi finally withdrew him, naming foreign minister Franco Frattini to replace him.
Mr Buttiglione told the BBC he felt that Christians were being "discriminated against for having the moral position of the Church," and that they were "no more first-class citizens in Europe." But he also said that his lobby would not present the case only for Christians. "We need a liberal lobby, liberal not in the modern sense but in the traditional sense, a lobby for the freedom of conscience and the freedom of speech," he said.
He said he felt his views had been "falsified" by other people. "Many people believe that I introduced the concept of sin into political debate - I didn't," he said. "I've always said that I may think homosexuality is a sin, but it has no impact on politics because I stand in politics for non-discrimination."
Seems like that's a nuance that the "nuanced" left can't understand.
But Labour MEP Michael Cashman, the former EastEnders star who hit the headlines by performing the first homosexual kiss in a TV soap in the late 1980s, commented: "Mr Buttiglione is once again misleading citizens. If he 'stands in politics for non-discrimination', why did he propose an amendment to delete 'non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation' from the Charter of Fundamental Rights ?
"He failed to explain this to the European Parliament and was therefore rejected because of actions and not his personal beliefs."
Posted by: tipper ||
12/04/2004 4:00:09 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Time to get out the crayons and try to divide Europe into flyover country and the coastal elites.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/04/2004 9:15 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Time to get out the crayons and try to divide Europe into flyover country and the coastal elites
Doesn't really work. From what I understand the division line in USA is more or less the same across several criteria with few exception or abnormalities in each -- donor states vs beneficiary ones (Texas a notable exception), urban areas vs rural ones, socially liberal states vs socially conservative ones, Democratic states vs Republican ones. Add in the regional criterion of coastal-vs-central, and you have the makings of a meaningful division that extends through several issues.
In Europe, however, no single issue seems to divide countries across the *same* lines. For example:
Donors-vs-beneficiaries: UK, Germany, France, Benelux ---Portugal, Greece, eastern Europe
War on Iraq: UK, Italy, Portugal, Denmark, eastern Europe --- France, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Greece, Scandinavia
Social conservatism: France, Benelux, Denmark --- Italy, Greece, Ireland, Poland, rest of eastern Europe.
And so on. The only point where issues seem to converge is that the more Europhobic countries seem to be wealthy nations of the North -- UK, Denmark, Sweden, Norway.
Muslims in Norway were organizing a torchlit parade through downtown Oslo this weekend, to decry violence and terrorism and distance themselves from Islamic fundamentalism. Top Norwegian political leaders, including the prime minister, were joining in.
Good idea. But I'd bet the participants are mostly Kurds...
NRK journalist Norman Mubashir has played a key role in organizing Saturday's march, aimed at protesting violence and terrorism. March organizers were hoping for a big turnout, and welcomed the participation of non-Muslims as well. The leaders of Norway's major political parties and top government leaders said they would join the march and several were invited to speak during Saturday's event. The march was to begin at the square in front of Oslo's central train station at 4:30pm, and proceed up Karl Johans Gate to the Parliament. Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik was among those scheduled to speak to the crowd, along with Justice Minister Odd Einar Dørum, Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) journalist Norman Mubashir and Labour Party leader Jens Stoltenberg. A key group of local Muslim religious leaders said Friday they were encouraging all Muslims to participate. The more liberal among them already have protested violence, terror and killings in the name of religion.
And the Bad Guyz among them haven't. If the Bad Guyz are there, it'll be to bump somebody off...
The march, initiated by NRK's Mubashir, comes largely in response to the recent killing of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a Muslim extremist. Van Gogh's murder struck a chord all over Europe, and led to a TV debate in Norway in which the spokesman for Norway's Islamic Council raised doubts about how many Muslims opposed the killing. Another Muslim leader, Awais Mushtaq, later said he understood why an Islamic fundamentalist carried it out.
via Jihad Watch
Long 2 part article, but very informative and chilling insight into Islamic converts in America.
Five days before 9/11, Charles Vincent bought his first Koran. Six weeks later, while smoke was still pouring from the remains of the World Trade Center, he formally converted to Islam in the mosque attached to the Islamic Cultural Center on 96th Street and Third Avenue in New York City. ... Dressed as he is in an Islamic-style tunic and a white kufi, or cap, with an untrimmed ginger beard sprouting from his handsome, classically Californian face, Vincent may look unusual, but he certainly isn't alienated, or for that matter, alone. In the United States, there are estimated to be roughly 80,000 white and Hispanic Muslims, along with a far greater number of African-American ones. In France, there are perhaps 50,000, according to a secret government intelligence report leaked to the French newspaper Le Figaro. ... Of course, there's the small matter of why a non-Muslim would first choose to convert to a religion increasingly associated with dictatorial governments, mass terrorism, videotaped beheadings and the oppression of women. One reason might be disillusionment with wall-to-wall entertainment, jaded sexuality, spiritual anomie and all the other ailments of the materialistic West. Another might be protest.
... Vincent's conversion appears to have been a more muddled, emotional affair, but also a more dramatic one, since it took place in New York against the backdrop of 9/11. Like a lot of people who convert to Islam or any other religion, he did so after a particularly difficult period in his life in which he not only lost his "way" but also his job and his apartment, and, after a fight outside a nightclub, came close to losing an eye as well. He also had a good Moroccan friend — "the Mysterious Moroccan," as I've come to think of him, since he wouldn't speak to me — who strongly encouraged him to convert, and may even have insisted that he do so as a price of friendship. ... "Islam is a way of life. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, taught us everything up to how to go to the bathroom. Even when you go to the bathroom, how to go in, how to go out, how to sit, how to wash, how to take a shower. [He taught us] how to eat, how to start your food, how to treat your wife, how to treat your children, how to wake up in the morning, how to put your slippers on, how to put clothes on, how to take clothes off, what to eat, what not to eat . . . And everything had a purpose... In L.A., I had no direction. I was absolutely clueless as to what I was going to do for the rest of my life."
"But maybe kicking my country in the nuts would be a good career choice."
#3
The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, taught us everything up to how to go to the bathroom.
You mean up till Big Mo showed up, they weren't potty trained in the Arabian Peninsula?
Eeeeeeeewww!
#10
why a non-Muslim would first choose to convert to a religion increasingly associated with dictatorial governments, mass terrorism, videotaped beheadings and the oppression of women. One reason might be disillusionment with wall-to-wall entertainment, jaded sexuality, spiritual anomie and all the other ailments of the materialistic West. Another might be protest.
maybe now he can rationalize his urges to beat women?
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/04/2004 8:49 Comments ||
Top||
#11
AC Were you referring to the faculty, students or both?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/04/2004 8:57 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I'm pretty sure converting to Islam is a prerequesite for driving a cab in New York. I also believe driving a cab in New York gives him the prestigious title of "Muslim scholar".
Posted by: Darth VAda ||
12/04/2004 10:12 Comments ||
Top||
#14
He was one of the suckers the Firesign Theater was talking about with their "I think I'll find a bunch of guys who dress alike and follow them around..." line regards what to do after High School.
The relevant thing is that people like this are actually common... They lack enough "connections" (ala James Burke, heh) and internalized values to deal with the myriad choices and passing opportunities, which most of us laugh off. DB & Sea nailed him immediately.
There is a surprisingly large pool of fodder for the various "ideologies" and "causes" to draw upon... Consider the LLL and the spectrum of toolfools who fall for the cause du jour. Most grow out of it when it fails to reward their trust and faith. In a country with such freedom and a huge menu of blindly ballyhooed lifestyles, people can and do stay adrift for a loooong time - until something sticks. With just a few more connections to rational courses of action, a few more internalized values, most are steered back toward the mainstream - which is why it's the mainstrean, heh. Without them, well...
Islam, the bottom-feeder of the disaffected, dysfunctional, disgruntled, and disarmed.
#15
"Islam is a way of life. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, taught us everything up to how to go to the bathroom. Even when you go to the bathroom, how to go in, how to go out, how to sit, how to wash, how to take a shower. [He taught us] how to eat, how to start your food, how to treat your wife, how to treat your children, how to wake up in the morning, how to put your slippers on, how to put clothes on, how to take clothes off, what to eat, what not to eat .
And we have parents who are afraid to give thier children direction.
#17
So, nobody caught the big red warning flag regarding this guy's trainwreck-of-a-personal-life?
Like a lot of people who convert to Islam or any other religion, he did so after a particularly difficult period in his life in which he not only lost his "way" but also his job and his apartment, and, after a fight outside a nightclub, came close to losing an eye as well.
When someone of actual intelligence and rational personal philosophy voluntarily adopts Islam I'll begin to think about it. This chump was just another space cadet who was so open minded that his brain fell out.
"Isn't it funny how so many people find God only after they have painted themselves into a moral corner and made life a living hell for those around them. Nobody finds Jesus on prom night."
- Dennis Miller -
Morons who only find religion in the midst of ruining their lives (and usually everyone else's around them) count for zilch when it comes to genuine conversions. That goes for George W. Bush and everybody else on down. While finding religion may serve their own ends well enough, the sort of witness they tend to bear for their faith usually remains of the most dubious sort.
#18
Zen - You are truly one skeered SOB on the topic of religion. What is it, what event - because this is obviously very personal - gave you such a skewed vision of anyone who has some sort of faith?
Look - all of the things you post in favor of on RB, sans Gay Marriage / DOMA (a topic in which your reason deserts you), are articles of faith in serious Christian religion - 31 flavors of 'em. They eschew the stupidity, trendy relativism, and morally-frightened foolishness and call a spade a spade. They're not your enemy, but your ally in the important things: values based upon millenia of trial and error, self-regulating behavior models, good and evil - with annotations and reasoning, etc. I gut-check 'em when they fall back to "God did it so it can't be questioned!" BS, too. You don't get that here on RB - you get smart reasoned comments by committed people. Something to honor and respect - certainly in a world gone mad on relativism and weenieism.
I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm an atheist who simply recognizes that much of what's missing in the current West is common sense - and that is / was a product of non-PC nuclear families who had a goddamned bona-fide value system (90% of which I agree with) and who practiced what they preached (about 90% of the time) - creating and nurturing the core of Jacksonianism, which defends our way of life from insane people. You get so much right - how can you be so uber-sensitive that you go blind and get this part wrong?
By a huge margin, the Christian religion is a positive influence in the US. You're shooting all the dogs because some of them have fleas, it seems. Now I've gotta make a pilgrimmage to one of my religious sites, CompUSA. I'll be back later to see what you think, but it's time to get real on this topic and un-bend whatever got bent somewhere back in your past. You're too valuable an observer to lose to that painful event. Hey, I'll kneecap whomever it was - just let me know who and where, bro.
#19
I'd add to .com's comment that most people need a belief system. It's too hard for most people to work it out from scratch and too disruptive for society. Too many people end up in wacky places where trashing McDonalds or blowing up trains makes sense. I'm an atheist, but when I look around and ask myself what belief system seems to work for most people, I conclude Christianity (most flavors) does and specifically it does a much better job than tranzi PC greenie leftism.
#20
Zen - You are truly one skeered SOB on the topic of religion. What is it, what event - because this is obviously very personal - gave you such a skewed vision of anyone who has some sort of faith?
Not scared, .com, just completely fed up with blind faith and so much of the moral hypocrisy which accompanies it. Possibly, you may have missed where I previously posted about how I have had the privilege of meeting some truly enlightened Christians who thought independently and acted rationally upon their faith. I found much to admire in them, as I do in others from many faiths.
Look - all of the things you post in favor of on RB, sans Gay Marriage / DOMA (a topic in which your reason deserts you), are articles of faith in serious Christian religion - 31 flavors of 'em.
Far too many Republicans in America seem to have abandoned some of conservatism's core values, one major tenet of which is; Minimal intrusion by government into a citizen's private life. However much you or anyone else might be revolted by gay marriage, the Office of Faith Based Giving and DOMA represents nothing less than the government sticking its nose where it most certainly doesn't belong. In my mind, Mrs. Davis gets it and Ptah gets it too.
How is it that Judeo-Christianity has any sort of lock on rationality or ethics? Lucid and logical judgement was around long before Christ's advent in this world or the conceptualization of Yaweh, for that matter. Yes, Judeo-Christianity's vision of the social contract, in particular - parts of Mosaic Law, carry forward core values that seem to function rather well. Does anyone honestly think that much of this same mentality was not in practice around the world for millennia prior to its Biblical documentation?
They eschew the stupidity, trendy relativism, and morally-frightened foolishness and call a spade a spade. They're not your enemy, but your ally in the important things: values based upon millenia of trial and error, self-regulating behavior models, good and evil - with annotations and reasoning, etc. I gut-check 'em when they fall back to "God did it so it can't be questioned!" BS, too.
Where have I declared that the ones who "eschew the stupidity, trendy relativism, and morally-frightened foolishness and call a spade a spade" are my enemy? It's when members of the flock start acting like actual sheep that the alarm klaxons go off. Seeing bumperstickers which read; "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" is what makes me begin to worry.
Notice how that disturbing phrase could be attributed to a (typically fundamentalist) person of almost any faith? Quite simply, way too much killing has happened and continues to happen in the "name of God." When the individual religions get over their separate notions of spiritual supremacy, one and all, only then will I not be quite so concerned about these issues. I look for leadership by example, not a bunch of brainwashed yahoos (of any stripe) telling me how they've found the end-all and be-all solution to human existence.
You don't get that here on RB - you get smart reasoned comments by committed people. Something to honor and respect - certainly in a world gone mad on relativism and weenieism.
In the majority, yes. Although there are also some pretty rabid wingnuts around here, by and large, Rantburg contains a lot more of the lucid mentalities I seek out in this world (especially on the topic of international terrorism).
You get so much right - how can you be so uber-sensitive that you go blind and get this part wrong? By a huge margin, the Christian religion is a positive influence in the US.
I'm not blind about it, I just tend to remain skeptical of those who are so willing to condemn people they have not even taken the time to understand. Mind you, I'm not preaching any of this sort of "moral relativism" mindrot. Some things are black & white, there is such a thing as right and wrong. Take rape. When is it ever valid? Same goes for sexual child abuse, unaggravated or mass murder and numerous other acts. What you cite as a "positive influence" by a "huge margin" has brought along with it some very damaging puritanical and outdated social mores. As Mohandas Gandhi said, "If more of you Christians were like your Christ, all of India would be Christian by now."
You're shooting all the dogs because some of them have fleas, it seems.
You could not be more wrong. I will defend freedom of religion to the death. Along with that theological freedom must come freedom from religion. If the religious component of American society refuses to comprehend such a concept, they sterilize much that is of worth in their own spiritual message.
You're too valuable an observer to lose to that painful event. Hey, I'll kneecap whomever it was - just let me know who and where, bro.
If I were shooting all dogs in the name of pest control, you would have long ago heard about the many Christians who have ripped me off, comitted violence against me and other such trespasses. I'm not here to whine about poor witnesses.
Instead, I'll thank you for the support, .com. From someone of your own nature, I will hold such approbation in esteem, not that anybody's explicit approval plays a pivotal role in my life. It makes me glad that we've been able to progress well past the acrimony that our earlier interactions were so fraught with. I'll probably be accused of derailing this thread with my own personal agenda because of such a lengthy reply, but you've asked some truly pertinent questions. These topics directly relate to why I so detest Islamist theocracy (not to mention theocracy in general) and am quite willing to kill such totalitarian mentalities without awarding them a shred of moral relativism.
#23
Interesting thread. However, I would caution all you atheists to be aware that not all God-seekers have a belief system. There is an old man for whom religion is a purely empirical matter. He is very quiet, harmless, and is seldom seen or heard from unless you seek him out west of the river.
#24
There is an old man for whom religion is a purely empirical matter. He is very quiet, harmless, and is seldom seen or heard from unless you seek him out west of the river.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/04/2004 20:24 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Zen - Wow! You wrote a tome! This will probably be another... I'm back from Geek Heaven, installed my big bag of goodies and I'm back online with power to burn.
Okay - I won't bug you again about it - unless you get shrill, heh, but I still submit that the dangers you describe are exaggerated, especially relative to the social benefits. Much like Howard Hughes and his Mormons - there are significant values and ethics imparted to people who were raised in homes where certain mores are SOP.
I have no doubt we actually want almost the same thing - sensible tolerance anchored in pragmatic practices. My opinion regards homosexuality is rather simple: it's a genetic box canyon and 2 generations of all who feel they are gay forgoing heterosexual unions would prove it, no? I believe it's obviously a "lifestyle" choice - driven by the internal compulsion "felt" by the individual. Fine. It should receive all of the benefits and advantages offered to any "lifestyle" choice - no more, no less. I could be a disingenuous ass and say I have all these gay friends, but the fact is that I don't, anymore. Once I went overseas those acquaintances fell away... and what I witnessed first-hand, and became aware of second-hand in Arabia rather put me off the topic, if you know what I mean. If you don't, bluntly put, Arabia is overrun by homosexual behavior. The reasons are there in Islam, and everyone knows the practice is rampant, yet it is supposedly unacceptable. Yeah, right. When you're walking down the corridor of a major hotel and turn a corner to see two guys getting it on - on a couch in an alcove - well, it just loses a bit of its social elan. Okay, enough.
I have no substantive qualms with the Christians or the Buddhists - if practiced as written, they are (mostly) constructive and beneficial, though I would not chose to practice either. My knowledge of the Jews is still miniscule, although I've been reading. The Hindus - all I know is a faint memory of reading the Upanishads and The 10,000 Arms of Milarippa (or something like that) about 35 yrs ago - i.e. next to nothing. I know more about Islam than I care to - and it is the only one which I would rather see eradicated as the pathogen I believe it to be.
We may be fighting (or, at least, voting) side by side someday on the question of eradicating it. I welcome your support for the preservation of Freedom - and let Islam suffer whatever fate it deserves.
Got nothing against religion here, or religious faith. Understand and approve totally of the notion of educating one's children with an eye toward their spiritual formation. But I do have a real problem with a couple of religious sects, however, obviously the mooselimbs but also a few protestant sects in this country that somehow think it appropriate and necessary to push their particular reading of nature and man and god through the US public schools rather than setting up their own schools for that purpose, as Catholics and Orthodox jews do. And note that Catholics constitute a significantly higher share of US population-- and in the big cities, a far higher share-- than the biblical literalist protestants.
And why the extraordinary emphasis on evolutionary biology? If the goal is to present minority scientific views, then why not also demand that textbooks have warning stickers advising that Einsteinian physics has its critics? Why not highlight alternative views on quarks or neuroscience or personality development or photosynthesis or string theory?
What dispensation is it that entitles this particular sect to impose its particular reading of this particular scientific theory on my kids?
Only after America has finished with the terraforming of Mars.
We may be fighting (or, at least, voting) side by side someday on the question of eradicating it. I welcome your support for the preservation of Freedom - and let Islam suffer whatever fate it deserves.
If it comes down to a fight, I'd be right pleased to be in the same squad with you, .com. Above all, you have been utterly consistent (however abrasive - a particular quality which I am completely unknown for), and that is something I can respect.
When I was a teenager, I frequently mentioned how it was easier to deal with rednecks because at least you knew where they stood on matters. Since that time, I have come to appreciate consistency all the more. When it is accompanied by rationality the results can be, not just breath taking, but among the most productive that humanity is capable of.
I believe that, more than anything, it is America's plurality that has built its greatness. As I mentioned in another thread, it is precisely this healthy diversity that has driven our country to make more progress in barely two centuries than any other nation or culture has in so many millennia of human existence.
I cannot imagine any more fitting explanation for America's status as the world's sole superpower.
The lawyer for an Australian inmate at Guantanamo Bay says a leaked version of a Red Cross report alleging torture at the prison camp is consistent with inmate statements. The New York Times newspaper published leaked details of the report, which accuses the American military of beating some detainees, as well as using physical coercion described as "tantamount to torture". Australians David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib are among the 550 men held at the facility.
The report, which the Red Cross is yet to confirm, says some prison doctors violated medical ethics by helping plan interrogations. Stephen Kenny, the lawyer for Australian detainee David Hicks, told the ABC's AM program that the accusations were consistent with previous reports. "What it does is confirm the treatment and the allegations that have previously been made by not only David to us, but by others who have been released," he said. Mr Kenny says it appears the US has set an unwelcome new standard in the treatment of prisoners. "I know from the people I've spoken in the International Red Cross is that they say other countries where we know their human rights records are appalling, all they say to the Red Cross is 'well we are just following the rule of Guantanamo Bay, we're just doing what the Americans are doing'," he said.
Hicks's father Terry says the report backs up his claim that his son was tortured. Mr Hicks says he was told of the tortures when he visited his son in August. "He was subjected to sound, cold, strobe lights and stress and duress tactics in Guantanamo Bay. He did say he endured 10 hour lots of beatings in Afghanistan," Mr Hicks said. The Pentagon says it is not mistreating detainees at Guantanamo Bay. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher has defended the US Government's treatment of detainees. "They're treated humanely and in accordance with standard international, relevant international practice," he said.
Posted by: God Save The World ||
12/04/2004 4:25:34 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Tell them to shut up or they will be sent to Pakistan were real torture is practiced.
The Red Cross will never get another dime of my money. All the pure sheite I have heard over the years would be enough but this "leak" tops it. They should be banned from contact with any prisoners held by the US anywhere including Saddam and kicked out of our country for giveing aid and comfort to our enemies.
#2
He was subjected to sound, cold, strobe lights and stress and duress tactics
Sounds like a night at the local disco. But I see where muslims would be aghast when the soap bubble machine is turned on.
I allege Mr. Kenny Sr. is not the father of lawyer Kenny. Of course, I as a layman without the fancy powdered wig, is expected to actually produce some evidence. So lawyer Kenny, show us the evidence of torture. Show us the missing limbs, the skin ripped from their faces, the chopped off ears and fingers, the bloody pulp that used to be their faces, the videos of them pleading for their lives and their severed heads. What's that fancy lawyerin' term for, you know, show us the body?
Posted by: ed ||
12/04/2004 22:39 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Just a clarification:
The American Red Cross and the Int'l Red Thingy are absolutely separate entities. Period. Full Stop.
The Int'l bunch is just as you imply, FB.
The American bunch spends every dime on American needs - nothing is shared with the Int'l asshats, no money or resources.
Believe me, I had to eat some crow when I found out - I was painting them both with the same brush.
#4
The American Red Thingy does supply some cash to the International Red Thingy, but withholds a portion in protest of the International idiots not recognizing the Magen David Adom.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/04/2004 23:25 Comments ||
Top||
#5
And the US RC played three card Monty with the 9/11 monies, so my RC donations just go to the local chapter when local disasters hit and to supply local RC teams deployed in support of national disasters.
Posted by: Don ||
12/04/2004 23:41 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Andrea ||
12/04/2004 18:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Looked for the the article as titled. Didn't find it. Did you mean General: New Photos Could Be Used As Tool? I see an Baathist or jihadi standing next to a fridge with a gun pointed at his head. That is the customary stance for someone who has just been arrested. Have you ever seen a SWAT drug bust go down? There are a lot more guns than in this picture. Or were you referring to the Elian Gonzales Cuban refugee photo. Now that looked like one scared little critter and one menacing SWAT/ATF/FBI hombre. Or were you really referring to String of Iraq Suicide Attacks Kill 16 or possibly "Militants" Kill 30 in Baghdad Strikes The explosion occurred in front of a Shiite mosque (Friday prayer) and killed an estimated 14 people while wounding more than 20. Several witnesses said a small blast had drawn people outside at the mosque, which sits near a police station, when a larger bomb detonated to deadly effect.
and you, as a fine upstanding citizen, wanted to alert the uninformed of the absolute barbarity the enemies of freedom and slaves of allah will stoop to. Well, good job citizen first class Andrea.
Posted by: ed ||
12/04/2004 22:25 Comments ||
Top||
The police chief here backed away Thursday from comments about terrorists living in Tulsa and Wichita, Kan., saying he has no evidence supporting the existence of al-Qaida "cells" in either city...He called Wichita police chief Norman Williams Thursday to apologize. "He was very gracious, and said, "I appreciate the call and don't you worry about it a bit," Been said of Williams. Wichita police Lt. Joe Dessenberger, who coordinates emergency planning and security for the city, said Been did not need to apologize and said the city's threat level remained at its routine "yellow."
"Y'all can take down the plastic sheeting and duct tape now."
The United States will ultimately lose the war on terror because of its policies in the Middle East and because of concerns over the human rights of militants worldwide, the former head of the CIA's team that hunted Osama bin Laden said Friday.
In a conversation with United Press International's reporters and editors, Michael Scheuer, newly revealed as the author of the bestselling book "Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror," said bin Laden was now possibly the Arab world's most popular leader, adding al-Qaida's domination of the Internet in the Muslim world was leading to the United States losing its battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims worldwide.
Posted by: tipper ||
12/04/2004 3:46:18 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The United States will ultimately lose the war on terror because of its policies in the Middle East and because of concerns over the human rights of militants worldwide ....
That's an extremely fair statement as far as it goes but it fails to take into consideration the societal changes that will ensue as it becomes apparent that we're losing. Since a loss would entail the Islamization of the United States, I'd wager that we'll see F117s bombing mosques in San Francisco before we'll "lose" the War on Terror. What he really means is that our current kid gloves policies will prolong the war and make it far bloodier (on all sides) than is necessary. That's a shame but that might well be the price humanity must eventually pay for our unwillingness to apply overwhelming force.
#2
Pathetic idiot, so the militants are somewhat better than US in human rights and when US saved Muslims in Kosovo, helped muslims fight Soviet Union, etc doesnt count. What outside country ever helped Muslims and Arabs?
#3
Like Richard Clarke and Joe Wilson before him, "Anonymous" finds himself slipping out of the headlines, and says something provocative to get more ink. "Notice me! Notice me!" he cries, stamping his tiny feet in impotent rage.
Posted by: Mike ||
12/04/2004 6:42 Comments ||
Top||
#4
He said the war on Iraq, unpopular in the Muslim world,...., and the continuation of "tyrannical" regimes in the Arab world. - This is such a jumbled mishmash of ideas its hard to know where to start to analyze it. Bottom line is AQ may be popular, but then so was Che Guevara after he was dead. The issue is AQ's capacity to launch terrorist attacks and that seems severely limited outside the Arab world.
#5
good point, Mike. Speaking of slipping out of the limelight: Anybody hear anything new about Sandy Berger's stealing classified documents by slipping them in his pants? Nope? This is gonna be a whitewash unless if we can keep the heat on
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/04/2004 8:52 Comments ||
Top||
#6
What about ME! Doesn't anybody care what I have to say about anything!
Posted by: Hans Blix ||
12/04/2004 9:22 Comments ||
Top||
#8
With pinheads like Soooler we would lose the war on terror. This guy was only an anal-ist, the media treats him like he really mattered.
Posted by: Capt America ||
12/04/2004 10:12 Comments ||
Top||
#9
"Scheuer, who resigned last month from the CIA because of the agencyâs refusal to allow him permission to grant media interviews." After 20 years in the business I can tell you that NO SANE agent wants to do interviews with the press. This guy sounds like one of the many LLLs that the CIA needs to cut loose. You can't conduct analysis or investigations through the press. I think Mike hit the nail on the head.
#10
Nothing worst than a guy who always talks about losing, like a traitor. Even if we did have a problem in foreign policy, the CIA should be smart enough to guide us. He wrote this book awhile back, but I think the US has gained momentum with electons coming, Fallujah pacified, and even Hamas accepting a ceasefire. The title of the book is telling, and scaring Americans and planting doubt is how he can get more sales.
#12
There is always one line which exemplifies the core of the entire message. This is it, ""Theyâre attacking us because of our unqualified support for Israel." America is far better off cleaning house of the U.N. types lurking within our national security agencies.
With Bernie Kerik at the helm of Homeland Security, a man who does NOT share the pro-terrorist views of the EX-CIA man, house cleaning has yet to begin!
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
12/04/2004 11:15 Comments ||
Top||
#13
With Bernie Kerik at the helm of Homeland Security, a man who does NOT share the pro-terrorist views of the EX-CIA man, house cleaning has yet to begin
Just because Scheuer states unpopular truths, it hardly means he has "pro-terrorist views." The example you quote as being all telling of Scheurer's "pro-terrorist" message ie. re: AQ hating us because of our unqualified support of Israel makes no sense. Arabs hate Israel and from their point of view, the US gives Israel too much support. Bin Laden has reiterated this message over and over again. So how is Scheurer lying or being "pro-terrorist? As painful as it is to see in print, he's on the mark when he says Bin Laden is not attacking us because of our freedoms and life style - that's a bunch of State/WH feelgood bull. AQ is attacking us because of our policies, and since it's unlikely we will or can change our policies in the near future, we will ultimately lose the war. We will not have the numbers or the passion. Bin Laden will be able to recruit an unending supply of terrorists because his message will resonate more clearly with Arabs/Muslims because it's believable to them. You may not like to hear what Scheurer says, but he's hardly "pro-terrorist." Actually he's the type of guy that the CIA should have kept on. He's not a yes-man or a standard bearer for whichever party is in power. I read his book, and Scheurer is hardly an appeasement, milque toast kind of guy. In fact, he was very very critical of Clinton's regime.
As for Bernie Kerik, the guy has some baggage, so I'd hold back on your rah rah until you see this guy on the job for a while. Google Ellis Henican's article on Kerik for example.
#14
yeah, Ellis is the voice of reason. Dem hack is more likely
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/04/2004 12:56 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Mr. Glomosing
(1) Has the US scored any successes against Al Qaeda in the last three years? What were they? Conversely, what successes has Al Qaeda scored against the US since 911?
(2) My understanding of President Bush's policy toward the Arab-Israeli dispute is that the US will support a two-state solution if the Palestinians stop their terror attacks. What part of that policy do the Arabs regard as excessive support of Israel?
Posted by: Matt ||
12/04/2004 13:09 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Ellis is the voice of reason. Dem hack is more likely
So you believe that Hennican wrote lies about Kerik because he's a Democrat and discrediting Kerik helps his presidential candidate...oops, the election is over isn't it, so what does Hennican have to gain? OTH, you believe that journalists who only wrote sentimental goo-goo stuff about Kerik's abusive childhood were telling the gospel truth, because they, of course, are non-partisan. Yah, right...
#17
"Mr Glomosing" has a woodie for Kerik. Fine - post it on a thread about Kerik.
This article, this thread, is about EX-CIA fuckwit Sheurer. He jes' be tryin' to hawk his retirement book, ju know, mayne? He's EX for a damned good reason: he's an incompetent hand-wringing self-aggrandizing toolfool of the Camelot II Clintoon Era - in the "great" recent tradition of Dickie Clark, et al.
#18
AQ is attacking us because of our policies, and since it's unlikely we will or can change our policies in the near future, we will ultimately lose the war. We will not have the numbers or the passion.
Your statement assumes that US policy is static with respect to fighting terrorism. A few more 9-11s and I'd wager there'll be a rather noticeable sea change in exactly how the WoT is being fought.
"No. It canât be won. Weâre going to eventually lose it. And the problem for us is that weâre going to lose it much more quickly if we donât start killing more of the enemy."
Although he, too, mistakenly posits a static policy, Scheuer is essentially on the money. We need to start killing the terrorists at an accelerated pace. Iran must be toppled, other Mid-East terror sponsors must undergo regime change and known jihadist concentrations need to be eradicated, be they the Janjaweed, JI or other groups.
Terrorism has a substantial genetic component. Its networks rely upon familial ties for security and its doctrine is transmitted through relations and their acquaintances. The sooner we kill off a substantial portion of those who promote terrorism, the more quickly that sort of mindset will no longer be biologically propogated or taught.
We need to attach a serious price tag to preaching jihad. Whether it be targeting imams who advocate militant Islam or simply wiping out entire factions like the Janjaweed, only when the general population sees that participation with such factions brings hasty and unpleasant DEATH will things begin to change.
The West continues its mistaken mantling of violent jihad with the sanctity of religious privilege. Only when the American administration's fundamentalists overcome their aversion to criticizing or acting against Islamic fundamentalists are things going to improve.
The United States has undergone a sufficient degree of erosion in its separation of church and state whereby it is no longer able to make clear distinctions about just how poisonous theocratic authoritarianism is to personal liberty and freedom in general. When this administration finally gets over its own over-inflated sense of religiosity and sets about protecting Americans, one and all - instead of merely their own ideological kith and kin - then we'll see some forward progress.
Until then, we'll see this restrained and politically correct crippled approach to killing those who most dearly want to murder us. Not exactly a recipe for success, is it?
Scheuer, who resigned last month from the CIA because of the agencyâs refusal to allow him permission to grant media interviews ...
This sort of "glamour" mentality about a post that requires the utmost of discretion is nothing more than grandstanding. It has no place in our intelligence community.
#21
Matt, terrorist actions by AQ are 5 years in the planning, so the verdict is still out regarding AQ's "failure" to strike us again.
As for the US success story you will likely claim in Afghanistan - it's tentative at best there-we've disrupted obvious AQ training camps, but in return for the warlords' "co-operation" in the WOT, we had to allow the warlords to cultivate their poppy crops which causes huge negative effects on our society. The Afghans are primitive agricultural type tribes, they are not rocket scientists. The Taliban curtailed poppy field agriculture when they were allied with AQ. Now we allow poppy fields to flourish to the detriment of our society but we've driven the Taliban/AQ underground or to Pakistan. Mixed victory, I'd say. As for Iraq, do you think a viable democratic government will ever exist there? I doubt it. Consider that Europe,just a stone's throw away, has had democracy in place for thousands of years, yet somehow the ME countries, apart from Israel, have managed to avoid democracy. It's not like Arabs don't read newspapers that they have never heard about democracy. In Iraq we deposed a wacko dictator but I suspect we will ultimately need to install a benign one, like Allawi, to keep the restive Iraqi masses from killing each other and blowing up their oil pipelines. If we don't install a guy like Allawi,who can rule with an iron fist, we'll have 150,000 troops there forever and the Iraqis on the US taxpayer tit for the same length of time. That's not exactly a success story, either way.
Like it or not what Scheurer says is true. We will lose the war on terror, maybe not today but perhaps 25 years from now and perhaps through a combination of terrorist intimidation as well as exploding population of "true believers" gaining political clout in various Western democracies.
Unless we see drastic changes in our policies, there are too many factors against our being victorious. For one thing, we have civil rights laws in place and activist judges in Western democracies that are in conflict with being more ruthless than the enemy to win wars. That's not going to change while the ACLU and JAG are around. For another thing, our country uses considerably more fossil fuel energy than we have resources, so we are dependent on resources that are in Muslim dominated countries. We are unwilling to become energy efficient. We are unwilling to drill for oil in our own country, nevermind even build new refineries. We are unwilling to pay high prices for the gas and oil owned by ME countries. We need to support Western friendly tyrants in these Muslim countries[not religious mullahs like Bin Laden would like]in order to get access to the fossil fuels. That's not going to change. Thirdly, we will continue to support Israel because the alternative is what...no Israel? That's not going to change. And lastly, tribal loyalty, which goes hand in hand with religious identification, runs deep in Muslim societies. GWB is not going to change those 'tudes with either high tech might or with free elections. In Iraq the people will "vote" along tribal lines, not for the best man. That's not a democracy.
As for Bush's support of a 2 state solution for Israelis and Palestinians, how is that supposed to make the Arabs feel warm and fuzzy about the USA? Here's what the Arabs see -the main donor of foreign aid to Israel each year since its founding has been the USA. The main donor of military technology to Israel all these years has been the USA. In every war with an Arab country the US has supported Israel.
A 2 state solution is a nice equitable sounding concept but it cannot supplant memories of US policy/behavior, which in Arabs' minds are patently unfair and biased in Israel's favor. It's the Arabs'perception (or misperception) of reality that is key to neverending hatred of the USA.
To believe that giving Afghans and Iraqis free elections and Palestinians their own state are answers to making the USA and US interests safer from terrorism is pretty naive, I think. Being realistic is not being pro-terrorist, btw.
#22
So, if I hear you correctly, not only are our current policies doomed to failure, but there are no policies we could adopt that would afford a chance for success?
Posted by: Matt ||
12/04/2004 14:51 Comments ||
Top||
#23
GC7327: "It's all over. There's no chance to prevail. All successes are mirages or lies."
I reject that, and you. Pessimism to the point of psychosis is not my cup of tea Jack Daniels, and you offer no alternatives.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/04/2004 14:58 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/04/2004 15:06 Comments ||
Top||
#26
The head of the CIA team that hunted bin Laden until 1999, Scheuer said the United States needed to change tracks from viewing al-Qaida as a terrorist movement to seeing it as an insurgent group so it could recognize the order of battle that would allow the recognition of the organizationâs structure and composition.
Well, he had his chance, AND FAILED.
Should point out that MOST of those chances happened during Clinton's watch.
More on Crong later. However, I think that success will not come if we indulge in co-dependent behavior to make people feel good or to make them like us, to kick our friends to make THEIR enemies like us, to change our SUCCESSFUL way of life to make them comfortable with their UNSUCCESSFUL way of life, and to violate OUR sense of fairness by indulging in patently unfair behavior to make them think we're being fair TO THEM.
Crong's long on criticism, but short on constructive alternatives, mainly because s/he knows nothing is perfect in this world, and thus can find something to criticize that we would agree with, since we're the true realists. S/He knows what WE rantburg regulars would recommend, but we, of course, don't know what S/HE would recommend.
#27
Sounds like we're winning, and someone's upset with the progress. There's no one so disillusioned as an "analyst" whose pet theory has been totally debunked. Sour grapes always give a person a bellyache. The "conventional wisdom" has been debunked (VDH talked about that on NRO), and those that continue to want to push it are getting pretty mean-spirited. "We" - the "unwashed masses" don't understand just how "brilliant" these self-declared intellects are, and they're PO'd. Maybe they should go peddle their message at the UN, another center of unbelief.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
12/04/2004 15:43 Comments ||
Top||
#28
I invoke Lileks' Maxim: if Patton were alive today, he'd be slapping civilians. There is only one way we can "lose" this war: by a failure of will.
Right now we are trying to solve the problem with a minimum of violence and a maximum of optimism over Arabs'/Muslims' capacity for self-improvement, on the theory that if their culture can be introduced to democratic self-government and thus prosperity, the hatreds which propel their aggression will abate.
That is the theory, anyway. It may be correct, or it may not be. We will not know unless we test it, and that is what we are doing right now.
But if our experiences in Afghanistan and/or Iraq end up convincing us that there is no point in trying to reform these sick puppy cultures, then future terrorist attacks will trigger a response far more violent than these present wars of liberation and reform: we will see wars of conquest and subjugation, or even a war of outright annihilation.
In extremis, we could conclude these proceedings quite abruptly and permanently with a 20-minute "war" that would eliminate some 20% of the planet's population. My own guess-- and it's only a guess-- is that someday, that is indeed what it will come to.
But not now. We've got a lot of trying left to go, before we have any basis on which to abandon less drastic measures.
As for Scheuer, I'm glad to see him and his ossified, pre-9/11 "they hate us because of our support for Israel" thinking unemployed.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
12/04/2004 16:00 Comments ||
Top||
#29
The odds of our losing would be much, much higher if Scheuer were still at his old job.
Remember, folks, it was his job to get bin Laden before 9/11! This guy failed horribly, and his failure led to the deaths of 3,000 Americans.
If the press were sane, they'd be asking him how he screwed up, and what he plans to do in restitution.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/04/2004 16:12 Comments ||
Top||
#30
Typical LLL. "Because of Israel. . ."
"What if it's not Israel?" http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull%26cid=1101874928275
#31
But if our experiences in Afghanistan and/or Iraq end up convincing us that there is no point in trying to reform these sick puppy cultures, then future terrorist attacks will trigger a response far more violent than these present wars of liberation and reform: we will see wars of conquest and subjugation, or even a war of outright annihilation.
In extremis, we could conclude these proceedings quite abruptly and permanently with a 20-minute "war" that would eliminate some 20% of the planet's population. My own guess-- and it's only a guess-- is that someday, that is indeed what it will come to.
But not now. We've got a lot of trying left to go, before we have any basis on which to abandon less drastic measures.
Really well said, Dave D. I've long maintained this exact same scenario, although perhaps not quite so tersely. For such a stance, I've been accused of a "kill 'em all" attitude. I think you're right on the money and that Islam must either straighten up or fry up.
#32
Odd that so many of you are outraged with Scheuer for speaking the truth and not with the politicians you have elected in the past who have failed you and the 3000 9/11 victims because of their self-serving agendas. For example, it's laughable that you blame Scheurer, not Clinton, for whom many of you voted in 2 straight elections, for the failure to nab Bin Ladin. Unless I'm mistaken, Scheurer could not negotiate with another sovereign nation, Sudan, to get custody of Bin Laden. Taking offense at Scheurer having the "audacity" to besmerch Arabs'/AQ's/Bin Ladin's well known love of Jews and Israel is pretty humorous, too. Oh my, perish the thought that Arabs hate Israel and in turn, the USA for supporting Israel. That's not true at all.
If any of you cared to google interviews with Scheurer or even do something radical like read his book, you'd discover that Scheurer is pretty right wing in the remedies he suggests to win the war on terror. He says the choice is basically between winning the war decisively or fighting endless wars and risking ongoing losses. He advocates overwhelming force, without painful hand wringing about how such action would look to UN/Nato allies. He advocates curtailing Geneva Convention rights to captured insurgents. He advocates unilateral force,not coalitions of the willing or UN sanctioned forces, likening GWB's need for coalition pals to a teenage girl needing girlfriends to accompany her to the bathroom. I repeat, Scheurer is not a passive milque-toast type, so I don't see why he is under attack by RB'ers. Perhaps Zenster is the only one who understands what Scheurer is advocating. Scheurer says we can take the long route and still lose or take the short route and have a good chance of winning.
#33
The enemy controls the propaganda war through its dominance of the insitutional media culture. This is how such utter bullshit as "the main donor of foreign aid to Israel each year since its founding has been the USA" has become so prevalent in the Arab world.
US military and large-scale economic aid to Israel did not begin until after the 6 day war of 1967, when it was obvious that the failure to offset Soviet aid to the Arab regimes would result in genocide. It is a fact of history, for example, that Israel did not use a single American-made combat aircraft in the '67 war. The American tanks they used then were either bought as scrap and refurbished (Shermans) or provided by West Germany as reparations.
In fact, West Germany and France were Israel's leading benefactors in every respect until after the '67 war. The US did not support Israel in the 1956 war, at all. The Eisenhower administration joined the Soviet Union in denouncing the concurrent Anglo-French Suez operation and eventually forced a total withdrawal of victorious Israeli forces from the Sinai.
Today, the oil tick regimes have taken the place of the Soviets in aiding and abetting the genocide forces. Their wealth has also given them control of a large part of the academic community as well as the institutional media.
What is required is not a change in policy but a change in our society. I think that is what Scheuer is really getting at. The media-based nature of the current conflict must be recognized, the role of media in undermining the necessary actions and in spreading jihad propaganda must be analyzed and understood. Most importantly, the leadership of the West must understand that the alternative is defeat and the end of the cycle of progress that started with the Enlighenment of the 18th Century, and they must act accordingly.
Gideon-Phoenix must be instituted on a massive scale, with the entire propaganda and financial support network of the terrorist movement as potential targets.
Lawyers will yelp, as will orthodox institutional media. Fine, let them join their clients on the ash-heap of history.
#35
There is only one way we can "lose" this war: by a failure of will.
"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! -- All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."
I find the notion of us "losing" the war, in the sense of our enemy prevailing against us no matter how hard we fight, to be just plain silly; as I said above, if Patton were alive today he'd be slapping civilians.
And I find the notion that we're "losing" because our present methods aren't yielding the desired results quickly enough, equally silly. If what we're doing doesn't work, we'll use a bigger hammer.
But the potential for losing this conflict through a failure of nerve-- by literally talking and hand-wringing ourselves out of victory-- is huge. We "lost" that way once before in my lifetime, and we're still suffering for it thirty years later.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
12/04/2004 17:44 Comments ||
Top||
#37
The only hubris involved is on the part of this pathetic Clintonite who thinks that anyone should care what he thinks.
See, the problem is that AQ will continue attacking regardless of whatever foreign policies we might have. If it's not one thing, it will be another. Ultimately it is because they hate the west.
From The New York Times, an opinion article by William Shawcross, author of Allies: The U.S., Britain, Europe and the War in Iraq.
The growing demands that Kofi Annan resign as secretary general of the United Nations are preposterous. For him to do so would be extremely damaging not only to his organization but also to the United States.
I say this as someone who strongly supported the American-led effort to overthrow Saddam Hussein; as someone who, despite the heartbreaking mistakes, still supports the coalition's attempt to build a decent society in Iraq. I also think that the United Nations has repeatedly failed the Iraqi people. But I know that Kofi Annan feels the same way. Years ago, when I was writing a book about the United Nations, he told me that in 1992, he had warned the newly elected secretary general, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, that the United Nations had to do far more to resolve the Iraq situation.
The situation was this: After the Persian Gulf war, the Security Council had imposed sanctions on Iraq until it could verify that Saddam Hussein had disposed of all his weapons of mass destruction. He refused to cooperate, so sanctions remained, impoverishing and starving ordinary Iraqis, but not the Baathist elite.
To redress this, in 1996 the Security Council created the oil-for-food program. Over the next six years, the program undoubtedly helped keep alive millions of Iraqis. But, as was shown in the recent report by Charles Duelfer, the Bush administration's top weapons investigator in Iraq, the opportunities for corruption were immense and Saddam Hussein took full advantage of them.
Who was responsible? Not Kofi Annan. The United Nations officials who ran the program reported not to him but directly to the Security Council and to the oversight committee created by Resolution 661, which in 1990 authorized the removal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait by force. Why did the Security Council members, particularly the United States, not do more at the time?
It is alleged that some of the United Nations officials in charge of the program may have been corrupt. If true, this is deplorable and they must be brought to account. But again, member states were responsible for oversight, not Mr. Annan.
Now it has been revealed that Mr. Annan's son, Kojo, received money from a Swiss company involved with the oil-for-food program for years after he told his father he had severed all connections. This has caused Mr. Annan obvious grief, but is what we used to call a "Billy Carter problem" - the sins of a relative being visited on a high official. Kojo Annan's actions should not be cited, as some right-wing Americans are doing, to assert that the secretary general should resign. Kofi Annan is too honest, and too intelligent, to have influenced the procurement process in favor of a firm that had an association with his son.
In any case, far greater corruption was being practiced by many member states themselves. The Duelfer report showed that Russia, China and France were bending the rules as far as they possibly could in order to secure huge contracts for their companies. Kickbacks were flowing in every direction.
So why did Saddam Hussein's enemies, particularly senior American officials, not deal more robustly with the miasma that was developing?
Part of the reason was that Iraqi propaganda claiming that sanctions were killing millions of Iraqi children was extremely effective, and the Security Council members were therefore very anxious that the oil-for-food program continue. At the same time, of course, while everyone knew there was some corruption, no one knew the immense scale of it.
In the end, one must look at the entirety of Mr. Annan's record. The United States was correct in 1996 when it denied Mr. Boutros-Ghali a second term and helped elect Kofi Annan. Mr. Boutros-Ghali was a poor secretary general and was peevishly anti-American. Kofi Annan was a longtime admirer of the United States, and he quickly restored the United Nations' strained relations with Washington - even making peace with Senator Jesse Helms, the Republican most hostile to the organization.
Since then, he has done a great deal to restore morale within the organization and to raise its prestige; it was fitting that in 2001 he, and the United Nations, were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
However, the war in Iraq, opposed by a majority of the Security Council, has put him in an impossible position. And many of his finest staff members were murdered by a suicide bomber in Iraq in the summer of 2003, and others have been reluctant to return.
Yes, he made a mistake recently by criticizing the American mission to clear Falluja of its terrorist nests. But at a time when the United Nations is trying to ease the American burden in Iraq, it would be unwise for Washington to have a falling-out with the organization. Further, Mr. Annan is about to start a serious effort at reforming the United Nations itself, along the lines of the report from an in-house panel released this week.
Iraq remains a deeply divisive issue. The Bush administration knows this, and should be doing everything to engage the world, not to diminish a man whom millions around the world see as their champion. If Kofi Annan is forced to leave by an American claque, the results will be catastrophic not just for the United Nations but also for Iraq - and the Bush administration's hopes of a successful foreign policy in its second term.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/04/2004 9:37:31 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[17 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Kofi Annan is too honest, and too intelligent, to have influenced the procurement process in favor of a firm that had an association with his son.
Yeah, we can trust him. He's not like the others.
Keep trying, Mike.
Posted by: RJB in JC MO ||
12/04/2004 9:57 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Mike, look, if it was just one thing like his son's involvement in that Oil-for-Food scam, even painting it as generously as it is done here, you'd be right.
But add in the fact he did nothing about Rwanda, is doing virtually nothing about Darfur, is giving France a pass on their behavior in the Ivory Coast, whitewashes the harrassing behavior of one of his top people towards the UN staff (he's the only Secretary General to have a no confidence vote from the staff, think about that, Mike)....precisely why should he stay there?
I can sum this whole article up with this: "Yeah, he's incompetent, but the next guy will REALLY not like the US, so you better shut up and be thankful!"
No thanks.
#4
Mike cites the NY Times, defending Kofi. Anyone else hear an echo here?
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/04/2004 10:10 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Part of the problem with Anan is that, like many in the EU bureaucracy in Brussels, he has never held elected office or in any other way been accountable for making hard decisions with real consequences. He doesn't begin to have the moral stature or the experience of Dag Hammerskald, for instance.
He has way overstepped his authority by announcing, for instance, that our presence in Iraq is "illegal". That is not the official role of the Secretary General and he has not earned the stature to speak out at a personal level. Indeed, his role in Rwanda and Sudan suggest a significant cowardice on his part.
I have less than full confidence in Mr. Anan's reported future efforts to reform the UN. I've seen way too many bureaucracies try to do that from within and the results are, shall we say, predictable ....
#6
Here are some of the problems, from this entry on today's RB:
In the eastern Congo, scene of an operation that began as an EU military display under French leadership and is now one of the U.N.âs biggest peacekeeping missions ever, the blue helmets have apparently been routinely sexually abusing pre-pubescent refugee girls, creating a camp full of 13-year-old mothers. Months ago, the U.N. promised to issue a report on the situation. It was finally released two weeks ago, according to the BBC. The outcome: Kofi Annan released a statement saying "it is vital that the investigations be speeded up."
Uh huh. One would think Mr. Anan had no responsibility for that investigation, for the pace at which it proceeded or for speaking out on behalf of oppressed black GIRLS being abused badly by troops under UN auspices.
What is at stake is much larger than Anan or the UN per se. It is a pigpile of willful ignorance, tolerance of corruption and short-term thinking among the comfortable elite who don't mind seeing suffering continue so long as their perks and pensions aren't affected.
In Germany, the International Herald Tribune is reporting that the abuse of German army conscripts is part of a widening scandal. "The accusations involve stories of instructors dressed in Arab costumes beating recruits, giving them electric shocks and dousing them with cold water," the paper reports, even though none of the recruits are Iraqis. The report comes after scandals surfaced in German defense spending. Meanwhile, Spiegel reports that a couple of U.S. leftists have been welcomed into German courts to file a suit against Donald Rumsfeld for "war crimes" committed by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib.
... you could be forgiven for thinking that opposition to U.S. policies in Iraq and elsewhere is a consequence of ideological or strategic disagreements. But there is no ideology any more. Thereâs only anti-Americanism, scandal, and corruption. And of course stupidity(or willful ignorance on the part of an entire culture): According to a survey of 4,000 Britons under the age of 35 reported in the Independent, 60 percent of them have never heard of Auschwitz, and of those who thought the name was familiar, three quarters really didnât know much about what had gone on there. At least theyâll never forget.
Indeed. But they are likely to repeat it as a result, if they last that long.
#7
I'm sorry. I forgot to take my gullibility pills this morning!
Kofi Annan is a crook, a thief, a liar, a fraud, and a generally unpleasant person. He is directly responsible for the oil for bombs program. He is partially - indirectly (thru his deliberate and calculated inaction) responsible for the Rwanda Genocide and the current Genocide occuring in western Sudan.
There is a reason for the vote of no confidence from his own staff.
Not only should he step down but he should be charged.
#9
If he's so impotent and inocent, why are the investigations being impeded so well by the UN stonewall?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/04/2004 11:25 Comments ||
Top||
#10
It's interesting how the LLL, proclaiming the existence of conspiracies all around the world -- Halliburton, Chaney, Bush, Iraqi oil, multilateral corporations, etc -- have so far missed the odiferous whiff of conspiracy in Koko's scam.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/04/2004 12:40 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Shawcross is the 'journalist' who blamed Nixon for the creation of the Khmer Rouge. Shawcross is another LLL, an apologist for the Khmer Rouge and now an ally for the enemy coalition now at the United Nations.
All this is likely a major reason why this garbage was published.
#14
Shawcross has mellowed out a lot since "Sideshow". I think he has backed off a lot over what was in that book. And he was pro-war on Iraq. On the other hand, he is quite wrong about Annan.
#15
"...the LLL, proclaiming the existence of conspiracies all around the world..."
It's very simple, Steve, let me explain it to you:
Liberals do not believe in moral absolutes aside from "liberal is good" and "conservative is evil". So they, being the good guys in their own eyes, "cooperate" in groups. On the other hand, those nasty conservatives don't cooperate with each other -- they only "conspire" with each other. Thus Kofi must be good and you must be part of a Rantburg conspiracy to frame him.
That also explains why it's a conspiracy for the Vice President to discuss energy policy with energy company executives. He should only discuss energy policy with people so liberal that they wouldn't take jobs in the energy industry. Who better to influence energy policy than people with no energy experience?
Posted by: Tom ||
12/04/2004 13:27 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Tom - "Liberals do not believe in moral absolutes"
Spot-on - they (or I should say their teachers / professors) missed Plato's points - and his prejudices dating from the enforced death of his mentor Socrates. In this interesting syllabus, check out "Lecture One: Plato" running through pages 5-12... Mildred Espree phreakin' "gets it"... sadly, many of her peers do not.
Ms Espree, among many others, employs John Leo and Meg Greenfield (believe it or not) to update the discussion of relative and absolute truth into contemporary terms. Both are heavily quoted in the uninsane academia for "getting it". Leo's Absolutophobia and Greenfield's Why Nothing is 'Wrong' Anymore (and no. I can't locate the text for either - sorry) are apparently frequently considered as a set in logic and critical thinking class syllabi - especially as a follow-on to Plato.
Here's an article with a condensed version of Leo's article to illustrate: "The "nonjudgmental," "no-fault sin," generation has been taught that each person establishes his or her own values for his or her life, and those values depend upon the situation in which one finds him or her self. Maybe this generation cannot read, write or compute, but they do know not to be "judgmental" of the sodomites, nor of those in high places."
and...
"Miss Sommers points beyond multiculturalism to a general problem of so many students coming to college "dogmatically committed to a moral relativism that offers them no grounds to think" about cheating, stealing and other moral issues. Mr. Simon calls this "absolutophobia"--the unwillingness to say that some behavior is just wrong. Many trends feed the fashionable phobia. Postmodern theory on campus denies the existence of any objective truth: All we can have are clashing perspectives, not true moral knowledge. The pop-therapeutic culture has pushed nonjudgmentalism very hard. Intellectual laziness and the simple fear of unpleasantness are also factors."
Heh, heh.
If anyone has or locates the Greenfield article - PLEASE post the text or link - THANX! These are "old" (dinosaur days) print pieces dating from the prehistoric Greenfield - Newsweek, 1986 / reprinted in Reader's Digest, 1986; Leo - US News & World Report - 1997)
#17
If I recall, Kofi DOES have the power to order people to release information concerning the current scandals, BUT REFUSES TO DO SO. Seems to me if he wants to clear himself, he'd start opening up and airing everything out. I mean, isn't THAT what the MSM and liberals the world over think conservatives in scandal should do?
Isn't sauce for the goose also sauce for the gander?
#19
At the risk of saying anything else "spot-on" and risking responsibility for osteoarthritis in .com's typing finger, let me add this:
The U.N. itself is a classic example of this entire morality issue. Scads of diplomats and bureaucrats do a complicated verbal dance designed to obscure the unpleasantness of any moral absolutes. Hence Saddam could defy the Gulf War peace agreement, defy resolution after resolution, and loot the Oil for Food program. Meanwhile the French, the Russians, and Kofi Annan's son -- to name just a few -- were on the take, conspiring (yes, conspiring) with the Saddam. So George Bush, known for straight talk and absolutism, gets painted as the bad guy because he has the unpleasantness to confront all this in terms of right and wrong and us and them.
And for that reason, Mike Sylwester, the U.N. and Kofi Annan are basically useless. You cannot take the high moral ground or make things right by making deals with the devil.
Posted by: Tom ||
12/04/2004 16:03 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Ptah - spot on! All he would have to do to prove he's willing is allow Volker's committe to subpoena and provide docs to Coleman's Senate Committee. The fact he won't provides a basis to suggest his culpability (and Kojo's) in malfeasance or cowardice to expose his allies
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/04/2004 16:05 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Read the title, knew who posted it.
What a shame Mikey's mind is so small and predictable.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/04/2004 16:08 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Kofi Annan: Americaâs Man at the United Nations
#24
I heard an interview with Senator Coleman a day or 2 ago. He's definitely a good guy trying to get to the bottom of the UN oil for food scam. He was disheartened to say the least at the White House's limp wristed request that Kofi fess up.
I think it's safe to say that not all files will be opened regarding this scam that Saddam had going. It's not only Kofi's son who is implicated in the doo doo. Some Americans are said to be involved as middle men in the scam, including Marc Rich and his pal, Ben Pollner. These two jerks were given pardons by Clinton, yes, but only after pressure was brought to bear on the situation by some high profile Israelis. No one in the White House wants to go that route in the quest for truth, especially as it relates to our credibility with Iraqis starved to death by Saddam and Israeli families who lost family and friends to suicide bombers, financed by Saddam Hussein, who made a fortune through the oil for food venture. Some stones are not meant to be over turned.
#25
GC7327 I hope you nave links for all those unsubstantiated charges. Mike S will want to review them at 9:00.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/04/2004 20:47 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Liberals do not believe in moral absolutes aside from "liberal is good" and "conservative is evil".
Utter bullshit. Why don't you say we drink the blood of newborn children while you are at it?
On my part I've generally seen liberals be much more absolutist in their morality than conservatives. For example realpolitik is generally considered a conservative game, and realpolitik is probably the antithesis of moral absolutism. On the other hand vegetarianism for ethical reasons tends to be considered liberal practice -- and that's a case of moral absolutism.
On another matter, it's generally been conservatives who've failed to condemn torture or atleast hesitated before doing so -- it's generally been conservatives who always estimate the results of an action and whether it helps or hurts "our side" before passing judgment on it.
Or the phrase "My nation, right or wrong". This expression of utter moral relativism (or even complete amorality); it's generally not considered a *liberal* expression.
#27
However, the war in Iraq, opposed by a majority of the Security Council, has put him in an impossible position
Not really. This isn't a balancing act but a choice between those nations pledged to uphold UNSC resolutions and those UNSC member states that were determined to undermine and thwart sanctions, thus helping achieve the eventual goal of springing Saddam from the box that they themselves and the rest of the UNSC, and Kofi, had pledged to keep him in. The latter made a mockery of UNSC resolutions, of Oil for Food, of containment, of international law.
Perhaps Kofi is simply no better than he ought to be: not terribly smart, not terribly strong, not terribly scrupulous as a manager. But don't we demand better from a Nobel Peace Laureate?
Speaking of which, why does the UNSC get blamed for UN failures while praise for UN success attaches to Kofi? Nice work if you can get it.
#28
Aris, the most egregious practitioners of realpolitik in our time have been those on the left-- not the same as liberals, agreed, but the point here is that liberalism in the US and Europe has been hijacked by the admirers of Che and Chomsky and Trotsky. They're the ones who apologize for Milosevic, who stood up for the poor Taliban against those evil bullies Rumsfeld and Bush, who refer to jihadist fascist neck-sawers and child-killers as "minutemen", the brave heroes of the Iraqi "resistance" against the wicked US hegemon.
I consider myself a liberal and I'll be the first to admit that it's long past time that liberalism cleaned its house of the smelly little fascist apologists like Jimmy Carter and the French journalist Colombani and Chomsky and Chomsky's retarded little brother, Mikey Boy.
#29
Re #28 (Lex) I consider myself a liberal and I'll be the first to admit that it's long past time that liberalism cleaned its house of the smelly little fascist apologists like Jimmy Carter and the French journalist Colombani and Chomsky and Chomsky's retarded little brother, Mikey Boy.
Lex, I know it's Saturday night, but put the bottle away for now. You can have some more tomorrrow. Other people are watching.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/04/2004 22:10 Comments ||
Top||
#30
yep, and we agree, Mikey
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/04/2004 22:17 Comments ||
Top||
#31
Pardon me, Aris. I meant the liberals with whom I am familiar here in the U.S., not world-class liberals like yourself. By the way, do you drink the blood of newborn children?
Posted by: Tom ||
12/04/2004 22:19 Comments ||
Top||
#32
Mikey, Aris and Gloming Crank all at once. I'm gonna walk my dog down to the bar.
#33
"The growing demands that Kofi Annan resign as secretary general of the United Nations are preposterous. For him to do so would be extremely damaging not only to his organization but also to the United States."
Posted by: Tom ||
12/04/2004 22:49 Comments ||
Top||
#35
Tom> Only when I run out of puppies to slaughter and nuns to rape.
Pardon me, Aris. I meant the liberals with whom I am familiar here in the U.S.,
Yeah, those were the liberals I was referring to also (American ones), and likewise with the conservatives (American ones again). Easier to compare within one nation. If I used my own nation, with four big parties ranging from conservative liberalism to socialdemocratic progressiveness to communistic authoritarianism, the comparison would be much more elaborate and confusing. I'm simplifying.
lex> I've seen apologia of dictators and murderers on both sides (right-wing apologia for Putin's actions on Chechnya for example, right-wing apologia for the Shah of Iran, Pinochet, the Contras, even the Apartheid).
The kind of far left that would support the Islamofascists isn't any more indicative of mainstream liberalism than the KKK is indicative of mainstream conservatism.
#36
The kind of far left that would support the Islamofascists isn't any more indicative of mainstream liberalism than the KKK is indicative of mainstream conservatism.
You're blind to what's happened in the US Democratic Party during the last two years. Take another look at the 2004 US Democratic Convention's guests of honor: one has traveled to and praised lavishly the wasteland that is North Korea, the other praises Zarqawi's fascists as heroic "minutemen" who will inevitably triumph over us. And also look at the positions of what has become one of the most influential grass-roots organizations for the Democratic Party, MoveOn.org.
Before you respond, you should learn more about he history of the anti-communist liberal Democratic Party wing that triumphed in Truman's day over the communist-appeasing Wallaceite wing.
Read carefully Peter Beinart's piece on this in the latest issue of The New Republic before you reply. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041213&s=beinart121304
A MILITARY judge today ordered the former commander of US prisons in Iraq to testify at the trial of a soldier who says he was ordered to abuse detainees at Abu Ghraib. The judge, Colonel James Pohl, said Brigadier-General Janice Karpinski's testimony at the trial of Sergeant Javal Davis would be limited to conditions at Abu Ghraib and the interaction there between guards and military interrogators. Davis told investigators military intelligence personnel appeared to approve of the abuse. "We were told they had different rules," he told investigators, according to an army report.
Karpinski has denied knowing about any mistreatment of prisoners until photographs were made public at the end of April showing hooded and naked prisoners being tormented by their US captors. In an interview with The Associated Press, Karpinski said a "conspiracy" among top US commanders left her to blame for the abuses at Abu Ghraib. A report issued by an independent panel of nongovernment experts blamed Karpinski for leadership failures that "helped set the conditions at the prison which led to the abuses".
The hearing came as the navy said it was investigating new photographs obtained by the AP that appear to show navy SEALs in Iraq sitting on hooded and handcuffed detainees. Other photos show what appear to be bloodied prisoners, one with a gun to his head. Davis and Specialist Sabrina Harman had pretrial hearings in Fort Hood, Texas, today that were originally scheduled to begin next year in Baghdad. Charges against Davis, a native of New Jersey, include conspiracy to maltreat detainees, assault, dereliction of duty and lying in official statements. He has acknowledged stepping on the fingers and toes of detainees, but denied hurting anyone and said he was ordered to "soften them up".
Harman, of Virginia, is accused of photographing some of the abuse, participating in sexual humiliation of naked prisoners, writing "rapist" on the leg of a detainee who then was forced to pose naked with other prisoners, and placing wires in the hands of a detainee and telling him he would be electrocuted if he fell off a box. She was photographed standing behind naked, hooded Iraqis stacked in a human pyramid and also shown next to a dead body packed in ice giving thumbs-up signs with Specialist Charles Graner Jr. Graner, described as the ringleader and the father of the child of Private First Class Lynndie England, is set to appear in court on Monday. He is expected to seek dismissal of charges on grounds of undue command influence.
The three are among seven members of the Maryland-based 372nd Military Police Company charged with humiliating and assaulting prisoners at the Baghdad prison. Graner, of Pennsylvania, is scheduled for trial beginning January 7. Davis's trial will begin on February 1. Harman's trial date has not yet been determined, according to Fort Hood officials.
Posted by: God Save The World ||
12/04/2004 4:21:32 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The "rapist" episode did happen. What this story does not tell you is that the 5 Iraqis raped an 18 year old man/boy. Instead of writing "rapist" on their bodies and shaming them, the guards should have collapsed a wall on the 5. Either that, or give the 18 year old to the 5 as their butt toy. Either seems acceptable in the Arab world.
Posted by: ed ||
12/04/2004 23:19 Comments ||
Top||
Unrest in Thailand's south is nothing new. But authorities are cracking down harder because the nature of the unrest is changing. The three southern provinces of Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat once formed Pattani, an independent Muslim sultanate populated by ethnic Malays. Even after its Thai annexation in 1932, however, Pattani had its own sultans until 1902, when Abdul Qadir Qamaruddin, the last ruler, was deposed and imprisoned. Pattani was then carved up into three provinces, and administered from Bangkok.
Bangkok has since tried to assimilate the southerners into the Thai mainstream, but with limited success. Armed rebellions led by descendants of the Pattani sultans erupted in 1947 and 1948. And, in 1960, the first properly organized separatist movement, the National Liberation Front of Pattani, was formed. This movement operated from sanctuaries across the border in the newly independent Malayan Federation (now Malaysia) and worked to establish "an Islamic state, based on the Holy Quran and the Sunnah." Another group, Barisan Revolusi Nasional was also established in the early 1960s to fight the Thai government, followed by the better known and more militant Pattani United Liberation Organisation (PULO), which carried out small-scale guerrilla war during the 1970s and early 1980s.
During the 1990s, these movements became increasingly associated with radical Islam. Purist Wahhabi teachings gained ground in the south's numerous privately-run Islamic schools, and militants who had fought with the mujahideen in Afghanistan returned home. In 1995, the old PULO split, and Afghan war veteran Nasoree Saesaeng founded an entirely new organization, the Movement of Islamic Mujahideen of Pattani (GMIP). The war in Afghanistan and inspiration from Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network, created a regional brotherhood of militant Muslims. Meanwhile, radically improved communications in Southeast Asia facilitated the exchange of ideas, plans, and funds.
The Thai militant groups are no longer local or isolated. The Thai mujahideen group has links with the radical Malaysian group Kumpulan Mujahideen Malaysia (KMM), which was also established in 1995 by Afghan war veterans. Both groups belong to Rabitat-ul Mujahideen, a regional umbrella organisation of radical groups. This organisation, in turn, is linked to Jemaah Islamiah, a predominantly Indonesian organisation that is linked to several bombings, including the devastating Bali bombings that killed 200 people.
According to documents seized by Southeast Asian security agencies, the final goal of this "brotherhood" is to establish an Islamic mega-state encompassing Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, southern Thailand, and the Muslim areas of southern Philippines. This objective comprises a much greater threat to regional stability than the local, isolated separatist movements of pre-Afghan war days.
It is impossible to gauge support for these ideas in the region. But even if adherents form a small minority, their ability to strike has been demonstrated on numerous occasions.
Moderate Muslim community leaders in Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat have appealed to the government to seek a political solution to the problem, warning that further repression will breed more terrorism. After the Tai Bak tragedy, Abdullahman Abdulsomat, chairman of Narathiwat's provincial Islamic committee, told the local Thai Press, "This is totally insane. Certainly, this will escalate, and who knows what will happen next." Thai authorities have since grown more willing to listen to critics. Recently Lt-Gen Pisarn Wattanawongkeeree was removed as army commander in the south to await the outcome of an official inquiry into the killings. But a similar inquiry into an incident at a mosque in Pattani on April 28, when the army killed about 100 Muslim youths, has shed little or no light on what actually happened that day.
Thai authorities may find themselves in a no-win situation in the wake of the recent beheading. Another watered-down report could yield disastrous consequences. And a frank admission that excessive violence was used to suppress the demonstration may also ignite violence. In either case, the beheading of the Buddhist village leader could indeed mark the start of a vicious spiral of violence by militants.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/04/2004 2:07:49 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
My understanding is a lot of this is spill over from Aceh (about 5 hours away by small boat). But that would mean the 'root cause' is other muslims.
#2
note the gentle influence of Wahhabi Saudis - a simmering pot comes to boil every time they're involved. A mosque built with Saudi funds should be declared enemy ground based on worldwide evidence
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/04/2004 16:20 Comments ||
Top||
Is the IAEA the German army in a sequel to Hogan's Heroes?
The world nuclear watchdog dropped a claim that Iran bought large quantities of a metal used to trigger explosions in atomic weapons after bowing to objections from Teheran.
The International Atomic Energy Agency at first accepted Western intelligence reports that the Islamic republic had bought "huge amounts" of beryllium from "a number of nations", but removed the claim from its final report on Iranian compliance with nuclear non-proliferation rules, published 10 days ago.
An earlier draft of the IAEA report, seen by The Telegraph, said that Iran had manufactured material to use with the beryllium that it had purchased as a "nuclear initiator in some designs of nuclear weapons".
A spokesman for the IAEA conceded that the agency had removed any mention of beryllium from its report, but said that the change was insignificant. She said: "There are all kinds of technical details in first drafts which are later removed. That's part of the drafting process."
Jacky Sanders, the American ambassador to the IAEA, however, said that Iran's assertions that it has never acquired or used beryllium were no longer reliable.
The climbdown by the IAEA reflected Teheran's insistence that it had never acquired or used beryllium, and helped Iran escape immediate referral to the UN Security Council over its nuclear ambitions. Instead, the IAEA board passed a resolution demanding that the country suspend uranium enrichment while the agency inspects declared nuclear sites.
Posted by: Capt America ||
12/04/2004 8:38:08 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
From The Iran Press Service
One of Iran's most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only". "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran. ....
In a lengthy speech to mark the so-called "International Qods (Jerusalem) Day" celebrated in Iran only, Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who, as the Chairman of the Assembly to Discern the Interests of the State, is the Islamic Republic's number two man after Ayatollah Ali Khameneh'i, said since Israel was an emanation of Western civilization colonialism therefore "in future it will be the interests of colonialism that will determine existence or non-existence of Israel". ..... He said since Israel is the product of Western civilization colonialism, "the continued existence of Israel depends on interests of arrogance and colonialism and as long as the base is helpful for colonialism, it is going to keep it. ....
"War of the pious and martyrdom seeking forces against peaks of colonialism will be highly dangerous and might fan flames of the World War III", the former Iranian president said, backing firmly suicide operations against Israel. ..... "Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world", Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani warned, blaming on the United States and Britain the "creation of the fabricated entity" in the heart of Arab and Muslim world. ....
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/04/2004 9:46:13 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[15 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
well, at least he's honest...to hell with the Religion of Peace act, eh?
#4
Interesting to contrast how NO leader of any western country ever, ever, calls for the annihilation of any other country, yet these scumbags complain that the west is attacking the muslims.
"Damages only." Doesn't he realize that destroying Israel is signing the death warrant for the entire region? Hell....even ATTACKING Israel would mean the end of their regime.
#5
Foreign Policy in Iran is as clear as glass. I don't give them credit for honesty, however, for it is a matter of not knowing how to effectively lie like dogs, not realizing we're paying attention, that we have been lied to by the best - Advertisers - so one must be extraordinarily wily to slip one over on the TV generations... So no, it's not a point of honor that he speaks frankly. Ol' Raffy speaks his mind secure in the belief that his shit doesn't stink and that we're all stupid - nothing more.
#6
I think he must be mistaken if he thinks his country will still exist if Isreal is hit with a nuclear weapon. His thinking however is standard for the moon cult of death.
#7
Anyone see this on the evening news? I bet is Sharon said Israel will nuke Iran (or Germany) it would be the lead story. Could it be our beloved press corps has one code of conduct for ourselves and another for those who will destroy us?
Posted by: ed ||
12/04/2004 22:59 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Someone needs to make it crystal clear that, should Israel take even a single nuclear hit, all other surrounding Islamic nations would be left uninhabitable for centuries, if not millennia. Even if Israel's arsenal were somehow crippled, western nations should retaliate in their stead out of sheer principal.
How Europe can countenance this sort of bellicose rhetoric and simultaneously convince themselves that Iran has no aspirations for nuclear weapons goes beyond incredible. This sort of outright rallying cry for nuclear conflict must be regarded as the threat to regional stability that it is.
Having been sucked into the power vacuum created by Saddam's expulsion, the Iranian mullahs are outgassing at a ferocious rate. The ever-expanding ferocity of their diatribes should be taken quite seriously. Even if it is only to provide a convenient excuse for bombing the living shit out of them.
#6
Haven't we been buying up all the old, decommisioned Sov Block warheads from Ukraine, etc? IDing the source of a nuke detonation mostly depends on the particular (no pun intended) mix of isotopes and impurities in the core, I unnerstand...
Ba a damned shame if those darned Chechens slipped a stolen warhead into Tehran, huh?
#7
If the attacks are top secret, does that mean we'll never even know they happened? I mean, if they used nuclear or chemical missiles, we'd not only notice, we'd be seriously annoyed; if terrorists started shooting up shopping malls and subway stations, we'd respond strongly. What kind of attack would be top secret?
Certainly not our own. Should Iran push things too far, our response might be visible (and audible) for several hundred miles.
It's almost gratifying to watch Iran continually provide an endless stream of causus belli for our military. Not that we haven't had a standing excuse for decades now.
The Al-Jazeera network's recent insult of the Iranian nation was totally unacceptable.
The Arabic network, which broadcasts its programs from the little Arab country Qatar, has recently posted an insulting cartoon about the Islamic Republic of Iran on its English site.
In the cartoon, a cleric, who is the symbol of the Islamic Republic of Iran, indifferently passes by various scenes of the current problems in the Islamic world, but reacts strongly when he sees that the name of the Persian Gulf has been changed to the unacceptable "Arab Gulf".
Iranian officials made a prompt denunciation of this very amateurish and dishonorable measure, which has its roots in Al-Jazeera officials' animosity toward Iranians.
The Al-Jazeera network was founded in 1997, ostensibly to create a new movement in the static media of the Arab world, which are mostly government controlled, and was initially welcomed.
Many media experts believed that the new network would create a revolution in the field of information dissemination, particularly in the Arab states on the Persian Gulf.
However, at the same time, rumors arose suggesting that the network was established by U.S. and Israeli agents in order to present a bad image of Islam to the world.
Some regional experts expressed doubts about the allegations though, because the establishment of a media outlet with the aim of promptly informing Arab nations about the latest world news seemed to be a good idea.
But the actions of the network gradually revealed the fact that Al-Jazeera officials, on the orders of Zionist agents, are trying to divide Islamic countries and tarnish the image of Islam.
After Al-Jazeera broadcasted some distorted news reports about Saudi Arabia, tension rose between that country and Qatar, and the two Arab states almost cut off diplomatic relations.
Yet, instead of adopting a defensive stance toward the negative propaganda of the network, Saudi Arabia took an innovative measure and established the Al-Arabiyya network to confront Al-Jazeera.
At the beginning of the U.S. attack on Afghanistan, Al-Jazeera became the tribune of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda terrorist groups in order to give the world the impression that those terrorists represented real Islam.
In addition, since the occupation of Iraq began, ethnic tension has risen and there have been clashes between Iraqi Sunnis and Shias, partly due to the efforts of Al-Jazeera.
By broadcasting abhorrent scenes of the beheadings of foreign hostages by the criminal agents of the Abu Musab al-Zarqawi terrorist group, the network succeeded in increasing anti-Muslim sentiment throughout the world, particularly in the West.
Following the advice of U.S. and Israeli experts in psychological operations (psyops), Al-Jazeera took actions which gave Westerners a negative image of Islam and Muslims.
In fact, the Al-Jazeera network was founded at exactly the same time when Iranian President Mohammad Khatami introduced his Dialogue Among Civilizations initiative as a logical strategy to bring the West and the Islamic world closer together.
Of course, the Zionists were not pleased at the idea because they believe that increased proximity between the Islamic world and the West is not in their interests. And that is why they founded the Al-Jazeera network to tarnish the image of true Islam.
Now, after seven years, it has become apparent that the real strategy of the network has been to create divisions between Islamic countries, to give the impression that Islam is a threat to the West, to present a negative image of the real Islam to the world, to isolate Muslims residing in the United States and other Western countries, and to create sectarian divisions between Shias and Sunnis in the Middle East.
Posted by: tipper ||
12/04/2004 4:18:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Persian Gulf or Arabian Gulf, both names are obsolete. Its the Gulf of Rumsfeld now.
#2
Shatt al Arab, Qatar? Strait of Hormuz with its little gunboats buzzing around? You're talking about the Old Gulf. I'm talking about New Gulf. The Gulf of Rumsfeld, as we call it in the DoD. I OWN that diyach...
Posted by: Donald ||
12/04/2004 14:04 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Let's see ... The Holocaust, 9-11, al Qaeda and now al Jazeera are all Zionist plots. Is there nothing on earth that is not a Zionist plot?
#4
Well, Zenster, I used to run out of coffee frequently and always figured it was due to the fact that I forgot to pick some up on my last shopping trip.
Recently however, I have come to believe that this is part of a Zionist plot.
I run out of beer a lot, too, but I don't believe the Zionists are behind it.
That one I blame on the Masons.
Posted by: Carl in N.H. ||
12/04/2004 17:28 Comments ||
Top||
PALESTINIAN Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei condemned Israel today, saying their continued military raids were hampering efforts to restart the peace process.
Hopes have been high that the peace process, stalled by four years of violence, would take off following Palestinian presidential elections on January 9 to replace Yasser Arafat.
This morning, Israeli troops raided the West Bank city of Tulkarem, arresting a senior Hamas militant, the army and witnesses said.
The raid comes a day after Israeli troops shot and killed an Islamic Jihad militant during a similar raid.
"Unfortunately, Israel continues with its assassinations," Qurei said at the weekly Palestinian cabinet meeting.
"It is therefore sending a clear message that it does not want to give a chance for things to quiet down and bring the (peace) process back on track," he said. "At a time when we are moving towards democracy, unfortunately...Israel continues with its assassinations," Qurei said, calling on the international community to pressure Israel to end the raids.
Since Arafat's death, both Israel and the Palestinians have scaled down the violence and Israel has promised to redeploy its troops from Palestinian towns to allow the elections to take place.
But Israeli officials rejected Qurei's comments, saying that while Israel has promised not to initiate any new military offensives, it would continue to go after Palestinians it believes are planning attacks.
"These raids were carried out based on specific intelligence that these men were planning on carrying out suicide bombings, " a senior official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
In the raid, troops surrounded a building in Tulkarem, forcing all the residents to leave and firing in the air before the Hamas militant, Rami Tayah, 26, and another man surrendered to the soldiers, witnesses said.
The army said Tayah was the head of the militant group Hamas in the town.
Peace efforts received a boost in recent days with Hamas indicating it was prepared to accept a cease-fire.
Also, the international community has stepped up efforts to mediate between the two sides.
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer was the latest diplomat to visit the region. Fischer arrived today for a two-day visit in which he is expected to meet with Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, as well as Qurei and new PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas.
Posted by: God Save The World ||
12/04/2004 4:22:48 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Washington's policy on the legal status of detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba is unacceptable, a senior British minister said. "I myself regard it as wholly unacceptable that you could seek to put people beyond the reach of the law, and it was argued by the United States of America that that was what the effect of placing detainees in Cuba had done," Lord Charles Falconer, secretary of state for constitutional affairs, said.
Lord Falconer, a close ally of Prime Minister Tony Blair, welcomed the US Supreme Court's ruling in June that said prisoners have the right to challenge their incarceration in civilian courts. "The US Supreme Court has said those detainees are within the reach of the law, so the totally unacceptable position of people being beyond the reach of the law has now been brought to an end," he told reporters. Britain now awaited the conclusions of the American courts in relation to what procedures will be used to deal with the detainees at Guantanamo, Lord Falconer said.
Four Britons are being held at Guantanamo, which was set up in January 2002 to hold combatants captured in Afghanistan and others suspected of association with Al Qaeda. Guantanamo is an ongoing headache for Mr Blair, under fire from his Labour Party and the British public for failing to make progress on the issue despite his close relations with US President George W Bush. Earlier this month, Mr Bush was dealt a further setback when a Washington federal court judge ruled that Guantanamo tribunals should not continue in their present form and that many of the 550 detainees were probably prisoners of war, eligible for rights under the Geneva Conventions. The Pentagon has also flatly rejected accusations - contained in an International Committee of the Red Cross report - that US military used tactics "tantamount to torture" in Guantanamo. The ICRC memorandum was leaked to the New York Times.
Posted by: God Save The World ||
12/04/2004 4:29:35 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Is there a war on? Yes.
Were your beloved citizens Nigel and Ian caught in a war zone? Yes.
Were they caught in battle or with weapons? Yes.
Were they in uniform in the service of a combatant country? No.
What does your European written Geneva Convention say about this? Unlawful combattant. Summary execution.
Lord Falconer, as an ally and minister sworn to uphold the law, would you like to fire the first executioners bullet?
Posted by: ed ||
12/04/2004 23:06 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Actually I think we should just put a bullet behind an ear and give them back in an urn.
I really think these fools don't understand the Geneva Conventions that the US has signed on to. That is not all of them BTW.
It would be impossible to hold elections in Iraq in January if the security situation remains as precarious as it is, U.N. adviser Lakhdar Brahimi told a Dutch newspaper in an interview published on Saturday. How nice of the UN to decide when Iraq can hold elections. As if the UN has any part of turning Iraq into a decent country.
"Elections are no magic potion, but part of a political process. They must be prepared well and take place at the right time to produce the good effects that you expect from them," Brahimi, architect of the political process leading to elections in Iraq, told NRC Handelsblad. Given how much the Indians like to blow each other up, maybe we should be occupying them, as clearly they aren't ready either.
Asked if it was possible to hold elections as conditions exist now, Brahimi said: "If the circumstances stay as they are, I personally don't think so. It is a mess in Iraq. The international community, hopefully together with the Americans, must help the Iraqis to clean up this mess. If you let it deteriorate, the situation will become even more dangerous."
In the latest strike against Iraq's shaky security forces, twin suicide car bombs blew up outside a police station near Baghdad's Green Zone on Saturday, killing at least three people and wounding more than 40. Many among Iraq's 20 percent Sunni Arab minority -- from which the insurgency draws the core of its support -- have called for a delay in the elections, saying that violence in Sunni areas will prevent the polls being free and fair. Sunni Arabs, who dominated Iraq during Saddam Hussein's rule, fear they will be marginalised in the new Iraq, as the 60 percent Shi'ite majority exercises new found political clout. Shi'ites insist the elections should go ahead on time, arguing that any delay would be a surrender to terrorism. Iraq's Kurds in the north say they are ready for elections, but would accept a delay if others wanted it. You know, we'll take the UN seriously when they actual do something other than involve themselves in the worst vices of humanity. I guess that means never though. Hatip - Drudge
Posted by: ed ||
12/04/2004 23:23 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I would rather see the US spend the money it contributes to the UN on something useful like building a new wing on the Lawrence Welk museum than for paying the salary of dolts like this.
The headline suggests that W doesn't seem concerned about Binny. It's about Perv's visit to the US. He oftens gave high profile gifts whenever Powell or Rummy visited Pakland. Maybe he delivered the big prize in person?
Bush Mum on Pakistan's Hunt for Bin Laden
By JENNIFER LOVEN
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Saturday defended Pakistan's cooperation in the hunt for Osama bin Laden despite the inability of U.S. and Pakistani troops to find the al-Qaida leader who, Bush once declared, was wanted dead or alive.
The trail has gone cold in the more than three years since U.S. forces toppled the Taliban, bin Laden's patrons in Afghanistan, after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Bin Laden, who masterminded the strikes, is believed to be hiding in the wild mountainous region along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The Oval Office meeting between Bush and President Pervez Musharraf came just days after Pakistan's army said it was pulling out of one important area along the border. Still, Bush had nothing but praise for Pakistan and Musharraf as critical to the search and the overall fight against terrorism.
Posted by: Tibor ||
12/04/2004 8:38:32 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Probably not.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/04/2004 23:10 Comments ||
Top||
Pakistan has broken the back of al Qaeda forces by capturing its "big wigs" even if Osama bin Laden is still at large, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said on Friday. On a visit to Mexico, Musharraf defended his country's record in the U.S.-led war on terror and said Pakistan had arrested 600 al Qaeda militants since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Many are thought to have taken shelter in Pakistani tribal regions near the Afghan border, or have slipped into major cities after fleeing the U.S. hunt for them in Afghanistan. "We have sorted them out in the cities; all the big wigs of al Qaeda caught by Pakistan alone," Musharraf said. "So anyone who thinks that Pakistan is not doing anything on terrorism: if Pakistan is not doing anything, then no one in the world is doing anything," Musharraf said. "All the big names: who caught them? Pakistan caught them, 600 of them."
The Pakistani president said his country had crushed al Qaeda's operational and logistics bases. "They are on the run in small pockets. We have broken their back in Pakistan."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/04/2004 1:55:47 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Pakistani intelligence agencies have alerted the government about banned jihadi groups' plans to kidnap senior government officials, ministers and lawmakers to get detained al-Qaeda militants released. Intelligence reports submitted to the interior ministry revealed that jihadi elements, including al-Qaeda, were planning to kidnap government officials in senior positions and treasury members of the national and provincial assemblies to pressure the government to release the detained militants, local newspaper Daily Times quoted officials as saying today. "The reports stated that these jihadis are expected to use abductions 'like in Iraq' to bargain with the government for the release of their activists or to pressure the government to accept their demands, the officials said.
Following the reports, Interior Ministry ordered the home secretaries and provincial police chiefs, including the Islamabad Chief Commissioner and Inspector General of Police, to plan counter-measures, the officials said. The security around senior government officials and Parliamentarians has been increased, they said, adding the home department of the Pakistan's Punjab province also ordered deployment of the provincial constabulary personnel at the houses of senior officials. The reports also stated that jihadis would kidnap army officers and personnel of intelligence agencies themselves.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/04/2004 2:02:37 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Now, why would they do THAT when Al-Q militants are being produced in record numbers by the high-handed, illegal, imperialistic actions of the United States?
#2
Interesting to contrast this with the previous story ("Musharraf sez the back of the Pakistani al-Qaeda is broken"). Sounds like a bit more mopping up is in order.
Posted by: Old Grouch ||
12/04/2004 22:05 Comments ||
Top||
The United States has admitted that the extent of the Iraqi insurgency wasn't predicted before the US-led coalition went to war in Iraq. "We heard they were going to burn bridges, light up the oil wells. There would be a humanitarian crisis, there would be a massive refugee problem. They were going to use weapons of mass destruction, so our people strapped on chemical suits every day," US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said.
Beating the insurgency in Iraq is "a test of wills," but one that the US, the coalition, and most importantly, the Iraqis, are committed to winning, he said in an interview with FoxNews yesterday. Rumsfeld said it's not the US that ultimately will bring stability to Iraq - it's the Iraqi people themselves. He praised the Iraqi security forces who have suffered big losses defending Iraq, taking more casualties than the United States despite being organized for just over a year. Rumsfeld said the Iraqi people are playing an important role in helping fight the insurgents. "The people in Fallujah started giving assistance to the troops and to the Iraqi forces up there fighting," he said. "Now, they're aiding the coalition and Iraqis in Mosul." He said that Iran is proving to be "a big problem" in the war on terror, not only because it is "aiding" al Qaeda and Taliban extremists, but also because it's "developing long-range weapons." Rumsfeld accused Iranian government of being "unhelpful," harbouring al Qaeda and working to influence events "in a way that favours people that are friendly to them."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/04/2004 2:00:55 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
African forces should be fully deployed to Sudan's troubled Darfur region by the end of the year despite some delays in building the infrastructure to house them, the new head of the African Union mission said on Saturday. On his arrival in Sudan, mission chief Baba Gana Kingibe said that a joint declaration of principles should be signed within the first two weeks of Darfur peace talks, due to reconvene in the Nigerian capital Abuja around Dec. 10. "We expect that before long within a week or two the declaration of principles which was negotiated and largely agreed upon will be finalised and signed," Kingibe, a former Nigerian foreign minister, told reporters in Khartoum. "We believe that early in the new year we will be making a robust approach towards inching to a final peace deal."
"As long as the UN checks clear."
The African Union has been slowly increasing its force in remote Darfur towards a 3,300-strong contingent with a stronger mandate which includes monitoring a shaky April ceasefire, monitoring Sudanese police and limited powers to protect civilians, but Kingibe said the slow progress was not because of lack of funding or difficulties in finding suitable troops. "It is better that we synchronise the deployment of the troops to the availability of facilities on the ground. We are working on how we can speed up the provision of infrastructure on the ground to the deployment of the troops," he said. "I think that by Dec. 15 we should have quite a number of troops in. By the end of December we should have all the complements of the troops on the ground," he said.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/04/2004 12:47:05 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"AU says to deploy full Darfur mission by year-end"
By which time these unpleasant, trouble making "victims" will be all dead --- thereby simplifying the mission enormously.
From The New York Times
A Pentagon investigation of interrogation techniques at military detention centers in Cuba, Afghanistan and Iraq concludes that senior defense officials exercised little or no oversight of interrogation policies outside of Guantänamo Bay, leaving field commanders to develop some practices that were unauthorized, according to a draft summary of the classified report. The inquiry by Vice Adm. Albert T. Church, the naval inspector general, found that by January 2003, military interrogators in Afghanistan were using techniques similar to those that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had approved for use only at Guantänamo Bay. They included stress positions, and sleep and light deprivation.
But when the command in Afghanistan submitted in January its list of techniques to the military's Joint Staff and Central Command, as requested, and never heard any complaints, it "interpreted this silence to mean that the techniques were unobjectionable to higher headquarters and therefore could be considered approved policy," the summary said.
Nor did Pentagon or Central Command officials offer the high command in Baghdad much help in developing its interrogation procedures, the summary said, noting that by September 2003, the headquarters "was left to struggle with these issues on its own in the midst of fighting an insurgency."
The investigation, ordered in May by Mr. Rumsfeld, also reaffirms two important findings of previous military inquiries into detainee abuse: that at least 20 substantiated cases of abuse occurred during interrogations, contrary to the Pentagon's original claims; and that the Central Intelligence Agency kept some 30 "ghost detainees" at Abu Ghraib prison and at other detention centers in Iraq off official rosters. Other investigations have found this practice was to hide the prisoners from Red Cross inspectors.
The Church report, however, does not blame the detainee abuses in Iraq and elsewhere on the flawed interrogation policies, blaming mainly a breakdown in "good order and discipline." It found no evidence that senior Pentagon or White House officials pressured interrogators to use abusive tactics to wring information from recalcitrant detainees to help fight the insurgency. .....
A December 2003 report on intelligence-gathering operations in Iraq criticized the treatment of high-value prisoners like Tariq Aziz, a former top aide to Saddam Hussein, who were held at Camp Cropper, a secret detention and interrogation center on the outskirts of Baghdad International Airport. Its author, Stuart A. Herrington, a retired Army colonel who visited Iraqi in 2003 at the request of the military's top intelligence officer in Iraq, called the prisoners' accommodations "primitive." He said this treatment was not only counterproductive to gaining information from high-ranking prisoners, but might also violate the Geneva Conventions' protections for treating prisoners with regard to rank and stature.
The report also disclosed that C.I.A. officers in Iraq were ordered to stay away from a separate military interrogation center operated by a secret unit of Special Operation Forces, Task Force 121, because agency officials feared the military might be abusing prisoners. The concerns about abuse were passed up the chain of command, but in February, an investigator, Lt. Col. Natalie Lee, found no evidence that the unit had abused detainees. .....
The Church report, which based its conclusions on more than 800 interviews with personnel who served in Iraq, Afghanistan and Cuba, contrasted the rigorous review of interrogation techniques at Guantänamo Bay with a much more haphazard process in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Church report concluded that despite their similarities, "these techniques did not migrate from Guantänamo Bay to Afghanistan," as another inquiry by an independent panel headed by former Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger suggested in August, the summary said. Instead, it said, the techniques were developed independently by interrogators in both places who took a broad reading of the Army's field manual for interrogations.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/04/2004 9:24:28 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
military interrogators in Afghanistan were using techniques similar to those that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had approved for use only at Guantánamo Bay. They included stress positions, and sleep and light deprivation.
Can we all agree this is unacceptable? We must go back in history to the only "good war" according to leftists. So none of this "stress positions, and sleep and light deprivation". Back to the acceptable field interrogations done by knife and pistol, followed by summary field executions. Oh, and shoot any Japanese jihadi trying to surrender. It's only a trick to get the G.I.s close enough to explode a hand grenade.
Posted by: ed ||
12/04/2004 12:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
We must go back in history to the only "good war" according to leftists.
The Red vs. the Whites?
The Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) will not hold talks with the government until it honours the previous round of talks, which resulted in the passing of the 17th Amendment, said Syed Munawar Hassan, the secretary general of the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI). Addressing a press conference on Friday, Mr Hassan warned that if President Gen Musharraf did not shed his uniform by December 31, he would no longer be acceptable as president to the MMA. He added, "A movement would be launched to try President Musharraf and the assembly members who passed resolutions in favour of his uniform for treason under Article 6." Mr Hassan said that although President Musharraf enjoyed a constitutional status as president till December 31, it would lapse if he violated the 17th Amendment by keeping his uniform.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/04/2004 12:20:06 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Pakistani intelligence agencies have discovered that jihadis (religious warriors) are planning to kidnap senior government officials, ministers and National and Provincial Assembly members to pressure the government to accept their demands, sources told Daily Times on Friday. Intelligence reports submitted to the Interior Ministry revealed that jihadi elements including Al Qaeda were planning to kidnap government officials in senior positions and National and Provincial Assembly members, particularly those of the treasury, to pressure the government to release detained Al Qaeda activists, sources added. The reports also revealed that jihadis would kidnap army officers and intelligence personnel, they said. "The reports stated that these jihadis are expected to use abductions — like in Iraq — to bargain with the government for the release of their activists or to pressure the government to accept their demands," sources said. Keeping the intelligence reports in mind, the Interior Ministry ordered the home secretaries and provincial police chiefs including the Islamabad chief commissioner and inspector general (IG) of police to plan counter measures, they added.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/04/2004 12:17:23 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
The Islamic Jihad has urged its followers not to participate in the forthcoming Palestinian elections, becoming the second resistance group in as many days to dismiss the poll. Muhammed al-Hindi, the Gaza leader of Islamic Jihad, said on Thursday the group had decided not to field any candidate in the 9 January election to replace Yasir Arafat and not to support any independent candidate either. Al-Hindi urged his followers and Palestinians in general not to participate in the poll because it cannot be truly free. "The Palestinian people who are living under occupation want to have a real election, a free and fair election in a free, liberated land. We cannot say the upcoming presidential election is like this," he said. The refusal of Islamic Jihad to back the election came a day after Hamas announced it would not field a candidate for the election. However, it left open the possibility of supporting an independent candidate.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/04/2004 11:18:04 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
the fire goddess kali should have a hot talk with this al-hindi turncoat to the vedas
Posted by: SON OF TOLUI ||
12/04/2004 3:01 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Could be that Hamas is concerned that if they field a candidate, his first publc appearance will result in him getting an Israeli missile up his ass.
#5
Palestinian people who are living under occupation want to have a real election, a free and fair election in a free, liberated land.
Excuses!
Listen to I.J. confuses the masses, if you have an election, you can choose a leader to help lead the people into a better life. They just want chaos and are afraid the voice/power of the people will go to elections rather than their primative tribal/political groups.
#6
Could be that Hamas is concerned that if they field a candidate, his first publc appearance will result in him getting an Israeli missile up his ass.
New meaning for "term limit?"
Posted by: Capt America ||
12/04/2004 10:33 Comments ||
Top||
#7
#6 LOL.
#3+4 Islamic Jihad is a redundant bunch of moronic oxen.
Evidence gained by torture can be used by the US military review panels deciding the fate of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the US Government has conceded. Lawyers acting for Australian detainees in Cuba have called on the Australian Government to renounce the practice. About 70 years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled evidence gained through torture was inadmissible. Deputy associate Attorney-General, Brian Boyle, has told the District Court in Washington DC, that the Guantanamo review panels are allowing such evidence. Michael Ratner, a human right lawyer with the Centre for Constitutional Rights, says he was shocked with the Bush administration's admission. "Never in my 30 years of being a human rights lawyer would I ever expected to be in the state that we've arrived at," he said.
Mr Ratner says the Howard Government must condemn torture and the use of evidence produced from it. Two Australians, Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks, are being held at Guantanamo Bay. The US military lawyer appointed to defend Hicks, says the Australian Government should do more to ensure his client gets a fair trial. He says Mr Hicks will not get a fair trial before the Commission and the Australian Government is not doing anything about it. He says there must be rules of evidence. "This Military Commission system is designed to allow evidence that could have been obtained under torture to be used as evidence against people," he said. "Rules of evidence and procedures have been designed to keep uncredible evidence out and credible evidence in". Maj Mori says Australia should protest against the Commission process like Britain has and hold an inquiry into its legal standards. Major Michael Mori is in Melbourne for a seminar on legal tactics.
Posted by: God Save The World ||
12/04/2004 4:45:26 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I've not looked at any of these guidelines, but Iâll bet there is a two level analysis going on.
1. Evidence gained through torture would be admissible before a tribunal determining whether a detainee is an âenemy combatantâ who should be held at least until the end of hostilities; and
2. In any trial on the merits of criminal charges (none of which have been brought against detainees at Guantanamo Bay, yet, if Iâm correct) such evidence would be suppressed.
Weâre still at the stage that is equivalent to a bail hearing, where all kinds of questionable evidence can be relied upon, and where the tribunal has incredible discretion.
#2
First off, I don;t think these individuals have any legal status under U.S. law. And under the geneva convention we are allowed to interrogate prisoners. The Human Rights Watch declared most (if not all) of our iterrorgation methods to be forms of torture. This is a crock and most of the world knows it.
#3
No CS it doesn't know it because most of the world doesn't know what torture even is. The average person just gulps down the crap these LLL orgs and the media spew out. The average person never even looks into what they are calling torture. If they did most of this crap would go away.
#4
Other things frowned upon by the chain of command, via AE Brain. Personal favorite:
203. âTo conquer the earth with an army of flying monkeys" is a bad long term goal to give the re-enlistment NCO.
In an apparent change in longstanding policy, a top Hamas leader said on Friday the militant group would accept the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as well as a long-term truce with Israel. "Hamas has announced that it accepts a Palestinian independent state within the 1967 borders with a long-term truce," Sheikh Hassan Yousef, the top Hamas leader in the West Bank, told The Associated Press, referring to lands Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast war. Yousef said the Hamas position was new and called it a 'stage'. In the past, Hamas has said it would accept a state in the 1967 borders as a first step to taking over Israel. Yousef did not spell out the conditions for the renewable ceasefire nor did he say how long it would last. "For us a truce means that two warring parties live side by side in peace and security for a certain period and this period is eligible for renewal," Yousef said. "That means Hamas accepts that the other party will live in security and peace". Yousef's comments indicated that four years of fighting with Israel during which the military has targeted the group's top leaders along with international sanctions have taken a toll.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/04/2004 11:51:08 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Is that a cake?
Posted by: Fred ||
12/04/2004 0:13 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Might as well be; anyone want a slice of Israel?
Photo caption: Palestinian supporters of the Islamic Hamas group, holding a big map of what is now Israel and the Palestinian Territories, including the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as they participate in the campaign for studentsâ council elections in Al-Najah university in the northern West Bank city of Nablus, Sunday Nov. 28, 2004. The map reads in Arabic: âMuslim Palestine.â The elections will take place Monday. (AP Photo/Nasser Ishtayeh)
I must note, however, that the Fatah supporters were overwhelming victors in the student council elections.
#4
In an apparent change in longstanding policy, a top Hamas leader said on Friday the militant group would accept the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as well as a long-term truce with Israel.
Eh??? What about Israel? Does Israel have a right to exist or not?
And a "truce"? I seem to remember that a truce is basically only a temporary thing. What about permanent cessation of hostilities?
Nothing new being served up here, as far as I can tell.
#5
So Hamas wants to declar a hudna. Yawn. That's a sure sign that it's time for Israel to turn up the heat and do some real damage to the organization.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/04/2004 8:47 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Another offer hudna as if they are doing the Israelis a favor. A hudna so can go hide with their tail between their legs, lick their wounds, rearm, and start the genocide all over again. I truly doubt there exists a word or concept in the Muslim world for what the rest of the world calls "peace", living without conflict, secure as general equals. If the Israelis have any sense of self preservation, they should deport the Palestinians past the Jordan river and the Egypt border.
Posted by: ed ||
12/04/2004 12:10 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Islamists ONLY take a Rest or have a TRUCE when they are losing. Lying is REQUIRED of all Islamists. There is NOT NOW, there HAS NEVER been and there NEVER WILL BE an Islamic agreement, or an Islamist that can be or will be trusted. They are required to lie to you until they can kill you.
That is the basis of the Koran. Therefore, we in the Western world shall take the rest periods to grow stronger also.The next time they attack us, Good Bye.
#10
Anyone else get a sense that Hamas is merely preening itself to assume the same sort of corrupt and dead-end political control that Arafat recently had pried out of his cold, dead, rigormortised hands?
#11
This is a culture that haggles. If they accept a slice, then they only accept it as an intermediate position before grabbing the whole cake. Hamas has clearly stated for years that they really want the whole cake.
Posted by: Tom ||
12/04/2004 14:17 Comments ||
Top||
#12
If they are stronger, negotiate. Offer them anything --- Allah will absolve you.
Egypt's highest authority in Sunni Islam has legitimised the "resistance" in Iraq on Friday and called on Iraqis to unite in order to return stability to the war-wracked country, state media has reported. "The Iraqi resistance has the right to defend its land, its fatherland and its right to independence," Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, resident imam of Cairo's Al-Azhar mosque, was quoted as saying by the Mena news agency. He also called on "all Iraqi communities to unite so as to make a serious commitment to restore stability in Iraq," Mena said. Sheikh Tantawi was speaking during the opening of a restored mosque in the Mediterranean city of Alexandria.
He's declared which side he's on. All civilized people should assert their inalienable right to bump off enemies like him. The world's got enough deranged nutcakes that it won't be any worse off without him, and prob'ly a bit better.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/04/2004 10:32:43 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
may the sons of alexander and ptolomey snap his neck
Posted by: SON OF TOLUI ||
12/04/2004 2:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I forget, did he condone resistance to Saddam Hussein?
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/04/2004 13:49 Comments ||
Top||
#3
He may not be on our side, but he's not our biggest problem. Click the link on his name above and go read a related story from July 2003.
Posted by: Tom ||
12/04/2004 14:10 Comments ||
Top||
#4
ahhhhh yes, MS - then he can't possibly anti-american. Why bother , you have no moral judgement, UN boy?
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/04/2004 14:44 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Mike, I don't remember anybody outside of Iraq -- imams, mullahs, or others -- suggesting that the people rise up against Saddam Hussein. I do remember lots of noises about resisting the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, though. This is just a continuation of that. Have you tried searching Rantburg archives to see if the good sheikh has is already on our radar?
Smartest thing I've seen Perv do in three years...
The Musharraf regime and the Pakistan Peoples Party are currently negotiating a "deal" or "formula" for power sharing which, if it is clinched, could lead to the dissolution of parliament, fresh elections in 2005 and a relinquishing of the office of army chief by President Musharraf. The Musharraf regime has also decided to affect a thaw in relations with the PML (Nawaz) and try and involve Shahbaz Sharif in the political process earmarked for 2005. "President Musharraf wants to share power with the PPP and bring the PML-N into the loop but his proposal excludes the return to power of both Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Sharif as prime ministers. In this regard, the PPP is more amenable to the government's proposals than Nawaz Sharif but negotiations are continuing with both sides", confirmed sources from different quarters.
It is learnt that high-ups from the ISI, MI, and the President's secretariat are conducting these negotiations in Dubai and Jeddah. Some sources said that Senator Mushahid Hussain, Secretary General of the ruling PML, was an active member of the government's team that is charting a new political strategy to deal with the new "ground realities". Mr Majid Nizami, the editor-in-chief of the Nawai Waqt Group, is also in Jeddah, holding talks with the Sharifs and advising them on the path to take. Sources told Daily Times that the government has assured the PPP leadership that in the event a deal is clinched leading to fresh elections, the PPP will not be obstructed from galvanizing its vote bank and making a bid to re-enter the corridors of power. There is also talk of an interim administration acceptable to all stake-holders for the conduct of free and fair elections.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/04/2004 11:55:58 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
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.
The 
Evidence gained by torture can be used by the US military review panels deciding the fate of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the US Government has conceded. Lawyers acting for Australian detainees in Cuba have called on the Australian Government to renounce the practice. About 70 years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled evidence gained through torture was inadmissible. Deputy associate Attorney-General, Brian Boyle, has told the District Court in Washington DC, that the Guantanamo review panels are allowing such evidence. Michael Ratner, a human right lawyer with the Centre for Constitutional Rights, says he was shocked with the Bush administration's admission. "Never in my 30 years of being a human rights lawyer would I ever expected to be in the state that we've arrived at," he said.
Egypt's highest authority in Sunni Islam has legitimised the "resistance" in Iraq on Friday and called on Iraqis to unite in order to return stability to the war-wracked country, state media has reported. "The Iraqi resistance has the right to defend its land, its fatherland and its right to independence," 
The Musharraf regime and the 
